Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-22-1997 Council Packet
Public A ttendance ^ - 9 7Meeting D ate 0 C ouncil □Planning C ommission □Park C ommission □OTHER ___________ Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CFTY RECORDS. .■ NAME (please print)ADDRESS scO —‘ PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER M K£/r»/ 10 ____ ^ 7 15._ 09U9M I ; .1 , i AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22,1997, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA U\q (*) 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. \ if Ao ROLL CALL V \ 2 o 1. CONSENT AGENDA 'oT ^ ^^9? 2. Distinguished Budget Award to Finance Department - A1 Rolek, Treasurer MinwSftliU Government Finance Officers Association APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 3. Regular Meeting of September 8, 1997 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS < PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Lili McMillan Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - ^imit 5 Minutes Per Persoi^ ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #2204 James Fullerton, HI, 3350/3400 Fox Street - CUP/Final Subdivision - Resolutions 5. #2279/2280 Marc & Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Preliminary Subdivision Approval Resolution #2281 Hennepin County Depa*^ent of Public Works, County Road 6 Improvements Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 7. #2284 James Slechta, 3700 Northern Avenue - Variance - Resolution 8. #2285 John Latterelle, 3505 Livingston Avenue - Variance - Resolution 9. 10. #2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith, 1045 Edgewood Hills Road - Variance - Resolution 11. Ordinance Amendment - Shoreland and On-Site Sewage Treatment MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT 12. Canopy for Public Works Building Entry 13. Pump Station for Irrigation System CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ^14. Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners Request for Funding “^15. Street Signs for Private Roads *16. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Sub-Grant Agreement with the Division of Emergency Management <9^i * ^ » f AGENDA FOR COUNCIL RfSETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1997, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ^17. LICENSES * 18. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 09/22 09/23 09/29 10/01 10/04 10/06 10/07 10/11 10/13 10/18 10/20 10/25 10/27 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. - Public Hearing 6:30 p.m. - Orono High School Cafeteria - Navarre Water Plant Rehab - Joint Work Session - Orono and Long Lake City Councils - 5:30-7:00 p.m. Orono Council Chambers - Highway 12 Design Review Committee 5:30 p.m. - Orono Council Chambers - SATURDAY - Goodwill Collection - 9 a.m.-l p.m. Orono Middle School Parking Lot - Park Commission 7:15 p.m. - Orono School Referendum - No public meetings before 8:00 p.m. - SATURDAY - Leaf & grass disposal - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. - SATURDAY - Leaf & grass disposal - Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. - SATURDAY - Leaf & grass disposal - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. I ■; I i ,r -* '(■ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members 0/?^ Mayor Gahnel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley. Barbara PrterTOn, and Richard Flint. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse City Attorn^ Tom Bairett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Public Services Director Greg <^ppa, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour caUed the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. ^en moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended Vote- Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#2) REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 25,1997 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meetmg of September 8, 1997. Vote Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS WeUes s^d the P^k Conm ission will be revisiting the bike trad system to ensure that the ^gnment is consistent with neighboring communities. This should be completed by N^ember when a work session can be scheduled with the CouncU to discuss any We^s said the Commission is also continuing their review of open space. He noted that the Hwy 12 reconstruction will impact parks. This matter will also be discussed at their November meeting. A work session with CouncU will discuss their findings. ^e P^k Co^jssion has been monitoring the grading of Spring Hill Golf Club, of which the majonty h^ been completed, and its effect on the trails. Welles said the committee members will be reviewing the trail alignment. . .mtf 1 :! V r r * MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8.1997 (Park Commission Comments - Continued) Jabbour indicated that the Commission was asked to review the trail matter with Council Member Flint. Jabbour said his visit with Hennepin Parks Superintendent, Doug Bryant, indicated potential significant benefits to working with Hennepin Parks towards planning of trails to be a part of the regional trail system. (Council Member Flint arrived at this time.) Welles concurred with Jabbour. He reported that future funding will require new revenue sources. Jabbour informed Welles that the Council is in the process of re-evaluating the park dedication fee ordinance. He also advised Welles that ihe direction being considered by the Park Commission for widening roadways for shoulder-type trails is in direct conflict with the desires of many of the residents. He was of the opinion that it would be a problem to widen Watertown Road to add a shoulder tr^. Flint emphasized the need for the Park Commission to focus their work in the area of open space and meet with Council. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Janice Berg had no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (•#3) #2253 DAVID REINHOLD, 3551 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3952 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3952, granting lot area and width variances for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence at 3551 Livingston Avenue. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#4) #2267 JOHN O'SULLIVAN, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN - RESOLUTION NO. 3953 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3953, granting commercial site plan approval and approval for creation of an access easement to serve the property at 3340 Shoreline Drive. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8. 1997 (#5) «270 MARCIA AND KENNETH HICKEY, 4640 TONKA VIEW LANE VARUNCES/CONDmONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 3954 Kenneth Hickey was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is for variances and conditional use permit to construct a detached garage on a through lot. A large amount of discussion has ensued due to the difficult topography of the lot. The only area where topography is not a problem is where the garage is proposed. Photos were passed around to the Council for their viewing. The proposed garage is to be located in front of the principal structure requiring a variance. The plan was revised to meet the side yard setbacks. A height variance is required to exceed the principal structure height of 13' with a height of 22.5* at the peak. The conditional use permit is required due to the property being a through lot. Van Zomeren reported that Staff had recommended the existing shed be removed prior to construction of the garage. The applicant had requested the shed remain until the construction is complete in order to utilize the space inside. Final inspection would be withheld until the shed is removed. Hickey said he would like to keep the shed if at all possible as he needs the storage space. Otherwise, he will work out the details for removal after the garage is complete. Kelley asked Hick^r what his hardship is for the variances requested. Hickey did not understand what a hardship is and asked it be explained. Kelley and Moorse assisted in the explanation. Hickey indicated his lot is a through lot and hilly. The slope would make it impossible to build the garage on the east side. He would like the garage to be located on the front side as the lake is on the other side and view would be obstructed. Kelley noted the drop to the Wildhurst side. Van Zomeren explained why a garage could not be built off of Wildhurst. Hickey noted it would be a long walk to the residence, and there is already an established driveway where the garage would be located and would be the most convenient location. Kelley asked if Staff has spoken with the neighbors to the north. Van Zomeren said the neighbors were notified but no acknowledgment letter or phone call was received. Hickey did indicate that he showed his plans to the neighbors, who did not object to the garage. Peterson said she had no questions of the applicant. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER «. 1997 (#5 - #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Continued) Hickey said his house wWle appearing as one story to the front was two stories from the east side. Goetten informed Hickey that open space is a priority in Orono, and she would prefer not to view two-stoiy garages. She also noted that she had attended the Planning Commission meetings where the application was discussed. Goetten was of the opinion that the garage could be built at an average height questioning why the requested height was necessary. Hickey said he would not have the storage space if the second level was eliminated. He also planned on usinc that area for a work shop. Goetten noted the larae size of the structure even at one story. Hickey said he did not believe the structure would be intrusive. Jabbour referred to the guidelines the Council uses regarding hardship. He said he understood the hardship with having a through lot and the need for being located in front of the principal structure. However, Jabbour said he could find no hardship for the height variance requested. He thought an acre lot might not be able to handle all the storage? needs noted by Hickey. Hickey responded that a nearby property had a five car garage on a half acre lot. Jabbour said he did not have a problem with the location but height only, and Hickey would have to demonstrate the hardship. Jabbour informed Hickey that a hardship is not of the property owner's doing but a circumstance that cannot be prevented. Barrett told Hickey that a hardship would result in the property not being used without receipt of the variance. Hickey said his need for storage is the hardship noting the shed is to be removed. Jabbour was informed by Van Zomeren that the accessory building is at its maximum size and was decreased from the original size proposed. Flint questioned whether an addition would be built to the rear of the residence for storage. Hickey said he would not be able to drive ai ound and access that portion of the property. He indicated the area leading to Wildhurst is a possibility but the cost would be exorbitant. Hickey said he understood it costs less to build up than out. Jabbour polled the Council regarding their viewpoint. Kelley stud he would support the height variance but would like to see a written statement from the neighbor to the north regarding his approval of the structure at that location. Kelley thought tWs location must affect that neighbor. Peterson said she would support the height variance. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8.1997 (#5 - #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Continued) Goctten said she could not support the height requested. She suggested a lower height be maintained and shed could remain. She Questioned whether the shed could be moved. Van Zomeren informed Goetten that the shed was not located in the right-of-way as was thought by Goetten but was in front of the principal structure with a possible sideyard encroachment. Hickey said he would prefer the height as requested. He indicated the shed is built on a slab that has been there since 1952. The shed was recently rebuilt. Flint said he felt there were other areas on the property that would allow the appli^t ’s needs for storage to be achieved. He does not fevor the location in front of the principal structure noting it would be obtruave. He also felt it would be unsatisfactoiy to other residents. Hickey questioned whether Flint has viewed the property. Flint said he had not but was familiar with the area. Hickey said there was foliage surrounding the area resulting in a garage that would not be obtrusive. He noted both of his neighbors have two levels. Jabbour said Hickey should not have to be at the mercy of the neighbors. He said he views the application itself and its demonstration of hardship. He again inquired what the hardship is for the height. Barrett was asked by Jabbour whether the views of the neighbors have a bearing on what is approved. Barrett said the opinion of the neighbors is not enough to defeat what is othe^se an acceptable application. Jabbour asked the applicant how he would like to proceed explaining the procedures and time limitations. Flint asked why the garage could not be built on the south side. Hickey said a cliff is located in that area. While there is no heisht oroblem there, he is unable to access it. Hickey noted the lot is long and narrow limiting where a garage can be located. The north side would have the same problem. An easterly location would result in access during the winter months with having to travel upgrade. Jabbour said the applicant has demonstrated the hardship regarding location. Jabbour asked the applicant if he would like the Council to vote on approval of the garage in the proposed location but without a height variance or state the hardship for the height. Goetten suggested the lower height garage with maintaimng shed. Kelley said he would support that option. ? n I I ’ ) i; MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCDL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8.1997 (#5 - #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Continued) Hickey suggested the application be tabled noting his frustration. He indicated he could nrobablv not substantiate a hardshic for a earaee at all and therefore, there is no hardship for a second story. Jabbour said Council has determined that there is a hardship present in Minnesota for a garage. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, that a new resolution b^ prepared and Resolution No. 3954 be adopted based on the hardship and findings presented with approval of variance for location in front of the principal structure and conditional use permit. The shed will remain. No heieht variance will be allowed due to no demonstrated hardship. Kelley asked ifthe property was sewered. Hickey said it was. Kelley asked that the motion include that no plumbina fixtures be allowed notine the size of the structure. Jabbour amended his motion to include that sewer cannot be brought to the garage; Goetten seconded the motion. Hickey said he would support the amendment. Peterson stud she would not support the motion as she feels the applicant is entitled to the second story and prefers the shed be eliminated. Flint said he would like the shed be removed and the garage located behind the principal structure. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Flint/Peterson. Jabbour indicated to the applicant that the Council was attempting to facilitate the construction season. Jabbour asked Staff to guide future applicants through the hardship requirement. Van Zomeren indicated that the Planning Commission had directed the applicant to reduce the heiaht of the structure down to 22.5' from 28’ as presented. Jabbour suggested a flat roof might offer additional height to the applicant. Hickey said the Plannine Commission voiced concern with aesthetics but indicated he could redesien the garage with that criteria in mind. (*#6) #2275 TED AND MYRNA WOLF, 900 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH - PRELIMINARY PLAT - RESOLUTION NO. 3955 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3955. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8,1997 (#7) #2276 JULIE AND BRENT WALTON, 2405 DUNWOODY AVENUE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO Mr. and Mrs. .Walton were present. Van Zomeren passed out photos to the Council of the property. She indicated that the application is a request to build a new residence on a vacant lot. The property is substandard in size at 12,754 s.f The Planning Commission reviewed the application and voted 4:3 for a reduction in structural coverage to meet 15%. This has been accomplished. Language has also been added to provide an easement to the City for sanitary sewer due to a change in location. The water line ofif Shoreline Drive also has to be relocated. The applicant has agreed to these changes. Van Zomeren reported that a preliminary plat review from 1996 for a lot line rearrangement when under the ownership of Mr. Oberhauser was approved with the condition that the lots be combined and a shared driveway be used. The application was not followed through on by Oberhauser. Lots A, B, and C are now under control by three parties, McNamara, Larson, and Walton. Oberhauser is listed as taxpayer but not owner. The Waltons have demonstrated interest in purchasing Lot C. They will require a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback. A portion of the hardship is due to the direction of the Planning Commission for location of a turnaround in the driveway from Dunwoody Avenue. The hardcover would total 41.3% where 25% is allowed. No hardship will exist in the 0-75' setback. Mr. Walton reported that the Planning Commission required them to pro\hde the sewer easement, new water line, and new driveway. The hardcover variance is required due to the lot's long and narrow size at 50'x276' average for the driveway. Jabbour indicated he had spoken with the applicant eariier and provided the Walton's with some background information. He said the Council had recommended the lots be combined as they were substandard in size. It was then found that this did not occur. Jabbour felt it was important for the applicants to understand what has occurred and noted it in no way affects them or thdr application. Jabbour said he was very surprised to find out that Oberhauser did not follow through as determined noting the length of time it took to bring the application before the Council at that time. Kelley questioned whether Lots A, B, and C would be considered buildable if the previous plan had not been reviewed. Gafhon said he believed that each of the three lots were assessed for sewer. At least two, if not three, of the lots had houses on them at one time or another. Gaffron said each lot is substandard and would require lot area and lot width variances. M h ; ' : MDJUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8,1997 (#7 - #2276 Julie and Brent Walton - Continued) Goetten s»d she remembered the approval as being for two buildable lots noting one lot is onlv 7.600 s.f in size. Jabbour confirmed that the anoroval was for two lots with removal of current build'mgs on the property. Mr. Oberhauser arrived at the meeting at this time. He was asked what happened with the prior application for subdivision. Oberhauser said he sold the house which resulted in being unable to subdivide. The house is on a separate lot. Kelley questioned whether this will result in another house being located on the lot between the existina lot with house and the Walton’s. Van Zomeren indicated that a plan has been submitted to Staff for a house on that lot. Jabbour explained the Oberhauser application and resulting action, which then rrsults in having three lots that are buildable. Gaffron noted that caution needs to be exercised in saying what is buildable in that lot coverage, lot area, and hardcover variances would be required on the substandard lot. Goetten said the point of the prior approval was to not have three houses on these lots. Kelley questioned whether the City could refund the cost of sewer assessed with a rate of r;,tum added resulting in sewer for house on Lot A and one sewer stub for Lots B and C. Barrett said the question was difficult. He advised the Council to look at what it means to have a sewer stub located there. Kelley reiterated that with the stub in the location, it is considered buildable. If the stub was not there, it would not be buildable. Jabbour suggested that what can be built on the lot is limited by the lot itself Gafiron concurred. Kelley asked that this reasoning be taken one step further. If an agreement had been reached with the current owner and variances were denied and with two lots on the market but only allow what would meet the code, he questioned if this would force the issue to have only two lots. Jabbour said he thought lot area and lot width variances would have to be granted but not hardcover or side setback variances. Mr. Walton indicated that he was told that the plan for Lot B would not require any hardcover variance, onlv lot area. \ i 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8,1997 \ (#7 - #2276 Julie and Brent Walton - Continued)Jabbour acknowledged that the lots cannot be made larger, and the end result is three btitldable lots. Goetten noted that years were spent by the Council to reach a resolution with Oberhauser regarding the property becoming only two lots because of size. She said she is confused on how to proceed questioning Council’s rescission of having only two lots instead of three. Jabbour said Oberhauser’s application was acted upon by Council with no follow to ugh by Oberhauser. He indicated this could also occur with the current application. Goetten said she understood that but questioned whether the Council was changing their determination that only two lots exist. Jabbour said it is his understanding that the City has no power to enforce the property becoming two lots. Kelley questioned where the access would be located for Lot B, whether off of CoRd 15 or by shared access with B and C. He asked how many curb cuts were approved. He was informed that there were two curb cuts for A and B from CoRd 15 but City questioned the appropriateness of adding traffic onto CoRd 15 when an arterial route could be used. Goetten noted that this was discussed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Walton reported that he has direct access onto Dunwoody Avenue. Van Zomeren said Staff recommended B and C have a shared driveway from CoRd 15 rather than Dunwoody Avenue. The Planning Commission thought otherwise and ^proved a plan with one driveway off of Dunwoody Avenue. Mr. Walton displayed a photo of the property and curb cut on Dunwoody Avenue, which he said he feels is safer. He indicated there is a natural tunnel of vegetation around the driveway. Jabbour asked Oberhauser if the transaction for Lot A was complete. Oberhauser said the transaction^ was closed one year ago and the house has since been reconditioned. Kelley said he supported the Walton applicat-.on. Peterson said she also supported the application. She asked if structural coverage would meet the 15% allowance. Van Zomeren said the plan is designed at 14.17%. s ■ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8,1997 (#7 - #2276 Julie and Brent Walton - Continued) Jabbour and Goetten requested the resolution note that the maximum structural coverage has been reached on this oronertv. h ii Flint asked for clarification on action being taken regarding the driveway. Van Zomeren explained the driveway and location of the City right-of-way. There will be a common entry for the two lots by a shared curb cut on the right-of-way. Oberhauser indicated that it was designed as one curb cut shared by two lots at 2405 and 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. Mr. Walton noted that the neighboring house has another curb cut as well for its horseshoe drivewav. Jabbour indicated that he did not want the applicant to have to be forced to deal with the neifdibor resardine access. This is not what will occur. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution No. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1. Flint. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Jabbour noted having received comments regarding stormwater management from Tom O'Keefe. Jabbcur reported the grand opening of the new Water Patrol facilities occurred. The City's contributions were recognized. Orono's LMCD Representative, Lili McMillan, was present demonstrating her well received efforts on the LMCD. Kelley said he reviewed three trailers with boats pulling out of Maxwell Bay access with milfoil hanging fi’oni them. The operators did not remove the milfoil. Jabbour indicated there is a major fine for lack of removing the milfoil. Kelley suggested ticketing these violations. ENGINEER REPORT (#8) ACCEPT FEASIBILITY REPORT AND SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NAVARRE WATER PLANT REHABILITATION - RESOLUTION NO. 3957 Gappa reported that the proposed financing for the Navarre Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation are from three sources; 1) assessment on all properties in the Navarre water system service area; 2) money firom cash reserves in the water fund; and 3) an internal loan to the water fund from other City funds. Staff recommended to Council that a public hearing be scheduled for September 23 to hear comments on the feasibility study and project. I.. L MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8,1997 (US Navarre Water Plant Rehabilitation - Continued) Kelley asked what the amortization period would be for the internal loan and at w^at rate. The $276,800 loan would be over a 10 vear oeriod at a 6% interest rate. Kellev saud he would like to accelerate the rate of pay back. Moorsc noted that the $263,200 assessment at $350 for each of the 752 properties would be payable over a five year time period. Kelley questioned pledging collateral over a 10 year time period when assessments are paid over a five vear time period. Jabbour viewed it as two issues; one being the assessment time and two being taking money out of the fund without beins in it. Since it can't be paid back, it would be a matter of realigning the budget columns. KellQ' said the mon^ would be retrieved when the fund was in a positive balance. He noted if all were assessed, the City would not have to make a loan. He questioned how much participation would occur between the City and residents. He also questioned how lone it would be before there was a positive cash flow in the water fund. Moorse responded that at 2.95% a year fee, a positive cash flow would be generated in 10 vears. The fee would have to be increased to reduce that time fi*ame. Jabbour noted if no City participation occurred, the money would be recouped through fees with interest. Kelley questioned whether the interest rate would be adjusted to market changes and whether this could occur. Moorse said the City would have the opportunity to do so. Jabbour suggested a bond be taken if that scenario was to occur in order to protect the interest of the citizens and at a fixed rate. Gappa indicated that the small loan amount affects the interest rate. Kelley said he would like to ensure that the City is paid back at a faster rate than 10 years in order to free up the capital. Moorse reported if more revenue can be generated in the water fund, it can be paid back quicker or be used for other projects. Flint questioned the disruption caused by the sewer projects. He wondered whether City water could be provided at the same time as sewer. Jabbour noted the cost diflerence between wells and providing City water. Moorse also indicated that water lines would have to be run. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8,1997 (#8 Navarre Water Plant Rehabilitation - Continued) Flint questioned how long wells will continue to operate. Kelley thought wells would be nuuntained until it is found that oollution is occurrimz from the wells reouirins Citv water. Jabbour noted that lines for water cannot be placed in the same trench as sewer lines. Kellogg said a 10* horizontal separation must occur. Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3957 to accept the feasibility study and schedule a public hearing on the Navarre water treatmem plant rehabilitation for 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 23,1997 at the Orono High School Cafeteria. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (•#9) PAY REQUEST #1 - GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION SYSTEM Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Request for Payment #1, Golf Course Irrisation Svstem Proiect to Everareen Sorinkler Comoanv in the amount of $43,348.03. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#10) PAY REQUEST #1 - BAY RIDGE/BRACKETTS POINT SEWER PROJECT Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Request for Payment #1, Bracketts Point/Bav Ridee Sanitary Sewer Proiect to Barbarossa 8c Sons in the amount of $117,259.45. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#11) PAY REQUEST #3 - NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION SEWER PROJECT Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Request for Payment #3, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $49,031.45. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#12) BUDGET/TAX LEVY - RESOLUTIONS NO. 3958 AND 3959 Moorse indicated that the information provided summarizes the 1998 Budget and proposed Tax Levy, which is required to be adopted by September 15 with a certified copy sent to the County. He noted that once approved, the levy can be reduced but cannot be increased. The costs are required to be on record for review by residents if they so desire. Changes can be made after comments are received at the Truth in Taxation public hearine. '»<♦' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8.1997 (#12 - Budget/Tax Levy - Continued) Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3958 approving the proposed proposed Budget. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (•#13) SET DATE FOR TRUTH-IN-TAXATION HEARING Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to set the initial Truth in Taxation public hearing for 7:00 D.m.. Wednesday. December 3. 1997. at the Orono Council chambers, and to set the continuation hearing, if required, for 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 10, 1997, at the Orono Council chambers Vote' Aves 4 Navs 0 Prior to adjournment of this meeting, Moorse indicated that the time of the Hwy 12 Desiffn Committee meetinc was the same as the scheduled Truth in Taxation nublic hearing. He suggested a time change to 7:30 p.m. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to reconsider the motion made under the consent agenda as it related to this agenda item. Vote: Aves 5, Navs 0. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to set the initial Truth in Taxation public hearing for 7:30 p.m., Wednesday. December 3. 1997, at the Orono Council chambers, and to set the continuation hearing, if required, for 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 10, 1997, at the Orono Council chambers Vote: Aves .5. Navs 0 (#14A) POLICY REGARDING INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES IN SEWER PRO.TECTS - RESOLUTION NO. 3960 Moorse reported that the proposed policy amendment is for exclusion of properties fix>m sanitarv sewer nroiects. as directed bv Council It was noted that the timeline.ss of the project does not always correlate with the need to replace a septic system. The Council would like to allow for the difference in conditions of septic systems allowing residents not to be forced to immediately hook up to sewer if their septic system is in compliance with code. The orooertv owner can reauest to oot out for exclusion from the oroiect. Jabbour noted that the amendment of the policy was a result of a work session by the Council reeardins sewerine Orono for the future. Kelley recognized the key issue is that the property owners opt back into the sewer oroiect at the 100% oer unit cost in the future. Kellev noted that this is a oolicv onlv and future Councils are not bound by it. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3960 amending the City's policy regarding inclusion of properties in sanitarv sewer projects. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8,1997 (I1^14A - Sewer Project Inclusion Policy - Continued) "Flint questioned how the projects would be paid for; who would pick up the costs related to the pror>ert!es excluded from the oroiect? Jabbour said bonds are sold to finance the project. The City would pay the portion ot the d^ service attributable to the excluded properties. The City would recoup its costs at the time these properties connect to the sewer in the future. He noted that those property owners who choose to opt out of a sewer project at the time of installation will lose the benefit of whatever City participation occurred on the project costs. They will have to oav the full amount to connect to sewer in the future. The oolicv allows for the oroDertv owner to continue the use of a septic system that is in good working order without interference by the city. Flint asked about the cost of living increase factor. Moorse said the connection charge would be consistent with the assessment which increases in cost every year. Jabbour said the only change in the policy is that not all property owners would be required to hook up at the time of installation. They would have the ability to opt out until a later date. Moorse noted the policy resolution indicates that the septic system can be a maximum of 7 years old in order to qualify for optinR out of a proiect. He asked if the Council would like that qualifier to be included in the resolution. Jabbour said he feels the ability to opt out should be tied to the conformity of the septic system. He said the attempt is to allow property owners to opt out of a project to avoid litigation. He suggested eliminating the 7-year septic system age requirement. Kelley noted that this is a policy only and unique situations will arise where discretion will be required. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to amend their motion to reflect the eUraination of the 7-year septic system age requirement. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#14B) REVISED ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION FOR NORTH LONG LAKE SEWER PROJECT - RESOLUTION NO. 3961 Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3961, amending the interest rate applied to the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club sanitary sewer assessment roll from 8.00% to 6.25%, and amending the starting date of interest from May 6, 1997 to October 1. 1997. Jabbour clarified that the understandmg of the distinction between the Johnson and Maresh properties is the conticuousness to the sewer ine as indicated in the Met Council requirements. ' i A.- A. . . r i i’ I { i*"' IV"'. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8,1997 (#14B - North Long Lake Sewer Project - Continued) Moorse said one sewer Une would run across undeveloped property to access the dcveloocd orooertv fMareshV while the other adioins the develooed orooertv with the undeveloped property located behind it (Johnson). Jabbour said he sees this as a big ^ difference and is of the opinion that the properties owned by Maresh should be combined. Kelley agreed that the Maresh property should be combined. It was noted that the Johnson's undevdoped property is behind the developed property and can be developed at a future date. r> Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#15) IRRIGATION FOR CRYSTAL BAY PARK Jabbour reported *hat he is recdving many calls relating to the conditions at Crystal Bay Paric. He asked that the seeding be accomplished. Goctten suggested faucets be installed instead of a irrigation system to save on costs. Gappa indicated he has more black dirt to spread before seeding wUl occur. Council questioned where the additional dirt can be placed. Gappa said there were areas inside the park where this could be accompli^ed. Jabbour asked if the piping and faucets would have to be blown out before winter or drained onlv. Gappa said the piping would be underground and frost free, which would • not require the pipes to be blown out. The faucets are installed at ground level. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to authorize the installation of piping and three additional faucets in Crystal Bay Park by Eyergreen Sprinkler Company at a cost of $1,500. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8» 1997 (#16) RESOLUTION NO. 3962 REQUESTING COUNTY ASSISTANCE IN TffiE~ OVERSIGHT OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Moorse rq}orted that the resolution was revised. Jabbour indicated his attendance at the September 3 breakfast meeting of mayors where the subject discussed was the activities of the MCWD. Several cities are unhappy with the undertakings of the MCWD. Jabbour said he pointed out that the cities are in fault for not paying enough attention to the activities of the MCWD. As a result, the MCWD should be monitored more closely. It was noted at that meeting that the committee representing the cities was pcrforminK in an excellent manner and support was shown for thdr activities. A resolution was distributed for cities to consider. Jabbour said he could not approve that resolution as the City of Orono had not experienced what was indicated in the resolution. This resulted in the request for Moorse to draft a new resolution. The comnuttec had wanted the 14 cities to authorize and voice support for bettering the ecolosv with methods on how this should be accomplished. Kelley questioned why the Hennepin County Commissioners have overseen the responsibilities of the MCWD. Jsbbour said this is mandated bv State Statute. He noted that several State legislators were in attendance at the meeting. Kelley noted and Jabbour confirmed that the statute gives the MCWD the ability to tax the City. The resolution as presented supports the activities of the committee. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt the re\dsed resolution. Resolution No. 3962, requesting Countv assistance in the oversii^t of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADDITIONAL CITY ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS Moorse noted the scheduled meeting recognizing the Business Person of the Year at the Westonka Chamber of Commerce on September 12. A joint meeting with the Long Lake City Council was scheduled for 5:30-7:00 p.m. on September 29 at the Orono Council Chambers. Moorse discussed the time of the Truth in Taxation public hearing. Council amended the motion to reflect a 7:30 p.m. start time. See agenda item #13 above. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Barrett had no report. m t'A v'-'i Ir - r ■ ifr-. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8,1997 (•#17) UCENSES Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the followng license: Vote: Ayes 4, NavsO. Garbage and Refuse Collectors license: BFI of North America, Inc. 9813 Flying Cloud Drive toen i^aine, min 53 (•#18) BILLS Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Jabbour adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk • • ft.. ■iJpiKiiiiii,,-t tV I IREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 9/19/97 ITEM NO.4^. Department Approval: Name Liz' an Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2204 James Fullerton, IH-3350/3400 Fox Street Final Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for Guest House Lot Area: Proposed Lots: Lot Number Loti Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Zoning District: LR-IA Total Lot Area=26.72 acres (1.94 acres are Type 2 wetland within Lot 3, not protected by city ordinances) Size 4.22 acres 4.67 acres 7.51 acres (5.57 excluding protected area) existing lot of record where lot line rearrangment proposed 7.16 acres existing lot of record where lot line rearrangment proposed 3.16 acres Application: The subdivision proposes a 5 lot plat that includes 3 new residential lots and lot line rearrangements for 2 existing lots of record. A private road with cul-de-sac is proposed. A conditional use peimit is also required for Lot 3 that will allow an existing guest/caretaker house to recsiain. The entire guest house structure is located within the O'-75' setback area. The applicant has submitted the park dedication fee of $20,500. A fee of $400 will be remitted prior to the City Council meeting. City ss4if has met with the surveyor to revise the road paving plan to preserve trees and ensure safe road widths. COUNCIL ACnON REQUESTED: To amend or adopt the enclosed approval resolution. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF FULLERTON ESTATES FILE NO. 2204 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this application for a Class III subdivision of a five lot plat by James G. Fullerton. Ill (hereinafter "the subdivider"); and WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 3879 of the City of Orono, approved the preliminary plat application for the five lot residential subdivision on April 24, 1997, and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the LR-IA, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, finding that each lot is of a size and ‘ would allow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 3879, the resolution of the City granting preliminary approval of the plat. Creation of a stormwater facility maintenance agreement, drainage easements for Lots 1 and 2, and Declaration of Building Restrictions for Lot 3. Executed a Developer ’s Agreement and posted a Letter of Credit ^^tten to 150% of the cost of required improvements. Required improvements shall include all grading/drainage improvements and road improvements as shown on plans and specs by Mark S. Gronberg, a registered professional engineer. Job n , sheet__of ____, dated------------------------_• 1. 2. 3. Page 1 of 2 4. Declaration of private road easement and related covenants for Fox Circle. 5. Payment to the City of park dedication fee in the amount of $20,500. 6. Payment to the City for legal review and filing of the plat and final plat fee of $400.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Fullerton Estates, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1.The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before March 23, 1998 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements and covenants noted above. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision approval. Dated this 22nd day of September, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of April, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 I A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 & 2; SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 4 (A); AND SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3 (G-I) nLE #2204 WHEREAS, James G. Fullerton, (hereinafter "the applicant") is an authorized representative of the Fullerton Trust having an interest in the property located at 3350/34(K) Fox Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Lot 3, Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1358, Files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to permit an existing caretaker's residence/guest house located within the 0-75* lakeshore setback on Lot 3 to remain per Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; Section 10.23, Subdivision 4 (A) and Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G-I). Miimesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. Thii application was reviewed with a preliminary plat for Fullerton Estates, Zoning File #2204. 2.The property is located in the LR-IA. Lot 3 consists of 7.51 acres, 5.57 excluding protected area. 3.On November 18,19%, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan and recommended approval based on the following findings: Page 1 of 5 A) The caretaker residence is existing and located entirely within the 0-75' lakeshore setback. B) The structure is used as either a residence for non-paying guests or domestic employees. 4.The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow an existing caretaker's residence/guest house will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2; Section 10.23, Subdivision 4 (A); and Section 10.20, Subdivision (G-I) to permit an existing caretaker's residence/guest house to remain on Lot 3 in the vicinity of 3350/3400 Fox Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant and future owners are placed on notice that any expansion of the existing building envelope or construction of a new foundation will require variance approval. 2.A conforming septic system shall be installed to serve the caretaker's residence and principal structure on Lot 3 no later than October 1, 1998. Page 2 of 5 >h ---------“ 3.Caretaker/guest house to serve the occupants of the principal residence to include domestic en^loyees or their non-paying guests. The structure shall never be used for rent or lease. 4.All improvements to the caretaker residence are subject to the Shoreland Regulations as set forth in the Municipal Code. 5.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of September, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 3 of 5 i t STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of September, 1997, by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the • -City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 i J-j i j t r i, i 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. i 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 pereon(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (Aey) 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 (Aey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 5 of 5 r ApplicidoD # _ Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddres5 ___^Tf£ag,f Property Identification Number (PID) ________ Please check one - Property ____abstract or yC torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT 8 i i ■w 8 Address M4ao TD6 TO *3 .YM Sf. City Hp|j Nisi Phone (home)*404-» ^^4*^ Zidyjott. Phone (work)^l> RIQ q OWNER (if different than applicant) Name James a fii.ll-gy4oA HI Address Sf-_______ CiD Crono^ Hm____________ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels *4- Development Size _______Phone (home) 4*1^* *5000 , Zio Sai^fc Phone (work) ■■-An Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no, of units Other (specify)______ cT' ' *■' PROPOSAL Division for Tax Puipoies ... Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new bulldling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites 3___Existing Units A___New Units ^___Total Units ^plui o^<4edcc''r fcaldovc) Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) (Units per _5+Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)________ 99Z.‘0N £0/20: S 9£:LI Z6/91/60 OlSO£Z‘72l9 ^ONOdO SO Alio MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application feci" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within SSO* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Depaitmeot of Finance A*60] 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______________________________________ pate 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. 3. Developers Agreement aiui Letter of CretUt. . Zoning OfficiaTs Signamre flLyAiy>Otl Ja _______ Date .9* ____________ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. AppilcatlOR Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1, II & 111) $230.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $330.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I St U) $330.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $373.00 + $23.00/lot (Class Hi St all non-rcsidential) y Final Plat Application (Class HI) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing; ______ Subdivision only $73.00 Subdivision w/ea.sements and covenants min. $200 00 X. Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incuned) ____ _____ 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 $130.00 (No change from original application) ______ B. Special Improvement Fees: ______ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.30/Iineal ft.;_____lin. ft x .50 ■ $_____ ______ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.30/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .30 ■ $_____ ______ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 ______ _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $230.00 + $23/stub _____ _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $230.00 + $23/ttub _____ _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 _____ _____ On-Site System, Site F.valuation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $30.00/pcr lot X_____new lots _____ C. Flexible Application Fccs/Mbc. fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($30.00 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 an^^unci| necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Owner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 23 days before Ih^Araln^^mmlssIon 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 on applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have in authorized agent attend in your plact and to advise the Building St Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Date 99i:0N £0/£0: fl fi£HL Z6/9L/60 0L£0£Zl72l9 S ONOaO dO AlID ELIZABETH L FULLERTON3400 FOX STREET LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA SS3S0 NOnWEST BANK HMNE80TA, NX MMNEAraU8.MN864n17-1/910-300 7705PAY TOTiconoen OP City of Orono Date 9/17/97 j *****400.00 Four Hundred and 00/100***************^******************** dollars ■i'-.f > - PRIVATE BArmiHG Memo Final Plat Approval Fees •lO'UOOOOl'li: ODOOioBeOROn* ?705 /*. ELIZABETH L. FULLERTON 3400 FOX STREET LONG LAKE. MMNESOTA 55356 NORWC8T BANK MMNESOTA NA. MMNEAPOUllMSS47f 17*1/910-300 7690 PAY TO TTCOMXK OP Date 9/10/97 City of Orono $ **20,500.00 Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and oo/lOO******************** dollarsssnr PRIVATE BANKING Memo Park Dedication Fee i:q9loooQiqi: □□□□Lseo^on- T&qo /. k MINUTES OF TBHE: REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (Park Commission Comments - Continued) Wilson reported the Commission is working towards introducing a tree/preservation/restoration/replacement policy or possible an ordinance. David Beal is the chairman and is reviewing the policies in place in other communities. A future work session is planned to review such a policy/ordinance. Wilson informed the Council that the Park Inventory is now completed and will soon be available for distribution. She noted the upcoming agenda item regarding the playground improvements at Antoine Park. Jabbour informed Wilson that the Council will be determining who wall fill the vacancies on the Park Commission at their next Council meeting. He noted the discussions under way regarding the Pai'k Dedication Fund. Jabbour asked Wilson to speak with City of Mirmetonka personnel regarding their tree ordinance and its effectiveness after one year of implementation. Jabbour noted the possibility of a trail through the Spring Hill Golf Club development and asked the Park Commission to consider a proposal regarding such a trail. Jabbour also noted that consideration is be'mg given to collecting the P^k Dedication fees with both subdivision applications and other development applications. PLANNING COMNHSSION COMMENTS Chair Lindquist had no additional comments to add to the Planning Commission Minutes. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#5) #2204 JAMES G. FULLERTON HI, REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL ANT) ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERiVm -RESOLUTION NO. 3879 Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request for a preliminary subdivision approval and conditional use permit for a guest house. The application will result in the creation of two new lots and include a lot line rearrangement. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat with conditions as noted. The application has been delayed because of disagreement over pajonent of the 8% Park Dedication fee of $60,000. The guest house is located on Lot 3 and includes the caretaker's residence. Both structures are within the 0-75' setback. I r t-! i } ^^NUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\’ COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#5 - #2204 - Fullerton - Continued) The applicant's attorney, Mr. Winston, was present. He asked to separate the issue of the preliminary plat approval and CUP from the Park Dedication fee issue. He brought attention to a letter sent to Staff and Council regarding the Park Dedication fee. He is concerned that the application has been delayed due to the Park Dedication fee issue without any resolution. Winston noted that there has been no opposition to the proposal as such and conditions placed on the application meet with applicant's approval. Winston indicated that the proposal is unique and is incurring an incredibly high Park Dedication fee. He noted the fees collected from adjoining communities were considerably lower. Winston said the applicant is v.illing to pay the same amount as would be charged in Minnetrista of $4100 or negotiate with the City. He said there would be minimal impact on parks from these lots especially with their location on the lake. He reiterated that the conditions placed on the proposal by the Planning Commissioners were acceptable. The lots meet City standards, and the development issue of the roadway can be worked out with Staff accordi ng to Winston. Jabbour noted the Park Dedication fund established in the 1980's is related to the value of the land. He reported the Council’s need for due diligence in enforcing the legalities of the City and questioned whether the issues could be separated. Goetten asked if the applicant wanted to receive approval on the application less the Park Dedication fee. Winston said he would like to receive total approval with the fee being negotiated. Goetten informed him it is the Council's practice not to grant approval when issues are unsettled. Radio said the normal recommendation would be to address all issues and not separate one frorn the application. Since the application is in preliminary stages. Radio suggested the possibility of escrowing the fee until the amount is settled. Winston said he would be agreeable to *hat solution. Goetten voiced concern with requests made by other applicants in the future by setting such a precedent. Winston said he feels the fee is not reasonable and has not been told otherwise. Jabbour in . .rmed Winston that the Council will be discussing the issue of the Park Dedication Fund in an Executive Session following the regular meeting. He reported thai the City is not in the position to negotiate the fee; the fee must be paid in full or the ordinance changed. s MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#5 - #2204 - Fullerton - Continued) Kelley questioned whether the Council wanted to review how the parks are being funded. He noted another large parcel that would incur similar problems with the amount of fee when developed. He was agreeable to escrowing the fee informing Winston that there would be no guarantee of any reimbursement. Goetten suggested the application be tabled to the next Council meeting as the Council needs to discuss the issues and may not make any changes at this time to the Park Dedication regulations. Winston related that the application was filed 12/23/96 and would like to see the issue resolved without further delay. Radio indicated there would be a length of time involved in analyzing the code as it represerrts a fundamental shift from the current code. Staff is unable to make any recommendations for a fee other than what is supported by the code. Due to this. Radio indicated the delay is reasonable. He noted the requirement to apply the code in a constitutional manner. Jabbour indicated that while it is not his desire to delay the applicant, any change in the regulations cannot be facilitated quickly. Any determination will affect future applications. Peterson asked Radio if any current or past applicant could be eli^ble for a reimbursement if a change was made to the code regarding the funding. Radio acknowledged the high rate of litigation in today’s society but raise^l the argument that any past applicant has waived this possibility when they signed the development agreement. If the preliminary and subdivision has been recorded. Radio said it could not be challenged. Jabbour noteu the limited possibility of applications reaching a similar fee. He said the 8% fee was reasonable but saw the possibility for setting a ma.\imum fee. Jabbour said he w ould be in favor of proceeding, with an escrowing of the full fee at this time. W’inston informed the Council that he would need 8-10 days to gather the fee for escrowing. Goetten asked why the decision then could not wait. Radio indicated that the payment is not paid until final approval has been granted. Peterson questioned the turn of events if a motion were to fail. Radio said if a motion to pass were to fail and a motion to deny also failed, it can then be tabled. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#5 - #2204 Fullerton - Continued) Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the preliminary plat arid conditional use permit with the understanding that the a letter of credit be submitted at the time of final Lbdmsion in the amount of the Park Dedication fee untU a final determmation be made. Vote- Ayes 3, Nays 1, Goetten. Goetten's vote was made for reasons stated. She supported the application but recommends the Park Dedication fee be resolved pnor to any approval of the application. Winston felt the case should be reviewed ad hoc, case by case. Radio indicated while the Supreme Court allows for case to case study, it does not aUow any applicant to piece meal the fee either. He indicated the imposition of a maximurn fee would provide ^ome certainty. He also noted that the Executive Session is only being held because ot the threat of litigation from this application. (#6) #2212 SIDNEY & BARBARA REBERS, 2080 WAYZATA ' PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - RESOLUTION NO. 3880 The applicant was present along with attorney, Steve Pflam. GaSron reported that the application is for preliminary subdivision and the conversion of Outlot E, Sugar Woods, to buildable status. The outlot was created from a parcel ofl^d remaining from the Sugar Woods plat for future commercial development consistmg of Outlots E and F, which is the Orono Shopping Center. At the time of the plat, a comprehensive plan amendment inrluded a frontage road to serve projected commercial development. The Sugar Woods plat conformed to that amendment with the creation of Outlot D. This outlot only provides a corridor from the west boundary of Sugar Woods to the northwest comer of Outlot F. The intent was that at some future time when ouUot F is developed, the remaining frontage road segment eas^ard to Brown Road would be defined and platted. Outlot D was platted because the City needed a corridor that would traverse the Wear property located between Outlots E and F. Outlot C of East Willow Woods was platted, providing a corridor connecting from Outlot E of Sugar Woods, westward to Willow Drive for future frontage road. WINSTON LAW OFFICE 4420 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TEL: (612)341-9800 FAX: (612)338-6351 JOHN B. WINSTON DIRECT: (612) 341-9618 September 12. 1997 Elizabeth Van Zomeren (473-0510) City Plaimei/Zoning Administrator City of Orono City HaU P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 received SEP ' 5 W97 Or ORONO RE: Fullerton Estates Dear Liz: Enclosed is Check No. 7690 from the Fullerton Trust in the amount of $20,500.00 in payment of the park dedication fee. We have the signatures of everyone on all of the doc ’ments required for the subdivision, with the exception of Norwest Bank's ' Tiatp.re on the consent to the Declaration of Road Easement and Minnehaha C . > f . V > atershed District’s signature on the Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement. We hope to have the Bank's si^ature today or Monday, and I anticipate no difficulty obtaining the Watershed District's signature, since we used its form, and the agreement burdens the property. My thought is that once we have subdivision approval on Monday, September 22,1 can obtain the City's signature on the Development Agreement, and then record the plat and all of the agreements with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. Again, I am assuming that we will be on the agenda for Monday evening, September 22. Please let me know if there is anything more you require from us. I would like to review the resolution approving the plat in advance of the Council hearing. As always, thanks for your help. Sinc^ly, inston JBW/kra Enclosure James G. Fullerton, III (339-3097)cc: .» i III :^C8Ho CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 87 9 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3350/3400 FOX STREET - FILE NO. 2204 WHEREAS, James G. Fullerton, III, an authorized representative of the Fullerton Tnist, (hereinafter the "suMivider ”) on December 23, 1996, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a five lot residential plat of property legally described as: Tract A, RLS No. 1321, and Tracts A, B and F, RLS No. 1358, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 21, 1997, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on April 24, 1997, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: 1. 2. 3. The property is located within the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 26.72 acres with 1.94 acres of a Type 2 wetland not protected by the City of Orono's ordinances. The proposed plat consists of five residential lots each meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 8879NO. 4.All lots have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site septic treatment facilities providing both a primarj ’ and alternate site for each of the five lots. 5.All residential lots shall be served by a private road to be designated on the plat as an outlot. An existing driveway that currently serv'es three residential units shall be upgraded to a private road. 6.The City Engineer in his report of November 12, 1996 approved the grading and drainage plan for the development of this property. 7.The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has conceptually approved the grading and drainage plan prepared by applicant's engineer. 8.The existing access to the property shall continue to be the prime access with the redevelopment of the property. 9.Current with the review of the subdivision application, the developer has also submitted a conditional use permit application for a guest house use for proposed Lot 3. The Orono City Council conceptually approves the granting of a conditional use permit finding the 7.51 acre property with over 1,000 feet of shoreline will satisfy the area and width requirements for the conditional use permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of James G. Fullerton, 111, an authorized representative of the Fullerton Trust per plat drawings by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed surveyor of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc., dated December 23, 1996, most revised date January 8, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1.The subdivider to create private covenant for protection of Type 2 wetland within proposed Lot 3. The wetland is not protected by the ordinances of the City of Orono such covenant to include a site plan locating protected area and advising future owner of need to contact Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and U.S. Corps of Engineers if land alterations of Type 2 wetland are proposed before submitting a plan to the City for review and possible permit. Page 2 of 7 i CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 7 9 10. The caretaker residence to remain on proposed Lot 3 is located entirely within the 0-75' setback area. Any plan to expand existing building envelope or install a new foundation will require variance approvals from the City of Orono. 11. Subdivider to grant a road and utility easement over private road outlet to the City of Orono. Subdivider's engineer to provide a final approved road plan for the upgrade of existing driveway. Plans must be approved by the City Engineer prior to road construction. Subdivider to provide an e.xecuted developer's agreement and letter of credit written to 150% of the cost of required grading/drainage/road construction improvements. 12. Subdivider to install conforming septic systems for Lots 3 and 4 prior to final plat approval. If septic systems have not been installed at the time subdivider seeks final plat approval, subdivider shall include the installation of the two septic systems within the developer's agreement and provide adequate security to ensure systems are installed by a reasonable date within 1997. 13. Upon Council's approval of the preliminar>’ plat, the subdivision shall be referred to the City Assessor to determine the fair market value of the land prior to development. The park dedication fee shall be based on $10,250 per lot for the two new lots for a total of $20,500. 14. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of Council approval, April 14, 1998. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. Required submittals are as follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: Page 4 of 7 7-' CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. ^ ^ - A. 2. 3. Wd^^lstrevised L January 8, 1997. B. internal lot lines. C. Dedication of right-of-way for County Road 84 if property line extends into right-of-way. D.Designation and dedication of drainage easements over ™ SrLot 1 and 20' drainage way that extends wtthm LoU 1 and 2. E. :aLm"Suiot A (subdivideds attorney has received cop.es under separate cover). F.Creation of new or amended maintenance rsJ*’ involving the Trubeck and Lukis property interests. Legal documents required; A.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners "!°rtgage toto others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat an other documents affected by such interest. B. The applicant to provide certified copies cf all recorded easements currently affecting the property. imder separate cover). Page 5 of 7 I r CITYof ORONO I^bsho : RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S 8 7 9__ 4. 5. 6. Signed and executed developer’s agreement and letter of credit for required site improvements and construction of private road (Outlot A) - may include demolition of accessory structures and installation of septic systems for Lots 3 and 4. Signed and executed declaration of private road maintenance covenants dealing with maintenance of private road, Outlot A, and drainage facilities. Covenants should also specify the relationship of ownership. T ie original covenants involving the Trubeck and Lukis property may need to be amended to reflect property interests in Outlot A. Signed and executed private covenant for Lot 3 involved witn protected wetl^d not included within conservation maps of the City and as describ^ in Condition I above. Covenant must be in a form suitable for filing. The City has samples of protective covenants used by former developers. Subdivider should advise if they wish sample copies. 7. Fees to be paid: Total due: S20.900.0Q A. B. Final plat fee = $200.00 Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $200.00 C. Park dedication fee = $20,500.00 ($10,250.00 per new lot) Page 6 of 7 r- CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION NO. ________ ITY COUNCIL Adopted by the City Council of the City of Oronc. Minnesota at a regulat meeting held this 14th day of April. 1997. ATTEST: lorothy M. I^Un, City Clerk GabrielJabbour, Mayor \ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day * CTv M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the_Cuy of tono. a LINDAS. VEE NOIWY PUBLIC4flNNES0TA HENNEPIN COUNTY M-/ Commission Expires Jan. 31,2000 tC^ {■i » ' Page? of? s : I 1 WINSTON LAW OFFICE4420 IDS aNTER 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TEL: (612)341-9800 FAX: (612)338-6351 JOHN B. WINSTON DIRECT: (612) 341-9818 September 4, 1997 Elizabeth Van Zomeren (473-0510) City Plarmei/Zorung Administrator City of Orono City Hall P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Fullerton Estates Dear Uz: In anticipation of having the Orono City Council grant final plat approval the evening of September 22, 1997, delivered herewith are the following: 1.Milar copies (2) of the plat. (My notarial stamp bled into the milar, but I can address that problem when the plat is recorded.) 2. Plat copy reduced to a scale of 1" = 200'. 3. Declaration of Private Road Easement. 4. First Amendment of Declaration. 5. Developer’s Agreement. 6. Declaration of Building Restrictions. 7. Drainage Easement. 8. Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement, Enclosures 3-8 have not been signed by Mr. Stein, the co-trustee, but we expta to have signed copies back from him next week so that fully executed copies of these documents can be delivered to you at that time. We also do not yet have mortgagee consents for documents 3 and 4, but expect to receive those next week as well. I am requesting that Mr. Fullerton send me a check for the $20,800 park dedication fee. 'fpl 1 J } September 4, 1997 Page 2 Please let me know if there is anything else you require Sincerely, JBW/kra Enclosures cc: James G. Fullerton, III (339-3097) Thomas Radio (334-8888) KE&' S - . f . 4lH 't ! . STORMWATER FACILITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THIS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT is made as of Septatnber- , 1997, by and between James G. Fullenon III and Robert A. Stein, Trustees of the Elizabeth l! Fullerton Revocable Trust U/A dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, ^ donor (the "Applicant"), and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distria (the MCWD"), to provide for the maintenance of the stormwater facilities to be constructed pursuant to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit application number 96-278. RECITALS: A. Applicant has applied for a permit from the MCWD pursuant to MCWD Rule B. A copy of the application is attached hereto as Attachment 1. B. The property which is the subjea of this Agreement is legally described as Lots 1 through 5, and Outlot A, Block 1, Fullerton Estates, Hennepin County, Minnesota. C. The stomw-ater facilities contemplated hereby are a stormwater retention and treatment basin which is to be constructed within the "Drainage easement" area depicted on Exhibit A hereto. D. MCWD Rule B provides, "A maintenance agreement shall be submitted for. stormwater treatment ponds, outlet structures for such ponds, culverts, outfall structures and all other stormwater facilities. This maintenance agreement shall specify methods, schedule and responsible parties for maintenance and must include at a minimum, the elements contained in the District's Maintenance Agreement Form." NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. Applicant shall inspect or cause to be inspected the stormwater retention and treatment basin at a minimum of once a year to determine if the basin's retention ^d treatment charaaeristics are adequate. A storage treatment basin will be considered inadequate if sediment has deaeased the wet storage volume by one-half (‘/a) of its original design volume. Based on this inspection, if the stormwater basin is identified for sediment cleanout. Applicant shall restore the basin to its original design contours within one year of the inspection date. 2. Applicant shall inspea or cause to be inspected the grit chambers, sump catch basins, sump manholes, oudet structures, culverts, outfall struaures or other stormwater facilities for the projea in the spring and fall of each year. Applicant shall remove or cause to be removed ^1 sediment and debris during the inspections such that the stormwater facilities operate as designed and permitted. 3. Violation of the inspection and/or maintenance provisions of this Agreement is a violation of the MCWD permit for the project for which the MCWD may take actio against Applicant. 4. This Agreement is binding c the Applicant and the Applicant's successors and/or assigns. IN AGREEMENT, the parties nereto have executed this Maintenance Agreement as of the date first set forth abr . Date:. 1997. Trustee Robert h. Stein, Trustee ) )ss. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) . 1997, by James G. Fullerton III, Tnwtee of the EHzabe Rev( . The £ STATE OF COUNTY OF ss. ) If1 JOHN B. WINSTON i11 NOTARYPU8UC-IIIWISSOTA ; 1 i»cowmyiwc<iwiMn,aoa : I. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of __________ . 1997, by Robert A. Stein, Trustee of the Elizabeth L. Fullerton Revocable Trust U/A dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor. Notaiy Public ^ a - Vi*' COMMUNlCATlONSjMED^^M^ ORI6INAI. DOCUMB^ ATTACHtEiTI_____________________________________________________ '• COMBINED JOINT NOnFrOCnOy FOB-M - WATER RESOURCE APFLieATION wi' 1. Applicant’s Name (L2^‘First, M.L) aA?<\-S5 y.r^U^^Of/ Phone No.- • - qfcii i. TYF£ OF PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR: (Check ail that apply): ^STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN □ FLOCDPL,\IN ALTERATION □STOPJvI SEWER OUTFALLS □ICE RDGE REMOVAL □SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT a. ^RI?R.AP b. ^SAN'DBLAhTiCET c. n RETAINING ’./ALL □BRIDGE & CULVERT CROSSINGS . □ WETLAND ALTERATION □ EXCAVATION (DREDGING) a. ^ WILDLIFE b. ^ NAVIGATION €•□ BIOENGINEERING OTHEPrtDESCRIBE) 4a. APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: (Licensed Contactor, Engineer, etc...) Include name, address & phone numbo’. . f //yc/C. 1—OT5 PROJECT PURPOSE (why is this project needed - what benefits will it pro\-ide?) ^ . 71? £>l-y*0€ /f ^ACT ^STMTf' Lo'/TU 3 //^O At S I/• c <9*^a<,( Ay£UA fycnis 5^^ . • .BtfilTh 6. ALTERNATIVES (describg.any other sites o'- methods diat could be sued to achi^e the purpose of your project while avoiding 'j- '^/Jrk<v^c jf/^Y g;^rL4A^JS.______|_____LL____ 7. D.ATE5: Proposed sart of activity; ! SAji'yAJl^ ^7- ’’Proposed completion^ ’'f 7 ' ■ (Identify any.completed.work on. j’pacheid. drawing) ^ NA.AES <2; ADDRESSED OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS (Attach list if more) A~TTA<C4A^0 U-gT • • • ) PEPwMITS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED (R) OR APPLED FOR (A) FROM:___ _____COLTsTY' • xr^^GITY MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY DNR ARMY CORPS OF ENGR i htrer- rciif/ the redpien*,s of this form of the project proposed herein and request I be advised of any permits cr other dete.-minaucns concerning.vhis project that I must obtain. I unde.”stand that proceeding with work before all requrri authorizaticrs arc ct’^'ined may be subject to Fedeml, State and/or locai admirJstrative, civil and/or criminal penalties. 