The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-10-1996 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1096, 7:00 PM. 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. ^^^•LMEETWQ ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT AGENDA 7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Meeting of May 28, 1996 JVN lO 1996 OP ORONO PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Dale Lindquist Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 3. #2112 Richard and Janet Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road - After-the-Fact Variance - Resolution s^4. #2133 John & Karla Spooner, 1385 Orono Lane - Variance - Resolution * 5. #2134 Robert Albrecht, 1810 Shady wood Road After-the-Fact Variances - Request for Referral Back to June 17 Planning Commission 6. #2136 Greenfield Corporation, 180 North Shore Drive West - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution 7. Request for Sewer, John Maresh, 2085 Sixth Avenue North/1095 Brown Road North 8. 1995-1996 Marina Licenses: Lakeside Marina MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT 9, Bid Award 1996 Seal Coat CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 10. Planning Application Review Process 11. Opportunity to Purchase Hennepin County (Library) Property 12. Local Performance Aid 13. Public Works Maintenance Position Appointment 14. Employment of Park Intern 15. Equipment Purchase Parks 16. CSO Appointment 17. LMCD 1997 Proposed Budget 18. Cooperative Police Services Report 19. Use of Publi. ki^ii'-of-Way for Telecommunications Purposes 20. Housing A*, i’zu. riousing \ ^ AGPi, AA/AlL'«BU.Te3el>QLlQE^'n\p-p\VIC- CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT (*21.) LICENSES (*22.) BELLS 11 r^' AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1996, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA UPCOMING ISSUES AND E\T:NTS 06/10 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 06/17 - Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. 06/19 - Highway 12 Policy Committee meeting 5:30 p.m. Orono Council Chambers 06/24 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 07/01 - Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. 07/04 - Holiday 07/05 - Holiday 07/08 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 07/15 - Planning Conunission 7:00 p.m. 07/22 - Council meting 7:00 p.m. Public A ttendance V Ri OF I OiMeeting D ate J3.□C ouncil Planning C ommission Park COMitiissioN Other Please fill out the information requested below for our city RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 3._ 4._ 5._ 6.. 7._ 8.. 9._ 10.. 11.. 12.. 13. 14. 15._ 091395.4 -V I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 28, 1996 ROLL ■MHt ^ 0 199$ C^ry, Mayor Edward Callahan, Jr., Council Members J. Diann Goetten, JoEllen Hurr, Charles Kelley, and Gabriel Jabbour Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Assistant Zoning and Building Administrator Michael Gaffron, Public Works Director John Gerhardson, and Recorder Sherry Frost Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7 04 p m. RECOGNITION - CANDACE ROWLETTE Candace Rowlette, a Planning Commissioner from December, 1990, to December, 1995, was recognized for her dedication and service to the City of Orono Mayor Callahan presented Rowlette with a plaque in appreciation of her years of service. Jabbour noted that Rowlette's service went beyond the role of a Planning Commissioner, citing examples of serving on the Lake Use Committee and working with the merchants in the area. (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA Item #8 was added to the Consent Agenda. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#2) REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 13, 1996 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of May 13, 1996. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#3) RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING OF MAY 13, 1996 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Reconvened Board of Review Meeting of May 13, 1996. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Flint was in attendance and had no comments at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS No member of the Planning Commission was present. I r j MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm COUNCIL • MEETING HELD ON MAY 28,1996 i ^ ^ There were no public comments ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (•#4) 1996 JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE: ENLOVV/LINDAHL/NIANDEL - RESOLUTION #3726 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution #3726, directing Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License to the Owners of Prooertv at 3155 North Shore Drive. 3185 North Shore Drive, and 1406 Bohn’s Point Road for the oeriod of January 1, 1996, to December 31, 1996. Vote: Ayes 5, NaysO. (#5) 1996 MARINA LICENSES: WINDWARD MARINA SAILORS W ORLD MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS NORTH SHORE MARINA Gaffron reported that 4 of the marinas have made application for 1996 licenses, and Staff is recommending approve of same Hurr said the conditions of approval were good and asked how often the marinas were evaluated for these conditions. Gaffron said the conditions were checked vearlv but noted that the building inspectors relayed their comments on the marinas when they were in the area Hurr said it was important that boats not be stored in the no parking areas and asked that the marinas be visited more often She noted that the LMCD will be taking a more aggressive stance in checking marina compliance. Callahan asked if Staft'felt the recently revised ordinance and regulations resulted in improvements or no change Gaftron said very little has changed as a result of the ordinance. He noted that North Shore Marina and Lakeside have still not complied with application for CUP and expects onlv one of the marinas will comolv. Gaffron said Jim Dunn of Lakeside said he would apply last week but has not. Gaffron is meeting writh Richie Anderson of North Shore Marina next week. Jabbour said he has spoken with people with Minnetonka Boat Works He was asked if the City was going to adhere to the ordinance. They questioned whether all of the marinas were on an even playing field, or if money has been spent on making dock conversion improvements for naught. Gaffron said the example cited, regarding encasement of styrofoam docks, was not a good one, noting other marinas have come into compliance regarding the conversion. However, he indicated Jabbour's point was well taken Jabbour questioned how the marinas are made to comply. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON MAY 28, 1996 (#5 Marina Licenses 1996 - Continued) Callahan asked about marinas operating without licenses. Gatfron said North Shore has aoplied but Lakeside has not As far as the CUP's. Minnetonka Boat Works and Windward do not need one. Sailors World received a CUP last year, and North Shore Marina needs a CUP for dry stack and its caretaker unit Lakeside needs a CUP for all five conditions listed in the ordinance. I Callahan noted with the granting of licenses, all will then be licensed Gaffron said one. Lakeside, has not applied, and will be in violation of the code Callahan remarked that if other residents operate without a CUP, the City would follow through on it for compliance He asked Gaffron what can be done about the rr.arinas who have not applied for a CUP. Gaffron said legal steps w ould be taken if the marinas are unwilling to comolv. and the court would reauire comoliance. Hurr said she did not believe Lakeside should be allowed an e.xtension, and asked why a license would be eranted if the marina has not aoDlied for a CUP. Gaffron said licensine under the revised code is separate from the CUP requirement, noting there are 7 conditions to be met He commented that if a marina does not make application for a license, it cannot be granted Callahan clantied that since a CUP is not a condition of licensing, a license would still be granted Jabbour asked that licensing compliance be enforced and asked for Staff'to proceed with action on marinas operating without a required CUP Gaffron said he w ould send a letter to marinas in need of CUP noting the need to make application before the next deadline date of June 21. Hurr requested a shorter deadline date. Callahan asked Staff to proceed with action on Lakeside Marina regarding their 1996 license as they are in violation of the ordinance Gaffron noted that a 1995 license w as not issued or review done as the marina was out of compliance with the styrofoam conversion requirement. Jabbour inquired about late fees ($100 for license) and asked Staff' to reconsider the amount of the fee. He cited the example that affer-the-fact fees are double the base fee. He reminded the Council of the court settlement and court order regarding not issuing licenses or CUP beyond what former Council worked out Gaffron noted a difference in view between the City and the LMCD on dr>'-stack licensing. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 28, 1996 (#5 Marina Licenses 199^ - Continued) Kelley asked what the next step will be and the process which will be followed; for instance, if Lakeside Marina is issued a citation tomorrow. The two marinas operating without making application for CUP will be sent a letter informing them the Council expects compliance. If the deadline date of 6/21 is not met, they will be tagged the following Monday, 6/24, by the building inspector. Meanwhile, the City will prepare information to be given to the City’s prosecuting attorney Gaffron said failure to comply is a misdemeanor with a possible fine of $750 or up to 90 days in jail, although, it is unlikely the court would assess more than a small fine. If no compliance, then a court date would be set with a judge making a determination. Callahan noted if a judge sees a repeated offender, they will take a stronger view. This procedure will allow the documentation process to begin. Callahan moved, Kelley seconded, o direct Staff to issue 1996 commercial marina licenses to Windward Marina, Minnetonka Boat Works - Orono, Sailor's World Inc., and North Shore Marina subject to continued compliance with the minimum operation standards Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. Lakeside Marina will be tagged immediately for failure to obtain or apply for a 1996 license, and letters will be sent to North Shore Marina and Lakeside Marina requiring compliance for CUP application. MAYOR/COUNCIL RF.PORT Hurr reported having spok en with Mike Markel regarding the Maxwell Bay access. Property tax information ibr Crystal Bay Service and Gayles Marina was provided for discussion on loss of tax revenue to the City for determination of compensation to the City for loss of tax revenue. Callahan noted that since the DNR was willing to comply and only required to do what is written in the statutes, he appreciated what could be done. Jabbour said he was baffled with the LMCD budget regarding the income projection and receipt of interest from funds. He believed the principal for supporting the interest is missing Jabbour said other cities must be involved in order to gain reform on the budget. Goetten inquired about scheduling a meeting with Long Lake regarding Highway 12 land use planning. Moorse said a tentative date of June 5, 1996, has been set but not yet confirmed. Jabbour said he appreciated the many positive comments being received regarding the police department. Hurr inquired if Staff has responded to a letter writer regarding a recent complaint. Callahan said he had sent the party a letter but asked Moorse to respons also. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\’ COUNCIL MEETLNG HELD ON MAY 28, 1996 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Callahan brought the Council ’s attention to a draft, as well as a memo written by Moorse. regarding Highway 12 He asked for comments on the draft concerning the City's objection to the inclusion of a south bypass, and/or a TSM alternative in Mn/DOT's continuing decision process The City will send comments to Mn/DOT this week. Council commented on the number of letters received this w eek in reference to the Hwy 12 proposal. ENGINEER REPORT The City Engineer was absent from the meeting. CITY ADMINISTRATOR ’S REPORT (#6) LOWRY WOODS ACCESS EASEMENTS Moorse reported that the Park Commission had discussed access to Lowry Woods and have recommended acquiring a pedestrian access versus vehicular access. This is the least costly and has the least impact Access through a small triangular parcel of land on the north side of Bayside Road is recommended. Staff would like authorization from the Council to approach the property owners regarding acquisition of easements. Two owners, one owning the triangular shaped land and another to gain access past the comer of the property, w ould need to be approached. Goetten asked why 20' was recommended. Moorse said the trail minimum would be 10’ and the additional 10' would assist with maintenance and creation of a buffer zone Hurr asked if Lowry Woods would be used for walking through. Flint said it w ould. The Park Commission is attempting to gain access in the most obtrusive wav in order to make Lowry Woods available to the public. Goetten said it was unfortunate that it takes such large sums of money to gain access. Moorse said Staff will attempt to negotiate with the property owmers noting there would be no impact on those properties to the south side of Bayside. Jabbour noted that there would be costs involved to the propertv owners if thev desired their attorneys to review documents. Kelley voiced concern with cars stacking up on Co Rd 84. He asked if the shoulder was large enough to support parked cars. Moorse said the road was not equipped for car parking, but it was not expected that those interested in enjoying Lowiy Woods would be coming by car but by bike or walking. ] MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 28, 1996 (46 - Lowry Woods Access - Continued) It was noted that this property is in the 5 acre zoning Outlet A is an alternate septic site tor a property owner and has no building env elope The owner of that property approached regarding access but was not interested. was In discussing a motion for acquisition of an easement, Flint said it w as his experience that gaining fee title or easement resulted in a similar cost. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to authorize Staff to negotiate the purchase of access via fee acquisition or easement to the Lowry Woods Nature Area at a cost not to exceed $6,000. Hurr said she believed in land that people do not need to go on. She asked if there was any value placed on such vacant land\^ Hurr said she understood the need to provide access but did not see this property having much use Jabbour noted that the City has access to the land for maintenance purposes Callahan agreed, but said without acquisition or easement, the public could not gain access. Hurr asked what the cost of trails or policing would be. Flint said the plan was only to make the land accessible. No new trails will be developed. Hurr commented that any further development of Lowry Woods for any use would have to come back before the Council. Vote Ayes 3, Callahan, Jabbour, Kelley; Nays 2, Goetten, Hurr. Motion passed. (#7) OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD BIKE/HIKE TRAIL Moorse reported that the 1996 budget allowed for the completion of the bike/hike trail south of the railroad bed on Old Crystal Bay Road to Baker Park. It was to be paid for through a combination of funds from Orono, Hennepin Parks, and DNR grants. Plans were placed on hold due to the reluctance of Hennepin Parks to follow through with their participation due to concern of potential impact on Baker Park from an interchange at Co Rd 6 and Hwy 12. Tom O'Keefe of Mn/DOT met with Doug Bryant of Hennepin Parks on May 28 and discussed the design of the interchange This discussion resulted in a reassurance to Hennepin Parks to keep the interchange out of Baker Park. Moorse said a meeting is scheduled with Bryant regarding continuance of the trail into Baker Park next week. He asked Council for their stance on whether Orono should move ahead with the trail at this time. Callahan said the City should proceed w ith at least a portion of the trail and continue discussions with Hennepin Parks. Kelley agreed that the trail should move forward as soon as possible. MLNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\’ COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 28, 1996 (ttl - Old Crystal Bay Road Sike/Hike Trail - Continued)' Hurr informed the Council of a piece of land, which has been under consideration for development but was found to lack access to water. She asked Staff to alert Mn/DOT of this land, which is about 7 acres in size and located at Townline Rd and Hwy. 12, for use as a possible mitigation for taking of parkland. Flint informed Callahan that it was the intention of the Park Commission to continue the trail where it was left oft to the point where the $100,000 is spent that was budgeted. It was Flint's hope that this money would allow the trail to be built to the school property so it went somewhere Moorse did not believe the money would enable to build the trail much past Hwy 12 and saw sense in it getting to a point past the City Hall. Callahan inquired whether the trail could be built from Hwy 12 to Co Rd 6. Flint said the DNR grant required the trail to be contiguous Flint voiced concern with wasting money if the trail went to the north of the church property, since it is unknow n what the school will do with the property north of Co Rd 6 Callahan noted that Mn/DOT will eventually building the highway across the trail. Flint said the state would have to rebuild the trail in kind as it was in place first. Callahan said this then should be the case with the school also. Caiiahan suggested the Council must be willing to take steps necessary, even condemnation, to build the trail to a conclusion. Hurr said she was willing to support that decision. Flint said he thought the trail would be built on the right-ofiway, but Jabbour said the property owners do not want it located in the right-of-way. Jabbour asked if Staff has spoken with the neighbors along the trail path. Gerhardson said he had not. Moorse said he has spoken with Mrs. Hile. Kelley asked if a blueprint of the plan was available for viewing. Gerhardson said it was but would need to be reviewed for possible revisions from the Engineer. All Council members voiced their agreement to pursue the trail. Callahan moved, Kelley seconded, to direct Staff to provide Council with plans for the trail extension from Old Crystal Bay Road by the bridge to where $100,000 would take the trail. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (•#8) BUDGET AMENDMENTS Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the 1995 Special Revenue Funds budget amendments as presented; and to approve and authorize a temporary cash advance of $135,000 as of 12/31/95 from the PIR Fund Contingency Account to the Municipal State Aid Fund, to be repaid from state aid payments received by 5/31/96. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY’ COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 28, 1996 (#9) AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR LOAN FOR I&I REDUCTION---------- PROGRAM - RESOLUTION #3727 Moorse reported that this program was offered by MCES (formerly MWCC) to assist cities with reduction of I&I in the sewer systems Two options are available: One, to obtain a grant, in order to conduct a study on where the problems are located, and two, to get a loan for I/I reduction work, which can be turned into a grant, if the reduction efforts are shown to be effective over a five year period Moorse noted that the City did a study on the Saga Hill area in 1995 identifying the I&I and necessary work Moorse said some of the money is in the budget but not to the point of completion. The loan would assist in this endeavor. Callahan asked if the City w as interested in the loan or in the grant. Moorse said the loan would not have to be paid back if the I&l reduction can be substantiated. Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3727 authorizing the submittal of an application to the MCES for an I/I loan or grant and to authorize John Gerhardson and Ron Moorse to serve as subject matter contacts for the application Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1 , Callahan. Motion passed. (#10) 1997-99 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT (CDBG) - RESOLUTION #3728 Moorse reported that the participation agreement in the CDBG program is normally extended every 3 years without any changes. However, this year a change is occurring. Instead of gaining a specific allocation through the program, the County is placing the funds in a pool from which cities must compete for a share. Kelley asked what the City uses the funds for. He was informed that it is mainly used for housing rehabilitation and sewer hookups. Callahan asked if it was worth the $22,000 a year to compete for the funds. Moorse explained that the reason for the pool would eliminate some of the paperwork for the County. He noted some cities currently obtain only a small amount, and cities would now apply for a larger amount and identify the projects. Jabbour was concerned that this procedure would separate out alot of the organizations currently gaining from this funding. Moorse said the human services agencies would receive CDBG funds through a separate process. Hurr noted that without making application, no funds could be obtained in any manner. It was further noted that the agreement is for a three year period of time. 8 irJMINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 28, 1996 (#10 -CDBG - Continued) pllahan asked^if the agreement was, otherwise, the same. Callahan noted a reference to "housing goals" in the agreement. Moorse said he thought that particular language has been in the agreement for many years but would check it out. Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3728 authorizing the execution of a joint cooperation agreement between the City of Orono and Hennepin County for continued participation in the Urban Hennepin Community Development Block Grant program and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the cooperation agreement. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 1, Callahan. Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Barrett had no repo<t. (*#11) LICENSES Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the following licenses: V'ote Ayes 5 Nays 0. Garbage & Refuse Collector's License;Westonka Sanitation 3146 Island View Drive Mound Parade and Special Event Permit Gear West Ski & Bike Duathalon (Run-Bike-Run) June 2, 1996, 8:30 a.m.-l 1:00 a m, Gambling Permit; Resolution #3729 Minnesota International Center Steven and Diane Reynolds, Hosts for Benefit Gala 1570 Fox Street June 8, 1996 (*#12) BILLS Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. i NDNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 28,1996 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Callahan adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M Hallin, City Clerk JUf! j '<VQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 6, 1^9?^ ITEM NO.: 3 Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2112 Richard and Janet Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road - After-the- Fact Variance - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 'A Acre Application: After-the-fact hardcover variance for reconstruction of existing deck. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - Resolution Notice of Planning Commission Action Memo and Exhibits of May 15, 1996 Minutes from Variance Approval #1176 (1987) Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of May 15. Briefly, applicant was granted a variance for additions and remodeling of his residence in 1987 via Resolution No. 2254. The wording of the variance resolution and the plans and sketches submitted with that application, lead one to conclude that some expansion of the subject deck was proposed and approved at that time. Applicant obtained a jiermit for construction of the screen porch and deck work in 1988. Applicant constructed a screen porch, added railings to the existing deck, as well as a stairway at the south end of the deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. The final inspection on the deck/screen porch construction was completed on June 26, 1989 at which time the building permit would have been considered as no longer valid for further work. In 1994, the Building Inspectors found the applicant replacing major portions of the deck. Staff concluded that this additional work required a building permit as well as additional variance approval because it constituted replacement of existing structure/hardcover when the property is in excess of the standard hardcover limits. Please recall that by Council directive, since the mid-1980's staff has not had the ability to negotiate hardcover revisions when a property exceeds the 25% hardcover limit. In this case, and in a significant number of other properties in Orono, "in-kind" deck replacement where hardcover is exet .ve has been dealt with via the variance process. J Request for Council Action continued Page 2 June 6, 1996 Zoning File #2112 Richard and Janet Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road Staff reviewed the hardcover on the property (see May 15 memo) and concluded that the hardcover bo»h before and after replacement of the deck meets the intent of Resolution No. 2254. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of an after-the-fact variance for reconstruction of the subject deck, and further recommends that the applicant obtain an after-the-fact permit for said deck, and that the inspections department complete the appropriate inspections. Applicant has paid the after- the-fact fee for what staff considered a renewal variance application. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission at their May 20 meeting recommended approval per the staff recommendation on a vote of 5-0. Options for Action 1. Approve per staff and Planning Commission recommendation, 2. Approve subject to other conditions. 3.Table. 4.Denial. 5.Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve after-the-fact hardcover variance per staff and Planning Commission recommendation. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by ____, seconded by ____. to adopt Resolution No. _ - ^ A • • • « W * ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Sgranting an after-the-fact hardcover variance to Richard and Janet Putnam of 2765 Casco Point Road for replacement in-kind of the existing deck. Vote:____ayes,_____nays. i A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) FILE NO. 2112 WHEREAS, Richard and Janet Putnam (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2765 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 132, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof, that part of Lakeshore Avenue dedicated on the recorded plat of Spring Park and now vacated and that part of a tract of land on the opposite side of said avenue all lying between the westerly extension of the north and south lines of Lot 132 in said plat (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit the reconstruction and replacement of an existing deck, such deck constituting hardcover in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2112. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 20, 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed after-the-fact variance based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 6 A. B. C. D. E. Applicant was granted a variance for additions and remodeling of hi* residence in 1987 via Resolution No. 2254. The wording of the variance resolution and the plans and sketches submitted with that application can be interpreted that some expansion of the subject deck was proposed and approved at that time. Applicant obtained a building permit (#1140) for construction of proposed screen porch and deck work in 1988. Applicant then constructed a screen porch, added railings to the pre-existing deck, and a stairway at the south end of the deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. The w'ork covered under permit #1140 was subject to a final inspection on June 26, 1989 after which time permit #1140 was considered as no longer valid for further work. In 1994 f ie applicant replaced major portions of the deck, which work required a building permit as well as additional vaiiance approval because it constituted a replacement of existing structure/hardcover when the property is in excess of the standard hardcover limits. In-kind replacement of the deck as proposed and as completed has not increased hardcover on the property above that which pre-existed. Further, although hardcover based on applicants' 1996 survey appears to be 384 s.f. in excess of the hardcover amount approved in 1987, it appears that the hardcover excesses are due partly to survey discrepancies and partly to interpretation of square footage of hardcover associated with rock walls and walkways on the property. The pre-existing deck was in a state of disrepair and was unsafe. Upon application for a building permit, the applicant was advised of the need for a variance. Applicant chose to replace the deck without w'aiting for variance approval. 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 comruunity. Page 2 of 6 1 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 preser\e a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants an after- the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow the replacement in-!:ind of the pre-existing deck on the property, subject to the following conditions; 1.Hardcover on the property in the 75-250' setback zone shall be limited to those items shown on the survey and hardcover calculation worksheet attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Total hardcover in the 75-250' zone is limited to 4,789 s.f or 44.7%. Applicant is advised that future proposals that result in additional hardcover on the property will not be approved, but might be approved only if concurrent hardcover removals result in no net increase in hardcover. 2.Applicant shall obtain an after-the-fact permit for the deck, and the deck shall be inspected by the City to confirm its compliance with the Building Code. 3.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by issuance of a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 10, 1997). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the temis and conditions of t’lis variance shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 6 J 5.The undereigned applicants have react 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 10th day of June, 1996. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of June, 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. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 ( 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 5 of 6 J 0?<H- S> CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Costal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2112 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 28,1996 Planning Commission recommends the following; Approval as submitted. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, June 10, 1996; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. I J TO: Richard & Janet Putnam 2765 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance (After-the-Fact) DATE OF MEETING: 5/20/96 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P, GafTron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator May 15,1996 c SUBJECT; #2112 Richard and Janet Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Roaa - After the Fact Variance - Public Hearing Application: After the fact hardcover variance for reconstruction of existing deck. Zoning District: LR-IC, single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - 1996 Survey E - 1996 Hardcover Calculations F - 1987 Hardcover Calculations and Sketch G - Resolution No. 2254 H - Inspection Slip 8/17/94 1 - Miscellaneous Exhibits Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 2; Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L) - 75-250’ zone hardcover limited to 25%. 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 4 - "Prohibition. It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the zoning chapter." Summar>' Applicant was granted a variance for additions and remodeling of his residence in 1987 via Resolution No. 2254. The wording of the variance resolution and the plans and sketches submitted with that application, lead one to conclude that some expansion of the subject deck was proposed and approved at that time. Applicant obtained a permit (#1140) for construction of the screen porch and deck work in 1988. Applicant constructed a screen porch, added railings to the existing deck, as well as a stairway at the south end of the deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. The final inspection on the deck/screen porch construction was completed on June 26,1989 at which time permit #1140 would Zoning File #2112 May 15,1996 Page 2 have been considerer^ no longer valid for further work. In 1994 the building inspectors found the applicant replacing major portions of the deck. Staff concluded that this additional work required a building permit as well as additional variance approval because it constituted replacement of existing structure,^hardcover when the property is in excess of the standard hardcover limits. Please recall that by Council directive, since the mid-1980s staff has not had the ability to "negotiate" hardcover revisions when a property exceeds the 25% hardcover limit. In this case, and in a significant number of other properties in Orono, "in-kind" deck replacement where hardcover is excessive has been dealt with via the variance process. Hardcover Resolution No. 2254 allowed the property 4,405 s.f. (40.2%) hardcover in the 75-250' zone. A comparison of the 1987 hardcover approval and applicant's sur\ eyor's current calculations indicate the 75-250’ zone is about 217 s.f. smaller than the area used in 1987, and the hardcover is cunently at 4,789 s.f, or 384 s.f more than was approved, per the following chart: 1987 SUBMITTAL/APPROVAL (75-250’ area= 10,937 s.f) 1996 SURVEY (75-250’area =10,720 s.f.) House 1,432 s.f House 2,270 s.f Garage & House Addition 1,100 s.f Garage 778 s.f Existing Garage 400 s.f Driveway 238 s.f Driveway 425 s.f Deck Not Over Patio 85 s.f Decks 244 s.f Patio 576 s.f Patio (not under deck)220 s.f Rock Walls 194 s.f Rock Walls 330 s.f Sidewalk 260 s.f Sidewalk 492 s.f Added Deck N. of Patio (= Screen Porch)120 s.f Steps 30 s.f 4,405 s.f 4,789 sf There appear to be a number of factors related to this discrepancy including: 1987 surv’ey by Schoell & Madson and 1996 survey by Gronberg do not match: Location of street lot line in relation to the pre-existing portions of garage is different. Location of 250 ’ hardcover setback line is significantly different between the two sur\evs. Applicant cut back his original remodeling plans after variance approval but prior to Zoning File #2112 May 15, 1996 Page 3 construction of remodeling/additions, and ended up with a detached rather than attached garage. Staff reviewed hardcover prior to issuance of the remodeling permit and found it would be w ithin the limits of the approved hardcover numbers. (See Exhibits F-4 and F-5.) - The square footage attributed to rock walls is significantly higher than what was originally approved, but this may be related to how they were calculated. Rock walls were to be reduced from 442 s.f. to 194 s.f, but still remain at 330 s.f. - The area of sidewalks includes a revised configuraticn reflecting the detached garage, as well as the addition of a number of stepping stone walkways at various locations around the house. It is staffs opinion that half of the 384 s.f. "overage" is attributable to survey discrepancies, was originally approved in concept, and should not be at issue. The other half of the discrepancy appeal^ to be attributable to the rock wails and other walkways. Given the nature of improvements on the property, the need to access various parts of the property via walkways, and the arguable hardcover nature of the rock walls, staff would recoiTimend the City accept the current hardcover calculations as meeting the intent of Resolution No. 2254 and would not penalize applicant for the nunierical discrepancies. Replacement of the 19.2’x9.4’ deck "in-kind" does not change the percentage of hardcover on the property. That deck is not encroaching on any required setbacks, and is an integral part of the scheme of this property. Staff Recommei'.dation Staff recommends approval of an after-the-fact variance for reconstruction of the subject deck, and further recommends that the applicant obtain an after-the-fact permit for said deck, and that the inspections department complete the appropriate inspections. Note that applicant has paid the after the fact fee for what staff considered a renewal variance application (i.e. paid $120 renewal fee and $120 after the fact fee). During the nearly two years it has taken to get this application in front of the Plamiing Commission, the applicant has expressed frustration with the policy that makes this application necessary. It can be argued that "in-kind" replacement of decayed and dangerous decks should not be .subject to variance approval under certain circumstances, such as past approval as part of a variance request, lack of encroachment of any setbacks, no changes to footprint or bulk of structure, etc. The opposite argument, adopted by Council as policy many years ago, is that replacement of such a structure is often an opportunity for the City to require improvements to the hardcover situation. Additionally, Zoning File #2112 May 15, 1996 Page 4 Council's policy was clearly intended to eliminate staffs ability to negotiate hardcover "trades" when a property exceeds the hardcover limits, the Council preferring to maintain direct control over that function. Options for Action 1. Approve per staffs recommendation. ^ 2. Approve subject to conditions (specify), 3. Table for further information/discussion (specify). 4. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 5. Other. 3 jU(T^ -1ft % Application # J-! Date Received___lj3i I 9(g Amount ' *>V CITY OF OROiNO - VAKlAiNCK Al'l'LUJATlUiN 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) ;JAN 3 1 1996 PROPERTY lNFOR\LATION Property Number fP.l.D.l L 1^2- , ----- Attach legal description to application if not included on retired survey. Date Properr\^ Acquired '’11^------------------ I (doiT^do n^ also own the ^acent parcels of land. PresenHBC%f^propert\': C^^'^f^idential ___^other (specify) Zoning District: ------------------------------ (month/year) applicant Name ^ JAMgr ------ Address: PtiAJT City: Phone (home) ^ 7) ^ Phone (work) ^\ll Zip:_g£^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. aODESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Esti^ted Con^ction Cost S_^— Describe request in detail: i c ' (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore _i^Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSU.AL PROPERTY CONDITIONS h^rd^diio or nractical difficulty or unusual prqpei^y conditions prevenUm h (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. J. Completed Application Form Certified Propert>’ Ou-ners List of owTiers uithin 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hewiopin County Department of inance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Surv'ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover 'A calculations as required./O In addition, i^vide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. ^ 5. 6. Sketches or plans of floor &. elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 ‘/:" 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). 7. /L/A- 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.8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yam: variance application is not complete if the above information ha.s not been included^ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to^e best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date /- ^ ^ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City ’ staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of invest^ation andv^nfic^ion of this request. Owmer's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, ple^e 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 ir^ ‘‘‘.h \ \ f u \ / 's \ 7^'- •s^ (Tt 7 fj. S CV J //i/-9>A^cg ) \// 4, / ■'•://z*^; ':.r<-^^. 7<>7s ts^S'-^-^r ‘A’ =^\v4> K's-7v.A 7<^7 ''/ i7 7 '- '*.• * • ■ ^ •• • ••p CO 1 \*• •« •'•I V.i’*”. n7 • TSrRUN DATE 04/S0/9* BATCH 507 HntCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INfORHATlON SYSTtHproperty o»«rs list REPORT NO. P1A55461 PAGE S9PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR OIR4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADOR (MNER NATE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 5« 20-117>23 2S 000602765 CASCO POINT RO S R PETERSON AKA PETERSON STEVE*' R PETERSON 2765 CASCO POINT RO MAYZATA W 55391 38 20-117-23 23 000702755 CASCO POINT RO 0 S • J BREITNER DAVID S A JANA BREITIER 2755 CASCO PT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 000900038 ADDRESS UNASSISCO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 6/15/79 ST DEED 156756 38 20-117-23 23 0010 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO HENTCPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 6/13/79 ST OEEO 156756 38 20-117-23 23 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HEr«CPIN F0RFEI1ED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 6/13/79 ST OEEO 156756 38 20-117-23 23 0012 02776 CASCO POINT RO KELLE M 00»««Y ET AL B C DO»«EY A K H D06WEY 2776 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0017 02795 CASCO POINT RO J 0 HURO/J L ZEHRINGER-MURO J D HURO/J L ZEHRIfJGER-HURD 2795 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 25 0018 02773 CASCO POINT RO ELAINE E OLSON ELAINE ELLEN ERICKSON 2773 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0019 02765 CASCO POINT RO RAJ PUTNAM RICHARD A PUTNAM 2765 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0018 02796 CASCO POINT RO LAURIE F QUINN LAURIE QUINN 2796 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55591 TOTAL BATCH 507 00010 OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPJiirY TAJCATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE 5/l/% i r HARDCOVER CAL CULATION WORKSHEET *. SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^75^ 250-500* EXICTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X •____________ • __ Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A O_____ ^ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . B Width 9^ 9 0 X100 Width X 100 - ■ 500-1000 ’' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ.. S.F. S !•. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.'H; S.F. S.F. g9 0 S.F. O % .\ I) *. rx’ •. ..-i. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •A- •r. . . -v S.F. . S.F.. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. s.r. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F; A B • % SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET B. Garage C. Driveway 0-75’ X X X X 250-500’500-1 < 00". Width rr^K/f ou4iK D. Sidewalk C^uf. catL/r, <t4*.e E. Paiiomeck/Vro 7. V S^ttc F. Landscape AOCk l LS Underlain ______________ By Plastic ______________ Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X /7. Z sr(^s G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B ^0720 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * B -ZZ 70 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ • ___22/Sir yis S.F. «S.F.. 79 - m S.F. m n S.F. gg ZZ o S.F. ss / 9o S.F. . ^ «9 ?o S.F. • S.F. =S.F. S o =S.F. 9789 S.F ^0^720 S.F. *vy. <<7 % • S.F. ■ 1 S.F. S.F. a S.F. • •S.F. S.F. a • ,S.F.- s ■ S.F. a S.F. ss -S.F. a S.F. ss S.F. ss S.F. a S.F. • • 8.P‘. S.F. •S.F:mm -% A 1) A B • •• i A 7 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) PXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ 0-75' X 75-250'♦gtgTit Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______O * B PROPOSED hardcover IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B Width X 100 width X 100 - 500-1UOO I »• S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ! s S.F.1 S.F.\ SJ..• S.F.• t S.F. S.F. S.F. iS.F. S.F.j S.F. 1 S.F. S.F.A S.F.13 €» xuttf'C- %/Qi fSt-iT. fjK CAfca Ai/f. ii£ S.F.• S.F.: S.F.i S.F. S.F. ♦ 1 T S.F. S.F.-... 'i • S.F. S.F..1 «»•• '.'.T.h S.F.• S.F.• • • n S.F. /S.F. S.F. t S.F.)• /• S.F.A S.F:B % 0} %■ .1 . .7H V -/ -i.t '• 3 *n I v-^v W M67!^SttL«rH Ion#; (circ!# cnr) 0*7l _KiiIt iT^q Itardcrvrr in lone X V • ?*iv-i-f>’ ^ro-Koc* a. Routa Itntjih lil i1? !^ ba G#rjQC r. Driveway X m S.f.Len'i^h x Width • rcTii s.f. X m S.f.• U.*>0 a.f.' X ■a S.f.-faliJL’A.'O' • ^ • a ■ / 7c^ a.f. ' X •a.f. a X ■ I2.O a.f. . X m a.f. /:r'^ X */ C Lin a.f.* X m • S.f.r\ '> TOTAL s.r. TO PC A:r!:>7 f.gT '•■ da Sidewalk ^wX- t 7'Aj #. ratio/ Deck f. Landscape areas underlain by plastic sheetlr9 X X fa Other i Ok >‘ < L • i*’ 0 t.f. iBaSti'o Ho I K«% t I % • a I r • ! ^» 1iiA I .fr*'vr r a 1 • Li t / : i 41 k. t hin Softe ^ 1 • f A_i •*. CTm —^i__.—« icr - 7^ s.f.x.K 1111 : I %Tk* t r to tc a l». rrro: ^ro S.f. 5 . f a iMfitirq H.i ^ .*vri to tc Xorcvrd , if a y: ______It err !.rnct*“ % U.I*h • •. f. a.f. ?r______.‘IT- ?*?L a.f. •'i <r‘^4^. » 2xV_L‘K._ -Tli^d^kr:_____* V *yi' •7 Qc/-:' •7*iy^a.f.U/V .1 TOTAL DrirnwG 'fB'-.TVJP IN :. >.t ^ I■H''’ r* V ^»r ••»} rr>.rr S.f a L^> TO‘:a%L $.1. Tw-' • •fa final Hardcover Prof'osali e.f.fLina (i; ♦ Lira (2) -Line «».m 1 r»iMln9 To be Added S.f. • s.f. Tiopened Hardcover % - ^ a f . 1 M 1 f •:» % K o •• : :»*• 1 :) / / a- *^7 •a.f a s. •. S . f a S.f a S.f . (3) I'jM 4t To be Krmoved ''^0^.: a.f. (<) final 1 Om 5"A » I • •>•'* " 7 f '5 ^ff^M 4. f%Hmr B, J^esoi-. A)o Appftovefe HP^feftcoucje AFre< gewowt 1 17 6 ^vv V ^ z4-'6a^s^ r>' ^ • i‘..r. /;;.•/ •, ,pr nu/. 6osemen^ flrele^/ -Ws ^ •I 058.9 •* % * /'i 'j;:r>.. , ,.£, r, |_____ ^ 9» 2 • i .fc»® % / ,Gar. r' V./ Exhibit A ^Xfir/A>G sisas • 1 « ■ • « 4 I . ♦ 'i 4 ! f % • j ) I « 4 f ^ . •> . ,-s .< i, ...: • • ; „ ., , r,- .^ . \»t V. ., ,.A>v. >■...■ --------------------.t-^r , . * •*. . .... I • J j A i.-? .... 7 ...» Z7' C/ V/ \ , •' 7 2-i X''2> Va'7 ''-!o'C> \ ^ VDi> ) 2..^ S'- 7 .• *<..r / -V / / -'pJ^A*; Li^ ^ ^ 'O ■ W=» . <• f • / r > - / ‘■Z 6-S \ V..r3A' I ’"^rc *” * A ' i^o - sy.^> J ^‘ * // 7 7 : - ;> 5»y ^ • • -» ^» » / ••7 ^ *^mnm ,t -ti' .Jim ^ / . » • ' ^ • «. .c \ $0» • % ^ • • »4 J ' • -'i *.’ •. ;■ .V* ’ 5 -•’ I • ' • ^ •** MM •. V *•■»•.’•: % : V-• \ f »•3 * ; « • % • I* •>;. -V: .\' . •'t • 1 :f I. >•/ • \ •i . •t t ‘I** »■• V* • • V cl • I I I • > •5 . ( \ ■ > : • '1 J ; •'i • •» i, GAtl&c^ • • ^ ^ Vf • * * ^ M 1 • • - y.v'• a' I ^ J• » , U. 1 :: -^v -|; • ':•; ‘1 • ^1 CACA^/i^ i;" ■ •»• % .». : .• • ..* • #»J f. / i A»,4 . v;-s- jr*-; I. \ .*' •' I.% . 1/. . ; • .••; •••• • • : •. ‘l ‘I. * • • . • « ‘ . *1 • • -v: • • •.?s» * « •.» * cr* 'v• /<^iL)/5lC^ ‘O/rj. *.^'*V-! •«. • V • » ** • • .• f* ' S. •••,• • .::iv « I ; .*•.• •• •4* •*• • «• . •*. *•■fi: 4 . 1 I • * V ACV • 1 . •• •• '^A ^ A* - • • •** .•i • «^. •• • • *' M* .. .•••.* • 4/*/* • *v • .'^ • •• •• \Av-:t•* •. « • \ . t Vr n/ / ‘ ✓ V •-'. c3..y-*V / c ^ .• A. ,' X 4 t -.■■-'-■M'vrf ( CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254_ _ _ _ _ A RBSOLOTIOH GRAHTIHG VARIAHCES TO MDHICIPAL Z0NI116 CODS SBCTIOH 10.25, SOBDIVISIOH 6(B) AND SECTION 10.22, SOBDIVISIOHS 1 AND 2 FILE fll76 WHEREAS, Richard Putnam (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2765 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 132/ Spring Park/ Hennepin County/ Minnesota/ according to the recorded plat thereof/ that part of Lake Shore Avenue dedicated on the the recorded plat of Spring Park and now vacated and that part of a tract of land on the opposite side of said avenue all lying between the westerly extension of the north and south lines cf Lot 132 in said plat (hereinafter "the property); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25/ Subdivision 6(B) to permit the construction of room and garage additions to attach the existing residence to the existing detached garage which is only 2 feet from the side lot line where a 10’ side setback is normally required for an attached garage; and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit construction of a deck and enclosed pore (gazebo) structure that will encroach 25' past the existing lakeshore setback line and 9' past the lakeshore setback line, where no encroachment is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 allow an increase in hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone from 36.4% _ 40 2% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and to allow J^rdcove/ in the 250-500- lakeshore setback zone where 85.7% hardcover exists but only 30% is normally allowed; and a 30" 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a street setback of 20 where 30 Street setback is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS .* (, 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1176. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 6 City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254__________ 3 The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on 14# 1987 and recommended denial of the proposed variances bls^ upon the following findings: a) Four of five Planning Commissioners present indicated approval of the hardcover variances, finding that the proposal results in a net overall square footage on the property and in the dedicated right- of-way of 224 square feet. b) Pour of Five Planning Commissioners present indicated disapproval of the side setback variance for the garage, based ^on the knowledge that the garage will likely «^^^® ® new foundation and the opportunity to move it to a conforming location would then exist. c) The Planning Commission generally felt that the average lakeshore setback should be reviewed under the assumption that the seasonal residence immediately to the north will eventually be removed and replaced with a house closoi. i-o the lake, thus revising applicants average setback line. 4 The City Council finds that the increase in hardcover in the 75-250' zine is adequately counterbalanced by the proposed decreases in the 250-500* setback zone. 5. The City Council finds that the magnitude of potential or e-<isting lakeshore views from "“^hboring properties will be such that it does not create a significant view encroachment. 6. The Council finds that the location of an existing is a hardship to moving the proposed to the south, and th^ locations of garages in the immediate located nearel the northerly lot line then the required setback, will not create a safety hazard nor a i| effect if the proposed 2* side setback for the garage retained. 7. The Council finds that as a result of .®^^®®^JJ®ically^be house and existing garage, the house ^is 20* from the dedicated right-of-way where a ®®ion from normally required, but will still maintain a 40 separation the edge of the actual paved and traveled roadway. 8. on August 10, 1987 the City Council voted 5°"o®|raft^a approve the requested variance and directed staff t formal resolution for approval. Page 2 of 6 CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254_________ q The Citv 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. 10 The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this irooertv are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other oropert^v in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor Dose 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 u® necessary to preserye a substantial property right of the applicant^; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the prono ^0^2 5^ a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, c^KHvicinn 6(B) to permit the construction of room and garage to att’ac^th'^ existing residence to the existing detached ««« which is only 2 feet from the side lot line "here a 10' side setback is normally required for an attached garage; an - variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit ^ 25* deck and enclosed porch (gazebo) oast ollentill future i^verage fakeshore setback line, where no encroachment / Vo-alUw-at ; iardlovir i^norLlly®al\°owedVVnd to all^ow 48.5% 250-500 ’ lakeshore setback zone where 85.7% % ^ion 10 25, 30% is normally ^?^ee^y\^°d sVt"bac\%fn^Tma\ly%e^u^^^^^^^ to the following conditions: Page 3 of 6 1 • II 1I Ii ORONCj City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254_________ 1. Hardcover on the property in the 75-250' setback zone fhall be lixited to the following items: (Area of 75-250 zone - 10,937 ^ 1432 s.fExisting Home Garage 6 Home Addition Existing Garage Driveway Deck not over patio Patio Rock Walls Sidewalk Added Deck N. of patio 1100 S.fe 400 s.f. 238 s.f. 85 s.f. 576 s.f. 194 s.f. 260 s.f. 120 s.f. 4405 s.f. or 40.2% (Refer to Exhibits A & B Attached) Hardcover in the 250-500' zone shall be as follows: (Area within 250-500' zone is 1950 s.f. total, of which 1200 right-of-way for Casco Point Road as dedicated on the Plat of "Spring Park", and 750 s.f. is within the property boundaries westerly of the dedicated right-of-way) Driveway (west of right-of-way) Driveway (within right-of-way) Sidewalk (included in 75-250' zone calculations) 270 s.f. 580 s.f. TOTAL 850 s.f. or 48.5% Note- For percentage calculation purposes, because applicant is renovinlunnecessary hardcover vithin the dedicated right-of-way, the 250-500’ hardcover percentages allowed are based “ Mved •cabined area of property and right-of-way less the paved roadway", or 1750 s.f., as the denonunator. 2 Applicant is advised that future proposals that result in Additional hardcover on the property will not might be approved only if concurrent hardcover removals result in no net increase in hardcover. 3 Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not tith the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one the date of Council approval, or this variance will expi that date (August 24, 1988). 4 Violation of or non-compliance with any of t^^e t^rms and r-r>nHitions of this Variance shall constitute a violation of th zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority grante herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 4 of 6 i1 w City of OROIVO 1 CITY I OF 1 QRONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254_________ ^ j leant has read, understood and hereby ®to "thV terms re«”ing Ife V.l^nli ■^rtfe^£^he property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this Kth day of ^September, 1987. Page 5 of 6 & City of OROINO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254_________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ... -jnt-h day of October $ 1982. before L a Notary Public within and for said county, personally o* c .Tanet L. Putnar,- - - - -rted"The’^°fore^linotK oerson(s) described in and who executed the foregoing the executed the same asInstrumen?r and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. SSiSUOOUNTV 9/8/92 my COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 198_, before me rNofary-pUblXr^^n “:nd“for said Count^y^,^^ “re”the person(s) descrrbed i" r.ir^Lfuted°"re'?ame"arhisperson(s) described in ana wno ..... . and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 6 of 6 JL U #1 j 1^-^ 1^ ^ ^_____^rwuNd- ceh^ _ I I exHitir B, «««*■• ^2254 APPiwjwcfe HP'ieftCOUev AFrac «rwowa i r 1mm i'6 H CITY OF ORONO INSPECTION NOTICE PERMIT NO. DATE TIME ADDRESS OWNER called IN SCHEDULED COMPLETED tt n s^co Tf*. ^cL CONTR._______ TELEPHONE NO. Ui Q s q: § 5 DESCRIPTION 01 footing ^jvaming vJ •^’iuLATiC^N 04 WALL BO 05 Final 0^ DEMO-SiTE 07 demo -final 09 PLUMBING Rl 10 PLUMBING FINAL M mechanical Rl 11 mechanical FINAL ZA25 WOOD BURNER/FIREPLACE 12 WATER HOOK UP 13 METER SETH-URN ON 14 SEWER HOOK-UP 27 SEPTIC MAINT. 