Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-1997 Council Packett AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 1997, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL 1.Jim Daniels - Lake Minnetonka Conununications Commission - 1998 Budget 1 2.CONSENT AGENDA ^^ APPROVAL OF MINUTES *3. Regular Meeting of August 11, 1997 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PUAJNJNING commission COMMENTS - Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4.#2238 Chic Dwight & Fred Guttormson, 1220 Tonkawa Road - Variances #2255 Rick Rice, 27(X) Kelley Avenue - Variance - Resolution 6.#2264 Janet Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Resolution 7.#2267 John O’Sullivan, 2380 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan Approval - Resolution 8.#2268 Robert Callan, 2995 Deer Run Trail - Variance - Resolution fflUllllll Wyatt Moe, 1230 Spruce Place - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Vacation - Variances - Coj^Cpt^al Approval ^10. #2274 Bryce & Mary Pat Peterson, 2829 Casco Point Road - Variances - Resolution 11.#2282 Tom Terry for Valerie Peterson, 1125 North Arm Drive - Variance - Resolution - 12.Variance for David & Jodi Rahn, 1385 Rest Point Road MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT 13.Change Order #1 Bay Ridge/Bracketts Point Sewer Project 14.Change Order #5 North Long Lake Sewer Project 15.Amendment to Plans for Stubbs Bay Sewer Project CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 16.Casco Cove Road Maintenance Update 17.City Policy Regarding Burning Permits 18.Appeal of an Administrative Decision for a Drainfield Location *19. LICENSES *20. BELLS 1 UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 08/25 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 08/28 - CouncU work session 7:30 a.m. - Stormwater management plan 09/01 - HOLIDAY - Labor Day 09/02 - Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.ni. 09/03 - Highway 12 Design Review Committee meeting 5:30 p.m. 09/08 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 09/12 - Planning Commission Work Session 8:00 a.m. 09/15 - Planning Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. : “hS-ChT- orono High Sch«,i Caf^eria - Na.arre Water Phu.t Rd»b09/23 ikuk igenda) iER ‘>%Q REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION P c DATE; ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 1998 Budget ) Jim Darnels, the Administrator for the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission, has requested an opportumty to make a brief presentation at the Aug ’ist 25 Council meeting regarding the 1998 Communications Commission budget and current and future activities of the commission. Under the Commission's 1998 budget, operating expenses will increase by 4.4%. Special Funds expenditures will be reduced by 2%. The overall expenditure increase will be 3.2%. In addition to the general increase for pay and benefits, the key area of expenditure increase is activities related to the renewal of the franchise agreement with the cable provider. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the 1998 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 1998 budget. ■ AKg MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COWMISS|^r40 SECOND STFEET • RO. BOX 473 • EXCELSIOR. MN 55131-0473 612. 474-5539 • FAX 612. 474-0430 August 20,1997 Mayor Gabriel Jabbour City Council Members deephaven City of Orono P.O. Box 66 EXCELSK3R Crystal Bay, MN 55323 green ^vooo ])ear Mayor Jabbour and Council Members. budget figures for 1998, at its full LMCC meeong oo August 19,1997. MEDINA ,t has become customary over the ast few some ”““1SSS city council agenda and talk for a few ^.^e regarding the cunent/future challenge. 2 budTfi^^^^^^^ be explainedLMCC future plans or an explanation of any budget tigures can minnetrista ORONO ST. BONIFACIUS Sincerely, . . shorewood Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission ames W. Daniels TONKA BAY ^dminisUator SPRING PARK VICTORIA Enclosure 'I'ooDiAND T.Pattrin, LMCC Chair Frederick Blanch, Alternate Commissioner IM «.jv ---------y LAKE MINNETONKA COMMl ICATIONS COMMISSIONPROPOSED 1998 BUDGET APPROVED BY LMCCApprovedProposedChange%Budget Budget Changefor 1997 for 1998INCOMEFranchise Fees $147,283.28 $I55,(MK».00 + $7716.72Other2,000.00 2,(KK).00 0.00Trtax-Norlh StudioInterest .4,000.(K)4,000.(M)0.(K)Contingency Fund ♦* I4..'>6(».00(Only if needed) $15.3.28.3.28 $I75..560.00 OPERATING EXPENSES Administrator, Access A $81,100.00 $85,6(X).00 + $4,500.00 5% OfRcc Stair Secretarial Service 800.00 825.00 + 25.(H)3% Payroll Taxes/PERA 10,140.00 10.640.00 + .500.(K)3% Tra\'el Expenses 2,175.00 2.295.00 + 120.00 5% Health Insurance 5,400.00 5.670.00 + 270.00 5% Legal Fees » -.yO.OO 9,000.00 + 1.000.00 12% Insurance/Bonds 5,670.00 5,670.00 0.00 *0% LMCC Accounting/2.000.(H)2,050.00 + 50.(M)2% Armual Review Conf., Schools A 7,000.00 7,200.00 + 200.00 3% Conventions 0%Oilice/Studio Supply Janitor 4,000.00 4,000.00 0.00 Serv/Supply * Membership Dues/L.VMMMt I..MMMW)0.00 0% Subscriptions 1 At this liiiic iiicoinc oin only he estimated. It has never been necessary to withdraw funds from llie contingency account to cover expenses, but this shows a balanced budget for 1998. DESCRIPTION => Payroll for Admin., Prod. Coord., Studio Coord., PT Prod. Asst.’s A Admin. Asst. => Payroll Services => PERA A employer w/liolding contribution => LMCC visibility at all cities, MACTA, North Studio A errands =» Amt. attributed to employee health ins. => Rate rcg./franchisc renewal/lcgal counsel Workers Comp., Dishonesty Bond, Property Liability Bookkeeping A annual audit => NATOA, MACTA. NFLCP => Normal olTice/sludio supplies, copy machine agree­ ment @ $.l()/nio. A janitor service and supplies => NA'l'OA, MACTA. maga/incs and 4 local Chambers of Commerce H 'V W' *4 VGC2LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PROPOSED 1998 BUDGET - CONTINUEDApproved Budget for 1997 Proimsed Budget for 1998 Change %ChangeOPERATING EXPENSES (continued)TclephoncA^oiceMail $ 2,280.00 S 2,.^30.00 + $50.00 2% Postage/PO Box 1.450.00 1.480.00 + .30.00 2% Miscellaneous 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 0% Advertising/Promo Four Quarterly Newsletters 4,200.00 4,200.00 0.00 0% Office Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Office Rent 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 0% Equipment Maint. ARi^r 1,7(K).00 1,700.00 0.00 0% Sales Tax 1.500.00 1.000.00 t-500.00)- OPERATING EXPENSES SUB-TOTAL $144,915.00 $151,160.00 $ 6,745.0(J 4.4% DESCRIPTION=> Montlity cliargcs/nnsu'cring scnice ^ LMCC agcndas/corrcspondence, & PO Box Rental => Varies =» Four quarterly newsletters to all interested cities, direct mail promos. Trinx bill stufTcrs & Annual Cli. 21 Awards rll => Ofllce Rent & Bank Box Increased hours on equipment will create need for repair Based on 6.5% of taxable purchases Capital FuiFranchise I Fund Tape Stock Technical/I Rate Audit Studio Equi Legal Fund Office Equi Access Equ Access/De\i Contingenq Sales Tax SPECIAL I SUI OPERATIF FUNDS SUI IRANDTC Approved Budget for 1997 Proposed Budget for 1998 Change %ChangeSPECIAL FUNDSCapital Funds $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0% Franchise Renewal Fund 1,000.00 1,500.00 + 500.00 50% Tape Stock 300.00 300.00 0.00 0% Technical/Financiat Rate Audit 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00 0% Studio Equipment 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00 0% LepIFund 100.00 100.00 0.00 0% Office Equipment 1,500.00 1,000.00 (-500.00)- Access Equipment 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 0% Access/Dmelopment 11,000.00 11,000.00 i 0.00 0% Contingency 708.28 0.00 (-708.28)- Sales Tax SPECIAL FUNDS 300.00 500.00 + 200.00 66% SUB-TOTAL OPERATING FUNDS S 24,908.28 $ 24,400.00 (-508.28) SUB-TOTAL $144,915.00 $151,160.00 $6,745.00 4.4% GRAND TOTAL $169,82.3.28 $175,560.00 + $5.7.36.72 3.2% V i ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11,1997 ROLL X The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson, and Richard Flint. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gafifron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and City Clerk Dorothy Hallin. Mayor Jabbour called tlie meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #11 and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. Moorse noted that items #3 and #7 should be removed from the consent agenda as both applicants have requested their applications be tabled. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to 2q>prove the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays f. • rl.V' Budget98.pub APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*2) REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 28,1997 Peterson moved, Flint seconded , to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 28, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments. PLANNING COMMENTS There were nc comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mike Barrett, 2912 Casco Point Road asked what progress had been made in his request from the previous Council meeting regarding Casco Cove road maintenance. Council had directed Staff to review this information and report back to the Council at this meeting. Jabbour stated it is a two-fold process. First ownership of the road must be determined and if the City does own the road what will we do with it. Jabbour stated that if the City does own the road the neighborhood should not expect reconstruction of the road this year. Moorse stated there are several issues to be researched and Staff did not want to bring incomplete information to the Council for a decision. Staff will have a report ready for the August 25th Council meeting. Goetten stated Bob Gehrman had contacted her regarding burning permit issues and brush disposal and she suggested he make his comments known to the Council. 1 f ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11,1997 PUBLIC COMMENTS Continued Bob Gehrman, 4300 Sixth Avenue North stated he wanted to thank the Council for the temporary depository of the wood waste from the recent storm. Although he wished it could have been done more expeditiously. He stated he would like to see a long term solution for handling wood waste and requested the Council to reopen a drop off site for wood. Wood is being stockpiled because some persons do not have a way to remove it and/or are unable to pay to have it hauled away. By creating stockpiles there is an issue of fire safety, unsightliness, and it becomes a home for rodents, which is unhealthy. The city needs to give the citizens better tools to handle the wood waste. One way would be to open a permanent depository or have better contingency plans for storm damage. He also asked why Orono has a different interpretation of the State requirements for brush burning than surrounding cities. Gehrman stated he is willing to work with the city in any way possible to find a solution to this problem. Jabbour asked Staff to respond to the issue of burning permits. Bob Biesterfeld, 450 Deborah Drive stated he lost several 200 year old oak trees due to the recent storm. Because he has several acres of land he is cutting the trees for his own usr. He appreciates the low property taxes by providing only necessary services to the residents. He stated he would not want a continual use wood depository, although the need for a plan for storm damaged trees is necessary. ( #3) #2259 MARK AND LAURIE HEADRICK, 1850 FOX RIDGE - VARIANCE - REQUEST TO TABLE Kelley moved, Goetten seconded to table this application at applicant's request. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #7) #2628 ROBERT CALLAN, 2995 DEER RUN TRAIL - VARIANCE Kelley moved, Goetten seconded to table this application at applicant's request. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #4) 2263 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3700-3760 SHORELINE DRIVE - SKETCH PLAN - MULTI-FAMILY PRD Bill Gleason, representing Brook Park Realty, was present. Gaffron stated this is a sketch plan review for a multi-family planned residential development located m the Navarre area. Brook Park Realty is proposing a 45 unit multiple family residential development on the vacant 10 acre parcel directly west of the twinhomes near the Navarre water tower. The proposed density level does not fit with the existing code. The applicant is looking to the Council for possible support for this proposal. The developer has requested that the Council review the sketch plan for 4.6 units per acre as proposed, and whether there is Council support for a zoning amendment to allow more than 3 units per acre in the LR-lC-a district, or possibly to create a new residential zoning district to allow greater density. Another possibility would be to amend the «r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11,1997 (U - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Sketch Plan - Multi-Family PRD - Continued) M-6 district standards to allow an M-6 development in an LR district. SHS?" r “ r:, - because this was a sketch plaa Kelley asked what density the Navarre twinhomes were. Gaflron stated it is zoned i RI .r t i- ii go?ng tL“ eTSnr^ZiS™ regarding that development was included in this memo which addressed traffiffl,low. Kelley stated he would have a difficult time approving any increase in zoning density. Peterson stated she also felt that 4.6 units per acre was too dense. ss'iis.r,* “ ™. - V.. i- Flint stated he is not in favor of increased density. Flint asked the applicant to look at 28 or 29 units. Gleason stated Brook Park Realty has not worked under TIF financing. He stated he thoueht utiliti^.^ m ^mprovements for this development would be approximately $16,000 per unit not including the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11,1997 ot ( #5) #2267 JOHN O’SULLIVAN, 3340 SHORELINE/2380 SHADYWOOD - COUNCIL SITE PLAN APPROVAL John O'Sullivan was present. Gaffron stated this application is for a third access to the Culvers site from Shadywood Road by crossing the conceptually vacated portion of Navarre Lane as well as the southerly comer of the chi,;? ch property. Customers are having difficulty entering from eastbound County Road 15 and leav.i7g^ his site heading east. The City Engineer has reviewed the site and determined that this prop, jcd access is too close to the intersection and notes that this location will be a potential problem if the County ever creates a free right turn lane from westbound County Road 15 to north bound County Road 19. The City Engineer would prefer to have this proposed access limited to a right-in/right-out access. Gaffron noted that Planning Commission reviewed this application at their July 21st meeting and voted 4-2 to recommend denial based on unresolved safety concerns related to the northwesterly access of the restaurant although they acknowledged the need for an additional access to the site. Gaffron stated the safety issues related to a revision in the building plans after original approval regarding the northwest building entrance configuration. The exit doorway now opens to a sidewalk rather than directly in front of the drive-thru lane. The Building Inspector's recommendation is to add a 6' long length of railing along the sidewalk from the doorway, so that pedestrians will have the ability lO see vehicles in the drive-thru lane before stepping off the sidewalk. Planning Commission also recommended a "zebra striping" crosswalk in the middle of the parking lot for pedestrian safety. Gaffron stated Staff agrees with the need for an additional access for the site. In staffs opinion the right-in/right-out limitation will not result in a solution to the traffic dilemma on site. Staff recommends that if the access is approved, it should be on a temporary basis only until a permanent access is provided as part of the church site development. He noted Staff has not prepared a resolution for Council tonight, it will be brought to Council's next meeting. O'Sullivan explained to Council the building configuration regarding the doorway, stating that during the building review this change was brought before the city staff. He stated the third access will be used primarily by restaurant customers and would reduce traffic to and from County Road 15. Jabbour asked when the church would be developed. O'Sullivan stated it could be this fall or maybe next year. Peterson asked if the 6' railing was part of the original plan. Gaffron stated the approved site plan did not include the railing although the original resolution requires the sidewalk vvith a railing and striping. Goetten asked if it would be possible to place a stop sign at the end of the proposed access. r! tr ; I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11,1997 (#5 - U2267 John O Sullivan - Council Site Plan Approval - Continued) Jabbour asked for staffs opinion. Gappa indicated he supported the additional access and the stop sign would be OK. ^ Jabbour asked O'Sullivan if he had a problem with the stop sign. O’Sullivan indicated he had no problem with a stop sign. Kelley indicated the stop sign may serve no real purpose. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, approval of temporaiy^ additional access for the O'Sullivan development as shown on the plan listed as Exhibit A in Staffs memo, with the condition that a permanent access be provided as part of the development of the church property, addition of a 6' railing and deletion of the striping of a crosswalk in the middle of the parking lot and to eliminate the stop sign at the entrance to the parking lot off the new access. Goetten asked if the new access was to be temporary. Kelley answered yes. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #6) #2269 CONLEY BROOKS & GERALD McCOURTNEY, 1045 FERNDALE ROAD WEST - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT Mr. and Mrs. McCoumtey, Mr. and Mrs. Conley Brooks, Jr. and Bob Mitchell their attorney were present. Gaffron stated this is a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement in that the applicants have purchased the property at 1045 West Femdale and proposed to divide the property. McCourtney will combine the westerly portion of this parcel with his adjacent homestead property 1055 West Femdale Road. 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 Road, which is on the north side of the road. Gaffron snted Planning Commission reviewed this request at their July 21st meeting. Their recom ..tended for approval is subject to: 1. The westerly portion being legally combined with the McCourtney property. McCourtney to remove the e.xisting residence on that projierty. Tha» the easterly portion of 1045 be combined with Brooks' residence and the two northerly parcels. 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). Planning Commission agreed the garage on Parcel H needs to be removed, but acknowledge Brooks may want to leave it as is until he firms up his plans for potentially replacing it. As a result. Planning Commission did not make removal of the existing garage a condition of approval. 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 ta.x parcel, and each of which may require City action or approvals as yet 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11,1997 (#6 - #2269 Conley Brooks & Gerald McCourtney - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Continued) undetermined. Brooks stated the subdivision is for the Skarp property only and he is tr> ing to clear up the other issues regarding this application. Barrett stated the Lot B owners today filed suit against the city for an injunction to prevent the Council from taking action on this application but they were not successful. Kevin Floyd, 960 West Femdale Road and his attorney Kevin DeVore were present. Floyd stated this matter was brought to his attention four months ago. The issue is their access to the lakeshore. It is important that all parcels be considered because it affects his property. He indicated his family was not notified and he was not allowed to discuss Parcel B or the adjoining properties at the Planning Commission. He was not provided the opportunity to say what he needed to say or discuss the entire situation. The affect of what is eventually done with this property will affect his property. It is appropriate to look at the entire group of properties in their inter-relation and how it will affect his property. Jabbour asked how does this violate our code. Floyd responded we were excluded from discussing this at the Planning Commission. They specifically excluded Parcel B from the discussion. Floyd stated the zoning application is to include; information of tree removal of trees over 6" in circumference within 75' of the lakeshore, vegetation diagrams and reference to vegetation clearing, information on filling, grading information; and all these items were missing from the zomng application. Dock plan or dock usage was not indicated on the application. We sent a letter to me city approximately July 14 expressing our concern and requesting information. We did not receive any information. Jabbour stated we are getting nowhere. These issues have nothing to do with the subdivision. Moorse stated this is just a lot line rearrangement. Floyd stated he has not received any information. Parcel B is a separate 20" wide parcel in joint ownership with Brooks and Floyd. Barrett stated these persons are in a legal process regarding ownership of Parcel B. Jabbour stated with this application we are making an improvement. Floyd stated we are asking the Council to table this application tonight. Jabbour stated he is very comfortable with the lot line rearrangement. ¥:.u L ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11,1997 (#6 - #2269 Conley Brooks & Gerald McCourtney - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Continued) Barrett stated Council should base their action on title opinion. McCourtney stated he has a permit to tear down the house, grading, and tree removal Mayor closed public conmients. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Planning Commission/Staff recommendation, as outlined in Staffs memo, subject to providing a certification of title that is satisfactory to the City Attorney. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Council recess 5 minutes. Resumed at 8:57 p.m ( #7) DISCUSSED AFTER ITEM #3 ( #8) TOM TERRY FOR VALERIE PETERSON, 1125 NORTH ARM DRIVE - REQUEST TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMIT Tom Terry and Valerie Peterson were present. Gaffron stated this request was to allow the applicants to be issued a building permit prior to completion of the normal variance process. Peterson's home was destroyed by fire and the Inspections staff 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. The survey he submitted with the permit application showed the lot does not meet the minimum area and width standards of the LR-1B 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. Gaffron stated the builder is requesting, on behalf of the owner, 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 "ough 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, and the builder would lose 6 weeks. If Council directs Staff to set a public hearing for the lot area and width variances at the August 25 Council meeting this will expedite this application. Terry stated he had talked to staff over 60 days ago and was given the wrong or incomplete information and would like the Council to allow the building to commence. Goetten stated we are trying to expedite this matter. r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11,1997 (#8 - Tom Terry for Valerie Peterson - Request to Issue Building Permit - Continued) Gflilfron indicated the mistHke W3s discovered August 6. G^on noted Coimcil could review the application now and the permit could be issued on August work wfuld 0"'^ « Tero^ stated this was not acceptable and asked if there w ere any other options. He was advised there were not. Jabbour indicated there were no other legally acceptable options. ^btour mov^, Goetten seconded, to waive refetral of Application #2282 to Planning Commission Situation caused by further delay, and direct staff to set a public hearing for the lot area and width variances at the August 25 Council meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT te^ilg members of the Long Lake Council regarding the milfoil Mooree stated he had forwarded information to the Orono neighborhood group on Long Lake regarding milfoil management. The DNR has toured Long Lake to review the extent of milfoil growth. Jabbour stated Orono is working on a harbor limits ordinance which addresses chemical treatment. Jabbour noted talks regarding Highway 12 Issues are continuing with the City of Long Lake. Jabbour noted Hennepin County is working on the by-pass lane on North Shore Drive at the DNR M^ll Bay laKe access site. He stated the DNR will be reviewing the peimits for tournaments at public accesses because of the traffic congestion created by their activity. Flint reported on the cost of stormwater ponding as a result of the new Highway 12 corridor. Kelley questioned the locaUon of the fence on Old Crystal Bay Road. Moorse stated it was installed because a retaimng wall was necessary at that location and it was part of the negotiation with the 8 ucaiWIIliPxr- rI •: ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11,1997 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) property owner. Kelley asked if the city would approve such a fence. Gaffi-on indicated this is a side street yard where a 42" fence would be allowed. The fence is in the right-of-way. Kelley stated it will not last the winter and it was not a good thing to do. He does not approve of a six foot high fence along a roadway. ENGINEER REPORT ( #9) UPGRADE NAVARRE WELL #2 PROPOSAL Gappa outlined a proposal for the upgrades of Navarre Well #2 Cook stated the well has not been repaired since 1972. He recommends it be pulled and checked each 10 years. Kelley asked if we have a maintenance schedule for all our equipment now. Moorse indicated there are maintenance schedules for much of the equipment, and efforts underway to develop schedules for all equipment. are Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve: 1. Partial request for Payment Number 1 to E. H. Renner & Sons in the amount of $10,498.53, 2. Alternate No. 2 to upgrade Navarre well number 2 to a capacity of 500 GPM at a cost of $23,696.15, and 3. The replacement of the pitless unit in Navarre well number 2 at a cost of $5,000. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#10) GOLF COURSE WELL - WRITTEN QUOTES Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to authorize installation of golf course irrigation well by Bergerson* Caswell, Maple Plain at a cost of $17,937.30. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*11) PAY REQUEST #2 NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SEWER PROJECT Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve Request for Payment #2, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $316,864.61. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST II, 1997 CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#12) HIGHWAY 12 STORMWATER PONDING Moorse stated Mn/DOT is doing a stormwater plan for the entire Highway 12 corridor. All runoff east of Old Crystal Bay Road will go to the east. Kelley asked why the pipe can't be tipped so the runoff goes to the west? Cook stated a permit would be needed from the Watershed District. Council requested more data and agreed that a stormwater management plan is needed. Jabbour stated he would like to talk to the City of Long Lake regarding a plan for handling stormwater run-off as part of the Highway 12 project. (*#13) 1998 ASSESSOR’S AGREEMENT Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve a contract with Rolf Erickson Enterprises, Inc. dba Southwest Assessing for the period September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998 for city property assessment services at a fee of $79,950. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#14) SCHEDULE DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR NAVARRE WATER SERVICE AREA - NAVARRE WATER PLANT REHABILITATION Moorse stated this was following up on the Navarre water plant rehabilitation public hearing and rate increase. Kelley suggested the hearing be held at the Orono School the week of September 22 at 6:30 p.m. Jabbour noted that if 700 jjeople do not want the plan to be rehabilitated the city should not do it. The issue of water quality going down will have to be explained to the residents. (#15) RESIGNATION - JOHN OLSON, ACCOUNTANT/MANAGEMENT ANALYST Goetten stated John Olson will be very much missed. All Council members concurred. Moorse stated we are trying to fill the position within the current dollars. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to reluctantly accept the resignation of John Olson, Accountant/Management Analyst, effective August 22, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#16) LICENSES Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve the following license with a vote of Ayes 5, Nays 0. I , I I I I iff— b i'' h ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11,1997 (♦#16 - Licenses - Continued) Gambling Permit - Resolution #3944 Multiple Sclerosis Minneapolis Chapter Jimmies Lounge 3380 Shoreline Drive (*#I7)BILLS Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 5. Nays ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk An 111. |o 03 U “ 3 § 3 3 10 o IS ^3 oi 1*^ ITIf n' E S-3 8^ 8^§. C fi» a OQ ® 5 |5T 3 “3 tc t» »• «i S' •S a § B‘t« oll«- r' *» i S i gc« I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ' O' '*r? DATE: August 20, 1^1#^ '‘^5^ .= ij \ITEM NO Department Approyal: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: jJ^238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttormson, 1220 Tonkawa Road - Variances - Partial Approval/Partial Denial Recommendation Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered. Application: A. Request for after-the-fact lakeshore setback, 0-75 ’ hardcover variances for enclosure of room below pre-existing deck. B. Request for 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of detached 30'x32' garage. List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7/28/97 B - Planning Commission Minutes 7/21/97 C - Memo and Exhibits of 6/12/97 Note: Because this is a partial denial recommendation by Planning Conumssion, staff has not prepared a resolution. A resolution will be prepared once Council has reached its conclusions on the two requests. Summary of Application Please review the memo and exhibits of June 12th. Briefly, in 1995 applicants requested variance approval to enclose the area under the existing 8'x24' deck on the east side of the house. The Building Inspector noted this would require continuous frost footings and that the existing deck could not be used as a roof. Variance approval was granted by Council on October 9, 1995 subject to a requirement for speciflc hardcover removals including an 800 s.f. gravel driveway and the 120 s.f. detached deck located at the shoreline. w o 5 8 Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 August 20, 1997 Zoning File #2238 Applicants never signed the approval resolutions and the variance approval expired on October 9, 1996. In March 1997 the Building Inspector during an inspection of other remodeling work on the house, found that applicants had in fact enclosed the area under the deck and made some repairs to the deck without permits, without the appropriate variance being in effect, and without having completed any hardcover removals. In fact the gravel driveway to the lake now has new gravel added to it. Applicants now request after-the-fact approval to allow the enclosure under the deck to remain; and are concurrently proposing a 30’x32’ (960 s.f.) detached garage (which will be located to meet setback requirements). This building will provide additional inside storage for a number of items currently stored outside. The large RV stored at the site is not necessarily intended to be stored in the garage, but storage of this vehicle might be appropriate outside the 0-75' zone. The removal of the two remaining sheds on the property will be an improvement. Structural coverage on the overall property will be 2,887 s.f. or 6.2% Hardcover Summary 0-75' Zone (Area = 33,050 s.f.) 75-250’ Zone (Area = 13,400 s.f.) Planning Commission Recommendation Existing Proposed Allowed 3,609 s.f. (10.9%) 2,691 s.f. (8.1%) 0% 4,879 s.f. (36.4%) 4,815 s.f. (35.9%) 25% This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 19th, at which time it was tabled to allow the applicants to consider options for removing or reducing the loop driveway as a hardcover tradeoff to the proposed garage. Planning Commission reviewed the application again on July 21st, and recommended as follows: A. Approval of deck repair/replacement and lower enclosure, subject to: 1. Removal of 8' driveway to lake, lakeshore deck, and small shed near the lake. 2. The enclosure must be brought into building code compliance. B The vote on the approval motion was 6-0. Denial of the proposed detached garage due to insufficient hardcover tradeoffs. This motion to recommend denial also was adopted on a vote of 6-0. Planning Commission concluded that, because applicants at the July 21st meeting agreed to removal of the lakeshore deck, that enclosure of the area below the deck attached to the house is reasonable. Note that the Building Inspectors have concluded that the degree of deck repairs absent the enclosure, was within the purview of a repair and not a replacement. •-t r-«rv. - Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 August 20, 1997 Zoning File #2238 Planning Commission concluded that, because applicants were unwilling to remove the looo dnveway from tte 0-75' zone and were similarly unwilling to significamly reduce the 0-75^ d^iW g^ge^" “tsulificient hardcover tradeoffs to support the request for the proposed Staff Recommendation recommendation for approval of the deck repairs and lower enclosure is similar in scooe and ch^acter to the approval granted in 1995, with the exception that earlier approval also altowed ^ miror excavation to create a walkout at the southeast comer of the house, which applicants “5!! Planning Commission that the enclosure below tte deck sMd oriy be approved m conjunction with removal of the 8' driveway to the lake removal of the lakeshore deck, and the small shed near the lake. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation that the proposed 75-250' hardcover Options for Action 1.Per Plan^g Commission and staff recommendation, approve the enclosure below the insufficient hardcove^r tildeoffs, and toct smff Table for further information. Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Take action to approve and/or deny and direct staff to draft appropriate resolut ions. ^ Im CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2238NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSIONACTIONDATE OF NOTICE: 7/28/97 TO: Chic Dwight & Fred Guttormson 1220 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances DATE OF MEETING: 7/21/97 Planning Commission recommends the following: A. Approval of deck repair/replacement and enclosure, subject to: 1. Removal of: • 8' driveway to lake • lakeshore deck • small shed. 2. Enclosure must be brought into building code compliance. VOTE: 6-0 B. Denial of proposed detached garage due to insufficient hardcover trade-offs. VOTE: 6-0 Applicanf 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. i I r i\ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997(#2) #2238 CmC 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. Gaf&on directed attention to the memo of June 12 regarding the applicant's discussion with him regarding options of reorienting the proposed garage and relocating the driveway loop and eliminating the loop in the yard to eliminate hardcover in the 0-7.5' setback. No conclusions were made. The issues still involve the reconstruction of the deck, deck enclosiu-e, fjid detached girage. 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. Gaf&on said if the removals were 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 asl'e 1 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. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING minutes for JULY 21,1997 (U2 - #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 Ae 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 ilrst 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 removed 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. 8 r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING minutes for JULY 21,1997(#2 - #2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttormson - Continued) Schroeder »A. .4." S SStrsiS," "*removed. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. he says he is trying to maintain ScZederfnfnZ^ k T Z*"'" the trees are. The applicant ,-eviewed his options regard^ fte'driUZr""'” ‘‘she fe^rihe •“*’ l«ve to be they would havTto^^^ application forward to the Council fp^d^Zn" Vote: *2238 for the garage portion of the (M) #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 C ^^Zon‘‘‘"“'“‘ P™P'«y were advised of the ommission. continuation of this r To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Lindquist & Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gafhron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator June 12,1997 #2238 Chic Dwight & Fred Guttormson, 1220 Tonkawa Road - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: Application: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential A. Request for after-the-fact lakeshore setback, 0-75' hardcover variances for enclosure of room below pre-existing deck. B. Request for 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of detached 30' X 32' garage. Lbt of Exhibits: A - Planning Commission Minutes of May 19 B - Memo & Exhibits of May 14 Staff and applicants met on the property June 3 to discuss further options. A number of concepts were discussed including: Re-orienting the proposed garage to allow a revised driveway loop with less encroachment into the 0-75' zone. Relocating the driveway loop nearer Tonkawa Road for the same purpose. Eliminate the loop in the yard, develop a second access to Tonkawa further south. Parking and access are the applicants' greatest concerns, as is property security given the proximity of the new Maxwell Bay access. Staff and applicants reached no specific conclusions. Planning Commission and applicant should discuss whether any of the new concepts have the ability to solve applicants concerns and meet Planning Commission's goals for this property. The staff memo and exhibits of May 14 are attached for reference. r m3s June 12, 1997 Page 2 Summary of Items Needing Approval and Potential Tradeoffs Need Approval: Potential Tradeoffs: - Reconstruction of deck (0-75 ’ hardcover, setback) - Enclosure of room under deck (Setback) - Addition of detached garage (75-250* hardcover) - Remove 8* gravel driveway to lake in 0-75 ’ - Remove 4'x9’ shed in 0-75' - Remove 8' x 12’ shed in 75-250 ’ - Remove 120 sf deck at shoreline ■ Remove loop portion of driveway in 0-75 ’ zone - Remove portions of parking area in 75-250 ’ - Re-work driveway to decrease hardcover in 0-75 ’ Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation or with additional or revised conditions. 2. Recommend partial approval. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Table for further information. 5. Other. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#13 - #2237 Jim and Roxanne Stasik - Continued) The ^plicant requested the application be presented to Council at their May 27 meeting. (#14) #2238 CmC DWIGHT AND FRED GUTTORMSON, 1220 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:56-10;27 P.M. The AiSidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Fred Guttormson was present GafiQron reported that the application was a two-part request. The first request was for an after-the-&ct lak^ore setback and 0-75' hardcover variances for an enclosure of a room bdow the pre-existing deck. The applicant received approval for this enclosure last year with the condition that particular bedcover be remov^; the condition was not met. The second request is for a 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of a detached 30'x32' garage. The garage will be located to meet the 15' side setback. The garage meets the 10' street setback with side facing doors. Hardcover exists at 36.4% in the 75-250' setback where 25% is allowed. The proposal would result in 35.9% hardcover with removal of a shed and portion of the driveway. A portion of the garage is over gravel. The 0-75* hardcover-exists at 10.9% which includes an 8' gravel driveway which exhibits new gravel, and a 4'x9' shed. Another shed appears to have been removed. Gaffron noted there is a loop driveway located in the 0-75' setback. The deck exists at 34' from the shoreline. The enclosure did not meet building code standards and was completed without a permit. If it is approved, the enclosure would require rdiuilding. A hardship statement was provided for the garage. No hardship statement was presented for the deck enclosure, but the enclosure had been approved previously but expired because the resolution was not signed and no permit was issued. Gaflfron pointed out that the lakeshore deck and gravel driveway are still present on the property. Their removal was required in the previous resolution. Gafion asked the Commission to consider whether hardship is demonstrated and if other removals should be required to reduce the hardcover. He questioned whether the loop driveway should be in the 0-75' setback. He asked the Commission to verify that conditions of Resolution 3611 should be applied. He suggested the possibility of allowing the applicant five years in which to remove the lakeside deck. Gaflfron said Staff does not necessarily recommend approval of such an amortization period but recommended conditions 1-4 as outlined in the packet. Guttormson said he had added windows placed on the existing railroad ties to enclose the deck. He believed this would not be considered permanent as the windows are removed in the summer months. He then found he needed an approval and the work performed to building standards. Guttormson said he would like to maintain the lakeshore deck. r minutes of the orono planning commissionMEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (§14 - #2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttonnson - Continued) Schroedcr was informed that Guttormson has owned the property for three years. Smith questioned why the original resolution was not signed and the gravel was not removed. Guttormson said he parks his motor home on the gravel driveway but would have removed it if the enclosure was made permanent Lindqinst asked if the applicant intends to finish the enclosure and remove the gravel driveway noting the need for a building permit Guttonnson said he would if allowed. He would also remove the driveway and reseed to the lakeshore. Lindquist inquired if the lakeshore deck would be removed. Smith noted it was a condition of the prior resolution. The applicant stated he did not complete the proposed improvements and would like to maintain the deck. Hawn suggested removal and sodding of the loop portion of the driveway with a back-out area behind the garage. The parkiitg location of the RV was discussed. The applicant said the garage doors would have to be heightened. He would prefer to park the RV in the loop of the driveway. Lindquist informed Guttormson that the intention is to eliminate hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Guttormson smd he would store the RV else^ere during the winter months but park it on the property the two weeks each month that it was not being used. Smith inquired of the time fi’ame if the applicant were to remove the driveway to the lake. The applicant said he would request 60 d^s. There w'ere no public comments. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2238 subject to Staff recommendation #1, eliinination of the loop driveway in the 0-75' setback noting sufficient pacing for a turnaround elsewhere, conditions #2 and #3. Guttormson said he would like to remove the proposal for the garage and maintain the loop driveway. Guttormson was informed that he could present that request to the Council. Gaffi'on indicated the garage request could be r^oved from the application. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to eliminate the loop, with conditions 1,2, 3, and 4. If the applicant chooses to eliminate condition #4, a permit would be required to reconstruct the garage. The applicant said he wanted to maintain the loop driveway. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19.1997 (#14 - #2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttonnson - Continued) Lindquist informed him that h is the intention of the Planning Commission to reduce hardcover in the 0-75' setback and any changes would include the loop driveway. Stoddard said he would support the driveway in the 0-7S' setback due to the configuration of the lot. He would recommend clutter be removed, gravel driveway to lake eliminated, and sheds removed. He noted the loop driveway cannot be seen. Hawn said she felt the applicant wants the loop driveway to park the RV. The applicant said he would park it elsewhere. Schroeder suggested the garage door be heightened to house the RV. The ^plicant said this could be done. Hawn sad she felt ii was inappropriate to house the RV on the driveway. Lindquist informed the applicant that the loop driveway would have to be eliminated before any further improvements are allowed. The applicant suggested tabling the application. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2238 to allow applicant to consider the loop driveway, garage^ and deck enclosure, and working with Staff on options. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#15) #2241 KYLE HUNT AND PARTNERS, INC, 1185 FERNDALE ROAD WEST - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:28-11:00 P.M. The AfBdavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants, Cheryl and Gary Costley, were represented by Kyle Hunt. Van Zomeren reported that the .887 acre property is located in the LR-1 A, one family lakeshore. Zoning District requiring two acres. The proposal requires variances to side yard, hardcover, and lakeshore setback for construction of an addition to the reudence under the existing deck for an exercise room, a third stall addition to the garage reducing the side yard setback to 19.1', and increa^g the 75-250’ hardcover 137.5 s.f. to 25.5%. Lindquist read a letter firom the neighbors, Bradley and Mary Bowman, expressing objection to the garage location. It was noted that the adjacent properties are located closer to the side property lines than that proposed by the applicant. Van Zomeren reported that the lot width measures 200' at the setback, 245' fi'omFemdale Road, 45' firom the west, 14 fi-om east, and 71' fiom the lakeshore. The builrfing pad is limited by the 26' separation requirement from the pond reducing the pad to approximately 92' in width. The property is further liniited by the location of a well in the yard. r To: From: Date: Subject: //.Chair Lindquist & Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator May 14, 1997 #2238 Chic Dwight & Fred Guttormson, 1220 Tonkawa Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Application: A. Request for after-the-fact lakeshore setback, 0-75 ’ hardcover variances for enclosure of room below pre-existing deck. B. Request for 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of detached 30' X 32' garage. List of Exhibits: A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List, Adjacent Owner Acknowledgements D - Survey E - Garage Construction Plans & Elevations F - Resolution #3611: 1995 Conditional Approval for Below-Deck Enclosure (Expired) G - Building Inspector's Letter/Notice of March, 1997 and Memo of 8/8/95 H - Staff Sketches, Selected Exhibits from Prior Application #2049 Pertinent Code Sections: 1. 10.22 Subd. 1; 10.55 Subd. 8; 10.56 Subd 16(L): Hardcover limited to 0% in 0-75' zone, 25% in 75-250' zone. Existing Proposed 0-75 ’ 3609 sf (10.9%) 2691 sf (8.1%) 75-250 ’ 4879 sf (36.4%) 4815 sf (35.9%) 2. 3. 10.22 Subd.l; 10.55 Subd. 8; 10.56 Subd. 16(C): structures allowed within 75' of shoreline. Pre-existing upper level deck setback: 34' Proposed setback of room below deck : 34' No temporary or pennanent 10.22 Subd. 1; 10.56 Subd. 16(C)6: No average lakeshore setback encroachment allowed. Existing and proposed encroachment: (Deck is 34' from shore; adjacent home to the north is approx. 50' from shore; there is no adjacent house to the south for defining the average setback line). r #2238 May 14, 1997 Page 2 Summary of request: In 1 995 applicant requested variance approval to enclose the area under his existing 8'x24' deck on the east side of the house. The Building Inspector noted this would require continuous 42" frost footings o ^ nnf^ ^ ^^2i"ce approval was granted by Council on Oc ober 9, 1995, subject to a requirement for specific hardcover removals including an 800 sf gravel dn veway and the 120 sf detached deck located at the shoreline. Applicant never signed the approval resolutions and the variance approval expired on October 9,1996. I^n March 1997 the Building Inspector, during an inspection of other remodeling work on the house, found that applicant had in fact enclosed the area under the deck without permits, without the appropnate variance being in effect, and without having completed any hardcover removals In fact the gravel driveway to the lake now has new gravel added to it. Applicant now requests after-the fact approval to allow the enclosure under the deck to remain* and is concurrenUy proposing a 30’x32- (960 sO detached garage (which will be located to meet setback requirements). This building will provide additional inside storage for a number of items currently stored outside. It is not known whether the large RV stored at the site will fit inside, but storage of this vehicle might be more appropriate outside the 0-75' zone. The removal of the two remaining sheds on the property will be an improvement. Structural coverage on the overall property will be 2887 sf or 6.2%. Enclosure As Constructed Does Not Meet Building Code The construction of the enclosure under the deck does not meet building code standards, and there is no building c(^e definition of a "temporary structure" as suggested to staff by the applicant. Even if the enclosure is ultimately granted variance approval, it will have to be dismantled in order to be rebuilt to meet the building code. Applicant has not provided construction plans for the enclosure. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement regarding the need for inside storage for vehicles and other equipment, and he notes a security concern due to the new Maxwell Bay public landing. Applicant has not provided any hardships in regards to the deck room enclosure. Hardships and justifications for this enclosure were enumerated in Resolution #3611 (Exhibit F). Hardcover Applicants surveyor has provided a revised hardcover worksheet which does not reflect a shed that has been removed in the 0-75' zone. The 800 sf gravel driveway in the 0-75' zone has been re- graveled rather than revegetated. This driveway appears to have been in place in the past, but its r #2238 May 14, 1997 Page 3 hardcover status was always questionable. Proposed hardcover removals include the small shed near the lake, the shed near the house, the 800 sf gravel driveway, and additional portions of the loop driveway. The current hardcover appears to be as follows: 0-75 ’ Zone (Area == 33,050 sf) Existing Proposed Structural:House 770 sf 770 sf Deck/Room/Stair 240 sf 240 sf Deck at Shore 120 sf 120 sf 4x9 Shed 36 sf (Remove) Non-Siructural:Loop Driveway 1530 sf 1480 sf Sidewalks, etc.113 sf 81 sf Driveway to Lake 800 sf ^Remove) 3609 sf 2691 sf (10.9%)(8.1%) 75-250' Zone (Area = 13,400 St) Existing Proposed Structural:House 797 sf 797 sf Shed 12.6x8.2 103 sf (Remove) New Garage —960 sf Non-Structural:Driveway 3680 sf 2830 sf *Sidewalk 126 sf i26 sf Other Concrete 89 sf 56 sf Misc Decks, etc 84 sf 46 ;.l 4879 sf 4815 sf (36.4%)(35.9%) Issues for Discussion 1. Has adequate hardship been demonstrated to support approval of the additional structural hardcover associated with the new garage? Does Planning Commission accept the proposed gravel hardcover removals as well as the shed removals as adequate mitigation? As an alternative to the applicants plan, can the loop driveway be eliminated in the 0-75' zone, leaving a larger parking pad in the 75-250' zone? 2. Do the findings and conditions of the prior approval (Resolution # 3611) still apply as regards the deck enclosure? If so, is there any reason to allow the 120 sf lakeshore deck to remain? Applicant’s attorney has suggested a 5-year amortization regarding removal of the lakeshore deck. If applicant was not asking for variances to add structure in the 0-75' zone, absent other issues an #2238 May 14, 1997 Page 4 amortization might be attractive. However, this is a variance request to add to the bulk of structure in a non-conforming location and the lakeshore deck is an obvious and relevant immediate trade-off in the opinion of staff. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1. 3. Approve hardcover variance in 75-250' zone subject to the proposed removals, with exploration of the possibility of removing the loop driveway in 0-75' zone, or at least defining its maximum allowed width in the 0-75' so it doesn't expand... Approve deck enclosure only per conditions similar to those under which it was approved in 1995: a. The deck and screen porch shall not extend past the southerly wall of the house. The stairway may be in addition to the 8' x 24' deck and shall be located at the north end of the deck, and shall not exceed 4' in width, and shall be only of the length necessary to accommodate the stairway and landing. b. This approval allows excavation in the 0-75' zone only in the amounts to accommodate construction of the deck and screen porch. c. The proposed low boulder walls between house and lake are specifically not approved, and shall not be constructed. d. Prior to footing inspection, applicant shall remove the grade-level wood patio 3' X 8' portion that extends outside the existing deck footprint. Applicant shall further remove the small accessory building located at the southeast side of the property, and shall remove the 120 s.f. detached deck structure located at the lakeshore. prior to footing inspection. Applicant shall remove gravel from the driveway areas to be made non-hardcover, and shall topdress and revegetate these areas by seeding or sodding, such work to be substantially completed prior to final inspection of the additions. Applicant to obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage and an after-the-fact building permit prior to reconstructing the deck enclosure. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation or with additional or revised conditions. 2. Recommend partial approval. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Table for further information. 5. Other. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION '3l3l^ ! .5^ :-***iiInitial Application Fee ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 Afier-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) <f .7 if ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION . Site Address / 8 ni Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) tO%-lO~^3 UODi Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Acquired__________^ j ^ H_________________________(month/year) I (do)(^o n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PresentiTsnSTproperty: residential ___other (specify)_______________________ Zoning District:________________________________________________________- APPLIC Name------- ^ ^ Address: 1 tfcrJi Phone (home) _____ c.-xvao^.. Phone(work) __ City: 0.' Q/\o________Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______ Phone(home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail:____ Estimated Construction Cost $ / o* / 0C>0 cx X- c 2^____ i t>> rtOLt ^ St • (a^ch additional sheets if necessary) ^ "* 1-^4 LiA^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side y Hardcover •___Lot Coverage __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: Qt\.x.vev>.. ^ Vs-g-V* D ft.vsjjk' < \ ^ X-n 2a X ^ -- (attach additional sheets if necessary) \ 4 r REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the applicatinn dearilinp date in order for vour application to be considered complete: (h 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. _ Completed Application Form , Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/^" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8>/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of appllcant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you v-sh notified of this application. Additic’*;:/! items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicarj nd Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour 3ariance_applicq!iis 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) Md/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tru^^ correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Date OWNER’S SIGNA The owner hereby acknowledges and agreesSi) this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purpo^s~o^^^stig^t|5li^and^;vi5J5gg|ition of this request. Owner’s Signamre -J'/a 5 /97 Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meetmg. Plamimg Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be pr^ent at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If ^ 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 J r RUN DATE 07/18/95BATCH 609PROP AOOR ONCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 08-117-23 13 0005 01200 TONKANA RD HXLFREO PERPER A HIFE HXLFREO PERPER 1200 ItMCANA RO LONB LAKE M4 55358 PROP AODR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 08-117-23 13 0018 01205 TOMCANA RO THOMAS H SMITH A NXFE THOMAS H SMITH 1206 TONKANA RO LONB LAKE MN 55356 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 58 08-117-23 92 0009 01565 TOMCANA RO 0 A J PUTNAM BALE L PUTNAM 1565 TONKANA ROAD NAYZATA Ml 55391 [■ HEMIEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMCRS LIST REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 1038 08-117-23 15 0006 01180 TONKANA RO R E EN6EBRETS0N ET AL RICHARD E EN6EBRETS0N 1180 TOMCANA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0007 01160 TOMCANA RD R K HOLLAND A E SULLIVAN RANDY HOLLANO/ERIC SULLIVAN 1160 TONKANA RO LONG LAKE Ml 55356 38 08-117-23 92 0001 01220 TOMCANA RO F E GUTTORMSON/C J B DNIGHT F E GUTTORMSON/C J B ONIGHT 1220 TOMCANA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 92 0003 03366 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPT NAT'L RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155 TOTAL BATCH 509 00007 1 , ■ 'i »• ‘X I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEMIEPIN Ci JNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, tO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. ^ -a! >• DATE r rtfftiiHfr f ♦ V 41 m ■- > I-.M. V** Juo %*•. Qc ^ . ^ \«- 7S’Setbeii 1 •97^ 4 Con roi/r wm* * V- ‘! t •!r, •.• :•« t^,v:'. • '5 I0: nc^ct. IP 1 ION Cf pg^HiSES buhfl I V d line d line Sion flunti)''** \ pdri I I e 1 v« n t •lescf ibed d$ M*dL part Of Lot 9. Auditor's Minriesold, lying jOUth»irly of easterly at right angles from .. u at a point on the Easterly lino of County Wood .40. fe-l Southeaster I y along said Caster.y lin‘» irum i th» North line Lot lO, said auditor's Siodi.is* easterly M3.2 feet to a point ili>ta:»r. lt‘Ul.29 angles ^rum the North line of said Lot 10. thence easterly on the OAtcnslon of the I ast-desr r ipciJ li Ma«weil*s Gay. and there termina11ng . • : deniitev iron marker found Ocarings sho«rn are based upon an ,iss.;«ed d.itua. This survey intends to Show tlie hou:’'Mrlos of Mw* property, the location nf an OAi'.im'i iiou •• and tian of all existing “li.jracu/er ** i he* non. 'I ai*0' Sliow any other inprovem^-nts or eni rt; I'.h-meM s . ni>CIUI*T!OS \V r 5 ji A/t u r Fr^d HAl^COVEU CALCULAJ4fc^VVUKK5ai.i SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ Cl7S-25^ 25-SOv. EXISTING hardcover IN ZONfV A. House .1 Lenfch Width i.‘I *' !* ^ .i I If: I • • t t Ha t•• 9 • ■3 X X B. Garage 6RA{JtrL. C. Dnvcwav X X D. Sidewalk OTWi:*2 COt^a^trC X X E. Patio/Dcck » » 7.6 7. r • • • ^ » F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. ~ Or Fabric • X X X X X X -7 G. Other ^^.•7'//I. 6 X L total hardcover in zone total property area in zone ^ --------------— -i- B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7nvr A. House , • • * — ' _______ A X 100 Length Width X X X B. Garage * C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck X X 7. ^X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ + B X 100 « • • 14 • f-7-?7 501)-1000 6-1. 1000’ \ o.r. • S.p. S3 S.IW \ = • S(L 3€3o •s. ^ ) BS .s.P<» »'/2<;■ ■,S.F' V \ =*S.F. . V • S.F.-,_ •/<P 20 ■ t-')S.R-* a.e. ;■ . • /<PJ ■'•••- V - 'X \y '-:S S.F. 48 7'/ • ••• . .S.F. A ss _/ y 4 C O ys. 4/ S'.F. |{ Uf • »77/ • • S.F. »S.F. •S.F. S.F. 'tw 9co .S.F. 8 • 2830 ^ • S.F. »S.F. a /2€S.F. as SC S.F. 8 4€S.F. «•S.F. a.S.F. «•S.F. =S.F. 1 • I S.P. 48/S * • •S’.F. A */ i .•et-O O S.F. n as TS-. ^3 % i f I -- - -—• ——- r I i •• I n Frh :d HAW)C0VER-€ALCULATlOiN VV Ol<Jv:> tit • SETBACK ZOr^E: (CIRCLE ONE) QrTSy 75-250* 25-50 EXISTING HARDCOVT-R IN ZONE A. House______________* Length X X X B. Garage __ C. Driveway 0 fi ra iA\i( D. Sidewalk __ oTHf R coficanE_ X X X X X % k E. Patio/Dcck"X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X y •* ' ' G. Other //A'// y /ts- • « X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -r B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ * Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk rv X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other Width " TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ________^B m » X 100 WiJth X 100 - • • 14 i - 7 -J7 /su. SOO-IOOO* 770 s.v.• •S.F. as S.F...• SB S.F. S.F. “■■'V =3 / > .r O •'S.F. a .S.F.• 7 .1 . S.F. Soo yo ■ ) a S.F. . ’44 (r ,.r S.F.;■ - ^/?o .S F. as S.F. / ’ a S.F. (7 a •S.F.. •. * * a ■ • • /v? J % ♦ •. •• • %S.F. r. ^ r37 S3 V oscf s p- 5 «s // JtS ur -Yo yyo • . • S.F. 1m ^ 1 1 \ S.F. % -S.F. a -S.F. •S.F. t'^3o S.F. S.F.\ »7o // • S.F. S.F. 1 ' 1 2^0 S.F.' 1 ■ a JZ o S.F. • vie * ;. S.F. ’S.F. _ ^ S.F. 2.€ i/• S.F.A n •77~loirql S.F.IS ‘a ■ • %•« F CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 6 1 1 41 ESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISIONS 16 (C, J, & L) FILE NO. 2049 WHEREAS, Fred Guttormson and Chic Dwight (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1229 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: That part of Lot 9, Auditor ’s Subdivision No. 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying southerly of a line parallel with and 125 feet southeasterly at right angles from a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of County Road No. 135 distant 1141.25 feet southeasterly along said easterly line from its intersection willi the north line of Lot 10, said Auditor's Subdivision; thence northeasterly 143.2 feet to a point distant 1004.29 feet south at right angles from the north line of said Lot 10; thence continuing northeasterly on the extension of the last-described line to the shore of Maxwell ’s Bay, and there terminating (hereinafter "the property’’); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 v.C) to allow construction of a screen porch and replacement of an existing deck within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no structures are normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L), to allow hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback zone where no hardcover is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) to allow excavation and retaining w'all construction within the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback zone where grading, filling and excavating is normally not allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Page 1 of 7 r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _8 6 i i 2. 3. FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2049. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakcshorc Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commissiou reviewed this application on August 21, 1995 and recommended partial approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A.The existing 8' x 24' deck and 4’ x 6' stairway (216 s.f. total) arc in poor condition and need to be replaced. Since there are e.xisting doors opening to this second level deck, it would be appropriate to replace the deck in kind to preserve a substantial right of the property owner. Construction of a new 8' X 24* deck plus a stairway at the north end of the new deck will result in no new encroachment of the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. B.Construction of an 8’ x 24' screen porch directly below the proposed deck will have minimal visual impact as viewed from the lake, due to partially being below grade and due to existing screening along the shoreline. Further, the existing and proposed deck constitutes hardcover under the City's hardcover policies and therefore no new hardcover results from tlie screen porch addition. C. Neither the deck nor screen porch will have an impact on neighboring properties' 'dews of the lake. D.E.xcavation along the south wall of the existing residence to allow installation of walkout doors to replace existing windows is minor in nature, involving the removal of only 4 cubic yards of material ranging in depth from 0-3' along a small portion of the foundation wall. The excavation is necessary in order to allow access via the proposed patio doors. The visual impact of the additional facade opened up to lakeview is very minor. Page 2 of 74^ I t i t f 4. 5. E. F. G. H. GlTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 6 11 - Replacement of the existing 8’ x 24’ deck and relocation of the stairway to the north end of the deck will result in an overall structural hardcover increase of less than 10 s.f. in the 0*75’ zone. Further, structural hardcover on the property can be reduced significantly by removing the 120 s.f. non- conforming deck structure at the lakeshore. Further, 0-75' hardcover has been reduced by removal of two sheds and a remaining small shed approximately 10-15 s.f should also be removed from that zone. Other hardcover in the 0-75' zone includes a circular gravel driveway, an addition to sidewalk and walls adjacent to the house. Applicants have recently removed an 8' gravel driveway leading to the lake which constituted approximately 800 s.f of hard surface. That is a positive improvement to the property, although that area has not been revegetated and should be. Further, the portion of grade-level wood patio extending outside the footprint of the existing deck, i.e. 24 s.f of wood patio, is unnecessary and should be removed. The removal of the detached 120 s.f deck structure near the lakeshore and concurrent removals of other structural and non-structural hardcover, are an improvement to the property. No adequate justification has been presented to support granting a variance for construction of low boulder walls between the house and the shoreline. 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 district; that granting the variances woul»* 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 Page 3 of 7 l\ CSHO CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ S 8 1 1 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS exIsiJnf S'V 7l-h" I ? • ^ 24- screen porch and reconstruction of the qJr In stairway structure; and grants variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2, ffnli 10-56. Subdivision 16 (L) to allow construction of said s ructures which constitute hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone where no hardcover is normally a owed; and grants a v^iance to Sections 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) to a low excavation in the 0-75' zone where excavation is nomially not allowed, to accommodate said screen porch and additionally to allow alteration of grad, s to accommodate a « Mkout door on the southeast facade of the residence, subject to the following conditions; The deck and screen porch .'.all not extend past the southerly wall of the house The said staiivvay may be in addition to the 8' x 24’ deck and shall be located at the north end of said deck, and shall not exceed 4' in width, and shall be only of the length necessary to accommodate said stairway and landing. This approval allows excavation of fill in the 0-75’ zone only in the amounts to accommodate construction of the deck and screen porch, in addition to approximately 4 cubic yards of removal at the southeast wall of the house to allow access to the proposed walkout doors, including the necessary retaining wall adjacent to the front stoop. The proposed low boulder walls between house and lake are specifically not approved, and shall not be constructed. 1. 3. Page 4 of 7 ' i 6. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _3 6 11 4. Prior to footing insp^ -iion, property owner shall remove the grade-level wood patio 3' X 8' portion that e.xtends outside the existing deck footprint. Applicants shall further remove the small accessory building located at the southeast side of the property, and shall remove the 120 s.f detached deck structure located at the lakeshore, prior to footing inspection. Further, applicants shall topdress and revegetate the area of the previously removed 8' x 100’ gravel driveway by topdressing and seeding or sodding, such work to be substantially completed prior to final inspection of the additions. 5. Final hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not exceed 2,645 s.f. as follows: House - 770 s.f Attached deck and screen porch including stairway - 232 s.f Loop driveway - 1,530 s.f Sidewalks, etc. - 113 s.f Total - 2,645 s.f In the 75-250’ zone, hardcover shall not exceed the existing 900 s.f of structural hardcover including house and shed, plus 3,979 s.f of non-structural hardcover including driveways, sidewalks, etc. for a total of 4,879 s.f or 36.4% hardcover in the 75-250 zone. Property owners are advised that any future proposals to add hardcover on the property will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover to result in no net hardcover increase. Authorities granted by this variance rim with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 9, 1996). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 5 of 7 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Fred Guttormson 1220 Tonkawa Orono, Minnesota 55356 Re: Work Without Building Permit Dear Mr. Guttormson: department that you have recently enclosed the area under the deck on the l^eside of your home. On October 9.1995 the City Council conditionally approved ^ addmon; however, the resolutions were not signed and the variance expired pemi was not issued and the conditions of the variance wrere not followed. The ronstraction.“ ” *>““<*‘"8 code in respect to foundation “ POSsiWa. Your failure tocontact the City with a removal schedule before March 17,1997 will result in legal action. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official I.O/ch cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Bmce L. Vang, Field Inspector Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 r piMlA^^ -f72=e^ r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD OiN OCTOBER 9,1995 PLANNING COMNDSSION CO>DIENTS There was no Planning Commission report. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public ccmments. ZO.NING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (>*=3) S2044 GEORGE OLSON, 2775 SHADY^VOOD ROAD - VARLANCE - RESOLUTION ??3610 Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution s=.?610 granting a hardcover variance to George Olson of2775 Shadj'wood Road for the construction of an addition to the existing residence. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2049 CHIC DWIGHT/FRED GUTTORMSON, 1220 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3611 The applicants were present. Gam-on reponed that the application is for a request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for a number of projects. The applicants would like to replace the e.xisting deck on the lakeshore side of the residence, buiid a screened porch below the deck area, excavate to the south side of the residence for a walkout door, and constma low boulder walls, all of which is in the 0-75’ zone. Tne current setback to the lake is 42 ’ from the residence and 34 ’ from the deck. During Planning Commission review of August 21, 1995, the applicant received a partial recommendation for approval of a screened porch under the deck and deck replacement and stairs. The appro^ was based on the deck not e.xtending past the south wall of the residence. Excavation to the south side wall and retaining wails to allow a window to become a doorway was recommended. The Planning Commission did not recommend the installation of the low boulder walls between the deck and shoreline as there was no justiheation or hardship shown. The approval was based on the condition that the small patio below the deck be removed, as well as the small accessory building on the southeast section of the property. The old gravel driveway was recommended to be top dressed and revegetated %vith foil grass. The applicant was also asked to remove the deck by the lake. Gafrron also noted that the DNR recommended denial of the deck and screened porch based on the fact that the property is non-cenforraing. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 9,1995 (^f4 - #2049 Chic Dwnght/Fred Gunormson - Continued) Gaf&on said Staff does not totally agree w>ith the recommendation of the Planning Commission as it is felt the new scrwn porch located so near the shorelme would only increase the bulk structure of the property within 75' of the shore. Stair is also concerned that the approval of the excavation to create a walkout would possibly be precedent setting. Callahan asked the appUcant if he had reviewed and approved the recommendation made. Gunormson said the main reason the property was purchased was because of the deck by the lake. He noted it is located near the end of the point and is partially hidden from view. It is his main concern that this lakeshore deck remain. Guttormson said he was willing to eliminate the gravel road, had no problem with changing the suirs from the front to the back of the deck, would remove the small shed, although it is not very visib e, and noted that the 10*xl0' shed had already been removed, as weU as the center section of the driveway, which was sodded. He is willing to proceed with the recommendauons if the lakeshore deck can remain. The applicant said it was their intention to perform upkeep on the property. The rip rap has been found to be eroding and needs to be reconstructed in order to save trees. Chic Dwight commented that neighbors present at the Planning Commission meeting were not given the opportunity to comment on the application. She said they were in favor of the proposed projects. Goetten responded that she also was present at the meeting and felt their inabUity to speak was unintentional, an oversight, and apologized for the applicant's feeling of mistreatment. Hurt asked Gaffron if the Staff had concerns with approval of the walkout. Gafifron said the City has generally not approved major excavation in shoreline areas for properties Wgh in elevation when the purpose only to produce a basement walkout. This ^ application, according to Gafifron, was considered minor in comparison at 2 to 2-1/2’ of cut He noted that the area was more than likely filled in when the house w’as built and is not in its natural state but was probably flat and built up to accommodate the spUt-entry style home. The applicant said the area where they are asking for excavation for the walkout is on the east end and receives very little Ught. Their purpose is to k more Ught into the lower level of the home with the walkout door . Kellev asked and received confirmation that there is an entrance to the inside of the residence from the screened porch. Kelley asked if there were any hardships for the requested variances. The applic^t said their desire was to improve on the aesthetics of the home, to gain the e.xtra light into the lower level, and to repair the deck. J IvnNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CTTY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 9,1995 (#4 - #2049 Chic Dwight/Fred Guttorrason - Continued) Jabbour inquired what the applicant would be allowed to repair on the deck if the recommendation was not approved, noting that the current raiUng does not rae« code. Gaf&on said boards could be replaced without a variance. The question is at what eve of replacement a variance is needed. If a deck is totally removed, it would require a variance to rebuUd it. The City would likely approve a variance required to maintain the safety of an existing deck. Jabbour asked if the change from a window to a walkout door requires a variance. Gafifron said the variance, as well as a conditional use permit, is required because o t e excavation. Hurr said she was concerned with the deck's encroachment on the lakeshore. The applicant noted that if the deck was asked to be rcmov'cd, he would not proceed with the other proposed projects. Hurr said, even if the applicant would not proceed with the other improvements, she could not support the lakeshore deck remaining. Hurr was in support of the other recommended projeas; though, she did voice some concern of t e excavation. Goetten said she was also concerned with setting a precedent by aUowmg excavation for a walkout and would not support it. She emphasized the majority of the home being within the 0-75' zone. Goetten said she would support the screened porch and deck but not the deck at the lakeside. Jabbour said he takes a more realistic approach to the application. He noted that the deck is already there and would be rebuilt. The screened porch would be over and above a patio which is hardcover anyways. Jabbour saw the tradeoffs as substantial to the goals of the City as the property has been extensively cleaned up. He saw the removal of The rock areas, driveway to the lake, and two sheds as major contnbuuons to hardcover removal and 99% of what the City would like removed. Jabbour said he would not support the boulder waUs unless they were to stabiUze the ground. He did support the walkout. Kelley asked about the condition of the deck at the lakeside. Gafifron said he has seen it but not walked on it. The appUcant said it was in good shape. Kelley asked Gafifron how much repair could be done tc this deck. Gafifron said structural repairs could be allowed up to a value of 50% of the value at the time the deck became nonconforming, probably in 1975. ife was not aware if the deck was there at that time nor whether its value had been established. The applicant said the house was built in 1970. Kelley asked if a grading plan had been presented at that time. Gafifron said probably not. The applicant said he has the original plans. "1 r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CTTY COUNCIL MEETING HELP ON OCTOBER 9,1995 (#4 - ^049 Chic Dwight/Fred Guttormson - Continued) Kelley said he would support the walkout, and supported the comments made by Jabbour and the Planning Commission with the lakeshore deck remaining if the driveway was removed. The applicant noted that 1000 s.f of hardcover has already been removed on the property. Hurt said she was not in favor of approval of .keeping the lakeside deck. Kelley commented on approval for a lakeside deck received on the Norenberg Park property. Hurt responded that this was a different situation with the historic value of Norenberg. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Application "2049 per the Planrung Commission recommendation with the e.xception that the lakeside deck remauu on the property. Vote; Ayes 2, Kelley, Jabbour, Nays 3, Callahan, Goetten, Hurr. Motion fails. Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Application #2049, Resolution #3611, per the Plaiming Commission recommendation. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Kelley. (*#5) #2051 MIKE HILBELINK, 2760 WATERTOWN ROAD - ROAD NAME APPROVAL Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the name of Copper View Drive, applicant's first choice for the private road within the Rosch Addition plat. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2058 RON RANIZ/AUTOGRAFS, INC, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - RESOLUTION #3612 The applicant was not present. Mabusth noted the amendments to the resolution by the City Attorney regarding the intent of the City concerning rezoning of the adjacent residential property. The applicant will be made aware of this minor change. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3612. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain 1, Callahan, who was unaware of the proposal. (*#7) #2060 TIM FEYO/KAREN FULLER, 4055 ELM STREET - VARIANCE RENEWAL - RESOLUTION #3613 Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3613 granting a lot area variance to Tim Feyo and Karen FuUcr-Feyo for property located at 4055 Elm Street. Ayes 5, Nays 0. r NflNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 h (#9 - #204S\James & Joann Jundt - Continued) /Mabusth said the septic is non-conforming, and it is being questions what affect the apartment woulO'have on the septic. Mabusth said it is a good id^ to ask for septic inspections. Petei^n agreed that the goal is not to allow the septic to fail. Crawford noted that this property was considered a hot spot for sewering at one time, and the applicant has been de^ng with this issue throughout all the applications. Schrocder added that the\City cannot allow more people to reside on the property than the septic can handle. He is inTavor of inspections; and if the system fails, Schroder said that would affect the conditionu^se permit. The property has two separat^septic units, one for the main residence and one for the accessory structures. The septicvunits do not meet the separation requirements. Peterson commented that normal iiwi>sctions occur every two years. This property, according to Peterson, should be inspe^ed more often. Schroder moved, Lindquist seconded, fo^pproval of a studio within the oversized accessory structure, subject to co nditions of'the ^UP with inspections of existing relevant system every two months to show its c4>ability in handling the increased usage. A charge will be incurred by the applicant for e^ra inspection time. Gaf&on remarked that the earliest for sewering of the property would be the end of 1996. It is Staffs sense that the septic is not running out onto the ground, but noted the 3' separation is not met. It is possible that the system may .not be able to handle the usable wastes during this period of tirn^e. If this is found to be tn^e, the septic would need to be pumped out on a regular bas^ There were no public consents. / Ayes 6, Nays 0. Mabusth commented pn an issue with tree removal in the 0-75' waterproofing of a tunnel that was not'approved by Staff. All of the earth around thq^nnel was moved during me waterproofing process. Staff will ask for replanting of theso trees. Crawford commented that the elms were deteriorated, and tree roots were extending into the tunnel, Part of the tir lel encroaches the 0-75' setback. An amended application will be coming .before the PlannintrCoromission on this issue and is not part of thjs.appUcation. (#10) #2049 FRED GUTTORMSON AND CHIC DWIGHT, 1220 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING - 9:25-9:48 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. r minutes of the orono planning commissionMEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Cootinued) The applicants were present. Gafiron reported the application was to replace an existing deck, along with the construction of a screened porch under the deck. A walkout area would also be excavated from what is now a split entry area. The existing deck is in poor condition. Replacement would be done of the total foundation as footings have been found to depths less than the frost line. This would ail occur within the 0-75' setback area and require hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances. The residence is 42' from the lake, and the 8x24' deck would be located 34' from the lake. Drainage on the property comes from the mature trees toward the proposed screen porch area. It is questioned whether this could be flattened out, retaining walls about 1' in height be construaed, or ground cover established to aid the drainage. A letter from the DNR was read into the minutes recommending denial of the application based on the existing house being within 75' of the lake and proposed porch and deck increasing the nonconformity of the house. The porch and deck would also be within the 37.5' shore impact zone. Gafifron noted that the hardcover would be at 8.48%, reSwUiag in a minimum increase in the hardcover from existing. It would, however, lend more permanency. Two buildings have been removed as well as an 8' gravel driveway located in the 0-75' zone, which has not been revegetated. New gravel has been placed for the loop driveway. The applicant said the property was overgrown and buildings were found to be deteriorated. There is a tank on the property but the reason for it is unknown. During clean up, the driveway to the lake was discovered. Two 20-yaid dumpsters were used to remove debris from the yard and house. An outhouse sized building still exists by the lakeside. Peterson said the application has several issues. He felt the filling on the top dressing down to the lake should meet approval. The accessory structure to the south should be removed. It was felt the retaining walls would create problems and not solve any. The applicant said she has seeded three times and erosion has washed it out. It is so shaded that sod will not grow and thought a w-all wouIq help. It is the applicant's desire to keep the propert>' riamr n, Peterson felt the sliding doors would meet his approval but found the deck and screened porch were issues needing discussioa 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 / (#10 -‘#2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) Lindquist asked whj the deck and porch would be beyond the house. The applicant said there was surface hardcover there already. Lindquist said the desire of the Planning Commission is to remove as much hardcover in the 0-75' zone as possible. It was noted that there is a 1x6’ patio extention leading from the patio doors. Lindquist said the deck could be replaced but the extension removed. The deck should not extend beyond the house. \ GafiBron asked the Commission if approval were given for the walkout, would this be setting a precedent by allowing a change to the grade. The applicant said her purpose was to gain light into the lower level of the home and modernize it. The applicant said it appears the grade was put in when the home was built and not originally there. Peterson said he saw a problem with the bench by the dock and asked applicant if they would be willing to eliminate the accessory structure to gain the deck. The applicant said about 1000 s.f of hardcover has been removed and felt they were being sensitive to that issue. The applicant said the property was purchased in part because of the deck structure by the lake. Peterson said it would not be allowed today. The applicant said she would be willing to remove the shed by the lake. r Lindquist asked if the deck could be 8' instead of 8'6". Schroeder said the structural coverage should not exceed the amount on the property as it exists now. He suggested the driveway extension and outhouse-size shed be removed as mediation for the deck. Any additional hardcover in the loop driveway that is unnecessary was also asked to be removed. The applicant said this was required to turnaround noting the inability to park on Tonkawa. Berg said she used the loop area in which to turn around. Peterson said the applicant should be concerned with the problems being created by beavers gnawing on the trees. Major erosion problems could occur in the future due to the loss of these trees. Peterson asked if the issue is altering the lakeshore if the grading is changed. Gaffron said it would be a conditional use but Staff saw no need for this to be done and would not recommend approval for this or boulder walls. Smith asked what could be done to maintain the shoreline. Gafifron said the boulder wall would help erosion from coming to the house and rip-rap could be done to prevent shore erosion. A Watershed District permit could be obtained to rip rap. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve replacement of the deck and screened porch in the existing footprint, not to exceed the footprint. A.pproval was recommended for the grade cut to allow a window or walkout door as proposed on the southeast side. No boulder walls would be allowed. Removal of the concrete slab on the east side, removal of the existing accessory structure to the south, removal of the old access boat ramp and resodding of same, and removal of the dock at the shoreline to include the bench-deck area were recommended. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2050 WILLIAM TOLLS, 3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:48-10:12 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Gaffron reported the application is for hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances to construrt a pool on the lake side of the property, which was purchased by the applicant in July of 1995. The pool would create a 15' average lakeshore encroachment but would have no visual impact. A net decrease in the hardcover would result in the 75-250' zone from 33.1% to 32.6%. . Gaffron compared the application to a 1988 variance approval, the hardcover square footage of which was allowed at that time, today, is now exceeded. There continues to be no hardcover in the 0-75' zone. The 75-250' zone was approved in 1988 for 29.5%, but exists at 33.1%, and is proposed at 32.6%. The 250-500' zone was approved in 1988 for 24.1%, exists in 1995 at 20.4% and proposes no change. The two surveys from 1988 and 1995 each use a slightly different base lot area for each zone. What Gaffron thinks happened is the driveway portion was eliminated but rock beds that are in place were not looked at and the overhangs were listed separately. The 1988 circular driveway has been changed with not as much loop and the garage addition built. The applicant will take out the rock and plastic to be replaced with hard surface. The 1390 s.f of land in base area calculation change and 400 s.f of concrete patio would be in exchange for the pool. When the pool is built, there would be no hardcover within 115' of the lake. In looking at the hardcover as a percentage of the entire lot, there was 21.7% before, and as approved, in 1988, now existing at 22.1%, and proposed at 21.8%. r M PHONE NO. STATE OF ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD. ST. PAUL. MN 5510&, enq 772-7910 August 21, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Fred Guttormson and Chic Dwight Variance Application, Lake Minnetonka (27-133) City of Orono, Hennepin County Dear Ms. Mabusth: We have reviewed the above-referenced lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance proposal (received August 8,1995) 1220 Tonkawa Road (City #2049) and we recommend denial of the proposal for the following reasons: 1.The existing house is within the 75* setback from the Ordinary High Water level (OHW) of Lake Minnetonka and does not conform with the shoreland standards adopted by the City of Orono. The proposed screened porch and deck are unacceptable because they will increase the nonconformity of the house. 2.The proposed screened porch and deck are within the 37.5' shore impact zone of Lake Minnetonka. According to State Shoreland Standards, only water oriented occessory structures should be placed within the shore impact zone. 3.There are reasonable alternatives available to placing the screened porch and deck within the shore Impact zone of Lake Minnetonka. An examination of the plat indicates that sites for screen porches and decks exist which are outside on the 75* setback to Lake Minnetonka. 4.Hardship must be demonstrated to justify receiving a variance. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: A. The proposed use is reasonable. B It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns" and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth August 21,1995 Page 2 C.The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem Is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. D. E. The problem must not be created by the landowner. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. In accordance with the city ordinance, the Department should be advised of the action taken on this request within 10 days of final action. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these variances. Should you have any questions please contact me at 772- 7910. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist c:City of Orono shoreland file Ed Pick, Shoreland Hydrologist Dale Homuth, Regional Hydrologist i* .. /I V » •» I#r ,u *.Ci'-o --- iV:;_;4,• •*I • i*■ V:A-A 4”f!|. A f • 'vi^' *• 'i‘?r ■' ■ ■ >li;' \ .• ’■•;.. KT: BkVC.« / ^ ^ t U%4 IW & T F i.«.«ur< r •* • .>*•«•••’#Wr.W4w»< • C5 I • I • i* >. /* i 11 1 i; >> j M 4/ «e /—Ac*f- o r^ C r*l^Q3«*ci A U« ***>-* Cu»^ V\ Opc^1 4; 1<30O • i y- i*• t. s L»* ■ •V •IV r- vv 1 ■f __ •!• « v^irJ-\) atcl^ IP^V p- • \33C>“fcni:i=u:s=\ 9o oecTO ^0, % O ^ request for council action ^^9;^ DATE: 8/20/97 ^ KITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2255 Ri^'k and Deborah Rice Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:22,324 sq. ft. (.512 acres) Application:The applicants propose adding a deck to their existing residence. The proposed deck extends into a required rear yard and the comer side y^d setback from Lydiard Avenue. The existing residence encroaches 5' into the required 35' side yard adjacent to Lydiard Avenue. IllllllissionPlanning C Recommendation: To grant the following variances; 1. To reduce the comer side yard adjacent to Lydiard Avenue from 30' to 21' where 35' is required. 2. To reduce the rear yard setback from the north property line from 25’ to 23’ where 30’ is required. .»• ^ I*rc old. UU.i'lo 70 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To amend or approve the enclosed resolution, XO TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:July 14,1997 SUBJECT: #2255 Rick and Deborah Rice 2700 Kelly Avenue Variance(s)—Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:22,324 square feet (.512 acres) Application: The applicants propose adding a wrap-around deck to an existing residence. The proposed deck extends into a required rear yard and comer side yard setback from Lydi?rd Avenue. The ex: ting residence encroaches 5' into the required 35 ’ side yard adjacent to Lydiird Avenue. Pertinent Ordinances: . Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B) - LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District U2255 Rick and Deborah Rice 2700 Kelly Avenue 7/21/97 Page 1 r ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area 1 acre Lot Width 140 ft. Front Yard 35 ft. Side Yard Adjacent to Another Lot 10 ft. Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 30 ft.35 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area 22,324 sq. ft. Lot Width 150 ft. Front Yard 150+ ft. Side Yard- Adjacent to Street 30' existing on west side 21' proposed for deck Rear Yard 25' existing 23' proposed The subject property does not meet the lot area or side yard adjacent to a street requirements. The proposed deck would encroach into required rear and side yards. The deck would encroach into the side yard an additional 6' from the kitchen which would reduce the required side yard to 21' at the point closest to the property line. The proposed deck would reduce the required rear yard to 23' where 30' is required. Structural Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. % Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 250'-500'22,324 sq. ft.3,766 sq. ft. (16.9%) 6,691.2 sq. ft. (30%) 4,415.7 sq. ft. (19.8%) None Hardcover is currently below the allowed amount for the 250-500' setback. The proposed deck addition does not require a hardcover variance. Rick and Deborah Rice 2700 Kelly Avenue 7/21/97 Page! Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The variance is for a deck. The residence can continue to be used as a residence without a deck. However, the proposed location is off of the kitchen area and would possibly have a view of Lake Minnetonka. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The existing kitchen was constructed at 30' fix>m Lydiard Avenue instead of the required 35'. A deck that met the rear and side yard setbacks could only be constructed behind the residence or in the side yard next to the garage. 3. The variar,ce, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The purpose of a 35' side yard adjacent to a street is to maintain the same setback as the front yards along Lydiard Avenue. (See survey of adjacent property.) 4. 5. 6. 7. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of tliis chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Decks are permitted in residential districts. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. 9^2255 Rick and Deborah Rice 2700 Kelly Avenue 7/21/97 Page 2 8. 9. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. This is a comer zoning lot that essentially has two 35' front yard requirements, one setback from Kelly and the other from Lydiard Avenues. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or stmctures in the district in which said land is located. Other comer lots in the LR-IB zoning district are required to meet a 35' setback from the front property line and side yard adjacent to streets to maintain the same setback for properties that front on the adjacent street. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has indicated the reasons for the proposed deck. 11 . The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The variance will be a convenience for the applicants to have a deck as proposed. However, the proposed deck is located off of the family room and kitchen. If the deck was located elsewhere on the lot, it would be next to bedrooms, the garage or in the front yard which is less desirable. Issues 1. 2. The lot does not meet the minimum lot area requirements. The existing residence is 30' from the west (Lydiard Ave.) side of the property line. The building staff has indicated that an error was made when the addition was built. The builder may have been misinformed about the setback from Lydiard Avenue. The topography of the zoning lot slopes approximately 8-10 ’ from the front yard to the rear yard. The property immediately to the north has an elevation 6-8' above the subject property. U2255 Rick and Deborah Rice 2700 Kelly Avenue 7/21797 Page A 3.The adjacent street, Lydiard Avenue, is platted at 50', however, the paved area is less than 50' in width, so that the yard area between the paved area and the existing residence is greater than 35'. 4.The permit history indicates that an addition was constructed in 1988 for the kitchen. A patio door opens to the area where the deck is proposed STAFF RECOMMENDATION To consider the size of the proposed deck, the desired view to the lake, the existing house layout and setback fix>m Lydiard Avenue, the topography of the lot, and the tree cover and shrubbery between the subject property and the adjacent property. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Hardcover Calculations Deck Calculations Adjacent Property Survey Subject Property Survey Permit History Topo Map Hardship Statement U2255 Rick and Deborah Rice 2700 Kelly Avenue 7/21/97 Pages ^ Iim n Mifflin r S .A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #2255 WHEREAS, Richard B. Rice and Deborah Rice (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2700 Kelly Avenue within the City of Orono hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Vem-Mar Manor, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance from Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to build a deck on the west and north side of an existing residence. Variances for a rear yard setback to reduce the required yard from 25' to 21’ where 30’ is required; and a side yard adjacent to a street (Lydiard Avenue) setback to reduce the required comer side yard from 30’ to 21’ where 30’ is existing are required. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2255. The property is located in the LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where the minimum lot area requirement is 1 acre. The lot area is 22,324 s.f. (.512 acres). The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 18, 1997, and recommended unanimous approval of the proposed variances based upon the following unique findings and hardships; Page 1 of 4 r A. The lot does not meet the minimum lot area requirements. B. The existing residence is 30' from the property line adjacent to Lydiard Avenue. C.The topography of the lot slopes 8-10' from the rear yard to the front yard. The adjacent property to the north is 6-8' higher in elevation than the subject lot. D. The proposed deck will be partially screened by existing vegetation. E.A kitchen addition in 1988 included a patio door that leads to the area where the deck is proposed. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the 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 following above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a comer side and rear yard setback variances to allow for construction of a deck to be located 21' from the rear property line and 21' from the Lydiard Avenue property line per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B), subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 4 f I 1. 2. 3. Authonties granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a bui ding p<.*rmit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 25, 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 applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and ^signs, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 25th day of August, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) A pe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of August, 1997, by Gabnel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of r^no, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Notary Public Page 3 of 4 • ♦ :. ‘ i *• • i 1 I . i i • I • i! :! LocArioo M>f 7 *7 ^ r is. ic c^ Lc^jb 77^ l/rlL >4\^e>Av;t «MS«W^k’«W M #2>2 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) Application if A PROPERTY INFORMATION . . , Site Address ^ 70 D K/ //^ Date Received 7 Amount Paid y Se r ■5/ o^ </ I , f)i frr/K^ Property Identification Number'(P.I.D.)^ uL t ^ ^ Attach legal description to application if not included oi . required survey. Date Property Acquired_______I ^^7_________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the^jacent parcels of land Present use of property: _t^sidential ___^other,Yspecify) Zoning District: - /J^ (jiA-trlLfA______ _(month/year) APPLIC Name n?. AddressO.7OP a//^ A J A' OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home ) / O ^ _____ Phone (work ) / V 6^*? 7 City: frX-Cit/r/ii/^ • Zip:sirJ?j/ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:,Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUKT Estimated Constmction Cost $ ^ t?_____ D«cribe request in detail: ^ ‘LJAA-/3 At ^l , ^ n DA Slht f.r~ ' (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front (y^ear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing cornpliance with Zoning Code requirements:. jz: '7./tp ^^ ^ npliance with Zomng Code requirements:_________________ ____ __^ JblJ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All Qf th? fpllgwipg infprmatioD must be submitted bv the apnlicatin,^ deadline da»P in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1.X 2. V 3. Mj 5, 6, 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (^ ou must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy ZVz" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The^ Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour y^rianc? applitqtiQn is not complete if the above information has not been indndpH 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 pavment) Md/or consultant expensgahicujpid iir>^eview of this application, and certifies that the information suppliedyi^tnif^j^j^t^eql ^ the best of hi<;/her k^niwlpfi^p Applicant's Signatu Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the propeitj^^b^City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purp<jf« o^r ip)i^«tjgatipn and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 .1 ■ '7 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET -------------- SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE 75-250*500-1000’ A. House X =S.F. Length Width 1 X s=S.F. X =S.F. X sz S.F. Garage X mmm S.F. ^C.Driveway X S.F. X ss S.F. Sidewalk « X S.F. X =s S.F. Patio/Deck X S.F. X =5 S.F. Landscape X S.F. Underlain X S.F. By Piastic X ss S.F. G.Other X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. TOTAL PROPERIT AREA IN ZONE ,_0 S.F. A X 100 =% PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House X s=S.F. Length W'idth X =S.F. X ss S.F. X s S.F. B.Garage X „ 1 S.F. C.Driveway X S.F. X S.F. D.Sidewalk X S.F. X s=S.F. E.Patio/Deck "T-fc^ X S.F. «• X s S.F. F.Landscape X MM S.F. Underladn X s=S.F. By Plastic X =S.F. G.Other X „S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONEnmrn * B 2a 3AV X 100 = 22=j22JLr- 1 Ul 3z lU < 0 < 0 > J CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for KEN WUERTZ l/z** lEoa TtF€ ^(pouisi'b^ -C- 9 m 0 1 0 2 LOT 8 Jr"£. \i^A COMC.srcp^ 35' ^/t*• x*o*^ PtPfi ^PoUMD'^-^ J tl.5>/^>.-ruW>«*^^ 3CAUS« 1“ » lo‘ )D6NoT6S XeolJ MO»l. fS*T) »«6K]OT«& XBoM MOM. ^PMD'^ /nu® .'Z'o co'i^ 331ft s. F, c 'ia .9*/i^ &i<n: T s. 24344' ^.F. / # \ ^ W*>«30<.»^rt- s /« ) 'D ils.t. + r»op*ssa:» t6 ! L.o'f uop-Afeo •ftETiMeeKi 2%0 - sop FeSf PE.OKA LAlie MIU^>ET0M tAw 77/A V4<F- y>iiii!^ /C9^ LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot i, v2fIM - MAR MANOR Hennepin County, Minnesota ftuiubirOG phO I t MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC. gNCINEEWS. SURVEYORS. SITE PLANNERS MOI-TSrtf A««.N. • Ct3 • arttklfii MIhmm Ii M42S (aiZ) 933-7Sf9 o«u Q«oli-Pog« Flit Na. W« hotter cFrtiry Ml li • trvf If«a cwmt wtiMiUliM tf • Mfvfy •*M boiiMiflw at M ibtvt awM M «i4 «f M l««ltoii af lA If any. Mrwf\ mi aA HiMi mtnmimmtk N irnr. tram tf m uM land A* MrvayaA aja ^ ^ dait m%, /T A^.u^ Lanit Um>9r9e Mlraw Had N^/£££r V9y9e Job Ma . 88 •*!(>■ mm • Nf» PERMIT RECORD Permit No. /77 Date /^-V-XV ✓-> Tvoe of Permit AjLtUiCej^ejlPf/^-hrs _. *7-7-6/^&,aapL /jJ/fjhz ^ T’^r'//y7-^/ 3//3 Ld . 7-^-73 Cc <--/r'7F A y^-'l,sSP (UlQ ^ Hsib W-\C>%8 Jsn /J> c?i? -SV a 6vdU^ HARD SHIP REASONS TO GRANT DECK VARIANCE . THE BUILDING PAD HAS LIMITED SPACE FOR RECREATIONAL DECK ON WEST SIDE OF HOUSE. EAST SIDE OF HOUSE IS DAUGHTER’S BED ROOM. » THE EXISTING HOUSE FLOOR PLAN MAKES THE LOCATION OF THE REQUESTED DECK THE LOGICAL PLACE. I.E. FROM THE KITCHEN TO THE FAMILY ROOM. ALSO, THIS GROUND AREA CURRENTLY USED FOR ENTERTAINING IS SLANTED, DIFFICULT TO GET AROUND ON AND CONDUCIVE TO TURNING ANKLES. » SET BACK IS ALREADY ENCROACHED ON BY THE EXISTING BUILDING. ORIGINAL IDEA / PLAN ALWAYS CALLED FOR A DECK OFF OF THE FAMILY ROOM AND KITCHEN. . THE SIDE STREET SET BACK (35’) IS GREATER THAN A REGULAR SIDE YARD SET BACK (10’). • LYDIARD AVE. WHEN BUILT, WAS OFF SET TO PRESERVE LARGE MAPLE TREES ON EAST SIDE OF STREET. THUS GIVING THE APPEARANCE OF VERY LARGE SIDE YARD. WITH THIS DECK THERE WILL STILL BE PLENTY OF SPACE / LAWN WEST OF THE HOUSE. THESE ARE THE VERY SAME MAPLE TREES THAT PROVIDE SHADE FOR PROPOSED DECK. • OTHER EXISTING HOUSES ALONG LYDIARD AVE. ARE MUCH CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN PROPOSED DECK. • PROPERTY OWNER HAS HANDICAP THAT MAKES GETTING AROUND ON THE GROUND VERY DIFFICULT AND THUS UNABLE TO ENJOY THE GREAT OUTDOORS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. • PROPOSED DECK WOULD ALLOW ENJOYABLE VIEW OF LAKE MINNETONKA. SET BACK VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR 2700 KELLY AVE. LOT 8. VERN MAR MANOR request for council action DATE: August 21p|g^ ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: ^2264 Jane. C. Kienum. 