Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-1997 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1997, 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 COUNCIL MEETING 1.CONSENT AGENDA APR 2 8 1997 APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Meeting of April 14, 1997 cmroponoNo PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Dale Lindquist Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) *4. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 3.#2201 Adams/Fieger/Rol>r;, 70/580/590 Big Island - Permit for Private Improvements in Right of-Way - Resolution #2205 Allen Scheffers, 2540 Casco Point Road - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 5.#2212 Sidney & Barbara Rebers, ’2190' Wayzata Boulevard - Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution 6.#2214 Carmen & Richard Kozicky, 2016 Shadywood Road - Variances - Resolution 7.#2217 John Thimmesh, 1945 Fagemess Point Road - Variances - Resolution #2222 Joseph Vochko, 2925 Casco Point Road - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution #2225 John Theobald, 4101 Highwood Road - Renewal Variance - Resolution *10 #2226 Jolin and Susanne Koob, 3065 Jamestown Road - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution *11. #2227 Gary E. Tucker, 3466 Ivy Place - Variances - Resolution *12. #2228 Frank and Kathleen St. Lawrence, 253 Cygnet Place, Variances - Resolution *13. #2230 Georgina Hackney, 2184 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution 14.Spring Hill Golf Club, 700 Spring Hill Road - EAW *8. *9. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 15.Planning Commission Reappointments 16.Park Commission Appointments K SGiNEER REPORT 17.Pay Request #4, Lift Station #28 Rehabilitation CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 18.Request for Clarification of Council Action on Fox Hollow Plat - James Bruce 19.Kennel Application, 2695 Casco Point Road 20.Lord Fletcher's Request to Use Municipal Parking Lot AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1997, 7:00 P.M. ORCNO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued 21. Saga Hill Tax Forfeit Property - Resolution 22. Highway 12 Sewer Capacity Update 23. Set Dates for Highway 12 Neighborhood Meetings 24. Resolution Amending the Program for Deferment of Special Assessments for Persons 65 years of Age or Older 25. 1997 First Quarter Revenue and Expendiuire Report r« ' » CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ^ 'HatibdA.imits Ordinance (*27.)LICENSES u 4 (*28.)BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 04/23 04/26 04/28 05/02 05/05 05/10 05/12 05/19 05/22 05/26 05/27 Board of Review 7:00 p.m. Orono Cleanup Day 8 a.m.-2 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Mn/DOT Highway 12 Stormwater Planning meeting 8:30-10:00 a.m Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. Orono Cleanup Day 8 a.m.-2 p.m. (construction debris only) Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. Hennepin County Library Public Information meeting 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY Memorial Day observed TUESDAY - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Tnm n 11 rii I 7.« Public A ttendance Meeting D ate hl C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITV RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1.» XWv^Or •7.-2.\l ' o J ' ^ ^y/0 AJ-Sji/o/^j\cp /tUafK. 5. ^l\ h ^ 1 / i"Vi S /y ^ y 5^ RcJ , \\^'T (lA.------------------1---------1----------^--------------------------- 7. k^^2,cK\.t 0 ^ ^i)fL ^ ni'i iS l\s 8. 7 /(// • ’^121 .-^ >5 C.^ P 1 10. >J4^<^55 C\Mn-J-pL S~ Ilk .2.. --------------jj]------------------------- A(3rt'/.;vj7^/u/ . 220S 12. 1 * n. 14. I'?- _________________________________________________________________________ 4 09139S.4 i ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 14,1997 ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with tlic following members present. Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, and Barbara Peterson. Richard Flint was absent. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Radio, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator J^chael Gaffron, Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COUNCIL MEETING (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA APR 2 8 1997 Items #9, 10, 15, 16, 17, and 18 were added to the Consent Agenda. CITY OF ORONO Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#2) REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 24,1997 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#3) SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 31,1997 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of March 31, 1997. Vote: Ayes 4. Nays 0. (*#4) SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 1, 1997 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of April 1, 1997. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Vice Chair Wilson reported having met with Greg Gappa and Jack Brinkhaus visiting parks and reviewing the history and maintenance. Wilson invited the Council to attend the annual Park Tour on June 2 at 6:00 p.m. i 4 r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (Park Commission Comments - Continued) Wilson reported the Commission is working towards introducing a tree/preservation/restoration/replacement policy or possible an ordinance. David Beal is the chairman and is reviewing the policies in place in other communities. A future work session is planned to review such a policy/ordinance. Wilson informed the Council that the Park Inventory is now completed and will soon be available for distribution. She noted the upcoming agenda item regarding the playground improvements at Antoine Park. Jabbour informed Wilson that the Council will be determining who will fill the vacancies on the Park Commission at their next Council meeting. He noted the discussions under way regarding the Park Dedication Fund. Jabbour asked Wilson to speak with City of Minnetonka personnel regarding their tree ordinance and its effectiveness after one year of implementation. Jabbour noted the possibility of a trail through the Spring Hill Golf Club development and asked the Park Commission to consider a proposal regarding such a trail. Jabbour also noted that consideration is being given to collecting the P^k ‘dedication fees with both subdivision applications and other development applications. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Lindquist had no additional comments to add to the Planning Commission Minutes. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#5) #2204 JAMES G. FULLERTON III, REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -RESOLUTION NO. 3879 Van Zomcren reported that the application is a request for a preliminary subdivision approval and conditional use permit for a gue.st house. The application will result in the creation of tw o new lots and include a lot line rearrangement The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat with conditions as noted. The application has been delayed because of disagreement over payment of the 8% Park Dedication fee of $60,000. The guest house is located on Lot 3 and includes the caretaker's residence. Both structures are within the 0-75' setback minutes of the regular orono city council MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 {US - #2204 - Fullerton - Continued) without any resolution. Winston noted that there has been no opposition to the propo as such and conditions placed on the application meet with applicant s approval. Winston indicated that the proposal is unique and is incurring an incredibly high Park Dedication fee. He noted the fees collected from adjoimng communities were would be minimal impact on parks from these lots especially m^th their location on the lake He reiterated that the conditions placed on the proposal by the Planning Commissioners were acceptable. The lots meet City standards, and the development agreement and issue of the roadway can be worked out with Staff according to Winston. Jabbour noted the Park Dedication ftind established in the 1 980 ’s is related to the value of the land. He reported the Council's need for due diligence in enforcing the legalities ot the City and questioned whether the issues could be separated. Goetten asked if the applicant wanted to receive approval on the application less the Par Dedication fee. Winston said he would like to receive total approval with the fee being negotiated. Goetten informed him it is the Council's practice not to grant approval when issues are unsettled. Radio said the normal recommendation would be to address all issues and not separate one from the application. Since the application is in preliminary stages. Radio suggested the possibility of escrowing the fee until the amount is settled. Winston said he would be agreeable to that solution. Goetten voiced concern with requests made by other applicants in the future by setting such a precedent. Winston said he feels the fee is not reasonable and has not been told otherwise. Jabbour informed Winston that the Council will be discussing the issue of the Park Dedication Fund in an Executive Session following the regular meeting. He reported that the City is not in the position to negotiate the fee; the fee must be paid in full or the ordinance changed. 3 I i I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 {U5 - #2204 - Fullerton - Continued) Kelley questioned whether the Council wanted to review how the parks are being funded He noted another large parcel that would incur similar problems with the amount of fee when developed. He was agreeable to escrowing the fee informing Winston that there would be no guarantee of any reimbursement. Goetten suggested the application be tabled to the next Council meeting as the Council needs to discuss the issues and may not make any changes at this time to the Park Dedication regulations. Winston related that the application was filed 12/23/96 and would like to see the issue resolved without further delay. Radio indicated there would be a length of time involved in analyzing the code as it represents a fundamental shift from the cuirent code. Staff is unable to make ariy recommendations for a fee other than what is supported by the code. Due to this. Radio indicated the delay is reasonable. He noted the requirement to apply the code in a constitutional manner. Jabbour indicated that while it is not his desire to delay the applicant, any change in the regulations cannot be facilitated quickly. Any determination will affect future applications. Peterson asked Radio if any current or past applicant could be eligible for a reimbursement if a change was made to the code regarding the funding. Radio acknowledged the high rate of litigation in today’s society but raised the argument that any past applicant has waived this possibility when they signed the development agreement. If the preliminary and subdivision has been recorded. Radio said it could not be challenged. Jabbour noted the limited possibility of applications reaching a similar fee. He said the 8% fee was reasonable but saw the possibility for setting a maximum fee. Jabbour said he would be in favor of proceeding, with an escrowing of the full fee at this time. Winston informed the Council that he would need 8-10 days to gather the fee for escrowing. Goetten asked why the decision then could not wait. Radio indicated that the payment is not paid until final approval has been granted. Peterson questioned the turn of events if a motion were to fail. Radio said if a motion to pass were to fail and a motion to deny also failed, it can then be tabled. ] 4 . t MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO GITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#5 - #2204 Fullerton - Continued) Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the preliminary plat and conditional use permit with the understanding that the a letter of credit be submitted at the time of final Lbdivision in the amount of the Park Dedication fee until a final detemimation be made. Vote; Ayes3, Nays l,Goetten. Goetten's vote was made for reasons stated. She supported the’application but recommends the Park Dedication fee be resolved pnor to any approval of the application. Winston felt the case should be reviewed ad hoc, case by case. Radio indicated while the Supreme Court allows for case to case study, it does not allow any applicant to piece meal the fee either. He indicated the imposition of a maximum fee would provide some certainty. He also noted that the Executive Session is only being held because of the threat of litigation from this application. (#6) #2212 SIDNEY & BARBARA REBERS, 2080 WAYZATA BOULEVARD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - RESOLUTION NO. 3880 The applicant was present along with attorney, Steve Pflam. Gaffron reported that the application is for preliminary' subdivision and the conversion of Outlot E, Sugar Woods, to buildable status. The outlot was created from a parcel of land remaining from the Sugar Woods plat for future commercial development consisting of Oullots E and F, which is the Orono Shopping Center. At the time of the plat, a comprehensive plan amendment included a frontage road to serve projected commercial development. The Sugar Woods plat conformed to that amendment with the creation of Outlot D. This outlot only provides a corridor from the west boundary of Sugar Woods to the northwest comer of Outlot F. The intent was that at some future time when outlot F is developed, the remaining frontage road segment eastward to Brown Road would be defined and platted. Outlot D was platted because the City needed a corridor that would traverse the Wear property located between Outlets E and F. Outlot C of East Willow Woods was platted, providing a corridor connecting from Outlot E of Sugar Woods, westward to Willow Drive for future frontage road. 4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 {U6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Gaffron indicated that access is the primary issue with the conversion of this outlet to buildable lot status. Outlet E meets the minimum lot area and width standards for a building site in the B-1 District, and the only variances which may be necessary for its development would be related to specific building and site layout \ssues. A 70' wide curb cut for a right-in, right-out ingress/egress resulted from the safety improvements for Highway 12. These improvements did allow for a future curb cut but vrith a median across it. Gaffron noted that the comprehensive plan limits access to Wghway 12. Although the "Alternative 6 North" proposal for the Highway 12 corridor would move substantial traffic off of Hwy 12, the current Hwy 12 would continue to have a high traffic count. The projected count would stiU warrant a limited access roadway with service roads for access to adjacent properties. The Planning Commission had discussed the access issues as outlined in the 4/2/97 memo on page 2 relating to traffic on Hwy 12, safety improvement impacts on access to Outlet E, shared access, and factors that would trigger construction of the frontage road. The plan called for a road within Outlet D to be developed at the time of development of Outlet E or F for a fully completed frontage road. The City has easements over Outlets C and D to Willow Drive. The existing drainage pond was developed as part of Sugar Woods. The City would require confirmation that the pond would be able to handle the additional drainage from development of Outlet E. Gaffron stated the Staff recommendation differs from the Planning Commission review outcome. The Commission recommended unanimous approval of the preliminary subdivision and change in outlot to buildable status with a temporary right-in, nght-out access subject to future construction of a frontage road. Other conditions are noted on page 7 of the 4/10/97 memo. The Commission suggested the applicant investigate the possibility of a shared curb cut with ihe Wear property and the possibility of creating an access across from Brimhall Avenue which would serve both Outlot E and the East Willow Woods future development. Gaffron said the Staff recommendation would follow the comprehensive plan and would not allow this development to occur until the frontage road is in place. Staff recommendation includes seven conditions as noted on page 6 of the 4/10/97 memo. Steve Pflam relayed the history of the property owned by Rebers. At the time the outlot was so designated, the City and applicant disagreed about the need for a frontage road. This and several other lots were platted separately so there would not be the need to obtain right-of-way from Sugar Woods development for the future frontage road. The future frontage road was not extended eastward as it was felt it could be dealt with when Outlot F and the lot to west of the Rebers property were developed. WTien Otten's property was developed, a piece of land was obtained for the future frontage road. A right-of-way was granted wnth restrictions. • J MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (U6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Pflam said the applicant's major objection to the frontage road is the property is zoned commercial and already has legal access to Hwy 12. The applicant does not currently have plans for Outlot F and would agree to revisit the frontage road issue when that property is developed. Pflam said the applicant is seeking a buyer who would use the entire property rather than subdivide it into smaller lots. Pflam said the service road is laid out for use by a large number of businesses and, as such, would not be needed if only one business was developed on Outlot F. Pflam asked for approval of the outlot to buildable lot status. The applicant does not want to reorient the lot to the rear and lose Hwy 12 access. Pflam said he felt the Chy does not have the resources to fund the service road. Pflam said the comprehensive plan has been affected dramatically by the relocation proposal of Hwy 12. Pflam indicated it was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting for a right turn in and out with a median. Conunissioners raised the question of relocatmg the access to the west to line up with Brimhall. Pflam said he discussed this possibility with Mn/DOT, who owns the triangular piece of property. The applicant has applied for a permit fix ’ such an access. Pflam indicated the median is wide enough to support a stacking lane if needed. Pflam said this access could be used by the Rebers and Otten properties. Pflam asked for approval of the replat to a buildable lot without loss of access to Hwy 12. He said the applicant is prepared to meet all conditions including the 60' wide ri^- of-way for a future road or trail. Cliflf Otten said he agrees with the plan as presented by Pflam for access. He said he does not see any need for a service road. Otten and Rebers informed Jabbour that thqr wtr< planning their properties in light of the Alternate 6 proposal for Hwy 12. rc Kelley asked for clarification on the covenants on the property if an easement was granted. Gaffron reviewed the easement limitations as noted on page 4 of the 4/10/97 memo. Goetten noted she agreed with Staff regarding the service road but questioned whether the City can legally enforce it with the pre-existing conditions. Radio said he thou^ it would be difficult for the City to require construction of the service road. Kelley asked if the applicant would be willing to combine access for the bank property (Outlot E) with the Wear property. Pflam said he would be willing to discuss this possibility with Staff and Planning Commission. Ke’.ley was concerned that people would drive through the Wear lot to the bank property. Pflam said a barrier could be built MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL i4,1997 (#6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Kelley asked Otten if he would be willing to vacate his existing easternmost access if a shared access from Brimhall was approved. Otten noted that he currently has two access points on Hwy 12, one right-in only and one right-in, right-uut. Kelley asked that the access currently used for nursery stock be eliminated. Otten said he would consider it. Otten noted that a joint access would also become the new access to the City well. Moorse explained Staffs concern for access related to the development of the commercial properties. When looking at the issue from a long term standpoint, Moorse recommended that it would not be beneficial for all the traffic from this development to enter onto Hwy 12. The next development will set the tone for the remaining commercial development. While understanding the parcel is small, it will orient all access onto Hwy 12. Jabbour agreed that Staffs recommendation made sense from a planning viewpoint but questioned whether it can legally be required. He indicated a future developer may not want ingress-egress onto Hwy 12. Goetten noted the access on Hwy 12 for the Rebers property would not eliminate the service road and could possibly be used by Outlot F in the future. Moorse asked Council to review the issue comprehensively noting if the property was developed to orient to Hwy 12 and away from the service road, it would affect any businesses being oriented to a service road. Kelley agreed that the orientation of the businesses now would affect future business orientation for access. He said he believed the second lot owned by Otten will be sold in the future and Outlot F could be divided into several lots. Kelley also noted that the purpose of the service road was to move traffic away from Hwy 12 and indicated the proposed Alternate 6 could still change. Kelley said he would not recommend vacating the service road. If the Brimhall access was acquired, Kelley said he would request the second curb cut for Otten's property be eliminated. He also recommended the property be obtained for the future service road to the north. Pflam indicated the Brimhall proposal for access originated with the Planning Commission and from the comprehensive plan itself. He said this access would not preclude the building of the frontage road in the future. He indicated the applicant would be willing to pay his share of the service road in the future. Pflam said the applicant will consider access from either Hwy 12 or from Brimhall. Otten noted that the original concept for a service road did not place the location. He indicated he lost 30' to Mn/DOT for Hwy 12 improvements and it represents the service road as it could have been located adjacent to Hwy 12 instead of to the north. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Jabbour said he recommends maintaining the easement for the service road. Peterson asked Radio if conditions can be placed on the application for elimination of Hwy 12 access if the Brimhall access was approved. Radio referred her to the Planning Commission condition #5 as noted on page 7 of the 4/10/97 memo indicat'mg the right-in, right-out access to Hwy 12 is to be eliminated when the frontage road to the rear of Outlot E (Lot 1) is developed. Radio said the conditions also put th applicant on notice regarding orientation of the business. Pflam said he had no objection if the condition placed future owners on notice regarding access only via a frontage road, but objected to the condition being recorded due to potential marketability problems. Goetten questioned what would happen if a buyer was found for Outlot F. Pflam said the applicant would make another application to the City. He also indicated that a service road would be used by the public and felt the cost could not be assessed to property owners only. He also indicated a buyer for Outlot F may prefer a private driveway onto Brown Road. Pflam asked Staff to address in a memo how the frontage road would be laid out, assessed, and any conditions that would be required to be met. Jabbour asked Pflam if there was any objection to the Park Dedication fee. Pflam said no. Gafifron asked for discussion to clarify findings for redrafting of the resolution. Radio indicated a motion for conceptual approval or denial with findings could be made, with formal approval of a resolution at the next meeting. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the preliminary subdivision and conversion to buildable lot status as outlined in the discussion with use of Brimhall for access only and directed Staff to draft said resolution. Applicant was asked to work with Staff and a Council member on details. Radio inquired if a condition regarding orientation would be included. Council agreed to make the condition cited in the resolution. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. Jabbour asked Staff to work with Otten regarding clospfp qf |)}§ ea$terrtmosf ^wy 12 access and use of Brimhall for access. (Agenda Item #7 follows Item #14) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#8) HOME OCCUPATION LICENSES Van Zomeren reiterated some of the regulations regarding home occupation hcenses. The zoning ordinance allows such licenses for persons engaged in business within their own dwellings and limited to the principal residence only. Van Zomeren revievved the licensing requirements. She noted that the use of the garage for storage of stock would be in violation of the ordinance, the evidence of the occupation may not be visible from the street and is reinforced by the restriction of no signage. The amount of retail activity also cannot overtake the use of the residence. Over the counter sales is not allowed. Entry to the business must be through the residence. The business cannot generate demand for more than three parking spaces. Van Zomeren said one of the problems is that the definition lists the regulations. She indicated that the definition should say what it is rather than list prohibitions. Van Zomeren said there are currently 19 licenses issued of which 10 are considered active. Some of these licensees have outside employees which is not allowed by ordinance. Van Zomeren asked for policy direction on recodification. Van Zomeren noted that the state law does not allow for variances. People in violation of the no outside employee prohibition are either in business without licensing, or unaware of the licensing requirement. Jabbour said he would not want people who have assistants to be required to come before the Council. He would like to see this issue handled at the Staff level. Jabbour indicated there were probably many people who employ secretaries at their residences. Home Occupation License Applications were reviewed as follows: 1) The home occupation license application for John Waldron meets all the requirements. Van Zomeren said Staff recommends approval. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Home Occupation License for John Waldron in compliance with the findings as noted. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 2) Thomas Clapp applied for a Home Occupation License after being notified about the ordinance during the process of remodeling his office space. He provided a letter outlining the impact of the license restrictions on his business. Clapp said he requires clerical assistance. Van Zomeren said Staff'informed the Clapps of the restrictions. All requirements are met except for the need for a secretary. Radio informed the applicant that a variance use is illegal. The need for secretarial service cannot be obtained under the current code. The code is being reviewed for possible recodification. i u H MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#8 Home Occupation Licenses - Continued) Van Zomeren indicated the remodeling work has been stopped. Clapp said the work was on hold until this matter could be resolved. Jabbour recommended granting occupancy and denying the portion of the code that is not in compliance. He directed Staff to eliminate any future fee for the applicant. Clapp informed the Council that he was surprised by the ordinance. He said he understood the City not wanting a lot of cars parked at residences. He indicated there would be 1 -2 cars maximum at any time. Jabbour told Clapp that there was no problem with what business he was running but with approving it under the current code. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the Home Occupation License with the exception of allowing any employees at the business within the residence. Remodeling construction was app ived to resume. Mrs. Clapp said they were unable to move forward wi> the remodeling until the issue of secretarial employment was resolved. She inquired of the time table involved for recodification. Radio informed her th.at he anticipated approximately a two month time frame with Council supporting the change to allow some outside employees for support functions within the residences. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 3) Home Occupation License for Mitch Kezar Jabbour abstained from the discussion. Goetten chaired the agenda item. Van Zomeren reported that the home occupation license was for a location photographer. The lot was previously subdivided. An outlot provides access to the property to the rear. There is a name sign which is allowed under the code. The resident has indicated one outside employee on the application. Van Zomeren asked for Council direction as the business is currently in violation of the zoning code. Goetten asked if the employee was used in the same context as the last application. Van Zomeren said it was possible but there was a higher activity level with this home occupation. She indicated the Building Inspector, Lyle Oman, visited the residence after concern was expressed by a neighbor about the number of vehicles on the premises. The applicant was not present. Goetten indicated no determination of this license could be made without his presence. Van Zomeren questioned the license since the applicant was in violation. 1 j I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (US Home Occupation Licenses - Continued) Greg Malek, the neighbor whose property is located to the rear of the applicant's, was present to voice his concerns. Goetten informed him while no action could be taken, Malek could voice his concerns. Malek said he originally owned the entire piece of property and sold the front property to the applicant. At that time, the Council requested the driveway be located to the west. Malek requested the driveway be located to the east to save a stand of trees. A letter from Malek, which is part of the record, asked for Malek and Kezar to share the cost of maintenance of the driveway. Malek said a letter from an engineer, also part of the record, indicates the driveway is constructed to handle automobile traffic only and not made for tajcks. Malek said there are 3-5 trucks in and out of the Kezar property weekly. He provided a list of license numbers of vehicles at the Kezar property. Malek said the driveway is not engineered to handle delivery trucks. Malek informed the Council that it is his belief that Kezar is in violation of the home occupation license. He asked that if the business is to continue that the driveway location be changed. Goetten informed him that no use variances are allowed by the code, and the code will have to be changed to allow outside employees. Goetten informed Malek that he will be notified when the application is back before the Council. Van Zomeren clarified that the code would require revision to allow the business to continue to operate. She indicated there is no notification process with home occupation licensing. She was directed by Council to include notification of adjacent property owners when considering amendm''nts. Van Zomeren said if the code is limited to licensing, an acknowledgment signature would be required. Van Zomeren said she would not make that recommendation for licensing. The driveway issue criteria would require review. Shared driveways should not be allowed with truck traffic as noted. Kelley asked what steps the City takes when a license is in violation. Van Zomeren indicated Oman inspected the property; although, he did not walk through the home. Kelley indicated there was nothing that can be done about the driveway issue at this point. Peterson noted she was involved m the particular subdivision and recalled the outlot being a requirement of the County for one access. Gappa indicated a new driveway and curb cut would require approval by the City. Kelley moved, Peterson secc nded, to table the home occupation license application for Mitch Kezar to the April 28 Council Meeting. Staifwas directed to act regarding the current violation. Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 0. (Mayor/Council Report after Agenda Item #12) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (*#9) PLANNING COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the eligibility of Dale Lindquist and Jamct Berg for reappointment to a 3-year term on the Planning Commission. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 0. ENGINEER REPORT (*#10) QUOTATION FOR NAVARRE WELL #2 REPAIR Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to authorize repairs to Navarre well #2 and accept the low quotation from E.H. Renner and Sons, Inc. of $11,978.15, Alternate #1 of $1,200.00 and Alternate #2 of $1,977.00. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#11) VALEK REQUEST TO VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TO ACQUIRE A PORTION OF A TAX FORFEIT PARCEL Moorse indicated the agenda item involves two separate but related issues involving the 9.5 acre tax forfeit parcel that the City is in the process of acquiring. The City has a 10’ right-of-way through the Valek property to the church property. The Valek’s are requesting vacation of the 10' right-of-way. The Valek's also are requesting to acquire 1/2 acre from the 9-1/2 tax forfeit parcel to add to their existing property. This would allow them to control the drainage to the pond and provide a larger back yard. It would also provide them the opportunity for a lot Une rearrangement for another lot that they own in the same area. The two issues are related in that the 1/2 acre acquisition was delayed until the easement issue is resolved. Moorse reported that the Park and Planning Commissions have reviewed the issues and recommend Garden Lane as the chosen access to the park land property. A temporary pedestrian easement may be obtained from Fairview Church. Moorse said the acc^s through the Valek property is not the best solution to gain access to the park. Stan recommends approval of the vacation. Moorse indicated if the Council approves the vacation, the acquisition of the 1/2 acre parcel can move forward. Jabbour asked if the City acquired the 1/2 acre parcel outside of the tax forfeit procedure. Moorse indicated the City did not. He said the acreage is tied into the entire 9-1/2 acre parcel. Jabbour asked if the City currently owns the 9 acres. Moorse stated the City has not yet acquired the 9 acres. The City needs to submit an amended application to the County. 1 ■■III MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#11 Valeks Request for Vacation - Continued) Jabbour informed Peterson of the history of the property, v acation request, and access issues to the Saga Hill park land parcels. He indicated the City may want a walking path at some point which may require the use of the Valek property right-of-way. Goetten noted that all the Council did not agree with his opinion. She felt the Valek's have been placed on hold long enough and asked the City and County to take action. Goetten recommended support of the Valek's request with maintenance of a utility easement. Kelley said his position would favor granting acquisition to the Valek ’s of the 1/2 acre parcel and moving the 10 ’ right-of-way to the west lot line. Mr. Valek responded to the Council’s comments He indicated the City gave him permission to do with the easement as he desired when he built his home. He indicated his driveway is located over the easement and utilities are located within the easement. Valek said the City had indicated the easement would be vacated years ago. Valek said the change in location of the easement would change a possible arrangement he had to buy a portion of a neighboring property. Mrs. Valek added that they also own another lot ne.\t to their residence. This lot is considered buildable and has sewer provided to the lot; the cost of which has already been paid. Kelley said his proposal is for the easement to run down the lot line. Valek explained his plan to purchase 1/4 acre from the neighbor. Jabbour informed Valek that he must ensure that the acquisition does not result in the neighbor’s property becoming substandard in size. Kelley clarified the size of the lots. The property is located in the one acre zoning district. Kelley questioned whether the acquisition was to be able to build another home. Mrs. Valek noted the lot would be improved by the additional land and reiterated the sewer stub was in and paid for. Mrs. Valek also indicated their property floods whenever it rains. The neighboring properties drain to their property. Drain tile is reauired on the western portion of the lot. She voiced frustration with the process of attempting to gain the 1/2 acre and the damages that have been incurred from flooding. Jabbour informed the Valek ’s that the City and residents have the right to the right-of- way. He suggested the 1/2 acre parcel acquisition request be separated from the right-of- way issue. He recommended the right-of-way be maintained for pedestrian use and suggested relocating the right-of-way. Goetten noted there is access to the park land from Garden Lane. I 1 minutes of the regular orono city council MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#11 Valeks Request for Vacation - Continued) Jabbour opined that since the park was large in size, there should be different ways by wWch to access the park property rather than from one access only. Valek said he was opposed to moving the 10 ’ easement or enlarging it as he was informed it was a utility easement. Kellev asked if the Palmer property, which is the neighbor from whom the Valek s wish to obwin additional land, has a sewer stub or is buildable. Valek indicMed there was no sewer to that property. Moorse and Gaffron said they did not know. Kelley was Morn^ that no one has spoken to the Palmer’s. Kelley said if the land was purchased SfmTht Palmer’s, he would still recommend the 10 ’ easement located on the west side of the Valek property and the driveway reconfigured Gaffron indicated the easement was a dedicated right-of-way and would rearrangement It was questioned what the size of the lot would become. He indicate the 45 acre lot with sewer desiring building certification would require »''ariance^ There would not be a need for 80% of lot size requirement as it is a lot of record He fe 11 variance would probably be approved as the lot meets all stan ar s. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to direct Staff to draft a resolutionb' the Mayor and sent to Hennepin County allowing the Valeks to purchase the 1/2 acre parcel. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. Jabbour indicated the applicant may request a vote regarding the 10' easement vacation or could return with a lot line rearrangement. Jabbour recommended the driveway be relocated. Valek reiterated the Park and Planning Commissions recommendation for access to the park land via Garden Lane. Goetten indicated the issue would be discussed as part of a lot line rearrangement. Moorse noted that the vacation cannot be formally acted on at this meeting. Jabbour suggested the Valek's meet with the neighbors regarding a decision to purchase additional land. (Agenda Item #12 discussed below after Item #7 which follows Item #14) I i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#13) PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT UPGRADE FOR ANTOINE PARK Gappa reported the Park Commission has submitted a plan to upgrade the playground equipment and improve Antoine Park. The Commission worked with a neighborhood group on the project. Gappa presented the plan and general layout. Grading will be required to maintain a 1% slope. A handicap access will be provided. It was suggested the access be relocated from Fagemess Point Road to Corral Road and a handicap stall be constructed. Gappa indicated an additional parking stall may be added in the future. The playground equipment will be supplied by Landscape Structures and installed by Earl Anderson in the amount of $23,166. Grading will be performed by Schonning at a cost of $5,100. The City will surface with pea gravel at a cost of $2,000. The handicap path will cost $3,000. The total cost for the park improvements is $33,266. Karen Hansen, a member of the neighborhood committee, indicated the neighbors worked very closely with the Commission. She said she is pleased with the response and support shown and requested approval of the plan as submitted. She indicated a survey had been conducted regarding the equipment and the plan responds to the needs shown in the survey. She noted the current equipment is unsafe. Kelley inquired about the life expectancy of the equipment being installed. Gappa indicated 20 years. Kelley requested the land under the buildings be graded to the same >evel as the play field to allow for additional play area Kelley said he recommends access be from Corral Road He noted the tendency for children to ride down a path and out onto Fagemess Point Road if located in that area. Peterson was informed that the property would be reseeded. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to authorize playground equipment upgrade for Antoine Park with funding from Park Dedication Funds, and to authorize completion of the necessary budget adjustments. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#14) DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS IN ANTOINE PARK Gappa reported that the two buildings in Antoine Park present security concerns and are in a state of disrepair. These buildings were previously used for storage of City equipment are but no longer used. The buildings were found to be in non-compliance when inspected by the structural engineer and determined to not be cost effective to repair The Park Commission has recommended removal of the buildings with demolition costs from City budget. There are future plans for a gazebo-type structure on the park property. John Weist, 1920 Concordia Street, said the buildings are an eyesore and are unsafe. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#14 Building Demolition in Antoine Park - Continued) The Council members agreed that the buildings presented a liability issue and favored condemnation. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to authorize demolition of the buildings in Antoine Park with the Rinding source from the City General Fund Contingency Budget. Motion to complete the required budget adjustments for funding of building demolition. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#7) #2224 CITY OF ORONO, 2080/2160/2190 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - REZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTION - ORDINANCE 157,2ND SERIES Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Ordinance No. 157, Second Ser.es, an ordinance amending the Municipal Code of Orono by listing the legal description of certain properties within the City as rezoned from R R-IB to R-1 A, from RR-IB to B-1, orfromR-lAtoB-1. V'ote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#12) DISCUSSION OF PROJECT FUNDING FOR NORTH LONG LAKE SEWER PROJECT AND SCHEDULING OF ASSESSMENT HEARING - RESOLUTION NOS. 3881 AND 3882 Gaffron reported that the per-unit assessment amount for the North Long Lake Sewer Project is being recommended at $14,300. Goetten inquired whether the project would include the Maresh property. The Council discussed this issue. The limited number of sewer units available was noted by Goetten. Kelley voiced favor in sewering as many properties as possible. Jabbour noted the obligation to sewer commercial properties along Hwy 12 and the school property. It was noted that the Maresh property if sewered would result in one additional buildable lot. Development of the lot would result in tree removal. Tree preservation had been noted as a major reason for the request for sewering. It was noted that, if included, Maresh would be responsible for the entire cost of sewering his property. Kelley asked how many residents outside of the specific hot spot area are currently requesting sewer. There are 10 requests in this project area. There are 55 units committed to this project; 12 units are committed to the ice arena, resulting in a remainder of 8 units of sewer capacity available in the total Highway 12 area. Jabbour directed Staff to determine a solution to the Highway 12 sewer capacity issue in the next few weeks. Jabbour voiced concern with setting a precedent in relation to which properties are included in the project. He suggested the City's original plan for sewering be maintained and requested a comprehensive sewering plan be established. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#12 North Long Lake Sewer Project - Continued) Criteria was discussed under which additional properties would be allowed to be sewered that are located outside of the project and MUSA line. Goetten indicated the Met Council is holding meetings in May to allow cities the opportunity to indicate changes to the comprehensive plan. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to recommend a set amount assessed at $13,950 per unit for 55 units at a total cost of $767,250. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to establish a policy by wliich the total project would be divided etjually between 55 units. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 0. If the Maresh property were to be included, his cost would be at 100% or $19,000. The Council discussed the criteria by which other properties may be included in an existing project. The property must be adjacent to the existing project. If it is removed by one lot and that lot is owned by the same person, the two lots may be combined in order to allow the lot to be sewered and meet the adjacent property requirement. Council also discussed the Johnson property and other properties in that vicinity requesting hook up to sewer. Kelley questioned the properties along West Farm Road between the two project areas. The properties which have failing systems that cannot be resolved on said property may be allowed to connect to sewer at some point in the future. The Met Council's standards will be applied for all adjacent properties, including properties larger than two acres. Properties must adjoin a sewer project and must have a failing system or non-conforming system, with no site on which to install a lew septic system. Gaffron noted that the code says when two adjoining lots are owned, one lot cannot be sold if it leaves the remaining lot substandard. Radio stated that properties do not have the right to be hooked up to sewer. It is considered a privilege. If two lots can be combined for legitimate reasons, sewer may then be acquired if properly adjoins the sewer project area. Gaffron indicated the cost of paving is included as part of the total assessment. Council agreed to paving of Dakota Avenue. i H MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#12 North Long Lake Sewer Project - Continued) Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3881 declanng the cost be assessed and order preparation of assessments. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3882 setting the Assessment Hearing for Tuesday, May 6,1997 at 7:00 p.m. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour asked for support from the City to enable the City of Mound to purchase a K-9 dog from Germany. The cost and maintenance would be shared with other conUact cities. The cost is projected to be a $700 one time payment and $500 yearly maintenance. The dog will be available to all of the communities. Jabbour noted that the retiring Mound officer and dog had saved the life of an Orono police officer. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the contribution towards the shared cost of $700 and $500 yearly maintenance for the purchase ot a K-9 dog for the City o Mound. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Kelley asked if the Council wanted to consider realignment of CoRd 19 through Orono Jabbour indicated the City is currently involved with the CoRd 6 and Hvi^ 12 projerts. The Council directed Moorse to respond unfavorably to inquiries regarding the City s position on the realignment. Peterson reported viewing the operation of the new enhanced-vision camera by the Mound Volunteer Fire Department. The City of Orono contributed to that purchase. Peterson said the camera is well worth the cost. Kelley asked for an update on the EAW process for the Spring Hill Golf Club. Gaflfron Indicated he had a meeting scheduled for April 15 with Marshal Braman to review the comments drafted. Staff will present a recommendation to the Council on April 28. Gaffron said each comment and point will receive a response. Jabbour noted the Planning Commission will review the application based on the code. Gaffron said, while the Commission was provided information from the EAW, they will follow the codes when reviewing the application. Goetten noted a comment that Medina had approved the plan yet it was not consistent with the Met Council comprehensive plan. Jabbour said he was informed by Crosby, a representative of the applicant, that the statement was inaccurate. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Moorse indicated the City of Excelsior is requesting the Orono Council approve support . of maintaining the Excelsior Post Office through a resolution. This post office serves the Kelly Avenue and Lafayette areas of Orono. Jabbour indicated the Navarre business area also uses this post office. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3884 expressing support for and requesting maintenance of the post office in Excelsior. Vote. Ayes 3, Nays 1, Kelley. (*#15) EMPLOYMENT OF PART-TIME POLICE OFFICER - RESOLUTION NO. 3883 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to appoint Kenneth Scott Hall to the position of part-time police officer, effective April 15, 1997 at a starting pay of $1 1.89 hourly; and to adopt Resolution No. 3883 establishing the eligibility of the position for coverage by the State Public Employee Retirement Fund for police officers. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#16) APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES FOR ORONO GOLF COURSE Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve a pay range of $6.25-7.10 per hour for the seasonal golf course employees for the 1997 season and establish a maximum six month time period for employment. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#17) BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the 1996 General and Special Revenue Funds budget amendments as presented, and to approve and authorize a cash advance of $157,800 as of 12/31/96 from the PIR Fund Contingency Account to the Municipal State Aid Fund, to be repaid from collection of state aid, special assessments, and other funding sources. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#18) SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT - BASS TOURNAMENT - DNR ACCESS MAXWELL BAY Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Denny Nelson request for special event permit for the series of Bass Tournaments to be held at the DNR Ma.xwell Bay access, with the condition that if the city experiences significant problems related to the tournaments the permit may be withdrawn. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Radio requested adjournment to an Executive Session. 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#19) HARBOR LIMITS ORDINANCE This agenda item will be discussed at the next Council meeting. (*#20) LICENSES Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the following licenses: Firearms Use Permit Hennepin Parks Larry Gillette Deer Hunt at Baker Park November 29 and 30, 1997 Special Event Permit Norwest Bank Minnesota Paul W. Maahs 17th Annual Lake Minnetonka Half Marathon Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#21) BILLS Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to an Executive Session at 10:59 p.m. The purpose of the Executive Session was to address potential litigation related to the Park Dedication fee for the Fullerton Subdivision. The Council provided direction to the City Attorney regarding resolving the issue without litigation. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk COUNCIL MEETING APR 2 8 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: April 23, 1997 ITEM NO.: ^ . Department Approval:. Administrator Reviewed: Name Michael P. Gaffron ^ Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2201 George Adams, James Feiger, and S. T. Robb, Jr., 570/580/600 Big Island - Permit Approval for Septic System Improvements in Street Right-of-Way - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/23/97 C - Memo and Exhibits of 4/15/97 Summar}’ of Application Applicants originally proposed vacation of right-of-way on Big Island in order to accommodate a proposed three party shared septic system. Planning Commission tabled that request in January, and applicants subsequently revised their proposal so that the drainfield is within the private property boundaries, requiring no vacation, but requiring approval of a permit for installation of private sewer connection pipes within the City right-of-way per Zoning Code Section 10.31, Subd. 5. Planning Commission Recommendation Please review the memo and exhibits of April 15th. At their April 21st meeting. Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the requested permit, fmding that judicious design and placement of the proposed septic system connection lines in the right-of-way will not be detrimental to the public uses served by that right-of-way. Pianning Commission's recommendation is to approve the necessary permit for placement of private sewer lines and a section of fence within the right-of-way, the fence being necessary to delineate the boundary of the property and the septic system to avoid errant traffic disturbing the drainfield system. Planning Commission conditioned approval on the following: 1.Applicants shall locate the proposed septic tanks totally within the Robb property. Staff must approve fence location and construction on the site. i ,j • « Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 2 April 23, 1997 Zoning File m0\ 2. 3. 4. 5. All three property owners shall execute a hold harmless agreement regarding private facilities in the right-of-way. Approval of the septic system will be subject to the necessary easements/maintenance covenants for use of the shared septic system, subject to approval of City staff. Applicants to work with City to establish a piping design and layout that minLnizes the risk of damage to the piping to be located in the right-of-way. The vacation application is considered as withdrawn. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. The attached resolution will act as the permit required by Section 10.31, Subd. 5. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached resolution. Proposed Motion: Moved by ______ ____, granting a permit for placement of private sewer lines and a section of fence within the right-of-way dedicated within the plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka on Big Island for the owners of property at 570, 580 and 600 Big Island. Vote: _____ayes,_____nays. , seconded by , to adopt Resolution No. ch A RESOLUTION GRANTING A PERMIT FOR PLACEMENT OF PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE PLAT OF PLEASANT VIEW LAKE MINNETONKA, FILE #2201 WHEREAS, Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.31, Subd. 5 requires that any person altering, improving or using for private purposes any platted public right-of-way, any platted public park, or any other property by the City on Big Island, shall first obtain a permit from the City Council; and WHEREAS, S. T. Robb, Jr., owner of 570 Big Island (PINS # 22-117-23 31 0029); James Feiger, o\vner of 580 and 590 Big Island (PINS #s 22-117-23 31 0020 and 0031), and George Adams, owner of 600 Big Island (PINS # 22-117-23 31 0034), have jointly applied for a permit to place private septic system connection lines and a section of fence in the right- of-way dedicated within the plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, Big Island; and WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission on April 21, 1997 reviewed the permit request and recommended conditional approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby grants a permit to S. T. Robb, Jr., owner of 570 Big Island; James Feiger, owner of 580 and 590 Big Island; and George Adams, owner of 600 Big Island, for placement of private septic system connection lines and a section of fence in the right-of-way dedicated within the plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, subject to the following conditions and limitations: 1.Applicants shall locate the proposed septic tanks totally within the Robb property. 2. City staff shall approve the location and construction of the fence to be placed in the right-of-way. Page 1 of 4 3.Applicants shall, prior to placement of improvements within the right-of-way, execute a hold harmless agreement which releases, indemnifies and holds harmless the City and the public from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of the use or alteration of the platted right-of-way by applicants or their invitees. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Approval of the shared septic system will be subject to the necessary easements/maintenance covenants for use of the shared septic system, subject to approval of City staff. Applicants shall work with City staff to establish a piping design and layout that minimizes the risk of damage to the piping to be located in the right-of-way. The applicants acknowledge that placement of septic system connection pipes within the dedicated right-of-way is at their own risk. This permit does not grant or vest any property rights to use of the public right- of-way or other public property or in any improvements made thereto. This permit shall be valid for one year, shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the Council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the City to the permittees at least thirty days prior to the anniversary date (the permittees need take no action for the automatic renewal to occur). Authority granted by this resolution runs with the property not with the individual owners, but is permissive only and must be exercised by application for a septic system construction permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions o^ this resolution will expire on that date (April 28, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 2 of 4 10.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the respective properties. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of April, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of April, 1997, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, 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 3 of 4 ----- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of ___, 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county. personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of ___, 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of ___, 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 ttifi r CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2201 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 23, 1997 TO: George Adams, M.D. 9581 Virginia Avenue Bloomington, MN 55438 COPIES TO:Selden Robb c/o Robb Summerhome 5010 Manitou Road Excelsior, MN 55331 James Feiger 14601 Atrium Way #324 Minnetonka, MN 55345 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Right-of-Way Permit DATE OF MEETING: 4/21/97 VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission recommends approval of the necessary permit for placement of private sewer lines and a section of fence wiuiin the right-of-way, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants shall locate the proposed septic tanks totally within the Robb property. Staff must approve fence location and construction on the site. 2. All three property owners shall execute a hold harmless agreement regarding private facilities in the right-of-way. Approval of the septic system will be subject to the necessary easements/maintenance covenants for use of the shared septic system, subject to approval of City staff. Applicants to work with City to establish a piping design and layout that minimizes the risk of damage to the piping to be located in the right-of-way. The vacation application is considered as withdrawn. n J. 4. 5. Applicants' next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, April 28,1997, meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator April 15, 1997 Subject:#2201 George Adams, James Fieger and S. T. Robb, Jr., 570, 580 and 590 Big Island - Revised Request - Approval for Septic System Improvements in Street Right-of-Way - Continuation of Public Hearing Summary of Application: Applicants originally proposed vacation of portions of right-of-way dedicated within the plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. This was reviewed by Planning Commission on January 21,1997, and tabled to allow applicants to research further options for maintaining access to adjacent properties. Applicants subsequently had their site evaluator do additional investigation, and their proposed shared septic system has been redesigned so that the drainfield is totally within the existing property boundaries. This no longer requires a vacation of the right-of-way, but does require approval of a permit for installation of private sewer connection pipes within the City right-of- way per Zoning Code Section 10.31, Subd. 5. List of Exhibits A - Section 10.31, Subd. 5 B - Letter of Request 3/25/97 C - Revised Septic System Site Evaluation Excerpts D - Planning Commission Minutes 1/21/97 E - Letters Received from Neighboring Property Owners Since January Meeting F - Memo and Exhibits of 1/7/97 Discussion Applicants initially proposed to vacate portions of right-of-way to accommodate a new drainfield within the right-of-way. The proposed vacation raised concerns about future access to the adjacent property to the east, as well as general access to the northerly portions of the island. Planning Commission and staff suggested that a minor vacation of right-of-way near the drainfield area might be appropriate in conjunction with acquiring additional property from the large landholder to the northeast, in order to maintain suitable legal access to the lakeshore property directly east of the drainfield site. Absent a positive response from the owner of the adjacent land needed for access, applicants had their site evaluator do further investigation, and he w'as able to redesign the system so that the drainfield trenches will not extend outside the Robb property. 1 r #2201 George Adams, James Fieger and S. T. Robb, Jr., 570, 580 and 590 Big Island April 15, 1997 Page 2 As a result, there is no further need for the vacation. However, because piping connecting the three cabins to the single shared septic system will be located within tlie right-of-way, a permit is required per Section 10.31, Subd. 5. Further, because the trenches will be right up to the right-of-way (w'hich is not marked or clearly delineated) it would be appropriate to allow applicants to place a split rail or similar open-style fence 2-3 feet into the right-of-way to protect the trenches from errant public traffic. It would appear that public use of the right-of-way will be not limited by approval of the requested permit, since the piping will be buried and no facilities other than piping and a fence will be located in the right-of-way.' Staff would recommend that the two 1,000 gallon proposed tanks be located entirely within the Robb propert}' rather than having a portion of the first tank partially within the right-of-way. The likelihood of damage to the private sewer lines is minimal. However, it would be appropriate that the applicants execute a hold harmless agreement, holding the City and the public harmless for any damage that occurs to such piping as a result of public use of the right-of-wa>. As a shared system, the septic system will be subject to easements granted between property owners, as well as maintenance agreements similar to those established for the shared septic system installed a few' years ago just to the west of these ti.ree properties. It should be noted that applicants were advised to explore the option of holding tanks. In staffs opinion, the proposed shared septic tank-drainfu.!a system's far superior to holding tanks for the long-term. The site evaluator ’s report notes that the tanks will require some administrative setback variances, which staff will approve. Finally, it should be noted that this system is designed to serve a seasonal cabin-type use, and should not be construed as having the capability to ser\'e year-round full-time occupancy of these cabins. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the necessary permit for placement of private sewer lines and a section of fence wdthin the right-of-way, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Applicants shall locate the proposed septic tanks totally within the Robb property. Staff must approve fence location and construction on the site. All three property owners shall execute a hold harmless agreement regarding private facilities in the right-of-w'ay. Approval of the septic system will be subject to the necessary easements/maintenance covenants for use of the shared septic system, subject to approval of City staff. » • , #2201 George Adams, James Fieger and S. T. Robb, Jr., 570, 580 and 590 Rig Island April 15, 1997 Page 3 4. Ihe vacation application is considered as withdrawn. -’i- Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation. I ^ V ______ 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval with additional or revised conditions. Table for further information or revision, giving applicant specific direction. Recommend denial (state reasons). Other. i _ - 1U—7 rT---.VTT*.Tg SI. ^ s T>i'ivaic.rr ^?/Cb/AJA^c^S,_4 § 10.31 E. Private swimming pools, tennis courts, paddocks or athletic fields or^^quipment. . F. Notsmore than two toilet buildings or outhouses which shall conform in^location and design to the requirements of ySubdivision 12 of this Section. G. Tents Q.r other temporary stj^dctures to be i.i place not more than 180 day's in any one year. / H. Open wood Nor gravel-filled steps, stairways or walkways on lakeshore hills or embankmeftfe, limited to not more than four feet wide at any point within,'75 feet of the shoreline. Concrete or other solid materials shall" constitute hardcover and are prohibited. I. Lake water pum'p)iouses which may be within 75 feet of the shoreline if limited. to\20 square feet or less in area and five feet or less in height, ahd subject to all applicable permits for such use. \ J. Firerings or barbequ'e pits. K. Gardens,' gardening o\ other horticultural uses including apiaries and decorative landscaping. L. Fences not to exceed 42 Inches in height, and no part of which may 4® located within 75 feet 6f the shoreline. M'f Retaining walls, not to e'j^ceed 42 inches in height, and no-'^art of which may be located wibjiin 75 feet of the shoreline. \ / N. Home occupations pursuant to Section 10.20, Subdivi'^ipn 4, Subparagraph C. / 0. New boathouses within 75 feet of the shoreline are specifically prohibited. - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Subd. 5. Pf mit For Private Improvements Within Public Rights-of-Way. It is unlawful for any person to alter, improve or use for private purposes any platted public right-of-way, any platted public park, or any other property owned by the City without first obtaining a permit from the Council, as follows: A. Inland Property Access. Persons desiring access to property located inland and not abutting the shoreline may apply for a permit to privately use and/or improve platted public right- of-way for such purpose. The permit applicant shall demonstrate and the Council shall find that there is no reasonable alternative access available, and that the proposed improvements and/or type of use would not unreasonably affect other properties abutting the right-of-way. The Council may approve, deny or place restrictions on any such permit based upon public health, safety and welfare considerations, including without limitation the configuration or adjoining record lots, the location, width, topography, ^ drainage and vegetation on the right-of-way and the number of existing or future property owners who may require access at the same location. 1 ORONO CC 311 (4-1-84) § 10.3i Any land alterations or improvements approved shall be the minimum amount necessary to provide reasonable inland access. B. Land Alterations. Grading or physical alteration of any platted public right-of-way for any purpose including inland property access is prohibited except when such work has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council. The permit applicant shall provide a detailed land survey of the right-of-way and appropriate engineering drawings sufficient to identify the full extent of all proposed work. Permit approval shall be subject to obtaining a grading permit from City staff/ land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02, and all other permits as may be required by other agencies having jurisdiction. Public rights-of-way so improved shall be maintained by the licensee. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-88 C. Dockage on Right-of-Way. Installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way for any purpose including inland property access is prohibited except when such dock has keen specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the’ Council. Not more than one seasonal dock will be approved for access to any one property. In review and approval or denial of such permit, the Council shall consider the width and topography of the right-of-way, the number of property owners requesting dockage at that location, the plan of the proposed dock, and conformance with City and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District dock regulations. The Council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in approving any such dock permit. D. Encroachments Prohibited. No private property, buildings, structures, fences, boats, vehicles, dock parts, junk or debris shall be built, stored, parked or kept at any time within any platted public right-of-way, within any platted public park, or on any other property owned by the City except as specifically authorized by a permit issued under this Subdivision. E. Permit Exceptions. No permit shall be required for any person to walk on or over any platted public right-of-way or any platted public park when such use is made without altering the natural state of the land. No permit shall be required for any person whose property abuts a platted public right-of-way or a platted public park to control weeds or brush, seed, sod, mow or otherwise maintain said right-of-way or park in a neat and presentable manner. Persons whose record lot established by Subdivision 6 consists of tax parcels divided by platted, unopened public right-of-way may incorporate and use such right-of-way as part of their yard without a permit, provided no permanent structures are erected or maintained within the right-of-way. ORONO CC 312 (4-1-84) § 10.31 F. Public Use Limited. Any permit issued under this Subdivision shall be deemed to open the platted public right- of-way only to the extent necessary as established in the permit, and for the limited use of the permittee and his invitees. § 10.31 G. Permit Limitations. A permit issued under this Subdivision shall not grant or vest any property rights to use of the public right-of-way or other public property, or in any improvements made thereto. Permits issued under this Subdivision shall be valid for one year, shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the Council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the City to the permittee at least thirty days prior to the anniversary date. H. Hold Harmless. As a condition of issuance of any permit, the applicant shall in writing release, indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of the use or alteration of the platted right-of-way by applicant or his invitees. I. Permit Hearing and Notice. The Planning Commission or the Council shall hold a public hearing or hearings on each application for a permit. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days or more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in the legal newspaper for the City. Such notice shall contain the description of ^he land and the proposed use. At least ten days before the h''arlng, the City Clerk shall mail an identical notice to the app*’. leant and to each of the property owners within 350 feet of the outside boundaries of the land in question. Failure of the ‘»»jf^perty owners to receive notice shall not invalidate the f^rc'»;?«dings. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission •'»r the Co,- "' ii shall review the application and the statemen* and dra ngs submitted therewith and shall receive pertinent t .'*ie'-o-e cot„«etning the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained. Subd. 6. Area Requirements. Within any "RS” Seasonal Recreational'^istrict, no newyiot or parcel shall be created less than 5.0 acres in dry build^le lot area exclusive of any designated wetlands, \within any >*1lS'' Seasonal Recreational District, the following prwisions shall govern the buildability, use and/or subdivision of ea^ existi^ng record lot as defined and identified therein: \ / A. Record Lot Deceit ion. For purposes of the "RS" Seasonal Recreational Distr icty/^"record lot" shall mean all the contiguous or abutting land owned Vn common by the same person or persons as of November 9, yi981,\or at any time such common ownership may occur thereajfter, in^uding one or more separately platted lots or unplatt^ parcels ^ land, and/or one or more separately identified/tax parcelsV Because of the unique circumstances and actua],/use patterns existing on the islands, included within the definition of a "recoM lot" is commonly-owned land that is contigu^s except for being sep^ated only by platted / 313 (4-1-84)ORONO CC D CITY OF ORONO iligiSBO^S HAR 2 7 i9^7 March 25,1997 MEMORANDUM TO:Stephen Weckman On-Site Systems Manager Mike Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator FROM:George L. Adams, M.D. RE:Proposed septic system in platted right-of-way I would like to request some time on the Monday, April 21,1997 City Council meeting to present a new plan of the septic system for the Big Island property. Copies of the new plan have been forwarded to Mr. Weckman. Thank you. GLA/jsp S-P TESTING, INC.Steven B. Schirmers • MPCA Cert.No. 627 951 Katydid Lane NE • St. Michael, MN 65376 • (612) 497-3566 FAX (612) 497-5011 State License #394 Revised March 18,1997 October 28,1996 CITY OF ORONO George Adams 600 Big island Tom Robb 570 Big Island Jim Figger 580 Big Island Orono, Henn. Co., MN JudESO^B mar. 2 o; 199Tj jt ^ A site evaluation was completed on these properties for the existing on-site sewage treatment systems supporting the existing cabins. The existing systems are classified as failing due to not meeting the 3* separation from the saturated soil (mottled soil) or lack of system. The existing tanks are old, either metal or block type and will need to be abandoned, pumped and filled with soil. A new system will need to be installed. This on-site sewage treatment cluster system is designed for a Type 3, 3 bedroom 218 gal/day each cabin totaling 654 gal/day, in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. An easement agreement will be required by the city. The agreement will require a maintenance schedule for maintaining the tanks, and shared electrical costs, etc. A water meter v/ill need to be installed in each cabin to monitor the dally water use and to be recorded with the property. The system will be 5' from the property line and up to the road easement, this will need approval from the city. Approval will also be needed for a tank to be 5' from the Robb cabin to stay out of a low area. The soils on this site are SCS soils mapped - HbC - Hayden loam. The seasonally saturated soils were located at 5'10". The bottom of the treatment area must be located at least 3' above the seasonally saturated soils. A standard gravelless 10" diameter trench system may be installed. The soils at a depth of 30" have a percolation rate averaging 10.4 mpi. 1 Due to the system being sized for 1.27sq.ft. (perc rate 10.4) low water use facilities will need to be installed in all three properties, if water softners are used, they must be diverted either to the ground surface (not the lake) or install approximately 50 lin.ft. of gravelless trench. The new tanks may be plastic but must be heavy duty due to the high water table, see the site plan for the location. A pumping chamber will need to be Installed to lift the septic effluent to the treatment area. The power supply and switches must be located outside the '-lanhole and pumping chamber in a weather proof enclosure. A warning device must be installed with a light and sound device, this is in case of a pump failure. An e/derior device will need to be installed. All neighboring wells are located greater than 100* away from the proposed treatment area and 50' away on this site (deep well). Approval will be needed to be 50' away from a well with a tank at the Robb cabin. Keep all heavy equipment off of the proposed treatment area before and after construction. The treatment area should be marked off before construction. This Design is not valid & the system will need to be relocated if failure to protect the areas proposed for On-Site Sewage Treatment occurs. With proper Installation and maintenance, this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent effectively. Nothing other than gray water (laundry, showers, etc.) should be disposed of into the septic tanks. Garbage disposals are not recommended, due to adding more solids & fine solids passing through to the system. Excessive amounts of soaps, cleaning agents & chlorine agents may kill the bacteria needed to treat septic effluent. Additives are not recommended. Recommend to pump & clean your tanks through the manhole by a certified pumper every 2 years. Check with your pumper to set up a schedule. \ / AuA- i>ts- 'ff<A<W\-<PtA< A«/t9A*> -®^>V=OT^ «^f^'-Wip. «u^rc^v)cr00>4. •. VtXY."g. -fev^ «o-e< -^-C:- K>«vv>-v\ -<<?>A V-A ujftryg^g.>^<v> ®Percolofion Tests ^Soil Borings ©Bench Mork C.H.: i“»SO' Notei This system is lo be conslrucled lo mcci the Minnesoio Pollution Conlrol Agency Chapter 70R0 & Local Ordinance • • '.1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#1) 7:00 P.M. - #2201, GEORGE ADAMS, JAMES FIEGER AND S.T. ROBB, JR, 570,580,590, AND 600 BIG ISLAND - VACATION OF UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY 7:10-7:47 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaflfron reported that the application was a request for a vacation of the dedicated portion of right-of-way of the Pleasant View plat of 1888 due to the need for upgrading of septic systems. The applicants have met together to obtain a suitable location for a combination septic. Gaffron informed them that the City is appreciative of these efforts. He noted the propert>' locations as well as the platted right-of-way to the east and west and park property. The park is an unimproved City park that is designated as park property only. The location found to be acceptable for the septic systems is in the right-of-way. Gaffiron suggested vacating be made of only a portion of the right-of-way and a rededicating of the an adjacent portion but noted this would interfere with the access to the Henderson property. The Staff memo also refers to the need for veliicular access for the properties to the rear due to the high elevations. Gaffron said the Staff recommendation is for denial of the comprehensive vacation but request applicants to accommodate the septic in one area and enlist the assistance of adjacent property owner Erickson for legal access to the Henderson property. Gaffron noted the number of letters received from neighbors and utilities regarding the vacation. The letter writers are not in favor of the vacation. Adams reported that the access road utilized by the property owners and is located between the Robb property, and it extends to and crosses over the Fieger property. He stated the park property is mainly under water all summer long. Adams said the area is completely forested and would not enable a fire engine to cross. The area to the east is mainly swamp. Fieger said the applicants have never asked for the vacation of the entire ”T" area but only the area on the right side (east) which affects his own property. Fieger said he is walling to make a shift in his property line to allow' the other properties to continue crossing to gain access to their properties. He noted lot 22 is under water, adding he also owns lots 23 and 24. Adams and Fieger have owned their properties 20 years and Robb 40 years (owner of lots 19, 20, and 21). Fieger informed the Commission that the only suitable soils found for the septic is the location noted. i I T7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (U\ - #2201 Vacation of Unimproved Right-of-VVay - Big Island - Continued) Adams reported that the plans have cost the applicants $3,200. The applicants asked the septic tester to come up with the best plan for accommodating their septic systems, regardless if the outcome is one combined system or three individual ones. The current systems are non-conforming but are not polluting the ground. He noted that the compliance for these seasonal dwellings is the same as that required by year-round homes resulting in an astronomical cost for 10 weeks of use each year. Adams says the best recommendation would allow for a truck to stay in a barge and pump out the systems. He added that there is no access to the properties to the rear. Robb noted where the utilities w'ere located. McMillan inquired of the property owner to the east of the Robb property. It is noted to be quite heavily wooded. Adams said alot of the property is under water and there is only a limited area for building on. Gaffron informed the applicants that if the small triangular portion was vacated and the road replatted further north, there would be a need to gain a small piece of land from Mr. Erickson to allow access to the Henderson property. Gaffron questioned whether the City should give up 33' in exchange for 1 O’. Smith asked if there was the ability for the septic location to be pulled back in toward their properties. Adams said the drainage would then flow toward the Henderson property. There is also a hill on the other area, and the septic needs to slope toward their properties and not others. Smith asked what effect the change in right-of-way would have on public access. Gaffron said the accommodation could be made but an agreement would have to be reached with Erickson for the Henderson access plus an agreement for utility easement. Hawn inquired if NSP would require an agreement. It was noted that the utility comes in underground to the first pole to the transformer. Adams said NSP uses his dock to gain access. During public comments, Don Henderson, 1518 Normandale Court, reported he has been the owner of the property to the east for 40 years. He stated the lot is buUdable. He noted that property with direct access is worth more. He said he is probably willing to consider changing the location of his access to allow the applicants septic needs as long as he still retains a 34' access. He noted that the information packets points out that the DNR and property owners to the west, east, and north are opposed to the vacation and Staff does not recommend approval but requests the access remain open. *'5 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#1 - #2201 Vacation of Unimproved Right-of-Way - Big Island - Continued) Robb said the confusion lies in that the letters address the easement between the Adams and the access which is the wrong easement. It has not been the applicants intent to vacate that portion of property. The Commission discussed the access changes, concerns for septic and driving over draMelds, and the need to retain access to the Henderson property. Hawn asked the applicants to speak with Mr. Erickson regarding the sale of a piece of land for a new corridor to give direct access (not easement) for egress and ingress as currently there for Mr. Henderson. Henderson said that would be acceptable as long as the width of the access remains the same. Fieger said he did not know if Erickson would be willing to sell the land. Adams was informed that no approval could he made at this time without knowing the outcome. Adams asked the Commission what would happen if Erickson is unwilling to sell with no other solution for obtaining a conforming septic. Smith inquired if there were any other concerns from Staff if this access could be resolved. Gaffron said the primary concerns are a septic in the right-of-way and providing an easement for utilities. It was noted that no other site was found satisfactory for a septic. Gaffron said Big Island is allowed structures without septic systems under specific conditions. It was noted that Henderson does have enough diy buildable land. The question of holding tanks and pumping was considered. Gaffron reported that holding tanks would not be the first choice and would probably require a variance, but he would have to review the code. Fieger said he would prefer a holding tank due to the cost of the septic system. The length of piping was also discussed. Adams noted that the septic design allows for 640 gallons of water per day per cabin capacity which is extreme considering its seasonal use. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2201 to allow the applicants to research further options for access through acquisition of property from Mr. Erickson. The applicants were also encouraged to speak with Staff regarding holding tanks. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#2) 7:30 P.M. - #2204 JAPIES G. FULLERTON HI, 3350 AND 3400 FOX STREET - CLASS DJ, PRELLMINARY SUBDIVISION/CONDITIONAL USE PERNHT 7:47-8:02 P.M. The Affidavit of Public aon and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant, James Fullerton, and Attorney, John Winston, were present 4 1/21/97 JAN 2.8 1997 To: City of Orono Planning Commission I was unable to attend the public hearing held on January 21,1997 and would like to express my concerns on one of the issues that was on the agenda. The issue is that of application H22QI, the vacation of dedicated road right-of-way brought forth by George Adams, James Fieger and S.T. Robb Jr. My property address is ^630 and I own lots 11,12, and 13. The back side of my lots sit adjacent to land set aside by the City of Orono labeled as "Park". The 61 feet of my land that borders this "Park" property allows me direct access to the "Streets" that are proposed to be vacated. If these "Streets" are vacated I will lose reasonably good access to my property due to the fact that these "Streets" will have become private property. My cabin sits about 30 ’ above the high water mark of Lake Minnetonka. The large slope prevents me from moving equipment up the hill from the shoreline on which I reside. Six property owners to the north of me also share in this dilemma. Logistical problems will occur for all those living on the large slopes on the west side of Big Island if the said "Streets" are vacated. Benefitting three property owners while hindering six does not seem like a good idea. Because of these foreseeable problems I recommend that the "Streets" are not vacated and that they remain in place for concerned property owners to use now and in the future. During these next two years there will be activity on the Island as people scramble to get there septic systems up to code. I hope that property owners have the courtesy to communicate their plans with their immediate neighbors so that all will benefit from future construction (or destruction). Big Island is a very unique place and I believe joint cooperation between property owners will not only benefit themselves, but will also benefit the City of Orono. Sincerely, Jeffrey A. Person #630 Big Island 1 SENT BY:1-21-97 : 10:50 ; DBI MPLS SALES-PIOB-6124730510:? 2/ 2 ij/Xr |r| f To Whom It May Concern, I I **°^*^^ the easement on Big Island for^ property of the Robb ’s and the Adam’s. This strip of land is vital orooenv fj® °"'y W our irspropety for bringing in the nccessat, equipment ma^ng hou» Zr such as a now roof, new septic tanks or new weUs. Also if thfreZm S «■“”• 'r» .N £ “ “ «“ =r.=,“sa Johnson M929^s™r^ P''’“ «>"'«« "ty “e. Ward " ^'iWK^iar I mi ■% irt --4 *• tr r 'v tTT •♦,“ri^’ W- ■^22D\ •vX'*1 January 7,1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City ofOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gafifron: I own 670 Big Island and my neighbors are Messrs. Adams, Robb Sr, and Filger. Our address is 670 Big Island. We are opposed to the vacation of the dedicated road right of way. This is the oidy access to our property and our neighbors property for equipment and vehicles if repairs or other activities need to be accomplished. I can be reached at my office at 544-7200 or home at 544-4161. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, I ,fcr-»«r’j i •I r^' \' All n* * rx »w.. .. t,.TT»rrf ' - IT* t ■ iiM^- • r w Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1393 Telephone (612) 330-5500 January 17, 1997 City of Orono Attn: Michael P. Gaffron 2750 Kelley Pkwy P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. GafEron, NSPI as rf^ceived notice 0^“ v acation of road right of way described as follows: Thai pv*n of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota designated as street and park; which lies West of the East line thereof; which lies East of the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 3, Block 1, Island Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and which lies South of the South line of Lots 22, 23, and 24 and its Westerly extension in said Pleasand View Lake Minnetonka. NS^ has overhead distribution facilities in the proposed vacation of road right of way, that need to be protected. If you ha/e any questions, please feel free to contact me Real Estate Rep./Highway Liaison 330-5943 ___________ * I» JAN 2l 199T I 1 1 I c ! To: From: Date: Subject: /, Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator January 7, 1997 #2201 George Adams, James Fieger, ‘»nd S. T. Robb, Jr., 570-580-590-600 Big Island - Right-of-Way Vacation - Public Hearing Zoning District: RS, Seasonal Recreaticnal, 5 Acre Application: Request for vacation of dedicated road right-of-way within the plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, in order to accommodate a proposed shared septic system i for other purposes. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Suney E - DNR Comments 1/9/97 F - US West Comments 1/8/97 G - City Letter to Applicant 12/18/96 H - Applicant Letter to City 12/13/96 I - City Letter to Applicant 12/10/96 with Map J - Septic System Proposed Design K - Area Topographic Map L - Original Plat, Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka (1888) Background "Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka" was platted on Big Island in 1888. That plat included the dedication of unnamed streets and a "park" area (see plat map). Each of the three applicants owns property adjacent to the two platted streets at the southeast comer of that old subdivision. The applicants have been advised by the City that their non-conforming septic systems need to be brought into conformity. They propose to construct a shared septic system with drainfield located partially within platted right-of-way. In addition to proposing just a vacation of the portion of street necessary to accommodate the drainfield, they propose a more comprehensive vacation of the dedicated road access to the lake as well as to the eastern properly boundary. Zoning File #2201 January 7,1997 Page 2 Original Plat Dedication The original plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka dedicated these streets and the park area to the public forever. The intent of dedication of right-of-way is to provide for pedestrian and vehicular access to properties, to provide corridors for utilities, and for other purposes. Necessary Findings for Vacation In order to recommend approval of the vacation of public right-of-way, Planning Commission must be able to make the following findings: 1. The vacation is in keeping with the public interest. 2. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. 3. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated right-of-vvay as a road except for utilities and access purposes. 4. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it e.xists serves no public purpose. Public Purposes Served by Existing Rigiit-o* Way Staff has identified a number of public purposes served by the existing right-of-way proposed to be vacated: 1. Telephone lines. 2. Electric power lines. 3. Potential Minnegasco gas lines. 4. Potential cable TV lines. 5. Provision of legal access to properties not abutting any other road or the shoreline. 6. Public access to properties abutting the shoreline but that have steep slopes and/or bluffs making vehicular access impossible from the lakeshore. 7. Public access to the "park" land dedicated in the plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Vacation The following represent public and private impacts if the proposed vacation is approved: 1. Properties to the north of Lots 22 - 24 will effectively be landlocked. 2. Lakeshore properties along the west side of the island will no longer have an alternate rear access to the lakeshore. Such an access may be essential due to the steep slopes/bluffs at the shoreline making vehicular access impossible at the shoreline. 3. General public accessibility to the island would be permanently limited. 4. Existing/potential utility corridors will be lost. 5. Potential access to adjacent properties to the east will be eliminated. Zoning File #2201 January 7,1997 Pages 6. Applicants will increase the square footage of their record lots, bringing each into greater conformity with City area/width/setback requirements, provide for their septic system needs, and eliminate the potential for public traffic in close proximity to their properties. AgencyAJtility Comments Per Exhibit F, US West does not object to the vacation as long as a utility easement is granted for existing lines and future needs. Per Exhibit E, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources strongly objects to the vacation, suggesting that the vacation as proposed is not in the best interest of the public, and that there are alternatives that would not eliminate public access to the lake. Discussion As noted to applicant George Adams in the letter dated December 18, 1996, vacation of this right-of-way absent a reaedication of roadway at an alternate location would appear to be inappropriate. The City cannot predict potential future public uses for this right-of-way, however, there are a nunber of obvious existing public uses which would be eliminated by a vacation. Staff is concerned thr.t access to the property to the east not be eliminated since that property has not been declared unbuildable, but is identified in City ordinances as being a substandard buildable lot of record. That property has steep topography near the wetland (see topographic map. Exhibit K) and its owner may need to gain future access via the road right-of-way to a possible building site near the northwest comer of that lot. Vacating the access road leading from the lakeshore to the park portion of right-of-way, will eliminate the only viable legal access to properties to the north of Lots 22-23-24, which do not otherwise abut the lake or an alternate right-of-way. Further, vacating this portion of right-of- way will eliminate the only viable vehicular access to those properties along the shoreline to the northwest, which have extremely steep lakeshore banks which may not otherwise be accessible. There are certain types of vehicles which will have occasion to use the right-of- way, including well drilling trucks, septic pumpers, construction vehicles, etc. The City cannot vacate right-of-way that has such obvious public purposes, unless a suitable alternative right-of-way location serving all of the existing and anticipated future public uses is provided. The fact that the existing right-of-way is so close to the applicants' cabins, with the obvious property owner concerns of public use in such close proximity, cannot be considered a suitable reason for vacation considering the public's need for that right-of-way to I Zoning File #2201 January 7,1997 Page 4 exist. The right-of-way undoubtedly was platted and dedicated prior to the construction of the existing cabins. Further, a review of the topographical map suggests that the right-of-way can in fact serve as a reasonable access to inland properties, and, without regard for existing trees or other natural or manmade obstructions, the right-of-way does have public purposes. Suggested Alternative Exhibit I, the staff letter of December 10, contains a topographic map showing a triangular portion of right-of-way which could be vacated and a portion of the Fieger property which could be replatted as roadway. This would accomplish the applicants' basic requirement for accommodating the septic system drainfield, while generally providing access to properties to the east. However, the property directly east of Lot 21 would appear to not be served via this new access unless an easement is granted over the Erickson property to the north. Therefore, in order for this alternative to be viable, aoplicants must be able to gain an easement from Erickson. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the vacation as proposed, based on finding that the existing and potential public purposes ser\'ed by that right-of-way will be eliminated or compromised by such a vacation. Further, Planning Commission is advised to review Exhibit E, the letter from the Department of Natural Resources recommending denial of the vacation request. It may be appropriate to table the application if the applicants are willing to consider restructuring their proposal per the sketch in Exhibit 1 or something similar. In this case, applicants should then be advised to attempt to gain the necessary easement from the neighboring property owner (Erickson) in order to make that alternative viable. In spite of the staff recommendation for denial of this particular proposal, staff must commend the applicants for working together to solve their septic system needs. They have responsibly proceeded with the necessary testing and design work as well as the legal work to create easement, in order to meet City requirements. However, the City is obligated to consider the long-term public interest when being asked to relinqu.oh a dedicated right-of-way that serves both utility and access functions. Options for Action 1. 2. j. 4 Isv Recommend approval wdth conditions. Table for further information or revision, giving applicants specific direction. Forward a recommendation for denial to the City Council. Other. 1 1 ^ • b M '-vl 71 ”' •* «• • • •• .• I't CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Ap])Ilcation P i 'mi Received'"/. 2 - / Aindunt Paid UFERTY LOCATION / Site Address 0o/\ I^sA kc / Or^ Type of Applit^on to Filed /_J/ Property Identification Number (P.l.pVj^ a / APPLICANT Nome /rtr» /'j << ^ ^?^^L>ty\,sy Address ^iT~<a^/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) fyo. ______ Phone (work) 6^tJ~ %Y/o City /r?/Zip r^~Y!F<h Phone (home). Phone (work) Address City Zip, Date Pro I (do) cquired_____________ also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES -ITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application $175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest Housc/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ___ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ___ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ___ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshorc PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) f.OO Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - sec Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District____ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). DEC-12-1996 09:45 6124730510 S7y,P.09 i ■■ )kc tfiEAT lONi tff; : /LAK.E'^.tI'S^ET6>^lKJi ; > / (vAC\k-7\M’s'c • /^ :• .. K' I.VM .•^'s , 0 • ‘ U K'<-'...r-/?-r-'T- i I •-J •’KITet^a'S SiJ35SV!SIOf5 ©? iOTS i i m SS€TIO^ n 117 ^AG86I 2S “ '^(26) ■? TBJ ft r ft N ft"'' ■e--TST»j '<•! ■3 f.'wP ;20A’»- / ,.........., ■ / 5rjM>'Y WOT I:I:I:J*:'!K:X *•*■ / x'iSiAAS p(?3-:ti 22 -z3-3! /i7'^5'0 6) ; „! “iXSf^fSiL '§ GP / EH sssnoM . rmiWP ff ^Am0 ' ./ \ V r / .W..•ti!3r-- Lial'- .‘■•/4/.. .l>:;/ <• 3.4-v./ o'. ............................... »•.•*••• 3 z?o 6(26) 2]Q 150 P 28 150 P R 27 ''1_o P 8 26 39. « « 23 ■!5Ta^ R av vxN (9) # <b V.v t& }\<9(II)/ V r\ SIf ■/5 ^ (5>;q.% t. V 22 '~'®^29;iziia CN. mM.50 A&A»i ftoBB LOT 4 m ftf /<^TMA6- U0CA'T7^/vJ 7 ♦ •# • » • I"'/m' |W , RUN DATE ll/oe/96 •». V BAltH 501 PROP ADDR OmER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR I ^ PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADI omER TAXPAYEI NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY i>ROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 38 22 117-23 24 0001 00720 BIG ISLAND TRISTIN 0 ERICKSON ET AL TRISTIN 0 ERICKSON 4567 BOTH ST W MPLS MN ii5437 38 22-117-23 24 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED* SHERYL RAMSTAD HVASS SHERYL RAMSTAD HVASS 12120 GOLDEN ACPE DR KINNETOFfiCi; MN 55305 38 22-117-23 31 0009 00630 BIG ISLAND DOUGLAS E PERSON ET AL H/L E JEFFREY A PERS0^4 17345 9TH AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 22-117-23 31 0U20 00590 BIG ISLAND J D FIEGER & J N FIEGER JAMES FIEGER 14601 ATRIUM NAY #324 ' MIhfCTONKA MN 55345 38 22-117-23 31 OOr^O 00650 BIG ISUND JAR JOHNSON A H L JOHNSON JAMES A R JOHNSON ,, 2212 SOUTH HILL lA T?' (' ST LOUIS PARK MN 5E416 38 22-117-23 31 0031 00580 BIG ISLAND J D A J M FIEGER JAMES D FIEGER 14601 ATRIUM NAY #324 MINI^ETONKA MN 55345 38 22-117-23 24 0004 006C0 DIG ISLAND H BRYSON A T BRYSON HILLIAM A THELMA BRYSON 11650 TIMBERLINE RD MIMNETONICA m 55305 .V 38 22-117-23 24 0010 00690 BIG ISLAND R A B BRUDER ROBERT 0 BP.UOER 2500 87 1/2 ST N BLOOMINGTON MT4 55431 38 22-117-23 31 0010 00630 BIG ISLAND DOUGLAS E PERSON ET AL H/L E JEFFRET A PERSON a 17345 9TH AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 22-117-23 31 0026 00660 BIG ISLAND ELIZABETH FOSTER SALISBURY BETTY F PRINCE C/0 GWEN S MYERS 9703 8RIARW00D CIR SUN CITY AZ 85351 38 22-117-23 31 0029 00570 BIG ISLAND JODIE.-R.VARGAS^ET AL SELDEN ROBB C/0 ROBB SUMMERH(M: 5010 MANITOU RO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 22-117-23 31 0032 00620 DIG ISLAND DAVID n A JAN H CARLSON DAVID R a JAN h CARLSON 8301 CREEKSIDF CIR #101 BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 REPORT NO* PI435401 PAGE 1 * i 38 22-117-23 24 0005 00670 BIG ISLAND N E BRYSON A T L. BRYSON WILLIAM A THELMA BRYSON 11650 nrOERLINE RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 22-117-23 31 0001 00550 BIG ISLAND B F FAUS JR ETAL B F FAUS JR 3810 YORK AVE SO MPLS MN 55410 i • • 3b 22-117-23 31 0011 00630 BIG ISLAND DOUGLAS E PERSOt4 ET AL W/L JEFFREY A PERSON 17345 9TH AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 >4^ t: C tv ... . r5:T.V/ Cr 38 22-117-33 31 0027 00C50 BIG ISLAND JAR JOHNSON a H L JOHNSON JAMES A R JOHNSON 2212 SOUTH HILL LA ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 I'.. • f**. • 38 22-117-23 31 0030 00640 BIG ISLAMD CLINTON KNUDSON CLINTON KNUDSON 1823 FRANKLIN AVE S E MPLS MN 55414 E 3d 22-117-23 31 0033 00610 . BIG ISLAND KENNETH K PLUNKETT KENNETH K PLUNKETT 9498 OLYMPIA DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 ■' \n RUN DATE 11/08/96 BATCH 501 HEftCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INF0W1AT10N SYSTEM PROPERTY 0M4ERS LIST REPORT NO. PZ435401 PAGE 2 PROP AODR 0M4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAIC/AODI 38 22-117-23 31 0034 00600 BIG ISLAND inoRC I t l aoam^ GEORGE L A DONNA L ADAMS 9581 VIRGINIA AVE BLOOMINGTON MN 55438 TOTAL BATCH 501 00019 22-117-23-31-0002 560 Big Island Don Henderson et al Don Henderson 5018 Normandale Ct Mpls MN 55436 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOMLEOGE AND BELIEF. lH2-%DATE L T ’ •Vac. //• • •J h ■.”3 ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 53fM) S. Ilwy. Nu. lUI Miutu.*itHika. MN 55J45 riumc (612) 474 7964 I'aA (612)474 8267 siiRvi-YFOR: GEORGE ADAMS •• .• SURVnVCP; December. 1996 »»L DRAFTl-D: Cc^9iibcr 20, !■ M6 I’HUSENT I.F.GAL Pt-SCRIP I lOfJ Ol- AQaMS l»ARrt-l ■ l.ol 3. niock I. Island I’oinlc. Hennepin County. Minnes«ila. I'RESliN I LEGAL miSCRIlM ION OP l irr,l R PAnr-|:i • Lots 22.23. and 24, Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. 1 tennepin County, Minnesota. PRESENT LEGAL DE-SCRIPI ION ni- rtonit PARCFt • Lots 19.20. and 21. Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, licnnepir. County. Minnesota. I.I.GAL OESCRIPI ION Ol' STR|;E-| AREAS PROPOSi:i) l-ntt va^-^ | |rs^. •I lut part of PIcarant View I jkc Minnetonka. I lennepin County. Minnesota desig.utcd as street and park; «Inch lies ssvst or the enst line thercor: wliicli lies cast of tlic nurtlierly c.stension of the west line of Lot 3. DIock I Isirnd Po..itc. Hennepin County. Minnesota; and which lies south of the south line of Lots 22. 23. and 24 and its vUstcrly c.xtension in said Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. ’ PROPOSED NEW LEGAL DESCRIP I ION or A13AM«; l■Anrl^•t • Lot 3. Uioek I. Island Poinle. Hennepin County. Minnesota, '■'gether with that part of Pleasant View l.i'kc Minnetonka. Hennepin County. Minnesota desigm.tesi as street anu park; winch lies west i.ra line parallel with n.id 10 reet west of the west line ofLot . ^ in said Pleas-int View Lake Minnetonka; which lies cast oftlie m.rtlierly extensttm of the west line of Lot 3. Uioek I. Island Pointe. Hennepin County. Minnesota: and which lies south of the soulh line of 1.0(5 2«.. 23. oml 24 and its wcMcrK c.x(cn5ion in said Plcawnl View Lake Minnetonka. PROPOSED NEW LEGAL DESCRIP I ION OF FIFCPR PAttC[t| • Lots 22.23. and 24. Pleasant View Ijkc Minnetonka. I lennepin County. Minnesota. PROPOSED NEW LEGAL DE.SCRIPTION Ol- ROnn PABCtM • Lots 22, 23. and 24. Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. I lennepin County. Miimesota. togctlier with tliat pait of Pleasant View- Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County. ...mnesota designated os street and park; which lies ssest of'he cast line thereof; which lies cast of a line parallel with and 10 feet west oftlie west line of Lot 19 in said PIca.e-nt View Lake Minnetonka: which lies cast of the northerly extension of the xvest line of Lot 3. Block I. Island Pointe Hennepin County. Minnesota: and which lies soutli of the south line of Lots 22. 23. and 24 and its westely cxiension in said Pleasant View lake MinnetonV-. Subject to an easement for drain field purposes oxer ilic folloxving portion thereof: Beginning at tlic southeast corner of said Lot 24; Uicncc on an assumed bearing of No th 76 degrees 411 minutes 00 se-eonds West along the south line of said Lot 24 a distance of 27 feet; tiicnee South 20 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 80,00 feet; thence South 33 degrees 37 minutes 19 seconds Fast a dist.inee of 30 feet to a point hca-inalter refened to as Point “A"; thence South 33 degrees 37 minutes 19 seconds Fast a distance of 72.39 feet to a point on tlic cast line of Lot 21 in said Pleasant View Ukc Minnetonka which I c$ 120 feet southerly from the northeast corner thereof; thence North 00 degrees 56 minutes 34 seconds West a distaiee of 154.08 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to a utility easement over a strip of land which lies 5 feet on both sides of tlic following dcscrilicd center line: Coitiniencing at the southeast comer of said Lot 24; thence on .nn assumed bearing of North 76 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds West along the soulh line of said Lots 22.23. and 2<- a distance of 116.79 feel hi tlic point of beginning of the center line to be described; thence North 06 degrees >4 "iinut« 29 ^onds Last a distance of 177.00 feet; thence North 83 degn^ 35 minutes 31 seconds West a distaue of 5.3 fex-t: llicncc South 35 dcgiecs 12 iiiiiiules 25 seconds West .s distaiTe 74.57 '.cl hi ."i.int "A“ .uid llu n; (crmmaling. LIMITATIONS & NQTFS: 1 he 5ccpe of our scr\ iccs for Ihis job i.s foII»»\\5; 1. Show ing lire length and direction of boundary lines of the legal descriptiott you rumistred. 2. Showing lire location of existing iniproveiiicnts we deenicJ i • 'ortant. 3. Selling new ii'oiiumcnis or verify ing old immuniciiLs to lire co- -n of the property 4. Showing a proposed street v.-icalion which will require . .....;| „hich max or max not x grnmcil. 5. Sliowing pniposcd transfer of lire vacated street property to .jjueei . will r«)ii.ie the owners to cxcliangc deeds to aceoinphsh that transfer and assumes their willingness ..c and file such deeds 6. Showing pn.posed cascnieiils and legal descriptiorj for tlicm to allow all properties to use the drain field and utility line running to it. which will rctiuirc lire preparation and filing of an casenrent agreement to create llresc easements and the willingness of the airccled owner to execute such an easement direunient. 7. Showing on sxmic copies of lliis drawing, a possible allcmatc solution to the problem to replace a vacated poiliim of the sl^t by a realignexl sticct right of xxax and to limit the vreation to only tliat par* of the street necc.ssary to accuiiipILsh the realignment. SI ANDARD SVMI10I..S & CONVFNTinN«; 'o- Dci...les 1/2* ID pipe with plastic plug beating State License Number 9235. set. it *o* is filled in. then denotes fuunil iron inunumcm. CLKliriCATIQN: I hereby ccflify dial d^i.^ survey uj; prepared by me or uiulcr my dircci supervision and that I am a Prore«ionnl l-nginccr and a Professional Surveyor unde, die Laws of (he Stale of Minnesota JaJies II. Parker P.C. & P.S. No. 9235 SCALE: ONI-: INCH FDHAt.S 30 FEFT ggu?o'*'<n I------ ( 52 T»0 ^d /*ri >.-/n ^ ^r o c^ y^cH^ S CM ^ L Z SI "it ^ - 7s,; S*lo<c/l 05 '■'" •/T X \ -% ^_ \ X \ 78*29 w • ----- 7.88 ' (-0 crM- ^ O mgw To \ s i -*V[>| 8e \ fit i !• / 2 ,":tvv/ '•b6?^o ^ •’"iT J ^ -3^ o ,2' U>r °^/ d !3 U.U'IS:oj^o tgr< C5«i^ il!' ift.34. : » 1 I--.'to pf w 2‘ liM { 't V IHJSI L ^ dec k I ^ 93cS' rJ» O J^cS,4i.*^*3S*s;"u,' '■'-JJi-f??— I < 01 0 00 in .<J?ro lW ^ lake MINNETONKA a M STATE OF ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES mi- e PHONE NO. Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612)832-6170 p'--eno January 9, 1997 City of Orono Attention; Mr. Mike GafFron 2750 Kelly Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 •• • * I ^ frn 1 3 Dear Mr. Gaffron: This letter is in reference to the proposed vacation of the right-of-way described as follows: That part of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota designated as street and park; which lies west of the east line thereof; which lies east of the northerly extension of the west line of Lot 3, 'Hlock 1, Island Point, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and which lies south of the south line of Lots 22,23 and 24 and its westerly extension in said Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. I would appreciate it if you would make the contents of this letter part of the public record, and read it for the public hearing scheduled on January 21, 1997, as I will be unable to attend the meeting. Please be advised that the Sta : • of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Trails and Waterways opposes the proposed vacation of the above described property. This public road as originally dedicated, provides a means of access to Lake Minnetonka, and has for many years. (See attached plat dedication). The citizens of Minnesota have a right to use all of the public waters in our state. Any attempt to preclude public access should be carefully considered. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources devotes considerable effort to providing the public with free and adequate access to our water throughout the state. The public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity. Our goal is to preserv'e and protect the public’s right to all forms of accesses. These can include, but are not limited to, shorefishing, canoe/carr/-in accesses, winter access (t'y -ar. snowmobile, foot), swimming, picnic areas, observation areas, and access from the lake to the land. Any access the public has, has value. The public owns it now, and should not lose any property or opportunity. No access should be simply “given ” to adjacent neighbors. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER i j According to the Minnesota Supreme Court, a vacation of a public road must be in the best interest of the public. It must be shown that it has no public value. The roadway referred to above has great potential future use both as an access by interior residents, as well as access from the lake to the interior of the island. By vacating this roadway it appears that access to the park and some interior lots would effectively be cut off. I don’t believe it could be proven to be in the best interest of the public to vacate this road. Although there is other public property on Lake Minnetonka, and perhaps on the island, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the vacation of this particular public street is in the best interest of the public. It also appears to me from reading the material provided me that the vacation of this road is not the only option available to accomplish the project the petitioner has in mind. A triangular piece of property could be vacated on one of the back lots, with a replat right behind that, and the project could still move ahead. Please consider the above request for the denial of the proposed vacation. I would be happy to discuss this issue further with you, or any member of the City, if you so desire. In addition I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a copy of the resolution regarding the outcome of this subject once it has been decided. Sincerely, <1, Martha J. Reger ) Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor attachment cc: Bill Johnson, Regional Supervisor George Golden, Attorney General’s Office Kim Lockwood, Water Recreation Specialist Jim Konrad, Conservation Officer .. i i_____ umEsr COMMUNICATIONS @ JAN l o 1997 5910 Shingle Creek Padway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 January 8, 1997 Mr. Micheal P. Ga^ron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Cit\' of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 CrystcQ. Bay, 55323 Re: NotificaticHi of proposed street ri^t-of-way vacation on e^lication #2201. Mr. Gaggron This is in respcmse to your letter dated January 6, 1997 v^iich gave notice of a hearing on the above referenced vacation on applicication #2201. US Vfest Gorrmjnications, Inc presently has aerial facilities along the southside of the east/west street. US Vfest has no objection to this vacation, but requests that a utility easement be retcdned to provide for future maintenance/reinforcement along this area. Respectfully Yours, 1 SIG. Miinsan US Vfest Field Engineer 612/569/3017 V Z*''. hha-t- 1 /% wav A 6- GITYof ORONO Municipal Oflices Street Address; 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 December 18,1996 George Adams, M.D. 9581 Virginia Avenue Bloomington, MN 55438 Re: Proposed Street Vacation, Big Island Dear Dr. Adams: The City is in receipt of your letter of request and partial payment for a vacation of portions of the road dedicated in 1888 within the plat of "Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka" on Big Island. As Steve Weckman indicated in his December 10 letter, vacation of this road right-of-way absent a re-dedication of roadway at an alternate location may be inappropriate. While you may feel there is no practical need to maintain a public roadway at this location, we cannot predict the potential future public uses for such right-of-way, but it may very well be in the public's best interest to preserve some options. In order to better understand the potential ramifications of vacation, the City must answer a number of questions regarding lot line locations, access to adjacent properties, utility line locations, topography, etc. A complete application will require that you provide formal survey w'ork in the area being vacated, as well as detailed infomiation about all existing utilities using the right-of-way. We are especially concerned that access to the property to the east not be eliminated, since that property has not been declared unbuildable, and in fact is identified in City ordinances as being a Substandard Buildable Lot of Record. Further, that property has steep topography near the wetland and its owner may need to gain future access via the road right-of-way to a possible building site near the northwest comer of that lot. We are also concerned that vacating the road behind your property may eliminate the only viable vehicular access to properties along the shoreline to the northwest of you, which have extremely steep lakeshore banks and which may not otherwise be accessible. The types of vehicles which might have occasion to use the right-of-way (for instance on a one-time City permit) might include well drilling trucks, septic pumpers, construction vehicles, etc. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-4)510 Dr. George Adams December 18,1996 Page 2 Your vacation request raises enough questions that by no means can we guarantee that it will be approved without the provision of an alternate access corridor. For that reason, I would again offer you the option of initially pursuing the request as an informal 'sketch plan review’ at the January 21 Planning Commission meeting, although I am advised by Jim Parker that most of the survey work has already been completed and will be submitted by next Monday's noon deadline. Assuming you wish to proceed immediately v%ith a formal vacation request per your letter, the following items must be submitted by noon on Monday, December 23 in order to be formally considered by the Planning Commission at their January 21 meeting: 1. $100 balance of Vacation fee (The right-of-way vacation fee is $300; if this was merely the vacation of an easement, the fee would have been $200) We are unable to locate the property owner list which you indicate was submitted by Mr. Robb. This needs to be submitted to make the application complete. Certificate of survey (and legal description) for the area to be vacated including the location of neighboring property boundaries, structures and utility lines. Written confirmation of agreement between property owners regarding the septic system construction. The recommendation of the Planning Commission would then be scheduled for City Council review and final action on February 10. 2. 3. 4. Dr. Adams, please don ’t construe our concerns noted above as an attempt to dissuade you from forging ahead in completing your septic system replacement. We are pleased that you and your neighbors have responsibly proceeded with the necessary testing and design work, as well as the legal work to create easements, in order to resolve the matter. Yet the City is obligated to consider the long-term public interest when being asked to give up a dedicated right-of-way. I will be handling the vacation application, so please feel free to contact me at 473-7357 if I can be of assistance. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator cc: Steve Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager Ron Moorse, City Administrator I i University of Minnesota W • H Twin Cities Campus Otolaryngology •Head dc Heck Surgery Lions 5M International Hearing Center Medical School December 13,1996 dec ■ 6 19'''' Box 396 Mayo Memorial Building 420 Delaware Street S.E. Minneapolis, MS 55455 6I2-625-3200 Fax: 612-625-2101 Offices: 8th Floor Phillips^Wangensteen Building 516 Delaware Street S,E. Stephen Weckman On-Site Systems Manager P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Dear Steve: Thank you for your letter of December 10. Enclosed is a formal request to vacate property behind the Robb cabin and on the lake side of the Fieger cabin in order to make a drain field acceptable to the city of Orono and in compliance with the DNR requirements for the three cabins. The adjacent cabins to the west have a combined system. After assessment, having S and P review rnd evaluate the existing properties, this was the only feasible system that could be placed in the area. There was not acceptable space for a mound-type system. The only other alternatives that could be discussed were holding tanks that could be emptied every year or two. This system was not felt to be acceptable because of your fear that the tanks would not be emptied as frequently as may be necessary. The owners of the three cabins have agreed in writing to build such a project. The expense of the construction and materials will be paid by Mr. Fieger and myself, and Mr. Robb s contribution will be the property. We therefore request that the property currently unused and never having been used by any of the owners and unlikely to be used by anyone ever in the future, be vacated and designated to be part of the Robb or Fieger property depending on the desires of the planning commission of Orono, I also request vacation of the property behind my cabin. This would allow me to continue to clean and remove the waste that has been deposited there over the past 50 years, prior to my owning the present property. Additionally, if owned by an individual, it is less likely that others would use this property as a place to dispose of containers, bottles, etc., that should be transported to the mainland. In reference to your issues regarding a road, there are currently no usuable or functional roads on Big Island and as to my knowledge, there are no plans for ever developing such roads in the future. There are above-ground electric lines, but below-ground telephone lines. There is not now, nor will there ever be traffic on Big Island. The island is posted in numerous places with signs stating no motorized vehicles permitted on Big island. To me, motorized vehicles include both recreational vehicles, cars, and/or trucks. I am certain that this Is the desire of the residents in the area and of the city. It is also unlikely that anyone will be transporting such a vehicle to the island for any functional use as a car on Big Island would have no function and could be gotten there only during certain months of the winter (January, February) when the lake is frozen and only on those years when the ice is considered safe for an individual to drive to that area. Thus, requesting that the road be maintained has no practical value and should not t e an issue in the discussion of the land for vacation. Further, the property to the east of the Robb and Fieger property has been designated unbuildable by the Orono City Council on previous occasions as there does not exist two acres above lake level. It is largely and primarily a swamp and lowland that is not considered buildable. Additionally, such property has access directly from the lake or through the swamp and has no need ' for an access through the Fieger property. Additionally, any access that would be required for walking or bikes or maintenance of electrical lines would certainly be recognized by individuals on the island, since it is they who benefit from maintenance of tho?e lines. I request therefore, that vacation of the above-mentioned property with designation of such property to be that of Robb’s and Adams come before the City Council In January. Enclosed is a $200 fee as required for this permit. Mr. James Parker of Advanced Engineering and Surveying will be providing you with his recommendations including more detailed maps of the proposal. A copy of S and P’s recommendations for the septic system is enclosed. Mr. Tom Robb has informed me that he provided the Orono City Hall with a list he obtained from Hennepin County of property owners within 350 feet of the vacation. I have asked Mr. Jim Fieger to contact you regarding the proposals with the alterations of permanent right-of-way to be closer to his property and I hoped he has talked to you regarding this. If there are any other issues that need to be addressed prior to the upcoming Orono City Council meeting, please let me know right away by fax. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, George L. Adams, M.D. Professor and Head cc:Mike Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mr. Jim Fieger Mr. Tom Robb r ^ • T CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailins Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 December 10, 1996 George Adams 9581 Virginia Ave. Bloomington, MN 55438 Re: Proposed septic system in platted right-of-way Dear Mr. Adams; After discussing your situation with Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Mike Gaffron, it appears there are three potential options available for you to consider: 1.Proceed with a vacation and replat of the right-of-way to move it into the northerly property so that the current and future public purposes served by a right-of-way in this location are not lost; 2. 3. Simply request a vacation of the right-of-way; or Request a permit for the installation of the septic system within the existing right-of- w'ay. Each of these options requires a public hearing with the planning commission as well as formal approval by the City Council. In order for the City Council to approve any of these options, you must show' that the proposed location of the septic system is the only feasible location, that no property on Big Island will be denied access as a result, and that there is no conflict with existing or future potential utilities (electric, phone, etc.), drainageways, etc. Relocating the right-of-way via a replat would leave your neighbor to the east (560 Big Island) an access to other existing platted roads on the island, would protect your proposed drainfield site by placing it on private property, and w’oulu preserve the public need for utility, access and drainage corridors. This is the option staff would recommend to the City Council (see attached sketch). Vacation of the right-of-way withou a replat might be approved by the Council, but in order to do so they would have to conclude that the property to the east does not need to be provided with access Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 to other parts of the island and vice-versa, and that there is no existing or future potential public purpose served by the right-of-way . From a planning perspective, it would be inappropriate to vacate this right-of-w'ay without providing an alternative that serves the public need. Finally, if you request permission to install the septic system in the right-of-way without vacating it, you (and the City) would want assurance that motorized traffic is prohibited on the island or the drainfield could be inadvertently destroyed. My review of the City Code reveals no such regulation (recreational vehicles are prohibited in the right of way, but it would be a stretch to say this rule is applicable to cars or trucks). So far, we haven't determined whether or when the 'no motorized vehicles' sign(s) were placed by the City. Because of the potential conflict with other uses that could impact or be impacted by a drainfield in the right-of-way, we would not recommend this option as the protection of your new septic system could not be guaranteed. Attached is a sketch that depicts a potential vacation/replat of the property. The process for accomplishing this requires that you have formal surv'ey work completed, and you could easily have $2,000-3,000 in costs by the time you are done. If you want some assurance that a vacation/replat will ultimately be approved before you incur significant costs, you may wish to apply for a 'sketch plan review* at the January 21 Planning Commission meeting. This is an opportunity to gain input from the planning commission without providing all the information required for a formal replat. Either your application for a sketch plan review or for proceeding with a formal replat would have to be submitted to the City with all the required information listed, by December 23 at noon to be considered for the January 21 plarming commission meeting. Please contact me or Mike Gaffron at the City Offices if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen Weckman On-Site Systems Manager cc: Mike Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Ron Moorse, City Administrator — 1//20* it,y 2r X 20' .—TTt< I *'>- K 1 “N. VJCLV. V —•’V^5c7^ovV\-» 3 0 1 uouJ . • * •• ^ *? I -OT , • •« Aux- V^^AW -^c<0\Tv-v^>^. «f>f=' 0^ iJ3UVfpvJcrno>4. K>>VNV^-C^OVX VA tU iV-C^ €. >V^ t=> *»- a:S'-‘5 L ®Percolotion Tests OScii Borings <15 Bench Mork Crnlp; 11*-^SO"PROPERTY « ^ OroA-y»i4 Note: This sys'.enn is to be conslrocled to meet the Minnesoio Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 & Local Ordinance Note ; Check all underground utilities S- Oesigned By*. Do:elL/»/S TasSw^*’'-.- . ^- " • .*• ■'.• --------- r233L^'X®^!j.* •^■' t’c^v'’"' ■' •—.-■’ ; # . - -.^' i -- •. '**>'^—-V4 r* • % ♦- ^^^'nftSSEi ®§2fe?S«r': •V X ‘mm[.yj.-r-t'.-;, # * /M •' pr? - : y^l Hv . ^ COUNTY S^V-XTVXvesd^flL '. ^ V r •^ -T* *- • '^•>':^vv '.;\ , *ltf ••isViiif /*>t44jUt f&Lt- ivi, •?7 rra^r% Z^uM*, UZiU^ /L. /»0 >* 4A^ 4 f.o.4 I -Jcr--■“-. -;/ovir^’ Sa/^ ,d«tr<a^ Alsi^ ojc •fe/tiCK '«5 s All Sttii ?t /r» _ _ »iO c •r»__________ %v1 C /•*• t V' c /«■« 1 J tr^m f ; J*\. gfitt SliSS :^-.^L-^r*f /♦ •rf.-'v: v^:_____1=^:_________________-- K .1 1^4 1 ■ i i ^ ^ f .-V .55vc»*^ yAy (vjq/ , evT>y«^ * COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: APR 2 8 1997 CITYOFORONO ITEM NO Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2205, Allen Schefers, 2540 Casco Point Road Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: LRl-C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre), Sewered Lot Area:42,945 sq. ft. (approximate) Application:Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for excavation of a porJ in a floodplain to remain. The applicant obtained a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to excavate in a wetland for a wildlife pond. A conditional use permit is required to alter land in a wetland. Planning Commission Recommendation:To unanimously approve: 1. A conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions: a.The applicant shall grade the slopes around the pond to a 3 to 1 ratio or less. b.The applicant shall maintain the pond in a manner that does not adversely impact the right-of-way and roadway. c.The applicant shall landscape the area around the pond with natural vegetation such as cattails and prairie grasses COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISIONS 8 AND 12 FILE #2205 WHEREAS, Allen Schefers, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2540 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 6, Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"), and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subdivisions 8 and 12 to excavate in a wetland area to allow an existing wildlife pond to remain where a conditional use permit is required for excavation or fill. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minne.sota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2205. The property is located in the LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1/2 acre. The properly is sewered. 3.On April 21, 1997, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as amended and recommended unanimous approval based on the following findings: A) The wildlife pond will improve drainage on the properly and adjacent areas. Page 1 of 5 B) The wildlife pond encroaches into the 100' right-of-way for Casco Point Road but does not have an adverse impact on the roadway. C) The wildlife pond is located in a floodway and flood fringe district. D) The applicant has obtained a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 4. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow a wildlife pond will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.55, Subdivisions 8 and 12 to allow an existing wildlife pond in a wetland to remain where no such activity is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. The applicant shall grade the slopes around the pond to a 3:1 ratio or less. The applicant shall maintain the pond in a manner that does not adversely impact the right-of-way and roadway. The applicant shall landscape the area around the pond with natural vegetation such as cattails and prairie grasses. Page 2 of 5 4.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for an after-the-fact land alteration permit within six months of the date of Council approval or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (October 28, 1998). 5.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the tenns of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successois and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. ATTEST: Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of April, 1997. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of April, 1997, by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, 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 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of 199 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 \ To: From: Date: Subject:' Zoning District: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator April 16.1997 #2205, Allen Schefers, 2540 Casco Point Road-Conditional Use Permit- Public Hearing LRl-C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Application: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for excavation of a pond in a floodplain area to remain. The applicant obtained a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to excavate to allow a wildlife pond, however, a conditional use permit for the excavation was not obtained from the City. The applicant has previously obtained a conditional use permit for fill importation in excess of 100 cubic yards. List of Exhibits A. Application B. Plat Map C. Property Owner ’s List D. Site Plan E. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit F. Sur\'ey G. Excerpts from Minutes from Previous City Council and Planning Commission Meetings regarding the Conditional Use Permit for fill importation H. Resolution #3762 granting a conditional use permit for fill importation I. Minutes from 2/18/97 Planning Commission Meeting Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 10.55, Subdivision (A)Definition of Floodway District The Floodway District shall include those areas designated as floodway in the Flood Insurance Study, including without limitation the surface and shoreline of Lake Minnetonka H2205, 2540 Casco Foint Road At ten Schcfcrs-C. U.P. for e.xcavation page-t Aprit 16. 1997 below elevation 929.4 MSL, the surface and shoreline of other lakes, ponds and wetlands below the ordini.r>' highwater elevation, and the designated floodway of all streams and flowage areas.2. Section 10.55, Subdivision (B) Definition of Flood Fringe District The Flood Fringe District shall include those areas designated as floodvvay fringe in the Flood Insurance Study, including without limitation the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka between elevation 929.4 MSL and 931.5 MSL, the area between the floodway and the edge of the 100-year flood on all other lakes, ponds and streams, all designated sheet flow areas, all intermittent streams, and ponding areas and all lands containing soil types classified as wetland soils, whether or not there is water standing on those soils at any given time. 3. Section 10.55, Subdivision (8) Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary highwater elevation of any lake shoreline, nor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting said area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in this Section and the preservation of those conservation areas in their natural state. 4. Section 10.55, Subdivision (9)(B)(2) Floodway District Conditional Uses All dredging or excavation of material from any lake bed, pond, or wetland or from land adjacent thereto. 5. Section 10.55, Subdivision (10)(B)(1) Flood Fringe District All conditional uses as listed in the Floodvvay district. 6. Section 10.55, Subdivision (12) Conditional Use Permit Review. Applications for conditional use permits shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Council in the same manner as other zoning conditional use permit applications. No conditional use permit shall be issued unless the applicant, in support of his application, shall submit certified engineering data, surveys, site plans, flowage calculations, and other infomiation as the City may require in order to determine the effects of such development on the affected land and water areas. #2205. 2540 Casco Point Road Allen Schefers—C. U.P. for e.xcavation page-2 April 16.1997 Description of RequestThe applicants obtained the site at 2540 Casco Point Road in October of 1995. In 1996, they began construction of a new house on a previously vacant lot. The new residence required a conditional use permit for fill importation to raise the lot to a suitable elevation to prevent basement flooding. The applicant has removed debris from the lot including the pond area and has received a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to excavate the pond area. The applicant has stated that he did not realize that he also need a conditional use permit for excavating the pond, however. Resolution #3762 set forth the conclusions and conditions for granting the original conditional use permit for fill importation. The site plan that was submitted for the fill importation did not show that a pond would be excavated on the site. The proposed wildlife pond may be located in a floodway or flood fringe area. The applicant s drawing shows the lowest elevation of the pond at 826.0 feet. Any excavation in either a floodway or flood fringe area requires a conditional use permit. Issues for Consideration Although the applicant has received a permit from the Watershed District to excavate the pond, a conditional use permit from the City of Orono is also required. The existing ponding area is located in the 100' right-of-way for Casco Point Road. The applicant has flagged the two monuments that determine the property line along the road easement, that show that the pond encroaches into the right-of-way. The pond is far enough from the road bed that it should not cause damage. Further, the 100' right-of-way is larger than standard. Most right-of-ways are 66'. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that this application be approved subject to: 1. 2. The applicant shall grade the slopes around the pond to a ratio of 3 to 1 or less. The applicant shall maintain the pond in a manner that does not adversely impact the right-of-way and roadway. U2205, 2540 Casco Point Road Allen Schefers-C. U.P. for excavation page-3 April 16. 1997 Rrt7i: SwOsIRIililt] rtiiiti Mnit] if ‘ r / \ * x- - ijcrr -: > ■j • • REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. y Completed Application For.i. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). 2. j. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. i * \y Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. u" Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 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). ^ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ___As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information ha? not been included. Certification by Clerical Department tha: Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:___________________________-------------------------------------—----- AFrLICA.NT’S SIGN.ATURE 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 unusual expenses incurred in review of this ^plication, and certifies that the information supplied^vsTTFiI^and correc^to th^^e^t^of^,htis/her knov,ledge. Applicant's signaturb //----1 OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission membeis, and Council members for purposes of inv’estigatiomnnd verification of this request. .1^Date f " 6'r/Owner’s signature^ _________________ !/ /Applicant must have all subminals 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 schedi ;ed meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent anend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE 07/26/96 BATCH 503 PROP ADDR OrtlER NAME TAXPAYER HAKE/ADDR PROP ADDR O^ER NAHE TAXPAYER NAftE/AODR PROP ADDR OtSNER NAME TAXPAYER MAftE/ADOR PROP ADDR Ot^ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR IIENNEPIfl COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0HNER5 LIST 38 20-117-23 21 0012 00038 ADDRESS UlASSIGNEO A J « J 8 SCIIEFERS ALLEN J t JUDY B SCIIEFERS 2511 112TH ST W DLOOHIt^TON MN 55**31 38 20-117-23 21 0015 02520 CASCO POINT RD MARIE A SVAMG MARIE A SVANS 2528 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA UN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 002A 02580 DUNKOOOY AVE JAG NAFUS JOHN A NAFUS 2500 DUI^NOOOY AVE HAYZATA m 55391 TOTAL BATCH 503 00009 REPORT NO. PIA35901 PAGE 9 30 20-117-23 71 0013 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED A J S J 8 SCIIEFERS ALLEN J & JUOT 8 SCIIEFERS 2511 112TH ST H BLOOMINGTON MN 55^31 38 20-117-23 21 001^ 02530 CASCO POINT RD T CHALUPSKY A D Y CHALUPSKY T CIIALUPSICY A D Y CHALUPSKY 2530 CASCO POINT RO ORONO MI4 5539<* 30 20-117-23 21 0017 02520 CASCO POINT RD THOMAS H FRAHM l:TAL THOMAS H FRAHM 2520 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0022 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED VIL OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 p X i \ 30 20-117-23 21 0036 02590 CASCO POINT RD JOHN T REOr^OND JOHN T REDMOND 2695 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 30 20-117-23 26 0063 02600 CASCO POINT RD PAUL J A MARY E RASTER PAUL J A MARY E RASTER 2600 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 • < I CERTIFY Ti.AT THE FACTS REPRESENTfD ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUTJTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ^ DATE 7-29-% C~T. proposed pond 'KJ »• * % D 'll' O O •AH rJ;/\ r'^fv,&5 % i)' j e Si^ ’H.w \ V^’ ’ ‘.AA-V \ ' V ^ ,\ t v'' iK"' . i'» •r t t.< , V ) I } i •:v ' ' • f 'i •<• M •>••<«••, .^ I f> Q>^ ‘ rV Sii 3 ropomd drw^ arjd pm Note: ^ information ueed for thio drawing baood on original eurvey by Coff in and Gronborg Inc. 5-]&-96 U' Minnesota ‘•785 West County Road 42 ^ tdi Shakopee, Mn. 55364 Landscapinij 612/496-3105 IMI • Allen Schefers residence 2540 Casco Point Poad Scale: 1"=40’0" Orono, Mn Minnehaha Creek Watershed District E Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 419. Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior. MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax: (612)471-0682 Emaii: adminQmnwatershed.org Web Site: www.mnwatershed.org Board ol Managers: John E. Thomas President Pamela G. Blixt Vice President Monica Gross Secretary Thomas W. LaBounty Treasurer C. Woodrow Love Thomas Maple. Jr. Malcoim Reid District Office: Eugene R. Strommen District Director Suzanne M. Weedman Asst. District Director Pniafd on rtcydcd pjptf ccn!iln-i^ it mss 30*e po$t ceniufl'if wMtt. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D, and on the basis of statements and information contained in the permit application, correspondence, plans, maps, and all other supporting data submitted by the applicant, all of which are made a part hereof by reference. PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to the applicant named below for use and development of land in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Issued to: Allen Scheffers Permit No: 96-211 Location. 2540 Casco Point Road. Orono Purpose: Excavation of a wetland for a wildlife pond. Date of Issuance: 10/21/96 Date of Expiration: 10/21/97 By Order of the Board of Managers Suzanne M. Weedman Assistant District Director This permit is not transferable, and is valid to the date of expiration! No activity is authorized beyond the expiration date. If the permittee requires more time to complete the project, an application for renev/al of the permit is required. The applicant is responsible for compliance with all District Rules and for the action of their representatives, contractors, and employees. (Statement concerning fees for inspections, violations, etc... on reverse) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ALLEN SCHEFERS 1r %■ ...{93^.0) \jv4 (t«.ij V / u 0 .-O^' LEGAL DESCRiPTiON OF PREMiSES : Lol 2. Block 6. TOWNSITE OF LANGOON PARK <^o jA v« \ llU.») o : denotes Iron marker (Q37.9): dcnolcj existing spot devotion, mean sea level datum denotes proposed spot elevation, mcon seo level datum Beoririgs shown ore based upon on ossumed datum. / O X’* *1*o\V •,-y This survey intends to show the boundorics of the obove described property, and the prop osed locolion of o proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements or cncroochmcnts. s yjS.s y/^0r t ?^/,S . ?7J. 5 kV V •/ / CofrlN 'a Gr CNB eMn C^ r ftfujfAkA^inLi- « tak*^; h\U7y\\\\ reby mlih* lh.il l!»i< survey was prepannl by me or under my direct Siipor* m. and Ib.il I a*u d*dv regi'»er«*-I ( m it Ein iiuf r .uul l.iMd Surveyor under 1.1 V* i,f !»..»(if '.jlnpi-5c'l.i k S. Grimbeq; Minnestila IJcensc NumU'f I27SS datf S-16-96 5CAU r's40* khimi 96-170 170 ME^UTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 9,1996 (*#10) #2167 ALLEN AND JUDY SCHEFERS, 2540 CASCO POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3762 Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3762 granting approval of a conditional use permit for fill importation of approximately 426 cubic yards for construction of a new residence at 2540 Casco Point Road for Allen and Judy Schefers and Water Street Builders, Inc. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Callahan reported his dissatisfaction with the disregard of the motion made in May, 1996, for condemnation proceedings to begin on properties affecting the bike trail. The purpose was to enable the bike trail to be completed in 1996. Moorse said the Wills and Bruning properties require Council resolutions to authorize moving ahead on the condemnation proceedings. Callahan, Jabbour, and Goetten each said it was their understanding that the previous Council action included proceedings against all affected properties. Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to direct the City Administrator to have the City Attorney commence condemnation proceedings on September 10, 1996, tow’ards any property in need of condemnation in order for the bike trail completion to be accomplished and to adopt the resolutions required to accomplish this. A report in writing is required from the City Administrator by Wednesday, September 18, 1996 stating that the condemnation proceedings have begun and a time table in writing by ilie City Attorney regarding accomplishment of the condemnation. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. Goetten noted the receipt of a letter and petition by the Hassan Township requesting support for their incorporation as a city. Goetten asked the Council members of their opinion. Goetten and Jabbour both noted their support. Moorse cautioned of impact on adjoining cities. Goetten moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution #3763 voicing no objection from the Council to the petition for incorporation as a city by Hassan Township. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Kelley made note of an upcoming Staff picnic. Kelley inquired about further review of the easements for internal trails on the Dickey property. It was noted that a letter of credit is on file for the developer in regards to the internal trails. (^r ... MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#10 - #2166 Janet Kieman - Continued) Stoddard asked where the City was regarding the County’s planned improvements to CoRd 15. Callahan said it was in a state of active consideration noting the different viewpoints taken amongst Council members. Lindquist asked for the size of the patio to be considered. Kieman asked that it be large enough to accommodate a table and chairs. Stratton said it is currently proposed at 24' across and 18 ’ out from the house. Gaffron reviewed the hardcover in the 0-75' setback and suggested cutting the size of the patio in half Kieman and Stratton agreed to limit the size of the patio to 240 s.f Smith asked about the plan for the gazebo. Kieman said she would like to do it in the future. The placement was unknovvTi, but Kieman was informed that it should not encroach the septic system drainfield. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2166 with the following changes and conditions: The garage will be offset with a minimum of 15 ’ setback from CoRd 15. The patio will be reduced in size to 240 s.f The property will not be allowed to have more than 4 bedrooms until such time as sewering is complete. The Planning Comnussion advised that no more structural coverage would be allowed in the 0-75 ’ setback zone as the property has reached its maximum limit. Gaffron noted that the change in hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback w'ould result in a 3.9% variance. He also informed the applicant that the drainage and grading plans and location of the sewer would be requll•^'^ hefore the application would go before the Council. Gaffron said he would provnde what information they had in-house, and this request should not hold back the proposal. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson, principle of average lakeshore setback, concern with trading a fireplace and minor landscaping for major structure in the 0-75' setback, and noted the property was at the point of no additional structural coverage. (#11) #2167 ALLEN AND JUDY SCHEFERS, ”2540” CASCO POINT ROAD- VARLANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:03-10:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Loren Brueggemann. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#11 - #2167 Allen and Judy Schefers - Continued) Gaffron noted the elusiveness of the application with the steady stream of changes made from the original proposal. He reported that the original house w'as planned within the tlood plain and with the lowest floor level below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). The 75-250' hardcover was also proposed at about 32% where only 25% is allowed. The lot is vacant, and a new house is now proposed for which there is no justification for hardcover variances. The house has now been raised to the required 935.5' elevation and out of the flood plain. With the changes to the location, the size of the house, and the drivew'ay, the house now will meet the 25% hardcover. The only request remaining is for a CUP for fill importation in excess of 100 cubic yards. It would require 300-400 cubic yards of fill for this proposal. Gaffron noted there is also no defined average lakeshore setback to meet as there is no house to the south. The house will be located some distance back from the 0-75' setback. The hardcover in the 75-250' setback is proposed at 24.97%. Gaffron said the plan is realistic. He said the fill w ould require around 30 truck loads. Documentation by a survey showing hardcover calculations will be required. Peterson noted that the normal precautions w'ould be required regarding fill such as road clean up. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the request for a CUP for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards with the inclusion of a survey. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hawn was absent from the vote. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#12) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12,1996 No report was given. (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVA jl OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1996 MEETING Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 22, 1996. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hawn was not present for the vote. (#14) PL.ANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE: TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9,1996 Stoddard will attend the September 9, 1996 meeting of the Council. M CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __3 7 6^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERAUT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 20 AND 21 FILE #2167 WHEREAS, Allen Schefers and Judy Schefers, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2540 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 6, Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to allow the importation of approximately 426 cubic yards of fill material in conjunction with the construction of a new residence, where a maximum importation of 100 cubic yards of fill is normally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 20 and 21. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2167. 2.The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 19, 1996 and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 3762 -NO. 4. 5. The need for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards is directly related to the required minimum floor elevations associated with adjacency to a floodplain, which eliminated the possibility of excavating the necessary material from the site. The proposed grading plan will allow the construction of a driveway and garage located at the main floor level of the proposed residence suiicture. 1 he proposed grading plan will allow for proper drainage away from the proposed residence. The proposed fill and grading will not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, but will provide a transition between the higher lot to the south and the lower lot to the north. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendaiions of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicants and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the importation of 426 cubic yards of fill will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, w'ould not a.i' ersely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proporeo level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER ANT) CONDITIONS Based upon the findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subdivisions 20 and 21 to permit the importation of approximately 426 cubic yards of fill material in conjunction with the construction of a new residence on the property, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 J r m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 762 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ATTRIT: Applicants and their agents shall adhere to the land alteration provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(J), and such work shall adhere to the Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. Applicants and applicants' agents shall be responsible for immediate cleanup of all materials spilled on City roads. Applicants shall adhere to the site plan and grading plan by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. dated 5/16/96 revised 8/14/96 revised 8/19/96. Any revisions of that grading plan and site plan will require further review by the City. No other conditional use permit or variance approvals are granted with this resolution of approval. Applicant shall obtain a land alteration permit from the City prior to commencing importation of fill. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolutior shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf o:'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 Orono City Council on this 9th day of September, 1996. (orothy M^ HalTW City Property Owit6r(s) Page 3 of 5 • • • • •J\.ake.. .A^\ir)ne.:}on __ ___ • • • • • • I «1/ fPX;I • •• . « - as3o ',1^ •JC»| fit c 1. -Hi 1. .I'-l" I ._fj3yAl ____ / 1 ^k N/ \ / 'I \ V \ ocu..- \ \3 I - \ <)b ...................../ 11 I I CcL^CO Po/n'h R OacA ••«-«•• •j»l H 1 1 ' j 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 T (#7 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Mayor Jabbour asked Staff to identify the variances. Gaffron noted the need to fill the wetlands, bluff impacts, and an over-size accessory structure variance. Jabbour inquired about Staffs opinion regarding the time table presented noting the need for CUP and building permit. Gaffron said Staff suggested tabling the application in order to answer the questions being generated. Jabbour said he was concenied with a CUP as being perceived as granting approval of the plans. He noted the CUP process is generally faster than that of the variance process. He also asked that the application fees be addressed up front. Gaffron said Park Dedication Fees would not be included as the project is not a subdivision. Jabbour noted the great loss of revenue to the City. Council Member Goelten asked Gaffron to determine w’hat the amount would be if a subdivision was involved. Smith asked Staff to address the trail issue and elaborate on such plans. Lindquist informed her the Park Conunission was addressing that concern. LLndquist moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2209. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Hawn had excused herself from the discussion of this application due to a possible conflict of interest.) (Schroeder absented himself from the meeting at this time.) (#4) #2205 ALLEN SCHEFERS, 2540 CASCO POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 10:36-10:37 P.M. Note: Planning Commissioner Hawn returned to her seat for thia :icm. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was not present. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2205. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN/CONCEPTUAL REVIEWS (#9) #2208 JYLAND DEVELOPMENT BMC, HUNTER DRIVE AND 6TH A\TENUE NORTH - SUBDIMSION FOR 4 NEW UNITS The Applicant was represented by Rick Carlson and Mark Gronberg. I CUUNCiL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Datef Item Department Approval: APR 2 8 1997 Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Preliminary Subdivision - Conversion from Outlot to Lot Status - Outlot E, Sugar Woods ('2190' Wayzata Boulevard) - Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution This application was conceptually approved by Council on April 14 (See minutes). Council directed staff to prepare a revised Preliminary Plat Approval resolution reflecting the Council's findings and approval conditions per the discussion at the meeting. Applicant's attorney initially provided staff with a proposed resolution, which staff has revised significantly in order to reflect staffs understanding of Council's action and intent. Applicant’s attorney has not, as of the time this goes to print, indicated acceptance of the attached resolution. Staffs proposed resolution is attached for Council review and adoption. Council Action Requested Adopt the attached resolution granting preliminary approval of a Class II subdivision for property located at 2190 Wayzata Boulevard. H *\ A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS II SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21. D VVAYZATA BOULEVARD - FILE NO. 2212 WHEREAS, Sidney and Barbara Rebers (hereinafter the "Applicants") on February 19, 1997, filed a formal subdivision application with the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") for approval of a replat of property legally described as: Outlot E, Sugar Woods, except that part shown as Parcel 342A on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-ofiWay Plat No. 27-70, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the Property"); and WHEREAS, this replat is proposed for the purpose of converting said Outlot E to buildable lot status in order that the Property may be developed, as required by the City as a condition of the plat of Sugar Woods; and WHEREAS, after duly published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et, seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 17, 1997, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting held on April 14, 1997, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the Applicant and made the following findings of fact: 1. 2. 3. The property is located within the B-1 Retail Sales Business Zoning District requiring a minimum lot area of 20,000 s.f and a minimum lot width of 100'. The property contains a total area of 41,612 s.f and has a defined width of approximately 146'. The proposed plat consists of one commercial lot meeting the minimuiTt lot standard requirements of the B-1 Zoning District. Page 1 of9 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The properly is served by municipal sewer and water. The property abuts U.S. Highway 12 as well as Outlot D, Sugar Woods, a segment of a proposed future frontage road corridor platted within Sugar Woods. In 1987 the City adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 which planned for the future development of a frontage road between Brown Road ai.d Willow Drive, paralleling Highway 12. In 1987 it was anticipated that traffic on Highway 12 would continue to increase as a result of the upcoming completion of Interstate Highway 394. The purpose of this planned frontage road was to reduce and/or eliminate access directly to and from Highway 12, generally for safety and traffic flow reasons. Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 specifically addressed road improvements needed prior to development of the commercial corridor as follows: "Prior to the development of the commercial portion of this property, the existing intersection at Brown Road and Highway 12 shall be improved so that safety concerns associated with the current use and future increased use of this intersection are addressed. Configuration of the frontage road and North Brown Road would be determined at the time of development." Orono's 1994-95 reconstruction of Brown Road alleviated alignment concerns with the 12/BrovsTi intersection, and Mn/DOT’s 1995-96 safety improvements on Highway 12 similarly alleviated a number of safety concerns. The plat of Sugar Woods, completed in July 1989, included two commercially zoned parcels (Outlets E and F) abutting Highway 12. These two parcels were platted as outlets, rather than as buildable lots, because the Applicant at that time wished to delay decisions regarding future access to the commercial property until such time that it was developed. The Sugar Woods plat conformed to the comprehensive plan by creating Outlot D, a short segment of the proposed future east/vvest frontage road. Outlot D, however, only provides a corridor from the west boundary of Sugar Woods to Page 2 of 9 9. 10. II. the northwest comer of Outlot F. The intent was that at some future time when Outlot F is developed, the remaining frontage road segment eastward to Brown Road would be defined and platted On December 12, 1988, the Orono City Council adopted Resolution No. 2554 granting preliminary plat approval, conditional use permit and variances for the plat of SUGAR WOODS. Page 8, paragraph 4.E stated that the subdivider's agreement should: "Clarify that Outlot D (portion of future east/west road) is to be fully developed at the time of future development of the commercial corridor. The access road will be fully installed at the time of either the applicant's development of the commercial corridor or as a result of any other condition that may require the installation of the road prior to applicant's development of the commercial corridor." The foregoing language was not put in the subdivider's agreement, but it was put in the resolution granting final plat approval. On July 10, 1989. the City Council adopted Resolution No.2653 approving the final plat of SUGAR WOODS. Page 4, paragraph 4 stated: "4. Outlot D. a portion of future east/west road located within the commercial zoned portion of the property, shall be installed at the time of the development of Outlots E or F or the development of the Wear property (unless the City has obtained an alternate legal access through Outlot E to the Wear property all subject to the approval of the City)." Pursuant to the terms of the preliminary plat resolution and final plat resolution, on September 8, 1989, Rebers Construction Co. and Sidney and Barbara Rebers granted public roadway easements over Outlot D to the City of Orono. Said ea.sements were filed with the Hemiepin County registrar of Titles as Document Nos. 2038791 and 2038792. Page 3 of 9 12. 13. Thereafter, the Orono Building & Zoning Administrator and City Attorney objected to certain terms of said easements; said easements were renegotiated between the City and the Applicants; and a replacement public road easement over Outlot D was granted to and accepted by the City subject to the following; "1. No road shall be installed by Grantee until a building permit has been issued for construction of a commercial building on Outlot E, SUGAR WOODS (in which case the road may extend no further east than the Northerly extension of the East boundary of Outlot E) or on Outlot F, SUGAR WOODS (in which case the road may extend the full length of Outlot D). ”2. The south edge of any road built by grantee shall be no further North than the South boundary of Outlot D, SUGAR WOODS. "3. If and when a frontage road or service road is built connecting Outlets E and F, SUGAR WOODS, across land South of Outlot D, SUGAR WOODS, or an easement for such a road is dedicated, granted or condemned, this easement shall automatically expire." (Quit Claim Deed dated May 30, 1990, recorded June 25, 1990 as Registrar of Titles Document No. 2105974.) It appears that Interstate Highway 394 will not be extended along the current corridor of U.S. Highway 12; it appears that a bypass route will be extended from the current freeway terminus near the easterly boundary of Orono to the intersection of Highway 12 and County Road 6. When this bypass is operational, traffic on Highway 12 adjacent to the Property will decline. However, the resultant traffic volumes on Highway 12 adjacent to the property at that time are anticipated to be at a level that would generally indicate the need for a limited access highway. 14. The Council finds that although the ultimate accv’:-; V the Property should be Page 4 of 9 1 via a frontage road, the form of future development of the adjoining and nearby properties should be taken into account at the time the frontage road is developed. Such future development has not been determined, but it will influence how, where and when the frontage road is constructed. Therefore, the Council chooses not to install the Highway 12 frontage road through Outlot D, SUGAR WOODS, at this time, whether or not Outlot E is developed with a commercial building, without waiving its right to require such installation in the future. 15. The Council finds that suitable interim access to Outlot E from Highway 12 may be possible using the Mn/DOT right-of way directly west of Outlot E, which would allow an access to be constructed opposite Brimhall Avenue. Such an access location affords an opportunity for shared access to serv'e the adjacent property in the plat of East Willow Woods. 16. Outlot D, Sugar Woods, is intended to serve as a trail corridor as well as a frontage road corridor, and therefore requires a continuous width of 60' in order to accomodate both uses. Outlot D currently is 60 ’ in width at the west end but tapers to a width of 40' at its east end. Additional right-of-way is needed by the City via creation of an additional Outlot and granting of drainage, utility, road and trail easements in order that the 60' corridor be provided. 17. The City Engineer has additionally recommendea that a 5' drainage and utility easement be granted along the south side of the added right-of-way outlot, within proposed Lot 1. 18. The easement granting the City rights to develop a frontage road in Outlot D does not grant an easement for drainage or utilities purposes, which is necessary in order for the City to use it for the intended purpose. 19. Proposed Lot 1 is subject to the Park Dedication requirements of Municipal Code Section 11.62. Page 5 of 9 20. Any development proposed within proposed Lot 1 will be subject to a commercial site plan review process before the Planning Commission and City Council. 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 Sidney and Barbara Rebers per plat drawings by Wayne D. Cordes, a licensed surveyor employed by BRW, Inc. dated March 4, 1997, for the conversion of the Property into Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot A, SUGAR WOODS 2ND ADDITION, subject to the following conditions; 1. 2. 3. 4. Lot 1 shall be allowed direct access to U.S. Highway 12 only if the applicants are successful in relocating their existing access to Highway 12, by obtaining an access permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) permitting access over the triangular parcel of land owned by MnDOT across from the intersection of Brimhall Avenue and Highway 12. Any direct access to Highway 12 which is not directly opposite Brimhall Avenue will not be allowed. There shall be no access to Lot 1 from the Wear property directly east of Lot 1. Applicant shall, if found necessary by the City, place barriers to prohibit access from the Wear property. The direct access to Highway 12 across from Brimhall Avenue is approved on an interim basis. At the time a frontage road is installed to provide alternate access to Lot 1, the City intends that the access to Highway 12 be closed, and all access to Lot 1 and adjacent and nearby commercial parcels abutting the frontage road be via the frontage road only. Lot 1 shall bear the total reasonable costs of constructing the portion of the frontage road directly adjacent to Lot 1. Applicant shall escrow with the City an Page 6 of 9 6. 7. 8. amount equal to 150% of the estimated construction cost of said construction. 5. Applicant shall grant the City a drainage, utility and trail easement over Outlot D. A triangular segment of right-of-way shall be platted as Outlot A, SUGAR WOODS 2ND ADDITION, per Exhibit A attached, and applicant shall grant to the City road, trail, drainage and utilities easements over said Outlot A. Applicants shall provide confirmation that the existing stormwater pond is viable to serve Lot 1, or shall provide a new comprehensive stormwater plan for Lot 1 and Outlot F, SUGAR WOODS, subject to approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer. Applicants are hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of Council approval, on April 28, 1998. Should Applicants fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the one year deadline, it shall be necessary for applicant to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. 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 sur\ey by Wayne D. Cordes dated March 4, 1997. B. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of the Property. Page 7 of 9 1 3. 4. C. Designation of Outlot A per Exhibit A attached, to ser\e as an expansion of the frontage road corridor. 2. Legal documents required; A. B. 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. C. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the Property. Signed and executed road, trail, utility and drainage easement over Outlot A, SUGAR WOODS 2ND ADDITION. Signed and executed trail, drainage and utility easement over Outlot D, SUGAR WOODS. 5. Fees to be paid: Total due: $ 200.00 ’^ A.. Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $200.00 B.*Park dedication fee, the amount of which shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair mail.et value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The applicant 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 land within Lot 1 . Page 8 of 9 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at its regular meeting held this 28th day of April, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this __ day of , 199 _, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.1 Notary Public Page 9 of 9 t FROM LEONARD. STREET k DEINARD • N O I 00 'dp ^ • (THU) 4. 24'57 14:44 |J. 14:27, K0. XHIBIT I I . - — • • ** t\-\ I N. \ \*> \ I t-’L'- ».y 5>^ I ’^A V ON!>i'e}Vd snoNinnug,^ \ X ' "V*N •* V X x WNXW xw ’ V3dv 0Ni>i' yg snoNmni j T. rrTT.--------------- —__ __________ ~ ■ \saooM nv'ons asd in3n3sv3 Mnun onv 3syN/vdo-^- t ■ -<51:; p3»oid-..r • ^ wj•o<^, o^S X V- ^ ' ^ m** ‘V •J- , no 77.9 A <?’C ,% — - ■■—■ « *a •• k» - i o jL\nd_“ 7=^vW ?0=^ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#5 - #2204 Fullerton - Continued) Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the preliminary plat and conditional use permit with the understanding that the a letter of credit be submitted at the time of final subdivision in the amount of the Park Dedication fee until a final determination be made. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Goetten. Goetten’s vote was made for reasons stated. She supported the application but recommends the Park Dedication fee be resolved piior to any approval of the application. Winston felt the case should be reviewed ad hoc, case by case. Radio indicated vvhile the Supreme Court allows for case to case study, it does not allow any applicant to piece meal the fee either. He indicated the imposition of a maximum fee would provide some certainty. He also noted that the Executive Session is only being held because of the threat of litigation from tnis application. (#6) #2212 SIDNEY & BARBARA REBERS, 2080 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - RESOLUTION NO. 3880 The applicant was present along with attorney, Steve Pflam. Gaffron reported that the application is for preliminar>’ subdivision and the convers’ '•n of Outlot E, Sugar Woods, to buildable status. The outlet was created from a parcel ..’land remaining from the Sugar Woods plat for Riture commercial development consisting of Outlets E and F, which is the Orono Shopping Center. At the time of the plat, a comprehensive plan amendment included a frontage road to serv’e projected comm'**'‘'*al development. The Sugar Woods plat conformed to that amendment with the ere .tion of Outlot D. This outlot only provides a corridor from the west boundary of Suga. Woods to the northwest corner of Outlot F. The intent was that at some future time when outlot F is developed, the remaining frontage road segment eastward to Brown Road would be defined and platted. Outlot D was platted because the City needed a corridor that would traverse the Wear property located between Outlots E and F. Outlot C of East Willow Woods was platted, providing a corridor connecting from Outlot E of Sugar Woods, westward to Willow Drive for future frontage road. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL mitftin G held on APRIL 14, 1997 Gatlron indicated that access is the primary issue with the conversion ot this outlot to buildable lot status. Outlot E meets the minimum lot area and width standards tor a building site in the B-1 District, and the only variances which may be necessary for its development would be related to specific building and site layout issues. A 70’ wide curb cut for a right-in. right-out ingress/egress resulted from the safety improvements for Highway 12. These improvements did allow for a future curb cut but with a median :'cross it. Gaffron noted that the comprehensive plan limits access to Highway 12. Although the "Altemati\ e 6 North" proposal for the Highway 12 corridor would inove substantial traffic otTof Hwy 12, the current Hwy 12 would continue to have a high traffic count. The projected count would still warrant a limited access roadway with service roads for access to adjacent properties. The Planning Commission had discussed the access issues as outlined in the 4/2/97 memo on page 2 relating to traffic on Hwy 12, safety improvement impacts on access to Outlot E shared access, and factors that would trigger construction of the frontage road. The plan called for a road within Outlot D to be developed at the time of development of Outlot E or F for a fully completed frontage roa i The City has easements over Outlets C and D to Willow Drive. The existing drain.aue pond was developed as part of Sugar Woods. The City would require confirmaiicii that the pond would be able to handle the additional drainage from development ot Outlot E. Gaffron stated the Staff recommendation differs from the Planning Commission review outcome. The Commission recommended unanimous approval of the preliminary subdivision and change in outlot to buildable status with a temporary right-in, right-out access subject to future construction of a frontage road Other conditions are noted on page 7 of the 4/10/97 memo. The Commission suggested the applicant investigate the possibilitv of a shared curb cut with the Wear property and the possibility of creating an access across from Brimhall Avenue which would serve both Outlot E and the East Willow Woods future development. Gaffron said the Staff recommendation would follow the comprehensive plan and would not allow this u: elopment to occur until the frontage road is in place. Staff recommendation includes seven conditions as noted on page 6 of the 4/10/97 memo. Steve Pflam relayed the history of the property owned by Rebers. At the time the outlot was so designated, the City and applicant disagreed about the need for a frontage road. This and several other lots were platted separately .so there would not be the need to obtain right-of-way from Sugar Woods development for the future frontage road. The future frontage road was not extended eastward as it was felt it could be dealt with when Outlot F and the lot to west of the Rebers property were developed. When Otten's property was developed, a piece of land was obtained for the future frontage road. A right-of-way was granted with restrictions 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 {H6 -U22]2 Rebers - Continued) Pflani said the applicant's major objection to the frontage road is the property is zoned commercial and already has legal access to Hwy 12. The applicant does not currently have plans for Outlot F and would agree to revisit the frontage road issue when that property is developed. Pflam said the applicant is seeking a buyer who would use the entire property rather than subdivide it into smaller lots. Pflam said the service road is laid out for use by a large number of businesses and, as such, would not be needed if only one business was developed on Outlo* F. Pflam asked for approval of the outlot to buildable lot status. The applicant docs not want to reorient the lot to the rear and lose Hv\7 12 access. Pflam said he felt the City does not have the resources to fund the service road. Pflam .said the comprehensive plan has been aflected dramatically by the relocation proposal of Hwy 12. Pflam indicated it was discui sed at the Planning Commission meeting for a right turn in and out with a median. Commissioners raised the question of relocating the access to the west to line up with Brimhail. Pflam said he discussed this possibility with Mn/DOT, who owns the triangular piece of property. The applicant has applied for a permit for such an access. Pflam Indicated the median is wide enough to support a stacking lane if needed. Pflam said tliis access could be used by the Rebers and Otten properties. Pflam asked for approval of the rcplat to a buildable lot without loss of access to Hwy 12. He said the applicant is prepared to meet all conditions including the 60’ wide right- of-way for a future road or trail. Cliff Otten said he agrees with the plan as presented by Pflam for access. He said he does not see any need for a service road Otten and Rebers informed Jabbour that they were planning their properties in light of the Alternate 6 proposal for Hwy 12. Kelley a.sked for clarification on the covenants on the property if an easement was granted. Gaflron reviewed the easement limitations as noted on page 4 of the 4/10/97 memo. Goetten noted she agreed with Staff regarding the service road but questioned whether the City can legally enforce it with the pre-existing conditions Radio said he thought it would be difficult for the City to require construction of the service road. Kelley asked if the applicant would be willing to combine access for the bank property (Outlot E) with the Wear property. Pflam said he would be willing to discuss this possibility with Staff and Planning Commission. Kelley was concerned that people w'ould drive through the Wear lot to the bank property. Pflam said a barrier could be built. MINIJIES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (U6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Kelley asked Otten if he would be willing to vacate his existing easternmost access if a shared access from Brimhall was approved. Otten noted that he currently has two access points on Hwy 12, one right-in only and one right-in, right-out. Kelley asked that the access currently used for nursery stock be eliminated. Otten said he would consider it. Otten noted that a joint access would also become the new access to the City well. Moorse explained Staffs concern for access related to the development of the commercial properties. When looking at the issue from a long term standpoint, Moorse recommended that it would not be beneficial for all the traffic from this development to enter onto Hwy 12. The next development will set the tone for the remaining commercial development. Wliile understar, .ing the parcel is small, it will orient all access onto Hwy 12. Jabbour agreed that Staffs recommendation made sense from a planning viewpoint but questioned whether it can legally be required. He indicated a future developer may not want ingress-egress onto Hwy 12. Goetten noted the access on Hwy 12 for the Rebers property would not eliminate the service road and could possibly be used by Outlot F in the future. Moorse asked Council to review the issue comprehensively noting if the property was developed to orient to Hwy 12 and away from the service road, it would affect any businesses being oriented to a service road. Kelley agreed that the orientation of the businesses now would aflect future business orientation for access. He said he believed the second lot owned by Otten will be sold in the future and Outlot F could be divided into several lots. Kelley also noted that the purpose of the service road was to move traffic away from Hwy 12 and indicated the proposed Alternate 6 could still change. Kelley said he would not recommend vacating the service road. If the Brimhall access w as acquired, Kelley said he would request the second curb cut for Otten’s property be eliminated. He also recommended the property be obtained for the future service road to the north. Pflam indicated the Brimhall proposal for access originated with the Planning Commission and from the comprehensive plan itself. He said this access would not preclude the building of the frontage road in the future. He indicated the applicant would be willing to pay his share of the scivice road in the future. Pflam said the applicant will consider access from either Hwy 12 or from Brimhall. Otten noted that the original concept for a service road did not place the location. He indicated he lost 30' to Mn/DOT for Hwy 12 improvements and it represents the service road as it could have been located adjacent to Hwy 12 instead of to the north. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRU. 14,1997 (#6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Jabbour said he recommends maintaining the easement for the service road. Peterson asked Radio if conditions can be placed on the application for elimination of Hvvy 1 2 access if the Brimhall access was approved. Radio referred her to the Planning Commission condition #5 as noted on page 7 of the 4/10/97 memo indicating the right-in, right-out access to Hwy 12 is to be eliminated when the frontage road to the rear of Oullot E (Lot 1) is developed. Radio said the conditions also put the applicant on notice regarding orientation of the business. Pflam said he had no objection if the condition placed future owners on notice regarding access only via a frontage road, but objected to the condition being recorded due to potential marketability problems. Goetten questioned what would happen if a buyer was found for Outlot F. Pflam said the applicant would make another application to the City. He also indicated that a service road would be used by the public and felt the cost could not be assessed to property owners only. He also indicated a buyer for Outlot F may prefer a private driveway onto Brown Road. Pflam asked Staff to address in a memo how the frontage road would be laid out, assessed, and any conditions that would be required to be met. Jabbour asked Pflam if there was any objection to the Park Dedication fee. Pflam said no. Gaffron asked for discussion to clarify findings for redrafting of the resolution. Radio indicated a motion for conceptual approval or denial with findings could be made, with formal approval of a resolution at the next meeting. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the preliminary subdivision and conversion to buildable lot status as outlined in the discussion with use of Brimhall for access only and directed Staff to draft said resolution. Applicant was asked to work with Staff and a Council member on details. Radio inquired if a condition regarding orientation would be included. Council agreed to make the condition cited in the resolution. • Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Jabbour asked Staff to work with Otten regarding closmp 01*1115 easterqmosf ^wy 12 access and use of Brimhall for access. I (Agenda Item #7 follows Item #14) ■S'- COUN'^IL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: ITEM NO APR 2 8 1997 err/ OF ORONO Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2214, Richard Kozicky, 2016 Shadywood Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LRl-C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre), Sewered Lot Area:13,720 sq. ft. (.314 acres) Application:Applicant is seeking a sideyard variance to allow overhangs to encroach 3 ’ into a 10’ required side yard. Applicant is also seeking a hardcover variance in the 75-250’ setback area to add a new deck and family room to the lakeside of an existing residence and to build a new garage and laundry room to be attached to the streetside of the existing residence. A structural coverage variance is also required for the new additions. Planning Commission Recommendation: To approve on a 5-2 vote the following: 1. 2. 3. A sideyard variance to allow overhangs to encroach 3' into a required 10’ sideyard along the south property line. A hardcover variance in the 75’-250 setback area to allow sq. ft. ( %) where 4,393 sq. ft. (45.65%) is existing and 2,406.25sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. fSoGy^s/OK. 15 LOiLAHN(j ID 'Be A structural coverage variance to allow 2,693 sq. ft.(19.63%) rather than the 2,837 sq.ft. (20.67%) requested where 2,058 sq. ft. (15%) is allowed. [Planning Commission directed the applicant to reduce structural coverage by 144 sq. ft. by eliminating 6 ’x24’ of the proposed garagc/laundry addition]. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6; SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C) FILE #2214 WHEREAS, Richard Kozicky and Carmen Kozicky (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2016 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: All of Lot 3 and Lot 2 except that part described as beginning at the northwesterly comer of Lot 2; thence south along the west line of Lot 2 to a point 112.65 feet south in the northwest comer of Lot 1; thence northeasterly deflecting to the left 110 degrees, 30 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence northwesterly along said shores of the northeiiy line of Lot 2; thence southwesterly along said northerly line to the point of beginning all in "Gus S. Johnson's Addition", according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) to allow an existing residence to add a lake side addition for a new deck and family room and a street side addition to allow for a new garage and laundry room where a side yard setback encroacliment is required. A stmctural coverage variance is required and hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback zone is required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2214. Page 1 of 5 2. 3. The property is located in the LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where 1/2 acre in area is required. The property is sewered. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 1997, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. The property is located on Shad>’wood Road where there is a curve in the road which makes safe access to the property difficult. B. The topography of the lot makes ingress and egress difficult due to the slope of the driveway. C. The existing driveway also provides access to the property adjacent on the north. D. 4. 5. E. The existing lot does not meet the minimun? lot size requirement for the LR-IC District. The City has received no comments from the property owners notified of the proposed improvements. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property aie peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning di-tnet; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 5 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a side yard variance to allow overhangs to encroach 3' into a required 10' side yard along the south property line per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 to allow for the addition of a garage and laundry along said property line. Further a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area to allow an increase in hardcover where 4,393 s.f. or 45.65% is existing and 2,406.25 s.f or 25% is allowed. Further a structural coverage variance per Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) to allow 2,693 s.f or 19.63% rather than 2,837 s.f or 20.67% where 2,058 s.f or 15% is allowed, subject to the following conditions; 1. 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 (April 28, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of April, 1997. AITEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Ovvner(s) Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of April, 1997, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation aiiu said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss.■i COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who execut'^d the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator April 16,1997 SUBJECT: #2214, Richard Kozicky, 2016 Shadywood Road—Variances-Public Hearing Application: Variances for side yard setback, hardcover in the 75-250' setback area and structural coverage are requested to modify an existing residence and garage Zoning District: LRl-C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1/2 acre, sewered Pertinent Ordinances: LRl-C DISTRICT STANDARDS Section 10.25, Siibd. 6 Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements Lot Area Lot Widt’r Front Ya.'d Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet Lot Area=13, 720 sq. ft. Lot Width-95.75 ft. Side Yards=l 1.4’ on the north, 10' on the south Section 10.03, Subd. 15 Non-Encroachments. A. Chimneys, flues, belt corses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters, and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1.5 feet. The overhangs proposed for the garage/laundry room addition encroach 3' into the required side yard. They would need to be reduced to 1.5' to be considered a non-encroachment. The applicant has indicated that the 3* overhang is consistent with the architecmral style of the residence. A side yard setback variance of 1.5' is needed. 1 LAKESHORE SETBACK 1. Section 10.22, Subd 1, B., Lakeshore Set Back Regulations The setback from the shoreline for lakeshore lots; B.No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. The residence is more than 75' from the shoreline. AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK 2. Section 10.56, Subd. C, 6., Average Lakeshore setback No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this does not apply to stairways , lifts, landings, and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes, and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. The adjacent residences are located behind the 75' setback from the shoreline. The revised proposal changed the location of the deck and family room so that only a portion of the stairway is in the average lakeshore setback which is allowed, as noted by underlining above. HARDCOVER ANALYSIS 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Distance from shoreline Total Area in Setback (sq. ft.) Hardcover Allowed (sq. ft.) Existing Hardcover (sq. ft.) Proposed Hardcover (sq. ft.) Variance Request 0-75'4,095 NONE 667 (16.3%) 475 (11.6%) 475 (11.6%) 75'-250'9,625 2,406.25 (25%) 4,394 (45.65%) 4,413 (45.84%) 2,006.75 (20.85%) TOTALS:13,720 2,406.25 (17.53% total lot area) 5,061 (36.89%) 4,888 (35.62%) 2,481.75 (18.08%) H221 4. Richard and Carmen Kozicky 2016 Shadyyvood Rd.—Variances 3/17/97 page-2 The proposed modifications to the existing residence decrease hardcover in the 0'-75' setback by 192 sq. ft. or 4,6%. In the 75'-250' setback, the amount of hardcover proposed increases by 19 sq. ft. or by .19%. Overall, the proposed modifications to the site decrease hardcover from 5,061 sq. ft. or 36.89% to 4,888 sq. ft. or 35.62%. STRUCT! ’RAL COVERAGE Section 10.03, Subdl4, Yards and Open Spaces, C, Lot Coverage In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area.4 Lot Size:Structural Coverage Allowed (15%) Existing Structural Coverage Proposed Structural Coverage 13,720 sq. ft.2,058 sq. ft.house = 1,357 garage = 495 deck = 96 Total = 1,948 (14.2%) new garage+laundry= 1,056 new deck-200 new porch=224 house = 1,357 Total=2,837 (20.67%) The proposed structural coverage exceeds the 15% limit. A variance of 779 sq. ft. or 5.68% is requested. The existing house and garage conform to the structural coverage requirements. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Property Owner's List Existing Survey First Proposal Revised Proposal Proposed Floor Plan for Entry/Family Room Addition as Revised Floor Plan for Laundry, Garage, Deck and Porch Pictures #2214, Richard and Carmen Kozicky 2016 Shady-wood Rd.—Variances 3/17/97 page-3 isJi Description of Request The existing residence is a rambler walkout with a detached garage. The applicant wants to remodel the existing residence by adding a family room and deck on the lakeside of the residence. The existing garage is to be removed and a new garage and laundry is proposed to be attached to the house. The applicant wants to modify the driveway to have better ingress and egress from their property. The applicant proposes to remove some of the hardcover (shed and bricks) in the 0 ’-75' setback area. The rocks, walls and steps are proposed to remain. In the 75'-250 ’ setback the applicant proposes to add a deck and a family room to the lakeside of the existing residence. An existing deck and brick patio would be removed. Rock gardens will be eliminated and sidewalks will be removed. A new double garage with a laundry room would be attached to the existing structure. A new sidewalk would be installed and the driveway would be reconfigured. The driveway also provides access for the adjacent property (north side). The revised driveway has been approved by Hennepin County. The proposed changes result in a slight increase in hardcover in the 75'-250' setback area by 19 sq. ft. and an increase in structural coverage from 14.2% to 20.67%. Overall, the proposal reduces hardcover on the lot from 36.89% to 35.62%. Statement of Hardship The applicant has noted that the driveway is steep and located on a curve in the road (Shadywood Road). The driveway also provides access for the property to the north. Issues for Consideration 1.The applicant is removing 192 sq. ft. of hardcover in the 0'-75' setback area and increasing the hardcover in the 75'-250' setback area by 19 sq. ft. The structural coverage is proposed to increase from 14.2% to 20.67% or 779 sq. ft. 3. 4. The rocks and walls in the 0'-75' setback area necessary for erosion control on the site. The property is located on the curve of a heavily traveled county road. The steep slope from the road to the garage pad, visibility, and speed of travel make it difficult to safely enter and exit the property. A portion of the existing driveway must remain to provide access to the adjacent property. Hennepin County considers the revision an improvement. U22I4, Richard and Carmen Kozicky 2016 Shadywood Rd.—Variances 3/J 7/97 pagc-4 5.The design as proposed with 3' overhangs encroaches into the required 10' side yard setback. A side yard variance of 1.5' is required. 6.The proposal is adding 44' of new structure along the property line for a total length of 74.5' of structure 10' from the property line. The applicant has added windows to provide visual interest from the side yard elevation. 7.The applicant has redesigned the lakeside additions to eliminate the need for an average lakeshore setback variance. 8.If the applicant's lot size met the minimum lot area requirement of 1/2 acre (21,780 sq. ft.), the allowed structural coverage of 15% would allow 3,267 sq. ft. of structure on the lot. The applicant's lot is 62.9% of the minimum lot size (13,720 sq. ft. vs. 21,780 sq. ft.) and the proposed structural coverage is 2,837 sq. ft. The Zoning Code provides for each lot to have at least 1,500 sq. ft. of structural coverage. Staff Recommendation To approve or amend as proposed. U2214, Richard and Carmen Kozicky 2016 Shadywood Rd.—Variances 3/17/97 page-5 V. i y - ’s Application # Date Received p. - Amount Paid '^:^0 • OO ±7 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application)d< .<5 B? M ?! ri -5- V I . I Vi.*-' ♦* -J Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Addres s Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /I —3/ _________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pr^erty Acquired / O — i ___________________________^(month/year) I (do) n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ___presidential ___pother (specify)______________________ Zoning District:__________________________________________________________ APPLICANT Name /<1o Address: ^^fiA-Qy Phone (home) ^ 'y/ ~// 5^ ^ __________ Phone (work) V 7 6 C 3 ! £6 City: UfA-y z _____Zip: 9j OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:Citv:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Constmetion Cost S Q.0 oe o »/’ (attach additional sheets if necessar>') VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width W"^ardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear ^Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRJPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:._____________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) A ■i ____l•al■rvfe « -TWfc ira'. rt«*n it r A February 21,1997 RE: Variance Application 2016 Shady wood Road PID# 17-117-23 31 0002 i/ • -iJ*—* X • V-^ Legal names Richard William Kozicky , Married Carmen Maria Kozicky , Married Description of Request Remove Existing garage, sidewalk, patio, shed, deck, and miscellaneous hardcover Add Porch, deck, garage, foyer, laundry, and sidewalk Modify Driveway Hardcover No change in current total hardcover. Reduction of hardcover in 0-75 zone by 4.7 % Description of Hardship The driveway entrances are steep and located on a sharp curve on Shadywood Road (CR#I9).This makes for a dangerous situation for both entering and exiting due to poor visibility on a extremely busy road and intersection, especially during winter with high snowbanks and ice. The north driveway entrance is a shared driveway with neighbors. 1 Sincerely, Igchard Kozick^ ^ ' / Carmen Kozicky ^ 4 RUN DATE OZ/19/97 BATCH 501 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 17 17-117-23 31 0003 03746 SUNSET DR RESTAURANTS NO LIMIT INC RESTAURANTS NO LIMIT INC 4300 BAKER RO MINNETONKA MN 55343 HENNEPIN COUNT/ PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 17 17-117-23 31 0045 03701 SUNSET DR SUPERAMERICA GROUP INC SUPERAMERICA C/0 TAX COMPLIANCE DEPT P 0 BOX 14000 LEXINGTON KY 40512 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 17 17-117-23 31 0049 03746 SUNSET DR R 0 NAEGELE ROBERT 0 NAEGELE 3746 SUNSET DR SPRING PARK MN 55384 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 3d 17-117-23 24 0026 01978 SHADYNOOD RD MARTHA J HAENY MRS MARTHA J HAENY 1978 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0001 02000 SHADYNOOD RD ROGER KIRCHNER ET AL H/L JOHN C NELLS 2000 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0012 02032 SHADYkIOOD RD J A UNRUH A J M BURGESS JOYCE UNRUH A JAMES BURGESS 2032 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 24 0027 01990 SHADYNOOD RD GREGG D KLOHN GREGG 0 KLOHN 1990 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0002 02016 SHADYNOOD RD R H A C M KOZICKY RICHARD N KOZICKY 2016 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0013 02040 SHADYNOOD RD D A J ZOSCHKE DAVID A JUDY K ZOSCHKE 2040 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 24 0028 01998 SHADYNOOD RD D A J SOLTAU DUANE K A JANET E SOLTAU 1998 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0011 02024 SHADYNOOD RD PAMELA J NILLETTE PAM NILLETTE 2024 SHADYNOOD RD ORONO MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 501 00011 M j % / • ■•‘m V V.* I* . • ■'■■■ 1 ' I . 4| 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEP; ■! COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE 2-20 Q ll/m/13 KOZlCICY.DtCiC ADVANCE SURVEYING A ENGINEERING CO. MiMtmli.MWSSH5 nMM(ll2)474 7H4 Fu(«l2)474 U47 8l«VgVFfMI: DICK KOZICKY imBDOL DRAFTFO Namfacf 21. IfM iBOAiiDtamnifiMi .. ^Al «CUl) airf Ul 2. octpl dMi ptit dncfiM u bcgiMiiig It dM Nenlp««iwhr comer of Ui 2; diMnfMiialMitdw W«tlliMefl.o«2iDipoml II2M (ntSoudkftoMilicNofiliwtitconicior Ul I; iMMt Mtniwuirty dsltectif« lo ifcc kft 110 dtptu M mimMt lo Ac ilnn of Ukc rtlnnmnfn: tfMtm MnArnaitly docc mM time lo Ac NorAcdy lAc of U« 2; Acocc tioA^miliily mM NoiAnly K m lo Ac polol of bcgimliv oil A *€]mi S. IoImu «i*i Aiimm\ ■MiiAoj 10 Ao pld Amofoo file or of locortf to Ac Ofllcc of Ac Coootjr Recorder. llcMcptoCoMiy, LIMnATWMlAliOfEl; H» Mifi of Mr a««toit Iw All JoK k ac Ibltowc: 1. SlM4i«AcliM^airfAiccitoooriMiAinrltoctofAcle|ol4ffcriptMNi)ro(ifiir«iAcd. 2. IlMi^^AclicrtiaoftcliltoitoipiooMimliwideciMdiiopoiiMiL 1. loRii^a iMWMiMittoncMfliyii^oldMOMMCtoifMtfcAcooiMytofAcptopefty. 4 flwlMMd tofcAtolM iMi ra rr mf irri -f-^t t- ITAlllURDiYIillOtJAaiNVI-yTIONS: V PcMtu 1/r ID pipe toiA ftaatic |Aig bcariiv Stole Lkcnac Nomto# 922S. let. tf *o* b fi1k<S la, A m dcaotot fMod icM I fgRTinCATlOM: I Kmkp certify Aol Ala aomy w«c prtpered by im or mmSct my dueci aupcrviiioo and Ato I am a piofcaatoMi CMtoeer mi a P»fctoj«^al >«xyor iMder Ac Uwa of Ac Stale of Mtnoeaou. 8^II M<fP E.*M.No t Apitaabmal Sorreyor <SjC- i.lto.92)S SCALfc ONI Wai 20 FEET r tic NO ccjo cr loi I 20 SCALE OM • iraa LAKE MINNL rONKA (ciiniM saw) '^4 f**- \\ • / njij^AHIAS or 0 > tv TOkf 0 » 0 4 • 1 • II 0 . I - 55 0 40 • • • 120 0 ao • I • ao 0 a ■ 5 • 40 0 to • la • lao act act / 4045 - la J< 0 11 . II • 14/ 0 14 ■ 4 • to 0 10 5 • 44 I • 1140 0 1 • 4 • II 0 a • 15• I 0 15 • II • 141 0 II • 1 - ao 0 4a ■ a • laa ® (22-J-2J). 51 - laio 0 II I • II 1 • 415 15 • 4055 t H M \J AIH45 Ol /5 • 150* lc»€ P4-*-0'110 • aai5 i‘ iiat5 to lumcr iwr o» caic t.0|5 SUOvI f 10 o M u ILIIO I P^ 4M4 8 •»*, 4154 / HI5 - 45 55C ;i075 A & Mium iUAiiiKBAiiii nitfm miT/p Koaanf,DCT _________________________ ADVANCE SURVEYING A ENGINEERING Ca sm%,nrnf.m.m mim^iHmnsws mmwnmim rtai(«f3)474iM7 A'i % fi DICK KOZICKY .im OBAim 19T7 KBVWP: Mwy If. Iff? IMMlMty com of Lol UOAUBS mubou Al «r Ul 1 Mi Ul 2. «Mipl *« pirt 4mM •■ 2; i«M Ml tlii« *• M K m of iM 2 li • pite ItljiS MiMT «rui 1; Mt N«MliriSrMMii« to i» MM 10 iiVMi 90 MM to te M oC iMM NaMilMjr aloiii h U rftoto to toe NaeMjr N m «r Ul 2; «MMBi m toii NnMy Im to toi ptoto aC MMc tH to 'M 1 hkmm*% Ml fDt or ariMi to tot Ofltot «r iH CtoMp RaeeaAa. LAlffiltt TM Mf« ift« Mm tor toto Jak to « 1. maaii itoaliitotoMitoMiai 2. MtontoatoaaiaaalaitotonliipMi 2. MvMtoMMMBtoafMtfytoiaM toMarito 4. fXAUD&l VOmbm I ■toilm to mA tot aeiMi af tfia praparty. MMtorOm«l.if*e*to Itont^ACftoiVBMTlOMl: IMpaMUytoal atoatoiMIto# Mss:ISMavari ’ toa Lawt af tot Sttoe aC 1 ahAarFJ.toPJ.Na.t23S ONB WCN BQUAU 20 filT 1 1oz tj i. *7 V* I o <oa: • a ‘I * • - ..j;i !t V, .ac MW coa cr 101 I atat LAKE MINNETONKA (OmitL tAV) AM*! or 0 • rv mc: 0-75 Q 4-.» * » It 9CD IMOaCD 0 to • I - M 0 «0 I 1 • 330 0 to « I - to 0 a • » • «o 0 »a ^a » 4aa- anoc aoMMS Tn 4/3 / «0M • 11 l« ® «4-..^aa> occx anioi^ 0 30 3 ■ 44 2 • 134t 0 J • J • 4 Q • • i.j - t 0 ».a . >a » i4t aoo( a«flOOi anoicD • 73 • 40t3 AMAt or 73 - 730r KMC: O 44 ■ at • loaa 0 3 I 4a • 144 Q 17 ■ 17 • 104 0 14 ■ ao - lao 0 It ■ 1104 - iToas 0 3 a 11 • 33 ■ 130 • M33 3404$ 3414$ / was* 34S tool OAfWM 0 aa ■ ■ ■ raa vcwtx aoMCD ■4aaa> omvcvat mootcd 17 013 10 lunrr tac Wf cue. j on luaiar 10 OMM ixVto 0 ttf » HO QAlAaC ROI01C0 1J4I IStI / W73 - 14 1« mancr or raortaTv on ni • MVAMCX tuaiciMO a piawfiBNO MaMCtOMU IMl 33343 JOB HO 141073 961075R ReM iseD PEoPcsfo, f ’ •*r.|ii7<K I7;||7*;' Kfl/K KV. run; ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 57MI5 ll»> N«< 101 M—rtPiii MH5<U5 fliMir (ti:H74 T«M t a% |4i:) 474 l^fi? H^w\Tvnm DICK KOZICKY M’RVHYIir) KmrmKff 1006 DRAntP. hUtvwnhrt li 1000 RrVlSEP; rd<ra«} tt.FHviW) ltMiA|«{| 10.1097 11GAI. nrM RIPtlON All or l40 .1 anJ Id 2. evcrfO rti* pan dncrihcd n brf inninf •( the Nonhitetial) cmnrr of Id 2. itictwe Rodh aloit the Wen Uw oflol 2 to • poM 112.65 Icci South Cram die Ndthwed cdurtori d 1: thence NdiheMwHydeClcdhif 10 die led llOdefftetlOmiauicsloiliciliorror I j&e hfiraietonU: thence Nmdmnttfly iloiif «M theit lo die NectheHy Kne of Lot 2; iKcnce SdNhneueil) ahnif uld Nonheify line le the peim of bephndnf: all in *Gun S Johmwi'i Addition*, accddinf In dir pUtlhcfcof on file or of ittmd in the Onke of the Count} Recorder, licnncfdn Count). Miannota. t lhllTATIOTfS k NOTES: the icope of our arrvicee for Ihtt job h at foUonrr t the Icnpth and dirccifon of houndarylincf of the Iff aldetCTip«ionva«ruriitthed • ohonrinf the focatkM of esteuifhBprmtnicnts no deemed hofortant y Scfttnf new monumenn Of reiifyint eld monuments to nmi the corncft of the propcfi) . 4 Showhif and tahuhthii hard com «id area of the lot. 5 liliilc ne show propoaed fanpramnenu to your properly, we arriiot as Chmillar nhh )our ptam aa you are nor are nt M famtlior nith the reqi ^wcnti of poiemmcni tal afcncTea aa their emphneea are. We aotfcn that you levkw the aumy to confirm that die profioaah arc nhat }ou imend and mbmii the ntrvey to auch fomaraenal afcocici as awy have >uriadktion om } nur prr^ to pain dKk appravah if you eaa STAWDARn SYMnOLS A COWVFKTIONS: *o* Pcnoiet l/T ID pipe nidi plaadc phig bcarinc State Lkcnae Number 9255. aet. if *o* la fitkd in. then dcnolea found bon i ■IK irn vH .*01 i tTRTirKATtON: I hereby cenify that thh pint} naa piepat cd by me or under my dbecl aupervitkm and that t am a riofeaaional Engbicer and a hoicmional Surveytv under the Lawaof the State of Muuieaota. )jJc* II raiVrt r.L JL No. 9255 MAII: ONF INCH 1QUAIS tsnaNAi iMJioceicn aoai wn monoKO ac.seat 20 icrr Col 'I ’i I I Recoi Re^AC3l)t£. or sr^;'■Arr,^l :■ ■***■ amot uoorcD to t«« %r. Olot norovio 0 - n © © 0 0 © •o t a • J70 M • I • ao a • % • «o .»0 —' «oo »co ntuovro )05 • «« 7 • t>«R 7 • 7 • 4 OfOUCCO or a sr.X nHOon ntua mnovto 0 a • I a • f (f?) -»a » *0 - u4 noc* CAitocn oukwco 0 ft ■ » ■ a» nocii CAnoTN ncurmo 0 *0 . a ■ too «0CnM« nciKMO *at 4 . or 0 n»' n • row <* r^ 7*^ IfJtM nnotogp loncofiRn ^ooinoiit o «« • 7« • tOM ^ y • «a • 144 O to • 10 • 700 ® 14 . If • 224 <[> la • ana • i4ia Q 4 • 4 • ta rr*"). i.m • aaTti •ama xao J090 / aan 47> 47S / 4oaa • It an niMOito © 0 » »M onncnAv MOoaCD liar in rjnivf» i*a n» c*tr t o.^ v**»i * to OMU II »70 04n*a nruo«io 4»M IMA IMO / 4*?S - l*4t onoMAi sumat or nnonnrr cm rnt o Auv**4ci ynwiANc a hmmiimic MMMIIOMA IM >524» joo wo aaio/y 961075R3 I V •• % ' •» % * I 1 / • r .1 ir w t I / r ii > - - Ei::::L:r:i i 0 *n O' P »V •t < > z: 4 .1 ^ H > r 2 17 r -<? f> ' I r ^;•■ <• j ?» c\ A > 'I* L 0 A 0 A) 4 jflL '/i •r»r ^ £ rt* f 0 P-T' rn - -I -« if—' fills'^ U-U i.i.. “"‘1 i Ir ■1d^0:h J3L ...J »- - • ...j “ . 1 - iri 1 i V 1 L . .1 I i 1 i 1i ^ 7 : i 1 !. a*—* h ■Jfc- s< I ^ ^r4.fi I IA»I9IN4 I «r * <»• v. t r-J «»“n.oi ». |5j I • % 7 - *s.u 1 *»• V —? itcs: • V. * z; X 0w* •k iT > • « f o rr %“ I... - r n---- rJ?c w z Jt o 3 /* r (»5 b' li U !- ILJ r t zV 1 5 2>a i ^5a ^5 4-- o Is 49" t* a% \*r» s. 4 •^-4 T“ ♦ >;>i •^1 D« NA Lk.1 V"» >- 1 - » ^ -iX . t , r.TT^‘ -%_ _v.*^ .*;2 ----m ■>^<% '<.v:'--.t- -‘r.r^.:><-- l '•*. . •/ .^•. r J •* ■ a- - r-V •’>' •.■5->- mm of P(rbpt>, U a ^ NiCW Of e'jLtSp*'-^^ Hf^Ci>TX‘tlO k.i« A 7i>.,V m <i^J/4^i''. -i ./■: ■ - •-; '-iMiT' ' SB .f lNAcTl: or PPOI^O/ L(M^ ‘I , k % Xa • Jf*’ rj 3?, :;V.{';' LSI . < P: ' H .li f W 'll 'SSilU-v\\.v'»;i‘V' '-v >- T",? V-' ’ ■ -V, * *..'s ^ff7/r - \/W?S-: ;. I m im A'i’ '"'V.V/ \»7 . r>^.t ; V • .§ V V K-r^r-Tv s*?k5S» .m0S= \i ifc\/«^ F(-OM IjC-CJC Loc’tif^^. lOOLfH :J;>i.'i::i;:‘-;sfc^::2 ^/S^ai^‘1 ■& / '5S': 5r£-<i: 1^^44 'AvSArfciijL "t View f^om Deck Loo^i/^-'C-^ ^3c\fl-) COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: ITEM NO.: APR 2 8 1997 CfTYOFORONO. n Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2217 John Thimmesh, 1945 Fagerness Point Road Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LRl-C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre), Sewered Lot Area:22,564 sq. ft.(.39 acres) Application:Applicant is seeking hardcover, structural coverage and rear yard variances to add a 18' x 31' storage addition to an existing garage Planning Commission Recommendation : To unanimously approve: 1.A hardcover variance in the 75 ’-250' setback to increase hardcover from 4,509 sq. ft. (26.15%) to 4,984 sq. ft. (28.91%) where 4,308.5 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. 2.A structural coverage variance to increase structural co ’.erage from 3,259 sq. ft. (14.44%) to 3,734 sq. ft. (16.54%) where 3,384.6 sq. ft. (15%) is allowed. The applicant shall remove the shed in the northwest corner of the property after the storage addition is constructed. 3.A rear yard variance to encroach 3.3 ’ into the required 30' rear yard. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. i i A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6, SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C) FILE NO. 2217 WHEREAS, John Thimmesh (hereinafter "the applicant ”) is the owner of the property located at 1945 Fagemess Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Fagemess Green, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6, Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) to constmct a storage addition adjacent to the existing garage that would be 18' X 31' where a rear yard setback variance, hardcover variance and structural coverage variance are required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2217. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where one-half acre minimum lot size is required. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following unique findings and hardships: Page 1 of 4 y} «:5' 4. 5. A. The lot area is .39 acres. The lot size is substandard. g Xhe applicant will combine the two tax parcels into one parcel. C.The deck and pool were constructed in 1980 and were conforming at the time of construction. However the deck and pool exceed the 1,000 s. f. requirement and are not in conformance with current side and rear yard setback requirements. D. The City has received no comments from the property owners notified of the proposed improvement. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Plamiing Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereb> grants a rear setback variance to allow the addition to encroach 3.3 ’ into the required 30 ’ rear yard requirement; further granting a structural coverage variance to mcre^e stmct^ from 3 259 s. f. or 14.44% to 3,734 s.f or 16.54% where 3,384.6 s.f. or 15/o is aHowed, further ’the applicant shall remove the shed in the northwest comer of the property after the storage addifion is constructed; further a hardcover variance in the ^5-250 setback area to increL hardcover from 4,509 s.f. or 26.15% to 4,984 s.f. or 28.91% where 4,308.5 s.f. or 25/o is allowed, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 4 r 1. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (April 28, 1998). 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. 3.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of April, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNl Y OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of___, 199_before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free a:t and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of___, 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 .. — - . -.“- I.-* W.» TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator April 16, 1997 SUBJECT: #2217, John Thimmesh 1945 Fagemess Point Road-Variances-Public Hearing ZONING DISTRICT: i^R-lC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1/2 acre. Sewered Application: The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance, structural coverage variance, and a rear yard variance to add a 18' x 31' storage addition to the existing garage Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 10.25, LR-JC One Family Lakeshore Residential District Subd. 6, Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 20 feet 15 feet SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT AREA AND YARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 22,564 sq. ft. (5,330 + 17,234) (.39 acres) 152.32 ft.61.4 ft.25.3 ft. proposed on east side, 51.7 ft. on west side 26.7 feet proposed (VARIANCE NEEDED for 3.3 ’ encroach) not applicable The subject property is .39 acres which is less than the required minimum lot size. The proposed storage addition is proposed at 26.7 ft. from the rear lot line and requires a rear yard variance. % The existing shed in the northwest comer of the property encroaches into the side and rear yard requirements. The applicant has indicated that he would like to keep the shed for pool equipment storage. The existing deck/pool and a portion of the house also encroach into the required rear yard, however at the time of construction (1980) the deck and the pool were in conformance. The street address file for this property includes a notation that the three-season screen porch was built sometime after 1976 without a permit. The applicant should not make any changes or improvements to the screen porch without obtaining a rear yard setback variance and a building permit. The property currently has separate tax parcel numbers for the portions north and south of the roadway. The parcels need to be combined into one tax parcel in order for the applicant to receive credit for the total lot area and to prevent the lots from being divided and sold separately. The applicant has indicated that he is willing to combine the properties. 2. Section 10.22, Suhd.2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from shoreline Total Area in Setback Hardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'5,300 sq. ft.0 84 sq. ft. (1.58%) 84 sq. ft (1.58%) 84 sq. ft. (1.58%) 75'-250*17,234 sq. ft.4,308.5 sq. ft. (25%) 4,509 sq. ft. (26.15%) 5,067 sq. ft. (29.40%) 758.5 sq ft. (4.40%) TOTAL:22,534 sq. ft. (Total Lot Area) 4,308.5 sq. ft. (19.12% of lot area) 4,593 sq. ft. (20.38% of lot area) 5,151 sq. ft. (22.85% of lot area) 842.5 sq. ft. (3.73%) The proposed addition increases hardcover in the 75'-250' setback area by 4.40% or 758.5 sq. ft.. The existing hardcover in both the 0’-75' and 75'-250' setback area exceeds the allowed hardcover requirements. The applicant could reduce hardcover in the 75'-250' setback by eliminating the existing shed in the comer of the property and reducing the size of the propo-'^ed addition. M22I7, John Thimmesh 1945 Fagerness Point Road 4/21/97 page-2 3.Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 14, Yards and Open Space, C, Lot Coverage C.Lot Coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structure: 1. 2. All roofed structures which extend more than 6' above grade level. Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar "open" structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than 6' above grade level. 3.Pools, including pool basin and associated deck or patio areas, regardless of whether such pool basin, deck or patio is enclosed with a fence. STRUCTURAL COVERAGE ANALYSIS Total Lot Area: Structural Coverage Allowed (15%) Existing Structural Coverage Proposed Structural Coverage Variance Requested 22,564 sq. ft.3,384.6 sq. ft.house= 1,801 shed=83 pool/deck= 1,375 Total=3,259 sq. ft. (14.44%) house= 1,801 shed=83 pool/deck= 1,375 storage addition=558 Total=3,817 sq. ft. (16.91%) 432.4 sq. ft. (1.9%) The existing amount of structural coverage is 14.44% where 15% is allowed and 16.91% is proposed. The amount of structural coverage could be reduced by removing the 83 sq. ft. shed which would reduce structural coverage to 16.54% or 3,734 sq. ft. To meet the structural coverage requirement, only 125.6 sq. ft. of storage area could be added. ff22I7, John Thimmesh 1945 Fagerncss Point Road 4/21/97 page~3 ■ List of Exhibits A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Property Owner’s List Hardcover Calculations Proposed Survey Elevations Acknowledgement Form from Adjacent Property Owners Description of Request Applicant seeks hardcover, rear yard setback, and structural coverage variances to add a one-story storage area to the east side of the existing residence. The proposed addition would be connected to the existing double garage and have a garage door. A driveway is not proposed to be installed in front of ihe proposed addition. A hardcover variance of 758.5 sq. ft. (or 14.40%) in the 0'-75' setback area and a 3 23% (558 sq ft.) in the 75'-250’ setback area is required for the proposed addition. A rear yard setback is proposed at 26.7 ’ which encroaches 3.3’ into the required 30’ rear yard. A rear yard variance of 3.3’ is required. The proposed addition increases structural coverage from 14.44% or 3,259 sq. ft. to 3,817 sq. ft. or 16.91% where 3,384.6 sq. ft. or 15% is allowed. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The lot area is .39 acres, the minimum lot size for the LR-IC zoning district is .5 acres. The applicant should legally combine the two tax parcels into one parcel. The shed on the property is encroaching in the required rear and side yard setbacks. If it is to remain, it should either conform to setbacks or seek variances. « The deck and pool area were constructed in 1980 and were conforming at the time of construction. The deck and pool area exceed 1,000 sq. ft. and are not in conformance with current side and rear yard setback requirements. The three-season screen porch was constructed sometime after 1976 without a building permit. Any improvements to the screen porch require a building permit and a rear yard setback variance. The proposed addition will add an additional garage door facing the street. The applicant is not proposing to add a driveway, however, staff is concerned that a future owner may increase hardcover by adding a driveway. U22I7, John Thimmesh 1945 Fagerness Point Road 4/21/97 page—4 6.The existing residence exceeds the hardcover requirements. The proposed addition increases both hardcover and structural coverage. 7.Staff is concerned that a future owner may want to add a second story over the proposed storage addition which would increase the visual impact on lakeshore views for adjacent properties north of the subject property. Stan* Recommendation The applicant can reduce the need for structural coverage, hardcover, and rear yard variances by reducing the size of the addition and eliminating the shed in the comer of the property. The applicant needs to combine the tax parcels into one parcel to receive credit for the total lot area. Any future improvements to the screen porch need to have a building permit and a rear yard setback variance. Should the Planning Commission approve the addition, a condition should be placed on the approval that prohibits a future driveway to the garage door which would increase the amount of hardcover. U2217, John Thimmesh 1945 Fagentess Point Road 4/21/97 page-5 Application # <3<5t \ ^ Date Received 3^/2.) Z9'] Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) a a a ^^v V Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ' (no change from original application) * -'s Varizince for non-conforming structures $220^00 ^ After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee; *f- 3$SL> 7 -•’I I Z'/r ■ ■■-,1 **••• 8 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address /^a.Qe.rn<-S^ f^h Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /O'-//I~ Q3^ ^3 ^ OO ! Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. OJ Date Property Acquired 3 ~^S (month/year) 1 (do) (do-net) also o^\•n the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:_____________________________________ APPLICANT Name Jon n:t Mm iX Address: / 9 /Ix^ e. r n e $“3 /y AVCity: O rc^n t? Phone (home) Phone (work) ______'' Zip: S’S3?/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (\vork)_ Address;City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ /3- - OOC Describe request in detail: clc/o'^ <3/ a /fcLc-h^cf (attach additional sjieets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage )( Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: /7/7U 5^. / 5 7^o / n/f e.c^ A /nc^r.hr /T’g.ry c^j^e S^a.c^ li o\xSe. ho !c) / s . /Q.ujh Cart. ^ <nou>h/CuJ-er J Snoix}\nncb'i ^ ifiirA e.7X.. (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govi Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy i'A" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SYi" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the Applicant's Signature Date 2 - a 97 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 'z - f 7 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 change prior to the meeting. 8 'fU -".y • i (23) ■‘"'^ <# ® 'P^^ /'-•4'' 1;, (1) \ y^'o/ / i56.4 '■ ^ 195.3 . -•/.- - . J//^y' AT «;-i&-i5f; AimV ■o''/ WEBB ST f-.' r^i ' 65. 1 '115 / 1 250 \.... 157 ■> \ B » * ■■ RUN DATE 02/12/97 BATCH 506 PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR CMIER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NATC/ADDR PROP AODR (XrttiEn NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR i.% • HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 58 17-117-25 25 0006 01920 CONCORDIA ST JOHN E HEIST ETAL JOHN E HEIST 1920 CONCORDIA AVE HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 25 0011 01929 EAGERNESS POINT RD LLOYD DRAPER LLOYD H DRAPER 6015 GIRARD AVE SO MPLS MN 55^19 58 17-117-25 25 0017 01940 CONCORDIA ST ERIK A THOMPSON ERIK A THOMPSON 1940 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55591 58 18-117-25 14 0011 01951 CONCORDIA ST J B HALDRON A L H HALDRON JOHN B A LYNN H HALDRON 1951 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55591 58 18-117-25 14 0014 01925 COfKrORDIA ST THOMAS M KONAT THOMAS M KONAT 1925 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA m 55591 TOTAL BATCH 506 00015 58 17-117-25 25 0007 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LLOYD H DRAPER LLOYD H DRAPER 6015 GIRARD AVE SO MPLS MN 55419 58 17-117-25 25 0012 01957 FAGERI4ESS POINT RD R D ROBERTS ET AL RICHARD D ROBERTS 1957 EAGERNESS POINT RD OROrX) m 55591 58 17-117-25 25 0018 01945 EAGERNESS POINT Rl J P & P J THIMMESH JOHN P S PATTI J THIMMESH 1945 EAGERNESS POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55591 58 18-117-25 14 0012 01945 CONCORDIA ST R H RAGATZ A J I RAGATZ RICHARD H A JILL RAGATZ 5709 AYRSHIRE BLVO EDINA MN 55456 58 18-117-25 14 0015 01905 CONCORDIA ST N A C BERGLU?>I0 NORMAN TENTJER BERGLU'IO 1905 COWORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55591 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 22 58 17-117-25 25 0010 01921 EAGERNESS POINT RD D L PETERSON A E M PETERSON DARRYL L PETERSON 1921 EAGERNESS POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55591 0 38 17-117-23 23 0015 01932 FA6ERNESS POINT RO BARRY J HARCm BARRY J HARON 1932 FA6ERNESS POINT RO HAYZATA HN 55391 58 17-117-25 25 0028 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J p A p J thim:iesh JOHN P A PATTI J THIMMESH 1945 EAGERNESS POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55591 58 18-117-25 14 0015 01955 CONCORDIA ST THOMAS H LYTLE THOMAS H LYTLE 1955 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55591 H-t: 58 18-117-25 14 0016 01950 CONCORDIA ST H E A K A PETERS HILLIAM E A KARAN A PETERS 860 SAODLEBROOK PASS CHANHASSEN MN 55517 s r- • • *.• • ,• •• •■ «** I 4 t JoH-H HARDC0VERJ:^CULAT10M WOKK^miJ!; j SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (^I£J 75-250* --------25-500' EXTSTINft HARDCOVER IN ZONK A. House ______ Len|(h 500-1000' Width B. Garage • • • C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X 4- E. Palio/Oeck #• F. Landscape Underlain . By Plastic. Or Fabric • G. Other X X X X X X X X X 21 • • • • • :• TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A : + B S330 X 100 - PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZHhn?, A. House — « . L«n|ih • •Width B. Garage C. Driveway 0 D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X '•X X • * X X X X X • X . X X X -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. t • t S.P. 7) •S.F. m • - S.F. ■■S.F.• *•• S.F.. • • S.F. »00S.F. V. J '».'• • * ■ •• rf.. S.F. » •• S.F.t- ■■S.F. * • S.F./ . i*. /. . • •**•S.F. T e ! f• S.F. •.S.F. *S.F. . ' *. «• ** • V •• ••> , * S.F. S3 •84 S.F. 55 A 5370 S.F.B ■A3T«• % - • •• • • # } TOTAL HARDCOVBR IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _______B .X 100 - j,§tP, S.P. ” % • A* • *. •• • •14 • HARDCOVER CALCULATUUl WUKK&tiiilii * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) .0-75’ (75^^ 2S-S00’ EXISTTNC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X . . 2-z<»-97 , ••Lenfih Width SHED • • B. Garage C. Driveway X X X e.3 ••• D. Sidewalk C STgp$ • E.. Patio/Deck ( Pd>QU X X X X X X AREA iHJiOE WCt>0 ttt'TAlNiwS V/AtL F. Landscape BtUCv/gp TP Q£ xfti^A VCu S,3k2.7 • Underiain j_________. x By Plastic^//__. _________ x Or Fabric -F O. O.hcr^r'^ 3Vt*• a? TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - • TOTAL PROPERTY ARE a IN ZONE A + B /7.I34 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70NF. A. 'House X Length Width X X • X B. Garage • • C. Driveway D. Sidewalk # • • E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic • Or Fabric 3/ G. Other /<P X X X X • X X X X X 500-1000^ 1801 m //(o 72 I37g* ■> /4 .S.F. .S.F. S.F. .S.F. .S.F. t S.F. .S.F. S.F. I S.F. S.F. ,.S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. t • I • • • • S.F. S.F. 17^ Z 34 S.F. 7€. f6 % A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 5-5-^ S.F. S.F. [s.F. S.F. [s.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. ■'S.F. "S.F. S.F. • t TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • *^^^9 A SOC7. S.F TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • / 'i. A . B /1.13 4 X100 - 7 9.<4. d • r • % A B * •• • ••• • •• (» •• • •• # CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN THIMMESH OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, FAGERNESS GREEN HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 'V^ f/ RAILROAD SPKE IN TREE ROOT IFGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES ; Lot 2. Block 1, FAGERNESS GREEN, including the accretions to said Lot 2 lying between the southerly line of UNDER THE LINDEN AVENUE as shown on the plat of FAGERNESS and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and between the southerly extensions of the Easterly and Westerly lines of said Lot 2 to said shoreline according to the recorded plat thereof. o : denotes iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house, shed, and all visible "hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. !>-4r/ RAILROAD SPIKE ''IN TREE ROOT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 2, Block 1, EAGERNESS GREEN, including the accretions to said Lot 2 lying between the southerly line of UNDER THE LINDEN AVENUE as shown on the plat of EAGERNESS and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and between the southerly extensions of the Easterly and Westerly lines of said Lot 2 to said shoreline according to the recorded plat thereof. o : denotes iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house, shed, and all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. Coffin & Gronbfrg , Inc. ^1^2 laiiur«Kk AyciUK* • I Likv, M\ hi: 47V4UI '02? I hereby certify that this survey vsras prepared by me or under my direct super­ vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 DATE 2-17-97 SCALE JOB NO. 97-029 tyKib'i-l- ■ r , -I j »• « • f ;t L : U r«ML Ik bA>rr 3 »\ Q fii. Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form^ I (we) of /?37 /^a<f^rpeS5 Pt RJ [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /7VS ^/^also referred to as Land Use Application No. Cl / / . I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Koifl.c2 Property Owner Date ai/97 Property Owner Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proj .. jed improvement or proposed use of the property located at___________________also reierred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 'I'-Vi*: ar*. ^ i^n*i ffi-uitiii I’lr rrig^ii—n If - COUNCIL MEETINQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: APR 2 8 1997 CITYOFORONO ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2222 Joseph Vochko, 2925 Casco Point Road Conditional Use Permit and Variance Public Hearing Zoning District: Application:Applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to replace stairway and install a retaining wall within the O'-75' setback. A variance is needed for hardcover in the 0-75 setback. This is an after-the' fact application. Work has been stopped. The boulder wall is partially in place. Planning Commission Recommendation:To unanimously approve: 1.A conditional use permit for a boulder retaining wall, subject to the following conditions: a.The voids between the boulders shall be filled with vegetative growth to prevent piping and erosion. b.Good boulder to boulder contact shall be established during construction. If the boulders come loose in the future, they shall be replaced in their original position, c.If the boulders do not remain in place, then the boulders shall be restrained and pinned into the hillside. d.If the boulders do not retain earth after reinforcement, the conditional use permit shall be amended and the concrete retaining wall referenced in the 3/20/97 letter from GME consultants shall be constructed. i i 4 e. The boulder retaining wall shall be annually reviewed by the Building Official to determine compliance with the conditional use permit.. 1 2.A hardcover variance to allow for a boulder retaining wall and stairway in the 0'-75’ setback to increase hardcover from 220 sq.ft. (4.8%) to 390 sq. ft. (8.6%). A 8.6% variance is required. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the enclosed resolution. I ••V A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 THROUGH 21 FILE NO. 2222 WHEREAS, Joseph Vochko (hereinafter the "applicant") has an interest in the property located at 2925 Casco Point Road hereinafter the owner within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 96, Sprkfii Park, and that part of vacated Lakeshore Avenue accruing thereto, Hennepin Lmnty, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHERT.'*kS;i tfie applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Code Section 10.22, Subdivi.wfl V I'low hardcover where no hardcover is allowed and has requested a conditional use permit p.;' Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 through 21 for land alteration within the ShoreLnd District. The above conditional use permit and variance to allow for the construction of a stairway and installation of a retaining wall per the following. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2222. The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District where one-half acre is required. The property is sewered. 3. 4. This is an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit application. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance and conditional use permit based upon tlie following findings: A. The steeped topography of the lot requires a stairway to access the lake from. Page 1 of 4 i 111^ mi In inii Iiiiinf B.Construction activities will include excavation and placement of boulders along the shoreline. 5.The Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6.The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow proposed installation of a retention wall will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow a hardcover variance for boulder retaining wall and stairway in the 0-75 setback to increase hardcover from 220 s.f. or 4.8% to 390 s.f. or 8.6% where no hardcover is normally allowed and has requested a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 through 21 for land alteration in the ShoreJand District. The above conditional use permit and variance to allow the construction of a stairway and installation of a boulder retaining wall subject to the following conditions: 1.The voids between the boulders shall be filled with vegetative growth to prevent piping and erosion. Page 2 of 4 L- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ATTEST: Boulder-to-boulder contact shall be established during construction. If the boulders come loose in the future, they shall be replaced in their original position. If the boulders do not remain in place, then the boulders shall be restrained and pinned into the hillside. If the boulders do not retain earth after reinforcement, the conditional use permit shall be amended and the concrete retaining wall referenced in the 3/20/97 letter from GME consultants shall be constructed. The boulder retaining wall shall be annually reviewed by the Building Official to determine compliance with the conditional use permit. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council’s approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (April 28, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a mlaucmeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of April, 1998, Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 I STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of April, 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 4 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:April 16, 1997 SUBJECT: #2222 Joseph Vochko, 2925 Casco Point Road, Conditional Use Permit and Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LRl-C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Application: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and hardcover variance to replace a stairway and install random boulders for a retaining wall within 75' of lakeshore. This is an after- the-fact application. Work has been stopped. The boulder retaining wall is partially constructed. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Address Map D - Property Owner's List E - Hardcover Calculation F - 1/30/97 Letter to Eugene Strommen G - 1/31/97 Letter to Eugene Strommen H - 2/12/97 Letter to Stephen Spartz I - 2/18/97 Letter to Stephen Spartz J - 2/19/97 Letter to Applicant K - 2/24/97 Letter to Applicant L - 2/29/97 Letter to Consultant M - 2/28/97 Letter from Consultant N - 3/20/97 Letter to Stephen Spartz O - Survey P - Pictures I Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.03, Subd. 19 - Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, din or similar material within the limits of the City; to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing U2222 Joseph Vochko 2925 Casco Point Road 4/21/97 page-1 land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. All of the above referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Stfi tion 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. 2.Section 10.56, Subd. 16(J)(2) - Grading, filling and excavating is prohibited within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section. 3.Section 10.56, Subd. 7 - Classification of Public Waters. The public waters of the City of Orono have been classified below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3300, and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Hennepin County, Minnesota: A. B. C. Protected Waters Natural Environment fNE") Lakes ohwl Inventory I.D. # Lake Classen 974.5’162-P Dickey Lake 985.5’161-W French Lake 140-P North Basin:930.5’ Sewage Lagoon:934.3’ South Basin:930.0’ Lydiard Lake 970.9 159-P Lake Katrina —154-P Wolsfeld Lake (Medina)—157-P Protected Water Recreational Development (RD) Lakes OHWL Inventory I.D. # Long Lake 944.3'160-P Mooney Lake 988.0’134-P. Tanager Lake 929.4’141-P Hadley Lake (Plymouth)961.4’109-P Protected Water: General Develonment (^GD) Lakes OHWL Inventory I.D. # Forest Lake 929.4’139-P Lake Minnetonka 929.4'133-P D. Tributary Streams Painters Creek Stubbs Bay Creek Long Lake Creek #2222 Joseph Vochko 2925 Casco Point Road 4/21/97 page~2 The proposed boulder retaining wall and granite stairway increase hardcover from 220 sq. ft. or 4.8% to 390 sq. ft. or 8.6% where none is allowed. Description of Request The applicant has indicated that he wants to replace an existing stairway made of railroad ties with a granite stairway. The applicant also wants to have a retaining wall at the shoreline constructed of boulders for a more natural appearance. Issues 1. This is an after-the-fact application. 2. It is difficult to quantify the stability of the random boulders. 3. The proposed stairway and retaining wall require a hardcover variance of390 sq. ft. or 8.6%. Staff Recommendation To approve the hardcover variance and conditional use permit, subject to the following: 1.The voids between the boulders shall be filled with topsoil and vegetative growth to prevent piping and erosion. H2222 Joseph Vochko 2925 Casco Point Road 4/21/97 page-3 ___ 2. 3. 4. 5. Good boulder to boulder contact shall be established during construction. If the boulders come loose in the future, they shall be replaced in their original position. If the boulders do not remain in place, then the boulders shall be restrained with heavy gauge wire mesh placed in front of the boulders and pinned into the hillside with earth anchors. Steel bearing places or similar devices shall connect the wire mesh to the earth anchors. If the boulders do not retain earth after reinforcement with wire mesh and earth anchors, the conditional use permit shall be amended and the concrete retaining wall referenced in the 3/20/97 letter from GME consultants shall be constructed. The boulder retaining wall shall be annually reviewed by the Building Official to determine compliance with the conditional use permit. U2222 Joseph Vochko 2925 Casco Point Road 4/21/97 page~4 . :VA f —s ^ h y„ Api^l^tion tf ga^«a c3 te^ecei' h ■y Datel^eceived .^v: • , Amount Paid / 7x. o&_____ CITY OF OROnS'GENERAL LAND USE’ APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ ^ ^ Site Address 2- f C<WC<^ Aolnt- /-Q ^ Type of Application to be Filed A(^S'^d^ €Sf 3 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 2^o IT APPLICANT Phone (home) Y7/-S"^/r' Name ^_____ Phone (work) Address mVCg/<r>a Ac^ jP City Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired / V (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - )( $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application $175.00 Residential Accessory Use ____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350,00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District ____ Present Use of Propert>* Residential 02/21/97 Pay 175.00 Other (specify)_____ 'A rH r REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 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). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:__________________________Date________________________ 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 unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tiue and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date ^ 1/ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized 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 ~~T/ Date 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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. / (L u .1 GOVT LOT 5 CtWUS lAi* IDOI k \ PooyiC i : f \i 'O •tr •>; ••.*> ^ /' ) f>:r I. .V RUN DATE 02/10/97 BATCH 505 HEW^EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWrCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 58 20-117-25 51 0004 057Ci CASCO AVE CARLOTTA F GABLES CARLOTTA F GABLES 5705 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 51 0021 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/15/79 ST DEED 156754 58 20-117-25 51 0026 02900 CASCO POINT M II SI6AF00S ETAL DONALD SIGAFOOS 2900 CASCO PT RD WAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 51 0052 02916 CASCO POINT RO ROBERT H POWELL JR ETAL ROBERT H POWELL IR 2916 CASCO POINT ROAD WAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 51 0055 02940 CASCO POINT RD S C A L M HANSON SCOTT C A LYNETTE M HANSON 2940 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 58 20-117-25 51 0042 05600 CASCO AVE RICHARD J HAEFELE A WIFE RICHARD HAEFELE 5600 CASCO AVENUE WAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 51 000% 05709 CASCO AVE R PRESLER/E J PRESLER TRSTES ROBERT PRESLER 5709 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 51 0022 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 38 20-117-25 31 0027 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND . CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 58 20-117-23 31 0053 02920 CASCO POINT RD PEGGY R SMITH PEGGY R PICHELMAN 2920 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 51 0036 02948 CASCO POINT RO ROBERT C LAPINSKI AND WIFE ROBERT C LAPINSKI 2948 CASCO POINT ROAD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-25 31 0045 02975 CASCO POINT RD STEWART R PERRY STEWART R PERRY 2975 CASCO POINT ROAD WAYZATA MN 55591 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 12 58 20-117-25 51 0020 02874 CASCO POINT RO PENNY J SAIKI PENNY J SAIKI 2874 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 V *L > * ♦ • •: i 58 20-117-25 51 0025 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED PENNY J SAIKI PENNY J SAIKI 2874 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 ; 58 20-117-25 31 0028 02910 CASCO POINT RD PHILLIP A BETTY NICCUH PHILLIP J NICCUM 2910 CASCO PT RD WAYZATA MN 55591 rf x\ f r j \ ^*>’fi 38 20-117-23 51 0034 02930 CASCO POINT RD MARVIN E MENTH ET AL M/L EST M E MENTH SEE MENTH 2930 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 o 38 20-117-23 31 0041 05650 CASCO AVE P GRAFFUNDER A K GRAFFUNDER PETER A KERRY GRAFFUNDER 5630 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55591 38 2C-117-25 51 0047 02941 CASCO POINT RD WILLIAM H HENNEY WILLIAM H HENNEY 2941 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 o »T'" RUN DATE OE/10/97 BATCH 505 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADOR O^MER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP mDDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAWAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 20-117-23 31 00^ 02933 CASCO POINT RD A F 6ALLISTEL JR A F 6ALLISTEL 2933 CASCO PT RD ETAL HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0051 02915 CASCO POINT RO R C KAIL ft C L KAIL r CHARD C KAIL ft CAROL KAIL 2915 CASCO POINT ROAD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0054 02879 CASCO POINT RD L D ft K E ELSEN LAMRENCE D ft KATHERINE ELSEN 2879 CASCO POINT ROAD HAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0063 02965 CASCO POINT RD JOSEPHINE B KNUDSON JOSEPHINE B KNUDSON 2008 PINEHURST AMES lA 55014 38 20-117-23 31 0072 02912 CASCO POINT RD M D BARRETT ft D H BARRETT MICHAEL D BARRETT 2912 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. P1435401 PAGE 13 38 20-117-23 31 0049 02927 CASCO POINT RD FREDRICK JOHN HEY ET AL F J HEY ft H A FRAMPTON 2927 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0050 02925 CASCO POINT RD JOE VOCHKO JOE VOCHKO 2925 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 . J 38 20-117-23 31 0052 02905 CASCO POINT RD STEPHEN L WHITEHILL STF.PHEN L NHITEHILL 2905 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 3.*^ 20-117-23 31 0053 02895 CASCO POINT RD RICHARD G HELSTROM ETAL RICHARD G HELSTROM 2895 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 r 1 V (/ X V ^ ' :) 38 20-117-23 31 0055 02917 CASCO POINT RD N N MAXHELL JR ETAL WAYNE MAXFIELL JR 2917 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0060 02970 CASCO POINT RD J ft B MARTINSON JERRY ft BONNIE MARTINSON 2970 CASCO POINT RD S HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0064 02967 CASCO POINT RD T ft D ROZEBOOM THEODORE ft DEBORAH ROZEBOOM 2967 CASCO PT RD HAYZATA MI4 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0065 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF J THE CITY ur ORONO 1335 BROm RD S CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 T‘>:. 38 20-117-23 31 0073 02918 CASCO POINT RD JEFFREY L FAWBUSH ET AL JEFFREY L ft RENAE T FAHBUSH 2918 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 505 00032 r RUN DATE 02/10/97 BATCH SOS L 7 ■' C- •5:5^.. heNnepin county property information system PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435901 PAGE 14 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEFARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF. 2'/l'‘37 „DATE . 4 \ X !i • wm 03/14/97 16:35 F J UOCHKO •> 5469065 HAWJCOVEp^Sl^CULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ jj. i hO.057 P005 ^ .,j500-iooq?. EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House_____________* LengUi ' . ss X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPK^ AREA m ZONE^ 4^^ , ppnpfisrn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck 4G X X F. Landscape __ Underlain __ By Plastic __ Or Fabric X X X A (G. Other _ 2etatn»»\5 Vcic\\l5 total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area IN ZONE -xlOO S.F.‘ S.F. S.F. S.F. 'Z'Z.O 4 >9. •7.30 IbO ^90 4^40 A »Co S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 4S40 S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. A S.F. B % i 'V GlTYofORONO >A^OfI.Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 January 30,1997 Eugene R. Strommen Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Rip Rap Permit at 2925 Casco Point Road Dear Gene: It is our understanding based on the most recently amended improvement plan that the rip rap project will extend the OHWL a maximum of 8', even at the most indented piece of shoreline, and that no attempt will be made to straighten the shoreline as prohibited by DNR regulations. Any fill placed behind the rip rap or to the land side of rip rap is regulated by the City of OroQO Land Use Regulations Section 10.03, Subd. 19 as follows: "It is unlawful for any person to ... change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council ...." Also Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J) (2) states: (also reference Section 10.56, Subd. 7 enclosed) "Grading, filling and excavating is prohibited within 75' of the OHWL ..." These specific ordinance section s are enclosed for your information. The City's ordinances will require both a conditional use permit and variance to perform any land alterations behind or to the land side of the rip rap. Please contact my office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Bruce Vang Building Inspector BV/lsv Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 1 V cc:Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Lyle Oman, Building Official Greg Gappa, Director of Public Ser\dces Elizabeth VanZomeren, Planner Steve Spartz Enc. Section 10.03, Subd. 19 Section 10.56, Subd. 7 Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J) (2) 1 § 10.03 B. The establishment of any new building for the housing of animals or fowl shall be located 150 feet from the nearest lot line. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 C. Products produced on the farm may be sold at retail. One temporary roadside stand may be established for conducting such business. One temporary business sign not over eight square feet in area may be located in the front yard during the period when products are for sale. Off-street parking must be provided for. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 19. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to remove, fil.l, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the'limits of the City; to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural jrade; or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. All of the above referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-88 . Subd. 20. Permit. An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing made by a registered surveyor or other competent person showing the location of the proposed excavation or storage and shall state the amount of material which is to be removed, excavated or stored, filled or graded, and such other information as the Council may require from time to time. Applications shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall be accompanied by a deposit to be determined by the City, which will be used to offset the cost of processing the applicati 'n. Any unused portion will be refunded to the applicant. ORONO CC 258 (4-1-84) L,....... § 10.56 2. Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline and on steep slopes within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accomodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lock boxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. J. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling 1. Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading ai;d filling permit. However, all grading and filling activity approved permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways shall adhere to the grading and filling standards of fhis section. 2. Grading, filling and excavating is prohibited within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section. 3. Public and private roads, driveways, parking areas, and public or private watercraft access ramps shall not be constructed within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section*> If no alternatives exist, such improvements shall be subject to the standard zoning variance review procedure, and such review shall take into account the following considerations: a. Such improvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. b. All roads and parking areas shall be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction. 4. Except for those projects requiring permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment ^ystems, and driveways, a land alteration permit will be required as follows: ORONO CC 376-14 (2-24-92) .. . . .A.J i _ . S 10.56 Subd. 5. Compliance. The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape of lots; the user size# type and location of structures on lots; the installation and maintenance of water supply and waste treatment systemsr the grading and filling of any shoreland areas; the cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the subdivision of land shall be in full compliance with the terms of this section and other applicable regulations. Subd. 6. Enforcement. The Zoning Administrator is responsible for the administration and enforcement of this ordinance. Any violation of the provisions^ of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Violations of this ordinance can occur regardless of whether or not a permit is required for a regulated activity pursuant to Subdivision 10 of this section. Public Waters. The public classified below consistent Regulations, Part 6120.3300, Map for Hennepin County, Protected Waters Subd. 7. Classification of waters of the City of Orono have been with the criteria found in Minnesota and the Protected Waters Inventory Minnesota: A. B. C. Natural Environment (NE)Lakes OHWL Inventory I.D. # Lake Classen 974.5'162-P Dickey Lake 985.5*161-W French Lake 140-P North Basin:930.5' Sewage Iiagoon:934.3' South Basin:930.0' Lydiard Lake 970.9 159-P Lake Katrina 154-P Wolsfeld Lake (Medina)157-P Protected Waters Recreational Development (RD) Lakes OHWL Inventory I.D. # Long Lake 944.3'160-P Mooney Lake 988.0'134-P Tanager Lake 929.4'141-P Hadley Lake (Plymouth)961.4*109-P Protected Waters General Development (GD)Lakes OHWL Inventory I.D. # Forest Lake 929.4'139-P Lake Minnetonka 929.4'133-P D. Tributary Streams Painters Creek Stubbs Bay Creek Long Lake Creek Wolsfeld Creek Dickey Lake Creek ORONO CC 376-6 (2-24-92) a GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director Minnetonka Creek Watershed District Gray Freshwater Center 2500 Shadywood Road Navarre, Minnesota 55331 Re: Rip Rap Permit, 2925 Casco Point Road Dear Gene: At your request, a copy of the amended rip rap plan for the above referenced property has been enclosed. You have also asked for more detail on the City’s approval of specific land alterations to be completed on the land side of the rip rap project. % You have already been advised that the City did not approve the c< olan that would have called for the filling of 30 cubic yards of material. This intense a fi' ^ . * 'i have required a conditional use permit and variance approval from the City of Orono. Mr. Spartz and Bruce Vang, Orono's Building Inspector, have agreed that final land alterations required to the land side of the rip rap will be approved by Bruce at the time of a site inspection. ?vlr. Spartz has agreed to call Bruce when the snow has been removed and the distburbed area is ready for restoration. Bruce has advised that it is impossible to make a determination but it is hoped that the borrowing of fill will be limited to "a wheelbarro.v full or two of black dirt". It is difficult for staff to make any definite estimates as the information presented to the City is limited to the cross section of the rip rap. We do not have a plan view, sur\ ey or topographic map. At the time the snow' is cleared away, the inspector hopes to be able to see what the shoreline actually looks like. The goal for ihe City and we hope for the landowner is to provide an appropriate amount of topsoil so that groundcover is restored to all disburbed areas. The Cit> has not approved any major changes in existing elevations or topography within defined work area of this rip rap project. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • F.\X 473^)510 Mr. Eugene R. Strommen January 31,1997 Page 2 Please contact the City offices if you have any further questions of the City to complete the permit review for the land owner. Sincerely, Jeanfjfe A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/ch cc: Stephen Spartz, Landview Landscaping, 3670 Highway 7, Excelsior, MN 55331 Ron Moorse, City Ad ’j iii?trator Bruce Vang, Field In Lyle Oman, Building ' 'XTU ,al .Gregory A. Gappa, Dii r ucor of Public Ser\'ices v/ Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator J t J <! J Random R^i'^ Ci-oss Section High and low onsite spots are leveled to better service the ripraps purpose. Scale g Shomvard Distance Varies ^ ^ ’ 5"X6'*BiwvMTi»fied Wlii-crRock3/4*-15 Undeiijring Sand/Gravel BtseRockFieldslone \ Geoleriile T Uter Fabric ' C*-«shed Lunestone 2-6" 27-33“ CTF 1OU or Equh'^ent 2:1 K'laxunujn finished slope Project : Joe Vochko 2925 Casco Point Road 60 lineal Feet of slioreline OronO|MN 55391 Tlte maxiinujn finished ix>ck slope sliall not exceed slope 2:1 . V ■ 674$ AMHERST LANE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN BY Stuart Hoam 612/937-2033 • r . ©1996 EDEN PftAJRE. MMNES01A S5346 ! t GME COIUSULTAMTS. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 14000 21 St Ave. No./Minneapolis. MN 55447 Phone 1612) 559-1859 / Fax (612) 559-0720 •*>' a ‘f y *• A 5 . • % February 18, 1997 a-*. • •* 'J 'J ••• •* Mr. Steven G. Spartz Landview Landscaping 3670 Highway 7 Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 GME Project No. 6721 RE: Design recommendations for the block retaining wall construction at the Vochko residence in Orono, Minnesota Dear Mr. Spartz: This report presents our design recommendations for the proposed granite block retaining wall at the Vochko property in Orono. This work was performed in accordance with your written acceptance of our contract dated February 13, 1997. Project Description The property owner, Mr. Joe Vochko, has retained you to construct a granite block retaining wall on the residential lot at 2925 Casco Point Road in Orono. The existing wooden stairway and timber retaining walls leading from the residence down to Lake Minnetonka have been removed. You plan to reconstruct the stairway and retaining walls using cut Cold Spring granite blocks and slabs. Each granite retaining wall block is trapezoidal in shape with dimensions of 6-5/8 inches high by 10 inches deep by 14 inches long. Each block weighs approximately 80 pounds. We have attached with this report a copy of the site plan you prepared showing the location of the wall and wall heights. The wall will have a maximum height of 5.25 feet in one corner of the walkway (designated as the intersection of walls A and B) . From this corner, the wall will slope downward to a minimum height of 1.84 feet (three blocks) . At the tallest wall sections, you plan to anchor the blocks into the hillside using conventional helical screw anchors fastened to the blocks with threaded anchor bolts. The walls and stairway will be constructed at the same location and same heights as the previous timber wall. WILLIAM C. KWASNY. RE. GREGORY R. REUTER. RE. MARK D. MILLSOR RG. THOMAS PAUL VENEMA. RE. CHARLES M. ALLGOOD. RE. SANDRA J. FORREST. RG. An Equal Opportunity Employer WILLIAM E. BLOEMENDAL. RE. MERVYN MINDESS. RE. STEVEN J. RUESINK. RE. Mr. Steven Spartz GME Project No. 6721 » *• ■! Ja February 18, 1997 As an additional component of the project, you have placed 3 foot diameter boulders approximately 4 to 5 feet behind the existing rock riprap along the level bench in the slope at the toe of the hillside. These boulders were placed for erosion control at the toe of the slope. This spring, you plan to fill the voids between the boulders with soil to establish a vegetative growth. Scope of Services Our scope of services for this project, as outlined in our contract, is limited to providing design and construction recommendations for the proposed granite block retaining wall, and also to present our evaluations concerning the suitability of the boulders for erosion protection. Our scope of services do not include a global stability analysis of the hillside. Our wall recommendations will only be provided with respect to local stability of the wall system and erosional stability of the boulder facing zone. Design Recommendations Soil information is not available, therefore, we have had to make certain assumptions for our design. We assume that the foundation and retained soil will consist of stiff sandy clay till having a moist unit weight of 130 pounds per cubic foot, a drained friction angle of 27®, and a remolded undrained shear strength of 250 pounds per square foot. The walls should be embedded at least one block course (6.5 inches) below final grade in front of the wall. We recommend that the lowest block layer bear on a compacted gravel or crushed stone base having minimum dimensions of 6 inches deep by 18 inches wide. The gravel should conform to Mn/DOT 3149.2B. The gravel or crushed stone base should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density, ASTM: D 698. Prior to constructing the granular base, the exposed clay subgrade should be observed for soft or loose zones. These zones would require additional subcutting and replacement with compacted granular fill. A 1 foot wide piece of filter fabric (Mn/DOT 3733, Type 1) should be placed on top of the gravel base course, beneath the joint between the lowest block course and the granite walkway slab in front, to minimize pumping of the base course through the joint. The fabric should not extend beneath the entire width of block. We recommend that the block wall be constructed with a slight batter of 6® (3/4 inch setback per block) back into the retained embankment. We recommend that the backfill within at least 6 inches of the back of the wall consist of free draining granular fill such as Mn/DOT 3149.2H. At the base of the drainage layer, we recommend placing a 4 inch diameter slotted pipe (Mn/DOT 3278) wrapped with a Type I filter fabric (Mn/DOT 3733). The drain pipe should allow gravity drainage of accumulated water away from the walls. Therefore, the pipe should daylight down slope. OMf CONSULTANTS. INC. " v;i«4 * »• jT ' '!' f. ‘ . ' • • • J fe -V', ■" ' -• 1 ^ •••-■ ‘ /:r I* Mr. Steven Spartz GME Project No. 6721 . ■< r —l-a•• • • February 18, 1997 Where the walls are higher than three block courses in height, we recommend that each block (including the blocks below three block courses) be adhered together with a high modulus outdoor construction epoxy, such as Hilte ClOO or Seca 32. The use of the epoxy is required since the blocks have very little block to block shear resistance. Please be advised, however, that by adhering the blocks, some cracking may occur over time, due to frost induced movement. Where the wall is higher than four block courses in height, we also recommend restraining the wall by the installation of earth anchors. The anchors should be 5 feet long and have a single 6 inch diameter helix at the end. Anchors should be attached to the fourth and seventh block courses. We recommend that the anchors be spaced two block courses horizontally. We have amended your elevation drawings to indicate the location of the anchors. These amended drawings are attached. The anchors should be carefully rotated horizontally into the clay soil. Careful installation of the anchors will be required to reduce disturbance of the clay as the helix and shaft enter the soil. Each anchor r.ust be installed so that the entire 5 foot length is erruteodec into the soil. xhe anchor should be properly tensioned and appropriately secured to the block. In our opinion, the attachment detail you indicate on your drawings would be adequate. Included with this report is a diagram that you had prepared outlining the bluff toe protection that you have partially implemented by the installation of the 3 foot diameter boulders. During our site visit of February 12, 1997, we observed that the boulders had already been placed. We recommend that the voids between the boulders be filled with topsoil, and that the vegetative growth be established (Mn/DOT 2575) on the exposed topsoil between the boulders. Some slumping of the topsoil may occur with time, into the voids, and these slumped zones should be backfilled with topsoil, and vegetation should be re­ established. In our opinion, '.his toe protection should be adequate for erosion control of the exposed slope face at the location of the boulders, provided that adequate vegetation can be established and maintained between the boulders. Concluding Comments We recommend that you complete the "Project Quality Contractor - Project Completion Form" after construction. It is understood by all parties that the contractor will be responsible for the methods and results of his/her work. We will not warrant, assure, or guarantee the work of the contractor. The contractor must comply with the latest OSHA regulations for trench and slope excavation, and general construction site safety. The contractor must designate one of his field personnel as the OSHA "Competent Person" who must be capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards on site, including temporary slope stability. The Competent Person must have authorization to direct prompt corrective measures to eliminate hazards. GME will not accept any responsibility or liability for construction safety on this project. CME CONSULTANTS. INC. Mr. Steven Spartz GME Project No. 6721 February 18, 1997 The recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the project and represent our professional judgement. These opinions were arrived at in accordance with currently accepted engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty is implied or intended. Our recommendations are based on certain assumptions stated in this letter. If different soil conditions are observed during construction, we must be notified so that we can review our recommendations. If you have questions concerning this report, please contact us. Sincerely, GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Gregcfry R. Reuter, P.E. Senior Project Engineer William E. Blomendal, P.E. Senior Project Engineer U*. ! i :V ■ 1. • .t* r Enclosures:Cross-Section Site Diagram Elevations Sections Typical Cross-Section Slope Toe Protection Project Quality Contractor - Project Completion Form GRR:smc C:\GRR\6721.BR I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State cfiJtinnesota^ /O William E. Bloemendal Date g ~ 97___ Reg. No. 19124 GME CONSULTANTS. INC. # O O" >fr <> j)'.»a •.•<■'r: V SCALE C^t) GME CONSULTANTS. INC. O*ot«ehnlcal • Mat«r)dt • Environnwntal 14000 2l«t Av*nu« N. Mfwt«apol«. Mbtf«*aota 55447 («2) 550-1859 TYPICAL SECTION WAa A VOOKO RESD0JCE ORONO. M^SOTA JLH GRR FEB 97 GTE Project Na 6721 ir*«y Pldce4 in Exuct Location «« Previous ^t«iridy. C3r€ NO. 6721 VOOKO RESDBCE ORONO. MM^SOTA Draiing Prepared by Landview Landscaping •Hh modifications by GME Consultants v«ii e I .M' Height 6>t«^^ered up Hill 2.375' Height Kiprdf 1 .34' Height ^teggered Up HIM V«ll p 4X3' Pldtterm Pemeved I .34' Height ^>taggered Up Hill V? - \ /. •>. I » • .1# .• — ^hrulr^ 4 6r0Ufwlc0V«r in DouN«r •I ^"23 R«nioa 3* l30uNfr9 Ealrfdliledi Into Pluff To# For ©luff To# ^t #V#J#z# t l^on. O 11 /I C* SITE PLAN •* ./ if■ ku E;l r'i [ ^ :) i ') % v’ % J ■ Vi N0T&l/7yi WALL SECTION A ORONO. MfESOTA Drcnring Prepared by Londviee Londscc^ vith modirications by GME Condtonts r . f . f ■W . V .‘.J ► ‘section Wa D Anchtr Art Mirk#i Ow Dtlat Dt^ck^ Cop Uni I \ * 660 660 660 006 006 M«sk*K in Tyrniii) ^t«p ^t#p* Anchor Unit* GME NO. 6721 VOOKO RESOBJCE ORONO. MMCSOTA Droiing Prepared by Londviev Landscaping iHh nodricatjons by GME Corauhonts (h 6 ImIi DioMt«r Htli 5 ft. lot) Aacktr Prlllfi In# Hill A T#n«l#R#r* D#lt##R Anek#r An4 D#ll Thr#u|h Dl##k LC?I /^* Thr##i#i AH#h#r P#|| Drill 1/4* H«|# At Aii|l# In Ml441# #f DItck Nut #n4 V#%li#r 6r#nIt# Dl##k mote ^/y OttijMfM OKhor locotlo# WALL SECTION A IH lH ‘ #*• ^ 'r\ .< • • f ‘i 0 e rotect I on .D u 5’c>uNer Outcropping N«t«: AB*rU«i Cic«l«l*r £r«*l«n Hlttr Fskric T* M ri«c«J O90rOI*irah$i Ar$i Uitll 4frin| Vh«i Mr«k* AnJ V««Jdiip« Ar» la«t«ll*i. —CiUtInj 6raJa ^ r u b “p 3' D«nNar« In Ta# Of PluM Tar Dluff Taa rratactlan/^tabal Izatian BLUFF TOE EROSION PROTECTION GME NO. 672 V0CH<0 RESDBJCE ORONO. Mf€SOTA Drawing Prepared b/ Londview Landscaping with fflodirications by GME Consultants T*r 6ME CONSULTANTS, INC. Geocechnical • Materials • Environmentai 14000 21st Avenue Na Minneapolis. MN 55447 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL PROJECT QUALITY CONTRACTOR - PROJECT COMPLETION FORM (To be submitted to GME Consultants, Inc. upon completion of the job) Project Name Address Wall Size Wall Height: Maximum Minimum Your Company Name General Contractor Wall Installer (if different) Your Project Manager Your Project Foreman Completion Date CERTIFICATION (to be signed by persons directly constructincr and/or supervising said construction) I certify that the above noted project was completed in accordance with the design recommendations. Installer's Name Title Installer's signature Date Company Officer Title (Please Print) Officer's Signature Date 1 .. . . . . . .. IT If It M If li'f ^ .1 .. , F.J. VOCHKO CO. 2925 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Main: (612)471-8615 Fax: (612)471-8715 fjvco@pclink.com J DATE: February 19,1997 NO. OF PAGES: 2 TO: ATTN: RE: City of Orono Planning Commission if > 1 4* Building Permit Application For Random Placed Boulders and Replacement of Hillside Stairway J $4 To whom it may concern: I live at 2925 Casco Point Road. My land is flat, and as you approach the lakeshore, there is about a 20 foot hill descending to a flat beach area at the base of the hill, which then has rip rap descending into the lake. I purchased my property three years ago and this is where I plan to live the rest of my life and raise a family. I am getting married this fall. It was my dream to live on Lake Minnetonka and now it is my goal to improve my property. I would like to request a Building Permit to do the following. Replace Stairway The present stairway is built into the hill and has a switch back as it descends down the hill to the lakeshore. The previous owners built the stairway out of used railway ties which were probably half rotted when they put them in. It has reached the point now that the railway ties are totally rotting out. Because of their decaying condition they are becoming unsafe and allowing erosion. Specifically, the present four foot railway tie wall at the first platform Is collapsing due to decay and allowing erosion. My plan is to replace them with granite steps with the proper foundation so that it will be stable and attractive for many years to come. Enclosed is a building plan by my contractor which has been reviewed and certified by a certified engineer for a stable, erosion resistant, long lasting granite block stairway. The new stairway will follow the exact same track as the old stairway. This spring, after the stairway Is built, my fiancee and 1 plan to plant numerous shrubs, etc. to control erosion and beautify the hill surrounding the stainway. Random Placed Boulders At Base of Hill The base of my hill has had several mud slides over the previous years. I would like to stabilize the base of the hill by randomly placing large boulders into the face of the hill. These large boulders by their great mass will serve to stabilize the base of the hill. Enclosed Is a building plan by my contractor which has been reviewed and certified by a certified engineer for a stable, erosion resistant, long lasting random placed boulder out cropping at the base of the hill. This spring, after the boulders are in place, my fiancee plan to plant various shrubs, etc. In between the boulders to aid in controlling erosion and to beautify the hill. We believe that the random boulders provide a much more aesthetically pleasing appearance versus a cold, stark timber wall or 4 J Q P Q i something similar. The randomly placed boulders look much more natural on the hillside. We plan to add shrubs, etc. to give the area sort of a north woods boulder, shrubby appearance. Enclosed is my contractor’s permit proposal and his engineer’s evaluation of this proposal. Also, enclosed is my check for $175.00 for the permit fee. If any additional information or money is required, please contact me and I will provide whatever is necessary. We hope that the above project will provide an environmentally sound and beautiful addition to our land. We believe that the view from the lake should be a great improvement over what was previously there. I hope that the above proposal will neet with your approval. Sincerely, i 4 / GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 February 24,1997 Mr. Joseph F. Vochko 2925 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 d£7?o *•’•1 n • »# » • • ►« 1 Dear Mr. Vochko: I have reviewed your application for a conditional use permit which was submitted at 12:30 p.m. (after the noon deadline) on Friday, February 21, 1997, and am writing to inform you that the application is incomplete as submitted for the following reasons: 1.The application is filled out for a "residential accessory use". The application should be properly referenced as a conditional use permit for land alteration to allow retaining walls vJthin the 0’-75’ setback of the lakeshore. Additionally, the proposed retaining walls will also require a hardcover variance. The fee schedule for the conditional use permit and variance is: Application Fee After the Fact Fee Conditional Use Permit $250.00 $500.00 Variance $75.00 $150.00 TOTAL:$650.00 An additional $475.00 is required before this application will be processed. Please be advised that the only authorized body that can waive remittance of the penalty fee for an after-the-fact application is the Orono City Council after the full amount has been remitted. I will amend the application as noted on the enclosure to indicate that this is for a conditional use permit and a variance. 