Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-27-1997 Council Packetr AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1997, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT AGENDA 2. Oath of Office - Steven Allen McNally Part-Time Police Officer 3. Old Crystal Bay Road Addition and Second Addition - Internal Trail System APPROVAL OF MINUTES ♦ 4. Regular Meeting of October 13, 1997 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS I.AtIE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - Representative Lili McMillan PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Lili McMillan Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 5. $ 6. #2300 James & Joanne Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Renewal Variances - Resolution 7. #2301 Gerald McCourtney, 1055 West Ferndale Road - Variances - Resolution 4 8. #2303 Angela Woodhouse, 2625 North Shore Drive - Renewal Variances - Resolution ^ 9. #2304 Deborah Sholl, 4100 Watertown Road - Variance - Resolution -KlO. #2306 Dennis Platteter, 809 Brown Road North - Renewal of Class III Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution 1 1 . #2307 Ellen Peterson, 3355 Crystal Bay Road - Variance - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT 12. Dakota Avenue Maintenance 13. Stubbs Bay Public Lake Access 14. Burning Permits - Staff Report - Ordinance Amendment A15. Order Preparation of Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer in Edgewood Hills Area - Resolution 16. Request for Payment #3 - Bay Ridge and Bracketts Point Sanitary Sewer r ! i is AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1997, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 17. West Hennepin Recycling Commission Endowment Proposal H18. Bracketts Point Sanitary Sewer Project Assessment Roll - Resolution <»19. Bay Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project Assessment Roll - Resolutions ■^20. Orono Ice Arena Sewer and Water Assessment Roll - Resolution ^21. Renewal of Livable Communities Act Participation - Resolution « 22. Appointment of James Morowczynski to Sergeant Position ♦ 23. 1960 Shoreline Drive - Release Tax Forfeit Property to Adjacent Owner - Resolution ^ 24. City Administrator Pay Increase * 25. Third Quarter Expenditure Report CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ♦ 26. LICENSES * 27. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 10/25 10/27 10/27 11/01 11/03 11/04 11/10 11/11 11/17 11/24 11/27 SATURDAY - Leaf & grass disposal 8 a.m. - Noon Joint Council/Planning Commission Work Session 8:00 a.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. SATURDAY - Leaf & grass disposal 8 a.m. - Noon Park Commission 7:15 p.m. Minnetonka School Board Election - No public meetings before 8:00 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY - Office closed in observance of Veterans’ Day Planning Commission 6:30 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY - Office closed in observance of Thanksgiving Day Public A ttendance Meeting D ate OIO t ^ V /ta□□□ C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 6. 8. 9 “Til •!C’t... \xj . 4m t U 1 /x.orT/ry<;Ap /Sr. td . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. •? 1 09139S.4 COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 2 7 1997 DATE: OctobS^Pf^ONO ITEM NO:3 Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Desci iption: Internal Trails in the Old Crystal Bay Road Addition Attachments: A. Map showing the location of the trail easements B. Letter and petition from residents of Countryside Drive West requesting vacation of trail easements Background When the subdivision for the Old Crystal Bay Road Additions 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. As the subdivision application proceeded through the city review process, it was determined that the trails on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road would be private trails and the trails on the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road would be public trails. The public trails would provide access to the three acre park in the subdivision and would link the park to the DNR open space property. The trails on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road have been installed. The trails on the east have not been installed. The developer has indicated the grading of the subdivision was done to enable the installation of the trails. The trails were not installed due to a lack of direction to the developer regarding what type of trails to install i.e. wood chip, gravel, bituminous, etc. Concerns of Subdivision Residents The initial developer has now sold the land, and most or all of the lots have been resold to individual home owners. A number of the current residents oppose the installation of the trails. A letter and petition from these homeowners requesting vacation of the trail easements is attached. The key concern of the residents is that public trails will bring substantial pedestrian and vehicular traffic into and through the subdivision. It may be possible to address this concern by developing the trails as private trails versus public trails, similar to the trails on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. Some of the residents on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road also had initial concerns regarding the internal trail system. After discussion by the residents, they determined the advantages of the trail outweigh the disadvantages. • J » Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 October 23,1997 Internal Trails in the Old Crystal Bay Road Addition Opiums Some options for resolving the trail issue are as follows: 1 . Install the trails as private trails to provide internal pedestrian circulation for the subdivision, 2.Vacate the trail easements. 3. Install the trails as public trails. The residents of the subdivision have been notified that the Council will consider the issue of the trails and trail easements at the October 27 meetiiig, so that the Council can have the benefit of the input from the residents in its decision process regarding the trails. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to indicate how the issue of internal trails in the Old Crystal Bay Addition is to be resolved. 1^1 irtiiiiiliiiil <1 Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 October 23,1997 Internal Trails in the Old Crystal Bay Road Addition Options Some options for resolving the trail issue are as follows: 1 . Install the trails as private trails to provide internal pedestrian circulation for the subdivision, 2.Vacate the trail easements. 3. Install the trails as public trails. The residents of the subdivision have been notified that the Council will consider the issue of the trails and trail easements at the October 27 meeting, so that the Council can have the benefit of the input fi'om the residents in its decision process regarding the trails. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to indicate how the issue of internal trails in the Old Crystal Bay Addition is to be resolved. SEP 3 September 2,1996 Mr. Ron Moorse Orono City Council Orono, Minnesota 55356 re: proposed internaf trail system withii; Thoroughbred Meadows development (Tony Eiden Company) Dear Mr. Moorse: This letter pertains to the recent discussion between the residents of the Thoroughbred Meadows development of Orono ( Tony Eiden Company Putnam Development) and the Orono City Council pertaining to ^ ® proposed internal trail system within this sector. As you learned during that council meeting, virtually none of the residents of this development were aware of any such proposed trail system prior to the weekem proceeding that meeting. As you are also aware, there is profound frustration and unanimous concensus opposing such a system. Because of the above, we would very much appreciate furthur discussion regarding this matter with all members of the Council. Please find attached a general concensus regarding this matter, and our rationale. Please notify me of the meeting date to allow for adequate attendance and input from this neighbrhood. Sincerely, Gregory Vita^, M.D. 2800 Countryside Dr. West 449-9621 ! * page 1 of 3 RE: Internal Trails in Old Crystal Bav Road Addition fDickey Property) PETITION FOR VACATION OF TRAIL EASEMENTS BY THE RESIDENTS OF COUNTRYSIDE DR. WEST We, the residents of Countryside Drive West of Orono, MN., respectfully request that the City of Orono vacate the following three designated trail easements: 1) Between lot #2 and lot #3 within block 2 of the Old Crystal Bay Road addition; 2) Between lot #6 and lot #7 within Block 2 of the Old Crystal Bay Road addition; and, 3) Between lot 6, Block 2 of the Old Crystal Bay Road second addition and Lot 1, Block 1 of the Old Crystal Bay Road addition. As citizens of Orono, we respect and fully support the City Council ’s intent to provide public access to the existing Luce Line trail, and to the proposed public park In Outlet A. However, as access Is already provided for both the public and residents of Thoroughbred Meadows via: 1) the asphalt trail, which runs along Old Crystal Bay Road and connects with the Luce Line; and, 2) Watertown Rd. which provides access to Outlet A, we believe that additional access via internal trails Is unnecessary. In addition, we feel that the internal trail easements, originally designated as "amenities" to the development, are. In fact, a detriment for the following reasons: ♦ The trails would increase the automobile traffic on a 2 lane, cul-de-sac road with a high concentration of children and no on-street parking capacity - this creates a safety concern. We already have vehicles parking on our street in order to access the Luce Line and have experienced some “near misses" with our children. We believe that internal trail access will exacerbate this problem. This street is not a public street maintained by the Orono tax base. If the trails are constructed at the behest of the city of Orono, alLliability for accidents, injuries or property damage associated with traffic on this street that Is in any way associated with non-resident use of the trails must evolve to the city of Orono, with full indemnification provided to the property owners by the city of Orono. ♦ The Luce Line trail is unquestionably utilized by a large number of non-Orono residents. It Is, therefore, our belief that the internal trails would also be utilized by a large number of non-Orono residents. The resulting Increase in pedestrian and bicycle traffic through the heart of the development would negatively impact the privacy of the residents. More importantly, we believe it could impact the security of the neighborhood. Further, the deterioration of this neighborhood's quality brought about by it's use by non-residents, and the aforementioned safety, privacy and security issues, must result in a substantial and immediate reduction in each property owner's property tax valuation. page 2 of 3 RE: Internal Trails In Old Crystal Bav Road Addition (Dickev Property) PETITION FOR VACATION OF TRAIL EASEMENTS BY THE RESIDENTS OF COUNTRYSIDE DR. WEST ♦ While at the development plans stage, the Inclusion of internal trails appeared to be an asset, now that homes have been constructed and the development has become a "neighborhood", it Is clear that the trails would negatively impact the open, natural beauty of the area. ♦ Final point: At present there is no vocal public constituency seeking the trails. There j^a public constituency opposed to them. 0 ^ r page 3 of 3 RE: Internal Trails In Old Crystal Bav Road Addition (Dickev Property] PETITION FOR VACATION OF TRAIL EASEMENTS BY THE RESIDENTS 0^ COUNTRYSIDE DR. WEST We the undersigned residents of Countryside Drive West unanimously support this petition. Name ^ Address Date V7Co ___________________________________ *>os253LjsL^^ /f ^ ^ jp/Pi.n f _____________ _____________ o /CL. .£±l1BJ> ^0 LtUi/rl'^oyvtM. ^ :^£>35> . 4^/2 We the undersigned of Countryside Drive also support this petition Name /^c>r<<2/ or Address /oJrjy!(k fl/’> Pate . ____^C 'rcfe _____ ( ksiroiru 2(;/^n>fn^y<^‘/r/j^.Drt0r. A-l^i-9^ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 13,1997 f ! I I COUNCIL MEETINGOCT 2 Y 1997 ROLL CITY OF ORONO The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson, and Richard Flint. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gafffon, Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #5, 8,12,13, 14, 15, 18,21,22,23,31,32, and 33 were added to the Consent Agenda. Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#2) REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22,1997 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 22,1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#3) PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 23,1997 - NAVARRE WATER TREATMENT PLANT REHABILITATION Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Public Hearing of September 23,1997 regarding the Navarre Water Treatment Plan Rehabilitation. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Jim White reviewed the issues of concern for the Park Commission. He indicated that the Commission has recommended only Casco Ice Rink be flooded this year and nnks eliminated at Hackberry and Bederwood due to poor ice quality due and low usage. He reported that the Commission recommended park dedication be in cash for the Garden Lane and Brook Park Realty Subdivisions. White said the Park Commissioners would like to know the assessed values of the properties being reviewed for park dedication before their recommendations are made. White informed the Council the Commission will be reviewing long term funding at their November meeting and will report on options available. L minutes of the regular orono city councilMEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997(Park Commission Report - Continued) Wlute reported that a property owner on Stubbs Bay has indicated conce problem of public trespassing on their property located next to the publicm with a access. The Jabbour irfomed White that he met with Park Commission Chair Wilson and another ro^lden*: ch“rScf PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS No member of the Planning Commission was present. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT G^on report^ the application was before the Council for preliminary plat approval for conversion of Outlot E of Sugar Woods Plat to a buildable lot status. Conceptual approv^ was granted on April 14,1997. Changes have been made to the rerolution per representatives. The revised resolution meets the approve applieant attorneys. Staff recommends adoMion of the preliminary plat approval resolution as presented. aoopiton or Bill Wear was present to ask questions. ^Se^“'" “‘“PPort'd the resolution t° his property from the west in Lot 1 to the Wear property. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#4 - #2212 Sidney Rebers - Continued) Wear said he had no intention to use the property at this time but wanted to protect his interest in the property for the future if he ever decided to sell this particular lot. We^ said he presented Gaffron with a copy of an adverse claim with Rebers agreeing to a 55 setback on the east side and 75' on the west side of Lot 1. Jabbour asked Banett if the City was in the position to request an easement. Barren indicated the City would most likely provide access to eliminate landlocking property. Gaffron noted that the lot was an individual tax parcel. Wear noted the change in access from Brimhall, which does not extend to his proi^rty, would result in the landlock of this parcel if the Hwy 1 2 access was eliminated m e future. He would like the City to provide a means of future access before the current access is closed off. Jabbour explained the City’s position regarding commercial usage along the Highway 12 Corridor as noted in the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan w^ written with the possibility of the improvements along Hwy 12 being in the current corridor. He noted this has changed to the Alternate 12 location, and the existing highway will be used for local traffic. Based on this, the City would probably no aggressively pursue any change to access. Kelley said Wear's concern regarding Ae frontage road will most likely not occur. Wear said he would still like to protect himself from that possibility. Barrett indicated that access is currently provided so objection could only be taken if tha access was eliminated. Wear responded that the portion of his property that would be taken for the frontage road is there if the City decides to construct it, and he would like to have the same consideration. pnaum was asked to respond. Pflaum said the service road was a sensitive issue to dl of the property owners aiong it noting Rebers also opposed the construction of d.e «rvice road. He indicated it would also have an adverse effect on the residential prop^es. pnaum indicated the agreement stated the frontage toad could be coMtmcted if the City so deemed it and the cost would be shared. He noted that there would be access to all the properties from the access provided by Rebers from Brown Road to Willow if Hwy 12 access was eliminated. This toad would be developed if Rebers developed tlw property to the east, and the problem for Wear could be dealt with at that tune. He indkated he was not in favor of further burdening the Rebers property in providing an easement at this time. He had been unaware that the Wear property contained Wo parcels. Pnaum further elaborated that the Brimhall realignment was done at the request of the Council. 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#4 - #2212 Sidney Rebers - Continued) Jabbour told Wear that his access would not be closed without providing an access elsewhere. Wear indicated that the easement would protect both himself and the City and should be done at this time. Jabbour asked Council to comment. Goetten said she did not believe the Council could ask the adjoining property owner to provide this easement. She supported the plan as proposed as there were no plans to close the Hwy 12 access. Kelley concurred with Goetten. Flint said he thought Wear was adequately protected as he currently has an access and it cannot be taken away from him. Barrett said an access cannot be eliminated causing a parcel to become landlocked without providing alternative access. Jabbour suggested Wear obtain a copy of the minutes of the meeting for his records. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3972 granting preliminary pproval of a Class II subdivision for property located at 2190 Wayzata Boulevard.a Flint asked for and received clarification of the location and purpose of Outlots A and D. Vote: Ayes 5; Nays 0. (*#5) #2286 STEVE WHITE, 4355 BAYSIDE ROAD - CLASS I SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION NO. 3973 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3973 approving a 2-lot metes and bounds Class 1 subdivision for Steve White at 4355 Bayside Road. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2287 TRACI AND BRADLEY PETERSON, 1770 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3974 Bradley Peterson was present. 1 ! MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#6 - #2287 Traci and Bradley Peterson - Continued) Van Zomeren showed a picture of the lakeside view of the property. The .28 acre property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District. The applicant had begun rebuilding a deck without being aw'are of the need to apply for a building permit. He was informed that a variance would be required in order to restore the existing deck. No additional encroachment will incur from this deck reconstruction, and the applicant has agreed to remove plastic under landscaping in the amount equal to the deck size. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval for 20.9% hardcover variance in the 0-75' lakeshore setback, 36.4% hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback, side setback variance, and lakeshore setback variance for an 8' encroachment. Van Zomeren said Staff also recommends approval. Peterson had no additional comments at this time. Kelley inquired of the age of the deck and house and whether Staff received confirmation of the deck size being equal to what existed. Van Zomeren said the size was based on information provided by the applicant. Peterson said the house was built in 1929 with many additions. He begun replacing each plank and found the condition to be such that required total reconstruction. Peterson thought the deck was at least 20 years old. He has lived in the property for about 3 years. Van Zomeren informed Jabbour that Staff was satisfied that the proposed deck is as existed. Goetten asked for clarification on the hardcover calculations. Van Zomeren indicated there had been 27.1% of hardcover in the 0-75' setback previously, currently existing at 21.6%, and proposed at 20.9%, which includes the deck and stairs, as reflected in the survey provided by the applicant's surveyor. 490 s.f. of plastic is being removed. It was noted that the recommendation #1 is correct and #2 is to be changed to 20.9%. Kelley asked Peterson if further plastic could be removed in the 0-75' setback. Peterson indicated the Planning Commission asked for removal of the plastic that would not cause concern for erosion of the bank. He felt the amount remaining is necessary to prevent erosion. It was noted that if approved, the remaimng plastic would render it as legally non-conforming instead of its current status. There is crushed rock along the shoreline. Concern was expressed over the correctness of the hardcover calculations which were performed by the surveyor. I r f MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#6 - #2287 Traci and Bradley Peterson - Continued) Kelley said he supported the deck but would like Staff to review what plastic is necessary to remain for erosion control. Van Zomeren indicated Gappa, who is an engineer, could make that determination. Cook also noted that the applicant could continuously replace plastic with vegetation over time. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3974 with the condition that all plastic be removed in the 0-75' setback except that which is needed to stabilize the bank. The resolution will reflect approval of the stairwell and decking with final percentage of hardcover remaining be noted in the resolution. Building permit would not be issued until that calculation has been determined. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2288 JASON THEIS, 4108 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3975 The applicant was present. Mr. Theis presented Staff with a letter signifying the neighbor's agreement to provide an easement to Theis. Theis is awaiting formal documentation. Van Zomeren reported the application is a request for a tuck-under garage with living space above requiring variances for hardcover in the 75-250' setback and front setback. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Van Zomeren indicated that the site is unusual with the Iiouse sitting within the front yard. The property line is jagged. A newer house is located next door sitting higher in elevation. The drainage runs down the road and flows into the applicant's property. The property is a through lot but with no access to CoRd 19 due to the low lying land. There is a concern with the grade, which will be sloped at 8.2%. The applicant will have the ability to back out and is working out an agreement for an easement with the neighbor. The property does have a wood retaining wall. The proposed driveway will curve around the existing deck area. The proposal will result in additional hardcover for a parking space to be located in the front yard when weather conditions prevent use of the garage. Staff recommends this arrangement as the best option. The plan as proposed by the applicant would require a side variance of 1.2'. Van Zomeren said Staff recommended a 10' side setback on each side to reduce the number of variances required. The applicant did not make this change as it would require changing the bedroom dimensions. He originally requested a 5' setback but the neighbor voiced opposition. Theis said he came as close to meeting the setback requirement as he could. Theis said the structure is 9' from the property line at that point. I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (U7 - #2288 Jason Theis - Continued) Council and Staff discussed what setback area the recommendation for hardcover variance under #1 referred to. It was determined that the first 40' of the lot was in the 75-250' setback and the remainder in the 250-500' setback. The applicant may not need the side setback as requested. Theis noted that the property slopes to the rear wiiich allows drainage to flow away from the lake. Jabbour informed Theis that the Council was in favor of the application but wanted to ensure the language in the resolution was correct and other issues are resolved. The applicant will need to work with Staff to verify hardcover calculations on an accurate survey. Theis said he would like to begin construction this fall. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to direct Staff to bring a revised resolution with appropriate language and corrections to the Council for approval. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#8) #2291 STEVEN SIGEL, 1399 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3976 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3976. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2295 CONLEY BROOKS, JR., 980 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTIONS NO. 3977 AND 3978 Conley Brooks, Jr., and Attorney, Bob Mitchell, were present. Gaffron reported the application is a two-part request. One is for street and wetland setback variances for construction of a garage to replace an existing garage in poor condition located in Parcel H. The garage construction also requires a variance for an accessory stincture located nearer to the street line than the house. The second part of the application is for variances and permit for reconstruction of a fence within the right- of-way and less than 75' from lake located between the paved road and the property line. Staff recommends if garage is approved, the lots be legally combined. Gaffron noted there is court action pending regarding ownership of 20' lakeshore parcel at the east end of Parcel F. Gaffron said the existing garage is located 2.8' within the right-of-way and new garage proposed 1' from the lot line. It would meet the 10' side setback and 20' from the wetland, where 26' separation is required. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed garage and voted 6:1 for approval of a street setback variance with location closer to street than house. They recommended the garage to be within a 18x24' ■ Hi. ¥ ■■* MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) footprint to maintain a 26 ’ wetland separation. Gaffron said in Staffs opinion the only rationale for approving the garage is based on the fact there is an existing garage. Gaffron said the negative visual impacts of the structure located 1’ from street right-of- way should outweigh the convenience aspect of the structure. He indicated the doors would be located to the side rather than on the street side and the garage would not have a driveway. Gaffron indicated the code does allow for a 20 s.f. lock box, 4' in height and within the 0-75' zone, but this would not provide the storage needs of the applicant. Staff questioned whether the garage could be located elsewhere on the property. Staff does not recommend approval of the garage based on the facts found. Gaffron said Staff does not recommend location of a fence in the right-of-way. The existing fence is in poor condition. A conforming location would be 20' or more from the traveled road. Staffs opinion is a fence located 10' from the road would have more of a visual impact and possibly create a problem with snow storage. The Planning Commission recommended approval of fence replacement with a height of 6' and located 10' from pavement. Staffs recommendation for the fence would be a location at least 15' from the road with existing shrubbery located in front of it for screening and additional screening planted to essentially make it disappear from view. A hold harmless agreement would be required. Gaffron noted that a major portion of the fence would be within 75' of the shoreline. Jabbour asked about the location of the pavement on the right-of-way. Gaffron said the 20' paved road is fairly centered within the 66’ wide right-of-way. There have been survey markers placed in the past. It appears that the fence is in the used portion of the property due to the wide right-of-way. Jabbour asked Barrett to comment on locating a fence within the right-of-way. Barrett said if it was approved, it should be subject to the right to expand the right-of-way if necessary. Brooks indicated that the variance requests w'ere part of his plan for improvements of the acquired Skarp property. He said he removed the house that was located on Lot 11 and eliminated hardcover. The proposed garage would be used for storage as the home is located on an island and has no good area for a storage structure to house seasonal equipment. Brooks noted many of the same problems would be encountered if he attempted to locate the garage on the main property. He is walling to add plantings where necessary. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Regarding the fence. Brooks said he is attempting to preserve the natural look of the roadway. He would like to place the fence back behind the tree line to prevent trespassing and view of the narrow property. Brooks is also concerned with problems with snowmobilers. He feels the fence will blend in and discourage trespassing. As far as the 10' placement from the road. Brooks thought the average distance would be about 13-15' with the closest distance at about 12'. He said the request could be amended to state a 12' distance instead of 10'. During public comments, Robert Floyd. 960 Femdale, reported living next door to the Brooks property with his dock on the south side of the road. He asked for a point of clarification regarding whether the approval would be contingent on the final subdivision approval of the Skarp property. Caffron said he believed it would be affected by that outcome. Barrett indicated the fence would be related but the garage would not be as there is no ownership contention regarding that property and legal combination can occur. There would be two resolutions. Barrett said the parcels affected regarding the garage are north of the roadway consisting of parcels H, E, and A. Floyd said he is in favor of both the garage and fence. He is concerned with the timing and relationship with regards to the Skarp property. He said he believed it would be difficult to locate a fence elsewhere, there are other buildings near the road along Femdale, and the existing garage is in poor condition. As to the fence, he noted trespassing and parking problems and would be consistent with other hedges and fences in the area. Floyd thought the fence request was reasonable and would be an asset to the area. He would like to see approval contingent on the determination regarding the relationship of his property to the Skarp property. Bob Mitchell displayed several maps dating back to the late 1800's showing the location of Femdale Road. He said the applicant is attempting to improve the property. He noted the wide right-of-way was platted in 1902 but has never been used to that width. Mitchell said the applicant would remove the fence if found to be necessary and would agree to a hold harmless agreenient. Jabbour said he was not in favor of a fence located in the lakeshore preferring open space but understands the argument for some properties to need such a fence. He believes these rationales do not exif* regarding this property as the marsh is located behind it. He believes there is a strong distinction between this property and other properties. Jabbour said the fence would not impact visually, and he would like to see a buffer. He supported the fence request. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Goetten said she supported the fence located there but would like to see improvements made to the situation. Goetten said the fence should be built to code and standards. She is not in favor of a 6' height or a fence located in the right-of-way. Gaffiron indicated that the fence would have to be 20-23 ’ from the road to be out of the right-of-way, and the fence is proposed at 12-15*. Peterson concurred with Goetten. She does not believe this fence is unique from other fencing. Goetten added that this is true especially along lakeshore. Peterson said she did not support the proposed height or the fence. Goetten indicated she would support a height of 3-1/2' noting trees and shrubbery would be effective. Brooks noted an alternative would be to cut down what is existing there now and put up a wall of arborvitae. Kelley asked what could be done in the 0-75' setback. He noted the adjacent lot to the west was vacant of any trees, and he was surprised to find a driveway to the lake. Gaffron said he also was surprised and disconcerted at the extent of removals. He noted some of the trees had been in poor condition. Kelley questioned whether this could happen on the Brooks property. Gaffron noted it happened next door when grading was performed. Brooks confirmed for Kelley that the fence would run east to west on the property with a gate, 6-8’ wide. Kelley said he would support a fence located in the right-of-way but behind the tree line and less than 6’ high. This would keep trespassers from entering. Jabbour said the ordinance allows a 42" high fence. Brooks said he would like to have at least a 5' high fence. The property is lower than that of the roadway and would expose the property to view if less than this height. Clarification was given to Goetten regarding the fence location in its relationship to the tree line and right-of-way. Mitchell showed a topographical map of the property. Jabbour asked Gaffron to explain where the existing fence and trees are located. Gaffron said the fence is 4-8' from the pavement with the trees another 5-10 ’ or more past that. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Mitchell said the applicant would like the eastern portion of the fence to be in front of the tree line. Goetten asked if trees would have to be removed to place the fence. Brooks said some small scrub trees would be removed but none larger than 6" in diameter. Mitchell said the taller trees would remain and shrubbery added. Robert Floyd said he tried planting hedges but people still trespassed and the hedges were flattened by snowplows. Floyd said parking is a problem and vegetation is trampled requiring continuous repair. Floyd said his fence has also been damaged and believes a low fence would not be an impediment. Jabbour asked Floyd how he would feel about seeing a long 6' high fence along the road by the Areola Bridge. Floyd said the only property affected by the proposed fence would be the Lowry property. They have thick vegetation and no lake view through that section. He feels there is a need to maintain views along CoRd 15 but not in this application. Jerry McCourtney, 1055 Femdale, said he has lived in his home for 16 years. 'ATiile he p>ersonally is not present during the winter months, he indicated Mr. Skarp kept a close watch over the area. He feels a fence would be a detriment to those who attempt to enter the area. He indicated he was a victim of a snowmobile robbery and protection is required. Jabbour informed him that he disagreed. He did not believe a fence would prevent a snowmobile from entering the property elsewhere if so desired. Jabbour thought boulders would be more of a deterrent. Jabbour said he feels Brooks ability to use his property allows him the right to a fence but not for the purpose of eliminating snowmobilers or fish houses from being moved along the area. Jabbour questioned whether the docks are encroaching the right-of-way. Goetten said she prefers to see open spaces. She is concerned with fencing in the City noting only so many precautions can be taken. Flint was informed that the fence height allowed of 3-1/2' would apply if the fence was located within the Brooks property as well. Any fence outside the 0-75' is limited to 3- 1/2'. There is nothing allowed in the front yard unless along a County road where 6' fence would be allowed. Jabbour said he would support a 3-1/2' fence within the right-of-way. ! I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 I i (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Goetten said she would like to see an improved situation and the fence should be located outside of the right-of-way. Peterson agreed. Kelley said he supported the fence behind the vegetation and in the right-of-way. He noted the height arborvitae could extend beyond the proposed fence height. Flint said he would support the fence in the right-of-way at a 3-1/2’ height. Kelley moved to approve a fence within the right-of-way at a height not to exceed 3-1/2' at a minimum distance of 12' from the traveled roadway. Motion failed for lack of second. Flint moved, Kelley seconded, to approve a 3-1/2’ high fence located in the right-of-way but not closer than 15' from the traveled roadway. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Peterson, Goetten. (A short recess was held.) Jabbour noted that the Staff and Planning Commission recommendations differed regarding the garage. Peterson asked Gaffron is there was any practical way the garage could be moved farther than r from the right-of-way. Gaffron said it would depend on the wetland separation variance or moving the garage elsewhere; changing the angle would not make any difference. Jabbour asked Brooks if he could accept a 18'x24' garage. Brooks said it would be acceptable. Jabbour said he shared the concern with the location being so near the right-of-way. Kelley said he would support the garage 1* from right-of-way and 26' wetland separation. Goetten noted the current garage needs to be eliminated and does not want to see another garage at that location. She said the applicant does not have sufficient acreage for another accessory structure. If the applicant desired to have lakeshore storage, Goetten suggested he consider a lock box that is allowed in the 0-75' setback. Goetten does not want a garage to infringe on the wetland and her main concern is with the lack of adequate space. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 tI (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Bob Mitchell suggested the Council was forgetting that the prior owner had a substandard house located across the street with a garage and Brooks has improved the property by eliminating that structure. He indicated these buildin' s had existed, the land was not vacant. Mitchell noted the proposed garage is located farther from the road. Goetten questioned whether anyone else would be allowed so much building with a remodel application. She noted the existing house had been small. Mitchell responded that the hardcover has decreased while the residence has increased. Goetten acknowledged that noting the applicant was asking for more structure. Mitchell maintained that the garage was existing. Goetten said the garage would be new construction. Brooks said the lock box would not aid in the storage of items unrelated to the lake, such as trailers and snowblower. Jabbour said the conversation taking place was inappropriate to the application at hand and should be concentrated on ordinances and hardship. He noted the property would be considered differently if the building had been eliminated. The request is for structure that would be allowed on larger properties. He noted a garage would not be denied for a residence. Mitchell responded that the issue was not the quantity of the lot but the unusual shape of the lot, its impact on the roadway, and having a swamp to the rear. Jabbour informed Mitchell that this was not a lot but the whole property is considered as the lot. Flint, in noting the previous situation on the property, sees the improvements as beneficial and said he would support the garage as proposed. Jabbour emphasized tlwt the code requires a hardship to be sh jwn. Mitchell indicated the Planning Commission did recommend approval. Robert Floyd said the Femdale area was not developed like a typical suburban subdivision and should not be viewed as such. He feels the garage would be an asset to the neighborhood and not unusual in this neighborhood. He said while the garage may be out of character elsewhere, the code was not designed for such areas. Jabbour countered that the code takes into consideration that all residences must be in compliance. Kelley referred to the plat map and on-site viewing. He indicated by walking up the driveway of the property, he realized the accessory structure would not be located behind the residence. There is no other location to place the garage behind the principal structure. He saw the quesUon as being whether the residence is entitled to an accessory structure; and if so, where should it be located. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Goctten asked what the hardship would be. Kelley indicated the property itself was the hardship. Jabbour asked if the structure is an accessory structure or a garage. Brooks said it was a storage structure. Jabbour indicated that the storage needs with children would not be provided by a lock box but does not see the hardship required for an additional garage. He questioned whether a lO'xlO' structure would be adequate while minimizing the impact. Brooks indicated that at some point of decreasing the structure size, it becomes unusable. He said he is willing to reduce the original 24 ’x24' size to 24'xl8' to accommodate the coi .cems. He noted the front to front dimension was most sensitive and suggested a change to the side dimension while maintaining some sense of proportion. Flint was informed that the structure was not "grandfathered" in due to it being new construction. Brooks indicated that a small size would result in storing items outside during the winter and feels the size is fair considering the number of people residing in the residence and its size. Jabbour said he understood Brooks rationale but felt more land was required for that to occur. Peterson said she did not disagree with the accessory structure itself but with the setbacks and distance from the roadway. She sees a hardship with the distance between the house and the road. Jabbour said the distance to travel from the lake to the house is a hardship noting the applicant has the right for a riparian use of the lake. Goetten said she felt differently regarding hardship. Jabbour reported that the lakeshore should be able to be used in a reasonable manner and requires somewhere to house such belongings. He thought a structure smaller in size than would accommodate a car should be satisfactory. Brooks said while he does have an extra car that could utilize the space, it would not be necessary. Gaffron noted there is a 50' front setback in this zone. Brooks asked if a 3 or 4' setback from the right-of-way instead of 1' could be accommodated. Jabbour noted there is a 19' envelope betv/een the wetland separation and the roadway. r«'i mjkr MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to approve a 12'xir accessorv road and meeting the 26' wetland separation, ba^d on todsl ^ f configuration of lot, and need for convenient and safe place to p o reasonabl lakeshore. Jabbour said he is concerned with setting a precedent. Jabbour amended his motion to include a 12'xl5' stmcture with a 12 depth meeting the 26' wetland separation. Ooetten said she would support that motion if the hardship as stated was not included. Jabbour said he believed there was a strong hardship. Peterson asked Brooks what the minimum size huilding could be. Brooks said the minimum would be the largest allowed, suggesting 12x18.IlIllllAIlVUAA ------------ W vote: Ayes4,Nays l,Peterson, as she believeda 15'xl8'structure should be allowed. SSS™ S! “ST'uSSSr'Sr The applicant and attorney were present. Oaffionrepo^^ STto req^st is to allow the applicant to have control over the views ftom his Tt r*e mostTwimmable area and provides extra recreational s,»ce^0^.ro^^ nm that if such control is given, there is the ^ ^ p but with a vote of cleared. He noted the Planning Commission recommended approval oui 4:3. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#10 - #2298 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Gaffron reviewed the number of issues that concern the Staff. He questioned whether the County would allow the recombination across the lake. If not, then a special lot combination would be required that would disallow the lot to be sold separately, as property cannot by Code be divided to create substandard lots. Gaffron said the peninsula portion of 905 Femdale’s not contiguous with the 980 property. The peninsula area was used for hardcover calculations for 905 Femdale. Approval could set a precedent for such requests for properties located across the lake from each other. The code does not strictly address this issue, but the proposal does not fit with the concept of contiguity and abutment of properties that are basic to zoning practice. Gaffron said there are other options to gain control of this property through the use of easements, but the proposed detachment and recombination is not recommended by Staff. Attorney, Bob Mitchell, noted a letter written to Council. The purpose of the letter is to show that how the land was originally platted and how it is unclear that the land is not contiguous one to another. He indicated the significance shown is that people in the past have purchased government lots without considering the lay of the land. Mitchell said the North Shore Cottage area properties are not necessarily contiguous. Other examples were shown as well. Mitchell said recent maps are more precise in their detail. He indicated the County's half section map shows inconsistencies in how the land was platted and how parcels are not necessarily contiguous. From this, Mitchell says it is just as logical for this parcel to become part of 905 Femdale. He noted the higher views for the 905 West Femdale parcel located on the bluff with the subject peninsula property being low in elevation. Mitchell said the combination would allow for creating stability. He indicated that if the channel is allowed to become filled with silt again, it could create problems for use by the neighbors. Mitchell said he agrees that the case is unusual but is of the opinion that the rearrangement would secure the beach views. He said the applicant is willing to sign an agreement stipulating that no subdivision of the property would occur. Jabbour asked how this would be more effective than stipulation within the deed or covenant. Mitchell indicated that although the property could not be subdivided, the applicant would have to full right to place a covenant over it. The desire to preserve views and ownership would allow this to occur. Future owners may not agree to preserve the views. It was also noted that swimming is not feasible in the lagoon portion. Jabbour said he has strong reservations about granting this request. He questioned how it differs from an outlot. Gaffron reported that the property was platted as a lot for some unknown reason and legally combined with 905 West Femdale. Kelley questioned } minutes of the regular orono city councilMEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#10- #2298 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) whether a property can be legally subdivided if it is not a suitable building lot. Gaf&on said it must be reattached to another parcel. Jabbour said he is concerned with this being a way in which more us ,* is gained of lakeshore. He said the piece of land does not lend itself to riparian i.se to just anyone but those that live on it. If it is transferred to another property, there would be the ability to gain a dock for every 50’ resulting in a large number of docks on the property. Mitchell disagreed with Jabbour but Jabbour emphasized that permission for multiple docks can be issued, and he would not want to see credits given for such use. He gave an example of one parcel being on an island with riparian ownership to land elsewhere. Jabbour said he understands Brooks does not want use of docks by others but he shares Staffs concerns. Goetten noted while the code does not reference detachment, it goes against the Comprehensive Plan. She said she could not support the proposal as it would set a precedent and suggested a view easement be granted. Goetten felt approval of such a proposal would set a bad policy. She noted the property was neither next door nor adjacent. She also is concerned with tree removal which goes against the philosophy of the City. Flint said he also did not support the proposal. He felt Brooks’ concerns could be addressed by an easement. Flint said he would be concerned with setting a precedent. Kelley noted, since the parcel could have to be combined, he agrees with Flint and Goetten. He does not agree with a combination with 980 Femdale. Kelley said the concerns can be satisfied through the deed. Peterson agreed. Mitchell asked the application be tabled to allow the applicant to determine what can happen. Jabbour said a deed of covenant could be accomplished for a scenic easement without the City’s involvement. He said he has a strong feeling against precedent setting. Mitchell said he would still like to table the application in case some type of Council action is required. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to table Application #2298. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Mayor/Council Report follows Item #24) i minutes of the regular orono city council MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#10 - #2298 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) whether a property can be legally subdivided if it is not a suitable building lot. Gafffon said it must be reattached to another parcel. Jabbour said he is concerned with this being a way in which more use is gained of lakeshore. He said the piece of land does not lend itself to riparian use to just anyone but those that live on it. If it is transferred to another property, there would be the ability to gain a dock for every 50' resulting in a large number of docks on the property. Mitchell disagreed with Jabbour but Jabbour emphasized that permission for multiple docks can be issued, and he v'ould not want to see credits given for such use. He gave an example of one parcel being on an island with riparian ownership to land elsewhere. Jabbour said he understands Brooks does not want use of docks by others but he shares Staffs concerns. Goetten noted while the code does not reference detachment, it goes against the Comprehensive Plan. She said she could not support the proposal as it would set a precedent and suggested a view easement be granted. Goetten felt approval of such a proposal would set a bad policy. She noted the property was neither next door nor ^j^ent. She also is concerned with tree removal which goes against the philosophy of Flint said he also did not support the proposal. He felt Brooks' concerns could be addressed by an easement. Flint said he would be concerned with setting a precedent. Kelley noted, since the parcel could have to be combined, he agrees with Flint and Goetten. He does not agree with a combination with 980 Femdale. Kelley said the concerns can be satisfied through the deed. Peterson agreed. Mitchell asked the application be tabled to allow the applicant to determine what can happen. Jabbour said a deed of covenant could be accomplished for a scenic easement without the City s involvement. He said he has a strong feeling against precedent setting. Mitchell said he would still like to table the application in case some type of Council action is required. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to table Application #2298. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Mayor/Council Report follows Item #24) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#19) COUNTY ROAD 6 TUNNEL AGREEMENT WITH SPRING HILL COUNTRY CLUB Attorney, Tom Crosby, and Project Manager, Tim Johnson, were present. Moorse reported 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 requires a culvert to be installed under CoRd 6. An agreement is needed between the City and County through which the City agrees to take on responsibility for the maintenance of the culvert. Prior to entering into this agreement, the City wants an agreement through which these responsibilities would be transferred to Spring Hill Golf Course. Moorse reported that City Attorney Barrett has reviewed the Hennepin County agreement. Jabbour reported that a board member of Spring Hill has suggested the City has changed its position on the culvert issue, but the City has worked with Spring Hill on their fast track planning and knew several issues would require resolution. The City approved plans in good faith that these other issues would ^ able to be worked out in the future. Jabbour said these particular issues have not been dealt with as of yet. Crosby said there was a technical issue. The agreement between the City and Spring Hill was made to mirror that of the County. The County did not want to own the tunnel but asked that this be owned by the City. Barrett agreed that the County agreement makes that premise and this agreement mirrors it. Gaffron said he would like input from public works regarding ownership by the City. Gappa said if a problem arose, it would be determined that the City is the owner and would have to assess back any costs; so, whether it says the City or Spring Hill is the owner, the County says the City owns it. Kelley asked what gives the County the right to mandate that the City own the culvert. Barrett said it was discretionary, since the tunnel is under a County road, the County can have that say and mandate it by contract. Kelley then verified that the applicant approached the County regarding the tunnel. Crosby said the County informed him they would not own the tunnel. Gaffron questioned who maintains the tunnel noting this responsibility would be assigned to Spring Hill. Jabbour said any costs incurred by the City would be assessed back to Spring Hill. Barrett said the agreement accepts that premise. Crosby noted that the County has retained the right to inspect the tunnel. t MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (M19- County Road 6 Tunnel Agreement %vith Spring Hill Country Club - Continued) Jabbour noted that the only issue for discussion would then be that of public access. Barrett said this issue has not been addressed, and the County does not have any comments regarding it. Jabbour explained the original vision of the trail with two tunnels. The trail committee felt there would be a problem with crossing the road during the winter months and have asked for the use during this off-season time period. They thought there would be a problem with children as well. The committee thought the road could be crossed durine the summer months. Crosby reported that technically, the CUP recites what is being done. It says the tunnel is ^ing constmcted through a cooperative agreement with the County, akin to getting a building permit, requiring no new decisions to be made. He indicated the discussions on the trail included the trail system without tunnel use. Crosby said if it is determined that the tunnel would be used by the public, which he says he does not have the authority to approve, he would not want this included in the underpass agreement for the successor of Spring Hill Golf Course. He would prefer such public use be by licensing or other means that could be changed for the future. Crosby said he would like to see a decision made regarding the use of the tunnel and the trail. He would want a free-standing agreement regarding the tunnel use or through licensing if public use is required. Jabbour suggested polling the Council regarding public use of the tunnel. Jabbour said he agreed with the comments made by Crosby except that he feels the City has worked in good faith. He noted the CUP and cooperative agreement were expedited placing Ae staff under great burden. Jabbour said he felt all situations could be dealt with noting the specifics of the trail were not determined. He said he pers». ncUy is not bound to seeing the tunnel used by the public. He said Orono has not acted as an agent in the development of Orono, though it has been asked to do so many times. Jabbour said the only cooperative development done has been for the public purpose of providing baseball fields. By signing documents, Jabbour said it creates liability, and he would have a problem disallowing public use because of that. Since it would be public assisted, the citizens should have the benefit of its use. Crosby agreed with Jabboufs comments but saw a distinction of uniqueness regarding this issue in that Spring Hill had been willing to enter into an agreement with the County, who would not allow it to occur. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#19 - County Road 6 Tunnel Agreement wth Spring Hill Country Club - Continued) Flint questioned the use of a license and who would do the licensing. Crosby said it could be done by Spring Hill. Flint questioned how that could occur if it was a City tunnel with access owned by Spring Hill. He noted the tunnel extends beyond the nght- of-way resulting in a mix of ownership. Flint said he did not necessarily have a strong viewpoint reg^ding what type of document is used, he would like the decision regarding public use made at this time. He noted the large amount of good will that has gone into the negotiations to allow construction to occur this year. The trail agreement is an example of the use of good will throughout the process. Flint noted the scope of the discussions regarding the tunnel thus far drawing the conclusion that only one tunnel could be built. He feels the tunnel can be used mthout interference with the design in the winter months. Crosby said it was a matter of i^e and not design. Flint said a determination would have to be made as to how the tunnel could be reached in the winter. Kelley asked who would maintain the tunnel during the winter months. Flint said the City would have to maintain it during that time period. Jabbour felt plowing would not be effective. It was noted that there is a 80' right-of-way and the tunnel would be 86’ in length. Kelley did not feel the City should be involved in this with pnvate property on both sides of the tunnel. He felt if it was used as public, that portion could be paid for and the benefit to residents could be determined and charged accordingly. Discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of using the tunnel during the winter months noting the difficulty in gaining access to the tunnel during that time and the conditions found within. It was suggested by Kelley that skiers would most likely prefer to take their skis off and walk across the road than use the tunnel. Jabbour felt the City should not have had to become the middle man in this issue as no distinction has been made regarding funding. He said the City embarked on pursuing the tunnel to facilitate the golf club and people have had a vision of using it as part of the over-all plan. Crosby reported that the document regarding the tunnel was in the hands of the County the last two months. He felt it was unlikely that any work would be done on the tunnel this fall. He would like to have the time to finalize the agreement with the County and have the ability to look at the location during the winter months to determine if there would be any practical use of it. He noted the 86' long tunnel would be unlit, which is an unlikely fit for Minnesota winters. Crosby asked that the agreement be delayed for these determinations to be made. I I i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#19 - County Road 6 Tunnel Agreement with Spring Hill Country Club - Continued) Jabbour informed Crosby that the City is not under any obligation to use the tunnel and would only do so if it was practical, noting the distinction between having the right and acting on it. Peterson said she did not feel the trail would be used during the winter months viewing it as a summer time trail. Crosby indicated there would be some policing of the area during the winter. Jabbour asked whether the City should have the right to use the tunnel. Jabbour's opinion was that the public right to use it should be taken but not necessarily used. Peterson agreed with Crosby that a determination should be delayed until more infonnation has been gained from viewing the area over the winter months. Goetten questioned whether the City can wait to sign the agreement. She said she would not approve the agreement wiu.out the decision made regarding the use of the tunnel. Jabbour reported that Staff needs direction from the Council and a clear view of the Council's thoughts regarding the issue. Crosby said the work would not be performed until spring, but he would like to have the issues solved over the winter so work can begin immediately in the spring. Jabbour said he thought the grading was to be done this fall. Tim Johnson said the cart path has to be installed anyway. Crosby said the preparation work and grading could be accomplished now. Jabbour asked that the golf course board be notified of the poll taken of the Council; namely, three were in favor of the future public right to use the tunnel; one opposed public use; and one wanted to make that determination after viewing the property over the winter months. Flint reported that the grading of a trail to the tuimel would be very important as it would require a gradual descent. He noted, however, that the design would have to be carefully done to prevent people using the trail from entering into the golf course. Crosby reiterated that if the Council determines they desire public use, he would like the agreement separate from the tunnel agreement. Jabbour ask;d Crosby to work through the legalities with Barrett. Barrett noted that the County owns the land, and it should be verified that the County is indifferent to what decision is made. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 I u (#19 - County Road 6 Tunnel Agreement with Spring Hill Countr>' Club - Continued) Kelley said he would also like it determined if the County would have any liability beyond its normal limits. Crosby said he would like to ensure the use by members as well as others. Barrett indicated negotiations would have to be conducted with Spring Hill. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to table the agreement as presented. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Tim Johnson reported that the earth moving work has been completed and all heavy equipment is off site. He reported having saved large wooded areas on the north and south. Jabbour asked that percentages of remaining trees be provided to the City. Johnson said 350 trees were moved off-site and have been returned with about a 98% survival rate this fall. Another 300 newly purchased trees were moved this fall. Shaping, irrigation, and small equipment work is currently underway as well as watering and mulching. Jabbour thanked Johnson's staff for their enonnous cooperation in this project. Flint said, while the trail is not yet constructed, he has walked the area, and feels the cooperative effort will result in a good concept. Gaffron also noted the win/win situation regarding the excavation of a stormwater pond by MCWD at a site one m?le west of the golf course, with the black dirt excavated being transported to the golf course for its use. Jabbour emphasized the need for wetland credits. Johnson said they are well above the mitigation ratios noting a couple wetlands areas have been saved from being filled. (#20) COUNTY ROAD 6 TUNNEL AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to table the agreement. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. t MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#24) PROPOSAL RE: DISPOSITION OF TAX-FORFEITED PROPERTY (1960 SHORELINE DRIVE) Mr. Crear was present. He indicated his intent is to remove the building on the property and plant trees. He informed Jabbour when asked about receiving an indemnity that the County has agreed to disassociate him with the conditions found on the prop>erty. Crear said the County is requesting a letter from the City showing their support of Crear's plans. Jabbour noted that it will cost Crear about $10,000 for these improvements, and he appreciates his efforts. Crear said the County will probably perform the cleaning of any contaminants bat won't be done until spring. It was noted that the City will need to inform the County in the letter that they support Mr. Crear's proposal. A resolution will be required to release the property for sale to the adjacent property owner, which \\ill note that the property cannot be used for commercial use or anything other than residential. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to direct Moorse to send a letter to the County showing the City's support for the proposal, noting there is no public use for the property, and draft a resolution that includes Staffs concerns for signature by Council. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour reported the Council will be discussing the park dedication ordinance at an upcoming work session as they feel the park funding plan is inappropriate for the future. Jabbour said there will be a more extensive park plan. Jabbour said the Park Commission has recommended renting ice time at the ice arena in lieu of maintaining two of the outdoor ice rinks over the winter months. There were three rinks previously flooded, and the current plan for this winter calls for flooding at Casco only. Jabbour said the City's philosophy is to require a users fee. It would be difficult to provide the free ice time without subsidizing other activities. Jabbour suggested a $1 fee be charged to skaters by the ice arena and credited to the City. Kelley said he was against the use of ice time at the arena. He stated he understood the rationale for closing Hackberry, especially with the ice rink available nearby in Long Lake. A rink can be provided by Antoine by clearing off th- lake. Kelley noted that there is open skating at the Pond Arena from 2-4:30 at no charge. He questioned whether the people in the neighborhoods where outdoors rinks had been would use the ice arena. Jabbour asked if the Pond Arena received a subsidy. Kelley said it was built with private funding and free skating is provided as a stipulation of the donation. i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Jabbour indicated that the ice arena had planned on having open skating periods. Flint said the history of the outdoor rinks in the City has been less than successful due to poor ice conditions from lack of good water pressure, equipment, and sufficient personnel. The only outdoor rink will be at Casco in a densely populated area. This rink has received alot of use. Goetten suggested reviewing the use of the ice time provided by the arena. An outdoor rink at Crystal Bay Park was suggested but is not an option for this year. Kelley suggested rinks be established on the lake. Van Erickson said this had been discussed. Parking would be a problem for a rink near Bederwood on Stubbs Bay and there are concerns about open water at the DNR Maxell Bay access. Peterson said she did not support providing free ice time at the arena. Flint was of the opinion that a user fee should be charged. Erickson said the Park Commission recommended providing this ice time as a public service. Jabbour said he does not view it as showing support for an organization but support of a sport. He feels the City must be consistent with other sports if the ice time is provided. Kelley reported that more ice time was being made available this year. Kelley questioned the fence along the Old Crystal Bay Road trail. Gappa informed him the fence was built as part of an agreement with a private properly owner. It was noted that the fence will have to be maintained by the City. Kelley asked about a fence on the south side of Willow by Dickey Woods. Gaffron said the fence is located in the rear yard of a thru lot where a 50' setback is required. A fence over 3.5' requires a CUP. Jabbour asked Staff to review the matter. Jabbour said the City Staff was recognized for their work in aiding the development of the plans for the ice arena at the grand opening. 24 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 ENGINEER REPORT (#11) CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 - NORTH LONG LAKE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT Goett&n questioned the expenses for the retaining wall. Gappa explained the type and length of the wall. Cook said it was intended to maintain the vegetation but too much had to be eliminated requiring the wall construction. Flint suggested other more attractive options be considered. Cook said timber was the other option, but does not have the same stability and life expectancy. Kelley asked how much contingency funds are included in the project cost. Cook said they were at about 3% of the total project cost. Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Change Order No. 6, North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer project, in the amount of $9,200.00. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) CHANGE ORDER NO. 7 - NORTH LONG LAKE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT Goetten asked for a breakdown of the costs involved. Cook explained that the regrading and paving of Long Lake Boulevard was about $7,000; paving of Dakota Avenue driveway, easement, and tree trimming cost about $2,500, the lift station was $1,000, and the paving of CoRd 19 and Tonkaview Lane intersection was $2,000. Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Change Order No. 7, North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer project, in the amount of $12,522.00. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#13) REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 4 - NORTH LONG LAKE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Request for Payment No. 4, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $65,025.79. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#14) REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2 - BAY RIDGE/BRACKETTS POINT SANITARY SEWER PROJECT Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Request for Payment No. 2, Bracketts Point^ay Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project lo J’arbarossa & Sons in the amount of $167,485.24. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. 25 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (*#15) RESOLUTION NO. 3979 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECS FOR THE NAVARRE WATER TREATMENT PLANT REHABILITATION PROJECT Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3979 ordering preparation of plans and specifications by the City Engineer for rehabilitation of the Navarre Water Treatment Plant. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#16) SPEED STUDY COUNTY ROAD 6 - RESOLUTION NO. 3980 Goetten said she was appalled by this request for a speed study of CoRd 6 with an approximate traffic volume of 8,000 vehicles per day. She noted she was unable to obtain the same study for CoRd 15 which has 20,000 vehicles travelling it daily. Jabbour questioned whether the speed study could result in a higher limit. He was informed by Gappa that the speed limit is at the maximum and could only go down. Flint moveH, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3980 requesting that Hennepin County initiate a speed study on County Road 6 from T.H. 12 to the Orono eastern city limits. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Goetten. (Item #17 at end of agenda.'' (*#18) REQUEST FOR Pa V jMlNT NO. 2 - GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION SYSTEM PROJECT Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Request for Payment #2, Golf Course Irrigation System Project to Evergreen Sprinkler Company in the amount of $46,085.79. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (CONTINUED) (*#21) JOHN AND DIANE MARESH, 2085 COUNTY ROAD 6 - NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION SEWER CONNECTION - RESOLUTION NO. 3981 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3981 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. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (*#22) GEORGE JOHNSON, 879 BROWN ROAD NORTH - NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION SEWER CONNECTION - RESOLUTION NO. 3982 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3982 approving the provision of sewer to the George Johnson property at 879 Brown Road North, subject to tlie property being assessed for the sewer service in the amount of $13,950.00. Vote- Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#23) TROY AND CATHERINE ANDERSON, 1490 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD - EXCLUSION FROM NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION SEWER PROJECT Goetten moved, Flint seconded, 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, 1997. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Item #24 previously presented after item #20.) (#25) SELECT DATE AND TIME FOR JOINT COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Jabbour suggested the Planning Commission schedule two meetings a month to eliminate the sense of urgency felt by applicants and lessen the burden of Staff with the amount of applications presented at each monthly meeting. He noted many applications are being reviewed by Planning Commission and Council before all the information is ready to be presented. He suggested the Council consider allowing administrative variances for such projects as dirt movement. Gaffron voiced concern \^th having more deadlines added to the schedule but agreed that there are problems with the length of the meetings and having incomplete applications. Goetten said the time each application takes is of great concern. She felt it would be a positive move to have the process opened up more for the residents. Goetten thought there may be a need to hire another planning person to aid this process. Gaffron agreed that the staff is lacking adequate time to review each application. Kelley asked if the issues of concern w'ere being addressed in a timely manner at the meetings. Jabbour said the issues were being addressed but there was the possibility of missing what the issues really are with inadequate planning. 11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL METING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#25 - Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting - ContinuedT rsrsssrr. .'ss:-*"- .1- need to recheck what is being submitted by surveyors. Jabbour asked that Smff determine what their opinion is regarding WO meetings a month. A work session was scheduled for two possible dates: October 28 at 7:00 p.m. or October 27 at 8:00 a.m. (#26) SELECT DATE AND TIME FOR COUNCIL WORK SESSION A work session was scheduled for Friday. October 17 at 8:00 a.m. or Monday, October 21 at 8:00 a.m. o^msidel have voiced their opinion that the trail plan be ehmmated. Jabbour questioned the im^rtance ® ^ o's^wtlT Gapp* in to the City of tot r" toTvelopcr. It was determined that no park dedication had been received from these trails. Kelley was of the opinion that the trails should be abandoned. Moorse indicated that the trails were not Initiated by the City but thought to be an amenity by the original developer and then later dropped. constructed but the right-of way emmn then the road should go through. the City wants the road to become public someday, then the roaa sn s Jabbour asked for comments from the Park Commission. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#27 - Old Crystal Bay Road Addition Internal Trails - Continued) Flint said he never thought the internal trails would be of much benefit to the people in the subdivision. He felt if the residents requested the trails be constructed, they could initiate it. Moorse noted that the Council had previously considered the trails and the developer had neighbors come and voice their opinions. The residents were not in favor of the trail but no decision was made at that time. Jabbour said a determination should be made as the letter of credit needs to be dealt with. Flint said the developer had suggested the trails were mishandled by the City. He noted the trails on West Old Crystal Bay Road were handled by the homeowners association and created no controversy. He saw this as a positive avenue to take regarding trails. Kelley suggested the letter of credit be released and let the residents petition for the trail if they see fit. Goetten felt the residents should be answered since they asked the City to make a determination. Jabbour suggested the issue be on the next Council agenda. Kelley asked Staff to determine who the homeowners association president is and ask if the homeowners would like to petition for the trails. Goetten asked if there was any monetary recourse. She was informed that it would depend on whether there is value to the trails. Jabbour said he would like to hear from the neighbors. Flint said he Jid not believe the concern expressed about more people being attracted to the neighborhood by a trail. Flint said this issue is a lesson to be learned that trails should be installed when the subdivision is developed. The internal trails issue will be placed on the next Council agenda. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#28) PROSECUTION SERVICES Goetten and Peterson voiced approval with the proposal for prosecution services. Flint suggested looking into the possibility of working with private law firms allowing experience to be gained in litigation by r.ewcr attorneys and saving the City money at the same time. Barrett felt there would be a difference in the quality of work received noting the difference in litigation cases between the City of Minneapolis who used this procedure and the City of Orono. Moorse informed Jabbour that the other cities using this attorney were satisfied with the services received. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, 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. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#29) PROPOSAL FOR AUDIO EQUIPMENT FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS Jabbour said he did not feel there was a need for audio equipment in the Council chambers. Flint acknowledged there is a problem with hearing. Goetten sa*d hearing from the back of the room is difficult but does not wish to spend the money at this time. Moorse said he has received feedback from t*lanning Conunission meetings, especially when there are a number of people in attendance for a public hearing. Gaffron concurred. Kelley sa’d he agreed with Goetten regarding not wanting to spend the money for the equipment. A couple different options were suggested for equipment. Moorse said some of the items could be eliminated but saw the need for an assisted listening device. Jabbour said a remedy should be found if complaints have been received. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, 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 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#29 - Proposal For Audio Equipment For Council Chambers - Continued) funded, including a budget amendment, from the Building Fund. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Kelley, Goetten. (#30) WETLAND ELEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN Moorse reported that it was originally planned that Staff would aid in the classification and inventory of wetlands for the stormwater management plan. This has not occurred due to the heavy work load of the planning department. This has resulted in holding up the collection of this information, and the information is important in order to move forward with the plan. Moorse suggested that Bonestroo complete the inventory at an estimated cost of about $15,000. The work must be completed within the next month in order to view the bare ground and vegetation. Goetten asked if this is approved and it is determined that the work cannot be done this fall that the issue of taking inventory can be revisited in the spring. Moorse said yes. He noted that the priority wetlands need to be identified in order to proceed. Flint supported the proposal. Jabbour also supported it and asked that a meeting be scheduled with the Watershed District. Jabbour asked if Staff reviews whether the costs provided by Bonestroo are competitive. Moorse said this is done informally by comparing costs with other cities, but not formally through an RFP process. Jabbour noted that the use of local people who know the policies and the City enable the City to be proactive. He informed Cook that he was satisfied with the performance of Bonestroo but is required to do due diligence. Cook responded that they compare their rates with oihv.r firms, and acknowledged the need to remain competitive. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to authorize Bonestroo and Associates to conduct a wetland inventory and classification process to be completed this fall; and to direct staff to work with Bonestroo to keep the costs as ’. v as possible but in no case to exceed $20,000. The motion authorizes the wetlam '.**• e.'iory and classification costs to be funded from the Permanent Improvement !v;-‘.ul .. ’g Fund Stormwater Account. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#30 - Wetland Element Of Stormwater Plan - Continued) Kelley received verification from Moorse that there will be a surplus in the General Fund this year. (*#31) EMPLOYMENT OF ACCOUNTANT/MANAGEMENT ANALYST Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to appoint Ron Olson to the Accountant/Management Analyst position effective October 27, 1997 at a starting salary of $36,500.00. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#32) HIRING OF PART-TIME POLICE OFFICER - RESOLUTION NO. 3983 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to appoint Steven Allen McNally to the position of part> time police officer, effective October 13,1997 at a starting salary- of $11.89 hourly; and to adopt Resolution No. 3983 establishing the eligibility of the position for coverage by the State Public Employee Retirement Fund for police officers. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#33) SENIOR CITIZEN SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENTS - NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION - RESOLUTIONS NO. 3984 AND 3985 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3984 deferring the special assessments for Charles Edward Truman, 1570 Long Lake Boulevard and Resolution No. 3985 deferring the special assessments for Ardis Joan Severtson, 1586 Long Lake Boulevard in the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition sewer project. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Barrett had no report. (*#34) LICENSES There were no licenses. (*#35) BILLS Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 ADJOURNMENT Goetten moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Goetten moved, Jabbour seconded, to reconvene. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#17) COUNTY ROAD 15 PROJECT - INITIAL PAYMENT Kelley inquired about the prepaid cost. Moorse said this amount is in accordance with the estimate and part of the agreement. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to approve payment of the invoice from Henepin 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 fimd. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Goettten. ADJOURNMENT Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn at 11:55 p.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 23, 1997 OCT 2 7 1997 ITEM NO : (O Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Senior Planning Coordinator CTTYOFOnONa t m A A.______________5Admini^ator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2300 James and Joanne Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Renewal Variance - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Fanuly Lake Shore Residential, 2 acre, sewered. Application: Request for renewal of setback and hardcover variances granted in October 1996 for restoration of an existing retaining wall, underground grotto and lakeshore stairway system located within 75' of the lakeshore. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/21/97 C - Memo and Exhibits of 10/16/97 Summary Please review the memo and exhibits of October 16, 1997. Applicant requests renewal of the variances granted last fall for restoration and repair of the retaining wall adjacent to the underground grotto, restoration of the grotto itself, and repairs lo two lakeshore stairway systems located in the 0-75' setback zone. Planning Commission Recommend ation At their October 20 meeting, Planning Commission recommended approval per the findings and conditions of the prior approval resolution, on a vote of 6-0. Staff Recommendation Staff agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation, and recommends adoption of the attached resolution for renewal of variances. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: , seconded byAdopt the attached resolution. Proposed motion: Moved by ______ to adopt Resolution #_____, granting variances to James and Joanne Jundt of 1<^ Bracketts Point Road for restoration of retaining walls, underground grotto and lakeshore stairway system within 75' of the lakeshore. Vote: _____ayes,______nays. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C & L) FILE NO. 2300 WHEREAS, James and Joann Jundt (hereinafter "the appli^ts") are of the property located at 1400 Bracketts Point Road within the City of Orono (here City”) and legally described as follows: (Exhibit A attached); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for renev(^ c iTfc & U rz.it die restoration of an existing retaining wall, imde^und ^tto ZakesL staLay system located wiUiin the 0-75' lakeshoie setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2300. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission originally reviewed this variance request on September 16, 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed restore the lakeshore stairway system, retaimng wall and undergroun gr , based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 6 4. 6. A. The property is unique for a number of reasons, including its age, its history and the fact that applicants have been diligently restoring the property to its former splendor. B. The proposed work involves restoration of amenities or structures which ^.Iready exist, and does not propose any new buildings or amenities. C. The 650' length of the eastern shoreline justifies the existence of as many as four lakeshore stairways to provide access to the lake from the higher portions of the property whici: are as much as 25' above lake level, and the steep slopes east of the house suggest the need for stairway access. On October 20, 1997 the Orono Planning Commission reviewed this request for variance renewal and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval, finding that the findings and conditions of the prior approval as noted in Resolution No. 3786 are still valid and appropriate. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances 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 necessaiy 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. Page 2 016 irnr rw.ifw MiiTnKira RWC KBfl iMiVt •BKlIiTC •imu iiitjirtRi ^iuwtiMra raRiirtTim titTtVfririi tpAWf 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. ■U 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 Page 5 of 6 . * CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2300 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 21,1997 TO: James & Joanne Jundt 1400 Bracketts Point Road Wayzata,MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances (Renewal) DATE OF MEETING: 10/20/97 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted per conditions of previous approval. NOTES and SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; City Council Monday, October 27, 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. X:\APPS\WPWIN60\WPDOCS\CAROLE\PCACnON\2300 4 I i TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaf&on, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE;October 16,1997 SUBJECT; #2300 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Renewal Variance Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre, sewered. Application: Request for renewal of setback and hardcover variances granted in October 1996 for restoration of an existing retaining wall, underground grotto and lakeshore stairway system located within 75' of the lakeshore. List cf Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Resolution #3786 F “ Memo and Selected Exhibits from Prior Approval c A Summary of Request Please review the exhibits from the 1996 approval. The applicant was unable to complete this project this year partially due to sewer installation on Bracketts Point which has negatively impacted access to the site. The project involve^ restoration and repair of an existing retaimng wall adjacent to an underground 'grotto', restoration of the grotto, and repairs to tw'o lakeshore stairway systems located within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. On the application form applicant also mentions repairs to the boathouse, however this came in as a renewal application and the boathouse was specifically not included in the prior approval. The wording of the current application request is identical to that of the prior request, and apparently was just transferred from the prior application. The prior approval resolution noted that "structural restoration of the existing boathouse is specifically not a part of this approval, and structural repairs to that building shall be reviewed by the Inspections Department and if determined to require a variance, shall be brought forth to the Planning Commission and City Council as a separate application". This review should be treated as a simple renewal of the approval granted in Resolution #3786 in October 1996, not involving the boathouse. Zoning File #2300 October 16,1997 Page 2 Staff Reconittendation In suffs opinion the findings and conditions of Resolution #3786 are still pertinent and appropriate, ond staff recommends approval per the prior approval. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per the findings and conditions of Resolution #3786. 2. Recommend approval with revised findings or conditions. 3. Table for further information. 4. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 5. Other. ,-ri I Application # 'txrt:Date Received ^ -91 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Amount Paid h #2S00 8 S >s 3,PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddrea-P..^f <? /| Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) // - / / 7 - ^ ^ Te^nni ----------------S AttaoVi __________1* -.• Ti^ . :— 7 —r-------------- % ---- L_______* ^ f ^ ^ ^ i. V / Attach legal description to application if not included on recuired survey ------- f\AcuiXiL ------ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. propertyi ^ residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District:_____________ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name \^oa.v\w O______________________ ________________________________ Address:_^^C)^ PA £/ • Citv : Phone (home ) 6 f 7 ? - 9!^3L y Phone (work ) _____________ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name »\oav\w, «.\u.v\oi ~ Address^ moo Pt.iU. Phone (home ) Gl'X- 97 '5 -9 s ''3 l y _____ Phone (work)_________________ City:. Oji<ry\uO __________Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe n Estimated Constniction Cost $ (attach(!^dditional sheets if nece^aiy) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage X Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lake;5horc. Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual prrmerty conditions preventing (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All gf the following information mnst be submitted bv the annlicatinn deadline ria»«> in for vour application to be considered complete: 1 2 / Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map firom Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8*/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/a" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy ZVi” 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 Apphcant^ and Property Owner must sign this applicatioi Please remember that vour vanance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. 5, 6. 7. 8. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) md/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the lc3t of his/her knowledge. Applicants Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNAT 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 CbiinSil members for purposes of investigation suid verification of this request. 'J V Owner's Signature Date _aLlLIf '7 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 L J null 0A1C 06/u/n lltmCPIll COUIITY PnOPEliTY IWORMAIIOU SYSICIIpnoPERTY omens list KtruHi nu. ri*o:»'»u* PAGE 12•BATCH OOAPROP ADOR OmER tlAIIE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SB 11-117-25 52 0009 OlAOO BRACKETTS POIMT RP ^ J R JUNBT I HARY J JUHOT JAMES R JUNOT BOX 1 •CRYSTAL 6AY IH 55525 50 11-117-25 52 0010012A5 BRACKETTS POIHT RD MICHAEL E LYNM III A HITE MICHAEL A JORJA LYItl 111 1245 BRACKETTS POIHT MAYZATA IW 55591 SO 11-117-25 52 0011 01A20 BRACKETTS POIHT RO J R JUHOT A M J JUHOT JAMES R JUHOT BOX 1CRYSTAL BAY MH 55525 . PROP ABOR OHICR IIAME TAXPAYER ItAME/AOOR 5B 11-117-25 52 301.7 01500 BRACKETTS POINT RO GEORGE S PILISOURY ET AL GEORGE S PILLSOURY AOOO FIRST OAtK PLACE MPLS tfl 55^102 30 11-117-25 52 0010 ‘ 01220 BRACKETTS POIHT RO ELLA P CROSBY ELLA P CROSBY 1220 BRACKETTS POIHT RO MAYZATA »t< 55591 50 11-117-25 52 0019 01200 BRACKETTS POIHT RO JOIW S PILLSOURY JR ET AL JOIW S PILLSOURY JR AOOO FIRST OAHK PLACE MPLS If! 55A02 PROP ABOR OHHER NAME TAXPAYER IIAIC/ADBR 50 11-117-25 55 0001 01420 BRACKETTS POINT RO J R JUNOT A M J JUHOT JAMES R JUHOT BOX 1 CRYSTAL DAY IW 55525 30 11-117-25 35 0004 01450 BRACKETTS POINT RO MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REEO MARTHA S A A LACHLAH REED 1500 BRACKETTS POXHT RO MAYZATA HH 55391 30 11-117-25 33 0005 01400 ORACKCTTS POINT RO R A L HEADRICK ROGER L A LYIAI C HEADRICK 1400 BRACKETTS POINT RO MAYZATA It! 55391 PROP ABBR OMICR IIAIC TAXPAYER tlAHE/ABBR 3B 11-117-25 33 0004 01500 ■ BRACKETTS POINT RD MARTtU S A A LACHLAN REEO ‘ MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REEO 1500 BRACKETTS POINT RO MAYZATA III 55591 tOTAL BATCH 004 OQOlO T rFRTiFV THAT THE FACTS REPRCSENTtO .RE AH ACCURATE AHO TRUE iSEPRSENTAnW OF iKmATION AS, IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS or THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARIMEHT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOMLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE .•W. V • • •t I I t .4 k • h ' / // ' ’ . a . i /•;? / ^ 5 7#/'7 / a y.'ix*a 5|. yr)f / » a‘ a , ^ / •■. ^ / m ^ -2X ! a/' 3? •’ (7 /■/;^ .'iH . ............... ' •//*•{ ...........................................i5 •'y// --------------------------------------------------------------' y/ %. ----------------■ —............... 'ft \ ' >......-'V '//A' \ » f*I % ^ m \ • w\U—t \ '3 i n.*4 • rl \ 45 \ H ''tlj^if.w :?2SV■S..k A ^ - r \ II '•-(>*- 'ti. ,*ir \ \ Ti ■'?\ V fi I \ ^* r I I 'Ll (T H '*■----------------- =(' » > \ f •«s \ \ J I f M '' ' ;• • V. >. fi ' y / '* 'I'- - J•' ' /' /V / .'' '' if- - , ^'t •' '' ^ i ' • *' y i^/ - n ir • '* • • •'! / / .'.t1 A ? '« ii -x ■' '■‘%W ' « a / *]. ./ I X i •! f1 'i i \ ■ ' •' / 7 *i >! j. . / . * I <’»/ 1^1 • • > ' * I wI p T- » iS 'I I I •! i » v'Ji /'' h; ! \ \ i -V yy / ; , I • I » \ aV '' ' ^ ‘ \ / /}]y : •r^*. :a / / It* / > ‘‘* t:'K V' ^'N fi\ / i J 1.1 • s. <c i 5 r A. V lift \;I/> Ilf vlf i5 ^ ^ ( 5 C.?o r—'/' I > . , .Va » . •v.y * a * a .* *m '/V/>s: fl! A V.V • \a' 7 »|a §0 a'fl tl T'.n 7 I; ■■■»# ^ * 1*1 * t <;T^.-1-rJ m CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 7 ^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C & L) FILE NO. 2159 9 WHEREAS, James and Joann Jundt (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1400 Bracketts Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: (Exhibit A attached); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, 10.55, Subdivision 8 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C & L) to permit the restoration of an existing retaining wall, underground grotto an lakeshore stairway system located within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2159. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 16, 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed variances to restore the lakeshore stairway system, retaining wall and underground grotto, based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 5 r•par. h CITY of ORONO m RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 78 6 A.The property is unique for a number of reasons, including its age, its history and the fact that applicants have been diligently restoring the property* to its former splendor. B.The proposed work involves restoration amenities or structures which already exist, and does not propose any v* / buildings or amenities. C.The 650' length of the eastern shoreline justifies the existence of as many as four lakeshore stairways to provide access to the lake from the higher portions of the property which are as much as 25' above lake level, and the steep slopes east of the house suggest the need for stairway access. 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 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, 10.55, Subdivision 8, and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C & L) to permit the restoration of the existing lakeshore stairway Page 2 of 5 is I t ^;;n CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 78 6 system, retaining wall and underground grotto, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. The restoration work shall not exceed that contemplated or proposed in the submitted pl^. Hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone shall not exceed the pre-existing level of 0.7% as indicated on the site restoration plan attached as Exhibit B. Applicant is advised that any future proposal to add hardcover in the 0-75 lakeshore setback zone might be approved only in conjunction with the concurrent removal of existing hardcover, resulting in no net increase in hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone. Structural restoration of the existing boathouse is specifically not a part of this approval, and structural repairs to that building shall be reviewed by the Inspections Departoent and if determined to require variances, shall be brought forth to the Planning Commission and City Council as a separate application. 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 28, 1997). • 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. 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. Page 3 of 5 h b t % GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 y « R Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of October, 1996. orothy M. mMin, City Clerk Edward J. CallAart, jr., Mayor Prow er (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of October, 1996 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. 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. y y y ymUN0AS.VEE '”'’SSSSiSt«mUyCttwristionW Notary Public CS2Z Page 4 of 5 f I I f GlTYof ORONO ihsUuL CSHO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7R 6 ss. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) '• / ^ day of AU,rrJ^On this------—*'* —f> '___________. 199 7 . before me a Notary Public withm and for said County, personally appeared m^ru n know., to me to be the person(s) described in and wh6 executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. V n '•'lESOTA .j:4TY :;Jaa31.2000 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA )Ite ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. LINDA S.VEE NOTARY PUBUC4nNNES01X HOmEPIN COUNTY Mf Commlstion &pte J»i 31.2000 On this day of___________________________________________________________ . ■ . within and for said County, personally Appearpri ^ ___ known to me to be the person(s) described in and^fh5 execut^ the fofegoi^ instrument, acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public ky JEAN D. SCANLON MOTAIVIMUC MINNISOTA MY O)MMISSI0N EXPIRES JANUARY 31,2000 Page 5 of 5 X * RESOLUTION 37/^4 h EXHIBIT A T.EGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED Lois 5 and 6, Rearrangement of Orono Point; Also: that part of Lots 9 and 10, Rearrangement of Orono Point and the accretions thereto lying Southerly and Easterly of the following described line: Commencing at a point in the centerline of Center Avenue 588.95 feet northerly from the Northwesterly comer of Lot 5, Rearrangement of Orono Point; thence southerly along said centerline a distance of 5 feet; thence southwesterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 221.17 feet a distance of 169.38 feet; thence southwesterly tangent to said last described curve a distance of 5 feet; thence southwesterly on a tangential curve to the right a radius of 445.72 feet a distance of 119.25 feet; thence sowthwesrsrly iang^nt to said last described curve a distance of 107.3 feel; thence westerly making an angle of 44 degrees 42 minutes to the right a distance of 79.3 feet to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating; subject to Border Avenue as opened by Document no. 2092886; Also that part of vacated Center Avenue as said Center Avenue was dedicated to the public in the plat of Rearrangement of Orono Point, lying southerly of the westerly extension of the northerly line of Lot 4, said Rearrangement of Orono Point and northerly of a line drawn westerly perpendicular to the west line of said Lot 4 from a point on said west line distant 182.29 feet northerly from the southwest comer of said Lot 4; also that part of the westerly half of vacated Center Avenue lying southerly of said above described perpendicular line; and also ihni part of the weste.^' half of vacated Center Avenue lying northerly of the westerly extension of the northerly line jl said Let 4 and lying southerly of a line drawn easterly at right angles to the westerly line of .aid vacated Center Avenue from the point of intersection of said westerly line with a line drawn 10 feet easterly of the following described line: Commencing at a point in the centerline of said Center Avenue distance 588.95 feet northerly from the northwesterly comer of said Lot 5; thence southerly along said centerline a distance of 5 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence southwesterly along a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 221.17 feet a distance of 169.38 feet, and said line there ending. RESOLUTION 2.7BLAlsoThat part of vacated Border Avenue as laid out and dedicated over and across part of Lot 9 in said Rearrangement of Orono Point which-lines between the westerly line of said Center Avenue and a line drawn across said Border Avenue at right angles to the side line of said Border Avenue from the point of intersection of the centerline of said Border Avenue with a line described as follows: Beginning at a point in the centerline of said Center Avenue distant 588 95 feet northerly of the northwest comer of said Lot 5; thence southerly along the centerline of said Center Avenue a distance of 5 feet; thence southerly and southwesterly along a tangential curve to the right w^th a radius of 221.17 feet a distance of 169.38 feet; thence southwesterly tangent to last said curve a distance of 5 feet; thence southwesterly along a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 445.72 feet a distance of 119.25 feet; thence southwesterly tangent to last said curve a distance of 107.30 feet; thence southwesterly along a tangential curve to the left • with a radius of 56 feet a distance of 19.7 feet; thence southerly tangent to last said curve a distance of 6.8 feet; thence southerly along a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 1^9.7 feet a distance of 53.9 feet; thence southerly tangent to last described curve a distance of 20.5 feet- thence southerly on a tangential curve to the left with 1 radius of 78.1 feet to its intersection with the centerline of said Border Avenue, and said line there ending. Mj mm/ •. : S.V? I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 19, 1996 Updated Oct. 23, 1996 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2159 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Vtiriances - ________________Resolution _______________________________________________ Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acres, Unsewered Application: Request for lakeshore setback variance and 0-75' hardcover variances for restoration of existing grotto, retaining wall and lakeshore stairway system (applicant also proposes cosmetic repair to existing boathouse). List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Council Action 9/24/96 C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/19/96 D - Memo and Exhibits of August 14, 1996 NOTE: This item was tabled at your September 23 meeting because applicant was not present. Applicants propose to restore two existing limestone rock stairways leading down the lakeshore bank east of the existing house. These stairways have been in place for many years, and restoration will include repair or replacement of deteriorated stonework and handrails. Additionally, applicants propose to restore the underground grotto and its associated retaining wall. This is an underground cellar-type room, located within the lakeshore bank behind a stone retaining wall. Restoration will include mainly cosmetic work including adding stucco interior wall and ceiling panels, adding a decorative light fixture, restoration of the existing wood doors, and restoration of the existing stone retaining wall. Applicants had originally proposed significant restoration of the existing boathouse, which is in failing condition. That work was to include roof replacement, window and door replacement and modification, straightening of the frame, residing, a new concrete floor, and a new concrete step. The August 14 staff memo indicated that the apparent total restoration proposed suggests that the structural work intended likely exceeds 50% of the value of the structure at the time it became non-conforming. The zoning code limits the structural restoration of such structures with the goal that they eventually disappear. Prior to the Planning Commission review, applicants withdrew the boathous: work from this application. However, at the Planning Commission meeting, applicant indicated that rather than remove the structure they intend to Request for Council Action continued Page 2 September 19, 1996 / Updated October 23, 1996 #2159 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road repair the roof. Please review the discussion on Page 2 of the August 14 memo regarding the conformity of this structure. Hardcover Existing 0-75' hardcover on the property excluding the public rjadways is less than 1% of the 0-75' zone. While applicant's submitted hardcover calculations indicate a 250 s.f. increase in hardcover, applicant indicates that is incorrect and reflects a prior application, and in fact there is no expectation that additional hardcover will be added as part of the restoration work proposed. Planning Commission indicated that they have no problem with the hardcover aspect of this application. Planning Commission Recommendation At their September 16 meeting, Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the restoration/repair/cosmetic upgrading of the stairways, retaining wall and grotto. Planning Commission directed applicant to work with staff regarding the boathouse repairs, but specifically did not approve any variances for the boathouse structure, and indicated that depending on the work ultimately proposed, that may have to come back for a further separate review. Planning Commission noted the following hardships which support the restoration work for the grotto, retaining wall and stairways: 1. The property is unique for a number of reasons, including its age, its history and the fact that applicants have been diligently restoring the property to its formei splendor. 2. The proposed work involves restoration of amenities or structures which already exist, and does not propose any new buildings or amenities. 3. The 650 ’ length of the eastern shoreline justifies the existence of as many as four lakeshore stairways to provide access to the lake from the higher portions of the property which are as much as 25' above lake level, and the steep slopes east of the house suggest the need for stairway access. Planning Commission noted that the boathouse would not be permitted if it were proposed to be constructed today, but members indicated that the boathouse appears to be an amemty which, in the context of the entire property, should be allowed to be restored. Factors which i • Request for Council Action continued Page 3 September 19,1996 / Updated October 23, 1996 #2159 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road may justify structural repair to the boathouse include its age, its connection with the history of the property, and its unique former function as a "changing room" with a divider for a boys’ side and a girls' side. Planning Commission suggested that applicant work with staff to determine the cosmetic versus structural nature of contemplated repairs, if structural restoration variances are necessary to bring that back as a separate application. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with Planning Commission that the stairways, retaining wall and grotto should be restored. Additionally, Council should give applicant direction regarding the restoration of the boathouse. A resolution for approval of the restoration of the stairways, grotto and retaining wall is attached for Council adoption. Options for Action 1. Approve per attached resolution. 2. Approve per attached resolution with revisions. 3.Table for further information. 4. Conceptual denial. 5.Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt attached resolution or take other appropriate action. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved . seconded by to adopt Resolution No.____ granting lakeshore setback and 0-75' hardcover variance approval for restoration of lakeshore stairways, retaining wall and grotto for James and Joann Jundt at 1400 Bracketts Point Road. Vote: ayes, O nays. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 28, 1996 (#6.)#2135 ALBEE ESTATE, 1575 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD - VARIANCE - resolution #3785 Applicants were present. approval. 5, nays 0. an) #2159 JAMES AND JoANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3786 Mrs. Jundi was present. Gaffron staled the appUcation -to restore two exi«ing — down the lakeshore bank east of the “'^rrepair or repUcemem of deteriorated for many years. give the property 4 access stairways on tn Callahan asked applicant if she was satisfied. Applicant indicated yes. Goetten stated this is a very unique case. Applicant indicated they are trying to bring the property back to its original condition. Kelley indicated pictures indicate a large amount of vegetation in the stairway and applicant must understand amount of vegetation removal. 5, nays 0. i 1 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 (#3 - #2169 Michael Renard - Continued) Lir dquist asked what the hardcover facts were. Mabusth asked for a breakdown of the h'.rdcover calculations and whether it included the landscaping. Betz showed the survey 10 Mabusth, who did not have a copy of this particular survey. Discussion was had on the particulars of the hardcover. It was determined that if the 130 s.f of landscape rock in the 0-75' was removed, along with 420 s.f in the 75-250' setback, there would be no need for a hardcover variance. Schroeder said he was concerned with trading of plastic and rock as it should not have been there in the first place. The plastic was installed by a previous owner. Schroeder said the hardcover should be separated showing what does and does not count. Mabusth said it would not be required if there was no hardcover variance required in the 75-250' setback and would only involve the average lakeshore setback. Schroeder questioned whether this was actually known. Mabusth clarified that the hardcover total was originally 6142 s.f or 26.7% where 5707 s.f is allowed. With the removal of the 420 s.f of landscape rock and plastic, the square footage of hardcover would be at 24.9% and not require a variance. Smith asked why the shed was an issue in 1991 . Mabusth said it was because the hardcover exceeded the allowed at 26.7%. With the shed removal, the hardcover would be at 25.5%. There were no public comments. Schroeder said he was reluctant to allow the shed since the Council in 1991 recommended its removal with the same basic numbers presented. Lindquist noted that the structure was proposed larger at that time. Mabusth said there was also more hardcover and the updated survey was not available. Mabusth said the removal of plastic and rock would result in a 1.8% reduction from 26.7% to 24.9%. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2169 with the understanding that all plastic on the property would ’*e removed along with the cement pad located in the 0-75' setback. The application would only involve a variance to the average lakeshore setback, and the shed would be allowed to remain. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#4) #2159 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:30-7:54 P.M. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application was tabled at the request of the applicant at the August 19 meeting of the Planning Commission. He noted that the application has been revised by the withdrawal of the boathouse from the application. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 (U4 - #2159 James and Joann Jundt - Continued) Mrs Jundt said the intent was non-structural in regards to the boathouse and repair only would be done due to a hole in the roof from a large tree branch that fell on it this past year. Lindquist asked Mrs. Jundt if she had a problem v\ith the total removal of the boathouse Jundt said she would be reluctant to remove the boathouse due to its historical signiGcance. Gaffron said caution would need to be taken regarding a repair permit for the 1930's boathouse with the value versus the cost of repair. Smith clariGed that the boathouse would not be deleted from the application, and there were no plans to remove the boathouse from the property. Gaffron informed the Commission that the City would have to review the repairs proposed. Jundt questioned why there was a concern when only repairs w ere planned. She was informed that structural repairs cannot exceed 50% of the value of the boathouse when ordinances made such structures nonconforming in 1975. Mabusth said she spoke with Jundt's attorney, Tom Crosby, who noted the cement piers, which are part of its construction and were found to be in good condition. He was informed that additional information would be required if the integrity of the foundation was questioned. A window will be added but the roof slope would remain the same. Jundt said she understood the concern when asked by Lindquist Lindquist c .arified that if any repairs exceed 50% of the value, the code requires the boathouse to be removed. It was determined that more information would be required before this issue could be resolved. Gaffron reported that the proposal includes improvements east of the main house to the underground grotto, a retaining wall, and repair of the stairways. One set of stairways has a gap which will be connected. This stairway is located 5-10' from the shoreline. Another centrally located stairway will be repaired and restored. The retaining wall will be repaired along with the grotto. Gaffron said the existing 4 walkways extend 650' in distance and questioned whether there were more than enough stairways. He noted the code allows for stairs to the lake but does not mention how many sets of stairs per property. The improvements to the grotto will consist of cosmetic changes with the addition of a stucco interior wall and ceiling panels, addition of a decorative light, restoration of exist'mg wood doors, and restoration of the existing stone retaining wall. Gaffron noted that since the grotto was underground, it is not considered hardcover. The hardcover calculations are at 0.7% in the 0-75' setback with the exclusion of the hardcover in the public right-of-way. Additional hardcover of about 1% is proposed in the submitted calculations in the patio and deck area but no specifics are provided and will need clarification. Mrs. Jundt said restoration was only planned at this time, no additions. Smith asked if there were improvements to the grotto. Gaffron said the changes were cosmetic only. 8 f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 (#4 - #2159 James and Joann Jundt - Continued) McMillan asked if there would be changes to the vegetation. Jundt said the plans call for trimming only. Gafiron said the code normally asks for a staircase to come straight down in order to keep the hardcover to a minimum. The stairs now angle down across the slope and are partially hidden by vegetation. Smith noted that the number of staircases was previously reviewed. It was determined that if the property was broken down into parcels that the number of stairways would be acceptable. Hawn commented on the uniqueness of the property and the fact that only restoration was being performed, not new improvements. Hawn said she spoke with the gardener who said he used the far stairways alot in his work and the restoration would increase the safety. Hawn said she had no problem with the restoration. Jundt said it was their intent to return the property to what it once was and not change it. She said she had questioned whether the boathouse should be restored and was informed that it should be as it has historically value. She informed Mabusth when questioned that additional damage could occur if the repair was not made. Mabusth said, although the cost of repair may exceed 50% of value, she would be inclined to allow the repair because of the uniqueness. Stoddard asked how the valuation was determined. Gaffron said the assessor's value was usually taken from 1975 records. However, no value was established for this building in the records. A value for a comparable building of its size could possibly be used. Lindquist asked whether the Commission was including the boathouse or not in this application. Mabusth said there was a need to allow the structural repair to the roof, but the applicant would have to come back with more information on the foundation. Lindquist said he would need more information before he could vote on the issue and asked for an estimate. Mrs. Jundt said she thought it would be okay to repair the structure. Gaffron said it was a matter or defining whether and to what extent structural repair actually is needed. Gaffron said he would want the building inspector to look at the structure if the boathouse was included in the application. Lindquist said the Commission would only look at the sidewalk, retaining walls, and grotto, and would not include the boathouse in this approval. There were no public comments. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16,1996(#4 - #2159 James and Joann Jundt - Continued) the grotto, "“'"'•it «ntodel to Staffregarding the boathouse, ' “PP“'ant work with Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. vIw1nce?“bu? ' The Affidavit of PubUcatioe aod Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. area for conaiucfion'o7a'’l 2^’|™ S on tht^T'd “I®" ”-250' setback aggregate patio. A previous deck was placed in'a la*™* °r Placed over the deck will be smaller in size. There will be no reHi.rt' **• °®*P""*’ *"•* tit® replacement 75-250' setback area at 55%. “'® P^'^ting hardcover within The applicant said he began to repair the deck, and it fell down. «^ewS Satotd re,I;,“^ “■' P°“«>iUty of a garage. Staff with the topography to the ““y8« >>®yond the residence and 17' to ffie right-^w^ Z'"p^p »f <he stoop using part of the stmctureTor the garage Ro^. IdT “'^"’p'^“"8 P°rch for possibly there would only be room for a onistdl gmane serve as back out area. ® ® ^ nght-of-way would continue to The homes are within*the toy? oTthTpropI^^^^^ h* neighbors regarding gaining a private drive ^om the where no hardcover issue 4uld be involved. ^ ^ ^ required. M^busth saidTh^tlJ^jogr^^^^^ Tf the^^^ where only an easement would be possibility. Spy the area would probably eliminate that ! ; 1 - ^ tI " 8 i-i* 3 ■t ■ m (/) -H m o 2: gorn S ' ^ ocxo o:o gt^O m 5 QCO iS2 m =3 Co X 5 CD OO O ^ "D:d iomo m :>tn § OJ m X CO-H zo <1^ * OIIoo o%»oo ____________________”n “OCO CD O > COm o::do o X)m m X (/) nij Xo 0> *DtO OZ > 5T =qoo \ COUNCIL MEl • uMQ OCT 2 7 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CriYOFORONO DATE: October 23, 1997 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffixm Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2301 Gerald McCourtney, 1055 West Femdale Road - Variances Resolution Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre, sewered. Application: Request for variances for landscaping within the right-of-way of Ferndale Road, expansion of driveway apron in right-of-way, and construction of a gate access within 75 of the lakeshore and in the right-of-way. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/21/97 C - 10/18/97 Letter from Applicant D - Memo and Exhibits of 10/17/97 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of October 17. Briefly, applicant proposes to make a number of improvements along the right-of-way Femdale Road, including: Placement of an arborvitae hedge at a 15' setback from the paved roadway but still within the right-of-way of Femdale Road. Construction of a gated access to the yard at the east end of the property , such gate to be located 23’ from the paved roadway but still within the right-of-way of Femdale Road. Expansion of the east flare of the existing driveway by approximately 130 s.f. to match the opposite flare, and provide more direct access to the driveway from the east. This expansion is totally within the right-of-way of Femdale Road. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 October 23, 1997 Zoning File #2301 Planning Commission Recommendation At their October 20 meeting. Planning Commission recommended approval as proposed, finding that: The right-of-way of West Femdale Road is unusually wide because it was formerly a County Road, and placement of an arborvitae hedge 15' from the paved traveled roadway will have no impact on traffic safety or road maintenance. The approval for an arborvitae hedge 15 ’ from the paved traveled roadway is similar in character to a fence recently approved for the adjacent property to the east which was required to be located 15' from the paved traveled roadway. Construction of a gate to provide yard maintenance access to the property, with such gate located within the right-of-way but 23' from the paved traveled roadway, is appropriate as long as there is no paving, gravel, or other hard surface associated with it. Although the applicant's existing driveway apron is 40' in width where City code would normally allow only a 20' width apron, the existing apron was approved by prior Council action. Planning Commission finds that the proposed 130 s.f. expansion does not impact safety or maintenance of Femdale Road, and that the additional 130 s.f. of hardcover is more than offset by applicant's prior removal of approximately 1,373 s.f. of hardcover by the recent removal of the pre-existing Skarp residence and driveway, sidewalks, etc. (see Exliibit C). The two tax parcels must be legally combined. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation subject to an additional condition that applicant execute a hold harmless agreement for the gate and plantings within the right-of- way. A resolution reflecting the Planning Commission and staff recommendation is attached for Council consideration. Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 October 23. 1997 Zoning File #2301 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached resolution. Proposed Motion: Moved by adopt Resolution No. , granting variances to Gerald McCourtney of 1055 West Femdale , seconded by , to Road for placement of an arborvitae hedge, construction of a gateway, and expansion of driveway apron within the right-of-way of West Femdale Road. Vote: ____ayes, nays. Note; The easterly portion of this property is part of the McCourtney/Brooks subdivision of the Skarp property, which has been conceptually approved by the Council but for which no final Council approval has been granted. Such approval will not proceed until the Court has reached its conclusions on the ownership of the 20' parcel at the east end of the Brooks half of the Skarp property. Therefore, applicant cannot fulfill the condition of legal combination at this time, and Council is requested to direct staff whether permits should be issued for the gate construction or driveway apron expansion. The arborvitae plantings should be allowed to commence immediately if approved due to weather conditions. Delay of the remaining projects may be an inconvenience to the applicant, hence staff is requesting Council direction as to how to proceed. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 2, 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C & L), AND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 6.05, 6.07, AND 6.09 FILE #2301 WHEREAS, Gerald McCourtney (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1055 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 for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2, 10.55, Subdivision 8, and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C & L) to increase hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed, and to place a gateway structure within 75' of the lake where no structure or fence is normally allowed; and is requesting permission per Municipal Code Section 6.05, Subdivision 9 to expand the width of an approach for the existing driveway which already exceeds the 20' approach width limitation; and is requesting a permit per Municipal Code Sections 6.07 and 6.09 for construction of a gateway and planting of trees within the right-of-way of West Femdale Road. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2301. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of7 !: t 3. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 20, 1997, and recommended approval of the requested variances based upon the following findings: A.The 66’ right-of-way of West Femdale Road is unusually wide because it was formerly a County Road, and placement of an arborvitae hedge 15' from the paved traveled roadway will have no impact on traffic safety or road maintenance. B.The approval for an arborvitae hedge 15 ’ from the paved traveled roadway is similar in character to a fence recently approved for the adjacent property to the east which was required to be located 15' from the paved traveled roadway. C.Construction of a gate to provide yard maintenance access to the property, with such gate located within the right-of-way but 23' from the paved traveled roadway, is appropriate as long as there is no accompanying paving, gravel, or other hard surface associated with the gateway. D.Although applicant's existing driveway apron is 40’ in width where City code would normally allow only a 20’ wide apron, the existing apron was approved by prior Council action. The proposed 130 s.f. expansion does not impact safety or maintenance of Femdale Road. The additional 130 s.f. of hardcover is more than offset by applicant's prior removal of approximately 1,373 s.f. of hardcover by the recent removal of the pre-existing Skarp residence, driveway, sidewalks, and related hardcover. E.The two tax parcels must be legally combined in order that the improvements are on the same lot as the principal structure. 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. Page 2 of7 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 one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2, 10.55, Subdivision 8, and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C & L) to increase hardcover in the 75-250’ zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed, and to place a gateway structure within 75' of the lake where no structure or fence is normally allowed; and grants permission per Municipal Code Sections 6.05, Subdivision 9 to expand the width of an approach for the existing driveway which already exceeds the 20' approach width limitation; and grants a permit per Municipal Code Sections 6.07 and 6.09 for construction of a gateway and planting of trees within the right-of-way of West Femdale Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The only additional hardcover approved with the variance approval is 130 s.f. of expanded driveway apron within the right-of-way of West Femdale Road, as well as the gateway stmcture at the east end of the property which shall have hardcover impact of less than 10 s.f. Applicant is advised that any future requests for hardcover on the property or within the adjacent right-of-way will require a new application and further review and approval by the City. 2. The arborvitae hedge shall be planted on a centerline at least 15' from the paved portion of Femdale Road. The proposed gateway shall be constructed 23 ’ from the paved roadway as proposed. The approaches to said gateway shall remain in a non-hardcover grass surface. 3. Applicant shall legally combine all tax parcels which comprise the property. Page 3 of 7 rw- 4. 5. 6. 7. ATTEST: Applicant shall execute a hold harmless agreement with regards to improvements allowed within the right-of-way per this approval. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 27, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall coniititute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of October, 1997. 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 27th day of October, 1997, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk ol ‘.he City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 7 r “F':^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared ____________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. i NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared____________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC . - ’•! Page 5 of 7 tfrfi'ariiiinT^i atiiniiMii r ;'V- CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2301 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 21,1997 TO: Gerald McCourtney 1055 West Femdale Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances DATE OF MEETING: October 20,1997 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1 . Approval of driveway flare expansion as proposed, 2. Approval of hedge at 15' setback from pavement as proposed. 3. Approval of gate at east end as proposed subject to no hardcover allowed in the approach (keep the approach in grass). 4. Lots must be combined. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, October 27, 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. X:\APPS\WPWlN60\WP[XX:S\CAROLE\PCACnON\2301 , ; 4 Cl 103-06-16 01:53 FAX 6124761720 CityofOrono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Attn: MikeGaflron 10-18-97 Dear Mike, This data is luppHed to ausment the data pack coocemng plaoniog commission acdon hem tl230 (tUat is to be discussed 0010-20-97. 1) During riie demolitioii process the following hardcover areas were removed from the property at Femdale Road West; a) 24.3 X 24.3 house 590 sq. ft b) 4.7 X 22 0 porch 103 “ “ c) 10x12 storage shed 120 “ “ d) 12x25 driveway 300 “ “ e) 1.5x30 retainiiigwall 45 “ “ 0 3 X 26 concrete sidewalk 78 “ “ g) 5x5 concrete steps 25 “ “ h) 8x14 concrete gange floor 112 ** “ total hardcover removed 1373 sq. ft. 2) Demolition permit for 1045 Femdale Rd. isstued on 7-14-97 (#009170) Work completed and approved on 8-20-97 (B. Vang) 3) Tree removal permit for 1045 Femdale Rd. issued on 7-16-97 (#009179) Work completed and approved on 9-26-97 (B. Vang) 4) Permit issued for removal of 36 “ cottonwood located at 1055 Femdale Rd. issued oo 8-14-97 (# Work completed and approved on 9-27-97 (B. Vang) iS]I.M.l2 045 K)9298) r H I 03'06'16 01:53 FAX 6124761720 City ofOrooo POB0X66 CrysialBay.Mn. 55323 ATTN: Bruce Vaog 7-16-97 Re: Request to remove trees/removal permit Dear Bruce;, ®003 The fonowiag is as we discussed during our on she meetiqg at 1045 West Femdale Road. I am reqf ^>proval to remove or rdocate most of the trees currently on the property. These removals are a razing the existii^ bouse, foundation removal, locating and removing a septic tank and removal of« coQcrete/block retaining wall and concrete steps. $ev-eral other trees are dead, wind/notm damaget, and overgrown or affected by prior years’ ice damage. A couple of the healthy trees will be relocatep property. •Otl»>5 tction of old on the The property vdll be replanted with 20-30 arborvitae T-9* tall; 3-4 clun^ river birch 2”-4'* diamett r, in die low area close to the lake shore; 3-6 ash, maple or oak 2-4” diameter and a selection of evergreens. The demolition process will necessarily include some leveling and moving of dirt,however tUs will Ije nunimired and a rih fence will be in place. Upon completion of this 6rst phase a more complete landscaping plan will be submitted. Tbank you for your assistance. Gerry McCourtney 1055 WFeradale Road Orono; Mn 55391 476-1720 C ; A /OTO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator October 17, 1997 SUBJECT: #2301 Gerald McCourtney, 1055 West Femdale Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre, sewered, Application: Request for variances for landscaping within the right-of-way of Femdale Road, expa^ion of ^veway apron in right-of-way, and construction of a gate access within 75' of the lakeshore and in the right-of-way. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Topographic Map F - Revegetation/Landscaping Plan and Staff Comments from 8/20/97 G - Tree Removal Permit H - Prior Fence Approval Resolution and Site Plan Pertinent Code Sections 1.10.22, Subd. 2/10.55, Subd. 8/10.56, Subd. 16(C & L): No hardcover or stmeture allowed within 75' of the lake. 2. 3. 6.05, Subd. 9: Residential driveway and approach standards - approach limited to 20' width. 6.09: Regulation of grass, weeds and trees in streets - permit required for planting trees streets. 4. 6.07: Obstmetions in streets and private roads - permit required for obstructions such as retaining walls, fences, etc. in right-of-way. Zoning File #2301 October 17, 1997 Page 2 Review of Proposal In 1989-90 applicant did major ren.odeling to the existing residence. Hardcover variances were granted at that time, and a graveled shoulder in front of applicant's residence was required to be removed. As part of that remodeling, applicant planted arborvitae approximately 10’ from the paved road. Applicant was also approved for a 6' high fence along the street lot line where only a 3 1/2' high fence would normally be allowed. That fence was required to be within the property boundaries. *' j Applicant has recently acquired a portion of the adjacent Skarp property and has removed the existing residence from that property. As part of the house demolition applicant regraded the site (with staff approval) which involved the removal of certain distressed trees (including a 36" willow for which a separate removal permit was issued) and the temporary removal of others. A tree replacement plan has been provided which is acceptable to staff. Applicant proposes to continue the arborvitae eastward from his driveway at a 15' setback from the paved road but still within the right- of-way. Further, he proposes to expand the driveway apron within the right-of-way approximately 130 s.f., flaring it out to the east for easier approach to the site and to match the opposite side of the driveway. Finally, he proposes to construct a gate within the right-of-way but approximately 23' from the paved road, for access for yard maintenance. Placernent of trees or shrubs in the right-of-way, and expansion of the driveway approach is pnmanly under the pur view of Municipal Code Chapter 6 regarding streets and private roads, and IS not normally subject to Planning Commission review. However, the driveway expansion involves additional hardcover serving the property over and above the allowed hardcover limits, and the proposed gateway at the east end of the property definitely is a zoning code matter since it is functionally a fence structure located within 75' of the lake. Staff is approaching this comprehensive request from the standpoint that the driveway approach and gateway are zoning variances, and the request for placement of trees 15' from the paved roadway but within the right-of-way will require Council action. On October 13th the City Council on a vote of 3-2 allowed the adjacent owner of the east half of the Skarp prof^rty, Conley Brooks, Jr., to replace the existing dilapidated fence with a 3 1/2' high fence located 15' from the paved roadway, which is still within the right-of-way. Staff interprets this as suggesting that screening plantings should also be no closer than 15' from the right-of-way for the McCo^ney property. We are advised since that action that Brooks is now also planning to plant arborvitae at a 15' setback from the pavement and eliminate the fence altogether. Hardship Statement Please review the applicant's brief hardship statement on the application form. He notes that the I"' - Zoning File #2301 October 17,1997 Page 3 unusually wide 66' right-of-way is a factor in the request, and that a gate is needed to limit access from the road to the lakeshore while still allowing such access. The plantijigs within the road right- of-way are intended by applicant to limit the parking and trespass and to provide privacy from the road. Discussion A. B. C. Gate Access in 0-75' Zone: This gate is proposed within the right-of-way (not in the property as shown on the survey) but at a location within 75’ of the lake and 23' from the pavement. The location of the gate is about 100' east of the existing driveway. The gate is intended to provide access to the property while limiting the potential for trespassing. As noted on the survey, the gate will be metal with brick posts (pillars) at either end, likely similar to the fencework near the house. Does Planning Commission wish to see any greater detail on the gate £q)pearance or construction? Does Planning Commission have any concerns about the nature of the entrance? No paving is proposed, which staff assumes means also that no gravel will be added, and this will serve only as an occasional access... Proposed Driveway Expansion: The current driveway layout was a reflection of the setback and layout of the previous easterly lot line. Because applicant's residence is so near the street lot line (average distance from garage to street lot line is 25' where the standard in this zone would normally be 50') that additional parking was allowed to be created by expanding the driveway area when the house was remodeled per variance approvals in 1989-90. Expansion of the proposed driveway apron will have the impact of increasing hardcover to the extent of 130 s.f, which is an increase in 75-250' hardcover of approximately 0.8%. Applicant has noted to staff that given that the Skarp residence has been removed, along with the gravel driveway that previously existed to serve that house, the addition of this driveway apron is insignificant from a hardcover perspective. The overall result once the additional property is factored in, is a net hardcover reduction in the 0-75’ and 75-250' zones. The driveway apron width at the property line will not change, but the flare of the driveway will expand to create better access to the property from the east. Does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding this additional approach pavement? Is the hardcover tradeoff (removal of Skarp house, etc.) acceptable? Proposed Arborvitae Hedge in Right-of-way: Applicant has noted that the traveled portion of Femdale Road is quite distant from the property line east of the existing driveway. In fact, that separation ranges from 20'-35', averaging approximately 25'. It is true that Femdale Road was formerly a County Road and therefore has 66' of right-of-way at this location. For a neighborhood street, the City would only require 50' right-of-way if this was being platted Zoning File #2301 October 17,1997 Page 4 under today's development standards. Because Council just approved a 3 1/2' fence within the right-of-way on the property immediately to the east at a location 15' from the paved roadway, it would seem reasonable to staff that the proposed arborvitae hedge on this property also meet that 15' setback standard. Applicant also proposes arborvitae along the east lot line to the lakeshore, which does not require a variance and which appears to be acceptable to Brooks. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the hedge at its staked location 15' from the paved roadway. Staff recommends approval of the metal gate on brick posts subject to no paving or graveling of the i^proach to that gate. Regarding the proposed driveway apron expansion, staff perceives the existing driveway as too wide, but it was ^proved by Council at this width with the approvals for remodeling of the existing house. The expansion will tend to make the perceived width even wider, although the actual width at the right-of-way line does not change. A tradeoff would be to suggest that applicant narrow the driveway before adding the new flare, but off-street parking would be lost and replacement parking could only then be in the area directly to the east of the existing house, which would place more hardcover nearer the lake. The proposed driveway expansion may be appropriate in this context, and will not create an unsafe situation. Options for Action Planning Commission should separately address the three issues of the proposed gate in the right-of- way within the 0-75' zone; the proposed driveway expansion; and the proposed plantings within the right-of-way. Planning Commission should recommend approval, conditional approval, or denial. If additional information is needed, tabling would be appropriate. This item will be placed on Council's October 27 agenda at the applicant's request. I ( • \* r • •• . \ h Application # p<20/ Date Received ^ / 5? 7 Amount Paid /I CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) V'. % ^ 4 •4 .-y • ^ JL. 4. I 8 >% Cl PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress IV 3R Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) //v- oqjl^ //!• Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired___________________________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District:_^_____________________________ APPLICANT Name /W<i. ^«gccy/" Address: ia/ City: <£Xe>/o^ Phone (home ) </~ /72.a Phone (work)_______________ Zip: i’'S"s91 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ooq ^ Describe request in detail: eryt - Cjlg/g - '2>n'^9\/yay /A/c/V3a<‘/ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage y Setback: jr Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) c A HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: us a. //y wv/ He jg/ .g r & y's /-/fg yifor^h ______ /~e ^<:yc.^ss: /'ojt/ _______ Ar/i^S /4> A/oi/- ^/ic/ /<7^^ <g<fggja <3fJUc/ /(attach additional sheets if necessary) r REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the fftllowing information must be submitted bv the aPPUtatlon dtadllDC dftt? Ifl order for vour application to be considered complete 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVz x 11 for reproduction. ... Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in exis^g grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A x 11 for repr^uction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yflur variance flnniicfltion is not complete if the above mformatioh has not bwn imltidfid* APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE u u v The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Administrator, agrees to r v 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 correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date 9-yy-^'l OWNER’S SIGNATURE . The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authonzes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature 7?^. Date ^-^7-9 7 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Pl^ng 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 Plannmg Commbsion and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meetmg, p ease make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Bui mg & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ■V) lEST Ci^ OF '.OT 13 NOflTM SMOF£ Cnn*C£ ACRiS ACCCROING TO RECCSO PlAI GOVT LOT 2 country au PART OF LOT GOV I ---------------------------- i 4 _____COtiMljWCATlONSJiEPl^Pjj^*^}^mtieiMAL-"T* IFffi'THg r*;.jJr *»• ■•<■'■''AV- ’.' >•■ • Mi o*t( tvir/iT •UC*i COI rmr *oei 0i«a >•*>* itxrtTiD IWff/'tOO* rtOf Moa (Mitt H*Ht imruia lUiit/Moa r»or UM MO lUM TjjiPtvia NMC/ABOt Koa ISO* M«a HMC ItVMTIt IMM/IOM » »*-U7 ?l *1 «c».’ , •i«i« itaiimi «u u / UMioaicir ins! tm COOOBICH ia»> ' Itu u fimrtit *:> tUtZAIt it< M 12-llf-ll *i toa iiinitM'i t<5 i ivrrim i»nn'» »iu'ii I<^•:f;■t8l1 UIH05 list ii c: ii* M -1 c: cio{p 50 l.lll\ H j/ii'P » um\^» *vr tc .s BO ttl 3^ 0? IW M 43 0:54 t i ui t4VH CK »i ICa^'I lQ/3 u P? P.H/AU tfl 'MU “9 M ft-117* lllfiriil 00 Mi ■ ii»ost0OH • |CH4>0 i IIIOSIBCVI ItiS Mlhi0>O4il 00 M4II4U )d 17*Xll-ll 41 t074 %lj4S ri^c4u po H MinUT It/640P 1 V40I* IMVlh^Bl04lt PIi MAt/4tl ssi^ - ti ’ -,.. JW- . 3*. er-ii7*73 41 £o:r cirsv iiBir‘411 BO y tiPiio I K-IOIW1NH n 41 uwtiO I K U4^1ia » less w iiVit Avi 0:^0 l« fl. m SS34I ?m *i I A »i M cei C90IC P!ir**i »4». ritis^ai 14.1 I r: 11: :i A3 c:;« UtV. '!.M l»-.' 1 It 41 iri‘ !•.•• r^*»l 1: ;• k 11«>*.:>41I I 0 k.il.**t4 !•! “.3a| »i 1. 11/ :3 43 c;:* •% |. . pIW I J n H*JE I* ./.M »M y«t:i « B ! 1/ K. 0 U » iN* ii I Bl» 3^ c: \\r :3 43 b:m rlu • I:Bir41 1 w:t •. p I » IU\ ttl »MH|V|i.*l 9^ »i. i: .s k np»t i.t cv Ui«.*4i4 *8! 4 ‘*14l Jajvi ^ #1465 I Ifi'lIM t*‘4t till l4M!i nfHitV, •»! Ul’VtUMlAt.L^i 0» l»Jl‘/f4tlt## 4S m ihi ki'SiM in o'i’ibimiut ri hf 4»o tuiif. 'f' *. I . oiti u ; - I 4. . • t’ : . I 4i» ; *• I'l; Bii t.» ivt ! I • 14 - •» : 4. U* IM I » M » J6»>^ i/^ersr » t 11 *i • ) r / \ ■| "3 ' i J f D ' V %V '5 K«1 nSBIi^ vio°of >«; '#1 \\\ v^ illiii''■ mi I F . " - AJoacM^uooooo*'ioo«j - •>•• >» ir D;>wr^OoccpJ3uuu3;>'>o po>> •- * •>J^y *.‘dV I f^e‘FiAMTUi(s> ?sssssss^^se£i^ss^ptAAJ f<»)C .t *■i* » I a:- ..r z*' •'-’ituS^ ■ T'" 1 [a). s I ♦ City of Orono TELECOPY COVER LETTER Please deliver the following page(s) to: Name:Gerald McCourtney From:Mike Gaffron Total number of pages including this cover letter: 1 Date:August 20,1997 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PACES. PLEASE CALL US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Phone: (612)473-7357 and ask for: Mike Our fax number is: (612)473-0510 Your proposed plans will require a number of variances, and some of these are not likely to be granted, so you should expect to make some changes to the plans. Items you will need to submit include the following: Variance application completed including hardship statement, plus the required plat map and property owners list from the County. Survey with the following information: - Entire property including all existing buildings and heirdcover - 929.4' shoreline contour and 75' setback line - Proposed structure locations and proposed setbacks Existing and proposd hardcover calculations 2. 3. Things on your plan that appear problematic: 1. You probably won't be granted a variance for a shed or gazebo within 75' of the lake, nor less than 10' from the street lot line. The gate will have to be on your property and needs a variance because it will probably be less than 75' from the lake. City code only allows a 20' wide driveway entrance at the lot line; yours is already 40' according to your plan and its unlikely the City will allow it to get wider. Most of the plantings your plan shows along the road are in the right-of-way and need to be pulled back out of it. You must show any grading you will be doing, especially in the 0-75' zone to accommodate sodding, etc.; any significant grading needs a Conditional Use Permit. 4. 5. ..i # Total Fee: $ Entered By: 1>0 .c-c Date Received:_____ Permit^: F CITY OF ORONO - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION AH information must be submitted in full before plan review will be started. (please print all information) THE APPLICANT IS: (circle one) (^WN^)oR CONTRACTOR JOB SITE ADDRESS: /V ZIP: 3 T / NAME OF OWNER: ///c r4f.\(7y V MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE: Oiome) (work) z^l/A CITY: rc> ZIP: CONTRACTOR: <?^/V __________PHONE:__________ CONTACT PERSON: /X/es MOBILE/PAGER:__________ MAILING ADDRESS:______________________CITY:____________ZIP: STATE LICENSE: »_________ ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: mailing ADDRESS:___ NAME: _____________ PHONE: CITY:_________ REGISTRATION # ZIP: r TYPE OF WORK: New Move Addition Accessory Structure Remodel/Alteration Land Alteration A" PROPOSED WORK (describe in detail): /^<z v<2 (0 3^"*“ STORIES:________ NO. OF BEDROOMS: SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR: GARAGE STALLS: ATT.DET. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): $ I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the information above is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City and with the State Building Code; that I understand this is not a perm*^ zzd work is not to start without a permit; and that the work will be in accor^ce with the ap^ved plan. DATE:APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE;7 NOTE! Parade of Homes events require separate permit approval by Police Department and City Council 60 days prior to the event. Non-permitted events mil not be allowed. Q^y., City of OROINO H RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2824 OHOota^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION lO.OSr SUBDIVISION 15 (C)» SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 PILE #1465 WHEREAS, Gerald T. McCourtney (hereinafter is the owner of property located at 1055 West Ferndale Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as folio s. Exhibit A, attached, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 where construction of ^ 6- high fence along the street lot «here maximum fence height of 3 1/2' is normally allowed, and a Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow hardcover on the excess of the amounts normally allowed, and ^ 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 10.55, Subdivision 8, to alio where "lo of a terrace patio area in the 0-75' la)ceshore setbac)c zone where * structure or hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1465. 2. The property is located in the LR“1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. variances based upon the following findings. The applicant received 3 separate approvals orA) Tne applicant -> - - - 1 e hardcover increases in 1987 and 1988, resulting in approvals for 369 square feet additional hardcover over and above tnat which existed in 1987 and prior years. Page 1 of 7 OE^ aRQNC^ City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. B) The most recent hardcover approval granted on November 28, 1988 per Resolution #2546, allowed no net hardcover increase from previous approvals but allowed applicant to trade off portions of driveway and sidewalk for other specific additions. C) In 1989 during the remodeling process, applicant removed the circular deck on the lake side of the house for convenience of construction. The applicant was unaware that removal of that deck would require a variance to reconstruct or replace it, because it encroached into the 0“75' lakeshore setback zone. D) In the current application, applicant proposes the following improvements: 1) Construction of a loop driveway within the property boundaries, constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. 2) Replacement of the formerly existing circular deck, with a slightly smaller hardcovered terrace area, encroaching into the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. 3) Construction of sidewalks constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. 4) * Construction of a 6' high fence along the street lot line, exceeding the 3 1/2' height normally allowed at that location, and constituting approximately 35 square feet of additional hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. 5) Construction of retaining walls along the west end of the house to accomodate grade changes previously approved in that area, for an additional 68 square feet of hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. • E) The proposed improvements would result in a net decrease in hardcover in the 0-75' zone from 2.9% (associated with the formerly existing circular deck) down to 2.6% with the proposed terrace. No hardcover is normally allowed in the 0-75' zone. Page 2 of 7 -Qpr QRaNCt City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ F) The proposed improvements would increase hardcover in the 75-250' zone from the approximately 38.2% hardcover allowed in past approvals up to 43.9%. Only 25% hardcover is normally allowed in the 75-250' zone. G) The Planning Commission on November 20, 1989 recommended approval of the 6' fence, finding that it replaces a pre-existing 6' high stockade fence in the same location. The proposed fence will be within the property boundaries. H) The Planning Commission at their June 18, 1990 meeting recommended denial of the excess hardcover in the 75-250' zone associated with the loop driveway, finding that the excessive hardcover associated with such a driveway is more of a concern than the possible safety and parking issues suggested by applicant as justification. I) At that same meeting, Planning Commission recommended that the applicant be held to the previously approved hardcover (calculated by staff at 2.9% in the 0-75' zone and 38.2% in the 75-250' zone). Planning Commission recommended that applicant revise his terrace, sidewalk, and driveway proposals as necessary to accomplish this. 4. The applicant has indicated a secondary proposal for sidewalks and driveway that retains and slightly expands the existing driveway and back-up apron, includes hardcover associated with terrace, sidewalks, fence pillars, and retaining walls with a hardcover increase in the 75-250' zone to approximately 41%. The City Council finds that the scope of these proposed improvements is in keeping with the character and size of the house, and the additional parking area will provide for greater safety. 5. The Council finds that the proposed terrace construction in the 0-75' zone, with the associated hardcover, will act merely to replace a pre-existing deck in approximately the same location, that the proposed terrace will be of less square footage and of greater setback from the lake than the previously existing deck, and that the applicant's intended temporary removal of the old circular deck was understandable since that deck as it existed had been previously approved, hence applicant should not be Page 3 of 7 r r I taFFanc^ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. penalized by denial of the ability to replace that deck with a terrace. 6. 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. 7. 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. L CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) to allow the proposed 6* high fence where only a 3 1/2' high fence is normally allowed, and grants variances to Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit construction of a terrace partially located in the 0-75' zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed, and to allow hardcover in the 75-250' zone at a level of 41%, subject to the following conditions; 1. Hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone shall be limited to 425 square feet (2.6%) per the site plan attached as Exhibit B. Any future proposed revisions to that plan which result in a greater encroachment of the lakeshore setback or increase hardcover above the approved limits, will not be approved. 2. In the 75-250* lakeshore setback zone, applicant shall limit hardcover to 6833 square feet or 41.0%. Applicant is advised that the only increase above this amount in the 75-250' zone would be by an equivalent reduction of the 425 s. f. of hardcover allowed in the 0-75' zone. Page 4 of 7 ■ * «’ • T* -*-T- X. rT''OE*^"t^ OFKINC& City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 28^---------------- "rtn#»n" character of the 6* high3. Any modifications to the op will require further approved fence along the street lot line, win Council review. . f i-he fence» sidewalks^ and terrace»4. Prior to construction of ^ J approval a hardcover applicant shall provide ^ location of sidewalks, plan indicating the final ^ny proposed hardcover bvl!; t^lSaln^hlrrcSvI; art^=^‘aM /er/entages. 5. Authorities 9«hted ^^^^^“ermilsive ''o’'nly*'and'’™ul"bo not with the applicant, but a j nf»rmit within one year of exercised by application for a ‘’“i^"j^^„ariance will expire on the date of Council approval, or tnis that date (July 9, 1991). 6. Violation of or g^^^ute^ a *v^io\^tion of the l9S(d. I : \lATTEST: Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of July, Dorotl 171_______ './Hailin', City Clerks'Jam^s R. GrabeK,^sftayoi: \ Page 5 of 7 crndale Road West Minnesota I ‘rt -.-rrtwVrc^^ . A,: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: COUNCIL MEETINQ OCT 2 7 1997 cmroFORONO 10/21/97 r ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2303-Angela Woodhouse 2625 North Shore Drive Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA One Family I^keshore Residential District (2 acres) Lot Area:92,060 s.f. (2.11 acres) Application: The applicant is requesting a renewal of expired variances allowing additions to the existing residence which includes an entry structure and bay window as well as additional steps and pavement. Requested variances include lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and haidcover in the 0 ’ to 75’ lakeshore setback. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Conunission recommended by a 6 to 0 vote to: 1. Approve lakeshore setback variances of 33 ’ and 35.4 ’ to allow setbacks of 42’ and 39.6 ’ where 75’ is required and 27’ is existing for the west addition and bay addition, respectively. Approve an average lakeshore setback variance allowing encroachments of 21' and 23’ where none is allowed and 20' is existing for the west addition and bay addition, respectively. 2. 3. Approve a hardcover variance of 20.1 % in the 0 ’ to 75’ lakeshore setback where none is allowed and 20.3% exists. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. EETINQ 1997 ^ONO A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1(A AND B) AND 2, FILE NO. #2303 WHEREAS, Angela Woodhouse (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2625 North Arm Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: see Exhibit A for the legal description of the property (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1(A and B) and 2 to permit the construction of an attached garage and additional living space addition to the rear of the existing residence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: lere FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2303. The property is located In the LR-IA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 92,060 s.f. or 2.11 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 20, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: 1. The application is a renewal of elapsed variances granted in 1996. 2. The entire house is located within the O' to 75' lakeshore Page 1 of 5 r i: setback. 3.The width of the lot and presence of vegetation will minimize negative visual impacts for the neighbors and from the lake. 4. The proposed hardcover variance would result in a decrease in hardcover. 4.The City Council frnds 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 a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1(A and B) and 2 to allow lakeshore setback variances of 33' and 35.4' to allow setbacks of 42' and 39.6' where 75' is required, average lakeshore setback variances allowing encroachments of 23' and 21' and a hardcover variance in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback of 20.1% to permit additions to the existing residence including an entry structure and bay window, as well as additional steps and pavement. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicants must remove the existing boathouse with deck near the lake prior to the construction of the new additions. 2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must Lc exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance Page 2 of 5 1 9^ will expire on that date (October 27, 1998). 3. misdemeanor. 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of tfiemselves, their “'‘I assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Cham of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 27th 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 27th day o October 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the ity of Ororio, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on beha oi the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 5 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 foregomg instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC 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 foregc ng instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 3 r Th4t p4Tt of Govemaent Lota 4 and 5. Section 9, Townahip 117, Ranfe 23. described aa coocencin# at the oocth quarUr corner of aald Section; thence on a bearina of South (the Morth line of the Mortheaat quarter of said Section beina nsaaied to have a bearina of North 08 deareea 51 ninutes West for purposea of this description) a distance of 2870.55 feet; thence South 70 de­ grees 37 ainatea 31 seconds East a distance of 838.42 feet; thence South 67 degrees 19 ainutea 23 seconds last a distance of 266.25 feet; thence South 59 degrees 05 ainutea 30 seconds East a distance of 300.(X) feet to the point of begtenina of the property beina described; thence continuing South 59 degrees 05 ainutes 30 seconds last a distance of 159.15 feet: thence South 26 degree^ 36 almitea West to the shore o* Lake ninnetonh?: tnenc« Northueacerly along said shore to its Uwarsratlon aith a line drawn South 32 degrees 16 ainutes 30 seconds West froa the point of beginning; thence North 32 degrees 16 ainutes 30 sec­ onds East to the point of beginning, according to the Govemaent survey thereof, and That part of GovemaeBt Lot 4. Section 9. Township 117, ftai^ 23. described as follows: <>»aenclng at the North quarter comer of said Section; thence on a bearins of South (the North line of the Northeast quarter of said Saction be lag sggiMd to have a baaring of North 88 degreea 51 ainutea West for furpoooa of thia deecription) a distance of 2878.55 feet; tibaaco Shiith 70 de­ gress 37 ainutes 31 seconds East a distance of 8^.42 feet; thence South 67 degrees 18 aimites 23 ascends last s disUsce of 266.25 feat to "Point A", said "Point A" being the point of beginning of the property being described, and also the point of beginning of "Line A"; thence South 32 degrees 16 ainutes 30 seconds West along "Line A" to a point on the shore of Lake Hionetonka. and aald "Line A* there ending; thence SoutheasUrly along said shore to a point 3(X).00 feet SoutheasUrly froa ^ aaid "Line A", said 3(X>.(X) feet being aeasured on a l^aring of South 59 degreea 05 ainutea 30 seconds East frea said "Line A**; thence North 32 degreee 16 ainutea 30 seconds East a distance of 37Q feet to an intersection with a llna dram South 59 degreea 05'ainutts 20 seconds East froa said "Point A"; thance North 59 degrees 05 ainutes 30 seconds West to said "Ibint A" st the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part of said above described property lying Nortbaegtarly of the following described line: Coaaeocing at eaid "Point A"; thence South 59 degreea 05 ainutea 30 seconds East a dUtanoe of 246.74 feet to the point of be­ ginning of the line being described; thence South 34 degrees 54 ainutes 30 seconds 9last tc the shore of Lake Hinnatonka. and there ending. r TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM; DATE; Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant October 9,1997 SUBJECT;#2303-Angela Woodhouse 2625 North Shore Drive Variances —Public Hearing ironing District; LR-1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Area:92,060 square feet (2.11 acres) Application; The applicant is requesting the renewal of an expired variance allowing additions to the existing residence including an entry structure and bay window, as well as additional steps and pavement. Variances are required for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. Pertinent Ordinances; Section 10.22,’Subd. 1(A): Lakeshore Setback Requirements Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B): Average Lakeshore Setback Requirements Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements U2303 Angela Woodhouse 2625 North Shore Drive Variances October 20.1997 Page 1 r¥ If... Li.> ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-1A District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 2 acres 200 ft.50 ft.30 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 2.11 acres 261 ft. at 75' setback 272 ft. at OHW 192.2 ft.55 ft.21 ft. The existing residence does not meet the required 75' lakeshore setback. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 92,060 s.f.3.007.6 s.f. (existing) 3.141.6 s.f (proposed) 3.3% 3.4% ; Structural coverage is not an issue with this application »2J03 Angfla H'oodhouse 2625 North Shore Drive Variances October 20. 1997 Page! .............. .* r y^ardcovet 1 [ Distance Total Area in 1 from Setback 1 Shoreline 0’-75'19,800 s.f. 1 75’-250'42,800 s.f. 250'-500’29,460 s.f. 9,687.9 s.f. (22.64%) 650 s.f. (2.21%) Allowed Hardcover none 10,700 s.f. (25%) 8,838 s.f. (30%) Proposed Hardcover 4.180.9 s.f. (21.1%) 9.687.9 s.f. (22.64%) 650 s.f. (2.21%) Variance Requested 4,180.9 s.f. (21.1%) none none A hardcover variance is required in d.e O’ to 75’ lakeshore setback. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP V, t for the aDP.:-nt ’s statement of hardship. The applicant See the application (Attachment A) for the app» ni should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. for Determining Ujiduaijaidship t Vv. n ,t to a reasonable use if used under conditions I The property in question cannot be p allowed bv *he official controls. additions. by the landowner. The residence was constructed almost entirely within mej to 75’ lakeshore setback prior m unem zU renulations regarding iakeshore setbacks. 3. to cum The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover wtll not change the character of the area. U2303 Angela ^oodhouse 2625 Sorth Shore Drive Variances October 20. 1997 Page 3 r 4. 5. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 6. 7. 8. 9. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A single fam.ily residence 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-fft'niiy dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Many of the residences within the area are located within the O' to 75' lakeshore setback as they were likely constructed prior to current zoning requirements. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The location of the residence on the subject property is typical of the general vicinity. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property righ» of the applicant. Without granting variances, it would not be possible to make improvements or additions 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. i^2303 Angela Woodhouse 2625 North Shore Drive Variances October 20, 1997 Page 4 jpw«' t 12. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. ^e gating of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the aonlica but IS necessaor to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ie«Lt«“® rO' h- '' lakeshore setbacknecessitating vanances for any additions. "^csnore seioacK, Much of the proposed hardcover will be located over existing hard Tv O’' P™P°«d additions,impact on lake views. cover. creating no adverse amounts on the previous hardcover worksheets submitted (Attachment H^dcover reductions which were to be undertaken as a provision of the previous resoluuon are not addressed in the latest hardcover calcuLons. STAFF recommendation ^230} Angela Woodhouse 2625 Sotth Shore Drive yariances October 20, 1997 Pages Staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback variance allow ing encroachment of 23’ and 21' for the bay addition and west addition, respectively. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance of 20.1%, the amount that was approved by the previous resolution. Staff recommends the boathouse with deck, now shown as 89.9 s.f. be removed prior to any new construction. The removal of the boathouse was a specific provision of the previous resolution. Staff recommends approval of the application for the renewal of variances subject to compliance with hardcover requirements set forth in the previous resolution. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Previous Survey-Showing Average Lakeshoie Setback Survey-Current Proposal Previous Resolution Hardcover Worksheets-Current Revision Hardcover Worksheets-Previous Application lt230J Angela Woodhouse 2625 North Shore Drive Variances October 20.1997 Pages ■ 'VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220 00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY information SiteAddress—2625 Worth Short* ______________ Propeiiy luemiticaiion Number (P.I.D.) Section j. r = AppUcaUon # 3 Date Received" Amount Paid * /JiO.eo 'T/ldLfLa. ^ ^/S"3 • 11; • *i V • 0 ^4 - • &----------------------------------CHJ ______ IJM (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Presentee of property; _x_residential other (specify) ZonmgDistnct: Orono .(month/year) APPLICANT Name Angela Woodhouse Address: 2625 North Shore D tIya OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Same City: Wayzata Phone (home) (6l2) 1*75-1^07 Phone (work) Zip: S5^Q1 Address:City:. Phone (home) Phone (work)_ s™......“<■ >. Zip; (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED -----Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage iE__Setback: x Front (Lakeshore) Side X Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HArasmP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS calculation vorksh;;^ ^ SF). ggg attached hard-- - - - - -n worxsneet. Thi« hardcoveiLanount Is proposed In H«>n --------KJ¥CU ¥aJX«^TlC6^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) Humber PlliP. ■ m >w ..-7*'- %• * : ‘ *. ; t. < * .*"• V >'" •r,-. I "«*» *>•»’ ? <':T. 2tt 41 •>f. •% ./-o‘ - • ?i'^?* •' i: :i^‘ »:'J rUyK^i '• * . •-* -*.^ V-' . . v< , jt^ • -•- i‘- : •• vK * a'^ v-/^ VAi / <■ < .- • • ^ ^** ^ o.*"* ''•••»<« •MINNETONIO^ M;>d ADDITION SHOWN HATCHEDAIR CONDITIONING UNITS (RELOCATED) (SEE MECH) ADDITION SHOWN HATCHED NEW CONCRETE STOOP 4 STEPS REMOVE WALK SHOWN DASHED EXISTING WALK NEW WALK SHOWN HATCHED -MATCH BXISITNG WALK SEE MECH FOR NEW ELECTRIC METER LOCATION REF. • NORTH THE CONTRACTOR AND S06-CONTRACTOR& . SHALL rlCLO measure AND VERIPY PtELO CONDITIONS shall CAREFULLY COMPARE SUCH FIELD measurements ANO CONDITIONS A Sin nTiJFR INFOwU 4 Ttnsi (P •►o 0« 0»o 0». (0 (D 0) 1 1 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S 7 4 0 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (A & B) AND 2 FILE NO. 2142 WHEREAS, Kirtland C. Woodhouse and Angela Woodhouse (hereinafter ”die applicants") are owners of the property located at 2625 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Refer to Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (A & B) and Subdivision 2 to permit construction of a 6' X 18' two story addition with a single story entry addition to be located 42' from the shoreline and a single story bay addition at the lakeside of the residence to be located 39.6' from the shoreline where a 75' setback is required, the west addition will encroach 21' to the lakeside of the average lakeshore setback line and the bay addition will encroach 23' where the Code would allow no encroachment, and a hardcover variance within the 0-75' setback area for new hardcover improvements resulting in 3,983.3 s.f or 20.1% total hardcover where 4,010 s.f. or 20.25% exists and where none is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2142. The property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 92,060 s.f. or 2.11 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 17, 1996 and recommended unanimous approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following unique findings and hardships; Page 1 of 5 ■ »» #i-« -A -.-SlTi* CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8740 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, Subdivisions 1 (A & B) and 2 to permit the construction of a two story addition that includes a single story entry addition and a single story bay addition and grants a lakeshore setback variance of 35.4' or 47.2%, ai» average lakeshore setback variance of 23' for the lakeside bay addition and 21' for the two story addition, and hardcover variance of 3,983.3 s.f or 20.1% within the 0-75' setback area. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 4. Upon application for a building permit, applicants shall provide to the City an updated survey locating all existing and approved additions. Applicants to obtain a demolition permit for the removal of the boathouse and deck within the lakeshore yard. 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 (July 8, 1997). 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. 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. Page 3 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 4 0 meeting held on the 8th Minnesota at a regular ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, Deputy Clerk m^ V IProp<•wneris Edward J. CaU^Tj^j^Sw STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 1996 by Edwarf •'T >»fo« “e on tUs 8th day of July. Orono, a Mumcioia m« a C"'* ** City ofCity. ^ xporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Jcarolem Ss^ jy tonmlsslon E«pifes Jai 3i ?nnn ff; Notary Public Page 4 of 5 i.HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEE c: ‘I I.'f■ */"vTU*^. -4 ANGELA WOODHOUSE 2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE DRSCRIPTION LENGTH WIDTH AREA DESCRIPTION AREA A HOUSE A.HOUSE - Existing House 2.848.0 - Existing House 2,848.0 - Delete Existing Entry Str.0.0 - Existing Entry’ Str.52.2 - Delete Existing Bay 0.0 - Existing Bay V.^indow 17.5 - Proposed Addition 17.8.3 6.25 1 11.4 - Proposed Entry Structure 5.75 7.00 40.3 - Proposed Bay Window 52.0 - Group Totals 3,051.7 - Group Totals 2,917.7 B.BOAT HOUSE & DECK STRUCTURE i2.40 7.25 89.9 B.BOAT HOUSE & DECK STRUCTURE 89.9 C.DRIVEWAY 170.0 C.DRIVEWAY 170.0 D.SIDEWALK & STEPS D.SIDEWALK & STEPS - Entry Steps &. Paving 0.0 • Entry Steps & Paving 50.0 - Other Steps & Paving 116.0 - Other Steps & Paving 116.0 • Proposed Entry Front Steps 6.00 3.00 18.0 - Proposed Entry Rear Steps 6.00 3.00 18.0 - Proposed Entry Paving - Group Totals , . .—r*i—- Group Totals 166.0 E.PATIO/DECK E.PATIO/DECK -Deck 65.0 -Deck 65.0 - Patio 453.0 - Patio 453.0 - Group Totals 518.0 - Group Totals 518.0 F.OTHER F.OTHER - AC Units 20.6 - AC Units 13.7 - Curbs, Retaining Walls 146.6 - Curbs, Retaining Walls 146.6 - Group i^otals 167.2 - Group Totals 160.3 T01PAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 4.180.9 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 4,021.9 NET INCR^.«SE IN HARDCOVER IN ZONE 159.0 . . _ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 19.800.0TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 19,800.0 PERCENTAGE 21.1 PERCENTAGE 20.3 l*RKPARi:0 BY: CBA, LTD. 1300 NICOLLET MALL. SUITE 3(M»2 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 SEPTEMBER 24,1997 Tvr .# Hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ( 0-75 75-250* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN TONP A. House______________X Length Width 250-500* 500-1000* . 2^17.7 S.F. - - /5. 7 S.F. *7 ^ < *? . JJ:~__; X X / ; S.F. S.F. B. sGarage C. Driveway TV ■' -V-' ne C., X /S.F. X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X / 6 6?S.F. S.F. E. Pado/Deck CL. • '-r • X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE '77^' 00 + B ^ 0 / ^ X 100 -0/0 S.F. S.F.zo.zr % / ■1 •• c. •c. ^ 7 ■J•<a f, A B A.House X St ' '"Z \£77Z S.F. Length Width X •Sl.o S.F. . A 2)^ r-nof< X s I'T?.. r*S.F. "cvr^’T:>^/^r* LCx!y 8 &S.F. ' AK-- C U NT^S n-~7 S.E B..^Gaease ^ ^ x 8 -?ri'0 S.F. C.Driveway X no.o S.F. '' X 8 S.F. D. \Mx Sidewalk A OO = 5Z>i^S.F. X 8 S.F. E.Patio/Deck X t=s las' .o *■ • S.F. c:>crrio x 8 H7i . O S.F. F.Landscape X 8 S.F. Underlain X B S.F. By Plastic X 8 S.F. G.Other X 8 S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ./‘t^OO S.F., A j y ^OO -i- B X 100 »■zo-rz % «T tu. U: . . •• W./ -< -• I request for council action DATE: ITEM NO. COUNCIL MEETING OCT 2 7 1997 CTTYOFORONO 10/21/97 DepartmeDt Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Descnption:#2304-Deborah Shell 4100 Watertown Road Variance-Public Hearing R r :Ia One Family Rural ResidenUal District p acres) Lot Area: ».326,837 s.f. (30.46 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing an attached garap and additioml living space addition to*e rear of the existing residence. A front setback variance is required. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 6 to 0 vote to: 1 Approve the request for a front setback variance of 5' to allow the ^Ld 95'from the edge of the street where lOO'is required and 55 isexisting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the proposed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.27, SUBDIVISION 5(B), FILE NO. #2304 WHEREAS, Deborah Shell (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 4100 Watertown Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: see Exhibit A for the legal desciiption of the property (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5(B) to permit the construction of an attached garage and additional living space addition to the rear of the existing residence. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2304. The property is located in the RR-IA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring five acres in area. The property consists of 1,326,837 s.f. or 30.46 acres. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 20, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings 1.The existing residence is located entirely within the required 100' front setback as measured from the edge of the street. Page 1 of 5 ■ 'I? 2. The proposed addition would not further encroach on the required front setback requirement. 3. Watertown Road is unplatted. The front property line follows the center line of the street. The existing residence is 86 ’ from the center of the street and 55' from the edge of the pavement. The required 100' front setback is measured from the edge of the street. 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 recommendation-s 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 a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5(B) to allow a front setback variance of 5' to permit the construction of an attached garage and living space to the rear of the existing residence located 95' from the edge of the street where 100 ’ is required and 55' is existing. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 27, 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 Page 2 of 5 terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3 The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms th” rlTution'and on behalf of themselves, dteir he'rs, sueee-^ assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution m the Cham of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 27th 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 October, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and ity er o J a MiLsota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public t Page 3 of 5 m. ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 ■................... pncMt «nr of.scnipriON Of Rccono as supplico by frank kokesh in isaa;'>n 4 0^ • ••I •• lk« I ! •« •! • U •••)• II ^ ^ ^ Ouarttr of mo NoftiOMt Ouvlor of Soclion 31. Township na Norm. Rsngo 23. Wosi of tfw Sm PrmdpN Moddlw M twi port of mo Eost Half of mo ooioh 27 SO acros oi mo woti Half of mo East HNf of mo ^forthoasi Ouortor lyoig norm of mo Wolortown Road Httrnhtd as; BogirwinQ al mo Normwosi comor of mo soum 7 SO acros of mo East Oiotflor of mo NorthaaM Ouortor of Saction 31; morKO Norm along mo East Ima of laal East Half of lha Soum 27 Sa,, thmncm Norm along mo East arw or said East Half of mo Soum 27 S y ®* ^ of mo East Half of m# Normaasi Ouarlar a d^ianca of 264.00 foal. moTKo Wool poraSal w«m mo north ano of iho SowJi IS9 acros of mo East Ouortor of mo ^hoast Ouartoramttoi^of iSSOOfoo: moncoSoutfiparaHol wimmooforomanlionod East imo lo iho contorSno of Waioriown Rood: morco Soulhoastorfy along said contortma to rs mtorsocnon Wy hno of mo south 7 SO acros of mo East Ouartor of mow . wnmumimm wan oio wosi ano or ino south 7 so acros of mo East Ouartor of mo Noriho^ Ouartor; monco Norm along said hno to iho point of boginning, accordirtg lo mo iinrtod Slalos Govommoni Survey thereof and situalod m Honnepm County. Minnosoia. II PARCEL 2: Tho West Ouorter of the Sot4h 310 of Ow Normoasi Ouartor of the Northoasi Ouartor. and mat part of mo Wosi Quarter of the Soumoast Quarter of mo NorthoasI Ouartor lying north of tho oomorlne of the MmnoapottsM Watertown Rood m Socilon 3t. Townshm 118. Rango23. i WCEPT. That part of Iho Wool ono-lourth of mo Soumoast Quarter of mo Northoast Ouartor. Socson 31. ToMiofsp 110. Range 23. doicrtbod as commonclrtg at mo •uorsoctwn of the coniersno of mo Watertown Road w4h a Nto 35 foot wool of. moasurod at right angliu. to and paralol wNh the east hno of taid West ono-lourth of mo Soumoast Ou^ of mo Northoaot Ouortor. monco Norm, paraiol wim sasi East Ino. a tfstaiKo of inieot. monco East, at nghi angles, a dtsiance of 3P fool lo tho poini of bogitmmg; moiKo Wost. at nght angles lo sa« East hno. a tSs’artco of 70 foot; monco Soum porNIsl ••tf East irto. lo mo oontorhno of saef road; Ihonca Soulhoaslerty along said coniorhno. to Iho East Ino. monco North, along said East Ino lo the poM of boglmng. accorthng lo mo Unrtod Slalos GovommonI Survey thereof M siluatad In Homopm County M«nr>oaota PARCEL 3 That part of Iho East Half of tho south 2f *50 acres of the West Half of iho East Had of mo Northeast Ouartor lying north of Iho l^nnoapohs and Wolortown Road descnbod as bogmnvtg at Iho Northwest corner of the soum 7.50 acros of Iho East Ouartor of Iho Northeast Quarter of Section 3t. TownsNp 118. Range 23; thonco North along the oast Ino of said East Half of mo south 27 SO acros of the Wost HNf of mo East Half of me Northoast Quarter a dNtanco of 264 00 foot lo the actual point of bogmrOng of land lo bo descnbod. Otonco conanuetg Norm along the oast hno of saal East Had of mo soum 27 so acros of dw Wost Had of mo East Had of mo Northeast Ouartor lo tio Northeast comer moroof; monco West along mo north hno of mo soum 27 JO acros lo tie West Ino of mo East Had of mo Northeast Quarter, thence Soumorty on me west hno of me East Had of tho Northoeet Ouorter of mo ceniortne ot the MmnoNMitt or^ Watertown Road; monco Soutioastorty along said conlortma lo as miorsoction wdh a Ino drawn 165.00 foot wost of mo wool mo ol mo soum 7 hO ocrot of Iho East Ouartor of fit Northoast Ouarlar. monco Norm paralol woh and 1C6 00 fool wool of mo wool Ina of said SAdh 7 SO acros. 61606 fool 10 a pood 165 00 fool west of mo actual poini of boginrmg; monco East 185.00 feat lo ma actual pood of bogmnrng. accoromg to mo Undod Statat Govorrvhoni Survey thoroof and situoiod in HorvKpm County. Mmnooota. PARCEL 4 That part of mo Wost one - lourm of (hn Scumesst Quarter of me Northeast Ouarter. Section 31. Township 118. Range 23. detamed at commencing at Iho miofsoclion of Iho contorfino of mo Walertown Rood \wtti o hno 35 foot wost of. meosuod Of nght angles lo. and paroM w«m Iho Esit hno ol West nno-lOurth of Iho Soulhoasf Ouartor of mo Northoast Quarter: thence North. pa-.iHel w4h said East me. a datnnce of 135 lout, ttience East, at nght angles, a disUirH.e nf 3. Xt uur puini ufHogeining: theiKe West, at nght angles lo sard East me. a du'r icr nl TO feat. Ihence Soum |WK*«iei with sanl East hne. to the caniertvw cf wrO roai. trance Southeaslarly, m>ng sad cemerhno. lo «aeJ East hne. Ihence North, along s&j F.m hne. to *he point of boghvdng. accordmg to the Urvted Slates Grwerrvrient Surve/ thereof, and situated hi Honnepm County. Mmnosou PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL *A* That part of tho soum 7 SO acres of mo East Ouarte< of Iho Northoast OuMr of Socbon 31. Township 118. Range 23. Hormopm County. Mnnosola. mat ha northorfy of tie csntorhno of Watertown Road. ANO Thai part of mo West Had of the East Had of the Northoat Ouartor of sM Section 31 dotaibod a lolowo; Bogmnmg at tho Norlhwosl comer of the soum 7 SO acra of tho East Ouartor of tho NorthoasI Ouarlar of said Section 31; monce north along tho oast hno of smj West Had of Iho East Had of Iho Northoai Ouartor a dtsianco of 264.00 fat; monco Wost paraSol with Iho soum line of Iho Northeast Ouarter of said Section 31. a fMlanro of 165 00 feel; thonco Soum paralol wim the out Ino of ^ West Hod of the East Had of mo Northeast Ouarter lo the cenlerhne of the WotJrtown Road, tienca Soumaasiarty along sam canlartme lo lha east hne of saKt West h of of me East Had of the Northoast Quarter. Ihence norm along said hno lo ina pomi or bogmivng HMOI*OSED DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL *0* That part 01 the soum 1081.46 loel of iho Wost Had of mo East Hdf of tho Norfftaoit Ouarter of Section 31. Townmgi 118. Range 23. HormopIn County. Mmnosofa. mol loo: f) mo wost 33 000 fool of said West Hod of mo East HNf of mo Normoul 2) Normoaslorty of Iho coniorhno of Watorlown Read EXCEPTING moredorn Vial part ihoroof described m Mows Bo^rmmg it iht Northwest corner of Iho south 7 50 aero of mo East Ouartor of me Northoast Ouartor of saof Socum 31; thonco norm along the oast hno of saKJ Wost Had of mo East had of the ^for^ast Ouartor a #star*rt of 264 00 foot; monco west paralol wrth tho so.i«h lino of the Northeast Ouartor of said Section 31. odistanco of 16S 00 fool, thonco South paralol wdh the oast Ino of said Wost Had of the East Half of the NorthoasI Ouarter to the centerm# of the Watertown Road; thence Southeasterly along said cenicrtme to the east me of said West Had of the East Hjdf of the NorthcaJ Quarter, ihence norm ^ona said hne to the pomt of bogmnmg PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL ’C* Thai pan of iho East Had of mo south 27 50 acres cf me West Mad of the Cast Htfl of mt Northeast Quarter of Socbon 31. Townshd) H8. Rmgo 23. Hmophi County, Mmnesoia. that bu norm of the soum 108 1 46 feet ol me West Mad of the F*tT Had of said Normeast Ouarter. ANO That pan of iho West Ouarter of me Soum 3/8 of sarj Northeast Ouarter mat iu norm 0^ soum 1081.46 feet of mo West Kdf of me East of smJ Northeut Ouvior. That part of me soum 1081.46 feet of the wesi 33 00 leel of the West H^ of the East Had of soH] NorthoasI Ouartar that Iu northerly of IM cenforlme of Waioriown Road. /r\c^ TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant October 17,1997 SUBJECT:#2304-Deborah Sholl 4100 Watertown Road Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR>1A One Family Rural Residential District (5 Acres) Lot Area:1,326,837 square feet (30.46 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of an attached garage and living space addition on the rear of the existing residence. A front setback variance is required.___________ Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd, 14(C): Lot Coverage Section 10.27, Subd. 5(B); RR-IA Lot Requirements J! it2304 Dtborah Shall 4100 WatertoM/n Road Varlanct October 20. 1997 Page\ ^---- 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards RR-IA District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard RR-IA 300 ft.100 ft.50 ft.100 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area 30.46 acres dry Lot Width 1,170 ft. Street Yard 55 ft. Side Yard 190 ft. Rear Yard 177 ft. The zoning lot does not meet front setback requirements. Structural Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application as the lot exceeds 2 acres in area. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application as the subject property is not located within 1000' of a protected body of water. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP ^e applicants statement of hardship is included on the attached application (Attachment A) The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. *2304 Deborah Shall 4100 ITaienown Root, Variance October 20.1997 Page 2 Criteria for Determining T fndue Hard^ship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be used in its current state. While there are several farm structures on the property, there is currently no garage. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the lanoowner. The existing residence was constructed prior to the current requirements of the zoning district. 3. 4. 5. 6. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for front setback 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. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limi^“d 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 single family home with an attached garage is permitted in this zoning district. i^2304 Deborah Shall 4100 Watertown Road Variance October 20, 1997 Page 3 8. 9. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The existing residence was constructed prior to current zoning district requirements. 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 conform to zoning district setback requirements. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Due to the location of the existing residence entirely within the required front setback, any addition to the residence would require a variance. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The entire existing residence is located within the required front setback. It is impossible to expand the residence without the granting of a variance. Issues The existing residence is located 55' from the edge of the street as the property line is located in the center of Watertown Road, which is unplatted. The residence is also located entirely within the required front setback. H2304 Deborah Shoil 4100 Watertown Road Variance October 20, 1997 Page 4 2.The addition of the proposed attached garage and additional living space would not further encroach on the required front setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a front setback variance of 5' to ai;ow the addition of a garage and living space to the rear of the existing structure to be located 95' from the edge of the street where 100' is required and 55' is existing. Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. Attachments Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Front View of Proposed Addition U2304 Deborah Shall 4100 Watertown Road Variance October 20. 1997 Page 5 Application ff */ Date Received S Amount Paid ^j3q .I CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) - - Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ^ .4^ (no change from original application) 3 Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00# g After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) • <1 » n i'4 A O • *1 V V% PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address HiVV [J^ATp/tTtiUi/sl AUl^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.),- t/f-a ^ I H ODOt Attach legal description to application if not included o.* required survey. Date Property Acquired ___________SKJfitf _______________ __(month/year) I (dg)^^ nc^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential Zoning District:_____ - / Pr~ other (specify) APPLICANT Name ^HOLL Phone (home ’) f/Q ^ ~ Phone (work ) C V1 - 9 f ^ Address: WiOQ {j)DTpkrOuJ/( City: ORONQ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Phone (home)_ Phone (\vork)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $______________ Describe request in detail: TP AhhlDflAlftl firurvKf=~ _______-fttCAg A a /A /j-iT/ictffcft -------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback: Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNTJSUAL’PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: l O/K Q/ii^lt3A{L ---- )/^/ /^0r> C9l tjeAjei Ir rite A)o A ve ----- ^ Jaj »a ( MjPpadha Of^ fW r£oA,£^ ( Fmk\—— kg ftcke^ iMi^n ro /Wi/rinmn/"fU]Pg QMA^ ^(attach <P/^lrD ^ Hgvig; (attach additional sheets if necessary) MP t - -r :V<>-x-x'x-‘::x’-x'x>:;: :ii:;:i::;:>v:x:::x:v::>^ .:::;:;:;::;x-x^:::::x:;;xx 4Sx|x^^ t:::::<xv::::':::s<x:;:x:;:;:x<:;:::::;:v:xyxwrnmiimmmH. :•:v:•x•:v;:vX•:•:•;V:V:v^■^■/•.^^ «5 3>\ ISr aS-(.P r4X »• « rr« « * • • • • « • • • • : •:-:x:: :x: :';-:x:-:‘:vxx:::x:x-:;^X :x;::;:<x::::;:x:;:x:;:x:x:x:x5::::X *y-!- •**>*‘'s*’*‘' **» • • • •*•*•*•*■*•*■"•*•*«*€*■'•*•*•' l*«*w*«"■*■"•***•*a•*•*•*•*• *«*4*•*•*•*•*•*•*«***B^*^*a* •X*X*.*X* • • •!• •'• •‘ ‘•’*‘•*•’•'''•*•*•*•’•■*’•’-‘''•^'•*•'•'‘*'•‘'■•‘•*•**■’■*'•••'•*'■•■•■•'•*•*•*•'•‘•‘•*•*'*•'•*•’• •'-*•1 '9>-.T____ X (1C) e C51I?irEt3A ...AVwL-^ ir t* ~ ~3Htfai» , Mit.i NE 1/4 SEC 31 TI18N. R23W HENNEPIN COUNTY Ofono* o««* •• p*«»*«*»»^** *'*^'** .<2^ HORIZONS, m • M* • • »*•» • ******* *** MO«II70«iS* HU V } Pernit No. PERMIT RECORD Date « Type of Permit A-7-9<^Lcirti nx)^T^yhjni UtTLudJ^ jsno Ai^un XIIp09 lhSIS-7/(^rtrLh . 31st .:5'7^iT'7^___T>lh^. ______________s- f'7tr .5/J/^-^•'76-J&x,yun 3713 AiLyL^n f^300 ^-/-77 1,337 ^~/o-9'/ 1^59'fo-7-9-9 la.r^_(3£3 ^ ^un S'- r3-ss 5lZh “Sui\A\no\ '^luIAuW 5-6-2b Lo/nJ ip'*~f' ^________ _ Sl-^(o-90 bu\5 'o?i 1 'S'*!MjdudtrxQ F ir U- irf- 16 •».«• .At 7 » ••it iktiOl, S S<y5a I6*S 33» 42\ *^*S gy45 44>g ; 33, f»* it, Ms» 11.69 ACRES c)-: I I V. «m«.* '*•■.«# *i 4. •««taii I » j -. »*<>I cri< B 10.36 AC-’2S 4 «• •< < 1 t •• f MIV § ’ O 'i K • f!# * .J>3 •; •“’j” -- i. •1 • • « 4 •« V : ‘ •: A|»#:1!%.• j • ; 1 J•• *‘5 • • mt #-1. • 1 * t ?5 • 1 1. «# -•VO «••«« H- J..........f - I • •jwrf *wi I t 4 3 ' j •'i' MftJ !••• »f »i« 1. f f/S k»ft» •I li« I l/« »r ti« H. • 1,4 •! t*««>44 li. S 8y45 44*E 661 13 O' ••» f l\ _ t * . \ ( d '^<J v« ^^ 9.91 total acres I \ /-I'- r- • DRY ACRES o • '8 .•; ! WETLAND ISIACKS >>l i* * PC» I \ w»’« >nh* aa .* ri 6V4S'44*« S46.09 Tfc. S4.«i !,•• •• *•?,• ^4 •■• •! »••••• •• K ( ;i I 1 t' J\y IgiSSSSSSig m iulM ■M B ■la! KiTiiiiiiiiiiiiiim' iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii mr.il ■ millllijllll!llllll■mIISJ « ■ • ail* i ■ a • ■ fe ■ ■ • ■ a I $ □nnaanna □□□□ □□□uua 5 noon□□□□□□□□ □□□□oaaa □□□□□□nn□□□□ □□□□ FeoMT ELC.VM'ION 6»?»'T-5t?PT l»^<P “SQ.FT Tot/Vl. |l UKp^iOiKlc.1 Ve^Ft <EV-lWlKlO, \ \ CN I { COUNCIL MEETINQ OCT 2 7 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CTTYOFORONO DATE: October 22, 1997 ITEM NO.D Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item 'Description: ^2306 Dennis Platteter 809 North Brown Road Renewal of Class III Subdivision Preliminary Plat - Public Hearing 2k>ning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres) Lot Area:6.37 dry acres, .43 wet acres, 6.8 acres total Application: The applicant is requesting renewal of a Class m subdivision to allow the existing zoning lot to be divided into two parcels. The previous request was approved on December 11, 1995, Resolution ^3659. Planning Commission Recommendation:IJlini The Planning Commission voted to approve on a vote of 5-0. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the enclosed resolution. I ; i i ‘! l.'O *% A RESOLUTION GRANTING RENEWAL OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PLAT AT 809 BROWN ROAD NORTH FOR DENNIS PLATTETER - FILE NO. 2306 WHEREAS, Dennis L. Platteter on September 26, 1997, filed a formal subdivsion application with the City for renewal of approval of a two lot residential plat of property legally described as: The South 354.75 feet of the East 990 feet, except the North 150 feet of the East 323.4 feet thereof, of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono ’s zoning, platting and on-site septic codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20,1997, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; ai d WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on October 27, 1997, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Dennis L. Platteter noting the following findings of fact: 1. 2. 3. 4. The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of dry contiguous buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 5.64 acres, all of which is considered dry buildable. The proposed plat contains two lots each meeting or exceeding the 2 acre minimum lot area requirement. The property is located in the Shoreland Overlay District. Lot 1 is a lakeshore lot contiguous with Dickey Lake, a natural environment lake. Lot 1 meets the required 200' width at the OH>^, 985.5 elevation, of Dickey Lake and at the 150’ building setback line. Page 1 of4 f I 5. Lot 2 is 155' in width to the rear of the street setback line measured from Brown Road North. The code would require 200' of width and as a result access to Lot 2 shall be via private driveway outlot. 6. The pole bam on the site shall be removed by January 1, 1998. 7. The applicant shall contact NSP and terminate the yard light due to complaints received by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or mere c£ the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby renews approval of the preliminary plat for Dennis L. Platteter for the property located at 809 Brown Road North per the survey dated 11-15-95, by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the 2 lot plat and the lot lines as shown is based on the removal of die pole bam by January 1, 1998. 2. Prior to the removal or demolition of the pole bam and new residential construction, future owners shall be responsible for staking and protecting septic test sites. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Mark S. Gronberg dated 11-15- 95. Page 2 of 4 B.E>edication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines (not to be designated at shoreline of Dickey Lake) and 5' each side of internal property lines. C. Portions of lot located below 985.5 at northwest comer to be designated as Dickey Lake. D. Applicant's surveyor to determine if a Type 2 or 3 wetland exists at southwest comer of property adjacent to shoreline of Lot 1. The City's wetland maps have located a protected area in that portion of the property. If the wetland exists, it should be located as a drainage easement on the plat. E. Dedication of 33' of right-of-way of Brown Roud North. F. Naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: A. Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $200.00* based on 1995 fee schedule A. Legal review and filing fees = $200.00 B. *Park dedication fee to be determined upon City Assessor's valuation of fair market value of 2 acre rural lot. Park dedication fee payment is due upon the filing of the final plat and associated documents. : Page 3 of 4 TO: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator October 16,1997 SUBJECT: #2306 Dennis Platteter 809 North Brown Road . Renewal of Class III Subdivision Preliminary Plat-Public Heanng ■7-i.f District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres) Lot Area: Application: 6.37 acres dry land ,43 acres wet 6.8 acres total The applicant is requesting renewal of a Class III Subdivision to allow the existing zoning lot to be divided into two parcels. The preliminary plat was approved in Resolution #3659, File #2092, on December 11,1995. I ■?1 Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.08, Subdivision 5, RRl-B, One Family Rural Residential Distnct Section 10.56, Shoreland Overlay District,Subd. 16, (C) and (L) Section 10.03, Subd. 27. and Section 11.31., Subd. 5. # 2306 Demis Platteter 809 North Brown Road PC: 10/20/97 page—l ^ V ANALYSIS RRI-B Lot Standards for Front Lots Lot Area 2 acres Lot Width 200' Front 50’ Side/Street 50’ RRl-B Lot Standards for Back Lots Lot Area 3 acres Lot Width 300’ Front 75* Rear for non- lakeshore lots 75’ Side 45’ Side/Street 75’ The subject lots meet the back lot zoning requirements. Because the backlot is a lakeshore lot to Dickey Lake, a natural environment lake, the setback from the OHWL is 150’. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving a new resolution that reflects that the buildings have been removed. A Application & Plat Map B Previous Planning Commission Staff Report C Notice of PC Action D Council Report E Neighbor’s Letter F Mike’s letter G Platteter’s letter H Minutes from CC 1 Minutes from PC J Septic Report K Resolution L Preliminary Plat U 2306 Dennis Platteter 809 North Brown Road PC: 10/20/97 page—2 V/ % CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION AppUcation # Tiati* Received 9' ^Cs> ^/y ► .'t ^V* vA ^«iAiintPaid —_A property location Siteaddress__iaa_I^2C±^ torrens? Attach legal description to application.is S applicant Thmr Adrlmy i r» viffiJ. Phone (home) V7ArS33a City OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address City Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) existing land use Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / Present use (check) Present Zoning District /J.Sy Acres Dry Land I 3 Acres Wet Land //11 ^ Acres Total, all p^cels ^ \y Residential; no. of units Other (specify)-------------- PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposestrun" only (no new bundling sUee) Number of Building Sites subdivision for New Buildin||t« 7 New Units Total Units r. •», I Units per5jl Acres Proposed Gross Density ^"TSa. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Minimum Lot Size R^yential Proposed Use (check) ------------Other (specify) f \ \ \ “fTrS" / .:vr -7- ^ vl5J 5= ,40 I*(eo .Urooryf ** ^ % ■<i -----------OxS' \* yyn, ___ «Tt04;0 pi x\ ^ ^^ I s T4. il O f / n I ’V% /V " ' .. fl=r-; x.r :. -?v, ‘ t< / C6) , V* ^'i*'’^-- *> '5'“'4^<-- ^ * ’M*4< ‘^•)r i:^# —.M WWW Its f4 V 1 (5) : >1u 03) 1I ; (to 1 1 — 1 EH& “ CR? 13)1^uKo^T^ i__ \ * I ^ K— - I ..* \ !• ch I 40./3 ----i£_------------- ^4^ ^'?T"t ^ nsn? V' M**-4crt ” 2/ . , aw. 14 /Qi.5» § E-anr^rr-iSta (i [} I ? « * noLCQ (’».' ri i f ‘"y 9 r fVjr ® xt^?coe?s3 ------ _ i «*' J sq. 41 7t»>4< « a, «T*ni rz— -5-’* *\ r.af A J2S^ ^ii * S arrur c 5 ’ g 5r» • *2 * ./ t -Ki W . /n» : sr*4i*i a k~.. fc 3. To;Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: November 16,1995 #2092 Dennis Platteter, 809 Brown Road North - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Application: Applicant proposes a back lot/front lot subdivision of his homestead p^cel at approximately 6 acres in area. Due to the more restrictive setback standards for back lot/front lot configurations, the residence structure and oversized accessory structure do not meet required setbacks from proposed lot lines. Zoning District: RR-IB lt. t> j a Total lot area = 5.64 acres (exclusive of right-of-way of North Brown Road and Dickey Lake) Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.08, Subdivision 5 - Lot standards for RR-IB Zoning District, 2. Section 10.56 - Shoreland Overlay District. Subdivision 16 (C) - Required setbacks for structures and septic systems from the OHWl. of the Natural Environment Lake. Required = 150' . .ii u Proposed septic system and existing structures on Lot 1 meet required lakeshore setback. b. Subdivision 16 (L) - Hardcover restrictions. Both Lots 1 and 2 will be subject to the hardcover regulations for the Shoreland Overlay District. 4.Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 and Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 - Back lot/front lot st^dwd. A. Lot 1 (back lot) = 3.64 acres (meets 150% of the area requirements of the Zomng District) Required = 3 acres (RR-IB = 2 acres) Proposed = 3.64 acres B.Lot 1 (back lot) lot width requirements for lakeshore lot Required = 200' 1) At OHWL 300+' 2) At 150' lakeshore setback 400+' 3) At street setback 350+' •n-___♦ - • r i f- Zoning File #2092 November 16,1995 Page 2 5. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C-2) - Oversized accessory structure - variances for 2100 s.f. oversized accessory structure on proposed Lot 2. a. Existing = 2100 s.f. Oversized structure allowed footprint = 1200 s.f. a. Required setback = 50' (rear lot line of Lot 2) Existing = 29' Variance = 21' or 42% b.Setback variance for existing principal structure on proposed Lot 1 Required for side setback on back lot = 45' Existing = 40' Variance = 5'or 11.11% c.Front/street setback variance for residence structure on proposed Lot 1 Required = 75' Existing = 30' Variance = 45' or 60% List of Exhibits A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Property Owners' List DNR Letter 8/21/95 Wetlands Map Preliminary Plat Staff Sketch/Required Setbacks for Back Lot/Front Lot Discussion Based on Planning Commission's directives to applicant at their August, 1995 meeting, applicant has submitted a formal subdivision application proposing a back lot/front lot division of his homestead parcel at 5.64 acres. Refer to Exhibit G, side and rear lot lines of the front lot. Lot 2, must be changed to 50'. Side and street setback of the back lot must also be changed, the sides to 45' and the street setback to 75'. During the sketch plan review, applicant advised that the residence structure and oversized accessory structure were to be moved from the property. The existing structures do not meet required setbacks from the proposed division line. Applicant should advise as to the status of the structures. If they are to be removed, there is no issue. If they are to remain, will you grant setback variances? Based on the location of the bam in relation to the house, it would be impossible to gerrymander lot line in order to meet the required setback. Applicant should also comment as to the status of the pool. How long should pool be allowed to remain without a principal structure? 1 I ^ I 1 I i Zoning File #2092 November 16, 1995 Page 3 As Lot 2 does not meet the required lot width at Brown Road at 200' to the rear of the street setback line, Lot 2 will be required to access via the driveway outlot along the south lot line. Note oullot has been expanded to 50' at the east end to include existing drive. Septic testing has been completed. All four mound sites will be placed on slopes at 6% or less. Note proposed septic sites on the lakeshore lot meet the required 150' setback from the OHWL of Dickey Lake at 985.5. Staff Recommendation To approve the back lot/front lot subdivision application of Dennis Platteter finding all pertinent standards of the Subdivision Regulations, Zoning and Septic Codes have been satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Status of existing structures (residence structure, pool and oversized accessory structure) within proposed Lots 1 and 2. Establish deadline for removal. If structures are not to be removed, will setback variances be granted? Designation of Dickey Lake at 985.5. Applicant's surveyor to confirm location of Type 3 wetland at southwest comer of property adjacent to lakeshore. The wetland area should be designated as drainage easements on the final plat. Dedication of drainage and utility easements along exterior lot lines and 5' along all internal lot lines. 4. Dedication of 33' of right-of-way for Brown Road. 5. Others recommended by Planning Commission, ■ i ■ ■ ,'i I 4 I CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2092 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 28, 1995 TO:Dennis Platteter 809 North Brown Road Orono, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Preliminary Subdivision (Back Lot/Front Lot) DATE OF MEETING:11/20/95 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST The Planning Commission rcconunended approval of your two lot subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1.Ponions of lot located below 985,5 at northwest comer of property to be designated on plat as Dickey Lake. Applicant's surveyor to determine if a Type 2 or 3 wetland exists at southwest comer of property adjacent to lakeshorc. The City's wetland maps located a protected area in that portion of the property. This wetland should be designated as a drainage easement on the plat. 2.Dedication on the final plat of drainage and utility easements along exterior lot lines and 5' along all internal lot lines. 3. Dedication of 33' of right-of-way for Brown Road. 4.Applicant to provide a written statement concerning removal of existing stmctures that encroach required setbacks from newly defined division line. The Planning Commission recommended that accessory stmcture on Lot 2 must be removed within one year of the date of Council's approval of the final plat. Applicant has advised that he is not sure whether the existing residence stmcture would be removed. If the residence stmcture is removed, the City will require the removal of the pool. Applicant must take the necessary steps to protect any unwanted trespassers from any hazards created with the presence of the pool on a property where no one resides at residence. Applicant may wish to cover pool with boards or other suitable cover to prevent any mishaps. The status of the existing residence and pool must be resolved before the application can be presented to the Council in order to determine the need for granting any setback variances. Council may take the position that if the pool and residence stmcture are to remain that lot line can be realigned so that both stmctures meet the required 75' setback from the newly defined east lot line. A written statement concerning the status of all stmctures on the property should be submitted no later than Tuesday, December 5th before Noon. c > Notice of Planning Commission Action November 28, 1995 Page 2 The City has received calls from neighbors concerning a yard light an*l manure stock pile on the property. The light appears to shine out onto adjacent residential properties. The Code would require yard lights to be shielded downward and lighting is not to extend beyond boundaries of property. If lighting is to remain, a shield must be provided. We are advised the manure pile is to the west and north side of the property and extends to shoreline of Dickey Lake. The manure must be removed at your earliest convenience. Please advise my office as to the approximate date for removal of manure. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth if you have any further questions pertaining to the review of your application. • \ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; December 5, 1995 ITE^T NO. I . .1' Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2092 Dennis Platteter, 809 Brown Road North - Preliminary Subdivision Resolution Zoning District: RR-IB Total area = 5.64 acres (exclusive of right-of-way of North Brown Road and Dickey Lake) Brief Review of Application Please refer to the enclosed staff memo dated November 16, 1995 ai;d the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 20th for more background and detail on this review. The applicant submitted a sketch plan of three lots at the August 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had to recommend against the division because c'' he need to grant lot standard variances for the creatic n of new lots. Applicant has filed a formal s vision application of two lots (back lot/front lot). Lot 1. the western lot, meets 150% of ah quired standards. Review Exhibit G, Lc* I's building envelope is defined Hy ths street or east lot line setback at 75' and the side setbacks 45'. Lot 2's building envelope must also be redesignated showing a 50' setback along Outlot A, the drivew'ay outlot, and the west or rear lot line. Applicant has advised that ail accessory structures will be removed. To be consistent with previous approvals, the City will allow one year from the date of Council's approval of the final plat for the removal of accessory structures. Both lots will achieve access via the driveway outlot. If any upgrades of the driveway are conteniplated in the future, all improvements must be located 10' fiom the .south lot line of Outlot A. Applicant has recently advised staff that all accessory structures will be removed. The large bam at 2,100 s.f. is currently being dismantled for removal to another property. The pool will also go. As of this date, applicant is not certain v •. -ther the house is to be removed. Staff would advise that at the time of final plat approval if applicant advises the house is to remain, then lot line should be adjusted so that structure meets 75' setback from east line of Lot 1. There would also b, a need to Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 December 5, 1995 Zoning File #2092 address a side setback variance for the slight encroachment of the existing residence into required 45' side setback at the south lot line. Septic testing has been approved by the on-site septic manager. Septic testing confirms there is adequate and suitable area for the installation of mounds at slopes of 6% or less. At the Park Commission's meeting of December 4,1995, they voted to acquire a fee payment in lieu of a park dedication. The assessor will be asked to determine the fair market value of the 2 acre rural lot. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the two lot subdivision application finding all standards of pertinent ordinances of the subdivision regulations and on-site septic code and zoning code have been satisfied. As accessory structures are to be removed, there is no need to address the issue of variances. At the time of final plat approval, status of the principal residence on proposed Lot 1 must be resolved. If structure remains, lot line must be adjusted so that a 75' setback can be achieved from the east lot line and City will grant 3' encroachment of south side yard. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation and includes City's understanding concerning the removal of the accessory structures on the property and need to resolve the status of the principal structure on Lot 1. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either amend or approve the enclosed approval resolution. i /f^/ NOV ' 7 } ^=5^ ^'rro' ^.>^(/ic^-r-^' ^ CU7tCUy^J ^ yWtf^rU^^ ^ c-:^<^ ;:;^dj Cfi,u^-^^c^ j:^ * ) /J j y ^ / /P / 0 /Is 1 ^y^u> ,;z^ c^iu^ S^ ^ ^dtAA J^' --^ ^ -?^ ^-;fn^/uU^ cA^ALi^ ^ Oy C=5=/ /^H/ yCa^McS > jL ,yA<y /zaP" cf^^ V / September 22,1997 / \ Dennis Platteter \ \ Re: Expired Preliminary Plat Approval ................... Dear Mr. Platteter: I have reviewed all City files related to your property on Brown Road North. Preliminary Plat approval was granted on December 11,1995 and expired on December 11,1996. There is no record in the file that you made a request to extend the preliminary plat approval prior to your letter of December 30, 1996, and even if there was, no formal application for an extension has ever been submitted for Coimcil review, and it now is 9 months after the expiration date. My coi.clusion is that you need to file a renewal preliminary plat application for review by the Planning Commission and Council. The next deadline for a complete Preliminary Plat application is Friday, September 26,1997 at noon. I believe most of the required submittal information is in our files, but you will need to: 1. Complete the renewal application form. 2. Submit a new 350 ’ certified property owners list. 3. Submit the $200 renewal fee as indicated in the subdivision application form for a Class l/II Subdivision (No changes from original approval). If the above information is submitted by the deadline, your application will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 20, with Council action for Preliminary approval possible on October 27 at the earliest. Final Subdivision approval could then occur on November 10. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator end. cc: Liz Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator JhU 06*97 13:53 FR HR6 LEGAL 612 373 5392 TO 9473Q510 P.02 02 December 30, 1996 Ms Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Replatting of 809 North Brown Road Dear Jeanne, Due to the increment weather this fall, we were not able to remove the pole bam as required by the City Council prior to filing of the final plot plan. The removal needs to be done a contractor experienced in pole bam building. Tliere is a limited number of qualified contractors and they are all busy trying to finish jobs from last fall. Also eacn Realtor and builder we contacted indicated that the preliminary lot line detracted significantly from the marketability of the front lot. They recommended that the line be realigned so that the front lot view could not be affected by owner of the rear lot. I have explained that tlie current septic sites affected that lot aiTangement. Their suggestion was to relook at the possible sites. For those reasons, we need to extend our platting for the property. We would appreciate an extension through July 1997 to give time (and better w’eather) to remove the pole barn and select alternative workable septic sites. t wanted to discuss this with you in person, but between my job related travel schedule and our whole family contracting. We appreciate your assistance. Sincerely. .*. + total page . 002 * * • • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CTTY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 11,1995 (#13 - #2086 Robert and Janice Callan - Continued) Jabbour asked Mabusth to refresh his memory regarding the Carson property, which Mabusth did. Mabusth noted that there was a question whether the Corp of Engineers favored nutigation for type 1, which bred the idea of mitigation for the type 2 wetland. Mabusth noted that the variance was required because of the encroachment within 26' of a designated wetland area. There were no public comments. Goetten moved, Callahan seconded, to deny Application #2086 per the Planning Commission's recommendation with a resolution to be brought back before the Council on January 8, 1996. Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#14) #2089 RICHARD MILLER, 4520 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3658 The applicant was represented by his father. Gafiron reported that the application is a request for lot area and lot width variances for a lot located in the 5-acre zoning. The property consists of 6.5 acres with 3.6 dry buildable where 5 acres is required. The width of the property measured at 100' parallel to the road is 287* where 300' is required. Gaflfron informed the Council that the Planning Commission recommended approval based on the findings that the parcel would have been buildable without variances at the time the applicant purchased it in 1972. They noted that the applicant had also demonstrated that suitable primary and alternate sites for an on-site sewage treatment system exists on the property. The Planning Commission found this to be a unique property within the 5-acre district where few vacant lots exist. The Planning Commission questioned whether there would be any use of the prope^ if it was found to be unbuildable. They also thought this proposal was appropriate and in character with other residences located in the area. The applicant's representative had no further comment. There were no public comments. Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3658. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#15) #2092 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 BROWN ROAD NORTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3659 The applicant was present. ...v minutes of tbde regular orono city council MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 11» 1995 (#15 - #2092 Dennis Platteier - Continued) Mabusth reported that the application was a proposal for a 2-lot subdivision of 5.64 acres. The parcel originally consisted of 6.5 acres but area was lost due to the dedication of Brown Road and Dickey Lake. The proposal is for a back/front lot configuration. The back lot meets all of the standards. Mabusth said 150% of normal allowances is required in the RR-IB. The property is also restricted by the 150' setback fi’om an environmental lake. Mabusth reported that the applicant is proposing to remove all of the accessory structures including the pool. The existing residence does not meet the 75' setback firom the proposed lot line. Staff is not clear on the status of the residence. If the residence, which is located 3-4' from the side lot line, stays. Staff recommends asking for the lot line to be altered to meet the side setback requirements. This was noted as a condition of the Planning Commission's approval. If the applicant seeks a final plat. Staff recommends a developer's agreement and letter of credit be obtained prior to the plat. Mr. Platterer said he has not decided on what he will do with the e.\isting house. The potential buyers may remodel the house. If the purchase is not made, Platterer said he would remove the house. He noted his satisfaction with the resolution. There were no public comments. Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resohition #3659 per the Planning Commission recommendation. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCBL REPORT Callahan reported that Park Commission Chair Flint attended the DNR meeting regarding the Luce Line trail paving proposal. Flint was unable to present the City's resolution due to a format not conducive to its presentation. Discussion groups consisted of governmental representation as well as those involved in the different activity groups that use the trail. Callahan said the majority were opposed to the paving of the trail from Wayzata to Hutchin. on. Flint had informed Callahan that there was a possible benefit to paving the trail west of Hutchinson. The DNR had presented a concept of a new form of aggregate lime that would be in keeping with its present limestone bed. A revised resolution will be presented at the Council meeting of January 8, 1996. ENGINEER REPORT Cook had no additional comments. (#2) #2090 RON RANTZ/AUTOGRAFS INC, 2525 SHADWVOOD ROAD VACATION OF EASEMENTS - 7:26-7:28 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication v ere noted. Blake Bichanich represented the applicant. Mabuslh repotted that the property is located in the Leach Addition^d consists of Lots 1 2 and 3, which are being developed by Autografs. A condition of the prelimnary approval was that the applicant proceed with vacation of the drainage and utUity easement within the building envelope. There were no public comments. Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2090 with the 2 Staff recommendations. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2092 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 NORTH BROWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDr,TSION - 7:28-7:39 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that during the sketch plan review the Planning Commission advised the applicant that they could not recommend the 3 lot subdivisiori due to the lot width and area being inadequate. The code for lakeshore back/front lots require a 200 ’ width at both the lakeshore and 150' setback. The east lot is inadequate in width at street setback into North Brown resulting in the need for a shared driveway. There is now an issue of setback variances as the backlot configuration requires 150% standard. A 45' setback is required from the side lot lines. The existing residence is within the required side setback and encroaches 45' into the front setback at 75'. The front lot's building envelope is defined at a 50' setback from the south, west and east lot lines. The accessory structure on east lot will be removed by the applicant. The house on the property will probably be moved elsewhere. The pool will be removed when the lots are sold. Mabusth said a deadline would have to be set as the code does not allow an accessory structure on lots without a principal structure. An average deadline is one year. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 \ (#3 - #2092 Dennis Platteter - Continued) Peterson commented that the Planning Commission was split in iheir opinion of the subdivision. Based on the preliminary subdivision meeting, Peterson noted that the applicant has addressed some of the issues. He did not wish any changes to be made until the accessory structure was removed. Hawn received confirmation fi-om Mabusth that there was adequate lot size in which to build. There were no public conjnents. Smith commented on the letter from the DNR regarding future views of structures from the lake. Mabusth said the letter outlined standard practices and requirements of DNR Steve Schroll of 2006 Sugar Woods asked if a joint road would be used for the two lots via access to the back part of the subdivision. Mabusth said a shared driveway would be used but there were no requirements to upgrade. The driveway must be at least 10’ from the south lot line of outlot. Schroll was informed that there was no standard or requirement of driveway improvement. Connie Gray, 819 Brown Road, asked where the two new homes would be built. Mabusth sho wed on a map the lot outlines and of building envelopes. The City does not stipulate where a house should be located, other than meeting required setbacks of code. Mabusth noted that the home on east lot would be at least 30' from the side lot line with the Gray property. Peterson commented that the location of the septic systems usually drives where most homes are situated on the lot. Scholl asked and was shown on the map where the septic system for these homes would be placed and the likely home locations. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Applica^’on #2092 with a 1 year deadline from the date of final approval of plat for removal of u.v. accessory structure on east lot along with Staff recommendations 1-4. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. A I I > S-P TESTING, INC.Steven B. Schirmers — MPCA Cert. No. 627 951 Katydid Lane NE • St. Michael, MN 55376 • (612) 497-3566 November 15# 1995 u Dennis Platteter 809 No.Brown Rd. Lot 2/ Block 1 OronO/ Henn. Co.# MN This On-Site Sewage Treatment System is Designed for a Type 1# five bedroom home Designed in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. The soils on this site are a clay loam. The seasonally saturated soils were located at 20" to 28" (mottled soil) below the ground surface. Due to the saturated soils# a Pressurized Mound System will need to be installed to treat septic effluent. The soils at a depth of 12" have a percolation rate averaging 9.8 min/inch. A pumping chamber will need to be installed to lift the effluent to the treatment area. The manifold and supply line pipe must have back drainage to the pumping chamber. The distribution pipes shall have their ends capped. Be sure the rock and sand fill material are clean. The sod layer below the entire mounded area must be turned over# just break up the sod# be sure not to over work. The power supply and switches must be located outside the manhole and pumping chamber in a weather proof enclo'^ure. A warning device must be installed with a light and sound device# this is in case of a pump failure. (mer All neighboring wells are located greater than 100' away from the proposed treatment area. Keep all heavy equipment off of the proposed treatment area before and after construction. The treatment area should be marked off before construction. This Design is not valid & the system will need to be relocated if failure to protect the areas proposed for On-Site Sewage Treatment occurs. CONT'D ^i^\oJ : to^i»i •. L,TO>>V«*^S^cdtotion Tests XSoil Borings e Bench Mork Scole Note: Thu Systran is to be constrv^.ted to meet iht rAnneso>a PoOuion Con^ia* Agency Chapter 7080 fc Local Oxdinance ■V^O^ MO. T«>‘ avAlU \.0K 3l \- O^ao *-oM. vHJU>i ^ S-P TESTINGJNC. 0.v^. A I ^*A#:a2i( r t,.p f-. L . :ri MEJETuu REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: OCX 2 1 1997 CITYOFORONO 10/21/97 ITEM NO.;'V Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2307-Ellcn Peterson 3355 Crystal Bay Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acres) Lot Area:5,190 s.f. (.12 acre) Application: The aprrr- mt is proposing a 282 s.f. carport addition with a deck above to the front of the existing residence. The carport would be primarily located over existing hardcover. Variances are required for side setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover in the O' to 75’ and 75' to 250’ lakeshore setbacks. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 6 to 0 vote to: 1.Approve a side setback variance of 6.2’ to allow the addition to be located 3.8’ from the west side lot line where 10’ is required and 6.2’ is existing. 2.Approve a lakeshore setback variance of 10’ to allow the addition to be located 65’ from the lakeshore where 75* is required. 3. Approve a hardcover variance of 40.6% in the 0’ to 75’ lakeshore setback to allow 40.6% hardcover where none is allowed and 43.13% is existing. 4. Approve a hardcovei variance of 26.2% in the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback to allow 51.2% hardcover where 25% is allowed and 56% is existing. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; To approve or amend the proposed resolution. r A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1(A AND B) AND 2, AND SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B> FILE NO. #2307 WHEREAS, Ellen Peterson (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3355 Crystal Bay Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 11, Wallaces Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1(A and B) and 2 and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit the construction of a carport with deck above attached to the front of the existing residence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2307. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring one half acre in area. The property consists of 5,190 s.f. or .12 acre. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 20, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: 1. The zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements. Page 1 of 5 r & !'■ .. ti l 4. 5. 2. 3. The property currently lacks a means of protecting a vehicle from the elements. The location of the residence on the yard limits the location of a carport or garage. 4. Encroachment on the neighboring residence would remain at approximately 13' between the screen porch and proposed carport/deck. 5.The proposed hardcover variances would result in a decrease in hardcover on the lot. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions I (A and B) and 2 and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) allowing a side setback variance of 6.2’ to allow the addition to be located 3.8' from the west side lot line where 6.2’ is existing, a lakeshore setback variance of 10’ to allow the structure to be located 65' from the OHW where 75’ is required, a hardcover variance of 40.6% in the 0’ to 75' lakeshore setback where none is allowed and 43.13% is existing and a hardcover variance of 26.2% in the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback to allow 51.2^ hardcover where 25% is allowed and 56% is e.xisting to allow the construction Page 2 of 5 ; ■ ^1 of an attached 282 s.f. carport with a deck above on the front of the existing residence, Approval was subject to the following conditions. 1.The applicant shall remove all plastic under landscaping on the property prior to the commencement of any new construction. 2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not wth the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building pennit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 27, 1998). 3.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. 4.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 27th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. Page 3 of 5 « COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th 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 ■ I. ‘.V- Page 4 of 5 r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. On this day of ^ 199 _before me a Notary Public within and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. I i Notary Public J I If TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant October 17,1997 SUBJECT: #2307-E’:en Peterson 3355 Crystal Bay Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C Lot Area:5,190 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) square feet (.12 acre) ___________ Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 282 s.f. carport with a deck above attached to the front of the existing residence. The carport would primarily be located over the existing driveway. Variances are required for side setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0* to 75* and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Requirements Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): LR-IC Lot Requirements ^210" Ellen Peterson 3355 Crystal Bay Road Variances October 20, 1997 Page 1 2 analysis T nt Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards • Lot Area Lot Width Rear Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard .5 acre 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area .12 acre Lot Width 47 ft. at 75 ft. setback 30 ft. at OHW Rear Yard 9.5 ft. Side Yard 6.2' (existing) 3.8 ft. (proposed) Lakeside 86.2 ft. (existing) 65 ft. (proposed) The zoning lot does not meet the zoning district requirements for lot area, lot width, rear setback and side setback. As proposed, the lakeside setback would also not be met. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 5,190 s.f.815 s.f (existing) 1,097 s.f. (proposed) 15.7% 21.1% The subject property is at 15.7% for structural coverage. The proposed carport with deck above would increase structural coverage to 21.1%. A variance is not required, however, because Section 10.03, Subd. 14. allows 1,500 sq. ft. of structural coverage per zoning lot. It should be noted there is another 18 s.f of structure that is not shown on the survey for the portion of the deck connecting it to the front door. U2507 Ellen Peterson 3353 Cry stal Bay Road Variances October 20, 1997 Page! ----* ■' '' Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'2,880 s.f.1,242 s.f. (43.13%) 630 s.f (21.9%) excluding street none 1,274 s.f. (44.24%) 662 s.f. (23%) excluding street 1,274 s.f. (44.24%) 662 s.f. (23%) excluding street 75'-250'2,310 s.f 1,294 s.f. (56%) 577.5 s.f. (25%) 1,333 s.f. (57.7%) 755.5 s.f. (32.7%) Hardcover variances are needed in the 0'-75' setback and 75' -250' setback. The carport/deck would be primarily located over existing non structural hardcover. Variances are required to add new hardcover and replace non-structural hardcover with structural hardcover. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See the application (Attachment A) for the applicant's statement of hardship. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1 . fhe property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property currently lacks a carport or garage to shelter a vehicle from the elements. I 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot was platted prior to current zoning district requirements. The substandard lot area and width also limit where the proposed addition may be located. Ellen Peterson 335S Cry stal Bay Road Variances October 20.1997 Page 3 u 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for side setback, lakeshore setback and haidcover will reduce the setback between the residence and new deck and the lakeshore. This will have a visual impact. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of 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. An attached carport is allowed 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 properties in the area are also limited in area and width, necessitating garages or carports in front of the principal structure, encroaching on the required lakeshore setback and exceeding hardcover requirements. 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 a carport or garage. The narrow lot and alignment of the residence necessitate a side yard variance. A carport of sufficient depA cannot be constructed on the lot without encroaching on the lakeshore setback requirement. U2307 Ellen Peterson 3355 Crystal Bay Road yariances October 20» 1997 Page A 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Without the required variances, the applicant will be unable to locate a carport on the property as pwssible locations are limited. i 1. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The applicant currently has no means of sheltering a vehicle from the elements. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. The lot area is .12 acre where .5 acre is required. The lot width is 47 at the required setback and 30' at the lakeshore where 100' is required. The location of the residence on the yard leaves the front (lakeside) yard as the only viable area for a carport. It appears, however that at one time there was a one car tuck under garage space that has been converted to living space. Granting the side setback variance would not increase encroachment on the residence to the north as there is currently a 13' separation between the structures. As proposed, this would be approximately the minimum distance between proposed addition and the neighboring residence. Excluding the unplatted Crystal Bay Road, which crosses the lake side of the property, hardcover is existing at 21.9% and proposed at 23% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed 282 s.f. carport addition with a deck on top located on the front side of the existing residence subject to a condition. Staff recommends approval of side setback variance 6.2' to allow the addition to be located 3.8' from the side lot line where 10' is required and 6.2' is existing. *2307 ElUn Peterson 3355 Crystal Bay Road Variancts October 20, 1997 Pages •S' /I Staff recommends approval of lakeshore setback variance of 10' to allow the addition to be located 65' from the shoreline where 75' is required. Staff reconunends approval of a hardcover variance of 40.6% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback to allow 40.6% hardcover where none is allowed and 43.13% is existing. Staff recommends af proval of a hardcover variance of 26.2% in the 75' to 250 lakeshore setback to allow 5hardcover where 25% is allowed and 56% is existing. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval of this application that all plastic imder landscaping be removed from the property prior to construction. The 255 s.f reduction in total hardcover roughly offsets the 282 s.f. increase in structural hardcover. Staff recommends approval of the application as proposed subject to the condition. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Views of Proposed Carport Hardcover Worksheets U2307 Ellen Peterson 3355 Crystal Bay Road yariances October 20, 1997 Pages ' i Application # JbO Date Received Jl^fn -Q 7 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ® A?’ ^ s 3, PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address A, t> GT» i Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /?/ / 7 3 ^/oo ^ ^____ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. DateProperty AcQuired ________________________ I (do) <tdo noty also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) Present use of pro^jerty: X residential Zoning District:. other (specify). APPLICANT Name Address: Olo Phone (home) _____ Phone (work ) ~~^l(c - ^ Qo City: Kju __ Zip: S^y^9/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $ inscribe request in detail: ---decfe.- (t’lhrwv'/(g ^ fe 'Ja. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front X_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: doOb /?cf' ^///a>->gccT^ LO/)uj.t> Pll'T - /hrn? gji Tff-dL (attach' additional sheets if necessary) •» r ► VAC !2-4-69 ~(VAC BK 116 MI5C, P 5 i51) NOTE 1 • REAP.RAMbEMc.NT OF lOTS ^ 42 , 43 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 69 , 70 & 71 WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH.4^hj- K;\N \ 7 ' (20)\ ^ a... V.iAc..... '% \(18) Si’ 18 (20 . xo1 ' '9> AA 75H'A 'V-% • • • ^7' f-iv 2I / A 27)^26 .A 'f/i x> C. -#' ?'Z 7; .7^^/ X- OD<,^y y. («*•♦■»I* •«rr>rKift-* • V w ■ ■ .* .• r«« »J600 lUMfflflOy UMI 9UM m II 3 ■__.Uj IfSEE MAP 61 J ^ ilMINNETRISTA | MOtl0OI Wi3f f V * 5(3 3L a irwMM II (ivrlw-JL I Si ■> ' V C C> j'' >1 PERMIT RECORD Type of Permit^ (UJ^P- ^eo^ #2307 jj ®29 j 4^©NT0UR LINE', o .t;-..rr.-Jir,____ .g~ 'r-s?* .*rr- •' - rlrjrrrf ’-fr ir TuTtr^-ZLJ^zrsrs^.rTXTrzT *• • • •— —• ♦»¥» rr**.s i-rrt/:.V:t: :"*. v •fT.-tr acfer-.-A-TTr*?.- TS" nnffn'Miiiilllll nil !!Bili :! icy li I A..I. M!1 II » • i * ^_____ J-4f ■n i-i *'.y ci.^ t—ri>se‘r.re 5-»/at;<s>h •/-t-i-c’’nc* SvS7A".«:s aes^-TM oer ^'L. */£*\ /-t '/I. ••••t .»■ — 1/^5 *rw*^ >• r- •'. r 4ta « •| hardcover calculation WORKSHEE'l BACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 250-500 ’ EXISTING HARDCOVrP IN ••^Lyb. ‘V.' TM£. VJU-Ajit Of AATKA. BEACH . I 500-1000' A. House Wood walls Length itL5_k^ f X X X Widlh P‘^ \A/iDP B. Garage X X Hi V 1 D. Sidewalk "C^NCRtrrg X X *E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Ocher total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ------------------+ B PRQPQSFn liARDrnVFR IN A. House . .1 in II LcT^ih Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pacio/Deck X X F. Landscape Uoderlain By Plastic • m 21 o.r. S.F. 1 i •‘ S.F.• *S.F. S.F. 4-3»+S.F. <r- • ✓ *sr 6IZ S.F. o in S.F. j • • •••••'•S.R- t :/• • •“* 7 •t S.F. *•S.F.•-V ' 105 i.F. a S.F. •S.F.r = 1 * • 1 S.F.’ •»\n « • .12.4-2 + • • • S.F. i A •Z08O 1.S.F.Bss. 43.15 % •• * • • i* a 1• • « S.F. • • • • • • 1 H *S.F. • • =S.F.' 1 t « • S.F. f • «IF.1 • =S.F. § S.F. m «1 .S.F..\c• S.F. s=s S.F. X X X G. Other S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ____________ + B S.F. X 100 e S.F. S.F. % A B t • • eo«%• I # « • • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEE1 /AUU. (O THfc v/»l-l>w^£ Of 0£>t.: SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE QNE) 0-75*75-250*250-500 ’SOO-IOOQ' * I A.House 36,Z X «i 8/'S’s'f. Length X Width S.F.- • • •X sd f S.F. *1 W4U,'5 S-S" •X 0,S >A /1 r 23 S.F. B.Garage X S'.F. C.Driveway •• -COHCRETe X •• • • .• 10?S.F.• X s S.F.{ D.Sidewalk' • ^ C0MCR£T£ iZ X 5.S • • ________________ • • 1 • S.F. •. • . N'; E. Patio^k Coh£.,/conC, SuA6 X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Ocher TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ______ + B .X too PROPOSED IIARDCnVER A. House .. .. X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X .* X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • + B X 100 ■» S.F. ( B7 S.F. S.F. CJ 15o S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.% /2 94- t S.F. 2310 t S.F. ai % A B tb* S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F..« I S.F. S.F. _ S.F. ^ S.F. « » • S.F. S.F.. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B • « « I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEET: IQ OCT 2 7 1997 DATE; October 27, 1997 ITEM Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Maintenance of Dakota Avenue Dakota Avenue is a dead end street off Long Lake Boulevard. Sanitary sewer was just installed in this street as part of the North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer project. This was an existing gravel street that was paved after sewer installation was completed. This street was privately maintained in ^ past, and the residents have contacted the City requesting public maintenance of this street. This issue has been discussed at several public meetings for the sewer project. The maintenance of this street was last discussed at the assessment hearing for the sewer project. The meeting minutes state that no decision has been reached on maintenance responsibility for this street. The residents of Dakota Avenue have requested that a final determination be made by the Council on public versus private maintenance of this street be reached as soon as possible. If private maintenance is to be continued, the residents need to arrange for snow plowing services as soon as possible. The street is 600 feet long and serves 7 houses. According to public works personnel, this road has teen privately maintained for at least the last twenty years. Dakota Avenue was dedicated as public Right of Way in a plat dating from the 1940's. We are not aware of any written documentation concerning the responsibility for maintenance of Dakota Avenue. Long Lake Boulevard has been paved for many years and maintained by the City. Dakota Avenue was not paved, and this may have teen a factor in the City not maintaining the street. This street was Just paved as part of the North Long Lake sewer project. An issue that needs to be considered is the precedent that will be set by changing the maintenance respomibilities for any roads in the City. The policy of private road maintenance in the rural areas is stated in the comprehensive plan. Since the 1974 Comprehensive Guide Plan This policy has been clearly followed in the rural areas. The new roads developed in the rural area are intended to be private with the road ownership and maintenance responsibilities defined in the subdivision platting and development agreements. Any decisions reached on Dakota Avenue should not set a precedent that requires changes to rural area private road maintenance or ownership. The only other sfteet located on public right of way that is privately maintained is Shore Hills Drive, located adjacent to Old Beach Road. Shore Hills Drive is narrow, approximately 16 wide, and has the appearance of a private driveway through the woods. We are not aware of any I# ■r r Y I resident requests for pubiic maintenance of this street though it has always been on City Right of Way. The Council recently decided to provide public maintenance of Casco Cove Road located adjacent to Casco Avenue. This is a dead end street located on public right of way and has sanitary sewer located in the street and a lift station at the end of the street. All of the other streets within the North Long Lake sewer project area, Long Lake Boulev^d, Country Club Drive, and Lakeview Terrace are located on public right of way and are publicly maintained. In the future MUSA expansion sewer projects, all of the streets are on public right of way and publicly maintained, except Edgewood Hills Road. This road is located off Wcodhill Road, a private road. Edgewood Hills Road is privately owned and maintained with underlymg City easements for utility and sewer purposes. If the City decides to assume maintenance responsibilities for Dakota Avenue, routine maintenance will not create an excessive burden on the City public works maintenance staff. The plowing of this short dead end street will take a minimum amount of time, as the City trucks are already plowing Long Lake Boulevard. Mowing along this street is minimal as the property owners maintain their yards up to the edge of the street. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consideration of residents request for public maintenance of Dakota Avenue. My recommendation is that Dakota Avenue be publicly maintained based on the following criteria. 1.) Dakota Avenue has been platted as public right of way since the 1940's 2.) Dakota Avenue is adjacent to Long Lake Boulevard, a public street that is currently being maintained by the city. The other streets within the North Long Lake sewer project area. Long Lake Boulevard, Country Club Drive, and Lakeview Terrace are all on public right of way and are publicly maintained. 3.) Dakota Avenue has sanitary sewer located in the street which requires City use of the street for sewer maintenance purposes r J COUNCIL MEETING OCT 2 7 199T REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: October 23, 1997 ITEM NO = /3 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrators Report Item Description: Stubbs Bay Access to Lake Minnetonka Background of Situation An issue regarding public access to Lake Minnetonka at the south end of Stubbs Bay Road has been brought to the City's attention by the adjoining property owner. Lisa Olson has appeared before the Park Commission and sent a letter to the City Council expressing her concerns about this situation. The City own* access to Lake Minnetonka on platted right-of-way for Oak Street. (See attached plat map). The area east of the extended centerline of Stubbs Bay Road is part of the Olseifs^ property. They own the house and property in the northeast quadrant of the Stubbs Bay ^ Road/County Road 84 intersection. Their property also includes lakeshore land south of County Highway 84. They recently purchased this property, which had been owned by the previous owner for many years. There is an existing gravel access to the lake located on the extended east side of Stubbs Bay Road. This access has been in place and used for at least the last 20 years. The City has hauled in gravel to maintain this access and has installed a seasonal dock at this location for many years. This access is also a major snowmobile route providing access from Lake Minnetonka along Stubbs Bay Road to the DNR Luce Line Trail. Snowmobiles are allowed on the Luce Line trail west of Stubbs Bay Road. This access has been used for many years with no concerns expressed by the previous property owner. There are two possible explanations for this use of private property for public access over a long period. One possible reason is that nobody ever checked the exact location of the City owned land, and it was assumed that the public access was located on City owned land. Another explanation is that the property owner was aware of this encroachment and allowed it to continue because it was not a major impact to his property. My understanding is that the location of the lake access was never an issue that was brought to the City’s attention. The location of the existing access is in a desirable spot. The adjacent City land to the west is wetland with a steep bank down from County Road 84. It is quite possible that the shoreland in the existing access area was wetland and was filled years ago to provide more desirable acces*! to the lake. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 4 October 23, 1997 Stubbs Bay Access to Lake Minnetonka We first became aware of a problem in this area earlier this summer when the Public Works Department proceeded to install the seasonal dock in the usual location. The property owner, Lisa Olson, immediately contacted the City about the dock being located on her property. The City Engineer surveyed the site to determine the location of the City land. The dock was then shifted further to the west to correspond with the City owned property. The City land to access the dock is wetland, so people continued crossing the Olson property to gain access to the dock. The property owner came to the October Park Commission meeting to express her concerns about this situation. My understanding is that she had contacted a Park Commissioner who lives in the area. The Park Commission listened to her comments and made several recommendations. Their recommendations were to investigate the possibility of restoring the driveway access to original conditions, install signs to direct people to the public acce'S, and to ir.vestigate the possibility of constructing a boardwalk across the wetland to provide access to the City seasonal dock. The property owner was directed to send a letter to the Council expressing her concerns, as the City Council would need to approve any actions regarding this situation. A letter from Lisa Olson was included in the Council packet for the October 13th meeting (See attached copy). We are presenting this topic for Council discussion to obtain direction and guidance from the Council on the resolution of this issue. The issue of lake access can be a very sensitive and complex issue, and City staff would like to obtain input from the Council before proceeding any further with this situation. Discussion of Possible Solutions The existing access, located on private property, is clearly a desirable access with a gravel surface and a gradual slope from the County Highway to the lake. The City dock in this location functioned very well, and the existing site also provided vehicle parking for dock users. This existing access also provided good access for snowmobiles because of the gradual slope. This location is aligned with the east side of Stubbs Bay Road. The preferred route for snowmobiles is along the east side of Stubbs Bay Road because of favorable topography. Use of the City owned land for access is problematic. On the City land, there is a steep bank from County Road 84 that drops down to a wetland area. Access across the wetland to the dock is vpry difficult. This wetland is protected by both City and other agency regulations. Also, there is no place for vehicle parking. The access for snowmobiles is less than desirable. There is a steep bank adjacent to the County Road. Unless there is a large amount of snow, this bank ccjld be hazardous. The snowmobiles will need to accelerate to climb the bank and upon reaching the crest will tend to shoot right out onto County Road 84. This creates a hazardous situation from a traffic safety perspective. This access also lines up with the west side of Stubbs Bay Road. The snowmobiles will either have to cross over to the east side of the road or will continue along the west side of the road Snowmobile travel along the west side of the Stubbs Bay Road is less desirable than along the east side. Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 4 October 23, 1997 Stubbs Bay Access to Lake Minnetonka The private property was used for public for many years with no concerns expressed by the previous owner. The new owners of the property have expressed concern about public trespassing on their property and requested that the City solve the problem. The private property is the logical access location, and unless changes are made to this area, it will be extremely difficult to deter people from using this access. The owners have asked about the possibility of installing a fence to block the access. Installation of a fence could be hazardous to snowmobilers, aiKl fences are not allowed within 75’ of the lakeshore by the City zoning ordinance. There are several possible responses to this situation. The first solution would be for the City to gain ownership of the private property on which the existing access is located. A logical parcel to be acquired would be the eastern 33 feet wide extended Stubbs Bay Road right-of-way. The owners have expressed concern about possible liability if someone is injured using their property. The City could approach the owners about the possibility of negotiated purchase of the proper^. In the event the owners are not interested in the City purchasing the property , City acquisition could be very difficult and expensive. The second possible response could be for the City to eliminate the gravel surface access and restore the property to a natural condition. This would involve minor excavation to remove the existing gravel and placement of material to fill the access ramp area. The property owners have indicated a desire to install landscaping to block the access. Installation of landscaping is not feasible now because of the existing gravel surface. Fill and topsoil would need to be installed to allow for successful growth of landscape plantings. This response would discourage use of the private property for lake access. The City could install signs to direct people to the public access. The third possible response would be for the City to not make any changes on the private prope^ on which the existing access is located. Signs could be installed to direct people onto the City owned access property. This response would probably result in continued use of the existing more desirable access, located on private property, instead of City owned land. This situation could result in complaints to law enforcement officials about trespassing on private property. Request for Council Action continued page 4 of 4 October 23, 1997 Stubbs Bay Access to Lake Minnetonka to a^uion t^eciding the best course of action for the private property, another issue is tte Civ owned property. The ftrst issue is the instailation of a seasonal dock. One responseis use of would ies for Another opdon would be to insUII the dock on the Civ owned property without makina anv •» vev difficult to access withom ttespassing on privitt =“=S ~ s COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: ComWeration of the property owners' concerns about this situation and possible responses to this *e Civ .0 purchase the land on wo >«onunendations for Council 1. owner 2. Restore the existing access to a more natural stale to allow for the property owi to plant landscaping in order to discourage public use of this privL ^operty. Improve the City property to provide convenient and safe access for a Civ dock and snowmobile use, recognizing that this would require alteration of a small amount of wetland with appropriate mitigation require! ( 14) ------------ja'«9T >^-| ••'166 EEN ST "W. 4f 00 O' 5ii (3U^y ('o(„ r») 9 Tnr 6 / ^ S ° ^45- ^ ' i . n•: ^ (lo; I-. *13./4 ST»2 \: / ’ _n \ (l!5)^'or^^/:<//0'7)» : e ^cr 9 '“.■1^5 1h t?5 1 •• ’a.»9 /\ * L) U; iV .12 L_V Mi» Jr •« 1 7 6 3 Ini> n/<0 9 6 7 i 6 .5 \ • 1 V N / / •c I fBr.t-T'-.-U»;Tr--M-»-r^ O’i •••^- • ^ ^ V , i October 8, 1997 Mayor Gabriel Jabbour Council Members: J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson and Richard Flint Dear Distinguished Representatives; I requested council from the City of Orono Park Board at their meeting on 10/6/97 regarding my property at Stubb's Bay Road where it meets Bayside (County 84). This letter is to summarize the issues discussed and to accompany the recommendations of the Park Board. We own the lakefront property adjoining the “Stubb’s Bay Access”. For some years the City of Orono adapted what is now our property to be a public lake access and placed its removable dock there. This adaptation includ^ the replacement of natural vegetation and shoreline with gravel. This has led to a signiflcant liability and safety concern due to trespassing. The trespassing has included fishing, swimming access, picnicking and parties, boat launching and horse and snowmobile traffic. We have met %vith much confrontation when we have attempted to restrict such activities. We are requesting that if the city continues to provide lake access in this area that they make the access completely on public property. This could be accomplished with a clearly posted boardwalk to the dock. Since this intersection is a high traffic, winding road with no shoulder, we request that the area be posted “no parking”. (There is parking available at Bederwood Park.) Further, we request that the City of Orono remove the public access they created and restore it to a residential application without the appearance of a public access. This can be accomplished by removing the ^vel bed that was laid and restoring the shoreline to again be consistent in elevation with that to the east. We will restore the plantings. Finally, we are deeply concerned with the safety and liability of snowmobile drivers who, in the past, have crossed Stubb’s Bay at considerable speed to come up our propeitjr onto Stubb’s Bay Road. What they have apparently thought was an access will no longer be accessible and we fear crashes will re^t. We recommend that flashing lights be posted which are visible from the road and the lake as an alert to a change in conditions. Thank you for your attention to these matters. We want to do our part to maintain the safety and beauty of our city. lly submitt^Respectfiill; Lisa Olsen 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL OCT 2 7 1997 CITYOFOnONO DATE: October 23, 1997 ITEM NO ' \ \ ^ i Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrators Report Item Description: City Policy Regarding Burning Permits This Item was previously discussed by the City Council in August 1997 (See attached information). At that time, the Council action requested was to confirm the City's current burning permit policy. The Council referred this issue back to staff for further consideration. City staff has researched this topic and had several discussions regarding this issue. Our opinion is that the current policy, except for a minor change to the length of time permits are issued for, is appropriate for the City of Orono. We occasionally hear comments that less densely developed cities further west have less restrictive policies. Less restrictive policies may be appropriate for these types of cities, but with the existing developed conditions in Orono, less restrictive policies would be problematic. The entire area around Lake Mmnetonka and Long Lake is developed at higher urban type densities where open burning, that is not tightly controlled, will cause problems. Most of the rural area in the City is developing at a 2-acre minimum lot size with an area in the Northwestern portion of the City at 5 acre lot size zoning. Less restrictive open burning in these areas could result in problems with smoke and grass fires. For example, in the Dickey subdivision, it is difficult to envision less restrictive open burning not causing problems. There are a few large estate areas where it may be possible to conduct open burning today without causing major problems. However, the number of these areas is limited and in the future they could be subdivided into smaller lots, such as the Fullerton subdivision. The City has very nice homes and is attractive for development because residents desire a pleasant environment in which to live. Comments that City staff have consistently received indicate that residents have a greater concern about maintaining a pleasant living environment versus allowing activities such as open burning that may adversely affect the quality of life in the City. The underlying issue appears to be a desire for economical and nearby sites for disposal of brush. The storm damage brush disposal site that was operated this summer together with the City Long Lake was well received by area residents. The cost for chipping of the large brush pile with a mobile tub grinder was fairly reasonable at $1,600. The severe storms most likely generated more brush than for a typical year. Residents would probably be willing to pay a reasonable fee for a nearby brush disposal site. Our recommendation is that the City of Orono work with the City of Long Lake to provide an annual brush disposal site. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 October 23. 1997 City Policy Regarding Burning Permits We have obtained a copy of the burning ordinance for the City of Shorewood. This City is comparable to Orono in development density, especially in the areas around the lake. Their ordinance is slightly more restrictive than Orono’s. Shorewood requires an annual permit for recreational fires up to a 3-foot diameter size. Orono allows 3 foot diameter recreational fires plus log disposal fires up to 8 feet in diameter and 4 feet high by permit. The current permit is valid for 30 days wiA one additional renewal allowed. There is no cost for the permit unless all of the site requirements are not met on the first inspection and the site must be reinspected. The intent of the firw permit is to encourage residents to obtain a permit, so we have notification of burning sites. All bums must be reported to the Police Department. We are recommending that the one change be made to the City’s burning policy. This change is to issue an annual permit for burning versus the existing 30 day permit with one renewal allowed. This annual permit would be valid for one year from the date of issuance and would not be renewable. Before issuance of the permit, a site inspection of the proposed burning area would be completed by the zoning staff. To encourage residents to obtain a permit, the current policy of not charging should be continued. The existing policy of charging $20.00 for a reinspection if all the permit requirements are not met on the initial inspection should be continued. The existing requirement for police department notification before each bum should also be continued. This policy change should reduce the number of permit renewals and new permits for residents who want to have recreational or log disposal fires several times throughout the year. The same level of notification will still be provided as residents will need to inform the police department each time they wish to bum. In the event of inappropriate burning or residence complaints, a permit could be revoked any time and penalties assessed if warranted. Residents who comply with the terms of the ordinance, and are careful to minimize impacts from burning activities, will be able to bum for a full year without renewals or obtaining new permits. These one year permits will not be renewable, so a new permit and site reinspection will be required on at least an annual basis. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to confirm the City's existing burning policy except for changing the time period for burning permits from 30 days with one renewal allowed, to an annual permit with no renewals allowed. [ request for council action DATE; August 21,1997 ITEM NO: | Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: City Policy Regarding Burning Permits Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Attachment: Memo From Mike Gaffron RE: City Policy on Burning Permits At the August 11 City Council meeting, the Council received public comments regarding both the city ’s burning peiimt policy and the availability of a brush disposal site for Orono residents. As the attached memo from Mike Gaffron indicates, the two are related in that both relate to the disposal of brush. The city has had a strict policy regarding brush burning. It is my understanding this strict policy was to be offset by the availability of other brush disposal options. Initially the option provided was a city brush disposal site. However, the amount of brush brought to the site was beyond what could be chipped by city staff. When Hennepin County opened a brush disposal site in Maple Grove, die city began to contract to have the brush hauled to the Coimty site. Because this was a relatively expensive program, the city's brush disposal site was eliminated in favor of Orono residents taking their brush directly to the County site. Since then the city has received numerous requests to reinstate a local brush disposal site. These residents have generally indicated a willingness to pay a fee for this service. Recently, in taking with other cities, staff has become aware of the availability of a contractor with a large tub grinder that grinds the brush into chips at a reasonable cost. These chips can then be made available to residents. Based on comments from residents it appears it would be possible for the city to recover all or a sigmflcant portion of the costs of providing a brush disposal site through fees charged for the use of the site. The most difficult element of providing a disposal site would be to identify a workable site. If the Council is open to pursuing this option, staff would contact adjacent cities regarding a joint brush disposal site. It is staffs recommendation that the city continue its policy of discouraging burning as a way of disposing of brush. It may be necessary to provide a seasonal brush disposal site to provide residents with a more convenient option for brush disposal. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to confirm the city's burning permit policy. .i « V' To: From: Date: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator August 20,1997 Subject: City Policy on Burning Permits requested that Council consider expanding the options for brush c^d orcom^s^ *" " ®"“>' “P *» b« History The regulated burning, and enforced a strict set of rules intended to prevent SWs^^ctwSlSTh P"^“P*^rules. (Lrule methXS “ “■•""“'ive disposal of*' MPCA open of all open burning permits The Citv^ ' “S'n'y resjxjnsible for the issuance and enforcement permits through its fire warden progrSli The Dm^ authority to issue open burning with no teal attitude of polluUon pre^on sSL f P"''“‘ that it was (and is) mor" appropri~ur c^^J Chiopiny Program I ®*® ™* ““ “"“t *at it would be used not only for City ke» up Jrith i, rrthrchrn^- ^*’™'*'*^“'™'“'™®”e”®‘*®‘*'City could not homeowners to dispose of brush*::^ 0o"to“ui s“” Current Burning Code & Poljrj>.<j Shitiorcon^i^^^ current City ordinance regardmg open burning and air of guidelines which the^"cuSy folZ!s^*’‘’'‘'*^°“ (Attachment B) contains a number i request for council action DATE: Aug\ist21,1997 item NO: \ Department Approval: Name RoaMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: City PoUcy Regarding Burning Permits Memo From Mike Gaffion RE: City PoUcy on Burning Permits At the August 11 City Council meeting, the Council received itsident. As the of brush.of brush. •n,. city has had a suHct policy regarding bnah burning. It is my ® ^ » to be offset by the availability of other brush «as beyond what corfd citv brush disposal site. However, the amount J ® , disposal site in Maple Grove, the be chipped by city staff. CoX site. Because this was a relatively cltv bc^ to contract to have the brush hauled to th ty residents takmg :xi^^prog.«m, the cit/s brush dispos^ sue ^ — ^quests to '.fee for this service. .„„witha fee for this service. Recently in talking with other ciUes. staff has S mb grinder that grinds the brush into ctaps at »t -^e ^I possible for ^e available to residents. B^d on brush disposal site throu^ ■ity to recover all or a sigmficant portion ^ of providing a disposal site would rwed for the use of the site. The most difficult demen ot p S staff would contact Sc city to recover all or a significant portion of Ae coste °2'°?ofIfroviding a disposal site would adjacent cities regarding a joint brush disposal site. ^ !•___Viiiminfi ES E WEy 01 adjacent cities regarding a joim oriu>n ^ sviSi a more convenient option for brash disposal. COOTICIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to confirm the city's burning permit policy. I r-wttr- Burning Pennit Policies August 20,1997 Page 2 The Building Inspections Department currently administers burning permits. Each bum site is inspected prior to issuance of &e permit. Bruce and Lyle have offered the following observations as to how the program is working: - We get many more complaints from people upset about their neighbors having a fire than firom people upset because they can't get a permit. We don't allow burning of green material because it bums poorly and is very smoky. Residents are advised to let green material dry out before it is burned. - In unusual circums tances we will issue permits for burning of small amounts of brush; for instance, when it is in a location that defies removal. If the City was to allow burning of brush, we would expect a significantly greater number of permit requests and a significantly greater number of complaints about neighbors burning. Staff is currently barely able to keep up with the number of permits requested; if we were to start allowing bmsh burning, we would not be able to keep up. 124 burning permits were issued in 1996; 91 have been issued so far in 1997. ( >»■ J § 9.30SEC. 9.30. OPEN BURNING AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL except as otherwise provided by «iis Code. 1 o-7*7 Subd. 2, The Air Pollution Control Rules, as amended in u u P^^^'^-^ated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, are I’eference as though set forth verbatim herein. Rules shall be marked CITY OF ORONO - OFFICIAL COPY and kept on file in the office of the City Clerk and open to public. It is unlawful to violate a pro^^slon of this Section or of the Air Pollution Control Rules hereby adopted by reference. *. Exceptions. The following open burning shall be excepted frora the regulation of this Section, provided that with *■5 ^“^P^^®9i^aphs B, c and D below, an appropriate permit shall first be obtained. t't' s' t' , , . Open fires used solely for the preparation offood in an approved recepticle. public and industrial^f instruction and training of ... ^ Rires set for the elimination of fire hazards which cannot be abated by any other practical means. . . , The burning of trees, brush, grass or other vegetable matter in the clearing of land, right-of-way or public lands maintenance operations and agricultural crop burning. u B Required. Burning pursuant to Subpara- grapns B, C and 0 of Subdivision 3 hereof shall be permitted upon ^ssu®uce of an annual or occasional permit by the Building Official and/or the Public Works Coordinator. Annual permits shall be issued to anyone who anticipates or actually burns more than five times per year, a fee shall be charged for annual permits. Permits are issued subject to the following conditions: . , - . ^ permittee, or his authorized representative,will be present at any fire so allowed. . . Such burning will be done only when weather that resultant smoke will be carried away from the neighboring residences or other affected property owners or public roadways. ORONO CC 215 (1-27-86) • S 9-30such permit be subject to revocation at any time it the City determines that there is a practical, available alternate method for disposal of the material to be burned or that such burning will constitute a fire hazard, or a health hazard, or that a traffic hazard would result. Occasional permits may be issued following inspection of the site and materials. Annual permit holders must contact the City for an inspection prior to undertaking any burning during the permit period. Subd. 5. Right of Entry. The members of the fire, police or other City departments shall have the right to enter upon property to investigate a report of or the actual siting of a fire and to take appropriate action to control an illegal fire as defined in Section 9.30 or a legal fire that has been left unsupervised, conducted in an unpermitted area, or which otherwise poses a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. ORONO CC 215-1 Ordinance 19, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-27-86 r-i—-J- r Date Issued: Expiratioa Date: Permit No.: OPEN BURNING PERMIT axy OF ORONO Box 66 (2750 Kelley Parkway) Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Permit to be mailed:• * ^ or picked NOTE: Penmts are issued for recreation fires and the disposal of logs if there is no practical alternative method of disposal such as chipping or composting. Brush up to 6" in diameter will not be allowed to be burned and must be chipped or composted. SITE ADDRESS:. Name: DATE: Mailing Address:____ Agent (if applicable): .Phone: (h). __Cit>':____Zip:. FOR THE PURPOSE OF BURNING 2. THE FOLXiOWl^G ITEMS are to be completed before the inspector arrives. Sites inspected subject to availability of staff time. (If inspector has to re-inspect site because items were incomplete, there wilt be a S20.00 charge per re-inspection): 1, Site address must be posted and visible from the » .'et. Where more than one house is served by the same private driveway or urmamed i,nvai. road, additional sets of numbers shall be placed at every fork or other driveway as necessary to direct traffic to every house including the house farthest from the street. Bum pile must be staked at bum site meeting the following: Log- disposal fires Recreational fires - Logs only _ Logs and charcoal only - Minimum 50' from buildings - Minimum 50' from buildings “ maximum diameter, 4' maximum height - 3' max. diameter, 3' max. height Draw a map on the back side of application locating the bum pile on your property. If these conditions are not met, the permit will be denied and you may not apply for another permit for 30 days. 5. Read all conditions of permit before burning. VIOLATIONS OF PERMIT CONDiTIONS MAY SUBJECT PERMITTEE TO CRIMINAL and /or CIVIL ACTION ALL BURNS MUST BE REPORTED (evenings & weekends included) to the Orono Police 3. 4. (8:00-4:30, Monday-Friday). Permits are valid for 30 days and may be renewed once for an additional 30 days by calling City Hall prior to expiration. More than 5 permits per year (for all organizations and individuals regardless of tax status) will be charged a $100.00 fl'nnnal fee. (Over) REUSE, RECYCLE, COMPOST r «irin*. pO^ h^o„, •"d’i.dunrii «fc^*"*^'“' I AGREE: buni^ done under ikii permit *““' for >11 demages and costs that ma To mttinguish the Hre hamedUtely if .to • or y result from um at the above bum site location. MAP Approved by: Inspected by: InqiectorsComments: Fire Dqtaitmeiit: ' Lon- Date: Maple Plain Mound UAs!^n. tmtapts.__________ ordmanett n,^__^ . Wayzata dexcrihfA tftntart^i aal. —oruwonc« Tht nji ^'ss i ^^05.0705 to 7005.0805p MS k “'§pUKQL MEETING request for council action OCT 2 7 1997 CITYOFOBONO DATE; October 27,1997 ITEM NO.: / Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer’s Report Item Description: Feasibility Study for Edgewood Hills Sanitary Sewer Project properties. A City cost contribution for this project is not envisioned. The pro posed schedule is for construchon of this project in 1998. The atl^bed resolution ordering /i^or^ fc^iwiity study is presented for approval by the Council COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to approve resolution ordering die preparation of a feasibility study for the Edgewood Hills Sanitary Sewer project. 1 r GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __ A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER TO SERVE THE EDGEWOOD HILLS AREA WHEREAS, project area residents have submitted a letter indicating interest in obtaining sanitary sewer, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has provided preliminary cost estimates for a sanitary sewer extension however additional information is needed in order to establish the feasibility of such a project, and WHEREAS, it is proposed that municipal sanitary sewer trunks and/or laterals be constructed to serve the Edgewood Hills area and that the benefitted property(s) be assessed for all of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota that the proposed iniprovemenls be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective, and feasible and whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Oiono this 27ih day of October,'1997. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk I I I * t I CITY OF ORONO JUClEllO^i^d D. ELDREDGE JACKSON III 1055 Edgewood Hill Road Wayzata, MN 55391 MAY 2 S 1997 pin 5/24/97 Mike Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 65323-0066 Dear Mike, One of the neighbors mentioned that they had been told by someone at the City of Orono that Edgewood Hill had been pushed down on the priority list for sewer because there had never been a letter from the neighborhood supporting the project As you will recall, you attended a neighborhood meeting where strong support was voiced and at your request we sent a letter signed by all of the neighbors, a copy of which is enclosed. Please be assured that we continue to be interested In having this project move forward as fast as might be^ossible. D.E. Jeekson 473-6415 or 667-7059 (Office) RESIDENTS of EDGEWOOD HILL October 21,1995 Mike Gaffroa Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bayt MN 55323-0066 Dear Mike: Thanks ag«*" for taking the time to meet witili the residents of Edgewood Hill to discuss the ^ proposed future sewer project for our area. You were very helpful in responding to the questions that we had and e^laining various possible options. This letter b to confirm our interest in further pursuing the feasibility ®f having sewer provided to our Bftghhftriioad at the earliest postible time. As we discussed, there remain a number of questions to be answered. Of particular interest to us b a preliminary estimate for running the line on the lower side of our homes vs. the road. Once we have that information we will get estimates for hooking up to your line. We understand that MUSA approval b required before thb project can be implemented. Thanks for your help, and we look forward to working with you In the future. V A 'J . \\kcc I 1 FORCEMAIN GRAVITY SEWER LIFT STATION GRINDER PUMP ORONO, MINNESOTA FIGURE 10 Bonestroo Rosene Anderiik A Associates ’39SEWEP\139XX901 A/21/9 A COMM. 139GEN 10^ \ I . F-’ Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk& Associates Engineers & Architects Otio G Bcne«?oo. ficoen W tciene. PS • josepn C. AndertiH. PS Mjrvm L Scrvjll. PS P<r<ira E Turner, f £ E. Coo^ F£ Thomas E No>ti PS KcStn G. Schyh<ht PS SuSJh M EOfrttfX C EA. •Sen«f Consonant June 15, 1994 Ncvvari A SanJorC P£. Xc:t> a. Gordon. PS RcocfT « Weffcrtc. EH t<ha«d W Eostr*. E£ David O Lossoca. E£ Eocen C Euije*L AJ A Jtfry A ScurOOn E£ Mart A Hansen. E£ M<nad T Eaurrrarw PS Ted K. E«!d. E£ Thomas E Anoerjon. A lA Donald C tursaro. E£ Thomas A S/ka El Erecenc i Swnoojg. E£ Ismael Marumi E£ Michael E Ra-». E£ Airies M. E.nj. AlC E Thomas W. Eeterson. P£ Michael C lynch. El. James E. Ma'and. E£ Jerry D Ee-asch, E£ Scc3 J Arganek. E£ Kennen E Anderson. E£ Mart E. Es?l El Mart A Se a E£ Cary w Mcr-en PI. Eac4 i Gannoa At A Dan<i J EsgenoA E£ A. E-Ct SfhmCL E£. Enajp J Caiv\eff. E£ Mart O PS. Miles 8 Jensea El t philiip Grj\^. EE Karen L U/icmea EE Gary O KnsraAcz. EE f Todd Eojtec El Keen E. Yapa El Douglas I Senoc. EE ShaMvn O Getta^son. EE Cec*o Otvier. EE Eaui G. Hevei El John E Oc»»cet El. Charles A Eretjon LroM P9^0Oy Harlan M Odon James 1 Engeiharct City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Attn: Mr. Mike Gaffron Re: Sewer Area Expansion Our File No. 139 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the extension of sanitary sewer service to several areas in the City, as requested. Each area was laid out based on the Uvo foot contour maps. It is expected that minor alignment changes will occur when/if the sewer is installed. Follo%viu» is a summary of the service areas and estimated cost for each area. 1. Bay Ridge ^8 $150,000 $ 18,750 2 Fox HiU 22 318,280 14,470 3. Webber HiUs ,34 475,200 13,980 4. Fox Ridge 7 208,500 29,800 5. Backett Point 14 247,240 17,660 6. Orono Orchards 22 304,000 13,820 • E 7. East Long Lake Road 10 223,500 22,350 8. North Long Lake 31 421,500 13,600' 9. Lone Lake Country' Club 21 411,700 19,600 (^. Edgewood Hills 7 84,000 12,000').^ The cost for each area varies widely depending on its location relative to existing sewer and with the need for lift station and force main facilities. Area 4 (Fox Ridge) discharges into Area 3 (Webber Hills). If constructed, the cost to construct Area 4 wiU be increased by appro,\imately S900Q per unit. Area 8 (North Long Lake) discharges into Area 9 (Long Lake County Drive). If Long Lake Country Club is not constructed, the cost to construct Area 8 will increase y approximately $3000 per unit. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MIM 55113 • 612-636-4600 1 I Ki; Mr. Mike Caffron City of Orono Page -2- June 25, 1994 The cost estimates are based on 1994 unit prices and will vary depending on the size of the project to be constructed. Soil investigation work has not been completed and the estimated costs arc based on typical Orono soils. If you have any questions, please contact this office Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC Glenn R. Cook GRCtlk a;--------------------------- id ^ * ^ Owner City of Orono, P.O, Box 66. Crystal Biv. MN 55323 For Period: October 7.1997 to October 15.1997 Contractor Barbarossa 8c. Sons. P.O. Box 367. Osseo. MN 55356 Date: October IS. 1997 Request No: 3 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT BAY RIDGE AND BRACEETTS POINT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS File No. 13990 COMTRACTOR'S COPY FOR YOUR FILE SUMMARY I Original Contract Amount Change Order • Addition Change Order - Deduction Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned 8 Less Retainage 5% 9 Subtotal 10 Less Amount Paid Previously II AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ $ 55.538.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. iroved by dontractorApproved by Barbarossa & Sons Approved by Owner: City of Orono Specified Contract Completion Date:Date: l:M 39\i ^990^REQUEST^.WB^ 523.740.00 579.278.00 399,000.25 0.00 399.000.25 19.950.01 379,050.24 284.744.69 94,305.55 € f No. 1. 4^A 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 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” I03PE 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 2“ X 1-1/2" HDPE rediK*T 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:\139M399<rBEQUEST3.WB2 Contract Unit Quantity Amount Unit Quantity Price to Date to Date IP 975 31.00 823 25,513.00 LF 547 32.00 511 16,352.00 IF 831 33.00 1,237 40,821.0(' LF 582 34.00 581•19,754.00 LF 95 35.00 55 1,925.00 LF 50 36.00 76 2,736.00 LF 41 36.00 10 360.00 LF 82 37.00 150 5,550.00 LF 210 38.00 170 6,460.00 LF 20 50.00 20 1,000.00 IP 12 54.00 4 216.00 EA 17 1,700.00 15 25,500.00 LF 39.4 85.00 43.3 3,680.50 EA 1 2,000.00 1 2,000.00 LF 8.2 300.00 4.1 1,230.00 LF 630 29.00 624 18,096.00 LF 1,815 20.00 1,772 35,440.00 LF 184 24.00 184 4,416.00 EA 1 3,000.00 1 3,000.00 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00 1,010 30.00 1.010 30,300.00 EA 1 50.00 EA 1 25.00 EA 5 30.00 2 60.00 EA 22 30.00 26 780.00 EA 1 50.00 653LF850 20.00 II LF 35 20.00 LF 300 24.00 IP 120 24.00 LF 1,950 3.00 1.000 1 lUII LF 1,950 1.00 2,144 2,144.00 SY 20 20.00 11 220.00 LF 4,075 0.60 $312,613.50 i Part 2 • Restoration . 36 Bituminous surftcing removal SY 37 Common excavation CY 38 Class S aggregate base (100% crushed) TN 39 Type 31 bituminous base course TN 40 Type 41A bituminous wearing course TN 41 Geotextile fabric SY 42 Bituminou- '»'iateru] for tack coat CL 43 Bituminous street patching SY 44 Clearing and grubbing LS 43 Sawcut bituminous LF 46 Bituminous driveway restoration SY 47 Concrete driveway restoradon SF 48 27 ” diam. catch basin with casting EA 49 Remove existing CMP culvert LF 50 Furnish and install IS" CMP culvert LF 51 IS" CMP flared end EA 52 Boulder retaining wall SF 53 Sod with 4" topsoil SY 54 Seed with topsoil, mulch and fertilizer AC 55 Erosion control fence LF 56 Wild flower seeding SF 57 Furnish and plant Evergreen Tree (Blue Spruce) 6' high EA 58 Furnish and plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) 4" diameter EA 59 Remove and replace wood or chain link fence LF 60 Remove and transplant bushes EA 61 Remove and transplant tree - Desiduous EA 62 Remove and transplant tree • Coniferous EA Total Part 2 - Restoration Change Order No. 1 ADD 64 Residentail simple grinder pump stations EA Total Alternate No. 2 Alternate No. 3 Bid - Directional Bore 8" HDPE MH-ltoMH-9 l:\13SM3990iREQUEST3.WB2 4.000 2.100 2.S00 600 600 4,700 300 700 1 100 600 100 1 150 150 4 80 13.000 0.4 1,000 800 20 300 40 15 IS 1.50 3.30 9.00 28.50 29.00 1.25 1.20 6.75 5.000. 00 6.00 6.75 10.00 1.000. 00 5.00 20.00 150.00 14.00 2.00 3,280.00 2.00 0.30 220.00 600.00 16.00 50.00 300.00 300.00 1 3,600.00 4,000 710 1,472 2,687 1.0 1 65 53 4,500 590 6,000.00 2,483.00 13,248.00 3,358.75 3,000.00 1,000.00 325.00 1,060.00 9,000.00 1,180.00 300.00 $42,956.75 S0.00 r 66 67 68 69 70 17 65 67 68 70 1 16 66 69 ADDDirectional bore 8" HDP. SDR 17deduct 8" PVC, SDR 35.10-12* deep 8-PVC.SDR35. 12'.14'decp 8 PVC, SDR 35,14'-16'deep 8" PVC, SDR 35,16'-18‘ deep Lightweight aggregate Total deduct Total Alternate No. 3 Change Order No. 1 Directional bore 3" HDPE, SDR 11 Directional bore 8" HDPE, SDR 17 8" PVC, SDR 35,12'-14' deep 8 PVC, SDR 35,14'-16- deep Lightweight aggregate Total DEDUCT 8- PVC, SDR 35.0'-8' deep 3- HDPE, SDR 11 8-PVC. SDR 35.10'.12*deep 8" PVC. SDR 35.16'-18' deep Total Total Change Order No. 1 Total Part 1 - Sanitary Sewer Total Part 2 - Restoration Total Change Order No. 1 Total Work Completed to Date t\139\13990WEQUEST3.WB2 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 1010 90.00 1010 -400 -515 -45 -50 1010 783 446 115 5 40 -253 -783 -435 -26 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 30.00 24.00 90.00 34.00 35.00 30.00 31.00 20.00 33.00 36.00 -400 •515 -45 -50 1010 691 376 115 5 40 -253 -783 -435 -26 90.900.00 (13.200.00) (17.510.00) (1.575.00) (1.800.00) (30.300.00^ ($64,385.00) $26,515.00 16.584.00 33.840.00 3.910.00 175.00 1.200.00 $55,709.00 (7.843.00) (15.660.00) (14.355.00) (936.00^ ($38,794.00) $43,430.00 $312,613.50 $42,956.75 $43,430.00 $399,000.25 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS Owner City of Orono Project No. 13990 FUeNo. 13990 Contractor Barbarossa & Sons CHANGE ORDERS No. Date Description Amount 1 0m9/97 Changes due to unstable soils encountered 55.538.00 2 3 Total Change Orders $55,538.00 PAYMENT SUMMARY Na Period Payment Retainage Completed 1 Start 09/03/97 117.259.45 6.171.55 123.431.00 2 09/03/97 10/06/97 167.485.24 14.986.56 299.731.25 3 10/06/97 10/15/97 94.305.55 19.950.01 399.000.25 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Material on Hand Total Payment to Date $379,050.24 Original Contract $523,740.00 Retainage. Payment No. 3 19.950.01 Change Orders 55.538.00 Total Amount Earned $399,000.25 Revised Contract $579,278.00 l:\139\1399<AREQUEST3.WB2 ! ' i r REQUEST FOR(4SOmi3fblACTION OCT 2 7 1997 DATE: October 23, 1997 CITY OF ORONO ITEM NO:/y Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: West Hennepin Recycling Commission Proposal for Environmental Endowment A letter is attached from the West Hennepin Recycling Commission describing a proposal to use Commission resert'es to fund an environmental endowment as a memorial to Mary Leintz, the former City Clerk for the city of Independence. Maiy was an active member of the WHRC and was committed to recycling and the environment. The WHRC has discussed providing for some sort of ongoing memorial to Mary Leintz using all or a portion of reserves that have been accumulated by the Commission over a number of years due to underspending of budgeted expenditures. The option outlined in the attached letter is to provide for an environmental education endowment through the school districts that serve the cities of the WHRC. As the letter indicates, some or all of the $20,000 of reserves could be used for this endowment. Staff Analysis and Alternative Proposal Staff has a concern about spending the full $20,000 of reserves on an endowment. It may be more reasonable to spend some portion of the reserves. The proposal regarding the environmental education endowment has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that the endowment is perpetual and that the WHRC and the cities do not have to be involved in ongoing management of the endowment. The disadvantages are that the cities give up control over how the funds are used; and because several separate endowments would be needed to involve all six school districts, a larg amount of funds would be needed to provide a reasonable endowment amount at each school. An alternative to the educational endowment would be to place some or all of the reserves into an account, the interest from which could be used on an annual basis to assist innovative recycling or environmental projects. The flmds could be provided to residents, students, etc. The investment of the funds could be managed by a city, and the decisions regarding the use of the funds could be made by the WHRC or a separate body set up specifically for that purpose. As the attached lettei indicates, the first step is for the Council to indicate whether they have any interest in using some or all of the reserve flmds for some type of long term environmental endo wment. If the Council is supportive of the concept, the WHRC would move ahead to develop a specific proposal for review and approval by the cities. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to indicate whether the Council supports the concept of using reserves from the WHRC for a long term "endowment" type of funding for recycling/environmental related activities; and if so to indicate what part of the $20,000 of reserves it would consider using for this purpose. 1 . 23 Sqstcmbcr 1997 WEST HENNEPIN RECYCUNG COMMISSION Greenfield-Independence-Long Lake-Loretto-Maple Plain-Medina-Orono 65 Stubbs Bay Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 476-0012 RECEIVED SEP 2 4 1997 CITY OF OHONO To; ^TTRC City Councils The WHRC has two certificates of deposit (CDs), one in the amount of S15.000 and one in the amount of $5,000. Wc ha\c an idea for the use of some (or all) of these reserves - the Mary Lcintz Environmental Education Endowment. Before we pursue this idea any further, wc arc requesting approv al and input IVom WHRC city councils. Wc have determined, with guidance from Maple Plain's city attorney, Jeff Carson, that using the CDs for educational pur^scs as an endowment meets our joint powers agreement guidelines, as well as our annual contract commitment with Hennepin County i would be imperative, however, that we have unanimous approval, and ultimately a Resolution from each city m order to establish this endowment. Our major reasons for proposing this endowment are: 1. Marv’ Lcintz’s life was c.vemplary . She exhibited all the qualities we most want our children and young adults to live by. She was part of recycling program planriing and implementation in our cities from the very beginning, retiring as a commissioner only three months prior to her death. She was committed to recycling and the environment. 2. Education is the key to the future - this is a long term benefit idea; 3. If this endowment were to be established, it could feasibly be part of existing education ftlnds that cover all six WHRC public school districts (Buffalo. Delano. Orono, Rockford, Wayzata and Westonka). As part of education funds it would guarantee at least a small amount of resources for env ironmental education programs long after the WHRC is no longer a necessary structure, and 4. If this endowment were to be established through existing education funds, the WHRC would have no on-going administrative or maintenance costs. ♦ « % « « Although wc have not determined guidelines or a dollar amount, wc have discussed the concept at length, Wc wish first to secure your approval to pursue this idea, and to get any input you may have with regard to the concept . the guidelines, and a dollar amount Thank you for your consideration. We hope to hear from city personnel or a council member by 31 October 1997. Contact Amelia at 476-0012 with your thoughts. V'ery truly yours. Jbg/Lynch, CTiairman For the Commission Amelia Kroeger (f Recycling Coordinator Funded by WHRC with pat tial funding by Hennepin County Printed on Recycled Paper with 50% Post-consumer Content —...COU-------iHTING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 2 7 1997 CnVOFORONO DATE: October 24, 1997 ITEM NO Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: M Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Bracketts Point Sanitary Sewer Project Assessment Roll - Resolution The Bracketts Point area was initially identified as one of the 10 sewer hot spot areas for replacement of on-site septic systems with municipal sanitary sewer. After a number of neighborhood meetings, the residents signed petitions requesting a sewer project arid indicating their willingness to pay 100 per cent of the project cost. The estimated cost of the project per unit was $29,800. Due to very poor soils in a portion of the project, substantial additional costs for directional boring versus open cutting were incurred. This has increased the per unit cost by $1,900 or 6.4% to $31,700 per unit. A resolution reflecting this per unit cost is attached for Council adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQiJESTED: Motion to approve a resolution adopting the assessment roll for the Bracketts Point sewer project. Municipality. ORONO Levy Number 14195 Municipal Code 3 8 Project Number 97-2 Page / of / . T0M\SPASI.EVY\97-2DRPTLevy Description: Bracketts Point Sanitary SewerTotal Project Assessment $ 492,481.00 Interest Rate 6.25% Number of Years Payable 15 Months Int First Year 14 First Year Payable: 1998 Addition Total 1 14195 11-117-23 23 0002 41311 31,773.00 Douglas & Ellen Schmitt 1475 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN. 55391 1 2 14195 11-117-23 23 0008 43340 31,773.00 Janet C. Kicrnan 1491 Shoreline Drive 2209 Totem Trail Minnetonka, MN. 55305 1 3 14195 11-117-23 23 0009 43340 31,773.00 Eric H. Beringause 1489 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN. 55391 1 4 14195 11-117-23 23 0010 43340 31,773.00 Robert & Iris Waade 1487 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN. 55391 1 5 14195 11-117-23 32 0001 43020 31,77'3.06 Corinne Pillsbury 1200 Bracketts Point Rd. 4800 First Bank Place Minneapolis, MN. 55402 1 6 14195 11-117-23 32 0010 43020 31,773.00 Michael & Jorja Lynn, 111 1265 Brackett ’s Point Rd. Wayzata, MN. 55391 1 7 14195 11-117-23 32 0017 43020 31,773.00 George S. Pillsbury 1300 Bracketts Point Rd. 4800 First Bank Place Minneapolis, MN. 55402 1 8 14195 11-117-23 32 0018 43020 31,773.00 Ella P. Crosby 1220 Brackett ’s Point Rd. Wayzata, MN. 55391 1 9 14195 11-117-23 32 0019 43020 31,773.00 John S. Pillsbury, Jr. 1280 Bracketts Point Rd. 4800 First Bank Place Minneapolis, MN. 55402 1 10 14195 11-117-23 32 0020 43020 111,205.00 James P. & Mary J. Jundt 1420 Bracketts Point Rd. 1400 Brackett ’s Point Rd. V.ayzata, MN. 55391 3.5 11 14195 11-117-23 33 0004 01645 31,773.00 Martha S. & A. Lachlan Reed 1450 Bracketts Point Rd. P.O. Box 29677 Minneapolis, MN. 55429 1 12 14195 11-117-23 33 0005 01645 31,773.00 Roger L & Lynn C. Headrick 1480 Brackett ’s Point Rd. Wayzata, MN. 55391 1 13 14195 11-117-23 33 0006 01645 31,773.00 Martha S. & A. Lachlan Reed 1500 Bracketts Point Rd. P.O. Box 29677 Minneapolis, MN. 55429 1 TOTAL $492,481.00 r A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BRACKETTS POINT SANITARY SE>\'TR ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, on February 10, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3844 accepting the Bracketts Point sanitary sewer improvement feasibility report from the City Engineer and establishing 8:15 p.m. on March 10, 1997, as the date and time for the public hearing on such proposed improvement; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3850 ordering preparation of plans and specifications for the Bracketts Point sanitary sewer project; and WHEREAS, 100 % of the Bracketts Point benefited property owners have petitioned for the sanitary sewer project and executed written waivers, waiving any rights to object to, or appeal from, this project or the assessment of the project cos^s, and have waived any rights to a public hearing on the feasibility of this project or the assessment of the project costs. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 1998, and shall bear . erest at the rate of 6.25% per atmum from November 1, 1997. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from November 1, 1997, until December 31, 1998. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. ITie owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole assessment on such property, with interest charged to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days of October 29, 1997; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the r f- assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 30 in 1997, or before November 15 in a subsequent year or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 4. Partial prepayment is allowed in accordance with Ordinance No. 160, Second Series, adopted May 12,1997. 5. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held October 27,1997. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk L -m COUNCIL MtETINQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 2 7 1997 CrTYOFORONO DATE: October 24,1997 ITEM NO; / ^ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: / Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for the Bay Ridge Sewer Project The Bay Ridge area was identified as sewer hot spot where it was appropriate to replace existing on ­ site septic systems with municipal sewer. After a number of neighborhood meetings, the residents signed petitions requesting the sewer project and indicated their willingness to pay 100 per cent of the project costs. The initial estimate of project cost was $20,351 per unit. Due to relocating the lift station to a less costly location and due to a project free of any surprises, the actual per unit cost is $16,964. This is a reduction of $3,387 or 16.6% per unit. .A resolution reflecting this per unit cost is attached for Council adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to adopt a resolution adopting the assessment roll for the Bay Rid,«?e project. 1 Municipality: ORONO Municipal Code: 38 Levy Number 14196 Project Number 97-3 Page f of / .Levy Description: Bay Ridge Sanitary Sewer TOMN5PA5LBV Y\97 -3 BY ROTotal Project Assessment S 135.71100 Interest Rate 6.25% Number of Years Payable 15Months Int First Year 14 First Year Payable: 1998 Total 1 1 [NumDcr 14196 r 1 u fNumocr 10-117-23 34 0003 ^oac 43072 16,964.00 Gerald D. & Diane B. Westby 1449 Bay Ridge Rd. Wayzata, MN. 55391 1 2 14196 10-117-23 34 0004 43072 16,964.00 Michael J. & Susan F. Johnson 1461 Bay Ridge Rd. Wayzata, MN. 55391 1 3 14196 10-117-23 34 0005 43072 16,964.00 Thomas R. & M. H. McCune 1473 Bay Ridge Rd. Wayzata, MN. 55391 1 4 14196 10-117-23 34 0006 43072 16,964.00 Evangeline T. Kerber 1485 Bay Ridge Rd. Wayzata, MN. 55391 1 5 14196 10-117-23 34 0007 43072 16,964.00 Francis I. Schaper 1501 Bay Ridge Rd. Wayzata, MN. 55391 1 6 14196 10-117-23 34 0008 43072 16,964.00 Edgar J. & Constance K Anderson . 1513 Bay Ridge Rd. Wayzata, MN. 55391 1 7 14196 10-117-23 34 0009 43072 16,964.00 Gerald E. Sveeggen 1525 Bay Ridge Rd. 9100 One Financial Plvza Minneapolis, MN. 55402 1 8 14196 10-117-23 34 0017 43072 16,964.00 Susan S. Whitworth 1425 Bay Ridge Rd. Wayzata, MN. 5539? 1 9 10 11 12 13 TOTAL S 135.712.00 r ri * V I A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BAY RIDGE SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, on February 10, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3843 accepting the Bay Ridge sanitary sewer improvement feasibility report from the City Engineer and establishing 8:00 p.m. on March 10, 1997, as the date and time for the public hearing on such proposed improvement; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3849 ordering preparation of plans and specifications for the Bay Ridge sanitary sewer project; and WHEREAS, 100 % of the Bay Ridge benefited property ovmers have petitioned for the sanitary sewer project and executed written waivers, waiving any rights to object to, or appe;j? fcom, this project or the assessment of the project costs, and have waived any rights to a public hearing on the feasibility of this project or the assessment of the project costs. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal aimual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 1998, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25% per armum from November 1, 1997. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from November 1, 1997, until December 31, 1998. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole assessment on such property, with interest charged to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days of October 29, 1997; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the 1 • >- assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 30 in 1997, or before November 15 in a subsequent year or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 4. Partial prepayment is allowed in accordance with Ordinance No. 160, Second Series, adopted May 12,1997. 5. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in tfic same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by ib.£ City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held October 27, F97. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk i / 'COUNCIL MEETINGOCT 2 7 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cmroFORONO DATE: October 24, 1997 ITEM NO: Q. O Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for the Orono Ice Arena Water and Sewer Project The extension of municipal water and sewer service was required to enable the Orono Ice Arena project to move forward. The Orono Ice Arena Inc. and Orono School District each signed a petition requesting the water and sewer extension project and indicating their willingness to pay 100 per cent of the project cost. The initial estimate of the project cost was $102,995. In addition to this cost, the Orono Ice Arena Inc. as part of its site utilities work installed two hydrants to provide for fire suppression at the building site. Because these hydrants are generally owned and maintained by the city, the city agreed to reimburse the Orono Ice Arena Inc. for their costs for the hydrants and assess this back to the Orono Ice Area Inc. to be paid over a 15 year assessment period. This brought the total water and sewer costs to $113,545. Due to bids coming in substantially below the engineer's estimate, the actual cost of the project including two hydrants is $95,210. This is a reduction of $18,335 or 16.1%. A resolution reflecting the assessment for the water and sewer project is attached for Council adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution adopting the assessment roll for the Ice Arena water and sewer project. Page ( of I . y 4 • •4 Municipality: ORONO Municipal Code 38Levy Number _14197 Project Number 97-4 Levy Description: Orono Ice Arena Sanitary Sewer & WaterTotal Project Assessment S 95.210.00 Interest Rate 6.25% Number of Years Payable 15Months Int First Year 14 First Year Payable: 1998 TOM\SPASLEVYV7 - 4ICB Addition Total 1 [Numoer 14197 r i u i^iumuci 28-118-23 31 0002 v^oac 41328 JT 95^10.00 Orono School District 278 685 Old Crystal Bay Rd North Long Lake, MN. 55356 2 3 Improvements for Oron (sewer & water $84,66(h, hyc 0 Ice Arena rants $10,550) 4 TOTAL S95.210.00 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 T3 i ’ K ^ Wf A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ORONO ICE ARENA SANITARY SEWER AND WATER ASSESSMENT ROLL ■itis •*’' *^''5' Council adopted Resolution No 848 accepting *e Orono Ice Arena sanitaiy sewer and water improvements feasibility re^rt from the City Engineer and ordering the preparation of plans and specificaitons fw the Orono Ice Arena sanitaiy sewer and water project; and vaiions tor «»n!t= of the benefited property owneis have petitioned for the " ““^i '™«on waivers, waiving any rights to object to, or appeal from, this project or the assessment of the project costs and have rprojwUoS!' “ ' “““ment of Minnes^te'^’ IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, ® “py of which is attached hereto and made a part n^ed therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. ^ L J“o? *“1 be payable in equal annual installments extending over a penod of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the Lt “i“^7 ”to t ft' ^k ^ ‘nstallment shall be added interest on the entire ^sessment from November 1, 1997, until December 31, 1998. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. ^ Le^enntrthl Tn assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the intprpct rh A Auditor, pay the whole assessment on such property, with be cWce^^^^^^^ r Treasurer, except that no interest shall ® ® entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days of October 29 1997* ^d he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount’of the ^sessment remaimng unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which before k! payment must be made before November 30 in 1997, or 31 oftherx ”t«L “g\'ct'‘'“"' r I'k' f-'\ f: (! 4. Partial prepayment is allowed in accordance with Ordinance No. 160, Second Series, adopted May 12,1997. 5. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held October 27,1997. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk '•’CJL meetingOCT 2 7 1997REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OFORONO DATE: October 23, 1997 ITEM NO: Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name RonMoorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description:( Renewal of Livable Communities Act Participation In November of 1995, the city adopted a resolution of participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentive Program. This involved the adoption of a set of housing goals and the development of a housing action plan. These are now in place. The housing element of the city ’s Comprehensive Plan will be updated as part of the overall Comprehensive Plan update process to be completed in 1998. A new resolution is needed each year to continue the city's participation in the Metropolitan Livable Commimities Act. A resolution is attached for Council adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution renewing the city's participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentive Program for calendar year 1998. RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 1998 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentive Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statutes Section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act required the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development guide; and WHEREAS, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and ( V <<( WHEREAS, for calendar year 1998, a metropolitan area municipality that did not participate in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program during the calendar year 1997, can participate under Minnesota Statutes Section 473.254 only if; (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1997; and (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality. NOW* THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the city of Orono hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 1998. Adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held October 27, 1997. ATTEST; Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 1 »i f COUNCIL MEETINGREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 2 7 1997 cmroFORONo Date: October 21,1997 Item No Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name:Gary Cheswick Title:Chief of Police Item Description: Sergeant Promotion Exhibits: None DISgJSSIQN On June 4, 1997, the Orono City Council authorized an internal promotion process for a sergeant position. Since that accord, written and in-basket exercises by P.D.I. (Personnel Decisions International) were conducted for candidate testing. Upon completion of the written tests and oral interview, the top two candidates were brought in for a final interview with the City Administrator and Police Chief. Officer Morowczynski was selected for the sergeant position. RECOMMENDATION The Police Chief and City Administrator recommend Officer James Morowczynski to be promoted to the position of Sergeant for the Orono Police Department. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to appoint James Morowczynski to the position of sergeant, effective October 14, 1997 at a pay rate of $24.13 per hour. COUNCIL ?/C”rir!QOCT 2 7 1997REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cmroFORONODATE; October 23,1997 ITEM NO: .! Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Resolution to Release the Tax Forfeit Parcel at 1960 Shoreline Drive for Sale to Adjacent Property Owners The City Council at its October 13,1997 meeting directed staff to send a letter to Hennepin County in support of Mr. Dan Clear’s proposal to acquire the tax forfeit parcel at 1960 Shoreline Drive, ^d to remove the existing building and paved parking area and replace them with grass and landscaping as an extension of his existing yard area. Staff was also directed to draft a resolution approving the sale of the parcel to adjacent property owners with conditions as reconunended by staff. T^e letter sent to Hennepin County is attached. A resolution approving the sale of the parcel adjacent to property owners is attached for Council adoption. The parcel has unpaid city assessments outstanding in the amount of $10,494.2. Of this amount, $4,766.58 is for the Crystal Bay sewer project. In situations were a parcel is being combined with an existing lot, the Council has waived the payment of the assessments related to a sewer umt. The attached resolution provides that the tax forfeit parcel will be combined wdth an existing lot and that the assessment related to the sewer unit will be waived. The resolution also provides that the property will not be used for any commercial uses including marina-related uses. \ COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution releasing the tax forfeit parcel at I960 Shoreline Drive for sale to adjacent property owners. •. . October 17,1997 Gary Hoecherl Hennepin County Tax Forfen Property Division 300 South Sixth Street A-600 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0060 Dear Gary: The Orono City Council, at its October 13,1997 meeting, indicated its support for the proposal by Mr. Dan Crear to acquire the tax forfeit parcel at 1960 Shoreline Drive to be combined with his homestead parcel at 1980 Spates Avenue. Mr. Crear would then remove the building and asphalt and plant grass, flowers and trees on the parcel. Council also directed staff to draft a resolution authorizing the parcel to be made available to adjacent property owners subject to being combined with an existing homestead lot, and subject to no commercial use and no marina-related use. If you have any questions regarding the Council's action, please call me. Sincerely, Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator RJM/lsv Tjj m TAX FORFEITED LAND RELEASED FOR PRIVATE SALE TO ADJACENT OWNERS '«»■> existing under thelaws of the State of Minnesota; and WHE^AS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282, the City has received from Henneni ounty a list of lands within the City which have become the oronertv of the Str,te non-payment of mal estate taxes; and"“ Mi““ota for r^rri- ^ity Council has reviewed said lands for compliance with local zonine ordmances for the amount of outstanding special assessments remaining unpaid to the City and/or reW^wS^ authorized by the Statutes. In addition the Co^cil has or 28^018 Su^^d^"^'^^ Minnesota Statutes 85.021. 92,461, Subd. 8, 282.018. Subd. 1 of whie!!^.7StTc“^^^^^^ ™ ™““"' of to adjaerpr“iTo“ '"‘o- resolved, that the parcel shall remain subject to all applicable ordinance provisions, shall not be a buildable lot. and shall be combined with the f^oining assessment!‘^?h rte ‘’r condition that all outstanding special private o^;^^ the exception of the sewer assessment, be paid in full to the City upon return to by the C°r ^ 'ooovered at the time of sale shall be subject to reassessment PARm. RKI.EASED FOR SALE TO ADJACENT OWNERS ONLY District LLH 10-117-23 42 0022 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 27th day of October, 1997. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk » i 1 , i ' ■V:’ i f- i ■■ 'll .i' I <Tr i' COU.N'CiL f/iEET|; jG OCT 2 7 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: October 24,1997 ITEM NO; Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: City Administrator Annual Salary Adjustment City Council met in a work session on Tuesday, October 21 for the purpose of evaluating the ^ Admimsttator and deteimining the annual salary adjustment for the City mdTJStot Ae SrAd 7 performance has been satisfacto^ana agreed that Ae City Administrator salary should be increased by 3”/o. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to approve a 3% salary increase for Ae City Administrator effective September 9,1997. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETINGOCT 2 7 1997 CITYOFORONO DATE: Oct 17,1997 ITEM NO: ▼ wmm m —, Department Approval: Name: Chris Miller/^jc^ Title: Asst. FinanceT5irector Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: ^ 1997 3rd Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Report The following report summarizes the revenues and expenditures for the period ending September 30, 1997. The report includes a comparison of current revenues and expenditures to the average funding and spending levels during the past three years (year-to-date budget). The year-to-date (YTD) budget has been adjusted to account for timing differences for revenues and expenditures that are recognized in varying periods as compared to previous years. Summary of Revenues General Fund revenues for the period ending September 30,1997 total $2,307,027. This represents approximately 67% of the projected revenues for the calendar year of 1997. The revenues are at expected levels, and along with beginning fund balances, have adequately funded General Fund expenditures. The City has received one-half of its property tax revenues for 1997. It expects to receive an additional portion in December. Summary of Expenditures General Fund expenditures for the period ending September 30, 1997 total $2,450,067. This represents approximately 71% of the projected expenditures for the calendar ^ ear of 1997. This is comparable to prior year expenditures levels, which have consistently remained near 70% during the same period. A few expencUtures within the General Fund were higher than anticipated as compared to previous years. These exceptions have been noted below, and in the Combined Fund Expenditure Report. All expenditures have been adequately funded by 1997 General Fund revenues and beginning fund balances. I ‘ I I ♦ % Council Action Requested Information purposes only, no Council action required. ii Schedule of Expenditure Variances for the 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of September 30, 1997 The variances noted below represent expenditures within departments or funds that are significantly higher than projected. This includes those expenditures which are at least $500 and 5% higher than anticipated. (1) 'Professional Services' expenditures within the Central Services Department will exceed the budgeted amount. This has resulted from the continuation of the permitting and licensing software on the LOGIS system. The City is planning to leave this system in 1998. (2) 'Personal Services' expenditures within the Planning & Zoning Department were higher than anticipated. This resulted from the severance paid to Jeanne Mabusth, upon her retirement. It is uncertain whether a budget adjustment will be needed to cover this expense. (3) 'Supplies & Maintenance' expenditures in the Parks & Recreation Department are higher than anticipated. This is due primarily from additional repairs needed at several parks. (4) The expenditures for 'supplies & Maintenance' within the Recycling Department includes the purchase of additional recycling bins. This item was not budgeted for, however it does not appear that a budget adjustment will be necessary at this time. (5) The Special Services-Consulting & Police Department has seen increased expenditures. This has resulted from increased demand for police security detail and higher than normal development activity. These additional expenditures are offset by added revenues. (6) Park Fund expenditures are higher than what was originally budgeted. During the year, additional projects were identified and approved by the Council. Budget adjustments will be made at the end of the fiscal year. (7) Improvement & Equipment Outlay Fund expenditures are higher than anticipated. During the year, additional equipment expenditures were approved by the Council. Budget adjustments will be made at the end of the fiscal year. (8) 'Professional Services' within the Water Fund are higher than expected. This is due to the additional engineering review for the water plant rehabilitation project. (9) 'Professional Services' expenditures within the Golf Operating Department have exceeded their budget. This was due to the use of legal assistance with the golf course land trade. 1 I Source of Revenue Property Taxes licenses City of Orono1997 General Fund Revenue Report As of September 30,1997 1997 Budget YID Budget 09-30-9/ YTD Revenues 09-30-97 1,680,980 18,500 840,490 13,875 829316 12,400 Dollar Increase % (Decrease) Increase From yiL? Budget (Decrease) (11.174) (1.475) (0.01) (0.11) City Council Personal Services Other Expenses Total Administration Personal Services Siqjplies & Maintenance Professional Services Other Eqienses Total Elections Personal Services Supplies & Maintenance Other Expenses Total Assessing Professional Services Total City of Orono1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of September 30,1997 Dollar YTD YTD Increase % 1997 Budget Expenditures (Decrease)Increase Budeet 09-30-97 09-30-97 From YTD Budeet (Decrease) 19,670 14,753 14,435 (317)-2.15% 32,300 22,610 22,150 (460)-2.03% 51,970 37363 36386 (777)-2.08% 183,845 137,884 136,134 (1.749)-\21% 200 200 403 203 101.46% 3,000 2350 2,630 380 16.89% 10,250 6,150 5,599 (551)-8.96% 197,295 146,484 144,766 (1,718)-1.17% G 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 338 338 0.00% 20 10 0 (10)-100.00% 20 10 338 328 3275.00% 78,065 64,794 65,426 632 0.98% 78,065 64,794 65,426 632 0.98% 1 i iliilfirtiiir iM ...... r i Finance Personal Servkes Siqjplies & Maintenance Professional Services Other Expenses Total Legal Professional Services Other Esqjenses Total Central Services Supplies & Maintenance Professional Services (1) Insurance Capital Outlay Other Eiqienses Total Human Services Other Ejqpenses Total City of Orono1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of September 30,1997 97,700 0 97,700 49,470 10,900 43,600 3,080 61380 168,430 16,155 16,155 YTD YTD 1997 Budget Expenditures Budeet 09-30-97 09-30-97 147320 110,415 109,104 50 25 0 3300 3300 3,785 1170 1319 1318 151940 115,459 114,407 Dollar Increase (Decrease) From YTD Budeet 68390 68390 32,156 9,265 2,180 0 52,173 95,774 11309 11309 64,%7 0 64,967 30,499 14,809 1,650 0 53377 100.335 10,715 10,715 (I3II) (25) 285 — (1) (1.052) (3.413) 0 (3.413) (1.657) 5344 (530) 0 1304 4362 (594) (594) % Increase (Decrease) -1.19% -100.00% 8.14% -0.04% -0.91% -5.01% 0.00% -5.01% -5.15% 59.84% -24.31% 0.00% 231% 4.76% -5.15% -5.25% City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of September 30,1997 Police Penonal Services Supplies & Maintenance Professional Services Insurances Other Expenses Capital Outlay Total Fire Professional Services Total Plannin2 & Zoning Personal Services (2) Supplies & Maintenance Professional Services Other Dqpenses Total Dollar \TD YTD Increase % 1997 Budget Expenditures (Decrease)Increase Budget 09-30-97 09-30-97 From YTD Budget (Decrease) 1,063,000 765360 767339 2,179 0.28% 92,000 69,000 68,639 (561)-0.52% 10,700 5350 5,529 179 334% 23,300 3,495 2,775 (720)-20.60% 52,850 39,638 37,737 (1.901)-4.80% 66320 53,056 52,764 (292)-0.55% 1308,170 935,899 934,982 (917)-0.10% 218,600 166,136 167,757 1,621 0.98% 218,600 166,136 167,757 1,621 0.98% 303,910 227,933 254,377 26,445 11.60% 1,810 1358 661 (697)-5133% 3,500 2,625 3,111 486 1833% 5,650 5,085 5354 469 9.22% 314,870 237,000 263,704 26,704 11.27% I City of Orono1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of September 30,1997 Dollar • 1997 Budget YTD Budget 09-30-97 YTD Ei^nditures 09-30-97 Increase (Decrease) From YTD Budeet % Increase (DecreaselEmerEencv Preparedness Supplies & Maintenance Other Ejqienses Total 1,200 1300 2.500 600 650 1,250 0 585 585 (600) ____________(65) (6651 -100.00% -10.03% -53.22% Animal Control Personal Services Supplies & Maintenance Professional Services Other Expenses ■ 13,085 800 1,000 250 9,814 400 500 125 8,101 0 265 0 (1.713) (400) (235) . (1251 -17.45% -100.00% -47.00% -100.00% Total 15,135 10,839 8366 (2.4731 -22.81% Ensineering Professional Services 14,420 9373 8,884 (4891 -5.22% Total 14,420 9373 8,884 (4891 -5.22% Street Maintenance Personal Services Siqiplies & Maintenance Professional Services Other Ejqpenses 245,290 212,000 0 37,880 183,968 106,000 0 28.410 180,083 91,944 355 20331 (3,885) (14,056) 355 (7.8791 -2.11% -1336% 0.00% -mih% Total 495.170 318378 292,912 (25.4651 -8.00% i'City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of September 30,1997 Dollar Parks & Recreation Personal Services Supplies & Maintenance (3) Professional Services Other Expenses Total VTD YTD Increase 1997 Budget E^qjenditures (Decrease) Budeet 09-30-97 09-30-97 From YTD Budeet 13,025 17369 11789 (4.479) 21600 16,950 21965 6,015 1300 900 1,150 250 5,730 1865 1,010 (1,855) 51555 37,984 37,914 (69) Recycling Personal Services Supplies & Maintenance (4) Professional Services Other Expenses Total 1,635 250 65,920 6,000 409 188 43,507 3,000 206 2,125 43383 739 73,805 47,103 46,454 Special Services - Consulting & Police Personal Services (5) 8,850 Professional Services 33300 Total 42,050 6,638 25,896 10,688 26303 32334 36,891 (203) 1.938 (124) (2,261) (65m 4,051 307 4358 % Increase (Decrease) -25.94% 35.49% 27.78% -64.76% -0.18% -49.61% 1033.47% -038% -7536% -138% 61.02% 1.19% 1339% Personal Services Professional Services Other Ejqpenses Transfers Contingency Items ___ Total 0 7,000 1,055 95.000 44,700 147,755 0 3300 791 95,000 21350 121,641 0 3300 769 95,000 14,811 114,080 0 0 (22) 0 (7339) (7361) 0.00% 0.00% -2.80% 0.00% -33.73% -6.22% Total General Fund 3.447.605 2.457.717 1450.067 (7.650)-031% % i% , ji 2% 9% 9% 30% 30% B0% D0% 73% 22% 31% Special Revenue Funds Park Fund (6) Improv. & Equip. Outlay (7) Building Capital Outlay Total Total General & Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds 1982 Improvement Bonds 1991 Inq>rovement Bonds 1992 Improvement Bonds 1995 (1985) Refunding Bonds 1997 Inq>rovement Bonds 1995 (1989) Wtr Improv. Bonds 1995 (1989) Swr Improv. Bonds Total Capital Projects Funds MSA Fund PIR Fund 1997 N. Long Lake/LX.C.C Total Water OperatinE Fund CityofOrono1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of September 30,1997 934,700 Dollar 90J55 85.501 (4.654) YID YTD Increase % 1997 Budget E^nditures (Decrease)Increase Budget 09-.30-97 09-30-97 From YTD Budget (Decrease) 109,000 81,750 133.375 51,625 63.15% 148,040 140,638 169376 28,738 20.4.3% 139,800 69,900 2,006 (67,894)-97.13% 396.840 292.288 .304.758 12.470 4.27% 3.844.445 2.750.005 2.754,825 4.820 0.18% 19,165 19,165 17300 (1,665)-8.69% 404,900 404,900 384306 (20,594)-5.09% 191,790 191,790 193,184 1,-394 0.73% 75,150 75,150 74,907 (243)-032% 0 0 6,175 6,175 0.00% 31,065 15333 16,191 658 4.24% 30382 15,191 15,813 622 4.10% 752.452 721.729 708.076 (13.653)-1.89% 806,000 32,240 27,944 (4396)-1333% 128,700 57,915 57358 (357)-0.62% 0 0 818,922 818,922 0.00% -5.16% Personal Services 80,710 60333 59,911 (622)-1.03% Supplies & Maintenance 50,760 35332 19301 (16,031)-45.12% Professional Services (8)5,900 5310 7,077 1,767 33.28% Insurance 7,950 795 225 (570)-71.70% Other E]q)enses 107370 80328 83387 2,£60 3.55% Total 252,690 182,697 170.101 (123%)-6.89% r r I City of Orono1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of September 30,1997 Dollar YID YTD Increase % 1997 Budget E3q>enditures (Decrease)Increase • Budget 09-30-97 09-30-97 From YTD Budget (Decreasel Sewer Operatine Fund Personal Services 145,190 108,893 94,691 (14,202)-13.04% Supplies Sc. Maintenance 60,295 11059 9350 (2.709)-22.47% Professional Services 20,600 5,150 3,977 (1.173)-2Z.n% Insurance 10,800 1,080 525 (555)-5139% Other Eiqienses 489,445 376,873 377,142 270 0.07% Total 726330 504.054 485,686 (183691 -3.64% Golf Operatine Fund Personal Services 70,830 58,081 53194 113 0.19% Supplies Sc Maintenance 20,465 15,349 10368 (4.781)-31.15% Professional Services (9)1,800 1,620 2307 587 36.13% Insurance 14,125 1119 1375 (544)-25.66% Other Expenses 39,115 31,292 31,867 575 1.84% Total 146,335 108.460 104.411 (4.0491 -3.73% 1995 (1989) Water Revenue Bonds PriiK^al Payment 113,945 113,945 113,945 0 0.00% 1995 (1989) Sewer Revenue Bonds Principal Payment 121,055 121,055 121,055 0 0.00% Total Combined Funds 5,%7.252 4,511.945 4,468,098 (43.8471 -0.97% r I' r. 4 r^' 1< .4 COUNCLMEETI ocr 2 7 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: October 24, 1997 ITEM NO:9 Department Approval: Name Dorothy Haliin TIUe City Clerk Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval Agenda Section: Licenses There are no licenses. 1 I r o7 COUNCIL MEETING OCT 2 7 1997 CtTYOFORONO 121 Oct 1997 Tue 2:55 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 1 Check Number Employee Name Qieck Date Check Amount ^eck Number 043471 043471 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. TOO Totals Check Number 043471 22-Oct-97 361.58 361.58 Grand Total 361.58 21 Oct 1997 Tue 10:34 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 043418 043418 GEMAR. JAMIE L, Totals Check Number 043418 Check Number 043419 i'l 043419 HALLIN, DOROTHY M Totals Check Number 043419 Check Number 043420 043420 HASEMAN, CAROLE A. Totals Check Number 043420 Theck Number 043421 043421 MOORSE. RONALD J Totals Check Number 043421 Check Number 043422 043422 VEE, LINDA S. Totals Check Number 043422 *ck Number 043423 043423 KUEHN. THOMAS M Totals Check Number 043423 Check Number 043424 043424 MILLER. CHRISTOPHER K. Totals Check Number 043424 Check Number 043425 043425 ANDERSON. BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 043425 Check Number 043426 043426 BOBZIEN. SUB A Totals Check Number 043426 Check Date 22-Oct-97 22-0ct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-0ct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 Page 1 Check Amount 330.44 330.44 956.72 956.72 555.68 555.68 1,445.49 1,445.49 926.89 926.89 1,267.41 1.267.41 220.11 220.11 473.57 473.57 621.90 621.90 r «&■21 Oct 1997 TUe 10:34 AM Check Register City of OronoCheck Number Employee Name Check Number 043427 043427 BORIS, SCOTT N. * Totals Check Number 043427 Check Number 043428 043428 CARLSON, MICHAEL B Totals Check Number 043428 Check Number 043429 043429 CHBSWICK, GARY B Totals Qieck Number 043429 Check Number 043430 043430 CORNICE, JAMES L, Totals Check Number 043430 Check Number 043431 043431 DBMBOUSKI, JAY C, Totals Check Number 043431 Check Number 043432 043432 ENGLISH III, IRVING H Totals Check Number 043432 Check Number 043433 043433 ERICKSON, KURT R Totals Check Number 043433 Check Number 043434 043434 FARNIOK, CORREY L. Totals Check Number 043434 Check Number 043435 043435 FISCHENICH, DAN T. Totals Check Number 043435 Check Number 043436 Check Date 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-0ct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 Page 2Check Amount 1,062.00 1,062.00 489.17 489.17 1,503.09 1,503.09 1,136.33 1,136.33 1,180.83 1,180.83 638.87 638.87 1,139.71 1,139.71 832.10 832.10 1,315.19 1,315.19 I » [ 21 Oct 1997 Tue 10:34 AMCheckNumber Check Register City of OronoEmployee Name Check Number 043436 043436 HANSING, CAROL J. • Totals Check Number 043436 Check Number 043437 043437 JOHNSON^ BRADLEY P. Totals Check Number 043437 Check Number 043438 043438 KNOLLQIBERO. KRISTIN L. Totals Check Number 043438 Check Number 043439 043439 MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES Totals Check Number 043439 Check Number 043440 043440 PBRSELL, NILLIAM R Totals Check Number 043440 a Check Number 043441 043441 SCHOBNHOFF, JOHN B Totals Check Number 043441 Check Number 043442 043442 THOMTON, MARK R. Totals Check Number 043442 Check Number 043443 043443 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE P. Totals Oieck Number 043443 Oieck Number 043444 043444 TOMCZYK, MARK W Totals Check Number 043444 Check Number 043445 CheckDate 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-0ct-97 Page 3CheckAfl)ount 342.02 342.02 963.16 963.16 628.26 628.26 1,434.72 1,434.72 324.52 324.52 1,259.90 1,259.90 778.09 778.09 304.02 304.02 1,216.23 1,216.23 V V'21 Oct 1997 Tue 10:34 AM Check Register City of OronoCheck Number En^loyee Name Check Number 043445 043445 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K. * Totals Check Number 043445 Check Number 043446 043446 WITTKE, ANTHONY A, Totals Check Number 0i3446 Check Number 043447 043447 BRESSLER, BRADLEY J. Totals Check Number 043447 Check Number 043448 043448 OAFPRON, MICHAEL P. Totals Check number 043448 Check Number 043449 043449 GAPPA, GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 043449 Check Number 043450 043450 OMAN, LYLE E Totals Check Number 043450 Check Number 043451 043451 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH Totals Check Number 043451 Check Number 043452 043452 VANG, BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 043452 Check Number 043453 043453 WECKMAN. STEPHEN J. Totals Check Number 043453 Check Number 043454 Check Date 22-0ct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 t V '1^V : !>Page 4Check Amount 171.36 171.36 184.51 184.51 376.94 376.94 1,091.84 1,091.84 1,438.40 1,438.40 1,102.82 1,102.82 239.74 238.74 961.65 961.65 22.85 22.85 k -A YJ , I,' '<4 ; ■f 21 Oct 1997 Tue 10:34 AM Check Register City of OrozxoCheck Number Employee Name Check Number 043454 043454 BRINKHADS. JOHN F. • Totals Check Number 043454 Check Number 043455 043455 DEBAERE« DONALD L Totals Check Number 043455 Check Number 043456 043456 GREGORY, JAMES D Totals Check Number 043456 Check Number 043457 043457 HANSEN, STEVEN C. Totals Check Number 043457 Check Number 043458 043458 OBERAIGNSI, SCOTT G Totals Check Number 043458 Check Number 043459 043459 OBRIEN, RANDY L, Totals Check Number 043459 Check Number 043460 043460 PALMER, GREGORY A, Totals Check Number 043460 Check Number 043461 043461 RATHBUN, BARRY J. Totals Check Number 043461 Check Number 043462 043462 SKREQI, DALE S. Totals Qieck Number 043462 I Check Number 043463 Check Date 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 Page 5Check Amount 1,026.63 1,026.63 886.92 886.92 887.18 887.18 725.59 725.59 663.74 663.74 188.51 188.51 646.32 646.32 813.55 813.55 601.41 601.41 * V: 21 Oct 1997 Tuc 10:34 AM Check Register City of OronoCheckHufld^er Bmployee NameCheck Humber 043463 043463 BLAIR# JANIS A. • Totals Check HUmber 043463 Check Humber 043464 043464 DCX3CEN, THOMAS H Totals Check Humber 043464 Check Humber 043465 043465 MCINTYRE# WILLIAM E Totals Check Number 043465 Check Number 043466 043466 OAS# DANIEL 0 Totals Check Humber 043466 Check Number 043467 043467 PETERSON. JACK H. Totals Check Number 043467 Check Number 043468 043468 ROSS, JOHN A. Totals Check Number 043468 Check Number 043469 043469 STBFFENHAGBN. RONALD E Totals Check Number 043469 Check Number 043470 043470 YEAGER, DONALD C Totals Check Number 043470 Grand Total CheckDate 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-Oct-97 22-0ct-97 Page 6CheckAmount123.33 123.33 48.80 48.80 92.19 92.19 258.13 258.13 168.24 168.24 122.71 122.71 1,023.17 1,023.17 160.81 160.81 37,372.76 V ■Ir i 21 Oct 1997 Tue 10:07 AM Check Register City of OronoCheckNumberDateName Check Number 54859 54859 CITY COUNTY CREDIT DNIMI 21-Oct-97 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totals Check NUn^r 54859 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 54860 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 54860 54860 54860 21-Oct-97 21-Oct-97 21-Oct-97 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Totals Check Number 54860 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 54861 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 54861 21-Oct-97 GREAT NEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. Totals Check Number 54861 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO Check Number 54862 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL 54862 21-Oct-97 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL Totals Check Number 54862 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 54863 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 54863 21-Oct-97 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Totals Check Number 54863 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL * Check Number 54864 1Q1A RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 54864 21-Oct-97 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Totals Check Number 548b4 ;CMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 54865 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 54865 21-Oct-97 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Totals Check Number 54865 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 54866 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 54866 21-Oct-97 MN DEPT OP REVENUE Totals Check Number 54866 MN DEPT OP REVENUE Check Number 54867 HN MUTJAL LIFE 54867 21-Oct-97 MN MUTUAL LIFE Totals Check Number 54867 MN MUTUAL LIFE TransactionAmount 6.993.00 6.993.00 3,014.57 3,014.57 7,278.80 13,307.94 981.76 981.76 174.50 174.50 184.50 184.50 125.00 125.00 214.50 214.50 3,117.24 3,117.24 464.00 464.00 Page 1Comnents SAVINGS W/H k TRANSFERRED FICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA,MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED CmP W/H THOMTON 8C0266780 SKREEN 8C0262310 DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUES W/H STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP W/H i I /1 < • I i I 9 * 21 Oct 1997 Tue 10:07 AM Check Number Check Number 54868 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 54868 MS STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP 21-Oct-97 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP * Totals Check Number 54868 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Check Number S4869 54869 PEBSCO/OBRA 21-Oct-97 Totals Check Number PEBSCO/OBRA 54069 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 54870 54870 PEBSCO/US CONF OP MAYORS 21-Oct-97 Totals Check Number PEBSCO/US CONF OP MAYORS 54870 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Check Number 54871 54871 54871 PERA 21-Oct-97 21-Oct-97 PERA PERA Totals Check Number 54871 PERA Check Number 54872 54872 UNITED WAY 21-Oct-97 Totals Qieck Number UNITED WAY 54672 UNITED WAY Grand Total Transaction Amount 265.00 265.00 119.27 119.27 1,764.86 1,764.86 3,958.97 5,298.68 9,257.65 23.00 23.00 36,992.22 Page 2 Comments deferred comp W/H OBRA DEFERRED COMP W/H USCM DEFERRED COMP W/H PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS W/H r' P 23 Oct 1997 Thu 11:48 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54873 54673 A-1 RENFAL 27-Oct-97 A-1 RENTAL Totals Check Number 54873 A-1 RENTAL Check Number 54874 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 54874 27-Oct-97 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR Totals Check Number 54874 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR Check Number 54875 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITURE 54875 27-Oct-97 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITURE Totals Check Number 54875 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITURE Check Number 54876 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 54876 27-Oct-97 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Totals Check Number 54876 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Check Number 54877 ANCHOR PAPER 54877 27-Oct-97 ANCHOR PAPER Totals Check Number 54 877 ANCiiOR PAPER Check Number 54878 AT a T wireless services Totals Check Number 54879 BARBAROSSA k SONS Check Number 54880 BLACKOWIAK & SON 54880 54880 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 BLACKOWIAK k SON BLACKOWIAK k SON Totals Check Number 54d80 BLACKOWIAK k SON Check Number 54881 BLACKOWIAK k SON 54881 27-Oct-97 BLACKOWIAK k SON Transaction Amount 85.20 65.20 430.63 430.63 193.95 193.95 446.39 446.39 115.02 115.02 94,305.55 70.46 134.18 204.64 152.99 Comments PROPANE FUEL CELL PHONE USAGE DIRECTORY BOARD NOVEMBER INSURANCE 11 X 20 COPY PAPER 54878 27-Oct-97 AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES 13.31 CELL PHONE USAGE 54876 27-Oct-97 AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES 13.32 CELL PHONE USAGE 54678 27-Oct-97 AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES 131.83 CELL PHONE USAGE Totals Check Number 54873 AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES 158.46 Check Number 54879 BARBAROSSA k SONS 54879 08-Sep-97 BARBAROSSA k SONS 94,305.55 PAY 83 - N.L.L. Page 1 SEPT SERVICE-GOLF COURSE SEPT SERVICE-AREA BY LK SEPT SERVICE-BEDERWOOD 1 r 23 Oct 1997 Thu 11:46 AM Check Register City of OronoCheck Humber Date Name Check Number S4881 54881 BLACKONIAK k SON 27-Oct-97 BLACKOWIAK k SON Totals Check Number 54881 BLACKOWIAK k SON Check Number 54882 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. 54882 27-Oct-97 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC, Totals Check Number 54882 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC, Check Number 54883 BUDGET PRINTING Check Number 54884 CARGILL SALT DIVISION Skki- 27-Oct-97 CARGILL SALT DIVISION Totals Number 54884 CARGILL SALT DIVISION Cn*c! 54885 CARLSON TRACTOR k EQUIP CO. 5v;i^W 27-Oct-97 CARLSON TRACTOR k EQUIP CO Totals L*ieck Number 54885 CARLSON TRACTOR k EQUIP CO Check Number 54886 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Check Number 54887 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. 54887 2T-Oct-97 COLONIAL LIFE INSXmANCH CO. Totals Check 54887 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. Check Number 548.98 CUMMINS ALLISON 54688 27-OCL-97 CUMMINS ALLISON Totals Check Number 54888 CUWIHS ALLISON Check Number 54889 ClMflNS DIESEL SALES INC. 54689 27-Oct-97 CUMMINS DIESEL SALES INC. Transaction Amount 168.58 321.57 408.67 408.67 1.195.89 1.195.89 81.00 81.00 898.06 898.06 66.96 66.96 3,128.91 Page 2 Comments SEPT SERVICE-CITY OFFICE ROCK 54883 27-Oct-97 BUDGET PRINTING 74.72 PLAQUES 54883 27-Oct-97 BUDGET PRINTING 5.11 ANTOINE PARK MAPS 54883 27-Oct-97 BUDGET PRINTING 32.90 FALSE ALARM POSTCARDS Totals Check Number 54883 BUDGET PRINTING 112.73 SOFTENER SALT PARTS i BACKHOE 54886 27-Oct-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 101.21 8176 MOUNT Ml6 LOCK 54886 27-Oct-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 97.33 8176 SCOPE ENGINE CHECK 54886 27-Oct-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 481.06 8173 SHOCKS, OIL CHG Totals Check Number 54986 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 679.60 OCT INSURANCE BUILD UP RELAY REPAIR GENERATOR 1 .■ \ I &23 Oct 1997 Thu 11:48 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54889 COmiNS DIESEL SALES INC. Totals Check Number 54889 CUMMINS DIESEL SALES INC. dlieck Number 54890 D.M.J. CORPORATION 54890 27-Oct-97 D.M.J. CORPORATION Totals Check Number 54890 D.M.J. CORPORATION Check Number 54891 DAHLGREN SKARDLOW k UBAN 54891 54891 54891 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 DAHLGREN SHARDLOW k UBAN DAHLGREN SHARDLOW k UBAN DAHLGREN SHARDLOW k UBAN Totals Check Number 54891 DAHLGREN SHARDLOW k UBAN Check Number 54892 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO. 54892 54892 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO Totals Check Number 54892 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO. Check Number 54893 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 54893 27-Oct-97 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Totals Check Number 54893 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Check Number 54894 EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC. 54894 27-Oct-97 EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC Totals Check Number 54894 EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC Check Number 54895 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO. 54895 27-Oct-97 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO, Totals Check Number 54895 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO Check Number 54896 54896 EXPRESS MESSENGER 27-Oct-97 EXPRESS MESSENGER Totals Check Number 54896 EXPRESS MESSENGER Check Number 54897 FEED RITE CONTROLS 54897 54897 27-Oct-97 k7-Oct-97 FEED RITE CONTROLS FEED RITE CONTROLS Totals Check Number 54897 FEED RITE CONTROLS • ^ Traiisaction Amount 3,128.91 6.00 6.00 731.90 821.55 127.30 1,680.75 133.60 133.60 267.20 510.00 510.00 4,335.00 4,335.00 1,186.50 1,186.50 13.45 13.45 233.71 30.00 263.71 Page 3 Comments ASPHALT DUMPS BALANCE DUB BALANCE DUE BALANCE DUE BOLTS BOLTS CONNECTION CHARGES INSTALLATION CHARGES REPAIR SIREN DELIVERY CHARGES ACID, CHLORINE CONTAINER CHARGE j rs Check Muinber 54900 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 54900 54900 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC, GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. Totals Check Number 54900 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC, Check Number 54901 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE 54901 54901 08-Oct-96 08-Oct-95 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE Totals Check Number 54901 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE Check Number 54902 HACK CHEMICAL CO. 54902 27-Oct-97 HACK CHEMICAL CO. Totals Check Number 54902 HACK CHEMICAL CO. Check Number 54903 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER 54903 27-Oct-97 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER Totals Check Number 54903 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER Check Number 54904 HASEMAN, CA 7LE 54904 27-Oct-97 HASD1AN, CAROLE Totals Check Number 54904 HASEMAN* CAROLS Check Number 54905 HEALTHPARTNERS 54905 27-Oct-97 HEALTHPARTNERS 49.87 49.88 99.75 30.00 30.00 60.00 43.21 43.21 112.34 112.34 6.82 6.82 313.51 23 Oct 1997 Check RegisterThu 11:48 AM City of Orono Check Transaction Number Date Name Amount Comments Check Number 54899 G &K SERVICES 54899 27-Oct-97 G a K SERVICES 62.55 STREET EMPLOYEES 54899 27-Oct-97 G a K SERVICES 12.15 RATHBUN * 54899 27-Oct-97 G a K SERVICES 70.07 FLOOR MATS 54899 27-Oct-97 G a K SERVICES 54.69 FLOOR MATS 54899 27-Oct-97 G a K SERVICES 54.69 FLOOR MATS 54899 27-Oct-97 G a K SERVICES 95.37 FLOOR MATS 54899 27-Oct-97 G a K SERVICES 5.93 STEFFENHAGEN 54899 27-Oct-97 G a K SERVICES 90.24 STREET EMPLOYEES 54899 27-Oct-97 G a K SERVICES 12.15 RATHBUN 54899 27-Oct-97 Q a K SERVICES 5.93 STEFFENHAGEN 54899 27-Oct-97 G a K SERVICES 62.55 STREET EMPLOYEES 54899 27-Oct-97 G a K SERVICES 12.15 RATHBUN 54899 27-Oct-97 G a K SERVICES 5.93 STEFFENHAGEN Totals Check Number 54899 G a K SERVICES 544.40 Page 4 SEPT SERVICE SEPT SERVICE VANG-FALL BLDG CODE OMAN-FALL BLDG CODE HARDNESS INDICATOR POSTS FOR SIGNS MILEAGE REIMBURSE.MENT !’OV HEALTH INSURANCE I 1»r 23 Oct 1997 Thu 11:48 AM Check Register City of OronoCheckNumberDateName Check Number 54905 54905 HEALTHPARTNERS 27-Oct-97 HEALTHPARTNERS Totals Check Number 54905 HEALTHPARTNERS Check Number 54906 HUMANCE SOCIETY OF WRIGHT CO 54906 27-Oct-97 HUMANCE SOCIETY OF WRIGHT CO Totals Check Number 54906 HUMANCE SOCIETY OF WRIGHT CO Check Number 54907 HYDRO SUPPLY CO. 54907 27-Oct-97 HYDRO SUPPLY CO. Totals Check Number 54907 HYDRO SUPPLY CO, Check Number 54908 J & R RADIATOR CORP. 54908 27-Oct-97 J & R RADIATOR CORP. Totals Check Number 54908 J & R RADIATOR CORP. Check Number 54909 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL CO. 54909 27-Oct-97 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL CO. Totals Check Number 54909 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL CO. •Check Number 54910 KELLER KENNEN ASSOC. 54910 27-Oct-97 KELLER KENNEN ASSOC. Totals Check Number 54910 KELLER KENNEN ASSOC, Check Number 54911 LAWN DETAILERS INC. 54911 27-Oct-97 LAWN DETAILERS INC. Totals Check Number 54911 LAWN DETAILERS INC. Check Number 54912 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 54912 54912 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Totals Check Numbc-54912 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS I Check Number 54913 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT 54913 27-Oct-97 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 54913 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT TransactionAmount 5.325.28 5,638.79 127.50 127.50 730.46 730.46 76.00 76.00 576.14 576.14 1,092.86 1,092.86 2,145.22 2,145.22 25.08 4.68 29.76 9.57 9.57 Page 5Comments NOV HEALTH INSURANCE 3RD QTR SERVICES MET^ FOR RESALE «430 OIL COOLER LIGHT FIXTURES-FRONT OFFC FALL NEWSLETTER SEPT SERVICE FUNNEL SET S.4JP SUPPLIES CHAIN SAW OIL I- 23 Oct 1907 Thu 11:48 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Check Number Date Name 54 914 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 54915 MEDTOX LABORATORIES Check Number 54916 MIDWEST ASPHALT Check Number 54917 54917 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 27-Oct-97 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Number 54917 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Check Number 54918 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION 54918 27-Oct-97 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Totals Check Number 54918 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Check Number 54919 MN STATE TREASURER Transaction Amount 50.00 27.00 27.00 74.32 74.32 54919 24-Oct-96 MN STATE TREASURER 3,162.77 Totals Check Number S4919 MN STATE TREASURER 3,162.77 Check Number 54920 NOROWCZYNSKI, JIM 54920 27-Oct-97 MOROWCZYNSKI, JIM 21.08 Totals Check Number 54920 MOROWCZYNSKI, JIM 21.08 Oieck Number 54921 NOW CARE MEDICAL CENTERS 54921 27-Oct-97 NOW CARE MEDICAL CENTERS 35.00 Totals Check Number 54921 NOW CARE MEDICAL CENTERS 35.00 Check Number 54922 O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR 54922 27-Oct-97 O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR 145.45 Page 6 Comments 54914 27-Oct-97 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 115.60 f430 SENDER ASSEMBLY 54914 27-Oct-97 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 8.49 •430 WASHER * 54914 27-Oct-97 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 58.58 •430 INJECTOR 54914 27-Oct-97 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 95.85 •430 INJECTOR Totals Check Number 54914 LONG LAKE 'TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 278.52 Check Nomber 54915 MEDTOX LABORATORIES 549ir 27-Oct-97 MEDTOX LABORATORIES 50.00 DRUG SCREENING 54916 27-Oct-97 MIDWEST ASPHALT 95.32 ASPHALT PATCH * 54916 27-Oct-97 MIDWEST ASPHALT 469.98 ASPHALT PATCH 54916 27-Oct-97 MIDWEST ASPHALT 173.57 ASPHALT PATCH Totals Check Number 54916 MIDWEST ASPHALT 738.87 ACETYLENE, OXYGEN NOVEMBER INSURANCE 3RD QTR SURCHARGE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT DRUG SCREENING CAR WASH TICKETS % 23 Oct 1997 Thu 11:48 AM Check Register City of OronoCheck Number Date Name Check Number 54922 O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR Totals Check Number 54922 O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR Check Number 54923 OFFICE DEPOT 54923 54923 54923 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT Totals Check Number 54923 OFFICE DEPOT Check Number 54924 OMAN, LYLE 54924 27-Oct-97 OMAN, LYLE Totals Check Number 54924 OMAN, LYLE Check Number 54925 PHEOLL 54925 54925 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 PHEOLL PHEOLL Totals Check Number 54925 PHEOLL Check Number 5492o PIONEER 54926 54926 54926 54926 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 PIONEER PIONEER PIONEER PIONEER Totals Check Number 54926 PIONEER Check Number 54927 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS 54927 27-Oct-97 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 54927 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS Check Number 54928 RAINBOW COMPUTER FORMS 54928 27-Oct-97 RAINBOW COMPUTER FORMS Totals Check Number 54928 RAINBOW COMPUTER FORMS Check Number 54929 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES 54929 27-0ct-97 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Totals Check Number 54929 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Check Number 54930 SCHARBER & SONS 54930 27-Oct-97 SCHARBER k SONS Transaction Amount 145.45 94.90 299.29 209.01 603.20 45.26 45.26 58.58 58.57 117.15 57.75 28.00 28.00 91.00 204.75 301.84 301.84 717.87 717.87 6,798.73 6,798.73 142.41 Page 7 Comments MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES REPORT COVERS MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT MISC BOLTS MISC BOLTS LAND USB APPLICATIONS APPLICATION #2306 APPLICATION #2308 ORD #162 HAND HELD RECORDER PERMIT FORMS NOV SERVICES MUFFLER ■r!’" .-23 Oct 1997 Thu 11:48 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54930 54930 SCHARBER k SONS 27-Oct-97 SCHARBER k SONS Totals Check Number 54930 SCHARBER k SONS Check Number 54931 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION 54931 23-Jan-97 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Totals Check Number 5!931 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Check Number 54932 SNYDER DRUG STORES 54932 27-Oct-97 SNYDER DRUG JTORES Totals Check Number 54932 SNYDER DRUG STORES Check Number 54933 SPRING PARK CAR NASH 54933 27-Oct-97 SPRING PARK CAR NASH Totals C2ieck Number 54933 SPRING PARK CAR NASH Check Number 54934 ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC. 54934 27-Oct-97 ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPME3JT INC< Totals Check Number 54934 ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC, Check Number 54935 STANDARD SPRING 54935 54935 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 STANDARD SPRING STANDARD SPRING Totals Check Number 54935 STANDARD SPRING Check Number 54936 STAR TRIBUNE 54936 27-Oct-97 STAR TRIBUNE Totals Check Number 54936 STAR TRIBUNE Check Number 54937 STREICHERS 54937 27-Oct-97 STREICHERS Totals Check Number 54937 STREICHERS Check Number 54938 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS 54938 27-Oct-97 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 54938 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS Transaction Amount 18.48 160.89 75.00 75.00 10.77 10.77 200.00 200.00 45.67 45.67 169.86 15.98 185.84 26.00 26.00 57.07 57.07 228.87 228.87 Page 8 CoMnents FILTER VAN ZOMEREN-97 DUES MISC PARTS CAR WASH TICKETS PART FOR LOADER «428 FRONT SPRINGS 1428 BUSHINGS SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL SHOTGUN LOCK TONER FOR FAX MACHINE •• I ' i t 5 r ■ j I r23 Oct 1997 Thu 11:48 AM Check Register City of Orono Check ffiuaber Date Name Check Runber 54939 54939 54939 STS CONSULTANTS LTD. 27-Oct-97 STS CONSin^TANTS LTD. 27-Oct-97 STS CONSULTANTS LTD. Totals Check Number 54939 STS CONSULTANTS LTD. Check Number 54940 TENNESSEE VALLEY TECHNOLOGIES 54940 27-Oct-97 TENNESSEE VALLEY TECHNOLOGIES Totals Check Number 54940 TENNESSEE VALLEY TECHNOLOGIES Check Number 54941 TOMCHECK, LARRY 54941 27-Oct-97 TOMCHECK. LARRY Totals Check Number 54941 tomcheck, larry Check Number 54942 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 54942 54942 54942 54942 54942 54942 54942 54942 54942 54942 54942 54942 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE Totals Check Number 54942 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE Check Number 54943 veb, LIN 54943 27-Oct-97 VEE, LIN Totals Check Number 54943 VEE, LIN Check Number 54944 VILLAGE CHEVROLET 54944 27-Oct-97 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Totals Check Number 54944 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Check Number 54945 WARNING LITES OF MN 54945 54945 27-Oct-97 27-Oct-97 WARNING LITES OF MN WARNING LITES OF MN Totals Check Number 54945 WARNING LITES OF MN Transaction Amount 18.00 1,272.18 1,290.18 35.00 35.00 6.16 6.16 57.66 57.66 37.34 37.34 210.87 105.44 316.31 Page 9 Comments TESTING SERVICES TESTING SERVICES FUEL SYSTEM MANUAL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 0.95 KEY 3.81 MISC PARTS 17.17 MISC PARTS 27.80 MISC PARTS 13.79 MISC PARTS 5.40 1175 KEY 29.54 MISC PARTS 4.77 MISC PARTS 12.73 MISC PARTS 6.50 MISC PARTS 22.74 MISC PARTS 4.10 MISC PARTS 149.30 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT #428 COVER BARRICADE RENTAL barricade rental ri t 23 Oct 1997 Thu 11:48 AM Check Register City of Orono Page 10 * y 4.•I•V INFORMATION ITEMS J COUNCIL MEETING COU«\lwiL li^O OF OCT 2 7 1997 cmroFORONO ; f f Tb: Ron Moorsc. Orono Mayor and CouncUmenibcrs From: UU McMillan, LMCD Orono representative Date: October 22. 1997 Subject: LMCD update Here is a brief review of major issues of the LMCD during the past month: 1. Ordinances: -amended "High-Water Emergency" ordinance to eliminate the following seven bays from the list that requires minimum wake for the entire bay. During high water, minimum wake will still be in eHect 600 feet from shoreline in ^ese bays. The bays removed are Echo, Veterans, Old Channel, Smithtown, Harrisons, Carmans and Smiths Bay. Reasoning: due to the open-ended nature of these bays, it was hard for boaters to distinguish and the Water Patrol to enforce the ordinance in these locations. -considering re involvement with issuing special events permits %s^ch are currently handled by the Water Patrol. Reasoning: LMCD would like to get a better handle on the toiumament usage occurring on the lake and attempt to control spread of exotic species. Issues raised are duplication of Water Patrol functions and concern about permit fees. -considering ordinance prohibiting the "commercial launching" of boats on the Lake without prior inspection or proper w^ihing for control of exotics. 2. Management Plan Review: ‘ the LMCD Board and staff have started monthly workshop sessions to review the comp plan and decide if it needs updating. 3. Personal Watercraft Forum -the Lake Minnetonka Association coordinated a panel discuss! 10/11/97 dealing with PWC issues. on SHAWN D. GUSTAFSON 7120 UPPER 157™ STREET WEST APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 (612)432-5627 Received OCT I 4 1997 cityoforo /vo October 10,1997 City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dr?r Council, Staff and Planning Commission: I regret to inform you that 1 have submitted my notice of resignation at Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates. October 30*** n-ill be my last day of employment in Minnesota. The reason is that my wife and I have decided to relocate to Phoenix, Arizona. We have fallen in love with the climate of the southwest and have decided that this is the best time to move. We have already sold our house and will be moving on October 31st. I have accepted a position as a project manager at a small civil engineering consulting firm in Phoenix. I sincerely appreciate everything that the Cit'^ has done for me in the past several years. I have really enjoyed working with your wonderf. ff (past and present). I am very grateful for the opportunities I have had in Orono, and for t cnowledge and experience I have taken from them. 1 will miss all of you and will try to stop in whenever we return to Minnesota to visit. I hope you will do the same;^ .