15 SEPTIC install . 16 WELL TEST PUMP 18 EXCAV/GRADING/FILLING 19 LAKESHORE/WETLANDS 34 TREE removal INSPECTION ^TSTrogress 21 COMPLAINT 22 FOLLOW UP 23 SEPTIC FINAL OWNERyCONTRACTOR TO MEET YOU ___YES___NO COMMENTS ioUL^V i/\0 ip€:^^\\ IV ci: Ou. Uj Ct s Q: I o UJ Oc Ui Q O CJ / WORK SATISFACTORY: PROOFED CORRECT WORK & PROCEED C CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR HEINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING Q CCHRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN .n SPector will return HOURS. Z PROJECT COMPLETE C ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY _________TEMPORARY _________PERMANENT r STOPOPOER POSTED CALL INSPECTOR C 'NSPECTION REQUIRED CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. Z PHOTOTAKEN T CITATION ISSUED Call tor the next inspection 24 hours in advance. 473~7357 Owner/Contrai Inspector ontrac^on site:_____._____ Whitt r«>py/1ntp«clor ’s Filt Canary Copy/Sitt Notict GlTYof ORONO Municipal ORices Streat Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Dick Putnam 2765 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 RE; Deck Reconstruction Dear Mr. Putnam: This letter is intended as a review of the 1 987 variance approval for additions to your residence, as well as to provide you a formal statement regarding Orono's hardcover and structure replacement policies. I received your fax including copies of Resolution No. 2254 (which is the correct resolution) and its exhibits. 1 also reviewed our variance and permit files, which lead me to a number of conclusions regarding what was approved: 1 he Council approved the proposed screen porch/patio/dcck configuration and its associated hardcover as shown in Exhibit B of the resolution is unclear from the file whether Council had seen the "octagonal" version ol deck plans, which version wus submitted for the building pemiit but which was n. built. Also, it might be co' clu led from either version that eo' ::\pansion of the existing deck was proposed. The resolution wording could vunstrued as assuming the deck might be rebuilt. (Ultimntely, we view this as ...consequential, because the variance and permit expired long before the existing deck was finally replaced). The porch/deck plans submitted for the building pemiit showed an octagonal configuration, apparently proposing to slightly revise the footprint of the existing deck and add a stairway at tlie south end. Those plans were approved by Tom Jacobs on 8/23/88, and permit #1140 for "deck extension/screen porch addition" was issued on 8/31/88. I don't know why we approved a deck plan dilTerent from what was approved in the resolution e.xhibit. Telephone (612) 47M357 • FAX 473-0510 Dick Putnam January 29, 1996 Page 2 You apparently constructed the screen porch as well as a stairway at the south end of the pre-existing deck in 1988 or 1989, added new railings to the existing deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. - A final inspection on the deck/screen porch construction was completed on June 26, 1989, at w hich time permit #1140 would have been considered as no longer valid for further work. In 1994, the Building Inspectors found that you were in the process of replacing the portions of the pre-existing rectangular deck which had not been rebuilt in 1989. They consequently placed a Stop Work Order, and you proceeded to comple*’ *he replacement of that deck without the authority of a building permit. It is our recollection that you were advised by various members ci the Zoning staff that a hardcover variance was required before we could issue a building permit, and you never proceeded to make such an application, hence a building permit has never been issued for this work. No City staff person ever authorized you to complete the work absent a building pemiit, although I do recall your stating to me that at this stage it was imperative for you to complete the deck to make it safe. There are two specific issues involved which I hope to clarify for you: 1. Any work on the existing deck after permit #1 140 was "finaled” in 1989, would require a new building pemiit. Once a project has been considered as final, any further work, whether five months or five years later, requires a new building permit. 2. Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 4, makes it unlawful to "convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the Zoning Chapter". The City has consistently interpreted this to mean that any building or portion of a building which is intended to be removed and replaced, is not permitted if the replacement construction is non-conforming. Replacement of your pre-existing deck is non- conforming because it constitutes hardcover in excess of 25% in the 75-250' zone. Note that since Dave Breitner built at 2755 next door, your deck conforms to the average setback. Further, tlie City has interpreted that whether a structure to be replaced exists legally via a past variance approval or is "legal non-conforming" because it existed before the pertinent codes went into effect, replacement of the structure is si’bject to the current codes. Past variance approval does not grant a permanent right to later rebuild a non-confomiing structure. And, because the existing deck presumably had to be substantially removed in order to construct the new one, for some period of time in 1994 the deck did not e.xist and therefore its replacement is considered as new construction. Dick Putnam January 29, 1996 Page 3 In conclusion, it is the City staffs position that had you replaced the pre-existing deck under the permit issued in 1988 and as part of your home remodeling/additions at that time, such deck reconstruction would have been covered under that variance and that deck permit. However, replacement of the deck five years later after tlie original permit was finaled, is considered a new project that requires a new permit as well as hardcover variance approval before that permit can be issued. Staff does not have the authority to deal witli hardcover trade-offs when the property is over the hardcover limits. Such trade-offs, even for mere replacement of e.xisting structures, require that the variance procedure be followed. Because the deck you built in 1994 appears to match that which was approved in 1987, we could reasonably consider taking in the variance application as a renewal. Part of your submittal would have to be an updated hardcover survey by a certified surveyor. My recommendation is that you file the appropriate after-the-fact variance application for replacement of the deck. If you have further questions, please con! ict me or Jeanne Niabusth at 473- 7357. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator MPG/lsv cc: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Lyle Oman, Building Official Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Enel, a) b) c) d) Exhibit B, Resolution #2254 as approved by Council Plans submitted for "Deck Extension and Screen Porch Adaition", 1988 Survey show ing pre-existing deck Final inspection slip 6/26/89 . 1 todUiitlk ' /r»#wM4_4^ fxHieir B,Res»‘^ ''®- /^pprw>vc& AFrCiC CfMovAu //o.s J M L-. ’&fihsion. of ihe line at Loi- /32 ( -2(,e.te- ..0 • • ----112.50 — z4'Basswood . 947.9 / Sheps^ fta9Ptp°p°5K lN .zH'Haple 934.4 w- • Q ^’£ocLl4all IS. * - ■ cp<'. '♦ A Z ^Overhang kil33 3 mm o A/a BaSerre/rfflr.elev. -943 b m K «l "T*./6'%?/e v3T-r5^ e.s 4! I6.& z4"Afa/3ife 952.0 I* <«2.9 .-f —//a/6 —VV 'I^...Ai..- ^ »/*/y eyhnsipn of. hi SoitfhUine of Loh/32 953.2 * I ........109.20 — t5 — j?66. /6 — Uo. i A ^ ^ t -r ■ >«^‘ ••- V ' * * I’w 1 r ». '• t‘ POOR ORIGINAL OOCUME^!'^ e . CITYOFORONO INSPECTION NOTICE// PERMIT NO ADDRESS- CAUf 3 IN SCHCOULCO coMVf.rrco 0*T^-5-9 7lMt 9 ro "i • OWNER__ TELEPHONE Na n cqntrl y^c /— c/-?/- ;r3?o DmamiiiMa’-:£tL'i^ >•«•.■••■• Jv-Aw-isTr!,. c ffUMlNO • it« ________ rsffr«a-^ •L •• .^RlhHlVUt___ tfvniNtfcenoN rT4 □ WtUTUTPUM^ * >.':L !!■'» t-^.*. •.>;' ■.• • • '■ '•. ». • •V..-I . -kC . '■ , i?v:‘-: - ‘ ••.. ***S' .• ** ' \•; > . : •<>• s .a;:-, '<’.1 f ^• /•«*•• •.*.. :r* ff -r-.- • • .*■*.• ' ( 1 S*:’. r § 2 a: " 2 . Ill ^ 5 ^ e ■'i:.io^1 1. : Q COMMENTS: ( r r 4|\.•w * •?__ r* * . X 1 »I ■» .' * f ••• / • I V- ■ ' •'<••'• _____ •*•-••#- i. •'te.' ^ ;^V<o*w sAT»factowt ; moccco ui/r oo*w€CT w«»w * ^woctfo •• ‘f*** .’ ' \ • i 1- . • ’ 6 f.co*w€CT»wiw.cAaro«WJN»i»icnoN \ C • • % ' # J > %. • '•Vy*-;. V . • i • ■* r ^ .4 • #•, •y '• i y'* •« A. ■CrOMOtNtMNO O OOlWCCT UNSAFf OOWWTION WITHIM MSACCTOAWIUKTUMN _____ n8WO«ocnK»TfacAaws«cw ____ C »«5>fCnOH «OW«tt CAUTO AlWAMOf ACCfSS CPMOTOTAKfH , • . a CITATION NMO C MUIC0(TinCATlO^OOCUMNCr.‘ ^,____._,h ¥«)aaiw -.;• • PCMIANCNr' ' ■ {' •• ;• » • w . ;k ‘ j [v: • • . .•'i vV.ta ‘ * * ^ >*. % Vr A ^ 4 . • 4*. _.‘ .:vv-.Y *',; ,-? 'c*Eior»ionMt OwnMfOonlrKtor ontltK ' / . .•T ' ^« --------- » V/* * ■ ••' »• TTij• r <• .V*. '• .< - < , •w* -' ; . r r / H0UA4 ____P»«»AN€MT'- •? *“•■■'■■.■■ ... wVpi'. r. » ; 4 ** > «. • { ' r'i ’'M : • • •- M'** ir' •'V ‘ ’ ^ •r #. *L . •; - ] *.• y yffl .ti \v. . . • / • ^ V'h'iv -' iv v-.a; ^39 \ •'■■••* a '•***•.. J; - - •-^v:-* - v** ' • ;. •' • • .%.g: V • ,• •• .. .>V;‘ '-C , 4f If *. •• - —..............: V”,; . • ■ .•». • * . . ..i i ‘ 4.*. i. ». .* , • • • *. • .. .f*- V • .V -I*'* • . A. 'V* •**- \-l - .. ;'. • • • .** A . .*•- v'"-* A‘T-.f-'y.-V'?•',•• ■ • . •................ • ? j, • • • •. i ' ‘•Vj .1 /•• .* Ai' ^ : .. •.-'7 • • i- .• • > V?.’! • ■•; /. ••.! : * •... * V'• ' .^C4.*V* *1 .4 - * • . ••• '*» 4 • M \ .... • r-’i.-v; '.■hS't’i}' : • * •. • »k *• f r'• V' * .' *v'\- -<.4.vVi • • S ' * ' • t D MIKUTRS or Tlir. RRCUIAR OROHO COUNCII. RKI-tNO BBtD SEPTEMBER 14, 19S7 RICHARD POTMAM 776S CAnCO POINT ROAD VARIANCtCn PINAL RESOLUTION #2254 ^ ^O.rn^nr.-.n explained the -que.t for vnriancer. to pcrnit tho r istructxon of deck and endorsed porch ..editions to the house on July 20, 1997, Planning Coi^fnissionrccoinmended denial of the request- (4-1) based on insufficient facts. On August 10, 19P7, Council conceptua 11y approved the request (4-1). On August 24, 1907, Council . w application back to Planning Coinnission for farther *"cvicw of the proporn 1 in light of the staff s re conception of the street lot line resulted in lower 250-rif'0’ hardcover ne#^ also the technical ne-■) for a street setback variance. On September 8, 1987, Planning Commission J denial of the request (5-0) based on "c, * of the project and excessive variances in total. Lity Administrator Bernhardsen reviewed the actual status of Casco Point Poad right-of-way. Richard Putnam was present for this Jitter the reasons .or Planning Commission ®®.1. -overambitiousner.s" of project - he did feel the current proposal is extent of work he has already done to , since he purchased the property as a seasonal cottage. 2. Regarding the variances requested, he all variances either currently exist or arc improvement from what currently exists. Councilncbcr Goetten ..cted th.t refers to the project bcinq too larje for the lot, in previous applications that overambitious . It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by sL:f^:°.?opt^cs^lotion .2254 gr^ntln, the ^ as proposed in consideration that many ot - variances currently Motion Aves 4, Nays operation of the Parade More in their aro.a. MlNUTF.r. THE PIJVNNING CO“MISlUO** MF.ETINU ItET.O SRPTEMDER 8, 1*^87 •117^ RICHARD PUTNAM 2765 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCES REFERRED HACK PROM COUNCIL Mr. Richard Tutnan war; pr<^'-.cnt for this matte*'. Acting Chairman Drll''vs explained that she was th'- represent.ativo at the Council meeting when this wa** presented. Ihe Plannino Commission originally denied thi'" application 4-1 because the Comitission had a lot of questio* • and reservation about this application, and Mr. Putnam wishe’ to not be tabled Icr ■* month but be sent on to Council. The general concensus from the Council was there was no stronr feeling about how the Planning Commission felt on this issu*. As it was brought before the Council, the need for ar additional variance war. determined by staff and at that poir.. it was recommended that it be brought back to the Planrin"* Commission for further review. Asst Planning & Tonine A !- inistratf>r Gaffron explained that the original review of this application presumed that th** '_jqo of the dedicated read came to a point further cast, bu* in fact the dedicated roadway cuts into the property more than expected which doer, change the street setback for the garage from 38' to 20*. The property to the south has the same portion of dedicated roadway over their property and to the north it is questionable. The road is actually eff-fcet from the corridor quite a bit. The major change resulting ir the 250-500' 2one ir. actually smaller. In calculating hardcover for the property within the dedicated right-of-wav*» which yields a hardcover percentage reduction from 85t down to 40%; or, if applicart's property for hardcover purposes does not include the dcviicated right-of-way the hardcover reduction percentages arc from % down to __%. Mr. Putnam noted that nothing has changed but th'* interprotatior. of the plat. Asst Planning fi Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained if the garage faces the street, it requires a 30* setback.^ The attachment cf it to the house also means the entire ^0 from the right-of-way where .’i’’' is required. He noted that pej the drafted resolution, pane 3, 4 variances are required ( if the 250-500' area is separate). Johnson felt ‘.hat the Commission had denied the cpplicatio.g once and he feels t.hat the application should not have be:n brought back to the Commission. 3 4N3i/iin3oa ivNioiao aooo MINUTKS OP TIfR PIJVKNING COMMIGGION MKETIHG imU) SBPTBHBRR 8, 1987 11176 RICHARD PUTMAM ?765 CASCO POINT ROAD It was moved by Act in CJnirm.m Bcllowj, seconded bv Cohen t- deny AppI icat io:> #1176 for Pichard Putnan of 2765 Casco rci.'.t Road, based uron the nurber of variances required for this project, all which when combined together constitute an overly ambitious usr of the land. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. Cohen noted that hr seconded the motion because he feels that if this application is approved it would be setting a negative precedent. 11184 CBRALO T. MCCOORTNBY loss PRRNDALB ROAD ICBST VARIAMCBS CONTINUATION OP A PUBLIC UBARING 7:05 - 7:07 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing wcr<' noted. Gerald McCourtney* and James Cradit, his architect, were present. Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained the •applicant is sccicing a hardcover variance for a bathroom, laundrette and dinette addition in the lakeshore yard. Thi;? is a l.S* i.ncrcase in hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. They also will require a 15’ side setback variance: 30* side setback is required. The house currently does encroach into this setback^ and they wi 11 not be encroaching any more. There is no increase of deck space and the additions are actually over the existing deck area. Mr. McCourtney noted that the house is older and while they are doing these additions and remodeling they will also b<' replacing inadequate windows. This project should bring their heme up to a closer valuation as others in the neighborhood. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Staff has received no negative comments from any of the surrounding neighbors. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Hanson to approve the side setback and hardcover variances as proposed. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. #1186 DOUG BUMGARDNBR 3800 NAT8ATA BOULEVARD CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT/COKMBRCIAL SITE PTJiN RBVIBN NITHDRAHN PBR APPLICANT'S REQUEST - MiKtrrro or tbb iiBCumi. oR0»-> coUKcn. hektinc . heu . aucukt lo, hbt II<73 DAVID AVD TRFSA GARDKLIA 1230 OUCmO OAKS DRIVE VARIARCR -^LWTIOIl #2242 G..rVl!. were present for this ff.nter. City Adrrinisf.itor Per.!* .irdson explained the s front ya- seMaeV vir inner to construct a detached 24* X 36* 3-stall uaraae. He noted that a side V,,runcc would b- ........ if qorogc existinq house. In uMition, ira^or land alteration would be required if aaiaqe were placed on north and e!st s.de, the veil located on the east siae of h”»o. <ndCoptic .vr-f- locotod i" would not be visible fron the neighboring property if constructed in the proposed location. zoning Administ rater Habusth noted that existing 3 stall attached garage. The J^r additional 3 stall oarage is for storage of collector automobi Ics• It was moved by Counci Imember Goetten, seconded by Jouncllm^bgr S.L, to .dopt Be. '“l^-’^rtrciSdthe front yard setbarv. variance to construct a detache garage as presented. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays Q. '•117ft RICBARD POTWAII 2^fts CASCO polirr road VMIIMICBS Administrator nernhardson hardcover, side setbaev. and to construct additions to the ,h° commission reviewed this request and came to tn '°“r*H7l«iti''r«-rrapproved the hardcover variances. « rr.ty 4-V> denied the side setback variance sri^br^v^d'^-c'^irorr w'ir^ h*:usTn'or\V'.\”-r. iTe =;»; jr.Vd ?L""mm‘e:-ia"'e\r.v,i^enr b;i:i"" b^ebuilt towan the lake t'’" ”‘"'io'Jn'^’SpSi :pp^i^cin\"■t^"^’ues^”£\vqd ti™ "?rnrtbaTa*dd‘u:en“a'l f-cP»^-“ld be needed to fairly consider the average setback issu.. POOR ORiOiNAi non » Mimrrss op the KECUIAR ORONO CWJNCI' Rr-FTtNC BEU> RUCHST 10, 19H7 lim ROTERK '•'OETIlira __ _ for this r>hl ts, . Hr rrvirwr.! • * « to construct c\t\ addition tc conncW th^‘r'Is* to the enl.iraed qnraqc, tind .y no^Cr.ddirxo'^ r. -:<M..ined the reasons for rl.