2.A certified survey of the 0’-75' setback area showing all existing and proposed improvements, excluding riprap along the shoreline is required. The survey must dso include a hardcover worksheet which is enclosed for your use. (Normally, we would require a full survey of the Telephone (6U) 473-7357 • FAX 4734510 i M-• * *\ ^'n: >? V., •'..*.: *• V -/ \> * .5^* entire site, however, in an attempt to expedite this application, we are requesting a partial survey for only the 0'-75' setback area). 3.The GME Consultants Inc. report of 2/18/97 has been sent to the City Engineer for his review and comment. When I have received his comments on this report I will forward them to you. This item will not be scheduled for a public hearing until the fee has been submitted along with the additional information that has been requested above. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at your earliest convenience at 473-7357. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator Enclosures: After-the-fact fee ordinance Hardcover worksheet for 0'-75' Copy of application cover page Letter to Mr. Vochko 2925 Casco Point Rd. February 25,1997 page 2 of 2 % iM. iL. L GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices ri % Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Shawn Gustafson Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates 2335 Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 L c Dear Shawn: Please review the enclosed report prepared by GME Consultants for Mr. Joseph Vochko, 2925 Casco Point. Road. I have included a copy of the letter that I sent to him indicating that this matter will not proceed until your review and the additional requested information is received. If you have questions, please call me at 473-7357. Sincerely, 0 Elizabeth Van Zomeren Planner/Zoning Administrator Enc. Letter GME Report LVZ/lsv Telei^ne (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 Q2f2H97 14:15 0 : 01/01 N0:073 ^ k Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& \ Associates Engineers & Architects itfj/iri/ruo. Roict)C. Af>(h^iiik AlsOiUUift. inr if ttn Aftiifruhvc Action, CqiuU CKOOi i/iuty ffnployci i*^ilHl^^•9n OflO a 0i>nr\lroo • Jotrph ( An^fiUk. Tf So'^ #*r • Ricn.i»fJ6 Turner rr • CiirnoK Cook. Tf • inomAv f N.iyei n • Rohni G Schi^/nif»f PF • Jrrry A Hoiirflon. f»C • WnOcft W Rmrnr n and Suv.inM kOeil.n CPA. ScrtiOi Coniwir.mn Ar/ocufU*/*M/n .p.m A s.inro'd TC • Rr*rn A Guidon Kr • RuDvM A Hctfrilv l*C • R.cniifcj W loiter Pt • D.ivul O lOikotA Pf • Koocrl C Pustrk. At A ■ M.uk A H^iniun Pf # Mifh.ifl T Hauimann. PF • T«d K field Kh • KC'Virlh P Ancfcrion. Pf • M.i/n H Puifs. Pf • Siifn^y f* WllflAimon Pf«. I S • Ruhefr ► Kcnmjfh Offkii Si. PiUiJ. Rocheuri. WiUmar Ar^d St Cloun MN • Mequon M'l K February 2H. 1997 Ms. Elizabeth Van Zoineren, Plunncr/Zoning Administruler City of Oroiu) Post Office Box 66 CryKlal Bay, Minnesota 55323 j'jt.X!^ • f # L •• Re: Vochko Retaining Wall File No. 139-gen Dear Hlizabeth, We have reviewed the propo.scd granite block retaining wall construction on the Vochko property at 2925 Ca.sco Point Road. Wc have the following comments in regards to engineering inaiicrs. 1. Retaining Wall: The design prepared by GME ConsuliunLs, Inc. appears to be acceptable from an engineering standpoint. The applicant should contact the City at lexst 48 hours prior to the wall installation to .schedule a scrie.s of in.spections. The in.spectors should verify that the construction recomtnenduiions detailed in the GME report arc implemented in the field. 2.Bluff Toe Protection: The random placement of boulders prcviou.sly done at the properly includc.s boulders placed nearly on lop of each other at a steep slope, with uncompacted fill placed between them. The previously placed boulders should be reinstalled so that there is a horizontal separation between the front and back of the two rows of boulders, in accordance with the cross sectional detail provided with the GME design. 2. Erosion Control: Prior to .st;u‘Ung the work, proper cro.sion control measures must be in place, such as silt fence. Shortly after the work is completed, the di.sturbed area.s .should he sodded or seeded with a suitable ground eover. Please contact ttie at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDKRUK & ASSOCIA THS. INC. Shawn 1). Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113-3698 > 612-636-4600 i / \ GME COlUSULTAIMTS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 14000 21st Ave. No./Minneapolis. MN 55447 Phone (612)553-1859 / Fax (612) 559-0720 March 20, 1997 r V.. :-y Mr. Stephen G. Spartz Landview Landscaping 3670 Highway 7 Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 GME Project No. 6721 RE: Boulder placement for erosion protection at thei Vochko residence in Orono, Minnesota Dear Mr. Spartz; The owner, Mr. Joe Vochko, has requested our opinion concerning the stability of the boulders placed at the toe of the slope leading to Lake Minnetonka. This was pursuant to concerns raised by the City of Orono and the City Engineer, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates. On March 19, 1997, we met Mr. Vochko on-site and observed the boulder placement. We understand these boulders were placed during the fall and winter of 1996-1997. The boulders were randomly stacked to form a relatively steep angle approximately 4 to 5 feet high. There is a horizontal separation or terrace between the boulders and the rock riprap placed for shore line protection. We understand that the voids between the boulders will be filled with topsoil and a vegetative growth will be established between the boulders, to prevent piping and erosion of the retained earth through the voids between the boulders. To our knowledge, there is no accurate way to quantify the stability of the existing boulders. However, based on our experience, we offer the following opinions. In our judgement, the boulders should be stable in their current configuration provided that good boulder to boulder contact was established during construction. Please note, however, that over time some isolated boulders may loosen and become unstable. If this should occur, then additional boulders should be placed, or the boulders should be replaced to their original position. If this is unacceptable, then in our judgement, one method of increasing the stability would be to place additional boulders in front of the existing boulders to form a flatter angle. However, this would result in the loss of some area (terrace) separating the boulders from the shore line riprap which, to our understanding, is not acceptable to the owner. WILLIAM C. KWASNY. RE. GREGOR*. R. REUTER. RE. MARK 0. MILLSOR RG. THOMAS PAUL VENEMA. RE. CHARLES M. ALLGOOD. RE. SANDRA J. FORREST. RG. An Equal Opportunity Employer WILLIAM E. BLOEMENDAL. RE, MERVYN MINDESS. RE. STEVEN J. RUESINK. RE. Mr. Stephen G. Spartz GME Project No. 6721 March 20, 1997 As an alternative, you could consider restraining the boulders by the use of heavy gau,,e, galvanized wire mesh which is placed in front of the boulders and pinned into the hillside through the use of earth anchors. The wire mesh could be placed such that it would be, for the most part, hidden from view by the vegetative growth. We envision that this scheme would entail removing selective boulders and installing 5 foot long, 6 inch diameter helical earth anchors into the hillside at approximately 5 to 6 foot horizontal spacings. It would be important to have appropriate structural connections from the earth anchors to the wire mesh, utilizing steel bearing places or similar devices. Please be advised that we were requested to provide an opinion concerning local stability of the boulders only. Our scope of work does not include global stability of the hillside, that is, stability of the soil beyond the boulders. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to call us. Sincerely, GME CONSULTANTS, INC. V- Gregory^. Reuter, P.E. Senior Project Engineer rr Mervyn Mtndess, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer GRR:MM:jm c:\grr\6721.1tr 1 ttK\bU O I 62709-002 544/29 (80-39) PROPOSED CONDITIONS .1 V ft v;i •» W AREAS:Boulder retaining wall | 1 « 60 Sq.Ft. Boulder retoining wall | 2 » 100 Sq.Ft. Proposed stoirs « 230 Sq.Ft. Lond to 75 Ft. setbock « 4,540 Sq.Ft. Percent of Hard cover «■ 8.5X Lot 96. SPRING PARK ond that port of vacated Loke Shore Avenue accruing thereto. I hereby certify that this survey wos prepared under my supervision and that I om 0 Licensed Land Su.'^yor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. Theodore D. Kemna Dote: MAR. 21. 1997 License No. 17006 90 Feet i I I §7Mtr27 ia;87K>9 F.ASUm6270W02\62709QQ2 DAMF SURVEY FOR: JOE VOCHKO SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. CNONEERS • SURVEVOfB • FtANNCRS son. Tcsrmc • environmental services 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 1 MINNETONKA. MN 55505 (612) 546-7601 FAX:546-906S ORIGINAL CONDITIONS AREAS:Wooden stoirs & plotform « 220 Sq.Ft. Lond to 75 Ft. setbock « 4.540 So.Ft. Percent of Hord cover = 4.8% This drowing has been checked ond reviewed this p '*7 doy of 19 97- by /y 30 0 ' '''' m ‘ ■’•■I i T'' 1 1 ;• ^,<.-m \ M fJu ^mi wmm a i n r-* !l -Tr* • >^> *• •■VV i # -4 i' ' * V ' JV few* '■■< %/■ /Wi |.?r:^ ■ ■ \- M’’^ ■■K f’5'- n ''» p!;g 1^1'I iV^, V ^•^4-.w4^H&tes; VA; - :* K.K* rv-v-,ivS:A J ,v/i ‘< M W>1•L»t«;^®-<|| • .V. i^m iaifs.aMm^ m -trf'P Eo‘>S. xkfL'^ ^ ‘ ^ f Jn )' ' •: iiK« I ^ , V .jjN'^. .-Tjfi i 1'. :>::.Vf « f ( .i-:jv^st\;>. - r^fS. .‘,B| m j 19 jj‘ • *7:\:yn::%-^1. r\ ^‘; 1 .• f."-:S&». A''1 C‘ At ^ 14 • ^ \ -":• ;\. m V -vv-;- ;•■, fey. '--'. I .'.^ii^illB lAsa mm '"-.rii: • Y* ■ ■ >w:^^4^.^■4^S4'^^^ ••■ •;,. iV^T.. '/v .j‘ ■ -v ;■■'*.'!■ ■ iy'lj\i /i' .■ ••Ts ■•.. It BS® jL- ...r- >{JIM L-^\4Si! H > •- W‘"->5 ’ I ' teirL^^®(».vi. ivtte;4 ^ 'Mlf^ ■'t'- - ■ fe-^xs-.-''i; " " / 'I?/:«iua 4- .1"> V'•rr. V ft •••Y;. vf 4#;^: 'i#^.i4-:-> -X‘. ^ ^ T . ■ . in i\*tiM ff.-.*'vy. V-* . ' <j. ^L u jr: IF i h I ' , /. I», u I COUNCIL MEETING APR 2 8 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: April 23, 1997 ITEM NO •= Department Approval:^. Administrator Reviewed: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2225 John Theobald, 4101 Highwood Road - Renewal Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered. Application Summary: Applicant requests renewal of variances granted in April 1996 for street setback, west side setback, east side setback, lot area and width, and 75-250' bedcover, to permit the construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action C - Memo and Exhibits of 4/16/97 Please review the memo and exhibits of April 16th. Briefly, applicant requests renewal of variances that were granted approximately one year ago for replacement of the existing residence on this property. Planning Commission reviewed this renewal request at their April 21st meeting and on a vote of 7-0 recommended approval per the.prior approval, finding that the hardships and justification for variances are still valid, and that approval should be subject to the conditions established in that prior approval resolution. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: , seconded by , to adopt ResolutionProposed Motion: Moved by________ #___, granting approval for street setback, side setback, lot area and width, and hardcover ____ayes,____variances for construction of a new residence at 4101 Highwood Road. Vote: nays. 4 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B); 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) FILE #2225 WHEREAS, John Theobald (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 4101 Highwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 15, Highwood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for renewal of variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property, the new residence to be located 25' from the front or street right-of-way line where a 30’ street or front setback is normally required, and requesting a west side setback of 9.5’ where a 10’ setback is normally required, and requesting an east side setback of 6 ’ where a 10’ setback is normally required, and requesting a lot area variance for construction of a new residence on a property of 8,550 s.f. in area where lot area of 43,560 s.f. is normally required, and requesting a variance for the existing lot width which is 50’ at the shoreline and 46 ’ at the 75’ setback line where the lot width is normally required to be 140’ at such locations; and requesting a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250' zone of 1,956 s.f. or 40% where only 1,220 s.f. or 25% hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota: 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2225. This application is a request for renewal of variances granted via Resolution No. 3719 adopted by the City Council on April 22, 1996. Page 1 of 6 2. 3. The property is located in the LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, requiring 1 acre in area and 140’ of lot width. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon a finding that the findings of fact in Resolution No. 3719 are still valid, and include the following: A.The property currently contains a small 600 s.f. house and no garage, yet the property already exceeds the 25% 75-250' hardcover limit due to the extremely small lot area and narrowness of the lot. B.The proposed house and attached two car garage will comprise of 1,492 s.f. of structural footprint on the property, meeting the 1,500 s.f limitation for lot coverage on extremely small lots established in zoning code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C). C.The proposed house is located less than the normal 30* required setback from Highwood Road in order to minimize the amount of hardcover needed for driveway. The proposed 40% hardcover in the 75-250' zone is not dissimilar from the hardcover percentages on other properties in the neighborhood. Further, no hardcover is proposed for the 0-75' zone, and overall hardcover on the property is proposed at 22.9%, within the 25% standard of the DNR. D.The west side setback of 9.5' only occurs at a midpoint comer of the proposed house, while the majority of the stmeture will meet the 10' west side setback requirement. Further, the proposed construction has been revised such that the setback between the proposed attached garage and the detached garage on the neighboring property exceeds the 10' minimum st 'ucture-to-structure setback requirement. F.The proposed 8' east side setback, including a i0’x2' cantilevered segment approximately 6' from the east side lot line, is necessary in order to maintain a functional house width for room layout. The house in total Page 2 of 6 G. H. is only 24' in width as proposed. The adjacent house on tlie property to the northeast averages 18’ from the lot line, hence the separation between the structures will be maintained at approximately 26', greater separation than might be obtained if all houses in the neighborhood were constructed right up to the required 10' side setbacks. While the lot at 8,550 s.f. and width of 46-50' is relatively small compared to the 1 acre/140' standards of the LR-IB zone, other developed lots in the neighborhood are of similar size. Further, the property has contained a single family residence for many years and has remained in single separate ownership. Applicant has provided a grading and drainage plan which will adequately manage the runoff from the property. Because the neighboring property to the east has recently been reconstructed, the opportunity exists for an appropriate drainageway to be developed along the common lot line. 4.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 w'elfare of the community. 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 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 applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 6 L CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants renewal variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B), granting lot area and width variances for construction of a new residence on the property which is 8,550 s.f in area where lot area of 43,560 s.f. is normally required and where existing lot width is 50' at the shoreline and 46' at the 75' setback line where a 140' lot width is normally required at such locations; and hereby grants further variances to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow the residence to be located 25' from the front or street right-of-way line where a 30’ street or front setback is normally required, and to allow an east side setback of 6' where a 10' setback is normally required, and to allow a west side setback of 9.5' where a 10' setback is normally required; and further grants a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250' zone of 1,956 s.f. or 40% where only 1,220 s.f. or 25% ha.dcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1.Construction of a single family residence on this property shall adhere to the site plan and construction plans per the survey by Ron Krueger and Associates, Inc. dated November 19, 1995 revised April 1, 1996 (Exhibit A attached). Any future revisions to the site plan which change the location or size of the house footprint, or which result in additional hardcover, will require additional review by the City. 2.No hardcover shall be allowed in the 0-75' setback zone. In the 75-250' zone, hardcover shall be limited to 1,492 s.f. including the house and attached garage, and 462 s.f. in walkways and driveway, for a total hardcover allowance of 1,956 s.f. or 40% of the 4,882 s.f. 75-250' zone. Any hardcover in addition to that noted will require variance approval by the City, and is not likely to be approved in the future unless concurrent removals of pre-existing hardcover result in no hardcover increase above the 40% allowance. 3.Applicant shall work with neighboring properly owner to the east and with the City to establish suitable drainageways so that the applicant's construction has no negative impact on the neighborhood or adjacent properties. Page 4 of 6 ( IK It 4.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (April 28, 1998). 5.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of April, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of April, 1997, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, 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 5 of 6 i t I -J V T STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____, 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _________________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____, 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared________________________________________ known to me to be the pcr£on(G) 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___, 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared___________________________^^___________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of 6 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2225 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 23, 1997 TO:John Theobald 4017 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances DATE OF MEETING: 4/21/97 VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, April 28, 1997, meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. « b ► TO:Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michel P. Gaf!ron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:April 16,1997 SUBJECT: #2225 John Theobald, 4101 Highwood Road - Renewal Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single bamily Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered. Application Summary: Applicant requests renewal of variances granted in Apr! 1996 for street setback, west side setback, east side setback, lot area and width, and 75-250’ hardcover, to permit the construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner ’s List D - Resolution #3719 E - Survey F - Council Minutes 4/22/96 G - Planning Commission Minutes 4/15/96 H - Council Action Memo and Selected Exhibits of 4/18/96 Discussion Tliis is a request for renewal with no change of variances granted in 1996 to allow the replacement of the existing small residence on this substandard lot, with a new residence. The variances granted in 1996 and requested for renewal are: A. 25’ front or street setback where a 30 ’ setback is required. B. West side setback of 9.5' where a 10' setback is required. C. East side setback of 6’ where a 10’ setback is required. D. Variance to allow lot area of 8,550 s.f. where requirement is 43,560 s.f. E. Variance for lot width of 46-50 ’ where 140’ is required. F. Variances to allow 75-250’ hardcover of 1,956 s.f. or 40% where only 1,220 s.f. or 25% is normally allowed. The prior applicant, Eva Theobald, recently passed away and her son now owns the property. The findings of fact supporting Planning Commission's and Council ’s prior approval are listed in items 3 A through H of Resolution #3719. The general conditions at this location have not changed, and staffs principal concern remains that suitable drainageways must be established by working with the Zoning File #22.25 - Theobald April 16,1997 Page 2 adjacent property owners, so that applicant's construction has no negative impact on the neighborhood or adjacent properties. This is address'd in approval condition No. 3 of the prior approval. It should be noted that this proposal meets the 1500 s.f. lot coverage limitation. Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission concludes that the findings of fact supporting this variance request are still valid, then a recommendation for approval, subject to the conditions established in the prior approval resolution, would be appropriate. k ■ fT’ ' '■ Application ff Date Received o*./ Amount Paid /«ao" i CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ^ / {no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $^^00 (■ .. ,* After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) \ ■ ) A,.....7 PROPERTY INFORMATION . Site Address ^/O/ a//c>o Cf _________; Propertv- Identification Number ff.l.D.) O 7// V ZT W Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pro perty Acquired___________________________________________(montli/year) I (do) (^nq^^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; X residential ___^other (specify)_____________________ Zoning District: APPLICANT Name \cf Address: / y /U /U Phone (home) ~ _____ Phone (work) 7/ 3'Z-. City: /y) o c< aJcf____Zip:_^j£3_£;_2^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^c>h(rO ~l~/4 Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:,Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe r^uest in detail: c ^Xi^h ^ VA lC . 0^1 k 1 »VH I'VK ly LAJlT’^ I______________ ivtj H'u^Os. r<i\'fV\ A/er»A/ i Au 0(-\A-rvW--0 (attach additional sheets if necessaly) VARI.ANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area X Lot Width / Hardcover X Lot Coverage X Setback: Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_____________________________________ 03/14/97 Pay IgO.OO (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application cleadlinp date in order for vour annlication to be considered complete: 1. 2. J. 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, 348-3271). Certificate of Sur\’ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYz" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic sur\*ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy BYz' x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy BYz" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the propert>'. 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 Properly 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 correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owTier hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and flirther authorizes reasonable entr}' onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for p^irposes~pf investigation and verification of this request. ^ ^ DateW /Owner’s Signature Applicant must have aU^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 ti Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 • I RUN. DATE 12/11/95 BATCH 507 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 17 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 58 07-117-23 44 0010 04079 HlGliHOOD RD JOHN T SANBORN ETAL J T SANBORN 4079 HIGHNOOD RD HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0011 04091 HIGHHOOD RD F L JOHNSON 6 D L FOSS FREDERIC JOHNSON 4091 HIGHMOOO RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0012 04099 HIGHNOOD RD 0 L I R NELSON ALONZO B SERAN III 4099 HIGHNOOD RD MOUND MN 55364 f PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 44 0013 04101 HIGHNOOD RD EVA THEOBALD EVA A THEOBALD 4101 HIGHNOOD ROAD HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0014 0410S\ HIGW^OD RD charles N^a mart 4,t WILLIAM/^^ICKLEY ^\\/ // 4105 HIGHNOOD HOUND 5536« 38 07-117-23 44 0015 04109 HIGHNOOD RD GEORGE M APPLEBAUM GEORGE mPPLEBAUM 4109 HIGHNOOD RD HOUND MN 55364 ■ -A' PROP ADDR CMIER NAME TAXPAYER NaME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 44 0031 04132 HIGHHOOD ID SCOTT G A CATHERINE ANDERSON SCOTT 6 A CATHERINE ANDERSON 4132 HIGHNOOD ROAD HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0033 04108 HIGHNOOD RD JASON M THEIS JASON 'IHEIS 4106 HIGHNOOD RD HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 04125 HIGHNOOD JOHN H A ROBERTA JOHN N A ROBERTA 4125 HIGHNOOD RD ORONO MN 55364 0084 RD J HENRICH J HENRICH PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 44 0086 04i04 HIGHNOOD RD GLEN A BEVERLY SAUER GLEN A BEVERLY SAUER 4104 HIGHNOOD RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0087 04116 HIGHHOOD RD PHILLIP M OTTO PHILLIP OTTO 19050 STRATFORD RD 1209 MINNETONKA MN 55345 TOTAL BATCH 507 00011 cn I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE (2-I2-5S, T7 # 2 9,9 K r -J L ‘<3 • «» Co^ ps GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 7 19 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B); 10.22, SUBDmSlON 2; AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) FILE #2098 WTIEREAS, Eva Theobald (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 4101 Highwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City'”) and legally described as follows: Lot \5. Highwood Lake Mirnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property'"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a nevyesidence to replace the existine residence on the property', the new residence to be located ^5 from t e front or street right-^f-way line where a 30‘ street or front setback is normally required, and requesting a west' side setback of 9.5’ where a 10' setback is normally required, and requesting an east side setback of 6 ’ where a 10’ setback is normally required, and requesting a ot area variance for construction of a new residence on a property' of 8,550 s.f. in area where lot ^ea of 43 s.f. is nomtally required, and requesting a variance for the existing lot wi t w u i is 50’ at Uie shoreline and 46 ’ at the 75’ setback line where the lot "idUi is normally required to be 140* at such locations: and requesting a variance to Sections 10.^-, Subdivision 2 and 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone of 1.9d6 s.f. or 40.-o where only 1,220 s.f. or 25% hardcover is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City' Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. Tliis application was reviewed as Zoning File #2098. Page 1 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 19 2. n J. The property is located in the LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, requiring 1 acre in area and 140' of lot width. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 16, 1996 and further reviewed revisions to the application on April 15, 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the followng findings: A.The property currently contains a small 600 s.f. house and no garage, yet the property already exceeds the 25% 75-250' hardcover limit due to the extremely small lot area and narrowness of the lot. B.The proposed house and attached two car garage will comprise of 1,492 s.f. of structural footprint on the property, meeting the 1,500 s.f. limitation for lot coverage on extremely small lots established in zoning code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C). C.The proposed house is located less than the normal 30' required setback from Highw'ood Road in order to minimize the amount of hardcover needed for driveway. The proposed 40% hardcover in the 75-250' zone is not dissimilar from the hardcover percentages on other properties in the neighborhood. Further, no hardcover is proposed for the 0-75 zone, and overall hardcover on the property is proposed at 22.9%, within the 25% standard of the DNR. D.The west side setback of 9.5' only occurs at a midpoint comer of the proposed house, while the majorit}' of the structure will meet the 10 west side setback requirement. Further, the proposed construction has been revised such that the setback between the proposed attached garage and the detached garage on the neighboring propeny exceeds the 10 ’ minimum structure-to-structure setback requirement. F.The proposed 8' east side setback, including a 10'x2' cantilevered segment approximately 6’ from the east side lot line, is necessary in order to maintain a functional house width for room layout. The house in total Page 2 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 19 4. 5. is only 24’ in width as proposed. The adjacent house on the propert>' to the northeast averages 18' from the lot line, hence the separation between the structures will be maintained at approximately 26', greater separation than might be obtained if all houses in the neighborhood were constructed right up to the required 10' side setbacks. G. While the lot at 8,550 s.f. and width of 46-50’ is relatively small compared to the 1 acre/140' standards of the LR-IB zone, other developed lots in the neighborhood are of similar size. Further, the property has contained a single family residence for many years and has remained in single separate ownership. H. Applicant has provided a grading and drainage plan which will adequately manage the runoff from the property. Because the neighboring property to the east has recently been reconstructed, the opportunity exists for an appropriate drainageway to be developed along the common lot line. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not applv generally to other propeity ’ in this zoning district; that erantino the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a*fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessaiy to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary' to preserve a subsmtial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 6 CITYof ORONO miitsiCSttcr RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL S^19 -NO. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B), granting lot area and width variances for construction of a new residence on the propert>' which is 8,550 s.f. in area where lot area of 43,560 s.f. is normally required and where existing lot width is 50' at the shoreline and 46' at the 75' setback line where a 140' lot width is normally required at such locations; and hereby grants further variances to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow the residence to be located 25' from the front or street right-of-way line where a 30' street or front setback is normally required, and to allow an east side setback of 6’ where a 10' setback is normally required, and to allow a west side setback of 9.5' where a 10' setback is normally required; and further grants a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250' zone of 1,956 s.f. or 40% where only 1,220 s.f. or 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1.Construction of a single family residence on this property shall adhere to the site plan and construction plans per the survey by Ron Krueger and Associates, Inc. dated November 19, 1995 revised April 1, 1996 (Exhibit A attached). An> future revisions to the site plan whic’n change the location or size of the house footprint, or which result in additional hardcover, will require additional review by the City. No hardcover shall be allowed in the 0-75' setback zone. In the 75-250 zone, hardcover shall be lunited to 1,492 s.f. including the house and attached garag^e, .'inH 4fi'> 5i f. in walkwavs and driveway, for a total hardcover allowance of 1,956and 462 s.f. in walkways and driveway, for a total hardcover allowance of 1,956 s.f. or 40% of the 4,882 o.f. 75-250' zone. Any hardcover in addition to that noted will require variance approval by the City, and is not likely to be approved in the futu-e unless concurrent removals of pre-existing hardcover result in no hardco' ’r increase above the 40% allowance. J. 4. Applicant shall wo;‘. neighboring propertj- owner to the east and with the City to establish suitable drainageways so that the applicant's construction has no negative impact on the neighborhood or adjacent properties. Authorities granted by this variance run with the propern' not with the applicant. Page 4 of 6 1 • • • Co® CITY<rf ORONO m RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L NO. ----3 7 1 »----- 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 (April 22, 1997). 5.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono Cit>' Council on this 22nd day of April, 1996. rothv all in, City Clerk fe3w^d J. Cajf^an, Jr., Mayor OAu Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of April 1996, by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. ^ ‘ — CAROLE A HASEMAN ® NOTARY PUBUC-MINNESOTA (2 Notar}’ Public HENNEPIN COUNTY ^0^5^ My Commission Expires Jan. 31.2<XX) ® 35J3s3S; Page 5 of 6 \ •1 -fNH I- I .*'• Wm CITYofORONO m 3«o- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 1 Q STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of k JOAIMaAl , 199 ^before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally ajSpeared £i/3 Thenha/c) known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (tliey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199_before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of 6 <m (/)m X •< < m ::dowm 4^ Q II II II II It 00 CO cn 00 ND • CJl O •cn 4i.c- K)Ol vj CO CO CO (/)O•O•o• o• (/)o• "H T1 T|"H •-H•• • -H • n -H 2 22 ••• s» M 5^O 10S? <rC (T1 -ET ? (t\NOTE: Only copies which bear an embossed seal are certified cop MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 22, 1996 (#5 Teresa Fogarty - Continued) Callahan said he would like to see the design of the signs. Jabbour said he would be in favor of such signage if the merchants in the city collectively decided to market themselves as a group. Fogarty said the sign will be designed and presented at a later date to the Council for their approval. Fogarty also presented the City with a banner recognizing the maiden voyage of the Minnehaha on May 25, 1996. She asked the City to hang the banner in support of this endeavor with the cities of Excelsior and Wayzata. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (*#6) #2098 EVA THEOBALD, 4104 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3719 Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3719, granting lot area, lot width, 75-250' hardcover, front (street) and side setback variances to Eva Theobald at 4101 Highwood Road for replacement of the existing residence with a new home. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Hurr asked Gaffrcn to inspect Lakeside Marina to ensure that the marina is in compliance with ordinance regarding use of styrofoam dock floats. Gafiron said he is awaiting a 1996 license application as well as conditional use permit application from Lakeside, although he has been advised that the styrofoam conversion is complete. Gaffron will submit a report on the marinas on May 13. Hurr volunteered to assist with the inspections if needed. Jabbour asked Staff to look into fire safety inspections within the Long Lake fire district to ensure there are no hazardous areas within the businesses. He is concerned with the possibility of such hazards in practice. GaSron will follow up on Jabbour's request that such inspections be conducted by the fire marshall. Hurr asked that box lunches be provided for the Council on Wednesday evening due to back to back meetings at the school and Board of Review following in the Council Chambers. Goetten asked, and Callahan volunteered, for a Council member to stay the entire length of the first meeting to represent Orono before proceeding to the board of review meeting. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15. 1996 (#5 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2088 for a 15' west side street setback for the garage, a 3-1/2' north side lot line setback, structu.tl coverage not to exceed 15%, setback of 5' from Bayside Road for covered porch, w .th the understanding that the existing foundation will be used with the exception of the east foundation wall, which would be replaced. The Building Official must confirm that e.xisting foundation, except for new support wall at east side, is to remain. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Smith, due to excess structure. Motion approved. (#6) #2098 EVA THEOBALD, 4104 HIGmVOOD ROAD - VARLANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - WRITTEN RE NOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORS 7:40-7:50 P.iM. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailin’ were noted, Stuart Hoarn represented the applicant. Mabusth reported that the original application has been revised. The street setback remains the same as originally proposed. The west side lot setback, originally proposed at 6.8', has been revised to 9.5', where 10 ’ is required. The separation of the neighbor’s garage to the house has been revised to IT, meeting required 10 ’ separation. The lakeshore setback is met by the proposal. The lot coverage has been revised to 1492 s.f meeting the 1500 s.f allowable. The hardcover in the 75-250' setback, oi.ginally proposed at 46%, has been revised to 40%. The code allows 25% in this zone. The lot area and lot width remain the same. Hoam commented that the applicant and he reviewed and followed the Planning Commission’s direction, which resulted in the amended proposal. Hoam asked that the application proceed on to the next Council meeting. There were no public comments. Hawn asked if the driveway was of the size to allow a visitor's car to park. Hoam said the driveway would hold two cars with two cars inside relieving some of the street parking problem in the area. Commissioners commented that the proposal was in keeping with the neighborhood, and the applicant’s addressed the concerns previously brought forward by the Planning Commission. Hawn said she was concerned with precedent setting and noted the need for the Commission to discuss the overall codes and set specific guidelines. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 Per -rscn noted that the lot width was a problem with the application. Mabusth commented that drainage and storm water was a problem for this particular neighborhood. Hawn commented on the 40% hardcover being proposed in the 75-250' zone. Lindquist noted that the applicant was allowed 15% structural coverage. Peterson added that the coverage was behind the 75 line. Hawn said she would like the resolution to note that no additional hardcover be allowed. Smith added that the proposal was in keeping with the area. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application ^2098 for side setback on east and west, street setback, hardcover in the 75-250' zone, and lot area and width vaiiances, with the understanding that Staff, Engineer, and adjacent property owners review the drainage i the east. V'ote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2124 JOHN A. EARLING, 2165 COLIN DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:11-8:29 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant was present The property is located on the south side of the cul-de-sac on Colin Drive, off of Brown Road. Mabusth noted that the proposed detached garage has been increased in size to 18'x30'. The garage is proposed 10’ from the road outlot extension, and will maintain the 50' required setback from the cul-de-sac and 50’ in front of the principal structure. Mabusth reported that the ma.ximum height of the structure is 18'. Peterson inquired if the City had any plans to develop the outlot road. Mabusth said it would only be built if needed to connect with development to west, but this w'ould be decided by City at a future unknown date. Peterson asked how the garage location on the lot was decemiined. Earling said the other tw'o options considered were affected by the location of the wellhead and visual impact on view from the master bedroom. The only variances required for the apphcation is t .e 40’ variance from the street with the garage being located in front of the principal structure. 8 >'v H 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 18,1996 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2098 Eva Theobald, 4101 Highwood Road - Variances - ResoluUcn Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. Application: Request for lot area, lot width, 75-250' hardcover, front (street) and side setback variances to replace existing re.' ^ence with a new home. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/18/96 C - Memo and ’.ni/nj of 4/9/96 Discussion Please review tne memo and exhibits of April 9th. Briefly, the applicant intends to sell her property, and is working with a realtor, Stuart Hoam, to obtain variance approval for construction of a new residence on the prop.*rly. A specific house design has been developed *br this limited site, which requires a number of variances as follows: 1. Street setback (25’ proposed, 30’ required). 2. West side setback (9.5’ proposed, 10 ’ required). 3. East side setback (8' proposcd/6' cantilever, 10 ’ required). 4. 75-250’ hardcover (40% proposed, 29.7% e.^isting, 25% allowed), 5. Lot area (8,550 s.f. existing, 43,560 s.f. required). 6. Lot width (46’-50’ existing, 140’ required). This item was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission in January, at which time it was tabled for revisions. The applicant was advised to reduce proposed lot coverage to the 1,500 s.f limit, eliminate the structure-to-structure setback variance to the neighboring garage, and attempt to maintain 10 ’ setbacks from the side lot lines. The revised proposal was reviewed by the Planning ■i « Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 2 AprU 18, 1996 Zoning File n09S Commission at its April 15th meeting, at which time it was noted that the structure-to-structure setback variance had been eliminated, proposed lot coverage had been reduced to within the 1,500 s.f. limit, but due to the narrowness of the lot, side setback variances were still requested. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed the revised proposal and recommended approval as piesented, subject to City staff and engineer working with the applicant and adjacent property owner to the east (A1 Seran, who recently reconstructed his residence) to jointly address drainage needs foi the site. Neighborhood Drainage Concern It should be noted that an anonymous persc n submitted a letter (Exhibit F of April 9th memo) expressing concerns about neighborhood drai.iage. Staff agrees that the Highwood Road drainage situation should ultimately be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution #_____, 2nd series, granting lot area, lot width, 75-250’ hardcover, front (street) and side setback variances to Eva Theobald for replacement of existing residence with a new home. , seconded by , to adopt ResolutionProposed Motion: Moved by _________ # ___, granting lot area, lot width, 75-250' hardcover, front (street) and side setback variances to Eva 'fheobald at 4101 Highwood Road foi replacement of the existing residence with a new home. Vote: __SL — ayes, nays. i TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Plarming & Zoning Administrator DATE:April 9, 1996 SUBJECT: #2098 Eva Theobald, 4101 Highwood Road - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. Application: Revised request for lot area, lot width, 75-230' hardcover, front (street) and side setback variances to replace existing residence with a new home. Note: Applicants, Kari and Paul Romportl, are no longer involved with this application. The owner of the property, Eva Theobald, is continuing the application in conjunction with realtor, Stuart Hoam. The proposal has been revised to address the issues noted by the Planning Commission at the January 16th meeting. The neighboring property owners have been re-notified. List of Exhibits A - Letter of Revision B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 1/17/96 C - Revised Site Plan D - Revised Floor Plan E - Revised Survey F - Letter from anonymous Person G - Memo and Exhibits of 1/8/96 Revised Proposal On Januaiy 16th the Planning Commission tabled this application in order that applicant provide a revised site plan attempting to reduce lot coverage by structures from 1,795 s.f. to the 1,500 s.f. allowable limit; and to maintain 10' setback from the side lot lines. Applicant has made the following changes: Zoning File #2098 April 9, 1996 Page 2 EXISTING ORIGINAL PROPOSAL REVISED PROPOSAL CODE REOMT VAR BEOD2 1. Street setback 70'25'25 ’30'Yes 2. West side setback 13*6.8’9.5’10’Yes 3. Gar. to Gar. setback NA 9’11'+10'No 4. East side setback 10’8’8' (6' cant.)10’Yes 5. Lake setback 75'88'99'75’No 6. Lot coverage 690 s.f.1,795 s.f.1,492 s.f 1,500 s.f (17.5%) No 7. 0-75' Hardcover 0 s.f.0 s.f 0 s.f 0 s.f No 8. 75-250' Hardcover 1,452 s.f. (29.7%) 2,551 s.f (46%) 1,956 s.f (40%) 25%Yes 9. Lot area 8,550 s.f.8,550 s.f 8,550 s.f 43,560 s.f Yes 10. Lot width 50'/46'50'/46’50'/46'140 ’Yes As note^ in the letter of revision, applicant has reversed the house and revised and reduced the floor plan. 1 he result is that the lot coverage by structures limit of 1,500 s.f. is met; the "structure to stru:ture" setback of 10' between applicant's proposed garage and the existing detached garage to the west, is now met; and 75-250' hardcover proposal is revised downwards to 40%. The proposed side setbacks are mostly conforming on the west side and still at 8' (except for the section of cantilever, at 6') as originally proposed on the east side. The proposal appears to be more in keeping with the standards for this small size lot in this constantly redeveloping neighborhood. Also, while drainage is a concern in the neighborhood (see the anonymous letter), it appears that drainage from the new construction on this property can be dealt with on site, and the City will work with the property owner and Mr. Seran to the east to address their joint drainage needs. Issues for Discussion 1. Has adequate hardship been demonstrated to justify granting lot area and width variances? Zoning File #2098 April 9,1996 Page 3 2.Have the revisions to the house location adequately met concerns the Planning Commission had regarding side setback variances? 3. Does Planning Commission have any other concerns regarding this proposal? Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission finds that adequate hardship and justification are present for granting of the variance proposal as revised, then a recommendation for approval would be in order. Options for Action 1.Recommend approval per revised proposal, with City staff and engineer to work with applicant and adjacent property owner to the east, in addressing drainage. 2. Tabic for further review. 3. Recommend denial. 4.Other. Request for Early Council Action Per applicant's written request, if Planning Commission recommends approval, this item will be placed on the Council's April 22nd agenda. Mi itfi BURN FT K I \ I I 1 April 1, 1996 Minnetonka Office 19400 Highway 7 Excebior, MN 55331 612/474-2525 Fax 612/474-9583 TO: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono FM: Stuart Hoarn (470-2550) RE: 4101 Highwood (revision for variances application) On behalf of Eva Theobald, here is the revision for consideration by the Planning Comtnision. Pursuant to direction provided by the commissioners on January 16, we have: 1. Reduced "lot coverage by structures" from 1795 sf to 1492 sf, slightly under (by 8 sf) the 1500 sf target set by the Commission. 2. Increased side setback and separations from structures on the adjacent properties by (a) narrowing the house by one foot (from 25' to 24') and (b) "mirror-reversing" the footprint. - While these changes don't result in ideal 10' setbacks on both sides — pretty unrealistic on so narrow a lot — improved separation from sur­ rounding structures was achieved. - Of particular concern to the Commission (as expressed 1/16/96), sep­ aration between the proposed garage and the garage on the property to the west was increased by an additional 3.5 feet (as a result of revers­ ing the footprint of proposed home). - The revised proposal increases the already generous lakefront setback by an additional eleven feet. - Note that separation from the new house to the east is 27 feet, seven feet more than would be the case if both structures were the standard current setback of 10' from the common property line. 3. Also herewith is a copy of the floor plan as revised. Elevations are not included for the smaller floor plan footprint because the exterior ap­ pearance of the structure has been essentially retained -- only reversed and downsized. 4. We hope you and the Commission agree that the revisions substantially comply with the Commission's direction, and that the Commission will give favorable consideration at the April 15 session. If so, we also request that the application be put before the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. Atch.: 1. Revised site plan 2. Revised floor plan (3 pp) 3. Commission recommenda­ tions, notice, 1/17/96 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2098 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 1/17/96 TO;Kari & Paul Romportl 10132 Ivywood Ct. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 COPIES TO:Eva Theobald 4101 H ighwood Road Mound, MN 55364 Stuart Hoarn Burnet Realty 19400 Hwy. 7 Excelsior, MN 55331 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances DATE OF MEETING: 1/16/96 VOTE:4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SP^:CIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled in order that applicant provide a revised site plan attempting to: Reduce lot coverage by structures from 1,795 s.f. to the 1,500 s.f. allowable limit. Maintain 10' setbacks from side lot lines. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the February' 20th meeting is Wednesday, February 7th. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. \W\<- "JAN 1 8 1996 /|a.><.^r-YLJLX3 g>Jo <gJr»-Cjfcs.^ _:_________ a ^ V.) xiLo__£>f=2=i2£^ R VO^ a ^ V.JC^q»> ^ wO c c*^^ >\ ^.»»>v J ' L>L 6/T_^x 3 o^clSH -a y A Q 'V_-tV%>~-^C) ^ laj -ouP CT CU> ~Cruu JOc^A^ /yo tS-oA I -rfc>ir/n. rOd/^ c:0^ ------> -------- ---- 0 _ g-g-3ox-^ !_lQ.O»-,.-/l^fc:g /^ .r-v>v^ /O C/w !—Q ^ aV-'^ »•_ j2..c:r-va-Q-a-■\.^~e-<D .X- —i^LQ- <il^> ► I ? ULa^ yCL^<.y^r-rx.^^ yt^ O >~-Jt^/if‘Ji.y<S^'-^^ •_________________________________ jO ^ / ^ O ---------\)c “7^" • • ■'I ( <olV NOTE: Only copies which bear an embossed sea. are certified copies i* * ^ 1 1 I* 1 A745AMHERSUANE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN BY Stuart Hoam 612/937-2033 -, ©199.6 EDEN PRMRE. MMNESOU 55346 i .. % • *. •A' 'J , •t t . •: li I • 6745 AMHERST LANE I ^ . I r • RESIDENTIAL DESIGN BY Stuart Hoam . 612/937-2033 - ©1996 EDEN PT2AIRIE. MMNES01A SS346 674$AM(«STIANE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN BY Stuart Hoam 612/937-20M • r . ©1996 EDEN PRAIRIE. MB4NESOtA S5346 ! t //■ TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:January 8, 1996 SUBJECT: #2098 Kari and Paul Romportl/Eva Theobald, 4101 Highvvood Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. Application: Request for lot area, lot width, 75-250' hardcover, lot coverage by structures, front (street) and side setback variances to replace existing residence with a new home. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Survey F - Hardcover Worksheets G - Floor Plans and Elevations H - Topographic Survey of Neighborhood ^ . Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): A. Required lot area = 43,560 s.f. Existing = 8,550 s.f. B.Lot width required = 140' Lot width existing = 50' (46' at 75' setback line) C.Existing front (street) setback = 70'± Proposed front (street) setback = 25' Requhed front (street) setback = 30' Existing north .a.^t side setback -- !0' Proposed = 8' Required =• 10' Existing southwest side setback = l3* Propo.sed = 6.8'-7.1' Required = 10' rr- .. Zoning File #2098 January 8, 1996 Page 2 2.Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot coverage by structures limited to 15% or 1,500 s.f., whichever is greater. Existing lot coverage = 690 s.f. or 8.1% Proposed lot coverage = 1,795 s.f. or 21.0% 3.Sections 10.22, Subd. 2/10.56, Subd. 16(L): Hardcover limited to 25% of 75-250' zone. Existing 75-250’ hardcover = 29.7% or 1,452 s.f. Proposed = 46% or 2,551 s.f. 4.Section 10.75, Subd. 3: "Additional heights on sloping lots. On any lot sloping downhill fix)m the street, which has an average ground slope on that portion of the lot to be occupied by the main building of 25% or more (measured in the general direction of the side lot lines) an additional 12' of height may be permitted in such main building and the garage or parking space may be in the required front yard provided a yard of 10' or more is maintained.": The average slope of the northerly 1/3 of the lot is 25%, although the area to be occupied by the garage/house structure has a slope of only 20%. It can therefore be argued that this code section does not apply and a front (street) setback variance is required. (Note also that staff has determined this is not a bluff situation.) Discussion Please review the applicants' statement of hardship and description of unusual property conditions. Exhibit D. A significant number of variances are requested for construction of a new house to replace the existing residence structure on the property. The lot area and lot width variances are not, of course, created by this specific house proposal, although the small lot area impacts the hardcover and lot coverage percentages, and the minimal lot width results in the need to construct a relatively narrow residence. The steep slcne downward from the road clearly has a significant impact on the house location, suggesting thj appropriate use of a spancrete floor garage with living space below it. The 25% slope provi. ions of zoning code Section 10.75, Subd. 3 (if applicable) would allow the garage to encroach into the 30' front (street) yard to within 10' of the street right-of-way. In this case a 25’ setback is proposed which will leave enough depth for off-street parking of two vehicles side by side in front of the garage. The proposed 8' side setback (2' variance) on the northeast side still leaves a setback of approximately 25' from the adjacent residence of A1 Seran, which was recently rebuilt. However, on the southwest side, the comer of the proposed attached garage will be 1 Zoning File r/2098 January 8, 1996 Page 3 approximately 9' from the neighboring detached garage. The City has consistently attempted to maintain a minimum 10' setback between structures, and the code requires a separation of 10' between principal and accessory structures. The proposed house will be setback approximately 22' from the neighboring house to the southwest, which also encroaches its required side yard (see survey). Lot coverage by structures is proposed at 1,795 s.f. or 21.0%. When the lot coverage ordinance was developed, it was recognized that even on very small lots the property owner should be allowed a minimum 1,500 s.f. envelope for structures including the principal structure and the garage (Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Exception^ In this case 15% of lot area would be 1,282.5 s.f., so the applicants' 1,500 s.f. allowance would be equivalent to 17.5% lot coverage. The proposed excess therefore is 295 s.f. or 3.5%. It can be argued that this is a variance created by attempting to construct a house of a certain size. Applicants' hardship statement suggests that in the context of new construction, this house is not oversized and the footprint is not excessive. Certainly a house can be built that meets the 1,500 s.f. standard, but to do so would essentially eliminate the porch, deck, and another 50 s.f. of house or garage. The hardcover proposal for 46% in the 75-250' zone where only 25% is allowed, might be somewhat tempered by the fact that there will be virtually no hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Also note that the overall hardcover on the property yields appropriately 26% where the DNR standard would be 25% of the lot in hardcover. Drainage Drainage on the property is of significant concern to the City, because this property and the Seran property adjacent are the receivers of significant amounts of runoff from Highwood Road. One change which staff would strongly recommend is that the bottom of the swale to the northeast be centered on the lot line between applicants' residence and the Seran residence. Staff will be discussing this drainage plan with the City Engineer to determine if there are additional concerns. Note that the existing catch basin, storm drain tile and rip rap spillway were apparently constructed by the neighboring property owner, and it may be appropriate to keep that sionr. drain in place if the rip rap spillway is moved back to the 75' setback line. Issues for Discussion 1.Has adequate hardship been demonstrated to justify granting the lot area and width variances? Zoning File #2098 January 8, 1996 Page 4 7 Does the narrow lot width justify the granting of side setback variances on both sides of the proposed house? Should the house be shifted or redesigned to meet a 10' separation from the neighboring garage to the southwest? 3.Does the topography of the lot suggest that the requested street setback variance is appropriate? 4.Given that the existing house meets the lot coverage standards and the^‘total house replacement ’’proposal would allow something new to be constructed that meets all standards, is th .^re any justification for granting a lot coverage variance? Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission finds adequate hardship and justification for granting of the variances requested, then a recommendation for approval would be in order. Conversely, if Planning Commission finds that certain aspects of the proposal are not justified, Planning Commission may wish to provide the applicants an opportunity to revise the proposal. Options for Action RecOiiirnend approval as proposed, with City staff and engineer to review drainage. Recommend partial approval. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Table for further review (provide applicant dii ;ction) 5.Other. I I 44’ O f\ >• y ^.V! n ,/ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS '.ly->I Subject property is encumbered by several hardships: It is very small (8550 SF) ; dimensionally narrow and deep; the grade drops steeply from street-level; the condition of the obsolete existing dwelling is beyond reasonable repair; the property lacks adequate off-street parking while being located on a narrow roadway lined with narrow lots resulting in exceptionally poor on-street parking capacity. Originally constructed as a "lake cottage" with no garage, the tiny existing house is now over 73 years old. Its utility is adversely affected by deferred maintenance, areas of decay and structural failure, and functional obsolescence. Some unsafe conditions are also present. This building isn't a candidate for rehabilitation or expansion and should be replaced. Applicant therefore needs to replace the structure with modern improvements: a new dwelling which should reasonably include two-stall garage and additional off-street parking. Applicant's hardcover variance (46%) seeks to overcome the hardship of the lot's small size and steep terrain while allowing for a modest-sized modern residence, garage, and driveway for added minimum off-street parking. Applicant's proposed improvements call for a 25-foot front/street setback instead of 30 feet which (1) permits a more compact structure and building "footprint"; (2) reduces hardcover with shorter driveway than is the case with 30' setback; and (3) , helps to overcome the hardship of the steep grade, while still accommodating off-street parking for four vehicles (two garaged and two in drive). The minor side-setback and the 5' (25' vs. 30') front- setback variances seem more than offset by the fact that the proposed new structure is 15 farther back from the lakeshore than the existing house .;(which is at the 75' minimum) . ' The proposal maintains ample sideyard separations from neighboring buildings. With relatively modest "footprint", the overall proposed improvements represent a reasonable solution for substantially overcoming the hardships. These improvements would also enhance the neighborhood by (1) replacing the worn, outmoded building in a way that offers an attractive new home which meets the modern needs for year-round permanent residency without disproportional "over-building" or adverse impact on adjoining properties; and (2), by providing adequate off-street parking for four vehicles (two garaged, two in 25' driveway). •---^ COUNCUIEETilQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION APR 2 8 1997 DATE;CITYOFORONO^ ITEM NO.:, 10 Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2226 John and Susanne Koob, 3065 Jamestown Road Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: RRl-B, One Family Rural Residential District, 2 acres Application:Applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a berm to be 10’ in height and 350' in length to mitigate noise and views from the schools and the athletic fields. Approximately 3,100 cubic yards of fill are required to construct the berm. Planning Commission Recommendation:To unanimously approve: A conditional use permit to establish a berm 350' in length and 10' in height, subject to the following conditions: 1. The berm shall be constructed at a 3 to 1 slope. 2.The berm shall be landscaped with grass and trees when completed and seeded during construction to prevent erosion. 3.The applicant shall update City staff annually as to the progress of the berm construction. The applicant will have 30 months to construct the berm from date of final approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the enclosed resolution. I /rr, - A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19 AND 20 FILE NO. 2226 WHEREAS, John and Susanne Koob (hereinafter the "applicants") are the owners of the property located at 3065 Jamestown Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 5, Block 1, Liberty Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a conditional use permit per Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19 and 20 to permit the construction of a 350’ long berm 10 ’ high to be located along their easterly property line where a conditional use permit for fill is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2226. The property is located in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 1997 and recommended unanimous approval of the proposed conditional use permit, based upon the following unique findings: a.The elevation of the property is located approximately 10' below the adjacent school property. Page 1 of 4 > ■ ■■ I II M tl ■f r r I b. The property is impacted by noise from the school's athletic fields. c. d. e. The proposed berm will not negatively impact drainage on the property or adjacent property. The applicant has secured permission from the school to provide truck access through the school property. The City has received no comments from the property owners notified of the proposed berm. 4. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a berm will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19 and 20 to allow for the construction of a berm 350’ in length and 10’ in height to be located on the easterly property line where no such activity is normally allowed. The above conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. The berm shall be constructed at a 3:1 slope. 2. 3. The berm shall be landscaped with grass and trees when completed and seeded during construction to prevent erosion. The applicant shall update City staff annually as to the progress of the berm construction. The applicant will have 30 months to construct the berm from date of final approval. Page 2 of 4 r 4.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the properly not with the owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council's approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (April 28, 1998). 5.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority grai ted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6.The undersigned applicants and property owners have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of April, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 aufiua ss. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of April, 1997 by Gabriel Jahbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed ^he same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notaiy Public Page 4 of 4 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator April 16,1997 SUBJECT: #2226 Jo^n and Susanne Koob, 3065 Jamestown Road, Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres). Application: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 10' berm to mitigate noise and views from the schools and its athletic fields. Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 10.03 General Provisions Subd. 19 Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the limits of the City; to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade oi shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. Subd. 20 Permit. An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing made by a registered surveyor or other competent person showing the location of the proposed excavation or storage and shall state the amount of material which is to be removed, excavated or stored, filled or graded,... List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant's Letter C - Plat Map D - Property Owner's List E - Topography Map F - Survey Description of Request The applicant seeks a conditional use permit to establish a berm that measures 10' in height and 350' in length. The purpose of the berm is to screen the view and noise from the school and athletic fields. The elevation of the applicant's residence is approximately 10' lower than the school's property. Issues 1. 2. The applicant has agreed to provide truck access to the school property. The subject property is impacted by noise from school activities. The baseball fields and concession standards are a' jacent to the subject property. 3.The applicant has indicated that the slope of the berm will meet the ratio requirements of 3 to 1. 4. The berm will not impact the primary or secondary septic sites. 5.The berm will not block the natural drainage on the site; it vrill continue to flow to the south and west. 6.The applicant has indicated that it will take several years to acquire the 3,100 cubic yards required to build the berm. Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit subject to: 1. The berm shall be constructed at a 3 to 1 slope. 2. The berm shall be landscaped with grass and trees when compleicu. 3. The applicant shall update City staff annually as to the progress of berm construction. The applicant shall be able to extend the construction time to 30 months from date of approval to establish the berm. U2226 John and Susannc Koob 3065 Jamestown Road - Conditional Use Permit April 17. 1997 page 2 1 ------- Application if Zi ^ *3- (o Date Received — J cj - Cf y Amount Paid p” c A A CITY OF ORONO - GEINHERAL LAND USE APPLICATI^^^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3065 Jamestown Road Type of Application to be Filed Land Alteration # o O v'"-I'.' - — /1 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 28-1 18- 2333non:i APPLICANT Name .fohn ;!i>r..-irmo Koob Address 3065 Jamestown Rd. Phone (horned ______ Phone (work") 476-6997 City Orono___________ Zip SS3S6 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ___________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired March 31^ 1990 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application ~ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use ~ $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments " $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg A « • 4' $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use mm YYYY $250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain xxxx Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ^ $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ~ $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property XXXX Residential Other (specify). REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ^ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350*, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.^ v7^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital stanis) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include nainc(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if appiicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:__________________________------------------------ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ u u ^ • The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, aerees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusuaf expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied^ true and correc^^^h^ best of his/her knowlec^e.^^^ Applicant's signature F ----------------------------- ------------- OWNER’S SIGNATURE . ^ u u ■ ^ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authonzed reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. ^C c^ 3 - / V - y / Owner's signature ADPlicant 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 Pr^ent a all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authonzed agent attend m your place and Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i i____ I ■ 6 ■ JOHN P. KOOB III 3065 JAMESTOWN ROAD LONG LAKE, MN 55356 March 15, 1997 Ms Jeanne Masbusth City Of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 M - ./V • Dear Ms. Masbusth: Attached is the revised berm proposal, we discussed on Friday. Please include it with the other paperwork for the Conditional Use Permit. I would like this permit to be included on the City Council Agenda of April 28. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, U'ti- ibhn P. Koob H I ■1 -f •s * • ,y n r..^ 7 tt -^ • >- BERM PROPOSAL 3065 JAMESTOWN ROAD The purpose of this project is to construct an earthen berm that will provide privacy from the adjacent school property. The bern will act as a barrier to the noise and activity of a concession stand, bleachers and parking which are located within 30' of my property. The berm will be approx. 350’ In length and 10' in height. It will be centered with a 3 feet of width for each 1 foot rise. The berm will be landscaped with grass seeding and tree planting following construction. An agreement has been reached with Neal Lawson, Assistant Superintendent of the Orono Public Schools, to provide truck acces.s through the school property. I —r-r*«--------r«*ti r i- -tt . t t r I RUN DATE 02/ie/97 tfATCH 501 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 28*118-23 31 000^ 02995 JAMESTOWN RO J a K SWANSON JAKES T SWANSON 2995 JANES TOWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAra/ADOR 38 28-118-23 32 0007 03105 SIXTH AVE N BAD YOUNG BENEDICT E A DENISE E YOUNG 3105 6TH AVE NO LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 34 oco3 38 28-118-23 33 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO IND SCHOOL DIST NO 278 ORONO IND SCHOOL DIST NO 278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 28-118-23 33 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JAMES R GRABEK ET AL JAMES R GRABEK 3050 JAMESTOWN RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 28-118-23 33 0017 031^5 JA?iESTO(*IN RD KAREN ELIZABETH NELSON KAREN ELIZABETH NELSON 3195 JAMESTOWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 31 0005 02995 JAMESTOWN RD M A J WAHL7G MICHAEL J A JO ELLEN WAHLIG 2995 JAMESTOWN ROAD S LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 32 0008 03095 SIXTH AVE N I A ft DVnPD JOHN D A BARBARA Y RYDER 3095 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO INDEP SCH DIST t278 ORONO INDEP SCH DIST t278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0010 03085 JAMESTOI*C4 RD GAB LARSON GARY A LARSON 3085 JAMESTOMI^ RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 39 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES R GRABEK ET AL JAMES R GRABEK 3050 JAMESTO}^ RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. P1935901 PAGE 1 38 28-118-23 31 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LORRAINE M NIICHEL LORRAINE M NIICHEL NO 9 JAMESTOVM ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 32 0009 03025 SIXTH AVE N B A A F A MCKEE BRENT A ANGELA MCKEE 3025 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 I 38 28-118-23 33 0008 03065 JAMESTOWN RO J P A S K KOOB JOHN P A SUSANNE K KOOB 3065 JAMESTO)t4 RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0012 03155 JAMESTOWN RO S A S STROUP STAfiLEY S STROUP 315J JAMESTOWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 k '* m • 38 28-118-23 33 0014 38 28-118-23 33 0015 38 28-118-23 33 0016 V , ' \ 'PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 03175 JAMESTOHN RD MICHAEL AMES S UUREL AMES MICHAEL S LAUREL AWES 3175 JAMESTOWN ROAD ' ORONO MN 55356 03050 JAMESTOJW RD J R GRABEK A P J GRABEK JAMES R A PENELOPE J GRABEK 3050 JAMESTO;-34 RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 03135 JAMESTOWN RD H W LURTON A S E LURTON H WILLIAM LURTON 3135 JAMESTOWN RD LONG LAKE m 55356 » rv* ' \ ■ = * -CX •' • * '• V TOTAL BATCH 501 00017 mmk r.COUNCIL MEETINQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: APR 2 8 1997 CITYOFORONO ITEM NO // Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: HlTll, Gary Tucker, 3466 Ivy Place-Variances--Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1/2 acre. Sewered 15,541 sq. ft. (.356 acres)________________________________ Application:Applicant is seeking a sideyard setback variance to allow for the construction of a roof over the front entry which will encroach approximately 2' into the required 10 ’ sideyard setback. The applicant is also seeking an average lakeshore setback variance to construct a new deck that would extend approximately 20 ’ into the required average lakeshore setback. The existing residence encroaches 8 ’ into the required average lakeshore setback. The applicant also seeks a hardcover variance in the 75' to 250' setback area to add the new deck, front entry and redesign the sidewalk. Planning Commission Recommendation:To unanimously approve: 1.A sideyard variance along the north property line to allow for for the construction of a roof over the front entry to encroach 2 ’ into the required 10 ’ sideyard setback. 2.An average lakeshore setback variance to allow for construction of a new deck to encroach approximately 20' into the required lakeshore setback where the existing residence encroaches 8 ’ into the required lakeshore yard. 3.A hardcover variance to increase hardcover from 3,420 sq. ft. (32.26%) to 3.637.8 sq. ft. (34.3%) where 2,680 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. A 9.32% is required. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the enclosed resolution. 4. 5. A.The existing residence encroaches into the side lot line on the north side of the property. B. The concrete front stoop is located over a basement. C. The subject property does not currently meet the lot area requirements. D.The City has received no comments from the property owners notified of the proposed improvement. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely sep/e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a side yard setback variance per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 to permit construction of a front entr>' stoop over an existing concrete slab; per Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (c) an average lakeshore setback variance to allow a deck to cticiooch 20' into the average lakeshore setback; and per Section 10.22, subdivision 2, to allow a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area to increase hardcover from 3,420 sq. ft. (32.26%) to 3,637 sq. ft. (34.3%; where 2,680 sq. ft. or 25% is allowed, subject to the following conditions; 1. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant. Page 2 of 4 i i 1.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (April 28, 1998). 2.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. 3.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. k Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 3 of 4 L. $ *4 -t J r L STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument v,as acknowledged before me on this 28th day of April, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Mitmesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of___, 199_before me a Notary’ Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of___, 199 before me a Notary' Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 i±j»'r............. . A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6, SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (B) AND 2 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C-6) FILE NO. 2227 WHEREAS, Gary Tucker (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3466 Ivy Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Spring Park, including that part of vacated Lake Shore Avenue lying between the extensions of the north and south lines of said Lot 10 (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6, Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6) to allow for a side yard setback to encroach along the north property line and to increase hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2227. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where one-half acre in area is required. The property is sewered. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following unique findings and hardships: Page 1 of 4 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jl)?'FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator ^ ^ DATE: April 17,1997 SUBJECT: #2227 Gary Tucker, 3466 Ivy Place-Variances-Public Hearing ZONING DISTRICT: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1/2 acre. Sewered Application: The applicant is proposing to construct a new deck on the lakeside of the residence and construct an entry over the front door. The existing sidewalks will also be modified. An average lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 75’-250' setback area, and side yard setback variances are required. Pertinent Ordinances: 1 . Section 10.25, LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District Subd. 6, Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT AREA AND YARDS Lot Area Lot Width Lakeshore Side Yard Street Side 15,541 sq. ft. .356 acre 60.35 ft.120 ft. to structure 1.8 ft. on north side, 21.7 ft. on south side 10.1 ft. from garage The subject property is .356 acres which is less than the required minimum lot size. The proposed new concrete slab and front entry would continue a partial encroachment into the required 10’ setback. The proposed concrete stoop would be smaller than the existing front stoop. H2227, Cary Tucker 3466 Ivy Place 4/21/97 page-1 2 Sea ion 10.22, Subd. 2, Lake shore Hardcover HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from shoreline Total Area in Setback Hardcover .Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75 ’4,505 sq. ft.None 188 sq. ft.188 sq. ft.188 sq. ft. (4.11%) 75 ’-250’10,600 sq. ft.2,680 sq. ft. (25%) 3,420 sq. ft. (32.26%) 3,637.8 sq. ft. (34.3%) 987.8 sq ft. (9.32%) 250’-500 ’436 sq. ft.130.8 sq. ft. (30%) 215 sq. ft. (49.31%) 215 sq. ft. (49.31%) 84.2 sq. ft. (19.31%) The applicant is proposing to continue the existing amount of hardcover in the 0 -75 setback and the 250-500 ’ setback. Changes are proposed in the 75 ’-250' setback to increase hardcover from 3,420 sq. ft. (32.26%) to 3,637.8 sq. ft. (34.3%) for an increase of 217.8 sq. ft. or a variance of 9.32% to allow for a new deck and stairs and reconfiguring the sidewalk. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 1, B. Lakeshore SetbackP'^gulations Section 10.56, Subd. 16, C, 6, Average Lakeshore Setback No principal or acccssor>- structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. The applicant's residence currently encroaches into the average lakeshore setback. The proposed deck is forward of the average lakeshore setback. List of Exhibits A Application B Plat Map C Property Owner's List D Hardcover Calculations E Existing Survey F Proposed Surv'ey G Front Elevations for Porch H Lakeside Elevations for Deck I Acknowledgement Form U2227, Gary Tucker 3466 Ivy Place 4/21/97 page-2 Ti Description of Request The applicant seeks hardcover, side yard setback, and a\erage lakeshore variances to make improvements to the front entry by adding a roof over a smaller front stoop. The sidewalks will also be redesigned. On the lakeside, the applicant seeks to expand the existing deck and to improve the stairs. The front entry requires a side yard setback variance. The lakeside improvements require an average lakeshore setback variance. Issues 1. 2. The lot area is .356 acres. The minimum lot area for the LR-IC zoning district is .5 acres. The lot width is 60.35' where 100' is required. The narrow lot with 10' side yard setbacks provides a 40' wide strip for two building pads. 3. 4. The current residence does not meet the 10' side yard setback along the north property line. Much of the existing hardcover on the site is due to topography - to provide stairs to the lake and to retain soil from the higher elevation to the south. Staff Recommendation To adopt or amend as proposed U2227, Gary Tucker 3466 Ivy Place 4/21/97 page-3 Application # Date Received Amount Paid c*fr V’; ,r.-J 1 - \ , ' 1 • • > - I:y 1 . V*, r-*^ -j CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFO_^TION O£?O/U0 /VlflJ ■ Site Address __uDL----r Ld C — ^^-——7^ ^ Property Identification Number fP.I.D.'l Lot IG SC^i^ 2—-///- Z3^ 7 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired h^h-------------------------------------------- I (do) 0on^ also own the adj^ent parcels of land. Present use of property; X residential ___pother (specify)--------------------------------- Zoning District: L R J.C------------------------------—-------------------------------------- -6 APPLICANT Name Q d Any / uc.k‘i/z. Address: /\/V Pt'^cc _ OWNTR (if different than applicant) Name___________________— Phone (home') 4/ 7 / - 7 2S'S' _____ Phone fwoik^l ^7/--92S'V^ City: OfZOAJQ________Zip: ^SVjL Phone (home) Phone (work)_ . 'Jress:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $. Describe request in detail: Rt.cLc,ct.—D<.c.Jc^—Cou e>-2 W— dotn.------------------------------------------------------— (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARI.ANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width X Hardcover )( Lot Coverage X Setback;Front X Side Rear ,X_ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of unusual property conditions Describe undue hardship or practical difficult or unu^al proper^ conations preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^/)«£L------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners witliin 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/S" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic surv'ey (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SV2' x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/:" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature _—Date 3/zohl IOWNER'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 I Date 3/7c/9 1 \ t ’ 0 Applicant must have aM 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 change prior to the meeting. ^ G A. '•) ;\ ) ir :•■ -:' / / /-- V- . ■ HARnSHTP/nF.SrRTPTinN fIF 1 TNT ISt TAl. PROPFRTY rONDITTON^- Covered Entry -There is no cover at all for the main entry. No cover from rain or snow. -Existing concrete slab with basement foundation already encroaches into side setback. New stoop will be smaller than the existing stoop. -A portion of the sidewalk needs to be rerouted for entry. Overall routing will remain unchanged because of a hill between the garage and the house. -Average lake shore variance is needed because lot is less than 1/2 acre and because existing house is forward of the ''line''. Dfick -Existing deck is completely rotted and needs replacement. Its size does not accommodate a table with chairs or seating of more than 3 adults. Stairway protrudes into deck area and is a safety hazard(several people have stumbled or fallen on stairs). -Side variance is needed because existing house is already encroaching into side setback. -Setback variance is needed to accommodate a wider deck. The views for the two adjacent property owners are not affected because their houses are a fair distance from mine. Also, the adjacent neighbor to the north has a hedge of bushes on the lot line that blocks their view of my house and all of the proposed deck. -Average lake shore variance is needed because lot is less than 1/2 acre and because existing house is forward of the "line". RUN DATE 09/04/96 BATCH 505 HE^tlEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST PROP ADDR OWCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADOR 0»«<ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 30 20-117-23 42 0031 03486 IVY PL 6 L HILLIREN A S L HILLIREN GUY L HILLIREN 3466 IVY PL HAY2ATA MN F';391 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 38 20-117-23 43 0008 03249 CASCO CIR R 6 LUESSE ETAL ROBERT LUESSE 3249 CASCO CIR HAYZATA.HN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0053 03271 CASCO CIR PATRICK J NEUVILLE PATRICK J NEUVILLE 3271 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55591 fit '•;v. Vi REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 18 38 20-117-23 43 03466 IVY PL J GARY TUCKER J GARY TUCKER 3466 IVY PL HAYZATA MN 55391 0006 38 20-117-23 43 0007 03251 CASCO CIR PATRICIA M DIE6RE ET AL PATRICIA H.A. 0IE6RE 3251 CASCO CIR HAYZATA m 55391 0 38 20-117-23 43 0009 03247 CASCO CIR KURT CARLSON A HIFE KURT t LUCILLE CARLSON 3247 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO THE CASCO CO THE CASCO COMPANY ROBERT 0 MACNIE 3135 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 .. ;( 38 20-117-23 43 0054 03509 IVY PL M E LANG ADI GOMEZ THOMAS A LEISEL COX 3509 IVY PL HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH SOS 00008 ' 4 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COlWTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPIRTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLE06E AND BELIEF. DATE / 1 /i *s Or ARY HARDC0VliBr€AiCULAT10iN VVOKJKittEl!.i SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)^^0>75^^ 75-250’ 25-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House “ Bi 500-1000 ’ ^ S.F. Length Width CaM^erTif ■ B. Garage C. Driveway . 2.ft 4,^ X X X Z.Z 3-4t. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X X S.F. S.F. \ S t£v>S f LA#-io/Me, ----------------- E. Patio/Dcck X X HZ S.F. S.F. • • • • • X X J'*F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X » • COH02prf X G. -Other va /a • ■ • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -J- B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE : A. House fX.\ Length "i • I‘I • X X X B. GLra*»c •/ C. Drivc\say X X A-D. Sidewalk ;i X X E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Cihrr . TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * + B « • • • ■ tm H • • • i •• .1 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.“ S.F. id0 .S.F. X 100 A B •r«>. .rr . • •d Width . vr S.F. % •' ••S.F"..*• •# S.F. 7 S.F. S.F.' S.B. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 - S.F. A B M4 • . .1 J :•6iAfZY T(^cj<0\2 • •• • • • « •: SETBACK ZONE HAIU)C0VER CALCUL^XltWMtH. ; (CIRCLE ONE) -75’ C 75-250^25-500’ .1* I EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______ \a * ..• » ^ ^ LcnjiK\\conc. ^x2sg>. u^ObO. A L.F« X X X X width fV •• '/ i6. il _ -j*l B« Oiird^c 3<9.l 2Z.I C. Driveway • iVCC'NcBpTC APiBOi^I X X * D. Sidewalk X X • •• w • • •• « ! i^Dec^X X !(!> .1 •: it F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X • • G. Other I • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 • « PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Lenj{ih . C9ve-2y2.