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variance ■ Resolution ^o^s“^'‘‘ sewer insullation in Application; Revised side setback, lake setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances to construct additions to the existing residence. hardcover List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action C - Revised Final Proposed Site Plan and Elevations D - Memo and Exhibits of 8/15/97 Summary of Request rISe roof o/!lI?exT,-“'" -H “hstruction of additions andrevise the roof of the existing residence, portions of which were located in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore Tt^r ^ 2di“ ras^f F * S^asl^^d all-^i^thr In June 1997 when the building permit was applied for, staff found that applicant now intended o remove tte entne superstructuro of the residence and reuse only parts of also found that the plans submitted for the building permit had been sigm^cantl^v^ the 0-75 setback as well as an additional encroachment into the 30* side setback. Staff concluded that these new encroachments and the intent to completely remove the existina residence, triggered the need for additional setback variances as weU a/a LTarL an^ S variance, providmg the City with an oppormnity to have the new construction substantially meet Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 August 21, 1997 Zoning File #2264 _________ the City setback requirements if that was deemed feasible and appropriate. At their July 21st meeting. Planning Commission indicated a preference that the new construction be moved to at least meet the 75 ’ lakeshore setback, including the semi-circular terrace. The item was tabled at that meeting to allow applicant to further consider her options. Applicant subsequently reviewed the options for retaining significant portions of the existing house to avoid the need to relocate it. Two new plans, A & B, were submitted to the Planning Commission for review at their August 18th meeting. Applicant indicated on the floor plan submitted in support of Plan A, the portions of existing house which will remain. The building inspectors reviewed the proposal and concluded that both of the new plans will preserve approximately 40% of the existing house, yielding a final product that will be 80% new construction and 20% existing house. Applicant then confirmed that she is proposing to construct Plan B. This plan eliminates the new encroachments into the lakeshore and side setbacks, and was reviewed by Planning Commission in the context of revisions to the magnitude of average lakeshore setback encroachment. This plan (identified as Plan B) has a slightly higher profile for the addition portion as compared to the 1996 approved plan, but Planning Commission concluded that under the general parameters approved in 1996, Plan B will have no impact on views of the lake enjoyed by the neighboring property owners. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval of Plan B, which includes continuation of the existing lake setback and side setback variances, slightly revises the average lakeshore setback, and which is intended to result in the same hardcover parameters as were approved in 1996. Approval was subject to applicant providing a comprehensive site plan for Plan B, as well as complete elevation views, prior to Council review. These have been submitted (Exhibit C). Staff Recommendation Given that the final Plan B site plan continues the general concepts of the approved 1996 site plan, including relocation of the driveway and an addition to the existing garage, and given that the current proposal has been presented by the applicant with the full knowledge that hardcover ultimately must not exceed those limits approved in 1996, staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. Approval should be subject to the following conditions: 1.Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant must confirm that hardcover meets the limits as per prior approval, including a reduction from 6.0% to 3.9% in the 0-75' zone, i r I » i 7 Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 August 21, 1997 Zoning File #2264 and limited to 27.6% in the 75-250' zone. 2.^plicMt to provide grading and drainage plans to be approved by the City Engineer, nie City Engtneer has reviewed and approved the proposed driveway relocation plan. 3.toiige" !!!!'.!!*” “ underway, the limitation to a four bedroom design IS no 4. Advisory that the current Council intends that future additional structure in the 0-75 zone should not be approved for this property. Advisory that the City requires a sewer easement across the property. A resolution incor^rating many of the Endings and conditions of Resolution #3761 and Idop^r""® approval, is anached for Council Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Approve per Planning Commission and staff recommendation per attached resolution. Approve with additional or revised conditions. Table for further information. Deny. Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt attached approval resolution. construction of additions to the existing residence at 1491 Shoreline Drive Vote- ayes,______nays. 1 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6(B); AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C) & (L) FILE #2264 ,oca«d at 1497 sS’ described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10 55, SuMivis.on 8; and 10.56 sLivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the constmeUon of additions to the existing residence and revision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revisions constituting hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, and such additions and revisio.is * pLt the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowed and such revisions encrLhing into the 30' required side yard setback where no encroachments ar normally allowed. Mirmesota: 1. 2. NOW, THEREFORE. IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2264. The property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 8 f A. The Orono Planning Commission initially reviewed a similar proposal with slightly different construction and site plans as application #2166 on August 19, 1996, and on a vote of 5-1 recommended approval of the proposed variances subject to the following conditions and based upon the following findings: The major proposed room additions to the existing house will be located behind the 75 lakeshore setback line. Some proposed revisions to existing roof lines will encroach both the 75' lakeshore setback and the 30' required side setback, however none of these additions will increase the footprint of the encroaching portions of the house, nor will walls be moved closer to the respective lot lines. Therefore, the additional impact of the additions and roof line revisions on neighboring properties is minimal. B. C. D. The existing house encroaches approximately 26' past the average lakeshore setback line, and the room additions to the north of the existing house will cause an additional average setback encroachment of a lesser magnitude. No neighboring property views of the lake are encroached upon by either the existing house or the proposed additions, hence there is no impact on neighboring properties by granting the average lakeshore setback variance. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is proposed to be reduced from 6.0% to 3.9% by removing certain existing hardcover items and replacing them with a terrace area at a reduced level of hardcover. Hardcover in the 75- 250 zone is proposed to increase from 27.5% to 27.6%, and the impact of this minor increase is minimal. The location of the existing house with its existing encroachments into the lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and side setback is a hardship to the property. The driveway relocation is a positive improvement to the property, and the 75-250 hardcover variance is justified by the need to provide adequate off street parking for the residence since no parking is available in the County Road 15 right-of-way at this location. Page 2 of 8 4. 5. 7. p The proposed garage addition should be offset to meet the required 15 street setback and the footprint kept at no more than 1,000 s.f. to keep it from becoming an oversize accessory structure subject to much stricter setback standards. Applicant revised the initial proposal to eliminate the need for a street setback variance and proposes to construct one additional garage stall which yields a footprint of the garage being less than 1,000 s.f. and meeting the required 15’ street setback. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed driveway relocation and finds the driveway configuration feasible and appropriate. The applicant submitted a new site plan and revised proposal after the initial Planning Commission review and recommendation which took place in July 1997. The new site plan and construction plans indicate that 40% of the existing house will be incorpxDrated into the proposed additions, resulting in 20/i of the final product being the pre-existing house. The Planning Commission reviewed this revised proposal on August 18, 1997 and concluded that this level of preservation will not trigger the need for lot area and width variances nor the need to relocate the residence to meet setbacks. The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's finding. The revised plans indicate an additional bulk of structure encroaching the average lakeshore setback as compared to the plans approved in 1996. Planning Commission reviewed these plans on August 18, 1997 and concluded that this change in the nature of the average lakeshore setback encroachment has no impact on views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. The City Council concurs with this conclusion. All other aspects of the request including continuation of the existing structure setback encroachments of the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone and the 30' side setback, as well as the originally proposed hardcover reductions and revisions are identical in scope and magnitude with the 1996 approval. Page 3 of 8 9. The City Engineer has reviewed the future potential routes for municipal sewer on the property. Sewer installation for Bracketts Point is underway. The City will require an easement across applicant's property for construction of the proposed sewer improvements. 10. 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. 11 . The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adv ’•scly affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger u- /.i^ighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the n’^pHcant. but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or diffir is wiecessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and aid be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comp / ..ensive 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 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence and res^ision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revisions constituting hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally in that zone, and such additions and revisions encroaching past the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, and such revisions encroaching into the 30' required side yard setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1.Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not exceed 3.9% per the revised site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall not exceed 27.6% as shown on Exhibit B. Applicant shall provide updated Page 4 of 8 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. hardcover calculations confirming that the limits are adhered to prior to issuance of a building permit. The hardcover removals necessary to achieve these hardcover levels shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed new construction, except that removals associated with driveway reconstruction may be delayed with the approval of the building inspector in order that construction traffic not be impeded. Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property exceeds the normal limits, and any future proposal to increase hardcover on the property will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with the concurrent removal of pre-existing hardcover, resulting in no increase or a net decrease in hardcover on the property. Applicant shall provide adequate grading and drainage plans for the proposed driveway relocation which must be approved by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed additions and site improvements. The applicant and future City Councils are advised that the current City Council intends that no future additional structure in the 0-75' zone should be approved for this property. The property owner is advised that the City will require a municipal sewer easement within the property in order to complete the Bracketts Point project. Applicant is advised that in the event the existing house is totally removed, the City shall have the opportunity to reconsider this approval. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 25, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 5 of 8 8.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 25th day of August, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour., Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of August, 1997, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 6 of 8 <1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 7 of 8 f ir 1 If i ! CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2264 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: August 21,1997 TO: Janet C. Kieraan 2209 Totem Trail Minnetonka, MN 55305 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance DATE OF MEETING: 8/18/97 VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Approval of Plan B subject to parameters of Resolution #3761 and subject to applicant providing a revised, comprehensive site plan and complete building elevations prior to Council action. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, August 25,1997, 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. il-9'^- .—^ — —,r'..1 . V Vf • • • • • » m €> ■',Ti r‘‘'''T|"”'‘ i iii4i.Lki r_L-£.V^lOr- > • • • » \ o r\) iLV/6rTior * O \ ms% i ' iV “ • i r, ' *-'^"■Ti" 'ITl;!!,b» < Mil iliiliiii [fTT 0;T I '-I'l'idri' kiiiLiil rJTr'"' i1;ii 1 /i !I:\yt; [IL iili!iidliliiliiiJI(iliL iL feSsMg). £noi^f^ Pu&V-^KOi-\ .r <lJlL hlEPiH^rJ I^E^I^rkt I IS?' i .1- H '1 V r * K X ± / TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator August 15, 1997 SUBJECT: #2264 Janet C. Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing P Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acres, sewer installailon in progress. Application: Revised side setback, lake setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover variances to construct additions to the existing residence. List of Exhibits: A - Plan A Site Plan and Elevations B - Plan B Site Plan and Elevations C 1996 Approved Site Plan and Elevations D -: ,citer fu Adjacent Property Owner E - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7/31/97 F - Memo and Exhibits of 7/17/97 Note: This item was tabled at your July meeting pending additional review by the applicant for further review of the foundation and existing structure reuse possibilities. Absent the ability to reuse a substantial portion of the foundation and existing house, applicant would need lot area and width variances for what would be essentially new construction. Discussion Applicant has submitted two revised plans, both of which make use of substantial portions of the existing foundation and a number of walls of the exisf house. Applicant has also now removed the side and lake setback encroachments which werf i. )nginally approved a year ago. However, after the July meeting, during a meeting with the app.: —it, staff realized that the currently proposed plan has additional bulk of structure lakeward of the average lakeshore setback as compared to the original proposal which also requires further Planning Commission review. Plan A is the plan for which you reviewed the footprint in June, revised to exclude the cantilevered window that encroached the 75' setback and removing the three season porch which encroached on the 30’ side setback. Not brought to your attention in July was the fact that Plan A includes a much higher house than was approved a year ago, with additional bulk of structure encroaching the average setback line. \ Zoning File #2264 August 15, 1997 Page 2 Plan B is a revised plan that still incorporates the existing house but proposes a slightly lower addition than Plan A, and extends the footprint area further to the north. This results in .. .iglu change to the bulk of structure encroaching the average setback. Applicant's uphill neighbor who would be most affected by the average setback encroachments has provided a letter indicating he approves of plans for fhe two story house and has no problem with the encroachments of the average setback line, noting that the additions will not impact his lakeshore views. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. When comparing the originally approved plan with the currently proposed Plans A and B, does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding the encroachment of this structure into the average setback? Given that applicant has reverted back to a proposal that will make use of the existing foundation and a significant portion of the existing house, does Planning Commission concur v/ith staff that no area or width variances are necessary, and that the 1996 provisions for 0-75' hardcover removals in exchange for reconstructing the terrace in the 0-75' zone, is still acceptable? Are both Plans A and B acceptable lo Planning Commission? Applicant submitted both plans to avoid a further delay should Planning Commission conclude that the bulk of structure encroaching average setback in one or the other is too .. tvMMve ... Staff Recommendation Planning Commission is provided with site plans and elevation views for the originally approved house; for Plan A which has been modified since your July review; and Plan B which is a new plan. For all three plans, applicant has indicated that substantial amounts of the existing foundation and existing residence will be saved and incorporated into the building, thus avoiding the need for lot area and width variances. Applicants intent is to avoid the need to move the residence to a completely conforming location, thereby allowing the reconstruction of a semi-circular terrace in the 0-75' in exchange for significant 0-75' removals, resulting in a hardcover reduction in that zone. If Planning Commission concludes that there is sufficient hardship to Justify granting the average lakeshore setback encroachments of Plan A and Plan B, and concludes that the findings of Resolution #3761 regarding hardcover on the site still apply, then a reconunendation for variance approval would be appropriate. • . • I t . . . ' • !. (f ^ V. • r-'v' 0. ■'. '*. ■ i ■ V- ■ &. • .* sJp..• •*. •• « 'V?.'J* i • ' . •! = * .* IS. * '* * * v ’ /• . i V-v^. f ♦. tl*. .:v • . - . I •. / '.V '• ;•-«te:?fI ‘ WAf: *' ’■*# •‘H ’"J t?‘, ’ ■V.?:' !.■ // *•; '•* • ►•-• ••: •' • •!-'r liHA•^■^^^^ o /V-'Vi•^^;• r •';•.'*! *• vVlri • •■ ««^ , S -w/A»»• • • •, - -—;.---- ife ‘ i; f... \ ►. • Xy L''y(i-W^;«5yrrvi ... . . Ol .•/;><• ■■• . . L . •«« •. •• • \l ' (' mm $ *• •.: . f \/ i§Pi^S^reV;: 15 / / / ^ Al^v; i-, • K ■•*'. . *‘=^^v'S?s *\Vh ..' / / ****,\'l\ N ».•• S S •.* ^X* - :v • IX V •. Vo/\f}l O «4 Wl 3 *• • • . f 1C f'uwp h fwof • ' ,V..t• -* . i *>' • •• . • ••.1— t. .1*,,... ' ••.V * •» • •:k-^i-Ar ■n* * • ' •I. •» . •* f * . *:i *\ ••/. u-•* •- .‘ . V .• *• •* .•••...•!• .• V’ ‘ •• .>•i v>* • • • • . •• • • ♦ • • . I ' i *.4 • • .1. . •* f si . ••"»* . • 4 - ’ • ‘ VI• • . 4,* l. • : * •• • •* • . . ^4 • ••' » . .4 . , • . ■ • 4 ,4 *i *.• *4 *. 4 *. * # 4* ■ 4. Vi ■■'■ ?■.'4 * • *. f , / • 4 —. 4 I »«. . T <MTlC, AZO I i r X \ 7 “i * j) S* M,Vi^ f. 6[|l^ Uilvdow XU^kJ j) W- rotm fu^t4 PiLAAi A W€^T \ r- PiAW A AJoftriV 14511 6el<af^guH6^ oftcrip. Hri >. •* ■• •• « • • ■ •8^ / / .\.- V•‘-•v»;"'-V^;*-5:Vmvf\<;t-’r^ ' ., •'■• X, . *'. .'■»•• ••’oFi ' ..•■',■■■ ■^^'V.•^^y ;'■'■^ '. r.^Jw ■■'■ '- ; . v<-: :• •/ ■-. sv^ '^t<-;'S^m ■:• .Pm t rU .<-*■“» t r I o U. AX [%pT \ \\Yk \ 1 ^ \' L 1 » K *• • • ♦ > \ • ' Vi ‘ . *• .*• ••* •«, •V. ^ >**\ • V ■» v'.V , •..I « /7 Tfv.' ^ • • * •.*/ ■•• • •' ••?-iW • ' • • • • -a -V :• Vu. ■1 \\\\ ■* * ' .* - *.* ^ •*.< S' •' -r • "U- • ••A V.A X- •. ’V •«• • ;■ i V ••:.•••■* L. •<• .„ .. • ; ■■ •• *' \ \\ \- • . • • ' .•• i'tM.; • J -.V.'-*. ’. . “ ■ • ;•• V i* 'V • • . • »••’, \ •>''.r '''' • :• :; •?• ; .14..•'^r:------..r... •. •.-. LI ni4,lfv fl-LrJ-i-XHlr tt fi'L-- i M • 7 v.jsr . « » >> *»' .*-•• * > ri / • . I*:.. •-' i:\:^ • '-• • •.-• •' » • s!».* »>%*'// ; • ■ 4 * ' r 'i* - ’ .V « r • ^ • •; • *' • * ■ •>•' .* y4 *'. -r •« -iy.,/ o..^* M tv •;-x t r- *■ ; ■ * . •••'{•/ • •• ' ■ < .!. ■ j;*'■ •.• • •• LL'M'r.v.x /•l ".J.-V . . ■Ax Pl^ •;• ) *.^^• .* .’i ‘‘ . *! *»*! ‘ *v ‘^V>>»Ms> ‘/;.*:;;.V/ ‘ . * ij <nlV“ ,i.S'y,r::;l-lV-rSv ” • • * *. r : M(. / ,#**• '• ,r ^ :» r.r; t J'•r*''r-;Vv ^ = V/^ v; i" - ' ' V- ' . •. "=^"' Si-®' - • •■ \ ' ‘ ; V; ,.' m .fi' •- • • > • •■"f •> f\'. •. I -I *r.**' ,-h ‘I t/ J-.V • *.f • • w • •. •:■ •. •; A*. •’.•,• . •. •••» .< ..V- • .• V ■ * * *T* <*iv J O • •* \ • % >.-^-*1•• ,» V. • •. • .:*;o ••.*•: ^ < ‘‘i-r; •* * ' ' •* ‘^: S«V V-^» V* - * :^C / V4 . ' I •■/IL.V ..4.< ["•: f . ^ i •. .. \{ —•- • t ■ J.t/T 4 J_______„ * ••-•••——..L,.’.. V 0 r TR 5. n S' }tpv. I j t '.b■Is A' V “X !bin- . I - 11 .r ^Wi '!asj; r«R j,- mj Sljfa^-'N r * * r • -. - ' 'V 'V: ' -■ / it r- • ***^* <f|iiJ'' * IVfe. .<.•;*« ■■ ?'A f:-;a";';.-: »‘'i'^'' 'i &•' ;i’ ■■ ■VI*? S '-' 'if'i. f lipliBi' inIII 1.. Iiipp—f ^ y- * ^ v"}';• I? -»i / '-r - i . / . ^ MT 1. r A jup ; . ■' »7m 11 5;-_S'.;j?_j«.;f.--i- lV. ;• MPi !j • » I I rif. i 7/.v-f-(,u. >• -i,t''.''■ /■ • ■'.^* VVw.' / • / /:«I iWR^fMI ^u^rn: {f’f'fi'if'N J: r Jiii. >.*' LLiii£i£!. .i.j JPM!/ 'Ww .■\ t\ V '•« 7 J A I / J > ■»' V.. V' / MCVS*. n«-vii *•: rr- t .« I // .< A lA i H —^ g "k . . •f t-. / .'V*') *. V ■ / .y ‘iiill / 4 ' I •* ’-* • ■ ■. • I !v;.; ov W'ivT . ■rv V-'.'ivy , .•rv • K y>'t. V . ' IfilMI r1ite / ; b if m .J .a VI . *y K' . • lirFfr ■ •S:;S».r;no M-V b»■mi BlEi: |r:?i«v oiQli: pHmh r 1 \^t 1 rill te‘te r '»■(- i;..! •• h« I IsSf« rnUMm »• *•*' P'm iiiliilHii. f t *. . **. IT I ^ ft. .. "y.* I -• fK 4^,y • V ‘f^ t I STa.<v\ IL (:\ ...yi% • . ; . *«f y ■ 1 «!5> % August 10, 1997 Dear Mr. Gaffron, This is to inform the city of Orono that we have reviewed Janet Kieman ’s plans for a two story house at 1491 Shoreline Drive . We approve the placement of the house in front of the average set back line. It does not affect our lake view and improves the property considerably. We encourage you to support her plans. Sincerely, Eric & Susan Beringause 1489 Shoreline Drive Orono, MN. T> r CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Janet C. Kieman 2209 Totem Trail Minnetonka, MN 55305 TYPE OF APPLICATION;Variance DATE OF MEETING: 7/21/97 ZONING FILE #2264 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; July 31,1997 COPIES TO: VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commbsion recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled for further review of foundation re-use possibilities. Per our meeting of July 23rd, additional bulk of structure encroaching in the average setback and side setbacks has been identified when compared to the originally approved plans. Therefore, the current plans must be reviewed and variances approved even if you are successful in re-using the existing structure. Per our meeting, you will provide additional depictions to clarify the current encroachments and identify portions of the existing house to be saved. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the August 18th meeting is August 8th. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, August 18,1997; 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. GafTron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator July 17, 1997 /3 Subject: #2264 Janet Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Sewered Application. Revised side setback, lake setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover variances to construct a new residence to replace the existing residence. Application also involves the need for lot area and width variances due to the change in scope of the project. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey - Site Plan Proposed with Building Permit Application - Site Plan Approved with Variance Application #2166 G - Resolution No. 3761 Adopted September 9, 1996 Pertinent Code Sections 1. 10.22, 10.55, 10.56: - 75' lakeshore setback required - no average setback encroachment allowed 2. 10.23 Subd. 6B: LR-IA lot standards: - 2 acre lot area, 200’ lot width - 30' side yard setback E F F I Discussion Applicant was granted variances in September 1996 to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence and revise the roof of the existing residence, portions of which were located in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, constituting hardcover and structure in that zone, and such additions and revisions encroaching past the average lakeshore setback as well as encroaching into the 30 required side yard setback. The original application was intended as a remodeling and addition project, which was based on the existing residence structure remaining substantially in place. At the time the building permit application was made, it became clear that applicant proposes r Zoning File #2264 July 17, 1997 Page 2 to remove the entire superstructure of the residence, and likely will be able to reuse only parts of the foundation. Additionally, it was determined that the plan submitted for the building permit had been revised from those used to gain variance approval in 1996. Specifically, while the bulk of structure has been slightly reduced, there is a new encroachment into the 0-75' setback, as well as an additional encroachment within the 30' side setback. The proposed complete removal of the existing residence not only triggers the need for a lot area and lot width variance, but also provides the City with an opportunity to have the new construction substantially meet the City's setback requirements if that is deemed feasible and appropriate. Applicant's new site plan includes some minor revisions to hardcover layout on the site, as well as reducing the proposed detached garage addition to only one additional stall, in order to meet the hardcover limitations as impc»k*id by the prior approval, as well as meet the required street setback. Issues for Consideration 1.Is the new minor encroachment into the 0-75' setback zone justified by any hardship, or should the house be further redesigned to eliminate that encroachment? (Compare Exhibits E & F) 2.Is the proposed additional side setback encroachment appropriate and justified, or should that encroachment be eliminated? 3.Given the nature of the property, including orientation and relationship to neighboring houses, the steep hill to the north, the septic system location in the hillside, tree lo:ations, etc., is there justification to grant variances to allow reconstruction of the residence substantially within its existing non-conforming footprint, or should the City take this opportunity to require that the new home be constructed at a location meeting setback requirements? Staff Recommendation Planning Commission must take into account the site factors noted above m determining whether it would be appropriate to require redesign and/or a relocation of the residence. The existing house is currently sitting empty, and applicant had every intention of commencing construction in late June when the new variance concerns were discovered. r Zoning File #2264 July 17,1997 Page 3 Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of the revised plans with the two new setback encroachments, recommend approval of the technically required lot area and width variances (area = approximately 1.0 acre, width = approximately 187’), and allow reconstruction within the existing footprint. 2. Recommend jq)proval of lot area and width variances and new residence be moved or redesigned to meet side and lakeshore setback requirements. 3. Table for further information. 4. Recommend denial, stating reasons. i 5.Other. r .TlJM-2T-?»7 FRI wr-t riREILIMG AMD ASSOC. PC 514 23 1 ‘ S S T P . O 2 Application H Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE ATPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) ■''ariance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress ^ I l-jMS /)/^ >/ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.)________________________________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required siu^ey. Date Pro perty Acquired____________________________!_____________^(month/year) I (do) aiso own tlie adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propert>': residential ___mother (specify)^_______________________ Zoning Districi:^___________________________________________- —_________ APPLICANT , ^ , Name I C. ■ M _ _ • amm m 'MAddress; 7^» City; Phone (home ) S' Phone (work)^___________________ ryjTA/^ Ziu: OWTVER (if different than applicant) Name ___________________ Phone (home). Phone (\vork)_ Address;City:,Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estinmted Con^ction Cost Describe request in detail; Th dpAYlo Dsh h r> .s-r> . C/!? U rS c . ^ t'-C hre^ / _»A /O^ATnA (attach additional sheets if necessarv') VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Widtli Setback: y/ Front / Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore t/ other (specify) 7^ pn ------------- HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements; fS " ‘ Wo J>r, ’Iru ’ /\ g? /Vl ____ /"IS ----------------------------------^ Ui ft wiA-fftAy' c/n<;^po lctr*^xc^ , ^ V if ncce<;sarv'1 * i _ _ h / ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ J^ ^ L'\ / y .. V f __ yi / Tilu-?T--a7 f='pl O-^tag DREILIHG i^HD assoc . PC :• 1-» ~ 1 Z:c>;> >P . O : t rjcqlured submittals •; » J3'i^ • ff *N ,* . i 1. o 3. . ,| „f f.n.win,. Morm^^ssuiLm-Sil.mmx^'y ■’y ,pplic,.UoiL^^-<Uin^-^Mi-Lu for vnur aDDlicatioiLJ^hc considere d CQmplt.t£l Certified List of o%%-ners within \50\ labels and plat map (you omr ‘n .his iis., .abch ana n.ap f.o:a He.a,cpin Counn- Depanman. a. Canific;.e !f^S^ay Tsign'V'by ';’i!censad surveyor) and induJe hardcover calculations as required. In addiuon, prov.de one (1) copy S- x 1> TofWgrtpWc SUD-ey (existing and proposed rsT of Ih^leiTnaUs (include nutrilal status) of all persons with an interest m“a-™^:^rstrrrs-^^ persons you wish notified of tlus applicatton. Additional items as may be requested by City’ staft. Administrator, agrees to pay a review of this application, and ceriitio that the 4. 5. 6. 7. S. Date iJiUjL'CL Applicant’s Signature OWTIER'S SIGNATURE , , ,™.;ca,ion and furdier authorizes reasonable THe owrter hereby -1-0* argents, Conunission members, and Counctl :^be?Tf"o;es- of investigation and verification of this request. ^ .................................--------------- Applicant must haie all submihals into t^id Mo'X Sr^£rts^:^^ p- - “ -- - “ Zoning Office of this change pnor to the meeting. & r . ^ • .• FPI 0^14:=; M D R E I L I r 4 G R M D R !=; i. O C . P C 3 14 31 2t.9T P . O 3 ? .« REQUIRED SUBMITTALS If ir All of the following information must he submined by (he application cleatlliiie date in 0rder for vour application to be considered complete: 3. 4. Completed Application Form Certified Pioperty Owners List of o\%Tiers within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hemrepin County’ Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Surv’ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'-'i” ,x 11" for reproduction. Topographic sur\'ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes m e.xisting grade ai’e proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!-';" K 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8‘/;" x It”). List of the legal names (include nnirilal status) of all persons with an interest in the propeity. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ovNmer(s.) As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of tliis application. Additional items as may be requested by City' staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application i.s no* ct.-.-nnlctc if the above informntlOli has not been included. applicants signature The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infonnarion required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (.staff time not covered by original fee pa>meni,i and/or consultemt e.xpenses incurred in review of this applicaiion, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Ci..Date <7ly_7 O^^TIER*S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and furtlier authonze.s reasonable entry onto tlte property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for puuyioses of investigation and verification of this request. Owrier's Sivtnatvuc C.. • r-/ ^ a s Date Cowmissioo* and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the .euiicing & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. • » h.- * • , r• •* * i • ’ . -# • • - • V \l ^r RUN DATE 07/24/96• t HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LISTBATCH 503V •PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 11-117-23 23 0002 0M75 SHORELINE DR D N A E A SCHMITT DOUGLAS R A ELLEN A SCHMITT 1A75 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA MN 55391PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 11-117-23 23 001001487 SHORELINE DR R L HAADE AIL KAADE ROBERT L A IRIS L HAADE 1487 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 11-117-23 23 0016 01460 GREEN TREES RD CAS PUTOU CARL A SUSAN PLATOU 1460 GREEN TREES RD HAYZATA MN 55391 • • • •• PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER ‘ NANE/ADDR ' •' f \ 38 11-117-23 32 0001 ' 01200 BRACKETTS POINT RD CORirME GRIFFITH PXLLSBURY CORINNE 0 PXLLSBURY 4800 FIRST BANK PLACE MPLS MN 55402 -/ r' ' - 1 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 11-117-23 32 OOlO 01220 BRACKETTS POINT RD ELLA P CROSBY ELLA P CROSBY 1220 BRACKETTS POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 ; • \ ■ < * .'•* • • " *,. • .I • . c 38 11-117-23 23 000801491 SHORELINE DR JANET C KIERNAN JANET C KIERNAN 1491 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA MN 5539138 11-117-23 23 001101485 GREEN TREES RD D L A H H VERGEYLE DAVID A MARGARET VERGEYLE 1485 GREEN TREES.RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 23 0017 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CAS PLATOU CARL N A SUSAN PLATOU 1400 GREEN TREES RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 32 0010 01265 BRACKETTS POINT RD MICHAEL E LYNN III A HIFE MICHAEL A JORJA LYNN III 1265 BRACKETTS POINT HAYZATA m 55391 TOTAL BATCH 503 00013 REPORT NO, PI435401PAtsI38 ll-il7-23 23 00d901489 SHORELINE OR ERIC H BERIN6AUSE ERIC H BERINGAUSE 1489 SHOREUNE DR HAYZATA Hi 5539138 11-117-23 23 0015 01510 GREEN TREES RD R H LENNY ASM LENNY RICHARD H LENNY 1510 GREEN TREES RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 23 0018 00038 AuORESS UNASSIGNEO GREEN TREES HOHEOHNERS ASSOC GREEN TREES H0HE0M4ERS ASSOC C/0 JACK 0 YOST 1515 GREEN TREES RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 32 0013 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CORINNE GRIFFITH PXLLSBURY CORINNE 6 PXLLSBURY 48wO FIRST BAMC PLACE MPLS Hi 55402 .V/ r\i . / • ; ^ M • •. ^ • -----------------\/• • • ' / • ^ M \ ; ;• ; / / & N y • : ’'P.V . - • y, -O' / / / ; I >-r‘ \ \ s y y V \ / ‘ H\ ..f , • ••\ -V A X h .<•' A / A* • V.~* m iV ' ii \ \ / ■ -ir : , ^4Xy / y \ / .«. I it • : .*•« ^ % / 'X,-i<. V‘• '"•- N, -’ •!’ • • ^ ;v;:\ t r\ i V • N.' * • \ . • •■•>.• •. • ■ • •' . T,x-r^ C i % A *♦1 \ \ K /I .K -S’!!'>.•■ :‘ycX -•■'>. •*•1. V. '■ SS''r.' V'. ;. ' Yl \ -.VlK; |^;^^.'■^■^ ■■ tT O \ \ *. •- ' •• IT * *‘ '• \ •' ** • • ‘ / 9 ■• . • •'Sf'iOn * ' \ '•; \ X \ - rt . • • V ■ V ! .N .r.> •. V - •'ih *i\uTy^*s.N' ♦ wX i • ‘A lu' ij*- •t X N j; f}>V'' ■’‘3’ / I / V / i7\\ V . , 0 P.\^' uIX' . >4 / V, ■'ZSf — i'Ui—___ ■*• —________________ 7«. : *.. ‘ • • -s ^0. • . V • \ -. • • . *.••1 *1 .I'.' • ^ ^ .S •• 1 • ^ * . .* ;v ,:i •. \ . .. ♦ ♦ • • • *‘ ':• 1...* , . ? •' X- • •. *. * •• •• ^ » • #•• • * • • * ♦ • •• . * ■», • *. ; * •. .•» • .1 ;■:■ '■ Is-i-‘ p- . a’-Iot,♦’r'OVV. •' •‘ ^.;r. -vr’iv.vt.v., y %• •'( .•; v- V‘ • ‘*X ‘ • • *• * ^*criial|5€- . ’'ii*’ 1 ■ •• \v-r ;•.•r..*f^*•,{i•vV^■ ;,s■ — ■ ■ /Tfi < f • * • ; * » • V - . i* •*. *.*• • * / V, .« *• •' •, * • t • • ' • -. •• I •* • * :■%>“. -.•> ■ V •» *.'y?'NM . .r % 4^^ t‘ - 'If .ik.v/*^■• ■ ■-vv y \ ,1 I.« ,;‘»4«; • V ^ V*-'; ki.V K- •• - M '.i.' r '*'■'-rvf -..- I *tr. \ ■» - r •>••.♦«■'ft 'l-*-**v;a'.vr:-/; I * ' * fc'* % *. iJ.VvV — . . . . y '> • . . i I /n . / . \ ‘I'tr ’/• ^/ J tvi s': \ ■/l r-* • > ( t V. .V ;.';y x , I • . • c . . •; ■ -.,‘ • •.'.■ .'• V' -VI?).’.• ' ; .•»;•■ ■ ■• = ’’ ■ •• j '. • •.' 'Vi •• •.':. *•' •.. \ • • *• • ••• •••'i-K: .. V . • ■ .. ••.■■■•»••!.■• • .••.j«:i-l»,'‘. :*:s.‘ 1.* •■•.••. . Ir Z^ * \ I :-r-i I • -f I iu 4-^1 S-V. V •! *1 xzr \ If. •V., •« » • •• '. .■V 45:?vi' ':'■ ',^•■ * • -Im- • • ••• » ■•: V,. *• •• •-.•i f •;*- .•v-v':' ’v'V V ^ ! • •.' '■'.‘i-i ‘^.2 r.. \ -•:•• ..• ;■•.?■•• ■ •'■•■’;^v-.-.*:^ yh'^v __- - - •.f;.- ;■••>••-V'--^vy -i. 7.V /r^-^-\. T1 • $ • K. \ m m \r\^ / * * • \ .• \ •. , : .V. f. r>. • ^ f. %-v • t .• 7 ^ t * ^ . I • ♦..* • .^w <\v-^V a V ^ ; i% *aV/^ V: ;;:d « ^ %I . .1 ' • • r •• J .•f** » • .’* tSffi^U. /(•••'•/' • 7' ... /; <■• • ? ^T^/T v- ••iV;y'' •..•Vf v, • * • ■ • ; ■• ’//'v^ -.;- <.4/- • - . fV./* ‘ / . ‘ / . . * ‘V. .to * '* •* i' • • •. .;-f* ; . ••vjp.r'Aiv'i .• >w. •V <•. ••* r• • • / • * ■ . * *• •* ‘ ‘ t/}-\ ^ ^ •• • . ' * ; • / ‘ ’ ‘•'' V' • I V. • ••* ^ '.cj, . • ••• • •:vWArii>.'i/.V.- •••* • • * • I . ' * > A• •;•*., '.*• 1 •*.»•%• #• • ■* •;*-• • * V‘V - ■ AL> *.•-.! I • f W I ® V»,'~Z^^"X^i'7:4 * / •. \ \ V* rI'lL' WWt S®o- CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8761 ____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6(B); AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C) & (L) FILE #2166 WHEREAS, Janet Kieman (hereinafter "the applicant ”) is owner of the property located at 1491 Shoreline Drive \vidiin the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the construction of additions to the e.\isting residence and revision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revisions constituting hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, and such additions and revisions encroaching past the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, and such revisions encroaching into the 30' required side yard setback where no encroachments are normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2166. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 8 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 7 6 1 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 19, 1996, and on a vote of 5-1 recommended approval of the proposed variances subject to the following conditions and based upon the following findings: A. The major proposed room addition to the existing house will be located behind the 75' lakeshore setback line. Some proposed revisions to existing roof lines will encroach both the 75' lakeshore setback and the 30' required side setback, however none of these additions will increase the footprint of the encroaching portions of the house, nor will walls be moved closer to the respective lot lines. Therefore, the additional impact of the additions and roof line revisions on neighboring properties is minimal. B.The existing house encroaches approximately 26' past the average lakeshore setback line, and the room additions to the north of the existing house will cause an additional average setback encroachment of a lesser magnitude. No neighboring property views of the lake are encroached upon by either the existing house or the proposed additions, hence there is no impact on neighboring properties by granting the average lakeshore setback variance. C. D. E. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is proposed to be reduced from 6.0% to 3.9% by removing certain existing hardcover items and replacing them wdth a terrace area at a reduced level of hardcover. Hardcover in the 75- 250' zone is proposed to increase from 27.5% to 27.6%, and the impact of this minor increase is minimal. The location of the existing house with its existing encroachments into the lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and side setback is a hardship to the property. The driveway relocation is a positive improvement to the property, and the 75-250 ’ hardcover variance is justified by the need to provide adequate off street parking for the residence since no parking is available in the County Road 15 right-of-way at this location. Page 2 of 8 I I I > V BSHO 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. F. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 761 The proposed garage addition should be offset to meet the required 15 ’ street setback and the footprint kept at no more than 1,000 s.f. to keep it from becoming an oversize accessory structure subject to much stricter setback standards. The applicant has revised the proposal to eliminate the need for a street setback variance for construction of two additional garage stalls, and has provided plans showing the footprint of that garage to be less than 1,000 s.f. in order that the garage be a conforming structure. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed driveway relocation and finds the driveway configuration feasible but indicates additional design work and/or agreements with the neighboring property owner are necessary and must be completed prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed improvements to the property. The City Engineer has reviewed the future potential routes for municipal sewer on the property and has indicated that the proposed improvements will not hinder sewer development, but has indicated that certain sewer easements may be required. 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 district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 8 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO._3 7 61 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the construction of t.Jditions to the existing residence and revision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revisions constituting hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally in that zone, and such additions and revisions encroaching past the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, and such revisions encroaching into the 30' required side yard setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not exceed 3.9% per the revised site plan and hardcover worksheet attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall not e.xceed 27.6% as shown on Exhibit B. The hardcover removals necessarj' to achieve these hardcover levels shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed new construction, except that removals associated with driveway reconstruction may be delayed with the approval of the building inspector in order that construction traffic not be impeded. Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property exceeds the normal limits, and any future proposal to increase hardcover on the property will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with the concurrent removal of pre­ existing hardcover, resulting in no increase or a net decrease in hardcover on the property. Applicant shall provide adequate grading and drainage plans for the proposed driveway relocation which must be approved by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed additions and site improvements. Property owner is advised that the existing and proposed house at a 4-bedroom design shall not be increased to a 5-or-more bedroom design until such time that municipal sewer has been provided to the property. 4. The applicant and future City Councils are advised that the current City Council Page 4 of 8 r r. 5. 6. 7. 8. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 fi 1 mtends that no future additional structure in the 0-75‘ zone should be approved for this property. The property owner is advised that the City will likely require a municipal sewer eaMment along the '..est boundary of the property, such easement location to be denned at some future time. % Authorities grated by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 9, 1997). 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 temimate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The imdersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resoluti i and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of September, 1996. ATTEST: i Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk »perty Owner(s) / Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Page 5 of 8 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION THE CITY COUNCIL NO.76l STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of September, 1996, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 6 of 8 r t i CITY of ORONO m RESOLUTION JHE CITY COUNCIL CSHO NO.76l STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199__ before me a Notary Public within and forsaid county; personally appeared knwn to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of .» 199_before me a Notary Public within and forsaid county, personally appeared ___________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. \ NOTARY PUBUC Page 7 of 8 r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 2i?^^7 ITEM NO.: "7 Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2267 John O'Sullivan, 3340 Shoreline/2380 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review - Proposed Driveway from Culver's Site to Shadywood Road - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Council Action 8/21/97 C - Easement Agreement At your August 11 meeting, Council voted 5 to 0 to approve the proposed access to Shadywood Road, conditioned on: 1. Temporary approval only, subject to review with comprehensive church site plan. 2.Property owner to add a 6' section of railing along the sidewalk adjacent to the northwest restaurant doorway exit. 3. No parking lot cross-hatching is required at the northwest restaurant exit, and no stop sign will be required where the new access enters the parking lot. Although not specifically included in Council's approval motion, staff has included in the attached resolution two additional conditions which were in the staff recommendation: 4. 5. Applicant shall make changes to the existing parking configuration, which shall include elimination of the last parking stall adjacent to the westerly Shoreline Drive exit, and reconfiguration of the parking lot curbing near the new access to create additional green space. Approval subject to driveway construction plan approval by staff; Hennepin County access permit as well as a City land alteration permit will be required. Shared Parking Although not discussed by Planning Commission or Council, it is noted that the easement agreement between O Sullivan and Adam Smith Company includes an easement for Culver's overflow parking to use the conceptually proposed parking spaces in the west half of Navarre Lane as overflow for the Culver's operation. These spaces will only be created if the vacation r I ■ 1 L Request for Council Action continued Page 2 August 21,1997 #2267 John O’Sullivan, 3340 Shoreline/2380 Shadvwood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review - Proposed Driveway from Culver's Site to Shadywood Road______________________ of Navarre Lane is completed and the church site is developed under the conceptual plans briefly reviewed earlier this year. Because the Culver's site as it currently exists meets the minimum parking requirements, this shared parking poses no conflicts with City code, and staff has no problem with this agreement. Applicants are advised that any future development of the church site must be provided with adequate parking per code requirements within that site. Parking spaces on the Culver's site are not eligible for inclusion as required parking for the church site. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Adopt the attached resolution. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by ____, seconded by ____, to adopt Resolution No. , granting commercial site plan approval and approval for creation of an access easement to serve the property at 3340 Shoreline Drive. r ^ ‘ ^, ' A RESOLUTION GRANTING COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND CREATION OF AN EASEMENT FOR A DRIVEWAY FROM 3340 SHORELINE DRIVE TO SHADYWOOD ROAD - FILE NO. 2267 under d,e WHEREAS, John O'Sullivan, owner of the commercial property located at 3340 Shoreline Dnve, and Ted Christianson on behalf of Adam Smith Company, owner of the commercial property located at 2380 Shadywood Road, have jointly applied for commercial site plan appr^ for the construction of an access across 2380 Shadywood Road to serve 3340 Shoreline Dnve; and WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as follows: 3340 Shoreline Drive:Exhibit A, attached 2380 Shadywood Road: Exhibit B, attached; and WHEREAS, the co-applicants request approval for the creation of an access easement across 2380 Shadywood Road, such easement legally described as follows: Exhibit C, attached; and WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed this request at their regular meeting of July 21, 1997 and by a vote of 4 to 2 recommended denial of the request based on satety issues and lack of coordination \vith the comprehensive development of the 2380 Shadywood Road site; and WHEREAS, on August II, 1997, the Orono City Council reviewed the request of Page 1 of 6 pt ^ X.: Engto«n ** of «■= Planning Commission, Cil>- staff, and the City ..zfrss.'Trj rs:;" s £.“ s:".2 resolution with appropnate conditions; and PProvai findings of fact7"*^’*^''*’ ” “PP™""® '0^“ost, the City Council makes the following 1. 3. 5. The commercial site at 3340 Shoreline Drive lacks access to Shadywood Road, and prope^^ presents difficulty for customers ingressing and egressing the Although no comprehensive site development plan has been approved for the 2380 Shady\vood Road property, the preliminary site development proposal includes an access at the location now proposed by applicants for access to 3340 Shoreline ^e proposed access location entering Shadywood Road is approximately 130' from the north nghNof-way line of Shoreline Drive where it intersects Shadywood Road Because the City Engineer has indicated that this distance is potentially less than e optimum separation for an access from the major intersection at this location ^d because there is a potential for a free right turn lane to be developed by Hennepin County at some time in the future from westbound Shoreline Drive to northbound Shadywood Road, it is appropriate to allow the proposed access on a temporaiy basis only, with the City retaining the right to require the access to be moved if conditions so dictate in the future. Hennepin County Department of Public Works has permit jurisdiction over the proposed access location and has indicated that the County will approve the as proposed.access •H Becai^e the proposed new access will impact circulation in the parking lot at 3340 Shorelme Dnve, Council has reviewed the safety concerns raised by the Planning Commission ^d has concluoed that it is appropriate that applicant provide a 6' section of railing along the sidewalk outside the northwest restaurant entrance doorway as shown on Exhibit D attached. Council further finds that the revisions Page 2 of 6 to the northwest restaurant doorway configuration have eliminated the need for installation of permanent or fixed pylons and cross-hatching of the crosswalk along the northwest side of the restamant as originally required per Resolution No. 3706. 6. Council finds that minor revisions to the layout of the parking lot as indicated in Exhibit D will enhance safety and enhance green space to somewhat offset the increase in hardcover caused by the additional access. 7. The proposed driveway will cross a portion of Navarre Lane which has been conceptually vacated. The City retains all rights of jurisdiction over Navarre Lane until such time that its vacation is completed. 8. Because the proposed easement agreement provides for overflow parking for the 3340 Shoreline Drive property on the conceptually vacated portion of Navarre Lane which would be attached to the 2380 Shadywood Road property, such easement is conditionally approved subject to the completion of the vacation of that westerly portion of Navarre Lane. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the commercial site plan for construction of a driveway and creation of an easement for access purposes over 2380 Shadywood Road in favor of 3340 Shoreline Drive based on the findings of fact noted above, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall provide a driveway construction plan to be approved by City staff prior to driveway construction. 2. Applicant shall obtain a City land alteration permit and a Hennepin County access permit prior to construction of the driveway. 3. This access location is specifically approved on a temporary basis only. The City shall have the right to require that the access location be moved if the Council determines that the access presents a safety hazard, or if comprehensive site plan approval for the 2380 Shadywood Road property results in an access location that requires this initial access to be relocated, or for other reasons at the discretion of the City Council. If the Council chooses to have the access relocated, the applicants shall have the right to comment at a public hearing. 4. O'Sullivan shall construct a 6' segment of railing extended along the sidewalk Page 3 of 6 adjacent to the northwest restaurant doorway exit, subject to approval of the Inspections Department, and such railing to be in place prior to opening of the new access. 5. Changes to the submitted parking plan shall be required as noted in Exhibit D, including: A. Elimination of the last parking stall adjacent to the westerly Shoreline Drive exit to the site; and B. Reconfiguration of the parking lot curbing near the new access to create additional green space. 6. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (August 25, 1998). 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this vari^ce shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property! Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of August, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 4 of 6 rt2slK«iOi»lt)#:U[i)iV:iiriK.Wi •140 •Jfl^sTOril [•JWUilllT'J Slilivtr44il •140 imj: CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. #2267 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: August 21,1997 TO:John O'Sullivan 8047 Ranchview Lane Maple Grove, MN 55311 COPIES: Adam Smith Company Ted Christianson, President 700 Cedar Street, #121 P.O. Box 965 Alexandria, MN 55308 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Commercial Site Plan DATE OF MEETING: 08/11/97 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Conceptual approval of proposed access. The attached resolution will be presented to Council for adoption at their August 25 meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. ^ O O) * ;* •>’ RASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated this 5th day of June, 1997, by and between ADAM SMITH COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Grantor”) and VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS, INC., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Grantee”). RECITALS: 1. Grantor is the Contract for Deed purchaser and North Central Conservative Baptist Association is the fee owner of the following described property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota: See Exhibit A attached hereto (“Property”); and 2. Grantee is the fee owner of the following described property located in Heruiepin County, Miimesota. See Exhibit B attached hereto (“Grantee Parcel”); and 3. The parties desire to create appurtenant, perpetual and nonexclusive easements in favor of Grantee for ingress and egress over and across the property described as Parcel 1 and for customer overflow parking over and across the property described as Parcel 2, as both parcels are described on Exhibit C attached hereto (“Easement Parcels”). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee do hereby mutually covenant and agree as follows: 1. GRANT OF EASEMENT. Grantor hereby grants, quit claims and conveys to Grantee a perpetual, appurtenant and nonexclusive easements for ingress and egress over and across Parcel 1 and for customer overflow parking over and across Parcel 2 for use by Grantee (“Easements”). 2. USE OF EASEMENT PARCEL. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee the right to use Parcel I for ingress, egress and Parcel 2 for customer overflow parking. No party to these Easements, their successors or assigns, customers, guests, invitees or licensees, shall in any manner block, obstruct or otherwise prevent the use of these Easements by Grantee or Grantor. 3. DURATION AND APPURTENANCE. The Easements granted herein shall be perpetual and appurtenant to Grantee’s Parcel and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Grantor and Grantee. ,1 r , ^‘NTRNANCF. ANn mN|sTpp<-T[r^^, ,^,.,n rnr irt,|,\i rr i ,• the.Property is developed, the owner of the Wopeny will 1 theiV ,„L . t ''' ‘™* construct the driveway and parkine areas no ih, p,.^ ^ . d j ®*P«>>se. "rLd ^prerer^:‘^t':s; oS^* ““ “ c„repli'an«“wia,‘all apZbl^rreSnT'fa^'^^,* other users of ST^n^r^ customers, guests, invitees, licences o?TSn"L“ ~ “hereii'“ or insurance or use paralegal fees, costs Ld disblirsements. ' reasonable attorneys* fees, t - QWNERiSHTE. The Grantor warrants that they are the r'nntra/'f #• rh j 8. with the Grantetp^ei™^’^ F^'iFMFMT. This Easement shall be appurtenant to and run successo’rsoras^S^Si^f^' “P»" ** above fot WIEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year CQNSFNTTO RASFMFMT consent^ajett- ‘He Property, hereby II2590/2«V$03!.DOC EXHIBIT A (Property) Lots 19, 20, 21, and 22, Wilq^'s Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka; and that part of L<M 5, Block 3. Townsite of Langdon Park, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly comer of said Lot 5; thence Northwesterly along the Northerly line of said Lot 5 to the Northeasteriy line of the public hi^way ninning across said Lot 5 and known as Minnetonka Lake Park and M>pl« Ptiin Road (now County Road No. 19); thence Southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of said road to die Easterly line of Lot S; thence Northerly along the Easterly line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning. Hennepin County Ab$tr«*.t and Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 776469 <;7n*0N t7i:»7T wnr noKf? 'nr-TT It 4 I R t !' F. EXHIBITB (Gimtee Parcel) Tract A, Registered Land Surv^ Ki Pan of the boundary lines of said land are Case No. 17065« «nO vacated Navarra Xaaa. » -‘M 1 1 i J <;;^n*0N trirt?!Cft Nnr rHT no^rr COMMUNICATIONS.MEDIA DIVISION ORIGINAL DOCUMRNT IS OP ROOR OUJM.ITV 4 J j.lll » IlIJira I exhibit C (Easement Parcel) PARCEL 1 i g E^SEMg^^^ nf 3=r5.^Ki«srrfES19. and lhR» vndirv. PARCEL 2 vacated Navarre Lane* S“»-s«tiisarc;SK.r m* «MhM«nv «>» or most EaR«v comei Of ^ •®*^^**®*a^ from * •* •• NavofitLOR viQ jOl«O l_!___I___7 r\ • na I______ k 4- request for council action Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed: DATE: July 23, item no .: Agenda Section: Zoning %'X w> Item Description: Robert T. Callan, 299i Ueer Run Trail - Variance -Resolution acres, unsewered. residence Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential. 2 olfOf “ -w Single family List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice Commission Action C - Memo of 7/14/97 Summary of Request setbaelts for mis yard setback is requitedTbl 7^ TZ 1 Therefore, the front east lot line of the property is bv definitinl • t"' a '““’'O" °f •*“ ““‘'ot driveway, the incongruous with the neightoht^ T "0 “"*"“' f™"* This is some what side of Deer R™ on the south X‘s“erXltmem toeS 'thq t. therefore still meetmg the separation mtent of the back lot ordinance. Planning Commission Recommendation rSy “ ‘^'”‘0- or-ts his house Staff Recommendation ^ Staff recomi-vnds 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 legally 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 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 Zo ing 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 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 the ■* is a diminished need for the expanded setback as defined in the code, wJice 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 fiiis 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 vanance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely Mrve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a t, “v ‘''"’“=“*‘5'’ "««sary to preserve a substantial ,u® I VPltcant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS \A • • 1 the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to M^icipal Zomng Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 27 and 10.28. Subdivision 5(B) to pemit t^ construction of a new single family residence to be located 45' from the easterly or 1. 2. 3. Applicant shall orient the proposed residence with the fi-ont facing northerly and Traif*^^ easterly, to match other homes on the south side of Deer Run Authonties grated by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, u are 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 (August 25, 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 teimmate 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 Jie property. Page 3 of5 V STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ss. .» 19 9 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of Notary Public 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. #2268 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: August 18, 1997 TO: Robert T. Callan 9051 High Point Circle Eden Prairie, MN 55347 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance COPIES: DATE OF MEETING: 8/11/97 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Tabled to the August 25,1997 Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. The review period for your application is hereby extended to September 8, 1997 due to your requests for tabling. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. * CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Robert Callan 9051 High Point Circle Eden Prairie, MN 55347 type OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 7/28/97 application no. 2268 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: July 31, 1997 COPIES:Mark Gronberg 482 Tamarack Ave. Long Lake. MN 55356 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: ™ *'• '997 Council meeting which begins at To: From: Mayor & Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaf&on, Asst Planning & Zoning Admimstrator Date:July 28,1997 Subject; Request to Table Item #2268, Robert Callan, 2995 Deer Run Trail Robert Callan called this morning and requested that this item be tabled to the August 11 meeting in order that his immediate neighbors have a chance to review the proposal (they were unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting due to a death in the family). ,seconded by , to table application #2268,Proposed Motion: Moved by ______ Robert Callan, 2995 Deer Run Trail, to the August 11 Council meeting. Vote:_ayes,__^nays. • I CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO* Robert T. Callan 905 1 High Point Circle Eden Prairie, MN 55347 ZONING FILE #2268 ACTION COMMISSION date OF NOTICE; July 23, 199? COPIES TO: type of APPLICATION: Variance date OF MEETING: 7/21/97 VOTE: Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. Mark Gronberg 482 Tamarack Ave. Long Lake. MN 55356 6 FOR 0 AGAINST NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: TraU. onentation of the home similarly to other homes on the south side of Deer Run Apphe^t's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as* City Council Monday, July 28, 1997. meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. ommission. 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 after 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 *«'• cess outloi 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-IB District = 50'. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner's l ist D - Survey E - Section 10.03, S 4. 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, the 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 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. Zoning File #2268 July 14,1997 Page 2 The intent of the back lot ordinance and its more strict standards, is primarily to decrease the impact on the "front lot". When the Planning Commission reviewed the use of back lots in 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 fron; 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 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. 3. The lot meets all other required back lot standards. 4. Granting of the variance will avoid the need to excavate into the knoll on the west side of the property. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a reduction ot the defined front setback from 75’ to 45' as proposed, conditioned on applicant orienting 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. Options for Action 1 . Recommend approval per staff recommendation. 2. Recommend approval with other conditions. 3. Table for further infoimation (specify). 4. Recommend denial (state reasons). 5. Other. ch OO* -O# 2 3 / p 4 ^ *C4 r Pv* j r r-‘.'C. c *-r CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPL Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional varianc Renewal Variance Fee S 120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming 5:ructures S220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Application jjf ? Date Received 7-^ 7 Amount Paid o?^ ..'h- t Vv 8 lOPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.DO 8 11 CDn iThi I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent oarceis of land. Present use of propert>': V residential ____^otber (specify) Zoning District: , Ml feo,Ti,,t month/year) APPLICAN Name -T- ^ , Phone (home)jj_W ( - I X)QP«-r___t > ______________ Phone(work)_ Address:..^Kl^U fb:aF Cl^Jc City: OWNER (ji different than applicai^ tUKU phone (home) Name nchift ^gnUt. ^ C^Ufin_______ Phone(work)J Zip: ^S^3Hy Address:City:.Zip; DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $iz.^iunuvcu v.unNmjcuoa ^____ Describe request in detail: a(,^,nK -hit Ci“ ns'* 1 — ' (anach additional sheets if necessary) variances required ____Lot Area __ Setback; X Front Lot Width Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore ffr^ACk (^7 ^fCu^/r /f Other (specify) /^y,r/c r/r^/4r/^sy. HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: -fA/S C£>TJ" /^' r/Z/f yV/^//<. ///^<^ fASr / r-/> r/i< /tvr/r y/^r co- c/^yf/. f//// /f £U^r itjg c^j^r r/iC /V<^y// n> ry c*/n/f r/,g^ /irTZ/fK Ji / ygX//^r ffTMic />A/^ rt? 7f ffr^AOc //r'-d'K C'L/fjT /f^o A /:'A^au . G-<AJ/>'^c /Cyx A A£>u//e uya^uJ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) TZ/fi'y Ci{T : 7//r ^ T ’/Jat TK^ATfA> yf j-fT/fACK OF iFS Z/ A- ffr S'* ci< . J J , '-*urr n * .'nUi <cc.rJ3 r.i-,*ae ««:qwred submittals All gf thy fDlImvin i.,f^ . ' ^ "Priliiaiiiin rftaiHi m dar. .s, 2.’ Application Form ■■"“SI obtain rti? li^rTah l''*' ISO’ label a , Z^ZZ. -"-^ver "• ^ '^"P’S'Vhic aonay (exiat-no a “PS- x i," forI _ s,r:r“,~”»i:r5;"'r,r-‘r•>-"■ 1 - H=' ■ ---- As an addendum to this ^ r'^ of applicantfs) if „„, ^ '" , poisons you vuish ’“otit, ?ftsTv"'““ ~ I — Addtttonal items as may be leoue^^S ^ ■°'''" The Applicant and ProDcrtv o that APPLICANT'S signature 1 he applicant hereby aeree^ t« •. andJ'or^'^ruUf^xpln^ ^>' Zoning Applicant's Signati OSVNER-S signature ~ fho oivner hereby acknowledges and . OsvPofs Signature month. *App^”'^"f„^'“““S Commission Mc«k.gs°i^?held^tn‘*fo ’ h'd°" f>“™'ng Commission and Council If a*^***”*, ** ®“ scheduled r«vlov Monday of each make arrangements to have'an *o attend a schedTed''^ & Zoning Office of this ch^^r i" place S r. ^mis Change pnor to the meeting. 'he Building S ijfi- RUN DATE 06/^6/97BATCH 504PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST38 04-117*23 23 0020 00240 CYGNET PL EUGENE C DETERLING A WIFE EUGENE C DETERLING 240 CYGNET PLACE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0027 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED H W A S J LAUE HERMAN N A SHIRLEY J LAUE 594 PARK LANE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 24 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN (DNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38. 04-117-23 24 0013 02900 DEER RUN TR *J L BUCHANAN AHA HAMMOND JEFFREY L BUCHANAN MARCIA A HAMMOND 6204 PARKWOOD RO EDINA MN 55436 38 04-117-23 32 0011 00455 SUSSEX LA N W A D C NILDMAN NINA N A DOf(ALD C NILDMAN 745 SPRING HILL RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 04-117-23 23 002203150 RIDGEWOOD CIR CRAMS DENNISON KENNETH A LOUISE OSTMAN 3150 RIDGEWOOD 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 LA N W A D C NILDMAN NINA N A DONALD C NILDMAN 745 SPRING HILL RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 04-117-23 24 0017 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD ASSOC INC ROBERT HAUE 1600 LONG LAKE BLVD ORONO MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 504 00013 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2438 04-117-23 23 0023 03100 RIDGEWOOD CIR T E A H H CASHIN TIMOTHY E A HOLLY H CASHIN 3100 RIDGEWOOD 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 38 04-117-23 24 0012 02965 DEER RUN TR S L A P A BARNES STEVEN A PAULETTE BARNES 2965 DEER RUN TR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 24 0018 02975 SOMERSET LA COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP JOE A TERESA LAHTI 1180 PHILLIPS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 il- - '• * OKAIVM0Y // X- ' . ' i;'- 'i3, «^.u^. /s:;^ '4._v:‘ 1 OBCMDtV ■IVBnN OATl ocsciifnoN 1 1 1 tXAWNiV 1 COmN & GRONBFRn. INP 7j Ci>»>ii///)iy Lii^im\-r>. btihl 5nnyi/nf>. Siff /V,»/»it» 482 famiiMck Avniui* • lum* l.il.i MW I hfnfK’ certify Ihil this sun-ey was prepared by me or under my direct super vision, and that I am a dujiv registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the bws vi the Stale of Minnesuta 482^T.im.if.ick Avniui’ « Lon)* Likv, MN 55356 6I2-47V4I41 Mifk S Cmnbrrt MinnfwU Litriuj Numhn l?n< ORDINANCE NO. 122 , SECOND SERIES m AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MimCIPAL ZONING CODE AND SUBDIVISION CODE BY DEFINING STANDARDS FOR IHE CREATION AND USE OF LOTS WmCH DO NOT ABUT A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Municipal Zoning Code Secdon 10.02 and Municipal Subdivision Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 2 are each hereby amended by adding the following definidons: "Loc-BacJc" - A lot typically separated from a public or private road by another lot and which gains access to the public or private road via a naixow corridor. Such a separated lot is considered to be a "back lot" when the corridor is platted as an outlot. A separated lot is considered to be a "flag lot" when the corridor is platted 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". f dirfct super- iiryeyor under I "Lot-Front" - A lot abutting a public or private road, across which an outlot has been platted 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 lots as dermed in this section which were created as part of a subdivision that received preliminary subdivision approval after January 1, 1994 are subject to the following special requirements in addition to the standards required in Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 of the Orono Subdivision Code: A. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: 1. Lot area shall be 150 5T 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 yard 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 outlot corridor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback 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 required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots sliall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. Tne required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. ) n E. Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as part of a frontAjack lot division shaU meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street yard reouirement for that zoning district.* Access requirements. 1. Access outlets shall be 30’ minimum width, and shall be wide enouah to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. 2. In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access oudot if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. 3. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10’ from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. 4. No more fhan two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. 5. No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent access outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlets for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. Screening requirements. 1. Driveways constructed in access outlets shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetadon at the discredon of the City, at all p<^ints to the rear of the required street yard of the front lot, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. The street yard of the back lot shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetadon at the discredon of the City, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. Standards for accessory structures. Accessory structures shall adhere to all requirements of the zoning code, with the following addidonal requirements: 1. Accessory structures within a back lot shall be allowed no closer than 10’ to a neighboring property ’s side or rear yard. 2. Accessory structures shall not be allowed 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 bac.k lot. 2. j.No accessory structure shall be allowed within an access outlot. '‘‘■Kti REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION . '^Of. DATE: August ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Michael P. GafTron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2272/2277 Wyatt and Nancy Moe, 1220 Loma Linda Avenue/1230 Spruce Place - Resolutions/Coceptual Approval: A. Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement B. Lot Area/Lot Width/Hardcover Variances C. Vacation of Dedicated Public Roads and Park Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 Acre, Sewered List of Exhibits A - Draft Resolutions for Subdivision and Vacation Requests B - Notice of Planning Commission Action C - Memo and Exhibits of 8/13/97 Summary of Request Please carefully review the memo and exhibits of August 13. Briefly, applicant proposes vacation of portions of unused right-of-way and a triangular "park" area dedicated in the plat of Saga Hill Revised, but never used for park or right-of-way purposes. In exchange for that vacation, applicants propose to quit claim to the City a triangular portion of their property upon which the travelled portion of Spruce Place exists. The area to be vacated is 9,000 s.f; the area to be rededicated is 7,000 s.f. Additionally, applicants propose a lot line rearrangement between their two existing tax parcels. Each parcel contains a residence structure and each has been assessed for sewer. These two parcels have existed as separate tax parcels historically. The proposal will provide a better balance in areas between the two parcels. 1220 Loma Linda will decrease from 39,000 s.f. to just over 30,000 s.f. (0.70 acre). 1230 Spruce Place will increase from 10,300 s.f. to just over 21,000 s.f. (0.49 acre). Finally, applicants request lot area, lot width and hardcover variances for construction of a new residence at 1230 Spruce Place to replace the existing small cabin. The proposed new residence will meet all setback requirements, but results in the request for a 75-250' hardcover increase from 14.8% to 37.7% where 25% is normally allowed. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 August 22, 1997 #2272/2277 Wyatt and Nancy Moe, 1220 Loma Linda Avenue/1230 Spruce Place Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this application at their July and August meetings and on August 18 unanimously recommended approval of the package of requests subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Approval of the vacation of unused park and road right-of-way per the revised plan, in conjunction with a concurrent dedication of right-of-way over the portion of Lot 5 and vacated Spruce Place in which the tra •'.lied roadway is located. Approval of the lot line rearrangement per the revised proposal, subject to the granting/retaining of any necessa/y sewer, drainage, utility or access easements over the remaining private land or over the public land to be vacated. Approval of the hardcover variance for 37.7% in the 75-250' zone for 1230 Spruce Place, based on this proposal being consistent with other approvals for similar lots in the 1 acre zone. The question of providing a new access to Loma Linda for the northerly lot was left essentially to the applicant to deal with, noting tliat while the shared existing access results in less hardcover, if one of the two properties is sold the alternative of separate accesses may be attractive to both property owners. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. Because this was before the Planning Commission on August 18 and because the final survey work based on the Planning Commission recommendation was not received until August 22, resolutions drafts have not been totally completed as of this venting, but should be available for the Council meeting. Council is requested to grant approval for this package of requests, and if the package is acceptable, adopt or revise the resolutions as attached or as presented Monday night. I Conceptual denial (state reasons, direct staff to draft appropriate resolution). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Conceptual approval of the vacation/dedication, lot line rearrangement, and lot area/width/hardcover variances. , seconded by ____, to adopt Resolution #sPROPOSED MOTION: Moved by _ _ and _____ to approve the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement, vacation of dedicated public roads and park with rededication, and lot area/lot width/hardcover variances for Wyatt and Nancy Moe at 1220 Loma Linda Aven .e and 1230 Spruce Place. Vote: ayes.nays. L I *. $ > ODn Oo C/) f6> |f%» S5 [/) > > Q ;om < t/)-n iri o m om 73 3 o > m o ■n <m -< *T1o:d A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1220 LOMA LINDA AVENUE AND 1230 SPRUCE PLACE FILE NO. 2272 under U,e laws A * A u j- City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has Qty economic and safe development of land within the WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement by W. Wyatt Moe and Nancy Moe (hereinafter "the subdividers") of ^perties leg^ly descnbed on the survey attached to this resolution as Parcels A, B, D, E, F and G (hereinafter "the property"); and ,^,rouu^j ,1K j subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for a metes and bounds subdivision (Class I) of a lot line rearrangement for di^dsion and combination purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby aproves the metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for the subdividers as shown on the Certificate of Survey by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed surveyor of ^ resolution, subject to the following 1. Upon the approval of this division by the City Council, the subdividers shall apply to the City for the legal combination for tax purposes of the parcels described as A, E and G m the above referenced survey, and shall similarly apply for legal combination of those parcels described as B, D and F. 2. The subdividers shall grant drainage easements to the City over the drainageways shovvTi on the attached survey. Page 1 of 3 Applicants shall grant to tli on the attached survey, su either side of the defined a for said easements. Applicants shall grant to believed to be located w provide a legal description Applicant shall grant any e Parcels A, B, D, E, F and C Applicant shall provide co opinion or other form satisfy line rearrangement will be The aforesaid division show the City of Orono with eithe Titles Office on or before Fe of this resolution. The approval granted by this by the date specified abov application with the City of Adopted by the City Councii ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF DEDICATED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PARK WITHIN THE PLAT OF SAGA HILL REVISED - FILE NO. 2277 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, W. Wyatt and Nancy Moe (hereinafter the "applicants") on July 25, 1997, filed a formal application with the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") for vacation of a portion of the right-of-way and a portion of park dedicated within the plat of Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota, such portions to be vacated being legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 1997 regarding said vacation, at which time all persons desinng to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested vacation and the City Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation, as proposed, is in keeping with the public interest in consideration of the following findings: 1 • The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. 2. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the described portions of dedicated right-of-way or park for road or park purposes except for utilities, access and drainage purposes hereinafter described. 3. The unimproved described portions of dedicated right-of-way and park as they exist serve no public purpose. Page 1 of 3 <i'v NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVFD that fV. Nancy Moe is hereby granted and that the desIri^H^l ^oe and park within the plat of saga Hill Revised Henn#. • r dedicated right-of-way and rh. granting of this petition is subject to ’the folloTing°co"n*,!^~ '■ righrj'ry":^'rretcf <»«-2. aaga Hi., revised, per^ rsu'^^^rd rjh a. Parcel E shall be combined with Parcels A & G b. Parcel F shall be combined with Parcels B & D. 5XcT"'ragrsrv£fen^;'::L"^ r on Exhibit B as Parcel C. ^ ° vacated Portland Place identified tTLch -rr either side of the defined centerlinS^ Th<. i ^ description for said easements. applicant shall provide a legal tsir .rjiS'crr? S' r t- sr- -■* - provide a legal description for said eLmente. ’ 2. 5. picelTA.'Eh'^TrMd'oT^^ necessary for existing utilities within if such utilities are subsequently identified. meeting held this 25th day of A^gust^^im a regular ATTEST: Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE ^221212211 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: August 21, 1997 TO: Wyatt & Nancy Moe 1220 Loma Linda Avenue Mound, MN 55364 COPIES: JoEllen Hurt 930 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance/SubdivisionA^acation Date of MEETING: 08/18/97 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Plaoning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. 2. Approval of vacation of the unused park and road right-of-way per the revised plan, in conjunction with a concurrent dedication of right-of-way over the portion of Lot 5 and vacated Spruce Place in which the traveled roadway is located. Approval of the lot line rearrangement per the revised proposal, subject to the granting/retaining of any necessary sewer, drainage, utility or access easements over the remaining private land or over the public land to be vacated. Approval of the lot area/lot width/hardcover variances as proposed. Access to the northerly lot left to the discretion of the property owners. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council, Monday, August 25, 1997; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. ! ■ TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator August 13, 1997 SUBJECT: #2272/2277 Wyatt and Nancy Moe, 1220 Loma Linda/1230 Spruce Place: A. Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement B. Lot Area/Lot Width/Hardcover Variances C. Vacation of Dedicated Public Roads and Park Zoaing District; LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, I acre, sewered. List of Exhibits A - Survey/Staff Sketch B - Vacation Application C - Revised Variance Application D - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7/31/97 E - Hardcover Request Correction F - Memo and Exhibits of 7/16/97 Revisions to Origina. Application TOis Item was tabled at the July meeting to allow applicant to revise and amend the application. Applicants have formally applied for the vacation of dedicated public right-of-way and park, and have revised their variance application to include lot area and width as well as hardcover for the proposed layout. lui uic Vacation of Road and Park Areas After reviewing *e right-of-vvay issue, Public Works and Zoning staff concluded that the existing 40 nght-of-way for Spruce Place should not be vacated, but the dedicated roadway east of the park between its north and south extremities, could be vacated. This results in the City retaining its ability to relocate Spruce Place further north and off of the property to the south of the park, if that tecomes necessa^ for some reason in the future. While there is no intent to move Spruce Place, the tact that It IS partirfly encroaching on the property to the south suggests that the City should leave Its options open. T^s reduces the size of the area to be vacated to approximately 9,000 s.f„ which IS stdl larger than the 7,000 s.t portion of Lot 5 and vacated Portland Place to be dedicated back to “f toTusVove"?-i ml'f rnig'™f™-" 'O.m in ;he area (see ;a;iance tair„Ur 'o*- -- <he entire portion of park and right-of-way beina vacated « part of the applicants' proper^. Dennis Hill at the Hennepin County Propem- DescrMons a^ic^ts'prope^ is *font adjairpro^^^^^ even". a”rchTet:ca:d"^a:ri:a'’"^hetX:^^^^^^^^^^ <0 .he City the Lot Area/Lot Width/Hardcover Variances Md width van^ce for each of the two lots. Both lots will have no change in thfir defiL lot w,^ that the proposed hoM stb^c”Srso«Tlo" As noted above, due to the existing combination arrangement, the northerly lot currently contains grrater area than *e existmg southerly lot. The proposal will result in the north and south tots teing of 47 im, r respectively. A 1983 study of tot sizes in the LR-IB"TfoL to th th 1 existing on Spruce Place and Loma Linda Avenue at to time only 9 were larger han the I acre standard, and 23 were 0.40 acre or smaller in area. Applic»';' ^*^0^^^^ larger than half of the existmg developed tots in the neighborhood. Zoning Files #2272/2277 August 13,1997 Page 3 The lot line relocations have not changed the magnitude of the 75-250' zone hardcover variance request. However, a corrected hardcover proposal showing additional deck at the east end of the proposed house on the southerly lot increases the hardcover proposal to 37.7% where only 25% would normally be allowed. The proposal also results in 75-250' hardcover in the northerly lot of approximately 19.4%, which currently would be conforming but which could potentially be the subject of a variance request should the existing house be remodeled or enlarged, or merely provided with a new driveway serving it directly from Loma Linda. The variances and area figures are summarized in the following table: North Lot South Lot Existing Lot Area 39,000 s.f. ±10,300 s.f ± Proposed Lot Area 30,330 s.f ±21,300 s.f ± LR-IB Area Required 43,560 s.f ±43,560 s.f ± Variance 13,230 s.f. (30%)22,260 s.f (51%) Existing/Proposed Width 78'58' LR-IB Required Width 140'140' Variance 62' (44%)82' (59%) Existing 75-250' Hardcover 10.9%14.8% Proposed 75-250' Hardcover 19.4%37.7% Allowed 75-250' Hardcover 25.0%25.0% Variance -12.7% Area to be vacated 9,000 s.f ± Area to be dedicated for traveled road 7,000 s.f. ± Given that the property in question has existed as two separate tax parcels, has two separate dwellings, two separate sewer connections assessed and in use, etc., it would be consistent to allow the continuation of the two properties as two separate residences. Utilities Both lots were fully assessed for sewer in the 1970 sewer project, and both have been connected to sewer. To-date, staff has not been provided with and has not been able to confirm easements for the City sewer within vacated Portland Place nor within Lots 4 and 5, Block 2. There is a sewer line extending from just north of the Spruce/Loma Linda intersection eastward through the southerly end of the park, to a manhole located within the portion of Lot 5 that \vill be part of the south lot. If such an easement is not ultimately confirmed, the City would require that such an easement be granted for the sewer lines within the portions of property remaining or becoming privately owned. Zoning Files ni212l2211 August 13, 1997 Page 4 Affected utility companies were notified of this proposed vacation, and as of this writing staff has not heard from them regarding their interests in the property to be vacated. Storm Water Facilities There are existing storm water systems on this property which serve it and the surrounding neighborhood. These include an existing 30" culvert leading from the center of the property to the shoreline. This culvert was a joint effort of the City and the applicants some years ago, and is the subject of an existing 10' easement. To the w'est of the culvert inlet near the driveway is a small ravine which is the recipient of runoff from a 12" culvert under Spruce Place as well as from the storm sewer system to the northwest. This would be the appropriate time for the City to obtain appropriate drainage easements of 15' in width (7.5' either side of the centerline) over the defined drainage ways on the property. There is a very small wetland, perhaps 20' in width and 50' in length located in the southerly portion of the park, just to the northeast of the intersection of Loma Linda and Spruce Place. This wetland does not show up on any of the pertinent wetlands inventory maps, but might be subject to Wetland Conservation Act regulation if it were proposed to be filled (it isn't). Given its small size, no wetland easement will be required. Driveway Access The existing driveway serving the northerly lot crosses the proposed southerly lot. While an easement for access over the existing driveway would definitely be necessary in the event that the applicants sold one of the properties, an option is to create a separate driveway to Loma Linda serving the northerly house. Issues for Consideration 1.Have applicants presented sufficient justification for the granting of the requested hardcover variances? Is the magnitude of hardcover variance consistent with other hardcover variances granted for similarly sized lakeshore lots? When will the northerly lot be provided its own d? iveway access to Loma Linda? Does Planning Commission have any other specific concerns regarding the lot line rearrangement, vacation/dedication, or variance request? Zoning Files #2272/2277 August 13, 1997 Pages Staff Recoin ineDdation 2. 3.The northerly lot should provided with a new access, to I r • j • by th^Mcants. Thi, can become a condition of approvaUf ^e.tes,ta Options for Action some tZ /x -5^ 1. CoZ"sirnVm;llZ “^^ ““ Pl-ningappropnate Table for further information. Recommend denial (state reasons). Other.■1^ O’. rc . ir -M Z gg on LO R? ' C% C% 2 *2 T^/ /;1^’ Application # ^ ^ ^ -W r^sc;? Aas«s^ Received r/9 ? c? IVAmount Paid . c-v CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION \ V^^tD ^;ixnxj PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 50 5grc< <-f Type of Application to be Filed ' hi ^ Property Identification Number 0^SLU£^>Bd ^.L.\ ^ ^, '^N^Iife'^ Phone (home)_y<y- ^^ Phone (work) 5^^- CV/>\"7Address /Z / OWNER (if different than applicant) Name :s o ________ Address Citv Phone (home) _ Phone (work)_ Date Property Acquired __________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PEIUVHTS - --------$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP j ---- $175.00 Residenv.al Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) Zip (month/year) x/cf ayfr-t*C</^ 1 Affp// UdxJ __-------------------------------^Vixuivil, J5L.UUU1, CU _ $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _ $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _ $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _ $250.00 Land Alteration ------- Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ------- Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more i ------- Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshol _ PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _ $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _ After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee '4;-^ (SO ^ SO . J?2 7 a-- OTHER APPLICATIONS -----^^$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _S:S Sr.vJ'^'Y:^ --------$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 PROPERX Present Zoning District__ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) J Application # Date Received"^ - <9 7 Amount Paid ^-30. oo ■ VARIANCE APPLICATION Imtial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each addition^ 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 INFORMATION /; Site Address an ru ojl r/^Ca^ Property Identification Nui*er (PJ.D.) 11 O--v '5' ^ I(do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land t^O .(month/year) APP Name Phone (home) ^*? / -*7 6 ^x Address:. , . ^ ^ Zip: OWNER (if di; Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) description of request Describe request in detail:Estimated Cqnstmction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ARI^CES REQUIRED - ^ Lot Area 1Lot Width ^ Hardcover Setback:Front Side Rear L ot I • ^0''^^tx^'ru n/z:cl9 1 ___^Lot Coverage ___ Average Lakeshore _ Other (specify) (attach additional sheets if necessary) -% 7 * • ]1 ' r CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2272 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 31,1997 TO: Wyatt & Nancy Moe 1220 Loma Linda Ave. Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF MEETING: 7/21/97 COPIES TO:Jo Ellen Hurr 930 Partenwood Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 Variance/ Subdivision VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled to allow applicant to make a formal vacation application and amend the variance request to include lot area and lot width. Staff is reviewing the vacation proposal to determine the extent of right-of-way to be retained for Spruce Place, and will advise you as soon as a recommendation has been finalized. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, August 18,1997; 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. Subject: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator July 16, 1997 SIX-ss sx Zoning District: LR-IB, Singie Family Lakeshom Residential, 1 Acre. Sewered Summary of Application A^cf “i^er^r^y Of rt^: lit includes an existing small house. The southerly parcel is Lroximatd^^^^ rectangular, and contains a small cabin. ' ^ PProximately 0.23 acre in area, Aa. Lot Line ReaTOgemenf -as of the two able to sell off the northerly paJce~lrs'dimcU^^^^^^^^ "■? across the southerly parcel L i^ the current situation. ' *“ Bn Cor|(j!^ptual I^oad Vacating suggest a iwlo-road ri'gh°ofwa”tMa”orb^ application, applicants ^ “ coadVor%r-s :rtirc“ C, Hardcover LTov'eU:rire “eL,"T“i^ “PP'‘-^ "ave also requested a replaced wi”rneXuse^Shedt ^4' x 24' cabin would be where otll; S% w”^^^ veway/walks is proposed at 35.7% hardcover in the northerly lot would be approriltriy D- Lot Area/Width Variance Alcio RegnirpH "pptxittely 0 69 ^alrf !icfof *e P\'o' -ooX* erss:er"i?:^ry::”rsfrir^^^^ which also was neither requested nor published. Zoning File #2272 July 16, 1997 Page 2 Staff would note that the survey work was not received for this application until approximately two weeks after the deadline, and the application submittals have been arriving somewhat piecemeal, hence staff has only come to a comprehensive understanding of this proposal as a result of the review process.. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Property Owners List Letter of Request Survey Staff Sketches 1-4 Hardcover Calculations Sewer System Layout Topography With and Without Plat Overlay Documentation from 1970 Similar Vacation Request by Applicants Discussion During the course of review, this application appears to have become essentially a four part request, including the lot line rearrangement, street and park vacation/rededication, lot area and width variance for southerly proposed building site, as well as a hardcover variance for the southerly proposed building site. Notice was published and mailed for only the applied-for hardcover variance and lot line rearrangement, hence all facets of this application cannot be formally considered comprehensively at the July 21 meeting. Further, the extent of variances to be granted, specifically for lot area, will be numerically variable depending on how and whether the vacation/rededication is accomplished. The lot line rearrangement impacts the conformity of the existing house on the north lot in relation to not only its lot area but its current and proposed hardcover percentage. Its existing hardcover was not identified on the survey, hence staff has provided a hardcover analysis below. While hardcover for the north lot is not and would not become non-conforming as a result of the final lot lines as proposed, the future ability to expand or further develop the northerly lot will be reduced in exchange for granting greater buildability to the southerly lot. Zoning File #2272 July 16, 1997 Pages Northerly Lot £2USt ing & Proposed Hardcover. Per Proposed f nr T Proposed 75-250’ Lot Area: 78' x 175' = 13,650 s.f. Existing/Proposed 75-250’ Hardcover: House: (45x27) + (8x16) Concrete Walks: (6x5) + (3x30) + (2.5x15) + (3.5x15) + (4x16) Wood Deck, N. Side: (6x10) Driveway & Parking Area: (30x18) + (10x15) Driveway on S. Lot per Gronberg: 290 '' I®’'” - \ r • / . = 1,343 s.f. = 274 s.f. = 60 s.f. = 690 s.f = 290 s.f Total Existing/Proposed 75-250’ = Southerly Lot £2t]Sting & Proposgd Hardcover. Per Proposed let ( Proposed 75-250’ Lot Area: 58’ x 175’ = 10,150 s.f Existing 75-250’ Hardcover: Cabin: (24.3x24.4) Driveway: 510 s.f Per Gronberg (Excl. 290 s.f that serves N. Lot) 2,657 s.f / 13,650 (Allowed 19.4% fr,r^ 25%) Total Existing 75-250' = |,103 s.f. / 10,150 = 10.9% Proposed 75-250’ Hardcover: House & Attached Garage: 2238 s f Driveway: 510 s.f + 800 s.f Per Gronberg (3x24)Sidewalk: 2,238 s.f 1,310 s.f 72 s.f Total Proposed 75-250’ ^ .f Proposed Lot Coverage By Structure, South Lot - 3,620 s.f / 10, 150 = 35.7% (Allowed = 25%) Proposed Lot Coverage = 2,238 / 23,780 = 9.4% (15% allowed) . Zoning File #2272 July 16,1997 Page 4 Issues for Consideration 1. Is the conceptually proposed vacation appropriate? Under what parameters? 2. Is the lot reconfiguaraUon conceptually appropriate, including the vacation of nght-of- ways and park, and rededication of new right-of-way? 3 Will the northerly lot ultimately requite a hardcover variance someday when it is expanded or rebuilt? If so, does that affect your view of this lot line reconfiguration. Should the two lots be more equal in area? 4 When will the northerly lot be provided its own driveway access to Loma Linda (it s already addressed as 1220 Loma Linda); at the time it is sold? 5 Is Planning Commission comfortable with the magnitude of the hardcover variance proposed? Is there sufficient hardship shown? Is this consistent with other hardcover variances granted for similarly sized lakeshore lots? 6 Given that e' -:h lot has been separately assessed for sewer and each connected to it, and given the historical use as two separate dwelling units, does Planning Commission have Iny concerns about the lot area and width variances? Will the resulting lots be consistent with others in the neighborhood? Staff Recommendation 1 The vacation of unused (and likely to remain unused) park and right-of-way, in conjunction with a concurrent rededication of right-of-way over used (and potentially to be used) private property, is conceptually a win-win situation for the City and the property owner, but should be subject to: . a. Granting/retaining of any necessary sewer, drainage, utility or access easements over the remaining private land or over the public land to be vacated. . b. The City retaining adequate existing dedicated right-of-way on the north side of Spruce Place (Comprehensive Plan indicates 50' r.o.w. needed for local streets; Spruce r.o.w. at this location is 40' wide, actual traveled road is centered on the south boundary of the r.o.w.. City Engineer an Public Works Department will be asked to determine r.o.w. needs). 2 Vacation of the park area as conceptually proposed may result in certain questions of ownership, since property owners to the west and south might have a legitimate claim to ‘f i t Zoning File #2272 July 16, 1997 Page 5 portions of the park once it is vacated. At any rate, a formal vacation implication will be required in order to fully address these issues. 3. The lot line rearrangement is conceptually appropriate if the resulting approximately 1.24 acres of private land is evenly split between the northerly and southerly lots, so that each is afforded a reasonably equivalent amount of hardcover and is subject to relatively equivalent variance needs. 4. In order to accomplish the lot line rearrangement, the northerly lot will have to be added to the survey and proposed boundaries reconfigured per City's final conclusions on this application. 5. The northerly lot should be provided with a new access to Loma Linda prior to it being sold by the applicants. 6. Planning Commission must first reach conclusions on the lot line rearrangemer* and vacation/rededication before accurate hardcover numbers can be achieved. The hardcover and lot area/width variance request is functionally merely a conceptual request at this point, and cannot be formally addressed until the final lot line locations are resolved. Options for Action 1.Reconunend conceptual approval, subject to: a. Applicant to make formal application for vacation and lot area/width variances. b. Planning Commission to give applicant direction on lot line relocations, lot area apportionment, and hardcover variance. c. City Engineer/Public Works Dept, to analyze and advise applicants of right-of-way and easement needs. 2. Table for further information without giving conceptual direction. 3. Recommend denial (state reasons). 4.Other. Application # Date Received 6 'i>c^ - -j Amount Paid ^.^o.oo o s crry 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 INFORMATION ^ & Site Address ^pruojL ^ , g Property Identification NumW (P.I.D.) h ^ ^ ^ ®— Attach legal description to appUcation if not include d on required ^ey.------------------ Date Property Acquired_____f r *u/ \ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land " ~ PresOTt use of property: ___presidential ___pother ('specify) Zoning District:________' ~— ----------------- (home)^7 ^ ^ ^ V OWNER (if dii Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Constmetion Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED —^ Lot Area ___Lot Width ' X Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hakdship /description of unusual property conditions Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:,___ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 < • 3. 4. required submittals M y tht fffllowiqg infftniKjtiftn mart ^wbiniHfrt bv th. ,- gTq?r for YQWr aPDlication to he considgred complp^^; ___ Completed Application Form 2. _ Certified Prop^ Owners List of owners within ISO’, labels and plat map (you must obtaui tos list, labels and map from Hennepin County Departmrat of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). cparuncm oi Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover reproduction.^ requ’xed. In addition, provide one (1) copy g'/a” x 11" for Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if a.ny changes in existing ^de are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation vievi-s (provide one (1) copy S'/j" x 11") the Propeij^. This would mclude name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendiOT to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified tidj application. Additional items as may l-e requested by City statf. 3I ‘lnrr‘i‘.!!?L?rinrk^nn^ «n«»>ber that yaai APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Admimstrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fefpayment) ^omario^ • “ t'view of this application, and certifies the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature~~VC^^v^^c^::^')^6fl^ OWNER'S SIGNATURE acknowledps and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable V ^ /• consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of mvesUgation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have a 1 subrmttals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning omimssion Meetmg. Planmng Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Apphe^Q^ must be present at aU scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please m e arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zonmg Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 6 M tCITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATlsC^ 3 J Application 0 -j ^ _____ Date Received 7 i^puntPaid CO •uJ -'J.4CV PROPERTY LOCATION Site address Property IdentiiBcation Number (PID) Please check one - Property____abstract or_____toirens? Attach legal descnption to application. APPLICANT Name_ Address City \ 'xn X Phone (home) V V Lip-^J^ Phone (work) OWNER (if different Name • applicant) Address City (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Phone (home)_ . Phone (work) _ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ PROPOSAL ~u^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)______ ^ i\ ? I Totals MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELI\nNARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below, 2. Completed ?i.pplication 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. Zoning Official's Signature _____________________________________ Dat®. 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_____________________________________ Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check pC] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $250.00 ---------- Subdivision ofa Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 ---------- Subdivision Application (Class 1 & II) $350.00 ---------- Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class 111 & 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 ---------- _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) ---------- Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) ---------- 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/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $_____ ______ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____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 ---------- The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission ^d Council necessary to pro^ss tlji^application and further agrees to pay al^additional fees established by ordinance. . i L ^ Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature _ Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetmgs are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plannmg Cotnmission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make ai^gements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. :ity Attorney, stablished by ssion meetings 5 Commission attend in your 4 t'*i \ M JltaOUA <07.08 L i' (70) _1!0.53 i »v.ci (S'(55) — -T8 9 \ \7\\ \ I LOTS l.2.?.3i.T5: i v.is 1 »*#rr OF vaC'SiFirr) ^ • r.o :______N < (5) n‘. c5) » T« ;> s LCWA lINCA ave ■t-«4 (64) V • V' le; (7) 1 s!(6J ^ 1 01-tn 1 ---------------r—— -23-Im 1 i________ 1 >l J 456.4 •1 .80 Os (6I) ? / 1 »» S i, 4t ! ^« j iI ^16-% *X :<:-i;i2>29 'rs^ U-l J :5fe ! a •-i (22?i" iC ti"SO 4C . ■•‘Ti 21 X521i» j.'EjnSzt.Eliic ^ *0i X ■ 1 :i 3 L0.MA lINDA HoTy S''130 i \ S (6) 2*0 s\ v;e (7) 215 «i »•• 7 (a; ?!3 8 / 4 e (9) 203 «/ is « C 1C) •TO. 5U,.^0 (1!) 2 -2—^ / / \ \ \ \ \ s X 5'5-’i '’5 1 '.4*_• u— (25)1 - 2»6 3 " \ 3/\ »I3) ,(60) » l»>3 ij i ; <^-s* I 1 (6?) -T? 253 ;N \ a \ \ t (g») * ^ I'3)5 309.M N6^'&4*i?g (57) 294.31 - A 32144 f F5>i6 248 ^^(68),^/ 1<N ?z swtJfMyf j:' :«2 ^ Fim lo-is-n 2^ OOC W 3B:?C82^ 1 (2) / LCVA tir^CA 4V£ J(6) 2-4 »l \(3)/ “(m _!» f »o (ro)fl 147,3 " ^ L "T^s 'y^■^'■■i.^?^,V.:.»li|s .as ‘16S At(V'>OV«'T^> 7 /)<?- \ wl .V t c,g.|(7'22‘^2 \. 3 Q.Tbui \ \ 7g .• u ;^^(84) IS* ^ rJ M^^as \ 'V. 1 07^ rJ^CO • -A 7^..^ . ^ - X.A >i!fi-» /(8sy : 7 ,y ,e v» /so:i\cc W \2) ‘V . isi 17 «8 N^-' {>9 ,_U *7 »» */. *' ^ 95.5 I s* (Z6) t?*3 S CT ?« ,g=» • 4;;. */ 2 2X SI (65) Iv i (:s)4 V 1 !il 4 "* «( gg~3.Tr 3 «l «M " 5 B, k< A ® «(22) 234 5 -----------/—22-----1 __7D / 80 ; 7H t flO / (2) 1 30 1 » 1 ffl i 71 \ f »> 1447.9 Is- • 1 ‘ 'S* p! 7i'^ (r<) ,.**\------- ^ >2QC -------J »•<*" (TS^si I'f’ - B >09 >» --- M A» c* (4> .