Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-2000 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 11,2000,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL Oqi ••-------------... CONSENT AGENDA 1.Approve/Amend OfC r , ■ Cll jr (iuuu 2.2001 Levy Adoption Hearing - Adoption of 2001 Budget and Tax Levy A.Adopt Final 2000 Le\y Collectible in 2001 - Resolution B.Adopt 2001 General Fund Budget - Resolution C.Adopt the 2001 Special Revenue Funds Budgets - Resolution APPROVAL OF MINUTES *3. Regular Council Meeting of November 27,2000 ♦4. Truth in Taxation Meeting of December 4,2000 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jim White, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sandy Smith, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ’S REPORT 5.#2480 Spring Hill Golf Club, 725 Sixth Avenue North - Final Plat Approval 6.#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South - Preliminary Subdivision 7.Fleming Trail - Approve Site Plan Revision per Restrictive Covenants 8.#2596 Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail - Citizen Petition for EAW - Resolution 9.#2623 Fred Johnson, 1926 Fagemess Point Road - Variances - Resolution 10.#2625 Morgan Nelson, 3145 Jamestown Road - Variances - Resolution *11, #2633 Jerome Lague, 2138 Shadywood Road - Variances - Resolution 12.#2634 G & G Holding Company, 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue - Lot Line Rearrangement Resolution 13.#2635 G & G Holding Company, 1140 Loma Linda Avenue - Variances - Resolution 14.#2640/2641 Orono Ambar, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard - P.U.D./Subdivision/Rezoning/ Commercial Site Plan Reviews 15.RPUD Ordinance Update 16.Tonkaview/North Shore Address Changes - “Tonkaview Court” 17.Termination of Interim Building Permit Procedures for Storm Damage MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR ’S REPORT L____— --- --> —rtitTl ■! ih •■* f'v'Nf ■' l-V P' AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 11,2000,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR ’S REPORT 18.Appointment of Police Chief 19.Position Reclassification - Mike Gaffron 20.Accept Resignation of Chris Pence, On-Site Systems Manager 21.2001 Fee Schedule - Ordinance and Summary Ordinance for Publication 22.Establish Minimum/Maximum Park Dedication Fee for Residential Land - Resolution 23.2001 Meeting Schedule 24.Council Liaison to Park Commissiori and Planning Commission Meetings in 2001 25.Appoint Auditor for Fiscal Year 2000 26.2000 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments 27.Authorization to Disburse City Funds for Claims Received 28.Letter of Intent to Purchase - Three (3) 2001 Ford Crown Victoria Squad Cars CITY ATTORNEY ’S REPORT ♦29. LICENSES Gambling - Resolution Garbage & Refuse Hauler Kennel License Renewals 30.Home Occupation License Renewals ♦31. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS mo. 12/07 - Council Work Session, 7:30 a.m. 12/11 -Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 12/14 - Council Work Session, 7:30 a.m. 12/18 - Special Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 12/25 - HOLIDAY, Christmas Day 2001 01/01 01/02 01/08 01/15 01/17 01/22 HOLIDAY, New Year’s Day Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Plaiming Commission, 6:30 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. jifiMi.aT flirnfci-rtriallifnraiiMi .___ M -:T Public Attendance Meeting D ate C ouncil □Planning C ommission □Park C ommission □Other Please ntt our the information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. -•A.1, PRESENT FOR (from agenda) i »>■ •♦ COf »•»“••■• REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DFC I kUuu DATE: Dewmbe^ ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Adoption of the 2001 Annual Budget and Tax Levy - Resolutions Attachments: 1.Resolution Adopting the Final 2000 Tax Levy Collectible in 2001 2.Resolution to Adopt the 2001 General Fund Budget 3.Resolution to Adopt the 2001 Special Revenue Funds Budget Proposed 2001 Budget The proposed 2001 budget reflects an effort to manage expenditures and hold the tax levy to a moderate increase while accommodating increased expenditures related to addressing the increased demand for police services, enabling the City to retain and recruit high-quality staff, and strengthening the City’s ability to address upcoming capital needs. Tax Lev)’, Tax Capacity Rate, and Impact on Property Owners The total tax levy required to fund the proposed 2001 budget is $2,443,350. This is an increase of $79,790 or 3.38% over the 2000 levy. The estimated tax capacity for taxes payable in the year 2001 is $17,595,396. This is an increase of $1,817,706 or 11.52% over the 2000 tax capacity. Based on the City's tax capacity and the proposed tax levy, the proposed tax capacity rate is 13.761%. This is a 7.06% reduction from the 2000 tax capacity rate. Based on the reduction in the City's tax capacity rate, and assuming no change in property value, the City's share of the property tax bill on a home valued at $100,000 would decrease by $12.09 or 7.1%, For a home valued at $500,000, the City's share of the property tax bill would decrease by $81.13 or 7.1%. . General Fund Budget Expenditures General Fund expenditures are highlighted as part of the proposed budget information because they have the greatest impact on the tax le\7. The proposed 2001 General Fund budget expenditures are $4,290,440. This is an increase of $236,960 or 5.85% over the 2000 budget. The General Fund budget reflects the impacts of the additional police officers hired in 2000, and the market-based pay adjustments that were phased in effective January 1 and July 1 of2000. The General Fund budget is basically unchanged in all other areas. .j ■ •VM; j V- y. ■■■'';■:.■••• ’ :SW\ M r A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL 2000 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2001 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the final 2000 Tax Levy Collectible in 2001, is determined to be as follows: GENERAL LEVY General Fund - Operations PIR Fund - Infrastructure - Storm Drainage PIR Fund - Infrastructure - Roads Park Fund • Land Acquisition & Development Improvement & Equipment Outlay Fund - Capital Equip $1,943,900 45.000 35,450 5,000 90.000 TOTAL GENERAL LEVY $2,119,350 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS G.O. 1992 Sewer Improvement Bond G.O. 1997 Sewer Improvement Bond G.O. 1999 Sewer Improvement Bond $ 45,000 15.000 14.000 TOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS $ 74.000 BONDS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS H.R.A. Building Bond 1991 $ 250.00()$ 250.000 TOTAL ALL LEVIES «-‘M3.35a The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 11,2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, Ciw Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor fZIULtJa.OI iiiiilai III A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 2001 GENERAL FUT4D BUDGET BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota that the 2001 General Fund budget is determined to be as follows: ESTIMATED REVENUES Taxes - General $1,943,900 Licenses and Permits 305,000 Intergovernmental 629,090 Charges for Services 1,180,450 Fines and Forfeits 102,000 Interest Income 100,000 Miscellaneous 30,000 Use of Fund Balance -0- TOTAL $4,290,440 APPROPRIATED EXPENDITURES General Government Public Safety S 878,700 2,470,220 Street Maintenance 541,820 Parks and Recreation 68,150 Recycling Program 77,750 Engineering - Unallocated 9,650 Reimbursable Expenditures . 66,150 Special Projects and Contingency 73,000 Transfers To Other Funds 105.000 TOTAL Mmm Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 11,2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk GChFlMOl Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor 1 L.rt '■< : t ST •WWW A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 2001 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS BUDGETS BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Coui :il of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota that the 2001 Special Revenue Funds budgets are determined to be as follows: Estimated Revenues Park Improve & Equip Outlay Community Investment Taxes - General $ 5,000 $ 90,000 $ Interest Income 6,000 21,500 135,000 User Fees / Loan Payment --13,510 Park Dedication Fees 50,000 - - Transfers from other Funds 105,000 - - Use of Fund Balance 116.000 -.- - Total Revenues $ 177.000 i 135.000 Approoriated Expenditures General Government $$ 24,500 5 Public Safety 5,500 -- Streets 93,000 -- Parks & Recreation 177,000 - -- - Transfers to other Funds - -130,000 Increase to Fund Balance 107.010 5.000 Total Expenditures $ 177.000 230-010 $ 135.000 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 11,2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk iftCIAUl.Ol Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor 'rH ..i V* ■"*■"M '« fy ' 3 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 27,2000 CO^ *’^*^*« DEC I ‘ i!0Q0 ROLL Cl IV ur Onc»ivQ The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members Richard Flint, Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson and Bob Sansevere. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gafiron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg and Recorder Lin Vee. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. i»l) CONSENT AGENDA Items 7, 8,10 and 11 were added to the Consent Agenda. Items 4 and 13 were removed from the Consent Agenda. Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#2) Special Council Meeting of The Canvassing Board of November 13,2000 Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of the Canvassing Board of November 13,2000, as presented. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#3) Regular Council Meeting of November 13,2000 Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 13,2000, as presented. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Park Commissioner Sherokee Use had no comments as there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last Council meeting. Mayor Jabbour indicated that the City was planning a reception to recognize two residents who are making land donations to the City. I : Itsr:f fc'.^' K^ L I m ^ • Bf, /%» '»*.. • » ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 27,2000 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - LILI McMILLAN, REPRESENTATIVE McMillan stated that the issue of additional law enforcement on Lake Minnetonka was looking favorable. The City of Minnetonka has agreed to revisit the issue. Other participating cities will be discussing the issue at their upcoming Council meetings. The next LMCD Board meeting is scheduled for December 13, at which time the results of the participating cities should be available as to whether they will be contributing to the program. Two or three cities may not participate and there /ill be discussions as to how to make up the difference. Private contributions have been considered as an option. McMillan referred to the handouts in the Council’s packet. She noted the shoreline count showed a slight increase, particularly in personal watercraft, and a decrease in fishing boats. She added that the Save the Lake letter was included for information. She has chaired the Save the Lake fund, made up of private donations, for the last two years. Mayor Jabbour stated that the City has asked the LMCD to support a water quality study in the Maxwell Bay and Stubbs Bay areas with the Watershed District. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - JAY NYGARD, REPRESENTATIVT There were no Planning Commission comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#4) #2637 William & Nadine McGuire, 315 Woodhill Road > Variance - Resolution No. 4570 Peterson asked for clarification of language in the resolution. She noted that the third paragraph on the first page referred to construction of private driveway. Bottenberg indicated that the resolution would be corrected to reflect the same language as found in the Conclusions. Order, and Conditions. Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4570 granting a variance to allow the proposed accessory structure to be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building where no accessory structure is allowed for the property located at 315 Woodhill Road. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 27, 2000 (*U5) #2643 Patrick and Kristen Burton, 2601 Rainey Road - Variance - Resolution No. 4571 Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4571 granting a variance to permit the construction of a private driveway through a wetland where no fill is normally allowed for the property located at 2601 Rainey Road. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. (#6) Edward and Carol Callahan, 2545 North Shore Drive - Appeal of Administrative Decision Edward Callahan, owner of the property at 2545 North Shore Drive, was present. Weinberger explained that the applicant was appealing the administrative decision regarding repair to an existing gazebo located on the lakeside of the residence. A building permit application was submitted on October 23,2000 for repair of the gazebo. The applicants had indicated that the building was damaged in the storm of May 1998. Weinberger referred to the observations made for denial in the Request for Council Action dated November 6,2000. He noted the primary issue was that based on the existing condition of the building, the structure had extended beyond its useful life. The comer posts, which are required for structural integrity, are leaning and lOtted. The rafters, shingles and interior of the building are also rotten. Weinberger explained that the building is comprised of four comer posts, a door and window on one side, windows on the back side, and the walls on the lakeside and opposite side from the lake are screened panels. The building contractor has indicated the entire building would need to be replaced as part of the repair. The permit was denied based on the interim procedures for handling storm damage as a result of the May storm. Buildings were allowed to be repaired if they did not go beyond 75% damage. Weinberger stated that it is staffs position that a variance would be required to allow the stmeture to be replaced. There are no records available as to the condition of the building prior to the May storm. The two options available to Council are to approve the appeal to allow replacement of the stracture, or to deny the appeal. The applicant would have the option to apply for a variance if the appeal is denied. Weinberger added that the building is located I'A feet from the residential propert>- to the west and 12 feet from the lakeshore. Callahan stated that he felt approval of the permit is appropriate. He explained that the building was built at the time the house was built on a patio. He referred to photographs which show how the building was moved off the footings about one foot during the 1998 storm. The front part of the building contains electricity and phone lines. The screened sides are "fragile" and resulted in tree damage from the storm. A tree branch also fell on the roofereating a hole. He questioned --------------------— ‘ ^I■!> tiifirr*--—■ ir i nr i-m i i i~iMii laiinran — ------------— —----------—-iii i ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 27,2000 (#6) Edward and Carol Callahan, 2545 North Shore Drive - Appeal of Administrative Decision - Continued what measurement was used as 75%. He has talked to several contractors and an insurance claim agent. $8,000 was quoted as a replacement bid by the contractor while the insurance agent estimated $3,000 in damages. Callahan felt the repair could be done for about half of the replacement value. He noted the contractor was unsure of the structural replacement that might be required once reconstruction was underway. He indicated the surveyor may not have the correct lot line. Callahan noted that the neighbor believes the building should be replaced. He added that the support posts have continued to support the building even though they may be rotting. Jabbour asked if saving the front of the building and concrete slab would constitute more than 25% of the structure. Callahan replied he didn’t know if the measurement was supposed to be 25% of the square feet of the structure, or cubic feet, or the economic value, or some other measure. Weinberger stated that staff had not considered the concrete slab as part of the structure. They had looked at 25% of the physical structure. Flint indicated that there have been other instances where trying to save part of the structure to meet code requirements have not been successful as projects have progressed, and the property owners were allowed to rebuild. He felt this could be a similar situation. Flint stated that he had discussed moving the structure with Callahan. Callahan had indicated that this was the least obtrusive place on the property for the structure. Flint stated he would be willing to override the decision of the building official and to approve the issuance of a building permit. Jabbour confirmed that the 75/25% standards were applied only to building projects as a result of the May 1998 storm. He added that Orono’s code visualizes that all structures in the 0-75' lakeshore setback would eventually be eliminated. Jabbour stated that there was a distinction between dealing with storm damage and everyday situations. He felt it was important to determine if 25% still exists and to base approval of a building permit on the same standards that other residents were held to as part of the May 1998 storm regarding building projects. Kelley commented that the 2-year period had passed. Flint suggested extending the period for another year for all residents. Sansevere asked why it had taken over 2 years to start the repair project. Callahan responded that there is partial screening by trees and the damage was not visible from the house. The damage was not discovered until late fall, and then it has taken time to get the insurance i nv'' iii' I I' 'i ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 27,2000 (#6) Edward and Carol Callahan^ 2545 North Shore Drive - Appeal of Administrative Decision - Continued company and contractors to complete their work. He also needed to *-et a sur\ ey for the building permit application. Kelley asked why the building was being repaired. Callahan respv^jtded that he was getting ready to sell and it needed to be repaired. Sansevere asked if the City would require Callahan to remove the structure if he withdrew his building permit application. Weinberger resi^unded that the City would not require its removal. Sansevere stated the building was an eyesore as it stands and he would prefer to see an extension of the 2-year period for everyone. Weinberger stated that the 2-year period is not a deadline and that the staff memo has referred to the length of time that has elapsed since the damage. Sansevere commented that if views from Ae lake are a concern, he would prefer to see the building replaced rather than remain as an eyesore. Jabbour stated that he would be willing to approve the appeal if Callahan could demonstrate that 25% of the structure would remain. Sansevere questioned why the slab would not be considered part of the structure. Jabbour asked Callahan if there was a way that he could keep 25% of the structure. Callahan responded that he would like to keep the front since it has electrical and telephone wiring, and he would certainly keep the floor. Jabbour stated it was his opinion that 25% of the structure must be kept, and that keeping the front with wiring and slab would constitute 25% of the value, which is following the interim building permit procedures for storm damage from the May 1998 storm. Jabbour indicated he would not approve a building permit if the building was totally replaced. Callahan commented that he did not want to spend money needlessly, and felt that keeping the front part of the structure would be possible. Peterson asked Gaffron about structures along the lakeshore and having a value regarding building repairs. Gaffron responded that the 1975 code had a provision regarding non- conforming structures in the 0-75’ setback. It allowed structural repairs up to 50% of its value at the time it became non-conforming. The City has consistently used 1975 as the date that such types of structures became non-conforming. Peterson asked how staff would have responded to a building permit request prior to the 1998 storm. Weinberger replied that general cosmetic repairs like re-siding and re-roofing are generally allowed. Before shingles could be replaced, the rafters would have to be in good condition. The support structures w ould have been review ed to see if they could handle « ................... ^TiriMiiiiii>iiBi anTi ■■ inT^rriltnnii'ti-ii I i fir an ; k '■ ■i“r/If-‘ti ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 27,2000 (U6) Edward and Carol Callahan, 2545 North Shore Drive - Appeal of Administrative Decision - Continued replacement of the rafters and roof. Without knowing the condition of the building prior to the storm, it would be difficult to determine if total replacement would have been required. Jabbour asked if the hole in the roof from the storm could have accelerated deterioration of the rafters. W'einberger responded that it could be argued that it would have. Kelley questioned if the building inspector had looked at the structure to determine that it needed total replacement. Weinberger responded that both the building inspector and the contractor who drew up the plans were under the understanding that the entire building would be replaced, with the exception of ihe slab below the structure. Kelley did not feel the Council should disagree with the determination of the building inspector. Flint asked why the appeal process was part of the code if the Council shouldn’t disagree with opinions of the building inspector. Kelley stated his position was to accept the building inspector ’s opinion. Sansevere asked if it was clear that the building inspector determined that 75% of the structure could not be salvaged. He questioned if salvaging part of the structure had been considered. Weinberger replied that the visual inspection and conversations with Callahan had lead to the understanding that the entire building would be replaced. He added that if it could be determined that 25% of the structure could be salvaged, it might fall under the interim building permit procedures for storm damage. Jabbour noted that in his opinion it is easier to rebuild the structure rather that repair it, and the contractor may have had a similar opinion. Kelley asked wh>’ Callahan would want to save any part of the structure. Sansevere replied that there was no other option. Kelley commented that a few years later the beams would need to be replaced. Jabbour suggested that Callahan discuss with his contractor the possibility of saving the front portion of the building. He added that if the application was not the result of the May 1998 and 25% of the structure could not be salvaged, the building permit should not be approved. Callahan felt that the front and slab would constitute 25% of the structure sii.ee most of the rest of the structure is screening. Peterson asked if a cement slab had ever been considered as part of the percentage for construction. Jabbour commented that the floor/slab is acting as a foundation, and would be considered as part of construction. ■A uiiiii I atiir-r fAftiM j ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 11 y 2000 (#6) Edward and Caro! Callahan^ 2545 North Shore Drive - Appeal of Administrative Decision - Continued Mayor Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, that based on the City’s existing rules regarding the May 1998 storm and the fact that the City has allowed all its residents to rebuild if 25% of their non-conforming structure still existed, that if the structure’s front panel and foundation/slab b retained and it is determined that it constitutes 25% of the non- conforming structure, a building permit should be issued. Also, non-conforming structures should not exist in the 0-75' setback, except this structure could be repaired based on damage from the May 1998 storm. Sansevere asked Gaffron if the slab could be considered structure in this case. Gaffron responded that it could. Vote: 3 Ayes, 2 Nays. Peterson and Kelley opposed. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour requested that the City send a letter to Ann Cosgrove and her family welcoming them back to the City of Orono, and encouraging her to become re-involved in city activities. He noted that she worked diligently on the Highway 12 project and was an asset to the City. Council agreed that a letter should be sent. Jabbour reported that the Planning Commission Chair requested that the opening created by Jay Nygard be filled as soon as possible. Moorse responded that application information would be in the next issues of the local newspapers. Flint commented that information from CMD, a group that does research on construction going on within the country, had been reviewed at a recent work session. In the research of250-300 fire stations, it appears that the replacement of Long Lake fire station estimate of $2 million is reasonable. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT (*#7) Request Final Payment - East Long Lake/Fox Ridge Server Project Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve Request for Payment, East Long Lake/Fox Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project to Minncomm, Inc. in the amount of $86,123.00. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. f V"-'■ r k*- V-; ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 27,2000 i*US) GIS Data Base License Agreement with Metropolitan Council Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the GIS Data Base License Agreement with the Metropolitan Council. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#9) Acceptance of Land Donation - Resolution No. 4572 Moorse explained that a resolution accepting a land donation from Alan Carlson had been distributed prior to the Council meeting. The donation consists of 29 acres of property just north of the Crystal Creek development. The resolution also expresses the Cit> ’s appreciation of the land donation. Kelley asked how much of the donation was dry land. Moorse thought it would be less than half once Mn/DOT acquires a portion of the property for right-of-way. Jabbour commented that the donation is a great asset to the City. Sansevere moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4572 accepting the donation of the 29.2 acre property north of the Cr>'stal Creek development from Mr. Alan Carlson. Jabbour questioned if the land donation would go to the City first and then the park. Moorse confirmed that it would go to the City first. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. (*#10) Prosecuting Attorney Contract Renew al Sansevere moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the renewal of the contract for prosecution services with Ken Potts for the years 2001 and 2002 at the rate of $28,700 per year for each year of the renewed contract. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. (*#11) Volunteer Commission Vacancies Sansevere moved, Peterson seconded, to authorize staff to advertise for the vacancies on the Planning Commission and Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. 8 -...... L.>2 Aau'SK#. •ha. . c < • .r • a~a A ^ r ' II' ^ 1 > I WftT k *1 r ^^■h a^l ■! > lit ft i ti iBi ■ i I fcJk Itirtll i ■ ■ »i E-. # ira..— ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 27,2000 (*#12) LICENSES Sansevere moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the licenses listed below. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Off Sale Liquor 12 Hi Liquor 2160 West Wayzata Boulevard Navarre Liquors, Inc. 3421 Shoreline Drive Club Spring Hill Golf Club 725 Sixth Avenue North Wayzata Country Club 200 Wayzata Boulevard Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Road On Sale 3.2 Beer Lakeview Golf of Orono, Inc. 405 North Arm Drive Off Sale 3.2 Beer O’Sullivan’s 2420 Shadywood Road O’Sullivan’s II 3340 Shoreline Drive On & Off Sale 3.2 Beer Navarre Lanes 3435 Shoreline Drive (#13) BILLS Jabbour commented that he removed the bills from consent because there were checks issued to him for expenses. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Jabbour abstained. I iw \'-,t' i m ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 27,2000 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT - Continued Sherokee Use commended the City Clerk on the November election and judges’ training. Council agreed with her concerns regarding the fact that registered voters are not required to show any form of identification. She indicated that contacting the Secretary of State’s office would be an appropriate action to take. Vee commented that a debriefing session with Hennepin County was scheduled for December 6 and the issue would also be brought up at that time. Jabbour expressed concern that write-in votes were not marked properly and tabulated if the circle was not filled in with the write-in name. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Attorney Barrett requested an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. ADJOURNMENT Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:08 p.m. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor .1 1 i </ MINUTES OF THE TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING HELD AT 7:00 P.M. ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 4,200q;sQ,^ IN THE ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS ’ DEC • • j^iiuo Members Present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and Council Members Kelley, Peter Onvivy Sansevere. Council Member Flint arrived at 7:12 p.m. Staff Present:Ron Moorsc, Cit>' Administrator, Finance Director Tom Kuehn, and Recording Secretary Jackie Young The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., by Mayor Jrdibour. There was one person in attendance for this meeting. City Administrator indicated the purpose of the Truth in Taxation hearing was to provide an opportunity for citizens to obtain information regarding the proposed 2001 Budget and Tax Levy, Moorse presented the 2001 Budget and Tax Lev>' to the Council. The proposed property tax levy for 2001 is $2,443,350, which is an increase of 3.8 percent over the 2000 levy. Moorse stated the increase will help address the City ’s need for increased police service, enable the City to maintain their high-qualit>' staff, and strengthen the City ’s ability to address upcoming capital needs. Kuehn indicated the levy is less than 50 percent of the general fund revenues. Mayor Jabbour asked if there were any public comments. Ed Callahan, Orono resident, inquired whether the City has allocated any money to\%ards the construction of the new fire station. Callahan commented in his opinion the City needs to make provision in its upcoming budget for this project. Moorse indicated the 2001 levy reflects the City ’s plans for the funding of upcoming capital needs, especially the City ’s share of the cost of replacing the Long Lake fire station. Mayor Jabbour stated the construction of the new fire station will be one of the main issues :&cing the new City Council. Jabbour commented the committee has identified a site in Orono. Jabbour noted the City Council is opposed to the condemnation of this site, and is encouraging the committee to look at other possible sites. Mayor Jabbour closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Moorse indicated the levy adoption or subsequent hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, December 11,2000. Tlie meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.m. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor f -r-^Jil � �- '• '·· r-• • III•! ., / __ . ,_ ___ .--. MEC'ANA "' H �-- I --; : I ' / � .. 800 6. 1200 7 -+----+-----+-----------+----+--1600 8 �'-".I: I I I !I I 2000 LAl\f�.a �./ _,,,,./ � ✓·/� 9 2400 10 2800 11 4000 1600 I 1200 J 800 K 400 L 1 '= ;;t: =:-.2 -1". l I I I I J I J.l 3200----·-- - ----- - �........ - . . . . . . - . . ,.,,.., -��---.. E 2800 F �ono, Minnesota ring Index Map 2400 G �.b,! H �-fg¼_ � ......... l;k � noell, .,_.. . .,.._,_.. , .............. aa-, .. I 7 fJp: --- .,,s;·1-.... -....... ..... , ... • sen. f,JtN .......... , � .....,. "'"' . AGENDA FOR COUNClL l\fEETlNG SET FOR l'\10;-.iDA Y, DE< ORONO COUNCIL CHk\lBERS, 1780 KELLEY PARK\VA., (') Asterisk i1ems ate considered 10 .be routine ilffll.S to be CJUcled upon b: undC'r the Con.sen! Item• on the agenda. Memos rcganHng e11ch oflbe J Public P11cke1 -loca1cd on the coumer near lhc si&n in sheet C ROLL CALL CONSEl',T AG ENDA I.Approve/Amend1.2001 L�,·y Adoption Hearing -Adoption of2001 BudgC't and TaA.Adopt Firuil 2000 Levy CnUectiblc in 2001 -RewlutionB.Adopt 2001 General Fund Budget-ResolutionC.Adopt the 2001 Special Rc,·enue funds Budgets -RcsoluAPPROVAL OF MINUTES • 3. Regular Council Meeting of November 27, 2000 • 4. Truth in T:t--ution �tee1ing of December 4. 2000 PARK COl\lMISSIO� CO:\[\JE1'iS -Jim \\'bile . Rcprescnt.1th-e PLA:"i�-l�G COM:\IISSIO� CO)fMEl''TS -Sandy Smjth, Rcprcscn PUBLIC CO;\IME1,'TS -(Limit S I\U11ut.es Ptr Person) zo�r�G ADMINlSTRA TOR'S REPORT 5.#2480 Spring HiJI Golf Club, TIS Sixth Avenue North -Final P 6.112550 Charles Van EC'Ckhout, 120 Brown Road South· Pttlimii 7.Fleming Trail -Appro,·e Sile Plan Re\ision per Restric1h'e Cove 8.#2596 Brenshell Homc.s. I 181 \ViJdburst Trail· Citiztn Petitio 9.#2623 Fred Johnson, 1926 Fagcmess Pot.n1 Road· Variances· I 10.#2625 Mo.rgan Nelson. 3145 Jamcsto�n Road -Vari!UtOC:S •• 11.1#2633 Jerome Lague. ::!138 Shadywood Ro3d •Variances-Res 12.#2634 G & G Holding Comp.my, 112.2 and 1140 Loma Linda A R�lution 13.#2635 G & G Holding Comp.my. 1140 Loma Lincb Avenue•, 14.1.2640,�� I Orono Ambar. LLC. 2060 \\'aymt:1 Boulevard -P. Commerci:iJ Sitc Pinn Reviews 15.RPUD Ordinance t.:pdate 16.Tonka,i�w'Norlh Short' Address Changes -··Tonka,·icw Court:" 17.Tcrminllfion of Interim Building Pcnni1 Procedures for S1onn D MA YOR/COU�CIL REPORT Pl i BLIC SER\'ICE DIRECTOR"S REPORT C1TY AD='11NlSTRATOR'S REPORT 18.Appointmenl of Police Chief 19.Posi1ion Rc.-cwsification -Miu Gaffron 20.Accept Resignation of Chris Pmtt. On-Sile System, Mana,c:r 2l. 2001 Fee Schedule - Ordinaoce and Summary Ordinance for Pu 21.Est:iblish Minimumfl-�"<imurn Parle Dedication Fee for Reside&: 23.2001 Meeting Schedule 24.Council Liaison t.o Parle Commission and Plannini Commissio 25.Appoint Auditor for Fiscal Ye:,r 2000 �6. 2000 lnterfuod Transfers and Loan Payments 27.A11�horizalioo to Disburse City Funds for Claims Rtte�'cd 28.Lener oflnlCnt to Pwdwe • 'Tbrec (3) 2001 Ford Cro"'n Vic' CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT •29. LICENSES 2001 Liquor Li«nK Renewals Kamel License Rc.newals 30.� Occupation Lic:mse Rcnc-A--als •31. BILLS 11PCOlllNG ISSUES A.'1> EVENTS JIii ll/07 -Cotmcil Work S: 11io, 7:30 a.m. 12111 -Colmc:fl Meelilll. 7:00 p.m. 12/14-CoundJ Wen S tin. 7:.30 a.m. 12111-S,. lal Ca 1 '1 ltl Pi I 7:00 p.11. 1212S•HCXJD4V,0Jt 1 0., 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: December 8,2000 Item No.: ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda SecO0))M/^.i ------- Zoning DEC • ' ifuuu Cn Y Ur unwiMU Item Description: #2480 Spring Hill Golf Club, 725 Sixth Avenue North - Final Plat Approval List of Exhibits A - Final Plat Approval Resolution (for adoption) B - Resolution to Extend Effective Period of Preliminary Plat Approval (for adoption) C - Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution No. 4281 D - Staff Memo of 6-11-99 E - Council Minutes 6-14-99 F - Staff Memo and Council Minutes 6-28-99 including final Trail Easement Agreement G - Staff letter to Tom Crosby 12-4-00 H - Final Plat Drawings As a housekeeping matter, staff has reviewed the Spring Hill Golf Club files and has determined that the Council never formally granted final plat approval for the Spring Hill Golf Club project. The primary intent of the Plat was to effect formal combination of the various properties involved, as well as to define the easements to be granted over wetlands and drainageways. Preliminary plat approval was granted 5-10-99 per Resolution No. 4281 subject to minor text revisions which Council reviewed on 6-14-99 at the time final plat approval was requested. However, due to Council concerns on 6-14-99 regarding the Trail Agreement, final plat approval was tabled pending resolve of trail issues. The trail issues were formally resolved on 6-28-99, but final plat approval was never formally placed back on Council’s agenda. Council is requested to confirm the text revisions of the preliminary plat resolution, grant an extension to the effective period of preliminary plat approval (which expired 5-10-00), and gr^t final plat approval. Note also per the letter to Crosby (Exhibit G) that release of the plat for filing will be held pending execution of final easement documents and formal plat approval by the City of Medina. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to: 1)approve text revisions of Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution No. 4281 as presented to Council on 6-14-99 per Exhibit C; and 2)adopt Resolution No.___Extending the Effective Period of Preliminary Plat Approval for the Spring Hill Golf Club, File #2480; and 3)adopt Resolution No.___Approving the Final Plat of Spring Hill Golf Club. r* ^ t- V' ■ft?. •- " A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB FILE NO. 2480 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Miimesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a plat of property owned by Spring Hill Golf Club (hereinafter "the subdivider"); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the City has been requested to vacate an existing Flowage and Conservation Easement which as a result of the plat will be entirely encompassed within a larger Flowage and Conservation Easement to be granted, as noted in Resolution No. 4281; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1.Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 4281, the resolution granting preliminary approval of the plat. 2. ' ; Dedication on the plat of perimeter drainage and utility easements, as well as designation on the plat of drainageways and wetlands which shall be the subject of Drainage Easements or Flowage and Conservation Easements providing for limitations on the use of these areas, such easements to be granted to the City'. 3.Creation of two outlots on the plat, designated as Outlets A and B. 4.Dedication on the plat of public roads shown as Spring Hill Road, Tamarack Drive, Hunter Drive, East Long Lake Road and County' Road No. 6. Page 1 of 4 . liM i&iiidHLtr.---- 5.Granting of an easement for trail purposes along Spring Hill Road. 6.Payment to the City for legal review and filing of the plat, easements and covenants in the amount of $200.00. ■'>*. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cit>- Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Spring Hill Golf Club, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1.That certain Flowage and Conservation Easement granted within tax parcel 26-118-23 44 0003 and memorialized in the title of said propert>’ as DocumentNo.__________ is hereby vacated. 2.Outlot A is platted as a separate parcel north of County Road 6, and may be retained by the Club or may at the Club's discretion be sold to an adjoining property owner for legal combination with the adjoining property, or may be conveyed to the City. 3.Outlot B is platted as a separate parcel south of Spring Hill Road, and may be retained by the Club or may at the Club's discretion be sold to an adjoining property owner for legal combination with the adjoining property, or may be conveyed to the City. 4.Flowage and Conservation Easements and Drainage Easements as appropriate shall be granted over the wetlands, ponds, drainageways and stormwater facilities shown on the plat, as required in Resolution No. 3902. 5. f No additional right-of-way for County Road 6 shall be required by the City, because this plat creates no new building sites and creates no new needs for additional right- of-way. 6.The completion of the platting process is subject to approval of the City of Medina. Page 2 of4 ----- ^t , t.i r K 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. No park dedication fee is required in conjunction with this plat because no new residential building sites are being created. An easement for trail purposes along Spring Hill Road as outlined in the Trail Agreement (Exhibit D of Resolution No. 3902) and as modified via the Trail Easement Agreement approved by the City Council on June 28,1999 shall be greinted to the City as a requirement of plat approval but shall not be required to appear on this plat. Prior to City release of the plat for filing, all requirements of the Trail Agreement (Exhibit D of Resolution No. 3902) and all requirements of the Trail Easement Agreement approved by the City Council on June 28,1999 shall be completed. Prior to City release of the plat for filing, applicant shall provide evidence of fee ownership of the property in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall provide certified copies of all existing easements afiecting the property, and shall meet any other title requirements as may be required by the City Attorney. 11.Applicant shall provide all documents noted in this resolution in a format acceptable to the City Attorney prior to release of the plat for filing. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before June 11, 2001 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements, deeds and covenants noted above. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 1 1th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 3 of4 I ifi-----------------------------—-. A- - si STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 1 1th day of December, 2000 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 ___ rr • h A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE PLAT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 725 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH -FILE NO. 2480 WHEREAS, on May 10, 1999 the Cit>* Council of the City of Orono adopted Resolution No. 4281 granting preliminary plat approval to the Spring Hill Golf Club 'iie “applicant”) for the plat of property located at 725 Sixth Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the effective period of preliminary' plat approval was to expire at the end of one year on May 10,2000; and WHEREAS, the applicant made application for final plat approval within the required effective period on June 14,1999 but Council action on the final plat application was tabled on June 14,1999 pending resolution of trail issues which were resolved on June 28,1999; however, the final plat application was never thereafter formally acted upon by the City, and the effective period of preliminary plat approval has since expired. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono that the effective period of preliminary plat approval for the platting of property located at 725 Sixth Avenue North as approved per the conditions of Resolution No. 4281, adopted on May 10, 1999 is hereby extended to December 18.2000. Adopted by the City Council of the CiK of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 1 of2 ■'A. ¥ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of December, 2000, by Gabrel 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. 4 •L Notary Public tj.! ^ <■; '■ |j- 'c. ,t. . '•4 ■y w ft >* . "■nl , ?• Vif/ t •'i. • •i -'J ■ I , !»■• ■1 *- ■^.-. i.. j-dHIHBlil .^11^*, s Wt/ymnr, %V.rTT -JLi.; Page 2 of2 L ....................... , I ^' I '•{ ■ K t't :wi' .iri« ^wm ----- c i(K CITY of ORONO P^ CSHO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Wj^l)--- ^ f^.fp- y>^ f" \v/ A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR THE PI.ATTING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 725 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH -FILE NO. 2480 r ,> ^ WHEREAS, Spring Hill Golf Club (hereinafter the ''applicants'* or the "Club") on March 25,1999, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a plat and for vacation and rededication of drainage easements for property legally described as: EXHIBIT A (Attached) (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 19, 1999 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, after due consideration the Planning Commission on April 19, 1999 voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the proposed plat; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on May 10, 1999 the Orono City Council considered the plat and easement vacation application of the applicants and noted the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the RR-IB and RR-lB-1 Single Family Rural Residential ^nlng Districts requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2.The property contains a total of approximately 200 acres of land, including a numbef of natural wetlands, drainageways and ponding areas. Page 1 of 6 1 ^^■I TT ,^—- ? 'liisUm GITYofORONO ’<‘0 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL\ • NO_________________ 3.The proposed plat is intended to accomplish the following purposes: a.To result in the dedication of casements over wetlands, drainage ways and stormwater management facilities on the property. b.To result in the dedication of public roads and drives. c.To create separate taxable outlets from two small unbuildable parcels of land vdiich are currently separated from the main Club property by roads but which are not necessarily intended to remain as part of the Club property. The Outlet status will allow these two unbuildable parcels to be transferred to an adjacent property owner should the Club choose to do so. The northerly portion of Lot 1, Block 1 is within the City of Medina, and therefore City of Medina approval will also be required for this plat. Outlet A is a triangular strip of land north of County Road 6 and west of Hunter Drive, being approximately 0.8 acre in area but being approximately 880' in length adjacent to County Road 6 and averaging less than 40’ in width, and therefore is not separately buildable under the standards of the RR-IB Zoning District in which Outlot A is located. Outlot B is a triangular strip of land south of Spring Hill Road and west of East Long Lake Road, being approximately 3.2 acres in area, of which approximately 90% is wetland, and therefore is not separately buildable under the standards of the LR-IA Zoning District in which Outlot B is located. Lot 1 contains the Club property north of County Road 6; Lot 2 contains the Club property south of County Road 6. Thomas D. Johnson, P.E., of Hennepin County Public Works Department has in his letter of April 29, 1999 requested that the applicant’s grant and dedicate additional right-of-way for future use for upgrading of County Road 6 and ancillary activities. The Orono Comprehensive Plan defines County Road 6 as Page 2 of 6 i F ■ It CITYof ORONO m;mi!k RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ a 'minor arterial* roadway requiring a minimum right-of-way width of 80', which already exists. This area of County Road 6 is shown as a bikeway corridor on the Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan. The Council is aware of Hennepin County policies regarding the sharing of right-of-way acquisition costs in relation to County requests for right-of-way in conjunction with plats. However, the Council has concluded that the mere platting of the Club property absent the creation of any new residential lots which would generate users of such a trail, does not appear to meet the nexus and rough proportionality tests for exaction of a dedication from the developer for trail purposes. The City has chosen to not require a Park Dedication Fee of this developer for this very reason. Further, the request for added right-of-way is not accompanied by a defined County plan for an upgrade of the road. Therefore, the Council concludes that the Hennepin County request for additional right-of-way for County Road 6 must be denied. 9.The property contains a significant number of natural wetlands and drainageways, as well as a number of wetland areas, drainageways, stormwater ponds and similar facilities that have been created or modified as a result of construction of the Spring pill Golf Course as approved via CUP Resolution No. 3902. All such features are being shown on the plat, and Drainage Easements or Flowage and Conservation Easements as deemed appropriate will be granted by the applicants over all said features. 10.An existing Flow'age and Conservation Easement within tax parcel 26-118-23 44 0003 is no longer necessary because a new and expanded easement will be dedicated over it. Therefore, the existing easement within said tax parcel should be vacated per the applicants' request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Spring Hill Golf Club at 725 Sixth Avenue North per plat drawings by Theodore D. Kemna, a licensed surveyor of Schoell and Madson, Inc., dated April 29, 1999 subject to the following conditions: Page 3 of 6 i CITYof ORONO m RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO________________ 1. 2. ■i : P^ ••( 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Outlet A is platted as a separate parcel north of County Road 6, and may be retained by the Club or may at the Club's discretion be sold to an adjoining property owner for legal combination with the adjoining property, or mav be conveyed to the Citv. Outlet B is platted as a separate parcel south of Spring Hill Road, and may be retained by the Club or may at the Club's discretion be sold to an adjoining property owner for legal combination with the adjoining property, or mav be conveyed to the Citv. On the fmal plat drawings, Ae wetlands within Outlet B shall be shown. Applicants shall grant Flowage and Conservation Easements and Drainage E^ments as appropriate over the wetlands, ponds, drainageways and stormwater facilities shown on the plat, as required in Resolution No. 3902. The existing Flowage and Conservation Easement within tax parcel 26-118*23 44 0003 will be vacated as part of the fmal plat approval resolution. No additional right-of-way for County Road 6 shall be required by the City. The completion of the platting process is subject to approval of the City of Medina. No Park Dedication Fee is required in conjunction with this plat because no new residential building sites are ^ing created. An easement for trail purposes along Spring Hill Road as outlined in the Trail Agreement (Exhibit D of Resolution No. 3902) shall be granted to the City as a requirement of plat approval but shall not be required to appear on this plat. The trail easement shall be 10* in width extending along the south and west property bnnndaries adjacent to Spring Hill Road. Countv Road 6 and Tamarack Drive from East Long Lake Road to the Citv border, except where said easement must be wider to accommodate a trail, in which case the easement shall be defined on a Certificate of survey to he supplied for Council approval final to release of the plat for filing . Page 4 of 6 I irtammiiimrmiitmnin-..-...M ^M r I H miik\ iiK CITY of ORONO siio RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL• • NO. _______________ 9.Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of Council approval. May 10, 2000. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application ^with the City. Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: a.Lot lines platted per plat drawings by Theodore D. Kerima, a licensed survey9r of Schoell and Madson, Inc., dated April 29, 1999. b.Wetlands within Outlot B. c.Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5' along the internal lot lines. d.Designation and dedication of drainage easements over wetlands, detention ponds, drainageways, etc. as shown on the plat drawings. 2.Legal documents required: a.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b.The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. Page 5 of6 I til 11 ^ aiftWrffiiTiii^ i rfcl ^I I I I a 1 - 11^ •• • • i h -M i \ I %m " ^ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. - ________ c.Signed and executed Flowage and Conservation Easements to be taken over wetlands, drainageways and detention ponding areas within plat 3.Fees to be paid: Total due: $200.00 a.Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $200.00 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 10th day of May, 1999. ATTEST: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument v'as acknowledged before me on this 10th day of May, 1999, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 6 of 6 1 Application Date: 3-25-99 Application Complete Dale: 4-1-99 60-Day Action Deadline Date; 6-1-99 Prelim. Plat Approved: 5-10-99 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 11,1999 Item No.: ^ Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gafiron Title: Senior Planning CoorSinator Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2480 Spring Hill Golf Club, 725 Sixth Avenue North - Final Plat Approval & Easement Vacation - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Final Plat Approval Resolution for Adoption B - Re-worded Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution No. 4281 C - Final Plat Drawings D - 6-10-99 Crosby Letter: a) Draft Trail Easement Agreement and Survey b)Draft Flowage & Conservation Easement E - Staff Memo 5/7/99 F - Trail Agreement G - May 10 Council Minutes The preliminary plat approval resolution (Resolution No. 4281) has been re\ ised per Council's May 10 approval. Please review the wording of items 1,2 and 8 on page 4 of 6 and advise staff if this wording is different than intended by the Council. The Spring Hill final plat drawings have been revised and they now include the wetland in Outlot B.Applicants will be granting Conservation and Flowage Easements and/or Drainage Easements over all wetlands and drainageways shown on the plat. The trail issue is addressed in the final plat approval resolution in items 8 and 9 on page 3.1 have left this language in italics pending Council review. A trail easement survey has been submitted, along with a draft Trail Easement Agreement, for Council review and discussion. %1 VVV4-.,^ #2480 Spring Hill Golf Club June 11,1999 Page 2 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the Trail Easement Agreement and surv’ey, and advise as to their acceptability; 2)Advise staff whether the revised language of the Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution (ExhibitB) is acceptable; and 3)Adopt or amend the Final Plat Approval Resolution (Exhibit A) subject to completion of all pending submittals prior to release of the plat for filing by the City Attorney. VW'.- :r:'' -- ' ' \ f W- mm ..L %1 'V, V / • --- ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 14,1999 (#9) #2480 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB, 725 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL Thomas Crosby was present. • ♦ • • • Gaf&on said Aat Spring Hill Golf Club is requesting final plat approval. He said this plat was primarily for the purpose of creating easements over the wetlands and drainage ways of the . property. It also resulted in the creation of two outlots. He said the outlets contain mostly . wetland areas which have now been delineated and are shown on the plat Regarding the trail issue, he asked for direction firom the Council in reviewing the language of the preliminary plat resolution that has been revised. He asked the Council to review the wording of items 1,2 and 8 on page 4 of 6. He noted that the final plat resolution states that all requirements of the trail agreement must be completed. Crosby said that the land south of the plat will be subjected to the conservation easement He asked if Gaf&on has seen the wetland delineation on that portion of the land. Ga£&on said he has not seen it. Crosby said that the City will need the wetland delineation on the separation parcel to attach to the conservation easement Gaf&on said the City would need the descnption of it. Crosby said the trail has been constmcted along Spring Hill. It goes across Co. Rd. 6 and then north on Tamarack where it has been constructed &om the intersection to the maintenance shed. It then goes to wetland #12 and it has not been constructed north of the wetland where Spring Hill would give the City a ten-foot easement. Crosby said that he had hoped that for the portions of the trail that had been constructed and accepted, ^at the entire trail would have been delineated as a two-foot strip either side of the center line. He said he is concerned about the legal description of the trail because it says eveiything south of the northerly element of the shaded area is for use for a trail. He said that if die ten feet is not all being used, a number of years from now someone could try to move the trail. He said that when this project was started, they said they would create a &ail muht .sll/ agreeable within the ten feet next to the right-of-way. He said the &ail agreement is a separa*. doe« jnent, not on the plat. The way the trail agreement has been drafted is that the legal descri^-.i^.. of the trail is an exhibit, so that the language of the trail agreement is really taking the agreement they used at the time of the conditional use permit, throwing out the portions that are no longer relevant and putting it into an easement. He said it is the legal essentials out of a broader, prior agreement. Barrett said that is the document Crosby provided. Page 12 ...■-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOB JUNE 14,1999 U2480 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB, 725SIXTH AVENUE NORTH-FINAL PLAT APPROVAL-Continued Crosby said he would prefer to have a legal description for the trail as it presently exists. He said he has provided language for the difficult portion of the trail south of the maintenance shed and they would give the Ci^ ten feet north of the wetland. . • •. Jabbour complimented Mr. Crosby on the project. He said there is really only one outstanding issue and that is the trail. He said the trail is not finished and there are other issues with the trail. He said that the area on the north side of Co. Rd. 6 is a very difficult area to build a trail, but that is what was presented by the project manager. He said that the Council members went on a tour of the trail and there is work that must be done to the trail. •* Flint said there are substantial problems with the trail and he is ffiistrated that nothing is getting done. He itemized the following issues: 1.On the south end, there is supposed to bs a gate to get to the trail that has not been • installed. 2.There is a point on the trail where it falls off to the side and it i« very dangerous. It needs to be built up on one side or cut down on the other side. 3.Up towards Co. Rd. 6, there was an agreement to move the fence over because it is too close to a tree and that has not been done. 4.At the intersection of Co. Rd. 6 and 4, Spring Hill wanted the trail as close as possible to the intersection. Tim Johnson had suggested building a terrace so that it would not be necessary to build the trail at the top of the hill, but part way down. Ihe terrace has not been built and now Spring Hill’s position is that it will be very expensive to build the trail at that point and that it should be built on the County right-of-way, but then it’s the City’s problem to get the County’s approval. 5.Where the trail heads north on Tamarack, nothing has been completed. 6.The trail was supposed to be built to the south of wetland #12, which Tim Johnson agreed to, and it has not been built. Flint said he would prefer to stay with the old tnul agreement until all the issues are resolved and the trail is completed. He recommended that.this matter be tabled for two weeks to try to get the .work done. The prior agreement was that the trail would be buUt and open at the same time as the • • golf course. Crosby asked if Tim Johnson was the individual that most of the discussions were with. Flint said Johnson was at each of the field inspections. Crosby said they are very conscious that the trail should open at the same time as the golf course. He said the course is scheduled to open on June 25. He asked if the City wants the area on 6th Avenue North built out. Flint said yes. Page 13 -r r ■ m ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 14,1999 (U9) U2480SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB, 725SIXTH AVENUE NORTH-FINAL PLAT APPROVAL-Continued Jabbour said at the time Spring Hill made its application, he had suggested that if Spring Hill did not want to give the City Ae trail, he would vote for the application without the trail. Now, there is a legal document between the City and Spring Hill and it is his fiduciary responsibility to the City to see that the terms of the a^eement are met. He said the original idea was to use Spring Hill’s tuimel to cross Co. Rd. 6. That idea has been abandoned so the crossing must be on Co. Rd. 6. He suggested that representatives from the Council, City staff and the golf course meet at the site and review the issues so that Spring Hill knows what needs to be done. Flint said he doesn’t think knowing what needs to be done is the issue. He believes Tim Johnson knows exactly what needs to be done and that he could finish it in two weeks. He said the difficult issue is building the trail in the County right-of-way. Crosby said he understands that the County will not allow the trail to be built on their right-of- way because of the dangerous crossing. Gappa said he met with the County and they refused to discuss building the trail on their right-of- way. Flint said there are two ways to deal with that issue. One way is to build the trail on Spring Hill’s property, but that leaves a segment with the question of how you get across the County property. The other way is to do it the long way, by getting the County to approve it. Crosby said that Spring Hill could post a bond where the City has discretion to go forward if it’s not done on an acceptable basis within a period of time. He agreed that there should be a meeting with the golf course management where Crosby is present. He does not want to build something that is unsightly or dangerous if there is a possibility of the County giving permission to. build the trail on its right-of-way. Sansevere asked if Spring Hill could revisit using a part of the cart path to cross Co. Rd. 6. Crosby said Spring Hill objects to using the tunnel to cross Co. Rd. 6 because it is not constructed for use in the winter and in the summer, it would be right in the middle of the golf • course. Jabbour said it is too late to use the tunnel because the tunnel is already built and the size of the tunnel does not lend itself to being divided for public and private use. Crosby would like to arrange a meeting. He said that Spring Hill has announced to its membership that they are going to open in late June. He would like to see if through bonding or some other means they could preserve the opening date. He thinks most of the work f-an be Page 14 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 14,1999 (U9) M2480SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB, 725SIXTH AVENUE NORTH-FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - Continued completed quickly. He questioned the request to put the trail in up to the wetland. He understood that it was to be completed up to the maintenance facility. Flint said the contract provides that the trail will be put in up to the wetland. Crosby agreed, but he thought that subsequent discussions had it only going to the driveway. Flint said that is Tim Johnson’s side of the discussion, but the City said no, build it to the wetland. He said that on die description of the easement, he wants it left as a ten-foot easement. He said the agreement provides for a four-foot trail. If the easement is defined as the middle of the four-foot trail, it would be virtually impossible for anyone to maintain the trail because you need room on either side. Crosby said he would not have a problem with saying two feet, together with the maintenance. He said the issue is for a subsequent Council that looks at this thinking they have all this space and dien want to reroute the trail. Flint said the trail has already been moved because the original plan for the trail that the City had .was to go on the golf course side of the weUand in the area of East Long Lake Road md Spring Hill Road. Thcr'r was great concern about that by die golf course because of safety reasons. The City b-:V..t^4l i'-ff ic the po*lnt of taking the ten-foot easement along the edge and having a littie flexibility Icr the trail. He wants to stay with the original agreement. Barrett asked if there should be two descriptions, one of the easement and one of the trail. Flint thought the agreement contemplated that the easement would be ten feet except where the trail actually goes further. Crosby said that is what the legal description says. 1 Jabbour said the original agreement wras for a ten-foot easement to run parcel to the property line. When the City staff and the golf course staff visited the site, they could see that there was a natural direction for the trail that would preserve trees which was beyond the ten feet He asked if they were saying that in that area, they do not want the City to have the ten feet that they are not using plus all the area beyond the ten feet because at some places it could be as wide as 30 feet • He asked if Crosby would rather describe the easement based on the existing trail plus two feet on each side it Crosby said that in the area where the trail has not been constructed, he would describe the center line, give two feet on each side of the center line and some additional area for maintenance rights. He said the reason for that is to avoid someone coming in at a later date P-' Page 15 s> IVl 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 14,1999 (»9) U2480SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB, 725SIXTH AVENUE NORTH-FINAL PLAT APPROVAL-Continued and saying the trail has been in one spot for ten years, now let’s move it in five feet within the ten-foot easement, • ^ 4 • • * ^ ^ Jabbour suggested that they try to figiife out if the Council could work somethin!^ out so the golf course could meet their deadline for opening and that the trail issues need to be resolved outside of the Council meeting. 9 Qosby suggested diat they try to get as niuch'as possible done by June 25 and to the extent there are open issues, get a bond from Spring Hill. Sansevere asked if there are other issues that need to be addressed to get the course open on time. Crosby said no. Jabbour said they cannot open without a certificate of occupancy and the City cannot issue the certificate. Sansevere asked staff, with the current condition of the trail, what would be a realistic amoimt of time to expect it to be completed to the Council’s satisfaction. •• Crosby said the only part that would be difQcult to complete is the part on the north side of Co. Rd. 6. Kelley asked if it would have to be bonded, would the City Engineer spec out what it would cost if the City had to complete the project Jabbour said yes and the City would ask for 150% of the costs. He said the Council should consider not building some of die trail in lieu of the City having the right to build it in the future •and the funds be deposited with the Park Commission. Flint wants to stay wth the existing trail agreement Crosby said that the existing trail agreement is not a document that can be filed. It doesn’t have legal descriptions or notarizations and it has provisions that have fallen by the wayside. He smd it was not his intention to change the agreement, only to take out language that isn’t necessary. Crosby saud he wants the language regarding an opaque fence from the existing Conditional Use Permit to be used in the trail agreement. Flint said he would agree if the fence will allow the free movement of aniinals. Page 16 1^^ 1 V- -r A. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 14,1999 (#9) U2480 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB, 725SDCTHAVENUE NORTH-FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - Continued Crosby said he will leave that language in. Crosby brought up the issue of liability. He. asked if the City has indemnified land owners from responsibility for trails granted. Flint said the City has not indemnified land owners for any liability that might occur. The City has told land owners that if it would give them comfort, the City would accept the fee interest in the land rather than an easement. The choice has been left up to the land owner. Crosby said that was his understanding, but if the City has indemnified them in other cases, he would ask for it. Crosby said he understands that all issues have been resolved except for the trail. Crosby asked if, assuming the City and the golf course do reach agreement and assuming there is an acceptable bonding arrangement to the extent needed, does the City Council have the resolutions needed to permit the opening to go forward. Jabbour.said they would ask the City Administrator to poll the Council based on the language agreed to and they could probably accept that. Crosby said he doesn’t want to get into a position where someone thinks of something later on and there is a legal impediment to opening the course. Barrett stud there is an occupancy certificate needed for the buildings only. Gaffron said he talked with the building inspectors today and neither one of them had authorized issuance of the occupancy certificate. There has been a final inspection and there is a short pimch list of things to do. Barrett said that the Conditional Use Permit itself requires that the applicant shall work with the City in establishing trails to be dedicated as described in Exhibit D. He said the Council talked about the bonding situation being acceptable to the City as a resolution of that, and then the CUP is met. The final question is whether or not the plat must be filed first Crosby said.there is a mechanical problem with.filing the plat because Medina has to sign off on .the plat. Jabbour said he believes Spring Hill has done everything they smd they would do except complete the trail. He said If a legal mechanism can be found under which the City is assured of the completion of the trail, the Council would agree to issuing the certificate of occupancy. He asked if the other Council members agreed. They said yes. He said that assuming the building inspector and other City staff give their permission, the Council is willing to delay that part of the agreement which gives the City the right for the trail to be constructed prior to issuance of the occupancy certificate with the imderstandmg we are going to get it and the due diligence that we have to do to make sure we are going to gel it. So the minute my Page 17 .1 __ --~***~^■an■ illrawntt II J ’■I 't - ■il'V __________ Ir ■«. ^ V ORONO CITY COtJNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 14,1999 (H9) §2480SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB, 725SIXTH AVENUE NORTH-FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - Continued understanding that the Council is comfortable, the minute we have that in hand, that you, from our point of view, could be issued a certificate of occupancy and a conditional use permit. His feeling is that there should be a meeting and Crosby could prepare some modificatioii to the document based on tonights discussion. Crosby asked if there were any other specific concerns. Jabbour asked if the li^t on the equipment shed had been fixed. Gappa said there was some concern about the li^t spillage from the maintenance shed. Crosby reviewed the issues with the trail. Flint moved, Kelly seconded, a motion to table the Plat of Spring Hill Golf Club File No. 2480. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#10) #2484 WOODHELL COUNTRY CLUB, 200 WOODHILL ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4305 Kelley removed himself for this item. Jabbour said a revised resolution has been drafted for the Conditional Use Permit. The resolution must be reviewed to see if it reflects the understanding reached on May 24. Bruce Malkerson, 901 Marquette, referred to page 6 of the revised resolution, paragraph 7. He asked that the words “and they shall be completed before opening of the access” be added to the first sentence. Under 7.B., the 10 MPH speed limit signs should also be on Woodhill Avenue. Under 7.D,. he said they understood there would be two sets of speed bumps on Woodhill Avenue. The way the language is drafted, speed bumps do not have to be installed. Under 7.C., they want imiform traffic signs for the “Do Not Enter*’ sign on the public right-of-way. Jabbour said he did riot understand that there would be speed bumps on Woodhill Avenue. Sansevere said it was his understanding that speed bumps would be put on Woodhill Avenue. Jabbour said the whole thing is Woodhill Avenue, but he understood the only place they were going to put speed bumps is in the area they arc building, not in the existing street Malkerson said that was not his understanding. Page 18 I III urtiir^aia frtr> ■■it i ■MiK'iair ermitfi ~ib« nuii ti ikaer itiifi jim t-! •f 1 •V -. iMMinaMi COU^irn R4EETINQ •JUN 2 6 1999 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Cl 11 ut- UHUJVU DATE: June 28,1999 ITEM NO.: /2^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: Spring Hill Golf Course Trail Agreement Agenda Section: Engmeer's Report Attached you will find a copy of the Spring Hill Golf Course Trail Agreement for your review and consideration. This agreement is the result of a meeting that was held to review and discuss the trail on Monday, June 21st. Myself, Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and Council member Dick Hint, and representatives from Spring Hill Golf Club were in attendance at this meeting. The trail is basically constructed with the exception of a few minor items which are noted on the attached punch list with the'agreement. The main item of concern is the trail on the north side of County Road 6. Spring Hill has constructed a trail within the Hennepin County Right of Way. There is some uncertainty about the long term availability of the easement in this area. Another concern is die trail aloitg Tamarack Drive, from the maintenance building driveway north to the wetland. Tlus portion of the trail has not been constructed yet because it would be a dead end trail at the wetland. The conceptual agreement reached at this meeting was that Spring Hill Golf Club would agree to trail construction along County Road 6 or along Tamarack Drive when requested by the City. In the event trail construction was not completed, when requested by the City, Spring Hill Golf Club would agree to be assess^.'l for any costs associated with completion of the trail construction. Work on this finalizing this agreement has been ongoing all week between the two parties. The Council will need to review and discuss the attached agreement. The City attorney’s opinion on this agreement will also be needed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consideration/A ’’ val of the Spring Hill Golf Course Trail Agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney. i FROM r L (FRi) 6. 25'« I5:<7/ST.15:45/K0. 3700000072 P 2 Faegrh Sc Benson lu- VXH) N oru 'EST CkNTKii. VO SOuiM SrvcviH STnnur MlNNr.VI»OUh, MiNNESC/IA »K>205»ni Tr.i.»i>Mi»Nc eia-aa«*A5w ■‘'xMMar. TtwjkW M. CROsnv, Ja. !>ckf 6I2pX1A.1I27 June 25.1999 Thomas J. Barrett Hinshaw & Culbertson 222 S. Ninth SUSte 3200 Minneapolis^ MN 33402 Re: " t Dear Tom: Spring Hill Golf Club Enclosed are three executed copies of the Spring Hill Trail Basement Agreement which reflects yesterday afternoon ’s and this morning’s discussions. The legal description attached to the Trail Easement w'as prepared by me and modified slightly by Dick Flint. We understand that, subject to discussions with the surveyor, the legal description might he changed slightly to accommodate legal concerns. I believe we have agreement on the real estate subject to the easement. Also enclosed are signed copies of the punch list letter and the wetland mitigation letter. Sincerely, I Thomas M. Crosby, Jr. TMC:koecf Enclosures cc:Mike Oaffron Greg Oi^pe Andrew M. Hunter 111 M!:S11S70j 01 Ml/i/teapoiis JOemvr Dfs Molnci London t'rankfurt . .* I > * FROM V I (FRI) 6. 25’ 99 15:47/ST. 15:45A0. S700000072 P June 23.\999 City of Orono FOBOX66 Crystal Bay; MN 35323-0060 Re: Spring Hill Golf Club Oentlemtn and Ladies: Based upon our on-site inspection of the trail conducted on the morning of June 21,1999, we egreed to complete on or before July 22,1999 the following construction items on the trail: 1.At the point where the trail going north on Tamaraclc meets the maintenance road of the golf club, we will grade the slope to provide for a level incline down to the maintenance road.' 2.We will move the present comer of the split-rail fence approximately three feci to the northeast where it turns north from northwesterly near &e west end of Spring I£1I Road in order to round the comer and to create afour-foot trail space betww the fence and the existing trees. 3.We will place a plastic pipe of a size reasonably acceptable to the City benet^ tfie trail surface at the easterly end of the interior trail where it crosses the ditch on the north side of Spring Hill Road. This letter constitutes our undertaking to perform the above tasks which we view in the nature of a **punch-list** with respoet to the completion of the trail. Agraament. Other items we discussed will be contained in the body of the Trail Easement Very truly yours, HILL GOLF CLUB Its: TMC/cfk M1:S104S3.03 t 1 . % FROM : ^ ►! (FRI) 6.25*99 :5:47/ST. 13:43A0. 3700000C72 P 4- June 24, 1999 City of Orooo rOBoxOC . Crystal Bay, MN SS323-0066 Snrinp Hill finlf Huh Ocotlemcn and Ladies: The Trail Agreement was attached as Exhibit D to the CoDditional Use Permit granted to SpriQg Hill Golf Club by the City of Orooo in June of 1997. Keoently most elements of the Tnil Agreement have been placed in a Trail Easemeet Agreement which will ba filed in the Hennepin County records. ^ One elenent of die Trail Agreement which is not covered in the Trail Easement Agreemeat is Spring Hurt agreement to transfer to the City ofOrono mhigatioD ertdiu resulting fiom the ooostiuction of the golf course In Dr:^no. In consideration of the granting of the Conditional Use Permit the other permita required to open the golf course for operations. Spring Hill Golf Club hereby agrees: 1, To transfer to the City of Orono two-thirds of the excess wetland mitigation credits rewlting from dra eonstiuction of tiie golfcoune which credits will be utilised by the City for tiie trait system and, to tiie extent any remain, be available to the City. 2. To retain in Spring Hill Golf Club tiie remaiiUDg mitigation ci^its for poesible foture modificatieiis of tiie golf course, subject to applicable laws and government approvals. 3.Not to sell or otherwise transfer such retained credits firom the golf coune she. The actual colcul^ons of tiie excess wetland mitigation credits and the formal transfor * will tdee plaee promptly. Vcr>- truly youri. Its: TMC/efo MSiiTsaei . ' •i . • : •*: ■V •J a •!■ ; \ •I .•I ' 1 ■i a • ^ .'.Ltak 9l,A i-.•Vr.. FROM (FRO 6. 25'99 13:43/ST. 15:45/?’C. 3700000072 ? 5 6/24/99 !■TRAIL EASEMENT AGREEMENT h- 0. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of June, 1999, by and between Spring Hill Golf Club, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Spring Hill’'), and the City of Orono. a municipal corporation under the laws of the State orMinne.soia (the “City"). Spring Hill is the owner of real estate described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, ick 2, Spring Hill Golf Club, in acce the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County and Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Hill Golf Club, in accordance with the plat filed in the office of ler in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “Spring Hill Properly"). As a part of Conditional Use Permits granted lo Spring Hill for the construction and operation of a golf course. Spring Hill has agreed to grant to the City a trail easement. Accordingly, In consideration of One Dollar, the mutual covenanis herein contained and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1.Spring Hill hereby grants b>* quit claim lo the City a non-cxclusive easement for a pedestrian and cross-country ski trail purposes (the “Trail”) and for no other purpose over and across the propert)' described on Exhibit A attached hereto. The clearing on the easement granted by Spring Hill will be approximately four feet wide and the traveled surface will be woodchips. 2.The portions of the Trail along Spring Hill Road and along Tamarack *Drive from the intersection with County Highway 6 North to the maintenance driveway for Spring Hill has been constructed by Spring Hill except as provided in Paragraph 4 hereof, and that certain “punch list” letter which is dated conicmporancously herewith and accepted by the City. 3.The Trail on Tamarack Drive north of the maintenance driveway for Spring Hill up to Wetland No. 12 is subject to tuture design and construction. Spring Hill will, at its expense, construct the Trail north of the maintenance driveway to Wetland No. 12 upon the request of the City provided that the location of the Trail to the extent that it Is *located within the easement granted by Spring Hill shall be reasonably acceptable to Spring Hill and the City and further provided that Spring Hi!! shall have no. responsibility for any construction within Wetland No. 12 or North thereof.. FROM . i.■ 1 <■ (FRI) 6. 25'$9 15:4c/ST. 15:45/KO. 3700000072 ? 6 4.'I'he poition ol'lhc Trail o:i the north side of (bounty Highway No. 6 from the point north of the rrail ending from Spring Hill Road west to the intersection of Count) Highway <3 and Tamarack Drive has been constructed mostly within the right of way casement for County Highway No. 6. If such easement is no longer available and at the request of the City, .Spring Hill vvill move, at its expense, the portion of the Trail described in the preceding sentence within the casement area described on Exliibit A provided, however, that the City will obtain all pcnnit.s required for such portion of the Trail and further provided that, when .such construction occurs, the Trail head from Spring Hill Road may be moved west to coordinate with the intersection of.Spring Hill Road and County Highway No. 6. 5.In the event Spring Hill fails to fulfill the undertakings set forth In Sections 3 and 4 above, the Cily may assess the Spring Hill Property for all the costs and expenses of performing such work. Spring Hill hereby agrees that it will not object to a.s.sessments hy the City for the w'ork as permitted by this Agreement. Spring Hill acknowledges and agrees that the provisions of Chapter 429, Minnesota Statues, grant to the City the right to a.s.scss the Spring Hill Property for purposes of this Agreement. 6.In addition lo the construction already completed and undertaken above, and the other donstruction provided for licrcin and in the punch H.si letter. Spring Hill W'ill contribute up to S20.000 towards trail construction in ihe vicinity of the golf course. 7.Fencing of the golf course .shall be of a low opaqueness, such as split rail or similar rural-character fencing, and shall be used where needed to indicate a demarcation between the trail and the golf course and where needed for salcly or separation reasons, in which case a rustic, opaque fence may be used; except that security fencing shall be allowed for the maintenance lacility if applicant deems necessary, but only if said fencing is screened from off-.site view. Spring Hill shall place no fencing (except as noted above) which will have the impact of inliihlting wildlife movement acro.ss the golf course, unless City approval i.s granted for such fencing. 8.Except as otherw ise expressly provided herein from and after the date of this agreement, the City will have the sole responsibility for maintenance and repair of the Trail. 9.'fhe Trail easement granted pursuant to this document will not be used for bicycles or snowmobiles. 10.The restrictions on the use of the Trail as set forth in this Agreement shall restrict only the portion of the Trail on the Spring Hill Property granted herein and will not restrict the City ’s trail system on other properties or right-of-way including, without limitation, the rl^ts-of-way adjoining Spring Hill. 11.The duration of the casement created herein shall be perpetual. .0. I 4 ^..i%'l M ^t FROM ; • > V ti ..•. (FRI) 6. 25’99 15:49/ST. 15:45/wO. 3700000072 P 7 • 12.This Agrccrnenl shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respeuive parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. The parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. SPRING HILL <;OLF CLUB Us: AgW/f CITY OF ORONO By: Us: And by; Its: STATE OF MThTNESOTA ) )$s. . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN. ) foregoing instrument was acknowledged before inc this “R V day of June, 1999, by Qy\yru^ vVr^x^-KT jg. the ________of Spring Hill Oolf Club, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) THOMAS M. CROSBY JR. MTMvnntjc unictson SOBS The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this____ June, 1999, by__________________, -jie__________________and by day of , the Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporoiion. of City of Orono, a -3- / . ! * 4 ’ »• I : *•’y-' • • •V. *• T k.. r % ••• FROM V-t . • ., f .V ■••? V •• .1 Nolar>' Public THIS INSTRUMHN r WAS DRAFTED BY:' Fttci^c &, Benson LL? (TMC) 2200 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone; (612) 336-3000 Ml.507167.05 K 1 Vt' r*- -4- (FRI) 6. 25’99 I5;«/ST.15:45/!M. 3700000072 P 8 i I Ih <MiT Wf TT IT a--------I -|____w.TLa llA-n.11 *■-I 3 4 :1 FROM (?RI) 6. 25*99 15:49/ST. 15:45/^i0. 3700000072 ? 9 EXHIBIT A Lcyal Description ofTrall Easement 1..That pari of Lot 1, Block Spring Hill Golf Club which is ten feet north of the existing right of way along the north side of Spring Hill Road from the center o^ (he East Long Lake Road right-of-way to County Road No. 6. 2.That portion of Lot 1, Block 2., Spring I Till Golf Club, which lies .southerly and southwesterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the most westerly comer of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of South 46 degrees 22 minutes 53 seconds East, along the southwesterly line of .said Lot 1, a distance oft 83.52 feci; thence southeasterly a distance of 87.90 feel along said southwesterly line, being a nontangential curs'c, concave to the southwest, having a central angle of 5 degrees 05 minutes 52 .seconds, a radius of 987.93 feet, and a chord bearing of South S3 degrce.s 22 minutes 49 seconds East; thence South 50 degrees 49 minutes 53 seconds East, tangent to said curve and along said southwesterly line, a distance of 323.65 feet to Ihc point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 81 dcgree.<t 29 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 44.48 feel; thence Soutli SO degrees 22 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 87.31 feet; thence South 57 degrees 17 minutes 39 seconds East a distance oi 63.21 feet; thence South 48 degrees 05 minutes 48 seconds Bast a distance of 174.24 feet; thence South 75 degrees 03 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 27.25 feet; thence South 51 degrees 40 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of o6.69 f«et; thence South 65 degree.^ 42 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 102.32 feet; thence South 88 degrees 29 minutes 24 seconds East a distance of 48.32 feet; thence South 49 degrees 38 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 26.75 feet; thence South 69 degrees 46 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 207.72 feet; thence South 75 degrees 02 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 64.57 feet; thence South 68 degrees 03 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 66.77 feel; thence South 30 degrees 22 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 100.00 feet and said line there terminating. r 1 11 1I nrr FROM (FED 6. 25’99 1 5:49/ST. 15:45/It-Q. 3700000072 P 10 ‘ r-. 3.’171056 portions ol’Loi 1, Block 1, Spring Hill Golf Club located in the City of Orono which arc: r ■a. 4 • I »» %1, Ten feet North of the existing right of way along the North side of County Koad No. 6 from a point due north of the easterly boundary' or the trail ending from Spring Hill road West to the intersection of County Koad No. 6: and I ■' rMjd Mi b.Ten feet East of the existing right of way nlong the Ea.si side of Tamarack Drive. All located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. MI;5iM77.02 • *••• • ^ k aifcltaiii I I I d I ri c . L ORONO crrY council meeting MINUTES FOR JUNE 28.1999 MAYOJUCOUNCIL REPORT Mayor Jabboo^r suggesttd the City change its attitude regarding hiring, and n4ibly changing (Mayor/Council Report, Continued) of employees Mayor Jabbour inquired what the City is currently payin^the county assessor. Moorse stated that they are anticipating approximately $94,000 in assessor fees for next year. Flint commented that in his view the eounty assp4r does not understand lakeshore property. Kelley stated the overall tax system should be^changed in St. Paul. Mayor Jabbour stated the City needs ^View the pay structure for its employees. e'Zor.ir"''’«» ‘-P'oy^ considering leaviemployn'ent.\ leaving \ J^Xble-fp^ri of ttt?^”«■'\ /\ S‘«W«hcve been adequately informed \ SanMvere expressr d his thanks to Megan Vee for setting up a City web site, '''v Kelley recommended the dry create a listing of the homeowners associations in th^/' d“vtloptenr^ ..." *(#12) SPRING HILL GOLF COURSE TRAIL AGREEMENT Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Spring Hill Golf Course Trail Agreement subject to review and approval by the Cit>* Attorney. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 18 i r>• <5- //o o GlTYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 December 4,2000 Thomas M. Crosby, Jr. Faegre & Benson LLP 2200 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 TRANSMITTAL BY FACSIMILE Re: Spring Hill Golf Club Dear Tom: To establish some finality regarding the Spring Hill Golf Club project, I’ve reviewed City files on the various elements and have come up with the following summary of items remining to be completed: A.File #2209 (Original CUP Application) 1.The three original copies of the approval resolution(Resolution No. 3902) with all required attachments (using the legal description from Sheet 1 of 8 of the plat drawings, and using the original Trail Agreement which was approved by Council on June 12,1997) were signed by the Club representative in 1997 and have now been signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk. One of the three originals will be forwarded to you or to the Club as you direct.. 2.The Developers Agreement was fully executed by all parties. It appears that all conditions cf the Developers Agreement have been followed or met, with the exception of Addendum Item #5 which requires the granting of certain easements as part of the platting process (see File #2480 comments). 3.The initial Letter of Credit in the amount of $578,250 was reduced to $463,125 on 5-18-98, further reduced to $67,0$0 on 4-15-99, and per our records apparently expired on October 31, 1999 absent any formal extension, although such was requested in my letter of April 15, 1999. The $67,050 amount was to cover completion of certain items listed in City Engineer Tom Kellogg’s letter of April 6, 1999, as follows: Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.cLoronojnD.us i .... "ft k* - "4 Spring Hill Golf Club December 4,2000 Page 2 ^ t-. % Item C, Weir for Wetland #17 Item D, Trail Construction Item G, Tunnel under CR 6 Item H, removal of field entrances Item J, construction of clubhouse drive etc. Item K, Erosion Control Item L, Site Restoration $ 3,750 15,000 9,000 3,750 18,750 3,300 13.500 $ 67,050 It is my understanding that a majority of these items had been completed by the June 5, 1999 letter of credit annual expiration date. However, I do not believe a formal final inspection of the above items was ever conducted. B.File #2480 Plat of "Spring Hill Golf Club" 1.As you know, the tw primary intents of the platting were to effect a formal combination of the various parcels, and to dedicate the various easements required in the CUP Resolution. Preliminary Plat Approval was granted via Resolution No. 4281 on 5-10-99, subject to revision of conditions on Page 4. Those revisions were made, and submitted to Council on 6-14-99, with a proposed Final Plat Approval resolution. 