The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-13-1997 Council Packetr AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1997, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. / COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL . , ^ T A TI J OCT 13 1997 1. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Meeting of September 22, 1997 ♦ 3. Public Hearing of September 23, 1997 - Navarre Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 4. #2212 Sidney Rebers, 2190 Wayzata Boulevard - Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution 45. #2286 Steve White, 4355 Bayside Road - Class I Subdivision - Resolution 6. #2287 Traci & Bradley Peterson, 1770 Shadywood Road - Variances - Resolution 7. #2288 Jason Theis, 4108 Highwood Road - Variances - Resolution 48. #2291 Steven Sigel, 1399 Park Drive - Variances - Resolution 9. #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr., 980 West Femdale Road - Variance • Resolution 10. #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr. and John Brooks, 980/905 West Femdale Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER’S REPORT 11. Change Order No. 6 - North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project 12. Change Order No. 7 - North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project ^13. Request for Payment No. 4 - North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project -414. Request for Payment N*. 2 - Bay Ridge/Bracketts Point Sanitary Sewer Project .415. Resolution to Autbi,'’’.'!/? Pt'&paration of Plans and Specs for the Navarre Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation Project 16. Speed Study County Road 6 - Resolution 17. County Road 15 Project - Initial Payment jj|18. Request for Payment No. 2 - Golf Course Irrigation System Project CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 19. County Road 6 Tunnel Agreement with Spring Hill Country Club 20. County Road 6 Tunnel Agreement with Hennepin County .^21. John & Diane Maresh, 2085 County Road 6 - North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition Sewer Connection - Resolution !. °is;s:;s ?E£; ""* ■"““ “■ '"■■w °* ““»■ 24. Proposal RE: Dis^sition of Tax-Forfeited Property (1960 Shoreline Drive) 25. Select Date and Time for Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting 26. Select Efete>nd Time for Council Work Session S S^Sn°SerW«s^^ Consider the Issue of Internal Trails in Old Crystal Bay Road Additions 29. Proposal for Audio Equipment for Council Chambers 30. Wetland Element of Stormwater Plan ^31. Employment of Accountant/Management Analyst j^32. Hiring of Part-Time Police Officer - Resolution ^33. Senior Citizen Special Assessment Deferments - North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition - Resolutions CITY ATTORNEY ’S REPORT ♦ 34. LICENSES * 35. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 10/11 - SATURDAY - Leaf & grass disposal 8 a.m. - Noon 10/13 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 10/18 - SATURDAY - Leaf & grass disposal 8 a.m. - Noon !n/on ’ Commission 6:30 p.m. - Report by Intern - Navarre Area Redevelopment 10/20 - Planmng Commission 7:00 p.m. 10/25 - SATURDAY - Leat & grass disposal 8 a.m. - Noon 10/27 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 11/01 - SATURDAY - Leaf & grass disposal 8 a.m. - Noon 11/03 - Park Commission 7:15 p.m. 11/M - Minnetonka School Board Election - No public meetings before 8:00 p m 11/10 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 11/11 - HOL^AY - Office closed in observance of Veterans* Day 11/17 - Planning Commission 6:30 p.m. 11/24 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 11/27 - HOLIDAY - Office closed in observance of Thanksgiving Day r } Public A ttendance Meeting Date Oot > 7 C ouncil □ Planning Commission Park C ommission Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. □ Other NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER .Lriur/x f^j)comyQ\/L 4. -Oii^ L\J^* 11. 12. 13.. 14. 15._ 091395.4 r i i ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 22,1997 COUNCLMEEnNQ OCT ROLL The Council met on the above meiiiioned date with the following members present. Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson, and Richard Flint. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffroi^ Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zoraeren, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Engineers Glenn Cook and Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m, (•#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #6 and 17 were removed from the Consent Agenda. Items #10,14, and 15 were added to the Consent Agenda. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#2) DISTINGUISHED BUDGET AWARD TO FINANCE DEPARTMENT - AL ROLEK, TREASURER MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFHCERS ASSOCIATION Orono Finance Director, Tom Kuehn, and Assistant Finance Director, Chris Miller, were present. Chris Miller introduced A1 Rolek, representative of the Government Finance Officer’s Association of the United States and Canada (G.F.O. A.), Finance Director of the City of Shorewood and Executive Board Member of the Minnesota G.F.O. A. Rolek said he was pleased to announce the receipt of the Distinguished Budget Award to the City of Orono for the 1997 Budget. This exemplifies the commitment of the Finance Department and Staff in meeting the high standards and guidelines in budget presentation. Rolek indicated that the budget document was submitted to a national review panel which determined that the City receive the award after review within four major areas and 13 mandated criteria. Orono is one of only 17 cities in the State of Minnesota to receive this award. Rolek said the association is a non-profit organization. The award is the only national form of recognition given to governmental bodies for their budgeting efforts. It recognizes the time commitment, dedication and effort put forth by the Finance Department. Rolek extended his appreciation to this department and City Staff. Rolek presented the award to Chris Miller, who accepted the award on behalf of the City. Miller said the award is a reflection of all of the City departments working together. This is the first year Orono has received this award. r ^ t' h MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL ) MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#2 - Budget Award - Continued) Jabbour recognized the eflforts of the Finance Department noting that the goals set forth by the Council require the dedication and eflforts of all the departments to meet those goals. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#3) REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8,1997 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council MectingofSeptember 8, 1997. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS No member of the Paric Commission »s present. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner McMillan had no report. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT FULLERTON, m, 3350/3400 FOX STREET - CUP/FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTIONS NO. 3964 AND 3965 The applicant was represented by Attorney, John Winston. Vm Zomeren reported that the application is for a guest house located in the 0-75' Winston expressed his appreciation for Van Zomeren's assistance with the application. i I 1 i I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#4 - #2204 James Fullerton in - Continued) Goetten said she supported the subdivision but not the fee paid for parV dedication. She said she was in favor of moving forward with the subdivision. Keller moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3964, a conditional use permit, and Resolution No. 3965, approving the plat of Fullerton Estates. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Goetten, due to her objection to the park dedication fee paid. (#5) #2279/#2280 MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVENUE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - RESOLUTIONS NO. 3966 AND 3967 The applicant was present along with Attorney, John Winston, and Surveyor, Walter Gregory. Gaf&on reported that the proposed subdivision is before Council for preliminaiy plat approval. The property is located on Lyman Avenue and includes an existing residence. The road is partially public and partially private. The private portion is gravel and about 12' wide serving 5 residences with potential for one more. Two-thirds of a cul-de-sac at the end of Lyman, east side of the property, was previously granted to the City by other property owners, but has never been constructed. Gaffi*on indicated that this application was first submitted in 1990. The current proposal is for a 4-lot subdivision but revised per Planning Commission's recommendation to a 3- lot plat. The existing house is served by a platted driveway located outside the property on an easement. There were not a sufiQcient number of septic rite locations for the three additional lots. One site was unusuable because it is needed for access to Lot I. Gaffiron reviewed the access options. The initially proposed option was for a driveway that would traverse steep slopes and, therefore, was not recommended by staff. A cul- de-sac was then considered but found by the Planning Commission to negatively impact the Stankovsky property. It would result in the Stankovsky property becoming non conforming to the side setback requirements. The Planning Commission had recommended approval of a 3-lot plat. Lot 1 would be served by a private outlot driveway on Outlot B. Lot 1 is a back lot. Outlot A would be required to remain a 20' buffer to maintain a separation to the adjacent property and possibly may be sold to the Stankovsky's. Since the driveway is an outlot. Lot 1 is required to meet the 150% back lot area and setback standards. Staff recommended the east setback for Lot 1 of 50' as opposed to the required 75' for flexibility in location of the house The reasoning behind foe 150% requirement is regarding impacts on neighbors, which is not an issue at this location. 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#5 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Outlet B is to be a shared driveway with Lot 2. Lot 3 has an existing driveway. Consideration was given to bringing Lot 3’s driveway into the prope^, but this would cause loss of trees. The Planning Commission recommended maintaining the easement. Additional right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated at the southeast comer of Lots 2 ami 3, but the road east of the property would remain as a private easement. Iinprovements may be required in the future to shift the private road to improve the sight lines at this location. Gaffton reported that the initial proposal with cul-d?-sac included additional ponding. With no road being proposed, the developer has suggested that no pond would be necessary. This would be subject to MCWD approval. Staff may need to see some runoff controls in place but the need for ponding appears to be minimal. Gaffron said the property is 10 acres in size with lots averaging 3 acres. There are steep topographies and the drainage area is small The City Engineer has ^ggested that it^ the responsibility of the applicant to upgrade Lyman Avenue, which is r^ently pav^ from Smith Avenue to a certain point, but only 15' in width. The Planning Co^ssion recommended partial responsibility by the applicant for the upgrade. The applicant did not believe it made sense to improve the road if sewering were to occur in the future. He also felt that with oiJy two additional homes, he should not be responable for the road upgrade. The Planning Commission left this decision to the Council's discretion. Regarding the public right-of-way vacation, a segment of platted lane will be vacated. Gaffron sad no negative comments have been received from either the public, DNR, or utilities. A conservation and flowage easement is required for the wetlands. Gaffron said preliminary plans have been received for the driveway for Lots 1 and 2. "nie applicant will be required to ensure that drainage does not negatively impact the neighborhood. Gaffron noted that the Planning Commission was sensitive to the needs of the Stankovsky property. Jabbour reported that the Planning Commission had asked for assistance by the City Engineer with improving the site lines on the road. No specific steps were taken, however. The resolution includes identified possibilities. Jabbour said he was concerned with the City granting a variance on a septic site. Gaffron indicated that the primary site for Lot 2 would be in close proximity to the road. A revised alignment received on this date shows the edge of the septic site 5' from the dedicated road. It would not meet the 30 mph, 270' radius, only a ISO' radius. Gaffron asked Cook whether additional right-of-way should be acquired. Cook said he would recommend additional right-of-way be acquired with the steep bank. An adNnsory curb sign for 20 mph would serve the area. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#5 - Win9IW12^0 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Goetten asked where the road upgrade would occur. Cook said the existing alignment would be followed and end up on the new right-of-way that is being platted. The same radius would be maintained to ret^ the distance from the drainfield. Jabbour asked if this would be part of the final subdivision. Gaffron said the resolution states the need for additional right-of-way. He noted the plan being reviewed is a somewhat different plan but would be acceptable with the advisory sign. He questioned whether the City could acc^ a lower radius standard with the lower speed. John Winston said the neighbors did not want to see a 30 mph zone. He understood the radius would allow for a 25 mph speed but would be posted at 20 mph. Jabbour said he understood the Planning Commission approval would require two Council decisions regarding the road upgrade and sight line improvements for the curve. Winston smd the applicant was willing to donate the southeast comer to provide for the road improvement for work within the City property. Work conducted in the past has been done on a participatory basis amongst the nei^bors. With two new drive>^y to the west of the curve at a distance of 217’, Winston felt it would be difficult to require the applicant to pay for it. Winston took the same position regarding widening the road. He said the applicant is willing to pay for his fair share. With only three additional lots, all users should pay an equal amount. Winston noted the Planning Commission recommended the applicant work with Staff on the iqjpropriate screening for the southeast comer of Lot 1 . The applicant has conferred with Dundee Nursery. Pictures were shown of the area showing dense bmsh located in this area. Winston said what is drafted by Staff is more than what the Planning Commission requested. He feels the possible glare from headlights would be deflected by the vegetation and is adequate as it presently exists. Mr. Whitehead said the nursery thought the vegetation that exists is best for the location. Winston noted that Outlot A would provide an additional 20' strip of buffer. He said he agrees with Staff and Planning Commission recommendation except where the applicant's costs are involved. He s^d the sqiplicant is willing to pay his fair share. Jabbour noted that if the subdivision approval was granted, it would require a varia^ for the septic system to encroach the road. Gaffron explained that it would be within the setback but not encroach the actual right-of-way. Kelley clarified that the variances were for Lot 3 width and Lot 1 setback. The drainfield setback would be an administrative setback. MEmrS OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCH^ MEETECG HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#5 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Gafifron clarified the location of the public versus private roadway. Kelley was informed that no homeowners association exists. Whitehead would grant easements for the driveway. Gafiron said granting right-of-way to the City for the road segment was preferred rather than an easement. Kelley asked whether an easement rather than road dedication would be desirable, given potential need to upgrade the road. Gafiron acknowledged that option but feh the right- of-way should be obtained. Kelley noted that would then require the road to be brought up to standard by the City. Gafiron reported that the City has many dedicated roadways that are not maintained. He suggested that since the majority of the cul-de-sac was acquired, so should the public right-of-way be acquired. Kelley said the City would not upgrade the road without the homeowners sharing in the cost. Jabbour said a policy should be set regarding this issue. Winston suggested an easement be granted. Gaffiron asked Kelley if he was suggesting a private outlot with road continuing on it. Kelley said he did. Gafifron indicated that the option had been discussed. Kelley asked if the size of the drainfields were tested for a particular number of bedrooms. Gafiron said the criteria used was for five bedrooms. Whitehead said he believed the testing proved adequate for larger than that requisite. Gregory said the homes will be in excess of 4000 s.f and use mound septic systems. Kelley asked if Outlot A was being given by Whitehead. GafiBron said the Planning Commission suggested the required bufier, leaving it as a separated outlot to serve as a boundary and limit possible encroachment. A possibility is that Oudot A could be owned by the Stankovsky's. >Yithout Oudot A, the Stankovsky property would be sub-standard. A back lot is provided for the road. It was noted that unless it is owned by the Stankovsky's, it cannot be used for setback purposes. Paul Pesek said he is concerned if the public road is extended. He is also concerned with drainage from the additional hardcover and from a 50' wide road. Gafifron reported that the preliminary plat defines the driveway which is connecting and tilted into the slope forcing drainage to flow to the north. Conditions include submittal of an acceptable driveway plan. Gregory showed that there is a proposed berm is between the driveway and existing street indicating the drainage will flow across to the intersectioa It appears that most of the drainage goes across into the wetland. Pesek said the drainage goes east along his drainfidd. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#5 - Win9HH2ZQ Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Gafifron asked Pesek if drainage would be improved if it does not cross the road. Pesek said if the ditch on the north side is woiidng. it would be adequate. Jabbour suggested it could be reviewed when the road is improved. He indicated that the nuqority of the homes shed drainage to the wetlands. Gregory voiced concern for the oak trees if the road was upgraded. He proposed the center line come in on the northern edge of the right-of-way so the road would move to the north and west to save the trees, one of which would still be vulnerable. Brano Stankovsky indicated screening and runoff were the two concerns for him. He said drainage runs along the side of the house. He asked if solutions have been considered. Gaffron said they have been discussed but not yet resolved. Gafifon reported that the drainage plan approval will require that no additional drainage be created and driveway plan will include screening but conditions of approval need to be resolved before final approval occurs. Kelley said the drainage plan will be a design issue. Council needs to determine the screening before applicant can take ific nc?:t step. Jabbour explained the next step noting screening is objective. The applicant had suggested the native vegetation is adequate but needs to be discussed. Kelley asked Stankovsky on his thoughts regarding screening. Stankovsky was unsure vsdiat should be planted but thought the buckthorn would render the area bare during the winter months. He also is unaware of where the driveway will be located. Jabbour cited several examples of how screening can occur. Goetten asked the distance from the lot line to the dwelling. She was informed it was about 100'. Gregory showed where the driveway would come in at about 100' fi’om the property line and 1 SO' fi*om the house to property line. Gregory was of the opinion that if the undergrowth was allowed to grow, there would be no significant problem with glare fi’om headlights. Gafifiron noted that under the current proposal, a SO’ setback from the south line of Lot 1 would be allowed for the house. He indicated that the house location is not guaranteed unless made a condition of the approval. Jabbour said he would prefer providing screening. Whitehead reported the Stankovsky lot is substandard but is willing to woric with lum. He does not feel there would be a headlight problem. Jabbour said providing the outlot will aid in solving this problem. MDOTTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#5 - ^2H9IU22%0 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Kelley asked what the difference was in elevation between the existing house and where the hill be^s. Gregory said the difference is about 10' in elevation Jabbour said there is an 18' elevation difference between where the garage apron is located and the Stankovsky house. i • Goetten was shown where the garage is located on the existing Stankovsky house. Gregory responded to the drainage concerns noting that the road would be sloped toward the retaining wall side to allow drainage to follow the pavement. Howard McMillan, 1275 Lyman Avenue, asked where the drainage travels from Lyman Avenue. He indicated it follows the ditch line to the culvert. He is concerned if the drainage spills crosswise and enters his property. Gaffiron acknowledged the concern with adding new hardcover. Jabbour was informed that drainage easements would have to be acquired for drainage to the wetlands to the east. Gaffion said improvements will have to accommodate the new drainage. He recommended the applicant be responsible for the cost of this drainage improvement. Whitehead responded that there is currently no drainage problem. Goetten said this should be decided before the final plat approval. Jabbour said it would have to be verified. Winston reported that the drainage can be solved with the driveway sketch. Whitehead said a ditch had been dug on the north side of the road and a drainage pipe instaUed to solve the wet road condition. Flint said he feels screening is a problem. He indicated that buckthorn would be an inadequate screening during the winter months. Winston asked to work with Staff on these points of issue. Jabbour noted there were policy issues on whether 1) the road should be widened; 2) who will pay for the road improvement, and 3) what happens if sewer comes to the area. Gafrron said the property is on the periphery of the Orono Orchards hot spot which is the next highest priority. There is no proactive neighborhood group however. Gaffeon said the Whitehead property is not within the MUSA bournlary but Stankovsky was included as well as others to the west. Sewer would likely run up the road. Gaffeon said it was not the City's intention to provide sewer to the Whitehead property but noted it would not make sense to require road improvemems if sewer were to come in soon. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#5 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Jabbour polled CouncU on whether the widening of the road should be paid for by Whitehe^. Winston asked that the entire burden not be carried by Whhdiead. Goetten said she did not feel it should be p^d entirely by Whitehead but at a shared cost when the sewer is installed. Kelley said he would prefer that the southeast comer be plotted as an outlot easement and not be dedicated to the City. Easements can then be granted for access. The road upgrade would then be the responsibility of the resicents when th^ decide it should occur and the cost shared by them. Ga&on said he wo 'Id always recommend first taking right-of-way but to create outlets on private roads wouid be consistent with Orono's normal practice in rural areas. Whitehead would be responsible for all drainage costs. Flint agreed with Kelley regarding the designation of the roadway in the southeast comer as an outlot. It was noted that the distinction differing this area from Casco Point is its rural environment. Jabbour indicated that to amend the resolution would require additional time. Whitehead asked if acceptable language could be included and the resolution passed. Moorse thought that was possible for drainage and screening but questioned the curve. If it is an outlot then it is up to the residents to make the improvement. Moorse said he was concerned with this. Kelley said the applicant was willing to donate the land, and it* the homeowners feel the road curve is dangerous, they could make the decirion to correct it and pay the cost. Jabbour said this differed from the direction ^ven by the Planning Commission. Kelley indicated it would be difficult to require the applicant to pay the cost of design. Jabbour asked why the City owns 2/3rds of the cul-de-sac and then leaves the cost of its development to private owners. He believes cost is a separate issue but agrees with Kelley otherwise. Kell^ questioned who would be responrible for the reconstruction if the City owns it. Jabbour said the decision is being turned into a policy. He suggested assessing the homeowners. Kelley said there was the other option of talditg the southeast comer, reconstmeting the road, and then assessing the cost back to the homeowners. Barrett was asked for his opinion regarding fee ownership. Barrett said City ownerslup would render it difficult to avoid paying for the improvements. If that was the goal, it would be better not to have fee ownership but an easement. This, however, conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the City consider where they want to be in 20 years regarding public and private roads. Jabbour and Barrett both agreed there was more flexibility in the rural areas. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#5 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) 4 I GafBron indicated that with part of Lyman Avenue bring public, it sets the tone for the entire road to become public. Barrett also noted that the reference to assess'mg the cost of the improvement requires a demonstration that it would increase property values. Flint noted the benefit would be to only a few homes. Mrs. Stankovsky reported that one home on the east side is go'mg to be taken for the Highway 12 reconstruction. Brian Palmer, who lives east of the Whitehead property, concurred with Mrs. Stankovsky. He also said he believed the property owners would not be interested in paying for a road improvement. He feels the entire- road is substandard, and it would not be economical or beneficial to improve h. Jabbour was informed that there would be only one additional home in that area. Howard McMillan asked what homes would benefit. Jabbour said he understood that the homes ahead of any improvement would not benefit. Jabbour said any improvement would then have to be prid for by the City. Mrs. Stankovsky voiced concern for safety where the new driveway comes out fi-om the subdivision. Gaflfron said it would only be dangerous if a car was speeding past the curve and the person coming out of the driveway is not looking. Mrs. Stankovsky said there were trees on both sides of the road. She asked if Staff felt the line of site is appropriate for the driveway at that location. Gafifron said while caution needs to be taken, it was not unreasonable for the driveway to be located there. Cook noted that grading will also be required along tne nortneriy shoulder. Jabbour asked about language for modification of the resolution. Winston said the engineering issues of driveway, screening, and drainage could state the applicant could work with Staff. Jabbour asked Barrett's opinion. Barrett said the guidelines should be fairly clear for the preliminary plat. While the drainage, curve, and setback issues were satisfactory, Barrett said the issue of screening should be clarified further. Winston said the Planning Commission suggested the applicant work with Staff. Barrett said the Council would then cede the matter to Staff. Gaffron referred to page 5 of resolution under item #6 regarding the goal of providing sufficient screening at the southeast comer of Lot 1. He indicates it is left wide open as to what is done and requires follow-up, as it is unknown when the home will be built. These requirements would also have to be included as a covenant to be enforceable. Gaffiron said he preferred a conclusion be made as this is not a standard subdivision. r r f'-t:- ? i ‘ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#5 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Winston cited condition 5 where the applicant is to submit acceptable drainage and grading plans. He suggested the resolution be modified for #6 to submit an acceptable screening plan. Jabbour said if it is not required to be done until the home is built, the homeowner may want to make changes, ^^^nston agreed that the future homeowner could modify it. Winston referred to condition #11 regarding payment for road improvements. He suggested that be eliminated if not needed. He asked about the letter of credit required for screening, etc. Kelley and Jabbour said it should be left in the resolution. Jabbour said he would support amending the screening modification subject to submission of a suitable plan before final approval. Kelley asked about the southeast comer; whether it should be an outlot as owned by the City. Flint and Kelley preferred the outlot with an easement as did Peterson. Goetten said she would prefer to wtut until the need is shown to upgrade it when sewer comes in. She noted there would be no connection between the cul-de-sac and the comer area. Council determined that the outlot would be established with an easement. Keller moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Applications #2279 and #2280 as outlined. Stankovsky asked what direction was being taken regarding screening. Jabbour explained that the applicant will work with staff with neighbor input. Gaffion read through the conditions 1-11 for any changes and clarification. Under #3, the sightline improvements will not be to a newly dedicated right-of-way but will become an outlot. #6 will be changed to require submission of a screening plan that is acceptable to the City. Goals are removed. #9 - an outlot will be platted for private ovmership with underlying road easement for the City. The required curve radius will be 180* and posted at20mph. #10 was eliminated. Kelley siud he assumed that nothing would be done with the road curve unless the homeowners want it to happen. Gaffron agreed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (The meeting was recessed for a short break.) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,19?>7 (#6) #2281 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC WORKS, COUNTY ROAD 6 IMPROVEMENTS - VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 3968 Steve Theis represented the applicant. Bruce Polaczyk was also present. Gaffron reported that a conditional use permit and variances for alteration of existing wetlands are required for the CoRd 6 road improvement for wetland impact and exceeding 100 c.y. of land alteration. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at their August meeting. There are both City protected and other wetlands involved; some of which are protected by the Wetland Conservation Act. Gaffron reported that .5 acre of City protected wetlands will be filled. The Planning Commission reviewed the verification of .8 acres for replacement by BWSR. They felt BWSR should be encouraged to nutigate within Orono or at least in the same Watershed. GaSron reviewed the 6 Staff recommendations. He indicated that the MCWD has reviewed the plan. They found that since it was a linear project, it would be difficult to create a NURP pond and asked for financial contribution instead. This contribution apparently would be escrowed for use within the City under MCWD's proposed rule revisions. The Planning Commission had reviewed the impacts and suggested Staff and City En^eer look at the impacts subject to approval of an erosion control plan and approval by appropriate agencies. The application approval would also be subject to a land alteration permit. Gaffion reported there were public concerns voiced at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the process of determining the alignment. Gaffion said the long process taken was explained to those present, which resuhed in recommendation #6. GafiQron said some concerns were answered by discussions held after the meeting. Jabbour suggested the Planning Commission be made more aware of the process taken regarding the roadway project approval. Gaffion noted that the Planning Commission was not brought in as a body during that process so was unaware. He feels the Planning Department also needs to become involved sooner in the process. Jabbour asked that copies of all activities be passed on to the Planning Conmiission to allow them to understand the history of the applications. Gaffion said recommendation #1 was accomplished through a meeting with Hennepin County. It resulted in reasonable and appropriate measures being taken. Maintenance re^nsibility was added to the resolution. Planning Commission's recommendation that wetlands be mitigated in Orono was substantiated by Jabbour and Goetten. r I •1- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#6 - #2281 Heiinq)in County Road 6 Improvements - Continued) Kelley was informed that the contribution made by Hennepin County was shared 50/50 with the City. Gafifron indicated there were two separate issues, as not creating the NURP pond requires the County to pay to the Watershed, with the City providing half the iiin^. The requirement of mitigation is determined by the State and BWSR. Recommendation for mitigation to occur within Orono should be submitted to BWSR Kelley suggested the use of an escrow fund establidied within the City with certification that it be used for future use in Orono. Gafifron indicated that the requirements of the MCWD are either a NURP pond or making a financial contribution to MCWD. Kelley suggested they be required to submit a certification statement to the City that the funds will be used in Orono. Gafifron said details would have to be worked out. Kelley said he would like to see a yearly statement given to the City. Jabbour reported that this fund will only affect few projects as most projects require major funding. He agreed that the City should keep track of the fund. He noted most projects include NURP ponds and few will take the other approach. Jabbour suggested a work session be scheduled to discuss funding of stormwater ponding. He noted if a stormwater plan was in effect, the City would reap some benefits. Jabbour smd the City needs to establish a policy. Cook agreed with Jabbour. He said projects will be much bigger and the City needs to work with the MCWD. Goetten said she was concerned with what she read fi'om the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting that the public feels there is no forum by which to address thdr concmns. The Planning Commission was also concerned and sugg ested a joint meeting be held with Council. Goetten said she would like to have seen those present at that meeting here tonight. Goetten said concerns must be heard and a process to address these concerns. Gafifron noted that no action was taken by the Planning Commission, and left it to the Council to address those concerns. Alignment was the main issue of concern to the public present at the hearing. McMillan smd taking of property and impact on a septic ^stem were the main alignment issues as well as the issue of communication with the County. Jabbour was informed that the real estate people for the County have not made contact with the residents. Theis indicated he had no control over the County Real Estate Department. Goetten said she was concerned that this be addressed. McMillan thought there was a general confusion over the whole project. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22.1997 (#6 - #2281 Hennepin County Road 6 Improvements - Continued) Jabbour reported that the project was originally assigned to a committee made up of Staff and Council. The final desisn was worked on after that. Jabbour said he is unhaoov with the fact that the County had informed those present at that Planning Commission meeting that they would be visited by the real estate people. If there was a holdup with that contact, they should have been notified by letter. Goetten agreed that improved communication is required. Jabbour noted that Jim Grube did meet with nei^bors. Moorse asked Theis if there was a brochure regarding right-of-way and the process taken. Thds said the brochure has been available at several meetinos. He sussested a mass mailing be done. Theis said bids were bdng advertised with award in December for a spring start. He felt this schedule should bring about a reaction fi*om the real estate people. Jabbour said the information needs to be communicated to the residents. Kelley moved, Jabbour seconded, to ^prove Resolution No. 3968. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Goetten. Jabbour directed Moorse to send a letter to the residents regarding the process. Thds asked that this be coordinated between Moorse and himself Jabbour supported that request. Flint said he was unclear regarding the monies collected by the MCWD for wetland mitigation being spent in the Citv. Gafifron said he would send a letter to BWSR encouraging them to do projects within Orono. (#7) #2284 JAMES SLECHTA, 3700 NORTHERN AVENUE - VARIANCE The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren distributed photographs of the property. The proposal is for construction of a 42'x96* oversized accessory structure on a 3.97 acre parcel. A variance is required as the size exceeds the maximum allowed for an individud accessory structure and the maximum for all accessory structures allowed on the lot. The hdght of the structure will also exceed the hdght of the 16' principal structure requiring a variance. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the application. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CTTY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#7 • #2284 James Slechta - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that given the number of structures currently on the property, there is 1400 s.f available now. Van Zomeren informed Jabbour that all of the property is one tax parcel and cannot become separate lots. Jabbour said the Planning Commission mainly discussed the issue of size and height. He understood a front setback variance might not be a problem. Slechta said the structure would not ^jpcar higher than die readence as it would be built in a lower devation. Staff ccpkuned that height was measured from grade level and not based on topography. What constitutes a hardship was explruned to Slechta. Slechta said he needs the building to store his possessions so he can live on the property and take care of his aging parents. He said the structure would be a benefit and not a burden. Slechta said he could downsize the structure somewhat and would like to negotiate with the Council. Slechta said he had other options available but the Planning Commission was not willing to pursue other options. Jabbour sad the hardship is one not created by the applicant and storage does not constitute a hardship. Slechta said the property is wooded and screened, and he has not recaved any concern from the naghbors. Goetten informed Slechta that the acreage would allow a total of 1600 s.f. of accessoty structure. The proposed structure exceeds what is allowed in the zoning district. While appreciating Ws situation, Goetten said she could not support the variance request. Peterson agreed with Goetten noting the structure was too ambitious. Jabbour told Slechta that approval would set a precedent and open the doors for others to request similar structures. Flint agreed wth Council comments adding that the Council is responsible for protecting all properties in the City by the code. Slechta was asked if he would like the iqrplication tabled or voted on. Slechta said there were inconsistencies with the information noting the property contained 4.8 acres. Jabbour suggested tabling the application to allow for correct information to be provided by an updated survey and ^ow applicant to consider other options. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2284. Van Zomeren was directed to send a letter to the applicant asking to allow an indefimte time frame for action on the appUcation. Van Zomeren said a new survey would have to be submitted. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#8) #2285 JOHN LATTERELLE, 3505 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - VARIANCE RFSm.imON NO. 39459 The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren distributed photographs of the property and a handout. Van Zomeren said the request is for a 12'x26' deck on the north side of the residence in the front yard requiring front, side, and structural coverage variances. The. 15 ac property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District. Per the Planning Commission recommendation, the plan was revised to a 20'xlO' deck. Van Zomeren reported that it was questioned how the residence was built on the lot. She found that it had been historically a nuisance lot and deemed buildable in 1974. A side yard variance was received at that time which was in part the street file information, but on microfiche. The handout included information fruind on the microfiched records indicating prior variances received in 1974. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3969 per Planning Commission recommendation. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) NO AGENDA ITEM (*#10) #2297 DARYL HANSEN FOR MRS. ROBERT KEITH, 1045 EDGEWOOD HILLS ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3970 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3970. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - SHORELAND AND ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT, ORDINANCE NO. 162,2ND SERIES Gaffron reported that the Council had directed Staff to draft an amendment extending the time period for septic system upgrade in the Shoreland District from 2 years to 10 years to replace any system that does not meet the 3* sq>aration. Staff was also directed to revise the ordinance to eliminate the building permit process fix>m triggering the septic ^stem upgrade. This resuhs in the ordinance being consistent between Shoreland and non-Shoreland properties. The rationale behind this decision is the upcoming review of sewering of rural areas. The high cost of septic system replacement is also a factor. There are a number of areas in the rural area that could be scheduled for sewer, and it would not make sense to require the septic improvement and then have sewer instaUed. 16 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCU. MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#11 Shoreland and On-Site Sewage Treatment Ordinance Amendment - Continued) The City had previously felt the Shoreland District should be a higher priority wth the septic systems lacking the 3’ separation. Staff recommends failing systems be jpven highest priority. Gaffron reported that State regulations were reviewed and found to bt ever chan^ng. The lepslature has recently changed the separation allowance from 3’ to 2' for existing systems at the direction of the local government. This has a minimal impact on ^ono as those not meeting the separation generally have been found to have less than a 1' sQiaration. Kelley asked how the State regulation was interpreted without a set time frame. Gai^n iixlieated the DNR had recognized that and suggested a 2 year replacement time penod in its Model Shoreland Ordinance. Jabbour stud he understood and agreed with the regulation but has found that the DNR ordinance is for the greater state at large and zeros in on the small older cottages on rural lakes throughout the state. Jabbour said most problems occur where the 1000' mark touches a lot trigg ering the upgrade. Jabbour feels the City will be remedying the situation and contmue to work towards it. Jabbour said he did not agree with a Planning Commissioners comment regarding a longer upgrade time frame presenting a health hazard. Gafifron said both Staff and Council have the same goal of protecting Lake Minnrtonka. Sewering is being done on the majority of properties around the lake. Gaffron said his concern is with the time frame of 10 years in the Shoreland as being too long. He felt a shorter time finme would be better. Gafifron suggested the sewer study regarding sewer in the rural area be conducted and determinations made as to the extend of sewer in the rural area; then the issue of septic replacement timeliness could be revisited. Jabbour responded that he feels sewering is preferred by residents. If the current zoned dentity can be maintained with sewer, the City may be able to sewer more properties. He noted the highest density is by the lake. He agreed that all parties are attempting to move in the same direction. Jabbour asked Gaffron if he preferred a five year time frame. Gafiron said he would be more comfortable with that figure. Gaffron reviewed comments made by Septic Inspector, Steve Weekman. Weekman questioned whether it would be fair to change the ordinance for those that have already replaced their systems. Gaffron noted that this does not affect very many residents, however. Some residents have placed funds in escrow for potential septic replacement, and these residents will no longer need the escrow money set aside. This affects only about 3-4 residents. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#11 Shoreland and On-Site Sewage Treatment Ordinance Amendment - Continued) Jabbour said that was right as long as they were non-conforming. If an addition residts m a residence's septic system being inadequate, they would not be exempted from the requirement to replace the system within a shorter time frame. He asked that the residents be made aware of this. GafBron said Steve Weckman has been in contact with other jurisdictions and firuls only one that has such a long time period; though, Gafifron said it may be justified in the metropolitan area. Jabbour said he was comfortable with the amendment because the vast majority of lakeshore properties have already been sewered. Gafifron agreed that the tnimber is more than 9S%, and there are few large parcels except for the Maxwell Bay area that have not been sewered. Jabbour said it would make sense to encourage the DNR to encompass a 750* foreland area. Flint said he supports the five year recommendation by Staff He feels the 10 year requirement is more suited to the non-shoreland area. Five years would allow an agenda to be followed and remain in consideration. He noted the time frame can always be extended but would be difficult to reverse. Jabbour said he is of the opinion that the shoreland area is generally sewered. Flint noted that the residences along I^ng Lake are not. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the ordiruuice as presented for a 10 year timefiame. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to amend the motion to a S y«^ time frame. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Jabbour, Kelley. Moorse said a 4/Sth majority is required; motion i^ed. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the proposed ordinance with modification of years to 8 years. Flint, Goetten, and Peterson said that time frame was too tong. Jabbour responded that the City has many issues to address within a short time fiame, such as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Stormwater Management Plan. He feels five years is too short a time fiame. Goetten said it could always be extended. Jabbour withdrew his motion. Flint moved to adopt the proposed amendment with a 6 year time frame. Motion failed for lack of a second. ► MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#11 Shoreland and On-Site Sewage Treatment Ordinance Amendment - Continued) Peterson moved, Jabbour seconded, to adopt the proposed amendment with a time frame of 7 years. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Kelley. The Eastmans were informed that the 7 year time period begins at the time the septic system was found to be non-complaint. ThQr were directed to discuss this with Staff MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour voiced concern with the press reporting on City Council Meetings without attending the meetings. He feels information is sometimes being incorrectly interpreted in the new^aper and cited an example. Jabbour said information should be received by these members of the press by attending the meetings themselves. Jabbour said two neighborhood groups, one 2-lot subdivision and one neighborhood, have initiated annexation inquiries with the City of Long Lake. He informed the Council that ndther the City of Long Lake or their council are involved in the initiation. Jabbour said the police contract was renewed and promises given for dialogue in the future. Goetten siud she would like to suggest the Planning Commission have two meetings a month due to the lateness of meetings recently. Goetten said this would help the flow of applications and assist the Planning Commission members. Jabbour said this was suggested several years ago as an aid to residents and in meeting deadlines. Applications are sometimes incomplete for review by the Planning Commission. i Goetten said the change would help public relations. Commisrioner McMillan said the Commisrioners are not receiving all the information until the last minute. She feds it is unfair to tie up the entire weekend reading the materials and reviewing the rites. It is also hard to provide an adequate review of applications when the meetings run very late. Barrett indicated that the complete application information should be received 30 days prior to the meeting. McMillan indicated that the residents are not getting complete information. It is also unfair for Staff to have information trickle in. Jabbour noted that the Staff cannot be thorough without the time to review the applications. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Goetten said there is undue pressure on the Staff to accommodate the applicants. With twice monthly meeting there would be a cut-offtiine with a second opportunity for a meeting in a short time period. McMillan said she would support the two meeting month if it would aid Staff. She suggested meetings start at 6:00. Jabbour noted pressure is also applied if the meeting causes the applicant to be set back in their schedule. McMillan noted that the process is slow and people must be organized. Goetten said delays will occur. Van Zomeren indicated there have been many problems with surveys of late. Goetten said she would tike to see the process easier to go through. McMillan said issues are becoming more complex and resulting in the Commissioners reacting rather than taking the time to consider ail the information. Jabbour suggested a joint meeting between the Council and Planning Conmussion occur prior to the next Council meeting. ENGINEER REPORT (#12) CANOPY FOR PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING ENTRY Gappa said the budgeted estimate for this project is $20,000. Gappa reported that the canopy for the entrance to the Public Works Building has been included in the budget estimate for next year. Staff became aware of the problem last year with ice build up, which has been a problem each winter. There is also no protection during rainy periods. Gappa requested the project be completed this fall to eliininate problems for the upcoming winter months. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to authorize obtiuning quotations for installation of an entrance canopy for the Public Woiics Building. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Flint was informed that drain pipes are not a condderation. Jabbour asked if an architectural rendering is needed. Moorse suggested the drawings for a canopy be reviewed from the ori^nal building plans. ( r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#13) PUMP STATION FOR IRRIGATION SY^M -------------------------- G^a reported that when the irrigation system was budgeted for, it included the irrigabon system itself only and the pump station and related items were separated out intentionally. A pun^) station will require a concrete slab and a 12’xl6' pre&bricated wooden building to house the pump. A from porch will also be erected for a rest station Goetten inquired if this would affect adjacent property owners. Gappa said this is a separate issue. The pump house will not afreet the adjacem property owners. Flint moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the following quotations for the golf course irrigation system project: Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Jr^inson & Peterson Construction - concrete slab Redi-Bilt Buildings, 12'xl6' pre&bricated wood bldg NSP, overhead 3-phase electric service transformer All Star Electric, 480 V 3 Phase and 120/240V service for pump station and well from NSP transformer $ 925.00 2,992.65 1,200.00 7,800.00 Gappa remiixled the Council of the public hearing regarding the Navarre Water Treatmem Plant Rehabilitation. He has received only two commerns, one in support and one with a question. Moorse says he has not received any calls. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (•#14) INTERFAITH OUTREACH AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS REQUEST FOR FUNDING Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the $1,000 request by KXP for funding of its 1998 activities. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (•#15) STREET SIGNS FOR PRIVATE ROADS Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt a policy that requires all new street rigns for private roads be green with white letters. Street signs for public roads will continue to be white with blackletters. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (•#16) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 3971 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3971 authorizing execution of a sub-grant agreement for reimbursement of storm damage expenses. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 City Attorney Barrett had no report. (#17) LICENSES Goctten questioned the Ucense appUcation for Mr. HaUson. She asked if selling firearms from a residence was allowed. Moorse said it was. He noted this was a renewal Ucense. N^rse did not know what specific conditions are required for housing firearms He informed Peterson that the poUcc chief reviewed the appUcation. Peterson moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve the Home Occupation License for John HaUson, 120 Golden Drive Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Goetteit Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the following Ucenses. Vote- Ayes 5 Nays 0. • j > Special Event Remodelers Showcase 2375 Devin Lane September 26-28 Kennel License Trac^ Morrow 3026 Casco Point Road (*#18) BILLS Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Kellq^ moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn at 10:22 p.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (jabriel Jabbour, Mayoi ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 1 r NAVARRE WATER PLANT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 23,1997 COUNCIL MEETING OCT 13 1997 ROLL CITYOFORONO The Orono City Council held a public hearing to consider the improvement of the Navarre Water Treatment Plant on the above mentioned date with the following members present; Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Councilmembers J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson and Richard Flint. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Engineers Glenn Cook and Tom Roushar, and Recorder Lin Vee. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Moorse explained the purpose of the hearing is to make the public aware of what the project is and provide an opportunity for public comments so the Council can decide whether or not to move forward with the project. An assessment hearing would be held at a later time if Council votes to continue with the iehabUitation of the Navarre Water Treatment Plant. Jabbour added that there are two parts to consider as improvements - the water softening system and the iron/manganese filtering system. The City must decide whether to rehabilitate the existing water plant or stop using it. Tom Roushar, City Engineer from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, gave a presentation on the proposed rehabilitation project. The Navarre Water Plant was constructed in 1971 of masonry and steel. It is a very basic water treatment system providing for softening and filtering at the least possible cost. Improvements would extend the use of the system for another 20-25 years. The following issues were discussed: 1. 2. 3. Water quality. The Orono water supply system meets all of the primary drinking standards mandated by the Federal Drinking Water Act. The water does not meet secondary standards which are related to aesthetics, i.e. iron, manganese, hardness. Iron can cause reddish water; manganese may cause the water to appear yellowish to blackish. Iron and manganese also promote the growth of iron bacteria which may result m taste and odor problems. Hardness results in problems with laundry such as less suds, and build-up in piping. Treatment process schematic. Diagrams were shown outlining how the water plant works. Chlorine is added, water is then aerated and flows through a gravity filter which strains out the iron and manganese. Booster pumps pump the water through three softeners and up to the water tower behind the water plant. Fluoride is added on the way out of the softeners. Federal law does not require the addition of fluoride but Mirmesota law does. Some additional chlorine is added to keep the water disinfected. Filter schematic. A Dualator I Filter from the Tonka Equipment Company is used to aerate the water and filter out iron and manganese. It is a gravity setup and very economical way to filter water. 1 4. 5. 6. 7. Softener schemaftc. >he hardness prXc'inT'e^ements. 80 parts persrj£,T-;."2r set; nS^—- filter are discharged to the City sewer. Reeonnnended improvements and -«^mate—completed an evaluation smdy in 1995 with the following recommended improvements. 