The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-11-1997 Council PacketPublic A ttendance Meeting D ate ^ C ouncil □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Aor. a. 1^97 Please fill out the information requested below for our city records . NAME (please print) ,_a ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 2 3 /(Ll-Ulf! rlc^ r h? H\pkm 71/ nr- A/A' sV^tc 4. ^ 1%U Griet ,r > ZI' f^Lj =s:? ^ ^ ^7« N. Jr » 8._ ______ 9. L/e/Y\/ //f( ^ccf/f/i(^iy /c>x^ jf y^crYc/c^iL^ /^/ crvov> agenda for council meeting set for MONDAY, AUGUST 11 1997 7 00 PM ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 2780 KELLEY PARi^AToRONO: (*) Astensk Items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council ROLL CALL COO/y,, * 1 CONSENT AGENDA approval of minutes * 2. Regular Meeting of July 28, 1997 aug c/r>'cr ^Nq issr C/^O/Vo PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Elizabeth Hawn - Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) 1 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT - ^259 Mark and Laurie Headrick, 1850 Fox Ridge - Variance - Request to Table s ‘ ’ 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive - Sketch Plan - Multi-Family PRD I' ^11 n ^ Shoreline/2380 Shadywood - Council Site Plan Approval ^ Sa^aSelTnf ^ McCourtney, 1045 Femdale Road West - Subdivision of a Lot Line #2628 Robert Callan, 2995 Deer Run Trail - Variance - Resolution 8. Tom Terry for Valerie Peterson, 1125 North Arm Drive - Request to Issue Building Permit MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT 9. Upgrade Navarre Well #2 Proposal "f^lO. Golf Course Well - Written Quotes *^11. Pay Request #2 North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sewer Project CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 12. Highway 12 Stormwater Ponding (^13. 1998 Assessor's Agreement 14. Schedule Date for Public Hearing for Navarre Water Service Area - Rehabilitation 15. Resignation - John Olson, Accountant/Management Analyst Navarre Water Plant CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 16. LICENSES ♦ 17. BILLS r F ‘ AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1997, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 08/11 08/13 08/13 08/18 08/25 09/01 09/02 09/03 09/08 09/15 09/22 Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Work Session 8:00 a.m. - Land Use & Sewer Issues Council Work Session 9:00 a.m. - TIF Issues Planning Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY - Labor Day Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. Highway 12 Design Review Committee meeting 5:30 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. msT' % ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 28,1997 Cn. ■! / ■ V' %o ROLL The Com cil met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, Barbara Peti'rson, and Richard Flint. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaflfron, 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. (#1) ROBERT L. SEARLES AWARD TO BRUCE DAYTON AND RUTH DAYTON - RESOLUTION NO. 3930 Moorse read the resolution, which conferred the Robert L, Searles Meritorious Service Award upon Bruce and Ruth Dayton for their outstanding contribution to the community to assist in achieving the goal of the City to enhance and perpetuate the quality of life for its residents. The Dayton's made a gift to the State of Minnesota of a 150 acre tract of "Big Woods" forest to be preserved as the Wood Rill Scientific and Natural Area. Goetten moved. Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3930 to confer the Robert L. Searles Meritorious Service Award upon Bruce and Ruth Dayton. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mayor Jabbour presented the award to Bruce and Ruth Dayton, along with a copy of the resolution, and extended his respect and appreciation. Bruce Dayton, a 47 year Orono resident, said he appreciated Orono's constructive attitude, and noted he has enjoyed the "Big Woods" for over 50 years and is appreciative of being able to extend that enjoyment to others. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL 0 MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (*#2) CONSENT AGENDA Items #4,6,7,9,11,13,15,19, and 21 were added to the Consent Agenda. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#3) REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 14,1997 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 14,1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Wilson had no comments at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Lindquist had no comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mike Barrett, 2912 Casco Point Road, passed out a letter to the members of the Council regarding the need for repair and maintenance of Casco Cove Road. He said he would like to come back before the Council on August 11 and hear their response after their review of the issues. He indicated that the public road is not maintained or plowed by the City and would like it to be so. Jabbour informed Barrett that such issues are routinely handled by City Staff. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JLXY 28,1997 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mike Barrett Continued Greg Gappa said it was his understanding that the City has not maintained the road but will follow up on the issue. Jabbour instructed Staff to review the facts and make a recommendation. He asked that the affected residents be notified prior to the August 11 meeting if the issue can be resolved. Khosrow Daivar, 1082 Loma Linda, informed the Council he had added a screened in area on his deck and the work was stopped by the building inspector, who informed him of the need for a building permit and a variance from the average lakeshore setback requirement. The screened area is complete except for painting. Daivar said his property is on a peninsula. Daivar said he spoke with Van Zomeren of the need to make an application for a variance and provide a survey of the property. Daivar feels the law should be changed. He indicated he feels he has a hardship regarding the screened area. Jabbour informed Daivar that only the building inspector can make the determination regarding the need for a building permit. Barrett agreed that a building permit cannot be waived, but if denied, it can be appealed to the Council. Daivar vc’ced his concern with the cost of the application. He feels the process is a h^Mship. Jabbour noted the purpose of the law and his support of it. Goetten reiterated that the work was begun without obtaining a permit, and Daivar was notified of his need for a variance. Daivar said he did not think he needed to have a building permit. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 PUBLIC COMMENTS Khosrow Daivar Continued Jabbour told Daivar that all similar cases reqv';e going through the variance process. Kelley related the importance of the law. He informed Daivar that with the hardship as noted, he should probably be able to receive the variance for the screened area. Van Zomeren indicated that there is no survey on file. She said the need to acquire one would involve a time issue for Daivar. Jabbour said staff would have to review the history of the conformity of the property. He asked Van Zomeren to work with the building inspector in the variance process. Allan Engleman, 315 Old Crystal Bay Road, voiced his outrage with the defacing of the City property by landscape workers using a skid loader. He informed Council that the damage must be corrected. Council indicated the matter would be addressed. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (*#4) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3931 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3931, granting side setback, average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback variances for construction of additions to the residence at 3265 Sixth Avenue North for Donald and Robin Helgager. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (#5) #2254 CURTIS AND BARBARA PALMER, 2710 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3932 Van Zomeren reported that the request is a variance to add a 16’x5'9" space to the existing garage. The garage is non-conforming due to its location in the street yard, 4'6" off the property line. The request would result in added bulk to the structure. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 5:1 vote contrary to Staffs recommendation for denial with storage space located elsewhere on the property. Van Zomeren said Staff did not believe there was a hardship to justify the variance. Curtis Palmer said the residence is on a steep hill and access to the rear of the property is impossible resulting in it not being practical to build any storage unit elsewhere. He said he would like the ability to have a small workshop in his garage as well as use it to store his tools. Jabbour received confirmation from the applicant that the topography of the property created the hardship and egress and ingress were difficult. Palmer informed Goetten that the storage area would be for personal use. Kelley said he agreed with Staffs recommendation. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to deny Application #2254. Peterson said she had mixed feelings about the request. She said she agrees with the applicant regarding the topography not allowing space for another structure. She asked for clarification on whether the added structure would be located behind the garage. Palmer said the space would be shown as a dormer in the front of the garage noting the footprint would not change. Van Zomeren reviewed the elevations of the proposed structure. She indicated that the garage was being raised to gain headroom and floor space. tJ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (#5 - #2254 Curtis and Barbara Palmer - Continued) Kelley was informed that the footage of the second story space would be the same as the garage below with 22'x20' of usable space planned. Goetten noted that it is difficult to add structure to a non-conforming use. Kelley was informed that no plumbing will be added. Flint said the applicant has shown a hardship and agreed with Planning Commission reconunendation for approval. Jabbour indicated the topography problems and limited space. He said he looks at applications issue by issue and would agree with the Planning Commission. Kelley withdrew his motion. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3932 with the condition that no plumbing fixtures would be allowed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nay 0. (*#6) #2256 JAMES AND MARY RIVERS, 1442 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3933 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3933. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#7) #2257 DENNIS MEYER, 4685 TONKA VIEW LANE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3934 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3934 granting a lot area variance for construction of a new single family residence on the property located at 4685 Tonkaview Lane. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1 % I i i ■ i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (#8) #2258 GERALD E. WALSH, 180 BIG ISLAND - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3935 Mrs. Walsh was present. Gaffron reported that the request is for the lot area variance similar to those granted to other Record Lots per the RS District ordinances which began in 1983. The property on Big Island was reviewed together, grouped by ownership, categorized by size, and granted a variance for building of Record Lots. The owTiers of lots that were allowed this variance were required to execute variance documents. This property was vacant at that time and has changed ownership several times. The documents were not signed for the subject property. The applicant would like to guarantee his right to build on the property and formally establish the automatic lot area variance. Gaffron reviewed the .64 acre property, which is 100' wide x 283 ’ deep, a size common to other lots in the areti. riaffron said the applicant w'ould be required to obtain a survey of the property if he desires building permits. Gaffron said the property is located in the 5 acre zoning and would not be eligible for subdivision. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3935. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#9) #2260 BENJAMIN MILBRATH, 3265 CARMAN ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 3936 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3936. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#10) #2261 TONY EIDEN COMPANY, 345 LEAF STREET - VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 3937 Diane Eiden was present. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (#10. - #2261 - Tony Eiden Company - Continued) Van Zomeren reviewed the plat for the property. She indicated that the applicant is the developer of the property currently under purchase agreement from Thomas Meyer. The 1.77 acre property is located in the LR-1A Zoning District, which requires 2 acres. Van Zomeren said she believes there is enough space on the property for a building pad that would meet all required setbacks. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Staff recommended approval or amendment of the resolution. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3937. Peterson asked about the proposed structure and its relationship to the Luce Line and Staffs recommendation. Van Zomeren said she would preferred to have seen the building plan but the size of the lot is adequate. Jabbour amended his motion, Goetten seconded, to include no further variances will be allowed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#11) #2262 NED BUTTERFIELD, 3745 WATERTOWN ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 3938 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3938. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) #2265 ROBERT LUND FOR GRAYDON K. AND MICHELLE M. NEWMAN, 1655 BOHNS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3939 Architect, Robert Lund, represented the applicants. Van Zomeren reported that the request is for average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variances in the 0-75' and 75-250', which would remain consistent with current percentages. The property owners plan to remove an existing residence and construct a new residence. The property is on a pie-shaped lot which is the reason for 8 1 r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (#12. - #2265 Robert Lund for Graydon K. & Michelle M. Newman - Continued) the average lakeshore setback request. The adjacent residences arc behind the proposed structure. The proposed structure would be more than 100' from the lakeshore. Goetten asked for more visual details of the pro,. iy. The 12.3% hardcover in the 0-75' setback was clarified. Goetten had questioned v ktther the Planning Commission had discussed any removals in that area. Van Zomeren said there is currently 3132 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75' and is proposed at 3120 s.f. A deck platform was removed by the lakeshore to allow for approval of a prio** variance request. Lund said there is 12 of terrace around the house that is being removed. Goetten noted that the packet did not include any information regarding what was included in the 12.5% of hardcover. Gaffron reported that the hardcover includes a deck, walkway, retaining wall and terrace area and stone block. Jabbour asked if it exists now. Gaffroii said some was taken out and a different walkway installed. Lund said the walkway consists of broken up rubble. Jabbour noted the explarwtion why a seawall was required during the last discussion of the property. Jabbour said the existing structure includes riprap and a retaining wall. Gaffron said this was not an issue from Staffs viewpoint. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3939. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 • (*#I3) #2266 RONALD AND ROBIN HOHRMAN, 190 CYGNET PLACE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3940 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3940. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (#14) #2268 ROBERT CALLAN, 2995 DEER RUN TRAIL - VARIANCE Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to table Application #2268, Robert Callan, 2995 Deer Run Trail, to the August 11 Council meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#15) #2273 MORGAN NELSON, 3145 JAMESTOWN ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3942 Gotten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3942, granting a lakeshore setback variance for construction of a gazebo at 3145 Jamestown Road. Vote- Aves 5 Nays 0. • / » MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Goetten reported that Orono resident. Summer Taylor, came to the last Highway 12 Design Committee Meeting with a petition requesting that the Stubbs Bay Road access to Highway 12 be closed as soon as possible. Goetten said she is unsure whether this road should be closed but would like to see the Council respond to this request. Jabbour said he feels the road should be closed but the City needs to investigate whether they are able to receive the 5% rebate from the railroad which is available when a railroad crossing is eliminated. Ba^ett cautioned the Council that the decision to close the road would be irrevocable and difficult to gain back if it was abandoned. Jabbour said the commitment would not be made at this time. Kelley indicated that this road would be closed when Highway 12 reconstruction occurred but reiterated Barrett's concern. Kelley said it was vital to make the residents aware of a delayed response from the fire and police departments if such closure occurred. He indicated that a letter should be sent to the residents regarding this ramification. I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 f I (MAYOR COUNCIL REPORT - Continued) Goetten said she does not want to see people taking left turns at this intersection and is also concerned with excessive spec K Jabbour indicated the possible need for a frontage road. He cited the area is rural. Kelley said if the road was closed, the decision would be irreversible and would still require maintenance. He said the residents should be made aware of the need to maintain the road and of all the points involved that would affect them if the closure occurred. Jabbour said with the millions of dollars that will be spent on the intersection, the City needs to be assured that they would receive the 5% from the railroad. Kelley said there are probably railroad policies regarding safety. He asked Staff to send a letter to the railroad. Moorse said a public hearing would have to be held. Jabbour said no formal action would be taken at this time regarding the right-of-way, and Mn/DOT would have to be contacted. Kelley asked that the residents of Watertown Road be contacted regarding a possible closing of Stubbs Bay Road. Peterson reminded Council of the National Night Out being held Tuesday, August 5 from 6:00-9:00 p.m. Activities will be held at Long Lake State Bank and Rick's Super Valu. Jabbour asked that this activity be posted. 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (#16) APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO LMCD Jabbour noted the Council's prior discussions regarding representing Orono at the LMCp meetings. He said he has spoken with the new members of the LMCD regarding the vision of the LMCD as well as with members of the DNR about who is the lake's custodian. He said he would like the City to possibly introduce legislation regarding this topic to initiate action. Jabbour noted the enabling legislation was changed to provide for appointed representation versus elected representation. Jabbour said the City should either totally opt out from the LMCD or send representation. He is concerned that the only benefit Orono receives from the LMCD is milfoil harvesting. Jabbour said the City should have a representative who shares the same philosophy as the City. He indicated there is a problem with the LMCD wanting to recodify the ordinances, and arbitrarily doing so, citing an example. Jabbour suggested Lili McMillan represent the City. Kelley questioned whether the representative should also be a lake resident. Jabbour said the representative should be from the Planning Commission or Council. He said McMillan has been monitoring the activities of the LMCD the past year and has an interest in this area. Jabbour said McMillan is willing to make the commitment, add a fresh viewpoint, and be able to view the lake issues as a whole. Jabbour said he would like to see the LMCD follow their management plan and feels safety, ecology, and aesthetics are important issues. He noted the LMCD was to offer lake safety courses and have not done so. He would like to see a pilot program begun for mandatory licensing of boat operators and indicated a former director of the LMCD vetoed this suggestion. Jabbour said there is no process in place by which to remove a boat driver. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to appoint Lili McMillan as representative to the LMCD Board on an interim basis. This appointment would be revisited in one year's time. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (#16 APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO LMCD Continued) Jabbour asked how the Council felt about the appointment. Flint said while he prefers the appointee reside on the lake, he feels McMillan is qualified. Peterson concurred. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ENGINEER REPORT (#17) BID AWARD GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION SYSTEM Gappa reported that the bids have been received for the golf course irrigation system. The low bid was for $91,259.70 from Evergreen Sprinklers. The other bids were considerably higher. Gappa said he has reviewed the bidder's references and noted the City budgeted $100,000 for the project. Gappa indicated that staff had originally thought the current well could be used with the new irrigation system. It has since been determined that a new well with more capacity is needed. Jabbour asked about use of the holding pond. Gappa said the well should be installed by the pond to enable the pond to be replenished as needed. Jabbour asked who designed the system. Gappa said he did with assistance for developing the specifications. Kelley asked if staff has spoken with the golf course superintendent regarding the design. Gappa said he has. The City will be using single and dual lines. The dual lines are used for sunny areas. Goetten was informed that the system is automated and can be turned off and on. Kelley asked if the layout has been done for the sprinkler heads. Gappa said it has. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (^17 BID AWARD GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION SYSTEM Continued) Kelley asked how this project will affect capital improvements in relationship to the MacMillan property adjacent to the golf course. Moorse said a portion of the tee boxes ai^ located on the MacMillan property. Gappa said he would review this situation. Moorse was asked to explain the situation. Moorse said when the course was constructed, a portion of two tee boxes were constructed on the adjacent property. There was originally a lease agreement with the adjacent property owner. The operation of the golf course has continued without this being an issue. The issue was readdressed when plans for improvements began which required additional land and easements. A letter was sent to the property owner. The property owner asked for consideration of a driveway access for their property to Orono Orchard Road. Staff was not in favor of such access as it was located along the Luce Line. An easement would have been required from the City for this driveway. Legal issues regarding the tee-boxes and driveway are being reviewed. Moorse said the property owners require only a minor amount of additional property, as they already have nearly a complete corridor for the driveway. Kelley asked how this affects the irrigation system. Moorse said a portion of the system is planned to be installed on the tee-boxes which are on the adjacent property. Jabbour asked Gappa not to encroach into the adjacent property owner's property. Goetten said she would like to see the big picture of what is occurring noting there is no need for a subdivision application. Moorse said staff is reviewing the impact to the Luce Line, golf course, and traffic safety, which he will review with the property owner. He said no capital improvements would be located on private property and a time table for the project would be developed. Kelley said he knew the property owners were in support of the golf course. w MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (#17 BID AWARD GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION SYSTEM Continued) Jabbour said he was surprised by the differing amounts of the bids. Kelley asked what the fund balance was for the project. Gappa said the budgeted amount was $100,000 with $20,000 for a new well. Bids are being considered for the w ell project. He indicated that the fund would have a balance of about $150,000 at the end of the year. The old well would be used for the club house facility and the new well for the irrigation system. Staff was asked to come back before the Council with final costs for the well. Flint said he would like to see the City develop the expertise regarding high environmental standards such as those expected from other golf courses. Gappa responded that one way this is being done is through the use of the holding pond for irrigation to recycle nutrients back onto the course. Flint said he was thinking in more general terms in looking at the overall course maintenance operation. Jabbour asked if the workers involved at the golf course have received any schooling on the subject. Gappa said Ron Steffenhagen has received education on the subject and is certified for fertilizer application. Kelley questioned whether the City should be licensing some activity. Gappa said Steffenhagen is licensed. Kelley asked about receiving information from other superintendents. Gappa said conferences with other superintendents have been attended. Jabbour suggested Steffenhagen attend workshops on the issue and staff should budget for these educational classes. Kelley noted observing safety equipment used by applicators. Flint reiterated that high standards should be expected from the City. Kelley indicated with the high levels of MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (#17 BID AWARD GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION SYSTEM Continued) fertilizer and herbicides used on the five golf courses in the City, the City should ensure that they are protecting the environment. Jabbour noted the surrounding areas with golf courses as well. Gappa indicated the certification used at Spring Hill Golf Club for Best Management Practices. He will reviev/ that the City is up to date. Flint noted Spring Hill was also making application to the National Audubon Society for certification. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to award a contract for installation of an irrigation system at the Orono Municipal Golf Course to Evergreen Sprinkler Company Inc. for $91,259.70. Staff was directed to obtain bids for the well with the understanding that the Council is supportive of a well necessary for the new irrigation system. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#18) REVISIONS TO NON-UNION PAY STRUCTURE Moorse reported that the proposed revisions to the non-union pay structure are to ensure consistency within the upper portion of the pay structure. He is proposing adding three pay ranges to the upper end to make the full compensation plan consistent with the remaining portion. Kelley said he had a difficult time understanding the pay structure. Other Council members agreed. Jabbour said there are some inconsistencies in the system to rectify. Moorse explained the job evaluation system and analysis of positions, which identify duties and assignments. These duties and assignments receive points in relation to responsibilities and knowledge. He indicated a work session might benefit the Council at some time regarding their understanding of the system. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (#18 REVISIONS TO NON-UNION PAY STRUCTURE Continued) Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the proposed revisions to the non- pay structure to add a point grouping and related pay^ge between eac o i p point groupings in the pay structure. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#19) POSITION RECLASSIFICATION - MICHAEL GAFFRON Goetten moved Peterson seconded, to approve a reclassification of the Senior Pla^ng Coordinator position to level 11 of the City’s pay structure and to increase the sa ary the position to $50,398 effective January 1,1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays . Jabbour commended Gaffron on his excellent job performance. (#20) CITY LOGO SHIRTS MocrcP reoorted that the City would like to purchase polo shirts for staff as part of their He asked Council if they would HJe ^ available to the Council, volunteer commissions, and possibly for sale to g public. Council informed Moorse that the Council members will pay for their own shirte^ Uey appr" 1of providing the shirts to the Park and Plannmg Commtsstoners. Council thought this was a good team effort. Goetten moved. Peterson seconded, to approve the purchase of City logo shi^ for the volunteer comm.ss.onsralong with an inventory for resale to Orono resid^ts vd^ authorization for the funding to come from the contingency accou.it. /ote. Ayes Nays 0. r r.-r\ u fl-7' f MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 (*#21) RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION - RESOLUTION NO. 3943 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3943 authorizing the application for a local planning assistance grant from the Metropolitan Council. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Barrett had no report. (*#22) LICENSES Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the following license: Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Club Firearm Use Permit Annual Permit for:Park Gun Club 3600 Sixth Avenue North (*#23) BILLS Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 2f>, 1997 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Jabbour adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk u 4 o (0 0)c iom k :si o o'"!C s1O D) rrt 0| LU To: From: Date: CONSENT AGENDA Council Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator^^^^^^^^ August 7,1997 N O/v ^% ^•e> '^yo Subject: #2259, Mark & Laurie Headrick, 1850 Fox Ridge Road -Variance - Request to Table ^ ) u If Mrs. Headrick has asked that this item be tabled, pending possible revisions to the application. Staff will followup with a notification and waiver of the 60-day review period, since she indicated it may take a few months to conclude whether they will amend the application. Proposed Motion: Moved by___ applicant. Vote:___^ayes,___^nays. , seconded by____to table item #2259 at the request of the REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 5^. % % DATE: August 6, I^q ITEM NO.:■::2 Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2259 Mark and Laurie Headrick, 1850 Fox Ridge Road - Variance - Denial Recommendation Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered. Application: Request for side setback and front setback variances to convert existing garage to a family room and add a new two car garage. Pertinent Code Section Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B): Required side yard = 30’ (existing = 24.5’, proposed = 5') Required front yard = 50’ (existing = 38.6', proposed = 36.6') List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action B - Letter from Adjacent Owner of 1895 Fox Ridge Rd. C - Memo and Exhibits of 7/15/97 Discussion Please carefully review the memo and exhibits of July 15th. Briefly, applicants propose an addition to be located 5’ from the side lot line where a 30’ side setback is required. The proposed addition also will encroach 2’ closer to the road than the existing garage, which is at a 38.6 street setback where 50' is required. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this application at their July meeting and on a vote of 6-0, recommended denial based on the impact of the setback encroachment on the visual density and character of the neighborhood, finding that the proposed 5’ side setback would leave too small a separation between applicants ’ residence and that to the north. The property owner to the north submitted a letter which was read at the Planning Commission meeting, objecting to the variance 1^- Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 August 6, 1997 Zoning File #2259______________ request. Discussion revolved around applicants’ other options, and it was noted that additions to the rear of the house meeting or nearly meeting the required setbacks would involve greater expense due to construction on fill. Planning Commission felt that insufficient hardship was shown to support the degree of variance requested. Rather than a tabling for possible redesign and resubmittal, applicants requested that Planning Commission make a formal recommendation and send this along to Council. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with the denial recommendation, noting that preservation of the 2 acre zone setback standards in this neighborhood is critical given that the average lot size is less than 2 acres. The neighboring affected property owner noted that one of the attractions of Orono and this neighborhood is the large lots and wide separation between homes. The proposed addition would tend to create a greater perception of density in the neighborhood. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Because this is a denial recommendation, staff has not prepared a denial resolution. Council is requested to take one of the following optional courses of action: 1. 4. Take formal action to deny the application, and direct staff to draft a denial resolution for adoption at your August 25th meeting. 2. Table for further information, or to allow applicants to consider other options. 3. Approve, directing staff to draft an approval resolution Other. i: i! r 1 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2259 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 7/28/97 TO:Mark & Laurie Headrick 1850 Fox Ridge Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance DATE OF MEETING: 7/21/97 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Motion for denial was based on: - Impact on visual density and character of neighborhood Lack of sufficient hardship., I Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, August 11,1997, meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available firom the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. •w* sJUL-—©3 I 1 -4 PM «.12 ©27 ©9*3©oi Tobin J D ayton ib^5 Fox Ridge Poad Long Lakl Ml^4^lCSoTA 5GJbC / July 20, 1997 Orono Planrung Commission 2750 Kelley Parkway. P.O. Bok 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Planning Commission, express my opinions regardmg the land use application #2259 submitted by Mark and Laurie Headrick. As the neighbor most directly impacted by the application, I hope that my input is given consideration. For a variety of reasons described below, I am opposed to the Headrick's request to extend their house to within five feel of tlic property line between our lots. Most importantly, I foci that extending their house dramatically closer to my house would have a tremendously negative impact not only on my property, but on the neighborhood as a whole. The distance between our house? is already the smallest in the neighborhood by quite a significant distance, and the requested change would obviously further reduce that distance. From an aesthetic standpoint, moving the Headrick's gara^^e even closer to the property line would detract from the overaU appeal of the Fox Ridge Road neighborhood. From an economic standpoint, I am concerned that the proposed change would reduce the overall value of my property which may, in turn, reduce the value of each properly on the street. A nurnber of additional concerns h» ’ also lead to my opiiiion regarding the proposed land use application. The Headricks have experienced a nur. of problems relating to their septic system which sits low'ards the back of their lot. Given the uncertainty surrounding what will happen with the installation of municipal sewer in our neighborhood, in terms of both the time-frame and the financial implications, I feel it is premature to allow an addition as significant as the one proposed to proceed. Secondly, T am concerned tliat the proposed addition to the Headrick's house is, at best, a temporary solution to their needs and tl»at they will eventually be forced to move even if the addition b approved. The result is that each homeowner suffers from an irreversible and highly undesirable change in the nature, feel, and value of the neighborhood. After having reviewed the application, talked with Mike Gaffron, and only recently seen and discus.^cd the plans with the Headricks, I am unconviiKCd that the Headricks have met any of the conditior\s necessary in proving hardship. Wltile I can certainly understand the reasons behind their request, 1 do not feel that specific family needs nor particular economic factors should play any role in arriving at a decision regarding the request. Specific circumstances relating to a particular family are temporarj*, wliile changes to a house, a lot, and a neighborhood are entirely permanent. V For these reasons, I am opposed to the requested application submitted by the Headricks. As I explained to Mike Gaffron over the phone last week, my family and I moved from Kenwood to Long Lake for a variety of reasons, one important one being the spacious, aesthetic appeal of ownUlg a lot with more than two acres of land. Tin’ proposed addition to the Headrick's house dramatically reduces the overall appeal of both my lot and the neighborhood as a whole. I appreciate having the opportunity to express my concerns and I thank the City of Orono and the Planning Commission for taking the tinic to review my input. 1 will be attending the meeting on Monday night to answer any questions or concerns that anyone might have regarding my feelings on the land use application. RECEIVED JUL 2 11997 CITY OF ORONO f •• t 4 i i 4 > . ■■ r TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gafiron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator July 15,1997 SUBJECT: #2259 Marie and Laurie Headrick, 1850 Fox Ridge Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered. Application: Request for side setback and front setback variances to convert existing garage to a family room and add a new two car garage. Pertinent Code Section: Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B): Required side yard = 30' (existing = 24.5’, proposed = 5') Required front yard = 50' (existing = 38.6', proposed = 36.6') List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Survey F ' Proposed Site Plan G - Topography Overlay H - Conceptual Construction Plans I" Septic System Layout J - Septic System Inventory Information K - Neighborhood Layout Pertinent Facts 1. 2. The existing house with attached two car garage is located 24.5' from the north side lot line and 22.3' from the south side lot line. The current zoning code side setback requirement is 30', although this house likely met the zoning standards in effect when it was huiit in 1963. Applicants propose to remodel the existing two car garage into a family room, and add a new two car garage, mudroom, kitchen expansion, and rear deck reconfiguration. The new garage is propiosed to be located 5’ from the north side lot line where a 30' setback is required. The proposed garage addition would meet the required 50' front setback. The existing garage is Zoning File #2259 July 15, 1997 Page 2 38.6' from the front lot line; a 10' wide window seat 'bumpout' proposed in the submitted plans would bring that structure 2' closer to the road. 3.The property is approximately 1.7 acres in total area, of which approximately 0.4 acre is wetland and 1.3 acres is dry buildable land. The rear two-thirds of the propert>' is low, and the existing house sits near the front of the lot, on a ridge approximately 25' above the rear of the lot. 4.The property has a failing (discharging) septic system which was initially noted in July 1996. The possibilities for repairing or replacing the drainfield are limited due to site topography and the wetland. The property is in the Fox Ridge sewer 'hot spot', for which the engineer's 1994 estimated cost of providing sewer was $29,800 per unit. The neighborhood indicated to the City that the cost of sewer is prohibitive, and as a result the City has not yet scheduled this area for a sewer project. Discussion Please review the applicants' letter of request and hardsliip statement. Applicants note that recent additions to the family have left them with enough bedrooms but generally not enough living space. The primary issue is the side setback variance; the front setback variance is relatively minor in the context of this request. Applicants suggest that the following factors limit the opportunities for additions which would meet the side setback requirement: shape of lot location of house on lot topography layout of rooms in house expense of building on top of fill. Planning Commission should consider the standard criteria for determining undue hardship in reviewing this request: Can the property in question be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the oftlcial controls? Yes; the existing residence may be continued as is for its current residential use. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner? The exisilr.g house and attached garage were constructed prior to current codes, and therefore the front and both side setbacks do not conform to current standards. Upward expansion of the existing footprint would require variances to the front and side setbacks, and perhaps for height given that it is already a two-story home. r f Zoning File #2259 July 15.1997 Page 3 Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? The RR-IB zone 30'side setback is intended to maintain the rural character of the 2 acre zone, and to provide open space. Other homes in the neighborhood are separated by distances ranging from 90-200'. Only applicants'residence and the residence to its north are separated by a lesser distance, approximately 70', which would be reduced to approximately 50' if the additions are constructed as proposed. Do the conditions apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the property is located? All lots, including cul-de-sac lots, in the RR-IB zoning district are required to meet the 30'side setback Is the granting of the variance request necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants? The applicants have defined reasons for the proposed additions. Will the granting of the variance merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, or is it necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty? The variance will be a convenience for the applicants by allowing expansion of their residence as proposed. The proposed room additions relate to the existing layout of the house; additions which meet all setback requirements could be developed at the rear of the house, but might not relate to the existing room layout. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter." While applicant has indicated that the costs of construction in the rear yard at a conforming location would be higher due to building on fill, the layout of the house and room relationships is also a factor in requesting the variance. Issues for Consideration 1.Under what circumstances is it appropriate to allow a 5' principal structure side setback in the 2 acre zone? Does this application meet those circumstances? 2. 3. Will the proposed additions change the character of the neighborhood? How will the 5' setback impact access to the rear of the property, drainage, or existing utilities? 1 Zoning File #2259 July 15,1997 Page 4 Staff Recommendation In staffs opinion there are few circumstances in which it is appropriate to reduce the side yard to 5’ for a principal structure in any zoning district, much less the 2-acre zone. Even in Orono's 1/2 acre zones, the minimum side setback requirement is 10'. This is a neighborhood of substandard 1 acre lots in the middle of a 2 acre zone, and the proposed addition will in staffs opinion tend to have a negative impact on the visual density of the neighborhood. Planning Commission must determine whether sufficient hardship exists to support the requested variances. Planning Commission may wish to consider whether some setback relief is warranted, and if so, suggest that the applicants consider providing a revised proposal. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as requested. 2. Recommend conditional approval/partial approval. 3. Table for revisions or further information. 4. Recommend denial (state reasons). 5.Other. Given that the septic system is failing, it would be appropriate to condition any recommendation for approval on concurrent upgrade of the septic system. Application # Date Received" Amount Paid n . • CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee . $220.00 . f'i-' i 4^ •($50.00 per each additional variance) ^ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures $220.00 . /iter-die-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ..PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ ^ SiteAddiess /^S~0 t. •• Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0^’~D'V — 23 1 .^ QQOS_______ Attach legal description to application if not included on required suiyey. Date Property Acquired ________________■ - ______ (month/year) I no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X. residential Zoning District: ^ R I B other (specify). APPLICANT Phone fliom e) Name UEAI>f^/ck Phone (work ) 33S3 Address: J8S0 f'O'x. ____ City: 0\re>v\o ________Zip: 5^ZSC_ O'WNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.- Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ /^S.OOO' /7S.^ Describe request in detail: SjU ^________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary)^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Setback:Front XSide Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTTON OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difBculty or imusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Stjt .______— (attach additional sheets if necessary) k i , 'ft i ^::iiO/ :/----- -—^ required submittals 33/AL'Lk'/ - Ov.O: . : •• V; % for Yonr" «prii«HZ’rh" dwdlinf itan- in '-31 i1. 