« 1 T8 55 t‘ 89 u"5 f n ^Vy;.4«.a (25)'i / ?5.PPIJ(X PL~S5 ^*i(IZJ 5 '—'fr CI2J ?i^.25 1 230 IIWMWWWWU'I 'S«nRUN DATE 07/01/97 BATCH S02 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 38 07-117-23 14 0013 01155 IONA LINOA AVE EUGENE GEYEN ETAL EUGENE A GEYEN 1155 LOHA LINOA AVE mound 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0068 01185 LOHA LINDA AVE 0 B A M J SAMS DOUG A MARY SAMS 1185 LOHA LINOA AVE. MOUNO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0008 01295 LOHA LINOA AVE C 0 ANDERSON A A H ANDERSON CHARLES A ANN ANDERSON 1295 LOHA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0011 01264 NORTH ARM DR M 8 MUELLER A M K MUELLER JOSEPH A MARY MUELLER 1264 NORTH ARM OR MOUNO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0051 01305 SPRUCE PL CLAYTON R FUCHS CLAYTON R FUCHS 1305 SPRUCE PL mound MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0078 01295 SPRUCE PL HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO CONVEYED 2/8/82 ST DEED 161147 38 07-117-23 14 0062 01160 NORTH ARM DR K A A L M KELSEY KENNETH A A LOURITA M KELSEY 1160 NORTH ARM DR mound MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0006 01205 LOMA LINDA AVE K R HINRICHS ASM HINRICHS KEVIN R P SUZAhME M HINRICHS 1205 LOMA LINDA ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0009 01280 NORTH ARM OR P K HUNTSMAN A K L HUNTSMAN PAUL K A KRISTINE L HUNTSMAN 1280 NORTH ARM DR MOUNO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0012 01216 NORTH ARM DR R L DURKIN ETAL RICHARD L DURKIN 1216 NORTH ARM O'i MOLHO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0076 01254 LOM'* LINDA AVE K L HOFFMAfH A L S HOFFMANN KEr«<IETH L A LINOA S HOFFMANN 1254 LOM/. LINDA AVE MOUNO MK 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0087 01210 LOMA LINDA AVE DCNALD R UDELL ET AL rONALO R A CAROLYN UDELL 1210 LOMA LINOA AVE MOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PAGE PI4354017 38 07-117-23 14 0067 01180 NORTH ARM DR H H ERICKSON A N J ERICKSON HARK A NANCY ERICKSON 1180 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0007 01225 LOHA LINDA AVE JEFFREY 0 UDELL JEFFREY D UDELL 1225 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0010 01264 NORTH ARM OR J B MUELLER A M K MUELLER JOSEPH A MARY MUELLER 1264 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0050 01370 NORTH ARM OR C M BANICK A K L K BANICK KARl A CHRISTOPHER OANICK 1370 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0077 01254 LOHA LINOA AVE K L HOFFMANN A L S HOFFMANN KENNETH L A LINDA S HOFFMANN 1254 LOHA LINOA AVE MOUNO MN 55364 38\07-117-2SAi 0089 01291k. LO^LINDA AVE SCOTT r^^H UDELL SCOTT AyObAU UDELL 1290 Um L»»A AVE MOUNJKMN 553«i Cable (^9o Lutruf- Ir-mcJf- RUN DATE BATCH 502 PROP ADDR OHNER NAM TAXPAYER NAME/AOO PROP ADDR OHNER NAMi TAXPAYER NAME/AOOl PROP AOOR OHNER TAXPAYER NAIC/AODF PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR L RUN DATE 07/01/97 BATCH 502PROP ADOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 36 08-117-23 23 0002 01180 LOMA LINDA AVE HATTHEH H BURNS MATTHEH H BURNS 1180 LOHA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55369 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST38 08-117-23 23 0003 01190 LOMA LINDA AVE M A A E C MITCHELL MARK A/ELIZABETH C MITCHELL 1190 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MI4 55364 REPORT NO. P143S401 PAGE 838 08-117-23 23 0015 01170 LOMA LINDA AVE GAG HOLDING CO LTD PTNRSHP GAG HOLDING CO LTD PTNRSHP 7019 TUPA DR EDINA MN 55439 PROP ADOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 08-117-23 23 0027 01200 LOMA LINDA AVE EDMUND GRIFFIN ET AL DONALD R lAELL 1210 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 32 0005 01220 LOMA LINOA AVE N WATT F»E ETAL H HYATT MOE 825 SO 8TH ST MPLS MN 55404 38 08-117-23 32 0006 01230 SPRUCE PL H HYATT MOE H WYATT MOE 825 SO 8TH ST MPLS MN 55404 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 08-117-23 32 0007 01240 SPRUCE PL 0 A WALLNER A L J WALLNER DAVID A WALLNER 1240 SPRUCE PL mound MN 55364 38 08-117-23 32 0008 01250 SPRUCE PL M N WOLFE ETAL PHYLLIS J WOLF 1250 SPRUCE PL MOUND HN 55364 38 08-117-23 32 0012 01260 SPRUCE PL E A ANDERSON ET AL TRUSTEES EVAN A ANDERSON 1260 SPRUCE PL MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 32 0013. 01270 SPRUCE PL K H A E E ERICKSON KENNETH A ELAINE ERICKSON 2773 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 32 0014 01280 SPRUCE PL P J A S J SCHUELLER PAUL J A SUSAN J SCHUELLER 1280 SPRUCE PL MOUND HN 55364 38 08-117-23 32 0015 01290 SPRUCE PL HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND 961AO 1/23/97 THURSDAY 9:00 CITY RES 2088 PROP ADDR 0W4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 08-117-23 32 0016 01300 SPRUCE PL WILLIAM 6 AHERN WILLIAM G AHERN 1300 SPRUCE PL MOUND MN 55364 28 08-117-23 32 0017 01310 SPRUCE PL JOHN H WALKER JOHN W WALKER 1310 SPRUCE PLACE mound MN 55364 38 08-117-25 32 0018 01318 SPRUCE PL PATRICIA A GROETKEN PATRICIA A GROETKEN 1318 SPRUCE PLACE MOUND MN 55364 PROP AODR ONNER KAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR TOTAL BATCH 502 00033 • .• iSiTztiKLi iltfilil: ^i¥iT#r- riiii'i* .lliT.It UllM.1lTi n iTSll iV^iraimUD^ riKriVliT: nw: rii¥^iiiiD nwinnin^ %.ra«i^iii*■T.lli nraai ailiiVilMi ll4T« riniriKi iliUMU- iirti ^■riiuG riiiiD ■Bitijiii- riTfifi ^Kt • •» ’ t ix ' V r' ' ’i’l '> X <l- . .'h ^:ks,'k • .J. . I % r 07/15/1997 10:17 fit-d^ic HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEE1' 7 * / r - 9 7 “ setback ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*7S>2§0*2S0.90Q-SOO-I Ltngt^WUUh B. Car«fo C. Drtvtwiy _ D. SMewafk E. ?«tio^ck F. LindKipe UncferUin 'By Plauic O.*-Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ---------S------ B moeoacn n*Rnpnvir« nj A. House ____________ Ufi|ih It 100 •Jii£. WIMl ■ •■R' Qam^e , C. Drivi^i^ •D. Si4ew«|)e £• Paiio/Deck F. Ijnriscipe Vaderlain By Ptanic O. Otb«r S.F. S.F S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property AREA IN ZONE - - - - - - -♦ B S.F. X too ". . .. ^ l • h •’ . L • V oY ‘59:Tv ,-' t :i. 5 o’A, HI t •- 1 - 1 • • -y^ r ^ I f 15 ; 'It* Wyatt itoe . . 1220 Loaa .Linda Mound, Mlrinoaota 55364 Auguat 4, 1970 Village of Orono JhRalph Martin, Village Clerk Poat office box 66 CryaUl Bay, Minnesota 55323 Oentleaant exchange of the Drooertv of Lot ror\hi Ia Hill Revised, South S sSSJH pLSf Block roadway between the park and Lots 3 TMs excnange would give us a single parcel of land, suruca Piat^a5 p?.«issn*^u Please notify me of your action on this T»tt«r. Sincerely yours, ^1 i U' u W. Wyatt Moe, M.D, ) \ . MINUTES OP A REGULAR mBTING .HELD AUGUST 17, 1970 The letter of Dr. Wyett *foo, 1220 Loma Linda Avenue, asking for a property exchange, was road. Since nombors could not tell whore property linos were on the site, members unanimously agreed that the Village Engineer should study the site to see what advantage or disadvantage there would be to make such an exchange. Russoll moved, Dorn seconded, that the division of Hr. Leo Schacht, ZoS Leaf Street, Lot 9, Aud. Sub. 203, Parcel 900, dividing his property into two lots, be approved since it mot all the needs of the R-lC zone. Motion, Ayes (S) • Nays (0). After the motion passed, Russell stated he believed divisions such as this, that meet all the requirements of the zoning code, should bo mado at an administrative level and the Planning Commission should not bo involved at all. Pr^o 5 PROPERTY exchange 1220 Loma Linda Avenue Dr. Wyatt Noe DIVISION 265 Leaf Street The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted. ADJOURN? lENT s » Mike Schc'lor Secretary .4'■-yfp- :l •*-*»*'I*' Jr *4 ^ t’’j U* ..V * S3 •Vf* ^*>v,i. • “ *»**--«r ■ . » '» *'4 - ' V ** • A minutes of a regular meeting meld AlfGUST 10,1970 fiJJoJ? Jr;?' seconded, that the br?iiirpin!SiS®^^* ai^sGTrTo^rRjad, Aycs'cs) - n “. '<>‘1<>». Fuse 2 seconded, to • bookkeeping t;o office, bo approvodf i/bsUi^.dr f’’^- ‘''“"rfiow Soarlos socondod, that the of the Village Administrator to negotiate with all Villago omplovoos employee-groups and Unions for 19n salaries bo approved. Station, Ayes (S) t%lyV\V), moved, Searles seconded, to pay timo and one-half rate to Stroot and ^ ^ employees for work ovor eight hours in any 24-hour period, .lotion. Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Soarlos moved, McCarthy seconded that th« Viii^ar property exchange with thoVillage, be reforred to tho Plannincr Commission. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nnys (0). Socrles moved,.McCarthy seconded that Resolution #356, A Resolution Appointing To Ptimsry Election iZTs) '•If tor field abstained. ' -(aitnv noved. Prnnrol seconded, that tho -..fr.rtor’s Pstunnte *1. Willow Drive «r rxeavatin,:. |,p Motion! .Vays (0). ' I ..• f (.'•) - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Preliminary Approval 3675 Togo Road advertisement for bids Bookkeeping Machine FIPLOVBB SAURIES overtute salaries Street B Sewor Dopartmonts propbrtv exchange 1220 Loma Linda Avonuo Or. Nyatt Moo RBSOLirriON 1356 RESOLUTION #357 CONTRACTOP'S ESTCMATE #1 Bill Wear Excavating « • b.,V. A^> V i' ■J':V V* ' ■'? ■• i.i TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Administrator Inspector August iO, 1970 Property Exchange - Dr. Wyatt Moe,1220 Loma Linda S'“! Ew;v“H s';a :isa; n;h;>;^iis? „ lie !%?cpding ‘ to ^5r. , "spru?e*PuJe*5??uiurdis HL^^fo ? SL«“'Sthis should b. submitted to th. VilUgi fSrnSdy.^ KEMARKSt The Village Engineer has thia under study and the ‘ ”»”« fr» M«they world take any action on the matter* Ralph H. Martin 6/21/70 • • ** fav- t; Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson 2829 Casco Point Road Hardcover Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:15,582 sq. ft. (.355 acres) A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #2274 Lot 116, in Spring Park, Lake Minnetonka, together with the lake shore property contiguous thereto, containing that portion of the Lake Shore Avenue, heretofore vacate J defined by an extension of the Easterly and Westerly boundary lines, of said lot to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property’); and A/f • • I -7 the applicants have applied to the City for a variance from Mumcipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to add a 10'9"x4' bay window which is considered sectoral hardcover to an existing residence to be located over existing rock which is considered non-structural hardcover. A variance for hardcover in the 75-250’ setback is «89“25 CsVo Minnesota:NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2274. me propeny is located in the LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where the minimum lot area requirement is 1/2 acre. Page 1 of 4 i following unique findll^ ^ “P™ •*■' A. i^qui^mel.'’™'^"'' '»• lo‘ -idU. B. The topography in the 0-75’ setbaek from the lakeshore is steeo The existinrieLener“‘ fr°"' Iho c.TTte bay window will be located over existing rock in the side yard. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existino nn tw,^ serve as a convenience " “e appl3^^^^ demonstrable hardship or diflicultv is ne’eess, "«essaty to alleviate a property right of the w u dT^k .men, of Ute Zoning Code and Comprehensive Wan X cT^ '■ r«:nSe’:^r„: oAhe S; cf" “<•by the applied Co^ission, reports by City staff, comments Jd welf^'“omm^r CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS grants a hardcover variLce to inst^U^ 10^9^c4'^ba^^ findings, the Orono City Council hereby Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to nJ fisting rock per Municipal setback ^^dlere 6,460 sq ft roOOSV'i i? ^ * t- ^9.65% in the 0-75‘ to the following condLt: ^ ^25%) is allowed, subject Page 2 of 4 •II irtrifiL •jcirt] •J*}Ct1 MmiituMiiT MmiJiKl rtriiT^ S^KTiTi [•roriiT^ •JO}» WRjiJWl ^umnmmwsm STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ______day of ^blk within and for said County, ^^^i^ly1pneared Joiown to me to be the person(s) described in and wh^executed fho ^ acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) Se“fdeel'“'™'"“‘’ ““ ,* » before me a Notary STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Notary Public withinand for said County, perl^nally appeared ’ ___. before me a Notary Public ,. -Otng instrument, and same as h.is (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 TO: K' tj FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator August 7, 1997 SUBJECT: #2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson 2829 Casco Point Road Variance(s)-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Application: One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) square feet (.355 acres) The applicants are proposing to add a 10’9" by 4' bay window (structural hardcover) over existing rock (non-strjctural hardcover). Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd 2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Section 10.25, LRl-C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ff227^ Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson 2929 Casco Point Road August 18, 1997 page—I Lot Area Lot Width 15,582 sq. ft.60' (.335 acres) Hardcover ii Distance from Shoreline 0'-75' 75'-250' Total Area in Setback 4,725 sq.ft. 10,757 sq. ft. Existing Hardcover 147.5 sq.ft. (3.12%) 6,460 sq. ft. (60.05%) Allowed Hardcover NONE 2,689.25 sq.ft. (25%) Proposed Hardcover 147.5 sq. ft. (3.12%) 6,460 sq. ft. (60.05%) Variance Requested To dlow the 3.12% to remain To allow 6,460 sq. ft. to ren.ain (35.05%) W 5 «m r";M “*ack which consist setback, the applicant proposes to construct a I0'9" by 4' bay window over non-structural hardcover. The ^ount of hardcover on the subject lot is due to the rock mulch and plastic that is located in the wfe“ to Ihr^dcZ plication and elsewher?o„“ruldbe!lLto^^^^^ STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP ;^e applicants have noted on their application that their lot is narrow and that the rock and olastic IS to prevent water from damaging their basement. ^ Crit^ria.for Determininp Undue Hardship ' ■ atwTbrthe oSc “o"ntror°' IJndow!'““ residential purposes without the addition of a bay ^the ltoolJJer.‘“‘‘°'™" '» Ws property not created H2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson 2929 Casco Point Road August 18. 1997 page —3 The percentage of hardcover on the lot is due to the lot size not meeting the minimum lot size or width and the need to prevent water in the basement. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The bay window will not change the architectural style or character of the residence or neighborhood. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 7. 9. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The bay window is an allowed architectural feature in residential districts. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The applicant worked with his neighbor to put rock and plastic in the side yard to prevent water from entering their basements. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Other properties in the neighborhood are also zoned LR-IC and subject to the same ft2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Pr.terson 2929 Casco Point Road August 18. 1997 page—4 hardcover requirements. Many of the lots in this area do not meet the 1/2 acre lot size requirements which contributes to the total amount of hardcover in the 75-250' setback being more than the 25% of the total lot area. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant will need to provide testimony regarding their need and desire for the bay window. ^ 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The amount of hardcover on this lot exceeds the 25% requirement because of the small lot size and the rock and plastic between the applicant ’s property and the neighbor's to redirect water flow across the property. Drainage on this property is a problem due to topography. Issues 1. The subject property does not meet minimum lot area or lot width requirements. 2. The topography of the subject property is steep in the 0’-75 ’ setback. The property to the west IS higher than the applicant ’s property. Without redirection, water would run from the northwest comer to the southeast comer of the subject property. 3. The proposal is to install structural hardcover over non-stmctural hardcover. 4. The permit record shows that the building was renovated in 1986. It was re-sided in 1993 and a permit for a porch was issued in 1994. ^2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson 2929 Casco Point Road August 18, 1997 pages STAFF RECOMMENDATION ® (s>n>ctural hardcover) to be harSi^ T hardcover and to discuss with applicant opportunities to remove hardcover elsewhere on the lot that is not needed to redirect drainage. Attachments Application Plat Map Topographical Map Hardcover Survey Proposed View Window Plan Construction Drawings Permit Record #2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson 2929 Casco Point Road August 18. 1997 page—6 ^1, Maxwell Bay ItOHIft fOHt U I Crystal ■\m 1 ni'^ ATMMf faman Koy^r ^RONO net®nk» I • Min OREWOOD 13 yejlsiMSlI! MU U M •US “ P '•(■tiiiMU CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address V'~V Application <^<9- ~7^ Date Received H ~ Q a » Amount Paid ^yjSLQ, eo Property Identification Number (P.I.D.1 ^ {\'l— -^^Z.-~000~7__________ Attach legal description to applic^on if not included on required survey. DatePr^erty Acquired____ (I /B________________________________(month/year) I (do)(^^ nq ^^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; .X^esidential ___pother (specify)_______________________ Zoning District: L4R(- C____________________^_____________________________ APPLICANT Name fe>e.yc£. y A^i^y AddressT^ 2-^ (\- . City: Phone (home) I ~ ^ Phone (work) 9'3 ‘^~7 ’t7 4>fe> U/A^yZA-TAp^ iKi\3. Zip: ’SSS^\ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: A0P\T)PS>_____________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Xv 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: A ^7^ \y\C>f= U qt P*gg.u-&tc>T<; Cb^ £xi<.~r^cg> KoOsf p- A-i OC> &^ifO(n .XlfO W.~T4g Z00||0<U Cjg>t>e: ■ THg. /^/oMprc>^ IfocJtr AtOb - \Vrr»V N<a l^g.T— ^acjtc- A»b VY a-J RgQoief=S> (attach additional sheets if necessary) ePo^ fe/Vbevfje-tox, K 07/22/97 Pay 220.00 h. \v; <4J• (')■ /(JJ # “ #1 f f If V. r g?ry #22"y A.il . _^e.yc.-e, pk-ree-soo _Z32.j C^As>tLa pr “: 7/57T7 .... ?-\>r)0 ■ U lev Hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)0-75 ’75-250’250-500' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 70,vr A. House ^ 500-1000 ’ Length s X X X Width B. Garage C. Driveway 1/X X u ^ D. Sidewalk X X E, Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other I :ZOr^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE6. 4r,o - PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7nvp A. House X 100 Length Width B. Garage __ C. Driveway __ f X X X X X D Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT^L PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ------- -i- B ./o,75-? X 100 /. \^\S.F. S.F. - S.F.«»7*rlr '■'v: S F. ^ 2..S.F. 0 S.F. ___________S.F. S.F. V \ ^or VJ:) S.F. " S.F. / J 4^ S.F. ___________S.F. ___________S.F. u S.F. . • m < S.F. -_Ao;-rs-7 S.F. .'i^O % ss - /l>-<(S.F. s S.F. *S=S.F. =-^-7 S.F. 8 -4*=)o S.F. 8 <2-, m S.F. TS S.F. s -7S » S.F. =S.F. 8 (S.F. as S.F. M5S S.F. S.F. =S.F. 8 2.-<=>r^S.F. m S.F. -to, -7^7 S.F. =_____________% A B A B 1 r ■ r- >nt r^ PERMIT NO. fnbbb ^ Ii9^ 1^3 / ^bt>n V<^3 9 STREET FILE; PERMIT RECORD DATE TYPE OF PERMIT Q/(.lK r\i>nn ilaJe 9-i'^4 7 ' 6> ' LaCa 7---- L '6 7 Oi . 7-/ 7^ yy-/7- ^lO dit /Ua t I P I i/)<tTc^ j r - ?; V imk', ' Aug-18-97 09:58A P . O 1 August 18. 1997 Elizabeth Van Zomcren Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Orono Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Elizabeth: The following are examples: Bay window on West side of house Bay window on South side of house Deck on shoreline Sliding glass door and deck on East side of house Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, A neighbor whose view was blocked when ihey built their house out over their deck' r If REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 19, 199^^Hj ITEM NO .: // Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaflron Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2282 Valerie Peterson, 1125 North Arm Drive - Lot Area/Width Variance - Public Hearing - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 Acre, Sewered Application: Request for lot area and width variance to allow construction of a new residence to replace the pre-existing residence which was destroyed by fire in April 1997. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey 1986 Lot Line Rearrangement Showing Adjacent House Topography Map House Elevation Views Staff Memo of August 8, 1997 Inspector's Memo of August 7, 1997 Variance Request Existing LR-IB Required Variance Lot Area 26,292 s.f. 43,560 s.f. 17,268 s.f. or 40% Lot Width 85* 140' 55' or 39% Discussion Per Council's unanimous action of August 11, referral of this application to the Planning Commission has been waived and a public hearing scheduled for August 25 in order to expedite this application. The house at 1125 North Arm Drive, originally constructed in 1972, was destroyed by fire in late April 1997. Because the lot area and width do not meet 80% of the 1 acre/140' area and width standard, a variance is necessary in order to allow reconstruction of the existing residence. The pre-existing residence structure was located 6.8' from the north side lot line where a 10' side setback is normally required. Applicant proposes to reconstruct the replacement dwelling further south to meet the 10' side setback requirement. The setback on 1 Request for Council Action continued Page 2 August 19, 1997 Zoning File # 2282 the south side will be slichtlv reduced fVnm la 7* i7 i setback reauirement aic. I u T. ^0’ minimum construction of a 12* derlr ’ vi^ approximately 10’ easuvard, allowingtruction of a 12 deck while still meeting the required 35’ setback from the rear lot line^ bts^n the LR IB distSt P th io«r “ compared to other developed residential residential LR IB Ion w common o%vnership smdy, 56% of existing developed 44% were 0.6 acre or smaller The advent vacant pro^rty to the north is owned by the lakeshoie property owner to he wS t ts unknown whether the adjacent vaeant property is for sale. Even iHt w^ it“ 0^^ ! acre tn area, and could not give up more than 0.1 acre and still be a confo^g ^orf lot ho^ has existed on ihisVoXvfe Ae pL'25 yl^'(rd"wa^’'^nttmc“ ™UedTom ‘p~'LH ‘^“hore setback zone where hardcover will be should confirm these r»i calculation is 30.0%. Applicant’s surveyorShould confirm these calculations to ensure that hardcover does not exceed 30%. 250-500' Hardcover (Area of 250-500' = + 18,150 s.f.) House (24x60) Deck (12x38) Stairs (3x15) - Cone Patio (9x6) = Front Porch (5x16) Steps & Walk (3x40) Garage (22x34) Driveway & Apron: (25x34) + (10.X46) + (50x22/2) + (10x65) = 1440 456 45 54 80 120 748 2510 Staff Recommendation 5453 s.f. -i- 18,150 = 30.04% variances for construTtioTof a recommends approval of the lot area and lot width North 1 of a new residence to replace the residence destroyed by fire at 1125 North Arm Dnve, subject to locating the house so that no other varianees are required and subject to meeting the 30.0% hardcover limit. required.and f I t Request for Council Action continued Page 3 August 19,1997 Zoning File # 2282 Options for Action 1. Approve per staff recommendation and adopt the attached approval resolution, 2. Table for further information. 3. Deny, directing staff to draft a denial resolution. 4.Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached resolution. i r A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. 2282 WHEREAS, Valerie Peterson (hereinafter "the applicant") is the ovsmer of the property located at. 1125 North Arm Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lots 23 and 30, also that part of Lots 22 and 31 lying north of the south 14.5 feet thereof, Skarp and Lindquist ’s Femhill, Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a new single family residence on a lot of 0.60 acre in area and 85' in width where a lot area of 1.00 acre and 140' in width is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. 4. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2282. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Tlie Orono City Council on August 11, 1997 unanimously waived reference of this application to the Planning Commission and directed that a public hearing be held on August 25, 1997. The Orono City Council held a public hearing and reviewed this application on August 25, 1997, and made the following findings: Page 1 of 5 ‘mmm-' ,iu ■ 5. 6. A.A residence was constructed on this property in 1972 under the same lot area and width standards that currently exist. B. C. In April 1997, the residence was 100% destroyed by fire. Per Orono ordinances, if the residence had been less than 75% destroyed it could have been rebuilt without the need for variances. D.The pre-existing residence did not meet the north side setback requirement. The proposed new residence will be located to meet all setback requirements. E.At 0.60 acres in area, the property is similar in area to many other developed residential lots in the LR-IB district. In a 1983 study, fiilly 44% of the existing developed lots in the LR-IB district were 0.60 acre in area or smaller. F.There is no adjacent land available for purchase by the applicant to make the property conforming. G.Denial of the variances would work a hardship on the property owner. The plight of the property owner is not of the property owner ’s making, but is due to circumstances beyond the property owner's control. The City Coun;il 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 district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic fonditicns, 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 Page 2 of 5 r demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be ui keeping with 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 Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a new single family residence to replace the pre-existing residence on a lot 0.60 acres in area and 85' in width where a lot area of 1.00 acre and 140' in width is normally required, subject to the following condlilons: 1. The new residence shall be located so as to meet all required setbacks of the LR-IB zoning district. 2. Hardcover in the 250-500' zone shall not exceed the 30.0% hardcover allowance for that zone. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicMt, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 25, 1998). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 5 . Vt<** J • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of August, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of August, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public 'Page 4 of 5 Application if B Date Received 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 INFORMATION Site Address_____^ /l/^ / A Property Identification Number fP.I.D.l — ^ 7 ~// 7 ~ ^ —0 0(p_^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pr^erty Acquired ______5u,/T ----------------------------_(month/year) I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present uiT^property: X residential ____pother (specify). ZoningDistrict:____________________________________ ___ Si,t AHHress: <<?79 AJ- ^City^ APPLICANT 'Vo ><■ /Name ^crrrv Vj} \ Phone rhomel -4^^ / Phonerxvnrk ^ - __ Zip:_££Z4^ OWNER (if different than applicmt) Name l//fV <r^i ^___fc‘‘Tr>'' Address: AN. City: A^ou Phone rhnme ’> ^ V^ "37^ / Phone (work)__ Zip: _ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST .. ^ * A M M Estimated Construction Cost $. Describe request in detail: /V<r Su / ^/^/yp ^ 0fc/fZc^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED // Lot Width^12i. Lot Area Setback: Hardcover Lot Coverage Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue haidsliip or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg //oryff* o Mcompliance with Zoning Code requirements.------/ /ViT. ^^ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7X ^>fCArS. 1 7Z 7<xr r REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels mid map-d^’orn Hennepin County Department of n y 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Finance, A-603, Govt Cen(|^ 348-327Q, Certificate of Survey (signed^ by licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYi” x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V2" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 814" x 11"). List of the legal names (ir.clude marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicunt(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's 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 [//f/iLay Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 rr?»--RUN DATE 08/12/97 BATCH BOAPROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 07-117-23 14 0008 01001 LOHA LINDA AVE GILMAN 6 SORENSON GILMAN G SORENSON 1001 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN E53A4 HEtMEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST38 07-117-23 14 002301101 ELMHOOO AVE NILLIAM R HIBBS NILLIAM R HIBBS 1101 ELM«X)0 AVE ORONO HN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2538 07-117-23 14 002601137 ELMNOOO AVE C 0 NEILER IRS MEERKINS RENEE S mERKINS 1135 NORTH ARM OR MOUO ttl 55364 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 07-117-23 14 0027 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED GARY E BEITO ETAL TOOO VAN DEN EINOE 1169 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0061 01140 NORTH ARM DR TIMOTHY L BRO TIMOTHY L BRO 1140 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0052 01151 NORTH ARM DR RAY E KUTZ RAY E KUTZ 14113 OLENRIDGE RD MINNETONKA MN 55345 38 07-117-23 14 0062 01160 NORTH ARM DR K A I L M KELSEY KENNETH A I LOURITA M KELSEY 1160 NORTH ARM OR MOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0057 00038 ADDRESS UNAS316NE0 NILLIAM R HIBBS NILLIAM R HIBBS 1101 ELMMOOD AVE ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0063 01121 ELMFnOD AVE JAMES OESPLINTER JAMES DESPLINTER 1121 ELM«X)0 AVE MOUND MN 55364 PROP AOOR OHNER NAhC TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 07-117-23 14 0064 01135 NORTH ARM OR C 6 HEILER IRS MEERKINS RENEE S MEERKIt^ 1135 NORTH ARM DR HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0065 01125 t»RTH ARM DR VALERIE JULIANNA PETERSEN VALERIE JULIANNA PETERSEN 1125 NORTH ARM DR MOUND m 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0069 01153 ELMHOOO AVE RICHARD JAMES HEIT RICHARD JAMES HEIT 1153 ELMI«X)D AVE MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR 0»f«R NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR TOTAL BATCH 506 00012 • (O CD frr ro iO COm ill U i£> CD Q l O. Q. O l (t <1^ 3 D 3 D O O O Or-*" Cb CV (/I (/) 0) (/) <b X) (D :5- X X fi in S ui o ==• O =r« —3' S 5 «D {g <£> o ^ w ^ “ o 3 *0 Or-#“ JC /-r0 2- ^ 2- ^ Cb.^ 2 < 2^ -* S; f 1 °2 ■ 33 q » 2 § . — W g H Cb Cb “ < Q0 <L Cb ■ Q. ? I o Cb pr ““ CL ill p 3o 7T Cb X o o“ in ID N) O 04 3 CL Q 3r- a 3 , CL C>4 -O O • in* Q ^ in in O 3 ^ i]-T3 •— O g-q ?;o i 5T 2- ro0 ro 1 o “ 2. 04 3*<n zo 3* o 3 Cb U)oc ui Cb Cb 3 Cb "1 Cbo mo > om COo5 DD oz o “n “O 70m COm CO (•yo WHV HiaON)o>CJ> o* 9 I o /X . -r i- • ’ *J ' N89*59‘05'*E 1 • W rr;oq |309./9 Meos. I r‘r oo o >o zo U/U€o Denotes ir( ^ Bearings shown i I • *• '• •, •. •• . • •*•./» Ij..* • •**•’* '*’* \L' ^ 1 « ►r * '. * •• • . » • • mm • • • • • i . « < ; > 1 |i |[- •*'* • j.- ........•; i 1 1 V'* *r y • •• LM • .:, r i:ii^ f‘1 ........... •• .. ..t 7| ■ * -r*^*^“***—••••■ - "** • * • , -.• • -«• • ■» *1 • • .. • Vf V.. *<. , •■ '. ^ • .. - J J •• • • . —n.^«ipn»iwai — »><»■» »H4 —>■ ■#»—<» in • 4 r#^ • • • • •• • > ^ r • 1 •—-•W* % « »«‘i \ il ir -t. -P^U*T s-v / I <2-?:- V-^S. K>»*T 1:2- • ^ 'n- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: August 8, 1997 Item No. Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael F. Gaffi'on Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: #2282 Valerie Petersen, 1125 North Arm Drive - Lot Area/Widih 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 the 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. r #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 noiice 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 requiicments 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 week.s, 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 X/:Staff recommends Option 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. /. r To: From: Date: Mike Gaffron, 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 builder, Tom Terry, came to City Hall to explore the options for rebuilding the house. Rebuilding on the existing foundation using some of the existing 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 current 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 survey, 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, The lot is 85 feet wide where 140 feet is required. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The lot is 0.6 acres where 1.0 is required. Lot coverage and hardcover standards will be met. The new house will be 10 feet from the north property line, the original 1972 house was only 6 feet. All setback requirements will be met. 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%. r DATE: August 25. 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION X ITEM NO.: / ^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Thie Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator's Report Item Description: Variance for David and Jodi Rahn Residence Bruce Vang, City of Orono Building Inspector has brought to our attention concerns about the status of the variance request for the remodeling and proposed addition to an existing residence at 1385 Rest Point Lane. A stop work order is currently m effect for this project. The building inspector has been in contact with the property owner regarding this situation. The attached memo from Bruce explains the situation and possible options to be considered by the Council. This issue has been discussed with the City Attorney and his input on the legal issues involved with this situation will be extremely important. This matter is being presented to the Council in order to obtain more information on the direction that City staff should proceed with on this issue. The building inspector will attend the Council meeting in order to answer questions the Council may have. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Consideration of the options presented in the memo from the building inspector regarding concerns with the variance at 1385 Rest Point Road. To: Ron Morse, City Administrator Greg Gappa, Public Services Director From: Bruce Vang, Building Inspector Date: Aug. 22, 1997 Subject: Construction at 1385 Rest Point Rd. List of exhibits: Exhibit A - Resolution #3926 Exhibit B - Engineer's foundation assessment Exhibit C - Photo 8/22/97 On July 14, 1997 Resolution #3926 was approved granting David and Jodi Rahn variances for remodeling of and additions to an existing residence at 1385 Rest Point Rd. Building plans were submitted to the Orono Building Official on July 15, 1997. In addition to the usual plans, the owners were required by the Building Official to provide an assessment of the existing foundation to determine if the proposed additions could be supported. While the existing foundation was sound it would require some additional work to support the proposed second story. This consisted of digging under the existing footing to achieve the required 42" frost protection, and filling the existing 8" blocks with concrete, (see attached #2) After discussion staff agreed that these improvements should not be construed as "foundation replacement", and on July 30, 1997 a building permit was issued. As the existing house was opened up more and more deficiencies and rotten wood were discovered. Today only a small portion remains, and most of that is inadequate. The remaining piece of floor is rotted from being built too close to the dirt, and will need to be replaced. The remaining wall will have 2x6's added alongside the 2x4's to increase insulation. The fireplace was found to be cracked and has been taken down. What remains of the structure has been raised to add two courses of concrete block to the old foundation to increase earth/floor separation. These additional block are in addition to the engineer's structural requirements. The question at this time is: Does this project still constitute "remodeling and adding to an existing residence" as approved in the resolution? I would like to see even more of the existing removed so a year from now we won't have a brand new house with some rotten lumber buried inside, simply to "retain” some of the "existing residence". Would this be allowed by the resolution? Council Options Option 1. Allow work to proceed under resolution #3926 subject to no further removals. Option 2. Option 3. Allow work to proceed under resolution #3926 with further removals as deemed necessary by the building official to assure the best possible end product Find that too much of the "existing residence" has already been removed to proceed under resolution #3926, sending the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration of a lot area variance as required to totally rebuild on an existing lot. There to reconsider: Option 3a. Allow the building of the residence as already proposed. Option 3b. Allow the proposed structure to be built but with fewer variances. No property line setback for example. Option 3c. Ask to see a totally different proposal. Something built closer to the street for example. Option 3d. Declare the lot unbuildable. Addendum: On August 20, 1997 the Building Department found the remains of the structure jacked up in the air. Since the approved plans submitted for the building permit did not include this work a Stop Work order was posted. The owner was contacted and asked to come before the Council to address the concerns of the City as itemized in the previous memo. The following day the property owner, David Rahn, called the Building Official to tell him he had taken down the Stop Order, and that his foundation contractor had come back to the jobsite and laid a couple more courses of block. The site was reinspected by the Building Department. Two full courses of new block were in place on top of the old foundation. We have no way of knowing if the other recommendations of the engineer have been followed, as the necessary inspections were not called for. Mr. Rahn will be tagged for removing a Stop Order, and for working after a Stop Order was posted. 'I I I I IP*COUNCILMEETWQ JUL 14 1997REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; July ITEM NO. Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Elizabeth Van Zomeren Title City Planncr/Zoning Administrator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2248 David and Jodi Pahn 1385 Rest Point Road Variances and Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:14,663 sq. ft. (.336 ) Application:The applicants propose restoring an existing residence and building an addition to an existing residence that is located within the 0-75' setback. Variances for side yard setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0-75' setback are required. A conditional use permit is also required for land alteration in the 0-75' setback. Planning Commission Recommendation To approve variances for: 1. Side yard setback to allow a second story along the south property line where 5.3' is existing and proposed and 10' is required. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75' setback to increase from 609.25 sq. ft. (9%) to 1,320.75 sq. ft. (19%) where none is allowed. 3.Lakeshore setback to add structure in the 0-75' setback where none is allowed. To approve a conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0-75' setback. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; To amend or approve the enclosed resolution granting a conditional use permit and variances for side yard, lakeshore setback, and hardcover in the 0-75' setback. NOTE: This item was tabled from the June 23, 1997 City Council meeting. Please refer to minutes from that meeting. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSlON MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#8 - #2247 Wa>7ie Holmes - Continued) Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2247 with the understanding that the building cannot be closer than 10' to any property line or other structure, at a maximuTT) of 825 s.f, with retaining walls to be approved by the City Engineer, and plans submitted to staff prior to construction. The applicant asked if a separate permit was required for the retaining w^s. Gaflfron said h would be part of the building permit approval. Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#9) #2248 - DAVID AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBUC HEAKLNG 8:40-9:02 P.M. The AflBdavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a proposal for construction of an addition to an existing cabin to square off the residence and restore an existing deck and screen porch. The .3 acre property is located in the one acre zoning district. The structure is located in the 0-75' setback. A hardcover variance is required to increase the hardcover from 9% to 19%. Lot area and lakeshore setback variances are requhed A conditional use permit for land alteration is required for any alteration or excavation in the flood plain and 0-75' setback from the shoreline. Van Zomeren reviewed the topography of the property noting that the shoreline contour is at the 924.9' elevation. The 930’ contour follows the lakeshore; the 932' contour traverses the property, so the middle portion of the lot is considered to be in the flood plain. The concern is where the 931.5' elevation is located. The applicant said he has lived on Wildhurst Trail since 1975. He noted that the five other homes west of this property is evenly setback as proposed for this residence. There were no public comments. Stoddard inquired what the Watershed District's comments were. Rahn said the Watershed did not require any mitigation for the entry, deck, and screen porch as there are on post footings. Stoddard suggested relocating the structure to lessen the variances required. Rahn said his history as a contractor and building official relates to his desire to restore the cabin with the addition to square h off and has not considered relocation; more flood plain mitigation would be require^ and its present location is the high spot on the property. He would like to maintain the character of the property. He noted that in order to move the structure behind the 75' setback would require use of a holdmg area in that setback. Stoddard noted that mitigation can occur elsewhere. ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16,1997 ^9 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) He nofrthe ^ ^ "<> P'ans to get a good sense of the Javout aifn ^ P^^sent property after living there for a while future garage would be outside the 0 Sarage. He indicated the h= need^i a 35. e«bac. ““ - - wo.d ^3’'^fteX« ' v ”'*^ =‘^'* "“W be located had coi^dered a twoXX'XTl^XJhX.' Xid pS ''“"y “"’ “ '•«P Smth said she had a problem supporting a plan with doubling hardcover in the 0-75' and asked tor less impact in this setback. Rahn said the current house is 600 s.f and the ^ nimimum at 1,300 gross floor area. He noted the residence next door is at a 29/. coverage and was built in 1983 which has the same standards as currently exists. He noted a lot line rearrangement in 1961 deemed the property buildable There were no public comments at this time. Lindqum noted that buildable properties are allowed 15% structural coverage and the propos^ IS at 1328 s.f Concern was voiced with the structure location in the 0-75' but Lindquist noted there is no other location in which the structure can be located. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2248 for a conditional use permit for I^d alteration for setback in the flood plain, hardcover at 19%, lakeshore setback as existmg, and side setback if necessary. ScJuoeder inquired if a side yard setback is required even though no changes are made due o ^ e onginal vari^ce required for the property. If necessary, a side yard setback variance would be included in the above motion. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. r r^.i r"» f It * --1 r A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 Ax\D 2 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERxMIT PER SECTION 10.55 AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 10 FILE NO. 2248 VVHEREAS, David Rahn and Jodi Rahn (hereinafter the "applicants") are the Ci'J' “f 0™"o (hereinafterCity ) and legally described as follows: Lot 23, and all that part of Lots 15 and 22, and adjacent vacated alley. Subdivision of Lot ^4, Rest Point Pwk, Lake Minnetonka, lying Southerly of the following- described line: Beginning at a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 15, distant 75 feet Northeasterly from the Southeasterly comer of said Lot 23; thence Northwesterly to the Southeasterly comer of said Lot 22; thence Northwesterly on a Ime forming an angle of 74 degrees 55 minutes with the Easterly line of said Lot 22, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and there ending (hereinafter the property ); and applicants have appUed to the City for variances from Municipal ion 10.24, Subdivision 5 and Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow additional s mcture to e a ® an existing residence. Variances for side yard setback to allow a south fiOQ trequired, hardcover in the 0-75' setback to increase from oil ’ 1.320.75 sq. ft. (19%) where none is allowed, and lakeshore setback to low the addition to encroach into the 75' setback the same distance as the existing residence are required. A conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0-75’ setback and floodplain is Minnesota:NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City CouncU of Orono, 1. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2248. Page 1 of 4 2. 3. 4. 5. property is locat^ in the LR-IB Single FamHy Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where the minimum lot area requirement is one acre. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 16, 1997 and recor^ended unanimous approval of the proposed variances and conditional use permit based upon the following unique findings and hardships: a. The zoning lot does not meet minimum lot area, lot width or side yard requirements. b. The existing structure conforms to the average lakeshore setback but does not meet the 75’ lakeshore setback. c.The topography of the zoning lot is within the floodplain in the middle of the zoning lot. d. The Zoning Code allows 1,500 sq. ft. of structural coveraoe. e.The existing hardcover in the 0-75’ setback is 609.25 sq. ft. (9%). The Council finds that the coii.,'- ‘ons existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other prooerty in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely afie:i Traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, 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 finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow land alteration in the 0-75’ setback and floodplain will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a^ fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propeity, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 4 1. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby I "® for *“ “oondstory to be lorated 5.3 from the south property Une where 5.3'is existing and 10'is required andm 9n JfvV^^ per Mumcipal Zonmg Code Sections 10.24, Subdivision 5 and Section 10 22 * c’ “ conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0-75' setback noodplam per Section 10.56, Subdivision 10 and Section 10.55 to permit an addition to an sSoT Mowtag «oo6plain. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owners, but are pensive only and must be exercised by application foi a building permit and land alteration permit within one year of the date of CouncU’s approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (July 14, 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 authonty granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns. ereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of July, 1997. ATTEST: 2. 3. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me or this 14th day of July, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of ,, 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , i99 ___, before me a Notary Public widiin and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 r S&i TO: FROM: DATE; Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator June 12,1997 SUBJECT; #2248 David and Jodi Rahn, 1385 Rest Point Rd. Variance(s) and Conditional Use Permit—Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) .3 acres (approximate) m the floodplm and 0-75 setback from the shoreline. Variances for hardcover in the 0-75’ setback lakeshore setback, and side yard setback are required. ’ Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24, LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential Distric r Subd. 5. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. Section 10.55, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management. • Section 10.56, Shoreland Management. Subd. 10. Land Alteration & Building Permits Required. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 and 2, Lakeshore Setback and Hardcover Regulations ^2243 David and Jodi Rahn liSSRestPtRd. 6/16/97 Page 1 r ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.30 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .3 acres 89.86 ft.95 ft. app.5.3 on south 33 ft. app. The zoning lot does not conform to lot area, lot width, side yard setbacks or lakeshore setbacks. Variances are required for lakeshore and side yard setbacks. Structural Coverage The applicants propose to increase the amount of structure on the lot, from 609.25 sq. ft. to 1,320.75 sq. ft. The zoning lot is allowed 1,500 sq. ft. as a lot of record. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'6,750 sq. ft.609.25 (9%) none 1,320.75 sq. ft. (19%) 611.50 sq. ft. 19% 75’-250'100.4 25%136.4 sq. ft.none 250’-500' 500'-1,000' A hardcover variance to add structure in the 0-75' setback is required. No variance is needed in the 75-250' setback. U22-f8 David and Jodi Rahn nSSRtuFtRd 6/16/97 Pag* 2 STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP •rae applicants have stated that relocation behind the 75' setback would require major floodplain alteration and excavauon. The applicants believe that squaring off the existing cabin will result in mimmal excavation and alteration of the floodplain. Criteria for Determining Undue 1. Hie pro^rty in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing structure was used as a cabin. It can continue to be used as a cabin. The applicant should provide testimony as to the inadequacy of the structure for year round inhabitation. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. l^doii^^ landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the The zoning lot does not meet lot area, lot width or side yard setback requirements. The s^cture does not meet the 0-75' shoreline setback. Any additions in building footprint will add structure in the required 0-75’ setback. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for lot area, lot width, side yard, and hardcover will change the character of the let. However, each zoning lot may have a 1,500 sq. ft. building footprint. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeds and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person ’s land is located. A residential structure is a permitted use in this zoning district. M2248 Davtd and Jodi Rafm UaSRestPtM 6/16/97 PagtJ 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Many of the lots in this area are not conforming as to lot width and lot area. Several of the residences were constructed within the 0-75 ’ shoreline setback. The conditions do not apply generally to other Icind or structures in the district in which said land is located. Some of the zoning lots in this area do not meet minimum lot area requirements. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants will need to provide testimony regarding the need for the variances based on preservation of their property rights and use and enjoyment of the zoning lot. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The existing structure is located within the 0-75' setback, and 5.3' from the south property line. Much of the zoning lot is impacted by the floodplain contour. Issues 1.The zoning lot does not meet lot area, lot width or side yard requirements. The existing structure conforms to the average lakeshore setback but is within the 0-75' setback from the shoreline. 2. Much of the zoning lot is below the 931 flood contour. »2248 David and Jodi Rahn I38SRtstPtRd 6/16/97 PagtA 1 Willie 3.There was a lot of interest in this property when it was recently listed for sale. Redevelopment of the lot is severely restricted by the floodplain. The applicant has proposed minimal land alteration. 4.The structure was remodeled in 1988. No previous variance requests are noted in the street file. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To amend or approve: 1. A conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0-75 ’ setback and floodplain. 2. A hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback to increase from 9% to 19% where none is allowed. 3.A lakeshore setback is required to add structure the same distance from the shoreline as the existing structure. 4. A side yard setback to allow the existing structure to have a second floor where 5.3' is existing eind proposed where 10' is required. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Location Map Plat Map Haracover Calculations Topographical Map Floor Plans Elevations Permit Record Pictures of Lot Survey Showing 931.5 Elevation §22't8 David and Jodi Ratut 1385 Rett PtRd. 6/16/97 Page 5 7 Application # Date Received ^ - Z5— Amount Paid 4> giOct A Oo o •*:«—s; • -.*;v CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) / Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address , Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_CT7/o«?3^/ / Attach legal description to ^plication if not included on required survey. I (do) (^^^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present usToTproperty: _^esidential other fsoeciM Zoning District: / Z? APPLICANT __________ Phonefwor kV^ Addnss.y/S'i' -y?...-1 City: ______ Zip: Phone (home) ^/7T. 7 ‘ ”-vr OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City;. Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Z.S~. ctvfys^ ^ -------v^un:>irucuon l^OSl i Describe request in detail: A --------------- « D^C.k. f A (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARJ^CES REQUIRED Area Setback:Front Lot Width i-^Hard cover Lot Coverage Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) Ultehcyg SeAcicX^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Descnbe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventiiig comphance with Zoning Code requirements: 7<T . CA^^ic/ /Cec;, / S /\/ S^>Uytr ,'s.jq o/T-A g? A (attach additional sheets if necessary) A 1 2 J REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AlLfif -the follQwinq information must be submitted bv the applicatinn deadlinp Hafo in Ord^r for VQur application to be considered complete: 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, Gon Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic sur\oy (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SYi" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other ^ persons you wish notified of this application. ■ ' Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour vnnnnce 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 e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 5 6 7, 8. Date 5/t3/^7 OWTsTR’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and fLirther authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of invesligatron and verification of this request. Owner's Signature 01 invesligatron and venfication o Date S'/Z.'S / Tl 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^IVJ « if |l ^esf Ccac( X \ \ % 9 I f LEGAL DESCRIPTION OT PREMISES:Lot 23. ond 6l thot port of Lots 15 ond 22. ond odjocont vocQted cOey. Subdivision of Lot 14, Rest Point Pork« Loke Minnetonka, lyin^ Southerly of the folowing-described fine: Be^innin^ ot 0 point on the Southeasterly fine of said Lot IS. distent 75 feet Ncrthaosterly from the Southeast­ erly corner of sold Lot 23; thence Northwesterly to the Southeasterly corner of sold Lot 22; thence Northwesterly on a fine forming on ongie of 74 degrees 55 minutes with the Eosteriy fine of said Lot 22. to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and there ending. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the obove described property, ond the locoticn of on existing house ond shed thereon. It does not purport to show any other Improvements or encroochmenls. (931.5): Spot elevation e Iron morker found o Iron marker set Becrings shown ore bosed upon cn assumed Cotwm. *■» EXISTING hardcover TN rnftfy; A. House hardcover calculation worksheet HCLE ONE) ^0-75^^ 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' / Length “7 X X X Width ZS.F. ^=5L S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage.X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck‘ —la----------X X ss F. Landscape X rsUnderlainXssBy Plastic X G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERIT AREA IN ZONE A _ 6c7 S. t<B ^7 s^::> X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X , Length X Width t c.<C X I'L. X 3l.^S3 B. Garage X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X ♦ X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape X Underlain X By Plastic X S G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ B X 100 1 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^0*7. S.F. _ S.F. ~9 % A £ S.F. S.F. S.F.’ >’A S.F. '. •1 S.F. T /jr:r;~- • S.F. S.F. • ^ S.F. . if S.F. :« t* ** #• • • • 4 S.F. *"■> SF '■ •o.r. ^ , y •V^V -rj S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. % A B ; ^ i I J L EXIS PROPOSED • ^ *1 ■*; 29‘6.fl00 ’14*4.000*15*2.000* la mM GCCROM 1^ BA1>RA BETRODIK ZB '6.000* Li C% Tr^n *.»* f* * ■*f >»». . (i' **• .4.. * ■■■• .'' ■■' i (ji *•» •' ' ,1 % * t .j • QS S o is **n \m ^ 5?;yJi m ■‘U -,-ctv - * ■ ,1385 ft^-'t' . :-V 'M - ^• *- -I.VS V , * - ^ /'.. . r •n ► no fo C4 & 9o 1 S". 1 IP ;sIp. •a •po•s 04/01/1997 09:02 473-4435 COFFIN S GRONBcRG PAGE g; J" • • • • • I • Lake mnnetonka —________ # • 1 I i ttlK I i I m f 'tk iWIiB received JUL 2 8 \w CVTV of ORONO „JA/ ^ •=)'^ *7*2‘i*'77 Of J.H. Dahlmeier Engineering Inc, July 24, 1997 Mr. & Mrs. David Rahn 1385 Rest Point Road Orono, MN 55364 Re: Addition/Remodeling 1385 Rest Point Road Orono, MN Commission No. 97136 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Rahn: The purpose of this letter is to report the findings of a structural engineering review of the existing concrete masonry foundation with respect to the proposed addition and remodeling. ASSIGNMENT J. H. Dahlmeier Engineering, Inc. has been retained to provide a structural engineering review of the existing foundation regarding construction of the new addition arid remodeling for the residence at 1385 Rest Point Road, Orono, MN, as directed by David Rahn, owner of the residence. No other structural engineering is provided. RACKGROUND The Rahn’s intend to construct an addition and remodel the e.xisting residence.^ The City of Orono Building Inspection Department requires a structural engincei.ng review of the existing foundation. OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS 1. A. site visit was conducted by J. H. Dahlmeier of J. H. Dahlmeier Engineering, Inc. on July 23,1997. 2. Documents for the proposed construction as provided to the City include five sheets and were provided to me by the owner. 3. A review of the drawings indicates that a portion of the new structure will be supported on the existing foundation walls. 2424 Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-4746 FAX (612) 472-4761 Mr. & Mrs. David Rahn July 24, 1997 Page Two 4. The following observations were made regarding the existing foundation: a. Tlie existing foundation is three courses of 8 ” concrete masonry totaling 20 in height. b. The footing is cast-in-place concrete averaging 6" to 8" thick and about 16 wide. c. The bottom of footing is approximately 26" below the bottom of the floor joist. d. The foundation wall exists at the perimeter of the structure. interior structure is supported on wood beams and wood posts. The floor framing spans front to back. f. The fireplace is supported on a concrete pad at footing elevation. g. The concrete masonry foundation appears to be in good condit'on with some tuckpointing necessary. h. A crawl space opening about 4 feet wide exists along the west wall. 5. Based on calculations, the bottom of footing is approximately 18 below grade assuming that grade will be 6" below bottom of treated plate. 6. Minnesota State Building Code requires frost footings at least 42" below grade. In my opinion, this matter must be addressed and a footing system installed to frost Ime of 42". STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 7. A structural engineering analysis has been completed by J. H. Dahlmeier Engineering, Inc. to determine loads to the existing 8" concrete masonry foundation walls. 8. Consistent with the Minnesota State Building Code, the capacity of the 8" masonry if core filled, will exceed the design load. r Mr. & Mrs. David Rahn July 24,1997 Page Three 9. The following systems are being considered for construction of a Code complying footing system: a. Underpin footings which will be exterior footings after construction. b. Install pier system with footings at 42" depth spaced approximately 4 to 6 feet apart along existing wall footings which will be exterior footings using footing and grout filled foundation wall as grade beam. c. Installation of A.B. Chance anchors spaced 4 to 6 feet apart using footing and grout filled foundation wall as grade beam. 10. These alternatives are being studied from an economic point of view and a final decision will be made in the next few days. CORRECTIVE MEASURES 11. Based on observ'alions and analysis, the following corrective measures aie required: a. Foundation footing system to set footing at 42” below grade. b. Close crawl space opening in exterior wall with minimum 8" masonry. c. Provide adequate column pads for interior framing. d. Adjust grade to provide positive drainage away from the structure. e. Tuckpoint and repair any damaged or cracked block or mortar joints. f. Provide special inspections for installation of fooling modifications and footing soil bearing. PROFESSIONAL OPINION 12. It is my professional engineering opinion that based on a review of the proposed addition, construction documents, on-site review and structural analysis, the existing 8" concrete block masonry is adequate as modified with the corrective measures listed above to support the loads in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. Mr. & Mrs. David Rahn July 24,1997 Page Four GENERAL 13. It is my understanding that flood plan issues have been resolved independently and are not a part of this report. 14. This report and engineering addresses only the existing masonry foundation walls. Some structural defects were noted which will require work during the reconstruction. 15. By copy of this letter to the City of Orono, it has been respectfully requested that the Building Official issue a Building Permit at this time pending resolution of the appropriate foundation footing modifications. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, [LMEIER ENGINEERING, INC. Jonim. Dahlmfeier, P.E JHD;lm cc: City of Orono I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under r.;y direct supervision and that I am a duly registered professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Minn«ota Registration No. 9212 ^ I *•r.^^ -■ V ■ *{■"' V ^■^4mg4 m ^l:>' ;■■■■*<>•■■im fo*;V' 'X ,' >"•■ ^ •* !«■ -.iX^ Bi" yj,%^ vv Vi. ! ' . I, ■^V B» v; ' ,1s. ' I >4 r*iUlI?ss■r«^ % ; li? f ?.IS^g :« . .i. TXTXXvii^v. ' i y 'i'- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 25, 1997 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services % \ \ ITEM NO.: / ^ Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Change Order No. 1 Bracketts Point/Bay Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project This change order includes several items. The first item is to increase the amount of directional bored pipe along County Highway 51. This is required as a condition of the permit from He'i iepin County to minimize the impacts to the County Highway. The second item is increase the amount of directional bored pipe across the Jundt property and increase the pipe quantity because of minor alignment changes in this area. These changes were agreed to during the easement acquisition process to protect large trees and minimize the impacts to the property. The third item is increase the amount of directional boring along Bracketts Point Road because of extremely poor soil conditions. Even with the extensive installation of well points for dewatering, and the use of light weight aggregate, it was not possible to stabilize the pipe foundation. Access problems were also experienced. Poor soils and high ground water resulted in larger excavations making i: very difficult to keep the road open for resident and emergency vehicle access. Possible poor soil conditions were anticipated during project design and an alternative was bid to allow for additional directional boring, so unit prices are available for this work. When the contract was awarded, the alternative bid was inadvertently not included. An alternative was also bid for a grinder pump to serve a residence along Shoreline Drive. This was bid as an alternative because we were not sure if we would obtain a competitive price for this pump. A reasonable price was obtained for this grinder pump, but this alternative was not included in the contract award. CUUNCn. ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Change Order No. 1, Bracketts Point/ Bay Ridge Sanitaty Sewer project, in the amount of $55,538. J Bonestroo Rosene Anderflcfi ta|w«rt4ArMfcti LlL&iiiiaUiite. Ssusij___City of Orono. P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Contractor Barbaross a & Sons. 11000 93rd Avenue North. Osseo. MN 55369 Bond Co. Date August 19.1997 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 BAY RIDGE / BRACKETTS POINT SANITARY SEWER FUe 13990 Description of Work Directional bore 8" HDPE from 100 feet south of MH-2 to MH-9A and from MH-2 to MH-3. Also directional bore 3 inch HDPE forcemain from MH-2 to MH-3. These changes are necessary due to imstable soils encountered at pipe grade and realignment of pipe due to easement negotiations. Also directional bore 3 inch HDPE forcemain from station 10+00 to station 14+80 in the Bay Ridge portion of the project. This change is due to a condition set forth by Hennepin County as part of their permit for this project. Alternate bid No. 2 and No. 3 should have been a part of the original contract but were mistakenly omitted from our bid award recommendation letter. No.Item Unit Contract Quantity Unit Price Total Amount ADD Residentail simple grinder pump stations Total Alternate No. 2 1 3,600.00 3,600.00 3,600.00 Alternate No. 3 Bid - Directional Bore 8" HDPE, MH-1 to MH-9 ADD 65 Directional bore 8” HDP, SDR 17 DEDUCT LF 1010 90.00 90,900.00 66 8- PVC, SDR 35,10'-12' deep LF -400 33.00 (13,200.00) 67 8" PVC, SDR 35,12-14’ deep LF -515 34.00 (17,510.00) 68 8- PVC, SDR 35,14’-16’ deep LF -45 35.00 (1,575.00) 69 8" PVC, SDR 35,16’-18* deep LF -50 36.00 (1,800.00) 70 Lightweight aggregate Total deduct Total Alternate No. 3 LF -1010 30.00 (30,300.00) ($64,385.00) $26,515.00 17 Directional bore 3” HDPE, SDR 11 LF 783 24.00 18,792.00 65 Directional bore 8" HDPE, SDR 17 LF 446 90.00 40,140.00 67 8" PVC, SDR 35,12*-14’ deep LF 115 34.00 3,910.00 68 8" PVC, SDR 35,14*-16- deep LF 5 35.00 175.00 70 Lightweight aggregate LF 40 30.00 1,200.00 70294/co.wb1 r Original Contract Amount Previous Change Orders This Change Order No. 1 Revised Contract Amount (including this change order) $523,740.(X) $0.00 $55,538.00 $579,278.00 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLK & ASSOCIATES, INC. date: Approved by Contractor Barbarossa & Sons Approved by Owner. City of Orono cc: Owner Contractor Bonding Company Bonestroo & Assoc. 70294/oo.wbl t ’Jr « <X REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 25, 1997 ITEM NO.: \ -'.T 1’(Bonctwc Owner Qty of Otono. P.O. Box 66. Crystal Bav. MN 55323-0066 Date Aagiut 19,1997 Contractor Batbarom St. Sons. 11000 93rd Avenue North, Osseo. MN 55369 Bond Co. CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SANITARY SEWER FUe 13988 Dcscriptioii of Work Placement of an additional 6 inches of Qass 5 on Lakeview Terrace between station 16+00 and station 10+00 and also an additional 3 inches of Class 5 on Dakota Avenue. The additional Class 5 was necessary because proper subgrade could not be attained due to the high moisture content of the in-place clay soils and because of the excessive rain diroughout the construction period. No.Item Unit Contract OnantitT Unit Price Total Amonnt 55 56 Common Excavation Class 5 Aggregate Base (100% Crushed) Total Change Order No. 5 CY TN 480 940 3.25 9.20 1.560.00 8.648.00 $io;so8.oo 702B4/oo.wb1 „ ea*n Afcwpp • Original Contract Amount Previous Change Orders This Change Order Revised Contract Amount (including this change order) $874^30.01 $44,823.00 $10,208.00 $929,961.01 Reconunended for Approval by: BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLK & ASSOCUTES, INC date:I Approved by Contracton Barbarossa & Sons Approved by Owner. City of Orono cc: Owner Contractor Bonding Company Bonestroo & Assoc. 702M'i».wt>1 Ik rr Total kULWi NaISS^D ikj PACt 1. IfJ IW ^Tbfv. fop.yiM^ p<Qfic£iTr CUkU(^i Oh-V£lk $64,217.00 i 16 66 69 DEDUCT 8" PVC, SDR 35.0’-8' deep 3" HDPE. SDR 11 8" PVC, SDR 35.10 ’-12 ’ deep 8" PVC, SDR 35.16-18’ deep Total LF -253 31.00• (7,843.00) LF -783 20.00 (15,660.00) LF -435 33.00 (14,355.00) LF -26 36.00 (936.00) ($38,794.00) Total Change Order No. 1 $55,538.00 7A994/6d.Wb1 --------- II REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION •% c N %u. DATE: August 25. 1997 ITEM NO.: / ^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Thie Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Driveway at 165 Bederwood Road This issue involves the replacement of a biniminous driveway for the residence at 165 Bederwood Road removed during construction for the Stubbs Bay sanitary sewer project. This driveway is located on the DNR Right of Way for the Luce Line Trail. The only access to the front of the house is across ihe Luce Line Right of Way. An alternative driveway access from Stubbs Bay Road would be very difficult and costly and entail the removal of many trees. The DNR purchased this trail Right of Way in 1972 from a railroad company. The bituminous paved driveway on the Right of Way predates the DNR purchase of this land by many years. In 1992 the Stubbs Bay sanitary sewer project was completed. As part of this project, sewer service was provided to this residence. Installation of the sanitary sewer required removal of the paved driveway. After sewer installation, a gravel driveway was replaced in the same location. Replacement of the bituminous surface was not allowed because the driveway was located on the Right of Way for the DNR Luce Line Trail. A permit was obtained by the City for installation of the sewer on the DNR Right of Way, but the DNR would not allow replacement of the driveway pavement under the permit. The property owners are requesting that they be provided with a paved driveway similar to the driveway that existed before the sanitary sewer project in 1992. The current aggregate surface driveway is in poor condition and is a continual maintenance problem. Since 1992, several meetings have been held to discuss this situation, but no resolution of the problem has been accomplished. The property owners are frustrated with the continual delays in resolving this situation. An agreement has been reached with the DNR that would allow restoration of the driveway to the existing paved condition. This would involve the granting of a long term lease from the DNR to the Terp's to allow replacement of the driveway on DNR land. In order for the DNR to grant a lease, acceptable mitigation measures must to taken to offset the value of granting the lease. The proposed solution for mitigation is to move the driveway further from the trail and to provide a berm to provide screening between the driveway and house and trail. The landowners are willing to plant trees and other landscaping along the berm as their contribution to this solution. The City's contribution would involve relocation and paving of the driveway. The driveway relocation could be accomplished by the City public works personnel. The estimated cost for the aeeregate base and bituminous pavement materials to complete this work is $2000. Fill materia fof the berm could be obtained from area construction projects. Many projects have e^ess material available that contractors are looking for disposal sites for. A cfLicnilS 170 feet long will require approximately 400 cubic yards of fill matenal. The city has stockp of excess black dirt that could be used in berm construction. This situation has remained unresolved for five years since the Stubbs Bay Sewer project. Tlus issue should have been resolved then, but various issues hindered successful negotiations with the DNR. The proposed solution appears to be a reasonable compromise and the best agreement that could be reached in consideration of the difficult issues involved. The neighboring property owners have been contacted regarding this project. The adjoinmg property owner^has expressed some concerns about this project and possible impacts to his and he U interested in providing a foimal public response. This relocated Onveway were not shown on the approved plans for the Stubbs Bay Sewer project would requite approval of a change in the sewer project plans. We have discussed to Lue with the Civ Attorney’s office. They suggested holding a public heating to solicit pubte input regarding to project before any approvals ate granted. This will Pfov'^e Jofficbil public comments on this project. This heating notice will be published in the official newspaper and heating notices mailed to all property owners within the standard 150-foot area around the project. The public hearing could be held at the September 8th Council meeting. The Civ Council will need to decide if this is an acceptable project for completion by the CiV- If this project is acceptable for completion a public hearing will need to be scheduled. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to schedule a public hearing to be held at the September 8, 1997 City Council meeting to consider an amendment to the approved plans for the Stubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer project. ! ^Oui^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 25, 1997 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator’s Report Item Description: Maintenance and Repair of Casco Cove Road ly 'c Residents of Casco Cove Road recently addressed the City Council concerning the maintenance and repair of this road. This road has been maintained by the residents for at least the last twenty years according to public works maintenance personnel. The road is in poor shape and requires repair. The residents are requesting that the City assume repair and maintenance responsibilities for this road. This is a dead end cull-de-sac street located off Casco Point Road. The road is 500 feet long and serves 8 houses. The Council has directed City staff to provide a recommendation on this situation for the August 25th Council meeting. History of Road 10- 14-1937 Certificate of Title to Jeannette Amtz and Marion D. Barrett for Tract D RLS No. 461. (Tract D is the Right of Way for Casco Cove Road.) 9 20-1966 City of Orono utility easement over Tract D RLS No. 461. Sanitary sewer and a lift station were installed at this time. The sanitary sewer is in the street and the lift station is located off the end the road. The City uses Casco Cove Road regularly for access to the lift station. 11- 9-1959 to 12-6-1976 Several deeds issued to various parties granting easements for roadway purposes across Tract D RLS No. 461 to serve other tracts in RLS No. 461. Access was needed to homes constructed along this road. 11-30-1981 State of Minnesota acquires title Tract D RLS No. 461 through tax forfeit proceedings. 5-8-1987 City of Orono acquires title to Tract D RLS No. 461 from State of Minnesota by requesting use of parcel for street and drainage purposes. :e line T. The underlying property on which the road is located was originally an outlot that was privately owned. The property is now owned by the City because it was acquired through tax forfeit proceedings. There is no reference to the maintenance of this road in the Council minutes or resolutions requesting that the City obtain this outlot for street and drainage purposes. There has been no change in the private maintenance of this road since the City obtained this property. Current Policies Concerning Road Maintenance Policies for road ownership and maintenance are listed in the City's Comprehensive plan. Excerpts from the plan are listed below. URBAN TRANSPORTATION POLICIES 1. LOCAL STREETS IN THE URBAN AREA WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. Because the land use and street use density of the urban neighborhoods is relatively high, the City will provide public street access to all urban pi^ nt.Tties. City responsibility for proper maintenance levels will ensure passable, all weather streets v/ailable at all times for emergency vehicles and for general public ingress and egress. RURAL TRANSPORTATION POLICIES 4. RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL UTILIZE PRIVATE ROAD FEEDERS TO SUPPLEMENT THE EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD GRID. Because of topographical limitations, the historic shape of rural land divisions, and the low density of rural land use, most new rural residential lots are best preserved by short dead-end roads running off the existing street system. Therefore, most new rural lots will be directly served by privately owned and maintained roadways. An issue that needs to be considered is the precedent that will be set by changing the maintenance responsibilities for any roads in the City. The policy of private road maintenance in the rural areas is stated in the comprehensive plan. Since the 1974 Comprehensive Guide Plan This policy has been clearly followed in the rural areas. The new roads developed in the rural area are intended to be private with the road ownership and maintenance responsibilities defined in the subdivision platting and development agreements. Any decisions reached on Casco Cove Road or other roads in the urban area should not set a precedent that requires changes to rural area private road maintenance or ownership. The issue of a precedent being set for other privately maintained roads in the urban area must be considered. Further research shows that the City has two other roads within the MUSA areas of the City that are being privately maintained, Dakota Avenue and Shore Hills Drive. These are both dead end roads with cull-de-sacs at the end. Shore hills Road is located off Old Beach Road in the LR-1 Acre zone. It has a length of 500 feet and serves 7 houses. The pavement condition for this road is good. Shoreline Hills Drive has been sewered for many years. Dakota Avenue is located off Long Lake Boulevard in the LR- 2 Acre zone. The lot sizes in this area are less than 2 acres and Dakota Avenue is being sewered as part of the current North Long Lake sewer project. The street is 600 feet long and serves 7 houses. This street will have new pavement installed this summer. According to public works personnel, these roads have been privately maintained for at least the last twenty years. These roads were both dedicated as public Right of Way in plats dating from the 1940's. We are not aware of any written documentation concerning the responsibility for maintenance of these two roads. Long Lake Boulevard has been paved for many years and maintained cj the City. Dakota Avenue was not paved and this may have been a factor in the City not maintaining the road. The residents have requested that this road be paved as part of the North Long Lake sewer project and have also requested City maintenance of this street. Shore Hills Drive is narrow, approximately 16 wide, and has the appearance of a private driveway through the woods. One possibility is that the residents never viewed this as a City street and requested or desired City maintenance. We are not aware of any resident requests for public maintenance of this street even though it has always been on City Right of Way General Street Maintenance Vs. Ms^or Rehabilitation There are two issues involved in responsibility for these roads, maintenance and upgrading. Maintenance generally involves snow plowing, mowing, maintaining drainage structures, and pavement patching. These work items are performed to maintain the road in a serviceable condition and to allow safe passage of traffic. The standard practice in most Cities is that public street maintenance is funded from general tax dollars. This has been the historical practice in Orono. We have discussed this issue with the City Attorney. His opinion is that the City is not legally obligated to maintain streets that are on public Right of Way. The case could be made that these streets were never formally accepted by the City, and that these are private roads that the City is allowing to exist on City Right of Way at the sufferance of the City. The financing of road improvements or work beyond normal maintenance such as pavement overlays, and reconstruction is a separate issue. Methods vary between Cities for financing of street improvements. This issue is handled many different ways, ranging from total funding with general taxes to full reliance on special assessments to cover improvement work. The type of financing used also depends on the work completed. Some Cities fund pavement overlays from general taxes and use special assessments for street reconstruction. Other Cities use special assessments for all work beyond routine maintenance. A combination of general taxes and special assessments may also be used to fund more expensive projects. The City of Orono has historically funded sealcoating and pavement overlays from general taxes. Historically complete street reconstructions have been completed as part of sanitary sewer installation projects. These sewer projects have generally been funded by special assessments with a few projects funded by a combination of assessments and contributions from general funds. State Aid funds have been used to fund several MSA street reconstruction projects in areas without sewer. r If the City decides to assume maintenance responsibilities for these streets, routine maintenance will not create an excessive burden on the City public works maintenance staff. The plowing of these short dead end streets will take a minimum amount of time, as the City trucks are already plowing adjacent main streets Mowing along these streets is minimal as they are in the urban development areas and the property owners maintain their yards up to the edge of the street. Private maintenance of streets within the developed urban areas is not in conformance with the guidelines of the comprehensive plan, and these streets are a minor exception to the other publicly maintained streets within the urban area. City responsibility for the maintenance Dakota Avenue, Shore Hills Drive, and Casco Cove Road could be justified based on conformance to the comprehensive plan guidelines. The location of sanitary sewer in all three streets plus the location of a lift station at the end of Casco Cove Road could be additional justification for City maintenance of these streets. • The repair of Casco Cove Road to restore the street to a good condition is another issue that needs to be considered. Financing of street improvements is variable, and the City is under no obligation to finance the cost of street improvements with general tax dollars. Special assessments are an acceptable method of financing street repairs. The residents have obtained a proposal from a contractor for repair and overlaying of this street. This proposal is for ap^^roximately $20,000. We have not completed a detailed review of this proposal or the actual street condition. This proposal appears to reasonable, but is no guarantee of the actual repair costs. It is possible that more drainage improvements may be required on this street. There are two financing options available for repair of the street. The first one is to use special assessments to the property owners. The rationale for this option is that the road was originally privately owned and it should be the responsibility of the property owners to repair the road. The second option would to repair the road using general street funds. This would require that the street be placed in priority order with other City streets for available funding. The City would have to complete enough patching work to keep the street in serviceable condition until money for repair is available. If the City decides to assume maintenance responsibility, Dakota Avenue and Shore Hills Drive are m good shape and will not require pavement overlays in the near future. Any future repair can be completed according to the City policies inplace then. Summary of Issues and Recommendations hi summary, the City’s Comprehensive plan guidelines and the predominant history is that streets m the urban area are publicly owned and maintained. There are three streets in the urban sewered area that are on City Right of Way and are being privately maintained. Dakota Avenue and Shore Hills Road were originally platted as public Right of Way in the 1940's. Casco Cove Road was originally developed as a private road on an outlot in the 1950 ’s. The city acquired the Right of Way for this road in 1988 through a tax forfeit proceeding The maintenance and improvement of these roads are two separate issues. Maintenance of streets r includes snow plowing, mowing, maintaining drainage structures, and pavement patching. Improvement of streets includes additional work such as reconstruction or pavement overlays. Since Dakota Avenue, Shore Hills Drive, and Casco Cove Road are all in the urban area and on public Right of Way, any decision on street maintenance responsibilities of should be consistent for all three. Residents of both Dakota Avenue and Casco Cove Road have requested City maintenance of these streets. We are not aware of any requests from Shore Hill Road requesting City maintenance of this street. There are two options available. The first option is to assume maintenance responsibilities for these streets based on the Comprehensive plan guidelmes for urban area street maintenance. The second option is to not make any changes in the private stams of these streets based on the precedent set by past private maintenance of these streets. Improvement of streets is the second issue to be considered. Dakota Avenue and Shore Hills Drive are in good condition. Improvement of these streets, at this time, is not an issue. Any future improvements can be completed according to policies inplace at that time. Casco Cove Road is poor condition and requires repair at this time. There are two options available for fmancing repair of this road. The first option is to use special assessments on the property owners. The rationale for this is that the street was originally privately owned. The second option would be to repair the road using general funds. This would require City patching of the street to maintain a serviceable condition until funds became available for repair. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Maintenance of Dakota Avenue, Shore Hills Drive, and Casco Cove Road Option 1 Decision to accept City maintenance responsibility for Dakota Avenue, Shore Hills drive, and Casco Cove Road based on conformance with the Comprehensive Plan guidelines that streets within the urban area should be publicly maintained. Also, these streets have sanitary sewer lines in them and there is a City owned sanitary sewer lift station at the end of Casco Cove Road. Option 2 Decision to continue private maintenance of these streets based on the precedent set by past private maintenance of these streets. Repair of Casco Cove Road This issue is only pertinent if the Council determines that the City should be responsible for maintenance of these streets. Option 1 •Vv* r Decision to finaDce the repair of Casco Cove Road with special assessments against the benefitting properties based on the fact that this street was originally privately owned. Option 2 Decision to finance the repair of Casco Cove Road with general street funds. 51! S'* I 0‘ ^0. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 21 ITEM NO = n Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: City Policy Regarding Burning Permits Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Attachment: Memo From Mike GafEron RE: City Policy on Burning Permits At the August 11 City Council meeting, the Council received public comments regarding both the city's burning permit policy and the availability of a brush disposal site for Orono residents. As the attached memo from Mike Gaffron indicates, the two are related in that both relate to the disposal of brush. The city has had a strict policy regarding brush burning. It is my understanding this strict policy was to be offset by the availability of other brush disposal options. Initially the option provided was a city brush disposal site. However, the amount of brush brought to the site was beyond what could be chipped by city staff. When Hennepin County opened a brush disposal site in Maple Grove, the city began to contract to have the brush hauled to the County site. Because this was a relatively expensive program, the city's brush disposal site was eliminated in favor of Orono residents taking their brush directly to the County site. Since then the city has received numerous requests to reinstate a local brush disposal site. These residents have generally indicated a willingness to pay a fee for this service. Recently, in talking with other cities, staff has become aware of the availability of a contractor with a large tub grinder that grinds the brush into chips at a reasonable cost. These chips can then be made available to residents. Based on comments from residents it appears it would be possible for the city to recover all or a significant portion of the costs of providing a brush disposal site through fees charged for the use of the site. The most difficult element of providing a disposal site would be to identify a workable site. If the Council is open to pursuing this option, staff would contact adjacent cities regarding a Joint brush disposal site. It is staffs recommendation that the city continue its policy of discouraging burning as a way of disposing of brush. It may be necessary to provide a seasonal brush disposal site to provide residents with a more convenient option for brush disposal. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to confirm the city's burning permit policy. To: From: Date: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator August 20, 1997 Subject: City Policy on Burning Permits A small number of residents have requested that Council consider expanding the options for brush and tree disposal. The City's current policy is that the only open fires allowed are for recreation purposes and for disposal of logs greater than 6" in diameter. Brush up to 6" in diameter must be chipped or composted. History During the 1980's the MPCA regulated burning, and enforced a strict set of rules intended to prevent air pollution. The City by agreement with MPCA issued burning permits per MPCA rules. One rule that was strictly enforced was that burning permits would not be issued when an alternative disposal method exists. During the 1993 Legislative session, statutory revisions were made repealing all of the MPCA open burning rules and establishing the DNR as the agency responsible for the issuance and enforcement of all open burning permits. The City then became a delegated authority to issue open burning permits through its fire warden program. The DNR’s approach was simply to prevent forest fires, with no real attitude of pollution prevention. Staff chose to continue the MPCA philosophy, finding that it was (and is) more appropriate for our community. Chipping Program The City purchased a chipper some years ago with the intent that it would be used not only for City maintenance needs but for providing our residents with an alternative disposal method for brush. Apparently the volume of material delivered by propert>' owners was so great that the City could not keep up with it, and the chipping program was eliminated. The remaining alternative for homeowners to dispose of brush was (is) to haul it to a Hennepin County disposal site. Current Burning Code & Policies Code Section 9.30 (Attachment A) is the current City ordinance regarding open burning and air pollution control. The current Burning Pennit Application form (Attachment B) contains a number of guidelines which the City currently follows. iI Burning Permit Policies August 20,1997 Page 2 The Building Inspections Department currently administers burning permits. Each bum site is inspected prior to issuance of the permit. Bmce and Lyle have offered the follovving observations as to how the program is working; We get many more complaints from people upset about their neighbors having a fire than from people upset because they can't get a permit. We don't allow burning of green material because it bums poorly and is very smoky. Residents are advised to let green material dry out before it is burned. In unusual circumstances we will issue permits for burning of small amounts of brush; for instance, when it is in a location that defies removal. - If the City was to allow burning of brush, we would expect a significantly greater number of permit requests and a significantly greater number of complaints about neighbors burning. Stafl is currently barely able to keep up with the number of permits requested; if we were to start allowing brush burning, we would not be able to keep up. 124 burning permits were issued in 1996; 91 have been issued so far in 1997. 1 I § 9.30SBC. 9.30 OPEN burning and AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. health purpose of protecting the public person^ to buM welfare of the community it is unlawful for any rubbish or other sub^tano^ burning of any grass, weeds, leaves, except as othr^4 f . f premises owned or occupied by him,except as otherwise provided by this Code. 1977 DTomulas*-a^ Pollution Control Rules, as £unended in herebv adont-^,4 y bhe Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, are Sn^c^pt Sf verbatim herein. COPY an^ Shall be marked CITY OF ORONO - OFFICIAL iSsLction ^anr ^^e City Clerk and open to provision of public. It is unlawful to violate a hereby adopted b/reflren«^ Pollution Control Rules be exceoted'^^nm^^h The following open burning shall food in an approved°?lcepVicll solely for the preparation of public and indus;riri"”%e“AghtL‘g'';ers"o^'ne“^^^^ training of which cannot elimination of fire hazardswnicn cannot be abated by any other practical means. veoetable matt^V < of trees, brush, grass or other lands maintAnanoo ^ the clearing of land, right-of-way or public operations and agricultural crop burning. oraohs B r'^an*,i n* Required. Burning pursuant :o Subpara- Sf\\^faYb%rtSi anJu;r^o^/recls\^^%^^ feti.i\""by^\Te^Vu^"lSL°^ will be Permittee, or his authorized representative, will oe present at any fire so allowed. conditions aT-» burning will be done only when weather ORONO CC 215 (1-27-86) o ^ 9«30 time if the Cltv subject to revocation at any alternate meth,^^ ® practical, available such bumine will **'® material to be burned or that th^t a K a fire hazard, or a health hazard, orthat a traffic hazard would result. insoection of fhl permits may be issued following contact the Citv for materials. Annual permit holders must durinrtSe pe^it period"*'’®'^^™ undertaking any burning nni-{of> or orhaC ^i^ht of Entry. The members of the fire, Ind to actual siting of a fire defined^ A control an illegal fire as unsuo^rtlLd o i ” ^ that has been left polel I threat toK^” otherwiseposes a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. ORONO CC 215-1 Ordinance 19, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-27-86 Date Issued: Expiration Date: Pennit No.: OPEN BURNING PERMIT CITY OF ORONO Boi 66 (2750 Kelley Paricway) Ciystal Bay, MM $5323 Permit to be mailed: or picked up: alteiMtive method of P”'**'*' not be aUowed to be burned and must be ^pped orcomLsf^'' *“ *" SITE ADDRESS: Name: Mailing Address:__ Agent (if appUcable): FOR THE PURPOSE OFBTONDrc DATE:. Phone: (h) City:Zip: served by the same private driveway or 111^^’™^' *“ ®"* " shall ^ placed at every fork or otheTdr^vraTlT^^^^^^^^ “““k- 2. Where more than one house is oad, additional sets of numbers including the house farthest from the streer^^ ^ necessary to direct traffic to every house a. bum site meeting the following: - Logs only Minimum 50' from building; Recreational - Logs and charcoal only 3. 4. 5. pei;Tr3Zys additional 30 days by calling City Hall orior t ^ ^renewed once for an REUSE, RECYCLE, COMPOST PROFITED NUTERIALS AM: bnah. oils, nibber, plasHcs, tires, building materials and chemically treated n^ such «taibo»J oes, treated lumber, composite shingles, tar paper, insulation, composition bo^ ah«^k Wiring, paint, hazardous and industri;:’solid waste. u»uu ooara, sncei rocK, I AGREE: - Not to bum brush or other prohibited materials. - Not to conduct burning during any air quality alert Not to bum paper or cardboard except as provided under Minnesota Statutes 1 7.1 3 5. - To have this permit available at the bum site for inspection. That prevailmg wmd mim be away from nearby occupied buildings and as far away from any highway or public road and controlled so as diat a traffic hazard is not created. ■ <•>'"“*« <h« muy result from * That fires will not be allowed to smolder without flame. To provide a water supply and attend this fire until completely extinguished. - To extinguish the fire immediately if this permit is revoked. Signature ^ conditions of, and any attaehmtnts to this permit, and that / am the landowner or have permission of the landowner to bum at the above bum site location. MAP Approved by:Inspected by:Date: InspectorsComments :__________ Fire Department: ____Long Lake Maple Plain Mound Wayzata nis permit is valid for open burning as allowed and specified in Minn. Rules pts. 7005.0705 to 7005.0805, MS 88.16, Minn. Uniform Fire Code, and local ordinances. The permittee is granted permission to bum the above described materials at the specified location during the dates listed above. r* 1.1.1 J7.'iJ Li 'J til#!iTLOiTTT TTIT Wilt^Ifl^ LMimnroi 5#rr¥ifTiTr r?: ifiSIcVil ^RT?5I \ r TO:Greg Gappa, Director of Public Services FROM: Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:August 20, 1997 SUBJECT : Appeal of an Administrative Decision for a drainfield location - Theresa and Michael Eastman The applicants are requesting that they be allowed to construct a drainfield site in an area where fill soils have been placed and an" experimental system" installed rather than another location where a "standard system" could be installed according to State and City Standards. HISTORY The Eastmans submitted an application for cui addition to their home and a detached garage. The plan review revealed that the septic system was non-compliant and both the residence and septic system are located within the Shoreland District. We tiien notified the Eastmans that the septic system would need to be replaced in conjunction with the home improvements. The Eastmans contacted Larry's On-Site to design a new system, but the owners wanted to place the system in an area of clay fill soil so Larry contacted me to find out how to proceed. I told him that he must first attempt to find a drainfield site on the property that meets the "standard system" criteria and if one can not be found, then he can design an "alternative system" or an "e,xperimental system". We met at the property on a later date and found a site for a "standard system" that may need a property line setback variance, but lies on original soil and appears to meet all other State Standards. This is a site that the City Staff will likely recommend (we can not approve the site yet as a complete evaluation has not been completed). STAFF RECOMMENDATION The probable recommended site is located in the rear. The site that the owners wish to place a new drainfield on is very poorly suited for use a drainfield. The underlying soil is peat, a wetland soil which is high in organic matter and is often saturated, which has three feet of mottled clay soil (fill) on top of it. This material has a very heavy and will not allow water to pass through it quickly, plus the fact that it was compacted to some extent when it was placed there with construction equipment. A drainfield installed on this area at a cost to the owners of approximately $10,000 may not last more than five years. If failure occurs, they would have to install a new system where we are currently recommending for an additional $10,000. The City Staff can not recommend the installation of the drainfield in a location that even the State considers too risky to consider as a standard or even alternative system! The installation of the drainfield in the front yard would be an experiment at the homeowners expense. Although installing a septic system behind the residence will cost more money due to the well replacement and driveway damage initially, the costs will be much more if the system has to be replaced and a well installed after the garage is added. r Memo - Appeal August 20, 1997 Page 2 The Eastmans are upset at not having knowTi about the septic system issues prior to the review of their building permit application, but it appears that they are as responsible as the City for not having the necessary information regarding their septic system. I will address why the City didn't notify the Eastmans in response to the issues they brought up in their letter to the City. First, the Eastmans bought the house from the owTier who should have told them that the septic system had been identified as non-compliant and required repair by December 31,1995. Second, since they were not using a realtor, they should have taken tiie initiative to contact the City’ and inquire about the septic system condition. The City is not aware of property transactions usually unless someone tells us of the sale when they ask for an inspection of the septic system. In fact, they not only didn't ask the City about the septic system during the sale of the property, they also didn't ask us during the first three years they lived on the property. Third, the Eastmans homesteaded their property, bought additional property and received a permit for the furnace without notice regarding the septic system because its condition has nothing to do with whether or not these activities can occur. Because the property lies within the shoreland district, the shed addition should have triggered a review of the septic system since any "improvement of the property", not just "maintenance" that requires a permit would require the upgrade of the septic system. The addition to the house and garage addition was an obvious "trigger" because we would want to protect any future site with all the additional hard cover and in the course of the investigation we found that the existing septic system was non-complaint and required an upgrade. This upgrade will be required regardless of whether the home remodel occurs since the two year time limit has expired. SYSTEM REPLACEMENT RFCiI JI ATIONS The repair and replacement of septic systems in Orono is regulated by both City and State Standards. Orono's regulations sometimes exceed those of the State, but at a minimum the Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080 must be met. The State requires that an"experimental system" may only be used when a "standard system" cannot be installed. Many provisions must be met by the owner to comply with the State Standards for the installation of experimental systems including: a reasonable assurance of performance, approval of the design by the local governing authority, a mitigative plan should the system fail, the installation of a water meter, and a monitoring plan which must be provided to local authority and the commissioner. The Orono Municipal Code, Subdivision 4 D. also requires the use of "standard systems". "Alternative systems" shall not be permitted without a variance to this section, and shall include evidence that the treatment method will be effective with a monitoring plan. TO THE cnr OF ORONO AND CITY COUNCIL, WE WOULD LIKE TO APPEAL AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ON THE PLACEMENT OF OUR SEPTIC SYSTEM. OUR ARGUMENT IS NOT IF ONE SHOULD BE PUT IN, BUT AS TO THE LOCATION OF FT, AND THE BURDEN THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO BEAR DUE TO THE DIFFERNT LOCATIONS. I REALIZE OUR ARGUMENT HAS MANY IF AND'S OR BUTS, SO I WILL TRY TO BE AS BREIF AS POSSIBLE AND TRY TO GIVE YOU AS MANY OF THE FACTS AS POSSIBLE. • 09/30/94 WE PURCHASED OUR HOME @ 4520 WEST BRANCH ROAD AND CAME TO THE CITY OF ORONO TO APPLY FOR OUR HOMESTEAD. (WE PURCHASED THIS HOME "FOR SALE BY OWNER" AND USED A LAWYER AND THE MORTGAGE COMPANY TO HANDLE ALL THE TRANSACTIONS.) NOTHING WAS SAID BY THE CITY ABOUT THE SEPTIC AT THIS TIME -APPROXIMATLEY 11/94 WE HAD CALLED THE CITY TO FIND OUT WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO TO ADD A 2+CAR GARAGE AND ADDmON. WE WERE TOLD WE NEEDED A SURVEY. CTHE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD SAID THEY HAD THE PROPERTY SURVEYED IN THE 60'S BUT COULD NOT LOCATE THE COPY’S, THEY HAD GIVEN US THE NAME OF THE SURVEY COMPANY WHO HAD DONE rr.) WE FOUND THAT THE COMPANY HAD CLOSED BUT THE SURVEYS WOULD HAVE BEEN SOLD OR GIVEN TO ANOTHER COMPANY. WE SPENT THE BETTER PART OF THE WINTER TRYING' TO LOCATE THE NEW COMPANY BUT THEY WERE UNABLE TO FIND THE SURVEY. THIS IS WHEN WE HIRED COFFIN AND GRONBERG TO DO THE SURVEY. WE PLACED THE STAKES OUT FOR THEM AS TO WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THE ADDITION, AND FOUND OUT THAT THE ADDITION WAS OVER THE BACK LOT LINE, AND ORONO HAD A 50' SETBACK. -08/95 AFTER FINDING OUT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS TO SMALL FOR THE ADDITION, WE CALLED THE CITY TO FIND OUT IF WE HAD TO GEf A PERMIT FOR A SHED." YES" WE WOULD AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE NOTED ON THE SURVEY. WE HAD COFFIN AND GRONBERG SHOW THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS ON THE SURVEY. THEN WENT TO THE CITY TO GET THE PERMIT WE EXPLAINED WHY WE NEEDED THE PERMIT AS WE WERE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT UP THE GARAGE AS WE HAD HOPED, (DUE TO THE LOT LINE AND WE WOULD NEED TIME TO THINK ABOUT WERE TO PUT IT NOW.) IT TOOK APPOX ONE WEEK AND WE WERE ISSUED THE PERMIT. AND STARTED OUR SHED. AGAIN NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT THE SEPTIC SYSTEM. -8/95 WE HAD A NEW FURNACE PUT IN AND AGAIN A PERMIT WAS APPLYED FOR. -11/95 FINISHED SHED EXCEPT FOR A PORTION OF SIDING AND CALLED TO HAVE TT INSPECTED. -12/95 DECIDED TO ASK GOLF COURSE IF WE COULD POSSIBLY BUY ADDITIONAL PROPERTY: AS WE CHOSE NOT TO ASK FOR ANY VARIANCES. -03/96 AFTER 3 AND 1/2 MONTHS AND SEVERAL MESSAGES, WE FINALLY WERE ABLE TO MEET WITH THE GOLF COURSE OWNER TO ASK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PURCHASING MORE LAND. HIS ANSWER WAS YES, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO ALL THE FOOT WORK AND PAY ALL THE EXPENSES. SO ONCE AGAIN WE CALLED THE CITY TO FIND OUT WHAT WE HAD TO DO TO BE ABLE TO ADD LAND TO OURS TO DO THE ADDIHON. AGAIN NOTHING WAS SAID i^BOUT THE SEPTIC SYSTEM. 3/96 TOl 0/96 WE DID ALL THE CITY TOLD US TO DO BY CONTACTING OUR MORTGAGE COMPANY, GETTING ANOTHER SURVEY TO SHOW THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY, GOING IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL TO GET THE APPROVAL, WORKING WITH AN ARCHITECT, ETC., AND FINALLY THE PURCHASE OF THE ADDIHONAL PROPERTY. THOUGH ALL OF THIS TIME DEALING WITH THE CITY ON PROBABLY A WEEKLY BASIS, AGAIN NOTHING WAS SAID TO US ABOUT THE SEPTIC SYSTEM. -06/97 TURNED IN FINISHED PLANS TO CITY FOR APPROVAL. -06/30/97 2:00 PM RECEIVED CALL FROM LYLE AT CITY. PLANS ARE APPROVED WITH TWO CORRECTIONS AND TWO SUGGESTIONS. WE WERE TOLD THEY WERE READY FOR PICK UP THE NEXT DAY. ( NOTE: FROM THIS POINT ON, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY US TO ANOTHER PERSON WILL BE IN BOLD PRINT.) -06/30/97 4:10 PM RECEIVED CALL FROM LYLE BIG PROBLEMI SEPTIC SYSTEM WAS SUPPOSE TO HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY 12/95 PER LETTER TO PREVIOUS OWNERS IN 1993.. WHAT? WHY? TO CLOSE TO LAKE , WITHIN 1000' AND IT WAS NON CONFORMING. THATS NOT WHAT WE WERE TOLD BY CITY IN 1996 WHEN WE NEEDED TO KNOW FOR THE ARCHITECT, WE WERE TOLD WE WERE NOT WITHIN THE 1000' FROM LAKE. WHY WASN'T THIS MENTIONED TO US UNTIL NOW? WE WERE TOLD " WE NEED TO TALK WITH STEVE AND HE IS ON THE PHONE, I'LL HAVE HIM CALL YOU BACK." -06/30/97 4:25 PM NO CALL FROM STEVE SO I CALLED HIM. STEVE SAID CHECK OF SYSTEM IN 1993 SHOWED NON CONFORMING SYSTEM-NO PERMIT PULLED, CITY DIDNT ISSUE PERMITS BACK THEN. HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST? WORST CASE $12,000. BEST CASE? $9,000. AND WE WONT ISSUE YOUR BUILDING PERMIT UNTIL IT IS DONE I WANT A MEETING WITH YOU AND LYLE TOMORROW TO TALK ABOUT THIS. 12:00 WILL WORK FOR BOTH STEVE AND LYLE. -06/30/97 IN THE EVENING I TALKED IT OVER WITH MIKE, WORKED ON QUESTIONS TO ASK CITY. BOTH OF US ARE VERY UPSET OVER THIS. WHY WASNT FT BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION BEFORE? -07/01/97 12:00 PM MEET WITH STEVE. LYLE NOT IN. (NOTE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WERE WRITTEN DOWN AFTER MEETING WITH STEVE WAS COMPLETE, WHILE I WAITED FOR LYLE TO COME BACK.) IF THIS WAS SUPPOSE TO HAVE BEEN DONE BY 12/95, WHY HASN’T CITY NOTinED US UNTIL NOW? IHAVENT HAD TIME, AND WE EXTENDED TO 12/96. WELL IF IT WAS EXTENDED TO 12/96 AND ITS NOW JULY 1997, WHY HAVEN'T WE BEEN NOnnED UNTIL NOW? I HAVENT HAD TIME AND WE MAY EXTEND IT. THE CITY WOULD HAVE KNOWN THE DAY WE PURCHASED THE HOUSE IN 09/94 AS WE FILED THE HOMESTEAD PAPERS WHY WASN'T SOMETHING SAID THEN? IT ISNT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. WELL WHO'S WAS IT? THE PREVIOUS OWNERS SHOULD HAVE TOLD YOU AND rr SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT BY THE REAL ESTATE COMPANY. WE PURCHASED "FOR SALE BY OWNER" MAYBE YOU SHOULD SUE THE ORIGINAL OWNERS. NO I DON'T THINK SO. EVEN IF WE DID IT WOULD TAKE TIME AND MONEY WITH NO GUARANTEES. (EXCEPT THAT A LAWYER WOULD END UP WITH A LOT OF OUR MONEY) CAN YOU PROVE TO ME THE PREVIOUS OWNERS EVER RECEIVED THIS LETTER? WE NEVER GOT THE LETTER BACK. THAT DOESN'T PROVE TO ME THEY GOT IT. WELL I TALKED WITH HIM. WHAT DID HE SAY? IDONT I EMEBER , I DIDNT DOCUMENT IT. WELL WHEN DID YOU TALK TO HIM? I DONT REMEMBER I DNT DOCUMENT IT. (WITH ALL THE HOUSE HOLDS IN ORONO WITH SEPTIC SYSTEMS HOW WOULD HE REMEMBER WHO HE'S TALKED WITH IF HE ISN’T KEEPING ANY TYPE OF RECORDS OR KEEPING UP WITH THE PAPER WORK? HOW MANY OTHER HOUSE HOLDS WILL BE RUNNING INTO SIMILAR PROBLEMS AS WE ARE WITH INCORRECT INFORMATION OR NO NOTinCATIONS ABOUT SUCH THINGS FROM THE CITY?) WERE TOLD IN 1996 THAT WE WERE NOT WITHIN THE 1000' OF THE LAKE, WE NEEDED TO KNOW THIS FOR THE ARCHITECT BEFORE HE STARTED THE PLANS. WHY WAS I TOLD NOW WE ARE? WHOTOLD YOU THAT? JEAN. "SHE’SJUSTA CrTYWORKPR AND WONT KNOW" (DOES THIS MEAN IF I ASK A "CITY WORKER" A QUESTION THE ANSWER MIGHT NOT BE CORRECT. HOW MANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT PVE ASKED TO "CITY WORKERS" SINCE 09/94 HAVE THE ANSWERS BEEN INCORRECT???? ISN’T STEVE A aTY WORKER?) WHAT WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF AN EXTENTION IF WE AGREE TO COMPLY, BUT GIVE US THE PERMITS NOW FOR THE ADDITION? TLL HAVE TO TALK WITH GREG AND LYLE AND GET BACK TO YOU TOMORROW(07/02). ANSWER WAS " NOT UNTIL SEPTIC PERMIT WAS ISSUED THEN WE COULD GET OUR PERMIT FOR THE ADDITION." ENDED MEETING WITH STEVE AND WAITED FOR LYLE, PICKED UP APPROVED PLANS WITH p.?? noted , called ARCHITECT WITH CORRECTIONS AND HAD HIM MAKE ON COPIES FOR BUILDER. SPENT REST OF AFTERNOON CALLING COMPANIES ON SEPTIC SYSTEM. GOT PRICE INFO BUT NO ONE THAT I TALKED WITH COULD COME FOR THREE TO FIVE WEEKS. •07/02/97 TALK WITH LARRY OF "LARRYS ON SITE SEPTIC". WILL COME OUT AFTER 1:00 PM MIKE WILL MEET HIM AT HOUSE. LARRY CAME AND CHECKED OUT THE LAND, HE FELT THE FRONT ^D WOULD BE BEST WILL DO PERK TEST. 07/03/97 LARRY SAID THE DESIGN SHOULD BE READY WEEK EXPLAINED WE WANTED TO START ADDITION IN AUGUST AND CITY SAYS WE HAVE TO COMPLY PRIOR TO GETTING THE PERMITS FOR THE ADDITION. talked with STEVE, TOLD HIM LARR YS ON SITE SEFTIC WILL TEST TODAY. (TOO MUCH RAIN, LARRY ENDED UP DOING PERK TEST ON 07/08/97.) ^ ^ CALLED LARRY. WHAPS UP WITH THE DESIGN FOR SEPTIC? HE HAD TALKED ITH STEVE AT CITY LAST WEEK STEVE SAID YOU WOULD HAVE TO PUT IN BACK YARD, BUT I wn ™ SHOULD WORK. IF IT GOES IN BACK THAT WILL MEAN YOU NEED TO REPLACE THE WELL AS IT HAS TO BE 75* FROM SEPTIC AND PROBABLY CUT DONE MORE TREES. WHAT? I’LL CALL STEVE -07/21/97 10:30 AM TALK WITH STEVE WHATS THIS ABOUT WILL HAVE TO REPLACE THE WELL IF THE SEPTIC GOES IN BACK? YES ITS A 75* SET BACK- WHATS THAT GOING TO COST US? ABOUT $2,000.00. 