8. Filter refurbishment Softening unit control replacement Chlorine solution water line relocation Brine storage tank cleaning Softening unit renovation Softening unit discharge meters Electrical systems replacement Automatic control valve replacement Ventilation/dehumidification improvements Controls replacement (SCADA) Piping replacement Engineering and contingency $ 220,900 17,000 8,500 8,000 79,900 23,400 43.100 9,600 102,500 73.100 30,000 123,200 $ 739,200 TOTAL be from September to November of 1998. Proposed project fmanelng. Financing Is 200,000- Cash Reserves , qqq Internal Loan from Sewer Fund 27C>,8UU TOTAL $740,000 Assessment area. An assessment would ^ water system and capable of using the system. This is approxim y ^ : } NAVARRE WATER PLANT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 23,1997 9.Roushar also presented the following photos: Brine storage tank for the softening process. Well#l. Top side of filter system and aeration chamber. Condition of filter along base noting high degree of rust. Pump showing rusty pipes. Softening unit. Failing softener with hatch open (8' diameter, 10' high) - Renovated system which would be repainted with new controls. Moorse continued with an explanation of financing. Three sources are being considered. First, $200,000 is currently available in water ftmd reserves which have been built up through increases in water rates specifically for these types of projects. Secondly, $263,000 will be collected from assessments on properties in the Navarre water service area. This is broken down to $350 per property served by the water system or capable of using the system over a 5 year period with interest at 6.25%. Thirdly, an internal loan for $277,000 will be paid off over a 10 year period from the operations of the water ftmd. He also showed a chart of how the payments and interest would be calculated over 5 years so that homeowners could visualize how their properties would be affected. Karen Cuff, 3572 Livingston Avenue, stated she was aware that the system needs improvements. She has an in-home water softening system and has not noticed problems that neighbors may experience. She asked how long the softening system had been failing. Roushar responded that one of the softeners is out of service completely and the other two are probably not as efficient as they should be. She questioned if it was worth the additional money in the proposal to have the City soften its water when she already has her own system. Roushar explained that when the project is finished, the water would be softened to 80 mg/1 which is about the same as Minneapolis. In addition to rehabilitation of the softeners, the engineers are also recommending a change in the way they recharge. One softener would recharge each day producing more uniform water. Currently the water varies from very soft right after recharging to very hard before the next recharge. Jabbour asked if the new softeners would be monitored for hardness. Roushar responded there would be analytic testing at the startup to provide a baseline for operation. Cuff asked what level of softness the City system has been at over the last 10 years. Roushar responded that the water quality has been variable from 0 to 150 mg/1. A survey indicated about half the homes in the water system have in-home softeners. Jabbour added that a home softener would help to keep water at a more consistent level of softness. A new City system would also be more consistent. At that time, the individual homeowner may still wish to have softer water than is provided through the City system and could still choose to use a home system. NAVARRE WATER PLANT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 23,1997 Cuff suggested breaking the softener and filtration improvements into separate projects. Roushar stated that he had looked at that option. Gappa, the Public Services Director, had asked the Engineer to look at rehabilitating the existing softening system vs. people buying iheir ovvn softeners. Roushar priced a basic Culligan softener and the cost to operate it, and found that it is cheaper for the City to continue softening. Salt costs for the City are much less than for an individual homeowner because the City can buy in bulk (25% less than at Cub Foods). Jabbour also noted that a homeowner's sewer bill may be higher because of the in-home softener discharging into the sewer system. Katherine Miller, 1635 Shadywood Road, stated they have been very' pleased with the water quality and do not have an in-home system. Andrew McDermott, 2702 Walters Port Lane, stated his water has been relatively good although he has purchased his own softener. He has tried the water using his own system as well as not using it, and it was difficult to tell the difference. He asked if the City softener was eliminated if he would have to increase the number of times he ran his own softener. Roushar responded that he would have to recharge more often and use more salt. Although the City system has not been as uniform as they would like, some of the hardness is still eliminated. The homeowner may have to triple the use of an in-home system if the City did not soften its water. Dave Holste, 1761 Concordia Street, asked what would happen to the 50% of homeowners who have existing in-home water softeners. Jabbour suggested a homeowner may continue to use their own softener if they choose to have softer water than is provided through the City system. Holste added that he uses a well but still pays for water because it is in the street. He has three units on his property. Moorse confirmed that there are some properties in the City that are not hooked up to water even though it is available. It is not mandatory to be connected just because City water is available. Moorse thought there may be one to two dozen situations where the property has not been connected to City water. The assessment is paid by everyone in the assessment area. Holste expressed his concern about financing. He did not feel he wanted to pay for soft water when he didn't use it. Jabbour compared a possible water assessment to a recent sewer assessment. The individual property owner could continue to use his private septic system but would pay the full amount when they do hook-up. Lois Hudlow, 3438 Lyric Avenue, also questioned the means of assessment. She asked for the definition of a unit and if Culver's would be considered one unit. Moorse responded that Culver's would be considered a parcel. She felt the assessment should be based on usage. She added that the water is good, she would like to keep it, and is willing to pay for it in an equitable manner. •P' i — NAVARRE WATER PLANT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 23,1997 Jabbour responded that 2/3 of the costs are paid based on usage, $200,000 would come from water fund reserves and $277,000 from an internal loan to be repaid through future water bills. He added that water rates would have to go much higher to fund the entire project through water payments. The City still needs to determine how the assessment would be collected. He added that this would be discussed at an assessment hearing. The current hearing is to determine if the project should go forward. Roxann Beisch, 3436 Livingston Avenue, stated it was difficult to agree to spend money over the next 5 years if the people decide they don't want to pay for the project in the proposed manner. Jabbour responded that the City is not obligated to proceed with the project until after the assessment hearing. There is also a period of time where property owners can oppose the assessment. She also felt she has had good water up until the 1-2 years. The taste of drinking water in other cities has been bad, which is the only way she could determine if Orono has good water or not. Joe Forrer, 2655 Pheasant Road, suggested exploring other means of softening the water rather than salt. Roushar responded that potassium chloride rather sodium chloride has been used in some homes. Other methods are membrane filtration, which is relatively new technology, and reverse osmosis. All methods are more expensive than ion exchange softening. With the existing water plant design, using salt is the most cost effective. Larger plants like Miimeapolis or Bloomington use a lime/soda ash process. Forrer questioned if salt would always be available in the future. Roushar responded that salt can be delivered inexpensively by water from the salt flats in New Orleans and it seems there would be an unlimited supply of salt water available in the Louisiana salt flats from the ocean. Jabbour asked why the City of Tonka Bay uses the lime/soda ash process. Roushar responded that lime is an option but more expensive. Another factor is sludge that is produced from the lime process which has to be disposed of. McDermott asked if there were any plans to expand the area of users. Jabbour responded there definitely was not. Pam Peters, 3640 Togo Road, stated the water quality is good. She commended the Council for acting on this matter before it becomes a problem. She did not feel $350 was unreasonable but would not want to pay 5 years of interest. She agreed with others that the assessment should be done on a usage basis. Jabbour responded that the homeowner is not required to pay the assessment over 5 years with interest through taxes but would have the option to do so. Previously the City auditor advised Council to increase water rates to prepare for improvements. If additional money was to come from the water billing, rates would probably have to increase another 35%. I i NAVARRE WATER PLANT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 23,1997 Peters also questioned the engineering and contingency fee. She asked how much was considered contingency. Roushar responded that the contingency is based on the engineering estimates used for bids. Approximately 5 - 7.5% would be considered contingency with the remaining used towards engineering fees. Miller asked about the construction of the water tower near the City offices and how it happened. Jabbour assured her that the Navarre residents were not paying for it. The users have been assessed who use that tower. The City is slightly subsidizing the bonds used to construct the tower. He noted the current Council has made a conscious decision to have users pay for the services they use. Based on current and potential development of the Highway 12 corridor, it was felt that an additional water tower was needed in that area. Walt Romann, 2420 Old Beach Road, asked if there would be a long-term effect on the distribution system if the softening system was not repaired. Roushar responded that it would not affect the distribution system but would be noticed in the home by build-up in the water heating and piping system. Jabbour asked if removal of iron and manganese would have the same affect. Roushar stated that there would be a negative affect if the filtration system were not upgraded. There could be iron build-up and serious complaints about the water color. Softening could be considered more of an optional upgrade. Cuff also felt that $350 was not excessive. She asked if she would be charged for two hook-ups if she has two lots with two water stubs even if she has only one house. Moorse suggested that since the property has been combined into one lot, only one charge should be made. Holste asked if the same situation would apply to his property. He has three stubs but only one buildable lot. Jabbour thought he would also pay for only one charge but could not give him a final answer without knowing ail the facts. Jabbour asked for comments from Councilmembers. Peterson stated she was in favor of the project. She was disappointed there were not more users present. Kelley stated he was in favor of the project but would need to review how the assessment would be determined. Goetten was also in favor of the project but unsure about the assessment. Flint agreed with other members. *■ •v" NAVARRE WATER PLANT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 23,1997 Jabbour concurred with members of the Council and encouraged residents to call with any questions. He added that insurance rates are lower for those residents where City water is available because of the proximity to water hydrants. It was moved by Kelly, seconded by Goetten, to authorize the consulting engineer to prepare plans and specs and advertise for bids for the rehabilitation of the Navarre Water Plant and schedule an assessment hearing. Ayes 5, nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Jabbour adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.ra. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Item No.: COUNCIL MEETING OCT 1 3 1997 Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Preliminary Subdivision - Conversion from Outlot to Lot Status - Outlot E, Sugar Woods ('2190' Wayzata Boulevard) - Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Council Minutes 4/28/97 C - Staff Memo 4/25/97 D - Council Minutes 4/14/97 This application was conceptually approved by Council on April 14. Council directed staff to prepare a revised Preliminary Plat Approval resolution reflecting the Council's findings and approval conditions per the discussion at the meeting. Applicant's attorney initially provided staff with a proposed resolution, which staff revised significantly in order to reflect staffs understanding of Council's action and intent. This resolution was presented to Council on April 28 but was tabled without review at the request of applicant's attorney. Staff and the City attorney have since met with applicants aUomey to refine the approval resolution. The attached resolution presented for Council review and adoption is acceptable to staff, the City Attorney, and the applicant's attorney. Council Action Requested Adopt the attached resolution granting preliminary approval of a Class II subdivision for property located at 2190 Wayzata Boulevard. r.o A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS II SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2190 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - FILE NO. 2212 WHEREAS, Sidney and Barbara Rebers (hereinafter the "Applicants") on February 19, 1997, filed a formal subdivision application with the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") for approval of a replat of property legally described as: Outlot E, Sugar Woods, except that part shown as Parcel 342A on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Plat No. 27-70, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the Property"); and WHEREAS, this r^plat is proposed for the purpose of converting said Outlot E to buildable lot status in order that the Property may be developed, as required by the City as a condition of the plat of Sugar Woods; and WHEREAS, after duly published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 17, 1997, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting held on April ^4, 1997, the Orono City Coc.:icil considered the subdivision application of the Applicant and made the following ^"*;*sngs of fact: 1. 2. 3. The property is located within the B-1 Retail Sales Business Zoning District requiring a minimum lot area of 20,000 s.f. and a minimum lot width of 100'. The property contains a total area of 41,612 s.f. and has a defined width of approximately 146'. The proposed plat consists of one commercial lot meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the B-1 Zoning District. Page 1 of9 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The property is served by municipal sewer and water. The property abuts U.S. Highway 12 as well as Outlet D, Sugar Woods, a segment of a proposed future frontage road corridor platted within Sugar Woods. In 1987 the City adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 which planned for the future development of a frontage road between Brown Road and Willow Drive, paralleling Highway 12. In 1987 it was anticipated that traffic on Highway 12 would continue to increase as a result of the upcoming completion of Interstate Highway 394. The purpose of this planned frontage road was to reduce and/or eliminate access directly to and from Highway 12, generally for safety and traffic flow reasons. Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 specifically addressed road improvements needed prior to development of the commercial corridor as follows: "Prior to the development of the commercial portion of this property, the existing intersection at Brown Road and Highway 12 shall be improved so that safety concerns associated with the current use and future increased use of this intersection are addressed. Configuration of the frontage road and North Brown Road would be determined at the time of development." Orono’s 1994-95 reconstruction of Brown Road alleviated alignment concerns with the 12/Brown intersection, and Mn/DOTs 1995-96 safety improvements on Highway 12 similarly alleviated a number of safety concerns. The plat of Sugar Woods, completed in July 1989, included two commercially zoned parcels (Outlets E and F) abutting Highway 12. These two parcels were platted as outlets, rather than as buildable lots, because the Applicant at that time wished to delay decisions regarding future access to the commercial property until such time that it was developed. The Sugar Woods plat conformed to the comprehensive plan by creating Outlet D, a short segment of the proposed future east/west frontage road. Outlet D, however, only provides a corridor from the west boundary of Sugar Woods to Page 2 of 9 1 9. 10. 11. the northwest comer of Outlot F. The City’s intent in approving the plat of Sugar Woods was that at some future time when Outlot F is developed, e remaining frontage road segment eastward to Brown Road would be defined and platted. On December 12, 1988, the Orono City Council adopted Resolution No. 2554 granting preliminary plat approval, conditional use permit and vmances for the plat of SUGAR WOODS. Page 8, paragraph 4.E stated that the subdivider s agreement should: "Clarify that Outlot D (portion of future east/west road) is to be fully developed at the time of future development of the commercial corridor. The access road will be fully installed at the time of either the applicant’s development of the commercial corridor or as a result of any other condition that may require the installation of the road poor to applicant’s development of the commercial corridor. The foregoing language was not put in the subdivider’s agreement, but it was put in the reLlution granting final plat approval. On July 10, 1989, the C^^o^cil adopted Resolution No.2653 approving the final plat of SUGAR WOODS. Page 4, paragraph 4 stated: "4. Outlot D. a portion of future east/west road located within the commercial zoned portion of the property, shall be installed at time of the development of Outlots E or F or the development of the We^ property (unless the City has obtained an alternate legal access Outlot E to the Wear property all subject to the approval of the City). Pursuant to the terms of the preliminary plat resolution and find plat resolution, on September 8, 1989, Rebers Construction Co. and Sidney and B^bara Rebere granted public roadway easements over Outlot D to the City of Orono. ai easements were filed with the Hennepin County registrar of Titles as Document Nos. 2038791 and 2038792. Page 3 of 9 :il ge ;ar gh 13. Thereafter, the Orono Building & Zoning Administrator and City Attorney objected to certain terms of said easements; said easements were renegotiated between the City and the Applicants; and a replacement public road easement over Outlot D was granted to and accepted by the City subject to the following: 1. No road shall be installed by Grantee until a building permit has been issued for construction of a commercial building on Outlot E, SUGAR 'VOODS (in which case the road may extend no further east than the f ' s<»he>rly extension of the East boundary of Outlot E) or on Outlot F, SUIiAR woods (in which case the road may extend the full length 1 f Dv ”2. Tlf? >j»uth edge of any road built by grantee shall be no further North than tlx South boundary of Outlot D, SUGAR WOODS. "3. If and when a frontage road or service road is built comiecting Outlots E and F, SUGAR WOODS, across land South of Outlot D, SUGAR WOODS, or an easement for such a road is dedicated, granted or condemned, this easement shall automatically expire." (Quit Claim Deed dated May 30, 1990, recorded June 25, 1990 as Registrar of Titles Document No. 2105974.) It appears that Interstate Highway 394 will not be extended along the current corridor of U.S. Highway 12; it appears that a bypass route will be extended from the current freeway terminus near the easterly boundary of Orono to the intersection of Highway 12 and County Road 6. When this bypass is operational, traffic on Highway 12 adjacent to the Property will decline. However, the resultant traffic volumes on Highway 12 adjacent to the property at that time are anticipated by the City to be at a level that would generally indicate the need for a limited access highway. Page 4 of 9 # 14. The Council finds that although the ultimate access for the Property should be via a frontage road, the form of future development of the adjoining and nearby properties should be taken into account at the time the frontage road is developed. Such future development has not been determined, but it will influence if, how, where and when the frontage road is constructed. Therefore, the Council chooses not to install the Highway 12 frontage road through Outlot D, SUGAR WOODS, at this time, whether or not Outlot E is developed with a commercial building, without waiving its right to require or order such installation in the future. 16. The Council finds that suitable interim access to Outlot E from Highway 12 may be possible using the Mn/DOT right-of way directly west of Outlot E, which would allow an access to be constructed opposite Brimhall Avenue. Such an access location affords an opportunity for shared access to serve the adjacent property in the plat of East Willow Woods. Outlot D, Sugar Woods, is intended to serve as a trail corridor as well as a frontage road corridor, and therefo’^e requires a continuous width of 60’ in order to accomodate both uses. Outlot D currently is 60' in width at the west end but tapers to a width of 40' at its east end. Additional right-of- way is needed by the City via creation of an additional Outlot and granting of drainage, utility, road and trail easements in order that the 60' corridor be provided. .1 17. The City Engineer has additionally recommended that a S' drainage and utility easement be granted along the south side of the added right-of-way outlot, within proposed Lot 1. 18. The easement granting the City rights to develop a frontage road in Outlot D does not grant an easement for drainage or utilities purposes, which is necessary in order for the City to use it 3r the intended purpose. 19. Proposed Lot 1 is subject to the Park Dedication requirements of Municipal Code Section 11.62. Page 5 of9 , • >V >. 20. Any development proposed within proposed Lot 1 will be subject to a commercial site plan review process before the Planning Commission and City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Sidney and Barbara Rebers per plat drawings by Wayne D. Cordes, a licensed surveyor employed by BRW, Inc. dated March 4, 1997, for the conversion of the Property into Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot A, SUGAR WOODS 2ND ADDITION, subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot 1 shall be allowed direct access to U.S. Highway 12 only if the applicants are successful in relocating their existing access to Highway 12, by obtaining an access permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) permitting access over the triangular parcel of land owned by MnDOT across from the intersection of Brimhall Avenue and Highway 12. Any direct access to Highway 12 which is not directly opposite Brimhall Avenue will not be allowed. 3. The right-in/right-out access of Lot 1 to Highway 12 at Lrinhall Avenue is approved on a permanent basis. The left-in/left-out access of Lot 1 to Highway 12 at Brimhall Avenue is approved on an interim basis. At such time as a frontage road is installed to provide alt mative access to Lot 1, the City shall have the right to terminate the right-in/right-out access at Brimhall Avenue upon payment of just compensation and the right to terminate the left-in/left-out access at Brimhall Avenue without payment of any compensation; provided that Lot I's access to Highway 12 will not be terminated unless the Highway 12 accesses of the other parcels served by the frontage road are similarly terminated. The City reserves the right to control access to Lot 1 from the Wear property directly east of of Lot 1 in the commercial site plan review process. Applicant Page 6 of 9 ! 1 shall, if found necessary by the City, place barriers to prohibit access from the Wear property. 4 Lot 1 shall bear the total reasonable costs of constructing *e Portion o^e frontage toad directly adjacent to Lot 1. If the frontage road is built, the otroer of Lot 1 reserves the right to contest the necessity and feasibili^ road improvement. The Council will require at the Ume of M in the form of a cash escrow, letter of credit or other form of secunty acceptable to the City. 5. Applicant shall grant the City a drainage, utiliti' and trail easement over Outlet D. 6 A Uiangular segment of right-of-way shall be platted as Outlet A, SUG^ WOODS 2ND ADDITION, per Exhibit A attached, and applicant shall gran the City road, trail, drainage and utilities easements over said Outlo. A. 7 Applicants shall provide confirmation that the existing stormwater pond is viable to serve Lot 1, or shall provide a new comprehensive 1 and Outlet F, SUGAR WOODS, subject to approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer. Applicants are hereby advised that »‘“^“PP;7' within one year of the date of Council approval, on October 13, 19 . Apdicants Ll to complete the filing of the final plat application within die one yei deadline, it shall be necessary for applicant to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. The following list of final submittals must be submittrf to the weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 8. 1.Record plat drawings in the fomi of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the Page 7 of 9 r City ’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Wayne D. Cordes dated March 4, 1997. B. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of the Property. C. Designation of Outlot A per Exhibit A attached, to serve as an expansion of the frontage road corridor. 2. Legal documents required: A. Title opinion addressed to the City. B. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. C. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the Property. 3. Signed and executed road, trail, utility and drainage easement over Outlot A, SUGAR WOODS 2ND ADDITION. 4. Signed and executed trail, drainage and utility easement over Outlot D, SUGAR WOODS. 5. Fees to be paid: Total due: $ 200.00* A. Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents - $200.00 Page 8 of 9 •;vf B. *Park dedication fee, the amount of which shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The applicant shall be advised as soon as Assessor's report has been filed with City. Park dedication fee shall be based on 8% of the fair market value of land within Lot 1. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at its regular meeting held this 13th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: Gabriel Jabbour, MayorDorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this — day of ,199 , by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of Ae^ City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 9 of9 r £ROM LEON'Ap. STREET k DEINARD \ p jTHU) 4.24 57 14:44 j:T. 14:27 N'O. i26i*:^SS9:5 • XHIBIT C'* \ snoNmniis.^ \ '' Ww \- R: kl 03 ONDtuvd snoN/nniiB ^ ..00,6 UZO S tCS'SSS-—-------OlOi~ \saooM yyon7^3^i^~^ ^ u. ^ cfiN3n3sv3 Ajnun qnv ' V- ci--------—- >v^ rvfC V v: !r«' Sr cJ '' ^ Vv' o . ^ ^ .p II ■«c • # ^•C .« '»•• m ■Cb 99Z' rwz muoN ^ ! ....................... % ■% ivid tz i'T^vjJT'e^ =T?=X-I §i <t«ti c> ^5i >* .9Q ? / ORONO OTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 28,1997 (#4 #2205 - Schefers - Continued) requiredJjy the City. Van Zomeren was unsure, noting there have been problems in the past but there has been communication to resolve this issue. Goetten also asked if there is a double fee since it is an afler-the-fact application. Van Zomeren confirmed that there is. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution #3886 granting a conditional use permit to excavate in a wetland area to allow an existing wildlife pond to remain for the property located at 2540 Casco Point Road. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2212 SIDNEY AND BARBARA REBERS. '2190* WAYZATA BOULEVARD - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL The applicants were represented by Attorney Steve Pflam. Pflam requested that the item be tabled as there were some issues that were unclear. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2212. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2214 RICHARD KOZICKY, 2016 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3887 Mr. Kozicky was in attendance. Van Zomeren noted the applicant has appeared twice before the Planning Commission who directed the applicant to reduce the need for variances. An average lakeshore setback variance has been eliminated. The current proposal is for a lakeside deck and porch addition and a garage/laundry area to the streetside of the residence. A side yard variance along the south property line is required because the 3' overhang encroaches into the 10' sideyard. Code allows a 154* over hang but to be consistent with the rest of the house, the architect has proposed a 3' overhang. A hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area is also required where 45.65% exists and 45.88% is proposed. A structural coverage variance is requested to allow 19.63% coverage rather than the allowed 15%. *• Goetten questioned what percentage of the hardcover could be attributed to the neighbor's driveway. Van Zomeren explained on the map where the property line was due to the size of the County's right-of-w'ay for road alignment to the bridge. The portion of the driveway that provides access for the neighbor is on the County**; property. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Item No. April 25,1997 5' Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: AssL Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Preliminary Subdivision - Conversion from Outlot to Lot Status - Outlot E, Sugar Woods ('2190' Wayzata Boulevard) - Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution This application was conceptually approved by Council on April 14 (See minutes). Council directed staff to prepare a revised Preliminary Plat Approval resolution reflecting the Council's findings and approval conditions per the discussion at the meeting. Applicant's attorney initially provided staff with a proposed resolution, which staff has revised significantly in order to reflect staffs understanding of Council's action and intent. Applicant's attorney has not, as of the time this goes to print, indicated acceptance of the attached resolution. Staffs proposed resolution is attached for Council review and adoption. Council Action Requested Adopt the attached resolution granting preliminary approval of a Class II subdivision for property located at 2190 Wayzata Boulevard. 'O ^ r'-f " MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#5 - #2204 Fullerton - Continued) 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 prior to any approval of the application Winston felt the case should be reviewed ad hoc, case by case Radio indicated while the Supreme Court allows for case to case study, it does not allow any applicant to piece meal the fee either He indicated the imposition of a maximum fee would provide some certainty. He also noted that the Executive Session is only being held because of the threat of litigation from this application. m) #2212 SIDNEY & BARBARA REBERS, 2080 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - RESOLUTION NO. 3880 The applicant was present tdong with attorney, Steve Pflam. Gaffron reported that the application is for preliminary subdivision and the conversion o Outlot E, Sugar Woods, to buildable status. The outlot was created from a parcel ot iMd remaining from the Sugar Woods plat for future commercial development consisting of Outlots E and F, which is the Orono Shopping Center. At the time of the plat, a comprehensive plan amendment included a frontage road to serve projected commercial development. The Sugar Woods plat conformed to that amendment with the creation of Outlot D This outlot only provides a corridor from the west boundary of Sugar Woods to the northwest comer of Outlot F. The intent was that at some future time when ouUot F is developed, the remaining frontage road segment eastward to Brown Road would be defined and platted. Outlot D was platted because the City needed a corridor that would traverse the Wear property located between Outlots E and F. Outlot C of East Willow Woods was platted, providing a corridor connecting from Outlot E of Sugar Woods, westward to Willow Drive for future frontage road. I ^ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Gaffron indicated that access is the primary issue with the conversion of this outlot to buildable lot status. Outlot E meets the minimum lot area and width standards for a build'mg site in the B-1 District, and the only variances which may be necessary for its development would be related to specific building and site layout issues. A 70' wide curb cut for a right-in, right-out ingress/egress resulted from the safety improvements for Highway 12. These improvements did allow for a future curb C'lt but with a median across it. Gaffron noted that the comprehensive plan limits access to Highway 12. Although the "Alternative 6 North" proposal for the Highway 12 con idor would move substantial traffic off of Hwy 12, the current Hwy 12 would continue to have a high traffic count. The projected count would still warrant a limited access roadway with service roads for access to adjacent properties. The Planning Commission had discussed the access issues as outlined in the 4/2/97 memo on page 2 relating to traffic on Hwy 12, safety improvement impacts on access to Outlot E, shared access, and factors that would trigger construction of the frontage road. The plan called for a road within Outlot D to be developed at the time of development of Outlot E or F for a fully completed frontage road. The City has easements over Outlots C and D to Willow Drive. The existing drainage pond was developed as part of Sugar Woods. The City would require confirmation that the pond would be able to handle the additional drainage from development of Outlot E. Gaffron stated the Staff recommendation differs from the Planning Commission review outcome. The Commission recommended unanimous approval of the preliminary subdivision and change in outlot to buildable status with a temporary right-in, right-out access subject to future construction of a frontage road Other conditions are noted or page 7 of the 4/10/97 memo. The Commission suggested the applicant investigate the possibility of a shared curb cut with the Wear property and the possibility of creating an access across from Brimhall Avenue which would serve both Outlot E and the East Willow Woods future development. Gaffron said the Staff recommendation would follow the comprehensive plan and would not allow this development to occur until the frontage road is in place. Staff recommendation includes seven conditions as noted on page 6 of the 4/10/97 memo. Steve Pflam relayed the history of the property owned by Rebers. At the time the outlot was so designated, the City and applicant disagreed about the need for a frontage road. This and several other lots were platted separately so there would not be the need to obtain right-of-way from Sugar Woods development for the future frontage road. The future frontage road was not extended eastward as it was felt it could be dealt with when Outlot F and the lot to west of the Rebers property were developed. When Otten's property was developed, a piece of land was obtained for the future frontage road. A right-of-way was granted with restrictions MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#6 - #22 12 Rebers - Continued) Pflam said the applicant's major objection to the frontage road is the property is zoned commercial and ailready has legal access to Hwy 12 The applicant u ^s not currently have plans for Outlot F and would agree to revisit the frontage road issue when that property is developed. Pflam said the applicant is seeking a buyer who would use the entire property rather than subdivide it into smaller lots. Pflam said the service road is laid out for use by a large number of businesses and, as such, would not be needed if only one business was developed on Outlot F. Pflam asked for approval of the outlot to buildable lot status. The applicant does not want to reorient the lot to the rear and lose Hwy 12 access. Pflam said he felt the City does not have the resources to fund the service road. Pflam said the comprehensive plan has been affected dramatically by the relocation proposal of Hwy 12. Pflam indicated it was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting for a right turn in and out with a median. Commissioners raised the question •■■i relocating the access to the west to line up with Brimhall. Pflam said he discussed this possibility with Mn/DOT, who owns the triangular piece of property. The applicant has applied for a permit for such an access. Pflam indicated the median is ^Yide enougli to support a stacking lane it needed. Pflam said this access could be used by the Rebers and Otten properties. Pflam asked for approval of the replat to a buildable lot without P ' of access to Hwy 12. He said the applicant is prepared to meet all conditions inclu , the 60' wide right- of-way for a future road or trail. Cliff Otten said he agrees with the plan as presets 1 by Pflam for access. He said he does not see any need for a service road. Otten an . K.ebers informed Jabbour that they were planning their properties in light of the Alternate 6 proposal for Hwy 12. Kelley asked for clarification on the covenants on the property if an easement was granted. Gafffon reviewed the easement limitations as noted on page 4 of the 4/10/97 memo. Goetten noted she agreed with Staff regarding the service load but questioned whether the City can legally enforce it with the pre-existing conditions Radio said he thought it would be difficult for the City to require construction of the service road. Kelley asked if the applicant would be willing to combine access for the bank property (Outlot E) with the Wear property. Pflam said he would be willing to discuss this possibility with Staff and Planning Commission. Kelley was concerned that people would drive through tb Vear lot to the bank property. Pflam said a barrier could be built. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Kelley asked Otten if he would be willing to vacate his existing easternmost access if a shared access from Brimhall was approved. Otten noted that he currently has two access points on Hwy 12, one right-in only and one right-in, right-out. Kelley asked that the access currently used for nursery stock be eliminated. Otten said he would consider it. Otten noted that a joint access would also become the new access to the City well. Moorse explained Staffs concern for access related to the development of the commercial properties. When looking at the issue from a long term standpoint, Moorse recommended that it would not be beneficial for all the traffic from this development to enter onto Hwy 12. The next development will set the tone for the remaining commercial development. WTiile understanding the parcel is small, it will orient all access onto Hwy 12. Jabbour agreed that Staffs recommendation made sense from a planning viewpoint but questioned whether it can legally be required. He indicated a future developer may not want ingress-egress onto Hwy 12. Goetten noted the access on Hwy 12 for the Rebers property would not eliminate the service road and could possibly be used by Outlot F in the fliture. Moorse asked Council to review the issue comprehensively noting if the property was developed to orient to Hwy 12 and away from the service road, it would affect any businesses being oriented to a service i oad. Kelley agreed that the orientation of the businesses now would affect fliture business orientation for access. He said he believed the second lot owned by Otten will be sold in the future and Outlot F could be divided into several lots. Kelley also noted that the purpose of the service road was to move traffic away from Hwy 12 and indicated the proposed Alternate 6 could still change. Kelley said he would not recommend vacating the service road. If the Brimhall access was acquired, Kelley said he would request the second curb cut for Otten's property be eliminated. He also recommended the property be obtained for the future service road to the north. Pflam indicated the Brimhall proposal for access originated with the Planning Commission and from the comprehensive plan itself He said this access would not preclude the building of the frontage road in the future. He indicated the applicant would be willing to pay his share of the service road in the future. Pflam said the applicant will consider access from either Hwy 12 or from Brimhall. Otten noted that the original concept for a service road did not place the location. He indicated he lost 30' to Mii/DOT for Hwy 12 improvements and it represents the service road as it could have been located adjacent to Hwy 12 instead of to the north. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Jabbour said he recommends maintaining the easement for the service road. Peterson asked Radio if conditions can be placed on the application for elimination of Hwy 12 access if the Brimhall access was approved. Radio referred her to the Planning Commission condition #5 as noted on page 7 of the 4/10/97 memo indicating the right-in, right-out access to Hwy 12 is to be eliminated when the frontage road to the rear of Outlot E (Lot 1) if developed. Radio said the conditions also put the applicant on notice regarding orientation of the business. Pflam said he had no objection if the condition placed future owners on notice regarding access only via a frontage road, but objected to the condition being recorded due to potential marketability problems. Goetten questioned what would happen if a buyer was found for Outlot F. Pflam said the applicant would make another application to the City. He also indicated that a service road would be used by the public and felt the cost could not be assessed to property owners only. He also indicated a buyer for Outlot F may prefer a private driveway onto Brown Road. Pflam asked Staff to address in a memo how the frontage road would be laid out, assessed, and any conditions that would be required to be met. Jabbour asked Pflam if there was any objection to the Park Dedication fee. Pflam said no. Gafiron asked for discussion to clarify findings for redrafting of the resolution. Radio indicated a motion for conceptual approval or denial with findings could be made, with formal approval of a resolution at the next meeting. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the preliminary subdivision and conversion to buildable lot status as outlined in the discussion with use of Brimhall for access only and directed Staff to draft said resolution. Applicant was asked to work with Staff and a Council member on details. Radio inquired if a condition regarding orientation would be included. Council agreed to make the condition cited in the resolution. « Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. Jabbour asked Staff to work with Otten regarding closurp of l)is easternmost ^wy 12 access and use of Brimhall for access. I (Agenda Item #7 follows Item #14) COUNCIL MEETING OCT 13 1997REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: OctofiffWFOTONO ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Descriptira: Steve White, 4355 Bayside Road - Class I Subdivision - Resolution Zoning District:RR-1 A, 5 acre rural residential (north of Bayside Road) RR-IB, 2 acre rural residential (south of Bayside Road, north of quarter section line) LR-1 A. 2 acre lakeshore residential (south of quarter section line) Summar y of Request Applicant proposes to split this 55 acre property into two parcels to create one f*7 “^ si^ Parcel A. the new boUding site, is proposed at 28.3 acres in total area is dry buildable. Parcel B, with the existing house. wUl be 26.8 acres in area of which 21.1 acres is dry buildable. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/16/97 C - Planning Commission Draft Minutes 9/15/97 D - Hennepin County Letter 9/15/97 E - Memo and Exhibits of 9/11/97 F - Revised Survey Discussion This subdivision is proposed by applicant in order to allow construction of a new westerly half of the property. As detailed in the September 11th memo, the large size of the two lots results in this being a Class 1 subdivision which does not require a plat and whicn is exempt from park dedication. Applicant initially proposed a slightly different location for the division line, b" “ Pl^g Commission and staff recommendations, has slightly relocated it tamtam at 1^ ^0 dry ac4 in the portion of each parcel located north of Bayside Road. This would aUow te filmre platting of the northerly portions of either the westerly parcel or the easterly parcel mto 1. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 3 October 9, 1997 Zoning File #2286 con^^orming sized lots at some future date without having to involve a lot line rearrangement. Each of the two lots to be created contains land on both sides of Bayside Road. The land to the north side of Bayside in each lot will not be separately buildable until some fiimre date at which it is platted. On the south side of Bayside Road each of the two parcels contains more than adequate area and width to meet the RR-IB standards for individual building sites, and each of these tracts has e potential to be platted for 2 acre building sites in the future. Note that Parcels A and B are both considered as lakeshore lots due to the location of the 929.4 contour line as ^ survey. Applicant should be advised that any fumre request to construct a walkway structure to the actual shoreline through the wetland will require City approval. There are defmed City wetlands on the property over which applicant has agreed to grant the City Snservation & Flowage Easements. Applicant also has agreed to grant to the County a road easement over the 66' right-of-way. The County has requested an 80' easement, however, the Orono Comprehensive Plan defines only a 66' right-of-way for this County road, and Baysi Road does not contain a proposed County bikeway according to the County trail plan. Seotic testing has Heen provided confirming that primary and alternate drainfield sites are available forco^SoTof a new residence in Parcel A. The existing bam and outbuildings on Parcel A will be removed by the applicant in the near future. Planning Commission Recommendation At the September 15th meeting. Planning Commission voted 1-0 for approval of the proposed Class I subdivision subject to conditions 1-8 of the September 11th staff memo. Staff Recommendation staff recommends approval of the proposed metes and bounds Class I subdivision with the following conditions of approval: 1. Move the lot line so that the portion of Parcel A north of Bayside Road contains at least 5 acres dry buildable (this has been completed). 2. Applicant to grant Conservation & Howage Easements over the large wetland at the south end of the property, as well as over the smaller wetland in Parcel B north of the road. Applicant shall provide legal descriptions for such easements. r ^ h- Request for Council Action continued Page 3 of 3 October 9, 1997 Zoning File #2286 3. 4. The bam and other outbuildings on Parcel A shall be removed within 6 months of subdivision approval, based on the dilapidated nature of those stmctures. Applicant shall grant to Hennepin County a 66' road, drainage and utility easement for the right-of-way of Bayside Road within the boundaries of the property. 5. Because this is a Class I subdivision, the subdivision is not subject to park dedication. 6. Applicant shall provide evidence that Hennepin County has approved suitable locations for an access driveway to both parcels (this has been completed). 7. Applicant shall have his surveyor defme the 929.4 contour to confirm the lakeshore status of both Parcels A and B (this has been completed, both are lakeshore lots). 8. Applicant is advised that the portions of Parcels A and B north of Bayside Road are not separately buildable, and any future proposal to consuiict accessory structures on those portions will be subject to further City review and approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached resolution approving a 2-lot metes and bounds Class I subdivision for Steve White at 4355 Bayside Road. r ■ ' -‘•'T'' f ■ * A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS CLASS I SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4355 BAYSIDE ROAD BILE NO. 2286 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing imder the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "Cit> Council ”) has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a 2-lot Class I metes and bounds subdivision by Steve White and VCI Capital, Inc. (hereinafter "the subdividers") of property located at 4355 Bayside Road and legally described in the survey attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for a 2-lot metes and bounds Class I subdivision of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the 2-lot metes and bounds Class I subdivision for the subdividers as shown on the Certificate of Survey by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed surveyor of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc., dated August 19,1997, revised October 6,1997 and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1. The subdividers shall grant Conservation and Flowage Easements to the City over the wetlands shown on the attached sur\’ey. The subdividers shall provide legal descriptions for said easements. 2. 3. The subdividers shall grant to Hennepin County a 66' road, drainage and utility easement over the portions of County Road 84 (Bayside Road) shown on the attached survey. The subdividers shall provide a legal description for said easements. The existing bam and other outbuildings on Parcel A shall be removed within 6 months of subdivision approval. Page 1 of 2 \ f As a Class I subdivision, this subdivision is not subject to Park Dedication. The subdivider is advised that the portions of Parcels A and B north of Bayside Road are not separately buildable, and any future proposal to construct accessory structures on those portions will be subject to further City review and approval. Applicant shall provide conflmiation of legal ownership of the property via title opinion or other form satisfactory to the City Attorney before the subdivision will be released for filing. The aforesaid division shown on the attached Certificate of Survey and the aforesaid easements shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before April 13,1998 together with a certified original copy of this resolution. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the division has not been filed by Ae date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this i3th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: Gabriel Jabbour, MayorDorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of October, 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. P"Notary Public Page 2 of2 ■ I < CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2286 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 16,1997 TO:Steve White 1121 Toledo Ave. N. Golden Valley, MN 55422 COPIES TO:VCI Capital P.O. Box 375 Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 9/15/97 VOTE;7 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions #1 thru #8 of the staff recommendation on Pages 3 and 4 of the September 11 staff memo. This item will be placed on the City Council’s October 13 agenda for final approval upon timely submittal of additional required information. Additional information is required, as follows: 1.Provide revised survey showing lot line revised per approval condition #1, and showing 929.4 contour to confirm the lakeshore status of both parcels. 2. Provide legal descriptions for the wetland and road easements. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upwn receipt of additional information. Deadline for the October 13 Council meeting is Monday, October 6,1997. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). 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. X;\APPS\WPWrN60\WPDOCS\CAROLE\PCACnON\2286 r 4* ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15.1997 ^FT ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard, and Lili McMillan. The following represented the City Staff; Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffiron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Intern Brad Bressler, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour and Council Members Goetten and Flint were present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) #2286 STEVE WHITE, 4355 .BAYSnJE ROAD, CLASS I METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION - PUBUC HEARING 7:02-7:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffiron reported that the application is for a Class I subdivision of 55 acres. The northern portion is in the RR-1 A, 5 acre, Zoning District. The southern portion is in the RRIB, 2 acre, and LR-1 A, 2 acre lakeshcre. Zoning Districts. One lax parcel has property located on both sides of Bayside Road and is proposed to be subdivided with properties on both side of the road. Lot A would have 18.8 acres of dry buildable. Lot B, which is 29.1 acres, contains the existing house, and will have 23.5 acres of dry buildable. Gaffion 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 indicated that the attorneys for the chy and applicant have aj^'eed that the subdivision is a Class I, metes and bounds division, as the property is not platted and will not require paric dedication. Gaffiron recommended the property line be moved for Lot A as the northern portion of Bayside Road would be less than 5 acres. There is a small wetland located to the east, north of Bayside Road, which will have a Conservation and Flowage easement as well as that portion on the south side abutting Lake Minnetonka via the channel. A concern was voiced that depending on where the 929.4 lake elevation is located, the property could be considered a lakeshore lot. If so, parcels A and B would not meet the 500' width requirement measured at the shoreline and at the 75' setback. Due to this, the Staff and City Attorney have concluded that this split is not exempt but must be at least considered a Class I Subdivision. The 2 acre minimum is met by the parcels and Gafiron noted that the property could be further subdivided in the future. Gaflfron requested the applicant show the 929.4 contour on the survey. Parcel A includes a bam and out buildings that will have to be removed. Gaffron recommended the removals occur within six months of the subdivision approval. Septic system testing has taken place. The house meets all setback requirements. Gaf&on reviewed the issues for discussion as noted in the packet. The applicant had no further comments to add at this time. Lindquist asked White if he was willing to move the lot line to accommodate parcel A having at least 5 acres of dry buildable. White said he would as it was his intent to have 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 equal sized parcels. He informed Smith that this was the piimaiy reason for how the property was being split There were no public comments. White informed Lindquist that he understood and accepted the Staff recommendations 1-8 as noted in the packet. Smith was told that h was White's intention to construct a home on the second parcel with no further subdivisioiL McMillan questioned the amount of roadway. Gafifron * lid Staff is recommending 66' instead of 80' as needed according to the Comprehensive Plan as no tndl is plarmed. He noted the County's standards are different from those of the City. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2286 with Recommendations #1-8 as listed on pages 3 and 4 of the Staff memo. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Agenda item #2 follows Action Item #5.) (#5) #2279 AND #2280 MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVENUE, SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBUC HEARING 7:13-8:00 F,frL The Applicant was represented by Attorney, John Winston, and Surveyor, Walter Gr^ory. Mr. Whitehead arrived during the application discussioa I ‘ : ^ r j . ! ■ ! ' Hennepin County An Equal Opportunity Employer ?nr IJI •C ■' c- September 15, 1997 Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 .SEP. 1 I 1991 Re: Steve White Subdivision, CSAH 84 Mike: As we discussed, the applicant should provide, via easement or dedication, an 80-foot corridor along this segment of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 84 (40 feet from and parallel with the existing centerline). This action will accommodate any future upgrading and provide for utility installations that are expanding regularly. Access will be limited to one per site. However, none will be permitted along the westerly 300 feet on the south side of CSAH 84 due to the limited sight distance through the "S" curve. Thanks for the timely opportunity to review this proposal, and please call with further questions or discussion. David K. Zetterstrom, Transportation Planning DKZ:mvr Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 TDO:(612)930-2696 Recycled Paper r /. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaf&on, Senior Planning Coordinator September 11,1997 SUBJECT: #2286 Steve White, 4355 Bayside Road - Class I Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District:RR-IA, 5 acre Rural Residential (north of Bayside Road). RR-IB, 2 acre Rural Residential (south of Bayside, north of 1/4 section line). LR-1 A, 2 acre Lakeshore Residential (south of 1/4 section line). Summary of Request Applicant proposes to split this 55 acre property into two parcels to create one additional building site. Parcel A, the building site, will be 26.0 acres in total area of which 18.8 acres is dry buildable. Parcel B, with the existing house, will be 29.1 acres in area of which 23.5 acres is dry buildable. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Subdivision Code Excerpts F - Park Fee Ordinance Excerpt G - Site Evaluation Information i Class I Subdivision Status . ■ :■ This proposal follows lengthy discussions over a period of months between City and the applicant regarding its subdivision classification status. Staff initially concluded that a plat was requited due to unusual factors including: this is a single tax parcel bisected by a County Road; the road effectively creates separate parcels on the north and south sides of it, and for zoning code compliance purposes the right-of-way boundary acts as a lot line; the road has never been formally dedicated in a plat; - wetlands exist on the property and should be protected via the granting of Conservation and Flowage Easements. However, aRer discussions with the City Attorney, staff has allowed this to proceed as a Class I subdivision because it meets the basic definition of a Class I subdivision, i.e. "the subdivision results in no more than two buildable lots where each resulting lot meets or exceeds 5 acres of land, and each lot has at least 300' of frontage on a public roadway which has been accepted and opened by * .■m I: V. ^ • Zoning File #2286 September 11, 1997 Page 2 the City... and where no flexible zoning application or extension of municipal utilities is involved". Flexible zoning includes special or conditional use permits, variances, PUDs, and rezoning, none of which apply to the proposed subdivision. The applicant originally suggested that this lot split should be exempt from the subdivision process because the definition of subdivision exempts those separations "where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500' in width for residential uses..." However, it apfiears to staff that the wetlands at the south end of the property are likely at the OHW of Lake Minnetonka (although the 929.4 contour is not shown) and this may in fact be lakeshore property. Assuming it is, the lot width is measured at the shoreline and at the 75' setback, and neither Parcels A nor B meet a 500’ width at those locations. Therefore, staff and the City Attorney have concluded that this split is not exempt but must at least be considered a Class I subdivision. Class 1 Subdivision Exempt from Park Dedication The City's park dedication ordinance. Section 11.62, applies only to Class II and III subdivisions based on the title of Section 11.62 "Parks and Playgrounds, Class II and III Subdivisions. Therefore, this proposal is not subject to a park fee at this time. If the property is further divided in the future via a Class II or III subdivision, park dedication would be required. Merits of Proposed Division The subdivision as proposed is potentially troublesome because the land north of Bayside Road is zoned for 5 acre lot area minimum, but the proposed dividing line leaves a 4.7 acre tract north of Bayside in Parcel A and a 7.8 acre tract in Parcel B. The westerly tract would be substandard (and the City would likely be requested to grant a lot area variance) if that tract was ever proposed to be platted as an individual building site in the future. The City should not place itself or the property owner in the position of needing variances for future use of this property under current zoning. Therefore, as a minimum the lot line should be moved to the east to make sure that there is at least 5 acres in the westerly tract Applicant would be well-advised to have a wetland determination completed in the southwest portion of that tract, and add acreage to ensure 5 acres of dry buildable. In the easterly parcel north of Bayside, a 0.3 acre wetland exists and staff would request that this wetland shown on City and NWI maps be the subject of a Conservation and Flowage Easement. On the south side of Bayside, each of the two parcels contains more than adequate area and wdth to meet the RR-IB standards for individual building sites. Each of these tracts has the potential to be platted for 2 acre building sites in the future. Based on available maps and air photos. Parcel A is techiucally a lakeshore lot and subject to the -A A '01 Zoning File #2286 September 11,1997 Page 3 pertinent ordinances. Parcel B is likely a lakeshore lot; however, the lack of a 929.4' contour line on the survey makes this difficult to confirm. Note that the existing detached garage on Parcel B was approved on the basis that the entire 55-acre parcel abutted the shoreline. If the proposed dividing line makes Parcel B no longer abut the lakeshore, then the detached garage on Parcel B will become non-conforming. Applicant should have the 929.4' contour confirmed prior to final Council action. Existing Buildings on Parcel A Applicant has advised staff that the bam and other out buildings located in the northwest comer of Parcel A south of Bayside Road will be removed. Applicant proposes to construct a new home on Parcel A in the near future. Site Evaluation Completed Applicant has provided information confirming that primary and alternate drainfield sites are available in Parcel A for constmction of a new residence. Issues for Discussion 1.How soon should tlie existing farm buildings be removed from Parcel A? Note that the bam is about 2,000 s.f., and the other buildings are each less than 1,000 s.f. All are in poor condition, and applicant has indicated he will remove them. 2.The applicant should be required to grant Conservation and Flowage Easements over the major wetland at the south end of the property, and over the smaller wetland north of Bayside Road in Parcel B. 3.The applicant should be required to formally grant to Hennepin County a road easement over the 66' Bayside Road segment traversing the property, which has never been formally platted Orono's Comprehensive Plan indicates Bayside is a 'collector' road with a required width of 66'. Hennepin County staff have been asked to comment on this. 4. Are thvre any other issues for discussion identified by Planning Commission? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed metes and bounds Class I subdivision with the following conditions of approval: 1.Move the lot line so that the portion of Parcel A north of Bayside Road is at least 5 acres dry buildable. I Zoning File #2286 September 11,1997 Page 4 2.Applicant to grant Conservation and Flowage Easements over the large wetland at the south end of the property, as well as over the smaller wetland in Parcel B north of the road. Applicant shall provide legal descriptions for such easements. 3.The bam and other out bmldings on Parcel A shall be removed witli 6 months of subdivision approval, based on the dilapidated nature of those stmctures. 4.Subject to Hennepin County Public Works review, applicant to grant the County an easement for the 66 of right-of-way for Bayside Road within the boundaries of the property. 5. 6. Because this is a Class I subdivision, the subdivision is not subject to park dedication. Prior to final Council action on the subdivision, applicant shall provide evidence that Hennepin County ^blic Works has approved suitable locations for an access driveway on Parcel A on both sides of Bayside Road, as well as for the portion of Parcel B on the north side of Bayside Road. 7. Applicant must have his surveyor define the 929.4 contour on the property prior to final Council action on this subdivision, to confirm the lakeshore lot status of both Parcels A and B. 8. Applicant is advised that the portions of Parcels A and B north of Bayside Road are not sep^ately buildable, and any future proposal to constmct accessory stmctures on those portions will be subject to further City review and approval. Options for Action »' I 1. 2. 3. 4. Approve per staff recommendation.’ Approve with revised conditions. Table for further information. ■C Recommend denial (state reasons). 5.Other. a \ \ i 1 t’ ® « ,v '•W' f .?47 < ; CITY OF ORONO -‘su 5d I\^Si6n APffiCATl'Ol^ ';V Application # c^^S^(o Date Received HIjlj /97 Amount Paid ^‘^nn- caJ A PROPERTY LOCATION Site address VSST /yi/V ^Tjr? Property Identification Number (PID) nt,’ o?- /a. - 0003 ______________ Please check one - Property abstract or____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name S4--eo.^ Address IIZ I Tbi^Jlo f\/. City I hT/tA/ Phone (home) t- frjp Zip crvei. Phone (work) j£2kiAAJ? OWNER (if different than applicant) Name 1/g.X Address P.h. r?A>c JIT City___L/^a^ (c e. /v>a/ Phone (home) (attach list if more than one) Zip or ? rc Phone (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size I 7 /2>^ Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units_/ Otlier (specify)_________ Rl PROPOSAL _____ Division for Tax Purposes _____ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites / Existing Units New Units Total Units -f; A Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) I Units per^7- r~Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)________)■ > r » 1 ■wrtTT) <o \MIiS'IiMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIM1N< 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. ' f f f- - • 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list fiom Hennepin Countv Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). • • ' t ^ 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 _____________________________________ Date MLMMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FLNAL 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 formd plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature _______________________ Date I* APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $250.00 Totals ^ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 xX Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 ___ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (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 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class 111, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class 111 Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _ lin. ft. X .50 = $ lin. ft. X .50 = $ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) I__new lots$50.00/per lot x C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Applicant's Signature _____ Date ^ Owner’s Signature Date ^J/97 / / Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Conunission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. #oTT : \i .