2.On 6-14-99 Council did Qot confirm acceptance of the revised language but discussed the trail issue at length. The item was tabled pending your modification of Trail Agreemen'. provisions, and pending action by the Club in the following two weeks to see if the trail could be constructed by the June 25 anticipated opening date. 3.On 6-23-99 discussions between you, Flint and Barrett resulted in a mutually agreeable Trail Agreement draft, 3 original Club-executed copies of which were delivered to Barrett on 6-25-99. The final Trail Agreement was approved by the Council on its Consent Agenda on June 28,2000. My files include only a fax copy of the Club-executed agreement which was in the 6-28-99 Council packet. I do not know at this time whether the 3 originals were subsequently signed by the Mayor and Clerk, but they are not in my files, nor have we found them in all the other logical places to look. If Barrett does not find them in his files, you will have to create 3 new originals for execution by all parties. 4.The preliminary plat Resolution language revisions have yet to be approved by Council, and Council has yet to grant Final Plat Approval. The effective period of preliminary plat approval per Resolution No. 4281 was one year, or until May 10, 2000. However, the Club made application for final approval within that I year j ». A'fin tm iMi ll~ J liri llWJrrfllia l( ||I H f h I I fMmJrn . _I tin at I li II iiM ■■ I II Spring Hill Golf Club December 4,2000 Page 3 timeframe, on June 10,1999. Because action on the final plat approval was tabled on June 14, 1999 and no further action was taken, the Council will be asked to formally extend the effective period of Preliminary Plat approval to December 11, 2000 and grant Final Plat Approval on December 11,2000. The effective period of Final Plat Approval is then 6 months, or until May 11, 2001, by which time all necessary documents and filings must be completed. 5. i*' Conditions of the Final Plat Approval resolution which must be met before the plat can be filed include: -execution of Flowage and Conservation Easement document over the wetlands identified on the plat drawings; -confirmation of completion of all Trail Easement Agreement line items; -final plat approval by *he City of Medina. I am unaware of the status of the platting process in Medina; Orono has not initiated such approval process, and assumes the applicant will do so. 6.1 believe the June 14,1999 draft of the Final Plat Approval resolution may need to be further slightly revised to reflect the terms of the June 24,1999 Trail Easement Agreement. C.File #2481 Rezoning from RR-lB-1 to RR-IB The rezoning was completed via adoption of Ordinance No. 187, Second Series on May 10, 1999 and published the week of May 15,1999. D.File #2482 Guest House CUP Resolution No. 4282 approving a Guest House Conditional Use Permit was adopted by the Council on May 10,1999. The original Resolution copies were signed by the mayor but have yet to signed by a representative of the Club and by the City Clerk. These also need a legal description attached as Exhibit A. Based on the above, I suggest the following activities to finalize the Spring Hill approval process: 1.Final Plat Approval as a housekeeping matter will be scheduled for the Council ’s December 11,2000 regular meeting, and will likely be placed on the consent agenda with no discussion. Items to be presented to Council for that meeting include: A)acceptance of Preliminar>' Plat Approval Resolution language revision; B)Resolution to extend effective period of Preliminary Plat Approval; C)Final Plat Approval Resolution with revised adoption date of 12-11-00 and revised language regarding the Trail Agreement Mayor Jabbour will presumably sign the plat drawings at the December 11 meeting. i --------ifkArw i»Mata* Spring Hill Golf Club December 4,2000 Page 4 2.You will work with City of Medina to gain their approval for the final plat, which we must have before we will authorize the plat to be filed. 3.You will provide an executed Flowage and Conservation Easement Document for filing. 4.Absent our ability to find the 3 originals of the final Trail Easement Agreement, you will provide 3 new copies executed by the Club for signatures of Mayor and Clerk. I will ask Greg Gappa and Councilmember Flint to confirm they are satisfied that the conditions of the final Trail Easement Agreement have been met. 5.A final site inspection must be scheduled in the spring to confirm completion of the Developers Agreement punchlist (this will not hold up filing of the CUP, plat or other required documents). 6.I will attach the legal description to the Guest House CUP resolutions and forward them to you for Club signature(s). Please call me at your convenience (952-249 -4622) to review tliis letter and establish a mutually suitable schedule for completion of the outstanding items. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator cc:Ron Moorse Thomas Barrett Spring Hill Golf Club City of Medina •9 i City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 (952)249-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616 FAX TRANSMSSION COVER SHEET Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender:V\A \ YOU SHOULD RECEIVE _PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (952) 249-4600. 1^^.^•>-*^li1 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB R.T. DOC. NO 1C.R. DOC,. NO SY ™ES( PR£SO,ll'S: That � KIi Coif Club Umited Portn«nhip. a lifinnaoto 5mi\ed �. r>roonelor of the followi.n9 C,.scn'beid � situated in the Count)' o:f w.nn.P"\. State of � lo rt •of the Northeo3t Ouorter of Section 26. Township 118. Roft()e 23 duc:ribed os comrneoc:it•t at the corner of .oid Nortt\eo�t Ouorter: tMnct Notth 0'°"9 UHt [o,st Gtle thereof 1172-94 fNt to o polnt by . 0 Judidol Londmor1c Hl pu,,uont to Torrens Co-M No. ''"'' 7; ·� Westerly 900 fNt to theoctucl pottit of �inning o,lot'l9 o "'• which. if e�. inlet"MCb the West &n. of aoid No,theost ·auort.,, ot o poont 1 � a 1.03 feet North meosured oloc\g said We:st ,ne from the Southwest conw' of 10id � Ouotta1ond wScn poue:s through o J�cioJ l.ondmortt Mt �t to soid Torret\S Cose Ho. 144-417 ot a point 3J f ••t Ea-rt ot tM Wut Ii,,. of 10ld Hort!Motl Ouorter rneosvred ot ri9hl � from IOtd West 11M � Jvcfteiol Londmotk is herelncJftff d�ed m Londmor1' A:. thenc• South poroW to th. £o2t ,,_,. of eod NorttltO:S't Ouorter o cf,sto� of 755 feel; thence Sovtheosterly to o point on the South iM, of toid � Ouorter .!i,to,,t 800 fMt WHt meosu,-d 0'°"9 IOid South. llne from the Southt-ofl comer of .a.ct NonheostOvert� thene. Wat to the Southwest comer of soid Hottheo.st Ouorter. � North o4ong the Wat line thereof 1 181.013 fHt; lh•nc• E.osler'ty � through Londmorlc A to the octuol �t of �lnnlng. occOl'dtng to lM Covemment � the The Wnt Hoff of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeost Ouorter of Section 26. Townahip 118 North. Roft9'I 23 We st of th• 5th Pt'\l\cipol Uencf10n. ond thot po,t of Govarnme-nt Let 2 1n IOtd � 26, •hich r... not1h or lh� center li.ne or new County H.ghwoy No. 6. Eost Helf of t1'e NOl'\hwnt Ovorter of \he Southeo3t Ouorter of Section 26. Township 118 NotU\. Roft9e 2.l :n or t� � Prit,eipol M.ericfoOI\. EXC£PT that port ol UM eo•t 150 feet of the tJorthwest Ouorte:r ol the ,east Ouort� of s.ctlon 26. Township 118 Ncwth. Ro,-.ge 2.l West of UM 5th Ptii,dpol Merld'IICJr\ � of o fir-.. described 01 fc!:lows: � ot the aoutheost comer ol soid South.ost Ouorttr of Se<:tJon 26: lhoeftce north � the .est line� ecid Southeo,t Ouotter o cfcatonc. ol 1750 feet: � deffectin9 left 86 deg,-, 45 rninut o � of llS.9 feet to the poi,rt of beqlnnin9 or the 51M being ��; thence � kt\ 2 t 6e9'"eu 18 minutes to the --mt· fine of acid eost 150 fut ond there end1no That pert of Co¥onvnent Lot 2. SecUot\ 26. Tovu:11'1� 118 North. Ro�• 2� Notth of the 5th Prindpol Mend.ion. il>ed cs fo&owl: Bec;anni,,g at the nottheott comer of � Co,.,,emme:nt Lot 2; thence •est olot'9 U-.. north line or .aid Covem.rMt\t Lot 2 lo ita point of lntMMc:tion. with o ine described o• follows; B.ginnJ� ot the 9ou1heost corner ol 90":c:f � 26: u,.nce n«1h dong the �l't line U-.Of a oislo,,ce of 1750.0 feet �ie. � to tM le.ft Gt on � of 86 <S.Qren 45 minutes. o d"l3'lonce of 335.9 fe,et; thence dcflectinQ to the left ot on onvle of 21 deigir ... ,a � o (htonce of 1624.4 feet � watert, o1oft9 o 2 �rNS 30 minute CutW lo the ri9ht. to 1 ..st iM of � Co¥� Lot 2 ond tt.e t� (.oNf lne "°" detMmfta tN cent 5M of the ne-w Ha,.ncpin Coun� t¥-o, No. a ntend'1n9 ac:roa aoid C,or.emment l.ol 2): tNnc• from 90'd point o1 In� o1 the n0"th Jane or itOld �t Lot 2 .;u, the obow desc:n"6cd w. west.t, along sod above de:tcll°bed Ii,,. to the wat h o# scd Cowenvnenl Lot 2; tMnce � olong 80d w..t GIie to the �ter h of Old Count., Rood Mo. I (tomwft known 09 lM Uir.neopoli, onc:t �. Rood): thence•� to� teft 72 degrees 2, m.nutn o distance of JU\.9 tHt; thence on o �(kil curve lo th• right with o rocf,ua of 9�..37 fMt o cr..tonce ol 280.i fNt; tl'l4nce �te,ty. � to .oid C\,fte, •O dbto�• of 682.37 fMt: ��along o t0ft9e'\tiol curw to t,,. left with o rodiu:s of 819.02 feet o cSt3lonce of 280.9 feet to tM eost I,.. ol .oct �t lot 2= � no,th o&o,,)9 .aid eo�l lin• to the po;nt of �innirM). Thot pert of the ec,st. 718 , .. t ol Go¥envwt lot l, Section 28. Township 118 Korth. Ro Pn� Mencloft. ¥n9 90Uth of o line daoib.d 08 folon.: 2.3 Wat of the Commencin,g at the 90Utheost comw ol ao-ct �t Lot; thetM:e notth olong the �t Lot O dist� ol 790 f..t to the point or be-ginnift9 ol the 1M being dl�H�M�.r1nil'ih.ad---'". flKting � 81 deg,'IC$ lo� -at line of ,old emt 718 feet. ond thetw � hich � nc,thetty ol o line 6e:,,c:ribed mi folk>..-.,. Convnenclng at 9'oid 90Uthe.ost. Comet'; (hence nO'th o� sold point ol �•'9 ol ttM line being 6't20ibed; thence dellecti of 9old eo9t 718 ,, ..... ond � .. �. ,tone• of 70 fMI to tM � o. nwwutes to the west EXCtFT thCt port ol � obcw-e dac:ribe-d property wiUun th• aout)wty 3l feet ol lhot port ol Covernmenl lot J, � 26.. T�p 1 t8 HorU1. Ro,,g1 2J Wat of the �th PrincJpoJ Uen(lon. lying notthetty of o One cnwn with and 10 fMl 90uthc.r1y. rneoaured Gt ri9ht ongtu, ff'Offl the folowing dacn"bed GM: Cotnmeodng a1 the �t comer of 90id Cowernmenl Lot thence north along the ecm int of Ca,..-TVNnl Lot o 6-tonc• of 70 fe.t to U... poit\t of ·� of the line � 4nc:ribed; thence de:t'Sedi,19 left 76 deQl'en 04 minutn lo the west line of soi,d �l l.ol. ond tt,«a t-minotint,.. That pert of eo,...,rvnent lot J and tM Nattheost. Ouorief of the SoutJ\eO:sl Ouotter' ol Section 28. Tow.iahlp t 18 North� Ftcnge 23 Wnt of the ,th M� Mendton. dacn1>ed oa folows.: � ot the 90UtNo:lt comer of »d SoulMoJt Quort., of Section 2&: �-no,t,, o1on9 tM .o9t of loid � Quo,te, o db� of 70 tNt; tMnce ct.ftectin9 kf't 1& degna 04 mlnutn °" o lifte to W point of ... �. 1lfth the ...t b ol the eat 718 , .. t of Mid Gc,.w1.tr'leftt ·1.ot.. 90id po;.,I beincJ lbe point ot � ol the � being dNctlbed; hncl continuing olor'9 eaJd loat � COUtN to the ...t of .aid Gorta:wnent Lot·� niolth along Mid wat 1M of tM �•nmenl Lot on4 h well h ol "°'.�.Quo,\.- of h Sou"'-l 0uarter t.o the•� u,.• °'. Hennepill County Stole AW llghUO/ No. IOI � ill 8ooll l of Kghwo, P1ob. ,ooe I� tKOtded 1n U,. ofb ol 1M County Rec:ol• • .._a N1t"'1� IOJd •� t;ne• to -4 Nil h of h SoutMost 0uOftar: � eoul" olof'9 NW N8l h ol h � Oucwteir to O point ... 790 , ... ftOtUl f,om .aid SoutMo9t conw: � ..._ ... rfdll It detTN'I to 90id ·...tho# the wt 711 feet; lhenc• � to the point ol Ngil■-.. £XC£PT that port of 1M aboww d•• c:nbed � .. "lbin the 9Ckltherty .13 feet of IMt poi1 of Conrilffllflt &Al 3. S.ctioft 26. l'c,anehip 118 Nortl\. Ronp 23 WNl ol the �th Principal� lp'9 wttMtt/ of oh droWfl porolel .ah. ond 10 feet �. fM09Urwcf al right ongln. frDm the foloufftg deKribed lne! Corrlfflllft0fl9 Gt the ....... coma cl eoid GCl'o8ft'WMftt Let lllw• north· oloftg 1M eat h ol NW Go,..-nrnllnl lot o .._ .... of 70 fNI to tM c,o.11 of bep•-. ol the h belu'-= � ... .,...,.,_.._..._ '& �-04 _.._ to the wat 1ne o# 8Gid Go.•:ilMftt Lot. and thlrw Md EXCCPT that po-rt o' the Nof'theo9t Ouott• 2.l West of lN 5th PMdpoil � t,' Rood Ho. e cu� IN •5uno1y line• of 90 record.d in tN off"-c. -• , ... _ I'_,_.._ a the � ()uQrt.er of Sectiot, thot � rioht-of-•o �. 90icf ina aa � iri Thot port of t"'4 West Half of the South· Principal .. erid'-011. 6na iMd OS follo,n:: of s«tion 8-,� at 1M po1nt o1 In� ol the east· 1ne o •� fonne,fy known 01 Hennepin County �hwoy Ho. I, To.-nshi which •01 ettobhhed b)t ruoMJon of the 13oo-rd ol� 27. 1925, wtuc:h point b 708.2 feet more Of' las. di:stA'1lHelf from the IOutheost Comet" lheno#! the.nca ·· ·fMt north mecaurtld -• --- --�:C9rea 30 mam,,te,the �•al 00fflCI' UIMeOI on inte� .;\h t·whichak>ng thot port of u,. Wes1 Hoff of 5th principot Merlcrion. ¥"9 betw, 1)CommencinQ ot the eoutheo.tto the po.tit ol beC)inning of theof IOid Wat tloJf ond the,.. t�..,.. 2)� ot the aouth•..t com« ofof 1750.0 (Nt; � ckf'lectin9 :.0 tholo � odual point of betJ� of thedecll'M:9 "' 6stttnce of 1324.4 fNt:� 18 minutn and tor terininotin9. ••n:snio 118 Thot port of �t Lot 5 ond the IOUUa 10 oc,a ol tN· "°':,-=rt 0uortM' o 25: Township 11a North.. Roll� 2J Wat ol the 5th Prfnc;>o1 ..,_ic:Jof\. J)'in9 ·"'!'1" of tl•ntch wen fonnert, kno1'n a, Courlty Highway Ho. I ond -s no• 1cnowr, o, •· � 0 it,h-, the plot o1 NORTH STREAM. That po,t of eo..-.mm.,,t lot 3. S.etaon 28. TOWT\Shlo R.c-od. ond tying Southeowt� of o h n,n,,·- of .aid Rood 950 f..t l"IOtttlant..t., ot tMONnoJ.. HM C0\1.-d lM IOM to � tllll � ond � CJI � to the ,� for pubic UN ,�. a,,. ruoda ortd on •J pie.rt. In wit, .. p -�, acid � Hil Coif CU> Umi°\J prnanb to be ailgn.ct by ib � po,tN,s w, --- - ·- -· · · ··· · -··ip SJCNC0: � Hil Calf Oub t.;i,iled Po r0n9• 2.l �'}'.:, IAft'. \ l V-it, l'\> v~.., • ~ • ....., "UN ':HcO �- By: v= ,uu-.J �-t::::F a� P�� d �{- :::� �'.ft,� The_ foreaoi,,Q .�ment .OS oeknowledQed IJ,n,( ed Portnershio. o , ................ - ...,,_ __ .-.a. ..,Ca 1 ...... SCHOELL & ,::ti. ADSO. ENGlkEE'RS • SURVEYORS SOIL 1 ES I ING • ENVIRONMENTAL SHEET 1 OF ,8 SH SPRIN;G HILL GOLF CLU. ·""-· that I hove aur,,eyed ond plott.ed the p,ope.rty d-escn"bed on thi.a plo1 ot SPRiHC ttlU. OOlf ewe: thatocOff'ed n:prnef\lotion of a,old 9Uf'YC'y. thot ol cfistonca o.-. con-ecUy thO..n OIi the plat in fffl ondof o fool; thot on mof'Um&l\la ho¥-. bffn cOffeclly placed in the 9"ound cs ahown on aotd plot: Oftd thatboundo,y r.-.es ore co,nctJy cfai,;noted.;/JJi i z. � ,_.,,,. � 1£S()TA HENNEPIN � sur-,q,or'• certifcote was odulo•ledoed beL. I 0. Kem.no, land $.un,cyor. NESOTA �,,...,, .. r1CTY I -_, .. Theodore O. K..-nno. Land S1neyor Uinnuolo uceNC Ho. 11006 me thcs 2C\� <Joy of Al"°'\ 11C\9 • ��)> .' \.;_:._ OcMd 8. Toen&es_ Hotory P\,bGc Hcr.,.n County. M"annnotaMy ComrnJuion upita Jonuo,y 31. 2000 � HU. COlF CUJ8 WC9 ope14 � ond occ•pted by the City Councl of Uw City of °'"°"°• M"annnoto·tneeth,ig � he'd this _ doy of ________ .. 19_. tf o�oble. the writtfflind� of� Con'-nissioner of T� ond the County f'9ltwc,y Engineer how�.the City or the ptaa bed 30 f»J � he• elapsed without � of auch commenb andrtions. m � by l,f" nn.. Stotula. Sec:tiOf\ 505.0J. � 2. NESOTA it.a MO)'O" NESO'TA e,: ----------· it, Cey � SPRING HLl. C0C.F CUJB •oa owewd ond o«e1)ted by the C,ly Cound ol tlw � of Medino. 1.Gnnnoto r ffiNM9 ♦weof Mid this __ dG)' ol . . .. 1e_. tf � the -.ritte.n Ind � of lM Commissioner ot Tronspo,totion oncf the Cot#lt, 1-Gghwoy (ngNJer how bNft � City or � p,ncribcd 30 6ay period • hos •�PMd wit"°'!'. �pt of Md\ comment. ond It.ions. oa pro"'ded· by Minn. stalutn. � �.OJ. Sub&".m,on 2. l[SOTA ----------a.Moyor [RVIC£S 0MS)()H. Hennepin Coun� l.f.in.nesoto By:. --· City CSerlt 1'· \hot toaes poyoble in 19 __ and prior yeors hove bttn poid '"' land ddC:tikd on plot 'Oat of-----------• 19_. trconnor. � CO\.rlty Auda:0' mc>H. HeflMs,Jn County. Mi 1\0 By: • D e p u t y innr,JOto StoMu. S.C. 3838.565 (1969). thb· plot tlo9 be-en opp,owd this - do'y ol -----· ''-· r-•I. Hennepin Coun1y � ey: _________ _ mus. HeMepi,I eoun�. � that the within pact of SPRINO HIU OOlF CLUB wot (lied irl thi9 omce th� _ doy o"' ------• 19_ at_ o·dock -�"· �. fte.9istror o.f Tai 8y: ----------� 00RD£R. HeMepin Cou.n�. ll!Me$0lo .� .. thot iWn plat ot SPltlHC HSU. COlF a.us wos riled in W• office U.. _ dGy of ------• 19_ at_ o•doc:k _.II. ICuMHf. �ty R.co,w 9y. ___________ Oeoub SHEET OF B J SHl.1.:/S ·--------J • SHEET OF 8 SHt.c1S � -5 8 'UIS, SHEET OF SHEET 6 MAP NO SCM..E ' I I' SCHOELL a ENGtNEERS·. SOIL 1ES11NG • S/ :ADSON. INC ·SH 8 SHEEIS ) . • • • • • .. .. • • . .. . . ... .. .. . • • • • •I f-9 ca __ ·\�"-"' •• '\ • n :c V �I l\ • 0'I t J ... .. . \ I x--'1 \ 1-,IJIUIJI I \l . ..• t r· ' I I r. L- . .' \. \ I • - .,.· . .... ' •. . ,...: . ' . ·. . • • • t ' .. '\ . .. . . .. . . .... : .... .. ! ' .. .. . . •. . . ·• • • • ♦ . .,. . . ... . . ... . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . '. . \ .. \ •'... . . :: ' ' . ' . \ . . . ' .. ' . . .. . . , , \ . . . :, .. •• • :I: o.// . . . . . . . 1---1 - ·1· I •I ··, •• t ! J--.. I • '. I I • I • (\, . ::, - .. 8 :s ..• I I I ·1 , .-' .. , .. I • .,.. •. . . : •• I . •r.'' .. , . . . I••", . . .. .·•.•t .�.=-: ... • • r ,:· " • • . . .·' ' .. ... .... .. . . I • • .. . ,. . . .. . I •, •, • l . . . . . . •• I '· . . '4.�· ·'' ' : ...·. . .. .. . . . . •,'-"' . . . .. -l .. , .. . . . . : ..' . I ' .. ' . ' . .. I I .. '. I I . ·. . . . I I •. ·I ., .... \ I •, . . .. . . . . :• • I . . l • • I I . .-• •: .. . ... ' , . ' . . ' . . .. ' . . • ., I . ,. . '.J • • . . .. .. ·e:.j_I N""p Lfi -+- J I I . . .. . ·oo. 0 · ...000 ..... ,. . .. •' , . . . . . . . ,· . . . • • • . . • .. ••. •.. . . . • • \ ' .. . ' ' I ' I . I. -- 't . - f I • - . . t:Olllt1Y /IOU· NO. ,, --· I •• I I I . .,. ... •, -. • .... •. I .. • •• • • •• j • • . .. .. ., ..,.· , •• • • t • 'I • • . . . . ·. ,·: · :. . . . & I •II ! , ' �; • 4 .: • ' \ • •t ••• • .. . . . . .. . .. : . f • ' ... . '. . .. . ·' . .. . .. . , .... ' .. . · '. .. I • I , .... ' . -· .· • .. • • .. -• .. .. • • .. . • • \ I . I • • . . .... I • • I J. ·' .. . ' ' .. .. • • ' . ' . .: ••1/^. Application Deadline:December 31,2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CofjMr.ii DEC I ' i!UUU CITY Ur unufvO DATE: December 8,2000 (PITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Zoning District: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for a PRD RR-IB One Family Rura* Residential Application: Seven lot Planned Residential Development of land located at 120 South Brown Road. List of Exhibits: A B C D E F TEP Panel Findings and Determination Letter From Apple Glen Road Property Owner (August 21,2000) Letter From John and Mary Dunn - adjacent property owners (September 23, 2000) Plat Map Proposed Lot Layout September 7,2000 Staff Report The City Council last reviewed this item on September 11,2000 and tabled the application citing two main issues. The first issue was theMCWD acceptance of the wetland delineation report. A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of representatives of the Hennepin Conservation District. Board of Water and Soil Resources, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was assembled to complete a wetland determination on t!ie property The TEP met on Mr. Van Eeckhout’s property on October 16, 2000 and has now made a determination that the TEP approved the delineation as presented by Svobota Environmental Services. The TEP findings are consistent with the applicant ’s drawings and delineation and result in a dry buildable acreage of just over 14 acres. The lot is located in the RR-IB, two acre zoning district. The developer has requested a CUP to allow the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). A PRD would allow the developer density credit for all dry buildable land on the property'. Under a PRD the property could develop to a maximum of 7 units. The concept behind a PRD is to allow for an alternative to standard minimum lot size subdivision, to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces and to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design. The plan does protect a generous amount of open space most notably the area south of the creek would be left natural and protected with a conserv'ation easement. The second major issue is access to the property. You may recall the original plan had requested access from the west. The applicant has not successfully negotiated access from an adjacent property owner that would have provided access for the new lots out to Brown Road. The developer amended the plan requesting access to Apple Glen Road in the City of Long Lake. Apple Glen Road is the only diicet road access to the >r ■W: T •r i !. »* r fh- > ^L property. Since Request for Council Action continued Page 2 December 8,2000 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout __________________ property. An extension to Apple Glen required crossing a questionable wetland basin. Long Lake is now being asked to comment on the issue of access. No additional requests for comments from Long Lake had been made until the feasibility of the wetland crossing had been determined. As stated previously, the TEP concluded they are comfortable with the wetland boundaries as presented by Svobota. The findings agree with the applicant's position that the proposed road does not enter the wetland boundaries. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he would be submitting drainage area information, storm sewer and ponding calculations for review prior to a formal preliminary plat approval. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission last reviewed this application on August 21,2000 and recommended denial on a vote of 6 to 0. The denial vote was based on two primary concerns: 1.The four lots located on the north end of the proposed development should be reduced to three. By reducing the number of lots the average lot size would increase. The total number of lots would be 6, not 7. 2.The Planning Commission requested additional information regarding wetland determinations within the development. Council Action Requested: Council can provide direction to the applicant regarding the lot layout and number of lots. The development as proposed under a PRD would meet the one unit per two acre densit> that is required in the Comp Plan. The Council does have discretion regarding lot layout and density under a PRO. Final number of lots and lot layout are issues that should be resolved before the City of Long Lake could complete a full review of the impacts on the proposed use of Apple Glen Road. HI .. iiMiiiliiiii 1 liflt 1 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality ofWatcr, Quality ofLife MEMORANDUM Date: November 8,2000 To: Paul Weinberger, City of Orono From: Jim Hafiier, Senior Technicianician RE: Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, Van Eeckhout Site A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of David Thill (Hennepin Conservation District), Doug Snyder (Board of Water and Soil Resources), and Jim Hafiier (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) visited the Van Eeckhout site on October 16,2000. Others present were Paul Weinberger (City of Orono) and Barbara Moeller (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District). The soil survey for this site indicates marsh soils, which are almost always found in a wetland. The wetland delineation performed by Svoboda Ecological Services (SES) found some areas to be outside the wetland boundary based on vegetation and a lack of hydrology. The TEP was asked by the City of Orono to confirm those areas. It was reported by SES and the landowner that the site had been drained by ditches for many years. The exact date of ditch construction was not known but estimated to be over fifty years ago. After a field in'. estigation of the site the TEP requested that an aerial photo history be arranged to examine physical changes in the site firom ditching or other activities. Wayne Jacobson from SES acquired the necessary photos. Following review of the aerial photos, dating from 1937 to 1997, the TEP concluded this was an altered site. Photos did not show standing water when adjacent wetlands did with some adjacent wetlands getting progressively wetter in time. This is an example of effective draining due to ditching. Deep pits dug to inspect soils and test for hydrology did not have water seeping into them. Upland vegetation was observed to be moving into the reed canary grass. These factors all suggest the removal of hydrology and were a basis for the TEP decision. Based on this decision, the TEP generally agreed to the delineation line. One exception was an area behind the existing house where a small isolated wetland had been delineated separately from the main wetland. The TEP felt the wetland line could have been extended to the 938 contour line which is the general elevation of the larger wetland basin that has been delineated as wetland and takes in the small basin that does show hydrology in the part of the property east and south of the existing house. The LGU, Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), will require wetland buffers that would extend out A i to contoiv as part of the MCWD pennittiiig process for the proposed development of this site. These buffers wiU also be recorded on the property deed, another MCWD requirement. Therefore, with these requirements, the TEP was comfortable with the delineation line as presented by SES. trfj.. awvkrt ,ir.'4i.*r jm r “li 1! -r 1 .:1 1^:' N* ■•1 V ,-M,^IiiiMmiii^>Tiiiiafliii WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT 1 •• t »■ • Date: October 24.2l County: Henneoin LGU: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District LGU Contact JimHafiier___________ Project Name/#: VanEeddiout Phone #: (952)471-0590 Location of Project: T117N R23W 03 NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 ___Orono Hennepin TownAip, Rmge; Sectno. Qtr. Section, Lot/BIock. City, Coun^ TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Cbcck if viewed project site) OC ) SWCD: David TbUl ______________(X ) BWSRj Doug Snvder _____________ (X ) LGU: Tun Hafiier_________________________________________________ Other Wetland Eiqierts present TEP requested bv: City of Orono 1.Type of TEP detenninadon requested (chtek ihoit that appt^'. X Delineation dieck ___Exemption Determination (WCA Exemption #__) ___No-Loss Determination Replacement Plan 2.Description of Wetland with proposed impact: & Wetland Type (Circular 39)___________(Cowardin) b.Size of Proposed Impact (tenths of acre). 3. 4. Have sequencing requirements been addressed?__yes Is the project consistent wnth the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surfece water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes( ) No( ) S.The project will afifect the following wetland functions: Functions Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shoreland Anchoring WUdlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Plant/Animal Habitat Commercial Uses Impact X No Impact Iroorove 6. 7. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? Ycs() No() Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.? Yes(X) No() If no, why?___________________________________________ 8.SIGNATURES OfTEPdedslonU not a consauus, note with an asterisk and etplainonllu back of this page) £L-m SWCDRepreoitttive (D«e) n/85000 BWSR Rgremlirive (Date) //y/? repiwnutive 0C>O (Dite) August 21, 2000 ' 6 F K' City of Orono City Planner Paul Weinberger 2750 Kelly Parkway Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, We are writing to express our opinion on the proposed Creeksida Forest development by Mr. Charles Van Eeckhout. We are against the use of Apple Glen Road, in the City of Long Lake, for access to the development for the following reasons: •In 1997 Apple Glen Road was reconstructed at a width of 28 ft. as opposed to the 32 ft. width that was originally proposed as part of Long Lake's plan to ‘ have all newly constructed streets be a uniform width. This was because the City of Long Lake determined that because there was a large mature tree £long the right of way end approximate' jnly 14 residences located on Apple Glen Road a riarrower street was acceptable. An addition of 7 lots/ residences would create a 50% increase in the amount of traffic on Apple Glen, which is clearly not what the road was designed for. •Construction traffic created by the 7 proposed residences would surely create excessive wear and tear on the newly constructed Apple Glen Road surface. •We have learned that Mr. Van Eeckhout offered an absurdly low amount of money to acquire a small amount of property from one of his neighbor to the north so that access to the development could be off of South Brown Road. It appears he may have offered such a low price because he didn't want the street to go by his front yard in the first place. He would rather have all of the traffic created by the new homeowners.drlvlng by the front yards of 14 or so other residences on someone else's street (i.e. Apple Glen). •Apple Glen Road Is having a sort of turnover of young families living on It These families have young children and any increase in the amount of vehicular traffic creates a safety concern for the children playing In the neighborhood. •It is our understanding that when Apple Glen Road was reconstructed in 1997 the City of Long Lake approached the City of Orono about acquiring a small amount of land on the Orono side of the border for the purpose of constructing a cul-de-sac for Apple Glen. City of Orono officials purportedly refused to cooperate with Long Lake's request. It is ironic that this roadway use proposal is now before the City of Orono after their lack of cooperation regarding the proposed cul-de-sac. Although we are not personally opposed to the proposed Long Lake/Orono merger, many of our neighbors are because of the aforementioned and other Issues Involving the City of Orono In which they feel Orono tries to dominate Long Lake. Allowing the use of Apple Glen for this development would greatly increase the antl-Orono sentiment. E ‘d 80/0’CN (over) n90 219 mu mu mu-i 0002 ■i2-8"v Page2 It la cl ar that the beat way to allow fo. the de!vetopment of the Creekslda Forest for all Involved I fo Mr. Van Eeckhout to p rsue acqu fng property from his neighbor tot e north o at aoceas to the proposed properties can be via South Brown Road. ··1t Is our understanding that the property owner s wll Ing· to entertain legltlmate offers from Mr. Van Eeckhout to obtain a pqrtlon of the property. This scenario affects by far· the least amo nt of property owners (2 versus 14). ·,·•� · • ·. Thank you for reading our concemsl lncerely • • Charle & Andrea Miner · 59 Apple Gian Road ong Lake (952 73-60 · · . . . ., . . .. • ♦ . . cc: Matt Gold eln, .Long Lake City · Iann r Fax: (852) 478-9 .22 .. I: l ,, . . . . ... . .. .. . .. . . • • • . . • I . . ·• • I . . . ... I • • ' .. . . . . . . . . ... .. • . t .. . • • • . . . .. .. J . . . ·" • t •• • • I 2 ?.nnn Oiit Vr OriOi-^O c September 23,2000 Orono City Council 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 To: Members of the Orono City Council Ladies and Gentlemen: In light of the article which appeared in the September 20,2000, edition of the Sun- Sailor Newspaper, we feel compelled to clarify the record with regard to the issue of access to the proposed VanEeckout development. Following several preliminary conversations, we asked Mr. VanEeckout to draw up a proposal and make us an offer for the easement he sought. We suggested that said proposal clearly specify the scope of the easement he was seeking and that it be in legally recordable form. Eventually, Mr. VanEeckout submitted a proposal to us. However, the amount of compensation offered, the vague description of the proposed easement, and the inclusion of other unrelated issues in the proposal indicated to us that we were nowhere near to reaching an agreement We informed Mr. VanEeckout of this fact in a letter which clearly specified the criteria to be met in any future proposal. (Copies of Mr. VanEeckout’s proposal and our responsive letter are available upon request.) However, rather than making a realistic offer to obtain an easement through our property, Mr. Van Eeckout chose to switch course and pursue an access through Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. In fact, following receipt of our letter, Mr. VanEeckout has initiated no further discussions with us regarding an easement to his proposed development off of Brown Road. Mr. VanEeckout’s characterization of us as “uncooperative” is disingenuous and just plain false. As we indicated in our responsive letter, we are more than willing to consider a reasonable proposal for an easement to his proposed development. In fact, we openly acknowledge that we are willing to grant S!«^h an easement for reasonable compensation in light of the value of Mr. VanEeckout’s proposed development. However, thus far, Mr. VanEeckout has demonstrated a willingness to proceed only on his terms, at his price, and his schedule. Now that you have a slightly more balanced picture of the situation regarding the issue of access to Mr. VanEeckout’s proposed development, I think you are in a position to conclude for yourselves who is being “uncooperative”. Should you have further questions or desire a copy of the documents exchanged please feel free to contact us at 473-8396. I) 4) I �'3..----:::CD .... � c o > .( 5) r\ L ( 74) ; ,a I I I 110. ····•· .. .. .... --··--· ... _.,. __ _ ---•• I ..... .. . . . . .. . ... 69) ( ) 10 (63) y-----• C TY ·: (70) ... ��l��L��;:��-�-:;,�C ( y ·OF ORO: k 5) I I � .,,,,,,,/ �--:;;.­� /. .. I.J•. � I; /� I NORTH -uoo IN n:ET ...... I I / I // ,· '\' ,, ' - , ' I ,--• • • • • • I , , / I / I I I ,/ I - � \ \' ,, '-'' - � / ; '.o/ I I I \ ,� ✓ / I / //// .-✓/I -:-'.'('-.. ��= --""?"'r T -f_J . ,,,,, ,,,, --.,,,, /// 1 j / 111 ---+ �1 �' ,,......_ ,�--=="-��-=-// n, \--"T -,-. 7 2&/ -�--- -- ---:.,,,,.. Ir/"' 1 1 35 I ,, '��----==---="'E.··.., :--;;;;-=--=--✓-✓ l \ \ \ �· I-- / ( I ' �-_..{JVT""G ...._--'-_, � - ..._--. .-a - - -/ r __ _., .,,,, 111 1 1.,,, @--...::::------\\ 'T> \ I I ,,- - - -,,,,.. -/ / _,,.. ..... -- - - -..._, L I I - - --:----,,,,,,. � ,......._,,,,,, ' � -�..r, -- ' �� r \ . I \ p ,,,,--,,,,✓,,,,,::✓/----t:", '·, '�-� ,\ ' ,- 1-\126l,1 / / /I I / / ,,,----,-;-....___J.,'-./ '1t ' ---' ,,• J \ \ --. -r r ...J. \ .( I / I / I I // 1/ / / 7 \r:=::::�'.' � \ -, , � - -,-\ -o �i o j,, I I I ( I / I / / � '\.-.- - -'-7" --->----r\ - - . 2s §f/ 1Exi51{�ff� v ///�w�. ,,..-�\ r�--_:�,/-Vl:I I / · I / ��°" / './ �,..,....,_ '- � -J I 1 . _::--.::1 / I I/ , I \ --=�-�-;,r-� '-15i·i '\ I ( I I I I -....,::.-----....... ... ,--l I ,,I I ' I l ' ' \ I / _, I // (, \' g-•' I I ,,,,,, I """-�rv"\..!. ( I / �.d,<JJ: : I 1t1 [1 1 /I 1 1---1 // �---.....' --___ y_ 1I I _, I I ../t "'\ -·. - - � k . / / -'---V. ' ,, -, \ / Ir I/ / I I ��-.r-".. EXISTING TREE$_/ --...._____.1 f / / --- ( )TES: \ PER LOT I '- - "'"" _./ I / / ----Y-�'VV"lw<�:;.��� '--•. -•• - . . '-.,,, / C. ::. = < -•----..L r---;:::...'\ � \ �,,...,.._ ........... c,..,...s.✓.,,..., _,.,.._ yf4.��� " APPROXIMATE EDGE OF 3 f \ <c.�u...v j \ I ) -I \ � ���:::;� ,, / )t A?PROXlMA TE 100 YEAR Fl.000 • 938 "lj// I I �· .. \ \ -y --r--•,. ___, ,/'-.....,\ , DELINEATED WETLAND ) II \ �-� -.,·=n ) // i j \ I \ � '_>...;>,,,.--·.', " PPRTUATE__N -!!:.W.:....•�36.5,-)_�-��6 • / ITTI ///1 I f }I ✓-�-�)�� � \.! '·. 't' . I . --,\� ·I ....._ I - -I JO I / / A' ' ' � ""� � t ' >-I 0 II / / / • I / / // "��� �� ('" ·.� f li i I / I I I I I / / / // / '-1.. �-..... � § S !' I ,r I I ,. I / / / ; / '; /\ , , "'� t . �1 1 , ,, { r 1 1 , , , , 1, 1 1 � \\ 4 , 1 __ ==.J I I / \ . \ I / ! / JI , I/ 1//1 �·: I I I i l I / I l f \ • I JO , ; lJ· 0 i r-= I � -\ I -OPEN SPACE.EASEMENT TO DNR ' I jl I ,.,___.. I I\ \ ! I I I i; I \ k I .,,... r t-/1 /1 : ��I I : 1 � \ -....... \ ' \ \ I I I ' / rt- � I ID / I , � .APPROm.tATE IOO YEAR 1 i · \ !\ \ �....... _,____, . / ...._ ,Fl.000 EU'.V•ila � .-........ 20.17 ACRES 2.88 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES f \ I "' \ \ \ I I \ \ \ , , � IL_ --J"1 j ./ < � EXISTING TREES l 1 \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ .\-\-;.. .U _; � � I i I \ \\ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I � JO \ \ I I J t-l.,.t -. I ; 1 \ • I \ \ \ \ \ \ \, \ I" .. �-/.I ? �· 1 7 1----1.. ,------ J I , \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \\� l/1?1/ / 1 I/ / . r-1_ - \ . APPROXIMATE --• J J , ' - ' 'I \ \ '\ f/q I/ �'>--! , -..::--, ' \ I \ \ \l � �p I / .I f \ / I °" ' \\ I \ \ \ \ \ � Ii /tZ I /, , EDGE OF WETLAND ' - \ \\ \ �'-\ \\ \ / /V / /. \ , . \ '\ \ \ \ \ I ''('-�,\ \ \ '" �. '/; / / 11., .. � .-:-� I \ \ \ I 11 II\'.\� \ 1, 'l/ / I 1 . ) .. '/J . rt\ \\ \ /t?11 '-"��� . #��¼/ /;_.f' t ( / )/ ,1 • .. ·•rv-rY'r�� \'. \ � --.::=-t:: =;r=��LJU Gt\ I . / .· ,, . / / --.. =---:-.-::::::--;-�\ \ I �-=- --4'... ✓,,, ,,,,,, I \ / /. / .,,,, . . , I ,x· . ...J. ./ // . / __ ,,,. . v·· r- . V •,.;;�-r-· \ / -----,, -/. �Y· f.Jlr, . -/ . / . ..-.-: � - -. 1.-/'l�[t;'I /.,,..--\. �-1 q.,,......_ -1,/ : /,-. . ./. EXIS lN-8 1°FtEES \ 7 I, 11/'I _) ;_:::��� ?' . .,.,.,,-./ . . / I / \ I I I} / •. ,A. • ......../ I / I I • ,,-'y -�:::,_ .._••___✓.-I..,,,,,,,.--�� I ·,--- LOCATIONS AND lYPES TO 1 11 l '/.� = � � ..,,fb� ----. . J· cR€.t." � ·.,,., ..,,.,.-: · 1 ' ____ , ,, 7 � - -::__ - � � . . ,,...,.,,..___,. . . / ./��:;���-�-G---/ ..;,:: - - � ,, . -. . • :,_..,.,,r ( / • � -.a.r.•-"w":��;_;· � � � -c:;;t'.:::.--� -- - :o ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS :>QN FUTURE OWNERS. '' I ���: · � ·. · -· • � I � __ --).,,_ �� --:::: -'\. \ ' -...:.. - ' \ ')..---�-= -� ---� '"" I --. . -. 1-..A.!!Y' -�-· . CAtJnON 10 /#/ ,if�f-1F-- '\ \ \\ \',, , ', L-oPEN sPA�EASEM · · __ _:--���:-::::-: _._-:...� r. -/£�7/ t1 fl// - - "- \ \\\ '-'JO-aN�......, �-,.,., _ _ _ �- '/i,'lt I I i I I \ I ) .i • - - -7 --F=-�,, .... ltED FOB Afili BT TD ctmff. �IY AGENC:US. Te D� lllOULD, co?GffUC'n..Off oa rm TD PDPABATION�WJNC IS SUBJECT to tURiWWW 1EY1S10NS £:ff OR viHD MVEIING AG1NC111. 1rtl1 I''(: t ,/ ,....... ' \ \ ' '' -.:_ -. --�;:e���::�-:-;' �' � vi/; I I II l \ s -_J ,r-,Jc��� ..a-ofrlr. a --- -. - - - \..� ... ' . �l Lk'.A-:Mr� -""' �---�-...._ · � \ -� - --. �!!:j::,;� .. ,.-1-11' oz O o a/-.,; � ( -- - - -:. / _,'- - - � ---� --•-•_.r.-(i1il:---_,,, -- -__ .,..,....._ _, --......._ - ... -.1. • � - - -:::::::::----_;J _,.,_------=--< --�--'\... -� ' .... ___ ;::::--{=--__, r:(�--�====-=::=-i;::: \ �-•. � ' ----� --V '"7 ------.,Jq""'f"'V'�t"f:,,f' ,..,.._h-�r...-1...._, --� ' -..,; -. -r-=-, ___,_--�,,. • L ) \/ --, � -;_J. ·q.",06 -� .. ^ '-t. W’ m Deadline Extended to:10/31/00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 7,2000 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator/Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Subdivision - Planned Residential Development List of Exhibits: A B C D Wetland Map Site Plan Planning Commission Minutes (August 21,2000) Planning Report Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed the revised application at their August 21, 2000 meeting and recommended 6 to 0 to deny the subdivision request based on the following concerns not being addressed by the applicant: 1.The four lots located on the north end of the proposed development (proposed Lots 1,2, 3 and 7) should be reduced in number. The lots average about one acre in size in a two acre zoning district. By reducing the number of lots the average lot size would increase. 2.The Planning Commission requested additional information regarding certain wetland determinations and regrading that may have occurred within a protected wetland. (Please refer to item No. 1 in the Application Summary below.) The applicant’s representative requested the Planning Commission vote on the proposal to allow the item to be discussed with the City Council. Application Summary: The City Council tabled this item on February 14,2000 to permit the applicant to review uvo primary issues. L To complete additional soil borings to determine total drv buildable area of the property. The wetland delineation report indicated only 13.7 acres of drv buildable area which would allow only 6 lots based on the two acre per dwelling unit permitted density' in the RR-1B district. Wetlands have been reevaluated by Svoboda Ecological Resources. Svoboda has determined two wetland areas originally identified as wetland should not have been. The total land designated as wetland on the property is 6.05 acres. The total area is 20.17 acres resulting in an upland area of 14.1 acres. The nvo acre zoning of the property would allow a maximum of 7 lots based on one residential unit per two acres should the PRD be approved. F I 1 Request for Council Action continued Page 2 September 7,2000 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout The City of Orono and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are reviewing the wetland delineation for those areas that were deleted as a result of the re-evaluation. Those areas in question were identified on the City’s 1974 Wetland Inventory and are protected. The MCWD is the LGU and is the organization that has the authority to approve wetland delineations, they will be reviewing the site on September 7,2000. Orono has not received confirmation of the wetland determination by the MCWD as of the date of this memo. 2i To secure legal access to the property. Access to the properties would require the applicant to obtain an easement or additional land from an adjacent property owner since this property does not have immediate access to a public or private road. The only access to the parcel is via a “driveway easement” across an adjacent property. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he has been unable to obtain a “roadway easement” to access Brown Road. A new plan has been proposed that would request access to the lots from Apple Glen Road. Apple Glen Road is a public road owned and controlled by the City of Long Lake. Mr. V'an Eeckhout has made a request to Long Lake for road access from Apple Glen as well as connection to sewer. Long Lake has directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek plan approval from the City of Orono before they will review the request for road access and sewer connection. Shannon Sweeney, City Administrator for Long Lake, has submitted a letter regarding this issue attached as Exhibit J. Revised Plan: This is the first proposal that would request access from Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. Apple Glen Road serves about 14 residences. The added length of the street would add as many as 7 additional lets to Apple Glen. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1,600 feet where Orono C ity code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. The RR-1 B zoning district allows a property to develop as a PRD as a conditional use. Under the PRD the Citycan establish setbacks for each of the lots. The dry buildable areas of lots 1,2,3 and 7 are limited and are between 1/2 acre to 1 acre dr>' buildable. These 4 lots also are similar to the lots located north of the development in the City of Long Lake. The proposed setbacks shown on the site plan indicate a 35' front yard setback, 10* side yard setback and a 30’ rear setback. The established setbacks are similar to other lots in Orono that are zoned 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. The subdivision request would require the following approvals: 1. 2. A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development -- This would allow the property- to develop at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. The Subdivision Code requires a minimum paved width for property serving 7 or more sites to develop the road at a 28' width. Ir- ■ ' -r I- Request for Council Action continued Page 3 September 7,2000 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout _______ 3.The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). A MUSA will have to be approved by the City Council and the Met Council to provide sewer to the site. 4.Public vs. Private Road: Apple Glen Road is a public road. The Comprehensive Plan suggests roads in the rural portion of Orono be developed as private roads. However, the road would be an extension of a public road, for maintenance purposes it may be appropriate to continue the entire road as public. The primary difference is the way the road has been proposed to be constructed. Apple Glen Road is a City Street with urban sections (curbing). The proposed road would be developed with rural sections. A private road would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends tabling the application to allow additional wetland review by the MCWD. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To provide direction to the applicant regarding the following issues: 1. 2. 3. Access via Apple Glen Road vs. Brown Road South. If the road access is approved by the City of Long Lake, would the new road be private or public. (The Comprehensive Plan has stated rural developments to be platted with private roads owned and maintained by a Homeowner’s Association. Apple Glen Road is a public road.) Should the four lots locaied on the north end of the proposed development (proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 and 7) be reduced in number, per the Planning Commission recommendation. The lots average about one acre in size in a two acre zoning district. By reducing the number of lots the average lot size would increase. i I ✓//'/ f ^ -----------■ ' I rT /“^r-"r -*nWs\ v -xV -A-rcc^--'lj_ _ 1 J1V .2'IF: » I I nn /' — — A’”’/-X' ^ f\ / ' // ' /^ ' / -» ;"'J/7/'/7)\\y/////r////^/ '<: |A<^: 'J$T-r.:::i' \*!> '/-'i/i h X' '"/ 'yf' a^T 1^ 1*^ rJln-i-rl^ i— /s. 'V f existing trees,/’ 3 1 I I i> //^ 111 " I ; li I ' \ v'- ’- \ \ .\\V. \ ,\' ''' 'n!^'' iK.iy, _ _, !/§/ APPROXIMATE EOCe or OEUNEATEO ZETLAND J (a^^cmatc 900 VCAH fXOOO • fii r.\y< ^ V .iJ!' ■fev^V I il! \^\ /! -OPEN SPACE casement TO ONR A^MOrMATC OO rUMnooD ojy»%i% % i'l 0 >r- / existing trees ■/ :2c I APPRO XiMXTE EOCE 0- wetland y' / »i nAKH: •-------------SsCsCt'^^ ‘ ''^ t V, A >— -OPEN SPA^“ EASEMEN^ J^O;^ \ \ :men\ ?sr':' CREEKSIOE FOREST c 11 f Of ORONO MINNESOTA Mr. C. VonC«ckhouf r rrr-* irrtr = ki—w - icS£«5Ssj?=- mmmm *^mSm •«»«•mm M w • mm «■ M •»» •• «** <;.%r4Mer.TJ ^f?out^ r«CJ)Bli«IIT sm fu» C21 r iT r I m'lT*^1^7111 ■"[! « Mir ■! ■iiKimiiMiaii rivo^^jrar ■'wnr:*. ysc UMTS M RP, IM I iffti* I'l rut \ r-V^\' V,N^.»'< J \ U'X I ---------\ ll i ,\ 1 / t I i I ' \ ''»‘A\'N 4-f\-' V /V/1 v.-n I *!u. \ \ •«a:-> »l« 2 '\V _ \ \ •*p". — r>ri y' ' ^ 1 >Ti 1 ,1JSr~'\l'i • WTtOT-AT— " - — I ^ «» ---------- 'y% id '^r-■\D I "t' "I •* •'* •II I CCN£WAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA CROSS AREA PER LOT UPLAND WETLAND 20.17 ACRES 2.86 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES FInIl house LOCATIONS AND TYPES TO BE OETERMINCO ON A SITE BY STE BASIS OEPENOINC UPON FUTURE OWNERS. Ml/ ' ;t 15 's rSTirjj APPP0XIM4TC tQC£ OP OeunEATtO W£TLA?«) ( 1 ' ' / / •/// 4 ' ! ' I I ! 1' *V I I ' \ \ 'V> * \ M 1 •. •- hK I \ \ • V I \ • ■. \'\i'i^- 1 \\\''0 'V N \ (A»pfio«iMAt( «oo rLOOO - tJi “f'h I I A ic_*« i»,< / AAMOMAATf OO VU* n.ooo ucv*tjt » l>i-;iHir. ii'iT'.. II../ ■.SMHi CAVnOH MV m m ~m SB SvvSfUSMtSSv SS5E*ti? ^ EolSIiYO “rPil /' .'\ llKi. O* ArriArj;) --------- “L >V \ \ ^. t........N0*>EM S»At-- tiScWC'* ' \!,p4'!iff \'V-'V'''• EMfSSST"‘ —~ »•-*- -*--------A--------^ •s-»» CREEKSIDE FOREST c 11 f or ORONO MINNESOTA Mf. C. VonCfckhout ^f7ciu^ f«(t:n«fiAtv in fuii C2-1 , V [ZZ2 vmAMor<9 BF DFre^M ia/5=5 WA n 1- An ... ., //o (^\A€^lot^^ O^^O f<^yH lA^eri^t^ ;AJi/e^viTr>ey >.®i M A'*' O*^ 1 il ::^W,W 1 ^ IV y»i i-^ mmmm V./, »5 v> * .jf. 'if-.^ >• ■^ORONO :i. ;‘^r ?:l( ys>s ? f..“ V =. • r:>’:?. Ot I-r- Ifl •/.:• f^*v:. • h',97 A >u...'.‘ •ei‘ ^£SUTi -----r—r S^.en^< •pr J'XV ^ :>? ': ' •. al <!i PV li&fv; \U . j» • •r%| i* .i ra % % m \ :V M -•<'-•••; -/.. .!> <?r "'.• .s *. •*«.••*» A-I iS •1 1 'KlS ■:> A*' vi--fr:^ y.•* • I, v\ V ft*-'vC^A ^ Ma l V/iV'Mj ’'>T<^ r • V *l ' V <• ♦ ' %. •m • .^ -^ • vl^ » S3 -:v vUV iliie7?^ Sirf- XS;.T^ S .V *y:> !.z^ 'tT:/T -*.<r V. 5*:- >rr j». ■»**.>. ’.* i' r \ ■I' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21,2000 c ^dard moved, Kiuth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2593, Ace ProperOH^349 Crystal Bay Road, granting of the variances outlined in the August 16, 2000 Planner’slH^rt, with the condition that the pitch of the roof will be reduced to 10/12 prior to City Council re^i^. Gaffiron noted no variance is necobiTor lot coverage if the stracture is to consist of 1,082 square feet, but recommended the Planning Comnhas^ion make a finding that that variance is not needcdAw'il "Vo I S'GO s£.^ Hawn noted no variance is needed if the structure]; whichever is greater. ider 1,500 square feeTor 43 .p^feepntt ); Stoddard moved, Kiuth seconded, to amend his motion to incluo^the finding that no variance is needed for lot coverage since the proposed structure is underSve 1,500 square feet allowed by ordinance. VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION: Ayes 6, Nays 0. I SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, PROPOSED SEVEN LOT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:15 p.m. - 7:46 p.m. A John Bergh, Louck’s & Associates, appeared on behalf of the Applicant. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated this application was tabled by the City Council at its February 14,2000 meeting to allow the Applicant time to review two primary issues that were being discussed in relation to I this development. i Weinberger stated this development is located on South Brown Road and consists of approximately 20 acres, 14.1 acres of which are dry buildable. Weinberger stated the last plan by ! the Applicant was proposing to gain access to this development through a tract of land owned by PAGE? ......... MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21,2000 John Dunn. The Applicant has indicated he is unable at this time to obtain a roadway easement to access Brown Road and has submitted a new plan that requests access to the lots from Apple Glen Road, which is a public road owned and controlled by the City of Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has requested Long Lake grant road access from Apple Glen as well as connection to sewer. The City of Long Lake is requesting the City of Orono review this plan prior to their review. Weinberger stated the revised plan shows Apple Glen Road being e.xtended, with another road with two cul-de-sacs on the north side to serve those four lots. Weinberger indicated die Applicant has completed the additional soil borings nccessarj- to determine the total dry buildable area of the property. The wetlands in this area have been re-evaluated and it has been determined that two wetland areas originally identified as wetland should not have been, with the total land designated as wetland on this property consisting of 6.05 acres. This results in a total dry buildable area of 14.1 acres. Weinberger noted the wvo acre zoning of the propertj ’ would allow a ma.\imum of seven lots based on one residential unit per two acres should the PRD be approved. Weinberger stated the second issue was to secure access to this property, which is not currently resolved. Weinberger stated in order for this subdivision to be approved, a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development needs to be approved, which would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. Weinberger noted a road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements is requested, with the Applicant requesting to construct a 24 foot roadway. Weinberger noted Chy Code requires a minimum paved w idth for roadw ays serving seven or more sites to be constructed at 28 feet, with Apple Glen Road being 26 feet wide, PAGES La --------------------------II J -ri-limaM—III -^-Lk. tjo™[tiiiMrt MiirtBM ■ t]MtMue.rtmvrti iiotftviciaf WflM rtl#cllif:W.«t •I4fU« itlCt]*[tllHiV*! riKvXllhl MiirtBii •• c«] 1 •]•!•rnciMi* •]9l(tVilll!i _ tMKfl rtTsTtB* [•imwM 9i4 Miira.i M ■ ctTWf 1 III C9 ir II I rtKtrt] Wir «U« ■ a ftRvT%[f 111 ■ •r«rii« mT«4 r«i#sK^t WtKlMWltnVi^lMCWN Mil •rortitirf^i 1 ra '>• I. ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21,2000 ’. 1 6.Drainage casements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas. 7.Utility and Roadway casements shall be granted over Outlet A. 8.Subdivider shall satisfy all concerns and requirements noted in the letter dated August 14,2000, by the City Engineer. Bergh commented the first concern expressed by the Planning Commission at the last meeting was the small lot size on the north, noting the consensus was to either eliminate a lot or to achieve bigger lot spacing. Bergh stated by having the roadway as proposed, it wilt create a better roadway sy'stem and affords the developer the ability to spread the lots out more. Hawn inquired what the size of the lots on the north side is. Lindquist stated he would like to know the dry buildable area on each lot. Bergh indicated he does not have the numbers with him tonight, but to his recollection Lot 1 is just over three-quarters of an acre, all dry buildable; Lot 2 is approximately eight-tenths of an acre, with appro.ximately 80 to 90 percent dry buildable; Lot 7 is all dry buildable, and Lot 3 is approximately 30 percent dry buildable but still contains a large dry buildable area consisting of appro.ximately three-quarters to one acre. Hawn noted the City of Orono has received Uvo letters from residents of Long Lake opposing the e.xtension of Apple Glen Road. Hawn noted when the wetlands were remeasured, there was mention made to a ditch that apparently was not there in ! 996 and also to some fill that hadn’t been there in 1996. Hav\n inquired where the ditch and fill came from. Bergh stated he is uncertain of the exact history of the ditch and fill, but a wooden ditch exists in the area, with the creekway having been re-dug, which reduced the water level in this area, and resulted in the area becoming dry buildable. Bergh stated the only fill he is aware of is in the area of Lot 7. PAGE 10 r' 3- m NnNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21,2000 Tom Woolin, 20 Apple Glen Road, stated Apple Glen Road currently has a cul*de-sac, which he would like to see remain. Woolin stated he is opposed to the extension of the road due to the extra traffic that it would bring and the additional safety concerns for the young children in the area that would result from the added traffic. Melanie Wollin stated she is in agreement with her husband. April Bresner, 50 Apple Glen Road, expressed concerns with e.xtension of the street since Apple Glen Road is a narrower road and the added traffic. Mary Arm Hansen, 64 Creekside Drive, Long Lake, stated it was her understanding this area ^vas part of a state refuge when she purchased her property three years ago. Hansen stated there cuiicntly are signs denoting the area as a state refuge, with a large number of wildlife living in the area. Ken and Judy Bigelow, 32 Apple Glen Road, stated they were opposed to the e.xtension of the road. John Durm, 20 South Brown Road, stated he owns the adjoining property to this development. and it is his impression the Applicant has done quite a bit of ditching on the property. Dunn also expressed concern regarding the small size of the lots. April Bresner questioned whether once an area is designated as a wetland, regardless if a ditch is constructed and the area is now deemed dty buildable, if that area is still considered to be a wetland. Stoddard stated there are many standards that go into designating an area as wetland, with the presence of water and flora being the two primaiy criteria used in determining whether the area should be considered a wetland. Stoddard stated the characteristics of the land can change. Stoddard stated the DNR can designate certain areas as wetlands, with the City of Orono protecting additional wetland area beyond the DNR designations. PAGE 11 i \ I 4 I ■ rs*.;*, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21,2000 Bergh noted this area has never been delineated as a wetland. Weinberger stated the original delineation for this area was revised, with the area in question not being designated as a wetland. Hawn commented she has some concerns regarding the sand and fill having been found. Hawn inquired if City Staff has any information concerning where that fill may have come from. Weinberger stated the only information the City has is that it may have come from the e.Kcavation of the creekbed area. Weinberger stated he is not aware of when the area may have been filled or where the area was filled. Hawn commented it is her understanding this area was wetland in 1998. Duim stated he has seen backhoes and tractors at various limes in that area, which in his opinion was done in an attempt to lower the water table in that area and to create a buildable area. Hawn stated she does not know whether that is in fact the case. Dunn stated from a lay person’s perspective, something has occurred in the area to have lowered the water table firom what it was in 1998. Bergh stated if this area was truly a wxtland area, excavation of the creek area would not result in a lower water table. Bergh stated it is his understanding from Mr. Sobotta and Mr. Van Eeckhout is that the watershed going away from this property was lowered at some time and low’cred the water table in this whole area. Bergh stated by digging the creekbed out would result in the creek being filled with water if this was a true wetland, which has not occurred. Bergh stated the outlet was changed to the east of this property somewhere, which resulted in the lower water table, and he is not aware of where that change occurred. Hawn commented the Planning Commission will probably not be able to gain a clear understanding of the ditch and fill at tonight’s meeting. Hawn expressed a concern regarding the small lot size. PAGE J2 i r L»... t MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21,2000 Lindquist commented the Planning Commission is looking at some ver>* small lot sizes, noting he cannot support a project with those lot sizes. Lindquist noted there is a i^ir amount of opposition from the residents of Long Lake to the extension of Apple Glen Road. Hawn concurred that there is not a lot of support for the extension of Apple Glen Road among the residents of Long Lake. Kluth commented the minutes reflect that the Planning Commission has e.xpressed concerns on a number of occasions regarding the small lot size, with a recommendation being given to lower the number of lots in this development. Hawn commented the amount of dry buildable was mcreased slightly. Lindquist indicated the size of the lots still remain relatively small, and reiterated he would not be in support of the development as proposed. Stoddard noted he was in agreement with Lindquist. Kluth noted the City Council minutes reflect that hookup to sewer would not be allowed if it increased lot density, noting the City Council would prefer to see a uvo acre minimum. Kluth pointed out the Applicant was requested to address the issues relating to dry buildable and access. Bergh stated the overall average for the lots in this development are a little over two acres with respect to the PRD. Hawn commented that there are some minimum sizes that people tend to be interested in regardless if the overall lot size is above the two acre minimum. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission can either act on this application tonight, which in his view it will be denied, or the Applicant can request the matter be tabled. Bergh requested the Planning Commission act on the revised plan Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend denial of Application U2S50, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 South Brown Road, due to the concerns expressed regarding access and PAGE 13 i 1 t 4 NUNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21,2000 small lot size. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Hasvn stated the Applicant should obtain additional information regarding the ditch and fill in this area prior to appearing before the City Council. Bergh indicated tonight \\zs the first time he became aware of it. Weinberger noted the City has requested an updated wetland delineation report and e.xplanation regarding the fill. Hawn pointed out a hearing will also be held before the Long Lake Planning Commission and City Council regarding extension of Apple Glen Road. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#5) #2603 JAMES RENCKENS, 3020 WATERTOWN ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 7:47 p.m. - 7:52 p.m. Todd Irvine appeared ori behalf of the Applicant. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a variance and conditional use permit to permit the removal of approximately 1,600 yards of fill out of a City of Orono protected wetland. The pond would consist of appro.ximately 16,000 square feet of surface area, with the ma.\imum depth being proposed at five feet. The proposed slope would be a 10; 1 ratio. The wetland would become a w ildlife habitat pond w ith water and a nesting island in the middle. The fill w ill be used to form berms on the left and right sides of the driveway along Watertown Road and a berm south of the pond. City Staff feels the excavation of the wetland %vill make it a T>pe 4 wetland, w ith the proposed land alterations resulting in a positive improvement and provide a higher quality wetland for PAGE 14 M ....... ri 3 0 To:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner Date: Re: August 14,2000 rfr2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Zoning District:RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size Comprehensive Plan:Rural Service/Rural Residential (2 acre) Site Area:20 acres (14.1 acres dry buildable)4 Proposal:Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Plaimed Residential Development. List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Site Plan Grading Plan Sew'er Plan Site Survey Planning Commission Minutes (11/15/99) Planning Commission Minutes (1/19/00) City Council Minutes (2/14/00) Engineer Comments (8/14/00) Wetland Determination Comments From City of Long Lake (8/9/00) DNR Comments (11/10/99) DNR Comments (12/6/99) Photo of Apple Glen Road Property Owners Notification List *2550 Cherlts tan Etckhoul 120 Brown Road South Subdivision S/21/00 pagt-l Application Background: The City Council tabled this item on February 14, 2000 to permit the applicant to review uvo primar}' issues. To complete additional soil borings to determine total dr\‘ buildable area of the property. The wetland delineation report indicated onlv 13.7 acres ofdrv buildable area which would allow only 6 lots based on the two acre per dwelling unit permitted density in the RR-IB district. Wetlands have been reevaluated by Svoboda Ecological Resources. It has been determined two wetland areas originally identified as wetland should not have been. The total land designated as wetland on the property is 6.05 acres. The total area is 20.17 acres resulting in an upland area of 14.1 acres. The two acre zoning of the property would allow a maximum of 7 lots based on one residential unit per two acres should the PRD be approved. 2.To secure legal access to the property. Access to the properties would require the applicant to obtain an easement or additional land from an adjacent property owner since this property does not have immediate access to a public or private road. The onlv access to the parcel is via a *'drivewav easemenf ’ across an adjacent propettv. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he has been unable to obtain a “roadway easement” to access Brown Road. A new plan has been proposed that would request access to the lots from Apple Glen Road. Apple Glen Road is a public road owned and controlled by the City of Long Lake. Mr. Van Eeckhout has made a request to Long Lake for road access from Apple Glen as well as connection to sewer. Long Lake has directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek plan approval from the City of Orono before they will review the request for road access and sewer connection. Shannon Sweeney, City Administrator for Long Lake, has submitted a letter regarding this issue attached as Exhibit J. Revised Plan: This is the first proposal that would request access from Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. Apple Glen Road serves about 14 residences. The added length of the street would add as many as 7 additional lots to Apple Glen. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1,600 feet where Orono City code allows a maximurti cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. Outlot A would provide driveway access to at least one property'. The RR-IB zoning district allows a property to develop as a PRD as a conditional use. Under the PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The diy buildable areas of lots 1,2,3 and 7 are limited and are between 1/2 acre to 1 acre dr>’ buildable. The lots also are similar to the lots located north of the development in the City of Long Lake. The proposed setbacks shown on the site 1^2550 Charlis Ian Etckhout !20 Bro\^ n Road South Subdivision S2/00 I ■» £H plan indicate a 35' front yard setback, 10’ side yard setback and a 30' rear setback. The established setbacks are similar to other lots in Orono that are zoned 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. The subdivision request would require the following approvals: 1.A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development -- This would allow the property to develop at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. 2.Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. The Subdivision Code requires a minimum paved width for propert> serving 7 or more sites to develop the road at a 28' width. 3.The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). A MUSA amendment shall be approved by the City Council and the Met Council to provide sewer to the site. 4.Public vs. Private Road: Apple Glen Road is a public road. The Comprehensive Plan suggests roads in the rural portion of Orono be developed as private roads. However, the road would be an extension of a public road, for maintenance purposes it may be appropriate to continue the entire road as public. The primary difference is the way the road has been proposed to be constructed. Apple Glen Road is a City Street with urban sections (curbing). The proposed road would be developed with rural sections. A private road would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Sketch Plan The City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed the proposal as part of the Sketch Plan review process. Please note the attached Minutes (Exhibits J and K). The City Council recommended to the property owner the City of Orono has no intent to rezone the property from the two acre standard. The Council has indicated they would consider developing the site as a PRD and make a provision for sewer. Planned Residential Development The RR-IB zoning district allows, by conditional use permit, the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The purpose of a Planned Residential Development is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preser\ ation of natural open spaces, to counteract the 1^2550 Charles yan Eeckhout 120 Bronn Road South Subdhtslon 8.21 00 pcg*-3 L... . _ effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of City residents. Section 10.32, Subdivision 1. Conserv'ation easements would protect all wetland areas, the Long Lake Creek and all the property south of the creek. Open space would be preserved south of the creek. The DNR had concerns with the development of the land south of the creek. A permanent crossing of the creek would have been required. The developer has agreed to place the conservation and open space easement to protect the creek and to maintain the natural buffer between the trail and developed land north of the creek. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City’s Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. The ponding location is shown on the preliminary survey. Final grading plans should include final pond grading including a 10:1 aquatic bench 10-^eet wide at the pond normal water level. The outlet structures shall be provided on the final plans indicating the location and actual size of the pond. The City Engineer will require Best Management Practices in all areas where stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. (City Engineer comments are attached as Exhibit H) Sanitary Sewer The City of Long Lake must approve sewer connection to the property. Due to the existing water table and the location of the DNR waterway, Long Lake Creek, this site is environmentally sensitive area. Without sewer it would be difficult to develop this site. Surrounding Properties The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s.f (approx 1/4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono zoned RR-IB. To the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, developed in the 1960's. Easements 1. 2. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. Subdivider shall grant Conservation and Flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development. Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75' of Long Lake Creek. t^2550 Charles Ian Eeckhouf no Brown Road South Subdivision SHOO page ••4 ^^4 r. 3.Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3,4, S and 6. 4. 5. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas. Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlot A, Park Dedication Fee 8% of the land value, to be determined by the City Assessor, will be required for Park Dedication Fee. The City of Orono has established a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. Shoreland Overlay 1.Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75* setback for hardcover and structure. 2.The portions of the lots within 300' of the high water mark of the Creek are subject to hardcover regulations as regulated by Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L). Staff Recommendation The proposed preliminary plat is in a format that could be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Such approval shall be subject to the following conditions; 1.Prior to City Council approving the Preliminary Plat the applicant shall secure access from the City of Long Lake to Apple Glen Road, be approved for sanitary sewer connection and the Met Council shall approve a MUSA expansion. 2.Road shall be constructed to a width consistent with road dimensions of Apple Glen Road. The City of Long Lake shall be requested for comments regarding construction and maintenance of the road. 3.Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. 4.Granting of Conservation and Flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development. Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75' of Long Lake Creek. 1^2550 Charles I'an Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8 21^00 page-S 4 Hk y 1^- X . .» 5.Conser\’ation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3,4, 5 and 6. 6. 7. 8. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas.= Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlot A. Subdivider shall satisfy all concerns and requirements noted in the letter dated August 14, 2000 by Tom Kellogg, City Engineer. The applicant shall be advised the following information is requested to complete the review prior to a final plat application. 1.Detailed Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2.Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3.A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards the ponds shown in the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 4.A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. 5.All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. 6.Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. 7.The applicant provides final lot area determinations for all proposed lots(dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage). t2JS0 CharUs I <w Etckhoui 170 Braw n Road South Suhdrvision B2VQ0 pagi-6 I MNItM .» •. ' f' ___^•* IM *O' t. ~ •UT f I /.■■/ I ^^;wrLOT-^-^ 2 5t \ . ----------------/*-_-- X- .—outlot \ M • K I ' I;' . ' \ 'rf / ' I '.'V/ I I I I /'/-• I ' ' ' ''.'//yf- I /■'' •I I ‘ l' Lit'I / I t \: I / I 1/ * I I M\ I I‘ • I I •I M \ \ ' VTk ^ \ M W \ • V ’''K I \ ^ * V • ' t i^'vi I \' . \ \ |V' I I I GOCRAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA CROSS AREA PER LOT UPLAND WETLAND 20.17 ACRES 2.88 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES NOTE: FINAL MOUSE LOCATIONS AND TYPES TO BE OETERNINEO ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENOtiC UPON FUTURE OWNERS. //. /; / / ///0 ~ .X- CAimON SSr wTJuwwiff "if ffWi 9um rm mSmi a tmVUMI m wf fm m rtFuui ti nignai I t’. '• .' ' l-» ——r-^ " *x ^ ap PPO»«MATC C3Ct (y OCLiNtATEO RET lan O •V (A*^0'»wArf lOO 'Ttip nooo - IM \ \y * I ^ -* -*5.^iJ __ __ I J;v \^L] .; ' M Tp4 I I.-,' \ \i, t, I !I j.-OPHl Si’ACr .EAStUriiT 10 DfH* I !a I *> I I /, APMiOBMAtf no ?uo fl.000 CUviM » I .1 7 ' V '' V. . >fd \■:>';. .V.,,.. ' ■■!■■'' y/ '■ 1 xi'm ^ic ipcr;. tnvc* APPPO^IMATE tOOE CT /icrtAfO i I ,./ •— i. / M '. c - A fX — / / .\'3.. ■----------------------------------/ -OPEN S»a V rASEME^r MflW Bu ' t • »-5r , —/T"*-' ~_r — *“. -■' i'?'";tir;-wccr-:r ro f -> • CREEKSIDE FOREST C I LT P f ORONO MINHKJ^OTA Ur. C. VanEickhouf 3 C ISm n m '•• ^ ^ ^ ^• « an «■■» • «n a» •« «• «• a an ^ «*a» anka^an» 7Zo7 ' i~ : 4^ ^Pou^ iS.'SZSCV^ rar.twniAjiv sm fuui •Mi i C2-1 i f»«» <> 1 >«C 4^w ^X .. •SK^X. f ' / Mma / / »• »t *ti«i /U» »t.iyl.;l> ‘5\\ -, \✓;y • N n u \ 1= -T- 7a c / / •«M jr4Wtrar»»- ——*• •YS^f«iM«nmunr va^cwf iki mm ofuk / ^v' /^^V^// IX - 'Y XS , y / t'f. 'r—(/: //✓r / /7 T "“I » \ i*l 2 \ < ^ 1 \\ "\1 l; t r ?» n.'Oz * / / / »• SH . A s: ! V / / ' e ■• / /; /v.;^^/rrv ' . ' 2> \\'■ • < X. "^■xl:..^exisTinc TRcrv'*^'- f .. I-z'o / •* / ^ z* /*.'I / / .*' ^ *A. "^ * '' V-v^; V-APPROxtMATC EOCf or OEL'NeATEO wetland '*:X vK 'V* .nS I • 'OS u--------------1 ^j 1-------------•— 1 ^ *M M> zw ri -> ----- 1 =®©^Sr 1 11 :‘r.‘ /n/11 )i'^r>L' ■;!;f I . M ' V .S\ \'.' 'V '>i-.\ . , v’.‘ u;« \ ' . •. \ I 7 ». • ' >ZV /^ ,m. \ ,i / Al»P«)Oriw^iC >00 »C*« *1000 • f Ml II /J- -OPEN SPACE .EASEMENT TO DNR J 9^ r I ii leici* TYPICAL 7 TON STREET SECTIDI^'V '' ‘\ »: ' \ \ vVH-j.'Ki ...\ ■. '/VV:V\ \''>\ 1,\ V' ' •|'>\X - .T-' iX. r>.-- ratftt^Agan-jrg «.« ••sjTJissrj’sxsBt —. -— K SSss**““~ •& ;|jSt^-S£«r?rrrr M n«« V M MW n N \Vo w.J I A^MoanAtf «0 fum n.000 cii»-«M » '“h-ray ^ .'. ' . F -X-A-' / ' V>i ' rc7II .• jv z b-1-" EnSTiNC trees I appro 'im^ ‘r EOCE CE •• ANO .ji;<6L0Cfc: I 1( , ^/ •. j \ ^ z zy ^ ;.v/ ,-:i..''•W ^ - # / CTCCA ioyt,lav-ino} z7cxi'i\il«C-WEES N ^ ' / / /\ •;7;\ - ------------------------— i-e* ^ •VV‘‘ \ ' r . \ • ^ ^ ^ ^ \^A \ Si^Ih EAS£UE^^\ TKl CUDfT. WIM MMOIA TMfUrAJUTMfl_.- nitma Mtwwm«smrs*c Aocfcin. CREEKSIDE FOREST c f r T Of ORONO MINNESOTA Mr. C. VanEtckhouf 2 d 4 r.:5JTn r*.'i:ur xc’.jrt xJ&.'JS.'SL,^ryr.s=:^3r/rs;-js “ E;^=-.--sr: a.*-rsu r=- • « «• « « •« Mm* • P* M* «• •» >wm *« «o • O M f7cucks ^•"mmS w4tmd tk -£S.*X£8rS3.- r*CL.HMAat chumm ; amo iMOHBMi ro»f^ njm -. ..... C3-IJ -----m.-m kM I 'Z r ^ki m t»^m l.i’^A 'i i.l^Z ’''’'I M *mi . V , •V ‘i5■-3.. ^ .t *0 / . #i*./*^* i**'V'"- f ^♦< muM » »ut / .M y \ \ -•*\\v*N “ I I ■" " iri‘'.'@.\ .2 V.il -'■ -'. i' ''i“ C ( ^»2.i__N\ ; I ■v T '~^_^^ii•-'-. ;sl|..'4_____-yj?.. ^EXISTING TRCrS^'^'^A "------------- .*1 '3 ) I \ h'. !;• 11 i:i 11 if' r II// /'/, // ;•/ Hill '^.4 I i ,' I M n \ '' ' \ I 'h 'y 'v , approximate edge or ^ OCUNEATEO V»ETLAfiO /* ^ >INH»0«I«ATC too tCAA flOOO • «i8 /V A TV ^ -^ / . I \ Sk s ■k \ I <01 r V-+ ’ 4' I \» .\'\A|'- I -OPEN SPACE EASEMEriT TO Or4R / OWOMMttf m ru» nooo liiviM « I ^ •* 1 . \ .'V i 1 M>*,\ \ M »>-K '>-‘'>-'1. i. J-.v :,/// owfr yj rc7 EXiSfiNC TREES APPRO.MUATE Eoa or ViETLAilO ’■' IL. /•V k**\ --^^•000 / ‘ MOC« — ^ »v ■c-y/, K'CMsXii«c T?as / / / aa> (Stlpa ’ y // C-• cvT /'i J ,—*V/ ' r ^ i ^Sf.-. • Yk r+ JRELKSiDE FOREST C I t f oi ORONO MINKK^OTA Mr. C. VonEfckhout «■* ^ j&sfe, -•ts.’asstwBrt.' MTUMiKUiAr or.imr rxjui ar tiM. •»« HOMH \ \ \ \. !^ il .A-'-'- 'X '4--/\ ™!lii I/: i\ ■-S \ ^ X' .. ________________ \.'-Etisnnc tffttV' ''^\ ';'.appro 'iwate : £oce or OCUNtAIEO wctlano i—'-V.',' ' rAppoonuATi too vr*tt n.000 - (*i»f*HOJuWATL M »« ». • ) *' /1 I I I ' ./, amemun mn»m fVOOD CUVtJt % CMSTiNC TPCCS ' n^v.V \ ''- -■>*:' '/'yy HOTE! V/ETLANDS DCLIMEATED BY svnnnDA amd Asr^nciAixs. APPROJ^IMATE ZZCL or WETLAflO CAUnOH V HT T«t CUBfT. TM Muvmc umxM m roA tw wyAAtw Miiiata. ..• .*1 iyiBii. CREEKSIDE FOREST Cl I f^Of ORONO MINNESOTA Mr. C. Van£«ckhout mmm mmm • mmmm « «w m ^ 5=T£r5*?.?5£S£r~l^ tr- ^ f?ou^ :£.*&» »S3»* Dormc copimM PUM J___ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 £ (#2545 Lou and Marilyn Fegers, Continued) Kluth inquired whether the shed still exists on the property. Fegers stated the wind has blown the shed down. Stoddard stated with the acquisition of the adjoining piece of land, he would lend to look favorably on this application. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2545, Lou and Marilyn Fegers, 3590 North Shore Drive, granting of a hardcover variance to permit construction of an attached 24' by 30' garage to the west side of their residence subject to the Applicants submitting a revised survey, and further subject to removal of the shed at the time of occupancy of the new structure. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - SUBDIVISION FOR^ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 9:35 p.m. -10:30 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has received a Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. The Applicant Is requesting a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development, which would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. The RR-1B zoning district allows a property to be developed as a PRD as a conditional use. Under a PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The Applicant is proposing four lots to be served on a private road, which would gain access from Tract G and ending in a cul-de-sac. The development would also include three larger lots. Lots 5, 6, and 7. This property is located Immediately north of the Luce Line Trail and south of the City of Long Lake. Weinberger stated the conditional use permit for the PRD would have the same consideration as the proposal by The Bancor Group regarding use of the land for higher density development with other land being dedicated for other purposes. This application would require a road width variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G Is platted 40 feet wide where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 24 foot road. The proposed road would serve as access for the property south of the road as well as potential access for the property to the north and the seven lots being proposed as part of this development, which requires a road width of 28 feel. The subdivision is located within an area containing a number of wetlands as well as lying within the 100 floodplain. This subdivision would require a road crossing of a City protected wetland and located a NURP pond within 26 feel of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD will need to approve any wetland alteration on site. Weinberger noted the property is located outside of the MUSA area, however, this area Is proposed to be serviced by City sewer In the future. It has been determined that this area would not be able to offer private septic due to the number of wetlands and high water table in the area. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with Page 18 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout. Continued) the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. City Staff will continue to work with the DNR on this issue. Weinberger noted that the DNR does have some concerns regarding the extension of sewer under the Luce Line Trail due to future maintenance issues and would prefer the sewer extension be run along Brown Road. It is City's Staff position that the sewer be installed as proposed. Weinberger stated the developer will also need to grant conservation and flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development, with restriction of land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75 feet of Long Lake Creek. The DNR is requesting the Applicant dedicate a 50 foot conservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 7. Weinberger stated access to the property is via Tract G. which is not currently owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending that the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant, with the corridor being replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet In width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Upon review of the sketch plan by the City Council and Planning Commission, it was determined that this development would be best served by access off of Brown Road and not through the urban area in Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding Tract G for review by the Planning Commission. Weinberger stated Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75 foot setback for hardcover and stmcture. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek, with a variance being required for the alteration. Park Dedication Fees would be calculated at the standard eight percent of the land value, with a minimum park dedication fee per lot of S2.900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. City Staff is recommending that the application be tabled to allow the Applicant additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the follows: A. The property owner of Tract G becomes a co-applicant and agrees to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval; B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a ten percent slope; C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka; D. City Staff, the applicant, and the DNR shall determine if a permit can be issued to cross the Luce Line Trail with sanitary sewer service to Fox Ridge. If it is determined the sewer service cannot be completed, the City shall review alternatives; E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional reviev/. Van Eeckhout stated he has attempted to meet with City Staff to resolve a number of these issues but was unable to due to their busy schedules. Van Eeckhout stated a 40 foot road access was approved previously by the City, with the City further approving installation of utilities to serve these lots based on the zoning in effect at the time. Van Eeckhout noted that these utilities are currently in place and it would be costly to relocate them and realign the right-of-ways. In addition. Van Eeckhout stated, based on legal advice, he has all the rights to build and maintain adequate roads to serve this property without the need to make Mr. Dunn a co-applicant. Van Eeckhout commented that it should not be a problem to construct a road over the wetland, and requested that a variance granted based on the following reasons: one, since the access Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 ' V f-' ^ h (/i^2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) corridor will not front any building sites, no parking is needed and a 24 foot lane is the same as a highway lane and should provide adequate driving space. The additional four feet adds little functionability to the roadway and would result in the loss of trees as well as add to the hardcover. Van Eeckhout commented the properties can be served by driveways with a grade of seven percent or less. Van Eeckhout stated the sewer should be extended across the Luce Line as this is the most economical approach. Van Eeckhout remarked that these planning issues can be dealt with after preliminary plat approval and prior to final plat. Van Eeckhout requested that the Planning Commission approve his application subject to the conditions outlined by the Zoning Administrator. There were no public comments. Chair Hawn stated she would be happy to comment on the plan in general, but with the location of the road being uncertain at this time, she would have a hard time approving the preliminary plat as proposed. Hawn commented she would also like to see the DNR issues resolved as well prior To approval being given. Stoddard commented the Planning Commission can provide some direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Stoddard stated In his view this land does not have the same uniqueness and capability to be developed as the proposal by The Bancor Group. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed density for this development is too high and needs to be reduced somewhat, with the other issues needing to be addressed further with City Staff. Nygard stated he Is in agreement with Stoddard and has some concerns regarding the issues relating to the creek. Smith commented in her view she is unsure whether this property meets the qualifications for a PRD, noting she also has some concerns regarding the creek crossing and the sewer extension under the Luce Line. Smith noted that the Luce Line in this area is not easily assessible. Smith encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with City Staff to resolve these issues. Chair Hawn inquired whether the wetlands would be subject to some type of conservation easement. Van Eeckhout stated he would be willing to discuss that issue with City Staff to see what they think is best for this area. Chair Hawn expressed a concern that some of the lots are too small and should be made larger by incorporating some of the other dry buildable land that is available. Van Eeckhout stated he Is attempting to preserve the wooded area as much as possible. Lindquist concurred that some of the lots are too small in his opinion. Van Eeckhout commented with a PRD the overall density is what is considered. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission has not approved density less than one acre in the past, and noted he would not be in favor of doing so in this case. Van Eeckhout remarked that this development is adjacent to Long Lake, which has smaller size lots. Page 18 <1 ^ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout. Continued) Kluth commented in his view the density is too high for this area. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see the issues relating to the sewer extension and creek crossing resolved prior to any approval being given on this application. Lindquist stated he wants to see a minimum of one acre zoning for this development. Berg staled the Fire Department will probably question the width of the road and request that it be made wider to insure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Chair Hawn commented that it would be appropriate to table this application at this time to allow the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Weinberger noted that there are no conservation areas planned at this time. Gaffron stated In order for a PRD to be approved, the benefits to the City must be shown, and that clustering is utilized to help reduce infrastructure costs or preserve more open space and providing a larger open area by preserving the wetlands. Stoddard commented he would like to see lower density and more outlets for this development. Stocdard stated he would be in favor of a PRD if more benefits could be demonstrated, such as more outlets. Chair Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table the application at this time to allow him time to resolve these issues. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on his application tonight. Gaffron stated if the application is denied, it would proceed to the City Council. If the City Council denies it. at that point the Applicant would need to wait six months before submitting a new application. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the Input of the City Council as well on his application. Smith stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant be more fully prepared before proceeding to the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission has provided some good Direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Smith indicated she would prefer to review the application again after the Applicant has resolved some of these issues. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, per the submitted materials, noting that there is insufficient information available to the Planning Commission in order to make a responsible decision on the application at this time. VOTE: A/es 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS, CONTINUED (#7) #2542 BRUCE HEDBLOM AND CAROL CLINE-HEDS .Or.', '*o0^ CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCES, 10:31 p.m. -10:40 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Page 19 'f* nL ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2400 Mark and Arlette Ploen, Continued) Weinberger staled the road would never be built up to the residence. Weinberger stated the County could elect to condemn the property. Hawn commented the two new lots would meet lot size but do not comply with the 140 foot width front yard setback. Stoddard inquired whether there were any precedents similar to this situation. Weinberger stated this lot line rearrangement is not increasing the housing density in this area, but would allow the Applicant to create two lots meeting the one acre zoning requirement. Weinberger stated these two lots would continue to be considered two housing units. Hawn stated In her view meeting the required lot size Is an Important factor to consider in this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicants are agreeable to the other conditions recommended by City Staff. Mr. Ploen indicated they are agreeable to the conditions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2400, 434474365 North Shore Drive, Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement, subject to the five conditions outlined in the January 12, 2000 Planner's Report and further subject to removal of the garage located closest to Lot B. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mrs. Ploen inquired when the garage would need to be removed. Weinberger indicated six months from the time of approval would be fine, (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:32 p.m. -8:23 p.m. Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Chartes Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present, along with John Berg, Loucks & Associates. Weinberger stated this application was reviewed at the November Planning Commission meeting, where the application was denied due to the number of issues to be resolved and concerns regarding DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension across Long Lake Creek, a protected waterway. The Applicant has submitted a revised plan for the subdivision to create an open space south of the creek, whic! eliminates any concerns with crossing the creek as well as concerns regarding bridging and extension of the sewer line across the creek. The DNR has requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property to help preserve the natural area along the Luce Line Trail. As It relates to sewer access to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, the best option would be to have Page 8 f t I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (11^2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the sewer come up from the south due to some of the concerns by the DNR of crossing the Luce Line Trail with the sewer line. Weinberger stated the original proposal had access to this subdivision off of Brown Road, ending in a cul-de-sac, with the private road servicing four lots. The City Engineer has recommended the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. He further recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum 50 foot width to meet City roadway standards for a public or private street. The Applicant's latest proposal has the same road configuration and also contains the same four lots off of the cul-de-sac. The lots located south of the private road have been revised to allow for larger lots. Weinberger stated one issue of concern is the fact that access to the property is via a Tract G, which Is not owned by the Applicant. Staff Is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant and the corridor be replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Public Works Director have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width xo provide space for future utilities along the private road. Tract G should be in ownership of the Homeowner's Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. Weinberger indicated a driveway easement has been granted many years ago to the current residence. Weinberger stated it is unclear whether the driveway easement would entitle the developer to utilize the road to service other properties. The Applicant has indicated that his Title Insurance Companv has verified that they will guarantee access to the seven lots. Weinberger stated in 1977, Halstad Acres was developed to the south of the access, v/hich is ov/ned by Mr. Dunn. With that development, an easement was granted for roadway purposes with the intent that some day access would need to be provided for this property. This issue becomes a legal question over whether the driveway easement gives the Applicant the right to construct a roadway to serve his development. Weinberger noted the City Engineer has reveiwed the drainage and grading plan for the subdivision and is requesting some modifications. The City Engineer at this time has some concerns regarding the size of the holding ponds and wants to insure that this development will not increase the runoff to the surrounding area. The developer will need to submit the requested Information for review and approval by City Staff. Weinberger stated *his proposed subdivision is located immediately adjacent to Long Lake, with the subdivision being serviced with sewer from an existing Long Lake sewer line. The Applicant is requested to submit the following information for review and approval prior to a final plat application. 1.Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2.Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3.The Metropolitan Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. 4.A drainage area map. storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff, All ponds shall meet NURP standards. The ponds shown in the Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 5.A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. 7.Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. 8.The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage) predevelopment. The Applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildable is required for a seven lot subdivision. City Staff is recommending this application be based to allow additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the following: A.The property owner of Tract G become a co-applicant and agree to allow the property to be repiatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval. B, More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a 10 percent slope. C.Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D.A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Weinberger noted the revised plan does meet the intent of a PRD. Van Eeckhout commented the road access Issue Is a legal issue and indicated he is willing to v/ork with City Staff to resolve this issue. Van Eeckhout stated the letter received from his title insurance company indicates that they are willing to guarantee access to this subdivision via this driveway easement which was granted a number of years ago. Van Eeckhout stated he has revised the plans in an attempt to comply with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Staff. Berg stated they would be willing to relocate the road to help increase the lot size of the two north lots, reduce the encroachment into the wetland area, and preserve more trees. Smith inquired what the impact would be it the road were relocated right next to the wetland. Berg stated any runoff from the road would need to be directed to the other side into a holding pond and away from the wetland s'ea. Berg commented in his view this would not be a major issue to resolve. Smith commented the only way to create lots of one acre or more v/as to reduce the number of lots from four to three. Page 10 ft iMi I ........................■ «r'MI* •(' yj* M ’v ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger inquired whether the land area calculations were determined by a surveyor. Berg Indicated they were, with the revised calculations indicating 13.7 acres dry buildable, Weinberger stated the new numbers under a standard plat or PRD must meet all the minimum lot size requirements, with 13.7 acres dry buildable meaning the developer may have six lots in this subdivision. Berg staled this subdivision surpasses the City’s ordinances for a standard sewered lot. Berg pointed out they are only three-tenths of an acre less than 14 acres dry buildable. Berg stated one area within this subdivision was artificially lowered a number of years ago, which may not become flooded. Stoddard stated it would still be defined as a wetland. Van Eeckhout commented part of the wetland is located above the 100 year floodplain and would in all likelihood never be wet. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion this area would not have needed to be included in the wetland calculations. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviews these applications based upon the information that Is submitted by the Applicant. Stoddard commented at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had focused on the size of the lots and had requested the developer look at increasing the lot size as much as possible. Kluth commented he likes the bigger lots in the northeast corner. Van Eeckhout stated in his view this is a good plan, and requested the Planning Commission act on his application. Hawn requested the Applicant address the issue of access. Van Eeckhout stated he has paid Mr. Dunn three times for the same easement. Van Eeckhout stated he has had an attorney review this easement as well as his title insurance company, who have both assured him that he is legally entitled to construct a road over this easement to serve his subdivision. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, noted he has attempted to review all the documents relating to this item. Barrett stated there appears to be a utility easement over the southern portion of the property as well as the driveway easement. Barrett slated in his view the problem with the document agreeing to the driveway easement is it does not further address any other issues, such as whether this driveway easement should support access to other residences. Barrett recommended approval of this application be made contingent upon final resolution of this issue. Barrett staled another issue dealing with the access is whether the City would allow a private road as an access. Barrett commented he has questions whether the driveway easement would allow the developer to build a public road. David Berkowski, South Brown Road, inquired what the additional ten foot area represented, Page 11 ---------i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 Tium ots :h d Ling loper ion (hout r. nt to ) this s Ck es. n of ate would vi fcv’ 8d. (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger stated the City of Orono requires at the time a private or public road is constructed within a subdivision that 50 feet of right-of-way is dedicated only for roadway purposes. Weinberger stated the developer is requesting a 24 fool road width, with City Code requiring 28 fool. The additional space is utilized for snow storage or shoulder. When it was originally platted, the City required a ten foot roadway and utility easement across the north ten feet of Berkowski’s property. Berkowski inquired whether the trees located within that easement could potentially be removed. Weinberger stated they could. Berkowski commented in his view the access issue should be resolved. Hawn commented from the information supplied tonight, it does not appear the road would run across the northern portion of his property. Kluth indicated access would become a condition of approval, and if not met, the subdivision would not be approved. Weinberger stated the City currently owns the ten foot easement. Vi/einberger stated City Ordinance requires a 28 foot roadway, with a variance and a demonstration of a hardship being necessary in order for the City to approve a 24 foot road. Staff is recommending construction of a 28 foot roadway. Berg stated they are etlempling to preserve as many of the trees in this area as possible, noting there will be no parkJng on the roadway. Smith commented the reason beiilnd the 28 fool requirement is to allow adequate access for emergerncy vehicles. Weinberger staled if the roadway were to service only six lots, it would require a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard stated the developer may need to decide whether to create six lots or seven lots. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has been very consistent In the past on what they approve in terms of density. Hawn commented the major issues before the Planning Commission tonight are access, size of the lots, and the size of the roadway. Weinberger pointed out even If six lots were created within this subdivision, the roadway itself would be serving seven lots. Hawn commented she personally would like to see bigger lots In this subdivision. Nygard concurred that he would like to see larger lots within this development. Kluth commented he would be agreeable to alloying a 24 foot road if only six lots were created. Hawn staled the Applicant needs to submit the appropriate documentation to the City demonstrating resolution of the access issue. Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhoul, Continued) Klulh noted City Staff is recommending tabling this application until these issues are resolved. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight. Hawn inquired whether the ten percent slope for the driveway is an issue. Van Eeckhout stated that is not an issue. Smith inquired whether the members of the Planning Commission preferred six lots with a 24 foot roadway or seven lots with a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard indicated he preferred the six lots. Kluth stated based upon the conditions stated by City Staff, the developer may need to reduce the number of lots. Weinberger stated this is another application that will need to be extended. Weinberger stated City Staff would be comfortable with sending this application to the City Council provided some direction is given to the Applicant on the conditions ne should comply with. Barrett noted the Planning Commission has suggested the developer consider reducing the number of lots to six on a couple of occasions, with the developer indicating he preferred to leave the number of lots at seven. Barrett staled the Planning Commission could vote to deny this application, with clear direction on what the Planning Commission would like to seo occur on this application. Kluth moved, Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550,120 Brown Road South, Subdivision for Planned Rfe.vidential Development, with a strong recommendation the developer consider reducing the number of lots within this subdivision to six in order to comply with the conditions outlined in the January 10, 2000 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#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 stated 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 p, operty 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 fias made an applicat'or. 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 cor/titional use that is permitted in »he R-1A zoning district. Weinberger Indicated the property is presently used for salt/sand storage in the fall and winter Page 13 atii r G ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14,2000 (#2D4flL Bradley Hoyt, continued) Barrett stated^ublic hearing had been scheduled with the Planning Commission on January 1 .*, 2000. Neither^^r. Hoyt nor representatives on his behalf appeared at the January 19* public hearing. Mr. Sheridan stated Mr. HoyH^nrepared to submit a complete application to present at the February 28,2000 meeting of the^3«mcil. Mayor Jabbour stated a new public hearingNvj* the Planning Commission may be required. Barrett staled a public hearing would be required toYeMew the variance request. Kelley stated the earliest this item could potendally return tofliqCity Council would be the last meeting in March. Mr. Sheridan stated he would be willing to draft a letter to e.xtend the deadlhi^to permit time to proceed with the variance request. Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to continue this item to 5A. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ^ 5. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South - Subdivision for Planned Residential Development N'lr. Van Eeckhout was present with representative John Bergh of Lcucks and Associates. Weinberger explained the issue facing this application was that the dry buildable acreage available totaled 13.7 acres where 14 acres are required for 7 lots. As plarmed, the subdivision did not meet city requirements of 2 acres per lot. The Planning Commission recommended denying the application based on the total dr>' buildable not meet'mg the minimum requirement of 2 acres dry buildable per lot in the RRIB zoning district. Kellogg slated that no trail or sidewalk was planned with the recommended 50 foot road width, Sansevere asked if the applicant had considered a reduction to 6 lots. Van Eeckhout responded that he would prefer 7 lots and felt that would be attainable once soil borings were done in the spring. I i j Is* ..I M ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14,2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, continued) Mayor Jabbour commented that the city would not allow sewer availability to increase lot density. All Council members agreed. The applicant must demonstrate ahardship to allow more than the pen. litted density on the site, Mr. McCusky, the adjoining property owner, was present with legal representation arguing that the applicant had not made arrangements for proper legal access to the subdivision. He was concerned that approving the subdivision may imply some legal rights to access. Barrett confirmed the easement to the property was for driveway purposes and may not be adequate to serve as access to the subdivision. Banett stated the application deadline is March 2,2000. ITie applicant must present a letter to the City of Orono to e.xtend the deadline. Mayor Jabbour stated the applicant should provide a letter requesting the application be tabled, giving the applicant time to resolve the issues of dry buildable acreage and access to the property through a designated outlot. Kelley moved and Peterson seconded to table the application until the applicant requests further review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. #2540 Bradley Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue - After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit Mr. SheridaQprovided a letter requesting the application be tabled until the end of March. The letter also stated^hat the property owner, Mr. Hoyt, has granted the city an extension of the time limits for approval^ Kelley moved, and Petcrsots^econded, to table the application until the end of March, Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #2552 STEVEN AND SHEILA SIGEL, RESOLUTION NO. 4421 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt Resolution No. 4421, a Resolution Granting Variances to MunicipalZoning Code Section 10.22, I (B) and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (C)(6). VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. i "4 1/ J Bonestroo ^=jg Rosene ^■| Anderlik & I Associates Engineers & Architects August 14, 2000 Bonetiroo. #s«*ne. AnierliM »nd AiiocUiet, Ir.e. 1$ jn Af.••?r-.a:ive Acuon/EqujI OppoMunlly Employer arC Employee Owned Principjili: C::3 G Borest'co. P.£ • MAfvin L Sc*.*.'. Pt •Ce--'? CooV PE • Robert G Sc--r cht. P.£ • Jerry A. Bourdon. P£ Senior Consu^tanti: Rcber: W Rosene. P£ • Jeier** C Ande* =»£ • Ricriard £ Turner. P£ • Susan W ECf CPA. Associate Principals: Heward A. Sanford. PE • tn A. Go^rc-. PS. • Robert R. Pfcfferle. P.£ • Richard W fsirer. PE. • David O. Loskota. PF. • Rcre*: C. Rus:e«. A.I A. • Mark A Hanson. P£. • Michael T. Ra.:--ann. P£ • Ted K Field. P£. • Ker.-i:- » Ance*;: -. .^£ • Mark R Rolfs. P£ • David A B:.-f::roo. M B •* • S dney P Wiiiiarrsc*.-£ LS • A;*es V Rmg. .MB A. • Allan Rick Schoid:. P£ Offices: St ?i-i. St. CicuS Rochester and Wuii-a* v.N • Mil Wi U/kbilte: n A .vsonestrce com Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re:Van Eeckhout Subdivision File No. 139-2550 Dear Paul: We have reviewed the revised preliminary plat for the proposed seven lot Van Eeckhout subdivision. The site is located cast of South Brown Road, south of Long Lake and noruh of the Luce Line trail in th* northeast quarter of Section 3. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1.Access/Streets: Theproposedaccesstothesiteis via Apple Glen Road in the City of Long Lake. Apple Glen Road is accessed off of Watertown Road. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1600 feet where City code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of ICKX) feet. Plans should be subtilised to the City of Long Lake for their review and comment. The proposed typical street section shows 24 feet of pa ’ed w'idth with no shoulders. We recommend that the street section be revised to include 3-foot gravel she '«rs as required by City standards. The s’a'eet section should provide for a mini-um of 8-inches of Class 5 aggrep.-tc base and geotextile stabilization fabric if necessary. We recommend 1 Vi inches of Type 41 bituminous wear course and 2 inches of T\pe 31 bituminous base course. A geotechnical evaluation and R- value recommendation should be provided to verify the street design. 2.Grading: The grading and erosion control p'.a.n should include erosion cor.u'ol measures to protect the existing wetland. The erosion con.rol plan may need to incorporate bale checks a.id fiber blanket in the ditches and along Sleeper slopes. A wetland mitigation pla.n should be implemented for any wetland filling. Erosion conurol measures should be in place prior to any grauir.g, particularly along the wetland. Addiuonal erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 3.Drainage: The draft version of the City’s* Comprehensive Storm Water Ma,Tigemcr.t Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the TanagerLoke drainage district. Long Lake Creek, a Mn DNR protected waterway, flows through the site. Plans should be submitted to the Mn DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for review and approval. Proposed ponds should meet NURP standards. .All proposed ponds should specify normal water level (NWl.) aiid high water levels (HWL). The final plans should include final pona grading including a 10:1 aquatic bench 10-fee: wide at the pond NWL. The pond design should also include an outlet structure that provides l-fooi of skinuning to remove floatables and debris. Skimming should be provided to the pond HWL. Storm sewer design including outlet structure details should be provided for review. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) should be implemented on all areas where stoma water cannot be routed direciiy to a pond. A drainage area map, sterm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the fr.iai plan set. 4.Sanitary Sewer: The City of Long Lake should be consulted regarding prop ased connections to their sanitary sewer system. A written sewer agreement between the Cities of Long Lake and Orono will be required. The developer should provide detailed sanitaiy sewer design including plan a.''d profile sheets. The Civy of Orono should review the sanitary sewer needs along South Brown Road (existing home west of Lot I, Block 2) and determine whether the sewer should be exte.'.ded to the westerly boundarv of Outlet A. 5.Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of -ways. Drair ..ge easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 65»-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636*1311 J r ! 6.Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. tal cost for the SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES It Providing the Sharper Edge in Natural Resources & Environmental Consulting April 4,2000 •' Mr. Paul E. Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner III City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 '-/I .RE: SER Project Name: .SER Project No.: Dear Mr. Weinberger," Van Eeckliout - Orono Parcel Delineation 98-060-03 • • • The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update regarding the above project. To briefly review its status, this parcel >va? visited by Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) on October 14, 1998. At this >time, two areas were determined to be jurisdictional wetland and were delineated by SER (see SER Report No. 98-060-03 for more detail). The edges of these wetlands were located by SER using a Trimble Ag 132 GPS equipned with a. Juniper Systems field data collector. Positions were differentially corrected in real-time using signals transmitted by the Coast Guard station in Alma, Wisconsin. This system is capable of sub-meter accuracy when using real-time differential correction in the field. In 2000, SER determined that the boundaries of Basin. 1. needed revision due to factors that were not evident at the time of field visitation. The northern boundary was redrawn and reduced (Figure 1). .This. revision was due to the presence pfsand and gravel fill found in this area, which indicated that it would not meet jurisdictional wetland status. In addition, the boundary of the northwestern finger of this basin was redrawn and reduced (Figure 1). This reed canary grass dominated area,recently has become drier due to the presence of a drainage ditch. Thus, the extent of the wetland bqundary as* was determined in 1998 was decided to over-exaggerate the scope of the northwestern wetland edge. Please note that the rnodified boundaries on Figure 1 are not exact and are subject to field verification. .. •• « ••• Should you have any questions about these revised boundaries, please cal! me. Sincerely, ‘ ' Svoboda Ecological Resources ... Franklin J. Svoboda, CIVB. PWS President cc:Chuck Van Eeckhout, Van Eeckhout Engineering Services 2477 Shadyw’ood Road • Excelsior, MN 55331 (612)471-1100 (OfTice) • (612) 471-0007 (Fax) , . Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6.. Trall s & Waterways, 9925 Valley Vie Roa , ..,den Prairie, rv1N 553 4. Office (612) 826-6764, (Fax) 826-6767. ov mber 10 1999 Cicy of Or:ono Paul W in erger PO Bo 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 �ear Mr Weinberge , � , .. .. • .. -:--·, --·..... " � :O\J 12. "99. c··� ; .. , _ .. -.:-; .. o This lette addres e concerns regarding application #2550 s bmi ed by Chuck Van Eeckhout o the C ty of Oro o Planning Commi on for a subdi is1on and cond !ional e permit for a Panned esiden ial Developmen for prop locat d at 120 .Bro : Road So th. Please nc l d this tt in h pr �ect fil doc_.,._n the _ e's cone r:· . Th proposed subdiv1 ion ·1 create 7 bu ldin ites on 14 acres. Lot umbe 7 runs along the ent re south· m boundary of .. d v -lopment and bard rs th Lu_ . · e tate Tail. Th tat of Minnesota, Department of atura esourc rails y Uni mana s the mult use recre f o al L c i e Stat ra·1. r· ere e . eral co cem r gardi.ng this app licat on. 0 e, that the opos d developm nt does not a er 1 effect the ater drain a ong the sta trail or adjo· ... _n sta e property. A second ·con em . at the standard se backs be a ered to in p1ann1ng for ·s d velop ment. This· ou d app y to ·ptic sy t ms, r te on pond , an uildin s Thi ·n lud s o tbui din as w I, and should b cl arl · di clo d to future I o,,n rs. , r plans are a · d. Thi pla ident"fie a 1·n •---·-ng from north o so th "th an endpo n at th Luce Line t i1 At this timt there is no req s to this offic for p nnission to cross the trail. e \VO I no · ·n avor of a se o Sill at this point. Futur ma1ntenanc of the se er o _ d b d1f c 1 at th s location o ··. Access from the v es is poo . d o B ro • oad So h be1 an rpass. The n· . t ac s e t from th east, Orono Orchard Ro d is a mG' . / · m l and ·t p grade for e hors trail o y; e main trai passes over the roa . is that the de ·eloper d future lando ers a t dama e the landscape or remove v geta io1 o tat 0 6-•.. r � n J . H, J-6 � .1 n t co I "') K - be placed on the property prohibiting the alterafon oftopogr phy or v-getafon adjacen to the trail. This as been a problem in the past when adjacent landowners create private access trails to state land A r · commendation to the developer and the c·ty of Orono would b to establish a conservation as en of 0 to 50 feet along e entire south m border with the Luce Line State Trail. This wo d benefit both the landowner and the trail users by providing a buffer zo · -e of vegeta on screening the homes·te · om the trail. Typica y, cons rvation easements allow lando ers o hmit future de elopment or alteration of vegetation on their property in order to protec natural and open space. It · s a voluntary and permanent legal agr ement where the landowner retains ownership and the right to use the land within the terms agreed upon in the conservation easemen he D - ou d be willing to work with e developer to establish an agreement that would be enefici l to both parties. Pl ase addr ss the above concerns and disc ss the conservation easemen pL..,sibility in the proj c revie · and e p us informed o future plans for this development. Th you, -s��w� uzann w· lhite Metro Tra s & Waterways Sp cialist c · -artha Re r Min ota Department of N tur 1 e ource Dec mber 6, 999 City of Orono, Pa 1 � einb rger POBo 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. we· berg r, Region 6A Trails & Wat rways, 9925 Val ey View Road, Ed n Prairie, MN 55344. Offic (612) 826-6764; (Fax 826-6767. T · the: second lette o · the DNR, Trails & Waterways Unit in regards to the application #2550 ub ·tt,ed by Chuck Van eckhout to th· C.ity o Orono anni g Com.mi sion for a subdivision and conditional . e permit for a Planned Res a dtial Development for pro�rty loca d at 120 Bro� Road o th. ase include this letter in the project file ocu.menting e sl.ate's concerns. e proposed subdi 1s1on wil create 7 u� ding "tes on 4 ac es. 'Lot# 7 runs along e entire so t m bo dary of the developmen and bor rs· e Luce Line State Trail. The State of Mum sota, Departnient of atural esources, Trail & Wat· rway Unit manages the mult1p e-use recreational L ce Li S e T ail. There .1s ..,_, ... z-r ine e· _ n io pro o ed in the developm nt plan. As ·t exists on t e prel·rrunarv p at map dat d 10 14 99 th sewe:-run from north to so th and interse ts <he trai east of Brown d . T · . 1 & W te ay s pr rred route for th s wer ex, s · on · oul b to fol ow the Brown oad So th right-of-y. Thi ould minim·ze int•rfer nee to the trail right-of-ay and concentrate crossings at road mt rsec .. ons. e o sup ort the · of rono' posi 10n that Lot 7 b s t asid as a co erv ion out ot. Th ;vo ld b nefit oth th landown and the tra· rs by p • ov· dtn a sc -ning of getation be een the hous ng d v · opment d th tra1 Please not th abo · oncem in th proj ct revi and · ep us inform d of future pl s fj r this de p as c1ah r • ft. Pnnt -� . I, ,m f I t , P . I - L . , .. . . -, \ T • 0 -.. _ ... --Ci I r ,,.. r -r I . . .. .. V . ... , . . .. .. . . . : ..--: .-, • f\ ... . .. -.. -.. ..· ... MH DATE 09/0E/99 HEKNEPIN COUHTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 30 03-117-23 11 0001 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL MAC MILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES P 0 BOX 9300 DEPT 20 MPLS MN 55990 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 30 03-117-23 12 0003 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN CDNRI (LUCE LINE TRAIL) PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 30 03-117-23 12 0006 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 30 03-117-23 12 0009 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 30 03-117-23 13 0001 00350 BROWN RD S W F FARLFY B K 6 TARLEY WILLIAM « KATHLEEN FARLEY 350 BROWN RD S LCXIG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 30 03-117-23 13 0007 01395 FOX RIDGE RD T J DAYTON I M DAYTON TOBIN J i MAE DAYTON 1095 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE m 55356 38 03-117-23 11 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF MINN CDNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 03-117-23 12 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN DUNN 20 S BROWN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 3r 03-117-23 12 0010 00130 BROWN RD S WALTER RICHARD iICCARTHY WALTER RICHARD MCCARTHY C/0 FCI 332 MINNESOTA ST N2100 ST PAUL NN 55101 JR JR 38 03-117-23 13 0005 01995 FOX RIDGE RD R B B HACK RAYMOND H HACK 1995 FOX RIQGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-"! 0001 00025 BRO v^ RD S S BITTMAP t L BITTMAN SCOTT B LISA BITTMAN 25 BROWN RD S LONG LA^ MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 29 38 03-117-23 12 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL MAC MILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES P 0 BOX 9300 DEPT 28 MPLS MN 55990 38 03-117-23 12 0005 00120 BROWN RD S CHARLES E VAN EECKHOUT ETAL CHARLES E VANEECKHOUT 120 BROWN RD S LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0008 00020 DROWN RD S JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0011 00190 BROWN RD S D B L COLEMAN JR DOUGLAS R COLEMAN JR 190 DR01 J RD S LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0006 01995 FOX RIDGE RD D E KIRKMAN B J M KIRKMAN DAVID E B JOANNE M KIRKMAN 1995 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 35356 38 03-117-23 21 0007 00195 BROWN RD S JOHN M WINTON JOHN M WINTON 1319 MARQUETTE AVE 1903 MPLS MN 55903 i ^ f'%i:L-U cl ••J i g J DATE 01/0 1,, IATC S 7 PROP ADDR OWNl!R NAIIE TAXPAYER EIADDR· PR P ADDR CMIIIR NAIIE TAXPAYER ,twlE/ADDR 38 03-117-23 21 O o,0 03 ADORES UNA IGNED TAT OF HINH STATE OF INN C NR) (LUCE LI E R IL> sa 03-111-23 21 001, 000 ADDRESS UNA SIGNED ..iurin P EA LING -n111n P EA LIN 21 S COL N DR aNo LAKE 5356 72 !tt-118-23 4 0020 0 112 APP E GLEN RD KV BIBEL J T 8IGELOW E ETH JUDY bl ELOW 2 APPLE LEN RD L LAkE. 5S!S6 72 �-118-23 3 0060 0 4� KSlDE D.J T PAS A PAST R R E LAKE NN S5 5· 11a 2:s tt3 · o,3 . EKSlDE DR 55 56 0072 E 'RD DJ ET AL 5535 tENN PIN COUNTY PROPE TY IN OR ATION SY TEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 03·117-23 21 0014 2010 COL N DR DOUG AS W FRANCHO III DO GLAS W F ANCH0 I I 2 1 ·. COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 44 0003 00135 ORONO O CHAR RD N ED UND W F RVDE L EDHUND RYDELL 135 ORO 0 ORCHARD RD LONG LAK NN 55356 72 34-18-23 43 002100026 APP E GLEN RDJAVE ANH ZULLO JAVE ANH ZULL,O 26 APPLE GEN RD LOG LAKE HN 55 6 72 34·118 23 �3 061 0052 C EEKSID DR J D A IR A OH"AN J LO NAN S2 CREEK IDE DR LOG LA HN 55356 72 4-118-23 3 006400043 CREEKSIDE DR R RO C K ROAC ROBERT I.I,BERLY A ROACH45, CREE S DE DR0 G LAKE H 553S6 72 ·4-1 -23 4 0073 0003 APPLE GLE RD EI NJ STRUZIK !CHOL EST UZI 35 PP EN RD S D LA 'E 55356 REPOR ·o.1435401 PAGE 30 38 03-117-23 l 0018 00038 AD RES U IGNE LLOYD S KEL.EY L STER S KELLEY 2135 COLI DR LO G LAKE HN 553S6 72 34-118-23 43 001� 00038 APPLE GLE' RD H E I ." 8 GUTHR EHARY HITCHELL GUTHRIE 8 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE HN .553S6 72 34-118-23 43 02200020 APPLE GLEN RDT W WOLLIN HR WI LIN THOH'AS &. MELA I WOLLIN 20 APPLE GLE RD LONG LAKE HN 5535 72 34-1 8-23 43 0062 00058 CREEK IDE DR J BE NSICHAE E & JOLYN H BER.NS 58 CREEK IDE DR LNG LA E S5356 72 34-1 8-23 �3 007000025 APPLE GLE RD SC FEDIE I W FE IE ST ·vE C I WENDY L FEDI · 25 APPLE GLEN RD LONG AKE HN 553 6 7.-18-23 43 0 740 980 KENN DY LA LR DANIELSON/." DAN EL ON LEE I N'ANCY DAN ELS 80 KE EDY . A LOG AKE NN 55356 • DTE 19/18/99 .. TCH 7 72 •118-23 �3 075 1911 KE E Y LA NMICY E PETERSON NUICV E PETERSON 191 t(E EDY LA L LAKE . 55356 ' 72 M•lll-21 �3 083 I 1 IROVH D S LI. ER Ct<SI LISA A ERICKSON , ..... __. ltD S 55556 . 'HEN P N COU TY PROPERTY INFO HATIDN SYST H PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 72 34 118 23 43 0081 oaoss VAL EY VIEW RD GM ANDERSON IS J ANDERSON GREGORY & SALLY J NDERSO 55 VALL V VIN RD LONG AKE HN 55356 R PORT NO Pl435401 AGE 31 72 34 118-23 43 0082 00 18 BROW RDS JUD'f L KELLETT JUDY l KELLETT 8 BROWN RDS ONG LAKE MN 55356 .... . .•. . TOTAL BATCH 5 7 00040 i· .. HAT TH · CTS REPRESE D ARE AN AC RATE A TRUE RE NO OR O AS APPt RS TIS DA E O THE RECORDS o: N V RT l:N OF' PRO ERTY TAXATIO , 0 TIE E Of CE E DATE 9-9-99 y fk.?'/Jlt s;,A&,-..J �� . .. .• L: .. - i ,. ' . . • . ... • ·:�"' )I ·.} : ) t • - •V REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Couwnt DEC 1 I 2000 CITY Or Omo /v O DATE: December 8, 2000 ITEM NO:7 Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Fleming Trail Addition - Site Plan Review per Restrictive Covenants Several months ago, the City of Long Lake proposed two revised concepts for the development of the Fleming Trail Addition in Long Lake. These concepts were proposed to the City of Orono per the restrictive covenants that%ere placed on the property by the Ciw prior to the detachment and annexation of the property into the City of Long Lake. The City of Orono approved both site plan concepts. Because one concept involved the use of a portion of Orono Oaks Drive for access, the Council directed that the Orono Oaks property owners be contacted regarding the concept. The Orono Oaks property owners expressed a number of concerns regarding the use of Orono Oaks Drive as access to the Fleming Addition subdivision. In response to these concerns, the City of L ong Lake has developed a third concept, and is now requesting approval of this concept by the City of Orono. Attached are a memo from Shannon Sweeney, Long Lake City Administrator, site plans showing the three concept plans, and a memo from Wally Case of DSU to Shannon Sweeney regarding the compliance of the concept plan with the restrictive covenants. Staff recommends the revised concept plan be approved by the City Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the revised concept plan for the Fleming Trail Addition dated 12-11-00, and to direct staff to attach the revised concept plan to the Fleming Trail Addition restrictive covenants. \I City of Long take Memorandum To:Honorable Mayor Jabbour and Orono City Council From:Shannon Sweeney, Long Lake City Administrator Date:December 7,2 III Re:Fleming Trail Addition The Orono City Council previously reviewed two concepts for the eventual development of the Fleming Trail Addition in Long Lake. Those two concepts (A & B) were presented to adjoining property owners in the Orono Oaks development by Mayor Jabbour and Orono staff. Ttie general consensus among the Orono Oaks property owners was that they preferred concept B. Unfortunately, the City of Long Lake preferred concept A in an effort to build consensus and address as many concerns as possible Long Lake staff have met with Orono Oaks property owners on many occasions over the past several months. Neighborhood meetings have been requested on numerous occasions; however, it became evident that they were difficult if not impossible to organize given the various property owners schedules. As a result staff met with several of the property owners individually. The various meetings with property owners from the Orono Oaks development did lead to the creation of an additional concept plan (C), which has been enclosed for your review. It is our belief that this concept is the most sensitive to the Orono Oaks property owners for several reasons including the following: By clustering the lots on the hilltop in concept (C) the visual impact Is significantly reduced. Previous plans (concept B) resulted In the rear yards of seven lots abutting Orono Oaks Drive. Our proposed concept results in only three rear yards abutting Orono Oaks Drive. 2)Concept (C) makes no use of Orono Oaks Drive which was a significant issue with Orono Oaks residents. 3)Concept (C) to the best extent possible reduces the impact on trees and natural vegetation while allowing Long Lake to meet its goal of maintaining thirteen lots. 4)Concept (C) reserves the majority of the property as park or natural area. It is also our belief that concept (C) does the best job of meeting the intent of the original covenants. Concept (C) provides for no vehicular or pedestrian access to Orono Oaks City Council Page 2___ Drive, continues to meet the setbacks established within the original covenants, and reduces the developed area, which mitigates impaas on vegetation. The one covenant provision that conflicts with Concept (C) is the minimum lot size. The original covenant document provides for a minimum lot size of .8 acres while concept (C) includes lots that are between .5 acres and .75 acres. In order to address the concerns of adjoining property owners and meet the goals and expectations of the City of Long Lake it was necessary to reduce the lot sizes; however, I vyrould remind the City Council that the entire Fleming Trail Addition currently consists of approximately 26 acres, much of which will be preserved as natural area under concept (C). Requested Action: Based on our previous discussions with Orono staff. Council Members, and property owners we believe that Concept (C) does ttie best job of meeting the needs of the City of Long Lake ^ile addressing the concerns of adjoining property owners. The City of Long Lake respectfully requests that the City of Orono amend the covenants for the Fleming Trail Addition in order to allow for the development of the property as described in Concept (C). Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. If you have any questions or concerns with regard to this request, please contact Mayor Bash or myself. I'f'. ld int nt its 'lg as ,e of rty ity of he ed or • • ,-\ / .,, .. /. . '"·� '-..-/. /4, / . . •() °' . �? / ,, I . ,· ,.. 1/ / ,. Loi ,■ I I / .,,, IL\/ �-- (/1 I . .9..10 �'- _ i:.,. ,'� /) ,._ ---------'. ■ ' r-S:�� \\ I\ \ ---. - __ _,,.,, .._ -----------.' . �-j·-· ,.. __ --..,.. -o--,---,(j ·�-- � .... -.. --. - -·:--,,. ... ;-s. 1..-.�. ,,. .. t:; ____ .. ;:,: ... �' .... ---�-- �41119 ... , .... ., ... ___ --. .. I I ( \ ·1· � �. � . �----� I! -. .. '■ .� � t � � � • '!i.� � i ,, I - �: � .� ·-•. t.O ( -/• c.., 0 --.. - -----✓ -- r- sr rti r -H-i >•l}L' :z d v\^ V X' y^u • • ♦ . >• JOl .\SiS le! u; I'mS. .rfir: '^v--'‘o/\ \ 5//:i h■ V -• ' ' \ \ \ \ • -· ..........I I i ·· f ,;o c.••'.1 .,. .. ---\ I \� ' 1 \ I I I I "------· . Orch::in.1 .irdc I ,·..---,, --i -----------·· +-----1 \ '--...-/ \ \ I . ' \ \ ) -- I I I--·--:- .---;c. I n<'--- _,,. \.V / \ •)'(�) .--o<c." _,. ·· ·:I ,.., \ \ \ \ \ \\. ), . -� ·--\ ,... ·1- ... • ._, UIJ i'lf,,rfl,�l'II O �:11/ro.J r/� -.. ...• .. -----....... --. ··-�.:,� �A..... ,,,.o.. Loni;? Lake Creek � • , .. ./ Wl'll.1ntl n�R \\'cm,,J •�7-IJoW (liJ,,un, 11 ,i:h \l'>t« 'Ill D .-' 100 �• r•PUJ Llc•>1o>,, 1).17 y--..._/ � • .. "-rrail and P House ccess Raise Po�✓-' \Vatcr Level a • .. �_/'-, , . I @ . \ a \ I • )( '"·' 100 10 0 100 200 SCALI N fUT NOit: Bae map approximate for p&,.mina purposes only. ':\ \, o� ·-:, :'""'.•a. 0 Q l '-X<' �i', ..,,.. '/' . -I � .'-:. 1:i �, � \!�-� --<?,�"-'l ��-� 0 ... �•J-l \\ I W�tbnd � ... J.I .. --- I \ ..---I I \ -· \ · \ / r : 4:Ef> � k t• - X 94J. 0 • l • • 1 VIL.-f/J,{r-£; 1LA/(__,.ktcpWoo t> 4 I( f...JOLL ' • ,lok .. I w .....I " W�ll:urd ! -r.. ;1{ ,i ◄• Concept Plan Fleming Trail Addido-i 1 Loa1 La.k� Mwtaota • . D •, -.R & ,-,W.Jee. .... - �...__/ ·, .. ',. Site S1 }.fin Loi �1.in Loi o·x10· Bu.ilc!in1 Sc1.b-ad Frc-ot Yi! Site Y Rc:--t...;r y :1.1 Orcno 0 TrUOlci Lo __,. DAHLGREN SHARDI jOW ANDUBAN INCOkrOKATEO CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN S540I 612 339 3300 PHONE 612 337-5601 FAX DATE;December 6, 2000 TO:Shannon Sweeney City Administrator City of Long ' ake 1964 Park Avenue Long Lake, MN 55356 FROM:Wally Case RE:Fleming Trail Addition Covenant Review We have reviewed the Declaration Of Covenants dated May 24,1993 for the Fleming Trail Addition. Our review is based solely on identifying conflicts between the covenants and the proposed plan. You may need to have legal counsel review the covenants for other broader issues related the development of the site. Covenant provisions 1.No change needed. 2.No vehicular or pedestrian access is proposed to Orono Oaks Drive. No change needed. 3.This provision requires that lot coverage is limited to 15 percent and indicates that lot coverage includes the footprint of all structures within the lot, including all roof structures more than 6 feet above grade and decks and patios and all similar structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls that extend more than 6 feet above grade. It also indicates that pools and all associated decks or patios are included regardless if they are enclosed or not. This provision does not appear to include other hard surfacing such as w alks or drives. This provision may pose problems for some of the builders or home owners as most of the lots have will involve grade changes that could require railings or fences around pans of a deck or patio. We are showing a 70 feet by 70 feet minimum building pad. This pad would typically include a house with attached two or three car garage and room for a three season porch, deck, and patio. In addition, a gazebo or pool would not be uncommon. The original approved plan had 13 lots that ranged from .8 to 1.6 acres. The 15 percent coverage resulted in approximately 5,227 to 10,454 square feet of allowable lot coverage. The total project lot coverage would have been 88,209 square feet for all 13 lots. _ • The project as proposed is based on a minimum .5 acre lot. The 15 percent lot coverage would limit a .5 acre lot to 3,267 square feet of coverage. The total project lot coverage would be approximately 58,835 square feet which is 29,374 square feet less than the 88,209 square feet coverage allowed under the original approved plan. Allowing a slightly higher percent of coverage on lots less than .75 acres will allow more development flexibility to work with the slopes while still resulting a reduction in overall lot coverage. 0’7jobs/4236/covrev.wpd 12/6/2000 Page I Keeping the lot coverage at 15 percent may result in smaller homes but is more likely to result in fewer or smaller decks, patios, gazebos or pools. 4.Impacts on existing vegetation should be minimized wherever possible. 4a. The original lots 1,2, and 3 will be park in the proposed development. It will desirable to landscape the southern edge to buffer the park and road from Orono Orchard Drive. 4b. The stands of mature trees on the eastern portion of the site will be preserved as shown on the concept plan. No change needed. S.Residential setbacks. 5a. The originally approved Lot 1, Block 1 does not e.xist in the proposed plan. It will be replaced by MnDOT pond. 5b. The originally approved Lots 1,2,3,7,8,9,10 and 11, Block 2 all had rear yards abutting Orono Oaks Drive. The approved setbacks were 35 feet front/street, 50 feet rear and 10 feet side. All proposed lots abutting Orono Oaks Drive are proposed with the same setbacks. 5c. Lots 4, 5, 6, and 12 Block 2 had rear yards abutting the pond road or railroad right-of-way. The approved setbacks were 35 feet front/street, 35 feet rear and 10 feet side. All proposed lots abutting the pond trail will have the same setbacks. The rear yard setbacks for the lots abutting the proposed Highway 12 right- of-way are shown at 50 feet to accommodate minor changes in the right-of-way and/or to provide additional space along this highway. 6.The amended fuial covenants will need to include all revised and approved plans and attachments. 7.No change needed. 8.No change needed. However, limiting the monuments to 3 Vi feet in height significantly limits the design. As long as the monument is placed to not interfere with vehicular and pedestrian sight lines a slightly higher limit would allow more design flexibility, and would allow the monument to more clearly identify the project. 9.A-F, No change needed. 10.No change needed. 11.The original Outlot A includes the pond and parts of the adjacent site. If a trail or other passive park facilities (ie. ben.hes) were to be developed around the pond/s crossing the edges of Outlot A may be necessary. 12.No change needed. 13.No change needed. 14.This proposal does not include any lots that have building pad conflicts with the existing sanitary sewer forcemain. It may not be necessary to relocate the forcemain to the proposed roadway. Please call at 612-339-3300 if you have questions or comments regarding this information. Thanks, Wally Case ot/jobs/4236/covrev.wpd 12/6/2000 Page 2 ^Of fMon • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC • ' ^uuu Cl FY Uh Uhu/vu Date: December 6,2000 Item No.: Q Department Approval:Administrator Approvai: Name: Michaei P. Gaffron Titie: Senior Pianning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2596 Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail - Subdivision Citizen Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Summar>’ The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has officially notified the City of a petition by a group of citizens requesting the completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Brenshell Homes project. Under EQB guidelines, the City is designated as the appropriate ‘responsible governmental unit’ (RGU) to determine whether an EAW is required. The City Council has 15 working days in which to make such a determination, but a decision can be made sooner. The period can be extended an additional 15 working days if necessary. The citizen petition was received by the City on December 1,2000. List of Exhibits A - Draft Resolution B • 11-29-2000 Letter from EQB C - Citizen Petition and Attachments 1 - 11-24-2000 Shirley Bull transmittal Letter 2 - Citizens Petition and signatures 3 - 11-28-2000 Letter to EQB from Welsh with Barr Engineering Attachments 4 - 11-27-2000 Letter from W'elsh to EQB with I.MA Archeaological Report and Robert Brown Wetland Letter 5 - 11-24-2000 Letter from Shirley Bull to Brenshell Homes D • Additional Documents 1 - EQB Rules 4410.4300 Mandatory EAW Categories 2 - EQB Rules 4410.4600 E.xempt EAW Categories 3 - Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution No. 4529 (10-9-2000) 4 - Council Minutes 10-9-2000 5 - 1955 Airphoto 6-MCWD Memo 10-19-2000: Technical Evaluation Panel Findings re: Wetland 7 - MCWD Staff memo 11-21-2000 re Stormwater Plan Review E - Additional Correspondence from Residents 1 - Letter from Stacey and Loren Schoenzeit 12-4-2000 2 - Letter from Kathy Sawicki 12-1-2000 3 - Letter from Attorney David L. Holman 11-22-2000 ^4 #2596 Brenshell Homes EAW Need Determination Decembei 6,2000 Page 2 Determining the Need for an EAW Step 1. Step 2. Step 3. Determine whether the project falls into a Mandatory or Exempt EAW category under EQB rules. If EAW is mandatory, EAW is required; or If exempt from EAW, EAW is prohibited; or If neither mandatory nor exempt. City has the option of requirii: g an EAW.under the following guidelines: A)If evidence provided by petitioners, proposers and others demonstrates to the Council that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, then Council shall require an EAW. B)If evidence provided by petitioners, proposers and others fails to demonstrate to the Council that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, then Council shall deny the petition. A Resolution incorporating Findings of Fact regarding the Council ’s decision should be adopted, and this will be forwarded to the petitioner and the EQB within 5 days of the decision. Brenshell Project; EAW Not Mandatory. But Not Exempt Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 lists 36 categories of projects for which an EAW is mandatory . The mandatory categories section is attached as Exhibit D -1 . Staff concludes that the Brenshell project does DQt fall within any of the Mandatory EAW categories, because none of the thresholds are exceeded, nor even approached. Minnesota Rules 4410.4600 lists 25 categories of projects which are exempt from the EAW process (Exhibit D-2). The two exemption categories potentially applicable to the Brenshell application are: Subp. 2(B): Projects for which all governmental decisions have been made. Orono granted Preliminary Plat Approval prior to filing of the EAW petition. Preliminary Plat Approval does not constitute final governmental approval. MC^^D has withheld their final effective approval until after the EAW need determination has been made. Therefore, the Brenshell project is not exempt under Subp. 2B. #2596 Brenshell Homes EAW Need Determination December 6,2000 Page 3 Subp. 12: Construction of a residential development of less than 20 units in a Fourth Class City (Orono") is exempt, except when part of the project is within a shoreland area. Approximately 80% of the Brenshell site is within the designated Shoreland area, and therefore the Brenshell project is not exempt under Subp. 12. It is staffs conclusion that an EAW is not mandatory for this project, but the project is not exempt from the EAW due only to its location in the Shoreland District. Therefore, the Cit>- Council must determine whether there is a potential for ‘significant environmental effects*. Determination of Potential for Significant Environmental Effects The EQB rules do not define “significant environmental effects” nor do the\' specify a procedure for determining whether there is a potential for such effects. This is left solely to the discretion of the RGU. The most appropriate process would be to address the specific concerns staled in the citizen petition, and then address any additional concerns which Council feels may be relevant to the matter. It is staffs opinion that the concerns listed in the petition have each been adequately and fully addressed through the preliminary plat review process, and that no EAW should be inquired. Following is a listing of each concern noted in the petition with a response addressing the concerns. In each case, staff believes that the listed concerns either have been adequately addressed such that the project will have no significant environmental effects, or the concerns have been demonstrated to be unfounded. Concern I. “The proposed subdivision will adversely effect the erosion of the steep sloped Erin & Kilkenny soils on Saga Hill...”; and “...the possibility of increased pollution to Forest Lake Bay by runoff directly dumped into said bay from tivo ravines located on said property (see attached documents by Barr Engineering and residents)...” City Response; The City has long been aware of concerns regarding erosion and water quality related to development in Saga Hill, expressed by residents during this and prior applications for development of this 7-acre parcel. The issues of erosion and water quality are separate but deeply intertwined. The third related issue is stormwater volume, and all 3 topics have been addressed at length during the subdivision process. -~———■—------------------M.a'k ■tfl 1.1^M li«.TlSA ri'___ #2596 Brenshell Homes EAW Need Determination December 6, 2000 Page 4 The portions of the parcel which will be disturbed by development activity are located primarily on slopes of 0-12%, uphill from steeper slopes leading down to Forest Lake Bay of Lake Minnetonka. Runoff from the site either is in the form of sheet flows over the relatively uniform slopes just above Wildhurst Trail, or in the form of channelized flows in two ravines, the smaller (“south ravine ”) located at the southeasterly comer of the site, the larger (“north ravine ”) heading northeastward from the northwesterly comer of the parcel. Both ravines are wooded with mature hardwoods. Soils on a majority of the site per the Hennepin County Soil Survey are of the Kilkenny series, being primarily Kilkermy loam. The Soil Sur\'ey classifies these soils within “Building Site Group 7". The soils in Group 7 have "'moderate I imitationsfor residential and commercial development with public sewer systems where slopes are less than 12%. In areas where slopes are more than 12%, these soils generally have severe limitations for commercial and residential development because of the high cost of installing utilities and grading streets and building sites. Proper design of buildings, site planning, and minimal grading reduce erosion and sedimentation. Where slopes are more than 18%, these soils are better suited to uses that enhance the natural beauty of the area than to most other uses ". The proposed development has been designed w ith these limitations in mind. Consider the following aspects of the development intended to minimize or eliminate erosion concerns: a)A majority of the slopes in excess of 18% on Lots 2 and 3 will not be disturbed by grading and will have existing vegetation retained. These sloped areas will be protected from excess runoff by a swale which will direct runoff to the proposed retention pond on Lot 1 above the southeasterly ravine. Easements and covenants will be put in place to ensure the swale will be retained and maintained on a permanent basis. The proposed retention pond on Lot 1 will result in a decrease of the mnoff flow rates w the southeast ravine. Due to the steep gradient of the existing ravine, the watershed area tributary to this ravine has been reduced significantly and redirected to the northerly stormwater pond, thereby decreasing the mnoff rates and volumes reaching the southeast ravine lo a level lower than pre-development conditions. The pond in Lot 1 will also serve as a water quality pond, meeting NURP standards for sediment and nutrient removals prior to discharge to the ravine. Also, because the southeast ravine has steep bank slopes, the protected area where no grading is allowed will encompass the entire ravine area within Lot 2. In order to eliminate disturbance of the steeper slopes on Lots 2 and 3, installation of sanitary sewer along the common lot line as well as within Wildhurst Trail will be via directional boring methods to avoid open cuts which would potentially affect slope stability. /•“ftnip*' r I r,' i/' #2596 Brenshell Homes E AW Need Determination December 6,2000 Page 5 A majority of the runoff from the site (and from the roads to be constructed within the Garden Lane corridor and within the site) will be directed to a stormwater pond above the northerly ravine. This pond will serve both water quantity and quality functions, and will result in flow rates in this ravine that are no greater than the pre­ development condition. Reasons for directing a majority of the flows to this ravine include that it has a flatter gradient with less erosion potential, and adding flows to this ravine will have minimal impact to properties downstream as compared to the potential impact if all flows were directed to the southeasterly ravine per the e.xisting natural drainage areas. Further, this ravine discharges to a wetland hydraulically separated from Lake Minnetonka by a driveway and culvert, hence Rirther treatment of runoff will naturally occur within this wetland. Both stormwater ponds are designed to meet National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards for water quality. NURP ponds are designed to result in an average reduction of phosphorus of 60%. Additionally, covenants will be established requiring the property owners within the plat to use phosphorus-free fertilizers for lawn maintenance. The water discharged from these ponds is not likely to be a significant source of added pollution to Forest Lake Bay. Road and utility construction and site grading will be occurring primarily in areas where existing slopes are relatively level. The site plan has been revised a number of times to incorporate changes suggested by the City staff and by the area residents, resulting in decreased road lengths, minimization of disturbance of sensitive slopes, and retention of existing vegetation within the ravine areas and on most of the slopes exceeding 12%. g)It is again noted that the property does not meet the criteria for being considered as a bluff area under the Shoreland regulations, and is not subject to bluff impact zone limitations. Virtually all previous development in the Saga Hill area was completed prior to the adoption of development requirements for managing stormwater runoff. As a result, there has been a need to retrofit stormwater management facilities into the neighborhood. An example is the storm pond constructed just west of the south end of Tonkaview Lane; another example is the sediment and rate control berm required of the recently constructed home at 4685 Tonkaview. Additi mally, the draft Oroiio Surface Water Management Plan indicates the need for new water quality ponds to protect the quality of Forest Lake. The ponds proposed with this development will reduce the magnitude and property impacts of those future ponds by trapping pollutants and retaining runoff higher in the watershed. t • r #2596 Brenshell Homes EAW Need Determination December 6,2000 Page 6 The stormwater facilities for this development become an integral element of the City ’s stormwater management system, and must be properly constructed and maintained in working condition. The City will, per its standard practice, require financial security from the developer in the form of a letter of credit to ensure the installation of roads, sewers, stormwater facilities, and required landscaping and erosion controls is carried out per the approved plans. Easements and development covenants will be required to ensure the permanent maintenance of stormwater management facilities by the property owners in this development. These documents will give the City authority to maintain the ponds, culverts and related stormwater facilities and assess the costs of same back to the property owners if the property owners do not maintain them. This project and the design plans have been determined to meet and in some respects exceed MC WD stormwater management requirements. Finally, this development as all developments in Orono are subject to the MPCA “Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas”, a comprehensive set of standard practices for managing stormwater both during and after site development. Concern 2. “...the filling in of a wet land...” Petitioners claim a wetland exists within Lot 1. The evidence provided by the petitioners and evidence provided by the developer has been reviewed by City staff and consultants, staff and consultants of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the developers consultants, and by a Technical Evaluation Panel appointed to resolve the conflicting wetland determinations filed by various parties. The Panel, consisting of representatives of the Hennepin Conservation District, Board of Water and Soil Resources and MC WD, investigated the site on 10-16-2000 and concluded that there are no wetlands present on the site. Therefore, there will be no filling of a wetland as part of this project. Concern 3. “...the irreversible damage of a section of a ‘Big Woods’, the last remaining Big Woods on Saga Hill with historical significance (see attached documents by IMA Consulting)...” The petitioners have presented no specific evidence that the site contains a Big Woods remnant. In fact, aerial photographs from ca. 1955 (Exhibit D-5) clearly indicate that the majority of the site, appro.ximately 6 of the 7 acres, w'as in open cultivated fields or orchard plots, and only the areas abutting the ravines were wooded at that time. The identifying characteristics of Big Woods include old growth mature hardwoods with long, straight trunks and a high dense canopy that limits light reaching the forest floor, resulting in minimal understory growth. The only portions of the site where such conditions are conceivably present is within the two ravine areas. Both ravine areas w ill be % r ?• #2596 Brenshell Homes EAW Need Determination December 6,2000 Page 7 protected from development by easements and covenants precluding their destruction. In fact, the northerly ravine will be platted as an outlot and a conservation easement granted to the City prohibiting any land alteration and vegetation removal. The developer is also required to provide the City with a site plan identifying all mature trees on the site, and identifying which trees w'ill be retained, and then must mark those trees and protect them during site development. The only evidence provided by the petitioners that this area has historical significance is a study completed in 1997 by IMA Consulting for the Saga Hill Preservation Society. The study concludes that this area, and in fact the entire area encompassed by the Saga Hill Nature Area, has a “relatively high potential for the presence of archaeological sites' and that “the presence of of flat ground in association with deep erosional ravines, particularly in association with wetlands in the area as well as Lake Minnetonka, suggests that the area may have been a seasonal locus of prehistoric Native American activity, possibly back to the Paleoindian period". However, these findings could be made of virtually all land in southwest Orono, and of most lands surrounding most lakes in Orono. No specific evidence such as artifacts, burial sites or mounds, etc. has been introduced related to this site. No evidence of pioneer homestead sites on the parcel in question has been presented, and there are no historic buildings on the site. While the Saga Hill area may have social significance in relation to the activities of its pioneer occupants a century ago. no evidence has been presented to suggest that any significant historical sites will be affected by this development. Concern 4. “There is a hazardous intersection proposed for vehicular access to and from said development adding to already dangerous intersections." The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed intersection of Garden Lane and Tonkaview Lane. The intersection location is a very appropriate location from a safety standpoint because it is on the ouside of a horizontal curve, allowing more than adequate sight lines and sight distance for vehicles entering Tonkaview Lane. Impacts of the vertical cur\ature of Tonkaview Lane are minimal, being relatively flat west of the intersection, and being a relatively uniform downhill slope east of the intersection. An existing driveway in the Garden Lane right-of-way serving the adjacent residence to the east will likely have to be relocated onto Garden Lane upon construction of the new road; this will be addressed as part of the final road design plans. The final road design for Garden Lane will also incorporate a right-angle approach onto Tonkaview to avoid blind spots for exiting vehicles. Also note that the majority of drainage from Garden Lane will be directed northward to the north stormwater pond via storm sewers, hence drainage to Tonkaview from Garden Lane will be minimized. It is staffs conclusion that the proposed intersection will not create a hazardous situation, and does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. ZJKJI.(Ml r «t a • f • * m #2596 Brenshell Homes EAW Need Determination December 6, 2000 Page 8 Correspondence from Area Residents The City has received 3 recent letters from Saga Hill area residents or their representatives, mainly reiterating the concerns noted above (see Exhibits E-1 thru E-3). Two of the letters specifically address pond maintenance, and request some assurance that the ponds will be correctly constructed and maintained. The City Engineer will inspect the construction progress during all stages. It is staffs recommendation that the permanent covenants established for this project grant the City the right of entiy and authority to monitor, maintain and reconstruct if necessary the stormwater ponds should the residents fail to do so, and to assess the costs of same back to the residents. Other issues noted include the general state of the existing stormwater facilities, such as the lack of curb and gutter where it may be needed in the Wildhurst and Forest Lake Landing areas. Any additional impacts to these areas as a result of the proposed development are expected to be minimal if any due to the stormwater management facilities that will be constructed. Conclusion & Staff Recommendation It is staff s opinion that the issues raised in the Citizen Petition and in additional correspondence have been addressed during the subdivision review process, and that the subdivision has been revised a number of times in response to issues brought up by the City and by the area residents. Under the conditions ofpreliminary plat approval and with thefurther refinements proposed in this memo, staff believes it is reasonable and appropriate to make a finding that this development has no potential for significant environmental effects. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution finding that the Brenshell subdivision will have no potential significant environmental effects, and determining that an EAW will not be required. :V' >■ A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL BY BRENSHELL HOMES HAS NO POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, AND DENYING THE CITIZEN PETITION FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) -FILE #2596 WHEREAS, the City of Orono (“City ”) is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has officially notified the City of a petition by a group of citizens represented by Shirley Bull requesting the completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed development (“the Development”) by Brenshell Homes (the “proposer”), City of Orono planning and zoning application File #2596; and WHEREAS, under EQB Rules 4410.0500, the City has been designated as the appropriate Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) to determine whether an EAW is required. FINDINGS OF FACT 1.The City Council finds that the Development does not meet or exceed any of the thresholds of EQB Rules Part 4410.4300, Subparts 2 through 37, and does not meet or exceed any of the thresholds of EQB Rules Part 4410.4400, Subparts 2 through 24. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment Worksheet nor an Environmental Impact Statement are mandatory for the Development under EQB Rules. 2.The City Council finds that the Development falls within Part 4410.4600 Subpart 2(B) in that all governmental decisions have not been made, and falls within Part 4410.4600 Subpart 12 because, while the 5-unit development does not exceed the threshold of 20 dwelling units for a fourth class city, the Development is within a Shoreland area as defined in EQB Rules 4410.0200. Therefore, the City Council further finds that the Development is not specifically exempt fi:om EQB Rules 4410.0200 to 4410.6500. Page 1 of 8 ..••if*’.*••i -r*—rr-- 3. $ r’ ( .; ■ 4. 5. 6. EQB Rules 4410.1100 Subpart 6 provide that the RGU shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers and other persons or otherwise knowm to the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The RGU shall deny the petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The City Council has reviewred the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers and other persons as well as other information of record pertaining to the Development. The Citiz,en Petition presents a series of statements regarding the Development that can be categorized into four specific Concerns to be addressed and considered in determination of whether there is a potential for significant environmental effects. In regards to Concern 1 - Petition Statement: “The proposed subdivision will adversely effect the erosion of the steep sloped Erin & Kilkenny soils on Saga Hill...”: and “...the possibility of increased pollu tion to Forest Lake Bay bv runoff directly dumped into said bav from two ravines located on said property (see attached documents bv Barr Engineering and residents’!...” The City Council finds as follows: The City has long been aware of concerns regarding erosion and water quality related to development in Saga Hill, expressed by residents during this and prior applications for development of this 7-acre parcel. TTie issues of erosion and water quality are separate but deeply intertwined. The third related issue is stormwater runoff impacts, and all 3 topics have been addressed at length during the subdivision process. The portions of the parcel which will be disturbed by development activity are located primarily on slopes of 0-12%, uphill from steeper slopes leading down to Forest Lake Bay of Lake Minnetonka. Runoff from the site either is in the form of sheet flows over the relatively uniform slopes just above Wildhurst Trail, or in the form of channelized flows in two ravines, the smaller (“south ravine”) located at the southeasterly comer of the site, the larger (“north ravine”) heading northeastward from the northwesterly comer of the parcel. Botli ravines are wooded w'ith mature hardwoods. Soils on a majority of the site per the Hennepin County Soil Survey are of the Kilkenny series, being primarily Kilkenny loam. The Soil Survey classifies these soils within “Building Page 2 of 8 Site Group 7". The soils in Group 7 have ^'moderate limitations for residential and commercial development with public sewer systems where slopes are less than 12%. In areas where slopes are more than 12%, these soils generally have severe limitations jor commercial and residential development because of the high cost of installing utilities and grading streets and building sites. Proper design of buildings, site planning, and minimal grading reduce erosion and sedimentation. Where slopes are more than 18%, these soils are better suited to uses that enhance the natural beauty of the area than to most other uses The proposed development has been designed with these limitations in mind. It is also noted that the property does not meet the slope criteria for being considered as a bluff area under the Shoreland regulations, and is not subject to bluff impact zone limitations. The following aspects of the Development are intended to minimize oreliminate erosion and stormwater runoff water quality concerns: a.A majority of the slopes in excess of 18% on Lots 2 and 3 will not be disturbed by grading and will have existing vegetation retained. These sloped areas will be protected from excess runoff by a swale which will direct runoff to the proposed retention pond on Lot 1 above the southeasterly ravine. Easements and covenants will be put in place to ensure the swale will be retained and maintained on a permanent basis. b. c. The proposed retention pond on Lot 1 will result in a decrease of the runoff flow rates within the southeast ravine. Due to the steep gradient of the existing ravine, the watershed area tributary to this ravine has been reduced significantly and redirected to the northerly stormwater pond, thereby decreasing the runoff rates and volumes reaching the southeast ravine to a level lower than pre-development conditions. The pond in Lot 1 will also serve as a water quality pond, meeting NURP standards for sediment and nutrient removals prior to discharge to the ravine. Also, because the southeast ravine has steep bank slopes, the protected area where no grading is allowed will encompass the entire ravine area within Lot 2. In order to eliminate disturbance of the steeper slopes on Lots 2 and 3, installation of sanitary sewer along the common lot line as well as within Wildhurst Trail vvill be via directional boring methods to avoid open cuts which would potentially affect slope stability. Page 3 of8 d. e. f. A majority of the runoff from the site (and from the roads to be constructed within the Garden Lane corridor and within the site) will be directed to a stormwater pond above the northerly ravine. This pond will serve both water quantity and quality functions, and will result in flow rates in this ravine that are no greater than the pre­ development condition. Reasons for directing a majority of the flows to this ravine include that it has a flatter gradient with less erosion potential, and adding flows to this ravine will have minimal impact to properties downstream as compared to the potential impact if all flows were directed to the southeasterly ravine per the existing natural drainage areas. Further, this ravine discharges to a wetland hydraulically separated from Lake Minnetonka by a driveway and culvert, hence further treatment of runoff will naturally occur within this wetland. Both stormwater ponds are designed to meet National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards for water quality. NURP ponds are designed to result in an average reduction of phosphorus of 60%. Additionally, covenants will be established requiring the property owners within the plat to use phosphorus-free fertilizers for lawn maintenance. The water discharged from tliese ponds is not likely to be a significant source of added pollution to Forest Lake Bay. Road and utility construction and site grading will be occurring primarily in areas where existing slopes are relatively level. Tlie site plan has been revised a number of times to incorporate changes suggested by the City staff and by the area residents, resulting in decreased road lengths, minimization of disturbance of sensitive slopes, and retention of existing vegetation within the ravine areas and on most of the slopes exceeding 12%. Virtually all previous development in the Saga Hill area was completed prior to the adoption of development requirements for managing stormwater runoff As a result, there has been a need to retrofit stormwater management facilities into the neighborhood. An example is the storm pond constructed just west of the south end of Tonkaview Lane; another example is the sediment and rate control berra required of the recently constructed home at 4685 Tonkaview. Additionally, the draft Orono Surface Water Management Plan indicates the need for new water quality ponds to protect the quality of Forest Lake. The ponds proposed with this development will reduce the magnitude and property impacts of those future ponds by trapping pollutants and retaining runoff higher in the watershed. Page 4 of 8 8. The stormwater facilities for this development become an integral clement of the City ’s stormwater management system, and must be properly constructed and maintained in working condition. The City will, per its standard practice, require financial security from the developer in the form of a letter of credit to ensure the installation of roads, sewers, stormwater facilities, and required landscaping and erosion controls is carried out per the approved plans. Easements and development covenants will be required to ensure the permanent maintenance of stormwater management facilities by the property owners in this development. These documents will give the City authority to maintain the ponds, culverts and related stormwater facilities and assess the costs of same back to the property owners if the property owners do not maintain them. This project and the design plans have been detemiined to meet and in some respects exceed Minneh^a Creek Watershed District (MCWD) stormwater management requirements. Finally, the Development is subject to the MPCA “Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas”, a comprehensive set of standard practices for managing stormwater impacts and soil erosion both during and after site development. 7.In regards to Concern 2. Petition Statement “...the filling in of a wet land... The City Council flnds as follows: The petitioners claim a wetland exists within Lot 1. The evidence provided by the petitioners and evidence provided by the developer has been reviewed by City staff and consultants, staff and consultants of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the developers consultants, and by a Technical Evaluation Panel appointed to resolve the conflicting wetland determinations filed by various parties. The Panel, consisting of representatives of the Hennepin Conservation District, Board of Water and Soil Resources and MCWD, investigated the site on 10-16-2000 and concluded that there are no wetlands present on the site, as documented in a memo from Jim Hafher of the MCWD to Paul Weinberger, City Planner dated October 19,2000. The Council finds that there will be no filling of a wetland as part of this project. In regards to Concern 3. Petition Statement:**...the irreversible damage of a section ofa *Big Woods ’, the last remaining Big Woods on Saga Hill \vith historical significance (see attached documents bv IMA ConsultinuV..” The City Council finds as follows: The petitioners have presented no specific evidence that the site contains a Big Woods remnant. In fact, aerial photographs from ca. 1955 clearly Page 5 of 8 -ki'. m 9. indicate that the majority of the site, approximately 6 of the 7 acres, was in open cultivated fields or orchard plots, and only the areas abutting the ravines were wooded at that time. The identifying characteristics of Big Woods include old growth mature hardwoods with long, straight trunks and a high dense canopy that limits light reaching the forest floor, resulting in minimal understory growth. The only portions of the site where such conditions are conceivably present is within the two ravine areas. Both ravine areas will be protected from development by easements and covenants precluding their destmetion. In fact, the northerly ravine will be platted as an outlet and a conservation easement granted to the City prohibiting any land alteration and vegetation removal. The developer is also required to provide the City with a site plan identifying all mature trees on the site, and identifying which trees will be retained, and then must mark those trees and protect them during site development. The only evidence provided by the petitioners that this area has historical significance is a study completed in 1997 by IMA Consulting for the Saga Hill Preser\ation Society. The study concludes that this area, and in fact the entire area encompassed by the Saga Hill Nature Area, has a “relatively high potential for the presence of archaeological sites” and that “the presence of flat ground in association with deep erosional ra\ ines, particularly in association with wetlands in the area as well as Lake Minnetonka, suggests that the area may have been a seasonal locus of prehistoric Native American activity, possibly back to the Paieoindian period”. However, these findings could be made of virtually all land near Lake Minnetonka comprising hundreds of acres in southern Orono, and of many lands surrounding other lakes in Orono. No specific evidence such as artifacts, burial sites or mounds, etc. has been introduced related to this site. No evidence of pioneer homestead sites on the parcel in question has been presented, and there are no historic buildings on the site. While the Saga Hill area may have social significance in relation to the activities of its pioneer occupants a century ago, no evidence has been presented to suggest that any significant historical sites will be affected by this development. In regards to Concern 4. Petition Statement:“There is a hazardous intersection proposed for vehicular access to and from said development adding to already dangerous intersections.” The City Council finds as follows: The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed intersection of Garden Lane and Tonkaview Lane. The intersection location is a very appropriate location from a safety standpoint because it is on the ouside of a horizontal curve, allowing more than adequate sight lines and sight distance for vehicles entering Tonkaview Lane. Impacts of the vertical curvature of Tonkaview Lane are minimal, being Page 6 of 8 ■M.*Y it"-Avaji.■ relatively flat west of the intersection, and being a relatively uniform downhill slope east of the intersection. An existing driveway in the Garden Lane right-of-way serving the adjacent residence to the east will likely have to be relocated onto Garden Lane upon construction of the new road; this will be addressed as part of the final road design plans. The final road design for Garden Lane will also incorporate a right-angle approach onto Tonkaview to avoid blind spots for exiting vehicles. The majority of drainage from Garden Lane will be directed northward to the north stormwater pond via storm sewers, hence drainage to Tonkavie w from Garden Lane will be minimized. The City Council finds that the proposed intersection will not create a hazardous situation, and does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 10.In addition to reviewing the concerns noted in the Citizen Petition, the City Council has reviewed the concerns expressed in three recent letters from Saga Hill area residents or the>r representatives. Those letters reiterate some of the concerns noted above. Two of the letters specifically address pond maintenance, and request some assurance that the ponds will be correctly constructed and maintained. The City Engineer will as a matter of course inspect the construction progress of the Development on a regular basis to ensure that all construction including construction of stormwater facilities meets all required standards. Additionally, the permanent covenants established for the Development will grant the City the right of entry and authority to monitor, maintain and reconstruct if necessary the stormwater ponds should the residents fail to do so, and to assess the costs of same back to the residents. Other issues noted in the recent letters include the general state of the existing area stormwater facilities, such as the lack of curb and gutter where it may be needed in the Wildhurst and Forest Lake Landing areas. Any additional impacts to these areas as a result of the proposed Development are expected to be minimal if any due to the stormwater management facilities that will be constructed as part of the Development. 11.The City Council finds that the concerns raised in the Citizen Petition and in additional correspondci.ee by residents have been sufficiently addressed during the subdivision review process, and that the subdivision has been revised a number of times in response to issues brought up by the City and by the area residents. The City Council further finds that the conditions of preliminary plat approval and conditions to be imposed on the Development result in a project that will have no potential for significant environmental effects. Page 7 of 8 iKi. f 12.The City Council finds that the evidence presented by the petitioners, by area residents, by the proposers, by City staff and by other persons as documented herein, fails to demonstrate that the Development may have a potential for significant environmental effects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Mi^esota that the Citizen Petition to the EQB by Shirley Bull, et al, is hereby denied, and notification of such denial shall be forwarded to EQB staff, to the proposer, and to the petitioners’ representative within 5 days pei EQB Rules 4^ 10.1100 Subpart 8. Adopted by the City Council oi Orono, Minnesota this 11*** day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor !i'- Page 8 of 8 MINNESOTA PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD KX r r" “ November 29, 2000 Mr. Paul Weinberger City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: Citizens petition for an EAW for Brenshell Homes residential development Dear Mr. Weinberger: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an EAW be prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that Orono is the appropriate governmental imit to decide the need for an EAW. The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of an EAW, can be found in the Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410. The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include: 1. e 2. No final government approvals may be given to the project named in the petition, nor may construction on the project be started until the need for an EAW has been determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the environment, including preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EAW, approval must be w'ithheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3100, subpart l.stpaui mn'ssiss T.Mooe: 651-296-3985 A first Step in making the decision regarding the need for an EAW would be to Facsimile- compare the project to the mandatory EAW, EIS and Exemption categories listed in 651-296-3698 parts 4410.4300,4410.44(X), and 4410.4600, respectively. If the project should fall under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or 800-627-3529 prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly. It has been represented tq^^ppian. state.mn.us 100% post consume recycled content US that this project is possibly exempt under part 4410.4600, subpart 12; see rulebook enclosed, page 65. 3.If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, the City has the option to prepare an EAW. The standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires that a record of decision including specific findings of fact be maintained. 4.You are allowed up to 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision if it will be made by a council, board, or other body which meets only periodically, or 15 working days if it will be made by a single individual. You may request an extra 15 days from EQB if the decision will be made by an individual. 5.You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the EQB of your decision within five working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy of your record of decision on the petition along v/ith notification of your decision for our records. This is not required, however. 6.If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no application has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn), the petition will remain in effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final decision concerning the project identified in the petition. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EQB Monitor on December 11,2000. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. The phone number is (651) 296-8253, or you may dial my direct number at (651) 296-3865. Sincerely, Jon Larsen Principal Planner, Environmental Review cc: Shirley Bull, petitioners’ representative 1 1 fell "■f F "-rr-rrr-> NOV-2T-00 MON 01:47 PM Welsh 952 4725663 P . 06 Of-I Shirley Bull 4690 Tonkaview Lane Orono, MN 55364 (952)472-3088 November 24,2000 Minnesota'Environmental Quality Board 300 Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 Re: Development of proposed site by Brenshell Homes at 1181 WUdhurst Trail Orono, MN. Dear Sir and/or Madam: Enclosed, please find, for filing with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, a Citizen Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet regarding the development of proposed site by Brenshell Homes at 1181 Wildhurst Trail in Orono Mn. Please contact me if you have any questions concerning the Petition: Sincerely, A'L-Jly Shirley Bull Enc. 1 CC: Brenshell Homes i!:' t *.■I NOV-27-00 MON 01:48 PM Me Ish 'sl‘- m ■ ■ N* 952 4725663 Pi 07 C-2- We, the undersigned, state the need for an Environmental Review of the proposed subdivision site at 1181 Wildhurst Trail, Orono Mn by developer Tom Stokkes of Brenshell Homes. The proposed subdivision will adversely effect the erosion of the steep sloped Erin & Kilkeaney soils on Saga Hill, the filling in of a wet land, the possibility of increased pollution to Forest Lake Bay by run-off directly dumped into said bay from two ravines located on said property (see attached documents by Barr Engineering and residents), the irreversible damage of a section of a “Big Woods”, the last remaining Big Woods on Saga Hill with historical significance (see attached documents by IMA Consulting). There is a hazardous intersection proposed for vehicular access to and from said development adding to already dangerous intersections. As representative for the petitioners, the EQB or RGU may contact Shirley Bull 4690 Tonkaview Lane Orono, MN 55364 (952)472-3088 By their signatures, the undersigned certify that they have read and are familiar with the content of this Petition. Signature fh. k»SPr;o, fcl LYL6' j<A.S.f'K/C. t Printed Name VPrinted Name /_mden f'BnP Address / aaY. Address Q^no[b^^^</-')75V m/ .<S36 ‘/-97<S c City, State and Zip City, State and Zip iX'xO'vrrw •“m . • NOV—2T-00 MON 01:49 PM 14* I »h Printed Name l/j=rm fJ l)r' Address City, State and Zip r^</ r^. SJ^iA a JLx^C^ Signature i^o h tg^/ L , Of rHx'ti I ^ Printed Name r-z.-i 9 Address /M /? rfj yw // ^"S City, State and Zip 952 47256S3 P . 08 i4SK) /OofZT^t Address City, State and Zip ■m / Signature M ^JtJ—L /T t /'tLf'iJ: Printed Name iz‘i-i’(Ay/l(^Auir<rr f-/?. Address /\/>3C:f Y City, State and Zip rr-UUBWUJWKa -«*.«.r,»..wu.'.... Lt -’- ■' Nov-27-ee noN ei:49 fn u*i»h O Signature ^ CJ p fx l^ Printed Name ^tltj / i/h / Address Oh)y^^)vflT" City, State and Zip Kjcn/i'^ l/^lkh Printed Name UBO E/p)irf00i Avc^ Address /Tin . City, State and Zip 952 4T25Se3 P*. 99 CJ fi!s{ Planted Name /Z/f^ A///, Address U City, State and Zip Printed Name llpd Address C>ronO, /VIyf/ •Cf?c,9' City, State and Zip !> .NOV-27-00 MON ei:S0 PM M*1sh w 952 4725eS3 p.te Signature ignature f t*y\.12 L. lA/Pp Printed Name Printed Name L ArU:e L^/op>/AXf Lac/^^lwy Address Address \J City, State and Zip Signature Myy\ jg^ Printed Name Wep/-PF Address City, State and Zip City, State and Zip \ Signature A/V (\t\C Aj6/\ Printed Name Address C)n^6 , aIa) City, State and Zip Nov-27-00 MON 6l :S1 PM | kd..> W RNmfiiL I'-* 992 4729S63 P . 1 1 Signatrrre (/o/c, /Sej-jer-e^—^ Printed Name Printed Name Address Address Z^Ar/A/Cr- JliAJ SrJCU City, State and Zip jD State and Zip Signature V.■ ft Printed l^ame nTT Printed Name a NinMA.^>ksvf. fif.fhASsr Lk- Address Address Nfewi UtA 9^'2h}- City, State and Zip -A- City, State and Zip i i I i NOV-2.7--00 MON 01:52 PM M* I sh 952 4725663 Pt 13 / Signature V Printed Name Printed Name 9)4-C> 1k^4WfK( vi< ■5"0«4<o T3a-v')"/<-W ' Address City, State and Zip Address City, State and Zip ./ ^Signature / I i/itt H. Jri/i?t. r .uevux Printed Name 4'l^'Totik2i\t(>jJ L/\ . Address '^'^S5 U»v^. Address Ovoi/io Mk\ ^doik ^ City, State and Zip Qy-oYNta AA>rO City, State and Zip ■rtiTTVi—■ n II nifcrf II ■ iTifc III 0 Ha Ml If ifTa tin i n i iiii i «~11 ■ n i mi i ■■n ifhJBt0m I *ii nwar; t "Mr ■- j ' i uttwrtr — NOV-2T-00 MON 01:S3 PM Me I»h .^£LSL., Signature PrintetWilame ^^90"^ nkc^iL'r,., l^) Address Qro.^ ^^ . m a; ss~3fe / City, State and Zip uiiiUu. (1. 'Bu(( Printed Name iofjkr(i/vVu^ La Address QirONO , l1/\<Vi» City, State and Zip 952 4725663 P.14 I « j Printed Name 12^7 \A),Lilkuyfii-~lr^-i Address Or<gno . I'^AI City, State and Zip •y Signature Sl'Mrri' L^jncU^ Printed Name rz.‘il u ’-.[ dUy.-s^lr Address SS's^f City, State and Zip *r ■p\ ---------■HiI HU ■i|l»I II i»i III I I I I NOV-2T-00 MON 0t:S4 Pti M* I sh 952 4725663 ^ Sign] Address V~7gi$" (mkuMti} U Address Qrn<^ hUfJ 5S^y City, State and Zip' 'City, State and Zii Signature Signature r -••r* Printed Name Printed Name Address Address City, State and Zip City, State and Zip P-. 