11:00 AM LEFT MESSAGE FOR DON STODOLA WELL DRILLING TO CALL ME ABOUT DOING ESTIMATE FOR A WELL. 1:20PM TALKED WITH RICK STOEXDLA WILL COME BY AT 6:00 PM TODAY. -07/21 /97 6:00 PM RICK CAME WE SHOWED HIM THE SITUATION AND ASKED FOR SUGGESTIONS ON PLACEMENT OF WELL. SAID TO PUT IN FRONT BY DRIVEWAY, DRILL THROUGH HILL INTO BASEMENT, PIPE ACROSS HOUSE, SUGGESTED THE LAUNDRY ROOM WOULD THE BEST PLACE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CEILINGS SO EVERY THING COULD BE RUN THROUGH THE JOISTS. IT WOULD BE CHEAPER TO DO, VERSES IN THE OLD PUMP ROOM. ALSO SUGGESTED WE COULD MOVE THE HOT WATER HEATER IN TO LAUNDRY ROOM TOO AND JUST REMOVE THAT ROOM WHEN WE DO THE ADDITION. -07/23/97 RECEIVED ESTIMATE ON WELL. $5,420.00 -07/24/97 LARRY’S ONS' PE SEPTIC CAME AND ST/l KED OUT BACK YARD WITH US THERE. SAID SHOULD BE 20 ’ FROM HOUSE AND 10 ’ FROM LOT LINES, AND HAS TO GO WITH THE SLOPE OF THE LAND. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ROOM, WATER WILL DRAIN TOWARDS L OF HOUSE AND WE ALREADY HAVE WATER PROBLEMS DUE TO THE EXSISTING SLOPE WHICH WE HOPED WE COULD CHANGE DURING THE ADDITION TO THE HOUSE. IT ALSO ENDS UP WERE WE WANT TO DO ADDITION AND PATIO. THIS SHOULD BEEN TOLD TO US A LONG TIME AGO, MAYBE WE COULD HAVE PURCHASED MORE LAND OR NOT PURCHASED THIS LAND AT ALL. THEN IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO IN THE FRONT YARD. ARE YOU AWARE THIS WILL DETROY YOUR DRIVEWAY? NO WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD RUN US? WOULD YOU SAY $ 6,000.00 TO $8,000.00 FOR THIS LENGTH OF A DRIVEWAY? VERY POSSIBLE. -07/29/97 3:00 PM LARRY AND STEVE TO MEET AT OUR HOUSE TO TALK ABOUT THE SEPTIC. -07/30/97 10:00 PM LARRY CALLED, "STEVE MOVED STAKES" DID YOU SEE THE NEW PLACEMENT? YES WE DID. WE DO NOT WANT TO CUT DOWN ANY MORE TREES WE DIDN'T BUY THAT PROPERTY TO HAVE THE TREES CUT DOWN. I COUNTED 11 TREES THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED, HOW MANY WOULD WE HAVE TO CUT DOWN? SORRY I DIDNT LOOK. WE WOULDN’T HAVE PLANTED ALL THOSE PERENNIALS THIS SPRING HAD WE KNOWN ABOUT THIS BEFORE HAND. DO YOU REALIZE THERE ABOUT 2000 PLANTS OUT THERE AND IT TOOK THREE OF US THREE WEEKENDS TO DO ALL THE PLANTING. HOW ARE WE GOING TO DIG ALL THOSE UP AGAIN AND FIGURE OUT WERE WE CAN PLANT THEM SO THEY WON’T BE HURT DURING ALL OF THIS, ESPECIALLY IF WE DO THE ADDITION TOO? WHEN WE PLANTED THEM WE PUT THEM FAR ENOUGH OUT THAT THEY WOULDN’T BE AFFECTED BY THE ADDITION. STEVE SAID THAT HE WOULD OK IT TO BE RIGHT UP TO LOT LINES. HE’S SURE GOLF COURSE WOULD GIVE YOU THE VARIANCES, AND HE’LL GIVE THE VARIANCE TO BE TO CLOSE TO HOUSE. WELL WE DON’T WANT TO HAVE TO GET VARIANCE FROM THE GOLF COURSE, THAT IS WAS WHY WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR THE ADDITION IN THE HRST PLACE. I’LL TALK TO STEVE TOMORROW. -07/31/97 11:30 PICKUP UP CODE BOOK THAT DNR TOLD US ABOUT. WILL READ UP ON THESE CODES. (READING THROUGH THIS PROVES TO BE QUITE INTERESTING!) 4)7/31/97 3:38 PM TALKED WITH STEVE, I TOLD HIM "NO" ON THE SEPTIC IN BACK I TOLD HIM WE DIDN'T WANT TO REMOVE MORE TREES. MOVE PERENNIALS, ABOUT $5,500.00 ESTIMATE ON WELL, AND THE FACT THAT THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE RUINED TO THE COST OF POSSIBLY $6K TO $8KOR HIGHER. HE DOESNT BELIEVE DRIVEWAY OR WELL COULD BE THAT HIGH PRICED AND CITY DOES NOT CONSIDER A HARDSHIP FOR: MONEY, REMOVAL OF TREES OR US HAVING TO DIG UP AND REPLANT PERENNIALS. ONLY HARDSHIP IF YOU DONT HAVE A GOOD SOIL AND AREA TO PUT FT. WELL WE DO.. WE WANT TO BRING THIS TO CITY COUNCIL. THEN YOU WILL NEED TO APPEAL AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. FINE, I’LL STOP AT CITY TOMORROW. -07/31/97 TALKED WITH FRIEND WHO WORKS FOR BLACK TOPPING COMPANY. TOLD HIM WE NEED TWO ESTIMATES, ONE TO REPLACE WHOLE DRIVEWAY LENGTH, AND ANOTHER TO REPLACE ONLY THE FIRST HALF, AS EITHER WAY ONE WILL HAVE TO BE DONE ACCORDING TO LARRY. HE SAID WILL TELL HIS BOSS WHO DOES THE ESTIMATES TO STOP IN AND GIVE US AN ESTIMATE. -08/01/97 STOPPED AT CFTY TALK WFTH MICHAEL, SHOWED ME 1000’ AREA TO DREDGFnCHANTNFr. AND SAID THAT THIS IS CONSIDER PART OF THE LAKE. GOT INFO ON HOW TO DO THE APPEAL. -08/02/97 SPENT DAY READING THROUGH CODE BOOK THAT DNR TOLD US ABOUT AND WRITING THIS APPEAL. SUMMARY WE WOULD HAVE BEEN WILLING IN JULY TO DO THE SEPTIC IN THE BACK UNTIL WE FOUND OUT ABOUT ALL THE EXTRA COSTS AND BURDENS WE WOULD HAVE TO INCUR (THE WELL, THE DRIVEWAY, THE LOSS OF TREES, THE SIZE OF THE SYSTEM, THE POSSIBLITY OF MORE WATER PROBLEMS IN OUR BASEMENT, WORK OF REPLANTING ALL THE PERENNIALS, AND THE CHANGE OF THE PLANS WE HAVE WORKED SO HARD FOR) WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY A REPUTIBLE AND STATE LICENSED SEPTIC COMPANY,THAT THE SEPTIC WILL WORK IN FRONT. IF THIS SYSTEM HAS TO GO IN BACK WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO EX) ALL THE NECESSAR Y IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR HOME OR THE ADDITION AS WE HAD HOPEDI I THINK WE ALL WANT ORONO TO BE A NICE PLACE TO LIVE AND A NICE PLACE FOR OTHERS TO VISITI i'M SORRY TO SAY ALL OF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF WE HAD JUST BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THIS AT A^UCH EARLIER DATE. AS YOU CAN SEE WE'VE TRIED OUR BEST TO DO WHATEVER WAS NECESSARY TO COMPLY TO ALL OF ORONOS RULES AND CODES BUT AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO DRAW THE LINE. WE ALSO WONDER, WHAT THE OUT COME WILL BE ON THE SAGA HILL AREA FOR ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE HAVE COME TO THE MEETINGS TO LISTEN ABOUT?. COULD WE BE GETTING CITY SEWER IN THE NEAR FUTURE BECAUSE OF IT? WILL WE BE FORCED TO PAY FOR THOSE LINES ON OUR TAXES AND MADE TO HOOK UP TO IT AT OUR EXPENSE? MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER EXTENDING THE TIME WE HAVE TO PUT IN OUR NEW SYSTEM UNTIL KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS, BY HAVING US HAVE IT PUMPED YEARLY OR SOMETHING IN THAT AFFECT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION ON THIS MATTER. THERESA AND MICHAEL EASTMAN. ENCLOSED: COPIES OF CODES FROM THE POLLUTION CONRTOL AGENCY. % ^ :U-% *• •• 'lift “•» r*• *^ •!> V?j^ A-i^mMm5r ‘■^ ^.V BBSifi'A r.'. /.'? '^^mm vi>r.';mrn% ■Ar'..,*. ■ i\i-^ w-■ V.'i'i •.* Wi­fe'- POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMSCHAPTER 7080Eitrectcd from MinneaoU Rulm 199S. Including tmcndmcntt adopted thraugli Januat7 Idt 1996 I Ml. Text Provided By The Omce of RevIsor olSUtutes 7th Floor, SUte Office Building, St, Paul, MN 55155 Prepared By Print Comnuinkatlon IMvIdon (Minnemta't Bookstore) 117 University Avenue (Ford Bldg.) St. Paul, MN 55155 Metro: 612-297-3000, MN Toll Free: 1-80MS7-3757 TDD (Tdecomirainlcatlons Device for the DeaO Metro: 612-282-5077, MN Toll Firee: 1-800-657-3706 3~^3 f 85o XtOIVZDUM. 80MQE TPEnTtOr 3-23 i tarfti itaogtrtd lo at to aalntain continuity. In tha cate of a vacancy# an appointnvnt shall ba nada for tha unaxpirad balanca of tha tara. Tha adalnlatratort# intpactora# and contractors shall hava baan bona fida rasldants of this stata for at laast thraa yaars bafora appointaant# and shall hava had at laast thraa yaars* axparianca in thair raspactiva businassas. 8ubp. 6. lobart*s rulas. Hobart's Hulas of Ordar shall pravall at all aaatings of tha advisory coanlttaa. sat NS s 115.03f llS.SSi 115.56 HISTt 20 SH 1995 7080.0030 ADMIinSTHATIOR BT 6TATB ACENCIESi 6D8 AND NPDB8 PDIMIT HBQPlKEHgfTS. Subpart 1. SDS and NPDBS paraita raquirad. Tha agency issuas Stata Disposal Systaa (SDS) and National Pollutant Diseharga Bliaination Systaa (NPDES) paraits. Individual sewage traataant systaas ara raquirad to hava an NPDES or SDS permit# or both# as follows! A. Whan a singla individual sewage treatment systea# or group of individual sewage traataant systaas# is located on adjacent properties and under singla oimarship# tha o%mar or owners shall aaka application for and obtain a state disposal systea parait froa tha agency in accordance with aubpart 2 and chapter 7001 if tha individual sewage traataant systea or group of systaas is designed to treat an average design flow of greater than 10#000 gallons per day. Por dwellings such as rental apartments# townhouses# resort units# rental cabins# and condominiums# the sum of the flows froa all existing and proposed sources under single management or ownership will be used to determine the need for a state disposal systea permit. Individual sewage treatment systems serving establishments or facilities licensed or otherwise regulated by the state of Minnesota shall conform to the requireaients of this chapter. B. All new or existing systems which discharge to surface waters or the ground surface must obtain either an NPDES or an SDS permit froa the agency and shall comply with all NPDES or SDS requirements. Subp. 2. Application for SDS permit. For an individual sewage treatment system that is required to have an SDS permit under subpart 1# the owner must submit to the agency a complete set of plans and specifications with the completed SDS permit application which includes the information under items A to 1 in such detail as appropriate for the complexity of the system: A. justification of the need for a large system; B. a site evaluation which includes detailed soil descriptions in accordance with part 7080.0110 and with any additional methods as specified in the Soil Survey Manual# Agricultural Handbook No. 18 (October 1993)# which is incorporated by reference. The manual is issued by the United States Department of Agriculture and is available through the Superintendent of Documents# United States Governaent Printing Office# Vashington# D.C. It can be found at the Minnesota State Law Library# Judicial Center# 25 Constitution Avenue# St. Paul# Minnesota 55155# and is not subject to frequent ohangei C. a description of methods to meet or exceed permit standards for down gradient groundwater quality; D. an evaluation of groundwater conditions# groundwater impacts# and development of a groundwater monitoring and mitigation plan; E. a plan to identify and eliminate discharges of nondoaestic wastewater; F. meter readings of flow; G. an operation and maintenance plan; H. a septage disposal plan; and I. for joint systems# a written statement signed by all owners of dwellings or other establishaents planned to be connected to collection systeas that they agree to be part of the system# to participate in the construction projects# and to participate in and finance future operation# maintenance# and Replacement of the system. Subp. 3. Variance procedures. In certain cases# the owner or other person responsible for an ISTS which requires a variance by the agency may submit a request for a variance froa the standards in this chapter. Before granting a requested variance# the agency must find that by reason of exceptional circumstances the strict enforcement of any provision of this chapter would cause undue hardship; that disposal of the sewage is necessary for the public health# safety# or welfare; or that strict conformity with the standards would be unreasonable# impractical# not feasible under the circumstances# or not reasonable due to proximity of systems. The agency nay permit a variance under part 7000.7000 upon conditions as it may prescribe for prevention# control# or abatenent of pollution in harmony with the general purpose of this chapter and the intent of applicable state and federal laws. Variances to separation distances from wells and water supply pipes can only be issued by the Minnesota Department of Health. Subp. 4. Administration by all state agencies. Individual sewage treatment systems serving establishments or facilities licensed or otherwise regulated by Minnesota shall conform to the requirements of this chapter. Any individual sewage treatment systems requiring approval by the state shall also comply with applicable local codes and ordinances. Plans and specifications must receive the appropriate state and local approval before construction is initiated. SAi MS s 115.03; 115.55; 115.56 BIST! 13 SH 2752; 20 SR 1995 I F 70a0.0040 (Rcptaltd# 20 SR 1995)7080.0050 (lltptaltd, 20 SR 1995]MiroPH ncsncAL stamdards ard criteria por individualSEIiACB TREATMENT SYSTEMS7080.OOCO OGHPLIANCB CRITERIA.Subpart 1. Traataant raquirad. Bach individual aevage traataant ayataa ahall ba daaignad to racaiva and treat all tavaga froa the dwelling or other eatabliahaent eerved.Subp. 2. Hand carried graywatar. Hand carried greywater •hall not ba diacharged directly to eurface waters, drainagewaya, or in a manner haraful to the environment or to public health.Subp. 3. Coeplianca. Individual eewage treatment eystems shall ba considarad in compliance ifsA. an existing individual sewage treatment system isnot a failing system as defined in part 70B0.0020, subpart 16a: or B. new construction or replacement meets the technical standards and criteria defined in part 7080.0020, subpart 46a.Subp. 4. Required upgrade. Systems not in compliance •hall be upgraded, replaced, repaired in compliance with this part, or discontinued. If a compliance inspection indicates that a system presents an imminent threat to public health or safety as defined in part 7080.0020, subpart 19a, the o%#ner must upgrade, replace, or discontinue use of the system within the time period established by the local unit of government in areas with local ordinances and by the agency in areas without local ordinances. This time period shall not be longer than ten months after fhe 6wner receives a notice of noncompliance.~ SAi MS • 115.03: 115.55) 115.56 HIHTt 13 6R 2752: 20 SR 1995 7080.0065 PROHIBITIONS. A. Sewage, sewage tank effluent, or seepage from a •oil treatment system shall not be discharged into any well or boring as defined in chapter 4725 or any other excavation in the ground not in compliance with this chapter. B. rooting or roof drainage and chemically treated hot tub and pool water shall not enter any part of a system. Products containing hazardous waste and hazardous substances must not be discharged to a system other than in normal amounts of household products and cleaners designed for household use. Substances not intended for use in household cleaning including solvents, pesticides, flammables, photo finishing chemicals, and dry cleaning chemicals must not be discharged to the system. C. Unless specifically permitted by the agency, sewage, sewage tank effluent, or seepage from a soil treatment system shall not be discharged to the ground surface or to surface water.8Ai NS • 115.031 115.55f 115.56 HISTs 20 SR 19957080.0070 (Repealed, 20 SR 1995]7080.0080 (Repealed, 20 SR 1995]7080.0090 (Repealed, 20 SR 1995]7080.0100 (Repealed, 20 SR 1995]080.0110 SITE EVALUATION.Subpart 1. (Repealed, 20 SR 1995]Subp. la. Necessity of evaluation. A preliminary and field evaluation shall be conducted for all proposed sites for individual sewage treatment systems.Subp. 2. (Repealed, 20 SR 1995]Subp. 2a. Preliminary evaluation. A preliminary evaluation shall consist ofiA. flow determination for the dwelling or other establishmenti B. the investigation of the proposed or existing location of: (1) supply wells within 100 feet of the proposed individual sewage treatment system; (2) existing and proposed buildings on the loti existing and proposed buried water pipes within 50 feet of the proposed system: C. easements on the lot: D. ordinary high water level of public waters: E. ten-year floodplain designation and flooding elevation from published data as available or from data which is acceptable to and approved by the permitting authority or the DNR: F. property lines: G. all required setbacks from the syitem: B. the soil map unit, applicable soil characteristics, and soil suitability as determined by the soil survey report, if available; I. legal description and lot dimensions: and J. names of property owners. Subp. 3. (Repealed, 20 SR 1995] Subp. 4. Field evaluation. A field evaluation consists of: A. identifying lot lines, lot improvements, required setbacks, and easements: B. a description of the following surface features: . -Hlota«t and th« «ltVAtion difftr«nc« bctwten the pump and the diatributlon device.D. Tbe quantity of effluent delivered for each punp cycle ehall be no greater than 2S percent of the average deaign. flov. B. a eiphon will not be allowed aa a doting device to deliver effluent to a preaeure diatributlon ayaten. sat M8 a 115.Oil 115.S5r 115.56 ■XSTt 13 6R 27521 20 SR 1995 70to.oi70 rmaL ruMimn an oiSPOsaL. Subpart 1. la general. Final treatnent and diapoaal of all eewage tank effluent ahall be by diacharge into the aoil treatment ayaten. a. The required aoil treatment area ahall be determined by the average deaign flow and the aoil airing factor in accordance with Table V in aubpart 2. m. Diatributlon ahall be made in accordance with all applicable requirementa of part 7080.0150. Subp. 2. Tremcbee end seepage beda* A. Location of trenchea and aeepage beda: (1) On alopea greater than 12 percent* the aoil profile ahall be carefully evaluated in the location of the proposed aoil treatment ayatem and downalope to identify the pretence of layera with different permeabilitiea that may cause eidehill aeepage. In no caae ahall a trench be located within 15 feet of where auch a layer eurfacea on the do«malope. (2) Seepage bed conatruction ahall be limited to areaa having natural alopea of leaa than aix percent. Beda ehall not be placed in aoilt with percolation ratea alower than 60 minutes per inch or in floodplain areaa. (3) Soil treatment ayatems shall be located as specified in Table IV. Table IV. Minimum setback distances (feet). Sewage Soil Treatment Tank or ov Absorption Holding Tank Feature Area •••* or Privy Building Sewer or Supply Pipes Mater Supply ^illa buried water auction |ipe* and Buried pipe distributing water under pressure Buildings** Property Lin< The Ordinary High Water ^Level of Public Waters *** ****8etbacka from buried water pipes and water supply wells are governed by chapters 4715 and 4725* respectively. **For structures other than buildings these setbacks may be reduced if necessary due to site conditions* but in no case shall any part of the individual sewage treatment system be located under or within the structure. Infringement on building setbacks for areaa without local ordinance requires submittal of a written notification by the owner indicating the proposed setback and approval by the commissioner. ***8etbacka from lakes* rivers* and streams are governed by chapters 6105 and 6120. ****Refer to subpart 5* item A* subitem (3). *****Infringement on property setbacks for areas without local ordinances requires written permission from any potentially affected party* and approval by the commiaaioner. (4) Soi) treatment areas shall not be placed in areaa subject to flooding or in flood plains delineated by local ordinances adopted in compliance with the "Statewide Standards and Criteria for Management of Flood Plain Areaa o' Minnesota* (chapter 6120)* or in areas for which regional floe information is available from the DNR* except that in areas where ten year flood information is available from and/or approved by the DNR* soil treatment systems may be installed in accordance with the provisions of Appendix A* part 7080.0210* aubpart 3* item D. B. Distribution medium for trenches and seepage beds. (1) General. Distribution medium ahall consist of drainfield rock* gravtllesa drainfield pipe* or a chambered system. (2) Drainfield rock. (a) Drainfield rock shall meet the requirements of part 7080.0020* subpart 15a. (b) There shall be a layer of at least six but no sK>re than 24 inches of drainfield rock below the distribution pipe. The drainfield rock shall completely encase the top and sides of the distribution pipes to a depth of at least t%#o inches. The total thickness of rock-filled trenches shall not exceed 30 inches. (3) Gravellesa drainfield pipe. Gravelless drainfield pipe including appurtenances shall bet (a) of commercially fabricated corrugated pipe completely encased by the manufacturer in a geotextile wrap specific to this purpose! (b) an eight-inch or ten-inch nominal ID pipe that conforms to subunits i and ii and meets the requirements of American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) F667* which is incOkporated by reference. The annual book of ASTM standards F667 "Standard Specification for Large Diameter (2) Th« tr«nch«t thall not bo loot than 18 inches nor mof than 38 inches wide. Any excavation wider than 36 inches shall be considered a bed. Ho bed nay be wider than 25 feet and parallel beds mist be at least ten feet apart. The width of the excavation for gravelless drainfield pipe a d chaabered systeas shall be installed per aanufacturer*s recoaaendation.(3) Drainfield rock aust be used as the distribution aediua in seepage beds.(4) The bottoa and sides of the soil treataentsystea to the top of the distribution aediua shall be excavated in such a aanner aa to expose the original soil structure in an unsaeared and uncoapacted condition. Excavate into the soil treataent area only when the soil aoisture content is at or less than the plastic liait.(5) Do not drive excavation equipaent or other vehicles on the excavated trench or seepage bed bottom. Once the trench or seepage bed is excavated# it shall not be exposed to rainfall prior to placeaent of the final backfill. (6) A vertical inspection pipe at least 1-1/2 inches in disaster shall be installed and secured in the distribution aediua of every trench or seepage bed. The inspection pipe aust be located at an end opposite from where the sewage tank effluent enters the aedium. The inspection pipe must have three-eighths inch or larger perforations spaced vertically no aore than six inches apart. At least two perforations aust be located in the distribution medium. No perforations shall be located above the geotextile cover or wrap. The inspection pipe aust extend to the bottom of the distribution aediua and must be capped flush with or above finished grade. (7) The top and bottoa of the distribution medium shall be level in all directions. (8) Drainfield rock aust be covered with a durable nonwoven geotextile cover specific to this purpose. The cover aust be of sufficient strength to undergo installation without rupture. In addition# the cover must permit passage of water without allowing the passage of overlying soil material into drainfield rock. (9) The minimum depth of cover over the distribution aedium shall be at least six inches. (10) The trenches or beds shall be backfilled and crowned above finished grade to allow for settling. The top six inches of soil shall have the same texture as the adjacent soil. (11) A vegetative cover shall be established over the soil treataent system. The soil treatment system shall be protected until a vegetative cover is established. The vegetative cover established shall not interfere with the hydraulic performance of the system and shall provide adequate frost and erosion protection. (12) All joints for gravelless drainfield pipesor chambered systems must be secured as recoesiended by the manufacturer.(13) Backfilling for gravelleaa drainfield pipeand chambered systems shall not crush or damage the medium.6ubp. 3. Dual field systems.A. Dual field systems shall be used only where the percolation rate is slower than five minutes per inch# unless a liner or pressure distribution system is employed as specified in part 7080.0150# subpart 3# or 7080.0910# subpart 3#, item B.B. Dual field systems shall be sited# designed# and constructed as set forth above for standard systems except as- followst(Ij The soil treatment area shall be divided into t%fo or more parts.(2) Alternating soil treatment areas shall each be connected to a valve box outlet.C. A part of the soil treatment area shall be used no more than one year unless the effluent level indicates that a longer duration can be used. Subp. 4. Rapidly permeable soils. A. Soil treatment systems placed in soils with a soil sizing factor of 0.C3 gallons per day per square foot must provide at least one oi the following treatment techniquest (1) distribute the sewage tank effluent by pressure flow over the treatment area aa specified in part 7060.0150# subpart 3| (2) divide the total soil treatment area into at least four parts with no part larger than 25 percent of the area required by subpart 2# item C# and the parts constructed for serial application. B. Soil treatment systems placed in soils with percolation rates of less than one-tenth minute per inch must provide at least one of the following treatment techniques! (1) a mound system; (2) a trench system with at least one foot of clean sand placed between the distribution medium and the coarse soil along the excavation bottom and sidewalls if provisions of item A# subitem (1) or (2)# are followed; or (3) in accordance with part 7080.0910# subpart 3# item B. Subp. 5. Mounds. ( A. Location of mounds. (1) Hounds must be constructed on original soils that there is at least 36 inches of separation between the j bottom of the drainfield rock bed and saturated soil or bedrock. (2) There must be at least 12 inches of original soil with a percolation rate faster than 120 minutes per inch / above saturated soil or bedrock. (3) Setbacks shall be in accordance with Table f IV, mub^tt 2, it%m k, subitM (3).|4) Absorption srsss shall not bs plactd in arsas subjtet to flooding as dtscribsd in subpart 2, itcn k, subitsa (4). (S) On slopss of on# parcsnt or grsatsr# and vhsrs ths parcolation rats in ths top foot of original soil is in ths 61 to 120 nlnutss psr inch rangs* nounds nust not bs locatsd ahsrs ths ground aurfacs contour lints dirsctly bslow ths long axis of ths rock bsd rsprsssnt a swals or draw, unlsss ths contour linss havs a radius of curvaturs grsatsr than 100 fast* Hounds nust nsvsr bs locatsd in swalss or draws whtrs ths radius of curvaturs of ths contour linss is Isss than 50 fast. B. Dssign of nounda. Drainfisld rock aust bs ussd as ths distribution asdiua in nounda. (1) Ths bottoa arsa of ths rock bsd shall bs calculatsd by nultiplying tns avsrags dssign flow by 0.83 square fast psr gallon psr day. (2) Ths width of a singls rock bsd oust not sxcssd tsn fast. (3) A ainiauB of 12 inchss of clsan sand must bs placsd whsrs ths rock bsd it to bs locatsd. (4) Ths rsquirsd absorption width is calculatsd by nultiplying ths rock bsd width by ths absorption ratio. Ths absorption ratio shall bs dstsrainsd according to Tabls VI using ths psrcolation rats of ths upper 12 inchss of soil in ths proposed absorption arsa. For nounda with aids*by-sids rock beds# ths rsquirsd absorption width shall bs increased by four feet. Tabls VI Absorption ratioPsrcolation rats of original soil undsr sand laysr, ninutss psr inch Fastsr than 5 6 to 15 16 to 30 31 to 45 46 to 60 61 to 120 120 plus 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.40 2.67 5.00 •See part 7080.0910, subpart 3, ilea A, subitsa (2) rsquirsd absorption width for sounds slopes froa r.sro to one percent shall bs centered bsd width. Ths rsquirsd absorption width for nounda constructed on slopes grsatsr than one percent shall bs nsasursd downalops fron ths upslops edge of ths rock bsd width and Bstsursd in ths direction of ths original land slops and perpendicular to ths original contours. (5) Ths constructed on undsr ths rock (6) Mounds nay bs locatsd on natural slopss exceeding 12 percent if ths rsquirsd absorption width is at least 25 percent larger thfa that required in Tabls VI. (7) Ths side slopes on ths nound nust not bs • steeper than three horisontal *:aits to one vertical unit and shall extend beyond ths rsquirsd absorption arsa, if necessary. (8) On slopss of one percent or grsatsr, ths upslops edge of ths level drainfisld rock bsd nust bs placsd on ths contour. (9) Whenever nounda are locatsd on slopss grsatsr than one percent# a diversion nust bs constructed innsdiatsly upslops fron ths nound to intercept and direct runoff. (10) A naxinuB of two ten-foot wide beds nay bs installed side by side in a single nound if ths original soil psrcolation rats is bst%#ssn five and 60 ninutss psr inch to a depth of at least 24 inchss below ths sand layer. Ths beds nust bs separated by at least four feet of clsan sand. (11) Distribution of effluent over ths rock bsd nust be by level perforated pips undsr pressure. A punp nust bs used as specified in part 7080.0160, subpart 3. (12) Ths rock bsd shall conplstsly encase ths top and sides of ths distribution pipes to a depth of at least two inchss above ths pips. Ths rock shall extend nine inchss below ths pips. (13) A vertical inspection pips at least 1-1/2 inchss in dianetsr shall bs installed and secured at each rock bsd/sand interface of every sound. Ths inspection pips nust havs thrss-sighths inch or larger perforations spaced vertically no sore than six inchss apart. At least two perforations nust bs locatsd in ths rock bed. No perforations shall bs locatsd above ths psrnsabls synthetic fabric. Ths inspection pips nust extend to ths botton of ths rock bed and nust bs capped flush with or above finished grads. (14) Ths rock bsd nust bs covered with a durable nonwovsn gsotsxtils cover specific to this purpose. Ths cover nust bs of sufficient strength to undergo installation without rupture. In addition, ths cover nust psrnit passage of water without passage of overlying soil natsrial into ths drainfisld rock. (15) Sandy to loany soil natsrial nust bs placsd on ths rock bsd to a depth of one foot in ths center of ths nound and to a depth of six inchss at ths sides. When two rock beds are installed aids by side, ths soil natsrial nust bs 18 inchss deep at ths center of ths nound and six inchss deep at ths sides. (16) Six inches of top soil nust bs placsd over the entire nound. Topsoil doss not include peat soil textures. C. Surface preparation for nounda. (1) Ths supply pips fron ths punp to ths nound **rea nust bs installed before nound soil surface preparation. to •valuaCt tuboltttd rtttarch to d«t«rolnc if tht propostd •Itornativo ■tondardt will protect public health and the eneironaent• After this determination ia coeiplete* the conaultante auet recommend whether to certify the alternative ■tandarde. The epecialiets muet etate reaeoni for their recoomen(!at ion • Subp. 8* Requiresenta for more reatrictive atandarda. Local unite of government may adopt and enforce more reatrictive atandarda for a deaignated area provided each more reatrictive atandard ia clearly labeled# identified aa meeting at leaat one of the three criteria in the definition# and aubmitted to the commiaaioner under aubpart 5. Local unita of government nuat aubmit local ordinancea with more reatrictive atandarda to the commiaaioner with an explanation of each proviaion that ia more reatrictive than technical atandarda and criteria. 6ubp. 9. Bmforcement of local ordinancea. Local unita of government ahall enforce local ordinancea that regulate individual aewage treatment ayatema through permitting programa that meet the requireaenta under part 7080.0310 and inapection progi4>* that meet the requireaenta under part 7080.0315. Local uni^ ^ of government nay alao enforce local ordinancea that are app. requireaenta under Minneaota Statutea# aection 115.Oti, aubdiviaiona 3 and 4. SAr H9 a 115.031 115.55; 115.56 SR 1995 7Ua0 IWKIT PROGRAM FOR IRDIVIDOAL SEWAGE TREATVfEWr SYSTEMS. Sm;^. t 1. General requireaenta for permit program. M A local unit of government with a local ordinance to regulate individual aewage treatment ayatema must have a correaponding permit program that apecifically addreasea the following; (1) permit application requireaenta; (2) permit review and approval requirementa and procedurea; (3) recordkeeping; and (4) reporting. Theae program elementa muat contain the minimum requirementa under aubparta 2 to 5. Permita are required for all new conatruction and replacement. B. A local unit of government with a local ordinance to regulate bedroom or bathroom additiona muat comply with aubparta 3# item B# and 4. Subp. 2. X6T8 permit application requirementa. I STS permit applicationa muat include exhibita deacribed under aubpart 4# itema A and B# and include general requirementa to adequately identify the property and ovnera# a aite evaluation report# a deaign aumaary and drawinga# applicable conatruction information# and any other information requeated by the permitting authority pertinent to thia process. Exhibits for Bite evaluation# deaign# and applicable conatruction information muat be complete and include a certified atatement from the peraon who conducted the %K>rk. In the event of a change in the application information which aerved aa the basis for issuing a permit# the permittee muat file an amended application for reapproval prior to initiating construction# detailing the changed conditions for approval or denial by the permitting authority. Subp. 3. Permit approval requirementa and procedures. The permit program muat include the following requirements; A. A qualified employee or licensee authorised by the local unit of government must review the permit application and exhibits to determine whether the proposed system will meet applicable requirements. The local unit of government will either grant preliminary approval or denial. Construction shall not be initiated until preliminary approval is granted. Pinal approval shall be evidenced by issuance of a certificate of compliance. B. After December 31# 1995# a local unit of government shall not issue a permit for a bedroom or bathroom addition on property aerved by a system unless the individual sewage treatment system is in compliance with applicable requirements# aa evidenced by a certificate of compliance. Subp. 4. Recordkeeping requirementa. Local unita of government nuat maintain copies of certificates of compliance# notices of nonconpllance# permit applications# issued permits# enforcement prcceedingr variance requests# and other actions taken. Recc. • muat be available for review by the commissioner. Permit fll^ * . .«o include: A. nation records Including items identified in part 7080.0110; B. design records including calculations and summaries for all system component sizings; and aa*builts. Subp. S. Reporting requirements. Local unita of government must aubmit annual reports to the commissioner to demonstrate enforcement of the local ordinance. At a minimum# the reports muat include a copy of the standard permit and inspection forma used if they are different than agency forms# the name and address of the program administrator# all qualified employees and contracted licensees authorized by the local unit of government# the number of permits issued# the number and methods of inspections conducted# the number and type of variances issued# the number and type of alternative and experimental systems# and the monitoring results for experimental systems aa specified in part 7080.0910# aubpart 3a. The reports ahall contain information from the calendar year and shall be received by the commissioner no later than March 1 of the following year. SA: MS a 115.03; 115.55; 115.56 inSTi 20 SR 1995 7080.0315 XS8PKTIOR PSOGRIM FOR IRDIVIDOAL SEWAGB TRERTKBIfr Subpart 1. Inapcctiofi rcquircMats. The inapection program conducted by the local unit of government to fulfill the enforcement requirement under part 7080.0305# aubpart 9# muat apecify the frequency and timea of inapectiona# the requirements of an inapection# an inapection protocol if an inapection cannot be completed within a timely manner# and# at a minimum# the requirementa for a compliance inapection under aubpart 2. Subp. 2. Compliancm inapection. A compliance inapection ahall be conducted: A. to enaure compliance with applicable requirementa. Peraona conducting compliance inapectiona for diacloaurea ahall alao meet the requirementa of part 7080.0300, aubpart 6i B. for an exiating ayatem if a local unit of government iaauea oermits or variances for the addition of a bedroom or bathroom on property served by the systen: C. for all new construction or replacement! D. by a qualified employee or under a license authorized by the local unit of government who is independent of the owner and the installer: E. to reasonably ensure an individual sewage treatment system is in compliance as specified under part 7080.0060: and P. for diacloaurea as described under part 7080.0300, lubpart 6. Subp. 3. Certificate of compliance: notice of noncompliance. A certificate of compliance or notice of noncompliance must be submitted to the local unit of government and the owner within 30 days after any compliance inspection. A certificate of compliance or notice of noncompliance must Include a certified statement from the licensee or qualified raployee who conducted the compliance inspection# identify the tjype of system inspected, and indicate whether the individual lewage treatment system is in compliance with part 7060.0060. 'At a minimum# a notice of noncompliance muat be issued for systems not in compliance as described under part 7080.0060. If a compliance inspection indicates that the system presents an imminent threat to public health or safety as defined in part 7080.0020# subpart 19a# the notice must also contain a statement to this effect and state that the owner must upgrade# replace, or discontinue use of the ayatem within the time period established by the local unit of government. This time period cannot exceed ten months after the owner receives a notice of noncompllancet ^ BAt MS a 115.03: 115.55: 115.56 HlSTi 20 SR 1995 RBOaiREKElfrS IN AREAS WITBOCTT A LOCAL OROIHAKB 7080.0350 GENERAL REQOIR0IENT8. Subpart 1. Requirementa for work done on individual sewage . treatment systems. In areas that do not have a local ordinance# any person who conducts site evaluations or designs# installs# alters# repairs# maintains# pumps# or inspects all or part of an individual sewage treatment system must complete %iork according to this chapter. All ISTS work activities must be completed under a license or by a qualified employee# or as exempted under part 7080.0700# subpart 1. Local units of government mdy not require additional local licenses for ISTS professionals. Subp. 2. Compliance inspectioms. A. Compliance inspections are required for all new construction or replacement and must be completed according to subitems (1) and (2). (1) Compliance inspections must be conducted by a qualified employee or under a license independent of the owner and the installer to reasonably ensure an individual sewage treatment system is in compliance as specified under part 7080.0060. (2) A certificate of compliance or notice of noncompliance must be submitted to the o%#ner within 30 days of any compliance inspection. All notices of noncompliance must alao be submitted to the cosuiissloner. A certificate of compliance or . ->tice of noncompliance must Include a certified statement from » licensee or qualified employee who conducted the compliance * ipection# identify the type of system inspected# and must Indicate whether the individual sewage treatment system is in compliance with part 7080.0060. At a minimum# a notice of noncompliance must be issued for systems not in compliance under part 7080.0060. If a compliance inapection indicates that the system presents an imminent threat to public health or safety as defined in part 7080.0020# subpart 19a# the notice must also contain a statement to this effect and state that the owner must upgrade, replace# or discontinue use of the system within the time period established by the commissioner. This time period may not exceed ten months after the owner receives a notice of noncompliance. The owner must submit to the commissioner a copy of the certificate of compliance after the system upgrade or replacement has occurred or a written notification indicating discontinued use of the individual sewage treatment system. B. Compliance inspections meeting the requirements under item A must be conducted for disclosures as described under part 7080.0300# subpart 6. Subp. 3. Variances. Variances to chapters 4725# 6105# 6120# and 7080 may only be approved by the governing state agency. Variances to chapter 7080 must be approved by the commissioner in accordance with part 7060.0030# subpart 3. The V. r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 25, 1997 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Thie Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator's Report Item Description: Variance for David and Jodi Rahn Residence Bruce Vang, City of Orono Building Inspector has brought to our attention concerns about the proposed_addiUo„ .0 an exiting inspector has been m contact with the property owner regarding this situation"^ ^ r^n from Bruce explains the situation and possible options to be consideted by the CouDcth This issue has been discussed with the City Attorney and his input on the legal involved with this situation will be extremely important.issues ^ information on the direction mpptina^ should proceed with on this issue. The building inspector will attend the Council meetmg in order to answer questions the Council may have. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consideration of the options presented in the----- «ic upiions presented in the memo from the building inspector regarding concerns with the variance at 1385 Rest Point Road. ^ 8 8 To: Ron Morse, City Administrator Greg Gappa, Public Services Director From: Bruce Vang, Building Inspector Date: Aug. 22, 1997 Subject: Construction at 1385 Rest Point Rd. List of exhibits: Exhibit A - Resolution #3926 Exhibit B - Engineer's foundation assessment Exhibit C - Photo 8/22/97 On July 14, 1997 Resolution #3926 was approved granting David and Jodi Rahn variances for remodeling of and additions to an existing residence at 1385 Rest Point Rd. Building plans were submitted to the Orono Building Official on July 15, 1997. In addition to the usual plans, the owners were required by the Building Official to provide an assessment of the existing foundation to determine if the proposed additions could be supported. While the existing foundation was sound it would require some additional work to support the proposed second story. This consisted of digging under the existing footing to achieve the required 42" frost protection, and filling the existing 8" blocks with concrete, (see attached #2) After discussion staff agreed that these improvements should not be construed as "foundation replacement", and on July 30, 1997 a building permit was issued. As the existing house was opened up more and more deficiencies and rotten wood were discovered. Today only a small portion remains, and most of that is inadequate. The remaining piece of floor is rotted from being built too close to the dirt, and will need to be replaced. The remaining wall will have 2x6's added alongside the 2x4's to increase insulation. The fireplace was found to be cracked and has been taken down. What remains of the structure has been raised to add two courses of concrete block to the old foundation to increase earth/floor separation. These additional block are in addition to the engineer's structural requirements. The question at this time is: Does this project still constitute "remodeling and adding to an existing residence" as approved in the resolution? I would like to see even more of the existing removed so a year from now we won't have a brand new house with some rotten lumber buried inside, simply to "retain” some of the "existing residence". Would this be allowed by the resolution? Council Options Option 1. Allow work to proceed under resolution #3926 subject to no further removals. Option 2. Option 3. Allow work to proceed under resolution #3926 with further removals as deemed necessary by the building official to assure the best possible end product Find that too much of the "existing residence" has already been removed to proceed under resolution #3926, sending the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration of a lot area variance as required to totally rebuild on an existing lot. There to reconsider: Option 3a. Allow the building of the residence as already proposed. Option 3b. Allow the proposed structure to be built but with fewer variances. No property line setback for example. Option 3c. Ask to see a totally different proposal. Something built closer to the street for example. Option 3d. Declare the lot unbuildable. i I f r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIONDATE: Au^^'22, 1997 ITEM NO^^ Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hallin THIe City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:A^fid|g)Sectio^ Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval There are no licenses. % ^0.v.C' o X 12 Aug 1997 Tue 8:01 AM Check Humber Check Numoer 54528 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 54528 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 13-Aug-97 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totals Check Number 54528 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 54529 54529 54529 54529 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OP LAKES 13-Aug-97 13-Aug-97 13-Aug-97 Totals Check Number FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 54529 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 54530 54530 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 13-Aug-97 Totals Check Number GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO 54530 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. Check Number 54531 54531 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL 13-Aug-97 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL 54531 HQINEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 54532 54532 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 13-Aug-97 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 54532 ISNNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 54533 54533 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 13-Aug-97 Totals Check Number ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 54533 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 54534 54534 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 13-Aug-97 Totals Check Number LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 54534 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 54535 54535 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 13-Aug-97 Totals Check Nun^er MN DEPT OF REVENUE 54535 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 54536 54536 MN MUTUAL LIFE 13-Aug-97 Totals Check Number MN MUTUAL LIFE 54536 MN MUTUAL LIFE Transaction Amount 7.012.00 7.812.00 3,646.41 3,646.41 9.276.09 16.568.91 871.46 871.46 174.50 174.50 184.50 184.50 125.00 125.00 495.00 495.00 3,764.51 3,764.51 514.00 514.00 Page 1 Comments SAVINGS W/H k TRANSFERRED FICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA.MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THOMTON 8C0266780 SKREEN 8C0262310 DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUES H/H STATE TAX H/H DEFERRED COMP H/H L 1f i 12 Aug 1997 Tue 8:01 AM Check Register City of OronoCheckNumberDateName Check Number 54537 54537 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP 13-AU9-97 MM STATE RETIREMENT-DEF CCMP ToC«l« Check Number S4S37 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Check Number 54538 PraSCO/OBRA 54538 13-Aug-97 PEBSCO/OBRA Tocala Check Number 54530 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 54539 S4S39 PEBSCO/OS CONP OF MAYORS 13-Aug-97 PEBSCO/OS CONF OF MAYORS Tocale Check Number S4539 PEBSCO/OS CONF OF MAYORS Check Number 54540 PERA 54540 54540 13-Aug-97 13-Aug-97 PERA PERA Totale Check Number 54540 PERA Check Number 54541 UNITED WAY 54541 13-Aug-97 UNITED WAY Totale Check Number 54541 UNITED WAY Grand Total TransactionAmount 265.00 265.00 216.20 216.20 2,297.86 2,297.86 4,390.69 5,778.86 10.169.55 23.00 23.00 43,481.49 Page 2 Commente DEFERRED COMP W/H OBRA DEFERRED COMP M/H USCM DEFERRED COMP W/H PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS W/H -- -- 21 Aug 1997 Thu 8:S5 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54542 54542 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 25-Aug-97 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Totals Check Number 54542 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Check Number 54543 ANCHOR PAPER 54543 25-Aug-97 ANCHOR PAPER Totals Oieck Number 54543 ANCHOR PAPER Check Number 54544 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF 54544 54544 25-Aug-97 ll-Aug-97 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Totals Check Number 54544 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Check Number 54545 AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO. 54545 25<Aug-97 AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO. Totals Check Number 54545 AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO, Check Number 54546 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 54546 25-Aug-97 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 54546 25-Aug-97 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 54546 25-Aug-97 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 54546 25-Aug-97 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 54546 25-Aug-97 BCA/FORI31SIC SCIENCE LAB 54546 25-Aug-97 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 54546 25-Aug-97 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 54546 25-Aug-97 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 54546 25-Aug-97 BCA/FORFSSIC SCIENCE LAB 54546 25-Aug-97 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 54546 25-Aug-97 BCA/FORENSIC SCIEIiCE LAB 54546 25-Aug-97 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB Totals Check Number 54546 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB Check Number 54547 BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. 54547 54547 2S-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 BONESTROO ROSENE & ASSOC BONESTROO ROSENE & ASSOC, Totals Check Number 54547 BONESTROO ROSENE & ASSOC, Check Number 54548 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 54548 25-Aug-97 BOYER TRUCK PARTS Totals Check Number 54548 BOYER TRUCK PARTS Transaction Amount 526.17 526.17 758.28 758.28 59.18 38.70 97.88 235.00 235.