'A-rrb(KN^ 'poc;. \^j\% /‘Ty? Tsasj^'e cf Person PrcccsLng Project or Agent ^ 6d VT_______Date_________________________ •« 4 ^jrA oiding • ^ •izaucr^ ORIGINAL DOCOMRMT BL cOMMUWCATIONS.MEPJA_Diy!SION • .L*I • • ••t •• •• • •• U INSTRUCnONS - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY •• A copy of this forni, with copies of all plans, drawings, etc... should be sent to each agency indicated below. Pleas; chec the appropriate spaces below to show everywhere you are sending this form. Remember to keep a copy for your records. ut • y The LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT (LGU) city, county or waters management organization . Y The local SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ^ HENNEPIN SWCDQCARVER SWCC*‘ y MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (MDNR) Regional Office • ■■■■ — m » . • » . • • Y US A.RMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (ACOE) aL* Dept, of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul Distric • • •• ATTN; CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55I0I*ld3S Note : The above agencies may provide a copy of your completed form to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). MPCA water quality issues may apply to your proposed project. .... . . • .*•••*" • • ' * * ATTENTION (From USDA); Any activity including drainage, dredging, filling, leveling or other manipulations, including maintenance, may affect a landuser ’s eligibility for USDA benefits under the 1985 Food Security Act as amended. Check with year local USDA office to request and complete Form .AD-1026 prior to-initiating activity. *IMPORTANT: Some agencies, including the Corps of Engineers a.nc ‘thc MDNR accept this ftfnh as a permll application fo.rm..If you wish this form to constitute an application to me Cop*.s and/or MDNR for any necessary pe.-r , T . I for your proejets please carefully read the following information and sign whe.'c indicated.t •. « 77WVVVVWVV7VWVVVVWWVVVVV^VVVVVV.VVWVVWVWVWVV7V *• M Application is hereby made for a permit tO’authorize the activities desc.-ibed he.'cin. I ce.'ti.^.that.I axt» familiar with me. infdrrriation coritained'in mfs application, arid that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true,* complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities or I am acting as f • I * ■ the duly authorized agent of the applicant. , . *■ Signature of Applicant Date ’KIiWSTqn/ ^ * ••• • , , • mm ^ Date Note- The application must be signed by the person who dcsi.'es to undertake the proposed activity (Appheant or it may be'sighed by a d-jiy authorized agent if the informaticn requested below is provided . . , *• ...... . • * A,cm-5 Na/nc and Till: OUttM W/ 0/\i ^ A I A^Pf’U^64^^T~' Agan.-sAddrass ^ So. 9.^'^ Aga,.,', r=,adhcna ,Qa , ) - q9oo ' • 1 3 U C Scciioit 1001 provides Uiii: V»“nocvcr, in any manner wichin ihc juris^!cticr. of any department or agency of the United Stales Unowinoly and wilUuUy falsiOes. conceals, or covers up by ^y Inck. scheme, oc dcv-ce a material fact or makes any false, riciidous or • liandukm statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or documc.ni knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or . ^ iraudulciii siaicni’cni or entry, shall be fned not more than SIC.OOO or imprisoQ^d not morc*tiun fivjt.ycars. or both. R. T. OOC. NO.FULLERTON ESTATES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT FOR FULLERTON ESTATES JAMES G. FULLERTON, III AND ROBERT STEIN, TRUSTEES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of September 1997, by and between the City of Orono, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the "City"), and James G. Fullerton, III and Robert A Stein, Trustees pf the Elizabeth L. Fullerton Revocable Trust U/A dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Eliziabeth L. Fullerton, as donor, their successors and assigns (collectively, the "Developer"). RECITALS: A The Developer has made application to the City Council for approval of a five-lot residential plat of property legally described as: Traa A, RLS No. 1321, and Traas A, B and F, RLS No. 1358, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Property"). B. The City Council has granted approval for such subdivision and the development related thereto on the condition that the Developer enter into this agreement to provide for the installation of improvements hereinafter described on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows: ElQpcny Description: Tne Property is legally described as set forth in Recital A above, and is to be replatted into Lots 1 through 5 and Outlot A, Block 1, Fullerton Estates. Page 1 of 6 Initials of Developer Initials of City Qerk -'77n-’ ... ------- 2. Improvements : In accordance with the policies and ordinances of the City, the following described public or pri\’ate improvments (hereinafter collectively called the "Improvements") shall be construaed and installed on the terms and conditions hereinafter contained: (a) The accessory structure located on Lot 2, Block 1, Fullerton Estates, shall be razed. (b) The existing driveway shall be upgraded and improved in accordance with a road plan prepared by the Developer, and approved by the City Engineer. (c) Developer shall install conforming septic systems for Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Fullerton Estates. 3. Construction Plans : Detailed plans and specifications for the installation and imprbyement of the private roadway serving the Property shall be submitted by the Developer for the approval of the City prior to start of construction. The plans and specifications shall conform to current City standards for the applicable work, and to the requirements of City Council Resolution No. 3879. 4. Construction of Improvements : A. Commencement Date - The construction of Improvements shall begin no later than Oaober 1,1997. B. Completion Date - All Improvements shall be completed no later than October 1, 1998. C. Contraaors - The Developer shall selea, retain and supervise the Contractor(s) responsible for Improvement construction. The City reserves the right to require satisfactory proof of successful experience and adequate financial status of any such contraaor. Where required by City ordinance, the contraaor shall first obtain a license from the City. D. PreConstruction Conference - Prior to the start of any construction, the Developer and the Developer's Contractor shall meet with ^e responsible City official to review construaion plans and schedules. Page 2 of 6 Initials of Developer Initials of City Qerk 1 I E. Permits - Prior to the start of any construaion, the Developer's Contraaor shall apply for and receive all necessary permits from the City and/or government agencies having jurisdiction. F. Construction - The construction, installation and materials shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City. G. Insurance - The Developer will cause each person who constructs and installs any Improvement to maintain complete insurance coverage including Workmen's Compensation, Liability and Property Damage. 5. Performance Deposit: For the purposes of assuring to the City that the Improvements will be completed according to the terms of this agreement, and that the Developer will pay all claims for work done and materials and supplies furnished, the Developer has deposited \vith the City at the time of the execution of this agreement an irrevocable letter of credit in a form satisfactory to the City providing that the City is able to draw upon such letter of credit in its sole discretion to complete the Improvements if the Developer fails to satisfactorily complete the work prior to the completion date specified in Section 4 above. Tlie amount of such deposit shall not be reduced before substantial completion of the Improvements. The letter of credit shall expire no sooner than six months after the completion date specified in Seaion 4 above, or no sooner than______________________, whichever is later. 6. Fees and Expenses: The Developer agrees to pay all City fees required per the current City Fee Schedule, e.\cept that the Park Dedication Fee shaU be $20,500.00, and further agrees to completely reimburse the City for all the variable additional expertses it incurs in regard to the review and approval of the Improvements including, but not limited to, direct City payroll and overhead, costs and fees paid to consultants and other professionals. 7. Resolutions of City: Developer agrees be bound by the pro'dsions set forth in all resolutions of the City Council approving the Development. 8. Binding Effea: The terms and provisions hereof "hall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding deemed covenants running with the Property. References herein to Developer, if there be more than one, shall mean each and ail of them. This agreement to be executed by the Developer, shall be placed of record so as to give notice hereof to Initials of Developer Initials of Ciiv Clerk Page 3 of 6 ! subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers of all or any pan of the subdivision and all recording fees, if any, shall be paid by the Developer. Promptly after completion of the Improvements in accordance with the provisions of this agreement, the City shall execute and deliver to the Developer a Certificate of Completion and Release (the "Certificate") in recordable form for recording with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. The Certificate shall be a conclusive determination and conclusive evidence of the satisfaction of the agreements and covenants in this agreement, and shall release the Developer and the Property from the terms hereof. If the City shall refuse or fail to provide the Certificate in accordance with the provisions of this Section 8, the City shall, within twenty (20) days after written request by the Developer, provide the Developer with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Developer has failed to complete the Improvements in accordance with the provisions of this agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts wiU be necessary, in the opiruon of the City, for the Developer to take or perform in order to obtain the Certificate. 9 • •• 9. Notices: Whenever in this agreement it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this agreement to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by Uruted States certified mail (return receipt requested) to the addresses set forth below. Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. Notice to Cir\* City of Orono Clerk'Administrator P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Notice to Developer James G. Fullerton, III Fullerton L umber Company 608 Second Avenue South, Suite 1100 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1937 With a copy to: John B. Winston Winston Law Office 4420 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Page 4 of 6 Initials of Developer Initials of City Clerk r SSpSfeS-HSS 11. Diitlaimer hy Ciry: It is understood and agreed that the City, the City Co^al ^d the agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable or «s^m.ble m my ma.u.er to the Developer or Developer's contraaors, subcontraaors. maten^men, laborers or any other person, firm or corporation, for any debt, riaim demand, damages, acuons or causes of action of any kind or charaner, arising out of or Impr^ments* agreement or the performance and compledon of the , *Hold Harmless and Indemnifiration: The Developer shall indemnify and ha^ess the City, the City Council and the agents and employees of the City from e-ypenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, . . . Cornell and agents and employees of the Citv may suffer or for which It may be held liable, arising out of or resulting from the assition against them of any daims, debts or obligauons in consequence of the performance of this agreement by the Develiyer, its employees, agents or subcontraaors, tvhether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. ^ 13. Remedy for Df fault: Default by the Developer of any of the terms of this agreement shall automatically result in the suspension or withholding of all permits ce^es, occupancy certificates or other authorizations issued by the City in connectiori With the propert\* included in this development. A. The Developer hereby grants to the City, its agents and its employees, the right to enter on the Property for the specific purpose of cons^edng or coapleting any and all of the agreed upon Improvements should the Developer not complete those Improvements by the date specified in Section B. The remedies afforded to the City unde.-' this Seaion shaU be in addition to any other remedies to which the City may be entided by law or other agreement. Page 5 of 6 Initials of Developer initials of City Clerk # IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Subdivider have caused this agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF ORONO By:By: (City Qerk) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )ss. )i i The foregoing instrument acknr vledged before me on this _______________, 1997. by __________________ day of and , Mayor and City Qerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal, corporation, and said instrume*^^ was executed on behalf of the City. Notarv Public DEVELOPER James G. Fullerton, III, Trustee » '1•1 Robert A Stein, Trustee Page 6 of 6 Initials of Developer Initials of City Qerk • • • r DECLARATION OF BUILDING RESTRICTIONS (Lot 3) THIS DECLARATION is made as of September , 1997, by James G. Fullerton, III and Robert A Stein, Trustees of the Elizabeth L. Fullerton Revocable Trust U/A, dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor (the ’Trustees"). RECITALS: A The Trustees are the owners of the following described real estate situated in the City of Orono (the "City"), Hennepin County, Minnesota: Lot 3, Block 1, Fullerton Estates, according to the recorded plat thereof ("Lot 3"). ;; R, The Trustees desire to place certain building restrictions on Lot 3, and to provide notice with respect to the Type 2 Wetlands located on Lot 3 (the "Wetlands"). NOW, THEREFORE, the Trustees, on behalf of themselves and their successors and assigns, hereby covenant and agree as follows, and hereby declare and create the following restrictioits, all of which shall run with title to Lot 3: 1. Ruilding Rp<;trirtions. No building, struaure, fence or Other improvement shall be constructed, placed or maintained on or above the surface of that part of Lot 3 lying South of the following described line: That part of Lot 3, Block 1, FULLERTON ESTATES which lies southerly of the following described line and its e.xtensions: Commencing at the northwest comer of Lot 4, said Block 1; thence on an assumed bearing of South 6 degrees 36 minutes 16 seconds West along tne westerly line of said Lot 4 a distance of 207.83 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence North 77 degrees 45 minute- 16 seconds West across said Lot 3 to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and said line there ending. That part of Lot 3 lying South c/ said line is hereinafter referred to as the "No Build Area", and is shown on Exhibit A hereto. 2. Prohibition Against Tree Removal. The two groupings of Scotch Pine and Spruce trees located along the Easterly lot line of Lot 3 within the No Build Aea shall 1 c 4 not be trimmed, cut down or removed (except to the extent reasonably required as a result of disease or storm damage to a tree or trees). 3. Wetlands. The Wedands are located within the No Build Area as indicated on Exhibit A. The Wedands shall not be altered before contacdng the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the United States Corp. of Engineers and before submitdng a wedand alteration plan to the City for its review and issuance of a permit for such alteration, if such permit is then required. 4. Renefitted Parties. The restricdons set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 hereof are for the benefit of Lot 4, Block 1, Fullerton Estates ("Lot 4"), and shall not be amended without the prior approval of the owners and encumbrancer^ of Lot 4. The restricdons set forth in paragraph 3 hereof are for the benefit of the City, and shall not be amended without the prior approval of the City. 5. ■ Remedies. In the event of any violadon or threatened violadon of any of the terms, restricdons, covenants or condidons provided in this Declaradon, the owner of Lot 4, in the case of paragraphs 1 and 2, and the City in the case of paragraph 3, and their respecdve successors or assigns, shall have the right to enjoin such violadon or threatened violation, and to recover damages resulting therefrom, in a court of competent jurisdiaion, and to recover their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in orosecuting any such acdon to obtain an injunedon or to recover damages. 6. Future Conveyances. The covenants created and declared by this Declaradon shall be incorporated by reference in all future conveyances, mortgages, assignments and odier transfers of Lot 3, or pordons thereof; provided, however, that notwithstanding any failure to incorporate this Declaradon by reference in such future conveyances, mortgages, assignments and other transfers, such covenants shall run with the tide to Lot 3 as covenants appurtenant thereto without the necessity of specific reference thereto. 7. Amendment. Subject to paragraph 4 hereof, the covenants created and declared by this Declaration may, at any dme and from time to dme, be amended upon the filing for record in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles of an agreement ame.r;q'i'ni this Declaration, executed in the manner required by law for the recording of a coiiv;.y:vnce of real property by the then owners, both legal and equitable, of Lot 3 and Lot 4, and consented to by the mortgagees of such Lots. 8. Term. The covenants created by this Declaradon shall continue for a term of thirty (30) years from the date hereof. 9.Miscellaneous. (a) Severability. If any provision of this Declaration is, to any extent, declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Declaration (or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those in respect of which the determination of invalidity or unenforceability was made) shall not be affected thereby and eacli provision of this Declaration shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. (b) Governing Law. This Declaration shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. (c) Captions. The captions of the paragraphs of this Declaration are for convenience only and are not intended to affect the interpretation or construction of the provisiorts herein contained. (d) Binding Effect. The provisiorw of dtis Declaration shall be binding on the owners of Lot 3 and their heirs, successors and assigns. IN AGREEMENT, this Declaration has been executed effective as of the date first above written. TRUSTEES: James G. Fullerton, III, Trustee Robert A. Stein, Trustee i I 1 r "'mm •« STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) )ss. ) ^ The foregoing instrument was ackno%\dedged before me this of ,, 1997, by James G. Fullerton, III, Trustee of the Elizabeth L. Fullerton teaole TrustRevoeable Trust U/A dated 1/4/85, as amen with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor. fo^ar^ublic STATE OF COUNTY OF ) )ss. ) JOHNS.WINSTON | NOtWYnnUC-UINNESOrA I HrCWMMMWniJM.ii.aao; The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1997, by Robert A Stein, Trustee of the Elizabeth L. Fullenon Revocable Trust U/A dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: John B. Winston Winston Law Office 4420 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Miimeapolis, MN 55402 612/341-9800 jbw.255.doc I j / r / / / Ai^ea fj M^MOd • iv~~i3?T«*\'y ‘ iTV/ ;/iV/ 9W*iih $JUJ CiitJ/A ow urt ^ [I I i «•«. « • # \W M «4*00'2°* ^l7.»0 Icb- *v/// S #1*00' 00* ^ -Si*— s^* FXHIBIT A mX x'WEU . # • lake nnrriM I \m STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ^ The foregoing instrument was ackno\Ndedged before me this ^?^day of . 1997, by James G. Fullerton, HI, Trustee of the Elizabeth L Fullerton levoK^le" TrustRevocable Trust U/A dated 1/4/85, as am^with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor. No^^^ublic STATE OF ) )ss. JOHNS.WINSTON | aoiMvntuc-MiMEsorA | COUNTY OF ) HrCww>*tiniwiJM.»i.aoo f The foregoing instniment was acknowledged before me this day of , 1997, by Robert A. Stein, Trustee of the Elizabeth L. Fullenon Revocable Trust U/A dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: John B. Winston Winston Law Office 4420 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Miimeapolis, MN 55402 612/341-9800 jb»>2S5.<2oc ; r » drainage easement (Lots 1 and 2) THISINDEMis^e. j_____ nf thi»m5;elves. THIS LNUtiN 1 unx, rr^oh#»th L Fullerton Kcvocauic iiu^t III and Robert A. Stein, Tn^tees ^ donor, on behalf of dated 1/4/85, as amended with Qty of Orono, a munidpal CiCAvy k • ----------- acknowledged. Grants, Bargaim. over^under and aaoss the "Drainage SaSn ^ pLt o^EuUerton « S " 2 the Northerly hne of said Lot 1. Easement Area is shown on Exhibit A hereto. The Easement indudes the free right “^^^'^“"^^d'irt ImroSer^structures and over the Easement Area to jejoStruct and use drainageways and SKl'S£SS."SX « »“i *' •■“ “■ “p"" surface soil with the original type matenal. Owner agrees to the following: - SI.T- City. B.No earth, loam, peat, gravel, soil shM K. mnvpd or removed from the Easement Area, ana u ...........shall be moved or removea or any change of the dredging or excava_uort of ^..^n consent of the City. C. topography of the Easement No soil. sand, gravel or other substance or materi^^^^^^JNO SOU, sanu, 6tavv.s the Easement Area, and no \vaste, ua Ke''^Sl t “p'i^c" diped or stored upon the Easement Area. i r k’. D.No use shall be made of the Easement Area except uses, if any, which will not change or alter the natural condition of the Easement Area, and no use which would tend to change the drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, fish and wildlife habitat charaaeristics shall be made of the Easement Area or the water situated thereon. Owner releases, acquits and forever discharges forever the City and any and all of its officers and employees of and from any and all claims, demands or causes of action of any kind or nature \vdiatsoever which may rise or accrue by virtue of any flowage or trespass with water. Owner does not intend that the public should have any interest in the Easement Area by virtue of this Indenture or odierwise, except as hereinabove set forth. O^^er covenants that the Owner owns and is in possession of the Easement Area, and has the lawful right and authority to convey and grant the Easement herein granted. State Deed Tax Due Hereon: Exempt IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, Owner has signed this Indenttire as of the date first set forth above. TRUSTEES: James G. Fullerton, III, Trustee Robert A. Stein, Trustee t . i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) )ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this x.. 1997, by James G. Fullerton, in. Trustee of the Elizabeth L Fullerton levboa6l "" ^-----------------Revocable Trust U/A dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor. STATE OF ) COUNTYOF )ss. JOHN B. WINSTON MTMVPUIUC'MaKSaTA ) fiunnir ........................... The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of , 1997, by Roben A Stein, Trustee of the Elizabeth L. Fullerton Revocable Trust U/A dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: John B. Winston Winston Law Office 4420 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612/341-9800 jb«^258 iff,. , : i : I I • II riPWi rw- ,\R. T. DOC. NO.FULLERTON ESTATES r \ ' n FIRST AMENDMENT OF DECLARATION THIS FIRST AMENDMENT OF DECLARATION (the "First Amendment") is made as of Septeniber , 1997, by and between James G. Fullerton, III and Robert A Stein, Trustees of the Elizabeth L. Fullerton Revocable Trust U/A, dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor (the "Trustees"); and Lawrence Lukis and Donna Lukis, husband and wife. RECITALS: A'The Trustees are the owners of Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 1358, files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota ('Tracts A and B"), B. Donna Lukis, who is married to Lawrence Lukis, is the owner of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 1358, files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota ('Tract E"). C. The above-named parties' respective predecessors in title to Tracts A B and E made and entered into that certain agreement captioned "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions on Tracts A B and E, Registered Land Survey No. 1358", dated Oaober 30, 1974 and registered November 6, 1974 as Document No. 1124701 (the "Declaration"). D. The Trustees propose to subdivide Tract A into three lots to be known as Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 1, Fullenon Estates. E. An existing single-family residence structure and a separate caretaker ’s residence struaure (the "Caretaker's Residence") are now located on that portion of Traa - -■ ^ ; j i M um rI : .. ; i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) )ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1997, by Robert A Stein, Trustee of the Elizabeth L. Fullerton Revocable Trust U/A dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: John B. Winston Wmston Law Office 4420 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Mirmeapolis, MN 55402 612/341-9800 L* CONSENT Anchor Bank, National Association, mortgagee of Traa E, Registered Land Survey- No. 1358, files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby consents to the foregoing First Amendment. Dated:. 1997. ANCHOR BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION STATE OF MINNESOTA )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN _, 1997, by of Anchor Bank, National Association. Its • acknowledged before me this ,the day of Notary Public }b«^191.doc I a '<71 r 1 : ( n DECLARATION OF PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT AND RELATED COVENANTS (FOX CIRCLE) THIS DECLARATION is made as of September 1997, by and among James G. Fullerton, III and Mama W. Fullerton, husband and wdfe ("Fullertons"); James G. Fullerton, III and Robert A Stein, Trustees of the Elizabeth L. Fullerton Revocable Trust U/A, dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor (the "Trustees"); Wilham L. Tmbeck and Judith W. Trubeck, husband and wife ("Trubed«"); and Lawrence Lukis and Donna Lukis, husband and wife ("Lukises"). The Fullertons, the Trustees, the Tmbecks and the Lukises are at times referred to in this Declaration as the "Declarants". RECITALS: A. Declarant James G. Fullerton, III is the owner of the following-described real estate situated in the City of Orono (the "City"), Hennepin County, Minnesota (the 4 "Fullerton Lot"): Lot 4, Block 1, Fullerton Estates, according to the recorded plat thereof. B. The Trustees are the owners of the following-described real estate (the 'Trustees' Lots") which adjoins the Fullerton Lot: Lots 1,2,3 and 5, and Outlot A, Fullerton Estates, according to the recorded plat thereof. C. The Tmbecks are the owners of the following described real estate (the 'Tmbeck Parcel") which adjoins the Fullerton Lot: r pi Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 727, and Tracts C and D, Registered Land Survey No. 1358, files of Registrar of Titles, Count}.’ of Hennepin. D. The Lukises are the owners of the following described real estate (the "Lukis Parcel") which adjoins the Trubeck Parcel: Traa E, Registered Land Survey No. 1358, files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. E. The Fullerton Lot, the Trustees' Lots, the Trubeck Parcel and the Lukis Parcel are benefitted by a private road easement over Tract F, Registered Land Survey No. 1358 ('Traa F"). The rights and obligations with respect to the roadway easement over Tract F are set forth in the following documents made by the Declarants' respective predecessors in title, and filed with the Hennepin County Registrar r.T Titles as Document Nos. 1094521,1094522,2024545,1124700 and 1124702 (collecUvely, the "Easement Documents"). F. With the filing of the plat of Fullerton Estates, Outlot A of Fullerton Estates (hereinafter "Outlot A" or the "Easement Parcel") is to serve as the private roadway and way of access benefitting the Fullerton Estates subdiwsion as well as the Trubeck Parcel and the Lukis Parcel, in place of Tract F. Lots 1 through 5, Block 1 Fullerton Estates, together with the Trubeck Parcel and the Lukis Parcel are hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Benefitted Parcels" and individually as a "Benefitted Parcel". 2 ■» ■■■ ■ V,.- ^ssts^sass^ G. In connection with the replacement of Tract F with Outlot A as the private roadway and way of access benefitting the Benefitted Parcels, the Declarants desire (i) to replace the Easement Documents \\ith this Declaration; (ii) to declare and create by this Declaration all easement rights and maintenance obligations with regard to Outlot A; and (iii) to terminate all rights and obligations of the Declarants with respea to Traa F as set forth in the Easement Documents. NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarants on behalf of themselves, their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, hereby covenant and agree as follows, and hereby declare and create the following easements and covenants, all of which shall run with the Benefitted Parcels and he binding upon the respective owners and occupants from time to time (respectively, the "Owners" and the "Occupants") of the Benefitted Parcels: 1. Termination of Prior Rights and Obligations. All rights, easements. agreements, covenants and obligations of the Declarants with respect to Traa F, as set forth in the Easement Documents, or as may otherwise exist, are hereby declared to be null and void and of no furtlier force or effea, and the same are hereby terminated in their entirety. 2. Declaration of Easement: Use of Easement. (a) The Trustees, as owners of Outlot A, hereby declare, grant, transfer and convey to the Owners of the Benefitted Parcels, their successors and assigns. a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for private roadway, ingress and egress, and i iI1 ^ i i y utility purposes over and aaoss Outlet A for the benefit of the Benefitted Lots and use by the Owners and Occupants and their imitees and public service providers, such as police, fire, bus and ambulance services. (b) The use of the easement created by this Declaration shall in each instance be subject to all terms and conditions of this Declaration. (c) Except as may be necessary in connection with the maintenance or improvement of the Easement Parcel, no Owner or Occupant shall obstruct or interfere with the rights and privileges of other Owners or Occupants in the Easement Parcel, and nothing shall be planted, altered, constructed upon or removed by an Owner or Occupant from the Easement Parcel. No Owner or Occupant shall obstruct or interfere with the passage of any school bus or emergency vehicle over or across the Easement Parcel. No vehicles shall be parked in or on the Easement Parcel for a continuous period of time greater than twenty-four hours. No vehicular repair or maintenance may be conduaed in or on the Easement Parcel. (d) Any Owner may delegate his right of enjoyment to the Easement Parcel to such Owner’s tenants who reside on a Benefitted Parcel, to the members of such Owner's family and to such Owner's guests and invitees. i 1 (e) No Owner may exempt himself from the liability for paying such Owner’s Cost Share of Easement Parcel Costs by waiver of the use or enjoyment of the Easement Parcel or by the abandonment of such Owner’s Benefitted Parcel. 3. Acknowledgement of Private Road: Conversion to Public Street . The Declarants hereby acknowledge the existence of the foregoing private roadway easement and the existence of the private road over Outlot A The Declarants further acknowledge that the City has no obligation to maintain or service the private road, and that the Gty does not intend to acquire or open the private road as a public roadway. However, in the event City shall determine it to be in the public interest to utilize the Easement Parcel as a public street, each Owner shall, after notice in accordance with applicable provisions of the City of Orono Municipal Code (the "Code") and Mirmesota law, quit claim its interest in the Easement Parcel to City for nominal consideration only. 4. Initial Roadway Construaion. The Trustees, at their expense, will upgrade the edsting roadway and construct such further roadway improvements, widening and relocation, all as the City has required in connection with the City’s approval of the plat of Fullerton Estates. The Declarants acknowledge that the Trustees will attempt to preserve as much of the existing roadway as is reasonably possible. Following such iniual construction, the Owners of the Benefitted Parcels shall be responsible for their respective Cost Shares (as hereinafter defined) of all future costs, fees, expenses and other charges associated with the Easement Parcel as set forth below. 1 5. Easement Parcel Costs. Except as set forth in paragraph 4 above with respea to initial roadway construction, the Declarants, for themselves and their successors and assigns, hereby assume and agree to pay, in the respective Cost Shares set forth below, all costs, fees, expenses and other charges and expenditures associated with the Easement Parcel (the "Easement Parcel Costs"), including, without limitation, (a) all costs of maintaining, repairing and replacing, if necessary, the private roadway to at least the standard of quality as may be required from time to time by the applicable provisions of the the Code; (b) all costs of snow plo'ving and snow removal, sanding and ! salting, as necessary, sweeping and the clearing of any debris, lighting, striping and curbing, all in compliance with the Code; (c) such real estate taxes and special assessments, if ar^, as may be levied on the Easement Parcel; (d) such liability insurance or other insurance as would be reasonably be maintained by an owner or operator of a private roadway; (e) the expense of such landscaping and grounds maintenance as may be required from time to time to maintain the Easement Parcel in a neat and attractive condition; (f) the expense of maintaining the Drainage area easement and drainage facilities as contemplated by the Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreer .ent of even date hereMth made by the Trustees and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; and (g) such capital expenditures as maybe reasonably required to maintain and improve the roadway and related improvements in at least their improved condition following the ♦ ' ■f ' Trustees' work described in paragraph 4 above, and lo such state of repair or improvement as may be required by applicable provisions of the Code from time to time. 6. Cost Shares. The Owners of the Benefitted Parcels shall pay and be responsible for the following respective percentage shares ("Cost Share" or "Cost Shares") of the Easement Parcel Costs: (a) Until the earlier of the date that the 0\M\er(s) or Occupant(s) of the Lukis Parcel use Outlot A, or any portion thereof, for access to the Lukis Parcel, or the date that the Lukis Parcel is subdivided: / (i) The respective Owners of each of Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Fullerton Estates, 17.5% each, for a total cf .......................................87.5% (ii) The Owners of the Trubeck Parcel (Tract A, Registered Land Sui\’ey 727 and Tracts C and D, Registered Land Survey 1358).......................................................... 12.5% (iii) The Owners of the Lukis Parcel (Tract E, Registered Land Survey 1358)...................................Q.Q% 100.0% (b) On and after the date that the Owner(s) or Occupant(s) of the Lukis Parcel use Oudot A, or any portion thereof, for access to the Lukis Parcel: I 1i J ! I I (i) The respective Owners of each of Lots 1 through 5. Block 1. Fullerton Estates, 15.0% each, for a total of 75.0% (ii) The Owners of the Trubeck Parcel (Traa A, Registered Land Survey 727 and Tracts C and D, Registered Land Survey 1358)............................................................. (iii) The Owners of the Lukis Parcel (Tract E, Registered Land Survey 1358)...............................i2.5% 100.0% However, in the event the Lukis Parcel is subdivided into two or more lots, then on and after the date that the City issues its resolution approving the final plat of such subdivision the Cost Shares shall be as foUows: (x) The respeaive Owners of each of Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Fullerton Estates, 12.5% each, for a total of 62.5% (y) The Owners of the Trubeck Parcel (Traa A, Registered Land Survey 727 and Tracts C and D, Registered Land Survey 1358)...................................................................... 8 L (z) The Owners of the Lukis Parcel (Tract E, Registered Land Survey 1358).......................................... 25.0% 100.0% : (c) Except as pro\ided in paragraph 6(b) hereof, upon the subdivision of any one of the Benefitted Parcels, the Owners of the lots resulting from such subdivision shall pay and be responsible for, in the aggregate, the Cost Share of the Benefitted Parcel so subdivided. In the absence of a recorded agreement setting forth the shares to be aggregated, it shall be assumed that the Owners of 0 the lots resulting from such subdivision will share equally in the Cost Share of the Benefitted Parcel so subdhided, and such assumption shall be binding upon such Owners until an agreement by them to the contrary is recorded with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. Thus, by example, if Lot 4, Block 1, Fullerton Estates ("Lot 4") were subdivided into two new lots, absent a recorded agreement of the Owners of the newly subdivided lots to the contrary, the Owner of each new lot would pay and be responsible for one-half of Lot 4's 17.5%, 15.0% or 12.5% Cost Share, as the case may be at the time of such subdivision. 7. Administration. The Owner of Lot 4 and such Owner's successors and assigns shall administer the pro’dsions of this Declaration until the Owner of a different Benefitted Parcel is eleaed to administer this Declaration by a majority vote of the Owners of the Benefitted Parcels, with such Owners having a percentage vote equal to I » i the percentage Cost Share allocated to such Owner's Benefitted Parcel pursuant to paragraph 6 hereof. The Owner then acting as the administrator of this Declaration (the "Administrator") shall make all decisions with respect to what Easement Parcel repair or improvement is to be performed, and at what times, and what Easement Parcel Costs are to be incurred and billed, and at what times. The Administrator in his, her or their discretion may determine the procedure for billing the Owners of the Benefitted Parcels, and may bill the Owners in advance of Easement Parcel Costs being incurred. Such Costs may be billed for such periods of time and at such frequency as the Administrator $ 9 may determine from time to time. The Administrator shall pay all Easement Parcel real estate taxes and special assessments, and shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, the Easement Parcel in a neat, clean and attractive marmer and in a manner at least consistent with the applicable provisions of the Code. 8. Payment of Cost Shares . Each Owner of a Benefitted Parcel shall pay the Administrator a sum equal to such Benefitted Parcel Owner's Cost Share, ia monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual installments (as detennined by the Administrator). Unless otherwise elected by the Administrator, such installments shall be payable in advance, and shall be due on the first day of such payment period. Installments not paid within ten (10) days of the due date thereof shall accrue interest from such due date at the rate of two percent (2%) per annum above the prime rate published by First Bank Nation^ Association (or a comparable substitute rate chosen by the Administrator, if V the said prime rate is no longer available), or at the highest interest rate permitted by law, whichever is less (the "D efault Rate"). If payable in advance, such installments shall be based on the Administrator ’s reasonable estimate of Easement Parcel Costs made and given to each Owner of a Benefitted Parcel at the beginning of each calendar year or as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible. Within sixty (60) days after the end of each calendar year, or as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible, the Administrator shall furnish an itemized statement of aaual Easement Parcel Costs and each Benefitted Parcel Oder's Cost Share thereof. The statement shall be certified to by the Administrator. If, at the end of any calendar year, the amount paid by thie Owner of a Benefitted Parcel during the preceding calendar year is less than such Owner’s Cost Share, as shown on the statement, such Owner shall pay such deficiency within ten (10) da)^ of notice thereof. In the event such Owner has paid more than its Cost Share, as shown on the statement, such overpayment shall be credited against the next payment due the Adnunistrator hereunder. The Administrator may, in its discretion, and at any time or times, change its billing procedure or change its estimate of Easement Parcel Costs to reflect changes in the cost of items constituting Easement Parcel Costs. Liability Insurance: Waiver s of Qaims . The Administrator shall cany, or shall cause to be carried, for the benefit of itself and the Owners of the Benefitted Parcels, comprehensive general liability insurance relating to the operation, maintenance. repair and improvement of the Easement Parcel in such amount or amounts as are from •i % j I 1 *rT — —>-n j time to time reasonable and customary. Each policy shall name the Owner of each Benefitted Parcel as an additional insured, and the Administrator shall provide each such Owner with a copy of the policy or a certification of such insurance, provided each such Owner has notified the Admiiustrator of its ownership and any change in or transfer of ownership, and requests such copy or certification. The Administrator and each Owner of a Benefitted Parcel waive any rights which they may have against each other for any claim for damages resulting from a loss covered by such insurance. The cost of such insurance shall be an additional component of Easement Parcel Costs. i 10. Enforcement (a) Remedies. In the event of any violation or threatened violation of any of the terms, restrictions, covenants or conditions provided in this Declaration, the Administrator and the Owners of the Benefitted Parcels, and any of their respective successors or assigns, shall have the right to enjoin such violation or threatened violation in a court of competent jurisdiction, as well as the right to obtain an order compelling specific performance of the obligations set forth herein, and to recover their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting any such action to obtain an injunction or order compelling specific performance. In addition, in the event the Administrator has not cured a default by it within the notice period provided below, the Owners of the Benefitted Parcels, and any of them, may cure such default, and set off the cost of curing such default from r future payments of Easement Parcel Costs due from the OwTier or Owners effecting such cure. (b) Aa of God. If performance of any act or obligation hereunder, except the obligation to pay Easement Parcel Costs, is prevented or delayed by act of God, war, labor dispute or other cause or causes beyond the reasonable control of the party who is to perform such obligation, the time for the performance of the act or obligation shall be extended for the period that such aa or performance is delayed or prevented by any such cause. (c) Notice Before Default. j\n Owner shall not be in default under this Declaration, except under such provisions as require payment or performance on or before a specific date or within a specified period of time, unless such Owner has been given a written notice specify mg the default and fails to cure it within ten (10) days of such notice, or within such longer period of dme as may be reasonably required to cure such default, up to a maximum of thirty (30) days. (d) Collection of Cost Shares. Each present Owner of a Benefitted Parcel, and each future Owner of a Benefitted Parcel, whether or not it shall be so expressed in the conveyance or assignment to such Owner, hereby covenants with the Owners of each of the other Benefitted Parcels that such Owner shall pay prompdy when due sudi Owner's Cost Share of Easement Parcel Costs. Each Owner's Cost Share of Easement Parcel Costs, together with interest the 1 r » '»■ r • » Default Rate, and costs and attorney's' fees incurred in collection thereof, shall h >• a lien against such Owner’s Benefitted Parcel from the date such Cost Share, any installment payment thereof, becomes delinquent, and such lien may be enforced by foreclosure thereof in the same manner as a mortgage either by action or by advertisement, the power of sale being hereby expressly granted. However, such lien shall be subordinate to the lien of any first mortgage on a Benefitted Parcel, and the sale or transfer of a Benefitted Parcel pursuant to mortgage foreclosure or any proceeding in lieu thereof shall extinguish the lien of such Percentage Share as to payments thereof which became due prior to such sale or transfer. No such sale or transfer shall relieve a Benefitted Parcel or its Owner from liability for any installments of Easement Parcel Costs thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof. Any lien claim filed for record pursuant hereto shall terminate one (1) year after the filing thereof, unless a foreclosure by advertisement or by action has been initiated before the end of the one-year period. In addition, each such installment of Easement Parcel Costs, together 'with interest thereon at the Default Rate, and costs and attorneys' fees incurred in collection thereof, shall be the personal obligation of the person or entity was the Owner of the Benefitted Parcel at the time such installment became payable. The personal obligation for delinquent payments of Easement Parcel Costs shall not pass to such Owner's .successors in title unless expressly assumed by them. Such personal obligations may be enforced by an action at law and by judgment against the Owner in question. 11. Condemnation. In the event the whole or any part of, or any interest in. the Easement Parcel is or are taken for any public or quasi-pablic use under any governmental law, ordinance or regulation, or by right of eminent domain, or by private purchase in lieu thereof, the Ownen of the Benefitted Parcels shall not share in any award, compensation or other payment made by reason of the taking of the Easement Parcel or ^y part thereof, or any interest therein, and all such awards, compensation or other payment shall belong entirely to the Owner of the Easement Parcel, and the Easement Parcel Owner shall have no liability to any other Owner for the loss of the whole or any part of, or any interest in, the Easement Parcel. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Owner shall be free to pursue claims in condemnation relating to a denial or curtailment of access to such 0^^■ner's Parcel or to the diminution in value of such Owner’s Parcel by reason of the loss of access. 12. Future Conveyances. The easement and covenants created and declared by this Declaration shall be incorporated by reference in all future conveyances. mortgages, assignments and other transfers of the Benefitted Parcels, or portions thereof; provided, however, that nouvithstanding any failure to incorporate this Declaration by reference in such future conveyances, mortgages, assignments and other transfers, such easements and covenants shall run with the Benefitted Parcels as easements and r covenants appurtenant thereto without the necessity of specific reference thereto conveyance, assignment, mortgage or other transfer thereof. 13. No Dedication . Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be deemed to constitute a gift, grant or dedication of any portion of the Easement Parcel to the general pubUc for any pubUc purpose whatsoever, it being the intention of the Declarants that. except as otherwise set forth herein, this Declaration shall be strictly limited to the private use of the Owners and Occupants of the Benefitted Parcels. Except as to those provisions hereof \N-hich may be of benefit to the City, this Declaration is intended benefit the Owners and their respective successors and assigns, and is not intended to benefit any person as a third-party benefidaiy hereunder or to give any such person any rights hereunder. 14. Amendment- The easement and covenants created and declared by this Declaration may, at any time and from time to time, be amended upon the filing for record in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles of an agreement amending this Declaration, executed in the manner required by law for the recording of conveyance of real property by the then Owners, both legal and equitable, of all of the Benefitted Parcels, and consented to by the mortgagees of all of the Benefitted Parcels and by the City. 15. .Git/? Rights- In the event that the Owners fail to maintain, repair and replace the private roadway located on the Easement Parcel as provided for in this 1 JMKfm Declaration, the City may undertake to maintain, repair and replace the pnvke roadw-ay provided for herein and such actions by the City will not result in the pnvate roadway ’s becoming a public roadway. In that event, each of the Owners will pay to the City that portion of the cost incurred by the City which portion is equal to such Owner's ipecuve Cost Share within thirty (30) days of the receipt of such charges or else such charges shall become a lien upon the Benefitted Parcel whose Owner did not pay its respective portion at the Cost Share pro\ided for in paragraph 6 hereof. 16. Term. The covenants created by this Declaration shall continue for a term 9 ►f thirty (30) years from the date hereof; shall be automatically renewed for successive terms of thirty (30) years; and in any event shall continue in full force and effea for so long as the easement created and declared hereby shall continue. 17. Warrantie-s of Title. Declarants represent and warrant that they are the Owners of their respective Benefitted Lots (and the Trustees represent that they are the ONvners of the Easement Parcel), and have full right, tide and authority to enter into this Declaradon. Any mortgage lender, or other party of interest of the Benefitted Lots or the Easement Parcel, if any, shall consent to this Declaradon, which consent shall be attached and made a part of this Declaration. 18. Mkrellaneous . (a) Notices. Any notices and other commuiucadons permitted or required by the provisions of this Declaradon shall be in wridng and shaU be j i I f deemed to have been properly given or served by depositing the same with the United States Postal Service, or any official successor thereto, designated as regjistered or certified mail, return receipt requested, bearing adequate postage, or delivery by reputable private courier, and addressed as hereinafter provided. Each such notice shall be effective upon being so deposited. The time period within wdiich a response to any such notice must be given, however, shall commence to run from the date of receipt of the notice by the addressee thereof. Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of changed address of which no notice was given shall deemed to be receipt of the notice sent. By giving at least ten (10) days notice ♦hereof, a Declarant, Owner or Occupant shall have the right from time to time and at any time during the term of this Declaration to diange its address and shall have the right to specify as its address any other address within the United States of America. (5) No Partnership. Nothing contained in this Dedaratiop and no action by the Declarants or Owners shall be deemed or construed by the Declarants or Owners or by any third person to create the relationship of principal and agent, or a partnership, or a joint venture, or any association between or among any of the Declarants or Owners. (c) <;pvprability. If any provision of this Declaration is, to any extent, declared by a court of competent jurisdiaion to be invalid or unenforceable, the m H ‘ r I ! remainder of this Declaration (or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those in respea of which the determination of invalidity or unenforceabUity was made) shaU not be affeaed thereby and each provision of this Declaration shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. (d) .Governing Law. This Declaration shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Mirmesota. (e) Captions. The captions of the paragraphs of this Declaration are for convenience only and are not intended to affea the interpretation or construction of the provisions herein contained. (f) Time. Time is of the essence of this Declaration. (g) Binding Effect. The provisions of this Declaration shall be binding on the Owners and their respective successors, assigns and mortgagees to the extent herein provided. : ^ •: [ i I rr" IN AGREEMENT, this Declaration has been executed effective as of the date first above written. FULLERTONS:TRUSTEES: James G. Fullerton, III James G. Fullerton, III, Trustee Mama W. Fullerton Robert A. Stein, Trustee TRUBECKS:LUKISES: William L. Trubeck Lawrence Lukis / ^Jc. dith W. Tmbeck Dorma Lukis STATE OF IvlINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ^The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 7^^ day of _______, 1997, by James G. Fullerton, III and Mama W. Fullerton, iai\^husbaiui/and wife. \*uu»un9 9 tm\........................................................................................ JOHN B. WINSTON i VfUniC-MiNNESOTA ; ^lC»HMMG4iniJM.t1.2000 : «MMMMMMMMMMM«M********^ I STATE OF MINNESOTA )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) __^____________________^ of 1997, by James G. Fullerton, III, Trustee of the Elizabeth L. Fullerton ____ ^ m, M m. » • ^ t ^ mm «« *1 T -11 ^ mo. mm. mo m» mARevocSe Trust U/A dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor. STATE OF ) )ss. VfUIUC'inMBOTA f./mTiiini- ........... COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1997, by Robert A Stein, Trustee of the Elizabeth L. Fullerton Revocable Trust U/A dated 1/4/85, as amended, with Elizabeth L. Fullerton, as donor. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ^ The forgoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3__ day of 1997, by William L. Trubeck and Judith W. Trubeck, husband and wife. VJOHNB.WlNSTOn NOT/WVPOBUC-KINNiCSTH • U§ CummitTinn lZZ‘j ! 1 ! i . fe. ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ))ss.COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) TIue foregoing instrument vN-as acknowledged before me this ------ ■■ 1997. by Uwrence Lukis and Donna Lukis, husband and day of wife. THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: ........joHNavw^iii^ notary MUC John B. Winston Winston Law Office 4420 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Miimeapolis, MN 55402 6I2/34I-9800 NtiMv. .r MORTGAGEE CONSENT Norwest Mortgage, Inc., mortgagee of the Tnibeck Parcel pursuant to Document No. 2436940, hereby consents to the foregoing Declaration and agrees that its mortgage shall be subordinate thereto. Dated:, 1997. NORWEST MORTGAGE, INC. By_ Its : STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _________________, 1997, by _____________________ day of the of Norwest Mortgage, Inc. Notary Public i r MORTGAGEE CONSENT First Bank National Association, mortgagee of the Trubeck Parcel pursuant to Document No. 2489472, hereby consents to the foregoing Declaration and agrees that its mortgage shall be subordinate thereto. Dated:. 1997. FIRST BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) i )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknoMedged before me this ________________, 1997, by day of , the of First Bank National Association. mm Notary Public WINSTON LAW OFFICE 4420 IDS a.NTEft 80 SOUTH 8TH STRegl MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S3402 TEL (612)341-9800 FAX: <612)338-6351 September 12, 1997 )Ohn B. WINSTON DlR£a:<612) 341-9818 Elizabeth Van Zomeren (473-0510) City Planner/Zoning Aidmiiiistrator City of Orono City HaU F.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Fullerton Estates Dear Liz: Endoseci is Check No. 7690 from the Fullerton Trust in the amount of $20,500.00 in payment of the park dedication fee. We have the signatures of evetyone on all of the documents required for the subdivision, with tlte exception of Norwest Bank's signature on the consent to the Declaration of Road Easement arid Jvlimiehaha Creek V/aiershed District’s signature on the Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement. We hope to have the Bank's si^ature today or Monday, and I antidpate no difficulty obtaining the Watershed District's signature, since we used its form, and the agreement burdens the property. My thought is that once we have subdmsion approval on Monday, September 22,1 can obtain the Cit/s signature on the Development Agreement, and then record the plat and all of the agreements with the Hennepin County Registrar of assuming that we \vill be on the agenda for Monday evening, September 22. Please let me know if there is anything more you require from us. I would like to review the resolution approving the plat in advance of the Coundl hearing. As always, thanks for your help. Sincerely, JBW/kra Enclosure cc: James G. Fullerton. Ill (339-3097) L/Winston 10/I0 ‘d IS£98£8219 ‘ON Wd 30IJd0 M81 NOiSNlM m L6-2l-djo vh REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^9^ DATE: Septemtec^ 1997 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2279/2280 G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - 3 Lot Subdivision and Right-of-Way Vacation - Preliminary Plat ________________Approval - Resolutions_____________________________________ Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Application:Request for a 3-lot subdivision of this 10.6 acre property on Lyman Avenue. List of Exhibits A - Vacation Resolution B - Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/16/97 D - Letter From Applicant's Attorney 9/18/97 E - Staff Memo and Exhibits of 9/12/97 Note: This application has been expedited directly to City Council from the September 15 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicants, who are currently living in Chicago. Application Background Please carefully review the memo and exhibits of September 12. Briefly, applicants originally proposed a four lot subdivision in 1991 but withdrew the application prior to Council action. The proposed four lot subdivisi«-n was again submitted in June 1997 for sketch plan review, at which time Planning Commission reviewed issues including access to the property and the neighborhood road situation; the number of lots; the need for wetland delineations; confirmation of septic testing; and the need for a number of variances. Planning Commission also reviewed the issue of back lots requiring three acres, and whether platting a cul-de-sac within the property would solve a number of problems. Applicants submitted a formal 4-lot plat which was leviewed by Planning Commission in August. That plan proposed a cul-de-sac just east of the adjacent residence at 1290 Lyman Avenue. The cul-de-sac eliminated the alternate drainfield site for the fourth lot. Planning -2l-dj3 % Request for Council Action continued Page 2 September 18,1997 #2279/2280 G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - 3 Lot Subdivision and Right- of-Way Vacation - Preliminary Plat Approval Commission ultimately tabled that proposal and directed the applicant to explore a 3-lot plat, with each lot containing primary and alternate drainfield sites, and with a potential driveway outlot corridor rather than a cul-de-sac adjacent to 1290 Lyman Avenue. Three Lot Proposal Applicants returned to the September 15 Planning Commission meeting with a 3-lot proposal incorporating the existing residence plus two new buildable lots. Plea.se review the preliminary plat drawing (Exhibits A & B of Sept. 12 memo). Lot 1 is a "back lot" meeting the three acre minimum area requirements. The defined front line of Lot 1 is its east lot line abutting Lot 2. Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of a 50' front (east) lot line setback rather than the 75' required by the back lot ordinance for Lot 1. Applicant has agreed to a 50' south side setback to the adjoining boundary' with 1290 Lyman Avenue where only a 45' setback would normally be required under the back lot ordinance. Lot 1 will be accessed by Outlot B, a 30' driveway corridor that will be shared with Lot 2. Outlot A is intended as a buffer to be left in a natural or enhanced vegetative state to provide a buffer and screening between the private driveway and 1290 Lyman Avenue. Note that without this buffer outlot, the 1290 Lyman side setback would become non-conforming due to the creation of the driveway outlot. Lot 2 would share access from Outlot B. Planning Commission has recommended that Lot 2 not be allowed to access directly to Lyman Avenue due to sight distance concerns. Lot .3, \vith the existing house, has an existing driveway accessing the privately owned easement portion of Lyman Avenue to the east of applicant's property. After revie\ving the potential impact on trees of replacing that driveway within the boundaries of Lot 3, Planning Commission recommends that the existing driveway be allowed to remain as-is. Planning Commission spent a significant amount of time discussing road safety issues. The portion of Lyman through and east of applicant's property is a privately owned and maintained gravel driveway about 12' wide. The portion within applicant's property will be dedicated as public road on the plat. Due to the sharp curve at the southeast comer of applicant's property and the lack of a cul-de-sac serving the neighborhood. Planning Commission recommended that additional right-of-way be granted at the curve to allow future improvements to the road, and suggested the City grant an easement to applicant over portions of that newly acquired right-of- way that may be needed for the primary septic system to serve Lot 2, if the right-of-way encroaches it. The intent of the Planning Commission was to provide for future upgrade of Lyman Avenue but delay such upgrade until such future time that the septic system is no Request for Council Action continued Page 3 September 18,1997 #2279/2280 G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - 3 Lot Subdivision and Right- _____of-Way Vacation - Preliminary Plat Approval___________________________ longer needed at that location. The City would grant the easement for Lot 2's septic system with such a stipulation. Planning Commission also recommended that in the short term, applicant should bear the cost of City-directed sight line improvements to that curve, which improvements may include selective tree cutting and vegetation clearing, as well as potential regrading of the slope adjacent to the road (as long as such work does not negatively impact the drainfield site on Lot 2). Planning Commission left it to Council's discretion as to whether this subdivider should pay for a general upgrade of Lyman Avenue. The City Engineer in his sketch plan review noted that Lyman Avenue is only 15' in paved width east of Smith Avenue, and should be upgraded as a condition of this subdivision. Applicant has suggested that the traffic impact of these two additional home sites should not force him to bear the cost of upgrading the road for the entire neighborhood, and further noted that if sewer is provided in Lynian Avenue in the future, the road will be tom up and replaced at that time, and assessed fairly to all abutting property owners. Planning Commission Recommendation Please review the Notice of Planning Commission Action dated September 16, 1997. Applicant's attorney has submitted a letter dated September 18 which indicates a slightly different recollection of the Planning Commission action of September 15 on certain issues. Due to this application being expedited at applicant's request. Planning Commission minutes are not yet available. Issues for Potential Discussion Council is requested to consider the following issues for potential discussion; 1.To what extent should the applicants be responsible for upgrades of Lyman Avenue? Does Council agree with Planning Commission's recommendation that applicants at least bear the cost of sight line improvements at the curve? Should applicants be responsible for other road upgrades? Does Council agree with the recommendation that Outlot A be established as a buffer outlot for 1290 Lyman Avenue, either with restrictive covenants and under Request for Council Action continued Page 4 September 18,1997 #2279/2280 G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - 3 Lot Subdivision and Right- of-Way Vacation - Preliminary Plat Approval unrestricted ownership, or to be owned in common with 1290 Lyman Avenue? 3. Does Council have any concerns with the various findings and conditions of the attached resolution? 4. The City Engineer has been asked to comment on the revised plat, which no longer includes any stormwater facilities. Applicant notes this is because no new road will be constructed. Staff recommends that this be reviewed by the City Engineer, and it is noted that the subdivision is subject to review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Does Council have any concerns regarding stormwater? Note that a driveway plan will be required to detail the drainage and excavation necessary within Outlot B. Staff Recommendation Staff generally concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. This subdivision proposal has undergone a number of refinements since the earlier four lot plan, and in staffs opinion the current proposal has the least degree of impact on the property and on the neighborhood as compared to prior proposals. Staff has always expressed a concern that additional residences on long, narrow road systems lead to increased safety concerns. Those concerns must be balanced against preservation of the character of existing neighborhoods as well as the financial impacts of upgrading those road systems. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Address the issues noted above and any other issues of concern, and if Council so chooses, adopt the attached resolutions for vacation of the "lane" at the northwest edge of tl "i property, and granting preliminary plat approval subject to specific conditions. Certain of those conditions may need to be revised depending on Council's direction regarding road upgrades. .'V- A RESOLUTION VACATING AN UNIMPROVED LANE WITHIN THE PLAT OF ••ORONO ORCHARDS ” IN THE CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 2280 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 1997, G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead (hereinafter the "applicants") filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of an unimproved public right-of-way adjacent to their property and originally dedicated in the plat of "Orono Orchards", Hennepin County, Minnesota in 1924 and legally described as follows: That part of the unnamed lane adjoining Lot 33, "Orono Orchards", Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies westerly of vacated Spencer Avenue and which lies easterly of the northerly extension of the westerly line of said Lot 33; and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held by the Orono Planning Commission on August 18, 1997, regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, after which the hearing was continued to September 15, 1997; and WHEREAS, at the continued public hearing on September 15, 1997 after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the proposed vacation in conjunction with approval of a subdivision proposed by the applicants; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation as proposed is in keeping with the public interest and in consideration of the following findings: 1. The lane has never been developed for any public purpose. Page 1 of 2 The lane does not provide access to any adjoining or nearby properties. The alley is adjacent and parallel to the DNR's Luce Line Trail. The DNR has been advised of the proposed vacation and has indicated no objection to the vacation. This unimproved right-of-way contains no municipal sewer nor other utilities. Utility companies have been notified of the proposed vacation and none have indicated an objection. The lane is partially located widiin a protected wetland, precluding its future use for most public purposes. The City does not intend to use the lane for any public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead is hereby granted by the Council of the City of Orono and that the unimproved lane legally described above is hereby vacated. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minn' iOia at a regular meeting held on September 22, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 2 of 2 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS HI SUBDIVISION FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1220 LYMAN AVENUE - FILE NO. 2279 WHEREAS, G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead (hereinafter "the subdividers") on July 25, 1997 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a four lot residential plat of property legally described as: Refer to Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono’s Zoning and Subdivision Ct^es, the Orono planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 1997, at which time all persons desirin g to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon, after which the Hearing was continued to September 15, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing on September 15, 1997, at which time applicants' revised proposal for a 3-lot subdivision was reviewed and all persons desiring to be heard concerning tiis revised application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on September 22, 1997, the Orono Qty Council considered the subdivision application of the subdividers noting the following findings of fact: 1. 2. The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot and 200 feet of lot width. The property contains a total of approximately 10.6 acres of which approximately 8.1 acres is dry buildable land as defined by City ordinances. Page 1 of9 r 3. 4. 5. 6. The proposed plat consists of three residential lots each meeting the minimum requirement of two acres of dry buildable area. Lots 1 and 2 meet the required lot width of 200’ at the rear of the 50’ front/street setback line. Per Zoning Code Section 10.28 Subd. 5B, Lot 3 requires a variance of 20’ or 10% because it is only 180’ in width at the rear of the 50’ front/street setback line. Lot 3 contains an existing residence. Lot 1 is by definition a ’back lot’ and meets 150% of the lot area requirement of the RR-IB Zoning District. By definition the east line of Lot 1 is the front lot line, which for a back lot normally requires 150% of the 50’ RR-IB front setback for the principal residence, or 75’ per Subdivision Code Section 11.31 Subd. 5. At its September 15, 1997 meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval of a front setback variance for Lot 1, finding that due to the orientation of Lots 1 and 2, there will be no impact on Lot 2 by constructing a residence on Lot 1 only 50’ from its front lot line rather than the required 75’, and this relaxed setback requirement will allow construction of a residence on Lot 1 to minimize impacts to the steep slope to the west of the proposed house site. The south line of Lot 1 is its side lot line, and the subdividers have agreed to a minimum 50’ setback for construction along that line where a 45’ setback would normally be required for this back lot, as additional buffer to the adjacent property. All three lots have been found to have adequate and suitable, cils for on-site sewage treatment systems. The On-Site Systems Manager has approved a variance for setback to the wetland on Lot 2 for three of the six identified drainfield sites. Lot 3 will continue to be served by the existing easement driveway access to the private segment of Lyman Avenue. Lots 1 and 2 will access the public portion of Lyman Avenue via Outlot B, a shared private driveway corridor. This requires a variance to Subdivision Regulations Section 11.33, Subd. 4 which would require a 3-lot subdivision to be served by a 24’-28 ’ paved road system. The public portion of existing Lyman Avenue is paved at a 12-15' width currently serving 8 homes with a potential of 3-4 additional homes. The private portion of Lyman Avenue, which will continue to be used by Lot 3, is a 12' gravel driveway serving 5 homes with a potential for 1 or 2 additional homes. Planning Commission at their September 15, 1997 meeting concluded that the two new building sites can Page 2 of9 best be served by a shared driveway accessing the public portion of Lyman Avenue based on the following findings: a. Due to topography, wetlands and site layout including the location of the existing residence and its septic system, the only feasible location for a private road and cul-de-sac within the property is along the southwesterly property boundary directly adjacent to the residence at 1290 Lyman Avenue. b. Because the house at 1290 Lyman is only 30 feet from where such a road would be located, that residence would be made non-conforming by such a road because the RR-IB district requires a 50 foot side street setback. e. f. c. A private road would have negative impacts on the residence at 1290 Lyman Avenue due to traffic noise, lights, etc. which would reduce the privacy enjoyed by that property. d. A private driveway serving only Lots 1 and 2 could be constructed to have relatively minimal inq)act on 1290 Lyman Avenue, especially in conjunction with creation of a 20 foot buffer outlot (shown on the preliminar}' plat drawings as Outlot A) between the proposed 30 foot Outlot B and 1290 Lyman Avenue. Outlot A is intended to remain undisturbed and function as a separation and vegetation buffer, either subject to restrictive covenants or for sale or transfer to ownership in common with 1290 Lyman. Tha subdivider should provide an acceptable grading and drainage plan for the shared driveway in Outlot B prior to final plat approval. The driveway when constructed by future owner(s) of Lots 1 and 2 shall adhere to’the approved plan. At the time of building permit approval and driveway construction for Lot 1, the owner of Lot 1 should provide additional screening near the southeast corner of Lot 1 sufficient to prevent vehicle headlights from shining into the rear yard of 1290 Lyman Avenue. Page 3 of9 7.The existing private easement road at the southeast comer of the property has a curve radius of approximately 100 feet and as a result has poor sight distance due to existing topography and vegetation. The primary mound drainfield site for Lot 2 is just 15 feet from the inside of this curve. Planning Commission on September 15, 1997 recommended that public right-of-way be dedicated over this portion of private road to allow a future upgrade of this curve to conform as closely as possible to the required 275 foot curve radius for a 30 mph road. Planning Commission further recommended as follows: a. b. That the City grant an easement over the newly dedicated right-of- way in favor of Lot 2 for construction, use and maintenance of a septic system, with the stipulation that the City will not upgrade the road in a manner that impacts the septic system until such time that the system is no longer in use. That the subdivider be financially responsible for sight distance improvements to the existing curve, subject to recommendations from and oversight by the Public Services Director and City Engineer. Such improvements may include but are not limited to selective vegetation clearing and regrading the hillside slope at the inside of the curve while meeting the intent of item a. 8. This subdivision is subject to review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 9. The subdivider shall not be required to upgrade Lyman Avenue at this time NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead per plat drawings by Walter J. Gregory of Merila and Associates dated September 5, 1997, and grants variances to Section 11.33, Subdivision 4; 11.31, Subd. 5; and 10.28, Subd. 5B based on the unique findings and hardships set forth above, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to dedicate the standard 10' drainage and utility easements along perimeter property lines, and 5 ’ either side of interior lot lines. Page 4 of9 ; 2. 