-V m I X I X X WWih , •SxT-L 3.3»SS = /i=f B. Garage 7.0. 1 < «2-2. ) C. Driveway C oz-cm L Affto^70. I X X • •# # % ^ D. Sidewalk Co».»e.rtJLV< E. Patio/Dc^ Petle- iru X X 5~ 2*8.S' 2.0. b X X Z2.2. ..........••• • • • • • • f F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X G. Other ■• TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN.ZONE B X 100 - • •• »••••• •* 14 • ■ • • •• 500-1000' hz&y —siF. 2^ iZ il4- j_s.f: _S.F. ‘ S.F. A4S S.F. 0/7 60 S.F. S.F. 14^S.F. S.F. 08.S.F. S.F. • •• ^ —» •••«•• • • - -E.R ♦ S.F. S.F. •• • • • *• S.F. 342d 10^600 S.F. S.F. A B i« •.«.It • • 1287 S.F. ■2^7 /7_ S.F. S.F. //y • S.F. 6fc6'S.F. S/7 S.F. (d O S.F. iS'i S.F. LS~ S.F. 'hHl.l S.F. p^r./i's.F. S.F. __'S.F. S.F. S.P. 7LV7.% • S.F. ■jO t,o6 S.F. • ~_y« A B r# • ~7 f • • • «B a* • • • • •: 2 •0 I.*'* HARDCOVER CALCULATlOiN VVOR^^h^i ■>. SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S» *.'r EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___ Length >* X *x X !! B. Garage C. Driveway ■ r- ^r^hiE U^/UL D. Sidewalk Tl L*^ X X « ¥ r hr !( t . • •/ .1 . > *. .« \\ X X E. Pacio/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 -r B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE J A. House Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck f X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X Q. Other. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * + B 75-250 ’ V^5-500* ^ 500-1000’ S.F. Width • • j_S.F. _S.F. ■ S.F. • e ^ • .••••' S.F. • 0 Z04^S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. * » • I » * 8 ZiS X 100 = Width t \ -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. S-.F. S.F. ■ S.F. "‘S.F. "S.F. A B i • • S.F. • • • • S.F. S.F. r« A* B * • (I i. r- •. > •• ( ♦ I r > •/ iLr' --ill ■=4'i''’ '/.,=/'o" j "-^'1 A‘'1 i i ! ' \A' ' - ^ • V ^T' !:1 t'1 * .1 t 1 1 :i^11 1 •1 :. li 1 1 .'i ;1 I I ,1 f^’'^LtU . , ® ( ,_ ffAfo- r.\l I ’A,”, /'o" I flAi)'i ■< — ^ . C*-v /' A ^ ;: V } JIV f,t A-" ' « •>. Vi>\| •a -iD 1. r» • • I I 1 .1 " 1 I I i « -I ! 5 • • •I ! I i i i I -I » .1 ^ 1 i f t ■! 1: ; i ‘4>- a ij '■^ ■/ r -.. 5 gtSXCTt;**^ '■\ r A : / :. i 1^1 :i a i Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we)‘ ifVvLt-\?VKA of [prin^name(s)][prin! address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the ^operty located at PUice. also referred to as Land Use Application No. • I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the propert>' or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. r Property OwngQ hz-h^i Date Property Owner i^^,0^i,^,^,^,^iiH,********************* ft************* ******************************** -) I (we) •^■'7^ /1 :✓> f f ___of [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /t/V P^ce. also referred to as Land Use Application No. ^------• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbors project or use requires Council approval. / Propert}' Ovmer Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. i I ®0UNCI,MEETFNQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION >\pR 2 8 1997 DATE: ITEM NO Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2228 Frank and Kathleen St. Lawrence, 253 Cygnet Place-Variances- Public Hearing Zoning District: RRl-B, One Family Rural Residential District, 2 acres, sewered Lot Area:46,800 sq. ft. (1.07 acres) Application:Applicant is seeking a sideyard variance to reduce an existing 31’ sideyard to 16.4' and front yard setback to allow the proposed addition to be consistent with the existing 41' front yard setback where 50' is required. Applicant is also seeking a variance from the hardcover requirements in the 75'-250' setback. Planning Conunission Recommendation: To unanimously approve: 1.A sideyard variance along the west property line reducing the existing 31' yard to 16.4' where 30' is required. 2.A front yard variance from the existing 41’ to allow the the addition to also be located 41' from the front property line wher; .30' is required. 3.A hardco’ er variance in the 75’-250' setback to allow for a new addition which increases hardcover from 3,827 sq. ft. (20.9%) to 4,749 sq. ft. (25.9%) where 4,575 sq.ft, is allowed. A .95% variance is required. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the enclosed resolution. -' —• - • • r .Tv Ci A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE NO. 2228 WHEREAS, Frank and Kathleen St. Lawrence (hereinafter "the applicants") has an interest in the property located at 253 Cygnet Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 9 Block 1, Swan Lake Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow for an additional garage stall addition onto an existing residence, to increase hardcv./ver and to encroach into the side yard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. rhis application was reviewed as Zoning File #2228. The property is located in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring two acres. The property is sewered. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A.The property is impacted by the 0-75' setback requirements from a protected stream or pond along the north and east property lines. Page 1 of 4 .1 B. The property is further impacted by steep topography on the east property line. C.The existing residence does not currently comply with the front yard requirements of 50' setback. 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 difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 for construction of an addition to allow a side yard variance along the west propety line reducing the exisitng 31' yard to 16.4' where 30' is required; a front yard variance to allow the addition to also be located 41' from the front property line where 50' is required; and per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback which increases hardcover from 3,827 sq. ft. (20.9%) to 4,749 sq. ft. (25.9%) where 4,575 sq. ft. is allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1.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 (April 28, 1998). Page 2 of 4 2.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. 3.The undersigned applicants and property owners have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the ;ty of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. City Clerk Gabriel Jabboui, Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of April, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of___, 199_before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of___, 199_before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 TO: FROM; DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomefen, City Planner/Zoning Administrator April 17,1997 SUBJECT: #2228 Frank and Kathleen St. LawTence, 253 Cygnet Place - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District, 2 acres, sewered. Application: The applicant is seeking a hardcover variance in the 75-250 ’ setback area and a front and side yard variance to build an addition to an existing residence. Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 10.28, Siibd. 5 - RRl-B Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements RRl-B DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet SUBJECT PROPERTY I • i‘ AREA AND YARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 46,800 sq. ft. (1.07 acres) 265 ft.41 ft.31 ft. existing 16.4 proposed 107 ft. The subject property does not conform to the minimum lot size or front yard setback for the RRl-B district. The proposed addition would cnroach 13.6' into the required 30' side yard and approximately 9' into the required front yard. The entire site is restricted by the 75' setback requirement from the pond on the north and the creek on the cast. The rear yard is 107' where 50' is required. H2228, Frank and Kathleen St. Lawrence 253 Cygnet Place 4/21/97 page-1 2. Section 10.22, Subd.2, Hardcover HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from Pond/Creek Total Area in Setback Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Variance Requested 0’-75'28,500 sq. ft.None None None None 75'-250'18,300 sq. ft.4,575 sq. ft. (25%) 3,827 sq. ft. (20.9%) 4,749 sq. ft. (25.9%) 174 sq ft. (.95%) Total Lot Size = 46,800 sq. ft. = 1.074 acres. The applicant proposes to increase hardcover in the 75-250' setback area from 3,827 s.f. or 20.9% to 4,749 s.f. or (25.9%) where 4,575 s.f. or 25% is allowed. List of Exhibits A Application B Applicant ’s Letter C Plat Map D Property Owner’s List E Acknowledgment Form F Topographical Map G Survey H Elevations 1 Hardcover Calculations Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The subject property is 1.07 acres where 2 acres is required. The subject property currently conforms to the side and rear yard setback, but does not meet the front yard setback. The subject property is limited by tlic 75’ setback requirement from the pond and creek and the topography. The lot is sewered. The proposed expansion is located over a filled-in septic area. The proposed addition increases hardcover by 922 s.f., of which 174 s.f. exceeds the 25% allowed. A variance of .95% is required. ^2228, Frank and Kathleen St. Lawrence 253 Cygnet Place 4/21/97 page-2 Staff Recommendation To amend or approved as submitted. #2228, Frank and Kathleen St. Lawrence 253 Cygnet Place 4/21/97 page-3 Application # Date Received 3/2nl<^n Amount Paid c3iAO.- A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 as ‘ '■ \ ^ ..V ' . ' " ' ;; (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00“^^^^ J ^ After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) " " ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION ^, SiteAddress ^53 C.i<^HET Fl Properly Identification Number (P.I.D.1 — Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ^_____________^(month/year) I (do) nol)>also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^-Residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District:____________________________________\ APPLICANT , . _ Phone (home ) jo4 - 13___ jslarne ^ Sr. LALVf^tr/<jCc> Phone (work ) V7^ C/^^C Address: A ________ City: (^/Ccnc Zip: SS3S^_ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 9%cO^ Describe request in detail: aa) ^ttmckcJ sr/f-Ll, S.£^^oh6Z. fi St>om kdrr^e C-(fi<Le’^ erntAe.^.el lmu.\ ^ f^iTCMCA) >)>u> src^^6<rXa\XQ.c\\ additional streets if necessary') VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width \/ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front -'^Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSIIIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing _ compliance with Zoning Code requirements: t«-W An>/e h TS.££h I— .. /)(1£^ ££>AJ//0<b, rAi5 Loi hn-6 7S' C^JLor oc iri-nt, T.--;—~ — A . *TK i5 mi/O!nni9€:^ 'rhs ^uiL-hr^AlS' __7j2E. /5 I'o-C -iks sit>£U>r 7Kc /fbTACfc'^T' Z-of IS hFHOlUV^ (attach additional sheets if necessar)^/27/97 Pay 220.00 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2./ J./ 4. t'. 5. 6. 7. 8. jM 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, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if anv changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/a" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'A" 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 correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s u /}Date i/jA/97 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 Signature4/y'//.(^// /} ^.. Date j/pl/97 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Plarjiing 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 change prior to the meeting. 8 ST.LAWRENCE, Frank & Kalhy 253 Cygnet Place Orono, MN 55356 Telephone (612) 404-9173 Fax (612) 476-6524 March 26,1997 Orono City Council City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P O Box 66 Orono MN 55323 Dear Council Members, We respectfully request that you add to your April 28, 1997 council meeting agenda the review of the request for Variance Application at 253 Cygnet Place, also referred to as Land Use Application No. This application is scheduled to be reviewed at the April 21, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Frank and Kathy St. Lawrence 4 t ' RUN DATE 03/06/97 BATCH 510 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 29 PROP AODR* ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 04-117-23 22 0012 00145 CYGNET PL GORDON V JONES GORDON V JONES 145 CYGNET PL LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 22 0026 00200 LEAF ST L R BELLAMY ACM BELLAMY LOUIS R A COLLEN C BELLAMY 200 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0011 00185 CYGNET PL R F A R D EZELL ROXANN A ROGER EZELL 185 CYGNET PL LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 04-117-23 23 0012 00253 CYGNET PL FRANK 0 ST LAI^U?ENCE ET AL FRANK A KATHLEEN ST LANRENCE 253 CYGNET PL N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0018 00250 CYGNET PL J S A L M BRONNLEE JAMES S BRONNLEE 250 CYGt>H;T PLACE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 *0013 00261 CYGNET PL MICHAEL P DALE ETAL MICHAEL P DALE RT 1 BOX 501J LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0019 00258 CYGNET PL T P LUTZ AML LUTZ THOMAS P A MARY L LUTZ 258 CYGNET PL LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0017 00248 CYGNET PL DEAN K MOLIN ETAL DEAN K MOLIN 248 CYGNET PLACE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0020 00240 CYGNET PL EUGENE C DETERLING A HIFE EUGENE C DETERLING 240 CYGNET PUCE LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR ONNER NA»£ TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 510 00009 >1^ r/'1K J•c V % /;• A ') I' ’N ■ / \-'0 r \ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF. DATE t?' H .V•yf- iii-rs-- ?? fi V.- ■} . -r-• ■•» i 1 £ . *,•^ /» Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form of iML-r PII (we) flllOjiA&L 'TD.4i^E [print name(s)] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at O^^joCT PL______also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City CoUiiCil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property O’vner ■Mrl Date '/g v-ik-J. Property Owner(^ /Date / I (we) ~fc/7i 4 ^ teliL_____of -^58,' Cv(^^3d^ fl [prini name(s)][print'aSdress] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) unr’x t .’a^'d that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare appro • . rr al of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) a: , iware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. f /b'vn \ Property O^me: Tf you have ?.ny information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, p ease submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. . •• 'r. /V --I..- • ^ < ^ V # i/ •• .* ./ Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we^Cft^/zO ^ Q(VC4iiL<^ Gr'^^NJ^ [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Cy^/i/eV P/^qJ. also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. 5 ‘1- jy Date Property Owner Date ^ ^ ^ ^ i|i ^ ^ ^ ^ A ir ****** dr A A ** A A * A A ***** dr A * ********* A ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ I (we’l^^y' J [print name(s)] of X/' [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Sib5 CijCjnir also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) ai», (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval . f the prope.-y or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. ^/fJ^ l7) A. Property Owner Date U y , Property Owner Date If you have any infomation that may assist the City in the review of this Use Application please silbmu ^ur comments to the Building & Zoning Office at leas, 10 days prior to the scheduled mcctu.^i dale. ;• ; 1 (we) Lcu > s ^ I Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form ^<il|(XmiA o( <^00 Sf€(LKJ [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. S-J 7' f 7 Date DateProperty Owner I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in ihi review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. E fexhibi f JT, I4u/Af^cf • • • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (0^7^ 75-250* 250-500*500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 70NF A. House I I. Length Width S.F. X X X S.F; S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Drivevt ay S.F. X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X ••• t • 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 _______O + B Zf'.SOO X 100 F. S.F. « % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70hfF. A. House ____ X Length S.F. Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway S;F. X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. ••• « F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. f.P. S.P< G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 - S.F. S.F.r. \ A B t y;* A >V ■ t. // Ir t ' • - <•* ■tCi-’ *1 -)>.nk ___ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR FRANK ST. LAWRENCE OF LOT 9. BLOCK 1. SWAN LAKE ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 8 CYGNET PLACE iFGAt DT5;CRIPTI0*: OF PREMISES ! Lot 9, Block 1. Swon Loke Addition o : denotes iron morker Beofiogs shown ore bosed upon on ossumed dotum. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property* the location of on existing house, ond the k>cation of ofl visible "hordcover** thereon. It docs not purport to show ony other improvements or encroochments. NOTE Accurocy of hordcovcf location and extent of oddltionol hordcover is limited by iced over conditions. . . / 8 Con IN & CitONbtRO, INC. 1 hctrby c^ify lhal lh« survey was prepared b>’ me or under my dirixt super ­ vision. and lhal I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor upder the bws ol the Slate of Minm-sota. I ,n .» .» -I < • '*•* Mark S Cronberg MinrwsoU License Number 12755 DATE JHI-97 Air< y-li'ii______ •»CAl E I " X 20' AW NO 97-066 6 •■■>•1 ““"V uanfUM^ m^mr m ^ i ft • li 11 ADVmOH PLAN 5C.AL2 • !/©• • r^* r m»cKrow<fcm NORTH ELEVATION SCALE. !/»• • l-O* TO HATCM gjUftnNft iSEST ELEVATION SCALE. I/S' • r-C" imiiiii1111 T' SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Frank St. 6aw HARDCOVER CALCULATli^VVOl^KbiiEjb i 75-250 ’25-500'500-1000 cer >0 CoftFs AV jo Lenfdi 6^ L.r.X X X Width 1886 B. Garage C. Driveway * • • D. Sidewalk » E. Paiio/Dcck • F. Land^cppe Underl^n By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X X X X X X X 4V l4so S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. { m S.F. S.F. Bao< 2.2.^ S.F. n?g»n IC> O S.F. 1*2.;.S.F. •S.F. S.F. S.F.m (tS.F. V G. OOier TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B fBjjOO S8Z7 X 100 Soo 20,9/ S.F. e.: S.F. S.F. % A B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House jpo/nC/^ x • Length ■f 786 Width S.F. X ss S.F. • • X S.F. • ■ *-x • • S.F.• B. Garage • • X SK*S.F. C. Driveway Pi/’f iT/fKVdTf ■ —3 SS S.F. « •>4*U/B A CO S.F. D. Sidewalk A c\/f X • 8?S.F. 0 X B S.F.• E. PetWDeck X •/2 vy S.F. A f- e/u' 6 X B * i 1^ i S.F. • • F. Landscape U/cov X -33 S.F.Underlain X ‘o 0 S.F.By Plastic •X B S.F.Or Fabric •ti •• G. Other X •S.F. I I TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • ’ A . </7 V9 + B /JP i ‘OO X 100 - 927 2.S. ys S.F. S.F. % A B • *«• • to to • .• ••.. . COUNCIL MEERNQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION APR 2 8 199T DATE; April ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Administrator's Report Item Description: HlllQ Georgine Hackney, 2184 Shadywood Road Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LRl-C One Family Lakeshore Residential (1/2 acre) Sewered Lot Area:16,012 sq. ft. (.367 acre) Application:Applicant is seeking a side yard variance and hardcover variance to allow for an addition to an existing residence. Planning Commission Recommendation:To unanimously approve: 1.A side yard variance on the north property line to encroach 3.4' into a required 10' side yard. 2.A hardcover variance in the 75'-250' setback area to increase hardcover from 2,419 sq.ft. (25.06%) to 2,450 sq. ft. (25.38%) where 2,413 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the enclosed resolution. ---1 ,, rik • , ^ V i' V I ‘ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE NO. 2230 WHEREAS, Georgine Hackney(hereinafler "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2184 Shady wood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 16, Block 1, Wiley's Park Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 and Section 10,22, Subdivision 2 to permit an addition to the north side of an existing residence which would encroach 3.4' into the required 10' side yard setback and hardcover in the 75-250' setback area to increase from 2,419 sq. ft. (25.06%) to 2,450 sq. ft. (25.38%) where 2,413 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2230. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where one-half acre minimum lot size is required. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 1997 and recommended unanimous approval of the proposed variance based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. The existing residence currently encroaches into the north side lot line. Page 1 of 4 i B. C. The proposed addition will bring the internal staircase into compliance with the Building Code. The City has received no comments from the property owners notified of the proposed improvements. 4. llie City Council finds that the conditions existing on this propierty are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the efl'cct of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a side yard setback variance per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit an addition to the kitchen along the north property line, subject to the following conditions: 1.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (April 28, 1998). Page 2 of 4 W- . V I ■ L- ' 2.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. 3.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of April, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 4 ■\ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed I the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 13 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator r(liLiz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator April 17,1997 SUBJECT: #2230 Georgine Hackney, 2184 Shadywood Road--Variance-Public Hearing ZONING DISTRICT: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1/2 acre. Sewered Application: The applicant seeks a side yard setback and hardcover variance to allow an addition to the kitchen. Pertinent Ordinances: 1 . Section 10.25, LR-JC One Family Lakeshore Residential District Subd. 6, Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements LR-IC DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT AREA AND YARDS Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Side Yard Street Side 16,012 sq. ft. .367 acre 50 ft. at lake front 57 ft. at street 53 ft. at 75' setback Approximately 98 ft. 13 ft. at south 6.6 ft. proposed at north 37.8 ft. to garage The subject property does not conform to llie minimum lot size requirements for the LR-IC zoning district. The property also docs not conform to the side yard and lot width requirements. U2230, Georgine Hachiey 2184 Shady^vood Road 4/21/97 page-1 1 m J 2. Section 10.22, Subd.2, Lakeshore Hardcover HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from shoreline Total Area in Setback Hardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'3,860 sq. ft.None None None None 75'-250'9,652 sq. ft.2,413 sq. ft. (25%) 2,419 sq. ft. (25.06%) 2,450 sq. ft. (25.38%) 37 sq ft. (.38%) 250'-500' 2,500 sq. ft.750 sq. ft. (30%) 1,363 sq. ft. (54.5%) 1,363 sq. ft. (54.5%) No Change The subject property currently exceeds the hardcover requirements in the 75-250' setback by 6 sq. ft. The addition would increase the hardcover by 31 sq. ft. which requires a variance of .38%. List of Exhibits Application Plat Map Property Owner's List Hardcover Calculations Existing Survey Hardship Statement Acknowledgement Form Applicant's Letter Request for Early Consideration Elevations Description of Request A B C D E F G H The applicant is seeking hardcover and side yard setback variances to improve the width of a staircase and traffic flow in the kitchen. H2230, Georgine Hackney 2184 ShadyH ood Road 4/21/97 page-2 Issues 1.The subject property does not conform to the minimum lot size requirements for the LR-IC zoning district. 2.The subject property does not conform to lot width and side yard requirements along the north property line. 3.The proposed addition is to make an internal staircase more conforming to building code and improve traffic patterns in the kitchen. Staff Recommendation To adopt as submitted, #2230, Georgine Hackney 2184 Shadywood Road 4/21/97 page-3 ♦ »• • • Application U o Date Received 3 7 Amount Paid (V CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ...• "I' PROPERTY INFORMATIOjN SiteAddress 'JSv V o--. ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) \^ - WH - 1 •''^>74'' crco Attach legal description to application if not included jon required survey. Date Property Acquire d c- ‘ ' ^________________^(month/year) I (do^t^o'no^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: y/residential ZoninePistrici: \—\ ^ other (specifyX APPLICANT Namec -r;r V '«•W--. ‘I y • I Phone (home) A-^\- Phone (work)----------------- Address: y City: \-v Zip: -• . OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:,Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Constmetion Cost $ coo • <r . ______________________ (attach additional streets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X 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 preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_____________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 03/31/97 Pay 220.00 REQUIRED SUBMITI’ALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline datp in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. \/^ Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Sur\’ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/j" 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 S'A" 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 tfUc and correct To the best of his.'her knowledge. Applicant’s Signatug ^.^^ Date ^ ~ 7^^ ^ ^7^ OWNER'S SIGNATURE y The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entr>' onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for p^uiposes of investigation and verification of this request. - Owner's Signature ^ V v\X-VSv^Date ^ - 3-? - 97 Applicant must have all '^ubmitt^ 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 change prior to the meeting. 8 aTT~ M.iZi l45'.7 •■.irri. / jix -V^/7- /;7'23- -C-/V 'j(-; (42) / \ 3CT"W X' / r,- N 4 N'^ X > X/ ” 'X, A' / A \i f^vnss A<']A' /A \-)\/ . /L* //Ca ^^'rSTAL gALCrOH ■ ^ ^ ' ir)«/47 (43) »7j Ke9M5*3o*e i«)N FW vacation Olivi *vi cfcamcw of f»i r ^ vise FG :SA AND •,At nil. (34) I (33) i (14} jep..J^-7^5 0m:.?v'v '•I ! occ MO 477245a ....................................... .'^)A';r)/ i'’(l35) % » ^/ '■'“ ' 7'/^ • t?3.7 / pV9 M r(vAC e -• \k fSJt7 Ise -9- V> 29».M ?1 ^ 8 (2*51 ff WI.70 S?^ (24) a »i« /7-/I7-Z3-43 lLi ✓,...■----------- cfif^nivr yi Si 53^ n f *jO a|f23) 7^ S* si ^-8l ' ( 1407 :j 1*^ 3D «<»5 “5T o) rsl w, jTiTorr^^injr^ yif.47 * Ui ?.n «^t35!!f IX)(40)(i4aj ^.J-r y I f*M 30 ' 30 ■‘’X VO 2:^ C4i; V 73 (4>) ^1 LIV INGS^0^. I- »' nrsf^i'^o' 10 > VO ^.i> i\ >md'\T fefrU '9^.1^^) (4) (Z3)^kxl < oo6.y Vi R 'Sr* ^^■^>fi9.6i ^r~ VXi^*^ ^ .. (35) nM;-! ■rjx (S3)k«) Si 1 X i;,(47?(46C I W I 50 -1 ■•*. (44) AVEfp j so • y I X J J 5/J Id !o j 5C^ 50^^ X.-. •£ 17 M’v (7C0r* 5D *P 13 , (n) I''?; '.71) (74) ,r. )\64) (53; 6 iA ? u« < - 3 l77) (78)U(79) CW) 47. «• 2^ .7 - \ \ 134 jy)\\ 'i> • TS LYRIC AVE (15) RUN DATE 03/25/97 BATCH 502 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 A2 0001 02240 SHADYHOOO RO CHRISTINE ARKO FREEMAN CHRISTINE ARKO FREEMAN 2240 s::adynood rd HAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 17-117-23 42 0002 02232 SHADYNOOD RD RICHARD LEE KOKESH RICHARD L KOKESH 2232 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 9 38 17-117-23 42 0003 02224 SHADYNOOD RD MICHAEL PIRICH TRUSTEE MICHAEL PIRICH 2224 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 42 0004 02216 SHADYNOOD RD JAMES 6 GOTHMANN ETAL JAMES 6 GOTHMANN 2216 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0007 02190 SHADYNOOD RD R F POTAS ET AL CO-TRUSTEES RONALD F POTAS 2190 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0010 02172 SHADYNOOD RD TIMOTHY T NELCH TIMOTHY T NELCH 2172 SHADYi^lOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0013 02138 SHADYNOOD RD JEROME J LAGUE A NIFE JEROME J LAGUE 2138 SHADY NOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0022 02171 SHADYNOOD RD JACQUELYN A ROBERTSON JACQUELYN A ROBERTSON 2171 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0005 02208 SHADYNOOD RO B L BENNETT A M E BENNETT BARRY L A MARY ELLEN BENNETT 2208 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0008 02184 SHADY^IOOD RO GEORGINA L HACKNEY GEORGINA L HACKNEY 2184 SHADYNOOD ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0011 02166 SHADYNOOD RO J M A L M PILCHER JAMES M A LINDA M PILCHER 2166 SHADYNOOD RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0020 02130 SHADYNOOD RD DONALD F HAGEN TRUSTEE DONALD F HAGEN 1014 EXCELSIOR AVE HOPKINS MN 55343 38 17-117-23 43 0132 02213 SHADYNOOD RD S A E A A J C BREMER SCOTT A E/ANN JEAN C BREMER 2213 SHADYFK)00 RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0006 02200 SHADYNOOD RD V N YOUNG ETAL VINCENT N YOUNG 2200 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0009 02178 SHADYNOOD RD CAS Af^OERSON CURTIS ANDERSON 2176 SHADYNOOD ROAD NAYZATA m 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0012 02142 SHADYNOOD RD P C A M A MERLO PAUL C A MARCIA A MERLO 2142 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0021 03601 TOGO RD THOMAS L SNYDER THOMAS L SNYDER 3601 TOGO RD ORONO m 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0133 02205 SHADYNOOD RD G D ERICKSON A J M ERICKSON GREGORY DEAN ERICKSON 2205 SHADYNOOD RO NAYZATA MN 55391 V !' '".y '• \ ’•'a , V, ^*1 »•« RUN DATE 03/25/97 BATCH 502 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 30 17-117-23 AS 0134 02199 SHADYNOOD RO COLLIN F REESE ETAL COLLIN F REESE 2199 SHADYNOOD ROAD HAYZATA MN S5391 38 17-117-25 43 0137 02189 SHADYNOOD RD D S FRIEDRICH/M R FRIEDRICH DERRICK A MICHELLE FRIEDRICH 2189 SHADYNOOD RD ORONO MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 502 00024 REPORT NO. PX4Z5401 PAGE 10 38 17-117-23 43 0135 02195 SHADYNOOD RD JOHN H ANDERSON JOHN H ANDERSON 2195 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0134 02177 SHADYNOOD RO HARK A SHEPHARD HARK A SHEPHARD 2177 SHADYNOOD RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0143 02227 SHADYNOOD RO GEORGIA J SPAULDING GEORGIA J SPAULDING 2227 SHADYNOOD RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0144 02229 SHADYNOOD RO T H A S M PIEPER SUSAN A TOOO PIEPER 2229 SHADYNOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55391 I CERHFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEOGE AND BELIEF. , . z' DATE c r ‘ ^ > • \ . HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)/ 0-75*75-250'250-500' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Ixngth Width -e X X X B. Garage Ol C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X z> m as F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B _ _ X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width r X X X B. Garage o C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X y E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ + B _ _ X 100 500-1000' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • * A B S.F. A S.F. B 4 •‘V.... . 'I •. .-'tJ J.. t *r\ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARnroVER IN ZONE A. House 4c. 2 Length X X X Width s (/ B. Garage/^ C. Driveway /■/. 32.2, X X *“ • * D, Sid(w|]^^^ • 5^ ^ E. Patio/Deck 2^. X X 2>S' X X /i F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B ^^S'L PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE 0 A. House . V f t'l y Length n5- f •/> 9^ skr X X X Width s % B. Garage A C. Driveway 32> 3 B2.'6 X X — — ~ - D. Sidewalk X X % % E. Patio/Deck 2^> 7'X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic /C/dA/^ G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ____ + B X 100 X 100 9-0 /4-9^ 35*0 '2AJA? T-S. o /^3'y 90 /"A Uc^ ZSO 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.,.. -= ' ••I. f. S.F. '• S.F. A S.F.: B % - K S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • •I . I S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.I S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. <^4.. <2, S.F. B SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 75-250* EXISTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House __________ Length Width X X X ^ B. Garage CL 3- 8/'2^ C. Driveway 37- ^ 3a.3 X X 3a.3 D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - R PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________ X Length Width X X X D. Garage ^ C. Driveway 7i7f & 37. 3 X X ^.3 D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -*• B 500-1000’ X 100 X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. =S.F. IA‘-^S.F. /'X7/S.F. 8 S.F.• S.F. 8 S.F. S.F. 8 S.F. S.F. 8 S.F. 8 S.F. S.F. S.F.A .S.F.B rs % i S.F. .r- • -■ v> ; =S.F.* » * =S.F.■■• / =S.F.• • .* s S.F. • « * aw 1 -S.F. t 8 S.F... .. S.F. * .* *'• • •? 0 8 _ S.F. 8 S.F. 8 S.F. S.F. 8 S.F. 8 S.F. S.F. S.F.A •S.F.B 8 54-% 1 VYILLT' b LA^L MINNLI UIN^A HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF .PREMISES : Lot 16, Block 1, Wiley's Pork Lake Minnetonka o : denotes iron marker-• ® : denotes Judicial Landmark Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. NOTE : All information shown on this survey, with the exception of the location of the. garage, deck, proposed addition, and 929.4 contour line, is taken from a survey by others. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house, garage, and deck, and the proposed location of a proposed addition thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements or encroachments. 1 '' irr 0-7S 7T~ZJtf z iTO ‘S00 r = 0/2 t r4.rr. 39<o •• 2SOO // •• March 31,1997 o o o aS 1 n»r Hardship/Description of Unusual Properly Conditions Currently our stairs at 27 inches wide (from finished wall to finished wall) are 9 inches narrower than current building codes. This situation presents a serious safety problem when a minimum of a 3 inch railing is added. Our kitchen is a galley style kitchen which serves as an entrance hall (31 inches wide) between the front door and the living room. We would like to increase the size of this narrow corridor. It presents constant problems while cooking and can be dangerous with too many people in the kitchen. We have investigated the possibility of expanding the stairs and the kitchen by moving the wail that bounds them, but have found it to be a load-bearing wall. The only other option is to expand by 2 1/2 feet on the north side of the house. f .V G- -^r>- 1. * ;• «. Adjacent Propert}' Owners* Ackn'owledgement Form I (we) [print name(s)] *s of SKg^Jpy^ooocO ^ [print address] M^ S 5^ J have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the propert>* located at \u.sVtA also referred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Date ■J)J}j/j=/17 Property Owner Date ♦ ♦4c%i|n|t^^«^^4« + * + 4««%**^*4««>l«*>l ‘>!*>««A****i5f******ff************ww***iV#f****Tfr* ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ I (we) [print name(s)][print address have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No. ■ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any infonnation that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. M 1 March 28.1997 City of Orono Planning Commission City Council '-t . f. To Whom it May Concern: We are formally requesting a variance to add 2.5 feet cantilevered our from our existing kitchen. This will allow us to; 1 . Widen our narrow stairs from 27 inches to a new width of 33 inches. 2. Widen our kitchen passthrough 2 feet, from 31 inches to 55 inches. The proposed addition does not extend beyond the existing roof line which extends 3.1 feet from the house. We appreciate your review of this matter. r'- 1- March 28,1997 City of Orono Planning Commission City Council To Whom It May Concern: I am requesting that our variance proposal be reviewed at the next City Council meeting on April 28,1997. Sincerely, \\cjLC Gena Hackney .<3A-N .'V •'X ■ - .* ... «*7V*: • • I S<-ALB -k'^ I' Sujiru- t % ■ •* V- \ . • i t? i: r * /• 3-/- ^'7 K 2-i" P RofoS'E P (f ^ U4-i-KI^BY REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 5^-----------------------------------—hDepartment: Ai^' Name: Michael P. Gaffron r l» Title: Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator COUNCIL MEERNQ APR 2 8 1997 CITYOFORONO Date: April 25,,1997 Item No.: Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Admin. Item Description: Spring Hill Golf Club - Decision Regarding Need for EIS The Spring Hill Golf Club EAW process has reached a critical decision point. The EAW has been distributed for comment. Comments have been received. Applicants' consultant has drafted proposed responses to the comments. Council must now do the following: 1. Formally approve responses to the comments and forward them to each commenter. 2. Make a formal decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). List of Exhibits A - Letter from Greg Downing (EQB), 4-7-97 B - Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 C - Summary of Comments Received with Draft Responses to Comments Decision Options Council must take formal action on the need for an EIS no later than May 9. If Council determines it has all the necessary information to make a positive(EIS required) or negative(EIS not required) declaration. Council must make such a declaration. However, if Council determines that information critical to a reasoned decision about the potential for (or significance oO one or more possible environmental impacts is lacking but could be reasonably obtained. Council must take one of two actions before May 9: 1. Postpone the decision on the need for an EIS for up to 30 days so that such information can be obtained; or 2.Make a positive declaration requiring that an EIS be prepared, and obtain the lacking information as part of the EIS process. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 April 25. 1997 Spring Hill Golf Club - Decision Regarding Need for EIS Basis For Decision The decision on the need for an EIS must be made in accordance with the standards and procedures of Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 (Exhibit B attached). An EIS must be ordered if Council finds that the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. In making this decision Council must compare the impacts that may be reaSPnably gxpgg.tsd to occur with the following criteria: A. The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. The extent to which the environmental effects can be mitigated by ongoing public regulatory' authorities; and D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of EIS's previously prepared on similar projects. Process Update The consultant who completed the EAW document has reviewed the comments received from the reviewing agencies and other commenters. and has prepared a draft of responses to the comments. These responses have been provided to the Council and to the City's engineering and environmental consultants for review and comment including any suggested revisions. The City's enviro^ental consultant will complete his review and provide comments and any suggested revisions by Wednesday, April 30. Both the engineering consultant and the environmental consultant have indicated the EAW document and the responses to the comments provide information at the level of detail generally required of an EAW. The one area which may require additional clarification in the responses is the Big Woods issue. The applicant and his consultant have met with the DNR to discuss the comments of the DNR and the responses to those comments. The applicant is revising the responses related to the DNR's Big Woods comments to provide additional clarification of the impacts. The City s environmental consultant is also focusing on the Big Woods comments and responses. The Council's record-of-decision regarding the EAW involves either a positive or negative declaration. It is important that this record-of-decision include substantial discussion regarding the basis of th" decision, including a set of findings reflecting the basis of the decision. If the declaration is a positive one, the findings will be used to focus the scope of the EIS. If the declaration is a negative one, the findings will be used to document and substantiate the decision. /‘-I Request for Council Action continued Page 3 April 25,1997 Spring Hill Golf Club - Decision Regarding Need for EIS Just as the decision regarding the need for an EIS must be made by May 9, the record-of-decision also needs to be complete by May 9. The Council may want to schedule a work session/special Council meeting the week of May 5 at which the Council could review and adopt a record-of-decision document including findings and either a positive or negative declaration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to schedule a work session/special Council meeting regarding the EAW, and to provide any additional input or direction to staff regarding the EAW comments and responses. i /. f/\ April 7,1997 Mr. Mike Gaflron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator CityofOrono POBbx66 Crystal Bay MN 55323 m' 0 C\TV OF OROMO RE: Close of EAW Review Period for Spring Hill Golf Club . Dear Mr. Gaffron: This letter is to remind you that the 30-day review and comment period for this EAW will end on April 9, 1997. A decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. (EIS) must now be made in accordance with the standards and procedures of part 4410.1700. An EIS must be ordered if you find that the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. In making this decision you must comp: re the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur with the following criteria: A. The type, extent, and reversibility of effects; B. The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. The extent to which effects can be mitigated by ongoing public regulatory authorities; and ■ D. The extent to which effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other studies undertaken by public agehcies or the project proposer, or of previous EISs. In making the EIS decision the following procedural requirements must be met: 1. The timeframe for the decision depends upon whether the decision will be made by a single individual or by a council, board, or other body that meets only periodically. If by an individual, the decision is to be made within 15 working days of the expiration of the comment-period. If by a body that meets only periodically, the decision is to.be made at th^first meeting held between three and 30 days after the close of the comment period. Di^e timeframes may be extended for the reason cited in item 3 below. 2. You must maintain a written record of some sort, including specific findings of fact, which supports your decision. The record must include specific responses to all . substantive, timely comments received on the EAW.- 3. If you determine that you lack information which is critical to a reasoned decision about the potential for or the significance of any possible environmental effects, yoii must proceed in one of two ways. Either way requires a different notification process as outlined in points 4 and 5. • 1 i ■ i • 'I . I 1 ir f u t&g imilOIIHIHMl lllilll ItllD, IS8 CIOII sm[l. SI. PIDI, li» iSISS EI2 2SB-2803 111 112 2H-1HI SIIH Piinill II |]]HI L a. You must postpone the decision on the need for an EIS for up to 30 days so that you can obtain the information you need; or, b. You may proceed to prepare an EIS and obtain the information as part of the EIS process. 4. Notification process if your decision is postponed: You must provide a written notice within five working days to the proposer, the EQB staff, and anyone who submitted substantive comments on the EAW. This notice must identify what further information you need to make your decision. 5. Notification process if your decision is to prepare an EIS: a. Timing and audiences: A notice of your decision to prepare an EIS is to be sent within five working days to the project proposer, EQB staff, all persons on the EAW • distribution list, all persons who commented, and anyone else who requests notification. In addition to the notice, all persons who submitted timely, substantive comments must receive a copy of your response to their comments. The EQB will publish the notice of your decision in the EQB Monitor. b. Content: your notice must include your decision to prepare an EIS, your proposed scope of the EIS and the date, time and place of the scoping meeting. Please call me to coordinate the date of the scoping meeting with the publication date of the EQB Monitor: The scoping meeting must occur between 10 working days and 20 calendar days after publication of the notice in the EQB Monitor. You must also submit a press release with the scoping meeting notice to a local newspaper. Please contact me if you have any questions about the EIS need decision process. Sincerely, / Gregg Downing Environmental Review Coordinator (612) 296-8253 Toll-free: 1-800-657-3794 1 • i i• I Impacts that^^miiy^waErant further investigation before the project is commen^d^Kand the need Cor an EIS on the "proposed project. The RGU may hold one o^more public meetings to gather comments on the EAW if it determines that a meeting is necessary or useful. Reasonable public notice-of the meetings shall be given prior to the meetings. All meetings..shall be open to the public. SA: HS^s^l6D.04 subd 5a 4410.1700 DECISION ON NEED FOR BIS. Subpart 1. Standard Cor decision on need for EIS. An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. Subp. 2. Decision-making proceu^. The decision on the need Cor an EIS shall be made in compliance with one of the following time schedules: A. if the decision is to be made by a board» council# or other body which meets only on a periodic basis# the decision shall be made between three and 30 days after the close of the review period; or B. for all other RGU's the decision shall be made no later than 15 days after the close of the 30-day review period. This 15-day period shall be extended by the EQB chair by no more than 15 additional days upon request of the RGU. Subp. 2a. Insufficient information. If the RGU determines that inforMtion necessary to a reasoned decision about the potential for# or significance of# one or more possible environmental impacts is lacking# but could be reasonably obtained# the RGU shall either: A. BUike a positive declaration and Include within the scope of the EIS appropriate studies to obtain the lacking information; or B. postpone the decision on the need for an EIS# for not more than 30 days# In order to obtain the lacking information. If the RGU postpones the decision# it shall provide written notice of its action# Including a brief description of the lacking Information# within five days to the project proposer# the EQB staff# and any person who submitted substantive comments on the EAW. Subp. 3. Form and basis for decision. The RGU's decision shall be either a negative declaration or a positive declaration. If a positive declaration# the decision shall include the RGU's proposed scope for the EIS. The RGU shall base its decision regarding the need for an EIS and the proposed scope on the information gathered during the EAW process and the comments received on the EAW. Subp. 4. Record of findings supporting decision. The RGU shall maintain a record# including specific findings of fact# supporting its decision. The record must include specific responses to all substantive and timely comments on the EAW. This record shall either be a separately prepared document or contained within the records of the governmental unit. Subp. 5. Distribution of decision. The RGU's decision shall be provided# within five days# to all persons on the EAW distribution list pursuant to part 4410.1500# to all persons that commented in writing during the 30-day review period# and to any person upon written request. All persons who submitted timely and substantive comments on the EAW shall be sent a copy of the RGU's response to those comments prepared under subpart 4. Upon notification# the EQB staff shall publish the RGU's decision In the EQB Monitor. If the decision is a positive declaration# the RGU shall also Indicate In the decision the date# time# and place of the scoping review meeting. Subp. 6. Standard. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects the RGU shall compare the Impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria In this part. Subp. 7. Criteria. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects# the following factors shall be considered: A. type# extent# and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer# or of EIS's previously prepared on similar projects. Subp. 8. (Repealed, 13 SR 1437] Subp. 9. Connected actions and phased actions. Connected actions and phased actions shall be considered a single project for purposes of the determination of need for an EIS. SA: MS s 116D.04; USD.045 HIST: 13 SR 1437 .- - - -X.aiviRoiX PPAL II9ACT STATOmiT 4410.2000 PROJECTS REQUIRING AN BIS. Subpart 1. Purpose of BIS. The purpose of an EIS Is to provide Information for governmental units# the proposer of the project# and other persons to ev^uate proposed projects which have the potential for significant"environmental effects# to consider alternatives to the'^roposed^projects# and to explore methods for reducing adverse environmental'•effects. Subp. 2. Mandatory BIS categories. An EIS.shall be prepared for any project that meets or exceeds the* thresholds of DNR RESPONSE Big Woods Impacts Item 11a 1. Comment: “The EAW should note that the site’s biological diversity will decline post­ project to eventually exhibit a habitat profile common to more intensively developed areas, thus favoring species more tolerant of human intrusion and activity than those species found at the site now.” (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 3) “The discussion... in general implies that fragmentation of the forested areas, and the resulting creation of more open areas and forest fringe, will have a positive effect on wildlife. On the contrary, the proposed course layout will have the effect of changing the “forest” habitat... The edge zone will be drier and less shady than the current forest interior, favoring shade-intolerant xeric (dry-loving) plants over the typical mesic (moist- loving) forest plants. It is likely that some trees that remain will be subject to blowdown.” (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 3) “The EAW should indicate that fragmentation and creation of the golf course will benefit species such as deer and geese, species that are (already) considered a nuisance in the area. Deer now present...will cause damage and increase the probability of deer-vehicle collisions. It is also likely that creation of a golf course will attract more Canada geese to the area.” (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 3) Response: The EAW does address that habitat will change due to the fragmenting of the Woods, which will create more open areas and forest fringe. Some forest song birds w'ill be affected due to nredation and competition. In general, the fragmenting of the forest will create greater “biodiversity” as a greater number of specie', ari found in forest fringe areas, as opposed to dense forested areas. That is not to say that the greater biodiversity is an improvement over the specialist species which occur in a Big Wood type ecosystem. There are few species which exist solely in Big Woods habitat. Mature deciduous trees are a common habitat requirement, and there will be many mature deciduous trees remaining on this site. Human intrusion and activity will only be present on the site from sunrise till sunset for 5 months out of the years. Therefore, species remaining on site w'ould need to be less tolerant of people than if it were a park. We agree with the DNR that microclimate conditions will change due to the edge effect. Some spring ephemerals may be affected. However, the plant community would not evolve toward “shade intolerant” species, because they would remain in at least 50% cover. In addition, the golf club will maintain an open forest edge by removing exotics, such as common buckthorn, honeysuckle, and other underslor}' shrub species. i Because the fairways are only approximately 150 feet wide, the possibility of “biow down ” due to increased winds, is minimal. *Please see attached fact sheets on specific wildlife species identified by the DNR We concur that the golf course will attract more Canada geese to the property. The golf course will continue to provide habitat for white tailed deer. Item 11b 2. Comment; We do not believe this text (Item lib), or the figure provided, support the assertion that “impacts have been minimized.” Rather, it supports a conclusion that the project eliminates the stand ’s remaining ecological, historic, and aesthetic value as a Big Woods forest. The EAW should offer detail on whether avoidance of impacts is possible, and if not, how impacts have been minimized in terms retaining the existing forest’s value as a “community,” not a patchwork of trees. (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 2) Response: Impacts to the Big Woods have been minimized in several aspects throughout the golf course design. Eleven different routings were prepared and reviewed for the site. A comparison of densities of golf holes on the property south of Co. Rd. 6 and north of Co. Rd. 6 shows that 11.80 Acres per hole o^ land is proposed, compared to a more dense 9.07 Acres per hole in less sensitive areas. The density is significantly lower in the Big Woods. Fairway design is as narrow as possible in sensitive areas :;uch as Big Woods and wetlands. In addition, an area (0.64 acres) has been set aside as upland buffer area, for protection under the Wetland Conservation Act. In total, this area is approximately 4.6 contiguous acres of Big Woods. This poilion of the property lies adjacent to other Big Woods tracts of residential property. Another area where fairways were designed to minimize impacts, allow for a 2 acre parcel of Big Woods. Most Big Wood tracts are connected so as not to leave “islands ” of isolated areas. The historical evaluation of the site did not reveal any historic significance to this tract of Big Woods. The clearing process on this golf course will go thru many stages. The first stage will be a clearing, 30 feet cither side of the center line of the golf hole. After this initial clearing is completed, all of the clearing from that point on will be flagged. Any tree that is in question to remain or be removed will be left until the golf hole has been roughed in, at that point a decision will be made on the trees. 3.Comment: “...the EAW anticipates minimal impacts to wildlife that use the site’s wetlands (21 defined basins). This assessment ignores the amphibians that are present that depend on both the wetlands and the surrounding forest.” (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 3) Response: Wetland buffers between 16.5 and 35 ft. are being maintained except in wetland impact areas (7 basins out of 21 total). Maintaining buffers on wetland fill areas would require filling additional wetland to create the buffer. Total wetland impacts are 1.45 acres out of 23.6 total wetland acres. An additional upland buffer of 0.64 acres of Big Woods is being preserved at the southeast portion of basin 17. The buffer Eireas will maintain the riparian and upland vegetation, including the mature hardwoods. Restoration of wetlands by blocking of the drainage ditches will increase water levels by up to 1.5 feet. The drainage ditches were created in the 1930's or 1940's, and occur throughout the Big Woods and the rest of the property. In addition to partially restoring these wetlands to their pre-ditched condition, the weirs will delay nmoff which will improve water quality and provide better aquatic habitat. Restoring these water levels will enhance habitat especially for amphibians as it will create more stable water regimes necessary for more consistent reproduction. Compared to a subdivision and th** accompanying road networks, amphibian species in particular will be at much less risk of being killed during migration. 4.Comment: “...the EAW should indicate that the project results in a net loss of high quality habitat. Species that use the site now will be forced to compete on what (if any) suitable habitat that remains, or will be displaced offsite to neighboring areas. The ensuing competition with populations already in place will eventually result in an overall population decline. Therefore, project-related habitat losses result in project-related wildlife losses. (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 4) Response: The Big Woods remnant is rated as medium quality (BC) by the DNR. As stated in the EAW, 45.56 wooded acres and 24.6 wetland acres will remain on the property after construction. There is no question that much habitat for the species currently on the property will remain. Many stands of trees will remain undisturbed, and an effort has been made to maintain corridors of woods to facilitate wildlife movement. 5.Comment: “Regarding potential fishery impacts to Long Lake, Item 1 la is incomplete because it does not discuss how fish resources would be affected by the project nor is any discussion offered on how impacts can be avoided or minimized.” (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 4) Response: There are no impacts anticipated on fish resources in Long Lake. Runoff will be treated prior to leaving the site. And nutrient loading is anticipated to be less than current conditions. See Items 12 (Physical Impacts on Water Resources) and 18 (Water Quality) Item 18 6. Comment: “It is unclear from the information provided in Item 18, Surface Water Runoff, and Table 2, Long Lake Nutrient Loading Budget, whether the project will change the quality of this fishery'. Will the project diminish the habitat value of Long Lake for fish and other species? Will the project affect the quality of this fishery?’ (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 4) Response: No. See response #5. Item 12 7. Comment: “An adjustable outlet weir is shown at the wetland outlet. A protected waters permit would be required for this structure.” “...’’construction or reconstruction of water level control facilities shall not be allowed where it is intended to manipulate water levels solely to satisfy private interests.” It is unlikely that the structure as proposed can be approved. Furthermore, the plans do not state what the proposed control elevation is, nor is an explanation offered for the operational criteria.” (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 4) Response: The need for a permit has been discussed with the Area Hydrologist at the DNR late last year. The weir structure is not only intended to increase water levels for aesthetics, but also to restore the wetland to pre-dilched conditions, and to detain the water for longer treatment. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed is using similar methods of water treatment for contributing watersheds into Long Lake. Proposed control elevation is approximately 1.5 feet. The DNR Protected Waters permit is listed in Item 8 in the EAW. It is to be requested. 8.Comment: “An official ordinary high water (OHW) ebv i» on has irjt been determined for the basin. A permit may be required for this cros*:*n . ; D'*:H letter 4/9/97, page 4) Response:. The boardwalk crossing will be installed outside of the OHW. This also had been discussed with the Area Hydrologist. The OHW was to be determined by the DNR after snow melted this spring, and the board w-alk will be placed outside the OHW. 9.Comment: “An area adjacent to #/27-837W is delineated as being 0.57 acres of mitigation (Mitigation Area A). In general. Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) sites are not allow ’ed to be directly connected to state protected wetlands. DNR approval would be required.” (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 4) Response: The DNR Protected Waters permit is listed in Item 8 of the EAW. It is to be requested. Design of the mitigation area is flexible as this area will be excavated. For w ildlife purposes, it is believed that being connected to each other is better. However, if the DNR feels that this is inappropriate in this instance, then the mitigation area will be separated by a narrow strip of upland. This will likely cause higher predation to susceptible speues. 10. Comment: “The entire perimeter of this basin [DNR Protected Water 27-837W] is to be graded. No explanation is offered regarding what specific erosion control practices will be used during construction other than standard usage of silt fencing.... No detail is provided on how disturbed areas will be revegetated.” (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 4) I Response: A 26 fool upland buffer zone will be maintained around the DNR protected water (designated as wetland 15 in the EAW). Silt fencing will be maintain around all wetland areas, and a quick turn around time between grading and turf establishment is also proposed. Best Management practices to avoid and minimize erosion during consUiiction are included in the design. A seeding plan was distributed to the City of Orono. 11. Comment: “Detail is lacking on how the project will change the contributing watershed areas for #27-837W. Drastically changing the flows through the basin could lead to shoreline erosion and sedimentation, thus leading to basin degradation.” (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 4) Response: Details on any change in the watershed are in the grading plan. No significant changes to the contributing watershed are proposed. Buffer areas are maintained to protect against shoreline erosion and sedimentation. Item 18 12. Comment: “It is unclear from the discussion in Item 18, Storm Water Runoff, whether runoff will be pretreated prior to discharge to wetlands. In general we recommend pretreatment of all runoff prior to discharge to basins. In this instance, we would view favorably the restoration of pre-existing conditions, but new weir structures at the wetland outlets would impound runoff up to a two-foot depth. (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 5) Response: Runoff from the fairways will first come into contact with buffer zones, in the case of DNR #27-837W, a 26 foot buffer zone. Weirs will retain water longer before discharging into the existing drainage system. The water will then enter a series of wetlands and eventually the NURP basins before leaving the site. A total of 208 acres of off-site runoff will also he treated in the proposed design. Item 13 13. Comment: “...indicates an existing well will be used to pump water into an irrigation pond. Is this an existing pond? No description of the irrigation system is offered in the EAW. The required DNR Water Appropriation Permit process will require a full description of this system.” (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 5) Response: The DNR Water Appropriations permit is listed in Item 8. It is to be requested and will detail the proposed irrigation system. The need for a permit was discussed with the Area Hydrologist at the DNR late last year. An appropriation pemiit has been issued for the current use of the well. Because of the change of use to include irrigation purposes, a new appropriation permit will be needed. Item 17 14. Comment: “Erosion and Sedimentation should offer greater detail on measures proposed to manage the grading/excavation of approximately 80 acres of land by moving almost 340,000 cubic yards of soil material. No grading plan is provided.” Response: Best Management practices to avoid and minimize erosion during construction are included in the design. A seeding plan was distributed to the Cities. A complete set of site construction plans was distributed to the Cities of Orono and Medina, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The City of Orono supplied a complete set of plans to the DNR at their request. No soil will be moved off site. In addition, earthwork is balanced on each side of Co. Rd. 6, so no soil moving vehicles will have to cross the road. Item 32, Summary of Issues Comment: “...the analysis and consideration of impacts, including examination of the “alternative measures to mitigate the project ’s impact on the Big Woods remnant” should not be deferred to later permitting for a resource of this significance. The possibility of impact avoidance or minimization should be fully evaluated as part of the environmental review process. The EAW does not include this information.” (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 2) Response: Impacts are being reviewed concurrently for the Conditional Use Permit as well as the EAW. It is important to note that the golf course is a permitted use of the Conditional Use Permit. Impacts to the Big Woods have been minimized in several aspects throughout the golf course design. Eleven different routings were prepared and reviewed for the site. A comparison of densities of golf holes on the property south of Co. Rd. 6 and north of Co. Rd. 6 shows that 1 1.80 Acres per hole of land is proposed, compared to a more dense 9.07 Acres per hole in less sensitive areas. The density is significantly lower in the Big Woods. Fairway design is as narrow as possible in sensitive areas such as Big Woods and wetlands. In addition, an area (0.64 acres) has been set aside as upland buffer area, for protection under the Wetland Conservation Act. This upland area is adjacent to residential off-site Big Woods tracts. This area, on the golf course property is in total, approximately 4.6 contiguous acres of Big Woods. Another area where fairways were designed to minimize impacts, allows for a 2 acre parcel of Big Woods. Most Big Wood tracts are connected so as not to leave “islands” of isolated areas. Non-impacted wooded areas adjacent to Big Woods will also lessen the island effect. The clearing process on this golf course will go thru many stages. The first stage will be a clearing, 30 feet either side of the center line of the golf hole. After this initial clearing is completed, all of the clearing from that point on will be flagged. Any tree that is in question to remain or be removed will be left until the golf hole has been roughed in, at that point a decision will be made on the trees. Concluding Remarks Comment: “The EAW does not sutTiciently evaluate or portray project-related effects to a natural resource.*;, particularly as they relate to Medina 26 and existing habitat. The project as proposed will eliminate the Big Woods stand's forest community function and replace it with a series of woodland strips. No information has been presented on how the project avoids or minimizes impacts to Medina 26 in terms of its current value as a high quality natural resource of ecological significance. In addition, post-project tree mortality could be liigh, the fishery of Long Lake could be detrimentally affected, and no information has been provided on whether impacts to state protected water 27-837 have been avoided. Without such information, it is our opinion that insufficient information is available for informed decision-making on the need for an EIS and we would recommend preparation of an EIS to collect the missing infomiation.” (DNR letter 4/9/97, page 5) Response: All comments have been responded to and adequately investigated. The golf course is a permitted use with the CUP. No impacts are proposed to Long Lake or to the DNR protected water #27-837, except for partial restoration to its pre-ditched condition, which the DNR generally encourages. The weir will be placed outside the OHW. Impacts to the Big Woods have been minimized through the golf course design process, and much mature hardwood, wetland and some Big Woods habitat will remain. "... When the tree canopy is fragmented by driveways, houses, and trails, the cool and moist conditions characteristic of the shady interior of the forest are altered. More sunlight reaches the forest floor and the shade-tolerant species typical of the forest are replaced by species more typical of open habitats and forest edges. There is no immediately life-threatening reason to worry about the lo.^s of more maple- basswoodforests from Hennepin county. If the remaining maple-basswood forests in the county were bulldozed away tomorrow and replaced by subdivisions or malls, few people would perceive the dijference. But the county would be more biologically impoverished, we would have lost some of our natural heritage, and we would have destroyed sites that provide unique aesthetic and educational opportunities. ” 1995 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources There are no legal protections for Big Wood eco-types, as there are for wetlands. An effort has been made to provide legal protection for a small area under the Wetland Conserv'ation Act (WCA), as upland buffer. However, in order to abide by the WCA and avoid wetland impacts, larger areas of the woods are impacted. Finally, in reviewing the impact of the golf course, consideration should be given to the creation of a green belt of approximately 200 acres, located between the two Scientific and Natural areas using property zoned for residential development. Response to Hennepin County Comment 1; ...The improvements on County Road 6 must be designed to meet State Aid standards and plans must be reviewed and approved by the County. Response: No turn lanes are proposed at this time. If the City determines that traffic safety improvements related to this project are needed in the future, they will be designed to State Aid standards. Comment 2: ...The design of the culvert must be performed by a registered Professional Engineer and must conform to State Aid standards. The plans must be reviewed by the appropriate county officials. Response: The County was contacted by Schoell & Madson, Inc. engineering staff to discuss culvert design in January 1997. Preliminary plans, designed by a registered Professional Engineer, were then forwarded to County staff for review and comment. Final plans will be prepared based on County staff comments and designed by a registered Professional Engineer Comment 3: Well # 161437/27 is not 178 feet as stated but 429 feet from the Minnesota [Geological Survey’s( MGS) ] County Well Index, CWI. Response: Additional information included in the original drillers log and stated on the CWI index as the final well depth, indicate that the well was drilled to a depth of429 feet. However, it was then grouted between 429 and 178, and a 8" stainless steel screen was installed in the sand and gravel unit. This information was apparently left out of the CWI. A copy of the original driller’s log is enclosed. Comment 4: Also the County encourages the city to reduce to the extent possible the developments impact on the “Big Woods” Response: Efforts have been made to minimize impacts to the “Big Woods’ 1 Metropolitan Council Item 11. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources Comment: “Further study should be done \vith regard to the impact the golf course will have on the Big Woods forest tract located on the site. Council staff is specifically concerned about the proposed location of golf course holes 8-13 within one of the three tracts of Big Woods trees located in the northwest comer of the proposed site. ...The extent of the impact this alteration would have on specific plants, trees and wildlife was not thoroughly discussed in the EAW. The developer should design the golf course in such a manner that the impact to the Big Woods tract located within the site plan is minimized, and natural characteristics are maintained.” (Metropolitan Council letter, March 4,1997, page 1 and 2) Response: The EAW does address that habitat will change due to the fragmenting of the Woods, which will create more open areas and forest fringe. Some forest song birds will be affected due to predation and competition. In general, the fragmenting of the forest will create greater “biodiversity” as a greater number of species are found in forest fringe areas, as opposed to dense forested areas. That is not to say that the greater biodiversity is an improvement over the specialist species which occur in a Big Wood type ecosystem. There are few species which exist solely in Big Woods habitat. Mature deciduous trees are a common habitat requirement, and there will be many mature deciduous trees remaining on this site. Human intrusion and activity will only be present on the site from sunrise till sunset for 5 months out of the years. Therefore, species remaining on site would need to be less tolerant of people than if it were a park. Microclimate conditions will change due to the edge effect. Some spring ephemerals may be affected. However, the plant community would remain in at least 50% shade cover. In addition, the golf club will maintain an open forest edge by removing exotics, such as common buckthorn, honeysuckle, and other understory shrub species. Becau.se the fairways are only approximately 150 feet v ide, the possibility of “blow down due to increased winds, is minimal. ♦Please see attached fact sheets on specific wildlife species identified by the DNR Impacts to the Big Woods have been minimized in several aspects throughout the golf course design. Eleven different routings were prepared and reviewed for the site. A comparison of densities of golf holes on the property south of Co. Rd. 6 and north of Co. Rd. 6 shows that 11.80 Acres per hole of land is proposed, compared to a more dense 9.07 Acres per hole in less sensitive areas. The density is significantly lower in the Big Woods. Fairway design is as narrow as possible in sensitive areas such as Big Woods and wetlands. In addition, an area (0.64 acres) has been set aside as upland buffer area, for protection under the Wetland Conservation Act. In total, this area is approximately 4.6 contiguous acres of Big Woods. This portion of the property lies adjacent to other big Woods tracts of residential property. Another area where fairways were designed to minimize impacts, allow for a 2 acre parcel of Big Woods. Most Big Wood tracts are connected so as not to leave “islands ” of isolated areas. The historical evaluation of the site did not reveal any historic significance to this tract of Big Woods. The clearing process on this golf course will go thru many stages. The first stage will be a clearing, 30 feet either side of the center line of the golf hole. After this initial clearing is completed, all of the clearing from that point on will be flagged. Any tree that is in question to remain or be removed will be left until the golf hole has been roughed in, at that point a decision will be made on the trees. Item 18. Water Quality Comment: “This section cites a study written by John Barten, Suburban Hennepin County Park District, regarding the storm water runoff from golf course sites. As the Barten study concentrated only on four metropolitan area golf courses, was conducted over a limited period (one year) of time, and the courses were self-selected, the RGU should be cautious in applying the conclusions of that study on the proposed golf course” (Metropolitan Council letter, March 4,1997, page 2) Response: The study by Tohn Barten represents the only local research available on the pollutant loadings of golf course stormwater runoff known to this author. The data from the study gives a good estimation of some actual pollutant loadings from well managed golf courses. It is this authors opinion that using data from a reputable source, even though the research period was limited is better than using the broad range data found in the other literature used to approximate nutrient budgets and loadings. The proposed stormwater management plan includes three large NURP basins which are e.xpected to reduce the off-site pollutant loading levels to below existing pollutants loading to Long Lake. Best Management practices are being used throughout the design of the project. The golf course grounds will also be managed to reduce the pollutant levels leaving the site. Item 28. Compatibility with plans Comment: “As proposed the golf course would remove a substantial part of the forest tract. This appears to be incompatible with the city of Medina ’s Comprehensive Plan, Sections 2 and 4. "Preservation of woodlands is important both aesthetically andfunctionally." Section 4.A.P3, General Development Policies, also encourages the preservation of natural resources: "Allow low-density, rural residential development if no damage would be done to natural resources and adequate permeable soils are available to meet the City’s on-site system requirements." (Metropolitan Council letter, March 4,1997, page 2 and 3) Response: The City of Medina is responsible for interpretation and implementation of its Comprehensive Plan. The excerpts cited are general in nature. The Medina City Council has granted conceptual approval for the project, and has concluded that "the Applicant’s proposed use of the property is not likely to adversely affect the development of adjacent property for uses for which it is zoned”. (City of Medina Resolution dated April 15,1997) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Response WETLAND IMPACT Comment: “It is not clear on page 6 of the EAW what wetland acreage will be filled. One section of the text states that 1.41 acres are proposed to be. filed. A 2:1 mitigation in combination with the existing 23.6 acres would yield 25.01 acres of wetland after mitigation, yet the text states 24.6 acres will be present after mitigation, “(letter April 9, 1997, page 1) Response: The golf course is proposing to fill 1.41 acres of wetland. The proposed mitigation ratio is actually 5.01:1. The break down is as follows: Upland Buffer: NURP Credits: PVC Credits: Created Wetlands: Total: 0.64 ac. 0.61 ac. 3.51 ac. 2.51 ac. 7.27 ac. Comment: “The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is the LGU for wetlands located in Orono; projects impacting these wetlands must comply withe MCWD rules and will require a permit from the MCWD. Once the design has been finalized, the MCWD will review the design and accompanying materials to determine if it meets the District’s rules before issuing a permit.” (letter April 9, 1997) Response: A complete set of grading plans, as well as the wetland permit application, has been submitted to the MCWD. STORMWATER TREATMENT Comment: “Treatment of stormwater runoff from the project will be treated by three NURP ponds to be constructed o,i site. The depth of the ponds constructed by wetland excavation will affect the amount of wetland mitigation required.” (letter April 9, 1997) Response: Wetland excavation area has been included in the mitigation. Comment: “There was some indication that one of the ponds will be used as a holding area for irrigation water and will be refilled by pumping from a nearby well. The proper functioning of the treatment pond will depend in part on the withdrawal and refill rates. When the design is finalized, the MCWD will review the project for compliance with MCWD rules and BMP before issuing a permit.” (letter April 9, 1997) Response: The irrigation system w'ill use BMP’s and will comply with MCWD rules. t Public and Private Organization Comments Comment: Janet Green of the Conservation Committee Minnesota Ornithologists ’ Union comments on the fragmentation of the Big Woods. Ms. Green “urges” that the Big Woods not be fragmented by the golf course development. And if this cannot be done, they request an EIS to adequately document the measures that are taken to minimize or avoid this significant adverse impact and what alternative measures have been considered. Response: Impacts to the Big Woods have been minimized in several aspects throughout the golf course design. Eleven different routings were prepared and reviewed for the site. A comparison of densities of golf holes on the property south of Co. Rd. 6 and north of Co. Rd. 6 shows that 11.80 Acres per hole of land is proposed, compared to a more dense 9.07 Acres per hole in less sensitive areas. The density is significantly lower in the Big Woods. Fairway design is as narrow as possible in sensitive areas such as Big Woods and wetlfinds. Average fairway width is approximately 150 feet. In addition, an area (0.64 acres) has been set aside as upland buffer area, for protection under the Wetland Conservation Act. In total, this area is approximately 4.6 contiguous acres of Big Woods. This portion of the property lies adjacent to other Big Woods tracts of residential property. Another area where fairways were designed to minimize impacts, allow for a 2 acre paicel of Big Woods. Most Big Wood tracts are coimected so as not to leave “islands ” of isolated areas. Non-impacted wooded areas adjacent to Big Woods will also lessen the island effect. The clearing process on this golf course will go thru many stages. The first stage will be a ‘ clearing, 30 feet either side of the center line of the golf hole. After this initial clearing is completed, all of the clearing from that point on will be flagged. Any tree that is in question to remain or be removed will be left until the golf hole has been roughed in, at that point a decision will be made on the trees. Comment: Mr. Bill Busse, from Greenpeace comments, “Given that there are very few examples of Big Woods remnants left in Minnesota and virtually none left in the Twin City Metropolitan Area, and Given that there are already more than 100 Public and Private golf courses in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. I believe that no action should be taken to advance this project.” (letter March 27, 1997) Response: There are no legal requirements protecting Big Woods. The DNR states in their 1995 Circular: “... When the tree canopy ic fragmented by driveways, houses, and trails, the cool and moist conditions characteristic of the shady interior of the forest are altered More sunlight reaches the forest floor and the shade-tolerant species typical of the forest are replaced by species more typical of open habitats andforest edges. There is no immediately life-threatening reason to worry about the loss of more maple- basswoodforests from Hennepin county. If the remaining maple-basswoodforests in the county were bulldozed away tomorrow and replaced by subdivisions or malls, few people would perceive the difference. But the county would be more biologically impoverished, we would have lost some of our natural heritage, and we would have destroyed sites that provide unique aesthetic and educational opportunities. ” 1995 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources The Big Woods in the City of Medina is zoned as rural residential. It is important to note that the golf course is a permitted use of the Cities of Medina and Orono Conditional Use Permits. Comment: Ms. Elizabeth Weir comments, “Reading the EAW, I am distressed by the lack of scientific information regarding the impact of the complete fragmentation proposed by the Spring Hill Golf Club (see before and after construction EAW maps in Appendi.x B) upon specialized species within Medina 26.” (letter April 9, 1997) Response: The EAW does address that habitat will change due to the fragmenting of the Woods, which will create more open areas and forest fringe. Some forest song birds will be affected due to predation and competition. In general, the fragmenting of the forest will create greater “biodiversity” as a greater number of species are found in forest fringe areas, as opposed to dense forested areas. That is not to say that the greater biodiversity is an improvement over the specialist species which occur in a Big Wood type ecosystem. There are few species which exist solely in Big Woods habitat. Mature deciduous trees are a common habitat requirement, and there will be many mature deciduous trees remaining on this site. ♦Please see attached fact sheets on specific wildlife species Human intrusion and activity will only be present on the site from sunrise till sunset for 5 months out of the years. Therefore, species remaining on site would need to be less tolerant of people than if it were a park. Microclimate conditions will change due to the edge effect. Some spring ephemerals may be affected. However, the plant community would not evolve toward “shade intolerant” species, because they would remain in at least 50% cover. In addition, the golf club will maintain an open forest edge by removing exotics, such as common buckthorn, honeysuckle, and other understory shrub species. Because the fairways are only approximately 150 feet wide, the possibility of “blow down” due to increased winds, is minimal. \ i The DNR Biological Survey inspected this property on May 31,1995. It is important to note that no threatened, endangered or special concern species were identified as possibly existing in this Big Woods pai ,';el. Comment: Ms. Borgert of Long Lake comments on bald eagles in the area, “Desirable eagle habitat in locale? Is there a growing eagle population in vicinity to which we must be sensitive?” Response: The DNR Biological Survey inspected this property on May 31,1995. It is important to note that no threatened, endangered or special concern species were identified as existing in this Big Woods parcel. Comment: Ms. Borgert ’s second concern is regarding water contamination due to runofi: “Water contamination (wetlands, lake) from chenucal use on golf course, esp. mercury (used to prevent sno*>. mold). No way to monitor/regulate use of chems on private course.” Response: Runoff from the fairways will first come into contact with buffer zones. Weirs will retain water longer before discharging into the existing drainage system. The water will then enter a series of wetlands and eventually the NURP basins before leaving the site. A total of 208 acres of off-site runoff will also be treated in the proposed design. This design is similar to the approach the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is using to improve water quality and decrease nutrient loading in Long Lake. Mercur>' based '' mgicides are no longer produced. The production and use of mercury based fungicides ceased in the early 1990's. Comment: Mr. Richard Krueger, resident of the City of Orono comments, “I urge the cities of Orono and Medina to consider the possibility of facilitating the acquisition of the property, along with the Springhill property, as a nature preserve through a combination of public and private financing. I also suggest that you ask DNR officials to inspect “Medina 26" in May to insure that there are no endangered plants or animals living on this property ” (letter March 20, 1997) Response: City acquisition of the Spring Hill property is financially prohibitive. The applicants have indicated their costs of acquisition of the property are in excess of $5 million. No public or private entity has stepped forward offering funding for acqui.<jition of the propen^' The owner of the Big Woods parcels in Medina has indicated if the goit course project does not go forward, he expects the property will be sold for residential development or developed by himself for that purpose. He indicates he has no intent to donate the Big Woods property to the DNR nor to grant conservation easements over it. The DNR Biological Survey inspected this property on May 31,1995. It is important to note thai no threatened, endangered or special concern species were identified as possibly existing in this Big Woods parcel. No rare, threatened, endangered or special concern species are located in the Wolsfeld Woods or Wood-Rill Scientific and Natural Areas. Schoell & Madson, Inc., Environmental Specialists inspected the property in October, 1996 and identified no rare, threatened, endangered or special concern species. “... fVh /he tree canopy is fragmented by driveways, houses, and trails, the cool and moist conditions characteristic of the shady interior of the forest are altered. More sunlight reaches the forest floor and the shade-tolerant species typical of the forest are replaced by species more typical of open habitats andforest edges. There is no immediately life-threatening reason to worry about the loss of more maple- basswood forests from Hennepin county. If the remaining maple-basswood forests in the county were bulldozed away tomorrow and replaced by subdivisions or malls, few people would perceive the difference. But the county would be more biolo^Jcally impoverished, we would have lost some of our natural heritage, and we would have destn 'd sites that provide unique aesthetic and educational opportunities. ” 1995 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Re.<!Ources Comment: Mr. Richard Krueger also comments, “If the golf course is approved, the wetland on my property will be negatively impacted by the small dam placed at the southern end of Wetland 17. Asa result of this dam, the wetland on my land will be significantly drier.” (letter March 20, 1997) Response: A meeting was held with Mr. Krueger regarding the potential impacts on his wetland. An agreement between the two parties has been reached and the issue has been satisfactorily resolved. Comment: The Native American Rainbow Network comments, 'No impacts are anticipated from the proposed golf course... An added charge for a rush job has also been attached.” (letter March 27, 1997) Response: The National Heritage Program request was asked to be rushed do to the short time frame for preparation for the EA w. The request is for a data base file review, which is not compromised by a shorter turn around time. Comment: The Native American Rainbow Network comments, “In 1856 the Big Woods in Hennepin County covered 154,000 acres....Fragmentation of forests in the metropolitan area has resulted in loss of habitat for...plants and animals.” Response: The City acknowledges that 150 years of development in Hennepin County has resulted in irreversible changes to its natural environment. Comment: The comment from the Audubon Chapter of Minneapolis is: “We appear to the golf course developers to avoid this [Big Woods] forest entirely. We also urge the citizens and city councils of Orono and Medina, as well as prospective golf course members, to value tliis woods. Springhill Golf Course will undo what a it took nature hundreds, if not thousands of years to create,” Response: Imp:.cts to the Big Woods have been minimized in several aspects throughout the golf course design. Eleven different routings were prepared and reviewed for the site. A comparison of densities of srolf holes on the property south of Co. Rd. 6 and north of Co. Rd. 6 show > that 11.80 Acres per iiole of land is proposed, compared to a more dense 9.07 Acres per hole in less sensitive a-eas. The density is significantly lower in the Big Woods. Fairway design is as narrow as possible in sensitive areas such as Big W aods and wetlands, In addition, an area (0.64 acres) has been set aside as upland buffer C’-ea, for protection under the Wetland Conservation Act. In total, this area is approximately 4.6 contiguous acres of Big Woods. This portion of the property lies adjacent to other Big Woods tracts of residential property, .