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 4C.00 480.00 711.75 4.048.88 4.760.63 59.97 59.97 Page 1 Cc.nments SEPT INSURANCE COPY PAPER FOOD FOR RESALE FOOT FOR RESALE REPAIR PHONE SYSTEM-WTR TOMCHECK-INTOXILY2ER THOMTON-INTOXILYZER McNICHOLS-INTOXILYZER JOHNSON-INTOXILYZER ERICKSON-INTOXILYZER DEMBOUSKI-INTOXILYZER TOMCZYK-INTOXILYZER BORIS-INTOXILYZER SCHOENHOFF-INTOXILYZER ENGLISH-INTOXILYZER CORNICK-INTOXILYZER ANDERSON-INTOXILYZER ASMNT HRNO NLL-LLCC MAY COUNCIL KTGS 8425 MISC PARTS r f 21 Aug 1997 *hu 8:55 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54549 54549 BROCK WHITE COMPANY 25.Aug.97 brock white company Totals Check Number 54549 BROCK WHITE COMPANY Check Number 54550 BUDGET PRINTING 54550 25-Aug-97 BUDGET PRINTING Totals Check Number 54550 BUDGET PRINTING Check Number 54551 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54551 54551 54551 54551 54551 54551 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-AU5-97 25-Aug-97 CHUNKS CHUNKS CHUNKS CHUNKS CHUNKS CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO LAKESHORE AUTO LAKESHORE AUTO LAKESHORE AUTO LAKESHORE AUTO LAKESHORE AUTO Totals Check Number 54551 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Check Number 54552 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 54552 I 04-Sep-96 cm OF ORONO PETTY CASH Total. Check Number S45S2 CITY OF ORO.’IO PEm CASH Check Number 54553 colonial LIFE INSURANCE CO. 54553 2S-Aug-97 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. Total. Check Number 54553 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO, Check Number 54554 COMPUTER CITY 54554 54554 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 COMPUTER CITY COMPUTER CITY Totals Check Number $4554 COMPUTER CITY Check Number 54555 CULLIGAN 54555 25-Aug-97 CULLIGAN Totals Check Number S4555 CULLIGAN Check Number 54556 rCYLE INC. 54556 25-Aug-97 DOYLE INC. Totals Check Number 54556 DOYLE INC. Check Number 54557 EULL'S MANUFACTURING CO. INC. Transaction Amount 82.11 82.11 361.28 361.28 173.59 31.63 105.36 401.07 273.71 29.33 1.014.69 400.00 400.00 898.06 898.06 9.62 157.96 167.58 30.50 30.50 66.21 66.21 Comments SILT PENCE CODS BOOKS-VOL 2 #175 TRANSMISSION #176 OIL CHANGE #176 HUB CAP #174 CLUTCH, OIL CHG AC BRACKET-SWEEPER #178 REPLACE SIREN CERTIFIED MAIL-CAFR AUGUST INSURANCE SALES TAX ON PURCHASE 4 MB SI^W MEMORY SOFTENER TANK SERVICE lift CABLE-FLAIL MOWER Page 2 r 21 Aug 1997 Thu 8:55 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54S57 54557 HULL'S MANUFACTURING CO. INC. 25-Aug-97 BULL'S MANUFACTURING CO. INC Totals Check Number 54557 HULL''. MANUFACTURING 'iC Check Number 54558 FEED RITE CONTROLS 54558 25-Aug-97 FEED RITE CONTROLS Totals Check Number 54558 FEED RITE CONTROLS Check Number 54559 FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY 54559 54559 54559 54559 54559 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 23-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY Totals Check Number 54559 FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY Check Number 54560 G & K SERVICES 54560 54560 54560 54560 54560 54560 54560 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 0 a K SERVICES OAK SERVICES 0 a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES Totals Check Number 54560 G a K SERVICES Check Number 54561 GENUINE PARTfi f- 54561 08-Aug-96 •vNUINE PARTS CO. 54561 08-Aug-96 GENUINE PARTS CO. 54561 08-Aug-96 GENUINE PARTS CO. Totals Check Number 54561 GENUINE PARTS CO. Check Number 54S62 GROSSMAN CHEVROLET 54562 25-Aug-97 GROSSMAN CHEVROLET Totals Check Number 54562 GROSSMAN CHEVROLET Check Number 54563 HEALTHPARTNERS 54563 54563 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 HEALTHPARTNERS HEALTHPARTNERS Traxisaction Amount 582.24 582.24 15.00 15.00 95.37 70.07 54.69 54.69 95.68 12.15 5.93 388.58 23.525.00 23.525.00 313.51 5.777.14 Page 3 Comments MANHOLE RINGS CONTAINER CHARGE 75.00 1997 BOND FEB 228.00 1992 GO BOND FISCAL AGENT 80.00 1995 REFUND FISCAL AGENT 81.50 1995 REFUND FISCAL AGENT 37.00 1995 REFUND FISCAL AGENT 5U1.50 FLOOR MATS FLOOR MATS FLOOR MATS FLOOR MATS STREET EMPLOYEES RATHBUN STEFFENHAGEN 3.20 MISC PARTS 32.63 MISC PARTS 279.54 MISC PARTS 315.37 PW VEHICLE SEPT INSURANCE SEPT INSURANCE Totals Check Number 54563 HEALTHPARTNERS 6.090.65 r 21 Aug 1997 Thu 8:55 AM Check Register City of 0-ono Check Number Hate Name Check Number 54564 54564 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS. 25-Aug-97 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS. Total. Check Number S4S64 HENNEPIN COUNTV TREAS. Check Number S4S6S HEWLETT PACKARD 54S65 25-Aug-97 HEWLETT PACKARD I Totals Check Number Check Number 54565 HEWLETT PACKARD 54566 HINSHAR 4 CULBERTSON 54566 25-Aug-97 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON Total. Check Number 54566 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON Check Number 54567 JIM HATCH SALES CO. 54567 25-Aug-97 jim HATCH SALES CO. Totals Check Number 54567 jim HATCH SALES CO. Check Number 54568 LANGANKI, JEREMY 54568 25-Aug-97 LANGANKI. JEREMY Total. Check Number 54568 LANGANKI, JEREMY Qieck Number 54569 LAWN DETAILERS INC. 54569 25-Aug-97 lAHN DETAILERS INC Total. Check Number 54569 LAHN DETAILERS INC. 54570 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTSCheck Number 54570 25-Aug-97 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Totals Check Number 54570 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Check Number 54571 LONG LAKE GLASS INC. 54571 25-Aug-97 LONG LAKE GLASS INC. Totals Check Number 54571 LONG LAKE GLASS INC. Check Number 54572 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT 54572 25-Aug-97 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIP.MENT Totals Check Number 54572 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Check Number 54573 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT Transaction Amount 145.00 145.00 17.57 17.57 1.903.00 1.903.00 203.42 203.42 27.41 27.41 2«145.22 2,145.22 19.80 19.80 15.00 15.00 12.76 12.76 Page 4 Comments OWNERS LIST-FERNDALE RD IMAGE EDITOR MANUAL MAY, JUNE APPLICATIONS rain suit EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT JULY SERVICE #7X2 MISC PARTS SIDEVIEW MIRROR HEARING PROTECTOR -- - - - - - -- -y... r 21 Aug 1997 Thu 0:55 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Nan.e Check Number 54573 54573 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 25-Aug-97 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 54573 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT Check Number 54574 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 54574 54574 08-Oct-96 2S-Aug-97 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Totals Check Number 54574 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Check Number 54575 MIDWEST ASPHALT 54575 54575 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 MIDWEST ASPHALT MIDWEST ASPH^XT Totals Check Number 54575 MIDWEST ASPHALT Check Number 54576 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO 54576 25-Aug-97 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Totals Check Number 54576 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Check Number 54577 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 54577 25-Aug-97 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COfflPANY Totals Che^k Number 54577 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Check Number 54578 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION 54578 04-Sep-96 MTi BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Totals Check Number 54578 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Check Number 54579 MN GOVT FIN. OFFICER'S ASSN 54579 25-Aug-97 MN GOVT FIN. OFFICER'S ASSN Totals Check Number 54579 MN GOVT FIN. OFFICER'S ASSN Check Number 54580 NAVARRE AMOCO 54580 25-Aug-97 NAVARRE AMOCO Totals Check Number 54580 NAVARRE AMOCO Check Number 54581 NAVARRE HARDWARE 54581 08-Aug-''6 NAVARRE HARDWARE Transaction Amount 947.24 947.24 940.50 20,320.00 21,260.50 310.97 145.38 456.35 324.60 324.60 27.00 27.00 74.22 74.22 15.00 15.00 26.50 26.50 12.85 Page 5 Comments COMPRESSOR-ELGIN SWEEPER JULY SAC CHARGES SEPTEMBER SERVICE ASPHALT PATCH ASPHALT PATCH POP FOR RESALE ACETYLENE, OXYGEN SEPT INSURANCE MAILING LABELS GAS PURCHASE MISC PARTS r 21 Aug 1997 Thu 8:55 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54581 54581 54581 54581 NAVARRE HARDWARE 08-Aug-96 NAVARRE HARDWARE 08-Aug-96 NAVARRE HARDWARE 08-Aug-96 NAVARRE HARDWARE Totals Check Number 54581 NAVARRE HARDWARE Check Number 54582 NSP 54582 £4582 54582 24- Feb-97 25- Aug-97 25-Aug-97 NSP NSP NSP Totals Check Number 54582 NSP Check Number 54583 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. 54583 25-Aug-97 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC, Totals Check Number 545P3 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC, Check Number 54584 OMAN, LYLE 54584 25-Aug-97 OMAN. LYLE Totals Check Number 54584 OMAN, LYLE Check Number 54585 ORONO SELF SERVICE 54585 54585 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 ORONO SELF SERVICE ORONO SELF SERVICE Totals Check Number 54585 ORONO SELF SERVICE Check Number 54586 PALO. REED 54586 25-Aug-97 palo, REED Totals Check Number 54586 PALO, REED Check Number 54587 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 54587 54587 54587 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR Totals Check Number 54587 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR Check Number 54588 PIONEER S4588 25-Aug-97 PIONEER Totals Check Number S4S88 PIONEER Transaction Amount 13.30 2.97 396.30 425.42 2,268.11 1,040.77 12.91 3,321.79 14.63 14.63 71.92 71.92 11.83 4.12 15.95 24.05 24.05 21.00 21.00 1 Page 6 Comments MISC PARTS MISC PARTS MISC PARTS STREET LIGHT BILL NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES CHIPS FOR RESALE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT GAS PURCHASE ICE FOR DRINKING WTR EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 50.06 #173 TOW 52.28 #173 TOW 52.28 #177 TOW 154.62 APPLICATION #2282 r 21 Aug 1997 Thu 8:55 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Humber Date Name Check Humber 54S89 54589 POWERCLEAH COMPANY INC. 25-Aug-97 POHERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Totals Check Number 54589 POHERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Check Number 54590 REED VOIDING 54590 54590 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 REED VENDING REED VENDING Totals Check Number 54590 REED VENDING Check Humber 54591 RICKS SUPERVALUE 54591 25-Aug-97 RICKS SUPERVALUB Totals Check Humber 54591 RICKS SUPERVALUE Check Number 54592 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES 54592 25-Aug-?7 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Totals Check Number 54592 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Check Number 54593 SNYDER DRUG STORES 54593 25-Aug-97 SNYDER DRUG STORES Totals Check Number 54593 SNYDER DRUG STORES Check Number 54594 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC. 54594 25-Aug-97 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC. Totals Check Number 54594 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC. Check Number 54595 STANDARD SPRING 54595 25-Aug-97 STANDARD SPRINJ Totals Check N\»mber 54595 STANDARD SPRING Check Number 54590 STAR TRIBUNE 54596 54596 25-Aug-97 23-Jan-97 STAR TRIBUNE STAR TRIBUNE Total! Check Number 54596 STAR TRIBUNE Check Number 54597 STEINER 6 KOPPELMAN INC. 54597 25-Aug-97 STEINER k KOPPELMAN INC Totals 0\eck Number 54597 STEINER k KOPPELMAN INC. Transaction Amount 1.662.20 1.662.20 45.30 62.40 107.70 30.86 30.86 6.558.80 6.558.80 7.72 7.72 1,330.59 1,330.59 350.49 350.49 26.00 367.35 393.35 2.513.80 2,513.60 Page 7 Comments CARPET CLEANING CANDY FOR RESALE CANDY FOR RESALE MISC SUPPLIES SEPT ASSESSING SERVICES FILM DEVELOPING T.H. 12 RELOCATION 8425 PINS SUBSCRIPTION RQIEIfAL AD FOR POSITION REFUND PERMIT 89186 . i 21 Aug 1997 Thu 8:55 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54598 54598 STERLING FENCE INC. 25-Aug-97 STERLING FENCE INC, Totals Check Number 54598 STERLING FENCE INC, Check Number 54599 STREICHERS 54599 54599 54599 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS Totals Check Number 54599 STREICHERS Check Bumber 54600 STS CONSULTANTS LTD. 54600 25-Aug-97 STS CONSULTANTS LTD Totals Check Number 54600 STS CONSULTANTS LTD. Check Number 54601 SWENSON ELECTRONICS 54601 25-Aug-97 SWENSON ELECTRONICS Totals Check Number 54601 SWENSON ELECTRONICS Check Number 54602 TRI-K SERVICES 54602 25-Aug-97 TRI-K SERVICES Totals Check Number 54602 TRI-K SERVICES Check Number 54603 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 54603 54603 54603 54603 54603 54603 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE VALUE HARDWARE VALUE HARDWARE VALUE HARDWARE VALUE HARDWARE VALUE HARDWARE VALUE HARDWARE Totals Check Number 54603 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE Check Number 54604 TWIN CITIES SERVICE CENTER INC 54604 25-Aug-97 TWIN CITIES SERVICE CENTER INC Totals Check Number 54604 THIN CITIES SERVICE CENTER INC Check Number 54605 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 54605 25-Aug-97 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Totals Check Number 54605 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Transaction Amount 382.00 382.00 143.62 102.75 36.85 283.22 1,819.70 1,819.70 30.00 30.00 14.86 14.86 5.93 34.42 4.79 2.97 45.89 12.00 106.00 71.94 71.94 88.55 88.55 Page 8 Comments remove k REPLACE FENCE GUN LOCK ASSEMBLY SPEAKER DRIVER SHOTGUN LOCK SOIL DENSITIES CLEAN TAPE MACHINE MISC PARTS MISC SUPPLIES CUTTER BACKYARD MISC PARTS ROACH KILLER CUTTER BACKYARD MISC SUPPLIES INSTALL ANTENNA UNIFORM PURCHASES I 21 Aug 1997 Thu 8:55 AM Check Number Check Number 54606 54606 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 54606 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 25-Aug-97 US WEST CO^WUNICATIONS 25-Aug-97 US WEST COWUNICATIONS Totals Check Number 54606 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Check Number 54607 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH Transaction Amount 45.94 88.75 134.69 Page 9 Comments US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES 54607 25-Aug-97 Totals Check Number VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH 54607 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH 79.67 79.67 SUPPLIES REIMBURSE^^NT Check Number 54608 VILLAGE CHEVROLET 54608 25-Aug-97 Totals Check Number VILLAGE CHEVROLET 54608 VILLAGE OffiVROLET Check Number 54609 54609 54609 WARNING LITES OF MN 25-Aug-97 25-Aug-97 Totals Check Number WARNING LITES OF MN WARNING LITES OF MN 54609 WARNING LITES OF MN Check Number 54610 54610 YOCUM OIL CO INC. 25-Aug-97 Totals Check Number YOCUM OIL CO INC 54610 YOCUM OIL CO INC Grand Total 40.41 40.41 122.94 108.95 231.89 1,456.57 1,456.57 90,721.68 #427 HOSE BARRICADE RENTAL BARRICADE RENTAL DIESEL FUEL 1. INFORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL MEETING AUG 2 5 1997 CITYOFORONO 1997 SeDtember 1997MondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFridaySaturdayHOLIDAY - 1 LABOR DAY PARK 2 COMMISSION 7:15 P.M. HIGHWAY 12 3 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 5:30 P.M. 4 5 6 7 COUNCIL 8 7:00 P.M. 9 10 11 PLANNING 12 COMMISSION WORK SESSION 8:00 A.M. 13 14 PLANNING 15 COMMISSION 7:00 P.M. 16 17 18 19 20 21 COUNCIL 22 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC 23 HEARING- ORONO HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA 6:30 P.M. NAVARRE WATER PLANT 24 25 26 27 28 29 REHAB 30 TO: DATE: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator August 21,1997 SUBJECT: Change in Provider of Prosecution Services Since 1992, the city has participated in a joint arrangement with four cities in which the city of Minnetonka provides prosecution services. This arrangement has enabled very cost effective provision of prosecution services. As the statutes and requirements related to prosecution services have changed, the workload has grown to a point where the city of Minnetonka can no longer provide prosecution services to the current group of cities at the current staffing level. In addition there are a number of difficulties related to expanding Minnetonka's staff, including a lack of space and a substantial increase in costs. Due to this situation, Orono staff has been working to identify other options for prosecution services. Staff has discussed with the cities of Spring Park, Minnetonka Beach, and Long Lake the concept of contracting jointly for prosecution services. This seems like a natural grouping since Orono provides police services to all three cities. The cities of Minnetonka Beach and Long Lake are agreeable to a joint contract option. The city of Spring Park is very satisfied with their current prosecuting attorney and wants to remain with him. Staff has approached the Spring Park prosecuting attorney to request a proposal for providing prosecution services to Spring Park, Minnetonka Beach, Long Lake, and Orono. The proposal provided would result in a reduction in prosecution costs for Orono. The South Lake cities also have a joint contract for prosecution services. Staff has requested a proposal from the South Lake prosecuting attorney also. TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator August 21,1997 SUBJECT: City Administrator Attendance at the International City Management Association (ICMA) Annual Conference I will be attending the ICMA annual conference from September 13 to September 17. This years conference is being held in Vancouver, British Columbia. The conference is an excellent opportunity to get updated on cutting-edge ideas in city management, including new approaches and solutions to issues faced by Orono. REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 08/04/97PERMIT TYPEBuildingSGL PAMILY'NBN SP-ADD/RBMODEL SP-ACC STRUCTURE DEMO/PRINCIPAL COmERCIAL-NEN COM-ADD/RBMODEL DEMO INST-AOD/REMODEL INST-ACC STRUCT DEMO-ACCESSORY ACC/GARAGES Sub-total Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS AIR CONDITIONING WOOD STOVE/PLUB FIREPLACE VENTILATION GAS LINE INSPECT DUCT WORK ONLY REMOVE OIL TANK Sub-total Plumbing FIXTURES SPRINKLER MATER METER VACUUM BREAKER UNDEFINED Sub-total Sewer fc Mater SEMBR CONNECTION MATER CONNECTION NEM SEPTIC SYSTB DRNFLD tc/OR TANK SAC ONLY SBMER DISCONNECT SEMER ti MATER UNDEFINED Sub-total Sign PER./FREE STANDG TEMPORARY Sub-total Fire FIRE SPRINKLER PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED**** *PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO *****-- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/97 - 07/31/97 YEAR-TO-DATE PAGE: 1REQUESTER: LIN-- PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/96 - 07/31/96QTYBAS.: FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE 14 27,744.00 4,494,745.46 18,033.57 19 37,391.5016547,039.75 4,418,609.90 22,768.71 163 37,548.75 13 2,981.00 267,579.60 1,903.19 21 2,614.756330.00 0.00 0.00 5 390.00 1 887.25 100,000.00 576.71 1 4,948.5062,654.75 319,296.00 227.01 5 1,614.00 2 100.00 0.00 0.00 1 80.0011,242.25 171,000.00 0.00 2 1,749.50 1 29.25 775.00 19.01 0 0.005180.00 0.00 O.OU 0 0.00 3 746.25 51,701.00 485.07 15 1,995.25217*83,934.50*9,823,706.96*44,013.27*232*88,332.25* 56 4,765.15 368,684.88 0.00 65 6,031.416327.50 21,870.00 0.00 16 772.40 1 35.00 2,500.00 0.00 2 97.01361,330.46 62,932.55 0.00 40 1,670.83 5 175.00 7,560.00 0.00 5 175.00 12 420.00 5,125.00 0.00 2 70.00 6 210.00 7,400.00 0.00 9 357.94 5 990.00 72,850.00 0.00 7 262.50 127*8,253.11*548,922.43*0.00*146*9,437.09* 104 7,856.83 500,887.08 0.00 94 6,635.67 4 231.69 14,535.00 0.00 0 0.0081,373.99 0.00 0.00 5 751.00270.00 400.00 0.00 0 0.00270.00 1,150.00 0.00 2 70.00120*9,602.51*516,972.08*0.00*101*7,456.67* 3 105.00 0.00 0.00 7 245.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 15 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 20 2,000.00 2 100.00 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 4 3,800.00 0.00 0.00 7 4,600.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.002140.00 0.00 0.00 2 140.00 2 70.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.0028*5,715.00*0.00*0.00*39*7,105.00* 3 118.25 3,300.00 0.00 1 29.25390.00 0.00 0.00 2 60.006*208.25*3,300.00*0.00*3*89.25* 1 140.00 11,200.00 0.00 0 O.wO VALUATION PLAN REVIEW 6.022.573.00 3.067.311.00 155.403.00 0.00 985,000.00 164.026.00 0.00 199.500.00 0.00 0.00 112.292.00 10,726,105.00* 24,304.43 18,504.72 1,512.90 0.00 3.216.53 374.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.110.53 49,024.00* 467,475.78 53.051.00 6,060.43 96,416.44 5.375.00 1,000.00 15.125.00 9.850.00 654,353.65* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 426,176.88 0.00 250.00 0.00 800.00 427,226.88* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 800.00 0.00 800.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 At. m PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 08/04/97 PERMIT ISSUED REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO PAGE:REQUESTER: LINRANGE. . . . .- -- - - - - - - --PERMIT TYPE QTY 01/01/97 - BASE PEE 07/31/97VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY 01/01/96 BASE FEE - 07/31/96VALUATION PLAN REVIEWSub-total 1*140.00*11,200.00*0.00*0*0.00*0.00*0.00*User Defined ... . ..LAND ALTERATION 8 500.00 0.00 0.00 11 650.00 0.00 u.uuTREE REMOVAL 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 4 120.00 0.00 0.00RETAINING WALLS 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 306.00 23,290.00 0.00DOCKS390.00 2,500.00 0.00 2 60.00 0.00 0.00 LAWN SPRINKLER 21 735.00 0.00 0.00 8 280.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 33*1,355.00*2,500.00*0.00*28*1,416.00*23,290.00*0.00* Grand-total 532^*109,208.37** 10 ,906,601.47**44,013.27**549**113,836.26**11,831,775.53**49,024.00* K. .. k I < * 1 PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATERBP(«T NBR. BPEERPT2-1 DATE OP RUN 08/04/97 * * • * •PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/97 TO 07/31/97* « * • i REPORT NBR. BFBBRPT2-1 DATE OP RUN 08/04/97 ** PERMIT FEB REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/97 TO 07/31/97 ***** BASE PEE PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE Lie. SEARCH PEE SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT REPORT TOTAL 109,208.37 44,013.27 5,500.11 0.00 14,550.00 334.75 0.00 MAIL IN SEWER CONNECTION 174.32 225.00 ESCROW PERMIT TOTAL 0.00 174,005.82 PAGE:REQUESTER: LINBUILDINGMECHANICALPLUMBINGSEWER L WATER USER SIGN PIREBABB FBB 83,934.50 8,253.11 9,602.51 5,715.00 1,355.00 208.25 140.00 PLAN RBVIBH 44,013.27 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 4,920.41 279.25 271.85 12.00 10.50 0.50 5.60 Lie. SEARCH FBB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAC 2,850.00 0.00 0.00 11,700.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 124.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 210.00 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAIL IN SBNBR CONNECTION 225.00 100.09 71.73 1.00 1.50 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 136,067.93 8,632.45 9,946.09 17,427.00 1,575.50 209.75 147.10 . <0 PAGE: REQUESTER! LIN Ik ZONING PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COL^^CTEDREPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 08/04/97 ^TTOr> C*fcT»T'***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO *****DPPVTniTQ REQUESTER:PAGE: 1LINPERMIT TYPE QTY 01/01/97 - BASE FEE - - -- - -07/31/97VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY 01/01/96 - BASE FEE IvrVivVjCi — — — —07/31/96VALUATION PLAN REVIEW Ueer Defined SUBDIVISION 6 4,212.50 0.00 0.00 9 5,845.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE 48 11,060.00 0.00 0.00 38 8,760.00 0.00 0.00 CUP 11 2,450.00 0.00 0.00 8 2,200.00 0.00 0.00 SKETCH PLAN 5 1,250.00 0.00 0.00 3 750.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE/CUP 2 575.00 0.00 0.00 1 75.00 0.00 0.00 VACATION 3 800.00 0.00 0.00 3 600.00 0.00 0.00 REZONINO 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 350.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 77*20,347.50*0.00* 0.00*63*18,580.00*0.00*0.00* Grand-total 77**20,347.50**0.00**0.00**63**18,580.00**0.00**0.00** REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 08/04/97 ***** PERMIT FEE REPORT ***♦♦ CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/97 TO 07/31/97 PAGE: REQUESTER: LIN USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE 20,347.50 20,347.50 PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 20,347.50 20,347.50 1 i 1997 RECAP OF CONTRACT CITIESJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilHayJuneJuly August Septeinber October Noveinber Deceiiber YTO TotalsSpring ParkPlan Review 422.34 0.00 89.21 94.74 1,622.24 209.96 0.00 2,438.49Inspections135.00 165.00 270.00 165.00 120.00 195.00 90.00 970.00Retainer25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 175.00 TOTAL 582.34 190.00 384.21 284.74 1,767.24 429.96 115.00 3,753.49 No. Plan Reviews 1 0 1 2 7 3 0 14 No. Inspections 9 11 18 11 8 13 6 76 Minnetonka Beach Plan Review 0.00 0.00 105.30 48.59 518.05 19.01 1,400.89 2,091.84 Inspections 45.00 180.00 210.00 195.00 30.00 75.00 180.00 915.00 Retainer 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 175.00 TOTAL 70.00 205.00 340.30 268.59 573.05 119.01 1,605.89 3,181.84 No. Plan Reviews 0 0 2 1 2 1 4 10 No. Inspections 3 - - -.aJL M’i" 12 14 13 2 5 12 61 395.00 2,340.29 S - > V-' ^ ^ 4REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 08/04/97 PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED JULY 1997***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO PAGE: 1REQUESTER: LIN■. . . . . . . CURRE>rr RANGE. . . . ... . . . . . .PREVIC )US RANGE. . . . .07/01/97 - 07/31/97 07/01/96 - 07/31/96PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEWBuildingSGL FAMILY-NEW - - - - -- - -a-r-Ma-vaft - -840,000.00- -- - -37 4^43.44^3 4,731.75 713,852.00 3,075.63SF-ADD/RBMODEL 36 10,260.00 961,283.40 5,633.71 22 4,998.50 378,972.00 2,392.83SF-ACC STRUCTURE 3 1,406.50 169,829.60 893.42 9 1,111.00 63,788.00 597.69 DEMO/PRINCIPAL 2 100.00 0.00 0.00 2 100.00 0.00 0.00 COmERCIAL-NEW 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 4,948.50 985,000.00 3,216.53 COM-ADD/REMODEL 1 87.25 3,500.00 56.71 1 62.25 2,000.00 40.46 INST-ADD/REMODEL 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 1,749.50 199,500.00 0.00 DEMO-ACCESSORY 2 60.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 ACC/QARAGES 1 421.75 12,628.00 274.14 6 886.00 50,536.00 486.69 Sub-total 44^- - -- -1574-7-7.75*- -l/727,a4iTOO*—- - -0,900t44*46*18,587.50*2,393,648.00*9,809.83* 595.ro /, /e7 CO 6, y57. Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS 4 326.01 26,080.00 0.00 8 457.91 32,129.96 0.00 AIR CONDITIONING 1 35.00 1,500.00 0.00 3 182.50 12,779.00 0.00 WOOD STOVE/FLUE 1 35.00 2,500.00 0.00 1 62.01 4,960.43 0.00 FIREPLACE 3 105.00 3,300.00 0.00 6 214.58 9,966.44 0.00 DUCT WORK ONLY 1 35.00 1,450.00 0.00 1 35.00 1,000.00 0.00 REMOVE OIL TANK 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 1,000.00 0.00 Sub-total 10*536.01*34,830.00*0.00*20*987.00*61,835.03*0.00* Plumbing FIXTURES 13 1,141.00 78,424.52 0.00 17 1,051.31 65,783.00 0.00 SPRINKLER 2 70.00 1,600.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 WATER METER 1 247.00 0.00 0.00 2 278.00 0.00 0.00 VACUUM BREAKER 2 70.00 400.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNDEFINED 1 35.00 150.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 19*1,563.00*80,574.52*0.00*19*1,329.31*65,783.00*0.00* Sewer U Water SEWER CONNECTION 1 35.00 0.00 0.00 2 70.00 0.00 0.00 WATER CONNECTION 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 0.00 0.00 NEW SEPTIC SYSTE 1 100.00 0.00 0.00 4 400.00 0.00 0.00 SAC ONLY 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 950.00 0.00 0.00 UNDEFINED 1 35.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 3*170.00*0.00*0.00*9*1,455.00*0.00*0.00* Sign TEMPORARY 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 1*30.00*0.00*0.00*0*0.00*0.00*0.00* User Defined LAND ALTERATION 1 50.00 0.00 0.00 2 125.00 0.00 0.00 TREE REMOVAL 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 RETAINING WALLS 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 153.00 14,000.00 0.00 LAWN SPRINKLER 6 210.00 0.00 0.00 4 140.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 8*290.00*0.00*0.00*7*418.00* 14,000.00*0.00* Grand-total - - -- -1t8t-06-6 1-76**—-^i-84ai448.8a**- - -8;900-r44-**101**22,776.81**2,535,266.83**9,809.83** 6, 2T57.9J' PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED JULY 1997REPORT NBR. BFBERPTl-1 DATE OF RUN 08/04/97 ***** PERMIT FEE REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO FROM 07/01/97 TO 07/31/97 • r* REPORT NBR. BFEERPTl-1 DATE OF RUN 08/04/97 PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 07/01/97 TO 07/31/97 * * * * * REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE Lie. SEARCH FEE SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT MAIL IN ESCROW PERMIT TOTAL* /v; Si 1 »7 000*7G 95% 9/ ■879 001 44 ----5r 90*73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.11 0.00 PAGE:REQUESTER: LINBUILDINGMECHANICALPLUMBINGSEWER & WATER USER SIGN FIRE%jjl, A9S-aoBASE FEE 15^477176 536.01 1,563.00 170.00 290.00 30.00 0.006, fsr.v/PLAN KBVIEU 900■44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE ----80S 1 71 17.43 43.09 1.50 3.00 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 KAIL IN 7.61 6.50 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL ■B5;a43 iQO 561.05 1,612.59 171.80 293.00 30.00 0.00 PAGE: REQUESTER: LIN r. A MON, AUG 4, 1997, 12:22 PM PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF PERMiT WORK ADDR NBR STREET PAGE 1JULY 1997 PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONOR-009165n n o n a ^14973900•1 A n-iCA 1C DACO INC SEABOLT 15,000.00 - - - -560^00^0OR-009119 18973555 HUNT KYLE & PARTNERS, INC COSTLEY 16,400.00OR-009147 15590792 GBR REMODELING SPECIALISTS CURRIER 85,000.00OR-009149 15377564 SUNDANCE CONSTRUCTION INC BLACK 70,000.00OR-00915B 16311100 PATIO ENCLOSURES INC GREENLEY 13,422.00 OR-009161 00000000 CLEARY 175,000.00 OR-009171 14747121 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS OLSON 125,000.00 OR-009185 14728626 SCHERVEN CONSTRUCTION PERRY 23,774,40 OR-009188 14277330 ADDITION & RDLG SPECIALIST THIMMESH 16,000.00 OR-009221 00000000 RAHN 66,079.00 OR-009184 14792495 DONALD AHLSTROM OLSON 32,628.00 OR-009037 00000000 SIMNIONIW 5,000.00 OR-009137 00000000 STASIK 3,350.00 OR-009163 00000000 MEYERS 1,000.00 OR-009173 00000000 BLACKSTONE 8,000.00 OR-009187 19349423 METRO PRAIRIE CONSTRUCTION CASHIN 15,000.00 OR-009190 15530394 NEW IMAGE CONSTR INC JOHNSON 3,780.00 OR-009199 14747102 DAHL CONSTRUCTION HEDBERG 4,000.00 OR-009203 14315791 JOHN THOMAS CUSTOM HOMES WILLOUGHBY 7,500.00 OR-009166 00000000 MUELLER 2,500.00 OR-009159 14710532 DANBERRY COMPANY LINDELL 2,006.00 OR-009160 15454233 TOWN & COUNTRY ROOFING FURCHNER 5,500.00 OR-009167 00000000 LACK 1,000.00 OR-009168 13096557 KALLERUP ERICK LEWIN 2,600.00 OR-009180 19333536 COTY CONSTRUCTION PETERSON 11,272.00 OR-009102 00000000 SHULL 20,000.00 OR-009183 00000000 CURLEY 3,000.00 OR-009193 00000000 RYAN 1,000.00 OR-009195 18238046 SELA ROOFING FORRER 7,600.00 OR-009196 14719065 INCLINE ENTERRISES HACKNEY 1,500.00 OR-009197 14719065 INCLINE ENTERRISES HUBER 1,800.00 OR-009198 18238046 SELA ROOFING SAHLSTROM 6,800.00 OR-009222 14710979 TRENDY ROOFING & SONS INC LYTLE 1,400.00 OR-009229 00000000 BEHNING 829.60 OR-009101 14746840 CARLSON EXCAVATING WASBERG .00 OR-009170 14791107 GREEN ACRES TREE SERVICE MC COURTNEY .00 OR-009155 34745826 MESSENGER EXCAVATING INC STEPHENS .00 OR-009174 14282242 VEIT AND COMPANY FULLERTON .00 OR-009175 00000000 WEAR 3,500.00 OR-009205 19358045 DARYL DECHAINE BLOCH 38,000.00 OR-009140 00000000 WITTMER 15,000.00 OR-009150 00000000 POMIJE 150,000.00 OR-009189 15590251 EIDEN CONSTRUCTION INC EIDEN 37,000.00 OR-009164 00000000 HOLMES 14,000.00 OR-009130 15272334 SAMUEL YELLIN METAWORKERS JUNDT 155,000.00 OR-009153 35453797 FIREPLACE CENTER ERICKSON 1,000.00 OR-009191 35463777 BUILDERS EXPRESS EIDEN 1,200.00 OR-009207 34972661 DJ'S HTG & AC 5,500.00 OR-009216 36332561 FIRESIDE CORNER 1,100.00 OR-009226 24231144 GENZ-RYAN PLUMBING & HTG 9,830.00 OR-009162 34432819 NARKIE HTG 6 AC INC ERICKSON 1,450.00 4^ ME 01-Mr 1800020202 02 02 02 02 02 02 04 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 15 16 16 17 17 19 24 29 29 29 30 33 01 01 01 01 01 02 1105604030 1485 4109 2601 440 1945 1305 3640 1305 1270 2195 4465 3100 2335 4740 2425 222 2655 360 1913 2253 1770 1860 1291 400 2655 2184 2615 129 1935 160 3115 1045 3770 3350 2160 1910 2780 3120 2715 1390 1400 775 2430 4215 990 470 775 SHADYWOOD RD MAIN-ftT- - - -FERNDALE RD W CYGNET PL DAHL RD LONG LAKE BLVD NORTH SHORE DR WEST LAFAYETTE RD WILLOW DR S EAGERNESS POINT RD REST PT RD BAYSIDE RD NORTH ARM DR WILDHURST TR BAYVIEW PL FOREST LAKE LANDING RIDGEWOOD CIR SHADOWOOD DR NORTH ARM DR W OLD BEACH RD BEDERWOOD DR NORTH SHORE DR LEAF ST EAGERNESS POINT RD BAYVIEW PL SHADYWOOD RD WEST FARM RD BRIAR ST LEAF ST PHEASANT RD SHADYWOOD RD SHADYWOOD RD CHEVY CHASE DR CONCORDIA ST BIG ISLAND NORTH SHORE DR FERNDALE RD W BAYSIDE RD FOX ST WAYZATA BLVD HERITAGE DR SHADYWOOD RD NORTH SHORE DR COUNTRYSIDE DR W PARK DR BRACKETTS POINT RD FERNDALE RD N THOROUGHBRED LA NORTH SHORE DR LOMA LINDA AVE OLD LONG LAKE RD FERNDALE RD N 97/07/0997/0'//0297/07/0297/07/03 97/07/28 97/07/00 97/07/14 97/07/24 97/07/21 97/07/30 97/07/22 97/07/09 97/07/16 97/07/09 97/07/14 97/07/21 97/07/21 97/07/23 97/07/29 97/07/09 97/07/07 97/07/07 97/07/10 97/07/14 97/07/17 97/07/17 97/07/17 97/07/10 97/07/22 97/07/22 97/07/22 97/07/22 97/07/30 97/07/31 97/07/02 97/07/14 97/07/03 97/07/15 97/07/17 97/07/29 97/07/01 97/07/15 97/07/18 97/07/14 97/07/21 97/07/01 97/07/10 97/07/23 97/07/28 97/07/31 97/07/08 MON, AUG 4, 1997, 12:22 PM PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET PAGE 2JULY 1997ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONMB02480RUSSELL AVE 97/07/24 OR-009209 34730450021595BOHNS PT RD 97/07/23 OR-009211 33386606242610MAPLE RIDGE LA 97/07/23 OR-009206 3473226724220STUBBS BAY RD N 97/07/26 OR-009?10 39296767 IOC IOC PL 01 2475 COUNTRYSIDE DR 97/07/01 OR-009146 00000000 01 2245 FRENCH LAKE RD 97/07/02 OR-009148 24738793 01 4215 NORTH SHORE DR 97/07/14 OR-009169 24415360 01 3235 CASCO CIR 97/07/14 OR-009172 29383589 01 2943 FARV^EW LA 97/07/15 OR-009177 29337200 01 2755 COUNTRYSIDE DR W 97/07/15 OR-009178 24738793 01 1690 CONCORDIA ST 97/07/17 OR-009181 14722241 01 2430 THOROUGHBRED LA 97/07/18 OR-009192 24432921 01 990 LOMA LINDA AVE 97/07/23 OR-009204 27554268 01 1420 BOHNS PT RD 97/07/28 OR-009217 24791942 01 850 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S 97/07/29 OR-009219 29335636 01 470 OLD LONG LAKE RD S 7/07/31 OR-009225 24231144 01 200 BEDERWOOD DR 97/07/31 OR-009237 24725920 02 2720 WHITE OAK CIR 97/07/07 OR-009157 24731657 02 480 RUSSELL LA 97/07/21 OR-009194 24730450 24 1980 SPATES AVE 97/07/02 OR-009152 25510555 24 2040 SHADYWOOD RD 97/07/01 OR-009154 27852202 24 1840 SHADYWOOD RD 97/07/23 OR-009212 25510555 24 85 FERNDALE GREEN 97/07/28 OR-009215 24521565 19C 19C SI 19 2240 NORTH SHORE DR 97/07/29 OR-009220 00000000 1C 1C SW 01 951 SPRING HILL RD 97/07/03 OR-009114 54287393 01 990 LOMA LINDA AVE 97/07/31 OR-009234 14746840 01 1000 LOMA LINDA AVE 97/07/31 OR-009235 r\T\ r\ r\ r\ 14746840 - - - ^— —4€ 990- - 3 3 UD 01 2755 COUNTRYSIDE DR W 97/07/01 OR-009141 84792585 01 3090 NORTH SHORE DR 97/07/03 OR-009156 85377578 01 1045 FERNDALE RD W 97/07/16 OR-009179 00000000 01 1900 FOX RIDGE RD 97/07/25 OR-009214 84775296 01 850 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S 9ll01l29 OR-009218 89411138 01 2695 COUNTRYSIDE DR W 97/07/30 OR-009223 84792585 19 700 SPRING HILL RD 97/07/31 OR-009238 00000000 22 1950 CONCORDIA ST 97/07/30 OR-009224 00000000 8C 8C TRIPLE D HTG & AC CSRPENTERWOODLAND STOVEStFIREPLACES WINSLOW SABRE HEATING & AIR CONDIT GERARD VOGT FRED & CO BOLLIS CITYVIEW PLBG & HTG GRUPA MECHANICAL CO STANDARD PLBG & APPL CO CULLIGAN CITYVIEW PLBG & HTG FINE LINE DESIGHN SOUTHWEST METRO PLBG JERRY'S PLBG & HTG DOLDER PLBG fit HTG DUDA, LEON PLUMBING SERV. GENZ-RYAN PLUMBING & HTG OLSON LARRY FADDEN CLIFF U SONS TRIPLE D HTG fit AC MR ROOTER MINNESOTA WATER TREATMENT MR ROOTER WENZEL PLUMBING fit HEATING HITE WALDOCH DECKMAN TUNHEIM STOYKES EIDEN WAGNER HALE GUSTAFSON KELLEY CARPENTER CREAR ZOSCHKE BOSTON POWERS PATNODE BROTHERS CARLSON EXCAVATING CARLSON EXCAVATING OARLOON BXOAVATINQ- DUNLAP ULRICH GENERAL SERVICE EVERGREEN SPK INC FIC INC AQUA ENGINEERING, INC. GENERAL SERVICE MCGLYNN MCCOURTNEY POLANSKY HALE EIDEN PETERS 7,000.002.500.003.750.001.500.00 100.00 1.500.00 8.200.00 21.500.00 444.52 250.00 .00 9,800.00 10,000.00 650.00 150.00 12.480.00 150.00 5.500.00 7,000.00 500.00 650.00 500.00 1.200.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -reo 88C .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1,842,645.52* MON, AUG 4, 1997, 12:21 PM NUMERICAL LISTING JULY 1997PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET PAGE 1WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONSIMNIONIW5,000.00WASBERG.00DUNLAP.00COSTLEY16,400.00JUNDT155,000.00STASIK3,350.00WITTMER15,000.00 .00 HITE 100.00 CURRIER 05,000.00 1,500.00 BLACK 70,000.00 POMIJE 150,000.00 CREAR 500.00 ERICKSON 1,000.00 ZOSCHKE 650.00 STEPHENS .00 MCGLYNN .00 KELLEY 5,500.00 GREENLEY 13,422.00 LINDELL 2,006.00 FURCHNER 5,500.00 CLEARY 175,000.00 ERICKSON 1,450.00 MEYERS 1,000.00 HOLMES 14,000.00 SEABOLT 15,000.00 MUELLER 2,500.00 LACK 1,000.00 LEWIN 2,600.00 WALDOCH 6,200.00 MC COURTNEY .00 OLSON 125,000.00 21,500.00 BLACKSTONE 8,000.00 FULLERTON .00 WEAR 3,500.00 DECKMAN 444.52 TUNHEIM 250.00 MCCOURTNEY .00 PETERSON 11,272.00 STOYKES .00 SHULL 20,000.00 CURLEY 3,000.00 OLSON 32,628.00 PERRY 23,774.40 KERRSON 560,000.00 CASHIN 15,000.00 THIMMESH 16,000.00 EIDEN 37,000.00 JOHNSON 3,780.00 EIDEN 1,200.00 EIDEN 9,600.00 RYAN 1,000.00 OR-009037 OR-009101 OR-009114 OR-009119 OR-009130 OR-009137 OR-009140 OR-009141 OR-009146 OR-009147 OR-009148 OR-009149 OR-009150 OR-009152 OR-009153 OR-009154 OR-009155 OR-009156 OR-009157 OR-009158 OR-009159 OR-009160 OR-009161 OR-009162 OR-009163 OR-009164 OR-009165 OR-009166 OR-009167 OR-009168 OR-009169 OR-009170 OR-009171 OR-009172 OR-009173 OR-009174 OR-009175 OR-009177 OR-009178 OR-009179 OR-009180 OR-009181 OR-009182 OR-009183 OR-009184 OR-009185 OR-009186 OR-009187 OR-009188 OR-009189 OR-009190 OR-009191 OR-009192 OR-009193 97/07/09 N 97/07/02 N 97/07/03 N 97/07/02 N 97/07/21 N 97/07/16 N 97/07/01 N 97/07/01 N 97/07/01 N 97/07/02 N 97/07/02 N 97/07/03 N 97/07/15 N 97/07/02 N 97/07/01 N 97/07/01 N 97/07/03 N 97/07/03 N 97/07/07 N 9‘?/07/28 N 97/07/07 N 97/07/07 N 97/07/08 N 97/07/08 N 97/07/09 N 97/07/14 N 97/07/09 N 97/07/09 N 97/07/10 N 97/07/14 N 97/07/14 N 97/07/14 N 97/07/14 N 97/07/14 N 97/07/14 N 97/07/15 N 97/07/17 N 97/07/15 N 97/07/15 N 97/07/16 N 97/07/17 N 97/07/17 N 97/07/17 N 97/07/17 N 97/07/22 N 97/07/24 N 97/07/24 N 97/07/21 N 97/07/21 N 97/07/18 N 97/07/21 N 97/07/18 N 97/07/18 N 97/07/18 N 130531159511185140012702780 2755 2475 60 2245 4030 3120 1980 775 2040 3770 3090 2720 1485 2655 360 4109 775 2195 1390 1800 222 1913 2253 4215 1045 2601 3235 4465 3350 2160 2943 2755 1045 1770 1690 1860 1291 3640 440 500 3100 1945 2715 2335 2430 2430 400 NORTH ARM DR 06 NORTH SHORE DR 16 SPRING HILL RD 01 FERNDALE RD W 02 BRACKETTS POINT RD 33 WILDHURST TR 06 SHADYWOOD RD 29 COUNTRYSIDE DR W 01 COUNTRYSIDE DR 01 CYGNET PL 02 FRENCH LAKE RD 01 DAHL RD 02 NORTH SHORE DR 29 SPATES AVE 24 FERNDALE RD N 01 SHADYWOOD RD 24 BAYSIDE RD 17 NORTH SHORE DR 01 WHITE OAK CIR 02 LONG L7VKE BLVD 02 NORTH SHORE DR 11 LEAF ST 11 NORTH SHORE DR 02 FERNDALE RD N 02 BAYVIEW PL 06 PARK DR 30 SHADYWOOD RD 01 BEDERWOOD DR 10 EAGERNESS POINT RD 11 BAYVIEW PL 11 NORTH SHORE DR 01 FERNDALE RD W 16 WEST LAFAYETTE RD 02 CASCO CIR 01 FOREST LAKE LANDING 06 FOX ST 17 WAYZATA BLVD 19 FARVIEW LA 01 COUNTRYSIDE DR W 01 FERNDALE RD W 01 SHADYWOOD RD 11 CONCORDIA ST 01 WEST FARM RD 11 BRIAR ST 11 BAYSIDE RD 04 WILLOW DR S 02 MAIN ST 01 RIDGEWOOD CIR 06 EAGERNESS POINT RD 02 COUNTRYSIDE DR W 29 SHADOWOOD DR 06 THOROUGHBRED LA 01 THOROUGHBRED LA 01 LEAF ST 11 00000000147468405428739318973555152723340000000000000000 84792585 00000000 15590792 24730793 15377564 00000000 25510555 35453797 27852202 34745826 85377578 24731657 16311100 14710532 15454233 00000000 34432819 00000000 00000000 14973900 00000000 00000000 13096557 24415360 14791107 14747121 29383589 00000000 14282242 00000000 29337200 24738793 00000000 19333536 14722241 00000000 00000000 14792495 14728626 14735435 19349423 14277330 15590251 15530394 35463777 24432921 00000000 CARLSON EXCAVATING PATNODE BROTHERS HUNT KYLE & PARTNERS, INC SAMUEL YELLIN METAWORKERS GENERAL SERVICE GBR REMODELING SPECIALISTS CITYVIEW PLBG £t HTG SUNDANCE CONSTRUCTION INC MR ROOTER FIREPLACE CENTER MINNESOTA WATER TREATMENT MESSENGER EXCAVATING INC EVERGREEN SPK INC FADDEN CLIFF & SONS PATIO ENCLOSURES INC DANBERRY COMPANY TOWN k COUNTRY ROOFING NARKIE HTG k AC INC DACO INC KALLERUP ERICK GRUPA MECHANICAL CO GREEN ACRES TREE SERVICE LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS STANDARD PLBG k APPL CO VEIT AND COMPANY CULLIGAN CITYVIEW PLBG fit HTG COTY CONSTRUCTION FINE LINE DESIGHN DONALD AHLSTROM SCHERVEN CONSTRUCTION STEINER fitKOPPELMAN, INC METRO PRAIRIE CONSTRUCTION ADDITION fit RDLG SPECIALIST EIDEN CONSTRUCTION INC NEW IMAGE CONSTR INC BUILDERS EXPRESS SOUTHWEST METRO PLBG MON, AUG 4, 1997, 12:21 PMJULY 1997 PAGE 2NUMERICAL LISTINGOR-009194 OR-009195 OR-009196 OR-009197 OR-009198 OR-009199 OR-009203 OR-009204 OR-009205 OR-009206 OR-009207 OR-009209 OR-009210 OR-009211 CR-009212 OR-009214 OR-009215 OR-009216 OR-00921/ OR-009218 OR-009219 OR-009220 OR-009221 OR-009222 OR-009223 OR-009224 OR-009225 OR-009226 OR-009229 OR-009234 OR-009235 OR-009236 OR-009237 OR-009238 88C 97/07/2197/07/2297/07/2297/07/2297/07/2297/07/2397/07/2997/07/2397/07/2997/07/23 97/07/23 97/07/24 97/07/26 97/07/23 97/07/23 97/07/25 97/07/28 97/07/28 97/07/28 97/07/29 97/07/29 97/07/29 97/07/30 97/07/30 97/07/30 97/07/30 97/07/31 97/07/31 97/07/31 97/07/31 97/07/31 97/07/31 97/07/31 97/07/31 NNNNNNNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N 48026552184261512947402425990191026104215 480 220 1595 1840 1900 85 990 14>« 850 850 2240 1385 1935 2695 1950 470 470 160 990 1000 990 200 700 RUSSELL LA PHEASANT RD SHADYWOOD RD SHADYWOOD RD CHEVY CHASE DR NORTH ARM DR W OLD BEACH RD LOMA LINDA AVE HERITAGE DR fUVPLE RIDGE LA NORTH SHORE DR RUSSELL AVE STUBBS BAY RD N BOHNS PT RD SHADYWOOD RD FOX RIDGE RD FERNDALE GREEN LOMA LINDA AVE 30HNS PT RD OLD CRYSTAL BAY OLD CRYSTAL BAY NORTH SHORE DR REST PT RD CONCORDIA ST COUNTRYSIDE DR W CONCORDIA ST OLD LONG LAKE RD OLD LONG LAKE RD BIG ISLAND LOMA LINDA AVE LOMA LINDA AVE LOMA LINDA AVE BEDERWOOD DR SPRING HILL RD RD RD S S 0211111111060601242401 02 24 02 24 01 24 01 01 01 01 19 02 11 01 22 01 01 15 01 01 01 01 19 2473045018238046147190651471906518238046147471021431579127554268193580453473226734972661 34730450 39296767 33386606 25510555 84775296 24521565 36332561 24791942 89411138 29335636 00000000 00000000 14718979 84792585 00000000 24231144 24231144 00000000 14746840 14746840 14746840 24725920 00000000 COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONTRIPLE D HTG & AC CARPENTER 7,000.00SELA RCXDFING FORRER 7,600.00INCLINE ENTERRISES HACKNEY 1,500.00INCLINE ENTERRISES HUBER 1,800.00SELA ROOFING SAHLSTROM 6,800.00DAHL CONSTRUCTION HEDBERG 4,000.00JOHN THOMAS CUSTOM HOMES WILLOUGHBY 7,500.00JERRY’S PLBG & HTG 10,000.00DARYL DECHAINE BLOCH 38,000.00SABRE HEATING & AIR CONDIT GERARD 3,750.00DJ'S HTG & AC 5,500.00 TRIPLE D HTG & AC CSRPENTER 7,000.00 VOGT FRED & CO BOLLIS 1,500.00 WOODLAND STOVES&FIREPLACES WINSLOW 2,500.00 MR ROOTER BOSTON 500.00 FIC INC POLANSKY .00 WENZEL PLUMBING & HEATING POWERS 1,200.00 FIRESIDE CORNER 1,100.00 DOLDER PLBG U HTG WAGNER 650.00 AQUA ENGINEERING, INC.HALE .00 DUDA, LEON PLUMBING SERV.HALE 150.00 .00 RAHN 66,079.00 TRENDY ROOFING & SONS INC LYTLE 1,400.00 GENERAL SERVICE EIDEN .00 PETERS .00 GENZ-RYAN PLUMBING & HlXS 12,480.00 GENZ-RYAN PLUMBING & HTG 9,830.00 BEHNING 829.60 CARLSON EXCAVATING .00 CARLSON EXCAVATING ULRICH .00 CARLSON EXCAVATING • 00 OLSON LARRY GUSTAFSON 150.00 .00 'h * ■i 010203040506070809 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 99 9999 WORK TYPE CODE Residence Addition Garage/Attached Garage/Detached .PorchDeckFenceGazebo Pool Re-side Re-roof Tennis Court Sign Dock Shed Demo-Principal Structure Demo-Accessory Structure Move Commercial Institutional Storm Damage Repair 1-100 Cubic Yards 101 Cubic Yards or More Undefined 2425262728293031 32 33 34 Replacing ExistingPrincipal Residence Well Abandonment Foundation Only Temporary TrailerRenovate/RemodelAccessory Structure Stairway to Lake Retaining Wall Entrance Monuments Tree Removal LOCAL DSE CODES Undefined JULY 1997REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 08/04/97 ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO PAGE: 1REQUESTER: LIN. . . . . . . CURRENT R^LGE. . . . .07/01/97 -07/^1/97PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALU:.:iON PLAN REVIEW QTYUser DefinedSUBDIVISION 2 1,617.50 0.00 0.00 3 VARIANCE 3 710.00 0.00 0.00 9 CUP 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 SKETCH PLAN 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 VACATION 2 500.00 0.00 0.00 0 REZONING 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Sub-total 8*2,827.50*0.00*0.00*14* Grand-total 8**2,827.50**0.00**0.00**14** -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 07/01/96 - 07/31/96BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW700.00 2,110.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 350.00 3,410.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 3,410.00**0.00**0.00** REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 08/04/97 ***** permit fee report *♦*★* CITY OF ORONO FROM 07/01/97 TO 07/31/97 PAGE: REQUESTER: LIN USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE 2,827.50 2,827.50 PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 2,827.50 2,827.50 i V. .^Njeo MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATIO^^ OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 p \ S HELD ON JULY 1, 1997 c\'Of The annual meeting of the Board of Education of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Tuesday, July 1, 1997 at 4:30 p.m Present: Martha Van de Ven John Marcsh Peg Swanson Jack Veach Thomas Mich Neal Lawson Absent: Dick Lewis The meeting was called to order and nominations for chairperson were requested by Dr. Mich. Martha Van de Ven MOVED, Jack Veach seconded that John Maresh he nominated c.s chairperson, that nominations cease and that Mr. Maresh be elected by unanimous ballot. Motion carried. Martha Van de Ven MOVED, Peg Swanson seconded that Jack Veach be nominated as vice chairperson, that nominations cease and that Mr. Veach be elected by unanimous ballot. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Jack Veach, seconded by Martha Van de Ven, the yearly salary for Clerk was established as $500 and for Treasurer as $100. Motion carried. Martha Van de Ven MOVED, Jack Veach seconded that Peg Swanson be nominated as clerk, that nominations cease and that Ms. Swanson be elected by unanimous ballot. Motion carried. Martha Van de Ven MOVED, Jack Veach seconded that Dick Lewis be nominated as treasurer, that nominations cease and that Mr. Lewis be elected by unanimous ballot. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Jack Veach, seconded by Martha Van de Ven, the Board of Education authorized the signature plntes of officers for 1997-98. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Peg Swanson, seconded by Martha Van de Ven, the consent age'da was approved as follows: approved the minutes of the June 2, regular meeting; approved the appointment of Michelle teacher at Schumann Elementary School; 1997 Corniea 1 ! approved the appointment of Ronda Paulus as a Spanish teacher at Orono Primary School and Orono Middle School; approved the appointment of Lori Pelkey as a Spanish teacher at Orono High School; approved the appointment of Molly Power as an English teacher at Orono High School; approved the appointment of Stephanie Schmidt as a teacher at Schumann Elementary School; approved the appointment of Rick Wolf as part-time school psychologist for the District; approved the request of Holly Elias, school psychologist, for a part-time leave of absence from her full-time duties for the 1997-98 school year; approved continued membership in E.C.S.U.for the 1997-98 school year; approved continued membership in AMSD for the 1997-98 school year; approved continued membership in MSBA for the 1997-98 school year; approved enrollment in the NSBA National Affiliate Program for the 1997-98 school year; approved continued membership ir the Minnesota State High School League according to the following resolution: ON FILE IN DISTRICT OFFICE Ir approved continued participation in the Community Resource Pool for the 1997-98 school year; declared its intention to develop projects which expand and improve the educational programs of the District, and said Board authorized Dr. Thomas B. Mich, Superintendent of Schools or his designee, to execute and file application for and in behalf of the School District, and otherwise to act as its authorized representative in state and federally funded program and the Board declared its intention to comply with all of the requirements set forth in the "i^plicant Statement of Assurances"; designated the Assistant Superintendent as the administrator to review all collateral obtained from financial institutions to cover investments and bank deposits; . .approved the West Adult Basic Education Consortium appr^ed*^' the Family Services Collaborative Implementation Grant; directed administration to certify to the State Demographer the following population estimates for Orono Independent School District No. 278 which will serve as the basis for the Community Education Levy: District census is currently estimated at 12,207; approved the following lunch prices for the 1997-98 school year: I, I tlll'ls scSoi qualified teachers fo^ t^e approved the Treasurer's Report for April, 1997. thwSgh 098964 and^^offfce''chlcks as^ cohered® ^6096 through 6115. ^ covered by vouchers Motion carried. attending commence^me^n\,^cong^^ the*^^ Board members for Who worked on making the ev^nin^^^^s'c,^^ is going well with children everywhere^ thiV ho^t, regarding open enrollment on natiSial interviewed curriculum coordinators had an excellent thrp/^^°'\Dr. Ernie Stachowski. excellent three day inservice with th^if gSofwor? dSrLf thriftfor especially thank Sa Van'^^e VeTi:^ rer%e“rt,over the past two vears anri po« c. , ®®^^ce as Board chair Board and the recognition that brings tro^^Distric®? the impact on*^our*School °Dl^rict°^ He* exo®^*^* egreement and Peg Swanson for her good work with M«t appreciation to leading up to the compTo^,r ‘^befw“n fhe® dou legislature. He stated that as soon a« Governor and the Board!^°” received, copies will be^ltributed ^^thl oT ”Edraron‘’U*h*o ’li'?e*^^^^ Ven, the Board go1L1Lg*sU*tuti;*s“ acSie*vi“coa^u*an*^"It*h calendar and stated that hf winV"®wy®*' regarding implementation of this stLu?r n ^®5 clarification new law does not take efLct fof the 1997 *98 s%‘h‘‘calendar will rpm^iin ^ • tne 33 school year# the Education. ® previously adopted by the Board of Motion carried. Report*frorDr'!*Thomts^ns^^^ fol^>^nV his*"re ‘vi Education DeLuca, o’n'the substance of meeting to provide more ,pp°™iation to Melanie DeLuca,gnE"S ‘«€?-.?. s jars;,'»:.‘s sr.v"ir.ri ;««■>• — UPON MOTION by Martha Van de Jen, ^n^referendum election li ^Srfairoftpirfor^lhfXofes outlined in the attached draft of referenda questions. Dr. Mich reviewed the [®*|'®ts”inteition to hold a bond appropriate for the /Af %an proceed with the necessary rSerendum so that the “f Minnesota and that at the review and coment f review and comment# the Board would August 11 meeting, based .. the election would caU for an election timejhe^date^ be announced. Due to . . Lewis had written the attached this meeting. Board member referendum and this letter better to «.e in sjppoj: the Board TsweVed .^est^^ns for clarification purposes. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by aach veach seconded by Martha Van^ dejen, Jhe Boar of Education directed procedure for the purpose of Swanson to develop an Robert Hoerr. They are directed filling the unexpired tem ^ the Orono Schools community to seek applications from citizens ct c Further, they are by means of announcement ^ those applications among all ofJhed bo coordinate the review of those^ determine the the Board members and to poix v- selected candidate. Dr. Mich reiterated to lndividual"t^serve^that portion is required by law to appo n a-orm of office up to the Schoolol DrT Robert Hoerr-s ^pired tejajf^^^^^ distributed District general election se available at the District Office the application form which will ^ completed applications must be during normal business hours, c P Martha Van de Ven and Tef rns'’o^> ^wtr sb^ ^JT^rcrida^e “Bi‘a^d^iLh"es"^?ra;poi ‘^^ \he^;p"ointment will ta.e place at the August 11, 1997 Board meeting. Motion carried. 5 UPON MOTION by Peg Swanson, seconded by Jack Veach,estXusLd the regular School Board meeting time at 7 00 S-";;^irri"\99Vmeet\ng^TlV^%Vn^ to** be' he"fd in the Orono Education Link, Room 107L, on the following dates. July 1, 1997 August 11, 1997 September 8, 1997 September 22, 1997 October 7, 1997 October 27, 1997 November 10, December 2, December 11, January 12, January 26, February 9, February 23, 1997 March 9, 1998 1997 April 13, 1998 1997 April 27, 1998 1998 May 11, 1998 1998 May 26, : 1998 June 8, 1998 1998 The Board of Education has determined that Columbus Day is not desi^ated as a holiday, therefore public business can be conducted. Motion carried. Peg Swanson MOVED, Martha Van de Ven seconded to approve the following resolution/ waiving its reading. sLd officers are; John Maresh, Dick LewiSy and Peg Swanson. Motion carried. Jack Veach MOVED, Peg Swanson seconded, to approve the following resolution, waiving its reading; The Board of Education approved the following deoositories and authorized Jim Westrum and Neal Lawson to transfer ^^r^onrtheie financial institutions for investment purposes: 1) Norwest Bank of Minneapolis 2) First Bank of Minneapolis tl 4 I 3) Minnesota School District Liquid Asset Fund Plus 4) State Bank of Long Lake 5) Bank of Maple Plain 6) Eaton Vance Investors Fund# Inc. 7) Smith Barney, Inc. Peg Swanson, publication of the the Motion carried. UPON MOTICW by Jack Veach, seconded by LAKER/PIONEER was designated as the official Orono School District. The Board will study/review the coverage of the PIONEER during the school year as far as coraaunicatlon with the public iegirding Board of Education meetings. District sponsored So?klhops, etc. as there has been dissatisfaction with regard to the coverage the District has received. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Martha Van de Ven, seconded by Jack Veach, the official office of the clerk of the School Board will be the District Office in the middle school building. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Martha Van de Ven, seconded by Peg Swanson, the renewal of surety bonds for all employees was approved. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Martha Van de Ven, seconded by Jack Veach, of Malloy, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. was appointed auditors for the School District. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Peg Swanson, seconded by Martha members were appointed to the following committees for 1997-98. a) Teachers Meet & Confer b) MN State High School League c) TIES d) A.M.S.D. e) ECSU Rep. Assembly f) Community Education g) MSBA Local Legislative Liaison h) Continuing Education i) Negotiating Committee j) District Staff Development New Board Member, Dick Lewis* John Maresh Jack Veach Peg Swanson, Martha Van de Ven* New Board Member Martha Van de Ven, Peg Swanson* Peg Swanson Available Board Member John Maresh, Martha Van de Ven, Jack Veach Peg Swanson, Martha Van de Ven* k) 1000 Policy Series Review(Educational Statement)l) 2000 Policy Series Review (Instructional Program) m) 3000 Policy Series Review (Transportation) n) Chemical Health Awareness o) Facilities Representatives Full BoardNew Board Member Martha Van de Ven p) Intermediate District 287 q) Technology Committee r) Curriculum Council s) Cocurricular Committee t) Legislative Action Committee u) Community Use of Facilities v) Referendum Communication Committee Peg Swanson John Maresh, New Board Member, Dick Lewis* Peg Swanson Jack Veach Martha Van de Ven, Peg Swanson* John Maresh Peg Swanson, Dick Lewis John Maresh, Jack Veach Dick Lewis, Martha Van de Ven ♦Designates alternate Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Martha Van de Ven, seconded by Jack Veach, the Board of Education approved the appointment of Ms. two year term on the Intermediate District 287 Board of Education as the representative from the Orono Schools. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Peg SWanson, seconded by Martha Van de Ven, the Board of Education called for bids for milk and dairy supplies. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Jack Veach, seconded by Peg Swanson, the meeting was adjourned. Motion carried. ^JohnMaohn Maresh, Chair I1«- 1,