15 I ..Usn^Um'.'rrT* i '\/i ■ I tt ir r ■■ r— rrmri 11 ^ r w-u j Li**-i ■mj ili n,T'r f k :v- V MOV-28-ee TUE ll:es am UeI»h 952 4725663 P.Cl Gary & Sandra Welsh 1214 WBdhurat TraB • Moutxl, Minnesota S53S4 • Tdephcre S52472-S955 • Fax 952-472-6663 * Ema3;gwelsh®blackhole,com 11/28/2000 TO: FROM: RE: Greg Downing Gary Welsh and Shirley Bull EAW (Brenshell) Enclosed are the attachments from Barr Engineering. The MCWD also has these plus the “topogs” which are colored to show slopes. Will have to get the “topogs” from the MCWD later. Do you need these originals? .1 \ ■^ -i !f tc f NOV-28-00 TUE 11:05 »^M U|« |952 4725663 P.02 Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis. MN 55435-4803 Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 ^-3 BARR Minneapolis, MN • Nibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, Ml • Jefferson City, MO TRANSMITTAL LETTER To:Mr. Gary Welsh Date:November 20,2000 c: Project 0: 23 / 27 - 973 KAL 010 Re:Brenshcll Homes Documents We are sending you: □Correspondence □Reports M Plans 0 Copy of Letter □Specifications □Other: No. of Copies Description 1 August 31, 2000 Letter to Gary Welsh 1 September 7, 2000 Letter to Mike Gaffron 1 September 11, 2000 Letter to Paul Weinberger 1 September 25, 2000 Wetland Data Sheets (2 sets of 2 pages each) 1 September 27, 2000 Fax to Barb Moeller with Wetland Data Locations Map 1 Plan Sheet Showing 12-18% Grades, >18% Grades, Ponds, and Wetlands 1 Plan Sheet Showing Conservation Easement and Drainage Easements These are t'ansmltted as checked below: 13 For approval Q As requested D Othen El For your use Q For review and comment: Remarks: Sent by:Mark Jacobson Phone: 952 - 832 - 2764 k NOV-28-ee TUE ll:ee am Welsh 952 4725663 P.03 Barr Engineering Company 4700 West T?** Street ■ Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: 952-832-2600 ■ Fax: 952-832-2601 C-3.4 BARR Minneapolis, MN ■ Hibblng, MN ■ Duluth, MN ■ Ann Arbor, Mi ■ Jefferson City, MO Facsimile Cover Page MCWDAttention: Ms. Barb Moeller From: Mark Jacobson Regarding: Brensbell Homes/Saga Hill Wetland Delineation Data Locations Date: September 27,2000 Time: 2:00 p.m.Total Number of Pages; Fax Number: 952-471-0682 Project Number: 23/27-973 KAL 001 ^ Fax Only □Original to Follow The information contained in this fax is intended for the use of the individual named above. If this fax is received in error, or if the uaosmission is incomplete, please call 952/832-2600 immediately and ask for______________. Additional comments: Barb: Attached is a topography map of the Saga Hill area (11X17 in 2 parts from the 1997 development proposal) showing the approximate locations where our data was collected. These locations are just based on rough field measurements in relation to the ravine and forested CAD coverage. Thank you, Mark Jacobson 832-2764 i 1 I NOV-28-00 TUE 11:07 Welsh 0 952 4725663 Gary Welsh From: To: Cc: Sent: "Mark Wilson" <MWILSON@barr.com> <gwelsh@black-hole.com > <mjacobson@barr.com> Tuesday, September 26,20001:38 PM Subject:Re: Orono Wetlands - Brensheil Mr. Welsh -The size of the forested wetland I evaluated on September 25, 2000 is approximately 6000 square feet. Please contact me with any other questions. -Mark Wilson »> Mark Wilson 09/25 5:57 PM »> Mr. Welsh -1 had an opportunity today to review the area (7-acre Wildhurst Site) previously delineatd by Schoell and Madison in 1997 and evaluated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company on September 15,2000 . My findings indicate that there is a forested w' land located approximately 100 feet northwest of the south ravine, which may be substantially larger than the wetland delineated by Schoell and Madison. Please review the attached wetland data sheets (Wordperfect documents) for details about this wetland and the upland area to the north. In general, the area evaluated meets the 3 technical c.nteria for wetlands; it has a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and three indicators of hydrolo^. This type of wetland will typically not have saturated soils or inundation in late September except immediately following a rain storm. The data sheet completed for this site by Kjolhaug, does not reflect the wetland area I evaluated and was likely completed in an adjacent upland area. Unfortunatley, no location map was provided with their wetland evaluation memo and only one data point was provided. Please call me with any questions. Mark Wilson Aquatic Biologist Barr Engineering Company (952)832-2610 P . 34 Page 1 of C-3.^/ 1 -^ihniri i-i'tir I ■»rtTi i iTTi^fcii !■ n n>i ii i Ttfifri~Trni ~ li~ I T r~ lim<liilB~illi iri~i lr-n>-«Miii'»nrM~Tw fla— man II i—iinfc^»mrT liMi ii-inm I T rfT “TT rrni I'*1 ‘11 ~11 ~ I l‘* I T iOBCMO n Ur*cs i'V’- t »m t CDCC^ v-^ v' ^ '\/,ir s -i.-.l • ;AL PgTAB.uiT r. ro IT) tftr -- N V) 0^ MC< ir« d CJ:>rf •jl •*• •• « LJLti^ TT •V -./r: Igt .^p *! |*Hr *.jj ", I ____ •*••*»*5 f0» •awss' 0 aNM TAOULATION an Hen or Wmi^ - su*« sx. (ua «e^ oovMMAK* . a»s sr. (0L» yH M«k -J«JO» sx. (»■•* O AltfAWS •. »0»1 »X. (1 JO <cj .«■»• 'If V •— ^ ^ I- . .y^y ;uni ///'. ^“4 tx HQfftOPOCimr Dcscmptioii iM io •Qt^- f v\k—i:--H U«7 48 \ •----------------------- tir 47 ^Oi- ^ /garden lane site / (f I I OBO»' - •••I yJpjpJM'Vi.tY PLAT ••• •••• •0^ ..•»••• ••«•; !.j ■■'-••' t 8 »> *-• ■% NOV-28-00 TUE 11:09 am NeIsh 952 4T25663 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) P . 06 4 fi Pfoiect/Site; Brensheli Homes/Saaa Hill Date: 9/25/00 ADDlicant/Owner:Countv: Henneoin Investigators: Mark Wilson State: MN Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse.) Circular 39 Type: 7 Cowardin: PF01B Communitv ID: W1 Transect ID: Plot ID: SB-1 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratur^Indicator I.UImusBmericana (S0%)T FACW- Other Plant Soedes Spatum trxiicator 1._ 2.Rhamnus cat/iartfca f40%)S/S FAC-2.__________ -_ 3.Poaoa/usMs{S0%]H FACW-i-3.^___ __________ 4.Csrax scooarfa (2Q%\H FACW 4. 5.5. 6.5. 7.•/. 8..8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACV/ or FAC (excluding FAC-)2/4 = 75% Remarks: This site does meet the wetland vegetation para neler. r>' HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks); ____Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ____Aerial Photographs ___Other (Piezometer Data) No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ___Inundated ___Saturated In Upper 12 Inches ___Water Marks ___Drift Lines ___Sediment Deposits ___Drainage Patterns In Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water.None _(in.)Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water In Pit:None to 24 (In.)Local Son Survey Data 2L.FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil:None to 24 On.)Other (Explain In Remarks) Remarks: This shallow depresional area Is covered with tussocks ol sedges and fowl bluegrass similar to what you would expect to witness in an area which Is Inundated for a significant portion of the growing season and has 2 secondary IrxHcators of hydrology. It is my professional opinion that this site does meet the wetland hydology criteria and is Inundated to a depth at or greater then twelve inches from the surface, for at least 5% of the growing season in a typical year. SS-t. P9 1 P.A23\27V973 ‘Wetland Data Shccu/Bienjhcll Homei-Saja HiU'/MBW HOV-28-O0 TUE il:lO AM M»Ish 952 4T25683 P . £iT C'2.7 Map Unn Name (Sertos and Phase); cwdova siitv Clav Loam. TaxofKxny (Subgroup) Depth flnchaa) IL l9___ Horizon fl. 16 lt-24. Matrtc Color fMiinseli Moisn 10YR 2/1 ____ 10YEL3/1 10YR3/2 Hydric Soil mdicators: HIstoaol HItUc Epipedon SutfldicOdor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing CondHIona Drainage Class; Poorly Drained Reid Observations Confirm Mapped Typo?Yes No Mottle Colors fMiinsell Molsh MSOfi------------ Nona 10YRV8 Mottle (Abundance/ slze/ContrasO jj Qleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Remarks: This site does meet the wetland sons parameter. Texture, Co'cretions. Simctura. e‘z Loam_____ Loam Pnw/Med/Distinct Loamy Clav. ___Concretions . ^ ^ ^ „ High Organic Conlanl In Surface Layer In Ss/\ty Soils ___Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils jS__Listed on Local Hydric Solis List jS__Listed on 'rational Hydric Soils List Other (Ejip«aln In Remarks) WbTLANU Uc 1 cmviirtM i ____________ HydrophyticVegeUtlon Present?Yea No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yee No Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a We'Jand? Yes No Remarks: This site does meet all three wetland parameters. S8-l.ee 2 p \23\27\975 •WfUand Data Shceit/BtYnstieU Homc4-S,iga Hiir/NIEW NOV-28-00 TUE ll:il AM We I»h 952 4725663 p: 08 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual} Proiect/Site: Brenshell Homes/Saaa Hill Date: 9/25/00 ADDlicanl/Owner;Countv: Henneoin Investiaators; Mark Wilson State: MN Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse.) CommunitvID: U1 Transect ID: Plot ID: SB-2 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Scaclaa Stratum Indicator Other Plant Soecles Stratum Indicator 1.Bromus Inermus rso%>H UPL 1. 2.Sofidaao altissima (20%)F FACU 2. 3.Fmjttnui oannsvh/^niea S/S FACW 3. 4.Utmus ■mericana (20%)T FACW.4. 5.Junfoarus virainiana (5%)T FACU 5.._ ____ 6.6. 7.7.____ 8.8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)2ZS1 = 40% Remarks: This site does not meet the v/e*Jand vegetation parameter. i HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Prlma7 Indicators: Aerial Photographs Inundated O'i^er (Piezometer Data)Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available Water Marks .... Drift Lines •Sediment Deposits Rek) ODservalicns:Dralr>age Panems In Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oeolh of Surface Water;None rin)Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Slained Leaves Deoth to Free Water In Pit None to t a (in.)Local Soil Survey Data . , FAC-Neutral Test Oeolh to Saturated Soil:None to ia (in )Other (Explain In Remarks) Remarks: This are does net meet the wetland hydrology criteria. 86-2. p^. 1 P:\23\27\973 •WcUard Dala Shetts/BrcosbdJ Homcs-Saga Hifl*/MEW . NOV-28-00 TUE 11:12 AM W#I»h 952 4725663 P.09 C-a.? SOILS Map Unit Nama (Series arx) Phase): KHkInnev Loam. 2 to aVd slopes Drainage Class: Weft Drained Taxtromy (Subgroup): Molllc Haoludalfs Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No prof Ic Descflptlon: Depin Horizon Matric Color (Munsell MolsO Mottle Colors fMunsell MolsO Mottle (Abundance/ Size/Cootrasl) Texture. Concretions, Stnjcture. etc. 0-10 10YR3/1 None Silty 10 » 13 1QYR 4/1 None Loarn 13-18 10YR3/2 10YR5/6 Comm AledVDiaHnct Sandy Clav Loam I { Hydrtc Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions HIsUc Epipedon High Organic Content In Surface Layer In Sandy SoOs SulfldIcOdor Organic Streaking In Sandy Softs Aquic Motsturo Ragirno Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Redudng Condlllons Listed on National Hydric Solis Ust Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain In Remarks) Ramarks: Thia alto does not meet the wetland sol's parameter. WETLAND DETERMINATION • HydrophyUc Vegetation Presani? Yea No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Kydric Soils Present?Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a WeUand? Yes No Rerr.atfcK •• SB-Z. P:\2^7W3 ’Werland Data Shceo/BrensbeU Homes-Sap Hiir/MEW ■ff‘ ; -1 f ^ i. NOV-28-00 TUE 11;12 AM Me Ish 952 4725663 BARR Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis. MN 55435-4803 Phone; 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 P.lO Minneapolis, MN • Hiboing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, Ml • Jefferson City, MO September II, 2000 Mr. Paul Weinberger City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 J Re: Brenshell Homes Development Proposal Dear Mr. Weinberger: At the reque*- of h;:. G'^ry Welsh and other concerned citizens of Orono, Barr Engineering Company has reviewed the revised develo^/mcnt plans received today in support of the proposed Brenshell Homes subdivision at 1181 Wildburst Trail in Orono. We are providing comments for your consideration in evaluating the proposed subdivision at your September 11,2000 city council meeting. Based on our latest review, we continue to have concerns regarding the steep slopes and wetland losses. Steep Slopes and Erosion Concerns The revised development plans include a reconfiguration of the lot line between Lots 2 and 3 and a minor reduction in the cul-de-sac length as recommended by city staff. However, the plans do not adequately protect the slopes and ravine from erosion due to concentrated runoff from the backs and sides of the homes. Unfortunately, approximately one-half of the bouse pad on Lot 2 and approximately one-sixth of the house pad on Lot 3 lie within areas defined as “steep slopes ” (slopes steeper than 12%). The current plans have not altered the drainage to ensure that concentrated runoff does not cause erosion in the south ravine and on the steep slopes leading to Wildburst Trail. The south stormwater pond is also planned for construction within the south ravine in areas currently containing slopes steeper than 18 percent. The construction of the south pond would require the removal of numerous large maple trees which are currently providing stability in the ravine. The steep slopes on Lots 2 and 3 arc currently protected from erosion by: 1.The full tree and shrub canopy which intercepts rainfall, maintains a more permeable soil structure and wicks away moisture from within the soils by evapotranspiration, and 2.1 he natural surface roughness and small dcpressional areas in the upstream drainage area slows any runoff that does occur so runoff within the ravine is spread out and maintained at lower rates. As the city staff recommended at our meeting on September 6, 2000, a conservation easement should be provided over the steeper slopes on Lots 2 and 3 to protect the existing vegetative cover and ground elevations. The pend would also create a new slope into the rav^e which would be steeper than 20 percent. Constructing ;hc por4 within a flatter area would eliminate smaller trees and create less of an erosion concern. ■—T-n■■■ Noy-28-ee tue ii:is am M*i»h 952 4725663 P.1 1 Mr. Mike Oaffron September 11.2000 Page 2 ________ Wetland Losses A final issue that should be considered is the elimination of wetlands on the property which were delineated and surveyed in 1997. Although not directly regulated by city ccxle (Type 1 wetlands), the filling or draining of wetlands is regulated by the Wetland Conscrv'alion Act as administered by the Minnehaha Ctcek Watershed District and the discharge of dredge or fill material into wetlands is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At this time, it is not clear that the applicant will be able to meet the wetland permitting and mitigation requirements. If you have any questions, please call me at (952) 832-2764. Sincerely, Mark Jacobson Environmental Scientist c:Ron Moorse Mike Oaffron Oreg Gappa Gary Welsh NOV-28-ee TUE ll;14 AM Me I»h BARR 9S2 4T25663 Barr Engineering Company 47CX) West 77th Street • Minneapolis. MN 55435-4803 Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax 952-832-2601 P.12 Minneapolis. MN • Hibbl.ig, MN • Duluth. MN • Ann Arbor. Ml • Jefferson City, MO September 7,2000 w i Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Civslal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Brensheli Homes Development Proposal Dear Mr. Gaffron: At the request of Mr. Gary Welsh and other concerned citizens of Orono, Barr Engineering Company is providing additional i^ormation for your consideration in evaluating the proposed Brensheli Homes proposed subdivision. On September 6,2000, we inspected the proposed development site to further evaluate the potential for erosion and drainage problems as a result of the development. We observed numerous, large, healthy maple trees uiihin and surrounding the entire ravine in the southeast comer of the development parcel. It appears that some of these trees would be removed in order to construct the southernmost pond. Currently, these trees provide a number of bet efits b protecting the ravine includbg: 1.The complete canopy over the area reduces the erosive potential of raindrops by interception, 2.The trees help promote infiltration and reduce surface runoff by keepbg the soil porous (with macropoics created by roots and soil organisms), 3.Trees have high evapotranspiration rates which reduces soil water content between rainfall events and provides more storage for rainfall and lessens runoff, and 4.The expansive root systems provide stability to the soils and slopes to prevent slope failure. Once these large trees are removed ^d their root systems begin to decay, the stability of the slopes will decrease and the lack of protective cover may berease the raindrop erosion potential and surface runoff resulung in increased erosion, formation of gullies, and sediment transport to Forest Lake. As wc discussed yesterday, the home Ideations on Lots 2 and 3 are shown within or immediately adjacent to 18% slopes with no useabb, flat back yard areas. The proximity of these house pads on the steep slopes raises serious erosion concerns due to roof runoff; the additional grading that is expected to create small, useable back yards; and estabUshraent of turf which generally results in increased runoff over native vegetation. It would be helpful to stake the limits of the proposed pond on Lo I and the house pad areas on Lots 2 and 3 in order to properly evaluate the porential for m;;>L tr.' Mo’v-ze-ee ti.*s it:is am I4*i»h 9S2 4T256635 Mr. MOce Caffroa September 7,2000 Page 2 ____ P.13 If you lu>ve any questions, please call me at (952) 832-2764. Sincerely, Mark Jacobson Environmental Scientist c:Ron Moorse Paul Weinberger Greg Gappa Gary Welsh ^r. 4 > 1:16 AM Welsh BARR 952 4T25663 P.14 Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 C 'B./V Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor. Ml • Jefferson City, MO k £ i]** August 31,2000 ■L l' D Mr. Gary Welsh 1214 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN 55364 Re: Brenshell Homes Dear Mr. Welsh: As you requested, we have reviewed the proposed Brenshell Homes development for conformance to Chapter 10 of the Orono Municipal Code and the rules and regulations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. This letter summarizes our findings. Orono Municipal Code - Chapter 10 As shown in the attached Table 1, the proposed development generally conforms to ordinances of the City of Orono. However, a few issues appear inconsistent v/ith the City’s code, including possibly the bluff impact zone, wetland impacts, and one driveway setback. Site design modifications are needed to confoira to these ordinances. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Table 2 summarizes the rules and regulation of the District and whether the proposed development is m conformance. In general, the propo^l seems in conformance, but the proposed development will eliminate a lOOO-squarri foot wetland. To conform to District rules and the Wetland Conservation Act. any wetland impact over 400 square feet should be avoided. If it cannot be avoided, it needs to be replaced. No wetland replacement plan was provided for our review. HOV/-28-0O TUE 11: 16 AM U* I sh 952 472566S >« Mr. Gary Welsh August 31,2000 Page 2 ___ P.J 5 Additional Questions In additional to concerns listed in the attached tables, the following questions could also be asked of the city: How will the slope between Lots 2 and 3 be protected during and after the prooosed sanitary sewer construction from Wildhurst Trail? How will the construction of the sanitary sewer within Wildhurst Trail be performed so th*.t traffic is not disrupted since Wildhurst has no alternative ingress/egress? Does the city.have a tree ordinance? There is an ordinance about trees within the bluff impact zone. If the areas of Lots 2,3, tmd 5 are bluff impact zones, the cities tree ordinance applies and tree damage needs to be avoided. Does the street design conform to City codes? The design is essentially an 870-foot cul-de- sac with a marginal turn around at 470 feet. Typically, cities do no allow cul-de-sacs longer than SOO feet for safety reasons. If you have any questions regarding our review, or would like us to review additional information, please contact us. Kurt Leuthold, P.E. i f._______ NOV-2e-00 TUE 11: IT Me I&h 952 4725663 P-16 Table 1 Chapter 10 Orono Municipal Code Brenshell Homes Development, City Zoning LR*1B Page Issue Conforms Does Not Conform 259-1, C-3 Driveways shall be at least 10 leet Irom side or rear lot lines of adjacent lot Lots 1-4 probably will Lot 5 shows a proposed driveway closer than 10 feet to Lot 1 and lot to east 255-3 -256, Subd. 14 Yards and open space: Each lot needs to be able to have at least 1,500 sq. ft. of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures Yes Total footprint cannot exceed 15% of lot area Yes 285 Lot Area (1 ac w/o ROW)Yes 265 Lot Width (140*)Yes 285 Front Yard (35’)Yes 285 Side Yard Adjacent to Another Lot (10') Yes 285 Rear Yard (30’)Yes 285 Side Yard Adjacent to Street (35')Yes 365, Subd. 8 No grading wltliin WCA area No According to preliminary plat oi 8/97, there is a wetland In the current Lot 1. The current grading plan would eliminate/regrade the area to be about 2 feet lov/er. 374, Subd. 25, 6 No variance wilt be granted for not preserving wetlands No Sea above.| • 376, #24 Shoreland - This site Is within 1000' of the OHW of Forest Lake NA NA 376-9, Subd. 14 DNR Notification - must notify the DNR10 days prior to all public hearings Not sure Not sure j 376-11, C2 Bluff Setbacks Probably for Lots 1 and 4 Lots 2,3, and 5 (if interpreting code correctly) 376-13, G Steep Slopes Not sure Not sure 376-2,3 Bluff Impact 2bne - if interpreting code correctly, this site has three, in Lots 2,3, and 5 NA NA 376-12, 3 Biuff Impact Zone -no stnjcture can be placed within zone Lots 2 and 5 (if interpreting code correctly) 376-14,1 Vegetation Alternations within Bluff Impact Zone - no live tree 6* in diameter or more 3' above ground may be removed v/ithout a permit from City Not sure Not sure 376-16, g Steep slopes - must be reviewed by City engineer Not sure Not sure 376-16, h No fill or excavation in Bluff Impa.t Zone Stormwater pond and house pad grading of Lots 1,2 and 5 within zone NOV-28-0O TUE 11:18 AM Me Ish 952 4725663 P.J 7 6-3.17 Table 2 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Brenshell Homes Development Rule N (subdivision with density less than 2 units/acre - needs to conform to BMPs) Minimum proposed opening 2 feet or more above 100-year flood level Structural BMPs Non-stnjctural BMPs Project Conforms Yes Temporary Project Does Not Conform The east pond should probably be moved to the west to avoid negative characteristic impacts to the ravine. Skimmers should be installed at pond outlets. Riprap at pond outlets should be sized appropriately. The 4" orifice is likely to plug. An emergency overflow should bo provided so that the dike does not collapse. A revised structure is suggested for the 7.5% slope of the outlet for the east pond to reduce flow velocities. The design does not Incorporate other BMPs. Eliminates wetland in Lot 1. No information provided on other BMPs. Silt fence is shown. A rock fitter dike is' probaoly more appropriate in the channel of Lot 2. No rocK enirance/exit is NOy-28-00 TUE 11:19 AM M*I»h >V-'V--’ > 952 4725663 Table 2 (continued) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District P.18 c; -i> ,/& shown. Wood fiber blanket should be used on slopes 3H:1V or steeper. 0 (wetland protection) According to 8/97 information there \s a 1 .15-acre wetland on Lot 1. Another wetland was located west of the current site. A third wetland was located in Outlet A. • *9* No Impact • Elimination of wetland in Lot 1 does not conform to MCWD policies. It requires avoidance and/or replacement.’ No replacement plan is shown. Buffers For Outlet A, probably yes. See above. NOV-2.T-00 MON 01:43 PM Me I sh 952 4T25663 P.tdl L . t'. Gary & Sandra Welsh 1214 Wildhurst Trail • Mound. Minnesota 55364 • Telephone 952-472-69S5 • Fax 952-472-5663 * Email:gweIsh®black-hote.eom 11/27/2000 TO;Greg Downing FROM:Gary Welsh RE;EAW Petition Enclosed:Petition IMA Report Larry Brown Letter Copy of notice letter Copy of letter of contact person, Shirley Bull <.'T We have additional pertinent information that is with Minnehaha Watershed District for the 28* meeting we can get to you later. "1 ............■m~ m rri*.A2iA.' w NOV-2V-00 MON 01:44 PM N*Ish 952 4725063 P*. 03 FRCM :PHONE NO. ;Oct. 24 1997 03:5T'^M HI — V.m Hi IMA Con.sulling, Inc. !)|v; u» %|» 1^. :iK* r.% wit jni* I nun* X;li* I il»» ^V**‘ .!•*••• I* \1|-t ‘ irUiv. \W.* Pm ^•,*.•11; SAGA HILL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSPECTION latrodaction On November 9, 1997, staff archaeologists (William Belcher, Casey DeMarais and Keith Richter) from IMA Consulting, Inc. inspected several parcels on Saga Hill on behalf of the Saga Hill Preservation Society as requested by Ms. Patricia AfTeldt. The inspected areas are located in T117 N, R23 W, Section 7, N’.V 1/4, SE '/a of Hennepin County, Minnesota in the township of Orono. Ocncrally, the area is heavily wooded with smalt trees, although in the northern areas, several large “old growth” maples arc present. In some areas, the ground has been severely disturbed by tree falls caused by storm.s. Scattered throughout the properties arc pockets of trash that date between the 1930s and 1930s. None of this material seems to represent any historic occupation. The area appears to have been used as a dumping ground for local occupants throughout this centuiy. There ore three main parcels present on Saga Hill: (1) a northern property that is slated for bousing development; (2) a central parcel that is currently owned by the city of Orono, Minnesota and is maintained iu an undeveloped condition; and, (3) a southeastern ps' cel that is slated for housmg development. In general, the entire area has a moderate to high potential for the occurrence of archaeological sites based on various site location criteria that are used by IMA Consulting, Inc. as u'cU as the close proximity of the parcels to each other. An archaeologir.ally sensitive parcel will usually meet one or more of the following criteria: The parcel contains a known archaeological site. The parcel is located on an ancient lakcshore or beach ridge. The parcel is on an upland area with a commanding view of a large area of surrounding territory. The parcel is \vithin 50 meters or a Stream or river. The parcel is within 150 meters of 3 lake or lakeshore. The parcel is within 100 meters of a known or suspected wild rice procurement or fishing area. The parcel is immediately adjacent to a wetland area. The parcel is situated on a rise of dry land adjacent to or witliin a marsh, wetland area, or areas were cranberries, blueberries and other plant resources occur. The parcel is adjacent to a known or su.«pectcd portage or other transportation route. ?3C0 University Ave. SE. Suite 202, Minneapolis. M.N 55414 \Vico: 612/62.^-0299 Fj »: 612/623-0177 KttntiH'f' Litfturtil r.* A.sw/t •ufion Afr**/»r\a*/(a S£OA\A NOV-27-00 MON 01:45 PM W* I S.h 952 472566^P.04 FROM :PHONE NO. :Oct. 24 1937 03:58PM P2 Parcel Description Northern Parccl/Central Parcel. These parcels are treated together because several important geological landfortns are present in the northern parcel and the northern portion of the central parcel. These specific areas have a relatively high potential for archaeological sites. The southern area of the central parcel appears to have a low ])otential for archaeological sites. Along the northern edge of the privately-owned parcels a series of lake terraces exist. At least four terraces arc present; the lowest overlooks an extensive wetland area to the north. These tenaccs could date to the Late Pleistocone/Early Holocene and could contain evidence of Paleoin^an and Archaic Period occupation, possibly dating between 6,000 and 11,000 years ago. Also, a deep ravine cuts both parcels. Long stretches of level ground vrith sandy soils occur along the southern edge of the ravine. Level ground in well-drained areas with sandy soils, especially those overlooking water sources, made ideal areas for Native Aincrican campsites and are often the sites of long-tcnn occupations. Old growth maples arc associated these level areas and could have been used the collection of maple sap for “sugaring ”, possibly in the past few hundreu years. Southeastern Parcel. A smaller “tributary ” ravine runs through this parcel. Although, not as dramatic as the deeper ravine to the north, it has a moderate potenrial for the presence of ^ archaeological sites. There is a narrow band of level ground that occupies the southern side of this ravine.^-1 Conclusions Taken as a whole, the entire portion of Saga Hill has a relatively high potential for the pre^ce of archaeological sites. The presence of flat ground in association with deep erosional ra'incs, particularly in association with wetlands in the area as well as Lake Mmnetonka suggests that the area may have been a seasonal locus of prehistoric Native American activity, possibly back to the Paleoin^an period. NOV-2.T-00 MOW 01:46 PM Ue I »h k-; ' ' ^ . K U 952 4725663 Robert L. Brown 4755 Tonkaview Lane Orono, MN 55364 October 19.1997 RE:Wetland Delineation Report fc’ Garden Lane Site To Whoa) It May Concern: I am a plant ecologist with wetland delir.eotion iruining . I currently work for an environmertal consulting firm in Minneapolis that specializes in environmental permitting. I have reviewed the wetlanu delineation report that wsw prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. for Lhe Garden Lane site and have the following concerns My primary concern is that the report did nc: discuss the wet woods located on the site west of Garden Lane On October 5,1997,1 conducted a fieid review of tic vegetation within the proposed developmcr. luca west of Garden Lane (see attached as.ses$n:ent) and found several indicators suggesting that at least a portion of this area may be wetland, lhe wooes ui the area west of Gaiden Lane are dominated by quaking asoen, green ash, xnd silver map^e. According to the National List of Plants that Occur in Wetlands these species are either fHcultnttve or facultative wci species, which means they arc predoinina.ntly hydrophytic and could be uidicntivc of wetlands 1 also notec cvidcr>cc o: surface hydrology including cracked soils, sediment depasits on leaves, and watennarks on tree tn'nks. In other words, two of the three criteria that must be met to classify an area as wetland were readily apparent I have not tested the soils in the area to determine if hydric soils are present, but based on the vegetation and hydrology I think it likely that at least 8 portion of the area west of Garden Lane is wetlcnd. What I do not understand is why this area whs not investigated in the delineation repoit. Normally, if an area is questionable, it is idcnliiied r.nd discussed in the wetland delinertion report to verify its wetland or non-wetland status 1 his is a major dctlcicr.cy of the report and 1 recommend dial the area b^reevaluatcd m detail to determine if wetlands are present My second concern relates to site dicLnugc and the storm water detention basin on ike west side of Garden Lone I have reviewed the soils or. the site an feel erosion and runoff ere serious issues that need to be addressed. Prcsuinahly. the devcio .•* djrces and consequently has mcorporated the storm water detention basin into nis plans. What I do n''i .mpictely ur.dc*sumd is how this detention basin w-ill •ffert|vc5y reduce runoff from the site. It api«:ar$ from t.ie englnccruig drawing lliat only a small portion of the site will drain toward Uic detendon basin and only then after considerable site grading I recommend that Uic plan be reviewed hy an independent , ~cer ng firm before it is approved. Sir.terely. Robert L Brown P.05 a t( I a i NOV-2T-00 NON 01:44 PM Parish 952 4T25663 P.02 "Lt. ■ Shirley Bull 4690 Tonkaview Lane Orono, MN 55364 November 24, 2000 Tom Stokkes Brenshell Homes 4363 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Stokkes, This Is to Inform you that we have filed a petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. Sincerely, Shirley Bull Enc. I likVMira. eiMniivi aap«kti«it ■mm i b •• 1 \ 4410.40(](p TIERED E18. An RGu\may use a series of tiered EISs to fulfill environmen^l review requirements for an action where decisions on which alt^native to select must be made in stages, proqressinq fr^m the general to the specific.^^^^^lor to each decision which w6i^d eliminate from further^c^sideration any aXternatives under''qonsideration» a tier^d^ElS must be completed which addresses the i^ues and altern^HTives relevant to the decisions to be made inNt;hat tierj/^ft a level of detail appropriate to that tierof detail in earlier tiers need not be as great as tha^M^ later tiers, provided that it is sufficient to reasonably liifornN^cision tuakers of the significant environment'!, economic, employment, and sociological in.pact'^^ the choices in^e in that tier. The procedures/^or preparing tiered K^Ss shall be the same as those for a^egular EIS, as specified ir^parts 4410.2100 to 4410.3000. A tiet^EIS may incorporate by reference material developefa in an earlier tier. SA: MS s 116D.04; 116D.045 21 SR 1458 MANDATORY CATEGORIES .1 \ 4410.4300 MANDATORY EAW CATEGORIES. Subpart 1. Threshold test. An EAW must be prepared for projects that meet or exceed the threshold of any of subparts 2 to 37, unless the project meets or exceeds any thresholds of part 4410.4400, in which case an EIS must be prepared. If the proposed project is an expansion or additional stage of an existing project, the cumulative total of the proposed project and any existing stages or components of the existing project must be included when determining if a threshold is met or exceeded if construction was begun within three years before the date of application for a permit or approval from a governmental unit for the expansion or additional stage but after April 21, 1997, except that any existing stage or component that was reviewed under a previously completed EAW or EIS need not be included. Multiple projects and multiple stages of a single project that are connected actions or phased actions must be considered in total when comparing the project or projects to the thresholds of this part and part 4410.4400. Subp. 2. Nuclear fuels zuid nuclear waste. Items A to F designate the RGU for the type of project listed; A.For construction or expansion of a facility for the storage of high level nuclear waste, the EQB shall be the RGU. B.For construction or expansion of a facility for the storage of low level nuclear waste for one year or longer# the MDH shall be the RGU. C.For expansion of a high level nuclear waste disposal site, the EQB shall be the RGU. D.For expansion of a low level nuclear waste disposal site, the MDH shall be the RGU. E.For expansion of an away-frora-reactor facility for temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel, the EQB shall be the RGU. F.For construction or expansion of an on-site pool for temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel, the EQB shall be the RGU. Subp. 3. Electric generating facilities. For construction of an electric power generating plant and associated facilities designed for or capable of operating at a capacity of 25 megawatts or more, the EQB shall be the RGU. Subp. 4. Petroleum refineries. For expansion of an existing petroleum refinery facility that increases its capacity by 10,000 or more barrels per day, the PCA shall be the RGU. Subp. 5. Fuel conversion facilities. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For construction of a facility for the conversion of coal, peat, or biomass sources to gaseous, liquid, or solid fuels if that facility has the capacity to utilize 25,000 dry tons or more per year of input, the PCA shall be the RGU. B.For construction or expansion of a facility for the production of alcohol fuels which would have or would increase its capacity by 5,000,000 or more gallons per year of alcohol produced, the PCA shall be the RGU. Subp. 6. Transmission lines. For construction of a transmission line at a new location with a nominal capacity of 70 kilovolts or more with 20 or more miles of its length in Minnesota, the EQB shall be the RGU. Subp. 7. Pipelines. Items A to D designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For routing of a pipeline, greater than six inches in diameter and having more than 0.75 miles ot its length in Minnesota, used for the transportation of coal, crude petroleum fuels, or oil or their derivates, the EQB shall be the RGU. B.For the construction of a pipeline for distribution of natural or synthetic gas under a license, permit, right, or franchise that has been granted by the municipality under authority of Minnesota Statutes, section 216B.36, designed to operate at pressures in excess of 275 pounds per square inch (gauge) with a length greater than: (1)five miles if the pipeline will occupy streets, highways, and other public property; or (2)0.75 miles if the pipeline will occupy private property; the EQB or the municipality is the RGU. C.For construction of a pipeline to transport natural or synthetic gas subject to regulation under the federal Natural Gas Act; United States Code# title 15/ section 717/ et. seg./ designed to operate at pressures in ekcess of 275 pounds per square inch (gauge) with a length greater than: (1)five miles if the pipeline will be constructed and operated within an existing right-of-way; or (2)0.75 miles if construction or operation will require new temporary or permanent right-of-way; the EQB is the RGU. This item shall not apply to the extent that the application is expressly preempted by federal law, or under specific circumstances when an actual conflict exists with applicable federal law. D.For construction of a pipeline to convey natural or synthetic gas that is not subject to regulation under the federal Natural Gas Act/ United. States Code/ title 15/ section 717/ et. seq.; or to a license# permit# right# or franchise that has been granted by a municipality under authority of Minnesota Statutes# 'Section 216B.36; designed to operate at pressures in excess of 275 pounds per square inch (gauge) with a„length greater than 0.75 miles# the EQB is the RGU. Items A to D do not apply to repair or replacement of an existing pipeline within an existing right-of-way or to a pipeline located entirely within a refining# storage# or manufacturing facility. Subp. 8. Transfer facilities. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For construction of a facility designed for or capable of transferring 300 tons or more of coal per hour or with an annual throughput of 500#000 tons of coal from one mode of transportation to a similar or different mode of transportation; or the expansion of an existing facility by these respective amounts# the PCA shall be the RGU. B.For construction of a new facility or the expansion by 50 percent or more of an existing facility for the bulk transfer of hazardous materials with the capacity of 10#000 or more gallons per transfer# if the facility is located in a shoreland area# delineated flood plain# a state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district Minnesota River Project Riverbend area# or the Mississippi headwaters area# the PCA shall be the RGU. Subp. 9. Undergroimd storage. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For expansion of an underground storage facility for gases or liquids that requires a permit# pursuant to Minnesota Statutes# section 1031.681# subdivision 1# paragraph (a), the DNR shall be the RGU. B.For expansion of an underground storage facility for gases or liquids# using naturally occurring rock materials# that requires a permit pursuant to Minnesota Statutes# section 1031.681# subdivision 1, paragraph (b)# the I>NR shall be the RGU. 49 Subp. 10. Storage faciltles. items A to C designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For construction of a facility designed for or capable of storing more than 7/500 tonjs.of .goal or with an annual throughput of more than'125,pOO^tons of coal; or the expansion of an existing facility by these respective amounts, the PCA shall be the RGU. B.For construction of a facility on a single site designed for or capable of storing 1,000,000 gallons or more of hazardous materials, the PCA shall be the RGU. C.For construction of a facility designed for or capable of storing on a single site 100,000 gallons or more of liquefied natural gas, synthetic gas, or anhydrous ammonia, the PCA shall be the RGU. Subp. 11. Metallic mineral mining and processing. Items A to C designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For mineral deposit evaluation of metallic mineral deposits other than natural iron ore and taconite, the DNR shall be the RGU. B.For expansion of a stockpile, tailings basin, or mine by 320 or more acres, the DNR shall be the RGU. ,.C. For. expansion of a metallic mineral plant processing facility that is capable of increasing production by 25 percent per year or more, provided that increase is in excess of 1,000,000 tons per year in the case of facilities for . processing natural iron ore or taconite, the DNR shall be the RGU. Subp. 12. Nonmetallic mineral mining. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For development of a facility for the extraction or mining of peat which will result in the excavation of 160 or more acres of land during its existence, the DNR shall be the RGU. B.For development of a facility for the extraction or^mining of sand, gravel, stone, or other nonmetallic minerals, other than peat, which will excavate 40 or more acres of land to a mean depth of ten feet or more during its existence, the local government unit shall be the RGU. Subp. 13. Paper or pulp processing mills. For expansion of an existing paper or pulp processing facility that will increase its production capacity by 50 percent or more, the PCA shall be the RGU. Subp. 14. Industrial, commercial, and institutional facilities. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed, except as provided in items C and D: A.For construction of 'a new or expansion of an existing warehousing or light industrial facility equal to or in excess of the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, the local governmental unit shall be the RGU: (1)unincorporated area, 150,000; i.-i r (2)third or fourth class city, 300,000; (3)second class city, 450,000; (4)first class city, 600,000. B.For construction of a new or expansion of an existing industrial, commercial, or institutional facility, other than a warehousing or light industrial facility, equal to or In excess of the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space, the local government unit shall be the RGU: (1)unincorporated area, 100,000 square feet; (2)third or fourth class city, 200,000 square feet; (3)second class city, 300,000 square feet; (4)first class city, 400,000 square feet. C.This subpart applies to any industrial, commercial, or institutional project which includes multiple components, if there are mandatory categories specified in subparts 2 to 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, or 29, or part 4410.4400, subparts 2 to 10, 12, 13, 15, or 17, for two or more of the components, regardless of whether the project in question meets or exceeds any threshold specified in those subparts. In those cases, the entire project must be compared to the thresholds specified in items A and B to determine the need for an EAH. If the project meets or exceeds the thresholds specified in any other subpart as well as that of item A or B, the RGU must be determined as provided in part 4410.0500, subpart 1. D.This subpart does not apply to projects for which there is a single mandatory category specified in subparts 2 to 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 29, or 34, or part 4410.4400, subparts 2 to 10, 12, 13, 17, or 22, regardless of whether the project in question meets or exceeds any threshold specified in those subparts. In those cases, the need for an EAW must be determined by comparison of the project to the threshold specified in the applicable subpart, and the RGU must be the governmental unit assigned by that subpart. Subp. 15. Air pollution. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For construction of a stationary source facility that generates 100 tons or more per year or modification of a stationary source facility that increases generation by 100 tons or more per year of any single air pollutant after installation of air pollution control equipment, the PCA shall be the RGU. B.For construction of a new parking facility for 2,000 or more vehicles, the PCA shall be the RGU, except that this category does not apply to any parking facility which is part of a project reviewed pursuant to part 4410.4300, subpart 14, 19, 32, or 34, or part 4410.4400, subpart 11, 14, 21, or 22. Subp. 16. Hazardous waste. Items A to D designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For construction or expansion of a hazardous waste hkattAi. disposal facility, the PCA shall be the RGU. B.For construction of a hazardous waste processing facility with a capacity of 1,000 or more kilograms per month, the PCA shall be the RGU. C.For expansion of a hazardous waste processing facility that increases its capacity by ten percent or more, the PCA shall be the RGU. D.For construction or expansion of a facility that sells hazardous waste storage services to generators other than the owner and operator of the facility or construction of a facility at which a generator's own hazardous wastes will be stored for a time period in excess of 90 days, if the facility is located in a water-related land use management district, or in an area characterized by soluble bedrock, the PCA shall be the RGU. Subp. 17. Solid waste. Items A to G designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For construction of a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility for up to 100,000 cubic yards of waste fill per year, the PCA is the RGU. B.For expansion by 25 percent or more of previous capacity of a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility for up to 100,000 cubic yards of waste fill per year, the PCA is the RGU. C.For construction or expansion of a mixed municipal solid waste transfer station for 300,000 or more cubic yards per year, the PCA is the RGU. D.For construction or expansion of a mixed municipal solid waste energy recovery facility or incinerator, or the utilization of an existing facility for the combustion of mixed municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel, with a capacity of 30 or more tons per day of input, the PCA is the RGU. E.For construction or expansion of a mixed municipal solid waste compost facility or a refuse-derived fuel production facility with a capacity of 50 or more tons per day of input, the PCA is the RGU. F.For expansion by at least ten percent but less than 25 percent of previous capacity of a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility for 100,000 cubic yards or more of waste fill per year, the PCA is the RGU. G.For construction or expansion of a mixed municipal solid waste energy recovery facility ash landfill receiving ash from an incinerator that burns refuse-derived fuel or mixed municipal solid waste, the PCA is the RGU. Subp. 18. Wastewater systems. Items A to C designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For expansion, modification, or replacement of a municipal sewage collection system resulting in an increase in design average daily flow of any part of that system by 1,000,000 gallons per day or more, the PCA shall be the RGU. L ►i' B.For expansion c ' reconstruction of an existing municipal or domestic wastewater treatment facility which results in an Increase by 50 percent or more and by at least 50.000 gallons per day of. its average wet weather design flow capacity, or construction of a new municipal or dorestic wastewater treatment facility with an average wet weather design flow capacity of 50,000 gallons per day or more, the PCA shall be the RGU. C.For expansion or reconstruction of an existing industrial process wastewater treatment facility which increases its design flow capacity by 50 percent or more and by at least 200.000 gallons per day or more, or construction of a new industrial process wastewater treatment facility with a design flow capacity of 200,000 gallons per day or more, 5,000,000 gallons per month or more, or 20,000,000 gallons per year or more, the PCA shall be the RGU. This category does not apply to industrial process wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to. a publicly-owned treatment works or to a tailings basin reviewed pursuant to subpart 11, item B. Subp. 19. Residential development. An SAW is required for residential development if the total number of units that may ultimately be developed on all contiguous land owned or under an option to purchase by the proposer, and that is zoned for residential development or is identified for residential development by an applicable comprehensive plan, equals or exceeds a threshold of this subpart. In counting the total number of ultimate units, the RGU shall include the number of units in any plans of the proposer; for land for which the proposer has not yet prepared plans, the RGU shall use as the number of units the product of the number of acres -ultiplied by the maximum number of units per acre allowable under the applicable zoning ordinance or, if the maximum number of units allowable per acre is not specified in an applicable zoning ordinance, by the overall average number of units per acre indicated in the plans of the proposer for those lands for which plans exist. If the total project requires review but future phases are uncertain, the RGU may review the ultimate project sequentially in accordance with part 4410.1000, subpart 4. If a project consists of ..lixed unattached and attached units, an EAW must be prepared if the sum of the quotient obtained by dividing the number of unattached units by the applicable unattached unit threshold, plus the quotient obtained by dividing the number of attached units by the applicable attached unit threshold, equals or exceeds one. The local governmental unit is the RGU for construction of a permanent or potentially permanent residential development of: A.50 or more unattached or 75 or more attached units in an unsewered unincorporated area or 100 unattached units or 150 attached units in a sewered unincorporated area; B.100 unattached units or 150 attached units in a 4 r city that does not meet the conditions of item D; C.100 unattached units or j.50 attached units in a city meeting the conditions of item D if che project is not consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan; or D.■ 250 unattached units or 375 attached units in a city within the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area that has adopted a comprehensive plan under Minnesota Statutes, section 473.859, or in a city not located within the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area that has filed with the EQB chair a certification that it has adopted a comprehensive plan containing the following elements: (1)a land use plan designating the existing and proposed location, intensity, and extent of use of land and water for residential, industrial, agricultural, and other public nd private purposes; (2)a transportation plan describing, designating, and scheduling the location, extent, function, and capacity of existing and proposed local public and private transportation facilities and services; (3)a sewage collection system policy plan describing, designating, and scheduling the areas to be served by the public system, the existing and planned capacities of the public system, and the standards and conditions under which the installation of private sewage treatment systems will be permitted; (4)a capital improvements plan for public facilities; and (5)an implementation plan describing public programs, fiscal devices, and other actions to be undertaken to implement the comprehensive plan, and a description of official controls addressing the matters of zoning, subdivision, private sewage systems, and a schedule for the implementation of those controls. The EQB chair may specify the form to be used for making a certification under this item. Subp. 20. Campgrounds auid RV Parks. For construction of a seasonal or permanent recreational development, accessible by vehicle, consisting of 50 or more sites, or the expansion of such a facility by 50 or more sites, the local government unit shall be the RGU. Subp. 21. Airport projects. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For construction of a paved, new airport runway, the DOT, local governmental unit, or the Metropolitan Airports Commission shall be the RGU. B.For construction of a runway extension that would upgrade an existing airport runway to permit usage by aircraft over 12,500 pounds that are at least three decibels louder than aircraft currently using the runway, the DOT, local government unit, or the Metropolitan Airports Commission shall be the RGU. The RGU shall be selected according to part 4410.U500, subpart 5. Subp. 22. Highway projects. Items A to C designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For construction of a road on a new location over one mile in length that will function as a collector roadway, the DOT or local government unit shall be the RGU. B.For construction of additional travel lanes on an existing road for a length of one or more miles, the DOT or local government unit shall be the RGU. C.For the addition cf one or more new interchanges to a completed limited access highway, the DOT or local government unit shall be the RGU. Subp. 23. Barge fleeting. For construction of a new or expansion of an existing barge fleeting facility, the DOT or port authority shall be the RGU. Subp. 24. Water appropriation and impoundments. Items A to C designate the RGU for the type of project listed; A.For a new appropriation for commercial or industrial purposes of either surface water or ground water averaging 30,000,000 gallons per month; or a new appropriation of either ground water or surface water for irrigation of 540 acres or more in one continuous parcel from one source of water, the DNR shall be the RGU. B.For a new permanent impoundment of water creating additional water surface of 160 or more acres or for an additional permanent impoundment of water creating additional water surface of 160 or more acres/ the DNR shall be the RGU. C.For construction of a dam with an upstream drainage area of 50 square miles or more, the DNR shall be the RGU. Subp. 25. Marinas. For construction or expansion of a marina or harbor that results in a 20,000 or more square foot total or a 20,000 or more square foot increase of water surface area used temporarily or permanently for docks, docking, or maneuvering of watercraft, the local government unit shall be the RGU. Subp. 26. Stream diversion. For a diversion, realignment', or channelization of any designated trout stream, or affecting greater than 500 feet of natural watercourse with a total drainage area of ten or more square miles unless exempted by part 4410.4600, subpart 14, item E, or 17, the local government unit shall be the RGU. Subp. 27. Wetlands and protected waters. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For projects that will change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of one acre or more of any protected water or protected wetland except for those to be drained without a permit pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103G, the local government unit shall be the RGU. B.For projects that will change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of 40 percent or more or five or more acres of types 3 through 8 wetland of 2.5 acres or more# excluding protected wetlands, if any part of the wetland is within a shoreland area, delineated flood plain, a state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area, the local government unit shall be the RGU. Subp. 28. Forestry. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For harvesting of timber for commercial purposes on public lands within a state park, historical area, wilderness area, scientific and natural area, wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, the Mississippi headwaters area, or critical area that does not have an approved plan under Minnesota Statutes, section 86/ 09 or 116G.07. the DNR shall be the RGU. B.For a clearcutting of 80 or more contiguous acres of forest, any part of which is located within a shoreland area and within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the lake or river, the DNR shall be the RGU. Subp. 29. Animal feedlots. The PCA is the RGU for the types of projects listed in items A and B unless the county will issue the feedlot permit, in which case the county is the RGU. However, the county is not the RGU prior to January 1, 2001. A.For the construction of an animal feedlot facility with a capacity of 1,000 animal units or more or the expansion of an existing facility by 1,000 animal units or more if the facility is not in an area listed in item B. B.For the construction of an animal feedlot facility of more than 500 animal units or expansion of an existing animal feedlot facility by more than 500 animal units if the facility is located wholly or partially in any of the following sensitive locations: shoreland; a delineated flood plain, except that in the flood plain of the Red River of the North the sensitive area includes only land within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water mark; a state or federally designated wild and scenic river district; the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area; the Mississippi headwaters area; or an area within a drinking water supply management area delineated under chapter 4720 where the aquifer is identified in the wellhead protection plan as vulnerable to contamination; or within 1,000 feet of a known sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, Karst window, blind valley, or dry valley. The provisions of part 4410.1000, subpart 4, regarding connected actions do not apply to animal feedlots. The provisions of part 4410.1000, subpart 4, regarding phased actions apply to feedlots. With the agreement of the proposers, the RGU may prepare a single EAW to collectively review individual sites of a multisite feedlot proposal. Subp. 30. Natural areas. For projects resulting in the w >1. h; i i F,r permanent physical encroachment on lands within a national park# state parkf wilderness area/ state lands and waters within the boundaries of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area/ scientific and natural area/ or state trail corridor when the encroachment is inconsistent with laws applicable to or the management plan prepared for the recreational unit/ the DNR or local government unit shall be the RGU. Subp. 31. Historical places. For the destruction/ in whole or part/ or the moving of a property that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or State Register of Historic Places/ the permitting state agency or local unit of government shall be the RGU/ except this does not apply to projects reviewed under section Icf of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966/ United St^jces Code/ title 16/ section 470/ or the federal policy on lands/ wildlife and waterfowl refugeS/ and historic sites pursuant to United States Code/ title 49/ section 303. Subp. 32. Nixed residential and Industrial~commercial projects. If a project includes both residential and industrial-commercial components/ the project must have an EAW prepared if the sum of the quotient obtained by dividing the number of residential units by the applicable residential threshold of subpart 19/ plus the quotient obtained by dividing the amount of industrial-commercial gross floor space by the applicable industrial-commercial threshold of subpart 14/ equals or exceeds one. The local governmental unit is the RGU. Subp. 33. Conmunications towers. For construction of a communications tower equal to or in excess of 500 feet in height/ or 300 feet in height within 1/000 feet of any protected water or protected wetland or within two miles of the Mississippi/ Minnesota/ Red/ or St. Croix rivers or Lake Superior/ the local governmental unit is the RGU. Subp. 34. Sports or entertainment facilities. For construction of a new sports or entertainment facility designed for or expected to accommodate a peak attendance of 5/000 or more persons/ or the expansion of an existing sports or entertainment facility by this amount/ the local governmental unit is the RGU. Subp. 35. Release of genetically engineered organisms. For the release of a genetically engineered organism that requires a release permit from the EQB under chapter 4420/ the EQB is the RGU. For all other releases of genetically engineered organisms/ the RGU is the permitting state agency. This subpart does not apply to the direct medical application of genetically engineered organisms to humans or animals. Subp. 36. Land use conversion/ including golf courses. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For golf courses/ residential development where the lot size is less than five acres/ and other projects resulting in the permanent conversion of 80 or more acres of agricultural^ native prairie^ forest, or naturally vegetated land, the local government unit shall be the RGU, except that this subpart does not apply to agricultural land inside the boundary of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area established by the Metropolitan Council. B.For projects resulting in the conversion of 640 or more acres of forest or naturally vegetated land to a different open space land use, the local government unit shall be the RGU. SA: MS 8 116C.94; 116D.04; 116D.045; L 1998 c 40] s 54 HISTs 11 SR 714; 13 SR 1437; 13 SR 2046; 17 SR 139; 21 SR 1458; 24 SR 517 >• 4410.4400 HANDATORT EIS CATEGORIES. Subpart 1. Threshold test. An EIS must be prepared for projects that meet or exceed the threshold of any of subparts 2 to 24. Multiple projects and multiple stages of a single project that are connected actions or phased actions must be considered in total when comparing the project or projects to the thresholds of this part. Subp. 2. Nuclear fuels and nuclear waste. Items A to D designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For the construction or expansion of a nuclear fuel or nuclear waste processing facility, including fuel fabrication facilities, reprocessing plants, and uranium mills, the DNR shall be the RGU for uranium mills; otherwise, the PCA shall be the RGU. B.For construction of a high level nuclear waste disposal site, the EQB shall be the RGU. C.For construction of an away-from-reactor facility for temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel, the EQB shall be the RGU. D.For construction of a low level nuclear waste disposal site, the MDH shall be the RGU. Subp. 3. Electric generating facilities. For construction of a large electric power generating plant pursuant to part 4410.7000, the EQB shall bu the RGU. Subp. 4. Petroleum refineries. For construction of a new petroleum refinery facility, the PCA shall be the RGU. Subp. 5. Fuel conversion facilities. Items A and B designate the RGU for the type of project listed: A.For construction of a facility for the conversion of coal, peat, or biomass sources to gaseous, liquid, or solid fuels if that facility has the capacity to utilize 250,000 dry tons or more per year of input, the PCA shall be the RGU. B.For construction or expansion of a facility for the production of alcohol fuels which would have or would increase its capacity by 50,000,000 or more gallons per year of alcohol produced, the PCA shall be the RGU. Subp. 6. Transmission lines. For construction of a high voltage transmission line pursuant to part 4410.7400, the EQB T>- federally designated wild and scenic river# the local government unit shall be the RGU. / Subp.\20. Wetlands and protected waters. For projects that wlll^eliminate a protected water or protected wetiy^md# the local government unit shall be the RGU Subp. 21.\Mixed residential and connnercial-indt^Sbrial projects. If a project includes both residential commercial-industrial components# the project mXBt have an EIS prepared 1£ the sUm of the quotient obtained by dividing the number of residential units by the applicate residential threshold of subpart\l4# plus the quotient/obtained by dividing the amount of industrial-commercial gro^s floor space by the applicable industrial-commercial threshold of subpart 11# equals or exceeds one. \ / Subp. 22. Sports or entertainment facilities. For construction of a new outdoor shorts or entertainment facility designed for or expected to Wcommodate a peak attendance of 20#000 or more persons or a nlw indoor sports or entertainment facility designed for or e^^ctVd to accommodate a peak attendance of 30#000 or qo're pers'ons# or the expansion of an existing facility by the'se amounts\the local governmental unit is the RGU. / Subp. 23. Water diversions. For avdiversion of waters of the state to / — Van ultimate location outside the state in an amount equal to or greate^^r than 2 #000#000 gallons per day# expressed as a daily average/over any 30-day period# the DNR is the RGU. Subp. 24. Pipelines. For routing of a Vipeiine subject to the full rou.te selection procedures under Minnesota Statutes# section 11^1.015# the EQ3 is the RGU. \ Subp./25. Incineration of wastes containing'^CBs. For the incineral'tion of wastes containing PCB's for which required by Minnesota Statutes# section 116.38# sub theyck shall be the RGU. SA/MS 8 116D.04; 116D.045 ^ST; 11 SR 714; 13 SR 1437#* 13 SR 2046; 21 SR 1458 EIS is vision 2# 4410.4500 DISCRETIONARY EAW. A governmental unit with jurisdiction may order the preparation of an EAW for any project that does not exceed the mandatory thresholds designated in part 4410.4300 or 4410.4400 if the governmental unit determines that because of the nature or location of the proposed project the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects# and the project is not exempted pursuant to part 4410.4600. SA: MS s 116D.04 subd 5a 4410.4600 EXQIPTIONS. ibpart 1, srnp«»-Q€^TK»mprTnn. Projects within subparts 2 and 26 are exempt from parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500. Projects within subparts 3 to 25 are exempt from parte 4410.0200 to 4410.6500^ unless they have characteristics which meet or exceed any of the thresholds specified in part 4410.4300 or 4410.4400. Subp. 2. Standard exemptions. The following projects are standard exemptions: A.projects for which no governmental decisions are required; B.projects for which all governmental decisions have been made. However, this exemption does not in any way alter the prohibitions on final governmental decisions to approve a project under part 4410.3100; C.projects for which, and so long as, a governmental unit has denied a required governmental approval; D.projects for which a substantial portion of the project has been completed and an EIS would not influence remaining implementation or construction; and E.projects for which environmental review has already been initiated under the prior rules or for which environmental review is being conducted pursuant to part 4410.3600 or 4410.3700. Subp. 3. Electric generating facilities. Construction of an electric generating plant or combination of plants at a single site with a combined capacity of less than five megawatts is exempt. Subp. 4. Fuel conversion facilities. Expansion of a facility for the production of alcohol fuels that would have or would increase its capacity by less than 500,000 gallons per year of alcohol produced is exempt. Subp. 5. Transmission lines. Construction of a transmission line with a nominal capacity of 69 kilovolts or less is exempt. Subp. 6. Transfer facilities. Construction of a facility designed for or capable of transferring less than 30 tons of coal per hour or with an annual throughput of less than 50,000 tons of coal from one mode of transportation to a similar or mode of transportation, or the expansion of an existing facility by these respective amounts, is exempt. Subp. 7. Storage facilities. Construction of a facility designed for or capable of storing less than 750 tons of coal or more, with an annual throughput of less than 12,500 tons of coal, or the expansion of an existing facility by these respective amounts, is exempt. Subp. 8. Mining. The following projects are exempt; A.General mine site evaluation activities that do not result in a permanent alteration of the environment, including mapping, aerial surveying, visual inspection, geologic field reconnaissance, geophysical studies, and surveying, but excluding exploratory borings, are exempt. B.Expansion of metallic mineral plant processing facilities that are capable of increasing production by less than ten percent per year, provided the increase is less than r 100^000 tons per year in the case of facilities for processing natural iron ore or taconite^ is exempt. C.Scram mining operations are exempt. Subp. 9. Paper or pulp processing facilities. Expansion of an existing paper or pulp processing facility that will increase its production capacity by less than ten percent is exempt. Subp. 10. Industrial# commercial# and institutional facilities. The following projects are exempt: A.Construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing# light industrial# commercial# or institutional facility of less than the following thresholds# expressed as gross floor space: (1)third or fourth class city or unincorporated area# 50#000 square feet# (2)second class city# 75#000 square feet# or (3)first class city# 100#000 square feet# if no part of the development is within a shoreland area# delineated flood plain# state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district# the Minnesota River Project Rlverbend area# or the Mississippi headwaters area# is exempt. B.The construction of a warehousing# light industrial# commercial# or institutional facility with less than 4#000 square feet of gross floor space# and with associated parking facilities designed for 20 vehicles or less# is exempt. C.Construction of a new parking facility for less than 100 vehicles if the facility is not located in a shoreland area# delineated flood plain# state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district# the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area# or the Mississippi headwaters area is exempt. Subp. 11. Sewage systems. Construction of a new wastewater treatment facility with a capacity of less than 5#000 gallons per day average wet weather flow or the expansion of an existing wastewater treatment facility by less than 5#000 gallons per day average wet weather flow or the expansion of a sewage collection system by less than 5#000 gallons per day design dally average flow or a sewer line of 1#000 feet or less and eight-inch diameter or less# is exempt. Subp. 12. Residential development. The following projects are exempt: A.Construction of a sewered residential development# of: (1)less than ten units in an unincorporated area# (2)less than 20 units in a third or fourth class city (3)less than 40 units in a second class city# or (4)less than 80 units in a first class city# no part of which is within a shoreland area# delineated flood plain state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district# L i\ * the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area, is exempt. B.Construction of a single residence or multiple residence with four dwelling units or less and accessory appurtenant structures and utilities is exempt. Subp. 13. Airport projects. The following projects are exempt: A.Runway, taxiway, apron, or loading ramp construction or repair work including reconstruction, resurfacing, marking, grooving, fillets, and jet blast facilities is exempt, except where the project will create environmental impacts off airport property. B.Installation or upgrading of airfield lighting systems, including beacons and electrical distribution systems, is exempt. C.Construction or expansion of passenger handling or parking facilities, including pedestrian walkway facilities, is exempt. D.Grading or removal of obstructions and erosion control projects on airport property is exempt, except where the projects will create environmental impacts off airport property. Subp. 14. Highway projects. The following projects are exempt: A.Highway safety improvement projects are exempt. B.Installation of traffic control devices, individual noise barriers, bus shelters and bays, loading zones, and access and egress lanes for transit and paratransit vehicles is exempt. C.Modernization of an existing roadway or bridge by resurfacing, restoration, or rehabilitation that may involve the acquisition of minimal amounts of right-of-way is exempt. D.Roadway landscaping, construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities within existing right-of-way are exempt. E.Any stream diversion or channelization within the right-of-way of an existing public roadway associated with bridge or culvert replacement is exempt. F.Reconstruction or modification of an existing bridge structure on essentially the same alignment or location that may involve the acquisition of minimal amounts of right-of-way is exempt. Subp. 15. Water impoundments. A new or additional permanent impoundment of water creating a water surface of less than ten acres is exempt. Subp. 16. Marinas. Construction of private residential docks for use by four or less boats and utilizing less than 1,500 square feet of water surface is exempt. Subp. 17. Ditch maintenance or repair. Routine maintenance or repair of a drainage ditch within the limits of its original construction flow capacity, performed within 20 years of construction or major repair, is exempt. Subp. 18. Agriculture amd forestry. The following projects are exempt: A.Harvesting of timber for maintenance purposes is exempt. B.Public and private forest management practices, other than clearcutting or the application of pesticides, that involve less than 20 acres of land, are exempt. Subp. 19. Animal feedlots. The activities in items A to C are exempt. A.The construction of an animal feedloc facility of less than 300 animal units or the expansion of an existing facility by less than 100 animal units, no part of either of which is located within a shoreland area; delineated flood plain; state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district; the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area; the Mississippi headwaters area; an area within a drinking water supply management area designated under chapter 4720 where the aquifer is identified in the wellhead protection plan as vulnerable to contamination; or 1,000 feet of a known sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, Karst window, blind valley, or dry valley. B.The construction or expansion of an animal feedlot facility with a resulting capacity of less than 50 animal units regardless of location. C.The modification without expansion of capacity of any feedlot of no more than 300 animal units if the modification is necessary to secure a Minnesota feedlot permit. Subp. 20. Utilities. Utility extensions are exempt as follows: A.water service mains of 500 feet or less and 1-1/2 inches diameter or less; B.local electrical service lines; gas service mains of 500 feet or less and one inch or less; and telephone services lines. 21.Construction projects. The following projects are exempt: A.Construction of accessory appurtenant structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, agricultural structures excluding feedlots, or other similar buildings not changing land use or density is exempt. B.Accessory signs appurtenant to any commercial, industrial, or institutional facility are exempt. C.Operation, maintenance, or repair work having no substantial impact on existing structures, land use, or natural resources is exempt. D.Restoration or reconstruction of a structure is exempt, provided that the structure is not of historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological, or recreational value. C. diameter D. Subp. T E.Demolition or removal of buildings and related structures is exempt, except where they are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance. Subp. 22. Land use. The following projects are exempt: A.Individual land use variances, including minor lot line adjustments and side yard and setback variances not resulting in the creation of a new subdivided parcel of land or any change in land use character or density, are exempt. B.Minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent effect on the environment are exempt. C.Maintenance of existing landscaping, native growth, and water supply reservoirs, excluding the use of pesticides, is exempt. Subp. 23. Research and data collection. Basic data collection, training programs, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation projects that do not result in an extensive or permanent disturbance to an environmental resource, and do not constitute a substantial commitment to a further course of action having potential for significant environmental effects, are exempt. Subp. 24. Financial transactions. The following projects are exempt: A.Acquisition or disposition of private interests in real property, including leaseholds, easements, right-of-way, o: fee interests, is exempt. B.Purchase of operating equipment, maintenance equipment, or operating supplies is exempt. Subp. 25. Licenses. The following decisions are exempt: A.Licensing or permitting decisions related to individual persons or activities directly connected with an individual's household, livelihood, transportation, recreation, health, safety, and welfare, such as motor vehicle licensing or individual park entrance permits, are exempt. B.All licenses required under electrical, fire, plumbing, heating, mechanical and safety codes and regulations, but not including building permits, are exempt. Subp. 26. Governmental activities. Proposals and enactments of the legislature, rules or orders of governmental units, executive orders of the governor or their implementation by governmental units, judicial orders, and submissions of . proposals to a vote of the people of the state are exempt. SA: MS s 116D.04; 116D.045; L 1998 c 401 s 54 HIST; 11 SR 714; 13 SR 1437; 21 SR 1458; 24 SR 517 EARLY NOTICE RULES 4410.5000 AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE. Subpart 1. Bulletin. To provide early notice of impending projects which may have significant environmental effects, the EQB shall, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 116D.04, 68 >•. i t. T) CITY of ORONO THE CITY CQlRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1181 VVILDIlURST TRAIL -FILE NO. 2596 WHEREAS, Brenshell Homes (hereinafter the "subdivider") on May 17,2000, filed a formal subdivision application vsith the City for approval of a residential plat of property legally described us; Lot 2, Block 1, Heathercroft, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and VHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minriesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on June 19, 2000 and August 21, 2000 at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings held on September 11, 2000 and September 25, 2000, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of one acre of contiguous dr>' buildable land within each newly created lot. The property' contains a total of approximately 7 acres of land. *1J.The proposed plat consists of five residential lots each meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, e.xcept as follows: Lots 2 and 3 front on the proposed cul-de-sac and do not meet the defined minimum 140 ’ lot width requirement as measured at the rear line of the Page 1 of 9 1^.________ w-■ I- CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.________________ 4. D. 6. 7. 8. 9. defined front yard. Lot 2 has a defined width of 110' and Lot 3 has a defined width of 126'. However, the granting of a lot width variance for these lots is justified by the fact that each of Lots 2 and 3 contains a suitable building site meeting all required lot line setbacks without the need for further variances. Lots 2 and 3 are 'through' lots subject to a conditional use permit requirement for placement of any accessor>‘ structures. Each of these three Lots contains sufficient width and building envelope to accommodate a single family residence. The property contains areas with greater than 12% slopes which are defmed as “steep slopes ” by the Code. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (G) requires permit requests for development of properties within the Shoreland Overlay District and on steep slopes to include adequate information to allow the Cit>' to evaluate possible soil erosion impacts before the permit can be issued. The subdivider has provided a grading and drainage plan that addresses the issues. The subdivider has proposed a stormwater management plan which will include stormwater ponding, storm sewers where appropriate, and vegetated buffer areas, to provide for stormwater quality and quantity' management. The outlets from the ponds would control the rate the stormwater would e.\ii the ponds. Lots 2 and 3 will require a drainage swale to redirect w'ater runoff to the pond on Lot 1. The portions of the Lots below the 1014' contour will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement would protect the natural grades and vegetation on the slope. Drainage Easements will be dedicated on the final plat for the ponds, ravines and swale. Paee 2 of 9 ..•oMbklkattifeMQfl of^ v\\PJ>I;CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _______________ • 10.Access to the development will require construction by the developer of a public road within the dedicated public right-of-way known as “Garden Lame”. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Cit>- Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Brenshell Homes for property located at 1181 Wildhurst Trail per preliminary plat drawings by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., dated September 12, 2000, subject to the following conditions: (General Conditions) 1.A variance will be granted for width of Lots 2 and 3 which do not meet the 140’ width requirement of the LR-IB District. Setbacks for all principal residence construction shall be as depicted on the preliminary plat drawing. (Roads) 3.Outlet B as shown on the preliminar>‘ plat drawings shall be dedicated on the final plat as a public road. Subdivider shall construct a public road in Garden Lane and within the new public road right-of-way to be dedicated on the plat. City Engineer shall approve the alignment of the Garden Lane and Tonkaview • . •intersection. 4.All Lots except Lot 5 shall access to the new public road dedicated in the plat. No direct access to Garden Lane from any Lot shall be permitted, except for the drivewav access to Lot 5. Subdivider shall provide final street plans prior to final plat approval. A geotechnical analysis. R-value recommendation and pavement design calculations shall be submitted for review and approval by the City' Engineer and Director of Public Works prior to final plat approval. All curb and guner shall be concrete. Streets shall be constructed to City public road standards. Page 3 of 9 1 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ (Stormwater Management) 7. WilmL 8. 4.*.. Subdivider shall construct stormwater management improvements generally as shown on the Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan September 12, 2000 subject to any revisions of said plan as may be required by the City Engineer. A final Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval. Both NURP stormwater ponds shall have outlet structures constructed to City S^and^ds that provide skimming to the 100-year storm event. Storm sewer design and calculations should shall be provided for review. Final plans shall be subject to approval by the MCWD, and final plat approval will not be granted until the MCWD has approved all grading and drainage improvements on the property. Subdivider shall adhere to the “Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas”. Subdivider shall grant easements over all drainage ways and stormwater ponds within the plat, as follows; 1.Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the -final plat 10' along e.xterior property lines and 5' along interior property lines, and over stormwater detention ponds located on Lots 1 and 5. 2.Drainage easements shall be granted over the lower ravine within Lot 2 and a conservation and flowage easement shall be granted over the south portion of Lot 2 to ensure the higher elevations of the ravine are also protected. 3.A conservation easement shall be granted over Outlot A to protect the ravine from any land alteration and vegetation removal, and a similar easement shall be granted over the east side of Lots 2 and 3. 4.The legal description and language of all casements shall be appro\ed bj City staff and the City .Attorney. Page 4 of 9 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ 9.The stormwater ponds shall be privately owned and maintained per the appropriate maintenance documents to be executed by the subdivider. The subdivider shall create a homeowners association for such ownership and maintenance. The easements over said ponds shall grant the City authority’ to require maintenance of said ponds by the Homeowners Association. lO.Restrictive covenants shall include that the property owners (Homeowmers Association) of Lots I through 5 shall be responsible for maintenance of stormwater management ponds. (Tree Protection and Planting) ll.Subdivider shall provide a site plan identifying all mature trees and areas of vegetation that exist on the property, and identify all trees that will not be removed. Trees to remain on the property shall be physically marked and identified by fence prior to any land alteration on the site. 12.Subdivider shall plant-boulevard trees along the public road per the requirements of Section 11.60, Subd. 2. (Soil and Slope Protection) 13.All areas of steep slopes (slopes in excess of 12%) which are disturbed or created by grading of the site shall be sodded upon reaching final grade, and sod shall be staked in place and maintained to ensure slope and soil stability and to avoid erosion on the site. During construction, silt fence shall be maintained around all areas where the existing soils and vegetation are disturbed. City shall have the authority to require extraordinary measures as may be deemed necessary to protect the slopes on the site from erosion. "rc»F'Urt 14.Utility installation shall require directionally bored lines under Wildhurst Trail and between Lots 2 and 3 to avoid disturbing existing surface soils and vegetation. (Trail Construction and Park Dedication) 15.A trail connection shall be made by the subdivider from the end of Garden Lane to the park area to the west. The trail shall be of bituminous surfacing. Final Page 5 of 9 ^7^ m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ____________ - 'iHi \ location and design shall be approved by the City Engineer and Director of Public Services. 16.Subdivider shall pay the standard Park Dedication Fee per City ordinance, (Utilities) 17.The standard sewer connection fee shall be paid for 5 new lots. 18.Subdivider shall be responsible for installation of all utilities to serve the 5 lots. Sanitary sewer design and installation shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer and Director of Public Services. (Building Permits) 19.No building permits will be issued until the road base work and all stormwater management and utility improvements have been completed by the subdivider and approved by the City. (Developers Agreement) *>0. This development shall be subject to a Developers Agreement to be executed between the City and the subdivider. Road, utility and stormwater management facility construction can begin as soon as final plans have been approved by the City and other necessary authorities and the Developers Agreement has been executed. (Final Plat Approval) « :i.Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire one year from the date of Council preliminary plat approval. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. Page 6 of 9 r k H'. I tJf CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" ?= 200'. Drawing to include: a.Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Coffin & Gronberg, dated September 12, 2000 on file with the City of Orono. b.Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5' along the internal lot lines. c.Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention ponds and drainageways as shown on preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan. d.Conservation easements shall be granted over the areas below the 1014' contour over Lots 2 and 3. e.Dedication of Outlot B as public right-of-way rather than as an outlot. f.The naming of plat. Legal documents required: a.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b.The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the propert>'. Page 7 of 9 i-(V yv ..^A iwyiL* % a-. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _______________ y*' C.Signed and executed Developer's Agreement and letter of credit for 150/o of approved site improvements and construction of roads, stormwater and drainage facilities, etc. d.Signed and executed Conservation Easement for land below the 1014 elevation within Lots 2 and 3. e.Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageways and detention areas within plat. f.Completed "Application for Road Name 3.Fees to be paid: Total due: $400.00* a. b. Final plat fee = $200.00 Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $200.00 c.♦Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as Assessor's report has been filed with City. Park dedication fee shall be based on 8% of the fair market value of the land. d.Sewer connection fees as set within the City of Orono Fee Schedule. Page 8 of9 4 • • r ip liZ c.o CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _______________ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 9th day of October, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COLT^ITY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of October, 2000, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 9 of 9 M: ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 9,2000 ^unci*3. Regular Council Meeting of September 25,2000 —Continued Council Meeting^xSeptember 25,2000 as presented. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0.^^^ \ PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS—ANDRE\\mCDERMOTT, REPRESENTATIVE V Mr. McDermott staled that the Commissi^ is looking at playground equipment for .10 revisrHackberry Park for next spring. They pla^fo revisit the Crystal Bay master plan. At the next meeting, they will have a slide s'hpvy of various lake access points to discuss maintenance issues. /Mayor Jabbour stated they are wpfking on^e Dakota Line issue. The Mayor and Council directed staff to send letter to state^legislators discussing the project and asking for their support on behalf of Orono and the oilier cities that support the project. / / PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / I None. $ PUBLIC COMMENTS \ Mr. Nygard asked when work would begin on Navarre Park. Ga^a stated the equipment was supposed to arrive on October 9, 2000, and the parking lot was^.be paved that same y^vening. /\ ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 4.ifi:2596 Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail—Preliminary Plat—^Resolution No. 4529 Weinberger stated that staff had been directed to draft an approval resolution for a 5 lot plat. He stated that item 10 on page 2 of 9 had been removed from the resolution, and discussion of trail construction and park dedication, items 14 and 15 on page 5 of 9, will no longer state that the trail shall be made of bituminous surfacing, also, the applicant has requested chat the resolution include language that states any costs required by the developer for construction of the trail would be removed from the total of the park dedication for the 5 new lots in the area. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 9,2000 4, U2596 Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail —Preliminary Plat —Resolution No. 4529 —Continued Flint questioned the status of ihe wetland area on the proposed lot. Weinberger stated that the Watershed District is putting together a panel that will make the final determination of the wetland area. The panel will consist of BWSR, the DNR, the Minnehaha Watershed District, and a City wetland expert. If they determine there is wetland on the proposed lot, a conservation easement will be placed over the wetland area. Mayor Jabbour stated that if the wetland exceeds the excess area on the property, the developer would have to reduce the number of lots in the subdivision to accommodate the wetland. The applicant stated he understood that condition. Mayor Jabbour stated the Council’s preliminar>' approval is subject to the wetland survey being completed prior to Final Plat approval. Flint asked if the swale on lots 2 and 3 could be fenced to prevent people from altering it. Gaffron stated they can place signs on the property comers delineating the drainage areas, also the title would defme the drainage easements. The applicant stated that an association would maintain the subdivision and each homeowner would be subject to the association, which would have access to all necessary paperwork. Gaffron stated that the swale should be delineated on the property and a covenant should be filed against both properties, requiring homeour.ers to maintain the swale and allowing the City to enforce the matter in the future. Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4529 granting preliminary approval of a Class III Subdivision for property located at 1181 \Vildhurst Trail and owned by Steve Benkc, with the addition that a covenant be filed against lots 2 and 3 requiring homeowners to maintain the swale. Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 1 (Flint). 5.#2604 James Anderst, 3^QShoreline Drive —Commercial Site plan Review and Conditional Use Permt—Resolution No. 4530 \ Mr. Anderst and his legal council were present. \ Weinberger stated that the Ciw of Orono had j^su63 a building permit to allow remodeling of the Narrows Saloon. The ^phcant was now requesting a conditional use permit for the propertv-, which is locaj^cfm the B-1 R^etail Sales Business District in which a Class II Restaurant is defined as one that serves intoxicating liquor or has live entertainment—typically ba^ that play on Wednesday^l^rough Saturday nights. The lission recoifmiended approval on the conditions that: live entertainmeiPlanning Commission regommended approval on the conditions that: live entertainment end at 12:00 a.m., th^Jbtisiness close at 1:00 a.m., and that thete^e a 2 door system to reduce noise pollution outside of the building. The front entran^l^as single doors. Staff discussed using the front entra.nce as a fire exit only during hours that^bands are playing. •I •>.*:v.*-5!l «• ‘^.'l V :A.■; m'smmF''" > ^. ?' i. ’.V.T-..wid rr i^S=;'’'v v^- ■B» A-l^''-".inB lb > ^ wmmWM^ N ^■i'i ’<s5SH '••iiivISi ^1 ^M' Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality ofWater, Quality of Life MEMORANDUM Date: October 19,2000 To: Paul Weinberger, City of Orono From: Jim Ha&er RE: Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, Wildhurst Site A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of David Thill (Hennepin Consewation District), Doug Snyder (Board of Water and Soil Resources), and Jim Ha&ier (Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District) visited the Wildhurst site on October 16,2000. Others present were Paul Weinberger and Chris Pence (City of Orono), Mark Kjolhaug and Mike DeRuyter (Kjolhaug Environmental) and Barbara Moeller (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District). Schoell & Madsen had conducted a wetland delineation on this site on September 17,1997. They identified a small Type 1 wetland at that time. The property was not developed and later changed ownership. Kjolhaug Environmental conducted a subsequent delineation on September 11 and 15,2000. It was their determination that no wetlands were present, specifically in the location Schoell & Madsen had pre\iously identified a wetland. The 2000 report indicated that the delineator found neither hydric soils nor hydric vegetation and did not observe the presence of hydrology. After observing the site conditions the TEP agreed with the most recent delineation. While a species of sedge was present it was not a hydric variety. The soils were not of a hydric type and hydrology was not observed in auger holes. The 1997 report was conducted in a sewon that had experienced above average precipitation. The report indicated saturated soil conditions but did not record the presence of standing water (hydrology) in the auger holes. While 2000 has been somewhat dry the lack of hydric plants and soils were sufficient to determine that the site was not a wetland. D:\File$\TEP FlndingiXWUdhurst Merco.doc . iJfnicftvnirtrifiittria-Tti f IT lAf"..1.- V WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT nate: October 19.2000 rountv: Hennepin T.fiT I: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District LGU Contart: run Hafaer Project Name/i!?: Saga Hill. WUdhurst Site Location of Project:__ll7 23 07 Phone#: (952’)471-0590.x282 SEl/4ofNWl/4 Qrono. Township, Range, Section, Qtr. Section, Lot/Block, City. TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) ( X ) swm: David Thill_____________( x ) BWSRj Doug Snvder______ Hennepin County (x)T-GU: JimHafiter Other "Wetland Experts present:. TEP requested bv: City of Qrono 1.T>'pe of TEP determination requested (ditek those ihatt^pfy): X Delineation check ___Exemption Determination (WCA Exemption #___) ___No-Loss Determination ___Replacement Plan 2.Description of Wetland with proposed impact: a.WeUand Type (Circular 39) Type!(Cowardin) b.Size of Proposed Impact (tenths of acre). 3,Have sequencing requirements been addressed?__yes ___no 4.Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes(x) No( ) 5.The project will affect the following wetland functions: Functions Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Plant/Airimal Habitat Commercial Uses Impact No Impact Improve 6.For replacement plan or no-Ioss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? Yes()No( ) 7.Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.? Yes(x)No() If no, why?------------------------------------------------------------------- 8.SIGNATURES (if TEP decision is no' a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) % October 19.2000 SWCD Represtntative (D«e)BWSR Rqxtseniative (D*te)L(^ rcpreseicatitb (Date) aitepfof.nov (April. 1997) Hiak. WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT Date: October 19.2000 rnuntv: Hennepin LGU: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District LGU Contact: JimHafiier_________________ Name/tf:SaeaHill.WildhurstSite Phone#: (952)471-0590.x282 ___ Location of Project: 117 23 _______Q7 ______SE 1/4 ofNW 1/4____Pf9P9.Hennepin Township. Range, Section, Qff. Section. Lot/BIock, City, TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) (v^swCD: David Thai____________(x)BWSR: Doug Snvder______ County (X)LGU: JimHafiier Other Wetland E^qierts present*. TEP requested bv: CitvofOrono 1.Type of TEP determination requested {chtek tkost that _x_ Delineation check ___Exemption Determination (WCA Exemption #___) ___NO'Loss Determination ___Replacement Plan 2.Description of Wetland with proposed impact: a.Wetland Type (Circular 39) Type 1 (Cowar din) b.Size of Proposed Impact (tenths of acre). 3.Have sequencing requirements been addressed?__yes __no 4.Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local wnter plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes(x) No( ) 5.The project will affect the following wotland functions: Functions Fioodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Impact No Impact Imprsye Plant/Animal Habitat Commercial Uses 6.For replacement plan or no-loss detenninations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? Yes ( )No () 7.Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item L? Yes(x) No( ) If no, why?__________________________—------------------------------- 8 SIGNATURES Of TEP decision is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this pa^) SWCD Repftsenttdve (Dale)-------(Date)LGU repf^ettadve tDate) .tepfsf.new(ApriL 1997) t)-7 W' I tf- To: From: Date: Re: Memorandum Minnehaha Creek Watershed Board of Managers Eric Evenson, Administrator Mike Panzer, P.E. District Engineer Tuesday, November 21, 2000 Permit Application No. 00-356 Brenshell Homes Wildhurst Trail and Tonkaview Lane, Orono L Purpose The subject permit was tabled at the November 16, 2000 meeting because several nearby residents appeared at the meeting to voice concerns. One of the concerns was the potential adverse impact the project may have on existing drainage and flooding. My understanding of the flooding problems center along Wildhurst Trail, where the street intersects and crosses two natural drainage paths (North Ravine and East Ravine). I base this on a site inspection, concerns voiced at the November 16*^ meeting and correspondence to the City of Orono on behalf of Mr. Gary Welsh. The purpose of this memorandum is to address the potential runoff Impact the project will have on existing flooding problems at these locations. IL Potential Impact on Downstream Flooding In both cases, the ravines collect runoff from the project area and areas located off the project property (See attached site plan prepared by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc.), the grades of the ravines are relatively steep. Runoff conveyances across, under and along Wildhurst Trail appear to potentially he inadequate and inefficient for the conveyance of flow given the existing topography and residential development in the area downstream of the project site, the subject project could exacerbate these existing conditions if it resulted in higher flow rates or shortened “times of concentration” (y of flow. Generally, the Coffin & C»onD)/rg, Inc. design calculations (modified TR-55 method) and an indepen em? Hydro-Cad model prepared by Landform Engineering Company snow mat flow rates will be remain unchanged for smaller runoff events and will be significantly reduced for more severe events. (Note: The Coffin Gronberg, Inc. summary (attached) addresses runoff from the project property. The Landform Engineering Company model addresses runoff from the project property and off-site areas as well.) III.The Project Exceeds the Requirements of Rule N Based upon my review of the application, as submitted, the project exceeds the h t' K L requirements of MCWD Rule N - Stormwater Management. For a project of this nature, Rule N requires the developer to Incorporate BMP's for stormwater management. The project is less than 8 acres and is a low-density residential development. Therefore, the developer is not required to manage peak runoff rates or meet water quality standards in the rule. However, the developer has volu ntarily incorporated two wet-detention ponds into the project and has designed the grading of the site to attenuate and reduce peak rates of runoff to levels below that which exist now. In addition, the wet-detention ponds exceed the NURP volume required to reasonably expect 50% removal of nutrients and higher leveic of removal of sediment and other pollutants that partition themselves with the sediment. The wet-detention ponds also include temporary storage capacity for runoff events. The outlets are hydraulically restrictive with 4- Inch diameter outlets. Tiiese outlets are extremely small and are intended to mitigate and alleviate downstream drainage issues that exist independently of the project. Both ponds are designed with emergency controlled overflows in the event an extreme runoff event occurs. Lastly, the ponds receive the entire street, roof, driveway, and other runoff from the site. IV.Existing and Proposed Drainage Patterns This site drains to three general locations in the existing condition. The project will not change this general drainage pattern. Runoff drains to the east ravine, the north ravine or sheet drains down the slope to Wildhurst Trail from Lots 2 and 3.One effect the project will have is to divert some of the drainage area away from the east ravine and the slope to Wildhurst Trail. 2.4 acres will be diverted to a wet-detention pond for the north ravine area. V. 1. Runoff Rates East Ravine and the Slope to 'Wildhurst Trail (East Drainage) The drainage area and peak rates of runoff wh be reduced to these areas. The attached runoff summary entitled “East Drainage" is taken from the Landform Hydro-Cad model and illustrates the reductions. The reductions are the result of reducing the drainage area by 43% and because Pond 1 will detain the runoff it collects and release it at a slower rate through a 4 inch diameter pipe outlet to the ravine. 2.North Ravine The peak rates of runoff will basically remain unchanged for smaller runoff events and will be reduced for larger, more severe events. The attached runoff summary entitled “North Drainage" is taken from the Landform Hydro-Cad model and illustrates this effect. Although the drainage area to the North Ravine increases by 84% because of site grading, this is offset and mitigated by temporary storage of runoff in Pond 2, again releasing it at a slower rate through a 4 inch diameter pipe outlet. Runoff Volumes 1.East Ravine and the Slope to Wildhurst Trail (East Drainage) ■’ 'U- % 3. \UL 1. 2. 4. The volume of runoff to these areas will reduce as a result of the development. This is the result of diverting 2.4 acres of drainage to Pond 2 and the North Ravine. North Ravine The volume of runoff to Pond 2 and the North Ravine will increase. However, the increased volume will be temporarily stored in Pond 2 and released slowly. The Important aspect of the design in terms of potential impact is that although the volume increases, flow rates are reduced. Conclusions The project exceeds the requirements put forth in MCWD Rule N. The project should not exacerbate capacity issues with downstream stormwater conveyances across, under and along Wildhurst Trail. 3.The outlet designs for Ponds 1 and 2 are very restrictive and will reduce existing peak flows. Because they are hydraulically restrictive, the will .Ifalso be susceptible to clogging. If the outlet becomes clogged, it could result in reduced live storage capacity and the likelihood that the ponds will not properly function to control flow rates and/or overflow. Therefore, inspection and maintenance of the ponds is important and should be specifically addressed in a maintenance agreement. The ravine areas are relatively steep and sensitive to erosion. It is recommended that the outfall pipes from the ponds be outfitted with vertical energy dissipaters with sufficient weir length to disperse flow. The immediate area around the energy dissipaters should be treated with riprap to further dissipate flow energy. 12/04/2000 17:52 6127885365 MNC INTERNATIONAL PAGE 01 12-04-00 RonMoorse CityofOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono,MN 55356 Reference: Saga MU Development by Brenshell Homes Dear Mr. Moorse, It has come to our attention that several of the neighbors, surrounding the proposed Saga HUl Development by BreosheU Homes, are sending letters of concern to the City of Orono. Loren and I would also like to voice our concerns over the management of water run-oflf from this project. We live at 4480 Forest Lake Landing. Today we are extremely annoyed at the City’s poor street planning because every rain fall we receive water running down our side driveway to our back yard moving to the lake. Sometimes this water is 12 or more inches standing at the bottom of the drive where it meets the grass. You can sec the water moving toward the lake like a mini river when there is a heavy rainfall. Unfortunately, because of the way the City of Orono built the street above, Wildhurst Trail and around the crirve to Forest T ake Landing, this is the only way for the w'atcr to run. After tlic snow mehs, tit $t d .it'id from the City’s winter trucks ends up in our front driveway. There is such a co of salt and sand from the run-off that it has sunk and damaged both our driveways to the point that they are not repairable because it will only continue to happen year after year. I have phoned the City of Orono each winter for the last 4 years to please come and sweep Forest Lake Landing and Wildhurst Trail early and fi-equently so that we can try to get some sand and salt removed before the rain washes it into our driveways. Thus, our concern over more water run-off is tremendous. Our concern of the Saga MU Development by BrensheU Homes solely lies in the management of water run-oflf from the development. After attending a City of Orono meeting last year and a Watershed District meeting just last month, we do not agree that the developers have appropriate plans to develop a good system for water run-off It has been brought to our attention by the Watershed District and other engineers, under the direction of other neighbors, that although the Developers plan meets standard requirements there is a great potential for disaster inherent in their design for water run-off When we approached the Developers to discuss the run-oflf issue and have them further explain themselves they only got defensive and walked away unwilling to discuss anything. As outlined in previous neighbors letters to you, you can see the problems and possible disasters related to the Develop ■:rs design. r::inaUy, if the City of Orono approves this project it is also accepting responsibility for the water run-off and the damage h wiU cause. Wc encourage you to use your authority to Li '/ 1 12/04/2000 17:52 B127889365 MNC INTERNATICNAL PAGE 03 Sincerely yours. Stac^ and Loren Schoenzeit 4480 Forest Lake Landing Orono,MN 55364 952-472-1302 oc: City of Orono Council Members, Paul Wonbeijer, and Mayor Jabour. f* ■':\ 1 ffls ■ DEC-01-2000 FRI 01:10 PM CB BURNET WAYZATA FAX NO.P.02 4510 North Shore Dr. Orono, MN 55364 December 1,2000 Ron Moorse City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Reference: Saga Hill Development by Brenshell Homes Dear Ron, A hearing notice from the Watershed district for permit review brought this development to my attention about two weeks ago. Since that time I have sat in attendance at two Watershed District meetings and had the opportunity to voice my concerns relative to potential run-off from this project and review the proposed drainage design. While others in the immediate area are concerned about wetland delineation, conflicting reports, etc. My concern lies solely in the management of water run-off from the project. You are aware of the history of the area and that a few short years ago, the construction of a few new homes along Tonka View Ln. resulted in a 12 inch wall of water beating against my front door during heavy rainfall. This caused over $25,000 in uninsured damage to my home. The small storm sewer that was constructed has alleviated the threat to my home stmeture, but because the asphalt at the intersection was not properly installed, a fair amount of water from Tonka View Ln still crosses Wildhurst 'frail, enters the drainage ditch and is conveyed to my level, lakeside lawn. A heavy rainfall results in standing water, draining slowly with time, into Forest Lake Bay. Concerns were expressed by members of the Watershed District that although the Brenshell drainage plan meets their requirements, there is a potential for disaster inherent in the design. The burms for two holding pond.s will be constructed from natural, resident soils and a four-inch weir will control the rale of drainage from the pond. If the four-inch weir plugs with leaves or debris, the pond will over flow to a 12-inch pipe. If the pipe -'T'.'r.k 1 -1 -B1 .‘J -«*i rr i l-•m .MiT.>.r DEC-01-2000 FRI 01:10 PH CB BURNET HAYZATA FAX NO.P.03 becomes plugged with debris, the water will overflow the banks of the pond, which is ten feet deep, and the potential for erosion and break down of the biirm becomes a real possibility. In a major rain event, if the burm beaks down, several homes will suffer major damage. (This scenario was brought up by one of the technical people who sit on the Water Shed District Board, but they advise that design and implementation issues are the City’s responsibility and not their jurisdiction.) The developers’ response was only to offer to have the burrns evaluated by a structural soil engineer and that the homeowner ’s a.ssociation would maintain the ponds. It is not appropriate to e.xpect the existing, down-stieam residents to provide the ponding for the additional run-off that these 5 home will ultimately generate. The rate of runoff may ultimately be lower, but I believe that the total volume of runoff will be far greater. The rate will be controlled by the 4-inch weir and the 12-inch pipe, but the total volume will increase and ultimately be ponded in the level lawns and driveways of the existing down- steam residents. The families on North Shore Drive and especially Forest Lake Landing are already experiencing problems. The added volume will make things worse after it slows on the level areas and drains into our driveways, lawns and homes. Another concern is that although the plan looks good, the implementation will be critical. How can I be assured that not one drop of additional run-off will reach my property? Who will supervise the implementation and when the five homes have been constructed, check that the drainage system is functioning properly and assure that it continues to be maintained so that it operates as designed? I’o that end 1 am requesting that the City of Orono take over maintenance of the weir and drain pipes and that the developer post a $200,000 bond with the city to be released after all homes are constructed and the implementation of the drainage system is deemed to be working as designed. In addition, I am requesting that the City of Orono evaluate possible solutions to alleviate the problems being experienced by the residents on Forest Lake Landing and possibly assess the Brenshcll development to procure funds to alleviate what will be a worsening problem. Finally, I would ask if the city has considered banning the use of fertili'zers and pesticides by these home owners, since the runoff will be mainlined from the holding ponds, down pipes to ravines and directly into to Forest 'DEC-01-2000 FRI OlUO PM CB BURNET WAYZATA FAX NO.P.04 Lake Bay, The water will further pollute a bay that already suffers from major algae blooms each summer. This detracts from, the appearance, recreational appeal and ultimately the abutting property values. Please do not misunderstand my intent here. I do not oppose the development of that parcel. I just want the City of Orono to absolutely guarantee that the current storm-water management problems will not be exacerbated by the Brenshell development. VeryTrulwYours, Kathy Sawicki cc.GabrielJabour Orono Council Paul Weinberger 1 rfr, ^tngsUg ^oltnaii ^Hnlman “Jlafn ©fftccjs international pillage (©fficc JVreabe 220 3®. 98th ^t. ^loomington, ^n. 55420 M.5fo.(952)8Bl-2ni iFax2«n.(g52)BBl-48afi ^aOib ^jjlman November 22, 2000 Ron Morse Orono City Administrator P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re; Breshnall Homes Plat Lot 2, Block 1, Heathercroft Dear Mr. Morse: Our office has been asked to review the preliminary plat process in the Breshnall Homes development. While many alternatives have b-=ien discussed concerning this development, including legal acticn under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, the neighbors have appreciated the efforts that the City has made to try to ensure that this proposed development, being built partially on steep slopes, does not cause excessive environmental damage or adversely affect their property. Many concerns still remain, however. After examining the minutes of September 25, I noticed that there was no reference to the comments made by Gary Welsh concerning his belief that this process was flawed. In addition, the resolution granting preliminary approval requires, eimong other things, the grant of a conservation easement nn pcrti?r~ cf Lo’: 2 and 3 brlcw the 1,014 foot contour. The neighbors would appreciate it if the terras of this easement were spelled out now rather than remaining indefinite. They also want this area clearly delineated in some manner, perhaps with metal posts as was done by the City on the Saga Hill property. Needless to say, the construction of a stormwater pond in an area where the slope may exceed 18% also raises concerns for the adjoining property owners. It still appears that concentrated runoff, especially bn this clay-like soil, will cause erosion in the south ravine and the steep slopes leading to Wildhurst Trail. While the neighbors have many more concerns about this d^ve To pirieh tT~ the y~wan't ~yb u~tb~ knbw~t h a t~ t h e y "“in t e*hd‘.“tb.“ be’Z.' •••• *» H i-i' ' ft -• '“V: ■•■'i ■•; •‘$y .■ Page -2- November 22, 2000 Ron Morse Re: Breshnall Homes Plat vigilant and adamant in the protection of the local environment and their own property. They hope the City will continue to address their concerns in this process. If I can be of any assistance, please let me know. i Sincerely, David L. Holman DLH/eth bcc. Mayor Gabriel Jabbour City Council Members Paul Weinberger Mike Gaffron -r m ^iKBkVb.iv .—t .>.. m; ftinr mjai l^au u ■gi^rnffi m.«.<"r.'.v*»^b.*A.\VKKttKha I n l*|V u Completion Date: Deadline: 11/13/00 1/11/01 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC I I 2UUU Cliy Of Onu/vu DATE: December 6,2000 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2623 Fred A. Johnson 1926 Fagemess Point Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area:8,018 s.f. (. 18 acre) Application: Applicants have proposed to remove the existing residence and detached garage and construct a new residence on a lot that is located entirely within the 75' lakeshore setback. List of Exhibits: A B C D Resolution Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Site Plan Planning Report Background: Applicants have reduced the size of the proposed house and reduced the size of the garage to a two stall garage. Original application requested a 1,690 s.f. house. After a series of discussions with Staff the applicants were advised to reduce the size of the house to comply with the structural coverage limitations. For lots under 10,000 s.f. the property can have a maximum of 1,500 s.f. of structure. The revised plan has reduced the structural coverage to 1,495 s.f and has eliminated additional hardcover that would have been required for a third stall to the garage. The plan indicates a covered entrance to the front of the building that technically would be considered structure. 36 s.f of additional structure would be added to the 1,495 proposed = 1,531 s.f, equaling the amount of structure that has previously existed on the property. Both adjacent properties are also located entirely within the 75' lakeshore setback and have had variances granted to allow replacement of structures in the 1980s. Conditions placed on the adjacent properties were that the amount of structure and hardcover not exceed what had previously existed since no hardcover is permitted within 75’ of the lakeshore. Planning Commission Discussion: Planning Commission Minutes are attached as Exhibit B. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 recommend approval of the application permitting 2,079 s.f of hardcover and not to exceed 1,500 s.f of structure. The recommendation was based on the fact the property is developed as a single family residence with 2,328 s.f tnii ntinfinAi «• Request for Council Action continued Page 2 December 6,2000 #2625 Fred A. Johnson_________ of hardcover existing and over 1,500 s.f. structure existing. The total hardcover and structure would decrease upon redevelopment of the site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application as amended and recommended by the Planning Commission. A resolution approving the variances has been attached reflecting the recommendations by the Commission. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the attached resolution. V, V r '• A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (1) FILE NO. #2623 WHEREAS, Fred A. Johnson (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1926 Eagerness Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinaft.ir "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 November 20, 2000, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opporuinity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant has revised a variance application to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit 1,500 s.f. of structure within the 75' protected lakeshore setback to Lake Minnetonka where no structure is permitted, and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1) to permit 2,079 s.f. (26%) of hardcover within the 75' lakeshore setback where no hardcover is permitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2623. 2.The property is located in the LR-IC (*A acre) One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 20, 2000 and recommended approval on a vote of 6 to 0 for variances based upon the following findings and hardships: Page 1 of 6 ■i -r»1 .1.1 .in-TiMwi■T-rf-frtn -ti «m nm mw him v ff^hun r l 4. 5. A.The existing house and deck are located only a few feet from the lakeshore. Removal of the house and construction of a new house would leave a setback of an average of 30' to the house. Locating the house further from the street would not allow for an adequate setback to the street. 30' is the required setback to the street. The proposed setback is 20'. 20' allows space to back out of the garage into the driveway without backing a vehicle directly into the street, and would provide off street parking for the property. B.The *a:ie anJ «treet setbacks would be consistent with those approved for the two adjacent properties. Both properties are located entirely within the 75' lakeshore setback. C.The hardcover variance is required as the entire lot is located within 75' of the lakeshore. I’he proposed hardcover would include up to 1,500 s.f. for the house. Additional hardcover would be required for the sidewalk connecting the driveway to the front entrance and the front steps. 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. 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 healtii, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 I •ir-r ||-----------------------------------------------------——a.■ml f -at --------------------------r -rr-. CO CLUSIO S ORDER AND CONDITIO S Based upon one or more.of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby gran s va ianc s to Municipal Zoning Code Sec ion 10.22, Subdi ision and Section 10.55, b iv sion 8 to permit 1,500 s.f of structure wit · the 75' protected lakeshore setba-k to Lake mnetonka w ere no stru r.., is permitt d, and ection 1 .22, ub iv·sion 2 and Se tion 10 56 ubd1v1s1on 16 (L) (1) to erm1t 2,079 s.f. ( 6%) of hardcove within the 75 lakeshor setback whe e no , ardco er i allowed subject to e followmg conditions. Applicant s a ap ly or a demolition permit a d remove all e · ting struc es and hard er p ior to i suanc of butlding pe mit for a ne st cture. 2.Appli an 11 provide 3 orig·nal cop·es of a · vised survey show·ng the building plan and au propo ed h· rdc r.Such site plan/survey shall be in sub tan ial onformance w·th th ache· approved sit plan attached hereto Exhibi B. 3 he su · ey shall also indicate t' o e t floor levation for the new residence 6 o det nnin the house wdl b lo ated 3' abo e the OHWL (929.4').o land alte at·on c n occur belo th d -fine . flood e evation of 931.5'. r·t· grant�d by th. -a ce run with the property not ·r e pplicant �ut are pe . -·ss· ,e only and must be exercised by appl cat on for a b ildin penr.i. ithi one y a of the date of C u c] approval or this .i nc w 11 expire on that da (December 1 , 001 . i I tl n of or non o plia . c with any of th erms a d conditaons of thi _ 'an shat-constt te · o ation f e zo · g code, shall auto at 11 · t rm te a y a thori ·ed e · , and sh:ill b punish l , .1· d meanor Th , u _de 1gned ap · nt has d, under tan of thi solut n a d on b -alf of ··-··- hereby a r to th -�,,,,.,.,.rding of thi property. f6 d h b ·ucce sors and ·n th Ch 1n o Titl 1 ..t -.V IW.I Adopted by the City Council of tiie City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of December, 2iIII ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of December, 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Notary Public , 20__before me a Notary Public within and knownfor said county, personally appeared__________________________________ to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instmment, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATE OF.TITLE NO. 776442 Thot part of Lot 27, Fogorness and the accretion therto described as follows: Commencing at a point on the Southerly line of Under the Unden Avenue which point is distant 75 feet Northeasterly from the Southwest corner thereof; said point being marked by the judicial landmark; thence Northeasterly along the Southeasterly line of Under the Unden Avenue a distance of 100 feet which point is marked by a judicial landmark; thence South 34 degrees 14 minutes East a distance of 69 feet which point is marked by a judicial landmark; thence continuing South 34 degrees 14 minutes East a distance of 6 feet more or less to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Southwesterly along the shore of Lake Minnetonka a distance of 97.7 feet more or less to its intersection with a line which bears South 33 degrees 48 minutes East from the point of beginning; thence North 33 degrees 48 minutes West a distance of 8 feet more or less to a point which is marked by a judicial landmark; thence continuing North 33 degrees 48 minutes West^ a distance of 64 feet to the point of beginning. For purposes of this description the North line of Fagerness is assumed to be a due East and West line. Subject to the reservotion by the State af Minnesota of all minerals and mineral rights In and ta the said Northeasterly 100 feet of the Southwesterly 175 feet of said Lot 27; Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT B ( > A ' under the -...r«r^ c —— •VJf'®*'^ ,so;2 /•t r 4 K L - Shc^’C Line LAKE •4 MINK^ONKA 2000) ) v<oie* E’.«''0^l®'' ^^pril 27. Page 6 of 6 .. ^ i/u -ii/.'Afli vMirjcm i".a <rj*F i>.nni p MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 ROLL j-> 9- P The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date \\*ith the following members present; Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jay Nygard, William Stoddard, Dale Lindquisi, Janice Berg, and Sandra Smith. Commissioner Daniel Kluth was absent. The following represented Cit>* Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gafifiron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representatives Gabriel Jabbour and Richard Flint were present. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2623 FRED JOHNSON, 1926 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES, 6:31 p.m.-6:45 p.m. Fred John.son, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailinn and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to remove an e.\isting residence and detache garage and construct a new residence on a lot that is located entirely within the /o lakeshore setback. Weinberger stated this is one of three lots that are all located on the south side of Fagemess Road, with all three lots only Itaving a depth of 70' from the lakeshore. Originally the Applicants had requested variances to lot width, lot area, lakeshore setback and hardcover in order to construct a house consisting of 1,690 square feet. After discussions with Staff, the Applicants were advised to reduce the size of the house to comply with the structural coverage limitations. Wcinbeiger noted for lots under 10,000 square feet, the property can have a ma.\itpum of 1,500 square feet of structure. • % -• •, The Applicants have revised their plans and have redesigned the house to reduce the structural coverage to 1,495 square feet, with the elimination of additional hardcover that would have been equired for a third stall to the garage. Weinberger stated the amount of hardcover that e^dsts on the propert>‘ currently is fairly equal to what is being proposed. Weinberger stated since the propertv' is located entirely within the 75 ’ lakeshore setback, it has had variances granted in the past to allow replacement of structures in the 1980s. Conditions PAGE! iiMt I -'*iL MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMlvnSSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 placed on the adjacent-properties were that the amount of structure and hardcover not exceed what had previously existed since no hardcover is normally permitted within 75* of the lakeshore. Weinberger noted the existing house and deck are located only a few feet from the lakeshore. with removal of the house and construction of a new residence resulting in a setback averaging 30 feet to the house. Relocating the house further from the street would not allow for an adequate setback to the street, with 30 feet being the required setback to the street. Weinberger noted the Applicants are proposing a setback of 20 feet, which would allow sufficient space to back out of the garage into the driveway without backing a vehicle directly into the street and would provide off street parking for the property. W cinberger stated the Applicants are also proposing a small covered entrance consisting of 36 square feet to the front of the building that technicallv would be considered structure. This would result in total structural coverage in the amount of 1,531 square feet, which equals th( amount of structure that currently exists on the propert}’. W einberger stated the Applicants arc requesting a variance to structural coverage to permit replacement of the 1,531 square feet of structure where 1,500 is allowed by Code; a variance to permit structure tao be located w ith'n 75 feet of the lakeshore; and a variruice to permit 2,079 square feet of hardcover where none is allowed. W einberger stated Staff would request an updated survey prior to review by the City Council, with the updated survey also indicating the lowest floor elevation for the new residence in order to determine whether the new house will be located three feet above the OHWL. Staff s only concern with this application is that structural coverage e.xcceds the allowable 1,500 square feet allowed under Code. Weinberger noted the amount of structural coverage being proposed is equal to what currently exists on tiie propertj*. Johnson commented he would like to construct a larger residence, but due to the limits set by the City of Orono, he has reduced the size of the building. PAGE 2 i tel r 1 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 Lindquist inquired whether the existing garage \\ill also be removed. Johnson stated it will be. Hawn inquired whether the deck has been included in the hardcover calculations. Weinberger stated the deck ha, been included. Weinberger stated the deck proposed is a ground level deck and would not be considered structural coverage. Stoddard commented in order to be consistent the Planning Commission should look at requiring the Applicant to reduce the amount of structural coverage to 1,500 square feet. Hawn stated that was her only concern with this application as well. Hawn noted the Planning Commission has typically not granted \ ariances to structural coverages in the past. Lindquist inquired what the size of the garage will be. Johnson stated it will be 22.5 feet. Lindquist inquired whether the garage could be reduced by one foot. Johnson commented he would be w illing to reduce the garage by one foot in order to keep the front entiyway. Stoddard suggested that approval be made conemgent upon structural coverage not exceeding 1,500 square feet. There were no public comments relating to this application. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application ^2623j 1926 Fagerness Point Road, granting of a variance to permit structure to be located within • • • 75 feet of the lakeshore and a variance to permit 2,079 square feet of hardcover where none is allowed, with the understanding the structural coverage will not exceed 1,500 square feet. subject to the conditions outlined in the November 13,2000 Planner’s Report. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#2) "2625 Morgan K. Nelson, 3145 Jamestown Road, Variances, 6:45 p.m. — 6:52 p.m. PAGE 3 4 i1 n ( > A ' r '-S.* L^ L D Completion Date: 11/13/00 60 Day Deadline:1/il/Ol TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:November 13,2000 SUBJECT:#2623 Fred A. Johnson 1926 Fagemess Point Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area: 8,018 s.f. (. 18 acre) Application: Applicants have proposed to remove the existing residence and detached garage and construct a new residence on a lot that is located entirely within the 75' lakeshore setback. List of Exhibits: A B C D Application Plat Map Survey Elevation Views Background: Applicants have reduced the size of the proposed house and reduced the size of the garage to a two stall garage. Original application requested a 1,690 s.f. house. After a series of discussions with Staff the applicants were advised to reduce the size of the house to comply with the structural coverage limitations. For lots under 10,000 s.f. the property can have a maximum of 1,500 s.f. of structure. The revised plan has reduced the structural coverage to 1,495 s.f. and has eliminated additional hardcover that would have been required for a third stall to the garage. The plan indicates a covered entrance to the front of the building that technically would be considered structure. 36 s.f. of additional structure would be added to the 1,495 proposed =1,531 s.f., equaling the amount of structure that has previously existed on the property. Both adjacent properties are also located entirely within the 75' lakeshore setback and have had variances granted to allow replacement of structures in the 1980s. Conditions placed on the adjacent properties were that the amount of structure and hardcover not exceed what had previously existed since no hardcover is permitted within 75' of the lakeshore. <7623 Fred A. Johnson 1926 Figemess Point Rond Variances - Public Hearing Page 1 T ii iT ' h t Staff would recommend an added condition that the pro** "Jity not be developed beyond the 1,500 s.f. of structure that is permitted by Municipal Code. The existing structure is 1,531 s.f. It REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE \■. f Lot Area 21,780 s.f.8,018 s.f 13,762 s.f. f Lot Width 100'100' Lake Setback 75'26' deck, 30' house 49' L JSl Front (street) Setback 30'20'10' I Left Side 10'23' Right Side 10’16 ’ 1 Hardcover Existing 2,328 s.f. (29%) Proposed 2,079 s.f. (26%)0% b allowed Hardships: The applicants have stated in their hardship statement that the existing house is not livable and the existing garage is in poor condition. (See Exhibit A) fhe existing house and deck are located only a few feet from the lakeshore. Removal of the house and construction of a new house would leave a setback of an average of 30' to the house. Locating the house further from the street would not allow for an adequate setback to the street. 30' is the required setback to the street. The proposed setback is 20'. 20' allows space to back out of the garage into the driveway without backing a vehicle directly into the street, and would provide off street parking for the property. The lake and street setbacks would be consistent with those approved for the two adjacent properties. The hardcover variance is required as the entire lot is located within 75' of the lakeshore. The proposed hardcover would include 1,495 s.f. for the house. Additional hardcover would be required for the sidewalk connecting the uriveway to the front entrance and the front steps. A 164 s.f. deck has been proposed on the lakeside of the new house and would be located 26' from the lakeshore. A hardcover summary is located at the top of page 3 of this memo. •2623 Fred A. Johnson 1926 Fagemess Point Road Variances - Public Hearing Page2 I 'f *1V-I-W '-W-..ft HnM »!■n-mnn - I- Hardcover House Garage Sidewalk Patio/Deck Steps Driveway Total Existing 1,187 s.f. 344 s.f. 125 s.f. 419 s.f. 43 s.f. 210 s.f 2,328 s.f. Proposed 1,495 s.f. (With Attached Gaiage) 90 s.f 164 s.f. 36 s.f 294 s.f 2,079 s.f Variance Approvals Requested 1.Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) Structural Coverage - to permit a replacement of the 1,531 s.f of structure where 1,500 s.f is allowed by Code. 2.Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - to permit structure to be located within 75' of the lakeshore. 3.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1) - to permit 2,079 s.f (26%) hardcover where none is allowed. Additional Information Requested 1)The updated survey does not show the revised footprint for the site plan under review by the Planning Commission. Should the Planning Commission make a recommendation of approval an updated survey shall be provided before review by the City Council. 2)The survey shall also indicate the lowest floor elevation for the new residence to determine the house will be located 3' above the OHWL (929.4'). No land alteration can occur below the defined flood elevation of 931.5'. R-It Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the final site plan not exceed 1,500 s.f The covered entrance on the street side of the house constitutes 36 s.f of structure. The overall plan is consistent with the approvals granted for the two adjacent lots (both are similar situations being located within 75' of the lakeshore). <^2623 Fred A Johnson 1926 Fagemess Point Road Variances - Public Hearing Page 3 PniliE itC«l«>M2J [•V^tu\ ^TTil-i Htlt|«lM] •WH^ iiVMlt Mill* rcntti r«niR4«wt ■!\^ CITY OF ORONO - V A U A NCE APPLI CAT 0 Initi.a.1 Applicati o n Fee $25 0.00 · ($50.09 per each: ad .ll?nal variance) R e newal Variance Fee $150 .00 (no chang from orii ina l appli catio n) Variance f o .r no n-c onfo ming s,tructu rc 250.00 After-the-I:act Fees (D< u ble applica ti on fee) Applicatio # cJ.__(o a 3 ate Recei';ed 1-I 1-0 JAm\)unt Paid � {)0 PROPERTY INFORMA no ,--.� J) n_ t\ S't e Addre.,s 1�..). f. r�L£.'l.,_J,:..i:;��----------- A Prope rty ldentificatiob · umber (P�,----.....-------------:--------­Attach legal d sc_ riptio 1 to p!�tion_ if not inc ed on required survey . Date Property A quh ,�. (monthly�) ��n � P ::: .�-_b _T_..,.��.,...1JL .Ji��:�nti-. p----0 .. -... l _ s�o-_f-�- :C -d-�-(s _pe_c _ ify_) ------· . � Zoning District _______ ,..____________________ u J Phone (hom ) _ __.___ _____ ,._:· �:_� Phon e (Vf od.:)\J • •t , Addr ess:· == � ) -:,\ �t City:. _ ___....Q'-4,£�dl ...... J-b:-___ Zip .. __..�._____........, OWl\'ER (if ·. · e tl m upp 'can t ) Phon e (home) f::,IZ -'17/-7'f'?.'1 N blile §,, .3 ( f-1, c...'--<-f Lz.. Wed� �Phone ( ork) b I 2. -� 3S .lb;;). bAddrcs . 15 d;;b t::'"'.a c.r -' fo·,--. + R..c:!... Ci ty:_O_.:...ro_"'-"'_o____Zip. �� 3 ,, I DES CRIPTIO� 0 R � UEST Describ u st in d t ·1: Estima ted Construction Cost (a ttac h ddition al sheets if necessary ) ARIANCE ·Qur lE . . _____,_ .. Lot Area __ . Lo t Width bac :.. ro n t Side Hardcov e -- Rear __ Lot Coverage A ver ag Lakeshore--- ci fy) ------------------------- HARD HIP/D ... CR.l: ' I :.._ 0 UNUSUA L J. · E TY CO a>ITI0.1. S D scn"b d� hip or practic al diffic ulty o r �usu a pr o erty condi ions preventing om p '1th Zot m C de requir e e nts:. t.QI '5.17 ·•·, ... ,_ ,,,,.IL tJ� � a G li\JtLb{� ,11 �� t{,er ,n "-I ·- ,, _ if n c sary) 6 .. t ‘ i % \ :U ."'"'a :) . ^ ••- «j JL ^.. CJ* • • , JJ .i •r^*:'’ ’ y '^L=:d7 >> ; ( c .4 ' >C f-r.^ UNDER _ f<w«. M -"C-ro*''^ /%'•« v:.-'0"' __^ # L - Snof€ Line lake MINNETONKA . ,!.V°27!*^ 2000)(^pnl ••• • 1 m ’V-i*.- •. • •k •• i •• ‘Dcsl^»^ ^fc'i./ic€«i • • ■yciA Z‘4‘11 . • ^AwirSCO. »•*/•/-»-» * 1 •' *D«AM«A V*411 • • I . - I • • • • J • • .... .. . h .. •-•. . . . , . ,, • • .. · .. .. •. . • I • •)'-� ... r/•.u I.., -'' J&. '-'-""."'"' U.•'· •• 'IE--+..war.--'•"' :r-1' ( •. , , .. I I ..... • t,;.,._ ... •I"" if • • I J � • I . • .. • ,. .,. •,,,. •d� i '•• ., .•,.".: • : • 3 � ... n,. ,-.n. ....... ' -7' 7 , .. ., . ., __, ' ..... '/ I i .. I ... .. . . • • I ' J t • ' • S+:,-c...lo• ;. 4 ..,_ ______________________ __,.;. ______________________ 1..,., ·-------.. \&,•. •,. -o• · • •• -;.•-c. I • � L. ...... , I /· ,I • 1-.. ,, � I <. .' o .. ...• 01'(ooft"\ �./,.J ..,0 &�) , ... .,. •• � w-"'Cl .. - ' @. .. •· w ... I... h .. I • ., I • \.I�· .. -&- C:1...,J,.,...._ .. .. I .. • �S'OIZOO • • ll'-... • f . . • I • • • . . . .: , , , ---·-r . I • ., I I � ... .. . • ! • • • •' . .... .. ., ... .. . .. • • ,{ ' , ,/ .-) ' . • • : '• ...• I r f --. . . •• .. •• r .. •• . .-•· 1 I .. . . • 6 -7 . .. . . . . . :·: I .\ .... . -� ... &. � i........ t:.,;, '1\· .. i ... .. . , . . • . .. . . . . . .. .-�------ • •••I ;;.f I_. r I .-1. ·.• : I t :,I ! •• t �-. I I • y u»• 1 I f c,..•�� � • .J ·�·· � .... "-"' I A ... • 1• 4-.lc '%1111 • . . f? t'a I :· ------�----------·---·-· ·-·=·======�---_-_-_-.::�:-_.;;..._._ .. _· . .,·,.;..�-;......__·_•:a.'.:.·_·_. ·�•;.__,..,;;.;l -:...;:·_--_-:.-.:::.·:.·�:.:.:.:.':•:.:._·-_-_-___ ...;._ .:.__:-_-:,:.:.:.-:.. ... _-_-_-_-_�_-_-_-_-::::::::-----------::::::.�i..--______ -_-::=====:....J�..J. __ I···--- 1 h'••· � � ��-:_�' � !I \-•-)* :r-•11a'•J... • • ._.. It I : .. . . • • ... ! r "f I r , .. ..,,. � """� 11 '" <, • :f .. �'f' I l/4!,f°J',�.-. _..,_,..._� •. .:r ••• -r ... � • .,,. 1',.­ . .,, . ._ • �iiiii--.... -:.---� Mw;m, . ' .. ., .... .,., --s,.. -.vi,..., L-.... -�-.., 1.·-�· .. - I • ., ' ' .. :,,1 • • �'L.l.,.. :,,.,, .... J I •I • : . ·.,. I • • t •• .. .. • ' . . , .· • • • r I •* * Y n •• • -A- 1 i!• t 'f & •* CO//AInti H,r-— . Application Date: Deadline: 9/18/00 1/15/01 OfC I I ■> REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^uuu OITY Ur L. DATE: December 6,2000 ITEM NO.: \V Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2623 Karen J. and Morgan Nelson 3143 Jamestown Road Variances Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 79,400 s.f. (1.8 acres) List of Exhibits: A B C D Resolution Planning Commission Minutes Site Plan Planning Report Application Summary: Applicants propose to construct a pool on the lakeside of the existing residence and adjacent to a gazebo. This home was constructed prior to the 1992 Shoreland Ordinance, which implemented the 150' setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Lake Classen. Lake Classen has been classified as a Natural Environment Lake by the DNR. Natural Environment lakes require the 150' setback for structures and septic systems. The proposed setback from the pool to the OHWL of Lake Classen is 123'. The existing house is 128' from the OHWL and the gazebo is 123'. The pool Is proposed to be 34' X 18' in size. A second variance is required for the average lakeshore setback. The pool will encroach 9' into the a\ erage lakeshore setback defined by the principal structures of the two adjacent properties. This properrv' contains a bluff by definition, but the existing house and proposed pool are set back at least 40 ’ from the top of the bluff (defined as the point where average slope changes from greater than 18% to less than 183o). The required setback to the top of bluff is 30'. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOxVLMENDATION: The Planning Commission Recommended approval of the submitted plan by a vote of 6 to 0, COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the resolution granting variances, as proposed, to permit construction of a swimming pool. A 1-C- i ' y.- A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C) (1) AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION (C) (6) FILE NO. mis WHEREAS, Karen J. Nelson and Morgan Nelson (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3145 Jamestown Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Camelot EXCEPT that part of said Lot 2 described as follows Commencing at the most easterly corner of said Lot 2; thence South 26 degrees West along the southeasterly line of said Lot 2 a distance of 198.33 feet to the point of beginning of the exception being described; thence South 47 degrees West a distance of 54.10 feet; thence South 26 degrees West to the shore of Lake Classen; thence southeasterly along said shoreline to the intersection with a line drawn South 26 degrees West from the point of beginning; thence North 26 degrees East along said last described line to the point of beginning. ALSO That part of Lot 3, Block 1, LIBERTY ACRES described as follows: Beginning at the most easterly comer of Lot 2, Block 1, CAMELOT; thence South 26 degrees West along the southeasterly line of said Lot 2 a distance of 198.33 feet; ihence North 47 degrees East a distance of 123.90 feet; thence North 14 degrees East to the North line of said Lot 3; thence westerly along said north line to the point of beginning, (hereinafter "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 November 20, 2000, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (1) to permit the construction of a swimming pool 123* from the OHWL of Lake Classen where 150’ is required to lakes classified as Page 1 of 6 NE, Natural Environment and to Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (3) to permit a 9' encroachment into the average lakeshore setback for structures where no encroachment is allowed. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^2625. The property is located in the RR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 20, 2000 and recommended approval on a vote of 6 to 0 for variances based upon the following findings and hardships: A.The proposed pool would be located between the house and gazebo on the lake side of the residence. The residence was located on the property prior to the 150' setback requirement for Lake Classen. B.The pool would be located above the hill and would be well above the flood plain or areas affected by the OHWL of Lake Classen. C.Placing the pool behind the principal residence would not function well as it would be located in the front of the house towards the street. Typically, pools would be located behind the house in a back yard. Also, the street yard is the site of the septic system and alternate site, leaving no other reasonable location for the pool. D.The gazebo and dense vegetation would screen the pool from view to adjacent residences. 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 Paae 2 of 6 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 pro* iy right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council 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 welf^e 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 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (1) to permit the construction of a swimming pool 123' from the OHWL of Lake Classen where 150' is required to lakes classified as NE, Natural Environment and to Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (3) to permit a 9' encroachment into the average lakeshore setback for structures where no encroachment is allowed subject to the following conditions : 1.Applicants shall remove hardcover as depicted on the approved site plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. Final hardcover shall not exceed 25% of the land area within the 75-250' setback. 2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (December 11, 2(X)1). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 6 I i-. ■ ' f 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of December, 2<iili ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of December, 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. i i Notary Public Page 4 of 6 .*>■«iteTi.................rfltiMI i i -r«-nr»w --------, ■V STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of . 20 before me a Notary Public within and knownfor said county, personally appeared ____________________________________ 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. Notaiy STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of . 20 before me a Notary Public within and knownfor said county, personally appeared ____________________________________ 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 Page 5 of 6 ii’f EXHIBIT A » •I J* MMtfa M0 » » ^ ll^lt KA1Clon'^*« *. *. V • • \ ft ft ' • • •^ • 1 • %• * ----•V-r”' A ft ft « •I Exsne J«JU5E S5' -d.___ift. « 1^ « < It! ^~*i'T4~is~^-------------*\ •*'. ".............................................................................---------------------------------------------------------------- 1 '- /'*»*< N * C r , . ' ' \ ’ f jl ** f M t ft |. Lake Shoir^ ‘^'tCORo Class E N Page 6 of 6 i ** ^^XUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONCVnSSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 Lindquist inquired whether the existing garage will also be removed. ;on stated it will be. Ha\Munquired whether the deck has been included in the hardcover calculations. WeinbergeSfitated the deck has been included. Weinberger stated the deck proposed is a ground level deck and ^uld not be considered structural coverage. Stoddard conunente^n order to be consistent the Planning Commission should look at requiring the Applicant to reduce uhtamount of structural coverage to 1,500 square feet. Hawn stated that was her onlj\oncem with this application as well. Hawn noted the Plarming Commission has typically not granSd variances to structural coverages in the past. Lindquist inquired what the size of the ^iipge will be. Johnson stated it will be 22.5 feet. Lindquist inquired whether the garage could be r^ced by one foot. Johnson commented he would be willing to reduce thVgarage by one foot in order to keep the front entryway. Stoddard suggested that approval be made contingent upon struNural coverage not exceeding 1,500 square feet. There were no public comments relating to this application. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Applicatio^K623, 1926 Fagerness Point Road, granting of a variance to permit structure to be louted within 75 feet of the lakeshore and a variance to permit 2,079 square feet of hardcover wnwe none is allowed, with the understanding the structural coverage will not exceed 1,500 squar^^t, subject to the conditions outlined in the November 13,2000 Planner’s Report. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#2) #2625 Morgan K. Nelson, 3145 Jamestown Road, Variances, 6:45 p.m. — 6:52 p.m. PAGE 3 1 -r NHNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COADnSSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 Morgan Nelson, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a pool on the lakeside of the existing residence and adjacent to a gazebo. The proposed setback fi’om the pool to the OHWL of Lake Classen is 123 feet, with the existing house being located 128 feet from the OHWL. The existing residence was constructed prior to the 1992 Shoreland Ordinance requiring the 150 fool setback from the OHWL. Lake Classen has been classified as a Natural Environment Lake by the DNR, which require the 150 foot setback for structures and septic systems. Weinberger stated a second variance is required for the average lakeshore setback. The pool will encroach nine feet into the average lakeshore setback defined by the principal structures of the two adjacent properties. Weinberger stated this property contains a bluff by definition, with the existing house and proposed pool being set back at least 40 feet from the top of the bluff. Weinberger stated the proposed pool meets all required setbacks from the top of the bluff. Weinberger commented the impact to the neighboring properties will be minimal due to the existing vegetation and the gazebo located between the houses and will have little or no impact on views enjoyed by the neighbor to the north. Weinberger stated Staff s comments relating to hardship are contained on page two of his Planner’s Report. Weinberger commented placement of the pool behind the principal residence would not function well as it would be located in the front of the house towards the street, typically pools are located behind the house in a back yard. In addition, street yard is the site of the septic system and alternate site, leaving no other reasonable location for the pool. Weinberger noted the proposed hardcover would be within the allowed percentages as required by the Zoning Code. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Nelson stated Staff has given an accurate assessment of his proposal. PAGE 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------■■■ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 There were no public comments regarding this application. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2625, 3145 Jamestown Road, granting of a variance to average lakeshore setback and a variance to the 150 foot setback from the OHWL of Lake Classen. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. #2633 JEROME LAGUE, 2138 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARI.ANCES, 6:52 pkn. - 7:07 p.m. Paul Lague)^pplicant’s son, w-as present. The Certificat^^f Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated tn^pplicant is requesting a variance to replace a lakeside second story deck. 'The proposed deck is to De 14’ by 36' and located approximately 86 feet from Lake Miimetonka On the west end of the propo^^d deck will be a ramp for accessing the >ard. The ramp is 84 square feet. The old deck was\.a deteriorated state and has been removed. Bottenberg stated the deck/ramp will ^roach.8 feet into the average lakeshore setback. The residence was built in 1975 in its present l(^ion. The adjacent residence to the north has been tom down and a new residence is being built fiiraer back on its lot to meet the average lakeshore setback, making the deck protmde further into the a^tege lakeshore setback than previously. Bottenberg stated the lakeside patio of appro.ximately oO^muare feet will not increase the hardcover coverage in the 75-350’ zone because it is on top ofHl* brick patio which is already • • counted as hardcover. The ramp on the west end of the proposed da^k will increase the hardcover coverage in the 75-250’ zone by appro.ximately 84 square feet. Bottenberg stated a variance to hardcover in the 75-250* zone is required as well as a variance to the average lakeshore setback to permit the 8 foot encroachment. City Staff recommends approval of the variance to build the deck and ramp. Lague had no additional comments to Staffs report. PAGES ' I ,. I ,. .... __ __ w I I I I I I I I I I -. ' I I ' I I I I I I I I I I /,#1 IU -•­'-5l-.--•-r • ... , I I • I I ,, I I -- EXISTING ::> 0 Housr N 41 °24' 15" W i .J'rrr • ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ' ' • , .... I 0 q - • ,-... ;, Cl) ' - ' ' \ '' ' ' ' - ----249.00----------------------- I I ------ N A G [ ( A S [ M f N l· -- ' • • • �-. 4:o'c-l'. I "'' • .... .. • ---- ' I . . ' ,o I • I . . ' I •I ---1 \Ii• I _, . -. ----, 'I I I I ' ' ' I t I I t ' I --- i Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 9/18/00 1/15/01 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:November 13,2000 SUBJECT:#2625 Karen J. and Morgan Nelson 3145 Jamestown Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 79,400 s.f. (1.8 acres) List of Exhibits: A B C D E F Application Survey/Site Plan Plat Map Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Property Owners Notification List Site Topography Application Summary: Applicants propose to construct a pool on the lakeside of the existing residence and adjacent to a gazebo. This home was constructed prior to the 1992 Shoreland Ordinance, which implemented the 150’ setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWX) of Lake Classen. Lake Classen has been classified as a Natural Environment Lake by the DNR. Natural Environment lakes require the 150' setback for structures and septic systems. The proposed setback from the pool to the OHWX of Lake Classen is 123'. The existing house is 128' from the OHWL and the gazebo is 123'. The pool is proposed to be 34' X 18' in size. A second variance is required for the average lakeshore setback. The pool will encroach 9' into the average lakeshore setback defined by the principal structures of the two adjacent properties. This property contains a bluff by definition, but the existing house and proposed pool are set back at least 40' from the top of the bluff (defined as the point where average slope changes from greater than 18% to less than 18%). The required setback to the top of bluff is 30*. I<2625 Karen J and Morgan Nelson 3145 Jamestown Road Variances Page I iteH *^ t' m ft Adjacent Property: The property to the north would be the most impacted, however would not see the pool due to the existing vegetation and the gazebo located between the houses. A variance was approved in 1997 for the gazebo to be located within the 150' setback to Lake Classen. The Planning Commission made findings that the gazebo will encroach no closer to the Lake than the residential structure, the residential structure was constructed within 150' prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance and the proposed gazebo location will have little or no impact on views enjoyed by the neighbor to the north. Hardship: Applicant has stated the improvement lies adjacent to the gazebo and adjacent to the deck. Planning Commission should consider the following factors in determining a hardship. 1.The proposed pool would be located between the house and gazebo on the lake side of the residence. The residence was located on the property prior to the 150' setback requirement for Lake Classen. 2.The pool would be located above the hill and would be well above the flood plain or areas affected by the HWL of Lake Classen. 3.Placing the pool behind the principal residence would not function well as it would be located in the front of the house towards the street. Typically, pools would be located behind the house in a back yard. Also, the street yard is the site of the septic system and alternate site, leaving no ether reasonable location for the pool. 4.The gazebo and dense vegetation would screen the pool from view to adjacent residences. Staff Recommendation: The pool at the proposed location would appear to have little impact on the neighborhood and would have little or no impact on views by either neighboring property. The proposed hardcover would be within allowed percentages as required by the Zoning Code. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Options for Action: 1.Recommend approval. 2.Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3.Table. 4.Other action. *^2625 Karen J and Morgan Nelson 3145 Jamestown Road Variances Page 2 n*af WlV ■■•V>rr ■ m m ^ ^ A AppUcatioii # Date Received ^^2^0-00 Amount Paid ^ 2-S^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S150.00 (no change from original application)*' Variance for non-conforming structures $2^^0' After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee7 " rr J ♦* — ^!■ property INTO^I^ION Vp.V^'S: S535't Site Address v \ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_________________—----------- AUach legal description to appUcation if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_______?? \”l3r -------------------- * - . • « • . - jjaxe riUpClLjr —---------------3 ----------- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ix*r esidenti^ ___pother (specify). Zoning District:_------------------------------------------- APPT irANT (home>=^i';L-^\^^-^^ V^ _ Name \C . VAi>kLX^»4_-----(work) C^\7. - Addrgss! 'X VM ^J City:^ P _^iI^-SSl OWTSTR (if different than applicant) Name V\>g — Address:_______________ ••• Phone (hnme'>^S2-»^ HH ^ Phone (wnrk't v T----•“‘v u o Zip:_________ description of request Estima^ Construction C^ S_V2^ Describe request in detail: _ PiJLasS 'v-v- ^ Vsv,^S’>0 «c. oc- o I rSTo a V. V.. ^^~:r A -' (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCE^^QUIRE^ Lot Width . _ Hardcover _Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore . other (specify)S•>e.v^^ -ci-fr J ^(attach additional sheets if necessary) *r.c w«mnrr- 1.': "f' 3 ’> L A i( £ __t M •^^Aa h > \ V 4'ir ^ ■ -/W •- C- 0'. t f « --■»------------^-■->■—------------------------------------------~,—-—----------------..miaaAtk ---------- r ftiWTfcri i>in«raii m m H iwn III I ITIWT I rrmmmrn vm%mi ►^. SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) *•••• '•***•#■*. '** w IN 6)t L^^r:^vYAcauS ’ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 7-/^>-9y f-2i- 99 500-1000* tya ttfiUC € 1-75*75-250*250-500* PVTSTINC. HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________S.F. Lcn|(h Widih I t X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B.Garage S.F. C.Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D.Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E.Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F.Landscape Underlain .. By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ■5- B X 100 n. j>oo t S.F.'?5 . S.F. • ••i S.F. S. % ppopn^Fn iiARProvER in zont. A.House X S^F. Length Width S.F. S.F. S.F. B.Garage S.F. C.Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D.Sidewalk S.F. S.F. E.Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F.Landscape Underlain •By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G.Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE +B X 100 • S.F. S.F. % A B A B 4 r /U C/A' ^L -.V H.^JlDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ^ ^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-2£':;250-500’ pyiSTlNC. HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House _____________ /17? 3JCO -(■ //r:-” .. WALLS ^PiASt^ ^tooi<$ B.Garage C.Driveway Length 2/C? L.f. Width X X X ci?V ss s - i-, f ii.p4. n % X X D.Sidewalk *'Q^rcr coiyc. -fV CdZ^eo________ X X E.Paiio/Dcck GAZ^eo, X X O^iic CAlQic* F.lamdscapc _______ Underlain _______ By Plasiic _______ X X X G.Oiher STOm(?S TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ■?• B r.100 PROPOSm HARDCOVER TN 70NT, A.House ___ _____X Lei\aih Width X X X B.Garage C.Driveway X X D.Sidewalk X X E.” Patio/Dcck x S3 sa ’ F.Landscape f i^AiyC£*-^r , /TtV/ ^ U/AU Uoderlain ___________ By Plasiic X X G.Other .X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE +B X 100 4'V5^ /05 ZS30 ao /s 760 /7C /2 S f-/"? o 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. 37.\SO i S.F. 2>.% S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i^S3Z S.F. S.F. '2.60 S.F; ________S.F. S.F. S.F. 72^5 S.F. S.F.37. 2y. r9 % A B B I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-250'r250-500' 0 ;k OufCkLl 7-/0-97 ^-7-00 //«tH4*JCf SOO-1000' ^ EXISTING HARDrOVF.R IN ZONE A. Hpuse ______________S.F. W^O WALLS V \ / ;r- Len|ih 27/ i.r.X X X Q o.'^ Width /3e S.F. S.F. S.F. •i B.Garage S.F. C.Driveway X X zo*^o S.F. S.F. D.Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E.Fatio/Dcck X X S.F. S.F. F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G.Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -5-B Z’/? ^S.F. X 100 S.F. 7Z % PROPnsFn iiARnrovER in yn\T. A.House S.F. Length Width X X X ss m S.F. S.F. S.F. 4 . t B.Garage C.Driveway S.F. X X S.F. S.F. D.Sidewalk S.F. S.F. E.Patio/Deck S.F. S.F. F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. O.Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ____-r B X 100 « S.F. S.F. % B A B III iiiMiifirii III RUN DATE 09/20/00 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI<«35A0I PAGE 13 iATCN 505 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 30 28-110-23 33 0009 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED A L PAGE I J H PAGE ANDREW L 0 JULIE N PAGE 3050 JAHESTOWN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 30 20-110-23 33 0010 03005 JAHESTOWN RD GOB LARSON GARY A LARSON 3005 JAHESTOWN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 30 20-110-23 33 0012 03155 JAHESTOWN RD IAN C GATEHOUSE IAN C GATEHOUSE 3155 JAHESTOWN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 30 20-110-23 33 0019 03175 JAHESTOWN RD niCHAEL GERARDY AWES HICHAEL GERARDY AWES 3175 JAHESTOWN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 30 20-110-23 33 0015 03050 JAHESTOWN RD A L PAGE 0 J H PAGE ANDREW L 0 JULIE H PAGE 3050 JAHESTOWN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 30 20-110-23 33 0016 03135 JAHESTOWN RD H W LURTON I S E LURTON H WILLIAH LURTON 3135 JAHESTOWN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER HME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 30 20-110-23 33 0017 03195 JAHESTOWN RD KAREN Elizabeth nelson KAREN ELIZABETH NELSON 3195 JAHESTOWN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 30 29-110-23 99 0001 03225 SIXTH AVE N N C HEUPEL 0 D R HEUPEL NEIL C I DENISE R HEUPEL 3225 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE HN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 505 00000 ill. : •V ',. ■•J-- .nv ' . '0 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REFRESEHTED 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 MY KNOHLEDCE AM) BELIEF. DATE iiWAdbOMfe 1—*'^f>»“—r -r-r'.MikfV't.ft'Mvt hj«v’ AZ£ 027.6X X 026 1 1026 8 X it^' rTt »*ccTiMrj Application Date: 10/13/00 Completion Date: 10/13/00 60 Day Deadline: 12/12/00 OfC I . 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Zoning Adminstrator/Planner DATE: 12/11/00 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Zoning ) Item Description:t/2633 Jerome Lague 2138 Shadywood Road Variance Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) 26,632 s.f.(.61 acre) List of Exhibits: A Resolution B Staff Report and Exhibits of 11/20/2000 Application Summary: The applicant is seeking a variance to replace a lakeside second story deck. The new deck is proposed to be 14' x 36' (504 s.f.) and a ramp 3 Vi x 24' (84 s.f) for a total of 588 s.f On the west end of the deck is a ramp that will be used for accessing the yard. The deck./ramp will be located approximately 86' from Lake Minnetonka. The old deck was rotting and has been removed. The deck/ramp will encroach 8' into the average lakeshore setback. The residence was built in 1975 in its present location. The adjacent residence to the north has been tom down and being built further back on its lot to meet average lakeshore setback, making the deck protrude further into the average lakeshore setback than previously. 1.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. I6(L)(2): Hardcover In 75-250'. To permit 6,784 s.f. (40.9%) hardcover where 6,784 s.f (40.9%) exists 4,137.5 s.f (25%) is allo\\ed. 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C)(6): Average Lakeshore: To permit a variance to encroach 8' into the average lakeshore setback. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 6 to 0 vote to: Approve the application, allowing a total 588 s.f. for replacement of the deck'ramp. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COLTSCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. ■4 '( III im lliiiiir rap A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22. SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L)(2), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1(B) AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C)(6), FILE NO. 2633 WHEREAS, Jerome J. Lague and Joy C. Lague, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2138 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 23, and that part of Lot 22, Block 1, “Wiley’s Park”, Lake Minnetonka lying Northwesterly of a line drawn Northeasterly from a point on the Southwesterly line of said lot distant 14.25 feet Northwesterly of the most Southerly comer of said lot, through a point distant 12.5 feet Northwesterly of the Southeasterly line of said lot measured along a line drawn from a point on said Southeasterly line distant 273.5 feet Northeasterly of said Southerly comer to a point on the Northwesterly line of said lot distant 271.8 feet Northeasterly of the most Westerly comer of said lot, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2) to allow 6,784 s.f. (40.9%) hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback where 6,784 s.f. (40.9%) exists and 4,137.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed and Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(6) to allow encroachment of 8’ into the average lakeshore setback to permit a lakeside deck to be replaced. 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 November 20,2000, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Page 1 of 5 1. 2. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2633. The property is located in the LR-1C Zoning District, where Vi acre or 21,780 s f. is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately .61 acres or 26,632 s.f. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 20,2000 and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0. 4.The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: ^ r * ' • j- 1 iti:A.A deck existed for many years in the same location of the proposed new deck. '■ r B.The house and deck were constructed prior to the adoption of the zoning ly f * ordinance. C.A deck would continue to provide a landing for two sliding glass doors located at the lakeside of the house. “ , * D.Encroachment into the average lakeshore setback will not adversely affect the neighboring property views. 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the 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 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 Page 2 of 5 nrK»Triiiiimiiinii ► welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Oronc City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2) to allow 6,784 s.f. (40.9%) hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback where 6,784 s.f. (40.9%) exists and 4,137.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed and Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(6) to allow encroachment of 8* into the average lakeshore setback to permit a lakeside deck to be replaced. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants attached to *his resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.The applicants shall remove plastic from rockbeds on the property as shown in Exhibit A within 90 days of receiving a building permit. 3.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 wnthin one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date ^December 11,2001). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants ha\ e read, understood and hereby agree to the terms ot 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 Cit>’ or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 11 th day of December, 2000. Page 3 of 5 1 . I \ ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11 th day of December, 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Notary Public ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of, for said County, personally appeared ., 2000, before me a Notary Public within and known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss, ) Notary Public ■i On this day of,., 2000, before me a Notar>' 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 4 of 5 ___B I ■■■■■I 1^ilI ailII JEROME LAGUE, 22 & 23, WILEY' S PARK, LAKE MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ^3* scra^oc uc SURVEY X. LINE * • ^<9\ iM m 0« U Mr-% EXISTING ax^Tf^^ .P*IO \J \ ..v HOUS^/ •«u •■• 1* 230* SETBACK UC ' •«* •... \ /X • V ; BLACKTOP f' . ‘ .♦* •, ..:• V -ORtVEWAr , ■L. ;/.‘V v • y y I I •p " -v r ./■ • > ^- V -i,01*^ •- -r^r^ix.-. • -i L •....♦ j/* •**' : /1-/•.* * v - ».•/ # r X-i X I '' "s'-•/■ XV X X ' ■. -r « If !•€ S iOf a •vc**f n>0« ri» c<«»o It *iMr i _ LgCAL OfSCRPTlflN OF PftfuSfS • Lot 23. ond ihol port o( Lot 22. Bock 1. -wrtky , p»i-. UJnnctoMo ly^n? Hxth«est«r>y of o lo« dro»n Norlheosterly from o po'*ot or lh« Sowthwesterl/ of sold let distonl 14.25 («<( Norlh-csierly of the most Ssotnerly corner c< sold lot throv;.jh O point distort 12.5 r«et Nor|h,»esteriy of the Southeasterly fine of soid lot meosu’ed olong o tne drown from o point on soid Southeosterly line dislont 273.5 feet Northeasterly of soid Southerly corner to o point on the Northwesterly line of soid ml r«-M/v,i «>7in f,et Northeosterly of the most Westerly comer of soid Page 5 of5 LL. 3 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moor^e, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner November 20, 2000 SUBJECT:#2633 Jerome Lague 2138 Shady\vood Road Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (,5 acre) 26,632 s.f.(.61 acre) List of Exhibits A Analysis Worksheet Application Site Plan/ Survey Deck/Ramp Plan Hardcover Calculations and Map Topographic Map Plat Map Location Map Photo of Property Property Owner ’s List Permit Record B C D E F G H I J K Pertinent Code Section: 1.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(LX2): Hardcover in 75-250': Within 75-250'of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 6,784 s.f. (40.9%) hardcover where 6,700 s.f. (40.5%) exists and 4,137.5 s.f (25%) is allowed. 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): .Average Lakeshore: The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the r^ost lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. To pernui a variance to encroach 8' into the average lakeshore setback. Application Summary: The applicant is seeking a variance to replace a lakeside second story deck. The new deck is proposed to be 14' x 36' (504 s.f) and located approximately 86' from Lake Minnetonka. On the west end of the proposed deck will be a ramp for accessing the yard. The ramp is approximately 3 '/a' X 24’ (84 s.f). The old deck was rotting and has been removed. The deck/ramp will encroach 8' into the average lakeshore setback. The residence was built in 1975 in its present location. The adjacent residence to the north has been tom down and being built further back on its lot to meet average lakeshore setback, making the deck protrude further into the average lakeshore setback than previously. (Exhibits C and F). 1.The lakeside patio of approximately 500 s.f will NOT increase the hardcover coverage in the 75- 250’ zone because it is on top of the brick patio which is already counted as hardcover. tt2633 Jerome Lague 2138 Shacfy’H'Ood Road Variance U 20/2000 Page I nD % 2.The ramp on the west end of the proposed deck will increase the hardcover coverage in the 75-250' zone. It will increase it by approximately 84 s.f. (0.4%) increase). 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.A deck has existed for many years in the location of the proposed new deck. 2.The house and deck were constructed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. There have not been any additions or changes to the residence since it was built in 1975. 3.A deck would continue to provide a landing for two sliding glass doors located at the lakeside of the house. 4.Are any neighbors' views of the lake negatively impacted by construction of the deck and ramp? 5.A large portion of the driveway is located in the 75-250' zone. It is a shared driveway with the adjacent property to the south and wider/larger than a non-shared driveway. 6.There are areas of landscape fabric under rock and wood chips in the 75-250' zone. These numbers have NOT been included in the analysis sheet worksheet (Exhibit A). The homeowner has agreed to remove the plastic as ind'cated on the suivey. (Exhibit C). However, there is an area on the lakeside of the residence where approximately 400 s.f. of landscape fabric still remains that should be removed. If it is not removed, the 75-250' final proposed hardcover actually will be 7,184 s.f. (43.4%). 7.Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation ; Staff recommends approval of a variance to build the deck and ramp. U2633 Jerome Lague 2138 Shadywood Road Variance 11/20/2000 Page 2 .. .« ^ ‘.r ^: , ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area; LR-IC Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) Actual 26,632 s.f. (.61 acre) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75'6,681 s.f.0 s.f. (0%) 7 s.f. (0.1%) • 7 s.f. , (0.1%) .So Change 75-250'16,550 s.f.4,137.5 (25%) 6,700 s.f. (40.48%)’ 6 7.S4 s.f., (V ^ HO,9%) 250-500’3,401 s.f.1,020.3 s.f. (30%) 302 s.f. (8.8%) j02 s.f.^ (8.8%) No Change c''-V'CV These numbers do NOT include landscape fabric under rock currently on the property. There is 3.384 s.f. of landscape fabric as indicated on the survey and hardcover calculation sheet. The applicant has agreed to remove 2,984 s.f. of landscape fabric. Structural Coverage ; Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 26,632 s.f.Allowed: 3,994.8 s.f. (15%) Existing: 3,028 s.f(l 1.37%)w/out dcck/ramp Proposed: 3,616 s.f. (13.57%) rutiitiiiUnmn in urr ifirlhiain i B Application U ^ Date Received 10 /n Amount Paid SISO CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address \ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.1 /7-//7-42^3 <c>o43 Attach legal description to appliMtion if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_______<7 c.^ 7 ^__________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use^ property: ‘v^residentid ___other (specify) Zoning District: d jC____________________________ APPLICANT ^ Name . /v?^ S.^ Address:JV S44 A'r>^UL:>c^I> 'KA Phone (home) Phone (work)_ City: <S>r2<:‘AC gp: OWTs’ER (if different than applicant) Name <J tZ.C4\f L. Address: Phone (home) Phone (work)_ City:.Zip:. Estimated Construction Cost $ ^<oDESCRIPTION OF REQUEST____ _________ Describe request in detail: |P4 / L~ x _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ o C » (attach additional sheets if necessaiy) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width K 7S-2S0 Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions pre^nting compliance with Zoning Code requirements: 7^~:‘ . (S» >tr~ /<L' — at~yL jiS P. (attach additional sheets if necessary) ;••■-c. ;.•£.7-kl REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must he submitted by the application deadline date iq order for your application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYi" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and coirecL4ci^ the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature (Date / '■ /3 — c^ci> OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. :——•____________Owner's Signature Date / o ' (1>- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this ch,*nge prior to the meeting. ^ JEROME LAGUE. 22 & 23. WILEY' S PARK. LAKE MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA a' LINE 75* SETBACK LtC >V •»4T u4 m %9t u •CCt-l EXISTING HOUS^.' ••44 « iff 4M ^ lOI a •4cr«.««c 74^. .v- •• / -L • i« «rvT»> 2S<r SETBACK LtC ,*. •. >. • fcACKTOP y.• •••..j- V •WBVEWA.r, /4>> <y s<'V I • .r i I ^ :*• V ^ V*t if.f\ w •• I\l r%c-. JL 'f r ..<‘7 \M B.X ■ %••• *\/^ y .;• .JCLr \a •"# - - »yv»f H SrV #«« legal Of^RPTl^N OF ppfusr<^ ! LOI 23. ood thol pofl of Lol 22. Block I. "wa«y- t P<xk“. Loke Minoctonko ly;r>9 Wxth«esl«fiy of o Bo« drown Noflheosterly from o po^nt or th« Southwesterly kne of so;d let distont U25 feet Northwesterly of the most Southerly corner cf said lot throu.^ o point distort 12 5 feet Northwesterly of the Southeosterly line of so.d lot meosu-ed otong o line drown from o point on soid Southeosterly line distont 273.5 feet •Northeosterly of soid Southerly corner to o point on the Northwesterly lirvi of so.d lot distant 271.8 feet Northeosterly of the most Westerly corner of soid c / •m ■ ,1> I ri' ■•’V CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JEROME LAGUE IN LOTS 22 tc 23, V/ILEY* S PARK, LAKE MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA LgCAL 0f^4!apTiQN or pwruatf ^ Lot 23. and thol port of Lot 22. 6hKL 1, "Wdoy' • Pork*. L^« iMLonctorliO Ol O Int dro«o Mofthtottorly from o p»nt on tt>4 SowUMrOtny kn« 0* BO^ let ditloni fool Norlh«OBttrty of ino moft S^^tnorfy cornor C» lei trvou/i 0 po«n! dtttori 12 S foot North«iOtton/ of mo SoutPootloriy int of to4 lol mo«mrod ctoi^ o Sno dro^ from o poini on »<»d SowmoostoHy ino <Bttont 273 5 foot \ortnoostony of toM Southorfy ceroor to o poml on IHo Nertn«tflorly krv, of «0d lot dif!Ortl 2718 fool Northoostorly of tbo motl Wostfrly COrnor of B>d k>t. o do«s>lo< iron Bojrnv^t ilio«n or« botod upon on otponod dotum Th>t oilondB to Bhcir tho of mo ooovo dosc.itod proporly. Iho kxot*on of on otitlmo houto and dtod. ond tbo h>coi>on of «i *hnrdco«or' irv«oV' »• Oeok noi lu »N)« ony otfwr rfrp#o»tm«*%li or oncrooc^wnonl » OAft M03»*0k coo lao oomii t dtoHBesc, me CCM&TM uoatv IMC tX4f9L tfc funas Hi UtfHHi OOCMK. KOC l«rt lit HJS4 • I2-47^«UI • lOOfT aoirr i«*t p«ci^*roi o* «i*oot •At nooMtb Bf K Ci w<«0 «r*titcr iMif • AM A Ml UOMU MOrriBOMt a«»<C« MO kUO woe Mi OO0 %t uot O K UAll 9 WOOA. »*ft y^'Mt uxtOB iAiOPi /tJff fCtlX f-2m OOU IP-«d-00 JfM MO 00-435 . ^ /--a o O ^ W ^ :':l! PROPOSED DECK REPUCEMENT JEROME J. LAGUE RESIDENCE 2138 SHADYWOOD RD. '■‘jt Jii 40 X 60 main house footprint existing siiding giass doors 4 1^ concrete footing 12" diax48' t? SETBACK ZOiNt: (CUtCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE----- A. House X L«nglh X X X B.Garage ;;C.Driveway 'V,/. . X X D.Sidewalk X X £. Patio/Deck ••. •- X X *i7,': -x• •'• F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G.Other-5'V«0 |6 L.f. ----------------------------- TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____ + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE' A. House X Length X X X B.Oarage X ’C. Driveway X X D.Sidewolk X X E Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G.Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ + B Z/f Cc^ €75-250*•. 250-500*500-1000* Width 7. SViOiz z 6i&l X 100 O, I width mmm a a 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. S.F.^B/ S.F. f V ' S.F. S.F. S.F •F. '■>. /■ ."EN•K ■" i 3 S.F. •<--S. .. ‘* 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 B o^kl caca-^^lr^ 1 ^■.Icl ’SETBACK ZOiNt: (CLUCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE U-75' A.House Length lh6 X X X L[^; B.Garage ■C. Driveway m kuk-h X X D.Sidewalk X E.Patio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X •%■0.Other X .V *. •I TOTAL HARDCOVE .i IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA TN ZONE A ____ 97 3S + B ; PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZOIVE' A.House Leng;ih *.# 9 X X X B.Garage C.Driveway X X t.D. Sidewalk X X E.Patio/Deck X X a* V-’ :rt ‘I* F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X ,!■■ G.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A f B '-'t* 75-250:500-1000' 2<?33 se-Hc’USe Width 8.2 S.F. -$H£0 S.F. S.F. - C<?NO?f Tf 23^0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S47 <2?nZ,' PAVf <2 S.F.- p/fT<r? S.F." ‘ 2375' 3S9 ,in. S.F.-f^OOi OH PiM S.F.-WcoOOf»Pf/(^ S.Fj^-iAufl owf/49ir< S.F.-VvWLL$ LQOO /f. S^o X 100 lisia r9. /P S.F. A S.F. B % f-l - (oCT?*! <3; S.F. «' i' Width S.F. S.F. S.F. -N :y S.F. tv ms r: 7F- 1 '. 1c.„. V. S.F S.P. S.F. S.F.r \ 7 S.F. S.F. B B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 S.F. SF. % A B 13 t..- ••* ^p* «A •••»• *> SETBACK ZOiNE: (CUICLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House 0-75 ’ Length X X X B.Garage C.Driveway X X D.Sidewalk X X E.Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA RJ ZONE A + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House X Length X X X ••B. Garage X C.Driveway X D.Sidewalk X X E.Palio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _T B . **«• • • 75-750'250-500'^ ^^sJo-iwo''OO S.F. Width S rs SF. S.F. SF. S.F. 3C>2^S.F. S.F. ss S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.- • S.F.-om S.F. S.F. S.F. 9^ X 100 340f n,3& S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. width G. m i=s 8S S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ■ S.F. S.P.- f ~ f ^ \ <’ S.F. S.F.01 S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. X 100 SF. S.F. % A B p n -IIT 93- 9 fi I !*“’^ 11 , 10 1_____ rsirw 1_______L G- !: % .* * f ’ V.(i) I dF / *. • > • .• • M .‘V/''•*^I,•>0 ^5^•fN AVt ■ 800 ULUT ■rr«4 4 COUilR Y Cl^V wcnn tUIM< ...i"« WATUTA CNlffnVA U ORONO VtAA CM fi«»a UTSBf . oFom oil 0 ^/0 8ICN s ^ VATIllTOinl«•8 0 TROMUAN ^ 31 400 it ® CQAAKU 1M Om. win MAlicil l>0 • K- f \■• ••: ‘ .7* Y'.S<^W. Jii-i'. ) s i*r; MMMir 5 ■^ftcrigO® ^ M *•••••••••••. Bl W s ofvnu CO UR v;? ii c\\^ 'North / ■?•• \^** . For«; M\OMaKO. ., a“ j«y Skotibtri FcUa nni \ rW:'\ ■/ "j*- '.• *»^'• •• i . Arm .:*>:. goy ■^V> ■(S) lONRSafotai'g ORONO “■Arm s4< i___J__<n MO^ iSVl Fa$trness Point ■“ fits AMAfTUMm 9£mi .•.i .* ^.i. Lafayeti $ Country C ub lORIVUV CM ............... A8H800IVAT ORON y / »w- '"*••«» «t V •'/ /.Z! Bay WTlTAlL n' CSCSQUECK■lE3ir«ra X' ia|=i“? ^ t ■1 MINNETONKA BEACH V•- • . Lafayette Bo) ••* ^L* *^ • •*'***?lV.**i i Faint y^ijVORONO 1*^ ■ ■y- ■ - -x ■ ••^Huntin$ton Faint ■r--2 2800 >' • r[ 3 \ t . J J .