2. • i: . r-. :l 3. 4. f :r/. 5. __ 6. — • 7. 8. Completed Application Form _ ' -inho . Certified Property Owners List of ovmOT within 150^-laK/iic i imust obtain this list labels and ^ and plat map (you Finance, A-603, Go^Centt 3^.327?) £ rssz-»-s perso^ you wish notified of this appliwtion. ^ ^ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. Strr.h^”h!“v: Z'!::'r„ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE . ---- The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or reouested hv ti. r •ssiTiir' i^r! « informaUon supplied is ^^^9^ « best of his/h^f trkdg” ■*“ Applicant’s Signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE »^Tto application and fiuther authorizes reasonable members for of^invr^SfraTdtH^^^^^^^^ — Owner's Signature ________________ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices k r u r>. ' . Comrmssion Meeting. Planning Commission Meetta^s me held on^c r“”? month. Applicants must be present at all sch.dLTr“m«ti^of thf P.fu” 8 Date "2 191.68 l9?-25 ^ht. V-—j9iii EAS1 ’’c^ * mwsf (»o) ^ i IL S m u oo (=^ "^•^Tq ^ p» ^ 233.68 «-2er^' 176.32 Y^18®E, is,, ■ri'(9) H ^^,.8 550 ^ X.7?. \ i53-|n-23-»3 — 443 — .•i i •l.f t'.i • i RUN DATE 05/30/97i* ** • J * •'’In. batch 504 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435A01 PAGE 23•t V •• -.1 *1 1 ' i .*•} *. '"N • * J>> ■ ■. %PROP AOOR! .ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR •IVV ,38 03-117-23 12 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSX6NED CARGILL MAC MILLAN JR ETAL L0NGRID6E ASSOCIATES P 0 BOX 9300 DEPT 28 MPLS MN 55440 38 03-117-23 13 0001 00350 DROMN RD S H F FARLEY A K 6 FARLEY HILLIAM i KATHLEEN FARLEY 350 BRONN RD S LONG LAKE MN 553S6 38 03-117-23 13 0006 01945 FOX RIDGE RD D E KIRKMAN A J M KIRKMAN DAV O E A JOANN'- M KIRKMAN 1945 FOX RIDGE ,<0 LONG LAKE ft4 55356 ; n • •* ( V ■■ s ■»r ■•.’aV . .•- *.« * N: ‘. •? *»i •- PROP ADDR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 03-117-23 IS 0007 01895 FOX RIDGE RD T J DAYTON A M DAYTON TOBIN J A MAE DAYTON 1895 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 IS 0008 01850 FOX RIDGE RD H C HEADRICK A L S HEADRICK M C HEADRICK A L S HEADRICK 1850 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0009 01900 FOX RIDGE RD S M A E N POLANSKY STEVEN M A ELLEN H POLANSKY 1900 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE m 55356 s- 0 *• •\, r/ x/ ** • - “) • i i-/ < PROP ADDR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR •. i 38 03-117-23 13 0010 01950 FOX RIDGE RD D S PHELPS A E D PHELPS DAVID S A ELLEN D PHELPS 1950 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 504 00007 ) • V,r- ‘ ^ \ . %r*../ •* ■ ■■ i - ; -‘t- •• •• ■.. ... • .j. ,v. ‘ ^ K,Q C J • • , » ,r . .r -f • * I ; I > . fc. \ ‘ • 4.* I CERTir/ 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 KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. . — . • , A * /I DATE \ W ^ B 4 • V *4 •* J . J - .» I .1 ■ ‘. » • * . • • . ■ ' ■ • • • . * i ■ . I *, ' ;* ■ * . • ► • . • _ _ _ ; • . ? .0 4 . • » .U •***\ . i r I b City of Orono - Variance Application Description of Request: n }>. :D We recently became the parents of quadruplets (two boys, two girls, 7 months old), in addition to our three year old son. Our house has enough “ family room/kitchen, a space now much more imperative. We would like to add f 7 room adjacent to the kitchen. Our proposal entails converting the present g^ge into the family room and adding a new garage at the end of the driveway. We would also like to repla« a current deck on the back of the house. We want to minimize the addition of building and deck because our actual yard space is small in companson to the lot size ( unusual hardship is described below). Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions; We live at the end of a cul-de-sac. Our house is set on a pie shaped lot. Thehouseisat the tip of the lot (front facing west), close to the street. As the lot begins to spread out past *e house, the terrain drops down. Ihe house is situated such t^t the front “fry fevel with the front yard and the back of the house basement is level wi* the backyard so that between the front and the back of the house, the land drops down 10 to 12 feet The back yard is level for between 25 to 40 feet from the house and then drops s^y down about 30 feet. Out backyard is a strip of yard about 100 feet by 15 to 40 feet backyard appears to be fill from the building of the house. Several contractore have told us that it can be very expensive to build on fill and the building process entmls the use of pilings to support any structure built in the backyard. The north side of the lot ap^ars to have tile most gradual decline and therefore, the most attractive budding site. As for he remaining portion of Ihe lot. it is unusable for building because a large percentage of the land is locate^d at the bottom of the sharp drop-off. The kitchen is located at the back of the house (the north east comer). The current gwap is located adjacent .0 the kitchen (north side of lot) and within 25 feet of the north side lot line. The driveway runs parallel to the property line. Converting the current g^ge into the family room and adding the new garage requires the new garage to approach the side lot line within 5 feet. 1 r ^ i . ijf£-i) CS*i« f CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MARK & LAURIE HEADRICK OF LOT 4, BLOCK 1. FOX RIDGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA s fcnxroo- c 75.41 FOX R0GE ROAD l£CAL C3CSaS»nON or PROMSCS: Lot 4, 9och 1. FOX Rooe k TNt tirvoy intondt to show tbo boi^idariof of tho obovo StOWOO-e 156J5nM 156.53 FOX «OC doacrbod grotty, or^ tho bcotlon of on oxftting houoo ond dock tborooo. It dooo not pupoft to thov any othor impfovomonti or oncroochmont O Iron morkor Booringo ohown or# boood upon on otounod dattm •-« lurv Vi^ COFFIN & GRONBrRG. INC. •. ♦ <■■■■. i- V'N • ' 9izcrf I IhmH uftrfr lSjn*M» *»rm »*• rnr^wt^l K mr •« »nJrf an Om>cl««frf» t^Mon mi lH«l I AIM « Jiilr w^ptorwi 1 1wiin Ow U«F« N Oif $o» d MM S OtwOrrji Urmv \uit^t 1?^ «• «i* r*5d* IV* r% 6J-FT R«N*I mol —/ • I LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lot 4. Block 1. FOX RIDGE This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house ond deck thereon. It does not purport to show any other imorovemftnts or «nrronrhrrwe»nf I ftm. «-‘ >:/■ ^ A r ■z-xv" -o-- T-------- ^ X yVMfifc /^-0.tf hr^o/itck 'fr. A ■■)■■> ■ -St-vTra-- «7 /• ! ■ — Jt r' i jubi 7i>ise uiro ' I <L ^Ktti t TP fri4 It At. PUPn/SfC. Mr W^IP/ AU Si^F^ ANO OfAFAjOa^i,' t C»/5Vy ZT^^> 7^ -0OPA^ A'mrn ** /••A it*' tsoiV 11/3& ritr Dvv/ IT------4----i------u( ' ,' m-vi-UAj^ </z m/SJO /7^5J6. _.. _ •aiihio fur « f7^ Non M uiAtZ. Z "f /)■*■« y ' poa' F C vifSCio Apia OAftAot 2-V YP PV30 /iieitu SNeift fiTJ^ CrhFf Ctr Z-^f TS /&• A r »=* «./*/■ Jfe 27, S~ 7KA'/ fM ^ SpPi' S^cif. Tti-itr /if ‘hi PANTif‘/ noS -)f F'T/omyr cnutr yo /Sorroitr ef pp IJ»N1 F<y (f\ 'I/NP7 . r OlOiOfO ly PANT J6fC> WP d I n't n Ofn' fPAf,ijiK>ri. v/'n jO ' \,jOAKtllPl ^.PANXZ<tt^b >i oCT? PfAfC IC Ogug. CrCA < 4 t •*FiLF ^ ^ •—i?I.« • •f. %. TO rfin ncr>M fciu ejtr ituves SINK VLT rv. ’• •• ' -K- r **!•-.> i V l^r- » * L-ri M0 unio IrpfJ C / u»rt M(t. 1 cC ------- C D S'O I SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTORY Addr; 1850 Fox Ridge Rd. PID: 03-117-23 13 0008 Building Type; residence # BRs/GPD; 5 # Systems/units: 1/1 Permit No: 6124 Date of Permit; 9/29/80 Installer: Sullivan System Type: trench and bed Appliances: lndry,dshw,dspl SYSTEM CONDITION Conformity; 3 Tank Condition: Failure Pot: failing septic tanks Material; concrete block Setback to Bldg; 10 DF condition; 13 Capacity; unknown DRAINFIELD Length of Lines: Treatment Area: Tile Size; 4 Setback DF-Bldg: Soil Type; 80 No. Lines; 2 Trench Width: 10 400 Type of Filter: rock Under Tile: Perc Rate mn/in; 15 DF Ht: above WT: Limitations: slopes WELL DATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks: Report in File?: Depth: Diameter: 40 Well-DF: 50 Pump Type: subm. Method: drilled INSPECTION RECORD Date 7/19/78 no surfacing 9/29/80 new DF installed 6/16/82 no surfacing 6/23/87 system surfacing 9/23/87 insp. w/Sullivan-suggest fill over 8/16/90 DF moist, but not surfacing-pump tanks 7/23/92 DF moist-eroced areas should be filled 4/18/94 slight surfacing 7/8/96 DF surfacing-repair by 10/31/96 PUMPOUT RECORD Compliance s c 2 4 3 2 2 3 Date Gallons 7/27/78 1000 9/27/79 2000 11/20/80 1500 3/11/80 1500 3/19/80 1500 8/28/85 1400 12/21/88 1500 4/13/92 1500 3/15/94 1800 8/10/95 1500 . 7/18/96 2000 t* I \ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 7, 1 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2263 Brook Park Realty, 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive - PRD - Sketch Plan \ List of Exhibits A - Planning Commission Action Notice 7/29/97 B - City Engineer Comments Re: Wetlands 8/5/97 C - Sewer and Water Connection Fee Analysis 8/5/97 D - 1976 Letter from Zoning Administrator to Tonka Corp. E - Resolution #1412 - 1982 "Future Plans" Documentation F - Memo and Exhibits of July 17, 1997 Brook Park Realty is proposing a multiple family residential development jn the vacant 10 acre parcel directly west of the twinhomes near the Navarre water tower. Their proposed 45 umt sketch plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 21, with the primary discussion topics being type of units, marketability, and the possibility for a rezoning or zoning amendment to allow greater density than the 3.0 units per acre allowed in the LR-lC-1 zone. Planning Commission did not indicate strong support for the proposed 4.6 unit per acre density. Planning Commission generally was in favor of the proposal subject to meeting the zoning district density, and acknowledged the need for additional housing types in the Navarre area. The developer has requested that the Council review the sketch plan for 4.6 units per acre as proposed, and give him direction as to whether there is Council support for a zoning amendment to allow more than 3 units per acre in the LR-lC-1 district, or possibly to create a new residential zoning district to allow greater densiv- A third venue would be to amend or vary the M-6 district standards to allow an M-6 development in an LR district. Recall that the M-6 district has a density allowance of 6-7 units per acre, but was intended primarily for the Highway 12 area, and no property in the City is currently zoned M-6. This sketch plan review is an opportunity for the Council to consider the possibility of creating new affordable housing in Navarre. Applicant suggests that a number of the proposed units could be priced to meet the affordability guidelines ($120,000 or less) at the 4,6 units per acre density, but not at 3 units per acre. Applicant has been advised that in the past, Council has indicated it would prefe r to consider any proposed rezoning for the Navarre area in the context of an area-wide study, rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis. 1 ' *'A Request for Council Action continued Page 2 August?, 1997 #2263 Brook Park Realty, 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive - PRD - Sketch Plan ________________ Included in the Exhibits are a resolution adopted at the time the twinhomes were developed, indicating the City's future intent for the area; and staffs review of the sewer and water connection charges that would be due for this development. Note that the Park Commission has not reviewed tliis proposal for park dedication or park fee determination, but this was an area they identified as potential open space for preservation... COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: While no formal action is required, applicant requests that Council provide him direction as to whether the City will entertain a higher density than the 3 units per acre provided for in the LR-lC-1 district. !sv UN\MHCFMEM0226) C A CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING FILE #2263 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 29,1997 TO:Bill Gleason Biook Park Realty 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 COPIES TO: TVPE OF APPLICATION:Sketch Plan DATE OF MEETING: 7/21/97 VOTE:-FOR - AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: No action required. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS; Discussion resulted in mixed Planning Commission reaction to the density issue, but not strong support for a rezoning or zoning code amendment to allow density greater than the 28-29 umts which would be allowed under current code. At your request this item has been scheduled for City Council review at the Monday, August 11th meeting; which starts at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway. 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, Bonestroo. Roienc. Andcrlik and Associates. Inc is an Affirmative Action/ Equal Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Jcjeph C Anderhk. PE • Marvin L Sorvala. PE • lO RichardE Turner PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicbt. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene PE .md Susan M Eberim, C PA , Senior Consultants ^ ■ A'-ociate Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Kcuh A Gordon. PE. • Robert R Pfefferle, PE • Richard W Foster. Pc • Oavid O. Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek, A IA • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautnann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Wil» amson. PE. R S • Robert F Kotsmnn Offices St Paul. Rochester. Wiiimar and St Cloud MN • Milwaukee. Wi COPY ^ J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects August 5, 1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Brook Park Realty File No. 139-2263 Dear Mike, Our previous letter of July 16 did not mention the fact that a portion of the wetland area on site is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources, designated at basin 27-914W. DNR wetlands are regulated at the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The OHWL is an elevation determined in the field by the location of certain wetland features. It is likely that additional wetland areas exist around the fringe of the OHWL, at higher elevations. These wetlands are under the jurisdiction of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Corps of Engineers. The DNR does not allow the impact of wetland areas under their jurisdiction for development purposes. If the development proceeds, the DNR should be asked to determine the OHWL of the wetland. The proposed roadway will need to be realigned if any portion encroaches below the OHWL. In addition, a formal wetland delineation should be conducted on the property to determine the t.Uent of the WCA wetlands. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK, & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. Cc: Mr. Greg Gappa, City of Orono RECEIVED AUG 61997 CITY OF ORONO 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 r c \ » , 1 I !^ ( To: From: Date: File #2z53 Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator August 5,1997 Subject: Swer . 3700-376ukoreline Drive - PRD Proposal Legal Description: Lots 2 and 3, Block 9, Tovvnsite of Langdon Park Parcel Identification: f nt/Rlock West 1/2 Lot 2, Bl. 9 East 1/2 Lot 2, Bl. 9 North 2/3 Lot3,B1.9 South 1/3 Lot 3, Bl. 9 PINS 17-117-23 34 0005 17-117-23 34 0006 17-117-23 34 0007 17-117-23 34 0008 Plat/Parcel 42420 - 4300 42420 - 4350 42420-4410 42420 - 4420 I. Basis for Review: Althoueh sewer (1963) and water (1970) were previously assessed to this probity to some extent, the assessed-for facilWes do not provide readily accessible service to the rearof t e property H*" ac«”sible sewer and water lines were constmeted in 1982 as part of the Schlee Ss tSme project. The Brook Park property was assessed an area «wer trunk charge for this 1982 project (as did all properties in the dchned trunk service area), “ Vvnacc nlant or lateral charges. Per Council Resolution #1412 adopted September , » 1^2 facilities were intended to serve the development on the Brook Park properties m i is ^.^bk to Brook Park pay the current (1997) sewer and wa ter connect.on ^2 facilities, less credit for the ’current value’ of assessments paid for the portions of the 1963 and projects that will not be used. II. Summary of Connection Charges Due (Based on a 30-unit development) Sewer: Water: Total: $40,995. 4.020. $45,015. Note: The property was assessed for road Avenue whieh will serve the property, per Resolution #1412. The P'0P«"y storm sewer eonstrueled in that 1982 projeet, and will only be required to pay storm connection charge if it makes use of that system. Following is an analysis of the sewer and water connection charges. Page 1 of 4 ni. Sewer Connection Charge Analysis 1963 Sewer Assessment: 1. Trunk Sewer TS 63-IB (Levy #3302) Assessed at $110.00 per acre Plat/Parcel Ar?a Total Ass< 42420-4300:2.35 ac $259.60 42420-4350:-- 42420-4410 1.51 ac 166.10 42420-4420 3.59 ac 394.90 7.46 ac $820.60 (Note: This assessment was for the main sewer trunk in County Roads 19 and 51 which serves the entire southwest portion of the City) 2. Lateral sewer LS-63-IB (Levy # 3307) Assessed at $8.00 per front foot Plat/Parcel 42420-4300 42420-4350 42420-4410 42420-4420 Footage 132.0' 50.0' 182.0' Total assessed $ 1,056.00 400.00 $ 1,456.00 Total Assessment for 1963 Sewer = $820.60 + $1,456.00 = $2,276.60 Current Value for 1963 Sewer Lateral per 1997 Fee Schedule: $37.20/front foot 1963 Sewer Current Value: 182.0' x $37.20 = $ 6,770.40 = Total Creditable Value 1982 Sewer Assessments: Original Project Assessments Amounts: Trunk Area Charge (82-1 B, Levy # 9086): $2,000.00 per acre Trunk Unit Charge (82-1 A, Levy # 9085): $ 760.00 per unit Trunk Bypass Charge (82-1 A, Levy #9085): $ 150.00 per unit Sewer Lateral Charge (82-1 A, Levy #9085): $1,851.82 per unit Actual Assessed Amounts: PINS#Trunk Area Trunk Unit Bypass Lateral 17-117-23 34 0005 1.34 ac = $2,680.-0--0-NA 17-117-23 34 0006 1.43 ac= 2,860.-0--0-NA 17-117-23 34 0007 -0--0--0-NA 17-117-23 34 0008 3.13 ac= 6.260. 5.90 ac = $11,800. -0--0-NA Page 2 of 4 Development of the subject property is not responsible for the 1982 Sewer Lateral Charge, since the cost of the laterals constructed in 1982 was spread over the properties they directly served. The Trunk Unit charge of $760. per umt has inflated to $1,095. per unit in tk r 1997 fee schedule and is due for this new development, as is the $150. per unit Bypass charge. Also, because the proposed development density uses credit for the wetland area (allowable because it is sewered property), an incremental Trunk Area charge of ± 9.8 ac- 5.9 ac= 3.6 acres should be charged at an inflated 1997 rate of (1095/760)x $2,000 = $2,882. per acre, or a total of $10,375. Sewer Connection Charges Summary (Sample calculation based on 30 units) Trunk Unit & Bypass: $1,095. + $150. = $1,245. per unit x 30 units Trunk Area: $2,882./acre x 3.6 acres = Less credit for LS-63-1B lateral sewer Total sewer Connection Charges Due $37,350. 10.375. $47,725. ( 6.770.’> $40,955. IV. Water Connection Charge Analysis 1970 Water Assessment: Project 1970 LW-1 (Levy #5383) Original Project Asessment Amounts:$580.00 per residential unit $870.00 per commercial unit $ 5.80 per residential front foot $ 8.70 per commercial front foot 1970 Property Assessment: Item Parce Assessed footage: Assessed units: Footage amount: Units amount: Oversize Service @ $225. Total assessed by parcel Total 1970 Water Assessment: $ 22,443.60 4300 4350 44)0 4420 132.00’ 5 comm'l 132.00’ 5 comm ’l 264.00’ comm ’l 7 comm ’l $ 1,148.40 $ 4,350.00 $ 1,148.40 $ 4,350.00 $ 225.00 4 $ 2,6.'. $ 225.00 $ 6,090.00 $ 5,498.40 $ 5,723.40 $5,131.80 $ 6,090.00 Note that the value of commercial units was 1.5 times the value of residential units, so the 20 total commercial uni»s assessed is equai to 30 residential units. Therefore, if the water system in Shoreline Drive is used, there will be nc water connection charge since the property has been fully assessed for 30 residential units. Page 3 of 4 7 1970 LW-1 Water Current Value (per 1997 fee schedule): 30 residential units x $2,039.00 per ; ‘**'4ential unit = $ 61,170.00 528 front feet x $ 20.35 per front foot = 10.744.80 $71,914.80 1982-1 A Navarro Water Project Original Charge (1982): $1,566.51 per unit (Subject property was not assessed for 1982 water project) Current Charge (per 1997 fee schedule): 1982-1 A Navarro Water connection charge: $ 2,173.00 per unit Sample Water Coimection Charge Calculation (If Navarro Water is Used): 30 units X $ 2,173.00 per unit = $65,190.00 Credit for 1970 units paid = 61.170.00 Due for water units $ 4,020.00 Since the lateral system in Co. Rd. 15 provides value to the property for fire protection, etc., no credit for the 1970 lateral charge is granted. Water Connection Charge Due (Based on a 30 unit development) = $4,020. Page 4 of 4 ¥■a •m‘ir/T:v;u, m ■ki' J> A if m mm □ *!!: JV J o' •.iL^. i pa MUSeit T^U iiImm 473*73^* www^ Village of Oro: I'lMt OfYWn Hus liB^OrysUil Bay. Minnula 36323aMiuiidpal CMB om •Ti On the North Shore of Lake Mittnetonka b A m 1, 1976 Kr. St^tan Shnk» QaMund Mca Oaqpontion 1050S IftvBata Boulevaid aoiieliM, Mi 55343 Ouor Hr. 8h«9ct **«'«*• Octm^in lhi«bvt cn Gnn^ tend flS in Oraio. Ml. P«cel8 (4300), (4350), (4410) and (4420) - p2«t 42420f ikMMite of Langdon Pack. _____1^ off jBpgwM 3#4X !«7wm^* iMidag • Mt o( S.M «c wradwMy C «aM e( Csisant wniHg nl Miiftcatioft (UHlCSl) ia thlo axoi ***»*14 lialk nsldiAtial donaity to 3 units per 4xy huilrtihls sws for a total of 18 uilta oa tiMa 6 «osae. fa ptwidsd in our Soning OadlauM •31841, hoacvar, zosida:tlal dtvil* q?xanta in ■■aptod aiais would gain - thxougn a P8D (Plamad IMidinti^DMolflaaiit) stzuctusaa in order to prtoarva the sscistlngwawatlwda cBBditiiM of tin pro^orUM. Mw this typo of a proposal wa tould nonaidar 3 iBoidoBtial ^aiita for aaok of the 9.37 aoroa for a poaaibla total of 28 raa:idaitlal unite. 1 sa enclosing ooplaa of tha plat nap uhieh inoludi tho__,__________ ind^atad in rad. 7t« axaa abadad in gram indieataa aarah and niatlanda araaa. If you ha^ai any further questions, plaaM call m. Sinoaxely, /•' -n .>- » / H. ?. Mihich Zoning hdninistrstor Ddc. oc( Bnioe MaUcenon W. R. HFMtlCW .•» o , ;» I;• • L A /• r & ORONO . £ * * * ■y. 1' City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1412 DESCRIBING FUTURE STREET LOCATION PLANS IN THE NAVARRE AREA 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, Chapter 462, the City of Orono has adopted a Comprehensive Community Management Plan and subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, City ordinances and planning policy require dedication of street rights-of-way and construction of streets and utilities as a part of every subdivision application wherever such new services are made necessary by such land subdivision or development; and WHEREAS, it is within the scope and intent of comprehensive planning to look beyond the immediate property undergoing development to coordinate a rational and economic system of public improvements for an entire area; and WHEREAS, even though it is necessary to plan a system of public improvements on a broad basis, it is not always desireable to accurately locate or physically design said improvements until such time as an actual plan for development is submitted for the affected property; and WHEREAS, extensive traffic studies were undertaken as a part ucQc^^ review of Schlee Builder's, Inc. subdivision applications #585 and #671, from which the City Council has identified a need to plan future public streets and utilities to serve both the Schlee property and the adjacent tracts of land west of the Schlee property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ® ®^°uo hereby makes the following findings of fact and intent as regards the overall planning of future streets and utilities within the Schlee subdivision, and on the properties adjacent thereto; 1) The area of the City involved in this plan is all that land south of Northern Avjnue and the Burlington Northern west of Blaine Avenue, north of Shoreline Drive (County Road 15), and east of the east line of the Hennepin County Shops (east of the SWk of the SWk of Section 17). Page 1 of 8 •V-\ *«•«»«< •- r! i ’ » 1 ;.Vv.City of OROIVO A * ‘csV pOFli SJRONOJ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1412 *• /Property included in the above area is: Owner Tax Parcel Existing Developtnent a)Martha Batdorf 17-117-23 34 0004 1 residence b)Mary Sohns 17-117-23 34 0003 1 residence c)Tonka Corp.17-117-23 34 0005 none II II 0006 II If 0007 II II 0008 II II 0009 d)Schlee Builders 17-117-23 34 0010 none e)Robert Harding 17-117-23 34 0012 • office building f)City of Orono 17-117-23 34 0011 water plant The above property.exclusive of the last two already ^ A ' * Vi» w» ^ jF ^ ^ QL Jb O JL «!• of which is zoned LR-lC-1, 3 units per acre with approval of a Planned Residential Unit Conditional Use Permit. 4) Assuming potential development at maximum zoned density, there could be up to 70 residential units built in the area where there now exists only 2. 5) The Schlee property is currently undergoing subdivision review for 24 units, leaving up to 44 future units possible on the remaining land. There is no point within the proposed Schlee Builders plat where a good intersection onto County. Road 15 can be developed. The best available location has less desireable sight distance characteristics than does the Blaine Avenue intersection according to Hennepin County Department of Transportation and City staff reports. 7) There is no point at all within the Tonka Corp. property where any direct access can be made onto County Road 15 because of the extensive wetlands/floodplain area dividing Tonka's dry buildable land from the County Road. Page of 8 »■Wm fcORONOj City of OROIXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1412 10) 11) 12) 13) The Batdorf and Sohns properties each have an existing driveway onto County Road 15. The Sohns driveway location has better sight distance to the west than the Batdorf driveway because of a rise in the profile of County Road 15 to the west. Sight distances and intersection characteristics at the existing Sohns driveway location are excellent, and are the best of any location along County Road 15 anywhere between Dunwoody Avenue and County Road 19. The Burlington Northern Railroad Track forms a barrier along the north side of all this property eliminating any individual driveway connections, and severely restricting the potential for any future public street connection to Northern Avenue. One potential street crossing of the railroad has been located at a point where there is no vertical grade separation and where there is good sight distance along both the railroad track and Northern Avenue. This location would have better sight distance and highway traffic pattern characteristics than does the existing Northern Avenue/Blaine Avenue railroad crossing location. I • Possible street connection locations along Blc ne Avenue are practically limited to continuation and extension of existing Livingston and Lyric Avenues. The existing Navarre Heights neighborhood east of Blaine Avenue has existing traffic problems caused by: a) Narrow streets, especially Blaine Avenue and Navarre Aveune. b) Poor intersections, especially Blaine at Crystal Place, Crystal Place at Shadywood, Lyric at Navarre Avenue and Blaine at County Road 15. c) Excessive through traffic on Northern Avanue and Crystal Place, especially during plant shift changes in Spring Park. d) Heavy traffic flows and too many unplanned or marginal intersections and curb cuts on County Road 15. Page 3 of 8 l I City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _^^-412 14) Navarre Heights and Northern Avenue residents are justly concerned about increased traffic in and through their neighborhood. The intent of the City Council is to accommodate any new traffic flow from this large study area in the safest manner possible, with the least adverse effect on the immediate neighborhood, and on the public generally. 15) The Council is concerned with maintaining and improving the safety and traffic handling ability of County Road 15. Increasing the number of curb cuts increases traffic conflicts and decreases safety. Eliminating poorly designed or located curb cuts improv s safety and reduces the need for major changes in roadway design. 16) The traffic studies forecast about 70-80% of the new trips generated by future development within the study area would eventually travel east of Navarre on County Road 15. The studies recommended three routes for this traffic; a) Use of a widened and improved Blaine Avenue, including an improved intersection of Blaine Avenue and County Road 15. The long range plan would be to install traffic signals at this intersection because it also serves opposing Casco Point Road. b) Use of the existing signalized intersection at County Road 19 and 15. The best route from the study area to this intersection is via Livingston Avenue because Livingston is wider than Crystal Place or Lyric, because Livingston has the best intersection with County Road 19, and because Lyric and Crystal Place each have poor intersections within the existing neighborhood. c) Continuation of a new street through the study area to a new intersection with County Road 15 located in the approximate area of the existing Mary Sohns driveway because of the superior intersection characteristics of this location. Page 4 of 8 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OFTHE CITY COUNCIL MO 1412 .T*‘ ■;^KCITY ■ ■>>- ■■ • • ORor^o i 17) In addition to the above traffic routes, an alternative connection to Northern Avenue has been studied as a traffic dispersing devise for both eastbound and westbound traffic, and as a possible safety improvement/replacement for the existing Northern Avenue/Blaine Avenue railroad crossing. 18) Any future development within the study area will increase the traffic volume on County Road 15 and on any other connecting street. But since any development will be residential, any new traffic will be residential in character and thus compatible with traffic expected within a residential neighborhood. AND BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby adopts the future street plan described below and as indicated on attached Exhibit A as the plan to be implemented at the time the Schlee, Tonka, Sohns and/or Batdorf property should be subdivided or developed in the future: A. It is the intent of the Council to provide for safe, adequate streets sufficient to handle all traffic that may be generated by future development in the sf.udy area, including a street layout which will provide multiple accesses to the area; which will maximize use of an improved Blaine Avenue/County Road lb intersection; which will minimize adverse traffic flow through existing neighborhoods; and which will minimize the number of intersections and conflicting traffic movements on County Road 15. B. It is the intent of the Council to limit direct intersections or curb cuts onto County Road 15 to only the one proposed public street intersection and no individual curb cuts between the western edge of the Batdorf property and Blaine Avenue. C. It is the intent of the Council that all vehicular access to the properties or development within the study area will be only from the proposed internal streets and will not be allowed to have any direct access or curb cut to County Road 15. This shall not preclude the design of additional internal streets or driveways intersecting solely with the proposed streets as shown on Exhibit A. page 5 of 8 I t i ■ A-n •. • - -V V**’ ; •'VCIT\^i / « V- • '2^ . •. ;fv;OF.t' ■ OROffO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.1412 F. the intent of the Council that Livingston Avenue will be extended from the existing Avenue intersection through the Schlee, Tonka and Sohns properties tfa proposed intersection with County Road 15 to be located at the approximate site of the existing • Sohns driveway. ^ E. It is the intent of the Council that Lyric Avenue will be extended from the existing Lyric/Blaine Avenue intersection to an internal intersection with extended Livingston Avenue. It is the intent of the Council that Blaine Avenue must be widened and improved between Crystal Place and Shoreline Drive before any new development is allowed on the Schlee or Tonka properties. G. It is the intent of the Council to pursue the eventual installation of a traffic signal at the Blaine Avenue/ Casco Point Road/County Road 15 intersection. H. As determined in review of the Schlee Builders, Inc. proposed development, it is the intent of the Council that the improvement of Blaine Avenue and that portion of extended Livingston and Lyric Avenues located within the Schlee property must be dedicated and constructed in order to accommodate the traffic generated by that development, but that continuation of Livingston Avenue west of the Schlee property is not immediately necessary to accommodate said traffic. I. Although final alignment and internal design details may vary, it is the intent of the Council that future ^ development of the Tonka property will require dedication and construction of proposed Livingston Avenue all the way through from the Schlee property to the proposed County Road 15 intersection in order to accommodate the incremental traffic increase from such development, whether or not the Sohns property is developed at that time. It is also the intent of the Council to make a final determination about the potential Northern Avenue railroad cr ssing at tnis same time. Page 6 of 8 V * «•* A'V <■ 0;?CITVf ORONO k. -Jr 4 » City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1412 Tt is the intent of the City Council that any future development of the Sohns property will include dedication and construction cf that portion of extended Livingston Avenue within said property, unless it shall already have been completed as a part of prior development of the Tonka property. It is also the intent of the City Council that any future development of the Sohns property shall plan for and allow internal access between extended Livingston Avenue and the adjacent Batdorf property. K.It is the intent of the City Council that any future development of the Batdorf property should be designed to provide access solely via the proposed extension of Livingston Avenue. If the Batdorf property is developed prior to the Sohns property and/or prior to completion of extended Livingston Avenue, then a limited, temporary access may be allowed directly to County Road 15, provided this access is closed as soon as internal access to extended Livingston Avenue becomes available. L.It is the intent of the Council that these proposed street plans will be self-sufficient within themselves and will not require or prematurely cause widening, repaving, channelization nor any other change to any existing street except for the specified improvements to Blaine Avenue. M.These future street plans are in conformance with the transportation chapter of Orono's Comprehensive Community Management Plan. This resolution may be used in the future to initiate an Official Map pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.359. Adopted by the Orono City Council this 13_ _ September_ _ _, 1982 by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 day of nays ATTEST; Alberta M. Strom, City Clerk page 7 of 8 V •:‘S 2 AC T9 ""Iy' M - I J—lER •‘ 'v. ^ *<"o v*r • j (9-0^ ^Uco] ^ i49 Avenue y(5\ i s*> < 1* • EXHIBIT ’Resol. ft .412 September 13, 1982 /PROPOSED STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY ::r AlignmentV-; •• Known Future Alignment May Vary LIVIN6STC s: -12 i n -^c 9 B^ * ^ wi • fiv) 7 I "6 * 5 :*4 3 10 : 20 21 22 <i»Va NORTH /v?J #.vU /No Direct Access Permitted V'' !•■>• 'ft ;i2 ' II ‘ 10 . 9 a-,I |V ^ ' 5 4 .- 3 . ■ ■,^ ' \J! ^! * *0*' /' f • . 3^>5..I4)^^ 16.17 Permanent Direct Access Not Desired >» »*<■«! HIM I \\ 'shoreline Boulevard - % * IB to 20 j 21'.22 i «I \'A * Acceptable Public Intersection Location \ \% \ \ \ V ^ C33) f JJ »J o ■*•0 ;::_2.5_ — V. 7\ {«'\ v:>»') -V - 'rViV / Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator .412 r 13, 1982 I STREET •F-WAY r Alignment '• Known ^ Future Alignment . May Vary LIVINGSTC :aT^. '<♦} 7 i'6 '5 i'4 3 |. A --------------- ’ 18 ' 1020 2» ■ 22 ■ :0); a f.A • i.O-' ^ * 20 i ar;22 \ p:^ (a -V / Subject: July 17,1997 #2263 - Brook Park Realty, 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive - Sketch Plan for Multiple Family Residential Development (PRD) Legal Description; Lots 2 & 3, Block 9, Townsite of Langdon Park Zoning District: LR-1C-1 One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Proposed Site Plan D - Topographic Map E - Floor Plans, Elevation Views F - LR-lC-1 Standards G - PRD Standards H - City Engineer Coihments Allowed Density: 2.0 units per acre for single family residential development 3.0 units per acre when developed as a Planned Residential Development with up to 4 dwelling units per building Proposed Density: 4.6 units per acre, townhomes with 3 or 4 dwelling units per building Density Analysis: Total Site Area: Units Allowable: Proposed Units: Density-Related Zoning/Subdivision Code Sections: 9.8078 acres including wetlands 3 X 9.8078 = 29.4234 = 29 units 45 units Section 10.30 Subd. 16(1) disallows rezoning of the site to M-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District because the site is adjacent to an Lrdistrict. M-6 is the only zoning district which would allow densities of the magnitude proposed. Section 10.55 Subd. 15(A)(3) allows credit for wetlands for density purposes for sewered residential property. Creditable wetland area may be equal to but shall not exceed the area of dry buildable land. #2263 Brook Park Realty July 17,1997 Page 2 Section 10.60 Subd. 2 disallows density in excess of 4.0 units per acre of dry buildable land; dry buildable land = ± 7 acres (wetlands to be delineated); 7 x 4.0 = 28 units allowed. Section 11.10 Subd. 14 prohibits the granting of variances to the density provisions of the Code. Wetlands: A wetland in the southerly 1/3 of the site is approximately 3 acres in area. No wetland delineation report has been submitted. This wetland appears to be subject to an existing Flowage and Conservation Easement, Doc. #4763090. nie cunent welland boundaries appear in the field and in the submitted site plan to differ frotn the easement boundary. Also, a portion of this wetland on applicants property appears to possibly have been illegally filled by the adjacent property owner to the west. This issue must te addressed, an restoration may be an appropriate condition of plat approval if filling has ocurred. The wetland extends across nearly the entire width of the property adjacent to Shoreline Drive Provision of utilities from Shoreline Drive may require easements from adjacent todowners o installation through the wetland or some alternate route. Once the extent of actual delineated wetlands is known, a detemiination wiil have to te made whether the existing Flowage & Conservation Easement is adequate or must be expanded defined. Hardcover Limitations The LR-lC-1 PRD standards limit site hardcover to 35%, even though the developable portion of the site is more than 1,000' from the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. Engineering Issues The City Engineer has provided a letter regarding access, drainage, utilities and easements (See attached Exhibit H). Sewer & Water Connection Charges Preliminary review by staff indicates that municipal water has been hilly assessed to the prope^ and no connection charge will be due. Municipal sewer was only mimmally assessed to the property and a connection charge estimated at $3800 per unit will be required. '4 yLU #2263 Brook Park Realty July 17,1997 Page 3 PRD Standards Zoning Code Section 10.32 "PRD - Planned Residential Development" contains only minimal direction as to performance standards for development. Following is an outline to assist in discussion of pertinent issues: A. Road Layout 1. Private vs. Public 2. Road widths 3. Parking « -« 4. Continuation to westerly properties; access to County Roas »5 5. Cul-de-sac requirements B. Utilities C. Stormwater /Ponding /Drainage D. Wetlands E. Park Dedication 1. Park Fee vs Land Dedication 2. Area Park Needs 3. Trails - Private vs Public F. Tree and Open Space Preservation G. Dwelling Unit Standards 1 . Location, orientation, setbacks 2. Unit size (square footage, # of bedrooms) 3. Building Height 4. Appearance - Materials (type, quality) - Design -Colors 5. Affordability 6. Buffer to railroad H. Common Areas 1 . Maintenance (Homeowners Association?) 2. Amenities - Private Recreational Facilities - Community Room, etc. 3. Trash enclosures 4. Mailboxes 5. Air conditioning units 6. Fences 7. Landscaping 8. Outside storage 9. Signage 10. Lighting #2263 Brook Park Realty July 17,1997 Page 4 I. Ownership 1. Individual units 2. Commons areas J. Future Expansion to West Additional Comments This is the first multiple family development proposed in Orono since the "Navarro twinhorne project on the adjacent property in 1982. Planning Commission is requested to first address the issue of density, giving applicant clear direction as to the number of units feasible for this site. Planning Commission is advised that the PRD standards were designed to allow the City a significant degree of flexibility in establishing performance standards for each PRD development. Since we have no similar precedent developments in Orono to use as a guide for review. Planning Commission has an opportunity to develop its own goals and objectives for reviewing the proposed development of this property, and e^ tablish suitable standards to implement them. •. 1^1 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPL PROPERTY LOCATION Application # 6? 3 Date Received 6 - zx-?-<^l Amount Paid ,sa£> Q» Ci '% LKI X L.\JI^AllV7n -zr}^ / \ Siteaddress , QQ<v :) _ ^ * r* t .^T^T ^Property Identification Number (PID) Please check one - Property____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT ^ Name mu.^lyoDL Address u4ji (tgCD Phone (home) 8 City VilCl}\k iyst\Z\oy^ Phone (work) <^<f OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____________ Address City__ Phone (home) Phone (wcrk) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ Present Zoning District (/ C**l PROPOSAL ________ Division for Tax Purposes _________Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) ____Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per [ Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)________ E5' m ^ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. r_:__DateZoning Official's Signature MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature ________________________________--.......... ---------- I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: \J Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $250.00 ^ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/Iot (Class III & all non-residential) ~~ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Totals Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class 1 and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/Iineal ft.; lin. ft. X .50 = $. ‘lin. ft. X .50 = $' Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System. Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/DweIling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infomiation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator. City Engineer. City A«omey Planning Commission and Council necessary ^process this aiphc^imi an^further agrees to pay all additional fees established y ^ Da.. .^22=2:2 Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meetmg. Planning Comrnission meetmgs are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetmgs of the Plannmg Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make aixangcments to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. o«auo;rI 4|.M KB 4,ito 4 .••• • , 1« R • (54) • - #...*!.. (53)15?] i 0••(55) •to MB MW) (?0 mrj (ITp" a (IX) . C*M* •• ft«‘1 |WMf (I?) (22)tfi #iz*)SiI(D ;(?»IIV• Ti.l « W. ji (X): (40) i (M) (49) i («e) •-. 2 roi rifv • '*s jtffp:.Si.1.(29)-: (J9) l«)i ^__LU JJifiJ___L-2L-EMdtCrOK I (*«)•TV!I f*in (35)(35) (N) in..... ^(15) : (16) ........< OOC W 8 OAl a ** " I t OTERO AV£ Ipj 'I I i<L >rL>n< «w<9|ii court (2) '®'*>S{») APDH a) : ysjl 9 i 0^ C (3)(6)p5 ^ • *4 90 ^to »M0fi 1*0 E (7) V (5) ># GIIOhGLHef -Bft n 9 101 (9)^ 322?^ 4* c (AC)n If- ( 26:* » (33) 110 Si rr.v r M|] .40) W(54)fJ*,7»;TnSr3! *IT ihtm 3 sV(45U IP (461^ a 4 .V .7 (<7) 'VAl /M g /t«.W (HCOAfi^W 15,“ flAf ■6d^ - n ?(«)M) (4S) i{% • -K 4«-",s". *•5 ^ |..ia £ I 8 S.7.* W*1*' • ^ .VI*.?4 W[I03)19)1 mi ,2gg»- J9. 1>S U. 1 5.9 3 3 0*0 |5 f 3 (II)(II)do')1n 0 e r 3>*It »9g 14* y. IB) ► •0*9t •r “V, j*S ' YRIC }(49) nc 5(96) (99) 1*2 if2 .2 Ml) NO) 5 5(10) (61) (.^ J2. JSL (9i)(i2)(n) S u 9 ^JOC »Xf9 t 80^ y® B B >1" *(23)vH f(n) ,1^ i IV- tv«n Mc to utmf^ (56) ^__ m: GOVT LOT 8 275I.80 R£i -.1^v-..«~-.., ** *^.’a *'•r GOVT LOT 5 O :...•.»^i-r • • *•%{.. * * 4 at *n* ? f ;* r>. • r • • I . • • .. • I t 1 8 w 6 a N i M • ! 0 a1 ® 3nn <o» < I - % a I • C* % 4 i} iS. cz X] n I C5 Id__ (So • y % ^ m r4 v)» X *■ -0 I ^ O' .0 I * o I • 9 s ^ pec U/ALL. w/ f=c. 6vP fcffi? e>? -c/oe /•‘Anf< sf=>A<^e 131 on iS* RS» T- t d ft :u<T H. x’ (5 a « f F _10.26. LR-lC-1 ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIALSOBDISTRICTS. ^ Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Uses.Subd. 2. Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses, and Accessory A. Any use as regulated in the "LR-IC" District. Subd. 3. Additional Permitted Use. Within any "LR-lC-l" One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict a credit allowing a 50% increase in dwelling unit density over the "LR-lC” District may be obtained providing all conditions below are complied with: _ All provisions of Section 10.32 Planned Residential Development are complied with; B. Public sanitary sewer is available; 9* dwelling units must be attached but not more than four dwelling units to any one structure with a maximum height of thirty 30 feet; Parcels of land lying beyond 100 feet from any shoreline shall not have more than 35% of the land area to be developed made impervious by buildings, blacktop, or other forms of hard cover; E. Building size and location meet Councilapproval; F. Vehicle ingress and egress meet Councilapproval; G. A minimum of two parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit, one of the parking spaces shall be enclosed and attached to the principal structure it serves; H. Density provisions under Section 10.60 are notexceeded. Subd. 4. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. (See Section 10.25, Subdivision 6). SBC. 10.25. LR-IC ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Residential'^Districh "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore allow a combinaM^^^ P«^°vide a district which will limited aqricultural density residential development and may be allowed bv con<m-i*«Planned residential developments Say not endanger aualftv'‘of land use MiLetonka. sVcause of th^o^tio^o^f "th/di natural resource /ro eV’"® necessary to protect that district shall intense development. The saSitary slier immediate access to highways and public Regulationl?‘’''(s|-e SecUo'’n°10.ll) Lake«?hnra * ^®^™^tted Uses. Within the ”LR-1C One Family District.A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-IA” t. -1 T Conditional Uses. Within anv "LR-lC Ona bl"l«d^fo\®\*h’e'®fo’lVo‘^®"’^^®^ District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: District excent^t-hah "if regulated in the "R-lA"® Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. Laka«;hnra ^^f^^sory Uses. Within any "LR-lC One Family p«mitted^cc\sVir"/ uses shall d r.: 4. ' ^ . ^uy accessory use as regulated in the ”R—lA" ®“bject to thi City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. o I/O i Height. No structure or building shall exceed Section I?!?!. provided in be observed:B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width 1/2 acre 100 feet Front Yard 30 feet Side Yard Rear Yard 10 feet 30 feet Side Yard Adjacent to Street 15 feet SEC. 10.32. PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Subd. 1. Purpose. This plan is available to land subdividers subject to Council approval, as alternative to standard minimum lot size subdivision of land. The purpose of this plan is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of City residents. Subd. 2. Submission of Plans. Land owners may submit land subdivision plans for any "R" District without adherence to minimum lot size requirements for each building lot, provided that the total number of building lots, or dwelling units, shall not exceed the number of such lots or units permissible under the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district or districts in which such land is situated. ! Subd. 3. Council Discretion. The dwelling units permitted may be, at the discretion of the Council and subject to the conditions set forth by the Council, in detached, attached or multiple family dwelling structures; subject to the limitations provided for in each zoning district. Subd. 4. Open Space, Etc. The dedication, ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces created by the application of the Planned Residential Development shall be subject to conditions deemed necessary by the Council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes. Subd. 5. Dedication of Open Space. The dedication and ownership of such open spaces may be through: (1) Homeowners Association; (20 Landlord Maintenance; (3) Special Service District; (4) Municipal Ownership; or (5) any other method deemed appropriate by the Council to accomplish the purposes of this plan. Subd. 6. Site Plan. The proposed site plan, including location, spacing and basic design of proposed buildings, street and parking plans, water and sewer (public or private) plans, and plans of opan space available for park or recreational purposes, shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and the Council. Subd. 7. Hearings. The Council may direct that a public hearing be held to review such plans. Subd. 8. Final Approval. ’ Final approval shall not be granted until all conditions set by the Council are met; and, further the Council shall not approve any such Planned Residential Development prior to the legally binding establishment of the open space dedication, ownership and maintenance provisions, such provisions to be guaranteed by bonding or other means satisfactory to the Council. Subd. 9. Subdivision Requirements. All provisions of subdivision procedure established by the City Code except as modified herein above, shall govern applications under this plan. Source: Municipal Code Effective D'^te: 9-14-67 Bonestroo. Roiene. Anderhk ^nd Associates, inc is sn Affirmative Action. Equ^i Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderhk. PE • Marvin L Sorv.iM. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook, PE • Robert G Schunicht, PE • Jerry A Bourdon, PE • Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberlin. C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principsts Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon, PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE. • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota PE • Robert C Russek. A l A • Mark A Hanson. PE. • Michael T Rauimann. PE • Ted K.Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs, PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE. R S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester. Wilimar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl 1/1 Bonestroo Mm Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects July 16, 1997 Mr, Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Brook Park Realty File No. 139-2263 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the concept site plan for the proposed planned residential development consisting of a total of 45 townhomes. The site is located on Lots 2 and 3, Block 9, Townsite of Langdon, along the north side of CSAH 15. We *»ave the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: The extension of Livingston Avenue appears to meet City standards for a public or private roadway. The proposed intersection at CSAH 15 is approximately 220 feet east of a vertical crest. This may not be an acceptable location for the intersection. Hennepin County should review the sketch plan and the proposed street access. 2. Drainage: An area of approximately 30 acres, including this site, drains to the wetland on the property. The wetland drains southerly, eventually reaching Carman Bay. The City’s Wetlrjid Inventory Map identifies this wetland as a protected Type 3 wetland with an area of 3.4 acres. The wetland area is shown as one continuous area. The alignment of Livingston Avenue crosses through this area, a formal wetland delineation should be conducted on the property to determine the extent of the wetlands. Stormwater ponding will likely be needed to treat runoff from the development prior to reaching the wetland. 3. Utilities: The existing 6-inch water main at the west end of Livingston Avenue should be extended through the development and looped to the existing 6-inch stub near the location of the proposed intersection. Sanitary sewer service to the property can be separated into three areas. (1) The area east of the wetland and north of Livingston Avenue can be served by MH-519 with an invert of 944.81. (2) The area east of the wetland and south of Livingston Avenue can be served by MH-520 with an invert of 933.02. (3) The area west of the wetland can be served by the sewer in CSAH 15. 4. Easements: An additional 7 feet of right-of-way should be provided along CSAH 15. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK, & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. / Cc: Mr. Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 - Fax: 612-636-1311 ^0^ % REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION % DATE: August 7. 1997 ITEM NO, Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: ^2267 John O'Sullivan, 3340 Shoreline/2380 Shady wood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review - Proposed Driveway from Culver's Site to Shady wood Road - Planning Commission Denial Recommendation Zoning District: Culver's site: B-1; Church property: B-5. Application: Mr. O'Sullivan is requesting commercial site plan review and approval for proposed driveway access to the Culver's site through the church property from Shadywood Road. List of Exhibits A - Submitted As-built Parking Layout B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7/28/97 C - Staff Sketch of Suggested Revisions to Parking Layout D - Memo and Exhibits of 7/18/97 Summary of Request The Culver's site has two vehicle access points, both on Shoreline Drive. Mr. O'Sullivan notes that due to the high volume of traffic on North Shore Drive and the proximity to the intersection, it is difficult for customers to enter his site from eastbound Co. Rd. 15 or to leave his site heading east. His proposal to alleviate this situation is to create a new driveway access to Shadywood Road, crossing the 'conceptually vacated' portion of Navarre Lane as well as the southerly comer of the church property. The church property is now owned by Adam Smith Company of Alexandria, Minnesota, with whom O'Sullivan has made an agreement for a driveway easement across the church property. Staff is advised that submittal of a revised site plan for development of the church property is probably at least six months away. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 4 August 7, 1997 Zoning File #2267 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this application at their July 21st meeting and voted 4-2 to recommend denial. The motion for denial was based on what the Planning Commission perceived as unresolved safety concerns related to the northwesterly access of the restaurant. Members voting to deny also indicated a concern that this proposal seems premature as it does not coordinate with the development of the church site. Most members of the Planning Commission acknowledged O'Sullivan's need for an additional access to the Culver's site. Safety Issues I related Planning Commission's safety concerns to the building inspectors. They confirmed that the northwest building entrance configuration had been revised after the original approval resolution was adopted, such that the exit doorway opens to a sidewalk rather than directly in front of the drive-thru lane. At this point, their preliminary recommendation is to add an approximately 6' long length of railing along the sidewalk from the doorway, such that pedestrians will have the ability to see vehicles in the drive-thru lane before stepping off the sidewalk. The building inspectors question whether the "zebra striping" of a crosswalk in the middle of the parking lot will have any value if it is required. The inspectors noted, they have not yet formally approved the parking lot striping, although they are aware of the changes in orientation of stalls in the various parking areas that have occurred since the original plan approval. City Engineer Recommendation City Engineer Shawn Gustafson has questioned the location of the proposed entrance so near the intersection, and notes that this location will be a potential problem if the County ever creates a free right turn lane from westbound 15 to northbound 19 at this location. However, Hennepin County has submitted a letter indicating they will approve the proposed curb cut at the proposed location. The City Engineer would prefer to see this as a right-in/right-out access if it is approved, on the basis that it is nearer the intersection than we would prefer for having traffic exiting the site crossing to the southbound 19 lane. He also recommended that the church site ultimately be served with one access rather than two, which should probably be further north than the currently proposed Culver's access O'Sullivan notes that the traffic on 19 north of the intersection is much less than on the other three segments of the intersection. Request for Council Action continued Page 3 of 4 August 7, 1997 Zoning File #2267 Staff Recommendation Staff acknowledges the need for an additional access for the site. The access location as proposed is limited by the church building still remaining on the site. If the church was gone, it would be feasible to push the access further from the intersection. Absent an approved comprehensive site plan for the church property, it is difficult to know whether the proposed access site wUl be in the optimum location to serve that site, and the City has made no conclusion as to whether the church site should ultimately have one or two accesses. In staffs opinion, the right in/right out limitation, while perhaps enhancing safety, does not result in a solution to O'Sullivan's traffic dilemma. Based on the above, staff recommends as follows: 1. If the proposed access is approve^!, it should be approved only on a temporary basis, with the understanding and agreement by O'Sullivan and the church property owner, that the City reserves the right to require the access location be moved if it becomes a problem at the proposed location, or if comprehensive site plan approval for the church property ultimately requires that the access location be moved further north. 2. 4. A segment of railing should be extended along the sidewalk adjacent to the northwest restaurant doorway exit. Changes to the submitted parking plan should be required as noted on Exhibit C, including: a. Elimination of the last parking stall adjacent to liie westerly Shoreline Drive exit to the site; b. Reconfiguration of the parking lot curbing near the new access to create additional green space in an area unsuitable for head-in parking. Approval will be subject to driveway construction plan approval by staff, and subject to a Hennepin County access permit as well as a City land alteration permit. Since this was a denial recommendation by Planning Commission, staff has not drafted a resolution. If Council concludes that the access should be allowed, staff would draft a resolution that incorporates the above noted conditions, as well as formally approving the creation of an easement across the church property, and acknowledging the use of conceptually vacated portion of Navarre Lane for the access. 7< CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: John O'Sullivan 8047 Ranchview Lane Maple Grove, MN 55311 ZONING FILE #2267 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 7/28/97 COPIES TO:Adam Smith Co. Ted Christianson, Pres. 700 Cedar St. #121 P.O. Box 965 Alexandria, MN 56308 F ! TYPE OF APPLICATION:Commercial Site Plan Approval - Driveway Access DATE OF MEETING: 7/21/97 VOTE:4 FOR 2 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: a!a o Denial for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Motion was to deny based on safety issues and lack of coordination with development of church site. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, August 11,1997, 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. TOTPL P.02 1 I .1; !ii •••••• • « •nS o |3|i .pioXo «TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator July 18,1997 SUBJECT: #2267 Jolm O'Sullivan, 3340 Shoreline/2380 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review - Proposed Driveway From Culver's Site to Shadywoo ’ Road Zoning District: Culvers Site: B-1 Church Property: B-5. Application: Mr. O'Sullivan is requesting commercial site plan review and approval for a proposed driveway access to the Culver ’s site through the church property from Shadywood Road. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Survey of Proposed Access Easement F - Sketch of Proposed Driveway G - Concept Plan for Development of Church Property H - Hardcover Notes I - Easement Agreement Document J - City Engineer's Comments K - Hennepin County Public Works Comments L - Resolution #3830 Property Ownership The Culvers Restaurant site is under the ownership of John O'Sullivan and others. That site includes the easterly half of Navarre Lane which has been vacated. The church property is owned by Adam Smith Company, which entity has not indicated to the City any immediate plans to develop the church site. Applicant is intending to procure an easement for driveway purposes over the church property in favor of the Culver's property. Navarre Lane Status The City has agreed conceptually via Resolution #3830 adopted January 13, 1997 to vacate the northwesterly portion of Navarre Lane at the time development of the church property commences. The current proposal for a driveway to serve the Culver's site does not constitute development of the TOTAL P.02 Zoning File #2267 July 18, 1997 Page 2 church property. The County Road 19 right-of-way overlaps the torrens portion of the church property at the most southerly comer of the church property. A small triangular portion of the proposed driveway easement is within this overlap area. The only significant impact of this is how it affects hardcover calculations. Site Considerations 1. The submittals do not accurately portray the existing parking layout at the Culvers site. The submittals give no indication of the number of stalls which will be lost, or how they will be replaced. The submittals give no clear picture of existing and proposed circulation at the Culvers site. The submittals provide staff with no comfort level that the applicant has had professional assistance in the design of the new access point, or in hovv it will relate to the existing situation. Having experienced this site in operation, staff finds a number of concerns regardmg circulation in the final parking layout, which does not match the approved plans and which in staffs opinion contains a number of bad design features, including parking stalls that jut out into access points, tlie need for opposing stacking lanes for the drive-thm and car wash, and the impact of the drive-thru 'waiting' stalls adjacent to the handicap stalls. 2. While the proposed access onto County Road 19 is at the location previously proposed in applicant s original concept plan for the church site, that site plan has never been formally reviewed or approved. The City Engineer's early comments on that site plan were that the southerly access, i.e. the access now proposed for the Culvers site, is extremely near the 15/19 intersection and perhaps should move further north. The City Engineer continues to believe that the southerly access for the church site is too close to the intersection and will create problems with traffic on the County Road, especially if a free right turn lane is ever developed from westbound 15 to northbound 19. He suggests a right-in/right-out only limitation may be appropriate from a safety perspective; this would not serve applicant's intent to provide a way for traffic exiting his site to head southbound on 19 to go east on 15. The engineer indicates that the church site might be best served by a single access, and stafFbelieves it could be counterproductive to accomplishing that if the new access for the Culvers site is located as proposed. It should be noted that Hennepin County Public Works has indicated they will approve the access as proposed by Mr. O'Sullivan. Staff is assuming that the County has recognized the difficulties with O'Sullivan's existing accesses onto County Road 15, and sees this as a solution to the problem. Staff sees it as a temporary solution at best and, if approved as CITY OF ORONO © 612A730510 06/2A/97 08:00 :07/1A NO:AAO AppUcatton I 7 Dale Received <o • 9Z A 4 iilOMi It Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^ 3 J//ri p xkjco h Type of Application to be Filed ifBUiGuj Property Identification Number (PJ.D.) il ~ / fH - 21> - Q *-i -OC^O (a APPLICANT Name ZfDUi\). D 'Su. uu \JPi a J Address Lv' Phone (home) ______ Phonefwork) ^ City /h4^ur(r/?dt/fr Zip 5~5~3// OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name nP^/n Sn r Tgp C>//?/st>4a;sc V Phone (work) (3:io \ 7^ 3 ~ Addres s 7<r£ Cero/^(( 4(^fxi >pcrty Acquired ^/r/97 adua City A l FX/hu 0 I A-, ////>/ Zip 5i^ 3 ■f (month/year) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL 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 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 - lOl cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining wi^s within 75’ of lakesbore _____PPJ)/PID - sec Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____Aftcr-the-Fact Fee • Double Current Application Fee OTH^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 _ $100.00 Appeals Other * see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District ft Present Use of Property______Residential Other (specify). 1 06-27-1997 10:44hM FROM 9D9M SMITH CO 16124719650 P.0; #.2g6.7REQUIRED SUBMlTTALIi 1. ____Compltlid App}ictt!on Fomt 3 CeftMcd Sp«tr Ovwim List of ownen willua'535^, lab^ind plot m«p (yw mu$t obtdn this Ust. bbels snd m«p fiom Hennepin County Dcpettmeai of Fimoott A«603* Oovemmeni Centtr* 34t«S271). 4. CotUkMl of Survey (ngned Vy a Coemed surveyor) - refer to bendoot for survey 7. docr^ption to a|q|}Ucadott if not wdudod oo rei|uifto siffvey.^ Topoynihio survey (existing and proposed contours) if lend elteietions involve hi elevatum (giedes). Lilt of the legs] ncmes Onclude inariul status) of ail pawns with an nteroA in foi pcopcity. This wouW ir^*4* Mnie(s) of ^tplieam(s) if not current ownei(s). Coostnictioo plan, if ^rplieable (see staff for reQUlmnents). §B fjdttvh**" to»diU application, please att^ a s^cioe list of any other poeons you wish notified of this app^atloo. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 39 COPIES Of LARGE OOCUMEfiTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (ir* X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUBtENTO SUBhilTTCD. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be lubfliitMd.) The /^Ikent and Property Owner must sign this appllcaiioo. Mease remember that your gp^kttlon is not eon^dote if the above iaforawiion has not been included. CettifieRion by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical SltfC______ — D***• •• • • APPUCANrS SIGNATURE __,u. , i The oplicant hereby agrees to provide all infonnation required or requested by the Zoning Adrolnistrotor. agrees to additional fees (staff time not covered by original^ foe payine^ andfor unusual expooKi incurred in review of this appUcetion, and cotiflos that the infoRMtion suppHad Is true and oorwet to the best of hlsfoer kno AppUcoifo aigaRuro /O Dais..hhalu 0WNER*S BlONAtVU. , . ^ , The owner hereby aduiowledges and agrees to this application and form authonxeu itasonaUe ontry onto the property by Clhr staff, coatultants, agents, coaanission memoers, « ^__________t___-------------------of AliS nHUCit*and Council niembeij for purposes of iavatigation and verification of diis request. A*------------- OwnePs signature Apeltarot men have ■» •ubotinsU Into the City ofTiea 25 dsyt befot ihe Ptowly Cowmhilon floiaisa Commlwion Mctiiiip «» h«M on ib* third Mendqr ©f owh mosth. ■ 4^ Zeasig Oftio* ©r dii> chwifc prior (a the nectiag. TOTAL P.02 KCW UAit U.i/19/y6BATCH 502 HENNEPIN COlWTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LISTPROP ADDR OltCR NAME .\TAHPAYER NAH^AODR•••-SB 17-117-2S AS 000102195 BAYVIEH PLR P MEYERS A J E MEYERSRICHARD P A JANICE E MEYERS2X95 BAYVZEH PLNAYZATA rtl 5SS91 . . v PROP ADDR - OHNER NAME TA}(PAYER . ..NAME/AOOR -SB : X7-1X7-2S AS 0005 OSAAS CRYSTAL PL A A L ROOEHALD AOELBERT M RODENALO SAAS CRYSTAL PLACE NAYZATA m 55S91 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TA»>AYER NAME/AODR i' • PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR •; ' - PROP. ADDR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR « ^4 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 17-117-23. AS 0020 03ASB LIVINGSTON AVE SEC OF HSG A URB OEV SEC OF HSO A URB DEV 220 2ND ST S MPLS m 55A01 SB 17-117-23 AS 0023 03A1A LIVINGSTON AVE ROSEMARY P BURMASTER ROSEMARY P BURMASTER 3A1A LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 SB 17-117-23 AS 0d6A OSAAS LIVINGSTON AVE DENNIS L HE6ER DEFMIS L HE6ER SAAS LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 SB 17-117-2S AS 0076 OSAAA LYRIC AVE F L A S E MITTELSTAEDT MR/MRS FRANK L MITTELSTAEDT 3AAA LYRIC AVE NAYZATA m 55391 REPORT NO. PI4S5A01 PAGE 2•• .- ■ i »■ • i38 17-117-23 AS 0002 02296 SHADYHOOD RO R L POLK A M POLK MIKE A Af«M FRANZEN • 2296 SHADYHOOD RD NAYZATA ttl 55391 : ^SB 17-117-25 AS 0004. . 02293 SHADYHOOD RDVI K N I S A ROMtWLb » ‘, I• f■-Vv wwi ,n ; A/artRLETA^i^ 38 17-117-23 AS 0018 03A52 LIVINGSTON AVE— ^ ^^ ^ • LXYxrwaiiJN WILLIAM R MAXWELL II A WtFE v.7..: ;f -FRAMC H OLSON ETAt HZLLTAM R MAVMf:M TT • .X H Ot^H'* . • . ♦. . • ■ ‘ * *t •* HILLIAM R MAXWELL II 3A52 LIVINGSTON AVE NAVARRE TM. 55391 SB 17-117-23 A3 0021 03A36 LIVINGSTON AVE STANLEY A MOORE DENNIS THUECKS 3177 LAKESHORE BLVD NAYZATA MN 55391 ‘ 38 17-117-23 AS 0062 0SA33, LIVINGSTON AVE PAUL M WAAGEN PAUL WAAGEN 3A3S LIVINGSTON AVE’ NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 A3 0065 03AA5 LIVINGSTON AVE CAROLYN M TILLOTSON CAROLYN M TILLOTSON 3AA5 LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 A3 0077 0SA38 LYRIC AVE LOIS M HUOLOW LOIS MARIE HUOLOW 3A38 LYRIC AV NAYZATA MN 55391 » -V • • V 'NAYZATA HI !-EtAt'--. ■ V.;-.^.*v 7- XJM"AVE ' .* . . 55S91., .■■; • ■ >• '•*'. • F..* ,*,-i V • •_ »*_ ■ • |. .. .. * ’ .• . ■ ■ I 17-117-23 AS 0022 . •. - 03A22 LIVINGSltN AVE 0-A SERNA: I 0 L SHELDON DA SERNA I D L SHELDON . 3422 LIVINGSTON AVE .• NAYZATA’lf< . 65391 . • . •• ' . . Se 17-117-25 45 0065" 05455 LXVINOSTON AVE D V IE N.BRUCE * .' I ■■■ ■K ®" " " ./ . DENNIS V A-EVELYN N BRUCE >5435 LimOStON'AVE , •■ - ■ N ay ZATA W ■;.' 55391. • . • * ’ • •• • 7*^! 7 .. TON. AVE,-. , ; • ^: \ / *AVE>'' ,-•••■ X -V ■ SB 17-117-23 AS DOTS / • : ,03468 LYRIC AVE • . .JAMES F MlTTEUtAEOT ill .*• '.i' . JAMES F MlTtELStAEDT-IIX‘• .^SA68l.YRIC.AVE,^...'• •. NAYZATA m . 55395 ' ' -i; ... •. .. ■ . J . . • Yt' • • •’ ..SB 17-117-25 AS 0078.. 0SA22 LVRIC AVE DANIEL E SWANSON ’ ‘ DANIEL E SWANSON SA22 LYRIC AVE NAYZATA • 55S91 • • 9 *' V f - •• RUN 6ATE I BATCH 502prop;add4' OtlER NAMl . TAXPAYER ■ NAME/ADDI PROP ADbR OI>MER NAMl TAXPAYER NAME/ADDI PROP ADDR 0Ft4ER NAMl TAXPAYER . NAME/ADDI PROP ADDR .OWNER NAMl TAXPAYER % NAME/ADDI • tr* • PROP ADDR OIMER NAMl •TAXPAYER . NAME/ADDI PROP ADDR OWNER NAMl TAXPAYER NAME/ADDI » •^0^ ‘ I * •• . i *■; • -- *• .* . t » . •. it •: .VI ■ •' ; • ^ ■ . ! • • • • • , JiA-:;.;,.; ‘ .»'V.V. .• ; . ;v, ; •• V • *' * •I ' t '* ^ • f • • ♦ RUN'-bATE 03/19/96 ‘ •BATCH 502PROP>OOB "OHNER NAME . TAXPAYER ■ NAHE/ADDR PROPADbR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR (»MER NAME TAXPAYER ; NAME/ADDR. * . > PROP AOOR . OIMER NAME •TAXPAYER . V ^ NAME/AODR ■ '■ '■ •••• •• • • V ^ • Prop aodr • OIMER.NAME • TAXPAYER . NAME/ADDR 38. 17-117-23 43 0079 03408 .LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK4/13/79 ST DEED 156755 38 ,17-117-23 43 0082 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TOm OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO 80X 66 CRYSTAL BAY m 55359 38 17-117-23 43 0085 00038 ADDRESS UasSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARKING LOT BUFFER 3-22-91 ST DEED NO 174998 38 17-117-23 43 0099* 03400 SHORELINE DR DALE S JOHNSON . NAVARRE HAROHARE C/O DALE JOHNSON 3400 SHORELINE DR PO BOX 40 NAVARRE hM 55392 38 17-117-23 43 0154 03405 . LIVINGSTON AVE SHERYL A PATTEN SHERYL A PATTEN 3405 LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA FW 55:. #1 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST38 17-117-23 43 008003408 LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK4/13/79 ST DEED 156755 38 17-117-23 43 0083 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 38 17-117-23 43 0086 03465 LYRIC AVE H 6 A 0 H TIERNEY WILLIAM G I DELORES TIERNEY 3465 LYRIC AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0141 03473 LIVINGSTON AVE’ SARANNE W ANDERSON * SARANNE W ANDERSON 3473 LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0005 . 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO TOWN OF ORONO * CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 crystal bay MN 55359 REPORT NO. PI435401 ■ PAGE ■• •■‘3.-■ ..38 17-117-23.43.0081 03408 LYRIC HENNEPIN* FORFEITED LAND3.4s-bo8i:.:\OF emONO\:,; V> V^* * •• * r*.. • . *. <*... . •' . ' -. ’■'■PARK 1 U-t• ••4. .: I* V % ■I *.4/13/79 ’ Sf'6<iEb-is67M'’*.. *. • • . . ‘ » * .... 1 • . ■ ' • *. r r . t . ;• I.- ■ • .38 17-117t23; 43 0084 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNBD HEfMEPlN FORFEITED LAND. : CXTY-OF ORONO CONVEYED ■ 2/8/82 ST DEED 161147' ‘V *• vW' . • f.v I . • ' •. 9. • ' . 38..17-117-23 43 0098 '03416 SHORELINE OR « * » :OERM-TOH PARTNERSHIP GERM-TOM PARTNERSHIP ' 'C/O COURT MACFARLANE i ' PO BOX 14il MIFMETOMCA Ftl. 55345 t • ,, 'V : 38 17-117-23 43 0142. ' ' ' 03440 shoreline DR-- ' HIE MUELLER RICHARD H BLOOMQUlSTt*. - 3440 SHORELINE DR ’ HAYZATA MN 55391, . V. ■> I* ! •■ • I* \ 3fe 17-117-23'44 0006.^ . - . , ■ . • 02380 SHAOYHOOO RO ' : v . • -.GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE . . NORTH CEtfTRAL bBA '■ ‘ 7260 UNIVERSITY AVE M E fllO ■' FRIDLEY MM 55432. • V ' * , • .*1 ■ ’V* ^ • •.* PROP ADDR OFMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 44 0007 02364 SHADYWOOD RO GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE 2380 SHADYWOOD RO ORONO FM 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO CONVEYED 2/8/82 ST DEED 161145 38 17-117-23 44 0009 02377 SHADYWOOD RD MARCEL S DITTRICH . . MARCEL OIT.ntlCH 2377 SHADYWOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55391 • * • • •I i •- I * , .. • * * « .* * . • -^4' ^ RMN DATE 03/19/96BATCH 502 L PROP AODR . ONNER NAME TAXPAYER V I^E/ADDR- . ■ PROP ADDR ' 0M4ER NAME .TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR • • «i • ...» PROP AODR OIMER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR OWCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR I. PROP ADDR DitlER NAME TAXPAYER . NAHE/ADDR • %' PROP AODR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER • NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFCWtlTlON SYSTEM PROPERTY 0M4ERS LIST30 17-117-23 44 0015 00038 ADDRESS UNASSXGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO .PARK10/17/00 ST DEED 139140 30 17-117-23 44 0022 03405 CRYSTAL BAY RO ALOHA J DARLING ALOHA J DARLING 3405 CRYSTAL BAY. ROAD NAYZATA m 55391 30 17-117-23 44 0027 02225 DAYVXEH PL TERESA ATME KOCH TERESA KOCH 2225 BAY>aEN PUCE HAYZATA 55391 30 17-117-23 44. 0030 02265 DAYVXEH PL DAVID H DEAN A DIANE H DEAN DAVID H A DIANE M DEAN 2265 BAYVIEH PUCE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0033 02305 BAYVIEH PL R H STELLXNG ETAL. GENE H BLOCK 2305 BAYVIEH PUCE NAYZATA MM 55391 ' 30 17-117-23 44 0059 03320 NAVARRE LA ADRXAM4E L DODGE A0RIA»ME L DODGE 3320 NAVARRE U HAYZATA m 55391 i- - - t* 38 17-117-23 44 002003393 CRYSTAL BAY RD JEFFREY MARK HAMMER JEFF HAMMER 3393 CRYSTAL BAY RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0025 02205 BAYVIEH PL CLEMENT F BIRCH JR Et AL CLEMENT F BIRCH JR AND BARBARA J SIPPRELL-BIRCH 2205 BAYVIEH PL HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0028 02245 BAYVIEH PL T J 4 T P HALLOCK TERRY J HALLOCK TIFFINY POOL HALLOCK 2245 BAYVIEH PL HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0031 02275 BAYVIEH PL JAMES R ANDERSON JAMES R ANDERSON 2275 BAYVIEH PLACE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0041 02250 BAYVIEH PL* CATHY JO TUWtER TOM A CATHY TURNER 5537 BARTLETT BLVD MOUND MN 55364 3B 17-117-23 44 0060 03324 NAVARRE LA BRETT HALLONQUIST BRETT K HALLONQUIST 3324 NAVARRE U HAYATA MN 55391 • /•REPORT NO. PI455401PAGE 4 . •k ‘*1* * * **-V • ^1 > - •. ; I38 17-117-23 44 0021 • I •••- i03599 CRYStALBAYRD-.-- Vs G SOBXENXAK A V MCKINNEY•• .V -r.••'jl.,s;SOBIENlte ,A.V;:hCK1»#«Y:.V-,..- . ;•. •'* . •. ■ ■ “■•• • • - i ..• •• .•,.; • ■ • > • . v^. ; , . ; ;;; -V,58.,17-lX7^23 44 DOZO,.-;*;..^^ ‘ '.v /• . .3399 crystal BAY RD . A.V. .* 02215 BAVVXEti .PL H:|.J HAZARDVV.'V v’■ ■■ ■' • ^4 • •" * • * • / IWERT RAYMOND .HAZARD 2215 BAYVlEk PL imyzA ta HN w®;H azard • ;k PLv:..v-.-V '• .' .v’ :.-V5SS91-...':- ■ . V:.-,. ...V.* r; • . • . .* 5 . V ‘ * • * '.' •.. . V ''- '■vVV..\ ■ • »- •• 38' 17-117-23 44 0029 / , • 02255 BAYyZEk PL , .' • —_ _ ___ _-• _ _ ___ _ _PATRICIA A BURNEXCE PA’naCXA A.BURNIECE 2253 BAYVIEH PL NAYZATA m . 55391 SifO' > ■36 17-ll^r-25 44 0052. 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGN30 GENE AND SRERYLL BLOCK . GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK . . . ' 41 2305 BAYVIEH PLACE ..,; ' ■ ..... 'H f /J nayzAta MN 53391. ‘ I < ./♦* 38. 17-117-23'44 0042 * 02240 BAYVIEH PL KIMBERLY A ERX^SON ' . KIMBERLY A ERICSGN ’ .fV.5 '•.4 . . J : .2240 BAYVXEh Pt ' • ’ • HAY2AtA »M 55391 .* • . 'SB- 17-117*23 44 0065 .' < 02344 OLIVE AVE .. .; J L CARLSON A M R. CARLSON J L CARLSDN A N R CARLSON.; :: 2344 OLIVE. AVE . • , . . . . NAYZATA MM 55391 VVVW-- r • * * • • I • * i ■ ., .V . •»4 .* ,< • • 'f... ••- I • * ^ • 'I RUN DATE 4 BATCH 502•« * •PROP AODR OWIER NAHI TAXPAYER NAME/ADDI PROP AODR OtflER NAM TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOl PROP ADDR OMIER NAMl TAXPAYER NAME/ADDf PROP ADDR ONNER NANI .TAXPAYER- < NAHE/ADDf - ‘ PROP ADDR ... OltlER NAM '•TAXPAYER ; : ■NAHE/ADOF PROP ADDR ONNER NAM TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDf . • • *; i RUN DATE 03/19/96 BATCH 502 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LISTPROP ADDR OI«4ER NAME TAXPAYER ■ NAHE/AODR SB 17-117-2S 4^ 0064 '0233B OLIVE AVE B A JAKUBIAK A L H JAKUBZAK BRIAN A JAKUBIAK 233B OLIVE AVE NAYZATA MM 55391 . ; PROP AODR 0»flER NAME ■TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SB 17-117-23 44 0067 02314 OLIVE AVE LOUISE B DAY LOUISE B. DAY 2314,OLIVE AVE . NAYZATA HN 55391 PROP AODR (MtlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR SB 17-117-23 44 0073 *02314 SHADYNOOD RO E A K;J6LIN ET AL H/L EST EDNIN L MABEL KU6LIN 2314 SHADYNOOD ROAD NAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER- - NAME/ADDR 3B-. 17-117-23 44 0076 02336 SHADYNOOD RD JOHN C A BARBARA E ERICSQN JOHN A BARBARA ERICSON 1620 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 - * PROP ADDR ONNER NAME 'TAXPAYER >NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 44 0079 02341 SHADYNOOD RD NR 6R0ETSCH A C J 6R0ETSCH LOUISE A 6AN6ELH0FF ' 2341 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA FM 55391 - 38 17-117-23 44 0083 PROP ADDR 02230 BAYVIEN PL OFMER NAME * J L SCHNECK A P M SCHNECK TAXPAYER J L A P M SCHNECK NAHE/ADDR 2230 BAYVIEN PL S NAYZATA MN 55391 , *. REPORT NO. PZ435401 •PAGE 5 '38 17-117-23 44 006502326 OLIVE AVE J T JACOBSON A L D JACOBSON J T JACOBSON A L D JACOBSON 2328 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 , ' SB 17-117-23 :44 0066 i -• 02318 OLIVE AVE . . , ‘ ' ' •■ .'. •• ■ . * PATRICK N SULUVAN '■“ •. PATRICK N SULLIVAN , .V ; 2318 OLIVE AVE, •- :v.V-• V' . '■i : •>' •:' NAVZATA itt •. sS5n>..<::^> v-;.- '■ > •.* i .*■ . *• .’*•>. ..... . A 38 17-117-23 44 0068 02306 OLIVE AVE KAREN E ANDERSON KAREN-E’ANDERSON 2306 OLIVE AVE . ORONO MN 55391 .- .>-• -:• •. , • . • S8: 17*117-25 44 0069* •02300 OUIVE AVEV . r: v ;...- - - - -- - -^HARQARET A HOOD rURGARET A HOOD : . ;2300 OLIVE AVE. X . •». NAYZATA MN 38 17-117-23 44 0074 02324 SHADYNOOD RD R J HAEFNER > C F HAEFNER RICHARD J/COLLEEN F HAEFNER 2324 SHADYNOOD RO NAYZATA Ftl 5S39I !. . ■ 38 17-117-23 44 0075 \ * 02336 SHADYNOOD RO JAB ERZCSON . ;;jbHN-C A-BARBARA E ERICSON - • --1620 SHAOYMOOD RO ' ■ NAYZATA MN 53391 . t•r .. •• •' ;v % • •. • ^ • 6 • • ». * ••/ V *.• .*•• /• ? • .* ^ < • 38 17-117-23 94 0077 03326 NAVARRE LA GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE 2380 SHADYFtOOD RO ORONO r«F 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0078 00038 ADDRESS UNASSZGNED GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE 2380;SHADYNOOD.RO r ORONp FW •..;55S91 'i' . T' ; vS ' A *\—■ r J ■tA-xx- 38 17-117-23 44 0080 0003B ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO TOHN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 ■ •• • - , . . .. . . . . . . ‘ .• t i.« 1 . . * • • • , i- • DALE MATSON BTAL* '/• DALE MATSON EtAt • -'12200. BAYVIEN RLACt MAYZAtA MN , 55391. -• . .. *■ % . ■/ ■vX'...'".:, =. t) -. 33 - T7-117-23 .44 008SJ ’ . • «uhDPl TUT .no 7 S.'•», .r . • 58 17-117-23 44 0084 02550 OLIVE AVE NANCY C RUST NAhK:V C NELSON 2550 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 *. 03340 SHORELINE DR VQYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC' P 0 BOX 65 -• NAVARRE HN 55592, • • . . . \ : >!.• • • ... ■ ■*.'i.? • . ■; >. i' • RUN DA' BATCH jPROP A1 ' ITAXPAYI . NAHE/j• IPROP Al. ':OFWER I ^ TAXPAYI ‘NAME/i f .* ' • • • PROP Al .OFMER I .TAXPAYI • NAHE/i PROP Al OFMER I TAXPAYI NAF«/i PROP Al OHNER I TAXPAYI NAME/J PROP Al OFMER I TAXPAYI NAFS/i t J , - .> RUN DATE 03/19/96 BATCH 502PROP ADDR ‘ OHNER NAMETAXPAYERNAHE/AOOR.38 17-117-23 A4 009003285 UFAYETTE RZOGE CT SALLY J MCCABE SALLY J MCCABE 3285 LAFAYETTE RZD6E CT MAYZATA 55391\ 38 17-117-23 A4 0098PROP'ADDR 03300' NAVARRE U '0»t<ER NAME RAYMOND N PASCH RAYMOND.N PASCH .TAXPAYER : : NAME/ADDR 3300 NAVARRE LA • . .' MAYZATA MN 55391 ; % PROP ADDR .0»MR NAME ..TAXPAYER • NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR OltlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR ’ i PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER . NAHE/ApDR I -• PROP ADDR 0»flER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38‘ 17-117-23 44 OlOl' 03360 SHORELINE DR t A C KOEHNEN. LEROY A CAROL KOEHNEN 26020 .VALLEYNOOO EXCELSIOR ttl 55331 38 17-117-23 44 0107 02304 SHADYNOOO RD CRAZ6 ALLEN BORCHARDT CRAZO ALLEN BORCHARDT 2304 SHAOYNOOD RD . MAYZATA m 55391 .. 38 17-117-23 44 0110 03290 NAVARRE LA CHARALAMPOS MARINOS CHARALAMPOS MARINOS 3290 NAVARRE U . MAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 11 0017 02455 SHADYHOOD RD JARZBO INC JARIBO ZNC ■ PO BOX.95 NAVARRE MN 55392 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST . .1 REPORT NO. PX435401 . PAGE 638 17-117-23 44 009400038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND 'si iT-lfF-ES 44 009502300 BAYVIEN PL'f w y .sHorie U ne38 17-117-23 44 0099 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 'CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO' j a *- rpusi.n POBOH ’66 ^ '•:r,\^^/.V'^;V;146pO 28TNAW CRYSTAL BAY MN 55559 W ,44; 0100;;,.;.;’, r , •, ;• •. , IfeLlNE'DRV".^ V ‘ • • • '■ • ■ ■■ ■ •• • • ■•--■•BLASS II.PARl^RS;-:..\f;-'-.../;;-.'. .BLASS IX PAfttNElto 28TNAVEJ;' • i 38 17-117-23 44 0102 02305 SHAOYNOOD RD S H SCHMIDT A S J SCHMIDT STEPHEN H SCHMIDT 2385 SHADYNOOO RD BOX 15 NAYZATA' rW 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0108 02260 BAYVIEN PL JACqUELYNN J SEGNER JACqUELYNN J SEGNER 2260 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 11 0002 02420 SHADYNOOO RD VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS CO RD 15 A 19 NAVARRE m 55392 38 20-117-23 11 0018 02455 SHADYHOOD RD P M ENGLUNO ET AL TRUSTEES PAUL M A JEANNE H ENGLUNO PO BOX 95 NAVARRE MN 55392 •■.i8\-i7-ix>-lfs.:^4'.<9X06-.;V• •'•0*308 SHABYitoOD RD •*.'•.02308 SHAbVltoOO RD ... .PHYLLIS HENDERSdK. ■ , •..••/ V i'.; ‘•.....; ; PHYLLIS HENDERSON -PHYLLIS HENDERSON !. 2308 SHADYNOOO RD . 'MAYZATA MN 5539X, t • ; 4 *• • ^ .38 X7-1X7-23 44 0109 03286 NAVARRE lA . • BRACE MARIE DAHL . •*. ‘ v:..biurt MARIE oaMCi.- v- y P 0 BOX 2.22 .* . V * . NicOMIA ‘MM iiSi67 8 ; 38 20-1X7-23 Xl'06X5 .02445 SHAbYHOOORD.,- ,XST NATL BAMt b^ NAVAREB ' XST NATL f AIK , or. NAVARRE ' CO ROAD Xb.i CbVROAD 19- NAVARRE IM S»92 . i ‘ t a i - r •• ■,i8 20-1X7-23 XX n024 ' •; .03333 ■ SHORELINE OR ..• Not company • . SUPER VALU stores INC . ; corporate TAX DEPT ‘ . s . •... . .,.. PO BOX 990. ; MPLS MN 55440 . • * . ' ‘ ' • .*• . • • ..., .* . .. ,..ri • f ?RUN, 0A‘BATCH j, .'.P rop ai'.i/OHNER I ■ TAXPAYI.1 , >.NAHB/ ‘PROP A' • OltlER I TAXPAY: NAME/. PROP AI OltlER I TAXPAYI NAME/< • » f • * 4 \* •• ■ / ■ • » . . •; :'DUN,DATE 0S/X9/96.■ BATCH 502* , .’.PRbP AODR .if OltlER HAMEtaxpayer. , %■ PROP ADDR ' CMffiR NAHE TAXPAYER KAME/AOPR 36. 20-117-23 11 0031 . 02465 SHAOYHOOO RO 1ST NATL DK OF NAVARRE 1ST.NATL BX-OF. NAVARREMAHE/ADOR P 6 BOX 123 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST i. t '•t >I.NAVARRE m-5539238 20-117-23 11 0039 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED .■ FRESHWATER FOUNDATION FRESHWATER FOUFUATION 725 CO RD 6 NAYZATA HN 55391' • y \ •»REPORT No. PX4S5401.'.■•PAGE 7'. ■<• ,• / V'. 02500 SHADY; ,vKv ‘-iv^':;^iF!RE8HNATERJ38 20-117-23 11 003200038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 1ST NATL BANK OF NAVARRE,1ST NATL BANK OF NAVARRE! ' . .p 0 BOX 123 ^ • V ; sprino Hzu. e£NrER • -'VS8 20-117-25 11V0034 :*•*1NAVARRE m 5539258 20-117-23 03423 SHORELINE RICHARD H KEAVENY ETAL RICHARD H KEAVENY P 0 BOX 59 NAVARRE MN 55392 INE DR • ■• 00058 . ADDRESS UNASSIGNED • _ _ _ __ _ _ _L.. * ... _ - -- ' -i t . . . •^ « . Y - • i I • •*KELLY COVE HMOHNRS ASN/ORbWO . V. ' . • • • / PROP ADDR (PMER NAME TAXPAYER . NAME/AODR # • 82' 16-117-23 33 0030 00082 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED FRESHWATER FOUNDATION FRESHHATER FOUNDATION 725 CO RD 6. • NAYZATA MN 55391- TOTAL BATCH . ; » . i« * .... •• • - * 'i ‘ ^ • 502 OO097 \ 4 9 •• « • •• • . - *. r.- • • • . . . . • .* 1*’ • ii; •fe . •;* .*• I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND' TRUE - • ■ / i.. ' • REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS.THIS BATE OH-.THE RECOROi ! •. ! i OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF, PROPERTY TAXATltiN# TO THB. BESt- . - / • • . * ♦' ■ • ■ • t < ‘ * •“ . *^* • •. * . * '■ *' V • V»r ‘ ' ; OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE I* “» •'* ir‘r>. * ... ■ -* • •• ■ * •• . •••l ,'J .i' ‘.,i' **'••'>• V•' ::^Vv---- .* •/• *.?*.* , • ;*v;cn. /*• Vv\\’* •: V*/ ‘ • .*• *’• . .* V / ‘ ’ • .• . ’'• •- >■ JJ"** • ^ Y* .- ‘I. . • • ' •^iV^;■■■■■'v/.? >.: -• -•• . .■ • *• • •, . • ’ *■ • i-. *• * • • • .• ••• _• /, • V # ' • •. . . • • . • :• ••" V-.. • •;•• • • \ ' / • ' •• . • / \ V- V . :• k ■ ‘ . .. '•» ’ • •■* • ‘ • . ■ • i \\ .* ’• •* • ■ • /ifr.-s ^ W f s I 5 cjiyfk^ a Co(yL&- cO^yih^^CT^^ CO^^-^yP 6/hZpyiATU-^ c:— cy D'/L aMc^^ / CuJliXA^ Acit ^Z^ryl) yxytyijbLC^ Aatvi^ c-r\ cilf ytAfi 1^ jc^ / au^AJ^ , 9^ 4*14 OcAf^ddLyAl ^ (Xc-c^^ C5^ /I LtO W c. ^ t. ^1. i^'—' •• •• . *«►- ..r'4'.' -'.. « ■•-■• t ~T^ * • -uir-\ 5^ __ \ • ' .—A"' CITY OF ORONO ^ 6124730510 06/25/97 09:52 0 :02/05 NO:463 PARKING CALCULATIONS: RCTAl SMCe ht aOOfi: 4.344 if OWE-THW: 2.S7« if BMK SPtCL lit FLOOR; 4.000 if RCTM. SPACC 2nd FLOOR: 7,984 if total eULOlNC aOOR area ; 18.184 if 18,984 If X 90X /200 - 85 ipoca BBEK..B fflBW along OOUMQN LMC; 18 ALONG C«. Rd. No. 19: 24 ALONG Ml PROR. IK; 18 AT aHOIC SOEWAIK: » total : 85 ccncral parnnc spaces to be 9‘ I 20* HAIOCAP PAMN6 SPACES TO 8E 9’ i 20’ MIH AOiACENT S’ ■ 20"HO PARXMC’ LOAOMG AREA. HAfOCAP PAfNNG SPACES TO BE CLCAAr OESCNATEO BT 9CNS AfC PAMTEO OECAIS ON PAWNG AS PER COOES HARDCOVER NOTES: SAi£L£BCCBlXi (■/Vbcotion V Nowfi): HWCflVCT m. II; Hordcoiy. Grim Areo: Biki Poth; maisusBUi Grim Arm: STBUCTUIWL COVER, BuMug Fmtprint: 85,455 If 36,704 If 17,548 If 17.945 If Ut1 If 11,076 if 8,092 If 2,984 If 1I.( 11.000 If / 85.455 If - 131 o 952 •— 952 — > W( WE pr sil Sl( su exi grc C0‘ cul cut cu 8£NCNMAF PROPOSEC (SEE PIAF DRAINAGE POND STAGE-STORAGE INFORMATION ELEVATION 936.0 937.0 938.0 939.0 940.0 941.0 942.0 ARE4 (ifl 630 1215 1600 2385 2970 3555 4140 VOLUME feu, rrm 922 1508 2092 2678 3262 3848 5000 VOLUME OF POND, AS BWLI 14,310 Cu. FEET NORMAL WATER LEVa (NWL) « 941.0 100 YEAR HIGH WATER LEVa (HWL) -942.0 ,700 CU,2.5' RUNOFF VOLUME - 11.71 FEET '-S ':. ^ “ . •• •* *•.* ‘r ^CtTUfKTlTtl r.TiUi i:fTO iiTimt ^■iit rtiv^t] ^TiTira-j kliT«V:MM ^•rt] •likiCil p.riTiMifsi ^iclitiirij ^Tilimi] ^TiTlViIt ^TiTtBrtl rtiMii PTiUtTtfsliltl rtVTiT^ rtrorTTRi WmiJlKl llWlIrtlOliR] FEE OWNER:ORANTQR: MOPTH rFMTR AT. rOMSFRVATIVF ADAM SMTTH COMPANY. RARTIST ASRort ATION1 A MiiwesoU cocpomtion By:t By: 1 GRANTEE: VOYAOEUR SERVICE CENTERS, INC. a Minnesota corporation By: (STATE OF MINNESOTA ^ )SS. rnifNTVOF j TTi<» fftreyniny instniment vm* acVnowledyed befnrg me this _______________________thg of NORTH C Hay nf Jung. 1907. bv rONSERVATlVF BAPTIST ASSOTIATIQN. a i State nf Minnesota- nn hghfllf nf said corporation, ifit entporation under the laws of the STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF_________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this____day of June, 1997, by .the of [ADAM] SMITH (ADAMSf COMPANY, a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public ll2S9W2«V|R£DfXX: 170 ’H <;70’0N CT:t7t 2P..<;0 NOT : nr OOAtJ EXiriBITA (Property) Addition. Lake Minnetonka; and <hat pan of Lot 5 Block 3. Townsite of Langdon Park, described as foKows; ’ •**!iI'*M***t?' thence Nonhwestcfly along the Nottheriy line of said Ul 5 Co the Nonbeasteriy line of the public highway ninning^ss said Lot 5 and ^ as Mumetonka Uke Park and Maple Pli^ Road ^w Coimtv m S~>J^y along the NonheasBrly lin/of said r^toZS ^o?L o 5-‘ Northerly along the Easterly line of said Lot S to the point of beS^^ Hennqitn COunQr Abstract and Torrens Property Torrens Certincate No. 776469 on - ^ <;7n ’ on t??: t??; n T nn^r? iT •■ •. *'••■• - - • f >i » *^ iVJ t|« f 1«l|« f ,o 1 • • »I * • ^ I • ■ ■• t Ji-T*.i#.Ti, • m • • *•« • •♦# - • *(«(«• •.I *iti T • • mm* «• • • *1 • .• !• >1 I •I . »• *T , "ili'."-* «•( W 612 6361311 07/16/97 10:27 0 :01/02 NO:855 Boneitroo. Bosene Anderhk 4*nd Assoo^^tes fr^C »J *vi Afftrm^:i¥tr An on fau«4/ Opportunity cmpio^ef P/fncip^it Otfo C 0C''estr->o PE • Joiep>^ C Ande^Nk PE • M^srv n L PF • Richard E Turner P£ • R Cooi* P£ • Pcbe't G Scr>unicht. PE • ;t»ry A Bourdon PE • Rabcrr W Itoicne PE i%nd Sut^n M ECcnm C PA . Sen-or Contuit^r*u Associate PrincipAH Hov^jird A S^nfo'd PE • Ke>in A Gordon PS • Pooert P P»eff#»rln. pf • Rich.vd W Foitpr, PE • Opvid O lo?i«ot.i PE • Wooer* C Rus$ei» A l A • Mprk A W^nson. PE • Mrch^er T R^im^^nn. P£ • Ted K F«eid PE • Kennetn P Anderson. Pf • M^rk » Rolfs. PE • Sidney ® Wil'i^mson P£ . 7 S • RoOert F Xotsmitn Officei Si Paul. Rocnesier '4/mr?iar ana St CiOud. MN • Vi'weu^ee Wl BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects July 15. 1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re; O'Sullivan ’s File No. 139-2267 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the site plan for the proposed commercial driveway for the Culver’s site located on the east side of Shadywood Road (CSAH 19), north of Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15) in Navarre. The proposal includes an access easement over the adjacent church property. There are several engineering issues that will need to be addressed. The Phase 2 sit'; plan shows two accesses onto Shadywood Road. The soi th access is very close to the signalized intersection. This access will create problems with traffic on the county roads. We would recommend that the site be served with only one access at a location further north of the intersection. As a minimum we would suggest that the south access be restricted to only right-turn in/right-tum out movements. Left turn movements should only be made at the north access. Hennepin County traffic engineers should review the site plan to determine the traffic impacts on CS/^ 19. Their review should include the proposed access locations and whether or not additional right-of-way is necaed in this vicinity. The proposed driveway will create additional conflicts if the County plans to construct a free right turn from westbound CSAH 15 to northbound CSAH 19. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. ours very truly BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Jo. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. T 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 r I I iiiliiiii Hennepin County ___________ ^ Aa E<|ual Opporliiaily Imployer ■ K July 14, 1997 Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: O’Sullivan Proposal, CSAH 19 Mike: As we discussed, Hennepin County will issue a permit for the slight relocation and use of the proposed access to CSAH 19 approximately 150 feet north of CSAH 15. Please remind the applicant to obtain a county permit prior to any work within the road right of way. Thank you for the timely inquiry and please call with further questions. Sincerely, David K. Zctterstrom ■ ntrance Permit Coordinator DKZ:jrh Depiitment otPubOc Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins. MinneK>U 55343-8496 (612)930-2300 FAX:(612)930-2313 TDD:(612)930-2696 SecydtdFiftr • L CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 8 0 A RESOLUTION AGREEING TO THE FUTURE VACATION OF AN UNUSED PORTION OF NAVARRE LANE IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 117 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST IN THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 2197 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 1996, John O'Sullivan (hereinafter the "applicant") in conjunction with North Central Conservative Baptist Association filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: Beginning at the most easterly comer of Lot 21, "Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka"; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 21 extended to a point 33.0 feet northwesterly from the northwesterly line of Outlot C, "Lafayette Ridge", as measured perpendicularly from said northwesterly line; thence southwesterly parallel to the northwesterly line of said Outlot C to the most northerly comer of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1433; thence southwesterly to a point on the northwesterly line of said Tract A, 253.03 feet southwesterly of the most northerly comer of said Tract A; thence North 31 degrees 52 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 43.82 feet more or less to a point on the southeasterly line of Lot 5, Block 3, "Townsite of Langdon Park"; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Lot 5, Block 3 to the most easterly comer of said Lot 5, Block 3; thence southeasterly along the southwesterly line of Lot 22, "Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka" to the most southerly point of said Lot 22; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly lines of Lots 22 and 21, "Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka" to the point of beginning; and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held before the Orono Planning Commission on November 18, 1996, regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and Page 1 of 3 m CSHO CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.S 0 WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the requested vacation; and the City Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation, as proposed and with suitable conditions, is in keeping with the public interest in consideration of the following findings: 1. The vacation will not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. 2. 3. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated right-of-way as a road except for utilities, drainage and access purposes hereinafter described. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it currently exists serves no public purposes w'hich cannot be satisfied via the use of easements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of John O’Sullivan and North Central Conservative Baptist Association is conditionally approved and that the City hereby agrees to take formal action to vacate said portion of Navarre Lane subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. The City will formally vacate Navarre Lane at the time development of the adjacent 2380 Shadywood Road site is commenced by the applicant. This agreement to complete the vacation shall be more formalized in the form of a Developer's Agreement. In conjunction with applicant's development of the property located at 2380 Shadywood Road, applicant agrees to construct a sidewalk/bike path near the northwest boundary of the property, linking Olive Avenue and Shadywood Road, the design of such sidewall^ike path subject to review by the City Engineer and approval by the City Council. Applicant shall grant utilities, access and drainage easements over the portion of Navarre Lane to be vacated. Page 2 of 3 «SHO CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. — 8 5? 3 0------ 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Applicant shall grant to the City a 10' easement for future trail purposes along the northeasterly boundary of the 2380 Shady wood Road property adjacent to Olive Avenue. Applicant shall grant to the City a 10' wide trail easement centered on the centerline of the sidewalk/bike path to be located near the northwesterly boundary of the 2380 Shady wood Road property. Although the City is being granted trail easements over the pedestrian and bike pathway, that path within applicant's property boundaries shall be maintained by the property owner, not by the City. It is the City's intent that all upkeep, maintenance and snow removal activity will be the responsibility of the property owner, not of the City. Applicant shall legally combine the vacated portions of right-of-way with the adjacent 2380 Shady wood Road property. Applicant shall be responsible for executing the appropriate drainage, utility, access and pedestrian/bike trail easements as noted above. Such easements shall be filed at the time the vacation resolution is filed by the City Attorney's Office. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Mirmesota at a regular meeting held January 13, 1997. Page 3 of 3 ) COUM‘"'‘'"i'envG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AU g Xi ^op, issr DATE: August ITEM NO, Department Approval: . ^ Name Michael P. Gaffron /f^/^ Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2269 Conley Brooks, Jr. and Gerald McCourtney, 980/1045/1055 West Femdale Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement__________ Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Sewered Application: "Uncombined” two small lakeshore parcels that were previously combined, for attachment to adjacent homestead properties. List of Exhibits Notice of Planrmg Commission Action 7/29/97 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Memo and Exhibits of 7/17/97 Two Letters from Attorney Kevin DeVore Dated 8/6/97 Gaffron Letter to DeVore Dated 8/6/97 Letter from Attorney Robert Mitchell to City 8/6/97 Letter from Mitchell to DeVore 8/8/97 Summary of Request Brooks (980 West Femdale) and McCourtney (1055 West Femdale) are purchasing the former Henry Millard Skarp property at 1045 West Femdale Road. That property consists of a half acre tax parcel adjacent to the lake containing an existing house (currently being removed) ^d two separate tax parcels on the north side of Femdale Road, one of which contains an existing garage that encroaches the Femdale Road right-of-way. McCourtney and Brooks are splitting the lakeshore parcel along the pre-existing boundary line between Lots 11 and 12. McCourtney will combine the westerly portion of this parcel with his adjacent homestead property. Brooks proposes to combine the easterly half of this parcel and the two parcels north of the road, with his adjacent homestead property at 980 West Femdale, which is on the north side of the road. The survey work provided for this relatively straightforward request, indicated a complex series of somewhat related issues which are described later in this memo. \ Request for Council Action continued Page 2 August 8,1997 Zoning File # 2269 Conley Brooks, Jr. and Gerald McCourtney, 980/1045/1055 West Femdale _____Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement______________________________ Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this request at their July 21 meeting, and on a vote of 6 to 0 recommended approval only of the basic proposed division/recombination of the 1045 parcel south of the road per the original lot line separating Lots 11 and 12, North Shore Cottage Acres Lake Minnetonka. The approval is subject to: 1. The westerly portion being legally combined with the McCourtney property. 2. McCourtney to remove the existing residence on tliat property. 3. That the easterly portion be combined with Brooks' residence and the two northerly parcels of 1045. 4. That if Hennepin County will not allow this combination across the roadway that Brooks must complete a "Special Lot Combination" for filing in the title of those parcels (identified as Parcels A, E, H and F on the submitted survey). 5. Regarding the existing garage on Parcel H, Planning Commission agreed that it needs to be removed, but acknowledged Brooks may want to leave it as is until he firms up his plans for potentially replacing it. As a result, Plying Commission did not make removal of the existing garage a condition of approval. 6. Planning Commission and staff made it clear that the recommendation for approval does not include approval of, or implied approval of, any actions in regard to Parcels B, C or D as shown on the survey, each of which does not appear on current County plat maps as a separate tax parcel, and each of which may require City action or approvals as yet undetermined. The basis for Planning Commission's conclusion included how the proposal meets the zoning district lot area and wddth standards, and whether the properties to be recombined are adjacent and eligible for combination. The McCourtney property is directly adjacent. The Brooks property upon combination of Parcels A, E and H will be directly across Femdale Road from Parcel F. Many similar lot arrangements exist in Orono, and it has long been the Citys practice to recognize 'adjacency' of commonly owned parcels directly across the road when one of the parcels is merely a lakeshore strip. Planning Commission could easily confirm that the McCourtney property would end up with a lot that meets the 200' width stand^d, although it does not gain enough acreage to meet the two acre standard. Planning Commission was also Request for Council Action continued Page 3 August 8, 1997 Zoning File # 2269 Conley Brooks, Jr. and Gerald McCourtney, 980/1045/1055 West Femdale ______Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement_________________ aware that if Brooks does not gain title to Parcel B, his contiguous shoreline as measured in a straight line from extended-lot-line to extended-lot-line will be approximately 195', just short of the 200' standard for the LR-IA zoning district. Planning Commission chose noi to require that the dividing line be revised; Brooks property is satisfactory with a 195' defined width per their recommendation. Issues Surrounding Parcels B, C and D As noted in the memo of July 17, Parcel B is a 20' strip at the east end of the Skarp property which does not show up on plat maps. Information received since the Planning Commission meeting confirms that this 20' segment was deeded from Skarp to the owners of 960 and 980 West Femdale in 1951. Mr. Mitchell on behalf of Mr. Brooks has filed a 'Proceeding Subsequent' and Title Registration documents with the court in order to establish the ownership of Parcel B, as well as that of Parcel D, which is the property south of the centerline of Femdale Road across firom Brooks and Floyd. To make a long and complex story somewhat manageable; 1. 5. There have been docks located at Parcel B since at least 1970 or earlier, used by the owners of 960 and 980 across the road. The owners of 960, the Floyds, raised a concern at the Planning Commission meeting that in their opinion the City is acting prematurely to approve the 1045 split prior to final court action on the ownership of Parcels B and D. It is staffs conclusion that regardless of who owns Parcels B and D, it is apparent that Parcel B will end up as a separate property from the parcel being split for recombination. The use of Parcel B for dockage for 960 and 980 is a separate issue for the City to deal with in the future, ^. ven its width, and given its non-adjacency to (and not being directly across from) the 960 property it was intended to serve. The history of platting in this area may ultimately result in the court concluding that Parcel D is in fact in private ownership with the City having the right to maintain its road and shoulders as it has historically. Documentation provided by Mitchell suggests that if Brooks ends up with Parcel D, he is willing to allow Floyd to acquire a strip of shoreline across from - iv r ' Request for Council Action continued Page 4 August 8,1997 Zoning File # 2269 Conley Brooks, Jr. and Gerald McCourtney, 980/1045/1055 West Femdale Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement 7. Floyd's property in exchange for Floyd eliminating his interest in Parcel B. An additional issue is that Brooks wishes to separate Parcel C from 905 West Femdale to which it has been legally combined in the past; the issue for the City is reducing the 0-75' lot area for 905 West Femdale, noting that the majority of the house at 905 is within 75' of the lake, and Parcel C may have been used for calculating hardcover for 905. Staff Recommendation Staff has been in contact with the attorneys for both Floyd and Brooks, and they have each provided information clarifying their concerns. I have advised each that they will have an opportunity at the Council meeting to make their positions known regarding this application. It is staffs opinion that the proposed splitting of 1045 in conjunction with the proposed combinations, is a positive conclusion from the City's perspective. This is because the Skarp property is nearly all within the 75' setback, and if it is not purchased as additional land area for an adjacent property, there would be pressure on the City to grant variances to allow construction of a single family residence on this extremely substandard lakeshore property. It is also staffs opinion that this subdivision/recombination can be accomplished without the City making any commitments as to future usage of Parcels B, C and D, each of which has separate issues related to its existence or usage, and each of which may require separate applications and separate City approvals for the various existing or proposed uses or ownership transfers. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed division subject to combination of Parcels G and I with Parcel J, and Parcel F with Parcels A, E and H. The following are recommended as additional conditions of approval: 1. Removal of the existing house on Parcels G and I should happen immediately. 2.Allow Brooks no more than one year to resolve what will happen with the non- conforming garage on the north side of the road, and at the end of that time require it be removed if it hasn't been. If Hennepin County will not allow legal combination across the roadway. Brooks must complete a "Special Lot Combination" for filing in the title of Parcels A, E, H and F. Request for Council Action continued Page 5 August 8,1997 Zoning File # 2269 Conley Brooks, Jr. and Gerald McCourtney, 980/1045/1055 West Femdalc _____Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement______________________________ 4. This approval does not include any approvals, commitments or representations regarding Parcels B, C and D as relates to the ownership or use of said parcels. 5.Staff is directed to draft a resolution formalizing the approval as noted above, for future Council adoption. 6. Adoption of such resolution shall occur only after the applicants have provided satisfactory evidence of ownership, including a title opinion, for the properties being divided and combined. Options for Action Approve per staff recommendation. Approve with additional or revised conditions. Table for further information or for other reasons. Deny (provide staff and applicant with reasons and oirection). 5.Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Take action regarding this subdivision per the above staff recommendation. LIN'.MIKE\.ME.M02269 C « CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2269NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 29, 1997 TO: Conley Brooks, Jr. & Carol G. Brooks 980 West Femdale Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO:Gerald McCourtney 1055 West Femdale Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Subdivision - Lot Line Rearrangement DATE OF MEETING: 7/21/97 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below, NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Approval only of the proposed division of PINS #02-117-23 43 0024 per original lot line separating Lots 11 and 12, North Shore Cottage Acres Lake Minnetonka, subject to: 1. "Part of Lot 11" portion to be legally combined with McCourtney property. 2. McCourtney to remove existing residence on said "Part of Lot 11". 3. Lot 12 (Parcel F on submitted survey) to be combined with Parcels A, E and H, 4. If Hennepin County will not allow this combination across a roadway, Brooks must complete a "special lot combination" for filing in the title of Parcels A-E-H-F. 5. Brooks is advised that replacement of existing garage on Parcel H will require variances, and that the existing garage is non-conforming. 6. All parties are advised that this approval does not include an approval of (nor commitment, nor intent to approve) any actions in regard to Parcels B, C or D as shown on the survey, each of which does not appear on current County plat maps as a separate tax parcel, and each of which may require City action or approvals as yet undetermined. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, August 11, 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. In the event of Council approval, applicants must provide a title opinion for all parcels to be combined, confirming ownership and encumbrances, prior to the City Attorney recording approval documents with the Hennepin County Tax Office. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997(#17) #2268 ROBERT T. CALLAN 2995 DEER RUN TRAIL VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:09-10:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaf&on reported that the application is for a front setback variance for constmction of a new residence on a back lot. He reviewed the orientation of the residence noting it would be served by a private driveway outlot. By definition, the lot line abutting the access outlet is the front lot line of a back lot, resulting in the east lot line becoming the front lot line. Tlus is inconsistent with the other lots on the south side of Deer Run Trail, all of which have their designated side lot lines as the easterly or westerly lot lines. The property owner’s intent is for this residence to face north. The back lot requirements result in a 75' setback where there would nonaally be a 30' side setback. The home will be oriented similar to the other homes on Deer Run 1 rail. One and a halftimes the normal side setback would result in 45', which is the east setback requested by the • applicant. Staff recommended approval with the condition that the house be oriented the same as the other homes in the area. The applicant noted that this will aid in buffering of trees for tlie septic sites. He wants to maintain the trees on the property. The variance will eliminate cutting into the hill on the west side of the lot. The applicant said the owner of adjacent Lot 5 would like to comment but was unable to attend. He will have the opportunity at the Council review to respond. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2268. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#18) #2269 CONLEY BROOKS AND GERALD MCCOURTNEY 1045 FERNDALE ROAD WEST SUBDIVISION OF LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 10:14-10:37 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997(#18 - #2269 Conley Brooks and Gerald McCourtney - Continued) Gaf&on reported that the application is for a lot line rearrangement for property on West Femdale Road. The existing substandard lot is proposed to be divided and attached to two adjacent properties. Gaffron reviewed the division. The property at 1045 Femdale Road West (lots 11 and 12) with an existing house \vill be split* with a portion added to the McCourtney property to the west and the remainder to the Brooks property to the north across the road. The house at 1045 will bf* removed. The portion of lO'i *i north of the road, Parcels H and E, will be combined with Parcels A and F. Gaffron noted potential difficulties identified by the submitted survey, including the separation of Parcel C from 905 West Femdale. He said ^s would have to be considered under a separate application. Gaffron did not know whether it had been used for hardcover calculations for 905. He indicated that there are docks on the small property (Parcel B) not shown on the plat maps and it is not known what properties they serve. He noted there are discrepancies between the survey submitted and the County plat maps. Gaffron said the proposal adds lakeshore to property currently not having lakeshore. He indicated that a "Special Lot Combination" can be required if combination of two lots separated by the road is not allowed by the County. It would then require City approval to sell the combined parcels separately. Gaffron said staff recommends approval of the subdivision with recombination of parcels as proposed. The applicant was questioned regarding his intent for the existing garage noting the existing residence would be removed. McCourtney said the garage is already located there, and he intends to replace it. He indicated he would probably need other variances to do so. He asked if he would be compromising his position if he removes the garage now for reconstmction later. Lindquist said he would be in a better position if he left the garage in place for the time being. The other Commissioners agreed. McCourtney said he would come back before the Planning Commission with his plans in the near future. Gaffron said he would recommend removal but the applicant has the prerogative to keep it in place. He noted that the garage encroaches into the right-of-way and is in a dilapidated condition and would have to be removed at some point. He agreed that the applicant is better off leaving it in place for the time being. Lindquist noted that the setbacks would then be known. During public comments, a gentleman said he represented Robert Floyd, the owner of 960 Femdale. He asked what the criteria is for allowing a property to subdivide for greater access to the lake and how it reflects on the future for other property owners. Lindquist said the Commission reviews the applications case by case. r' ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING minutes for JULY 21,1997 (#18 - #2269 Conley Brooks and Gerald McCourtney - Continued) In noting P^cels F and G as they currently exist in combination are substandard, Gaffron said the City IS better off if the lots are not sold as a separate entity, as significant variances would be required to build since the majority of the property is in the 0-75' setback. He indicated that the I^opose sp It nearly meets the standard for 200* width and w'ould require a slight adjustment to ^e west to ensure 200 ’ width if that is an issue. Gaffron thought the plat map shows enough total frontage to meet that standard. Lindquist clarified that this is a special condition. He was asked if tms decision affects the 20’ strip of land in question. Lindquist said the deeds would have to be reviewed. The representative of Mr. Floyd said research was done, and he had a good idea who o\^ed the strip of land. He said he would not want to have this application’s decision affect Other property. Hawn indicated that it would be difficult to say whether the application would impact other propeity. She indicated that the current application is clear in its intent and the Commission is only able to address the particular application at this time, not the other issues noted by staff. to^s^f ‘^onn®^ the representative that he is welcome to present any information he might have Robert Floyd said he had a number of concerns. He said he understood the issue of non- cortformity but felt the desire to acquire shoreline would affect others. He asked what the criteria IS for special conditions. He added that he is concerned with the larger picuire and making a decision in a vacuum. He feels the decision will affect his property and his value and is inappropnate. He feels the Commission is opening a "Pandora’s Box". Schroeder smd he imderstood the applicants pui chased the property and have agreed to divide it. He indicated that they have the right to a lot line rearrangement. a on said the City looks for adjacency when considering such applications. He noted that ^dmg to property across the roadway is more in question but the City has done so elsewhere. He noted ^at Parcel F is a septate parcel subservient to the lot across the street (Parcels A-E-H) which he feels is as good an adjacency as can be found. He indicated that would be a substantial amount of lakeshore with the rearrangement. Gaffron said if the Commission determines the nwd to meet the 200 ’ standard, it can be discussed. He did not know how this subdivision would affect other docks in the area. R^rt Floyd said the combination would affect his lot. He said with rapidly growing lots, it is difficult to know how changes affect him. He wanted to know the rules of operation. He feels imi ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#18 - #2269 Conley Brooks and Gerald McCourtney - Continued) there would be a lot line shown as 5'. Schroeder indicated that the overriding issue is one of property purchase. Berg noted that people may purchase land and do a lot line rearrangement. She asked what the impact is that creates a problem for Floyd. Floyd said the ownership of Parcels B and D have not been determined. Berg said that determination does not affect this particular parcel. Floyd said he did not believe it was spelled out in the zoning code. Berg said she saw no negative result from this action. Berg informed Floyd that the Commission cannot hold off action pending a decision on parcels B and D as they do not know how that will address the issue. Floyd indicated that the lots were included in the evaluation. Berg said they were only referenced. Gaffron indicated there are other issues that are not discussable at this time. He said it was unfortunate that the survey work came in late which gave additional information that clearly needs resolution. Hawn indicated the Commission is obligated to act within 60 days on an application. Floyd said he thought there was an option of tabling the application to look at other areas of concern. Hawn said the applicants have the right to a decision. Schroeder said the outcome is not clear but he sees the first principle as being the elimination of a substandard lot. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2269 as outlined, with the recommendation the existing house be removed. The garage is not required to be removed. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. It was noted that the application will be reviewed at the August 11 Council meeting unless further information is provided that suggests some alternative action is appropriate. (#19) #2270 MARCIA AND KENNETH HICKEY 4640 TONKAVIEW LANE VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 10:37-10:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted, The Applicant was present. 1 r L To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator July 17, 1997 Subject:#2269 Conley Brooks/Gerald McCourtney, 980-1045-1055 Femdale Road West - Proposed Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Sewered Application: 'Uncombme' two small lakeshore parcels that were previously combined, for attachment to adjacent homestead properties. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Public Notice F - Staff Sketch: Proposed Combinations Letter from Attorney of Property Owners at 960 West FemdaleG - Summary of Application ^. Brooks and Mr. McCourtney are purchasing the property at 1045 West Femdale Road a half acre tax parcel that contains a small existing house. Applicants propose to remove the existing ho^e, and split the property along the boundary between Lots 11 and 12, each combming their respective portions with their homestead properties. The McCoumey residence is directly adjacent to the west of the portion of property to be combined. The Brooks residence parcel is across Femdale Road from the lakeshore parcel intended for combination. ^ c proposed division/combination was not submitted to the City until July 15. The survey, as provided, suggests the potential need for other City approvals not directly related to the current application. These potentially include but are not limited to: The separation of Parcel C (see srjrvey) from the property at 905 West Femdale with which it currently is legally combined, and which parcel may have previously been used as area credit for hardcover variances for 905 West Femdale. T^e formal review and approval of docks apparently existing on the south side of Femdale Road and apparently serving the property(s) on the north side of c lit III mT i Zoning File #2269 July 17,1997 Femdale Road, which use apparenUy has no. been fonnaliy documented in City records. • n tho width of Femdale Road right-of-way, which on Resolve of issues concerning oronertv but on the plat maps appears the survey appears to be shown as pn P ^ whether Parcels B, C and to be dedicated right-of-way. ^ Hennepin County D are legitimately created parcels (they do not appear plat maps as separate parcels). Attorney Robert Mitchell, acting “d i^awme to the/may require informally discussed some of these issues with statt, ana additional formal applications and/or City approvals. Discussion staff is in complete support f‘^.^o Femdale and split the property- between the adjacent west lot line, house encroaches into (or at least abu s) -o-therlv half of the house, is within 75’ of theFurther, virtually all of this property except^ ed lake where no new to grant difficult variances for division/recombination avoids the City be g q construction of a new residence on the property. The property at 1045 West Femdale also includes That garage one of which contains an existing garage that en removed. Mr. Mitchell has hjcation. That issue has not been addressed as part o In Exhibit F, staff has sketched the “”^dy acro^^ bhe 980 residence parcel to be divided will be (^er combination as proposed, with *e X'- '• Xlm ttdmically allow a legal combination across the stipulation that if Hennepin County wi Femdale to execute a Special Lot road, it would be necessary for the ,h/separat^^ parcels, defining Uie Combination resolution to be filed on Xrship separation without ;st;; ,-n.—» a third party with intent to develop it. fASi > • Zoning File #2269 July 17, 1997 Page 3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed division/recombination of Parcels G and I with Parcel J, and Parcel F with Parcels A, E and H. Staff is making no recommendation at this time regarding the disposition or use of Parcels B, C and D which may require separate approvals or consideration as noted above. Options for Action (P 4. 5. Isv Recommend approval per staff recommendation, subject to the removal of the existing house at 1045 West Femdale on Parcels G and I, and removal of the non-confomung garage structure on Parcel H. 2. Recommend approval with additional or revised conditions. 3. Table pending receipt of additional information and/or formal applications for the separate issues noted in the staff memo. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Other. ; ! Application If Date Received A - j -7-47 Amount Paid k3^0^ V-'7#22 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress 9/^ a^^aS ^ /^Sf v /^*ts Property Identification Number (PIP) z-tn-Ll -VV ^pg, y - oao3 Please check one - Property ^ abstract or y torrens? Attach legal description to application. - OOA s. '‘^azx Name ^fiO^Ks ^R /vj> ^^OQkS' AddressPhone (home) ¥7i-7ij¥- City ^A^74TA ^oRofJo'\ /»?A)Zip i33y/ Phone (work) JSZ- JiY^ OWPnBR-(if different than applicant) Name ^ Address g^< yK<^x fr o (attacli list if iWore than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District _______Phone (home)_________^ Zip>5534, Phone (work)iT7J> Q f s 2L Acres Dry L and Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______• • PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites "3 Existing Units ^4it*C€ _________New Units 2. Total Units ^ cgAtte «I Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)________ . I MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMIg^ 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A.-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please anach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature _____________________________________ Dat e_______________________' MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signanire _____________________________________ Date _____________________________ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check p(] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S250.00 » ^ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all nori-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) . • I Totals ?sa I % Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/IineaI ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/IineaI ft; _ . lin. ft X .50 ® $, lin. ft X .50 = $ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 _____ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit ••• -4 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information requL'ed or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commissioij.and Council necessary^ process ^ applic^n and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signatui^e£jLL/<i<{SAr^'''''^'S^«<'^S-0 Date 7-^7 Owner's Signatun 7 Dat e ^’■2 7-J? Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 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 Comnaission 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. 06/30/1997 0S::506/27/1997 lei36 473-4435473-4439ti.COFFIN CiPOIIEEP'3. I -3ER<31AppUcal^OD »l>Mt0 lUcclTCd PAOE 0- 01' ^Tl " SUBDIVISION application imioferW location Sit^ address Pniparty Idemifieadoti Number (PID) Plw check ooe - Proper^____absti*:t or Alt|ioh legal dcacriptiun to application.terrtns? APPLICANT Nam e <S? Adldress City <^r ‘ Phone(homa) Zip Phene (work) OWNER (if different than applieanO Nuoe AdA Cily: __________ (tnaish Uat if more than one) ExtSTiN^ Land use Nui^bcr of Tax Pareels DeWlopmem $lse Zip Ffaont (bome). . Phone (wofk) ( I Pres4m use (cheek) I Praaaat Zoning Disolct Acres Dry Lead ^ Acres Wet Lead * __ Acres Total, all parcels _ RasidentUl; no. of uoats __ Other (specify) PROPOSAL — Division for Tax Puipoees ___; * ....I Lot Line Reanaagemcnt Only (no new buildUng sites) _____ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sitaa _________Existing Units '! ____ New Units __ Tolai Units Propcised Oreia Density MixiiinuiD Lot Stae Propbised Use (check) Units per____Acres $q. Ft. Dry BuUdable Land Residential Other (specify') ________ • I • < % . 11/12/15 00:39 TX/RX NO.0405' 1 P.002. Ob/iO-1006/27/1997 OFF IN 'nPONEEPCiH & GR9^B£RG 3. l?«>f«55r ^ LOijfnaalcMi «i c«ti5e*i. of •OB InpirTy Owacn Lict of ownci^ C€P(6iiJ|A«.J371)-(of Flntoca A-^03 zi«»li 0«^1 n«M MBd.. Mycat lin af my p^„ gw wirt i.atifl.4 „/i(,i. ^Pllcaiion if«pple*blcX A EascoMoa, sovaojnu, «ec. JOO^ Of^W ^^T*"*"* ***^ of Credit. Due Admioblntor to ebnk pq Ihote which tpply) ■— 221115 “ *r‘**^^*^*'***®*2so.ob ---------"Si!!!**®” 1350.00------- Appikatioii fei—j I A. n) $350.00 — ♦ «.oo^« (Ch» m « - LC(«rJUrvi«w m4 Fni«|^ ,. ...Subdivision only I73.00 k.X Wd oovciuau min. 1200.00 -------- Section 11.02) -------- 1^1 end Bn«in«vrin* MevW r«*« <m» Ipcuired) ----!u!!!3!l Jf ciU S200.00 (No Chance fiom oritincl wliectionj of FiSl A ?“>^pHc«icn 1200 00 (NochM«cfrom odfiMl .pf licclJon) BTs^^CilfliptoJc-ISJFw *“*^'^*““‘* 'S0.00(Nocb..,«cfree oHf(nclappHcnor) igttb “ —TT • •ww.w -•* S*50/Uiim I It; _ Fwpoifd Public Rocdi 1900.00 w $J0/lincaJ It; „ i " ^**P**?;|^ 9.^ Accept Eriaiat Fnvg» Ro^j S900.00 - 5®*'®y S«wcr Meta ExtcMioB 1250.00 ♦ $25/stu1 _ PropoMO Wetem^ Zxteiutijn ^0.00 *- l25/«tuh n^OCM Storm Sower Syvtwn (Mclodiac culw»a> $200.00 Review (tppUcoblc to rureJ rabdivisigo ippUectloAt) tba.n.x.50i«S lin. a * .50 - $ ■ wrw~w* 1^** ^ __________•••W C. FWsible Ap^fleoHoa Fccc/Mlac. Feco -------- VvtcniU 1330.00 (*30.00 per cvh additioiul vwiance) ______ Eaicmefli Vomdon Actocitted whfa SabdlvUien * 100.00 —.1 - PWJ A^iJcdtlon wiHi Subdiviiion S30.00/Eh^'ellin{ Unit ill hfermitton required or requesud by the Zontag AdmJnUtreror, Clxy tt cinc^. City Attorney. Flwwlni Comit>ii*.ori and Council ncceMHy to process thii applicadoo atid further Cgrocc to pey all •ddhtor tl fcci e*tabli»hed hy Applicani'e Siciahire^ • ^ ________________Da reud tiavv aitre^li^ inlo the City Offico 23 dai>i beftwt the PUankic CoouniMlon mactins. PUrmbisjCotruDlscton mrerirri ere iMid on tb« thud Monday Of each mottrti. Applicant nuot be pmcat at all tehtdulod review meeUop of ttM CommUtion ■bo Council. If yi a^liauu U un^U to anmd ■ eehcduled meeting please make ■rrangemacu tc heve an audbertai d ap«m «a«iv4 in yowr plica and to tdvire tho'BuildIns A Zonbg omeo of ihii ctanpa prior to dw mrCtiagT I Ovn«*i Sigaatwro 11/12/15 00:39 TX/RX NO.0405 P.004 05 Aoc« A^03 on: XftSib Anamty. Uihf J >»/ mrctipgi nvnlssioi^ id ift yowr amoT c (12) 7-/7 / 1 i w y y A <;77^-^3-H> y \g8C.l I ii / / » r . / ^4 V "; I /1 it' / - .%^.\ " effliyia'iri^- # / nn(ci»vylis \ iiucf R 'C'S' (M)> /»I s __TTTirijj^// 'f^ ii\) ^vn OF lOT R (?3) Mira" 5 ®:¥J:¥¥::j::::: ------------------ W i'MS 02-117-23-43 (6) J \ ■STATES rfX "'' VKtt^LvTE **•. 10! l« "^w- S** (?«)% (12) UTISX - ' ^^<=1/.fV w_____AJ*i ______J3<L9 ______ \i>. (3) 9>«»»T rxTS » Di'UC^ A b? C4! 9 ^ 02-117-23 -VV (15) 64 r CC-’JNTF' au0 ESTATES PART OE LOT ?2 123) \ RUN DATE 06/25/97 ir . r' BATCH 503PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR (MIER NAME TAXPAYER NA»C/ADDR HENNEPIN '•OUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST38 02-117-23 ^2 000900038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEOTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 38 02-117-23 43 01070 FERNDALE HENRY N SKARP HENRY H SKARP 1045 N FERNDALE RD HAYZATA MN 55391 0003 RD H 38 02-117-23 43 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO LOUISE M LOHRY NORNEST DANK MN TRUST REAL ESTATE 6TH £ MARQUETTE MPLS MN 55479-0046 38 02-117-23 43 0020 01101 FERNDALE RD N J 6 S S M LEDEDOFF JONATHAN G/SARAH M LEBED3FF 1101 FERNDALE RO H HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0023 01095 FERNDALE RO H B A K FOX BCE KATHERINE M FOX 1095 H FERNDALE RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 44 0010 00905 FERNDALE RO C BROOKS JR A C G BROOKS CONLEY JR A CAROL G BROOKS 905 FERNDALE RD H HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 000100038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEOTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 38 02-117-23 4Z: 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LOUISE M LOHRY NORHEST DANK MN C/0 TRUST REAL ESTATE 6TH A MARQUETTE MPLS MN 55479-0046 38 02-117-23 43 0007 01080 FERNDALE RD W H N SHIEBLER A J F SHIEBLER WILLIAM N/JOANNEF SHIEBLER 360 BEACON ST 82 BOSTON MA 02116 38 02-117-23 43 0021 01065 FERNDALE RD H JANE B NELSON TRUSTEE J B NELSON TRUSTEE 1065 FERNDALE RD H HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0024 01045 FERNDALE RO W HENRY M SKARP HENRY M SKARP 1045 FERNDALE RD H HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 44 0012 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCV 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1638 02-117-23 43 000201070 FERNDALE RD HNORHEST MN NA ASSO TRSTE NORW^ST DANK MN TRUST REAL ESTATE 6TH A MARQUETTE MPLS MN 55479-0046 38 02-117-23 43 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNA^SICrlED HENRY M SKARP HENRY M SKARP 1045 H FERNDALE RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 01105 FERNDALE RALPH C BAGLEY RALPH C BAGLEY 1105 FERNDALE RO 0016 RD H % HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0022 01055 FERNDALE RD H GERALD T MCCOURTNEY ET AL GERALD T MCCOURTNEY 1055 H FERNDALE ROAD HAYZATA MN 55391 n . ^' r I' • 38 02-117-23 44 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO C BROOKS JR A C G BROOKS CONLEY JR A CAROL 6 BROOKS 905 FERNDALE RD H HAYZATA MN 55391 i: *4 ; ..'i / I .il ls 02-117-23 44 0016 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 RUN DATE 06/25/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 17BATCH 503PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 02-117-23 49 001700960 FERNOALE RD H C A J FLOYDOR A MRS CHARLES P FLOYD 960 NEST FERNOALE RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 44 001800038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEDTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYNATURE CONSERVANCY1313 5TH ST S ESUITE 314MPLS MN 55414 38 02-117-23 44 001900980 FERNOALE RO H M A GUMUCIO A C GUMUCXO MARCELO A A CAROLE GUMUCIO 980 FERNOALE RO H HAYZATA MN 55391 i PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 99 02-117-23 41 0005 00702 CO RO NO 15 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 99 02-117-23 41 0006 00690 HILLSIDE OR W THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 . j TOTAL BATCH 503 00023 A I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE Al® TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNE'’IN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE Lnhfcn A I v' 9 7-I-? PROPOSED LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR GERALD MCCOURTNEY &: CONLEY BROOKS, .IN R. L. S. NO. 1372, COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, AND NORTH SHORE COTTAGE ACRES HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA JR. ./ tiOA4.ooefWTo« *^^ mmrntltmiMr^Ti tmh aJmTrTjCjlLT • t»wi■ •C»|||IImm9m9rnuaia ISilZJS'iS^ mMHiAtftaNMMMlamartf - -- --- ^^**« **«■**■* lMnv%tfa|MMMiana aiMaHBM mum ^ UtHOMVyOA • t« |M timgr «i Si « MMt n M P«l Mtf Ul iMM M imwrn 919m \rn9m ----------------mM ----- ■m ^ 9mymmmmmLm7i ma u —M<n iilaootatft9mmm |.Mi^iMtfkn4indi fK?^?nT?rSSJ^—^ 9m 9C^ Cy^Wpi<w,tn—i iL «Ult*ngtoti i(#i*I*il»t*tfO •« MM l«i an* tf OMmm Ui ] *ng » t«M* »Mtr MM| mH IMI to* M i« rtoMMa*Mto*iViy<.M^lM(lMw* I • MM* « ao M, am tauttoV PVMM C. A**Ult«,ltoiiaMO«I^MB #. yi»M*a*mi^o*i—w<ug<*watoa*Mto*MBMa^tMiti.TM*^toMy 5*]^ • 5» »** •» * «^ *Mto* X ■••<» to* M •• *irM» to* M C*M% Matoj^* 0««A^ toM m to* pto M ^OOUNTirr CLUa UfAftX »CM9W OC^. IIMCtCTA**«*lra«i*i ^MMImVIMM* to. ' ^**‘*^Sr <MlMlMtoB«Mto*M*MIOM*M«U*1 vMtol IM to* n*mm*m«v «M« M *Mi Ti«M X atow toutMM atoM tM iM^itoaitto C—■nto^gMaoltotiMga toftonaitoWiMw^MK WMto^to*«fHiatM< 9mta^mmm9L9%9mt lM4liti**l1to*Ml% l*l*|^MMUI< M *MI iM < a«to tMji Mtoi iM tea »« aw«M M M a*^** » M«to* li Mi i|^ to • p*M n *• totoi a* to/btoto^ to* to toa IM 4 to a« 99m$m»mmm^9m9t vmwmi 9Wm0^mm9m tolOOtototomton Mwtoa«Ato*UitaN*r«i'Mi ntito #/. 4tont«*MtoUlXmia**n0l rtoMMUiXtoan • •<• a*uto to* to •*« IM M • I to **tovtoto *M* to * toto» ntaai* ,to*fM«aotototoM**M _ • •Mtol to* to * p*M *M MM I*to UI to^ ta'i toto M*MI to a« »***■ a*uto totoig t« f«to to* to *Ma ito M •« ftoM to *M TMlXfX/MAlSn « WMMi*Mtot*M1.»M>tol iMtoTMXMJM* nn atof<I^tot«**to if. Ato*LtoQ*niaitoito« toUMI N*MI MtoKtoMtottoftoto toto* to* to **d Ui «00 toi( «toi ito « toto a*M to* »MM to* to to* lMto**to aanv to **M U( tototo****to atotowv toong to* E*to to* to **M lai » S iflMr^Bto: *n • Mw#l to* to • p*M to ( ito*to*toMUlto* ito* • p*M to *toif C*to Lto toA aa 1 toto Ml to t« rtoMMUXaton**i*itoitotoBto.tato.toMMltotoa.to***M iOtototoM Ito X a*toto 1-na.n. to to* aouai to* to MMto A**i «M ^ a*na **M a«toi to* to •«* n**d * to to* OMtoPitoM ito to* Mrt 24 F toto to ____________ _ai**Mito««to*to*aa*«toto* 14 toto a*ito to a*M to togtortog: am 14 a •to* lr«| a«ig a pvaan to Ito 12. Ml toi J. 1>Mp*<to1^X^aiUltoMa>to*yH* 12T2. M to to* MM* to Tto.^ »toto*M^*4irm C*wwi*r**tototo*lM- . toton to* Ntoto***MiV to* to Mto Tiato a * toiMtStotoi**n»«n*witoMa*tooti*i«Htoa*Bar* tot«to«i*b* a tora* f«toi*r% *to**»>g I* to* 4to« M to* toto toMitoai **toM M (11 Mto**L M ****nto. * aM*n** to lOQ toal to an ton m*r*jw*r*. i toto*toto(Itoto*to«r*ai*to|jto«l o 5S CD?5 QQ i.’l- §tf= 5^rt * ■, UJ *— R^sC_?o » *s “i's q: ^ 0 ^ ^ oo z Sui o 2 Q£ LJ CO 2 >- < LiJ lii^ <« ">UJ ^ 02 >- -'o Q ^LxJ ^ 01 - 2c a ^^ LiJ O i; I |5 I l»-b \ -•-iii« to*- if if I I ! 209 O ^ Q o 0 cw 2 8 ^ N [5 5 m p ft* 7) |83o> 1 =i 2 § 5 « S o -gSpms S m ro z m c/) ^ ^ CO H O -r,500 m ^ ^ CO CO sT^'v; CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 n- n NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, July 21, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. on the matter of application #2269, a request by Conley Brooks of 905 West Femdale Road and Gerald McCourtney of 1055 West Femdale Road for a metes and boimds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement of property located at 1045 West Femdale Road. Subject property is described as Part of Lots 11 and 12, North Shore Cottage Acres Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota and also known as PINS #02-117-23 43 0024 All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. Written comments are solicited. A map of the proposed subdivision is available in the City offices for review. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator To be published the week of July 5, 1997. f/ ^ - h' \ r I (_gm>ns Also 'it> 3 UloC>B^L/AJetS 0>Vwi^/AiAT7^/VX ffi^c £ls <tl> fits coM^z/'jef^ 1 Todd R. Iliff* Kevin VV. D eV ore A nn M. H/\le Iliff n-n & A ssociates , RA. A ttorneys A t Law Phone: 612/922-4647 Fax: 612/922-4788 July 16, 1997 Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomeren City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 j\j\.' 