\nother area where fairways were designed to minimize impacts, allow for a 2 acre parcel of Big Woods. Most Big Wood tracts are connected so as not to leave “islands” of isolated areas. The historical evaluation of the site did not reveal any historic significance to this tract of Big Woods. The clearing process on this golf c> arse will go thru many stages. The first stage will be a clearing, 30 feet either side of the center line of the golf hole. After this initial clearing is completed, all of the clearitig from that point on will be flagged. Any tree that is in question to remain or be removed will be left until the golf hole has been roughed in, at that point a decision will be made on the trees. Comment: Another comment from the Audubon Society is regarding a public buyout: “The neighboring communities of Eden Prairie, Plymouth and Maple Grove, have implemented public buyouts of ecologically significant tracts such as this. Perhaps it’s not too late for Orono and Medina to consider this option.” (letter March 27, 1997) Response: City acquisition of the Spring Hill property is financially prohibitive. The applicants have indicated their costs of acquisition of the property are in excess of $5 million. No public or private entity has stepped forward offering funding for acquisition of the property. The owner of the Big Woods parcels in Medina has indicated if the golf course project does not go forward, he expects the property will be sold for residential development or developed by himself for that purpose. He indicates he has no intent to donate the T g Woods property to the DNR nor to grant conservation easements over it. Comment:. is. Lisa Ringer comments: “One issue I am personally concerned with is the potential impact to bird nesting and migration.” “I urge you to note the comments on the EAW written by Fred Harris of the DNR.” (letter April 9,1997) Response: The EAW does address that habitat will change due to the fragmenting of the Woods, which will create n.ore open areas and forest fringe. Some forest song birds will be affected due to predation and competition. Human intrusion and activity will only be present on the site from sunrise till sunset for 5 months out of the years. Therefore, species remaining on site would need to be less tolerant of people than if it were a park. Impacts to the Big Woods have been minimized in several aspects throughout the golf course design. Eleven different routings were prepared and reviewed for the site. A comparison of densities of golf holes on the property south of Co. Rd. 6 and north of Co. Rd. 6 shows that 11.80 Acres per hole of land is proposed, compared to a more dense 9.07 Acres per hole in less sensitive areas. The density is significantly lower in the Big Woods. Fairway design is as narrow as possible in sensitive areas such as Big Woods and wetlands. In addition, an area (0.64 acres) has been set aside as upland buffer area, for protection under the Wetland Conservation Act. In total, this area is approximately 4.6 contiguous acres of Big Woods. This portion of the property lies adjacent to other Big Woods tracts of residential property. Another area where fairways were designed to minimize impacts, allow for a 2 acre parcel of Big Woods. Most Big Wood tracts are connected so as not to leave “islands” of isolated areas. The historical evaluation of the site did not reveal any historic significance to this tract of Big Woods. All of Mr. Harris’s comments have been addressed. COUNCIL MEETtNQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION APR 2 8 1997 ITEM NO: / ^ Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name RonMoorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Planning Commission Appointments The terms of Dale Lindquist and Janice Berg on the Planning Commission expired on March 31, 1997. The Council has determined both are eligible to be reappointed for an additional term. Both have been contracted and have indicated a willingness to serve an additional term. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to reappoint Dale Lindquist and Janice Berg to three year terms on the Planning Commission expiring on March 31,2000. Lw COUNCIL MEERNG APR 2 8 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: April 24, 1997 ITEM NO : /ic? Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name RonMoorse City Administrator ’s Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Park Commission Appointments 9 f The Council has now completed interviews for two vacant positions on the Park Commission. The Council may at this time make appointments to fill the two vacant positions. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to appoint __and ___to three year terms on the Park Commission expiring on December 31,1999. COUNCIL MEETING APR 2 8 1997REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; ITEM NO = n Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Request for Payment #4, Lift Station #28 Rehabilitation We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering firm and recommend approval of the Request for Payment. This payment is for installation of the emergency monitoring system dialer in the lift station. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve this Request for Payment. BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 09:09 g : 02 N0:A54 KMoiene RAndtillili f\nAiwdj iMlnMritAnMMl LltfM Owner:CTjiy of 2750 Kelly Puikwiiy, Ornnn, MN 552J2 n.nc; January' 20, 1997 ! For Period:Janii.uy 20.1997 to April 11. 1997 Request No: 4 Contractor:Ford Constnu'tinn Co Inc., P.O. Bo.< 667, Ejtcelsior. MN 55331 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT LIFT STATION NO. 28 RENOVAl ION nic No. I.1%8 SUMMARY I Original Conlracl Ainuunt Climigc Order • Addition 3 Change Oidci - Deduciinn <1 Revised CunlfHct Amouni 5 Vnluo Ctiinplricd to Dntc 6 Mntcrial on Il.tnd Amount Earned Less Rciaimige 2.57o Subtotal l^css Amouni Paid Pieviouslv AMOUNT DUn THIS RP.QUfcS 1 hUK PA V.MENT NO $ S 3,«.^6.47 7 8 Q 10 II S $ $ % % s s s Recommended for Approval hy: BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Approved by Contractor: Ford Cunjitnictinn Co. Inc. Approved hy Owner; City of Orono Spccilied Contraci Compleiion Date Date: l;\139\13968\REQUESr4.WB2 6y.872.(K) 7.t.72«.47 7.1.508.47 0.00 73,50){.47 1.817.71 71.670.76 67.910.70 1,760.06 COUNCIL MEETING APR 2 8 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ' CrTYOFORONO DATE: April 23, 1997 ITEM NO Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Jim Bruce Request for Clarification of Council Action Regarding Fox Hollow Subdivision Background on Anplication The Fox Hollow subdivision, a three lot subdivision, was approved by the Council on September 25, 1995. The subdivision proposal included the retention of an existing cottage as an accessory sUncture to a proposed new house. Staff advised the applicant that if the cottage was to be retained as a guest house the applicant would need to provide 2 additional acres of land area for the guest house. The applicant did not provide an additional 2 acres of land area for the cottage, but rather proposed retention of the cottage as an accessor>' structure to provide expanded living space, but not as a separate dwelling unit. Staff indicated that in o*-der for the cottage to be retained as an accessory stnictiac without additional lot area it could not be retained as a separate dwelling. The kitchen would need to be removed and covenants would need to be recorded to ensure the accessory structure would not be used as a separate dwelling unit. As this application was discussed at the Planning Commission, it was indicated that in order for the cottage to be retained the kitchen would need to be removed and covenants would need to be recorded to ensure the accessory structure would not be used as an independent dwelling unit. The Planning Commission approved the subdivision application but the language of the Planning Commission recommendation did not specifically address the accessory structure issue. The City Council approved the application as recommended by the Planning Commission. Several months after the approval of the subdivision, the applicant contacted the City to clarify the language of the covenants required regarding the accessory structure. At that time, Jeanne Mabusth indicated that the Planning Commission, in its action, chose not to address the future use of the cottage as an accessory structure. The Planning Commission action recommended that the structure could be incorporated as part of a future principal structure and that it cannot remain as a separate guest house, but the recommendation language did not address the future use of the house as an accessory structure providing expanded living space. 1 Request for Council Action continued Page 2 April 23, 1997 Jim Bruce Request for Clarification of Council Action Regarding Fox Hollow Subdivision Jeanne also indicated the City had changed its policy regarding the use of an existing residential structure as an accessory structure when a new residence is to be constructed. She indicated the Council had determined that in order for an existing house to remain as an accessory structure to a new house the heating and plumbing fixtures had to be removed. She also indicated Council had directed staff to look into the accessory structure issue and provide a report and recommendations to the Council. Based on Jeanne's understanding of the Planning Commission action and the Council action, she indicated the use of the existing cottage as an accessory structure had not been approved. Summary of Applicable Cit\' Code Although the applicant proposes to retain the cottage as an accessory structure rather than as a guest house, the tw'o are closely related. In fact, a guest house is an accessory structure. The definition of guest house is as follows: "A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal building including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. " The difference between a guest house accessoty structure and an accessory structure is that the guest house, with a conditional use permit, can be a separate dwelling. The staff and Council have had a number of discussions regarding w hen an accessory structure is a separate dwelling. At one point the City focused on the existence or absence of a kitchen as a key determinant. More recently the City has focused on whether the structure has plumbing, particularly toilet and shower facilities. A memo from Mike GafTron discussing this issue is attached. Attachments The attachments to this memo include excerpts from staff reports and Planning Commission minutes as well as correspondence between Mr. Bruce and Jeanne Mabusth. The staff memos do not indicate opposition to the use of the cottage as an accessory structure within conditions specified. There is no discussion in the Planning Commission minutes that indicates opposition to the proposal related to the accessory structure. It is unclear why the Planning Commission action did not include a recommendation regarding the use of the cottage as an accessory structure. Applicant’s Understanding of Cit>' Action The applicant understood both the Planning Commission recommendation for approval and the City Council's approval of the subdivision to include approval of the use of the accessory structure with the condition that the kitchen be removed and that covenants be recorded against the properly to prohibit the use of the accessory structure as an independent dwelling unit. Request for Council Action continued Page 3 April 23, 1997 Jim Bruce Request for Clarification of Council Action Regarding Fox Hollow Subdivision _____ Because Jeanne's understanding of the action differs from Mr. Bruce's understanding of both the Planning Commission and Council action, and because the action does not specifically address his proposal regarding the cottage, which was part of the subdivision application; Mr. Bruce has requested the Council clarify whether its approval of the subdivision included the use of the cottage as an accessory stnicture under the conditions described in the staff report, i.e. removal of the kitchen and filing covenants against the property to prohibit as a separate dwelling unit. Council Determination The specific request by Mr. Bruce is for the Council to clarify whether their intent in approving the subdivision was to approve the use of the cottage as an accessory structure within specific parameters. If the Council's recollection of its intent regarding the cottage is clear, the Council's action will be straight forward. However, if the Council has difficulty recalling thr details of its action, the Council has several options: 1. 2. Request clarification from the Planning Commission concerning its intent regarding the subdivision approval specific to the accessory structure. Take action to clarify the accessory structure issue based on the City's general treatment of these types of requests at the time of the initial Council action. 3. Take action to clarify the accessor)' structure issue based on the Council's current P' tion regarding accessory structures. 4. Reier V jack to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Isv ROKfOXHOLLOKJEM F To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator I From;Michael P. Gafliron Date:April 23,1997 Subject: Accessory Structure Policies Related to Dwelling Status Accessory Structure Not To Be Used As Dw'elling Except By CUP Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subd. 11 states: "Dwelling Use Prohibited. No cellar, basement, tent, trailer or accessory building shall at any time be used as an occupied dwelling". An accessory building with the potential to be used as separate dwelling unit creates a potential violation situation. However, Code Section 10.20 Subd. 3 (G)(1) provides for one special circumstance under which an accessory building mav be used for dwelling purposes via a Conditional Use Pemit in residential zoning districts: "Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house." Guest House Performance Standards Tlie above language in italics has been part of the zoning code since 1975 (perhaps earlier). The City has long interpreted the phrase "all regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house" to mean that the property on which a guest house conditional use is proposed must contain double the required lot area of the zoning district in which it is located. The intent of this requirement is two ­ fold: 1. Allow the ability for future subdivision to place the guest house on its own conforming lot (hence setbacks from lot lines and the principal residence structure are taken into account when a guest house CUP is reviewed). 2. PreseiA'e the intended degree of residential density in Orono's neighborhoods, even if the guest house is never subdivided off. Limiting guest house use to that of the occupants of the principal residence and their domestic employees and non-paving guests, is intended to allow for a caretaker, maid, etc. to live on the site as well as to provide for the oc ’sional relative or guest (length of stay not specified). This eliminates the use as an income-p. ' icing separate dwelling unit which would function totally independently from the principal residence and which would therefore lose its "accessory" character. Of couise, it is often difficult or impossible for the City to monitor whether a guest house is being rented out, and the City generally relies on neighbor complaints to identify violations. i Accessory Structures April 23,1997 Page 2 What Constitutes a 'Dwelling*? Tlie primary issue for building & zoning staff is to determine whether a guest house CUP is required for a given project. This determination relies on a definition of what makes an accessory structure a dwelling. The zoning code definition of'dwelling' is; "Dwelling - A buikling or one or more portions thereof designed or intended to be occupied exclusively for residence purposes, but not including rooms in motels, hotels, nursing homes, boardinghouses, nor trailers, tents, cabins, or trailer coaches. A dwelling shall not be interpreted to include lodging rooms." The terms 'building', 'boardinghouse', 'motel' and 'hotel' are further defined in tlie zoning code. It is unfortunate, however, that the physical fe v-i-'-'s that differentiate a building that is a dwelling from one that is not, are not defined. We then must turn to the Building Code, which indicates that a dwelling is characterized by containing facilities for "sleeping , eating, cooking and sanitation." le building code also indicates a number of other features of a habitable dwelling: a separate closet, a kitchen sink, refrigeration, a cooking appliance, and plumbing to include as a minimum a toilet, a tub or shower, and a lavatory. One could also argue that in Minnesota, a source of heat is also necessary during a portion of the year. Permanent Fixtures vs. Personal Property The next difficulty is that many of the physical objects which would reasonably and normally be used for the activities of 'sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation' are not fixtures but can be relatively mobile items of personal property rather than real property, i.e. a bed, perhaps a space heater, a tablc/chairs/eating utensils, a microwave oven or even an electric or gas stove and a refrigerator. These 'portable' items can be brought into and removed from a building at will and, significantly, without the requirement of a building permit, hence using them to define whether a building is or isn't potentially functional as a dwelling, is not practical. Howev r d.c function of sanitation generally requires permanent fixtures which are readily distingi: .,t :(bic from personal property, and which technically require that a building permit be issued. Toilets, showers, tubs and lavatories fall into this category. And, most heating equipment falls into this category. Presence or Absence of a 'Kitchen* For some time staff has considered that the presence or absence of a 'kitchen' is a key determinant of dwelling status. Also, staff has generally considered that a secondary kitchen within a dwelling is one of the key factors that can create an apartment unit, and has usually noted to the builder/owner Accessory Structures April 23, 1997 Page 3 via the plan review that use of the second kitchen for a separate dwelling unit requires City approval (guest apartment CUP). The problem here is that the only permanent fi.xture in a kitchen may be a kitchen sink, and a lavatory in a bathroom might serve the same function. Typical Accesssory Building Utility Amenities It is not uncommon for accessory buildings to be provided with electricity, not only for lighting but for many other purposes (lawn maintenance, work.shop, etc.). A telephone jack might also be placed in an accessory building for convenience. Less common would be natural gas, except for heating purposes. Water piping might be common in an accessor}' building for someone who is a gardener, with a washtub or sink area. A home workshop in an accessory building might include a toilet and lavatory for convenience. Much ioss common in an accessory building is a shower or bathtub. Such a fixture technically would require a permit from the City, and is perhaps the single 'built-in' feature most likely to make a building suitably functional as a stand-alone dwelling. In our society, where the majority of individuals tend to bathe on a regular basis, the absence of a shower or tub suggests a space that, even if provided with most other amenities, is not intended for anything more than short term use accessory to a building that has such a facility. Without a tub or shower, it is not livable. By the same token, without a toilet, it is not livable. Yet the presence of a shower stall in an unheated garage for seasonal or occasional use by the homeowner to remove the grime from a hard day 'in the coal mines', hardly would constitute a separate dwelling unit in itself. This suggests that perhaps a shower or tub in combination with a toilet is necessar>' to comprise a functional, if not necessarily legal, dwelling unit... It may therefore be reasonable to define whether a structire or space is a (potential) dwelling unit by the presence or absence of a bathtub or shower in combination with a toilet. mm CP X \ 0°34'5 ‘/'V ^40.95 V? yO •; ^ \ l3o z*' ;.• fl!/ ■•^"• • / * » \ •« \l.. v;:-. V h nvi%; oAS'V^:^- ■ •' ‘ 5ft 9a>' > fOo ■^^<> < ^ S "r -b / / / *t ■y. IT-\J I- r\ I;o!:o i^tJo'>34:sr'u^M 0^3^21 "W-) 7"/ > / / ‘© yX • • I •I \i.':) / ^'P<b<>y I 4& / \ *UH| \ •* ’» \:Lv-ii^^fV #J 30 ^ <n/r U I I I ■'dt i / 'N ^1 4^y^1 ^ 4 \\.t g ^ 'O S’ ^ ^ 7 /25 OO T\'/206.33- NO°54'2r‘W-^’ o ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY IS, 1995 UL ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Charles Nolan, Jr., and Janice Berg. Charles Schroeder and Candace Rowlette were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council member J. Di?nn Goetten was present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (#1) SCBOEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PITBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - #2020 JAMES BRUCE - 565 LEAF STREET - 7:00-7:30 P.M. A. VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT B. PRELUVONARY SUBDIVISION The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Bruce was present. The property will be served with sewer from Oxford Road. The City will ask for a 20’ easement, 10' on either side of lots 1 and 2 for the sewer line to serve lot 3. Detailed grading and construction plans for future sewer connection must be submitted with building plans for new construction on lot 3. There is a concern with any impact the future sewer work would have on O.xford Road. An accessory structure located on lot 3 will be given one year from the final plat approval date for removal if a building permit for new construction has not been issued.pTEe existing residence on lot 2 may stay as part of the principal residence as detached additional living space but not as an independent living space. Covenants will need to be placed on the property to alert fijture owners that this structure may not be used as an independent structure. The applicant met with members of the commission regarding tree removal on the property. 32 trees were noted to remain in the area immediately surrounding the proposed building envelope. Five mature trees will be removed. Nolan asked if the building enveloped noted on the plans was exact. The applicant said it was approximate and allowed a 75’x75' area to build the house but may deviate somewhat. An existing culvert may also be affected. z MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 41^ (#1 - fr2020 James Bruce - Continued) Mark Randow, a member of the church located to the north and east of the property, said the church is surrounded by the property under discussion. The church has an outdoor chapel and its use would be overshadowed by any building done on the weekends. Randow said the church has been long standing and would like to see building construction curtailed on the weekends as well as around-the-clock tj^e construction. Concern was also voiced on the increased drainaged from the property noting the drainage easement on the east side. Peterson noted a concern also for any new property owners because of the outdoor weddings being conducted. Randow noted a need for screening or landscaping as a barrier between the properties. Sue Nelson recalled past problems with their septic system prior to hook-up to sewer noting the need for these future lots to be connected to sewer. Peterson said he had no problems with the vacation of the easement within Staff recommendations but was concerned now having learned of the existing covenant. Peterson felt it would be necessary to table this issue until the matter of amending the covenants is resolved. The sketch review noted that the property is subdividable, and if the civision falls within covenant rules, would be subdivided. Other issues of sewer and drainage will be addressed as part of the normal subdivision review. Lindquist agreed with this summation and the need to table the application, Applicant Bruce reported that the seller informed hhn that the covenant has been amended in the same fashion before, and there is an amendment process within the covenant, which the owner is now undertaking for this application. Bruce asked the Planning Commission for an indication of approval, subject to the covenant amendment, and an idea of the time frame. Peterson said the missing information could result in stopping this process but does show good improvements made from last meeting. Smith asked for clarification on the use of the existing unit on lot 2. Mabusth responded that the application is similar to the recent Kipler/Sargent application, where a covenant was executed to limit future use of an independent accessory structure as a guesthouse. The structure would have to be connected to sewer to serve a bathroom, but it was noted that no kitchen would be allowed. Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2020 until more information is received on the existing covenants and their effect on the application. Ayes 5, Nays 0. •I V VL Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 July 7, 1995 Zoning File <5^2020 B.Preliminary subdivision of three lots. All three lots meet the required area. Applicant has acquired an additional tenth of an acre with a lot line rearrangement to be approved by the Council at this meeting (Application #2021). Lot 3, the east lot line does not meet the required 200’ width to the rear of the 50’ front/street setback measured at 199.98’. Planning Commission members noted at their May meeting the inability of applicant to acquire the additional frontage at the northeast lot line. Members also noted that the property is sewered. An existing lot of record could be built on without variances if the lot measured 160’ width (80% of 200’). Lots 1 and 2 shall be served by a private road, Oxford Road along the west lot line. Lot 3 would continue to use an existing driveway rt Leaf Street. The existing cul-de-sac would remain until the development of Lots 1 and 2. The driveway serving the guest house on Lot 2 will also remain while stmcture is occupied. Staff recommends that the driveway be removed when new residences are to be constructed in order to minimize the impact on existing planted areas. Based on proposed location of residences, on Lots 1 and 2, it would be more efficient to require access from Oxford Road for new construction. All lo's shall be served by sewer from Oxford Road. The property has already been assessed ».le sewer unit. Two additional sewer units at a cost of $24,225 each shall be j.a:J prior to final plat approval. The ptivate sewer line to serve Lot 3 will be located along the shared lot lines of Lx)ts 1 and 2, review your preliminary plan, Exhibit J. Review Exhibit E-2, the engineer has asked for a 15’ wide utility easement at the north side lot line of Lot 1 to allow for future sewer service to church property. The Planning Coramission was concerned with the impact on the mature trees within that area and asked that the City Engineer meet with developer to determine a second location that would have less impact on the existing amenities. Staff has met with Jim Bruce on the site and found that the utility easement could be relocated adjacent to the redesignated drainageway witliin Lot 1 at the south side. The new location would have no impact on mature plantings nor would it impact the building envelope of the lot. 5 The developer has advised that the shed on Lot Ttwould be removed prior to fm^ plat approval, [the existing residence on Lot 2, the former guest house, may either remain to be a part of the principal residence or as an accessory structure with expanded living space but with no kitchen. Structure can never function as a separate residential unit because the property lacks the area requirement for a non-rental guest house use. The future owner will be asked to execute a covenant if the stmcture remains as a separate accessory stmcture with living are.t to alert all future owners that the stmcture could never serve as an independent residential unit. L J A M E S W .Bruce w II O M E S DATE: TO; FROM: RE: April 21, 1997 Mayor and Orono City Council Members James Bruce, 565 Lea-f Street, Orono Plat o-f Fox Hollow, a three lot subdivision approved by Council Sept. 25, 1995 (Resolution #3609) Mr. Ron Moorse, City Administrator, advised me to refer a question regarding the conditions of the plat approval noted above to the Orono City Council. The question that has arisen relates to Lot 2, Fox Hollow, which has an existing cottage on the property. Attached is my letter to Mr. Moorse of Feb. 21, 1997, with the specifics of the issue I am seeking to resolve. With that letter are copies of the previous letters between me and the City stating the details. My clear understand!ng of the Planning Commission and Council approvals was that the existing structure could "either be part of a principal structure with expanded living space but with no kitchen", and that "the future owner will be asked to execute a covenant if the structure remains as a separate accessory structure to alert all future owners that the structure could never serve as an independent dwelling unit". The quoted phrases above are from the staff reports included and highlighted in the attached documentation. I respectfully ask that the City Council assist me in resolving this question. Sincerely, --------- /'• A Jim Bruce Attachments: Letter to Ron Moorse, Feb. 21, 1997 Letter to Jeanne Mabusth, Feb. 3, 1997 Letter from Jeanne Mabusth, Jan. 28, 1997 CC: Ron Moorse, City Administrator 565 LcaCSireei, Orono, Minnesota 55356 (612) 475-2622 FAX (612) 475-3026 •• M I. Feb. 21, 1997 Mr. Ron Moorse City Administrator City o-f Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway □rono, Mn. 55356 Dear Mr. Moorse, I have a question regarding our Fox Hollow subdivision at 565 Leaf St., □rono. The three lot subdivision was approved by the City Council on Sept. 25, 1995. The question that has arisen relates to Lot 2, which has an existing cottage on the property. I have sold Lot 2 to another party, and in January asked Jeanne Mabusth about preparing a covenant between the City and the new owner regarding future use of the cottage. The covenant requirement was included in the staff report to the Planning Commission and Council. (Please see attachments). Jeanne reviewed the files and sent me a letter on Jan. 28, 1997 (copy attached) in which she concluded that the subdivision approval did not consider the question of the existing structures use as " an accessory structure with expanded living space but no kitchen" as was stated in the staff report. My clear understanding of the Planning Commission and Council approvals was that the existing structure could "either be part of a principal residence or may remain as an accessory structure with expanded living space but with no kitchen," and that "the future owner will be asked to execute a covenant if the structure remains as a separate accessory structure to alert all future owners that the structure could never serve as an independent residential unit." I am asking for your assistance in resolving an honest difference in understanding between Jeanne Mabusth and me. I am including copies of Jeanne's letter to me of Jan. 28, 1997 and my letter to her of Feb. 3, 1997 asking her to review her conclusions. I am anxious to resolve this difference. As I stated in my letter, my sale of the property was based on my representation to the buyer of what I believe to be the allowed future use of the cottage. It seems to me that the required covenant gives the city good assurances that the cottage would not be used as an independent residence. 1*1.' I.< mI Sill I I, ( )||>I|1I. Mllllii N-il.l ».L* III (|>I M i;.’I,:':' r.\x (M:») i:'i :n:>i. f I must add that Jeanne Mabusth and other staff have alMays been very helpful and accomodating in my dealing Mith this and other matters. This is not a complaint, just a request to help resolve a difference of opinion. I will call you in a few days for your suggestions. Sincerely, CC: Jeanne Mabusth Enc: Mabusth letter of Jan. 28, 1997 Letter to Mabusth of Feb. 3, 1997 rw^—r%tt - -■■ i it aitfteitrT ^TTM»T«»iiein*m i iti'^ i t M- GlTYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 January 28,1997 received JftN 3 11997 Jim Bruce 565 ^eaf Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Dear Jim: As promised I have reviewed the subdivision file for the Fox Hollow plat. I have enclosed pertinent sections of the file that provide direction on the future use of the existing residence structure on Lot 2. The enclosed exhibits are as follows: A. Staff Memo May 3, 1995. B. Resolution #3574 - Resolution granting preliminary approval. C. Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, 1994. D. Resolution #3609 - Final plat resolution. The staff memo of May 3, 1995 refers to use of the existing structure as expanded living space if kitchen was removed. The formal action of the Planning Commission, as stated in the enclosed minutes, recommends that structure may bo incorporated as part of a future principal structure but cannot remain as a separate guest house. The)' chose not to address the future use of structure as an accessory structure w'ith expanded living space as the staff memo had noted. Condition 5 of the Council Resolution #3574 adopted on July 10, 1995 reaffirms the Planning Commission recommendation. Remember the existing principal structure was approved as meeting ail required setbacks of the LR-1A zoning district. Resolution #3609, Exhibit C, specifically Condition 3 of that resolution also restates the Cit>’’s position on the existing residential structure on Lot 2. As 1 noted to you in your recent visit to the City offices, the City has changed their policy on the use of existing residential structures where a new residence is to be constructed and former primary structure to remain as accessory. Council detennined that as long as the heating and plumbing were removed, the structures can remain as accessor)' to the principal structure. At the December 1996 meeting. Council directed staff to develop a review/application process that would provide for appropriate standards and controls lor the use of accessory structures w'ith expanded living space. Council did not adopt a moratorium ordinance nor was a deadline date established for staff. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Jim Bruce January 28,1997 Page 2 Staff did conclude that the final outcome of the study would likely require an amendment of the code. As of now, it is difficult for staff to accept your request to maintain the existing residential structure as an accessory structure with expanded living space until the study is complete, hopefully, in the spring of 1997. If you wish to discuss my findings or comments concerning the use of the existing residence structure on Lot 2, Fox Hollow, please contact my office. Sincerely, —D Jeanne^A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/ch Enc. cc: Elizabeth A. VanZomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator 4 ^ I. To: From; Date: Subject: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 3, 1995 Ssir Ease^en^PrelUni.^ Zoning District: LR-IA List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E-1 E-2 F - G - H - 1-1-2 J - Application Applicant ’s Addendum Plat Map Property Owners’ List Gustafson Report 4/28/95 Gustafson Report 5/3/95 M. Braman Report 4/21/95, Senior Environmental Specialist, Schoell & Madson Inc. Resolution No. 939-Final Plat Approval, Stielow Addition Access Location Plan Tree Survey, Tree Location Map Preliminary Plan A. VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT % Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.12 - Vacation of drainage easement located in the plat of Stielow Addition The applicant has filed the vacation petition and has advised that he will not relocate dramageway. The appHcam merely asks lhal the current ambitious designatl of^e ainageway be readjusted to more clearly define the actual drainageway. 00' Exhibit E, Gustafson notes no problem with the redesignation and states that a 0 wide drainage easement would be adequate lo define and safeguard the drainage path. Refer to preliminary plat. Exhibit J, that locates the redefined 20’ drainage easement. Staff Reconiniei'.dation To vacate the drainage easement within Lot 6, Block 1, Stielow Addition, subject to the condition that applicant rededicate a 20’ drainage easement over the existing drainageway as • shown on preliminary plat of Fox Hollow dated April 20, 1995. Zoning File #2020 May 3, 1995 Page 2 B. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION OF THREE LOTS, CLASS HI Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) - Lot standards for LR-IA zoning district. Lot width variance - Lot 3 Required = 200’ (Refer to Section 10.02, Definition 43 (A) - Required lot width for non-lakeshore lots. Width is measured to the rear of the 50’ street yard setback.) Existing = 199.98 ’ Variance = .02’ or .25" ; 2. Section 11.10, Subdivision 10 (C) - Class III Subdivision - Preliminary. 3. Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C). 4. Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 - Typical section for a three lot plat. Review of Preliminary Subdivision All three lots meet the required lot area. Lot 1 can credit area of 20’ wide drainage easement a^: property is served with sewer. Lot 3 does not meet the required lot width shown at 199.98 ’. It lacks a quarter of an inch of lot width to the rear of the 50’ street yard setback. The applicant has beet; unable to acquire additional area from either the north or south of the property. The additional area has been acquired from the property to the immediate west of proposed Lot 2 and will be included as part of the area of Lot 2. TTie Purchase Agreement for the 0.10 acre has been included in your packets for the lot line rearrangement (Application #2021). All lots shall be served by sewer from Oxford Road. As already noted in the earlier sketch plan review, the lot has been assessed for one sewer unit. Two additional sewer units at a cost of $24,225 each must be paid prior to final plat approval. There is adequate capacity in the sewer lines in Oxford Road to allow hook-ups for two additional units. Note on your preliminary plan. Exhibit J, the future sewer line will be located within an easement area along the shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2. Easements along this interior shared lot line should be shown at 10 ’ from the center line rather than the normal 5’ on either side of the shared lot line. Upon application for a building permit for the development of Lot 3, the owner/builder will be responsible for providing a detailed plan of the connection and service extension. The plans to be in accordance with attached plates submitted by Gustafson with cleanouts spaced at a minimum of 100 ’ apart. I « Zoning File ^2020 May 3. 1995 Page 3 The Engineer has asked for a utility easement at a 15’ width along the north side lot line of Lot 1 to allow future sewer service to Church property. Review Exhibit 1-2. What of the impact on mature trees? The property is not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. The Engineer is asking the City to consider future needs. The accessory structure on Lot 3 no longer will achieve credit of the residence on the property and upon final plat approval becomes a non-conforming structure. To be consistent with previous policy, the City would ask that the structure be removed within one year of final plat approval date if a building permit has not been issued for new residential construction on Lot 3. The existing residence on Lot 2 may either be a future part of the principal residence or may remain as an accessory structure with expanded living space but with no kitchen. The structure can never function as a separate residential unit because the property lacks the area requirement for a non-rental guest house use. The owner will be asked to execute a covenant if the structure remains as a separate accessory structure to alert all future owners that the structure could never serve as an independent residential unit. Review Exhibit F, the Environmental Specialist with Schoell and Madson has confirmed that there are no Type 1 or 2 wetlands within the property. The only wet area would be the drainageway that intersects Lot 1. During the sketch plan review, Planning Commission members discussed the removal of the existing cul-de-sac and driveway. Note applicant has asked to keep the cul-de-sac ^^^^ause of unique landscape features. The cul-de-sac is located within both Lots 1 and 2 and will receive major impact v/hen the sewer line is installed. It is questionable whether applicanf would . really want to retain the cul-de-sac once the property is offered for development. In fact, it may prove to be a problem for the future owners of Lots 1 and 2. Because of its location o ” the property, it would never serve as a nimaround for either of the properties. Applicant should be questioned on this point. The Planning Commission was concerned with the issue of tree removal with the proposed location of the future residence building on Lot 1. Please refer to Exhibits B and 1&2 of the 32 large mature trees, only 5 would be removed. Applicant wants to reassure Planiiing Commission that this would not be a matter of clear cutting and that the value of the property is based on the existence of those trees not their removal. The issue of an internal road is not an issue for staff in this review as two of the lots are served by a private road and meet the required lot width along that private road. I have enclosed a copy of the final resolution that approved the Stielow Addition plat. 'Hjere is nothing in the resolution that stated the existing driveway to Lot 6 was to be closed off. A curb cu exists with no record of any safety issues involving the use of that roadway when there was a residence on the property. The driveway will still only serve one residential unit. Staff would suggest that there w-ould be more of a negative impact by requiring an internal road wi turnaround on this property when adequate and safe access is already provided. Zoning File #2020 May 3, 1995 Page 4 The Park Commission reviewed the three-lot subdivision at their May meeting and recommended payment of cash in lieu of the acquisition of park lands or trailways. The park dedication fee would be based on only two of the three lots because a residence already exists on Lot 2. Staff Recommendation To approve thenhree-lot preliminary subdivision a’lplication of James Bruce granting a lot width variance of .25" and the approval of two sewer u.iits to serve two new lots within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Applicant to execute an amendment to the original maintenance agreement for the Stielow Addition dealing with the obligation of Lots 1 and 2 to share in the maintenance and upkeep of Oxford Road, a private road of the City. Payment of $48,450 for two sewer units prior to final plat approval. Dedication on the plat of Fox Hollow of a 20’ wide drainage easement over the drainageway that intersects Lot 1. Drainage and utility easements to be designated 10’ along the boundaries of each of the three lots and 5’ within internal lot lines except for the shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 where a 10’ wide easement on each side of the shared lot line is required for the extension of sewer to Lot 3 and a 15’ easement along nofth side lot line of Lot 1. Final resolve of the removal of the western portion of the norti'^m driveway that extends from Lot 3 through to Lots 1 and 2 and developer to resolve issue of cul- de-sac as to whether it is to remain as a responsibility or shared improvement for Lots 1 and 2. Future owner/builder of future residence on Lot 3 to provide engineering plans and specs for the extension of municipal sewer to Lot 3. Plan shall address the connection to the municipal sewer line and repair of Oxford Road per Engineer ’s report of May 3, 1995. Oxford Road will sustain damage during the period of installation. Upon Council’s approval of the preliminary plat, the City Assessor shall be asked to determine the fair market value of the undeveloped land so that a park dedication fee can be determined for four acres of the total six-acre plat. The park dedication fee must be paid as a condition of final plat approval. Zoning File nm May 3, 1995 Page 5 8.The accessory structure on proposed Lot 3 shall be allowed to remain for one year. The structure shall be removed if a building permit has not been issued by that deadline date. 1 9. / The existing residence structure on Lot 2 may never be used as a Kcond residential unit or guest house as property does not meet area requirements of LR-IA zoning district. I ! a> m CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 ^ _____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A THREE LOT PLAT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 565 LEAF STREET - FILE NO. 2020 WHEREAS, James W. Bruce, on April 21, 1995, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a three lot residential plat of property legally described as: Lot 6, Block 1, Stielows Addition. That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Klitzke Addition, according to the recorded plat tliereof, which lies easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast comer of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearmg of North 89 degrees 41 minutes 21 seconds West along the south line of said Lot 2 a distance of 55.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 19 degrees 02 minutes 10 seconds East a distance of 155.00 feet and said line there terminating, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the propert)'"); 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 Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 15. 1995. and June 1^9. all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and ^^^^EREAS, at their regular meeting held on July 10, 1995, the Orono City Council considered the application of James W. Bruce, noting the following findmgs of fact: 1.Tlie property is located within the LR-IA Single Family L^eshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of land within each newl) created lot. 2. The property contains approximately 6.0006 acres. Page 1 of 5 ■‘JJ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 574 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The proposed plat contains three lots each meeting the required minimum two acre area requirement. Section 10.55, Subd. 15 (A-2) as property is sewered, the drainage area within the property can be credited as dry buildable area for density credit. A two inch lot w'idth variance shall be granted for proposed Lot 3 based on the following findings: A.Developer has been unable to acquire additional lands from church property to the immediate north. B.Per Section 6 (A-2) existing lots of record that are greater than 1 acre and served by public sanitary sewer may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if Council finds that: (1) It is at least 1 acre in size and the average width of a lot is at least 100 ’. (2) It is served by public sanitary sewer. (3) The lot otherwise meets the requirements of Zoning Chapter or other applicable City codes. C. No other variances to lot standards are requested. D. The two inch deficiency would have a negligible impact on the placement of a residence on this property. All three properties are located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. All lots will be served from an existing municipal sewer line within Oxford Road to the immediate west of the property. All lots can be developed with new residential construction without the need of any variances to the lot standards of the LR-IA Zoning District. There is adequate capacity within the sewer lines adjacent to the property to support two additional units. Page 2 of 5 t i II If- CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7 4 ^ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for James W. Bruce at 565 Leaf Street per tlie survey dated April 20, 1995 by Ted Kcmna, a licensed surveyor, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Applicant to execute an amendment to the original maintenance agreement for the Stielows Addition dealing with the obligation of Lots 1 and 2 to share in the maintenance and upkeep of Oxford Road, a private road of the City. Designation and dedication of a 20 ’ wide drainage easement over the drainageway that intersections Lot 1 as shown on the preliminary plan. Existing drive that extends from Lot 3 and cul-de-sac within Lots 1 and 2 shall remain while guest house on Lot 2 is occupied. When the use of the residence is complete, then western extension of drive and cul-de-sac shall be removed by developer. No con.struction vehicles on Lots 1 and 2 shall be allowed to use existing drive. Al! access for new construction on Lots 1 and 2 shall be from approved driveway entrances at Oxford Road. Future owners or developer shall provide detailed engineering plans and sp'ecs for the extension of municipal sewer to Lot 3. Plans shall address the connection to the municipal sewer line and repair of Oxford Road per engineer’s report of May 3. 1995. Subdividcr has agreed to remove the accessory structure on Lot 3 prior to final plat approval. Existing residence structure or guest house on Lot 2 may never be used as a second residential unit or guest house as property does not meet requirement of LR-IA Zoning District. Applicant to dedicate 15’ utility easement on the plat for future sewer extension to the church property to the immediate east. 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: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200 ’. Drawing to include: Page 3 of 5 /# iSiV<:imM CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 5 7 4_____ A.Lot lines plaited per preliminary survey by Ted Kemna of Schoell and Madson, Inc., a licensed surveyor, dated April 20, 1995. B.Dedication of "drainage and utility ca.scmuUs" 10’ wide along all perimeter property lines and 5’ each side of internal property lines. C.Designation and dedication on the plat of Fox Hollow of a 20 wide drainage easement over the drainageway that intersects Lot 1. D.Designation and dedication of a 15’ wide utility easement within Lot 1 for future sewer connection to church property. E.Utility (sewer) easements along shared lot lines of 1 and 2 to extend 10’ on each side of the internal property line. 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 casements currently affecting the property. C.Applicant to provide an amendment to the private covenants for the Stielows Addition dealing with the obligation of Lots 1 and 2 to share in the maintenance and upkeep of Oxford Road. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $48.825* A. B. C. Final plat fee = $175.00 Legal review and filing fees = $200.00 *Park Dedication Fee shall be based on Assessor’s determination of the fair market value of the property at its undeveloped state. Please note that park fees will only be required for two of the three lots as a residence exists on one of the lots. The subdivider will be notified as soon as the Assessor has made his recommendation. Page 4 of 5 ] i r m CITY of ORONO 3®o;g RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. *8 5 7 <!•____ D.Payment of $48,450 for two sewer units ($24,225 for each unit based on 1995 fee schedule) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 10th day of July, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy I^^allin, CiCity Clerk [ward J. Caliban, Jr., Mayoi STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of July, 1995, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. I /I 'Y' Notary Public My Commission Enplres J»n. 31.2000 12228 I rrrv ■-•r " "Vm X.1 t t U‘. ^ C'FICE i Jw'VwVV \.VV mcK i'j. • •• • ' ,* ■ i k.‘-^?5 m5m 'vi•C'v/. Pace 5 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 (#5) #2020 JAMES BRUCE, 565 LEAF STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBUC HEARING 7:08-7:49 P.M. Mr. Bruce was present. The application was tabled at the last Planning Commission meting subject to appUcant submitting an amendment of the covenants of the Stielow Addition. The application is for a three-lot subdivision with a lot line rearrangement. The lot line rearrangement will provide the additional area needed to fulfill area requirements for 3 lot division. Lots 1 and 2 wiU be accessed from Oxford Road, which is a private road, with Lot 3 served by public road. The accessory structure on Lot 3 will be removed prior to final plat application. The Engineer has asked for a 15’ sewer utility easement along north lot line of Lot 1 to serve the church property to the east. There had been public concern over tree removal with the ho^e pad location on Lot 1. Bruce said he has not changed the property's house pad location. Bruce did meet with the neighbors to the north, who have a swimming pool located 50-60’ from the property line. Bruce said the neighbor was concerned over impact on the users of the swimming pool. A neighborhood meeting was held regarding the covenant bylaws. It was found that the property owner to the north’s only desire was not to be able to see a house from their property, but gained no support from others, as they felt this was unreasonable. As far as the tree removal issue is concerned, Bruce said he would agree to plant pine trees. The Nelson’s, the neighbors to the north, were not convinced that this solved the issue, but did agree, according to Baice, that the buUding pad fits into the normal setback. Peterson clarified with Mabusth that the covenant amendment was signed and meets the required issues for this property's subdivision. Bruce said the covenant was established in 1978, and this would be the third time the covenant has been amended. Mabusth said a width variance is required for Lot 3 due to narrowness of land at 199.98 feet rather than the 200 feet required. The applicant is asking for a vacation of the e.xisting easement over the drainageway in Lot 1. The Engineer has reviewed this request and noted it can be redesignated to 20’, where 40’ had been dedicated in the origmal plat. Mabusth said this was an ambitious designation and is not needed. Mabusth advised that applicant proposes no change in drainageway. S e i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 (#5 - #2020 James Bruce - Continued) Lindquist asked of the utility easement. Mi^busth asked for Planning Commission's opinion and noted that the Engineer did recommend an easement be granted for future sewer extension to east. The property is not within MUSA, and the Engineer said that this would be the time to gain the easement. A sewer line is located on Oxford Street. Cook had recommended the 15' easement along the north lot line. The applicant had no problem with this, except for the issue of trees. All agreed that this would be the time to gain the easement but had reservations as to the location and the impact on tree removal. Smith asked what the worst case scenario would be regarding the easement and tree removal. Mabusth said based on the elevations, the excavations would be deep, calling for wider easement areas. This would result in a major loss of trees if installed at north lot line. The Planning Commission recommended an easement and discussed its location. Nolan noted that an easement would normally be placed to the outskirts of the property line to eliminate interference with building pads. In this case, though, the easement could be in the middle where the drainage easement is located as no construction can occur at this location. Lindquist recommended the City Engineer review and determine the location for less impact on tree removal. The 15' minimum easement location determined by the Engineer will be reviewed with the applicant. Rowlette would like to see the house located on the other side of the drainageway. Mabusth said the City lacks the control to stipulate the house location. The building pad location was determined by Bruce's judgment of the aesthetics. Bruce felt the customer would choose this particulate site for a home. Bruce also said the value of the lot would be restricted if he could not build on 50% of the lot. He again reiterated that he is sensitive to the trees on the lot. Nolan asked about restrictive covenants to save trees. Bruce replied that he had previously agreed at meeting with neighborhood not to cut trees from the setback area to the north and trees west of the proposed house. Rowlette asked why Bruce wanted to keep two existing driveways on Lot 3. Bruce said the driveway to the north would serve a tuckunder garage. What exists now is a driveway 9-10' wide, and Bruce feels it is not causing any impact on the property. Bruce would like to leave options open as alternative ways to approach a building. The driveway between Lots 2 and 3 would also remain where the e.\isting house is occupied. Construction vehicles would be using this driveway. The Planning Commissioners had no problem with this usage. There was no concern with church activities. If problems arose in the future, they would be addressed at that time. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 (#5 - #2020 James Bruce - Continued) Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2020 for a preluninaiy subdivision. The City Engineer would determine, thru a meeting with Bruce, the location of the easement, whether along the northern 15' of the lot or along the drainageway. A lot width variance is recommended for approval as well as the access layout for Lots 1 and 2 served by Oxford Road and Lot 3 from Leaf Street. The guest house on Lot 2 c^ot function as an independent residential unit, only as a part of a residence. An additional 5' is required along with the 10' dedication of the utility/sewer easement. The driveway to serve the house on Lot 2 is allowed temporary use while the residence is in use or until developed. This would be removed prior to final inspection of home. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #2021 JAMES HALE/JAMES BRUCE, 575 OXFORD ROAD AND S6S LEAF STREET - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - . CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:49-7:50 P.M. Mr. .Bruce was present. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2021 for a lot line rearrangement as presented with Staff recommendations. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#7) #2023 BETTY SUMNER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:25-9:32 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. % Mrs. Sumner was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for paving improvements within the lakeshorc yard. Underlaying plastic is being removed and replaced with concrete pavement under a second story deck as well as concrete pavement by the garage door. Hardcover exists at 42.9%, and there are no changes to this figure. 750 s.f, or 4.2%, of permanent, non- .sf ructural hardcover is being added. The pavement would not extend beyond the deck. There is crushed rock on the shoreline where exposed earth is located on a slope. There is no underliner but bits and pieces of old plastic only. This is not rip-rap. Mabusth noted that she did not think this would solve the erosion problem. Mabusth asked the Commissioners if this ^plication should have been required to come before the Commission for approval. Rowlette said yes, noting that in some applications reductions in hardcover could be made. There are none for this appUcation. Hardcover improvements were reviewed. There is a drive, house with deck and limited walk providing access to residence. D CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^60 9_____ A RESOLUTION APPROVLNG THE PLAT OF FOX HOLLOW FILE NO. 2020 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land wiiliin the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a Class III subdivision of a 3-lot plat by James Bmce of Bruce Construction Company, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter (the subdivider); and W'HEREAS, on July 10. 1995, the City Council approved Resolution No. 3574 aoproving the preliminary plat of 3 lots and a lot width variance for Lot 3 at 2" based on the unique findin«is and hardships set forth in that resolution. The subdivision has been found to meet all other “standards of the LR-IA, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, finding thlt each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; 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. 3574. the resolution that granted preliminarj' approval of the 3-lot plat. 2. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements J.Dedication on the plat of a 20’ wide drainage easement over the drainageway that intersects Lot 1. 4.Dedication on the plat of a 15 ’ utility easement within Lot 1 that would provide future sewer extension to the properties to the immediate east. Page 1 of 3 1 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ® 609NO. 5.Dedication on the plat of a 15’ utility easement that will provide private sewer service to Lot 3. The easement is located within Lot 1 and along the shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 for a distance of 101.48 ’. 6.The subdivider has created an amendment to the private covenants for the Sticlow Addition addressing the obligation of Lots 1 and 2, Fo.\ Hollow to share in the maintenance and upkeep of Oxford Road. 7. 8. Payment to the City of the park dedication fee in the amount of $14,400.00, Payment to the City for S48,450.00 for two sewer units ($24,225.00 for each unit based on 1995 fee schedule). 9.Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat easements and covenants in the amount of $200.00. 10. Payment to the City for $175.00 for the final plat application NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RES0L\T:D, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Fox Hollow, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1.The existing drive that extends through Lot 3 to the cul-de-sac within Lots 1 and 2 shall remain whiie existing residence structure on Lot 2 is occupied. No construction vehicles shall be allowed to use the existing to gain access to Lots 1 and 2. All access for new construction on Lots 1 and 2 shall be from approved driveway entrances at Oxford Road. 2.Future owners or developer shall provide detailed engineering plans and specs for the extension of municipal sewer to Lot 3. Plans shall address the connection to the municipal sewer line and repair of Oxford Roa'^ "er City Engineer s report of May 3, 1995. Page 2 of 3 n ■ mn ■^i ufPt-t 1 ajirT ► o CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5^ ^ 0 Q_____ j. 4. The existing residence structure on Lot 2 may never be used as for touse iS wX'n tte iTl A lS«hore Residential zonfog district. 25 ?W6 toiler with a cenif.ed original copy of *is resolution, covenants and easements noted above. ,,SJE'f S“-“ - ~ w ofolo hr subdivision review. Dated this 25th day of September, 1995. Gabriel Jabbour. Act^g Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. ) The foregoing instmment was "Jedged befor^^^^^^ rno ‘:^a°MtLrim“ City. pnblic A * ^*A •iitmrCATA W <f o ^ NOTAflYPUBlIC-MINNESOTA () HENNEPIN COUNTY w My Commission Expires Jaa 31.2000 ^ b>9Sr^S>9V»»9^9»9V^»99-J^lrS>9»S>f>P9^ Page 3 of 3 J A M E S W .Bruce n o M E s Feb. 3, 1997 Jeanne Mabusth Building tt Zoning Administrator City o-f. Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Mn. SS356 Dear Jeanne, I received your letter regarding the use of the exisitng cottage on Lot 2 of the Fox Hollow Subdivision. I am asking that you consider the following points before making a final determination: 1.The Notice of Planning Commission sent to our office on June 26, 1995, states that Planning Commission recommended approval of the three lot subdivision and the vacation of the drainage easement within proposed Lot 1 subject to the conditions of the staff memo of May 3. 1995. and two additional conditions recommended by the Planning Commission at thir meeting of June 19th. . . . 2.The referenced staff memo of May 3rd states on page 3 “The existing structure on Lot 2 may either be a future part of the principal residence or itiay remain as an accessory structure with expanded living space but with no kitchen. The structure can never function as a separate residential unit • « • • On page 5 of that same staff report under Staff Recommendations the condition above was restated. “9. The existing residence structure on Lot 2 may never be used as a second residential unit or guest house...." 3.In the July 6, 1995 Request for Council Action regarding Fox Hollow subdivision application, under Brief Review of Application on page 2, the same language was included as the May 3 staff report, namely, "The existing structure on Lot 2, the former guest house, may either remain to be a part of the principal residence or as an accessory structure with expanded living space but with no kitchen. Structure can never function as a separate residential unit.... The future owner will be asked to execute a covenant if the structure remains as a separate accessory structure with living area to alert all future owners that the structure could never serve as an independent residential unit." i_ _ _ o65 Leaf Street, Orono, Minnesota 55356 f6I21 475-9fi99 FAX r6191 475-3096 4. The Council approved the preliminary subdivision. Resolution #3574 July 10 meeting, based on the “Review of Application" in 3 above. 5. The Council approved the Final Subdivision Resolution, #3609 on Sept. 25th. ^ * It was my clear understanding from the above sections of documents that the issue of future use of the existing structure on Lot 2 was approved as either attached to the principal structure or as a separate accessory structure with the requirement for the recommended covenant per #3 above. I have sold Lot 2 with representation to the buyer of my understanding gained from the above points. I gave those same documents to them to demonstrate the conditions the council had required for approval. I respectfully ask that you consider the above sequence of documents and the statements included in them. My understanding from them and from discussions at both Planning Commission meetings and both Council Meetings was that no condition was included denying use of the existing cottage as an accessory structure. I would like to discuss this with you at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Jim Bruce JB:bk CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2020 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 6/26/95 TO:James Bruce James Bruce Homes 1055 East Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO:Mr. & Mrs. John McCoy 5525 Hillside Circle Edina, MN 55439 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Preliminary Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 6/19/95 VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommended the following: Planning Commission recommended approval of the three lot subdivision and the vacation of the drainage easement within proposed Lot 1 subject to the conditions set forth in the staff memo of May 3,1995, enclosed herewith, and two additional conditions recommended by the Planning Commission at their meeting of June 19th as follows; 1. Staff has scheduled a meeting with J'm Bruce on Tuesday, June 27, 1995 at 2:00 p.m. to determine a better location for a 15 ’ sewer easement for the benefit of the properties to the east. The original location recommended by the engineer in his report of May 3, 1995 would ask for a 15 ’ easement along the north lot line of proposed Lot 1 and would have a major impact on mature trees along north lot line. 2.Existing driveway that extends from Lot 3 to the cul-de-sac of Lots 1 and 2 shall remain while residence structure on Lot 2 is occupied. Although the Planning Commission found no problem with construction vehicles being allowed to use this drive, staff will recommend to the Council that this drive not be used by construction vehicles because of the potential impact of construction vehicles on the grass lawn areas. It would be far more efficient and minimize impact on existing vegetation if access is from Oxford Road. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed at the Council meeting of July 10, 1995. Please note that meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. A resolution approving the preliminaiy plat will be sent to you prior to the meeting. You are asked to review the findings and conditions of that resolution and contact staff prior to the meeting if you have any questions. As for the formal vacation of the drainage easement, the vacation will be completed at the time of the preparation for the final plat of Fox Hollow at which time a 20’ drainage easement will be rededicated on the plat. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth if you have any further questions concerning the review of your application. Staff has enclosed a copy of the staff memo of May 3, 1995 that lists the 9 conditions of the recommendation of approval. To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:May 3, 1995 Subject:#2020 James Bruce, 565 Leaf Street - Vacation of Easement^reliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E-1 E-2 F - G - H - 1-1-2 J - Application Applicant’s Addendum Plat Map Property Owners’ List Gustafson Report 4/28/95 Gustafson Report 5/3/95 M. Braman Report 4/21/95, Senior Environmental Specialist, Schoell & Madson, Inc, Resolution No. 939-Final Plat Approval. Stielow Addition Access Location Plan Tree Survey, Tree Location Map Preliminary Plan A. VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.12 - Vacation of drainage easement located in the plat of Stielow Addition. The applicant has filed the vacation petition and has advised that he will not relocate drainageway. The applicant merely asks that the current ambitious designation of the drainageway be readjusted to more clearly defme the actual drainageway. Review Exhibit E, Gustafson notes no problem with the redesignation and states that a 20 ’ wide drainage easement would be adequate to defme and safeguard the drainage path. Refer to preliminary plat. Exhibit J, that locates the redefined 20 ’ drainage easement. Staff Recommendation To vacate the drainage easement within Lot 6, Block 1, Stielow Addition, subject to the condition that applicant rededicate a 20 ’ drainage easement over the existing drainageway as shown on preliminary plat of Fox Hollow dated April 20, 1995. Zoning File #2020 May 3, 1995 Page 2 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION OF THREE LOTS, CLASS HIB. Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) - Lot standards for LR-IA zoning district. Lot width variance - Lot 3 j t . 'j.u Required = 200' (Refer to Section 10.02, Definition 43 (A) - Required lot width for non-lakeshoie lots. Width is measured to the rear of the 50' street yard setback.) Existing = 199.98’ Variance = .02’ or .25" 2.Section 11.10, Subdivision 10 (C) - Class III Subdivision - Preliminary. 3. 4. Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C). Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 - Typical section for a three lot plat. Review of Preliminary Subdivision „m," 3" ‘S') property. The additional area has been acquired from the property to the immediate west o propoSd Lot 2 and will be included as pan of the area of Lot 2. The Purchase Agreement fo die 0.10 acre has been included in your packets for the lot Ime rearrangement (Application #2021). All lots shall be served by sewer from Oxford Road. As already noted in the earlier Upon application for a building pennii for the development of Lot 3, the resDonsiWe for providmg a deoiled plan of the connection and service exonsion. The pto to be 'Ll accordance with atoched plates submitted by Gusofson with cleanouts spaced at minimum of 100’ apart. V Zoning File #2020 May 3, 1995 Paee 3 n / has asked for a utility easement at a 15’ widA ^ is not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. The Engineer is asking the City to consider future needs. The accessory structure on Lot 3 no longer will achieve credit of the residence on the property and upon final plat approval becomes a non-conforimng structure. To be consistent with previous policy, the City would ask that the structure be removed withm one year of final l^an^oval date if a build^g permit has not been issued fo^newr«ide^^ Lot 3^^ existing residence onTol 2 may eitherTe a mrOfe part ot me pnncipai reside^e ^■"orlnay remain as an accessory structure with expanded living space but with no i^itchen. The . Tstnicture can never function as a separate residential unit because the property If^ks the area ^ \/ 1 reoPtrement f5 T' a iroiwental-gtlSst house ust. Th6 uwfKf will be asked to execute a coyen^t ' if Ae structure remains as a separate accessory structure to alert all future owners that the structure could never serve as an independent residential unit_____________________ Review Exhibit F, the Environmental Specialist with Schoell and Madson has co^nned that there are no Type 1 or 2 wetlands within the property. The only wet area would be the drainageway that intersects Lot 1. During the sketch plan review. Planning Commission members discussed the removal of the existing cul-de-sac and driveway. Note applicant has asked to keep the cul-de-sac because of unique landscape features. The cul-de-sac is located within both I^ts 1 and 2 and will receive major impact when the sewer line is installed. It is questionable whether applican wo really want to retain the cul-de-sac once the property is offered for development. In fact, it m W prove to be a problem for the future owners of Lots 1 and 2. Because property, it would never serve as a turnaround for either of the properties. Applicant sho questioned on this point. The Planning Commission was concerned with the issue of tree proposed location of the future residence building on Lot 1. Please refer *° ' 1&2 of the 32 large mature trees, only 5 would be removed. ApplicMt wants to Panning Commission that this would not be a matter of clear cuttmg and that the value of the property is based on the existence of those trees not their removal. The issue of an internal road is not an issue for staff in this review as two of the lots are served by a private road and meet the required lot width along that enclosed a copy of the final resolution that approved the Stielow Addiuon plat, mre in the resolution that stated the existing driveway to Lot 6 to be ^ exists with no record of any safety issues involvmg the use of that roadway when “ residence on the property. The driveway will still only serve one residential umt. Staff w^ suggest that there would be more of a negative impact by requmng an mtemal ro tu^round on this property when adequate and safe access is already provided. Zoning File #2020 May 3, 1995 _ Page 4 The Park Commission reviewed the three-lot subdivision at their May meeting and recommended payment of cash in lieu of the acquisition of park lands or trailways. The park dedication fee would be based on only two of the three lots because a residence already exists on Lot 2. Staff Recommendation To approve the three-lot preliminary subdivision application of James Bruce granting a lot width variance of .25" and the approval of two sewer units to serve two new lots within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, subject to the following conditions: 1. I ‘ I: 1- I 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Applicant to execute an amendment to the original maintenance agreement for the Stielow Addition dealing with the obligation of Lots 1 and 2 to share in the maintenance and upkeep of Oxford Road, a private road of the City. Payment of $48,450 for two sewer units prior to final plat approval. Dedication on the plat of Fox Hollow of a 20’ wide drainage easement over the drainageway that intersects Lot 1. Drainage and utility easements to be designated 10* along the boundaries of each of the three lots and 5’ within internal lot lines except for the shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 where a 10’ wide easement on each side of the shared lot line is required for the extension of sewer to Lot 3 and a 15’ easement along north side lot line of Lot 1. . * Final resolve of the removal of the western portion of the northern driveway that extends from Lot 3 through to Lots 1 and 2 and developer to resolve issue of cul- de-sac as to whether it is to remain as a responsibility or shared improvement for Lots 1 and 2. Future owner/builder of future residence on Lot 3 to provide engineering plans and specs for the extension of municipal sewer to Lot 3. Plan shall address the connection to the municipal sewer line and repair of Oxford Road per Engineer ’s report of May 3, 1995. Oxford Road will sustain damage during the period of installation. • Upon Council ’s approval of the preliminary plat, the City Assessor shall be asked to determine the fair market value of the undeveloped land so that a park dedication fee can be determined for four acres of the total six-acre plat. The park dedication fee must be paid as a condition of final plat approval. I i__ Zoning File #2020 May 3, 1995 Page 5 8. The accessory structure on proposed Lot 3 shall be allowed to remain for one year. The structure shall be removed if a building permit has not been issued by that deadline date. 9./Tlie existing residence structure on Lot 2 may never be used u a second ' residential unit or guest house as property does not meet area requirements of LR-IA zoning district./ saassttaiuaiSBSS&BSS& l^JEOKIE.51 ¥OR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: if'2020 James Bruce, 565 Leaf Street A. Vacation of Easement B. Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IA Total lot area = 6.0006 acres Additional Exhibits K - Amendment of Covenant to Stielows Addition Brief Review of Application The application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at both their May and June meetings. At the May meeting the Plamiing Commission was advised by neighbors in attendance that the covenants for the Stielows Addition would require an amer/'ment if the subdivision was to be legal according to the private covenants. Planning Commission advised the applicant that they would prefer tabling the applicadon to ensure covenants were amended before presenting the application to the Council. Members did note tliat the application was complete except for the matter of the amendment of the private covenants. Review Exhibit K, applicant has submitted an amendment to the cc tenants allowing for the three lot division. A. Vacation of easement. The engineer has reviewed the original easement area dedicated in the plat of the Stielows Addition that intersected Lot 6. He could discern no reason for the ambitious designation. If members have an opportunity to visit the site, you will find the drainageway is no greater than 4’-5’ in width. The engineer recommends the vacation of the original drainage easement and the rededicaiion of a 20’ drainage easement 10’ to either side of the center line of the drainageway \vi n the plat of Fox Hollow. The resolution approving the vacation will be formally acted on at the time the final plat of Fox Hollow is presented for formal action. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 July 7, 1995 Zoning File #2020 B. Preliminary subdivision of three lots. All three lots meet the required area. Applicant has acquired an additional tenth of an acre with a lot line rearrangement to be approved by the Council at this meeting (Application #2021). Lx)t 3, the east lot line does not meet the required 200’ width to the rear of the 50’ front/street setback measured at 199.98 ’. Planning Commission members noted at their May meeting the inability of applicant to acquire the additional frontage at the northeast lot line. Members also noted that the property is sewered. An existing lot of record could be built on without variances if the lot measured 160’ width (80% of 200’). Lots 1 and 2 shall be served by a private road, Oxford Road along the west lot line. Lot 3 would continue to use an existing driveway at Leaf Street. The existing cul-de-sac would remain until the development of Lots 1 and 2. The driveway serving the guest house on Lot 2 will also remain while structure is occupied. Staff recommends that the driveway be removed when new residences are to be constructed in order to minimize the impact on existing planted areas. Based on proposed location of residences, on Lots 1 and 2, it would be more efficient to require access from Oxford Road for new construction. All lo»s shall be served by sewer from Oxford Road. The property has already been assessed <..ie sewer unit. Two additional sewer units at a cost of $24,225 each shall be {.aid prior to final plat approval. The private sewer line to serve Lot 3 will be located along the shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2, review your preliminary plan, Exhibit J. Review Exhibit E-2. the engineer has asked for a 15’ wide utility easement at the north side lot line of Lot 1 to allow for future sewer service to church property. The Planning Commission was concerned with the impact on the mature trees within that area and asked that the City Engineer meet with developer to determine a second location that would have less impact on the existing amenities. Staff has met with Jim Bruce on the site and found that the utility easement could be relocated adjacent to the redesignated drainageway within Lot 1 at the south side. The new location would have no impact on mature plantings nor would it impact the building envelope of the lot. The developec-has^idvised that the shed on Lot T'would te remov ed prior to final plat approv^ t he existing residence on Lot 2;-the~former guest house, m^ eith^ remain to be a part of the principal residence or as an accessory structure with expanded living space but with no kitchen. Structure can never function as a separate residential unit because the property lacks the area requirement for a non-rental guest h< : use. The future owner will be asked to execute a covenant if the structure ren ns as a separate accessory structure with living area to alert all future owners thui restructure could never serve as an independent resjential unit. __ Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 July 7, 1995 Zoning File #2020 The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the three lot preliminary subdivision application of James Bruce and adopted the nine conditions set forth in the staff memo of May 3, 1995 and added the following: 1.Relocate 15’ utility easement providing future sewer service to church property to the east. The relocated sewer easement shall minimize any impact on mature trees or existing amenities within Lot 1. 2.The existing driveway that extends from Lot 3 to the cul-de-sac of Lots 1 and 2 shall remain while residence structure on Lot 2 is occupied. Staff also recommends that this drive not be used by construction vehicles once new residential construction commences for Lots 1 and 2. Curb cuts as defined within access plan, Exhibit H, prepared by applicant shall be installed once building permits have been issued for new construction. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings ami conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A.Vacation of easement. To c(?nceptuc!ly approve the vacation of the drainage easement within Lot 6 of the Stielows Addition and to direct staff to prepare the necessary vacation resolution at tte time the final plat, Fox Hollow, is submitted for final plat approval to the City Council. B.Preliminary subdivision. To either amend or adopt the enclosed approval resolution approving the preliminary plat of Fox Hollow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- -■ - DESCRIPTION FOR: James Bruce Mones S0061 -OSG* Prepared By: J SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. INQINCERS•tURVCYORS•PLANNERS SOIL TISTINO • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WAYIATA BLVO. MINNETONKA. UN. ESS^S mil 14t-?tEt EASi f4t*t0ts PROPOSED DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL A That part of Lot 2, Block 1, KLIT2KE ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies westerly of the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 41 minutes 21 seconds West along the south line of said Lot 2 a distance of 55.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 19 degrees 01 minutes 10 seconds East a distance of 155.00 feet and said line there terminating. Reserving an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the easterly 5.00 feet of'the above described property. I ■ (*#4) #2020 JAMES BRUCE, 265 LEAF STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION ^3574 Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to grant conc^^l ^ drainage easement within Lot 6 of the Stielows Addition and to d^ert necessar>' vacation resolution at the time the final plat, Fox Ho o , plat approval to the City Council. Ayes 4, Nays 0. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3:.74 approving the preliminary platofFoxHoUow. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*«) mu JAMES BRUCE/JAMES H.AIX, leaf street - SUBDTVTSION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT RESOLUTION #3575 Jabbour moved. Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3575. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (M) #2025 MICHAEL PLANK. 4115/4145 ^TERTOWN ROAD - preliminary subdivision - RESOLUTION #3576 The original plat of Maple Place was approved in 1988. This application is for a realigni^^^t involving I^ts 2 and 3 of that plat; both with a residen^. The Apphcant realignra » rul-de-sac Originally, a 30' outlot dnveway serving Lot 3 ^IJ^S^propo^sS* With the ouUot^acklot standard requiring 150% oftlie are^, the j^nd was re nlLed with a private road and the 150% will not be needed. Lot 1 can be replatted at a fuLe time as it contains the dry buildable needed. The road can serve all three future lots. Caliahan asked about the driveway/private road issue. I^us^ said the applicant has been forewarned concerning Lot 3 fiiture division would requue an upgrade. Kelley moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution #3576. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#7) #2029 WILLIAM F. SMITH, 25S0 FOX STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - resolution #3577 Mr. Smith was present. A Ir *4 . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR Q MEETING HELD OifSEFITMBER 25, cmicoyNCiL 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS No member of the Planning Commission was present. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#3) #1921 MARY ULRICH, 1000 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - SUBDIVISION - FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - RESOLUTION #3607 Mark Gronberg was present as well as Mr. & Mrs. LaMere, purchasers of the lot. Gafiron reported that the request was for a final plat for property located in the 1 acre zoning district at Loma Linda and North Arm Drive. The property with the existing house will be split off fit>m the rest of the property for the subdivision. The existing wetland will be dedicated. Dedication of roadway for North Arm Drive will occur of 33' with an additional 25’ of Loma Linda, a roadway which does not exist on current plat maps. The existing house is connected to sewer via North Arm Drive but will be changed to a conneaion fi-om Loma Linda. The new residence will use the existing sewer connection. The property has previously been assess for two sewer units. The proposal is for a 90’ view easement for the view from the west. This still leaves a substandard building envelope. The S3600 park dedication fee has been paid. Conditions placed on the proposal include the sewer reconnection, lot 1 driveway to be located from Loma L’mda and approved by Public Works Director Gerhardson. Any changes in the future would require notification regarding the view easement. $ Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution #3607 granting final approval for the plat of Lakeside Heights for Mary Ulrich at 1000 Loma Linda Avenue. Vote: Ayes 4, Navs 0. (*#4) #2020 JAMES BRUCE, 565 LEAF STREET: A. VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT - RESOLUTION #360* Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3608. Ayes 4, Nays 0. B. FINAL SUBDIVISION^feSOLUTION #3609 Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3609. Ayes 4, Nays 0. J A M E S W .Bruce H O M E S Feb. 21. 1997 Mr. Ron Moorse City Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Mn. 5S356 Feb 2, C/7Vo 199; Dear Mr. Moorse, I have a question regarding our Fox Hollow subdivision at 565 Leaf St., Orono. The three lot subdivision was approved by the City Council on Sept. 25, 1995. The question that has arisen relates to Lot 2, which has an existing cottage on the property. I have sold Lot 2 to another party, and in January asked Jeanne Mabusth about preparing a covenant between the City and the new owner regarding future use of the cottage. The covenant requirement was included in the staff report to the Planning Commission and Council. (Please see attachments). Jeanne reviewed the files and sent me a letter on Jan. 20, 1997 (copy attached) in which she concluded that the subdivision approval did not consider the question of the existing structures use as “ an accessory structure with expanded living space but no kitchen" as was stated in the statf report. My clear understanding of the Planning Commission and Council approvals was that the existing structure could "either be part of a principal residence or may remain as an accessory structure with expanded living space but with no kitchen," and that "the future owner will be asked to execute a covenant if the structure remains as a separate accessory structure to alert all future owiters that the structure could never ser’ve as an independent residential unit." I am asking for your assistance in resolving an honest difference in understanding between Jeanne Mabusth and me. I am including copies of Jeanne's letter to me of Jan. 23, 1997 and my letter to her of Feb. 3, 1997 asking her to review her ivundusions. I am anxious to resolve this difference. As I stated in my letter, my sale of the property was based on mv representation to the buyer of what I believe to be the allowed • future USB of the cottage. It seems to me that the required covenant gives the city good assurances tnat the cottage would not be used as an independent residence. 