^ : ) b RUN DATE lO/lb/00 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI^SS^Ol PAGE 10 BATCH 504 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 17-117-23 31 0048 03600 TOGO RD J E WELLS I K H WELLS JAMES E A KAREN H WELLS 3600 TOGO RO WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0010 02172 SHADYWOOD RD TIMOTHY T WELCH TIMOTHY T WELCH 2172 SHADYWOOD RO WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0011 02166 SHADYWOOD RD S D A D L UDELL SCOTT D A DEAH L UDELL 2166 SHAD/WOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 42 0012 02142 SHADYWOOD RD P C A M A MERLO PAUL C A MARCIA A MERLO 2142 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0013 02138 SHADYWOOD RD JEROME J LA6UE A WIFE JEROME J LAGUE 2138 SHADY WOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0016 02118 SHADYWOOD RD KEVIN S MADEJA KEVIN S MADEJA 2118 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 42 0020 02130 SHADYWOOD RD J P REILY APS CRAFT JACK REILY A PAMELA CRAFT 8917 WOOD CLIFF RD BLOOMINGTON MN 55438 38 17-117-23 42 0021 0^601 TOno RD THOMAS L SNYDER THOMAS L SNYDER 3601 TOGO RD ORONO MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0022 02171 SHADYWOOD RD JACQUELYN A ROBERTSON JACQUELYN A ROBERTSON 2171 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 1 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 504 00009 m- l^v fl I fcERTIFY 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# OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE 0H7-O0,, ON# TO THE BEST •u? I <S\ IS ^.^hacA^(XiOC<J L V PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date Tvpe of Permit 30bM Nsoj- 0.S i l-ilQg- .•-V V 6U.htPouuP^-<^irL^erf^ /03?7 zr .2^1. j/?3i A>^/:SL 0 fri^rrcji'ir .». Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 10/16/00 12/15/00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COflMni McrTjMG DEC 1 I 2000 Cn Y Or Onv/vU DATE; December 6,2000 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description://2634 G & G Holding Company Stanley and Luella Goldberg 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue Lot Line Rearrangement Vacation of Public Alley 2^ning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District 19,500 s.f. Total List of Exhibits: A B C D E Site Plan/Certificate of Survey Resolution Approving Vacation of a Portion of a Platted Road Resolution Approving Lot Line Rearrangement Planning Commission Minutes Planning Report Application Summary: Applicants have proposed a two part application that includes the following: 1.Vacation of a portion of a platted alley (labeled “Service Road ” on the Certificate of Survey - Exhibit A). The purpose for the vacation is to eliminate an access that has not been used and would be difficult for any use in the future due to steep topography. 2.Rearrangement of a common property line (As shown on the Certificate of Survey - Exhibit A). Lot Area: (Proposed)Parcel A (1122 Loma Linda) 14,400 s.f. Parcel B (114') Loma Linda)8,500 s.f. *Lot area totals include the land area from the proposed vacated alley Required Minimum Lot Size 43,560 s.f. i c1 m Request for Council Action continued Page 2 December 6,2000 #2634 G& G Holding Comoanv I.Vacation The portion of the alley proposed to be vacated is undeveloped public right-of-way that has not been used for any public purpose, except for sewer service. The City of Orono does not intend to develop or maintain the alley. A portion of the alley would not be vacated because it serves as the only public access for the lot located at 1140 Loma Linda. Staff has indicated the location of the sewer line on the Certificate of survey. Part of the alley proposed to be vaca' 1 contains the sewei ».vice. A condition of the vi^cation would require an access and utility eesement over the portion of vacated alley that is used for sewer service. II.Lot Line Rearrangement Applicants are owners of all properties involved in the rearrangement. They have proposed a Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement between the lots that results in both lots increasing in size, based on the alley vacation being approved. Parcel B is currently developed with a cabin, Parcel A undeveloped but had a cabin in the past. Each of the two parcels ere assessed for sewer in 1970. The ftjture intent is to construct new houses on both Parcels A and B. Both lots, however \ ill remain undersized for their respective zoning district. The LR-IB district requires a 140' lot width and a minimum lot size of one acre. The property owners have requested variances to consider both lots as “RECORD LOTS”. The properties were developed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. Lots 17 and 18 (Parcel A) have had a previous lot combination and are considered as one record lot by the City of Orono. Section 10.24 LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District Lot Lot Front Side Lakeshore Area Width Yard Yard 929.4' OHWL 1 acre 140 feet 3 ? feet 10 feet 75 feet Lot Area and Yards Parcel A Existing Lot Size Lot Width (front) 11,987.5 s.f. 147.21 feet Proposed Lot Size Lot Width 14,400 s.f. 100 feet Parcel B Existing Lot Size Lot Width (lake) Lot Width (front) 7,000 s.f. 55.6 feet 50 feet Request for Council Action continued Page 3 December 6, 2000 #2634 G& G HoldineCompanv_____ Proposed Lot Size Lot Width (lake) Lot Width (front) 8,500 s.f. 55.6 feet 30 feet Lots in the LR-IB district are required to be 140' wide at the front yard setback. Each lot would require a variance to permit a lot width less than what the district requires and a variance to lot area and width. Discussion Item An adjacent property owner located across Loma Linda from the proposed building site on Parcel A is concerned about the impact of vacating the service road. There house is located above Loma Linda looking down towards the lake. Vacating the service road and transferring the entire 20' to Parcel A would allow the property owner of parcel A to build with a 30' rear setback to the new property line. Without vacating the alley the lot would have a setback requirement of 35' to any lot line adjacent to a street. The greater setback would apply to lots adjacent to any right-of-way whether it is developed or not developed. The rear setback would be 10' from the right-of-way line before vacation. The property owner is concerned that by vacating the service road would case him to lose part of his view to the lake. The City owned service road was con;;idered when a they installed large bay window. The Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended a greater setback be required to the new rear lot line. The recommended setback is 50' for all structure rather than the 30' as required by the zoning standards. Staff has visited the site to determine the impact of easement vacation and has determined the best view to the lake is actually across the adjacent propert>’ to the south Lot 14. The service road portion of the property is thick'y wooded with mature trees. The property owner would like to develop the property to allow parcel A to have a view to the lake. By requiring a 50' setback would place the house directly behind another house. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the vacation of the portion of the service road that is not intended for public use and recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement as proposed subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant shall grant drainage and utility easements along new property lines. 2.Applicant shall provide to the City any documentation relating to easements on both properties. 3.Variances be granted for lot width and lot area for both Lots A and B and both shall be considered RECOPJD LOTS. 4.Applicant shall grant an access and utility easement over vacated portion of service road that is required for uti’’ty access 5.A 50' rear yard setback be required for the Lot known as Parcel A. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the attached resolution. ' M H ^ r •i.■ k »-V «■Jr'., ^tr.•f. ■> W5 ♦'» • .- i-. •% I C'-i • /a4i^ ; . -if OF LOTS 13-18, BLOCK 8, LOMA LINDA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LOMA LIND^JgAVi^UE W 90 *Qff‘ o6 looool LoffftA j t|w6^v <uk(DEv6W^Sld sevieR UlNB Fxistin& TRopeK-ry i/M£S i r-I )0'00*' E 40.00 V7^A^M)i / CAST !6000 VACATE -N 90“00'00'' E 128.50- * TS&08 3/,49 /yi2. /||i/0 to/vti^ __________^____________________________ East 104 o*t •"/ -1- •••*MH ‘“iSSi House / Co KAMI LAKE / Minnetonka >> N :ii> t. ‘ ■ ' M XLC^:) / »..-I OF LOTS 13-18, BLOCK 8, LOMA LINDA HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA / ^ 90' LOMA LIND^rAVSi^UE -------------- N' 90'00*-06‘‘ C • 12OC00‘'^ ■ -in^ pRO?OSCD Li N^S too 00 : fRoP. LtA/B: / / / Propose ® V/^cate ® AUf/ OOSTMC MM I *" ^ CAST tOOOO uw lr;vj / 4^- N 90“00'00" E 128.50 5S08 OOSTMCaCABN :a ' r. 8 Jil . EXBTNCa a HOUSE ^j^ j^ LAKE Minnetonka 1 Kj N e ‘ If* l ’ . m 6 A RESOLUTION VACATING PLATTED RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THE PLAT OF LOMA LINDA FILE NO. 2634 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal coqjoration organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, G & G Holding Company has applied for vacation of a platted right of way for property within the plat of Loma Linda legally described as follows: Attached hereto as “ExhJbit A” (hereinafter “vacated right of way ”); and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held by the Orono Planning Commission on November 20, 2000 regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2000 after due standing and consideration, the Planmng Commission rcconunended unanimous approval of the proposed vacation; and The vacation as proposed is in keeping with the public interest and in consideration of the following findings: 1.The vacated easement has not been utilized for utilities. 2.A 20' access and utility easement would be provided over the vacated right of way over the sewer service line. 3.The City does not intend to use the right of way to be vacated for any public purpose. 4.The Council approves 'he vacated portions of the right of way to be transferred to properties in accordance with the rearrangement of a lot line as proposed by the applicants in City of Orono Zoning Application #2634, subject to approval. Page 1 of 3 1. ■I-., i r+- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the vacation of the right of way legally described in Exhibit A is hereby granted by the Council of the City of Orono on December 20,2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ) )ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of December, 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 3 of 3 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1122 AND 1140 LOMA LINDA AVENUE FILE NO. 2634 c WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement by G & G Holding Company, Stanley Goldberg and Luella Goldberg (hereinafter "the subdividers") of properties legally described as: attached "Exhibit A" (hereinafter "the properties") to be rearranged by transferring of properties new legal descriptions as: attached "Exhibit B" WHEREAS, After due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 20, 2(XX), at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed requirements of the City for a subdivision to rearrange the property lines between the properties. WHEREAS, At their regular meeting held on December 1 1 ,20(X), the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of G & G Holding Company on behalf of Stanley Goldberg and Luella Goldberg, noting the following findings of fact: 1 .The property is located within the LR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential District requiring a minimum of 1 acre lot area. The lots are as follows: Page 1 of 8 pf*- Parcel A Parcel B Existing Lot Size Lot Wid ii (front) 11,987.5 s.f. 147.21 feet Existing Lot Size Lot Width (lake) 7,000 s.f. 55.6 feet Proposed Lot Size Lot Width 14,400 s.f. 100 feet Proposed Lot Size Lot Width (lake) 8,500 s.f. 55.6 feet 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Lot Width (front)30 feet The lots meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Orono by not allowing additional building sites not meeting the penjutted density. The request for a lot line rearrangement will not create additional lots. Parcel B is developed as a residential property and Parcel A is a vacant property. Both Parcels A and B are subject to hardcover regulations as required in the City Shoreland Ordinance. Vacating the service road and transferring the entire 20’ to Parcel A would allow the property owner of parcel A to build with a 30' rear setback to the new property line. Without vacating the alley the lot would have a setback requirement of 35' to any lot line adjacent to a street. The greater setback would apply to lots adjacent to any right-of-way whether it is developed or not developed. The City of Orono has determined there is no public use intended for the service road to be vacated. The applicants also are fee owners of the property located to the south (Lot 14, Loma Linda) and have requested the lot lines allow the south 10' of the vacated alley be transferred to Parcel A as part of the lot line rearrangement application. 10.Access to Parcel A shall be via the developed Loma Linda Avenue along the north property line. Page 2 of 8 r J fWt NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Orono hereby approves the lot line rearrangement of the above referenced property by the subdividers as shown on the certificate of survey by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed surveyor of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc., dated December 8, 2000, attached Exhibit "C", and grants a variance to Municipal Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit Parcels A and B to be a "RECORD LOTS" and are granted variances from the zoning chapter requirements for lot width and area. The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. Council adopts a resolution vacating the service road right of way as applied for by the applicants as part of Zoning .Application ^2634. Applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easement 10' along exterior property lines and 5' along interior property lines. Applicant shall provide to the City any documentation relating to easements on both properties. 3 original surveys of the survey completed by a licensed surveyor in the State of Minnesota shall be submitted, with signature blocks for final recording of the new property line. A title opinion addressed to the City shall be submitted by the property owners, and shall be in a format acceptable to the City Attorney. A 50' rear yard setback shall be required for Parcel A (1122 Loma Linda Avenue). It is the position of this Council that no variances shall be granted to hardcover or allowed structural improvements on Parcel A. 8.A variance shall be granted creating "RECORD LOTS" for Parcels A and B. The aforesaid division shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before May 11, 2001 together with a certified original copy of this resolution. Page 3 of 8 k£7C7\TTI.f.«At r tv,mi •' / ; 1 * 10.The City of Orono shall not issue a building permit for improvements to either of the new parcels prior to recording the lot line rearrangement. M.The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, a new application shall be required for the City of Orono review. LEGAI. DOCUMENTS required: Title Opinions addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. The subdivider must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. 1 c)Three Copies of Certificate of Survey. Drainage and Utility Easements documents. Page 4 of 8 w tfL r -...Itfrt -------------------------------, i if Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: I Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of December, 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 5 of 8 i I. ■,i K EXHIBIT A Parcel A Lots 17 and 18, Loma Linda, Hennepin County, Minnesota ParcelB Lot 13, Loma Linda, Hennepin County, Minnesota Page 6 of 8 J r Page 7 of 8 i ' A i *.\A D i ■ I f. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 9$ feet of hardcover. Hawn reiterated the Planning Commission typically docs not grant any variances to structural coverage or hardcover on new construction. Hawn recommended the Applicants revise their plan to show the additional hardcover to avoid any confusion with the building ofBcial. Mrs. Cable inquired whether the ice house would need to be removed in the future should they decide to keep it at this time. Smith stated the City would require the structure to be removed if more than 25 percent of the foundation is replaced. Hawn stated it is her understanding if the cost of the repairs c.xcceds 50 percent of the value of the structure, the repairs are not permitted. Gaffiron stated it would be 50 percent of the value at the time it became non-conforming. Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant would prefer this application to be tabled. Cable stated they would like their application tabled. Lindquist rescinded his motion. Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application U2636,3235 Ivy Place. VOTE; Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:30 p.m. (#8) W634/2635 G & G Holding Company, 1130 & 1140 LomaUirida'Avenue, Lot Line Rearrangement and Variance, 8:03 p.m. - 8:54 p.m. JoEllen Hurr, G & G Holding Company, appeared on behalf of Stanley and Luella Goldberg. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated this is a nvo-part application, with consideration being given to a lot line rearrangement of the property, vacation of a platted undeveloped alley, and a variance PAGE 15 '-I • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 request to permit construction of an accessory structure between the principal structure and the front property line. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting vacation of the platted alley. The alley presently is undeveloped and has not been used for public travel. The only public purpose the alley currently serves is to provide sewer service. The City of Orono does not intend to develop or maintain this alley. A portion of the alley would not be vacated because it serves as the only public access for the lot located at 1140 Loma Linda. A condition of the vacation would require an access and utility easement over the portion of the vacated alley that is used for sewer service. Weinberger stated vacation of the alley may be justified since it does not serve a public service outside of the sewer service. Weinberger stated if the vacation of the alley is approved, tne lot line rearrangement would be between the two parcels shown as Parcel A and Parcel B. Parcel B is currently developed with a cabin consisting of appro.ximately 500 square feet in size. The second parcel is currently vacate, with a possible request in the future to construct a st.n:crure on this property. Weinberger stated half of the vacated public alley would be transferred to Parcel A, with the other half being vacated. Weinberger stated there are four parcels in common ownership in this area by the same property owner, with an amendment being completed to allow the entire 20 feet of the vacated alley to become part of Parcel A. Weinberger stated a portion of the \acated alley would also be • • • transferred to Parcel B, with a small portion of Parcel A becoming a part of Parcel B as part of the lot line rearrangement. Weinberger stated Parcel B would be increased by 30 feet and would result in a developed 8,500 square foot parcel. Parcel A would increase in size by appro.ximately 1,500 square feet. Weinberger stated both parcels would be developed subsequent to the-vacation and lot line rearrangement, with both lots being under the minimum one acre requirement for this district. PAGE 16 ■* rfhurii Jlrh fc MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20, 2000 These lots would then l^e considered as record lots, which would require variances to lot width and lot area for each of the lots. Weinberger stated due to the lot line rearrangement, the front property lines would change and become narrower. Weinberger stated Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the request for the vacation of the alley and lot line rearrangement prior to the variance part of the application being heard. Staff is recommending approval of the lot line rearrangement and vacation of the alley. Hurr stated she has no additional comments to Staff s report but would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Bill Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Avenue, inquired whether the service road would stay in its current location. Weinberger stated that would remain as the driveway access to the property. Weinberger stated the vacation of the alley and lot line rearrangement allows for the two lots to become larger in size and to reduce the need for setbacks. Jeff Johnson, 1145 Loma Linda Avenue, stated he did provide a letter to the Cit\* regarding this application. Weinberger stated he does have the letter in the file. Weinberger stated the letter indicates he is against the variance to allow lot lines or building size or hardcover which would restrict his view of the lake. In addition, the property owners should have been aware of the size of the lots and building requirements prior to purchase and should not pose a hardship on the adjoining property. Johnson stated he was told there would be no encroachment mto the lot line. Weinberger stated as proposed, if the alley is vacated and a portion of the service road becomes part of Parcel A, the defined front property* line would be along Loma Linda, which would require a 30 foot setback to the south property line. Weinberger stated the closest any structure could be built to the property line would be 30 feet, with the old requirement being 35 feet from PAGE 17 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMCVnSSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 the edge of the service road. Hurr commented they are not constructing any building on Parcel B. Hurr stated they are not proposing a..y variances to the 30 foot setback at this time. Hurr noted that trees could be planted which would in essence block his view as much as a building would. Nygard inquired how the 15 percent structural coverage rule applies to this small lot. Weinberger stated 15 percent of the lot would allow a footprint of 2,100 square feet, which could be affected by any existing hardcover on the propert>\ Weinberger stated they will not know what is being proposed until they request a building permit. Hawn commented it is possible in her view that a house could potentially impact his view even though his lot is located downhill. Hawn noted the height of the building could not exceed 30 feet. Stoddard commented he personally does not have a problem with vacating the alley, but inquired whether they would be able to meet the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Hurr stated they are proposing to construct a house consisting of 1,297 square feet. Hurr stated it would not be possible to construct a garage on this property, noting the property' owners use this property' seasonally. Hum stated Parcel A would lose its lake view, with Parcel B having a view of the lake. Lindquist inquired whether the City has a history of \'acating service roads. Weinberger stated to his knowledge the City has vacated some service roads. Weinberger commented the City has a number of roads that have been platted between properties but if those are not needed and the properties are combined, the City has vacated them. Weinberger stated the determining .factor is whether the road serNices a public purpose. Hawn commented she has a problem with one of the lots being only 30 feet wide. Hum stated it is 50 feet \vide. Weinberger stated it is really 50 feet and not the 30 feet noted in the report. PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 ft bt- A . Hawn noted the lot width on Parcel A has been reduced from 147.21 down to 100 feet. Hurr stated she did speak w ith Staff regarding that, noting she is not sure where the 147 feet comes from. Weinberger stated this width would be 147 feet, but technically the lot width is the narrower of the two on Loma Linda. Weinberger stated there really has not been a change, but a propertj* has gone ta.\ forfeit, which is no longer part of the property. Weinberger stated the dimensions have not changed but merely where the front property line is being cc .sidered. Lindqui;'. stated he would be in favor of the vacation if the setback remau'-i the same. Hurr inquired what setback they would have with the vacation. Weinberger stated they would have a 50 foot setback. Hurr commented they would have a 50 foot setback but would be entitled to plant trees in that area. Lindquist stated once the alley is vacated, it becomes their propertj'. Weinberger stated currently they have a 35 foot setback. Lindquist stated they can either vote on it tonight or table the application. Hurr stated the Planning Commission could vote on the vacation, with a condition of approval being a 50 foot setback. Hawn commented the Applicant could request the City Council to reduce the setback. Hurr commented in her view the Planning Commission is limiting an already small lot by increas'mg the setback. Hurr stated the intent with the vacation was to increase the size of the lots. Lindquist stated Ute Plaiming Commission has a responsibilitv' to maintain the neighbor’s sight lines. Hurr stated the 50 foot setback will restrict this lot by limiting the buildable area. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #263412635, PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^^SSION MEETING Monday, November 20, 2000 1130 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue, granting of a lot line rearrangement and vacation of the platted undeveloped alley, "with the understanding there will be a 50 foot setback on Parcel A for all structures. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Weinberger stated also as part of this application the Applicants arc proposing to construct a new residence on proposed Parcel B. The plans would include a 1,237 square foot house to replace the existing cabin and removal of the parking and drive area located within the vacated right-of-way. The Applicants are requesting a hardco\er variance to allow 29.8 percent of hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback where 25 percent is allowed. Weinberger indicated the Applicants are not proposing a garage or; this property. In the past the City has seen applications that do not propose garages at the time the house is constructed and later an application is received for a garage. Weinberger stated a garage could not be located where the parking area is proposed since it is restricted from development because of the sewer line and eventual sewer easement located behind the house. The property' owners have indicated they do not intend to build a garage on this lot. Weinberger stated it would be impossible to locate a garage on this lot without the need for a variance due to the small size of the lot and the utilitv easement that will exist on this lot. Weinberger stated the Orono Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit. with the Applicants showing hardcover for one space. Staff is recommending an additional space be added, which will increase hardcover. Staff does have some concerns regarding the amount of • • * • hardcover on this lot, but due to the small size of the lot. Staff would allow some overage in the amount of hardcover on the lot to permit a reasonably sized house to be constructed on the property and to provide sufficient parking space. Weinberger noted the size of the property is being increased with the vacation of the alley and lot line rearrangement. Hurr stated the driveway could perhaps be reduced slightly from the 10 feet. Lindquist inquired what the amount of hardcover uill be on lot. PAGE 20 . ifei—..- m f B Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 10/16/00 12/15/00 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT; Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner November 13,2000 #2634/2635 G & G Holding Company Stanley and Luella Goldberg 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue Lot Line Rearrangement Vacation of Public Alley Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District 19,500 s.f. Total A B C D E F G H I J K Application Certificate of Survey (Existing) Plat Map Certificate of Survey (Proposed) Utility Map Proposed Access and Utility Easement Site Topography Parcel B Site Plan - Variance Request Hardcover Calculations Elevation View Property Owners Notification List Application Summary: Applicants have proposed a three part application that includes the following: 1. 2. Vacation of a portion of a platted alley (labeled “Service Road ” on the Certificate of Survey - Exhibit B). The purpose for the vacation is to eliminate an access that has not been used and would be difficult for any use in the future due to steep topography. Rearrangement of a common property line (As shown on the Certificate of Survey - Exhibit D). 3.Hardcover, lot area and lot width variances to permit greater than 25% hardcover on Lot 1 3 in foe 75-250' lakeshore setback for construction of a new residence and to create two “RECORD LOTS” (As shown as proposed Parcels A and B on the Certificate of Survey). 12634/2635 0 & 0 Holding Company Stanley and Luella Goldberg 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue Page 1 Lot Area; (Proposed)Parcel A (1122 Loma Linda) 14,400 s.f. Parcel B (1140 Loma Linda) 8,500 s.f. ♦Lot area totals include the land area from the proposed vacated alley Required Minimum Lot Size 43,560 s.f. I.Vacation The portion of the alley proposed to be vacated is undeveloped public right-of-way that has not been used for any public purpose, except for sewer service. The City of Orono does not intend to develop or maintain the alley. A portion of the alley would not be vacated because it serves as the only public access for the lot located at 1140 Loma Linda. Staff has indicated the location of the sewer line on the Certificate of Survey. Part of the alley proposed to be vacated contains the sewer service. A condition of the vacation would require an access and utility easement over the portion of vacated alley that is used for sewer service. II.Lot Line Rearrangement Applicants are owners of all properties involved in the rearrangement. They have proposed a Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement between the lots that results in both lots increasing in size, based on the alley vacation being approved. Parcel B is currently developed with a cabin. Parcel A undeveloped but had a cabin in the past. Each of the two parcels ere assessed for sewer in 1970. The future intent is to construct new houses on both Parcels A and B. Both lots, however will remain undersized for their respective zoning district. The LR-1B district requires a 140' lot width and a minimum lot size of one acre. The property owners have requested variances to consider both lots as “RECORD LOTS”. The properties were developed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. Lots 17 and 18 (Parcel A) have had a previous lot combination and are considered as one record lot by the City of Orono. Section 10.24 LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District Lot Lot Front Side Lakeshore Area Width Yard Yard 929.4' OHWL 1 acre 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 75 feet IV2634/263S G & O Holding Company Stanley and Luella Goldberg 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue Page 2 Lot Area andYards Parcel A Existine Lot Size Lot Width (front) Proposed Lot Size Lot Width 11,987.5 s.f. 147.21 feet 14,400 s.f. 100 feet Parcel B Existing Lot Size Lot Width (lake) Lot Width (front) Proposed Lot Size Lot Width (lake) Lot Width (front) 7,000 s.f. 55.6 feet 50 feet 8,500 s.f. 55.6 feet 5^¥ ^ feet 'Z. S \ -1 Lots in the LR-IB district are required to be 140’ wide at the front yard setback. Each lot would require a variance to permit a lot width less than what the district requires and a variance to lot area and width. Staff Recommendation of Lot Line Rearrangement: •Staff is recommending approval of the lot line rearrangement and to grant variances to lot area and width that will allow both lots to be buildable, subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant shall grant drainage and utility easements along new property lines. 2. 3. Applicant shall provide to the City any documentation relating to easements on both properties. Prior to City Council review 3 original surveys of the survey completed by a licensed surveyor in the State of Minnesota shall be submitted, with signature blocks. 4.Variances be granted for lot width and lot area for both Lots A and B and both shall be considered RECORD LOTS. 5.Applicant shall grant an access and utility easement over vacated portion of alley as depicted on Exhibit F. #2634/2633 G & G Holding Company Stanley and Luella Goldberg 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue Page 3 III.§2641 Hardcover/Strcct Setback Variance Request (Parcel B) The applicants have proposed to construct a new residence on proposed Parcel B should the Lot Line Rearrangement application be approved. The plans would include a 1,237 s.f. house to replace the 572 s.f. existing cabin and removal of the parking and drive area located within the vacated right-of- way. The variance application has requested 1,417 s.f (29.8%) of hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback where 1,187.5 s.f. (25%) are allowed. Proposed Hardcover Review 1,237 s.f House 180 s.f 1 - Outdoor Parking Space 1,417 s.f. of hardcover has been proposed on the site. The Orono Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applicants have only provided enough hardcover for one space. An additional parking space shall be added to the plans, increasing hardcover. The Code also requires that open parking spaces on lots must have a location other than a required yard except that such parking may be located in a rear yard to Nvithin ten feet of an interior side lot line and to within ten feet of a rear lot line. The City of Orono generally requires a 9' X 20' space for one vehicle, two parking spaces would require an area 18' X 20' plus and additional 10' of driveway to move the vehicle parking area 1 O' from the property lines. The applicants have proposed one 9' X 20' (180 s.f.) for parking. Staff would recommend a minimum area of an 18' X 30' (540 s.f) designated parking area. See Exhibit H. This would result in a final 75-250' hardcover of 1,777 s.f or 37.4%. No garage has been proposed on the property. The City has seen other applications in the past that do not propose garages at the time the house is constructed and later an application is received for garage construction. A garage could not be located where the parking area is proposed. That area is restricted from development because of the sewer line and eventual sewer easement located behind the house. The property owners do not intend to build a garage on this lot. Only two options would be available for garage construction: 1) 2) To have a driveway access to the proposed house and attach a garage. To move the proposed property line further to west. This option would increase the size of the lot within the 75-250 setback and allow more hardcover, but probably not enough to not require a variance. Hardcover Issues for Consideration: Parcel B (0.20 ac. after vacation) is adjacent to the Bockmann property (0.44 ac.) which was held to the 25% hardcover limit when it was a teardown/rebuild just 2 years ago. The City has in recent years become much more restrictive in hardcover for teardown/rebuilds than in prior years. Does the smaller lot size of Parcel B in and of itselfjustify a hardcover variance? How does the “large lot-large house, small lot-small house ” theory apply? The proposed house is 1,237 s.f #26*^4/2635 G &.G Holding Company Stanley and Luella Goldberg 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue Page 4 ill. f , If variances are granted for a small house with no garage, is it possible to build a garage on the property in future due to the sewer easement? If no hardcover variance is granted, Does applicant wish to revise the lot line rearrangement to give more area to Parcel B? Because of the unusual access to the property, a front yard setback variance would be required. The north side of the property would be adjacent to the only public access to Parcel B. The LR-IB zoning district requires a 35' setback to the front lot line, which in this case would be the north property line. Staff would recommend approval of a variance to the 35' setback to the alley, and require a 10' setback be maintained based on the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) The alley has always provided access to Parcel B. The City does not intend to develop or maintain the alley. The alley would continue to be used privately by the owners of Parcel B for driveway purposes. The north property line would function as side, interior lot line. A 10' standard setback would be appropriate in this case. Requiring a 35' setback would not allov/ a suitable building site on what has historically been a residentially developed property. Summary of Actions Requested Planning Commission should make recommendation to Council on each of these 3 topics: 1.Vacation of Alley 2.Lot Line Rearrangement (Lot Area/Lot Width Variances) 3.Hardcover and Setback Variances V-.r #2634^635 G & G Holding Company Stanley and Luella Goldberg 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue Pages Application if ^ / Date Received IQ ! Ho\ Amount Paid S V. ^7) /i . CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION / / / Sitcaddress //60 //XX Kui Ja:.iW€yyLiiJLy____________ Property Identification Number (PIP) Of? ^ //Y.2^ '2.6 ^>^3,. ^>f2^ Please check one - Property ____abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT / Name \Jo^l/l,........... Address 930 U'oor/ /-^ City a Adi^i. Phone (home) ^7/^Wd / Phone (work) - OWNER (if different than applicant Name_^y G AM/Uh ///^/n e/Za Address 7/)/9 fyC> City ^JtkdL Phone (home) (attach list if more than one) Zip J^j*y^Phone (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL 3 a) / 9 6dD Acres Dry Land ________Acres Wet Land _________Acres Total, all parcels __Residential; no. of units __Other (specify)_________ _____ Division for Tax Purposes ^Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Existing Units d New Units ■? (Ji) Total Units . 9 CO Units per ___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)________ r; O fi r ^ 5 <i )rl » Vp H ^ 7 Z of-Z Application # Date Received Amount Paid 4 Z S O CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATJION Site Address FORMATION // a Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ ^ - //'I " r23 -3 "_________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. DatfiLProperty Acquired ^/97:Z________________^(month/year) l(Moy(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. I Present use of property: residential Zoning District:__________________ other (specify) ^ '•c/ APPLICANT/J Name v/<?^^ Address: Phone (home)9^^/ ____ .Phot City: /Ca/!t? v'.': ••A Phone (worW Aa 7\Ca Zip: SS'^S/^ •a OWNER (if different than applicant).Phone (home). Name G i Co UJ U^Uttca sLj>Phone (work) is: ^70/9 City: t ^ £ Address: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ ___Zip: oo Estimated Construction Cost $ /^O. 0^^-______ =5/71 > (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width 5-^ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult)- or unusud property c^ditions prevent^ y compliance with Zoning Code requirements. <r/heJc f >Jrj M.,/ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 13 (17) 14(18) .. ... :: i I111.3� . 55 87.18 Cj . I I 18 (22) '• �, 8�� �: S.a;, -'b. as . 1JO.os r -. . .. ·-··· - ----· ···---.... ---. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . '--·-_..._. ---�DAH[.Rti--· ....... ·"I--------_;. ...... ��---------------­------· --. . . ' ' I • ..... -. .. ..' t . .. .. .-.. ' ' . =�i• . .. • • I I I . . . . .... . ··-. . (85) 11 • 32 a . . . . . .. .. -. LOMA ,,,..... � (84).,.33 a (52)M,. a 111 . (80)• I 1M (3) LAKESI E ;2 f 1(70) ... (71 )� HEIGH s tO - 1D.a3 180.01 LINDA AVE 1N (8) (7) (62 ) 1◄7 (2 ) " .., (56) 338.9 . , . . . . ' , � (1)- ,., (55) M •. I 185 ,, 287 (6) I (12) (13) a, � Sil i (1) (24) 8 3S ()y./ . -C:Z.3.-�� __ ,�--·--7 (28) (FORMERLY LOTS 1 .3,32.33, 34,35 & PART OF VAC EET) 200 (15\18 24, --·- (2) Sil I I ---1 190 ---·-- 2 148.5 12 (12) ��29)st <�i � ._....,... ____ � Sil -0 ,:--t ":">��•. f&,'j. ,. • ., . l: 1 .·: "' �-. �-t;l . ·� -.. ;, . .-.... , �"/.. • .,_ -:•·· .... t. -• • • ��.�-t • •· • � ,, �-� -1 -.. ' -:.. :. .. ,• ..... ��-• • 'l .J � •• ' • .. . 11 �-� \.::.'-.f·� ... '-' ......... _.' "'""".._..,....., ..... --�OF LOTS 13-18, BLOCK 8, L·OMA LINDA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA - � Lo• 'A -· : -:L 1�1 0-�· .-__ a.:�1tf\� .. _··\{e�uEIVI . . . I -� . . . . ... ,.,... :V�. �� -�.r-.. • l"\r\Y� •--r. -.,._.. • • • • --�.• ... • ....... A .. -· ; � -•• ., • •• -• .... �.;.. "• • ... . ·•· · · ·· -:.... _ . .,._ ........ .,._ .. ,.. :;.c.:..,· ·-c: · · --·:•-.e•n�•�Aa•-: .: · i P"otos£0 '?ftof&:1l'f LI t-1£� / ·. 0 0 l00.00 I I' I 20>­ <( I f ♦ 0 0 IZZ 71 PRoPos�D '1ACATED ALLEY • lO N .-- w --0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 z )0 00' 00" E ·:_ ... 40 00 ... \_ .•·•"' . . .... • ♦ .... •.; �-� � .•• ••. I • • _..-•.. ·r· . _. . ::> D•0 l()r- l--� I I I . II I j' I I J-I f i : , "1' A�C E.� �, I ..,. ! I 1 .l..1 f a. I • I NEvJ ?RoP. 1 L1NE3�j _ ___________ ,.. _____ _ EAST !60.00 � . !•r �w > a= ,Q 0 0 0 ('\I - :t: t­o: 0z • l(J O> �--0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 CJ) � � j '''>>'>� ,,, ./ ... -·········· ··· N 9 0 °00' 00" E.· . .. . .. _,,.•· 128.50 · ······-....22� • .. . . . . . .... -.. I .. · ... Kt.Me\/e- 55.08 ..... ...... 37.49 .. 35.93 .... ♦·:-�7 :.·, f I 1>ARciL a-1 I �, ;?'l I I I .. . . £AST 104.07 / I\, SURVEY . 1 '? LINE··-. ··---�, � 7<-v I I t I § :q � �31 . _/ ---------·---------..... -__, ..... -�--------�---� ----·� ----1 ....... ------_ .......... -- � --�:-• Oi � LIJ .. .. 0-0 I · . Ma VC<<«<< <«<<·"• :J ,....,.. ............... _ ..................... �� ....... ., ........ • •••• ••••••••••• .... . -: p . . 1 •,··- t> J . � : . •: . ' ,, r . _...._ , . ·. . 0. ----�----�-·-�-----�·--. . ��;.,: . -••W""J� HDJll,d.., .� . ,. � . l�' -----��--·�·-------·- .... . • LAKE •• • •• •••••-• ••••••• •••••••• .... t••••••••••••••n •••••••·•-•• .. <>•-.. ••l•••n••• • ••• •••••••• •• ••••••-•••• •• -•••••• •••-•• •"•u--....... _ .. , •u••-•--•••-• •••• ••• -•-•• ••• .. •• • • • i ----··-··· ........ , ......... ,.� ...................... ..._ ...... -··· .. •-• ---·····-·,.-•---·· .... ., .. ., ........... --·-···. ···-.....-•·-·-,··.. ·····--· ..... -.-.--.. -·---........,. ··-.,--.,. .......... .._ ............... ·--·•••••••••• .. ••••••••••••••••••-"••-••• •••••• .. "••• ... , . .,,,•-•••• .. •• .. ••1 .. •• .... ••••• .. ••••-• ••••••••"••" "••�•• .. ••••••••••••••••••-••·•••••-.... ••••-••-...... •••••••••"-·•• ._ ••••--•••~•• .... --..... ._. 1--••-•~••-u"""•••-""" .................... _ ..................... ·-···-··---··-·-··-···-··• ... --..-................ . ... ,. ·····-·---···· ... ·········· .. ··-·· _ ....... ., .... _ ............ " .. ···-----·-·•t; ..... :._ . ., .. -............ , ... _.............. __ .............. ·---·----♦ ··-----.C-• ..... --..-..................................... ___ _ ................ -4 ................... ·---······-............ __ _. •••• ,. ........... -••• ._ .... -••••• ,. ............ ••••••• .. ••• .. -·-··... .._ • ...-• .., • .___. •• , •••••• -·••·-• .. ••••• .. ··; · .. .,. ........ _. ............... -•• -·----··•-=-;•·.... ·--·------·-�--••• ,... -----�---"'-.............. _ ........ _ ............................. .,. ........................ _. ........... -......... -......... _ .......... -........... -........... ,..__ ............. ""-.............. ..._ ......... ·-·----······-........... -......... -� .... -� .... ., ..... .,. ...... -----··•-----"·· .. ·-· ·-· ..................... ---. ....... ___ ................................ -.................... ---�· ... -... ··•-···• .......................... ....,. .... .··-·---................. ---... -· .................... ' ......... , ........................................ . ... -... "'--····------... ·-.... ·-·· .. · ·---... . ......... -.......... ._ ........ _ .. ______ ····--··----.. -·-··-·· ................ _ ........... ,. ••.._• .. •••• ......... -..................... ac ... .. . ..__.,.,. ..... .__ -· .......... .,. ----.......... ,...... .. .... .. ..................... ,. ......... ,_ ...... _ . _....., ... . • ................ ••• ......... ....... ..... ... ••• • • • ......... ... -.......................................... f ....... _ ............................................................. -..... -.._ ............ _ ............ _ ..... .. .......... ,., ..... -............................. . 9< ................ __ .... -.......... _._. ... _._ .......... _ ... . .. -.. -..... •·· ....... . . . . .. __ ,.__,_ ..................... ···•-··.,. . -.._ ... -.................. -... ........... ......, ......... -.................... --·· ......... , ..................... -....... _ .. _ ......... ,.. ·-..• HO 5 . • 0.65 12· \ .•. B I , .. I I -., I !�-63.8 1 t. ,, " , /.I ' ' '\ "' 63.1 •••• • • .... 13.6• . . 162�- i HO U45 ro'LONG /.O"" .. l,� ·---,' ,1 , ,II I • , I "- 0 ·,•. ,.-. ··• .. ..,,..,_� .. ALL5 0 ,1 , I '. I o· \) HO 34', L--1----, ...... ·· ...0.z3 27' 11 12 65'I I .... . � \I ........ � . ·...:. MH 4 I WW 19 LS 19/ T.H. e.M .• sPI KEI a 01sIN eP. -9?35.23 I I (!) I r• c., 22 P.P. .H. 461 23 s 24 \c., J 25 i ,I SEE !OP RIGHT 8 ' --:::-G Gw: --- ---- ---- -... -- •pp G SH. 10· I \ \ .... w 1J.J 1 1 :c . en l� ,CJ l ;l \ .· � ... ---... � ---. G --------.... ,. _ ___, --. -...... ' SEJMCE :•• OJT OF M.tl 33.3 SERVICEOUT OF M..H. (5000) (61QO) 0 -- . . (6620 ) GAR 9 ----- � -·O'.· B.�jSP1kE &Dl5C IN -974.10 . . ··'62.2 (6620) 2 >- 62.7 /·.. ( 3 31 3) . ·• ..._ . .,..... .. �\ , �� ·. SERVICE OUT OF M.H. 18 ···le·•..._(,_� ·. n..cr... .. ........ ·-ii. L!'� • . •• �v --9.Q •• H 63-- -G9PP ----'3 16 . -10 1 ' ,, ' l � . . .,,, , \ '-. . , .. .. . ... . � .......... , .................... . ··E:M.E·N::·.... ,.. -.......................... ._ ........ _. __ .,, ____ ... -..... .. ......................... -..... , .......................... ,. ..... ♦c ....... ♦c •• • .......... ·-·--··•··· .............. _ ............................... _....., ·---··-···• .. • .. -• ... ·-··----·..-.............. ,. .. ·• ...... -----·· ., ..................... -'"" . ···-·.-.. •• t:I:• ...... , ......... ...,. ........... -·•··--.... . ............. .. ....... ·-· ·-·· ................. _ ........ .,_ ................................ � .......... ·• .. ·•·· ......... ···---.. •·· .. ·•--·--........ --·--.......... , _, ..._....,. ........ ·•-···· ................. ., ...... -................. � ....................... _ ..................... ,.,:, ....... ._. ...... _ ........ ------............ ◄ ....... , ........ ·---··· ...................... -....... , .. -··-· .. .. • •• • ........ • .. _ ......... • • -•---•• • --• • .. , .. .., ... ..__ •--••• • • •• • ............. •·• • ••._.�--.. ••I ♦. •. ---.·-• .. •_._._.. ... - • ... -•• ............... •••I----•·•,.•• ......... ---. --• • .............. • _ ........ _ I ..... •·--. .......... -. .,_-.... .. ·-·-·•• ............... ., .... _ -• •·•• �,--.......... •• .... •-•·• ._.._ .... _ ... , • _ _.. ..... _ • • • • •• ............ _,. ..... '"' .. -•-....... , -t ._.. •-·• • · • ,, ....... _, ..................... --.................. , ... _ ............... ___ .. _ ............. -............. . ... _ ............... -....... _.. ......... ---....... _ .................. -·-------· ................. -, ....... -.................. -......................... ·• ... -,.-..... _... -.-.. --••--,.• .,, ....... _._ ........ _________ .. .. ... -.......... ,_,___ .......... -· ·····-·•-·-....................... .. ··-·-............................... -....................... 1 --..-....... ·-·-.. ·••· .. ·--·····•· ..... -1.-♦< ........... _ .............................. -·,. ··--........... _ ._ ............. -....... _ ............. •-·-·-· .. .. ........ -.................. .. __ ,, .. __ ...... -................. -................................... , ... _ ............... --·· ................ •·----· -·•--·-··--·---.. ----..:11---.---••·· ....... _ ............. -..... -..... .. ... ... ---..... _......,_ ·---· .,. .. •'-·--• .... ,.. . .. ·• -· .. . ........... -.. --.. ' . .,., -------· ·-.... -'"'-· " ....... a .. ··-.-·· ....... ., • ..,. ...... -• ....... ,.!. , .. ,. ' ·-·····--'.· ... lf: ............ . __ ... _____ . ., ... .,. .. I .. ···-·-··-·····-·· -··-·-· .... ·,--·····-·M .. H. ·········--....... -.............. , ............ -....... ····-----.... ··-----------_,._. ...... , ................. -···--·· 461·-· _ .............. -._,,,_...,.. ........ --... ,___._., ----.......... ·-··· .. ... _,.mr•� •�••1 �• �· ·--�•·...-••'•--·-- ·-·····9"'55--E6W·· :· .... ·--,zs.,s s ··· · .... ,_ ........ , .... ........ ... __.. __ .,. .. .._ ..... , I .... , ........ .__............ al • ......--,,nn1 ••• I II■ ila11 ••••..,.... ...... • .. ••-!!• ,.....,_ • P 11 ·•··· I ................. ••• ,;Q...... •· [t••-•· ......... -··---·--· .. ,-,_··-· .. - ....................... -....... -............ -.................... . �----� .... ----♦-... •·- • • -· •-.... ,_.. .. ♦ .. -. • I -. .. __,._...._. ...... • ._.. ._.. ....... • • ._ ...... _ . ._, ............... � ............ """ ....... •·----\,· .. -·---�·-·-........ .... ...... ,. ........ ·-'"'-. .. -.;,� ............... ·•� ·---·,:· ........ , ........ ••••-..._...,__.._.,..__ ... _I·• ....... � .................. , .................4 ........... , ........ · ••• , ... ., ................. .. .. -........... •-•-..•-, .. ·-•·•'•·I�-·• ........... " .............. --·•••-• ...... ---4 ..... -..... _. ............ :-........ _ ................ ..·J-=� " �···-· .� .. ...... , ... ! ... "-�··· ..... . .. 1.Q9%� .�.,.� .... �--:,.a ............ ---4� • ,, C,..l \_ .. "' -� .. --, -.;, ,: ... ..... .. ... ,. . ··.:·,_ ,._"/•I � : -4 . • • -:".:I� '\. . �., ...., ..,,, ..---:�, ..) �r) �-� .... '-' ............ ' ...,� .... ....,...., ..... �-� OF LOTS 13-18, BLOCK 8, 'LO:MA LINDA HENNEPIN COUNTY, M:INNES0T A - � LOMA . :··_ :_:-·L tNO:At�iA-·Y�UE� • .. _-.--·. 1 .. • .. '--....;::- •• •• -•• ,. ... , .. ,.:..,.�•--·-· _ .... _. 51 0 0•LO N .-- w ... -0 0 -0 0 -• �---• .. • -- - -1-,...,..._ft_ ·" Jiai,,._ � ---_..,... ... - • ........... .rill �,.•i�• ..... a-:;.. . . . .... . ,oo.oo I .. ·1f··:··20.bo ...-, ·· .. I I ,r" 1 ◄ .'J I I I I r I I I I I I I .r , -, � I >­ <( � t.LJ 8 0 N - X .... I I 0 0• lf'J 0) � ... ... 0 0 -. 0 0 (/) . EASEMENT t .... ::� .. ,,J 0 0 I I '/�.-··········· N 9 0°00' 00" E 1 28.50 · .. ··• ... z ,no• 00" E ·: ······ 40 00 ··-. �\.. . ..... ., �· � ,··J··.. I ••.. IN I 55.08 I I . EAST 95.00 c� SERVICE · ROAD .. . . . -. . · •,. ... • ·• ..3f.49 I . ·. . . ... . .. 35.93 ·····::-;-, .·, I �-.,.1: - I I �, �·lI ... 0 .: -------------. ---�-11 I 1 'I ._{_ ;,-= .... EAST 160.00 ; ····• ..... EAST 104.07 ·····' 22: , ..! • , . KtMO\lt... SURVEY 1t;,LINE···· .... �_,/� 7cv I I t ! 5 f_ :q 2 --------·--------=--�-·--·--------�------·--·--....... -...1 ____ _ . ----I �• .,,IIIIC<<«<<<<«·-• ......... ·�JI·-•---..-·-·---·-----· .......... � ................. ·-· ..... -. ...................... 1 ---'.·.� ---------·---·----� ..... .:; ..... , ..... , .-1 ' •'!- . Dl$i-� HD.i�• . ,-�-!OCV Oi lj. . LAKE :f,T / A 100-db / ( ( 18 / / 17 I . (\I - :t 0 ENUE: / / lo C) � " C) C) .... C) C) C) C) 0 .. ,I ( ) / EXISTING 1 ; IL HOUSC . I I I I I ,I , I I I <J:%DI � I I I I I I - N ,1oo,00 1 E 1 /8.50 ... 2�·C: - -- z I ( 55 O'� _j \_ 37.49 '_j \_ cq ' ip �/ 90• 0'00 E � -U1 {/ � EXIST;lNG · 12 0 0 . ••,. ..... L,J 0 z 4 .00 \ I \ I D -'ST 160.00 I I I I 14 t·�J . �XISTIN �· 11 ; n 11 5 HOUSEi IM I I I 16 I I I I I r §a c BIN a I / (I) 22.7 J I I I _ __;. ,. ,, / / / .... EAST 4.07 / ) SURVEY, LIN ✓ • r-/' I I DEC!< 7 ------' :J r� -"' . _/ I H □usE a 38.9 ---°' w-+-.........,_ _______ ............, ____ --..1,11&:; ___ +--_---+-_�� (D ' ' \ '° U1 0 \ I (X) .. \_ 19�.78 I J _,, 62,0 ◄ I - ·-- _J , -, I I • • � 8 • �..... �I- ..J w > -0 0 -0 0 0 0 C• U> • . •...... . . . ... . . . . . . . N. . . .. . .. . . . £XIST�G HOUSE 90 °00' 00'' 128.50 · "••·• ... .. • 22: . . -... ... ........a!!·-··--------� -----___ llll()ll _____ .:)11111111 ___ . . . . . ··. ·55.08 ·.. · · ... A\fiRA <,E LAKES\.I 01'£ �5. T 9AC,"' EAST 104.07 --------·-------'-----I . • . . 10/24/2B80 11:49 471-9881 HARDCOVER. CAL SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLI ()fa) o-1s·�!"HA�ZQNE· X B.Ocqe C.Driveway D.Sidewalk E.hdo/Deck F.LandK-IPCUDderllfnByPlutlcOr Fabric G.Other _,is:_ ·----- -----· - X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER. IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONEA +B JOEU...EH H.fiR . OIUCSBEET 26,2:_ Wlddl /£_ . ·------·---- X !00 250-500'------------• - - . - 'AGE 03 �--:z:5-2-t:mO 500-10004 :'f72 S.F. s.�--S.F. . S.I. S.F. s£�£.. SJ:. S.F. S.F. S.F. 8.F.S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. 8.F. ,� S.F. A S.P. B % ---------•. z Sa •. tBQPQUiQ BARD� IN ZONEA. Houso " __ ,.,,_ �X X " B.Oarap -� " C.Driveway f X X D.Sidewalk X X �.Pado/Dlek X X F.l.m:fsqpe X Undctlaln X ByPludc X Or Fabric o .. 01ur-X ·TOTAL HAaDCOVl!ll IN ZONETOTAL F&OJIEUY ADA DtfZONB - 'ti .,, . I� ---- � 2_() . • - 13 .. ----------. ---- '?8:L S,P . 3£1/. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. LlP S.P. ----S.F. �. &F. �F'. 5.F. 5.f .. S.F,--· _ ___ --� -� S .. F. , ;yt. S.F. /� S.F.: 3(= ----·· S.F. c:J·r; A B- c:::. .... .. '• • ' 1 ·1!1,._ ___ ·1!�==-=�-===--==-====-===��. Ji,�,. r . . . I . I I I I .., 1,, • I I' I .::---=:-== __ ..... ___ .. --- t ... ,. -:, .. ( __ -�--._::-. RUN DATE 09/21/10 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX43S401 PACE 60 BATCH BSl PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 07-117-2S 14 0006 01029 LOMA LINDA AVE R f R KNOX RALPH B KNOX 1029 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55S64 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR M 07-117-23 14 0013 01155 LONA LINDA AVE EUGENE CEYEN ETAL EUGENE A GEYEN 1155 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 SO 07-117-23 14 0062 PROP AOOR 01160 NORTH ARM DR OWNER NAME K A 0 L H KELSEY TAXPAYER KENNETH A t LOURITA M KELSEY NAME/AODR 1160 NORTH ARM DR m.MOUND NN 55364 8?v • PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR SC 00-117-2S 23 0002 01100 LOMA LINDA AVE MATTHEW M BURNS MATTHEW M BURNS 1100 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55364 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR SO 00-117-23 25 0007 , 01066 LOMA LINDA AVE \ CAROL M RAOUNZ CAROL M RADUNZ ‘ 5505 RIVER BLUFF CZR BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 30 00-117-23 23 0010 01090 LOMA LINDA AVE T W PETERSON A T A PETERSON TROY W 0 TRACI A PETERSON 1090 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55364 U 30 07-117-23 14 0007 01025 LOMA LINDA AVE LAVONNE SORENSON LAVONNE SORENSON 4027 VINCENT AVE N MPLS MN 55412 30 07-117-23 14 0012 01145 LOMA LINDA AVE JEFFERY D JOHNSON ETAL JEFF D JOHNSON 1145 LOMA LINDA AV MOUND MN 55364 SO 07-117-23 14 0055 01034 LOMA LINDA AVE M HURNER 0 B HURNER MARK HURNER 0 BRENDA HURNER 1034 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 30 07-117-23 14 0061 01140 NORTH ARM DR TIMOTHY L BRO TIMOTHY L BRO 1140 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 SO 07-117-23 14 0060 01105 LOMA LINDA AVE 0 B t M J SAMS DOUG 0 MARY SAMS 1105 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 30 07-117-23 41 0007 01210 LOMA LINDA AVE DONALD R UDELL ET AL DONALD R 0 CAROLYN UDELL 1210 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 •i-. A . It “ I-•'••ra j 30 00-117-23 23 0003 01190 LOMA LINDA AVE H A 0 E C MITCHELL MARK A/ELZZABETH C MITCHELL 1190 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND HH 55364 30 00-117-23 23 9006 01050 LOMA LINDA AVE T H 0 M L SCHAIBLE TODD M 0 MICHELLE L SCHAIBLE 1050 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 ■/ 30 00-117-23 23 0000 01074 LONA LINDA AVE MARGARET E MATTSON MARGARET E MATTSON 1074 LONA LINDA AVE HOUND NN 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0009 01002 LOMA LINDA AVE D R JOHNSON 0 L M JOHNSON DEAN R 0 LISA M JOHNSON 1002 LONA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55364 /I I • • :\ ••. r.' ’ 30 00-117-23 23 0011 01090 LOMA LINDA AVE ROBERT J GOUNTANIS ROBERT J GOUNTANIS 1090 LOMA LINDA AVE mound MN 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0012 01130 LOMA LINDA AVE W H BOCKMANN ET AL W/L EST WILLIAM A BOCKMANN 1130 LOMA LINDA AV MOUND MN 55364 Ns MM DATE 09/21/00 BATCH SSI HEM4EP1N COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 08-117-25 25 0015 01140 LOMA LINDA AVE 0 I' e HOLOINO CO LTD PTNRSHP Die HOLOINO CO LTD PTNRSHP C/0 LUELU GOLDBERG 7019 TUPA DR EDINA MN 55459 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 08-117-25 23 0018 00038 ADDRESS UNASS16NE0 HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 PROP AOOR OWWR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 08-117-25 23 0021 01119 LOMA LINDA AVE WILLIAM JOSEPH POLLARD WILLIAM J POLLARD 1119 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55344 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 08-117-2S 23 0024 01122 LOMA LINDA AVE S N GOLDBERG I L G GOLDBERG STANLEY M/LUELLA G GOLDBERG 7019 TUPA ST EDINA MN 55439 ■k-- ■i -;■ '.V >«r •’j'.•: •,•• ■ii , ; ., y w REPORT NO. P1455401 PAGE 61 58 08-117-23 25 0014 01140 LOMA LINDA AVE 6 S 6 HOLDING CO LTD PTNRSHP 080 HOLOINO CO LTD PTNRSHP C/O LUELLA GOLDBERG 7019 TUPA DR EDINA MN 55459 38 08-117-23 23 0015 01170 LOMA LINDA AVE 0 8 G HOLDING CO LTD PTNRSHP 080 HOLOINO CO LTD PTNRSHP 7019 TUPA DR EDINA MN 55439 38 08-117-23 23 0019 01155 LOMA LINDA AVE M C THURLO 805 THURLO NARK THURLO 8 DEBRA THURLO 1135 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55344 58 08-117-23 23 0020 01127 LOMA LINDA AVE DALE F ROTH DALE F ROTH 1127 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 58 08-117-23 23 0022 01045 LOMA LINDA AVE T O OSTERBERO/K J OSTERBERG TIMOTHY G/KRISTI J OSTERBERG 1045 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55564 38 08-117-23 23 0025 0103S LOMA LINDA AVE R C BROWN 8 M A BROWN ROSS C 8 MELINDA A DROWN 1035 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN S5364 38 08-117-23 23 0027 01200 LOMA LINDA AVE EDMUND GRIFFIN ET AL DONALD R UDELL 1210 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 551 00029 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEfmEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROP^ffTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE .<t [f \• W ©r» ¥ N 7^ Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 10/16/00 12/15/00 DEC 1 » 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 6, 2000 ITEM NO.: /3 Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2635 G & G Holding Company Stanley and Luella Goldberg 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue Lot Line Rearrangement Vacation of Public Alley Zoning District: Lot Area; LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District 19,500 s.f. Total Lbt of Exhibits: A B C Resolution Site Plan Elevation View #2635 Hardcover/Street Setback Variance Request (Parcel B 1140 Loma Linda Avenue) The applicants have proposed to construct a new residence on proposed Parcel B should the Lot Line Rearrangement Application #2634 be approved. The plans would include a 1,237 s.f. house to replace the 572 s.f. existing cabin and removal of the parking and drive area located within the vacated right-of-way. The variance application has requested 1,417 s.f. (29.8%) of hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback where 1,187.5 s.f. (25%) are allowed. Proposed Hardcover Review 1,237 s.f.House 180 s.f.1 - Outdoor Parking Space 1,417 s.f. of hardcover has been proposed on the site. The Orono Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applicants have only provided enough hardcover for one space. An additional parking space shall be added to the plans, increasing hardcover. The Code also requires that open parking spaces on lots must have a location other than a required yard except that such parking may be located in a rear yard to within ten feet of an interior side lot line and to within ten feet of a rear lot line. The City of Orono generally requires a 9' X 20' space for one vehicle, two parking spaces would require an area 18' X 20' plus and additional 10' of driveway to move the vehicle parking area 10' from the property lines. The applicants have proposed one 9' X 20' (180 s.f) for parking. Staff would recommend a minimum area of an 18' X 30’ (540 s.f) designated parking area. See Exhibit H. This would result in a final 75-250' hardcover of 1,777 s.f or 37.4%. ■ Request for Council Action continued Page 2 December 6,2000 ^2635 G& G Holding Company *No garage has been proposed on the property. The City has seen other applications in the past that do not propose garages at the time the house is constructed and later an application is received for garage construction. A garage could not be located where the parking area is proposed. That area is restricted from development because of the sewer line and eventual sewer easement located behind the house. The property owners do not intend to build a garage on this lot. Because of the unusual access to the propert>', a front yard setback variance would be required. The north side of the property would be adjacent to the only public access to Parcel B. The LR-IB zoning district requires a 35' setback to the front lot line, which in this case would be the north property line. Staff would recommend approval of a variance to the 35' setback to the alley, and require a 10' setback be maintained based on the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) The alley has always provided access to Parcel B. The City does not intend to develop or maintain the alley. The alley would continue to be used privately by the owners of Parcel B for driveway purposes. The north property line would function as side, interior lot line. A 10' standard setback would be appropriate in this case. Requiring a 35' setback would not allow a suitable building site on what has historically been a residentially developed property. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the variances permitting strucmral coverage in the amount of 1,237 s.f and granting of a hardcover variance for hardcover in the 75- 250' zone in the amount of 1,777 s.f., with the understanding that no additional hardcover would be permitted on the lot. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the attached resolution approving a variance to permit a 1,237 s.f. house and a 540 s.f outdoor parking area subject to the following conditions: 1.Zoning Application #2634 is approved for a lot line rearrangement as proposed by the applicants. 2.It is the position of the Council that it is not possible for future garage construction and or additional hardcover on the property based on the proposed construction plans and the existence of a sewer easement over the driveway. L'2! - > A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2) AND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. m35 WHEREAS, G & G Holding Company, Stanley Goldberg and Luella Goldberg (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1140 Loma Linda Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 20, 2000, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant has revised a variance application to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit 1,777 s.f. (37%) of hardcover within the 75-250’ lakeshore setback where 1,187 s.f. (25%) hardcover is allowed and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit a 10' front yard setback where 35' is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2635. The property is located in the LR-IB (1 acre) One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 20, 2000 and recommended approval on a vote of 6 to 0 for variances based upon the following findings and hardships: Page 1 of 8 - /S:' % fr * fir I u 4'rf A. B. C. D. E. The proposed redevelopment would require the approval of Zoning Application #2634 for a road vacation and Lot Line Rearrangement. The plans would include a 1,237 s.f. house to replace the 572 s.f. existing cabin and removal of the parking and drive area located within the proposed vacated right-of-way. The variance application has requested 1,417 s.f. (29.8%) of hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback where 1,187.5 s.f. (25%) are allowed. 1,417 s.f. of hardcover has been proposed by the applicants on the site. The Orono Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applicants have only provided enough hardcover for one space. Staff and Planning Commission have recommended an additional parking space shall be added to the plans, increasing hardcover. Municipal Code requires that open parking spaces on lots must have a location other than a required yard except that such parking may be located in a rear yard to within ten feet of an interior side lot line and to within ten feet of a rear lot line. The City of Orono generally requires a 9' X 20' space for one vehicle, two parking spaces would require an area 18' X 20' plus and additional 10’ of driveway to move the vehicle parking area 10' from the property lines. The applicants have proposed one 9’ X 20' (180 s.f.) for parking. No garage has been proposed on the property. The City has seen other applications in the past that do not propose garages at the time the house is constructed and later an application is received for garage construction. A garage could not be located where the parking area is proposed. That area is restricted from development because of the sewer line and eventual sewer easement located behind the house. The property owners do not intend to build a garage on this lot. Because of the unusual access to the property, a front yard setback variance is required to allow a building to be constructed on the lot. The north side of the property would be adjacent to the only public access via a 20' platted, undeveloped, right of way. The LR-IB zoning district requires a 35' setback to the front lot line, which in this Page 2 of 8 . —. . ------- .. -- >«•—i -<,v*1'.-r rf-.I'l , m M i M’4Wi;••; -i F m case would be the north property line. Staff would recommend approval of a variance to the 35' setback to the alley, and require a 10' setback be maintained based on the following hardship: the alley has historically provided access to the property; the City does not intend to develop or maintain the alley; the alley would continue to be used privately by the owners of the propety for driveway purposes; the north property line would function as side, interior lot line; a 10' standard setback would be appropriate in this case, and would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan; and requiring a 35' setback v'ould not allow a suitable building site on what has historically been a residentially developed property, and would move construction of the house closer to the lakeshore which is not in the best interests of water qualit>- and protecting lake views for adjacent properties. 4.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 difficulu’; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants: and would be in keeping .vith the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and reconunendations 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 3 of 8 f ---^ ammend equire a he alley loes not ue to be 3ses; the f, a 10’ Id be in ehensive building property, [akeshore ting lake rty are zoning traffic hboring , but is ;sary to 1 be in ive Plan idings and comments ilth, safety CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above fmdings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit 1,777 s.f. (37%) of hardcover within the 75-250' lakeshore setback where 1,187 s.f. (25%) hardcover is allowed and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit a 10’ front yard setback where 35' is required, subject to the following conditions; 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. Applicants shall apply for a demolition permit and remove all existing structures and hardcover prior to issuance of a building permit for a new structure. Applicants shall provide 2 original copies of a revised survey showing the building plan and all proposed hardcover. Such site plan/survey shall be in substantial conformance with the attached approved site plan attached hereto as Exhibit B. Council approves Zoning Application #2634 for a lot line rearrangement and street vacation. It is the position of the Council that it is not possible for future garage construction and/or additional hardcover on the property based on the proposed construction plans and the existence of a sewer easement over the driveway. 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 (December 11, 2001). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 4 of 8 7.The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of tliis resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orcno, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of December, 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 5 of 8 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of for said county, personally appeared before me a Notary Public within and known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of for said county, personally appeared before me a Notary Public within and known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 6 of 8 i- r^’ EXHIBIT A Lot 13, and those parts of Lot 17_ond the adjoining vacated service road which lie south of the westerly extension of the north line of said... ^ Lot 13 and east of a line 30 feet west of, measured at a right angle to, and parallel with the west line of said Lot 13, all in "LOMA LINDA". NOTE : In the plat of "LOMA LINDA", the streets were dedicated for the use of the owners in that addition.i Page 7 of 8 111 EXHIBIT B . " * BtACKTOP f-OAO AS *:*?>VCLLE0 i^A LINDA AyENUE < •# >■ < Eo < g CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR LUELLA GOLDBERG OF LOT 13, LOMA LINDA HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 1 1 / / / 12 oosnc KXOC / N 90“00'00" E 158. / / 33.* / ^/ ^ - j- >- ■ .--r -1! a. f ^ —V » .'SURVEY.^^ 1 »BBi ,7 parcel1 fid ^ ®900/ SO. FT. fAorao) ttu>4ACC A>0 y , to1 I X ..-f'VTunr CAAons // cv ^ "T—...................... _____ ■PRDPD '^USE - 104.07 N 90®134.07- 1.1 EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ; Lot 13. "LCVA LINDA" PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRPTiON ; Lol 13, ond those ports of Lot 17 ond the adjoining vacated service rood which lie south of the westerly extension of the north line of said Lot 13 and r jst of o line 30 feet west of. meosured ot o right angle to, ond pore.el with the west line of soid Lot 13, oil in "LOMA LINDA". NOTE : In the plot of "LOMA LINDA", the streets were dedicoted for the use of the owners in thot oddition. o : denotes iron marker Beorings shown ere based upon on assumed datum. This survey intersds to show the boundaries of the obove described properly, the locolion of on existing cabin, ond the proposed location of o proposed house thereon. It dees not purport to shr.w ony other improvements or encroachments. 0OFFIH k GRQIIBERd. II|C (OQinCOCHDS,LM SMmSniUHGS 40 TAlMUa AVIX£ UK Uffi. IH SUM •tJ-flWMI Page 8 of 8 I htfflb/ CffU; thot On %inj ws prepared by mi v wder ity drect spe- visio; and 'ihotl am 0 dijf r^yotved Cvi Ln^netr ond Land Sawyer nidir the lews of the Slote or Idnnesota UorV 5 Oonbefo Uinnesota Lireftst fiirter 127S5 SCALE r-30* DATE 11-6-00 joe NO. 00-0190 00-0193 . . . . . ... . . .. . .. . . ' .. BLACKTOP ROAD AS TRAVELLED t f I -� -, I / <( 20 >­< 3:w> 0:: 0 ....J w > <( a:: 0 --------... --.. . . . CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR LUELLA GOLOB.ERG. OF �LOT 13, LOMA LINDA l-tENNEPIN · COUNTY, MINNESOTA ... £XISTN: HOUSE ., -�.STING. , .. HOUSE EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 13, "LOMA LINDA" PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION : · . . . ... . Lot 13, and those part� of Lot 17 and the adjoining vacated service ··, . . road which He south of the ·westerl'J extension of the north line of said. .. " Lot 13 and east of a line 30 feet west of. rneasured at o right angle to, and parallel with the west lin,e of said Lot 13, arr in "LOMA LINDA". NOTE : In . he plat of "LOMA LI DA", the streets were dedicated for the use of the owners in that addition. .. •• .. .. •• .. ... • ••• ◄ ... , • ... • . . . . ... . . o deno. iron mark r . orings shown ore bas d upon an assumed datum. »7 » -^5 P n j •. ^U^^UTES OF THE ORONO PLA2WING COM>nSSION MEETING Monday, November 20, 2000 1130 and 1140 LomaEinda Avenue, granting of a lot line rearrangement and vacation of the platted undeveloped alley, with the understanding there will be a 50 foot setback on Parcel A for all structures. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Weinberger stated also as part of this application the Appli cants are proposing to construct a new residence on proposed Parcel B. The plans would include a 1,237 square foot house to replace the existing cabin and removal of the parldng and drive area located within the vacated right-of-way. The Applicants are requesting a hardcover \ar!ance to allow 29.8 percent of hardcover in the 75-250 ’ lakcshore setback where 23 percent is sillowed. Weinberger indicated the Applicants are not proposing a gneage on this propert>*. In the past the City has seen applications that do not propose garages a: the time the house is constructed and later an application is received for a garage. Weinberger stated a garage could not be located where the parking area is proposed since it is restricted frc.T. development because of the sewer line and eventual sewer easement located behind the house. The property owners have indicated they do not intend to build a garage on this lot. Weinberger stated it would be impossible to locate a garage on this lot without the need for a variance due to the small size of the lot and the utilitv ease.r.ent that will exist on this lot. Weinberger stated the Orono Zoning Ordinance requires rwo parking spaces per dwelling unit, with the Applicants showing hardcover for one space. Star is u c.-Timending an additional space be added, which will increase hardcover. Staff does have sc.-ne co.-.cems regarding the amount of hardcover on this lot, but due to the small size of the lot, Scam would allow some overage in the amount of hardcover on the lot to permit a reasonably si., house to be constructed on the property and to provide sufficient parking space. Weif 1: j. - .oted the size of the property is being increased with the vacation of the alley and lot Une rearrangement. Hurr staled the driveway could perhaps be reduced slighdy nrom the 10 feet. Lindquist inquired what the amount of hardcover will be cz this Ic' PAGE 20 .j*1 h b MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^^SSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 Weinberger stated the amount of hardcover allowed in the 75-250’ zone is 1,187 square feet, with the Applicants proposing 1,177 square feet. Weinberger noted the changes recommended by Staff are incorporated into the hardcover calculation and would result in the hardcover being over by 589 square feet. Weinberger indicated almost one-half of the hardcov'er is to accommodate onsite parking as required by ordinance. Weinberger noted the structure is under the amount allowed. Hurt commented there is a discrepancy in the surveys and the size of the lots. Harr indicated Bockmann’s residence does not meet the 75 ’ setback. Bockmann stated his survey indicates a different number. Hurr stated his survey shows 42 feet to the lakeshore, with the surv ey for the Goldbergs showing 22 feet. Hurt stated she did discuss this issue with Bockmann. Hurr commented another issue was that the average lakeshore setback used for the Bockmann house was the house located across the street, which was the incorrect lakeshore setback. Hurr stated if the Goldbergs’ survey is used, the Bockmann house does not meet the 75 foot setback. Lindquist inquired whether the Goldbergs’ survey is recent. Hurr replied that it is. Lindquist stated he needs to deal with the survey in front of him. Jeff Johnson commented it was his understanding the house next to this property also used the current driveway. Hurr stated that property has access off of Loma Linda. Hurr noted that property owner has utilized the driveway in the past. Lindquist noted it is a public driveway. Lindquist stated the Plamiing Commission is basically looking at a request to construct a house on this lot. Hurr stated the total hardcover on the lot would be 1,417 square feet. Lindquist stated it was his understanding the hardcover was 1,717 square feet. PAGE 21 SraM 4P4 "'JieM IC f Vi*«ria n t** t wnm .... M r^rnrm I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVUSSION MEETING Monday, November 20, 2000 Weinberger stated the 4-;777 square foot of hardcover includes the proposed house and the Staff s proposed parking area and driveway. Staff is recommending if the plan is approved, it be approved with the 1,777 square feet of hardcover. Hawn commented the Applicants have the right to have 15 percent or 1,500 square feet. whichever is greater, in structural coverage, which the Applicants do meet. Hawn stated the amount of hardcover being added is required by ordinance for the additional parking space. Hawn stated in her opinion she does not see any way the amount of hardcover could be reduced. Lindquist stated he is in agreement with Hawn and does not have a problem with the variance. Smith inquired what the 1,777 square feet equates in terms of percentages. Weinberger stated that would be 37.4 percent. Smith stated the Planning Commission is basically approving new construction. Hawn stated the house, which is under the 1,500 square feet, is already over the amount of hardcover allowed for this lot. Nygard stated due to the utility and sewer easement, the Applicants are limited in the area where they could construct the parking area. Hurr atated if the same 42 foot measurement was used as on the adjoining propern*, tiie hardcover amount would be reduced to 27.9 percent. Hurr stated she was told by Gronberg that the distance is 33 feet and not 22 feet. Hurr stated the hardcover could possibly be under 30 percent depending on what survey number was used. • • • • • Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2634/2635, 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue, permitting structural coverage in the amount of 1,237 square feet, and granting of a hardcover variance for hardcover in the 75-250’ zone in the amount of 1,777 square feet, with the understanding that no additional hardcover will be permitted on this parcel. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Hurr noted the Applicants are not requesting any setback variances on this application. PAGE 22 Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 10/16/00 12/15/00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COllMr.ll, MEETING DEC 1 1 2000 CITY 0\r UHONO DATE: December 8,2000 /fITEM NO. )•> Xj- Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Existing Zoning: Lot Area: Application Summary Orono Ambar, LLC. 2060 Wayzata Boulevard #2640 Preliminar>'Subdivision/CUP-Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2641 Site Plan Reviews B-1, Retail Sales Business District +6.7 acres Orono Ambar, LLC. has submitted an application for a nvo lot plat of a 6.7 acre property. Proposed is a rezoning for the two properties from B-1, Retail Sales Business District to B-6/PUD (for office use of the proposed west parcel) and RPUD /PUD (for multi-family residential use of the proposed east parcel). The intended use of the properties are a 3 story 70 unit senior housing project and a 23,000 s.f office building. The proposed residential use of the property’ would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment as the property is not guided for residential use in the 1980 Plan or the proposed Comprehensive Plan (CMP). The City has a Highway 12 PUD procedure and a Highway 12 rezoning procedure established that provide the process the review requires. Issues for Council Discussion There are three primary issues for Council discussion as a continuation of the Work Session held on December 7,2000. See the attached summary of Work Session discussion. 1.Site plans and use of the property as residential/commercial. Frank Dunbar will be submitting a new plan reducing the number of residential units from 70 to 62. 2.RPUD zoning district (this item will be discussed as a separate agenda item) 3.TIF financing. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Provide direction to the applicant on the 3 items listed above. Staff will prepare a letter requesting an e.\tension of the 60 day application deadline. I List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I Plat Map Site Plan/Preliminary Lot Layout Office Building Views Senior Housing Building Views A2.1 Second Level Building Plan A2.2 Third Level Building Plan A2.3 Typical Building Plan A4.1 Unit Floor Plans A4.2 Unit Floor Plans J K L M N O P Q LI Office Building Landscaping Ll-1 Senior Building Landscaping Section 10.52 Hwy 12 Rezoning Section 10.53 Hwy 12 PUD Ordinance Proposed RPRD Landscaping Req. Traffic Consult. Review 1 (11/7/00) Traffic Consult. Review II (11/14/00) Properly Owner Notification List PUD Process Section 10.53 is the Code section that defines the standards and review process for a Highway 12 PUD and Section 10.52 defines the special requirements forrezoning along the Highway 12 corridor and study area. Those Code sections have been attached as exhibits to this report. The applicant has provided site plans for both properties. A commercial site plan review for the office and senior housing properties and buildings will include a full review of the following items: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Landscaping Traffic Flow/Road System Parking Arrangement Building Height/Setbacks Review of Architectural Materials/Building Design Lighting Screening Other I.Preliminary Subdivision/Rezoning/Comprchcnsive Plan Amendment Uses within the PUD may include only those uses designated by the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The 1989 Comprehensive Plan Amendment had guided the property for commerr il use. The Comprehensive Plan (CMP) as preliminarily approved by the City Council in September designated several Orono properties as areas that would allow medium density. The density proposed in the CMP does not have an existing zoning district that would allow the types of housing that would be offered by as proposed in this application. The proposed CMP did not include this property as a residential site. In fact it has been guided for commercial use as was the case will 1989 CMP amendment. The entire property' has been zoned B-1 since at least 1967, perhaps ear'icr. To rezone the east property would require changing the land use designation to residential. The 70 unit building on the 4 acre site would provide 17.5 units/acre of senior housing units at a variety' of unit sizes and rental rates. A revised plan of 62 units would reduce the density to 15.5 units'acre. The proposed RPUD zoning district would be the appropriate zoning district to provide the units/acre density requested. Section 10.33, Subdivision 5(E) in the proposed RPUD district would allow the City of Orono to provide incentives to encourage projects which are consistent with housing goals. “Incentives may include modification of density and floor area ratio requirements for developments providing lifecycle housing and low and moderate cost housing.” The City has the ability to ensure the housing need, for lifecycle housing, is met. The RPUD district would rely ^iini« iSSTi 'iTifil nriniTti mw til itii I WUVitTtlt •ititiitititi ^RtliG ^llt] r [tMiKt wmu^ •H4tJ Rinrij h il on th C d i n ti n h u in d n i · nd th bi lit oft· d lop r to m t th housin n d t community. ,c se · ou l n t r qu1 r am ndm t a th un d rl in l . d u · n ti n i � c . ia u . h p pr d __ 7 a i . Th us ofth pr p offic / lini 'e p m1itt un d rt di · t h ul the ou .ci appro anam dm ntt th p rmit r Vl 1n the B-6 di trict p rm it lin1 u ss 1 · t e pr lin ·nary plat st appr al of the propos ed site pl n . . ot I t p o rty)-116832 .f.or+2.7 Lot 2 (eas prop = 17 87 .f. or+ 4.0 of th pr i o d r ult ir. p im·n ary pl r vi al und r th tandard pla in proc d r ·nary pl t ill r uir lot s bli h d i th 0 inan t pr· . Add1ti l r quir n m b imp d o non-re identia d adj resid ar a. o p ·nu·from a prop d ddi. d V m . in lu di· prov r a an nt SP--··-· r q i m t ma y b impos t pr .. �.:,",,,�p bu r trip t th r · d n ial r ent loper h pr ��·�::d t s n1 ·• .-c n m1n1 l C l l d s ··p i n d t t th uni ncy and nt d to e o n nd rt n . ..--��-m Ii p. att d d.Th ug od th r id nti d by o ho n _ r a s . o nei hbo rho od th pro bi r tho loc��::= c ...... "�� ... . .I y 1 0 to th r � ct r d v 1 p-d th O n 0 pl D I D a h nit o Id b- rth b 11 OU h f th 40 · id pl ···-·· I 12. n 12 il b ru--· �,, ch r in cin or th th p . of·, u "11 n_. C p n I t t et d D·c mb r · ouncil m t n T e ·nfcrm t1on ill · t cou .cil an id t b addresse as th concept of u ing I rth u . . is inform tion t ii ·d cal analy i r lat d to i u ha amount of d lopm nt Tl r mburs m n r the ount o ci l e n d d t p nt flo n d . Thi an ly 1 b d n o r th n . t k . I.it Plan e · e (Lot 1 -Office Bui ding) T p po d o 1c b ·1ding i o ori i ap ro imat 23 0 0 . . f ro fl o space. · d r th b ildin I a 21 t II d rg ound parkin ar . Th c buil is 172' O' r 1 760 . . he b ildmg is d s· n d to tep do rom a t sto i di t l. adj· c t to the u ood ne·g borhood. ·ould b h 80' idth to th n i hbor od a: b C 2ar s ·d "R" . tn t· d . to " 0 d ·. ri t: ' t t: t 20 s.f 100' 1 , I 0 O' 5• 3 ' l wed net a I flo r ar a fi r = IO s l r q ii►i d) - 0 = 10 0 .f. f 1 l to on o truct to o 7 95' 15' 12 o· . 5' d type) J die l tra hand trash hand ing quipment hall t r ·thin th prin ipal tru tur ith1n an attach d tru tur a c ssible from 1th1n prin ip 1 tructur rt ll · er ene : r m y -1 I i fr pubrc _ tr ts a d 1 nt r i . nti , prop rti s. If ac!:�:��o true ur ar propo d th y h l con tructed of h bui ing mat ri l as th prin ipa ructur and b dil rv d ou h in in do r . a . ii cces o struc s n q alt and ap all a d po d ar th pri1l �·pal true ur . r tai · · 11 hal D.Th I I v1 of all m chanical utiliti h 11 b comple ly r ne II conti u u prop rti and a ·ac nt tr t or d i ed o be comp ti le ·t th · hit c r I r a ment of prin ip l tructure. d ·ar a mu t b pl t ly c n d rorr, th -grc··· -1 1 1 ·d I or m ·properti an adjac nt tr ts, e c pt at _""""'"' Ii -h ro a tomobil h dJi ht n ther ourc h l b er ned h n r ·t m b d" C--�-d n a uac n r sid nti I "ndo t at th propos d B-6 I d p r ning ar hit ctural st ail t curr nt st d d. pro_ os d s hi ,ect or thi p t. (Lot 2 n om 3 st _ r8 b th . o loca e ' o er t _ . S l C t d at J10rth co.-r1ow- i!• d by .Do . D veloper has 1 d structur� .11 a other il fl on t . /2 cated ·sting/ h ·h n 1 di ard ppli ation . a been r t b 1 din is i n d to ha topograph .1 Parking setbacks: Required front yard: Required rear yard: Required side yard 20’ 20’ 20’ 45-50’ NA 60’ Building setbacks: The setback for all buildings froni exterior RPUD lot lines would be 35’ except th?* in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building. One concern is the build.* : ation being proposed at 56’ to the rear lot line. The property is ver>’ limited by the MnUoi pond for developing the housing further from the property line. One non-desirable option to allow the building to be located even further from the rear lot line would be to located the access to north of the building. This may not be the best option as a building would be a better “neighbor ” to the residential properties to the north than a service road providing access to the build: gs and a clinic. Building Height: The intent of the RPUD district is to provide housing to meet lifecycle, and affordable and moderate cost housing needs. As discussed with the review of the RPUD ordinance, the bousing types may require buildings to exceed the 30 ’ standard that applies to single family residential homes and office buildings. The only district that could allow a building greater than 30 ’ is the Industrial district which all 3 stories or 40’. The proposed building would have a peak height of close to 50’ as viewed from the back side of the structure. Staffs determination of the defined height of the building averages 38’. Strict interpretation of the ordinance would define the height at 45’, lowest grade adjoining building to highest midpoint of the roof. Because the RPUD ordinance has not been adopted, no standard exists for building height in the district. The developer has stated to allow the project to work the building would have to be three stories or moderately priced senior rental units would not be feasible. No. of Parking Stalls: Required = 2 per dwelling unit (Section 10.61) Required =140 spaces Total stalls proposed = 84 interior spaces 50 exterior spaces Section 10.30 establishes required parking for the M-6, Multiple Family Zoning District as 2 spaces per unit plus .25 spaces for each unit as additional parking areas for guests. A minimum of one space per unit shall be provided on the interior of the building. While this proposal is no. subject to the M-6 standards, these standards provide a guideline for parking for a standard apartment building. The standards for a building designed for senior housing use may not require the same parking standards. The applicants have stated they do not feel all the parking proposed on site will be necessary for the use. They will be providing additional information as to parking needs for other similar projects to justify the amount of spaces prov ided. fX-.' IV.Road/Parking/Access The property would have two access points. One on Brown Road North to serve the entire development and provide access to a fur re signal light at the intersection of Highway 12 and Brown Road. A second access point for the pro ■>erties would be to Highway 12 for right in/right out turns. The City of Orono’s traffic consultant has reviewed the plan and has determined the developmen* would expect to generate approximately 500 vehicles trips per day (250 in 250 out). Both reports r *■ dated 11/7/00 and 1 1/14/00 have been attached for your review. A primary concern addressed by our consultant is the proposed interior road would be used for the clinic traffic as well as the residential use. The individual parking spaces in the lots located in front of the senior housing building would back out directly into through traffic. They have recominended a separate primary parking area be designed to not allow two sided parking to have to back out into the through traffic. When the original planning for the site was completed in 1988 it was envisioned that a service road would pass through this property »o the Orono Mall property, Otten Bros, and connect to Willow Drive. The plan was completed many years prior to the final route of the Highv' ay 12 relocation. A full service road may not be required since Highway 12 will be relocated and the intersection with Brown Road and 12 will be realigned and lighted in the future. However, the traffic consultant believes that many motori.sts would seek this service road route as an alternative to the other direct access drives to Highway 12 increasing the amount of "cut thru" dramatically. V.Grading and Drainage The proposed grading plan shows the parking lot in the northwest comer of the site approximately 10' higher than the adjoining property to the south. The City Engineer is recommending this part of the site be lowered at least 4'. The retaining wall could then be eliminated. Additional engineering is required for further review of the proposal. The developer should provide storm sewer and ponding calculations for review. VI.Landscaping Plans/Pedestrian Ways Proposed standards for landscaping are attached as Exhibits J and K. The applicants have provided landscaping plans for each property under review. The plans have placed an emphasis on heavier planting between the buildings/parking areas and the residential use to the north. The Code requires a screen not less than 50% opaque be located between commercial uses and residential uses. The RPUD ordinance has proposed a landscaping value to be required based on a percentage of the project value. For a development greater than $4,000,000 the minimum landscaping value that must be provided would equal 1% of the project value. Wally Case, the City’s landscaping consultant, would complete an estimate of the landscaping value based on the proposed ordinance. Some of the existing trees would be removed to make room for the project. The plans submitted have been designed to protect several mature trees that arc located between the proposed building and Highway 12. Protection of those trees requires the building and access road to be shifted to the north. An adjacent property owner to the north has expressed concerns about the location of the building being 40’ from the rear property line. The Planning Coinmissioii should consider the option of shifting the building forward 20' to allow a 60' setback between the rear property line and the senior housing building. Shifting the building forward would likely require removal of the trees located between Highway 12 and the pond. If the trees are removed, it would make the building more visible to the future 12 and BrowTi Road intersection. This may be a more desired option as the building would be moved further from the adjacent residential properties. A suitable landscape plan would soften the impact of the buiiding as viewed from the Brown/1 2 intersection, and perhaps enhance the urban feel of this area. -I % r-4 SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 7,2000 WORK SESSION DISCUSSION REGARDING SENIOR HOUSING PROPOSAL There was general agreement among the Council Members and the residents in attendance at the work session that the concept of a senior housing development on the site is acceptable. However, there were concerns regarding the height and massing of the proposed building. There was substantial discussion regarding options for addressing this concern. The opi < determined to be both feasible and effective in reducing the impact of the building’s height on the neighbors to the north was to eliminate the top story of the easte ’^most portion of the building, which is closest to the neighbors. This would result in a reduction in the number of units from 70 to 62. There was also concern regarding the City ’s ability to ensure the building would continue to be used for senior housing, both in the medium term (20-30 years) and in the long term. It was discussed that the City ’.s financial participation (i.e., through TIF) gives the City control for the duration of this participation (20-25 years). There were two options discussed for maintaining control of the use of the building in the long terni. One was the imposition of restrictive covenants that would require the building to continue to be used for senior housing. It is questionable whether the owner of the building would agree to such covenants, and whether those covenants could be extended far into the future. Another option considered was the City ’s purchase of the land. This would enable the City to control the use through a long term lease arrangement restricting the use of the land to senior housing. These options need to be further explored. Mr. Dunbar indicated financial assistance, i.e., TIF, was essential to the feasibility of the project. Council Member Kelley indicated it was his opinion the City should not be involved fmanciaily. Jabbour indicated there is agreement regarding the need ■'or the project. The City ’s financial participation provides two benefits. First, it makes the project feasible. Second, it provides the City with control over the project, at least in the medium term. It was determined that the use of Tax Increment Financing should continue to be pursued. h t m, >*' /* /'*’ x'' \ 5, •«*►^-CiES; 443dI “• I. Wvfiir^wow:»ce& Ntr.