7 '797 . , .jriOMO Re: Lake Minnetonka Property Our File No. 1652.9701 Dear Ms. Van Zomeren: The undersigned is an attorney who has been retained by Charles and Joan Floyd, owners of the property located at 960 West Femdale Road, Wayzata, Minnesota ("Property"). I have been retained by the Floyds to assist them in protecting their interest in the use and development of lands surrounding their Property. It has come to my clients’ attention that there may now, or in the near future, be requests made by neighboring property owners to the City of Orono ("City") regarding subdividing properties adjacent to my clients’ Property. As concerned property owners, my clients request that you provide them with notice of any applications or other attempts by anyone to subdivide or otherwise change the current use and/or ownership status of any properties in and around my clients’ Property. Please provide such notice and/or information to my attention on behalf of the Floyds at the address stated below. If you have any questions cr comments with respect to this matter, please do not hesiiaie to contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, ILIFF & ASSOCIATES P.A. KWD/mam cc: Charles P. Floyd i:\rp\noyd.oro Kevin W. DeVore Attorney at Law A mericana Bank Building , 5050 France A venue South . Suite 240, Edina , MN 55410 * Certified by the Real Property Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association as a Real Property Law Specialist I ii ^ J n Todd R. Iliff* Kevin W. D eV ore Ann M. Hale Iliff & Associates, P.A. Attorneys At Law I8-3 Phone: 612/922-4647 Fax; 612/922-478S August 4, 1997 Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Charles D. Floyd Our File No. 1652.9701 Dear Mr. Gaffron: Of As you are aware, 1 am an attorney representing Charles and Joan Floyd, owners of the property located at 960 West Ferndale Road, Wayzata, Minnesota ("Property"). As you are also aware, I attended the City Planning Commission meeting held on Monday, July 21 1997 ("Meeting”). ’ At the Meeting, I spoke on behalf of my clients regarding their objection to the Application for Subdivision ("Application") of 1045 West Ferndale Road, Wayzata, Minnesota. Further, I requested that the Planmng Commission ("Commission") provide me with the criteria It used to approve the Application. In response, 1 was told the Application was approved because the property was just purchased and because the Commission makes its decisions on a case-by--ase basis. Moreover, one of the Commission members stated that property owners are left to negotiate freely amongst themselves and thereafter the Commission shall acknowledge any agreements that develop. In addition, we were told that we did not have grounds to object because my clients were not mentioned in the application. We disagree. We also disagree with the Commission’s approach to handling applications, such as the one in question here, based on how the land owners agree to the property’s usage. I understand that the Commission looks at these issues on a case-by-case oasis. However, I have also learned from experience that the Commission generally follows precedent from previous cases, which I do not believe it did on Monday. At the conclusion of the Meeting. 1 was confused as to how the Commission arrived at its approval of the Application. We strongly object to the precedent the City is setting and to the lack of the City ’s concern and action regarding the garage on the Skarp property, which IS obviously a public danger. Moreover, 1 was concerned that the Commission approved the Application without fully understanding the potential implications that may result in the future. I am referring to the additional properties that were referenced in subsequent correspondence m connection with the Application. Specifically, 1 am referring to the twenty (20) foot parcel Americana Bank Building , 5050 France Avenue South, Suite 240, Edina , MN 55410 * Certified by the Real Property Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association as a Real Property Law Specialist Todd R. Iliff Kevin VV. DeV ore Ann M. Hale Iliff & Associates , P.A. Attorneys At Law Phone: 612/922-4647 Fax; 612/922-4788 yi ^ TFT rrnPiFR TRANSMISSION August 4, 1997 received m av< OF OB0M.0Mr. Mike Gatfron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Lake Minnetonka Property Our File No. 1652.9701 Dear Mr. Gaffron; As you are aware, the undersigned is an attorney StimTtely approyed’ *= f” ^i^ We^tLairRoad'' mL^o^, “on used in ntahins its decision. ssrs’ eSi“;s:r?rc= - “s-ItE", AMSBtCAN* bank BU.LOINC. 5050 Fbance Av ENUE SOUTH. SUITE 240. Edina . MN 55410 i Mr. Mike Gaffron August 4, 1997 Page 2 of property connected to the eastern tip of 1045 West Ferndale Road, the strip of pro^PV 01 properly Ft-mdale Road that makes up the north shoreline of the h‘"^^d LM l^^fCrtrShore Lake Minnetonka property (collectively referred My events have acuta, and vested interests in dte Addmona, Properties and would like to make sure that their rights are protected. Mv clients’ concern regardins the Commission’s decision on Monday is that it may be Ae trone Prec^^^^ allowing property owners to subdivide properties simply ScL^se^ey desfre to obtain more lakeshore footage. Moreover, after givmg “^1 „7,he Annlication 1 am concerned that the Commission will not take mto senous SdOTtion my tots’ interest in the Additional Properties when their owmership and usage qu^sl" teLght to the Commission’s attention sometime tn the near future. The secondary purpose of this letter is to inform you that I have done 'f on all of the propeto in the surrounding area and currently we are waiting f" ® the Fxaminer of Titles of Hennepin County regarding the ownership of the Wenty ( ) parcel section. My clients are also currently in negotiations with Conley Brooks, Jr. regar i g how the Additional Properties will be used and/or owned. At this time, my clients object to the approval of the Application, the -------is not fully advised as to the circumstances surrounding the * my Sfto the Commission and the City Counsel should be more fully " on ths matter, including being updated on the ownership Ferndale Road. Properties before making a decision regarding the subdivision o If you need any informalnn regarding the various properties in P'^ me with any questions or concerns that you may have. Thank you. Very truly yours, ILIFF & ASSOCIATES P.A. KWD/mam cc: Charles P. Floyd i:'vrp\ltn\floydgaf Kevin W. DeVore Attorney at Law Ul/mr €lTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 August 6,1997 Kevin W. DeVore Iliff & Associates, P.A. Americana Bank Building 5050 France Avenue South, Suite 240 Edina, MN 55410 Re: #2269 Brooks/McCourtney - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Dear Mr. DeVore: In response to your letters of August 4,1 offer the following: 1.The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval with certain conditions, as noted in the attached Notice of Planning Commission Action dated July 29, 1997. The Planning Commission is a reconunending body only, and final action on tliis matter rests with the City Council. This item is scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council at their August 11 meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m. The Council could take action to approve the proposal at that meeting, they could table it for further information, or they could act to deny it. The minutes of the July 21 Planning Commission meeting are currently in draft form and subject to staff review and correction. They will not become official until approved by the Planning Commission at their August 18 meeting. I am attaching a draft with my penciled corrections for your use, however, be advised that these are not yet the official approved minutes. All meetings of the Planning Commission are audio taped, and the tapes are kept for one year. The official minutes are not, however, a verbatim transcript of the tape. A copy of the tape can be made available to you if you wish; contact the City Clerk at 473-7357. I A copy of the staff report and recommendation to the City Council will be available late in the day on Friday August 8th. I doubt that it will be available any earlier given the current staff work load, but if it is I will let you know. A copy of the report can be faxed to you or available for you to pick up when it's ready. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 F LINDQUIST & VENNUM p.l.l.p. 4200 IDS CENTER ao ScxjTH Eighth Street MlNNEAPOCtS, Mnne SOTA 55402-2205 Telephone . 612-371-3211 FAX: 612-371-3207 In Denver Lindquist , VEnnum & Christen 600 17TH STREET. SWTE 2125 Denver . Colorado 80202-540 Telephone : 303-573-5900 A ttorneys AT Law Robert G. Mitchell Jr. (612)371-3262 rmitcheli^lindquistxom August 6, 1997 Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway tong Lake, MN 55356 Gerald McCourtney Conley Brooks, Jr. ;,fear Mike: Enclosed are background documents pertinent to the McCourtney/Conley Brooks, Jr. subdivision request for the Skarp property. They are also pertinent to the application which Conley Brooks, Jr. is in the process of making regarding his portion of the Skarp property, 980 West Ferndale Road (Conley Brooks, Jr.'s new house), the land in Government Lot 1 (§2-117-23) lying south of the center line of Wesi Ferndale Road and 960 West Ferndale Road (the Floyd house). As I explained to you on August 5,19'J7, the second application has not yet been submitted because we do not yet have the survey work with hard cover data on it from Mark Gronberg. That data is necessary because one of the things Conley Brooks, Jr. would like to do is renovate the garage on that part of the EB01:920944 I KRISTEN 2125 ^•540 KX) LINDQUIST & VENNUM p.llp. Mr. Mike Gaffren August 6, 1997 Page 2 Skarp property on the north side of West Ferndale Road. I am sure you will have questions about the matter and I am happy to answer them. Very truly yours, LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.L.L.P. Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. RGM/els enclosure cc: Conley Brooks, Jr. Thomas J. Barrett EBOl.^20944 I 6.LINDQUIST & VENNUM p.l.l.p.4200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street 8'^ Q>In Denver ^ ^UNOQUtST, VENNUM & CHRISTENSEN P ULP.600 17th Street . Suite 2125Minneapous. Minnesota 55402-2205 Denver . Colorado 80202-540 1 TelEPH0NE:812-371.3211 T elephone : 303-573-5900 Attorneys At Law Robert C. Mitchell, Jr. (612)371-3262 rmitchell®lindquisLcom August 8, 1997 Mr. Kevin W. DeVore IIiff & Associates, P.A. Americana Bank Building 5050 France Avenue South - Suite 240 Edina, MN 55410 Re: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Floyd 960 West Ferndale Road Wayzata, Minnesota Dear Kevin: I have your two letters dated July 17, 1997. It appears that there are some factual matters which we can clarify. I asked Mark Gronberg, the surveyor, to put some additional data on the dock layout previously sent. The new data is on the dock layout enclosed. As you can see, the new data shows that there is about 50 feet of shoreline. One dock accommodating 2 fairly large boats can fit within the ' dock use area' as specified in the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ordinances. For your benefit, I enclose the pertinent portions of LMCD Ordinance Section 2 defining the allowable extent of a dock use area. In this case, the side setbacks required are 10 feet. The dock may extend out 60 feet in o the lake, except that room for navigability must be made for John Brooks, the lagoon user to the east. Consequently, the dock proposed does not extend the full 60 feet. Obviously you could reconfigure the dock and/or make the boat slips smaller to accommodate more , but smaller, boats rather than 2 large boats. I am somewhat perplexed about some of your legal conclusions. The law of municipal (City of Orono) road right of ways is quite well understood having been worked EB01;920054 1 s>LLP.LINDQUIST & VENNUM p.llp.Mr. Kevin W. DeVore August 8,1997 Page 2 over in Minnesota for over 150 years. The first essential point is that the public has the right to use land for road purposes, but that the underlying fee owner still owns the fee. Second, as you know, Minnesota Statute §160.05 has been interpreted to permit the public to obtain for use the traveled portion of the road and its necessary shoulders only. The controiiiiig Case involved County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) and the City of Orono! The principal that the underlying fee owner retains all other rights in the land is the most significant factor in this factual situation. In the Floyd case the only thing the underlying fee owner wishes to do is to connect his dock up against the shoreline so that he can reach his dock from dry land. The dock does not interfere with road use. This exact fact situation exists at many places around Lake Minnetonka. I enclose some half-section sheets showing multiple examples of residential properties where the house and the main portion of the lot is across the street from the lakeshore portion and the dock thereon. Many of these are in Orono and Minnetonka Beach, both of which I am closely familiar since I am the Minnetonka Beach city attorney. Furthermore, the example of the Scheiblers just to the west of this location is also on point. The Scheiblers situation is particularly pertinent because the matter of their dock went through Orono city procedures and the Scheiblers were permitted to have it join to the shore at a place where West Ferndale Road is dedicated to the city for a road in the plat of North Shore Cottage Acres. All of the issues which would be present for the Floyds also present in the Scheibler case; the Orono determination was that the Scheiblerswere EB01;920054_l LINDQUIST & VENNUM p llp.Mr. Kevin W, DeVore August 8, 1997 Page 3 were entitled to have a dock; in the Floyd case, however, there is no platted road 33 feet wide, only the rights granted by Minnesota Statute § 160.05. By contrast the 20 foot parcel on the old Skarp property has virtually insurmountable problems from a practical standpoint with regard to Lake Minnetonka » Conservation District ordinances. The validity of the LMCD setback ordinances has been brought to my attention via a lawsuit by John Goodman against the Village of Minnetonka Beach concerning a municipal dock on a municipal fire lane next to Mr. Goodman's house in Minnetonka Beach. After eighteen months of proceedings before the LMCD, the Village of Minnetonka Beach and the LMCD determined that it was appropriate and lawful that the LMCD's side setback rules did apply even to municipal docks, even though the docks had been in place for decades and long predated the creation of the LMCD. The municipal docks were thereupon obliged to be relocated for 1997, conforming to the LMCD side setback ordinances. Without a doubt the same result will apply to docks on the 20 foot parcel putting its viability for dock use in jeopardy. The totality of the factual data, and the correct legal conclusions to be drawn, is overwhelmingly in favor of the fact that the 50 foot parcel is imminently more usable for a dock than is the 20 foot parcel. Please review the matter and give me your thoughts. Thank you. Very truly yours, LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.L.L.P. EB0I:920054J T. \REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July23pt^7 ITEM NO = u—7 / Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffiron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: <5^268 Robert T. Callan, 2995 Deer Run Trail - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acres, unsewered. Application: Request for front setback variance for construction of a new single family residence on this back lot. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action C - Memo and Exhibits of 7/14/97 Summary of Request Please review the memo and exhibits of July 14th. Briefly, principal structure setbacks for this 3-acre back lot are required to be 150% of the zoning district requirements. Therefore, the front yard setback is required to be 75 ’ rather than 50 ’. Due to the location of the outlot driveway, the east lot line of the property is by definition considered the front lot line. This is some what incongruous with the neighborhood, since the east and west lot lines of all other lots on the south side of Deer Run Trail are side lot lines. Applicant requests that the 75 ’ setback from the east lot line be reduced to 45 ’, which is 150% of the side yard requirement, therefore still meeting the separation intent of the back lot ordinance. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval, finding that, as long as applicant orients his house similarly with those in the neighborhood, the reduced east setback will have no negative impacts. Additional justification for the variance is to allow the house to be placed where it will not i. - into the knoll on the west side of the property. Sta^ Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. .................................................... A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 27 AND SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5(B) FILE #2268 WHEREAS, Robert T. Callan (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 2995 Deer Run Trail within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and leg^ly described as follows: Lot 6, Block 4, Old Crystal Bay Road Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 27 and 10.28, Subdivision 5(B) to permit the construction of a new single family residence to be located 45' from the defined front lot line of a back lot where the front yard setback normally required is 150% of tlie RR-IB 50* standard, or 75'. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2268. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 21, 1997, ^d recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following ^ « Mum M •findings: Page 1 of 5 mm- A. The property was originally platted as a back lot because it does not directly abut a private or public road and gains access via a 30' outlot leading from the cul-de-sac to the east line of the property. B. By definition, the east line of the property is the front lot line. By definition, and per the back lot requirements, the setback from the easterly lot line for this property is 75'. C. Due to the orientation of the adjacent residence to the east and the orientation of the proposed house, the lot line in question will function as a side lot line for both the front lot and back lot. Therefore there is a diminished need for the expanded setback as defined in the code, since the expanded setback requirement was intended in part to mitigate adjacency of dissimilar yards. D. Applicant proposes to orient his home the same direction as the adjacent homes to the east, hence it would be appropriate to consider the east lot line as a side lot line. E. The lot meets all other required back lot standards. F. Granting of the variance will avoid the need to excavate into the knoll on the west side of the property. G. The proposed 45' east lot line setback meets the separation intent of the back lot ordinance in that 45' is 150% of the normal 30' side yard requirement for the RR-IB zone. 4. 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. 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 Page 2 of 5 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 tight of the applicant; and would be in keeping wth the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 27 and 10.28, Subdivision 5(B) to permit the construction of a new single family residence to be located 45' from the easterly or defined front lot line where 150% of the RR-IB 50' front setback, or 75', is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Applicant shall orient the proposed residence with the front facing northerly and the side facing easterly, to match other homes on the south side of Deer Run Trail. 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 P®Jroit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 11, 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. 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. Page 3 of 5 »■* ..»! CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 APPLICATION NO. 2268 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: July 31, 1997 TO: Robert Callan 9051 High Point Circle Eden Praine, MN 55347 COPIES:Mark Gronberg 482 Tamarack Ave. Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 7/28/97 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Tabled at applicant's request to the Monday, August 11, 1997 Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m. r r Cl 'I A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 27 AND SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5(B) FILE #2268 WHEREAS, Robert T. Callan (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 2995 Deer Run Trail vwthin the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 6, Block 4, Old Crystal Bay Road Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant lias applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 27 and 10.28, Subdivision 5(B) to permit the construction of a new single family residence to be located 45' from the defined front lot line of a back lot where the fi-ont yard setback normally required is 150% of the RR-IB 50 ’ standard, or 75*. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2268. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 21, 1997, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 5 4. 5. A. The property was originally platted as a back lot because it does not directly abut a private or public road and gains access via a 30’ outlet leading from the cul-de-sac to the east line of the property. B. By definition, the east line of the property is the front lot line. By definition, and per the back lot requirements, the setback from the easterly lot line for this property is 75'. C. Due to the orientation of the adjacent residence to the east and the orientation of the proposed house, the lot line in question will flmction as a side lot line for both the front lot and back lot. Therefore there is a diminished need for the expanded setback as defined in the code, since the expanded setback requirement was intended in part to mitigate adjacency of dissimilar yards. D. Applicant proposes to orient his home the same direction as the adjacent homes to the east, hence it would be appropriate to consider the east lot line as a side lot line. E. The lot meets all other required back lot standards. F. Granting of the variance will avoid the need to excavate into the knoll on the west side of the property. G The proposed 45 ’ east lot line setback meets the separation intent of the back lot ordinance in that 45 ’ is 150% of the normal 30’ side yard requirement for the RR-IB zone. 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. 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 distnct; that Page 2 of 5 granting the vanance 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 nght of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS t x>f • • , findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to M^cipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 27 and 10.28, Subdivision 5(B) to ^mit the co^trucuon of a new single family residence to be located 45' from the easterly or 1. Applicant shall onent the proposed residence with the front facing northerly and t e side facing easterly, to match other homes on the south side of Deer Run 1 rail. 2. 3. 4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but ^e pemissive 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 (July 28, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall consatute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically teminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a 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, ereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of July, 1997, ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) ST;.TE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) i I The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of July, 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 I ; Page 4 of 5 • , r CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2268 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 23,1997 TO: Robert T. Callan 9051 High Point Circle Eden Prairie, MN 55347 COPIES TO:Mark Gronberg 482 Tamarack Ave. Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance DATE OF MEETING: 7/21/97 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planniug Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Approved subject to orientation of the home similarly to other homes on the south side of Deer Run Trail. Applicant s next scheduled meeting is confirmed asi City Council Monday, July 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: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator July 14, 1997 SUBJECT: #2268 Robert T. Callan, 2995 Deer Run Trail - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acres, unsewered. Application: Request for front setback variance for construction of a new single family residence on this 'back lot'. Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 27 - Special standards for back lots created afrer January 1, 1994: Subd. 27(A)(2) - "... the street yard or front yard for any back lot will be a yard starting where the narrow access outlot corridor ends and the lot begins." Subd. 27(A,3) - "The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement." 2. Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B) - Required front yard in RR-1B District = 50'. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner's List D - Survey E - Section 10.03, Subd. 27 Discussion Applicant requests that the 75' required "front yard" setback along the east lot line be reduced to 45' to better accommodate construction of a proposed new single family residence. This lot was platted in 1994 at just over 3 acres to meet the back lot requirements. By definition, me lot line abutting the access outlot is the front lot line of a back lot, hence the east lot line becomes the front lot line in this case. Applicant notes that this is i.nconsistent with the other lots on the south side of Deer Run Trail, all of which have their designated side lot lines as the easterly or westerly lot lines. r Zoning File #2268 July 14,1997 Page 2 The intent of the back lot ordinance and its mo-e strict standards, is primanly to decrease the impact on the "front lot". When the Planning Commission reviewed the use of bacK lots m 1994, it concluded that a standard back lot situation would typically place a driveway directly adjacent to the side yard of the front lot, and the front yard of the back lot directly adjacent to the rear yard of the front lot. Planning Commission concluded that such adjacencies are not always compatible, and can be mitigated by requiring greater setbacks. Arguably, that ordinance did not contemplate the somewhat unique back lot situation encountered on Deer Run Trail. In this case, the applicant ’s defined front yard is adjacent to the front lots side yard. However, applicant proposes to orient his house with the functional front yard to the north, similar to other homes on the south side of Deer Run Trail. Hardship Factors which might be consider in support of the variance request include the following: 1.Applicant proposes to orient his home the same direction as the adjacent homes to the east, hence it would be appropriate to consider the east lot line as a side lot line. 2.Due to orientation of the adjacent residence to the east and the orientation of the house, the lot line in question will function as a side lot line for both the front lot ^d back lot. Therefore, there is a diminished need for the expanded setback as defined m the code, since the expanded setback requirement was intended in part to mitigate adjacency of dissimilar yards. 3. 4. The lot m ?ets all other required back lot standards. Granting of the variance will avoid the need to excavate into the knoll on the west side of the property. Staff Recommendation facing easterly, to match other homes on the south side of Deer Run Trail. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval per staff recommendation. Recommend approval with other conditions. Table for further information (specify). Recommend denial (state reasons). Other. 0 1 OO/ -O/ LDDt oorrxi* si*» r.r%oi «cc.r.‘;i r orono - V ariance appl initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional varianc Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no ch^ge from original application) AfterAe ”°^*c®nforming structures $220,00 fter-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) property information Application H J? Date Received”^.^ 7-<7'7 Amount Paid n c% ^S Or.(DH i T>_ w • ' ^ ^ Property Identification Number (P I D) _________________- — uL Of^ ^ jh'4a«m pa'rcas of Uni-------------------------------(month^ear) -Xr«id„rial APFLICAIV: Name Address: K±_TL_jCq 11 Phone (home) I - ^ ^ Phoiw (workX ' *" OWNER (If difTercni than applicant - NW TTa^J ^ Address: ^UZT^ ' --------------Phone (work ) ^ ‘ vccnrl t. Zip: tu.ft, p},Qne (home) Phone (work) description of request Cit>:,Zip: Estimated Construction Cost $ variances required ------Lot Area ____Lqj width sU<t.____________ —’t~o ^ CL (attach additional selects if necessary) Setback; X Front Side Hardcover Rear ,Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (.pacify) ^ .r.”"”* tcquircmena: rr-y .7........ % - ^ . ry r/u L,^f at f/£r ,or a.yfr A- A ^ r,. /Tr-y. v 7r UrA.r^'m AtAfJTk c<^fjT ^ A (attach additional, sheets if necessary) Ci/T /j^7o -7//T ^n€A. y(r*:/A^c ^Mr (:Arr LiT^C 6f ^ 7^^^^ j-frify>a< cfF 7T' rrA. A- f(:rSAc/< . OO# mmZf* ^ ^ *H f •^Ur r II» u ‘^r.Ui 4i3C.rJ3 'Vr/c REQUIRED SUBMITTALS b'rTvipv'^* j Al.Lof tb^foilpiying information must be submiltcd by the application deadline tlate in for YQUr aDplication yon^idered complete: I f 1- ___ Completed Application Form *• ----- Certified Propern' 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 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. ----- Topographic sur\'ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide (1) copy SVi ” x 11" for reproduction. ___ Sketches or plans of floor &. elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/a" x 11”). ___ ^-ist 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 notiried of this application. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 4. The Applicant and Property Osvner 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 revievv of this anplication, and certifies that the information supplied is inAejmrLcoq:^aQ.jhe best of hisl «■/ V ^owledge. Applicant's Signal 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 ofi*Tv^igj^i^~imd^rification of this request. Owner's Signature _____ Date Lt0^ f ^0^ .1^^ ^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings'of the Planning Commission and Council, If an applicant is tm-blc to atte:..d a scheduled meeting, please make hnrngements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building Sl Zoning Office of this change prior to the rreeting. 8 RUN DATE 06/26/97 BATCH 504 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST• /PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR' • I ^'38 04-117-23 23 002000240 CYGNET PL EUGENE C OETERLING A NIFE EUGENE C OETERLING 240 CYGNET PLACE LONG LAKE MN 55356 •Vt* V O' PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR ■.l' •!‘', 36 OA-117-23 23 0027 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO H H A S J UUE HERMAN H A SHIRLEY J LAUE 594 PARK LANE . LONO LAKE MN 55366 V ' •! I « • 6 PROP AODR 38 04-117-23 24 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ..A . , ONNER NAME STATE OF MXM4 TAXPAYER ; < OF MINN (ONR) .. tv ' . . > - . -------------- LINE TRAIL) a i t.LINE -TRAIL), ;'■ '• • ' • U . » . I Lv.L 36. 04>I17-23 24 0013 PROP AODR 02900 DEER RUN TR ONNER NAME L DUCHANAN A M A HAMM TAXPAYER JEFFREY L DUCHANAN ! NAHE/AODR . MARCIA A HAMMOND ' \ r . L. 6204 PARKNOOD RD EDINA MN 55436 ' PROP ADDR L * : QHNER NAME. taxpayer; , NAME/ADDR 36 04-117-23 32 0011 00455 SUSSEX LA N N A 0 C HILDMAN NINA H A DONALD C NXLDMAN 745 SPRING HILL RO ■ NAYZATA MN 55391 K- •L i . ' . *•% • ! ■!. « l»W 38 04-117-23 23 002203150 RIDGENOOO CIR CRAMS DENNISON KENNETH A LOUISE OSTMAN 3150 RIDGENOOO CIR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0030 02995 DEER RUN TR R T A J E CALLAN ROBERT T A JANICE E CALLAN 9051 HIGH POINT CIR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 38 .04-117-23 24 0007 00395 . SUSSEX U N H A D C HILDMAN NINA H A DONALD* C HILDMAN 745 SPRING HILL RD NAYZATA MN 55391 • r* 38 04-117-23 24 0017 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OLD CRYSTAL DAY RO ASSOC INC ROBERT HARE 1600 LONG LAKE BLVD ORONO MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 504 00013 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 24 • t' I38 04-117-23 23 002303100 RIDGENOOO CIR T E A H H CASHIN TIMOTHY E A HOLLY H CASHIN 3100 RIDGENOOO CIR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0031 03020 SOMERSET LA R P HARE V* A B R HARE ROBERT A BENTE HARE 3020 SOMERSET LA ORONO MN 55356 t V'. 38 04-117-23 24 0012 02965 DEER RUN TR SLAP A BARNES STEVEN A PAULETTE BARNES 2965 DEER RUN TR ' LONG LAKE MN 55356 •■iH **-. V . . ^ t.-^v Vi: S6 04-117-23 24 0016 02975 SOffRSET LA COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP JOE A TERESA LAHTI '• ' .M.i 1160 PHILLIPS DR LONB LAKE MM 55356 •.5.• 6- » i- -J •irt- • •• - I * V i ‘ » J ,• . ! / r.* . ' .'.t - w t -- • .'f J . f. ••• * A. --.V ; .V,. »v • . 1 »v*^V« • . >- ’ • ' ' r *■ » ■ t • • !’ • i * « ( * I'••V. ■-> • * t •!':•■ r;-'j ^'-.fe-r-vi? v‘- ’ * i ^ ‘V- i y:Ur'> - ;-\ /•■, ■ li'*' •* '^r*v ,* •* •* J £M/sr/iM^ r#A/r#^ (fn?-----X Ai0/^r^ CM/T0^M nr'-4*»T t >v , y * >N // * i i'. . j o>e • . 1 1 OWMDIY nvnoN OAH oecnmoN • i nuwNir 0 C offin h Gronberg . Inc. Ci<ihiillin\; f.i(\’mi't7>. IjWiI bnrtWi ’r^, 5ih’ I’hiwury ■1S2 r.tm.u.iik A u 'iuk ’ • Long L-'kc, iNIN' 33356 6I2-473 4141 I hrith- Cfililv Ihil lhi» wnfv wm pwp* wd bv- m» or ondrr mjr dinci IU|)•^ vbion, Md liMl I Mt« duty ngUlfffd CivU Enginw «nd Und Suwjrw under llw U m o( llw Suit o( MiiuirwU t VUii SCfOnbeff MinnnoU Uctnj/^Numbrf 127» ORDINANCE NO. > SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE AND SUBDIVISION CODE BY DEFINING STANDARDS FOR THE CREATION AND USE OF LOTS WHICH DO NOT ABUT A PUBLIC OR PRTVAXE ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 Municiosl Zoning Code Section 10.02 and Municipal Subdivision Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 2 are each hereby amended by adding the following definitions: "Lot-Back" - A lot typically separated from a public or private road by another lot and which «yams access to the public or private road via a narrow corridor. Such a separated lot is considered to be a "back lot" when the corridor is planed as an outlot. A sep^ced lot is considered to be a "flae lot" when the corridor is planed as pan of the lot. When the corridor is merely an easement over another lot, the separated lot is considered to be an "easement back lot". "Lot-Front" - A lot abutting a public or private road, across which an outlot has been planed for access to a back lot. SECTION 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 is amended by adding Subdivision 27 which shall read as follows: Subd. 27. Special Standards for Back Lots Created After January 1. 1994. Back loK as defined in this section which were created as part of a subdivision that receivedgpreliininary subdivision approval after January 1, 1994 are subject to the folio win special requirements in addition to the standards required in Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 of the Orono Subdivision Code: A. Dimensional standards for baclc lots shall be as follows: 1. Lot area shall be 150^ of the zoning district requirement. 2. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at the front y^d setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requirement. The street yard or front yard for any back lot will be a yard starting where the narrow access ou ot corridor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots snail the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore set ac line, and at the street yard setback line. 3. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150 % of the zoning district front yard requirement. 4 The requited side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. r B. C. D. E. Sf,:facrr!^«“ b.^.quiv^.0C to side s«.c yasd requireracnc for that zoning district. Access requirements. 1. 2. 0. 4. 5. without encroaching on neighboring properties. In aoproving frontAjack lot divisions, the City may require that both* front lot and back lot share a driveway access t^ access oudot if Council determines ±at creatmg an addiuonal access to the existing street %viU be a potenaal saiccy hazard. Driveways within a back lot shaU be located at least 10' from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. No more rhan two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. No access outlot may be platted aburting an adjacent access oudot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlots to creation of a pubUc or private road meeting City standards. Screening requirements 1.Driveways constructed in access oudots sn^ be screened by fencing or vegetation at the ® all points to the rear of the required street yard of the fr » as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the si e yard of adjacent lots. 9 2. ' The street yard of the back lot shall be adequately screened by ^j»nf*TTig or vegetaQon at the discretion of the CiQ^, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. Standards for accessory structures. Accessory strucrures shaU adhere to all requirements of the zoning code, with the foUowing additional requirements: 1. Accessory struemres within a back lot shaU be aUowed no closer than 10 ’ to a neighboring property ’s side or rear yard. 2. Accessory structures shaU not be aUowed within the required street yard of a back lot nor within the required rear yard of a front lot which abuts the street yard of a back lot. J.No accessory structure shaU be aUowed within an access outlot. r [ ( REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: August 8, 1997r- %■ %> Item No. Department Approval: ¥ Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. Gaftron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: #2282 Valerie Petersen, 1125 North Arm Drive - Lot Area^idth Variance - Procedural Variance List of Exhibits:Exhibit A - Memo from Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Exhibit B - Variance Application Submitted 8/6/97 Exhibit C - Survey Exhibit D - Area Plat Map Please review the attached memo from Bruce Vang. This house was 100% destroyed by a fire. The Inspections staff correctly concluded that a new house to replace the destroyed house would have to meet all hardcover and setback requirements. The existing house was only 6' from the north lot line where 10' is required. The builder proceeded to design a house to meet all requirements and made application for a building permit this week. The survey he submitted with tlie permit application showed that the lot does not meet the minimum area and width standards of the LR-IB district, although it is similar in area and width to other lots in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, this was not identified as an issue during the City's early discussions with the builder and homeowner. As Bruce's memo notes, the house could have been rebuilt in its same substandard location if it had been only 75% destroyed. On behalf of the owner, the builder is requesting that the City issue a building permit prior to the normal variance process, primarily based on the time that will be lost waiting for the variance process to conclude. A variance application has been submitted and applicant fully intends to go through the required process, but under the normal schedule this would be scheduled for the September 15 Planning Commission meeting and final approval could not be granted by Council until September 22, hence the builder would lose 6 weeks. The property owner's insurance company is paying for housing only through December, hence loss of 6 weeks will create a hardship for the owner. s f ( : ! I; #2282 August 8,1997 Page 2 Council Options Option 1. Option 2. The Council by unanimous action may waive reference to the Planning Commission. The City could publish notice in time for a public hearing at the August 25 Council meeting, at which time formal variance approval could be granted. This is an option that meets Code requirements and does not set a negative precedent. This will save applicant about 4 weeks. If Council were to direct staff to issue a building permit immediately and direct that the applicant proceed through the normal variance process 'after-the-fact', this would save applicant 5-1/2 weeks, but in the opinion of staff and the City Attorney, is not supported by the Code and sets a negative precedent that should be avoided. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Option 2. Council Action Requested Unanimously agree to waive reference of Application #2282 to Planning Commission based on the hardship situation caused due to the home destroyed by fire, and direct staff to set a public hearing for the lot area and width variances at the August 25 council meeting. I ! /I To: From: Date: Mike Gaf&on, Asst. Planning and Zoning Administrator Bruce Vang, Field Inspector August 7,1997 Subject: #2282 Tom Terry, 1125 North Arm Drive - Variance On April 28,1997, the home of Valerie Petersen located at 1125 North Arm Drive was destroyed by fire. In June her b’ '.Ider, Tom Terry, came to City Hall to explore the options for rebuilding the house. Rebuilding on the existing foundation using some of the e.xisting structure would have left the house too close to the property line. Also, the foundation and floor may have been damaged more than was distinguishable. I suggested that the house really should be rebuilt to meet ciOTent setback standards. At the time I failed to realize that since the property did not meet the minimum lot size and lot width requirement, a variance would be required to rebuild. On August 6, Mr. Terry returned with a survey and house plans to apply for a building permit. In looking at the new suirey, the previous omission was discovered. Mr. Terry was told that indeed lot area and width variances would be required, resulting in further delays than should have been necessary. Staff and the property owner request that the Council direct the Building Official to issue a permit to rebuild the home prior to the variances being considered by Planning Commission and Council. Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. The lot is 85 feet vride where 140 feet is required, The lot is 0.6 acres where 1.0 is required. Lot coverage and hardcover standards will be met. The new house vrill be 10 feet from the north property line, the original 1972 house only 6 feet. All setback requirements will be met. was 5. 6. The original house was destroyed by fire, not planned by the owner. The Orono Code would allow rebuilding in the original location if the damage had been less than 75%. 1 Application # Date Received /cJ<^n Amount Paid O 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) PROPERTY ][NFORMATION SiteAddress //^ ^o^T'A Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) O’? ^ y ~ J? ~~ QO LS~ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pr^rty Acquired _____Su,/T____________________________ I (do) ^d^n^also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) Present use of property: X residential Zoning District:___________________ other (specify^ APPLICANT Name /o^i 7.'<r/'ry \ ^7j2 A - „ ^ Phone fhome l ^ - 3 7*^ / ( ^i/7J Phone(workX_______________________OtK./ Address:Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name l/j^A <rrf e______T<r»^ $<* /V Phone (home > ^ / Phone (work)_______________ Address: A N. City:Zip: V' DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $_ Describe request in detail: A //ortif* y/orPi^ LA^__________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED X2A. 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: 7~74^ //o^rte o -------------- 77<f s A/-o/^erT>y 7^t ^ /tj4 // ^^n T/Cj^Ap Si' A// O Aacyc-G yj/// <Pcr?* fA^y /<Jc 7A — /A<r py. cA g* 'TA y f*cA (attach additional sheets if necessary) PcO ^oT 7vC ^7^ 77> A<tr REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application Hpadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SY2' x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy iVi" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/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 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 tees (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 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 Fir/" a/ Date {.zn 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 %• •I «r r-» r EaJjP I J s. , • f LI . . . ’’ -<—7|^3J»fi> -----% ,„;m^ vv: (: '> zrx '-t ■» •* t • k • ^ --------------- •^•-v-rr^io-w-^, “TT* • • t • r »*• :} : • • I " * •! I ■ ■'ll •H’.'i- »M >* .1 J • r. ) #.•,*. • /• ‘‘*r< ‘ I- 5}»* < :. < i : r . • I »l I,'f ‘ ,. r*' • . i. •!, i 1 •. ' ^ ■ • t »• 'i‘ i* '»• *• a'^i. !*• * I JL ■ ••• <- *-----u ry^~ .e ^^ATi^ w im gi <iir I ■ W V, . I ^ ^ r“ 'A' _.«*, ^ • ijgi^wr vv-<v?i-- r • ,\ v,« ' "AJI. . i'rf «r ______________p””'a^y^S!S . ^ F' •V •• m *0 •• . i - ^ •''' . r-. ^ . -g» w r /u - ^7C Oo rrC/) ID ro O 04 Z1 p- o 3r- Q. 3’ , CL 04 JD O t. ’ iJI* Q 5T w o 3 ^ ?-T3 •— O S-q mo>r~ am COo5 03 O 2 O “n T3 33m Z tom CO ?. o i ST r-*- fO o NJ 5‘ to 2 O r-f 3“ O 3T CD C/)oc ui (D (D 3" CO"n (D O ;;»'■- -„-3SnOH| Q3sOdO»W H \ S '-i. 1 ••s s HiaON)(•ao wav igi -ON •Qy_q5 OIo •%> iLlL. 8 IJoi?L > I I d.. I • I I ; * ................................l••v —.:•<-.^,..; iM)'. : : : • itlltaa .^1 [ ^ A •• iV5* * * • • • ^ • • • • I • • I • • • I I I • • t V • ••• ••• t • ^ /—.VU’2i5) : (vac 7-18-49) ll)Cm l« (V*C «-»-15) <9\ V- . c^‘-') t ’0» 3- ri;,\.............: [ » LOMA UMOA AVtWC » j "* —“ (I5) / • I I ;.(iU"5 ' ^ ?617 ^ ; I (23M ^ ^ s K ^^Vi,(63) • ? *^ -•■ • • 8 > ■ . . • lilt .#•**•’I I I >1 I m 0.2 • *1. ■'WWW m ^ m ^ m m :-—'..! ^a. \ (16) V f (64) (f£^ (8) (7) 1 s <3.4 « ^ - 90c (61) c ’**>► t• \ ^ . % I ^ •//VX 10 (30). 175 __ (6?) ’M59)., . *5' .>-T*-®--“ • '■% ii) B ^ \iLf <0 (I0)o 147 3 V ; • »4 3 L t y)»( A« S) i 1 ENUC » • (fo^) iWT I V ; 164 ^ ? i %c-s^*^7) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION . DATE: August 4, 19^f'Vo ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report item Description: Repair and Upgrade of Navarre Well Number 2 removal of the well pump, cleaning of the well, and replacement of necessary par the existing capacity of 275 gallons per minute. Th, Navarre water system has two wells. The main well has a capacity of 1,000 0PM and the SIS n^ter 2 has a capacity of 275 GPM. For the past 10 years, the avenge maxtmum day witer H.mand has been 730,125 gallons per day or 507 gallons per mmute. Well has approximately half of the capacity necessary to meet the average maxtnium ay ^ When well number 2 was installed in 1972, it was never test pumped to ‘1'''^'°^ capacity Since this well is short on the backup capacity to meet the n^tmum day it makes sense to develop the well in an attempt to increase the capactty. Standard practice for t ImSngtSr S conLtor to install a temporary pump to complete *is work. Test pumpmg It hfghfr capacities can result in pumping of large quantities of sand and possible damap to *e test pump Ve contractor installed a test pump and developed the well by test pumpmg. 