<er in Phoenix. I will try very hard to complete any work that I have with Orono, or transfer the work to other employees. Please let me know if there is anything in particular that I should concentrate on. We have not found our new home yet, but when we do, we will forward our address and phone number to you. Thank you for everything, I have been happy serving Orono and it is difficult to say goodbye. Sincerely, RBP' DAT PER] Bui; SQL SF-i SF-i DBM« COM INS' PLAI DBM( ACC, Sub- Med hba: AIR FIRi VBN1 FUBl OAS RBMC UNDE Sub- Plun FIXl NATE VACU UNDE Sub- Sewe SENE NATE NEN DRNF SAC SENE Sub- User LAND RETA LANN Sub- Oran« REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUM 10/06/97PERMIT TYPEBuildingSGL PAMILY-NEMSP-ADD/REMODEIiSP-ACC STRUCTUREDEMO/PRINCIPALCOM-ADD/REMODELINST-ADD/REMODELPLAN REVIEW ONLYDEMO-ACCESSORYACC/OARAGES Sub-total Mechanical HEATINQ SYSTEMS AIR CONDITIONING FIREPLACE VENTILATION FUEL STORAGE GAS LINE INSPECT REMOVE OIL TANK UNDEFINED Sub-total Plumbing FIXTURES MATER METER VACUUM BREAKER UNDEFINED Sub-total Sewer k Mater SBMBR CONNECTION MATER CONNECTION MEN SEPTIC SYSTE DRNFLD k/OR TANK SAC ONLY SEMER k MATER Sub-total Uaer Defined LAND ALTERATION RETAINING NALLS LANN SPRINKLER Sub-total Grand-total PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED SEPTEMBER 1997***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO * ** * *PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLE-- CURRENT RANGE - 09/01/97 - 09/30/97 -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 09/01/96 - 09/30/96QTYBASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW715,705.75 2,F«S,224.57 10,208.72 6 12,123.50 1,960,000.00 7,8d0.26419,416.25 7/1,055.32 4,284.48 23 4,414.75 296,273.00 2,259.244260.25 9,186.00 169.17 1 174.75 10,080.00 113.595310.00 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 0.00 0.001262.25 17,400.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.0000.00 0.00 0.00 1 599.75 53,220.00 0.0000.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1,714.21260.00 0.00 0.00 1 30.00 0.00 0.002374.50 22,626.80 243.42 2 575.00 42,000.00 373.7562^26,389.00*3,418,492.69*14,905.79*36*17,967.75*2,361,503.00*12,341.05* 6 1,563.46 122,626.50 0.00 5 300.63 21,350.00 0.00136.63 2,930.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.004140.00 6,300.00 0.00 7 251.25 12,899.00 0.00 1 35.00 1,200.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 125.00 10,000.00 0.00 1 35.00 1,000 00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 295.00 20,750.00 0.004140.00 4,950.00 ' 0.00 1 35.00 1,000.00 0.00 1 35.00 900.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.0018*2,075.09*148,906.50*0.00*17*916.88*56,999.00*0.00* 11 646.25 37,150.00 0.00 13 997.15 60,649.00 0.001247.00 O.CO 0.00 2 278.00 0.00 0.00270.00 600.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.0000.00 0.00 0.00 2 70.00 350.00 0.0014*963.25*37,750.00*0.00*17*1,345.15*60,999.00*0.00* . 3 105.00 0.00 0.00 2 70.00 0.00 0.00135.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.009900.00 0.00 0.00 10 950.00 0.00 0.0000.00 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 0.00 0.001950^00 0.00 0.00 2 900.00 0.00 0.0000.00 0.00 0.00 3 210.00 0.00 0.0014*1,990.00*0.00*0.00*18*2,180.00*0.00*0.00* 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 325.00 0.00 0.0000.00 0.00 0.00 1 90.00 6,500.00 0.005175.00 0.00 0.00 13 455.00 0.00 0.006*175.00*0.00*0.00*20*870.00*6,500.00*0.00* 114**31,592.34**3,605,149.19**14,905.79**108**23,279.78**2,486,001.00**13,341.05** s PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED SEPTEMBER 1997REPORT NBR. BPEERPTl-1 DATE OP RUN 10/06/97 *• PERMIT FEE REPORT **' CITY OF ORONO FROM 09/01/97 TO 09/30/97 PAGE: 37REQUESTER: JUIOLEBUILDINGMECHANICALPLUMBINGSEWER & WATER USER SIGN FIREBASE FEB 26,389.00 2,075.09 963.25 1,990.00 175.00 0.00 0.00PLAN REVIEW 14,905.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 1,713.12 74.76 21.13 6.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAC 2,850.00 0.00 C.OO 950.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 74.75 35.00 225.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. JO 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAILING FEB MAIL IN MAIL IN 1.50 10.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. JO 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 45,932.66 2,196.85 1,212.38 2,946.fi0 214.00 0.00 0.00 REPORT NBR. BPBBRPTl-1 DATE OF RUN 10/06/97 BASE FEB PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE LZC. SEARCH FEB SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT MAILING FEB MAIL IN MAIL IN BSCROIf ^ PERMIT TOTAL REPORT TOTAL 31,592.34 14,905.79 1,818.01 0.00 3,800.00 369.75 0.00 1.50 13.50 1.50 0.00 52,502.39 PERMIT FEE REPC:<T CITY OF OROKO FROM 09/01/97 TO C9/30/97 PAGE: 38 REQUESTER: CAROLE MON, OCT 6, 1997, 10:21 AMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 1997 PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET PAGE 1ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION 19340461 PETER ANDREA CO CALLAN 500,000.00 14725822 WAADE ROBERT VOGT 235,224.57 17510488 MATTSON CONTRACTING MORRISON 275,000.00 14754902 PILLAR HOMES 493,000.00 19449499 LECY CONST INC ADAMS 335,000.00 14040600 JYLAND DEVELOPMENT 350,000.00 14732588 LAKEWOOD DEVELOPMENT 410,000.00 18230294 HOME GALLERY SHAUGHNESSY 50,600.00 00000000 MCCUNE 40,650.00 00000000 HOHRMAN 13,500.00 14708000 SCHERER BUILDING CORP ROBBINS 6,000.00 14706639 ROBERT CRAIG HOMES HAYSSEN 45,000.00 14284484 NIEMELA CONSTRUCTION, INC.BIELKE 44,000.00 14722724 ANDERSON-LINDQUIST KEITH 175,000.00 00000000 HOLZER 17,500.00 00000000 PALMER 1,000.00 16450331 SUSSEL CORPORATION NICHOLS 5,126.80 17582842 GEROLD BROS CONST HARMANN 12,500.00 15330352 SAWHORSE SHERMAN 30,000.00 18817321 DOWN TO EARTH CORRIGAN 5,000.00 14743394 WOOD-N-NAIL MIDDLETON 6,500.00 00000000 ILSE 3,000.00 00000000 THOMPSON 6,000.00 13915514 MINNESOTA EXTERIORS BOEHMER 6,230.00 17215546 SAMPSON-LINDGREN INC ROOKE 30,000.00 15447577 MILLWORKS CONSTRUCTION HASNAIN 3,000.00 00000000 ROBERTS 1,200.00 19350557 GROSSING ROOFING COMPANY PEDERSON 3,094.00 17292325 WALKER ROOFING CO INC FLYNN 4,617.00 14726539 SMITH WF ROOFING BOLDEN 3,500.00 14726539 SMITH WF ROOFING KRUEGER 4,950.00 00000000 GASTERLAND 500.00 00000000 MORRIS 10,600.00 00000000 FRIDAY 800.00 14457881 SHALLBETTER CONSTRUCTION GILBERTSON 2,750.00 14495771 SUBURBAN EXTERIORS INC ROER 4,233.00 14202405 MINNESOTA COUNTRY BUILDERS SNYDER 7,100.00 17227129 GARLOCK FRECH ROOFING CO JUNDT 34,462.00 * 00000000 HALMRAST 3,000.00 00000000 LAVINE 1,936.00 15599006 REDI-BUILT 2,750.00 00000000 LIBBY 1,500.00 14793216 SCHOENING JOHN BUSCHBOM .00 17313153 CHARLES CUDD CO ENGELER .00 15099011 J S STEWART COMPANIES INC WALDOCH .00 19722716 HIRSCH AL CONST MOE .00 00000000 KIERNAN .00 00000000 .00 14791107 GREEN ACRES TREE SERVICE BROOKS, JR..00 18795989 ALL STATE CONSTRUCTION SER MCFARLAND 17,400.00 14725715 THE CARPENTERS CONST CO BYERS 3,000.00 14206967 K-D REMODELERS PETERSON 6,000.00 00000000 BELLOWS 5,000.00 00000000 EIDEN 4,000.00 01 2995 01 3115 01 1525 01 480 01 200 01 425 01 2106 02 25 02 1473 02 190 02 900 02 4135 02 2565 02 1045 04 1130 04 2710 04 3407 05 505 05 2505 06 155 06 720 06 3630 06 90 10 3750 11 4190 11 3070 11 3690 11 2285 11 3473 11 2025 11 2090 11 1920 11 2510 11 4753 11 2615 11 511 11 1085 11 1400 11 3287 15 165 15 265 15 3210 16 3020 16 790 16 4215 16 1230 16 1491 17 3222 17 980 19 3412 24 3083 29 2829 23 3400 29 330 DEER RUN TR NORTH SHORE DR 6TH AVE N OLD LONG LAKE RD TRUFFULA TR HUNTER PASS SUGARWOOD DR CYGNET PL BAY RIDGE RD CYGNET PL BROWN RD N BAYSIDE RD DUNWOODY AVE EDGEWOOD HILLS RD NORTH SHORE DR W CASCO POINT RD CRYSTAL BAY RD OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S OLD BEACH RD TRUFFULA TR TONKAWA RD EILEEN ST MYRTLEWOOD RD CASCO AVE HIGHWOOD RD NORTH SHORE DR TOGO RD • WEBBER HILLS RD LYRIC AVE WEBBER HILLS RD WEBBER HILLS RD SHADYWOOD RD CASCO POINT RD NORTH SHORE DR LYDIARD CIR FERNDALE RD N HERITAGE LA BRACKETTS POINT RD CASCO CIR LUCE LINE RIDGE ORONO ORCHARD RD S NORTH SHORE DR 6TH AVE N NORTH ARM DR NORTH SHORE DR SPRUCE PL SHORELINE DR NORTH SHORE DR FERNDALE RD W SHORELINE DR FARVIEW LA CASCO POINT RD WATERTOWN RD BIG ISLAND 97/09/11 OR 97/09/08 OR 97/09/12 OR 97/09/17 OR 97/09/19 OR 97/09/22 OR 97/09/29 OR 97/09/02 OR* 97/09/02 OR- 97/09/08 OR- 97/09/10 OR- 97/09/19 OR- 97/09/22 OR- 97/09/24 OR- 97/09/02 OR- 97/09/10 OR- 97/09/19 OR- 97/09/10 OR- 97/09/23 OR- 97/09/04 OR- 97/09/11 OR 97/09/17 OR- 97/09/17 OR- 97/09/02 OR- 97/09/02 OR- 97/09/04 OR- 97/09/08 OR- 97/09/09 OR- 97/09/10 OR- 97/09/15 OR- 97/09/15 OR- 97/09/16 OR- 97/09/17 OR- 97/09/19 OR- 97/09/24 OR- 97/09/26 OR- 97/09/26 OR- 97/09/29 OR- 97/09/30 OR- 97/09/11 OR- 97/09/16 OR- 97/09/25 OR- 97/09/15 OR- 97/09/04 OR- 97/09/11 OR- 97/09/16 OR- 97/09/26 OR- 97/09/05 OR- 97/09/19 OR- 97/09/24 OR- 97/09/11 OR- 97/09/02 OR- 97/09/05 OR- S7/09/10 OR- -009377 -009379 -009384 -009418 -009428 -009435 -009460 -009263 -009356 -009377 -009385 -009422 -009429 -009444 -009352 -009382 -009424 -009365 -009430 -009364 009395 -009408 -009409 -009354 -009357 •009367 -009380 -009386 •009392 •009400 •009401 •009415 009423 009426 009442 009456 009457 C99466 009469 009373 009420 009440 009320 009369 009396 009398 009458 009374 009434 009445 009383 009355 009376 009390 MON, OCT 6, 1997, 10:21 AM PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET PAGE 2SEPTEMBER 1997ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONPRAUS1,000.00NELSON35,000.00COPELAND10,000.00LERVIK25,800.00RICHARDS1,000.00CALIHAN100,00J.00STORDAHL21,469.32CURRIER3,000.00 OLSON 5,100.00 CASWELL 700.00 SERAN 2,930.00 TROYAK 1,800.00 STEVENS 2,300.00 HUNT 1,350.00 ST. LAWRENCE 1,150.uO . PRAUS 1,200.00 CURRIER 2,000.00 HAYSSEN 1,200.00 107,000.00 10,000.00 900.00 THIES 900.00 STIERNA 3,488.00 ALLEN 3,888.50 PRUDDEN 900.00 ROBERT 2,100.00 PETERSEN 6,400.00 300.00 300.00 18,000.00 800.00 KOZICKY .00 RAHN 2,500.00 OLSON 4,900.00 500.00 WEAR 500.00 RUCE .00 HEDLUND 500.00 SHABERT 600.00 COPELAND 2,450.00 WILSON .00 . SKOOG .00 MCCUNE .00 MCCU-WE .00 NOLAN .00 KOZICKY .00 .00 JOHNSON .00 62C 18C PL 14C SN 2929292929292930 62C 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 19 19 19 24 24 24 29 29 18C 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 07 19 24 24 24 24 14C 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 3185 CASCO CIR500 TONKAWA RD2180 KENWOOD WAY2605 LYDIARD CIR3243 CASCO CIR690 BROWN RD N4745 CREEKWOOD TR 60 CYGNET PL 4757 TONKAVIEW LA 120 CHEVY CHASE DR 4099 HIGHWOOD RD 2525 KELLY AVE 1160 TONKAWA RD 1780 SHADYWOOD RD 253 CYGNET PL 3185 CASCO CIR 60 CYGNPT PL 4135 BAYSlOE RD 1025 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD 200 WOODHILL RD 200 WOODHILL RD 530 HANLON AVE 1930 SHORELINE DR 3475 LIVINGSTON AVE 315 WOODHILL RD 1301 NORTH ARM DR 1125 NORTH ARM DR 2650 COUNTRYSIDE DR W 2430 THOROUGHBRED LA 2114 SUGARWOOD DR 4215 NORTH SHORE DR 2016 SHADYWOOD RD 1385 REST PT RD 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE R1 2500 SHADYWOOD RD 2160 WAYZATA BLVD 4625 WEST BRANCH RD 3095 NORTH SHORE DR 104 CHEVY CHASE DR 2180 KENWOOD WAY 325 BROWN RD S 280 TONKA AVE 1473 BAY RIDGE RD 1473 BAY RIDGE RD 1F40 FOX ST 2016 SHADYWOOD RD 55 WEAR LA N 1025 HERITAGE LA 97/09/1097/09/1297/09/1897/09/1697/09/2497/09/2697/09/3097/09/30 97/09/02 97/09/05 97/09/10 97/09/19 97/09/19 97/09/30 97/09/09 97/09/16 97/09/16 97/09/19 97/09/15 97/09/16 97/09/24 97/09/05 97/09/15 97/09/16 97/09/10 97/09/10 97/09/02 97/09/03 97/09/03 97/09/04 97/09/16 97/09/24 97/09/25 97/09/29 97/09/02 97/09/30 97/09/15 97/09/15 97/09/16 97/09/18 97/09/24 97/09/03 97/09/10 97/09/10 97/09/15 97/09/16 97/09/16 97/09/22 OR-009394OR-009397OR-009407OR-009413OR-009450OR-009453OR-009464OR-009452 OR-008796 OR-009370 OR-009391 OR-009427 OR-009432 OR-009470 OR-009381 OR-009399 OR-009417 OR-009433 OR-009404 OR-009416 OR-009449 OR-009375 OR-009403 OR-009412 OR-009387 OR-009393 OR-009353 OR-009359 OR-009360 OR-009368 OR-009421 OR-009447 OR-009454 OR-009461 OR-009358 OR-009468 OR-009405 OR-009406 OR-009419 OR-009425 OR-009363 OR-009366 OR-009388 OR-009389 OR-009410 OR-009411 OR-009414 OR-009436 0000000019240043147217001925432800000000147285751550760915590792 36087539 34282826 00000000 34820444 36332561 35350194 34791600 35453797 34789558 39296767 38819911 34789572 54734300 34458585 34791600 34718857 54734300 36332561 24248455 24738793 24738793 29202690 29346672 00000000 24725306 27397766 29723401 24786712 27852202 24490147 24340445 24725920 54718151 00000000 54734300 54734300 57237155 54461495 54724966 54791869 CHOICE WOOD COMPANY PARADISE CONSTRUCTION D R SCHULTZ & ASSOCCREATIVE BUILDERSTONY ElDEN COGB" REMODELING SPECIALISTS J D HEATING & AIR PRACTICAL SYSTEMS GRIGGS CONTRACTING FIRESIDE CORNER DEAN'S TANK OIL COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C FIREPLACE CENTER DITTER INC VOGT FRED b CO MASTER MECHANICAL INC WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT CO SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE RON'S MECH INC COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C HD REFRIGERATION SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE FIRESIDE CORNER MACK PLUMBING CITYVIEW PLBG & HTG CITYVIEW PLBG & HTG MIKE LARSON PLUMBING STUMPEL ENT INC SUPERIOR PL»94BING NORDWALL K - ASSOC GENERAL PLUMBING & HEATING GROTH SEWER & WATER MINNESOTA WATER TREATMENT CUSTOM PLUMBING, INC. CLEARWATER SYSTEMS OLSON LARRY PETERSON ELMER J CO SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC WIDMER BROS INC WESTONKA SEWER & WATER INC INGELSIDE ENGINEERING MON, OCT 6, 1997, 10:21 AM PAGE 3PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 1997PERMITWORKADDRNBR STREET ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONSK012995DEER RUN TR 97/09/23 OR-009437 54425855 SWEDLUND SEPTIC SERVICES CALLEN .00013060FARVIEW LA 97/09/23 OR-009438 54980702 KOTHRADE SEWER fie WATER HAFSTAD .00012280SHADOWOOD DR 97/09/23 OR-009439 52862377 KOTILA EXCAVATING .0001480OLD LONG LAKE RD 97/09/24 OR-009443 28673703 M fie W WATER fie SEWER INC .00012016SHADYWOOD RD 97/09/24 OR-009446 00000000 KOZICKY .00013125FOX ST 97/09/26 OR-009455 54734300 SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE CARLSON .00011180WILLOW DR N 97/09/29 OR-009462 54791762 HAYES EXCAVATING THIES .00 15C 15C UD 01 2430 THOROUGHBRED LA 97/99/03 OR-009361 84792585 GENERAL SERVICE .00 01 2650 COUNTRYSIDE DR W 97/09/03 OR-009362 84792585 GENERAL SERVICE .00 01 2540 CASCO POINT RD 97/09/08 OR-009378 86483922 KELLY GREEN IRRIGATION SCHEFFERS .00 01 2795 CASCO POINT RD 97/09/24 OR-009448 84721306 ENVIRONMENTAL LANDFORMS HURD .00 01 2335 SHADOWOOD DR 97/09/24 OR-009451 00000000 JOHNSTON .00 23 0000 6TH AVE N 97/09/30 OR-009471 00000000 .00• 6C 6C 115C 3,60S,149.19* MON, OCT 6, 1997, 10:20 AMNUMERICAL LISTING SEPTEMBER 1997PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET PAGE 1WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWWER LAST NM VALUATIONOLSONSHAUGHNESSY50,600.00BUSCHBOM.00 .HOLZER 17,500.00PETERSEN6,400.00 BOEHMER 6,230.00 PETERSON 6,000.00 MCCUNE 40,650.00 ROOKE 30,000.00 500.00 300.00 300.00 .00 .00 WILSON .00 CORRIGAN 5,000.00 HARMANN 12,500.00 SKOOG .00 HASNAIN 3,000.00 18,000.00 ENGELER .00 CASWELL 700.00 CALLAN 500,000.00 LAVINE 1,936.00 .00 miES 900.00 BELLOWS 5,000.00 HOHRMAN 13,500.00 SCHEFFERS .00 VOGT 235,224.57 ROBERTS 1,200.00 ST. LAWRENCE 1,150.00 PALMER 1,000.00 . BYERS 3,000.00 MORRISON 275,000.00 ROBBINS 6,000.00 PEDERSON 3,094.00 PRUDDEN 900.00 MCCUNE .00 MCCUNE .00 EIDEN 4,000.00 SERAN 2,930.00 TLYNN 4,617.00 ROBERT 2,100.00 PRAUS 1,000.00 MIDDLETON 6,500.00 WALDOCH .00 NELSON 35,000.00 MOE .00 PRAUS 1,200.00 BOLDEN 3,500.00 KRUEGER 4,950.00 STIERNA 3,488.00 107,000.00 OR-000796OR-009263OR-009320OR-009352OR-009353 OR-009354 OR-009355 OR 009356 OR-009357 OR-009358 OR-009359 OR-0093^0 OR-009361 OR-009362 OR-009363 OR-009364 OR-009365 OR-009366 OR-009367 OR-009368 OR-009369 OR-009370 OR-009372 OR-009373 OR-009374 OR-009375 OR-009376 OR-009377 OR-009378 OR-009379 OR-009380 OR-009381 OR-009382 OR-009383 OR-009384 OR-009365 OR-009386 OR-009387 OR-009388 OR-009389 OR-009390 OR-009391 OR-009392 OR-009393 OR-009394 OR-009395 OR-0092SS OR-009397 OR-009398 OR-009399 OR-009400 OR-009401 OR-009403 OR-009404 9ll09f02 97/09/02 97/09/15 97/09/02 97/09/02 97/09/02 97/09/02 97/09/02 97/09/02 97/09/02 97/09/03 97/09/03 97/09/03 97/09/03 97/09/24 97/09/04 97/09/10 97/09/03 97/09/04 97/09/04 97/09/04 97/09/05 97/09/11 97/09/11 97/09/05 97/09/05 97/09/05 97/09/08 97/09/00 97/09/00 97/09/00 97/09/09 97/09/10 97/09/11 97/09/12 97/09/10 97/09/09 97/09/10 97/09/10 97/09/10 97/09/10 97/09/10 97/09/10 97/09/10 97/09/10 97/09/11 97/09/11 97/09/12 97/09/16 97/09/16 97/09/15 97/09/15 97/09/15 97/09/15 NNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 475725302011301125 3750 2029 1473 4190 2500 2650 2430 2430 2650 325 155 505 280 3070 2114 790 120 2995 165 3222 530 3400 190 2540 3115 3690 253 2710 3083 1525 900 2285 315 1473 1473 330 4099 3473 1301 3105 720 4215 500 1230 3105 2025 2090 1930 1025 TONKAVIEW LACYGNET PL6TH AVE NNORTH SHORE DR WNORTH ARM DR CASCO AVE CASCO POINT RD BAY RIDGE RD HIGHWOOD RD SHADYWOOD RD COUNTRYSIDE DR W THOROUGHBRED LA THOROUGHBRED LA COUNTRYSIDE DR W BROWN RD S TRUFFULA TR OLD CRYSTAL BAV RD S TONKA AVE NORTH SHORE DR SUGARWOOD DR NORTH ARM DR CHEVY CHASE DR DEER RUN TR LUCE LINE RIDGE NORTH SHORE i R HANLON AVE WATERTOWN RD CYGNET PL CASCO POINT RD NORTH SHORE DR TOGO RD CYGNET PL CASCO POINT RD FARVIEW LA 6TH AVE N BROWN RD N WEBBER HILLS RD WOODHILL RD BAY RIDGE RD BAY RIDGE RD BIG ISLAND HIGHWOOD RD LYRIC AVE NORTH ARM DR CASCO CIR TONKAWA RD NORTH SHORE DR TONKAWA RD SPRUCE PL CASCO CIR WEBBER HILLS RD WEBBER HILLS RD SHORELINE DR OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N 01021604 01 10 29 02 11 07 01 01 01 01 01 06 05 01 11 01 16 0*1 Ci 15 17 24 29 02 01 01 11 02 04 24 01 02 11 29 01 01 29 01 11 29 29 06 16 29 16 02 11 11 24 19 3608753918230294147932160000000024248455 13915514 14206967 00000000 17215546 29723401 24730793 24738793 84792585 84792585 54718151 18817321 17582842 00000000 15447577 29202690 17313153 34282826 19340461 00000000 '.0000000 34458585 00000000 00000000 86483922 14725822 00000000 34791600 00000000 14725715 17510488 14708000 19350557 54734300 54734300 54734300 00000000 00000000 17292325 36332561 00000000 14743394 15099011 19240043 19722716 35453797 14726539 14726539 34791600 38819911 J D HEATING & AIR HOME GALLERY SCHOENING JOHNMACK PLUMBING MINNESOTA EXTERIORS K-D REMODELERS SAMPSON-LINDGREN INC GENERAL PLUMBING & HEATING CITYVIEW PLBG k HTG CttyVIEW PLBG & HTG GENERAL SERVICE GENERAL SERVICE PETERSON ELMER J CO DOWN TO EARTH GEROLD BROS CONST MILLWORKS CONSTRUCTION MIKE LARSON PLUMBING CHARLES CUDD CO PRACTICAL SYSTEMS PETER ANDREA CO RON’S MECH INC KELLY GREEN IRRIGATION WAADE ROBERT COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C THE CARPENTERS CONST CO MATTSON CONTRACTING SCHERER BUILDING CORP GRUSSING ROOFING COMPANY SULLIVAN’S UTILITY SERVICE SULLIVAN’S UTILITY SERVICE SULLIVAN’S UTILITY SERVICE WAI.KER ROOFING CO INC FIRESIDE CORNER WOOD-N-NAIL J S STEWART COMPANIES CHOICE WOOD COMPANY HIRSCH AL CONST FIREPLACE CENTER SMITH WF ROOFING SMITH WF ROOFING COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C MASTER MECHANICAL INC INC -i MON, OCT 6, 1997, 10:20 AMNUMERICAL LISTING SEPTEMBER 1997PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM PAGE 2 VALUATION2427852202MINNESOTA WATER TREATMENT RUCE .002424490147CUSTOM PLUMBING, INC.HEDLUND 500.00 29 14721700 PARADISE CONSTRUCTION COPELAND 10,000.00 06 00000000 ILSE 3,000.00 06 00000000 THOMPSON 6,000.00 01 57237155 CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC NOLAN .00 01 54461495 WIDMER BROS INC KOZICKY .00 24 34718857 HD REFRIGERATION ALLEN 3,888.50 29 19254328 D R SCHULTZ fit ASSOC LERVIK 25,800.00 01 54724966 WESTONKA SEWER & WATER INC .00 11 00000000 GASTERLAND 500.00 19 34789572 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT CO 10,000.00 02 34709558 DITTER INC CURRIER 2,000.00 01 14754902 PILLAR HOMES 493,000.00 24 24340445 CLEARWATER SYSTEMS SHABERT 600.00 15 15599006 REDI-BUILT 2,750.00 01 29346672 STUMPEL ENT INC 800.00 02 14706639 ROBERT CRAIG HOMES HAYSSEN 45,000.00 11 00000000 MORRIS 10,600.00 04 16450331 SUSSEL CORPORATION NICHOLS 5,126.80 24 24725920 OLSON LARRY COPELAND 2,450.00 11 00000000 FRIDAY 800.00 01 34820444 GRIGGS CONTRACTING TROYAK 1,800.00 01 19449499 LECY CONST INC ADAMS 335,000.00 02 14284484 NIEMEIJV CONSTRUCTION, INC.BIELKE 44,000.00 05 15330352 SAWHORSE SHERMAN 30,000.00 01 36332561 FIRESIDE CORNER STEVENS 2,300.00 C2 39296767 VOGT FRED CO HAYSSEN 1,200.00 17 14791107 GREEN ACRES TREE SERVICE BROOKS, JR..00 01 14040600 JYLAND DEVELOPMENT 350,000.00 01 54791869 INGELSIDE ENGINEERING JOHNSON .00 01 54425855 SWEDLUND SEPTIC SERVICES CALLEN .00 01 54908702 KOTHRADE SEWER & WATER HAFSTAD .00 01 52862377 KOTILA EXCAVATING .00 15 00000000 LIP'Y 1,500.00 11 14457881 SHALLBETTER CONSTRUCTION GILBERTSON 2,750.00 01 28673703 M £t W WATER SEWER INC .00 02 14722724 ANDER'^ON - LINDQUI ST KEITH 175,000.00 19 18795989 ALL STATE CONSTRUCTION SER MCFARLAND 17,400.00 01 00000000 KOZIC Y .00 01 00000000 KOZICKY .00 01 84721306 ENVIRONMENTAL LANDFORMS HURD .UO 19 54734300 SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE 900.00 29 00000000 RICHARDS 1,000.00 01 00000000 JOHNSTON .00 30 15590792 GBR REMODELING SPECIALISTS CURRIER 3,000.00 29 14728575 CREATIVE BUILDERS CAL I HAN 100,000.00 01 24725306 SUPERIOR PLUMBING RAHN 2,500.00 01 54734300 SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE CARLSON .00 11 14495771 SUBURBAN EXTERIORS INC ROER 4,233.00 11 14202405 MINNESOTA COUNTRY BUILDERS SNYDER 7,100.00 16 00000000 KIERNAN .00 01 14732508 LAKEWOOD DE>/ELOPMENT 410,000.00 02 27397766 NORDWALL K & ASSOC OLSCN 4.900.00 OR-009405 OR-009406 OR-009407 OR-009408 OR-009409 OR-009410 OR-009411 OR-009412 OR-009413 OR-009414 OR-009415 OR-009416 OR-009417 OR-009418 OR-009419 OR-009420 OR-009421 OR-009422 OR-009423 OR-009424 OR-009425 OR-009426 OR-009427 OR-009428 OR-009429 OR-009430 OR-009432 OR-009433 OR-009434 OR-009435 OR-009436 OR-009437 OR-009438 OR-009439 OR-009440 (^-009442 OR-009443 OR-009444 OR-009445 OR-009446 OR-009447 OR-009448 OR-009449 C»l-009450 OR-009451 OR-009452 OR-009453 OR-009454 OR-009455 OR-009456 OR-009457 OR-009458 OR-009460 OR-009461 97/09/1597/09/15 97/09/18 97/09/17 97/09/17 97/09/15 97/09/16 97/09/16 97/09/16 97/09/16 97/09/16 97/09/16 97/09/16 97/09/17 97/09/16 97/09/16 97/09/16 97/09/19 97/09/17 97/09/19 97/09/18 97/09/19 97/09/19 97/09/19 97/09/22 97/09/23 97/09/19 97/09/19 97/09/19 97/09/22 97/09/22 97/09/23 97/09/23 97/09/23 97/09/25 97/09/24 97/09/24 97/09/24 97/09/24 97/09/24 97/09/24 97/09/24 97/09/24 97/09/24 97/09/24 97/09/30 97/09/26 97/09/25 97/09/26 97/09/26 97/09/26 97/09/26 97/09/29 97/09/29 NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 462530952180 3630 90 1540 2016 3475 2605 55 1920 200 60 480 104 265 4215 4135 2510 3407 2180 4753 2525 200 25C5 2505 1160 4135 980 425 1025 2995 3060 2280 3210 2615 480 1045 3412 2016 2016 2795 200 3243 2335 60 690 1385 3125 511 1085 1491 2106 2601 RD RD WEST BRANCH RD NORTH SHORE DR KENWOOD WAY EILEEN ST MYRTLEWOOD RD FOX ST SHADYWOOD RD LIVINGSTON AVE LYDIARD CIR WEAR LA N SHADYWOOD RD WOODHILL RD CYGNET PL OLD LONG LAKE RD CHEVY CHASE DR ORONO ORCHARD RD NORTH SHORE DR BAYSIDE RD CASCO POINT CRYSTAL BAY KENWOOD WAY NORTH SHORE DR KELLY AVE TRUFFULA TR DUNWOODY AVE OLD BEACH RD TONKAWA RD BAYSIDE RD FERNDALE RD W HUNTER PASS HERITAGE LA DEER RUN TR FARVIEW LA SHADOWOOD DR NORTH SHORE DR LYDIARD CIR OLD LONG LAKE RD EDGEWOOD HILLS RD SHORELINE DR SHADYWOOD RD SHADYWOOD RD CASCO POINT RD WOODHILL RD CASCO CIR SHADOWOOD DR CYGNET PL BROWN RD N REST PT RD FOX ST FERNDALE RD N HERITAGE LA SHORELINE DR SUGARWOOD DR WEST LAFAYETTE RD MON, OCT 6, 1997, 10:20 AMNUMERICAL LISTING SEPTEMBER 1997 PAGE 3PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET WORK ID NUMBER COMPANYOR-009462 97/09/29 N 1180 WILLOW DR N 01 54791762 HAYES EXCAVATINGOR-009464 97/09/30 N 4745 CREEKWOOD TR 29 15507609 TONY EIDEN COOR-009466 97/09/29 N 1400 BRACKETTS POINT RD 11 17227129 GARLOCK FRECH ROOFING COOR-009468 97/09/30 N 2160 WAYZATA BLVD 19 24786712 GROTH SEWER & WATER OR-009469 97/09/30 N 3287 CASCO CIR 11 00000000 OR-009470 97/09/30 N 1780 SHADYWOOD RD 01 35350194 DEA.N'S TANK OIL OR-009471 97/09/30 N 0000 6TH AVE N 23 00000000 OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONTHIESSTORDAHLJUNDTWEARHALMRAST HUNT .0021,469.3234,462.00500.003,000.00 1,350.00 .00 115C 01 Residence 2402Addition2503Garage/Attached 2604Garage/Detached 2705Porch2806Deck2907Fence3008Gazebo3109Pool3210Re-side 3311Re-roof 3412Tennis Court 13 Sign 14 Dock 15 Shed 16 Demo-Principal Structure 17 A A ••Demo-Accessory Structure18Move 19 Commercial 20 Institutional 21 Storm Damage Repair221-100 Cubic Yards 23 101 Cubic Yards or More99Undefined 9999 LCXIAL DSB CODES Undefined ...................................................... - * C-i*^rL • Replacing Existing Lifting Principal Residence Well Abandonment Foundation Only Temporary Trailer Renovate/Remodel Accessory Structure Stairway to Lake Retaining Wall Entrance Monuments Tree Removal SEPTEMBER 1997REPORT NBR. BPRMlTSS-1 DATE OP RUN 10/06/97 * PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO *****PAGE; 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE-- CURRENT RANGE - 09/01/97 - 09/30/97 -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 09/0l/s»6 - 09/30/96PERMIT TYPE qTY BASE FEE •valuation PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEWUser Defined ... ... SUBDIVISION 3 5,767.50 0*00 0.00 2 700.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE 6 1,170.00 0.00 0.00 5 905.00 0.00 0.00 CUP 1 300.00 0.00 0.00 1 250.00 0.00 0.00 SKETCH PLAN 1 250.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCB/CUP 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 400.00 0.00 0.00 APPEAL 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 350.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 11*7,487.50*0.00*0.00*11*2,605.00*0.00*0.00* Grand-total 11**7,487.50**0.00**0.00**11**2,605.00**0.00**0.00** REPCMT NBR. BFBERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 10/06/97 •* PERMIT FEE REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO FROM 09/01/97 TO 09/30/97 USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE 7,487.50 7,487.50 PLAN REVIEN 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 ESCRON 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 7,487.50 7,487.50 hf V* i PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATEREPCAT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 10/06/97PERMIT TYPEBuildingSOL PAMILY-NENSP'AOD/REMODBL8P-ACC STRUCTURE DBMO/PRINCIPAL CGMMERCIAL-NEH COM-ADD/REMODBL DEMO INST-AOD/REMODEL INST-ACC STRUCT PLAN REVIEW ONLY DEMO-ACCESSORY ACC/OARAOES Sub-total Mechanical HEATINQ SYSTEMS AIR CONDITIONING HOOD STOVB/PLUE PIREPLACE VENTILATION PUBL STC«AQE GAS LINT INSPECT DUCT WORK (»n.Y REMOVE OIL TANK UNDEPINED Sub-total Pluad>ing PIXTURES SPRINKLER HATER METER VACUUM BREAKER UNDEPINED Sub-total Sewer k Water SEWER CONNECTION WATER CONNECTION NEW SEPTIC SYSTE ORNPLD k/OR TANK SAC ONLY SEWER DISCXEINBCT SEWER k WATER UNDEPINED Sub-total Sign PBRMKNENT/PO '^D PBR./PRBE STANDO QTY2324221 12 1 8 2 2 1 0 9 PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO *****PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLE-- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/97 - 09/30/97 -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/96 - 09/30/96BASE FEE46,575.50 61,12?.25 3.750.00 C90.00 087.25 3,204.25 100.00 1,579.50 29.25 0.00 300.00 VALUATION7,557,970.035,513,038.22304,991.600.00 100,000.00 356.696.00 0.00 194.310.00 775.00 0.00 0.00 PLAN REVIEW30,274.03 28,634.15 2,403.06 0.00 .71 .72 .00 .21 576 413 0 219 19.01 0.00 0.00 QTY31209247 1 6 1 3 0 1 2 BASE FEE62,082.2544,691.502.922.75 490.00 4,948.50 1.688.75 80.00 2,349.25 0.00 o.co 60.00 VALUATION10,050,297.003,530,427.00171.982.00 0.00 985,000.00 167.026.00 0.00 252.720.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 1,258.00 81,527.80 817.70 1-2,570.25 154,292.00 327*119,496.00*14,109,308.65*63,357.59*302*121,883.25*15,319,744.00* ‘80 8,182.37 63^,811.38 0.00 77 6,985.89 541,133.28 9 434.13 28,895.00 0.00 16 772.40 53,051.00 1 35.00 2,500.00 0.00 2 97.01 6,060.43 45 1,679.69 81,698.55 0.00 53 2,237.71 129,265.44 7 245.00 11,060.00 0.00 5 175.00 5,375.00 1 125.00 10,000.00 0.00 1 35.00 1,000.00 16 560.00 7,450.00 0.00 5 365.00 21,750.00 7 245.00 8,365.00 0.00 9 357.94 15,125.00 11 1,200.00 79,750.00 0.00 10 370.00 15,325.00 1 35.00 900.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 178*12,741.19*067,429.93*0.00*178*11,395.95*788,005.15* 128 9,169.09 571,746.86 0.00 123 8,650.48 547,272.21 4 231.69 14,535.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 10 1,811.99 0.00 0.00 8 1,064.00 2,750.00 5 175.00 1,200.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2 70.00 1,150.00 0.00 4 140.00 1,150.00 149*11,457.77*588,631.86*0.00*135*9,054.40*551,172.21* 7 245.00 0.00 0.00 14 490.00 0.00 2 •>0.00 0.30 0.00 1 35.00 0.00 26 2,600.00 0.00 0.00 43 4,250.00 0.00 2 100.00 0.00 0.00 4 200.00 0.00 5 4,750.00 0.00 0.00 11 6,550.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 0.00 3 210.00 0.00 0.00 6 420.00 0.00 2 70.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 47*8,045.00*0.00*0.00*HO*11,900.00*0.00* 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 0.00 3 110.25 3,300.00 0.00 1 29.25 800.00 4m PLAN REVIEW40,35321,4931,6990 3,216 374 0 0 0 1,714 0 1,484 70,336 .39.76.45.00 .53 .89 .00 .00 .00 .21 .00 .28 .51* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oc 0.00 0.00* PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RON 10/06/97 PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO PAGE: 2REQUESTER: CAROLEPERMIT TYPE QTY 01/01/97 - BASE FEE RANGE. . . . .09/30/97VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY 01/01/96 - BASE FEB RANGE . . . . .09/30/96VALUATION PLAN REVIEWTEMPORARY4120.00 0.00 0.00 3 90.00 0.00 0.00Stib-total ?♦238.25*3,300.00*0.00*5*154.25*800.00*0.00*FirePXRE SPRINKLER 1 140.00 11,200.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub'total 140.00*11,200.00*0.00*0*0.00*0.00*0.00* User Defined _ . ... _ _ LAND ALTERATION 13 675.00 0.00 0.00 20 1,125.00 0.00 O . OU f\ 0\ 0\ TREE REMOVAL 2 60.00 0.00 0.00 4 120.00 0.00 0.00 RETAINING NALLS 1 62.25 2,000.00 0.00 4 396.00 29,790.00 0.00 f\ 0\ f\ DOCKS 3 90.00 2,500.00 0.00 2 60.00 0.00 0 • 00 0^ 0^ 0^ LANN SPRINKLER 30 1,050.00 0.00 0.00 24 840.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 49^1,937.25*4,500.00*0.00*54*2,541.00*29,790.00*0.00* • Grand-total 758^*154,055.46** 15 ,584,370.44**63,357.59**754**157,808.93** 16 ,689,591.36**70,336.51** PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. BPBERPT2-1 DATE OP RUN 10/06/97BASE PEE PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE Lie. SEARCH PEE SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT MAIL IN SEWER CONNECTION MAILING PEE MAIL IN ESCROW PERMIT TOTAL ***** permit FEE REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/97 TO 09/30/97 PAGE:REQUT9TER: CAROLEBUILDINGMECHANICALPLUMBINGSEWER £t WATER USER SIGN FIRE119,496.00 12,741.19 11,457.77 8,045 1,937.25 238.25 140.00 63,357.59 0.00 0.00 O.t /0.00 0.00 0.00 7,069.84 439.77 312.28 21.00 15.00 0.50 5.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,700.00 0.00 0.00 12,650.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 349.25 35.00 225.00 0.00 245.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 225.00 140.39 1.50 81.23 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196,197.68 13,357.85 12,077.78 20,716.00 2,198.75 239.75 147.10 REPORT NBR. BFBBRPT2-1 DATE OP RUN 10/06/97 •* PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FR04 01/01/97 TO 09/30/97 ***** BASE FEB PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE Lie. SEARCH PEE SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT REPORT TOTAL 154,055.46 63,357.59 7,863.99 0.00 18,350.00 854.25 0.00 MAIL IN SEWER CONNECTION MAILING PEE MAIL IN 225.62 225.00 1.50 1.50 ESCROW PERMIT TOTAL 0.00 244,934.91 P.AGEi 2 REQUESTER: CAROLE i REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 10/06/97 ZONING PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED«***« PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO *****PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLEPERMIT TYPE QTY 01/01/97 - BASE FEB RANGE . . . . .09/30/97VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY 01/01/96 - BASE FEE RANGE . . . . .09/30/96VALUATION PLAN REVIEN User Defined _ _ . __ SUBDIVISION 13 17,105.00 0.00 0.00 12 6,895.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE 65 14,800.00 0.00 0.00 48 10,665.00 0.00 0.00 CUP 13 2,925.00 0.00 0.00 10 2,600.00 0.00 0.00 SKETCH PLAN 6 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 3 750.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE/CUP 3 795.00 0.00 0.00 3 475.00 0.00 0.00 VACATION 3 800.00 0.00 0.00 3 600.00 0.00 0 • 00 RBZONINQ 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 350.00 0.00 0.00 APPEAL 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 350.00 0.00 0.00 S\ib-total 105*37,925.00*0.00*0.00*82*22,685.00*0.00*0.00* Grand-total 105**37,925.00**0.00**0.00**82**22,685.00**0.00**0.00** REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 10/06/97 ♦♦♦♦♦ PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/97 TO 09/30/97 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE 37,925.00 37,925.00 PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 37,925.00 37,925.00 1997 RECAP OF COT.RACT CITIESJanuary February March April Jim July August Septewber October Moveaber Decentoer YTD TotalsSpring Par Plan Review Inspections Retainer TOTALNo. Plan Reviews No. Inspections 422.34 135.0025.00582.34 1 9 0.00165.00 25.00190.00 011 89.21270.0025.00384.21118Minnetonka Beach Plan Review Inspections Retainer TOTAL No. Plan Reviews No. Inspections 0.00 45.00 25.00 70.00 0 3 0.00 180.00 25.00 205.00 0 12 652.34 395.00 105.30 210.00 25.00 340.30 2 14 94.74 1,622.24 209.96 0.00 746.52 141.37165.00 120.00 195.00 90.00 90.00 150.0025.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00284.74 1,767.24 429.96 115.00 861.52 316.3727306311813661048.59 518.05 19.01 1,400.89 3,856.78 1,529.93 195.00 30.00 75.00 180.00 150.00 105.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 268.59 573.05 119.01 1,605.89 4,031.78 1,659.93 1 2 1 4 6 5 13 2 5 r i A 12 10 7 4 3.326.38 1,060.00225.004.931.38 23 92 0.00 0.00 7.478.55 1,170.00 225.00 8.873.55 21 tmm City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM For Your Information DATE:October 24, 1997 TO:Mayor Jabbour, City Council Members FROM: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Application #2288, Jason Theis ATTACHMENTS: Revised Resolution Enclosed is the revised resolution for Application #2288 for Jason Theis at 4108 Highwood Road regarding final hardcover numbers and a necessary conditional use permit. The hardcover variance in the 75 ’ to 250 ’ lakeshore setback is for 25% to allow 50% where 34% is existing and 25% is allowed. This replaces the original figure, which allowed 36.6%. Staff has determined that a parking space should be maintained at the top of the driveway. A conditional use permit is also required for grading within 5 ’ of a lot line for the proposed driveway. -T ■1 ■) i r L A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUED. 2 AND SECTION 10.24, SUED. 5(E) AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.03, SUEDIVISION 21(3), 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 vanance of 25% to allow hardcover to increase to 50%, or 679 in the 75' to 250' lakeshore Ktback where 25% is allowed and 34% is existing 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 dnveway as shown on Exhibit B. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit to Section 10.03, Subdivision 21(3), to allow grading of land within 5' of the northwest side property line to construct a driveway. Minnesota;NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2288. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zomng District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 13,437 s.f or .31 acres. Page 1 of 6 r ! 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 15, 1997 and recommended approval ol the proposed variances based upon the fo.iowing findings: 1. The zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements. 2. . The front setback variance will not further encroach on the street as the existing residence is located 12' from the front lot line. 3.Grading within 5' from the northwest side lot line will not adversely affect drainage patterns. 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 2 and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B) and a conditional use permit to Section 10.03, Subdivision 21(3) 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 25% is required to allow 50% in the 75 to 250' lakeshore setback where 25% is allowed and 34% is e.xisting and a front setback variance of 5' to allow the addition to be located 30' from the front lot line where 35' is Page 2 of 6 TMuired and 12’ is existing as shown on Exhibit A. A conditional use permit is required to allow grading to take place within 5’ of the northwest side lot line for the construction of e proposed driveway. 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. 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 for both lot lines. 4.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with Ae applic^ts, 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 vanance will expire on that date (October 13, 1998). 5.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of tlus variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Cham 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) Page 3 of 6 f 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 j 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 ) r- '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 L.kf h I hereby certify that I have prepared this survey of: That part of Lots 40 and 41, HIGHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA, Hennepin Co., Minnesota, described as follows; Beginning at the ne cor.of said Lot 40; thence sw'ly along the se*ly line thereof 151 ft; thence deflect right 15®10'00" a dist. of 27 ft; thence ^^2^* s'ly 12 feet to a point on said se’ly line, dis^5.*-^r87' sw*ly, as measured along se’ly line thereaf^rom said ne thence sw’ly along said se'ly line^to a point 16.7 ft ne'ly from the sw cor of Lot 41; thence s’ly 12 ft. to a point on thews’ly line of said Lot 41 dist, 11.4 ft. ne’ly from the sw cor. thereof; thence sw’ly along the south’ly line of Lots 41 “ and 40 to^a point 12 ft. ne’ly as meas. along said s’ly line from the ssw^o^^thereof; thence nw'ly to a point on the nw’ly line of 40, \dist. 22 ft. ne ly from said sw cor. thereof; thence ne \to the nw cor. of said Lot 40; th^ce se’ly to the p \ P ^ A f'^ ^ beginning. ^ /yjTc. OW ST Proposed On'vc £3^ ''ytropc^o\ j (\ -.ikv, *—C<vir>Uwr Ei»w^^<“*' v-***^' X~9ff -Otfwfes £X/J/ efci/. Cm-). ^htA Z'. Pef^ 95-3.33 Popasvd <«9^6'6'MoKsfy// / flxr<e.(: fh"^Pit4foo<Il.a/(k ^4«4^ XU/YtfXr ^/f/6Z. TCXERANCES vrctHM t ikCliriT^ t REVISIONS ne* jnsuf^ nee P£^.. t!tf)ku^o»)t KottX Or‘0*%m . A9A/NO DATE BY \9u: BS^r B!4e€i\^ >»7V ffS7/5-2 3 0MOT«t M«Mi 4 (MOi|«-"J>./7-97 5 iMua ••••MM rn isr- ■,, -ii jife# r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date \vith the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard, and Lili McMil.'c ■» The following represented the City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaflfron, Public Scivs^es Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Intern Brad Bressler, and K .-corder 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 BAYSIDE ROAD, CLASS I METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:02-7:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for a Class I subdivision of 55 acres. The northern portion is in the RR-IA, 5 acre. Zoning District. The southern portion is in the RRIB, 2 acre, and LR-IA, 2 acre Meshore, Zoning Districts. This existing single tax parcel has property located on both sides of Bayside Road and is proposed to be subdivided into two lots, each including area 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. Gaffron indicated that the attorneys for the city and applicant have agreed that the subdivision is a Class I, metes and bounds division, and therefore, the property is not required to be platted and is not subject to park dedication. Gaffron recommended the property line be moved easterly for Lot A as the portion north of Bayside Road as proposed is less than 5 acres. There is a small wetland located to the east, north of Bayside Road, which will require a Conservation and Flowage easement, as well as wetlands 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 a 500' width 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 from subdivision regulations but must be at least considered a Class I Subdivision. The 2 acre minimum is met by the portion of Parcels A and B south of Bayside, and Galfron noted that the property could be further subdivided in the future. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#1 - #2286 Steve White - Continued) Gaffron requested the applicant show the 929.4 contour on the survey. Parcel A includes a and out buildings that will have to be removed. Gaffron recommended the removals occur \vithjn six months of the subdivision approval. Septic system testing has taken place. The existing 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 le^ 5 acres of dry buildable. White said he would as it was his intent to have equal sized parcels. He informed Smith that this was the primary 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 it was White's intention to construct a home on the second parcel with no further subdivision. McMillan que.«;tioned the amount of roadway. Gaffron said Staff is recommending 66' instead of 80' as needed according to the Comprehensive Plan as no County trail is planned. He noted the County's standards are different than those in Orono's Comprehensive Plan. Schroedcr 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 PUBLIC HEARING 7:13-8:00 P.M. The Applicant was represented by Attorney, John Winston, and Surveyor, Walter Gregory. Mr. Whitehead arrived during the application discussion. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#5 - #2279 and #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Gaflfron reported that the application had been tabled at the August 18 meeting for revision from 4 lots to 3 lots. A revised proposal has been submitted. Lyman Avenue is partially maintained by the City with the easterly gravel driveway portion privately maintained. The 2/3rds cul-de-sac has not been constructed. The three lots include an existing house on one of the lots. Gafiron reported that the plan reviewed in August was problematic as Lot 4 had only one septic site. The Planning Commission had then recommended a 3-lot subdivision with a cul-de-sac to the driveway outlot with Lot 1 as the driveway outlot. The new plan includes a cul-de-sac located near the neighboring lot line, which would have a negative impact on that property. Staff suggested an outlot for buffering as well as a second outlot for the driveway to serve Lot 1. The private driveway outlot makes Lot 1 a "back lot", which must be able to meet the 150% area and setback requirements. The front lot line of the back lot requires a 75' setback. There is 50' currently proposed for that setback, which will require a variance. Gaffron said it was important to note that the 150% requirement has to do with the impacts to the front lot, and he recommends approval of that variance. Gaffron indicated the packet includes information for discussion on how the lot meets the standards. Buffering for Outlot A needs to be determined. Gaflfron said he is not recommending combining the two outlots because keeping them separate will help limit encroachments of the buffer. A design for the driveway for Outlot B is necessary. Due to the slope east of Outlot B, a retaining wall will be required. Screening of the southeast comer of Lot 1 will aid in restricting headlight glare from the roadway. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission had requested screening and a tree inventory for the Lot 3 driveway corridor. A list of plant varieties is included for Lot A for review. Driveway relocation within the boundary of Lot 1 would result in impacting trees. Gaffron asked the Commission to consider whether this should or should not occur. The easement would otherwise continue to be used. Gaffron reviewed the lot dimensions and area. The 200' lot width requirement would be met by Lots I and 2. There would be only a 180' width at the front setback line on Lot 3, requiring a variance but still better than prior plans. Septic site locations have been established and have been approved by Steve Weekman. Gaffron noted the applicant had suggested that with only two homes, no ponding was necessary since no cul-de-sac would be built. Gaffron indicated this would have to be reviewed by the City Engineer and MCWD, who will make the final determination, before final approval of the subdivision. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#5 - #2279 and #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Gaffron said the lane to the north of Lot 1 is a dedicated public right-of-way but has never been opened. The DNR is not in need of this right-of-way, and Gaffron recommended vacating the right- of-way for inclusion to the property. Access to the neighborhood is another issue for the Planning Commission to consider according to Gaffron. The City Engineer has suggested Lyman Avenue, which is only 15-20' wide at most should be upgraded by the developer. Gaffron said the applicant proposes to dedicate public right-of-way for the road but has asked Commission to consider whether the cul-de-sac is needed. The City Engineer has suggested the applicant be responsible for the upgrade including costs. The applicant had indicated the road likely would be tom up when sewer was installed. Gaffron indicated the adjacent area is one of the ten hot spots but not scheduled for sewering at this time. The property itself is not part of the delineated sewer area and is not within the MUSA. Gaffron asked whether the two additional lots serv’ed by the driveway should trigger the upgrade of the road and what the upgrades should include. He noted items A-H in the packet were for Planning Commission discussion. Mr. Winston said the proposal is to add two new lots for two new homes. The lots w'ould be large at 3.8 acres and 3 acres plus the existing homestead. He felt the additional traffic on Lyman would be minimal and should be the concern of the City, not the applicant. Winston does not believe the Whitehead's should be obligated to solve the road needs for the neighborhood. Brian Palmer, 1190 Lyman Avenue, said he was not aware of the number of variances required on the current plan. He questioned how many variances the Planning Commission would grant for the new subdivision and whether or not they should be granted. Lindquist informed him that the lots are plotted as buildable and will require some variances. Lindquist said he thought the number of variances was minimal. Brano Stankovsky, 1290 Lyman Avenue, said he has met with the Whiteheads and discussed the purchase of Outlot A. Plans are not known for the retaining wall or driveway as yet, and he asked if they were required. Gaffron indicated that they were. Stankovsky inquired about screening. Gaffron said it needs to be discussed. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#5 - #2279 and #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Stankovsky noted the driveway enters Lyman Avenue and would increase the traffic to Smith Avenue. He asked when it would be decided whether it would need widening. He is concerned that guidance be given by the Commission for when the roadway needs to be widened as the property will most likely be in the ownership of others at that future time. Smith questioned whether the money for the future upgrade could be escrowed. Gaffron said this method has not been used in similar situations in the past. He questioned what would be a good trigger for when the upgrade is required. Schroeder indicated that the tq)plication has been reviewed on several occasions by the Commission and the applicant has complied with the requests made by the Commission. He noted the number of lots was reduced to three. He asked if the width variance for Lot 3 was a function of the lot geography. Gaffron said it was, and was also related to the septic site. He indicated the intent of die back lot requirements needs to be reviewed. An administrative variance to the septic setback for the wetlands is being granted as this is not a zoning code matter. Schroeder said his view is that the applicant should be responsible for a partial amount of the upgrade. Smith agreed. Lindquist also indicated there is some responsibility on the part of the applicant. Stoddard asked that Staff review the maintenance needs of the road prior to application going before the Council. Hawn said she would like the driveway to be relocated onto the property within Lot 1 instead of to the east by use of an easement. Winston reported on the number of trees impacted. He did not feel this suggestion was good for the neighborhood. Gregory noted the driveway easement is shown on the plat. Lindquist asked Hawn her reasoning behind the suggestion. Hawn said she felt it would be easier to deal with the driveway on the property instead of through an easement when the road is straightened out. She is concerned with the curve of the road. Gaffron concurred that the road does not meet design standards but noted the close proximity to the septic site for Lot 2. Lindquist said he was satisfied with the use of a driveway easement. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#5 - #2279 and #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Smith questioned how future property owners could be advised of the potential if sewermg were to occur. McMillan said she would prefer a decision be made at this time. She mdicated neightots are not in favor of a change in road alignment due to the loss of trees that would occm. McM.llan said she is concerned with the number of accidents at that location noting the lack of sight Ime. Gaffton suggested an option of dedicating the portion of road to meet the c^e radius standard imd granting an easement to the property owner to have the septic system placed over it. McMillan ^d Avenue was upgraded, it would occur where the public road is located now and become a ■'■■ic.nee on the private roadway. She asked that a decision be made now. Sch.™Her suggested the septic site could be eliminated in the future with the straightening of the road once sewer is available. Gaffron acknowledged that the option he suggested would allow for use of the primary site and straightening of the road. Hawn and Lindquist felt the suggestion was satisfactory. Hawn indicated the problem was the road correction would not occm until sewenng was accomplished. Gaffron said the property to the south is in the MUSA but he cannot predict when sewer will be extended to this property. McMillan said she would like to see the one segment of the road improved. Lindquist said it would not be accomplished until the property owners agree to make the improvement as it is a "J® _ To straighten the toad out at this time would eliminate the septic site, which cannot be d , the septic site is not necessary in the future. Schroeder also noted that the property value would not be affected as the septic system site would take precedence over it. Winston said he was concerned with the speed of traffic if the road was movrf too far over into Lot 2. Schroeder indicated the upgrade cannot be imposed on this developer as there are no iKw being served by this segment of road. He asked if the reasoning was due to safety. Gaffiron said would be but noted it would also most likely increase the speed of traffic. Mr. Whitehead arrived at this time. He was updated as to the discussions and suggestions thus far. Whitehead said he was not in agreement with suaightening out the road for the future. Gregory asked if the option couid be conditioned on providing sewer to the proper^. Schroeder informed him that is what is being envisioned but sewer would require a change to the MUSA boundaries. .<*t0 »>#i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#5 - #2279 and #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) McMillan said her concern was only for improving the sight line itself. Gregory suggested providing the City with an easement that would enable the City to cut down the necessary trees to improve the sight line. McMillan suggested the City Engineer review it. Whitehead suggested brining the roadway out and sweeping it. Gaffron indicated the area was too steep for that scenario. Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to approve Applications #2279/2280 for a 3-lot subdivision as outlined including recommendations A, B, C, D, E, and F. Recommendation D will require screening acceptable to the City. Tree cutting, driveway and drainage encroachments will not occur unless neighbiirs make that determination. Any improvements to Lyman Avenue should be subject to further study by Mr. Whitehead and Staff. Based on past precedent, the cost would be incurred by Mr. Whitehead and the other property owners on a pro-rated base. Whitehead is to work with the City regarding the curve of the road. Trees can be cut down and the shoulder graded to where the septic site encroachment is located to improve the sight lines but not impact the septic site. The road can be widened once the septic system is no longer necessary. The financial responsibility of such improvements is that of the property owners. MCWD and City will review the ponding. Winston questioned the financial bearing by the Whiteheads on an improvement used by others, McMillan asked that the motion include the mapping out of the driveways prior to final Council action. Gaffron noted where this should be completed. Gregory said he has a sketch of what is being envisioned. He indicated the driveway will be decided by where the house is located. Winston said he feels the outlot will provide what the City is looking for. Schroeder asked that Staff make that decision. Smith suggested the driveway be fixjm the outlot. Berg agreed. Schroeder and Smith indicated one curb cut only. Lindquist clarified that both driveways will come off of the ouilot and not Lyman Avenue. Hawn withdrew her request that the driveway easement be eliminated. McMillan asked that the motion include the City Engineer review of the curve of the roadway and make a recommendation. Motion was amended as noted. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. : k ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (Agenda item #6 follows item #4) (#2) #2293 LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, JIM WATERS, 1003 WILDHURST TRAIL - PUBLIC HEARING 8:00-8:49 P.M. A. CLASS III 12 LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION B. REZONING C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT D. STREET VACATION The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaf&on reported that the application is for subdivision of a number of individual parcels located at the end of Wildhurst Trail and consisting of the 10 acre Morgart property, the Sollner property, the Van Sloun property, and the eastern Morgart property, which has an existing house and accessory building. The sketch plan was reviewed by both the Planning Commission and Council. The proposal includes a request for rezoning. The Van Sloun and 10-acre Morgart properties are located in the RR-IB Zoning District, which is outside the MUSA boundary. The Sollner and eastern Morgart properties are within the MUSA boundary and in the 1 acre LR-IB Zoning District. Applicant requests that the 10 acre parcel be rezoned from 2-acre zoning to 1 acre zoning. This would also require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and a revision of the MUSA line. The applicant is requesting a vacation of the platted right-of-way in the eastern Morgart property, which has not been opened for public travel. This would involve replatting for building sites. The 14 lot plat consists of 26.4 acres. The proposed right-of-way for vacation is 2.05 acres. Gaffron reviewed the proposed layout. Gaffron noted the requests for subdivision, comprehensive plan amendment and zoning amendment, while intertwined, should be reviewed separately. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to come to a conclusion first regarding the comprehensive plan and zoning amendments without looking at the specific plan itself. The 10 acre Morgart property, which probably could be developed to a limited extend under the 2- acre standards, consists of steep slopes. The rezoning to an urban density would allow for sewering and for efficient development of the property. It would also limit the length of Wildhurst Trail. The proposal limits the cul-de-sac extension as well. 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) During the sketch plan review, the Council suggested the rezoning be considered in the context of yielding no more lots than there would be under present zoning. The applicant would need to show how the development would occur in the current zoning without sewer. Gaffron indicated this would be difficult to do. Gaffron said he has concluded that the Van Sloun property under the current zoning would be limited to two lots. The Sollner property, in the MUSA, could be sewered and would be limited to six lots, but more likely five lots due to the topography. The Morgan 10-acre parcel would be limited to five lots but realistically, it would result in no more than three lots with septic. The east Morgan parcel, which is 4.7 acres, is likely to be divided into three lots. This results in the current 2X)ning allowing for a maximum of 17 lots without rezoning, but realistically, no more than 13 lots would be feasible. Gaffion said the intent for Outlot A and B, the Van Sloun property to the west, if dedicated as open space, might result in justification for transferring the density to allow 13 lots. Gaffion indicated that the applicant's request for Comprehensive Plan amendment for MUSA boundary change and sewering to include the Morgan property, would be required for rezoning. Gaffion said the property is only marginally developable without sewer. He indicated that this proposal conflicts with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and read the stipulations in the Comp Plan as indicated on pages 3 and 4 of the Staff memo. Gaffion reported that the Council reinforced the opinion that the City should follow' the Comprehensive Plan. Gaffion offered two optional methods for granting the proposed amendments. They include (A) changing the policy to allow such a change, or (B) determine that the applicants proposal has so many compelling characteristics that expansion of the urban area for this development will be a positive move, enhancing those characteristics the City is intent on preserving by its current policy. Gaffron said Staff recommends that Alternative A is a more appropriate method than B as it establishes parameters for change. Alternate B would be a quicker method; however, it may set a precedent of reacting to developer requests for change on an individual basis. Gaffron said it is rare for Orono to accommodate development through MUSA and Comp Plan amendments. Sugar Woods was cited as an example where this did occur. However, Gaffion indicated that that development had a unique set of circumstances. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that they and the Council must first conclude that the Comprehensive Plan and MUSA boundary amendment is appropriate, along with rezoning in order for the developer to proceed uith this subdivision. Gaffron asked whether the Planning Commission wanted to discuss the issue of rezoning at this time. Lindquist asked Waters to comment. Waters reported there are compelling reasons and characteristics for the MUSA and rezoning request. He said he has tried to avoid the use of the platted access from the south. Garden Lane, to eliminate impact on the park and the upper area of the site with its significant slopes and trees. He suggested the MUSA boundaries would not be expanded but zoning would be traded. The Sollner property would go from within the MUSA to outside the MUSA and the Morgart property from outside to within. Waters indicated that the number of lots developed from the property would correspond if he used Garden Lane for access. He indicated that the proposal is a more sensible development plan allowing for clustering of homes, which Waters feels is more appropriate for the neighboring. He felt the reasons for rezoning were no less compelling than that of Sugar Woods, only different. The public were asked to comment. Steve Bell, a resident of West Branch Road, noted the significant changes that would occur to the environment. He asked what testing and assessment has been done, and if any, whether it has been shared with the Planning Commission. Waters informed him that a wetland delineation has been done as w'ell as perc tests for the two sites on the west side. Lindquist said an EIS has not been done and would not be done. Berg reported that a development for 20-25 lots would require a Phase I EAW. Charles Boehm, Wildhurst Trail, said he resents the increases in property ta.xes. He felt the way the MUSA boundary is delineated within these properties is ridiculous. Boehm said he is opposed to over building and asked that common sense prevail. Helen Overboe, Forest Road, reported that the property is very heavily wooded and steep. She felt the development would lead to further erosion in the area. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 I ‘ (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Mike Schulte, 4640 West Branch Road, said the proposal is in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He felt the runoff would enter the lake from the steep topography, and the urban development would be that of a rural area. Lindquist asked the Planning Commission whether they would like to i view the Comprehensive Plan. Hawn acknowledged that the property is surrounded by the MUSA and the proposal would not increase the number of allowed residences, but she would like to see it accomplished in a different fashion, by allowing for fewer roads. She felt more roads would increase drainage problems and result in tree removal. If a development was encouraged to have fewer roads and sewer instead of septic, it would be preferred by Hawn. Hawn said it was not a question of no development but rather this development. She felt the Commission needs to determine whether this is the best development for the property. Hawn commented regarding changing the Comprehensive Plan or looking at proposals case by case. She agreed that there is a need to change the Comprehensive Plan, but questioned whether it could be done in a timely manner for this application. Schroeder inquired how many buildable lots can be developed as the property is currently zoned. Gaflfron said it was 13 lots with no change in zoning, and the application proposed 14 lots. Stoddard noted that the zoning would allow for 17 lots but due to the septic site conditions and roads, it would be 13 lots. McMillan elaborated that the 13 sites would include 5 in the 2-acre zoning and 8 in the 1-acre zoning. The plan is for 12 lots in the 1-acre zoning and 2 lots in the 2-acre zoning. Stoddard inquired how the MUSA boundary’ has historically been changed. Gaffron said it normally has changed to accommodate provisions of sewering existing higher density neighborhoods. It has rarely been changed for new development, only in areas around Highway 12 and the Sugar Woods Development. Schroeder noted a better plan would be possible if the zoning was changed, but asked what could occur with no change. Gaffron said more roads would be required with the same number of residences. Schroeder said more trees would have to be eliminated for the septic sites. He acknowledged the difficulty in amending the Comprehensive Plan. i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Gar>' Welch, 1214 Wildhurst Trail, said he was on the City Council when the sewering was established. He said the Council at that time was not comfortable with extending the MUSA line. He feels it would be a problem to make that change now. Welch was of the opinion that there may not be enough land for 13 lots. He voiced concern with runoff and the poor soils that exist. Bob Wolff, 4450 Forest Lake Landing, noted that the road was narrow and the subdivision development would double the use. He suggested another access be determined instead of by Wildhurst Trail with the condition of the road presently and the use of heavy equipment during construction. He cited an example. Jim Waters said 13 or 14 homes are not excessive for the property and would not significantly impact traffic. Many members of the public voiced disagreement with Waters. He noted Garden Lane could be used for access or Wildhurst Trail could be extended to the west. Homes would then be unclustered. Waters said more homes would be necessary to justify building the road. He feels it makes sense to cluster homes in order to minimize the impact and provide buffering. Waters confirmed that he would have to review the options if the Comprehensive Plan was not amended. McMillan asked Gaffron whether the park land within the MUSA and being undeveloped would change the character of the neighborhood. Gaffron said the park parcels adjacent to Garden Lane have restrictions placed on their use. The tax forfeit park parcel could include some development. He cited other areas within the MUSA, namely, Noerenberg Park, noting the City is not suggesting MUSA boundary changes. McMillan notes that this would tend to landlock the parcels within the MUSA boundary. Gaffron said it would have a negative impact on the potential for the Sollner property being an island of 1 acre lots. Bob Berklund, a resident of Wildhurst Trail, noted the drainage flow problems and recommended an environmental impact study be conducted of the area. Waters said an engineer is preparing plans and specifications for drainage, grading, and erosion control to allow for ponding away from the area. He feels the plan will not change the present situation and may even improve it. Berklund said he thought it would add more drainage problems to the area. Lindquist polled the Planning Commission regarding amending the Comprehensive Plan. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Stoddard while noting what building is allowed making sense to minimize the number of lots, he docs not see enough to substantiate changing the Comprehensive Plan or MUSA boundary. Hawn agreed with Stoddard. She indicating changing the MUSA boundary is against the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. Smith agreed. She noted, however, that if the property is developed, drainage and runoff will have to be reviewed. McMillan also agreed. Berg indicated if the property was developed within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, 13 lots could be considered but may not be prudent. She suggested the design be such as to not impact the area. Schroeder agreed. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to deny the Comprehensive Plan revisionMUSA exp^ion aspect of Application #2293 based on the fact it does not meet the guidelines laid out m the Comprehensive Plan. Gaffron indicated there were two phases of the application. By making the above motion, mother proposal may be submitted. Smith questioned whether it would be best to table the application. Gaffron disagreed unless there is a plan that would convince the Plannmg Commission that the Comprehensive Plan should be amended. Schroeder noted the problem with setting a precedent. Gaffron suggested taking action on the motion and tabling the subdivision portion of the request. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to deny rezoning the property. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2294 for street vacation and subdivision. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Lindquist noted there will be a request for an EIS in the future. Waters said an engineering sWdy would be conducted and not an EIS for drainage. Berg suggested Waters speak with the neighbors. I i I ’ 1 i [ I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#3) #2294 LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, JIM WATERS, 1181 WILDHURST TRAIL - PUBLIC HEARING 8:50-9:32 P.M. A. CLASS III 7 LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION B. STREET VACATION The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for a 7-lot subdivision southeast of the park land area. It includes the Soskin and Sollner properties. The City park is located to the north. The property abuts Wildhurst Trail on the east and Garden Lane on the west. The property is in the LR-IB Zoning District, which is sewered, within the MI ISA boundary, and requires 1 acre mimmum lots wdth 140' width. The application was previously reviewed as a sketch plan. The access to the development will be on a road from Tonkaview Lane with a cul-de-sac at the north end and a second cul-de-sac to the east. The Planning Commission had previously shown support for that access. Changes for consideration include access to the park from Garden Lane, a temporary cul-de-sac, and protection of the ravine. The current proposal is for a total of seven lots. The current plan calls for a vacation of a portion of Garden Lane and rededication of a public roadway to the east allowing the western lot (Sollner lot) to be split into two parcels. The public road with cul-de-sac to the east will provide access for three or four lots. Utilities present no problem. The Hennessy property to the north will require access, and Staff suggested one way to accommodate this is via a private driveway in the dedicated right-of-way. The Garden Lane right-of- way was dedicated in 1921. It was an open field up until the I950's but is currently wooded. The seven proposed lots average one-plus acres. Gaffron said it appears that they will meet the 140 width requirement. Lots I and 4 of Block 2 will require drainage easements in excess of the perimeter easement over the ravine and to the north. The one acre requirement needs to be met in addition to the drainage easement. Gaffron said the applicant has defined the orientation of the homes and lot types. Lots 3 and 4 of Block 2 are on a cul-de-sac with walkouts to the east. Lots 1 and 5 of Block 2 will have walkouts to the side and rear. Lots 2, Block I, and Block 2, will have look-out lots on flat terrain. Lot 1, Block 1, will be a v. alkout but require building up of the grade to create the walkout. r > I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#3 - #2294 LGA Investment Group - Continued) The drainage is to the northeast and southeast through two ravines with culverts under Wildhurst Trail and eventually to Forest Lake. The drainage to the south ravine is suggested changed to enable drainage to flow to the north ravine. Applicant's plan uses the first 200' of the north ravine for a drainage pond. This may be sound from an engineering standpoint but will impact the natural characteristics of the ravine. This proposal was submitted after the original application submission showing a pond in the northwest of the Sollner lot. It was changed apparently in response to the fact that no area credit would be received for ponds. Gaffron said the drainage plan will provide a benefit to the neighborhood. It should reduce the flow rate as it leaves the subdivision. The City Engineer had suggested runoff controls located at the head of the ravine. Gaffron said Staff had not expected the stormwater pond to be shifted to the ravine. There are major trees (oak, maple, basswoods) growing in the ravine, creating a problem with having a stormwater pond at the head of the ravine, since the slopes make this a fragile environment. Gaffron reported that there is adequate area to meet the front, rear, and side setbacks for all lots, some of which are located in the Shoreland District and subject to the 500-1000', 35% hardcover, limitation. The northerly ravine is not located in the Shoreland District. The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plat and suggested sanitary sewer run from Wildhurst Trail. The developer will be responsible for the cost to bring the sewer in. The applicant must confirm that the streets meet the design, speed, and radius standards and include a typical section with the plans. Gaffron indicated that due to the park land restrictions on the proposed northern cul-de-sac location, no cul-de-sac can be located there, only an access road across it. The cul-de-sac should be moved to the southeast, while maintaining a corridor for access to both the park land and Hennessy property. The proposed island should be omitted or cul-de-sac widened for maintenance. Erosion controls must be in place before any site grading and additional measures taken along the steep slope between Lots 3 and 4 where sewer construction will take place. Pre and post development flow rates will be required and need MC WD approval. A NURP stormwater pond wall be required. Gaffron reviewed general issues for consideration and discussion, including stormwater pond relocation. The current proposed location would result in the removal of numerous mature trees, change the characteristics of the ravine, negatively impact the views from the adjacent park land, and causes a single family residence to be located within 10-20' of a pond. Gaffron said the cul-de-sac should be moved toward the east and continue the corridor to the park land. The Park Commission has not reviewed the application for park fee or 8% land dedication. Gaffron suggested land be taken in the ravine area. With the total acreage required for park dedication, stormwater, and roads, it may be that the development will only consist of 6 lots. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#3 - #2294 LGA Investment Group - Continued) The Staff made 6 recommendations which are included in the memo. Jim Waters noted that the City needs access to the park as well as runoff control. He suggested this be shared with the City. Waters said the cul-de-sac could be dead-ended, but it was his attempt to meet the turnaround requirement for maintenance and provide park access. Waters felt these issues could be solved and benefit both the development and the City. Waters informed Stoddard that he understood the Staff recommendations and agreed with them. Bob Berklund said there would be the same negative impact on drainage noting the high amount of algae found in Forest Lake. Gary Welch said the ravine to Wildhurst goes through his property and reported drainage problems he has had. He suggested a soil study be conducted. He is also concerned with disturbing the vegetation on the slopes. Welch questioned the elevation of the proposed road on the east and west portions. Gaffron said all of the drainage from the road is proposed to be directed to flow to the north. Much of it now flows down tluough the south ravine. Gaffron acknowledged the problem and indicated that the flow rate cannot increase from pre-development conditions and requires MCWD review. Welch said there were two homes proposed in the 10-16% range of elevation. Gaffron said the attempt is to get the drainage from the driveway and house to flow to the front with gutters and continue flowing to the north. He was informed that there is about 150 ’+ from the rear of the homes to Wildhurst Trail. Welch added that this is not a typical situation noting the uniqueness of the area. Kathryn Kasprick questioned the developer providing access to the park property. She does not feel the trade off is appropriate. Shirley Bowlen, 4690 Tonkaview Lane, reported that the intersection of Wildhurst Trail, CoRd 19, Tonkaview is dangerous. She indicated that another problem would be created with three driveways at the top of the hill at Garden Lane and Tonkaview. Lindquist informed her that the Planning Commission is aware of the problems. 1 ppll II ' ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#3 - #2294 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Steven Valek, 4720 Tonkaview, lives south of the pond and is concerned with the issue of water drainage. He reported that over 10 acres drain into the pond and outlets through two lots into the ravine. He asked that the primary concern is to address drainage there. He is concerned with the retention of drainage on Lot 1. Valek acknowledged the advantages of a development. Scott Hennessy, 1261 Wildhurst, also voiced concern with water drainage. He reported that a water fall is created over his retaining wall when it rains. He said he loses half of his driveway each year. Lindquist acknowledged this problem. Lindquist said there are concerns with the pond and cul-de-sac. He informed Waters that any impact on the ravine is not acceptable. He suggested another pond area be determined and reviewed by the City Engineer. Smith concurred with Staffs recommendations. Hawn questioned whether a parking lot could be established in the area of the park property adjacent to the ravine. Gaffron responded that the first goal is to obtain and retain access to the Hennessy property to keep the corridor open. The property is restricted in its development by the DNR. A driveway can only be located across the property; more active uses can occur on the tax forfeit parcel to the west. Lindquist read into the record a letter from Brian and Sandra Rasmussen, 1186 Wildhurst Trail, related to appropriate development and land management surrounding Forest Lake Bay. Waters said he will do what is required to ensure safety of the neighborhood. He noted it was not the responsibility of the developer to correct existing problems. Helen Overboe was informed that LGA Development is located in Plymouth. Gaffron noted the recommendations made by Staff and suggested the application be tabled based on the changes required. He recommended the Planning Commission review the application at their October meeting before review by Council. Schroeder agreed with Gaffron noting the drainage to be a major issue of concern. He indicated that the drainage is not a function of this property but is a problematic parcel. Schroeder was of the opinion that the development would most likely be a 6-lot subdivision. I t S! I- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#3 - #2294 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Smith and Lindquist agreed there is concern with the runoff 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 - PUBLIC HEARING 9:39- 10:21 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffixm reported that the application is a request to detach Lot 13, North Shore Cottage Acres from 905 West Femdale, 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. Gaffron indicated that the reattachment of the property to property across the lagoon from it would be necessary. It is the desire of the applicant to preserve his views across the lagoon. There is no structure located in the 0-75' setback. Some smaller trees on the peninsula may impact the views in the future. Gaffron said Heimepin County would most likely not allow the legal combination with property across the lagoon. This would then be subject to a special lot combination resolution to be filed on the chain of title stipulating Lot 13 cannot be separated from the homestead parcel in the future without City approval. This would eliminate the possibility of creating an unbuildable lot that could be sold off. Gaffron review'ed 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 in the 0-75’ setback. w \ •r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#4 - #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr., and John Brooks - Continued) Attorney, Bob Mitchell, referred to the definition of hardcover and the lay of the land. He noted the peculiar parcel at 905 West Femdale was approved for home reconstruction within the last 20 years. Schroeder noted the percentage of hardcover at 905 West Femdale is increasing because the amount of land is decreasing. Conley Brooks, Jr., said he is attempt to create a more sensible arrangement and improving views. He says a scenic easement could be obtained that allows for maintenance of vegetation for the future. He would like to have that responsibility in lieu of the adjacent neighbor having it. Brooks reported that the area in the lagoon between the peninsula and the shore is mucky, and acquiring this piece of property would allow for a swimming area. Brooks said it would be superfluous for 905 West Femdale to own it and would make logical sense. He has no plans to improve the peninsula 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 Planning 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 have considered this option. Floyd said 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 he would need would not be available. He asked that consideration be given 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 given the time to review the issues he addressed in his letter. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#4 - #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr., and John Brooks - Continued) 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. 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 peninsula should stay as part of the adjoining land. 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 Gaffron that he was unaware of any similar cases. Hawn noted a property on Stubbs Bay 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. Gaffron asked if the Commissioners would allow the property to be sold separately 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 combination 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 Floyd without the public being notified. 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 him to make future plans. Berg informed him of the right of people to sell their property. mr ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#4 - #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr., and John Brooks - Continued) Floyd asked what other properties could do the same as indicated by this proposal. Gaffron said contiguity must be shown in order to preserve the code. The properties must abut or be adjacent to be combined and must include a principal structure. He noted there are many cases where docks are located across the road from the principal structure. Gaffron explained the approval for the lot combination of 980 West Femdale that was conceptually 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. Floyd's Attorney, Kevin DeVore, asked about the use of the land by Brooks and the taxation of Lot 13 if it is not combined with another tax parcel. Schroeder reported that the land is taxed but not legally combined. Gaffron reported that the legal combination includes issuance of a new tax number. He noted Lot 13 was contiguous and part of the 905 West Femdale parcel 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 apparently a separate piece of land jointly owned by Floyd and Brooks. He indicated Brooks is attempting to acquire property further east on the south side of the road center line exclusive of the City road. Hawn moved, Schroeder seconded, to grant the request as submitted with a legal combination of Lot 13 or special lot combination if Hennepin County will not legally combine. 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 combination resolution allows for approving a subdivision with special restrictions by covenants. Berg questioned whether the additional land would be used in determining the amount of hardcover available. Gaffron indicated the 0-75 ’ and 75-250 ’ setback areas are considered separately. Schroeder said the lot size is what will increase. M I- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#4 - #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr., and John Brooks - Continued) Smith voiced concern with this land acquisition making Brooks' property more buildable. Hawn noted the peninsula was located in the 0-75' setback. Gaffron said it could be a concern in a different arrangement but not in this case due to the setback and lakeshore. Schroeder asked if the motion should include a scenic easement which will benefit the property owner of 980 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 explained. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 3, Lindquist, Smith, and Berg. Berg said she is concerned with setting a precedent. Lindquist said the proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the property is not contiguous. ACTION ITEMS (#6) GARY AND BONNIE BIRNBAUM, 2695 KELLY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:21-10:31 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request to renew a variance which has elapsed. Lot width and lot area variances are required to allow the lot to be considered buildable. The 1.14 acre property is located in the LR-1B, one acre. Zoning District. Van Zomeren reported the applicant had indicated via a phone conversation earlier in the day that the survey that was submitted showed inaccurate hardcover calculations as the concrete patio and other hardcover has been removed. Van Zomeren said Staff recommends re-enactment of the previous variances subject to conditions noted on page 5 of the memo. 22 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#6 - 2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum - Continued) Mr. Bimbaum asked for consideration regarding the stipulation of removing the fence. It is located on the edge of the property at the edge of the access road for the public beach. The area is uneven and receives heavy traffic. The fence would provide for safety as there is no shoulder on the road. There is also alot of snowmobile traffic during the winter months. Without the fence, the snowmobilers would travel across the property onto Kelly Avenue instead of using the access road. There were no public comments. Smith asked the applicant if he has reviewed the Staff recommendations. Bimbaum said he supports the recommendation with the exception for hardcover being reduced on Lot 2 and request the fence remain. Lindquist asked whether there was any reason why the fence cannot be moved onto Bimbaum's property. Bimbaum said there was not much land left as the land has erodqd. Berg noted that a person can no longer walk out to the point. McMillan said it appears that what land is there is different from that shown on the survey. Stoddard inquired how old the survey was. Van Zomeren said the survey was inaccurate regarding hardcover and total acreage based on the applicant's phone call. Lindquist suggested approval be subject to an updated survey. Schroeder moved to approve Application #2283 subject to Staff recommendations with the exception that the fence be allowed to remain on City property and an updated survey be provided prior to application review by Council. Stoddard responded that he felt the updated survey would show circumstances different than that shown on the submitted survey. Bimbaum acknowledged that erosion has occurred. Stoddard indicated that the water is hitting the fence area. Schroeder received confirmation that the application is to enable the property to be one buildable lot. Stoddard noted that the property is in the one acre zoning district and consists of .52 acre and .6 acres with the additional strip of land. This falls short of the requirement. Stoddard said he would like to see what land exists. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#6 - 2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum - Continued) Schroeder indicated he stands behind his motion due to the erosion occurring. McMillan indicated that the water is 2' higher. There was no second to the motion. Lindquist moved. Hawn seconded, to table Application #2283 subject to an updated survey. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Schroeder, who indicated he felt the results would be the same. (#7) #2284 JAMES SLECHTA, 3700 NORTHERN AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:31-10:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren distributed photographs of the property. The 127,968.3 s.f. property, consisting of 3.97 acres total and .6 acres wetland, is located in the LR-IC, 1/2 acre Zoning District. The proposal is to construct a 42'x96' storage structure, which is in excess of the maximum for an oversized accessory structure. The structure is proposed at a location 23' from the property line and 26.2' from the wetland. The structure is proposed at a height of 23' with 16' side walls. The principal residence is approximately 16' in height. With the size of the lot, the property is limited to an accessory structure of 1,421.4 s.f. James Slechta said his intention is to move to his parents p»-operty to provide them assistance and requires the space to store his possessions. He has a building of similar size now at a different location. There were no public comments. Schroeder was informed by Slechta that the building would be used to store his 35* boat, requiring the height of the building, his vehicles and other equipment. Lindquist informed Slechta that the building size was too large. He noted there were already four outbuildings on the property now in addition to the residence. A variance from both the street and side setbacks are also required. He asked what structure Slechta could obtain with meeting the setbacks. Slechta said he could adjust the location but cannot reduce the size to 1400 s.f Slechta informed Schroeder that he did not intend to work in the building. i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#7 - #2284 James Slechta - Continued) Berg said the applicant needs to reduce the building size to around 1400 s.f. Slechta disagreed with this size. It is his opinion that there is adequate room for such a building as he proposes. Slechta responded to the issue of height noting the land is lower than the land where the other buildings are located. He indicated the new building would not appear to be higher than the other buildings. Berg asked what Slechta’s hardship is for the proposed structure. Slechta said he needs it for storage. If he is unable to obtain the building, he would be unable to reside there and assist his parents. Slechta said he would not be able to afford the expense of storing his possessions elsewhere. Lindquist suggested the setbacks be eliminated and the building size reduced to 1400 s.f. He noted there are three parcels under one ownership but could be subdivided in the future and must be conforming and meet setbacks. He also noted the requirement for a 26 separation from the wetland. The building must also be reduced to meet the 30’ front setback along with the setback from the wetland. Slechta was asked whether the application should be tabled or voted on. Slechta said he is unable to decrease the size of the building. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to deny Application #2284. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#8) #2285 JOHN LATTERELLE, 3505 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:45-10:56 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the application is to construct a 12'x26 deck on the north side of the existing residence. It would be located off the second story to provide a second exit for fire escape. The deck would be located 18.2' from Livingston Avenue. The stairs and landing are not considered m encroachment. Due to the proximity to the street. Staff recommended a 3'x3’ landing with stairs denying a 12 ’ front setback variance. The 3’ wide deck landing would decrease that setback variance to 2.8 ’. V man I man •JtJMVfl Miiniani rtiiin man I micHfri] [•auHtiiiic^ivsiirilcml^mu mnni mnnimn •roitiiKani rtmni mfjtii man miinfli^ miviiift itniinfsi miiianiiiTsi lirojtj ^ •njiofs! •iMinnii^ mSlIlM nvi ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#9 - #2287 Bradley and Traci Peterson - Continued) Peterson said he attempted to rebuild the deck that was there. Once he begun fixing it, he found he needed to totally rebuild it. Peterson said he was unaware of the need to acquire variances. The deck will be the same size as what existed. Smith was informed that the hardcover calculations differ as the deck had already been removed. There were no public comments. Lindquist reviewed the situation leading up to the application. Stoddard questioned whether some plastic could be removed from underneath landscaping. Van Zomeren said it is unknown how much of that plastic is necessary to aid drainage. Smith suggested the applicant work with Staff to determine if any could be removed. Lindquist said he would like to see all of it removed, but Smith recommended maintaining that portion by the lakeshore per Staff recommendation. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2287 ^ recommendation including removal of plastic as noted. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Smith left the meeting.) (#10) #2288 JASON THEIS, 4108 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 11:02-11:22 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler provided photographs for the Commission to review. The proposal is to construct an attached 697 s.f tuck-under garage with living space above. Variances are required for hardcover, front setback, and side setback. An updated survey with grading plan is required. The 53' lot width requires 50'. There is insufficient room in which to turn a car, and the applicant is attempting to acquire property from the neighbor. Grading has been revised. The 12% original grading is to be revised at an acceptable 8%. It currently does not meet that grade but applicant is of the opinion it can be met. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#10 - #2288 Jason Theis - Continued) Bressler suggested an alternate plan by narrovving the driveway to 10' for a 8.1' side setback which would meet the 10’ requirement. " .1. revised 3* to the northwest. Thei. said his neiahbor’s (the Sauer’s) home intruded over his property line. He suggested his 1’ ni b= an Jangennen.. Ha ba.ieves .ha 2' varianaa is no. aa.ual as U.e closest comer is set at 10'6'' with an 18" cantilevered overhang. Brasslar said i. did appear fron, .ha survey to. tore was an aneroaahman. bu. i. doas mee. U.e requirement. Theis indicated that the scale was inaccurate. Bavarly Sauar rapor.ad .ha. .ha proper.y Hoods and will ga. wa.ar in Thais ^d ha «.Lrr.o1hfs»?propa"y S‘o ^ onlo ^ " Thais said ha has no. saan his housa Hood bu. wa.ar has aoma -40 of h.s house, indicated what would affect the proposed garage would also affect the house. Theis said he has 372 s.f. above grade and 300 s.f. below grade. With the proposed addition, lould have 1100 s.f. above grade. Thais said no. muah could be dona if .he garage floods. Lindquist questioned whether the property was in the flood plain. Bressler noted there is a wetland area to the rear of the property. Barg explained to flood plain loca.ion and indiaalad she feels .hare is a na.ural drainagaway. McMillan said she would like lo see bod. .he driveway and grading as planned. She whetor to« vvas a problem wifh to driveway being localed up .o to lo. hne and was ..tor^d tof to isL. 1. has been indiaa.ed to. to neighbor is willmg .o sell an amoun. of land necessary for the garage and driveway. Phil Olio, to neighbor on lha garage side, reported lhal he is willing lo sell Theis Ihe amoun. of Space needed to provide for a turnaround. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#10 - #2288 Jason Theis - Continued) Stoddard asked Theis his opinion of the Staff recommendation. Theis said he was satisfied with the recommendation. He is willing to scale back the driveway and working on correcting the slope. Theis told Lindquist he would provide a grading plan. Dressier indicated that engineering of the plan has not occurred. Berg asked that this be done. Theis reported there is a 5' drop from the top of the existing driveway to the garage. He did not feel that span was a problem with a 30' area. McMillan indicated there is a runoff problem existing along the retaining wall on the west side. Theis said the problem exists by the stairs which need to be reconstructed. With the grade of the driveway and flooding possibilities, Lindquist recommended a 8% slope instead of 10%. Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2288 for an attached 697 s.f. tuck under garage with living space above for hardcover and front setback variances subject to Staff recommendation. The 10' side setback is to be met and a revised plan submitted showing a 10' driveway meeting the hardcover in the 75-250' setback. The grading plan is to be provided prior to Council review. Staff is to review flooding requirements. Berg asked why the particular size as proposed. She was informed that there was only 372 s.f. above grade and no bathroom on the main level. The second bedroom is only 6'x9', and the applicant would like a larger master bedroom. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:22-11:57 P.M. f The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#11 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application was reviewed earlier in 1997. Pictures of the property were distributed. The applicants received variances for average lakeshore setback for construction of a deck, hardcover, and structural coverage. There was concern for saving trees at that time. The 3-car garage is a side load with a driveway about 5' from the lot line. The plan was submitted to the Building Inspector, Lyle Oman, in June of 1997 with the addition of a boulder wall along the driveway that had not been previously reviewed. The proposal is to allow grading within 5' of the property line for a boulder wall for the house under construction. Staff is concerned with the hardcover calculations being incorrect and affected in the 75-250' setback and 250'-500' setback. Van Zomeren said Greg Gappa has recommended that boulders not be used as engineering is difficult. Staff recommends denial of a boulder wall for replacement with an engineered wall to be located 5' from the property line. A retaining wall would be allowed in the 10' required side yard if it does not exceed 6' in height. Hardcover variances may still be required. The City Engineer's approval is also required. Silus said he received the information packet on Saturday. He reported that he knew prior to construction that access would be difficult. The builder had approved on-site the building of the waU 2' off the lot line. The builder had told Silus that he did not need a variance. Silus said the grade of the garage was lowered per instructions from the building inspector and new footings were poured. Schroeder told Silus that the ilder must know that a variance was required. He also indicated that the public was improperly notified, which would require tabling of the application to allow for proper notification. Van Zomeren indicated that the public notification list was from December, 1996, and she originally thought only a side yard variance was required. It was determined that a CUP would be required for grading and the legal notice did not specify this requirement. Silus said he originally submitted the application with Gaffron and had a conversation with Hawn regarding hardcover. He indicated he is not requesting approval of additional hardcover and had originally reduced it. He said he is attempting to extend out the garage portion only. Lindquist read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Spilseth in opposition to the hardcover and proximity to their property line being requested in the application. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#11- #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Silus said he was not requesting to run the wall down to the roadway but only about 75' down. It would end at the point where he could gain access. Silus said he did assume that the wall could be closer than 5'. He indicated other neighbors have walls closer than 5'. Silus said he was unaware of the ordinance. He said he thought the boulder wall would present a natural look but would be satisfied with an interlocking wall system. Lindquist asked if the wall would be at 2-1/2' from the property line or on the lot line. Silus said the landscaper put the wall on the lot line but would be 5' off the lot line. He would like to move part of the wall to maintain a contour. Hawm questioned how plowing would occur. Silus indicated that he has not infringed on the neighboring property in ^e past. Hawn felt this could create a problem for the neighbor. Silus said he blows the snow up to where the existing garage is currently located. Lindquist noted the need for new notiiu'ation and updated hardcover with changes for the wall and back-out area. He asked that the location be provided along with who would make the determination. Van Zomeren said she would like Greg Gappa to review the application. Schroeder suggested tabling the application, and Lindquist asked that direction be given. Silus said he would like the opportimity to work with Staff within the hardcover guidelines authorized in February, 1997. Dave Spilseth said the 60' wide lot is too narrow to provide for a side loading garage. He suggested a straight-in approach. Lindquist indicated the City Engineer would have to be consulted. Jay Richards, who lives two homes away to the north, said he did not receive notification. He reported that the problem with dividing the lots arose four years ago and the problems created should have been foreseen. He noted the wall is straight and has no arch to it. Silus indicated that the site plan was approved by Lyle Oman in June. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2290 to allow for proper public notification and hardcover calculations. The applicant is directed to speak with neighbors regarding the proposal. 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#11- #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Direction for grading is unknown at this time and requires review by the Citv Fnain«»«»r r md.ca.ed U«. U,e engineered wall should be no closer to 5' fron, .he „ LT SUus was informed .ha. i. is unknown how U,e changes would affec. .he approved sire plan. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Lmdquist reopened the public hearing to allow for comments from the neighbors Silus noted the difficulty in turning around on the property. Berg noted the builder has an obligation to correct the problems. WT ? ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#12) #2291 STEVEN SIGEL, 1399 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 11:57 P.M.-12:!! A.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler indicated that the proposal is to remove an existing two car garage and replace it with a detached 760 s.f. garage in approximately the same location. Hardcover and side yard variances are required. There are some topographical limitations to the propert>’ but should not negatively impact the property. The survey has shown a wood walkway to the garage. Staff recommended removal and replacement with a 4' concrete sidewalk. The garage is proposed at 32'x24*. There is an issue with preservation of a large oak tree resulting in the need for the side yard setback variance. Bressler reported that the property meets the hardcover calculations with a 22'x3T garage and realigned driveway but would require removal of the tree and relocation of cables. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback for 27% hardcover. This would be accomplished by narrowing the driveway to meet the hardcover in the 250-500' setback in order to preserve the tree and meet the side setback. Bressler said Staff has demonstrated that the side yard and hardcover in the 250-500' setback could be met. Sigel said the side setback variance is necessary due to the slope of the lot. Moving it closer makes the sidewalk located into the slope of the lot. The 3' slope setback by the driveway and neighboring property allows the garage to be located on the same foundation with the addition of a third stall. Sigel reported that the increased hardcover is due to erosion control as the elevation is higher at the neighboring property than the house. He would like a retaining wall the width of the garage to restore the elevation and keep erosion under control. I I Sigel said he would remove the decking if necessary to comply. It is landscaped and lit, however. The current garage is located 7' fi’om the property line and Sigel would like to maintain 10'. The 4' walkway as opposed to a 3' walkway for 90' would aid in eliminating 9' from the walkway. There were no public comments. Hawn, while understanding the need for compliance, was of the opinion that the existing sidewalk should remain. She was informed by Sigel when questioned that the retaining wall would be 22'xl' and 250' away from the lakeshore at that distance. He also stated the deck would be elevated 9'. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#12 - #2291 Steven Sigel - Continued) McMillan agreed that the wood walkway should remain. She is in favor of the retaining wall to correct the erosion problem. She asked that attention to paid to drainage. Silus asked if drain tile was necessary. McMillan asked that he work with Staff. Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2291 for replacement of existing garage with a 3-car garage for hardcover and side yard variances, approval of a retaining wall and retention of the slatted wood walkway. If wood walkway is in need of replacement, it will be replaced with 4' walkway. Silus said the hardcover in the 250-500' setback exists at 37% and is being reduced to 35.9%. The 3-car garage will be flared to a 1 O' width. He asked to maintain the distance to enable turning around the tree. Gappa suggested a 12' width. Hawn amended the motion, McMillan seconded, to approve a drivewav width of 12'. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#13) #2292 TOM OKERSTROM, 770 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 12:11-12:27 A.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Dressier reported that the application is for construction of a 684 s.f. 2-story detached garage and additional driveway requiring hardcover, structural coverage, and front setback variances. The hardcover is less than 30% in the 75-250' setback and proposed at 34% in the 250-500' setback. A 3-1/2' sidewalk will continue to 24 ’ wide at the garage. The driveway is 24' to Tonkawa. Dressier said Staff recommends the sidewalk be reduced to 3 ’ with 10 ’ width at the garage. He noted the sight line is poor. Staff recommends a garage reduction to 22'x34' and eliminate the portion of sidewalk accordingly. The approval would be subject to a 428 s.f. garage, 3' sidewalk with turnaround area. Hardcover would be 32% in the 75-250 ’ setback, currently proposed at 34.66%. The 250-500 ’ hardcover would be at 38% where 30% is allowed. Staff recommended removal of the 64 s.f shed to eliminate hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Dressier said Staff is of the opinion that 1 5% lot coverage can be met. Staff recommends approval of a 2U' front setback variance but recommends no further hardcover be allowed on the property in the future. 34 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#13 - #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) Okerstrom acknowledged the hardcover issues. He said he revised his plan from recommendations made and decreased structural coverage to 14.98%. He said the garage could be reduced and moved forward reducing the amount of sidewalk and removing the shed. There were no public comments. Lindquist noted that the applicant had moved into the home this spring and questioned why the garage was not built at the same time as the house. Okerstrom indicated that no variances were required at that time and noted the lot is only 51' width. Lindquist voiced concern that the wait on the garage was to enable the applicant to gain more structure on the property. McMillan indicated that residents will reduce the size of the home in order to obtain a garage. Hawn noted that the walkway to the lake was not included in the calculations. Stone steps are included. Dressier said the survey only showed the existence of the shed, and he had been unaware of the steps. Hawn asked that accurate information be presented. Van Zomeren said steps are allowed to the lake and need to be reflected in the hardcover calculations. The survey had previously been done and reused for this application. Schroeder voiced concern with the inability to rely on the information provided by the applicant. Berg said the information should all be available at time of application. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2292 for a revised survey. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#14) #2295 CONLEY BROOKS, JR., 980 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 12:27-12:56 A.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is two-fold, involving replacement of a garage and construction of a new fence. The triangular piece of property contains an existing garage. As part of the recent subdivision approval, the applicant was given 60-90 days in vvhich to remove the garage. The replacement garage will be located in about the same footprint in the 75-250' setback. Hardcover exists at 14% and would increase to slightly over 15%. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#14 - #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr. - Continued) The existing garage is located 2.8 ’ into the right-of-way. The new garage would be V into the property and meet the 10 ’ side setback. A variance is required for setback fn3m the wetland for a 20' separation instead of the required 26'. The garage will also be located in front of the front line of the residence. It will be 24 ’x24' and have one garage door and used for storage of lake equipment. The door will be to the side. GafFron reported that parcels H, E, and A could be legally combined. Gaffron asked for a statement why replacement will be in the particular location. He asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to see a larger setback from the street, whether 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 of land acquired by Brooks. The ro ad has 60' right-of-way width. The edge of the road is actually 30* away from the property boundary but the existing fence in the right-of-way is at the perceived boundary. 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. A portion of the fence is located within the 0-75' setback. Gaffron said Staff recommends the fence not be allowed within the right-of-way and shc*uld be located at the property boundary. If it is located less than at the property boundary, it should be at least 15' from the paved roadway with screening between the fence and the road. 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 fence is necessary for privacy and to eliminate trespassing. He noted the property is narrow in its width. The fence 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 snow plowing. He reported 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 neighborhood. 36 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#14 - #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr. - Continued) Robert Floyd, 960 West Fcntdale 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. Jerry McCourtney 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 action goes against it, 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. Lindquist was informed by Gaffron that no garage would be allowed ii »his location if proposed today. Lindquist noted the garage is hazardous but questioned approving it. Schroeder inquired about the proximity to the water. Gaffron 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 indicated a lakeside structure is important for storage. Lindquist informed him that the buildings as proposed could not be built new today. ITM <M>-t . If L ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#14 - #2295 Coriley Brooks, Jr. - Continued) Floyd said he was conceptually in support of the plan. Schroeder indicated that the only compelling reason for approval of the fence is the existence of the fence today. He felt the fence should be moved back. Brooks said he would amend the plan to place it 10-12' behind the tree line. Gafffon said that distance would be better as it gives screening and a 10' clear zone for plowing and parking. Stoddard inquired about the 6' height. Gaffron said it would not normally be allowed. A county road is the only location where a fence of that height would be allowed. He questioned whether that height 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 18' to meet the 26' wetland separation with a street setback variance. Hawn noted it would be used for storage only. Brooks said he could reduce the size somewhat. Gafffon reported that the wetland edge b‘ en delineated by the surveyor per the City map. The distance from the existing garage to t- jdge of the wetland has not been measured. The measurement may change where the garage should be located. Stoddard moved, Mc^* llan seconded, to approve a street setback variance and variance for an accessory structure nt urer to the front of the street lot line than the existing residence. The garage is to be a maximum of 1 8'x24' and located 26' from the wetland boundary as per City map. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Lindquist, who felt the garage should 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. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant was represented by Daryl Hansen. Van Zomeren reported that the proposal is fo: an addition to the garage. Code requires that an accessory structure cannot be located closer than 10' from the principal structure. The rear?" for the location is to eliminate having an open area in which a person could fall into the pool. The approval of the variance would continue the existing encroachment. Van Zomeren said she supported the application as it makes the residence more accessible and is the least intrusive addition. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#15 - #2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith - Continued) Hansen said it was the attempt to keep the structure as far away from the pool as the current structure. T... pool is required for handicap uses. The space requirement meets what is required to address the handicap issues. There were no public comments. McMillan moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2297. Vote: i\yes 6, Nays 0. Van Zomeren noted that the application should be presented to Council at their September 22 meeting. (#16) PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SHORELAND AND ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT ORDINANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 12:59-1:20 A.M. Gaffron reported that the Council directed Staff to draft an amendment to the time period for upgrading a non-conforming septic system due to the lack of a 3’ separation in the Shoreland District (within 1000* from lakeshore). The current time frame is 2 years. Staff was also asked to revise ordinances so that a building permit oi variance application will no longer trigger an immediate system upgrade in the Shoreland District for non-conforming systems solely due to the lack of 3 separation. Gaffron reviewed the shoreland code and septic system code. He noted the rationde for this proposed amendment changes is the Council's intention to review the policies on sewer in the rural area. The current cost for septic system replacement is nearing the cost of municipal sewer and sewering is a possible outcome of the policy review. The areas outside the Shoreland are allowed 10 years in which to comply when the 3’ separation is the only reason for being non-compliant. The time frame was chosen based on the sheer number of systems needing replacement, and the City’s long-standing program of requiring immediate replacement of failing systems as a higher priority. The two-year time frame had been suggested by the DNR. Gaffron reported that the legislature has changed its direction regarding ordinances on existing systems and are continually making more changes. Gaffron indicated that these amendments make logical sense and would allow a study to be done regarding where the City is heading on sewering. p.ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#16 Proposed Amendment of Shoreland and On-Site Sewage Treatment Ordinance - Continued) Schroeder asked and received an explanation of what "separation" means. Schroeder was informed of the numbers needing replacement at this time and the percentage within the Shoreland. McMillan was informed that it is unknown how many properties have an alternate septic site at this time. Gaffron said due to this, the en l ot spots were developed. Mike Schulte reported that the neighbor of his on Wildhurst Trail that initiated discussion of this proposal had purchased additional land to allow an addition to be built wiihin the code requirements for setback. The purchase of the additional land triggered the use of it for a new system to meet the 3' separation. He questioned how reasonable the request v^as when the preferred location for the septic was the only site available prior to the purchr.se of the additional land. Schulte also questioned when the testi.ng was done with recent rains increasing the problem with meeting the 3' separation. Gaffron informed him that the soli characteristics are what is checked and timing is incidenta', that recent rains won't influence the test results. Jabbour noted the City's desire to assist the homeowner, but the result of the Council and Staff review is the changing information regaraing stv .• ation. Jabbour noted that there are 250 systems identified as non-conforming, and the number will increase. He said the City is trying to understand the formula used by agencies in relationship to standards. Septic systems have been one method whereby low density has been maintained. Jabbour said he has changed his perspective regarding sewer as residents are becoming more willing to pay for sewer. The policy change would allow time for a study of possible changes in regards to septic systems and sewering in the City for ’ong range planning. Schroeder questioned the liberal guidelines with the vast majority of systems with less than a 1' separation. Jabbour said the solution is unknown at this time but did not want to see 600 new septic systems. He felt time is necessary to review the issues. Stoddard inquired of the time frame and whether the Shoreland District should be considered a higher priority than other properties. Hawn was informed that the 10 year time period was to be consistent with non-shoreland properties. rtiT^«i rtrtr«p.T¥ii •IMiiltJ