3. 4. 3. 4. 5. 6. If a retention pond or other stormwater facilities are required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), any such facilities to be developed on the site shall also be designated on the plat as drainage easements. The final plat application shall not be presented for City Council approval until all MCWD approvals have been obtained by the suMivider. The City protected wetlands in Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be subject to a Flowage and Conservation Easement to be granted to the City by the subdivider. Applicant shall develop a covenant for Type 1 wetlands located within Lots 1 and 2. The purpose of the covenant is to alert all future property owners of the need to protect the area and if alterations are proposed to first obtain the necessary approvals from the Corps of Engineers and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District before applying for approvals from the City of Orono. ^ ^ • ° -.L'l The subdivider shall bear the cost of sightline improvements-withnrthe-newly^ dedicated right-of-way, subject to recommendation and oversight of the Public Services Director and City Engineer. Such improvements may include but are not limited to selective vegetation removal and regrading the hillside slope at the inside of the curve. The principal structure on Lot 1 shall be set back at least 50 feet from the easterly lot line and iO feet from the southerly lot line of Lot 1 . Lot 3 may continue to use the existing easement driveway for access to Lyman Avenue. Lots 1 and 2 shall gain access to Lyman Avenue via a shared private driveway in Outlot B. Lot 2 shall not have direct access to Lyman Avenue other than via Outlot B. The subdivider shall submit a an acceptable grading and drainage plan for the shared driveway priot to final plat approval. The driveway when constructed by the owner(s) of Lots 1 and 2 shall adhere to the approved plan. At the time of building permit approval or driveway construction for Lot 1, the owner of Lot 1 shall provide sufficient additional screening near the southeast comer of Lot 1 to prevent vehideJieadlightHtom shining into the rear yard of Page 5 of 9 6^ 7. 8. 9. 10. 1290 Lyman Avenue. Subdividei shall draft for City approval, and execute, restrictive covenants to be placed on Outlot A to prevent uses of said Outlot for all purposes except as a vegetative and separation buffer between Outlot B and 1290 Lyman Avenue. Septic sites on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be staked and protected prior to any land alterations on this property that may include sightline improvements within the newly dedicated right-of-way, driveway construction, etc. Subdivider shall dedicate additional public right-of-way for Lyman Avenue on the plat in order to allow future upgrades of Lyman Avenue to conform as close as possible to the required^75' curve radius for a 30 mph roadway. The Cify agrees to grant an easement over the newly dedicated right-of-way in favor o^'Lot'2 for construction, use ai..! maintenance of a septic system, with the stipula^km\^t the City will not upgrade the road in a manner that impacts the septidsystem until such time that the system is no longer in use. ki. Applicant to execute Develo Agreement to ensure all grading/drainage improvements and road improvt,.i..,tits are installed to City's specifications and satisfaction. No land alterations can take place until erosion control is established and septic sites fenced and the City is in receipt of a final grading and road plan. No improvements can begin until City Engineer has approved all improvement plans. A Letter of Credit must accompany a fully executed Developer's Agreement written to 150% of the cost of the proposed road and site improvement. No building permits will be issued until all drainage facilities have been installed and approved and satisfactory road base completed. The following list of final submittals must be submi*^ted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: Page 6 of 9 A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Walter J. Gregory of Merila and Associates dated September 5, 1997, subject to an expanded right-of- way for Lyman Avenue at the southeast comer of Lot 2 as noted below. B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' along boundaries of the property and S' along all internal lot lines. C. Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention areas and City-protected wetlands. D. Dedication of public right-of-way for Lyman Avenue subject to approval by the City Engineer. E. Naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: A. Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. C. Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over any retention areas and drainageways within plat (see sample enclosed). D. Signed and executed Conservation and Flowage Easements to be taken over the City-protected wetlands in Lots 1, 2 and 3. E. Signed and executed Developer's Agreement and Letter of Credit for site improvements and construction of ________. F. Signed and executed Declaration of Private Covenants covering upkeep and Page 7 of 9 maintenance of shared private driveway (Outlot B). G. Signed and executed Restrictive Covenant over Outlot A, QR purchase agreement between subdivider and owner of 1290 Lyman Avenue for transfer of Outlot A. H. Completed private covenant for lots involved with protected wetlands not included within City-protected area. Covenants should include map and metes and bounds descriptions. Covenants should be in a form suitable for filing. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $400.00* A. Final plat fee = $200.00 B. Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents = $200.00 C. *Pi*.5f ledication fee. The Park Commission reviewed the proposed plat on August 4, 1997 and recommended payment of a park fee in lieu of land dedication for parks. The City Assessor shall be directed to establish the the fair market value of the property (Lots 1 and 2) for park fee purposes. The park fee is 8% of the fair market value as defined in Code Section 11.62, Subd. 5. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 22nd day of September, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 8 of 9 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of September, 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 9 of 9 r CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2279/2280 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 16, 1997 TO: G. Marc & Tracy Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: Walter Gregory Merila & Associates 8401 73rd Avenue North Suite 63 Brooklyn Park, IvlN 55428 John B. Winston 4420 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 TYPE OF APPLICATION: SubdivisionA^acation DATE OF MEETING: 09/15/97 VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST I V Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Outlots A and B to remain as separate outlots. Restrictive covenants to be plac-d on the future use of Outlot A qi Outlot A to be transferred to owner of 1290 Lyman Avenue. n Variance approval to allow 50' front (east lot 1^) setback for Lot 1 rather than the required 7.'*' 20' or 10% variance approval for defined width of Lot 3. At time of building permit approval and driveway construction on Lot 1, owner of Lot 1 to provide additional screening at southeast comer of Lot 1 sufficient to prevent vehicle headlights from shining into backyard of 1290 Lyman Avenue, subject to City approval. Prior to final plat approval, applicant to submit acceptable driveway design for Outlot B, detailing drainage and retaining walls. 6. Existing driveway serving Lot 3 may remain in its current location on an easement. Notice of Planning Commission Action September 16, 1997 Page 2 7. Approval of vacation of platted lane adjacent to Luce Line. 8. Additional City right-of-way shall be dedicated for the road curve at the southeast comer of Lot 2, sufficient to meet City curve requirements. City to grant easement to Lot 2 for use of said right-of-way for septic system drainfield, with a stipulation that City will not use the right-of-way for road reconstruction or relocation until that location is no longer needed for sewage treatment system. 9. Council to consider applicants’ responsibility for future road improvements in terms of past City policy and practice. 10. Public Services Director and City Engineer to recommend and oversee improvements to sight distance at the curve southeast of Lot 2, and such improvements to be paid for by the applicant. Such improvements may include, but are not limited to, selective vegetation clearing and regrading of hillside slope adjacent to traveled roadway (while still meeting the intent of Item #8 above). 11. Driveways for Lots 1 and 2 shall be from Outlot B. Lot 2 shall have no direct access from Lyman Avenue. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council on Monday, September 22, 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 affer review and approval by the Planning Commission. ♦ 'i U'NSTON LAW OFFICE 4420 IDS C.tNTER 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 33402 TEL; (6t2)341-'!3C0 FAX: (6125 333^351 (OHN B. WINSTON DIRECT: (bU) 341-B818 Septeniber 18,1997 F Michael P. Gaffron (473-0510) Senior PlanniiTg Coordinator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Orono. MN 55323 RE: G. Marc and Tracey Whitehead Subdivision Application Dear Mike: I am in receipt of your notes on the Planning Commission’s action of September 15, 1997, but recall the Planning Commission’s aaion somewhat differently than your notes report. Accordingly, let n\e respond to the eleven numbered paragraphs of your report as follows: 1.I agree that the Plamting Commission recommended that Outlois A and B remain separate outlets. To clarify the second sentence, my recollection is that the restrictive covenants were to prohibit improvement of Outlet A for drainage or driveway purposes and to prohibit tree cutting. I do not recall the Planning Commission directing the alternative of a transfer to tire adjoining OTViter. Agreed. Agreed. The PlaniTing Comnussion recoitimended simply that the owner of Lot 1 work with the City to add screening as might be appropriate. I do not recall the language "sufficient to prevent vehicle headlights from shining into back yard of 1290 Lvinan Avenue". The Whiteheads and I wanted to talk to vou about the type of screening, and even wanted to suggest to you that tlie natural vegetation should provide adequate saccning. The Whiteheads have pliotographs which indicate that tlie woods located on their propeay have been cleared of tinderbrush by the neighboring owi\er. Under these cirCLimstaiTccs, and for other reasons. 10 *d l9S98ee2l9 ’ON xyj 301dd0 MVl NOiSNIM S3:11 nHX X6-8l-d3S September IS, 1997 Page 2 the regeneration of natural vegetation might be the oest scrct»\ing alternative available. 1 y. 8. 11. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Again, 1 do not recall the precise requirement that tltc right-of-way be rededicated "to meet City curv'c requirements". Instead, what I remember is that the owner was to meet \Nith the City Staff and Engineer to reconsider the expansion of the right-of-way dedication. I do agree that the Planning Commission provided that, if the dedication of the additional right-of-way encroached into the drainfieid area, the drainfield area would be allowed to be maintained in its current location. I agree that this matter was leit open for consideration by the Council, but wish to be on record that the Wlritcheads do not want to bear full responsibility for jmpro\ing the road tor the other nine parcels whi<^ abut the road, and wirich under normal circimrstances would share in the cost of any road improvements, further, it is important to remember that, at least as proposed by the Planning Commission, the driveways serving the two new parcels will be located more than 240 feet West of the cuive that everyone i.s so concerned about. A’J'ain. mv’ recollection is that the Planning Commission did not dictate that any sight improvements at the cuiA'e be paid for by the applicant, but rather that the applicant w^orV "vvith the City to determine what might be appropriate. As with pouu 9 above, any improvements m the sight lines at tire curve will benefit all users of Lyman Avenue. Also, a.s noted above in paragraph 9, the tw'o new' lots will secure their access well to the West of the curve area. (I have trouble understanding how one new' cuibcut (see condition No. 11) located so far to tl\e West o the problem area should result in this Applicant having to pay tJ\e entire cost of road or sight line upgrades. I agree that this is what the Planning Commi.ssion recommended, but at the same time w'ant to give the ovm.er and the owner's surv'eyor an .6-8l-d3S 20 *d IS£98£8219 ’ON XVJ 30Idd0 I1V1 NOiSNIM 92:11 .OHi i.6-8l-d3S September 18, 1997 Page 3 opportunity to review with you whether a better driveway location is appropriate. The foregoing are my recollections of the Planning Commission ’s list of recommendai ions. 1 know'tliat you have further discussed these matters wnth Mr. Whitehead, but I do not know whether you and he came to any conclusion on the matters at issue. I trust, however, that we will be able to resolve ariy open issues at or prior to the Citv Council bearing scheduled for Monday <w^enmg, September ll. Sincerely. JohfrS; Winston JBW/kra . ^ ^ , cc: Mr. and Mrs. G. Marc Whitehead (664-02*21) 80’d IS89888219 ’ON X9d 301dd0 MVT NOiSNIII 92:11 nHi i6-8l-d3S [ i i i TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator September 12, 1997 SUBJECT: #2279/2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Preliminary Subdivision and Street Vacation - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, unsewered. Summary of Request: This item was tabled at Planning Commission's August meeting to allow applicant to revise the proposal from 4 lots to 3 lots. Applicant has submitted a revised proposal showng the existmg house plus 2 new building sites, substituting a driveway outlet for Lot 1 instead of the previously proposed short cul-de-sac. ApphcMt has also provided a report from Dundee Nursery regarding the plant materials found wthm the area where the existing house driveway might be relocated, as well as in the area of the on IJhrsubSr"^ <^o«^ectly shown List of Exhibits A - Revised Plans, Sheets 1 & 2 (A v-£o B - Dundee Nursery Report C - Note from Applicant's Attorney D - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/21/97 E - Planning Commission Minutes of 8/18/97 Meeting F - Back Lot Conformance Analysis G - Back Lot Ordinance H - Memo and Exhibits of August 14,1997 Discussion .^t the August 18th meetmg. Planning Commission tabled this application and advised applicant to submit a revised proposal incorporating 3 lots rather 4, and incorporating outlots to serve as access to Lot 1 and possibly Lot 2, and a second oullot to provide a buffer to the adjacent residence to the southwest. Planning Comrmssion also advised applicant to provide a tree and screening inventory for the ^eas adjacent to 1290 Lyman Avenue as well as for the alternate driveway to serve the applicant to submit a proposal that has corrected septic system layouts A plan incorporating these features has been presented for Planning Commission review and recommendation. Zoning Files #2279/2280 September 11, 1997 Page 2 A. Outlets Outlet A is proposed as a 20' buffer outlet to protect the interests of the existing house at 1290 Lyman Avenue. Outlet B is shown as a driveway outlet primarily serving Lot 1, but also potentially serving as driveway access for the residence on Lot 2 as well as access to the rear of Lot 2. The use of these outlets rather than a cul-de-sac resolves a number of issues, but as configured, raises a question regarding setbacks. Note that when Lot 1 abutted the cul-de-sac, it was not considered a back lot. Under the revised configuration using Outlet B for access. Lot I is a back lot and is subject to the provisions of subdivision code Section 11.31, Subd. 5(C) (see Exhibit G). That code section has standards regarding applicability, dimensional standards for back lots, access requirements and screening requirements. The proposed division appears to meet those standards as described in Exhibit F, a comparison of the proposed lot with the standards (Please review!). Based on the rather complex discussion of Exhibit F, staff would suggest that the proposal as presented generally meets the intent of the back lot ordinance. The following specific variances, findings and conditions seem appropriate: 1. 2. 3. 4. Find that Outlot A provides the buffer required between Outlot B and the neighboring adjacent residence, and do not requirethat the two outlots be combined, finding that keeping this as a separate outlot provided a greater likelyhood that Outlot A will continue to function as a buffer, by placing certain covenant restrictions on its use. Grant a variance to allow a 50' fi'ont setback instead of the required 75' for Lot 1 's east lot line, based on the configuration of this specific back lot related to Lot 2. A driveway design for Outlot 3 to be provided prior to final plat approval to ensure no drainage impact on the neighboring property, and to show the retaining walls needed. Screening to be required at appropriate locations at the southeast comer of L 11 to avoid headlight impacts to adjacent property. Tree/Screening Inventoiy Please review the information submitted by the applicant from Dundee Landscape Nursery. That information includes a hst of plant material, varieties and sizes, with a general description of their location. Pagel defines the trees that would need to be removed to construct a new driveway to the existing home within the easterly bouiidary of Lot 3. Page 2 describes the existing screening vegetation within the area to be platted us Cctlot A. r Zoning Files #2279/2280 September 11,1997 Page 3 Planning Commission should consider whether the screening within Outlot A is appropriate or should be enhanced with additional plantings. The neighboring property owner may have some input into this discussion. Planning Commission should also consider whether the loss of trees as noted is of such a magnitude that it may be more appropriate to allow the existing driveway serving the existing house tc remain as is. Lot Dimensions Under the new configuration, each of Lots A, B and C contains the minimum required lot area Lots 1 and 2 meet the 200' minimum width requirement, and with the revision of the south lot line of Lot 3 southward to the 20' setback from Lot 2 septic system, the defined width of Lot 3 at the 50* setback line now is approximately 180', nearly meeting the 200' requirement and much better than the prior proposal, but still requiring a 20' or 10% variance. The setback requirements as shown for Lots 2 and 3 appear to meet code standards. Septic Systems Applicant has now correctly shown the septic system locations and staff notes that one site on each of Lots 1,2 and 3 is less than 75' setback from Basin E, but Septic System Inspector Steve Weckman has reviewed these and is comfortable with the proposed setbacks given the system elevations above that wetland basin. Storm Water Applicant has suggested that due to the minimal impact of adding two houses and driveways to this 10 acre parcel, no storm water ponding is required. This needs to be reviewed by both the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer before confirmation. A condition of preliminary plat approval should be completion of City Engineer and MC>\T) review of the revised proposal to confirm whether "torm water ponding is required on the site. If so, the original grading plan indicating storm water ponding adjacent to Basin E may still be appropriate, and it is noted that a wetland variance would be required for that construction, but such a variance would be supported by the intent of the grading to provide protection to that wetland and enhancing water quality. Lane Vacation U.S. West and Minnegasco have both indicated they have no problem with the lane vacation at the northwest side of the property adjacent to the Luce Line Trail. The DNR has advised that they do not object to the vacation. We have not heard from Triax Cable or NSP. Staff recommends approval of the vacation, finding that that undeveloped dedicated right-of-way serves no current or future expected public purpose. Zoning Files #2279/2280 September 11, 1997 Page 4 Neighborhood Access The City Engineer in his sketch plan review comments suggested that Lyman Avenue is extremely substandard and adding more houses to it should be a trigger for upgrading that road. Applicant is providing a portion of right-of-way at the southeast comer of the property to accommodate the existing private road through the property and in fact is intending to dedicate that as public right-of- way to the easterly boundary of tne property. In staffs opinion this is appropriate, although the radius of 100' does not meet the City's 30 mph/275' radius standard, but does match the curve of the existing road. Because the septic site for Lot 2 is very near the traveled roadway, staff suggested that applicant maintain a 15' setback from the septic system to the property line, with an additional approximately 12-15' between the traveled roadway and the property boundary. While it would be in the City's best interest to have additional right-of-way northwest of Lyman Avenue to reduce the degree of curve, that would potentially eliminate this septic site. Applicant is not providing a cul-de-sac as was suggested by Planning Commission during the sketch plan review, but is proposing merely a single shared driveway access to the existing road to serve two houses, as suggested at the prelimin.a:*^ .lat review, with no other changes to the road system in the area. Planning Commission may wish to make a recommendation to Council regarding the need to upgrade Lyman Avenue. Applicant notes that Lyman Avenue may be excavated in the future for sewer constmction, and at that time could be replaced more in keeping with the code requirements; applicant notes that it would not make sense to widen or repave Lyman Avenue at this time and then dig it up in a few years to install sewers. Staff Recommendation This application has undergone a number of refinements which address many of the concerns raised by Planning Commission in prior reviews. Outstanding issues for Planning Commission discussion include: A. Confirm acceptance of status of Outlots A and B as two separate outlets, with restrictive covenants on the use of Outlet A. B. Variance for setback requirements for Lot 1. r Variance for lot width for Lot 3. D. E. Whether additional screening is required in Outlet A. Whether the proposed road dedication of Lyman Avenue is acceptable given the potential impacts on septic site for Lot 2 if the dedication is expanded. F. Approval of the proposed lane vacation. ? I f:r f u ? ) I Zoning Files #2279/2280 September 11,1997 Page 5 G. Whether actual improvements to Lyman Avenue should be required of this developer. H. Any other issues Planning Commission desires to address. Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission can resolve the issues noted above, then a recommendation for approval with specific conditions would be appropriate. Staff will draft appropriate preliminary approval conditions basod on the results of your discussions on the above noted items. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as proposed, with specific conditions. 2. Table for further information or for plan revisions. 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4. » Other. * i » ; ^• i o VOoXo o VOo X o CO o Xr* X o CO iIrfIffiPH hi HlsUil IHt pif *| HHififini! h’l'efli;! r JI !! il rt it!i'- f Hi { I ml! i! % O o T lA \ •n to :f ^ f, ^ %- S g S5 f S £ ' K K I 5« I S « < <r> s ? XI I f“n O to ^ It ft ‘j; 3 s *» ■n ltlOO»> r iilii liSII ^ilii iiSiS If Hso n 11 11 1 * !I 1 ____• I LANDSCAPE B Since 1946 Nursery Garden Center/Floral Landscape De^ign/Build Corporate Office 16800 Hwy 55 Plymouth, MN 55446 Phone (612) 559-4004 Fax (612) 559-8483Tracey whitehead 1220 Lyiaan Avenue Orono, MN 55391 September 3, 1997 Dear Tracey, Following are the resiilte of my site visit this morning to your property in Orono. Please feel free to give me a call with any questions which you might have. SITE VISIT: September 3rd, 1997 SITE LOCATION: 1220 Lyman Avenue, Orono, MN SITE INSPECTION BY: Bill Osmundson Following is a list of plant material found in the area along the existing house driveway. Included in this list are the significant trees that would need to be removed to construct a new driveway into the existing home. Scrub plants such as buckthorn, along with tree vihips (smaller than one inch diameter) have not been included. TOICTt VAPT1CTV a»» nTA ma hta ASH BURR OAK SUGAR MAPLE RED OAK LINDEN ^mmmtmrnu WHITE OAK 4 u^gsagfei 1 SPRUCE Lsaggsttss: Locations 16800 Hwy 55 Plymouth, MN 55446 (612) 559-4016 4225 Cour*y Road 42 Savage, MN 55378 (612) 894-8740 1112 Washington Memorial Drive St. Cloud, MN 56301 (320) 253-7264 -ii;^ SITE VISIT; Septenber 3rd, 1997 SITE LOCATION; 1220 Lynan Avenue, Orono, MM SITE INSPECTION BY: Bill Osmundson Following is a list of materials which were found in the area designated Outlet «C" on the site plan. The area is approximately 180' long and 20' wide. The first 100' as measured from 30' in from the existing road has a heavy growth of understory brush. This plant material ranges from 24" to 108" tall an is composed of mainly small whip trees and a heavy thicket of wild buckthorn. The neighbor has a hedge of nannyberry viburnum and lilac running from the existing roadway back approximately 40' along the property line. Following are trees found in this first 100' foot area. grpiTR vaWTlPPY 2* HTA- 2**—4" DIA _ 4*»B" DIA — 8"~2Q".2Q"t ASH BUPR OAK SUGAR MAPLE 12 RED OAK WHITE OAK LINDEN The last 80' of this section seems to have been cleared of the understory brush, though there are signs of regeneration with 6"-12" wild buckthorn. This area contains approximately 35-40 trees which range from 2" to 20" diameter. The majority of these trees are sugar maple with several ash and oak mixed in. WINSTON LAW OFFICE 4420 IDS CENTER 50 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOUS, MINNESOTA 55402 TEl: (612)341-9800 FAX 1612)338-6351 lOMN B. VViN^fON omecT: (bO) 34i-«iii6 September 8, 1997 Michael P. Gaffron (473-0510) Senior Planning Coordinator Citv of Orono P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: Whitehead SubdlvisioiV1220 Lyman Avenue Dear Mike: I will be representing Marc and Traev* Whitehead before the Planning Commission this coming Monday evening, September 15. Please fax me a copy of the Staff report prepared for the public hearing, and let me know when you anticipate the matter will be heard on Monday. Thank vou. JBW/kra cc: Mr. and Mrs. G. Marc Whitehead 1 i1 i 10‘d ISE98E8819 'ON m 30Idd0 1191 NOiSNIH LOm NOW i6-80-d3S E CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE NO. 2279/2280 NOTICE OF PLANNING COIVnvnSSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 8/21/97 TO: Marc & Tracy Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 8/18/97 VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commbsion recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: • Applicant to submit a revised proposal at the September 1 5th Planning Commission meeting, incorporating 3 lots rather than 4, with access outlets generally as shown on the attached sketch. • Applicant to provide a tree and screening inventory and proposal for the areas adjacent to 1290 Lyman Avenue and for the area of the alternate driveway to serve the existing house. • Applicant to submit proposal with corrected septic system layouts. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, September 15, 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. ikirnmt CoAiC^PTVAL 0A)LY MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 SCHEDULED PUBUC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW (#2) #2279 AND #2280 MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVENUE - SUBDIVISION - PUBUC HEARING 7:30-8:28 P.M. The Affidavit of Publicatioo and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Tracy Whitehead was present along with surveyor, Walter Gregory. Gaffion reported that the application was reviewed as a sketch plan at the June meeting and direction was given by the Commission at that time. The property abuts Toyman Avenue, which becomes a private road with an easement as it moves eastward. The driveway serving the existing house is on this easement. The current four-lot plan has a revised access location. The proposal incuidcs vacating a dedicated 20' right-of-way which abuts the Luce Lme. This right-of-way appears to have no value to the Chv. The utility companies were notified. Staff is awaiting response to sec if any easements are required. There is a 10' perimeter drainage easement that be required. Gafiron indicated that Staff recommends approval of the vacation. The property for the 4-lot subdivision totals 8.79 of dry buildable with 2.32 acres of Orono protected wetlands, Aiea credit would be granted for two wetlands delineated per Wetland Conservation Act rules that do not show on the Orono map and are designated as Basins B and C. Lots 1-4 each have at least two acres of dry buildable. An issue brought forward at the sketch plan review was the narrow corridor for access to Lots 1 and 2. The back lot configuration requires Lots 1 and 2 to have three acres; one lot meets that requirement, one does not. Gaffron noted the currently proposed road and cul-de-sac results in Lots 1 and 2 abutting a ropdway, eliminating the need for the three acre nunimum. The plat drawng correctly shows the 50' front and rear setbacks and 30' side setbacks. Lot 1 would have a 50' side setback for added buffering to the neighboring residence. The proposed road would be 24' paved with an 80' circular paved cul-de*sac. This will impact the neighboring property but there are possible ways to mitigate. It does, however, result in a substandard side street setback for the neighboring property. Oafirnn suggested possibly moving the road over to meet the 50' setback. Another option according to Gaffi^on would be to not build it as a roadway. Gaffion said the neighboring properties were not expecting a road to come through. Gaffion said an outlet would allow for expansion of a private road in the future if needed. There arc a number of issues regarding the cul-de-sac. Lots 1,2, and 3 would not meet the 200' width and require lot width variances. Gaffion indicated the grading plan shows the option to bring a driveway down the east lot line to the platted roadway for Lot 3. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) There are two septic sites determined for Lots 1,2, and 3 but only one for Lot 4. From the City perspective, Lot 4 would then not be buildable. The applicant has asked for consideration of platting the lot for future development when sewer is available. Staff does not recommend this option. Gafi&on noted that the revised layout for septic sites does not match the testing performed in 1990. Lot 1 site is accurate but Lot 2 does not match. Lot 3's alternate site and Lot 4 site differ. There is also an administrative review needed to approve the septic system setback from the ponds in Lots 2 and 3. There is normally a 75' setback. The inspector preliminarily noted he is not concerned, however, as the ^es are higher than the wetlands. The Type 1 wetland in Lot I is small and would allow for septic sites up to the edge of the wetland but not into the wetland. Gaffron reviewed the issues regarding specific tots. Width variances are required for Lots 1,2, and 3. Drainfield setback from the pond is an issue for Lots 2 and 3. The problem with the drain field setback for the principal sepfic site in Lot 1 is most likely solved according to Gaffron. However, there is no alternate site for Lot 4. The 26' wetland separation requirement will require a variance for building of the NURP pond. Gaffron indicated that he has received the wetland delineation report. There is concern regarding the septic site locations for Lots 2 and 4. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to the applicant direction regarding whether Lot 4 is buildable. Gaffron said the review in bis opinion is an extenson of the sketch plan reNnew at this point, since Lot 4 clearly does not meet minimum septic requirements. Smith asked for clarification on where the Luce Lme horse trail is located and what the DNR setback is from the trail. Gaffron indicated there is a 100' right-of-way and showed the location of the center line. He said the trail is 50-60' from the north lot line. It was noted that there is no special City setback requirement from the trail and none imposed by DNR. Hawn was informed that the DNR has not responded to the application. McMillan was told that the DNR has been notified of the request for vacation. Whitehead apolo^ed for the incorrect information on the septic site locations. She indicated that the setback requirements will be met. Whitehead said she understood the Commission would like to see a cul-de-sac for emergency truck sta^g if necessary. She said there was not alot of discussion regarding the plan itself Whitehead indicated she knew the wetland delineation was necessary. Whitehead felt she has met the concerns of the Commission regarding the cul-de-sac and will widen the curve on Lyman Avenue. There are two large oak trees impeding this from occurring but Whitehead said they could be removed. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Whitehead indicated that they attempted to present a plan with few variances required but the topography has created some problem. It is their desire to preserve the nature of the neighborhood. Whhehead said the neighbors will notice the road going in but will not be able to view the houses as they will be located back on the lots. Whitehead said the setback requirements will be met except for the drainfield on Lot 2. The 200' width requirement is difficult to meet with the creation of the cul-de-sac. The alternate septic she location for Lot 4 would be located undemeatl v '.where the cul-de-sac is to be located. She asked the Commission to give consideration for lipproving Lot 4 for building in the future when the sewer is connected. Whitehead aske<' the Commission to assist in expediting the application so she can sell her current home and move. Margret and Brano Stankov^ indicated they live in the substandard sized lot that b next to the proposed subdivbion. Stankovsl^ said he has spoken with the applicant. He indicated it would not be appealing to have a 50' wide roadway at a location 31* from Us home. Stankovsky said tUs would add to the substandard Condition of hb property and decrease his value. Stankovsky indicated that while the new lots would meet the required setbacks, Us own property would not be protected by a 50' setback. He noted there is no mention in the plan for screening of the road to reduce noise from traffic. He also was unaware of the pitch of the roadway as noted and is concerned with runoff. He fek the change would aid runoff but is concerned with snow being plowed closer to Us property. Stankovslgr said he is concerned for Us septic system. Stankovsky requested the Planning Commission consider requiring that the road be placed at least 50' from Us property, that buffering next to the road occur, and that an effective drainage plan be required. Stankovsky would like to sec minimum variances approved. He noted he has requested to purchase additional land from the WUtehead's in order to meet the 2 acre zoning requirement. Brian Palmer, 1190 Lyman, lives east of the subject pro,perty. He is concerned with Outlot B chan^ng the character of the neighborhood. He feels the application should be allowed only minimal variances. Palmer does not understood how Lot 4 could be conforming and believes the subdivision should consist of three lots only. Hope Pesek, 1235 Lyman, ’’ *3 south of the subject property. Pesek feels the large turnaround and driveway is i appropriate for the area. Pesek suggested the use of the abandoned area for the cul-de-sac. She asked what the purpose is for an 80' road. Gofifiron explained the cul-de-sac would allow for fire truck staging and easier snow plow maintenance. # ^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO K.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) A gentleman in the audience said the road is private. He felt h should only be expanded 10' with the access located as orisinallv planned to reduce the size of the road. He feels the proposed road is out of character for the neighborhood. He does not object to a two lot subdivision. He feels the main hardship is to the Stankovskv oronertv. He believes economics should not be considered. He would like to sec minimal variances allowed and docs not view lack of sewerine as a hardshin. • Nancy Cornwall, 1200 Lyman, lives east of the property. She is concerned with the impact on Lyman Avenue and what affect the plan will have on the driveway easement for her property. Ga£fron indicated that it would not make sense to change to a narrow outlot extending west from the east lot line to serve Lots 1 and 2. The ramification of this scenario is both lots would require three acres, which they do not have. In addition to this, such a drivewav would be devastatine to the land due to the basin and steep slopes of the area. Gaffron indicated that no other access options have been presented. He indicated the driveway could be rebuih and a cul-de-sac placed to the northwest but would have major impacts on the neigliborhood. The prior gentleman asked what the purpose is for the driveway ordinance. Gaffron said it was intended to mainlv aonlv to lakeshore lots and is eeared for more dense neighborhoods. Gaffron said consideration could be given to a back lot area variance, which would have less impact on the neighborhood than forcing installation of a road and cul-de-sac in order to eliminate the back lot atuation. Stankovsky questioned whether a 50' wide driveway would be required. He noted that a 50' road would change to a 12' wide roadway and affect safety. Smith asked if this option would assist Loi h with the lack of an alternate septic site. Gaffron said it would be questionable. He indicated it would still have to go through the middle of the site and would be difficult to do. • Lindquist indicated that he views the application as probably a 3-lot subdivision. He said he cannot aonrove the plan for Lot 4 without two septic sites and adds this to the problems regard’mg the cul-de-sac, driveway, and wetlands. Smith and McMillan agreed with Lindquist. Schroeder said he could not approve the plan without the alternate septic site for Lot 4 even with the potential of sewering in the future. Schroeder said the plan does not work as presented in his opinion. 8 minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (U2 - #2279/^2280 M^c &nd Tracy Whitehead - Cootinued) Whitehead noted that this is the second review of the property. She thought the changing of the cul-de-sac to a shared driveway would enable her to gain the alternate septic site for Lot 4. Whitehead indicated that there is 5.89 acres between Lots 1 and 2 questioning whether Lot 2 would need a lot area variance Schroeder received confirmation from Ga&on that H would create a front lot/back lot scenario. Schroeder noted that lot area variances are tvnicallv not aooroved for new subdivision Lindquist reiterated that he would not approve the application without two septic sites for Lot 4, noting that even vnth Outlet B, there is still a problem. Whitehead acknowledged that the ahemate septic site would still be located underneath the driveway. Whitehead asked how it would work if Lots 2 and 4 were combined. Lindquist said H would become one lot. and the shared driveway should be at least 50' from the neighboring property. Whitehead said a 50' setback is not required. Gaffi’on confirmed that only a 30' setback would be required as it becomes a side street. If it was an outlot driveway, the house to the driveway would be 50'. Schroeder noted there is ample room to meet that setback. Whiteh^d said the Stankovsk/s home was shown at 74' from the lot line when the plan was reviewed for its construction but was subsequently built at 31'. She said the 1.13 acr^ StankovslQ' lot was to be built on the existing pad but expanded out from it. Schroeder indicted that this is a seoarate matter but acknowledeed it should not have occurred. He was informed that the Stankovsky house was built 11 years ago. Schroeder noted with a 3-k)t subdivision, the Stankovsky*s should be able to acquire additional land from the Wbtehead’s. Whitehead said they have considered that possibility but noted that the driveway would require a retaining wall. McMillan suggested going around to the northeast side of the old Lot 4. Whitehead said that area was too steep. Whitehead asked if the application could be presented to the Council at their September 8 meeting. Schroeder said he felt there was a lack of necessary information for that to occur.' Gaffi-on suggested further review at the September 15 Planning Commission meeting for Council consideration at the September 22 Council meeting. GafiBron indicated that the lot lines for Lots 2 and 3 should be changed to meet the 200* width requirement under the 3-lot subdivision as noted above. Whitehead thought this could occur. Schroeder suggested, if the Planning Commission was in agreement with the plan as noted, time would be allowed for the Whitehead's to work with thdr neighbors. Smith agreed wth Schroeder. r ^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18,1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitebead - Continued) Lindquist reiterated that the subdivision would include a plan for Lots 1, 2, and 3 with septic sites, residences, and driveways shown to scale for review at the September Planning Commission meeting. Whitehead noted she had intended to be out of town at that time. Schroeder informed her she could send a reoresentative. Whitebead was informed that the olan should be able to be approved with the changes as noted. Hawn questioned whether the applicant could be accommodated through another meeting. Schroeder noted that it would require a public hearing. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to table ^plication #2279/2280 for a 3-lot subdivision for review at the September meeting of the Planning Commissioa Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Whitehead asked if the driveway would be part of Lot 1 or Lot 2. Gaffron said he would recommend the drivewav be platted as a separate outlet for the westerly 20* with a 30' width for the shared driveway for Lots 1 and 2. He noted Lot 1 is a front lot, while Lot 2 is not. Whitehead indicted that if Lot 2 is a back lot, it would necessitate a 75' setback for the house and push it into the weuand area. She would then need 45* to get the driveway in to meet the 26' separation. Gaffron informed her that he felt the house location as noted should meet the setback. Whitehead asked if there were other issues to consider. Schroeder noted the consideration of the back/front lot issue. Gaffron indicated that the applicant is typically responsible to upgrade Lyman Avenue. Schroeder said it would be guided by presence. Gaffron noted the City Enmneer had indicated that the road would require upgradinft vnth more houses built Lyman to Smith Avenue is currently narrower than the standard allows. Hawn indicated an easement could be eliminated if the driveway serving the existing house was brought onto the property. Whitehead said it was technically possible but would result in the loss of about 20 trees. McMillan questioned whether a vegetation map should be required. Gaffron said it would help in placement of the drivewav if the Planninn Comnussion requires its relocation. L; ..ivlilian asked that this be included as well as vegetation for the Stankovsky*s if the driveway is placed by their property. Gaffron asked if the v^etation map should include both existing screening and trees. McMillan asked that it include what currently exists and what vrill be required. i ; 5 ^ minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) McMillan indicated that the cul*de-sac had been proposed in 1991 for a turnaround for four homes. She noted that the Question broueht uo at that time was the need to assist the homes in the area. She said the circle area at the east end of Lyman was two-thirds dedicated and the missine niece could be obtained. Schroeder said the aoolicant should not have to solve the problem of others. Whitehead indicated that Highway 12 reconstruction will take a nortion of the nrooeitv near the eajrt end. McMillan .said that portion is not known at this time. Lindquist asked the applicant to work with Gai&on on this issue. Whitehead indicated that her homestead parcel is separate from the other tax parcel and asked if she could separate the four lots with house from the total land to enable her to seU her home now. She was advised to work with Gafifron on this issue as well. ACTION ITEMS (#4) #2253 RICK RICE, 2700 KELLY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:28-8:36 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the subject property is a comer lot requiring front 3'ard setback requirements on both Kelly and Lydiard Avenues. The application is a proposal to construct a deck. The existing footprint and building pad were noted. A kitchen addition was buih in 1988. While a permit was issued for the addition, it did not meet the 35' setback as it is 30* from the Lydiard Avenue property line. An existing patio door will lead to the proposed deck. The request will result in a reduction to the side yard setback adjacent to the street where there is a topographical change. The 50' Lydiard right-of-way is not developed to that width. Van Zomeren said there should be no negative impact from the deck on adjacent property’s views. Rice said the northwest comer of the residence is the natural area for the deck placement due to the kitchen location. The deck will also enable the applicant to view the lake from the vantage point. During public comments, Janice Berg, who lives by the applicant, said she had no problem with the deck reauest. F ANALYSIS OF LOT 1 CONFORMITY WITH BACK LOT STANDARDS 1. 2. Applicability A. B. C. A. B. C. The existing property dimensions are such that the front lot/back lot split does not require an area variance. Creation of the back lot is not merely a convenience to the developer but is supported by unique site factors including steep slopes in the location of the adjacent residence, which factors tend to limit the appropriate access configurations. The creation of Outlot A alleviates applicability standard C which states that "a front back lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abutting the proposed access outlot is located nearer its affected side lot line than a distance equivalent to the zoning district required front yard depth.” The required front yard depth in RR-1B is 50', and Outlot A provides a buffer that allows a separation of 50' between the outlot driveway corridor and the neighboring residence. Lot 1 more than meets 150% of the 2 acre zoning district requirement, containing 3.8 acres of which 2.2 acres is dry buildable. The defined front line for Lot 1 will be its easterly boundary as currently configured. Lot width by definition than is more than 400', meeting the 200' RR-IB standard. The depth of the required street or front yard is measured from the east lot line and must be 150% of the zoning district standard. That means that a 75' setback rather than a 50' setback would be required for the east boundary of Lot 1. The proposal is for a 50' setback. This either requires a variance, or potentially a reconfiguration of how Outlot B abuts Lot 1. Staff would consider this more of a technicality, and a variance would probably be appropriate given that the intent of the front setback increase is to provide separation from the front lot, but in this case it is the side lot line which abuts the rear of the front lot and applicant is proposing a 50' setback where the 150% of 30' requirement would only require 45'. Also, in order to have access to the rear of Lot 2, there needs to be area around the west side of Basin E, which limits the location of the east line of Lot 1. Also, the steep slope towards the wetland on Lot 1 forces the proposed house location to be at the crest of that slope, and a 75' setback will be extremely limiting for that house location. Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow 50' setback instead of the 75' setback for the defined front lot line of Lot 1, based on the considerations noted above. D. As noted the required side yard setback for back lot would be 45' in RR-IB, and the proposed 50' setback from the south lot line of Lot 1 meets that requirement. r 3. The dimensional standards in the code only apply to front lots not this back lot. 4. 5. 6. D. E. Access requirements. A. The access outlet is platted in a 30’ width and Outlet A is provided to accommodate screening. However, drainage and snow removal must be accommodated within Outiot B when the driveway is constructed, and a requirement of final plat approval should be that a driveway design be provided for Outiot B prior to fmf. plat approval incorporating the necessary retaining walls and drainage ways to ensure no impact on Outiot A or the adjacent residence. B. Outiot B may appropriately be used for access for both Lots 1 and 2. C. The driveway within the back lot can be located at least 10' from adjacent lots. Only 2 residents will be served by a driveway within the access outiot. This section states "no access outiot may be platted abutting an adjacent outiot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlets for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards." Staff does not recall the reason for this back lot code requirement, but it probably relates to concerns about creating lake access for lakeshore lots. The two ways to address this would be to either grant a variance to allow Outlets A and B to be adjacent to each other, which staff would have no problem with given the intent of Outiot A; or to combine the two outlets into a single access Outiot, still considering that Lot 1 is a back lot, still considering that it is merely a driveway outiot to serve Lots 1 and 2, and placing covenant restrictions on the westerly 20 ’ of Outiot A to avoid any disturbance of that area in order to preserve its intent as buffer for the adjacent home. This code section requires that "driveways constructed in access outlots shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City, at all points 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". This means that a fence or other screenu.? needs to be provided along the southeast comer of Lot 1 to avoid headlights impacting the adjacent neighboring lot. "The street yard of the back lot shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots." Since the street y?u d of the back lot is the east lot line, ^d intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear >ard of the adjacent lot to the east will have little pact based on the proposed house location at the top of the hill, staff suggests there is no need for this screening. UO’TS Subdivision 5. Double frontage lots, access to lots, and fronc/back loc divisions. A. B. C. Double frontage lots. Double frontage and reversed frontage lots shall be avoided e.xceot where necessary to provide separation of residential development from trafrlc aneriaJs or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. Access from any arterial roadway. Lots shall not, in general, derive access e.xclusively from an arterial roadway. Where driveway access irora any arterial roadway may be necessary for several adjoming lots, the Council may require that such lots be served by a combined access drive in order to limit possible traffic hazard on such roadway. Where possible, driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid requiring vehicles to bade into traffic on any anerial roadway. Front/badc lot subdivisions. "Flag lots" and "easement bade lots" as defined in this Chapter (see definition of "Lot-Back") shall not be created. Front/back lot divisions shall be allowed only in conjunction with, the creation of an outlot to provide access from the back lot to the public or private road. Such outlot shall not be allowed as creditable lot area for either the back or front lots. Front/back lot subdivisions shall adhere to the following standards: 1. Applicability. a.Front/back lot divisions may be used when existing property dimensions are narrow and deep, such that loc width does not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a back lot without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded. b.Fronc/back lot divisions may be used for individual "lot splits", but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supponed by unique site factors. c.A front/back lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abutting the proposed access outlot is located nearer its affected side lot line fhan a distance equivaienc • to the zening district required front yard depth. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: a. Lot area shall be 15055 of the zoning district requirement. b. Lot width measured oarallel to the front or street lot line at* the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at f L r r r r [ T r [ [ r r L L L' r [ c J J ] ] ] J. c. d. the rear of the front yard setback line of a nonlakesnore back lot. shaU meet the zoning district wid^ requirement. The street yard or front yard for any back lot wiU be a vard sianing where the narrow access outlet comcor ends 'and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots sfaaU meet the lot width standard at ±e shoreline, at^ the lalcesnore setback line and at the street yard setback line. The depth of the required street yard or front yard snail be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. The reouired side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shaU be 150% of the zoning district yard J ,* The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as part of a front/back lot division shaU meet aU zoning district area, width and setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlet shaU be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. Access requirements: ^ oudots shaU be 30 ’ minimuin width, and shaU be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening wi±out encroaching on neighboring propenies. b. In aoproving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlet if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street wUl be a potential safety hazard. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 ’ from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlet. No access outlet may be platted abuning an adjacent outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlets for creation of a pubUc or private road meeting City standards. 5 Screening requirements and accessory structure standards. Front/back lot subdivisions shaU be designed in a manner such that the screening requirements and accessory structure standards or Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. The reouirements and standards of this section snail apply only to those front/back lot divisions which receive preliminary plat approval after January 1, 1994. c. d. e. r f! B. j.The depdi 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 shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requii.-iCn^s. The requi^ lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. Dimensional standards for uont lots. A front lot created as p^ of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, wi an setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front lo adjacent to the access oudot shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. Access oudots shaU be 30 ’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screemng without encroaching on neighboring properties. In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may requne that both Lnt lot and back lot share a driveway access wit^ the access outlot if Council determines that creatmg an additional access to the existing street wiU 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. A 4.No more Iban two tesideoces may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. 5.No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent access cutiot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlots for creation of a public or ptivate road meeting City standards. 1. yard of adjacent lots. I E. 2. ■ The street yard of the “ STvehicle headlights into the side or rear yards oi adjacent lots. c Arrp«?';orv structures shall adhere to standards for accessory foUowing additional all requirements ot the zonin^ reauirements: 1. 2. 3. ments: Accessory structures within a than 10 ’ to a neighboring property s vard of a back lot nor withon the tequnea rear y which abuts the street yard of a back o . , NO accessory stmc^re shaU be allowed within an access oudot. section 3. Orono Municipal Code Section 11.31. Subdivision 5 is hereby ,e..ed and the « language substituted in its place: t tnis access to lots, and front/back lot divisions. Subdivision 5. Double frontage lots, access p. Double fronuge lots. “ovidr^eptra^^^ residential of topography and orientation. „„„ r.S-S.T.S.'S access exclusively from an an several adjoining lots, the any arterial roadway may ug served by a combined access drive Sincil may require that such Where possible, in order to limit possible tr^ ^^ged so as to avoid requiring vehicles j. . • - "Fia<T lots" and "easement back lots ^ Front/back lot subdivisions. ® . "Lot-Back") shall not be created. drfmcd in this Chapter (scc defimuon^^^ conjunction wto the the following standards. B, f ' ? ; TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator August 14,1997 SUBJECT: #2279/2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Preliminary Subdivision/Vacation - Public Hearing H f i: : ‘ : Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered. Application: Four lot subdivision to create three new 2 acre residential lots. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner ’s List D - Survey/Site Plan Package: 1. Boundary and Topographic Survey (Oversize) 2. Preliminary Plat (Oversize) 3. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan E - Notice of Planning Commission Action 6/18/97 Re: Sketch Plan F - Hydrology Narrative Excerpts G - Sketch Plan Review Excerpts H - 1990 Septic Review Excerpts I. Proposed Vacation Applicants propose the vacation of a 20'x409' dedicated right-of-way adjacent to the Luce Line trail. This right-of-way is a lane which was never developed for road or driveway purposes, and the City is currently unaware of any utility making use of this right-of-way. The utility companies have been notified of this request, and no responses have been received to date. The City has no defined need for this right-of-way, and given its topography would appear to serve no drainage, access or other purpose. There is a 36" culvert leading fiom the west end of this right-of-way northward under the Luce Line. This culvert would appear to fall within the standard 10' drainage and utility easement that would be required around the perimeter as part of the plat approval. Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends approval of the vacation as proposed, subject to the standard drainage and utility easements required at the time of plat approval. II. Proposed Subdivision This item was the subject of a sketch plan review at Planning Commission's June meeting. Direction given to the applicant regarding relocation of the driveway outlot, delineation of Zoning File #2279 August 14,1997 Page 2 wetlands, and that staff would assist the applicant by defining the variances inherent in the proposal. Staff met with the applicant and applicant proceeded to make revisions to the site layout. It was also confirmed that wetland areas were creditable acreage for the third acre for a 'back' lot. A revised proposal has been submitted as a formal subdivision application. Following is a summary of lot information: Existing area (2 tax parcels plus lane to be vacated): Dry buildable (including non-Orono wetlands): Orono protected wetlands 8.79 ac. 2.32 ac. 11.11 ac Proposed Lot Areas:Dry Wfit Total Lot 1 with existing house 2.11 ac.1.53 ac.3.64 ac. Lot 2 2.00 ac.0.25 ac.2.25 ac. Lot 3 2.00 ac.0.41 ac.2.41 ac. Lot 4 2.01 ac.0.13 ac.2.14 ac. Outlot A (existing road)0.27 ac.—0.27 ac. Outlot B (proposed road)(L4Qac.—iLdfiac. 8.79 ac.2.32 ac.11.11 ac. RR-1B District Required Structure Setbacks: Front 50' Rear 50' Side 30' Wetland 26' The preliminary plat drawing shows proposed setbacks correctly located for the revised layout. Note that in proposed Lot 1, the south side setback has been shown at 50' where only 30' is required, to provide a buffer to the existing house on the adjacent property. Wetlands: The property is quite hilly and contains 5 wetland basins, 3 of which are Orono protected wetlands, the remaining 2 being minor Type 1 wetlands which per past City practice are not deducted from the dry buildable area. Access: Proposed Lots 1 and 2 are proposed to be accessed via Outlot B, a proposed segment of private road and cul-de-sac approximately 250' in length extending north from Lyman Avenue. The existing private road segment of Lyman Avenue which extends through the southeast comer of the property, is proposed to be continued as private roadway platted as Outlot A. 1 I f Zoning File #2279 August 14, 1997 Page 3 Access to Lot 3 with the existing house is proposed to continue via the existing driveway which is partially located on an easement on the adjacent neighboring property to the east. An option for access to Lot 3 would be relocation of the driveway to extend along the east from Outlot A, as shown on the grading plan. Lot 3 has 79’ of frontage on Outlot A. The applicant would prefer not to change the location of the driveway. Lot 4 could be accessed via Outlot A, via existing Lyman Avenue, or via Outlot B, depending upon orientation of the house, and limitc: J by septic system needs and steep topography. The grading plan proposes a narrow driveway exiting to Outlot A just north of the curve. This driveway access location begs the question of upgrading Lyman Avenue to handle the additional traffic created by this subdivision. T .nt Width: Based on the proposed layout, all 4 Lots abut a private or public road. As measured per code requirements at the 50' front setback; Lot 1 has a defined lot width of approximately 160' - Lot 2 has a defined lot width of approximately 130' Lot 3 has a defined lot width of approximately 140' Lot 4 has a defined lot w idth in excess of the required 200' Lots 1,2 and 3 require a lot width variance. On-Site Sewage Treatment. Septic system site evaluation was provided in 1990 for a 4-lot proposal which never went forward. The currently proposed subdivision shows 2 proposed drainfield sites in each of Lots 1 and 2, a replacement site for the existing conforming mound system in Lot 3, and only one proposed drainfield site in Lot 4. Revised site evaluation information has not been provided to coincide with the significantly revised orientation and shape of the proposed drainfield sites in each of the properties, as compared to the 1990 testing. This application must be considered as incomplete untU new updated testing information has been provided that coincides with the proposed sites, or until the plans have been revised per the existing testing. Applicant has confirmed that no alternate drainfield site exists for Lot 4, aud is requesting City consideration for platting Lot 4 subject to a covenant restricting its use as a building site until/unless it is served by sewer at some time in the future. Comment 14 of the applicants "general notes" on the preliminary plat drawings, suggests anticipation that public samtapr sewer will abut Lot 4 on Lyman Avenue around 1999. Although staff has discussed the potential for sewer in this area and the recent MUSA amendment to include properties to the south and southwest within the MUSA, it remains the City's policy not to extend mumcipal sewer to provide for new development in the rural area. This lot would not qualify for one of the 50 "floating" connections available to the City, because it does not meet the three criteria for sewering outside the MUSA, i.e. adjacency to municipal sewer; an existing failing system; and no alternatives for replacing that system. r -B-, Zoning File #2279 August 14, 1997 Page 4 Road Issues: The primary reason for proposed Outlot B as a road rather than a driveway Outlot, is to avoid the back lot 150% area requirement which could not be met by Lot 2 if Outlot B was merely a 30' driveway corridor. A secondary reason is that the 150% setback requirements for a back lot would have a major impact on Lots 1 and 2. The result, however, is that Outlot B not only destroys a potential drainfield site for Lot 4 (which would likely have been eliminated with a narrower Outlot regardless) but also places a major road and cul- de-sac very near the existing house to the southwest which exists on a substandard lot. If Outlot B serves Lots 1,2 and 4, under City codes and consistent practice it is required to be platted as a road rather than a driveway. The concern about access safety for Lyman Avenue in general would be somewhat decreased by having all new lots access from Outlot B. The paved portion of Lyman Avenue stops just west of Outlot A, and from there eastward this private road serves Whitehead's existing residence and 4 other existing homes, plus 1 potential buildable vacant lot. The City Engineer during the sketch plan review noted that the Lyman Avenue pavement is significantly narrower than the minimum 24' paved width standard for a private road, and recommended that the developer be responsible for upgrading Lyman Avenue to private street standards from Smith Avenue to the driveway location of Lot 3, where he suggested construction of a cul-de-sac. The difficulty with that is that applicants do not own the property at that location. Stormwater/Wetlands: Applicant has provided a hydrology narrative indicating that there will be no change in flow pattern for the site. Basin E, which is a pond excavated at a low point in the topography, is proposed to be enlarged to become a NURP pond to treat runoff from the proposed Outlot B cul-de-sac. The hydrology information has been submitted to the City Engineer for review and comment. A summary wetlands delineation report has been attached to the boundary and topographic survey, but the full report has not been submitted, and is required. Proposed Lot Nuances: Lot 1 - Nearly half of the total area of Lot 1 is wetland basin A located at the base of a 15-20' high slope. This provides a location for a walkout residence which would meet the required setbacks. A 50' side setback is proposed at the south end to provide extra buffer to the neighbor. The drainfield sites shown on the preliminary plat are very close to wetland Basin C which is a temporarily flooded Type I forest wetland of minor consequence. The applicants request a setback variance for both primary and alternate drainfield sites for this lot. The septic sites as drawn do not match the site evaluator's report. Lot 2 - Lot 2 will require a driveway of approximately 400' in length past the end of the cul- Zoning File H2219 August 14, 1997 Page 5 de-sac. Enough area has been left to the west of wetland Basin E to accommodate the driveway and a 26' setback from that basin for the driveway. The driveway would have to be looped near the proposed residence in order to accommodate emergency vehicle ingress/egress. This lot has two drainfield sites proposed between the house and the wetland basin, again requiring a variance for setback of the drainfield from the wetland, and again as drawn not matching the site evaluation report. This variance is more difficult to justify than the variance for Lot 1, because Basin E is an open water basin, of substantial area, proposed to be a NURP pond, and clearly drains directly towards Basin E. Applicants note it is not possible to locate the drainfields in Lot 2 any ftirther from Basin E without encroaching the proposed house pad. Lot 3 - Lot 3 contains the existing house which is served by an existing septic system to the south of it, with alternate drainfield site directly west. This alternate site again does not meet the 75' setback from Basin E, and does not match the site evaluators report. Lot 3 is currently served by an existing loop driveway that extends to Lyman Avenue east of the applicants' property. This driveway exists on an easement. The applicants have shown on the grading plan an optional driveway within the property and parallel the east lot line, with a new access point abutting Outlot A. Lot 3 abuts Basin D, and there are no expected impacts or encroachments on Basin D. Lot 4 - Lot 4 can be characterized as a knob located about 30' above Lyman Avenue, with especially steep slopes to the north. The proposed house site is at the northeast quadrant of die lot, and the grading plan indicates a proposed narrow driveway in the easterly comer of the property. The driveway as shown is only 6' wide, and does not relate to the actual septic site per the site evaluators report. Staff also questions whether the location as proposed in the grading plan has satisfactory site distance given the sharp curve to the south. While a vehicle leaving Lot 4's driveway would not be crossing traffic, the narrowness of the road suggests that any vehicles coming eastward around the curve could have a conflict with any car leaving Lot 4. Also, the lack of a secondary drainfield site, and the uncertainty of sewer being provided to this property, suggests that Lot 4 simply is not a buildable lot and should not be approved. Outlot A - While Outlot A follows the existing location of the private road/driveway system known as Lyman Avenue, it does not purport to make any changes or improvements to that road, other than to provide a portion of roadway corridor for its continued existence. Outlot B - Outlot B is proposed to contain a paved private road and cul-de-sac, with a retaining wall uphill to the east and down hill to the west. The retaining wall will accommodate the necessary drainage swales to allow drainage to the NURP pond adjacent to Basin E. The retaining wall will limit access to Lot 4 from Outlot B. This proposed road is very near an adjacent neighboring residence, and at the 24'paved width standard plus an 1I ' Zoning File #2279 August 14, 1997 Page 6 80' paved cul-de-sac, could have a significant impact on the character of the neighborhood. Summary of Required Variances 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Lot width for Lot 1 . Lot width for Lot 2. Lot width for Lot 3. Drainfield setback from Basin C for primary and alternate sites in Lot 1. Drainfield setback from Basin E for alternate site on Lot 2. Drainfield setback from Basin E for alternate site on Lot 3. Lack of alternate drainfield site for Lot 4. Wetland setback variance for excavation to create NURP pond adjacent to Basin E. Additional Information Necessary for Application to be Considered Complete Septic testing reports showing the viability of the drainfield sites as oriented and shaped as shown on the provided plat and grading and drainage plans, OR revise the plat to match the information in the reports already on file. 2.Complete wetland delineation report (the information provided on the boundary and topographic survey appears to be excerpts from such a report). Issues for Consideration Will the City grant the necessary lot width variances for Lots 1,2 and 3? Will the City inspector grant the necessary variances for proposed drainfield sites in Lots 1, 2 and 3? This determination relies on having accurate and complete septic information... Given that there is no precedent to support the request for platting of Lot 4 absent an alternate drainfield site, should the City even consider this as a legitimate proposed subdivision? Given that the drainfield sites as presented on the preliminary plat do not match the shape or orientation of sites in the septic testing reports on file, and given that applicants' site evaluator has confirmed that the sites as presented in a number of cases will not work, how can the City continue its review without that information? Given the potential impacts on the adjacent house to the southwest, is there any justification to allow Outlot B to become merely a narrow driveway corridor, and grant variances for lot area for Lot 2, which cannot meet 150% of the lot area requirement due to a lack of total i. r P Zoning File #2279 August 14,1997 Page 7 acreage To what extent is it appropriate that applicants be responsible for upgrade of Lyman Avenue east of Outlot B, given the proposed driveway for Lot 4 extending to the east boundary of the plat? Is the existing driveway serving Lot 3 acceptable, or should the applicants be required to relocate that driveway to exit Lot 3 at Outlot A? Staff Recommendation Given that the septic sites shown on the preliminary plat are not consistent with the septic testing reports on file, it is impossible for staff to conclude whether the proposed drainfield sites and lot lines are feasible. Planning Commission is advised, therefore, to consider this review as a sketch plan. This revised plan does address some of the issues indicated by staff and Planning Commission in the June review, but it also raises a significant number of new questions. Perhaps the most vexing question is whether the City should consider Lot 4 without a secondary drainfield site, or whether the review should be discontinued until a viable proposal is submitted. It would be helpful to the applicants for the Planning Commission to, as a minimum, address the following questions for the applicants: 1. 