^ce^er‘ porch to the effort to save matui*' trccuV^H'' rotet r h* letter presented to Council this evTninVfror'oinhl^r Kenneth Erickson statrnq no objection to thn piar. m Hannirq Con.riss:cn Chnirtran Kelley noted that C^m^sion .l.scussrH trr l.,cR of hsrd.hlp involved .ml also the fact that th*' house may be for sale. Mr. Putnar stated »h.*t the house is i sal**, but if his r-cuor.t is net approved *Vot the house becau.- th^ existing house currently does not meet his needs. Pl.nnin, Corwi.sion Ch.irMn Eel l.y noted Con»l«ion felt the project .R . -hole -as ar-bitious. counci Imenbor Sipr frit that the P>’<>PO*'‘'„^o7t u^uld obstruct the ,i,htline even 9iv»h 'r* f?!t generous averarr l.-ikrshore setback line, and alto f the proposal was too nnbitious. Councileember Coetten felt the plan .hould be «caled down in order for her to •PPto*«- S"* '**' * garage waa not appropriate for this area Counclleeni-er Callahnn felt that aeeised appiopriate in the porch would VuV^l !r‘:r:^d"«C?d-enr.nV;tr I'.reirl^nt/ counci inenbe: Oo^tt-n reiterate., her^teelin, that^.^l car garage -at not appropriate open deck area an average for the pro^sed enclosedwould be appropriate but not tor tnc p screen porch. council-enhet Sire concurred with CounclIrerber Coetten. It -ss roved by *"’*"*’*'' Cocnci Imember Petersen, ayes 4, Nays 1.proposal as subiritted. Motion, Ayes j Counci linember Coetten voted nay. POOR ORIGINAL OOf .«• > , • • J ^ HINUTBS OF THB PLANNING C0MMIS5^10N MEETING BSU) JULY 20» 1917 #1173 CAROBLLA CONTINUED ^Tresa Gardolia w.^s present for this matter and stator the hardship was the reed to house Mr. Gardclla’s sports cars. She fell that a 5 or 6 car qarage was legitimate need for a 5 bedroom large home. It was noted that the proposed garage was less than 1,000 s.f. in area. There were no com*ncnt5 from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Taylor, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval per staff recommendation finding topography a hardship and the need for enclosed storage space for more than three cars. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. I117S NALTBR AND NANCY BEICKSON 335 BOLLAMDBR EOAD PUBLIC BBARIN6 Application Withdrawn at Applicants Request «1175 E^CNARD PUTNAM 2755.X1ASCO POINT ROAD vaKiancbs PUBLIC RIARIRG 9s38-9:38 ^ ^ u.4llnaThe Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Hailing was noted. There were no comnents from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the request for the following variances to construct an addition to the existing residence: Hardcover: 75-250' - Existing - 36.4% - Allowed ■ 25% - Proposed » 40.2% 250-500* - Existing • 85.7% - Allowed ® 30% - Proposed » 48.5% Average Setback Encroachment: - Existing - 6' - Allowed ■ O' - Proposed • 25' w Tetback-Detached Garage (changed to .ittachea/i - Existing ■ 2* - Required * 10* - Proposed * 2* r MimiTBS or THE rLAMHIHG COHHtSSION HEETIHC HELD JULY 20, 1902 nm proros.. to «t.ch OYlstin, ho^ »TrAV.*n\' o-.no foundation may have to be replaced, but he to bove the qaraqe further roe maole n«t ?o that would force the removal of a large th^pro^losed 3rd garace stall. J Sothe trend in the neighborhood is for garages to , . « tS^edV of the lot, so visuel spacln, is laathtelned. Richard Putnam uas present for this matter and showed renderings of the proposal. Cohen, Bellows, and Johnson felt that to be replaced. Johnson felt that the exlstinq/proposed location of garage was acceptable. :o'»'Jt‘S;a%r.*pa%%‘?o “ “.Va out-do-oV r«r.’:t'?o».“I equipment. Assistant Zoning eJi-^ently ha* adjacent house at ^’55 Casw Pol removed and a plumbing «nd if U^pllced forward to new house builtr which liKeiy j Because of conform with felt that* the average lakeshore setback J.^To Road. house location Vaverage Planning Commission fe needed to act on thelakeshore setback information was neeawu proposed porch addition. Pl.nnin, Commission member follows: -I h•''^5*';l:“•^He d..fl« isproject and gene^i ? /eel the ofthat "®i9hborhood. in gene^^lj^ I «/^inst the change hardcover at 0-75* ««igh* i^®-arat«d in the design as n ?s:“i”.\cVp-b^r'b«'«-d'.Vi*.?Sid. ..tb.cx .. gars9e is O.K*" Mr. Putnam did not wish to Planning additional information, Commission to make a recommendation. niVUTBS OP THE PLAHWim: COminf lON MRETlItC RP.LD JULY 20, 1^07 #1I7( POT1CAM COUTIHUCD It w r^crrr*'r i f*c*r 4, Na\« *■ 1 ; : r.m Kr 1 1 ey» sccor.drd by Cohen, * rr : ^ 1 ! * p:opcs«l bnsrd on i nsu f f i «*•• •• r 1 *'r lakeshore setback. Motion, Ay»' r voted nay. t .• • Ill7f 4145 SKTfCII HICBAPL FLAB FlAlfl ROAD MCVXDi m P • « 3 ,» Assistar* sketch pla house 11.1 * : s Bescluticr *1127. easterly access • :rinistrator Caffron explained the v:de off second dwelling from main rino required as a condition of Apr 1 leant has been allowed to use p#'nding this subdivision request. Applicant IS subritting two preliminary proposals review f or: 1) Conceptual r^'view oI the proposed driveway accevs corridor; and 2» Conceptual review of the proposed lot lire revision wit.h •ho applicants westerly property. Ths boundary c.harar ;s intended to give applicant more land in the easterly parcel by dropping the westerly parcel to the p;::imum of 5.0 acres dry buildable. Applicant pref,-rs Proposal I, leaving 5.0 dry acrer in Lots 1 and 2 and 14.4 total acres in Lot 3, a flag Ic*" with a 30* access corridor to serve that house over the driveway that is in place (access point to be meved so it is within the JO* corridor). Staff has r.c f rcMem with this access location on Watertown Poad f rom a safety standpoint. Proposal II IS essential ly the same but leaves a 5C access corridor. Staff prefers Proposal II. The wetland in the westerly parcel (Lot 1) has what staff would call an '■indefinite* boundary. Chairman Kelley felt it prior to ^ry approval. eiportant to define the wetJan»l Mr. 4 Mrs. MtcS.ael PlanK vere present for this matter. Michael Plank stated that after the wetland is defined. Lot 2 will be adjusted to meet the minimum of 5.0 acre.s dry buildable. «!•Assistant Tonino Adrjr.is' ? ator Gaffron noted that the adjacent neighbor, Joe Saw :iuk, 4105 Watertown Road# has concerns with the access recause it is so close to his house. Mrs. Plank stated t>.3t it : their intention to heavily screen the access from tb*» '"swchuk property to protect the privacy for both prop-**" * owners. •^ouri OOCUMENr I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 4, 1996 ITEM NO. kti Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Title Building & Zoning Administrator Item Description: #2133 John Resolution and Karla Spooner, 1385 Orono Lane - V'ariances - Zoning District:LR-IA Lot area = 50,840 s.f. or 1.2 acres Brief Review of Application Applicants seek approval of lakeshore setback and hardcover variances within the 0-75' setback area. They propose the removal of an existing deck at the lakeside of the residence and replacement with a grade level granite patio. The improvement will result in a reduction in hardcover in the 0-75' setback area of 298 s.f. or 1.2%. The existing deck is located 26' from the lakeshore and the proposed patio 40 . Applicants also propose the installation of a 4' x 6' cement pad at the base of an access stair located in the southeast comer of the residence and the reconstmetion of an access stair located out of the 0-75' setback area to the west side of the residence replacing concrete stairs that are unsafe and in disrepair. The cement pad will be located 50' from the lakeshore. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the variance application as proposed. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either amend or adopt the enclosed approval resolution. Isv r /;3 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10J2, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (B) and 2 FILE NO. 21 <3 WHEREAS, John P. Spwoner and Karla B. Spooner (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1385 Orono Lane 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 (B) and 2 to permit the removal of a lakeside deck to be replaced by a grade level granite patio and the installation of a 4' x 6' concrete pad at the southeast comer of the residence. The lakeside deck is located 26' from the shoreline, the proposed grade level patio will be 40' and the cement pad 50' where the Code would require a 75' setback. The comprehensive improvement will result in 3,851 s.f. or 15.8% hardcover within the 0-75' setback area where 4,140 s.f. or 17.04% exists and where none is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2133. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 50,840 s.f. or 1.2 acres. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 20, 1996 and recommended unanimous approval of the variances as proposed, based upon the following unique findings and hardships: Page 1 of 4 A. B. C. D. E. The 70 year old residence strucnire vvas built before current standards for lakeshore development. The present deck is unsafe and in need of repair. The proposed improvements will result in reduced hardcover and improved lakeshore setbacks for the proposed accessory structures in the lakeshore yard. The 4’ X 6' cement pad will provide minimal space for use of an outdoor cooking grill to be located 50 ’ from the shoreline. Approximately half of the area of the 1.2 acre propert>’ is located within the 0-75 ’ setback area where no construction is allowed. F. The property is surrounded by lakeshore on both the south and east sides. 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 applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessar>’ to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant 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 Municip il Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2 to permit construction of a grade level granite patio and a 4' x 6' cement pad at the southeast comer of residence, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 4 1.Applicants shall be responsible for providing appropriate erosion control at the lakeside of the residence prior to the removal of the deck and that erosion control shall remain in place until entire disturbed area is restored to natural groundcover. 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 (June 10, 1997). 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 authorit>' 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 10th day of June, 1996. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owmer (s) Page 3 of 4 i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of June, 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. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for smd 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 pcrson(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 Pi 'BLIC Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A legal description of PREMISES: Lots 1, 2. and 3. and accretions and relictions thereto, and that part of the vacated street, all In "Homes on Brown's Bay", and that part of Government Lot 3. and accretions and relictions thereto, in Section 2. Township 117. Range 23. all described as commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 3. in "Homes on Brown's ray"; thence soutneasterly along the Northerly line of Lots 3, 2. and 1 in "Homes on Brown's Bay" a distance of 267 feet; thence deflecting to the left 106 degrees 03 minutes a distance of 41.55 feet to the Northerly line of "Homes on Brown's Bay" to the point of beginning; then.e deflecting to the right from the Northerly line of "Homes on Brown's Bay" 16 degrees 30 minutes a distance of 31.35 feet; thence deflecting to Che right 31 degrees 15 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence southerly and westerly along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to Its intersection with the extension of the West line of Lot 3 In “Homes on Brown's Bay"; thence north along the extension of the West line of Lot 3 in “Homes on Brown's Bay" and north along the West line of Lot 3 and its extension, in "Homes on Brown's Bay", to the northerly line of "Homes on Brown's Bay"; thence southeasterly along, the Northerly line of "Homes on Brown's Bay" to the point of beginning. O- TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mahusth, Building & Zoning Department May 14, 1996 SUBJECT: #2133 John and Karla Spooner, 1385 Orono Lane - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA Lot area = 50,840 s.f. or 1.2 acres Application: Applicants seek approval of lakeshore setback and hardcover variances within the 0> 75' setback area that would allow removal of an existing deck at the lake side of residence. The deck shall be replaced with a granite grade level patio. A 4'x6' cement pad is also proposed at the base of the access stair located at the southeast comer of the residence. The improvements will result in reductions in hardcover within the 0-75' setback area and improve the lakeshore setback. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) - Review of structurai coverage. Total area = 50,840 s.f Allowed = 7,626 s.f or 15% Existing = 3,554 s.f or 6.9% Proposed = 3,265 s.f or 6.4% No variance required. Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) - Lakeshore setback. Required = 75' Existing deck = 26' Proposed grade level patio = 40' Variance = 35' or 46.6% (existing = 49' or 65.3%) Setback reduction of 14' or 18.6% Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover variance within 0-75' setback area. 0-75' setback area = 24,300 s.f Allowed = 0 Existing = 4,140 s.f or 17.04% Proposed = 3,851 s.f or 15.8% Hardcover decrease = 298 s.f or 1.2% Zoning File #2133 May 14, 1996 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicants' Addendum/Hardship Statement C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Topographic Map F - Existing Survey Gl-3 - Hardcover Inventory H - Floor Plan I - Applicants' Site Plan J - To-Scale Survey of Existing Improvements K - To-Scale Site Plan Proposed Improvements Review of Application Applicants propose the removal of the lake side deck totalling approximately 650 s.f. in addition to the removal of 37 s.f of brick steps located at lake side door connecting to deck. Refer to Exhibits J and K, at the base of the stair case at the southeast comer of the residence, applicants propose to install a 6'x4' cement pad for use of an outside grill. Total improvements will result in a reduction of 289 s.f of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area. The proposed grade level patio will be located some 40' from the shoreline (Ordinary High Water Level at 929.4). The existing wooden deck is located 26'. Applicants have also advised that they plan to install access stairs to their lakeshore yard in the east side yard. Such structures are subject to the standards set forth in the Shoreland Regulations (Section 10.56, Subd. 16(Fl-7). Applicants' contractor must apply for a separate building permit for the access stairs. Review Exhibit E, the topographic map of the property, the banks are steep but based on code standards they are not part of a bluff. No land alterations or structures will impact the steep slope areas. The topographic survey confimis that the level area where deck and patio are proposed is approximately 10' above the OHWl. of the lake. The existing deck has been installed at the top of the steep bank. The seating around the edge creates safety concerns, at least for this staff member. Refer to Exhibit B, applicants advise the existing deck is in need of repair. Hardship Statement Please review Exhibit B, applicants' hardships are reviewed as follows: A. 70 year old house built before current standards for lakeshore development. B. Present deck is unsafe and in need of repair. f . Zoning File #2133 May 14,1996 Page 3 C. Proposed improvements will result in reduced hardcover and improve lakeshore setback for accessory structure. D. Minimal space sought for use of outdoor cooker grill to be located 50' from shoreline. E. Approximately half of the area of the 1.2 acre property is located in the 0-75' setback area. F. Property is surrounded by lakeshore on both the south and sides. * Issues for Consideriition 1.Applicants propose reduction of 289 s.f. of existing hardcover improvements. Should additional hardcover improvements within the 0-75' setback area be removed or reduced in area. 2.There is 20.1% hardcover improvements within the 75-250' setback area should additional hardcover improvements be removed or reduced to offset excesses in 0-75' setback area. 3. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Options of Action To approve as proposed or amended. Any recommendation of approval must include the condition that the applicants provide appropriate erosion control at the lake side of the residence prior to the removal of the deck and that erosion control shall remain in place until entire disturbed area is restored to natural ground cover. Applicants are further advised that a building permit is required for construction of access stairs to lake, the following standards shall apply: 1. Stairs not exceed 4' width. 2. Required landings not to exceed 32 s.f. area. 3. 4. Canopies or roofs not allowed. Stairs to be located in most visually inconspicuous portion of shoreline. Application # ' Date Received VZ-? Amount Paid •* CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 § ^ ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) r. r * '. i •.1.•• > PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address I ^ ^5T Orc^v^^ Lar^g . LOo-M'ZQf<X . VvA.^ S~S3*1L Property Identification Number fP .I.D.) 0’2 ~ 11^ ' Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Argnired b\Ar?ij .(month/year) I (do not ) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___other (specify) Zoning District: \ S>_________________________ APPLICANT ^ Name Phone (home) *^0 A - (o \ 3 Phone (work ’) 2.&S3 Address: g^re>v\c> Uqv^.^,City. UOQi-.^rQ.Vo^ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name __________________— Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:Citv:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constniction Cost $ (S.CCC Describe request in detail: o-toc-W<\_------------------------------------— (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ i/ Setback: ___Lot Widtli Front __Side Hardcover Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ---------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 1' t REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Propert>' Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Co»int\- Department of Finance. A-603, Govi Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (I) copy SVi” x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SVi" 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 Propert>' Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date ^Applicant's Signature fCO^iJn OWNER'S SIGNAp^RE The owner hereby'd^mowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signatuie Date ^ ^ Applicant mustall submiojifs^to the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning ^mmission 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. John & Karla Spooner 1385 Orono Lane Wayzata,MN 55391 1 »• ' i .A- <^ ' • ..