565 Leaf Street, Orono, Minnesota 55356 (612) 475-2622 FAX (612) 475-3026 n 5. • i' I must add that Jeanne Mabusth and other sta-f-f have always been very help-ful and accomodating in my dealing with this and other matters. This is not a complaint, just a request to help resolve a difference of opinion. I will call you in a few days for your suggestions. Sincerely, I /Jim Bruce JB:bk CC: Jeanne Mabusth Enc: Mabusth letter of Jan. 28, 1997 Letter to Mabusth of Feb. 3, 1997 •- * COUNCIL MEETINQ APR 2 8 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cmroPORONO DATE: April 25, 1997 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: 'h Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: John Redmond Request for Kennel License at 2695 Casco Point Road Background In following up on complaints regarding dogs running at large, it was found that Mr. Redmond had four dogs and had not been licensing the dogs. The City Code requires a kennel license in order to keep more than two dogs. Mr. Redmond has applied for a kennel license for the four dogs. Recommendation The kennel license application has been reviewed by the Police Department. Based on the number of complaints and violations regarding the dogs, the Police Department is recommending the kennel license application be denied. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to deny the John Redmond application for a kennel license at 2695 Casco Point Road, r KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Eflfective Januaiy 1, 1997 to December 31.1997 R ec :;i2ived APR 1 7 1397 Ownner:JOHN REDMOND Property Address:.2695 CASCO POINT ROAD, WAYZATA 55391 Mailing Address (if different);___ Phone: (home)_____471-8646 (include city and zip) (work).860-2010 RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:______f. (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed;_________German short Hair Purpose for more than 2 dogs:.Huntinq CITY OF ORONO JUBEBD^ Dogs normally kept: X inside____^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: S150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:___________________ APR 1 e 1997 1 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 undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion 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 Councn.a^art^fany kennel license approval. Applicant Date For City Use Only Kennel inspected by Date Recommends Approval Denial ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENT REPORT On March 25,1997 a residential kennel license application was received for the residence of John Redmond, 2695 Casco Point Road in the City of Orono. A site inspection was completed, and the kennel was found to be adequate. In further checking, it was revealed that the application was not signed by the owner. A second application was sent to Mr. Redmond requiring him to submit a new one. At the same time a record check relating to animals complaints was done. The following information was provided. Records indicate that there are four dogs at the residence. There have been eight animal impounds, and five animal complaints dating back to June 26,1992. There is documentation recording violation.*! of no dog licensing. In addition, on October, 13 1995 notification of a dangerous dog registration had been completed. This was due to one of Mr. Redmonds' dogs killing a neighbors cat in the neighbors yard. After reviewing these reports it is the recommendation of the Police Department that approval of a kennel license be denied. H ------------------ KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1,19___to December 31, 19 Owner: ______________ Property Address: ^T~ /^cf' Mailing Address (if differenO: tL (include city and zip) Phone: (homej ^ / Z^ ^7SC Vfo (work) (C) RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (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: Tth'S Dogs normally kept; X inside____kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: S150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:_____________________________ Business Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinar>' care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hourr: 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 undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion 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. •3 D ^JvuvK. / .Applicant Date For City Use Only Kennel inspected by__ Recommends Approval^ Date Denial CC^LMEETINQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION APR 2 8 1997 DATE; April ITEM NO. Department Approval: Naire Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Lord Fletcher's Request for Use of Public Parking Lot Lord Fletcher's restaurant has requested use of a portion of the City's public parking lot in Navarre to provide parking for restaurant staff on weekends during the summer. This is similar to requests approved in 1995 and 1996. The arrangement generally worked well in 1996. Tlie one issue to be monitored most closely is to ensure the adjacent retail businesses have sufficient parking at all times. In 1995 Lord Fletcher's requested 40-50 parking spaces. In 1996 they indicated the average use would be between 40 and 60 spaces but initially requested authorization to use up to 75 spaces. They are requesting up to 75 spaces for 1997. Staff is more comfortable with a maximum of 60 spaces vs. 75 spaces. The conditions agreed to by Lord Fletcher's and recommended by staff are as follows: 1 . The lot will be used Friday nights, Saturday nights and Sundays. 2. 3. The lot will be used only for staff parking and not customer parking. Associates will leave the lot quickly after their shifts and will be careful about noise when leaving. 4. The shuttle buses will use onlv Countv Roads 15 and 51 and no residential streets. 5. All vehicles will be out of the lot by 2:00 a.m. 6.Lord Fletcher’s will maintain communication channels with the adjacent business owners to ensure against a lack of parking for those businesses. 7.Lord Fletcher’s will do additional patching of the lot as directed by the Public Services Director, and will periodically clean up litter from the grass areas on the north and west sides of the parking lot. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize Lord Fletcher’s to use the public parking lot in Navarre with conditions as determined by Council. £ord Fletchers ON LAKE MINNETONKA April 23, 1997 errvoF ORONO City of Orono 2710 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 55356 ^Pfi 2 _4 199J Dear Sirs: Please accept this letter as our request for use of the Orono Municipal lot in Navarre. We would like to use the lot on Friday and Saturday from 3:00 p.m. and later, and on Sunday from 1:00 p.m. and later from Memorial weekend through Labor day weekend. We would also request usage on the July 4 holiday weekend. The lot would be used for our associates only, approximately a maximum of seventy-five cars. The lot would not be advertised for our guests use. Wc would use the rear portion of the lot, as shown on the enclosed diagram. No loitering would be allowed and Lord Fic>* will maintain the lot by sweeping, patching, and marking it. We will also clean the surr*- mding landscape areas. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Any questions, please feel free to contact me at 471-8513. Cordially, er’s on Lake Minnetonka ;ell President colwcilmeetinq REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ ^ cmroFORONoDATE: April 23, 1997 ITEM NO Department Ai^nroval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Acquisition and Disposition of Saga Hill Tax Forfeit Parcel At its April 14 meeting, Council directed that a one-half acre portion of the 9.5 acre tax forfeit parcel in the Saga Hill area be made available for acquisition by adjacent p ’"»perty owners. This requires a resolution requesting City acquisition of the 9 acre portion of the ta: l^rfeit property and releasing one-half acre of the tax forfeit parcel for sale to adjacent property owners. This process will also require a subdivision application to split the one-half acre parcel from the larger parcel. The County has completed survey work regarding the subdivision and ha" o ’'eloped legal descriptions for the two parcels. These are reflected in the attached resolution. The motion adopting the resolution should indicate that the property owner who acquires the one- half acre parcel will be responsible for all costs related to the process of subdividing the one-half acre parcel from the larger parcel. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution requesting acquisition of the 9 acre portion of the Saga Hill tax forfeit property and releasing a one-half acre portion of the tax forfeit parcel for sale to adjacent property owners, with the following conditions: 1. The parcel be combined with the adjacent property. 2. The property owner be responsible for all costs related to subdividing the one-half acre parcel from the 9.5 acre parcel. 3. That necessary drainage easements related to the pond be established prior to the transfer of ownership. TAX FORFEITED LAND TO BE ACQUIRED AND TAX FORFEITED LAND TO BE RELEASED FOR PRIVATE SALE TO ADJACENT OWNERS WHEREAS, the city of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282, the City has received from Hennepin County a list of lands within the City which have become the property of the State of Minnesota for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lands for compliance with local zoning ordinances, for the amount of outstanding special assessments remaining unpaid to the City, and/or for possible public use by the City as authorized the Statutes. In addition the Council has reviewed said lands and certifies that I' if parcel need not be withheld from sale pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 85.021, 92.461, 282.ol, Subd. 8, 282.018, Subd 1, or 282.018, Subd 2. WHEREAS, the City has determined that the majority of the said lands would meet a priority public need if acquired by the City for use as park land; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that one-half acre of the said lands can be made available for public sale to adjacent property owners without adversely affecting the public use of the remaining nine acres. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 282.01, Subd. 1, hereby applies to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and to the Commissioner of Revenue for conveyance of the following tax forfeited land to the City for public use by the City of Orono. Parcel Retained for Use bv ihe City District: 38 Page 1 of 3 Legal Description: That part of the northwest quarter of Section 7, Township 117, Range 23 described as follows: Beginning at a point in the westerly line of "Tonkaview Gardens Hennepin County Minn." distant 1320 feet south as measured at right angles from the north line of said northwest quarter; thence west parallel with said north line to a point in a line running from a point in said north line of the northwest quarter distant 402.5 feet east from the northwest comer of said northwest quarter to a point in the south line of said northwest quarter distant 396.5 feet east from the southwest comer of said northwest quarter; thence southerly along the last-described line to the northerly line of that portion of the alley, as dedicated on and adjoining the northerly line of Lot 5, in Bergquist and Wicklund's Addition to Bergquist and Wicklund’s Park Hennepin County Minnesota; thence easterly along said northerly line and its easterly prolongation to said westerly line of "Tonkaview Gardens Hennepin County Minn."; thence northerly along said westerly line to the point of beginning. Public Purpose: Park land BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 282, hereby approves the classification of a one-half acre parcel of land as non­ conservation land, and furthermore approves the public sale of this parcel of land as listed below to adjacent property owners. All parcels remain subject to all applicable zoning ordinance provisions, including those regulations providing for minimum lot area and minimum lot width. Substandard parcels may be useable only in combination with other adjoining parcels. Release of this parcel by the City Council is subject to the condition that, upon purchase by adjacent property owner of said tax forfeit parcel, purchaser shall legally combine for tax purposes adjacent existing property and said tax forfeit parcel. Parcel Released for Sale to Adjacent Owners District: 36 Legal Description: That part of the northwest quarter of Section 7, Township 117, Range 23 lying westerly of "Tonkaview Gardens Hennepin County Minn.", which lies between the northerly line of Bergquist and Wicklund's Addition to Bergquist and Wicklund's Park Hennepin County Minnesota and the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of that portion of the alley, as dedicated on and adjoining the northerly line of Lot 5, in said addition. Page 2 of 3 . V V. , ' .ir Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held the 28th day of April, 1997. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Page 3 of 3 L OOUNCtLMEETINQ APR 2 8 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CnVOFORONO DATE: April 24,1997 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Options for Increasing Highway 12 Sewer Capacity The Highway 12 area is currently provided with sewer service by a sewer trunk line shared by the Cities of Long Lake, Medina and Orono. With the completion of the North Long Lake sewer project and the ice arena project, Orono will be near its maximum allocated capacity in the shared sewer trunk line. Although the amount of sewer capacity available to the Highway 12 area will be substantially increased as part of the proposed Highway 12 upgrade project, this project is not planned to be constructed until 2001 or 2002. This leaves the City with a five year period during which new developments may occur which would require the provision of additional sewer capacity. Particular potential developments to note are the Orono Schools building plan which could require up to 75 sewer units, and development on the Otten or Rebers prop>erties which have already paid for 74 sewer units. Staff projects that an additional 200 units of sewer capacity should be sufficient to meet the needs of new development that may occur prior to the Highway 12 upgrade project. Preferred Option Staff has identified several alternatives for providing this additional interim sewer capacity. The most cost-effective option is to divert peak flows from the shared sewer trunk line into the Maple Plain metro interceptor on the south side of Highway 12. This can be accomplished by installing a lift station at the point where the shared trunk line runs south from Highway 12 to the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The lift station is then connected to the Maple Plain interceptor in such a way that provides the ability to divert only peak flows from the shared trunk line to the interceptor. This alternative could provide up to 200 units of additional sewer capacity at a cost of approximately $100,000.00. The City Engineer has discussed this option with the staff at the Met Council Environmental Services who would be reviewing the City's request to use the interceptor. The Met Council staff indicated their first reaction was that this alternative could work. Upon receipt of a request from the Cit>, the Met Council staff will conduct a more in-depth review of the request and prepare a recommendation to the Metropolitan Council. This process will take approximately three to four weeks. 3 Request for Council At .ion continued page 2 of2 April 24,1997 Memo - Options for Increasing Highway 12 Sewer Capacity Additional Options Other options with costs similar to the interceptor option provide substantially less additional sewer capacity, i.e., 82-100 units. An option which involves the rerouting of some sewer flows tlirough Long Lake and the upgrade of pipe E (the eastern most section of the shared trunk line) could provide an additional 200 units of sewer capacity, but at a cost of approximately $250,000.00. Staff Recommendation It is staffs recommendation that the Council authorize a formal request to the Met Council to divert peak flows to the Maple Plain metro interceptor. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:i Motion to authorize staff to make a formal request to the Met Council to divert 200 units of peak .sewer flows to the Maple Plain metro interceptor to address the interim sewer capacity problem. - -• — COUNOLMEETINa REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION APR 2 8 1997 date : Apr:; ITEM NO = ^3- Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name RonMoorse City Administrator’s Title City Administrator Report Item Description:/ Highway 12 Preliminary Design-Neighborhood Meetings The Highway 12 preliminary design process is now underway. The Design Review Committee has met and will be meeting on a monthly basis. Letters have been sent to all property owners within 500' of the Highway 12 corridor to advise them the design process has begun. It is important to develop and maintain good communication channels between the city and the property owners adjacent to the corridor during the design review process, both to obtain input from the property owners regarding design issues and to keep them informed regarding the design review process. The first step in developing these communication channels may be to hold "neighborhood" meetings to explain the design review process and timeline, encourage property owner input, and discuss how best to keep the property owners informed and involved during the design review process. One way to get this process started is to hold two neighborhood meetings, one for all affected property owners east of Willow Drive and one for all affected property owners west of Willow Drive. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to select dates and times for two neighborhood meetings regarding the Highway 12 design review process. i COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE; April 22,1997 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hallin Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Resolution Amending the Program for Deferment of Special Assessments for Persons 65 Years of Age or Older Attachment: Proposed Resolution The city has established a program for deferment of special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older. At this time the income guidelines for deferment have been updated to conform with current Section 8 Low Income Guidelines. The application form is also being updated at the present time to reflect the correct income guidelines. Information mailed to the North Long Lake and Long Lake Country Club Addition sewer area property owners included information regarding the city's deferment of Special assessments. As of this date the city has received one request for information regarding this deferral. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt proposed resolution amending the proj^ram for deferment of special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older and approve the updating of the deferral application. i I A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PROGRAM FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER WHEREAS, the City Council of the Cit>' of Orono is the official governing body of the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 435.193 through Section 425.195 authorizes the City of Orono, upon proper application, to defer the payment of special assessments against any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older on January 1 of the payment year and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments; and WHEREAS, Section 425.194 authorizes the municipality to establish an interest rate to be added to the deferred assessment which shall be payable in addition to the deferred assessment; and that Orono had adopted such a program under Ordinance 2.62 (1984 recodified). Resolution 1093 (dated November 13, 1979), Resolution 1779 (dated June 10, 1985) and Resolution 2864 (dated August 27, 1990). WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the deferral of assessments should be granted to any person otherwise qualified who makes proper application to the City of Orono on forms prtbcribed by the County Assessor of Hennepin County and by the Orono City Council and for whom the City Council determines that it would be a hardship to make the payments, based upon the following criteria: NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD MAXIMUM INCOME I Person $29,100 2 Person $33,300 3 Person $37,450 4 Person $41,600 5 Person $44,950 6 Person $48,250 7 Person $51,600 8 Person $54,900 1 Assets not including homesteaded property of $25,000, income and assets as defined in Hennepin County's Utility Connection Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO IN A REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, that the assessments against any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments, be deferred for a period of time not to exceed five years subject to the aforementioned financial criteria, upon submission of an appropriate application signed by the qualified person, and which may upon expiration of initial or any subsequent renewal deferments may be reapplied for, and subject to the applicant meeting all the necessary criteria upon reapplication be deferred for an additional period not to exceed 5 years; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the right of deferment is automatically terminated under Section 435.195 if: 1. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible; 2. The property o»<^is sold, transferred or subdivided; 3. The property should losw lU homestead status; or 4. If for any reason the City determines that there would be no hardsnip to require immediate or partial payment. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held April 28, 1997. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Cierk council MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ? 8 1997 CITY OP ORONO DATE: Apr 18,1997 ITEM NO: Department Approval;^ Name: Chris Miller Title: Asst. Finance Director Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: 1997 First Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Report 11 le following report summarizes the 1997 revenues and expenditures for the first quarter ending £ 1 rch 31, 1997. The report includes a comparison of current revenues and expenditures to the .j.verage funding and spending levels during the past three years (year-to-date budget). The year-to- date (YTD) budget is also adjusted to account for timing differences for revenues and expenditures that are rei ognized in varying periods as compared to previous years. Summary of Revenues The first quarter revenues in the General Fund total $377,106. This represents approximately 11% of the projected revenues for the calendar year of 1997. The revenues are at expected levels, and along with beginning fund balances, have adequately funded first qu5;rter expenditures. No property tax revenues for the current year were realized in the first quarter. The City expects to receive one half of its property tax share in July. Summary of Expenditures The first quarter expenditures in the General Fund total $792,755. This represents approximately 23% of the pr'w^ -cted expenditures for the calendar year of 1997. This is comparable to prior year expenditures levels, which have consistently remained at approximately 23% for the first quarter. A few expenditures within the General Fund were higher than anticipated as compared to previous years. These exceptions have been noted below, and in the Combined Fund Expenditure Report. All Combined Fund expenditures have been 'equately funded by first quarter revenues and beginning fund balances. Council Action Requested Information purposes only, no Council action required. Schedule of Expenditure Variances for the 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of March 31,1997 The variances noted below represent expenditures within departments or funds that are significantly higher than projected. This includes those expenditures which are at least $500 and 5% higher than anticipated. (1) The expenditures for contractual fire services is higher than in previous years.. This is the result of the varied timing of payments made to the contract cities. (2) 'Personal Services' expenditures within the Planning & Zoning Department were higher llian anticipated. This resulted from the severance paid to Jeanne Mabusth, upon her retirement. It is uncertain whcJh« i a budget adjustment will be needed to cover thiS expense. (3) 'Personal Services' expenditures within the Street Maintenance, and Water Operating Departments are higher than anticipated. This resulted from the severance paid to John Gerhardson, upon his retirement. It is uncertain whether a budget adjustment will be needed to cover this expense. (4) The expenditures for 'supplies & Maintenance' within the Recycling Department includes the purchase of additional recycling bins. This item was not budgeted for, however it does not appear that a budget adjustment will be necessary at this time. i City of Orono 1997 Genera] Fund Revenue Report As of March 31,1997 Source of Revenue Prc^rty Taxes 1997 Budect 1.680,980 YTD Budget 03-31-97 0 riD Revenues 03-31-97 0 Dollar Increase (Decrease) From YTD Budeet 0 % Increase (Decrease) 0.00 Licenses 18,500 8,325 9346 1,021 0.12 Permits 176,500 35,300 47,165 11,865 034 Intergovernmental 453,710 45,371 41463 (2,908)(0.06) Charges for Services 950,590 237,648 248,017 10,369 0.04 Fines & Forfeits 64,400 11,592 1131.3 (79)(0.01) Interest 63,950 12,790 15,980 .3,190 0.25 Miscellaneous 38,975 3,898 1613 (1.274)(033) TOTAL REVENUES 3.447.605 354,913 377.106 21183 0.06 1 I City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of March 31,1997 Dollar YID YTD Increase % 1997 Budget Expenditures (Decrease)Increase Budeet 011NO03-31-97 From YTD Budeet fDecreasel City Council Personal Services 19,670 4,721 4,614 (107)-2.26% Other Ej^nses 32,300 14,858 15,220 362 2.44% Total 51,970 19,579 19,834 255 130% • Administration Personal Services 183,845 44,123 42,288 (1,835)-4.16% Supplies & Maintenance 200 180 403 223 123.84% Professional Service 3,000 540 450 (90)-16.67% Other Ejqienses 10,250 3,178 2,651 (527)-1638% Total 197,295 48,020 45,792 (2,229)-4.64% Elections Personal Service 0 0 0 0 0.00% Supplies & Maintenance 0 0 338 338 0.00% Other Expenses 20 0 0 0 0.00% Total 20 0 338 • 338 0.00% Assessing 1 Professional Service 78,065 26,542 26,101 (441)-1.66% Total 78,065 26,542 26,101 (441)-1.66% ..i i____ # \ Finance Personal Services Supplies Sc Maintence Professional Service Other Dqpenses Total Legal Professional Service Other Expenses Total Central Services City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of March 31,1997 1997 Budget YTD Budget 03-31-97 YTD Expenditures 03-31-97 Dollar Increase (Decrease) From YTD Budget Human Services Other Dqienses Total 147,220 50 3,500 2,170 152,940 97,700 0 97,700 16,155 16,155 33,861 4 0 608 34,633 0 0 581 34,472 35,214 22,471 0 21,933 0 22,471 21,933 4,039 3,705 4,039 3,705 772 (4) 0 (26) 743 (538) 0 (538) (334) (334) % Increase (Decrease) 22S% -100.00% 0.00% -432% 2.15% •2.40% 0.00% -2.40% Supplies Sc Maintenance 49,470 12368 12.071 (297)-2.40% Professional Service 10,900 3,924 2,951 (973)-24.79% Insurance 43,600 436 550 114 26.15% Capital Outlay 3,080 0 0 . 0 0.00% Other Expenses 61380 18,414 17,831 (583)-3.17% Total 168,430 35,142 33,402 (1.739)-4.95% -8.26% -8.26% 111-------rw T ---------- -•^»r V'» ?• .T’Jl- City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of March 31,1997 Police 1997 Bude^ YTD Budget 03-31-97 YTD Expenditures 03-31-97 Dollar Increase (Decrease) From YTD Budeet % Increase (Decrease) Personal Services 1,063,000 244,490 241,993 (2.497)-1.02% Supplies & Maintenance 92,000 23,000 23371 371 1.61% Professional Services 10,700 5350 5,178 (172)-3.22% Insurances 23,300 466 925 459 98.50% Other Bqpenses 52,850 13,213 12,802 (410)-3.10% Capital Outlay 66,320 13364 5,266 (7,998)-6030% Total 1308,170 299,783 289,535 (10,247)-3.42% Fire Professional Service (1) Total 218,600 218,600 54,650 54,650 69,228 69,228 14,578 14,578 26.68% 26.68% Planning & Zoning Personal Services (2)303,910 75,978 92,746 16,768 22.07% Supplies & Maintenance 1,810 362 72 (290)-80.00% Professional Services 3,500 1,400 320 (1,080)-77.14% Other Expenses 5,650 2,260 2,641 381 16.85% Total 314,870 80,000 95,779 15,780 19.72% Emergency Preparedness Supplies & Maintenance Other Eiqpenses Total City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of March 31,1997 1997 Budget 13X) 1300 2300 YID Budget 03-31-97 168 221 389 YTD Expenditures 03-31-97 0 175 Dollar Increase (Decrease) From YTD Budget (168) (46) (214) % Increase (Decrease! -100.00% -20.76% -54.98% Animal Control Personal Services Supplies & Maintenance Professional Services Other Eqpenses Total 13,085 2,617 2323 (94)-359% 800 80 0 (80)-100.00% 1,000 100 0 (100)-100.00% 250 25 0 (25)-100.00% 15,135 2,822 2323 (299)-1059% Engineering Professional Service Total 14,420 14,420 1,154 1,154 1,139 1,139 (15) (15) -131% -131% Street Maintenance Personal Service (3)245,290 61323 69,924 8,601 14.03% Supplies & Maintenance 212,000 38,160 37,242 (918)-2.41% Professional Services 0 0 0 0 0.00% Other Eroenses 37,880 10,606 10,642 36 0..34% m Total 495,170 110,089 117,808 7,719 7.01% City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of March 31,1997 Dollar YTD YTD Increase % 1997 Budget Expenditures (Decrease)Increase Budget 03-31-97 03-31-97 From YTD Budeet flDecrease) Parks & Recreation Personal Services 23,025 5,296 5,792 496 ^yi% Supplies & Maintenance 22,600 226 4 (222)-98.04% Professional Service UOO 300 245 (55)-1833% Other Ejq)enses 5,730 57 212 155 27035% Total 52,555 5,879 6,154 375 637% Recycling Personal Services 1,635 0 0 0 0.00% Supplies & Maintenance (4)250 0 2,125 1125 0.00% Professional Service 65,920 16,480 10,846 (5,634)-34.19% Other Expenses 6,000 0 245 245 0.00% Total 73,805 16,480 13,216 (.3,264)-19.81% Special Services — Consulting & Police Personal Services 8,850 0 0 0 0.00% Professional Services 33,200 1,992 1175 . 183 9.20% Total 42,050 1,992 1175 183 9.20% Special Proiects & Contingencies Personal Services 0 0 0 0 0.00% Professional Service 7,000 3,150 3,500 350 11.11% Other Expenses 1,055 106 127 22 20.84% Transfers 95,000 0 0 0 0.00% Contingency Items 44,700 5,364 4,977 (.387)-7.21% Total 147,755 8,620 8,605 (15)-0.17% Total General Fund 3,447,605 772,120 791755 20,635 2.67% City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of March 31,1997 Dollar YID YID Increase % 1997 Budget Expenditures (Decrease)Increase Budeet 03-31-97 03-31-97 From YID Budeet (Decrease) Special Revenue Funds Park Fund 109.000 19,620 19,921 301 1.54% Improvement Sc Equip. Outlay 148,040 65,138 65,479 341 042% BuOding Capital Outlay 139,800 2,097 2,006 (91)-433% Total 396.840 86.855 87.407 552 0.64% Total General & Special Revenue Funds 3.844.445 858.975 880.162 21.187 2.47% Drf)t Service Funds 1982 Improvement Bonds 19,165 17,249 17,250 2 0.01% 1991 Improvement Bonds 404,900 289,504 289,814 311 0.11% 1992 Improvement Bonds 191,790 14.3,843 148,069 4,226 2.94% 1995 (1985) Refunding Bonds 75,150 64,629 67,210 2481 3.99% 1995 (1989) Wtr Improv. Bonds 31,065 15,533 15,866 333 2.14% 1995 (1989) Swr Improv. Bonds 30,382 15,191 15,496 305 2.00% Total 752.452 545.947 553.704 7.757 1.42% Capital Proiects Funds % ‘ MSA Fund 806,000 7,254 5,750 (1404)-20.73% PI R Fund 128,700 10,940 10,953 13 0.12% Total 934,700 18,194 16.703 (1.491)-8.19% Water Operating Fund Personal Service (3)80,710 20,178 24,219 4,042 20.03% Supplies Sc Maintenance 50,760 • 2,538 2,828 290 11.44% Professional Services 5,900 295 128 (167)-56.74% Insurance 7.950 80 75 (5)-5.66% Other Expenses 107,370 25,769 2530 (439)-1.70% Total 252.690 48.859 52.580 3.721 7.62% \ ‘ Sewer Operating Fund Personal Services Supplies & Maintenance Professional Services Insurance Other Eiqjenses Total Golf Operating Fund City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of March 31,1997 YTD YTD Dollar Increase % 1997 Budget Expenditures (Decrease)Increase Budaet 03-31-97 03-31-97 From YTD Budeet fDecreasel 145,190 36,298 36,189 (108)-030% 60,295 1,809 1,801 (8)-0.46% 20,600 412 502 90 2134% 10,800 108 175 67 62.04% 489,445 132,150 135,092 2,942 2.13% 726.^30 170.777 173.759 2.983 1.75% Personal Service 70,830 11,3.33 11,457 124 1.10% Suj^lies & Maintenance 20,465 1,013 1,240 217 21.22% Professional Service •1,800 180 407 227 126.11% Insurance 14,125 1,413 1,425 13 0.88% Other Expenses 39,115 3,912 3,662 (250)-6.39% Total 146335 17.860 18.191 331 1.85% 1995 (1989) Water Revenue Bonds Principal Payment 113,945 113,945 113,945 0 0.00% 1995 (1989) Sewer Revenue • Bonds Principal Payment 121,055 121,055 121,055 . 0 0.00% Total Combined Funds 5.967.252 1.887.417 1.913396 35.979 1.91% P ■CF.V* ,• - 7*1 -T rti ■ 11-« wr ^OWWMBBTWGI APR 2 8 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CnVOFORONO DATE: April 10,1997 ITEM NO = Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: Harbor Limits Ordinance Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Attachment: Report from the City Attorney Regarding Harbor Limits Regulations and a Draft Ordinance Establishing Harbor Limits The City Attorney has provided background information regarding harbor limits regulations and a draft ordinance establishing harbor limits and prohibiting nuisances in the harbor limits area. The Council had directed that the ordinance address dock regulations and the regulation of herbicide or chemical use in the lake. Subsection 14 on page 4 of the ordinance defmes the use of chemicals for weed or pest control as a public nuisance. This language would constitute a total ban on the use of chemicals in the lake. If there are some types of chemicals that can be used in the lake under certain circumstances the city may want to adopt regulations which specify acceptable uses and conditions. The harbor limits ordinance also gives the city authority over docks in the harbor limits area. The city needs to develop a set of dock regulations as the basis for enforcing the docks section of the harbor limits ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached Harbor Limits Ordinance, or to direct staff concerning changes to the ordinance. 1 i POPHAM HAIK 8CHNOBRICH 8 KAUFMAN, LTD. OCNVIM,COCOnAOO Tkl a03-891-l200 Miami , flohioa Ttw a0i-930*0090 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER, SUITE 3300 222 SOUTH N inth street Minneapolis , Minnesota 5S402-3336 tel 012-333-4600 • FAX 6l2-334-e868 WAftHiNOTON. D C. TCL 202*824-e000 INTtmMATlONAL AFFILIATION: BKUiNO. C hina TKu Ot IS6t-9l3S281 Thomas J. R adio , Esq. Direct Dial (612) 334-2653 Internet E-Mail : R adio TQPopham .com.cnvoFonem.J March 19, 1997 MAR 2 0 199^ TO: FROM: RE: Orono City Council Thomas J. Radio, Ci Regulation of Activities Within Harbors Located in Orono OVERVIEW The City Council has requested an opinion regarding its ability to regulate activities within Orono’s harbors. Based upon applicable statutes, regulations, and cases, the City of Orono has the ability to impose reasonable restrictions on certain activities occurring in Orono’s harbors. DISCUSSION As a political subdivision of the State, the City of Orono must first look toward state law for enumeration of its particular powers. The City’s power and authority concerning harbors is found in Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 12, which states: The council shall have power to establish harbor and dock limits and by ordinance regulate the location, construction and use of peers, docks, wharfs and boat houses on applicable waters and fix rates of wharfage. The council may construct and maintain 057/14133850 3/19/97 Orono City Council March 19, 1997 Page 2 public docks and warehouses and by ordinance regulate their use. Both the Minnesota Supreme Court and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office has recognized that this statute provides cities police power to control certain activities in the areas bounded by their harbor limits. In Nelson v. Delong . 7 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 1942), the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld: The city’s right to build and maintain a public boat dock on its park property; to require all persons to refrain from anchoring in adjacent waters or docking their boats except at the public docks; to charge a reasonable fee for the dock facilities; and to set aside a bathing beach as part of the shorelands of the park. The supreme court found these powers to be granted by Minn. Stat. § 412.221, as well as the general police powers granted to every city in Minnesota. In a formal opinion, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office also recognized a city’s ability to regulate activities within its harbors, including the landing of seaplanes within the city’s harbor. Minn. Atty Gen. Op., 234-9 (Jan. 11, 1949). Three questions then arise: Q. A. How are harbor limits and regulations established? Harbor limits and regulations are established by ordinance. Spring Park, Mound and Minnetrista have established harbor limits and nuisance restrictions, The Spring Park and Minnetrista provisions are provided for your consideration: Q. A. What are reasonable restrictions or activities within the harbor? Since the statute specifically grants the city authority to regulate docks, the city has broad authority in this regard and also to activities occurring on the docks. The restrictions must be reasonable and non-discriminatory. A city’s ability to regulate surface water use within the harbor is more limited. Unless the lake is entirely within the city limits, any city restriction is subject to DNR approval, unless all of the cities surrounding a body of water enter into a joint powers agreement. Otherwise, the county is responsible for surface water use. 057/14133850 3/19/97 i Orono City Council March 19, 1997 Page 3 Q.Does the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District’s have regulations that affect the City’s ability to regulate harbor activities? A.In certain circumstances, the ordinances and regulations of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District may have concurrent jurisdiction with the city regarding certain activities. There is, however, no case law determining the exact contours of that concurrent jurisdiction. The courts normally will analyze the issues seeking to balance the interest of each jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATION Attached is a ^:aft ordinance for your consideration and discussion, along with examples from other communities. Attachments 057/14133850 3/19/97 CITY OF ORONO ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING HARBOR LIMITS AND PROHIBITING NUISANCES THEREIN Section 1. Harbor Limits. The geographical and jurisdictional limits of the city in, on and over navigable waters in or adjacent to the city shall extend to the harbor limits of any adjoining municipality or other governmental unit. Section 2. Primary Harbor Limit. The area within 300 feet of the water line on the shore of any lake or other body of water in or adjacent to the village shall be known as the "Primary Harbor Limit." Section 3 . Secondary Harbor Limit. The area extending from 300 feet of the water line on the shore of any lake or other body of water in or adjacent to the village and to the harbor limits of an adjoining municipality or other governmental unit shall be known as the "Secondary Harbor Limit." Section 4. Jurisdictional Limit. The harbor limits of this city shall be deemed not to extend beyond a point half way between the shores of the body of water located in another village or governmental unit. Section 5. Nuisance Prohibited. No person shall commit or maintain a public nuisance in or upon the waters of any lake or other body of water within the jurisdiction of this city; nor, shall any person let, permit, or enable any other person to use any boat, dock, craft or structure, or portion thereof, knowing that it is intended to be used for committing or maintaining a public nuisance. No person shall willfully prevent, hinder, oppose, or obstruct a public official in the performance of his duty in carrying out the provisions of this ordinance, or in removing or abating a public nuisance. Section 6 . Nuisances Defined. A public nuisance is a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor, and consists in unlawfully doing an act or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission shall; Subsection 1. Injure or endanger the safety, health or comfort of the public; or. Subsection 2. Offend public decency; or Subsection 3 . Unlawfully interfere with, obstruct, or tend to obstruct or render dangerous for use of passage, a body of water within the harbor limits of the city. Section 7. Specific Public Nuisances Defined. The term "Public Nuisance" shall be deemed to include the following: i 057/14134097 3/19/97 Subsection 1. Anything declared to be a public nuisance by an ordinance of this city. Subsection 2. The depositing of refuse, waste or other deleterious, poisonous or injurious substance within the harbor limits of the city. Subsection 3 . The depositing of refuse, waste or other harbor limits of the village. Subsection 4. The erection or maintenance of any dock or structure which interferes with, obstructs, or tends to obstruct or render dangerous for use the waters within the primary harbor limits of the city. Subsection 5 . The failure to equip and to operate a boat, vessel or watcicraft in accordance with the provision, of Chapter 361 of Minnesota Statutes, as amended, which statutes are hereby adopted and incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference, as fully as if set forth herein. Provided, however, that these additional requirements shall be met by all owners and operators of watercraft within the harbor limits established herein, namely: A. All watercraft in use or underway between sunset and sunrise shall be equipped with and have in operation red and green running lights in the forward section of the boat, and a white light at the stern or on the superstructure, which white light shall be visible on a dark night with clear atmosphere for a distance of two miles from any direction. Provided, however, that motor powered watercraft under 16 feet in overall length may use portable lights, which must be clamped on the watercraft when in use; and, non- powered watercraft may use a portable single white light which is visible fro.m any direction for a distance of two miles on a dark night with clear atmosphere. B. All watercraft when at anchor or drifting must show a white light visible from any direction for a distance of one mile, and such lijiht shall be lit from sunset to sunrise, except that a watercraft anchored in a cove within one hundred feet of shore and 200 feet away irom normal navigation and any watercraft anchored at a dock or pier need not have the white light lit. C. All watercraft shall have on board and readily accessible life preservers, vests, or other similar buoyant devices capable of keeping every person on board afloat. D. No watercraft other than an authorized Water Patrol Boat or other police watercraft shall use or display a red light, except a red running light. E. No watercraft other than an authorized Water Patrol Boat or other police watercraft shall use or display a police, sheriff or law enforcement officer’s flag, or any device designed to simulate such a flag. 057/14134097 3/19/97 F. No person shall board, use, damage or tamper with a watercraft, except when done by the owner or with the owner ’s consent. G. No person under years of age shall operate a watercraft powered by a motor of ten horse or more, unless accompanied by a competent person 15 years of age or older. Subsection 6 . The failure to tow or to operate a watercraft towing one or more persons behind a watercraft on water skis, aqua-plane, surfboard, saucer, or similar device, except in compliance with these regulations: A. Ever;' person being towed shall wear a life vest, belt, or other buoyant device, except with written permission of the County Sheriff. B. Not more than two persons may be towed at one time, except with written permission by the County Sheriff. C. No person shall be towed from one-half hour after official sunset to sunrise. D. No person shall be towed by a rope, or cable, or other towing device longer than 85 feet, except with a written permit of the County Sheriff. E. No person shall operate a watercraft when towing a person, and no person being towed, shall come within 150 feet of any bathing area, skin diver’s warning flag, swimmer, or raft, watercraft, dock, pier or public launching ramp or access except that raft, dock, or pier from which he is operating. F. No person shall tow or be towed during a holiday, a Saturday or a Sunday, or in a congested area at any time, unless two competent persons are on board the watercraft. The driver of such watercraft shall be at least 15 years of age, and must watch where the watercraft is being driven at all times. The second person on board the watercraft shall be an observer, and shall be at least 12 years of age, and shall at all times watch the person or persons being towed. G. No person shall drag an unoccupied tow line behind a watercraft for an unreasonable length of time. H. No person shall tow or be towed into or through a marked channel connecting two bodies of water. 057/14134097 3/19/97 ^ -k » -«yfl FROM POPHAM KAIK ET AL (THU) 4.10*97 ll:5l/ST. 11:44/N ’0. S7600S6SS1 P Subsection 7. The overtaking and/or passing of any craft in a channel or narrow passage by the operator of any motor boat, speed boat, or of any vessel under power, so as to endanger other craft; and all craft shall proceed through all channels and narrow passages of water at safe speeds, otherwise the operator shall be deemed to have committed a public nuhancc. .Subsection 8 . The failure to equip and maintain lights, and 10 have such lights lighted when the boat or vessel is operating within the harbor limits of the city at night. Subsection 9. Obstructing or interfering with passage of a boat or vessel through a channel or narrow passageway. Subsection 10. Operating a boat or vessel in a careless or reckless manner in or about u public swimming beach. Subsection 11 . Swimming in a channel, or jumping or diving from a channel bridge. Subsection 12 . Operating any watercraft, automobile, vehicle or powered propelled device on the open water, or upon an ice covered body of water, in such a manner as to endanger life, limb or property. Subsection 13 . Selling food, beverages, supplies or other merchandise from any watercraft on the lake; provided however, that food and beverages may be sold on watercraft to passengers who leave the shore and return on the watercraft on which such food and beverages are sold. Subsection 14 . Use of chemicals for weed or pest control. Section 8 . Dock Moving and Structm-e Regulation . The City may regulate the location, construction, installation, maintenance, number, size, and use of docks, moorings and other structures within the harbor limits. Section 9. Notices. Owners of docks used by the public shall post two (2) legible copies of this Ordinance on or near dock. Section 10. Penalty. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shidl be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed seven hundred dollars ($700.00) or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days. 0J7/I41M097 4/10/97 1 1 BOATS. DOCKS AND WATERWAYS § 6-102 L See. 6-89. Expiration. A watercraft storage permit shall expire on December 31 of the year for which the permit is issued. A joint dock permit or permanent dock permit shall expire upon a change in ownership of the lot or lots on which or in front of which the dock or mooring area is located. (Ord. No. 126, § 1(126.060(6)), 4-4-83) Secs. 6-90 —6-100. Reserved. ARTICLE III. HARBORS AND WATER SAFE'fY Sec. 6-101. Harbor limits. The geogi aphical and jurisdictional limits of this city in, on and over navigable waters in or adjacent to it shall extend to the harbor limits of any adjoining municipality or other governmental unit. The area within three hundred (300) feet of the water line on the shore of any lake or other body of water in or adjacent to the city shall be known as the "primary harbor limit”. The area extending from three hundred (300) feet to the water line on the shore of any lake or other body of water in or adjacent to the city and to the harbor limits of an adjoining municipality or another governmental unit shall be known as the "secondary harbor limit”. The harbor limits of the city shall be deemed not to extend beyond a point half way between the shores of the body of water over which it has jurisdiction and the shores of' the body of water located in another municipality or governmental unit. (Ord. No. 10, §§ 1-4, 6-1-61) State law reference—Authority to establish harbor limits, M.S. § 412.221, subd. 12. Sec. 6-102. Public nuisances defined and prohibited. (a) A public nuisance is a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor, and constitutes in unlaw ­ fully doing an act or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission shall: (1) Injure or endanger the safety, health, or comfort of the public; (2) Offend public decency; or, (3) Unlawfully interfere with, obstruct, or tend to obstruct or render dangerous for use or passage, a body of water within the harbor limits. (b) The term "public nuisance ” shall be deemed to include the following: (1) Anything declared to be a public nuisance by ordinance. (2) Any violation of this article. (c) No person shall commit or maintain a public nuisance in or upon the waters of any lake or other body of water within the jurisdiction of the city, nor shall any person let, permit, or enable any other person to use any boat, dock, craft, or structure, or portion thereof, knowing that it is intended to be used for committing or maintaining a public nuisance. (Ord. No. 10, §§5-7, 6-1-61) Cross reference—Nuisances, Ch. 15. State law reference—Authority to define, prevent and abate nuisances, M.S. § 412.221, subd. 23. 311 *1 § 6-103 MINNETRISTA CITY CODE See. 6-103. Impoundment, destruction, etc., of watercraft, warming houses, etc., found in violation of article. Whenever any boat, canoe, or other watercraft, or any fish house, warming house or other similar structure is deemed to constitute a nuisance hereunder, the same may be abated by any police officer of this city, or by any law enforcement officer of the county or state, by impoimdii'.g the same and retaining the same for proper disposition. If the property is aban­ doned, or the owner thereof is unknown and not subject to discovery, the property may forthwith be destroyed or sold at public auction. If the owner of the property is known, a complaint shall be forthwith served upon him. If a conviction results, the order of the court shall include a provision relative to the disposition of the property, which order may require its destruction or sale to cover the costs incurred by the city. (Ord. No. 10, § 8(2), 6-1-61; Ord. No. 40, § 2, 5-3-71; Ord. No. 126, § 10, 4-4-83) Editor’s note—The above provision was originally Ordinance No. 10, § 8, subsection 2. It was renumbered as § 13, subsection 2 by Ordinance No. 40. Ord. No. 126, § 2 repealed Ordinance No. 40. The intent was not to repeal the above provision. Sec. 6-104. Waste disposal, etc. No person shall deposit refuse, waste or other deleterious, poisonous or injurious sub­ stance within the harbor limits. No person shall deposit sewage within the primary harbor limits. (Ord. No. 10. § 7(2), (3), 6-1-61) Sec. 6-105. Diterference with enforcement. No person shall wilfully prevent, hinder, oppos.o or obstruct a public official in the performance of his duty in carrying out the provisions of this article, or in removing or abating a public nuisance. (Ord. No. 10. § 5. 6-1-61) Sec. 6-106. Structures interfering with, etc., primary harbor limits. No person shall erect or maintain any dock or structure which interferes with, obstructs, or tends to obstruct or render dangerous for use the waters within the primary harbor limits. (Ord. No. 10, § 7(4), 6-1-61) Sec. 6-107. Compliance with state watercraft laws. No person shall fail to equip and operate a boat, vessel or watercraft in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 361, as amended, which provisions are hereby adopted by reference, as fully as if set out herein. (Ord. No. 10, § 7(5), 6-1-61) State law reference—Adoption by reference, M.S. § 471.62. 1 312 W' BOATS, DOCKS AND WATERWAYS §6-111 Sec. 6-108. Launching unlicensed watercraft. No person shall launch within the harbor limits of this city any watercraft for which a license is required under state law without such a license. (Ord. No. 10, § 7(14), 6-1-61) State law reference—Licensing of watercraft, M.S. § 361.03. Sec. 6-109. Watercraft towing skiers, etc. (a) No person shall tow or operate a waterr.-aft towing one (1) or more persons behind a watercraft on water skis, aquaplane, surfboard, saucer or similar device, except in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 361 and this section. (b) Every person being towed shall wear a life vest, belt or other buoyant device, except with written permi-ssion of the county sheriff. (c) Not more than two (2) persons may be towed at one (1) time, except with written permission of the county sheriff. (d) No person shall be towed by a rope, cable or other towing device longer than eighty' five (85) feet, except with a written permit of the county sheriff. (e) No person shall operate a watercraft when towing a person, and no person being towed shall come within one hundred fifty (150) feet of any bathing area, skin diver ’s warning flag, swimmer, or raft, watercraft, dock or pier except that raft, dock or pier from which he is operating. (0 No person shall tow or be towed through a marked channel connecting two (2»bodies of water. (Ord. No. 10, § 7(6), 6 1-61) State law references—Local boating regulations, M.S. § 361.26; towing persons. M.S. § 361.09; operation of watercraft in swimming or boating areas, M.S. § 361.08. Sec. 6-110. Unauthorized use of, damage to, et»^., watercraft. No person shall use, damage or tamper with a watercraft within the harbor limits, except when done by the owner or with the owner’s consent. (Ord. No. 10, § 7(5XF), 6-1-61) Sec. 6-111. Use of police flags, etc., by watercraft. (a) Within the harbor limits no owner or operator of a watercraft shall use or display on such watercraft a police, sheriff or law enforcement officer’s flag, or any device designed to simulate such a flag. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an authorized water patrol boat or other police watercraft. (Ord. No. 1(-, § 7(5XD), 6-1-61) Supp. No. 2 313 1 § 6112 MINNETRISTA CITY CODE Sec. 6-112. Reckless operation of vehicles or watercraft. No person shall operate any watercraft, automobile, vehicle or power propelled device on the open water, or upon an ice covered body of water, in such a manner as to endanger life, limb or property. (Old. No. 10, § 7(11), 61-61) State law references—Reckless, careless, etc., operation, M.S. § 361.041; local boating regulations, M.S. § 361.26. Sec. 6-113. Swimming or diving in channels. No person shall swim in any channel or jump or dive from a channel bridge. (Ol d. No. 10, § 7(10), 61-61) Cross reference—Fishing from bridges, § 12-2. Sec. 6-114. Fish houses, warming houses, etc. (a) No person shall place any fish house, warming house, or other similar structure on any frozen public waters within the harbor limits of this city unless: (1) There is legibly painted thereon in letters three (3) inches in height the following information: a. Name of owner; b. Address of owner; c. Telephone number of owner, or if the owner has no telephone, the words: "No phone"; and (2) The door of such structure can be opened from the outside at all times when the same is in use. (b) No person shall leave any fish house, warming*house or other similar structure on any frozen waters within the harbor limits of this city after February 28 of any year. (c) No person shall use any fish house, warming house, or other similar structure for any unlawful purpose. (Ord. No. 10, § 17(15)-(17), 6-1-61) Secs. 6-115 —6-125. Reserved. ARTICLE IV. LITTLE LONG LAKE* Sec. 6-126. Intent of article provisions. Little Long Lake is located within a relatively small but deep basin, which is bounded by ridges and hills. The one hundred four (104) acre lake is separated into two (2) basins by a ♦Editor ’s note —Ord. No. 152, § 1, adopted June 6, 1988, added provisions to the Code, but did not specify manner of codification. At the discretion of the editor, therefore, said provisions have been codified as Art. IV, §§ 6-126-6-129, herein. Supp. No. 2 314 VILLAGE OF SPRING PARIC ORDINANCE NO. 16 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING HARBOR LIMITS AND PROHIBITING NUISANCES THEREIN. SECTION 1. liAP.BOR LIMITS. The geographical and jurisdictional limits of the village in, on and over navigable waters in or ad­ jacent to the villageshall extend to the harbor limits of any ad­ joining municipality or other governmental unit. SECTION 2. PRIMARY HARBOR LU41T. The area within 300 feet of the v^ater line on the shore of any lake or other body of water in or adjacent to the village shall be knovm as the "Primary Harbor Limit," SECTION 3^ SECONDARY HARBOR LIMIT. The area extending from 300 feet of the water line on the shore of any lake or other body of water in or adjacent to the village and to the harbor limits of an adjoining municipality or other governmental unit shall be known as the "Secondary Harbor Limit." SECTION 4, jJURISDICTIONAL LIMIT. The harbor limits of this village shall be deemed not to extend beyond a point half way between the shores of the body of water located in another village or governmental unit. SECTION 5. NUISANCE PROHIBITED. No person shall commit or a public nuisance in or upon the waters of any lake or other body of water %7ithin the jurisdiction of this village^ nor, shall any person let, permit, or enable any other person to use any boat, dock, craft or structure, or portion thereof, knowing that it is intended to be used for committing or maintaining a public nuisance. No person shall willfully prevent, hinder, oppose or obstruct a public official in the performance of his duty in carry­ ing out the provisions of this ordinance, or in removing or abating a public nuisance. SEC 1iON 6. NUISANCES DEFINED. A public nuisance is a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor, and consists in unlawfully doing: an act or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission shall; £UBSECTI0N_^1. injure or endanger the safety, health, or comfort of the puRtc; or, > SUBSECTION 2. offend public decencyj or SUBSECTION 3. unlawfully interfere with* obstruct, or tend to obstruct or render dangerous for use of passage, a body of water within the harbor limits of the village. 1 ! 0?J)INANCE NO. 16 -PAGE 2 SECTION 7. SPECIFIC PUBLIC NUISANCES DEFINED.The term "Public Nuisance" shall deemed to Include the following: SUBSECTION 1. Anything declared to be a public nuisance by an ordinance of this village. SUBSECTION 2, The depositing of refuse, waste or other deleterious, poisonous or injurious substande within the harbor limits of the village. SUBSECTION 3. The depositing of refuse, waste or other harbor liroits of hhe village, SUBSECTION 4. The erection or maintenance of any dock or structure which interferes with, obstructs, or tends to obstruct or render dangerous for use the waters within the primary harbor limits of the village. SUBSECTION 5. The failure to equip and to operate a boat, vessel or watercraft in accordance with the proviaions of Chapter 361 of Minnesota Statutes, as amended, which statutes are hereby adopfied and incorporated herein and made 'Opart hereof by reference, as fully as if set forth herein. Pro­ vided, however, that these additional requirements shall be :• met by all owners and operators of watercraft within the har­ bor limits established herein, namely; A. All watercraft in use or underway betv7een sunset and sunrise shall be equipped with and have lin operation red and green running lights in the forward section of the boat, and a white light at the stem or on the superstructure, which white light shall be visible on a dark nl^t with clear atmosphere for a distance of two miles from any direction. Provided, however, chat motor powered watercraft under 16 feet in overall length may use portable lights, which must be clamped on the watercraft when in use; and, non-powered watercraft may use a portable single white light which is visible from any direction for a distance of two miles on a dark night x^rith clear atmosphere. B. All watercraft when at anchor or drifting rrrast show a white light visible from any direction for a distance of one and such light shall be lit from sunset to sunrise, ex­ cept that a waterC.reft anchored in a cove within one hun­ dred feet of shore and 200 feet away from normal navigation and any watercraft anchored at a dock or pier need not have the vihite light lit. _ C. All watercraft shall have on board and readily acc* essible life preservers, vests, or ocher similar buoyant devices capable of keeping every person on board afloat. i ’N ORDINANCE NO. 16 - PAGE 6 D, No viatercraft other than an authorized Water Patrol Boat or other police watercraft shall use or display a red light, except a red running light. E. No watercraft ocher than an authorized Water Patrol Boat or ocher police watercraft shall use or display a police, sheriff or law enforcement officer's flag, or any device de­ signed to simulate such a flag. F, No person shall board, use, damage or tamper with a watercfaft, except when done by the *owner or with Che sswner's consAnt• G. No person under 15 years of age shall operate a vacercrafc powered by a motor of ten horse power or more, unless accompanied by a competent person 15 years of age or older. (As amended by Ord. No,16:01, 8/15/60) SUBSECTION 6, The failure to tow or to operate a watercraft towing one or more persons behind a watercraft on water skis, aqua-plane, surfboard, saucer, or similar device, except In compliance with these regulations: A. Every person being towed shall wear a life vest, belt, or ocher buoyant device, except with witten permission of County Sheriff. B. Not more hhan two persons may be cowed at one time, except with vnritten permission of the DounCy Sheriff* C. No person shall be towed from one-half hour after official sunset to sunrise. D. No person shall be tovred by a rope, or cable, or other towing device longer than C5 feet, except with a written permit of the County Sheriff. E. No person shall operate a watercraft when toi^ng a person, and no person being cowed, shall come within 150 feet of any bathing area, skin diver's warning flag, swimmer, or raft, watercraft, dock, pier or public launching ramp or access except Chat raft, dock, or pier from which he Is operating. F. No person shall tow or be towed during a holiday, a Saturday or a Sunday, or in a congested area at any time, unless two competent persons are on board the X'^aitercraft. The driver of such watercraft shall be atleast fifteen years of age, and must watch where the watercraft is being driven at all times. The second person on board the watercraft shall be an observer, and shall be at least 12 years of age, and shall at all times watch the person or persons being towed, (As amended by Ord, No. 16:01, C/15/60) ORDINANCE No. 16 - PAGE 4 G, No person shall drag an unoccupied tow line behind a watercraft for an unreasonable length of time. H. No person shall tow or be towed Into or through a marked channel connecting two bodies of water or in Seton Lake. There shall be no water skiing on Black Lake on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays,(As amended by Ordinance No. 16:01(8/15/60) SUBSECTION 7. The overtaking and/or passing of any craft in a channel or narrow passage by the operator of any motor boat, speed boat, or of any vessel under power, so as to en­ danger other craft; and all craft shall proceed through all channels and narrow passages of water at safe speeds, other­ wise the operator th^t^sfiP shall be deemed to have committed a public nuisance, SUBSECTION C, The failure to e<|uip end maintain lights, and to have such lights lighted when the boat or vessel is operating within the harbor limits of the village at Bright. SUBSECTION 9. Obstructing or interfering with passage of a boat or vessel through a channel or narrow passageway. SUBSECTION 10. Operating a boat or vessel in a careless or reckless manner in or ab.out a public swimming beach. SUBSECTION 11. Swimming in a channel, or jumping or diving from a channel bridge. SUBSECTION 12. Operating any watercraft, automobile, vehicle or powered propelled device on the open water, or upon an ice covered body of water, in such a manner as to endanger G/15/60)^^ property. (As amended by Ordinance No. 16:01, G. NOTICES. Owners of docks used by the public shall SprSs or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days. ( 5/7/56 ) • •• •• • • mm • 211 AN ORDINANC: An Ordinance to Amend Ordinance Number 16.01 Pertaining to Water Skiing on Black Lake. The Village of Spring Park, Minnesota, ordains: Section 1. That Section 11 of Ordinance Number 16.01 relating ’to 'the establishing of Harbor limits and prohibiting nuisances therein be amended by adding to the following sub-aection; "(II 6 f) No person shall tow or be towed on water skis, aqua^ plane, surfboard, saucer or similar device on Black Lake." Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the Village Council this 1st day of June, 1964. OBERT A. MATSON, Mayor ATTEST: Allan T. Quello Village Attorney Published in the Minnetonlca Pilot on June 4, 1964. A -y OOUNCIMEETINQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION APR 2 8 1997 DATE: April 23. 1997 CnVOFQPONO ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hallin Title City Clerk Administrator Revien'ed:Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Gear West Start from Orono Middle School Run-Bike-Run Event June 1, 1997 7 a.m.-noon COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve/deny above listed license. t • ¥ L Date:April 21, 1997 To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police, Subject:Special Event Application I I have reviewed the application of Jan Guenther on behalf of Gear West to conduct a "Run-Bike-Run" event on June 1,1997. There will be a $50 charge for the use of Police Reserve personnel if they are needed, and the reserve liaison officer must be contacted as soon as possible to make arrangements. ■ 1 With the addition of the above stipulation, I have no objection to the issuance of this permit. I PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Permit #: Fee: $50.00 / - Date Received: • '7 Name: Address: ^ City, State, Zip: Lcf^ Cjl- M>1T\. f5^3"5<^_______ Location of Parade or Event; Qff^OKJO AIIH mI x Date of Event: \fi t\JL _______ Hours of Event: I'X Anr\_______ Type of Event: n RJCjl, l?JUL.r\ - r^^<9r) /^UlP\ - n\J (6c' fcx.lc Insurance Company: PA£JT\Amount: (Copy of insurance certificate must be submitted with this application) I am aware of all applicable State and other laws regarding parades and special events and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City of Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise directly or indirectly from the parade of special event approved by the granting of this permit. I understand some events may require off-duty or reserve officers and a fee may be required for these services. Signature ate Approved: □ Denied: □ By: Remarks: 04/10/97 Pay SO.00 I O10390J /A Tioeoiuv m (o.^ wife W MlIU) COUNCIL MEeiNQ APR 2 8 1997 CnVOFORONO i I i 21 Apr 1997 Mon 2:38 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Nuinber Date Name Check Number 53649 53649 CITY COUNTY OlEDIT UNION 23-Apr-97 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totals Check Number 53649 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 53650 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 53650 53650 53650 23-Apr-97 23-Apr-97 23-Apr-97 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Totals Oieck Number 53650 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 53651 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 23-Apr-97 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO, yx r Check Number 53651 Totals Check Number 53651 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. Check Number 53652 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL 53652 23-Apr-97 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL Totals Check Number 53652 HENIiEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 53653 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 53653 23-Apr-97 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL Totals Check Number 53653 HEWJEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 53654 laiA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 53654 23-Apr-97 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Totals Check Number 53654 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 53655 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 53655 23-Apr-97 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Totals Check Number 53655 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 53656 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 53656 23-Apr-97 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 53656 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 53657 MN MUTUAL LIFE 53657 23-Apr-97 MUTUAL LIFE Totals Check Number 53657 MN MUTUAL LIFE Transaction Amount 6«958.00 6,958.00 3,051.34 3,051.34 7,362.92 13,465.60 666.46 666.46 209.40 209.40 184.50 184.50 125.00 125.00 495.00 495.00 3 207.41 3,207.41 564.00 564.00 Page 1 Comments SAVINGS W/H k TRANSFERRED FICA k MEDICARE H/H FICA,MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THOMTON 8C0266780 SKREEN IC0262310 DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUES W/H STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP W/H I 21 Apr 1997 Mon 2t38 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 53658 53658 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP 23-Apr-97 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Totals Check Number 53658 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Check Number 53659 PEBSCO/OBRA 53659 23-Apr-97 PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number 53659 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 53660 PEBSCO/US CONP OP MAYORS 53660 23-Apr-97 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Totals Check Number 53660 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Check Number 53661 PERA 53661 53661 23-Apr-97 23-Apr-97 PERA PERA Totals Check Number 53661 PERA Check Number 53662 UNITED HAY 53662 23-Apr-97 UNITED HAY Totals Check Number 53662 UNITED HAY Grand Total Transaction Amount 177.00 177.00 112.58 112.58 1,897.86 1,897.86 3,930.50 5,178.52 9,109.02 23.00 23.00 37,194.83 Page 2 Comments DEFERRED COMP H/H OBRA DEFERRED COMP H/K USCM DEFERRED COMP H/K PERA EMPLOYEE H/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY D(»{ATIONS H/H Jt. II ii>i I ii >1 i«ini HI I III 24 Apr 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 53663 53663 53663 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 28-Apr-97 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 28-Apr-97 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Totals Check Number 53663 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Check Number 53664 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 53664 28-Apr-97 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Totals Check Number 53664 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Check Number 53665 AT & T wireless SERVICES 53665 53665 53665 28-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 AT 6 T WIRELESS SERVICES AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES Totals Check Nlunber 53665 AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES Check Number 53666 AUQIES MOBILE OlEP 53666 53666 53666 28-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF AUGIES MOBILE CHEF AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Totals Check Number 53666 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Check Number 53667 BORIS, SCOTT 53667 28-Apr-97 BORIS, SCOTT Totals Check Number 53667 BORIS, SCOTT Check Number 53668 BUDGET PRINTING 53668 53668 28-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING Totals Check Number 53668 BUDGET PRINTING Check Number 53669 CHAPIN CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN 53669 28-Apr-97 CHAPIN CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN Totals Check Number 53669 CHAPIN CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN Check Number 53670 CHESWICK, GARY 53670 53670 28-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 CHESWICK, GARY CHESWICK, GARY Totals Check Number 53670 CHESWICK, GARY Transaction Amount 398.92 59.19 458.11 526.17 526.17 39.50 93.44 56.40 189.34 16.87 16.87 5.50 90.20 95.70 198.80 198.80 24.60 412.41 437.01 Page 1 Comments GENERATOR L.S. 82 REPLACE LIGHT MAY INSURANCE 10.88 CELLULAR SERVICB-APRIL 10.88 CELLULAR SERVICE-APRIL 219.30 CELLULAR SERVICB-APRIL 241.06 COFFEE FOR RESALE FOOD FOR RESALE FOOD FOR RESALE EXPENSE REI^ffiURSEMENT SHIPPING TO KUSTOM SIGNAL SHIPPING LABELS SANITARY SWR IMPROVEMENTS EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT RESERVE BANQUET REIMB. 0^ 24 Apr 1997 Check Register Page Thu 1:59 PM City of Orono Check Transaction Number Date Name Amount Cotnmenca Check Number 53671 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 53671 28-Apr-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 24.95 •172 Motnrr a a'joice tire 53671 28-Apr-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 341.81 • 174 RADIATOR, OIL C31AMGE 53671 28-Apr-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 114.00 •177 MDT REMOUNT 53671 28-Apr-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 444.77 •175 ALTERNATOR, DIAG. 53671 28-Apr-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 26.98 •167 OIL CHANGE 53671 28-Apr-97 ‘ CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 188.10 •177 SETUP 53671 28-Apr-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 184.80 AC SERVICE-SWEEPER Totals Check Number 53671 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 1,325.41 Check Number 53672 CITY OP TONKA BAY 53672 28-Apr-97 CITY OF TONKA BAY Totals Check Number 53672 CITY OF TONKA BAY Check Number 53673 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. 53673 28-Apr-97 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. Totals Check Number 53673 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. Check Number 53674 CULLIGAN 53674 28-Apr-97 CULLIGAN Totals Check Number 53674 CULLIGAN Check Number 53675 DAHLGREN SilARDLOW 6 UBAN 53675 28-Apr-.# DAHLGREN SHARDLOW k UBAN Totals Check Number 5367^ D.\HLGREN SHARDLOW & UBAN Check Number 53676 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 53676 53676 28-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. DAY DISTRIBUTING CO, Totals Check Number 53676 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. Check Number 53677 DB BAERE, DON 53677 28-Apr-97 DB BAERE. DON Totals Check Number 53677 DE BAERE. DON Check Number 53678 DEFT OP PUBLIC SAFETY 53678 28-Apr-97 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Totals Check Number 53678 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 66.00 66.00 898.06 898.06 30.50 30.50 916 11 916.1.. 64.00 10.27 74.27 31.38 31.38 510.00 510.00 FIRST AID TRAINING APRIL INSURANCE SERVICE - APR, MAY HWY 12 FRONTAGE ROAD BEER FOR RESALE WRIST PADS MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT CJDN CONNECT CHARGES 24 Apr 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 53679 53679 B-2 RECYCLINO 06-May-96 E-Z RECYCLING Totals Check Number 53679 E-Z RECYCLING Check Number 3680 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC. 53680 28-Apr-97 EARL F. ANDERSON & ASSOC Totals Check Number 53680 EARL F. ANDERSON & ASSOC Check Number 53681 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 53681 28-Apr-97 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Totals Check Number 53681 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Oieck Number 53682 FEDEX 53682 28-Apr-97 FEDEX Totals Check Number 53682 FEDEX Check Number 53683 FEED RITE CONTROLS 53683 53683 28-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 FEED RITE CONTROLS FEED RITE CONTROLS Totals Check Number 53683 FEED RITE CONTROLS Check Number 53684 FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY 53684 23-Dec-96 FIRSTAR TRUST COV^^ANY Totals Check Number 53684 FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY Check Number 53686 53686 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS 28-Apr-97 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS Transaction Amount 5.422.92 5.422.92 73.95 73.95 227.00 227.00 6.28 6.28 273.65 15.00 288.65 50.00 50.00 t I Page 3 Comments APRIL SERVICE BLUE FLAG BEER FOR RESALE PACKAGE TO DNR HLORINE. HYDRO. ACID i 3NTAINER CHARGE FISCAL AGENT FEES Check Number 53685 53685 G k 28-Apr-97 K SERVICES G a K SERVICES 11.10 RATHBUN 53685 28-Apr-97 G fc K SERVICES 78.76 STREET EMPLOYEES 53685 28-Apr-97 G k K SERVICES 5.33 STEFFENHAGEN 53685 28-Apr-97 G k K SERVICES 65.08 STREET EMPLOYEES 53685 28-Apr-97 G k K SERVICES 82.95 FLOOR MATS 53685 28-Apr-97 G k K SERVICES 5.33 STEFFENHAGEN 53685 28-Apr-97 G k K SERVICES 11.10 RATHBUN 53685 28-Apr-97 G k K SERVICES 92.64 STREET EMPLOYEES 53685 28-Apr-97 G k K SERVICES 5.33 STEFFENHAGEN Totals Check Number S3685 G k K SERVICES 357.62 218..’3 TASK STOOL-OMAN i 24 Apr 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 53686 53686 GEimRAL OFFICE PRODUCTS 28-Apr-97 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS Totals Check Number 53686 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS Check Number 53687 GENUINE PARTS CO. 53687 53687 28-Apr-97 GENUINE PARTS CO. GENUINE PARTS CO Totals Check Number 53687 GENUINE PARTS CO Check Number 53688 GOPHER STATE CNE-CALL INC. 53688 53686 2B-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC, GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL I.NC, Totals Check Number 53688 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC, Check Number 53689 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN 53689 28-Apr-97 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN Totals Check Number 53689 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN Check Number 53690 GREGORY E KELLER P.A. 53690 28-Apr-97 GREGORY E. KELLER P.A. Totals Check Number 53690 GREGORY E. KELLER P.A, Check Number 53691 GREGORY. JA.MES 53691 28-Apr-97 GREGORY. JAMES Totals Check Number 53691 GkEGORY. JAMES Check Number 53692 HEALTHPARTNERS 53692 53692 28-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 HEALTHPARTNERS HEALTHPARTNERS Totals Check Number 53692 HEALTHPARTNERS Check Hunger 53693 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 53693 28-Apr-97 HE.NNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Totals Check Number 53693 HENTEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Check Number 53694 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN 53694 28-Apr-97 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN Totals Check Number 53694 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN :ransaction Amount 336.98 555.31 17.13 230.13 247.26 12.25 12.25 24.50 125.00 125.00 500.00 500.00 70.68 70.68 313.51 5.477.0a 5,790.59 58.96 58.96 914.00 914.00 Page 4 Comments DESK CHAIR-VAN ZOMEREN MISC PARTS MISC PARTS MARCH SERVICE MARCH SERVICE KUEHN-MEM3ERSHIP LINDALL FORFEITURE MILEAGE REI^®URSE^CENT MAY INSURANCE MAY INSURANCE REPAIR ANTENNA ROOM k BOARD - FEB ^ -- - - - - Ir 24 Apr 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 53695 53695 HUMANCE SOCIETY OF WRIGHT CO 28-Apr-97 HUMANCE SOCIETY OF WRIGHT CO Totals Check Number 53695 HUMANCE SOCIETY OF WRIGHT CO Check Number 53696 IIMC 53696 53696 17-Apr-96 17-Apr-96 IIMC IIMC Totals Check Number 53696 IIMC Check Number 53697 INTOXIMETERS 53697 28-Apr-97 INTOXI»ffiTERS Totals Check Number 53697 INTOXIMETERS Check N*»mOex 53698 KELLER « ASSOC. 28-Apr-97 KELLER KENNEN ASSOC. T :• Ua' Number 53698 KELLER KENNEN ASSOC, Check Num?-%-i 53699 KNOLLENBERG. KRIS S3 99 28-Apr-97 KNOLLENBERG* KRIS Totals Check Nufnber 53699 KNOLLENBERG. KRIS Check Number 53700 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS 53700 28-Apr-97 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NTrfS Totals Check Number 53700 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS Check Number 53701 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT 53701 28-Apr-97 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 53701 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT Check Number 53702 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS. TRUST 53702 28-Apr-97 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS. TRUST Totals Check Number 53702 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS. TRUST 0\eck N*-mb%*r 53703 LOE*S OIL COMPANY 53703 28-;^r-97 LOE'S OIL COMPANY Totals Check Number 53703 LCE'S OIL COMPANY Transaction Amount 42.50 42.50 65.00 95.00 160.00 355.71 355.71 1,465.34 1,465.34 97.99 97.99 67.50 67.50 47.82 47.82 4,057.00 4,057.00 65.00 65.00 Page 5 Comments 1ST QTR IMPOUND FEES VEE-1996 MEMBERSHIP HALLIN-1996 MEMBERSHIP ALCO-SENSOR III SPRING NEWSLETTER UNIFORM REI^©URS^©^• AD FOR GOLF COURSE OIL FILTERS *96 WORK COMP AUDIT OIL FILTERS r 24 ;^r 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Humber Date Name Check Humber 53704 53704 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 28-Apr-97 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Totals Check Number 53704 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Check Humber 53705 LONG LAKE GLASS INC. 53705 28-Apr-97 LONG LAKE GLASS INC, Totals Check Number 53705 LONG LAKE GLASS INC, Check Nun^r 53706 M.A.S.W.C.D. 53706 28-Apr-97 M.A.S.W.C.D. Totals Check Number 53706 M.A.S.W.C.D. Check Number 53707 MEDICA CHOICE 53707 53707 53707 28 Apr-97 28-Aor-97 28-A,3r-97 MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE Totals Check Number 53707 MEDICA CHOICE Check Humber 53708 MIDWEST ASPHALT 53708 28-Apr-97 MIDWEST ASPHALT Totals Check Humber 53708 MIDWEST ASPHALT Check Number 53709 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTMNG CO 53709 28-Apr-97 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Totals Check Number 53709 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Check Number 53710 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 53710 28-Apr-97 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Number 53710 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Check Number 53711 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION 53711 06-May-96 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Totals Check Number 53711 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Check Number 53712 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 82 53712 28-Apr-97 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 82 Totals Check Number 53712 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 82 Transaction Amount 10.72 10.72 15.00 15.00 325.00 325.00 262.03 112.29 10,590.37 10,964.69 298.10 298.10 81.90 81.90 27.00 27.00 74.22 74.22 40.00 40.00 Page 6 Comments PARTS FOR GENERATOR «431 SIDEVIEW MIRROR WECKMAN-REGISTRATION MAY INSURANCE MAY INSURANCE MAY INSURANCE WINTER MIX POP FOR RESALE OXYGEN, ACETYLENE MAY COVERAGE EMISSIONS TEST FEE 24 Apr 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 53713 53713 MN WEIGHTS fc MEASURES 28-Apr-97 MN WEIGHTS & MEASURES Totals Check Number 53713 MN WEIGHTS & MEASURES Check Number 53714 MOTOROLA 53714 28-Apr-97 MOTOROLA Totals Check Number 53714 MOTOROLA Check Number S3715 NAVARRE HARDWARE Check Number 53716 NEW HOLLAND 53716 28-Apr-97 NEW HOLLAND Totals Check Number 53716 NEW HOLLAND Check Number 53717 NORTH STAR TURF 53717 28-Apr-97 NORTH STAR TURF Totals Check Number 53717 NORTH STAR TURF Check Number 53718 NSP 53718 53718 06-Feb-97 02-JU1-96 NSP NSP Totals Check Number 53718 NSP Check Number 53719 *»RIEN, RANDY 53719 28-Apr-97 OBRIEN. RANDY Totals Check Number 53719 OBRIEN. RAJJDY Check Number 53720 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. 53720 28-Apr-97 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. Totals Check Number 53720 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. Check Number 53721 OLSON. JOHN C 53721 28-Apr-97 OLSON, JOHN C Transaction Amount 100.00 100.00 2,357.66 2,357.66 32.30 32.30 245.80 245.60 1.108.43 174.31 1.282.74 59.52 59.52 17.71 17.71 10.75 Page 7 Comments CALIBRATE RADAR KAINT. AGREE.-RADIO EQUIP 53715 28-Apr-97 NAVARRE HARDWARE 154.09 MISC PARTS 53715 18-Apr-96 NAVARRE HARDWARE 33.51 MISC PARTS 53715 18-Apr-96 NAVARRE HARDWARE 389.60 MISC PARTS Totals Check Number 53715 NAVARRE HARDWARE 577.20 BALANCE DUE REPAIR MOWER STREET LIGHT BILL % KWY 12 a WILLOW MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT CHIPS FOR RESALE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT ! • ■ 1 ■i i 24 Apr 1997 Thu lt59 PM Check Number Check Number 53721 Date Name 53721 OLSON, JOHN C 28-Apr-97 OLSON, JOHN C Totals Check Number Check Register City of Orono 53721 OLSON, JOHN C Transaction Amount 4.96 15.71 Page 8 Comments EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Check Number 53722 PERRY'S SANDBLASTING 53722 28-Apr-97 Totals Check Number PERRY'S SANDBLASTING 53722 PERRY'S SANDBLASTING 533.09 533.09 REHAB TRAILER FOR GENERAT Check Number 53723 PIONEER 53723 28-Apr-97 Totals Check Number PIONEER 53723 PIONEER 21.00 21.00 REVIEW fc CORR. ASSMNTS Check Number 53724 POST BOARD 53724 28-Apr-97 Totals Check Number POST DCAFJ3 53724 POST BOARD 7.50 7.50 PERSELL-PEACE OFCR LICENS Check Number 53725 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS 53725 28-Apr-97 Totals Check Number PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS 53725 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTE.MS 592.50 592.50 DICTATION MACHINES MAINT Check Number 53726 R.O.T.A. 53726 20-Apr-97 Totals Check Number R.O.T.A, 53726 R.O.T.A. 90.00 90.00 1997 TRAINIJIG DAY Check Number 53727 REED VENDING 53727 53727 23-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 Totals Check Number REED VENDING REED VENDING 53727 REED VENDING 29.70 107.60 137.30 CANDY FOR RESALE CANDY FOR RESALE Check Number 53728 RICKS SUPERVALUE 53728 28-Apr-97 Totals Check Number RICKS SUPERVALUE 53728 RICKS SUPERVALUE 41.23 41.23 MISC SUPPLIES Check Number 53729 RIT2 CAMERA 53729 53729 28-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 Totals Check Number RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA 53729 RITZ CAMERA 22.45 15.39 37.84 FILM DEVLOPING FILM DEVELOPING 24 Apr 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 53730 53730 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES 10-Apr-96 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Totals Check Number 53730 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Check Number 53731 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION 53731 23-Jan-97 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Totals Check Number 53731 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Qieck Number 53732 SKAUGHNESSY, C. KELLY 53732 28-Apr-97 SHAUGHNESSY, C. KELLY Totals Check Number 53732 SHAUGKNESSY, C. KELLY Check Number 53733 SNYDER DRUG STORES 53733 53733 53733 20-Apr-97 20-Apr-97 20-Apr-97 SNYDER DRUG STORES SNYDER DRUG STORES SNYDER DRUG STORES Totals Check Number 53733 SNYDER DRUG STORES Check Number 53734 STAR TRIBUNE 53734 20-Apr-97 STAR TRIBUNE Totals Check Number 53734 STAR TRIBUNE Check Number 5373S STREICHERS 53735 20-Apr-97 STREICHERS Totals Check Number 53735 STREICHERS Check Number 53735 T.A. SCHIFSKY 0 SONS INC 53736 20-Apr-97 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS INC, Totals Check Number 53736 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS INC Check Number 53737 THORPE DIST CO. 53737 28-Apr-97 •iHORPE DIST CO Totals Check Number 53737 THORPE DIST CO Check Number 53730 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 53738 28-Apr-97 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Totals Check Number 53738 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Transaction Amount 6.852.19 6.852.19 25.00 25.00 18.01 18.01 6.01 2.10 13.99 22.10 26.00 26.00 166.12 166.12 240.26 240.26 215.65 215.65 50.00 50.00 Page 9 Comments KAY ASSESSING FEE VAN ZOMEREN-97 DUES CREDIT ACCT FOR PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE-FILM FILM DEVELOPING MISC SUPPLIES SUBSCRIPTION RENENAL NEW SQUAD SETUP WUTER ASPHALT BEER FOR RESALE BRINKHAUS-PAVEMENT REHAB 24 Apr 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check Kumber Check Number 53739 53739 53739 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 53739 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 20-Apr-97 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 28-Apr-97 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 20-Apr-97 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Transaction Amount 51.79 54.02 66.56 Totals Check Number 53739 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 173.17 Comments US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES Page 10 Check Number 53740 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH 53740 20-Apr-97 Totals Check Number VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH 53740 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH 22.53 22.53 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Check Number 53741 VESSCO INC. 53741 28-Apr-97 Totals Check Number VESSCO INC, 53741 VESSCO INC, 320.98 328.98 CHLORINE INJECTOR KIT Check Number 53742 WARNING LITES OF MN 53742 28-Apr-97 Totals Check Number WARNING LITES OF MN 53742 WARNING LITES OF MN 99.05 99.05 BARRICADE RENTAL Check Number 53743 WESTONKA GLASS SERVICE 53743 28-Apr-97 Totals Check Number WESTONKA GLASS SERVICE 53743 WESTONKA GLASS SERVICE 46.00 46.00 RESCREEN FRAME Check Number 53744 WESTSIOE WHOLESALE TIRE 53744 53744 20-Apr-97 20-Apr-97 Totals Check Number WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 53744 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 48.22 64.01 112.23 TIRE BALANCE-GENERATOR TIRE FOR JOHN DEERE Check Number 53745 YOCUM OIL CO INC. 53745 28-Apr-97 Totals Check Number YOCUM OIL CO INC, 53745 YOCUM OIL CO INC. 871.49 871.49 DJ'*SBL FUEL Grand Total 54.340.8b INFORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING COUNCa-UEEIINa r. li - APR 2 8 1997 CIIYOFOROm OF Penny Steele COMMISSIONER A f ^ PHONE 612-348.76d7 F.