2. Whether Lot 4 should be eliminated from the plat. Whether a back lot area variance would be granted for Lot 2 if Outlot B is converted to a driveway corridor rather than a road, and whether bad lot setback variance might be granted. 3.Whether applicants should be responsible for upgrade of Lyman Avenue if Lot 4 accesses any where other than Outlot B. 4.Whether a requirement of the plat will be relocation of the driveway serving Lot 3 to an access point on Outlot A. 5.Whether the location of the house on Lot 37 to the southwest has an impact on Planning Commission's view of the variances, given that one legitimate criteria for granting variances is whether or not granting them has a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. 6. Whether Plarming Commission has any concerns about the proposed lane vacation. i tir Zoning File #2279 August 14,1997 Page 8 Options for Action 1.Provide additional direction to applicants, and table for further information and potential revisions. 2. Recommend approval, with appropriate conditions. 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4.Other. *5 I I i! i i TRACY AND MARC WHITEHEAD 1 220 Lyman Avenue Wayzata,MN 55391 473-8278 August 14, 1997 RECEIVED AUG 1 5 1997 I I Or URONO To the Members of the Plamiing Commission: Lots 29-36; Orono Orchards Enclosed with your packet today is a Subdivision Application for the property we have owned and lived on for almost 30 years. Marc accepted a position in Chicago and it is with very mixed emotions that we leave our fnends and community. This is not something we had expected at this stage of our lives. But with the demise of the law firm of which he was a member for 33 years, we had no choice. In revising the subdivision plan, we tried to listen and heed the thoughts that many of you expressed at your last meeting. We heard that you were concerned about the lack of a cul-de-sac, that you worried about loading additional traffic after the curve on Lyman, that you wondered about widening Lyman sometime in the future, that you wanted a wetland delineation to verify all wetlands on the site, and that you weren t sure if the third acre for back lots must be dry buildable or not. I also met with Mike Gaffron a number of times as I went through the process with our septic system, surveying, engineering, and wetland experts. He went over the variances that would be required for our first proposal, patiently explained all of the setback requirements, clarified Orono’s wetland map, and even helped me figure out which were the front, rear, and side lotlines for the different lots. We also discussed the fact that public sewer service will be installed on Smith and part of Lyman, probably within the next two years. I’m sure it is not easy for staff to deal with a novice developer, but Mike took it in stride. None of my questions were “too dumb.” In addition, I reviewed the staff recommendations of the proposal we submitted in 1991, as Mike felt that some of them were still relevant today. I also met with two staff members of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to review their requirements. With all of this in mind, our team spent many days and hours trying to develop a proposal that would meet Orono’s codes, address your comments, and keep the spirit of our land and neighborhood intact. f Planning Commissioners/August 14, 1997/p.2 Both times we have come before the Planning Commission (1991 and now), Lyman Avenue seems to be to major point of concern. Feelings range from “slightly uncomfortable to highly hostile ” to the road we all call home. With that in mind, we tried to do what we could, within our property limits to alleviate some of the concerns. We moved the drive into the property (Outlot B) to the west side of the property, which allows most of the new traffic to have direct access to the public right-of-way on Lyman and not onto the private road. The outlot includes a cul-de-sac which both staff and Planning Commission Members wanted for ease of turn-around for fire trucks and plowing equipment. Another cul-de-sac could be created at the end of Lyman when the Department of Transportation takes one of the houses at the end for the Highway 12 upgrade. Three quarters of the land needed for that cul-de-sac at the end of Lyman has already been dedicated. To comply with your concerns about the width of Lyman, we are dedicating a portion of our property (Outlot A) to allow space to widen Lyman Avenue, and without a need to place any additional fill to the southeast side of the road. This will allow some flattening of the famous curve and improve sight lines. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates stated in their report on the subdivision (June 11, 1997) that “a 20-foot paved surface may be an acceptable access.” Widening Lyman will take away concerns about the access to and from Lot 4. The sewer project will allow an opportunity to both build the sewer and upgrade Lyman from Smith (now 12-15 feet wide in the public part of the road) and then assess the benefiting property owners. Unfortunately, complying with your request to provide a cul-de-sac within the property and load new traffic on the public part of Lyman (Outlot B) eliminates the second septic system site for lot 4. The site that meets Orono's septic system design requirements is under the cul-de-sac. We are hoping that you will take into consideration the fact that we are trying to do those things that will alleviate your concerns for safety on Lyman and that you will grant us Lot 4 as a buildable lot with only one septic site, knowing that public sewer will abut that lot within one or two years and be available for hookup should the primary system fail. Someone raised the question about our current house being served by a driveway not entirely on our property. We do have a formal easement across the property we do not own for the existing driveway, signed and registered with Hennepin County, as Document #1203061, which was filed on December 15, 1976. Although the driveway could be moved onto our property and we have shown this design on the proposal, it will necessitate the removal of a large number of large trees. It has existed for 30 years in its current spot without any traffic incidents at its egress. The vacated driveway would be a large scar in the landscape for many years to come. I hope some of you will have the chance to look at the two locations and then decide the best approach. > MK' Planning Commissioners/August 14, 1997/p.3 We realize that this proposal will have minimal impact on most of our neighbors. None of the houses will be seen by existing Lyman Avenue property owners because we have carefully placed the building pads on the lots for the privacy of everyone. However, the road and cul-de-sac will have an impact on Margret and Brano Stankovsky ’s lot. Their property is surrounded on two sides by our property and they are on a substandard lot of approximately one acre. The new road and cul-de-sac will be on their eastern lot line, on a previously vacated street. We have tried to maximize their privacy from the house that will be built on Lot 1 by voluntarily increasing the required setback from their back property line from 30 feet to 50 feet, and the area in between, except for their drainfield, is wooded. We spent a considerable amount of time trying to treat lots 1 and 2 as back lots so that a shared driveway could be used at the Stankovsky ’s property line instead of the road and cul-de-sac. It would have had less visual impact than the road. But we could not meet the set-back or lot size requirements and we were told that the Commission has never granted a variance for area requirement. As with many sites in Orono, septic systems control most of what can be done to a given piece of land.. .and that was certainly true in our case. In addition, the shared driveway would not have given you the cul-de-sac you requested. Our intentions, in the design of the subdivision, were to keep the feel of the neighborhood. All of us chose to live on Lyman because we like what it is—quiet, wooded, home to wildlife and wildflowers. We’ll miss it. Please call or stop by over the weekend if you would like to eyeball our proposal in person or to talk to us about it. We welcome your thoughts. Sincerely, Tracy Whitehead P.S. Yesterday afternoon when / went to City Hall to deliver this letter, Mike pointed out a discrepancy involving our septic tystem layouts that frankly was a surprise to me. The septic systems on each lot were all in the same area as on the 1991 Preliminary Plat, but each had been slightly reconfigured or repositioned to meet a change in lot lines. Mike was concerned that they might not work with the changes and therefore wrote the staff report to reflect that. Last evening, I talked at length with our septic system engineer who believes that it can be easily resolved. My surveying company is now in the process of verifying his suggestions. If it is resolved, I will bring you a copy over the weekend so you will have a chance to study it before the meeting. I sincerely apologize to all of you for this last minute problem. It was certainly unintentional. Application ff Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address m. * A • A • A A A MType of Application to be Filed ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Phone (home)_V73_£iZ£ Name Cr. 4 7^(2 V 5 Phone (vyork) /TO.'T^ _________________________City_________________Zip ________Address Address cant) 'r ( I Phone fnome ) V 73 • <f Z 7/ ^ $ • LdlLL^i n£>CX cJ Phone (work) City Zip. Date Pro I (do) uired ruuj(?] own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore i 1 C.-i- •• •r-P' J. u' - / "■ !:. " ‘V ;i • PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) yf $300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District______________ Present Use of Property ______Residential ><C. Other fspecifV l A. \ i n yW M\ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF UNNAMED LANE TO BE VACATED That part of the unnamed vacated lane adjoining Lot 33, ORONO ORCHARD, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies Westerly of vacated Spencer Avenue and which lies easterly of the northerly extension of the westerly line of said Lot 33. tr< i2n f i r». ) ♦ 'C V A Application #4-21Date Received </^ 7Amount Paid s/. -J S^ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICAT O O PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress 1220 Lyman Ave. ^ast ^ ^ .ff ^ Property Identification Number (PID) 35-118-23-34-0003 & 0004 Please check one - Property X abstract or____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT \ Address 1220 Lyman Ave.Phone (home) 473-8278 City Wavzata. MN Zip 55391 Phone (work) 5'■. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name m \ Address Phone (home) Citv Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels 2 Development Size 8.79 Acres Dry Land 2.32 Acres Wet Land 11.11 Acres Total, all parcels Present use (check)X Residential: no. of units 1 Other (specify) Present Zoning District RR-IB PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes • Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) X Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites ^ Existing Units 3 New Units 4 Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size 0.36 Units per 1 Acres 87191 Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use (check)X Residential Other (specify) I'^LNIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1 . Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. Go'^^'ceSJlS^r Department of Finance A-603 5, As M^dendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application Zonmr Official s Signature _________ ________________ Date 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 Totals I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 • ■ - X Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/Iot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 ______ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 1 1 .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 Subdivii ion Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: __Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineaI ft.;29^ lin. ft. x .50 = _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; .1 ____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) _____ Element 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 and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Applicant’s Signature j 3.(1/1^ 3 Owner's Signature S / (/ Date Date 7^ 97 Applicant must have all subminals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If m 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 m eting. •JIMiMtl m RUN DATE 05/23/97BATCH 507PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDk PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HEmEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST38 02-117-23 12 000100200 NOODHILL RD * NOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB NOODHILL CNTRY CLUB 200 NOODHILL RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0003 00060 SMITH AVE VIOLET M 6LAMPE TRUSTEE VIOLET M GLAMPE 60 SMITH AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0006 01235 LYMAN AVE C P PESEK A R H PESEK C PAUL A RAE H PESEK 1235 LYMAN AVE S NAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 33 0010 00030 ORONO ORCHARD RD N J L MURPHY ASS SMITH JAMES MURPHY A SANDRA SMITH 30 ORONO ORCHARD RD N NAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0009 01220 LYMAN AVE G MARC NHITEHEAD ETAL G MARC NHITEHEAD 1220 LYMAN AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0011 01200 ORONO OAKS DR J TOMHAVE A B K TOMHAVE JONATHAN A BEVERLY TOMHAVE 1200 ORONO OAKS OR LONG LAKE MN 55356 I 38 02-117-23 21 000101290 LYMAN AVE MARGARET S FOX MARGARET S FOX 1290 LYMAN AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0009 00080 SMITH AVE F O VOIGT ETAL GLADYS VOIGT 80 SMITH AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0026 00110 SMITH AVE J A FISK A J K FISK JAMES A A JENNIFER K FISK 110 SMITH AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN CDNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 35-118-23 39 0005 00090 ORONO ORCHARD RD N DAB STRUYK D A A BARBARA A STRUYK 90 ORONO ORCHARD RD N NAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0012 01225 ORONO OAKS DR J DANIELS A J LYNCH-DANIELS J DANIELS A J LYNCH-DANIELS 1225 ORONO OAKS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 3138 02-117-23 21 000200090 SMITH AVET E A J H HITCH THOMAS E A JOANNE H HITCH 90 SMITH AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0005 01235 LYMAN AVE C P PESEK A R H PESEK C PAUL A RAE H PESEK 1235 LYMAN AVE S NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0027 01275 LYMAN AVE H I A E T MCMILLAN HONARD A ELIZABETH MCMILLAN 1275 LYMAN AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED G MARC miTEHEAD ETAL 6 MARC NHITEHEAD 1220 LYMAN AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0010 01230 ORONO OAKS OR OAT GARDELLA DAVID T A TRESA GARDELLA 1230 ORONO OAKS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 35-118-23 39 0013 01335 ORONO OAKS DR J HENNINGER A D HENNINGER J HENNINGER A D HENNINGER 1335 ORONO OAKS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 i •L • if 4# f»r,rrS P. RUN D BATCHPROPONNERTAXPA NAME PROP ONNER TAXPA NAME r:» k ■ 1.,RUN DATE 05/23/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»MERS LIST REPORT NO. PI935^01 PAGE 32BATCH 507PROP AOOR OWCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 38 35-118-23 43 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIONEO STATE OF MINN STATE OF HirM (DNR}(LUCE UNE TRAIL)38 35-118-23 43 002201190 LYMAN AVE 8 E PAl IR A J M PALMER BRIAN i JULIA N PAUCR 1190 LYMAN AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 43 002401200 LYMAN AVE R S A N N COmtULL RICHARD S CORMttLL 1200 LYMAN AVE HAYZATA MN 553913 % * 4 PROP ADDR CMCR NAME TAXPAYER HAME/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 507 00021 - 't- I ^ ■ ^ c.V• u•V' ■i V, - -7 •r«. 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TA<ATION» TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF .*• 'i • h 1 i . ! V-" ■ CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2251 NOTICE OF PLANNING COM\nSSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 18, 1997 TO: Marc & Tracy Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Sketch Plan Review DATE OF MEETING: 06/16/97 VOTE: - FOR -- AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: No action required. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission made the following general comments regarding the proposed division; 1. Applicant should consider relocating the driveway outlot. 2, Wetland delineation will be required to verify all wetlands on the site. 3.Staff to define for the applicant what variances are needed for this project as proposed. Regarding the issue of whether the third acre for the back lots must be dry buildable, this has been an issue in only one subdivision since that ordinance was adopted. In that subdivision (Old Crystal Bay Road Addition), a back lot was platted with 2.6 acres dry and 0.8 acres wetland for a total of 3.4 acres. Planning Commission and Council concluded that since the intent of the back lot ordinance was to create buffers, that the wetland could be credited toward the third acre without creating a variance situation. No variance was required. You should proceed with your subdivision on the basis that the third acre may include wetlands. Remember, though, that per Section 10.03, Subd. 27 (A) (3 & 4), the required yards (i.e setbacks) must also meet 150% of the standard (50’ front/rear becomes 75'; 30' side becomes 45’). 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. Formal preliminary plat application and attachments must be submitted by Noon on Friday, June 27, 1997 to be placed on the July 21 Planning Commission agenda. FHydrology Narrative for Whitehead Addition The proposed Whitehead Addition has five wetland basins lying within or partially within its site The wetland basins were delineated by Peterson Environmental Consulting. The existing and proposed flow patterns for the site will remain the same. Basin E is proposed to be enlarged with a NURP pond replacing a historical fill area in the basin. The proposed NURP pond will treat runoff from the proposed new cul-de-sac. Basin A drains to the north under the Luce Line Trail through a 36 inch culvert. Its normal water level appears to be 954.4. although the invert of the culvert is 952.9. Basins C and E dram north and east overland to Basin B. Basin B drains through a ditch along the Luce Line Trail to Wetland D. Wetland D has a normal water level of approximately 961.1, although it outlets through a 36 inch culvert under the Luce Line Trail at an elevation of 953.4. The tributary drainage areas for the basins are as follows: Basin A Basin B Basin C Basin D Basin E 11.07 ac. 4.97 ac. (Includes drainage from Basins C & E) 0.46 ac. 11.95 ac. (Includes drainage from Basins B, C & E) 2.96 ac. Rate control from Basin E will be maintained by the proposed 12 inch CMP under the driveway for Lot 2. A baffled weir will skim floatables prior to leaving the basin. Q / 'M - ^ /V. To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Lindquist & Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gafifron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator June 12,1997 #2251 Marc and Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Proposed Subdivision - Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: RR> 1B Single Family Rural Residential List of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat Drawing C - Sketch Plan D - Preliminary Plat Drawings E - Letter from City Engineer - June 11,1997 F - National Wetland Inventory Map G - 'Back Lot' Performance Standards (Subdivision Code Section 11.31, Subd. 5C) H - Map of Potential Highway 12 Impacts on Area 1 - Staff Memos and Selected Exhibits: Sketch Plan Review Memo - January 16,1991 Planning Commission Action Notice - January 25,1991 Preliminary Subdivision Memo - February 14,1991 Planning Commission Minutes - February 19,1991 Staff sketches (1991): - Slopes > 18% - Drainfield Site Locations; 275' Radius Alignment - Possible cul>de>sac location within plat - Possible cul-de-sac loaction outside plat - Possible cul-de-sac at end of Lyman Avenue - Staff Conceptual 3-lot plat i"') Summary of Proposal Applicants propose a subdivision to create 3 new buildable lots adjacent to their existing residence. This application was reviewed as a sketch plan in January 1991 and as a preliminary plat in February 1991. Applicants did not proceed with the subdivision at that time, and no approvals were ever granted. The current proposal is identical to that reviewed in 1991. The property is characterized by steeply sloped wooded hills and interspersed wetlands. A small (1/3 acre) pond on the property appears to be man-made but is for all intents considered as a wetland for regulatory purposes. The property is difficult to develop because the slopes and wetlands severely limit the feasible locations for septic systems. Applicants' formerly failing trench septic system has been replaced with a new mound since the 1991 review. #2251 - Whitehead Sketch Plan June 12,1997 Page 2 Access to the site is via Lyman Avenue, a long, narrow dead-end road connecting with Smith Avenue and Orono Orchard Road. The westerly paved portion of Lyman is City-maintained dedicated right-of-way; the unpaved easterly portion serving applicants home and 4 others, consists merely of unplatted driveway easements, and is privately maintained. Proposed lot area data is as follows: Dry Wetland*Total Loti 2.0 ac 1.9 ac 3.9 ac Lot 2 2.0 ac 0.3 ac 2.3 ac Lot 3 (w/house)2.3 ac 0.3 ac 2.6 ac Lot 4 2.0 ac -2.0 ac Outlot A 0.22 ac -0.22 ac Outlot B 0.33 ac -0.33 ac 8.85 ac 2.5 ac 11.35 ac ♦There appear to be additional non-Orono-protected wetlands on the property which have not been delineated but which appear on the National Wetland Inventory Map Because this subdivision is extensively discussed in the attached 1991 staff memos and Planning Commission minutes, please refer to those memos (especially the staff memo of February 14,1991) for detailed discussion of the following issues: A) Upgrade of Lyman Avenue B) Access to proposed lots C) Septic issues D) Lot standards Code and Regulatory Changes Since 1991 There are a number of City Code changes as well as State and Federal regulations changes since 1991 which will impact this subdivision: 'Back Lot' performance standards adopted in 1993 will require that Lots 1 and 2 meet 150% of the 2-acre lot area requirement, and 150% of the yard depth requirements. Will the City grant a variance for the extra acre to be wetland rather than dry buildable? The wetlands on the property are now regulated by the Wetland Conservation Act as well as City regulations. At least one additional wetland not on City maps is shown on the National Wetland Inventory map and will have to be delineated. Tlie location of this wetland will have an impact on Lot 2's proposed house location. This #2251 - Whitehead Sketch Plan June 12,1997 Page 3 subdivision is subject to review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Stormwater facilities will be required as part of the subdivision, and these will have an impact on available developable area. Staff has concluded that staffs concerns raised in 1991 regarding the need to have all 4 proposed lots served by a new 'interior road', is probably not applicable to this subdivision because it doesn't abut or directly access a major road. Individual driveways onto Lyman Avenue are not a problem. However, this does not negate concerns about the condition of Lyman Avenue. Staff Recommendation Please carefully review the memos and minutes from 1991. Most if not all of the staff comments and recommendations from the February 14,1991 memo are still valid. Also review the City Engineer's comments in his letter of June 11, 1997. Provide applicant with direction regarding the vanoiK issues noted above including lot standards and layout, access and necessary road upgrades, sepUc concerns, and any other issues of concern. 4 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene vS Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene Anderhk and Aaocu^tes. tnc is an Affirm^ive Action Equ.^t Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo PE • Joseph C Anderlik PE • MiVv»n L Sorvaia. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • G»enn R Cook. PE • RoOert G Schunicht PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene PE and Susan M EDerlin. C PA . Senior Consultants Assocuite Principals Ho^vard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon PE • Robert R Pfefferie. PE • Richard W Foster PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek A I A • Vark A. Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P 'JViiiiamson. PE. RS • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester. WiUmdr and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee Wl June 11,1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 j\jU Re: ^Tiitehead Subdivision File No. 139-1619 Dear Mike, • _ We have reviewed the preliminary plat and sketch plan for the proposed Whitehead subdivision. The property is generally located south of the Luce Line, north of Lyman Avenue and east of Smith Avenue in the southwest quarter of Section 35, and the northwest quarter of Section 2. There are several significant issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters and included with the plan. 1. Streets: Lyman Avenue presently exists as a 12-foot to 15-foot wide paved access from Smith Avenue to ^proximately 900 feet east. From approximately 900 feet to 1800 feet east of Smith Avenue, Lyman Avenue exists as a 12-foot wide gravel access. There is no existing turnaround or cul-de-sac on Lyman Avenue. Five homes are presently served by the gravel portion and an additional three homes are served by the paved portion of the road. The present access is not acceptable from an engineering standpoint and would limit the ability to provide access for fire and emergency vehicles. If the proposed development is to proceed, we would recommend that the developer be responsible for the upgrade of Lyman Avenue to private street standards, from Smith Avenue to the drivevvay location of Lot 3. A cul-de-sac should be constructed at this location, requiring that the existing 8-inch culvert be replaced. Widening of Lyman Drive should be to the north of the existing alignment due to trees and existing topography. The access point for Outlot B onto Lyman Avenue has poor site distance and should be reviewed. The City code specifies a maximum length of 1000 feet and ten units on a cul-de-sac. All streets require a 30-MPH design speed and a 275-foot centerline radius. No more than two units may be served from a private driveway. Private streets serving three to seven units must be paved 24 feet wide, more than seven units require 28 feet. All streets require 50 feet of right-of-way. Due to the existing house locations and topography on the site it would be impossible to meet all of the code requirements. A shorter centerline radius could be mitigated by placing curve ahead warning signs at both ends of the curve. A 20-foot paved surface may be an acceptable access if a variance is granted by the City. Public safety issue will need to be addressed. The fire department should review the plans and provide comments. 2.Grading: Constructing the proposed mound systems, houses, and driveways will require nearly complete clearing and grading of the property. Due to the length of the driveway on Outlot B it should be constructed to a 20-foot width to provide access for fire trucks. The grading for this driveway will likely require an 8-foot tall retaining wall. The wall should be designed by a registered engineer. The driveway 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron City of Orono Page -2-June II, 1997 A___3. Drainage: Approximate!' r\f __i_ . • d.n„«. and improved. A cuS,tS;S>" of aSl" fomc S’f“ ?or to .^rrihe *“ f **to be exemm^^ ^ ^ meet the MCWD ml^c t V? ‘*®''®'°P'"ent wiU likely need be constru^erf regulations, it would be ideal for thi-s t”anniade pond is determined be constnicted to control the pond levels and outflows ^^^ture should C'® • m __r_ for U» ai„ tap™ve";„^rdS:£: !^~:7tonS^^ of•«»' '<»' e contact me at thin nffio« .tl ------—v.oj guuran Pieaseco„«c.™a a. Yours very truly. BON^OO. ROSENE. a NDERLK 4 ASSOCIATES. Shawn D. Gustafson dc / INC. Cc: Greg Gappa, City of O rono I 1 ✓ ,. o J V V^'^V ^‘.'•N Si liii ■«|i liiii! #t iwt" \ 0 V li k i 'N'v I >v5 \ u> s U5 t I!U-^ (D Qa. cn 7km H O X O *0 “Dr >z .r.fy • J 1.3 A ^ » •4./ '.•■ ; Vi ^ C/, ^4c REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 19, 1997 / ITEM NO.:(iP- Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Utle Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2281 Hennepin County Department of Public Works - County Road 6 Improvements - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Zoning District: RR-IA, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acre, unsewered. Application: Hennepin County Department of Public Works requests a conditional use permit and variances for alteration of existing wetlands in conjunction with reconstruction of County Road 6 from just east of Orchard Park Road to the west City boundary. This project involves the filling of City protected wetlands and land alteration in excess of 100 cubic yards. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/3/97 C - MCWD Permit Application Correspondence 8/22/97 & 8/29/97 D - MCWD Resolution on Rule B E - Planning Commission Minutes 8/18/97 F - Memo and Exhibits of 8/14/97 Summary Please review the memo and exhibits of August 14th, as well as the MCWD correspondence. In December the City Council approved the layout for this improvement project, which requires variances due to wetland filling and flood plain impacts, and which requires a conditional use permit because it involves movement of earth in excess of 100 cubic yards. The primary wetland impact is filling of 0.56 acres of City protected wetland, plus an additional 0.25 acres of Wetland Conservation Act wetlands not protected by Orono historically. Applicant Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 September 19, 1997 Zoning File #2281 _____________ proposes to certify the 0.81 acres of wetland for replacement by the Miimesota Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR) as provided in the Wetland Conservation Act rules. That mitigation could occur at any location BWSR chooses. The MCWD has concluded that due to the linear nature of this project and other factors, that no NURP ponds will be required to be constructed for this project. However, MCWD is requiring a $34,500 contribution for regional storm water facilities. The attached July 10, 1997 Resolution from the MCWD Board at least suggests their intent that these contributions be placed in escrow for potential use within the City that generated the contributions. Planning Commission Recommendation At their August 18th meeting. Planning Commission voted 7-0 for approval of the project subject to the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. City Engineer to review storm water impacts of wetland filling. Subject to review and approval by all agencies having jurisdiction. Subject to adherence to the erosion control plan as presented in use of Best Management Practices during all phases of construction. Subject to obtaining a land alteration permit from the City prior to project commencement. Planning Commission recommends that the City encourage the appropriate agencies to do wetland mitigation in Orono. Planning Commission recommends that Council address the concern expressed by residents about the alignment determination process. Staff Recommendation City staff and the City Engineer have met with County staff to review the design plans, including the impacts of wetland filling, and the stormwater management plans for the area. Staff has conclnded that the project as proposed is reasonable, and appropriate measures have been taken to address the wetland and stormwater impacts. The County should be responsible for regular cleaning of the catch basin sumps to maintain the system. Staff recommends approval of the proposed wetland/flood plain impact variances and land alteration CUP, primly based on this being a necessary public safety improvement project. The Council and the County have spent considerable time and effort in reaching the approved Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 September 19, 1997 Zoning File #2281 alignment, ai«j the inq)acts of that alignment on the wetlands and flood plain are being mitigated according to pertinent laws. Council may wish to address the following prior to taking action; 1.Should the City take action to encourage BWSR to accomplish wetland mitigation for this project in Orono, or at least within the Lake Minnetonka watershed? 2.At the Planning Commission meeting, a number of residents expressed concern about the alignment determination process, which appear to tc of moic concern to most residents than the wetland impacts being discussed. Planning Commission recommended that Council hold an additional public information meeting with the County to address residents' concerns. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Take action to adopt the attached resolution as drafted or adopt with revisions ■' I irnrwim A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (J) AND (K) AND 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTIONS 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19-21 AND 10.55, SUBDIVISIONS 8-14 FILE NO. 2281 WHEREAS, Hennepin County Department of Public Works (hereinafter the "applicant") lias jurisdictional authority over County Road 6 within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and will be acquiring an interest in certain adjacent properties as necessary in order to reconstruct portions of County Road 6 from the western boundary of the City of Orono eastward to a point approximately 375' east of Orchard Park Road; and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) and (K) and 10.55, Subdivision 8 to allow the filling of City designated wetlands where no such filling is normally allowed, and for a conditional use permit per Sections 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21 and 10.55, Subdivisions 8-14 to allow land alterations in excess of 100 cubic yards and within and adjacent to protected wetland and floodplain areas. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2281. 2. The project site is located in the RR-IA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing for review of this application on August 18, 1997 and after said hearing recommended approval of the proposed variances and conditional use permits on a vote of 7-0. Page 1 of 6 r 4.The City Council reviewed this application on September 22, 1997 and made the following findings: A. B. C. D. E. The applicants propose to fill 0.56 acres of wetlands protected by City of Orono Ordinances and the Wetland Conservation Act, plus an additional 0.25 acres of wetland protected only under the Wetland Conservation Act, for which the Minneh^ Creek Watershed District is the City's designated local unit of government (LGU). Tlic wetland impacts are a result of filling within ten small wetland basins adjacent to existing County Road 6, A portion of the fill will impact designated floodplain along Painter Creek. The impacted area of the four Orono-protected wetlands which will experience some filling is small compared to the total aggregate area of those wetlands. Wetlands No. IN and IS (as designated in the applicants' plans) are part of the Painter Creek drainageway, of which 0.24 acres will be impacted. The area of Wetland No. 5N is approximately 0.35 acres of which approximately 0.07 acre will be impacted. Wetland No. 6N is approximately 0.85 acres of which 0.25 acres will be impacted. The 0.81 acres of impacted WCA protected wetlands will be certified to the State for mitigation per BWSR requirements. The applicant will be required by MCWD to pay $34,500 towards regional storm water ponding facilities in lieu of providing a NURP pond for this project due to a number of factors including the linear nature of the project; the ponding design area that would be needed to handle off-roadway contributing areas greatly exceeds the impacts created by the added impervious roadway surfaces; and the proximity tc the existing Painters Creek stormwater facilities.. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J)(5a) requires that the City give consideration to the functional qualities of the wetlands being filled in relation to sediment and pollutant trapping and retention, storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce food aamage, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational use, shorelire or bank stabilization, and Page 2 of 6 ' s A. .., r i ( I I F. G. H. I. J. noteworthiness. The Council finds that despite the absence of a City inventory defining the functional qualities of specific City wetlands, the proposed impacts on functional qualities of the wetlands proposed to be filled will be relatively minor in relation to other wetlands in the City, and that the County has addressed the City's concerns via mitigation as well as erosion and sedimentation control measures. Applicants have submitted an acceptable detailed erosion control plan including revegetation plans. Applicants have made the appropriate permit applications to other governmental agencies including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This project is necessary in order to improve public safety by providing turn lanes, bypass lanes ai>J a realignment of the County Road 6/Watertown Road/McCulley Road intersection. Applicants have reviewed the 'no-build' alternative and find that a 'no-build' alterative is not feasible due to safety concerns. The project includes modification of the current road alignment, which modifications have been revised a number of times during the design review process in order to provide an alignment acceptable to the City. TTie Council finds that wetlands would be necessarily impacted regardless of which of the many alternative alignments was chosen. The Council finds that, while this projsct results in a significant area of wetland alteration as compared to private wetland alteration projects approved by the City in the past, the public nature of this project is one of the primary factors supporting its ipproval. The City Council approved the construction plans and alignment layout of this project in December, 1996. 5. The City Council finds that the facts and conditions applying to this project are Page 3 of 6 ^ I r peculiar to this project and do not apply generally to other property in the RR-1A Zoning District; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions but will in fact enhance traffic safety, that granting the variances would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty that is public rather than private in nature; that approval is necessary to preserve the public health, safety and welfare; and approval would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow alteration of wetlands and the proposed filling in excess of 100 cubic yards will not be detrimental to but will enhance the health, safety or geneial welhure of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values, and that the project as proposed will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Cede arj Comprehensive Plan of the City, CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.56. Subdivision 16 (J) and (K) and 10.55, Subdivision 8 to allow the filling of City designated wetlands where no filling is normally allowed, and for a conditional use permit per Sections 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21 and 10.55, Subdivisions 8-14 to allow land alterations in excess of 100 cubic yards and within and adjacent to protected wetland and floodplain areas, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Applicants shall obtain a land alteration permit from the City of Orono prior to commencement of this project. Applicants fchall adhere to the construction plans approved by the City Council in December, 1996, a set of which plaas are of record at the City offices. Applicants shall adhere to the approved erosion control plan and shall use Best Management Practices during all phases of construction, and once the Page 4 of 6 r 'tk^A 4. 5. 6. 7. ATTEST: improvements are completed, shall maintain the stormwater facilities in functional condition, including regular cleaning of the catch basin sumps. Applicants shall obtain the necessary approvals from other government agencies prior to commencing the project, and shall complete the mitigation measures in a timely manner as proposed. Authorities granted by this resolution are permissive only and must be exerci^ by application for land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council s approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (September 22,1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the »erms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and he eby agrees to the terms of this resolution on behalf of Hennepin County. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of September, 1997. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 5 of 6 i 1 1 i r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of September. 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 i'-’ k. I ;i Page 6 of 6 ! ?'m iHillWtiitoi It \aBm -• - J r CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2281 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 3, 1997 TO:Steve Theis Hennepin County Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, MN 55343 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: 08/18/97 VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to cond ’tions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. 2. 3. City Engineer to review stormwater impacts of wetland filling. Subject to review and approval by all agencies having jurisdiction. Subiect to adherence to the erosion control plan as presented and use of Best Management Practices during all phases of construction. 4.Subject to obtaining a land alteration permit from the City prior to project commencement. 5.Planning Commission recommends that the City encourage the appropriate agencies to do wetland mitigation in Orono. 6. Planning Commission recommends that Council address the concerns of residents about the alignment determination process. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council, Monday, September 8, 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 (draft minutes attached). \ . :! r V • i^JG-23-l-?9T 11:30 MItiriEHHHhj CREEK. UlATEPSHEE'to124710632 P.02 04 MCWD PERMIT APPLICATION; 97-164 report DATE: 8-22-97 Applicant: Hennepin Countv Tiansportation Division -320 Washinulon Avc. S. Representative; Steve Theis Hennepin County -Hopkins. MN 55343 Location: CSAH 6. City of Orono Subwatershed;l»-4 PID: 36-118-24 & 31/32-118-23 SubSubwatershed: FC-8 Applicable Rules: Rule R. SU)mnvater management Exhibits Received: Site pUtns Runoff calculations Prainat»e narrative Mailimi labels Noticing Requirements: Mailed to residents w/in 60U' of project on 8-22-97 Wetland Conservation Act Notice mailed on Reviewed by: Steve Schmunk, Andrew Syverson. .lim llafner Project Review Status by Other Governmental Units: DNR (tencral Permit: : 1 Recoinnicndatiuns: Approval.I ’ 4 Review & Sutimiary: This pn>jcLl involves the maintenance and upgrading of CSAH 6 from lownlinc Road Co Orchard Pai-k Road. Maintenance will be done to much of the roadway. The addition of turn lanes, bypass lanes, paved shoulders and access consolidation will result in an increase of i.7 acres of impcrviou.s surlacc Appro.\iinately 20 cubic meters of floodplain impact will be mitigated in llic immediate vicinity of the impact. Wetland impact impacts and mitigation will be reviewed by HWSR. due to the “public roadways** clnssillcation of* the project. While providing some BMP for water quality in the form of grass .swales und sump catch basins, the applicant Is requesting to make a contribution in lieu of providing a NURP pond for this project. Iltc reasons which support this rcque.st arc: • the linear nature of the pi ojccr. making it difUcult to capture or route largo volumes of ninolT to any single location. • any pond constructed would have to he si/xd to handle runoff from all of the contributing olt-roadway drainage areas, resulting in a nnich larger pond (approximately live limes larger) tlinn the increased hardcover alone would require, and • imieh ofthc runoff from this projcci area eventually drains to the l\iinter Creek subwalershed and would be treated hy that regional stormwater treatment project. The conlribuiion amount wa.s calculated to be $22,41 1. 1^-23-1397 11:30 t mihuehhHh cpeb uhtepshee-bl24710tS2 P.03 04 AGENDA MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (MCWD) THURSDAY. August 28,1997 7:30 P.M. MINNETONKA COMMUNITY CENTER 14600 Minnetonka Blvd. BOARD OF MANAGERS President John Thomas Vice President Woody Love Secretary Monica Gross Treasurer Pam Blixt Tom LaBounty, Tom Maple and Malcolm Reid MCWD STAFF:Administrator Diane Lynch Technician Jim Hafner, Office Manager Marleane Callaghan, Attorney Louis Smith and Engineer Michael Panzer I. II. ill. IV. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF August 14 MINUTES OPEN PODIUM V.PERMIT APPLICATIONS A. CONSENT AGENDA PermU Applicant Permit Type City 1. 97-164 Hennepin County Transportation Stormwater management / Floodplain alteration Orono / Independence Mcl ov/l I nmut 04 AUG-28-1997 11:30 flir»EHHHA CREEK l•lHTEPSHED 8124710632 P.04 04V.PERMIT APPLICATIONS B. PERMITS REQUIRING DISCUSSION Permit Applicant Permit Type City 2. 97-134 Minnesota Veterans Home Stormwater management Minneapolis VI.REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS REQUIRING ACTION 1 A. REPORTS OF OFFICERS Manager Blixt - Treasurers Report - Review Draft budget and levies Manager Gross - Flood Mitigation Task Force Technical Support Manager LaBounty - Report on Co. Rd. 6 Ponds B. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES C. REPORT OF DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR VII. D. REPORT OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY 1. Updates on regional ponding 2. Trees in Minnehaha Creek Policy 3. Executive Session -Wahifors, Landview Landscaping, Steizner E. REPORT OF DISTRICT ENGINEER 1. SW Lake Calhoun Report F. REPORT OF DISTRICT TECHNICIAN 1. Wetland Inventory Update 2. Gleason Lake Dam Update OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT MU ov/l)uiiic I omni TOThL P.04 TIT nil VI •lilt MlirntTiVt] rtl:T¥t VO P.rtT:I*Z4«t1 rtV4¥0.^tliV:riTtKf^i ^lotrivo rtiiPivti ro f lliltli M W iM(*V2V< wJWicw r*v.icti Otfcl^uaiOiKI ■ (Si riBLVOV.l nnrti nmrtHt r«ap.\\wiiTi rtvtcti roiictv* SPlfWlVVO rtp4c«v« r.Hiannivrnsisi niomtiiuM roDitit tiiiut MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18.1997(#11- #2278 Patrick Middleton - Continued)Lindquist indicated that additional information was necessary and gave direction for receint of: D uo-to-date survey with hardcover, where existing hardcover is located, and where hardcover is proposed; 2) confirmation of hardcover calculations including the 0- 75' setback: and drainage review hv Citv Encineer Smith noted that the hardcover calculations are relevant as no additional hardcover was stioulated when the earase aooroval was received in 1988. Middleton informed Smith that the hardcover was being reduced. Smith said it must be clarified with the information. Woodruff questioned whether the hardcover calculations on the worksheet were not acceptable. Lindquist said he was not sure if they were accurate. Benz clarified the benefit of an accurate survey noting no hardcover is allowed in the 0-75* setback and the deck is located in that area. Smith said she would like to know what the neighboring property owner has to ssy about the aoDlication. Middleton said he would obtain that information. Schroeder noted a variance was necessary for the deck but indicated that if the Planxung Commission sees another oroblem. it would have to be addre.s.sed. Woodruff asked City's view regarding remodeling of the existing deck. Schroeder said a oermit would be required. Van Zomeren noted it would denend on how it was oerfonned. Woodruff smd he asked because of the concern for spending a large amount to obtain a survey. Van Zomeren responded that the problem occurred with the need for a certified survey and lack of all necessary iufomiation. She said any future change would require the information. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2278 for additional information as noted. Vote: Aves7,Navs0. (#12) #2281 HENNEPIN COUNTY, WEST OF TOWNLINE ROAD TO EAST OF ORCHARD PARK ROAD - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMTT- PUBLIC HEARING 11:08-12:13 P.^L The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Steve Theis and Joel Settles. i ■ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997(#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued) Gafiron reported that the City and Hennepin County PubUc Works have been reviewing plans on CoRd 6 including the alignment shift and intersection changes. Tl^ changes will impact certiun City protected and other wetlands. He noted that the City Coun^ has alrcadv aporoved the lavout of the road. The issue before the Commission is the review of the wetland impacts, whether the proposed mitigation is acceptable, and a conditional use oermit for land alteration over 100' c.v. Gafiron indicated that the lavout and cro.«w sections are available for review. Gafiron reported tb have been 7 basins identified as being impacted, 4 of which are on the Orono 1974 inviU Horv. and require variances for grading and filling. There are minor wetlands includ'mg cul verts and creek crosting. Those of greatest concern include a wetland west of the Hanning driveway, with the southerly 1/3 of the wetland impacted by filling. Lindquist questioned whether Planning Commission has any choice but to approve. Gafifron said there reallv were not anv choices as to the lavout smcc those decisions have already been made. Lindquist asked how mitigation for the wetland impacts takes place. Joel Settles said the wetland replacement decision is made by the State. Settles said the 2:1 replacement will occur within the County and probably in with the MCWD, and the City has no say in the location but might influence it. He said the best influence would be to show where expansion might take place but the State may not accept those locations. Smith asked the time firame of that decision. Settles said there b no time fiame but after construction is complete, the County will file a report that will be receiv^ by the State filed by January 15 of the next year. At that time, mitigation locations will be determmed. During public commeirts, Robert Hanning, 4220 CoRd 6, asked what the purpose was of the meeting regarding wetlands. He indicated that the City a^ County have ^eady approved the road redesign but the public hearing is for public comments and information. Gafifron indicated that the City rcauires the County to go through the pro^ as it aflfccts Orono wetlands and requires a CUP for land alteration over 100 c.y. He indicated the Council has approved the plan and the application allows for formal conclusions of the discussion. Hanning noted if the CouncU has already approved the road and then hold a pubUc meeting, he feels it is redundant. Schroeder said the hearing is to gain an understanding for the reasons for filling the wetlands regarding public safety and environmental and the necessity for a CUP. McMillan said the review is not to debate the road but to discuss the wetlands. r minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (U12 - U22Z1 Hennepin County - Continued) Hanmpg said he does not feel the wetlands need to be filled. He does not feel the road should be moved reouirins the fiUine of the wetlands. He said he has not been told what he will be paid for his property that will be taken. Lindquist was informed that the wetlands are on orivate nrooertv and not on the ripht-nf-wav Srhroeder a.sked if h« wa.s suggesting he should be paid. Hanning said he was suggesting the wetlands should not be filW in Schroeder asked it if was a matter of public safety. Theis said it was. Hanning asked about cutting trees down. He questioned how wetlands affect the wells. Schroeder said the wetlands act as a filter to Lake Minnetonka. McMillan further elaborated that it was a sur&ce filter. Sandy Larson, 4286 6ih Avenue North, said her concern hinges on the County's api^ying for Denrnts but the Countv has not vet told them what will be done. Theis said the real estate division has not conducted the appraisals yet for damages to be caused by realigning the roadwav. He indicated the contracts will ao out around January. 1998. .so the nroces.s should begin soon. Theis said this issue does not involve the real estate but agreed that right-of-entiy must be obtained. Theis said construction is planned to begin April, 1997, and negotiations must take place before that time for right-of-entiy. He estimated that Ac real estate appraisals will take place no later than December of tliis year. Berg asked why the CUP is obtained before the details are worked out with the property owners. Theis responded Aat the process is as laid out bv the City. Stoddard asked if Ae permit is obtained before review by the Corp of Engineers. Theis said it is easier to deal wiA Ae City on issues first. Hawn asked if Ae County En^eers have met with Ae landowners. Theis said A^ have met with them and have had meetings where some of the property owners have attended. Bob Brown, who lives on Huntington Drive, asked why the wetland discussions Ad not taken place prior to Council action. Lindauist said he had the same auestion. Brown said if the wetlands are on private property, the people should be notified. Jeff Broil, 4545 Watertown, asked if the request can be denied. He was informed that the Commission makes a recommendation to Ae Council, who makes Ae official determination. Schroeder said Ae Planning Commission is only in a position to deny Ae application if it is shown the loss of wetlands out weishs the issue of public safety. r minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued) Katharine Colgrove, 4260 6th Avenue North, reported that she the house that goes down to the nond. She indicated that her seotic svstem is located in the front vard. She questioned whether taking the wetlands pushes the pond into the septic ^stera. Colgrove said she docs not want the road to affect her seotic svstem. Steve Theis acknowledged the encroachment on the wetland. He indicated the County looked at the drainase and made adiustments so less water drains into the oond to resuh in the same pre and post construction condition of storm water going into the pond. Chuck Larson, 4285 Sixth Avenue North, asked where the water will go if the shoulders are paved, curbs added, and ponds eliminated. Theis said the pond is not eliminated. He indicated water will go where it does now. The water flow has been slowed and ditches flattened. He said the Countv has used Best Manasement Practices, which are specific procedures they must follow. Theis said he would go over the specifics as it relates to Larson's property with him. Sn^h asked if this was the first time the wetland issue was being reviewed. Larson said he was unaware that wetlands were being taken. Lindquist asked if the County has contacted property owners regarding this issue. Hanning said there has been meetings, noting the last Council meeting on the issue, but feels the meetings has been inadequate. Berg questioned whether all the information was avtulable then. Lindquist asked the public whether they would like to see a meeting held with flie County relatine to wetlands. He said this was the onlv vehicle in \^ch to further information. Theis responded that a shift one way or another of the road would change the impact on. the wetland. He said the property owners understood that filling wfll occur. He indicated that the County has already gone over with the property owners where the road is laid out. The process was not before the Planning Commission in the oast. Mr. Cornelius, 775 Huntington Farm Road, indicated that the County has answered Questions. He fek there was a time when decisions were made rather ouicklv and the property owners did not have a voice. He feh the road changes ended up having bigger impacts on them when the road was moved the 25*. He said he does not know why the road was moved and thought the Council rushed through the decision process. He feds the County has been fair in dealing with the property owners. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued) Lindquist informed the public if they were unhappy with the decisions made by the Council, thev should take the issue uo with the Council as the Plannins Commission does not have the authority. Gafi&on acknowledged that the residents always have the ODOortunitv to sneak with the Council. Cornelius said he feels the discussion regarding the wetlands should have taken place oreviou.sIv. Schroeder noted the issues of consequence have been discussed previously and the ouesdons answered in the oast. Theis said he fdt the auestimis ^ve been answered. Cornelius said this was the first time discussing the wedands, however. Theis said h is not the first time the wetland imoacts have been discussed but is the first time as a Quantified aoeage. Schroeder said he felt Katherine Colgrove should be contacted regarding the issue of effects on her septic system and health related issues. He asked Colgrove if she has had the opportunity in the past to discuss these issues. Colgrove stud that this was the first meetins where wetlands were discussed. McMillan said the drainage plans have not been seen by the Planning Coranussion, and the NIJRP nond and curb and cutter have not been di.scussed. • • • Theis said the construction limits have already been set by the Council, just not where the wetland impacts are as far as septic. He indicated the County would have to replace a septic system if the construction limits affected the septic. These issues would be woriced out with the property owner. Theis said Colgrove's property has been addressed as &r as the amount of water flowing into her pond is concerned and should result in no change to her septic system. Schroeder indicated that he still feels the County needs to address the issue of Colgrove's ^stem. Lindquist brought attention to the Staff memo regarding issues noted for consideration and recommendations made. He asked what conditions are appropriate for recommendation #5. Stoddard asked that there would be a 2:1 mitigation rafio that would take place within the Citv of Orono. Lindauist asked if the concerns of the people here need to be addressed further and how this should occur. Berg concurred that the impact ... on the property owners is important. Smith said there should be a forum by which this could occur. Both Berg and Lindquist feh the concerns of the property owners have nqt,^ been adequately addressed. r t ' I ! MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18.1997 (#12 - #2281 H«mq)in County - Continued) Lindquist questioned the value of the land taken. Theis said the County and City process has been sone throush and there is a cost share between the two entities. He said information has been ^ven and handouts available. People have spoken out on the orocess. Bern noted the Question of the seotic svstem. Toeis said it would be addressed. A member of the audience questioned the importance of the wetlands and whether another olan would have less imnact on the wetlands. GafGron noted the process has been on-going for over two years. He said the Council has reviewed the alisnments and conclusions have been drawn. He indicated the Council apparently does not feel the wetland impacts are uipificant enough for further alignment changes to be made, resulting in the perception that this current issue is after-the-fact as it relates to the process. He noted the alignment has to be decided before the specific wetland impacts can be defined. Gaffron said the wetland acreage impacted needs to be accepted or changed as part of the application process. Lindquist said he is not comfortable in making that decision at this time. He asked if the Commission recommends an additional hearing. Gaf&on suggested a fist of questions be drawn as an option. Schroeder acknowledged that the alignment has been thought through and is set as the best ontion for the roadwAv Hawn questioned if the main concern shown at the meeting was a resuh of the 8* road alignment change. Cornelius responded that he has learned that if roeetmgs are not attended, dedaons are made quickly and voices need to be heard when the occasion arises. He indicated that the Council has heard the concerns as well. He questioned whether there is an effect on the well water. Lindquist asked about the shift dedsion. Theis said the shift was dedded by the Coundl and then made bv the Countv. The shift allowed the County to quantify the wetland impact, which was unable to be done prior to the alignment determination. Brown indicated that when the alignment shift was done, the meetings happened quicisfy and he missed some of them. He feels he was left out of the process. Schroeder said the question is whether the Coundl followed due process, which he fi^ds they did. He noted that the public can contact Council members at any time. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST !8. 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennq^in County - Continued) Leonard Berg questioned whether he was notified. Schroeder infonned him that people within a certain radius of the orooosed activity is notified. Benz said he found out about land being taken in December and decisions were already made by that time. Lindquist tnfnmriMt him and nth«’^ tn mntart tlu» Cnunril if th<*v hav^ nn#»«tinn^ Lindquist asked what is to be accomplished at this meeting. Gafifron said issues pertaining to wrtlandc stre. rpilpvant* he not#»d th#» niihlir. onp^ions rpoardina imnart on vntir svstpma wells and well water, stormwater concerns and where dr^age is directed. Gaffion said he feels these issues have been addressed in tte information given by the agencies. Theis was asked to address these certain questions. Theis said an application is before the MCWD as far as stormwater is concerned. This would re1.*!te to WSter Oliahtv and «tr*rmu/atpr r*almlatfon« and analvsi« am tnrtiidpd and information available. As far as septic systems are concerned, Theis said they nnist be operational. If impacted, the County will make the corrections per City code. Regarrfing the pond, the only place impacted is in the wetland. He said he would check on this. Gaf&on noted the intention of having the Citv Engineer review the stormwater olan is to review the details. He indicated water level should not change and flowage will be rherVed for the nnnd arpa Hawn asked if the property owners should be identifying septic systems on the properties or wait to hear from the Coimtv Thei.s resnonded that if the nronertv owners would Kke an additional level of comfort, the mound ^sterns can be surveyed. This is nr^mally performed as part of the real estate negotiations but can be done now as the systems must meet City code. Theis said there will only be filling of .8 acre of wetlands and only shallow wells would be affected. Gaffiron said there are likely no shaDow wells. Cornelius noted that he is unaware of where the drainage flows. GafiEron said the wells are typically 100-150* deep. Wetlands provide for some rechaigiog but the 1/2 acre in the scheme will not impact or change the surface or ground water. Gafifron said he sees no impact on the wells or the ground water. Lindquist asked if there were any other questions to be answered. Brown asked if the County was directed by the City regarding realignment of the road. Theis said they were. Theis sdd the wetlands are ^ected bv the widening of the road and affected on both sides. r ! ii MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18,1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued) Brown clarified then that the City must approve affecting wetlands that the City has annroved to fin. Gai&on said the Council listens to various concerns. He said the Council understood there would be impacts on specific wetlands regardless of where the road was located, and anoarentlv concluded those imoacts are relatively of; lower nrioritv than the road alignment concerns. Joel Settles said while he was not in attendance at all meetings, the Council weighed the impacts on many issues to try to balance them out. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2281 per Staff recommendations 1-4. Recorametidation #5 include the three items noted pertaining to stormwater, septic systems, and ponding. The people who have any other concerns about the CoRd 6 redisnment and other Questions were asked to sim uo. and Planning Commission wiD recommend another meeting be held w?^h the County regarding any other questions they might have. Mitigation will be 2:1 per State requirements with the strong recommendation that mitigation occur within Orono. Settles said the determination will be made by the State but preference can be stated. He will attach the recommendation to the report certified to the State. Thcii asked the type of meeting and if held by the County or Council. Lindouist .sasce.<«ted a nos-sible combination of both Council and Coiintv as a public information meeting. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. Schroeder asked Settles if the mitigation siting is political in ngture. Settles did not feel it was as such. He noted a number of people haye seen the ability in selling wetlands. A member of the public noted tiling down on form land. Brown said he appreciated the Planning Commission listening to the concerns. Schroeder suggested people call Council members if they have issues of concern. (#13) TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE This item will be reviewed at the Planning Commission Work Session scheduled for Seotember 12.1997 at 8:00 a.m. McMillan asked that information be provided on the background of the Sugar Woods Dcvelooment. Stoddard related that the Council asked that the Planning Commission review the draft drawn bv the Park Commission recarding this issue for their recommendation. Lindqiust asked that Park Commissioner David Beal be present at the work session. r Hi .. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator August 14,1997 #2281 Hennepin County Department of Transportation - County Road 6 Reconstruction West of Highway 12 - Variance/Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1 A, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acre, unsewered. Application: Hennepin County Department of Public Works requests a conditional use permit and variances for alteration of existing wetlands in conjunction with reconstruction of County Road 6 from just east of Orchard Paric Road to the west City boundary. This project involves the filling of City protected wetlands, and land iteration in excess of 100 cubic yards. Pertinent Code Sections 1 . 10.55, Subds. 8-14 (Flood Plain and Wetlands Management Ordinances). 2. 10.56, Subd. 16(J) & (K) (Shoreline Management Ordinance). 3. 10.03, Subds. 19-21 (General Land Alteration Regulations). List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Project Description Narrative Including - Wetland Delineation Report - Wetland Replacement Plan - Table of Wetland Locations and Impacts Summary - Multi Agency Project Notification Form D - Wetland Locations Map (Sheets 1-2 of 8) E - Wetland Delineation Maps (Sheets 3-5 of 8) F - Wetland Impact Maps (Sheets 6-8 of 8) G - Orono Protected Wetland Inventory Map 1974 .jjB—Ctfmuuction Plan CAUiTyti. 1 - National Wetland Inventory Map J - DNR Protected Waters and Wetlands Map K - Hennepin County Soil Survey Map L - U.S.G.S. Topographic Map M - Aerial Photographs of Project Area r Zoning File #2281 August 14, 1997 Page 2 Background The City Council in December 1996 approved the layout for proposed improvements to County Road 6 west of Highway 12, including reconfiguration of the intersection of Watertown Road/McCuIley Road/County Road 6. The project is further described in applicant's project description narrative. Exhibit D. The project involves movement of earth in excess of 100 cubic yards, requiring a conditional use permit per City ordinances. Further, the project involves the filling of 0.56 acres of wetland historically protected under Orono ordinances, plus an additional 0.25 acres of weiland protected under the Wetland Conservation Act, for which Minnehaha Creek Watershed District serves as the "Local Government Unit" (LGU) for administrative purposes. Total impacted wetland acreage is 0.81 acres. The applicant proposes to mitigate off site at locations as of yet unknown. Applicant proposes that 0.81 acres of wetland impacts be certified for replacement by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) as provided in the Wetland Conservation Act rules. Orono's wetland protection ordinance prohibits filling of wetlands, but generally provides only minimal direction as to criteria for the granting of variances. Since virtually all of Orono's 1974 inventoried wetlands fall under the jurisdiction of the Wetland Conservation Act, the City in contemporary times has supported the MCWD's determinations regarding wetland mitigation. Wetland Impacts Summary The following is a summary of the proposed wetland impacts: ORONO WCA AREA TO BE FILLED APPROX. % OF TOTAL BASIN AREA TO BE FILLED WL IN ✓✓0.16 ac.NB WL IS ✓✓0.08 ac.NB WI.2 ✓0.05 ac.NB WL3 /0.02 ac.10% WL4 ✓0.16 ac.60% WL5N //0.07 ac.20% WL5S /<0.01 ac.5% WL6N ✓/0.25 ac.30% WL6S /<0.01 ac.10% WL7 /0.01 ac.5% *NB = Not Basin (part of a drainage way) Total wetland acreage to be filled: 0.81 ac. Orono (1974) protected Non-Orono protected 0.56 ac. 0.25 ac.i J Zoning File #2281 August 14,1997 Page 3 » V Erosion Control and Revegetation Applicant has submitted a detailed erosion control plan including revegetation plans. These are included in the 182 page project plan, which is available for review but not included as part of this memo. Other Agency Reviews Since the total impact on wetlands is less than 3 acres, this project qualifies for the Corps of Engineers Nation-Wide General Permit No. 26. It appears that Wetlands IN and IS are potentially subject to DNR jurisdiction because they are adjacent to the protected Painter's Creek tributary. As noted previously, the wetlands are subject to the Wetland Conservation Act for which MCV/D is Orono's LGU. Discussion This Hennepin County project is necessary in order to reconstruct County Road 6 in a manner that will incorporate new safety features and bring this roadway up to current standards. The City Council clearly feels that the project is necessary from a public health/safety/welfare standpoint and has approved the proposed construction plans. As noted in applicant's submittals, the County has minimized wetland impacts by staying in the existing right-of-way whenever possible. Impacts to wetlands were also minimized and avoided by steepening slopes and pulling back the construction limits. Due to safety requirements for road alignments and sight lines, the County's ability to avoid wetland impacts is restricted when widening the roadway and adding turn lanes and roadway shifts. It appears to staff that the most significant impact on Orono protected wetlands will be in Basins 5N and 6N, which are essentially two halves of a single wetland basin separated by a private driveway which has been in place for many decades. Approximately 1/4 of this 1.5 acre wetland basin will be filled. This basin drains to the north to another 1 acre basin, then northwesterly to the 100 acre "south Katrina marsh". This wetland system has been identified within the preliminary Storm Water Management Pltui documents as an area requiring some storm water infrastructure improvements, possibly including a culvert replacement. Staff will be forwarding the application to the City Engineer for his review and recommendation as the filling of this pond relates to the preliminary storm water plan. As noted in the discussion with the County Road 15 reconstruction project review, the City adopted Shoreland Ordinances that suggest that prior to filling a wetland there should be an analysis of the specific value provided by that wetland, but since the City has never completed an inventory of If »Zoning File #2281 August 14, 1997 Page 4 wetland values for specific wetlands, it is again at this point rather subjective to reach a meaningful conclusion. Note that the only Orono protected wetland within the shoreland boundaries for this project is the filling adjacent to Painter's Creek where it flows under County Road 6. Issues for Consideration ^ • 1. 2. Is the proposed filling of City protected wetlands justified by the health, safety and welfare needs of the community served by this project? Does Planning Commission have a concern about the loss of 1/2 acre of wetlands without any assurance that mitigation will happen within a similarly situated watershed draining to Lake Minnetonka? 3. Will the proposed fill have any negative impacts on the affected properties that could be resolved on site i.e. for instance, is there any merit in expanding these wetlands on site to accommodate the filling? 4. Does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding the overall nature of the project? Staff Recommendation Given that this project is in the public interest and given that it appears the applicant has attempted to minimize the impact on wetlands while balancing the needs and desires of the affected property owners, staff recommends approval subject to the following: 1. City Engineer to review storm water impacts of wetland filling. 2. Subject to review and approval by all agencies having jurisdiction. 3. Subject to adherence to the erosion control plan as presented and use of Best Management Practices during all phases of construction. 4. Subject to applicant obtaining land alteration permit from the City of Orono prior to commencement of the project. 5.