*, -Hz' LeSAL PSTC^l PrfOt^_____ _ All of the Ueet half of the Northeast quarter of Section 6» Town- ehlp 117 North, Range.23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, EUCBFT that part thereof described as follows: . Beginning at the Northwest comer of the Northeast quarter of said Section 6; thence East along the North line of said Northea'st quarter a distance of 514 feet; thence South 27030* Vest (assuming said North line as hearing Bast) a distance of 589 feet to the centerline of the County Road which extends across said Northeast quarter; thence Northwesterly along the centerline of said Count. Road to the Vest linn of said Northeast quarter; thence Northerly along said . Vest line to point of beginning, according to the United States Cioveminent Sunre, thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; ALSO EXCEPT that part of the West half of ohe Northeast quarter of said Section 6 described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the West half of the Northeast quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North-along the East line of said West half of the Northeast quarter a distance of 1167.98 feet; thence on a bearing of West a distance of 513.3^ feet; thence South 39°17'30" West a distance of 280,05 feet; thence South 11°56'30" Woe a distance of 345.23 feet; thence Soqt^erly to the Southwest corner of the East half of the West half of said Northeast quarter; thence Easterly along the South line of sold Northeast quarter to point of beginning; AI^ EXCEPT that part of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 6 described as follows:. Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast quarter; thence Bast along the Northerly line of said section a distance of 514 feet to actual point of beginning; thence deflecting right 117^30* a distance of 589 feet to the centerline of County Road No. 84; thence deflecting left along said center line a distance of 180 feet; thence deflecting left 81^19' a distance of 662.H feet to a point on the North line of said Section 6;located 216.55 feet Cast of the point of beginning; thence West along said North line a distance of 216.55 feet to point of beginning (For purposes of this sxirvey, two points on the centerline of travel, distant 180 feet apart, have been aesumed to -nark the above-described centerline boundary); !• I / # 1 ' cxmo?wHi '•' A 31-118-23 ^x< OD05 ,d% J'« *'^24-*’^ /iV^::;:::^"v “::;:::::::;:;:;:;:cr;;r:v >/*«x>V;:::;:::::;:::;:x:x:::::;:v;v;:;::y;:t::::v \ \ •_• • • • • I*.•• • • . .:;:;:;::X;XvX;X •X'X'4/X'!'I';-X-I' ;-;-X;;-::::;x-x-; •x*:':*:*x-x‘x:::::::;:*:->^^ r^;•xx;^■•:•:•:^;^^^:v:■:•; ::v:::x-:.:!-:.-.!.-.---.--.v.-.-,-.v •. • •... • \v'*\****\*‘«'WMmmmm Nv Ex:::r:x>:x:x^x‘x:x:::;:::;:.< I mmmMmrnmMm x*:'x-x*x-:*x:x<:v K:*:v:-x>:x:x:::::xX::x:x::::Xr::X x':-x-x-x-x'>y>:>x.:.:::X:::Xv:;:;:;>Xy:.:.x:v<.:.:.:.:.:.;^ V;-<:-;-:x;x;:v::::::>:::::>-x:v:;/iiiiiliiii/ .ill.-/ v*H »M t*In* ii'u f ^ '.'o * 5? k',;. P% /« OG-H1-23-ZI x:x-::x"<:;-V:'J:>;::::x- ;x‘;::;:::x:;:x:::jf«§^^^ •;:':-;-;-x-:vv'-:JS-X'V;':-x->; RUN DATE 00/20/97BATCH 514PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR (M4ER NAME TAXPAYER NANC/ADDR PROP ADDR OltR-R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/APDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OftCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPER nr 0*#iERS LIST30 OA-117-23 24 OOOO00370 uonrw arm laRAH SMITHROSCOE 8 I HARRIET C SMITH 370 NORTH ARM LANE HOUND MN 55364 30 06-1X7-23 24 0014 00350 NORTH ARM U J04 M PENDLETON JON H PEN0LET0T4 350 NORTH ARM LA MOUND MN 55364 30 06-117-23 42 0006 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED VICTORIA ESTATES HOMEWWERS VICTORIA ESTATES HOHEOHNERS C/0 THOMAS MAZER 560 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 30 32-118-23 43 0009 00038 ADDRESS UUSSIGNED CITY OF ORaiO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 30 31-118-23 43 0015 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGr4ED H F I E KNAPP HILllAM F A EVELYN KNAPP 05 CRISTOFORI CIH MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 30 31-118-23 44 0004 00050 CRISTOFORI CIR KENDRICK B MELROSE KENDRICK B MELROSE 50 CRISTOFORI CIR MAPLE PUIN F94 55359 30 06-117-23 24 001200360 NORTH ARM LA R 0 BACKERUO AOS BACKERUO RODNEY 0 A DIANE S BACKERUO 360 ARM LN N MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0004 00460 NORTH ARM DR T J A S J MANNER THOMAS J A SUSAi4 J HAr4NER 460 N AI4M OR I :XJNO MN 55364 38 06-117-23 42 0007 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO VICTORIA ESTATES IIOMEOHNERS VICTORIA ESTATES H0HE0WI4LRS C/0 THOMAS MAZER 560 NORTH ARM DR HOUND MT4 55364 30 31-110-23 43 0012 00045 CRISTOFORI CIR 0 H A L N DU4CAN DAVID H I LYNDA N DUNCAN 6576 REGENCY LA EDEN PRAIRIE MI4 55344 30 31-118-23 43 0016 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HILLIAM F KNAPP CITY OF ORONO 1335 BROMN RD S DUX 66 CUYSFAL BAY tf4 55323 TOTAL BATCH 514 00034 REPORT NO. P1435401 PAGF 27SO 06-117-23 24 001300340 NORTH ARM LAJAMES R A ADRIENNE N MEZLSONJAMES R NEILSON340 NORTH ARM LA MOUND HN 55364 1 30 06-117-23 31 0005 0U520 NORTH ARM OR TIMOTHY PELLIZZER TIMOTHY PELLIZZER 520 f40RrH ARM OR HUUI40 MN 55364 30 31-118-23 34 0012 04440 BAYSIDE RD Q C OHINKIN A J A CAMERON Q G MINKIN A J A CAHER0r4 4440 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 36 31-118-23 43 0013 00005 CRISTOFORI CIR H F A E KNAPP NILLIAM F A EVELYN KNAPP 05 CRISTOFORI CIR MAPLE PLAIN F94 55359 %Vr* 30 31-1X8* 23 43 0017 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO N F A E KNAPP NILLIAM F A EVELYN KNAPP 85 CRISTOFORI CIR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 RUN DATE 00/20/97BATCH 514PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADOR OWNER WANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADDR O^MER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADDR 0K4ER I4AHE TAXPAYER * NAHE/AODR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR HENNEPIN CO^AITY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0M4ERS LIST3d 06-117-23 II 0004 04050 BAYSIOE RO G A H COft^ELL GARY D CUBIELL 4050 BAYSIOE RD HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 3B 06-117-23 12 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSI6ME0 W F I E KNAPP WILLIAM F A EVELYN KNAPP 65 CRISTUFORI CIR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 13 0003 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED VLDA INC VEDA INC PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 14 0022 04045 BAYSIDE RO HAL BOON HENRICUS C A CORNELIA A BOON 4045 BAYSIDE RD ORONO MN 55359 38 06-117-23 14 0026 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO M NICHOLAS BURKE £T AL M NICHOLAS BURKE 4X05 BAYSIDE RO ORONO MN 55359 38 06-117-23 21 0007 04461 BAYSIOE RO M S JOtINSON A P P JOHNSON MARK A PATRICIA J0Hr4S0N 4455 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 36 06-117-23 12 000104360 BAYSIDE RD J A 0LSa4 APE OLSON JAMES A OLSON 4360 BAYSIDE RO HAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 12 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED WILLIAM F KNAPP CITY* OF ORONO 1335 BROIHN RO S BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 06-117-23 14 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGT^EO ALLAN E REZABEK ET AL ALLAN A SHIRLEY REZABEK 4185 BAYSIDE RD HAPLE Pi AIN Mil 55359 30 06-117-23 14 0023 04105 BAYSIOE RO M N BURKE/S K SLATTERY-BURKE M N BURKE/S K SLATTERY-BURKE 4105 DAYSIDE RD MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 21 0002 04455 BAYSIOE RD MAP JOHNSON MARK S A PATRICIA P JOHNSON 4455 BAYSIDE RO MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 21 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGIIEO M S JOHNSON A P P JOHNSON MARK A PATRICIA JOHNSON 4455 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN Ml 55‘o59 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2638 06-117-23 12 000400038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEDH F A E KNAPPWILLIAM F A EVELYN KNAPP85 CRISTOFURI CIR MAPLE PLAIN m 55359 38 06-117-23 13 0001 04245 BAYSIDE RD AVIS N NHITE AVIS N NHITE PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 14 00X4 04080 BAYSIOE RO M J A M M HARRINGTON MARK A MONICA HARRINGTON 4080 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 14 0024 04125 DAYSIDE RD M NICHOLAS BURKE ET AL M NICHOLAS BURKE 4105 BAYSIOE RD ORONO MN 55359 38 06-117-23 21 0006 04465 DAYSIDE RO BRENT A SHIANN JOHNSON BRENT A SHIATtl JOHNSON 4465 DAYSIDE RD MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 24 0001 00215 NORTH ARM LA C A PASS ET AL TRUSTEES CAROL ANN PASS 2536 18TH AVE S MPLS III 55404 • «/ fHCf/rtp0/ %• 9 • *. \ '\\\ \ 'n \ ^ \ \’a\\ \ % ' ' \ • % ' * • • to"VV• ' V'' . / / -7. .W ' # * ‘ V'‘:o5 ': V<-': \ • / *" i * * * •• ** • / p %• ' • V J} i -' . ; • a: •: V A ::/y' ‘.. f i • \ • s • \ ■■ X's 'n /.- • *a ‘-10M k/ * • \ \ \ I \ \ ’S\f/T \ I i * L » • * ‘ % '• ' "•................... ^ ^'* • • •0* : A*'. I § / ‘.1 # /« ^ \^ •/ •'/.' • I T N^' • • • t I I '• ' • •. ‘ * » N I ii^:’ •' ■.“"r---^--------—'^—r-i•^— •>:. \\\ *. \\J',> •\ '' ’•• * »• ’V:: \ } • fliiiNV:. ^• -i:^■ 5: *i|n rr >- '-="i ;T; ?T - ■: ••. •.-^ :, '"r:v-•--.vm>. ><^-.* :•.. 7 V v:--,\'• • o*W • • *V'**'• V:;.\\ v\‘V4>rr:-rmx. IM.n;\:-v •A\*'‘’.V •'■• v*’'' \* v'> 'I- • ■\*' s wAfcr:: \N«f a;-'.\ \XvNXvVy:::N \ \•.V-. ^//;'/;^^/; »• • I ••i.»»*• \.. ■ *• •1“ • ■ *»' ■ i»* • '•N'.’.VA'.- « , \' ' \ \\/ /,\X' ^•i<£iiif; % >-V >:<v^ V \ \ N I L- /V>f #/ 4/f *4 I #//ffs .\£ •N \ \ iN ’9£9ki \ \ .>••••• /Mr *4 0* ft*. Oity-ij'* -----^----£.._ ft00 e«*A## •/ f*h St 0rn»*t>m •/ H#rx/r V# 61 (i’.' tt»tt tT •>V-’ •?N V*'* »x •• $ S. V % ♦ % r-' / ss ~0 om oocz ■H -< o •Tl 3 o > Hm (/) m' o z o o T1 zm (/)oH > O) I 70 — <•H [5m ^ vj I N3 04 T1 O 70 • t iO 00 JDtffiS. OKI »€<«■« cmirv iMAi iHs ^AK vccrcAioc c* Kimt ItK•AS m^AMP fV IK 0* (MXa WT OMCI m^CPVOON AAU tHAl I AM A OUT iCfMVO NOTnCMi iMCtCOi UNDII i»c i*«i or i»€ iuu or umcsoia. PAtC f /p-9r__ m iCfifli MKMti /•/ prf CERTIs PROJECT ICATE OF SURVEY FOR EVE WHITE 7^ ■rrr COFFM & GR0NBER& NC. CM tnginatfs, Lend Simytn, Lou Plomrt 482 Tonarocfc AveiM, Lena Ldw, IM SUS6 4t4l612-473-4141 S 11.03. 2, The subdivision is a division of property previously combined for tax purposes; or» 3, The subdivision consists only of the creation or alteration of a public or private easement for any purpose. b. "Class II Subdivision" - A Class II following criteria: 1. The subdivision results in no more than two buildable lots, one or both of which are less than five acres (217,800 square feet) of land or one or both of which have less than 300 feet of frontage on a public roadway which has been accepted and opened by the City or on a private roadway open to travel or vehicular use pursuant to an easement between persons or between persons and the City; and. 2. The subdivision does involve the vacation or dedication of public roadways or extension of municipal utilities; and. 3. The subdivision does not involve any flexible zoning application; and. 4. The subdivision may include the creation of outlots and easements for access, open space, flowage, conservation, etc. in addition to the two buildable lots. c. "Class III Subdivision" - A Class III Subdivision shall be a plat which includes, but is not limited to, a subdivision which meets one or more of the following criteria: more buildable lots; or. 1. The subdivision results in three or zoning application; or. 2. The subdivision involves a flexible 3. The subdivision involves the vacation or dedication of a public roadway; or, _4. The subdivision involves the extension of municipal utilities. 67. "Temporary Improvement" - Improvements built and maintained by a subdivider during construction of the subdivision. 68. "Tract (or Subject Tract)" - The parcel or parcels of land comprising all the contiguous land owne controlled by the subdivider and included in whole or part in z subdivision. ORONO CC 425 (4-1-84) i i i [ [ [ [ I f ~1 J 1 I ti " (■ 4 I- 1 § 11.03 63. "Subdivider" - Any person who (1) has an interest in land, who causes it, directly or indirectly to be divided into a subdivision or who (2) directly or indirectly sells, leases, or develops, or advertises for sale, lease, or development, any interest, lot, parcel, site, unit or plot in a subdivision, or who (3) engages directly or through an agent in the business of selling, leasing, developing, or offering for sale, lease or development a subdivision or any interest, lot, parcel, site, unit or plot in a subdivision, or who (4) is directly or indirectly controlled by or under direct, or indirect common control with any of the foregoing. 64. "Subdivider's Agent" - Any person, firm, corporation, or realtor who represents, or acts for or on behalf of, a subdivider in selling, leasing or developing, or offering to sell, lease, or develop any interest, lot, parcel, unit, site or plot in a subdivision. 65. "Subdivision" - The separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots, or long-term leasehold interests where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets, roads, or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any combination thereof, except those separations: a. Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses; b. Creating cemetery lots; c. Resulting from court orders, or the adjust ment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary as long as each of the two resulting lots meets the requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. 66. "Subdivision, Classification". a. "Class I Subdivision" - A Class I Subdivision shall be exempt from platting by the City and shall be permitted subdivision by metes and bounds description described by a Registered Land Surveyor if it meets one or more of the following criteria: 1. The subdivision results in no more than two buildable lots where each resulting lot meets or exceeds five acres (217,800 square feet) of land, and each lot has at least 300 feet of frontage on a public roadway which has been accepted and opened by the City or on a private roadway open to travel or vehicular use pursuant to an easement between persons or between persons and the City, and where no flexible zoning application or extension of municipal utililties is involved; ORONO CC 424 (4-1-84) 1 i SBC. 11.62. SX7B0IVISI0NS.S 11.62PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, CLASS II AND III •Statutes,' a98^*),^ SectTon* 4«!358,^^^ubd? 2b, City reoui^erril ? * prerequisite to approval of a lot ''dTd\Vai {ohit* * l?*L^?;ii;erarhire!'„af/““ tllliSiror Publio%ar”/pllj9%ound\“""4ails:wetlands or open spaces and debt retirement in connection with the P-f-s, ^a„ e.ui^valent cln^n^tloi th\r\o*f7sha!l'L">?ci^^^^^^ upon the need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Land Requirements. Any land to be ? requirement of this Section shall be reasonably evalnatlio tht J. ^“*>110 purposes. Factors used in size adequacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include loclil!nT' drainage, geology, tree cover, access and '’eK.n W Dedication Minimum Area. Subdividers trSiia^®one?“''/A dedicate to the City for parks, playgrounds, cercentaof of V ^ Public purposes as a minimum that dlteriJi^ned kS^4.»? oA ^*"d.area, or other such amount as may be determined by the City Council, as set forth below: zoned .Kesidential/agricultural/multiple residential zoned land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land belna P^^bted, subdivided or existing lot of record. ^ B. Commercial/industrial zoned land. Dedicated lot^o?record! being platted subdivided or existing inatanoo/“^K * Contribution in Lieu of Lands. In those s^bdiVide^ where a cash contribution is to be made by the contri* ^ conveyance or dedication of land, the cash Market vaiu- o/.h® “"tributed shall be equivalent to the fair wi^e Lv^ hLr equivalent undeveloped land that would other- si?h fSnd. fr, dedicated. The City shall account forsuch funds m a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. ORONO CC 471 (4-9-90) F [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r r r r 333 3 3 3 3 3 ] 3 3 ] 1 ] 3 3 1 1 1 § 11.62Subd. 5. ^^^5. >7\l^be°the*\^nd* pre-developmentvalue" for purposes city^ Council as of the time of ^r%\Yminlr$%l"at Scatio'n in accordance with the following: A The City Assessor shall recommend to ^he City council as to the fair LrLt value of the land after consultatxon with the subdivider. B. If "|5 Assessor end subdivider/ then the fa determined in accordance with the following: CO..CU me.*ers of SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate societies. o frhe Citv disputes such appraisal amounts, it nay obtai; »■> appraisal of "c‘o*un"c”?*rele‘’c"ts and" which real estate %hi city as being an accurate paid by the subdivider. 3 The subdivider may appeal detemination of fairnarhet value as provided by Mrnnesota Statute Section 462.361. C. The determination °^.!^^councill or designated undeveloped land by the City Ass^^^^ Preliminaryundeveloped land by the City Assessor, time of preliminary appraisers, shall be determined as of the tim^^ i/fmal plat subdivision approval IS ^ranted^^ ^^1 chapter. The approval within the time limi utilized because the nature of time of preliminary plat approva ot size and valuer and the subdivision, its extension of the time other relevant factors are known. ®. council, the fair limits in this chapter is | time of the approval of market value shall 5®..^^®^®^?^^ the fair market value as of time of that extension. In determining t extension thereof, the factors preliminary plat application, o .. include any and all to be included in the used by approved members of SREA which are generally aooraisL Societies,or MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal 0. Notwithstanding the above, in /,'’f3jo!So cash contribution per lot be less than S500.00 per lot or per dwelling unit. ORONO CC 472 (4-9-90) 1 J § 11.62Subd. 6. Development of Land Previously Platted. (Repealed per Ordinance #89, Second Series, adopted October 8, 1990.). Subd. 7. Future Subdivision. Any land which is further subdivided, divided or replatted or applied for such subsequent to May 1, 1990, shall be subject to the requirements of the ordinance then in effect concerning dedication of land for public purposes, and credit shall be given for any charges previously imposed upon that land if the subdivider can prove that fees where previously paid. In no event shall the City be liable for any payment which may be due because of a subsequent reduction in the application percentage of land or equivalent market value in cash to be dedicated. Subd. 8. Administrative Procedures. The City Council shall establish such administrative procedures as they may deem necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of this section of the Code. Source: Ordinance 82, 2nd Series Adopted: 4-9-90 (Sections 11.63 through 11.69, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) OROKO CC 472-1 (4-1-84) i r1 L -i,*- 8 WED* ■s SwedlundSeptic Service September 10/ 1997 Steve White VCI Capital P.O. Box 375 Long Lake/ Mn.55356 Re: Septic System Sites at 4355 Bayside Road/ Maple Plain Two treatment areas have been located at the above mentioned property address (see attached). Both sites will require mound septic systems. Both areas have a 3% slope and appear to be old pasture or feed lot areas. Grasses in the area are con sistent and seem to be undisturbed. Colors do vary in the Munsell Book but is probably due to animal usage over a long period of time. The house location and size are not determined at this time/ although there is a large area to work with. A completed -design will be required before building can begi'n. Swedlund Septic Service • 9520 Laketown Road • Chaska, MN 55318 • 442-5855 > STATE CERTIFIED ki.< ' -Jr ■ ,M/ / ’ / r .»• . • . • •; • \ t I '. ' \ ,' • " */ J\ ' I / ^ '• / /''.'-• \ \ ' ' I ^ ^ t / ' ^ ^ ^ y \ % \ ' \ ••-•^loj? y y / //y \ \ \ \ ‘ /j r,-' • i,' 4 --r •• • .W «•••^ t ^ < ' r *** _ *»- 'K x L *.N \:V » N '//i .<• :. ;" <?i;', '/^VK aV •Y^\''''A ‘.;............. r - •.'' '//'S ‘ /'AWI'u\"V> \ w.W•'.'••.*. — *. M r f i i CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE The planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, September 15, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. on the matter of application #2286, a proposal by Steve White and VCI Capital for a Class I metes and bounds subdivision of property located at 4355 Bayside Road, identified as PINS #06-117-23 12 0003. The proposed 2-lot subdivision will result in the creation of one new 18.8 acre building site. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. Written comments are solicited. A copy of the proposed subdivision is available in the City ofSces for review. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaf&on, Senior Planning Coordinator To be published the week of August 30,1997. I I if--------------- '1! ! IS I //. .•'•I V ^ >*% \ »'J J ’.V;- ^•rr •HW *A * e I ■/.•..■•i' .<■........v^. - ' i ^ # ' * • •• • Ts /' /?: i : ( /Vfe'.'v' 'V '#"■ VS' »:Vv /vV/• li --. .....•• • --M-. C f; •• •• t : PU- \ ' • * ’ //Vy*. *. ».. .* .* / //.// i ^0 •yJ /;/.•',■Th'^ • »,»#« ' * d-.!‘___________------------------------- -------- •^.-- ••■07 -if.. -. flA- ■••> % >V J^ ■)?:) 'JJ21J1 % , « • 1 N 00*04* ft* C g3P?gcJIJ|l|^S:fsa » *3 3<«e« 0(* I* S^K- s. J2| crv. • 2^?2-ss :d z: ooczz: •H -< o “n (/)m O refit * ^5.3^rffPo*^5 55ErJ|rc7?:iui,2fi555-ns?hrc^?l2r-f^-^5fk:ssi|;f rfr =*o sScfff••*s:i2r**l*-5 fiS r„ ^?S^ •• •- H«» lim t/) O)o I •H > -- -vl Iro 04 om z! ^m > <r —*^ rnmo ■n -H 5 m “< “nO 73 10 30O•uo COma V < CO 5z REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: COUNCIL MEETING OCT 13 1997 CTTY OF ORONO 9/24/97 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Administrator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2287-Bradley and Traci Peterson 1770 Shady wood Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC Lot Area:12,047.9 s.f. (.28 acres) Application: The applicant has begun replacement of a previously existing 480 s.f. deck on the lake side of the existing residence. Variances are required for hardcover, side setback and lakeshore setback. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: 1.Approve the deck as proposed subject to removal of hardcover in the amount of 490.2 s.f., the area of the deck. 2.Approve a hardcover variance of 21.6% in the 0’ to 75' lakeshore zone where no hardcover is allowed and 21.6% is existing and none is allowed.. 3.Approve a hardcover variance of 36.4% in the 75' to 250' hardcover zone to allow 63.6% hardcover where 63.6% is existing and 25% is allowed. 4.Approve a side setback variance of 5.9' to allow the deck to be located 4.T from the side lot line where 10' is required and .9' is existing for the garage. 5.Approve a lakeshore setback variance of 8' to allow the deck to be located 67' from the ordinary high water mark where 75' is required. 1 ' I r 1 • > The following table illustrates the amount of hardcover previously existing with the previous deck, as existing amount without the deck and as the applicant has proposed with the new deck and removals of landscaping with plastic. The applicant has proposed tnat yproximately 5^ s.f. of hardcover wUl be removed, where Planning Commission has required the removal of 490.2 s.f., the amount of the deck. Lakeshore Seihack O' to 75 ’ 75 ’ to 250 ’ Previous Hardcover Existing Hardcover 1,380.4 s.f. (27.1%) 4,639 s.f. (66.6%) 1,099 s.f. (21.6%) 4,430.2 s.f. (63.6%) Proposed Hardcover 1,062.4 s.f. (20.9%) 4,439 s.f. (63.7%) COUNCn. ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed vesolution r i t A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBD. 1 AND 2 AND SECTION 10.25, SUBD. 6(B) FILE NO. WHEREAS, Bradley and Traci Peterson (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1770 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 18, Shady-Wood (hereinafter "the property ”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subd.l and 2 and Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B) to permit the replacement of a previously existing 490.2 s.f deck. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2287. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre in area. The property consists of 12,047.9 s.f. or .28 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: 1. The zoning lot does not meet area or width requirements. 2. The deck is a replacement for a previously existing one. Page 1 of 5 1 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Subdivision 2 and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit the replacement of a previously existing deck that requires hardcover variances of 21.6% in the O' to 75' lakeshore zone and 36.4% in the 75' to 250' lakeshore zone where 21.6% and 63.6% is existing and none and 25% is allowed, respectively, a side setback variance of 5.9' to allow the deck to be located 4.1' from the side lot line where 10' is required and .9' is existing and a lakeshore setback variance of 8' to allow the deck to be located 67' fi-om the ordinary high water mark where 75' is required. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. Landscaping underlain with plastic must be removed in the amount of 490.2 s.f, the same area as the deck as shown on Exhibit A. Exhibit B is the applicant's explanation of the proposal, which estimates the removal of even more hardcover than is required by Planning Commission Recommendation. 1. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 13, 1998). 2. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this Page 2 of 5 variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3.The undersigned {^>plicants have read, understood and hereby a^^ 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 13th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of October, 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 Peterson Pontiac GMC TEL :612-8PS-S07':*‘:ep ’M-r I y:!:- Mo.008 P.Ojd- Oi- J- E.UV;^ n •Peterson Pontiac GMC TEL L 2ep ‘mT •2:lT> No.00:? P.OlI ^ September 23,1997 City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Liz Van Zomeren Zoning file: #2287 As per the planning commission meeting on September 15, 1997 1 am submitting a proposed hardcover removal for your consideration. I would propose to remove all of the plastic ground covering on the north side of the property along the chain link fence for approx. 53’. I believe that this would remove approx. 318 sq. ft. of ground cover in the 0-75’ zone. I would also propose to remove a 10 X 20’ section of plastic ground covering on the west side of the property next to the timber retaining wall. This should remove 200 sq. ft. of hardcover in the 75-250’ zone. Please inform me as to your occeptance or rejection of this proposal by Thursday September 25,1997. I would like to have this completed by the September 26, 1997 deadline for the city council. Thanks, Brad Peterson 1770 Shadywood Road Orono, MN 55391 r TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE: SUBJECT: September 8,1997 #2287-Brad and Traci Peterson 1770 Shadywood Road Variances —Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) 12,047.9 square feet (.28 acres) Application: The applicants are proposing the replacement of a deck on the lakeside of the existing residence. Some construction has already taken place. Variances are required for hardcover, side setback and lakeshore setback. Pertinent Ordinances: . Section 10.03: General Provisions . Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Regulations Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations . Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): LR-1C Lot Requirements ik22V Bradley and Traci Peterson 1770 Shadywood Road Variances 9/S/97 Page 1 ANALYSIS Lot 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.30 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakesiae .28 acres 60 ft.64 ft..9 ft.81 ft.-existing 67 ft.-proposed The zoning lot does not meet lot area, lot width or side setback requirements of the zoning district. If the deck is completed as proposed, the required 75’ lakeside setback will also not be met. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 12,047.9 s.f 1,912.1 s.f.15.9% Decks under 6 in height do not count toward structural coverage, therefore no variance is needed. : : i ^2287 Bradley and Traci Peterson 1770 Shadywood Road Variances 9/8/97 Page! ^ ? Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'5,084.4 s.f.1,099 s.f. (21.6%) none 1,380.4 s.f. (27.1%) 1,380.4 s.f (27.1%) 75'-250'6,963.5 s.f.4,430.2 s.f (63.6%0 1,740.88 s.f. (25%) 4,639 s.f (66.6%) 2,898.12 s.f (41.6%) Hardcover in the 0 ’ to 75' and 75' to 250' zones would be further intensified if the proposed deck is allowed. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Also see the application (attachment A). Criteria for Determining I Indue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property could be put to a reasonable use without the construction of the deck. The proposed deck is a replacement for a similar, previously existing one, however. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The owner was not aware of the need for a permit to replace an existing deck. The previous deck was constructed prior to the current hardcover and setback requirements. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for hardcover, side setback and lakeshore setback will not change the character of the area. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. 12257 Bradley and Traci Peterson / 770 Shadywood Road Variances 9/8/97 Pag9 3 4 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Decks are permitted in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Many lots in the vicinity do not meet lot area, size and width requirements of the zoning district. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most properties in the area have lakeside decks attached to the principal residence. The applicants wish to replace a similar deck which was existing. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. A deck of similar size had been in existence for many years prior to this application. The applicant has removed the dilapidated deck with the intent of replacing it with one of similar size. 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 Zo’iing Code, U22S7 Bradley and Traci Peierson 1770 Shadyyeood Road Variances 9/8/97 Pagr^ ) I i The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The limited lot size and width, along with the location of the house on the lot makes reconstructing a deck that conforms to all zoning requirements unfeasible. Issues 1. 2. The lot size is approximately one half of the minimum lot area established for the zoning district. Lot width is 60% ofthe minimum standard. These limitations make the replacement of the previous deck impossible without variances. The property was granted a side setback variance in 1970 for an addition to the existing residence. No other variances have been granted. I 3. Construction of the new deck has already begun. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends approval of the application based on one condition. Replacement of a previously existing similar deck does not intensify non-conformities beyond their previous extent. • Staff recommends that the variance for hardcover be approved under the condition that mulch with plastic be removed in the same amount of the deck footprint in the O' to 75' zone and the 75' to 250 ’ zo^t, if necessary. It is recommended the rock with plastic near the lakeshore be allowed to remain due to significant topography on that portion of the lot. • Staff recommends approval of the lakeshore setback variance of 8' to allow the deck to be located 67’ from the lakeshore. The deck is considered non-structural hardcover and will not infringe upon views of the lake. • Staff recommends approval of the side yard variance of 7.9' to allow the deck to be located 4.1 feet from the northern property line of the lot. The 4.1' side setback is - consistent with that of the existing residence. • Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the above condition. §2287 Bradley and Traci Peterson 1770 Shadywood Road Variances 9/8/97 Pages w Attachments A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Hardcover Worksheets iI U2287 Bradley and Traci Peterson 1770 Shadywood Road Variances 9/8/97 Paget rtctiUTtriFJ ms rt»iVt] MflpaiTtl m'xam inMTnKimtiikiuiWiWimw*] rimtT«t SlflT ^vtrctrti rtriniww p.Ttrmfra 1 ^ 5 ■? 1 (C^, ' -<-■ * I . f J ■ ■ ’3 \ I J 1 1 ^-3 «r. X U1.2 r ‘ ;5o \ ® ^ Vi ■ cr o \ y&.i / /I 943.2 946.3 944.f 939.9 \<» o M~Vi PERMIT RECORD Pernit No.Date Type of Permit 33S3 “r-z/fc?hoot<uP P3A7 4^om<iA/ n-d-7!f/i. 303i.n-o-7'f /? -■syfig!____k e^aaec. 3*tSl 5 V- 77 kirrmarc vet V-;»4-77 ^mc ^IHl v*77 /^/.<3 6 StV7 kSNOUA- T£ S 4/cP3 _ __ Vt//t-Ko-%7 ^AjUjy\A^ 5t,9 19'd </. 7 S51,/<^-/o-» 7 ^9,1 Ip 1!^-^9-90 ' -flbcK ■ ■^ .....7) • • \ •. • I 1 r J; r CITY OF ORONO ® 6124730510 08/01/97 13:02 g:03/04 NO:998 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75-2S0*asB-soe*500.1000* fXlSTINC HARDCOVER IN ZQNg A. House WU0I X % X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X £. Paiio/Dedc X X F. Laodscape UnderUin By Plastic X X X O. Otliet >Q.^4.0 ^1.2. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . -*• B rQQV-4_ X 100 7.I.J* TiAPnrnvett in ZONE A. Hooie Ltnitfi Wl<ld» X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. SidewBlk X X E. Pxtk)/Declc ■^peCi X X lU- F.Landscape Uoderlain By Plaidc X X X G. Other total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ••• B _ X 100 2g/.V SJ. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. % S.F. 5.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. B D.) Gu’ >f.} 5.F. g.y _______* - B ‘ Z7.1'-i. I. 1 f CITY OF ORONO ® 6124730510 08/01/97 13:02 0:03/04 NO:998hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0.75* mo-SOO- 500.1000' £ A. Houir * LtaaOk WWi * X X B. Owafe X 2/9 C. Drivewiy X ’-Ce>t?e-fZf X D. Sidewalk X <=i.7^* :2. .n E. Pailo/Deck <:r.-7 ^ 3.y X V ^ -X XUadedtiaX T.atf^r.By Plaidc X 15.T 0. Other A I'Z.X •*/ total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE .z, + B -S' X 100 - BLQPQaED HAWnrovER IN TnNR A. HOUM X •Lai^WIM X X X B. Oarage X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X 1X ■■ E. Patb/Deck lO.L » Zo.Z. /y s t«rcc& ' F. Landscape £ Underlain 3L By Plaadc - 3t G. Other 1[ SJ. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B 4 9 X 100 . ^4 <• S.F. S.P. S.P. S.F. <^/7.7 S.F. S.P. /AW . S.P. _ _S.P. - - - - S.F. __ _ _ _S.P. J3L3. 8 ‘(-z,o S.F. 2g<.6, _ S.F. S.F. ^.n S.F. -- - ■» t*. ' i S.F.S 1. UAL’^.tr S.F. /i, !X. L » S.F. •I* . • *• % \ f S.F. k •• ' ** .* * ' . • •• • S.F. S.P./. ; • S.F.( ■ • . ’ » •S.P.t*. '•» •, S.F.->v. ' S.F. S.F. /0 7. /S.F. 7 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Z<?8,5 S.F. 'A z'..S.F.B 3.<^% - COUNCIL MEEHNQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 13 1997 DATE: ITEM NO, Department Approval: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2288-Jason Theis 4108 Highwood Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Lot Area:13,437 s.f. (.31 acres) Application: The applicant proposes adding an attached 697 s.f. tuck under garage with living space above. Variances are required for hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback and front setback. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a^ to 0 vote to approve: variance in the-O^-to-^^akeshore setback of 11.6% to allow the existing 36.6% where 25% is allowed. \ ® 2. A front setback variance of 5' to allow the addition to be located 30' from the front lot line where 35' is required and 12' is existing. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. i S A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBD. 2 AND SECTION 10.24, SUBD. 5(B) FILE NO. 2288 WHEREAS, Jason Theis (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 4108 Highwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: See Exhibit A for legal description (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B) to allow a hardcover variance of 11.6% to allow hardcover to remain at 36.6% in the 75' to 250* lakeshore setback where 25% is allowed and a front setback variance of 5’ to allow the addition to be located 30' from the front lot line where 35' is required and 12' is existing to permit the construction of an attached 697 s.f tuck under garage with living space above and a new driveway as shown on Exhibit B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2288. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 13,437 s.f. or .31 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: Page 1 of 6 4. 5. 1. 2. The zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements. Hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore zone will not be increased beyond the percentage existing. 3.The front setback variance will not further encroach on the street as the existing residence is located 12' from the front lot line. 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 necessar 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 y^ances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B) to permit construction of a 697 s.f. tuck under garage addition with living space above to the existing residence and new driveway. A hardcover variance of 11.6% is required to allow hardcover to remain at the existing 36.6% in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback where 25% is allowed and a front setback variance of 5' to allow the addition to be located 30 from the front lot line where 35' is required and 12' is existing as shown on Exhibit A. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant must provide a legal document acknowledging the driveway easement prior to issuance of a building permit as shown on Exhibit B. Page 2 of 6 2. The grade of the proposed driveway must not exceed an average of 8.2% as shown on Exhibit B. 3. The side setback requirement of 10' for the proposed addition must be met on the southeast side lot line. 5. 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 (October 13, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as u 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 City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbou^ Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 3 of 6 on STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of October, 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Notary Public On this day of , 199_before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared________________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared____________________ ____________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 6 >-> u .b:^ /\ d I hereby certify that I have prepared this survey of: That part of Lots AO and Al, HIGHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA, Hennepin Co., Minnesota, described as follows:^ Beginning at the ne cor.of said Lot AO; thence sw*ly along the se*ly line thereof 151 ft; thence deflect right 15*10'00" a dist. of 27 ft; thence s'ly 12 feet to a point on said se'ly line, dis^^.^187' sw*ly, as measured along se*ly line thereof^rom said ne c^^^^ thence pw*ly along said se'ly line^to a point 16-7 ft ne’ly ^ from the sw cor of Lot Al; thence s'ly 12 ft. to a point on '>2 the>*S'ly line of said Lot Al dist. 11.A ft. ne'ly from the sw cor. thereof; thence sw'ly along the south'ly line of Lots Al and AO tq^a point 12 ft. ne'ly as meas. along said s'ly line from the .sw^o^y^thereof; thence nw'ly t 'Lvt AO, \dist. 22 ft. ne'ly from saSd sw cor. thereof; thence ne ly. to the nw beglft^ing Me. ' cor. cf said Lot AO; th^ce se'ly to the point of KiWtlg. .5,9'^^ \ / p\\/£ X.0 / lb /f ptcii \<- ✓*?s\ y A \ O- '/Gi Ql?a \ jiV Jo .0V v/O -■^7. rs-.. '0/- O Pfo posed Or-ucttopcS^ U'o//> —^«u*\Uu/' -1 Gradiing Pi«A X-^ff '0«no^ £)C,'s¥- £Te,/. % C«’) - D£i{je /^ISC. 9SdS- 9^ht ^AA^C^e- F^ * $yyC/ FryfA F/nr - Perce,/: U/ 40 f/:^^t*fO(xil-aPSi P»f. UmJ/ ^ /f^4z. TOLERANCES nci*! «t Motfo REVISIONS /V/ mr^nce . KoaJ Cf‘0P*m , ArtfkJNODATEBV 1 #y.- 0S«r 0Hfent-T f*7*/ SS-//S-2 3 OR««««t rnnmak 4 040UB ‘‘"9Z7 97 am—w— 5 n*«0 \ TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE: SUBJECT: September 11,1997 #2288-Jason Theis 4108 Highwood Road Vanances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Lot Area:13,437 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.31 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of an attached 697 s.f. tuck under garage with living space on top. Additional driveway is also being proposed. Variances are required for hardcover, front setback, and side setback. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03: General Provisions Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements :\ §2288 Jason Theis 4108 Highwood Road yariances 9/15/97 Page I r ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard \ acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.30 ft. 35 ft. abutting street Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .31 acres 70 ft.12 ft.5 ft.206 ft.-existing 177 ft.-proposed The zoning lot does not meet the lot area and width requirements of the zoning district. Street and side yard setback requirements are also not met. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 13,437 s.f.845 s.f.-existing 1,392 s.f.-proposed 6.3%-existing 10.4%-proposed Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. 1^2288 Jojon Theb 4108 Highwood Road Variances 9/15/97 Page! r Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 75’-250'1,38^ 3.f.507 s.f. (36.6%) 346.25 s.f. (25%) 653 s.f (47.1%) 306.75 s.f (22.1 s.f.) 250'-500'12,052 s.f.791 s.f. (6.6%) 3.013 s.f (25%) 2,586 s.f (21.5%) none A variMce is required in the 75’ to 250' zone as hardcover would be increased to 47.1% where 36.6% is existing and 25% is allowed. Hardcover is not an issue in the 250' to 500’ zone. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Also see the application (attachi lent A). Criteria fo r Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. While the property in question can be put to a reasonable use, it currently does not have a garage. The applicant would also like to increase the amount of living space. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot does not meet area or width requirements of the zoning district. The topography of the lot also makes locating a garage on the lot difficult. 3. 4. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for side setback, front setback and hardcover will not 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. ^2288 Jason Theis 4108 High wood Road Variances 9/15/97 Page 3 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's iand is located. An attached garage and addition of living space is permitted in this zoning district, The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-fzimily dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Many lots in the area do not meet area and width requirements of the zoning district. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The lot has significant topography which slopes downhill from the front and northwest side lot lines toward the existing residence. The non-conforming location of the house on the lot also makes expansion difficult. The granting of the application is necessary' for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the cpplicnt. There is no garage on the lot at this time. The applicant also wishes to add living space to the existing residence. 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. U2288 Jason The is 4108 Highwood Road Variances 9/15/97 Page 4 f. ^ ^ m 12.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The lot is limited in width in area. Topography also significantly inhibits development on the lot. There is not garage on the property at this time. Issues 1. The lot area and width do not meet zoning district requirements. 2. 3. 4. The existing residence is non-conforming as it is located entirely within the required 35' front setback. There is significant downhill slope from the front and northwest side lot lines toward the existing residence. This could be problematic regarding the feasibility of the proposed driveway. There is a retaining wall approximately 38' in length near the northwest side lot line. There are also stairs on the northwest side of the residence. These structures bodi limit the location of the driveway. 5. There have been no previous variances issued for this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application subject to several amendments and a condition. Staff recommends denial of the variance for hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback where 36.6% hardcover is existing and 25% is allowed. Staff recommends denial of the side setback variance of 2' to allow a side setback of 8' as measured by staff on the submitted survey where 10' is required. Staff rt imends approval of the front setback variance of 5' to allow the addition on the rear of the existing resideiice to be located 30' from the front lot line where 35' is required. k2288 Jason Thels 4108 Highwood Road Variances 9/15/97 Page 5 f Staff recommends the applicant consider staffs revised plan (attachment H) eliminating the need for a hardcover variance in the 75' to 250' zone by reducing the driveway to 10' and also eliminating the need for a side setback variance by reducing the length of the garage to 22' and moving it east 2'. This allows for an additional 4' of driveway space, providing more room to turn vehicles entering and exiting the northern garage stall. The additional hardcover resulting from the extended driveway would not increase hardcover beyond the 30% allowed in the 250' to 500' lakeshore setback. A grading plan shall be submitted for which ever driveway is approved prior to the issuance of a permit to determine if either the applicant's or staffs driveway proposals are feasible. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the above amendments and conditions. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K L Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey of Entire Lot (9/3/97) Survey With Hardcover Calculations-Applicant's Proposal (9/11/97) Survey-Staffs Proposal View of Proposed Addition-Left Side View of Proposed Addition-Front Side View of Proposed Addition-Right Side View of Proposed Addition-Rear Side ■t H2288 Jason Theis 4108 HighmodRoad Vanances 9/15/9-^ Pages ___J r ' i i. i Application # ^ Date Received y?•? Amount Paid .trt) CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATI 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 LX/OO C 1 r\T^y^o Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) O 1/11.3 ? vy On _______________ Attach legal description to appli.ation if not included on required survey. Date Propeg>^ Acquired - 'Xfi - ^____________________^(month/year) I (do) 6o nw also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: \y residential Zoning District:___________________ other (specify). APPLICANT^ Name O TT^e Phone (horne d ~ SQ ?5 _______________ Phone (work ) -67Q? Address: HlO% itrJL City: C)roo o _______Zip: 563C<^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:,Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^l.OoO Describe request in detail: Tt^eA' e^cira*j^> Ae)srKM-iVv\ 'ir\ 0-^- Moc 6 /^7,I (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback: Other (specify) Fron*Side Hardcover Rear Lot Cove-age Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or p'-ac'.ical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zomng Cede requirements; H cT^ LcA- ,n O’C- /~nft kf // u ^ ___ ^ ^ y r -r- r - —f fy^LjL A w ^ * * o/i>A7* inorr Q-\oi^ hc,c./<2 (attach’ additional sheets if necessary') • k' iting 50 ly <^/ JC So *v 'hij / / a \ ■di/ (48)y P/ 60 <^J 491 P?/ 61 /• / ^ ."7M)i 1 (50 '/537 62 •^' f\' on 5IV f 63./ L S' 6>l / «V? w //.7 / ;t>> ^^)(54 yW'V ''fe o / ^0! ^ .59 5?)y /ort / 5j <9 * .#■ 51 o/ v/ <?/ 50o/ 1201 y(56 > /(43)/ yy-siA / / ■'<1 4.^ /(58 tv.,/ 15<>/• / /59 •59 / / 59' 45 p/ < A / V.,-, r./ v.;.v N’.S*.*59 V.o X "f %,. / -'-A.,.(6' -5L5, '8)/(57) :?/ '?^K 7(64 .*.% I. 5 ^5 ^ y i y'/O)p/p' 3‘c/., ,33 / 7 ^'')(281//?5 7V io / / / 29 7 30 wh I y /n'^4/ \kSbAJ^\ sJli® 42 V (86) v!'! • » r-» , \ V* 4 •• IL m m M f ■^4 0^ m'\ (9) f 24 / /in *n 25 /(D ^^0~p40 Vvv^'c- 1201 ^ ' - \ cn\ --4 isn^) ,(13)' 11)7'°' V ‘il % V 4§) B® s 'o> ('3)^^i . s '-■2±e. 4r\(j^5)\20 (84)r 50 a.' \« • \ ' 1 ^ *c c c r PERMIT RECORD Permit No S Date Type of Permit K ^6ai,iu. \ \nc^\^1 hereby cerclfy thee 1 have prepared this survey of:That pare of Lots 40 and 41, HIGHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA.Hennepin Co., Minnesota, described as follows:Beginning ac the ne cor.of said Lot 40; thence tw'ly along the se'ly line thereof 151 ft; thence deflect right 15* 10*00" a dlst. of 27 ft; thence a*ly 12 feet to a point on said se'ly line, disu^l87*^^^ sw'ly, as Beasured along se'ly line thereof^roa said ne thence sw'ly along said se'ly line,to a point 16.7 ft ne'ly^i _ _ __tb*n'ly lln* of Mid Lot 41 dUt. 11.4 ft. no’ly fro« »• cor. thereof; thence aw'ly along the south'ly line of Lots 41 and 40 to.a point 12 ft. ne'ly as sieas. along said s'ly line froa the froa the aw cor of Lot 41; thence s'ly 12 ft. to a point on ■ the ay^o^^thereof; thence nw'ly to a point on the nw* ly line of \j0C 40, \dlst. 22 ft. ne'ly froa saTd sw cor. thereof; thence ne'lj^^^ cor. of aald Lot 40; th^ce se'ly to the point “V" vJ'^ /V<5 w £>aiT HARO SURFACE AREA TAB. f 2700* S34*3S’07’t>> ^ 9200 AREA:SQ. FTi 4&M0&e House 450 *■ • Deck 315 - /0» Stslr-steps 62 Rock 74 Driveway 370 r Total 1271 ^ Kfftl • hard surface dlv. lot area* TbU( Z<J/g 9.5 X ///.vr •'->7 zm% Fe^istJ 9-srr and that I aa a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the lavs of HlnnesoCa ^ Barton G. Ahrens, RLS 19162 AJ^ 5"-/7-97 * Denotes found na: # Denotes found Iron/flpe Q Denotes set reba/and cap RLS No. 19162 Denotes 3" dla steel pipe 4' tall. ''V A TaERANCES 9ICIM4 t"TWTTnsnx" REVISIONS NO DATE BY 1 8yt 2 STjrr 3 ^/•'20' 4 a»««m '‘"S/7^37 MBMCae 5 «MC««•omrnm r iVD c£-. O\J-8r-8 cc/-C a J5 / M.. fi ?. oi' I ; t *i !(j§)‘ 'li 4'^^+’ 1**U (?V IGv4«• * ? ^ I ^ A\jo kJC ial'.fU.,j-a Ue^ S-aJc-I i }it I a^'-'> > 5?'’2,0^'^ ! ------------------------------,---------1-----------------------------j-------, ■ ! ■ ; i i i i.' -+--'-t“-i ■■ : 'j iUh >/6ose j 4|Sr<^ 7 + 7 j DK>'-'4 1 ^ i nj rH •I) Q 00 1 QQ i- X" -» " I /o^tt/ ; ^T. ‘ T^\/79JK 'I >' / u.‘.U I’- J--' .O'* 7o+af, T' 2 fr~v% p. 3-', Q a5o : I ' ^Jo-k ’, ; )o f>C I I • 1 S Oe<\<' C;A| K<|A' * zjoo^ P/'foo ' 3.70 f- |/t/ ; ! ! i . _ : = f !%7- by ;l;3»5^<+ i; FROM : JB Lt^JM 2. LWIDSChF'E PHC(E no. • 942t?23 11 1‘5'?" 08:34p;i PI fr "n<^£»s H \ 6 H i ^ W ui C' o c\ / O 1 o-Cj <-x: y V, ♦ •• • r» /!) rc\^ C ■p;\ I 7 /^xx' o'7- / V /■\--/ * •*'-^\-------------\ -^>'7 - ■• \----------•’■^•..•A - --.^ ---------------------- " -y^ ,r^ P r ................— • ■■ '■ ^ r " \ / 7- —iS ^ O,-*^^ . _.„o- ------- ..... 1 .....“-U.------ »i_ +" ■■ T^ vjv"^ ! 1 ! 4 . ^--------- X^ -C . U rO 3J----- ».«••»•• •• P Cvj '______ o -r«rs ^ ^ %r—(^— ' ■?• " ......... Cl s: ^ ? P ^ c £3- y" 'P*<r^ ■y ICJ-O;«■ A«—- ' fi:- :t *C o .*' Cl ’ -si---------------------b«- --------•/• ^ P r' <5^.. c? o ft •<—#-P .......®'' I • r 'hp-------.-----------^ \^ ... . ...«. . -----f^r- ------n ~^'~ ^ 0 ^-X ex'" X ... V (T. •< ...........-------------------------------------- vN s -• * ^ ' %bigr- a g 01 Q JL. u ■| c >«t ^ "Nit' i i vO .r V5 j ! • i(|;y4- lx* -A* tpV IGv-IiI •\i)r\o!c \jo t|c.I ■ « j * ' ■, • 'll ^ 1*1hM >0 ,. .,,1,J-IhM ^ t ! * Jr * jT*»* j hJs^ 1 + 7 . ;::' DticK: • 3 ^Jv«< e«.ic.1 it. ' «t*.i '• . ^ r V IT 7 • ’s^llj-ck -75 ' a-5c ! • A. nc- : 3 I*' Sj^fj i j u>w/c- ii5 12.T»iN1 l»> l|/ol| - ■li lt.; /?<i<.iu; Dfi I ioc ■ 370 i- ; • r [ ix^nUt^K/^^ \\r\1 • r V Pe<v' cA| 7^<jA- | I • ;X6q 'dc^ ‘ ‘ ,S07 • l-)S..(.i-/ •i * . * ■ I '^Jfl / I i ! ,S07 • 7C?M I I : ^ f IHG ^ -i- b{ f 9 I ; ~T,r f^KTl^C.TOT=C TO ^k3C3 Cov^^T\OSiS A>»^o ^ ^ K\ \ N ^ Ilk ( i COUNCIL MEETINQ OCT 13 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: ITEM NO.: CITYOFORONO 9/30/97 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Elizabeth Van Zomeren Title Plapner/Zoning Administrator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Descnption:#2291-Steven Sigel Having an Interest in 1399 Park Drive Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IB Lot Area:22,010 s.f. (.51 acres) Appli^tion: The applicant is proposing the removal of an existing detached 2 car garage and replacing it with a 768 s.f. three car garage. A 22 s.f. retaining wall is also being proposed. Variances are required for hardcover and side setback. The original proposal has been modified by the Planning Commission to allow the applicant to retain the wood walkway between the house and garage. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Conunission rec(IJMIIaended by a 6 to 0 vote to: Approve a hardcover variance of 5.08% to allow 30.08% hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback where 25% is allowed and 25.32% is existing. Approve a side setback variance of 2' to allow the garage to be located 8' from the side -ot line where 12 ’ is existing. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. I J A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBD. 2 AND SECTION 10.24, SUED. 5(B), FILE NO. 2291 WHEREAS, Steven Sigel (hereinafter "the applicant") having an interest in the property located at 1399 Park Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: See Exhibit A for property description (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.24, Subd. 5(5) to peimit the replacement of a two stall 365.82 s.f. detached garage with a three stall 768 s.f. garage and a 22 s.f. retaining wall requiring a variance of 5.08% to allow 30.08% hardcover in the /5' to 250' lakeshore zone where 25% is allowed and 25.32% is existing and a variance for side setback of 2' to allow a side setback of 8' where 10' is required and 12' is existing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2291. 2.The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 22,010 s.f. or .51 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 zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements. Page 1 of 6 MM 4. 5. B.A significant tree and topography limit where the garage may be located on the property. 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 recommer nations 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 vanances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B) to permit construction of a new garage that is 768 s.f in footprint as shown on Exhibit B. Approval was subject to tlie following conditions: If the existing wood walkway between the house and garage is removed, it must be replaced with a walk not over 4' in width. 1. P 2. The driveway must be reduced to meet the 30% hardcover requirement in the 250* to 500* lakeshore zone. 3. Authorities grmted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but ^e permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 13, 1998). Page 2 of 6 r .itr- 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants 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, Miimesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of October, 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 6 s -I r I r*7 JOB NO. 97R-243 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 16, Block 6, Sago Hill Revised, Hennepin Co. Minn occording to the plot thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County Those portions of vacated Park Drive (formerly Lafayette Avenue and "Snon Boulevard, all as dedicated in the olat of Saga Hill Revised. Hennepin Co.. Minn.", described as follows- Beginning at the most Easterly corner of Lot 16 Block 6 in said plat; thence South 22 degrees 43 minutes 16 seconds Northeasterly line of said Lot 16 beors 05 seconds East, a distance to a point hereinafter referred to os "Point A”- th, Sou?h?o7nfa"rodr:s^'? roT^ Southe^asterly extension of the center line of said vocated Forest Avenue- cn?H Southeasterly extension ding Sn ter nir li *’'* Northwesterly extension if so"dcenter line to the shore line of Forest Lake* thAnr^A Northeosterly olong sold shore line to the Northwesterly extension 0 soid Northeasterly line of Lot 16; thince Southeoster y olong sold Northwesterly extension of cold Northeosterly line to the most Northerly corner of soid Lot 16- ^^Snr?h“‘^*®f'®c''• Southeasterly ond Northeasterly olong so?d Lot iT to®'h.^°" Southeasterly lines of^said Lot 16 to the point of beginning. I 1-5 i ‘j ^ 'a i I A 1 r 4k ' TO:Chair Lindqu?st and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator September 9, 1997 SUBJECT:#2291 -Steven Sigel Having an Interest in 1399 Park Drive Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB 22,010 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.51 acres') it with a detech^^c^aoe^F removal of an existing two car garage and replacing Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03: General Provisions Section 10.22, Subd. 2; Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements ^229! Steven Sigel 1 399 Park Drive Variances 9/15/97 Page I i i 1 5 r ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .51 acres 78 ft.40 ft.12 ft.-existing 7 ft.-proposed 80 ft. The zoning lot does not meet lot area and width requirements of the zoning district. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 22,010 s.f.2,571 s.f-existing 2,859 s.f-proposed 11.7%-existing 13.2%-proposed If a garage with the proposed footprint is constructed on the lot, the structural coverage requirement of 15% will still be met. §2291 Steven Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variances 9/15/97 Page! Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'5,655 s.f none none none none 75'-250'13,925 s.f.3,526 s.f (25.32%) 3,481.25 s.f (25%) 3,963 s.f (28.4%) 481.75 s.f (3.4%) 250'-500'2,430 s.f 901 s.f (37%) 729 s.f (30%) 873 s.f (35.9%) 144 s.f 5.9% Variances for hardcover are required in the 75' to 250' and 250' to 500' setbacks. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See attachment M for the applicant's written statement of hardship. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1 . The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can be put to a reasonable use without constructing a new garage. A garage of smaller size or different location can be constructed without variances. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot size and width do not meet zoning district requirements. Many other properties that do not meet zoning requirements in Orono have smaller garages to conform to zoning requirements. 3.The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for hardcover, and side setback will not change the character of the area. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. U2291 Steven Sigel 1 399 Park Drive Variances 9/15/97 Page 3 ! r 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A garage is permitted in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Many lots in the immediate vicinity do not meet the zoning district requirements for area and width. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most of the lakeshore lots in the immediate area are smaller than the subject lot, therefore having greater limitations imposed on them. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. A new garage and driveway can be reconfigured and redesigned to meet the side setback requirement and more closely comply with hardcover limits. 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. #229/ Steven Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variances 9/15/97 Page 4 ■i^ ri ■■ I r f } * 12. The granting of such variance wll not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The variances as proposed would serve as a convenience to the applicant as both the applicant and staff have produced proposals more closely meeting zoning requirements. Issues 1.The lot area and width do not meet the zoning district requirements. While it is possible to easily meet side setback requirements, meetmg hardcover requirements is more challenging. 2.The southwest side lot slopes downhill from the house and proposed garage abruptly, making its location there unfeasible. 3.An Oak tree 4' in diameter would need to be removed according to the applicant's plan which would comply with required setbacks and hardcover. 4.The property was granted variances for height, hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback, side setback, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback in 1988 for the remodeling and expansion of the existing house. A provision of the resolution was if the existing structure was entirely razed, the applicant must comply with lakeshore setback, side setback and hardcover requirements in the 0'75' zone. 5.If the requested variances are not granted, the applicant could build a three car garage meeting all zoning requirements, including hardcover, but would require the removal of a significant tree. 6.The applicant has mentioned in their statement of hardship that they would also like to construct a retaining wall on the north side of the garage, possibly further adding to hardcover. The applicants should be asked if this is still their intention as it is not mentioned elsewhere in the application. 7.While no variance is necessary, if the applicant chooses to proceed with the two story option for their garage, the garage height would appear significtmtiy greater than the house due to downhill slope of the yard. §2291 Steven Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variances 9/15/97 Pages 1 r STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a three car garage subject to the following conditions and amendments. Staff recommends that the variance for hardcover of 28.4% in the 75 ’ to 250' zone be amended or denied according to the attached survey amended by staff Staffs proposal (attachment I) still allows the applicant’s three car garage. Hardcover is reduced in the 75 ’ to 250 ’ zone by reducing the width of the proposed sidewalk to 3’, slightly reducing the size of the driveway and reducing the length of the garage to 22’. Coinciding with this proposal is a dramatic drop in hardcover in the 250' to 500 ’ zone due to a greatly reduced driveway in this zone. Public Services Director Greg Gappa has advised that this driveway proposal is feasible. This option would also protect the significant tree and avoid problems associated with having to relocate utility pole support cables. If this option is approved, the necessary amount of hardcover in the 75 ’ to 250 ’ setback would be reduced to approximately 27% where the applicants proposal is at 28.4%. Hardcover in the 250 ’ to 500 ’ zone would fall well below 30%, requiring no variance where 35.9% is being proposed, requiring a variance. Staff recommends approval of a variance of 27% hardcover in the 75 ’ to 250' zone where 25% hardcover is allowed. Staff recommends denial of the variance of 35.9% hardcover in the 250 ’ to 500' zone as this requirement can be met. Staff recommends denial of the side setback variance of 3’ to allow for a 7 ’ side setback as staff has demonstrated the 10 ’ requirement can be met while preserving the significant tree. As a condition of approval of either the applicant’s or staffs proposal is the allowance of no further hardcover on any portion of the lot. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the above amendments and conditions. Attachments A B C Application Plat Map Location Map U2291 Ste\ an Sigel 1399 Park Dnvt Variances 9/15/9" Page 6 -J D E F G H I J K L M Topographic Map Permit Record Survey-Existing Survey-Applicant's Preferred Proposal Survey-Applicant's Proposal Compliant With Hardcover Survey-Staff Proposal Garage Proposal-Single Story Garage Proposal-Two Story Hardcover Worksheets Statement of Hardship K229I Steven Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variances 9/15/97 Page! >•3 Application H JfJLt/ Date Received 9 Amount Paid ^JC70 . CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renev^ Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) d ”1 3 ' . t* •** 8 i PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address '59*^ “Da.wt Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on i.quired survey. Date Pro TCitv Acquired__________________________________________(month/year) I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___^other (specify)______________________ ZloningDistrict:^_________________________________________________________ APPLICANT Name Addre.ss: City: Phone (home ) Phone(woik ) Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:_/S99 City:Zio: Estimated Constmction Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ______________ Describe request in detail: >i.v) (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width ^ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front SiSide Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ‘5€4: fVTY^A&'*^__________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VAC DOC NO 6074235 I AA' 'h 1’ TnJ I ro in '“Vi ‘\7 m C>) o>c? o r in o I I o ci r/ofA' Jr/' ^ o \ s \ \ 4 / 8 V/ y */ ./ / 1\ >-^\ ^nfcsife X'Jx ,X \ 4 < \ N \ \ \\ (60)/❖' \ \ \ \ \ \(79) \ o \ / ''^^)'v'''' '"‘^^i3X r” ' X * ' * V <v:::::S;;;;>::::?;i?:.^ /U \ y \r A :'v5< \ \ <1^I X--' *«*»"»*^^**"fc -V**-**-%v* • • ■ I / V>!‘X*'5vvr." V^'.VV r.S^ 15 > \ \: ^94' 'yyY \ 7 \0^ >xv ^6 '0 \ \[6^'2 iPO 75 \ /■•A X ^ I .o ,('9)y X / / X /. /I (21) (22) 6^ A* >X ( '3)-A> H ,(1A\ ' ^ ' 5)'X®’ ^ LPc? lP OOVr. nO ^70 PART CF SAGA HILL PARK f/ (27)w \ f 2l^ • • • • i \ f 1 c ■ crcc c c II r r S//Ji VK YORS CRR TIFICA TF ^-4 X t //p > //A pf ^ jy .) • ) r 'nv *• AH^A NUMMARY (COMPU fl R (> HI RA11 D) umt€i IM •jr _ __ n m |«| MfMM «ta intm mum |« •• Mnai rnmt% t«f atm Mraaa fui fmnm m «wai MM« mtm etimm • • •« iiurpii* « C«al ww IXM% V* a MMSatMM I m a i*4 I in MM « »»« MM Vm Maiwi w AMMor («| oi««u NNA MMnroMA • • M IMiTA !■ « • «r I ■ ■ MI rM w « m#M «r «MMK*oa m ( JM V U»l «M« I mm w m |«l^ lajMCK *« Mf IIAIl « Ml I AlMJfSf n.l'J*l/ f«M I IM ••BMII 4MM .«HI NOii.GAi iWrf*inpnciNI %« M MM » tap* MB tmmmm »«—iaM i**. «•frnm tm Bt -a al iirnm t» mm <aaaa mImm ^ m • Ami m^rnaa f^aa* mm «»■ <M <1 Ml I. <• *>«• %>« llaMi* t iH»BMI K — mrnt Imamt •ammt arnm m at ,tmmaim$ m mm lam at A to<««•«• -aaat tamamf amam mt na m. a faak ■■■■PWI «w mmmmrnamtf mm •* mm M « a0 af «l mat »m a i tarn, a »mfma ml («« *mi. mm t«<M «■ mmmamrn at mm %m>m mm at am am atm Imaat f ^ twam 1^ i i«f •« iM M amt •■•••••■>• m>mm m I1« I'Anfl) I flf; snvE SICIL nirrARin iir IIKDIUNH PLANNING \ NGINIIFRING SURVFYING Torn I'M UA« aflvr I.AI:AH. MNNI.SOfA. N9I/7 MMMT (AI7) Un-AMMJ t tMMf (alAf mat mm t*m amm tmmaamt aa mm m aa>tm atf ««cl mttatmmm ^ mat t ma a mf rni^mmat tma* Smaaam tmrnm mm ■> mm MaM at HEDLUND W-iM* "• »•SUE VEYORS CEE TIFICA TE Wi 9 I M or to* I KM « mt OAir. AIJTiJSr 8.1997 irw .1 IM •*<!• o - *»*•• jOe NO 97W-743LCCAt OCSCmPIKJNii* lii •I •§ • <* <—»* •TIM-*'-- «* *00 U* 9r —<0 «i M* M*loMOito*. •• *1*1 tHi *• • m9t »•:« !• il 140 K ■« ««tv «• <* • « o« -ysT •« «t u* to *J*«S*UI 40 •M U* 10 «• »• OKO «* mcPAiKO ro*: STEVE SIGEL pnrPARrD kt. HEOLUND PLANNING engineering surveying 7009 PM CAM OAVC CACAM. yMNCSOlA. 99177 PWONC (917) 4C9-9600 I •w«»r *»4f*t —* . mm mm i v • vfSst‘C-*5KJsr ~ UEDLUMB i -I si/Rv/nons ch'nrjFfCAm JlJfl NO. *1/11 0) tvcfd^e^A•. 4 Q (COMPIIIIK UNI UAH 0) mmmm m€ im «r« rv«l .•*.?................ ^ ^ ^ tiU% l«l Mtuataai IN IBM awv M«i ■■Hail <U» IV CM.OI •mb tMMOM* » kM « MMOMI «IM» • UfiAJ 0»*iCYmMl0N • •• *• ••• •• •* *»ml tmf I IB M «• B M Baiva ' T* ***^*" •• ••• B B^iTb V V- V C»MI •*ifl.t'AMrii rnn siLvr sia i. Mi &J/ ■mm MM •Ban p»»»i‘Aiir ii fit MB |Mf MwiMi m mmma m (imbimhi nmmmaamarnmm * HF.DLUND PLANNING LNOINtfRING SURVEYING V MiMBMtt Biova a juv I JM *• UM BV« I ^ #»# MM »M rN flAK UMVI •*»fClMl (ftl7) 40ri fUMm t«M«l tM« II «,,,« « «- « ini MAII /UN3»M H.I'PI/ mou/Mo •*B S«i r I 5WP (^peXo4 Garage for 1399 Park Drive - Option 1: Single Story i .1 & m w Garage for 1399 Park Drive - •*\ 4rr«» ;■ o r 32' r 41 HARDCOVER CALCUL^TiOT^ WOT^SH^ET j SE'i BACK ZONE: (CmCLE ONE) 0.75' 250-500’ «n> ^1] 0^250' EXISTING HARnrnVER IN ZONE A. House C£>t->yre-> ot^ Length WidU. __________________X______________________ ________________ X ______________ _________________ X r'.-^ 500-1000' i iL B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X E. Pa»io/Deck ___________ X F. Landscape o.-:^ Underlain ______________ By Plastic ^________ X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERI Y AREA IN ZONE _365^£_ - B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONF A. House Jr* Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway (!■=>—6-'^ oe^ Ccv-?P~<£ri CiA D. Sidewalk Cq»-m~o W> E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other ________________ X __________ X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE t- B i^9a5 X 100 VLc ^C o^:.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 35?) S.F. S.F. vOLO 5c? S.F.^) S.F. S.F. C£) S.F. S.F.O) S.F. S.F. 35^ 13^SL3 S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B Ur?(r^;.F. S) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 60>,f.(3) 39<^3 r^«.^ S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B HARDCOVER CALCUL SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X 500-1000* Length Width X X X B. Oan.,e C. Driveway S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. '!{ D. Sidewalk X X S.F. kl K'-i h »•>! # 2 2! Hardship Description for 1399 Park Drive - Garage Addition 1) The existing garage did not pass inspection by a professional home inspector and was documented to be structUTdlly unstable. As such it is unsafe, it is an insurance risk and it negatively impacts the visual appearance of the neighborti 2) As new owner, wo intend on removing and replacing the existing garage with a three car garage that is styled to match the home. 3) The front walk between the garage and home is currently a series of rectangular platform decks with landscaping and lighting. As a demonstration of our willingness to comply with hardcover requirements, this deck style front walk will be removed and be replaced with a 4 ’ concrete sidewalk to make available sufBcient hard cover capacity for the garage. 4) With the removal of the original garage and the addition of the hard cover that is made available by removmg the deck style front walk, there is sufficient hardcover capacity to allow construction of the three car garage, in compliance with City of Orono hardcover restrictions. S) Unfortunately, to comply with the hardcover requirements, the garage must be oriented such that one 4 ’ diameter (150+ ft tall) oak tree must be removed This oak tree is one of the largest trees on the lot and is healthy and growing. In addition, at least six smaller trees (4 to 8 inch diameter) must be removed. 6) There are two utility pole anchor/tension cables that are anchored in the area that would become the driveway, if variances were denied. This utility pole provide.® NSP electricity, Tri-Ax cable tv and GTE telephone services to the neighborhood. In addition, NSP has located a high voltage transformer on this utility pole. These anchors are secured within the lot borders as specified by the legal description of 1399 Park Efrive. 7) There is no other place on the lot to locate the garage without further exceeding hardcover requirements due to the steep slope of the property on the south side of the yard. 8) The proposed garage addition will also include a retaining wall on the north side of the property to prevent further soil erosion and root exposure of trees on the adjacent property. 9) We are requesting these variances so that we can position the garage in a manner that does not require killing and removal of this magnificent oak tree and the smaller adjacent trees. This variance request is our attempt to save the mature trees on the street side of the lot. This lot has already lost two trees to storm damage during the recent storms and the mature trees provide the character of the lot and nicely frame the home on the property. r COUNCIL MEETINQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 13 1997 DATE: OciobflnOQflfiWbNO ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Iton D^cription: ^295 Conley Brooks, Jr., 980 West Femdale Road - Variances - Resolutions Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre, sewered. Application: A. Request for street setback and wetland setback variances for construction of a 24 ’x24' garage/storage building. Also required is a variance for accessory structure located nearer the front or street lot line than the existing residence. B Request for variances/City permit to reconstruct an existing fence located within the right- of-way of West Femdale Road and less than 75' from the lake. List of Exhibits A - Garage Resolution B - Fence Resolution C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/15/97 D - Draft Planning Commission Minutes 9/15/97 E - Memo and Exhibits of 9/12/97 Note: The proposed variances, if approved, are subject to legal combination of the affected parcels per Council's conditional lot line rearrangement approval granted August 11th. Completion of that rearrangement process may be delayed pending court action regarding the ownership of 20' lakeshore parcel at the east end of "Parcel F" (See recent correspondence attached to File #2298 memo for more information on this). Summary of Request Please review the memo and exhibits of September 12th. Applicant proposes to remove the dilapidated 20'x24' garage located on Parcel H. That garage encroaches 2.8’ into the West Femdale Road right-of-way, and is in a precarious state. Applicant proposes constmcting a new garage to replace it at approximately the same location, but within the property with a 1' street setback. The garage as proposed by applicant would be approximately 20' from the wetland, requiring a 6' setback variance. Also, the garage would require a variance because it is between . f ! I r Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 4 October 10, 1997 Zoning File ni95 the street and the front line of the residence at 980 West Femdale to which it is accessory. Also, applicant proposes to replace the pre-existing wood fence located in the right-of-way of Femdale Road, along the south side of the road adjacent to the lakeshore parcel. Parcel F. That existing fence is approximately 6' from the pavwd roadway, and encroaches 15-20' into the right- of-way from the actual lot line. The easterly half of the fence is within 75' of the lake, and requires a variance. The municipal code also requires a property owner to obtain written permission from the City to place a fence within a street right-of-way. Planning Commission Recommendation A. Planning Commission reviewed the garage replacement request at their September 15th meeting, and on a vote of 6-1 recommended approval of the garage replacement per the following conditions: 1. Approve street setback of 1'. 2. Approve variance for garage nearer street than principal residence. 3. Garage to be limited to 18'x24' size and must meet 26' wetland setback (as well as minimum 10' side setback). B. At their September 15th meet'mg, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the fence replacement within the right-of-way of West Femdale Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. Maximum fence height 6'. 2. All portions of fence to be located at least 10' from existing pavement. Please review the draft Planning Commission meeting minutes attached for further detail on the discussion. Staff Recommendation A. Garage replacement. In staff s opinion the only rationale for granting the requested variances is the fact that a garage has existed at this location for many years. However, that garage is in such a state of dilapidation that it is a candidate for hazardous building action. It is unlikely that the Request for Council Action continued Page 3 of 4 October 10, 1997 Zoning File #2295 City would approve variances for a garage in this location if a garage had never been there previously. The negative visual impacts of structures located within 1' of the street right- of-way on a rural lane, in staff s opinion, should outw'eigh the "convenience" aspect of the structure. Applicant notes the distance from his residence to his useable shoreline is a hardship. However, this garage location is so far removed from applicant's residence that it will appear to the casual observer to be totally disassociated from any neighborine residence. City code allows a 20 s.f., 4' high lock box to be placed at the shoreline for storage of lake related equipment. While such a lock box may not replace the storage needs suggested by the applicant, such storage could certainly be accomplished by an accessory structure adjacent to or attached to the existing residence. Further, it can be argued that there is no reasonable hardship because the storage needs can be uccomplished in a conforming manner within applicant's property. In staffs opinion, granting these variances will merely be a convenience to the property owner but are not supported by a reasonable hardship. Therefore, staff does not support this variance request. B. Fence replacement. Staff does not recommend approval of this request. The existing fence is deteriorated to a point that it should just simply be removed and a new fence be located in a conforming location. A conforming location would be far enough from the road that tht fence would not be a visual intrusion into the natural look of West Femdale Road as one travels it. On the other hand, a new 6' stockade type fence 10' from the road will be, in staff’s opinion, a new visual intrusion, similar to other such fences existing along West Ferndale Road. If Council chooses to approve replacement of the fence within the right-of-way, staff recommends the following minimum conditions of approval: 1. 2. 3. The fence should be located at least 15' from the paved roadway; The applicant should attempt to leave as much existing shrubbery in front of it as possible for screening, and should be required to plant additional screening materials between 10-15' from the pavement in front of the fence. Applicant should be required to execute a hold harmless agreement, relieving the City from any responsibility for damage to or maintenance of that fence located in the City right-of-way. Request for Council Action continued Page 4 of 4 October 10, 1997 Zoning File #2295 Resolutions Attached Based on the Planning Commission recommendations for approval, staff has drafted separate approval resolutions for the garage and fence. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Take action to approve, conditionally approve, deny or table the garage and fence requests. If approval is granted, the Council may adopt or modify the attached resolutions. If one or both requests are denied, direct staff to draft the appropriate resolution(s). r A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) AND 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (D) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AT 980 WEST FERNDALE ROAD FILE #2295 WHEREAS, Conley Brooks, Jr. (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 980 West Femdale Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) and 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to construct a detached garage located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on the property where no accessory structures are normally allowed, and located 1’ from the street lot line where the required front yard setback is 50'; and has requested a variance to allow such structure to encroach 6' into the required 26' setback from a City protected wetland where no structures are normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2295. 2.The property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 15, 1997, and on a vote of 6 to 1 recommended conditional approval of the Page 1 of 6 ! i 4 i ^ proposed variance based upon the following findings: A. There is no hardship for granting the wetland setback variance, and the proposed structure should be reduced to 18’x24' and must meet the 26' wetland setback. B. The hardship for approval of the 1’ street setback is that the pre-existing garage which has been located at this site for many years currently encroaches 2.8' into the right-of-way of Femdale Road, and the new garage will eliminate this encroachment. C. The hardship supporting the location nearer the street lot line than the existing residence structure is the orientation of the property and the proximity of the proposed garage location to the lakeshore, providing applicant with storage for lake oriented equipment at a location relatively nearer the lakeshore than the existing residence. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) and 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to Page 2 of 6 I ■* . *£»»- ■ - I^rimt the construction of a detached accessory garage structure located 1’ from the street lot line where a 50' street setback is normally required, and located nearer the street lot line than the principal . residence structure on the property where no accessory structures are normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The garage shall be limited to 18'x24', one story in height per the proposed plan, and shall meet the required 26' wetland setback. The requested wetland setback variance is hereby specifically denied. The garage door shall face to the side, and per applicant's proposal, shall not have a driveway leading from West Femdale Road to the garage door. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 13, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The imdersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. This variance approval shall not be effective until such time that applicant has provided to the City adequate evidence that the separate tax parcel on which the subject garage will be located has been legally combined with applicant's homestead tax parcel at 980 West Femdale Road. Page 3 of 6 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before ine on tWs 13^ day of airLtimem was exerted on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 7 r A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 (C), SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C)(5), AND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A FENCE WITHIN WEST FERNDALE ROAD PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.07, SUBDIVISION 1 FILE #2295 WHEREAS, Conley Brooks, Jr. (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 980 West Femdale Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C), 10.55, Subdivision 8, and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C, 5) to permit the construction of a 6' high fence within or adjacent to a front or street yard where only a 3 1/2* high fence is normally allowed, and to construct such fence within 75 of the lakeshore where no fences are normally allowed; and requests permission for construction of such fence within the right-of-way of West Femdale Road per Municipal Code Section 6.07, Subdivision 1. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2295. The property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 6 3. 4. B. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 15, 1997, and recommended conditional approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A. The proposed fence within tlie road right-of-way is adjacent to applicant ’s lakeshore parcel referred to in the submitted documents as "Parcel F". Parcel F is a lakeshore strip which is very narrow, so there is relatively little useable land. Location of the fence close to the road will permit more of the parcel to be enjoyed by the property owner. Applicant has experienced an ongoing problem with fisherman and other people parking along West Femdale Road in order to access the lake across the private property of others. No parking signs have not been effective. Location of the fence within the road right-of-way and near the traveled portion of the road would tend to di*’.courage parking trespass. Parcel F is low lying and is extremely exposed visually to West Femdale Road, compromising the privacy of anyone using Paicel F for whatever purpose. A 6' fence would enhance this privacy and discourage trespassing. Although applicant proposed such fence at a distance 6’ tc from the paved edge of traveled West Femdale Road, Planning Commission finds that sucli a fence within the right-of-way is appropriate at a location at least 10' from the paved traveled roadw;. ’, and finds that a minimum of 10 is required in order to allow for a i.afe shoulder as well as snow storage and other public purposes. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. D. Page 2 of 6 ’it. -■ 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to r?>»ghboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be hi keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C), 10.55, Subdivision 8 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (CX5) to allow the replacement of an existing fence within the right-of-way of West Femdale Road at a height of 6* where only a 3 1/2' fence height would normally be allowed, and within 75' of the lakeshore where no fences are normally allowed; and grants permission per Section 6.07, Subdivision 1 for placement of such fence within the public right- of-way, subject to the following conditions: 1. No portion of the fence shall exceed 6' in height above the pre-existing grade. 2. 3. All portions of the fence shall be located at least 10' from the existing pavement of West Femdale Road. Applicant shall execute a hold harmless agreement, relieving the City from any responsibility for damage to or maintenance of said fence located in the City right-of-way. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 13, 1998). 5.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. This approval shall not take effect until such time that Parcel F has been legally combined with applicant's homestead property at 980 West Ferndalc Road, or at such time that a special lot combination agreement has been executed; both noted actions relying on applicant ’s providing sufficient infoimation (subject to City Attorney approval) that the applicant is the legal owner of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing inscrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of October, 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 4 of 6 *^^111111 - CITY OF OROr’O P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2295 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 17, 1997 TO: Conley Biooks, Jr. 980 West Femdale Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. Lindquist & Vennum 4200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Stieet Minr ;apolis, MN 55402-2205 it ? r OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING; 09/15/97 A. Fence. Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of fence replacement within the right-of-way of West Femdale Road subject to: 1. Maximum fence height 6 feet. 2. All portions of fence to be located at least 10' from existing pavement. B. Garage. Planning Commission vote 6-1 to recommend approval of garage replacement per the following conditions: 1. Approve street setback of 1 foot. 2. Approve variance for garage nearer street than principal residence. 3. Garage to be limited to 18' x 24' size and must meet 26' wetland setback. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council on Monday, October 13, 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. r fi MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#14) #2295 CONLEY BROOKS, JR., 980 WEST FERNDALE ROAD VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 12:27-12:56 A.M. The AfBdavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gafifron reported that the application is two-fold. It includes a subdivision and recombination of parcels. The triangular piece of property contains an existing garage that the Planning Commission recommended stay on the property. The applicant was ^ven 60-90 days in which to remove the garage. The replacement garage will be located in about the *ame footprint in the 7^-250’ setback. Hardcover exists at 14% and would increase to slightly over 15%. The existing garage is located 2.8' into the right-of-way. The new garage would be 1' into the property and meet the 10' side setback. A variance is required for setback from the wetland for a 20' separation mstead of the required 26'. The garage will also be located in front of the front line of the residence. It wiU be 24’x24' and have one garage door and used for storage of lake equipment The door will be to the side. Gafifron reported that parcels H, E. and A could be legally combined. He questioned whether the house is in the legal location. Gaffron asked for statement why replacement will be in the particular location. He asked the Plarming Commission if they wanted to see a larger setback from the street, whether 54 r i ■ • r- k 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 they would accept a lesser wetland separation, or if the garage should be located on this parcel at all. Another issue is the replacement of the fence, which is located on the lake side of the road along the portion acquired by Brooks. The 60' right-of-way width from the center line is actuaUy 30' away from the boundary but is the perceived edge. Gaffron indicated that the poor condition of the fence is likely due to its proximity to the road. He reported that Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code requires a permit to allow this encroachment. The point is located within the 0-75' setback. Gaffiron said Staff recommends the fence not be allowed within the right-of-way and should be located at the property boundary. If it is located less than at the property boundary, it at least should be 15’ from the paved roadway with screening inbetween. Gaffron said the applicant would be asked to sign a hold-harmless agreement for damage to and maintenance of the fence. He asked the Planning Commission to review the hardship statement. Mr. Brooks said the garage is part of the old Skarp property, and its replacement is a step in the clean-up process of the property. He intends to replace it with a storage garage with no driveway. He indicated there is no other location on the property on which to place the garage. It will service the house and lakeshore. Brooks said the fenc".; is necessary for privacy to eliminate trespassing. He noted the property is narrow in hs width. It is currently located on the road side of the tree line and could be located 6-8* back as opposed to 4-6*. If it was located behind the tree line at about 10-12', it would leave room for vegetation to grow and for plowing. He reported r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 that most of the homes in the area have some sort of visible barrier within 6 ’ of the road with fences or trees, and he feels this fence would be consistent with the nei^thborhood. Robert Floyd, 960 West Femdale Road, agreed with the removal of the garage, noting it to be an eyesore and hazardous. He felt the problems with parking and trespassing were good reasons to allow the fence to be located closer to the road. Floyd said the road has a blind curve in that area. He felt the distance of the fence from the road as proposed is a good idea, and the existing fence should be removed. Floyd questioned the relationship between this property and the 20' strip of land. He indicated that it was his feeling the subdivision and improvements should not be addressed until this relationship has been solved. He does not feel permits should be issued without the determination. Jeny McCourtne/ said his property is in sight of the proposed garage, and he supports the improvements proposed. Hawn said if the fence and garage received approval, both would be subject to the legal approval of the subdivision with respect to the two lots. If pending legal aaion goes against h, she felt the applicant should be prepared to remove them. The combination with Brooks property must be solved. Brooks responded that the property to the north is not in dispute. He said he has no doubt about the ownership. The question is with the 20'strip of land. Brooks said he would remove the fence if he had to in the future. i r I minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15. 1997 Lindquist was informed by Gaffron that no garage would be allowed in this location if proposed today. Lindquist noted the garage is hazardous but questioned approving h. Schroeder inquired about the proximity to the water. GafiGron said the garage had an issue with wetland separation. The lake is more than 75* away. Stoddard questioned if the garage could be built without the 10' front setback from the building to enable the 26* wetland separation. Gaffron noted the distances and said it could not be done. McMillan asked if the accessory structure was grandfathered in. The garage would be less than 26* from the wetland, subject to the same ordinances and would be non-conforming, Lindquist noted the problem with wetland on one side of the garage and the road on the other. Brooks said his hardship is the house located on an island with no additional room to place the garage. There is a main garage. He mdicated a lakeside structure is important for storage. Lindquist informed him that the buildings as proposed could not be built new today. Floyd said he was conceptually in support of the plan. Schroeder indicated that the only compelling reason for approval is the existence of the fence tod^. He felt the fence should be moved back. Brooks said he would amend the plan to place it 10-12* behind the tree line. Gaffron said that distance would be better as it gives screening and a 10' clear zone for plowing and parking. : i I i 1 r :ri minutes of the orono planning commission meeting HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 Stoddard inquired about the 6’height. Gaffron said it would not nomiaBy be allowed. A county road is the only location where a fence of that height would be allowed. He questioned whether that hei^it is appropriate. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the reconstruction of the fence at a minimum of 10’ from the edge of the pavement behind the tree line. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. McMillan questioned whether the garage could be reduce to ir to meet the 26' wetland separation with a street side variance. Hawn noted it would be used for storage only. Brooks sjrid he could reduce the size somewhat. Gaffron reported that the wetland edge has been delineated by the surveyor per the City map. The distance from the existing garage to the edge of the wetlaiid has not been measured. The measurement may change where the garage should be located. Stoddard moved. McMillan seconded, to approve a street setback variance and variance for an accessory structure nearer to the front of the street lot line than the existing residence. The garage is to be a maximum of 18'x24' and located 26 from the wetland boundary as per City map. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays I, Lindquist, who felt the garage shouM not be built at that location at all. (#15) #2297 DARYL HANSEN FOR MRS. ROBERT KEITH, 1045 EDGEWOOD hills road - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 12:56-12:59 A.M. r ' < TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator / IL, FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaflron, Senior Planning Coordinator September 12,1997 SUBJECT: #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr., 980 West Femdale Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre, sewered. Application: A.Request for street setback and wetland setback variances for construction of a 24'x24' garage/storage building. Also required is a variance for accessory structure located nearer the front or street lot line than the existing residence. B Request for variances/City permit to reconstruct an existing fence located within the right-of- way of West Femdale Road and less than 75' from the lake. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Survey Detail of Garage Parcel F - Comprehensive Survey of Applicant's Property G - Garage Plans H - Photos I - Topographic Map J - Hardcover Calculations Note: The proposed variances, if approved, are subject to legal combination of the affected parcels per Council's conditional lot line rearrangement approval granted August 11. Completion of that rearrangement process may be delayed pending court action on regarding the ownership of the 20' lakeshore parcel at the east end of Parcel F. Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B): Required front yard setback is 50'. 2.Section 10.03, Subd. 9(D): "No detached garage or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot..." I ■ Zoning File #2295 September 12,1997 Page 2 3. 4. 5. 6. Section 10.55, Subd. 8; Wetland setback required = 26' Section 10.03, Subd. 15(C): Fences which exceed 3 1/2' in height within a front or street yard are considered an encroachment; West Femdale Road is not considered a major thoroughfare, therefore this location does not qualify for a 6' fence. Section 10.55, Subd. 8: No structure or hardcover allowed within 75' of lakeshore: and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C-5): "Fences, Docks, Retaining Walls. No fence shall be placed within the shore setback zone..." The shore setback zone is that area within 75' of Lake Minnetonka. Section 6.07, Subd. 1: "Obstructions in Streets and Private Roads. It is a misdemeanor for any person to place, deposit, display or offer for sale any fence, goods or other obstructions upon, over, across or under any street or private road without first having obtained a written permit from the City and then only in compliance in all respects with the terms and conditions of such permit, and taking precautionary measures for the protection of the public..." A. Proposed Garage Replacement Applicant proposes to remove the dilapidated garage located on "Parcel H" (see survey, Exhibits E and F). The existing 20'x24' garage encroaches 2.8' into the West Femdale Road right-of-way. That garage is in a precarious state and needs to come down as soon as possible. Applicant proposes to constmet a new garage to replace it, to be located within Parcel H with a street lot line setback of T. Normally, an accessory building on a property configured such as this, including Parcels A, E and FI, would have to be behind the front line of the house, in the north half of P^el A. Such a location would not accomplish applicant's intent as noted in the letter of request. Exhibit D, to have a place for storage of lake use related equipment. The proposed garage will be approximately 20' from the wetland to the north, which is part of Femdale Marsh. The garage will meet an 11' side setback from the northwesterly lot line where a 10 setback would normally be required. Tlie garage doors will face to the side rather than towards the street, and applicant proposes to not pave in front of those doors, but maintain this as a yard area, and use that building strictly for storage. The proposed garage is a single story with hip roof and standard siding, on a floating slab. The defined height of the garage will be 12', and does not require a height variance. At 576 s.f, this 24'x24' garage should be relatively unobtmsive except for its location near the road. Please review the applicant's hardship statement in the letter of request. r Zoning File #2295 September 12, 1997 Page 3 Issues for Consideration 1. Should the garage be located nearer the wetland in order to maintain a greater setback from the street? 2. Should a garage be allowed to oe relocated on this portion of the property, or should applicant be advised to find a confom4ing location for a new stoiage garage? If so, would Planning Commission consider granting any other types of variances for that structure? Note that although Parcel F has been conceptually approved by Council for combination with Parcel H, E and A, no location on Parcel F is outside the 0-75' zone, and it would not be appropriate to construct a garage on Parcel F. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review the applicant's request, his hardship statement and any other options or revisions that might be appropriate, and make a recommendation as to whether the applicant should be allowed to construct the garage per his proposal. B. Fence Replacement Applicant proposes to replace the existing wood fence between the traveled portion of Femdale Road and Parcel F. That fence is located in the right-of-way, an average of about 6' from the paved roadway and probably ranging from 15-20' from the actual lot line. The easterly half of the fence is located within 75' of the shoreline. The fence today consists of loose, 'propped up' segments of wooden fence, in extremely deteriorated state. Note that this fence does not show up on any of the survey work which has been submitted to-date. • Applicant proposes to construct a new 6' high cedar screening fence to be located within the right-of- way at a distance of 6-9' from the edge of the pavement. A gate would be installed approximately 12' from the west boundary of Parcel F Please review the applicant's lettu of request and hardship statement. The primary reason for the fence is for privacy, to discourace trespassing, and "permit more of the parcel to be enjoyed by the property owner". It is likely that part of the reason the fence is deteriorated is that in the past it has been so close to the right-of-way that winter plowing probably piles snow against it. The zoning code addresses fencing as a non-encroachment and prohibits it from being located less than 75' from the lake, but does not address the issue of fences in the right-of-way. However, Orono Municipal Code Chapter 6 requires a permit from the City for any obstruction including fences, within a City right-of-way. Zoning File #2295 September 12, 1997 Page 4 The City does not normally require permits for a fence located within the boundaries of a property unless it has been subject to a variance for location or height. The City normally requires at least a 10' clear zone off the paved roadway for shoulder purposes as well as snow storage. In cases where a property boundary is less than 10' from the paved roadway. City staff has strongly encouraged residents to maintain a 10' fence setback from the paved road to avoid any potential damage to that fence. In the applicant's case, replacing a non-conforming fence that encroaches 15-20' into the right-of- way would normally only be approved subject to it being located at the property boundary. West Femdale Road at this location has 60' of right-of-way, approximately 30' from the centerline on either side. The paved roadway is approximately 20' in width, and a fence located 10' from the pavement would still be 10-15' into the right-of-way from the property line. In staffs opinion a 6' 100% opaque fence 10' from the pavement will be an obtrusion into the visual character of this neigh ’ - /'hood. Municipal Code Section 6.07 requires the property owner to obtain a permit from the City for placement of fence in the right-of-way. If the City chooses to issue such permit, the lack of a 75' setback for the easterly half of that fence must be also addressed. Please review the applicant's memo of request and hardship statement. Staff Recommendation Staff does not recommend approval of this request. The existing fence is deteriorated to a point that it should just simply be removed and a new fence be located in a conforming location. A . conforming location would be far enough into the property that the fence would not be a visual intrusion into the natural look of West Femdale Road as one travels it. On the other hand, a new 6' stockade type fence 10' from the road will be, in staffs opinion, less than attractive. Planning Commission must be convinced that there are adequate hardships to allow this fence to be located less than 75' from the shoreline. If Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of replacement of the fence within the right-of-way, staff recommends the following minimum conditions of approval: 1. The fence should be located at least 15' from the paved roadway; 2.The applicant should attempt to leave as much existing shrubbery in front of it as possible for screening, and should be required to plant additional screening materials between 10-15' from the pavement in front of the fence; r.-' f Zoning File #2295 September 12,1997 Page 5 3.Applicant should be required to execute a hold harmless agreement, relieving the City from any responsibility for damage to or maintenance of that fence located in the City right-of- way. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of the garage and fence replacements as proposed by applicant. 2. Recommend partial approval or revised approval for one or both of these two projects. 3. 5. Table for further information. 4. Recommend denial of one or both of the projects. Other. \ i . ^ f Application n Date Received * y*; A Amount Paid ■ **>_____ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming stnicrares S220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) o. PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress See Exhibit A attached & Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_____See Exhibit A attached Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired See Exhibit A attached__________________ I ^d!9)((do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: xx residential ___^other (specify)__________ Zoning District:_________ (month/year) APPLICANT Name Conley Brooks, Jr. Address: q80 W. Ferndale Road Phone (home ) 473-7354 ______ _____ Phone (work ) 342-2964 City: Orono ___________Zip: BSIQI OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: Sep Exhibit b attached____________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover .Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_______________________________________ See Exhibit B attached (attach additional sheets if necessary) r ■:i~L 7T REQUIRED SUBMITTALS V ’."l *■ — *■• I ■■■■■^ #» All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. J. X Completed Application Form X Certified Property Ov\Tiers List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 34S-3271). X Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S*/:" x 11" for reproduction. ___ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. ___ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11"). ___ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ____ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that ypm: variance application is not complete if the above information has not been includ?<L APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true^^d con/^i to the best of his/her knowledge. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of^vestigatipp and verification of this request. DateOwner’s Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 RUN DATE 08/ia/97BATCH 502PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR (»tCR NAME TAXPAYER NA^£/ADDR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR -I S-' - ■ PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HEM4EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST38 02-117-23 43 000100038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEDTHE NATURE COT^ERVANCYNATURE CONSERVANCY1313 5TH ST S ESUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 38 02-117-23 43 0004 00036 ADDRESS UTUSSIGNEO LOUISE M LOHRY NORWEST BANK MN C/O TWJST REAL ESTATE 6TH A MARQUETTE MPLS MN 55479-0046 38 02-117-23 43 0021 01065 FERNDALE RO H JANE B NELSON TRUSTEE J B NELS0T4 TRUSTEE 1065 FERNDALE RO N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 44 0010 00905 FERNDALE RD H C BROOKS JR I C 6 BROOKS CONLEY JR A CAROL 6 BROOKS 905 FER?40ALE RD N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 44 0018 00038 AODRESS UNASSIGNED THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 •s • REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 4 :w 38 02-117-23 43 000201070 FERNDALE RO HNORHEST BNK MN NA ASSQ TRSTENORHEST BANK MNTRUST REAL ESTATE6TH A MARQUETTE MPLS m 55479-0046 38 02-117-23 43 0003 01070 FERNDALE RD N HENRY M SKARP HENRY M SKARP 1045 N FERNDALE RO HAYZATA m 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0005 00036 ADDRESS UNASS16NED HENRY M SKARP HENRY M SKARP 1045 N FERNDALE RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LOUISE M LOHRY NORHEST BANK MN TRUST REAL ESTATE 6TH A MARQUETTE MPLS MN 55479-0046 38 02-117-23 43 0022 01055 FERNDALE RO H GERALD T MCCOURTNEY ET AL GERALD T MCCOURTNEY 1055 H FERNDALE ROAD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0024 01045 FCiH4DALE RD H HENRY M SKARP HENRY M SKARP 1045 FERNDALE RD H HAYZATA 55391 38 02-117-23 44 0016 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 STH ST S E SUITE 314 htPLS MN 55414 38 02-117-23 44 0017 00960 FERNDALE RD H C A J FLOYD DR A HRS CHARLES P FLOYD 960 HEST FERNDALE RO HAYZATA m 55391 38 02-117-23 44 0019 00980 FERNDALE RO H C 6 A C BROOKS JR CAROL 6 A C0T4LEY BROOKS JR 980 FERNDALE RD N HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 502 00014 . ;; / •V I 0 2. Variance for Storage Building; 4i^ O O O] ^7T /O O O Conley Brooks, Jr, proposes to remove the old garage on Parcel H (required as a condition to the approval of Orono Application No. 2269), and to replace it with a new storage building. Exhibit B4 attached is a survey of the property depicting the current location of the existing garage and the proposed location of the new storage building. Exhibit B5 attached is a copy of the proposed plans for the new storage building. The current garage on the site encroaches by a few feet on the West Femdale Road 33* easement from the center line. The proposed structure would be sited so as to be outside the road easement. Other variances are requested as necessary to position this structure on the site. It is requested that consideration of these variances take into account the beneficial effect of the removal of the former Skarp house across the street and the general cleaning up of a very sub standard lot situation. Conley Brooks, Jr.’s need for this structure arises for at least two reasons, which represent hardships for purposes of this application. First, the house at 980 West Femdale Road has no storage space for such items as lawn furniture, utility trailers, lawn mowers, snow blowers, bicycles, and all the other paraphernalia which one accumulates and has to store (particularly on a seasonal basis). Even including the parcels prospectively combined into 980 West Femdale as a result of this application, there are few, if any, places where such a storage structure could be sited, since the property is mostly marsh or Avithin the 0-75* zone from the shoreline of the lake. The house at 980 West Femdale has a 3-car garage, but there is little room for anything but cars. Secondly, in addition to the storage deficiencies at the 980 West Femdale house site, there is no place to keep items related to the waterfront portion of the property (such things as spare life jackets, ropes, gas cans, water sports equipment, etc.). The proposed structure would allow for relatively convenient storage of such items, servicing the lakeshore portion of the property across the street. Since most of the lakeside land is within the 0-75' zone, the best site for such a structure is across Femdale Road, away from the lake. There has been a garage structure on the proposed site for probably in excess of 50-60 years and that structure has never caused a problem for the road or the neighbors. The proposed £801:921813 2 (; ;) ..; ,1 V. ;.\ i,„.. rniislo '' '■-•»•) d i .»• ' f'" •• /ik> h3 3 -r-^T - .> / • ••• > . ;■/3 • •. E , ? L- ’ I structure would not have primary use as a garage (though it could conceivably be used to store a car); its vehicle access would not face the street and it would not require a surfaced driveway. The nearest neighbor, Mr. McCourtney directly across the street, has no objection to the proposed structure. There are no other neighbors within sight. EB01:921813_2 ' • V 1 3. Q) Variance for Fence: // Conley Brooks, Jr. is proposing to remove the existing dilapidated fence along Femdale Road West for the entire length of Parcel F. and to replace it with a new fenc- A drawing depictmg the location of the current fence and the proposed fence will be submitted to the City under separate cover. The existing fence along the road was part of the original Skarp property. In height, it is mostly 5-6' high, with some missing sections which have been replaced with 3-4' fence. It cmges from about 3.5’ from the road .-Ige at the eastern end of Parcel F to approximately V from the road at the western end. There is a relatively heavy tree line directly behind the fence The proposed new fence would be 6' high, made of cedar, and installed by Sterling Fence Company. The distance from the edge of West Femdale Road would vary from 6-9', depending on the location of the trees to be preserved. A gate would be installed in the fence at a point between trees beginning approximately 12' from the westerly property line, in order to allow vehicles access when necessary. ariances are requested for the location of the fence within the roadway easement and for height. The reasons for the request are as follows: 1 . Parcel F is a lakeshore strip which is very narrow, so there is relatively little usable land. Location of the fence close to the road (but not as close as in the past) would permit more of the parcel to be enjoyed by the property owner. I W ^ M L. ^ - _ • • - - 9 2. 3. There has been a perennial problem with fishermen and other people parking along West Femdale Road in order to access the lake across the private property of others. No-Parking signs have been posted but are frequently ineffectual. Ucation of the fence closer to the road would tend to discourage parking trespass. Parcel F is low-lying and is extremely exposed visually to West Femdale Road, compromising the privacy of anyone using Parcel F for whatever purpose. A 6' fence would enhance this privacy and discourage trespassing. The proposed fence would extend to the property line between Parcel F and Parcel B. (Parcel B is the 20' strip, the ownership of which is the subject of a Torrens court proceeding EB01:92I813 2 :-------- • ——..-r tjj O / involving Conley Brooks, Jr. and Charles Floyd.) The proposed fence would have no impact on Parcel B. '-07 V << S) \ \- »'x \ /*' \\I \ \ \ \ \ '’V. ^0// \ i^BoeO' / / ■>< \ // i.i;c;al description That part of Lot 5, North Shore Cottage Acres described as follows: Reqinninq at the Southeast corner of .said Lot 5, thence along the South line of said Lot in a Northwesterly direction, to a point 90 feet from said place of boqinninq; thence in a Northwesterly direction on a straight line to a point on said East Lot line, 99.1 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot; thence South along the East line of said Lot to the place of beginning. w 4 M C% O O.7 V EXHIBIT 64 1 hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super- | date "7-g~ y7 ’ •A^ wm •i R. IVJJ. MO. .1 hh . . >••. ■ ■t * .*2-1'0•■ i : IZ-&- . ;■ ,♦« • 12-0 . ■s • PAi4al •OMIT IXA -srrop-f* 26/J2’* PoOF 24*'e/4- fLYWD tOoF ^ua^T^H<^ -5»lA8» "THlCkJeH TO |2"viz “ AT ftPmtTtiz. 'V tUb\[L CoMTJMUOj? ppovtpe UjtLo^ \0}\0 WWF -7T 3; IZ'O 24 4X C6 MUUU :b 12-0 ^■1-0 IFIOOE. Pi ^M •1 t-1 r A»' z-'SfmmwM . .. $ ••^ ' IkA ^ * i i <•'*' ' * 1 • . ■ . >ii J5».V:®^Sy&ir-^4S,'! ‘IV. ^ •0: '' y;* "^■ m * •; '>. %■■ \f ij&i ■ jiurn SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75-250’ 250-500’ EXISTING HARDCO\nER IN ZpNE A. House .X Length X X X B. Carase C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X . E. Paiio/Deck 10 X X Landscape Underlain 'IJJ.’N By Plastic ^^ Or FabricWJ X X X G, Other ‘-i B ^ <0 'v *1 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- -r B OPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE House X Length X X X B. Garage . C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ B ^Aoo,<r 3^^ 500-1000’ Width X 1(X) Width X 100 - S.P.5 S.F. S.F. ' S.F. I I. S.F. y 7s S.F. S.F.” S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.- S.F. » 4 • S.F. S.F. 37S S.F. 2 2. fsa S.F. /.Vo A B - fi4A<r. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.-A S.F. S.F. S.F. S.Ft . S.F. ■ 1 • •* S.F. S.F.” A “ S.F. B % SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) liAKULU V t,K C ALC 1 r /tkJi ^CLEONE) 0-75’ 250-500’ ^ 500-1000’'^^^^*^ EXISTING HARDCOMER IN ZONE A. House X Length X X X • • B. Garage ^(6*. N ) C; Drivewav X X D. Sidewalk fAFr X X U/ffr . E. JatiWDeck X X F. Landscape fPj>ru Underlain ___________ By Plastic ___________ Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- _________ 4- B PROPOSED HARDCOV’ER IN ZONE A. House _______ X Len|th X X X » w B. Garage . C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 4- B Width X 100 Width X 100 99pg s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. t I. 97S s.F. 2JOo s.F. ■ s.F. yjo s.F. S.F.7 Jo Zzo S‘^o S.F. S.F. 1? S.F. S.F. » -4 S.F. *f3o s.F. /X'^^Vs.F. /07, JOS S.F. /y. 7/ fo s.F. S.F. S.F.' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.Fs . S.F. • • S.F. •S.F. S.F. % A A B SETBACK ZONENE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 250-500’ EXISTING hardco \t:r in zont , A. House Length X X X • • B. Garage ^/a / At/trgc C.' Driveway X X D. Sidewalk fAFr U/ffT X X . E. -PatiWDeck X X F. Landscape C0jl/c. Underlain ___________ By Plastic ___________ Or Fabric X X X G. Other ^^(k. uaJcl total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B PROPOSED HARDCOVXR IN ZON’F A. House X Length X X X • • B. Garage . C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck X X ■ • F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ ^ B Width X 100 Width X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • I V7tP S.F. ^/OO S.F. S.F. 7Jo S.F. 2^0 S.F. Zzo S'Jr^O S.F. S.F. 2f S.F. S.F. ' ■ ■»« •» S.F. 930 S.F. /07jjas S.F. /y. 7/% S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F; . S.F. f I* S.F. k B «4 ;;S.F. _ S.F. % A B COUNCIL MEETING OCT 13 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CrTYOFORONO DATE: October 10, 1997 ITEM NO.:/O Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr./John Brooks, 980 West Femdale/905 West Femdale - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre, sewered. Application: Request to detach Lot 13, Nortli Shore Cottage Acres from 905 West Femdale, and legally combine it with the Conley Brooks properties which on the survey include Parcels A, E, H and F (Lot 13 is the peninsula segment defined in the survey as Parcel C). List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/17/97 B - Draft Planning Commission Minutes 9/15/97 C - Letter from Applicant to Staff 10/7/97 D - Applicant's Sketches of Area and Views E - Recent Related Correspondence Among the Various Parties: - 8/28/97 Letter to Gaffron from DeVore - 9/2/97 Letter to DeVore from Gaffron - 9/2/97 Letter to DeVore from Barrett - 9/4/97 Letter to Gaffron from DeVore - 9/11/97 Letter to DeVore from Mitchell - 9/11/97 Lettr to Planning Commission from Floyd - 9/12/97 Letter to Moorse from DeVore - 9/22/97 Letter to Gaffron from DeVore - 9/23/97 Letter to Floyd from Brooks - 9/26/97 Letter to Mitchell from DeVore F - Memo and Exhibits of 9/12/97 Summary of Request Please carefully review the memo and exhibits of September 12th, as well as the applicant's additional submittals. Briefly, Conley Brooks sold the property at 905 West Femdale to John Brooks, and Conley Brooks wishes to detach the peninsula extending westward from 905 West Femdale and combine it with his residence parcels at 980 West Femdale. The peninsula is physically attached to and accessible by foot from 905 West Femdale. The peninsula is separated Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 3 October 10, 1997 Zoning File #2298 ______ from 980 West Femdale by a portion of Lake Minnetonka. Conley Brooks has provided additional information in a letter to staff dated October 7th and a letter to Robert Floyd dated September 23rd, elucidating the unique characteristics of this request. In the staff memo of September 12th, it is noted that the proposal has a slight impact on increasing the hardcover percentage for the 905 West Femdale property, which is mostly in the 0-75' lakeshore setback. That memo also notes that while no structures can be placed on the peninsula because it is totally in the 0-75' zone, a significant number of small shrubs and some small trees are growing on the peninsula, but nothing of any large size. Conley Brooks has confirmed in his letter to Robert Floyd that he has an intent to maintain views over the peninsula from 980 (and 960) West Femdale, which will ultimately require vegetation management or removal on the peninsula, the extent of which is undefined. If removal of all existing trees on the peninsula occurs, that may fall within the definition of intensive vegetation clearing which the code prohibits within the 0-75' zone. Planning Commission Recommendation At their September 15th meeting. Planning Commission voted 4 in favor, 3 against a motion to approve the proposed division/combination lot line rearrangement. Please carefully review the draft Planning Commission minutes attached. The approval recommendation was subject to legal combination of Lot 13 with Parcels A, E, F and H, with the alternative that a 'special lot combination' resolution be filed in the title of the affected properties if the County won't legally combine parcels separated by the lake. Staff Recommendation This request is presented by applicant as primarily a means to control the views of the lake over the peninsula which he currently enjoys from the residence at 980 West Femdale Road. An apparent secondary motivation is to acquire additional, more useable lakeshore for "swimming and other water recreation". The proposal would result in the 980 West Femdale property acquiring an additional 500' of Lake Minnetonka shoreline and reducing the 905 West Femdale shoreline to approximately 1,500'. A potential ramification of this is that under LMCD rules, Conley Brooks might be credited with enough additional shoreline to have a few additional privately owned boats stored at the property. Despite the applicant's submittals espousing the logic of the proposal, staff still views the detachment of the peninsula from 905 West Femdale as extremely inconsistent with the basic concepts of property contiguity and logical planning. The only access to the peninsula proposed by Brooks is via water. He has not indicated that there will be a walking easement across 905 r I hf Request for Council Action continued Page 3 of 3 October 10, 1997 Zoning File #2298 _____ West Femdale to the peninsula. The peninsula is physically contiguous only to 905 West Femdale, even though its use and maintenance appears to have a significant impact on views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. The hardcover ramifications are minimal from a numerical standpoint and inconsequential from a practical standpoint. Notwithstanding the applicant's rationale for this division/combination, and in spite of the Planning Commission's majority recommendation to approve, staff does not recommend approval of this request, based on the lack of contiguity. The City normally only recognises contiguity either by direct adjacency of land parcels or separation only by a roadway. The existing situation has both adjacency and contiguity. The proposal has neither. Finally, there is a concern about setting a precedent by allowing the combination of parcels that are physically separated by a body of water. Does the degree of separation matter? For instance, would someone who owns property on Big Island claim the City should allow legal combination with a tract on the mainland they use for dock purposes? The Zoning Code would not allow the creation of such a mainland dock tract. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Council is requested to determine whether the proposed subdivision/combination will be approved, and direct staff to draft an appropriate resolution. Options for action include: 1.Conceptually approve subject to legal combination of Lot 13 with parcels that make up (or ultimately will make up) 980 West Femdale Road; or if Hennepin Courity wUl not combine across the lagoon, approve the concept of a "special lot combination resolution to be filed in the chain of titles of all affected properties, recognizing a unique relationship between Lot 13 and the mainland property at 980, and disallowing future separation or separate sale of those properties without City approval. 2,Conceptually deny based on the lack of contiguity and adjacency as well as the potential for setting a negative precedent. 3. Table for further consideration. 4.Other. Note: Items of recent correspondence on related topics are included for Council s information CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Conley Brooks, Jr. 980 West Femdale Road Wayzata, MN 55391 ZONING FILE #2298 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; September 17, 1997 COPIES: Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. Lindquist & Vennum 4200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2205 TYl E OF APPLICATION: Subdivision-Lot Line Rearrangement DATE OF MEETING: 09/15/97 VOTE: 4 FOR 3 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Subject to legal combirition of Lot 13 with Parcels A, E, F and H; if this is not possible per Hennepin County, City/applicant to execute a Special Lot Combination resolution to be filed in the title of the affected properties. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council on Monday, October 13, 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 ^ter review and approval by the Planning Commission. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 Smith and Lindquist agr eed with the runoflf problem. Lindquist suggested the applicant work with the City Engineer. While noting the developer is not responsible for the current problems, they do, however, need to be corrected. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2294. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (The meeting was recessed for 7 minutes.) (#4) #2298 CONLEY BROOKS, JR. AND JOHN BROOKS, 905/980 FERNDALE ROAD WEST - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - PUBUC HEARING 9;39<10:21 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. ! ^Gaffion reported that the application is a request to detach Lot 13, North Shore Cottage Acres from 905 West Feradale, and legally combine it with the Conley Brooks properties located across the lagoon. Parcels A, E, H, and F. This is designated as a Class I subdivision as no plat is required as it was previously platted. Gaffion noted that another Ipgal opinion on title work is being conducted on a similar property. Gaffion indicated that the reattachment of the property to property across the lagoon from it makes sense as the property is only accessed by water. The code does not address this issue. •-4% ■ . 4^. > .»