'r“ro7uus .1st pumping indicate that a capacity of 500 GPM is recommendation is to upgrade the well pump, to increase the capacity to 500 GPM m order t HonHie the maximtun day demand. This will provide for firm redundant well capactty f maximum day demand. Unon removal of the pump it was discovered that the pitless unit was bent. This unit has ^n taplace since the installation of the well in 1972, is corroded, and may have to be near fiimre. Replacement of this unit in the future would require removal of P“ P- Replacement of diis unit, at this time, before installation of the new pump would be advisable. The cost for replacement of this unit is $5,000. mi. 1/ i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects July 29,1997 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 2750 Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Attn: Mr. Greg Gapp?. Re; Well No. 2 Maintenance BRA File No. 13993 Bontitroo. Rosene. Anderlik end Assoaetes. me. is an Athrmanve Action/equat Opportunity employer Principals Otto G. Bonettroo, PE • Jojepn C. Anderlik. PE. • Marvin L. Sorvala. PE. • Richard E. Turner. PE. • Glenn R. Cook. PE • RoOert G. Schunicht. PE • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. • Robert W. Roiene. RE. and Susan M. Ebcrlm. C PA.. Senior Consuttanti Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford. PE. • Keith A. Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE. • Richard W Foster. PE. • David O Loskota. PE. • Robert C. Russck. A.I.A. • Mark A. Hanson. PE. • Michael T. Rauimann. PE. • Ted K.Field. PE. • Kenneth P. Anderson. RE • Mark R. Rolfs. RE. • Sidney R Williamson. RE.. R.S. • Robert F. Kotsmiih Offices: It Paul. Rochester. Wllimar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl > Dear Greg; Enclosed is Request for Payment No. 1 covering the completed work on Well No. 2. The rem^ing work includes repair of existing pump or a new pump with increased capacity. We recommend at parti paymen be made to E.H. Renner & Sons. Also enclosed is the partial test pumping data and the laboratory analysis for sand content, m well wm pumped at rates up to 500 gpm and surged at 500 gpm. The sand sample was taken about 2-3 ^ pump start to obtdn the maximum concentration. The sand content falls off as the pump operates. The 2.3 gpm sand is acceptable for the amount of time the pump generally operates. Attached is a tabulation of estimated consttuction costs for various siad pump^ No. 4" was taken from the original cost estimates provided for the well work. The actual cost for Clean Well and “Well Work” are less than the original estimate. The remaining three columns show the estimated cost of replacing the 400 gpm or 500 gpm pump. Estimates for pumps and motors were obtamed from Renner. Electrical cos based on replacing the conduit and wire and a new starter. The contractor noted that the pitiess unit was bent a little, probably come out alright; however, the pitless is 20 years old and may have to be replaced m the ne^ foture. Th estimated construction cost for a new pitless is $5,000. This cost is not included m the tabulation. After you have had a change to review the costs. 1 will be glad to discuss the finishing of the project with you. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Richard W. Foster Enclosures Attachments I i| 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 Unit Alternate No. 4 Increase Capacity Estimated Cost 250qpm PUMP Alternate No. 1 400qpm Pump Alternate No. 2 500gpm Pump Jnit Price Qty.Amount Qty.Amount Qty Amount Qty.Amount LS 1322.15 1 1322.15 1 1322.15 1 1322.15 1 1322.15 LS 350.00 1 350 1 350.00 1 350.00 1 350.00 HR 135.00 8 1080 8 1080.00 8 1080.00 8 1080.00 2752.15 2752.15 2752.15 2752.15 HR 30.00 15 450 15 450.00 15 450.00 15 450.00 EA 120.00 4 480 4 480.00 8 960.00 9 1080.00 EA 60.00 1 60 1 60.00 1 60.00 1 60.00 EA 29.00 2 58 5 145.00 9 261.00 10 290.00 EA 479.00 1 479 1 479.00 1 479.00 1 479.00 LS 120.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 LS 175.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 EA 140.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 LS 150.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 LS 75.00 1 75 1 75.00 1 75.00 1 75.00 LF 2.20 0 180 396.00 0.00 0.00 LS 150.00 1 150 1 150.00 1 150.00 1 150.00 LS 1200.00 0 1 1200.00 0.00 0.00 LS 1977.00 0 1 1977.00 0.00 0.00 1752.00 5412.00 2435.00 2584.00 LS 1500.00 1 1500 1 1500.00 1 1500.00 1 1500.00 HR 155.00 30 4650 30 4650.00 30 4650.00 30 4650.00 LS 2000.00 1 2000 1 2000.00 1 2000.00 1 2000.00 HR 90.00 16 1440 9 810.00 9 810.00 9 810.00 9590.00 8960.00 8960.00 8960.00 LS 1675.00 1 1675 0.00 1 1950.00 1 2200.00 LS 2419.00 1 2419 0.00 1 2500.00 1 2850.00 LF 2.93 180 527.4 0.00 210 550.00 230 850.00 LS 2500.00 1 2500 0.00 1 3000.00 1 3500.00 7121.40 0.00 8000.00 9400.00 21215.55 17124.15 22147.15 23696.15 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: DATE: April 14, 1997 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Quotation for Navarre We!! ffl Repair Well #2 in the Navarre water system requires emergency repairs. This water system contains two wells. Well n is the main well with a capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute. Well HI, with a capacity of 275 gallons per minute, is used as a back up well. The screen on the well pump has failed and portions of this screen have broken off and become lodged in the check valve. This well has been shut down since this problem was discovered. Repair of this well requires the removal of the submersible well pump and motor. This well has been in operation since 1972, so the bearings and seals should all be replaced when the pump and motor are out. Since we are not certain on the extent of damage or wear to the equipment, alternate quotes have been received for the replacement of the pump bowl assembly and motor. The decision on replacement of this equipment will be made after removal and inspection of these components. Items for the jetting and cleaning of the well screen and casing have also been included in the quotation. Quotations have been obtained from four reputable well companies for this project. The quotations, including the alternates, ranged from $15,155.15 to $17,940. The lowest quotation was submitted by E. H. Renner & Sons Inc., Elk River. A tabulation of the quotations received is attached. The quotation from E. H. Renner is summarized below. Equipment removal and repair, and cleaning of well $11,978.15 ♦Alt 1 Furnish new pump bowl assembly $1,200.00 ♦Alt 2 Furnish new submersible motor 2 50 6 PM S 1,977.00 ♦Alternates to be used if needed COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: IS, 15S. is Motion to authorize repairs to Navarre well HI, and accept quotation from E. H. Renner and Sons Inc. t 11.978.15 i 11.051.08 $0.00 $11.051.08 $552.55 $10.498.53 $0.00 $10.498.53 Unit Contract Quantity Unit Price Quantity to Date Amount to Date LS 1 1,322.15 0.50 661.08 LS 1 350.00 1 350.00 HR 8 135.00 8 1,080.00 HR 15 30.00 EA 3 120.00 EA 1 60.00 EA 3 29.00 EA 1 479.00 LS 1 120.00 EA 1 175.00 EA 3 140.00 LS 1 150.00 LS 1 75.00 LF 250 2.20 LS 1 150.00 $2,091.08 LS 1 1,500.00 1 1,500.00 HR 30 155.00 30 4.650.00 $6,150.00 LS 1 2,000.00 1 2,000.00 HR 16 90.00 9 810.00 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS Owner Project No. FUe No. Contractor CITY OF ORONO 13993 EH. RENNER & SONS CHANGE ORDERS 1 2 3 Total Chanse Orders PAYMENT SUMMARY 1 Start to 7/29/97 10.498.53 552.55 11,051.08 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Material on Hand Total Payment to Date $10,498.53 Original Contract $11,978.15 Retainaite. Payment No. I 552.55 Chanjte Orders Total Amount Earned $11,051.08 Revised Contract $11,978.15 l:\139M 3993\REQUEST.WB2 f.-- ' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Me ^Ug 1 ^TiNq DATE: Aumst 4, iWss/ ITEM NO.: °'’®VO Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services itor Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer’s Report Item Description: Quotations for Golf Course Irrigation Well We have obtained quotations for the installation of a new well at the Orono Municipal Golf Course for the proposed irrigation system. At the last meeting, the Council awarded the contract for the irrigation system and directed staff to obtain competitive quotes for a new well with a $20,000 maximum cost. h' ^ Bergerson- Caswell, Maple Plain E.H. Renner & Sons, Elk River $17,937.30 $19,188.44 T.L. Stevens Well Company, Maple Plain $19,903.00 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize installation of golf course irrigation well by Bergerson- Caswell, Maple Plain at a cost of $17,937.30 ; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION N. DATE: August 11. l9te ?/> ITEM NO.: f j % Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report • •Item Description: Request for Payment #2, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering firm and recommend approval of this Request for Payment COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request for Payment Ul, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $316,864.61 r in Bonatreo llBMne AndrtiC a 4 Owner City of Orono. P.Q. Box 66. Crystal Bay. MN SS323-0066 For Period; July 1.1997 to August 6.1997 Conttnctor Barbarossa & Sons. P.Q. Box 367, Osseo, MN 55369 Date: August 6.1997 Request No: REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NORTH LONG LAKE AND LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS File No. 13988 SUMMARY 1 Original Contract Amount 2 Change Order • Addition 3 Change Order • Deduction % 4 Revised Contract Amount 5 Value Completed to Date 6 Material on Hand 7 Amoun' Earned 8 Less Retainage 5% 9 Subtotal 10 Less Amount Paid Previously 11 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. $ $ 45,560.00 737.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 874,930.01 919,753.01 539,761.55 0.00 539,761.55 26,988.08 512,773.47 195,908.86 316,864.61 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved by Contractor Barbarossa & Sons Approved by Owner. City of Orono ■M Specified Contract Completion Date:Date: I At 39M 39eS\REQUEST2.We2 r Contract Unit Quantity Amount No.Item Unit Quantity Price to Date to Date 1 8" PVC, SDR 35, O'- 8 ’ deep in place LF 232 28.00 139 3.892.00 2 8" PVC, SDR 35,8'- 10’ deep in place LF 752 29.00 1,071 31,059.00 3 8" PVC, SDR 35,10 -12* deep in place LF 1,303 30.00 974 29,220.00 4 8" PVC, SDR 35,12'- 14* deep in place LF 981 31.00 1,309 40,579.00 5 8" PVC, SDR 35,14- 16 ’ deep in place LF 1,024 32.00 968 30,976.00 6 8" PVC, SDR 35,16’-18 ’ deep in place LF 63 33.00 185 6,105.00 7 8" PVC. SDR 26,14 ’-16 ’ deep L. place LF 220 35.00 138 4,830.00 8 8" PVC, SDR 26,16 ’-18 ’ deep in place LF 188 36.00 9 8" DIP, 10 ’- 12 ’ deep in place LF 40 38.00 40 1,520.00 10 8" DIP, 16 ’- 18 ’ deep in place LF 20 41.00 20 820.00 11 Std. MH 8* dp., 4* dia., w/R1642B cstg.EA 24 1,440.00 24 34,560.00 12 MH depth greater than 8 ’ deep LF 97 100.00 102.7 10,270.00 13 Directional bore 4" HDPE SDR 17 LF 140 20.00 140 2.800.0-J 14 4" HDPE. SDR 17 LF 5,812 8.40 5,716 48,014.40 15 Air release manhole EA.2 1,900.00 2 3,800.00 16 1-1/2" curb stop and box EA 3 350.00 1 350.00 17 Connect 4" HDPE into existing manhole EA 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00 18 4" 45 degree HDPE bend EA 16 50.00 8 400.00 19 4" tee with cap EA 1 55.00 20 4" X 2" HDPE tee EA 3 50.00 1 50.00 21 4" X 4" HDPE tee EA 1 50.00 22 2" X 1-1/2" HDPE reducer EA 3 35.00 1 35.00 23 2" X 45 degree HDPE bend EA 3 30.00 24 4" X 2" wye EA 2 30.00 1 30.00 25 8" X 4" PVC service wye branch EA 48 50.00 55 2,750.00 26 8" X 2" wye EA 5 50.00 27 2" X 1-1/2" reducer EA 7 30.00 7 210.00 4" PVC service pipe in place, SDR 26 4" PVC service riser pipe in place, SDR 26 4" HDPE service pipe directional bore 1*1/2" HDPE service pipe directional bore Improved pipe fdn. in 6" increment depth Mechank^l trench compaction Insulation Sanitary sewer television inspection Submersible Pump Lift Station 1 Submersible Pump Lift Station 2 1,465 18.00 1,262 35 18.00 44 225 20.00 225 10.00 561 6,500 0.01 6,500 6,500 1.00 4,844 50 10.00 4,808 0.42 22,716.00 792.00 5.610.00 65.00 4.844.00 44.200.00 44.700.00 22,100.00 22.350.00 I.M 39M 3988VflEQUEST2.WB2 Total Part 1 - Long Lake Sanitary $331,747.40 1.892.00 1.059.00 ),220.00 3.579.00 3.976.00 6.105.00 4.830.00 1.520.00 820.00 4.360.00 0,270.00 2.800 00 18,014.‘10 3.800.00 350.00 1.000.00 400.00 30.00 2.750.00 210.00 22,716.00 792.00 5.610.00 65.00 4.844.00 Part 2 - Water Main 38 8" DIP. Class 52 LF 95 20.00 46 920.00 39 12 ” DIP. Class 52 LF 490 26.00 583 15,158.00 40 6” DIP. Class 52 LF 5 19.00 10 190.00 41 Cut into existing 8” CD*EA 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00 42 Cut into existing 6” DIP EA 1 800.00 1 800.00 43 Hydrant EA 1 2,000.00 1 2,000.00 44 6" gate valve and box EA 1 600.00 1 600.00 45 8" gate valve and box EA 2 750.00 2 1,500.00 46 12" butterfly valve and box EA 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00 47 Fittings LB 1,370 1.00 850 850.00 48 Mechanical trench compaction LF 590 1.00 639 639.00 49 Improved pipe foundation in 6" increments Total Part 2 - Watennain LF 595 0.01 100 1.00 $24,658.00 22.100.00 22.350.00 Part 3 - Restoration 50 Clear and grub EA 20 300.00 51 15,300.00 51 2* X 3* sump catch basin EA 2 1,000.00 2 2,000.00 52 4' diameter sump catch basin manhole EA 5 uoo.oo 5 6,000.00 53 Catch basin manhole ovodepth LF 17 125.00 5 625.00 54 Bituminous surfacing removal SY 11,600 1.00 11,500 11,500.00 55 Common excavation CY 3,700 3.25 3,451 11,215.75 56 Class 5 aggregate base (100% crushed)TN 8,000 9.20 5,406 49,735.20 57 Type 31 bituminous base course TN 1,200 23.50 58 Type 41 A bituminous wearing course TN 900 27,50 59 Geotextile fabric SY 11,000 1.00 8,819 8.819.00 60 Bituminous material for tack coat GL 550 1.00 61 Bituminous street patching SY 300 6.50 62 Sawcut concrete driveway LF 100 5.00 63 Sawcut bituminous LF 650 1.50 64 Bituminous driveway restoration SY 1,550 6.50 65 Concrete driveway restoration SF 3,200 3.50 66 12" RCP in place LF 233 22.00 86 1,892.00 67 15" RCP in place LF 141 24.00 121 2.904.00 68 15" RCP, over 8* deep LF 20 26.00 69 IS" RCP flared end in place with trash guard EA 2 900.00 1 900.00 70 Mechanical trench compaction LF 595 1.00 207 207.00 I.M3SM3988yREQUEST2.WB2 .747.40 920.00 US8.00 190.00 1.000.00 800.00 2,000.00 600.00 1.500.00 1.000.00 850.00 639.00 1.00 4.658.00 5.300.00 2.000.00 6.000.00 625.00 1.500.00 11.215.75 19.735.20 8.819.00 1.892.00 2.904.00 900.00 207.00 71 LF 595 0.01 72 Remove existing CMP culvert LF 450 2.00 100 200.00 73 Furnish and install 15 ” CMP culvert LF 450 12.00 201 2.412.00 74 IS CMP flared end EA 30 100.00 12 1.200.00 75 Riprap, Class III hand placed CY 12 30.00 8 240.00 76 Sod with 4" topsoil SY 2 25 77 Seed with topsoil, mulch and fertilizer AC —' ^ ^ w 2 1.550.00 78 Erosion control fence LF 1.000 2.50 1.000 2.500.00 79 Wood fiber blanket SY 750 1.50 80 Furnish and plant Evergreen Tree (Blue Spruce) 6' high EA 6 225.00 81 Furnish and plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) 4'diameter EA 6 500.00 82 Remove and replace wood or chain link fence LF 600 15.00 83 Remove and transplant bushes EA 12 75.00 84 • Remove and transplant tree • Desiduous EA 12 150.00 85 Remove and transplant tree • Coniferous EA 15 150.00 86 Salvage and reinstall wood guard post EA 11 50.00 0.50 25.00 Total Part 3 - Restoration SI 17.674.95 Part 4 • Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station 87 Duplex submersible grinder station LS 1 18.600.00 0.40 7.440.00 88 2" HDPE, SDR 1 1 LF 1.160 6.00 1.095 6,570.00 89 Connect to existing manhole EA 1 1.000.00 1 1.000.00 90 2" HDPE 45 degree bends EA 2 50.00 Total Part 4 • Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station S15.010.00 Part 5 - Lift Station 6 Renovation 91 Temporary controls, pumps and piping for interim conveyance LS 1 2,000.00 92 Lift station demolition LS 1 5,000.00 93 New pumps, piping, valves, top hatch and slab LS 1 35,000.00 94 New control panel, base slab, dialer, and miscellaneous electrical LS 1 24,000.00 95 Sod SY 50 2.25 96 8” Class 5 aggregate base TN 75 12.00 97 3” thick bituminous driveway TN 30 45.00 Total Part 5 • Lift Station 6 Renovation SO.OO i IA139M3968V1EQUEST2.WB2 100 101 102 103 104 Part 7 • Forccmain All Deduct; 4 ” forcemain directional bore (Item No. 13) Add 4" HDPE forcenuun, SDR 17 106 107 108 109 110 81 11 12 Air release manhole EA -'ith 4" topsoil SY .V Bituminous driveway restoration SY Total Part 7 - Forcemain Alignment Part 8 - Rcsidcntal Submersible Grinder Stations Residental simplex grinder pump stations EA Total Part 8 • Residental Submersible Grinder Stations Alternate No. 1 - MH 22 to MH 22A 8" PVC, SDR 35.10' - 12' deep in place LF Auger or directional bore 8" PVC LF Std. MH 8' dp., 4' dia., W/R1642B cstg. EA MH depth greater than 8' deep LF Remove & transplant tree - coniferous EA Total Alternate No. 1 - MH 22 to MH 22A Change Order No. 1 Furnish & plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) EA Std MH 8' dp.. 4' dia.. w/R1642B cstg. EA MH depth greater than 8' deep LF Total Change Order No. 1 Change Order No. 2 4" riser pipe extension Total Change Order No. 2 500.00 1.440.00 100.00 845.00 I.M39M3988\REQUEST2.WB2 154 19.00 147.00 1 625.00 1.00 -154 22.00 -154.00 -1 900.00 -1_ 4 1,200.00 4 3 125.00 3 400 1.00 400 5,400 3.25 206 IJO 206 209 24.00 209 1 900.00 1 7 300.00 7 ^93.00 525.00 388.00 900.00 870.00 ,800.00 1375.00 (400.00 .000.00 (309.00 .016.00 5900.00 1.100.00 5.900.00 1,747.40 4.658.00 7.674.95 5.010.00 0.00 0.00 6.301.20 0.00 13.420.00 4.920.00 0.00 -870.00 26.900.00 39,761.55 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS Owner City of Orono Project No. 13988 FOeNo. 13988 Contractor Barbarossa & Sons CHANGE ORDERS 1 6/6m Additional trees and manholes as a result of easement negotiations 12.420.00 2 6/1 W97 Extend bypass piping in valve 1,690.00 3 6/18/97 Substitute comigated polyethylene pipe for RCP storm sewer -737.00 4 8/6/97 Construction of ponding area and installation of storm sewer 31.450.00 Total Change Orders $44,823.00 PAYMENT SUMMARY Material on Hand 1 Start 7/1/97 195,908.86 10.310.99 206.219.85 2 7/1/97 8/6/97 316.864.61 26,988.08 539,761.55 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Payment to Date $512,773.47 Original Contract $874,930.01 Retainage, Payment No. 2 26.988.08 Change Orders 44,823.00 Total Amount Earned 5539.761.55 Revised Contract $919,753.01 l:\13SM3988VREQUEST2.WB2 Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Highway 12 Stormwater Ponding yb --------------- I-- ' Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 August 7,1997 Highway 12 Stormwater Ponding as indicated above, any additional development on the light industrial properties would require ponding. Also Mn/DOT has recently indicated that this pond would be a city expense. The city would have to determine funding sources for the pond. Because this pond would affect the property owners both in terms their use of the property and in terms of bearing some portion of the costs of the pond, it is recommended they be contacted regarding the pond option and regarding how a pond would fit their future plans. Costs Mn/DOT has indicated that it will build the necessary facilities, but the portion of the facilities that are needed to handle city stormwater flows versus highway stormwater flows will need to be funded by the city. It is not clear at this point what the cost of the pond would be or what the specific sources of funding for the pond would be. Potential funding sources would be special assessments against the benefitted properties, MCWD, city funds, and Mn/DOT funds. Mn/DOT would like to get an idea of whether the city is willing to consider the concept of a pond on the light industrial property, because this affects the design of the remainder of the downstream system. If the Council believes the pond may be acceptable under a set of conditions, staff reconunends the affected property owners be approached regarding this potential and their future plans for the property. i COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to indicate whether the city is willing to consider the concept of a stormwater pond located in the city's light industrial area. •f 'M••;; r • / I » I •» •• •• •• •.# » rt^ - -•• •' rw ... |iXi . / Htj-'.... *•I «. •»' ;e * _ •-I■:i \'A \v : 1 IH + i! + ii + f I V \ 1^ • • % < ‘. • • ' i:, •' i«* I'! » f ' •! » O II -hhO (f) cn \ •«-*—''.-rt .* M.» ? * * - • ' • « • • I* • •-Vf - . -»V t * A * » — *^ . »*• • • . •-m"- • - - -1 £ y <p %# ................... * . * % I* • .• • I M » I 'V • t I O I I « • i ' ..■* T V*' »^yn ».' \ Ki ' a •<r f -. / # I * • • • . : “*«r r" \tr> \ • t X iV • I _____V * r\^' •• l; *0* i j ^ I# i f J j®.. -s “^33C»3TtI3Ii • ^_ M A iKli • « • ♦ ' * * * • I ^ >N' ' V^---------- ^---------r-“ •i + .•' j . •<>►.............* •/■••:»5-. *•-.. ,4 '' I '•*. Kr' .‘3'••.!• •••-. \:y i *•'*?■ •lu y.K AV-9 * •* -. w i •» • ...............'_____________^--•—i-v-'-*. •\i iW^ /' >..• ^ 1- '__ flWf r • *• - - « - •I I /?,•...« |V;;. II' ■ ‘*. •. -»r* ‘ • • •' :;4 # • ^ • . Jl • i:^-'I ;;:l /• ! i-3 /■•' :• /I ■ .' • • /f. % •**il««««^ I r*l n W * ' -_J/: 1^%’=^y * V F- ......*.•> i '/V; *.\If.' -r------ --------------------------------------- . •* «.i j^'ccai A;/ .A ,' r I» 4 i •:<j. #• • *• ._* I »Jl • • # !.i * i: • • ii -Jr- 9 I 8/^'“ . J7 8 :4r-a^*- ^ % I /Ts '4 4 » . » . . I 4 • j t—i.yooooo! O.. A* * i i; *• •* '■!:1: 1 jt , I • 0 A • • ,.aV-o REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; August 8,1997^0 ITEM NO: / 3 Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description; * 1998 Agreement for Property Assessment Services From Rolf Enckson Enterprises I ' Attached is a memo from Rolf Erickson requesting a 2.5% increase in Ae fee for contracted property assessment services for 1998. It is recommended that this proposal be approved. :.y‘ « ’' ■/r r\ y • •’ ' / COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approved a contract with Rolf Erickson Enterprises, Inc. dba Southwest Assessing for the priori September 1,1997 through August 31,1998 for city property assessment services at a fee of $79,950. « ^0 -T - "=VTT TO: Ron Moorse, Orono City Administrator For the Orono Mayor and City Counci1 members FROM: Rolf Erickson, Orono City Assessor 473-1844 Rolf Erickson Enterprises, Inc. dba Southwest Assessing DATE: July 30, 1997 RE: 1998 Assessment Contract Term of Contract: September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998 Current Contract amount:$78,000.00 Requested amount for 1998 Assessment:$79,950.00 Number of new houses in 1997 My request for increase is based on the following factor. Cost of living/doing business <2.50:^>$1 ,950.00 Total $1,950.00 i - I i Please consider this request at the next City Council meeting that you consider appropriate. If you have any questions or the Council requests my presence at a meeting please call. CC\ ^0.ej REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: DATE: August 11, 1997 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Engineer ’s Report Item Description: Public Hearing for Navarre >^ater Treatment Plant Rehabilitation At the last budget work session, the Council discussed assessing customers in the Navarre water system approximately $250 per unit to help fund rehabilitation of the water treatment plant. Use of assessments for this project will require that an assessment hearing be held. A notice of the assessment hearing will need to sent to all of the affected property owners at least 21 days before the scheduled hearing date. To allow adequate time for the proper notifications, we are recommending an assessment hearing date from mid to late September. A separate hearing date from the regularly scheduled City Council meeting is also recommended . The ideal schedule for this project would be to complete project plans and specifications late this fall anr' begin work during the winter of 1998. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Schedule an assessment hearing for the Navarre water treatment plant upgrade from mid to late September. % 4'<s.c>, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August?, 1997 ITEM NO; j 5 Department Approval: Name Tom Kuehn ^ Title Finance Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Resignation of John Olson, Accountant/Management Analyst John Olson, Accountant/Management Analyst, has accepted a position with the City of Hutchinson. He has resigned his position with us effective Friday, August 22, 1997, after three years of exemplary service. John has been a dedicated coworker and an important addition to the finance staff. He will be missed greatly. He provided essential contributions during the transition of the payroll, utility billing and financial record keeping systems from an off-site system to in-house system. He has worked on many other special projects, always in a very proficient and professional manner. In the past year he has also applied his talents to the public works area, which has been of great benefit to the City. We Avish him well in his new endeavor. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept the resignation of John Olson, Accountant/Management Analyst. PROPOSED MO 1 ION: - Moved by.seconded by.to accept the resignation of John Olson, Accountant/Management Analyst, effective August 22, 1997 Ayes ___, Nays ___. >rtflea8t i.j, COMMUNICATIONS.MEDIA DIVISION ORIGINAL DOCUMENT OR QUALITY '*«»**; 121'iPPR PRINTED f 't-ir - • • - -• ■ ------ PQR>Vo^ USB ONLY amt ^^dz ^ ilJK• • • * JY DATEiSs^:^^ - - r-var. iME^OF ESTABLISBffiHT WHEREXOTTOLING WIl^H&OJJPS^ ^i. Loung,"-^- JSO'^Shoreline'Dr ‘ 30NTY Bennepin . f. ■.■• ■... ., __________-■- -•f* -Ol V -.' ---- - *.*;v - t.v.'ri^inftrin’rrit^ ,r. •~r% -c SSf '-- .- ” xUf >,r:. ils\raE PREMISE^CATED?HI^N ^Ti:r -:fgBSi5 Tr.; ■■ . ~:^^:*g8S26rfe.-- ■ ;,TI:E CITY^iIMITS?;;..Y...^^ • ; "TSrii-'i 3Es!{your organization own ■,T^^^;SITE? F NOT list THE^LKSOR; 3UBAS'EoltZ ~ 233.\Bartlette Blvd jund KN 55364 -■ • f* . -;.'-*>•••• • • --Z^7rP^2L ■ n - . ■•••.-“ • >r'-» r<- • — - .“ AMB OF PROPERTY OWNER (WHEN NOT LESSOR) ;.^.t ---vfeir.. .. ' i«‘i<1S^*■ TT;: * • ^ -rr ***?- •• - --fe: .-^vtj'-*7^. * • •• ' • .M* . .... . •- 35i^^S5 ' .• ., :V!^:6cS5 .-• ■ ■ *■ V ~ ■ • ■ ^.i4 - - - - - - - -:■ ■t ••• .. QOARE FEET PER MONTH: QOARE FEET PER OCCASION:I ':EI.;;a . X'JiiwS.:. AMOUNT PAID FOR RENT PER MONTH: . AMOUNT PAID .PER OCCASION: , -------- -----------'• -‘-^.BTNGQ ACTIVITY TOGO IS CONDUCTED OH THIS PECTISES: HO --a^.S- IHSTROCTIOHS FOR HEQUIREP^ ATTACHMEHT ^ .li^STORACB ADDRESS ^, .• -<>•/ •■ . • ■",?>.•■: :'XA.\zirT.“' :z'" ^virre MN 55392 , )80 Shoreline Dr r.^rr*... .Bt^National Ba^ Of The Lake UlTlShady Wood Rd avarre MN 55392. 4.’X- *5i. .AMBLING BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER * -----*•<.--- .....^:- cs^UgasLi:. : >»- *.* . ,^:t- . > ■* r »•- • LINES PROVIDED BE^'^ISt'.THE N^^DRES sJ^^^LE ™ pS^^- tTHORIZED ToTsIGN^CHECKS,:AND1MAKE DEP0SIJSi^.:WI,T®R^W^^S.-F0RxTIffi,^I3LING^^^ •IE lORGANI ZATION,' S ^TREASUR V’■- fTHS 2344VNlSollet ^ ^ ___ ' ’ ' «» » ----- _i -.r-r— .;' -trr.-r •* ' - *• Leslie Ogg ‘.2 1 Stephen Claypatch 2344 ' • /.vV . 'iMH: \ . - (BE-'i :aIS FORiM WILL BE MADE AVAI^LE IN P^TER^TI^ Check Number 54411 Totals Check Number Check Number 54412 54412 54412 Totals Check Ntimber Check Number 54413 54413 GREAT NEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 30-Jul-97 Totals Check Number 54413 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO Check Number 54414 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL 54414 30-Jul-97 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL 54414 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL Check Number 54415 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL 30-JU1-97 Totals Check Number raHNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL 54415 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL Check Number 54416 54416 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 30-Jul-97 Totals Check Number ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 54416 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 54417 54417 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 30-JU1-97 Totals Check Number LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 54417 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 54418 54418 MN DEPT OF REVErOJE 30-JU1-97 Totals Check Number MN DEPT OF REVENUE 54418 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 54419 54419 MN MUTUAL LIFE 30-JU1-97 Totals Check Number MN MUTUAL LIFE 54419 MN MUTUAL LIFE 28 Jul 1997 Mon 1:32 PM Check Number Check Number S4420 54420 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP 30-Jul-97 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Totals Check Number Check Number 54421 PEBSCO/OBRA 30-Jul-97 Totals Check Number 54421 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 54422 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 30-JU1-97 Totals Check Number PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 54422 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Check Number 54423 54423 54423 PERA 30-Jul-97 30-Jul-97 Totals Check Number PERA PERA 54423 PERA Check Number 54424 54424 UNITED WAY 30-JU1-97 Totals Check Number UNITED WAY 54424 UNITED WAY Grand Total ’r4 31 Jul 1997 Thu 3:19 PM Check Number Check Number 53886 53886 53886 Check Register City of Orono Page 1 Date Name 53886 POSTMASTER 31-Jul-97 POSTMASTER 31-Jul-97 POSTMASTER 31-Jul-97 POSTMASTER Totals Check Number 53886 POSTMASTER Check Number 53887 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 53887 31-Jul-97 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Totals Check Number 53887 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Check Number 53888 ROCKVAM BOAT YARDS INC. 53888 31-JU1-97 ROCKVAM BOAT YARDS INC. Totals Check Number 53888 ROCKVAM BOAT YARDS INC. Check Number 54195 CITY OF MOUND 54195 31-Jul-97 CITY OF MOUND Totals Check Number 54195 CITY OF MOUND Check Number 54232 CITY OF MOUND 54232 31-JU1-97 CITY OF MOUND Totals Check Number 54232 CITY OF MOUND Check Number 54252 O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR 54252 31-JU1-97 O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR Totals Check Number 54252 O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR Check Number 54356 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS 54356 54356 31-JU1-97 31-Jul-97 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 54356 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS Check Number 54388 OFFICE DEPOT Transaction Amount 71.88 143.76 143.76 359.40 •4,500.00 •4,500.00 -31.45 54388 31-JU1-97 OFFICE DEPOT -1,048.50 54388 31-Jul-97 OFFICE DEPOT -236.25 Totals Check Humber 54388 OFFICE DEPOT -1,284.75 Comments 2ND CJTR UTILITY BILLING 2ND QTR UTILITY BILLING 2ND QTR UTILITY BILLING PERMIT-TONKAVIEW DRAINAGE BOAT RENTAL VOID CK #54195 VOID CK #54232 VOID CK #54252 VOID CK #54356 VOID CK #54356 VOID CK #54388 VOID CK #54388 Grand Total -5,491.50 ; Aug 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Qieck Number 54425 54425 54425 Totals Check Number Check Number ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number Check Number 54427 ASPLUNDH COFFEE ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number 54427 ASPLUNDH COFFEE Check Number 54428 54428 ASSOC OF METRO MUNICIPALITIES ll-Aug-97 ASSOC OF METRO MUNICIPALITIES Totals Check Number 54428 ASSOC OF METRO MUNICIPALITIES Check Number 54429 AT & T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV ll-Aug-97 AT & T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV Totals Check Number 54429 AT t T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV Check Number 54430 AT&T 54430 ll-Aug-97 Totals Qieck Number AT&T 54430 AT&T Check Number 54431 54431 54431 54431 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number AUGIES MOBILE CHEF AUGIES MOBILE CHEF AUGIES MOBILE CHEF 54431 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Check Number 54432 BARBAROSSA & SONS 54432 ll-Aug-97 BARBAROSSA & SONS Totals Check Number 54432 BARBAROSSA & SONS 316*864.61 316*864.61 Check Number 54433 BEACK* SCOTT ll-Aug-97 BEACK. SCOTT 228.00 7 Aug 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check Number Check Number 54440 Check Register City of Orono Date Ware 54448 D.M.J. CORPORATION ll-Aug-97 D.M.J. CORPORATION Totals Check Number 54448 D.M.J. CORPORATION deck Number 54449 DAHLKE TREE SERVICE 54449 54449 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number DAHLKE TREE SERVICE DAHLKE TREE SERVICE 54449 DAHLKE TREE SERVICE Check Number 54450 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 54450 ll-Aug-97 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO, Totals Check Number 54450 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO Check Number 54451 54451 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 54451 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Check Number 54452 54452 DOYLE INC. ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number DOYLE INC. 54452 DOYLE INC. Check Number 54453 54453 E-Z RECYCLI1R3 08-Aug-96 Totals Check Number E-Z RECYCLING 54453 E-Z RECYCLING Check Number 54454 54454 E.... RENNER & SONS ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number E.H. RENNER U SONS S4454 E.H. RENNER & SONS Check Number 54455 54455 EARL F. ANDERSON :k C. ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number EARL P. .RSON k ASSOC, 54455 EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC Check Number 54456 54456 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 54456 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Transaction Amount 1.500.00 2.375.00 3.875.00 128.00 128.00 510.00 510.00 63.21 63.21 5,422.92 5,422.92 10,498.53 10,498.53 389.13 389.13 169.40 169.40 Page 4 Comments BLACK DIRT, CONCRETE DUMP TREE TRIMMING TREE TRIMMING BEER FOR RESALE CONNECTION CHARGES LIFT CABLE JULY SERVICE PAY 81 HELL 82 MAINTENANC SIGN BEER FOR RESALE - • 7 Aug 1997 Thu 1:59 PM CnecJc Number Check Number L 54457 Check Register City of Orono Paje 5 Date Name 54457 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES INC. ll-Aug-97 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES INC Totals Check Number 54457 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES INC. Check Number S445B ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS 54458 28-Jul-97 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 54458 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS Check Namber 54459 ESS BROTHERS & SONS 54459 54459 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 ESS BROTHERS & SONS ESS BROTHERS & SONS Totals Check Number 54459 ESS BROTHERS k IH.'tVS Check Number 54460 PEED RITE CONTROLS 54460 ll-Aug-97 FEED RITE CONTROLS Totals Check Number 54460 FEED RITE CONTROTS Check Number 54461 FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY 54461 ll-Aug-97 FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY Totals Check Number 54461 FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY Check Number 54462 FROST, SHER> R. 54462 ll-Aug-97 FROST, SHERRY R. Totals Check Number 54462 FROST, SHER_RY R. Check Number 54464 G k K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 G a K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 G a K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 G a K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 G a K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 G a K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 G a K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 G a K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 . G a K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 G a K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 G a K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 G a K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 G a K SERVICES 54464 ll-Aug-97 G a K SERVICES Totals Check Number 54464 G a K SERVICES Transaction Amount 16,757.00 16,757.00 75.62 83.07 158.69 Comments BOND CONSULTANT FEE CLEAR VINYL ENVELOPE COVERS GRATE CHLORINE 1982 G.O. BONDS INTEREST MINUTES STREET QiPLOYEES RATHBUN STEFFBNHAGEN STREET EMPLOYEES RATHBUN STEFF2NHAGEN FLOOR MATS STREET EMPLOYEES RATHBUN STEFFCNHAGLN STREET EMPLOYEES RATHBUN STEFFENHAGEN 479.32 7 Aug 1997 Thu 1:59 I'M Check Number Check Number 54474 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 54474 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL ll-Aug-97 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESTX Totals Check Number 54474 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL Check Number 54475 54475 JOHN BABLER AIT-OBODY ll-Aug-97 JOHN BABLER AUTOBODY Totals Check Number 54475 JOHN BABLER AUTOBODY Check Number 54476 JOHN R. DUBOIS 54476 ll-Aug-97 Totals Check NUnO^r JOHN R. DUBOIi 54476 JOHN R. DUBOIS Check Humber 54477 KOBHNEN'S AMOCO 54477 ll-Aug-97 KOEHNEN'S AMOCO Totals Check Number 54477 KOEHNEN'S AMOCO Check Number 54478 LAJSLAND 54478 ll-Aug-97 LAKELAND Totals Check Number 5447L LAKELAND Check Number 54479 LOGIS 54479 ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number LOGIS 54479 LOGIS Check Number 54460 54480 54460 54480 54480 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT 54480 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Check Number 54481 54481 LUBE TECH ll-Aug-97 LUBE TECH Totals Check Number 54481 LUBE TECH Check Number 54462 54482 MAGIC CLEANERS ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number MAGIC CLEANERS 54482 MAGIC CLEANERS Transaction Amount 318.00 318.00 690.96 690.96 2,978.39 2,978.39 131.68 131.68 86.01 86.01 903.Si 903.95 1.85 33.99 340.80 52.75 429.39 137.34 137.34 31.95 31.95 Page 7 Comments REPAIR GENERATOR #178 REPAIRS WTR TOWER ANTENNA CONSULT FUEL PURCHASES ELEMENT JUNE DISK SPACE LINKS MISC. EQUIPMENT CHAINSAN SAFETY CHAIN FILTERS BLANKET CLEANING 7 Aug 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check Mufober Qieck Number 54483 54483 54483 54483 MEDICA CHOICE ll-Aug-97 MEDICA CHOICE ll-Aug-97 MEDICA CHOICE ll-Aug-97 MEDICA CHOICE Totals Check Number 54483 MEDICA CHOICE Checlc Humber S44«4 MEDTOX LABORATORIES S44B4 31-DCC-96 MEDTOX LABORATORIES Totals Checlc Humber 54484 MEDTOX LABORATORIES Checlc Number 54495 MIDWEST ASPHALT 54485 ll-Aug-97 MIDWEST ASPHALT Totals Check Number 54485 MIDWEST ASPHALT Check Humber 54486 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO 54486 54486 54486 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 14-Jul-97 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Totals Check Humber 54496 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Check Humber 54487 MILLER. CHRIS 54487 08-Aug-96 MILLER, CHRIS Totals Check Number 54487 MILLER, CHRIS Check Number 54488 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 54488 ll-Aug-97 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Number 54488 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Check Number 54489 MINNEGASCO 54489 54489 54489 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO Totals Check Number 54489 MINNEGASCO Check Number 54490 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC. 54490 ll-Aug-97 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC. Totals Check Number 54490 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC Check Number 54491 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 12.66 GAS CHARGES 141.36 GAS CHARGES 179.70 GAS CHARGES 333.72 233.56 233.56 CODE BOOKS 7 Aug 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check. Number Check Number 54491 54491 54491 Check Register City of Orono Page 9 Date Name 54491 MN DEPT OP REVENUE 08-Aug-96 MN DEPT OF REVENUE H-Aug-97 MM DEPT OF REVENUE 08-Aug-96 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Totals ChecJt Number 54491 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number S4492 MOORSE, RON ll-Aug-97 MOORSE, RON54492 Totals Check Norober 54492 MOORSE, RON Check Number 54493 MPLS EQUIPMENT CO. ll-Aug-97 MPLS EQUIPMENT CO,54493 Totals Check Number 54493 MPLS EQUIPMENT CO, Check Humber 54494 MTI DIST CO. ll-Aug-97 MTI DIST COS4494 Totals Check Number 54494 MTI DIST CO Check Number 54495 MUNICILITE CO. 54495 ll-Aug-97 MUNICILITE CO. Totals Check Number 54495 MUNICILITE CO. Check Number 54496 NOW CARE MEDICAL CENTERS 54496 ll-Aug-97 NOW CARE MEDICAL CENTERS Totals Check Number 54496 NOW CARE MEDICAL CEN ERS Check Number 54497 54497 54497 54497 54497 54497 54497 NSP ll-Aug-97 06-Feb-97 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP Totals Check Number 54497 NSP Check Number 54498 O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR 54498 ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR 54498 O'SULLIVANS AUTO liEPAIR Transaction Amount 2,816.00 871.60 63.00 3,750.60 83.80 83.80 643.66 643.66 94.79 94.79 108.74 108.74 35.00 35.00 157.50 1,204.06 185.75 818.31 2,470.76 2,192.23 6,988.61 4.25 4.25 Comments JULY SALES TAX JULY SALES TAX JULY SALES TAX EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT HOSE TOWELS RETATOR RESPONDER DRUG TESTING HWY 12 & WILLOW STREET LIGHT BILL NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES NSP aiARGES NSP CHARGES FILM FOR B fc 2. •TiOiTTT^ ■ ''WWWti 7 Aug 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check Number Check Number 54515 Check Register City of Oiono Page 12 Date Name 54515 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS ll-Aug-97 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS Totals Check Nuniber 54515 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS Check Number: 54516 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 54516 22-Aug-96 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY Totals Check Number 54516 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY Check Number 54517 THE SIGN AGE 54517 54517 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 the sign age the sign age Totals Check Number 54517 THE SIGN AGE Check Number 54518 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 true value hardware true value hardware true value hardware true value hardware Totals Check Number 54518 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE Check Number 54519 THIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO. 54519 ll-Aug-97 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR Totals Check Number 54519 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR Check Number 54520 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 54520 54520 54520 54520 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - Check Number 54522 US WEST COWICNICATIONS 54522 ll-Aug-97 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Transaction Amount 226.05 526.65 752.70 55.00 Comments DEVELOPER UNIT 2ND HALF PAYMENT #174 GRAPHICS #177, 178 GRAPHICS batteries MISC PARTS STAPLES STAPLE GUN DRAW BAR AUGUST INSURANCE AUGUST INSURANCE AUG’ ‘‘T INSURANCE august insurance Totals Check Number 54520 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 345.65 Check Number 54521 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD & D 0 15 AUGUST IKSURAHCB 54521 ll-Aug-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD fit D m 0 64 AUGUST INSURANCE 54521 ll-Aug-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD fit D 0 27 AUGUST INSURANCE 54521 ll-Aug-97 UNUM LIFE insurance - AD fill D 74 25 AUGUST INSURANCE 54521 ll-Aug-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD & D Totals Check Number 54521 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD & D 75.31 293.7t»US HELT CHARGES 7 Aug 1997 Thu 1:59 PM Check Number Check Number 54522 54522 54522 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 54522 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 28-JU1-97 US WEST COW1UNICATIONS 28-Jul-97 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 28-Jul-97 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Totals Check Number 54522 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Check Number 54523 54523 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number VAN ZONERQf, ELIZABETH 54523 VAN ZOMEREN« ELIZABETH Check Number 54524 54524 VIKING SAFETY EQUIPMENT ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number VIKING SAFETY EQUIPMENT 54524 VIKING SAFETY EQUIPMENT Check Number 54525 54525 VILLAGE CHEVROLET ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number VILLAGE CHEVROLET 54525 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Check Numl>er 54526 54526 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE ll-Aug-97 Totals Check Number WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 54526 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE Grand Total Transaction Amount 127.99 13.26 436.94 871.94 10.20 10.20 2,826.30 2,826.30 3.27 3.27 10.00 10.00 497,847.36 Page 13 Comments US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES EXPENSE REIMBURSEl^^rr MAN HOIST, CHAIR MISC PART USED TIRE INSTALLATION City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM For Your Information DATE: TO: FROM: July 30, 1997 Mayor Jabbour, City Council Members, and Planning Commissioners Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zon’ 'g Administrator SUBJECT: William and Karen Peters, 1950 Concordia Street_______________________ PagkgrQund In March and April 1997 you considered variances for 1950 Concordia Street. The applicants requested an average lakeshore setback variance of approximately 8' to allow a new residence with lakeside decks to be constructed. Another issue was the height of the proposed observatory. A variance to allow the height at 31’4" instead of 30' was also approved. The Building Official, Lyle Oman, informed me on 7-29-97 that the architectural style of the proposed structure had changed and the observator>' has been dropped 7'he new roofline meets the 30' height requirement so the variance is no longer needed. Because of the concerns shown at both the Planning Commission and Cih, - uncil meetings regarding the height and lakeside views, I wanted to let you know that the plans had changed. Please compare the front elevations for both the original and revised plans. Note that the original proposal exceeded the 30' height requirement and needed a variance whereas the revised meets the 30' requirement. The visual diiference is more roof or bulk with the revised roofline. Structurally, theie is no other difference--window placement and building footprint remain the same. ConcordiaOri^inAl Pfopo^i tpprD^ HeiShf 31* M lA|fi€side 10^ m 9 ' *«bf» iW ^■ -^-•’r ■ •f'- ^ • •• i i»-. s vx i '^C»?-*Mba^^i ‘•C ' i?>fijr-•4 - >1- - i '■>■. V.i:>•.;. y-S'-hJdt \ >.^■»-. V »^rT -»'•«*» - u >»** ^ : «-» .*•: r <’• "t- • > »- !<• yv * r 4* •»V ^ V • »- - -, - •'■K'l " V W' '^'iV -r*-^ ■'V' t*»- Xf f'|>7:r*v>% • •. ... - ^ #u--iv r: ^ v -Cr*^''%♦ d ♦ •' •-V — • jigi • —' ** “'i** 11^ te '-''*r.:i>;. ^ V^' ' v' fe.'s; -’ ' •::< -r • > '. - V-*3^3*'^“''' •• -^4S 5^^ I Concord iq St?fevi'sed .’ ,fl 1?.-¥ ■TCir=^,iSsr77i.Z^J:F~ Tn: v'i ' — -y-■ ■'•:«'^-■•* — -i^^j»jsr~r r~ >••* ^ "*• *' v’.'•'•■/'•■ ■’• .'*•■" I *v ."'. .. •• ----------------- ------• V-'. ■>..•.. • •;. -V«-. . ~ ‘.r^* iv -. • • i* • • \* ‘ * ■,• '♦ .. .r»*^ i *. A-*" S- V h ;•/ I ;•' ' ' • ••! ................ V •• ',*• *,•••’ ’*• . '* . :t-• • 'VV,:: V- > v.•- - y* ;V •'• ‘ ■ V ■* - */'- -f’ **^ V’i*• ‘'rs ■ •' ‘ •* .-V 'St* - ir- ' 't./ . .-St. • •••••■ ::v' •* % > I * ’ * » # • * * .t m r ». •••• •• • r'"V* •.■•.. ••>■;• •••• ; •: .. V / *•« -r '. V ' * ... - 4:c .. * A ? •• /- . V* •'i‘>:.' -Vjv 'k. —y^Vv* *■ ' ■ • **• ■>. V. ->■••>"•••• j’v * ' * ♦.•.*'» t V* v:’.^.=" ‘?-^-; ---’;... *v fc.*^"*^*** • .*• r ■ 1^ • I •j»* ^ *v* •• •*..*• •-yv; :r V,^-.*.' t. *•-1 >• * • J- .• •./ "I- ‘ •V* ; • • « CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 6 S A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B) FILE NO. 2220 'WHEREAS, William and Karen Peters (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1950 Concordia Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: (hereinafter "the property"); and Lots 23 and 24, Fagemess including accretions between said lots and Lake Mirmetonka, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southerly line of Under the Linden Avenue which point is 42.15 feet Southeasterly in a straight line from the West comer of Lot 24, Fagemess and at an angle of 119 degrees 24 minutes from the Northerly line of said Lot 24; thence in a straight line of said angle of a distance of 61.5 feet to the low water mark; thence Easterly along low water mark to the Easterly line of said Lot 23 extended. Southerly; thence Northerly along the said Easterly line of Lot 23 extended, a distance of 57.5 feet to the Southerly line of Under the Linden Avenue; thence Westerly on the Southerly line of Under the Linden Avenue, a distance of 194.2 feet to the point of begirming, said accretions being subject to the right of the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County, Minnesota for the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota to maintain height of water in said Lake Minnetonka as nearly as practicable at a point 10 feet 3 inches below the top of the Northeast pier of the bridge over Shavers Narrows at the entrance to Gray's Bay, said bndge being situated near the Southwest comer of Sect'on 8, Township 117, Range 22 West, that certain point being at a height 218.335 feet above the datum line of the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota as said datum line is officially established by an ordinance of the City Council of said City of Minneapolis, as is more particularly set out in District Court case file number 73992, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County (hereinafter "the property"); and Page 1 of 5 r m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. '8 8 6 3 4. 5. The applicant originally proposed a design that measured 32'5", when measured as the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level adjacent to the garage and the average height of the highest gable of the pitched roof of the observatory. The applicant worked with staff to use an dtemative feasible engineering solution Aat reduced the height to 3r4". The proposed design includes a walk-out basement which is not considered a story and two levels above which are considered the first and second story. For purposes of measuring height, the observatory shall be considered a half-story because it does not exceed 50% of the building footprint. The proposed design is therefore considered 2 1/2 stories in conformance with the definition of "building height". The City Council finds that tlie conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) to allow lakeside decks that encroach 8' into the average lakeshore setback. Approval was 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 e}q)iie on that date (March 24, 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 graiited herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MO. 3 868 _ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ^ day of I , 19 97 . before a Notary Public , ^ within and for said County, persnnallVippeared v known to me to be the persons) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed rzzzzi 4.1 M n' i' i' i' i;.tr mm.M(jw5puii(SrM^ My Not^ Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. Ondiis day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personaUy appeared-------------------------------^—;---------—^ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregomg instrument, ana acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 r neighborhood committee MEETING HELD AT 5:30 P.M. ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 31,1997 I Members pre'^nt: Betty Bruning, Brian Fulmer, Jeffrey Martin, Clint Miller, and Bob Sansevere. Cor^itter^"^' ^ Murphy, and Ron Moorse-all members of the Design R<Leview refined based on mput from the neighborhood residents. p It wasmdicated ^ Orchid Park Road is currently being used as a short cut from Watertown Road ® narrow road, and is not suited to heavy traffic. It was ^^ested that if Stubbs Bay Road is cul-de-sac-ed as part of the Highway 12 project the amount of traffic that wll use Orchard Park Road as a short cut between Watertown Road and Highway 12 will increase subs^tially. Four of the ten property owners on Orchard Park Road were present at the four agreed that the best solution to the traffic problem on Orchard Park^Road would for coMi^ran^^^^ fois solution be brought to the City Council Clint Miller, who lives on Silver Meadow Drive, indicated the new roadway will substantially ree^dfo^Lwr T interested in getting additional details reg^dmg how MniDOT plans to mitigate the effects of placing both the railroad and the roadway m close proximity to what is currently a rural residential neighborhood. CImt Miller asked what the timing of the design process is. Moorse indicated the preliminary layout design process ™dway are not planned to be addressed until later in the It was suggested ^at the city and the Design Review Committee need to address issues of how the Tk “k ”'j wll affect the character of ruralresidential neighborhoods adjacent to the roadway. Ed Cdlahan suggested that die city and the Neighborhood Committees should be proactive in 1 en ifying issues and developing solutions to those issues early in the process before Mn/DOT develops any preconceptions regarding preferred solutions. Jim Murphy diagrammed and explained the various communication channels operating as part of MINUTES OF THE HIGHWAY 12 DESIGN-WEST NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE MEETING HELD AT 5:30 P.M. ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 31,1997 Continued the preliminary design process. A copy of the diagram is attached. Moorse indicated that the agendas and meeting schedule of the West Neighborhood Committee will be based on the priority issues identified by the Committee members and the issues on the Design Review Committee agenda. It was requested that future meetings be held at 6:00 p.m. rather than 5:30 p.m. The next meeting of the West Neighborhood Committee will include a representative of Mn/DOT to provide details regarding how Mn/DOT plans to mitigate the impacts of the new roadway and relocated railroad on homes that will be directly adjacent to the relocated railroad. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. COMMUNICATION FLOW CHART HIGHWAY 12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROCESS ( property owners TO:Mayor and City Council FROM:Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE:August 4,1997 SUBJECT: Proposed New Uses at Hennepin County DOT Shop Hennepin County currently has a highway department buildmg and yard on County Road 1^5 m Orono at ihe boarder of Orono and Spring Park. The site is approximately 5 to 6 acres md h^ a small building. A map is attached showing the site and the building. Several additional uses ate being considered for this site. These are as follows: Hennepin County is planning to use a portion of the site for salt/sand storage. The lake area City Managers/Administrators have been discussing two cooperative efforts that could make use of a portion of the site or building. These are as follows: a. A sand/aggiegate recycling operation. This involves sand that has been used for snow and ice control and excess aggregate such as pea rock or granite chips that have been for seal coating. The recycling process is to screen the sand and aggregate to remove dirt etc. so that it can be reused rather than disposed of. This saves disposal costs and reduces the amount of new sand and aggregate needed. b. Animal impound facility. The south lake cities have recently been placed on notice that the facility they currently use for impounding animals (mostly dogs) wll no longer be available to them after 1998. The city of Orono has also been advised that there is some potential that the impound facility currently used by the city (Wright Humane Society) could relocate to Buffalo. The lake area cities have been pursuing other options for animal impound facilities. At this point there are no vet clinics that are interested in serving as an impound facility The lake area cities are considering a jointly owned and operated impo^d facility This would be a small facility with all animals being housed inside. The Hennepin County DOT site has been identified as a potential site for an impound facility. A letter asking Hennepin County whether it would consider allowing Ihe recycling and/or impound uses on the site is being prepared. Both the Spring Park City Administrator and 1 have indicated that we would want to insure that the new uses would not generate unacceptable noise levels, and that adequate measmes would be taken to prevent materials from the salt/sand storage and recycling operations from getting into the stormwater runoff. If any Councilniember has additional concerns regarding these potential uses please let me know. (. I (28). To; From: Date: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mayor & Council Ivlichael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator August 4,1997 Subject: Response to Lake Chemical Regulation Letter Attached is the only response received so far to my July 21 letter to the Miimesota Department of Agriculture regarding regulation of lake chemical treatment mm LAKE RESTORATION, INC. Professional Lake Weed Control “Since 197T July 23, 1997 Gene Hugoson, Commissioner Minnesota Department of Agriculture 90 West Plato Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55107 Re: Notification of lake weed treatments 'xhis letter is in response to a letter addressed to you on July 21, 1997 from Michael P. Gaffron of the City of Orono. The following is the process currently followed for notification for lake weed treatments. 1. Customers are sent a letter outlining the time frame in which treatments will be made. 2. If a request is made to be notified by phone that is also done. 3. At the time of treatment large, bright orange signs are posted at the ends of the treatment areas. All approved aquatic herbicides and algaecides do not have any swimming restrictions. Lake users can swim the same day that treatment is made. Restrictions only apply to the area treated. It is very difficult to identify in advance the exact date of treatment. This is due to growth of the lake weeds and weather restricting treatment dates. A large treatment as contemplated by the City of Orono in the attached article or the lakewide alum treatment completed in 1996 on Long Lake in Orono would be even more difficult to provide exact date of treatment notification. Thousands of lake properties are treated each summer for control of eurasian watermilfoil, native aquatic plants, and algae. The current process of notification has worked very well. cc: Michael P. Gaffron Greg Buzicky, MDA Mark Zabel, MDA Paul Liemenadt, MDA Duane Shodeen, MDNR Mike Halverson, MDNR David Wright, MDNR 620 Hamel Road Hamel, Minnesota 55340 (612) 478-9421 12 •'»*r •{Oroiio ftouhcil seeks DNR help with milfoil problemKW' v: . .\-X> !• •• -f • . • L. .! = • ■ ••>r. V ?s%m iS July 17.1997I';'SV.V'Ff ‘r . I-' •I By John Costello . ..las^ month.report summarizing city revenues -The report, also shows that all ter T ISilllOnin* --— ----------------- J ^ Bft. l.k.', north shor.tin. is .nd_.xp.ndiln« for Ih. period •«tri;:itsr«::oi: i;^tr.h:Kri^t;',:s ;r.sis-;;;;;;^“nd=r^. ;io?.-p;r^-ux~ ? Departaumt btNatural R^ourcw resulted in new milfoil growth. the period add up to $1.64 mil- current year were realized in the seeiM.to be con^dictory to our ' r____. _________»u,» kxs s^.n»ht.. Ii«n oeriod. and the citv expects to ordinance. miU CApCIlUIlUtCO ---------- ----------- y -- he Orono City Council . thick with the p«lty plant. Smili ending June 30, 1907. The firet quately funded by first and s^ authorized City tracesofmiifoiivre.successfuiiy ;^-;tSXnd™.» :Xt™rfio^?;i';; uSb^.-^rt^p'^he to ask for dieiflielp in removing ’ Moorse said that he recently water milfoil growing in Long spoke to a DNR representative. lion. .Lake.VA-In the letter, the dty will ask the _ _ _ Some expenditures within the receive one-half of ite property tax who advised him that "there are general fund, such as suppliw share in July, two options, harvesting and and maintenance expenditures in period, and the city expects to ordinance.' The city's comprehensive plan arid city ordinances'indicate the Importance of treiB preservation in DNR to do ari|Waluationpn the chemical treatment, and neither the police and ^cling depart- ' extent of the,problem'.an^ will one is good," Moorse com- ments, and professional arid per- ’ - • - ■ ....... mehted.^ ask for advice on how to addrws r it and funding, if possible,,, Keith VandenBranden and Kurt sonal services costs in the plan- ILong Lake 'could be treated ning arid zoning department. In further action, the Council sent the issue of a city tree preser- several sections, vation ordinance to the Orono Planning Commission for review. The Orono Park Commission ______________________ when the lake accesses on Lake were higher than' anticipated prepared a first draft of a tree Greenley, who live near the lake Minnetonka are scheduled for compared to previous years. preservation, maintenance and J .nlfp RIvri spoke to the A9fKA,-tfMin/-iVcTiinfz9'^ Mnw^v^r. the exoenditures r But recent events have raised the issues of whether tree preser vation should be more regulated, and how specific a tree preserva tion ordinance should be, Includ- Cotincil at its july 14 meeting about the problem. The (Council . r “ • e .L- • -e - liuptticvi ^------------- ---------------- • 1 IJ 1 trwtment. At the council's June 23 However, the expenditures rep- reforestation policy after review- ing whether it would apply to niMting, Mayor Gabriel Jabbour resent almost 48 percent of the ing ordinances of other cities in subdivisions. oSiJd’ihaVadyacent property projected expenditures for the. the metro area, including ^ ovirriers should be notified at least 1997 calendar year, which is com- Wayzata, Shorewood and because of the (Spring Hill) golfw-8 already a^are of the.situa- owners should be notified at least 1997 calendar year, which is rom tion because- Coiincllmember one week prior to any treatment parable to prior year expenditure lUchard Hint detected the milfoil of the lake. '— The Council also received a'during a couri^ tour of city .parks levels of about 45 percent for the first two quarters. Mirinetrista. The Park Commission recom- course. It's as plain as day," Councilmember Charles Kelley mended that the Council appoint said. a subcommittee of two park com- • "I think what happened with missioners and two planning the.Spring Hill parcel wm very commissioners to work with city unique," he added. 'T don t titink staff and consultants to finalize a we're going to see anything like tree preservation policy and ordl- that again. nance. However, Mayor Jabbour and The Council supported the idea of having a joint work session the Council were concerned that with the two commissions after the Planning Commission has the Planning Commission has not previously reviewed the mat- reviewed the policy draft r. I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, and Lili McMillan. William Stoddard was absent. The following represented the City Staff: Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council Member Goetten was present. Vice Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. (The meeting began with Agenda Item #23. Items #I and following continue after discussion of this item.) SKETCH PLAN (#23) #2263 BROOK PARK REALTY 3560-3700 SHORELINE DRIVE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW The applicant was represented by Bill Gleason of Brook Park Realty and John Gleason of Eagle Crest Builders. Gaffron reported that the 9.8078 acre property is located west of the twin homes in Navarre, which are the only multi-family dwellings in Orono. The property abuts Shoreline Drive on the south and the Dakota Rail to the north. West of the property is a gravel and landscaping business, which is non-conforming in its use. The subject property is located in the LR-lCl, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The LR-IC allows for two units per acre. The 1C I allows for a PRD with a 50% increase to 3 units per acre. The proposed development would be four units per building. There are wetlands located to the front of the property and the northwest. Runoff drains to the south into Carman's Bay from Casco Point to the east. The concept plan results in a development density of 4.6 units per acre. Per the zoning requirements, the 9.8 acre property would allow for 29 units where 45 are proposed. Gaffron reviewed the code .sections that apply to the development plan. Section 10.30 Subdivision 16(1) disallows rezoning of the site to M-6 Multiple Family PRD because the site is adjacent to an LR district. M-6 is the only zoning district which would allow densities such as that proposed. Section 10.55 Subdivision 15(A)(3) allows credit for wetlands for density purposes for sewered residential property. Section 10.60 Subdivision 2 disallows density in excess of 4 units per acre of dry buildable land. The property in question has about 7 acres of dry buildable allowing for about 28 units. Section 11.10 Subdivision 14 prohibits the granting of variances to the density provisions of the code. This results in the proposed 45 units being too many to consider under the current code standards. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23- #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Gaffron reviewed the memo regarding wetlands, hardcover limitations, engineering issues, and sewer and water connection charges. There is a concern about possible wetland along the west side. The wetlands require confirmation and may require some is a 35% hardcover limit for a PRD in the LR-IC District. A letter is included from the City engineer regarding the proposal. The preliminary determination for sewer and water connection charges is approximately $3800 per unit. The memo also outlines PRD standards for consideration Gaffron informed the Commissioners that under a PRD foey have the oppoi^ity to create what they would like to see for such a development and give direction to the developer. The applicants were asked to comment. Bill Gleason indicated that they had been unaware of the limitations on the property iKing adiacent to the LR District. It is their plan to develop affordable housing through higher densi^- A Zion of the development plan is laid out on neighboring property not yet acquired or part of fhClai He noted there is a driveway currently crossing over wetlands. The wetlands will be preserved. Entry into the property would be from Livingston Avenue. Gleason said his goal is to provide a lower unit cost through higher density. He proposes a unit would cost about $135,000 or less if the 48 unit density was allowed. Gleason said t ey wou redo the plan if the 48 unit plan was not allowed. Each unit will ‘""'ZZZTf^Tfrom entry bathrooms, a double garage, central air conditioning, and appliances, with garage entry on the other side. There will be four units per building. There were no public comments. Smith asked if the applicant had reviewed the letter from the City Engineer. Gleason said he had no issue with the contents of the letter. He said he thought the driveway may be a problem. John Gleason asked what would be involved tvith restoration. Gaffton said •* include reexcavation and revegetation. Gaffron said the driveway has been a = for the City as it encroaches on property being developed and needs to be resolved. He f was resolvable. Hawn asked what the cost figures arc for affordable housing. “ ““ affordable range is a $120,000 valuation, which results m the estimated c p not meeting the affordable criteria. More density would be required to reduce the cost. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) proposal "as too high ptSe Ae ifT K ^‘>'P* of residents who would h^,rT n **'' “'“'I "'I'oH'Of *0 developer has considered building some units bigger to allow, for more of a mix of residents. Bill Gleason said the main issue ZTitT oS,:?11Zh 'ZOP-"-! •“ yoong couples or singles. They nesters would desire a housing cost less than $130,000. ^ ^ intenor units in the building would be smaller. The applicants said they all the same size at just under 1500 s.f. finished. ^were Bn rZ what market analysis the developer has done to determine who their buyers would be Bill Gleason sa.d he thought $150,000 per unit would be too high for townhome bwereX acknowledged that land costs wem high but felt the street and infnBtrucZrsuZe the mainconcern. neighborhood which sets the tempo for the housing. ® ® assocTadon tould te fZ!d froo siding. He also indicated that an level toZZ. 1. o J ^ P“l“8®- GI'“P" aaid building two $15000 to$l6000nni''"*i a". ^ K *^'‘1 'I’a “"'“la''alopment cost would be about$15,000 to $16,000 not including the land. Berg noted that the cost would increase for the premium lots. I" concept only if die (Schroeder arrived at this time.) -------- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) McMillan asked about guest parking. Bill Gleason said each unit would have room for two cars in the garage and two cars in front of the units. There will be room elsewhere for parking and a public road going through the development. Green spaces will be provided. Hawn asked if it was impossible to rezone the area. Hawn indicated that the property is the last area available for affordable housing. The proposal is way over the density that can be allowed but Hawn said she favors the effort. Bill Gleason reiterated that they misunderstood the zoning. Gaffron said any higher density would require rezoning. He informed the Commissioners that in order to allow more than three units per acre, a new zone would have to be created. Hawn asked if there were any other area where low cost housing could be built. Gaffron said he did not think so, this is the only area zoned for multiple family in Navarre. Hawn said she would like to pursue rezoning of this property. Berg said she would consider reviewing it but not for the number of units as proposed. McMillan agreed with Berg. Berg said she understood the concern but felt the number proposed was too dense. Smith agreed with Berg. McMillan noted that any density between 29 and 45 units would still require rezoning. Gaffron said this would require changing the LR-lC-1 zone standards or creating a new zone which takes time. Smith also indicated that the unit price would not necessarily come down much in cost. Smith said she overall supports the proposal but does not favor rezoning to the extent needed for the density requested. She said the other issues are probably solvable. Berg said she liked the look of the proposal. John Gleason said they would try to maintain the price. He asked what the time frame was for rezoning. Gaffron said the Council would likely want to review all of Navarre on a comprehensive level and estimated a minimum of six months. John Gleason asked if the Commission thought the proposal with less density was favorable. Berg concurred noting the desire for affordable housing while still meeting the benchmark density. Gleason asked how they could come up with a density level. Smith informed him that any density level over 28 or 29 units would require rezoning. Gaffron reiterated that density over 28 units would require at least six months for review' of the zoning. V ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Bill Gleason asked how the determination of 28 units was made. Gaffron said it was determined by the dry buildable and would result in 28-30 units. Berg said the applicant also has to consider the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal will increase the traffic which has to be considered. She noted that the addition of the adjacent parcel would result in the County reviewing the traffic as well. McMillan indicated that with no code allowing density over 28 units, the density level cannot be determined at this point. Bill Gleason said they could review and re-tool the plan if rezoning was a possibility. Gaffron said if the Commission would like to consider rezoning, the Council should review the sketch plan first to see if they support the idea of rezoning. John Gleason clarified the water and sewer connection charge of $3800 per unit. Gaffron said density level would not change the unit cost. (Dale Lindquist arrived at this time.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1)#2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:12-7:24 P.M. The Applicant, Robin Helgager, along with Neil Heupel, were present. Gaffron reported that the application is a continuation of a public hearing for remodeling of the residence. The applicant received approval for a 5* cast lot line setback in 1996 and removal of the existing detached garage and addition of an attached garage, a family room, and a change in the driveway. A revised proposal was reviewed early in 1997. Gaffron indicated that the property requires a 50' setback from CoRd 6, 150' setback from Lake Classen, a 30' side setback, all of which leaves little room for expansion of the footprint. The lakeshore setback requirement has increased since the original residence was built. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 i (#1 - #2187 Donald and Robing Helgager - Continued) The original 1997 proposal included a mother-in-law apartment. The current proposal does not include an apartment. A second story is planned over the garage area. This would result in the second story being located within the 30' setback with the proposed 5 ’ setback. Gaffron asked Commission to consider this proposal and how it might affect the adjacent property’s view of the lake. He noted that the Planning Commission had found it difficult to allow additions to the residence towards the street. There will still be an encroachment of the lakeshore setback but less than that with the existing garage that will be removed under the proposed plan. Heupel said the front entrance is now established. He said while the suggestion by Hawn for an addition to the rear was appreciated, they had forgotten about the septic tanks being located in that area. Other alternatives were not possible resulting in the request for the second story above the garage. The current entrances to the home are from the porches on the front and side. Hawn said she saw the driveway in front of the home as being a problem. Heupel said it serves as a turnaround only. Robin Helgager said it is dangerous to attempt to turn around any where else. Hawn questioned whether the driveway has to be extended across the whole front of the residence. Helgager said they are losing their parking currently used and are not able to park side by side. Smith noted that there is no place to park off of the property. McMillan asked how large the driveway area will be. Heupel said it is about 25' wide and the length of the home. Helgager said she has three small children and the property drops off to the side and would like the area for the children to play basketball. Smith said the proposal is an improvement over the last application. While she does not like to see adding to the mass of the structure, she prefers this proposal. Hawn asked if the driveway would be blacktopped. Helgager said she would like it to be as it is the only flat part of the yard. McMillan asked if the next door neighbor approved of the plan. Heupel said he lived next door and was in support of the plan. Hawn inquired about trees being affected by the proposed plan. Heigager said one tree was lost, but they plan on planting more trees. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2187 for the hardships noted. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. » If 'iI t ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#2)#2238 CHIC DWIGHT AND FRED GUTTORMSON 1220 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:24-7:58 P.M. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the application had been previously tabled at prior meetings. The question revolves around the after-the-fact variance for deck and enclosed porch improvements, and a new hardcover variance request for a 32'x30' detached garage. Gaffron directed attention to the memo of June 12 regarding the applicant's discussion with him regarding options c f reorienting the proposed garage and relocating the driveway loop and eliminating the loop in the yard to eliminate hardcover in the 0-75* setback. No conclusions were made. The issues still involve the reconstruction of the deck, deck enclosure, and detached garage. The potential tradeoffs were reviewed as noted in the memo. Lindquist asked the applicant to respond. Guttormson said he discussed the options with Gaffron. Dwight said they have agreed to remove the deck at the lakeshore if the garage and deck enclosure are allowed. The gravel driveway would be eliminated resulting in reduction in hardcover. Guttormson questioned whether the enclosure is actually a building. Lindquist said it was and would have to be reconstructed to code. Lindquist said the garage as proposed should be moved to meet the 15' setback and loop driveway eliminated in the 0-75' setback. Gaffron said if the removals w’ere made, the applicant would remove the shed, gravel driveway to lake, and lakeside deck but wished to leave the loop driveway as it is. Hawn noted there were two sheds by the lake. Guttormson said both sheds would be removed (one already has been removed). Hawn asked about storage of the motor home. Guttormson said it is parked elsewhere during the winter months and parked on the property during the summer when not in use. Lindquist asked if the applicant was willing to reduce the driveway loop. Guttormson said he has made it as small as possible in order to still be able to turn around. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#2 - #2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttormson - Continued) Smith suggested the applicant remove the portion of the loop in the 0-75' setback which she felt would allow enough remaining space for turnaround and parking. Guttormson responded that he does not need the garage enough to eliminate the driveway loop. Dwight said they are unable to park on the road and would lose space needed if they had to remove the loop. Hawn asked the size of the current garage and the use for the proposed garage. Guttormson said the existing garage is 22' wide. The new garage would be used for storage and parking of two cars. Lindquist asked if there are any changes agreed to regarding elimination of the loop driveway for the new garage. Guttormson said he would remove the lakeside deck. Hawn informed him that the deck enclosure was approved with agreement to remove the deck by the lakeside. She indicated that the applicant proceeded with the projects which required removals as conditions of the approval. Hawn noted the garage is a separate issue from the first variance and the approved variance should stand as written and not be allowed for reconsideration. Dwight said Staff told them to repair the deck and did not mention needing a permit. She said they do not feel what they did was out of line. Hawn agreed but said the proceedings called for the enclosure and reconstruction of the deck. Dwight said her understanding is the driveway to lake and lakeside deck removals were to allow for the deck enclosure. She indicated that they realized they did not need sliding doors and believed the removable screens used did not constitute a deck enclosure. Dwight said they also did not remove dirt as previously proposed. Berg noted that the prior conversation related to removal of the gravel driveway, shed, and lakeside deck. She noted the need for the Planning Commission to clearly communicate the issues to the applicant. Smith and Berg were in consensus regarding removal of the lakeside deck. Berg said the ordinance must be protected noting the attempt to accomplish the needs of both the applicant and City. Berg reviewed the issues of the lakeside deck, enclosure under the deck, the reconstruction to code of the deck for safety reasons with required permits obtained, removal of the two sheds by the lakeshore, one already rer’oved and one which will be removed, the new garage, the loop driveway in the 0-75' setback, and the driveway in the 0-75' setback. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#2 - #2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttormson - Continued) Berg said any type of construction under the deck would require the lakeside deck, gravel driveway to lake, and sheds be removed in order to allow any enclosure regardless of sliding doors or dirt removal. Dwight said the original application included removal of dirt and patio doors. Gaffron confirmed that the dirt was not removed. Lindquist said in order to obtain the new garage, the loop driveway in the 0-75' setback would have to be removed. The deck enclosure would require the other removals as noted. Schroeder agreed. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2238 for reconstruction of the deck and underneath deck enclosure with permits to be obtained and improvements built to code with the understanding the 8' gravel driveway, lakeside deck, and lakeside sheds are to be removed. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. The above approval does not include the garage. Question was raised about how much of the loop driveway would have to be removed. Guttormson noted the trees located in the area which he says he is trying to maintain. Schroeder informed him he needs to determine how important the trees are. The applicant reviewed his options regarding the driveway. Smith said the portion of the loop driveway located in the 0-75' setback would have to be removed. She felt the remaining portion was adequate for the needs of the applicant. Guttormson said he would be unable to turn his Suburban around without backing in. Schroeder informed Guttormson that in order to move the application forward to the Council, they would have to make a recommendation or the application would be tabled regarding the garage. Guttormson requested a motion be made regarding this issue. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to deny Application #2238 for the garage portion of the application. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#3) #2253 DAVID REINHOLD 3551 LIVINGSTON AVENUE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED TO AUGUST 18,1997 This item was continued to the August 18, 1997 Meeting of the Planning Commission. Gaffron indicated that the neighboring property owners were advised of the continuation of this application. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#4) #2254 CURTIS AND BARBARA PALMER 2710 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:58-8:07 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing ’’.ere noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request for a variance to allow addition of storage space above an existing garage. The garage is located in front of the principal residence and is therefore non-conforming. Van Zomeren noted the building pad for the property. She indicated that the additional structure would add to the bulk in the non-conforming area. She felt there were other areas where storage space could be added. Van Zomeren said Staff did not find adequate hardship to justify the request. The size of the added storage area would be .‘^'9" and 16' towards the street side of the garage. Mr. Palmer said the lot was hilly. The garage had been built prior to the current code. He believe the request is a good way to gain storage space and would be pleasing in appearance. Palmer said the front elevation would allow the roof line to continue its downward slope. McMillan asked how much additional space would be gained. Palmer said it would be about 100-150 s.f There were no public comments. Smith asked if the applicants were the owners of the property when the porch and addition were constructed. It was indicated that they were. Smith said the property may be a residence where additional changes would result in too much coverage. The applicant indicated that no additional ground cover would occur. Smith replied that the request would result in added bulk too close to the street. Hawn said she originally was not in favor of the request but after viewing the property, she felt the front of the house was obscured by the garage. The houses across the street were also located down a steep decline which makes a significant difference to her regarding the view of the property. Palmei noted that the house ne.xt door was more prominent. Smith inquired about the condition of the foundation. The applicant said the apron has settled and pulled away from the garage. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#4 - #2254 Curtis and Barbara Palmer - Continued) Lindquist said he agreed with Hawn. McMillan asked if there were any other storage sheds. Palmer said no and indicated that the property was too steep to allow it elsewhere. Smith suggested the applicant consider converting the porch to storage space or moving it back on the property. Palmer said he felt this option would not be aesthetically pleasing or functional. He indicated that the porch was added onto the front of the house. Barbara Palmer said the added storage space would allow her husband to stand up in his existing workshop. Schroeder said he thought they were looking for storage space noting Staff thought such space could be located elsewhere on the property. Palmer asked where it could be located. Schroeder said there is adequate building pad and is opposed to adding to the bulk of the structure. McMillan said she preferred two structures instead of adding a third. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2254 noting an additional accessory structure would be more than what is needed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Smith. (Item #5 was moved to the end of the agenda as the applicant was not present.) (#6) #2256 JAMES AND MARY RIVERS 1442 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:07-8:08 P.M. h The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicants are proposing changing the roof line of the existing residence. Replacement is necessary because of damage from snow accumulating in the valley in the roof. A variance is required because the house is located in the 0-75' setback. Staff recommended approval. The applicant had no additional comments. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#6 - #2256 James and Mary Rivers - Continued) There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2256. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#7) #2257 DENNIS A. MEYER 4685 TONKAVIEW LANE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:08-8:20 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that although the memo indicates the need for both lot area and lot width Yankees for construction of a new residence, only lot area is required. The 0.69 acre property h^ 82,0 of the 140' standard which is satisfactory. Gaffron noted that the survey, elevations, and plans are provided. The new residence would meet the 35' front setback, 10* side setback, and hardcover requirements. The northern two-thirds of the lot is within the 500-1000' lakeshore setback. ^ffron said the applicant was asked to submit a grading plan because of drainage to the south ^e drainage runs to a property also owned by Meyer. The drainage issue needs to be resolved. The applicant is willing to work with Staff and City Engineer. Gaffron noted that the plan was revised to eliminate a height variance. Staff recommends approval. The applicant said he plans on building a larger home than his current one. During public comments, the neighbor to the west indicated that a fence line he has maintained h^ been determined to be located 8' into the Meyer property which includes the driveway Meyer said there is an overlap of the plat and driveway area. He has no intention to remove the fence or change the perceived boundary. Berg informed him that this issue would have to be resolved by the two property owners. Lindquist asked if there was any conflict. The neighbor said he had not surveyed the property when he purchased it. Schroeder said the boundary change would require a lot line rearrangement. Lindquist said the Planning Commission would only act on the application requested and informed the neighbor to work with Meyer to resolve this boundar>' issue. Meyer said he was willing to work with his neighbor. r I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#7 - #2257 Dennis A. Meyer - Continued) Shirley Bull, 4690 Tonkaview, asked if the variance was approved, if it would be setting a precedent for the neighborhood due to the lot size. Gaffron said the LR-IB Zoning District requires one acre lots but the lot sizes in the Tonkaview neighborhood range from .39 to 1.61 acres. There are 11 lots that are larger and 7 that are equal to or smaller than applicants, so he does not view the request as setting a precedent as it falls within the average. Bull noted that the applicant also owns 4655 Tonkaview, the lot to the south. She questioned whether the apnlicant was taking land from this property to add to the proposed lot to make it adequate in s Gaffron said there is no intent to make a lot line rearrangement and the two lots are separate lots of record. McMillan noted that the driveway on the west side would be used to access two tuckunder garages to the south. With five planned garages, she voiced concern with runoff to the south from it. Smith asked if a drainage plan was being requested. Gaffron said the drainage plan has been submitted but has not yet been reviewed with the City Engineer regarding continued drainage to the south. He questioned whether the north half of the house could be made to drain to the north but noted the lots across the road are all lower than Tonkavi-iw and questioned how it would affect the properties to the north. The additional hard surface will add to the drainage. Gaffron said a stormwater pond might be necessary. Lindquist said approval could be subject to drainage approval by the City Engineer. The applicant said he would be willing to do what is necessary. Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2257 for lot area variance subject to acceptable grading and drainage plans approved by the City Engineer. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2258 GERALD A. WALSH 180 BIG ISLAND . VARIANCE PUBIC HEARING 8:20-8:22 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the request is for a lot area variance. He indicated that the RS District ordinance w as adopted in 1983 w hich defined combining a group of parcels as a Record Lot granting them lot area variances and the majority deemed buildable. The property owners were required at that time to file formal documentation to acquire this variance. The applicant is ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#8 - #2258 Gerald A. Walsh - Continued) asking for this variance now that was granted for the other properties. The property in question has changed ownership several times. The subject property consisting of two tax parcels is 100' wide, 280' deep, and .64 acres in area. Gaffron said staff recommends approval per the provisions of the RS district and legal combination to result in one tax parcel. The applicant said he had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Schroeder was informed by Gaffron that the RS designation still applies. McMillan moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2258. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#9) #2259 MARK AND LAURIE HEADRICK 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:22-8:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron indicated that a letter was received from a neighboring property owner. Gaffron reported that the request is for side and front setbacks to convert a garage to a family room and add a new garage. The required side yard setback is 30', which exists at 24.5' and is proposed at 5'. The required front yard setback is 50', existing at 38.6' and proposed at 36.6'. The current zoning for side setback was adopted after the house was built. The property is located in the two acre zoning district. Gaffron informed the Commission that the proposed two car garage addition will also include a mudroom, deck, and kitchen expansion. It would be located 5' from the north side lot line. It meets the 50' setback from the front. The proposal also includes a bump out to the front of the existing garage. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#9 - #2259 Mark and Laurie Headrick - Continued) The 1.78 acre property has .4 acres of wetland to the rear. The house is located on an elevated portion of the property which drops off to the wetlands. The property has a failing septic system. The area is being considered for municipal sewer but at a cost of about $30,000 per unit. The neighborhood has suggested the cost is prohibitive and sewer installation is not scheduled. Gaffron said the drainfield replacement capability is limited due to the topography of the property. The information includes a letter of hardship. The main issue is with the side setback. The front setback for the 2'xlO' wide bump out is small. Staff feels the side setback request is extreme from 30' to 5'. He noted that the 1/2 acre zoning, Orono's least restrictive district, requires 10' setback. Gaffron compared the home's location to the neighboring properties. It has the least separation between homes in the neighborhood and he feels the separation should be maintained in the two-acre zoning. He did note that the property is limited for location of an addition. He asked the Commission to consider the addition approval with respect to the neighboring property location and asked for direction. Lindquist read the letter from neighbor, Tobin Dayton, into the record. The letter opposes the proposal. Headrick said they have looked at their options noting the restrictions. They are requesting a kitchen/family room addition. They were informed that foundation work to locate the addition elsewhere would be too expensive. They are also concerned with the aesthetics. Headrick indicated that the kitchen is situated in this comer of the house. The proposed garage is as small as possible for two cars. During public comments, Tobin Dayton said he was present to answer any questions about the letter noted. Smith noted that adding onto the other side and enclosing the deck would not address the kitchen. Headrick said the property drops off 12' at that location and fill is currently located there. Lindquist indicated that there are homes where no additions can be located. He saw a problem with a 5' setback and felt the addition could not extend to that degree. Smith agreed. Headrick responded that other properties in the neighborhood have received variances. Schroeder said it would be less problematic to go forward towards the street with an addition, Headrick questioned whether a garage could be placed in front of the garage. Lindquist said it ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#9 - #2259 Mark and Laurie Headrick - Continued) would depend on how' close it would be to the road and the setback. He noted that the garage is already closer than allowed, and he would have a problem with lessening the setback. Lindquist said he felt the only solution would be an addition to the rear. Mrs. Headrick said three contractors have informed him that the cost would be prohibitive to construct an addition to the rear. Smith noted that the Commission looks at applications individually and other neighborhood additions are in context with the neighborhood. Headrick asked if this home was not in context. He was informed that it was not in the scope of the neighborhood as far as the side setback is concerned. Mrs. Headrick asked what would be considered. Gaffron asked about an addition straight back behind the garage. Headrick said there would still be an issue of fill but less amount of fill in that location than elsewhere. The worst scenario for fill is to the rear of the kitchen. He said Gaffron's suggestion could be considered. Mrs. Headrick said ,'</4ths of the addition of the garage would require pilings if located behind the current p aage. Lindquist said he would consider a small variance to the side setback but not a 5' setback. He explained that the Commission can table the application or make a motion. Hawn asked if the garage could be built on the other side of the house. Mrs. Headrick said the same problem would occur and it would have to be accessed through the living room. The Headricks asked the Commission to vote on the application. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to deny Application #2259. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#10) #2260 BENJAMIN MILBRATH 3265 CARMAN ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:45-8:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted, The Applicant was present. f ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 I (#10 - #2260 Benjamin Milbrath - Continued) Van Zomeren passed out photographs of the property. The application is a request for CUP and variance to replace a retaining wall, which has been removed, in the 0-75’ setback with a keystone type wall. A variance is required to remove a walkway on the north side ot the timbers. Grass will replace this area but the retaining wall will encroach into the side yard. Van Zomeren said staff recommends approval. The applicant said his goal is to have less hardcover. Milbrath said the plan would allow the drainage to flow into the front yard instead of the neighboring property and aids in presenting a natural setting. There were no public comments. Hawn noted that the property needs relief as soon as possible. She noted that much of gravel under the deck has swept into the neighboring property and would like to see the gravel removed from the property. Milbrath said the gravel would be left there for now and removed once the walls are in place. He will replace the gravel with wood chips under the deck. Milbrath said the neighbor is pleased with his plan and the improved drainage situation. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2260. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Van Zomeren said the application will go before the Council at their July 28 meeting. Milbrath noted that he would not be in attendance. (#11) #2261 TONY EIDEN COMPANY 345 LEAF STREET VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:52-8:54 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren said the application is for a lot area variance for a 1 .77 acre property located in the 2 acre minimum LR-1A Zoning District. The applicant is in the process of purchasing the property owned by Tom Meyer. Van Zomeren said Staff is concerned with the lack of a proposed plan but the building pad as outlined should not create any problems. Van Zomeren said she would recommend screening from the Luce Line. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#11- #2261 Tony Eiden Company - Continued) Tony Eiden had no comments to add. There were no public comments. Hawn asked if the applicant was satisfied with the setback requirements. Eiden said he was and would be able to meet them. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2261. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (Item #12 follows item #16) (#13) #2264 JANET C. KIERNAN 1491 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:54-9:20 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. GafKron reported that an application had been previously reviewed and approved for reconstruction and additions to the residence in 1996. He reviewed that application and the new changes requested. The applicant had determined that it would be impossible to save the existing superstructure and is proposing a '’ew residence. A one-stall addition to the garage would meet the setback. There would be an additional encroachment to the front setback and a new small encroachment to the side. The issue is with new construction being an opportunity where all the setbacks, especially the lakeshore setback, could be met. Lot area and width variances are also required. The one acre property, 187' in width, is located in the two acre zoning with a 200' width standard. Gaffron indicated that the property may be sewered in the future but continues at this time to require use of a septic system. Kieman noted the hardships on the property with the maple tree to the north side and the Indian mounds to the rear where a 50' setback is i .quired. Kieman said to renovate the property would require an additional two to three courses of Llock to create more headroom and a better foundation. During public comments, John Ericson, 1620 Shadywood Road, clarified that the encroachment of the 75' setback would be allowed with a major remodeling but would be required to be met if II ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#13 - #2264 Janet C. Kieman - Continued) new construction. Gaffron said it is questionable whether the use of current footings would allow "grandfathering” of the current setback. Lindquist said the use of the current foundation would have to be clarified. Gaffron said from the staff standpoint, the application as presented is viewed as new construction. Hawn asked if the applicant considered a plan which would move the house back on the property. Kieman reviewed her plans noting the designer, contractor, and inspector felt it would be more expensive to mesh old plans with new. Kieman said she had not considered moving the house back. She indicated that it would incur more expense to have another plan drawn and she would prefer not to. Schroeder said it would not necessarily involve a totally new plan. Lindquist was informed that all of the existing structure would be removed except for the foundation. Lindquist said he would recommend that all stmcture be located behind the 75' setback. Kieman asked if a 30' side setback would be considered a problem. Lindquist said it was not from his perspective. He was informed that the existing side setback is 14.5'. Hawn noted that the property is very' well screened. Schroeder noted there were trees located on the other side. Lindquist noted the small size of the lot for the zoning district. He asked if the property is going to be sewered. Gaffron said it is the City's intent to do so as soon as all property owners involved are on board. It has been determined that the cost of the sewer project is more than earlier anticipated. Hawn inquired about hardcover calculations. Gaffron said they have not been included. He noted that the property was allowed 27.6% in the 75-250' setback and 2.9% in the 0-75' setback, and the applicant intends to meet those requirements. Kieman said she thought the current plan proposes less than that amount. Lindquist said he would recommend all hardcover be behind the 75' setback. Schroeder said the issue is the prior approval allowing the hardcover amounts as noted. Lindquist noted this application is for new constmction. Gaffron explained the necessary changes to move all structure behind the 75- setback. Hawn suggested making the driveway more narrow and perpendicularly connecting it to the house. Kieman said the costs would then double. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#13 - #2264 Janet C. Kieman - Continued) Kieman asked whether the patio could remain in front of the 75' setback. Schroeder noted the improvements with new construction are better than what would occur with remodeling. Smith said she would be concerned with allowing the patio. Schroeder indicated that the application could be tabled for further consideration or a motion could be made. He explained the purpose in improving the lakeshore setback and the status of new construction. McMillan asked if this was true with use of the existing foundation. She was informed it was. Kieman asked how much foundation usage denotes new constmction. Gaffron said it was not specified. He said the building pad would be gone and only the foundation left. He also noted that the building inspector has not yet tested the foundation and is not convinced it is all usable. He suggested tabling the application to make this determination. The side setback hardships were reiterated, being the trees, septic system, and Indian mounds. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2264. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. (The meeting was recessed for a short break.) (#14) #2265 ROBERT LUND FOR GRAYDON AND MICHELLE NEWMAN 1655 BOHNS POINT RO.AD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:27-9:31 P.M. The .\fTidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. 'P.:.* ''jvilicant was represented by Robert Lund. Van Zoiiieren reported that the irregular shaped lot is located in the LR-IB Zoning District. The proposal is to tear down the existing stmeture and construct a residence located partially in front of the average lakeshore setback. Staff recommended approval. The representative had no further comments. During public comments, John Ericson, asked if the new residence would be located behind the 75’ setback. Van Zomeren reported that it would. 20 r Wf-- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#14. #2265 Robert Lund for Graydon and Michelle Newman - Continued) Smith asked why the residence would be located in front of the average lakeshore setback. She was informed by Lund that there are a large number of trees on the property and the residence will be built to line up with viewing the lake tlirough the trees. Schroeder asked how far forward the home would be. He was infonned that the orientation of the home would change but would be between 83' and 85’ forward. It was noted that there is no way to avoid encroaching into the average lakeshore setback. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2265. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 (Berg was absent during the vote). (#15) #2266 RONALD AND ROBIN HOHRMAN 190 CYGNET PLACE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:31-9:34 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the request is for variances to the rear and side yard setbacks for construction of a screen porch to the rear and a one stall addition to the garage to the east. The ^ lots in the area do not meet lot area requirements and create long narrow building pads. The 30 side yard requirement is proposed at 28 ’. The 50’ rear yard is proposed at 46'. Van Zomeren said structural coverage is not an issue. There is a small front yard encroachment. Staff recommended approval. The applicant said the residence is located just barely into the setback and the proposal is the only alternative for an addition. There were no public comments. McMillan asked if the neighboring properties were notified. Van Zomeren said they were. She indicated she received one call and sent out information to that person. She received no complaints. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2266. Smith asked if a new driveway would be built for the garage addition. The applicant said it would be widened but a pad is already located there. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#16) #2267 JOHN O’SULLIVAN FOR ADAM SMITH COMPANY 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING 9:34-10:05 P.M. Tlie Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for a commercial site plan review for a proposed driveway from Shadywood Road through an easement. He noted the vacation and conceptual vacation of Navarre Lane. The proposal would grant approval for creation of ^ easement across and in front of what is the church building to enter the western portion of the site. A revised plan presented on this date shows a head-in entry instead of parallel parking spaces. Gaffron showed the larger concept plan. He indicated that the concept plans briefly reviewed by Planning Commission last winter called for access from the Culvers' site to the church property all along. He noted that as proposed this would result in two accesses on Shadywood Road for traffic leaving the church site. The current proposal would add the southerly of the two accesses allowing traffic to take a left turn and then head south to the light. Gaffron said he feels another access is necessary for the Culvers site. He noted the unusual traffic pattern on the site with its counterclockwise direction. Gaffron said the car wash stacking has not presented any conflict to date. He said the proposal adds both an in and out access and Hennepin County has expressed their support of the proposal. The City Engineer has suggested a right in and right out access only. Gaffron said staff recommends approval of the proposed access on a temporary basis, maintaining City’s future ability to move the access to the north if appropriate when the church site is developed. O'Sullivan said there is difficulty with access during rush hour. He indicated that the work to acquire legal easement has been done and merging of the site plans are in process but months away from completion. He feels the proposed location is the right site for the curb cut. He disagrees with the right in/right out concept as the access would be the furthest access from the intersection than any other property. He cited the amount of traffic through the intersection. O'Sullivan said he has received the support of the Police Chief and noted the County’s favor of the plan. O'Sullivan said the County has no plans in the short teim for a right turn lane. O’Sullivan said the proposal will improve the traffic flow. John Ericson said he thought the County would not approve a curb cut at that location. Gaffron read a letter into the record from Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County supporting the curb cut. 22 A ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#16 - #2267 John O'Sullivan for Adam Smith Company - Continued) Ericson commented that he was unable to obtain a curb cut when he requested it. O'Sullivan indicated that he has closed off one curb cut, had three approved, and currently has two curb cuts. Ericson asked if it would be a common curb cut for both businesses when developed. Gaffron said that would be the City Engineer's recommendation but not what is being proposed. O'Sullivan noted that he has 400' of frontage. Lindquist asked where the applicant is in the plan for development of the church site. O'Sullivan said it would be in the fall or winter at the earliest time. He said he would support the temporary location status but did not feel it would be the best option if only one curb cut is allowed. Schroeder asked if his objection is due to the elimination of the parking spots. O'Sullivan said it was. Schr^<?dcr asked how far north the access would have to be to gain a free right turn. O'Sullivan .sv -J ;t would not occur. O'Sullivan said the County told him he would have to make the best of ;1 jc intersection as it is. Lindquist m- Navarre Lane was half vacated. Gaffron said it was vacated to the County ro d right-of-way i he remaining portion is conceptually vacated pending the church site development. Lindquist asked if the proposal can be accomplished with the vacation still being conceptual. Gaffron said it could as it was still part of the public right-of-way. Schroeder said he supports the temporary approval as it leaves options open. Hawn said she is concerned with the traffic flow on the site. She feels the curb cut would intensify the traffic flow. Hawn noted at the time of the restaurant approval, the applicant was required to install a railing next to the doorway, install a sign, and place station markers for the lanes. She indicated this was not done and compounds the safety concerns of the site. O'Sullivan said the sidewalk reconfiguration resulted in the determination that no railing was needed. Hawn asked who made that determination. Gaffron said he was not involved. O'Sullivan said staff reviewed it and approved it. Berg said she typically has seen cones located between the lanes. O'Sullivan said the cones were not required. Hawn said she would have to review ihe minutes for the record. She had thought they were to be immovable and permanent. Hawn said she still has concerns regarding safety. She has viewed children running across the parking lot and noted there was no sign for stopping in the walkway. Lindquist asked Hawn what she would like to see done. Hawn showed where the sign and railing were to be located. 23 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 I i ; (#16 - #2267 John O'Sullivan for Adam Smith Company - Continued) Berg said she does not see the need for a railing at this time. O'Sullivan said the situation was no different than at other businesses and found it difficult to regulate people's stupidity as far as their safety goes. Schroeder noted the practicality of not having a railing with parking located in the comer. McMillan noted there is a 4' wall. Hawn said she would like a railing in place as originally planned and approved. Lindquist questioned how traffic has influenced the lot. Berg said the Commission should review how the lot was configured and see what was allowed by staff. Hawn said she would vote against the curb cut for safety reasons without minimal safeguards in place. McMillan asked how far the curb cut was from the intersection. Gaffron said it was about equal distance. Smith said she agrees with Hawn but does not like to hold up the plans. She would like to see comprehensive plans for the site without having to access the church property, which she feels intensifies the use. Lindquist agreed with seeing the comprehensive plan for the site. Schroeder said the us(. would be the same but allow for a right turn out onto CoRd 19. He would like to see "zebra" striping to suggest to customers that they walk farther down for safety. McMillan said the traffic flow would be increased down County Road 19. Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to approve the temporary curb cut with the expectation that it will be reviewed during the phase two construction. Approval would be subject to zebra striping in the crosswalk. Vote: Ayes 2, Schroeder, Berg; Nays 4, Lindquist, Smith, Hawn, McMillan. Motion denied. ■ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#16 - #2267 John O’Sullivan for Adam Smith Company - Continued) Lindquist said he would like to see the whole layout. Hawn said she would prefer to see the whole plan and voted against the motion for safety. Smith cited safety and need for viewing the layout as reason for denial. Gaffron asked for a motion that would incur a positive vote outcome for better direction. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny the access as proposed as safety issues are not addressed. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Berg, Schroeder. (#12) #2262 NED BUTTERFIELD 3745 WATERTOWN ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 10:05-10:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the request for a conditional use permit to change the grade of the 2.37 acre property, which currently slopes away from Watertown Road. The change would allow the creation of an area for a building pad as the property owner is discussing building a new residence on the site. The greenhouses on the property have been removed. The applicant has hauled in 100 cubic yards of fill but the applicant's engineer estimates it will require an additional 2000 cubic yards. Van Zomeren said staff recommends approval. She added that there appears to be no drainage problems. The applicant had no comments to add. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2262. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 25 r ) > ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#17) #2268 ROBERT T. CALLAN 2995 DEER RUN TRAIL VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:09-10:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for a front setback variance for construction of a new residence on a back lot. He reviewed the orientation of the residence noting it would be served by a private driveway outlot. By definition, the lot line abutting the access outlot is the front lot line of a back lot, resulting in the east lot line becoming the front lot line. This is inconsistent with the other lots on the south side of Deer Run Trail, all of which have their designated side lot lines as the easterly or westerly lot lines. The property owner's intent is for this residence to face north. The back lot requirements result in a 75' setback where there would normally be a 30' side setback. The home will be oriented similar to the other homes on Deer Run Trail, One and a half times the normal side setback would result in 45’, which is the east setback requested by the applicant. Sta"" recommended approval with the condition that the house be oriented the same as the other hon.wS in the area. The applicant noted that this will aid in buffering of trees for the septic sites. He wants to maintain the trees on the property. The variance will eliminate cutting into the hill on the west side of the lot. The applicant said the owner of adjacent Lot 5 would like to comment but was unable to attend. He will have the opportunity at the Council review to respond. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2268. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#18) #2269 CONLEV BROOKS AND GERALD MCCOURTNEY 1045 FERNDALE ROAD WEST SUBDIVISION OF LOT LINE REARR \NGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 10:14-10:37 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted, The Applicants were present. r f ■«>, 4; _ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#18 - #2269 Conley Brooks and Gerald McCourtney - Continued) Gaf&on reported that the application is for a lot line rearrangement for property on West Femdale Road. The existing substandard lot is proposed to be divided and attached to two adjacent properties. Gaffron reviewed the division. The property at 1045 Femdale Road West (lots 11 and 12) with an existing house will be split, with a portion added to the McCourtney property to the west and the remainder to the Brooks property to the north across the road. The house at 1045 will be removed. The portion of 1045 north of the road, Parcels H and E will be combined with Parcels A and F. Gaffron noted potential difficulties identified by the submitted survey, including the separation of P^cel C from 905 West Femdale. He said this would have to be considered under a separate application. Gaffron did not know whether it had been used for hardcover calculations for 905. He indicated that there are docks on the small property (Parcel B) not shown on the plat maps and it is not known what properties they serve. He noted there are discrepancies between the survey submitted and the County plat maps. Gaffron said the proposal adds lakeshore to property currently not having lakeshore. He indicated that a "Special Lot Combination" can be required if combination of two lots separated by the road is not allowed by the County. It would then require City approval to sell the combined parcels separately. Gaffron said staff recommends approval of the subdivision with recombination of parcels as proposed. The applicant was questioned regarding his intent for the existing garage noting the existing residence would be removed. McCourtney said the garage is already located there, and he intends to replace it. He indicated he would probably need other variances to do so. He asked if he would be compromising his position if he removes the garage now for reconstruction later Lindquist said he would be in a better position if he left the garage in place for the time being. The other Commissioners agreed. McCourtney said he would come back before the Planning Commission with his plans in the near future. Gaffron said he would recommend removal but the applicant has the prerogative to keep it in place. He noted that the garage encroaches into the right-of-way and is in a dilapidated condition ^d would have to be removed at some point. He agreed that the applicant is better off leaving it in place for the t'me being. Lindquist noted that the setbacks would then be known. During public comments, a gentleman said he represented Robert Floyd, the owner of 960 Ferndale. He asked what the criteria is for allowing a property to subdivide for greater access to the lake and how it reflects on the future for other property owners. Lindquist said the Commission reviews the applications case by case. ORONO PL.\NNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#18 - #2269 Conley Brooks and Gerald McCourtney - Continued) In noting Parcels F and G as they currently exist in combination are substandard, Gaffron said the City is better off if the lots are not sold as a separate entity, as significant variances would be required to build since the majority of the property is in the 0-75’ setback. He indicated that the proposed split nearly meets the standard for 200' width and would require a slight adjustment to the west to ensure 200’ width if that is an issue. Gaffron thought the plat map shows enough total frontage to meet that standard. Lindquist clarified that this is a special condition. He was asked if this decision affects the 20’ strip of land in question. Lindquist said the deeds would have to be reviewed. The representative of Mr. Floyd said research was done, and he had a good idea who owned the strip of land. He said he would not want to have this application’s decision affect other property. Hawn indicated that it would be difficult to say whether the application would impact other property. She indicated that the current application is clear in its intent and the Commission is only able to address the particular application at this time, not the other issues noted by staff Gaffron informed the representative that he is welcome to present any information he might have to staff Robert Floyd said he had a number of concerns. He said he understood the issue of non conformity but felt the desire to acquire shoreline would affect others. He asked what the criteria is for special conditions. He added that he is concerned with the larger picture and making a decision in a vacuum. He feels the decision will affect his property and his value and is inappropriate. He feels the Commission is opening a "Pandora’s Box". Schroeder said he understood the applicants purchased the property and have agreed to divide it. He indicated that they have the right to a lot line rearrangement. Gaffron said the City looks for adjacency when considering such applications. He noted that adding to property across the roadway is more in question but the City has done so elsewhere. He noted that Parcel F is a separate parcel subser\ ient to the lot across the street (Parcels A-E-H) which he feels is as good an adjacency as can be found. He indicated that would be a substantial amount of lakeshore with the rearraniiement. Gaffron said if the Commission determines thew need to meet the 200’ standard, it can be discussed. He did not know how this subdivision w'ould affect other docks in the area. Robert Floyd said the combination would affect his lot. He said with rapidly growing lots, it is difficult to know how changes affect him. He wanted to know the rules of operation. He feels i \ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#18 - #2269 Conley Brooks and Gerald McCourtney - Continued) there would be a lot line shown as 5'. Schroeder indicated that the overriding issue is one of property purchase. Berg noted that people may purchase land and do a lot line rearrangement. She asked what the impact is that creates a problem for Floyd. Floyd said the ownership of Parcels B and D have not been determined. Berg said that determination does not affect this particular parcel. Floyd said he did not believe it was spelled out in the zoning code. Berg said she saw no negative result from this action. Berg informed Floyd that the Commission cannot hold off action pending a decision on parcels B and D as they do not know how that will address the issue. Floyd indicated that the lots were included in the evaluation. Berg said they were only referenced. Gaffron indicated there are other issues that are not discussable at this time. He said it was unfortunate that the survey work came in late which gave additional information that clearly needs resolution. Hawn indicated the Commission is obligated to act within 60 days on an application. Floyd said he thought there was an option of tabling the application to look at other areas of concern, Hawn said the applicants have the right to a decision. Schroeder said the outcome is not clear but he sees the first principle as being the elimination of a substandard lot. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2269 as outlined, with the recommendation the existing house be remov'ed. The garage is not required to be removed. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. It was noted that the application will be reviewed at the August 1 1 Council meeting unless further information is provided that suggests some alternative action is appropriate. (#19) #2270 MARCIA AND KENNETH HICKEY 4640 TONKAVIEW LANE VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 10:37-10:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#19 - #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Continued) Van Zomeren said additional information is required for completion of this application and recommends tabling. The applicant would like the Commission to receive an overview to give them direction. The property on Tonkaview is considered a through lot, but no access from that through lot. The proposal is to build a garage requiring a conditional use permit due to the through lot status. The structure is proposed at 1200 s.f. where 1000 s.f. is the limit allowed. A height variance is required as the residence is lower than the proposed garage. Van Zomeren indicated that an oversized accessory structure requires a farther side yard setback than what is proposed and is planned to be located in front of the principal structure. Staff recommends tabling the application due to lack of sufficient survey information. Van Zomeren said she did not feel the lot size is a problem but would like to see the hardcover calculations included on a worksheet. She asked for Commission direction. Kenneth Hickey said the location was chosen due to the topography of the property. There is a large slope on the west side that creates runoff problems for the neighbor. They plan on angling the structure for a turnaround to be able to pull straight in. Lindquist asked if there was a reason why the 1000 s.f limitation could not be met. Schroeder said he would require hardcover information. He did not have a problem with a 10' side yard setback. Hickey said the height is to create a loft area. The principal structure is only 13’ high. The applicant said he is willing to adjust the size to 1000 s.f and a 20’ height. Berg was informed the building would not be hidden. She said she felt the height was a little high. Lindquist said a 25-26' height would be satisfactory. Schroeder said he would probably not have a problem with that height but the neighbors should be informed. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2270. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. * ■ r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#20) #2271 CHAD NILSSON 3210 NAVARRE LANE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 10:46-10:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren said the application is for a rear yard variance to add one stall to the existing garage. The property is a comer lot. The street, shown as "Brooks Ave" on the survey, has been vacated. The proposal calls for a 30' setback and survey is included. Van Zomeren said Staffs concern is that the property is within 1000' of the lakeshore and no hardcover calculations were provided. She is unaware of where the driveway will be located which creates hardcover. The orientation of the garage doors is also unclear. Van Zomeren said she sketched the stall in on the drawing and would like it to be shown by the applicant. Nilsson said the shed will be removed. The driveway will be moved more to the east and gravel added. He indicated the house is only 24.6' high and they will follow the house roof line. Lindquist informed the applicant that the City will require an approved survey for the stall and driveway. It was noted that the property does not meet the lot area requirement and is questionable whether it meets the hardcover requirements. McMillan was informed that the garage doors was planned to face the east property line but due to costs are planning on driving straight in from the north. The applicant said he will obtain a survey with the driveway and garage located thereon. He was informed to include sidewalks in the surv'ey if they are so planned. Lindquist said the survey needs to be brought up to date. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2271. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Van Zomeren said she will send a notice to the applicant. 1 i r 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#21) #2272 WYATT MOE 1230 SPRUCE PLACE VARIANCE AND LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 10:58-11:22 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present and assisted by JoEllen Hurr. Gaffron reported that the request is for a lot line rearrangement with hardcover, lot area and lot width variances, and possible road vacation. Loma Linda is located to the west end of the property and Spruce Place to the south, adjacent to the property. The property consists of two tax parcels. The northern parcel includes the house and a triangular portion west of the vacated roadway. To the south, the small lot includes a cabin. The proposal calls for construction of a new house where the cabin is located which would meet the side setback, 75' lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback. In order to place the home where it is proposed would require a hardcover variance to allow 35.7% hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 25% is allowed. The applicant is attempting to balance the lot size and variances needed to enable the lot to the north to be sold. Gaffron reviewed the sketches of the plan. He noted the issue involves the City road encroachment and property maintained privately into the park property. The proposed rededication and vacation would allow the unused park and road right-of-way to be privately owned, and the applicant would give back to the City the land where the utilities and City road exist, and create two long lots. Concern is with the proposed lot dividing line creating lots of equal area resulting in an equal degree of variances for area, width, and hardcover. Gaffron suggests the north line of Spruce Place after vacation be mqved to maintain the shoulder. The City Engineer and Public Works Director must review and approve the extent of right-of-way vacation. Gaffron indicated that the lot standards for the property are one acre with 140' width. The two tax parcels have been assessed for sewer. The issue is where the lot line is drawn. The 75-250' hardcover is proposed at 19.4% for the property to the north and increasing from 10.9% to 34.7% for the southern lot. Lot coverage by structure is satisfactory. Gaffron said Staff recommends the vacation as proposed but it might require some "tweaking" to maintain the sew er easement and right-of-w ay. He noted if the vacation of the park area were to be split three ways, it was unknown how it would be divided and who would get what. He recommended conceptual approval of the lot line rearrangement with .6 acres in each and access to the north lot from Loma Linda. A driveway serves both lots but he suggests an ultimate r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#21 - #2272 Wyatt Moe - Continued) separate access to Loma Linda to the northern piupcrty. Gaffron said it is critical to know what portion would be divided between the two lots. Ho suggc^^ted the applicant make formal application for a vacation and include proposed lot widths. JoEllen Hurr said the current building lot is very small, and the applicant's intention is to create two lots. The survey shows that the applicant owns the land where the road is located. They felt it was a good opportunity for the City to get the road which is needed. Hurr said Parcel A includes wetlands. She saw no reason to make the lots identical and would like to maintain a narrow strip on the shoreline. The location of the ditch delineates what can be done and can't be built over. Hurr suggested a conservation and flowage easement be taken on the property to the rear. She feels there is no need for access from Loma Linda with the driveway currently existing. Hawn asked if there would be a garage for the new home. Hurr indicated there would be. Hurr reported that each proposed lot is two times the size of the lot to the south of the property. Lindquist asked how wide the lots would be. Mr. Moe said they are 60'. Schroeder was informed that the lots to the south have received variances. Schroeder asked what is currently happening with the cabin. Hurr said it is a buildable lot and sewer has been paid for. Schroeder asked what could be built there now. Gaffron said it would involve adding to hardcover. Hardcover percentages would be lessened by the rearrangement but a variance stiil required. The proposal is for a 2200 s.f. footprint home. Hurr indicated that the house is similar to the house to the south. Hawn said the plan was conceptually good but questioned what occurs until the vacation is approved. Hurr said the app’’ ant is asking for conceptual approval in order to gain an idea of what can occur. Lindquist said he saw the situation as a win-win proposition. Hurr agreed. She said the applicant was not made aware of the need for a width variance when application made. Gaffron said staff did not have survey and was unable to catch all of the requirements due to that. Hurr said the applicant does not want to have more than .62 acre in each lot. With extensive drainage noted, she asked if Commission would approve the angle to the rear. With the right-of- way, it would possibly be reduced to about .55 acre. She asked if there was concern with conceptual approval. Gaffron said that would be satisfactory with direction regarding the size of J ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#21 - #2272 Wyatt Moe - Continued) the lots where the lot line should be drawn. He asked what the Commission directed as far as hardcover. Lindquist said the hardcover noted should be satisfactory. He would like to see lots closer to equal size. Havvn said angling of the lot line should be satisfactory and did not believe the shoreline should have to be changed. Schroeder asked if the applicant would end up having more hardcover. Gaffron indicated that other lots in the area average more than 25% hardcover. Schroeder questioned whether the cabin let wvmld be considered new construction. Hurr said it would but die lot was Uvo times the average size. Hawn was informed by Huir that the side yar requirements would le met. Variances for lot area, width, and hardcover wrc dd be req^^d^ The hardcover would be at about 35%. Lindquist thought the plans showed good progress or ♦he property. Mrs. Moe said Uiey would like to build this fall and asked how the vacation time frame. She was informed that application for vacation was required md the appli^' on amended, which could be before the Planning Commission in August wth review of the lot •eariangement. Approvals could be received at that time for vanm. lation md lot line rearrangement for Council review ■ liieir August 25 meeting. The earliest time frame fo receiving building approval w<- . d be September. Hurr indicated that the property is handling the drainage. She also noted that the applicant is aware of the sewer lines. McMillan was informed by Gaffron thal the vacation would be a separate hearing ^ done together with the p,.rk vacation. He indicated that the attractiveness ol the application the vacation and rededication over the actual roadway. Dave and Linda Walker, who live south of the Moe's, said they are in support of trading of the land as they are currently cut off from Loma Linda and virtually landlocked. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2272 per Staff recommendation. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. e ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#22) #2273 MORGAN NELSON 3145 JAMESTOWN ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 11:23-11:30 P.M. The Affidavit of PublicaL-and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for lakeshore setback for construction of a gazabo on the property. The proposal would not meet the 150 ’ setback from a Natural Environment Lake but meet the average lakeshore setback and is in line with adjacent homes. The side setback is met. The change in code from 75' to 150' setback occurred in 1992. The variance v uld be 19' at 131' from lakeshore. The gazebo would be located off of the driveway. Gaffron sa.^ the Commission could recommend the gazebo be placed on the other side of the property to meet the 150' setback. The applicant said it makes sense to place it where it is planned. Nelso*': 'dicated that he will be proposing an addition to the home for the south side in the future. Hawn asked if the applicant spoke with his neighbors and how the gazebo would affect their views. The applicant said he showed his plans to the neighbors, who signed the acknowledgment letter but did not specify whether they were for or against the plan. Gaffron indicated that since the neighbors were not present to voice an objection and did not send a letter of objection, he assumed they did not object. The applicant was questioned as to the ’ocation of the gazebo. Nelson said he wanted it near the driveway to preserve his views. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2273. McMillan asked if the DNR was notified. Gaffron said the DNR is notified of the agenda as a whole and would probably indicate a self-imposed hardship if they had responded. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, McMillan, for lack of a hardship. 5^. . -tn • 1V -V - . -t" •» - ifJtJOViMKC I •] t] ir^.UM l¥t U rtwsifw rmmrc [tititit rtifTiTtj rtnti r«TnriT»n [tjiltwncwitjijo] CITY OF LONG LAKE August 6, 1997 pecew^® Mr. Ron Moorse City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crys' Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr. Moorse, Enclosed within for your information and review is a copy of the proposed “1998 Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department Budget." The total cost of operation projected for 1998 is $156,501. This is a 3.96% increase from the operating budget of 1997. Your cost share based upon the contract plan is $109,316, or a 5.53% increase for the City of Orono. Also, enclosed is a copy of the breakdown of the number of calls (in hours), the assessed market value of each of the respective communities and the total percentage of the 1998 budget broken down by each of the respective comt.iunities. For your information, the assessed market value of Orono. '"as 18% higher for 1997 than the numbers used for 1996 and the total for the three year period for service calls was up almost 17%. (16.63%). The City of Long Lake and the Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department believes that we have put together a reasonable and justifiably budget. We have held the increase in costs for the proposed operating year to less than the four percent allowed by contract. The City of Long Lake and the Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department would like to invite you to attend a meeting on August 15,1997, at 8:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers at Long Lake City Hall. The purpose of this meeting would be to answer questions and concerns that you may have about the operation of the Fire Department as well as explain the budget. Please respond with the number and names of those Individuals that will be in attendance at this meeting. 1964 Park Avenue • Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 • 612-473-6961 612-476-9622 (fax) ixirti Milt •rat^ *Ttll t •I3t^ [titit rtUKtrti MlVt rt i It rtTiidtidMArt] feUt teKi; 1998 PROPOSED CONTRACT ORONO CALLS 1994 1934 On hours) 1995 2270 1996 2522 TOTALS 6726 % of Total 61.16% 30%18.35% AMV wmmki On Millions) % of Total 73.57% 70%51.50% TOTAL 1998 FIRE BUDGET $156,501 961 13291 12331 TOTALS 3161 3840 3997 109^ 100.00% 30.00% 63T1627 100.00% 70.00% $34,0231 $13,162 1156,501 Page 1 r 1st Year Contract 1998 Budget $156,501 2nd Year Contract 1999 Budget $162,671 3rd Year Contract 2000 Budget $169,271 8/4/97 1998 FIRE CONTRACT COST ESTIMATES FOR 3 YEAR PERIOD ORONO LL 69.85 21.74 8.41 $109,316 $34,023 $13,162 69.85 21.74 8.41 $113,689 $35,384 $13,688 69.85 21.74 8.41 il 18,236 $36,799 $14,236 . I I Page 1