-f ISubject to any other condivions Planning Commission feels arc appropriate. ^ . )ci2^ ' ' -V : • ■ ■ Q 1 r ' - I .1- I Y’- •IMfi riMTC ^iTiril iiriinoi [tIOMMJirtItg>l RTtMiRTil STJIT •TAi; «ii^i»ir«i HX*\U\u •)M«f tJlflMl riT;Ti™i r r i I •••*RUN DATE 07/17/97 BATCH 003PMR AOOR OMCR NAHB T/0(PAYER NANE/AODR SO 29-118>23 S3 0009 039A0 SIXTH AVB N NORTHERN STATES PONER CO NSP PROPERTY TAX DEPT 414 NICOLLET HALL NPLS m 5S401 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»t«RS LIST30 30-118-23 33 0007 04475 CREEKNOOO TR DAK BIEKDAVID A KATHRYN DIEK 4475 CREEKNOOO TR HAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 REPORT NO. PI43S401 PAGE 130 30-110-23 33 OOCO04745 CREEKNOOO TR D A STOROAHL A N L STORDAHL DAVID A A NANCY STOROAHL 4745 CREEKNOOO TR HAPLE PUIN MN 55359 PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 30-110-23 33 0009 04705 CREEKNOOO TR L H UNDERHILL/H L UNDERHILL LONNIE N/HARSHA L UNDERHILL 4705 CREEKNOOO TR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 30 30-110-23 44 0004 00005 HUNT FARM RO HUNTINGTON FARM HOME 0»tCRS LARRY MCCARTNEY 755 HUNT FARM RO LONG LAKE rtl 55354 38 30-118-23 44 0007 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HUNTINGTON FARM HOME OWERS HUNTINGTON FARM HMONNRS ASSN 1055 E NAYZATA BLVD NAYZATA m 55391 PROP AOOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 30 31-118-23 11 0003 00745 ORCHARD PARK RO R K 4 H A SANSEVERE ROBERT K A NARY A SANSEVERE 745 ORCHARD PARK RO LONG LAKE M4 55354 30 31-118-23 11 0004 04185 SIXTH AVE N STEVEN R JACOBSON STEVEN R JACOBSON 4105 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55354 30 31-118-23 11 0005 00465 ORCHARD PARK RO JAM PIOGEON JOHN G A MAGDALEN M PIOGEON 10912 GLEN MILOING LA BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 30 31-118-23 11 0009 00755 HUNT FARM RO L N A J A MCCARTNEY LARRY A JAN MCCARTNEY 755 HUNT FARM RO LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 11 0010 00740 HUNT FARM RD JAR MARTIN JEFFREY J A ROBIN L MARTIN 740 HUNT FARM RO LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 12 0005 04285 SIXTH AVE N CHARLES E LARSON CHARLES E LARSON 4285 4TH AVE NO LONG LAKE tft 55354 PROP AOOR OIMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 31-118-23 12 0007 04240 SIXTH AVE N KATHARINE S COLGROVE KATHARINE S COLGROVE 4240 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 12 0009 04320 SIXTH AVE N F L DETERMAN ETAL FERDINAND L DETERMAN 4320 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55354 30 31-110-23 12 0010 04340 SIXTH AVE N C S NILLIAMS A E R HILLIAMS CRAIG A ELIZABETH NILLIAMS 4340 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55354 PROP AOOR OlOCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 31-118-23 12 0011 04340 SIXTH AVE N DAN FLIES JR DONALD A NANAL FLIES 4340 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0012 04225 SIXTH AVE N H A MUELLER A P 0 MUELLER WILLIAM A A PEGGY A MUELLER BOX 3 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0013 04235 SIXTH AVE N W AND S HYATT WILLIAM 0 HYATT 4235 N 4TH AVE LONG LAKE m 55356 1 Iv RUN DATE 07/17/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0i«4ERS LISTBATCH 003PROP ADDR CMNER HAHE .TAXPAYER HAHE/AOOR 36 31-118-23 12 001504220 SIXTH AVE NR I J HANNING JRROBERT C I JULIE HANNING JR *4220 CTY RD NO 6 LONG LAKE MN 55356 • PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 31-118-23 13 0002 00420 TURNHAH RO L E BERG I K H BERG LEONARD ft KATHLEEN H BERG 420 TURNHAH RD HAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 31-118-23 21 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NORBERT JOHNSON NORBERT JOHNSON 2245 PLATNOOD RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 31-118-23 22 0003 04705 HATERTONN RO NED L BUTTERFIELD NED L BUTTERFIELD 4705 HATERTONN RO HAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 PROP ADDR OltlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 31-118-23 22 0007 04607 HATERTONN RD J F ft J H SERENA JOHN F ft JOAN H SERENA 4607 HATERTONN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 31-118-23 24 0001 04480 HATERTONN RD T ft M SNEEZO TIMOTHY M SNEEZO 4480 HATERTONN RO MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 12 001804380 SIXTH AVE N J E ft J E CARPENTER JAMES E ft JANET E CARPENTER 4380 CO RD MO 6 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 13 0013 04300 HATERTONN RD JAMES JAY JOHNSON ft WIFE JAMES JAY JOHNSON 4300 HATERTONN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 21 0003 04580 HATERTONN RD KIP A NELSON KIP A NELSON 4580 NATERTOI#l ROAD HAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 22 0005 04720 HATERTONN RD ROBERT L PIERCE ETAL ROBERT L PIERCE 4720 HATERTONN RD MAPLE PLAIN ni 55359 38 31-118-23 22 0008 00630 DEBORAH DR G T KARLEN ft M J KARLEN GREGORY T KARLEN 630 DEBORAH DR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0004 04545 HATERTONN RD J L ft M R DROLL JEFF BROLL 4545 HATERTONN RD ORONO MN 55359 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 238 31-118-23 12 0022 04300 SIXTH AVE N ROBERT ft MARILYN GEHRMAN ROBERT S GEHRMAN 4300 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 21 0001 0<*490 HATERTONN RO KENNETH TURNHAH KENNETH TURNHAH 4490 HATERTONN RD MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 22 0002 04765 HATERTONN RD DENNIS GENE ESTERLY DENNIS GENE ESTERLY 4765 HATERTONN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 22 0006 04660 HATERTONN RO SUSAN E LURTON TRUSTEE H N LURTON ft S E LURTON 3135 JAMESTONN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 23 0003 00625 DEBORAH DR S A ft A T SHERLOCK SHANN A ft ANGELA T SHERLOCK 625 DEBORAH DR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0006 04605 HATERTONN RD J F SERENA ft J M SERENA JOHN F ft JOAN M SERENA 4605 WATERTOI^ RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 »•■RUN DATE 07/17/97 OATCN OOS HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWERS LISTLPROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AODR CRtCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 1.. PROP AOOR Olt€R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 32-118-23 22 0003 03825 SIXTH AVE N MICHAEL A ALEXANOER MICHAEL A ALEXANOER 3825 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE m 55354 70 25-118-24 44 0002 04898 CO RO NO 6 OONALO M PAINTER OONALO M PAINTER 4896 CO RO NO 4 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 70 25-118-24 44 0014 04895 8ROAOMOOR OR J V MCMAHILL SHE MCMAHILL J V MCMAHILL I M E MCMAHILL 4895 BOAROHOOR OR MAPLE PLAIN m 55359 70 34-118-24 11 0007 04825 CO RO NO 4 BARBARA J LEFKY BARBARA J LEFKY 4825 CO RO NO 4 MAPLE PLAIN m 55359 ' t REPORT NO. PX4S5401 PAGE S38 32-118-25 22 0006 00680 ORCHARD PAfSC RO 0 E HINTERS A 0 K LAMB DOUGLAS E NINTERS 680 ORCHARD PARK RD LONG LAKE 55356 SO 32-118-23 22 0007 00740 ORCHARD PARK RO J A S HETMAN JOSEPH A A SHIRLEY A HETMAN 740 ORCHARD PARK ROAD LONG LAKE m 55356 70 25-118-24 44 0003 04880 CO RD NO 6 B R A J M ALEXANOER BRETT R A JUDY M ALEXANOER 4800 CO RD NO 6 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 70 25-110-24 44 0013 04935 BROADMOOR DR R L A J M BRANORXET ROBERT L A JUNE M BRANORXET 4935 BROADMOOR DR MAPLE PLAIN It4 55359 70 25-118-24 44 0016 00865 TOW LINE RO 0 A A HANKINSON DOUGLAS A A»M HAMCXNSON 865 TOHN LINE RO MAPLE PLAIN m 55359 70 36-118-24 04915 CO RD ROGER H BRUCE ROGER H BRUCE 4915 CO RO NO 11 0002 NO 6 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 70 36-118-24 11 0008 04885 CO RO NO 6 K B A R E NOHAK KARL B A RUTHMARY E NONAK 4885 CO RO NO 6 INDEPENDENCE MN 55359 TOTAL BATCH 003 00047 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AM ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXAHON* TO THE BEST OF MY KN0NLED6E AND BELIEF. DATE G >llis -3 ..- r I I M ••c PROJECT NARRATIVE PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed project is to improve public safety by the addition of turn lanes, bypass lanes, paved shoulders and consolidating access in accordance with current design and safety standards. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will reconstruct a segment of CSAH 6 located in the City of Orono. The segment to be reconstructed is approximately 1.4 miles (2.2 kilometers) long and extends from 750 feet (228 meters) west of Townline Road to 375 feet (114 meters) east of Orchard Park Road. Portions of the following connecting roads to CSAH 6 will also be reconstructed as part of this project: McCulley Road, Watertown Road, and Tumham Road. Additionally, a consolidated cul- de-sac access area will be constructed off of CSAH 6 in an area approximately 200 meters northeast of the existing intersection of McCulley Road and Watertown Road. The roadways will generally follow the existing alignments but some minor shifts of alignment will occur. Wetlands adjacent to the project will be impacted and will require mitigation and replacement consistent with the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. Overall, the typical sections for CSAH 6 and the connecting roadways are suburban and rural in nature. In areas where right-of-way restrictions exist and the topography warrants, a suburban section was used incorporating curb and gutter. The other areas will be constructed according to rural standards. Both typical sections consist of one 12 foot (3.6 meter) lane in each direction with 8 foot (2.4 meter) paved shoulders. Areas which differ or have additional features from the above description are discussed below: CSAH 6 A 14 foot (4.2 meter), center, two-way left turn lane will be constructed on CSAH 6 between the consolidated cul-de-sac access area and a point 328 feet (100 meters) west of Hunt Farm Road (approximately 1542 feet, 470 meters). Exclusive right turn and bypass lanes (12 foot, 3.6 meter) will be provided at the intersecting roadways of Townline Road and Deborah Drive. Exclusive left and right turn lanes (12 foot, 3.6 meter) will be provided at the intersecting roadways of McCulley Road, the consolidated access area, and Hunt Farm Road. The intersection with Orchard Park Road will have an exclusive right turn lane (12 foot, 3.6 meters). McCulley Road A free right with acceleration lane will be provided at the intersection with CSAH 6. Exclusive right turn and bypass lanes will be constructed at the intersecting Watertown Road. All lanes will be 12 feet (3.6 meters) wide. Watertown Road The intersection of Watertown Road with CSAH 6 will be eliminated. Instead, Watertown Road will intersect with McCulley Road to the southwest of the existing intersection and the alignment will be adjusted correspondingly. i TI 4J.cnit•7 ■'•••< This project is scheduled to begin in the spring of 1998 and be completed by the fall of 1998. During construction, roadway usage to access driveways of local residents will be maintained. Roadway users traveling through the area will be detoured. WETLAND DELIiVEATION REPORT WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY ^ Wetlands were delineated in accordance with the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetland boundaries that were within 200 feet of the proposed construction limits were delineated, staked and surveyed. Wetland boundaries were delineated and staked in the field on May 8, and May 15, 1997. Additional field woilc was done on June lO-l 1,1997, to verify information regarding hydrology, soils and vegetation. Wetland stakes were surveyed by a Hennepin County Survey crew in May, and June, 1997. Wetland classifications are based on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) publications Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, 1979) and Wetlands of the United States (Circular 39). Soil colors are described in accordance with Munsell Soil Color Charts (1992 Revised Edition). Wetland Descriptions Ten wetland basins (Plan Sheet 2) were delineated along CSAH 6 between a point 750 feet (228 meters) west of Townline Road and a point 375 feet (114 meters) east of Orchard.Paik Road. The data forms for these delineations are attached to this report (Appendix A). Two additional basins near the eastern end of the project were also delineated but are beyond the construction limits of the project and are not impacted. Descriptions for these two wetland basins are not included in this report Two additional sites within the project corridor were investigated and determined not to be wetlands (Plan Sheet 2). Descriptions of these areas are included in this report The data forms for these two determinations are also included in Appendix A. The National Wetland Inventory and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Protected Waters and Wetland Inventory for the project area are shown in Figures 1 through 3. The Hennepin County Soil Survey and USGS topographic map for the project area are shown in Figures 4 through 7. Aerial photographs of the project area (Figures 8-11) are also included as part of this application. Wetland #IN (WLIN) WLIN is a type 2/1L/R4 wetland (PEMB/PFOl A). The dominant vegetation is reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), boxelder (Acer negundo) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Soils are described as Hamel Loam (lOYR 3/1). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fnnge. Wetland boundaries are sharply defined and were established primarily on elevation and hydric soil indicators (Transect Tl, Appendix A). WeUand#lS(WLlS) WLIS is a type 2 (PEMB) wetland dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toe of slopes of the existing road fill. Soils are mapped as Hamel loam (lOYR 3/1). Field samples indicated that the fiinge area resembled Dundas silt loam (lOYR 3/1). Redoximorphic features (mottles) were present at two sites (Tl-1, Tl-2) along a transect perpendicular to the northern wetland boundary. Mottles at Tl-1 are distinct, very ▼ >rr •' *. • siS.., -U4^ fine and approximately six inches beneath the surface. Mottle color is described as 2.5 YR 4/6. Mottles are less than one percent of the matrix. Mottles at ten inches are distinct, fine and approximately one to five percent of the matrix. Mottles at TI-2 are distinct, very fine and approximately eight inches beneath the surface. Mottle color is described as 2.5 YR 4/6. Mottles are less than one percent of the matrix. Mottles at 12 inches are distinct, fine and approximately one to five percent of the matrix. No mottles were found at the upland site (Tl-3). Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and hydric indicators (mottles). Wetland #2 (WL2) WL2 is a type 2/3 (PEMB/C) wetland. The dominant vegetation in the wetland fringe is reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Cattail (Typha sp.) is dominant at lower elevations.. Soils are described as Hamel loam (lOYR 3/1). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries are sharply defined and were established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect I, Appendix A). Wetland #3 (WL3) WL3 is a type 2/3 (PEMB/C) wetland. The wetland fringe is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), black willow (Salix nigra.) and goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Cattails (Typha sp.) are dominant at lower elevations. Soils are described as Hamel lo?m (lOYR 3/1). Redoximorphic features were not observed in two of the three transect sites (Tl-2 and Tl-3). Oxidized root channels. 2.5 YR 4/6, were observed at Tl-1. Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect Tl, Appendix A). Wetland #4 (WL4) WL4 is type 2 (PEMB) wetland. Goldenrod (Solidago sp.), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), elm (Ulmus sp.) and boxelder (Acer negundo) are dominant in the wetland fringe and adjacent upland areas. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is the dominant vegetation below the wetland fringe. Soils are mapped as a depressional area in Lerdal loam (10 YR 2/1). Field investigations found soils resembling Hamel loam (10 YR 3/1). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect Tl, Appendix A). Wetland #5N (WL5N) WL5N is type 4 (PEMF) wetland. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is dominant in the wetland fringe. Cattail (Typha sp.) is the dominant vegetation below the wetland fringe. Most of the wetland is open water. Soils in the wetland fringe are described as Hamel loam (10 YR 3/1). Peaty muck (Gley 2.5/0) is present below the wetland fringe. Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect TI, Appendix A). ♦ rI l f- m,<2r;^\9 ( *• ‘ f I ; j // ir-<^ :''T: .• t i \ Welland #5S (WL5S) ^ckthom^r^ (PFOl A) wetland. Reed canary grass (Phalaris amndinacea) and common ereen r/F^Z:^—Boxelder (Acer negundo). • > (Ulmus sp.) are dominant below the wetland fringe. (‘0 YR 3/1) but have some characteristics of a Dundas silt loam. Appln^rAT established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect Tl, Wetland #6N (WL6N) ^ ^ ^ arundinacea) is dominant in the the wetlfl!?H Cattail (Typ^ sp.) is the dominant vegetation below the wetland fringe. Soils in the wetland fringe ^e descnbed as Hamel loam (10 YR 3/1). Peaty muck (Gley 2.5/0) is present Mow the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect Tl, Appendix A). >«"« Wetland U6S (WL6S) WL6S is a type 3 (PEMC) wetland. Reed canaiy grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is dominant in the ‘ (Typha sp.) IS the dominant vegetation below the wetland fringe. Soils are appro.ximately 6 to 8 inches beneath the surface. Mottle color is described as 2.5 YR 5/8. Mottles ^ l-5^rcent of the matrix. Mottles at Tl-2 are distinct, very fine and approximately 14 to 16 oTthTi^Irif ^ described as 2.5 YR 5/8. Mottles are less than 1 percent pIiIw-T? mottles were tound at the upland site (Tl-3). Wetland boundaries were established pnmanly on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect Tl, Appendix A) Wetland U7 (WL7) ^ Wetland. Wetland boundaries are sharply defined as this is an excavated m^-made pond Sedge carex) is the dominant emergent vegetation but most of the pond surface Wetland Determinations Wetland Determination #1 (WDl) u/Pi •ocated on t^he north side of CSAH 6, approximately 260 feet (80 meters) southeast of AcuiveZnrcsA^rdrv:::;;^^^^^^^^^ prevent ponding adjacent to the north side of CSAH 6. WDI is dominated by reed canary grass ( alans arundinacea). Soils are descnbed as Hamel loam (10 YR 3/2). Redoximorphic features wf were not present within 16 inches of the surface. The hydric soils and vegetation criteria were met but wetland hydrology was absent. Wetland Determination #2 (WD2) WD2 is located on the south side of CSAH 6 approximately 72 feet (22 meters) east of WL6S. This area is upland adjacent to a wetland located further south. WD2 is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and boxelder (Acer negundo). Soils are described as Hamel loam (10 YR 3/2). Redoximorphic features were not present within 16 inches of the surface. The hydric soils and vegetation criteria were met but wetland hydrology was absent. WETLAND REPLACEMENT SEQUENCING The County has minimized wetland impacts by staying in the existing right of way whenever possible. The County also avoided and minimized impacts to wetlands by steepening slopes and pulling back the construction limits. The design calls for 0.81 acres of permanent wetland impact. The County's ability to avoid wetland impacts, when widening the roadway and adding turn lanes and roadway shifts are necessary, is restricted due to safety requirements for road alignments and sight lines. WETLAND IMPACTS Wetland impacts are shown on Plan Sheets 6-8. A total of 0.81 acres (0.33 hectares) of wetland will be impacted by fill associated with the proposed project. Table# 1 summarizes the wetland impacts for each individual wetland. All impacted wetlands are in the Mississippi River Metro watershed (watershed #20). This project qualifies for Nationwide General Permit #26 from the USACE since the total impact is less than 3 acres. WETLAND REPLACEMENT The 0.81 acres of impact to WCA protected wetlands will be certified for replacement by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) as provided in Minnesota Rules 8420.0540 Subp. 5F. The Hennepin County Transportation Division, Department of Public Works, will comply with the requirements of Minnesota Rules 8420.0540 Subp. 5D and submit a report to the BWSR that includes the 0.81 acres of permanent wetland impacts described in this report HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 6 (CSAH 6) RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (CP#9444)WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION # Applicant: Hennepin County Transportation Divbion, Department of Public Works Project Location: Citv cf Orono, Minnesota Date: July 16,1997 CONTENTS LocaLState-Federal Project Notification form Project Narrative Wetland Delineation Report Wetland Replacement Plan ^ Appendices Figure Number Plan Sheet Number 1 2 LIST OF FIGURES Title Project Location Map Wetland Location Map National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map DNR Protected Waters and Wetlands Map 3 Hennepin County Soil Survey Map 4,5 USGS Topographic Map 6,7 Aerial Photo^ph of Project Area 8-11 Wetland Delineations 3.5 Wetland Impacts 6-8 PERMITS REQUESTED Sectioii 404: Nationwide Permit No. 26 from the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Conditional Use Permit: Land Alteration, Grading and Filling - Designated Wetland fix)m the City of Orono APPLICANT Hennepin County Transportation Division Mr. Steve Theis 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Miimesota 55343 (612) 930-2528 AGENT Hennepin County Environmental Management Division Mr. Joel Settles 417 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1397 (612) 348-6157 r CITY OF ORONO GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION CSAH 6; COUNTY PROJECT 9444 S.A.P. 27-606-15 PURPOSE: To supplement the City of Orono General Land Use Application which is required due to the grading and filling of wetlands. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve public safety by the reconstruction of CSAH 6, adding turn lanes, bypass lanes, paved shoulders and consolidating access in accordance with current design and safety standards. The attached permit application requests a wetland permit from the Army Corps of Engineers in addition to the Conditional Use Permit and fully summarizes wetland delineation, impacts, and mitigation. Upon the City of Orono’s Planning and Zoning Commission review, Hennepin County respectfully requests that this Land Use Permit be granted and recommended for city council approval at the September fifteenth council meeting. Attachments include the following: • Completed application form. • Certified property owners list with mailing labels and plat map. • Existing and proposed contours (see plan sheets 3-8). • Construction plan. • City of Orono approved Layout 3 (colored). It additional information is necessary for permit application consideration please contact Steve Theis at 930-2528. approflUU ipacu Mow » Wow. Ploaio dwdtIho «.«Tfwiwre you ofo tending m« form. Ktir»mttr u kttp • mpy Or yair ncordt. “I? *•“''>= ■=««»• ^ wotoirtod monogemem orgonladon. Speofy th. LGU t. wNeh yon tendln, m. fonn: HinnnhVhn rr.fy Uintnnrhnd pist^ct ~— OmwcT Of one eidsti for the projea area). Specify tns Wittfsh^d District s HinnEhdhd Cr66k Wdt6rsh6d Distrlct X ^ ~ ------ MamcsoTA DcPAimierT of N atural Raounca (MONR) retfonal office JL_ U.S. A amv CORFS OF Enoww (a COE). Send the ACOE copy to: S'TiSfT^r',1; m '??,S57g. UMAtan*rI?'”n " '*•'"’"'polmlon., Indudhg owrMy ...d th. fdlowing InfmmrtSIS?",! wl^rf MeSS. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiixnixminimiiiiiiminiimiTTTTTTTTTT^Yi' * «»'y «»««•".whh««d;:;S!?rpr.VdT«jr*.jr.:; s;j;. „ SiQnatufe of Applicant • *'■'* Signature of Agent Date *IO^d by the person who deaira to undertake the proposed activity (appHant) or It may be dgnad by a duly authorind ag«n If tha Informadon raduoatad below b^otdda* * “ Klsev%A «eM#4Agent's Name and tide: Agent's address: Agent's telephone: ( §gg ATTACHMENT ABQUT MDNR PERMIT Pgl=g I HA^ci£2o^ LSQ^L * "-FroEHAL Water R esou wcc Pwoj^ct NoppcATioiii / application Fomi •(• w«.»..o««l praipctm',taf^limn ttitSlIIwLS'Th^•::u'?sx™r ??J:s,7s;2: z.7^^-AUTHORIZATIONS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK. twu must ovtajn AU REQUIRED AGENCY USE ONLY: LQU NUMBER:MONR NUMBER: I. Apptiewtt'a Nama (Lmc Rr«. M.I.) Authorfiad AgMitp H any Hennepin County Transportation Division; Theis, Steve Addraaa IStraat. RFD. Box Nunnbar. City. Stata. Zip Coda) 320 Washington Avenue South, Hopkines, MN 55343_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t U. iDCJHion of Pfopo—d pfO)#ct (fn#ch dfawiQfl Am Cod«a TiUphoM *612* 930-2528 City of Orono ! COUNTY * Hennepin QUARTER SECnON(a) SECTtONS(a) No. TOWNSHlR(a) No. RANGECa) No T118N, R24W Sec. 36 T118N, R23W, Sec 31.32 Lot, Btook. Subdiviaion FIRE No.. BOX No.. OR PROJECT ADDRESS N/A name of waterbody AFFECTED and NUMBER OF KNOWN) ___ N/A 111. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: •3,225,000.00 LENGTH OF SHORE AFFECTED On fact): IV. VOLUME OF FIU OR EXCAVATION (Cubie Yafdo): AREA FILLED OR EXCAVATED IS q / Aeroa.Squofo Foot WOTE: You moy oubaMwfo rfHtanaiana) V. TYPE OF WORK AND AREA (CHECK AU THAT APPLY): □ CONSTRUCT □ DRAIN □ EXCAVATE nOU. □AEMOVE □ REPAIR □ AOCESBPATM □BRBGC □CULVBtr QOam □ DOCK □ RMAP □ 1^ OTHER (DESCRIBE): WETLAND TYPE(S) AND ACREAGE(S) PROPOSED TO BE miPP/PRAINED; (see attached Plansl_______________ Attach appDeabla drawings, plana, and ASCS crop photoa. Induda a daacripdon of any propooad oompanaatory nddgstion. Imooftant; Idantlfv Eny.0ilP91Fl .ilP4 Oaaeriba tha work balow: how it would ba dorw; whM oquipmant would bo uaod. 1 VI. PROJECT PURPOSE (why ia thia pro}aet naadad-what banaflu will h provida?): Improve public safety by the addition of turn lanes, bypass lanes and paved shoulders. VII. ALTERNATIVES (daacribo any othar aitaa or maU-c.-jf that could bo uaad to achiovo tha purpoaa of your projoct whila avoiding or irirind^rtg wadand/watar impacts: Attach odditionH ahaau, if naadad). No build alternative is not feasible due to safety concerns. Vtll. OATES: Proposed turt of activity: Spring,1998 (Idantlfv ony complatad work on an anachad drawing) Propoaod eomplation: Fall, 1998 IX. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS (Attach Cat H mora than two) See attached^??*City Stata X. rocaivad (antar an 5) or alraady appliad for (antar an ^ from: ____ONR A -A_ Tcwnr/Cmr Wattckd DismcT ___MN PoiunxM CONmx A gency COtMTV Has an archaaoiogical aurvoy of tha projoct aita boon dona? If ao. bv whom: GrOUp Ltd. I haraby notify tha rodpiants of thla form of dia projact propoaad harain and roquaat that I ba advtoad of any pomdti or othor datam ilnotlona oonoamlng thia oro^aet that 1 muat obtain. I undarsund dut prooaading whh work bafora al raqubad oudwHtadons art abtairtad may aUbiact ma to Fadaral. Suu. ind/or ?«cal admirdatratlvo. clvfl and/or crimirul partahiaa. A Sigrtatura of Poraon Propoair>g Projact or Agant < < < PLEASE CAREFULLY VEAO AND COMPLETE BACK OF FORM> > > DATE . 7////97 (Revised 10/1!^ Ji M (■r — f 1 1 r“^r -4—/ iV-r? X. r -J ih* v u \ 1 fe ■y f __£/ rara s (liSSS 5S(___inni —^* — in r-o Q m S W Jn r- S Xm ~4s* i 8 8 f^ f*t $ dl ^ uS m M KKKK Pi P^ d{ $ ^ ^ fra o•w e 38 O JK 98 O M C8 fra X IBI 2 " c=3 Inr3 «m > s O $ o•n T1 H O < O § I S ^ X0 I S S c 9 ^02 j». ^ * o H 98 iS9' 01 trf J, mm -fl Inn) ={) If (nnl 5^ ?| ?1 ?> B 2 SS§q S — O r- r* % P R R O) O C/» ► TJ O rs) o tJ > o 3 os I o $ JI fil in “0 0 fSJ <1.s 1 r tnopm tn om 30 mo I t: Is is o s o : CO CO 1 •r*—1r"•—4i -D 1 •£Oz ’ z COo 1 • 1 33m; ro i 1: o>•Hoo>CO 1 33cnm -Hm 33CO r~m CO CO O —• m —1 33 o »«-•CO CO -Hm —1zk—«o o-Hmo oo o CO TOWNLINE ROAD J> O CD Ocrzo j> 33 -< 1 } Z If 1 “t> to to m •r--Hzr-•-Hm “T3 "T3•O ZIz3Cto Oo•zom z rsi —1 -<<r»o too> 1 —A ztnm mztoo•r*" c/1 Z•r-m•tozto• o -Ha>zm -H JO OaC totom -H 32 O Ono-H *!y z m O o C- • zo• CO f s \ I cr»o r-m in omro ocz mo I f I o s o nl X COm•z r-• mm "D• 2 zo O • o m §N> ■H •HoCOcn 1 mmA cn m -Hm X CO O•r— CO Z•r- >m•CO X CO• o —1onXm X mmrn4 COm zo •D —• 30 m O oc. • o• CO C o zo o 3>:dm >• o om -Hm ZJJ C rom "DoCOmo oo 30 CO >► o CD O O -< CDm 33 "I $;^Vy;:vZ ^'■4‘’ ••• ^ .-■f;,y ^* if - CO ms ■2* ;• * . L *2 ^ * * V. ’ .’••■ . • •'Uv.. -. . 2 > O 2 > $m > H D fi H > H Tln ■n ■0 >a H S hD D CO T1 i2 5<5m n 0 5 "Oa ■n 5c m CO > - A § i; r. 5^ Al lill I» m < = w m 2 n 73 o ?D ■n 5 3Dm A -vl Ul * 255 2r C O 5H C* M 2 I o> 2 a * 5 /-Vg a S O r Vx | ■n i \ K \ ^ § \ k g. I ••n . * \n> >Hm (/> < ♦A ,i=s3oo<r- • •.-/<.m - > -T4. i * <a . O' ' />' •) J 5? / -X- I \ V I » 4: a ^ Vv _T'— *• I » » • ooo*- _1*'n 1 " I i< Jr I T L • • • • • }V o.. . S: '( •' '• '-___; I ■ • .k •» 2 — ► >•< V o ,■if^♦ •< I » \ '■ ^ ‘A^'^'ruj’U-Arl . ,Y* •••••>• I /O • f7 • 'llI S ___ > •■ • • « • M |^« i— » . IX. -b^-r/i * -:r • ir ••*•*>: 1 2^^ ‘N, \<:^,ivv\✓ • •< P)' v,;® I o , I'-s^ ! h r '■• ••■*-rTx-V-.' ll vW**- -A /' lO yjf n I. ^1 •• ••••• I.,' • • N. • f \- .fjrc:.J- % 1^:3 ','r'V • X : :r^«rYQ ^0i “- vxi' »» iiMisgi;i 8 4:‘\.•r • 0-1 4. r-9 •-'M:m/m, ' r,<0 * I ' ‘\m r I > • I ^^v i’ \ .jnuAfie..VJ: VILLAGE ;3_-l.Jl-'_BpwBAJ5J._._Li__'.I___i^;lli^*Jt-T^.Qt UA.Xy ' boundar y I \ . I., VI ^ I ^ 4 \ ft . St Ti o\ I r / C4. li ) '5*., ir m ^ I • i*\ /-. /•: ♦o~. jv> f ■ b V—- V^.v, Vs^ ! ‘ I ‘ ------rw J 1. 4^ (b/r» » Vl /I iK V N)-.-A • t .*^.3' ' .'“x L.:» -----------------O . ^ ic-'v \ t>‘ . • \ ^;-- /frt 'x:-' I I :'!r •»\ -----------' f®’; ;+ * I fi4 //.)’ (L■Kf'i> Ji ^ • ^ 7 AfcFI <J-/I 5/ ^ • j y »/• f f •••••'•1,'yt^^' ^ • V • • • • *^* • !.• « ‘ .’t I •' I - • ^ ••• « ' -•• ;f ■;. 1 U-feXAA- ••■* 11° •” • ■ !l ^ ‘i; V;I « el ’• • <»— • L!0 n :v’A ‘;. ■ o• r. c • /^ r^i '•■/-7#/%v/Vr^•/•91 • • • • * ■n 5 30m •g m Xomr Ui o JbHL V < (/) m 2 ^ m 73 o 70 U1 ■n Ocnm ■si m Xomr 0) 2 5 o z PO- z ^1 m O v'V^>-. >.;>; !^^BH 0'P»IM Wi W ’axl \JS t y.-w^.m iw 5* Sv •<•: Vt;j5LA m Vi r- AV.^fe‘-»7?1^ mmfr. <^(X- fiT"'- ?:>; > ■■«'.. f, V ^ ^ wm < 's.'^^.v.;«f ■'p [/iSn**« i ' .'L.*' • » • ,•> i- .••V '. ' !5'VW•> . • ^_'4i > V ’tir ■ •'• >■ • t> JlC V 'yi m f^^m. M. F*^' f>i' ?*. mK . *k^ / \^.’ •• •7|| smftL ^K '-" ' ‘ I |||P|||H|H m r *'. V i#'*' i*. •»v<sT. .i * ®^*wd j»r«’4*^ ij #* ^ m., i I ,.\«/H.> > » r£ m r ‘/s «»>: om.- S: ? - •i 1^ t./?w i-; .3 V. . • iH ^mm.•n .• >•/m sSSS » y y ' i , V 1^ -.t V♦ 'M fj- rr '' «7A? t - ... ';>,:> • • ’ • •' ' * *•*•. . . * ■ tr ■. ?/ .SB • -i'' '\ ' • vl ■j:^ -«i>-^ ••♦.• ••.•;> .„; • V| mM m 41 f m^tf! o>-*^: V J^MX * •■,. 'V ?■. ' ■ • : ■ ■*%!:• V or*~'‘>i^*d \*i' -• -^afiswR.^ .»'?L •>i' Vi". ___->_Jf^ I-."* ■»xp4e' ••**>>• r.r itS .«^-J r. -' *•* S'. ia M'.?' • '• <4 ■■ /'J»/V \ ■;> i* i • -ji <; . 'i • '"-'V. -V ■ ■ ^ * ■» S.: r-:’^ !•■ 4 V¥a • *1 V ' L^-. 1 «'■' 'r 4"'<-.A ; ^.'•f J. pT^ ) ' •.ZX* ' ■-v/' ■ii^‘ .,-‘A ^ i , .,*■«(? Sc.vr^ *5 ‘ L« ,y <V f <ct Wt-y: S*''^A ki?' •*' ^ '^V* •, v'i ’/» '.. i. ^ ».3-; .'■ .: "dd #•’ L"- A /•.'4#-» V iJ: w A * \i-^* ili VZ9 w:^r ..^*i I •*• -^« . W V ' i«. •' , 'I f tS ?}^sv iiHA» V). i ,‘V I.V,*' t i*\' V* ^ * ' * 4 [>.« iT3fi A. Xit. I' ilk. rii-'' IDoc T\ 5^. LT^s n JS V7- ► • - ^ ^ *i * A.% ■’i 4 - .^.r- »• 0ii% * I- '-^"ikJ! '9f 'MI *<gr^ ^iw r<^. ■■ “Tv^v ♦ i-. V •- '5^»’^ *• s5 0. ''.:r^J SI ->! %g I ■U-f *'ib... •■fS *:•• > T V >- •« ^ ^ 4*^ ^■•' ^.;*a Hk.Iflfe ^ L‘^i'^m ‘5^ •K?- ]ri?'V* i-’-*♦:ai.'* |?-V iA . .-^ ^ <1.» / ' ’ <1 > 1% m )v li;' .Air.' iSI •'^0!i?', ;-■. - -:-^i 'fsl W PC«Vi^ h ->V^>v[■ • •.A?i m mTr^, mw .r'.V . > II uli^tv rWSa»^'?il SS^S)j^W--2' ^‘fV: :?;'4iSSilii^» M \:i •*‘MS • <^.iS^:>‘a ..> •••t f COUNCIL Meht /ng SEP 2 2 1997 REQITST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C/TY OF GRONo DATE: 9/17/97 ITEM NO.: #2284 7 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren 1 itie Planner/Zoning Administrator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2284-James Slechta having an interest in 3700 Northern Avenue Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC Lot Area: 172,968.3 s.f. (3.97 acres) Application: The applicant is prop^'sing the construction of a 42* by 96* (4,032 s.f.) storage building. Variances are requireu for constructing an oversize accessory structure that exceeds the total maximum footprint of accessory structures on a zoning lot, front setback and height. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: 1. 2. Deny the 4,032 s.f. storage structure as proposed. Deny the variances for an accessory structure that both exceeds the allowable footprint for an individual structure as well as the allowable total footprint area for all accessory structures on the zoning lot. 3.Deny a front setback variance of 7’ to allow the structure to be located 23* from the front lot line where 30* is required. 4.Deny a height variance to allow the accessory structure to have a peak height of 23’, exceeding the 16* height of the principal structure. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. t t A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.02, SECTION 10.03, SUBD, 9 AND SECTION 10.25 FILE NO. #2284 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Minnesota. WHEREAS, pursuant to state statutes 412 et, seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, James Slechta (hereinafter "the applicant") having an interest in the property located at 3700 Worthem Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as fol ows: Tract B and C R.L.S No. 763 and the South 2/3 of the West 3/4 of Lot 9 in Block 10, Townsite of Langdon Park (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02, Definition 13, Section 10.03, Subd. 9 and Section 10.25 to permit construction of an accessory structure that is proposed as 42' by 96' (4,032 s.f) in size. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2284. property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre in area. The property consists of 172,968.3 s.f. (3.97 acres total, 3.37 acres dry buildable). Page 1 of 5 5. 6. 7. 8. The proposed footprint of the accessory structure is 4,032 s.f. v/here 1,600 s.f. is the maximum allowable footprint of an accessory structure on a zoning lot of the given size. The total proposed footprint of all accessory structures on the property is 5,410.6 where 3,200 s.f is the maximum allowable total footprint of all accessory structures on a zoning lot o<" the given size. The structure is proposed to be located 23' from the front lot line where 30' is required. The proposed peak height of the structure is 23' where the peak height of the principal structure is 16' and the height of accessory structures is not allowed to exceed that of the principal structure. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 15, 1997 and recommended denial of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: 1. 2. Adequate hardship has not been demonstrated by the applicant for an accessory structure of the proposed size. The proposed structure exceeds the maximum size allowed for an accessory structure. 3. The number of structures and their total square footage restricts the allowed size of any additional accessory structures to 1,421,4 s.f 4.A structure of the proposed size is not compatible with residential districts in the LR-IC zoning district. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are not peculiar to it and apply generall)' to other propert>’ in this zoning district and that granting the requested vaiiances would merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Page 2 of 5 t .-■if’*' Comprehensive Plan of the City. 8.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02, Section 10.03, Subd. 9 and Section 10.25 to deny construction of an accessory structure that is proposed as 42' by 96' (4,032 s.f.) in footpiint where an individual accessory structure must not exceed 1,600' in footprint and the total footprint of accessory structures on the lot may not exceed 3,200 s.f. where 5,410.6 s.f. is proposed, located 23' from the front lot line where 30' is required and 23' in height, exceeding the 16' height of the principal structure as shown on Exhibit A. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of September, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Page 3 of 5 11 Ii ! IP The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of September, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hall in, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said ’nstrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public ! ‘■'.ft. Page 4 of 5 AV ti; FRANK R. CARDARELLE (612) 941-3031 Land burveyor Eden Prairie. MN 55344 r^; t- kn C<rtificat« ©f ^url>ev Survey For__si>»cht<i Book 147 Pane ?s File. Ik J** m WayrataV KN* 553^1 Di>acriDtiont Tract -B- and -C- R.L.S. No. 763 and th** South 2/3 of tha West 3/4 of Lot 9 in Block 10, Tomalta of Langdon Park. Containing 2 acraa, aiora or leaa, Bannapin County, Hinnaaota. This plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under ay direct supervision, and that X aa a duW Raqiatarad Land Surveyor in the State of Hinnaaota Signed this ^7^ ©f ^ ■ - 1996. ^.____________., 1996. /fey. a V Lot ^ Area only 83,600 Sq. Ft. Franlc^^^^ardSfSJe State Rag. No. 6508Buildinq Area 2590 So. Ft. Drive Area 1800 Sq. Ft. Pronosed Bide. 4032 Sa. Ft. : I ■ i : I ■ TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator nATE: SUBJECT: August 9,1997 #2284, James Slechta, having an interest in 3700 Northern Avenue Variance(s)-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area: Application: 1. 172,968.3 square feet (3.97 acres total, .6 acres in wetland) (approximated by city staff, surveyor did not provide total lot area) The applicant is proposing to construct a 42' x 96' (4,032 sq. ft.) storage building. The proposal requires variances as follows: To construct an oversized accessory structure that exceeds boA the maximum individual accessory structure footprint and the maximum total footprint for all accessory structures on the zoning lot. To locate 23' from the fit)nt property line at the southeast comer of the proposed storage building where 30 ’ is required. To constmct a storage building with a peak height of 23', sidewalls at 16' where the height of the accessory structure is limited to the height of the principal structure. The principal structure is 16' to the peak. 2. 3. Pertinent Ordinances: . Section 10.02, Definitions, 13, Building Height . Se:tion 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 9, Accessory Buildings . Section 10.25, LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District #2284 James Slechta 3700 Northern Avenue PC-9/15/97 page-1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1/2 acre 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft.; 30' for accessory structures over 1,000 sq. ft. 30 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 3.97 acres approximately of which .6 acres is wetland 442 ft.proposed at 23' from SE comer of storage building 10 ft. to Tract B meets 30 ft. from east/west property lines 270 ft.+ The subject property exceeds the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for the zoning district. The storage building would encroach 7' into the required 30' front yard. The storage building would be 10' from the west boundary of Tract B. This could present a problem if Tract B was separated from Lot 9, the western part of the parcel. Maximum Accessory Structure Footprint Area Lot Area Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Area 3.01-3.51 acres (w/o wetland) 3.51-4.00 acres (with wetland) #2284 James Slechta 3700 Northern Avenue PC-9/15/97 page~2 1,400 sq. ft. 1,600 sq. ft. Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas 2,800 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. t The lot size is approximated by staff as 3.97 acres, .6 acres is wetland. The table does not address whether the wetland should be included in determining total lot area. If the wetland area is excluded, as the Zoning Code definition of lot area suggests, then the property is limited to an additional 1,421.4 sq. ft. of footprint area for accessory structures. The amount of footprint for each of the existing buildings is as follows: House #1 (Principal Structure)1,200 sq. ft. Garage #1 534.6 sq. ft. Garage #2 240 sq. it. House #2 440 sq. ft. Porch 144 sq. ft. Total Existing Structural Coverage 2,578.6 sq. ft. Total Existing Footprints for All Accessory Structures 1,378.6 sq. ft. Total Proposed Footprints for All Accessory Structures 5,410.6 sq. ft. The proposed footprint for the storage building is 4,032 sq. ft. which exceeds the individual footprint allowed and also the maximum allowed for all accessory structures on a property. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has indicated to staff that he desires to move into the smaller house on the property to be near his parents who live in the principal structure. He indicated that he wants to store his possessions in the storage building. The applicant will need to provide testimony regarding the need to locate 23' from the front property line and the need for a building that exceeds the 1,600 sq. ft. footprint for the lot size. 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. ti2284 James Slechta 3700 Northern Avenue PC-9/15/97 page-3 L L if ■ : 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. The zoning lot can continue to be used for residential use without the storage building. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The Zoning Code limits the size of accessory structures. The proposed storage building exceeds the allowed maximum size, encroaches 7' into the required front yard and exceeds tue height requirement based on the principal structure. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The va-iance for a 4,032 sq. ft. oversized accessory structure that exceeds the 1,600 sq. ft. limitation to locate within 23' of the front property line and also exceeds the height of the principal structure will change the character of the area. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. The applicant has not indicated whether economic factors are 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. The applicant has indicated that the storage building is for his personal belongings. However, a building of this size would appear commercial in nature and may encourage future owners to attempt to locate commercial uses in the building. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. #2284 James Slechta 3700 Northern A venue PC-9/15/97 page-4 8. 9. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. All zoning lots in the LR-IC district are subject to the same zoning requirements for oversized accessory structures. This lot is unusual in that is it much larger than the minimum lot size for the zoning district. The conditions do net apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. ! f ^ j This zoning lot is heavily wooded and the lot slopes to the wetland in die center of the lot. This property also has five existing structures. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant needs to provide testimony at the public hearing regarding the storage building being necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his interest in the property. 11 . The granting of the ..iopo jed 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 be contrary to the Zoning Code ’s limit on the size of oversized accessory structures. 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. No hardship has been demonstrated. A smaller storage building could be located 30 ft. from the front property line. The applicant needs to provide the Planning Commission with testimony regarding the need for a height variance. Issues 1.The zoning lot does exceed the 1/2 acre minimum lot requirement for the LR-IC Zoning District. The zoning lot is approximately 3.9 acres in size with .6 acres deemed wetland. #2284 James Slechta 3 700 Northern Avenue PC-9/15/97 page-5 The zoning lot is heavily wooded in the location where the storage shed is proposed.The lot slopes down to the wetland. Any new structure is required to be at least 26' from the edge of the wetland. There are two residential structures on this site, two garages and one porch according to the submitted survey. The proposed storage building would require the removal of trees and vegetation on the site. The impact of removal of the vegetation and trees and its impact on the wetland is not known. The permit record indicates that a permit for a garage was issued in 1973. The zoning lot was connected to sewer in 1986. It appears that no other permits or variances were issued for this property. The street file does indicate that in February 1996 a vacation or division for tax purposes was filed. (File Number 2121). V •STAFF RECOMMENDATIONThe Planning Commission has had numerous requests for variances to allow oversized accessory structures during the past few months. Staff has consistently recommended that the applicant reduce the size of the structure, comply with the height requirement and reduce and eliminate any other variances such as front or side yard where possible. This proposal is for a storage bui mg that far exceeds any other accessory structure proposed for a residential lot. The Planning Commission should ask the applicant to explain his desire for a storage building ^t “ the a7wed height and size for the zoning lot. Applicant should be advised that any new structure should meet the 30' front yard setback. Also consider the appropnate d»st^ce any new building should be located from the Tract B pro; .rty line in case the parcels are divided in the future. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Proposed Survey D Topographical Map E Proposed Building Footprint F Peimit Record G Wetland Map H Pertinent Sections of Zoning Code j Jiff 1 U2284 James Slechta 3700 Northern Avenue PC-9/15/97 page—7 Application it ¥____Date Received 7 Amount Paid O__A • • CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 - - ($50.00 per each additional variance) B *C5 <y ^ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ^ "y (no change from original application) // * Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) *-.'1 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number fP.I.D.) (H -* i IH -» ^3 3*^____OOP ^________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired, _________________t s'<£>______^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___pother (specify). -4^ applicant Name Uis.g. h-Tfi- Phone fiiome ^ ^ V J.3 Phone (woric). Address: JSS-rv City: /ty/£.ut />*«. Zip: $*~6g ? f OWNER (if different than applicant) Name i-Bo 3L(z.c~ Phone (home ) Phone (work ) Address: 7«^0 ec/O City: r>»«Zip:__£Ci2Z DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $ Describe request in detail: JZ* ^ ___Zc— i,037-(attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore y Other (specify) (yer^?^d ^WiXc4tl fP. h^./ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:. (attach' additional sheets if necessary) >f^FRANK R. CARDAPELLE (612) 941*3031 Land burveyor Eden Prairie. MN 55344 / f 1/ c CettititaU Survey For__si»»chg^ V f K' Way?*Ata, MN 5S2^l Book 34 7 Page 7s File. . i- Description: Tract -B« and -C* R.L.S. No. 762 and th^ South 2/3 of the West 3/4 of Lot 9 In Block 10, Townslte of Langdon Park. Containing 2 acres# sore or less# Hennepin County, Hinnesota. This plan, specification or report was prepared by lae or under «y direct supervision# and that I am a duW Reqistered Land Surveyor in the State of Hinnesota. Signed this day of h . 1996. _ Lot 9 Area only 83,600 Sq. Ft. Bulldinq Area 2590 So. Ft. Drive Area 1800 Sa. Ft. Proposed Bldn. 4032 Sq.’Ft. • ''3'^ p» -------------^_______________________________________________________ Frank R. iSardii^dUe State Reg. No. 6506 .1 ' I ooo ft iA r; • • w 9^' Mmimmi T - ^o F-r Qooe. 5 E e ' P^OPC^IHD ; H0(9HT; i ((o' 5/dd vjcill^ 25' peal; ' plPfvXliP^: £wcrae6' 1 u Ff To FeN^ • • •• • F PERMIT RECORD • • .• Permit No.Date c3r^7 • •# /_m 3/^1'/Ay 31S4 <f/AS-/y3 dibs QDbA JM 3/d g<? 5V -77- •• ••* *.* • r/. •. Type of Permit kejifvoM^it PL'XA <? -/W 0 f #lii^nun ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS OP POOR DUALITY Q^n P0l1»'.-. »,vhJlAGE <%S jMN(^AR '^^•^VLUAGr - ’' ';T C'MI 'L tUfi f. 'f f mm.v< '.t. ft*#*!!®! r'-r*" ■ ' 'f ' c4^k>- ;-.^l11 msi %• ••.! '■: -W: ? ' rr' t -Si Ji'-1- % t 'Fm%m m t s.- k'* ^ I"* -■' El i V ^ >■’' yir 1^ is I »l\j s •:.«-5r,-^ MK S -ii*"'' mm ]®at • 1 rpi.^,vv .tr -.; :^p'^ ^ r‘si • « .• t:r-w vJpL:; BlpMti VJh} -np|r ■ E U:2k SJvV.^:i'Nf> V. = / -1-Vi ^ - . -.;■ 5^, P-^ to-' ■ Wm 'r< --W^-tv-.mmm «>* f U Ml 331 S 10.03 2. Oversized Accessory Structures are regulated by the following table: H Lot Area Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Area Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas* on a Property 0-1.99 acre 1,000 s .f.2,000 s.f. 2.00-3.00 acre 1,200 s .f.2,400 s.f. 3.01-3.50 acre 1,400 s.f.2,800 s.f. 3.51-4.00 acre 1,600 s.f.3,200 s.f. 4.01-4.50 acre 1,800 s.f.3,600 s.f. 4.51-5.00 acre 2,000 s.f.4,000 s.f. 5.01-6.00 acre 2,200 s.f.4,400 s.f. 6.01-7.00 acre 2,400 s.f.4,800 s.f. 7.01-8.00 acre 2,600 s.f.5,200 s.f. 8.01-9.00 acre 2,800 s.f.5,600 s.f. 9.01 acre or more 3,000 s.f.6,000 s.f. * Excluding non-roofed tennis courts, pools.paddocks, a 3. Any Oversize Accessory Structure shall be subject to the following conditions: a) No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30' from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. b) The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30' or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. c) Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the City as follows: i. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. ORONO CC 255-1 (8-14-89) § 10.03 ii. If the property is subdivided# the oversise accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. iii. In subdivision approval# the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. Source: Ordinance 72# 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 D. Location. No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street# accessory buildings located within the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requirements of Section 10.23# Subdivision 6 (B)# Section 10.24# Subdivision 5 (B) and Section 10.25# Subdivision 6 (B) except that detached garages may be located 10 feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turn-around is provided on site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots divided by roadways or corner lots. Source: Ordinance 26# 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 1. Location of Principal Building to Lakeshore. No principal building shall be located closer than 75 feet to the natural ordinary high water mark of a lake abutting the property. This lakeshore setback shall be determined as the mean horizontal distance between the natural ordinary high water mark on the lakeshore and the allowable building line. 2. Variance From Lakeshore Setback. Any application for a variance from the requirements of Item 1 above shall be referred to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for its approval before final action by the Council. Source: Ordinance No. 155 Effective Date: 2-14-74 ORONO CC 255-2 (4-1-84) : I ■ i r-r S 10.03square feet footprlnt®I«a structures in excess of 750 Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 Subd. 10. Conditional Use Perm* • Reau-iva/^ i (*•'■ iT f » ♦ ♦ r’t. l ! ORONO CC 255-3 (4-1-84) § 10.03Subd. 7. One Building Per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Residential Developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot except that staff may issue a permit to use a manufactured home that shall meet all required setback standards or an existing dwelling while a new principal structure is being constructed. Such permit shall be issued for a period of 3 months, any extensions must be approved by the City and shall expire upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new structure and such structure removea. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 8. Lots to Face Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement. Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the "R” District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30 feet in height. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 C. Area Restrictions. In all "R" Districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Not more than one Oversized Accessory Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An "Oversized Accessory Structure" is defined as an accessory structure of foot print area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following non-roofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area are not considered as "Oversize Accessory Structures", but are subject to the special setback restrictions of Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D): - Tennis courts - Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding non- encroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 s.f. - Paddocks or arenas ORONO CC 255 (4-1-84) City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE:September 22, 1997 TO:Mayor Jabbour and City Council Members FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT:#2285, John Latterelle 3505 Livingston Avenue Variances At the Planning Commission meeting, questions were raised about how the residence on this property was constructed within 4' of the west side property line. The street file and the permit record did not indicate that previous variances were granted. A review of the microfiched records indicates that this property received variances in August 1974 to be considered a buildable lot with a 4’ side yard. The minutes of the meetings are attached. r VILLAGE OF ORONORegular Meetiing of tho Planning Commiasionr August 19» 1974 The Planning Conmission met on the above date with the following menbors present: Chairman Guthrie, Curtis, Hake, Kullberg, and Van Nest Elliott at 8i00 P.M. Pesek at 8i25 P*M. Absent! Gaoch and Xallestad. Curtis moved, Kullberg seconded, that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 15, 1974, be approved. ^k>tion, i\yes (5) - Nays (0). Curtis moved, Kullberg seconded, that the Minutes of the Public Hearing of July 29, 1974, be approved. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Guthrie opened a public hearing on the vacation of Lake Street in Ottoville. Since nobody wished to be heard, the hearing was closed. Tom Betz showed the realignment proposed to cooqpensate the Village for the present 30* of Lake Street by detouring it another way. Van Nest moved. Hake seconded, that the realignment as submitted be approved. Motion, Ayes <5) - Nays (0)• William Bolder represented himself in a petition for a variance to construct a residence on Lot 1, Block 4, Navarre Heights, 3505 Livingston Avenue. He was asking for a variance in size from one-half acre to 6,750 sq. ft., in width from 100* to 50*, from one side setback of 10' to 4', to place a 26' X 50' house thereon. He showed a letter from the neighbor being encroached on stating he had no objection. The neighbor's residence was 40' from the line. Van Nest moved, Kullberg seconded, that since the lot size is consistent with many other lots in the area, there is a sewer ^d water assessment on the lot and service available to avoid any health problems, approval be 7:30 P.M. MINUTES July 15, IS7 MINUTES July 29, 197 t PUBLIC hear: STREET VACA': Lake Street STREET VACA^ 3775 Baysidr VARIANCE 3505 Livinrr COMMUNiCATIONS.MEDlA DIVISIONORIGINAL DOCUMGNTOUALITVt - a;..4 ^ k.*€ • •“ t iiL HZHuns or A smollr A A0Q08T 27* 1274 ' rLOKOL aovod* tNlah Mooadod* to ignprovo tho i dcoftlag of o xoaolotlon pMvidlng tor tho troBOtor of fUAto and an annual tax lavy aolMdttla tor tho Havarra wator oonatruetion projoet* Natioa» Ayoa (4) • Maya (0) • Malah novod* rauzua aacondad# to tabla tha Laka Straat aaoatlon raquaat until tha Saptanhar 10# 1274 Oouneil aaating. At that tiaa# tha lagal dapartaant will aubait a rawlaw of tha raquaat. Motion# hyaa (4) • Maya (0). Butlar aovad# Malsh aacondad# to appreva_ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^ __ ^ tha aarianea raquaatad by MilJiaa Ooldar# I *;S50S Liwlngaton Aaanua# aa docuaantad and raocaRanded by tha-Planninq CoDadnaien Augttat*12#':1274«. ' Notion# Ayaa (4) “ Maya^ ... ?j ■ ■ . »:^Butlar aiovad# Walsh aacondad# to acoapt from V '5i .tha Planning Conaisaion and to appxova tha. . /^txanaadttal of tha Ooaiprahanaiva Guida Plan -to' tha Matro Council tor thair cconantaxy. l - and raviow* Notion# Ayaa (4) - Maya (0). ; •» (0)o t ‘ , _ ■ ( Paga 2 nhirami or roMoa SniSIT VACATION Laka straat VAAZANCB 3S0S Liviagaten Ai^Avapud^ Tha Council at this tins wished to axpraaa thair daapaat ainoara thanka to Nr. John GutJdria# ehaiman of tha Planning Coaniaaion# and Mr. Brad Van Mast# and to all tha maobara who dadioatad and contributed so much of thair tine to tha foraulation of tha Coaiprahanaiva Guide Plan. Walsh novad# Butlar aacondad# to approve tha variance for Mr. Brling Falk# 1981 Fagamass Point Road# aa allowed and cor.* ditionad by tha Planning CooBiissiot. August 12# 1274. Notion# Ayaa (4) - Maya (0). Paurus moved# Butlar seconded# to approve the preliminary plat for a simple subdivision for Nr. John Burger# 3700 Bayside Road# contingent of approved percolation testa. Notion# Ayaa (4) - Nays (0). Butlar BMvad# Paurus seconded# to tabla until Saptambar 10# 1974# tha final plat for Xarmit Knutson# at which time tha Village engineer will aubadt a review of tha plat. Motion# Ayaa (4) - Maya (0). d. ^ X. ^ ^ * * •# * « *•'. * * » » . V ^ *• ' /y - •*'“ ' 1. * - • # .' • * CONPRl rSXVB GOZOB PLAN > • APPRSCZATXOM Planning Coomission VARXANCB 1981 Fagamass Point Road SCBDZVXSXON 3700 Bayside Road FINAL PLAT Knutson kV»• A ^ i- Vf, t- {•.I : i m I•fk # A V -j** t* ‘ ■ \r. s'- k • A k^.. fc' f tC-t*"-m P>'-,. s,; I * M • . • < : x' . * . • ^ - \ . -r • - - f 4./- * i j 4. -IT** • V..*. M - I -r iur rrnft-ri ~ rt — i>M~ti-irfii-----■ **• Vi-,..« ■ iX •'.'^Sp •'cc^%REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 9/I6/9f'=<^l3,, ITEM NO.; #2285 Department Approval: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description; #2285-John Latterelle 3505 Livingston Avenue Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC Application: The applicant proposed a 12' by 26 ’ deck on the north side of the existing residence, ms proposal required variances for front and side setbacks, as well as structural coverage, proposal has been revised to a 10' by 20' deck as recommended by Planning Commission. This proposal eliminates the need for a side setback variance. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 2 vote to: 1. Approve a 10' by 20' deck with a stairway and landing in lieu of the proposed 12' by 26' deck. 2. Approve a front setback variance of 9.8' allowing the deck to be located 20.2 from the front lot line where 30' is required. 3. Approve a structural coverage variance of 10.6% to allow 25.6% coverage where 22% is existing and 15% is required. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. m A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUED. 14(C) AND SECTION 10.25, SUED. 6(E) FILE #2285 WHEREAS, John Latterelle (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 4, Navarre Heights (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for V£iriances to Municipal Zoning Cede Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) and Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B) to allow a 10' by 20' deck addition with a 4' wide landing and stairs encroaching 9.8' into the required front setback of 30' and raising the percentage of structural coverage on the property to 25.6% where 22% is existing and 15% is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2285. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre in area. The property consists of 6,725 s.f. or .15 acres. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 15, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A.The subject property does not meet lot width or area requirements. Page 1 of 5 !>■ t 4. 5. B There is only one means of egress from the existing residence for means of fire escape at the present time. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C) and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit construction of a 10' by 20' deck with an additional 4' wide landing and stairs as shown on Exhibit A. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 22, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this van^ce shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 2 of 5 3.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of September, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owmer (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of September, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 5 s LIVINGSTON AVENUE R S 89*59' 34" W UJ > < LUa: Q1 < This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of on exlstft)g bouse thereon, it doen not purport to show any other improve ments or encroachments. e : Iron marker found Beorings shown ore based upon on assumed datum. TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator September 11,1997 SUBJECT: #2285-John Latterelle 3505 Livingston Avenue ________ Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C Lot Area:6,725 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) square feet (.15 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the addition of a 12’ by 26' deck on the north side of the existing residence. Variances are required for front and side setbacks and lot coverage._______ Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03: General Provisions Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage Section 10.03, Subd. 15(D): Non-Encroachments Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): LR-IC Lot Requirements 02283 John Latterelle 3505 Livingston Avenue Variances 9/15/97 PageX ANALYSIS T ot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard .5 acres 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft. (15 ft. adjacent to street) 30 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard .15 acres 50 ft.30.2 ft.4 ft.48 ft. This is a comer lot. The yard facing Livingston Avenue is the front yard. The yard facing Navarre Avenue is the side yard adjacent to a street. The zoning lot does not meet lot area, lot width and side setback requirements. Stnictural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 6,725 s.f.1.483.32- existing 1.843.32- proposed 22%-existing 27.4%-proposed Stmctural coverage is currently 7% over the allowed 15%. Allowing the deck would further intensify the non-conformance. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application as it lies beyond 1,000' of any protected body of water. I U2285 John Latterelle 2505 Livingston Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Pag^l STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The aplicant should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Also see the application (attachment A), Criteria for Determining Undue HarHchjp 1 . The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditioi allowed by the official controls. The property has been and can continue to be put to a reasonable use without a deck, however, another entrance would improve fire safety concerns. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. T^e property does not meet zoning district requirements for lot area or width. The west side yard is non-conforming, which could have been avoided when the house was built i m ^ 9 • 3.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for front setback, side setback and lot coverage will <;^cter of the area as the deck would have negative impact being located only 18.2 from the street, forward of most structures facing Livingston Avenue. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapte*' 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. 6.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 aifected person s land is located. U228S John LauereUt 3505 Livingston Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Pag9 3 ! t 7. 8. 9. 11. 12. Decks are permitted in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-familv dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The social conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining pioperty. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. ^ ^Oroio ^“bstandard lot area and width apply to most lots in this 10. The grOTting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment Of a substantial property right of the applicant. The addition of a deck is not necessary to provide a means of a secondary fire escape. 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. TTie granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but IS necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Issues If a means of fire escape is the applicant's primary concern, an internal stairway, small landing and stairway is sufficient.a 1. The lot ^ea and width do not meet zoning district requirements. The existing house is located 4 from the west side lot line. The deck as proposed would be aligned with the existing residence, requiring the side variance. ff2285 John Latterelle 3505 Livingston Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page 4 ■ ' \ i r 2. Allowing the deck would increase lot coverage to 27.4%, 12.4% more than is allowed for lots under 2 acres in size. 3. No previous variances have been granted to this propert>’. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends an amended proposal be approved for a fire escape. Sufficient hardship has not been demonstrated for a deck of the proposed size. Staff recommends denial of the front setback variance of 12' to allow the deck to be located 18.2' from the front lot line where 30' is required. Staff recommends denial of the side setback variance of 6' to allow the deck to located 4' from the west side lot line. Staff recommends denial of the lot coverage variance of 12.4% to allow 27.4% structural coverage on the lot where 22% is existing. Staff recommends the applicant consider a scaled down proposal for a fire escape. Building Official Lyle Oman has indicated that a 3' by 3' landing with steps 3' wide having a run of 9" is sufficient for a fire escape. Staff has attached a revised survey (attachment G) showing the approximate footprint of an adequate fire escape. The location the applicant has proposed appears the most functional as this would lead out from the living room. Staff recommends approval of the necessary variances to construct staffs proposal. This would still require minimal variances for front setback and lot coverage. A front setback variance of 2.8' would be necessary to allow a 3' wide fire escape. It should be noted that according to code, fire escapes encroaching 3' or less into side yard or back yard setbacks are considered non encroachments. A fire escape in the proposed location would still require a variance, but it should be kept in mind that the front yard functionally serves as a side yard on this property, where it would be a non-encroachment. The necessary lot coverage variance would be minimal. No more than an additional .5% of structural coverage should need to be added for a functional fire escape, requiring 22.5% lot co\ erage where 15% is allowed and 22% is existing. Staff recommends approval of the application as amended by staff. U228^ hft Latterelle 3305 L *tgston Avenue Variant, 9/15/97 Page 5 -j|nw»ww>rw 11(1 Attachments A 3 C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Survey-Staff Revision Sketch of House and Proposed Deck Floor Plan of Existing Residence U2285 John Laitirille 3503 Livingston Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page 6 , ! 1 ; M ■ i r CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) pi -^-v 5^533^ VJ.' •V *< a - p PROPERTY INFORMATION ‘ . Site Address S'^O ^ ^f ^ ^/gyl Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_M_V^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired U-Q(_____________ I (do) (^ ng^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) Present use of property: ><"residential ___other (specify) Zoning District: APPLICAiNT Name -fg/W CA-TTleA^//^ _______ Phone (work) 4^7.5^ 36 Address: 3S'g ^ Li Of h.CSi-iy City: tA- Zvo: f / Phone (home) ^‘7/-— Phone (work) Y 7S^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone(home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: <kcJC TlJ \ I2_* rrrtr.r v^A________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQLTRED Lot Area i/S<etback: ___Lot Width Front i-^ide 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 requirementsrTtv. V_,<^cyr~( ey>4- fSVi . “"fTht— \r> (\\reo-\\fNc-VjO\\v^-^nrwg .________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) c C i ! cc c c c c c e: II —r O o RK ;aiEii r 1 A O 9'XfJr 4 c o p A4, -rv^978ji S71 b H1 3505 Livingston Avenue PERMIT RECORD P*rmit No.Date Type of Permit /!ty\. -nu ^4a 4,HA f U/oXLi >. • ♦ r r CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN LATTERELLE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, NAVARRE HEIGHTS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Corns i (illONBIRG, l\( I h* nb\ cvrlilv th.it thi> Nur\r\ t% J' pn^rtil b\ nw %w umU-f rni Jirnt super- \ ivum unJ lh.>i I am a Jutv rejpsleniJ Civil Fn^inevr anJ I aiul Sur\rv»»r unJcf the lauH i«i ihi- ''i.iU* i*t Ktinn^-viia Stiri S CronK’rg MinnesiiU LtceriMf Number I2T55 1 ■> i'.*.>i . t ■-a-.- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN LATTERELLE OF LOT 1. BLOCK 4. NAVARRE HEIGHTS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA a LIVINGSTON avenue S S 89*59* 34" W 50.00 UJ 3 Z LJ > < UJ (T(r < > <z LEGAL OESOWPTION OF PRDiSES: Lot 1, aock 4, Novorra Haights. This sirvay intands to show tha boundorlat of tha obova daacr3>ad proparty, and tha location of on axiating houaa tharaoa It doaa not purport to show any othar Impfova— manta or ancroochmants. a : ton markar found Baoringa ahown ora boaad upon an oasumad dotum. 1/:) 00 a Cnrn\ & Cronberc, I\c. I hi fi bi thal Ihi^ suru’v was pfi-fsind In mo \h undvr mv Uirwi \ iMon. unJ !h.il I jm j duly Civil tn|;imvr jnd l and Suruniic undif the Liv\> Ihf ''l.ilc »»l Mmm-N4it.i M*rV S CriHiK'rj; MinnewJj LnenNif \*umtn*r I27SS OAM S-20-31 S4AII l'*tZO* 9730/ i: Latterelie Deck 11 V /3 J,p-CP‘' N of • V 1 1•j$cfA A^O > i-S^S>AS jti ick-e f\ X o/i<3•9-ejC^ C/^ 'j AwAirff —iti* -^1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 'X 0/> DATE; 9/18/97^^A' ITEM NO.; m91 /O Department Approval; Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2297-Daryl E. Hansen, architect on behalf of Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 Edge wood Hill Road Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB Lot Area:82,969 s.f. (1.9 acres) Application: The applicant on behalf of the property owner has proposed locating an addition to the existing residence that would be located 5.17' from an existing swimming pool where the existing encroachment is 5.17'. This proposal requires a variance to continue the encroachment into the required 10' separation between principal and accessory structures. A swimming poo» is considered an accessory structure. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION; Planning Commission recommended by a to 0 vote to: 1.Approve the variance allowing continuation of the 4,83' encroachment into the required 10' separation between the principal structure and swimming pool allowing a 5.17' separation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the en'.;losed resolution. A RFSOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUED. 12 FILE NO. #2297 WHEREAS, Daryl E. Hansen, architect on behalf of Mrs. Robert Keith (hereinafter "the applicant") representing the owner of the property located at 1045 Edgewood Hill Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Tract D, Regisicied Land Survey No. 1098 (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 12 to permit an addition to the existing residence to be located 5.17* from an existing swimming pool where a 10’ separation is required and a 5.17' separation exists. A swimming pool is considered an accessory structure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Coimcil of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 3. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 2297. The property is located in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. The property consists of 82,969 s.f. or 1.9 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 15, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: 1.The proposed addition would not increase encroachment by the residence on the swimming pool beyond what is existing. Page 1 of 5 5. TOe C.ty Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to >1 and do not apply generally to other property in this zoni^ distrfcf to gating the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditioi.s® light, air nor s^“e al a ^ would not merelyserve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to .illeviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to pre^e a lubstoial fnto rfAfL°ninzVo’’d“'T^”‘‘ 7 “''' “<*iment ot the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS grants a variancTtTL™Iia7zo°tSig'^c*y'se7tion‘*l?ro A. ^ and accessoiy structure as shown on Exhibit 1. 2. Authont.es granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are peimissive only and must be exercised by application fof^a ^ ding permit wthin one year of the date of Council approv^. or this variance will expire on that date (September 22, 195.8). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this anMce shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically TOe undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their haij sucLZ J Z fte'pmli^rty. ^ Chain of Title of Page 2 of 5 I" V Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of September, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing in'*^p”nent was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of September, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbwur and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 5 r „ - TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:August 10,1997 SUBJECT: #2297, Daryl E. Hansen, architect, on behalf of Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 Edgewood Hill Road Variance--Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Area:82,969 square feet (1.90 acres) Application:The applicant has been retained by the property owner to design an addition to an existing residence. The proposed addition is to be located the same distance from the edge of the swimming pool as the exterior wall of the existing residence, approximately 5'2". A variance is needed to continue the encroachment into the required 10' separation between principal and accessory structures. (The swimming pool is considered an accessory structure). Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 12, Crowding Principal Building. "No accessory building or structure, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered, or moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessory structui'^." H2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 Edgewood Hill Road PC 9/15/97 page—I analysis I nt and Yards RR-IB District Standards Lot Width 200' Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 50' Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area 1.90 acres Lot Width 150’+ Street Yard 63+ ft. Side Yard 13.06 and 12.37 Rear > 200 ft, The subject property does not meet the lot area, lot width or side yard requirements. Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has indicated that the hardship is the location of the to the%ol. The proposed addition will not encroach closer to the pool than the existing residence. rn^f^ria for ngterminiif ig \ Hardship The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used u.-.der conditions1. allowed by the official controls. The oroperty in question can continue to be used as a residence, however, *e a Se orooerty owner to have space the is wheelchair accessible that provides a room fol atrsofto provi^live-in care. The most logical place to add space to the existing residence U2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith 1C i5 Edgewood Hill Road PC 9/15197 page—2 is behind the garage. The house cannot be expanded from side to side and the pool restricts additions to the rear. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The owner’s situation is due to a change in health, the need for accessible space and live-in care, and the existing location of the pool and the residence. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not change the character of the site or neighborhood as the addition has been designed to fit in with the existing style and roofline of the residence. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. : : t ! Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. 5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 6. 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. Residential uses are allowed in this district. #2297 Daryl Harnett for Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 Edgewood Hill Road PC 9/15/97 page—3 • ♦ 7. 8. 9. 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. This situation is created by the location of the residence and the swimming pool. It is unique to this particular property. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Swimming pools are considered "accessory structures" in the Zoning Code. Accessory structures in all residential districts are required to be ten feet from each other. 10. The granting cf the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance is needed for the proposed addition to be constructed as designed. 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 o*- diffrulty. The hardship is the location of the pool to the existing residence. The plan could be redesigned so that the house is at least ten feet from the pool That would reduce the proposed addition by 80+ ft. and require changes to the roofline. Issues \ 1. The lot does not meet the lot area, lot width or side yard setback requirements. 2. The proposed addition does not further encroach into the 1 O' separation. #2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 Edgewoo'J Hill Road PC 9/15/97 page—4 fMlMUifli «•--s.-»■ 3. 4. There are no safety concerns with the addition being less than ten feet from the pool. No doors open to the pool which would be a potential problem small children could run out a door and fall into a pool. Another reason for requiring the 10’ separation is to discourage people from trying to dive out into the pool from upper floors. This is not a potential problem wdth this residence. There are also no fire safety issues with this proposal because a swimming pool doesn't catch fire. It appears from the site plan that several trees will need to be removed to construct the addition. 5. The permit record shows that the swimming pool was constructed in 1969. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the addition to be located the same distance from the existing structure. Attachments A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Proposed Floor Plan Topographical Map Acknowledgement Form from Neighbors Survey Permit Record #2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 Edgewood Hill Road PC 9/15/97 page—S • I \/VoOf^ 1i i^-<-o h- *.-'# _J . -•■ / •*-l..--"l tw' .................. Course ^ ^ i Application it ^9l3T_____ Date Received ^ ZS **^"1 Amount Paid *»* 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 8 I is 8 Property Identification Number (P.lD.) - '-ft C>oc‘ 3___________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ___________________________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: __residential ___other (specify)______________________ Zoning District:____/^/f- ! py____________________________________________ APPLICANT Name Address: I (cvuAHtW- KiT )OWNER (if different than applicant) ' Name i<^nU Phone (home ) ~ _________ Phone (work) City: _____Zip: Phone (home) - LA’\^ ____ Phone (work)________________ Address: \M\Ay tV.City: tKJASZ/AfTfi DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback: Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore % y Other (specify) |0* blv3n QaJ pOOl______ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: 'TO ^ \]tv\V\ fa.nHhvJ TVAP >.,Apue 1*3 r C !.i-\ „ \ ^n--^ ifiiwev)/ pputa' f>fet» New \\ ADDinoKJ □ . -1~^ f ^-Jh':;:^ \'^l 1IT f { ! 1 r- b i 5 Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form fonr 0(X.fO vO 0^f ^ dcjc. Oja£>cl h'Ui [pnnt name(s)] i [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at fiiil I^JL also referred to as Land Use Application No. 0 • I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date '3-SU<E^e. OAc.*sst*i 7^ of lcclct£ lltllI (we) <^ATUftg.'>r4g HerT4 JACK;f>C»o [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at yov'S'g^g'uAoor% Udi ffO also referred to as Land Use Application No. 3^ /0 . I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or us^equjres Council approval. Property Owne/Date Property Owner a sLs fji Dale ' If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. I E?<hibj ’ s. % .0^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: September 18, 1997 <? ‘O ^9oV ‘='?a Item No.: //. Department Approval: . Name: Michael P. Gaffron . ^ Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Amendment of Shoreland & On-Site Sewage Treatment Ordinances List of Exhibits:Exhibit A - Ordinance Exhibit B - Staff Memo & Exhibits of September 12,1997 Please carefully review the staff memo and exhibits of September 12. That memo details the objectives and intent of the ordinance revision directed by Council on August 25. The DNR has been advised of the proposed revisions to the Shoreland Ordinance, and we have talked to various members of DNR staff, but we have not received any written comments or objection to the ordinance. # Ordinance Language The proposed language for the On-Site Sewage Treatment Ordinance (Chapter 12) simply increases from 2 years to 10 years the Shoreland deadline for upgrade of systems that don't comply with the 3' separation. This matches the non-Shoreland deadline in place since May 1996. The proposed language for the Shoreland Ordinance (Chapter 10) delays for 10 years the deadline for Shoreland non-compliant system upgrades that would otherwise be triggered by "a permit or variance of any type". Failing systems as defined by City ordinance (Section 12.30 Subd. 2.10 (a)iiii) would still have to be replaced within 90-days to 1 year, regardless of any trigger. Note that the State On-Site Regulations (Chapter 7080) require upgrade of a non-compliant systems (including those that are failing and those that don't meet the 3' separation under their definition) whenever a bedroom or bathroom addition is proposed, but they don't set a specific timefirame. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance at the September 15 meeting. Two Ordinance Amendment September 18,1997 Page 2 i i’ members of the public were still present at 1:15 a.m, for the discussion. Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the ordinance changes as drafted. One of the minority voters indicated 10 years may be too long to Mow repair of non-compliant systems to be delayed when they are near the lakes. Staff Recommendation It is staffs understanding that the concerns reflected in the Council's desire to extend the timeframe for septic system replacement are: 1. Uncertainty regarding potential sewer provision in the rural area. 2. Uncertainty regarding potential changes to on-site septic system regulations at the State level. From staffs perspective a 5-year time frame should be sufficient to address these uncertainties. It is also more consistent with the DNR's intent that non-compliant Shoreland septic systems be upgraded as soon as possible. The City should commit to studying whether (and where) sewer expansion in the rural area will occur; complete such a study in the most timely manner possible; and then reconsider whether extended upgrade timeframes are appropriate. Council Action Requested The attached Ordinance reflects the majority recommendation of the Planning Commission and may be adopted if Council so desires. Because the Shoreland Ordinance is part of the zoning code, a 4/5 vote is required. ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 10.56 AND 12.30 OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING THE TIMEFRAME FOR UPGRADE OF NON- COMPLIANT SEPTIC SYSTEMS WITHIN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 17 is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 17. Nonconformities. All legally established nonconformities as of the date of this ordinance may continue subject to applicable State Statutes and as regulated elsewhere in the Orono Municipal Code. In shoreland areas, the following standards shall also apoly: A. Construction on Nonconforming Lots of Record. Development or use of existing lots of record shall be regulated as set forth in Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 of the Orono Zoning Code. B. Additions/Expansions to Nonconforming Structures. All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconf orming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements set forth in the Orono Zoning Code. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance pursuant to provisions of the zoning chapter. C. Nonconforming Sewage Treatment Systems. A nonconforming sewage treatment system (also defined as a Non-Compliant Svstemi as defined in Section 12.30 and located within the Shoreland Overlay District must be upgraded and made conforming, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property, except that systems which are non-compliant due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand hfttween the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall have ten years in which to become compliant per the provisions of Section 12.30 Subd. R(BY4aV Furthe r-.-the -All other nonconforming non-compliant sewage treatment system provisions of Section 12.30 shall apply to all shoreland areas. Section 2. Orono Municipal Code Section 12.30, Subd. 8(B)(4) is hereby amended as follows: 4. Owners of Non-Compliant systems shall be issued orders requiring maintenance, repair or replacement per Subdivision 5(C) as follows: '■i* - - (a) Systems located within the Shoreland District found to be non-compliant due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall be repaired or replaced within a reasonable period of time not to extend past December 31 of the second tenth year following the year in which repair orders are issued, the intent being that at least two len full construction seasons (May thru November) shall be allowed for the completion of repairs. (b) Systems located outside the Shoreland District found to be non-compliant due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall be repaired or replaced within a reasonable period of time not to extend past December 31 of the tenth year following the year in which repair orders are issued, the intent being that 10 full construction seasons (May thru November) shall be allowed for completion of repairs. (c) Systems found to be non-conforming because they are either "failing" or "prohibited" as defined in Subdivision 2 of this Section, shall be repaired or replaced within 90 days if feasible but in no case later than 1 calendar year after the date of the repair order. (d) Sewage tanks requiring pumping in order to eliminate surface discharge shall be pumped within 48 hours and as often as necessary thereafter to eliminate effluent discharge until system repairs are completed. Section 3. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be effective after the date of approval and publication. .Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 22nd day of September, 1997 by a vote of__^ayes and __nays. ATTEST Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor To:From: Date: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator September 12,1997 Subject: Proposed Amendment of Shoreland and On-Site Sewage Treatment Ordinances The City Council on August 25 directed staff to process an amendment of the zoning and septic codes regarding the period of time for septic system upgrades, and triggers for upgrades, in the Shoreland District. Council Objective: 1. Allow property owners within the Shoreland Overlay District up to 10 years to replace septic systems which are *Non-Compliant solely due to lack of 3' separation from seasonal saturation. The current timeframe is 2 years. 2. Revise ordinances so that a building permit or variance application will no longer trigger an immediate system upgrade in the Shoreland Overlay District for systems which are TMon-Compliant' solely due to lack of 3' separation. List of Exhibits A - Proposed Ordinance Language B - Current Shoreland Ordinance, Section 10.56 Subd. 16(R) and Subd. 17(C) C - Septic code as adopted 2-10-92, Section 12.30 Subd. 4 D - Septic code 1st revision 7-26-93 E - Septic code 2nd revision 5-13-96 F - State Code Excerpts (Chapter 7080, and June 1997 Statute Revisions) Rationale:The City is intending to review its policies over the next few years reg^ding extension of municipal sewer to the rural area, which includes areas within the Shoreland District. This review is being undertaken in part due to the high number of requests for sewer from rural property owners who have Non-Compliant systems that must eventually be replaced. These requests are a reflection of the fact that the current cost of a replacement septic system approaches the cost of municipal sewer. One possible outcome of the policy review is that a number of developed residential areas could be slated for sewer. If this occurs, it would not have been prudent to be requiring expensive system upgrades followed shortly by expensive sewers. Areas outside the Shoreland currently are allowed 10 years to comply when the Ordinance Amendment September 12, 1997 Page 2 3' separation is the only reason a system is Non-Compliant. This timeframe was chosen based on a number of factors including: - The sheer number of systems needing replacement is likely to require a number of years to deal with, both from a City staffing standpoint as well as based on contractor availability and weather constraints. \ X Continuing the City's long-standing program of requiring immediate repairs or replacement of failing systems needs to be a liigher priority than replacing systems which may be polluting for only a few weeks or months out of the year during high seasonal water tables. The City's current 2-year timeframe for the Shoreland areas was adopted in 1993 when it was concluded that the 1 -year timeframe in the 1978 code was too short a period in which unsuspecting homeowners would have to make large expenditures for new systems. Also, 2 years was the timeframe suggested by the DNR in their model Shoreland Ordinance. Minn. Rules Chapter 7080 and State Statutes - A Moving Target The most current set of State Rules regulating septic systems is Chapter 7080 which was most recently published January 16,1996. While rule changes are pending (they are always pending, this is the most elusive moving target ever created by a State agency), the Legislature has made some Statute changes adopted as recently as June 1997 which are as yet not reflected in the rules. State Rules Chapter 7080, Section 7080.0060, Subd. 4, requires that a non-compliant septic system (one that is failing, or that doesn't meet the 3' separation) must be upgraded prior to issuance of a building permit for a bedroom or bathroom addition, or when a (septic code?) variance is involved. Staff finds no specific timeframe in the rules for replacement of systems which merely don't meet the 3' separation. Apparently the 1996 Legislature failed to pass proposed changes requiring a 5-year timeframe. Systems which are found to be an 'imminent threat to public health or safety' (those which discharge to ground or surface water or cause a backup into a building) must be made compliant within ten months. But, the 1997 Legislation now has apparently allowed cities to relax ordinances and allow continued use of existing systems which have at least 2 feet of separation. This will, however, have little impact on those systems already identified as non- compliant in Orono; Steve Weckman indicates that 99 out of 100 tagged so far have 1 foot of separation or less. Conflict with Shoreland Regulations, Chapter 6120 Minnesota Rules Chapter 6120, the Statewide Standards for Management of Shoreland, Section 6120.3900 Subpart 4(A) states that "Local governments must require upgrading or replacement of Ordinance Amendment September 12,1997 Page 3 any existing on-site sewage treatment system identified as a non-conformity under a program established under 6120.3400." Section 6120.3400 Subpart 3(D) states that local government programs must be developed and implemented "to identify and upgrade sewage treatment systems that are inconsistent with the sewage treatment system design criteria" of Chapter 7080, and must require reconstruction of existing non-co;ir'*rming sewage systems "whenever a permit or variance of any type is required for any improveim on, or use of, the property...". The proposed ordinance will be in conflict with this Section because the intent of the Ordinance Amendment is to delay for 10 years any requirement to upgrade. DNR staff have been advised of this proposed ordinance revision but have not formally responded as of this writing. Staff Recommendation At first blush, staff views this as a step backwards in Orono's quest to protect the lake. However, staff is also keenly aware of the negative ramifications of forcing septic upgrades immediately followed by installation of municipal sewer. Some Shoreland septic systems that don't meet the 3' separation are polluting on a daily basis. Others may be only polluting during the few weeks or months of the year that the soils are saturated. Ignoring all of them for 10 years may not be appropriate. But defining which ones are the worst polluters may be very difficult. The Council directive to amend the code resulted from an appeal by a property owner to make use of a substandard site for replacing a system that doesn't meet the 3' requirement. The only available conforming site would be costly to use and foul up applicants back yard layout. This is an area within less than a half mile of existing sewer lines, but also in an area of larger lots in the rural area where need for sewer is low and costs will be high. Staff questions how realistic it is to expect that this area will be sewered in the foreseeable future. If the City is to approve the code amendments, it must also unwaveringly commit to doing the 'rural sewer study' that is being used as a rationale for the relaxed upgrade timeframe. Options For Action Recommend approval of the Code revisions. Recommend a revised amendment. Table for further discussion. Recommend no changes. I ^ q ^7 Other...Ki-'. : A r Proposed revbion to Shoreland Ordinance, Section 10.56 Subd. 17(C): (This section was adopted on February 24,1992) Subd. 17. Nonconformities. All legally established nonconformities as of the date of this ordinance may continue subject to applicable State Statutes and as regulated elsewhere in the Orono Municipal Code. In shoreland areas, the following standards shall also apply: A. Construction on Nonconforming Lots of Record. Development or use of existing lots of record shall be regulated as set forth in Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 of the Orono Zoning Code. B. Additions/Expansions to Nonconforming Structures. All additions or expansions to tUe outside dimensions of an existing nonconf orming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements set forth in the Orono Zoning Code. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance pursuant to provisions of the zoning chapter. C. Nonconforming Sewage Treatment Systems. A nonconforming sewage treatment system (also defined as a Non-Compliant System) as defined in Section 12.30 and located within the Shoreland Overlay District must be upgraded and made conforming, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property, gxggpt.that systems which are non-compliant due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limi. ing soil characteris tics, shall have ten years in which to become compliant per the provisions of Section 12.30 Subd. 8(B¥4aV Furthe r, the -All other nonconforming non-compliant sewage treatment system provisions of Section 12.30 shall apply to all shoreland areas. A : t i r tm Proposed revision to Section 12.30, Subd. 8(B)(4): (This section was last revised on May 13,1996 per Ord. #147,2nd Series) 4. Owners of Non-Compliant systems shall be issued orders requiring maintenance, repair or replacement per Subdivision 5(C) as follows: (a) Systems located within the Shoreland District found to be non-compliant due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall be repaired or replaced within a reasonable period of time not to extend past December 3 1 of the second tenth year following the year in which repair orders are issued, the intent being that at least two isn full construction seasons (May thru November) shall be allowed for the completion of repairs. (b) Systems located outside the Shoreland District found to be non-compliant due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand betw.en the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall be repaired or replaced within a reasonable period of time not to extend past December 31 of the tenth year following the year in which repair orders are issued, the intent being that 10 full construction seasons (May thru November) shall be allowed for completion of repairs. (c) Systems found to be non-conforming because they are either "failing" or "prohibited" as defined in Subdivision 2 of this Section, shall be repaired or replaced within 90 days if feasible but in no case later than 1 calendar year after the date of the repair order. (d) Sewage tanks requiring pumping in order to eliminate surface discharge shall be pumped within 48 hours and as often as necessary thereafter to eliminate effluent discharge until system repairs are completed. SHOftetAWCi 0(LX>lhi firsts ! I 1 I I i I I R. Sewage Treatment. Any premises used for human treatment systems must be setback from the i n q6^ Level in accordance with the setbacks contained in ^e . f Subdivision 16 (C). Non-conforming sewage treatment systems shall be regulated and upgraded in accordance with Subd. o v, is ordinance S. Significant historic sites. Mo structure may be placed on a significant historic site in a manner that at.ects the values of the site unless adequate information aoout the si e has been removed and documented in a public repository. Subd. 17. Nonconformities. All legally established nonconformities as of the date of this ordinance may con subject to aoDlicable State Statutes and as regulated elsewnere in the Orono Municipal Code. In shore land areas, the rollowing standards shall also apply: A. Construction on Nonconforming Lots of Record. Development or use of existi.-g lots of record shall be regulated as set forth in Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 of the Orono Zoning Code. B. Additions/Expansions to Nonconforming Structures. All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of~an existing nonconforming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements set forth in the Orono Zoning Code. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance pursuant to provisions of the zoning chapter. C. Nonconforming Sewage Treatment Systems. A nonconforming sewage treatment system as defined in Section ^2.30 and located within- the Shoreland Overlay District must be upgraded and made conforming, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement onr or use of/ the oroperty. Further, the nonconforming sewage treatment system provisions of Section 12.30 shall apply to all shoreland areas. • 'v * \ r Subd. 18. Subdivision/Platting Provisions. A. Land Suitability. Each lot created through subdivision, including Planned Unit Developments or Planned Residential Developments authorized elsewhere in the Zoning and Platting Codes, must be suitable in its natural state for the proposed use with minimal alteration. In analyzing the suitability of land for a specific use, the City shall consider susceptibility to flooding, existence of wetlands, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, steep topography, inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities, near-shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for water- based recreation, important fish and wildlife habitat, presence of significant historic sites, or any other feature of the natural land likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. 376-20 2 -zy*92-(2-24-92) I 12.30 shall extend the right of entry to the City Inspector by explicit approval of the owner requesting such permit, which approval may be filed in the chain of title for the property. Failure of any party to grant the City access for this purpose shall be grounds to classify any system on the property as Non-Conforming, The City Attorney shall thereafter take such action as is necessary to enable the City to perform the inspection and to enforce all the provisions of this Section, and to assess the cost thereof against the property. 2. Inspection Reoort. Within thirty (30) days after the inspection of each system by the City, the City shall provide the results of said inspection in writing to the owner of the system, including the classification of the system as to conformance with City requirements and potential for existing or future problems. Notice of non-conforming or failing systems shall include orders for maintenance, repairs or replacement, the procedures for obtaining all required permits, the deadline for completion of the construction or pumping and the penalties for failure to comply with the order. 3. Code and Conforming Systems shall be inspected by the City at least once 4. Owners of Non-Conforming Systems shall be issued orders requiring maintenance, repair, alteration or replace ment. Systems found to be non-conforming shall be brought up to conforming status per Subdivision 5 (c) within one calendar year from the date of the order. Systems found to be non-conforming due to failure or pollution hazards shall have remedial action required within a reasonable period of time as follows: (a) Sewage tanks requiring pumping shall be pumped within 48 hours. (b) Sewage tanks or systems found to be clogged, overflowing, leeching or otherwise discharging pollutants shall be pumped within 48 hours and thereafter as needed and the system shall be repaired, altered or replaced within 90 days, j_____ Systems required to obtain and maintain a MPCA State Disposal System shall meet the requirements of MPCA Rules Chapter 7080.0030. If the State Permit lapses, orders shall be issued to cease use of the system within ten (10) days, such use to be discontinued until reinstatement of the State Permit. 6. Failure to obey a lawful order requiring repair, alteration or replacement of a Non-Conforming System shall be cause for the City to enjoin the owner or occupant from further use of the system. Upon notice, the owner shall have ten (10) days to show cause to the City why the property should not be condemned for occupancy according to Minnesota Statutes 463.15 et.seq. ORONO CC 502 (2-10-92) SentL Cotie US AtofiTEUi 2.-/0-72, c ) .. r.:- / • ' . » r r Tn ORDINANCE NUMBER’118 SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 12.30 BY REVISING THE REQUIRED TIMEFRAME FOR REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OP NON-CONFORMING SEPTIC SYSTEMS The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. The City of Orono Municipal Code, Chapter 12, is hereby amended by deleting the existing language of Section 12.30, Subd^^^(B^(^^^an^replacin^i^withth^^ollow^ I 4. Owners of non-conforming systems shall be issued I orders requiring maintenance, repair, alteration or 1 replacement. Systems found to be non-conforming shall be I brought up to conforming status per Subdivision 5 (O’ as I follows: a) Systems found to be non-conforming due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall be repaired, altered or replaced within a reasonable period of time not to extend past December 31 of the second year following the year in which repair orders are issued, the intent being that at least two full construction seasons (May thru November) shall be allowed for completion of repairs.- b) Systems found to be non-conforming because they are either "failing” or "prohibited" as defined in Subd. 2 of this section, shall be repaired, altered or replaced within 90 days if feasible but in no case later than 1 calendar•year after the date of the repair order. c) Sewage tanks rec[uiring pumping in order to eliminate a discharge shall be pumped within 48 hours and as often as necessary thereafter to limit or eliminate effluent discharge until system repairs are completed. SECTION 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall take effect and shall be enforced from and after the date of its adoption and publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota this 26th day of July_ _ _ _ _ • 1993. ^Dorbthy M.(^allin, City Clerk EaWard J. CaY1ahan, Jr., MSyor I EXCERPT /5eo*H. 0/CO^/V7 t Section 22. Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by amending Section ^ 4. Owners of Non Conformin g Non-Compliant systems shall be issued orders I requiring maintenance, repair, akeration , or replacementi- Systems found to be non conforming shall be brought up to conforming statua per Subdivision 5 (c) as follows: (a) Systems located within the Shoreland Distric: found to be nen- eonfofmHvg non-compliant due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall be repaired,-altefed or replaced within a reasonable period of time not to extend past December 31 of the second year following the year in which repair orders are issued, the intent being that at least two full construction seasons (May thru November) shall be allowed for the completion of repairs. (b) Systems located outside the Shoreland District found to be fto& conforming non-compliant becauso' thay ar& either ''failing" or '’prohibitsd ' as dofi -ned t.i Subd. 2 of this section, shall be repaired, altarod or rapliced within 90 days of feasible but ir» no casa later than 1 calendar }car after the date of the repair order, due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturaced soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall be repaired or replaced within a reasonabl e period of time not to extend oast December 31 of the tenth year foUowir\g.the.v.ey.in_which repair orders are issued, the intent being that at least 10 full construction seasons (Mav thru November) shall be allowed for completion of repairs Sewage tanks requiring pumping in ordor to eliminate a discharge shall be pumpeo vMthin 18 hours and as often as nocossary thereafter to eliminate effluent disehitfge until system repairs arc completed; Systems found to be non-conforming because they are either failing—or —prohibited —as defined in Subd. 2 of this section, shall be repaired or replaced within 90 days if feasible but in no case later than 1 calendar year after the date of the repair order. Sewage tanks requiring pumping in order to eliminate surface discharge shall be pumped within 48 hours and as often as necessary thereafter to eliminate effluent discharge until system repairs are completed Section 25. This Ordinance shall be published in the THE PIONEER and THE LAKER and shall be effective immediately. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 13th day of May , 1996. by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. ATTEST: alUn, City Clerk Edward J. CaUanan, Jr., Mayor Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspaper the week of June 8/ 1996 2^ R€\/IZ(0AJ S'13-^C, :ir.alals.a ees .so •ents. «ed d be • of jart the *ys it he >ar t ’.ewage !ual •e cable t ' ••• or a ged the ion Subp> Hb» CXcan S3nd« "Clsan sand" means a soil fcexture composed by weight of at least 25 percent very coarse* coarse* and medium sand varying in size from 2.00 millimeters (sieve size 10) to 0.25 millimeters (sieve size 60)* less than 40 percent fine or very fine sand ranging in size between 0.25 millimeters and 0.05 millimeters (sieve size 270)* and no more than ten percent smaller than 0.05 millimeters and no larger than 2.00 millimeters. Clean sand also means a soil texture which meets American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification C-33 (fine aggregate for concrete) or Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) specification 3126 (fine aggregate for Portland cement concrete). The ASTM specification is found in the 1994 Annual Boo)c of ASTM Standards* volume 4.02, which is incorporated by reference. This document is provided by the American Society for Testing and Materials located at 100 Barr Harbor Drive* West Conshohocken* PA 19428-2959. The MnDOT specification is found in the MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction* 1988 Edition* and the May 2* 1994* Supplemental Specifications* which are incorporated by reference. These documents are provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation located at 395 John Ireland Boulevard* St. Paul* Minnesota 55155. All references can be found at the Minnesota State Law Library* Judicial Center* 25 Constitution Avenue* St. Paul* Minnesota 55155* and are not subject to frequent change. Subp. 11c. Commissioner. "Commissioner" means the ^^ior^Cj Subp. lid. Compliance inspec^on^"^?ompliance inspection" means any evaluation* investigation* inspection* or other such process to make conclusions* recommendations* or statements regarding an individual sewage treatment system to reasonably assure an individual sewage treatment system is in compliance as specified under part 7080.0060. Compliance inspections must be conducted by a qualified employee or under a license independent of the owner and the installer. linnesota Depar Natural Resources. Subp. 12a. Designated registered professional. Designated registered professional" means an individual who is included on the agency's ISTS professional register with specialty area endorsements that correspond to the license, who has been designated by the individual's employer as its representative for work to be done on an individual sewage treatment system* and who is subject to the obligations of a license. An apprentice may be a designated registered professional if the individual has specialty area endorsements that correspond to the license* has fulfilled the contractual requirement under part 7080.0815* subpart 1* item B or C* and a TGstricted licGnsc due to the need for experience* Subp. 12b. Disclosure. "Disclosure" means any conclusions or statements regarding an ISTS made by the owner of a property with or served by an ISTS to fulfill the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 115.55, subdivision 6. ISTS information provided by someone other than the property owner must meet the requirements under part 7080.0300, subpart 6. Subp. 12c. Distribution box. "Distribution box” means a device designed to concurrently and equally distribute sewage tank effluent by gravity to a soil treatment system. Subp. 12d. Distribution device. "Distribution device" means a device used to receive and transfer effluent from a supply pipe to distribution pipes or downslope supply pipes, or both. These devices are commonly known as drop boxes, valve boxes, distribution boxes, or manifolds. Subp. 12e. Distribution medium. "Distribution medium” means the material used to distribute the sewage tank effluent within a soil treatment system. This medium includes drainfield rock, gravelless drainfield pipe in a geotextile wrap, or a chambered system. Subp. 13. Distribution pipes. "Distribution pipes" means perforated pipes that are used to distribute sewage tank effluent into a distribution medium. Subp. 14. Dosing chiusber, or pump pit, or wet well. "Dosing chamber, or pump pit, or wet well" means a tank or separate compartment following the sewage tank which serves as a reservoir for the dosing device. Subp. 15. Dosing device. "Dosing device" means a pump, siphon, or other device that discharges sewage tank effluent from the dosing chamber to the soil treatment system. Subp. 15a. Drainfield rock. "Drainfield rock" means Igneous rock, or similar insoluble, durable, and decay-resistant material between three-fourths inch and 2-1/2 inches in size with no more than five percent by weight passing a three-fourths inch sieve and no more than one percent by weight passing a number 200 sieve. Materials greater than 2-1/2 inches in size shall not exceed five percent by weight. Subp. 15b. Drop box. "Drop box" means a distribution device used for the serial gravity application of sewage tank effluent to a soil treatment system. Subp. 16. Dwelling. "Dwelling" means any building or place used or intended to be used by human occupants as a Subp. 16a. Failing system, "tailing system" means system that discharges sewage to a seepage pit, cesspool, drywell, or leaching pit and any system with less than three feet of soil or sand between the bottom of the distribution medium and the saturated soil level or bedrock. In addition, any system posing an imminent threat to public health or safety as defined in subpart 19a shall be considered failing. Upgrade requirements for these systems are found under parts 7080.0060, subparts 3 and 4, and 7080.0315 or 7080.0350. Subp. 17. [Repealed, 13 SR 2752) .*r \ ;e nt ield as a tant rths 2ty ade 50, L Subp. 17a. Gas deflecting baffle. "Gas deflecting baffle" means an obstructing device on the septic tank outlet that limits the escape of solids that are carried by septic tank gases. Subp. 17b. Gravelless drainfield pipe. "Gravelless drainfield pipe" means a distribution medium consisting of a corrugated distribution pipe encased in a geotextile wrap installed in a trench. Subp. 18. Greywater. "Greywater" means sewage that does not contain toilet '-•^stes. Subp. 18a. Hazardous waste. "Hazardous waste" means any substance which, when discarded, meets the definition of hazardous waste in chapter 7045. Subp. 19. Holding tank. "Holding tank" means a tank for storage of sewage until it can be transported to a point of Subp. 19a. Imminent threat to public health or safety "Imminent threat to public health or safety" means situations with the potential to immediately and adversely impact or threaten public health or safety. At a minimum, ground surface or surface water discharges and any system causing sewage backup into a dwelling or other establishment shall constitute an imminent threat._ _ _ _ rne?n^ar?in5ividua!*^Bewage treatment system as defined under subpart 21. Subp. 19c. ISTS professional. "ISTS professional" means a person who conducts site evaluations or designs, installs, alters, repairs, maintains, pumps, or inspects all or part of an individual sewage treatment system and is required to comply with applicable requirements. Subp. 20. [Repealed, 20 SR 1995] Subp. 21. Individual sewage treatment system. "Individual sewage treatment system" means a sewage treatment system, or part thereof, serving a dwelling, or other establishment, or group thereof, and using sewage tanks or advanced treatment followed by soil treatment and disposal. Individual sewage treatment system includes holding tanks and privies. Subp. 21a. Invert. "Invert" means the lowest point of a channel inside a pipe. Subp. 21b. Landscape position. "Landscape position" means the identification of the shape of the land or geomorphic setting of the soil. Terms used to describe landscape position include ridge, sideslope, footslope, closed depression or pothole, drainage way or swale, terrace, or floodplain. Subp. 21c. Licensee. "Licensee" means the person to whom a license under part 7080.0705 is issued. The designated registered professional is subject to the same obligations as the licensee. The license must be applicable to the work being performed. Subp. 22. [Repealed, 13 SR 2752) 7080.0040 [Repealed, 20 SR 1995]7080.0050 [Repealed, 20 SR 1995]MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR INDIVIDUALSEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS7080.0060 COMPLIANCE CRITERIA.Subpart 1. Treatment required. Each individual sewage treatment system shall be designed to receive and treat all sewage from the dwelling or other establishment served. Subp. 2. Band carried greyvater. Hand carried greywater shall not be discharged directly to surface waters, drainageways, or in a manner harmful to the environment or to Subp. 3. Compliance. Individual sewage treatment systems shall be considered in compliance if: A. an existing individual sewage treatment system is not a failing system as defined in part 7080.0020, subpart 16a; or B. new construction or replacement meets the technical standards and criteria defined in part 7080.0020, subpart 46a. Required upgrade. Systems not in compliance shall 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 owner 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 the owner receives a notice of noncompliance. SA: MS s 115.03; 115.55; 115.56 HIST: 13 SR 2 n 7080.0065 PROHIBITIONS. A. Sewage, sewage tank effluent, or seepage from a soil 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. Footing 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.sewage, systec surface SA: MS HIST: : propo£ eleva*. accep* DNR; ( chara< surve; setba c.sewage,systecsurfaceSA: MS HIST: : propos eleva'. accept DNR; ( • chara> surve: setba to evaluate submitted research to determine if the proposed alternative standards will protect public health and the environment. After this determination is complete, the consultants must recommend whether to certify the alternative standards. The specialists must state reasons for their recommendation.Subp. 8. Requirements for more restrictive standards. Local units of government may adopt and enforce more restrictive standards for a designated area provided each more restrictive standard is clearly labeled, identified as meeting at least one of the three criteria in the definition, and submitted to the commissioner under subpart 5. Local units of government must submit local ordinances with more restrictive standards to the commissioner with an explanation of each provision that is more restrictive than technical standards and criteria. Subp. 9. Enforcement of local ordinances. Local units of government shall enforce local ordinances that regulate individual sewage treatment systems through permitting programs that meet the requirements under part 7080.0310 and inspection programs that meet the requirements under part 7080.0315. Local units of government may also enforce local ordinances that are applicable requirements under Minnesota Statutes, section 115.071, subdivisions 3 and 4. SA: MS s 115.03; 115.55; 115.56 mST: 20 SR 1995 7080.0310 PERMIT PROGRAM FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS Subpart 1. General requirements for permit program. A. A local unit of government with a local ordinance to regulate individual sewage treatment systems must have a corresponding permit program that specifically addresses the following: (1) permit application requirements; (2) permit review and approval requirements and procedures; (3) recordkeeping; and (4) reporting. These program elements must contain the minimum requirements under subparts 2 to 5. Permits are required for all new construction and replacement. B. A local unit of government with a local ordinance to regulate bedroom or bathroom additions must comply with subparts 3, item B, and 4. » Subp. 2. ISTS permit application requirements. ISTS permit applications must include exhibits described under subpart 4, items A and B, and include general requirements to adequately identify the property and owners, a site evaluation report, a design summary and drawings, applicable construction information, and any other information requested by the permitting authority pertinent to this process. Exhibits for site € must I per SOT applic permii reappj changt autho) Sul permii i local exhib; appli« eithe.’ not be appro- compl gover: addit sewag requi; Sul gover: notic- enfor< taken Permi in pa summa ( Sul gover: demon: the r« inspe' the n. emplo: i of go- met hoc varia; exper exper 3a. ' year i March SA: M! I site c must I persor applic permit leappi changt authoi Sul permit local exhib; applit eithe.’ not b( appro' compl gover: addit sewag requi. Sul gover: notiC' enfor taken Permi in pa site evaluation, design, and applicable construction information must be complete and include a certified statement from the person who conducted the work. In the event of a change in the application information which served as the basis for issuing a permit, the permittee must 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 requirements and procedures. The permit program must include the following requirements: A. A qualified employee or licensee authorized 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. Final approval shall be evidenced by issuance of a certificate of compliano_ ter December 31, 1995, a local unit of government shall not issue a permit for a bedroom or bathroom addition on property served by a system unless the individual sewage treatment system is in compliance with applicable requirement^jagjgWjdenced^^^^acer^ificate^fcon^^ •*^fflff^S^*^ecordkeeprngr?5fireBeR??r"^ocaP"uni?^of^^^" government must maintain copies of certificates of compliance, notices of noncompliance, permit applications, issued permits, enforcement proceedings, variance requests, and other actions taken. Records must be available for review by the commissioner. Permit files must also include: A. site evaluation records including items identified in part 7080.0110? B. design records including calculations and summaries for all system component sizings; and C. as-builts. Subp. 5. Reporting requirements. Local units of government must submit annual reports to the commissioner to demonstrate enforcement of the local ordinance. At a minimum, the reports must include a copy of the standard permit and inspection forms 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 as specified in part 7080.0910, subpart 3a. The reports shall contain information from the calendar year and shall be received by the commissioner no later than March 1 of the following year. SA: MS s 115.03; 115.55; 115.56 r BIST: 20 SR 19957080.0315 INSPECTION PROGRAM FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT STSTBfS. Subpart 1. Inspection requirements. The inspection program conducted by the local unit of government to fulfill the enforcement requirement under part 7080.0305, subpart 9, must specify the frequency and times of inspections, the requirements of an inspection, an inspection protocol if an inspection cannot be completed within a timely manner, and, at a minimum, the iubp. 2. Compliance inspection. A compliance inspection shall be conducted: A. to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. Persons conducting compliance inspections for disclosures shall also meet the requirements of part 7080.0300, subpart 6; B. for an existing system if a local unit of government issues permits or variances for the addition of a bedroom or bathroom on property served by the system; 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 o«mer and the installer; E. to reasonably ensure an individual sewage treatment system is in compliance as specified under part 7080.0060; and F. for disclosures as described under part 7080,0300, suboar^^ Subp. 3. certiricate of compliance; notice o nonco^tliance. 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 employee who conducted the compliance inspection, identify the type of system inspected, and 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 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 system 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 noncompliance. SA: MS s 115.03; 115.55; 115.56 HIST: 20 SR 1995 7080.0 Sub treats any pe alters indivi to thi under part 7 requir Sub P constr subite qualif and th treats 7080,C noncon any cc also b compli stater the cc inspec treatn minimu not ir inspec to pub 19a, t state of the commie the ov submit compli or a V indivi E under under Sub 6120, agency commis 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 AN ACT received SEP 1 2 1997 ClTV OF OnONO I relating to the environment; modifying requirements relating to individual sewage treatment systems; ajnending Minnesota Statutes 1996» sections 115.55« subdivisions 1, 2, 2, S, 6, 1, and by adding a subdivision; and 115.57, subdivision 7. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. [DEFINITIONS.] (a) The definitions in this subdivision apply to this section and section 115.56. (b) "Advisory committee" means the advisory committee on individual sewage treatment systems established under the individual sewage treatment system rules. The advisory committee must be appointed to ensure gec^raphic representation of the state and include elected public officials. (c) "Applicable requirements" means: (1) local ordinances that comply with the individual sewage treatment system rules, as required in subdivision 2; or (2) in areas not subject to the ordinances described in clause (1), the individual sewage treatment system rules. (d) "City" means a statutory or home rule charter city. (e) "Commissioner" means the commissioner of the pollution control agency. (f) "Dwelling" means a building or place used or intended to be used by human occupants as a single-family or two-family Section 1 ■ • - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 1 unit. (g) "Individual sewage treatment system" or "system" means a sewage treatment system, or part thereof, serving a dwelling, other establishment, or group thereof, that uses subsurface soil treatment,and disposal. (h) "Individual sewage treatment system professional" means an inspector. Installer, site evaluator or designer, or pumper. (i) "Individual sewage treatment system rules" means rules adopted by the agency that establish minimum standards and criteria for the design, location, installation, use, and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems. (j) "Inspector" means a person who inspects individual sewage treatment systems for compliance with the applicable requirements. (Jc) "Installer" means a person who constructs or repairs individual sewage treatment systems. (l) "Local unit of government" means a township, city, or county. (m) "Pumper" means a person who maintains components of individual sewage treatment systems including, but not limited to, septic, aerobic, and holding tanks. (n) "Seasonal dwelling" means a dwelling that is occupied or used for less than 180 days per year and less than 120 consecutive days. (o) "Site evaluator or designer" means a person who: (1) investigates soils and site characteristics to determine suitability, limitations, and sizing requirements; and (2) designs individual sewage treatment systems. Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. [LOCAL ORDINANCES.] (a) All counties that did not adopt ordinances by Hay 7, 1994, or that do not have ordinances, must adopt ordinances that comply with individual sewage treatment system rules by January 1, 1999, unless all towns and cities in the county, have adopted such ordinances. .County ordinances must apply to all areas of the county other than Section 2 i CHAPTER No. 235 H.P. No. 244 ^ cities or towns that have adopted ordinances that comply with 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19« 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 this section and are as strict as the applicable county ordinances. Any ordinance adopted by a local unit of government —Hay_7> 1994» to regulate individual sewage treatment systems must be in compliance with the individual sewage treatment system rules by January 1, 1998. (b) A copy of each ordinance adopted under this subdivision 8 must be submitted to the commissioner upon adoption. ® (c) A local unit of government must make available to the public upon reguest a written list of any differences between its ordinances and rules adopted under this section. Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, subdivisj.on 3, is amended to read: Subd. 3. [RULES.] (a) Tne agency shall adopt rules containing minimum standards and criteria for the design, location, installation, use, and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems. The rules must include: (1) how the agency will ensure compliance under subdivision 2; (2) how local units of government shall enforce ordinances under subdivision 2, including requirements for permits and inspection programs; (3) how the advisory committee will participate in review and implementation of the rules; (4) provisions for alternative systems; provisions for handling and disposal of effluent; (6) provisions for system abandonment; (7) Pifovisions-aiiowing-iocai-units-of-government-fco-adopt ®i^*f*'*fcive-sfcandards-and-eritepiaT~provided-fchat-r ^*^“^^*”®^^®p*'®tive~staBdapds~and-eriteria “may-not~appiy-bo new-coBstruetion-or-replaeeraenfc-of-sysfcemsT-as-defined-by-fche ageneyr-and fiit-fche-eomraissioner-must-eeftify-thafc-fche-alfcernative afcandards-and-eriteria-adequafceiy-profceefc-pobiie-heaith-and-the environmentr-and procedures.for the.commissioner to approve new individual sewage treatment system technologies: and Section 3 i- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 (8) procedures for variances, including the consideration of variances based on cost and variances that take into account proximity of a system to other systems. (b) The agency shall consult with the advisory committee before adopting rules under this subdivision. Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, subdivision 5, is amended to read: Subd. 5. [INSPECTION.J (a) An inspection shall be required for all new construction or replacement of a system to determine compliance with agency rule or local standards. The manner and timing of inspection may be determined by the applicable local ordinance. The inspection requirement may be satisfied by a review by the designated local official of video, electronic. 14 photographic, and other evidence of compliance provided by the 15 installer. 16 Except as provided in subdivision 5b, paragraph 17 fet (b), a local unit of government may not issue a building permit or variance for the addition of a bedroom on property served by a system unless the system is in compliance with the applicable requirements, as evidenced by a certificate of compliance issued by a licensed inspector or site evaluator or designer. A local unit of government may temporarily waive the certificate of compliance requirement for a building permit or variance for which application is made during the period from November 1 to April 30, provided that an inspection of the system is performed by the following June 1 and the applicant submits a certificate of compliance by the following September 30• This paragraph does not apply if the local unit of government does not have an ordinance requiring a building permit to add a bedroom. tbt-A-eomplianee-inspeetion-under-fchis-sabdivision-is reqaired-for-aii-new-eenstruetion-or-fepiacement-of-a-systemT-as defined-by-ageney-raleT (c) A certificate of compliance for an existing system is valid for three years from the date of issuance unless the local unit of government finds evidence of an imminent threat to 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 I Section 4 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 1 public health or safety requiring removal and abatement under 2 section 14SA.04, subdivision 8. 3 (d) A certificate of compliance for a new system is valid 4 for five years from the date of issuance unless the local unit 5 of government finds evidence of an imminent threat to public 6 health or safety requiring removal and abatement under section 7 145A.04, subdivision 8. 8 (e) A licensed inspector who inspects an existing system 9 may subsequently design and install a new system for that 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 property» provided the inspector is licensed to install individual sewage treatment systems. Subd. 5a. [INSPECTION CRITERIA FOR EXISTING SYSTEMS.) (a) An inspection of an existing system must evaluate the criteria in paragraphs (b) to (h). (b) If the inspector finds one or more of the following conditions; (1) sewage discharge to surface water; (2) sewage discharge to ground surface; (3) sewage backup; (4) a cesspool; or (5) any other situation with the potential to immediately and adversely affect or threaten public health or safety. 23 then the system constitutes an imminent threat to public health 24 or safety and, if not repaired^ must be upgraded, replaced, or 25 its use discontinued within ten months of receipt of the notice 26 described in subdivision 5b, or within a shorter period of time if required by local ordinance. (c) An existing system that has none of the conditions in paragraph ?b), and has at least two feet of soil separation need not be upgraded, repaired, replaced, or its use discontinued, notwithstanding any local ordinance that is more restrictive. (d) Paragraph (c) does not apply to systems in shoreland areas regulated under sections 103F.201 to 103F.221, wellhead protection areas as defined in section 1031.005, or those used in connection with food, beverage, and lodging establishments regulated under chapter 157. Section 4 <; CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 1 (e) If the local unit of government with jurisdiction over 2 the system has adopted an ordinance containing local standards 3 pursuant to subdivision 7, the existing system must comply with 4 the ordinance. If the system does not comply with the 5 ordinance> it must be upgraded» replaced^ or its use 6 discontinued according to the ordinance. 7 (f) If a seepage pitf drvwell» or leaching pit exists and 8 the local unit of government with jurisdiction over the system 9 has not adopted local standards to the contrary, the system is 10 failing and must be upgraded, replaced, or its use discontinued 11 within the time required by subdivision 3 or local ordinance. 12 (q) If the system fails to provide sufficient groundwater 13 protection, then the local unit of government or its agent shall 14 order that the system be upgraded, replaced, or its use 15 disconjtinued within the time required by rule or the local 16 ordinance. 17 (h) The authority to find a threat to public health under 18 section 145A.04, subdivision 8, is in addition to the authority 19 to make a finding under paragraphs (b) to (d). 20 iei Subd. 5b. [COMPLIANCE NOTICE. ] ^aj. If a system 21 inspected under this subdivision 5 is not-in-eonpiianee-wifeh-fche 22 appiieabie-requiremenfcs required to be upgraded, replaced, or 23 its use discontinued under subdivision 5a, the inspector or site 24 evaluator or designer must issue a notice of noncompliance to 25 the property owner and must provide a copy of the notice to 26 the ioeai unit of government to-whieh-appiieafcion-for-fehe 27 boiiding-permit-or-varianee-was-raade with jurisdiction. The 28 notice of noncompliance must specify why the system must be 29 upgraded, replaced, or its use discontinued. A local unit of 30 government must specify the upgrade time period in its ordinance. 31 fdt“if~fche-inspeefcor-or-site-evaittafeor-or-designer-finds 32 fchafc-fche-sysfcem-presenfcs-an-imminent-threafc-fco-pabiie-heaith-of 33 safefcyT-fche-inspeefcor-or-site-evalaafcor-or-designer-must-inelttde 34 a-atafcemenfe-fco-fchis-ef £eet-in-the-nofciee-and-the-properfcy-owner 35 mast-apgradeT-repiaeeT-ofdieeontinae-ase-of-the-system-wifehin 36 ten-months-of-reeeipt-of-fche-nofcieeT Section 4 6 I I : 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 • 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244fet (b) Except as provided in paragraph-fdt subdivision 5a, paragraphs (b) to (d), if a system installed between May 27, 1989, and January 23, 1996, does not comply with applicable requirements, the property owner has five years from the date of the bedroom building permit to bring the system into compliance. Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, subdivision 6, is amended to read: Subd. 6. (DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM TO BUYER.] A€fcer-Aagttsfc~3iT“i994T (a) Before signing an agreement to sell or transfer real property, the seller or transferor must disclose in writing to the buyer or transferee information abottt-the-sfcafcus-and-ioeafcion-of-individoal on how sewage treatment-systems-on-fehe-peoperty-or-seeving-the-peopefty generated at the property is managed. The disclosure must be made by delivering a statement to the buyer or transferee that either^. (1) a-stafcement-by-fche-seiier-thafc-fchere-is-no-individtjai sewage-treafcmenfc-systea-on-or-seeving-the-praperty-or-a diselosore-stafcement-deseribing-the-sysfcem-and-indieafcing the sewage goes to a facility permitted by the agency; or (2) the sewage does not go to a permitted facility, is therefore subject to applicable requirements, and describes the system in use, including the legal description of the property, the county in which the property is located, and a map drawn from available information showing the location of the system on the property to the extent practicable. If the seller or transferor has knowledge that an abandoned individual sewage treatment system exists on the property, the disclosure must include a map showing its location. In the disclosure statement the seller must indicate whether the individual sewage treatment system is in use and, to the seller's knowledge, in compliance with applicable sewage treatment laws and rules. Unless the buyer and seller agree to the contrary in writing before the closing of the sale, a seller who fails to disclose the existence or.known status of an..individual sewage.treatment system at the time of sale, and who knew or had reason to know Section 5 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 of the existence or known status of the systemr. (b) A seller or transferor who fails to meet the requiretnents of this section is liable to the buyer for costs relating to bringing the system into compliance with the individual sewage treatment system rules and for reasonable attorney fees for collection of costs from the seller. An action under this subdivision must be commenced within two years after the date on which the buyer closed the purchase or transfer of the real property where the system is located. Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, subdivision 7, is amended to read: Subd. 7. (LOCAL 0RBiNANeE-MA¥-BB-MeRE-RESTRieTfVB STANDARDS.) (a) (EXISTING SYSTEMS.] Counties mav adont by ordinance local standards that are less restrictive than the 15 agency.'s rules in order to define an acceptable existing 15 system. The local standards may include soil separation, soil 1^ classification, vegetation, system use, localized well placement 1® and construction, localized density of systems and wells, extent 1® of area to be covered by local standards, groundwater flow 20 gatterns, and existing natural or artificial drainage systems. 21 22 23 24 25 26 The local standards and criteria shall be submitted to the commissioner for comment prior to adoption to demonstrate that, based on local circumstances in that jurisdiction, they adequately protect public health and the environment. (NEW OR REPLACEMENT SYSTEMS.] Counties, after providing documentation of conditions listed in this paragraph to the 22 commissioner, may adopt by ordinance local standards that are 28 less restrictive than the agency's rules for new aY<>t«.iii construction or replacement in areas of sustained and nrn-)>rfAH low population density where^conditions render conformanrA 2^ applicable requirements difficult or otherwise inappropriate. 32 33 34 35 36 Documentation may include a map delineating the area of the county to be served by the local standards, a deserinHnn of the lordship that would result from strict adherence to the agency's rules, and evidence of .sustained.and projected low popuiaHnn density.—The local standards must protect human health and -the Section 6 8 I 1$ 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 environment and be based on considerations that may include, but need not be limited to, soil separation, soil classification, veqetationf system use, localiaed well placement and construction, localized density of systems and wells, extent of 5 area to be covered by local standards, groundwater flow 6 patterns, and existing natural or artificial drainage systems. 7 The local standards must provide cost-effective and long-term 8 treatment alternatives. The draft ordinance incorporatlno the local standards must be submitted to the local water planning advisory committee, created under section 103B.321, subdivision 3, and then submitted with justification to the commissioner 30 days before adoption for review and comment. (c) [NEW OR REPLACEMENT SYSTEMS; LOCAL ORDINANCES.) A local unit of government may adopt and enforce ordinances or rules affecting new or replacement individual sewage treatment systems that are more restrictive than the agency's rules. fbt-i€-sfcandards-afe-adopted-that-are-more-restrietive-than fche-ageney-'-s-rulesT-the-loeai-anit-of-goyernment-mBsfe-aabmifc-the mere-restrietive-standards-te-the-eommissiener-aleng-with-an expianation-o£-fche-more-restrietive-provisionsT (d) [LOCAL STANDARDS; CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW.) Local standards adopted under paragraph (a) or (b) must not conflict with any requirements under other state laws or rules or local ordinances, including, but not limited to, requirements fort (1) systems in shoreland areas, regulated under sections 103F.201 to 103F.221; (2) well construction and location, regulated under chapter 1031; and (3) systems used in connection with food, beverage, and lodging establishments, regulated under chapter 157. The local standards must include references to applicable requirements under other state laws or rules or local ordinances. "" ■■ 1 ■ —— ■ ■ I ■ ■ ■■ !■ I , ,, B Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 8. [NEW TECHNOLOGIES.) New individual sewage treatment system technologies may be installed as warrantied Section 7 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 2441 svsteias if not specifically prohibited in local ordinancor provided however that the manufacturer or designer provides to the commissioner documentation of the following; (1> how the technology must be used and installed, how it is expected to perform under those conditions# the enticipeted design life, and the period to be warrantied under clause (4); (2) pertinent existing datar including in-field testing datay that the system will perform as expected; (3) financial assurance or documentation of the manufacturer's or designer’s financial ability to cover potential replacement and upgrades necessitated by the system failing to meet the performance expectations of clause (1) for the duration of the warranty period; and ;4) a full warranty effective for the designated warranty period.in clause (1)» which must be at least five years from the 16 time of installation, covering design, labor, and material costs 17 to remedy failure to meet performance expectations in clause (1) for systems used and installed in accordance with the manufacturer's or designer's instructions. The commissioner must make available a list of warrantied systems for which documentation has been provided to the 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 commissioner under this subdivision. Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.57, subdivision 7, is amended to read: Subd. 7. [ORDINANCES; C:,'M<;TR0CTI0N STANDARDS.] A municipality may not establish an individual sewage treatment system loan program unless ordinances pursuant-to-roies-adopted under in compliance with section 115.55T“Sttbdivi3ion”*9T ere in full force and effect. All repairs and improvements made to individual sewage treatment systems under this section shall be performed by a licensed individual sewage treatment system professional and shall comply with ageney-rules-adopted-pursuant to section 115.55T“9'>bdivision-9T and other applicable requirements. All improvements to wells under this section must be made by. a well.contractor or a.limited well contractor, as appropriate, licensed under chapter 1031. 1 Section 8 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 2441 Sec. 9. [LOCAL STANDARDS STUDY.]2 The commissioner of the pollution control agency shall3 conduct e study on the locel stenderds esteblished under4 Minnesota Statutes, section 115.55. subdivision 7» in protecting5 public health and the environment. By February 15> 1999, the 6 commissioner must report on the study to the house and senate 7 committees with jurisdiction over environmental policy. 8 Sec. 10. [EFFECTIVE DATE.] 9 This act is effective the day following final enactment. r 1 n j CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 This bill was passed in conformity to the rules of each house and the joint rules of the two houses as required by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. request for council action DATE: September 22,S^o ITEM NO : /^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Entrance Canopy for piblic Works Building w, h»ve been exDeriencing significant problems with ice buildup on the sidewalk in front of tta woTbSr^ water drato off the roof valley directly in front of the public w«ks taildine entrance Ttiis requires continual chipping of this to allow for opening of the door, ms o l^a^eXard from the ice on L sidewalk in front of the d^r. Them have been I.T.. on this ice. Last winter a public work's employee slipped on the ice and injured tas i^rii^This iniury required several doctors' visits and limited work duty for severalweeks^ The r -.VIS f V this iniury were covered by the City's worker's compensation insurance. This ea^ance by Iny other people, other than City employees, who are not a»-are of this ha7 c .uious situation. An entrance canopy for the public works building was included in the original building plans. This entrance canopy was deleted from the project without adequate consideration of the adye^ causrf by elimination of this item. This canopy was initially f in the^l998 budget We are requesting that the Council consider authorizing installation of “ai^^y to * oTd deu^ instaUation until next spring, resulting in another winter of ice problems. I have attached an elevation drawing of this proposed canopy. This canopy wil be “ dhect the roof drainage out past the sidewalk on to the lawn area. The cano^ will tave ^ support colunL to match the existing budding architeemre. This project wdl a^so reauire replacemem of the sidewalk and grading of the lawn to direct drainage away budding The existing drainage is very poor and the sidewalk is settling from the s^mg water al^ “walk, -ms sidewam replacement rnd lawn grading work can be completed by the public works employees. The canopy installation will be completed by a building contractor. Bonestroo Engmeys will Irepare planTand specifications for completion of this work. The budgeted es^te for tins oro^eci is $20 000. TOs project is under th: limit for formal advertising and bidding, so quotations can be obtained from several reputable contractors for completion of this wor . requesting authorization to obtain quotations for the installation of this entrance canopy. quotations would be obtained before the October 13th Council meeting. At the next meeting, a quotation for this work could be approved for this work allowing construction before winter. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize obtaining quotations for installation of an entrance canopy for the Public Works building. ^iLioo*-<r ♦ot ^iLtr-r •^TSF^TFfS: EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/4- = I'-O' M FIGURE 1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Assodetes Engineeta A AicNtacts REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C/;^ <? DATE: September^lS5^997 ITEM NO,13> Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Ga[q)a Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer ’s Report Item Description: Golf Course Irrigation System Pump Station Installation A contract was recently awarded for the installation of an irrigation system at the municipal golf course. This contract for the irrigation system was limited to installation of the pipe and sprinklers and furnishing, and installing the pun^ station. A buildmg enclosure for the pump station and installation of the electric service to the site was not included in the contract. More favorable bids are obtained if the contact is limited to the items that irrigation contractors specialize in. Additional speciality items add complexity to the project, require subcontractors, and result in higher bids. General practice with irrigation systems is that these other items are completed by the owner as separate projects. The approval for these items was not obtained at the time the contract was awarded. This was an oversight on my part. We have obtained quotations for the completion of these additional items; a concrete slab foundation for the pump station building, a 12' x 16' prefabricated wooden building for the pump station, and installation of the electric service to the pump station and well. The pump station requires a 12' x 12' building, an additional 4' wide roofed porch is included on the front of the building to provide a location for a rest station and pop machine. This building is located near the center of the course and would be an ideal location for a rest station. The installation of a rest station has been envisioned for many years in the long range plans for the golf course. Costs for these improvements are listed for below. Johnson & Peterson Construction, Concrete Slab $925.00 Redi-Bilt Buildings, 12 x 16' Prefabricated Wood Building NSP, Overhead 3 Phase Electric Service Transformer All Star Electric, 480 V 3 Phase & 120/240V Service for Pump Station and Well from NSP Transformer $2992.65 $1,200.00 $7,800.00 w There is money available in the Golf Course fund for completion of this work. The 1997 budget included $100,000 for installation of an irrigation system. The total cost for the irrigation system, new well, and the above items will be $122,116. The 1997 projection for earnings from golf course operations is $47,000. The projected 1997 ending cash balance in the Golf Course Fund, after payment for the irrigation system, should be approximately $147,iilili COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the following quotations for the golf course irrigation system project. Johnson & Peterson Construction, Concrete Slab Redi-Bilt Buildings, 12 x 16* Prefabricated Wood Building NSP, Overhead 3 Phase Electric Service Transformer All Star Electric, 480 V 3 Phase & 120/240V Service for Pump Station and Well from NSP Transformer $925.00 $2992.65 $1,200.00 $7,800.00 r > I %Vc, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: Septen|^^19, 'a ITEM NO = /y Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners (lOCP) Request for Funding for its 1998 Activities A funding request and information regarding lOCP is attached. The city of Orono has, in the past, allocated $1,500 to lOCP from the city's CDBG funds. For 1997 the CDBG funds for the smallest cities in the County, including Orono, were pooled and allocated through a competitive process. A portion of the CDBG funds were allocated to human service agencies through a separate competitive process. The lOCP was not in a position this year to make an application for the CDBG funds. Therefore, they are requesting funding directly from the city in the amount of $1,000 for 1998. lOCP provides a range of services including; emergency services, family services, job services, children's programs, health services, and transportation. lOCP serves families in Hamel, Long Lake, Medina, Minnetonka Beach, Orono, Wayzata, West Medicine Lake and Plymouth. lOCP services to Orono residents in 1996 represented 1.7 per cent of the organization's direct service expenditures and 0.7 per cent of its client case load. In addition to those agencies historically funded through CDBG funds, the city has funded a number of human service agencies through the city's General Fund Budget. These have included Senior Community Services, Westonka Senior Center, Tamarack Senior Center, and the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, more recently known as the Suburban Alliance. The Suburban Alliance was dissolved in 1997. The west Hennepin County cities are in the process of determining what type of organization should replace the Suburban Alliance. The city's 1997 General Fund Budget includes $1,795 in funding for the Suburban Alliance. Because a new organization has not been put into place at this time, it has not been determined what Orono's funding level will be for 1998. The total funding level for human services agencies in the General Fund Budget was $16,155 in 1997 and is proposed to be $16,640 in 1998. Regardless of the level of funding required for the organization which replaces the Suburban Alliance, the General Fund Budget can accommodate funding for the lOCP at the $1,000 level if the Council so desires. The Council may choose to provide funding at the requested level, provide funding at a different level, or decide not to provide funding. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion indicating the Council's response to the request by lOCP for funding for its 1998 activities. 7 ^r: ^6 2?r= -S2: ^ - \ Qd£SEE<31 ^ s 2! g 5 ^ ZO < 5 •ds c d ^<0 U4 CONTRIBUTIONS & SERVICESWhere the Money Comes From ■;;a y Thattk you for your support! The mission of Interfaitli Outreach & Community Partners is to identify and respond to the unmet basic human needs of people who live in our community by serving them in times of crisis and assisting them in moving toward self-sufficiency through the creative action of an inclusive partnership of faith communities, schools, government, businesses, community groups, foundations and individuals. 110 Grand Avenue South Wayzala, MN 55391-1872 Office Hours 473-2436 Monday - Friday Fax: 473-4337 9:00 a m. - 5 00 p.m. Interfaitk^utreacli Community^ Partners . < "People Uniling to Help People." i.- lOCP SERVICES ^ Emergency Services: • InformsHon* referral and advocacy • Food and clolhing help • Financial asaistance with sheller, houaing, transportatioa utilities and medical needs ^ Transportation: • Rides to GEO and ESL classes, medical and other appointments • Monday • Friday appointments. • 48 hour advance notice. SR Family Services: • Support and subsidy for families %vorking on life-improvement and self-suffkkiKy goals SR Job Services: • Assistance ufith )ob search, resume writing,training resources SR St Mar/s Health Qinic • Free primary care for the uninsured • Call 690-7029 for appointment SR Special Programs: • Easter, Back-to-School! • Thanksgiving and Holiday • Birthday, Welcome Home, Baby! Special ^rvices: • Legal advice • Tax preparation Foodshelf and ^Clothes to You'' Hours: Monday 4 p.m. - 6 p.m. Wednesday 9 a.m. - Noon 4 p.m. - 6 p.m. Friday 9 a.m. • Noon Clothing Donations Welcomed: •Tuesday 4c Thursday: 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. First Saturday of month: 9 a.m. - Noon COMMUNITIES SERVED • Hamel • Wayzata • Long Lake • West Medicine Lake • Medina • West Plymouth • Minnetonka Beach • Orono 1996 ASSISTS INTERFAITH VOLUNTEERS ■bring a depth and breadth to all we do. generous and faithful I service keeps us responsive JL to community needs year 'round and allows us to direct a significant portion of every dollar contributed toward helping people-- 1996 Volunteer Hours...........28^01 Clothing......................... 4,953 Food.............................. 6,081 Housing........................... 453 "At lOCP they don't just Utilities........................... 147 Job Sen'ices..................... 89 talk about solutions, they Auto Maint./Rcpair....... 867 actually da. something to Rides Given................... 2,162 St. Mary's Clinic Visits..... 381 bring about real change." Medical Supplies................76 Advocacy/Referral...... 1,121 Dale Hallen, Builder & Volunteer Lbs. of Food given..... 219,674 • .. £ I bO Co fd o;aou TJc S: N ai I C 9 ej co JCcu o IH U O C A o .1 s i t *43 O U s 49o }l§ I ^ Ii- IU ^ C i § i s ®- i .as*3 o 11 •o <*G VI ± c Om UJ □ □ \ i Ml ^rnm ! I July 2,1997 OutUMlL^ Ron Moorse City Administrator CityofOrono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Moorse: Enclosed is a budget request and justification for 1998 funding in the amount of $1,000 to support Interfaith Outreach & Community Partners service to Orono resident. Please let us know if there is any additional information that you would like us to provide, Thank you for giving our proposal your kind consideration. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, LaDonna Hoy, Executive Director INTERFAITH OUTREACH & COMMUNITY PARTNERS 110 Grand Avenue South, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391-1872 612/473-2436 Fax 612/473-4337 mIznA. To:From: Re: City of OronoInterfaith Outreach & Community Partners 110 Grand Ave. S.Wayzata,MN 55391 Contact Person: LaDonna Hoy, Executive Director 473-2436 Request for 1998 Funding ! ^ Interfaith Outreach & Community Partners (lOCP) requests a grant of $1,000 from the City of Orono to help subsidize its services for Orono residents in 1998. lOCP services for Orono residents include but are not limited to: Emergency Services - information referral, advocacy, food, clothing, shelter, fmancial assistance with housing, transportation, medical and other life needs. Family Services Program - a family centered program to help stabilize families and assist them in achieving financial independence. Job Services - job service specialists and trainers provide assistance at lOCP for low income residents. Holiday Program - help with birthdays, Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas needs. Children*s Programs - assistance for low-income famil: .s with back-to-school needs, camp scholarships, lOCP art class, Cargill/IOCP Reading Club, recreational needs and advocacy. Professional Services - pro bono tax preparation, legal assistance, budget counseling onsite and offsite, as well as dental care donated by community professionals. ♦ St Mary’s Health Clinic - free primary health care for the uninsured. Transportation - rides to critical services, such as medical, educational, employment, counseling, court, legal, etc. lOCP programs provide a service continuum that helps people move from CRISIS to CHOICES to CHANGE. This continuum begins with a broad spectrum of emergency services - information, referral, advocacy, food, clothing, shelter, financial assistance, physical and mental health interventions - which respond to the need in times of crisis and transition. Here the focus is on short term crisis response with an emphasis on achieving stability. achieve relative stability, they may enter Track 2 of the Family Serv ices Track 2 of the F^ily Services continuum o"er? case management for families who are worl^g on specific issues such as job search, housing, budgeting, parenting and relationship issues, health & mental health issues, that impact their quality of life. Case managers provide fmancial assistance, information, referral, advocacy, coaching help with explormg choices and links to other appropriate resources. Track 3 of the Family Seivices program focuses on families who fall through the cracks of existmg programs. This track targets the working poor who despite full time work unable to consistently provide for their families and who have been unsuccessful in accessmg services and resources that could help them achieve fmancial stability. are This track provides intensive support and subsidy for up to two years for families working on a long-term plan to achieve financial stability through upgrading education and/or employinent skills. "Hiis process begin'* with an Litensive needs assessment followed by the creation of an action plan contammg realistic, attainable goals, with a specific timetable and a step-by-step outline for reaching those goals. Support mcludes help with goal setting, resource identification, skills training, advocacy coaching, monitonng progress, ministering to setbacks, and celebrating victories Subsidy may include fmancial aid with education fees, books, housing, clothing for work day care costs, transportation, i.e., bus fare, gas, car repair, (car recruitment-in the past year 11 used cars donated to lOCP were m?de available to lOCP clients), etc.-whatever ’ integrated, all-issues approach makes the cntical difference for faniil •«. v.no face m ole barriers to self-sufficiency. Thus far in 1997, residtuts of Orono have made 42 visits co lOCP for serv* »s. They account for 3.2% of lOCP serv ice dollars this year. The number of visits to lOCP by Orono residents is up dramatically this year from 1996, when 47 visits were made over the course of the entire year. Due to the restructuring of the welfare system, we expect this trend to continue. lOCP SERVICES TO ORONO RESIDENTS January 1,1996 to December 31,1996; lOCP services to Orono residents in 1996 represented 1.7% of our direct service expenditures and 0.7% of our client case load. lOCP also serves families in Hamel, Long Lake. Medma, Minnetonka Beach, Wayzata, West Medicme Lake and Plymouth '■U- 1 Funds and services allocated to Orono households from January 1, to December 31 of 1996 were applied as follows: Service Number of Assists Dollars Applied Food (frmds)$ 744 Foodshe; Transportation Housing Utilities Medical Child Care Other 6 3 1 1 807 1,990 298 72 323 234 Clothing Rides 35 15 TOTAL 106 13 $4,481 *lbs of food distributed to Orono residents - 1,538 lOCP COLLABORATION lOCP networks with a broad variety of human and social service providers, school districts, church professionals, child care providers, health and mental health providers, employment service providers, county, city and public safety professionals, recreational resources, community service and civic group on an ongoing basis in both the development and delivery of services to Orono residents. As a result of community dialogue begun at lOCP’s 1996 Annual Meeting, five key issues have been identified as the barriers to self-sufficiency for low-income families in the eight west Hennepin communities served by lOCP, including Orono. These areas have been targeted for action by lOCP through a community initiative called The Vision for the Village. The Vision for the Village is focused on affordable housing, affordable child care, transportation, employment, and valuing families and children. Task forces made up of a broad cross-section of community leaders are now at work in each of these . Considerable progress has already been made. For example, the Independence ay an, which will supply 60 used cars per year to individuals who meet the criteria, will give the first car to a qualified family on July 4, 1997. lOp is represented on the Community Action for Suburban Hennepin County Board, the Suburban Alliance Board, the Samaritan Pastoral Counseling Center Board the Comm^ties in Collaboration Council, the Foundation HealthSystem Miniiesoia Board. ^d L E.A.F. (L^elong Education for Adults and Families). lOCP is also a member of the ayzata and Twm West Chambers of Commerce, and Rotary. These relationships have been extremely helpRil in the development of responsive, timely, effective service delivery. We are currently collaborating with the University of Minnesota and College of St. Catherme Schools of Social Work toward the placement of MSW interns at lOCP. We are dso working with Augsburg Collef e toward the placement of undergraduate and graduate mtems at lOCP. This fall we expect to have one MSW intern on board which will mcrease our case managemer: and overall service capacity. lOCP hosts St. Mary ’s Health Clinic, one of 11 free neighborhood clinics established by Carondolet Life Care mmistries to make primary health care available to persons who are unmsured. Currently the clinic is available one afternoon a week. collaboratively with Employment Action Center to make job available on our site.services We have also negotiated with the Cenacle Retreat House to continue an annual retreat for low-income women entitled Women Who Dare to Hope, which was destined to end when the Cenacle Retreat House closes in 199’ -Tiis wonderful program, which has an eight year histoiy, has served women and child.en ftorn Orono and the metro area. The Sisters of the Cenacle have directed their support team to work with us to keep the program m place. ^ lOCP FUNDING SOURCES lOCP h^ a standing Fundraising Committee of its Board of Directors which is ^^rsising from the constituencies that support lOCP. In 1996, 59% of .?/ r individuals. 14% from area churches. 7% from Foundations, 3/o from Corporations, 5% from local small businesses, 6% from various units of government, 1 % from interest and 5% from other organizations. VOLUNTEERISM AT lOCP lOCP engages Ae^wrisdom, time, energy and expertise of more than 600 community VO unteers. P s program coordinators, its Board of Directors, al! profe ssional, fiscal, r legal, public relations, most of its building maintenance, and all of its accounting services are volunteered. It is because of this extraordinary community support that lOCP is able to keep its General/Administrative costs at 22% of the operating budget and deliver an amazing level of service to our community. The growing number of people we expect to serve due to the restructuring of the welfare system, as well as cost of living increases, prompts our request for funding. ATTACHMENTS lOCP Board of Directors lOCP Brochure lOCP 1997 Budget lOCP 1995 Audit (1996 Audit is in progress and will be sent when complete) 501 (cX3) letter of determination \ INTERFAITH OUTREACH & COMMUNITY PARTNERS BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1997 Chair Maria Vasiliou (Business Communications Advisor) Vice Chair Bonnie Johnson (Community Volunteer) Secretary Geri Scherer (Career Counselor, LifeWorks Career Services) Treasurer Alan Johnson (President, West Suburban District, Norwest Bank) Margaret Blazek Steve Bohl Marge Humphrey Susan Johnson Joe McCarthy Kevin O’Connor Casey Rosen Greg Rye Colleen Simpson Mary Kill Smith George Walker Scott Weaver (Community Volunteer) (Owner, Bohland Development/Pillar Homes) (Community Volunteer) (Psychotherapist) (President, Northstar Counselors, Inc.) (CPA, O’Connor & Gearty, Ltd.) Retired Banker) (President, Arnold & Rye, INK) (Director, Community Seivices and Operations, The Foundation HeathSystem Minnesota) (Metro Council Member) (Retired Corporate Executive) (Attorn ;y. Weaver Professional Association) Ex Officio; The Rev. Mr. Joseph Wierschem (Deacon, Retired Corporate Executive) I • •INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DISTRICT DIRECTOR P Q BOX A-3290 DPN 22<2 CHICAGOI IL 60690 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Datft:HAY 0 11991 INTERFAITH OUTREACH AND COHHUNITV PARTNERS 630 E MAYZATA BLVD HAYZATAf MN 56391 Eaployer Identification Nuaberi 36-3482724 Contact Person: MS. A. MCKINLEY Contact Telephone Nueber: (312> 886-0301 Our Letter Dated: July 30 1987 Addenden Applies: NO Dear AppIleant: This Bodifies our letter of the above date in which we stated that'you Houid be treated as an organization which is not a private foundation until the expiration of your advance ruling period. 1 Your exeept status under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) is still in effect. Based on the information you submitbedi we have determined that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the code because you are an organization of the type described in section 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination unless the Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrary. Howevert if you lose your section 509(a)(1) statusi a grantor or contributor may not rely on this determination If he or she was in part responsible fort or was aware oft the act or failure to aett or the substantial or materia* change on the part of the organization that resulted in your loss of such statusi or if he or she acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you would no longer be classified as a section 509(a)(1) organization. If we have indicated, in the heading of this letter that an addendum applies! the addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about your private foundation statust please keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questionst please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown above. Sincerely yourst n I Am S. Nintrodet Jr. * District Director Letter 1050(D0/CG) jCOu^v' T f.’ • - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SEP ^ ^ DATE: ITEM NO.: /o Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator's Report Item Description: Street Signs for Private Roads The Chief of Police has expressed concerns about difficulties in distinguishing between public and private roads. There js a difference in the enforcement of laws between these two types of roads. All traffic and parking regulations are enforced on public roads. My understanding is that on private roads the enforcement of laws is limited to restrictions on blocking of roads, reckless driving, and driving while intoxicated. Normal parking restrictions and speed limits are not enforced. Private roads are limited to use by residents, guests, and service and delivery vehicles. ALo, trespassing laws apply to private roads. The police department is having difficulty in knowing whether a road is public or private when responding to calls This is especially difficult for the newer part time officers. Wc have discussed this .situation and arc proposing that different colored street signs be used for public and private roads. The existing street signs are white with black letters. The use of green signs with white letters is being proposed for private roads. Green street signs are being proposed because they blend in with the surroundings, and are more compatible with the desired rural character than other colored signs. All new private roads would have green signs installed. The white street signs on existing private roads would remain inplace, but future replacement signs would be required to conform to the green color standard. Marking of private roads, until new signs are installed,could be completed by installing a strip of reflective tape on the sign post below the street sign. This tape could be installed by the Public Work’s employees. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a policy that requires all new street signs for private roads be green with white letters. Street signs for public roads will continue to be white with black letters. m VI Oourequest for council action ''V- ^ p DATE: SepteWSi!^^ 1997 ITEM NO: / (o Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Revieweci:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Resolution Authorizing Execution of Sub-Grant Agreement for Storm Damage Reimbursement ^e Federal Eine^ency Management Agency is making funds available to cities as reimbursement for expn^ related to damage caused by the storms experienced in mid-summer I r^^me^'”’' “ «.e Mayor to execute a grant agreement 10 be submitted prior to the Council meeting, a majority of the SreirtTv '» meeting Te Action quested at this time is to confirm the approval of the resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: ^ agreement for reimbursement 1 r ! A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, that the city of Orono enter into a Sub-grant Agreement with the Division of Emergency Management in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for the program entitled Infrastructure Program for FEMA 1175-DR-MnWESOTA. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and sign such Sub-grant Agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the city of Orono. I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the Council of the city of Orono on this 8th day of September, 1997. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk ■r I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 18, 1997 1ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hallin THIe City Clerk Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval SPECIAL EVENT:Remodelers Showcase 2375 Devin Lane September 26 - 28 HOME OCCUPATION: Annual John Hallson 120 Goldenview Drive KENNEL LICENSE: Residential Tracey Morrow 3026 Casco Point Road COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny above listed licenses ^enda Se^on: Licenses — C/fy ^99; op ^^OA/o —^ Date:September 5, 1997 To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Subject:Remodelers Showcase I have reviewed the apphcation of Darrell Alden to conduct a Remodelers Showcase at 2375 Devin Lane on September 26-28, 1997. As Devin Lane is a private road, I have no objection to the issuance of the permit as long as the road does not become blocked. r t I PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Permit Fee: $50.00 Date Received Phone Number: 97^^ - .^7/6 Name:0 /'1/7 e i/7^ Address: <^3 u/yt Aa t\ City,State,Zip: /. »•_____^ ^I Location of Parade or Evei t: ^‘ri7S'____ Date of Event: j/^6i ^ ^7- ^ S Hours of Event: Ppf Type of Event: mt c a. ^ Insurance Company: i^<^cLc^cLTh~ci Amount: 3 . £c>o. (Copy of insurance certificate must be submitted with this application) I am aware of all applicable State and other laws regarding parades and special events and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City of Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise directly or indirectly from the parade of special event approved by the granting of this permit. I understand some events may require off-duty or reserve officers and a fee may be required for these services. Signature 9/^^ 9 Date Approved: □ Denied: □ By: Remarks: 010396.3 r application for HOm^OCCUPATION LICENSE 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY, P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 TA k V>acx V\. SNAME:____ street 1. PHONE;J±Z5j:fi5L^i^ IL -Vi T.cr-i^«— city/stai business NAME: TVre OP BOSB^ »*■«>' SEUl^rJipIiM^ mSS held on .he second end fourth Monday of each mon*. Prohibit^ Honr. Oc^P^n 33 3 home occupatton .0 engage in operation widtout 4 No excessive stock in trade may be s ored on die premises, i "r'o^pa~ " gained from widiin die struchire. .n undersigned hereby agrees .0 .e conditions quoted above from .e Orono Municipal Code and any Saitional coUtons die Ci. may ^.r. P3.e:^.5^ Signature of Applicant: ___________ nvi V-' W4er review of application, staff recommen^ the follow 7 FOR CITY USE ONLY. A? Denial of applicationJ,0, Approval of application ------------- Signature of Zoning OfRcW: Signature of Building Official:. Application Date: putP- ^ ~ lO ’^~1. DateLicense Approved:Date License Expired:__ 09/09/97 Pay 30.00 Trans. 309- KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1,19___to December 31,19 Owner_______/ Property Address;CLasco (^o\. Qvonn.VYivN (include city and zip) ^ * ' Mailing Address Of different): ____________ Phone; (home)___________V7/ - O/S(work) ~^ST/<^— RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee; S25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time; 3 (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed:,, c Purpose for more than 2 dogs:______ d- ) RicJv}y\ ^^ insidfl^ kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: S150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:_____ Business Activities: Normal Business Hours: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) After Hours Contact: (name) (phone)_ Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City CouncU for a Kennel License as yecified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grmt any authonty to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the Citv nerm;Q«;r.n ____t^_ ~ ^ —- —V v/i ally v^rouiance or oiner law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municioal Code ChantAr ^ -ixu-j L . me license auration; ana tne undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. 4-g-cgCTeg. Applicant y Date For Citv Use Only Kennel inspected by 6 ^_____ Recommends Approva l / Denial Dat e <y // -a --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ■— r c/rvor.‘-.9'•!-Wo fy. *Wf # M /'^ >~r- 9 Sep 1997 Tue 7:21 AM Check Register City of Orono Q^eck RuoOber Date Name Check Number 54698 54698 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 09-Sep-97 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totals Check Number 54698 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 54699 riRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 54699 54699 54699 09-Sep-97 09-Sep-97 09-Sep-97 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Totals Check Number 54699 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 54700 GREAT KEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 54700 09-Sep-97 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO Totals Check Number 54700 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO Oieck Number 54701 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL 54701 09-Sep-97 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL Totals Oieck Number 54701 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 54702 HQINEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 54702 09-Sep-97 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Totals Check Number 54702 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Check Nusiber 54703 ICNA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 54703 09-E-P-97 ICMA RETIRE»ffiNT TRUST - 457 Totals Check Number 54703 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Oieck Number 54704 LAN ENPORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 54704 09-Sep-97 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Totals Check Number 54704 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 54705 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 54705 09-Sep-97 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 54705 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 54706 MN MUTUAL LIFE 54706 09-Sep-97 MN MUTUAL LIFE Totals Check Number 54706 MN MUTUAL LIFE Trjmsaction Amount 7,812.00 7,812.00 3,063.77 3,063.77 7,434.69 13,562.23 981.46 981.46 184.50 184.50 125.00 125.00 0.00 0.00 3,188.68 3,188.68 514.00 514.00 Page 1 174.50 174.50 • Comments SAVINGS W/H k TRANSFERRED FICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA,MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THOHIQN 8C0266780 SKREEN 8C0262310 DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUES W/H STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP W/H r f 9 Sep 1997 Tue 7:21 AM Check Register City of OronoCheck Number Date Name Check Number 54707 54707 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP 09-Sep-97 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Totals Check Number 54707 HN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Check Number 54708 PEBSCO/OBRA 54708 09-Sep-97 PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number 54708 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 54709 PBBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 54709 09-Sep-97 PBBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Totals Check Number 54709 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Check Number 54710 PERA 54710 54710 09-Sep-97 09-Sep-97 PERA PERA Totals Check Number 54710 PERA Check Number 54711 UNITED tfAY 54711 09-Sep-97 UNITED ffAY Totals Check Number 54711 UNITED NAY Grand Total Transaction Amount 265.00 265.00 203.02 203.02 1.872.86 1.872.86 3.902.37 5.147.90 9.050.27 23.00 23.00 37.956.52 Pag* 2 Conments DEFERRED COMP M/H OBRA DEFERRED COMP M/H USCM DEFERRED COMP N/U PERA EMPLOYEE M/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS M/H r 17 Sep 1997 Hed 12:03 PM Check Register City of OronoCheckNumberDateName Qieck Number 55441 55441 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 22-Sep-97 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Totals Check Number 55441 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Check Number 55442 ASCOM MAILING SYSTEMS 55442 22-Sep-97 ASCOM MAILING SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 55442 ASCOM MAILING SYSTEMS Check Number 55443 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF 55443 55443 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Totals Check Number 55443 AUGIES mBILE CHEF Check Number 55444 BIFFS INC. 55444 55444 55444 55444 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 BIFFS INC. BIFFS INC. BIFFS INC. BIFFS INC. Totals Check Number 55444 BIFFS INC. Check Number 55445 BLACKOWIAK k SON 55445 55445 55445 55445 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 BLACKOWIAK k SON BLACKOWIAK 4 SON BLACKOWIAK 4 SON BLACKOWIAK 4 SON Totals Check Number 55445 BLACKOWIAK 4 SON Check Number 55446 BLACKOWIAK 4 SON 55446 22-Sep-97 BLACKOWIAK 4 SON Totals Check Number 55446 BLACKOWIAK 4 SON Check Number 55447 BOBZIEN. SUE 55447 22-Sep-97 BOBZI0J, SUE Totals Check Number 55447 BOBZIEN, SUE Check Number 55448 BONESTROO R03ENE 4 ASSOC. 22-Sep-97 BONESTROO ROSENB 4 ASSOC,55448 TransactionAmount 486.28 486.28 189.00 189.00 49.50 55.52 105.02 130.52 130.52 130.52 65.26 456.82 2,319.40 2,319.40 210.00 210.00 773.97 . wrPage 1Comments OCTOBER INSURANCE 4TH QTR RENTAL COFFEE FOOD FOR RESALE BEDERWOOD PARR SUWIT BEACH HACKBERRY PARK GOLF COURSE 152.99 AUGUST SERVICE 70.46 AUGUST SERVICE 134.18 AUGUST SERVICE 168.58 AUGUST SERVICE 526.21 CLEANUP ANTOINE PARK CLOTHING REIMBURSEMENT REBID OCB RD TRAIL CR 6 m j r 17 Sep 1997 Wed 12:03 PM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Date Name Transaction Amount Page 2 Comments Check Number S544b S5448 55448 55448 55448 55448 55448 55448 BONESTRCX} ROSENE & ASSOC. 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO ROSENE & ROSENE k ROSENE k ROSENE k ROSENE k ROSENE k ROSENE k ASSOC. ASSOC. ASSOC. ASSOC. ASSOC. ASSOC. ASSOC. Totala Check Number 55448 BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. 957.44 3.817.24 23.241.45 3.442.06 250.25 165.00 2.667.98 35.315.39 WELL #2 MAINT ADM/INSP BRKTS PT/BAYRDGE ADD'L N.LL/LLCC ASSISTANCE-JUN OCB RD TRAIL INSP-JUNB REVIEW REIMB WILLOW DR PREP SUPL AGREE WILLOW DR JUNE COUNCIL MTGS J r Check Number 55449 55449 55449 55449 55449 CHUNKS LAXESHORE AUTO 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 Totala Check Number CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAXESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 55449 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Check Number 55450 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 55450 22-Sep-97 CITY OF COLOMBIA HEIGHTS Totals Check Humber 55450 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 82.13 28.45 114.67 245.69 470.94 40.00 40.00 8177 OVERHEAD SWITCH 8178 MOUNT TIRE 8175 BAL TIRE. OIL CHG 8177 SETUP VEE. HASEMAN REGISTRATION Check Number 55451 55451 CITY OF MINNETONKA 24-Har-97 Totals Check Number CITY OF MINNETONKA 55451 CITY OP MINNETONKA 9.239.00 9.239.00 2ND OTR PROSECUTION *heck Number 55452 55452 CITY OP MOUND 24-Mar-97 Totala Check Number CITY OP MOUND 55452 CITY OP MOUND Check Number 55453 55453 55453 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 Totala Check Number CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 55453 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH Tieck Number 55454 55454 CITYVIEW PLUMBING k HEATING 22-Sep-97 Totala Check Number CITYVIEW PLUMBING 6 HEATING 55454 CITYVIEW PLUMBING k HEATING Check Number 55455 55455 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. 22-Sep-97 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO, 19.964.00 19.964.00 23.39 170.77 194.16 77.00 77.00 898.06 2ND QTR FIRE CONTRACT MISC SUPPLIES FILM DEVELOPING FIX HOT WATER IN RESTROOM SEPT INSURANCE ^ 1 17 Sep 1997 Wed 12:03 PM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Date Name Transaction Amount Cooments Page 3 Check Number 554S5 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. Totals Check Number 55455 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO 898.06 Check Number 55456 D.M.J. CORPORATION 55456 22-Sep-97 Totals Check Number D.M.J. CORPORATION 554S6 D.M.J. CORPORATION 12.00 12.00 ASPHALT DUMPS Check Number 55457 EARL F. ANDERSON & ASSOC. 55457 55457 55457 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 Totals Check Number EAPL F. ANDERSON ASSOC, EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC. EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC, 55457 EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC 459.35 604.61 281.44 1.345.40 STOP SIGNS "NOTICE" SIGNS CHANNEL POSTS Check Number 55458 EULL*S MANUFACTURING CO. INC. 55458 55458 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 Totals Check Number BULL'S MANUFACTURING CO. INC. BULL'S MANUFACTURING CO. INC. 55458 BULL'S MANUFACTURING CO. INC. 424.51 39.14 463.65 MANHOLE RINGS CATCH BASIN Check Number 55459 FEED RITE CONTROLS 55459 55459 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 Totals Check Number FEED RITE CONTROLS FEED RITE CONTROLS 55459 FEED RITE CONTROLS 20.00 65.49 85.49 CONTAINER CHARGE HYDROFLUOSILICIC ACID Check Number 55460 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 55460 22-Sep-97 Totals Check Number FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 55460 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 169.00 169.00 4TH QTR FIRE MONITORING Check Number 55461 FRETHEIM. LELAND H. 55461 22-Sep-97 Totals Check Number FRETHEIM, LELAND H 55461 FRETHEIM. LELAND H. 40.00 40.00 DOOR REPAIR • PLUM Check Number 55462 G k K SERVICES 55462 55462 55462 55462 55462 55462 55462 22-SCP-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES 70.07 54.69 54.69 95.37 86.94 12.15 5.93 FLOOR MATS FLOOR MATS FLOOR MATS FLOOR MATS STREET EMPLOYEES RATT-BUN STEFFENHAGEN 1,100.00 JULY SERVICES 1,344.00 JULY SERVICES 16.00 BIKE TRAIL EASEMENTS 2,599.60 JULY SERVICE 977.00 JUNE SERVICES 280.00 BIKE TRAIL EASEMENTS 902.00 JUNE SERVICES 1,100.00 JUNE SERVICE 8,318.60 m 17 Sep 1997 Hed 12:01 PH Chec)c Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Ntunber 55486 55486 MIDWEST ASPHALT 22-Sep-97 MIDWEST ASPHALT Totals Check Number 55486 MIDWEST ASPHALT Check Number 55487 MINN COMM L 55487 22-Sep-97 MINN com Totals Check Number 55487 mini: com Check Number 55488 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 55488 22-Sep-97 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Number 55488 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Qieck Number 55489 NSP 55489 55489 55489 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 NSP NSP NSP Totals Check Number 55489 NSP Qicck Number 55490 OFFICE DEPOT 55490 55490 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT Totals Check Number 55490 OFFICE DEPOT Check Number 55491 OLD DUTCH POODS INC. 55491 22-Sep-97 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. Totals Check Number 55491 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. Check Number 55492 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 55492 04-Sep-96 PERA LIFE INSURANCE Totals Check Number 55492 PERA LIFE INSURANCE Check Number 55493 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 55493 22-Sep-97 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR Totals Check Number 55493 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR Check Number 55494 PIONEER 55494 22-Sep-97 PIONEER Totals Check Number 55494 PIONEER flmiaiwltieiliriinitiiiiir miiif Transaction Amount 72.21 4,195.52 6.00 6.00 27.00 27.00 572.66 2,047.86 172.71 2,793.23 944.20 351.87 1,296.07 19.25 19.25 156.00 156.00 69.23 69.23 12.25 12.25 Comments ASPHALT PATCH REPLACE PAGER OXYGEN, A^TYLBNE NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES CHIPS FOR RESALE OCTOBER INSURANCE TOWING CHARGE Page 7 CANCELLATION NOTICE r 1, ■*17 Sep 1997 Wed 12:03 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55495 55495 RtD BATTERIES INC. 22-Sep-97 R4D BATTERIES INC. Totals Check Number 55495 RtD BATTERIES INC. Check Number 55496 REED VENDING 55496 22-Sep-97 REED VENDING Totals Check Number 55496 REQ) VENDING Check Number 55497 RITZ CAMERA 55497 55497 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA Totals Check Number 55497 RITZ CAMERA Check Number 55498 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES 55498 19-Sep-96 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES j Totals Check Number 55498 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Check Number 55499 ROM INC. 55499 22-Sep-97 ROM INC. Totals Check Number 55499 ROM INC. Qieck Number 55500 SCHARBER k SONS 55500 22-Sep-97 SCHARBER k SONS Totals Check Number 55500 SCHARBER k SONS Check Number 55501 SNYDER DRUG STORES 55501 22-Sep-97 SNYDER DRUG STORES Totals Check Number 55501 SNYDER DRUG STORES Check Number 55502 STREICHERS 55502 55502 55502 55502 55502 55502 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS Totals Check Number 55502 STREICHERS Check Number 55503 THE SIGN AGE Transaction Amount 107.12 107.12 41.90 41.90 9.65 10.95 20.60 7.029.01 7.029.01 355.00 355.00 149.10 149.10 27.55 27.55 217.26 21.19 35.09 170.40 52.19 19.95 516.08 Page 8 Comments BATTERIES CANDY FOR RESALE FILM FILM DEVELOPING OCTOBER SERVICES CLEAN OUT STORM SEWER MISC PARTS BATTERIES SHOOTING GLASSES, AM40 SNAP CLOSURE HOLSTER BARETTA 8177 SETUP TOGGLE SWITCH i I i r 17 Sep 1997 ffed 12:03 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55503 55503 55503 THB SIGN AGB 22-Sep-97 THB SIGN AGE 22-Sep-97 THE SIGN AGE Totals Check Number 55503 THE SIQi AGE Check Number 55504 TRI-K SERVICES 55504 25-Aug-97 TRI-K SERVICES Totals Check Number 55504 TRI-K SERVICES Check Number 55508 US IfEST COmUNICATIONS 55508 55508 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Totals Check Number 55508 US WEST COmJNICATIONS 55509 WARNING LITES OF MNC h Number 55509 55509 22-Sep 97 22-Sep-97 WARNING LITES OF MN WARNING LITES OF MN Totals Check Number 55509 WARNING LITES OF MN Check Number 55510 WEST PHOTO 22-Sep-97 WEST PHOTO55510 Transaction Amount 93.90 93.90 187.80 14.88 14.86 45.94 88.75 134.69 219.90 108.95 328.85 52.07 Page 9 Comments GRAPHICS ON B a Z VEHICLE GRAPHICS ON PW VEHICLE MISC PARTS Check Number 55505 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 55505 22-Sep-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 3.82 SHOP VAC FILTER 55505 22-Sep-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 2.75 KEY 55505 22-Sep-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 12.32 PAINTING SUPPLIES 55505 22-Sep-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 6.87 PAINT 55505 22-Sep-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 31.94 TABLE PHONE 55505 22-Sep-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 19.55 MISC SUPPLIES 55505 22-Sep-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 1.27 POTTING SOIL 55505 22-Sep-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 21.04 BATTERIES 55505 22-Sep-97 TRT^ VALUE HARDWARE 6.88 MISC SUPPLIES Totals Check NUifiber 55505 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 106.44 Check Number 55506 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 55506 12-Sep-96 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 140.52 UNIFORMS Totals Check Number 55506 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 140.52 Check Number 55507 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 55507 09-Jaii-97 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 40.00 GAPPA-CITY ENGINE Totals Check Number 55507 UNIVHISITY OF MINNESOTA 40.00 US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES BARRICADE RENTAL BARRICADE RENTAL FILM 17 Sep 1997 Wed 12:03 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 10CheckNumberDateNameTransactionAmountCommentsCheck Number 55510 WEST PHOTO Totals Check Number 55510 WEST PHOTO 52.07 Grand Total 167.419.62 r K [p E^ORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL MEETING SEP 2 2 1997 CfTY OF ORONO OF s PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTbu AUGUST 1997REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 09/04/97 PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO ♦ * * * ♦PAGE:REQUESTER:mPERMIT TYPE QTY 08/01/97 BASE FEE IT RANGE. . . . .- 08/31/97VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY . . . . . PREVIC08/01/96BASE FEE )US RANGE. . . ..- 08/31/96VALUATION PLAN REVIEWBuilding SOL FAMILY-NEW 3 6,268.00 1,025,000.00 4,074.20 6 12,567.25 2,075,724.00 8,168.70 SP-ADD/REM(»BL 36 4,666.25 223,373.00 1,580.96 23 2,728.00 146,913.00 729.80 SP-ACC STRUCTURE 4 508.75 28,226.00 330.70 2 133.25 6,499.00 72.96 DEMO/PRINCIPAL 1 50.00 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 0.00 0.00 COM-ADD/REMODEL 1 287.25 20,000.00 186.71 1 74.75 3,000.00 0.00 INST-ADD/REMODEL 1 337.25 23,310.00 219.21 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEMO-ACCESSORY 2 60.00 0.00 0.00 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 ACC/OARAGES 1 137.25 7,200.00 89.21 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 49*12,314.75*1,427,109.00*6,480.99*34*15,583.25*2,232,136.00*8,971.46* Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS IS 1,853.76 145,500.00 0.00 7 653.85 52,307.50 0.00 AIR CONDITIONING 2 70.00 4,095.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 FIREPLACE 5 209.23 12,466.00 0.00 6 315.63 19,950.00 0.00 VENTILATION 1 35.00 2,300.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 GAS LINE INSPECT 4 140.00 2,325.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 DUCT NORK ONLY 1 35.00 965.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 REMOVE OIL TANK 2 70.00 1,950.00 0.00 2 72.50 4,475.00 0.00 Sub-total 33*2,412.99* 169,601.00*0,00*15*1,041.98*76,732.50*0.00* Pluobing FIXTURES 13 666.01 33,709.78 0.00 16 1,017.66 60,446.33 0.00 WATER METER 1 191.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 2,500.00 0.00 VACUUM BREAKER 1 35.00 200.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 15*892.01*33,909.78*0.00*17*1,052.66*62,946.33*0.00* Sewer & Hater SEWER CONNECTION 1 35.00 0.00 0.00 5 175.00 0.00 0.00 WATER CONNECTION 1 35.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 NEW SEPTIC SYSTE 2 200.00 0.00 0.00 13 1,300.00 0.00 0.00 DRNFLD k/OR TANK 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 100.00 0.00 0.00 SAC ONLY 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 1,050.00 0.00 0.00 SEWER k WATER 1 70.00 0.00 0.00 1 70.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 5*340.00*0.00*0.00*23*2,695.00*0.00*0.00* Sign PERMANENT/POSTED 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 0.00 0.00 TEMPORARY 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 1*30.00*0.00*0.00*2*65.00*0.00*0.00* User Defined LAND ALTERATION 4 175.00 0.00 0.00 3 150.00 0.00 0.00 TREE REMOVAL 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 RETAINING NALLS 1 62.25 2,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 LAWN SPRINKLER 4 140.00 0.00 0.00 3 105.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 10*407.25*2,000.00*0.00*6*255.00*0.00*0.00* Grand-total 113**16,397.00**1,632,619.78**6,480.99**97**20,692.89**2,371,814.83**8,971.46** :x « PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED AUGUST 1997REPORT NBR. BFEERPTl-1 DATE OF RUN 09/04/97 ***** PERMIT FEE REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO FROM 08/01/97 TO 08/31/97 FROM 08/01/97 TO 08/31/97 REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE Lie. SEARCH FEE SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT MAIL IN ESCROW PERMIT TOTAL 16,397.00 6,480.99 825.87 0.00 0.00 149.75 0.00 37.80 0.00 23,891.41 PAGE:REQUESTER:BUILDING MECHANICAL PLUMBING SEWER fc WATER USER SIGN FIRE ‘ 1BASE FEB 12,314.75 2,412.9?892.01 340.00 407.25 30.00 0.00 PLAN REVIEW 6,480.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . 1 i SURCHARGE 716.31 85.76 19.30 2.50 2.00 0.00 0.00 1 Lie. SEARCH FEE 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 149.75 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 MAIL IN 29.80 8.00 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 19,661.80 2,528.55 919.31 342.50 409.25 30.00 0.00 REPORT NBR. BFEERPTl-1 DATE OF RUN 09/04/97 * * * « *PERMIT FEE CITY OF REPORT ORONO * • * * *PAGE: 43 REQUESTER: j THU, SEP 4, 1997, 4:00 PMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET PAGE 1AUGUST 1997ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION [ 49C ME 0101010202 02 04 06 06 06 06 08 09 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 15 16 17 17 20 24 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 30 49C 195080111256001260 4025 1090 2490 525 85 3400 3145 630 1029 625 1320 1385 1837 1365 2735 300 1375 1190 2770 4185 1025 1442 1925 3800 1304 4739 3185 2480 160 1125 1090 1040 795 669 1825 4045 3045 1442 2730 85 1920 1461 2500 3120 01 4215 01 980 01 2735 CONCORDIA ST PERNDALE RD N NORTH ARM DR BIG ISLAND SPRUCE PL WATERTOWN RD LOMA LINDA AVE CASCO POINT RD ORCHARD PK RD GOLDEN VIEW DR NORTH SHORE DR JAMESTOWN RD DEBORAH DR LOMA LINDA AVE SPRING HILL RD REST PT CIR FOX ST FAGERNESS POINT RD rest PT RD SHADYWOOD RD CRESTVIEW AVE VINE PL HERITAGE LA RAINEY RD 6TH AVE N HERITAGE LA SHORELINE DR CONCORDIA ST WAYZATA BLVD ELMWOOD AVE TONKAVIEW LA CASCO CIR DUNWOODY AVE BIG ISLAND NORTH ARM DR LOMA LINDA AVE TONKAWA RD OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD MINNETONKA HGLD LA FAGERNESS POINT RD DAYSIDE RD 6TH AVE N SHORELINE DR PHEASANT RD FERNDALE GREEN 6TH AVE N BAY RIDGE RD SHADYWOOD RD NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE DR TONKAWA RD SHADYWOOD RD 97/08/0197/08/1497/08/2697/08/1197/08/0597/08/08 97/08/04 97/08/14 97/08/14 97/08/15 97/08/28 97/08/04 97/08/18 97/08/05 97/08/05 97/08/08 97/08/08 97/08/11 97/08/13 97/08/14 97/08/18 97/08/18 97/08/19 97/08/19 97/08/19 97/08/20 97/08/21 97/08/22 97/08/22 97/08/26 97/08/28 97/08/28 97/08/28 97/08/28 97/08/05 97/08/04 97/08/28 97/08/14 97/08/07 97/08/05 97/08/06 97/08/14 97/08/05 97/08/11 97/08/18 97/08/11 97/08/12 97/08/19 97/08/11 OR-009233OR-009293OR-009316OR-009078OR-009102OR-009268 OR-009250 OR-009213 OR-009295 OR-009300 OR-009342 OR-009240 OR-009232 OR-009255 OR-009257 OR-009270 OR-009271 OR-009280 OR-009288 OR-009294 OR-009301 OR-009304 OR-009305 OR-009306 OR-009307 OR-009309 OR-009310 OR-009312 OR-009315 OR-009318 OR-009343 OR-009349 OR-009351 OR-009345 OR-009260 OR-009251 OR-009346 OR-009296 OR-009151 OR-009176 OR-009239 OR-009245 OR-009259 OR-009261 OR-009269 OR-009278 OR-009287 OR-009308 OR-009246 97/08/01 OR-009243 97/08/04 OR-009244 97/08/04 OR-009248 193271491475333014725499186951220000000000000000 00000000 18941301 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 14901399 14733397 18721422 00000000 14719444 14726539 19333536 00000000 00000000 14725640 14495771 14750065 00000000 15410304 00000000 14726539 00000000 14766900 14725715 19320732 00000000 00000000 14725499 00000000 14753330 15466066 15717816 00000000 14701693 00000000 00000000 00000000 18904364 00000000 14721005 14796948 00000000 36332561 34282826 00000000 TJU CONST INC LAUER HOMES, INC. TERRY THOMAS J SATHRE REMODELING BRANDL ANDERSON HOMES INC PAT HENRY'S PRESTIGE POOLS PLYMOUTH ROOFING KENWOOD REMODELING CLASSIC BUILDERS REMODELER SMITH WF ROOFING COTY CONSTRUCTION D MARTIN CONSTRUCTION SUBURBAN EXTERIORS INC HALEY JOHN WESTERN CEDAR SUPPLY SMITH WF ROOFING ODIN BUILDERS THE CARPENTERS CONST CO MINNESOTA CEDAR SHINGLE TERRY THOMAS J LAUER HOMES, INC. MORCON CONSTRUCTION RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN C N OSTROM U SON FENDLER CONSTRUCTION DRS HOME REPAIR U REMODEL DANIELSON GARY FIRESIDE CORNER PRACTICAL SYSTEMS PETERSNELSONPETERSONADAMSANDERSONKICE COCKMAN CLOUTIER WEESTRAND HILBELINK STEIN NELSON KARLEN KNOX HAWN MEAKINS GOETTEN RADAMACHER BERSCHEID CARLSON BETZ LANDON FLESSNER WYSOCKI JACOBSON JOHNSON RIVERS KORAT JOHNSON GREENHAGEN PRAUS HASSELIUS BEHNING PETERSON BOCKMAN LAUER HUMPHREY PLETSCH BOON RYDER RIVERS SMILEY POWERS CARRINGTON JOHNSON POMIJE DORR CARliSON 328.000. 00525.000. 00172.000. 00 10,000.008,000.00137.000. 00 7.200.00 3.520.00 4.800.00 2.400.00 4.490.00 8.895.00 15.000. 00 3.900.00 8.500.00 8,000.00 8.500.00 5.975.00 3.051.00 5.000. 00 900.00 3.915.00 17.000. 00 3.500.00 600.00 5.250.00 1.500.00 2.200.00 700.00 8.700.00 6.200.00 8.750.00 1.000. 00 2.500.00 .00 .00 .00 23.310.00 1.350.00 272.00 18.000. 00 10.800.00 5.000. 00 10,000.00 3.500.00 100.00 1.000. 00 20,000.00 1.831.00 1,100.00 300.00 700.00 THU, SEP 4, 1997, 4:00 PMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 1997 PAGE 2PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONPOWERS965.00ERICKSON1,000.00POLANSKY925.005,500.00GALLISTEL2,595.00CLEARY9,300.00 SILUS 14,950.00 6,500.00 SILUS 5,670.00 6,700.00 4,500.00 15,000.00 5,100.00 BOEHMER 100.00 2,400.00 SIMNIOWIW 1,500.00 WAADE 2,200.00 THOMA 1,796.00 KELLY 6,850.00 2,300.00 BASHORE 5,100.00 STEWART 3,700.00 WALSH 1,800.00 MCPHEE 6,500.00 WOODIS 3,200.00 FULLERTON 12,000.00 LINDAHL 35,000.00 KELLEY 1,500.00 STEPHENS 1,250.00 CHERBA 1,600.00 8,200.00 KNITTEL 200.00 CORBIN 282.78 CLEARY 5,430.00 GOTHMANN .00 PETERS 9,200.00 DANBERRY 750.00 CURRIER 5,250.00 1,500.00 O'GARA 500.00 LUND 500.00 PAURUS 500.00 ANDERSON 800.00 BUCHOLZ 597.00 DENNISON 200.00 oo.00 GOTHMANN .00 33C 15C SI 1C 010101010101 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 20 24 24 24 24 24 24 29 29 29 29 33C 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 20 24 24 24 24 24 29 15C 13 1C 8555190012529334109 3235 55 3235 990 2430 2525 990 3750 470 1305 1487 3660 2720 795 2565 2745 1926 1360 2818 3350 2485 2720 3770 1340 55 2695 4685 4109 2216 1950 3545 60 795 190 1465 2500 4191 2275 2635 1449 FERNDALE GREEN GOLDEN VIEW DR FOX RIDGE RD TRUFFULA TR CASCO POINT RD NORTH SHORE DR CASCO CIR WEAR LA N CASCO CIR LOMA LINDA AVE THOROUGHBRED LA THOROUGHBRED LA LOMA LINDA AVE CASCO AVE OLD LONG LAKE RD NORTH ARM DR SHORELINE DR LIVINGSTON AVE WHITE OAK CIR OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD WOODHAVEN DR KELLY AVE EAGERNESS POINT RD FRENCH CREEK DR CASCO POINT RD FOX ST NORTH SHORE DR WHITE OAK CIR BAYSIDE RD VINE PL WEAR LA N COUNTRYSIDE DR NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE DR SHADYWOOD RD CONCORDIA ST IVY PL CYGNET PL OLD CRYSTAL DAY BIG ISLAND LONG LAKE BLVD CASCO POINT RD NORTH SHORE DR LONGVIEW CIR COUNTRYSIDE DR W SHORELINE DR FRENCH LAKE RD SHADYWOOD RD 97/08/0597/08/0597/08/0597/08/0797/08/2797/08/13 97/08/13 97/08/14 97/08/26 97/08/26 97/08/27 97/08/27 97/08/27 97/08/27 97/08/27 97/08/05 97/08/13 97/08/15 97/08/27 97/08/08 97/08/27 97/08/27 97/08/27 97/08/27 97/08/27 97/08/27 97/08/13 97/08/12 97/08/12 97/08/26 OR-009253OR-009256OR-009258OR-009265OR-009276OR-009289 OR-009290 OR-009292 OR-009322 OR-009324 OR-009334 OR-009336 OR-009338 OR-009339 OR-009340 OR-009252 OR-009291 OR-009299 OR-009335 OR-009272 OR-009328 OR-009329 OR-009330 OR-009331 OR-009332 OR-009333 OR-008871 OR-009282 OR-009283 OR-009323 97/08/01 OR-009241 97/08/04 OR-009247 97/08/05 OR-009254 97/08/06 OR-009262 97/08/07 OR-009267 97/08/22 OR-009314 97/08/11 OR-009277 97/08/12 OR-009285 RD N 97/08/12 OR-009284 97/08/08 OR-009273 97/08/08 OR-009274 97/08/18 OR-009J03 97/08/26 OR-009325 97/08/27 OR-009341 97/08/21 OR-009311 344519002755646834282826342749703881900034791600 39414211 34987883 37209056 39414211 34283677 37544000 27397766 24724455 35712525 34458585 39414211 34791600 34789558 35444131 39203800 34748366 37241899 39296767 39296767 39296767 35872779 14786502 34745826 39414211 22571965 24738793 29337200 24972290 24724959 24341984 24725306 29411871 24738793 28274033 28274033 24744489 25218835 27852202 24738793 97/08/22 OR-009313 00000000 97/08/05 OR-008955 97/08/07 OR-009266 54662667 24724^'* ADVANTAGE AIR GAVIC & SONS PLBG & WATER PRACTICAL SYSTEMS NORTHERN HEATING & A/C SEDGWICK HTG & AC CO COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C KLEVE HTG & AC MASTER HTG & COOLING NELSON MASONRY KLEVE HTG k AC HEATING k COOLING TWO RICCAR HEATING k AIR NORDWALL K k ASSOC WALTER HOLZER PLBG k HTG AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO RON'S MECH INC KLEVE HTG k AC COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C DITTER INC EGAN k SONS CO CRONSTROMS HTC fit AC INC ABEL/B fit C INC RESIDENTIAL HTG fit AIR INC VOGT FRED fit CO VOGT FRED fit CO VOGT FRED fit CO TEK MECHANICAL SERVICES STEPHENSON CONSTRUCTION MESSENGER EXCAVATING INC KLEVE HTG fit AC LAKES STATES PLUMBING INC CITYVIEW PLBG fit HTG CULLIGAN B fit D PLUMBING fit HEATING WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTORS PARAGON PLUMBING fit HEATING SUPERIOR PLUMBING JOHNSON DAN PLUMBING CITYVIEW PLBG fit HTG NORBLOM PLUMBING CO NORBLOM PLUMBING CO ANDERSON JOHN PLBG CO RANDY LANE fit SONS PLBG MINNESOTA WATER TREATMENT CITYVIEW PLBG fit HlXi DON'S DACKHOE EXCAVATING WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTORS THU, SEP 4, 1997, 4:00 PMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 1997 PAGE 3PERMITWORKADDRNBR STREET ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBERSW01470OLD LONG LAKE RD 97/08/12 OR-009286 28673703011950CONCORDIA ST 97/08/18 OR-009302 24786712• 5C 015C 125 TRUFFULA TR 97/08/28 OR-009348 55323369UD011225SHORELINE DR 97/08/06 OR-009138 84721306013700CASCO AVE 97/08/01 OR-009242 84461778012635COUirTRYSIDE DR W 97/08/26 OR-009326 84792585012760WATERTOWN RD 97/08/26 OR-009327 84792585223237CASCO CIR 97/08/08 OR-009227 1551484722509FERNDALE RD N 97/08/13 OR-009230 14753330 23 0000 SHORELINE DR 97/08/04 OR-009249 00000000 23 3745 WATERTOWN RD 97/08/26 OR-009319 00000000 32 3265 CARMAN RD 97/08/07 OR-009264 00000000 IOC 113C 34 IOC 1055 FERNDALE RD W 97/08/14 OR-009298 00000000 OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONM St W WATER St SEWER INC GROTH SEWER U WATER DON'S PLUMBING St HEATINGENVIRONMENTAL LANDFORMS TEMACAGENERAL SERVICE GENERAL SERVICE MCCULLOUGH JIM LAUER HOMES, INC..00PETERS.00.00TUTTLE.00DONGOSKE.00DENNISON.00WOLF.00NASIEDLAK.00.00 .00 BUTTERFIELD .00 MILBRATH 2,000.00 MCCOURTNEY .00 1,632,619.78* I,'*-, •*y,; • • " ' iimi IIII THU, SEP 4, 1997, 3:59 PM PAGE 1NUMERICAL LISTING AUGUST 1997 PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONLINDAHL35,000.00.00ADAMS10,000.00ANDERSON8,000.00TUTTLE.00 HUMPHREY 1,350.00 PLETSCH 272.00 CLOUTIER 3,520.00 NASIEDLAK .00 .00 KARLEN 15,000.00 PETERS 328,000.00 BOON 18,000.00 NELSON 8.895.00 8.200.00 DONGOSKE .00 1,100.00 DORR 300.00 RYDER 10,800.00 POMIJE 1,831.00 KNITTED 200.00 CARLSON 700.00 .00 BOCKMAN 7,200.00 BOCKMAN .00 SIMNIOWIW 1,500.00 POWERS 965.00 CORBIN 282.78 KNOX 3,900.00 ERICKSON 1,000.00 HAWN 8,500.00 POLANSKY 925.00 RIVERS 5,000.00 PETERSON .00 SMILEY 10,000.00 CLEARY 5,430.00 MILBRATH 2,000.00 5,500.00 GOTHMANN .00 GOTHMANN .00 RICE 137,000.00 POWERS 3,500.00 MEAKINS 8,000.00 GOETTEN 8.500.00 2.300.00 O’GARA 500.00 LUND 500.00 GALLISTEL 2,595.00 DANBERRY 750.00 CARRINGTON 100.00 RADAMACHER 5,975.00 KELLEY 1,500.00 .STEPHENS 1.250.00 1.500.00 OR-OR-OR-OR-OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR* OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OP J\< Ok 008871008955009078009102009138 009151 009176 009213 009227 009230 009232 009233 009239 009240 009241 009242 009243 009244 009245 009246 009247 009248 009249 009250 009251 009252 009253 009254 009255 009256 009257 009258 009259 009260 009261 009262 009264 009265 009266 009267 009268 009269 009270 •009271 •009272 •009273 •009274 •009276 •009277 •009278 •009280 •00928? v#‘.' 1*18 ' -(A)*J284 97/08/1397/08/0597/08/1197/08/0597/08/06 97/08/07 97/08/05 97/08/14 97/08/08 97/08/13 97/08/18 97/08/01 97/08/06 97/08/04 97/08/01 97/08/01 97/08/01 97/08/04 97/08/14 97/08/11 97/08/04 97/08/04 97/08/04 97/08/04 97/08/04 97/08/05 97/08/05 97/08/05 97/08/05 97/08/05 97/08/05 97/08/05 97/08/05 97/08/05 97/08/11 97/08/06 97/08/07 97/08/07 97/08/07 97/08/07 97/08/08 97/08/18 97/08/08 97/08/08 97/08/08 97/08/08 97/08/08 97/08/27 97/08/11 97/08/11 97/08/11 97/08/12 97/08/12 97/08/12 NNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 2485224560012601225 669 1825 2490 3237 509 630 1950 4045 3145 55 3700 4215 980 3045 3120 2695 2735 0000 1090 1090 1305 85 4685 1029 55 625 1900 1442 1125 2730 4109 3265 125 2216 2216 4025 85 1320 1385 795 190 1465 2933 3545 1920 1837 2720 3770 795 DR DR NORTH SHORE DR FRENCH LAKE RD BIG ISLAND SPRUCE PL SHORELINE DR MINNETONKA HGLD LA EAGERNESS POINT RD CASCO POINT RD CASCO CIR FERNDALE RD N DEBORAH DR CONCORDIA ST BAYSIDE RD JAMESTOWN RD WEAR LA N CASCO AVE NORTH SHORE DR TONKAWA RD 6TH AVE N NORTH SHORE COUNTRYSIDE SHADYWOOD RD SHORELINE DR LOMA LINDA AVE LOMA LINDA AVE NORTH ARM DR FERNDALE GREEN NORTH SHORE DR LOMA LINDA AVE GOLDEN VIEW DR SPRING HILL RD FOX RIDGE RD SHORELINE DR NORTH ARM DR PHEASANT RD NORTH SHORE DR CARMAN RD TRUFFULA TR SHADYWOOD RD SHADYWOOD RD WATERTOWN RD FERNDALE GREEN REST PT CIR FOX ST OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N BIG ISLAND LONG LAKE BLVD CASCO POINT RD IVY PL 6TH AVE N FAGERNESS POINT RD WHITE OAK CIR BAY5’IDE RD OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N 2901020201 24 29 06 22 22 09 01 29 08 01 01 01 01 29 30 01 01 23 04 17 02 01 01 11 01 11 01 29 16 29 01 32 01 01 01 02 29 11 11 20 24 24 01 02 29 11 29 29 20 3587277954662667186951220000000084721306 15717816 00000000 18941301 15514847 14753330 14901399 19327149 14701693 00000000 22571965 84461778 36332561 34282826 00000000 00000000 24738753 OUOOOOOO 00000000 00000000 00000000 34458585 34451900 29337200 14733397 27556468 18721422 34282826 00000000 14725499 00000000 24972290 00000000 34274970 24724959 24724959 00000000 18904364 00000000 14719444 35444131 28274033 28274033 38819000 24725306 00000000 14726539 14786502 34745826 24738793 TEK MECHANICAL SERVICES DON'S BACKHOE EXCAVATING SATHRE REMODELINGENVIRONMENTAL LANDFORMS RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN BRANDL ANDERSON HOMES INC MCCULLOUGH JIM LAUER HOMES, INC. PAT HENRY'S PRESTIGE POOLS TJU CONST INC C N OSTROM & SON LAKES STATES PLUMBING INC TEMACA FIRESIDE CORNER PRACrnCAL SYSTEMS CITYVIEW PLBG & HTG RON'S MECH INC ADVANTAGE AIR CULLIGAN PLYMOUTH ROOFING GAVIC & SONS PLBG U WATER KENWOOD REMODELING PRACTICAL SYSTEMS TERRY THOMAS J BUD PLUMBING U HEATING NORTHERN HEATING U A/C WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTORS WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTORS FENDLER CONSTRUCTION CLASSIC BUILDERS REMODELER EGAN U SONS CO NORBLOM PLUMBING CO NORBLOM PLUMBING CO SEDGWICK HTG fit AC CO SUPERIOR PLUMBING SMITH WF ROOFING STEPHENSON CONSTRUCTION MESSKNt.ER EXCAVATING INC CITY VIEW PLBCi U HTG _ _r.JK THU, SEP 4, 1997, 3:59 PM PAGE 2NUMERICAL LISTING AUGUST 1997PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET WORK ID NLT1BER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONOR-009205OR-009286OR-009287 OR-009288 OR-009289 OR-009290 OR-009291 OR-009292 OR-009293 OR-009294 OR-009295 OR-009296 OR-009298 OR-009299 OR-OU9JOO OR-009301 OR-009302 OR-009303 OR-009304 OR-009305 OR-009306 OR-009307 OR-009308 OR-009309 OR-009310 OR-009311 OR-009312 OR-009313 OR-009314 OR-009315 OR-009316 OR-009318 OR-009319 OR-009322 OR-009323 OR-009324 OR-009325 OR-009326 OR-009327 OR-009328 OR-009329 OR-009330 OR-009331 OR-009332 OR-009333 OR-009334 OR-009335 OR-009336 OR-009330 OR-009339 OR-009340 OR-009341 OR-009342 OR-009343 97/08/1297/08/1297/08/12 97/08/13 97/08/13 97/08/13 97/08/13 97/08/14 97/08/14 97/08/14 97/08/14 97/08/14 97/08/14 97/00/15 97/00/15 97/08/10 97/00/10 97/00/10 97/08/18 97/08/19 97/00/19 97/08/19 97/00/19 97/08/20 97/08/21 97/08/21 97/08/22 97/00/22 97/00/22 97/00/22 97/08/26 97/08/26 97/08/26 97/00/26 97/00/26 97/00/26 97/08/26 97/08/26 97/00/26 97/00/27 97/08/27 97/00/27 97/00/27 97/08/27 97/08/27 97/00/27 97/08/27 97/00/27 97/08/27 97/00/27 97/08/27 97/08/27 97/00/20 9^ '''0/20 NMN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 604701461 1365 4109 3235 1407 55 801 2735 525 795 1055 3660 05 300 1950 2500 1375 1190 2770 4105 2500 1025 1442 2635 1925 1449 1950 3800 1125 1304 3745 3235 1340 990 4191 2635 2760 2565 2745 1926 1360 2818 3350 2430 2720 2525 990 3750 470 2275 3400 4739 CYGNET PL OLD LONG LAKE RD BAY RIDGE RD REST PT RD NORTH SHORE DR CASCO CIR SHORELINE DR WEAR LA N FERNDALE RD N SHADYWOOD RD ORCHARD PK RD OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD FERNDALE RD W LIVINGSTON AVE GOLDEN VIEW DR CRESTVIEW AVE CONCORDIA ST CASCO POINT RD VINE PL HERITAGE LA RAINEY RD 6TH AVE N SHADYWOOD RD HERITAGE LA . SHORELINE DR COUNTRYSIDE DR W CONCORDIA ST SHORELINE DR CONCORDIA ST WAYZATA BLVD NORTH ARM DR ELMWOOD AVE WATERTOWN RD CASCO CIR VINE PL LOMA LINDA AVE NORTH SHORE DR COUNTRYSIDE DR W WATERTOWN RD WOODHAVEN DR KELLY AVE FAGERNESS POINT RD FRENCH CREEK DR CASCO POINT RD FOX ST THOROUGHBRED LA WHITE OAK CIR THOROUGHBRED LA LOMA LINDA AVE CASCO AVE OLD LONG LAKE RD LONGVIEW CIR NORTH SHORE DR TONKAVIEW LA 020129 11 01 01 02 01 01 11 06 20 34 02 06 11 01 24 11 11 11 11 29 11 11 29 11 13 01 11 01 11 23 01 29 01 24 01 01 24 24 24 24 24 24 01 02 01 01 01 01 24 06 11 29411871 28673703 14721005 19333536 34791600 39414211 39414211 34907883 14753330 00000000 00000000 15466066 00000000 34791600 00000000 00000000 24786712 24744489 14725640 14495771 14750065 00000000 14796940 15410304 00000000 24738793 14726539 00000000 24341984 00000000 14725499 14766900 00000000 37209056 39414211 39414211 25218835 04792585 84792505 39203800 34748366 37241099 39296767 39296767 39296767 34283677 34709558 37544000 27397766 24724455 35712525 27852202 00000000 14725- - JOHNSON DAN PLUMBING M & W WATER fit SEWER INC DRS HOME REPAIR U REMODEL COTY CONSTRUCTION COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C KLEVE HTG k AC KLEVE HTG fit AC MASTER HTG fit COOLING LAUER HOMES, INC. CURRIERJOHNSON BERSCHEID CLEARY SILUS WAADE NELSON CARLSON WEESTRAND MORCON CONSTRUCTION COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C GROTH SEWER fit WATER ANDERSON JOHN PLBG CO D MARTIN CONSTRUCTION SUBURBAN EXTERIORS INC HALEY JOHN MCCOURTNEY THOMA HILBELINK BETZ PETERS PAURUS LANDON FLESSNER WYSOCKI JACOBSON DANIELSON GARY WESTERN CEDAR SUPPLY CITYVIEW PLBG fit HTG SMITH WF ROOFING JOHNSON RIVERS DENNISON KORAT PARAGON PLUMBING fit HEATING PETERS TERRY THOMAS J ODIN BUILDERS NELSON MASONRY KLEVE HTG fit AC KLEVE HTG fit AC RANDY LANE fit SONS PLBG GENERAL SERVICE GENERAL SERVICE CRONSTROMS HTG U AC INC ABEL/B fit C INC RESIDENTIAL HTG fit AIR INC VOGT FRED fit CO VOGT FRED fit CO VOGT FRED fit CO HEATING fit COOLING TWO DITTER INC RICCAR HEATING fit AIR NORDWALL K fit ASSOC WALTER HOLZER PLBG fit HTG AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO MINNESOTA WATER TREATMENT PETERSON JOHNSON BUTTERFIELD SILUS CHERBA ANDERSON DENNISON WOLF BASHORE STEWART WALSH MCPHEE WOODIS FULLERTON KELLY BOEHMER THE CARPENTERS CONST CO BUCHOLZ STEIN GREENHAGEN 5.250.00 .001,000.00 3.051.00 9.300.00 14.950.00 2.200.00 6.500.00 525.000. 00 5,000.00 4.800.00 23.310.00 .00 1.796.00 2.400.00 900.00 .00 500.00 3.915.00 17.000. 00 3.500.00 600.00 20.000. 00 5.250.00 1.500.00 200.00 2.200.00 .00 9,200.00 700.00 172.000. 00 8.700.00 .00 5.670.00 1.600.00 6.700.00 800.00 .00 .00 5.100.00 3.700.00 1.800.00 6.500.00 3.200.00 12,000.00 4.500.00 6.850.00 15,000.00 5.100.00 100.00 2.400.00 597.00 4.490.00 f ^00.00 f fmw'-THU, SEP 4, 1997, 3:59 PMNUMERICAL LISTING AUGUST 1997 PAGE 3PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONOR-009345 97/08/28N 160 BIG ISLAND 15 00000000 BEHNING 2,500.00OR-009346 97/08/28N 1040 TONKAWA RD 17 14753330 LAUER HOMES, INC.LAUER .00OR-009348 97/08/28N 125 TRUFFULA TR 01 55323369 DON’S PLUMBING & HEATING .00OR-009349 97/08/28N 3185 CASCO CIR 11 19320732MINNESOTA CEDAR SHINGLE PRAUS 8,750.00 OR-009351 97/08/28N 2480 DUNWOODY AVE 11 00000000 HASSELIUS 1,000.00 113C A4\ 01 Residence02Addition03Garage/Attached04Garage/Detached 05 Porch 06 Deck 07 Fence 08 Gazebo 09 Pool 10 Re-side 11 Re-roof 12 Tennis Court 13 Sign 14 Dock 15 Shed 16 Demo-Principal Structure 17 Demo-Accessory Structure 18 Move 19 Commercial 20 Institutional 21 Storm Damage Repair221—100 Cubic Yards 23 101 Cubic Yards or More99Undefined 9999 242526 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Replacing Existingi'ifting Principal Residence Well Abandonment Foundation Only Temporary Trailer Renovate/Remodel Accessory Structure Stairway to Lake Retaining Wall Entrance Monuments Tree Removal r LOCAL USB CODES Undefined AUGUST 1997REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 09/04/97 PERMIT TYPE User Defined SUBDIVISION VARIANCE CUP VARIANCB/CUP REZONING Sub-total Grand-total QTY 4 11 1 1 0 17* 17** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO * * ♦ **PAGE:-- CURRENT RANGE - 08/01/97 - 00/31/97 BASE FEE 7.125.00 2.570.00 175.00 220.00 0.00 10,090.00* 10,090.00** VALUATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00** PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00** QTY 1 5 1 0 1 8* REQUESTER:-- PREVIOUS RANGE - 00/01/96 - 00/31/96 BASE FEE 350.00 1,000.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00* 1,500.00** VALUATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00* 0.00** PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00** REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 09/04/97 ***** PERMIT FEE REPORT *♦*♦♦ CITY OF ORONO FROM 00/01/97 TO 0b/3l/97 PAGE: REQUESTER: USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE 10,090.00 10,090.00 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 10,090.00 10,090.00 PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. DATE OF RUN BPRMTISS-109/04/97 PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO PAGE:REQUESTER:PERMIT TYPEBuilding SOL FAMILY-NEK SF-ADD/REMODEL SF-ACC STRUCTURE DEMO/PRINCIPAL C0M4ERCIAL-NEK COM-ADD/REMODEL DEMO INST-AOD/REMODEL INST-ACC STRUCT DEMO-ACCESSORY ACC/QARAQES qTY 16 201 17 7 1 7 2 2 1 7 4 Sign PERMANENT/POSTED PER./FREE STANDO TEMPORARY Sub-total Fire SPRINKLER 0 3 4 7* -- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/97 - 08/31/97BASE FEE 30,069.75 51,706.00 3,409.75 380.00 007.25 2,942.00 100.00 1,579.50 29.25 240.00 883.50 VALUATION 4,959,745.46 4,741,982.90 295,805.60 0.00 100,000.00 339.296.00 0.00 194.310.00 775.00 0.00 50,901.00 Sub-total 265*93,107.00*10,690,815.96* Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS 74 6,618.91 514,184.88 AIR CCHIDITIONING 8 397.50 25,965.00 WOOD STOVE/FLUE 1 35.00 2,500.00 FIREPLACE 41 1,539.69 75,398.55 VENTILATION 6 210.00 9,860.00 GAS LINE INSPECT 16 560.00 7,450.00 DUCT WORK ONLY 7 245.00 8,365.00 REMOVE OIL TANK 7 1,060.00 74,800.00 Sub-total 160*10,666.10*718,523.43* Plumbing FIXTURES 117 8,522.84 534,596.86 SPRINKLER 4 231.69 14,535.00 HATER METER 9 1,564.99 0.00 VACUUM BREAKER 3 105.00 600.00 UNDEFINED 2 70.00 1,150.00 Sub-total 135*10,494.52*550,881.06* Sewer A Water SEWER CONNECTION 4 140.00 0.00 WATER CCmNECTION 1 35.00 0.00 NEW SEPTIC SYSTE 17 1,700.00 0.00 DRNFLD A/OR TANK 2 100.00 0.00 SAC CMLY 4 3,800.00 0.00 SEWER DISCONNECT 0 0.00 0.00 SEWER A WATER 3 210.00 0.00 UNDEFINED 2 70.00 0.00 Sub-total 33*6,055.00*0.00* 0.00 118.25 120.00 238.25* 140.00 ■( 0.00 3,300.00 0.00 3,300.00* 11,200 on PLAN REVIEW 20,065 24,349 2,233 0 576 43 3 0 219 19 0 574 48,451 .31 .67 .89 .00 .71 .72 .00 .21 .01 .00 .28 .80* 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00 0.00* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 QTY 25 186 23 6 1 6 1 2 0 1 15 266* 72 16 2 46 5 2 9 9 161* 110 0 6 0 2 110* 12 1 33 3 9 1 3 0 62* 1 1 3 5* -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/96 - 08/31/96BASE FEE 49,950 40,276 2.748 440 4,948 1,688 80 1.749 0 30 1,995 103,915 .75 .75 .00 .00 .50 .75 .00 .50 .00 .00 .25 .50* 6,685.26 772.40 97.01 1,986.46 175.00 70.00 357.94 335.00 10,479.07* 7,653.33 0.00 706.00 0.00 70.00 0,509.33* 420 35 3,300 150 5,650 35 210 0 9,800 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00* 35.00 29.25 90.00 154.25* 0 no VALUATION 8.098.297.00 3.234.224.00 161.902.00 0.00 985,000.00 167.026.00 0.00 199.500.00 0.00 0.00 112.292.00 12,958,241.00* 519,783.28 53.051.00 6,060.43 116,366.44 5,375.00 1,000.00 15.125.00 14.325.00 731,006.15* 486,623.21 0.00 2,750.00 0.00 800.00 490,173.21* 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 PLAN REVIEW 32,473 19,234 1,585 0 3,216 374 0 0 0 0 1,110 57,995 .13 .52 .86 .00 .53 .89 .00 .00 .00 .00 .53 .46* 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* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 09/04/97 « * * * *PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO *****PAGE:REQUESTER: PERMIT TYPE QTY 01/01/9.7 - BASE FEE RANGE . . . . . 00/31/97 VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY 01/01/96 - BASE FEE RANGE . . . . . 00/31/96 VALUATION PLAN REVIEW Sub-total 1*140.00*11,200.00*0.00*0*0.00*0.00*0.00* User Defined _ __ ... LAND ALTERATION 12 675.00 0.00 0.00 14 800.00 0.00 0.00 TREE REMOVAL 2 60.00 0.00 0.00 4 120.00 0.00 0.00 RETAINING NALLS 1 62.25 2,000.00 0.00 3 306.00 23,290.00 0.00 DOCKS 3 90.00 2,500.00 0.00 2 60.00 0.00 0.00 LANN SPRINKLER 25 875.00 0.00 0.00 11 385.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 43*1,762.25*4,500.00*0.00*34*1,671.00*23,290.00*0.00* Grand-total 644**122,463.12** 11 ,979,221.25**40,451.80**646**134,529.15** 14 ,203,590.36**57,995.46** il \ ^ • A- PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO--DATEREPORT NBR, BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 09/04/97 .... PERMIT FEE REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/97 TO 08/31/97 PAGE:REQUESTER:BUILDING MECHANICAL PLUMBING SEWER k WATER USER SIGN FIRE BASE FEE 93,107.00 10,666.10 10,494.52 6,055.00 1,762.25 238.25 140.00 PLAN REVIEW 48,451.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 5,356.72 365.01 291.15 14.50 12.50 0.50 5.60 Lie. SEARCH FEE 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 274.50 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 SEWER CONNECTION 225.00 129.89 79.73 1.00 1.50 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 150,265.02 11,161.00 10,865.40 17,769.50 1,984.75 239.75 147.10 REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OP RUN 09/04/97 ♦♦♦♦♦ PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/97 TO 08/31/97 PAGES REQUESTER: BASE FEE REPORT TOTAL 122,463.12 PLAN REVIEW 48,451.80 SURCHARGE 6,045.98 Lie. SEARCH PEE 0.00 SAC 14,550.00 INVESTIGATION 484.50 DEPOSIT 0.00 MAIL IN 212.12 SEWER CONNECTION 225.00 ESCROW 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL ZONING PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTEDREPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 09/04/97 ♦ PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO «*•**PAGE:REQUESTER: PERMIT TYPE QTY . . . . . . CURRENT 01/01/97 - BASE FEE RANGE. . . . 08/31/97 VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY 01/01/96 - BASE FEE RANGE . . . . . 08/31/96 VALUATION PLAN REVIEW User Defined SUBDIVISION 10 11,337.50 0.00 0.00 10 6,195.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE 59 13,630.00 0.00 0.00 43 9,760.00 0.00 0.00 CUP 12 2,625.00 0.00 0.00 9 2,350.00 0.00 0.00 SKETCH PLAN 5 1,250.00 0.00 0.00 3 750.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE/CUP 3 795.00 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 REZONING 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 350.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 94*30,437.50*0.00*0.00*71*20,080.00*0.00*0.00^ Grand-total 94**30,437.50**0.00**0.00**71**20,080.00**0.00**oo•oREPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 09/04/97 ***** PERMIT FEE REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/97 TO 08/31/97 PAGE: REQUESTER: USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FEB 30,437.50 30,437.50 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 • •30,437.50 30,437.50 1997 RECAP OF CONTRACT CITIES m January February March April May June July August September October November December YTD TotalsSpring ParkPlan Review 422.34 0.00 89.21 94.74 1,622.24 209.96 0.00 746.52 3,185.01 Inspections 135.00 165.00 270.00 165.00 120.00 195.00 90.00 90.00 1,060.00 Retainer 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 200.00 TOTAL 582.34 190.00 384.21 284.74 1,767.24 429.96 115.00 861.52 4,615.01 No. Plan Reviews 1 0 1 2 7 3 0 6 20 No. Inspections 9 11 18 11 8 13 6 6 82 Minnetonka Beach Plan Review 0.00 0.00 105.30 48.59 518.05 19.01 1,400.89 3,856.78 5,948.62 Inspections 45.00 180.00 210.00 195.00 30.00 75.00 180.00 150.00 1,065.00 Retainer 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 200.00 TOTAL 70.00 205.00 340.30 268.59 573.05 119.01 1,605.89 4,031.78 7,213.62 No. Plan Reviews 0 0 2 1 2 1 4 6 16 No. Inspections 3 12 14 13 2 5 12 10 71 652.34 395.00 724.51 553.33 2,340.29 5/3.97 1,720.89 4,893.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,828.63 i r 3. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 18,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following memlws present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard, and Lili McMillan. The following represemed the City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gafifron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council Member Goetten was present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW (#1) #2275 TED AND MYRN A WOLF, 900 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:03-7:15 P.M, The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request to divide an existing 11.66 acre lot into two lots. Lot 1 and Lot 2 with Outlet A. She indicated that the property is unusual in that it is an existing lot that is platted to water. The property meets the zoning requirements for the specific zoning district. The question remains whirther the outlet in Shadowood should be opened for access to Lot 2. Staff recommends it not occur u there is sufficient area along Outlet A. Van Zomeren said Staff recommends approval with conditions as noted for screening and retention of the loop driveway on Lot 1. Mr. Wolf siud he was not aware of the recommendation for screening and questioned where this would occur and for whose benefit. Van Zomeren explained the reasoning for the screening. Wolf said he did not care to have screening to protect views firom his property and noted there were bushes on the neighboring property screening that area. Wolf noted the large mound system and trees on the back portion of the property. With the house located far back on the property. Wolf did not understand the reasoning for the screening request. Van Zomeren said Staff wanted to ensure that screening was in place if the property were to be developed. lU . 