• * > \ ■ r H * -f', i ■ ■; t • i ::i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 It is the desire cf the applicant to preserve his views across the lacoon. There is no structure located in the 0-75' setback. Some smaller trees may impact the views in the future. Gaffron said Hennepin County would most likely allow the legal combination with property across the lagoon under the special lot combmation resolution on the chain of tide stipulating it can not be separated in the future without City approval. This would eliminate the possibility of creating a buildable lot that could be sold off. Gaffron reviewed the three issues for consideration included in the packet on page 2 of the memo. Smith was informed that the Shoreland District regulations control what occurs as it is m the 0-75' setback. Attorney, Bob Mitchell, referred to the definition of hardcover and the lay of the land. He noted the peculiar parcel was approved as such 20 years ago. Schroeder noted the percentage of increase of hardcover by amount of land is decreasing. Conley Brooks, Jr., said he is attempt to create a more sensible arrangement and improving \aews. He is also attempt to reacquire 905 Femdale. He says a scenic easement would be obtained that allows for maintenance of vegetation for the future. He would like to have that responsibility in lieu of an adjacent neighboring doing so. Brooks reported that the area between the lagoon and shoreland is mucky, and acquiring this piece of property would allow for a swimming area. ■i 2S K MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15,1997 Brooks said it would be superfluous for 905 West Femdale to own it and would make lo^cal sense. He has no plans to improve it and would not object to combining the parcels. He has a scenic easement with John Brooks. This will also improve the views for Mr. Floyd and other neighbors. During public comments, Robert Floyd, 960 West Femdale, reviewed the nine basic points and issues of concern that he noted in a letter received by the Planmng Commission at the meeting. Floyd said a problem with the plan is the instability of the property lines and setting a precedent within Orono regarding redrawing of the area. He is concerned with what happens in the future. Floyd said the City should inform its citizens of what is occurring allowing for others to liave considered this option. Floyd s^d he did not think it was possible for this scenario to occur. Floyd is concerned that this arrangement would present a feeling that property lines are temporary in nature. He indicated the code stipulates that adjacent property owners have to be considered. He noted the goal of the code is to preserve the valuation of the land. He noted the care of the waterway needs utmost consideration. Floyd reviewed problems. He noted the view from over the maple trees is a concern when the trees mature. The channel was noted to be difficult in its habit of filling with sand. A point on Lot 13 was removed to enable navigation of the channel. He questioned what would occur in the future. Floyd questioned whether all of the issues have been reviewed. He referenced the future of the parcel and other subdivisible parcels. He asked what criteria is used. He noted he would be interested in acquiring some of the land in the future and fears that information «Wr : i f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15, IQ')? he would need would not be available. He asked that consideration be aiven for how such matters would be handled and who would be able to purchase the properties. His concern is with preservation of the land. Floyd was concerned that the Planning Commission has not been gjven the time to review the issues he addressed in his letter, Jerry McCourtney. 1055 West Femdale, noted that this piece of parcel is the only beach area for use by the area. He indicated that Mr. Floyd has use of the area for beach but has never maintained it. McCourtney said Brooks has maintained it since purchasing it and would like to add it to his property rather than see it revert to its prior condition. r Brooks said he would be willing to relocate the maple trees onto the shoreland on the other side of the peninsula. He reiterated that the parcels would be combined. Lindquist said he saw the detachment and reattachment as inconsistent. Lindquist voiced his opinion that the land should stay as part of the adjoining land. 0 Hawn said she was not against the application. Lindquist noted that there would be little pieces of land but would be in support if the ownership was contiguous. Stoddard was informed by Gafiron that he was unaware of any similar cases. Hawn noted a property that has shoreland with an adjoining island. Gaffron acknowledged this but noted both are owned by the same person inland from it but separate tax parcels. Schroeder indicated that the property would no longer be contiguous but noted the property could not be developed anyways. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 Oaffron asked if the Commissioners would allow the propertv to be sold from the 980 West Femdale parcel. The Commissioners said they would not recommend that and only support the proposal with a combination of the lots. Schroeder noted that the process of special lot comb'mation with covenant requiring City approval for any changes would also require a public hearing before any transfer could occur. He indicated by following this process, nothing could just happen as feared by Eoyd without the public being notified. 1 Floyd asked what rationalization or criteria is being used to allow this to occur. Schroeder informed him that the applicant could sell the parcel to Floyd in the future. Floyd noted there was no way for hhn to make future plans. Berg informed him of the right of people to sell their property. » Floyd asked what other properties could do the same as indicated by this proposal. GiflBron said continuity must be shown in order to preserve the code. The property must abut or be adjacent to combine and include a principal structure. He noted there were incidents where docks are located across the road from the principal structure. Gaffron explained the approval for the lot combination of980 West Femdale that was approved by Council. Floyd noted the hearings in process regarding that approval. The ability to gain access to the lake through dredging was noted to have received a permit from the DNR. Attorney, Kevin Dvorak, asked about the use of the land by Brooks and the taxation of Lot 13 if it is not seen as a tax parcel. Schroeder reported that the land is taxed but not MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 leeallv combined. Gaffron reported that the leaal combmation includes fssuance of a separate tax number. He noted it was a contiguous tax parcel to the parcel across the road but came out of a separate subdivision. Smith noted the issue is not one of continuity but of relative space. Gaffron agreed. Brooks informed the Commission that he would be uncomfortable with maintaining and using property that he did not own. He felt the two properties are consistent in view of drawing a logical line for ownership. Schroeder asked if the dispute regarding the 20' land strip had any bearing on this application. Gaffron said it is his understanding that it does not. The 20* strip is a separate piece of land jointly owned by Floyd and Brooks. He indicated the case was made by Brooks that would result in his acquiring the pordon on the south side of the center line exclusive of the City road and would have no bearing on the combination but h cannot occur unless this happens. Hawn moved, Schroeder seconded, to grant the request as submitted with a legal combmation of Lot 13 or special lot combination per Hennepm County. McMillan asked that the motion include the clarification that the peninsula piece of land is unbuildable. It was noted the parcel is in the 0-75' setback. A rational continuity is to be shown for the combination to occur. It was noted that the special lot combmation allows for a subdivision with special restrictions by covenants. 32 -V J';; I' 1 • * **;♦ - - ■ ^-‘ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15,1997 BercK questioned whether the additional land would be used in determinine the amount of hardcover available. Gaf&on indicated the 0-75* and 75-250' setback areas are considered separately. Schroeder said the lot size is what will increase. Smith voiced concern with additional land acquiring deeming a lot buildable. Hawn noted it was located in the 0-75' setback. Gafifron said it could be a concern in a different arrangement but not in this case due to the setback and lakeshore. Schroeder asked the motion include a scenic easement which will benefit the property owner of980 West Femdale and Robert Floyd, Floyd noted that the covenants do not address the maple trees located on the tip of the point. Brooks said he does have the scenic easement already and is willing to move the maple trees. Schroeder noted that no easement would be required if he owns the property. The special lot arrangement was expired. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 3, Lindquist, Smith, and Berg, Berg said she is concerned wiiIi setting a precedent. Lindquist said the proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehenave Plan and the property is not contiguous. ACTION ITEMS (#6) GARY AND BONNIE BIRNBAUM, 2695 KELLY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING 10:21-10:31 P,M. mi nfifp CoxLEv Brooks, OTr. 9SO WEST FERNOALE ROAD WAYZATA. MINNESOTA .*55001 o tgm October 7, 1997 The Orono City Council c/o Mr. Mike Gaffron 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Council Members: This letter is in further support of my application ® JiJ^ivison/recombination, to be considered as 1007 Council meeting on October 13, Attached are three exhibits which should serve to Clarify the reasoning behind my application: 1. Exhibit A is a letter from me to Mr. Robert Floyd, my neighbor, pertaining to the Lot 13 sub division/recombination. This letter addresses the unusual and unique nature of this situation and stresses that it should not be regarded as some sort of precedent for other transactions. 2. Exhibit B is a map indicating the parcels of property owned by 980 West Ferndale Road, including Lot 13. The map is intended to show how the parcels logically are arranged with respect to one another and fit together as a group, despite the fact that Lot 13 is separated from the rest by water. ^ 3. Exhibit C shows view sightlines from the four properties which have visual access to Lot 13: 905, 960, 980, (formerly) 1045, and 1055 West Ferndale Road. As the exhibit demonstrates, the properties at 905 and 1055 West Ferndale have relatively little exposure to Lot 13 from a view standpoint. However, 960 (the Floyds) has a view over the peninsula, and my property at 980 and the former 1045 West Ferndale Road are particularly engaged with Lot 13 for their view. At 1045, given the low-lying topography of that lot, it is ; GOVT LOT 2 GOVT LOT ESTATE S Todd R. Iuff * Kevin W. D eV ore A nn M. H-vle Iliff & A ssociates , P.A. A ttorneys A t Law Phone; 612/922-4647 Fax: 612/922-478.« Mr. Mike Gaf&on City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Charles P. Floyd Our File No. 1652.9701 WG 2 9 1951 Dear Mike: This letter follows the Orono City Council Meeting held on August 11, 1997. It is apparent that the City has taken a new, or at least more definitive, position on \^t my client’s interest in the property adjoining the 1045 West Femdale Road property (T045 Property") actually is. With respect to the City’s opinion regarding my clients’ ownership interests in the 1045 Property and any other surrounding properties, including the 20 Foot Parcel, please provide me with any information you have that supports that position. This information (i.e. separate tax parcel, lot created in 1951, etc., as stated by the City during the August 11 City Council meeting) includes any documentation or evidence of statements made by the City, or any other party, regarding how and when my client’s interests in the 20 Foot Parcel was created, as well as the current status of the 20 Foot Parcel as a separate lot. Moreover, I would appreciate receiving any new information you have regarding the City s position on the 1045 Property and the surrounding properties that I may not already have. If you have any questions or comments with respect to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ILIFF & ASSOCIATE Kevin W. DeVore Attorney at Law KWD/jlw cc: Chailes and Joan Floyd Todd R. Iliff, Esq. i:rp\ltr\f!oyd.rotg A mericana Bank Building . *^050 France A venue South , Suite 240. Edina . MN 55410 * Certified by the Real Property Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association as a Real Property Law Specialist September 2,1997 GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 I Kevin W. DeVore Attorney at Law Iliff & Associates, P, A, Americana Bank Building 5050 France Avenue South Suite 240 Edina, MN 55410 P^: Brooks/Floyd Matter ‘ Yo«r Letter of August 28 Dear Kevin: I don t believe the City s position regarding your client's interest in the 20 Foot Parcel has changed significantly during the course of the subdivision application review. My staff memo of August 8, 1997 references the 1951 deed from Skarp to Austin and Dye, of which 1 am sure you have a copy since it was in the package of information provided to the Court by Mr. Mitchell. You, your client, and Mr. Mitchell have all during the course of various discussions of the subdivision process, given me the impression that the owners of 960 and 980 claim and intend to prove some type of joint ownership of the 20 Foot Parcel (Parcel B on the application survey) as separate from the former Skarp property which includes Parcels F, G, and I. My reasonable conclusion therefore, is that the intent of both Brooks and Floyd is to establish Parcel B as a separate tax parcel. Further, because the City apparently did not have a subdivision ordinance in effect in 1951 (as evidenced by my review of Orono Township ordinances adopted from 1950 thru 1954), Skarp was likely able to quit claim Parcel B without City approval. And, since that 1951 deed was apparently recorded with the County on December 5, 1962 (based on the notation at the bottom of the second page of the deed). Parcel B is likely to be considered a "Lot of Record" per Orono Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 6 which states that "a Lot of Record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota prior to January 1, 1975 and after approval by the Council if required." My reasonable cr»nrl*ision based on the uiformation noted above, is that for unknown reasons. Parcel 1 Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-05)0 r 4^ # 16 Kevin W. DeVore September 2, 1997 Page 2 B v/as never granted a separate tax parcel number, but probably will end up as an independent tax parcel. Further, to my knowledge I have not suggested, and have not intended to suggest, that the Floyds have any specific interest in any of the parcels identified on the survey other than Parcel B. The staff recommendation adopted by the City Council on August 11 includes the requirement that a final resolution formalizing the approval shall not be adopted until the applicants (McCourtney and Brooks) have provided satisfactory evidence of ownership of Parcels A, E, F, G, H, I and J. The Council took this action with the full knowledge that Parcel B is likely to end up as a separate tax parcel and is not, therefore, included in their motion. I trust this addresses your questions of August 28. Frankly, I don't know how you got the impression that I suggested your client has interest in anything but Parcel B. If I have referenced any documents you do not have, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator MPG/lsv cc: Tom Barrett, City Attorney 4 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON BELLEVILLE. ILLINOIS BL(M)MINGTON. ILLINOIS CHAMPAIGN. ILLINOIS CHICAGO. ILLINOIS JOLIET. ILLINOIS LISLE. ILUNOIS PEORIA. ILLINOIS RCXTKFURD. ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD. ILLINOIS WAUKEGAN. ILLINOIS PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER SUITE 3200 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 612.333 3434 TELEFAX: 612.334 8RRH FT. LAUDERDALE. FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA MIA.MI. FLORIDA TAMPA. FLORIDA MUNSTER. INDIANA ST LOUIS. MISSOURI APPLETON. WISCONSIN BROOKRELD. WISCONSIN L.\KE GENEVA. WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE. WISCONSIN WRITER S DIRECT DIAL NO. 334-2676 Kevin W. DeVore Iliff and Associates, P.A. Attorneys at Law Americana Bank Building, 5050 France Avenue South Suite 240 Edina, Minnesota 55410 September 2, f^7 ! .!w' L RLE NO. SEP 3 199T Dear Mr DeVore: I have been sent a copy of your letter dated August 28, 1997 to Mr. Gaffron at the City of Orono, and I have reviewed his reply. As Mr. Gaffron has pointed out, the City staff is proceeding to draw reasonable conclusions from the title documents which have been presented to it. I will be happy to receive from you any opinion of counsel which you may have as to the title of parcels A,E,F,G,H,I and J which are being subdivided. Please provide this promptly, as the matter is proceeding forward. At the present time I expect that a title opinion or title insurance binder from the applicants will provide the basis for my advice to the City as to whether to allow final subdivision. The City and its attorneys do not provide an opinion as to title; that is required of the applicants. As to the status of Parcel B, Mr. Gaffron has provided you with his view, with which I concur. Please submit any information, legal or factual, which you believe would lead us to conclude differently. Very truly yours. Tliomas J. BOTett cc: Mike Gaffron • -1 082/22144923 9/2/97 A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Todd R. Iliff* K kvin W. D eV ore A nn M. H ale Iliff & A ssociates , P.A. A ttorneys A t Law September 4, 1997 Phone: 612/922-4647 RFCBVEO 612/922-4788 SEP 8^997 Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Cr>'stal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Charles and Joan Floyd Our File No. 1652.9701 Dear Mr. Gaffron: VIA TELECOPIER TRANSMISSION AND FIRST CLASS MAIL I am in receipt of your letter dated September 2, 1997 as well as the letter from the City Attorney, Thomas J. Barrett, Esq., regarding my letter addressed to you dated August 28, 1997. My clients and I are encouraged by the fact that the City apparently recognizes Parcel B as a separate tax parcel and that apparently it was created in 1951 by Henry Skarp. We are also encouraged by the fact that you and Mr. Barrett believe the City will consider the Parcel B a "lot of record". Nonetheless, my clients have some concerns regarding how the City is going to handle the issue of whether Parcel B will in fact be considered a lot of record as of 1951. My clients have no intention of being disadvantaged or hindered in any way because of some misguided recording work done by previous owners of Parcel B or by the City back in 1951. It is my client's position that Parcel B should be approved as a separate tax parcel retroactively as of 1951. My clients request the City to give them a definitive determinati./n whether Parcel B will be treated as a separate tax parcel created in 1951 or whether the City intends to apply the Zoning Ordinances that are currently in place. If the City cannot definitively state that Parcel B is a separate tax parcel created in 1951, then there still exists the possibility that Parcel B is a part of the tax parcel that is currently under Subdivision Application. If so, the owners of Parcel B (Charles and Joan Floyd) should have been named as parties to the subdivision proceedings. Moreover, it is uncertain whether any City action is required to find that Parcel B is a lot of record. Is any such action required? If a definitive answer cannot be given by the City to these issues, then I insist that the City postpone making a final determination on the Subdivision Application until such time as the Parcel B issues can be resolved. A mericana Bank Building . 5050 France A venue South , Suite 240. Edina . MN 55410 * Certified by the Real Property Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association as a Real Property Law Specialist LINDQUIST & VENNUM p.l.l.p. Attoakeys AtU w Robert C. Milchell, Jr. (612) 371-3262 rmitchelfdlindqulst.com 4200 IDS C enter 80 South Ecmtm Street ^♦nnearous . Minnesota 55402-2205 Telephone : 612-371-3211 Fax :612-371.3207 September 11, 1997 In D enver Lindquist , Vennum & C hristensen p l.l.p. 6001 7th Street . Suite 2125 D enver . C olorado 80202-5401 TaEPMONE: 303-573-5900 Mr. Kevin W. DeVore Iliff & Associates, P.A. RECEIVED Americana Bank Building 5050 France Avenue South - Suite 240 SEP 1 5 1997 Edina, MN 55410 CITY OF ORONO Re: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Floyd 960 West Ferndale Road Wayzata, Minnesota Dear Kevin: Thank you for your letter of September 5, 1997. Enclosed is a copy of the deed from Skarp to Conley Brooks, Jr.. Also attached is a diagram showing the location of the parcels. With regard to the 20 foot parcel, Conley Brooks, jr.'s position remains the same as it was last spring when we first contacted you. His position was then and is now that the properly at 960 West Ferndale Road and Conley Brooks, jr.'s new property at 980 West Ferndale Road are the successors in interest to one-half interests as tenants-in-common in the 20 foot parcel by virtue of the 1951 deed from Skarp to Dye (980 West Ferndale) and Austin (960 West Ferndale). Orono, the Hennepin County Assessor, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Registrar of Titles all understand that there are different aspects to the 20 foot parcel which are not necessarily in complete harmony. The 1951 deed was given and recorded. The 1951 deed mav have pre-dated any subdivision requirement in the City of Orono. To my knowledge, no separate real estate tax identification of the 20 foot parcel EB01:J2345l 1 r M' LINDQUIST & VENNUM p.llp. Mr. Kevin W. DeVore August 13, 1997 Page 2 was made. Please do not make the common error of assuming that the assignment of real estate tax identification numbers is definitive as to either Orono ordinance compliance or ownership of the land itself. You will find that the Orono subdivision process is authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 462, whereas the assignment of real estate tax identification numbers by the Hennepin County Assessor is governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 272. While there are some linkages between the two systems, each one does proceed independently under its own statutory procedure. The Registrar of Titles involvement is to register title and establish ownership. Finally, permit me to reiterate that Conley Brooks, jr. is now, has been and continues to be interested in working with the Floyd family to work out a suitable, legal. proper and workable dock plan for the Floyds. The assignment of real estate tax identification numbers is a small part of the real problem. Let me define the real problem. The real problem with the existing, ambiguous situation is that at worst the Floyds have no legal storage rights on Lake Minnetonka for docks and boats; and at best they have a one-half interest in a 20 foot parcel. New to the scene (circa 1959) is the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and its jurisdiction over docks on Lake Minnetonka. As I have indicated to you, the LMCD ordinances generally require 10 foot side setbacks for docks, but in some instances those setbacks may be only 5 feet. In the former case, a 20 foot parcel would not be usable at all; in the later circumstance, there would be 10 feet of usable space in the middle of a 20 foot parcel. In addition, the 20 foot parcel is some distance from the Floyds' house and the City of Orono frowns upon that sort of access EB01;9234SI 1 * tf I ^ '-i LINDQUIST & VENNUM p.l lp. Mr. Kevin W. DeVore August 13, 1997 Pages s Ii situation. Since the 20 foot parcel evidently did not go through the Orono subdivision process, that creates a problem for the City of Orono. The proposal continues to be that the Floyds and the Conley Brooks, Jrs. negotiate to the end that the Floyds would give up their interest in the 20 foot parcel and would obtain some lakeshore land directly in front of the house at 960 West Ferndale Road. I enclose again the diagram showing the relative location of the 20 foot parcel and the new parcel which consists of approximately 55 feet of lakeshore. I further recommend that when the Examiner of Titles report comes out that you and I make an appointment to talk to one of the judges to get a feel for the land title registration process. At that time, we should also have a further conversation with the City of Orono zoning administrator (Mike Caffron) to obtain their views on the relative merits of the 20 foot parcel as opposed to the 55 foot parcel for the purposes of dockage for 960 West Ferndale Road. Finally, we should meet with the LMCD (Greg Nybeck) so that they can explain to both of us the pros and cons of dockage on the 20 foot parcel compared to dockage on the 55 foot parcel. Based upon that additional data perhaps we will be in a better position to determine what is in the best interests of both the Brooks and the Floyds regarding this complicated matter. Thank you. Very truly yours, LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.L.L.P. EBO 1:923431 I r . I r II I LINDQUIST & VENNUM p.llp. Mr. Kevin W. DeVore August 13, 1997 Page 4 RCM/els cc:Mr. and Mrs. Conley Brooks, Jr. Examiner of Titles Attention: Rick Little Richard Edblom City of Orono Attention: Mike Gaffron Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Attention: Greg Nybeck 1 i M £801:923451.1 • #r art Of “IionoHOj Sept. 11. 1997 SEP. 1 2 1997, A > ^ ^ Orono Planning Commission Mr. Mike Gaflfon Citv' of Orono 2750 Kelley Park\va>- P.O. Box 66 Cr>stal Bay, Mn, 55323 Dear Commis.sion Members and Mr. Gaffron, I am writing regarding the request for a subdivision of the propert>* located at 005 Femdale Road in which a portion ot propertv' identified as Lot 13 of North Shore Cottage Acres is being seperated from the 905 property'and joined to the properU'at 980 West Ferndale Road. faniih' ov. is and resides at 960 West Ferndale Road which is located between the 905 and 980 properties. We also own lakeshore south of West Femdale Road between 905 and 1045. In addition the lake view firor.i our heme is to the south directly c^ el• the 905 propei1> and this Lot ) 3 properK. Our boating access to the main waters of Lake Minnetonka is through a small waterwav between the Lot 1 3 and 1 045 properties. Quite ob\ iousK Lot 13 and its use have a great effect on the usage and value of our properties. Both the Cit}' Codes and the Communit>' Management Plan Iwve numerous entries detailing the goals, procedures, and requirements guiding and regulating your actions regarding subdivisions. These also detail the issues, rights, and goals to be considered regarding neighboring properties and the communirv' as a whole. Clearly tlie close relationship of Lot 1 3 and mv tamilys properties include several of these and as this is the case, I ha\e a number of issues that I would like to address. First I have a grave concent for how such a paitition will affect the stability of the Femdale neighborhood and the entire ciK, especially areas around the lake. Tiie Cir>' Codes and CMP hold orderly development and stabilitv' to be important goals to achieve. There is great demand for lakeshore all over Orono, and there are numerous sites where nearby » ) propert}' owners would like to individually, or as a group, purchase a portion of a propertN' to obtain lake access or purchase an entire property' and divide it among a number of nearby ou tiers for the lakesliore. To allow such arrangements w ould raise the \ alue per foot of lakeshore to such a high level that many, if not all lakeshore owners would be tempted to sell small portions, or all of their propert>- for such uses. Veiy likely the resulting propertv ’ tax increases would force or persuade many more to do the same. Left unchecked, it could result in a substancial proportion of lakeshore changing from single family residences to a proliferation of many small slices of land sen ing nearby properties as purely lake access sites. This clearlv is not the future which the citv’s CMP and CiK Code book advocate• • • for single family residential properties with lakeshore. I feel that the proposed subdivision of the 905 propert>' is a very similar situation in both the motivation and the result. .A.dd to this subdivision, the proposed .subdivisions on 1045 and a yet to be submitted additional partitioning of the 905 propern- and you can verv' well see the pattern that I’m referring to. i hese are combining to efteciiveh’ redraw the properties surrounding our home. I realize propoiye i.nvners have a right to do as the> w ish with their land • within limits. But the city also has zoning and land use regulations for many reasons, which I stronalv fee! arc oicsent in this situation. There are a larae w • 4 ^ number of sections in the Citv Cede book and the CMP which are directlv related to this application and those for adjoining properties. Page 4-3 of the CMP when discussing rural land use plans, points out that Orono's citizen.^ are making prit ate investnents based on the concepts and information in the CMP and are entitled to knoc/ that they can rely on the plan. Certainly the same can be said for vour zonin j rules and reaulaiions and the other sections• w w of the CMP. -^nd yet to allow propertv ’ ow ners to change propert}' lines and relationships purely on a whim or personal Uke<5 and desires alone would leave all properties \’ulnerab!e. This constant change and uncertaintv’ would provide no protection from a w ide range of affects on eac’u propertv ’s usage and value which w ould certainK result in a substancial nun:ber of these situations. There also is no criteria and predictable system in place to guide decisions regarding small divisions and redrawing of propertv' lines such as w'e see occurring around us at 905. 980. 1045. and 1055 West Femdale Road. How could any potential or current propenv' ovwier possibly anticipate and react to such an unpredictable and unstable environment or assess its potential impact in the fiiture. Property owners slu.nild ha^•e an assurance that propertv' lines are more than merely a temporaiy agreement that can be changed at anv time and for aiw reason. propert}' owners would like to individually, or as a group, purchase a portion of a property to obtain lake access or purchase an entire propert>' and divide it among a number of nearby owners for the lakeshore. To allow such arrangements w ould raise the value per foot of lakeshore to such a high level that many, if not all lakeshore owners wou>d be tempted to sell small portions, or all of their propert>' for such uses. Veiy likely the resulting property' tax increases would force or persuade many more to do the same. Left unchecked, it could result in a substancial proportion of iakcihore changing from single family residences to a proliferation of many small slices of land serving nearby properties as purely lake access sites. This clearlv is not the future which the citv's CMP and Cit\- Code book advocate for single family residential properties with lakeshore. I feel that the proposed subdivision of the 905 property' is a very similar situation in both the motivation and the result. Add to this subdivision, the proposed .subdivisions on 1045 and a yet to be submitted additional partitioning of the 905 property and you can very' well see the pattern that I'm referring to. t hese are combining to effectively redraw’ the properties surrounding our home. I realize propoity ow ners have a right to do as they wish w ith their land w'ithin limits. But the city also has zoning and land use regulations for many reason.s, which I strongly feel are present in this situation. There are a large number of sections in the Ci^^ Cede book and the CMP-which are directly related to this application and those for adjoining properties. Page 4-3 of the CMP when discussing rural land use plans, points out that Orono's citizens are making pri\ate investments based on the concepts and information in the CMP and are entitled to kno w that they can rely on the plan. Certainly the same can be said for your zoning rules and regulations and the other sections of the CMP. .And yet to allow property cw ners to change property lines and relationships purely on a whim or personai likes and desires alone would leave all properties vulnerable. This constant change and uncertainty would prov ide no protection from a wide range of affects on each property’s usage and value which would certainlv result in a substancial nurriber of these 9 situations. There also is no criteria and predictable system in place to guide decisions regarding small divisions and redraw ing of property lines such as w'e see occurring around us at 905. 980. 1045. and 1055 West Femdale Road. Kow could any potential or current property ovviier possibly anticipate and react to such -’n unpredictable and unstable environment or assess its potential impact in the fiiture. Property owners sh«.nild have an assurance that property lines are more than merely a temporaiy agreement that can be. chansed at anv time and for aiw reason. .■K y' To encourage a situation in which anyone with the means ..nd inclinati> a can redraw' all the surrounding properties to their ow n likins. w ith iicighboriiig piopert>‘ owners having liule or no voice or representation tor their interests and wishes, would likely lead to a form of aims race in whicli all property ow ners are forced to continuously jockey for agreements anu coalitions to deal w ith it. This would be required both of those desiring change and those merely tr. ing to defend their interests or the status quo. It certainly could not be contributing to public peace and harmony or the orderly development ot the citv’. It also would not be protecting the value of the surrounding properties, the character, social, and economic stabilirv of the city or neighborhoods. Such a system would certainly lead to conflict and adversely afltect propertv- values and people's qualitv' of life. This is n;r<. an exaggeration at all, as it is exactly what our neighborhood is experiencing * right now'. I’m convinced that none of us are eniovina this situation or the friction, expense, uncertainrr. stress, delayed project, and other numerous problems we are all currently having because of it. To continue thi.s ill advi.sed and unfounded situation w ill certainlv lead to even greater strife tor all concerned. It is one thing to purchase numerous properties and own them. It is something totally difl'erent to start can ing up a ncighborho< 'd redraw'ing it to your personal liking. What is the purpose of all of these zoning laws and regulations but to avoid these tvpes of conti-s ;s. I here is no wa> tliat an avera-'e homeow ner would re. • ^■our CiP.' Codes and ever think that these P pes of subdivisions w ould be allowed If the Cit> ot Orono is now changing the codes or their iiiteipreiation or enforcenienL then it should be sure to explain this and promulgate all the details so that all citizens can take advantage of it and seek similar subdivisions if they w ish. My family would have had numerous opportunities to pursue such agreements it the CiP‘ had made this clear in the past. Most resident.^ ha^ e understood the current regulations to mean that for this area, in order to subdivide your propertv' at all, you would need Pvo acres for your own residence and at least two additional acres to subdivide. If this is not correct, then I would very much like to have the coiTect definition of w hat is acceptable and what criteria and guidelines are used to evaluate the applications in some equitable and consistant fashion. The Citv- Code clearly also requires the Commission and Council to consider adjoining lands as yet not subdivided, which is absolutelv not being done in d is series of applications. Thi.s is not a gray area, it is clearly required oi all subdivisions in the CiP of Orono. They require consideration ot the affects, in numerous facets, that any subdivision will have on adjoining properties and the cip- as a whole. This will only be possible bv 3 examining all the subdivisions of these properties simultaneously. To grant these subdivisions without a long hard look at the precedent that you will be settine for our neiahborhood and the entire cir.- would be neglecting your duty,'in my opinion. This is not a simple situation, but no one ever purported that ninnins a city would be simple. The applicaiion process in this series of subdivisions has aiso oeen flav\ eo, as the cit>- codes clearly require substancial infoiniation to be included in all subdivision applications, not just certain t>'pes. The property in question at this time, 905. is not a problem propertv- m anv form. There is no Qaw or defective situation that needs correcting, so what is the justification for this requested partition. The desired use ot Lo 13 and maintanance of the view can be accomplished with covenants and easements rather than a subdivision. Apparently the removal ot Lot l o trom the rest of 905 is far more likely to create a problem, in hardcover and .setback requirements for the 905 house, than to correct any procieni or hardship. It is also my opinion that the proposed co^■c•nant.s ot allowing no docka2e or structures to be built at any fuUire time on Lot io is not presen-ina the value of the land, in this valuable, desirable, and highl> usable prhne wuter trontage. In my opinion, the Lot 13 shoreline is one o the finest viewing, swimming, and water sports sites on the-entire lake. vv nai provision has been made tor access to the site, is it clearh stale m t le application-;* Both the Circ Codes and CMP require that the care ana concern in making the decision shall increase relative to the propert> s P^oximiU jo a lake or w’eilands. Being that this propert>- is very nearh surroundeu b> me lake, it should rccch c the highest degree of scrutiny pos.siblc ^ The CMP in section 1-3 defines views of the lakeshore as mvaiuable propertv rishts. As our view is over the propert>- in question, we have concerns over a number of maple trees which have been planted by Conle> Brooks Jr. in the last > ear or nvo w hich, if allowed to reach maiurit> . wui adversely affect the lakeview of the owners of 905. 1055. and our property. 1 have discussed this with Conley Brooks Jr. and he is apparently planning to transplant them to his portion of the 1045 propert>' which would solve this problem, but I w ould like to see the matter addressed as an issue in tins subdivision request so that it is clearly taken care of, as it will have a major impact on neighbonng properties' views. It is worth remembemig that given the life span of a tree, vou must also consider the interests and wishes o ftmire propertv- owners as well as the current owners of each propertv-. Another reason we consider Lot 13 to be of importance to us is its ailect on our lake access. Because of water cuiTCuts and sand deposits resulting from them, the waterway providing our access to the rest of the lake has m 0^ 9 . • • f \ past years been increasingly filled in to the point of threatening our ability.' to get boats into the cove and to reach the shoreline of each of the properties adjoining it. This thankfully has been solved for the time being b\‘ dredaina done by John Brooks and Conley Brooks Jr. quite recently. But our concern is to provide a mechanism that will guarantee that fjtiire owners of Lor } 3 will not in any way artempt to prevenc the owners ofadjoinina properties from keeping the waterway navigable in the future, even if it requirc.s removal ot some portion of that land, as it is Lot 13 where the sand deposits and the land actually grows into the waterway. Finally, in the Cit}' Code book, page 431, Subd. 10 A, requires (shaf include) that all issues identified in the subdivision have been addressed bv the subdivider for (9) certification by the zoning administrator. As I strongly feel that lias not been the case so tar in tliis series of subdivisions, not on the part ot the zoning administrator, but in the actions of your commission and' die O/irt Council. I am hopetul that there will be a more careful and detailed consideration of all the issues involved in this application and those involving all the adjoining properties before a decision is made on apA* of these subdh ision requests or permits of any kind are issued on ihe.se properties. Sincerelv, Robert T. Flo' cl -S’ Todd R. Iliff* Kevin W. D eVore Ann M. IL\le Iliff & Associates, P.A. Attorneys At Law September 12, 1997 StP ' 5 W91 OF ORONO Phone: 612/922-4647 Fax: 612/922-4788 Mr Ron Moorse VIA TELECOPIER TRANSMISSION City of Orono AND FIRST CLASS MAIL 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Bo.. 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Charles and Joan Floyd Our File No. 1652.9701 Dear Mr. Moorse: As you are aware, the undersigned repre.sents Charles and Joan Floyd, owners of real property located at 960 West Femdale Road. It is my understanding the Orono City Council has decided to table the Subdivision Application for 1045 West Femdale Road until the issues surrounding the Parcel B, a 20 Ft. parcel of property, can be resolved. 1 am encouraged by the fact that the City Council has finaJly realized the complexity of the matters it is being asked to decide. For your information, the resolution of the 20 Ft. parcel is currently pending at the Office of the Examiner of Titles in Hennepin County and we are waiting for an Examiner’s Report to be issued in the near future. I will be happy to keep the City updated as to the status of the matter if it so desires. With respect to the City Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Monday, September 15, 1997, it is my understanding the City plans to address the use of Lot 13 of the North Shore Cottage Acres addition and the future existence and use of a fence along the south side of West Femdale Road on the 1045 property. It is also my understanding that the City intends to limit discu ions of its citizens to five minutes per person. I ho^ this is not the City’s attempt to limit my clients’ ability and intent to voice their opinions (if they have any) on these matters. In any event, I presume my clients will be given every opportunity to be heard on Monday night. Americana Bank Building . 5050 France Avenue South . Suite 240. Edina . MN 55410 * Certified by the Real Propet ty Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association as a Real Property Law Specialist 0 . • • n' past years been increasingly filled in to the point of threatening our ability to get boats into the cove and to reach the shoreline of each of the properties adjoining it. This tnankiully has been solved for the time being bv dredging done by John Brooks and Conley Brooks Jr. quite recently. But our concern is to provide a mechanism that will guarantee that future owners of Lor 1 3 Viill not in any way attempt to prevent the owners of adjoining properties from keeping the waterway na\ igable in the ftitiire, even if it requirc.s removal of some portion of that land, as it is Lot 13 where the sand deposits and the land actuallv arows into the waterwav. Finally, in the Cit>' Code book, page 431, Subd. 10 A. requires (sliall include) that all issues identified in the subdivision have been addressed bv the subdivider tor (9) certification by the zoning aJministrator. As I stronglv feel that lias not been the case so tar in this series of subdivisions, not on the part ot the zoning administrator, but in ♦he actions of your commission and* die ciiy Council. 1 am hopeful that there will be a more careful and detailed consideration ot all the issues involved in this application and those involving all the adjoining properties before a decision is made on an^■ of these subdi\ ision requests or permits ot any kind are issued 011 ihe.se properties. Sincerely, Robert T. Flovd 10 Hst S % Todd R. Iliff* Kevin W. D eVorf ; Ann M. Hale Iliff & Associates, P.A. Attorneys At Law Phone: 612/922-4647 Fax: 612/922-478S September 22, 1997 Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Charles and Joan Floyd Our File No. 1652.9701 R'CIHZ)I • I I ■" ~ /~r~\ SEP 2 5 .*’,997 Dear Mr. Gaffron: After attending the Orono City Planning Commission meeting on Monday, September 15, ’.997, it became evident that the City is expecting certain things to happen that my clients, Charles and Joan Floyd, do not necessarily anticipate nor want to happen. Specifically, I am referring to the future use, ownership and existence of the 20 Ft. Parcel .ind the "Suip Land" to the south of West Ferndale Road between the 20 Ft. Parcel and 905 West Femdale Road. Your comments at the meeting seem to indicate that you believe, as does Conley Brooks, that the fate of the 20 Ft. Parcel will eventually result in the Floyds and the Brooks ’ sharing it, with Mr. Brooks also owning the Strip Land exclusively. Please be advised, one of the issues currently pending at the Office of the Examiner of Titles of Hennepin County is whether my clients own the 20 Ft. Parcel exclusively. With re.spect to the Strip Land, a final determination has not yet been made regarding the owTiership and use of the Strip Land. Therefore, your comments regarding how you expect things to turn out were purely speculative and coincidentally against my clients’ interest. As for your comments ’ impact on the Planning Commission ’s decision to grant Mr. Brooks ’ Subdivision Application for Lot 13 of North Shore Cottage Acres, I believe that your comments were influential in persuading the Commission by showing that there is, at least in your mind, a good possibility that Mr. Brooks will eventually own a continuous stretch of land extending from his homestead property. Nonetheless, I expect the City Council to table the matter as with Mr. Brooks ’ other Subdivision Application until the issues regarding the 20 Ft. Parcel euid the Strip Land have been resolved. With respect to the resolution of the 20 Ft. Parcel and the Strip Land, the last time I spoke with the Examiner of Titles was on September 2, 1997, w hen the Examiner postponed Americana Bank Building , 5050 France Avenue South, Suite 240, Edina , MN 55410 * Certified by the Real Property Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association as a Real Property Law Specialist Mr. Mike GafFron September 22, 1997 Page 2 its hearing on the Strip Land until further research and revisions to the Application could be made. At that time, it appeared as though the County was at least a month away from issuing an Examiner's Report on the 20 Ft. Parcel and likely even longer on the Strip Land. Therefore, I do not expect the issues concerning the 20 Ft. Parcel and the Strip Land to be resolved until sometime after the first of the year. If you have any questions or comments with respect to these matters, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ILIFF & ASSOCIATES, P.A. ^evin W. DeVore Attorney at Law K\^T)/jIw cc: Charles and Joan Floyd Todd R. lUff, Esq. i:r|]MaM1oy(lgt2 t etA, CoxLEV Brooks, Jr. 980 WEST FERNDALE ROAD WA\"ZATA. MINNESOTA 35301 September 23, 1997 . Mr. Robert Floyd 960 West Ferndale Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Robert: I have read a copy of your letter of September 11 to the Orono Planning Commission. Without commenting one way or the other on the merits of your arguments in that letter, I would like to make a few observations with respect to the proposed combination of Lot 13 with my 980 West Ferndale property. 1, The Lot 13 subdivision/recombination, in my opinion, does not really fit the rather alarmist scenario you portray. The only reason that this change was at all possible was because I owned both 905 and 980 at a point in time, and chose essentially to transfer Lot 13 to myself when I moved. No "sale” occurred. If I had remained the owner of 905, I would never have agreed to sell Lot 13 to another party. As the ongoing owner of 980, I would also never agree to sell Lot 13 to another party. The idea that I or another future owner would either desire or be permitted to do so doesn't really fit the facts of the case. 2. From a view and use standpoint. Lot 13 is clearly more logically a part of 980 than 905. When I lived at 905, Lot 13 was rarely given a thought. Living now at 980, it is an integral factor for future use and enjoyment (similar in many respects to your thinking about the 20' parcel). 3.The owner of 980 is much more likely to maintain our view over Lot 13 than is John Brooks, or any other future owner of 905. For example, the maple trees are unlikely to be removed if John Brooks is the owner. Similarly, I do have an ongoing interest in the navigability of the channel, so much so that I participated with John Brooks in paying for the recent dredging. These are just a few thoughts generated by your comments on the Lot 13 situation. In my view, this is a very unique set of circumstances and does not constitute some sort of dangerous precedent of the sort with which you are concerned. I hope these comments clarify my thinking on this subject. As always, please give me a call at any time if you'd like to discuss them further. j liTATi^ K I S MO C02 *l*F*OX n'X'tm s)M| conAa ACCCROIWPO RCCOW couNTRy aua estates PART OF LOT 22 r .. joe3.i ©C.C " €3iyiKlTlV o \T!^“ (la; i * 7/ 06).C^IIW' ------------------------------------ //^ "}r - . 4^ ‘ ** * ff. -GOVT LOT 2 COUNTRY aU3 ESTATES P.4RT OF LOT 22 (5i)GOVT LOT I r Toni) R. Ii.ii (• Ki vi\ W. Di V...... Ann M. MAl l- gSr¥ 133 YBB5 liir Iliff & Associates , PA. A T r o n N i; v s A r I. \ »> Plmn»*; 012/922-4647 E.ix: 612/922-47SS September 26, 1997 RECEIVED SEP 2 9 W97 o»« I ORONOMr. Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. Lindquist & Vennum P.L.L.P. 4200 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2205 Re: Lake Minnetonka Property Your Client: Carol and Conley Brooks, Jr., 980 West Femdale Road Our Client: Charles P. and Joan M. Floyd, 960 West Femdale Road Our File No. 1652.9701 Dear Mr. Mitchell: Thank you for your letter dated September 11, 1997. First, let me reassure you that my clients and I are not moving forward imder the false assumption that an assignment of a real estate tax identification number is a definitive way of indicating ownership of land. Also, we realize that no separate real estate tax identification number has been assigned to the 20 Ft. Parcel (the triangular property at the easternmost tip of Lot 12 of North Shore Cottage Acres). There has been no explanation from anyone why this was not done at the time of the sale, when the deed was recorded or at any time since. Second, my clients’ position regarding the 20 Ft. Parcel remains the same as it was last spring when we first discussed this matter with you and your clients. You incorrectly stated in your letter that the best case scenario for my clients is to ultimately retain ownership of only a one-half interest in the 20 Ft. Parcel. You are well aware of the fact that my clients intend and expect to receive an order from the Court or the Examiner of Titles of Hennepiri County stating that they are the exclusive owners of the 20 Ft. Parcel by way of adverse possession. As I am sure you are aware, my clients have maintained exclusive possession and use of the 20 Ft. Parcel for in excess of the statutory time period to claim adverse possession. Without restating issues and facts that you and your clients are already aware of, suffice it to say that my clients have always maintained their exclusive ownership, possession and interest in the 20 Ft. Parcel, against everyone, including the owners of 980 West Femdale Road. Please be advised, my clients have never surrendered or sacrificed their exclusive ownership, possession or interest in the 20 Ft. Parcel at any time since they have resided at 960 West Femdale Road. Moreover, previous owmers of 960 West Femdale Road also 'sserted their exclusive ownership rights over the 20 Ft. Parcel. .Amkricana Ba .'k Bi it.oiNi:. .5050 Franck .-\vknlk South . Suite 240. Edina . MN 55410 Mr. Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. September 26, 1997 Page 2 clients have not been wiling to nego y ^ counterproposal to your clients sugge ,; ’ L nosition regarding the 20 Ft. Parcel and Septem^r 5. 1997. I have enclosed their intent on We have received the copy of the Trustee’s a copy of the letter dated September 5 1997- We na Deed, but you have not answered the other questions. ried:> f questions in definite terms. Pcunh. wiU, .espec to <h. oM»d ITS otvnership status of that proper^ not b“n Le, to Ralph C. Bagley from Sarah Higgins, who owned al o ' P'^ nroperty As I have discussed with Richard L’i“omfrs. L *:^eT^rrSi!' yTsfflrbe aware L my cli'ents intend to assert any interest they have in the Strip Land. Therefore, your assumption diat the only interest my clients have is a half interest m the 20 Ft. Parcel, could not be further from the truth. Fifth, with respect to your decision to Lake Examiner of Titles office, Mike ° ^e^ffense to your apparent attempts to corruptMinnetonka Conservation Dismct, my clients t^e offense to other peoples ’ opinions pertmmng to my c i believe that your clients are decided to copy those individi^s as neighbors. Please be advised, my reasonable people up against irrationa, unprepared or otherwise misinformed. for itTecessar? to do the same to ensure that they are not misinformed. Finally, with respect to S'®” "^ourt, at clients as well as representatives of the ■'‘jy’ vidHing for information requested this time, my clients are considering ^ ^997 the remaining answers from from the City of Orono in my letter dated September 4, IVV r Mr. Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. September 26, 1997 Page 3 you and your clients from my letter of September 5, 1997. Also, a few weeks ago Robert Floyd requested that Conley Brooks, Jr. provide a statement of bs intentions regarding * exiiting docks located on the Strip Land. Mr. Brooks stated that he could not respond at that time Lt would send a letter explaining his intentions in the event tee is no temg peoples. We are still waiting for this sutement. Nonetheless, pleaM be assured that we STg to research and investigate the situation and evaluate my clients- position regarding these real estate matters. Thank you for your concerns on these matters. Very truly yours, ILIFF & ASSOCIATES,^^ Kevin W. DeVore Attorney at Law KWD/51W end. cc: Charles and Joan Floyd Todd R. Iliff, Esq. r To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator September 12, 1997 #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr./John Brooks, 980 West Femdale/905 West Femdale Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Sewered Application: Request to detach Lot 13, North Shore Cottage Acres from 905 West Femdale, and legally combine it with the Conley Brooks properties which on the survey include Parcels A, E, H and F (Lot 13 is the peninsula segment defined in the survey as Parcel C). List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey of John Brooks Property, 905 West Femdale E - Survey of Conley Brooks Property, 980 West Femdale F - Letter of Request G - Hardcover Calculations Pertinent Code Section Section 11.03, Definition 65 and 66: A. Definition 65 - "Subdivision" lists three types of property separation v^ch are exemptions from the subdivision code. This proposal does not meet any of the three exemptions. However, per Definition 66, "Subdivision Classification", it appears to meet the Class 1 subdivision definition because it is a division of property previously combined for tax purposes, and therefore is exempt firom platting. Summary of Request Conley Brooks has sold the property at 905 West Femdale to John Brooks, and apparently has an agreement with John Brooks to allow the detachment of the peninsula extending westward from 905 West Femdale, for combination with Conley Brooks's new residence at 980 West Femdale. Conley Brooks has provided a description of his request, stating reasons for the proposed division/combination. This is an extremely unusual request because the peninsula is physically connected to 905 West Femdale, and is completely separated by a lagoon portion of Lake Minnetonka from 980 West Femdale. The peninsula is only accessible by foot fi’om r #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr./John Brooks, 980 West FemdaIe/905 West Femdale September 11, 1997 Page 2 905 West Femdale, and its detachment seems extremely inconsistent with our basic concepts of property contiguity and logical planning. However, I have been unable to find anything in the code which would strictly prohibit this detachment/combination. Applicant's reasons for the rearrangement request are primarily to control the peninsula to preserve the view from his residence at 980 West Femdale, and secondarily to provide a suitable beach recreation area for his family use. Applicant's letter correctly notes that the entire peninsula, as well as most of the 905 West Femdale property, is in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. When 905 West Femdale was rebuilt some years ago, hardcover calculations and approvals were based on an area of the property that included this peninsula. Transfer of \Avnership of the peninsula technically results in a decrease in 0-75' area and hence an increase in the 0-75' hardcover percentage for 905 West Femdale, although it does not increase actual hard surface. Applicant correctly notes that no stmctures could be placed on the peninsula and staff notes that there are significant numbers of small shrubs and some small trees growing on the peninsula, but nothing of any large size. Presumably, Conley Brooks would want to keep the peninsula from growing a thick barrier of trees which would block the views of the lake from his house. Additional Discussion It seems unlikely that Hennepin County will allow the legal combination of the peninsula parcel with the mainland parcel, considering that they are separated by a water body. If this proves to be the case, then any approval granted by the City must require the execution of a Special Lot Combination resolution filed in the Chain of Title of the appropriate properties, stipulating that Lot 13 could not be sold separately from 980 West Femdale. It is against City policy and practice, and inconsistent wdth the code requirements, to create an unbuildable lot via subdivision without having that lot legally attached to an adjacent property. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. Does Planning Commission accept the concept of this detachment/recombination? Does Planning Commission accept the hardcover ramifications of this proposal (i.e. the technical percentage of 0-75' hardcover on 905 West Femdale will increase from 9.63% to 10.25% although the total square footage of hardcover on that property will not increase)? What restrictions, if any, w’ould Plaiming Commission recommend with regards to this proposal? ► #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr./John Brooks, 980 West Femdale/905 West Femdale September 11, 1997 Page 2 905 West Femdale, and its detachment seems extremely inconsistent with our basic concepts of property contiguity and logical planning. However, I have been unable to find anything in the code which would strictly prohibit this detachment/combination. Applicant's reasons for the rearrangement request are primarily to control the peninsula to preserve ttie view from his residence at 980 West Femdale, and secondarily to provide a suitable beach recreation aiea for his family use. Applicant's letter correctly notes that the entire peninsula, as well as most of the 905 West Femdale property, is in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. When 905 West Femdale was rebuilt some years ago, hardcover calculations and approvals were based on an area of the property that included this peninsula. Transfer of ownership of the peninsula techmcally results in a decrease in 0-75' area and hence an increase in the 0-75' hardcover percentage for 905 West Femdale, although it does not increase actual hard surface. Applicant correctly notes that no strucUires could be placed on the peninsula and staff notes that there are significant numbers of small shrubs and some small trees growing on the peninsula, but nothing of any large size. Presumably, Conley Brooks would want to keep the peninsula from growing a thick barrier of trees which would block the views of the lake from his house. Additional Discussion It seems unlikely that Hennepin County will allow the legal combination of the peninsula parcel vrith the mainland parcel, considering that they are separated by a water body. If this proves to be the case, then any approval granted by the City must require the execution of a Special Lot Combination resolution filed in the Chain of Title of the appropriate properties, stipulating that Lot 13 could not be sold separately from 980 West Femdale. It is agains t City policy and practice, and inconsistent with the code requirements, to create an unbuildable lot via subdivision without having that lot legally attached to an adjacent property. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. Does Planning Commission accept the concept of this detachment^recombination? Does Planning Commission accept the hardcover ramifications of this proposal (i.e. the technical percentage of 0-75' hardcover on 905 West Femdale will increase from 9.63% to 10.25% although the total square footage of hardcover on that property will not increase)? What restrictions, if any, would Planning Commission recommend with regards to this proposal? t ■ 4* #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr7John Brooks, 980 West Femdale/905 West Femdale September 11,1997 Page 3 Staff Recommendatioii Given that the dry bu^ldable area of 905 West Femdale will still be in excess of two acres, this proposal does not make 905 West Femdale substandard, but merely changes the calculated percentage of hardcover. While staff considers this request to be unusual, under certain circumstances it may be acceptable. Those circumstances include either a legal combination of Lot 13, North Shore Cottage Acres with the remaining Conley Brooks properties; or, if Hennepin County will not combine across the lagoon, a "Special Lot Combination" resolution must be executed by applicant and filed on the Chain of Title of those properties, such resolution recognizing the unique relationship between Lot 13 and the remaimng Conley Brooks properties and disallowing future separation or separate sale of those properties without City approval. Options for Action 1. 4. Recommend approval per applicant's proposal, requiring legal combination or special lot combination. 2. Table for further information. 3. Recommend denial. Other. r CITY OF ORONO ^ 612A730510C3 j-V* t,-^ * « ' •*//• ^ J . ^ */ 08/25/97 13:02 3 :12/19 N0:371 Applicatkm# ^^*^3 Pate Racehtd ^ 7 Amount FbU /I CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPUCATION PROPERTY LOCATION Sheaddreu______i-------------------- , . . nopatj Mmtifimti-n Exhibit a Attach^ Pleme check one. Property ebilractor-------torrcns? 8 % Atisch legal description to application. S' APPLICANT Name_Conley Brooks, Jr. S' 8 Addftss aty__ 980 West Femdale Road nmno. m Zip Phone (home) _ Phone (woik) _^il2=296i O^VNER (if different than applicant) Naroe_________________ Address City Zip Phone (home). Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) existing land use Number of Tax Parcels Developmect Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Re«dential; no. of units Other (specify)_____ PROPOSAL _____ Division for Tax Purposes ; X Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buUdlmg sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites _______ Existing Units New Uidts ~ Total Units Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Unha per___Acres Sq. Ft Dry Duildabk Land Residential Other (specify) ------- I ' CITY OF ORONO ® 6124730510 08/25/97 13:02 |3 :13/19 N0:371 MVmiUM ARTERIAL REQUIRED FOR CXMfPLETE PREUMINARY APPLICATION 1. Piymeni of fee* (reftr to "appUeatloofcM" listed below. 2. Cowplfd q^plicMion fbrai. — 3. PnUminaypictinfbfmitioaonCenificiteof hi f J MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION i‘ *° l*»llmhMry Subdivition Approvil nsolotian pvk fees if tppicable). 2. SipiodCertifIctte of Survey or mylir copies of formelplet 3. TitliophUaD. 