-flinowMVii -.t;- -1^ ?2 >i p---------------- u-------- 188 m f %9Lkw-'-> ■ :isik-^-^ 3‘ '.••' ■/• ■-*• * . .''j ....... ... L :-M- ^ ':■'-•■.'■-•■■■:.'smm m m-; V V ■ ;■> >’:-;v'^Sva&m ■-1-. w ->V' ■: :v :• 'ar:^--, - ■ . v; /,-J|'^m ■im¥m Iv.-'f’V'v-:mmm m wm IK i ? > ••:•.;= »?:.•• 'lie •;■''■■■:, so : v; -i-r** :•!. :'J ‘:iu.it.<firi:h. rtf ,.•.. . .•.•• = -. *;• ft't1 ftfSia y.' V.-,-,:i*: . ,.V ■:,ft._:^T-: , \ im 111 I 111 V 1 0 III I III s I I O / © nir* III 0 HL llu09^ m 09 Inipi Um\ at n 09 on m 09 09 09 31 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 GD OD ]0 D 00 T 0 D 1 / / 1 t 1 JJ 09 09 09 09 on tm oni on 00 00 f/j.Jn m 31 00 s ! nm oir™ Y pi 09 p > I'-’m N -I ? O IIIr III N S © 09 09 09 09 09 09 00 00 09 09 OD 09 09 00 iH fj i-1El, i 09 00 09 Ql p EKElv ja cm 09 09 OD 00 4^ fHilnH 1?1 H DD DD 09 L- 30 1 •I •I t O)moo m r u > m ^ V.v: BlfciiijVV-; ■ A. A,''-V fS^lc'' '■■■' S--.'-=<^-., ... i,V ,r-'’^v f'i' r- ff-* J \ � -i �* • JJ.. 0 &!t ,... m < m r "'O � z FORTH I FFTH LEVELS PLAN tnr. , .. ,. . - c-, i i • • � ... (') � • m a . �' . ·-· I ., " ·• I I I . t .. . � � . �5 ��. .. ,,.-/' .... /.. ,. �i :� __ _____, r-. ·-� •. . • .. Cll -�l .l. . ·-·-.. ( ·-,• .. -. .. i� � C: .. z • • -.. -t0 > . � " • • _,_ �� . I a, :0 - C: C: � •-"" --t0 m �5 • ft ....... :�-I\) i ...... -,✓ z -' 'tu ,,,-.,• \ --- • �� • &:� . , ---�-- ..... � C • z• • - -t -f 0 m•-I\) I a, ,. ,' ().. l I I I I 5· �� . 9: e� �2 .... ,. , ..... ....... _ 11 � •L ... --. 0 -· . ... l• 'I.. , -- ,. f. 1 \ --:t - G UY WIRES .J)ectmore Ash 2.s·-ca1......... SHRUB PLANTING .... ...... P: • .Ar. T SCHEDULE ity CC'n"rnon Nome Sci� uric Ncme Size Amur Oumo Maple Acet> c.nnc1a t i' 8 & B Bloc" Hills Sc,ruce f Piceo 91-ouco "Oen1c:0·e· e & e Calgary Ccrpet Ju.niper Juniperu1 s=inc ·cc:1;:ry Coroet'!-Cot Cold M01Jnd Spirea I Spirea s 'Cof�Mounc:" J-CoJ Northwoods Red Maple Aclt' r\lbrum 'NorU'hraoc:• 2.5•-cc:t Potmore Ash Frc xi,,u1 per.nS)lvcr.ic: •;:t�t,no,e I 2.5•-ca1 Scotch Pine ?.nus S)fvatru ■ e· e & a Slc)fine Locust c:.ceas?G Trioccnlftcs intt'mis "Skycote· 2.,·-ca1 APE HOT[S1 pla,,� ...u • � to ,_,,.. Md rz• '" ace�• with � ..,,...� StOftdcards.•,a.d or SCVN v.•s 0,-Sl'W"'IA:ls .u -IICC� tltd. nti,,g Sol � • a Ntur• or I pvt pnt. I pvt sol .,. t pert sMd. s,tants shaU w �a,,tffd ror o,,.. ,._,. ''°"' � •t• ol acc._,1a11c.. nw ��.ctor-..U r.-.C• &ny INad or � ple111ts at ftO addllioftal cost to � oa, .. , aa if'IQ ,renty ""roe,. trns ShoU IN •� elld er-,:,c,n •• PIOWft ., uws. tr..s In Sod .,... • .,_.. tlatt o 4• _.., _,,,..ddH CMV _,.., ....adt ,..,.�• ..... � fft �- :t Shall • mta.rn kaftludcy ":, ••• ,,.... a, ••••:.,. a ips. n.. � IC1cr 9hall Nt.r .,_ NII tJ,,. at ._ ._ 0, a;.1a1&at1M to USI•• a .,._.,. ,..,w.I Oft •••• ....... ._,. 2 to I .... • ._.._, -, Nl1 ....... , ... to dl'I WA .... •........ ..,.,,c..,. c=-ttrectcr. , � .... AN.,.._ • .,._IN as rwceMf'I cdlr ..,.._ �i, .... r•�••• a_..�:f .. a,:,-,.�t '::•� �tr ra11r1c. • •aw Id cawar _.... .... irWlueJ• r ..,_.. _,....: .... e _. .... fUCtl tawdl .. ._,,.. wimQ ... _, 1,;1 -_ .... £1'111,·atil& --� 111•.a■ IPI ..,,.... areu ""•■ .a a,1, ........ ._... :a .111,!IJ�., 1• ..._. la_.-�-II•� .. 1a&1 ••=IMP..,..,._,.. N!J.I .z:n, �"!"�• .MJ ......fc-.... --�---. .9111 ,ta ""lli ... ,.. �·-· � .sr••a .,, ..... ,.--'·•es -.--,,., � •• ••-•·•• w11ac-. 1e·1 ...... to Nii■•""".. ' ---, . - Pin.t_ .ocust i,eQ_ Sod-- {S)Amur Clump .... wp,,. � 6' - .J)Blcck Hi11s 1 ,_ 2 I ( � I: � @ � �-� I tlbS.PH Sod ' Sod u J __ , PROPOSE�o --' BUILDING l!!ll"IMl'---1 ; -ti I ""---L. I J -V Sod fl(fkJ �/ � 7,: l AmMr 6 ft 1111 MN ........ ·-•.I - Red� � I ::-- A ••�-­�­a •• & •• �-­A­A •• --& •• ·-' � � 0 z-0 ::> m � w � �i LL � : I o Q z 0 a: 0 :�'§-r i-tg� ...... �ii................ ... ] I LMDSCAPt--IUN ] L1 '-a I §10.52 SEC. 10.52 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REZONING IN THE HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA. Subd. 1. Minimum Area. To insure consistency with the goals and objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study, applications for rezoning within the study area must include a minimum of five acres. The plans submitted along with these applications must also include enough information regarding the effect of the proposed development on surrounding parcels to insure that the property can be developed in a manner that is both compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Subd. 2. Access and Circulation Plan. The plans submitted along with the application must propose access to the proposed development which is consistent with the Transportation Planning Objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. All public easements and road right of way that is needed to allow the construction of service roads and/or the expansion of Trunk Highway 12 past the subject property, shall be dedicated to the City. Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 Subd. 3. Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Water Availability. The available sanitary sewer and municipal water capacity to serve the development of this corridor is currently very limited. Therefore, any plans to develop within this area must either demonstrate that it can occur utilizing current sewer and water allocations or they must include improvements to increase the capacity of the systems serving this area. If sanitary sewer or municipal water system improvements are proposed as part of the application, then the feasibility of providing this service will also be scrutinized along with an improvement financing plan to insure that the costs associated with providing this additional capacity will be paid for by the development. Source: Ordinance 78,2nd Series Adopted: 1-22-90 Subd. 4. Storm Water Management. Site Drainage plans must be submitted to insure consistency with the Storm Water Management objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Plans will be carefully reviewed to insure both that proposed storm water ponding areas contain sufficient storage capacity and whatever additional measures are necessary to guarantee that the quality of runoff from the site, meets or exceeds the City's standards. Subd. 5. Available Zoning Districts. Due to the unique set of constraints and opportunities that affect future decisions regarding development within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, applicants for rezoning are strongly encouraged to utilize th e planned unit development ORONO CC 359 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) iMia I r Mttnn ■■■ O n w i i i 111 i laftfii n\ tmtUm i §10.52 approach, outlined in Section 10 of the Orono Zoning Ordinance. However, applications will be accepted for rezoning r^uests for any of the following existing zoning districts within the City, consistent with a finding of consistency with the Highway 12 Corridor Study and subject to compliance with all of the additional requirements established in this section: B-6 Highway Commercial District PRD Planned Residential Development R-1 A One Family Residential District R-1B One Family Residential District M-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District Any proposal which requires a modification to zoning or subdivision requirements must be done as a Plarmed Unit Development. Subd. 6. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictioi^ of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: A.All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: ■(a) Face brick, or (b)Natural stone, or (c)Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative materials or texture, or (d)Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in items a, b and c above, or glass. (e)Other materials as may be appro\ ed by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. w B.All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. C.No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the projserty except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. Subd. 7. Requirement of Development Agreement. All development permits authorized within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area shall be subject to the execution of a ORONO CC 359-1 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) ,'i ■ II !■! I ■ I I I ■!! I I 111 I mamafa §10.52 development agreement. Said development agreement shall clearly identify the timing of all of the public improvements associated with the development and the developers' fmancial commitments related to these improvements. The agreement shall also include any and all other conditions of approval deemed necessary to insure compliance with the Special Minimum Requirements for Rezoning the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, as well as the goals and objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 SEC. 10.53.PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Subd. 1. Authorization: Planned unit development authorization may allow: A.Variety: Within a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of land uses, housing types and densities. B.Sensitivity: Through the departure from the strict application of required setbacks, ypid areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes, minimum requirements, and other performance standards associated with conventional zoning, planned unit development can maximize the development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics. C.Efficiency: The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in street lengths and other utility related expenses. D.Density Transfer: The project density may be clustered, basing density on number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions. E.District Integration; The combination of uses which are allowed in separate zoning districts such as: 1.Mixed residential allows both densities and unit types to be varied within the project. 2.Mixed residential with increased density acknowledging the greater sensitivity of PUD projects, regulation provides increased density on the property if a PUD is utilized. 3.Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within die project. F.Applicability: Utilization of this zoning district is limited to the Highway 12 Corridor as set forth in the City of Orono's Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2 adopted May 23, 1988. ORONO CC 359-2 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) ( 9^ J §10.53 Subd. 2. Allowed Uses; Uses within the PUD may include only those uses designated on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allowed uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan. The PUD development plan shall identify all the proposed land uses and those uses shall become permitted uses with the acceptance of the development plan. Any change in list of uses presented in the development plan will be considered an amendment to the PUD and will follow the procedures specified in Subd. 6 of this Title. Subd. 3. Required Standards: For the purpose of administering this ordinance, the City shall apply the standards contained in the conventional zoning district that is most similar to the proposed development. In the event of mixed-use developments, the Zoning-Admimstrator shall determine the appropriate underlying zoning standards, subject to the approval of the City Council. Furthermore, the City shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to achieve a maximum coordination between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the conservation of woodlands and wetlands, the protection of health, safety and welfare of the community and resident of the PUD. To these ends, the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with respect to the topography of the area and existing natural features such as streams and large trees; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of internal streets and driveways; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of parking areas; and such other matters as the Council may find to have a material bearing upon the stat ed standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Leuid Use Plan. Subd. 4. Coordination With Subdivision Regulations; Subdivision review under the subdivision regulations shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of the PUD. The plans required under this Chapter shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision ordinance for the preliminary and final plat. Subd. 5. Revisions and/or Changes. A.Minor changes in the location, placement and height of structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved and filed with the Zoning Administrator. B.Changes in uses; Significamt changes in the location, size, or height of structures, any rearrangement of lots, blocks and building tracts, changes in the provision of common open spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development plan may be made only after a public hearing conducted by the Council. Any changes shall be recorded as amendments to the recorded copy of the final development plan. ORONO CC 359-3 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) ---------------— r. P- r ‘ r.P r. §10.53 C.All of the provisions of this Title applicable to the original district within wWch the Planned Unit Development District is established shall apply to the PUD District except as otherwise provided in approval of the final plan. D.Review: If substantial development has not occurred within a reasonable time after approval of the PUD Zoning District as set forth in the Developer ’s Agreement, the City Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district. It shall not be necessary for the City Council to find that the rezoning was in error. Subd. 6. Phasing and Guarantee of Performance. A.The Planning Commission shall compare the actual development accomplished in the various PUD zones with the approved development schedule. B.Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and for good cause shown by the property owner, the Council may extend the limits of the development schedule. C.The construction and provision of all of the common open space and public and recreational facilities which are shown on ^e final development plan must proceed at the same rate as the construction of dwelling units, if any. The Development Re%iew Committee shall review all of the building permits issued for the PUD and examine the construction which has taken place on the site. If they find that the rate of construction of dwelling units is greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public and recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, they shall forward this information to the Council for action. D.A letter of credit shall be required to guarantee performance by the developer. The amount of this letter of credit, and the specific elements of the development program that it is intended to guarantee, will be stipulated in the development agreement. . Subd. 7. Control of Planned Unit Development Following Completion. A.After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, the use of the land and the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures within the planned development shall be governed by the final development plan. B.After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be made in the approved final development plan except upon application as provided below; 1.Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if they are ORONO CC 359-4 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) §10.53 consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this Section may increase the cube of any'building or structure by more than ten percent (10%). 2.Any building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed may be reconstructed only in compliance with the final development plan unless an amendment to the final development plan is approved imder Section 10.53 Subd. 5. 3.Any other changes in the final development plan must be authorized by an amendment of the final development plan under Section 10.53 Subd. 5. Subd. 8. Procedure for Processing a Plarmed Unit Development. A.Application Conference: Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Zoning Administrator. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this Title before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. 1.Purpose: The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: Overall maximum PUD density range. General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. General location and extent of public and common open space. d)General location of residential and nonresidential land uses with approximate type and intensities of development. e) 0 Staging and time schedule of development. Other special criteria for development. ORONO CC 359-5 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) i ► I • f.r. §10.53 2.Schedule: a)Developer meets wth the Zoning Administrator to discuss the proposed developments. b)The applicant shall file the concept stage application and preliminary plat, together with all supporting data. c)Within thirty (30) days after verification by the Zoning Administrator that the required plan and supporting data is adequate, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing. d)The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and malt// recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing and written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within three hundred fifty feet (350*) of the boundary of the property in question. e)The City may request additional information firom the applicant concerning operational factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. f)The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the Cit>' Council may proceed without the report. The Council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the entire Council. 3.Development Stage: Following general concept approval, if given, the applicant shall submit the development stage application and final plat. The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with Section 10.53 Subd. 8(D) for zoning district changes. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the concept stage and development stages may proceed simultaneously. 4.Applications: Ten (10) copies of the following exhibits, analysis and plans shall be submitted to the City: General Concept Stage: a)Preliminary’ plat and information required by subdivision Title. ORONO CC 359-6 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) ♦a 4 •§10.53 b)General Information: (1)The landowner's name and address and his interest in the subject property’. (2)The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner. (3)The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor. B/ a Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all legd, beneficial, tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered property report, and such other evidence as the City Attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the subject property. c)Present Status: (1)The address and legal description of the Property. (2)The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within one thousand feet (1,000') of the property. A map depicting the existing development of the property and all land within one thousand feet (1,000 ’) thereof and indicating the location of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations on and within one hundred feet (100') of the property. A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. ORONO CC 359-7 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) n- K' y| 'I f-■ f ■ I ^%•1 ;.: .’f’. ORONO CC §10.53 Site Conditions; Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (1" = 100'). (a)Contours; minimum two foot (2') intervals. (b)Location, type and extent of tree cover. (c) (d) Slope analysis. Location and extent of water bodies,* wetlands and streams and flood plains within three hundred feet (300') of the property. (e)Significant rock outcroppings. Existing drainage patterns. (g)Vistas and significant views. (h)Soil conditions as they affect development. All of the graphics should be the same scale as the final plan to allow easy cross reference. The use of overlays is recommended for clear reference. Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential and other land uses. A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as apercent of the total project area, which shall include at least the following: Area developed to residential uses. (b)Area developed to residential use by building type, Area devoted to common open space. 359-8 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) '»'4 € - ORONO CC §10.53 (d)Area devoted to public open space, (e)Approximate area devoted to streets. (f)Approximate area devoted to, and number of. off-street parking and loading spaces and related access. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office use. When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such state and overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. (9)When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. (10)Any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD. (11)Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and storm sewers. (12)The City may excuse an applicant ffom submitting any specific item of information or document required in this stage which it finds to be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal. (13)The City may require the submission of any additional information or documentation which it may find necessary or appropriate to full consideration of the proposed PUD. 359-9 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) ■r■■rtlTiiim^ii ’ ‘ 1 §10.53 ^ Development Stage: Development stage submissions should depict and outline the proposed implementations of the general concept stage for the PUD. Information from the general concept stage may be included for background and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The development stage submissions shall include but not be limited to: *5 ,r • K, a) b) ORONO CC A final plat and information required by the City subdivision Title. Ten (10) sets of preliminary plans drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals one hundred feet (1 ” = 100') (or scale requested by the Administrator containing at least the following information): (1)Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded in the county where the subject propert>' is situated). (2)Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant topographical or physical features of the property. (3)The location, size, use and arrangement including height in stories and feet and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of proposed buildings, and existing buildings wdiich will remain, if any. Location, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total site coverage of all circulation elements. (5)Location, designation and total area of all common open space. (6)Location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicated for public open space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites and recreational facilities. (7)Proposed lots and blocks, if any and numbering system. (8)The location, use and size of structures and other land uses on adjacent properties. 359-10 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) I Mu. ■f' - (L to..' r »; ’iU g) i) j) ORONO CC §10.53 (9)Detailed sketches and provisions of proposed landscaping. (10)General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD. (11)Any other information that may have been required by the Planning Commission or Council in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan. An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final development plan approval is sought. A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units and expected population. A tabulation indicating the gross square footage, if any, of commercial and industrial floor space by t>’pe of activity (e.t. drug store, dry cleaning, supermarket). Preliminary architectural "typical" plans indicating use, floor plan, elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, including mobile homes. A detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical layout, design and purpose of all streets, easements, rights of way, utility lines and facilities, lots, block, public and common open space, general landscaping plan, structure, including mobile homes, and uses. Preliminary' grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topography and natural site vegetation. The plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan. A preliminary plat prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance, A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts. Department of Natural Resources, Soil Conservation Service, or any other agency with review authority clearly illustrating erosion control measures to be used during construction and as permanent measures. Source: Ordinance 67,2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 359-11 (4-1-84) (5-8-89) ''A J>a~I'‘Tli II U rUff ■------If I II Ti'(I~' t 'SiI ■.-rtsi)-y i t » A/ N.Landscaping. 1. 2. 'y-z.- ‘f' a) b) c) Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the City, drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals 50 feet and shall show the following: a)boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions; locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads and other improvements; proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals; location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions; planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; locations and details of other landscape features including berms, fences and planter boxes; details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be sodded and seeded; location and details of irrigation systems; and details and cross sections of all required screening. e) g) h) i) Minimum Landscaping Requirements. a)All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and groundcover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: 8 i IV.'■ •» . tiu ■)«W '• K!? ftf.i :< /■. Project Value (Including building construction, site preparation, and site improvements) Minimum Landscape Value Below SI,000,000 $1,000,000 > S2.000.000 $2,000,001 - $3,000,000 $3,000,001 - $4,000,000 Over $4,000,000 2.0 % 1.7 % 1.4% 1.15% 1.0% In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development, the application of the standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance. A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2% inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 % inches. All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, patios, or similar hardsurface materials shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be pro\ided as part of each new development, except one and two family dwellings and additions to existing structures which do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in a natural stete. iMriniii........ i r f-i 1 if' ■ -f)Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species. No required tree shall be one of the following: 1)a species of the genus Ulmus (elm), except those elms bred to be immune to Dutch Elm Disease; 2)box elder; 3)a species of the genus Populous (poplar); or 4)female ginko. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. *.*» itt o.‘ ’:iurT‘».*’ > “xj zi iul.y-: a)All parking lots containing over 150 stalls shall be designed to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which are necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic shall not be subject to the “150 stall” standard and shall be required by the city when warranted. Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided vnth deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved by the Planning Commission. 4.Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, ’ tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape r ■hi " <f.’ ,vf n I ■ m plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of — notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. 5. 6. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one full growing season after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the awner and the surety. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which may not e.xceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. T 7.Screening and BufTering. ^ mi a)The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with the requirements of this subdivision: 1.Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto used for residential uses at a density of greater than 4 units per acre shall be buffered from residential lots located in any “R” district. 2.Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces shall be buffered from streets located within SO feet. 3.Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. 4.Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls,«arth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at the time of installation. • • pp Memo ^ k Bonestfoo gg Rosene V ■ Anderfik & |\J| Associates Inf*n«tn 4 A/cMi«cti Project Name: Orono Apartments Traffic Review To: From: Bryant FIcek Re: Traffic Flow for the Orono Apartments Client: City of Orono File No: 139-98-000 Dafe: 11/07/00 0 The proposed Orono Apartments will be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Trunk Highway (TH) 12 with Brown Road North in Orono, Minnesota. No development currently exists on this site. The current site plan, dated October 17,2000, shows Uvo buildings. One building is proposed to be an apartment complex with 70 dwelling units and would be located on the east side of the site, next to Brown Road North. The other building is proposed to be an office building with approximately 23,200 square feet of area and would be located on the west side of the lot. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ trip generation rates for developments of this kind, the following table shows the estimated traffic volumes to and from the site. Time Period Office I In building Out Senior I In housing Out Total Site In Trip Ends Out Average Weekday 130 130 120 120 250 250 AM Peak Hour 30 5 5 5 35 10 PM Peak Hour 5 30 5 5 15 35 Average Saturday 30 30 90 90 120 120 Average Sunday 10 10 95 95 105 105 As shown in the table, the site could expect about 250 vehicles in and 250 vehicles out of the site during a typical weekday according to the size and type of these developments. Site Access The current site plan shows the three access drives to and from the proposed development. The first access drive coruiects to Brown Road North on the east side of the lot. We would recommend aligning this site access drive, if possible, with the access to the bank and private homes on the east side of Brown Road North, creating one four-legged intersection rather than nvo closely spaced ‘T’ intersections. One lane in each direction on the access drive should suffice for the expected amount of traffic. From this full access driveway, motorists could continue south to the existing full access intersection of Brown Road North with TH 12. Motorists should expect delays at this intersection of Brown Road North and TH 12 due to the traffic volumes on TH 12. We would not recommend a signal at this TH 12 intersection since other nearby intersections in both directions on TH 12 have existing signals. The current geometries at this TH 12 intersection are also adequate for the expected amount of traffic. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates 2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fa.\: 651-636-1311 t '-t ‘It f«. • • N November 7, 2000 Page 2 of 2 The second access drive connects directly to TH 12, south of the proposed site. At the location of this access, TH 12 currently has a closed median. We would recommend a right in/right out only access at this location, leaving the mediaax>n TH 12 closed. We further recommend a short right turn lane be created from TH 12 into the access drive. By re-striping the existing markings with a short taper immediately following BrovMi Road North, this lane could be created without widening TH 12. One lane in each direction would suffice for the amount of traffic expected for this access drive. A third access is in the northwest comer of the site. Based on site plan drawings and field reconnaissance, we were unable to determine where this access leads. Further investigation will be needed before making a recommendation. However, we would not recommend this access if the drive connects into a residential area. Due to the high volumes on TH 12 arid the likely delays for vehicles turning onto TH 12 from the side streets, it is likely that many motorists would seek this route as an alternative to the other access drives. Thus, the amount of *cut-thm’ traffic in the connected area would likely increase dramatically. Internal Traffic Flow From the access directly off TH 12, motorists proceed to an internal intersection and are able to choose to go to the ofl^ce building or the senior housing. This allows vehicle trips to and from each building without disruption of activity at the other. The access drive connecting to Brown Road North does not provide this type of separation. Motorists using this access to and from the office building would be driving through the middle of the senior housing parking, creating safety concerns. Correcting this potential problem would require changes to the existing site plan. Some options include: •Swapping the location of each building so the office building is on the east side of the lot and the senior housing is on the west side of the lot. Although this may result in the undesirable situation of apartment residents driving through the office parking lot, office users are generally used to more vehicle activity in their building's parking lot. •Provide a separate drive aisle to the south of the senior housing parking. This puts the parking close to the building while allowing other vehicles to continue through the lot without disruption from parking activities. •Provide a separate drive aisle north of the senior housing building. Apartment parking could remain as sho\Mi or be shifted to the north side of the building as well. Either option would allow office useis to use this drive instead of going through the apartment parking area. Changes should be made to separate the office users from driving through the senior housing areas. The access drive in the northwest comer of the site could have motorists from the senior housing driving through the middle of the office parking, depending on where this access leads. Although not desirable, office users are generally used to more vehicle activity in their building’s parking lot. As stated before, this access drive and its relation to the internal traffic flow should be re-assessed when more infonnation is known. Pedestrian Movements To provide additional safety and encourage pedestrian movements, sidewalks should connect each building to the existing trail and sidewalk system, located on the east and south sides of the lot. This would allow people from either building another option to use to reach nearby land uses or for general exercise. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates 2335 West Highv.'ay 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax; 651-636-1311 Memo ^ I Bonestroo Rosene Aridedik & |\)| Asjodates lA^ttrs & A/cnit*ci • f Project Name: Orono Apartments Review To: Paul Weinberger From: Bryant Reek, Tom Kellogg Client: City of Orono F//e Wo; 139-2641 Date; 11/14/00 P /?e; Traffic Flow and other Issues for the Orono Apartments The proposed Orono Apartments will be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Trunk Highway (TH) 12 with Brown Road North in Orono, Minnesota. No development currently exists on this site. The current site plan, dated October 17,2000, shows two buildings. One building is proposed to be an apartment complex with 70 dwelling units and would be located on the east side of the site, next to Brown Road North. The other building is proposed to be an office building with approximately 23,200 square feet of area and would be located on the west side of the lo^ Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ trip generation rates for developments of this kind, the following table shows the estimated traffic volumes to and from the site. Time Period Office I In building Out Senior 1 In iousing Out Total Site In Trip Ends Out Average Weekday 130 130 120 120 250 250 AM Peak Hour 30 5 5 5 35 10 PM Peak Hour 5 30 5 5 15 35 Average Saturday 30 30 90 90 120 120 Average Sunday 10 10 95 95 105 105 As shown in the table, the site could expect about 250 vehicles in and 250 vehicles out of the site during a typical weekday according to the size and type of these developments. Site Access The current site plan shows the three access drives to and from the proposed development. The first access drive connects to Brown Road North on the east side of the lot. We would recommend aligning this site access drive, if possible, with the access to the bank and private homes on the east side of Brown Road North, creating one four-legged intersection rather than two closely spaced ‘T’ intersections. One lane in each direction on the access drive should suffice for the expected amount of traffic. From this full access driveway, motorists could continue south to the existing full access intersection of Brown Road North with TH 12. Motorists should expect delays at this intersection if this project is completed before MNDOT’s realignment of TH 12. As part of the MNDOT TH 12 project, South Brown Road will be realigned to be the fourth leg of the Brown Road/TH 12 intersection. MNDOT plans include signalizing this intersection. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates 2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul,MN55113-*- Phone: 651*636-4600+ Fax:651-636-1311 ill November 14, 2000 Page 2 of 3 The second access drive connects directly to TH 12, south of the proposed site. At the location of this access, TH 12 currently has a closed median. We would recommend a right in/right out only access at this location, leaving the mediarron TH 12 closed. Wc further recommend a short right turn lane be created from TH 12 into the access drive. By re-striping the existing markings with a short taper immediately following Brown Road North, this lane could be created without widening TH 12. One lane in each direction would suffice for the amount of traffic expected for this access drive. A third access is in the northwest comer of the site. Based on site plan drawings and field reconnaissance, we were unable to determine where this access leads. Further investigation will be needed before making a recommendation. However, we would not recommend this access if the drive connects into a residential area. Due to the high volumes on TH 12 and the likely delays for vehicles turning onto TH 12 from the side streets, it is likely that many motorists would seek this route as an alternative to the other access drives. Thus, the amount of ‘cut-thru’ traffic in the connected area would likely increase dramatically. Internal Traffic Flow From the access directly off TH 12, motorists proceed to an internal intersection and are able to choose to go to the office building or the senior housing. This allows vehicle trips to and from each building without disruption of activity at the other. The access drive connecting to Brown Road North does not provide this type of separation. Motorists using this access to and from the office building would be driving through the middle of the senior housing parking, creating safety concerns. Correcting this potential problem would require changes to the existing site plan. Some options include: Swapping the location of each building so the office building is on the east side of the lot and the senior housing is on the west side of the lot. Although this may result in the undesirable situation of apartment residents driving through the office parking lot, office users are generally used to more vehicle activity in their building ’s parking lot. Provide a separate drive aisle to the south of the senior housing parking. This puts the parking close to the building while allowing other vehicles to continue through the lot without disruption from parking activities. This will require locating the drive aisle a bit further south than originally shown. This will not impact the site any more than shown on the proposed grading plan. A sketch of this option is included with this submittal. Provide a separate drive aisle north of the senior housing building. Apartment parking could remain as shown or be shifted to the north side of the building as well. Construction of this drive aisle would impact an area north of the buildings not shown to be graded on the proposed grading plan. Either option would allow office users to use this drive instead of going through the apartment parking area. Changes should be made to separate the office users from driving through the senior housing areas. The City should evaluate the proposed access drive in the northwest comer of the site. This access could, at a minimum, provide access to the City’s pump house. Pgde«;trian Movements To provide additional safety and encourage pedestrian movements, sidewalks should connect each building to the existing trail and sidewalk system, located on the east and south sides of the lot. This would allow . people from either building another option to use to reach nearby land uses or for general exercise. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates 2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul. MN 55113+ Phone: 651*636-4600+ Fax:651-636-1311 November 14, 2000 Page 3 of 3 Grading and Drainaee The proposed grading plan shows the parking lot in the northwest comer of the site approximately 10 feet higher than the adjoining property to the south. We recommend this part of the site be lowered at least 4 feet. The retaining wall could then be eliminated and 4:1 slopes graded between the parking lot and the adjoining property. If the proposed grades are not revised the developer should work with the adjoining property owner to replace the existing timber wall with a segmental block retaining wall. The developer should provide storm sewer and ponding calculations for our review. i ‘m*V* o- , f ■ " Fit i.'A' ■- -A ' * , ■{ *;'! "t'J ti: n fij -■•irr V f ♦ ^ ■ f 0 r . * . V Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderllk and Associates 2335 West Highway 38+ St. Paul, MN 55113+ Phone: 651-636-4600+ Fax:651-636-1311 K-Wjttiftn k. kli I _ _ _ _\ RUN BATE l«/27/t«HEWIEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST BATCH SM PROP ABBR ONNCR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ABBR St S4>llt-2S 12 tilt •RABt BROWN RB N TANA R SCXBOLB TANA R OARRETT tSt BROWN RB N LONB LAKE HN S5SM PROP ABBR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 30 SA-118-23 21 ttlS •21t9 SUCARHOOB DR DIO ANLERS DAVIO N t OXANE R AHLERS 2119 SUBARWOOO DR LONB LAKE HN 55350 PROP ABBR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ABBR SB SA-11B-2S 21 OtlO l21tS SUBARWOOO DR R J t S B HOBAN RANDALL J I SARA B NOBAN 2115 SUBARWOOD DR LONB LAKE MN 55350 ■f PROP ABBR OWNER NINE TAXPAYER NANE/ABBR SB SB-118-23 21 0122 8218B SUBARWOOO DR B 2 BILL BPS BILL BRETCHEN Z B FRANCIS S BILL 21M SUBARWOOD DR LONB LAKE MN 55550 SB SB-11B-2S 21 BB25 I211B SUBARWOOO DR OWNER NANE \C TAKACN B N B TAKACH TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR CSABA B NARZA B TAKACH 2110 SUBARWOOD OR LONB LAK HN 55S50 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR SB SB-11B-2S 21 •028 •••SB ADDRESS UNASSICNCD SUBAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC SU6AR HOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/0 REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO S525 WEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 554U 0 3S 34-I1S-23 12 0007 00690 BROUN RD N ERIC J LARSON ERIC J LARSON 690 BROUN RD N LONG LAKE HN 55356 3B 39-11B-23 21 0016 02107 SU6ARUOOD DR T J B V A SHITH THOHAS J SHITH 2107 SU6ARUOOD DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 SB 36-118-23 21 0019 02101 SU6ARU00D DR RICHARD J I CONNIE L APPLE RICHARD J A CONNIE APPLE 2101 SUGARUOOD DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0023 02106 SUGARUOOD DR R H SCHOHHER I E H SCHOHHER R H SCHOHHER 8 E H SCHOHHER 2106 SUGARUOOD DR LONG LAKE m 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0026 02112 SUGARUOOD DR K G DERG i K H D BERG K 6 BERG I K H D BERG 2112 SUGARUOOD DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0030 00038 ADDRESS UHASSIGNED SUGAR UOODS HOHEOUNERS ASSOC SUGAR UOODS HOHEOUNERS ASSOC C/0 REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 UEBSTER AVE HPLS HN 55616 REPORT NO. P1635601 PAGE 19 38 36-118-23 21 0002 02160 UAVZATA BLVO U UILLIAH U UEAR A UIFE UIUIAH U UEAR 2160 UAY2ATA BLVD B306 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0017 02105 SUGARUOOD DR THOHAS J A VIRGINIA A SHITH THOHAS J A VIRGINIA A SHITH 2105 SUGARUOOD DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 36-118-23 21 0021 Q21C2 SUGARUOOD DR T H KINHES A A E KIHHES TODD H A ANITA E KIHHES 2102 SUGARUOOD DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 SfOTT pH ! 38 3B-11B-2S 21 0028 02108 SOOARWOOB DR N L RICKS B J H RICKS MICHAEL L/JAC9UELINE M RICKS 210B SUBARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 5S5SB f o‘ •J' 38 36-118-23 21 0027 02116 SUGARUOOD DR HCDONALD CONSTRUCTIOH INC HCDONALD CONSTRUCTION INC 7601 165TH ST U APPLE VALLEY HN 55126 V,) C 38 36-118-23 21 0033 00038 ADDRESS PENDING GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC 2190 U UAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE HN 55356 ^4# ’V'X IjO 'Wmm V .i( mm DATE lt/27/tE BATCH Bta HiNNEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY (MINERS LIST NOP AOM OWNER NAN TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR M S4-11B-2S 22 0115 •RRSa ADDRESS PENDING C t L OTTEN CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN BOX 2A9 LQNO LAKE HN SSSB4 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 34-11B-2S 2A R45B orrSb address unassicned SIDNEY B t BARBARA REBERS SIDNEY B A BARBARA REBERS SS25 WEBSTER AVE ST LOUIS PARK MN 55A16 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 72 S4-11B-2S 2« 8002 02073 WAYZATA BLVO W GREGORY H SHAUGNNESSY LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC 2073 W WAYZATA BLVD P 0 BOX 407 LONG LAKE NN 55354 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 72 34-11B-23 24 0015 00512 VIRGINIA AVE THOMAS JOHN KXELEY THOMAS JOHN KXELEY 512 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE HN 55354 OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 72 34-118-23 24 0027 00535 VIRGINIA AVE KEITH D HILLER KEITN 0 HILLER 535 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55354 k ft ADM ONMED NAHE TAXPAYER HAHE/ADDR 72 3A-118-23 2A 0034 02040 RAVZATA DLVD R HliNEL iUDDET RENTAL HIBHEt DUDOET RENTAL 2049 RAYZATA DLVD R LONG LAKE HN 55354 *’ ' i'-V ■M' 35 34-118-23 22 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED C I L OTTEN CLIFFORD I LOUISE OTTEN BOX 249 LONG LAKE HN 55354 72 34-118-23 13 0018 01977 RAYZATA BLVD R f S I P A G0SH6ARIAN PAUL t PATRICIA GOSHGARIAN 5945 LAKEVIER DR HOUND HN 55344 72 34-118-23 24 0013 00522 VIRGINIA AVE J J I S H RUFF CNERYL LYN RUFF 522 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE HN 55354 72 34-118-23 24 0025 02045 RAYZATA BLVD R D CREAR 8 H B CREAR DAN CREAR 1980 SPATES AVE RAYZATA HN 55391 72 34-118-23 24 0028 00525 VIRGINIA AVE GUY R FELDHANN GUY R FELDHANN 525 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE HN 55354 72 34-118-23 24 0039 02045 RAYZATA BLVD R J 8 H INVESTHENTS J 8 N INVESTHENTS 4341 KINGSVIEW U N NAPLE GROVE HN 55311 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 20 38 34-118-23 24 0001 02120 RAYZATA BLVO R RILLIAH REAR ETAL . RILLIAH R REAR - 34 HACKBERRY HILL LONG LAKE HN 55354 a.a 72 34-118-23 13 0071 01944 RAYZATA BLVD R STATE BANK OF LOHO LAKE STATE BANK OF LOM LAKE 1944 RAYZATA BLVD R LONG LAKE HN 5^5354 . - V . V.*J 72 34-118-23 24 0014 00522 VIRGINIA AVE J J 8 S H RUFF CHERYL LYN RUFF 522 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE HN 55354 72 34-118-23 24 0026 00545 VIRGINIA AVE D CREAR 8 H B CREAR DAN CREAR 1480 SPi^TES AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 72 34-118-23 24 0029 00515 VIRGINIA AVE 0 8 C SHEBY OVEN N SHEBY 515 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE HN 55354 % 72 34-118-23 24 0040 02065 RAYZATA DLVD R JOHN B DRISCOLL JOHN B DRISCOLL C/0 FCI 332 HINNESOTA ST 82100 ST PAUL HN 55101 rri /I icmM-' MM DATE i«/Z7/tt MTCH S0t n» Awt OWNER NAME TAXfAVER NANE/AODR ^ Idr--f“ 7t M-110-2S 24 0440 0207S WAVZATA tLVO W OREOORV H SHAU6HNESSV LONB LAKE FORD TRACTOR ZNC 207S W WAVZATA ILVD P 0 BOX 447 LONB LAKE HN S5554 OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 72 S4>110-2S 24 00A7 00001 PRENZER DR RJR HOLOXNOS CO INC RJR N0LO1N6S CO INC 1 PREHXER M LONB LAKE HN SS354 m r■ 1.■. ‘v m ■•■.F ;f. ."■V. HEIMEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORNATXON SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4S5401 PACE 21 72 34-110-23 24 0040 00540 VIRGINIA AVE PAUL S 60SHCARIAN ET AL P S I P 60SH6ARXAN 5045 LAKEVXEW DR HOUND m 55344 72 34-110-23 24 0052 02005 DANIELS ST QUENTIN P NEWSTROH ET AL LAKE ENGINEERING INC P 0 BOX 707 2005 DANIEL ST LONG LAKE HN 55354-0707 TOTAL BATCH 500 00040 V L<** /•/ lit:4/-OQ£±\j11 # Jji I tl ‘s>\ •i* •rJ.:! . *1 V':*.>•>: c. • I i il. I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE ^>'idSaaZfu^ 1. > >.■ To: From: Date: Mayor Jabbour and Council Members Michael P. Gaffiron, Senior Planning Coordinator December 8,2000 '•'Oil. meeting DEC 1 I 2000 CITY OHO/VO Subject:Update - RPUD Ordinance Attached is a recently revised version of the draft RPUD ordinance. This draft incorporates many of the comments made by Planning Commission and Council over the past 3 weeks. Also attached is an outline format of the ordinance, as well as a summary of Planning Commission comments from their 11/20 and 12/4 meetings. Revisions from the initial draft are shown in underline/strikeout format. Please give special consideration to the sections noted vsrith an asterisk. No formal Council action is required at this time; however, Council members should familiarize themselves with this proposed ordinance which is necessary to accommodate the Senior Housing project proposed by Frank Dunbar. I.-' , y, k' /'2.~S.-c>o /e«=V/s7o*^ SEC. 10.33 RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. ( 3rd Draft Incorporating Many Comments from Planning Commission and Council) Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Residential Planned Unit Development (P^UD) district is to provide a district which will allow for the implementation of certain residential housing goals established in the 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan (‘CMP’ or ‘Comprehensive Plan’V The RPUD District is established to accommodate the densities and types of residential development contemplated in the CMP bv incorporating the principles of the Planned Unit Development concept. The RPUD District will encourage the following; A. B. C. D. flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; provision of housing to meet lifecycle, and low affordable and moderate cost housing needs; energy conser\ ation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses; preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, poor soils and trees; E. F. G. high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city; and development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2.Permitted Uses. Within the RPUD District, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A.nny ‘Pcmiitttd Use’ as regulated in the R-IA District (Ed. Note: this includes one-family single dwellings; public owned parks and playgrounds; and municipal buildings). D.Multi-family attached dwellings only when consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and only within the areas of the City designated as Urban Area in the Comprehensive Plan. V mri HI ► •i L. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the RPUD district, no land or structure shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: (Ed Note: Conditional Uses listed In the R-IA District include Schools; Churches; Clubs, Camps, etc.; Public Service Structures; Greenhouses; Private Recreation Areas; Guest Houses & Guest Apartments; PRD *s; Duplex credit; Farms; Animals; Stables and Barns; Riding Academy; Plumbing in Accessory Buildings. None of the conditional uses listed In the R-I A District conceptuallyfit into the RPUD District, except perhaps Public Service Structures)._________________ a ■rt Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within 50’ from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare. Public service structures as defined above that have been approved by the City at required public hearings for public improvement projects shall not require a conditional use permit but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standards set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving design and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the City to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended plans by the Council. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public ser.'ice structures. Uses allowed by conditional use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the RPUD master development plan and with the applicable conditional use permit standards of this ordinance. Uses allowed by conditional use permit shall also be subject to site and building plan review pursuant to this ordinance. Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within the RPUD District the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use: A.Any accessor>' use except for “Roadside Stands ” as regulated in the R-1A District. B.Privately owned buildings to be used for recreation or social purposes, or for use as storage areas for maintenance equipment or rubbish. Subd. 5. Development Standards. Within the RPUD District all development shall be in compliance with the following: A.Minimum Area. Each RPUD shall have a minimum area of five acres, excluding areas within a designated wetland, floodplain or shoreland district or right-of-way, unless the applican t can demonstrate Council finds the existence of one of the following: 1.Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a RPUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2.The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has been developed previously as a RPUD or planned residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development; 3.The property is located in transi tional area betw cen diffe rent lan d use categories an area where the proposed development provides a transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan; 4.The property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of significant trees that could be preserved through the clustering of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by the existing zoning district. B.Uses. Each RPUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except that the city may permit a RPUD on a site designated for commercial use if the city council finds that such use is in the best interests of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this section. If a commercial site is to be used for a RPUD, the city may forward a copy of the request to the Metropolitan Council for review. (Ed. Note: Many of the uses allowed as conditional uses in residential zoning districts, cannot be placed in areas of the City which are designated residential in the CMP; for Instance, only properties currently containing schools or churches are designated in the CMP as Institutional rather than residential. The result Is that any existing site that is designated Residential in the CMP cannot be converted to an Institutional Use such as a church or school use, without a CMP amendment...) t’ ' f'. V C. D. E. F. Sewer Availability. A RPUD of proposed density greater than 1 unit per 2 acres must be in the MUSA and must be serv iced by municipal sewer. Density. Each RPUD shall have a density within the range specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the RPUD site. If the site is not designated in the Comprehensive Plan for residential use, the appropriate density shall be determined by the City based upon the City Council's finding that such density is consistent with the intent of this ordinance and of the Comprehensive Plan. Developments with proposed densities in excess of the densities contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan shall be allowed only on properties which are currently zoned and guided for commercial use, in order to maintain the character and integrity of the areas zoned and guided for residential use. Incentives. The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city ’s housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density (only for properties currently zoned and guided for commercial use) and floor area ratio requirements for developments providing lifecycle housing and Itrw affordable and moderate cost housing. Incentives for low affordable and moderate cost housing may be approved by the city only after the developer and city have entered into an agreement to ensure that the low and moderate cost units remain available to persons of low and moderate income for a specific period of time. Site Coverage. Hardsurfece coverages and floor area ratios (FAR’s) shall be limited as follows: Comprehensive Plan Designation M., tiiiium Hardsurface Coverage (%) Maximum Floor Area Ratio* Low or medium density residential (up to and including 6.0 units per acre) 50 0.5 High density residential (in excess of 6.0 units per acre) 70 1.0 Individual lots within a P.U.D. may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards. ■$ « r . i i'. * G.Setbacks, Separation of Uses, and Height Limitations for Attached and Multi-Family Dn elling Structures. The setback for all attached and multi­ family dwelling buildings and accessory buildings within a RPUD from any bordering or abutting street line shall be 35 feel for local streets and 50 feet from railroad lines or collector or arterial streets, as designated in the comprehensive plan, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building up to a maximum of 100 feet. The setback for all buildings from exterior RPUD lot lines not abutting a public street shall be 35 feet except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building up to a ma.rimum of iOO feet. Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a RPUD. The setback for parking structures including decks and ramps shall be 35 feet from local streets and 50 feet from all other street classifications except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the structure. Parking structure setbacks from external lot lines shall be 50 feet or the height of the structure, whichever is greater when adjacent to residential properties; 35 feet when adjacent to non-residential properties. Parking structure setbacks from internal public or private streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD, Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single family lots outside the RPUD. greater exterior building and parking setbacks may be required in order to provide effective screening. The city council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of uses. For properties guided for residential use in the Comprehensive Plan, a height limit of 2-1/2 stories or 30 feet shall apply. For properties currently zoned or guided in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial Use, height mav not exceed 3 stories (not including underground parking leveH and shall maintain a residential character bv incorporating pitched or hipped roof structure. No mansard or flat roofed multiple family buildings will be allowed. Areas within a RPUD which are designated in the approved master development plan or final site plan for residential use shall be considered a residential district for purposes of determining building and parking setback requirements on adjacent high density residential, commercial and industrial property outside the RPUD. i. L_ H.Development Standards for Single-Family Detached Dwellings in a RPUD. Each RPUD developed for single family detached dwellings on sites guided in the Comprehensive Plan for medium density residential development (i.e. densities ranging from 1 unit per acre to 6 units per acre) shall be subject to the following standards; ■' 1.Permitted locations: In areas of the City where smaller single family detached dwelling lots will allow for clustering to preserve significant natural features, or in areas where a mixture of higher density attached dwellings and lower density detached single family dwellings will result in a development that does not exceed the overall guided density. (Ed. Note - Example 1: A 10-acre area guided for 1-acre SFR could have 10 individual 1/3 acre lots clustered at on corner, leaving 2/3 of the site in its natural state for open space. Example 2: A 10- acre area guided for up to 4 units per acre could have a mix of SFR and town home lots, for instance - 20 SFR units at 15,000 s.f per lot (6.9 acu i total) and 20 townhomes on 2,000 s.f individual ownership pads with 2.2 acres commons area)_______________________________( 2. Minimum SFR lot size: 15,000 s.f. 3.Minimum lot width at the setback line: 90 feet. 4.Minimum lot depth: 125 feet. 5.Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet on internal streets within the RPUD. On exterior or through streets a setback of 35 feet must be provided on local streets and 50 foot setback on collector or arterial streets as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 6.Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet along interior lot lines; 15 feet on lot lines along the exterior of the RPUD. Side yards abutting streets must meet the minimum front yard setbacks as noted above. .1 7.Rear yard setback: minimum of 40 feet or 20 percent of the depth of the lot, whichever is less. 8.Building height: maximum of 30 feet or 2-1/2 stories. I f«T •” .*I. J. 1 9. 10. 12. 13. All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a depth of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their width. All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a width of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their depth. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with the Minnesota State Building Code. 11.Accessory structures shall conform to the setbacks established for principal structures, except as follows: A.all accessory structures located more than 10 feet from a principal structure may be located a minimum of 10 feet from a rear or side lot line, when that line does not abut a street right-of-way. B.no accessory structure shall be located closer to the front lot line than the principal structure, regardless of the principal structure setback. No accessory structiu« shall occupy more than 30 percent of the side or rear yard in which it is located, nor exceed 1,000 square feet in area, nor exceed 12 feet in height. Off-street parking shall be provided for at least two vehicles for each single family dwelling. A suitable location for a garage measuring at least 20 feet by 24 feet without a variance shall be provided and indicated as such on a survey or .site plan to be submitted when applying for a building permit to construct a new dwelling or alter an existing garage. More Than One Building Allowed, More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a RPUD. Single Housing Type Permitted. Any RPUD which involves a single housing type shall be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan. ■rnm I fri mf%ili i iPat >11111 JtmAA. .1 -t» V ivinjA n^i Id r—air rtna V. > i , K. ' cI'., ■ L. ml M. J-’K\ Park Dedication. Each RPUD shall provide a minimum of 8 percent of the gross project area in private recreational uses for project residents. Such area shall be for active or passive recreational uses suited to the needs of the residents of the project, including swimming pools, trails, nature areas, picnic areas, tot lots and saunas. (Ed. Note: This would be in lieu of park fee...) Ownership. All property to be included within a RPUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master development plan and final site and building plan. Signage. Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent co\ enants. N.Landscaping. 1. b) c) Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the City, drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals 50 feet and shall show the following: a)boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions; a)locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads and other improvements; proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour interv'als; location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions; planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; locations and details of other landscape features including berms, fences and planter boxes; details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be sodded and seeded; location and details of irrigation systems; and details and cross sections of all required screening. •e) g) h) i) 8 •^ L-.^V 2.Minimum Landscaping Requirements. a)All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of deciduous and coniferous species includin2 overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and groundco\ er materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: Project Value (Including building construction, site preparation, and site improvements) Minimum Landscape Value Below $1,000,000 $1,000,000-$2,000,000 $2,000,001 - $3,000,000 $3,000,001 - $4,000,000 Over $4,000,000 2.0 % 1.7 % 1.4 % 1.15% 1.0 % In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development, the application of the standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance. A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2% inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 '/j inches. ■t. ... im Vi*.•'i ir -.o All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, patios, or similar hardsurface materials shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development, except one and two family dwellings and additions to e.xi sting stmctures which do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in a natural state. Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species. Keep a separate schedule of prohibited species such as this: No required tree shall be one of the following: 1)a species of the genus Ulmus (elm), except those elms bred to be immune to Dutch Elm Disease; 2)box elder; 3)a species of the genus Populous (poplar); or 4)female ginko.______________________ 3.Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. a)All parking lots containing over 150 stalls shall be designed to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which are necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic shall not be subject to the "150 stall” standard and shall be required by the city when warranted. I il III II rr'r A <-li -t ----------—-J 'V Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved bv the Planning Commission. 4.Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground co\ er which are required by an approved site or landscape plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. 5.Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. 6.Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one two full growing seasons after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the awner and the surety. tf'The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which may not exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. 7.Screening and Buffering. The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with the requirements of this subdivision: 1.Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto used for residential uses at a density of greater than 4 units per acre shall be buffered from residential lots located in any “R” district. 2. Mm Off-Street parking facilities co .fining six or more spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50 I.jtl feet. 1 . **‘.3. .-‘i Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. 4.Trash storage facilities shuil uc screened from all lot lines and public roads. ii Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally hamionious with the principal building. Eartli berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Screening methods incorporating roofs o\ er storage, trash or liacent properties ■'f or buildings may be requierd. Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at the time of installation. O.Architectural Standards. 1.It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the Cit>' to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the City and shall show tlie following for all structures other than single family detached dwellings: elevations of all sides of the building; type and color of exterior building materials; a typical floor plan; I --- m dimensions of all structures; the location of trash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. 2.Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for residential principal and accessory buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessoiy buildings exc qjt those n ot visible from any exte rior pro p erty lin e. The ciK may, at its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels. 3.Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal structures. 4.All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior trash and recycling storage areas shall be fullv enclosed or screened so as to be not visible with materials compatible with the principal structure. Low-profi le, self con tain ed mechani cal units which blen d in with the building architecture are exem pt from the screening requiremen t. 5.Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially renovated structures (substantially renovated shall mean when the renovations exceed 30% of the pre-renovation Nalue of the structured. P.Flexibility. The uniqueness of each RPUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the RPUD. the surrounding area or the city as a whole. Q.Traffic Studies. The City may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer approved by the Ciw to assess potential traffic 4 t. impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. The plan may include travel demand management strategies, use of transit facilities or other appropriate measures to reduce traffic generation, and necessary improvements to road systems. The developer shall have the responsibility to install all necessary road system improvements. R.Building Permits. No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved RPUD nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved RPUD. S.General Regulations Applicability. The requirements contained in this ordinance pertaining to general regulations for residential districts and performance standards shall apply to a RPUD as deemed appropriate by the city. ?k T.POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL STANDARDS TO CONSIDER: Height limits for attached dwellings; screening car headlight impacts to adjacent property; shoreland zone limitations; special outside storage standards (PC recommends adding preclusion of outside storage such as boats, snowmobiles, RV’s etc) (PC also recommends not allowing the RPUD district in the Shoreland Overlay District) Subd. 6. Review of Application; Procedures. A.Concept Plan Review. In order to receive guidance in the design of a RPUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by the planning commission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is optional but is highly recommended for large RPUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain such specific information as is suggested by the city. Generally, this information should include the following: 1)appro.ximate building and road locations; height, bulk and square footage of buildings; type and square footage of specific land uses; number of dwelling units; generalized grading plan showing areas to be cut, filled and 2) 3) 4) 5) i CiJhnir,. (,^'w B. preserved; and 6)staging and timing of the development. The comments of the planning commission and city council shall address the consistency of the concept plan with this section. The comments of the planning commission and city council shall be for guidance only and, if positive, shall not be considered binding upon the planning commission or city council regarding approval of the formal RPUD application when submitted. 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Master Development Plan and Rezoning. Approval of a rezoning to RPUD and approval of a master development plan shall be subject to the procedures outlined in the Zoning Code for a zoning map amendment. The master development plan shall contain the following: 1)building location, height, bulk and square footage; type and square footage of specific land uses; number of dwelling units; detailed street and utility locations and sizes; parking layout; drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; grading plan and drainage plan including 2-foot contours; generalized landscape plan; generalized plan for uniform signs and lighting; plan for timing and phasing of the development; covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; and renderings or elevations of the entrance side all sides of buildings to be constructed in the first phase of the development. Approval of the master development plan shall indicate approval of the previously listed items and shall occur in conjunction with rezoning of the property to RPUD. After rezoning of the property to RPUD, nothing shall be constructed on the RPUD site except in conformance with the approved plans and this section. The procedure for notification of and public hearing on the master development plan shall be the same as required for a zoning map amendment by this ordinance. 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) i rrfi‘•■i-----------------^ r ♦.. c.Final Site and Building Plan. Approval of a final site and building plan for the entire RPUD or for specific parts of the RPUD shall be subject to the procedures outlined in this ordinance. The final site and building plan shall contain information as required by the city, including the following; 1)detailed utility, street, grading and drainage plans; 2)detailed building elevations and floor plans; and 3)detailed landscaping, sign and lighting plans. D.Substantial Compliance. The final site and building plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved master development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean: 1)buildings, parking areas and roads are in substantially the same location as previously approved; 2)the number of residential living units has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent from that approved in the master development plan; 3)the gross floor area of any individual building has not been increased by more than 10 percent from that approved in the master development plan; Ed. Note Items 2 and 3 need additional consideration per Planning Commission there has been no increase in the number of stories in any building; open space has not been decreased or altered to change its original design or intended use; and 6)all special conditions required on the master development plan by the city have been incorporated into the final site and building plan. Approval of a final site and building plan shall signify approval of all plans necessary prior to application for a building permit, subject to conformance with any conditions on the approval and subject to other necessary approvals by the city. I- illlAliliiftai ^1 I E.Simultaneous Review. Appli ant may combine th · fin I site and bui ding plan rev·ew with the master developm nt p·ar1 revi w submi ing all informs ion required for both s ages simultaneo sly F.Basis For Approval; .. Cond·tions. In e alua ing a stt and building Ian, the planning comm1ss1on and city counc I hall base their recommendat1ons and actions regardin approval of a RPUD on a consi erat1on of he folio ing: 1)compaf bi ity of th proposed plan i h this section and consis ency with the goals policies and objectives of h Comprehens ve Pan and rf."�c at r Management Plan· 2)preservation of the site in its n · tura state to th reatest extent practicable by minimizi g tree and soil r'"'mo al and desigrung gr e changes t be · ke pin ith th g n al character and appearance of n · hboring pr p rt· 3)creation of c m. tible ,elatio ______ ps b tween buildings and ope·.· paces both on the site d adjacent to i incorporating n tural ite � tures and · . ith x · sting and 1uture building having a · i u � lationship to• the de lopment · i in sp -·a1 att n ·on to· a an internal ense of order for the buitd·n s d _..,_.., b) c) n.the sit anc! pro ision of a d sirab n · ronm nt for occup nts visitors and the gen r · . ommunity· the am u t and location of p n pac and andsc pin m t ri t 0 an expres · ion f th compa ibil ty of th sam d tail� of con truction nc pt and th ith th adJacent and neighboring structures and uses and e ic ar an . pede�trian ir ulation inc ud1n al ways nteri r dri e and par ng i terms of locat1on and numb r c p p blic reet · idth of i t i r dri ��.:::,�=�� -i t ·� g · n ral 1nt rior circulatio d-"'....... d hicular traffic -·----••1•-nt · d ,.,.__ · t f par n . 1 4)promotion o e rgy conservation through d sign location orientation and elevation of structures the use and location of la s in structures and the u . of la dscap . materi s and sit radin 5)protect· ,n of adjac nt and n ighb ring properties through reasonable prov·sions for s rface wa er drainage, sound and sight buffers preservation o iews Ii h and ,.ir and those aspects of design not ad · quatel covered by other regulat ons \ hich may have substantial effects on n ighbo ·ng and uses.; and 6)uch ther fac o s as ·the planning commission or ci .. · council d��·!'!! r levant. T e plannin commi. ion an city council may attach such condif o to their ac · ons as they . all d term ne neces ary or conv ni t to e · r accomplish th· purposes f this ction. Subd. 7. T nn of Appro . aL If application has ot been made for a final site and buildin plan ppro al pursuant to the ppr \ d m ter de e opment plan for all or a part of the prope1i i ma RPUD by Dec m r 3 th · ar follo� ·ng the date on hich the RPUD zonmg map amendme· t b c __ ... _ e ectiv or 1f ,, i·h· that per· od no exte sion of ime has be n g ant d the city council may r one h prop rty t ·�h ri inal zon ng classifica · on at the time of the RPUD applic tio _ or to a zo in 1. ificat · n cun -istent ith the compr he siv� plan de igna · o for th property. n.e a sence o a re o in_ th a ro ed maste d v · lopment plan shal remain e legal c n.trol go erning de elopm nt · f th· p c rty 1n lud d within the RPUD. If ons c io o the pr p rty incl . d ,, hin an pproved final site and building plan has not start db D c mber 31 of th ar [I l1 \' _ J . h1 uch fl al ite and build n p an r a pro ed or i build"n on tru t· n in a h e of a R UD ppro · .d to be built in ph s s has no s·"'-"o!"!l,. .·thi this penod or I thin that nod no n · on o th time h ·n -ant d the city counc 1 m z n th prop th ori 1nal zorung cl ifi · a o a th time o the RP D ppl c tion or o zo._ .... ,.. cl · t nt ·th th mpr· h n · v pl des t on or th p p . . n th bs nc ~ nin the appro d r aster d l pm · nt · Ian and fi I i . and uildin plan .., ....... l r al ntr. o min d vel pment the property 1nclud d ·thin eRP D SEC. 10.33 RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOP . N DI T CT. Subd. 1. Purpose. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Subd. 3. Conditio al Uses. Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Subd. 5. Development Standard . A.Min .mum Area. B.Use • C.Sewer Avatlability. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L M. • T. Densi.ty. Incentives. Site Coverage. etbacks and Separation of Uses for Attached nd Multi-Family Dwelling Stru.cture De elopm nt Standard fo r Single-Fam ·1y· Detached wel ings in a RPUD. More Than On.e Building A lowed .. ing e Housing T pe Permitted. Park d·cation. O.·aer hip. Signage. Land caping • Landscap Plan Req rrements. 2.Minimum Landscaping Requirements. 3.Intenor P king Lot Landscaping. 4.M ·nt nance of Landscaping. 5.Retaining Walls. 6.Landscap g Performanc Security Required. 7.creening d Bufferin . Arcb·tectural Standards. e . iUty C tudi . Bu· ding P rmit . Ge e a.I Regulation Applicab · ity. OTENT A DI O S O CONSIDER. 1ht Im ror a t ·ch d d. ell n ; er n n c be Ught impa to adj c nt prope ; zon lim tatlon • peclal ou tde . tor tand r I Subd. 8. Amen ents. Major amendments to an ap: r ed master development plan may be appro ed by the city counci after r i by the planning omm1ssion. The notification and p · bl· heann procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the original RPUD. A major amendment is any amendment which: a)subst ntially alters the loca ion of buildings, parking a.rea or roads; b)increases or deer ases the number of residential dwelrng • nit by more than 5 percent· c)increases the gross floor ar a of any individual uilding b more than 10 p rcent; d)increases the number of stories o any building; ) decreas the amount of open p . by more than 5 percent or al er it in such a way as to change its original d sign or intended use; or f)creates non-compbance with an sp cial condition attached to the appro I of the ma ter de e opment plan. Any other amendment m y b made through re 1e and approval by a simp e majority vote of the planning comnussion. Subd. 9. ceptions. his section shall not apply to any residential P or PRO hich has recei ed preliminary or final appro al by the ci council prior to the effecti dat . of this ordinance -e such is req este by th p operty o iller d approved by the city c uncil. dditional Topic or Potenti I Inclusion: Phasing , d uaran e of Performance -M_ore detail d Ii to u. m·ssion :re ui ements (such as in 10.53, Highway 2 PUD section) I I Subd. 6.Review of Application; Procedures. A.Concept Plan Review. B.Master Development Plan and Rezoning. C.Final Site and Building Plan. D.Substantial Compliance. E.Simultaneous Review. F.Basis For Approval; Conditions. Subd. 7.Term of Approval. \ Xi Subd. 8.Amendments. Subd. 9. Exceptions. Additional Topics for Potential Inclusion: -Phasing and Guarantee of Performance -More detailed list of submission requirements (such as in 10.53, Highway 12 PUD section) l! ' i- l.r ^ ; •r W/.'V 'i i.. SUMMARY OF 12/4/00 GENERAL COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSION RPUD ORDINANCE (See also draft ordinance attached with pencilled notes) □Add language - "the only place where more than 2-1/2 stories/more than 30 ’ defined height will be allowed is where commercial property is rezoned to residential..." □ □ □ o □ □ □ □ □ Need financial numbers from Dunbar to justify 70 units vs lesser number (see Rusty) Based on parking need, site works better for lesser number of units at 2/1 ratio Any way to make this into two buildings of 25-0 units each? Massing is an issue due to height and length of building Also concerned about firefighting issues Add a preamble to better describe what our goals and intents are Limit 2 and 5-acre zones to single family, no multiple Limit the locations where apartments can be developed RPUD should not be allowed in Shoreland for now (but maybe consider it later...) Consider relating height to setback, or to sun angle related to adjoining lot lines, such as maybe consider limiting multiple family to 2 stories, but allow 3 stories if no winter sun blockage at adjoining lot lines; or if 3 stories, setback must be 1.5 times the peak height i SUMMARY OF 11/20/00 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS RPUD ORDINANCE Most comments were in regards to the issue of building height, primarily in regards to attached dwellings: should there be a height limit, and what should it be; if no height limit, should there be guidelines or criterir' for determining an appropriate height, or should it be entirely at discretion of Council based on the individual proposal. Individual Comments: □Should be standards, but in terms of stories □Perhaps should be a limit on number of stories rather than on height in feet □Limit the # of stories on lakeshore single family residential □Don ’t rule out taller commercial □Aesthetics need to be considered in dc'.*.’rmining appropriate height □Taller is maybe OK with mitigation such as greater setbacks, etc □Should be fmite limits, clear standards □Limit to treetop height □Standards needed, with flexibility □Need to review guidelines; we need guidelines, developers need guidelines if not a defined limit □There should be no restrictions, let Council decide on a case-by-case basis □We perhaps should consider whether current SFR height standard is appropriate □Possible limits could be based on: -Proximity to single family homes Topography -Comparison to adjacent uses -Proximity to lakeshore Clearly, there is not a strong concensus on whether or how to limit the height of attached dwellings in the RPUD district, nor on whether we should have guidelines for determining an appropriate height if we have no limit. Further discussion was tabled to a future works session to be held in Nov or Dec. Tabled, 6-0. Also tabled #2638 and #2639 to work session, 6-0. t; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: COOWrii ^^eET|^^G DEC I I 2000 Decemt^IrSJ^SOtt) Item No = 'V Department Approval:Adminbtratoi' Approval:Agenda Section: Planning & Zoning Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title* Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description:Assignment of New Road Name and Addresses: “Tonkaview Court” List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Map of Proposed Addresses C - 1898 Plat Map D - Current Plat Map E - Letter to Susan Koubsky 11/7/2000 F - Letter from Frank Koubsky 12/4/00 G - Letter to Neighborhood 2/6/89 H - Municipal Code Section 6 .40 “Numbering of Houses and Buildings' Background Six existing residences obtain driveway access from a privately maintained alley located between Tonkaview Lane and North Shore Drive. This alley outlets to Tonkaview Lane. The residences using the alley fall into two categories: 1) Homes which historically had driveway access and address assignments on North Shore Drive, but have previously or will soon remove those North Shore accesses (due to steep topography and the dangerous nature of the curve in North Shore Drive); and 2)Homes which have always accessed Tonkaview Lane \ ia the alley and have Tonkaview Lane addresses, but which do not abut Tonkaview Lane. This situation has resulted in delay of emergency responders on at least one occasion, because the responders could not find the home whose driveway accessed Tonkaview because it has a North Shore Drive address. For many years City staff have favored a reassignment of addresses in this area. Our goal has been to establish new addresses on Tonkaview for all homes using the alley, with numbers between 4735 and 4755 to maintain the correct numbering sequence. To take it one step further, establishment cf a new road name for the alley would further provide an identity distinction that will be immediately recognizable by emergency responders. -^'1 P PWT I -i^^,1 V 't II <' Tonkaview Addresses December 6,2000 Page 2 Proposed Changes Due to the efforts of residents Susan and Frank Koubsky, neighborhood consensus has apparently been reached to go ahead with road name and address assignment changes, as follows: 1.The alley (originally platted as Park Lane and Adams Street in 1888, the easterly portion vacated many decades ago, the west end \ acated in 1985) will be renamed “Tonkaview Court”. 2.New address assignments will be as follows: Owner Greenhagen Thompson Olson Koubsky Koopman Existing Address 4739 Tonkaview Lane 4750 North Shore Drive 4757 Tonkaview Lane 4784 North Shore Drive 4798 North Shore Drive Proposed Address 4739 Tonkaview Court 4745 Tonkaview Court 4749 Tonkaview Court 4751 T onkaview Court 4753 Tonkaview Court Tb/. Whitman residence at 4735 Tonkaview Lane also uses the alley, but because it abuts Tonkaview Lane, it will be allowed to continue with its current address. Additionally, Mr. Olson has agreed to the change conditioned on it taking effect for his property upon future sale of the propern . since he was assigned a new number just a few years ago and would be penalized by ha% ing to make a further immediate change. 