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#I - #2275 Ted and Myrna Wolf - Continued) Lindquist said he would like to see screening between the two lots. Wolf questioned whether the Chy docs not want him to be able to view the lake. He inquired how high the screening would have to be. Lindquist siud screening normally includes adding trees. Wolf asked about the trees currently on the property. Lindquist said the Commission docs not specify what type of trees. Wolf asked when this must ^ addressed. Van Zomeren noted that the subdivision code notes the screening requirement. She read page four of that subdivision code citing the need to include screening. Van Zomeren noted the topographical devations on the property and informed the Commission that an inventory of the trees on the property has not occurred. Lindquist asked that an inventory be taken of the property prior to the application going before the Council. Wolf responded that the lots contain acreage and are not small in size. \ inftqiiigi said the request would be subject to Staff approval but the inventory should include the area withLn 50 ’ from lot lines. Smith asked for Van Zomeren's opinion regarding taking an inventory. Van Zomeren said h is difficult to only "eyebaU" a large lot and wants to ensure that vegetation is not and scTccning is added. Van Zomeren felt an inventory would give Staff direction. Smith asked if screening is required for the outlot. Van Zomeren said the applicant’s lot would mainly be impacted; and if the applicant did not wish to have additional screening at that location. Staff would agree. Wolf noted that there is a garage on that side of the property. There were no public comments. Smith asked Commissioners for their opinion regarding an additional driveway or if the continuation of the loop driveway was satisfactory. Lindquist noted that the driveways were far apart. Van Zomeren indicated the distance was 120'. Berg and Lindquist sud they would be supportive of the additional driveway. Schroeder questioned whether the back lot is 150% of the front lot. Lindqiust said Lot 2 is to the rear. Van Zomeren noted Lot 1 is about 4 acres. McMillan inquired whether the acreage includes dry buildable. Gaffron said it did. t ' Stoddard moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2275 subject to an inventory of the vegetation on the property and approval of screening plan between Lots 1 and 2. Access is to be provided by Outlot A and not an extension of Outlot B. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Item #2 follows item #3) MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 ACTION ITEM (#3) #2253 DAVID REINHOLD, 3551 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING 7:15-7:30 P.M. The Affidavit of PubKcation and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaflfron reported that the application is a request for lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on a small lot located at 3551 Livingston Avenue. The lots in this vea were platted in the eariy 1900's before zoning codes were in effect. There is an existing house on the property. The zoning district requires 21,780 s.f in lot area and 100* width. *^0 property is 6,725 s.f and 50* wide. Required setbacks are 30' firont and rear and 10* side. The house is within the 500-1000' setback of the lake where 35% hardcover is allowed. The lot is aDowed 1500 s.f. structural coverage. Gaffi-on indicated that the existing house is in poor condition. The applicant plans to remove the house and either rebuild on the lot, as a building site, or sell it as vacant or sell the lot to add to a neighboring property. There are no house specifications as of yet for the site. Because of that. Staff reviewed the lot area and zoning requirements and calculated what a confixming residence might include. An example would be a 28'x36* house with a 24'x20' attached garage for total lot coverage of 1488 s.f Adding a 16*x30' driveway (480 s.f), 3*x32' sidewalk (96 s.f), 10'xl8' deck (180 s.f), and lO'xlO' shed (100 s.f) would resuh in 2344 s.f. of total hardcover or 34.9%. A garage as noted would be an endload facing Livingston Av^^ue at the fi-ont setback line. Gaflfron reported that no adjacent IvUid is available to increase the lot size. The homes in the area “ve on mainly single lots. 1 nc example residence would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Gaflfron recommended approval subject to the structure meeting all zoning codes with approval of lot area and lot width variances only. Gaflfron said the existing shed would be removed with the house and recommended removal within 90 days of variance approval. Karen Cufi; 3572 Livingston Avenue, noted she has lived at that address for 17 years. She indicated the house in question is vacant and is concerned with the potential size of an new residence for the property. Cuff said she currently is unable to view the existing house with the tree coverage. Lindquist explained to her that the property would be allowed a 1500 s.f house but no other variances beyond that allowed. Hawn was informed the current house is 720 s.f. Gaflfron noted this is one-half of the footprint allowed. r I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#3 - #2253 David Reinhold - Continued) Schrocder asked for verification that the lot is buildablc. Gaflfron said in his opinion it was, noting denial of hs buildability would linfit the applicant's options. Gaffi'on noted that there is an existing house on the property. He indicated that a set of conditions would be required for anproval resardless of the structure itself before anv permit is allowed. Schroeder was told that the Commission typically reviews a specific building plan for this tvpc of variance request. Stoddard asked why the application was on the agenda. Gafifron said the applicant needed verification that the lot is buildable. He noted as long as other standards are met, the request is only for lot area and width variances. Schroeder adced if the approval could not be obtained at time of the building plan application. Gaffion informed him that the applicant wanted the confidence that the lot is buildable. Commisnon questioned wdiether they could approve with reviewing a plan. GafiBron noted that a similar situation was recently approved for lot area variance only without a building plan in order to allow the current owner to sell the property. Hawn noted that an approval would clariiy the situation for a potential buyer. Berg indicated that if the plan meets all other requirements, the ^jplication would not have to be reviewed again. Hawn indicated that a neighboring property owner wanted to speak with the applicant. Schroeder noted that there is more value in the land if it is buildable. Smith asked what the preference was of the appticant for the property. Reinhold said he preferred to sell the lot. Smith indicated she agreed with Hawn that the best scenario would be to sell the lot to the adjacent neighbor. Ha^ moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2253 for lot area and lot width variances subject to Staff recommendations 1-6 as noted. Smith informed the applicant that it was important to note that if a readence was built, no other variances would be approved. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW (#2) #2279 AND #2280 MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVENUE - SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:30-8:28 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Tracy Whitehead was present along with sun^^or, Walter Gregory. Gaffion •ported that the application was reviewed as a sketch plan at the June meetiiig and direction was given by the Commission at that time. The property abuts Lyman Avenue, which becomes a private road with an easement as it moves eastward. The driveway serving the existing house is on this easement. The currem four-lot plan has a revised access location. The proposal includes vacating a dedicated 20' right-of-way which abuts the Luce Line. This rieht-of-wav appears to have no value to the Chy. The utility companies were notified. Staff is awaiting response to see if any easements arc required. There is a 1 O' perimeter drainage easement that will be required. Gafiron indicated that Staff recommends approval of the vacation. The property for the 4-lot subdivision totals 8.79 of dry buildable with 2.32 acres of Orono protected wetlands. Area credit would be aranted for two wetlands delineated per Wetland Conservation Act rules that do not show on the Orono map and are designated as Basins B and C. Lots 1-4 each have at least two acres of dry buildable. An issue brought forward at the sketch plan review was the narrow corridor for access to Lots 1 and 2. The back lot configuration requires Lots 1 and 2 to have three acres; one lot meets that requirement, one does not. Gaffiron noted the currently proposed road and cuLde-sac results in Lots I and 2 abutting a roadway, eliminating the need for the three acre minimum. The plat drawing correctly shows the 50 ’ front and rear setbacks and 30' »de setbacks. Lot 1 would have a 50' side setback for added buffering to the neighboring reridence. The proposed road would be 24 ’ paved with an 80' circular paved cul-de-sac. This will impact the neighboring property but there are possible ways to mitigate. It does, howevw, result in a substandard side street setback for the neighboring property. Gafifi'on suggested possibly moving the road over to meet the 50' setback. Another option according to Gaffion would be to not build h as a roadway. Gaffion said the neighboring properties were not expecting a road to come through. Chfi^n said an outlot would allow for expansion of a private road in the future if needed. There are a number of issues regarding the cul-de-sac. Lots 1, 2, and 3 would not meet the 200' width and require lot width variances. Gaffion indicated the grading plan shows the option to bring a driveway down the east lot line to the platted roadway for Lot 3. 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 ■i (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) There are two septic sites determined for Lots 1, 2, and 3 but only one for Lot 4. From the Chy perspective, Lot 4 would then not be buildable. The applicant has asked for consideration of platting the lot for future development when sewer is available. Staff does not recommend this option. Gaffi-on noted that the revised layout for septic sites does not match the testing performed in 1990. Lot 1 ate is accurate but Lot 2 does not match. Lot 3 ’s alternate site and Lot 4 site differ. There is also an administrative review needed to approve the septic system setback from the ponds in Lots 2 and 3. There is normally a 75' setback. The inspector preliminarily noted he is not concerned, however, as the sites arc higher than the wetlands. The Type 1 wetland in Lot 1 is small and would allow for septic sites up to the edge of the wetland but not into the wetland. Gaifron reviewed the issues r^arding specific tots. Width variances are required for Lots 1, 2, and 3. Drainfield setback from the pond is an issue for Lots 2 and 3. The problem with the drjun field setback for the principal sqrtic site in Lot 1 is most likely solved according to Gafifron. However, there is no alternate site for Lot 4. The 26' wetland separation requiremrat will require a variance for building of the NURP pond. Gafifron indicated that he has received foe wetland delineation report. There is concern regarding foe septic site locations for Lots 2 and 4. Gafifron asked the Planning Commission to ^e the applicant direction regarding whether Lot 4 is buildable. Gafifron said iv,® review in his opinion is an extension of foe sketch plan review at this point, since Lo? 4 does not meet minimum septic requirements. Smith asked for clarification on where the Luce Line horse trail is located and what foe DNR setback is from the trail. Gafifron indicated there is a 100' right-of-way and showed the location of foe center line. He said the trail is 50-60' from foe north lot line. It was noted that there is no special City setback requirement from the trail and none imposed by DNR. Hawn was informed that foe DNR has not responded to the application. McMillan was told that foe DNR has been notified of the request for vacation. Whitehead apologized for the incorrect information on the septic site locations. She indicated that the setback requirements will be met. Whitehead said she understood foe Commission would like to see a cul-de-sac for emergency truck staging if necessaiy. She said there was not alot of discussion regardmg the plan itself. Whitehead indicated she knew foe wetland delineation was necessary. Whitehead felt she has met the concerns of the Commission regarding the cul-de-sac and will widen the curve on Lyman Avenue. There are two large oak trees impeding this from occurring but Whitehead said they could be removed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Whitehead indicated that they attempted to present a plan with few variances required but the topography has created some problem. It is their desire to preserve the nature of the neighborhood. Whitehead said the neighbors will notice the road going in but will not be able to view the houses as they will be located back on the lots. Whitehead said the setback requirements will be met except for the drainfield on Lot 2. The 200' width requirement is difBcuh to meet with the creation of the cul-de-sac. The alternate septic site location for Lot 4 would be located underneath where the cul-de-sac is to be located. She asked the Commission to give consideration for approving Lot 4 for building in the future when the sewer is connected. Whitehead asked the Commission to assist in expediting the ^plication so she can sell her current home and move. Margret and Brano Stankovsky indicated they live in the substandard sized lot that is next to the proposed subdivinon. Stankovsky said he has spoken with the applicant. He indicated it would not be appealing to have a SO* wide roadway at a location 31* from his home. Stankovsky said this would add to the substandard condition of his property and decrease his value. Stankovsky indicated that while the new lots would meet the required setbacks, his own pr<^ity would not be protected by a 50* setback. He noted there is no mention in the plan for screening of the road to reduce noise from traffic. He also was unaware of the pitch of the roadway as noted and is concerned with runoff. He feh the change would aid runoff but is concerned with snow being plowed closer to his property. Stankovsky said he is concerned for his septic system. Stankovsky requested the Planning Commission consider requiring that the road be placed at least 50' from his property, that buffering next to the road occur, and that an efie<^e drainage plan be require. Stankovsky would like to see minimum variances approved. He noted he has requested to purchase additional land from the Whitehead's in order to meet the 2 acre zoiung requirement. Brian Palmer, 1190 Lyman, lives east of the subject property. He is concerned with Outlot B changing the character of the neighborhood. He feels the application should be allowed only minimal variances. Palmer does not understood how Lot 4 could be conforming and believes the subdivision should consist of three lots only. Hope Pesek, 1235 Lyman, lives south of the subject property. Pesek feels the large turnaround and driveway is inappropriate for the area. Pesek suggested the use of the abandoned area for the cul-de-sac. She asked what the purpose is for an 80' road. Gaffiron explained the cul-de-sac would allow for fire truck staging and easier snow plow maintenance. minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#2 - #2279I#22S0 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) A gentleman in the audience said the road is private. He felt it should only be expanded 10' with the access located as oriirinallv olanned to reduce the size of the road. He feds the projw^ road is out of character for the neighborhood. He does not object to a two lot subdivision. He feels the main hardshin is to the Stankovskv orooertv. He believes economics should not be considered. He would like to see minimal variances allowed and docs not view lack of sewerine as a hardshio Nancy Cornwall, 1200 Lyman, lives east of the property. She is concerned with the impact on Lyman Avenue and what affect the plan will have on the driveway easement for her property. Gafifron indicated that it would not make sense to change to a narrow outiot extending west from the east lot line to serve Lots 1 and 2. The ramification of this scenario is both lots would require three acres, which they do not have. In addition to this, such a drivewav would be devastatina to the land due to the basin and steep slopes of the area. Gafi&'on indicated that no other access options have been presented. He indicated the driveway could be rebuih and a cul-de-sac placed to the northwest but would have major impacts on the neighbor!]•It:*:* The prior gentleman asked what the purpose is for the driveway ordinance. Gaffron said it was intended to mainlv aoolv to lakeshore lots and is seared for more dense neighborhoods. Gaffron said consideration could be given to a back lot area variance, which would have less impact on the neighborhood than forcing installation of a road and cul-de-sac in ord^ to eliminate the back lot rituation. Stankovsky questioned whether a SO* wide driveway would be required. He noted that a 50’ road would change to a 12' wide roadway and affect safety. Smith asked if this option would assist Lot 4 with the lack of an alternate septic site. Gaffron said it would be questionable. He indicated it would still have to go through the middle of the site and would be difficult to do. Lindquist indicated that he views the application as probably a 3-lot subdivision. He said he cannot aoorov ? the plan for Lot 4 without two septic sites and adds this to the problems regarding the cul-de-sac, driveway, and wetlands. Smith and McMillan agreed with Lindquist. Schroeder said he could not approve the plan without the alternate septic site for Lot 4 even with the potential of sewering in the future. Schroeder said the plan does not work as presented in his opinion. 8 minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 ^^chead noted that this is the second review of the property. She thought the changing of the cul-de-sac to a shared driveway would enable her to sain the alternate seotic site for Lot 4^ Whitehead indicated that there is 5.89 acres between Lots 1 and 2 questioning wh«hcr Lot 2 would need a lot area variance Schroeder received confirmation from Gapon that it would create a fi-ont lot/bacic lot scenario. Schroeder noted that lot area variances are tvnicallv not anoroveH for new siihdiviston Lindquist reiterated that he would not approve the application without two septic sites for u i ^ * problem. Whitehead acknowledged that the alternate septic site would still be located underneath the driveway. Whitehead asked how h would work if Lots 2 and 4 were combined. Lindquist said h would b^me one lot. and the shared drivewav should be at least 50' from the ndghboring property. Whitehead said a 50 ’setback is not required. Gaflfron confirmed that only a 30' setback would be required as it becomes a side street. If it was an outlet dnveway. the house to the driveway would be 50 ’. Schroeder noted there is ample room to meet that setback. Whitehwd said the Stankovsky's home was shown at 74’ from the lot line when the plan was reviewed for its construction but was subsequemlv built at 31’. She said the 1 13 acre S^ovslty lot was to be built on the existing pad but expanded out from it. Schroeder mdK^M that this is a seoarate matter but acknowledeed it should not have occurred. He w^ informed that the Stankovsky house was buih 11 years ago. Schroeder noted with a ^^vision, the Stankovsky's should be able to acquire additional land from the ^tehead s. Whitehead said they have considered that possibility but noted that the dnvewav would require a retaining wall. McMillan suggested going around to the northeast side of the old Lot 4. Whitehead said that area wa* ioo steep. Whitehead a^ed if the application could be presented to the Council at their September 8 meetmg^ ^hroeder said he felt there was a lack of necessary information for that to occur. Gaflfron su^csted further review at the September 15 Planning Commission meeting for Council consideration at the Seotember 22 Council meeting. Ga&on indicated that the lot lines for Lots 2 and 3 should be changed to meet the 200* width requirement under the 3-Iot subdivision as noted above. Whitehead thought this could occur. Schr^er suggested, if the Planning Commission was in agreement with the plan as noted, time would be allowed for the Whitehead’s to work with their neighbors Smith agreed with Schroeder. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitebcad - Continued) Lindquist reiterated that the subdivision would include a plan for Lots I, 2, and 3 with septic ^es, residences, and driveways shown to scale for review at the September Planning Commission meeting. Whitdiead noted she had intended to be out of town at that time. Schroeder informed her she could send a reoresentative. Whitehead was informed that the olan should be ^Ic to be approved with the changes as noted. Hawn questioned whether the applic^t could be acconunodated through another meeting. Schroeder noted that it would require a public hearii^ Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to table ApplicaUon #2279/2280 for a 3-lot subdivision for review at the September meeting of the Planning Commissioa Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Whitehead asked if the driveway would be part of Lot 1 or Lot 2. Gaffiron said he would recommend the driveway be platted as a seoarate outlot for the westerly 20 with a 30* widdi for the shared driveway for Lots 1 and 2. He noted Lot 1 is a front lot, while Lot 2 is not. Whitehead indicted that if Lot 2 is a back lot, it would necessitate a 75’ setback for the house and push it into the wetland area. She would then need 45 ’ to get the driveway in to meet the 26 ’ separation. Gafiron informed her that he felt the house location as noted should meet the setback. Whitehead asked if there were other issues to consider. Schroeder noted the consideration of the back/front lot issue. Gafifron indicated that the applicant is typically responable to upgrade Lyman Avenue. Schroeder said it would be guided by pre^en^. Gaffron noted the City Emsineer had indicated that the road would require upgradinR whh more houses built. Lyman to Smith Avenue is curremly narrower than the standard allows. Hawn mdicated an easement could be eliminated if the driveway serving the existing house was brought onto the property. Whitehead said it was technically possible but would result in the loss of about 20 trees. McMillan questioned whether a vegetation map should required. Gaffron said it would help in placement of the driveway if the Plannins Commission requires its relocation. McMillan asked that this be included as well as vegetotion for the Stankovskys if ^ driveway is placed by their property. Gaffron asked if the vegetation map should include both existing screening and trees. McMillan asked that it include what currently exists and what will be required. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) McMillan indicated that the cul-de-sac had been proposed in 1991 for a turnaround for four homes. She noted that the Question brought ud at that time was the need to assist the hoi^ in the area. She said the circle area at the cast end of Lyman was two-thirds dedicated and the missing oiece could be obtained. Schroeder said the aoolicant should not have to solve the problem of others. Whitehead indicated that Highway 12 reconsfinction will take a nortion of the nrooertv near the ea.st end McMillan said that portion is not known at this time. Lindquist asked the ^plicam to work with Gaf&on on this issue. Whrtetead indicated that her homestead parcel is separate from the other tax parcel and asked if she could separate the four lots with house from the total land to enable her to her home now. She was advised to work with Gaflfron on this issue as well. ACTION ITEMS (^) #2253 RICK RICE, 2700 KELLY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:29-8:36 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the subject property is a comer lot requiring front yard setback requirements on both Kelly and Lydiard Avenues. The application is a proposal to construct a deck. The existing footprint and building pad were noted. A kitchen addition was buik in 1988. While a permit was issued for the addition, it did not meet the 35' setback as it is 30* from the Lydiard Avenue property line. An existing patio door will lead to the proposed deck. The request will result in a reduction to the side yard setback adjacent to the street where there is a topographical change. The 50' Lydiard right-of-way is not developed to that width. Van Zomeren said there should be no negative impact from the deck on adjacent property's views. Rice said the northwest comer of the residence is the natural area for the deck placemen^ due to the kitchen location. The deck will also enable the applicant to view the fru^j the vantage point. During public comments, Janice Berg, who lives the applicant, said she had no problem with the deck reouest. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#4 - #2253 Rick Rice - Continued) Smith said she did not sec any hardship for the deck. Van Zomeren indicated that the buildins pad and house location on the lot would be the hardship. Smith felt the partv who built the home should have realized the potential problem. Smith said approval cannot be sained for ail locations where an addition nudtes sense and sees no comoellins hardship. McMillan asked if the home was built prior to the setback requirements. Rice said the home was buih in 195 1 . Van Zomeren said there would have been less of a problem at that time with the deck location. Stoddard said he would support the deck request noting the applicant was trying to take advantage of the lake views and each application is reviewed case by case. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of .^plication #2255 for construction of a deck requiring rear and side yard setback variances. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Smith. (#5) #2264 JANET C. KIERNAN, 1491 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:36-8:56 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present along with representative, Alan Christy. Gaffiron reported that the application was tabled at the July Planning Commission meeting for review of the condition of the foundation and use of existins portions of the house. Gafiron indicated that the building inspectors have determined fi*om the plans that 40% of the existing house will renuun, resulting in a final product that is 20% old house and 80% new house. He said the code does not specify a minimum percentage of use of existing structure in order that it be considered as an addition/remodel rather than as total reconstruction. Gaffion informed the Commission that the applicant was approved one vear aso for additions to the existine house. Chanees in the plans for a total reolaceinent would require further review and approval due to the substandard lot not meeting area and width requirements. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#5 - #2264 Janet C. Kieman - Continued) Gafiron reviewed the approvals made in 1996 for average lakeshore setback, existing side setback, and trading of 0-75' hardcover to allow terrace area to remain. The plan submitted to obtain a building permit is different from that ^plication with the addhion of a bump-out window in the 75' lakeshore setback and a 3-season porch in the side setback. Initially, applicant indicated that the plan would result in a complete removal of the existing residence, but this has since been revised to omit both the bump-out and 3-season porch, and save 40% of the house. Additional bulk of the additions would be in the average lakeshore setback, which is a substantial difference from the past plans. The original footprint of plan A additions did not encroach further into the 75’ setback or side setback. Plan B also did not encroach further into the 75’ lakeshore setback or 30' ade setback but had a different character and style and would encroach the average lakeshore setback. Gaffron said the question was then whether there would be any impact on the ndghboring property. The neighbor has indicated that the plan would not affect his home due to topographical differences. Gaffron said, in looking at the plan as a remodel, the nature and extent encroachments differ somewhat from the past approval, but it would meet the hardcover from the 1996 approval. Kieman was asked whether she preferred plan A or B. Kieman said she would prefer plan Stoddard noted that changes would occur with the garage and curb cut. He noted the garage would be smaller than that approved in 1996. Gaffron said the garage would not be an offset and the City Engineer feels the access location is an improvement. Alan Christy showed pictures to give a good illustration of how the land sits. He indicated the plan would enable trees to be saved and not impact neighboring views. Smith was informed by Kieman that no trees would be removed in the 0-75' setback. There were no public comments. McMillan was informed by Kieman that she would prefer to work with the existing foundation. Kieman said a tear down with removal of porches still resulted in bei^ in front of the average lakeshore setback. Kieman indicated that the foundation was stable noting it to be 1’ poured concrete. Stoddard said he concurred with Staffs recommendation #2. Schroeder felt there was still the issue of whether the construction was new. Gaffron said the issue is one which Staff wrestles with all the time as there are no specifics regarding it in the code. Gaffron would like to see the Council and Planning Commission consider adding percentage features in the code to determine at what point remodeling/addhions become new construction. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997(#5 - #2264 Janet C. Kieman - Continued) Schroeder moved to approve Application #2264 per Resolution No. 3761 approved in 1996 subject to a frfan tailored to plan B as noted. Gafifron indicated he would prefer to have the site redrawn prior to the application review by Council. He informed Kieman he would like all information shown on one plan with the chanses made. Gaflron reviewed Resolution No. 3761 regarding the addition, roof revision, 3.9% hardcover in the 0-75' setback, and a slioht increase in hardcover in the 75-250' for a 27.6% total. Schroeder asked if plan B falls into the parameters of Resolution No. 3761 without the specific numbers on the plan. Gaffion said those calculations would be necessary. Schroeder asked if the application can be passed on to the Council without those calculations. Gaffion said the plan with calculations would be required prior to the Council review. Gaffion questioned whether the Planning Commission would like to review the calculations prior to Council review or if this can be reviewed by Staff. Hawn questioned the terrace in the 0-75' setback. Gaffion indicated that the approve was subject to other removals. Stoddard noted the past approval and present approval showed compliance with a 27.6% hardcover limit in the 75-250' setback. He said he would be satisfied with the Staff reviewing the plan prior to going before the Council. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve AppUcation #2264 for plan B option which falls within the broader parameters of Resolution No. 3761. The ^)proval is subject to plan B review by Staff meeting standards and conditions prior to Council review. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #2270 MARCIA AND KENNETH HICKEY, 4640 TONKAVIEW LANE - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:56- 9:32 P.M, The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The ^plicant was present. Van Zomeren reported the application was reviewed at the July meeting. She reviewed the lot and orooosed earase. The revised olan would include a heisht variance as the principal structure is approximately 13' and the proposed garage height is 24'. Variances would be required for the garage located in fi’ont of the principal structure and for side yard encroachment. A conditional use permit would be required due to the accessory structure being located on a through lot. -i- r planning commission meeting held on august 18. 1997 (#6 - #2270 Marda and Kenneth Hickey - Continued) She U due to the low height of the princi^ "" Hickey had no comments to add at this time. ^letm ■“ ^ . «ck.y said he needed two leveU toenahie hint to have d« necesity W s^rh:5‘;i;;'':;S w^d Bketofii^ wpuld be a loft or a trae second stoiy with stairs. Hickey said he x*. :x:cf ^ Lmdqinst asked the size of the accessoor structure. Van Zomeren said it would be 98* a f consistent with those in the neighborhMd* »l«" would be Lindquist no,«I with the side yard setback n«, the height would be the remaining iissue. She estimated a typical JLeTs^Ms'iX™ Ull'j"' height. '"S’’“™e«a>f«d by the City's interpretation of would support the request for a height variance. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#6 - #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Continued) Lindquist informed the applicant that the application might possibly be denied and Questioned whether he could be satisfied with less. Hickev said the soace as nroDOsed would be packed as it is planned. He questioned whether Wildhurst could be considered as the front of the house. Lindouist Questioned whether this would have anv effect. Van Zomeren said it would not b«*t-^use it would still be a through lot. Van Zomeren referred to the Holder application which had a 9* high principal structure and received a heisht variance for the accessory structure. She indicated there was also less bulk to that structure and more screening. Hickey asked if it would m^e a difference if the structure was attached to his house. Berg questioned why he would suggest this. Hickey said the hardcover reqimemcnt would be met and have the same look as the back of the house with two stories firom b^g located on the hillside. Van Zomeren said the heisht allowance for an attached «ara«c is 2-1/2 stories or 30'. Van Zomeren said there would be no room to construct an attached saraee with a 988 s.f footorint Lindquist again asked the applicant if he could be satisfied with less structure. Hickey s^ he needs the fzarase soace and has alreadv shrunk down the aze of the structure. Hawn questioned whether the applicant could have a two-story structure without the 28 heifiht. Hickcv said he was not an architect but thoucht he could reduce the cement blocks to reduce the height. He estimated a 10' lower level and 8' upper level. Stoddard sugg ested it could be reduced to a 22-1/7' height. Lindquist noted the Commission could not design the structure for the applicant. He felt the 22-1/2’ height would probably not be acceptable. Hickey asked the height of the peak with one story. Stoddard said it would be about 13'. Hickey noted that past variances have been granted for such structures. Schroeder clarified the code and noted the Commission was attempting to assist Hickey in obtaining what he derired. Berg reiterated that the second story was the issue. She feh one story was high enough for the property. Hickey said he ne^ed a loft area. Van Zomeren reviewed the first and second plans of the applicant and the change in the bulk and mass of the structures. The original plan's roof line mitigated some of the height. Lindquist said a height variance was still required with that plan, however. Smith noted the attempt is to the second story. minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#6 - #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Continued) McMillan said she would support the Staff recommendation. Hickey said that recommendation includes the runoval of the shed which he does not want to remove. He noted neighboring sheds and the shed being in existence smce 1956. Hickey said without the second storv. he would need the shed. Van Zomeren clarified where the 13’ hdcht is measured. Van Zomeren said there is also the problem of where the shed is located. Hickey said the shed sits on a cement slab and is surrounded by foliase eliminatinR it fi-om view. Stoddard questioned where the shed is in its conformity to the code. Hawn said she would like to consider a slightly higher garage height. Stoddard said he would be satisfied with a 22-1/2’ height. Smith questioned how it would be calculated. McMillan said the problem is what type of second story and vs^ere to draw the line. Hawn said the clan is not i^ffensive to the neighbors and second stories have been permitted. She feh if the «econd story was allowed, the shed would have to be removed. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2270 for a detached garage for a height variance with overall peak maximum height of 22.5', 15’ side setback, and footprint of988 s.f and elimination of existing shed. Stoddard noted the first story could be 8'. 7 second storv. with 1' joist snacing in-betweea and 6.5' roof ioist for a total of 22.5’ peak. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 2 *^erg, McMillan. Motion passed. (#7) #2271 CHAD NILSSON, 32 NAVARRE LANE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING The applic&,;on review was postponed at the request of the applicant. (#8) #2272 WYATT MOE, 1230 SPRUCE PLACE - VACATION, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT AND VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING 9:32-9:46 PJH. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Nancy Moe was present, along with represenutive, JoEllen Hurr. Gaffion reported that the application has been revised and amended to reflect the additional vacation of the dedicated public right-of-wav and park and variances for lot area, width, and hardcover. The City is not using the right-of-way and park areas, and the Planning Commission oreviousJv agreed that the vacation would make sen.se. The vacation is subject to Staff review of what portion to retain for Spruce Place. 1 he application includes the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement. r i 0 i mtnjutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#8 - #2272 Wyatt Moe - Continued) pe survey has not yet been revised but plans include City maintaining a 40* right-of-way from the center line of Spruce Place. The vacation is from a line northward in exchange for red^ication of another portion. The two lots would become about the same size The r. >n calls for the north lot to decrease from about 39,000 s.f to 30,000 or 7 acres The southern lot would increase from 10,300 s.f. to 21,000 s.f. or .5 acres. These lot sizes are t3^iCEl of other lots in the area. The rearrangement incorporates a portion of the park land. Hennepin County has determiwd ttet since Loma Linda has not been vacated, the park area in question can go only to the Moes for vacaUon attachment. The transfer of property would most Ukely involve a quit-claim deed for the portion of property intended to be given to the City. The resulting lots would still be substandard m size but would meet setbacks for the pro|ws^ new house on the southern property. A hardcover variance to allov.- 35.7% wouW be required for the new house in the 75-250' setback where 25% is allowed The northern lot existing hardcover would conform after the lot line rearrangement at 19 4% A vanance would most likely be required for a future garage on the north lot Aneasement would be required for the two existing sewer lines. Location of these lines we land *^^ps. No recommendation is made for this inconsequential The existing driveway from Spruce Place serves the cabin on the south lot as well as the ippS„r“^ neighborhood. He asked if there were concerns regarding the vacation. Hun had no additional conmenls. She noted that the existing culvert between the north WlicM? ^ P"<* f" •>> •'>« f\I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (US - #2272 Wyatt Moe - Continued) Dave and Linda Wollner were present during public comments. Dave Wcilner noted thdr orooertv is south of the subiect orooertv. Thev suooort the aonlication with the transfer of the comer lot to the City for Spruce Place as *hey have their driveway over that portion for to thpir hom^ McMillan supported the application. She was in fevor of the proposed 40' right-of-way retention for Snrnce Plar^ She voirerl ronrem with the Hrivewav oiitline<t for the northern lot questioning whether tlus needs to be determined at tins time. Hurt responded that the applicant curremly owns both properties and could grant an easement or use IxMna Linda for access. McMillan questioned whether the driveway to Loma Linda would create hardcover oroblems, Gaflron said h would entail hardcovw in the 75-250* setback. The drivewav while contributable to the property would increase the hardcover but most likely not prc^lematic. He indicated the applicant has the right to a driveway and could have an easement. He felt if the property was sold, it may be in the best interest to have a sq>arate drivewav. He would support the options for the future. McMiUan moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2272/2277 per Staff recommendations 1. 2. and .^. Vote: Aves 5. Navs 0. Smith and Schix^er were not present during discussion and vote. (#9) #2274 BRYCE AND MARY PAT TETERSON, 2829 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE - PUBUC HEARING 9.48-10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren reported that the .355 acre lot is in the LR-IC 1/2 Zoning District. The application is a request to add a 10'9"x4' bay window in the side yard. It would result in replacing non-structural hardcover over existing rock with structural hardcover. The 0-75’ setback includes 147 s.f of hardcover and no changes are proposed. Replacing of rock with structure in the 75-250* setback would result in 60.05% hardcover. Van Zomeren said she has spoken with Building Official,Lyle Oman, and Building Inspector, Bruce Vang, regarding drainage, which flows into the side yard. The applicant has worked with their neighbor in redirecting the drainage, which has contributed to the hardcover amount. Van Zomeren said she adced Vang and Oman if all of the hardcover was necessary for drainage and was informed that some of it could be removed but no specific direction was given. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANI>JING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#9 - #2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson - Continued) An anonymous fex was sent to Van Zomeren regarding the application where it was sufisested that oermits were not received for all orevious work done at that address. Lindquist read the fax into the minutes, and a copy is iicluded in the packet. Schroeder asked if the letter could be verified. Van Zomeren said she did not receive any nhnw» ralk reonrHino rhe annlirAHnn i« iinAw»r<» nf who wrnt<» it ^h#* H5H JivtioatA that the proper permits were obtained for remodeling in 1986. Bryce Peterson said he has spoken with his next-door neighbor who supported the project. Peterson said their lot is small and has a modest home. He eniovs the neiahborhood and would fike to have a bayed area for sitting as there is no formal dining room. Peterson indicated that the rock area drains away fiom the lake. He proposed the suggestion for ronoval of hardcover near the garage area. There were no public comments. Lindqiust noted the presence of a large amount of plastic under landscaping. He questioned the drainage flow direction and whether plastic could be removed. Van Zomeren indicated that while some plastic could be rmoved, she did not know the location where the hardcover was necessarv. Lindquist questioned whether the necessary hardcover was on the east side of the oroDeitv. Brvee Peterson said he is a landscane architect and could answer that Question. He noted where it was possible to remove hardcover by the garage. Peterson said the plan b to cover the rock area which canimt be removed due to drainage concerns on the west ade of the residence. Schroeder asked about the shed by the lake. Peterson said he uses it as a boathouse. It is made of block with wood and the block retains the soil. McMillan moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2274 with removal of hardcover as indicated bv the sarase in an amount of even exc hange for additional structure, 43 s.f Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#10) #2276 BRENT AND JULIE WALTON, 2405 DUNWOODY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:00-10:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were represented by Mr. Paul Larson, real estate agent for the owner, and property owner, Mrs. Walton. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#10 - Winb Brent and Julie Walton - Continued) Van Zomeren said the application begun as lot area and lot width variance request and also became a variance reauest for structural coveraae and hardcover. There is an issue with the current sanitary sewer and driveway access. The water line will be required to be relocated. Van Zomeren indicated that the worksheet is correct. The property is located in the LR-IC, 1/2 Zoning District. Van Zomeren indicated that Dunwoi^v Avenue is olatted at 100* width but is not built to that width. The subiect property is .29 acres and SO* wide, where 100' is required. The proposed structural coverage is 16.62% where 15% is allowed. There is no hardcover in the 0*75' setback. Van Zomeren said she has met with the purchasers of the property. There are railroad ties at the shordine which will require cleaning up. She informed the purchasers that thev will need to inform City Staff what will be done in the 0-75' setback, if anything. The 75-250’ hardcover is proposed at 3.352 s.f. or 37.96%. where 25% is allowed. The 250-500' setback hardcover meets the requirements. Van Zomeren reviewed the proposal. She indicated a 20* easement would be required for the sanitary sewer line. A lesal description is necessary. There is a driveway proposed from a 2-car garage to Dunwoody Avenue. The neigUxxing property has a loop drivewav. and Van Zomeren is concerned that the orooosed drivewav is problematic. The water line comes from Shoreline Drive and should be changed from where it is currently located. The plan was received by owners representative, Paul Larson. Van Zomerm said Staff is asking the Commission to consider the elimination of the proposed drivmyay and redirect it from Shoreline Drive. She indicated that if the neighbopiiig property to the south came in with any application, she would propose that they eUr.iinate their loop drivewav. to reduce hardcover. Van Zomeren reviewed the necessary variances for lot area, lot width, structural coverage, driveway access, easement and relocation of water line. Van Zomeren said the first plan is 42.86 s.f over on structural coverage. The second plan calls for 16.62% structural coverage. Lindquist reviewed the amount of structural coverage including 1350 s.f for the home, 600 s.f for the garage, for a total of 1956 s.f 15% would be 1913 s.f for a 42.86 s.f. overage. Lindquist asked Larson if the plan could be scaled down to meet the 15% structural coverase. Larson said it could be done. Larson noted that a prior resolution (#3689) conceptually approved the property for two double units with variances granted; one of which included 48% hardcover. Lindnuist informed Larson that the Plannins Commission has to review this new application. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#10 - #2276 Brent and Julie Walton - Continued) Larson sad he would like to see access from Dunwoody Avenue. He indicated that a driver has to look to the cast to null off onto Shoreline and with sidewalk located thwe. H creates a problem He feels Dunwoody is safer with less traffic and people arc slowing down at that ooim anticioatina their turn. He indicated the curb cut w^ d«ioned bv the City and Hennepin County and ^proved for the lot. Van Zomeren said this was incorrect. It was ouestioned whether the neiahbor was iisine the curb ait for this property. Stoddard suggested it be surveyed. Larson said the survey docs not show it. He mdicated the curb cut for 2405 Dunwoody is there but is overgrown. Van Zomeren said the problem with the loop is the inability to come out facing Dunwoody and be in a position to make a safe right turn. She recommended a change to that loop She suggested the property be walked and Hennepin County review the situation. She fdt the new olan would create a safer access. Larson said he would asree to the idan if approval is received. He indicated the driveway is not designed to meet the roadway and would require changing for the other property. Lindquist noted that the other property is not bang reviewed. Discussion was had regarding the driveway. Larson noted Staff recommends an approved turnaround. Van Zomeren said an extension would out a car out onto Shoreline Drive. Lindquist noted the question needs clarification and asked if the addition to the drawing is shown. Larson said he would fax the water and sewer line locations and work with the City to get the house plan on the drawing as w^. During public comments, Lotus Oberhauser, former owner of 2425 Dunwoody and current owner of2405 Dunwoody Avenue, said he is the former owner of the property with the loop driveway. He indicated when the sewer was installed on CoRd 15, it was located 35' from Dunwoody Avenue. He indicated the driveway flares out to serve 2405 Dunwoody. He said it would not work as drawr; as it would have to be brought out to the comer of the lot. Stoddard asked Oberhauser whether he thought access onto Dunwoody was safe. Oberhauser said he never had a oroblem. Berg questioned whether the curb cut along the lot line from Oberhauser was inaccurate. Stoddard Questioned which orooertv the curb cut was on. Van Zomeren said the current owner of the neighboring property, Mr. Withers, objects to access by 2405 Dunwoody onto the loop but he understands the curb cut to be on City property. Schroeder said both driveways are on City right-of-way. Berg acknowledged the need for a turnaround as well. Van Zomeren said the right-of-wav must be shown on a survey and where the driveway would be located. ri MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#10 - #2276 Brent and Julie Walton - Continued) Berg suggested the ^)plicant come back with a reduction in the ^e of the house and a survey with the curb cut shown with a tumarourxl. Stoddard Questioned whether the Planning Commission needs to review the applicadon again. Berg said she would like to see it. Lindouist said he was not comfortable with anorovins the anniication without looking at the driveway. Oberhauser said the driveway would come out where the curb cut is. He indicated the driveway was desisned bv the City to flare out and ser/e both properties. Lindouist responded that without a survey, curb cuts are not always placed where they should be and want.s to verify h. Mrs. Julie Walton noted that a tumaround would add to hardcover. Van Zomeren explained the difference between .structural coverace and hardcover. Berg asked Gappa if he recommended access to Shordine. Gappa said with a driveway tumaround access to Dunwoodv Avenue should be satisfactory. Schroeder said he could iKjt ima^ne not combining the two driveways. Lindquist said they need to be diown ade by ade. Oberhauser explained that they were side by ade. Stodrkird moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2276 for lot area, lot width, hardcover variances with relocation of water and sewer line and structural coverage not to exceed 1 S%. The driveway nnia include a 20'x20' tumaround subject to review and approval of curb cut bv Gappa adjacent to the property at 2425 Dunwoodv and joining subject driveway on the city right-of-way. Hardcover in the 75-250* setback is to be capped at 3,750 s.f A revised survey must K; submitted prior to Council review incorporating these parameters showing any tree removal. Vote: Ayes 4, Stoddard, Hawn, Schroeder, McMillan; Nays 3, Lindquist, Smith, Berg. Motion passed. Lirulquist voted in the negative as he would like to see the application with changes as noted. The application will be reviewed bv Council at their Septeniber 8 meetirut (#11) #2278 PATRICK MIDDLETON, 720 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING 10:46-11:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Miuling were noted. The Applicant was present along with Paul Woodruff of Wood-N-Nail. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#11 - #2278 Patrick Middleton - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the plan was to originally remove the deck and red^gn h for more sunlittht into the lower Icvd. The survev was shown. The variances reouired include side yard, 75-250’ hardcover, average lakeshore setback, and lakeshore setback. The new deck would further encroach into the 75' setback ai>d averaoe lakeshore setback than the existing deck. The 75-250’ hardcover currenUy exists at 48.61% and proposed at 40 17®^ where 75% is allowed Nfiddleton said the stairs and landing arc included in the encroachment. Van Zomeren indicated that the hardcover calculations must be verified. Schroeder asked if the surveyor was asked to calculate the hardcover. Middleton said it was based on calculations provided bv Van Zomeren. Van Zomeren said she thouaht the survev had been redrawn and deck measured. Lindquist noted that hardcover is being elinunated. He indicated there is a dramage issue concern. Lindquist felt there is a problem with the deck location being only 6' fixMn the nde yard and into the 75' setback. He indicated he would like to see the corrert hardcovw calculations as well. Van Zomeren clarified the problem with the surveyor. Lindouist said the drainage runs down the lot, afTecting the neighbor as well, running under the deck and nniHt he «ddres.sed Woodruff indicated that new retaining walls will be built to address tlw problem. Lindouist asked where the water will co. Woodruff said the water will run over the walls noting the water flow could not change. Lindquist smd he would like the City Engineer to review the plan and determine a long range solution. He also indicated that he has not seen any plan on how the boulder walls will be built. Van Zomeren said this would be required for the building permit. Lindquist asked what hardcover will be removed. Middleton ^aid th.^ cement patio wD br removed. A total of 700 sf+hardcover will be removed. Woodruff reeled confirmation of agreement with replacement of grass for hardcover by Lmdquist. Lindquist asked to sec the wdiole plan. Woodruff noted that these issi*es were not (M’eviously menUoned. Middleton mdicated that the drawing does not show where the stairway is located. The deck as drawn comes inside the stairwav. Woodruff said the survev included all stain^s and sidewalks. Van Zomeren asked if the survQr was certified. Woodruff s^d he bdieved it was certified. Lindquist asked to see the survey reporting he has not seen it. Hawn clarified that the steps are closer than the proposed deck. Middleton said they were and were close to the lot line noting the hardcover being removed. rI t I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#11- #2278 Patrick Middleton - Continued) Lindquist indicated that additional information was necessary and gave direction fc/ receiot of: 1> uo-to-date survey with hardcover, where existins hardcover is located, and where hardcover is proposed; 2) confirmation of hardcover c^culations including the 0- 75' setback; and .I") drainane review bv Citv Fncineer Snuth noted that the hardcover calculations are relevant as no additional hardcover was stinulated when the earaee aooroval was received in 1988. Middleton informed Smith that the hardcover was being reduced. Smith sud it must be clarified with the information. Woodruff questioned whether the hardcover calculations on the worksheet were not acceptable. Lindquist said he was not sure if thev were accurate. Bent clarified the benefit of an accurate surv^ noting no hardcover is allowed in the 0-75* setback and the deck is located in that area. Smith said she would like to know what the neighboring property owner has to si^r about the aoolication. Middleton said he would obtain that information. Schroeder noted a variance was necessary for the deck but indicated that if the Planiting Commission sees another oroblaiL it would have to be addressed. Woodruff asked City’s view regarding remodeling of the existing deck Schroeder said a oermit would be required. Van Zomeren noted it would depend on how h was oerformed. Woodruff said he asked because of the concern for spending a large amount to obtain a survey. Van Zomeren responded that the problem occurred with the need for a certified survey and lack of all necessary information. Sne said any future change would require the information. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2278 for additional informafion as noted. Vote: Aves7. NavsO. (#12) #2281 HENNEPIN COUNTY, WEST OF TOWNUNE ROAD TO EAST OF ORCHARD PARK ROAD - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBUC HEARING 11:08-12:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Steve Th«s and Jod Settles. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued) Gafiron reported that the City and Hennepin County Public Works have been reviewing plans on CoRd 6 including the alignment shift and intersection changes. These changes will impact certain City protected and other wetlands. He noted that the City Council has already aooroved the lavout of the road. The issue before the Commission is the review of the wetland impacts, whether the proposed mitigation is acceptable, and a conditional use permit for land alteration over 100' c v. Gaffron indicated that the lavout and rro.s.a sections are available for review. Gafiron reported there have been 7 basins identified as being impacted, 4 of vdiich are on the Orono 1974 inventory, and reouire variances for grading and filling. There are minor wetlands including culverts and creek crosting. Those of greatest concern include a wetland west of the Hanmng driveway, with the southerly 1/3 of the wetland impacted by filling. Lindquist questioned whether Planning Commission has any choice but to approve. Gafifton said there reallv were not anv choices as to the lavout. since those decisions have already been made. Lindquist asked how mitigation for the wetland impacts takes place. Joel Settles said the wetland replacement decision is made by the State. Settles said the 2:1 replacement will occur within the County and prooably in wth the MCWD, and the City has no say in the location but might influence it. He said the best influence would be to show where expantion might take place but the State may not accept those locations. Smith asked the time firame of that decision. Settles said there b no time firame but after construction is complete, L’:e Countv will file a report that will be recdved by the State filed by January 1S of the next year. At that time, mitigation locations will be determined. During public comments, Robert Hanning, 422C CoRd 6, asked wdiat the purpose was of the meeting regarding wetlands. He indicated that the City and County have already approved the road redesign but the public bearing is for puUic comments a; d infbrmatitMi. Gaffton indicated that the City reouires the County to go through the process as it affects Orono wetlands and requires a CUP for land alteration over 100 c.y. He indicated the Council has approved the plan and the application allows for formal conclusions of the discussion. Hanning noted if the Council has already approved the road and then hold a public meeting, he feds it is redundant. Schroder said the hearing is to gain an understanding for the reasons for filling the wetlands regarding public safety and environmental and the necessity for a CUP. McMillan said the review is not to debate the road but to discuss the wetlands. f } I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued) Hanmog said he does not feel the wetlands need to be filled. He does not feel the road should be moved reouirina the filline of the wetlands. He said he has not been told what ho wiU be paid for his property that will be taken. Lindquist was informed that the wetlands are on nrivate nroneitv and not on tho rioht-of-wav Srhroeder asked if he wa.s suggesting he should be paid. Hanning said he was suggesting the wetlands should not be filled in Schroeder a^ed h if was a matter of public safety. Theis stud it was. Haniung asked about cutting trees down. He questioned how wetlaiuls affect the wdls. Schroeder said the wetlands act as a filter to Lake Minnetonka. McMillan further elaborated that it was a surfe<'e filter. Sandy Larson, 4286 6th Avenue North, said her concern hinges on the County's apfdying for oermits but the Coumv has not vet told them wtut will be done. Thds said the real estate division has not corducted the appraisals yet for damages to be caused by realigning the roadwav. He indicated the contract.s will ao out around .lanuarv. 1998. so the process should begin soon. Theis said this issue does not involve the real estate but agreed that right-of-entry must be obtained. Theis said construction is planned to b^n April, 1997, and negotiations must take place before that time for right-of*entiy. He estimated that the real estate appraisals will take place no later than December of this vear. Berg asked why the CUP is obtained before the details are worked out with the property owners. Theis responded that the process is as laid out bv the City. Stoddard asked if the permit is obtained before review by the Corp of Engineers. Theis said it is easier to deal with the Chv on issues first. Hawn asked if the County Engineers have met with the landowners. Theis said they have met with them and have had meetinss where some of the orooertv owners have attended. Bob Drown, who lives on Huntington Drive, asked why the wetland discussions did not taken place prior to Council action. Lindauist said he had the same Question. Brown said if the wetlands are on private property, the people should be notified. Jeff Broil, 4.S45 Watertown, asked if the request can be denied. He was informed that the Commission makes a recommendation to the Council, who makes the official determination. Schroeder said the Planning Commission is only in a position to deny the application if it is shown the loss of wetlands out ivei&hs the issue of public safetv. 27 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued) Katharine Colgrove, 4260 6th Avenue North, reported that she has the house that goes down to the oond. She indicated that her seotic svstem is located in the front vard. She questioned whether taking the wetlands pushes the pond into the septic system. Colgrove said she does not want the road to affect her seotic svstem. Steve Theis acknowledged the encroachment on the wetland. He indicated the County looked at the drainase and made adhistments so less water drains irrto the oond to result in the same pre and post construction condition of storm water going into the pond. Chuck Larson, 4285 Sixth Avenue North, asked where the water will go if the shoulders are paved, curbs added, and ponds eliminated. Theis said the pond is not eliminated. He inHirat^ Water will go wherc it does now. The water flow has been slowed and ditches flattened. He said the Countv has used Best Manasement Practices, which are specific procedures they must follow. Theis siud he would go over the ^)ecifics as h relates to Larson's property with him. Smith asked if this was the first time the wetlan:^ issue was being reviewed. Larson said he was unaware that wetlands w&e being taken. Lindquist asked if the County has contacted property owners regarding this issue. Hanning said there has been meetings, noting the last Council meeting on the issue, but feeb the meetings has been inadequate. Berg questioned whether all the information was available then. Lindquist asked the public whether they would like to see a meeting held with the County rdatins to wetlands. He said this was the onlv vehicle in which to oain further infoimaflon. Theis responded that a shift one way or anotho* of the road would change the impact on the wetland. He said the property ownen understood that filling will occur. He indicated that the County has already gone over with the property owners where the road is laid out. The nrocess was not before the Planning Commission in the oast. Mr. Cornelius, 775 Huntington Farm Road, indicated that the County has answered Questions. He feh there was a time when decisions were made rather auicklv and the property owners did not have a voice. He feh the road changes ended up having bigger impacts on them when the road was moved the 25'. He said he does not know why the road was moved and thought the Council rushed through the decision process. He feels the Countv has been flur in dealing with the property owners. I r I : I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CON jMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued) Lindquist informed the public if they were unhappy v/ith the decisions made by the CounciL thev should take the issue uo with the Council as the Plannins Commission docs not have the authority. Gafiiron acknowledged that the residents always have the ODDortunitv to sneak with the Council. Cornelius said he feels the discussion regarding the wetlands should have taken place oreviou.sIv. Schroeda’ noted the issues of consequence have been discussed previously and the ouestions answered in the oast. Theis said he fdt the Questions have been answered. Cornelius said this was the first time discussing the wetlands, however. Thds said h b not the first time the wetland imoacts have been discussed but is the first time as a Quantified acreage. Schroeder said he felt Katheiine Colgrove should be contacted regarding the issue of effects on her septic system and health related issues. He asked Colftrove if she had the oppcMtunity in the past to discuss these issues. Colgrove said that this was the first meetine where wetlands were discussed. McMillan said the drainage plans have not been seen by the Planning Commission, and the NURP oond and curb and cutter have not been di.scussed. Thcis said the construction limits have already been set by the Council, just not where the wetlaiid impacts are as far as septic. He indicated the County would have to replace a septic ^stem if the construction limits affected the septic. These issues would be worked out with the property owner. Theis said Colgrove's property has been addressed as &r as the amount of water flowing into her pond is concerned and should result in no chang<> to her septic system. Schroeder indicated that he still feels the Countv needs to address the issue of Colgrove's system. Lindquist brought attention to the Staff memo regarding issues noted for consideration and recommendations made. He asked what conditions are appropriate for recommendation #5. Stoddard asked that there would be a 2:1 mitigation ratio that would take olace within the Citv of Orono. Lindauist asked if the concerns of the people here need to be addressed further and how this should occur. Berg concurred that the impact on the property owners is important. Smith said there should be a fonim by which this could occur. Both Berg and Lindquist felt the concerns of the property owners have not been adequatdy addressed. ~ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hetmepin County - Continued) Lindquist questioned the value of the land taken. Theis said the County and City process has bWn none throutdi and there is a cost share between the two entities. He said information has been given and handouts available. People have spoken out on the nrocess. Bere noted the Question of the seotic svstem. Theis said it would be addressed. A member of the audience questioned the importance of the wedands and whether another ntan would have less imoact on the wetlands. Gafifron noted the process has been on-going for over two years. He said the Council has reviewed the alisnments and conclusions have bem drawn. He indicated the Council apparendy does not fed the wetland impacts are dgnificant entHigh for further alignment duutges to be made, resulting in the perception that this current issue is afler-the-foct as it relates to the process. He noted the alignment has to be decided before the specific wetland impacts can be defined. Gaffron said the wetland acrease impacted needs to be accepted or changed as part of the application process, Lindquist sdd he is not comfortable in making that decision at tins time. He asked if the Commission recommends an additional hearing. Gaffion suggested a list of questions be drawn as an option. Schroeder acknowledged that the alignment has been thought through and is set as the h«U onfion for the roadwsv Hawn questioned if the main concern shown at the meeting was a resih of the 8' road alignment change. Comdius responded that he has learned that if meetings are not attended, dedaons are made quickly and voices need to be heard when the occaaon arises. He indicated that the CouncU has heard the concerns as well. He questioned whether there is an effect on the well water. Lindquist asked dx>ut the shift dedaon. Theis said the sluft was dedded by the Coundl and then made bv the Countv. The shift allowed the County to quartiifv the wetland inq>act, which was unable to be done prior to the aUgnment determination. Brown in^cated that when the alignment shift was done, the meetings happened quickly and he missed some of them. He feels he was left out of the process. Schroeder said the question Is whether the Council followed due process, which he feds they did. He noted that the public can contact Council members at any time. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST IS !997 (#12 - #2281 Hennq>in County - Continued) Leonard Berg questioned whether he was notified. Schrocder uiformed him that people within a certain radius of the oroooscd activity is notified. Benz said he found out about land bong taken in December and deci^ons were already made by that time. Lindquist mfbrm<»d him ;inH nth«’« tn rnntarf tlw Ponnctl if th«/ hav^ on^«tinn< Lindquist asked what is to be accomplished at this meeting. Gafifron said issues pertaining tn w(*t1andc htp iwlnvant- he noted the mihlir. nuectinn** reoardino imnart on wntir. svKtem« wells and well water, stormwater concerns and where drainage is (Erected. G^on said he feels these issues have been addressed in the information (riven by the a(zencies. Theis was asked to address these ceitidn questions. Theis said an application is before the MCWD as far as stormwater is <^ncei^. This woiild relate to water OliaHtv a«d «tormw»t«»r ralmlation* and analv«i« ara inrliided and infbnnation available. As far as septic ^sterns are concerned, Theis s^ they must be operational. IfimpactedtheCounty will make the corrections per City code. Reiprdins the pond, the only place impacted is in the wetland. He said he would check on this. Gaflron noted the brtcntion of havina the Citv Ensineer review the stormwater plan is to review the details. He indicated water level should not change and flowage will be riuv.knd for thu nond ar«» Hawn asked if the property owners should be identifying septic systems on the properties or wait to hoar from the Coiintv Theis resnonded that if the nronertv owners would like an additional level of comfort, the mound ^sterns can be surveyed. This is normally performed as part of the real estate negotiations but can be done now as the systems must meet City code. Theis said there will only be filling of .8 acre of wetlands and only shallow wells would be affected. Gaffron said there are likely no shallow wdls. Cornelius noted that he is unaware of where the drainage flows. Gafifron said the wells are typically 100-1 SC deep. Wetlands provide for some recharging but the 1/2 acre in the scheme will not impact or change the surface or (zround water. Gaffron said he sees no impact on the wells or the ground water. Lindquist asked if there were any other questions to be answered. Brown asked if the County was directed by the City regarding realignment of the road. Theis said thev were. Theis said the wetlands are affected bv the widening of the road and aflected on both sides. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennq)in County - Continued) Brown clarified then that the City must approve affecting wetlands that the City has aooroved to fill. Gaflfron said the Council listens to various concerns. He said the Council understood there would be impacts on specific wetlands r^ardless of where the road was located, and aoDarentlv concluded those imoacts are relativdv of a lower orioritv than the road alignment concerns. Joel Settles said wlule he was not in attendance at all meetings, the Council weighed the impacts on many issues to try to balance them out. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2281 per Staff recommendations 1-4. Recommendation #5 include the three items noted pertaining to stonnwater, septic systems, and ponding. The people who have any other concerns about the CoRd 6 realismnent and other ouestions were asked to sign uo. and Planning Commisnon will recommend another meeting be held with the County regarding any other questions they might have. Mitigation will be 2; 1 per State requirements with the strong recommendation that mitigafion occur within Orono. Settles said the determination will be made by the State but preference can be stated. He will attach the recommendation to the report certified to the State. Theis asked the type of meeting and if held by the County nr Council Lindnui.st suggested a nos.sibte combination of both Cmincil and Coiintv a.s a public information meeting. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Schroeder asked Settles if the mitigation siting is political in nature. Settles did not feel it was as such. He noted a number of people have seen the ability in selling wetlands. A iber of the public noted fifing down on form land.IKrM Brown said he appreciated the Planning Commisfion listening to the concerns. Schroeder suggested people call Council members if they have issues of concern. (#13) TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE This item will be reviewed at the Planning Commis^on Work Ses«on scheduled for Seotember 12. 1997 at 8:00 a.m. McMillan asked that information be provided on the background of the Sugar Woods Develonment. Stoddard related that the Council asked that the Planning Commission review the draft drawn bv the Park Commission regarding this issue for their recommendation. Lindquist asked that Park Commisfioner David Beal be present at the work sesfion. 1 \ A f \ \i > ! MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#14) HOME OCCUPATIONS Thb hem will be review at the Planning Commission Work Session scheduled for Sentember 12.1997 at 8:00 am. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#15) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COITNCIL MEETINGS OF .HILY 28.1997 AND AUGUST II. 1997 No addhional comments were made. (#ld) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION No other issues were discussed. (#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 21, 1997 MEETING The minutes were amended to reflect the name change under item #18, page 27, naraffranh 4. for commenLs made bv Conlev Brooks, not Gerald McCourtnev. Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commiswon Meetinff of Julv 21.1997 as amended. Vote: Aves 7. Navs 0. (#18) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF AUGUST 25,1997 AND SEPTEMBER 8,1997 August 25 • Smith ADJOURNMENT September 8 - Berg Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn at 12:18 a.m. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person 1 1TO;Mayor and City Council FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE: September 19,1997 SUBJECT: Upcoming Meetings Tuesday, September 23 6:30 p.m. Navarre Water Plant public hearing - Orono High School Cafeteria Monday, September 29 5:30 p.m. joint work session with the Long Lake City Council in the Orono Council Chambers Wednesday, October 1 5:30 p.m. Highway 12 Design Review Committee meeting in the Orono Council Chambers