4. Eesements, coveoenti, etc. 5. DevaopenAgreonent and Letter of Credit Zonini OfflciaTi Simature ______________________________ L ^VLICATION FEES (Zeoiag Administrator to dieck [X] those udiiel. apply) _____Sketch Plan Review (Class Lll ft 110 $250.00 ^ Siftdivisionofa Lot Lino RMmngemeatS3SO.OO _____St^diviaioa AppUcetioo (Class I ft D) $350.00 -------Plelteiiwy Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Clau III ft all non-resideotUI) _____Fatal Plat Appikatioo (Class no $200.00 _____Latat Review and Filh^: _____Subdivlsloa only $75.00 Subdivision w/easemeats and covenants min. $200.00 Ifltob sSSI'-w Rtek Fees (to be datannined per Section 11.«2) Legal and Bngfaiearing Review Fees (as bicuired) Renewal of Class 1 and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) lin.n.x.50-$ B. Special ImproveoMat Fees: _____Fw>poeed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft. -------Proposed Public Roads $900.00-r$.50/lineal ft.;_____IIn.ft,x.50-$ _____R-MttWlf9rClty to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 ------- _____Proposed Sanitary Sowar Main Extension $250.00 $2S/atub _____Pn^oaedWatennain Extension $250.00 ■•■$25/stub . Ptt^toaad Storm Sewer System (excluding culvuis) ^00.00 -------On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to iml subdivision uplications) $50.00/^ lot x^___new lots C Fleaible AppIkatien Fsea/Mbe. Peas ____Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Bssement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 ____PSD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelting Unit The a^i^ hcr^y agrem tapro^ all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer. City Attorney, Planning Commission uv^^lbuncil np^ry toapplication md ftirther agrees to pay all additiona] ftes established byordinaaca. Applicant's Signature ^ Owners Slansture 2-a./97 ’ SYz2./‘i7 f r A)^i^ must have all submittals into die City Office 25 days before the Planntng Commission meeting Planning Commission meetings 00 fttejhW Monday of each month. Applieante must be present at ail scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission 371 . V / /t C\# V^ ->;ri!\ Exhibit A to Orono Variance Application ^11; l045Wi~,,Fen,dtfeRo«^: (Date acquired property - August, 1997) Tax ID. No. 02-117-23-43-0003: C^enci^M M^t that part described as fbUows: feet; thence Westerly « ' line of said Lot 4- flience N^erlv »b^.T ’® "ght. •» apoint in the Westerly comer of Ix,t1 of aSS >' ^ Lot 4 to the most Eastern the most Westerly comer of said Lot 4- A. along said Westerly line of said Lot 4 to Lot 4 to the nJSlSy «mt^'a Nonhwesterly line of said said Lot 4 to point of begLng ’ * S»“*easterly along the Northerly line of Tax ID. No. 02-117-23-43-0005: fesr*'r ‘''^"'’5^“Beginning uirection, to a point 90 feet from said niarpftfh ^ said Lot in a Northwester^ straight line to a point on said East L^t line w'l^No^TrfA »" a thence South along the East line of said Lot'to dte place ofbe^ ' Tax ID. No. 02-117-23-43-0024: Lot 12, North Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka fatwU; !>8PWe«ltFemdalePoa4: (Date acquired property-June. 1997) Tax ID. No. 02-117-23-44-0019: All of the following described tract: said Lot described as follows for said County, except that part of the line between said Lots 23 and 24 m r^Tn^S^^S^g *«>»8 C‘J EB01:921887 1 JJT--/ • j . ■ >•• —^ t ■ . . t ^ch li^ Southeriy of a line drawn from a point on the West line of said Lot distant^OS feet Souto of the No^west corner of said lot. through a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot distant 300 feet Southwesterly of the Northeasterly comer of said lot. Parcel 3; 905 West Femdale Ro^- (Date acquired property - April, 1994) Tax ID. No. 02-117-23-44-0010 (lot 13 only) Shore G)ttage Acres Lake Minnetonka, and the adjoining accretions to said Lot 13 wimin Govenunent Lot 2, Sectirxi 2, Township 117, Range 23. n naUST OF EXHIBITS AND ENCLOSURES Exhibit A LegftI Descriptions and Property Information Exhibit B Description of Variance Requests — .•' \'•1 v-\;v V-««• Exhibit B1 Exhibit B2 Exhibit B3 Exhibit B4 Photocopy of survey from Orono Application No. 2269 Survey of Cuftley Brooks, Jr. property Survey of John Brooks property Survey of the property depicting the current location of the existing garage and the proposed location of the new storage building Photocopy of the proposed plans for the new storage building Certified Property Ownership List Eidiibit BS Hardcover calculations for Conley Brooks, Jr. prcverty Hardcover calculations for John Brooks property Check for $220.00 E801:931St7 1 V' mi DATE 06/26/97BATCH 511PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NA^C/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST58 02-117-25 A2 000900056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEDTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYNATLIRE CONSERVANCY 1515 5TH ST S E SUITE 51A HPLS HN 5541A 56 02-117-25 95 01070 FERNOALE HENRY H SKARP HENRY H SKARP 1095 N FERNOALE RD HAYZATA HN 55591 0005 RO H 56 02-117-25 95 0006 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LOUISE H LONRY NORHEST DANK HN TRUST REAL ESTATE 6TH I HARQUETTE HPLS HN 55979-0096 56 02-117-25 95 0022 01055 FER^4DALE RO H GERALD T HCCOURTNEY ET AL GERALD T HCCOURTNEY 1055 N FERNOALE ROAD HAYZATA HN 55591 56 02-117-25 99 0005 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HINSTON R LINDBERG HINTON R Lir^DERG 665 H FERNOALE RD HAYZATA HN 55591 56 02-117-25 99 0008 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED S B A K C OLSON S B OLSON/K CIARDELLI-OLSON 685 FERNOALE RO N HAYZATA HN 55591 58 02-117-25 95 000100056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEDTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYNATURE CONSERVANCY 1515 5TH ST S E SUITE 519 HPLS HN 55919 56 02-117-25 95 0009 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LOUISE H LONRY NORHEST BANK HN C/0 TRUST REAL ESTATE 6TH A HARQUETTE HPLS HN 55979-0096 58 02-117-25 95 01080 FERNOALE N N SHIEBLER A J NILLIAH N/JOANNE 560 BEACON ST 12 0007 RO H F SHIEBLER F SHIEBLER BOSTON HA 02116 56 02-117-25 95 01095 FERNOALE HENRY H SKARP HENRY H SKARP 1095 FERNOALE RD N HAYZATA HN 55591 0029 RD H 58 02-117-25 99 00G6 00665 FERNOALE RD H HINSTON R LINDBERG HINSTON R LINDBERG 865 H FERNOALE RD HAYZATA HN 55591 58 02-117-25 99 0009 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO C BROCRCS JR A C G BROOKS CONLEY JR A CAROL G BROOKS 905 FERNOALE RD H HAYZATA HN 55591 REPORT NO. PI955901 PAGE 5058 02-117-25 95 000201070 FERNOALE RD HNORHEST BNK HN NA ASSO TRSTENORHEST DANK HN TRUST REAL ESTATE 6TH A HARQUETTE HPLS HN 55^79-0096 56 02-117-25 95 0005 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENRY H *^KARP HENRY H JKARP 1095 H FERNOALE RD HAYZATA HN 55591 58 02-117-25 95 0021 01065 FERNOALE RD H JANE B NELSON TRUSTEE J B NELSON TRUSTEE 1065 FERNOALE RO H HAYZATA HN 55591 ■ 'C-l 58 02-117-25 99 0009 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1515 5TH ST S E SUITE 519 HPLS HN 55919 4 58 02-117-25 99 0007 00885 FERNOALE RO H S B A K C OLSON S B OLSON/K CIARDELLI-OLSON 885 FERNOALE RD H HAYZATA HN 55591 38 02-117-25 99 0010 00905 FERNOALE RD H C BROOKS JR A C G BROOKS CONLEY JR A CAROL 6 BROOKS 905 FERNOALE RO H HAYZATA HN 55591 RUN DATE 08/26/97 BATCH 511 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST KIPORT NO. PI^35A01 PAGE 51PROP AODR OmER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NA»C TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 58 02-117-25 44 001200058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1515 5TH ST S E SUITE 514 MPLS MN 55414 58 02-117-25 44 001500058 ADDRESS UNASSIGT^D THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1515 5TH ST S E SUITE 514 MPLS MN 55414 58 02-117-25 44 0014 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO S B I K C OLSON S B OLSON/K CIAROELLI-OLSON 885 FERNOALE RD H NAYZATA MN 55591 58 02-117-25 44 0015 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO CONVEYED 2/18/82 SO 161148 58 02-117-25 44 0016 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE. NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1315 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 38 02-117-23 44 0017 00960 FERNOALE RD H C A J FLOYD DR A MRS CHARLES P FLOYD 960 NEST FERM)ALE RO NAYZATA MN 55591 58 02-117-25 44 0018 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1515 5TH ST S E SUITE 514 MPLS MN 55414 58 02-117-25 44 0019 00980 FERNOALE RO N C G A C BROOKS JR CAROL 6 A CONLEY BROOKS JR 980 FERNOALE RD N NAYZATA MN 55591 99 02-117-23 41 0005 00702 CO RO NO 15 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1315 5TH ST S E SUITE 514 N»LS MN 55414 99 02-117-25 41 0006 00690 HILLSIDE DR H THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1315 5TH ST S E SUITE 514 MPLS MN 55414 99 02-117-23 44 0023 00692 FERNOALE RD N MARIE H ANKENY ET AL TRSTES MARIE A DENALT ANKENY JR C/0 SARGENT MGMT 601 2ND AVE S STE 4800 MPLS MN 55402 99 02-117-23 44 0024 00099 ADDRESS PENDING MARIE H ANKENY ET AL TRSTES MARIE A DENALT ANKEN*^ JR C/0 SARGENT MGMT 601 2ND AVE S STE 4800 MPLS MN 55402 TOTAL BATCH 511 00050 4 K m ii?jm I..- Exhibit B to Orono Variance Application Description of Request (continued) 1.Lot Line Rearrangement Request: In Orono Application No. 2269 Conley Brooks, Jr. and Gerald McCourtney effectuated a class one subdivision of the former Skarp property. For the purposes of this application, we will use some of the same surveys and diagrams, as this request involves many of the same properties. Exhibit B1 attached is a partial copy of the survey from Orono Application No. 2269. Exhibit B2 attached hereto is a survey of the Conley Brooks, Jr. property. In Orono Application No. 2269, the Orono City Council approved Conley Brooks, Jr.’s combination of Parcels A (980 West Femdale Road-the Gumucio house) Parcels E and H (which are the former Skarp parcels on the north side of Femdale Road), and Parcel F (which was Conley Brooks’ part of the Skarp property south of Femdale Road). Still to be resolved are the status of Parcels C (Lot 13, North Shore Cottage Acres), Parcel B (the most easterly part of what in 1951 was Skarp property and the property in which Charles Floyd claims an interest), and Parcel D (the ambiguous parcel on the south side of Femdale Road northerly of 905 West Femdale Road, the former Conley Brooks, Jr. property, now owned by John Brooks (no relation to Conley Brooks, Jr.)). Exhibit B3 attached hereto is a survey of the John Brooks property located at 905 West Femdale Road. At the present time, there is a land title re^stration case (a torrens case) in Hennepin County District Court as file No. 20244 concerning the registration of title to the easterly 20 feet of the former Skarp property as alleged to be half owned by Conley Brooks, Jr. and half owned by Charles Floyd. That application was amended to include all of the Skarp property and Lot 13, Northshore Cottage Acres, because all of the land surrounding the old Skarp property is registered land, except those parcels. Please note that Conley Brooks, Jr.’s application to register the 20 foot parcel explicitly recognizes the 1951 deed from Skarp to Dye (Conley Brooks, Jr.’s predecessor at 980 West Femdale Road) and to Austin (Charles Floyd’s predecessor at 960 West EB01:921813_3 1 ^ ^ V. 7/ /W /W •'^'' . ,. Femdale Road). In no way is Conley Brooks. Jr. trying to eject the Floyd property from its lake access at the 20 foot parcel. There is a second land title registration case (a torrens case) pending in Hennepin County District Court as file No. A-29864 concerning the old Bagley property at 905 West Femdale Road. The auditors subdivision lot -<--cription of the Bagley property left it ambiguous as to who owned the land south of the center line of Femdale Road. Conley Brooks Jr. claims to own all the land in file number A-29864 through the Bagley chain of title. The purpose of this Orono appUcation is to complete the Conley Brooks. Jr. property at 980 West Femdale Road by including with it Parcel B Of Charles Floyd ultimately agrees with the exchange proposal described below). Parcel D. and Parcel C. as shown in Orono Application No. 2269 and as reiterated in this application. The reasons for the lot line rearrangement are: 1 . To create a more logical and usable boundary perimeter for 980 West Femdale Road. When combined, all of the parcels in question form a reasonable contiguous area. 2. To secure for 980 West Femdale Road its lake view and lake access. 3. To clear up long-standing confusion over who actually owns Parcels B and D. Parcel C. the peninsula opposite 980 West Femdale Road, is an important element of the whole. The views of Lake Minnetonka from 980 West Femdale Road (and fi-om the former Skarp property in particular), are directly across Parcel C. It is important that Parcel C be maintained in such a way as to preserve the view; ownership by 980 West Femdale of Parcel C ensures that maintenance wifi be conducted in a satisfactory manner. Conley Brooks. Jr. proposes to grant to 905 West Femdale a scenic easement over Parcel C. whereby no docks or other Structures could be erected on the peninsula. An additional reason for combining Parcel C with 980 West Femdale is the fact that it provides 980 West Femdale with a good site for swimming and enjoying the lake. The shoreline and lake bottom of the former Skarp property and Parcels B and D consists marnly of weeds and muck, whereas Parcel C has a relatively clear sand and gravel bottom. The qualrty of this lake EB01:921813_2 B S if^-> •ro^*» \^‘ i f** •access is very important to the owners of980 West Femdale, but is immaterial to the owners of 905 West Femdale who have an abundant supply of such access. Orono Application No. 2269 had the beneficial net effect of allowing for the removal of the old Sharp house, and combining the land on which it sits (Parcel G) with the McCourtney house (Parcel J) at 1055 West Femdale Road. The lot line rearrangement proposed herein is not detrimental to McCourtney. This lot line rearrangement is also not harmful to the Charles Floyd house because it does not have any impact on the Charles Floyd house one way or another. The Charles Floyd house is located entirely easterly of all the lands in question (except Parcel D which partially adjoins the Floyd property). This lot line rearrangement regarding Parcels C and D was specifically agreed to by John Brooks, who purchased the old Bagley (McDowell) site at 905 West Femdale Road in June, 1997 fi-om Conley Brooks, Jr. With regard to hardcover, there is immaterial positive or negative impact on the John Brooks house at 905 West Femdale Road and the Conley Brooks. Jr. house at 980 West Femdale Road, because all of the lands which are the subject of this lot line rearrangement request are within the 0 foot to 75 foot set-back area in which area no hardcover is permitted. Consequently, it does not make any difference for building purposes who owns these little parcels of land. It is a strictly neutral factor. Each of980 West Femdale Road and 905 West Femdale Road has its own hard cover computation and its own hard cover issues based on the fact that so little of each is in the 75 foot to 250 foot zone. In sum, this lot line rearrangement completes the logical rearrangement of properties in this immediate neighborhood after the sale of the Skarp property and after the sale of905 West Femdale Road to John Brooks, with one exception. The exception is a significant one. The exception relates to Conley Brooks, Jr. and Charles Floyd as putative co-owners of the 20 foot parcel carved out of the Skarp property via the 1951 deed. There has been and there continues to be discussion between Conley Brooks, Jr. and Charles Floyd (through Robert Floyd, Charles Floyd’s son, and Kevin DeVore, Robert Floyd’s lawyer) of Brooks’ proposal that Conley Brooks, Jr. and Charles Floyd effectuate a swap whereby Charles Floyd would give up his undivided one-half interest in the 20 foot parcel (Parcel B) in return for the easterly part of Parcel D, just in fi-ont of the Charles Floyd house at 960 West EB01:Mi«13_2 ^ ^ ^Femdale Road. Mr. Floyd has thus far not accepted this idea, and as of August 22, 1997, the parties have not been able to reach an agreement. It is hoped that by the time this application reaches the Orono City Council, such an agreement will have been made. Attached is a proposed dock layout showing how part of Parcel D could be conveyed from Conley Brooks, Jr. to Charles Floyd and the placement of docks on such parcel. If Brooks and Floyd are Tx.'^able to reach agreement, Parcel B would not be a part of this lot line rearrangement request and Parcel B would be owned pursuant to the decision of the torrens court and any other proceedings which might occur to determine such ownership. ) ! EB0l:921813 2 r COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 1 3 J997 DATE: October 13, 1997 ITEM NO.: ^^PPORONO Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer’s Report Item Description: Change Order No. 6 North Lake Sanitary Sewer Project This change order provides for the construction of a modular block retaming wall to protect an existing steep slope on Long Lake Boulevard. This work is necessary because stabilizing vegetation h ^^ to be removed during sewer and street construction. Long Lake Boulevard was also widened in this area, as the existing road was very narrow, this results in a steeper bank. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Change Order No. 6, North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer project, in the amount of $9,200.00. 4 t j * ; r ■\ n’ i Owner City of Pro do. P.O. Box 66. Crystal Bav. MN 55323-0066 Date October 8.1997 Contractor BiibarDm&Sons. 1100093rd Avenue North. Osseo.MN 55369 Bond Co. CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SANITARY SEWER File 13988 Descriptioo of Work This change order provides for the construction of a modular block retaining wall to protect an existing steep slope on Long Lake Blvd., from station SO to station 11+00. The woric is necessary because stabilmng vegetation had to be removed during sewer and street construction. No.Item Contract Unit Qaandtr Unit Price Total Amount Modular Block Retaining Wall Total Change Order No. 6 500 18.40 9.200.00 $9^00.00 7029Voo.wb1 ITI f • * Origiiial Contract Amount Previous Change Orders This Change Order No. 6 Revised Contract Amount (including dus change order) $874,930.01 $55,031.00 $9,200.00 $939,161.01 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES, INC date: Approved by Contractor Barbarossa & Sons Approved by Owner City of Orono cc: Owner Contractor Bonding Company Bonestroo & Assoc. 70294foo.wt>1 ! I » meetinq request for council action OCT 1 3 1997 DATE: October 13, 1997 C/TYOFORONO ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Change Order No. 7 North Lake Sanitary Sewer Project This change order provides for the regrading and paving of 500 feet of Long Lake Boulevard from County Road 6 to Dakota Avenue. The original plan was to overlay this section of road, but the heavy construction traffic caused break up of the existing road. Also, the remainder of the road IS new pavement and leaving a small section of older pavement is not desirable.i Paving of a driveway along Dakota Avenue is also included. The City had to obtain an easement for a sewer m this driveway to serve a parcel to the north, and there is a manhole located at the end of the driveway. The property owners were concerned about the impacts of City trucks using their gravel driveway for access to the sewer manhole. An agreement was made during easement negotmtiom to pave the driveway to compensate the owners for any damages caused by City use of tneir dnveway for sewer maintenance purposes. Some trimming of large trees was also required for construction of the sewer across their property. Construction of an access driveway for the lift station at the ice arena is also in included in this change order. Paving of the mtersection of County Road 19 and Tonkaview Lane is also included. This mtersection pavmg is part of the Tonkaview drainage project that was previously approved. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Change Order No. 7, North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer project, in the amount of $12,522.00. r , --H In Owner. City of Orooo, P.O. Box 66. Cryttil Bay, MN 5S323-0066_Date Octobers. 1997 Contractor: Barfaarossa A Sons. 11000 93rd Avenue North. Osseo, MN 55369 Bond Co. CHANGE Or.'uER NO. 7 NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SANITARY SEWER File 13988 Description of Work Regrading and paving 500 feet of Long Lake Blvd. from Dakota Avenue to County Road 6 instead of patching the existing street as originally planned. The work also includes additional bituminous street patching quantities for tiie construction of an access to the Orono Ice Arena Lift Station, paving of a driveway at 920 Dakota Avenue as part of easement negotiations and patching the intersection of County Road 19 and Tonkaview as part of the Mrs. Ash pond No. construction. Item Unit Contract OuantitT Unit Price Total Amount 56 Class 5 Aggregate Base (100% Crushed)TN 310 9.20 2,852.00 57 Type 31 Bituminous Base Course TN 150 23.50 3,525.00 58 Type 41A Bituminous Wear Course TN no 27.50 3,025.00 61 Bituminous Street Patching Total Change Order No. 7 SY 480 6.50 _3,120.00 $12^22.00 70294/oo.wbl 1 s ; f Origmal Contract Amount Previous Change Orders This Change Order No. 7 Revised Contract Amount (including this change order) $874,930.01 $64,231.00 $12,522.00 $951,683.01 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCUTES, INC. da/e: Approved by Contractor. Barbarossa & Sons Approved by Owner City of Orono cc: Owner Contractor Bondng Company Bonestroo & Assoc. 1 70294/bo.wbl r ■will.''-' COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 1 3 1997 cmroFORONO DATE: October 13, 1997 ITEM NO./ r Department Appro?al: Name Gregory A. Gappa Thie Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Request for Payment No. 4, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering firm and recommend approval of this Request for Payment COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request For Payment No. 4, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $65,025.79 Owner City of Orono, P.O.Box 66. Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 FbrPfcriod:Septembers. 1997 to October 7.1997 Request No;_______4 Contractor Barbarossa & Sons. P.O. Box 367. Osseo. MN 55369 Owner . City of Orono, P.O. Box 66. Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Date: October?^ 1997For Period:.September 3.1997 to October 7.1997 Request Nor_______4______ Contractor Baibarossa & Sons. P.O. Box 367. Osseo, MN 55369 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETINGOCT 1 3 1997CITYOFORONODATE: October 13, 1997 ITEM NO.: / Department Approval: Name Gregory A. G^pa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer’s Report Item Description: Request for Payment No. 4, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering firm and recommend approval of this Request for Payment COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request For Payment No. 4, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $65,025.79 H 1 nWIiTfl F |» f 1 ■ ly L<4H»TiTniiT5] mm imm L!J:#mT Til iTT mm •IiIiTiTfl •IiTiTfl IWIII i»j:^ Miil>?WiTiTtl ^•jiri:Tnrr^ •nxiTi^ Part 2 'Water Main 8- DIP, Class 52 12-DIP, Class 52 6- DIP, Class 52 Cut into existing 8” CIP Cut into existing 6" DIP Hydrant 5" gate valve and box 8" gate valve and box 12" butterfly valve and box Fittings Mechanical trench compaction Improved pipe foundation in 6" increments Total Part 2 - Watermain Part 3 • Restoration Clear and grub 2' X 3* sump catch basin 4’ diameter sump catch basin manhole Catch basin manhole overdepth Bituminous surfacing removal Common excavation Class 5 aggregate base (100% crushed) Type 31 bituminous bas$ course Type 41A bituminous wearing course Gcotextile fabric Bituminous material for tack coat Bituminous street patching Sawcut concrete driveway Sawcut bituminous Bituminous driveway restoration Concrete driveway restoration 12- RCP in place 15-RCP in place 15" RCP, over 8* deep 15" RCP flared end in place with trash guard Mechanical trench compaction Improved pipe fiid. in 6" increment depth Remove existing CMP culvert l:\139\13988\REQUEST4.WB2 920.00 15.158.00 190.00 1,000.00 800.00 2,000.00 600.00 1.500.00 1,000.00 850.00 639.00 1.00 $24,658.00 EA 20 300.00 51 15,300.00 EA 2 1,000.00 2 2,000.00 EA 5 1,200.00 5 6,000.00 LF 17 125.00 5 625.00 SY 11,600 1.00 11,500 11,500.00 CY 3,700 3.25 4,532 14,729.00 TN 8,000 9.20 9,206 84,695.20 TN 1,200 23.50 962 22,607.00 TN 900 27 JO SY 11,000 1.00 10,819 10,819.00 GL 550 1.00 SY 300 6.50 LF 100 5.00 LF 650 1.50 SY 1,550 6.50 SF 3,200 3.50 LF 233 22.00 86 1,892.00 LF 141 24.00 121 2,904.00 LF 20 26.00 EA 2 900.00 1 900.00 LF 595 1.00 207 207.00 LF 595 0.01 LF 450 2.00 100 200.00 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 92 93 95 96 97 Furnish and install 15’ CMP culvert 15’ CMP Hared end Riprap, Class lH band placed Sod with 4" topsoil Seed with topsoil, mulch and fertilizer Erosion control fence Wood fiber blanket Furnish and plant Evergreen Tree (Blue Spruce) 6' high Furnish and plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) 4’ diainc'*r Remove and replace wood or chain link fence Remove and transplant bushes Remove and transplant tree - Desiduous Remove and transplant tree - Coniferous Salvage and reinstall wood guard post Total Part 3 - Re^t .^rion Part 4 - Ice ^ Duplex Grinder Station Duplex SJ^ spader station 2’ HOPE, SDR V Connect to existne manhole 2" HDPE 45 degree bends Total Part 4 - Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station LF 450 12.00 367 4.404.00 EA 30 100.00 16 1,600.00 CY 12 30.00 8 240.00 SY 28,000 2.25 AC 2 1.550.00 LF 1,000 2.50 1,000 2,500.00 SY 750 1.50 EA 6 225.00 EA 6 500.00 LF 600 15.00 EA 12 75.00 EA 12 150.00 EA 15 150.00 EA 11 50.00 5.50 275.00 $183,397.20 LS 1 18,600.00 0.70 13,020.00 LF 1,160 6.00 1,095 6.57<'H> EA 1 1,000.00 1 1.000.00 EA 2 50.00 Part 5 - Lift Station 6 Renovation Temporary controls, pumps and piping for interim conveyance Lift station demolition New pumps, piping, valves, top hatch and slab New control panel, base slab, dialer, and miscellaneous electrical Sod 8’ Class 5 aggregate base 3 ’ thick bituminous driveway Total Part 5 - Lift Station 6 Renovation LS LS LS SY TN TN Part 6 - Lift Station 12 Modifications Remove existing impellera and wear rings t:\139\1398e\REQUEST4.WB2 2.000. (X) 5.000. 00 1 35,000.00 1 50 75 30 24,000.00 2.25 12.00 45.00 S.1: $20,590.00 $0.00 and place new impellen and wear tings Total Part 6 - Uft Station 12 Modifications Part 7 • Forcemain Alicmnent 2,05100 Total Change Order No. 2 Change Order No. 3 Add 12" conugated PE pipe 12" PE F.E.S. with trash guard LF EA 154 19.00 1 625.00 147.00 1.00 l:\139V13988VtEQUEST4.WB2 $0.00 Deduct: 99 4" forcemain directional bore (Item No. 13)LF (140)20.00 Add: 100 4" HDPE forcemain, SDR 17 LF 643 8.40 643 5,401.201014" HDPE forcemain, SDR 17, directional bore LF 45 20.00 45 900.00102Air release manhole EA 1 1.900.00 1 1,900.00103Sod with 4** topsoil SY 1,367 2.25 104 Bituminous driveway restoration SY 33 15.50 Total Part 7 - Forcemain Aligmnent $8,201.20 Part 8 - Residental Sobmersible Grinder Stations 105 Residental simplex grinder pump stations EA 10 3.290.00 Total Pait 8 • Residental Submersible Gnnder Stations $0.00 Alternate No. 1 - MH 22 to MH 22A 106 8" PVC, SDR 35,10' - 12* deep in place LF 193 30.00 172 5,160.00 107 Auger or directional bore 8" PVC LF 55 75.00 84 6,300.00 108 Std. MH 8' dp., 4' dia., W/R1642B cstg.EA 1 1,440.00 1 1,440.00 109 MH depth greater than 8' deep LF 2 100.00 5.20 520.00 110 Remove & transplant tree - coniferous EA 10 150.00 0 Total Alternate No. 1 - MH 22 to MH 22A $13,420.00 Change Order No. 1 81 Furnish & plant shade tree (Sugar Maple)EA IS 500.00 11 Std MH 8* dp., 4' dia., W/R1642B cstg.EA 3 1,440.00 3.00 4320.00 12 MH depth greater than 8' deep LF 6 100.00 6.00 600.00 Total Change Order No. 1 $4,920.00 Change Order No. 2 * 1 4" riser pipe extension EA 2 845.00 $0.00 2,793.00 625.00 r 66 69 32 53 34 55 63 67 69 50 55 56 Delete 12‘RCP in place 15" RCP flared end in place with trash guard Total Change Order No. 3 LF EA Change Order No. 4 4’ diam. sump catch basin manhole Catch basin manhole overdepth Bituminous surfacing removal Common excavation Sawcut bituminous 15" RCP in place 15" RCP flared end in place w/ TO Clear and grab Total Change Order No. 4 EA LF SY CY LF LF EA EA Change Order No. 5 Common Excavation Class 5 Aggregate Base (100% Crashed) Total Change Order No. 5 CY TN Total Pan 1 - Long Lake Sanitary Total Pan 2 - Watermain Total Part 3 - Restoration Total Part 4 - Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station Total Part 5 * Lilt Station 6 Renovation Total Part 6 • Lift Station 12 Modifications Total Part 7 - Forcemain Alignment Total Part 8 - Residental Submenible Grinder Sutions Alternate No. 1. MH 22 to MH 22A Total Change Order No. 1 Total Change Order No. 2 Total Change Onler No. 3 Total Change Order No. 4 Total Change Order No. 5 Total Work Completed to Date l:V139M 3988VREQUEST4.WB2 (154) (1) 22.00 900.00 (154.00) (1) 4 3 400 5,400 206 209 1 7 1.200.00 125.00 1.00 3.23 1.50 24.00 900.00 300.00 4 3 400 5,400 206 209 L 7 480 940 3.25 9.20 480 940 (3,388.00) (900.00i ($870.00) 4.800.00 375.00 400.00 17.330.00 309.00 5.016.00 900.00 2.100.00 $31,450.00 1.560.00 8.648.00 $10,208.00 368.397.40 24.658.00 183.397.20 20.590.00 0.00 0.00 8.201.20 0.00 13.420.00 4.920.00 0.00 (870.00) 26.900.00 10.208.00 $659,821.80 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS Owner City of Orono Project No. 13988 FUe No. 13988 Contractor Bait>arossa & Sons CHANGE ORDERS No.Date Description Amount 1 Od/06/97 Additional trees snd manholes as a result of easement nesodations 12.420.00 2 06/10/97 Extend bypass piping in valve 1.690.00 3 06/18/97 Substitute comiKated polyethylene pipe for RCP storm sewer (737.00) 4 08A36/97 Constnicdon of pondina area and instailadon of storm sewer 31.450.00 5 08/19/97 Additional Class 5 10.2C8.00 Total Cbanse Orders $55,031.00 PAYMENT SUMMARY 1 Start 07/01/97 195.908.86 10.310.99 206.219.85 2 07/01/97 08A)6/97 316.864.61 26.988.08 539.761.55 3 08/06/97 09/03/97 49,031.45 29.568.68 591.373.60 4 09/03/97 10/07/97 65.025.79 32.991.09 659.821.80 5 6 7 8 m 9 10 ■ Material on Hand Total Payment to Date $626,830.71 Original Contract $874,930.01 Retainage. Payment No. 4 32.991.09 Change Orders 55.031.00 Total Amount Earned $659,821.80 Revised Contract $929,961.01 l:\139M3986\REQUEST4.WB2 r L COUNCIL MEETING OCT 1 3 1997REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October ITEM NO Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Request for Payment No. 2, Bracketts Point/ Bay Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project We have reviewed the infoimation submitted by the City ’s engineering firm and recommend approval of this Request for Payment COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request for Payment No. 4, Bracketts Point/ Bay Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $167,485.24 i1 ■oneflrao City of Orono. P.Q. Box 66. Crystal Bay. MN Septembers. 1997 to October7.1997 Date: October 7. 1997 Request No: Barbarossa & Sons. P.Q. Box 367 MN 55356 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT BAY RIDGE AND BRACKETTS POINT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS File No. 13990 SUMMARY 1 Original Contract Amount Change Order • Addition Change Order - Deduction Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned 8 Less Retaiiuge 5% 9 Subtotal 10 Less Amount Paid Previously 11 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ $ 55,538.00 $ S $ $ $ $ $ $ Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved by Contractor Barbarossa & Sons Approved by Owner City of Orono Specified Contract Completion Date:Date: l:\139M3990^REQUEST2.WB^ 523,740.00 579,278.00 299.731.25 0.00 299.731.25 14.986.56 284,744.69 117.259.45 167.485.24 r V/) w . No. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14A 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Item Unit 8* PVC. SDR 35, O'- 8' deep in place 8" PVC SDR 35,8’- 10’ deep in place 8" PVC, SDR 35, lO*- 12' deep in place 8" PVC, SDR 35,12’- 14' deep in place 8" PVC, SDR 35,14’-16’ deep in place 8" PVC, SDR 35,16’-18’ deep in place 8" PVC, SDR 26.12’- 14’ deep in place 8" PVC. SDR 26,14’-16’ deep in place 8" PVC. SDR 26,16’-18’ deep in place 8" DIP, 8’-10’ deep in place 8" DIP, 14’-16’ deep in place Std. MH 8’ dp.. 4' dia., w/R1642B cstg. MH depth greater than 8’ deep Force main access manhole Outside drop Directional bore 8" HDPE SDR 17 3" HDPE, SDR 11 Directional bore 3" HDPE SDR 11 Connect 3" HDPE to exist MCES FM stub Connect 3" HDPE into existing manhole Lightweight aggregate 3" X 3" HDPE tee with cap 2" X 1-1/2" HDPE reducer 3" X 45 degree HDPE bend 8" X 4" PVC service wye branch 8" X 2" wye 4" PVC service pipe in place, SDR 26 4" PVC service riser pipe in place, SDR 26 4" HDPE service pipe directional bore 1-1/2” HDPE service pipe directional bore Improved pipe fdn. in 6" increment depth Mechanical trench compaction Insulation Sanitary sewer television inspection Submersible Pump Lift Station 1 Submersible Pump Lift Station 2 Total Part 1 - Sanitary Sewer l:\139M 39«<XREQUEST2.WB2 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA LF F.A LF LF LF LF EA EA LF EA EA EA EA EA LF LF LF LF LF LF SY LF LS LS Contract Quanti^ Unit Quantity Price to Date 975 31.00 570 547 32.00 511 831 33.00 402 582 34.00 296 95 35.00 15 50 36.00 41 36.00 10 82 37.00 150 210 38.00 170 20 50.00 20 12 54.00 4 17 1,700.00 15 39.4 85.00 43.3 1 2,000.00 1 8.2 300.00 4.1 630 29.00 624 1,815 20.00 989 184 24.00 184 1 3,000.00 • 1 1 1,000.00 1 1,010 30.00 1 50.00 1 25.00 5 30.00 2 22 30.00 26 1 50.00 850 20.00 653 35 20.00 300 24.00 120 24.00 1,950 3.00 1,950 1.00 2,144 20 20.00 11 4,075 0.60 1 40,000.00 0.5 1 40,000.00 0.7 Amount to Date 17.670.00 16.352.00 13.266.00 10.064.00 525.00 360.00 5.550.00 6.460.00 1,000.00 216.00 25.500.00 3,680.50 2,000.00 1.230.00 18.096.00 19.780.00 4.416.00 3.000. 00 1.000. 00 60.00 • 780.00 13,060.00 3.000.00 2,144.00 220.00 20,( 28,( .00 .00 $217,429.50 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 60 61 62 64 Part 2 • Restoration Bituminous surfacing removal Common excavation Class 5 aggregate base (100% ciusbed) Type 31 bituminous base course Type 41A bituminous wearing course Geotextile fabric Bituminous material for tack coat Bituminous street patching Clearing and grubbing Sawcut bituminous Biniminous driveway restoration Concrete driveway restoration 27* diam. catch basin with casting Remove existing CMP culvert Fiimish and install 15* CMP culvert IS* CMP flared end Boulder retaining wall Sod with 4* topsoil Seed with topsoil, mulch and fertilizer Erosion control fence Wild flower seeding Furnish and plant Evergreen Tree (Blue Spruce) 6* high Furnish and plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) 4* diameter Remove and transplant bushes Remove and transplant tree • Desiduous Remove and transplant tree - Coniferous Total Part 2 • Restoradon SY 4.000 1.50 4.000 6.000.00 CY 2.100 3.50 710 2.485.00 TN 2.500 9.00 1.472 13,248.00 TN 600 28.50 TN 600 29.00 SY 4.700 1.25 2.687 3.358.75 GL 300 1.20 SY 700 6.75 LS 1 5.000.00 1.0 5.000.00 LF 100 6.00 SY 600 6.75 SF 100 10.00 EA 1 1.000.00 1 1.000.00 LF 150 5.00 65 325.00 LF 150 20.00 53 1.060.00 EA 4 150.00 SF 80 14.00 SY 13.000 2.00 4,500 9.000.00 AC 0.4 3.280.00 LF 1.000 2.00 590 1,180.00 SF 800 0.30 EA 20 220.00 EA 20 600.00 LF 300 16.00 EA 40 50.00 6 300.00 EA 15 300.00 EA 15 300.00 Change Order No. 1 ADO Residentail simple grinder pump stadons Total Alternate No. 2 Alternate No. 3 Bid - Diiecdonal Bore 8* HOPE, MH-1 to MH-9 l;M3SM3890\REQUEST2.WB2 $42,956.75 1 3.600.00 $0.00 .IL—-------- • T'•*Tui§jTi i»j^ ;TiTnrrr LtJItrtTiTiTi^ Klkl;wr^ :^5cirr^ ^ummwTr^f No.Date Description Amount 1 08/19/97Changes due to unstable soils encountered 55.538.00 2 3 Total Qiaiise Orders $55,538.00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL iOCT 1 3 1997 CITYOFORONO I DATE: October 13, 1997 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Repon Item Description: Resolution for Plans & Specs. Nava*ii* Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation I A feasibility study has been prepared for this project and a public hearing was held on September 23rd. After completion of the public hearing, the Council approved a motion authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for this project. The attached resolution will need to be approved to formally order preparation of plans and specifications in accordance with Minnesota Statue 429 for assessment projects. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the attached resolution ordering preparation of plans and specifications, by the City Engineer, for rehabilitation of the Navarre Water Treatment Plant n I A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR NAVARRE WATER TREATMENT PLANT REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Mirmesota; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared a feasibility study to determine the feasibility of rehabilitating the Navarre Water Treatment Plant; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 1997 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3957 receiving the feasibility report and calling for a public hearing for the Navarre Water Treatment Plant rehabilitation improvement; and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks pi shed notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 23 rd day of September, 1997, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportuui; to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby direct the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the Navarre Water Treatment Plant. Adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on October 13,1997 by a vote ayes and____nays. ATTEST;Gabriel Jabbour. Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING OCT 1 3 1997 CITY OF ORONO Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services DATE: October 13, 1997 ITEM NO.: j ^ Administ^tor Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Resolution Requesting Speed Study for County Road 6 County Road 6 has a current average traffic volume of approximately 8,(X» vehicles per day and e traffic count is mcreasing every year. The posted speed limit is 55 M.P.H. on this highway There are numerous driveways and intersections along this road with restricted sight distance We have rec^ved calls from citizens about the volume and speed of traffic along m^WghJTTWs ^mmer there was a serious mjury accident at the intersection of County Highway 6 anu Tamarack Drive that caused increased concern from area residents. We are recommending that a speed study is warranted on this highway because of the high traffic volume and restricted sight distances. Initiation of a speed study requires that the City Council pprove a resolution requesting that Hennepin County contact the Minnesota Department of Transport,.on to complete a speed swdy. The proposed limUs for this study are^0“ 12 T>eTcZ3oiTlT?o ™ reconstruction,ihe seuion east of T.H. 12 carries more traffic and has areas of restricted sight distance with no plans for reconstruction in the near future to correct these problems. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT HENNEPIN COUNTY INITIATE A SPEED STUDY ON COUNTY ROAD 6 FROM T.H. 12 TO OKONO EASTERN CITY LIMITS WHEREAS, traffic on County Road 6 is increasing due to development in the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the City has received calls concerning the increased traffic and the speed of the traffic and serious injury accidents at intersections. WHEREAS, there are driveways and intersections on this road that have sight distance restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council hereby requests that Hennepin County contact the Minnesota Department of Tran .? rtation to initiate a speed study on County Road 6 from T.H. 12 to the Orono eastern City limits. Adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on October 13,1997 by a vote of____ayes and_____nays. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk r |i " V COUNCIL MEETING [| REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 1 3 IW DATE: October ITEM NO.= n Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title C ity Adm .n tstrator Administrator Reviewed;Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: County Road 15 Project - Initial Payment Request The Construction Cooperative Agreement between the City and Hennepin County for the County Road 15 Reconstruction Project includes several items of cost participation by the City totaling $162,081.00. Of this amount, $57,996.00 is related to construction and $104,085.00 is related to right-of-way acquisition. The three construction-related cost participation items are Contract Construction in the amount of $38,049.00, Engineering in the amount of $8,847.00, and Contribution to the MCWD in lieu of stormwater detention basin construction in the amount of $11,100.00. The Construction Cooperative Agreement provides that the County will invoice the City for 95% of the estimated City's share of the contract construction and engineering costs upon award of the project to the successful bidder. The contract has now been awarded and the City has received the invoice from Hennepin County (see attached). The total amount of the invoice is $52,302.28. The invoice amounts are within the amounts indicated in the Construction Cooperative Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the payment of the invoice from Hennepin County for the City's share of construction, engineering and MCWD contribution costs for the County Road 15 Reconstruction Project in the amount of $52,302.28, to be funded from the MSA fund. r COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 1 3 1997 CITYOFORONO DATE: Octobers, 1997 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer’s Report Item Description: County Road 15 Project - Initial Payment Request The Construction Cooperative Agreement between the City and Hennepin County for the County Road 15 Reconstruction Project includes several items of cost participation by the City totaling $162,081.00. Of this amount, $57,996.00 is related to construction and $104,085.00 is related to right-of-way acquisition. The three construction-related cost participation items are Contract Construction in the a.nount of $38,049.00, Engineering in the amount of $8,847.00, and Contribution to the MCWD in lieu of stormwater detention basin construction in the amount of $11,100.00. The Construction Cooperative Agreement provides that the County will invoice the City for 95% of the estimated City s share of the contract construction and engineering costs upon award of the project to the successful bidder. The contract has now been awarded and the City has received the invoice from Hennepin County (see attached). The total amount of the invoice is $52,302.28. The invoice amounts are within the amounts indicated in the Construction Cooperative Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the payment of the invoice from Hennepin County for the CiP/'a share of construction, engineering and MCWD contribution costs for the County Road 15 Reconstruction Project in the amount of $52,302.28, to be funded from the MSA fund. rI .%INVOICE#: 28050 HENNEPIN COUNTY D«partm«nt of Public Works Financial Managomont & Accounting 417 North 5th Street, Suite 310 MpIs.MN 55401-1360 faluni u BILLED TO DATE: , Director of Public VHWcs- j f(j^^ City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 September 23, 1997 Data Description Amount For the City of Orono's participation in Agreement Number PW 52-08-96. County Project Number 9222 located on CSAH 15. Contractor: Ames Construction Inc. Contract Amount: $2,887,016.08. Orono's initial share of contract construction Less 5% encumbrance $36,754.93 (1,837.75)$34,917.18 Orono's initial share of engineering 18% of $36,754.93 Less 5% encumbrance 6,615.89 (330.79)6,285.10 Orono's initial share of MCWD contribution 50% of $22,000.00 11.100.00 11,100.00 AMOUNT DUE BY NOVEMBER 6, 1997 $52,302.28 AJI p«ym«nu to tho County must b« pottmarkoo by tha data dua or a lata panalty of 1 % par month, or fraction tharaof. on tha unpaid balanca will ba chargad to tha City. Tha City than pay tha amount dua at ttatad on tha ttatamant. notwithstanding any diaputa of auch amount. Should a diaputad amount ba raaoivtd In favor of tha City, tha County ahail raimbursa tha diaputad amount plus daily mtarest tharaon caiculatad from tha data such diaputad amount was racaivad by tha County. Oaity intarast ahatt ba at tha rata of 1 % par month on tha disputad amount. REMIT BY CHECK. MONEY ORDER. OR DRAFT PAYABLE TO: HtNNEPlN COUNTY TREASURER Attanuon: Diana Lowa Hannapin County Oapanmtnt of PubOc Works 417 5th Straat North, Suita 310 Minnaap^'is. MN 55401-1360 Ptaata print tha inyoica numbar on your raminanca E.AFMA\OPWVContbUt\9222; tnitial City Bill r \ COUNCIL MiETiNQ OCT 1 3 1997REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: Octc^l?r?S?^ ITEM NO.Jf Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa TItk Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agen.Ja Section: En^^ujeer’s Report Item Description: Request for Payment #2, Golf Course Irrigation System Project The contractor has completed installation of the irrigation system and payment of this invoice.we are recomme nding COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion 10 approve Request for Payment #2, Golf Course Irrigation System Project to Everg reen rih rr Owner:City of Orono, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay Date: October 13,1997 For Period:September 4, 1997 to October 3, 1997 Request Nc: 2 Contractor:Evergreen Sprinkler, 4100 Vera Cruz Avenue North, Robbinsdale, MN 55422 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT 1997 GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SUMMARY $91.259.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Original Contract Amount Change Order - Addition Change Order - Deduction Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Less Retainage 2% Subtotal Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2 $ $ o.oa 0.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 91.259.00 91.259.00 0.00 91.259.00 1.825.18 89.433.82 43.348.03 46.085.7^ Recommended for Approval by: GREGORY A. GAPPA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES Approved by Contractor: EVERGREEN SPRINKLER Approved by Owner: CITY OF ORONO Date: r . ^^CILMEETINq OCT 13 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OITYOFORONO DATE: October 10,1997 ITEM NO.^1 Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: County Road 6 Tunnel Agreement with Spring Hill Country Club Background The plans for the Spring Hill Golf Course include a pedestrian underpass under County Road 6 to connect the north and south sections of the golf course. This underpass requires the installation of a box culvert under County Road 6. County approval of the culvert requires an agreement directly with the City regarding inspection and maintenance responsibilities, and liability regarding the culvert. The City has agreed to enter into this agreement with the County based on also entering into a similar agreement with the Spring Hill Golf Course, through which the City passes these responsibilities to the Spring Hill Golf Course. Status of Agreement The City Attorney is working with the Spring Hill Attorney to finalize the agreement between the City and the Spring Hill Golf Course. An outline of the agreement is attached. The final agreement will be provided at the Council meeting. Timing of Culvert Installation The Spring Hill Golf Course wants to install the culvert this fall to provide easy access between the north and south sections of the Golf Course next spring. Both the County and the City have concerns regarding disturbing County Road 6 in l.’-te October. It is important to avoid being unable to complete the repaving and be put in the position of making continuous repairs all winter. Staff believes it is important to discuss with the Spring Hill Golf Course whether the potential impact on productivity in the spring is worth the potential problems that would be caused to the road throughout the winter if the weather turns bad and the repaving cannot be completed. (Please see the attached memo from Greg Gappa.) Public Use of Underpass There has been discussion with Spring Hill Golf Course regarding the public use of the underpass during the off season. The underpass would provide a safe crossing of County Road 6 for those using the trail to be constructed adjacent to the golf course. The golf course manager was to review the underpass usage issue with the Spring Hill Board Members. He had not contacted staff at the time of this writing. The response of the Board will be brought to the Council meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/continue action on the County Road 6 tunnel agreement with the Spring Hill Golf Club. r 10/08/97 WED 11:02 FAX 612 306 3SS5 FAEGRE & BENSON (2; mi2 t- 1 Faegre & Benson llp 2200 N orwest C enteu , 9(1 South Seve>.th SvK/.tir Minneapous , Minnesota £i4Ci2-i90t TKI.CTHONZ 612-336-3000 l-v\OLSUL5 612-336-302S M. CHOSBY, JR, ccm Octobers, 1997 Mr. Greg Gappa City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: CSAH-6 Tunnel Spring Hill Golf Club Dear Greg: I appreciate your sending to me the agreement prepared by Hennepin County for the Ownership, Inspection and Maintenance of Pedestrian Underpass. Consistent with the County’s earlier discussions, the County desires to deal with the City of Orono and does not want to enter into a contract with a private party. I envision a relatively simple agreement between Spring Hill Golf Club and the City of Orono which would: 1 . ^ Acknowledge the existence and terms of the Hennepin County agreement. 2. Provide for the undertaking by Spring Hill Golf Club to perform the duties required of the City of Orono under the coni act. 3. Indemnify the City of Orono for liabilities and claims arising out of the underpass. 4. Provide the City of Orono with the ability to perform duties undertaken by Spiing Hill Golf Club if, after appropriate notice. Spring Hill Golf Club fails to perform such duties; and 5. Grants to the City of Orono the ability to assess the Spring Hill Golf Club property for costs associated with such work if, after notice, Spring Hill Golf Club fails to make the appropriate payments. Minmupolis Denver Des Moines LonAon Frankfurt Almaty ,12002Y, Jr. rcc«:*m October 13,1997 To: Orono City Council ! -h From: Greg Gappa, Public Services Director Subject: Spring Hill Golf Course, CR 6 Tunnel Construction Construction of the 8' high bv • 2' wide concrete box culvert under County Road 6, this fall, is being proposed by the Spring Hill Golf Course. The Developer, City, and Hennepin County have discussed this proposal. Pending Council approval of the appropriate agreements, construction is planned for the last two weeks of October. (See attached schedule) We have some concerns about this proposal that the Counv.*) needs to be aware of Tunnel construction will require open cutting of the highway. Construction this late in the season entails risks, and a successful project is contingent on favorable weather conditions. We are concerned that unfavorable weather conditions will result in a poor quality project with maintenance problems all winter. A major concern is with poor quality asphalt pavement. According to MNDOT specifications the minimum temperature for completion of asphalt paving is 45 degrees. Once the road has been open cut pavement must be installed, leaving an aggregate surface throughout the winter is totally unacceptable from a maintenance perspective. County Road 6 has an average daily traffic count of 8,000 vehicles. Paving at low temperatures can result in poor quality pavement that will require patching all winter. Winter patching is expensive with limited effectiveness. Contractor availability for completion of the asphalt paving is also a concern. It can be difficult to schedule paving late in the season because everyone is rushing to complete i .ojects before winter. The paving contractors have said that this year is difficult because many projects are behind schedule because of the wet summer. We are concerned that the tunnel will be installed on schedule, but then getting the paving subcontractor to complete the work will be difficult. The City of Orono will need to have an agreement, with Hennepin County, to allow for installation of this Umnel across County Road 6. This agreement will mean that the City is ultimately responsible, to Hermepin County, for this tunnel. A separate agreement will need to be signed with Spring Golf Course to pass on the tunnel responsibilities to the golf course, with provisions for the City to complete any tasks not f'reformed by the golf course. Any City costs for completion of this required work could then be assessed to the golf course property. This agreement should protect the financial interests f'- .he City, but resolution of problems by the City will result in additional coordination and .»ork responsibilities for the City. We believe it is important that the Council consider these concerns when making any decisions regarding the installation of this tunnel, because the ultimate responsibility to Hennepin County for this project is with the City. r f ' I I I lO/iO/1997 07:13 6124043327 J0nr IE i:« I PAGE 01 FAX COVER SHEET SFOMO HILL BOLT CLUB 700 Spring Hm Road MN SS301 012-47^979 612-404-0827 SEND TO 1 Company n»m«From cz^rH c> F-Tim Johnson AW$fUton Data cSirzec^ 0/ffc# foc%0on Offk0 focMtion FaxnumPor Fhono number<»sno 612-476-^75 __ □Urgwnt comment 1 Ptmmf mvhw ^ For your kifpnumdon To($fp»g0S, tneMng eovtr COMMENTS • . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! ;!! Loiri ’ •. • • ! irv^s .... . . . ; . cp^oJZ... tb!" /.!! ‘7i:iH5s ; .‘l^^ .-A. . . . . . « rXHn .-^K!!!;!\aJ;i^' .LoltrU.!.ZZ :;tT^ie.;v;::;:::::::;:;:..7XJ-^ ..................................................................................j ^ ......................... J r 10/10/1397 07:13 6124043:;:;7 OCT-08-97 wed 13:42 GL CONTRACTING wlQH( (SCKI FAX NO. 6124759592 pa-:iE o? P. C2 CONTRACTING INC 4300 WiaOW DRIVE MEDINA MN 55340-9701 PHONE 612-478-9529 FAX 612-478-9592 October 8,1997 Tim Johnson RE: Spring Hill Golf Club Box Culvert Schedule The following schedule is based on plans by Schoell & Madson and assuming a go ahead date of Oct 10th. Oct 13-17th build pipe Oct 20th Begin traffic detour and start excavation Oct 23rd and 24th Set box Oct 27-29th Prepare for blacktop Oc! 30-31 St blacktop Nov 3-4th cleanup Nov 5th rernove detour Two Saturdays are available for lost time days v/lth this schedule. We would Intend to work on the turn lane at the same time as the box culvert and complete simultaneously. If we are required to maintain one lane of traffic add eight working days for a completion on Nov 17th. Costs will also significantly increase if this method is used. David Swanson President 5 COUNCIL MEETINS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 1 5 CITYOFORONO DATE; October 13. 1997 ITEM NO.: ^ q Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator's Report Item Description: Hennepin County Agreement for Spring Hill Golf Course Tunnel The Spring Hill Golf Course will be constructing an 8’ high by 12' wide concrete tunnel under County Road 6 for access to both sections of the golf course by maintenance equipment. Hennepin County policy requires that these types of ownership and maintenance agreements must be with other governmental units, such as cities. The County will not enter into agreements for these facilities with private owners. This is a standard format agreement used by the County for these Qrpes of facilities that are not serving a County Highway use. This agreement describes the ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the tunnel required of the City. This agreement places the ultimate responsibility for the tunnel on the City of Orono. A separate agreement is being proposed between the City of Orono and Spring Hill Golf Course that will transfer the responsibilities of the City/ County agreement to Spring Hill w’th provisions to protect the City in the event of nonperformance by the golf course. This concept of a City/ County agreement and a separate agreement between the City and Spring Hill Golf Course was included as a condition in the Council resolution granting zoning approval for the project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consideration for approval of the agreement between the City of Orono and Hennepin Co unty for the ownership and maintenance of the Spring Hill Golf Course Tunnel under County Road 6. Hennepin County JL AaEilualOpporCiiiiilyCmplojer v August 14,1997 Mr. Ronald Moorse City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 AGREEMENT NO. PW 36-08-97 PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS CSAH 6, COUNTY PROJECT 9767 Dear Mr. Moorse: Submitted for approval are two copies of the above referenced agreement. If the agreement is satisfactory, please have both copies signed by the appropriate city officials. Upon execution by the city, or if you have any question or concerns about the agreement, please contact Harlan Hanson at 930-2530. Please submit two certified copies of a resolution authorizing city officials to sign the agreement. Upon completion of the remaining signatures by Hennepin County officials, we will send you one fully executed copy for your files. Sincerely, v3 Bruce M. Polaczyk, P.E. Design Engineer BCC:mak Enclosure Depirtment of Public Woris 320 Washington Avenue Soirth HopkiRS»MiflnesoU 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX.(612)930-2513 TI)D:(6 12)930-2696 Secfckdhptr 1 t Agreement No. PW 36-08-97 County Project No. 9767 County State Aid Highway No. 6 City of Orono County of Hennepin AGREEMENT FOR THE OWNERSHIP, INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of .1 • • -- - - - - - - -j - -- - - - - - - - - - - ■ 19 , by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Orono, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The City has approved the development of Spring Hill Golf Course within the corporate limits of the City; and WHEREAS, A developer is constructing said Golf Course which is located on both the north and south sides of County State Aid Highway No. (CSAH) 6 ; and WHEREAS, The City has been negotiating with the County to install a precast concrete box culvert under CSAH 6 to allow the safe crossing of pedestrians, golf carts and maintenance equipment between the north and south sides of CSAH 6. Said precast concrete box culvert shall hereinafter be referred to as an "underpass"; and WHEREAS, The County has issued Hennepin County Permit No. 25491 to the City to allow the installation of said underpass; and WHEREAS, Long term ownership, maintenance and liability issues are involved with said underpass and the parties hereto desire to define and assign responsibilities for said issues as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1992, Section 162.17, Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59. - 1 - r •v.'. AgreeroePb No. PW 36-08-97 CSAH 6; C.P. 9767 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I The City and the developer shall complete the installation of said underpass according to the terms and conditions set forth in said Hennepin County Permit No. 25491. Installation of said underpass shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Project''. It is understood and agreed that said underpass included in said Project, along with any utilities installed within the right of way of CSAH 6, shall be the property of the City and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement required at any time shall be performed by the City at no expense to the County. The City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the City, its subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable related to the ownership, maintenance, existence, restoration, repair or replacement of the City owned improvements. Ill In accordance with the policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), said underpass will be defined as a bridge and has been assigned Hennepin County Bridge No. 27J10. Annual bridge inspections for said Bridge No. 27J10, as required by Minnesota Statute and any other inspections for said Bridge No. 27J10 will be the responsibility of Hennepin County. A copy of the inspection reports for said bridge will be provided to the City. Any and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement required either pn a routine basis or as a result of any such inspections shall be accomplished by the City or its agents at no expense to the County. The County reserves the right to require the City to accomplish any such - 2 - Agreement No. PW 36-08-97 CSAH 6; C.P. 9767 maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement within a specified period as may be deemed appropriate and reasonable by the County Engineer, taking into account the nature of the work. Furthermore, the County reserves the right to close and/or otherwise restrict the use of said underpass if the City does not accomplish any such maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement as directed by the County. In the event the City does not perform any such maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement within the specified period, as may be required by the County Engineer, the County will perform any such maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement and invoice the City for the work performed. . Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by the law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The County’s and the City’s liability is governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 446. The County and the City each warrant that they are able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self- insurance program. It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers’ Compensation Act or the Minnesota Economic Security Law on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of - 3 - I Agreement No. PW 36-08-97 CSAH 6; C.P. 9767 '"i9ht arise under the Workers Compensation Act or the Minnesota Economic Security Law on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. VI In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of the City so as to accomplish the purpose of this Agreement, the County Engineer or his designated representative 'hall manage this Agreement on behalf of the County and shall serve as liaison between the County and the City. In order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of the County so as to accomplish the purpose of this Agreement, the City Manager or his designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the City and shall serve as liaison between the City and the County. VII It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties IS contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. VIII The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. - 4 - nil Agreement No. PH 36-08-97 CSAH 6; C.P. 9767 parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be CITY OF ORONO AHEST: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Item No. C0U;.C1L MEETlivIGOCT 13 1997CITYOFORONO October 10,1997 Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: John Maresh, 2085 Sixth Avenue North - North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition Sewer Connection - Resolution As part of the City's recent MUSA amendment. Metropolitan Council has allowed the City up to 50 undefined residential sewer connections outside the MUSA for use by existing homes with failing or non-conforming septic systems on properties abutting existing sewer lines. The Council has previously indicated that per Dr. Maresh's request, his residence lot would be included in the Long Lake Country Club sewer project and provided with municipal sewer. This approval was conditioned on legal combination of the homestead lot with the vacant lot abutting Brown Road, in order that the adjacency criteria be met A second condition was that the property be assessed the non-reduced unit amount of $19,083 based on the extra costs involved in sewering this property and the benefit received by the property owner. The attached resolution formalizes the combination requirement which must be completed before the City will allow connection of the existing residence to sewer. Council Action Requested: Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the provision of sewer to the John Maresh property at 1085 Sixth Avenue North, subject to legal combination of the two tax parcels and a single unit assessment in the amount of $19,083. ] W><"awi A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SEWER CONNECTION AT 2085 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH AS PART OF THE NORTH LONG LAKE /LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION SEWER PROJECT WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has approved up to 50 undefined sewer units for use by the City for properties outside of the MUSA but adjacent to sewer lines; and WHEREAS, the requirements regarding the 50 undefined units are that the property is adjacent to a sewer line, that it is an existing residence, and that it has a failing or non-confroming septic system; and WHEREAS, John and Diane Maresh have requested that their property at 2085 Sixth Avenue North, which is outside the MUSA boundary, be provided with sewer service as part of the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition Sewer Project; and WHEREAS, the property at 2085 Sixth Avenue North meets the requirements for the use of the 50 undefmed units, except that the property is not adjacent to the sewer line because it is separated from the sewer line by a separate vacant tax parcel which is owned by the Maresh's; and WHEREAS, the adjacency criteria can be satisfied by a legal combination of the 2085 Sixth Avenue North parcel with the vacant parcel; and WHEREAS, the unreduced unit cost for the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition Sewer Project is $19,083.00; and WHEREAS, an unreduced assessment for this property is appropriate because of the additional project costs involved in providing service to the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota that the property at 2085 Sixth Avenue North be provided with a single sewer service as part of the North Long Lake/Long Lake Co ’intry Club Addition Sewer Project, subject to the property being assessed Page 1 of 2 &COUNCIL MEETING OCT 1 3 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cmroFORCN.- DATE: October9,1997 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Adminbtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: George Johnson, 879 Brown Road North - North Long Lake/Long Lake Co’ontry Club Addition Sewer Connection - Resolution As part of the City’s most recent MUSA Amendment, which included the ten sewer "hot spots"; the Metropolitan Council approved up to 50 additional undefined sewer units for use by the City; as individual connection requests from properties outside of the MUSA but adjacent to sewer lines occur The requirements regarding the use of these 50 undefined units are that the property is adjCv.ent to a sewer line, that it is an existing residence, and that it has a failing or non-conforming septic system. George Johnson has requested that his property located at 879 Brown Road North be provided with sewer as part of the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sewer Project. His property meets all of the requirements set out for the use of the 50 undefined units. The Council has previously approved the provision of sewer to the Johnson property, subject to the property being assessed for the improvement in the amount of $13,950.00. A resolution is attached reflecting this action of the Council. COUNaL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the provision of sewer to the George Jolmson property at 879 Brown Road North, subject to the property being assessed for the sewer service in the amount of $13,950.00. inNWWUtM A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SEWER CONNECTION AT 879 BROWN ROAD NORTH AS PART OF THE NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION SEWER PROJECT r , ' WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has approved up to 50 undefined sewer units for use by the City for properties outside of the MUSA but adjacent to sewer lines; and WHEREAS, the requirements regarding the 50 undefined units are that the property is adjacent to a sewer line, that it is an existing residence, and that it has a failing or non-conforming septic system; and WHEREAS, George Johnson has requested that his property at 879 Brown Road Nort!'. be provided with sewer service as part of the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition Sewer Project; and WHEREAS, the property at 879 Brown Road North meets the requirements for the use of the 50 undefined units; and WHEREAS, the cost per unit for those properties participating in the sewer project has been set at $13,950.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota that the property at 879 Brown Road North be provided with sewer service as part of the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition Sewer Project, subject to the property being assessed in the amount of $13,950.00. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 13th day of October, 1997. AITEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 1 of 1 r COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 9, 1997 OCT 1 3 1997 CITYOFORONO ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title Ci'.y Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Troy and Catherine Anderson, 1490 Long Lake Boulevard - Exclusion from North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition Sewer Project Background In the early 1990's, Troy and Catherine Anderson were required to replace a non-conforming septic system on their property at 1490 Long Lake Boulevard. At that time, they questioned whether there may be sewer available in the near future to serve their property. Based on information available at that time, staff indicated there were no plans for sewer in the foreseeable future. The new septic system was then installed. When the North Long Lake Sewer Project was proposed, the Andersons opposed their inclusion in the project due to their new septic system. Based on City policy at the time, the Anderson property was included in the project and was assessed. The Andersons appealed the assessment, indicating that due to their nev' septic system, sewer would not provide significant benefit to their property. The Andersons indicated they would consider a resolution that included reducing the assessment from $13,950 to something less than $5,000. In addressing the appeal, the Council determined it would be unfair to the other property owners in the project to reduce the assessment to the Andersons. The Council determined the best resolution to the appeal would be to exclude the Anderson property from the project, thereby excluding them from the assessment also. When the Council's proposed resolution was presented to Mr. Anderson, he indicated that after discussions with persons in the real estate profession, he felt it would not be in his interest to be excluded from the project and indicated his preferred solution would be a substantially reduced assessment amount. The /^^idersons are now moving forward with their appeal of the assessment, including opposition to their exclusion from the project in favor of obtaining sewer at a substantially reduced cost. Legal Process and Continuation of Action The Court has directed that the parties to the assessment appeal attempt to resolve their differences through an alternative dispute resolution process. The Andersons attorney has requested a non- Request for Council Action continued Page 2 October 9, 1997 Troy and Catherine Anderson, 1490 Long Lake Boulevard - Exclusion from North Long _____Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition Sewer Project binding mediation process prior to the Council taking action regarding the exclusion of the Anderson property fix)m the sewer project. The City Attorney has advised that a mediation process could be of benefit in resolving the issue and does not prejudice the City's position regarding the exclusion of the Anderson property from the sewer project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Council table action regarding exclusion of the Anderson property from the North Long Lake Sewer Project on the condition that mediation be held before the end of October. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to table action regarding the exclusion of the Anderson property at 1490 Long Lake Boulevard from the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition Sewer Project on the condition that mediation be held before the end of October. AXDtMnwmM [ r COUNCIL MEETING OCT 13 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: October 10, 1997 ITEM NO.a t Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Proposal Regarding the Disposition of Tax Forfeited Property at 1960 Shoreline Drive The property at 1960 Shoreline Drive was acquired by the State through tax forfeiture and is now going to be made available by the County through its tax forfeit property disposition process. As part of this process, the City has the option of acquiring the property for a public purpose, releasing it for sale to adjacent property owners to be combined with an existing lot, or releasing it for a public sale. The property is 80 feet by 139 feet, and is a comer lot fronting on both County Road 15 and Spates Avenue. It is located directly across County Road 15 from Sailors World Marina. The property was formerly used for boat sales and has an existing commercial-type building. The commercial use of the property has been discontinued and the property can now only be used for residential uses. There is underground contamination on the site from a petroleum leak that occurred as part of a former use. When the property was first tax forfeited, the City requested that the County delay disposition of the property until the petroleum contamination was cleaned up. The County has been working to clean up the contamination. The City has indicated to the County that the property cannot be used for a commercial use. The County has recently received a proposal regarding the purchase and use of the property from Mr. Crear who owns the property on Spates Avenue directly to the north of the tax forfeit property. Mr. Crear proposes to purchase the property to combine it with his existing residential lot. He will demolish the existing building. His proposal is subject to the petroleum contamination being cleaned up. The two potential options for the use of the property are to sell the property as a residential lot or to combine the property with an adjacent property. Due to the small size of the lot, and the lot fronting on both County Road 15 and Spates Avenue, the property would be a ver>' substandard lot. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 October 10,1997 Proposal Regarding the Disposition of Tax Forfeited Propert y at 1960 Shoreline Drive indicate whether it supports the proposal made by Mr. Crear The ““ideration at this time. If the Council sunnorts *e proposal st^wu dr^ a resolution releasing the property for sale to ad With the condition that it be combined with an existing lot. supports ■ icent property ownere COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: r i _ . k- m I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 10/10/97 ITEM NO.: # Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: 1960 Shoreline Drive P.I.D.#: 10-117-23 42 0022 Zoning District: LR-IA, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acres minimum) Lot Area:12,058.07 sq. ft. or .276 acres Mr. Dan Crear, 1980 Spates Avenue, has requested direction from the City of Orono regarding the tax-forfeited parcel adjacent to his property. The property at 1960 Shoreline Drive is polluted due to a petroleum spill that occurred at the site. Hennepin County has been in the process of cleaning/removing contamination. Mr. Crear would like to acquire the property and add it to his residential lot. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: f ' I z To direct the property owner regarding acquisition of this property. Attachments: A B C D E Letter from applicant Map MPCA memo from 1995 Resolution #2953 Contaminated Site Flow Chart r if ¥i\ k MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: August 27.1997 Gabriel Jabbour. Mayor of Orono Dan Crear 1960 Shoreline Drive Gabriel, here is the letter that I sent to Hennepin Country concerning the property in Crystal Bay that adjoins my property. I have had conversations with the county and have been advised to discuss this with the City of Orono. They are encouraged by this request and would like to see how the City of Orono feels about this proposal. My hope is that I can bring this before the city council and hopefully get their blessing so that I can proceed with this project as outlined. Could you please advise me as to how you would like me to proceed with the dty so that I can move this project along for a quick resolution. You help and advice is always well received, thank you for the support. I can be reached at either 638-1325 -O or 476-1010 -H, I look forward to your reply. DAN AND MARY CREAR 1980 Spates Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 August 27,1997 Gordy Ramm Hennepin County Tax Forfeiture 600A Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Re: 1960 Shoreline Drive, Orono, MN Dear Gordy: Thanks for taking the time to review the above named property and work with me to come to a quick resolution on what wilt happen to this property. As we discussed on the phone I have a common boundary with this property on the southern border of my lot. I have lived at my property since 1979 and have seen numerous owners and tenants pass through the adjacent property’s doors. The property is currently vacant and has been for some time, I think about 2 years. The property has reverted back to its original zoning classification as residential property. In discussions that I have had with the City of Orono, I doubt very much if they will ever let another conditional use permit be issued for commerdal use. With this in mind I would like to pursue the idea of acquiring this property and add it to my existing property as vacant land for trees, flowers, grass and a buffer to County Rd 15. I am willing to work with the county to come to a mutual resolution and will do what I feel is in the best interest of my property and the community. The current problems with the property: • Vacant and attracting transient cars, boats, and people • Possible remediation site for oil, gasoline and other petroleum products • Large area of asphalt with a vacant building • Zoned residential but not an ideal residential lot due to proximity to Cty. Rd. 15 • Unsightly appearance due to overgrown vegetation and lack of care and maintenance. • Association with my property regarding soil contamination and future liability When we last talked on the phone I had asked you to speed the process of resolution on this property and at least remove the building and asphalt. Your response to me was to make a proposal to the county to have the building and asphalt removed at my expense in exchange for some interest in the property. Based on that conversation I have begun investigating the process of having the building and asphalt removed and subsequent planting of grass, flowers, and trees. I would be willing to pay for the removal of the building and asphalt in exchange for the free and dear title to the property. This of course would have to indude some form of agreement from the city and county that I, and any future property owner, would not be ever held liable for contamination or dean>up of the property to remove existing contamination. It would have to be an agreement that would indemnify and hold harmless any property owner now and in the future from liability based on existing conditions. It has been brought to my attention that there are forms of bio-remediation and or time with vegetation planted on the property that will eventually dean this site. This of course would be a much more economical solution in light of numerous years with no tax revenue. Since I have no plans to use the property for anything other than planting grass and trees I would be open to the idea of future soil remediation should that ever become necessary. Hopefully this is something that is of interest to the county. If you would like to discuss this further or you have any other suggestions please feel free to give me a call as I would be happy to discuss it further at either 638-1325 (O) or 476-1010 (H). I am ready to proceed with this whenever you can make it happen and would be willing to bear the cost of creating the purchase agreement and dosing costs to transfer the property. Sincerely, Dan & Mary Crear dc cc; Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor of Orono / ^9 \ n m « rtSO •jo ■• < g n •1 m •s ^cj) m rvAi f« mi «9 A -V f*-•V.- / ■Minnesota Pollution Control Agency June 5, 1995 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7 1095 Mr. Gerald Toberman 9909 South Shore Drive Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 RE: Petroleum Storage Tank Release Investigation and Corrective Action Site: Former Gas Station, 1960 Shoreline Dnve, Orono Site ID#: LEAK00008404 Dear Mr. Toberman: Notice of Release The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has received notification that a release of petroleum has occurred from storage tank facilities which you own and/or operate that has resulted in contamination of soil and/or ground water. On July 21, 1987, an Orono city inspector recorded that a spill of 150 - 200 gallons of petroleum was released to the environment during a tank removal at the above mentioned site. Legal Obligations Federal and state laws require that persons legally responsible for storage tank releases notify the MPCA of the release, investigate the extent of the release and take actions needed to ensure that the release is cleaned up. A person is considered legally responsible for a tank release if the person owned or operated the tank either during or after the release, unless specifically exempted under the law. See Minn. Stat. § 115C.021 (1992). If you believe that you are not legally responsible for this storage tank release, please submit a written explanation of your position to the MPCA within 15 days. 520 Lafayette Rd.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300; Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester Eauai ODOortunitv Emoiover • Printed on Recycled Pacer \ r Mr. Gerald Toberman Page 2 June 5/ 1995 If you are not legally responsible for the release, but hold legal or equitable title to the property where the release occurred, you may volunteer to take corrective action. Responsible persons and volunteers who take corrective action may be eligible for reimbursement for a major portion of the costs of corrective action. The legislature has established the Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Account to reimburse responsible persons and volunteers. The account is administered by the Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board (Petro Board) which is part of the Department of Commerce. Final decisions regarding the amount of reimbursement are made by the Petro Board. All questions about eligibility and reimbursement should be directed to the Petro Board at 612/297-1119 or 612/297-4203. Request to Take Corrective Action The MPCA staff is requesting you to take the steps necessary to investigate and clean up the release in accordance with the enclosed MPCA fact sheets. The MPCA requires that you conduct a site investigation to define the full extent and magnitude of tiie soil and/or ground water contamination caused by the release. A report which details the results of the investigation or concludes that excavation was sufficient to address the release for cleanup (Excavation Report and/or Remedial Investigation/Corrective Action Design) must be submitted to this ofiice within 10 months of the date of this letter. Please refer to MPCA fact sheets for information pertaining to the degree of investigative work necessary at petroleum release sites. Sites with free product, drinking water supply impacts, fire or explosion hazards, or >;roi»nd water impacts which pose a significant threat to public health or the environment, are considered high priority for staff review. If one or more of these situations apply to your site, a Remedial Investigation/Corrective Action Design (RI/CAD) report must be submitted within 90 days. In addition, if you know or discover that there is free-floating petroleum in a well, excavation, or borehole, you must notify the MPCA within 24 hours and IMMEDIATELY begin interim free product recovery. If you have not already done so, the MPCA recommends that you hire a qualified consulting firm registered with the Petro Board that has experience in conducting petroleum release site investigations and in proposing and implementing appropriate corrective actions. A list of registered contractors is available from the Department of Commerce. The MPCA reserves the right to reject proposed corrective actions if the requirements of the site investigation have not been fulfilled. Please note that, under Minn. Rules pt. 2890.0075, subp. 2, you must solicit a minimum of two competitive proposals on a form prescribed by the Petro Board to ensure that the consulting costs are reasonable. Questions about bidding requirements should be directed to Petro Board staff. r t Mr. Gerald Toberman Page 3 June 5/ 1995 Required Response MPCA st^requests a written or verbal response to this letter within 15 days. In your response ptee tell us wh^er you intend to comply with the above requirements. If you do not respond in whichcase toe ^CA Commissioner may order you to take corrective action. If you do not comply wito toe Commissioner's order, it may be enforced in court or, alternatively, the MPCA could use state i^ds to cle^ up the release and then request the Attorney General to recover its costs from you tough legd action. Failure to cooperate with the MPCA in a timely manner will also result in reduced reimbursement from the Pctrc Board. See Minn. Rules pt. 2890.0065, subp. 1, item The enclosed fact .«heets will provide you with the information necessary to complete a successful investigation and cleanup. « « nconcerning this lener or need additional information, please contact me at 612/297-8583. Please reference the above LEAK # in all correspondence. Sincerely, Richard Newquist Project Manager Tanks and Spills Section Hazardous Waste Division RN;tf Enclosures cc: Dorthy Hallin, City Clerk Greg Lie, Hennepin County Solid Waste Officer A1 Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul }. y '4 r / \\o o A * i "^2^* • . - '.A CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2953_ _ _ _ _ A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2193 ADOPTED ON JUNE 8» 1987» AND RESOLUTION NO. 961 ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 18, 1978, AND GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 <J)» OP THE ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE RELATING TO A BOAT SALES/NADTICAL SHOP AT 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE, ORONO PILE NO. 1497 • TR—lA LakGshor© R6sid0nti2il Zoning District loc within the City of Orono ("Orono") having the following legal description: Lot 2, Block If Tourangeau Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property'); and WHEREAS, a conditional use permit ^as issued pursuant to Resolution No. 2193 of the Orono City Council dated June 8, 1987, which permitted a boat sales/nautical shop and contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered ^he recommendation of the Planning Commission File No. 1497 and the effect of the proposed boat sales/nautical shop on i »afetv and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lan^a, exlst/n'g and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use o the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances relating to the level of L^ce Minnetonka during 1989 which caused "f to opeVate a boat sales/naotical shop during said period, a^ndments to the conditional use permit issued Pura»ant to Resolution No. 2193, the conditions are now necessary, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds a boat sales/nautical shop is a seasonal business; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution in its entirety Resolution No. 961 adopted December , » Page 1 of 5 r o o N a w .vrv^'^-i 4..CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2953 WHBRBASr it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate certain conditions of the permit granted by No. 2193 and to add the amendments now reguiredf and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this Resolution; and MHBRBASr the contents of the Planning Commission review and recommendation File 1497 are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this application. CONCLOSION THBRBFORB BB IT RBSOLVBD^ based on one or more of the above Findings that Resolution No. 2193 (Resolution No. 2193 filed as Document No. 1870061) is hereby rescinded and replaced by this Resolution which continues and amends a conditional use permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting a boat sales/nautical shop within the LR**1A, Lakeshore Residential District at the location described above based on the following conditions: 1. That the property described herein may be used for a boat sales/nautical shop^ so long as applicant commences to operate a boat sales/nautical shop by April 22, 1992. 2. That the boat sales/nautical shop be open and operating during the seasonal period businesses of a similar nature are open, including the period between April 15 through October 15 of each year. 3. That "open" and "operating" shall mean at a minimum the business is open to the public on a regular basis at least four days per week, excluding legally recognized holidays, during the hours between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 4. That the boat sales/nautical shop shall not be open after 8:00 p.m. on weekday nights, due to its proximity to residential properties. 5. That applicant shall maintain inventory sufficient to sustain the business as a viable economic enterprise. Applicant shall employ staff knowledgeable and experienced in the business of boat sales/nautical shop. Page 2 of 5 7) r o o W CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2953 _________ 6. A buffer landscaping and privacy fence shall be maintained in good repair along the side yard adjacent to 1950 Shoreline Drive. Landscaping materials shall be replaced as needed or required by the City, and said privacy fence shall be maintained in good repair. 7. That no plantings shall be placed within County right- of-way or grassed buffer area adjacent to Spates Avenue and Shoreline Drive. 8. That applicant work with City to provide and maintain appropriate natural screening adjacent to lift station and within rear yard. 9. That applicant provide approved parking pursuant to Parking Site Plan, herein incorporated as Exhibit A, to provide eight passenger vehicle parking stalls and seven spaces for boats as follows: A. Spaces 1 thorugh 4 limited to boats not in excess of 25 feet - no masts to be installed? and B. Spaces 5 through 7 limited to boats not in excess of 20 feet - no masts to be installed. 10. That signage shall comply with City ordinances. Lighting shall be shielded from all lot lines. Fire lane shall be posted with signage approved by the City on east side of building. 11. That applicant in no way connect, combine or otherwise interrelate the operation of its boat sales/nautical shop business at 1960 Shoreline Drive with any other property, particularly that of the marina at 1955 Shoreline Drive. Applicant's property shall not be used for marina purpose. 12. That authorities granted by this conditional use permit run with the property, not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by the applicant by April 22, 1992, or this conditional use permit will expire on said date. 13. That violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this Resolution shall constitute a violation of the Orono Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 5 1. 1 >v J // 404^ o o w .' .' -.V 14:~^hat c ClTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2953_________ 14-----^hat acolicant apprise themselves of all applijsable Exhibit C. 15 That this Resolution shall be effective upon applicant s execution of an assent, attached herein and incorporated by reference as Exhibit B, and payment t° the expenses the City has incurred as « * approval of this conditional use permit. GENERAL PROVISIONS in no way affect the validity of any other condition in this Resolution. 2. Any failure by the^\\\-n°[rvio\a\^^^^^^ ^cSnftlurd^rs,* a=nT"sVk\°r Si? ^-^Vn’^^el.edleriellinlSl Sith're*sVe^c\\°o®?hr^ violation or any future violation. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of Apr/lr 1991. LfztTh.kfetl^^Ballin, 'City CleriT Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Qsu Property Owner is) Page 4 of 5 ■jMHA ♦-V4 , a*;.:. r! i CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________ ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of April, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & 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. UNDA S. VEE { NOTARY PUBUC • MINNESOTA ImHENNEPIN COUNTY My co»nn’i*s:^n wpires ft-12*06 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) } ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , 199/ before me a Notary Public witl'iin and for said county, personally appeared 7,^ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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. G. OA<OfA _ 9 70.97 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 ine to be the person(s) described In and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 r RESOLUTION ?t2953 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO I Dorothy H. HaUln. City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on April 22 , 19l^ • that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set 11th . day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ my hand and seal this . 19 91_ _ . lin. City Clerk (SEAL) • ►.a.- 7- I- 1 » I i . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF ORONO ) RESOLUTION S2953 * U— -I- ria..ic nf fche City of Orono, Hennepin I Dorothy M. Hallin, ^ certify that I have compared the county. Hlnn.nota, do council of th. City of Orono foregoing copy of a °L‘Ve«lutlon In the Mlnut.a of the --e:rinra^Va:idcuV?o “uLjra\r^^ °and oorr»'t'"oo'py of aaid re—iution «aa duly adopted by aaid City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof. I *19_ii_- 11th . day of _ _ - - - - - . ¥ othy M lin. City Clerk •.t fli-*fxr •l r »• • I- •f l' • n • • ■ • • ^;Y-3?:V /1: f : 1 Q^:K-- -i (SEAL) ■t r * V4i«a*« « « f ^i^lQK<gUfe-ef ( ■■ t»v, „ m'iCl RESOLUTIOil =2953 EXHIBIT B j^g<ntw*PQP__APKCiICAKT -----File No. 149/ 1960 Shoreline Drive d. The undersigned hereby assents to the following: a I have read the conclusions and conditions of this LsolutiorNo. 2953, and I am fpillar «!«> »'>'* stand their contents and with the content of the. exhibits. be I have been represented by counsel in matters relating to this conditional use permit. T ftiilv accent all of the terms and conditions of said ^solution on of myself, my heirs, successors Snd assigns and hereby agree to ^he recording of this Resolution in the chain of title of the property. By herein accepting the terms and conditions of this R^olution, I hereby waive the claim against the City, now or the /uture, relating to conditions placed on the use of said property. e. I will in no way attempt to circumvent the conditions stated herein relating to opeiafcing a business oy failing to adeqiiately stock said business '^^th merchandise and inventory, or hours of operation during the defined season , failing to employ staff to operate said business. f. I understand that Section 10.09, Subdivision 6, of the Orono Municipal Code provides, in part, as folio . A That the proposed conditional use will comply ^ith each the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. B A conditional use permit may be revocable, may be orarted for a limited time, or may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Page 1 of 2 ) t y RESOLUTION s2953 EXHIBIT C J ^ *J m yj ^ S2C. 10.03. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sabd. 1. Minimum Requirements. ^ In cheir interpretation tS‘^be”the''^minirau"m\K^ promotion of the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. Subd. 2. More Restrictive Provisions To «.pply. Where the conditions imposed by any provision of the Zoning ?’„^mnfLble mnrA restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other law. City Code provision, statute, resolution, or regulation of any kind, the regulations whicn are more restrictive, or which impose higher standards or requirements shall prevail. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd 3. All Permits Compatible With Agency Requicements. A building permit, conditional oc oe?mit, oc other permit or necessary permission o£ the Council, SLrever or whenev« reauiced by the City Code may be denied i£ the proposed action oc permit is not orovisions of the Surface Water Management Plan, the ^torm Water provisions or oromulqated byirn:5ii-7nd--Shoreland_Cuidelines^P0licy^Statem^^^ the Lake Minnetonka Conservat^wi. .u- citv governmental regulations, plans and policies adopted Three copies of the Policy Statement, other applicable regu!atioi“ plans and policies adopted by ‘he City shall be marked as official copies and filed for use and examination by the public in the City Hall. - Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 subd. 4. prohibitions. It is uni^^^ enlarqe reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the Zoning Chapter. Subd 5. Non-Conforming Uses. Any land or buildings which were actually and l®g®ll^<3®™h®f a "on^onformi^^^^ Tantiarv 1 1975. mav be continued in said non ^ronrorming pursuant to oonditYonal use permit granted as hereinafter specified. A. The non-conforming use may not be changed to another non-conforming use. B. Nothing in this Zoning Chapter PT=tute*^is a^"/d°uL\fV'b;“hi%iil“^^ inslecto?, tHiUn, the necessary ORONO CC 251 (4-1-84) J pvtl-rn-rm n i 10.03 repairs shall not constitute more than fifty percent (50%) of the fair”market value of such structure. Structure shall include such accessory features attached to the structure or located anywhere on the land*, such as signs, marquees, monuments. C. When any lawful non-conforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any non-conforming use. D. Whenever a lawful non-conforming structure shall have been damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot, or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as before if it be reconstructed within ’twelve (12) months after such calamity, unless the damage to the building or structure is seventy-five percent (75%) or more of its fair market value as shown on the assessment records at the time of damage, in which case the whole thereof shall be demolished, and any construction thereafter shall be for a use in accordance with the provisions of this Zoning Chapter. E. Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of ty*.ive (12) months, any future use of said structure or land sha.T' in conformity with the provisions of this Zoning Chapter. F. Any lawful non-conforming use of land nc>* involving a structure, and any lawful non-conforming use invoi/.r.^ a structure with an assessor's fair market value upon the effective date of this Zoning Chapter of $3,000.00 or less, may be continued for a period of th'irty-six (36) months after the effective data of this Zoning Chapter, whereupon such non-conforming use shall cease, unless brought into conformity with the Zoning Chapter. G. Any proposed structure which will, under this Zoning Chapter, become non-conforming but for which a building permit has been lawfully granted not more than six (6) months prior to the effective date of this Zoning Chapter, may be completed in accordance with the approved plans; provided construction is started within six (6) months of the effective date of this Zoning Chapter, and continues to completion within two (2) years. Such structure and use shall thereafter be a legally existing non- conforming structure and use. H. Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful non-conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs and incidental alterations which do not extend or intensify the non- conforming use. ORONO CC 252 (4-1-84) r RESOLUTION =2953 TVUTTaT'Ti « W A « <Jb> <jL S 10.03 I, Alterations may be made to a building containing Lawful non-conforming residentiai units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the numoer or dwelling units or bulk of the building. Source: Ordinance No, 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 j. Aooly to "Uses" Only. The non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Chapter apply only to the use to which land and buildings are put, and do not apply to situations where location or height of structures, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Where, however, sucn a situat^^ existed legally under the prior applicable law, the Council will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on grancing of a variance under Section 10.08. Subd. 6. Lot of Record. A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of ^^^les for Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Council if required. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 A. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 Tn an "R" District, which does requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are mm mmet: Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 1. In "R" Districts of One Acre or Less and With Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot the effective date of this Zoning Chapter m any Citv of up to and including one acre, which lot is i public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be , single family detached dwelling purposes without ®PPi°utv t^the area Lasutements and width of that lot are □ercent (80%) of the requirements of this Zoning Chapter, ?he lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless ORONO CC 253 (4-1-84) r Subd. 8. variances: Expiration. Variances shall expire -na vaa- a"t°- the data of Cotncii approvax it not usee. a../ ^ne vea- a.w —_wjie _ .. ^ocuire a new variance,chance m use or ^ne p-w^e^w/ . Source; Ordinance Mo. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 9. A oertified copy of every under the provisions of gg"'"„Vc'in* Recorder. 462*359 shall be filad w-.th - _, _ _ Vtirsuant to Minnesota L^^"u?e^^* S«titn 462.36? s'^ubd. 1, /““"“^^/Ifty^Jha?I'lnclude""! re/a\"^dls%°lip%^Zin ^ variance shall not affect its validity or enforceability. SBC. 10.09. CONDITIONAL USES. citiiri 1 rond-»tional Uses; Purpose. In order to give III ciaptet?""LTer^^|s«Ycts^ in a particular oh circumstances exist, a conditional use permit may be 9'^®"'®'^- , ° of the p be squired.‘’^ThrplrS\ha"ll ‘be*issued for a partio^^^^^^ “nusual rr/c\-erlslic^?=oVnritS"us^y^^^^^^^^^^ their effects on surrounding properties. ^ and to deny Ip^^'i^kwons^ f^r «nd!«ona! us?pe^”s and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of these permits. Source ; City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 subd. 2. Conditional Oses: Reference to^JlanjU^^^ Commission. Before the Cotincil ^5®^ distriot regulations for such conditional uses as shall^ be referred toof the Zoning Chapter, the request therefor shall oere^^ the Planning Commission for ®development proposed use on the ordinance and on the character gran^ting of the neighborhood and for f if any, or for the such conditional use and the conditions ^®^®°. ' unanimous denial of such conditional use. Ltion waive reference to the Planning Commission. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 ORONO c:c 267 (4-1-84) EXHIBIT C 5 1C.:.-RESOLUTION 42953 Subd 3 Conditional Dses: Aeclication. — .--c Ctant- recurs a conditional tse =“ ...........uwa.xi.c t,nac>----- ___ 1 a,; rji-h zr.e 2on: SilUrf ----------------^ limited to, the following: A. Site plan drawn at scale dimensions with setbacks noted._ location of all buildings, heights, and squareB. footage . C. D. Curb cuts, driveways, parking spaces Off-street loading areas. by shift. V. Ty'pfofb&ss, proposed number of employees G«proposed floor plan with use indicated and building elevations. H. sanitary sewer and water plan with estimated use per day.I A lighting plan showing the lighting of parking entrance light.area, walks, se^iri^y^^&^^nd driveway entrance light ORONO CC 268 (4-1-84) •.* 1 r EXHIBIT 5 1C.09 ^ plantings. J. A landscape plan with a schedule of the K.An abstractor's certified property certificate showing the property owners within 350 feet of the outer boundaries of the property in question. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 4. Conditional Uses: Failure of Planning Comniission to Act. If no recomniendation is transmitted by the Planning Commission within sixty (60) days after referral of the application for conditional use to the Commission, the Council may take action without further awaiting such recommendation. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 5. Conditional Uses: Hearings and Notice. The Planning Commission or Council may hold a public hearing or hearings on each application for a conditional use permit. Notice of the public hearina shall be given not less than ten (10) days or more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in the official newspaper for the City. Such notice shall contain the description of the land and the proposed conditional use and the time and place of the hearing. At leasw ten (10) days before the hearing, the City Clark shall mail an identical notice to the owner and to each of the property owners within 350 feet of the outside boundaries of the land in question. For the purpose of giving mailed notice^ the person responsible for mailing the notice^ay use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice sha..l not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this Subdivision has been made. At the public hearing the Planning Commission or Council shall review the application and the statements and drawings submitted therewith and shall receive pertinent evidence concerning the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained. Any party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney. Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the Council, the Planning Commission or Council may adopt rules for the conduct o proceedings before it. Such rules may include provisions tor tne giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written the parties. The City shall provide for a record of the proceedings which shall include the minutes of the meetings, e findings, and the action taken on each matter heard including tne final action. ORONO CC 269 (4-1-84) r *v EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION 42953 5 10.C5 Subd. 6. Conditional Usas: Granting of Permit. A The Plannina Commission may recommend and the Council mav grant a conditional use permit as the use permit was Sed fo/ or in modified form, if on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the City makes the .ollowing fina.nc.. 1 That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the distr^ict in which the siwe is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed \'he'*°o^ublio L^\%rlalltroi"wVuafe,“of- propert'ies or improvements in the vicinity; and, That the orooosed conditional use will comply with each of the applica'ble' provisions of the Zoning Chapter. B. A conditional use permit may be revokable, may be granted for a limited time, or may be grantee subgect to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. official controls to change the status of conditional uses. shall be filed with"" thfcounty Relord^^^^ fs^locVtelSor^relord! ?o^i\^ion^l=usrre-i? s?a\t fn^c\u=d^e^Ve^^e°grl lescription.^f the property included. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd 7. Conditional Uses: Denial of Council shall set forth permit aopli-all the reasons for the denial of the conditional use per -g cation. NO application denied wholly or in part shall |« griunds of new months from the date of said denial, ex P valid by the evidence or proof of changes of conditions found to oe vai Planning Commission. Source: Ordinance No. 17 2 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 270 (4-1-34) r SXHI3IT C m • ^ ^N ’ ^ bLLfr".fc! ^\fe“rn=fl%““ipoc^-. 3„ appUca.ion .or renewal of a conditional use permit. E‘ifS3“ " “ Source: Municipal Code Effertive•Date: 9-14-67 .•^•__ai TTs^ Permits for Non—Conforming Subd. 10. 1 1 V and leoallv existing on Uses. All I^issued a conditional use permit uponDecember 1, 1974, shall be issued 1, 1976. Such application ^^^erefor not later th ^iniation of the non conditional use permit shall allow , then existing on conforming use to the same granted without °o%\Tc^tion^fee^Vnd^^he^Coy^^ ^he^coidftioL^^ptrt^^^^^^^^^^^ to review. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 subd. 11. shlirnof bf subjict tf periodic Petition. Conditional use ?3„„g "f revocation, unless such Council review for the purp ... . ‘ _« the original permit, or, a review is one of the be violation of the unless the actual land ^se is petition of 75% or more of terras of the permit, provided thatp up p whose property the adjacent the oroperty subject to the conditional lies within 1,000 feet of ?, a public hearing use permit) the Council shall hold ^ after continuation of the P®^®^* continuation of the conditionalsuch public hearing, whether *^he ‘roneinuau . ^v, and generalSr,;,5" S. bn;-?J.V7 V -«•- "■ (4-1-84) ORONO CC 271 r EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION =2953 5 10.09 tarminate the existing conditional use permit, opon termination or a conditional use permit, the Council may allow the -ormer conditional use permit to continue for such period not in excess o*. vear as may be recuired to provide time to move or othe-‘^--3'- fc"®locate in a zone where such use is permitted. Source: Municipal Code Effective Data: 9-14-57 Subd. 12. Unlawful Act. It is unlawful to violate any condition of a conditional use permit. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-34 SBC 10.10. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for the City, the Planning Commission, for the purpose of carrying out the policies and " use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance the Council with its recommendations for adoption. Sub] requirements of this Chapter, the Council may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a two-thirds vote of all its members. Subd. 1. Public Hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public held thereon by the Planning Commission or by the Council. notice of the time, olace and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City ^he (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days .^o hearing. When an amendment includes changes affecting an area oj five acres or less, a mailed not less than ten (10) days nor more ^ha" prior to the day of the hearing to each owner of ®“®<=^®^/‘iTthe and property situated wholly or partly within 350 ^®®^. ® ^„® oropirty^ to which the amendment relates. For mailed notice, the person responsible for JJJ® - q£ use any aooropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A cooy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be ^he responsible person and shall be made a P^rt of the cec . proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to property owners, or defects in the notice shall h^is proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this Subdivision has been made. subd. 2. Initiation o£ Amendments to the zoning Chapte^^ An amendment to the Zoning Chapter may be initiated by. (1) actio^ of the Council; (2) a recommendation, oSe?w^^ (3) by petition of the owner(s) of thexr or ^ not ioning of which is proposed to be changed “e initiated by the Planning 't he acted uponPlanning Commission for study and repoct and may not be acted p ORONO CC 272 (4-1-84) r P CONTAMINATED SITES STEPS IN RECOVERY PROCESS COUNCIL WEETINQ r r r ► a REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 1 3 1997 DATE; OctSMiT fif. ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Ron Moor^e Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed;Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item DescripHo'^ Selection of a Date and Time for a Joint Work Session with the Planning Commission The Council has directed that a joint work session be scheduled with the Planning Commission to address issues related to the Planning Commission, such as the Commission's heavy work load Staff has attempted to contact the Planning Commission members to determine which dates and times would work best for the Planning Commission members. It appears that the best date and time is 8:00 a.m. on Friday, October 24. Staff will make follow-up calls to the Planning Commission prior to the Council meeting to determine if there is an alternate date than can work for a majonty of the Planning Commission members. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to select a date and time for a joint work session with the Planning Commission. /r*tc COUNCIL MEEHNQOCT 1 3 1997REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONODATE: October 9, 1997 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Selection of a Date and Tirnt for ^ Council Work Session There are three items needing Council consideration in a timely manner. These are the review of preliminary design sketches for the Highway 12 and County Road 6 interchange, the park dedication ordinance and the annual City Administrator performance evaluation. The Council may at this time want to schedule a work session to address these items. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to select a date and time for a work session to consider the items listed above. SETTIME REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING OCT 1 3 1997 DATE: OctobefiTf^RONO ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Scheduling a Meetiiig to Consider the Issue of Internal Trails in the Old Crystal Bay Addition Attachments A - Minutes of the August 12, 1996 City Council Meeting Background When the subdivision for the Old Crystal Bay Road Adtttions 1 and 2 was submitted and approved, it included easements for two sets of internal trails - one set for the area west of Old Crystal Bay Road and one set for the area east of Old Crystal Bay Road. The trails on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road were to be private trails. The trails on the east side were to be public trails because they were to provide access to the three acre park in the subdivision, and to the DNR property which has trails providing a connection to the Luce Line. The trails on the west were installed in the early phase of tl bdivision development. The trails on the east have not been installed. The initial delay in in ling the trails was due to a lack of direction to the developer about what type of trails to install, i.e. woodchip, gravel, bituminous, etc. The initial developer has now sold the Ian ' md most or all of the lots have been resold to individual homeowners. A number of the current homeowners oppose the installation of the trails. The City Council discussed this issue at its August 1 2, 1996 meeting, and determined that the issue of whether the trails should be installed or not should be addressed at a Council meeting when all Councilmembers are present, and the homeowners in the subdivision should be notified of the meeting. The Council may at this time want to schedule this issue onto an upcoming Council meeting, providing sufficient time to provide notice of this meeting to the property owners in the subdivision. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to schedule a meeting to consider the installation of internal trails in the Old Crystal Bay Road Addition on the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road. TRAILOCB MTG r ► MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\' i CtTNClL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 12,1996 (#12) INTERNAL TRAILS IN OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD ADDITION (DICKEY PROPERTY) Moorse reported that the Dickey property portion of the Cr> stal Bay Addition Subdivision was to include a set of internal trails. The City has acquired the easements, but the trails have not yet been constructed. There has been discussion over time on what type of trails. In order to bring the topic to a conclusion and gain input, Moorse planned to meet with Park Chair Flint, Dick Putnam of Tandem Pioperties, and Tony Etden, owner of the lots It was discovered prior to the meeting that Putnam was under the impression that the Council did not want internal trails. Putnam had then asked for clarification. Moorse said the r -^tutes from the meetings relating to the property and the resolution indicated a system of public trails to be developed by the developer. He asked the Council for clarification in order to move forward. Callahan inquired if there were easements. Mabusth said the easements were shown on the sketch and located 5' on both sides of the lot lines and cul-de-sacs. Mabusth showed an overhead of the resolution viewing the designation of the internal trails. Putnam referenced a paragraph in a memo by Moorse where it was indicated that Putnam was of the opmion the trails would not be constructed. Putnam said this was not true adding that he had said, "No one knew what the trails were going to be." Putnam then referenced four resolutions directing him on proceeding with the trails and indicated that he had completed what was directed. Putnam said no one knew w'hat was going to be done with outlot A and the park. He said the agreement said he was to take the bam down which has been done. Putnam said he asked to speak with Moorse to solve the problem and was informed by Mabusth that the issue would be on the Council agenda. Jabbour asked Putnam if he had informed the neighbors that the trails were going in. Putnam replied that he had sold the property to Eiden. He said he did grading on the private road, but the Council would have to refer to Eiden on this property. Jabbour said there was major discussion over this issue when the property was plotted. Kelley added that the discussion was held on how to mark the trails. Putnam commented that them was nothing saying what was needed or what should be done. He said he was told to put the trails in but not what to do. Callahan said he was hearing two different stories from Moorse and Putnam. Callahan said it was his understanding that the trails and easements were to be installed, but no decision had been made on whether the trails should be paved. Callahan said the Park Commission and Staff were of differing viewpoints on the surface and had come to no conclusion It was his point of view that Putnam was to pay for the trails and needed to discuss with the City and Commission. Callahan said it w'as the desire of the Park Commission to obtain a plan and constmct the trails and had asked to consult with Putnam. r^ <MLNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 12,1996 (#12 - Dickey Property Internal Trails - Continued) Putnam responded that he was now two owners removed, and the City needs to consult with those living there. Callahan and Jabbour disagreed. Jabbour alluded to the minutes where it specifically stated that the trails were to be built. Putnam .said the resolution made mention of the bam. Jabbour said there were separate internal trails which were public, not private, and the minutes state liiat Putnam would build and pay for these trails. Putnam questioned why it was not in the resolution. He asked how it could be done without knowing what kind of trail. He added that he had never seen the minutes but had four resolutions and wants to do what is in the resolutions, which Putnam said was to develop a grading plan. When asked by Callahan, Putnam said it was his view that he has done what he was suppose to do. Callahan said it was his view, as well as that of the Staff, that Putnam was responsible for the cost of the internal trails Callahan asked Flint to comment. Flint said, as the development occurred, he was aware of the trail not being constructed. He said the Park Commission tried to find out about the trails and scheduled the item on their agenda at several meetmgs asking the developer to attend. Flint noted that Putnam did not attend these meetings. Mabusth said the developer was asked to attend. Putnam said he received a copy fi'om the Staff of the agenda of the Park Commission meeting but there was nothing saving he had to come. Callahan commented that Putnam had responsibility at some point. Flint said the Commission then considered the trails and made a recomniendation. Flint said the problem was the new homeowners were moving in and it became difficult to distinguish where the trails were located. Flim said the trail was to be public which would require the maintenance by the City. A bituminous trail was considered as it would be less maintenance but more of an impact. It was then concluded that the trail would be marked with low monuments with a grass surface. This w'oulu > ow access to the park from the east and west for those in the development as well as a connection between East and West Countryside. There would be low maintenance but the trails would be distinguishable. Rint said there was difference of opinions on the trail surface but all agreed that the trail be considered as a minor trail. Flint said the intent of tne Park Commission was to discuss these internal trails with the developer. Greg Vitas, owner of lot 1, said he had no conception when he bought the property of any internal trails. He view's the area as a private and residential. Vitas said there were trails all around this area with the Luce Line and the trail along Old Crystal Bay Road. He sees no reason to make more trails and asked why now a private park. Jabbour responded that the private park was there before Vitas w'as ever there. Jabbour reviewed some of the history of the subdivision noting the major concessions made with the City. He said originally the subdivision was to have been 2 less lots. Jabbour said the residents of the neighborhood should be unhappy with what was portrayed by those representing the subdivision. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 12,1996 (#12 - Dickey Property Intemal Trails - Continued) Vitas asked the Council to Usten to who is U^ing there now. He noted the other paths and asked why the public internal trails in the private residential area, labour ^as part of the plan. Callahan agreed the area was private but that the City dwided it was an amenity to the City and movement of its citizens to the park area and Line Callahan reiterated that the trails were on the plat maps \ itas said the plat p was not explained to him. Callahan responded that it is all the City can do to show the trails on the plat maps in order to make potential buyers of the property aware. inappropriate at the time of the subdivision to say what certain paces of homes vyouW be appropriate. He added that the residents came after-the-fact of the trails being pla and should have knowm of what was in the plans. Vitas took offense at a due diligence and how he should have been aware of the trails. Council noted the ch^ of title would stipulate said trails. Callahan added that their real estate attorney wou make note of such encumbrance. Rick Dennison, a homeowner in the subdivision, asked for clanfication on whether the Council was immovable noting the governmental body should be about change ^e best Dennison said trails should be for the benefit of those who live in the area. Jabbour said decisions are made for the best for the people at large and hoped that the homeowners also were not immovable. Jabbour said the vision as seen today has been interrupted noting both the City and the homeowners have paid for the vision. He added that the Council w^as entiusted with the interest of all. Jabbour said not any minute detail was not spoken about m the r^ew ot this subdivision and asked the homeovvners to read the minutes regarding the suMivi^n. Dennison responded that he would be willing to look at any new information that comes to light. CaUahan said the vacation of an easement and abandonment of trails would require a filing of a petition for a meeting to address the issue as it is not on this meeting s agenda. ^_____j_ ______ /loferminA what k beinc done with the trail. The Park filing of a petition tor a meeting to aaarc» me ^ The agenda item was to detennine what is being done with the trail. The Park Commission and Staff would decide on what surface is to be on the trail. J r i I } i i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCH. MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 12,1996 (#12 - Kckey Property Internal Trails - Continued) Dwight Seward, owner of lot 2, said he was shown the plat by Tony Eidcn, but it was never mentioned that internal trails were in the plan. He was notified in writing when the title work was completed adding that it was after he had already applied SSO,000 towards his home. He voiced concern over additional trails than those already in the neighborhood and people trespassing off the pathway. He added that the trail would interfere with a neighbor's deck and trees planted by homeowners. He would like to see the trail along Watertown Road and not into the subdivision. Kelley asked the homeowners if their Realtors or developer did not inform them of the internal trails, what recourse they might have. Those present said they had none. Jabbour asked what could be done differently so such a misunderstanding would not occur again besides tiling on the deed. Callahan noted that Countryside East and West were planned to have a road connecting the two areas. Kelley said the outlets are there and are platted to the farthest east and west sides. They have not been connected as the residents do not wish them to be. Callahai. said it would have been his prediction that the road would go through as it was discussed when the development was planned. Vitas noted that these decisions were made in the past, and asked why they have to be carried out, as they may now not be a good idea. Callahan suggested another meeting be scheduled with the full Council to debate the issues as this agenda item docs not relate to changing the plans. He asked that the residents understand the background noting the plat, the number of homes, the internal trails and how they tit within tlie City. Barb Hite, 2475 Countryside Drh e, a resident of the older area of Countr. side, said the residents expressed the same surprise when the developer discussed the plans with them. She said she is delighted with the Old Cry’stal Bay Bike Trail. It was questioned at that time that no other subdivision in Orono has internal trails. Hite added that others come from areas outside of Orono to use the Luce Line. She questioned the need for a bituminous trail to the Luce Line and the park. She sees sense in the Old Crystal Bay Bike Trail and the trail into Baker Park. Hite asked the Council to reconsider their decision and reasoning why a trail would be put through the neighborhood. Without the current trails, she might question how residents might get to the park. She would like to see the trail along Watertown Road. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 12,1996 • o C^ahan noted that he has used the term "bituminous trails" rather lightly noting the difference of opiraon on trail surface between the Park Commission and the Staff He also noted that the mtemal trails were not the idea of the CouncU but that of the ’ developer who thought they would be an amenity to everyone. Gene ffite said he has lived in the neighborhood for 11 years. He said he was aware of the traJs being plaUed and the suggestion of the trails being an amenity to the residents w en the developer brought the plans to the Countryside neighbors. These neighbors wre surprised and questioned Eiden regarding the trails. Hite said he understood why Eiden stopped promoting the trails and is surprised the Council feels they have to go ahe^ wth the trails He suggested the Council rethink their decision. He added that ot the 11 homes in their neighborhood were present at the meeting mentioned and ail were against the internal trails. Kelley wked if it was an amenity to the subdKision with access to the Luce Line Gene Hite said no. Jabbour reiterated that the concept of the trails were developer driven and said he was dumbfounded that it has become a problem. He questioned why it was not disclosed. He asked the homeowners to ask Eiden, who was present at this meeting. Eiden did not comment. Callahan Mid the issue of whether the trails should be eliminated from the plat should be reKheduW on the agenda for an upcoming meeting. He asked that the homeowners noti?/ Staffif they would like notification beyond the normal official notice. ^etten said she believes the concerns are well founded but misdirected towards the Council. She said the Council would be happy to discuss the issue but asked that the homeowners be aware of the historical background on what has »aken place. Vitas said he was only informed of the trails 2 days ago. Callahan said the City was unaware that the homeowners did not know about the trails. I^nniMn said he was encouraged that the approval of the trails was seen as an amenity Maty Denrason added that she was concerned with people coming off of the Luce Line noUng her taraily consisting of four girls. (*#13) APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES - RESOLUTION #3752 C^ahan moved. KeUey seconded, to approve Resolution #3752 appointing election judges for the September 10, 1996, primary election. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. r 40- i I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 12,1996 Caliban moved, Kelley seconded, to renew the contract with Rolf Erickson Enterprises for city assessing services for the term September 1, 1996 through August 31 1997 at a cost of $78,000. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CaDahan moved, KeUe>- seconded, to approve the proposal from Braun Intertec for two aWjtion^ quarters of ground water sampling at a cost of $1,640.80 to be funded from the building outlay fund, and to amend the budget to reflect this expenditure Vote- Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#16) MCCULLEY ROAD PLAT PROPOSAL Moorse presented the Council with two options regarding subdivision of the McCulIey Road plat for which Coundl previously authorized expenditure for the survey, plat, and vanance work for subdivision. The property will be sold for revenue. I he property is large but consists of mainly wetlands with appro. Jmately 3.1 acres of dry buildable land. Moorse said option 2 allows for the creation of a separate parcel that possibly could be wld to the DNR. Moorse asked for direction from the Council as to what subdivision they would prefer. He noted that the creation of Outlot C did not necessarily require anything fiirther be done with it. Jabbour said he felt the outlot needed to be created to offset land taken for sewer in the Stubbs Bay area. Callahan asked what the one buildable lot was worth. Moorse estimated the worth at about $120,000. Kelley Suggested selling Outlot C and keeping the remainder of the land as he was not willing to give up lot 1 for only $120,000. Callahan said it was a matter of platting the property at this time. Jabbour moved, Callahan seconded, to direct Staff to plot the property based on option 2 based on legal and appropriate naming of parcels. It was questioned whether that an outlot cannot be sold or transferred so determination with the County will be made whether outlot C would be called an outlot or a lot. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#17) SELECT DATE FOR WORK SESSION The date for the work session will be set at a later time. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Barrett requested an Executive Session. r •to-. COUNCIL MEETING OCT 1 3 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: October 8,1997 ITEM NO = ^ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Approval of New Prosecuting Attorney In 1992, the City joined with the cities of Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, St. Bonifacius and Minnetonka in a cooperative arrangement for the provision of prosecution services. The arrangement involved the city of Minnetonka providing prosecution services to the four other cities. This arrangement has provided very cost effective prosecution services to all participating cities for nearly six years. As the statutes and requirements related to prosecution services have changed, the work load has grown to a point where the city of Minnetonka can no longer provide prosecution services to the current group of cities at the current staffing level. In addition, there are a number of difficulties related to expanding Minnetonka's staff, including a lack of space and a substantial increase in costs. Due to this situation, Orono staff have been working to identify other options for prosecution services. Staff has discussed with the cities of Spring Park, Minnetonka Beach and Long Lake the concept of contracting jointly for prosecution services. This seems like a natural grouping since Orono provides police services to all three cities. The city of Spring Park is very satisfied with their current prosecuting attorney and wants to remain with him. Staff approached the Spring Park prosecuting attorney to request a proposal for providing prosection services to Spring Park, Minnetonka Beach, Long Lake and Orono. The City has received three proposals for prosecution services, all from well-qualified attorneys with substantial experience prosecuting in Hennepin County. The proposals are as follows: Kenneth N. Potts $27,500/yr Gregory E. Keller $32,400/yr Tallen and Baertschi $42,000/yr The lowest cost proposal was received from Kenneth N. Potts, who has been providing prosecution services for the cities of Excelsior, Shorewood and Tonka Bay for the past six years. These cities indicate he has provided them with excellent service. Mr. Potts has indicated he is willing and able to provide prosecution services to the cities of Orono, Minnetonka Beach and Long Lake. The proposed fee for the city of Orono for 1998 is $27,500 per year. This is substantially lower than the 1997 contract cost with the city of Minnetonka which is $36,500. r f . t 1 V Request for Council Action continued Page 2 Octobers, 1997 Approval of New Prosecuting Attorney Based on the low cost and positive references, staff recommends the proposal from Kenneth N. Potts for prosecution services in the amount of $27,500 for 1998 be approved, that the City Administrator be directed to draft an agreement setting out the terms and conditions of Ae provision of prosecution services, and that the Mayor and City Administrator be authorized to sign the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to approve the proposal from Kenneth N. Potts for prosecution services at the cost of $27,500 for 1998, to direct staff to draft an agreement setting out the terms and conditions of the provision of prosecution services, and to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the agreement. S \ i I : 1 r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING OCT 1 3 1997 DATE: ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: ________________^ Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: Audio System for Council Chambers Currently the Council Chambers has a minimal audio system which has an output to a tape recorder but no speakers to provide amplified sound to the audience. This is generally not a problem when there are a small number of people in attendance at Council meetings. However, when a public hearing or set of hearings draws a large crowd, it becomes difficult or impossible for those in attendance to hear Ae proceedings. In addition, there is currently no individual amplification available to those with hearing deficiencies. To address these problems, staff has solicited proposals from three v'endors for a sound system for the Council Chambers. The system includes the following* • 12 podium microphones for the dais. • a mixer to receive the input from the microphones and send it to the speakers and to a tape recorder. • an amplifier. • 4 wall-mounted speakers. • a {sersonal listening system that allows those with hearing loss to receive amplified sound through individual headphones. (This system is identified in the City’s Americans with Disabilities Act compliance implementation plan.) • a wireless lapel microphone system to be used by those making presentations. • an area microphone for the center table or podium area. • momentary off (mute) switches on all dais microphones. • all related cable hardware and installation. As indicated above, the proposal includes momentary off switches for the dais microphones. This feature provides the ability for individual Councilmembers to turn off their microphones for private sidebar disc^sions. Council may or may not want this ability. If the Council determines an off switch is desirable, one method of providing this feature is through a switch that remains in the off position until turned back on. The problem w ith this type of a switch is that when it is switched off, it is easy to forget to switch it back on. To avoid this, the proposal includes a switch that must be depressed to turn the mike off. V/hen the switch is released, the mike comes back on automatically. r Request for Council Action continued Page 2 October 8,1997 Audio System for Council Chambers Proposals Received The proposal prices received were as follows: Acoustic Communication Systems Kingdom Sound and Lighting Minnetonka Sound and Lighting Staff Recommendation $11,175.02 $12,377.72 $ 7,321 00 Staff recommends the low bid of Miru'ctonka Sound and Lighting in the amount of $7,321.00 be accepted. Staff has worked with the recommended vendor in the past. The vendor set up a microphone system for one of the Mn/DOT Highway 12 meetings held at the High School Cafeteria on very short notice. The system worked very well. The vendor was very responsive. Minnetonka Sound and Lighting was also selected to install the sound system for the Orono Ice Arena. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the proposal from Minnetonka Sound and Lighting for a sound system in the Council Chambers at a cost of $7,321.00 to be funded from the Building Fund. AUDIO MEM r ^^^inn£,tonJ^Q. cSowtA anxi lOund S/stem Sales. Rental. Repair INVOICE :EITH JOHNSON ‘59-1326 •72-6232 1571 Finch Ln. Mound. MN 55364 I 5. , r SHIP TO: crfQf'X) K';.K‘ fyiVv h'U'y.y.h' P£R tiPAO cUz 'iSl r.i i *7j-T.rr/ CITY OF L OPONO -0.C1 2 1331 I^IA^ 9 A ^ ^ BILL TO: ^ThOSa) Salesperson:KEITH JOHNSON Payment terms BIO Method of shipment: Invoice number:BID# RE-1403 Order number: Dale of order:9-3-97 Date order shipped' FOB point: Invoice date' 1'Of-' Tax rate: .Avo^ ui , '1% i V _____ Tax: Shipping £ handling: Previous amount owing' Credit: You pay this amount: __[TEMNO j____QTY._DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH AMOUNT 12 AUDIO TECHNICA PH PWRD PODIUM MICS 179.00 “2,148.00 1 ART RACK MOUNT 24 CHAN I..1XER 899.00 899.00 2 PAIR PR03 JBL SPKRS 239.00 478.00 1 PERSONAL LISTENING SY-STEM TELEX 799.00 799.00 1 A/T AREA MIC (CENfTER AREA)276.00 276.00 1 TELEX UHF WIRELESS LAPEL MIC SYSTEM 479.00 479.00 1 LOCKING RACK FOR COMPONENTS (STORE RM)299.00 299.00 1 ALL CABLE AND HARDWARE OR ABOVE 447.00 447.00 1 ALL LABOR FOR INSTALL OF mBOVE 530.00 530.00 12 MOMENTATY OFF SWITCHES FOR ABOVE MICS 15.00 180.00 1 TOA POWER AMP MODEL 900 (DEMO)499.00 499.00 OR TRADE ALL CURRENT MICS FOR DEMO AMP 1 RACK MOUNT SURGE PROTECT POWER STRIP 129 00 129.00 9 i PjACK MOUNT KIT FOR WIRELESS ,,42.00 42.00 4 SPEAKER MOUNTING BRACKETS '29.00 116.00 1 PLEASE CALL FOR SPECS IF NEEDED . WILL TRAIN STAFF ON OPERATION NO CHG 0 THANK YOU FOR CHOSING MINNETONKA SOUND 1 acid Ane/\ Sub total:7.321.00 7,321.00 r COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 1 3 1997 DATE: OctcMiV9?if^9\DNO ITEM NO, Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Wetland Protection/Inventory Element of the Surface Water Management Plan The proposal from Bonestroo for the preparation of the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) included a significant cost reduction due to City staff taking on responsibility for portions of a number of the elements of the plan. The total value placed on the City's efforts was $25,000. Of this amount, $11,800 was related to the wetland protection element. City staff responsibility was to complete an inventory and classification of the City's wetlands. The plan for accomplishing this inventory was that Bonestroo would provide initial training to Mike Gaffron and Steve Weckman and they would conduct the inventory and classification. Since that time, the work load in the Planning & Zor^'i^ Department has been very heavy and staff have not been able to do the inventory work. The wetland information is an important element of the SWMP because it significantly affects the design of stormwater ponds. Different types of wetlands have different sensitivities to stormwater runoff. Without information regarding wetland classifications, the Plan would treat runoff in the same way for all wetlands. This would result in too much ponding in some areas and not enough ponding in other areas. The lack of the wetland component is now delaying the completion of the SWMP. If the wetland inventory cannot be completed this fall, the completion of the SWMP would have to wait until next spring. Bonestroo has indicated they can free up their staff to complete a sufficient amount of the inventory to enable the SWMP to proceed, yet this fall. The cost for Bonestroo to complete the inventory is estimated at $15,000 - $20,000. Staff will work with Bonestroo to determine if the number of wetlands to be classified can be reduced without adversely impacting the quality of the SWMP. It may be possible to eliminate the smallest wetlands from the inventory process to reduce the cost of the inventory. StaH* Recommendation Because the completion of the wetland inventory is important to the completion of the Surface Water Management Plan, and because City staff is not able to conduct the wetland inventory this fall, it is recommended that Bonestroo and Associates be authorized to conduct the wetland inventory this fall to enable the SWMP to be completed as soon as possible. As indicated above, the cost for this inventory is roughly estimated at between $15,000 and $20,000. r r ’ k > -• M ■ COUNCIL MEETING OCT 1 3 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: October 9, 1997 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator 3 Administrator Reviewed: ¥^7 Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description Appointment to the Accountant/Management /^lyst Position r Accou„unt^anagem.„t organizational support J:thePu'bh:';^orr^^^^^^^^^^ accounting and custom*er'”Mll°«* weU tohihS e'”'"*' otg^t,^ roanagenient. This corobination of trainingLd^UrIta effective Octote^^wraustmtag ^ COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1 997°at a sSng 27, autaoKucM r COUXCiL REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 1 3 1997 CITY OF O.RCN'O Date: October 2,1997 Item No:3;^ Department Approval: Name: Gary Cheswick Title: Chief of Police Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Item Description: Hiring of Part-Time Officer Exhibits:None DISCUSSION The Police Department currently has a part-time police officer vacancy due to the previous part-time officer’s inability to pass field training. A validated candidate screening test had been conducted on February 7, 1997 with forty-four (44) candidates attending. Scoring and ranking of the test scores was proved by PDI, a personnel consulting firm. The top candidates participated in an oral interview, and report writing skills were reviewed. After the interview, two candidates were re-interviewed and Mr. Steven A. McNally was selected by City Administrator Ron Moorse and Police Chief Gary Cheswick. RECOMMENDATION The Police Chief and City Administrator recommend Steven Allen McNally to be hired as part time police officer for the City of Orono. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED Motion to appoint Steven Allen McNally to the position of part-time police officer, effective October 13, 1997 at a starting pay of $11.89 hourly; and to adopt the attached resolution establishing the eligibility of the position for coverage by the State Public Employee Retirement Fund for police officers.I . r ^« A RESOLUTION TO DECLARE THAT THE PART-TIME POSITION HELD BY STEVEN ALLEN McNALLY IS THAT OF A POLICE OFFICER WHEREAS, that Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund excludes part-tirn .; police officers unless a resolution is adopted by the governing body to establish eligibility for coverage in the Police and Fire Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota that effective October 13,1997, the position Steven Allen McNally holds is rhfl* of a police officer as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 353.64, Subdivision 2, pursuant to which said employee shall become a member of the Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Miimesota at a regular meeting held October 13,1997. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk J COUNCIL MEETING OCT 13 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CriY OF ORONO DATE: October 2,1997 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hallin Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Special Assessment Deferments - North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition Sewer Project ATTACHMENTS:A. Orono Code Section 2.62 Deferment of Special Assessments B. Resolution No. 3894 Amending the Program for Deferment of Special Assessments for Persons 65 Years of Age or Older Adopted 4/28/97 C. Proposed Resolutions for Charles Edward Truman and Ardis Joan Severtson The City of Orono has established a process for the deferment of special assessments on property owned and homestead by senior citizens who meet certain criteria. (Attachment A) The following persons have applied for deferment of special assessments on the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition sewer project assessment roll. Charles Edward Truman 1570 Long Lake Boulevard Long Lake, MN 55356 and Ardis Joan Severtson 1586 Long Lake Boulevard Long Lake, MN 55356 It has been determined these persons meet the qualifications for the deferment of special assessments as defined in Ordinance No. 2.62 and the income requirements established in Resolution 3894 adopted April 28,1997. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt resolution no.____deferring the special assessments for Charles Edward Truman, 1570 Long Lake Boulevard and resolution no. ____deferring the special assessments for Ardis Joan Severtson, 1586 Long Lake Boulevard in the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition sewer project. Ayes_, Nays___. r £ ^'CTTMLW'VA^T S 2.61 Stating time and place of sale and generally describing property to be sold at least ten days prior to the date of sale by publication once in the official newspaper. Such sale shall be to the person submitting the highest bid. E. Receipts From Sales of Surplus Property. All receipts from sales of surplus property under this Section shall be placed in the General Fund. Subd. 4. Persons Who May Not Purchase - Exception. A. No employee of the City who is a member of the administrative staff, department head, a member of the Council, or an advisor serving the City in a professional capacity, may be a purchaser of property under this Section. Other City employees may be purchasers if they are not directly involved in the sale, if they are the highest responsible bidder, and if at least one week's published or posted notice of sale is given. B. It is unlawful for any person to be a purchaser of property under this Section if such purchase is prohibited by the terms of this Section. SBC. 2.62. DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. Subd. 1. The Council may defer the payment of any special assessment on homestead property owned by a person who is 65 years of age or older, or who is retired by virtue of permanent and total disability, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record the deferment of special assessments where the following conditions are met: A. The applicant must apply for the deferment not later than ninety days after the assessment is adopted by the Council. B. The applicant must be 65 years of age, or older, or retired by virtue of permanent and total disability. C. The applicant must be the owner of the property. D. The applicant must occupy the property as his principal place of residence. E. The applicant's income from all sources shall not exceed the low income limit as established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development as used in determining the eligibility for Section VIII housing. Subd. 2. The deferment shall be granted for as long a period of time as the hardship exists and the conditions as aforementioned have been met. However, it shall be the duty of the applicant to notify the City Clerk of any change in his status that would affect eligibility for deferment. ORONO CC (4-1-84) r it* S 2.62 Subd. 3. The entire amount of deferred special assessments shall be due within sixty days after loss of eligibility by the applicant. If the special assessment is not paid within sixty days, the City Clerk shall add thereto interest at 8% per annum fr.om the due date through December 21 of the following year and the total amount of principal and interest shall be certified to the County Auditor for collection with taxes the following year. Should the applicant plead and prove, to the satisfaction of the Council, that full repayment of the deferred special assessment would cause the applicant particular undue financial hardship, the Council may order that the applicant pay within sixty days a sum equal to the number of installments of deferred special assessments outstanding and unpaid to date (including princ'pal and interest) with the balance thereafter paid according to the terms and conditions of the original special assessment. Subd. 4. The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest shall become due upon the occurrence of any one of the following: A. The death of the owner when there is no spouse who is eligible for deferment. B. The sale, transfer or subdivision of all or any part of the property. C. Loss of homestead status on the property. D. Determination by the Council for any reason that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. SBC. 2.63. PERMANENT REGISTRATION OF VOTERS. Subd. 1. Statute Adopted. The system for the permanent registration of voters provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 201# is adopted for the City. Subd. 2. Voters Must Be Registered. No person shall be permitted to vote at any election held in the City unless he is registered to vote as provided by Minnesota Statutes. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 2.64 through 2.98, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC (4-1-84) CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 94 ^sets not inducing homesteaded property of $25,000, income and assets as defined in Hennepin County's Utility Connection Program. OF ORWO’ homertead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments, be deferred for a period of time not to exceed five years subject to the aforementioned financial criteria, upon submission of an appropriate application signed by the qualified person, and which may upon expiration of initial or any subsequent renewal deferments may be rwpplied for, and subject to the applicant meeting all the necessary criteria upon reapplication be deferred for an additional period not to exceed 5 years; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the right of deferment is automatically terminated under Section 435.195 if: 1. 2. 3. 4. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible; The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred or subdivided; The property should lose its homestead status; or reason the City determines that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held April 2o, 1997. ATTEST: J r 1 ;■ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT FOR CHARLES EDWARD TRUMAN WHEREAS, The City Council has ordered a local improvement project known as North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition SarJtary Sewer Project for which special assessments have been levied against the ^nefitted properties; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 3894 establishing a policy and procedure for deferring such special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older who have limited J'scome and assets and for whom payment of such special assessment would constitute a financial hardship; and WHEREAS, Charles Edward Truman has made an application for deferment of the above noted special assessment pursuant to the provisions of Resolution 3894. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City council of the City of Orono hereby finds that the applicant has demonstrated a hardship consistent with the provisions of Resolution No. 3894, and hereby orders deferral of the payment for the levied special assessments as follows: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: Charles Edward Truman 1470 Long Lake Boulevard T.F.VY NO. PROPERTY I D. NUMBER 26-118-23 33 0008 I EVlF.n AMOUNT AMOUNT DEFERRED $ 13,950.00 $ 13,950.00 Deferral of payment for principal and interest shall be for a period of time not to exceed five (5) year with the first payment of principal and interest due in collection year 2003. Interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum shall be added to the deferred assessment. Deferred principal and interest shall be payable at the time of the first payment due in collections year 2003. The remainder of the principal and interest shall thereafter be payable in accordance with the adopted assessment roll. r This right of deferment is automatically terminated in collection year 2003 or upon the occurrence of any one or more of the following conditions, whichever may occur first: 1 . The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible. 2. The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred, or subdivided; 3. The property should lose its homestead status; or 4. If for My reason the City determines that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota this 1 3th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk J A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT FOR ARDIS JOAN SEVERTSON WHEREAS, The City Council has ordered a local improvement project known as North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition Sanitary Sewer Project for which special assessments have been levied against the benefitted properties; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 3894 establishing a policy and procedure for deferring such special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older who have limited income and assets and for whom payment of such special assessment would constitute a fmancial hardship; and WHEREAS, Ardis Joan Severtson has made an application for deferment of the above noted special assessment pursuant to the provisions of Resolution 3894. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City council of the City of Orono hereby finds that the applicant has demonstrated a hardship consistent with the provisions of Resolution No. 3894, and hereby orders deferral of the payment for the levied special assessments as follows: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: Ardis Joan Severtson 1586 Long Lake Boulevard LE.Y.Y NO. PROPERTY I D. NIJMRFR 26-118-23 33 0030 LEVIED AMOUNT AMOIJNT nFFFRRFH $ 13,950.00 $ 13,950.00 Deferral of payment for principal and interest shall be for a period of time not to exceed five (5) year with the first payment of principal and interest due in collection year 2003. Interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum shall be added to the deferred assessment. Deferred principal ^d interest shall be payable at the time of the first payment due in collections year 2003. The remainder of the principal and interest shall thereafter be payable in accordance with the adopted assessment roll. ? ?i council. MEETING 5S OCT 13 CITY OF ORONO i! r IBM N 22 Sep 1997 Mon 3:48 PH Check Number Check Number 54712 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 54712 CITY COUNTY CkEDIT UHIQH 23-Sep-97 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totals Check Number 54712 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 54713 54713 54713 54713 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 23-Sep-97 23-Sep-97 23-S-:p-97 Totals Check Nun^er FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 54713 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 54714 GREAT NEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 54714 23-Sep-97 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. Totals Check Number 54714 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. Check Number 54715 54715 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL 23-Sep-97 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL 54715 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 54716 54716 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 23-Sep-97 Totals Check Number HENNEk'IN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 54716 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 54717 54717 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 23-Sep-97 Totals Check Number ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 54717 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 54718 54718 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 23-Sep-97 Totals Check Number LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 54718 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 54719 54719 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 23-Sep-97 Totals Check Number MN DEPT OF REVENUE 54719 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 54720 MN MUTUAL LIFE 54720 23-Sep-97 MN MUTUAL LIFE Totals Check Number 54720 MN MUTUAL LIFE Transaction Amount 7,812.00 7,812.00 3.063.72 3.063.72 7.S07.56 13,935.00 981.46 981.46 174.50 174.50 184.50 184.50 125.00 125.00 495.00 495.00 3,321.68 3,321.68 514.00 514.00 Page 1 Comments SAVINGS W/H k TRANSFERRED FICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA.MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THOKTON IC0266780 SKREEN IC0262310 DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUBS W/H STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP W/H r \ '* .I.: < 22 Sep 1997 Mon 3:48 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54721 54721 MN STATE RETIRE^ffiNT-DEF COMP 23-Sep-97 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Totals Check Number 54721 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Check Number 54722 PEBSCO/OBRA 54722 23-Sep-97 PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number 54722 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 54723 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 54723 23-Sep-97 PEBSCO/US CONF OP MAYORS Totals Check Number 54723 PEBSCO/US CONF OP MAYORS Check Number 54724 PERA 54724 54724 23-Sep-97 23-Scp-97 PERA PERA Totals Check Number 54724 PERA Check Number 54725 UNITED HAY 54725 23-Sep-97 UNITED WAY Totals Oieck Number 54725 UNITED WAY Grand Total Transaction Amount 265.00 265.00 182.92 182.92 1,872.86 1,872.86 4,068.22 5,401.72 9,469.94 23.00 23.00 39,356.86 Page 2 Comments DEFERRED COMP W/H OBRA DEFERRED COMP W/H USQ! DEFERRED COMP H/H PERA EMPLOYEE W/K PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS W/H P ; 29 Sep 1997 Mon 0:51 AM • Check Number Check Number 54305 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 54 305 POSTMASTER 29-Sep-97 POSTMASTER Totals Check Number 54305 POSTMASTER Check Number 54306 54306 EVERGREEN LAWN CO. 29-Sep-97 Totals Check Number EVERGREEN LAWN CO 54306 EVERGREEN LAWN CO Check Number 54307 54307 HENNEPIN COUNTT-FINANCIAL 29-Sep-97 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN COUNTY-FINANCIAL 54307 HENNEPIN COUNTY-FINANCIAL Qieck Number 54308 54308 COMP USA 29-Sep-97 COMP USA Totals Check Number 54308 COMP USA Check Number 54309 54309 ROCKVAM BOAT YARDS INC. 29-Sep-97 Totals Check Number ROCKVAM BOAT YARDS INC, 54309 ROCKVAM BOAT YARDS INC. Check Number 54644 54644 54644 EVERGREEN LAWN CO. 29-Sep-97 29-Sep-97 Totals Check Number EVERGREEN LAWN CO. EVERGREEN LAWN CO. 54644 EVERGREEN LAWN CO. Check Number 54682 5468i STANDARD SPRING 29-Sep-97 STANDARD SPRING Totals Check Number 54682 STANDARD SPRING Check Number 55467 55467 55467 55467 55467 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 29-Sep-97 29-Sep-97 29-Sep-97 29-Sep-97 Totals Check Number GOPHER -TATE ONE-CALL INC, GOPHER SiATB ONE-CALL INC, GOPHER SIATE ONE-CALL INC. GOPHER STA'iT ONE-CALL INC. 55467 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. Grand Total Transaction Amount 900.00 900.00 43,348.03 43,348.03 50.00 50.00 175.00 175.00 116.09 116.09 -6,000.00 -43,348.03 -49,348.03 -350.49 -350.49 -41.00 -41.00 -42.00 -42.00 -166.00 -5,275.40 Page 1 Coimrents POSTAGE FOR METER IRRIGATION SYSTEM #1 CO. ROAD 15, L.S. #1 VEE - MS ACCESS TRAINING BOAT RENTAL - INSPECTION VOID CK #54644 VOID CK #54644 VOID CK #54682 VOID CK #55467 VOID CK #55467 VOID CK #55467 VOID CK #55467 ■; r $ Oct 1997 12:45 PM Check Register City of Orono Check NUnber Employee Name Check Number 043357 043357 GEMAR, JAMIE L. Totals Check Number 043357 Check Number 043358 043358 HALLIN, DOROTHY M. Totals Check Number 043358 Check Number 043359 043359 KA5EMAN* CVOLE A Totals Check Number 043359 Check Number 043360 043360 MOORSE. RONALD J. Totals Check Nun^r 043360 Check Number 043361 043361 VEB, LINDA S. Totals Check Number 043361 Check Number 043362 043362 KUEHN, THOMAS M. Totals Check Number 043362 Check Number 043363 043363 MILLER, CHRISTOPHER K Totals Check Number 043363 Check Number 043364 043364 ANDERSON, BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 043364 Check Number 043365 043365 BOBZIEN, SUE A. Totals Check Nuniber 043365 Check Date 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 Page i Check Amount 245.90 245.90 956.72 956.72 541.21 541.21 1,445.49 1,445.49 1,065.43 1,065.43 1,267.41 1,267.41 220.11 220.11 498.13 498.13 621.90 621.90 4» 4 4 ♦ ■'• 4 1 J 1 I r 'I I »I 6 Oct 1997 Mon 12:45 FM ChecJc Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 043366 043366 BORIS. SCOTT W. Totals Check Number 043366 Check Number 043367 043367 CARLSON. MICHAEL B Totals Check Number 043367 Oieck Number 043368 043368 CKESWICK. GARY B Totals Check Number 043368 Check Number 043369 043369 CORNICK. JAMES L. Totals Check Number 043369 Check Number 043370 043370 DBMBOUSRI. JAY C. Totals Check Number 043370 Check Number 043371 043371 ENGLISH III. IRVING H Totals Check Number 043371 Check Number 043372 043372 ERICKSON. KURT R Totals Check Number 043372 Check Number 043373 043373 FARNIOK. CORREY L, Totals Check Number 043373 Check Number 043374 043374 FISCHENICH. DAN T, Totals Check Number 043374 check Number 043375 Check Date 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-OCt-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-OCC-97 08-Oct-97 mm Page 2 Check Amount 804.94 804.94 389.32 389.32 1.503.09 1.503.09 982.60 982.60 1.118.11 1.118.11 545.29 545.29 1.139.71 1.139.71 825.01 825.01 1.141.39 1.141.39 - - -. . . . . . . . . ..1- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -6 Oct 1997 Hon 12:45 PH Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check number 043375 043375 HANSING, CAROL J. Totals Check Number 043375 Check Number 043376 043376 JOHNSON« BRADLEY P. Totals Check Number 043376 Check Number 043377 043377 KNOLLENBERG* KRISTIN L. Totals Check Number 043377 Check Number 043378 043378 MCNICHOLS, DAVID L Totals Check Number 043378 Check Number 043379 043379 MOROHCZYNSKI, JAMES Totals Check Number 043379 Check Number 043380 043380 PERSELL« WILLIAM R. Totals Check Number 043380 Check Number 043381 043381 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B Totals Check Number 043381 Check Number 043382 043382 THOMTON, MARK R Totals Check Number 043382 Check Number 043383 043383 TOMCHECK, LAVTRENCE F Totals Check Number 043383 Check Number 043384 Check Date 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 Page 3 Check Amount 342.02 342.02 1,090.32 1,090.32 628.26 628.26 361.58 361.58 1,366.82 1,366.82 189.90 189.90 1,131.36 1,131.36 778.09 778.09 229.54 229.54 mm 6 Oct 1997 Mon 12:45 PM Check Register City of OronoCheckNumber•Employee Name Check Number 043364 043384 TOMCZYK, MJVRK N. Totals Check Number 043364 Check Number 0433?^^ 043385 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K. Totals Check Number 043365 Check Number 043386 043386 WITTKE, ANTHONY A, Totals Check Number 043386 Check Number 043387 043387 BRESSLER« BRADLEY J Totals Check Number 043387 Check Number 043388 043368 GAFFRON, MICHAEL P. Totals Check Number 043386 Check Number 043389 043389 QAPPA, GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 043389 Check Number 043390 043390 OMAN, LYLE E. Totals Check Number 043390 Check Number 043391 043391 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH Totals Check Number 043391 check Number 043392 043392 VANG, BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 043392 Check Number 043393 CheckDate 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 Page 4CheckAmount 1,216.23 1,216.23 168.47 168.47 202.79 202.79 411.18 411.18 1,091.84 1,091.84 1,438.40 1,438.40 1,102.82 1,102.82 238.74 238.74 961.65 961.65 -- - - - rT r V'**€ Oct 1997 Mon 12:45 PM Check Register City of OronoCheck Number Employee Name / Check Number 043393 043393 WECKMAN. STEPHEN J !t::Check Number 043397 t’i t I' ^5 Totals Check Number 043393 Check Number 043394 043394 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F. Totals Check Number 043394 Check Number 043395 043395 DEBABRE. DONALD L. Totals Check Number 043395 Check Number 043396 043396 GREGORY, JAMES D. Totals Check Number 043396 043397 HANSEN, STEVEN C Totals Check Number 043397 Check Number 043398 043398 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT Q Totals Check Number 043398 Check NUiia>er 043399 043399 OBRIEN, RANDY L. Totals Check Number 043399 '*heck Number 043400 043400 PALMER, GREGORY A. Totals Qieck Number 043400 neck Number 043401 043401 RATHBUN, BARRY J. Totals Check Number 043401 Check Number 043402 CheckDate 08-Oct-97 08-OCU-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 Oa-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 08-Oct-97 Page 5CheckAmount 22.85 22.85 1,026.63 1,026.63 Mi 825.72 825.72 671.97 671.97 973.43 973.43 964.91 964.91 157.64 157.64 646.32 646.32 844.43 844.43 1 i:77S«ritFffi •IICLI*]: [*IlcM«l:] [tlUCIil:] 1*1:1 ti'kctiii ILK till \ 6 Oct 1997 Mon 4:07 PMCheckNumber-«*ieck Number Check Register City of Orono Page 1Date0 CITY 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 06»Oct-97 06-OCU-97 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 06-Oct-97 Name Totals C^eck Number COUNTY CREDIT UNIONCITY COUNTY CREDIT UNIONfirst national bank of lakes first national bank of lakesGREAT NEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. HENNEPIN CO. SOTPORT t COLL HENNEPIN COONTY SUPPORT & COLL ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE MM DEPT OP REVENUE MN MUTUAL LIFE MN STATE retirement-DEF COMP PEBSCO/OBRA PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS PERA PERA united WAY first national bank of LAKES 0 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OP LAKES TransactionAmount7,012.003,203.633,203.63981.46174.50184.50125.00 0.00 3,142.75 464.00 265.00 162.42 1.764.86 3,844.59 5,052.72 23.00 7.283.86 37,687.92 CommentsSAVINGS W/H & TRANSFERRED PICA & MEDICARE W/H PICA,MEDCR CITY SHARE deferred COMP W/H THOMTON #CO26670O SKREEN 8C0262310 deferred comp W/H UNION DUES W/H STATE TAX W/H deferred comp W/H deferred comp W/H OBRA deferred COMP W/H USQ< DEFERRED COMP W/H PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PERA CITY SHARE charity donations W/H federal withholding Oranci Total M 37,687.92 r I 9 Oct 1997 Thu 3:03 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54740 54740 ASPLUNDH COFFEE 13-Oct-97 ASPLUNDH COFFEE Totals Check Number 54740 ASPLUNDH COFFEE Check Number 54741 AT&T 54741 l3-Oct-97 AT&T Total# Check NUraber 54741 AT&T Check Number 54742 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES Check Number 54743 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF 54743 54743 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Totals Check Number 54743 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Check Number 54744 BARBAROSSA & SONS 54744 54744 13-Oct-97 ll-Aug-97 BARBAROSSA & SONS BARBAROSSA & SONS Totals Check Number 54744 BARBAROSSA & SONS Check Number 54745 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP 54745 13-OCt-97 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Total# Check Number 54745 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Check Number 54746 BIFFS INC. 54746 54746 54746 54746 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 BIFFS INC. BIFFS INC. BIFFS INC. BIFFS INC. Total# Check Number 54746 BIFFS INC. Check Number 54747 BONESTROO ROSENE & ASSOC. 54747 13-Oct-97 BONESTROO ROSDIB & ASSOC. Transaction Amount 127.00 127.00 26.07 26.07 46.00 25.92 71.92 65.025.79 167.465.24 232.511.03 1.221.06 1.221.06 1.297.44 Page 1 Comments COFFEE LONG DISTANCE CHARGES 54742 13-Oct-97 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES 6.66 CELL PHONE USAGE 54742 13-Oct-97 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES 6.65 CELL PHONE USAGE 54742 13-Oct-97 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES 128.80 CELL PHONE USAGE Total# Check Number 54742 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES 142.11 SANDWICHES FOR RESALE SANDWICHES FOR RESALE PAY 94 NLL/LLCC PAY 92 L.L. SWR PROJECT OCTOBER FUNDING 130.52 OCT SERVICE-BEDERWOOD 130.52 OCT SERVICE-SUMMIT BEACH 130.52 OCT SERVICE-HACKBERRY 65.26 OCT SERVICE-GOLF 456.82 WELL 92 MAINT ADM/INSP “-t ^9 Oct 1997 Thu 3:03 PM Check Register City of OronoCheck Number Date Name Q;eck Number 54747 54747 54747 54747 54747 54747 54747 54747 BO!J2STROO ROSENE k ASSOC. 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE & ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. Totals Check Number 54747 BONESTROO ROSENE 4 ASSOC. Check Number 54740 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. 34740 13-OCC-97 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. Totals Check Number • 54740 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. Check Number 54749 BUDGET PRINTING 54749 54749 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING Totals Check Number 54749 BUDGET PRINTING Check Niimber 54750 CARGILL SALT 54750 13-Oct-97 CARGILL SALT Totals Check Number 54750 CARGILL SALT Check Number 54751 CDP IMAGING SYSTEMS 54751 13-Oct-97 CDP IMAGING SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 54751 CDP IMAGING SYSTEMS Check Number 54752 CHESWICK. GARY 54752 54752 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 CHESWICK, GARY CHESWICK, GARY Totals Check Number 54752 CHESWICK, GARY Check Number 54753 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54753 54753 54753 54753 54753 54753 S47S3 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 CHUNKS CHUNKS CHUNKS CHUNKS CHUNKS CHUNKS CHUNKS LAKESHORE LAKESHORE LAKESHORE LAKESHORE LAKESHORE LAKESHORE LAKESHORE AUTO AUTO AUTO AUTO AUTO AUTO AUTO Transaction Amount 3,950.04 2,399.91 20,935.61 1.154.31 264.14 1,335.00 109.75 39,527.00 354.15 354.15 4.00 293.30 290.10 1,333.69 1,333.69 51.97 51.97 39.79 24.00 63.79 Page 2 CofTTOenta BRKTS PT/BAYRDGE ADD'L NLL/LLCC C.O. #5 ADD'L NLL/LLCC ASSISTANCE JULY OCB RD TRAIL INSP-JULY KELLY AVE SAN SWR CLOSEOU CITY BLDG DESIGN PROBLEM SAGA HILL REVIEW 7/96 RIP RAP SHIPPING-BCA JR OFFICER BADGE LABELS SOFTENER SALT STAPLES, TONER-COPIER EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSE REIMBURSEM0IT 55.35 0177 OIL CHG. BLEC HORX 90.34 0176 MOUNT TIRES, RADIATO 29.33 0170 MOUNT BUTT PLATE 17.59 0170 MIRROR 31.09 0175 OIL CHANGE 72.07 0174 PULLEY 31.09 0170 OIL CHANGE J 9 Oct 1997 Thu 3:03 PM Check Number Date Name Check Number 54753 CHUNKS LAKESHORE 54753 13-Oct-97 CHUNKS 54753 13-Oct-97 CHUNKS 54753 13-Oct-97 CHUNKS 54753 13-Oct-97 CHUNKS 54753 13-Oct-97 CHUNKS Check Register City of Orono Totals Check Number 54753 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Check Number 54754 CITY OF long lake 54754 13-Oct-97 CITY OF LONG LAKE Totals Oieck Number 54754 CITY OF LONG LAKE Check Number 54755 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 54755 54755 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 Totals Check Number 54755 CITY OP OROI Check Number 54756 CITY OF WAYZATA 54756 24-0ct-96 CITY OF WAYZATA Totals Check Number 54756 CITY OF WAYZATA Check Number 54757 CLASSIFIEDS 54757 13-Oct-97 CLASSIFIEDS Totals Check Number 54757 CLASSIFIEDS Check Number 5475B CULLIGAN 54758 13-Oct-97 CULLIGAN Totals Check Number 54758 CULLIGAN Check Number 54759 CYS UNIFORMS 54759 13-Oct-97 CYS UNIFORMS Totals Check Number 54759 CYS UNIFORMS Check Number 54760 DAHLGREN SHARDLOW & UBAN 54760 13-Oct-97 DAHLGREN SHARDLOW & UBAN Totals Check Number 54760 DAHLGROI SHARDLOW k OBAN Check Number 54761 DOYLE INC. 13-Oct-97 DOYLE INC.54761 Transaction Amount 25.592.40 25.592.48 2.091.93 2.891.93 30.50 30.50 32.00 32.00 28.05 28.05 344.15 344.15 477.99 Page 3 Comments 31.89 #174 263.87 •170 150.82 •176 231.23 •167 29.59 • 175 1.036.66 4TH QTR FIRE PROTECTION PETTY CASH 25.73 MUFFLER PETTY CASH 20.37 POSTAGE PETTY CASH 46.10 3RD QTR WATER CONSUMPTION UTILITY VEHICLE SALE WATER SOFTENER SERV MISC UNIFORMS APP #2294 REVIEW PARTS FOR FLAIL MOWER ) ;■ iii 9 Oct 1997 Thu 3 ; 03 PM Check Register City of OronoCheck Number Date Name Check Number 54761 DOYLE INC. Totals Check Number 54761 DOYLE INC. Checlc Number 54762 E-2 RECYCLING 54762 13-0ct-97 E-2 RECYCLING Totals Check Number 54762 E-2 RECYCLING Check Number 54763 EARL F. ANDERSON fc ASSOC. 54763 13-Oct-97 EARL F. ANDERSON & ASSOC. Totals Check Number 54763 EARL F. ANDERSON fc ASSOC, Check Number 54764 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 54764 13-Oct-97 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Totals Check Number 54764 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Check Number 54765 ENGINEERING RBPRO SYSTEMS 54765 54765 54765 54765 54765 54765 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING REPRO REPRO REPRO REPRO REPRO REPRO SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEMS Totals Check Number S4765 ENGINEERING RBPRO SYSTEMS Check Number 54766 ESI COmUNIcATIONS 54766 54766 54766 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 ESI COMMUNICATIONS ESI COhWUNICATIONS ESI COMMUNICATIONS Totals Check Number 54766 ESI COMMUNICATIONS .^•eck Number 54767 EVERGREEN LAWN CO. 54767 54767 54767 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 EVERGREEN LAWN CO. EVERGREEN LAWN CO. EVERGREEN LAWN CO. Totals Check Number 54767 EVERGREEN LAWN CO. Check Number 54768 EXPRESS MESSENGER 54768 13-Oct-97 EXPRESS MESSENGER Totals Check Number 54768 EXPRESS MESSENGER Transaction Amount 477.99 5.422.92 5.422.92 216.18 216.18 51.40 51.40 47.54 131.91 131.90 40.61 134.91 134.90 621.77 44.00 162.00 641.17 847.17 46,085.79 6,000.00 1,500.00 53,585.79 13.65 13.65 Page 4 Comments SEPT SERVICES SPEED LIMIT SIGNS BEER FOR RESALE SET OF PRINTS MAPS MAPS SCAN TO PLOT MAPS MAPS REPAIR PHONE LINE #3 TEST PHONE LINE #3 INSTALL LINK FOR MODEM PAY $2 IRRIGATION SYSTH4 INSTALL DRAIN TILE INSTALL WATERING VALVES DELIVERTY TO ATTNY 9 Oct 1997 Thu 3:03 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54769 54769 FARNIOK, CORREY 13-Oct-97 FARNIOK. CORREY Totals Check Number 54769 FARNIOK. CORREY Check Number 54770 FIRSTAR TRUST CO.. 54770 13-Oct-97 FIRSTAR TRUST CO Totals Check Number 54770 FIRSTAR TRUST CO Check Number 54771 FROST. SHERRY R. 54771 13-Oct-97 FROST. SHERRY R, Totals Check Number 54771 FROST. SHERRY R. Check Number 54772 G t K SERVICES 54772 54772 54772 54772 54772 54772 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-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 Totals Check Number 54772 G a X SERVICES Check Number 54773 GALL'S INC. 54773 54773 13-Oct-97 22-Sep-97 GALL'S INC. GALL'S INC. Totals Check Number 54773 GALL'S INC, Check Number 54774 GANGELHOFF* DONNA 54774 13-Oct-97 GANGELHOFF. DONNA Totals Check Number 54774 GANGELHOFF. DONNA Check Number 54775 GAPPA. GREG 54775 13-Oct-97 GAPPA. GREG Totals Check Number 54775 GAPPA. GREG Check Number 54776 GATEWAY SAFETY PRODUCTS 54776 13-Oct-97 GATEWAY SAFETY PRODUCTS Totals Check Number 54776 GATEWAY SAFETY PRODUCTS Check Number 54777 GENUINE PARTS CO. Transaction Amount 12.17 12.17 16.16 16.16 605.00 605.00 93.06 12.15 5.93 60.36 12.15 5.93 189.5S 82.98 123.50 206.48 50.00 50.00 39.02 39.02 475.74 475.74 Page 5 Comments EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT AGENT FEE SEPT SERVICES STREET EMPLOYEES RATHBUN STEFFENHAGEN STREET EMPLOYEES RATHBUN STEFFENHAGEN REMOT STROBE TUBBS MISC UNIFORM DEER PICKUP CONF EXPENSE REIMBURSEMEN SPIIS FUSES 9 Oct 1997 Thu 3:03 PM Check Register City of OronoCheckRUfisberDateName Check Number 54777 54777 54777 54777 GENUINE PARTS CO. 13-Oct-97 GENUINE PARTS CO. 10-Oct-96 GENUINE PARTS CO. 10-Oct-96 GENUINE PARTS CO. Totals Check Number 54777 GENUINE PARTS CO. Check Number 54778 GOLF CAR MIDWEST » 54778 54778 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 GOLF CAR MIDWEST GOLF CAR MIDWEST Totals Check Number 54778 GOLF CAR MIDWEST Theck Number 54779 GOLF CAR, INC. 54779 06-Oct-96 GOLF CAR, INC. Totals Check Number 54779 GOLF CAR, INC. dieck Number 54780 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 54780 54780 54780 54780 22-Sep-97 22-Sep-97 08-Sep-97 08-Sep-97 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. Totals Check Number 54780 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. Check Number 54781 HALLIN, DOROTHY 54781 13-Oct-97 HALLIN, DOROTHY Totals Check Number 54731 HALLIN. DOROTHY Qieck Number 54782 54782 HANSEN. STEVEN C. 13-Oct-97 HANSEN. STEVEN C. Totals Check NUsdber 54782 HANSEN. STEVEN C. Check Number 54783 HQJNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE 547b3 13-Oct-97 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE Totals Check Number 54783 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE Check Number 54784 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 54784 08-Oct-96 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Totals Check Number 54784 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Check Number 54785 HQINEPIN COUNTY TREASURER . 1 V-. TramsactionAmount €0.51 11.95 290.85 363.31 1,200.00 741.33 1,941.33 370.62 370.62 42.00 42.00 1.00 1.00 86.00 24.34 24.34 28.00 28.00 181.00 181.00 241.11 241.11 Page 6Comments MISC PARTS MISC PARTS MISC PARTS SEPT LEASE REPAIR DAMAGED CART ADDa GOLF CART RENTAL AUGUST SERVICE AUGUST SERVICE JULY SERVICE JULY SERVICE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT GRASS SEED AUGUST BOOKING FEES 1 ^ Totals Check Humber S4794 LAKE KTICA CONSERVATION DIST. t Check Humber 5479S LAM BHFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 54795 06-0ct>97 LAN ENPORCMEHT LABOR SERVICE 9 Oct 1997 Thu 3:03 PM Check Register City of OronoCheckNumberDateName 0;eck Number 54793 54793 ICUEHN, THOMAS 13-Oct-97 KUEHN, THOMAS Totals Check Number 54793 KUEHN, THOMAS Check Number 54794 LAKE MTKA CONSERVATION DIST. 54794 08-Oct-96 LAKE KTKA CONSERVATION DIST. Totals Check Number 54795 LAN BNFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 54796 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS. TRUST 54796 13-Oct-97 LEAGUE OP MN CITIES INS. TRUST Totals Check Number 54796 LEAGUE OP MN CITIES INS. TRUST Check Number 54797 LOGIS 54797 13-Oct-97 LOOIS Totals Check Number 54797 LOGIS Check Number 54798 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 54798 54798 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 LOtRS LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Totals Check Number 54798 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Check Number 54799 LONG LAKE FAMILY PHYSICIANS 54799 13-Oct-97 LONG LAKE FAMILY PHYSICIANS Totals Check Number 54799 LONG LAKE FAMILY PHYSICIANS Qieck Number 54800 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 54800 54800 54800 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 54800 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIP^®IT Check Number 54801 MCELHENEY LOCKSMITHS INC. 54801 13-Oct-97 MCELHENEY LOCKSMITHS INC. Totals Check Number 54801 MCELHENEY LOCKSMITHS INC. TransactionAmount 183.60 183.60 6,513.05 6,513.05 0.00 0.00 896.01 896.01 903.95 903.95 9.14 27.09 36.23 36.00 36.00 3.87 10.98 3.82 18.67 45.00 45.00 Page 8Comments EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 4TH QTR PAYMENT UNION DUES N/H WIG ACCIDENT 811019943 AUG DATA PROCESSING MISC PARTS MISC PARTS VACCINATION MOIfER PART •425 SPRING, SCREN PART FOR GENERATOR HANDLE FOR FILE CABINET 1 i I r r 9 Oct 1997 Thu 3:03 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54802 54802 S4802 54802 MEDICA CHOICE 13-Oct-97 MEDICA CHOICE 13-Oct-97 MEDICA CHOICE 13-Oct-97 MEDICA CHOICE Totals Check Number 54802 MEDICA CHOICE Check Number 54803 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 54803 08-Oct-96 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Totals Check Number 54803 MET COUNCIL ENVIROIWENTAL SVCS Check Number 54804 MIDLAND NURSERY INC 54804 13-Oct-97 MIDLAND NURSERY INC Totals Check Number 54804 MIDLAND NURSERY INC Check Number 54805 MIDWEST ASPHALT 54805 54805 13-Oct-97 13-OCC-97 MIDWEST ASPHALT MIDWEST ASPHALT Totals Check Number 54805 MIDWEST ASPHALT ^eck Number 54806 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO 54806 13-Oct-97 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Totals Check Number 54806 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Check Number 54807 MILLER, CHRIS 54807 13-Oct-97 MILLER. CHRIS Totals Check Uimber 54807 MILLER. CHRIS Check Number 1«808 MINN COM4 54808 13-Oct-97 MINN com Totals Check Number 54808 MINN COMM Check Number 54809 MINN STATE TREASURER 54809 13-Oct-97 MINN STATE TREASURER Totals Check Number 54809 MINN STATE TREASURER Check Number 54810 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 54810 13-Oct-97 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Number 54810 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Transaction Amount 262.03 112.29 10.286.63 10,661.00 20.320.00 20.320.00 1.419.00 1.419.00 480.91 4.952.05 5.432.96 59.50 59.50 47.12 47.12 57.52 57.52 155.50 155.50 13.50 13.50 Page 9 Comments OCT INSURANCE OCT INSURANCE OCT INSURANCE NOVEMBER CHARGES LANDSCAPING AT CITY OFFIC ASPHALT PATCH ASPHALT PATCH POP FOR RESALE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT REPLACE PAGER FORFEITURE FUNDS MEDICAL OXYGEN ! i 9 Oct 1997 Thu 3:03 PM Check Register City of Orono Page Check Number Date Name Transaction Amount Comments Check Number Totals Check 54818 NSP - Number 54818 NSP -878.00 Check Number 54819 OFFICE DEPOT 54819 13-Oct-97 OFFICE DEPOT 46.06 IBM PRINTWHEEL Totals Check Number 54819 OFFICE DEPOT 46.06 Check Number 54820 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. 54820 54820 13-Oct-97 13-0ct-97 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. 8.86 8.47 CHIPS FOR RESALE CHIPS FOR RESALE Totals Check Number 54820 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC.17.33 Check Number 54821 OMAN, LYLE 54821 13-0ct-97 OMAN, LYLE 69.75 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT Totals Check Number 54821 OMAN, LYLE 69.75 Check Number 54822 PERA 54822 13-Oct-97 PERA 154.04 JCO SEVERANCE PAY Totals Check Number 54822 PERA 154.04 Check Number 54823 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 54823 08-Oct-96 PERA LIFE INSURAI^CE X56.00 NOVEMBER LIFE INSURANCE Totals Check Number ’*23 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 156.00 Check Number 54 824 PERSONT^EL DECISIONS 54824 54824 13-Oct-97 13-Oct-97 PERSONNEL DECISIONS PERSONNEL DECISIONS 970.00 25.00 PCI TEST-SE IGBANT POSITIO POSITION PROFILE Totals Check Number 54824 PERSONNEL DECISIONS 1,003.00 Check Number 54825 PIONEER 54825 13-Oct-97 PIONEER 43.96 WTR PLANT IMPROV. Totals Check Number 54825 PIONEER 43.96 Check Number 54026 PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO 54826 13-Oct-97 PIONEER RIM k WHEEL CO Totals Check Number 54826 PIONEER RIM k WHEEL CO Check NXimber 54827 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. AXLE FOR TRAILER [•ItiHti*] [•lifVMi IcMCtiii: Check Number S4849 TRUE VALUE KAROHARE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 true value 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 true value 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE 54849 13-Oct-97 TRUE VALUE r To; From: Date: Mayor and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 10,1997 Subject: Council Update 1. 2. 3. Status of telecommunications antenna leases on the City ’s water towers The City has received three applications for the location of antennas on the City's Highway 12 water tower. APT and Nextel have each requested that their antennas be attached to the railing at the top of the water tower. Sprint has requested that their antennas be attached to the stem of the water tower. The City Attorney is working from the League of Cities model lease to finalize lease language with each of the three telecommunications providers. The providers want to have their antennas installed on the tower between January and June of 1998. The City has not received applications for antennas on the Navarre water tower. However, US West, which has a switching station on County Road 15 in Navarre, is requesting that it be allowed to replace an existing 55' antenna structure (wooden pole) containing one small whip antenna with an 83' antenna structure (monopole) that would have 12 PCS panel antennas. Staff has indicated to US West that this proposal is not allowed under the City's ordinance and has denied their request. Staff has indicated the Navarre water tower is available for lease. US West has indicated they are only willing to pay a lease rate that is very substantially below the $14,500 the City has proposed. South Lak e Cities request a proposal from Orono for animal control services. The South Lake Cities (Excelsior, Tonka Bay and Shorewood) which have been receiving animal control services fi-om the City of Chanhassen, recently were notified that Chanhassen will no longer provide animal control services effective December 31,1997. The South Lake Cities have requested the City of Orono consider providing animal control services to them. Chief Cheswick indicates it would be feasible to provide the service to them. The expansion of our animal control services to serve them could provide economies of scale that would benefit all participating cities. Chief Cheswick and I will be meeting with the South Lake Cities on Wednesday, October 15 to more clearly identify the level of service they would need. The animal control services include the impounding of animals. This requires an animal impound facility. The City currently uses the Wright County Humane Society as its impound facility. This has been working very well. However, there is some potential that the Wright County facility could be relocated, making it no longer feasible for the City to use it. See Item #3 below for an update regarding an alternative animal impound facility. Potential locatio n of a small animal impound facility at the Hennepin County Public Works maintenance site on Countv Road 15 in Navarre. The Lake area cities have been working Council Update continued October 10,1997 Page 2 together to determine a long-term solution to the need for an animal impound facility to serve the Lake area. One option is for the cities to jointly construct and operate a small animal impound facility. A potential site, which is central to all cities, is the Hennepin County Public Works maintenance site on County Road 15 in Navarre. Hennepin County is open to considering adding this use to the site. Any animals would be housed inside at all times to prevent a noise problem. The facility would be very minimally staffed, providing for pick-up of animals at limited times, h m r ! ; August, 1997 Orono City Council c/o Mike (Jattron City Zoning Administrator 2750 Kelly Fkwy Urono 55356 RECEIVED SEP 2 6 1997 UI Y Ur ORONO Dear City Council The tbllowing property owners are mterested in a municipal sewer project connecting the Shorelme Dnve properties on Smith's Bay, east ol Spates Avenue to the mumcipal sewer: Name /C XhMc. W’ Pcuthivi.'^udltMd ipuis S lo clc. Address ^ . ✓ 'X -r jUf-cS^ /. !93q^ Sht/reh'oe pr. l^OUAdJ^ These laketront properties and the surrounding environment would be better served by a municipal sewer than separate septic systems, it'a feasible project can be developed. Thank you tor addressing our concerns. Smith's Bay Property Owners *4' To: From: Date: Mayor and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator ^ October 10,1997 Subject: Proposal Regarding the City ’s Purchase of Ice Time at the Orono Ice Arena The Park Commission is proposing that, in lieu of maintaining outdoor ice rinks at Bederwood Park and Hackberry Park, (which do not experience much use, due at least in part to difficulty in maintaining quality ice on the rinks) the City purchase two hours of ice time each week for six months each year at the Orono Ice Arena. The hours purchased would be from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Saturday mornings. The cost is $125 per hour for a total annual cost of approximately $6,000. Staff Analysis Staff is concerned that if the City spends $6,000 per year to provide a free facility for ice skaters; participants of other sports such as tennis, basketball, volleyball, skateboarding, etc. may request the City to contribute the same amount per year to provide them with a facility. Also, the general practice for providing open skating is that the skaters are charged a fee, so that if enough skaters participate, the revenue will equal the ice time cost. The Orono Ice Arena, Inc. has indicated they do not want to reserve the ice time for open skating if they are not sure they will get enough user fee revenue to provide the $125 per hour for the ice time. Alternative An alternative that addresses both the staffs concern and the Orono Ice Arena, Inc.'s concern is that the City pays for the ice time, and works with the Orono Ice Arena, Inc. to estimate the number of users, and sets a fee for the open skating that should enable the City to recover its costs. The City will bear the risk of inadequate revenues for the first year, and will then be able to determine whether the demand for open ice time is great enough to merit a City contribution in the next year. KYmO-MUl