\X 612-345-8T01 TDD 612-348*77(W April 23.1997 Board of Hennepin County Commissioners A-2400 Government Center Iflir Minneapolis , Minnesota 55487-0240 CITY OP OBONO ),HEdO^ .APR 2.4 1&37 Mr. Ronald J. Moorse Orono City Administrator 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Dear Mr. Moorse: Thank you for writing to express the Cihy of Orono's concerns regarding the impact of the closure of the Ridgedale Library. I greatly appreciate hearing from you on this Important issue. Like you, I am ver^* concerned about the impact this closure will have on all of our community libraries. I believe that it is very important that Hennepin County residents have access to libraries at times that are convenient to them. As you may know, the Hennepin County Library Board initially planned to hold three meetings to discuss the closure of Ridgedale. Due to your concerns and the concerns of many residents In western Hennepin County, I requested that additional meetings be held in Plymouth and in the Orono\Long Lake area. I would like to persone.lly invite you and the members of the Orono City Council to one of five informational meetings Hennepin County Libraries will be holding. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss the needs of suburban residents and to take citizen input on what need to be done for our community libraries. The following are the dates and locations: Wednesday, May 21,1997 Thursday, May 22,1997 Wednesday, June 4,1997 Thursday June 5,1997 Tuesday, June 10.1997 See you there! Minnetonka City Hall - 7:00 p.m Orono City Hall - 7:00 p.m. Golden Valley City Hall -- 7:00 p.m. Plymouth Community Library - 7:00 p.m. Wayzata City Council Chambers ~ 7:00 p.m. Hennepin County Commissioner PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER LIFE CENTER Pastor • 'Rmothy L. Ekblad (612) 449-9271 April 16. 1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Ass't. Planning & Zoning Admin. City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 received APR 1 6 1997 gu y of orono Dear Mr. Gaffron. We would like to propose a use for the Spring Hill Conference Center grounds located in Orono. West Lakes Life Center is an Assembly of God congregation that has been located In the Creek Ridge building of Long Lake for the past 6 years. We have expanded within our current facilities to the point that future expansion would likely no longer be possible. For most of the past six years, we have been looking intently at the possibility of acquiring the Spring Hill property. More specifically, we have been formulating a plan for the property’s use since the congregation of Woodridge Church opted to not purchase Spring Hill and move to a different site. We are well aware of the golf course currently being proposed for the property. We would like you to consider our alternative, more community-minded proposal. Our intentions would be to move our congregation’s facilities into the conference center, for use as we would normally conduct business. Secondly, we intend to utilize large portions of the facilities for conferences and retreats as the center was originally built to provide. Thirdly, select portions of the facilities would be subleased to other non-profit organizations for office space. And, fourthly, approximately 50-65% of the undeveloped land would be turned into a combination trail system and large-lot residences (similar to the Sugar Woods development, also in Orono). Please note that the property that we are Interested in does not include any of the Big Woods area to the north of County Road 6, and would therefore leave it untouched. This proposal would retain the natural be-suty of the property as it already exists, provide benefits that all of our community could enjoy, leave the Big Woods alone, and add a significant tax base to the City of Orono. As you further consider the golf course proposal that is now before you, we hope you will prefer our plan as a better one for the community and the City of Orono. Respectfully yours. Rev. Timothy LT Ekblad cc: {/Gabriel Jabbour Mayor, City of Orono West Lakes Life Center • 1935 W. Wayzata Blvd • Long Lake, MN. 55356 ^ T.H. 12 Corridor Study POLICY COMMITTEE REVISED 3-31-97 niQNsnn# -f X|t(9 Appointment Representing Mailing Address Telephone Tom^ Keefe Pj^^esign Engr Member Mn/DOT 1500 W. Co.Rd. B2 Roseville MN 55113 582-1296 John Jaunich Mayor Member Delano City Hall PO Box 108 Delano MN 55328 972-0550 W 972-3621 H Bob Bauman Supervisor Member Franklin Twp Route 2 • Box 415 Delano MN 55328 972-3132 John Russek Alternate Wright Co.3995 100th St SE Delano MN 55328 972-2396 Marvin Johnson Mayor Member IrxiependerKe 6325 Co.Rd. 6 Maple Plain MN 55359 479-2274 Kay Gabriel Council Member Alternate Irvfependence 3660 County Line Rd Delano MN 55328 972-2363 David Sawyer Mayor replaced Tod Olson Member Long Lake 231 Glenmoor Drive Long Lake MN 55356 475-2269 H 932-1849 W 1 Liz Olson Alternate Long Lake P.O. Box 463 Long Lake MN 55356 Jack Vigoren 1 Mayor Member Maple Plain 5249 Main St. East Maple Plain MN 55359 479-2090 1 Marion Alger Council Member Member Maple Plain 5735 Main St. West Maple Plain MN 55359 479-1624 1 Ann C. Thies Council Member Member Medina 1922 Willow Dr. N Long Lake MN 55356 476-1234 1 Gabriel Jabbour Mayor replaced Ed Callahan Member Orono City of OrorK) PO Box 164 Crystal Bay MN 55323 471-9256 H 379-2321 W J. Diann Goetten Council Member Alternate Orono 1385 Fox St. Orono MN 55391 473-6633 1 Robert Gisvold Mayor Member Wayzata 1515 Birch Bend Lane Wayzata MN 55391 789-9000 Barry Petit Alternate Wayzata 195 Lakeview Lane Wayzata MN 55391 475-2585 H 375-0336 W Christine Morrison Council Member Wayzata 234 Edgewood Ave. S Wayzata MN 55391 473-3557 Richard Larson County Commissioner replaced Ken Nielson Kandiyohi County 920 Mary Ave. SE Willmar MN 56201 (612) 235-2881 Vern Genziinger County Engineer Member Hennepin County Henn County - Public Works A-2207 Government Center 300 S. 6th Street MPLS MN 55487 348-4306 Fax 348-9777 Wayne Fingalson County Engineer___I—___ Member Wright County V^right County Highways Dept. 3554 BraddockAve. NE Buffalo MN 55313 682-7388 1J Meeting agenda Mn/DOT- M«tro Division (1500 West County Road B-2, Roseville. MN 55113) Meeting Description TH12 Policy Committee MeeBno____________________ Results Desired Update Policy Committee member on the status TH 12 Project Date March 26.1997 _______________Location Orono City Hall. Orono MN Scheduled Time Actual Time Start Stop Total Hours Start Stop Total Hours 5:00 pm 6:30pm Persons Attendkig & Pertinent Information (i.e., Office Vnion ID. telephone #, etc.) Tom O'Keefe, Mn/DOT Metro Division, Transportation Planning Mat^ Johnson, Mayor, City of Independence Patti Loken, Mn/DOT Metro Division. Transportation ^ inning John Russek, Wright County David Sawyer, Mayor, City of Long Lake Ann C. Thies, Cound Member, Medina Christine Morrison, Cound Member, Wayzad Vem Genzinger, Hennepin County Engineer Richard Larson, Kandiyohi County Commissioner Kay Gabriel, Cound Member, Independence Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor, City of Orono Dave Dudinsky, Wayzata Jim Murphy, Orono Ron Mooris, Orono Greg Gappa, Orono nai Persons To Receive Copies Of Minutes: Poicy Committee Members not present Items To Be Discussed/Person Responsible ✓ 1 Review CorridorProposal Responses & Suggested Changes 2 Design Retview Committee 3 TH 12 in Maple Plain 4 TH 12in Delano 5 Future of Poicy Committee Meeting Notes Tom reviewed the status of the TH 12 Corridor Report and the responses from the cities. Mn/DOT received a response of approval in the form of a city resolution from Orono, Long Lake and Wayzata and a letter of support from the Metropolitan Cound. Copies o' the resolutions and th'* Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Long Lake and Mn/DOT were handed out Mr»/DOT wfll prepare a written response to each city as required in the state statute. Marvin Johnson presented a draft copy of a resolutions and propsed a formal postion statement of corridor approval be rendered by the Policy Committee. Language changes were made to the resolution, Gabriel Jabbour motioned to approve, motion was seconded by Chris Morrison and approved by aH the members present David Saywer and John Russek came late to the meeting, reviewed the resolution and approved. The revised draft resolution win be retyped and sent to Policy Committee members. Patti provided Information about the starting of the Design Review Corr.mittee that wH be forming and having its first meeting on Aprf 2, 1997 at the Orono City Hal. The pupose of the meeting is to develop the TH 12 layout and mitigation of environmental impacts with pubic and agency input Members of the committee wil be a mixture of dty representives from Long Lake, Orono, and Wayzata, and agency representatives from BNSF Rairoad, DNR, MCWD, Hennepin County, Hennepin Parks, and MnDOT. The draft Environmental Assessment (EA) is estimated to be completed fal 1997 and the geometric layout near that same lime. The EA does not require a pubGc hearing, however. Mn/DOT will hold a pubfic hearing. The EA wil be avalable to the public at least 15 days before the public hearing and the layout wil be available 30 days before the public hearing. The final decision on the EA wil be at least 30 days after the notice of the avalabity of the EA. r Tom updated the committee on Mn/DOTs proposed project in Maple Plain. The city will be submitbng a project for turn lanes and access changes near County Read 83 & TH 12 next year and Mn/DOT will submit a safety improvement project proposing a signal installation and access changes at Town Line Road & TH 12. Mn/DOTwH coordinate this project with a Hennepin County project to reroute existing County Road 19 south of TH 12 from Budd St in dovwitown Maple Plain to Town Une Road, to provide a better direct north/iouth connection with County Road 29 & 19 on the north side of TH 12. This change will decrease the commuter traffic in downtown Maple Plain and change the cCounty Road status of Budd St Cities affected by this project wiB Maple Plain, Independence, Orono, and Medha. Mn/DOT w9l try to program this prolect in 2001. The 7'' -iar /ork plan for Metro Division has identified investment dolars in FY 2001*2005 for the segment from CR 6 to the Metro Division boundary on TH 12 for a study of future improvements. This vw>uld include the cities of Maple Rain, Independence, and Orono. Attached to minutes b an update of District 3 projects in Delano and to the west The committee discussed the need to continue the policy committee and agreed that there is value in this group to continue meeting. Meetings wril be held as TH 12 project milestones are reached on the proposed improvements of the corridor. Suggested next meeting is to be in thefal. I:\share\meeting.wjn 4k 04/11 ’97 12:c2 IDtST aOJD TR^n ISPCRMION FPX:PftS£ DiSirict 3 Projects on TH 12 4-7-97 S.P. 8601-42 Montrose to Delano » Cost estimate $10,000,000 » Reconstniction project, includes pissing lanes, left turn lanes in communities and at major intersections. • Railroad underpass replacement Construction beginning summer 1997 County Road 30 used for detour S.P. 8601-47 Cokato to Howard Uke « Cost estimate $8,000,000 • Same design corroept as S.P. 8601-42 « Includes railroad underpass in Cokato 9 Construction scheduled to begin sum* .cr lVv8 « Detour needs currently being evaluated, urban areas probably constructed under traffic, rural areas detoured « Municipal utility upgrades included S.P. 8601-48 Howard Lake to Montrose X Cost estimate $7,000,000 • Same design concept as S.P. 8601-42 > Construction scheduled to begin summer 1999 > Detour needs currently being evaluated, urban areas probably constructed under traffic, rural areas detoured « Municipal utility upgrades included S.P. 2713-73 ‘*County Line Road** (Wrlght/Hennepln Counties) » Cost estimate $800,000 • Signalization » TH 12 grade/sight distance correction ( Turn lanes * Construction summer 1998 « Detour via Johnson Street in Delano S.P. 8602-40 in Delano from Bridge Avenue to County Line Road project ■ Cost estimate $4,900,000 X Preliminary design and public involvement to begin summer 1997 Reconstruction project, design alternative.s to be developed through study and public involvement X Includes Crow River Bridge replacement and permanent improvements at eSAH 30, CSAH 16. TH 12 Intersection X Construction currently scheduled for summer 2000 p tnABooBtii-rROJi wr& I RESOLUTION FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 12 ENDORSEMENT Since the cities of Western Hennepin County, communities of Wright County, and points further west have for years been working for resolution on the building/upgrading of U.S. Trunk Highway 12 from the western part of the State to the present freeway between Long Lake and Wayzata, and Since the cities, of Long Lake, Orono, and Wayzata have all agreed, in principal and passed resoluiioni? vi^n certain requests from Minnesota Department of Transportation, to a four plus mile, two-lane limited access highway, south of the present Trunk Highway 12 corridor, along the Budington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, without any exits or entrances, which will aid tremendously in the movement of traffic and b3 the least disruptive to the communities. Now, therefore, we, as member community/govemment representatives on the Trunk Highway 12 Policy Committee, go on record of endorsing the Trunk Highway 12 Corridor Proposal and urge Minnesota Department of Transportation to proceed at the earliest time possible with design and acquisition of property so that construction may be accomplished in the years 2001 -2005. Members and Alternates Prc!? nt at March 26,1997 Policy Meeting Tom O’Keefe, Mn/DOT Metro Division John Russek, Wright County Marvin Johnson, Independence Kay Gabriel, Independence David Sawyer, Long Lake Diann Goetten, Orono Ann Thies, Medina Christine Morrison, Wayzata Gabriel Jabbour, Orono Richard Larson, Kandiyohi County Vem Genziinger, Hennepin County ■“i% MINUTES TH 12 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE April 2, 1997 Orono City Hall 7:00PM - 9:00PM Project Manager: Patti Loken RECEIVED APR 1 8 1997 CITY OF ORONO Attendees: Patti Loken Tod Olson Del Miller J. Diane Goetten Ron Moorse Guest: Jim Reierson Elmer H. Pladers Tom O'Keefe Karl Keissenborn Ray Cekella Bruce Polaczyk Martha Reger Dave Dudinsky Gary Mueller Ed Callahan Jr. Jim Murphy Greg Gappa Rose Richter Nancy Pfeiler ITEM ITEM REVIEW APPROVE AGENDA ITEM INTRODUCTION - Tom O'Keefe presented "Purpose of Design Review Committee and Ground Rules" * Input and recommendation, not decision making * Will not be taking votes * As project develops - go back to cities for approval, design and process must follow all Federal Laws, State Laws and Legislation * Develop project that Cities, Communities and MnDOT can live with PROCESS - Patti Loken reviewed the process of the highway development of the TH 12 project. Handouts included a flowchart of EA process. Geometric Deoign Process, Layout Development, TH 12 Improvement Schedule, and EA, Social Economic & Environmental Impacts Schedule MEETING SCHEDULE - Patti Loken opened discussion on scheduling future meetings. It was agreed meetings will be held on the first Wednesday of each month, starting time will be 7:00PM TH 12 Minutes/^ril 2, 1997 page -2- ITEM ITEM ITEM PRODUCTS - David Larson discussed Visualization and how we move into different design stages. Karl Weissenborn defined Visual Impact Assessment (VIA)/ and Gary Miller reviewed Aesthetic Guidelines (ongoing# not ’’after-the- fact”) . ICE BREAKER - Nancy Pfeiler had attendees brea)c into four groups to respond to three questions (1) What is valuable about Trunlc Highway 12? (2) What do you disliJce about Trunlc Highway 12? (3) How do you see Trunlc Highway 12 in the year 2015? Responses from each group are attached to the Minutes. CAMERA ASSIGNMENT - Tom O’Keefe provided each attendee with one 27 shot disposable camera and postage paid return envelope to Patti Lo)cen. It was requested that; attendees photograph examples of elements of the environment fond to be of value, found pleasing or displeasing, found sensitive or insensitive to these elements; attendees record a few notes about each photograph and return to Patti Lo)cen no later than April 23, 1997. ACTION ITEMS: 1. List of names should include phone numbers, MnDOT people in particular. The information is included in the Three-Ring-Binders distributed at the meeti'.:g on the "Members” mailing list and the Environment Assessment tEA) schedule. Dorine will )ceep the information current and provide additional information to members in the meeting minutes as it becomes available. 2. Determine DNR members who will be participating on the committee. Martha Reger (of DNR) volunteered to investigate and report bacJc to Patti Lol<en. 3. It was requested Dorine remove Tim Marr's name from the active members list. 4. It was requested that closing of all four North/South Streets be addressed and staging be planned. Patti Lolcen advised staging is identified as Design issue in the Geometric Design Schedule Handout, she will review and respond to at the next meeting. V- TH 12 Mfteting/April 2, 1997 page -3- 5. It was noted that the Sewer Line is not included in the Schedule. Patti Loken will add to the Geometric Design Schedule and report at the next meeting. 6. Photography Assignment was given to all willing participants from the meeting. MnDOT will develop and mount the photos along with descriptive notes provided. At future meetings we will ask the photographers to describe and lead discussions regarding their photographs. 7. At the next meeting Patti Loken will provide handouts and Three- Ring-Binders to those members absent from our first meeting. ITEM COMMENTS FROM THE COMMENT BOX: Could we skip or change the July meeting since it is very close to Fourth of July weekend? Send Agendas out ahead of time, so we can determine if additional people need to attend. Lets be willing to discuss different times for the meetings in the summer too. * * Good meeting. The first session was well organized and well thought out. ADJOURNED NEXT MEETING Trunk Highway 12 Design Review Committee May 1, 1997 Orono City Hall, 7:00 PM NOTES BY DORINE A. GRITTNER Small Group comments ***** 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. What * * * * * is valuable about TH 12 Luce Line Trail Property Owners Sense of Community Downtown Commercial Area Many Accesses * * What do you dislike about TH 12 * Traffic/Signals Poor Turning Movements Congestion * At Grade R.R. Crossing * Train Noisei * Less than desirable alignment & Geometries In Year 2015 * Hidden from view year round by enhanced landscaping, berming &Noise Walls * Aesthetically Pleasing Bridges & Design that fits the landscape * Freeflowing thoroughfare * System that blends & brings the community together, meetingissues and concerns ***** What is valuable about TH 12 * Small town feeling of Long Lake & rural open spaces of Orono W/good school systems What do you dislike about TH 12 * Thru traffic/congestion * safety problems * Wayzata Blvd. Stop Lights (Safety) In * * * * Year 2015 Half traffic on TH/half traffic on local roads Continuous traffic flow from Twin Cities to South Dakota Trail system connections Aesthetic changes to Old TH and HfiU Highway r. ! Page -2- ***** 1.What is valuable about TH 12 * Community offers easy access to Metro Area & a feeling of country * The corridor is valuable as a means to move people from A to B * Corridor valuable to get people who live further out into City 2. 3. 2. * * What do you dislike about TH 12 * Congestion Noise Current Corridor can't really be expanded without some detrimental damage to local communities Current Corridor is a combined incompatible as Main Street to Long Lake (residents) and Highway to others passing through In Year 2015 * Will look better in 2015 -vs- 2005 as things get established and grown up * Separation of uses * In 2015 the corridor looks like it belongs because of the way it's build...taking into account community plans, needs etc. It is built into the community, not the community adapting to it ***** 1. What is valuable about IH 12 * * * * Link to Western Minnesota Rail corridor is unique RxiiTdX CJisiiTfiictdr Natural Features: Baker Park/Wolsfeld Woods/Luce Line Trial/Golf Courses What do you dislike about TH 12 * Traffic congestion. Stop & Go/Number of Vehicles * Safety * Business Access * Community Cohesion Impact...Barrier/Divides Community Page -3- * * Strip Development. Franchise Architecture Affects Local Charm Lack of pedestrian/bicycle facilities 3.In Year 2015 * Underground facility Bridging structures to improve community cohesion Landscaping...well designed Unimpeded vehicular travel Transit connections * * * * TH12 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Second Meeting, May 71997 Orono City Hall, 7:00 PM MEETING A GENOA /. Introductions A, Review Schedule II. Project Development Status III. Photo Assignment IV. Elements of Design A, Design Controls B. Design Givens C. Alignment - Horizontal and Vertical ; TH 12 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS lEIMwtingDWi* May 7, 1997 7:00 pm June 4, 1997 7:00 pm * July 16, 1997 7:00 pm August 6, 1997 7:00 pm Septembers, 1997 7:00 pm October 1 ,1997 7:00 pm Novembers, 1997 6:30 pm December 3, 1997 6:30 pm * This meeting was changed from the first Wednesday of the month because '' 4th of July Holiday. All meetings »v..i be held at the Orono City Hall, 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN. PHONE NO. STATE OF INI (Ml I^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO REQK)N TRAILS & WATERWAYS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN SSIOS (612)772-7936 file no March 25,1997 The Honorable Ed Gale Mayor City of Minnethsta 7701 County Road 110 West Minnetrlsta, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Gale: The Department of Natural Resources has been informed by letter from Hennepin County Parks (copy attached) that the new regional park on Lake Minnetonka will be opening on May 3,1997. The new regional park will include a boat access containing 48 car-trailer parking spaces. The park opening trlggeis terms of a stipulated agreement between the dty and DNR signed in April 1987 (copy attached) and subsequent Commissioner's Order (copy attached) requiring the DNR to close the free boat launch at the King's Point access on Halstead's Bay of Lake Minnetonka. The agreement gives the city the option of leasing the King's Point access from the DNR for public recreation purposes which could include continued operation of the boat launch site. Before we close the boat launch, we would like to know if the city of Minnetrista is interested in managing the King's Point site as a city administered public access. As you know, in the Report of The 1992 Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force, adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), the goal of 700 certifiable car/trailer parking spaces for reliable free public access to Lake Minnetonka was affirmed. The DNR will continue to work with all the communities around the lake to provide free public access to this outstanding resource. A prompt reply would be appreciated. Please feel free to contact me If you have questions or need additional iiiformation. Sincerely yours, "9 William G. Johnson Regional Trails and Waterways Supervisor End. c:Ron Nargang Dennis Asmussen Doug Bryant Bruce Specktor Martha Reger Lake Minnetonka Conservation District tic f ^The Honofable^;Gabrie11'Jabbo^y^ j ' '1 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITYofORON r A 1 Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 April 25,1997 Clint M. Gables and Gwen M. Gables 47^8 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re: Proposed vacation of City property on North Shore Drive Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gables: Thank you for your letter of April 10. There are a number of reasons why yo ir request to acquire City property on ritrih Shore Drive cannot be approved, as noted to yo«' by various City staff persons. These reasons include: 1. You own land only on the north side of North Shore Drive (see parcels outlined in red in the attached plat map). The parcels you wish to acquire are on the south side of North Shore Drive. Therefore, you are not considered as adjacent landowners, nor are you considered as abutting landowners. City ordinances (Zoning Code Section 10.12, attached) only allow abutting landowners to petition for a street vacation. Therefore, you cannot by code be a petitioner for such a vacation. 2. The yellow shaded parcel is a 33' dedicated right-of-way leading from County Rd. 19 to the lake. The County may have some legal interest in this right-of-way. The Department of Natural Resources adamantly opposes the vacation of such rights-of-way. 3. The pink shaded parcel was obtained by the City via tax forfeiture in 1970 for the purpose of "lake access lanes", deed #136852. This parcel cannot be vacated, and cannot be directly sold by the City, but would have to be released to the County for disposal. 4. While your letter suggests the 'highest and best' use of this property would be placing it in private ownership, the property potentially now serves or may in the future serve many public functions: Walking access to the lake for use by area residents Utility corridor Public open space Stormwater drainage Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 April 25,1997 Mr. & Mrs. Gables Page 2 Your concerns regarding the upkeep of the property may be valid, and have been forwarded to the Director of Public Services for attention. However, a possible lack of upkeep is not a valid reason to transfer these valuable parcels to private ownership. In response to your request for the necessary filing procedure, there is no application you are eligible to make that will result in the transfer of the ownership of this property to you. The City has no interest in transferring this property to private ownership. I am attaching the City ordinances regarding street vacation, as well as the aforementioned plat map. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at 473-7357. Sincerely, Ron Moorse; City Administrator end. cc: Mayor and City Council . . vrr'iffiimvs •'Twifirrtk/ .'*rf^• • —W —1 •nifiaMiili » -*Vfr tif-^ os o to LUa: a>in •- BERGOUIST AND WIC BERG0UI5T AMO WIC (■ 8 (27) /A a: o h- 60 60 y o> • 2 3 (2)1 1 (1) N-l-''' • B 10 / .N- jS>y p>, r'/ji ^yj- ^'y. (5; \ VAC DOC NO 3384432 117-in-z.^ BZ-OO^S 4719 £ tfey2<.* tG.. yuov»x» /AfJ S^i&V ml ^I#/(I3). l2\)/5 Oa»N .<by 4 »N t • ^7- ) V“7- 23* 3Z. OOZ3 C,VfY -'TJrP^ Fb>^f^> }^'70 f^<cC4^S, f. 3^‘gn::>4^/3«;8s:2^ £-or -■^ 2 A § 10.12 SEC. 10.12. VACATION OP STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS. Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds shall follow the procedures set forth in this Chapter, except that such vacation shall require a petition by a majority of the landowners abutting the property to be vacated, and a hearing preceded by two (2) weeks published and posted notice, all as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851. The Council may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve or any portion thereof, which are not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam, purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as "boulevard reserve”. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 SEC. 10.13. ENFORCING. In case any building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted, or maintained, or any building, structure or land is used in viola­ tion of this Zoning Chapter, the Zoning Administrator, in addition to other rjemedies, may institute any proper action or proceedings in the name of the City, and hereby shall have the powers of a police officer to prevent such unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, conversion, maintenance, or use to restrain, correct or abate such violations, to prevent any illegal act, conduct, business or use in or about said premises. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 (Sections 10.14 and 10.15 reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 275 (4-1-84) April 15, 1997 RECEIVED APR 1 7 1997 Local Board of Review Mayor - City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55343 ^ wRONO Re: Properly ID: 05-117-23 43 0002 - (865 Partenwood Road) I would like to appeal my 1997 value for taxes payable in 1998. The key reason is the difficulty (and reduced price) a number of people on my street, in my block have had selling their homes over the past few years. I suspect this difficulty has to do with the fact that the lots are virtually unbuildable or expandable without a variance due to hardcover zoning restrictions. Although it has been possible, historically, to get limited variance relief, there i« no assurance, to a buyer, as to the future availability of variances. In addition, there are significant lead times associated with such variances. Virtually my entire lot is within 75 feet of the lake, in which, there is a no-more- than-zero hardcover requirement. My next door neighbor at 815 Partenwood has been trying to sell their house for over a year. They started at over $800,000 and have gotten no takers for the past four months at the current price of $500,000. Their frontage and square footage are comparable. I understand that 900 Partenwood sold within the past year for $657,000 and is comparable. I am aware that the property at 850 Partenwood sold at a price substantially below its asking price about three years ago. I know that there have been other Partenwood transactions, but am not aware of the details. I do not believe that other transactions that have occurred with area houses or lots not as severely restricted as mine should be used as comparables for assessment purposes, particularly since there are very good comparables on my block. An appropriate discount for restricted buildability should be established and applied permanently to my property. I would propose that a $610,000 market value (93% of the 900 Partenwood value of $657,000) be applied as my 1997 Estimated Market Value instead of $762,000 as proposed. This represents an approximate 20% discount which I would like to document as an appropriate discount for this and future assessments. Sincerely, /L. R. Hunt Greene 865 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 612/904-5701 (W) i i i i y 1 MINUTES RECEIVED APR I 8 I997 TH 12 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE J^ril 2, 1997 Orono City Hall 7;00PM - 9;00PM Project Manager: Patti Loken CITY OF ORONO Attendees: Patti Loken Tod Olson Del Miller J. Diane Goetten Ron Moorse Tom O'Keefe Karl Weissenborn Ray Cekella Bruce Polaczyk Martha Reger Dave Dudinsky Gary Mueller Ed Callahan Jr. Jim Murphy Guest: Jim Reierson Elmer W. Pladers Greg Gappa Rose Richter Nancy Pfeiler ITEM ITEM REVIEW APPROVE AGENDA INTRODUCTION - Tom O'Keefe presented "Purpose of Design Review Committee and Ground Rules" * Input and recommendation/ not decision making * Will not be taking votes * As project develops - go back to cities for approval/ design and process must follow all Federal Laws/ State Laws and Legislation * Develop project that Cities/ Communities and MnDOT can live with ITEM PROCESS - Patti Loken reviewed the process of the highway development of the TH 12 project. Handouts included a flowchart of EA process/ Geometric Design Process/ Layout Development/ TH 12 Improvement Schedule/ and £A/ Social Economic & Environmental Impacts Schedule MEETING SCHEDULE - Patti Loken opened discussion on scheduling future meetings. It was agreed meetings will be held on the first Wednesday of each month/ starting time will be 7:00PM TH 12 Minutes/April 2, 1997 pago -2- ITEM PRODUCTS - David Larson discussed Visualization and how we move into different design stages. Karl Weissenborn defined Visual Impact Assessment (VIA)/ and Gary Millar reviewed Aesthetic Guidelines (ongoing/ not "after-the- fact") . ITEM ICE BREAKER - Nancy Pfeiler had attendees brealc into four groups to respond to three questions (1) What is valuable about Trunlc Highway 12? (2) What do you dislilce about TrunJc Highway 12? (3) How do you see Trunk Highway 12 in the year 2015? Responses from each group are attached to the Minutes. ITEM CAMERA ASSIGNMENT - Tom O'Keefe provided each attendee with one 27 shot disposable camera and postage paid return envelope to Patti Loken. It was requested that; attendees photograph examples of elements of the environment found to be of value, found pleasing or displeasing, found sensitive or insensitive to these elements; attendees record a few notes about each photograph and return to Patti Loken no later than April 23/ 1997. ACTION ITEMS: 1. List of names should include phone numbers, MnDOT people in particular. The information is included in the Three-Ring-Binders distributed at the meeting on the "Members" mailing list and the Environment Assessment (EA) schedule. Dorine will keep the information current and provide additional information to members in the meeting minutes as it becomes available. 2. Determine DNR members who will be participating on the committee. Martha Reger (of DNR) volunteered to investigate and report back to Patti Loken. 3. It was requested Dorine remove Tim Marr's name from the active members list. 4. It was requested that closing of all four North/South Streets be addressed and staging be planned. Patti Lolcen advised staging is identified as Design issue in the Geometric Design Schedule Handout, she will review and respond to at the next meeting. \ i TH 12 Meoting/April 2, 1997 page -3- 5. It was noted that the Sewer Line is not included in the Schedule. Patti Loken will add to the Geometric Design Schedule and report at the next meeting. 6. Photography Assignment was given to all willing participants from the meeting. MnDOT will develop and mount the photos along with descriptive notes provided. At future meetings we will ask the photographers to describe and lead discussions regarding their photographs. 7. At the next meeting Patti Loken will provide handouts and Three- Ring-Binders to those members aibsent from our first meeting. ITEM COMMENTS FROM THE COMMENT BOX: Could we skip or change the July meeting since it is very close to Fourth of July weekend? Send Agendas out ahead of time, so we can determine if additional people need to attend. Lets be willing to discuss different times for the meetings ir. the summer too. * * Good meeting. The first session was well organized and well thought out. ADJOURNED NEXT MEETING Trunk Highway 12 Design Review Committee May 1, 1997 Orono City Hall, 7:00 PM NOTES BY DORINE A. GRITTNER 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. Small Group Comments ***** 1. What is valuable about TH 12 * * * * Luce Line Trail Property Owners Sense of Community Downtown Commercial Area Many Accesses What do you dislike about TH 12 * Traffic/Signals Poor Turning Movements Congestion At Grade R.R. Crossing * Train Noise! Less than desirable alignment & Geometries * * * In Year 2015 * Hidden from view year round by enhanced landscaping, berming &Noise Walls * Aesthetically Pleasing Bridges & Design that fits the landscape Freeflowing thoroughfare System that blends & brings the community together, meetingissues and concerns 4 * * ***** What is valuable about TH 12 * Small town feeling of Long Lake & rural open spaces of Orono W/good school systems What do you dislike about TH 12 * Thru traffic/congestion * safety problems * Wayzata Blvd. Stop Lights (Safety) In Year 2015 * Half traffic on TH/half traffic on local roads Continuous traffic flow from Twin Cities to South Dakota Trail system connections Aesthetic changes to Old TH and Hsh Highway * * * Page -2- ***** 1. What is valuable about TH 12 * Community offers easy access to Metro Area & a feeling of country * The corridor is valuable as a means to move people from A to B * Corridor valuable to get people who live further out into City 2. What do you dislike about TH 12 * Congestion Noise Current Corridor can't really be expanded without some detrimental damage to local communities Current Corridor is a combined incompatible as Main Street to Long Lake (residents) and Highway to others passing through * ★ 3. In Year 2015 * Will look better in 2015 -vs- 2005 as things get established and grown up * Separation of uses * In 2015 the corridor looks like it belongs because of the way it's build...taking into account community plans, needs etc. It is built into the community, not the community adapting to it ***** 1. What is valuable about TH 12 * * * * Link to Western Minnesota Rail corridor is unique Rural Character Natural Features: Baker Park/Wolsfeld Woods/Luce Line Trial/Golf Courses 2. What do you dislike about TH 12 * Traffic congestion. Stop & Go/Number of Vehicles * Safety * Business Access * Community Cohesion Impact...Barrier/Divides Community - I - . Page -3- * * Strip Development. Franchise Architecture Affects Local Charm Lack of pedestrian/bicycle facilities 3.In Year 2015 * Underground facility Bridging structures to improve community cohesion Landscaping...well designed Unimpeded vehicular travel Transit connections * * * \ Jt \ \ TH 12 DESIGN REVIEW COMIvIITTEE Second Meeting, May 7 1997 Orono City Hall, 7:00 PM MEETING AGENDA I. Introductions A, Review Schedule II. Project Development Status HI. Photo Assignment IV. Elements of Design A. Design Controls B. Design Givens C. Alignment - Horizontal and Vertical 4 _________ V TH 12 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS 1 May 7. 1997 7:00 pm June 4. 1997 7:00 pm * July 16,1997 7:00 pm August 6, 1997 7:00 pm Septembers, 1997 7:00 pm October 1, 1997 7:00 pm November 5, 1997 6:S0 pm Decembers, 1997 6:S0 pm * This meeting was changed from the first Wednesday of the month because of the 4th of July Holiday. All meetings will be held at the Orono City Hall, 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN. APR 07 ' 97 14:00 MATTKE ENGINEERING. INC,6127830300 TO:P02 Uatthe Engineering, Inc. Ttry c«rtral Av*. N.E. • Fridl«y. MN 55432 • (612) 783^300 April 7, 1997 Z. p#t*r fc K«th«ryn SawloKi 4510 North Shoro Drlva OronOf MN 55?64 John & Bath Baoaaaan 4500 North Shore Drive orono, MN 55364 ra: Report on Drainage Analyaia Dear Hone Owners: At vour reoueet, I have investigated the factors leading to of^SI culvert under the SawicXi driveway to carry the discharge fron a 4.0 inch rainfall on Auwst 6, resulted in water danage to your properties, in sunnary, tte ceuse of the problen was the construction of hones up the hill on Tonkaview, which increased the runoff rate in the County Road 19 ditch to the point that the culvert under the Sawicki driveway could not handle the increased discharges. •**®**® ***J*%^J*' overflowed the ditch and ran down the edge of pavenent to the Sawicki driveway. There, the flow apparently split, with about half continuing down the County road to we driv8way^ and tha othar half running down along teia sawicki driveway. The overflow water apparently overtaxed we private drain systens of the two residences, resultii^ in £icod damage to the homes. In addition, the flows eroded the com beside the Sawicki driveway and around both houses, ca^ed dwge to the elopes, and deposition of eroded material in both yards. Before construction of the homes on Tonkaview, there was a drainage area contributing water to the culvert of approximately 2.6 acres. The drainage area had approximately 0.4 acres of impervious surface, and the remaining area was wooded with grassed areas.' The soil type is a Kilkenny loam, described as a soil suaceptable to erosion. Based upon these factors, a 8CS curve number for runoff is estimated at CN-66 for the condition before the homes were constructed. When the SCS hydrology model Is applied to the above conditions, a 4*0 inch rainfall would be expected to generate a peak discharge at the culvert of approximately 2 cfs. Based upon visual evidence, the original culvert under the Sawicki driveway was a 15" CNP, buried deep enough that the water • Xesldentiat flb Commercial Oevetopment Hydrology • Water Resources • Municipal APR 07 *97 14:01 MflTTKE ENGINEERING. INC.6127830300 TO:P03 ifould have to get about 18 inchee deep before it SSto ^e county road. This culvert had the capacity to handle SSSoSaatelv 5 cfs without overflowing. Thus, without the hojea on^the hill the original culvert was able to handle a 4.0 inch SIlS5lii in fSet! Se original culvert had the capacity to handle up to approxiaately a )inr«hAm/24 liouiTS)# which vould h®V6 producwl ® 5 c£s (appirox#) discharge at the culvert, before construction of the hones on the hill. construction of the honee on TonKaview increased the area (of the original culvert) to approxiaately 3.55 ^res, and increaaad the runoff curve nuaber to 75 for the culvert i!S?IhSd. RieSnt changes by the County and ?ity (the County added curbing, and the City added a 6" PVC P^P® Seat from the northwest corner of the and CR 19) have reduced the drainage area to acres. Even after th se recent reductions in draina^ area by the^County and City, the peak discharge at the culvert renains approxisately 6 cfs in a 4.0 inch rainfall Recent changes to the County Road 19 drainage the culvert, increasing its capacity to approxiaately 6 cfs (the aaae discharge as was produced by the 4.0 inch stonn), and placing curbing along the edge of the paveaent. statistically, we can expect a 4.2 inch stom to hit this area every 10 years, on the average. Consequently, we can expect that, if no chafes are aade to the current drainage system, the existing culvert will have insufficient capacity about every 10 years or SO. Placing the curbing included placing a raiaed (about 1-1/2 inch) lip of bituminous pavement in front of your driveways. In addition, the pavement was graded to pitch away from the Bessesen driveway, eo flows coming down the curb line will now oroee the County road without running into the Bessesen driveway. Thus it appears that the Beasesen house Is now protect.*d from CR 19 water running down the driveway. On the other hand, placing the curbing along the County road has increased the potential for damage from CR 19 water to the Sawickl home. As the curb is higher than the ditch bank, oulvsrt overflows can nolonger escape dow^ t^te County road pavement, but instead will overtop the ditch bank and erode a path directly toward the Sawicki home. It will only take a few minutes of erosion before the entire ditch flow will be running around and through the Sawickl house. It is expected that the damage to the Sawioki home could far exceed that suffered in 1995 if the culvert capacity is exceeded under present conditions. With the potential for damage to homes, it is ordinary engineering practice to provide protection for at least the 100- year event, 5.9 inches/24 hours, with the homes on the hill, such an event would be expected to nroduoe a discharge at the culvert of about 11 cfs, even after the recent changes by the fiFR 07 ’ 97 14:02 MfiTTKE ENGIhCERING. INC.6127B30300 TO:P04 City and County. Thua tho prosant drainage syaten la Inouffioiant by engineering atandards. Xt ahwld aleo be noted, that with the eroaion potential of the noil in this area, apeolal care ahould be taken to prevent •foalon. At preaant, tho ditch leading to the culvert la deep with eroded aaterlal depoaited in the laat aeveral aontha, and tte culvert la nearly blocked. The preaant potential for water damage to the Sawleki hone le actually auch higher than atated In the oalculatlona above, aa theae caloulatlona were baa^ upon a fully funotlonlna culvert. Additionally, as thla looae eroded ■aterlal la carried downstream through the culvert and on, it will tepoait In the yards of both hones, conseguently It le ejected that you both will suffer daaagea from deposition even without a 4 inch rainfall. Xn Buaaary, inoroaaed runoff from the homea on Tonkavlew resulted In increased stage (water elevation) at the culvert iinder the Sawiokl driveway, to the point that it overflowed, ran down the driveways, and resulted In da&ages« With the modifications recently made to the drainage syatea, the Beaaesen house la pr^)ably protected from CR 19 water, however the Sawickl hose is Iw peril, without modificationa to the present syatea, the next 44- inoh rainfell eould result in more extensive damaoe to the Sawickl homa than in 1995. If you have any questions, please give me a call. X will be avail^le to evaluate any proposed correction of the problem by the City and/or County (aa your representativa), and to P^^tielpata in litigation, should that be necasaary. If litiaation is nacaassry, we will prepare some fonoy charts and drawings to illustrats tho **whys and wheraforaa*'. I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that 1 am a duly Registered Profeaaionel Engineer under the state of Minnesota statutes. Sections 326.02'- 326.16. Tedd M. Nattke, Ph.D,, P.E. MK PE #15612 APR 04 * 97 17:27 MRTTKE ENGINEERING. INC.P02 - - V APR 04 ' 97 17:29 MftTTKE ENGlhCERINGi INC.6127B30300 TO: $ ms •# P03 IL (^f\ j? * ■ ^ a I • ^if i-> 4^ £U»^ I S’ O0/0AC, . Vz J /.304i**' V f r /•sf4i^ 6 _- . 3d >fC ^ O-ilAC ' O SiAC s 0-ILAC (^ s S •"S'C"4i ^^ii.i.^» » J2.4 — ^./d-♦ tf.66^-f (S.3d0«/7-»*4>*3^^ d»/z) « 3,SfAC T“Y^^ ^ SK’c»J»m4 <CA^ A<»y /^SSAt/tOKM a-a(fo)* e.>tC9t) A-C *t—S-J ^4?*V0 ^f*^.39 J^*«cCr « *7a. c, ^^ /aou T^C » APR 134 * 97 17:30 MATTKE ENGINEERING. INC.6127830300 TO:P05 un X 2 i 4 $ i 7 I 10 u 12 U 14 15 u 17 U 19 20 21 22 2) 24 25 24 27 21 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 M .2. UM urn ,3 ........4 .........5. 910 I ID HATn 0IM6I lULfSlS. SIKCU 4 MSSESB. OKID. W ID 9CS miOUKY 24 9*91 H CCOniCB *UlfiUI _t SR im TUB noBBR fo luivsu 90 0.1 n vt « » 10 4 0 « *m * J*4.0 I1/24B n Pin iifosoD a im-4.40 1C., OW4, two m. U .00406 0 1 ?24 n!*TW II aa imnu. • si« is ft-2o mviu. « 4.0* lUVlLL n 24 BOS 9 UUPL 7 0.1 24HII Q t K K PC R R K R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R t BIB tm II lUVlLl 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.010 0.011 0.012 0.013 0.014 0.015 0.016 0.030 0.021 0.022 0.023 0.024 0.026 0.007 0.031 0.032 0.034 0.035 0.036 0.037 O.OM 0.043 0.045 0.046 0.047 0.049 0.050 0.051 0.007 0.051 0.060 0.061 0.063 0.064 0.046 0.072 0.074 0.075 0.077 0.079 0.010 0.012 0.019 0.091 0.093 0.095 0.097 0.100 0.103 0.115 O.iU 0.121 0.124 0.127 0.130 0.134 0.141 0.151 0.195 0.159 0.163 0.167 0.171 0.119 0.194 0.199 0.206 0.210 0.216 0.222 0.250 0.250 0.366 0.276 0.217 0.291 0.3U 0.500 0.514 0.631 0.673 0.619 0.702 0.714 0.751 0.750 0.766 0.772 0.779 0.715 0.790 O.IU 0.116 0.121 0.I3S 0.039 0.034 0.830 0.053 0.057 0.060 0.064 0.067 0.170 0.174 0.000 0.009 0.092 0.095 0.090 0.900 0.903 0.911 0.913 0.919 0.917 0.919 0.920 0.922 0.939 0.930 0.932 0.933 0.93S 0.936 0.930 0.944 0.945 0.946 0.940 0.949 0.951 0.952 0.957 0.950 0.960 0.961 0.963 0.963 0.965 0.969 0.971 0.973 0.973 0.974 0.975 0.976 0.901 0.902 0.903 0.904 0.905 0.906 0.917 0.991 0.992 0.993 0.994 0.995 0.996 0.997 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 USB miaocic niuotBS • wns: 1) ini IS npntSB n iguii nixs oi u ciio • 3) DD CUD mom lun uc, L-o.onc, on 0 66 .10 0.007 0.017 0.021 0.040 0.053 0.067 0.014 0.106 0.137 0.176 0.228 0.321 0.725 0.796 0.142 0.177 0.906 0.924 0.939 0.953 0.966 0.977 0.9U 0.991 0.008 0.011 0.029 0.041 0.054 0.069 0.085 0.109 0.140 0.110 0.235 0.363 0.734 0.101 0.845 0.810 0.9M 0.925 n.941 V.955 0.9»7 0.978 0.989 0.999 0.009 0.019 0.030 0.042 0.055 0.070 0.067 0.112 0.144 0.U5 0.242 0.4U 0.743 0.808 0.119 0.883 0.910 0.927 0.942 0.956 0.961 0.979 0.990 1.000 *101 I f (I V LS CD i * 12 • 'APR 34 * 97 17:35 MftTTKE ENGINEERING. INC.6127838333 TO:P84 orr snujrr (Runoi ■noauiit PHI nnor aniKi TUB PHI pm U.13.10 41 • CHOI 1. GO nm lira m 0.0.0.01 fiPR 04 * 97 17:05 MfiTTKE ENGINEERING. INC.61278:TO:P03 LIB 3 4 S « 7 I 10 u u 13 14 15 15 17 II If ao 21 22 23 24as 21 27 21 21 30 31 32 33 30 35 K UC'l pia 1 .1 ID HiTn DAIttCt lULVSIS. £>¥121 i 5S«>>5! »PfSfn •» ID lymorArr 21 n. tvte r. ..... «... IT 10 5 4 n piK bhuud n mi*3.3f ic., »75, io>5 ni. U .00530 0 1 n 5.5 • 24 B. nn II IB iinnu, > sya is ti -20 uiinu 15.5* ttivau D 24 bob 5 unn 7 o.i 24ml * n « PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC K K PC PC PC PC PC K K R R R R R R * BtTO Tm If lilBlU. 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.010 0.0U 0.012 O.OU 0.014 0.015 0.014 0.017 0.020 0.021 0.022 0.023 0.024 0.025 0.027 0.021 0.031 0.052 0.034 0.035 0.035 0.037 0.031 0.040 0.043 0.045 0.044 0.047 0.045 0.060 0.061 0.053 0.067 0.061 0.050 0.061 0.053 0.054 0.055 0.057 0.072 0.074 0.075 O.OH 0.075 0.010 0.002 0.014 0.015 O.On 0.093 0.095 0.097 0.100 0.103 0.105 O.US 0.111 0.121 0.124 0.127 0.130 0.134 0.137 0.141 0.151 0.155 0.159 0.153 0.157 0.171 0.175 0.119 0.154 0.155 0.206 0.210 0.215 0.222 0.221 0.250 0.251 0.255 0.275 0.217 0.291 0.312 0.321 0.500 0.514 0.531 0.573 0.419 0.702 0.714 0.725 0.751 0.751 0.755 0.772 0.775 0.715 0.750 0.755 O.IU 0.115 0.121 0.125 0.125 0.134 C.I3I O.M2 0.153 0.157 0.150 0.154 0.157 0.170 UI74 0.177 0.U5 0.119 0.192 0.195 0.151 0.900 0.503 0.505 0.511 0.913 0.915 0.917 0.919 0.920 0.922 0.924 0.529 0.930 0.932 0.933 0.935 0.935 0.930 0.935 0.544 0.945 0.545 0.9U 0.949 0.951 0.952 0.953 0.557 0.551 0.550 0.951 0.552 0.953 0.555 0.555 0.559 0.971 0.572 0.573 0.974 0.975 0.575 0.577 0.511 0.912 0.913 0.514 0.M5 0.515 0.917 0.511 0.991 0.952 0.953 0.554 0.995 0.995 0.957 0.55$ 1.1 0.001 O.Qll 0.029 0.041 0.054 0.059 0.015 0.109 0.140 0.110 0.235 0.353 0.734 0.N1 O.MS O.MO 0.501 0.925 0.541 0.955 0.557 0.571 0.515 0.959 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 * BBS: 1) m b ai ou t 2) 00 OB URIB BSn U6. V>0,i»fc, DPBSSD II BOB U 0 75 DD .05 • * 0.009 0.039 0.030 0.042 0.066 0.070 0.017 0.112 0.144 0.115 0.242 0.415 0.743 0.105 0.449 O.M3 0.510 0.927 0.942 0.955 0.551 0.975 0.990 1.000 PPR 04 *97 17:04 MATTKE ENGINEERING. INC.6127830300 TO:P02 mammnnot n one RR m SHOD nntiKaSr mu n iqiuib nus 8UII0I pm naor iinin n» ni MuiMn ruia JUB PUK Hm 24HBH 7HNI BUD Uim ns CP NUfUfil mnuiiM m i, U.10 1.0.0.0.01 Highlights of Run-olT Damage to 4500 & 4510 North Shore Drive Caused bv Construction of Homes on Tonkaview Lane June. 1987 August 6. 1995 August 7, 1995 Aug 7, 1995 May 19. 1996 August 1, 1996 Tonkaview Lane Construction Summary 10/25/88-6/28/89 4625 Tonkaview Lane New Residence (Variance) 9/19/90-9/31/91 4/3/91 4650 Tonkaview Lane New Residence/Driveways Demolish Old Residence 6/8/93-8/27/93 9/23/94 4629 Tonkaview Lane New Residence(Var. #3272) New Deck 12/1/93-1/31/94 1/31/94 4615 Tonkaview Lane New Residence Deck 5/4/94 4635 Tonkaview Lane Detached Garage/Driveway 3/13/95-9/15/95 4620 Tonkaview Lane New Residence(Var.#3519) Key Events 12 inch rain, storm of the century, drainage system handled run off 4 inch rain storm, drainage system overwhelmed Hennepin County lowered shoulder of County Rd. 19 1.5 inch rain storm, tons of sand and gravel washed into driveway yard, and home. 3 inch rain storm, washed tons of gravel into yard, washed out driveway, cut large ditch and undercut air conditioning unit, water into home. Damages estimated at over $30,000 to Bessesen home, and over $!6,000 to Sawicki home. Meeting with Ron Moorse, Glenn Cook & John Gerhardson. Orono's plan of action outlined, including a request for an easement across the 4615 Tonkaview property to acconunodate and divert the run-off from Tonkavie^\ through an existing culvert under C.R. 19, down existing Rest Point drainage ditch. Highlights of Run-otT Damage to 4500 & 4510 North Shore Drive Caused bv Construction of Homes on Tonkaview Lane Fall of 1996 Hennepin County completed pavement overlay and curb project on C.R.. 19. Raised lip of driveways, deepened drainage ditch and installed new 15 inch corrugated metal pipe under Sawicki drive­ way. Rip rap installed at pipe outlet. Fall of 1996 John Gerhardson informs us by phone that the 4615 Tonkaview property owners will permit the diversion and ponding of nin^rff City of Orono installs 6 inch pipe which lays upon the surface near intersection and is buried as it approaches the small depression, described as a ponding area. November 16, 1996 Light rain falls, pictures taken to document fact that 90% of the Tonkaview run-ofT is still coming into the C.R. 19 ditch and ponding in the Sawicki’s lake front lawn. Letter to Gerhardson. January, 1997 Peter Schroeder, Allied Adjusters, representing Orono & LMCIT informs us that “we have not been able to conclude that the newly constructed homes have caused run-off to the degree which you have claimed.” Claim for damages denied. April 7, 1997 Mattke Engineering, hydrology expert reports that the Tonkaview development is responsible for run-off damage to Bessesen & Sawicki homes. Sawicki home is now in greater danger if Tonkaview run-off is not diverted. 1 i... Beth and John Bessesen 4500 North Shore Drive Mound MN 55364 August 15, 1995 Dear Mr. Kulas, Thank you for responding to our urgent call on August 14 regarding the damage to our property resulting from inadequate storm drainage on County Road 19 and Tonkaview Road in Orono. We have been requesting help with this situation for the last several years, beginning with visits to our property by Mr. Tom Peterson of Hennepin County (now retired) and a subsequent visit from you during the summer of 1994. Although some attempts have been made by Hennepin County to adjust the drainage to our property from County Rd. 19, the road and drainage system remain the same, and have not been re-done as you had indicated would happen this summer. The storm drainage problem has been greatly compounded during the last three to five years, following the recent construction of at least 6-8 new houses on Saga Hill, five of which are situated on our side of the hill. The new hard cover on that high point has resulted in a greatly increased volume of water running from the hill and down onto our property between our house and our neighbor's house (The Sawickis). Kathy and Peter Sawicki had water flowing freely up over their doorstep and into their foyer following the last storm. The damage to our property includes large amounts of sand and gravel deposited on our front yard, erosion of a planted garden, a fallen tree, and water damage in the lower level of our home, including the foundation, drain tiles, and new carpet in our family room. We are also concerned about our well, which lies in this "drainfield," and was contaminated two years ago at the date of re-mortgaging our home. Our blacktop driveway is being undermined by the constant flow of water, as is our garage floor. All of this damage is documented with photographs, and was reviewed by yourself, your supervisor, and by Mr. John Gerhardson of Orono Public Works, when you visited our home following the storm. It is important to note that these damages occured as a result of storms bringing only 4 inches and 1^ inches of rain, respectively (8/6/95 & 8/7/95). We have lived in this home for twenty years, and have never experienced leakage in our lower level or problems with our well. Even the "100 Year" storm of several years ago (12 inches) did not cause a problem on our property. In the last 3-5 years, we have seen the problem developing, as the drainage ditch deepens on our property. We are encouraged by your request for Mr. Gerhardson's attention to the matter. All of the new development on Tonkaview Road is definitely having an effect on the drainage from Co. Rd. 19. The present system is overwhelmed and inadequate. Our neighbor, Mr. Henry Ln.. Rigelhoff, across Co. Rd. 19, recalls that a drainage pipe used to cross Co. Rd. 19 to his property and then continued to drain down the opposite side of the road to the Forest Lake Channel. Perhaps there are records of why that system was changed. We are grateful for your acknowledgement of the problem and are anxiously awaiting the solution. We remain very upset and concerned about future damage to our home and property. We are requesting that the approximately two tons of gravel and road debris be removed from our yard, and that our new lower level carpet, as well as the damaged wall board, be replaced. In addition, the sand and debris and drain tile/foundation damage needs to be restored to its former state. An estimate of the approximate cost to repair the damage will follow, as soon as we have obtained the service of a professional. Because we have asked for help on many occasions over several years, we are frustrated and fearful of further damage to the structural integrity of our home. We are hopeful that Hennepin County, together with the City of Orono, can create a solution to this problem before greater damages occur. This is our home and private property and we consider the present circumstances unacceptable, urgent, and a crisis situation. We expecu to hear from you soon as to how this problem will be solved. Thank you for giving your time and attention to this matter. 4 Sincerely, Beth and John Bessesen (612)472-6424 (home) (612)559-9217 (work)i cc: Wayne Matsumodo/Hennepin County John Gerhardson/City of Orono Charles Kelley/Orono Council Gen Olson/State Senator Penny Steele/Hennepin County Commissioner William Burrs/Hennepin County 4510 North Shore Drive Orono, MN 55364 September 15, 1995 Mr. Marcel Kulas, District Supervisor Transportation Division Department of Public Works 320 Washington Ave. S. Hopkins, MN 55343>8468 Dear Marcel, Thank you for promptly coming to our home and contacting John Gerhardson at the City of Orono regarding the dramatic increase of run-off from County Road 19 onto our private residence. Although we discussed the problem in depth, we thought it appropriate to follow-up with a letter clarifying ^he problems and issues from our perspective. HTSTnWY In July of 1987, shortly after we moved into our home, we weathered the 12 inch "storm of the century". Our drainage system handled the run-off from this major event and only a small streak of gravel was washed into our lake front yard. This was easily removed in one afternoon with a shovel, rake and wheelbarrow. We subsequently had nxunerous 3" to 4" rainfalls with no problems. However, in the past two years we have not had significant storms and most rains have been more gentle and under 2 inches. PRORLRM ngfirWTPTTnW On August 6th, we were treated to a 4 inch rain fall (per our rain guage) which sent torrents of water down our driveway, overwhelmed our drainage system and caused water to flow over the tops of our basement walls and into the lower level of our home. The water streaming down our driveway swept up over a 4 inch curb, across a front deck and under our front doors into our foyer. The carpeting in two rooms has been damaged and our two furnaces were standing in water since the power was out and the sump pumps were not operating. I contacted Gordy, of your department, and his assesment was that the shoulders along County Rd. 19 were too high and so the road was carrying water into our driveway instead of draining properly. A road crew came out on August 7th and lowered the shoulders to facilitate proper drainage. That afternoon we were subjected to a heavy 1.5 inch rain which washed so much sand and gravel from County Rd. 19 into the shallow drainage ditch that it filled the ditch and mouth of the pipe under the end of our driveway and washed into our lake front yard, forming large, long deposits which have covered and destroyed the grass in those areas. Instead of the small puddle . .4I^_ _ __ r which usually forms in the lake front yard during 3 2 inch rainfall, our yard was entirely submerged. Sand and gravel and very muddy water washed down my driveway and again went over the top of my basement wall and into my home and also over the 4 inch curb and onto my front deck. This was reported to Gordy, who promptly brought out a crew to dig the sand and gravel out of the drainage ditch next to my driveway and open the pipe again. They significantly deepened the ditch and on the next rainfall, which was no more than an inch, even more sand and gravel was washed into our lake front yard. At this point in time, a simple 1 to 2 inch rainfall produces as much run-off from County Road 19 through the pipe at the end of our driveway as a 10 to 12 inch rainfall did 8 years ago. To date, we have removed 50 wheelbarrows full of sand and gravel from our yard, and more than half of the debri still remains. In addition to the problems described above, the increased volume and speed of the water through our pipe has dug deep ditches between our home and our neighbor's home (John & Beth Bessesen), threatening driveways, foundations, beautiful maple trees and our wells which are located in the area of greatest erosion and runoff. After a one inch rain, we used to have one soggy spot in the middle of our lake front yard. Now, after a one inch rain, our entire yard is unuseable for days. WHY TS THTS HXPPFWTNO ? During the last 8 years, and especially the last 2 years there has been significant development on Tonka View. My own survey identified five homes, substantial driveways and a garage/driveway which have been constructed since 1987. During the last rainfall, I personally observed large quantities of water sheeting down Tonka View and onto County Rd. 19 and into our drainage ditch and ultimately into our lake front yard. In essence, my lake front yard has been turned into a sewer for the new residents of Tonka View. WHY NOW? During the past two years. Mother Nature had been treating us to smaller, gentler rains, so the runoff problem was not so evident. The 4 inch torrential rain of August 6 first demonstrated the extent of the problem. EPFRrTS OP THE RAWHATn SQI.IITTQNS Subsequent steps taken by the county to reduce the rain coming off the road to our driveway have helped reduce the threat of flooding inside our home. However, the lower shoulder and deeper ditch have increased the water flowing into the drainage ditch, into the pipe under our driveway, between our home and Bessesen's home and down towards the lake via our lake front yards. This dramatically increased flow threatens our water supply wells, my neighbor's driveway, the foundations of both homes and is filling our lake front yards with gravel, salt and sand applied to the roads during the snow season. This problem is so extreme that we feel it has greatly reduced the value of our properties and could greatly impede the sale of either our home or our neighbors. WHO’S RBSPnWfiTBT.F? We personally hold the City of Orono responsible for allowing all of this new hardcover and not planning to accommodate the run off which is a logical result of this hardcover. Money should have been assessed and plans should have been made to accommodate the run off from this hill side development. THR fiOT.UTTOW? A storm sewer project, complete with holding capacity, to convey the water flowing down Tonka View to the lake without destroying the private property located below the newer develoment. We understand this will require the joint cooperation of both the City of Orono and Hennepin County. We appreciate the attempts to help correct the problems made by the County and your expressed willingness to help. Please keep us informed of your progress in designing a fair and innovative solution to this run-off problem. This needs prompt resolution as homt»s are being threatened here and now. Thank you again for you concern. We hope this will become a top priority for both Orono and Hennepin County. Sincerely, eter/^^Kathy Sawicki (612)^472-1586 cc:John Gerhardson/City of Orono Wayne Matsumodo/Hennepin County Charles Kelley/Orono Council Gen Olson/State Senator Penny Steele/Hennepin County Commisioner Jim Grube/Hennepin County Ed Callahan/Mayor, City of Orono Ron Moorse,City of Orono 4500 North Shore Drive Orono. Minnesota 55364 September 26, 1995 Marcel Kulas District Supervisor Transportation Division Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins. Minnesota 55343-8468 Dear Mr. Kulas. We would like you to be aware that since we last communicated with you in writing about damages to our home resulting from increased run-off from County .^oad 19, additional problems have occurred which threaten our home and well-being. With each rainfall, the damage to our home's foundation and interior (wallboard. baseboard, and carpet) increases geometrically. With the last rains, we have had water coming from beneath our garage floor, entering the lower level of our home behind our new furnace. Several large trees near our foundation have so much erosion at their roots that they are beginning to fail towards the lake. One of the trees threatens to fail on our house. The other, a large pine, was planted by my father twenty years ago when he built the house. We have already lost a full-grown Russian Olive tree which fell in the area o f the run-off next to our deck during the August 6th storm. Since the five inch rainstorm on August 6th, Beth has been having gastrointestinal problems, and is under a doctor’s Veatment for bacterial infection of the colon (we had been on vacation and returned home on the evening of August 6th ). Because Beth customarily drinks water from the well, (and John doesn't) we have had our well water tested and have discovered that our well is contaminated by coliform bacteria. Considering the huge volume of water which runs off the County Road and between our house and the Sawicki's, we believe that the contamination was caused by water rushing over the well cap. which lies in that area. We now must take steps to chlorinate the well, which will cost approximately $100.00 each time this occurs. Until the run-off problem is stopped, there is no way to prevent repeated contamination and the resulting illness. We appreciate the effort on the part of Hennepin County in creating a small berm, or “lip" at the top of our driveway as a temporary solution until the road is re-done next spring. However, it is obvious to us that this “band-aid" is not sufficient to prevent the large run-off down our driveway, and, in fact, appears to have the potential of making the run-off more efficient. We feel that in order to control the flow of water temporarily, an asphalt curbing extending west from our driveway is needed. We need to stop further structural damage to our home now. and during the coming snows and spring thaw. We are in receipt of a letter from Ms. Penny Steele. Hennepin County Commissioner for District 7. She assures us that Mr. Jim Grube is working with the City of Orono to devise a permanent solution to the problem of increased run-off from Saga Hill, down Tonkaview Road, and onto County Road 19. Mr. Grube has been in contact with John, indicating that Hennepin County intends to correct the problem. With each rainfall the scope of the damage grows larger, not to mention the threat of illness. We are working with Mr. William Burrs, of the Hennepin County Attorney ’s Office, following the claims procedure to assess the damage to our home and property. We implore the County and the City of Orono to devise a solution before more serious damages to our property and health occur. John and Beth Bessesen Hennepin County X. An Equal Opportunitv Employer / VI.. - \( Iv October 3, 1995 Mr. and Mrs. Sawicki 4510 North Shore Drive Orono, MN 55364 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sawicki: Recently I received a copy of a letter you had sent to Marcel Kulas regarding drainage problems you have experienced over the last few years. In your letter, you expressed hope that the City of Orono and Hennepin County would cooperate in the design and construction of an area-wide storm sewer improvement project which would benefit properties in the vicinity of your home. Please be advised that an improvement of the scope you desire is the responsibility of the City (although the County would participate), and it would be appropriate for you to petition the City for such an improvement. I have had a discussion with a representative of the City regarding the improvement and have been advised that the City has no plans to implement such a project in the near future (within the next five years). Perhaps the submittal of a petition will cause the City to consider a project more quickly. A visit to your neighborhood indicates a modest storm-drainage improvement may be feasible in the vicinity of your home. County staff is preparing to examine the area more closely; however, it is evident no improvements can be constructed unless we receive the cooperation of your neighbors and We are prepared to work with area residents; hopefully, the neighbors will be prepared to work with us. As you consider my expression of willingness to examine the feasibility of a modest drainage project, please be advised that it is likely such a project will not serve the area as completely as a fully designed project (a City responsibility). Accordingly, I cannot guarantee that all your drainage problems will be eliminated (we intent to reduce problems as much as possible). If you disagree with the actions we intend to take, I urge you to contact me. Department of Public Works 520 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 ;612)9 50- 2 500 FAX: (612)950-2513 RtxycLJ Paper Mr. and Mrs. Sawicki October 3, 1995 Page 2 If you wish to have the City of Orono pursue the development of an area wide storm sewer improvement, please advise me so we can avoid a duplication of activities. James N. Grube, P.E. Transportation Division Manager JNGimvr cc: John Gerhardson Vern Genzlinger Ted Hoffman 4510 North Shore Drive Orono, MN 55364 Mav 20, 1 996 Mr. Marcel Kulas Transportation Division Department of Public Works 320 Washington Ave. S. Hopkins, MN 55343-8468 Dear Mr. Kulas At about 1 :30 a m., Sunday, May 19, we experienced a heavy rainfall which once again overwhelmed our drainage system and caused water to flow over the tops of our basement walls and into the lower level of our home. The water streaming down our driveway swept up over a 4 inch curb, across a front deck and under our front doors into our foyer. The water came with such force that it has severely undercut the foundation of our driveway and will force the replacement of the sub-layers and asphalt. The carpeting in our laundry room and base trim boards have been soaked with muddy water and our furnaces were again standing in water since the power was out and the sump pump not operating. Again, large amounts of sand and gravel have been washed into the drainage ditch (deepened last August) and through the small pipe beneath our driveway deepening the erosion in the gully between our home and the Bessesen's home and carrying large volumes of sand, gravel, mud and water into our lake front yard. The volume of water coming off of county road 19, into the drainage ditch was far too great for the pipe at the end of our driveway. Water swept up over our driveway and through the trees near the driveway carrying mud, sand and leaves down the driveway. The drainage holes in the driveway were overwhelmed and huge volumes of water swept over our front deck and around the house, undercutting the concrete slab on which our central air conditioning unit sits. What was previously a 1 foot wide, six inch deep drainage ditch under the deck and catwalk at the east end of our home has been severely eroded and is now about four feet wide and two feet deep. This was a huge volume of water and the damage is extensive. At the peak of the storm, as water coursed into our home, my husband went outside and built dams with two by six boards, directing water away from our front door and blocking most of the flow from the top of the driveway. Had he not taken this personal risk, the damage inside of our home would have been far greater. 1 understand that the City of Orono and Hennepin County are about two weeks away from finalizing plans ro reduce the runoff onto our property. Words cannot express the urgency we feel regarding a timely implementation of this solution. .\lso, we would greatly appreciate a phone call detailing those plans and the time frame. Meanwhile, could you ✓ stop by and consider some short term options, such a some well placed sand bags, to help us survive storms which might occur in the interim?# Thanks again for your help and cooperation in resolving this problem. 1 can be reached at 472-1586 if you have and questions or comments. Sincerely, Kathy Sawicki cc: John Gerhardson; City of Orono Jim Grube; Hennepin County Ron Moorse; Citv of Orono , * :V- ■ •r-V-:'T»'-. Hennepin County JL An Equal Opportuniry Employer / i' May 21, 1996 Mr. John Bessesen 4500 North Shore Drive Orono, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Bessesen: It is my understanding that you have discussed with Marcel Kulas of the Operations Section two methods of handling drainage along North Shore Drive (County Road 19) in the vicinity of your home. One option included the installation of catch basins and storm sewer. This method, as depicted on the enclosed drawing, would have necessitated a drainage easement along the southerly side of your property so the runoff could be directed overland toward Lake Minnetonka. It is understood you do not favor this method of handling the runoff. A second method of handling the surface-water runoff is the diversion of runoff at the North Shore Drive/Tonkaview Road intersection, the redirection of runoff along North Shore Drive in the vicinity of your home, and the protection of the drainage way between your home and the Sawicki residence (at 4510 North Shore Drive) through the placement of rock in eroded area^. It is understood that this method is favored by you, and Kathy and Peter Sawicki are aware of your position. Given your desire to avoid work on your property and support for the use of a pavement overlay to attempt to divert overland water flows, the County has discontinued pursuit of the storm sewer option. Our paving crew will work with the City of Orono to try the diversion method. Although we will put forth our best effort, we cannot guarantee our success. Accordingly, you should anticipate that at least some surface runoff will find its way onto your property once the pavement is placed. Please note that the two options for handling surface runoff presented for your review represented short-term solutions to a longer-term problem. A better solution to the problem is the construction of an areawide storm Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 TDD:(612)930-2696 Recycled Paper Oohn Bessesen May 21, 1996 Page 2 sewer system by the City. I urge you to discuss this solution with the City, as projects of this nature require significant planning and funding. In closing, I again reiterate that in response to your wishes our best effort will be put forward as we try to divert surface-water runoff in the area, but success cannot be guaranteed. Sincerely, James N. Grube, P.E. Transportation Division Manager JNGcmvr cc: *^athy and Peter Sawicki, 4510 North Shore Drive John Gerhardson, City of Orono Bill Burrs, Hennepin County Ted Hoffman, Hennepin County PATENT. TRADEMARK. COPYRIGHT. .VND RELATED intellectlal property law KINNEY &. LANGE A professio .val association SUITE 1500 ^25 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH MINNE APOLIS. MINNESOTA 55415 1659 TELEX 9103805042 FACSI.MILE (612) 339-6580 TELEPHONE (612) 339-1863 May 24, 1996 Z. PETER SAWICKI 337-9346 Mr. Marcel Kulas Transportation Division DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Ave. S. Hopkins, MN 55343-8468 Dear Mr, Kulas: Thank you ^o' . with Kathy to explain the two options for solving the County Road 19 runoff probicnis at our home, located at 4510 North Shore Drive, Orono, Minnesota. After further discussions with our neighbor, John Bessesen, and review of the letter from Jim Grube, dated May 21, 1996, we also favor the "second method", or diversion and redirection of runoff as described in paragraph two of Mr. Grube’s letter. If properly executed, especially at the Wildhurst/Tonka View intersection, very little runoff should reach our properties. Our main concern is that raising the end of our driveway to meet the height of three new inches of asphalt on the road plus six inches of curb will adversely affect our ability to exit our driveway in the winter. Currently, the top of our driveway is fairly flat and raising it nine more inches will make exiting in slippery or icy conditions, almost impossible. Since it will be necessary to change the grade of the road in the vicinity of our homes to force water away from our properties, we request that the road be lowered relative to our existing driveways. We appreciate the work that was done on the limited catch basin and storm sewer proposal, but do not feel it is appropriate to dump the runoff from County Road 19 onto the Bessesen’s private property. In fact, we agree with our neighbor’s contention that, regardless of the source (Tonka View), etc., it is Hennepin County ’s responsibility to manage the runoff from County Road 19 and that none of it should be allowed to pollute and damage our private properties. We further feel it is Hennepin County ’s responsibility to work with the City of Orono and the Orono Planning Commission to assure that any further development in the Saga $ k !‘f 1. May 24, 1996 Page 2 Hill area is undertaken with appropriate measures for handling the increased runoff. We understand that you feel this is only a short term solution and ask that you help us enlist the support of the City of Orono for construction of an area wide storm sewer system by the City. .A.gain, we look forward to the project and the solution to what has become an overwhelming water problem. Very truly yours. P®ter Sawicki cc: ZPSisak James N. Grube, P.E. Transportation Division Manager Department of Public Works John Gerhardson City of Orono Ron Moorse City of Orono John & Beth Bessesen ■ 'r/kniinffinmi-1 September 16, 1996 Mr. Ron Moorse City Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Property Damage at 4500 North Shore Drive Dear Mr. Moorse: This letter will confirm the substance of the meeting held August 1, 1996 at the Orono City Hall regarding water run-off damage at the above address, and at that of our neighbors, Kathy and Peter Sawicki. In attendance at that meeting were John Gerhardson, Director of Public Works, Glenn Cook. City Engineer, John and Beth Bessesen, Kathy Sawicki,, and you. The discussion at the meeting related to the water damage that has occurred on our properties and in our homes due to improper storm water run-off from Tonkaview Road and the Saga Hill area. As you are aware, we have already requested and received assistance and substantial reparation of damages adjacent to County Road 19 from Hennepin County. Since that time, the damage to our home and property has been inspected and appraised by Peter Schroeder of Allied Adjustors, Inc. as requested by the City of Orono. A summary of the proposed solutions resulting from the meeting on August 1 includes: removal of the berm on the side of Tonkaview Road: a request for an easement across the Aune properly to accommodate excess run-off and to divert it to Rest Point Road using an existing culvert: and the raising and repairing of the eroded intersection at Wildhurst Trail and Tonkaview to meet the level of the newly resurfaced County Road 19. In addition, the City agreed to invite us to the next council meeting where this issue would be discussed. We have not received notice of that meeting. Since it has been approximately 6 weeks since the August 1 meeting and we have not heard from the City, we are anticipating a timely notification of the next meeting and of the fair compensation of our damages. Please advise. We hope to reach an amicable settlement with the City and look forward to your reply. Again, thank you for your help. Sincerely, 4510 North Shore Drive Orono, MN 55364 December 27, 1996 John Gerhardson City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gerhardson; Enclosed are the photographs we took of the runoff from Tonka View at the intersection with County Road 19 on November 16, 1996. The rain was light, but steady and there was some snow cover on the ground. About 10 percent of the water from Tonka View flowed toward the newly installed pipe while about 90 percent of the water found its way to my lakefront yard, where it ponded in a low spot which has been created by erosion of topsoils by the large amounts of runoff we have experienced during the past two to three years. A huge cottonwood tree adjacent to this low spot is quite sickly due to all of the salt and road pollutants which have been deposited at its' roots. I do not believe that the snow cover was interfering significantly with the direction of the flow, since water had undercut the snow and was running freely under it towards the new pipe near the intersection. The crown of asphalt installed at the intersection does not extend out to meet the crown of County 19, so that water flows around, between the two crowns and down the ditch into my lakefront yard. Perhaps creating a crown starting 50 feet up hill on Tonka View and carrying it through to 19 such that water cannot snake across the intersection is what is needed to direct the majority of the runoff towards the new pipe and ultimately to the drainage ditch along Rest Point, where it will not damage private property. We appreciate all of the efforts by the City of Orono and Hennepin County to solve this problem, and feel that we are close to a working solution. Your expressed willingness to follow up and assure a solution is also greatly appreciated. Please contact us when you and the engineer have had a chance to review the enclosed photos and let us know what the plan and timetable are for the next step. Sincerely, Peter & Kathy Sawicki (612) 472-1586 cc:John & Beth Bessesen Marcel Kulas, Hennepin County Ron Moorse, City of Orono BXANCHOFFKXS MlniKsota Albeit Lea P.O. Box 848 Albert Lea. MN 56007 (507) 373-7502 Rochester P.O. Box 9<M Rochester, ,MN 55903 (507) 289^)042 Faiimoni P.O. Box 15 Fairmont. MN 56031 (507) 235-5565 Virginia P.O. Box 1205 Virginia. .MN 55792 (218) 741-6965 WUlmar P.O. Bob 915 it. WUmar.MN 56201 ^ (320) 231-2026 Mtinkato P O. Box 3523 Manir*'-. MN 56002 (507)387-5468 V FMttnult P.O. Box 433 Faribault, MN 55021 (507)334-2217 Owaionna P.O. Box 666 Owatoniu, MN 55060 (507)451-5644 Hutchinson P.O. Box 159 Hutchinson, MN 55350 020)587-9465 I < ’v Biainerd P-O. Box 763 Bninerd, MN 56401 (218)828-8258 .\r ''"UQtDDl F.dBctt56 ^^8taou4’lS___ ^ " 020)259^766 ||i«. feSB ^»y5-7484 CfiodForits P.O. Box 12019 t^fGondRiifcs, to 58208 •*. (701)^5-3867 - P.b. Box 1004 MDb^Sb 57252 a’. ’, , (605)432^1 •: ■ Phoenix' ^ Arizona All CbJms llflOlN.TiiusiBlvd^ ;< Arizona AB Qaima ' P.O. Bob 13162 ■ Tlicson. Ax 85732 Allied Adjusters, Inc, P.O. Box 58,3-i“9 a Minneapolis. .MN 55-t5H a Direct <()12) .376-4.500 a Fa.x (612) ,5“(v4.599 January 21, 1997 P. 0. Box 583479 Minneapolis, MN 55458-3479 (612) 376-4300 Fax No.: (612) 376-4399 Kathy Sawiclci 4510 North Shore Drive Orono, MN 55364 RE:BRS Claim No. Trust Member Date of Loss Claimant Our File No. 11013809 City of Orono 5/17/96 Kathy Sawic)ci MPS2616C XT*. ♦ if * t '• ’■ 9. \i . m Dear Ms. Sawicki : TK As you are aware, we have been commissioned by the * in) .iT« > League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT),,.-,''»5 ^ and the City of Orono, MN, to investigate the adxive- referenced loss described as a water run-off problem, which you contend is due to the City's overdeveloping of the land above you.,t4V We have spent a considerable amount of time ‘ investigating this issue, which has included several A « ^ * _ — ; > Vtrips to the location, and we have not been able to conclude that the newly constructed homes have caused nan-off to the degree which you have claimed*. We will reconsider your claim if you are able to. j|P show evidence and volumes of increased flow resulting from the developments above you. « r ' We, therefore, on behalf of the LMCIT and the City ^ - of Orono, MN, respectfully deny your claim for damages . . • i * ^ 4c I r » . yr . •-( 1973 ~ Our Twenty-Third Year ~ 7996 A Membcf «l IVrtklev Risk M2njKt*m(rnl Sennet Group ♦"•V ^ ‘ •• Kathy Sawicki BRS Claim No. Our File No. January 21, 1997 11013809 MPS26160 The reasons for this denial are based on but not limited to those stated above.1 Very truly yours, ALLIED ADJUSTERS, INC. Peter Schroeder Adjuster PS/^J cc: Berkley Risk Services, Inc. Attn: Jo Hook ii .1*^ 1- ■ - '»• •«. » ;c;' Jr 1- ^ "k *•• I'' Michael O. Freeman COltNTY ATTORNEY . A. i (612)348-5550 T.D.D. (612)348-6015 ><vTsO OiTICE O f 'Fhe H ennei‘in Coun it A ttorney 2000 (JonI RNMKM Ci;\ri;R Minm \Roi.is. Mi\m sor \ 55487 March 6. 1997 Ms. Katheryn M. Sawicki Mr. Z. Peter Sawicki 4510 North Shore Drive Orono, MN 55364 Dear Ms. anid Mr. Sawicki: I represent Hennepin County regarding the claim you submitted on or about February 25, 1997. Let me first indicate that I empathize with your unfortunate situation. However, I believe that any claim for your problem is appropriately addressed to the City of Orono or to the owners or developers of the residential properties uphill from you. Your letter dated September 15, 1995 (attached to your claim) states that in 1987 you weathered the 12 inch “storm of the century ” with little or no impact. However, since 1995, you indicate that a one to two inch rainfall overwhelms your property. The roadway was not altered in any substantive way between 1987 and 1995. 1 nus, the roadway did not add increase water to your property. Instead, your September 15, 1995, letter identifies additional hard cover added by uphill residential development during that interval as the cause of your water problems. The uphi!! development required building permits from the City of Orono. I know that the City has “hard cover" limitations in its building code. The City is also responsible for the storm sewer system. Hennepin County denies any suggestion that the City’s or developer’s failure to address or anticipate drainage issues requires the County to alter its roadway to compensate for such failure. However, even if that were true, the decision as to where and how to allocate the County’s limited highway budget involves discretionary immunity that precludes County liability. HENNEPIN COUNTY IS AN AFFIRM.ATIVE ACTION E.MPLOYER Katheryn M. Sawicki Z. Peter Sawicki March 6, 1997 Page 2 I hope that you can work with the City of Orono toward a permanent solution to your water problem. Hennepin County, however, must decline to provide compensation for your loss. Very truly yours, MICHAEL O. FREEMAN Hennepin County . ■! i U1 L, GORY A. CARLSON Assistant County Attorney Telephone: (612) 348-3437 FAX: (612) 348-8299 CAC:kd //o o \\ % .t4t-,fe-l A/n. GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 April 21, 1997 Z. Peter and Katheryn Sawicki 4510 North Shore Drive Orono, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sawicki: I have received the drainage analysis report prepared for you by Mattke Engineering, and have discussed the report with Greg Gappa our new Public Services Director. The city had been moving ahead with a plan to construct a detention pond as a solution to the drainage problem. The owner of the property on which the pond was planned is now in opposition to the pond and not willing to grant an easement for ponding. My understanding is that water is flowing down Tonkaview and out onto County Road 19. We are investigating the possibility of a small pavement overlay project to divert a portion of this water into the new culvert that was installed. This water would then flow into the culvert under County Road 19 to Rest Arm Lane. Without an easement for ponding, we are concerned that large amounts of additional water diverted towards Rest Arm Lane could create erosion problems in the roadside jitches. This drainage problem has several facets which makes it difficult to resolve. However, finding both a short term and long term solution to this problem is a top priority. If you have further questions or concerns, please call Greg Gappa or me. City Administrator Tdcphone (612) 473.7357 • FAX 4734)510 Surface Water Runoff Damage 4500 North Shore Drive & 4510 North Shore Drive Orono, MN. 55364 Notes for the Orono City Council 4/28/97 --we have lived in our home at 4500 North Shore Drive since 1977, with no problems from water runoff until new construction began on Tonkaview Avenue in 1988 -the Sawicki family moved to their home at 4510 North Shore Drive in June of 1987, experiencing no significant problems with water runoff until the summer of 1995 -five new homes have been built on Saga Hill (Tonkaview Avenue), with large amounts of hardcover, from 1988 until the present time -increasing water runoff from Tonkaview, deposited on Co. Rd. 19, has eroded our properties and caused increasing damages to our homes, both i.uemal :^nd external -we have had some assistance with the problem from Mr. Marcel Kulas of Hennepin County beginning in 1994 (area supen/isor. Department of Public Works) -before that time, we began asking for help from Mr. Tom Peterson (now retired) who held the same position as Mr. Kulas with Hennepin County -in the summer of 1995 Mr. Kulas contacted Mr. John Gerhardson of the City of Orono and asked for the cooperation of the City in solving the problem —visits to our properties were n;ade by Mr. Kulas and Mr. Jim Grube of Hennepin County (Mr.Kulas' superior) and Mr. Gerhardson and Mr. Glenn Cook of the City of Orono -we have filed claims for damages with both the City and the County -each government blames the other, and our claims have been denied -a meeting was held on August 1,1996, with Mr. Gerhardson, Mr.Cook, Mr. Moorse, Mrs. Sawicki, and Mr. and Mrs. Bessesen in which possible solutions to the problem were discussed -since that time, a partial and inadequate attempt to divert runoff was made at the comer of County Road 19, Wildhurst Trail and Tonkaview by the City -Hennepin county has made substantial changes to the Co.Rd., including new curbing, resurfacing, and new culvert and rip-rap, which is being overwhelmed by ■.t n J