3.The new road name and addtess assignments are proposed to become effective April 1, 2001 which will provide residents a 3-month time period in which to make the necessary arrangements. 4.The City will provide and install a new private road sign for Tonkaview Court at no cost to the residents. The residents will install an address signboard at the alley entrance to identify which homes use the alley. Residents will continue to receive mail from a bank of mailboxes on Tonkaview Lane. The affected pioperty owners have been mailed notice of this proposed change and of the meeting date, as have all owners of abutting property not directl) affected by the change. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing the new road name Tonkaview Court and assigning addresses as noted. ^m -rn •>: /r «• ^•■■I'-MMiHmaai ■a i r i.I arsa i acM rr V A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE ROAD NAME "TONKAVIEW COURT" WITHIN THE PLAT OF BERGQUIST AND WICKLUNDS PARK AND ASSIGNING NEW ADDRESSES TO CERTAIN ABUTTING PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municinal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Orono Municipal Code Section 6.40 authorizes the City Council to assign street names and assign street numbers according to the standard numbering plan adopted by the City; and WHEREAS, within the plat of Bergquist and Wicklund ’s Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, is a dedicated roadwaj system, portions of which have been previously vacated; and WHEREAS, the portion of said roadway system which is the subject of this Resolution is described as: The non-vacated portion of dedicated "Park Avenue" located between Blocks 2 and 3, Bergquist and Wicklund ’s Park, and the non-vacated portion of dedicated "Adams Street" located between Blocks 1 and 2, Bergquist and Wicklund ’s Park (hereinafter"the alley"); and WHEREAS, the alley provides the only vehicular access for a number ot abutting properties, and the alley is and will continue to be privately maintained by the owners of those properties; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to assign a new street name to the alley and assign addresses to abutting properties using the alley as their primary access per the City ’s standard sequential numbering plan, in order to provide for efficient delivery of emergency services and to eliminate public confusion in identifying and locating said properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, that the privately maintained alley herein described shall be henceforth known as "Tonkaview Court", Page 1 of2 Mir L... and the City shall assign numbers per the standard sequential numbering plan »o specified abutting properties as follows: Owner Greenhagen Thompson Olson Koubsky Koopman Existing Address 4739 Tonkaview Lane 4750 North Shore Drive 4757 Tonkaview Lane 4784 North Shore Drive 4798 North Shore Drive New Assigned Address 4739 Tonkaview Court 4745 Tonkaview Court 4749 Tonkaview Court* 4751 Tonkaview Court 4753 Tonkaview Court ♦New address to become effective upon next sale of the residence. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1.The City shall at no cost to the property owners provide and install a new private road street sign for Tonkaview Court. 2.All property owners using Tonkaview Court as their prinury vehicular access shall erect an address number signboard near the entrance to Tonkaview Court to identify their respective properties, and shall further post addresses on their respective residences per the requirements of Municipal Code Section 6.40. 3.The new addresses assignments shall take effect starting April 1,2001. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Miimesota this ll"* day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 2 of 2 % 1 .1 ---------^e 1ed abutting ldress :ourt' ,ourt �ourt• ' .ourt :ourt new private access shall t to identify r respective 11 th da of f I j .'., (e,� 'i>"'� // {'� �,...j "s/ r.:::-::7 :: E 'I r:. 'JI '(.... � I- C :,��� �b : "'o/U'l,t s� D It-Ive�v :;<'f/)N >(. A VI IE W J.AN € I \. 1-.. 1 sf; I I �o / l•J/.1 ( I./ � . �t.J I� ' • II :I ' I J . I 7 /tZ. 0 /� 1/���� .. �.���.✓ /J � � .. ,--½ . � � ' / I � . �,--�-// ./, .; I I I /Ma-P / - m /o '■%58«^^ CITY of ORONO Municipal OfTIces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 November 7,2000 Susan Koubsky 4784 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re: Suggested Address/Road Name Changes Dear Ms. Koubsky: As we discussed Monday morning, your address and addresses assigned to certain other properties in your neighborhood do not reflect the actual access location for those residences. This could potentially result in emergency vehicles responding to an incorrect location, and as we all know, in an emergency seconds count. The pending relocation of your driveway access from North Shore Drive to the platted alley makes this the perfect time to revise addresses in the neighborhood, both for emergency services efficiency and to make it less difficult for visitors to locate you. Enclosed is a map of your neighborhood showing the existing house numbering with proposed new address assignments. Both the Police Chief and Public Services Director approve of the idea of renaming your private road as "Tonkaview Court". Anyone trying to locate your homes will know that they are in the right area when they find Tonkaview Lane, and that they should look for a short access street. The numbers assigned on Tonkaview Court must be odd numbers between 4735 and 4755, since the access road is between those two existing Tonkaview Lane addresses. It is necessary to keep the Tonkaview numbering sequence intact and avoid any numbers that would duplicate those on Tonkaview Lane. The following address changes are proposed: Owner Existine Address Proposed Address A^Tiitman 4735 Tonkaview Lane 4735 Tonkaview Court Greenhagen 4739 Tonkaview Lane 4739 Tonkaview Court Thompson 4750 North Shore Drive 4745 Tonkaview Court Olson 4757 Tonkaview Lane 4749 Tonkaview Court Koubsky 4784 North Shore Drive 4751 Tonkaview Court Koopman • 4798 North Shore Drive 4753 Tonkaview Court Telephone (952) 249-4600 •Fax (952) 249-4616 wMrw.ci.orono.mn.us Lr Susan Koubsky November 7,2000 Page 2 These address changes would not be officially put into effect until you have had a chance to review this with your affected neighbors and gain their concurrence. City Council action is required to approve a street name revision. I would expect no objections from the Council, and will be pleased to present the change for Council action at such time that neighborhood acceptance is gained. Once the Council approves the changes, the City will (at no cost to the neighborhood) install a "Tonka\iew Court" street sign at the entrance. As an alternative, we could assign Tonkaview Lane addresses to the 3 homes currently using North Shore Drive addresses. The Olson address should be changed from 4757 Tonkaview Lane to 4749, to maintain the numbering sequence. If your neighborhood chooses to retain the Tonkaview Lane address system, it is imperative that the neighbo»'hood construct a nameplate sign at the entrance to the private road so that emergency services and visitors can easily locate you. Please contact me at 952-249-4600 if I can answer any questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator cc: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Greg Gappa, Public Services Director Gary Cheswick, Police Chief ->1. ■■■llMlTlfcMiiirfnfI t > - ------------ December 4,2000 Michael Gaffron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Suggested Address/Road Name Changes Dear Mr. Ganron: As we have discussed, the pending relocation of our driveway brings up the issue that most of the addresses in our neighborhood do not reflect the actual access locations for the residences. I have contacted the five other homeowners in the neighborhood and the general consensus is that our addresses should be revised to correctly reflect our actual location. From what I understand, there has been an incident in the past where an emergency vehicle could not locate one of these residences because of the confusing addresses. One of the neighbors has also indicated that she gets numerous people stopping at her house trying to locate the other neighbors. Therefore, your proposed address revision will be a practical change and a safeguard to this neighborhood. The proposed name of Tonkaview Court is a logical solution, seeing that we are a small access off of Tonkaview Lane. We would like to ask for a deadline of March 31, 2001 to complete the address revision. The installment of the “Tonkaview Court” street sign at the entrance to the private road will ensure the safety and efficiency of our neighborhood address system. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, -------------------------------- 'rank Koubsky 4784 North Shore Drive 952-472-1896 i . >. December 4,2000 Michael Gaffron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Suggested Address/Road Name Changes Dear Mr. GafTron: As we have discussed, the pending relocation of our driveway brings up the issue that most of the addresses in our neighborhood do not reflect the actual access locations for the residences. I have contacted the five other homeowners in the neighborhood and the general consensus is that our addresses should be revised to correctly reflect our actual location. From what I understand, there has been an incident in the past where an emergency vehicle could not locate one of these residences because of the confusing addresses. One of the neighbors has also indicated that she gets numerous people stopping at her house trying to locate the other neighbors. Therefore, your proposed address revision will be a practical change and a safeguard to this neighborhood. The proposed name of Tonkaview Court is a logical solution, seeing that we are a small access otT of Tonkaview Lane. We would like to ask for a deadline of March 31,2001 to complete the address revision. The installment of the “Tonkaview Court” street sign at the entrance to the private road will ensure the safety and efficiency of our neighborhood address system. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, >Frank Koubsky 4784 North Shore Drive 952-472-1896 iirtamjittfc-ngifti.-m.TmirTrifrUii l fri 1//l.-r. A.. /{1 I ({.CITY ----OR 0 66 • Cry!lt.al Bay, Minn ta 23 • Municipal Offi On th ·rth hor f Lak .',f inn tonk a Febru ry 6, 1 89 Tonkavi w L n /�orth Shore Drive Pro r Re: Addre s A signm ents Ow ers De r Property ow r: The Building ns�e ction and Polic De rt ments ave exp• esse d a concern thc:t dr e sses ss gn ed to cer ain prope rties in the Tonkaview/North Sore Dri ve are do not reflec e actual access loca tion for tho e res d nc This could �otent· 11 result in emerg ncy vehicles re � ndi g to a o r _c t location, and 11 know, in n em rg ency e onds count. Th c tica 1 a o cern 1s the � ri a e driveway access be tween4735 and 4755 Tonkav� w n. T s ivate dr ve ay, while being wi hi n a public right-of-w�y, s r el ma intain ed an serves 4 residences as e only me n of ehic la r ac The re 1s a �o te nc al fo r t le ast 1 ddition 1 residenc o be co r cted that wou d use tha dr·veway, and h 6th it ng res de c cc ess bo t to t is rivate d nd to rth hore nr v R rding ro is whose on cular access i via th·s driveway, for a y �ur�o es be be we en 4735 and 4755 Tonkavie Lane. Thi me n t _ ce s 750 and 4798 o t Shore Dr e wou d be changed to 4745 onk v L e nd 4753 To kaview La res�ect vely, if t e change do ted. Te residence at 4784 r h Shore Drive could keep a er , because i · has a direc drivewa ccess o orth Shore Drive vac n cur rently nown as "4760 Sho e D e• would be a ign d er a ent add ress once the hou w s co s ructed a d permanent acces on dee ded i 0 Tonk og t ·e on, b u e t .r g st again for s db �o e affec ted rec pro ri • n TIO. Fl.. o n g • ew y co r ences Pl IC R - l· d/or Tonkaview Lane/North Shore Drive Property Owners Re: Address Assignments February 6» 1989 Page 2 of 2 The troterty owners at 4750 aiscu ”°the ptOEOsed Drive are encouraoed to contact me at 473 address change. Sincerely» Aslt*piannlng 4 Zoning Administrator SnclosSre - Map of Affected Area cc:=; I: sr ^r"h;rdi:i"Director U:ir"E'‘U?nh.rSi:n,iitfid:inistrator KO^erty^ners: 4735 Tonkaview Lane ^4739 Tonkaview Lane 4715 North Shore Drive 47 84 North Shore Drive 47 98 North Shore Drive 4760 North Shore Drive (vacant)I i Tonkaview Lane/North Shore Drive Property Owners Re: Address Assignments February 6, 1989 Page 2 of 2 The crocerty owners at 4750 North Shore Drive and 4798 North Shore Drive ar/ encou\yed to contact on at 473-7357 to dlacuss the proposed address change. Sincerely, Michael P. Ga&fron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/tln Enclosure - Map of Affected Area cc:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building fi Zoning Administrator Thomas J. Jacobs, Building fi Fire Inspector Lyle Oman, Field Inspector John Gerhardson, Public Works Director Melvin Kilbo, Chief of Police Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Property Owners: 4735 Tonkaview Lane 4739 Tonkaview Lane 4715 North Shore Drive 4784 North Shore Drive 4798 North Shore Drive 4760 North Shore Drive (vacant) •.vv •• •• • V • ••• »■ •• «• ^ « •» w .*. * .* - . % • • «»« , • •. :v • • • •* * •••««^ #«l* • •. ;-ir.,TJ ‘:. r/ ’‘-.li!. ••* ••»«•• • • • •* % r. '..I firiiii «• »• • V.- •• • • • •' ••♦ <;tAfrCA4‘ V_____tf ^towsc /^i)frt5C -”T 1. C^^ACw Cci*JTi "re* rn*<rT . -•//—• • • -• CP’ (Jj) 4'V ac 4a ^T AoT [• sjhrCOVjt^ ptlSVlC- 4B = - . ^<»MTS-CF-C^Ar^f LAkC ^nl<!A • E. §6.40 SEC. 6.40. NUMBERING OP HOUSES AND BUILDINGS. Subd. 1.'- Duty of Owner or Occupant. The owner or occupant of every occupied property and every house or other building shall place on such building the proper street number for such building, either by painting or affixing such number so that the number shall be clearly visible from the sidewalk or street. A.Where the house is not visible from the street or private road, or is located more than 300 feet from such street or road, an additional set of numbers shall be placed on a sign at the driveway apron with numbers visible in both directions of travel on the street. B.Where more than one house is served by the same private driveway or unnamed private road, additional sets of numbers shall be placed at every fork or other driveway as necessary to direct traf fic to every house including the house farthest from the street. C.Numbers placed on mailboxes are insufficient to satisfy the provisions of this Subdivision except when mailbox stands on subject property, not across a public street, and not in a group of mailboxes more than one in number. D.The minimum size for numbers shall be three inches. E.Numbers shall be reflective or of color contrasting with background. Subd. 2. Assignment of Numbers. The City shall assign numbers in accordance with the standard plan adopted by the City and shall approve and assign all street names by action of the Council. Subd. 3. Unlawful Act. It is a misdemeanor for any person to fail to comply with the provisions of Subdivision 1, or to post numbers other than the correct City-assigned numbers. If the property owner fails to comply with the requirements of this Section, the City may erect a sign adjacent to the street on which the number is stated or affixed, and upon completion thereof, ascertain the cost and certify the same to the County Auditor to be collected as any other special assessment. Source; City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 6.41 through 6.44, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 153 (4-1-84) u M REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 'MCIL meeting DEC 1.1 2000 CITY OK OHO/vo Date: November 30, 2000 Item No.: |“| Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Planning & Zoning Item Description:Termination of Interim Building Permit Procedures for Storm Damage Lbt of Exhibits A - May 18,1998 Memo re: Interim Building Permit Procedures for Storm Damage In order to effectively respond to the May 15,1998 storm which caused extensive damage to many properties in the Lake Minnetonka area. City staff immediately developed and implemented a set of Interim Procedures for permitting damage repair and restoration. The Interim Procedures addressed re-roofing permits, building permits, regulated trees within 75* of the shoreline, and burning permits. The Interim Procedures were not formally adopted by Council, and no termination date was specified. It is staffs opinion that in the 30 months elapsed since the 1998 stomi, all known structures suffering damage have been dealt with, and the Interim procedures should be formally terminated as of January 1,2001. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to formally terminate the Interim Building Permit Procedures for Storm Damage. Proposed motion: Moved by ___, seconded by __to formally terminate as of January 1,2001 the Interim Building Permit Procedures for Storm Damage which were implemented by the City on May 18,1998 in relation to the May 15, 1998 storm. Vote: __ayes,__nays. I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Secretarial Staff Lyle Oman, Building Offxial EXHIBIT A May 18,1998 Interim Building Permit Procedures for Storm Damage Re-Roof Permits O.K. to issue re-roof permit as before to licensed roofmg contractors or homeowners. Structural damage to roofs must be reviewed by Bruce or myself before repairs are made. Structural changes in ^he course of repairs will require a zoning and building code review. Buud ig Permits All building permits require review. Houses, decks, sheds and garages with 75% or less damage may be replaced without meeting zoning standards (setbacks, hardcover, lot coverage, etc). But requires a building code review and permit. Residents wishing to make changes beyond the repair requires building and zoning review. Trees Within 75-of Downed trees may be removed without inspection and approval. Damaged trees require inspection and possible replanting will be required. Trees beyond 75' of lake are not regulated. -Trees that have fallen from City property refer to Jack. Burning Permits Will not be issued for storm damage because the material will be to green to bum without producing too much smoke and odor. Please prepare a daily list of permits issued. Bruce will take it with him to keep track of work going on. . V- V. » REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 8, 2000 ITEM NO: j $ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Appointment of Police Chief At its December 7 work s :ssion, the Council determined the top candidate for the l‘c.' e Chief position was Stephany Good, and directed the City Administrator to offer the Police Chi,-.' position to her and to work out an agreement regarding employment terms. I have offered the position to Stephany and have initiated discussion regarding the terms of her employment. As she was out of town and unavailable for £in extended discussion on both December 7 and 8,1 will meet with her on M )nday, December 11 to w'ork out a set of employment terms that are acceptable to her and the City. The City Council will then be able to approve the appointment, as well as the employment terms at the December 11 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to appoint Stephany Good to the position of Police Chief, and to approve the terms of her employment with the City. Ip rf. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Vi Co«lM/-»|| mphtinQ DEC 1 1 2000 DATE: ITEM NO:/ f Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Mike Gaffron Position Reclassification Background Mike Gaffron is currently in the position of Senior Planning Coordinator. Mike fills many roles for the City and, particularly in recent years, has grown tremendously in the scope and level of his responsibilities. Mike has taken on a leadership role in the planning and zoning area, both in terms of major projects (Comprehensive Plan update) and in terms of providing advice and assistance to the planning and zoning stall'. Mike has stepped into this role due to both his expansive knowledge and understanding of the City’s development philosophy, and the need for the Public Services Director to focus his efforts in the areas of public works, parks, engineering and public improvement projects. Mike has also worked closely with the City Administrator on a number of projects, and has filled in for the City- Administrator at a number of City Council meetings. The planning and zoning function, which includes three positions (Senior Planning Coordinator, Planner/Zoning Administrator, and Planner/Assistant Zoning Administrator) is in the Public Services Department along with public works maintenance and building/septic inspection. Two of these functions, public works maintenance and building/septic inspection, have supervisors who report to the department head. The planning and zoning function does not have such a supervisor. All planning and zoning staff report directly to the department head. As indicated above, Mike Gaftron has informally taken on a leadership role in the planning and zoning area. It is recommended that this informal relationship be formalized such that Mike is given formal supervisory authority and responsibility for the planning and zoning function within the Public Services Department. Designation as Acting City Administrator Periodically, the City Administrator is away from the City and unavailable due to vacation or out of town conferences. During these times, it is important there is someone designated to deal with issues requiring action that may arise in the absence of the City Administrator. In recent years, Mike Gaffron has informally filled this role. It is my recommendation that Mike Gaffron be formally designated to serve as the Acting City Administrator in the absence of the City Administrator. Position Reclassification The recommended changes in the duties and level of responsibility have been retlected in a revised position profile that has been evaluated through the City’s job evaluation system to determine where Request for Council Action continued Page 2 December 7,2000 Mike Gaffron Position Reclassification the position should be placed in the City’s pay schedule. The results of the job evaluation process move the position from Level 5 to Level 6 in the City’s pay schedule, which increases the salaiy- from $55,088 to $59,216. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve a position reclassification for Mike Gat Iron to place his position into the supervisory/administrative pay schedule at Level 6, to change the position title to Planning Director, and to adjust Mike Gaffron’s salary to Step 4 of Level 6 effective December 11, 2000; and to designate Mike Gaffron as Acting City Administrator in the absence of the City Administrator. Jei ' ^ '4-y\ I ‘y *' r *Ik ' ^onMnii f<cp-f|jsiG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ On r Or onu/vo DATE: December 8,2000 ITEM NO: ^ 0 Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name RonMoorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Resignation of Chris Pence Chris Pence, the City’s Septic Inspector has submitted his resignation to be effective December 15, 2000. Chris is resigning to take advantage of a unique opportunity overseas. Cliris has done an outstanding job for the City and will be greatly missed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the resignation of Chris Pence from his position as the City’s Septic Inspector effective December 15,2000. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION '' ^^EETINQ OEC I I 2000 Lii r DATE: December 8,2000^^^'''° ITEM NO: ^ / Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed: 0) Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Proposed 2001 Fee Schedule Attachment: A. Proposed 2001 Fee Schedule Ordinance B.Summary Ordinance The proposed 2001 Fee Schedule Ordinance and Summary reflecting the proposed changes are attached. The proposed changes include: Clerical additions and changes to information related to Zoning Applications. Various changes to Construction Permits and Inspection Fees. Increase in cost per copy of Comprehensive Plan. Increase in Firearms Permit to Carry. Reduction in recycling bin cost due to funding from West Hennepin Recycling Commission for recycling bins. Increase in cost of street sign. Addition of fee for address change requested by owner. 2.8% increase in sewer rates and 3.2% increase in water rates. Increase in all sanitary sewer and water connection charges. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached ordinance adopting the City's Fee Schedule for 2001 and Summary Ordinance for publication. h$. ORDINANCE NUMBER 200 . SECOND SERIES SUMMARY APPROVED The Council hereby determines that the text of the summary' of this ordinance marked "Official Summary of Ordinance Number 200 . Second Series," and a copy of which is attached hereto, clearly informs the public of tne intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determines that the publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 200 . SECOND SERIES ORDINANCE NO. 200 . SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2001 FEE SCHEDULE AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 194, SECOND SERIES; NO. 195, SECOND SERIES; AND 197, SECOND SERIES The following is the official summar>’ of Ordinance Number 200 . Second Series approved by the City Council of the City of Orono on December 11,2001. The following sections have changes, additions and/or deletions: DESCRIPTION 2000 FEE 2001 FEE CODE SEC. ZONLNG APPLICATIONS Rip-Rap Staff Review (normal rip-rap)No Charge No Charee fMCWD Permit Required) Subdivision Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) $400.00 + $30.00/Iot ($450/3 lots; $475/4 lots) $400.00 S30.00/lot tS460/2 lots; S490/3 lots: S520'4 lots, etc) II.10. Subd 10 (C) Park Dedication Fees I Cash Contribution in Lieu of Land The City has established by resolution a minimum residential park fee of S3,100 per dwelling unit and a maximum of SS.300 per acre. Resol. No. n2-n-oo') The City has established by resolution a minimum commercial/industrial park fee of $7,250 per dwelling uniracre and a maximum of $ 12.250 per dwelling tmitacre. Resol. No. 4216 n2-l4-98) CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES Dock-Residential [Permanent tC’JP Reouircd> and Initial Seasonal] • DESCRIPTION 2000 FEE 2001 FEE CODE SEC. Sprinkler Systems - Commercial (move to Fire Protection) Fire Sprinkler System $35.00 minimum fee $35.00 minimum fee 1.25% of contract price 1.25% of contract price Surcharge based on valuation Surcharge based on valuation Kitchen Fire Extinguishing System $35.00 Per 1997 UBC/SBC Stand'.rd Schedule On-Site Systems Ord. 210 Subdivision site Evaluation Report Review $50.00/new lot $60.00/new lot Non-Residentiai System Permits:$100.00 + $20.00 per each $100.00 + $20.00 per each New or Total Replacement inspection over 4 inspection over 2 Partial Replacement $60.00 + $20.00 per each $60.00 + $20.00 per each inspection over 4 inspection over 2 Grading, Excavation, Filling 500 cubic yard SOOcubic yard 500 cubic Yards or less $50.00 (staff permit)+engineering $50.00 fstaff permiO + actual fees if required engineering fees if required ($100.00 if engineering fee (S100.00—if—engineering—fee necessary)necessary) •$25.00 oer each insoection over 1st 501 + cubic yards $75.00 + Conditional Use Permit +$50.00 + Conditional Use Permit+ $25.00 per each inspection over $25.00 per each inspection over 1st 1st LICENSES & MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Zoning Department Documents Comprehensive Guide Plan -1980 (with amendments)$30.00 $50.00 2Q00-2020 Comprehensive Plan $75.00 Police Department Administered Firearms Permit to Carry $15.00 $25.00 • Fingerpritnting Service $25.00/application - RESIDENT $25.00.'application for 2 Cards -• ONLY (Citizenship No Charge)RESIDENTS ONLY- $ 13.00 each for 2 Cards - $13.00 each additional card additional (Citizenship No Charge) DESCRIPTION 2000 FEE 2001 FEE CODE SEC. PUBLIC WORKS SUPPLIES & SERVICES Recycling Charge Recycling Container - Initial for new residence $23.08/year No Charge S23.08/year No Charge Replacement Container (including sales tax) Wheel Kit $9.00 $3.00 $5.00 Street or Traffic Signs (sale includes installation)$75.00/std sign $100.00/std. sign Address Chance Rcauest bv Owner $50.00 oer address UTILITY SERVICE RATES - EFFECTIVE BEGINNING FIRST QUARTER 2001 MUNICIPAL SEWER RATES by unit: 1st 2nd by flow: 20o0 $ 81.85 perqtr. $ 74.10 perqtr. $ 3.07/1000 gallon plus $ 7.75 per quarter per connection 2001 584.10 oer Quarter $76.20 Dcr Quarter S 3.15/1000 gallon plus S 7.95 per quarter per connection MUNICIPAL WATER RATES Navarre Area Billing & Ready to Serve Chg Water Usage Rate Unconnected Property Chg $23.20/qtr $ 1.97/1000 gal $ 23.20/qtr S 23.95/qtr S 2.03/1000 gal S 23.95/qtr Highway 12 Area Billing & Ready to Serve Chg Water Usage Rate $ 8.50/qtr $ 2.73/1000 gal S 8.75/qtr S 2.81/1000 gal Chevy Chase Area Billing & Ready to Serve Chg Water Usage Rate $ 8.50/qtr $ 2.18/1000 gal S 8.75/qtr S 2.18/1000 gal (no change) Sewer Projects By District - Project 1963 ST-IA, LS-IA, ST-IB, LS-IB 1964 LS-lAorLS-lB 1965 LS-1 1965 LS-1 A 1967 LS-1 1969 LS-I Shore Hills 1969 LS-2 Chevy Chase 1970 LS-1 Saga Hill 1971 LS-1 Dunwoody 1973-1 1980-1 Minnetonka Bluffs 1980-1 West Femdale/County Road 15 1980-1 Orono Lane 1980-1 County Road 15/Marinas 1980- 2 North Shore Drive/Scotch Pine Ln 1981-1 North Shore Drive/Highwood 1982-1A Navarre Utilities 1982-IB Navarre Utilities Northern Ave 1985-1 Crystal Bay 1983-1 Highway 12 Orono-Long Lake-Medina 1989 Highway 12 1992 Stubbs Bay Sewer I Stubbs Bay NE/NW-Bayside East II Bederwo^ III Bayside North . IV Oxford V Cygnet and Leaf 1997 Sewer 97-1 North L.L./L.L.C.C. 97-2 Bracketts Point 97-3 Bay Ridge 1998-1999 Sewer 1998 Shorelinc.'Heritage 99-1 Orono Orchard 99-2 Edgewood Hills 2000 Sewer 2000-1 Webber Hills 2002-2 Fox Ridge 2000-3 East Long Lake Unit Charge + 2000 2001 S5r210.00 S5;210.00 S5.210.00 S5;2HH)0 55.-^10:00 S12;920.00 59,065.00 59,06 5.00 59,065.00 512.920.00 511.215.00 526:050.00 5 20,-840.00 587740d)0 526,050:00 SI0.4tf:00 $2,850.00 $465.00 (trunk unit acre/unit) $13 560:00 $1,325.00 $15,265.00 $23,-635.00 $20,010.00 528.245.00 522.825.00 $19,885:00 $33,100:00 $17,6'?5;00 516 .700:00 522,000.00 527.960:00 57;250-.e0 516.000.00 512.-700.00 $5.425.00 $5.425.00 $5,425.00 $5.425.00 $5.425.00 $13,460.00 $9.445.00 $9.445.00 $9,445.00 $13.460.00 $11.685.00 $27,140.00 $21.715.00 $9.100.00 $27,140.00 $13.975.00 $2.970.00 $485.00 $14.130.00 $1,380.00 $15.905.00 $24.625.00 $20.850.00 $29.430.00 $23.785.00 $20.720.00 $34.490.00 $18,415.00 $17.400 00 $22.925.00 $29.135.00 $7.555.00 $16.670.00 $13.235.00 Area or Acre Chge Credit to Area Trunk Area $1170.00 $1220.00 $9:698:88 $3.220.00 Per Acre $4:988 $5.105.00'acre Excludes Grinder Allowance Excludes Grinder Allowance Excludes Grinder Allowance (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (1) (I) (1) (1) 0) (I) (1) (I) (I) (U (I)mn (I) (I) (I) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (6) (6) (6) (7) (7) (7) (8) (8) (8) 1984 Forcemain and Lift Station tt7 Existing Properties/Increase New Bldgs Replacing Existing Bldgs New Residential w/Existing Stub New Residential without Stub Freshwater Biological (Incl. “Marsh at Lafayette” Lots) #6 By Pass + ffJ Forcemain Credit to Area S520:ee$54O.OO (4) 8627:608540.00 (4) S+:6e6:ee8 1.565.00 (4) S470.00f2> 8490.00 (1) 81.500.0081.565.00 (4)(2)(1_) and (4) 8470.006218490.00(1) 8505:668610.00(4)(2)0) and (4) 1989 Gravity Line and Lift Station (see map for affected areas) Fixed Charge +#10 By Pass .Credit to Area p2Snn 82:646:66 $2,750.00 (1) WATER PROJECTS By District - Project 1967 LW-l Highway 12/Crystal Bay Road 1969 LW-2 Chevy chase 1970 LW-l Navarre Residential 1970 LW-l Navarre Commercial 1982-1A Navarro 1989 Highway 12 1999 Navarre Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation Unit Charge + S4:40»e6 S4.S90.00 frMe^ee S4.590.oo S2.275.00 57.275.00 S3.4 15.00 52.725.00 S2.425.00 Area/Acreage Front Foot Chg +Chg S35^$34J5 Credit to Area S21:?S S22.65 S72.75 S34.15 S8.100 :0 6-S8.440.00/acre 8760:00 8375.00 (I) (1) (I) (1) (1) (I) t. : A printed copy of the 2001 Fee Schedule Ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the Cit; Clerk during regular office hours. This ordinance becomes effective the week of January 1,2001. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 11th day of December, 2000, by a vote of -----aye and____nays. ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Kvar^mauAf. I* REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION meeting DEC I I m Cl J y (jf. Date: December 7 Item No. Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Administrator Name: Michael P. Gaftron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: Resolution to Update Residential Park Fee The park dedication ordinance requires periodic review of the minimum and maximum park dedication fees to be charged per dwelling unit, and requires that fees be updated by Resolution of the Council. The fees were reviewed in 1999 sad increased in the 2000 fee schedule ordinance from $2,900-$4,900 to $3,1 00-$5,300. No additional review has been completed for the coming year, and we recommend keeping the residential fees for 2001 at the 2000 levels per the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt Resolution No.__establishing residential park fees at a minimum of S3,100 per dwelling unit and a maximum of $5,300 per dwelling unit. Proposed motion: Moved by____^ seconded by___, to adopt Resolution No.___establishing residential park fees at a minimum of S3,100 per dwelling unit and a maximum of S5,300 per dwelling unit. .LaAlUMM A M AA* sn ------ —■mn. L ' A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PARK DEDICATION AMOUNTS FOR RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL/MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONED LAND WHEREAS, the City's general park dedication requirement is 8% of the land being platted or subdivided; and WHEREAS, the City’s park dedication ordinance calls for the dedication requirement to be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City's park system; and WHEREAS, because of the vastly differing land values in Orono, the 8% park dedication requirement could result in park dedication requirements that are either significantly greater than or significantly less than the amount which is roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development on the City’s park system; and WHEREAS, to address the rough proportionality issue, the City will periodically establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per dwelling unit, based on an updated projection of the cost of the City's park system, and the proportionate share of this projected cost to be borne by new dwelling units in Orono; and WHEREAS, the proportionate share of the projected cost of the City's park system to be borne by new dwelling units is an average of S4,200 per household; and WHEREAS, the application of the City's general 8% park dedication requirement would result in those properties with lower values paying less than the $4,200 average, and those properties v\ath higher values paying more than the $4,200 average; and WHEREAS, the establishment of minimum and maximum park dedication fee amounts addresses the need for rough proportionality betw'een the park dedication fee and the impact of the development on the park system. Page 1 of2 w ^’ r y r.- I ‘j: f l NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby establish the minimum park dedication amount per dwelling unit as $3,100 per unit, and the maximum park dedication amount per dwelling unit r.s $5,300 per unit. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk '4^ Page 2 of 1 CO(jMrM, meeting DEC I I 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CllTK^r UHO/VO DATE: December 5, 2000 ITEM NO: Department Approval: .Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Proposed 2001 Meeting Schedule Attachment: Proposed 2001 Orono Meeting Schedule On the attached schedule, Council meetings are scheduled for the 2nd and 4 th Monday of the month at 7:00 p.m. As in the past, only one Council meeting is scheduled in December. Note that in May and November the Council meetings are scheduled for Tuesday because of Monday holidays. Planning Commission is scheduled to meet the 3rd Monday of the month at 6:30 p.m. January and February are the exceptions because of Monday holidays. In those months, the meetings will be on the third Wednesday. In past years, there has not been a meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled in December. Park Commission meetings arc scheduled for the first Monday of the month at 7:15 p.m. Exceptions are January 2 and September 4. when the meetings arc rescheduled for the following Tuesday because of the holidays. The City schedules eleven holidays throughout the year, which are indicated with an "X.” Staff is recommending that Monday, December 24 be designated as this year ’s floating holiday. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 200 T ORONO MKETINC SCIir^DULE - COUNCIL CHAMBERS KEY 7:00 p.m. Council meeting 2nd & 4lh Monday 6:30 p.m. Planning Commission 3rd Monday ^ 7:15 p.m. Park Commission 1st Monday y\ Other Event X OfTicinl Holiday January 2001 S M T W T F S ^ 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16(0181920 21 1^ 23 24 25 26 27 28^ 30 31 8 February 2001 S M T W T F S 12 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 03 13 14 1516 17 18 S 20(2^ 22 23 24 25E9 27 May 2001 S M T W T F S r-7 1 2 3 4 5 6jar 8 9 1011 12 13h4 1516 171819 20 2122 23 24 25 2627 38:1130 31 June 2001 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 O 12 13 1415 16 17 M 19 20 21 22 23 24 m 26 27 28 29 30 September 2001 S M T W T F S 1 12131415 1819 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 *PLANNING COMMISSION - May through October - 1st Tuesday is an alternate meeting date. March 2001 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 1516 17 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 July 2001 S M T W T F S 1 Si'3X5 6 7 8 [9 1011 121314 15 m 17181920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3n 31 October 2001 S JM T W T F S W 2 3 4 5 6 7 1] 9 10 11 12 13 14 -■&16 17 1819 20 21 tg 23 24 25 26 27 28 4I9 30 31 November 2001 S M T W T F S ^12 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 1^014 1516 17 18 19 20 21 X5W24 25 m 27 28 29 30 Adopted: April 2001 S M T W T F S 1• 8 15 22 29 3 4 5 6 7 1011 121314 17181920 21 24 25 26 27 28 August 2001 S M T W T F S 12 3 4 7 8 91011 1415161718 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 3031 December 2001 S M T W T F S 1 2 37 4 5 6 7 8 9 TO1112131415 16 17 1819 2021 22 23 24.2S 26 27 28 29 30 31 w I Mf=ExiNG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DfC I / 20QQ DATE: ©iaretttbev^^OO ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:r'Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Council Liaison to Park Commission and Planning Commission Meetings in _________________2001______________________________________________________ The following is a proposed schedule for Council Member attendance at the monthly Park Commission and Planning Commission meetings during 2001. SCHEDULE PARK COMMISSION PLANNING COMMSSION Meeting Date Representative January 2,2001 (Tuesday) Richard Flint February 5 Jay Nygard March 5 Robert Sansevere April 2 Jim WTiite May 7 Mavor Peterson June 4 Richard Flint July 2 Jay Nygard August 6 Robert Sansevere ’ September 4 (Tuesday) Jim White October 1 Mayor Peterson November 5 Richard Flint December 3 Jay Nygard Meeting Date Representative January 17,2001 (Wednesday) Robert Sansevere February 21 (Wednesday) Richard Flint March 19 Jim White April 16 Mayor Peterson May 21 Jay Nygard June 18 Robert Sansevere July 16 Richard Flint August 20 Jim WTiite September 17 Mayor Peterson October 15 Jay Nygard November 19 Robert Sansevere COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve schedule for Council attendance at the Park Commission and Planning Commission meetings during 2001. L<tt>ofl200l wpd •I ^^''*'^'1 MEejing OfC / / 2000REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Cl I Y (Jf DATE: December 6,20OlJ^ ITEM NO; lUDepartment Appro^^ Administrator Reviewed: Name Tom Kuehn I Title Finance Director Item Description: Appoint Auditor for Fiscal Year 2000 A Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report We have requested a cost estimate from the audit firm of Malloy, Montague, Kamow'ski, Radosevich & Company for performing the 2000 fiscal year audits. The estimated cost for the 2000 fiscal year audits, including the Minnesota legal compliance audit, and assistance with the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program, is $21,600, excluding direct expenses. The actual cost for die 1999 audit was $20,477 plus $626 for direct expenses. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Council appointment of the audit firm of Malloy, Montague, Kamowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. to perform the required audits for the 2000 fiscal year records at an estimated cost of $21,600, plus direct expenses. MS\%MO.M\A U DITF EE ^ Sfc » Dec REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ ^ DATE: December 6,2000 ITEM NO: ^ --._____________Administrator Reviewed: Name Tom Kuehn Department Approval: Name Tom Kuehn 'f Title Finance Director Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: 2000 Interfimd Transfers and Loan Payments Attachment: Schedule of 2000 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments Each year the Council is requested to authorize transfer of monies between funds. These transactions fall into two categories: 1.) Budgeted Transfers - Items designated in that year's budget when originally adopted for the purpose of providing support from one fund to another. 2.) Fund Obligations - (a) Payments from one fund to another to reimburse expenses incurred by one fund on behalf of another. This is generally for City portions of special assessments, or for equipment capital outlay, (b) Loan pay­ ments from one fund to another. Loans are generally made to construction funds for the purpose of payment of expenses incurred prior to the sale of bonds and the levying of special assessments. In addition certain loans are necessary to fund major undertakings when the fund incurring the expense does not have adequate cash flow available to complete the project. This would include such situations as the loan from the Community Investment Fund (formerly the Building Capital Outlay Fund) to the Water Operating Fund for the Navarre water plant rehabilita­ tion project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of transfers as indicated on the attached schedule L = V *K ’ SCHEDULE OF 2000 INTERFUND TRANSFERS AND LOAN PAYMENTS FROM FUND TO FUND AMOUNT PURPOSE General Imp and Equip Outlay $ 105,000 Annual operating transfer for capital equipment pur­ chases as budgeted. General 1995 G.O.Refunding Bond $ 3,335 Debt Service (for 1985 Improvements) Budgeted final payment for special assessments re: sanitary sewer on City owned property in Crystal Bay (Princ $3,055, Int $280.) General Imp and Equip Outlay $ 8,400 Budgeted payment, 4th of 5 for police records computer system. Community Investment 1991 Public Facility Revenue Bond Debt $ 130,000 Annual operating transfer for debt service support of HRA Building Bonds, as budgeted. Water Operating Community Investment $52,210 Budgeted loan payment for Navarre water treat­ ment plant rehabilitation project. (Princ $31,660, int $20,550. Balance o/s 12/31/00 $411,680). Municipal State Permanent Improvement $161,800 Repayment of advanced Aid Street Constr Revolving (PIR)funding for state aid street projects. Sewer Operating 1997 Sewer Construction $ 62,000 Transfer to provide fund­ ing of amounts advanced to the construction fund. 'nir« ' M , . V. ftl’- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ‘’fc,, C•>r % DATE: December 6, 2000 Wo ITEM NO: Department Approv^: 1^ ,(1^ Administrator Reviewed: Name Tom Kuehn /A*^ rName Tom Kuehn /a*^ Title Finance Director Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Authorization to disburse City funds for claims received This month we have only one Council meeting, scheduled for Monday, December 11th. The second Council meeting, which falls on or near the Christmas holiday, has been can­ celled, in line with previous years practices. We will have the next scheduled Council meeting on Monday, January 8, 2001. We therefore are requesting authorization to do a normal claims processing for the canceled Council meeting. This practice has been done in December each year with the Council then formally approving the claims at the first meeting in January of the following year. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize the City Treasurer to disburse City funds in payment of claims received for tlie December 26th Council meeting, which has been canceled, and that such paid claims be presented for formal approval at the January 8,2001 Council meeting. MSWMOMVMHHDISB I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OEC I I Em Date: Decemfi^e^^^OO Item No: ^ Department Approval;Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Title: Gary Cheswick Chief of Police Item Description: Letter of Intent to Purchase - Three (3) 2001 Ford Crown Victoria Squad Cars Exhibits:None DISCUSSION I am requesting permission to notify Superior Ford of our intent to purchase three (3) 2001 Ford Crown Victoria squad cars. These three vehicles are budgeted for and are to replace three older ears; Squad 177 with 102,000 miles - - Squad 178 with 125,000 miles - - Squad 182 with 121,000 miles. (Mileage based on actual miles as of 12/7/00) Cost per car is $22,002.00. This request is due to the restrictive number of vehicles being built. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approval of letter to be sent to Superior Ford. 1 Coi REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ''’'^>1. MEETING ^ ' 2000 DATE: December 8,2<?P9ur u«n ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title Citv Clerk______ Administrator Reviewed: /?/l_____ Agenda Section: Licenses ^ ^ Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval ONE DAY GAMBLING (RESOLUTION) 1.Orono PTO Mid Winter Fun Fest Raffle - Orono Middle School Saturday, February 3,2001 GARBAGE & REFUSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE 1.Randall R. Roskowiak Randy’s Sanitation 4351 US Hwy 12SE Delano, MN 55328 RESIDEIVTIAL KENNEL LICENSE 1.Carol Brooks 980 West Femdale Road 2.Wayne E. Carrier 1376 North Arm Drive 3.Kevin Garnett 450 Orono Orchard Road South 4.Colleen Jabbour 985 Tonkawa Road 5.Irwin Jacobs 1700 Shoreline Drive 6.Don Lindall 666 Tonkawa Road 7.David and Luann Runkle 2684 Casco Point Road 8.Robert K. Sansevere 745 Orchard Park Road COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. ...... « m u, Date: To: From: Re: December 7,2000 Lin Vee, City Clerk Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Gambling Permit I have reviewed the application submitted by the Orono PTO for the mid-winter fiin fest raffle. I have no objection to the issuance of this permit. ,..L> i'% * ■| • Minnesota Lawful Gambling Page 1 of 2 Fee -$25 , Fee Paid 8/00 LG220 - Application for Exempt Permit ---- O�gani,zation :Information Check No. ---- Organization ame _PreV1ous lawfu gamb ing exemption number CleoNO no, � b�; ,,n�� �/\) fur !Ol-Ff=LE X 30 (pC, S reet City State/Zip Code County ll6S OU:::>C� � .. L f.3A RL . OJ-e.oND MN 5S3:54> l-\-ENN Name of chief execu ive officer (CEO)Fir t name � Last names ��-.. Name of treasurerFrst�e /(l).A.u1 Typ-e of Nonpr it Orga ization Check 'he box that best describes your orga nization: Fraternal D Re1 g1ousD Veteran P( �ther onprofrt organization Daytime phone number of CEO l-(13- Daytime pho e number of treasurer: 1C;3 a.;,q-2,-�2-, C eek t e box that ·nd1cates the type of proof your organization attached to this application:D IRS letter ndicating i come· tax exempt stat sD Certificate o Good Standing from the Minnesota Secretary of State s OfficeD A charter • owlng you are an affiliate of a paren t no profit organizationD Proof previously s bmitted and on file with the Gambling Control Board · am of p� mises where gamblin activity ill be condL:cle d (for ra es i rtSt he s·te where the drawing will take p ace) Ol?OND )..,f,ooL€ &HooL ·Addres (do no use PO box)State/2.rp Code J.,t N S.-3 S-(., County /-fe=NN - -Date(s) of ·� c ·· ind cate the date of the ilng) &,n,, tr= 8)(!,, ( /.H C ox or boxes ate the type · f ga yo r organiza i n will be co. ducUng:D 81 o � affles ·Paddlewheel •pun-Tabs O•T,pboards •eq act1Vitles must be obtained from a licensed d. nbutor. w, ade v da ble in Your name and and your organlzafon'sat f. large pnnt, Br.aiUe) name and add re will pu lie mfi nnation u e he Inform ·on r s d w en received by the Board. AU the other· an , a. achmen Ube Informs ion that you pro ·de ·wm be private h · mbUng Contra Board about you until t e Boar issues your (Board) to d . in your q · permit. Wh n he Board ssues your b I d wful · t i · ennit, a of the i fonna ·on tha you haveYo have pro · ed to h Bo d m the p oces of p _ ·on u applying for your perm I I b come pu he. pp f t e Board does o issu · you a perm -be ab d termine you al he infonna on you ha provided in . nd as qu . , may proce of . pplying e,r a p nnit r ma, syo a ... -�--If u u pnva e. wtth th e cep �on f your , er u e Bo d . an your organ· a ·o s na, e and a re s oc y · ppli.cat on. hich will r ain p b �c. P a d bo yo e a a· ab e only 'to he o lowing: Board members taff of t e.Board whose work a ignm require s t at they have acces to the i nna n: th innesota Department of · S ty.the M nne ota At orney G : the Mi n ota Co mmissioners ofAdminis · • Finance, a d ue: the M neso g1sla, e Audttor� nal andint ma ion al gambfing regu a ry agencie ·anyone p r ua t to cou ot e r.div iduals. and n t are specifically auth · y s.1a1@ e al aw to have a -a n· • idu. a i .ta or I ord ra of mforma 0 N a an one »•m * 9 % m "'^‘■'OF ORONO •'^^0. Box 66 crystal Bay# MN 55323 473-7357 Iiicense Year 7.CO) Date Received __ _ _ _ _ _ _ Fee Paid^l35 CO Initials AD //-/pro GXRSAGE i REPOSE COttECTOR'S LICEHSE ftPPLICATION . •ulshes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and S^rew^r^Xs^ap^U- for a license to do so. Business/BiCTi fvA y ° ^ Phon^HLier /Vii) 47^-333S.------------ rvLtL(State)(Zip Code) Business Applicant * s Name Rft..rvA(:\ 11 Address (Stre- - Phone Number ^7^3J 4 7y~^-^3o Chec)c One: Individual R.RoEkotoio/^ , (City)(State) (Zip Code) • Corporation Number of .Vehicles to be used in Orono Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): Grott^Wt. .Rear^A.xle Wt. Size/Yar^ License NumberMfgr. ^f of City served Collection charges/ dates ^ number of customers in Orono 4£ o • 1.'^^ra5tT fl’ >w \ I V’ li, v > VI' dumping area fOon^K _ _ _rO^/Cr THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE, YOU MUST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: in the amount of $1,000. Proof of insurance in the amount of I0#000-$50#000# and 10-day cancellation clause. ^ rate fee, plus $15Aruclc,^)d^a $30.00 transfer fee (if applxcaoie^- ^he^wner and operl^or ol^^^a^ve business and I have paid all license fees nd t^xes required by law. The above information is correct. Pp^ mm cant Date J^OH CITY USB ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends: Approval _ _ _ _ _ Denial ♦. _J..Qhher (specify) 51^~ ^ .U |fL • - C m «r.»; ','Vvc/ i'. gnature of "City Official ^Date f Owner: KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 200 I to December 31, 200_2 <-o Property Address:0 UJ.^3^ I (include city and zip)J Mailing Address (if different):___________________ Phone: (home)______^ M (work) RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 ) (pa)oncnt must accompany application)3Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:, (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed:______ Purpose for more than 2 do^ Dogs normally kept: t.-^'^'l^ide____^keimel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:______ B-..<trK»s5 Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:__________________________ After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. \\ -2_M -OO Date for City Use Only Kennel inspected by Date Recommends: Approval____Denial _______________I ^1 I r ^ License as e only and ler law or M prior to idersigned ny special Do KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 200_ to December 31, 200 /Owner: ______________________________ Property Address:/J? 7.^ fifc^ru A?o<.iMa . L.zk C., / Mailing Address (if different):_______ Phone: (home/^r^) ^7/- (include city and zip) (work)A RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: /'c-^ r>c.^ . /"ct^ , ZD Purpose for more than 2 dogs: I'l'js. Dogs normally kept:inside____^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities:______ (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinan ce or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspw^ Ae premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license dp^^^gi|nd the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 536 inciuding any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applicant /Date For City Use OnN Kennel inspected by ____________ Recommends: Approval____Denial Dale ► KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION . Effective January 1, 200 t to December 31, 200_/_ Owner: Property Address: ^*60 d ()(C)r\(kC'A. I -Ai /o Onchdc city and zip!/^A^»n^€foAAc Mailing Address (if different): W\ ((\nSci'\bMtT< (work) (//2Phone: (home)________________________ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: (over 6 months of age). ^ . 1k.( ..pfVbul]Principal Breed: Purpose for more than 2 does: Dogs normally kept: *^)^Ninside ____^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities:_____________;____ ______________^ (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:__________________________ After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:____inside ___^outside__^both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. AppliC^t l^-yoo Date fnr Cirv Use Onbi Kennel inspected by _____________ Recommends: Approval ____Denial Date Lennel License as nnissive only and 5 or other law or premises prior to id the undersigned iding any special KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 200 to December 31, 200 Owner:ifrn VihlohouK Property Address^B 57 ’'T7) lO (<^ I/-) iX- Mailing Address (if different): (include city and zip) Phone: (home) (f? /Z- 4^ /-(work)iQcll) RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: ( (X Jo Purpose for more than 2 dogs: Dogs normally kept: ^ inside ____kennel structure _X- IH COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities:_________________________________• (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants itie City permission to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council a:> part of any kennel license approval. /0/go/no Date For City Use OnN Kennel inspected by _ Recommends: Approval Date Denial KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 200 o to December 31, 200_[ Owner:S Property Address: 1100 DlZtUP W^ZA-TA ^ iUJ\l ■ S / (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different):^_____________________________________ Phone: (home)(^^/^^S^S S* BoB^(work)^/ l(o 9*~ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 0 fi a IL' \ ^ I ^ (payment must accompany application)\ ^ ® ^ Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:^^_______________ (over 6 months of age) a Principal Breed:J Gney'/yur/yx. >/ Groii-eyy^. ^•e.~/~r/g^r:v' ^ / UM^'H Purpose for more than 2 dogs: Pe^r^J SeculyCtii jcvrtc Dogs normally kept:inside &kennel structure ir\ doors — Sh-ei/9ht%xl <- ^^etrttroC'V^ cnMoov^ Id I I i;______ 1/1.0 COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business; oLou^-Kme — I’vn tenn'Cl ^ vxX^i/d: Business Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation: the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applicant Date For City Use Only Kennel inspected by Date Recommends: Approval ____Denial .w ^M kai r^B^lA.ni.r-STtzmCJ^.'iikLAIVCiJl.'. I r.liin i rrf-r-T >■p KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 200_to December 31, 200 Owner: Property Address: (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different):____________ Phone: (home)(work)•Z^ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No, of dogs to be kept at one time: (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: / Purpose for more than 2 dogs:_______________________ Dogs normally kept:inside / kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities: (example; boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:_______________ After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel Licens' •'s specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kermel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasojMjjJe‘Jm the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of flunicipal Code Chapter 5.36 including arv special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Date For City Use Only Kennel inspected by Date Recommends: Approval ____Denial k I ryiiTirfi real'll r* r •^»fftrhnalr»T'*Timh KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 200_to December 31, 200_ Owner: J\AVt^ /ITi'c//^U/vAl^C^ Property Address;0/tS^o ^^3^ / (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different):______________________;______________________ Phone: (home)^7/- '1^1 2^(work) [plZ - ^^ S~3 ^_________ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) MaxunumNo. of dogs to be kept at one time: 3 ^__________________________ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: Gr>ic/en ^-/TCity^ irS_____________________________ Purpose for more than 2 dogs:________ Dogs normally kept: ^^''Inside 4^^^ennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities:_________________~ •••_______________ (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:_______^_________ After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Appliomt Date For Cirv Use Only Kennel inspected by _____________ Recommends: Approval ____Denial Date KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 200_to December 31, 200__ Owner: 0 tttective January 1, 200_to Decemi Property Address:5 A (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different):/Oajc?rr~3 <> i Phone: (home) 1 _ (work)ip O'~J ^ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 'OT)lu ^ (payment must accompany application)T ' ^ ^^ Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:____________________________ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed:_____C>OyS^—_________________________________ Purpose for more than 2 dogs: Dogs normally kept: ^ inside____^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities:______________________________________ (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and docs not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special For City Use Only Kennel inspected by__ Recommends: Approval Date Denial :* f ..TJi y % A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF ORONO PTO FOR A ONE DAY OFF-SITE GAMBLING PERMIT WHEREAS, the Orono PTO is licensed to conduct lawful gambling activities; and WHEREAS, the Orono PTO has proposed to conduct a one day off-site gambling activity (raffle) as part of its annual Mid Winter Fun Fest at the Orono Middle School on Februar>' 3,2001;and WHEREAS, the Orono PTO is required to obtain approval of the off-site gambling activity from the city in which the activity will occur. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Orono City Council does hereby approve the application of the Orono PTO to conduct a one day off-site gambling activity (raffle) at the Orono Middle School on February 3,2001. Adopted at a regular meeting of the Orono City Council this 11th day of December, 2000. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mavor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk RESOOROvxonoPTOOl rMwpd Page 1 of 1 Co/ DEC I I Oil Y EOOOREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 5, 2000 ^ ITEM NO: 3 ^ Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed: h Item Description: Home Occupation Licenses Agenda Section: Licenses 1 Background At the November 13, 2000 Council meeting, the following home occupation licenses were not granted because of concerns about the number of employees that were listed on the application with a different address than the home occupation site: Ben Meinhardt - Allstar Electric Bruce C. Mathison - Guardsman Wood Pro LeRoy A. Pilgram, D.C. - L.A. Pilgram, D.C. Russell Norum - Norum & Pearson, PA John B. Waldron - Waldron Law Offices, Ltd. William L. Leskincn - William Lewis Web Development, LLC Staff has further reviewed the applications submitted for home occupation license renew als, and found that the home occupations for Bruce C. Mathison, LeRoy A. Pilgram, D.C.. John B. Waldron, and William L. Leskinen meet the requirement that “all persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling ”. Staff recommends renewing the home occupation licenses for the year 2001 for Bruce C. Mathison, LeRoy A. Pilgram, D.C., John B. Waldron, and William L. Leskinen. In reviewing the home occupation license applications for Ben Meinhardt and Russell Korum, staff has found that outside employees have been listed on the application since 1995, and home occupation licenses have been granted each year. Staff recommends granting home occupation licenses for the year 2001 to Mr. Meinhardt and Mr. Norum; and drafting a letter to Mr. Meinhardt and Mr. Norum indicating that they are in violation of the home occupation ordinance by having employees engaged in the business who do not reside in the dwelling, and that the City will not renew' the home occupation license for 2002. COUNC L ACTIO REQUESTED: 1. 2. 3. otion to app o· e/d ny th o lo 'n horn occ pa ion hcenses for the year 2001: -I ctr· c Elec c) B n Meinhard , 358.5 Sixth Avenue orth Long Lake 55356 uards an Wood ro (Furniture Repair) ru · e . Mathison -Bro vn Road South ·o Lale ," 55356 ,. ·p•1 am DCb . l gr .. , .. ( ·opractic O ce) . , lgram, D.C dywood • · oad 5539 4. 5. 6. Norum & . earson PA ( a·· Finn) R ss arum 3264 orth Shor v Wayzat 55391 Waldron L -Offic -, L d. (La r fc ) John B ·wa ron 195, Concordi tre .t ayu1ta, MN 55391 Wilham Lewis eb eve opm nt, LL (In m t W bs·t Deve opm nt) William L. Leskinen I 25 il o D ·v o on --�-, . ; · 553 6 APPLICATION :E'OR ANNUAL HOME OCCUPATIO1 LICENSE CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY, P.O. BOX 66CRYSTAL BAY, l\1N 55323 Q�II\. (Ji. )�dk PHONE: l SZ-'{1{r O'}Cf-0 ADDRES S : ___ 1 __ q _5 �' _c-.� __ un_,:;>-J.......:.,.;.;:.__;J'::..i t..:...;:rc.:..::c.;:.!...;f-___,._, �O::!..!rcrr.-0��•J---!.�-!:11�t.:...V ____,;, __ __:5:..:)�r 3���l- qe�t\ ' c it y 'l s tc zip AME: . . BUSINESS NA.M:E: JNA(k J.+,..., O�.t.c..J, �'ti.-·- TYPE oF BUsrnESs TO BE OPERATED:� ...... l�tv-J-=---i...C��;..;,..,:...:.+�,c=--L---------- 1 • ber of E mp loyees W thin Ope rat ion:_ Z, (Provide names of e ploy ees . on back of application)Check One:lei ial Revi -;: Fee $50.00 ·Annual Review Fee $30.00 � License may be revoked if any violation occurs. City staff shall h ave five (5 ) business day s in which to inves igate a.nd ma .lee a recommenda ion pursuant to Oro no Municipal Code Section 5.02 & 5.03 . If a site i pection is re quire d by C"t y staff, the view time w i ll be extended to ten (10) business da ys The license aoplicat1on with staff reco mmend a tion will b e sc dul d bef ore the Council at the next re gula rly scheduled meet ing e d on the second an d fo urth Monda y of eac h month. OR O ! ·oMUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS ON HO?vm OCCUPATIONS PURSUAN T TO SECTI0 1 10.20, SUBDIVISIO T 4 (C) Prohib·ted Hor,1� Occupa ic, Practices 1. I· 1s u awful for any bus iness oper ating .as a hon e occupation to enga ge m opera tion witho·t • prop r licens . 2 pc sons engaged 1n the b us 1 n �s mus reside in th e dw·elling . 3 •'o commercial signs p rrnitte d othe · tha n s·gns p mutted in the residential zone. �. 1 · o excessive stock in trade may be s ored on the premises. S. ver the counter r tail sal e s i s not all o wt d .6. Ent ance t o th . e oc c up.a io n must be _gained from within the st.ructure . ere y 00.S th .. . S gn ·eo A p ic •. YUSEO ____ . __ ,,/._. _o�_ A ov o ·Da er r vi of app ·1._atio n, s ,. r o ends the following: p lica io ---·-D ni of a p r on Dat : _____-:-----y!>---,,-�-------------Da : t" · ��-W Li ens App ved ____ Da· L·cens Expir d: ____ .,..USTING OF EMPLOYEES: NAM E· . J� �YL /3, w "-� ADDRES = 11 �l Yl'tu,(}TJ. .. s J� CITY & ZIF: Onnvo s�, { DATE OF BIRTH: . i/J o/i;-'t I NAI\m .. ----------ADDRESS: _________CITY & ZIP:�--------­DATE OF BIRTII: -------- NA..1v!E· ___ ......_._ ____________ _ADDRESS: -----------CITY & ZIP: __________________ DATE O BIR.TI-I: ---------- -Afv{E· ·------------ CIT A IP· �------------B TH: -------- NAME:£.1,1,-fh �(� ADDRESS: �ls l c� ,�.s n CffY&ZIP: brz....o :[.f3 'II DATE OF BIR1H: 1ft ,/cf 'j (1 N.MfE:. _________ _ ADDRESS: ·---------Cll'Y&ZIP:._. ________ _ . DATE OF BIRTII: ______ _ ·A!. m: ---------- ADD RESS: ---------CITY & ZIP: ________ _ATE OF BIRlH: ·------- NAi.\ffi: --�--�------ ADDRESS·._..,..._ ______ _CITY&Z IP: ________ _ DATE O Bmrn:. ______ _ APPLICATION FOR ANNUAL HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE CITY OF ORONO • 2750 lffiLLEY PARK\\AY, P.O. BOX 66 - C YSTAL BAY, l\1N 55323 NAMp· tD ,�•�M. L. L�\:::.,Noi PHONE: 952-<../ot/-Z'-/z I (P.>£tS ADDRESS: J \ 2 5 · -N W 1 '-<-O\-> .1> fJ.LGJJtr Ur�e, MAJ ,,55-� 5Ca street • . city/st2.te zip BUSINESS NM.IE: Lu L \AM lEJ..J,� w�e D&eLOP;Yt::..rf� L-l(!_ �;. TYPE OF BUSJNESS TO BE OPERA� · ::C."-= if\Q.l: �-s;;+<.. A..t._v�(o(',1,,,Q,.....:;r umber of Emp oyee3 Vlithin Operation:_� (Provid names of employees on back of applica ion) ...,heck One: Initi Review Fee $50 .. 00 · Annual Review Fee $30.00 i/:' L·cease may be revoked if any violation cccurs. City staff shall have five (5) business days in which to ·vcs igate and make a recommendation pursuan to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.02 & 5.03. If a site . ·nspecfon is r quired by City statf, the review tiin will be extended to ten (10) business days. The license app ication with staff reccmme datio will be scheduled before the Council at the next regu ar y scheduled I mee · g held on the second and fourth Monday of each mon!h. ORO TQ Mill'tTJ:CIPAL CODE REGULATIO s 01 T HOME OCCUPATIO. • • ,i • P�SU T TO SEC110N 10.20, SUBDMSION 4 (C) Pro -b··ted Home O cupation Fractices 1._ is unlawfu for any busi · • s operating .as a ho. e o�upation to engage in opera ion witho t proper licenses 'l-. All persons e gaged in the business _ ust reside in the d wel mg .3.No commerc·a1 igns ermltted th r than signs ermi ted in the .residential 20 c. 4.o e cessiv stock in trade may bes ored on the premises.S.0 er: th counter r tail sales "s no allowedEn ance to home occupatio must be _gained from within the structure. The under ·.gned ereby agrees to the co ditioas quoted above from th Orono Municipal Cod and any a di ·ona1 condi · o.s th C ty may r q ire. Signa re o Ap icailt: t-1./tk :� ------Date. USE .-. A - -r cview nf applicatioa., staff rcco ends the fo owing. ____ ,_6 "-Approv,al o application _____ Denial of applica · on of Z O Date: ,: of B O c·a1:._� �..;J.�).�l�rl,_,.:a;;���.-:�· ;;;__.��::::��::---�----_-_-_-_Date.·------- . plicatio a L. ens App oved: ____ Da Li ase Expired: ___ _ .,,.. . NAME: ____________ ADDRESS�---------­ Cil'Y & ZIP: ---------- DATE OF BIRTI-I ._. _______ _ NAME: ,-,,----------- ADD R � S • _____________ _ CITY & ZLP: ---------- DATE OF BIRTH: _______ _ NAME: ------------ ADDRESS:. _________ _ CITY & ZIP: -------------- DATE O BrRTii:_ .. _______ _ 'N AD S: CI & ZIP: 0 B rn· .NAME: ------------ ADDRFSS: ---------- CI 1' f &ZIP: ---------- DATE OF BIR1H: ------·-- NAME: ----------- ADDRFSS: ----------- CtrY&ZlP: ---------­. DATE OF Bffi.TH : _______ _ N�IE: __________ _ ADDRFSS: ---------- CITY & ZI P: _________ _ DATE OF Bffi.TH: _______ _ NAME: ADDRESS: CITY&ZIP.. D TEO BIRTH: application for annual home occupation license CITY of ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY, P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 AJoiijjun^^ c>fO0^Ufn4P^iurs^ P.f^- ^PHONE:.y,52>«/7^ ^nnPP5;S-. ,^2.^AJ. 5lreeL .^^ c business NAME: Al^/^Urr^,^ t^R cityAtate uc -----------------------------------^-----7^ type OF BUSINESS TO BE OPERATED^;------ — Number of Employees Within Operdiloa: 3 (Provide names of employees on bac^. zpp ication Check One: InitU: Review Fee S50.00 ____^ Annual Review Fee $30.00 License may be revoked if any violation occurs. City staff shall have ^^R^sUe investigate and make a recommendation pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5. . . ^Tectlon irrequk by City staff, the review time will be extended to ten (10) business ^he 1 aoplication with staff recommendation will be scheduled before the Council at the next rei, at: y s meeting held on the second and fourth Monday of each month. ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS ON HOME OCCUPATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 4 (C) p,0hibi«d Home occup^bn ^ ^in operation without proper licenses. 2 All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling. .... ■5' No commercial signs permitted other than signs permiued in the residential zone. No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. Over the counter retail sales is not allowed. ___ . _____________________________________________k . 3. 4. 5. 6. uver me coumci ICldU UUV. Entrance to tl;e home occupation must be gained from within the structure. The undersigned hereby agrees to the conditions quoted above from the Orono Municipal Code and any additional conditions the Ciw may require. Date: lO ”10^0^ FOR CITY USE ONLY': After review of application, staff recomrnen^ the following . Approval of application _________Denial of application Signature of Zoning Official;-----^---- Signature ^fBnildingOfficial: cH^/U CUi^ Date: Date: Application Date:/Date License Approved;Date License Expired:. I L..*ft -r\, ^ liSTlNG OF EMPLOYEES: k r NAMEr'^U^^// fjo/^ur^NAME: (oQ Qo ADDRESS.^^.^.<z£.,A/>vS^^^ ____ADDRESS:/^f^/^S>^AjeP/. CITY & ziP:.ci^t>a:fa., /7?AJ v5b1^/8as$.irY)otM4f.fi/arh DATE OF BIRTH:_^ If ^OF BIRTH:^^ NAME:-- ^uRyi [^ "" ADDRESS: c577 Miur^ CITY & ZIP: ifhfCl/i3 \ /77/U ^<^^ DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: ADDRESS: CTTY&ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY&ZIP; DATE OF BIRTH: APPLICATION FOR ANNUAL HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE CITY OF ORONO 2750.KELLEY PARKWAY, P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, IVIN 55323 NAME:PHONEi^i^ ADDRESS: street ^^cicy/^tate BUSINESS NAME:______jO/Oyy y ry . 7 TYPE OF BUSINESS TO BE OPERATED: Number of Employees Within Operation:_ Check One: Initial Review Fee $50.00 _ (Provide names of employees on back of fi^lication) Annual Review Fee S30.00_____ •• License may be revoked if any violation occurs. City staff shall have five (5) business days in which to investieate and make a recommendation pursuant to Orono Municip.*’. Code Section 5.02 & 5.03. If a site . _!. Kt/ r'in/ crofT til* n>:ii rn t^n nov business days. The licenseinspection is required by City staff, the review time will be extended to ten (10) business days. The license lication with staff recommendation will be scheduled before the CouncU at the next regularly scheduledapp meeting held on the second and fourth Monday of each month. t ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS ON HOME OCCUPATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 4 (C) Prohibited Home Occupation Practices ,. 1.It is unlawful for any business operating as a home occupation to engage m operation without proper licenses. 2.All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling. 3.No commercial signs permitted other than signs permitted in the residential zone. 4.No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. 5.Over the counter retail sales is not allowed. 6.Entrance to the home occupation must be gained from within the structure. The undersigned hereby agrees to the conditioriS quoted above from the Orono Municipal Code and any additional conditions the City may require. • • • •Signatureof Applicant.Date; FOR CITY USE ONLY; After review of application, staff recommends the following: 0>Approval of application _________Denial of application Signa^ue of Zoning Ofheid:,Date; Date:Signature of Building Oft icial; Application Date;________^Date License Approved:________Date License Expired: \ f • • >iiiii mill 11 n I !■ wiiiTM pirf% USTING OF EMPLOYEES: NAME: . ADDRESS: NAME: ADDRESS: cmr&ziP:. crry&ziP: DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: DATE OF BIRTH: NAIvlE: ADDRESS: CriY&TIP: DATE OF BERTH: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY&ZIP: DATE OF BERTH: NAME: ADDRESS: ■ CITY&ZIP: DATE OF BERTH: »• application for annual home occupation license crry of orono 2750 -KELLEY PARKWAY, P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 ADDRESS: ,*r -S-p. 1j>rov^r\ street ci:>' BUSINESS NAME: CtNjtoN\3>rf\s>A PHONE:.5S2Ldlij=j3li? *ci:>'/state type of BUSINESS TO BE OPERATED:c A A ^ m m &___ — •• \r,W Numtr Of E^ WitMn Operation:^ (i^r^Jide of employees on bac. of application) Check One: Initial Review Fee $50.00 ____ Annual Review Fee $30.00 JX_ License may be revoked if any violation occurs. City staff shaR have five (d) business days m investicate and make a recommendation pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.02 . • ^^eeSn irreq^ired by City staff, the review time will be extended to ten (10) busmess days. The 1 ce^e application with staff recommendation will be scheduled before the Council at the next regu ar y Sw tneeting held on the second and fourth Monday of each month. ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS ON HOME OCCUPATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 4 (C) ProWbUri HO”'fo?^y busir.«s op««ins as a hc=a occupation to engage in operation without proper licenses. 9 All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwellmg. 3.No commercial signs permitted other than signs permitted in the rest enti zone. 4.No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. 5.Over the counter retail sales is not allowea. 6.Entrance to the home occupation xr.'Jist be gained from within the structure. The undersigned hereby agrees to the conditions quoted above from the Orono Municipal Cod- and an> additional conditions the City may require. Signature of Applicant?Date: lCi FOR CITY USE ONLY; After review of application, staff recommen^ the foUowing: (P.'O. Approval of application _________Denial of application Signature of Zoning Official:------- Signature of Building Official:— Application Da:e:________^Date License Approved: Date: Date: /o, ^ -oO Date License Expired:, Lisimo OF EMPLOYEES: >' NAME:.•^ ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP; DATE OF BIRTH: name; ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: JLl NAME: ADDRESS:_ CITY&ZIP; DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY&ZIP; DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP; DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: N.AvIE: ADDRESS: CITY&ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: ADDPvESS: CITY&ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: application for annual home occupation license CITY OF ORONO < j 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY, P.O. BOX 66 On'- • - • CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 ‘.0 street T r\ f clty/sute'“P business NAME:«L * /} t K/ /G r>^/).------------------------- Numbe° of Employees Wittun Operation;.;^ (^otid^^eTof application)' Check Oue; Initial Review Fee $50.00____ Annual Review Fee $30.00------- License may be revoked if any violation occurs. City staff shall have & ?03.'ifa^ite investieate and make a recommendation pursuant to Orono Municipal f ‘ ^ ‘license S]“S^Veq“ircd by City staff, the review time wUl be extended to , application with staff recommendation will be scheduled before the Council at th gu meeting held on the second and fourth Monday of each month. ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS ON HOME OC^TATIONS . .PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVTSION 4 (C) PmhibUad Home Oc a home occupation to engay- in operation without proper licenses.proper licenses. j n- 7 All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling. 3.No commercial signs permitted other than signs permitted in the r 4.No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. 5 Over the counter retail sales is not allowed. ^ 6 Entrance to the home occupation must be gained from within the m The undersigned hereby agr ees toj t^ conditions quoted above from the Orono Municipal Code an additional conditions the Cit^mayTCquic^/i Signature of Applicant:Date;. /O.^JjX> vm? riTY USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommen^ the following. Approval of application _________ Denial of application Signature of Zonb.g Official:--------- Signature of Budding Official: Date:________ Date: /q •2.v-ct>'a Application Date:Date License Approved:Date License Expired:, 9 LISTING OF EMPLOYEES: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP; DATE OF BIRTH: NAME; ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: D ate of birth : NAME: ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: NAME; ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH; NAME: ADDRESS: CITY&ZrP; DATE OF BIRTH: NAME; ADDRESS: CITY&ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: NAME; ADDRESS: CITY&ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: N.^ME: ADDRESS: CilT&ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: -------------jain .1 IiititI ■I't ....IA.U:*in»k' 3! CITY OF ORONO Check Summary Register Frida^^Cce^b4r ffl/MOC Name Cneck Date Check Amt IHESvIC:; 10100 Primary Cash PaidChk# 070214 PaidChk# 070215 PaidChk# 070216 PaidChk# 070217 PaidChk# 070210 PaidChk# 070219 Paid Chk# 070220 Paid Chk# 070221 Paid Chk# 070222 Paid Chk# 070223 Paid Chk# 070224 Paid Chk# 070225 Paid Chk# 070226 Paid Chk# 070227 Paid ChidiU 070228 Paid Chk# 070229 Paid Chk# 070230 Paid Chk# 070231 Paid Chk# 070232 Paid Chk# 070233 Paid Chk# 070234 Paid Chk# 070235 Paid Chk# 070236 Paid Chk# 070237 Paid Chk# 070238 Paid Chk# 070239 Paid Chk# 070240 PaidChk# 070241 Paid Chk# 070242 Paid Chk# 070243 Paid Chk# 070244 Paid Chk# 070245 Paid Chk# 070246 Paid Chk# 070247 Paid Chk# 070248 Paid Chk# 070249 Paid Chk# 070250 Paid Chk# 070251 Paid Chk# 070252 Paid Chk# 070253 Paid Chk# 070254 PaidChk# 070255 Paid Chk# 070256 Paid Chk# 070257 Paid Chk# 070258 Paid Chk# 070259 Paid Chk# 070260 Paid Chk# 070261 Paid Chk# 070262 AT&T- AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES BCA/TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT BIFFS INC BOTTENBERG. WENDY BUDGET PRINTING CEMSTONE CHESWICK. GARY CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING COFFEE MILL DAHLGREN S HARD LOW & U BAN DELTA DENTAL DEPT OF ADM - INTERTECH GROUP DOBOS DYNAMED E-Z RECYCLING ELECTRIC PUMP G & K SERVICES GALL’S INC. H & L MESABI HARRIS INTERNATIONAL INC HAWKINS CHEMICAL HENNEPIN COUNTY - HEALTH HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN HYDRO SUPPLY CO. INFRATECH KENNETH N POTTS. PA KOEHNEN S AMOCO LEAGUE OF MN CITIES MAGIC CLEANERS MASUNE COMPANY MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY MN DEPT OF HEALTH MOROWCZYNSKI. JIM NAVARRE AMOCO NAVARRE HARDWARE NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY OFFICE DEPOT PERSELL. WILLIAM PIONEER PRAIRIE OFFSET PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE QWEST RELIANT ENERGY SCHARBER & SONS SHAUGHNESSY LAWN SERVICES 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/200C 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 $16.04 $96.17 $750.00 $70.26 $150.00 $12.46 $335.80 $101.43 $1,718.33 $276.52 $303.00 $264.78 $1,104.40 $409.84 $58.99 $140.98 $5,754.84 $1,999.80 $185.20 $491.69 $725.84 $157.15 $524.75 $105.00 $334.26 $335.00 $3,797.08 $412.50 $186.38 $2,756.16 $60.00 $6.79 $90.60 $4500 $1.094 00 $22 50 $50 00 $171.84 $168.00 $137.80 $1,953.00 $2500 $26377 $481.35 $604 50 $374.14 $1,476.43 $34.32 $3,855.15 Name Check Date Check Amt I Paid Chk# 070263 Paid Chk# 070264 Paid Chk# 070265 Paid Chk# 070266 Paid Chk# 070267 Paid C.ik# 070268 Paid Chk# 070269 Paid Chk# C70270 Paid Chk# 070271 Paid Chk# 070272 Paid Chk# 070273 Paid Chk# 07027< Paid Chk# 070275 Paid Chk# 070276 Paid Chk# 070277 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC STA-SAFE LOCKSMITH STANTON GROUP STAR TRIBUNE STREICHERS THE HOME DEPOT TRACY TRIPP FUELS TRI STATE PUMP UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE VERIZON WIRELESS WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC XCEL ENERGY YOUNG. JACKIE 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 Total Checks $ 13.89 $157.53 $182.30 $604.00 $465.88 $54.92 $2,034.49 $160.00 $794.62 $44.00 $491.02 $65.00 $33.11 $4,830.87 $525.00 $44,951.55 CITY OF ORONO Check Summary Register Friday, December 08, 2000 Page 1 of 1 Name Check Date Check Amt 10100 Primary Cash PaidChk# 061915 PaidChk# 061917 PaidChk# 061918 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE MN DEPT OF REVENUE BEST BUY COMPANY 11/12/2000 11/20/2000 $386.00 $1,245.00 $158.69 Total Checks $1,789.69 i CITY OF ORONO Check Summary Register Name G 10100 Primary Cash PaldChk# 070214 PaldChk# 070215 PaldChkll^ 070216 PaklChk# 070217 PaidChk# 070218 PaidChk# 070219 Paid Chk# 070220 PaidChk# 070221 PaidChk# 070222 Paid Chldl^ 070223 ppid Chk# 070224 Paid Chk# 070225 Paid Chk# 070226 Paid Chk# 070227 Paid Chk# 070228 Paid Chk# 070229 Paid Chk# 070230 Paid Chk# 070231 Paid Chk# 070232 Paid Chk# 070233 Paid Chk# 070234 Paid Chk# 070235 Paid Chk# 070236 PaidCiik# 070237 Paid Chk# 070238 Paid Chk# 070239 Paid Chk# 070240 Paid Chk# 070241 Paid Chk# 070242 Paid Chk# 070243 Paid Chk# 070244 Paid Chk# 070245 Paid Chk# 070246 Paid Chk# 070247 Paid Chk# 070248 Paid Chk# 070249 Paid Chk# 070250 Paid Chk# 070251 Paid Chk# 070252 Paid Chk# 070253 Paid Chk# 070254 Paid Chk# 070255 Paid Chk# 070256 Paid Chk# 070257 Paid Chk# 070258 Paid Chk# 070259 PaidChk# 070260 PaidChk# 070261 PaidChk# 070262 AT&T- AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES BCA7TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT BIFFS INC. BOTTENBERG. WENDY BUDGET PRINTING CEMSTONE CHESWICK. GARY CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING COFFEE MILL DAHLGREN SHARDLOW & UBAN DELTA DENTAL DEPT OF ADM - INTERTECH GROUP DOBOS DYNAMED E-Z RECYCLING ELECTRIC PUMP G & K SERVICES GALUS INC. H & L MESABI HARRIS INTERNATIONAL INC HA'yVKINS CHEMICAL HENNEPIN COUNTY - HEALTH HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN HYDRO SUPPLY CO. INFRATECH KENNETH N. POTTS, PA KOEHNEN’S AMOCO LEAGUE OF MN CITIES MAGIC CLEANERS MASUNE COMPANY MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY MN DEPT OF HEALTH MOROWCZYNSKI. JIM NAVARRE AMOCO NAVARRE HARDWARE NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY OFFICE DEPOT PERSELL, WILLIAM PIONEER PRAIRIE OFFSET PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE QWEST RELIANT ENERGY SCHARBER & SONS SHAUGHNESSY LAWN SERVICES Check Date Friday, December 08, 2000 Page 1 of 2 Check Amt ^---------------T-—.^-.1--------------:------------- 12/11/2000 $16.04 12/11/2000 $96.17 12/11/2000 $750.00 12/11/2000 $70.26 12/11/2000 $150.00 12/11/2000 $12.46 12/11/2000 $335.88 12/11/2000 $101.43 12/11/2000 S1.718.33 12/11/2000 $276 52 12/11/2000 $303.00 12/11/2000 $264.78 12/11/2000 $1,104.40 12/11/2000 $409.84 12/11/2000 $58.99 12/11/2000 $140.98 12/11/2000 $5,754.84 12/11/2000 $1,999.80 12/11/2000 $185.20 12/11/2000 $491.69 12/11/2000 $725.84 12/11/2000 $157.15 12/11/2000 $524.75 12/11/2000 $105.00 12/11/2000 $334.26 12/11/2000 $335 00 12/11/2000 $3,797.08 12/11/2000 $412.50 12/11/2000 $186.38 12/11/2000 $2,756.16 12/11/2000 $60.00 12/11/2000 $6.79 12/11/2000 $90 60 12/11/2000 $45.00 12/11/2000 $1,094.00 12/11/2000 $22.50 12/11/2000 $50.00 12/11/2000 $171.84 12/11/2000 $168.00 12/11/2000 $137.80 12/11/2000 $1,953 00 12/11/2000 $25.00 12/11/2000 $263.77 12/11/2000 $481.35 12/11/2000 $604.50 12/11/2000 $374.14 12/11/2000 $1,476.43 12/11/2000 $34 32 12/11/2000 $3,855 15 . ^J Name Check Date Check Amt '-‘■^1 Paid Chld» 070263 Paid Chk# 070264 PaidChk# 070265 Paid Chk# 070266 PaidChk# 070267 Paid Chk# 070268 Paid Chk# 070269 Paid Chk# 070270 Paid Chk# 070271 Paid ChlQP 070272 Paid Chk# 070273 Paid Chk# 070274 Paid Chk# 070275 PaidChk# 070276 Paid Chld» 070277 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC STA-SAFE LOCKSMITH STANTON GROUP STAR TRIBUNE STREICHERS THE HOME DEPOT TRACY TRIPP FUELS TRI STATE PUMP UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE VERIZON WIRELESS WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC XCEL ENERGY YOUNG. JACKIE 12/11/2000 $19.89 12/T1/2C00 $157.53 12/11/2CD0 $182.30 12/11/2000 $604.00 12/11/2000 $465.88 12/11/2000 $54.92 12/11/2000 $2,034.49 12/11/2000 $160.00 12/11/2000 $794.62 12/11/2000 $44.00 12/11/2000 $491.02 12/11/2000 $65.00 12/11/2000 $33.11 12/11/2000 $4,830.07 12/11/2000 $525.00 Total Checks $44,951.55 CITY OF ORONO Check Register 12/08/00 10:25 AM Page 1 Pay Period u h 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Check # Employee Name Check Date Check Amount 048458 JOHNSON, MARY ANN 048459 DODGE. RACHEL M. 048457 VOID 048460 MOORSE, RONALD J. 048461 STURMAN. HEIDI N. 048462 VEE, LINDA S. 048463 KUEHN. THOMAS M. 048464 OLSON. RONALD J. 048465 PETTIT. SANDRA K. 048466 ANDERSON. BRUCE L 048467 BOBZiEN. SUE A. 048468 BORIS. SCOTT W. 048469 BUDIG. STACIE M. 048470 CARLSON. MICHAEL B. 048471 CHESWICK. GARY B. 048472 CORNICK. JAMES L. 048473 DEMBOUSKI. JAY C. 048474 ERICKSON. KURT R 048475 FARNIOK. CORREY L. 048476 FISCHENICH. DAN T. 048477 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K. 048478 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P. 048479 JOHNSON. JEFFREY 048480 MADSON. ADRIENNE M. 0464F1 MCNALLV, STEVEN A. 04c4?52 MCNICHulS. DAVID L 048483 MOROWC2YNSKI. JAMES 048484 PERSELL, WILLIAM R. 048485 SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B. 048486 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. 048487 TOMCZYK. MARK W. 048488 WITTKE. ANTHONY A. 048489 HENDRICKS. RONALD J 048490 BOTTENBERG. WENDY C. 048491 DAVIS. MARC L 048492 GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. 048493 GAPPA. GREGORY A. 048494 MEYER. WILLIAM C. 048495 OMAN. LYLE E. 048496 PENCE. CHRISTOPHER M 048497 WEINBERGER. PAUL E. 048498 BRINKHAUS. JOHN F. 048499 DEBAERE. DONALD L 048500 GREGORY. JAMES D. 048501 HANSEN. STEVEN 048502 OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G. 048503 OBRIEN, RANDY L 048504 PALMER. GREGORY A. 1L29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29.00 11/29.00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29.00 11/29/00 11/29/00 11/29/CO 11/29.00 $575.38 $850.44 $0.00 $1,728.29 $659.00 $1,210.59 $1,406.66 $237.07 $320.83 $773.59 $799.21 $1,235.18 $718.82 $608.09 $1,557.90 $1,630.34 $1,284.98 $1,104.98 $1,657.78 $1,280.35 $1,464.63 $1,642.19 $828.11 $607.12 $1,358.06 $628.18 $1,695.00 $500.17 $1,374.05 $700.87 $1,461.30 $1,005.35 $605.84 $1,046.57 $1,143.66 $1,200.13 $1,792.96 $569.60 $60.85 $1,046.57 $1,226.16 $1,125.56 $1,066.67 $906.25 $981.67 $821.44 $574.36 $1,018.55 CITY OF ORONO 12/06/00 10:26 AM Page 2 Check Register Pay Period Check * Employee Name Check Date Check Amount ■r-PeH 24 24 24 048505 RATHBUN. BARRY J. 048506 SKREEN. DALE S. 048507 STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD E. 11/29/00 11/29/00 11^9/00 $929.76 $942.49 $1,345.43 Rtport Total $51,309.03 I -------- mpr Pay Period 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24 2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.1 Report Total CITY OF ORONO Check Register Check # Employee Name 048513 ANDERSON, BRUCE L. 048514 BORIS. SCOTT W. 043515 CORNICK. JAMES L 048516 DEMBOUSKI, JAY C. 048517 ERICKSON. KURT R 048518 FARNIOK. CORREY L. 048519 FISCHENICH. DAN T. 048520 FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K. 048521 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P. 048522 JOHNSON. JEFFREY 048523 MCNALLY. STEVEN A. 048524 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. 500000 MOROWC2YNSKI. JAMES 048525 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B. 048526 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. 048527 TOMCZYK. MARK W. 048528 WITTKE. ANTHONY A. 048509 VOID 048510 VOID 048511 VOID 048512 VOID 048508 LEE. JOSEPH P, Check Date Check Amount 12/1/00 $1,744.04 12/1/00 $455.21 12/1/00 $1,602.56 12/1/00 $1,487.15 12/1/00 $1,025.06 12/1/00 $1,662.87 12/1/00 $1,394.34 12/1/00 $1,224.95 12/1/00 $1,684.44 12/1/00 $867.85 Mi\m $82.71 12/1/00 $1,514.03 12/1/00 $0.00 12/1/00 .•^1,363.45 12/1/00 $1,462.09 12/1/00 $1,692.03 12/1/00 $1,006.14 12/1/00 $0.00 12/1/00 $0.00 12/1/00 $0.00 12/1/00 $0.00 11/29AK)$277.70 $20,546.62 12/08/00 10:26 AM Page 1 1 ,»I am ■I Tn ~ CITY OF ORONO Check Summary Register Thursday, Novambsr 30,2000 Page 1 oM 10100 Primary Cash Name Check Date Check Amt Paid Chk# 062757 Void 11/29/00 $0.00 Paid Chk# 062758 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 11/29/00 $7,484.00 Paid Chk# 062/69 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 11/29/00 $18,618.34 Paid Chk# 062760 ICMA RETiREMENT TRUST. 457 11/29/00 $300.00 Paid Chk# 062761 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 11/29/00 $0.00 Paid Chk# 062762 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 11/29/00 $3,863.51 Paid Chk# 062763 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST 11/29/00 $1,772.68 Paid Chk# 062764 PEBSCO/OBRA 11/29/00 $36.75 Paid Chk# 062765 PEBSCOAJS CONF OF MAYORS 11/29/00 $2,607.00 Paid Chk# 062766 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT 11/29/00 $10,732.40 Paid Jhk# 062767 UNITED WAY 11/29/00 $28.00 Paid ChidP 062768 WISCONSIN SCTF 11/29/00 $184.62 Total Checks $45,627.30 V ! 5.1 . . INFORMATIO •ITEMS DECOFCl vs-UHONU • �nlmnn 1fiafn ®£fires I I �nt2rnational Jffillnge ffice rrahe ,lbg. 220 ,i. 98tly t. �lnomington., �tt. 55420 _TING c,1 2000 ·J2l. _. D. (9 2)8 1-2711 lJfnx No. (952) B 1-4B26 November 22, 2000 Ron Morse Orono City Administrator P.O. Box 66 Cry tal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Breshnall Hornes Plat D a Mr. orse: Lot 2, Block 1, Heather croft I' y u,. U Otv Our �£ice ha been asked to review the relimi ary plat process n -h reshnall Ho es deve opment. Whi any a .. ternat ·.ves ave been d · sc ss d concer 1ing this develop ent, 1nc.lud1ng leg 1 action und r he Min neso_a Environmental Rights ct, the e-gh o s hav apprec e the ·:.!ffo ts that the City made o o es re ·s proposed deve. o ment, be'bui ar ia ly on st ep slopes, does not c se exces s·ve environm nt 1 damage or d ·ers ly af fee heir rop erty. Many concerns st·11 rem .·n, however. fter e rn. n ng the minutes of Septembe 2 , I no ·ced tat h e was no refe to the co·· -e s made b G _ y W lsh c,oncerning h · s belief s p.oc ss was f aw In addition, t ere elution gra ti g p � mi a y approva requ · es, among other things, the grant of a censer . ·' on ease t .. ,... ... ... . . .-: �-. 't.-:.:... , ·14 foo contour. The neighbors wo ld p r :ec ate it if _he -: of this · seme.nt wer pe lled ou no r ther t an r__..__ g ndef ni te. . . hey a so. wan. this a ea c early e ea te · · o ma n , pe-haps with metal posts as as done by the Ci yo the ga H 11 pro. erty. dless e ,O I e the so th 0 say, h nstruct on of the . lope y .ce d 18% 1 r r y owne ·• I s ill ally th s clay-11.k soi an the eep opes ead many no a s-ormwater 0 raises coa pears t at I wil ng to oncer about pond cer s CO .. eros at Tr · ·-t· h -.o . in for Page -2-November 22, 2000 Ro· Mo. Re B� shnall Home Plat vigilant an adam n in the protection of the local envir onment nd the·: r own pr perty. They hope the City will contin ue to ddre th ·ir co c rns n this process. If I c n be of any assistance, ple ase let me know. D __ /eth b -.o • Mayar Ga br 1 J bbo City Counci Members Pa u. Weinberg er Mik Gaff �o ,•. S'ncerely, ,,.,,,. Holman :