(JT -■V ►" ^ * CITY OF ORONO VARIANCE APPLICATION Description of Request: Remove existing deck and build a granite 15 x 26 foot patio (inclusive of one 18" stair leading to lake and one stair leading east and west that is 1' x 7'). Add a concrete pad, 4' x 6', by the south eastern door to facilitate barbecuing. The existing deck is 650 S F. and the proposed patio and pad would be 398 S F. HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS: The house is 70 years old and was built well within 75' of the lake. The present deck is in need of repair. We would be satisfied with a much smaller patio to reduce hard cover. We would also like a small work area for outdoor cooking by the east door, which is the only reasonable place to locate the grill. 01-117-13 -3H O MM 6Atf 04/01/H MTCH 5MPm^ AOM OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 3S 02-117>2S SA OOOS 01S65 ORONO LA J P SPOONER A K B SPOONER JOtM SPOONER A KARLA SPOONER 1565 ORONO U HAYZATA Ml 55591 HEMCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY ZNFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OMCRS LIST56 02-117-25 54 0004 01567 ORONO LA DOUGLAS C HOEN ET AL DOUGLAS A JUDITH MOEN 1567 ORONO U NAYZATA m 55591 REPORT NO. PX455401 PAGE 2056 02-117-25 54 0005 01569 ORONO U N N SEE A 6 S SEE HENRY N A OAIL S SEE 1569 ORONO U HAYZATA m 55591 PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 56 02-117-25 54 0011 01525 SHORELINE OR TIMOTHY R DUOOS TIMOTHY R OUOOS 1525 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA Ml 55591 56 02-117-25 54 0012 01555 SHORELIIC DR DAM JOHNSON DOUGLAS 0 JOHNSON 5901 S E ST LOUIS 6LV9 640 STUART FL 54997 TOTAL BATCH 504 60005 • % < '3 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AM ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEMCPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXmON> TO THE BEST OF MV KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. . . ^ / » ■■ •• • X • . 6 |f-**’>* DATE A.f Water 928. r HARDCOVERil^CULATlOiN VVOKK5H£bJ lloiMft d,, ^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (j-7^ 75-250* 25-500* ■ 500-1000’ -• • «f • • EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE iiJ fi i f A. House fSaicK cHtMtAfy Boat B. Garage C. Driveway a fi; « > M73 X X X Wklih Z. TTT X X X X E. Patio/Decic • • X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X VA(Z.*0(/S 'G. Ocher C0f*ct^T^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE C4*/f) 4iAP + B Z4‘,3oo X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House • • • Length Width X X X ♦ r! B. Garage C. Driveway.X X D. Sidewalk X X E: Paiio/Dcck X X m •• * F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X • • % G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • ^ B . * • nso ■ i S.F. _ ^ S.F. S.F.irs-S.F., * S.F. ’ . /9fo S.F.^«. ,s-*v • • • X. . ! . • 3^ s.FX S.F. • €50 ■p'-rei. • •• • ^7 ^ L- - ’ • •S.F. * f s.Ff . . 1 • •. s.fI .; V.;.. S.F.^ • . ■ *«v^* X S.F. T-§^ 4t4^0 S.F. A 14? oo t S.F. B /7.04 % . • "7 / •• «>. ' S.F. »»• •“’S.Fi- ••• S.F.“ S.F. • • • * • • • « S.F. •• . • *. r < • • • S.F. S.F. t • • m • *• 1 X » .• . S.F. S.F. • * * * •• S.F. .S.F. S.F. * S.F. .S.F. 1 e .. S.P. •• S.F. A X 100 - ;FCT S.F. % B • • • I • • • »1 • . ♦ • .* T i • • • V * I Karla iCUL * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* |-5>hardcover CALCULAjiUfil^VOiaiCittli^^ on i?/vy -----.......................... . 500-1000’2S-S00' 1 EXISTING HAPnr^VER IN ZONE A House _ _______14-10 • S.F. i|Vi Lesfih Wldih X X X m mi S.F. S.F. S.F. • •i B. Garage C. Driveway S.F. ■\ i / • I % X X ?€00 S.F. S.F. :*N ! \ t ir D. Sidewalk fL^T#rl6 'XMcid. X X # -S.F. 's.f: i*u L._ E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. •S.F. • * . *%• ■ i F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric X X X S.F.v SsF,. S.F, • t* 1 • _ _. VARIOUSG. Other ss S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A S32R + B Z6,50^ x 100 - S32e S.F. 2€^SOO ± S.F. 20. /O % A B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House : S.F. \ k Lcogth Width X X. X S.F. S.F. rr TT» B. Garage C. Driveway S.F. S.F. X X » S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. ■_. S.F{ . I*... E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other 8.P TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE+ B X too - • S.F. A " S.F. B " % *. • • • • *•14* . .1 11 D. V } i I rrs 1-^HARDCOVER CALCULATlOiN , SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ 0^500^ • 500-1000* • EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House fZ - ^ ■ F. Leafih• • X - *. Wdih •• ■ • 1 •• • «• F. X «■• F. X •—••F.. .% B. Gance x •1 • «. ’ ♦ F. *• • A • • C. Driveway * • • •• ••• 2Z F. • % '' .X • F.• .1 • ^ • D. Sidewalk x • • F. . X •• F.^ . f E. Paiio/Deck x , ' • • • *••a • • •% • • F. . t ■{ X a I •F.• • F. > .* / Uoderiain x 'jm F-. •m • . f By Plastic. x n .• • •.F. •• Or Fabric • • • • • . G. Other x * • • •• •• . • % • • • - % • % • F. % TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 0 • f - 2i ..F.A . TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •t ;.F.B A 22. + B X 100 a ss,c ■i PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X • • 1 j' • «« « • F. • • Length X Width a •;.F. X k 1 •;.F.• • • X •a :.F.• •• •. • B. Gance x • • SB' • • t •.F* • C. Driveway ’ x • ia •;.F. 1 . X :.F.. • D. Sidewalk x • • • • F. X t •• * . * .:.P.• * • 4 E. Patio/Deck x > ;.F. I X a ;.F. F. Landscaoe x i.F.• Underlain x ’* a * *• •;.F. By Plastic x a*i.F. Or Fabric in X _ $ • • 1 1 • 'm • •i.F.’• • • • • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . » + B • • 9 « • •*.S.F.A ‘ •S.F.B X 100 m ' '*•*%• « • # 0 • • *t • • • 14 • • • • ‘ • • . .1 • e-r# « • * • *• * •; • •• kAletoer ^ 6eds f ■4 4 r Cl'.V • I c 4'u' •’• POOT^JiT VB^k- CM to VB>^' OTcmo f I)nuu7 0Jh . (1/.. cTC^Sl I (V .2V ' /L r (jrcas ^ 0/ «I / £>toUJU ^ ^H^CL. Vo ^o<My*d REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 5,45e|§^^ ITEM NO, Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gafiron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2134 Robert Albrecht, 1810 Shady wood Road - Variance (After-the-Fact) Request for Referral to June 17th Planning Commission (Revised Proposal) List of Exhibits A ‘ Applicant's Letter of Request B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5/28/96 C - Staff Memo of 5/16/96 This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their May 20th meeting, which resulted in a 5-0 vote for recommending denial. Since then, the applicant has revised his proposal and is requesting further review at the Planning Commission's June 17th meeting prior to Council action, which likely will be scheduled for Council's June 24th meeting. Options for Action 1. Refer back to Planning Commission. 2. 3. Deny referral to Planning Commission, direct staff to schedule the item for Council's June 24th meeting. Other. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends this item be referred to the Planning Commission for review at their June 17th meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Refer this item back to the Planning Commission for review of the revised proposal on June 17th. , seconded by , to refer the revisedProposed Motion: Moved by_________ proposal of Zoning File #2134 to the Planning Commission for review on June 17th. Vote: ______ayes,______nays. .1 Robert & Tara Albrecht 1810 Shadywood Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 6/5/96 To: CityofOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 City of Orono, We are requesting a Planning Commission revaluation of our variance application based on new data acquired and a resubmittal of plans. Best Regards. Rob & Tara Albrecht 471-8708 CITY OF 0R0>0 P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2134 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 28, 1996 TO:Robert Albrecht 1810 Shady wood Read Wayzata,MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance (Aftcr-the-Fact) DATE OF MEETING: 5/20/96 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Denial recommendation was based on: Excessive hardcover given the histor> of hardcover increases on this property. Previous approval resolution indicating no further encroachments should occur in the lakeshore yard. Previous approval resolution finding that existing driveway is appropriate. This item must be placed on the Cit> Council's June 1 0 agenda. However, per our conversation, staff will recommend that Council refer it back to the Planning Commission's June 17 agenda for review of your revised proposal (this will be a "consent agenda" item on June 10, you don't need to be present). 1. 2. Additional information, including your revised proposal and written materials, should be submitted by Wednesday, June 5 if possible in order for the Council to refer it back to Planning Commission. Please let staff know if this isn't possible. 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. "•-W TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:May 16,1996 SUBJECT: #2134 Robert Albrecht, 1810 Shadywood Road - Variance (After-the-Fact) Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre. Application: Request for after-the-fact hardcover variance for construction of new 207 s.f deck on lake side of residence. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter from Neighbor E - 1991 Survey F - Enlarged Su. 'ey with Sketch of New Deck G - Deck Plair by Applicant H - Submitted Hardcover Calculations 1-1991 Hardcover Calculations J - Submitted Landscaping Plan K - Photos L - Resolution #2955 M - Selected Exhibits From Prior Variance Applications N - Topographic Map Pertinent Code Sections Sectur. 10.22, Subd. 2/Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L) - 75-250' zone hardcover limited to 25%. Summary Applicant began constructing a deck addition to the lake side of his existing residence this spring without a building permit. The inspections department discovered this, stopped the work, and advised the property owner that a hardcover variance is required. The deck meets all setback requirements. -..-j Zoning File #2134 May 16,1996 Page 2 The deck constitutes 207 s.f. of hardcover, of which 165 s.f. is new hardcover and 42 s.f. is over the pre-existing steps. Applicant also proposes sidewalk and landscaping revisions resulting in a net increase of 54 s.f. hardcover. Applicant proposes the removal of portions of the existing driveway, to result in a net 75-250' hardcover decrease of 35 s.f Hardcover History In 1984 this property contained a small residence, and was owned in common with the (then vacant) lot to the north which contained a detached garage serving this house. The owner at that time, Mrs. Johnstone, was successful in gaining City’ approval to allow the two lots to be sold as two separate building sites. Resolution #1718-B required that maximum hardcover allowed on the 1810 Shadywood property shall be 2,775 s.f, i.e. 25% of the 75-250' zone. A permit was issued in 1985 for additions to the residence subject to the use of "grass pavers" for the driveway, with a stated hardcover proposal of 19%, meeting the 25% limit. In 1991 it was found that the then owner, Steven Tibbets, had paved the driveway with asphalt, and further had constructed decks on the property without the appropriate approvals. Tibbets ultimately was granted variance approval via Resolution #2955, which allowed hardcover on the property to increase to a L** el of i-pproximately 5,080 s.f For some reason, the area of the 75-250' zone was at that time determined to be 13,500 s.f rather than the 11,100 s.f used in 1984, hence the hardcover level was approved at 5,080 s.f/13,500 s.f or 37.6%. Hardcover on the property currently includes the following items: (Area of Lot = 17,545 s.f based on 60.5’ lot width x average depth 290' per 1991 survey) (Area of 0-75' zone = 6,445 s.f) (Area of 75-250' zone = 11,100 s.f) Hardcover Item Stairs at lake (3xl9)+(6xl3) Portion of house (19xl9)/2 Remainder of house w/garage (49.7x22.4)+(8.5x 10.4)+(28.6x22.1 )-l 80 Entryway deck (7x22.1) Front steps and sidevvalk (Nom.) Driveway (Nom.) Pre-existing rear deck and steps (12x12) Landscape area at front entry (Nom.) Landscape timbers around sandbox (0.5x72) Totals 0-75* zone 135 s.f 180 s.f 7S-2S0' zone 315 s.f (4.9%) 1653 s.f 155 s.f 124 s.f 2810 s.f 144 s.f 115 s.f 36 s.f 5037 s.f (45.4%) Zoning File #2134 May 16,1996 Page 3 Total hardcover originally approved, 1984: 2775 s.f. Total hardcover approved, 1991: 5080 s.f. Total hardcover as of May 1996, excluding proposed partially built deck: 5352 s.f. +165 s.f. + 54 s.f. - 254 s.f. - 35 s.f. Proposed deck, net hardcover: Proposed sidewalk/landscape revisions, net hardcover; Proposed driveway hardcover reduction: Net proposed hardcover changes: Proposed Final Hardcover: 0-75’: 315s.f(4.9%) 75-250’: 5002 s.f (45.1%) Planning Commission may wish to review the 1991 approval resolution. It raises two specific important points: 1. In Finding No. 3(e), Planning Commission found that the existing driveway (as it exists today) provides the necessary safety level for vehicular use on a busy County Road. For that reason, Planning Commission felt it was not appropriate or necessary to reduce the size of the driveway, »• !iich reduction is currently proposed. 2. Condition No. 2 stated that "The City' will approve no further encroachment of the principal structure (this includes decks) within the lakeshore yard." The meaning of this condition is unclear, however, the Planning Commission Minutes of April 15, 1991 suggest that no additional hardcover should be approved for the property. April 22, 1991 Council Minutes do not shed any more light on this. Lakeshore Stairway The 1991 staff memo noted that the lakeshore stairway was in disrepair and would have to meet current standards of maximum 4’ width, maximum 4’x4 ’ landings. That stairway has since been rebuilt without a permit, at a width of 3’ on the 19’ long stairway portion with a 6’xl3 ’ landing along the shoreline. That stairway/landing system is technically not in compliance with code, comprising 135 s.f of hardcover where a compliant stairway would be approximately 90-100 s.f in area. Average Lakeshore Setback After further review (see topographic map, Exhibit N) it has been determined that the proposed deck will not encroach on the average lakeshore setback as defined by the neighboring adjacent residences. Zoning File #2134 May 16.1996 Page 4 Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Given the e\ er increasing hardcover on this property, which now comprises more than 30% of the entire lot area (compared to the DNR's 25% standard) what is the justification for allowing additional hardcover near the 75' setback line in exchange for reductions in the driveway far from the lakeshore? Does the 1991 Planning Commission comment that the driveway is appropriate "as is" suggest that its partial removal is not a reasonable trade-off today? Is there a hardship that justifies the proposed hardcover trade-offs? Is the non-compliant lakeshore stairway and landing so far out of compliance that it should be rebuilt, or should applicant merely be required to obtain an after-the-fact permit for it, leaving it as is? Siri:e applicant did not pay an after-the-fact variance application fee is there any reason he should not be required to pay that fee? If the variance request is der^ed, should the after-the- fact variance fee be required? Staff Recommendation In order to recommend approval of this variance request, Planning Commission must be convinced that a hardship exists, and that the proposed trade-offs, or additional required trade-offs, will justify granting of the variances. The history of this property clearly suggests that it currently contains extreme excesses of hardcover, virtually all of which have been created in "after-the-fact" circumstances. If Planning Commission recommends approval, staff would recommend the payment of the after-the- fact variance fee, and whether or not the deck variance is approved, applicant should be required to obtain an after-the-fact permit for the lakeshore stairway system. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of after-the-fact v'ariances, payment of after-the-fact variance and permit fees. 2. Recommend approval as above, with specific additional conditions (addressing deck as well as lake stairway). 3. Table for further information/further discussion. Zoning File #2134 May 16, 1996 Page 5 4. Recommend denial, giving specific reasons, and address after-the-fact permit for the lakeshore stairway. 5.Other. Ui-y-* — •‘V* • -rr tr I A y «Q T/AO’A’I--i ABIHOs:=’^ w<n fill s N^'cl^t n 9°a y •" '• - ^ RnM^& ^ 3tiOHS3»vn .*. t i „ y/v.fs/^ «l^il .r"A. t| ^noN 8.GARfHiC . . .» I • ’“'*45 n<>> 5 >*c s f# % • I *5^l >■ k I EWLc ©<W 1 •» 1 >■. * • ^, •• '’oub> 6 lA^‘*rniD» i ii **eer/A(i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION X 0 1996 DATE: Junf^f^fiONo ITEM NO.:/ Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2136 Greenfield Corporation, 180 North Shore Drive West - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution Zoning District: RR-IR Rural area = 17.2 acres Application: The original owners of this property presented a two lot subdivision in September of 1986 consisting of the residential lot to the south containing the existing residence and an outlot for future development. The existing access serving the residence was allowed to remain. The owner never finalized the subdivision. The current application involves a six lot residential subdivision. Three of the six lots are served by a private road with cul-de-sac with Lots 2, 5 and 6 served from two new curb cuts along North Shore Drive. The Planning Commission conceptually approved the general layout of the lots at the time of the sketch plan review in March of 1996 recognizing the site constraints on residential development such as location of the wetlands, topography, developer's responsibility to provide access to property at east boundary (review Exhibit C), long narrow shape of 17+ acre parcel. County roads surround property on both the north and west sides (1,8(X)+lineal ft. of County Road), need to preserve only suitable area for septic use, and the desire of developer to protect the views to the south and southwest of the obvious building sites on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. At that same xMarch meeting. Planning Commission members advised that lot width variances would only be acceptable for lots adjacent to cul-de-sac and re-emphasized the earlier directive of the City for applicant to provide access to undeveloped property to the east or Outlot C, Bayview Farms 2nd Addition. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review; 1.Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B) - RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential zoning di.strict. Review of lot standards: A. Area Required = 2 acres Lot 1 = 2.35 .acres dry Lot 2 = 2.00 acres dry Lot 3 = 2.15 acres dry’ Lot 4 = 2.18 acres dry Lot 5 = 2.57 acres dry Lot 6 = 2.93 acres dry Zoning File #2136 June 6, 1996 ' Page 2 B.Lot Width (measured to the rear of the 50’ front/street setback) Required = 200' Lot 1 = 60’ Lot 2 = 240’ Lot 3 = 90’ Lot 4 = 150' Lot 5 = 200' Lot 6 = 340' Lots 1,3 and 4 will require lot width variances. All three lots are ser\ ed from cul-de- sac. 2. 3. 4. Section 11.03, Definition 66 (C) - Class HI subdrision. Section 11.10, Suud. 10 (C) - Class III subdivision application Section 11.10, Subd. 21 - Special requirements for Class III s»m'livisions. 5.Section 11.33, Subd. 4 - Typical Section. 3+ units served uy irw5'.a> require installation of private road. Lots 1, 3 and 4 are served by a private i-de-sac road. CMP Transportation Plan 7/13 advises "joint use of carefully located private roads will generally be preferred over direct access on to public highways from separate properties." List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Applicant's Addendum E - Planning Commission Minutes 3/18/96 F - Weckman Report 5/8/96 G - Gustafson Report 5/13/96 HI-4 - Hennepin County Report 5/13/96 I - Grading/Drainage Plan J - Approved Access Plan K - Dedication of Right-of-Way and Bike Trail Locations L - Shoreland Map M - National Wetland Inventory Map N - Soils Map O - Wetlands Delineation Report P - Orono Designated Wetlands Map Q - Preliminary Plat R - Site Plan for Lot 6 Locating Future Driveway A,\;acent to Designated Wetland and Septic Sites Zoning File #2136 June 6, 1996 Page 3 Brief Review of Application Lots I, 3 and 4 are served by the short cul-de-sac road. The lots do not meet the required lot width to the rear of the 50' street setback line. Applicant noted Lot 1 is adjacent to public roadways on both the north and west sides and that Lot 4 has some 365' of a private road along the east lot line. Applicant also noted they are obliged to provide a future private road to serve the property to the immediate east which will not benefit the properties within this subdivision. The property is 600' wide and Outlet B or the fumre extension outlet takes up 50' more of the width. Planning Commission members reaffirmed their conceptual approval of the lot width variances for lots adjacent to the cul-de-sac. Members also noted concern with potential limitations for the residential development and use of Lot 4, the long narrow shape, more than 50% of the lot is occupied with septic. Type I wetland and future treatment pond between septic and Type I wetland. The developer advised that unusual portions of the lot is approximately 150' wide and had 275' of depth which he noted was adequate to support rural residential needs. Both the developer and applicant's consultant noted that this was the most choice of the lots with the best view of the lake (North Arm). It was also noted that the Watershed District would not require a treatment pond for the future road within Outlot B. Planning Commission asked that a small treatment pond be developed for maintenance and treatment of drainageway located along west side of Outlot B, refer to Exhibit I. Planning Commission also noted concern with unique long narrow shapes of Lots 2, 3 and 4. The difficulty of land owners to define lot lines within southern yards and provide permanent protection of septic sites. Planning Commission members asked that the private covenants to be drafted to protect the Type I wetlands within the subdivision also include adequate notice and mapping locating septic sites. Both the County's and City's Comprehensive Trail Plan have selected North Shore Drive for a future bike trail to be developed along the cast side of road. The County has asked for both additional right-of-way and a trail easement. In the 1986 plat the City originally granted the 17' of additional right-of-way along the west lot line and denied the County's request for additional 7' for County Road 84 to the north. In the current review, the City must deny the County's request for 17' of additional right-of-way adjacent to Lots 5 and 6 because of the need to protect septic sites. The County has been asked to consider the septic limitation and has asked for 7' of right-of-way and 6' for trail easement. Staff recommends against granting an additional right-of- way but will ask for a trail easement over the 10' wide standard drainage and utility easement adjacent to road. The City will grant 17' of additional right-of-way along the west lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 and take a trail easement over the 10' standard drainage and utility easement. The City's trail plan also shows a bike trail along County Road 84. The 10' drainage and utility easement adjacent to County 84 right-of-way shall also be designated as a trail easement. 1 Zoning File #2136 June 6,1996 Page 4 Refer to Exhibit J, in 1986 the City approved the existing access serving the residence on Lot 6. Note major portions of the driveway and apron area are located within property to the south. Both the City and the County agree that the access is severely limited and sighting distance is inadequate for 50 mph zone. The County approved a new location at the shared lot lines of 5 and 6. Lots 5 and 6 shall be served by a new curb cut at the shared lot lines at the intersection of the County Road. The County has approved a new curb cut for Lot 2. The subdivision proposes one new curb cut at County Road 19. The access plan has been approved based on the findings set forth by the Planning Commission Members set forth in memo above and in minutes of the meeting. The existing septic system serving the residence on Lot 6 is failing. New primary and alternate sites have been tested and approved. All twelve septic test sites call for mound systems. The developer will be responsible for the filling and grading of the roadbed within Outlot B along with the installation of the drainage facility along west side of future road. The developer will work with the property owner to the east to determine status of construction of their new residence. If construction of owner's residence is to be delayed a few years, the disturbed area within roadbed will be seeded. The Park Commission has reviewed the preliminary plat and has recommended trail easements be taken over the drainage and utility easements adjacent to roadways and to accept a fee in lieu of the dedication of land for parks. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the six lot plat as proposed and approved the access plan resulting in one new curb cut at County Road and approved the lot width variances for Lots 1, 3 and 4 finding this approval consistent with previous action of the City for lots adjacent to cul-de-sacs and added three additional conditions to the conditions set forth in the staff memo of May 14th (pages 5 & 6) as follows: 11.Applicant to provide partial detention ponds south of the drainage facilities along west side of Outlot B. Owner and future developer of Outlot C, Bayview Farms 2nd Addition shall provide an expanded detention with the eastern property when road is developed. 12.Applicant to create private covenants for protection of Type 1 and II wetlands located within property and not classified as a designated wetland of the City of Orono. Such covenants to contain site plans locating protected areas and advising future owners of need to contact Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and U.S. Corp of Engineers if land alterations are proposed before submitting plan to the City for review and possible permit. Zoning File #2136 June 6, 1996 Page 5 Covenants should include protective language for alternate septic sites and site plans locating both primary and alternate sites. Applicant to develop language alerting future property owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. 13. Preliminary plan to be amended to extend Outlot A to eastern boundary. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation of approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To amend or approve draft resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY^ LOCATED AT 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - FILE NO. 2136 WHEREAS, Greenfield Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, (hereinafter the "subdivider") on April 26, 1996, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a six lot residential plat of property legally described as: The West half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, EXCEPT that part of the West 274.77 feet of said West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter which lies South of the North 580.00 feet of said West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, and which lies North of the South 545.34 feet of said West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 20, 1996, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon, and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on June 10, 1996, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: 1. 2. The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 17.2 acres with 2.34 acres of designated wetland area. Page 1 of 8 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The proposed plat consists of six residential lots each meeting the minimum requirement of two acres of contiguous dr>' buildablc rxea. All lots have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site septic treatment facilities providing both a primar>' and alternate site for each of the six lots. Lots 1, 3 and 4 do not meet the required 200 ’ of lot width to the rear of the 50' front street setback line requiring approval of variances to Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B). Approval of the lot width variance is based on the following unique findings and hardships: A, 17+ acre parcel is long and narrow and measures 620' in width. B.Applicant has been required to plat a 50 ’ road along northeast boundary of the property to serve property to the east further impacting lot widths adjacent to access road/cul-de-sac. C. Lot 4 has 365' of frontage along Outlot B at east lot line. D.The property is adjacent to 1,800 lineal ft. of public road along the north and west sides of property. L.The granting of lot width variances to lots adjacent to cul-de-sacs would be consistent with the City's granting of similar variances in previous subdivision review. F.The private road layout will allow preservation of desired building sites based on topography and aesthetic views to south and east. The developer has provided a future private road extension outlot to serve property to the east. The developer shall prepare the roadbed of future road and restore ground cover should future property owner to east not plan immediate construction of residence. The City Engineer, in his report of May 13, 1996, approved the grading and drainage plan for the development of this property. Page 2 of 8 1 8. 9. Thomas D. Johnson, a Transportation Planning Engineer for the Hennepin County Department of Transportation, in his report of May 13, 1996. approved the access plan as proposed by subdivider. Orono ’s Community Management Plan, Rural Transportation Policy 7 entitled "Driveway Locations in Rural Street or Private Road Intersections will be Limited for Traffic Safety" states as follows: "Joint use of carefully located private roads will generally be preferred over direct access on to public highways from separate properties." The developer has provided the following unique findings and hardships to support the creation of two new curb cuts (one existing curb cut to be relocated) to ser\e three of the six residential lots. The Planning Commission has accepted the findings and hardships presented by developer. They are reviewed as follows: A. Location of wetlands. B. C. Sloping topography to south and east. Subdivider's responsibility to provide a future access road to serve property to east. D.Property is surrounded by 1,800' of County Road along the north and west sides. E.The existing access serving Lots 6 has been found to be unsafe and encroaches within propertj ’ to the south. The new curb cut developed at the shared lot lines of Lots 5 and 6 has been approved by the County and meets the required sighting distance for a 50 mph speed zone. F.New curb cut to serve Lot 2 has been found to meet the sighting/safety standards for the 50 mph speed zone. G. The location of limited septic site areas on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. Page 3 of 8 H. Desire of subdivider to preserve views to the south and southeast for the obvious building sites on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Greenfield Corporation per plat drawings by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed surveyor of Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., dated May 3, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. Subdivider to grant a bike trail, drainage and utility easement 10' wide adjacent to Bayside Road (County Road 84) and North Shore Drive and (County Road 19). 2. Subdivider to dedicate 17 of additional right-of-way for North Shore Drive along the west boundaries of Lots 1 and 2. 3. Subdivider to execute private covenants dealing with the upkeep and maintenance of private road and drainage facilities within plat. Subdivider shall be responsible for adding share in ownership in road Outlot A via transfer deed of lot upon sale. Outlot A shall be extended to east lot line. 4. All septic sites within subdivision are to be fenced off prior to any land alterations. 5. Subdivider to grant flowage and conservation easement over designated wetland within Lot 6. 6. Subdivider to designate drainage easement at a minimum width of 15' over drainageway that extends westward from cul-de-sac of Outlot A to sediment pond in northwest comer of Lot 1. Drainage easements are to be taken over all sediment ponds and drainageways within plat. Subdivider shall provide partial detention pond south of the drainage facilities along west side of Outlot B within Lot 4. 7. Subdivider to complete grading of future roadbed within Outlot B and to restore natural ground cover when City Engineer has approved the grading of the roadbed. Page 4 of 8 8. 9. II. Subdivider is hereby advised that the Cit>- cannot grant final plat approval until a permit from the MCWD has been approved for all grading and drainage improvements on the property. Subdivider to provide road name choices for Outlot A. The City Council shall consider name choices and make final recommendation. This process should be completed before final plat approval. Subdivider to create private covenants for protection cf Types 1 and II wetlands located within property that are not classified as a designated wetland of the City of Orono. Such covenants to include site plans locating protected area and advising future owners of need to contact Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the U. S. Corp of Engineers if land alterations are proposed before submitting plan to the City for review and possible permit. Covenants should include protective language for alternate septic sites along with site plans locating both primary' and alternative sites. Applicant to develop language alerting future property owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Suudivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of Council approval, June 10, 1997. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary' subdivision application with the City. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: Page 5 of 8 3. A. B. C. D. E. F. Lot lines platted per preliminarv' survey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. dated May 3, 1996. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5’ along the internal lot line. Dedication of right-of-way for County Road 84 at 33' and 50' adjacent to west lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 and 33' adjacent to the west lot lines of Lots 5 and 6 for County Road 19. Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention ponds and drainageways as shown on preliminary' plat. Designation and dedication of drainage easement over the designated wetlands located within Lot 6. Designation of private roads, Outlots A and B. Outlot A to sene current subdivision (Lots 1, 3 and 4) and Outlot B to serve Outlot C, Bayview 2nd Addition. G. The 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. Signed and executed drainage easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat (see sample enclosed). Page 6 of 8 \ 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. Signed and executed developer’s agreement and letter of credit for site improvements and construction of private road (Outlot and preparation ol, roadbed (Outlot B) (see samples enclosed). 5, Signed and executed road and utility easements over private roads Oullots A and B. Signed and executed Flowage and Conserv'ation easement over designated wetland within Lot 6. Signed and executed declaration of private covenants covering the upkeep and maintenance of private road (Outlot A), drainage facilities and specifying share of Lots 1, 3 and 4 in ownership of Outlot A (see sample enclosed). Signed and executed trail easement over 10' wide drainage and utility easements adjacent to County Roads (see sample enclosed). Completed application for private road name for Outlot A (see form enclosed). Please note the selection of the road name is separate action of the Council and should be submitted as soon as applicant has completed the selection of three name choices. Completed private covenant for lots involved with protected wetland not included within conservation maps of City which shall include a site plan and metes and bounds descriptions for these areas. Covenants to include protective language for alternate septic sites and to include the site plans locating both the primary and alternate sites. Subdivider to develop language alerting future owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Covenants must be in a form suitable for filing. Th. City has samples of protective covenants used by former developers. SuMivider may wish copies and should notify City. Fees to be paid: Total due: $400.00* A. Final plat fee = $200.00 Page 7 of 8 B.Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents = $200.00 *Park dedication fee shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminaiy' plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as Assessor's report has been filed witn City. Park dedication fee shall be based on 8% of the fair market value of land within Lots 1 through 5. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 10th day of June, 19%. ATTEST: Dorothy M. riallin. City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of June, 1996, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota miuiicipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf oi the City. Notary Public Page 8 of 8 r L To: From; Date: Subject: Chair I’etorson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Adnimistrator Jeanne A. Mabuslh, Building & Zoning Administrator May 14, 19% ^2136 Greenfield Corporation, 180 North Shore Drive W ' - Prelimlr.ar>' Subdivision - Public Hearing ZoDing District: RR-IB Total Area = 17.2 acre*: Application: Greenfield Corporation presented the six lot sketch plan for Planning Commission's consideration at their March 18, 1996 meeting. Planning Commission conceptually approved the general layout of the lots recognizing the site constrair.ts on development such as location of wetlands, topography, developer ’s responsibility to provide access to property at east boundary and the desire to protect obvious building sites with views to the south and southeast. The Planning Commission did advise developer that lot width variances would be acceptable for lots adjacent to cul-de-sac. The developer was then advised to meet with staff to discuss feasibility of placement of road along cast lot line to serve Outlot C of Bayview Farms 2nd Addition. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1.Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B) - RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential zoning district. Review of lot standards. A. Area Required = 2 acres Lot 1 = 2.35 acres dry Lot 2 = 2.00 acres dry Lot 3 = 2.15 acres dry Lot 4 = 2.18 acres dry Lot 5 = 2.57 acres dry Lot 6 = 2.93 acres dry L.Lot Width (measured to the rear of the 50' front/street setback) Required = 200' Lot 1 = 60’ Lot 2 = 240’ Lot 3 = 90' Lot 4 = 150’ Lot 5 = 200’ Lot 6 = 340’ Lots 1, 3 and 4 will require lot width variances. All three lots are served from cul-de-sac. Zoning File «2136 May 14, 1996 Page 2 2. Section 11.03, Definition 66 (C) - Class III subdivision. 3. Section 11.10, Subd. 10 (C) - Class III subdivision application. 4. Section 11.10, Subd. 21 - Special requirements for Class 111 subdivisions. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owneri List C - Plat Map D - Applicant's Addendum E - Planning Commission Minutes 3/18/96 F - Weckman Report 5/8/96 G - Gustafson Report 5/13/96 H-1-4 Hennepin County Report 5/13/96 - Grading/Drainage Plan - Approved Access Plan K - Dedication of Right-of-V'ay and Bike Trail Locations L - Shoreland Map M - National Wetland Inventor}' Map N - Soils Map O - Wetlands Delineation Repoit P - Orono Designated Wetlands Map Q - Preliminar}' Plat General Review Comments The preliminary plan for si.x rural lots has evolved from guidelines set forth at the sketch plan review. At the direction of the Planning Commission, both staff and the City Engineer met with the developer and his consultants to detemiine the feasibility of placement of future access road to serve property to the east along the northeast boundary of the property. Staff confirmed that a road could be developed at a 10% grade and not pose any impact upon the residential lots to the west. Three of the si.x lots will be served by a short cul-de-sac road. Each of the lots served from the cul-de-sac will require lot width variances as noted above. The granting of variances for lots adjacent to a cul-de-sac is consistent with past City action. Access to Lots 2, 5 and 6 will be via North Shore Drive. Lots 1-5 have suitable areas for development of on-site sewage treatment systems. Lot 6 is the most restricted with the only suitable area for septic development to the west and north of the residence. There is a Orono designated wetland located within Lot 6 (review Exhibit P). A wetland delineation report (Exnibit O) has also located Type 1 and 2 wetland- .vithin the propert}’ (Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6). Refer to Exhibit L, the property is not located within a shoreland area. r 1 Zoning File #2136 May 14. 1996 Page 3 Hennepin County DOT has asked for additional dedications of right-of-way for County Roads 19 and 84. The City shall approve the dedication of additional right-of-way for County Road 19 or North Drive and deny the request for County Road 84 or Bayside Road. The County also, st-’iw that North Shore Drive is slated for a future bike trail. The City’s comprehensive u.ke trail plan has also designated a bike trail along North Shore Drive and Bavside Road. Lot Conflguration The lots are long and irregular-shaped. It may be difficult for the future owners of Lots 2, 3 and 4 to determine the location of their boundaries in their south yards. Lot 4’s building pad is restricted by of a Type 1 wetland in the south yard, septic sites in the middle of the lot and a possible detention/sediment pond between septic and wetland. It is the City's policy to not exclude the area of the Type I wetland from the dry buildable area of a rural lot. The wetland area designated by the City is to be excluded from the dry buildable. The existing residence on Lot 6 meets the required setbacks of zoning district (50' front and rear, 30' sides). Lots 1, 3 and 4 require lot width variances. If approved, members must support recommendation with necessary' findings and hardships. Grading/Drainage/MCWD Permit Review E.xhibits G and 1, Gustafson reports approval of the grading plan as proposed. He asks that the drainageway extending from the cul-de-sac to the sediment pond be shown as a drainage easement at a minimum width of 15'. In earlier discussions with the Engineer, we noted a possible need ' ■* provide a small sediment pond at the base of the drainage facilities to be installed along tne west side of Outlot B within Lot 4. Although road will not be installed by this developer, the drainage resulting along the west side of the graded road may need to be detained and treated before entering wetlands to south. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District may require the sediment pond. Applicant may be able to obtain additional treatment area within property to the east since the eastern property owner will receive all benefit from the future road within Outlot B. Review Exhibit J, the approved access plan by Hennepin County. Lots 5 and 6 are to gain access via the shared drive at the mutual lot line. Review specifically Lot 6. There is a need to maintain a 20' setback from the drainfield and 26' from the wetland. The City shall ask for a detailed site plan locating access drive to serve existing residence to ensure setbacks will be met. Zoning File ^2136 May 14, 19% Page 4 The City will ask for drainage easements over all drainageways and sediment/detention ponds within plat. The applicant must begin the permitting process with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Applicant must obtain MCWT) permit before final plat approval can be granted bv City. Wetlands The City will ask for a tlowagc and conservation easement to be taken over the designated wetland within Lot 6. Applicant 'hall develop private covenants to ensure protection of the Type 1/2 wetlands located within Lots 1, 3, 4 5 and 6 to be filed in the Chain of Title of each of the lots. The covenant shall include a site plan locating the protected area. The purpose of the covenant is to advise each owner of the need to first seek approval of the Corps of Engineers and the Minnehaha C-cek W atershed District for any land alterations proposed within the protected area before coming to the City for approval and permits if necessary’. The City will ask for drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, 5' adjacent to internal lot lines and 10' along all e.xternal lot lines. Septic Please review Exhibit F, Weckman notes Lots 1-5 have suitable soils for both a primary and alternate on-site sewage treatment system. The results of the septic testing confirm that all 12 septic systems arc to be designed as mound systems. The only suitable treatment sites within Lot 6 are located to the west and north of the residence. The alternate site is located on an 8% slope where the Code would limit slope to 6%. The primary test site will not meet the 75* setback from the existing well and will be located 60'. Weckman has opted to grant an administrative variance rather than asking applicant to relocate well. Stall has no problem with granting a slope variance for the alternate system as all 11 other mound sites meet the 6% slope standard. Note both primary and alternate systems will meet the 75' setback from the designated wetland which V.^eckman has confimied in his recent site inspection. Access/Privatc Road/Maintcnance Covenants Review Exhibits G, H-1-2 and J, the two new curb cuts at North Shore Drive have been approved by the County as shown on the approved access plan. As in the review of an earlier subdivision, the County once again asks for 17' of additional right-of-vvay for North Shore Drive and 7' for Bay side Road or County Road 84. The City agreed to the granting of 17' along the North Shore Drive but denied the request for 7' along Bayside Road. In the current review, the Couiity no'v asks lor a 10' bike u-ail easement in addition to the 17’ of additional right-of-vvay. Review Exhibit K, the County was asked to consider the impact upon the septic sites of Lots 5 and 6 with the granting of additional right-of-vvay. The County asks for only 7' of additional right-of-way and 6' for bike trail easement. Zoning File #2136 May 14, 1996 Page 5 The City’s own comprehensive trail plan pioposes a bike trail along North Shore Drive and Bayside Road. The City will ask for a trail easement to be located within the 10’ drainage and utility easement to be dedicated adjacent to the County roads. Weckman advises that as topography slopes to the east and south, the bike trail will not have an impact on the proposed septic sites. The City will not ask for the 7 of additional right-of-way for County road adjacent to Lots 5 and 6. The 10’ drainage, utility and trail easement should provide adequate area for upgraded road and installation of trail. The applicant shall be responsible for the filling and grading of the future road bed within Outlot B. The City staff feels this will alleviate any future shixk for homeowners ser\ed by Outlet A when road is installed with de\ elopment of Outlot C, Bay view Farms 2nd Addition. Both Outlets A and B will have separate road names. Greenfield Corporation will be responsible for creating covenants for the upkeep and maintenance of the private road within the northern portion of Outlots A and B. Applicant may wish to redesign Outlot A to extend to the east boundary of the property to simplify maintenance covenants and eliminate any obligation of owners of Lots 1, 3 and 4 in maintenance of Outlot B. Applicant's private covenants must address the maintenance of all private drainage facilities within the subdivision. Issues for Consider'ilun 1. 2. Will vou recommend lot width variances for Lots 1, 3 and 4? How shall developer or future owner define lot lines within southern yards of Lots 2, 3 and 4 and how will they provide permanent protection of septic sites? 3.What of Lot 4? At least half of the lot is occupied with septic, Type 1 wetland and a possible sediment pond for drainage facility along west side of Outlot B. 4.Other issues. Your recommendation of approval should include the following conditions: 1.Prior to the preliminary subdivision being scheduled before the Council for approval, applicant to provide a site plan locating access drive to serve existing residence on Lot 6. Applicant to grant a bike trail/drainage and utility easement 10’ wide adjacent to Bayside Road (County Road 84) and North Shore Drive (County Road 19). L...... Zoning File #2136 Mav 14, 1996 Page 6 3. 4. 7. 8. 9. 10. Applicant to dedicate IT of additional right-of-way for North Shore Drive along the west boundaries of Lots 1 and 2. Applicant to execute private covenants dealing with the upkeep and maintenance of private road and drainage facilities within plat ... possible realignment of Outlet A at northeast comer of property. 5. All septic sites within subdivision are to be fenced off prior to any land alterations. 6. Applicant to grant flowage and conservation easement over designated wetland within Lot 6. Applicant to designate drainage easement over drainageway that extends westward from cul-de-sac of Outlot A to sediment pond in northwest comer of Lot 1 at a minimum width of 15’. Drainage easements are to be taken over all sediment ponds and drainageways within plat. MCWD to determine if sediment pond is necessary to treat and detain runotT from drainageway along west side of Outlot B. If required, applicant may wish to \vo ’’k with property owner at east to obtain additional area for future treatment. Applicant to complete grading of future roadbed within Outlot B and to restore natural groundcover once City Engineer has approved the grading of the roadbed. Applicant is advised that the City cannot grant final plat approval until a permit from the MCWD has been approved for all grading and drainage improvements on the property. Applicant to provide road name choices for Outlots A and B. The City Council shall consider name choices and make final recommendation. This process should be completed before final plat approval. Application # J > S Date Received y- C Amount Paid */^ ^ C » cX)__ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATKfiM V. PROPERTY LOCATIOi^ Site address •) ^ - I A fp d • " • ■ ■) % •. *j 1 Property Identification Number (PID) O 111 3_ooo 3 Please check one - Propert>-____abstract or Torrens? I \ .y Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name Address Citv Hr') T^Pt ■ tJ. __Phone (home) 7 ZinSXlt^^ Phone (work) ySO- U OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______________ Address Citv Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size /77X0 2.lx ^ 5. a ^ Present use (check)X Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units__[_ Other (specify)_________ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) X Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites 5 Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ^ Units per /T.X Acres 2 ^C- Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land _ Residential Other (specify)_________ X MINIMUM MATERUL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMLNARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (y ou must obtain this I'st from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature ________________________________________ Date NUxNLMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FLNAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements, covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature ________________________________________ Date______ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II & III) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) S350.00 Preliminary Subdivision Application S375.00 + S25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) Final Plat Application (Class III) S200.00 Legal Review and Filing: V ^ ^ Totals Subdivision only S75.0C Subdivision w/easements and civcnants min. S200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _______ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class 1 and II Subdivision Application S200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class III. Prelimmary Subdiv ision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: V Proposed Private Roads $600.00 $.50'lineal ft.; 7^'^ lin. ft. .x .50 = S_____ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 * $.50/lineaI ft.; lin. ft. .x .50 ® $ -f Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road S900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension S250.00 + S25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension S250.00 S25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding cuWerts) S200.00I V * / On-S=te System. Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) . $50.00.’per lot x (-new lots f' C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00.Dwe!ling Unit C The applicant hereby asrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator. City Engineer. City Attorney, Planning Commission'and Council necess^ to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Da.,Applicatit's Signature Owner’s Signature Date ^//ZC/^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning CommL'ston meetir.g. 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. RUN DATE 03/25/94BATCH 502PRW ADDR OHNER NAME TA>9AYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADDR Olt«R NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR Of €R NAHE TAXPAYER NAT^ADDR PROP ADDR OflER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR Of^ER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST34 01-117-24 11 000504685 CO RO NO 19GARY O A THERESA A REIERSENGARY 0 A THERESA A RflERSEN4605 CO RO 19MAPLE PLAIK HN 5B359 36 04-117-23 22 0003 00160 NORTH SHORE DR H DAVID L HHITE ET AL FREDERICK C KHITE 14195 PAULS DR ROGERS MN 55374 36 04-117-23 22 0010 04445 DAYSIDE RO I T A M L GEFFRE IRHIN T A MARJORIE L GEFFRE 4445 BAYSIDE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 36 04-117-23 22 0013 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R S A H N OLSON ROBERT S A MARGARET H OLSON 5010 HILLSBORO AVE N MPLS MN 55426 36 31-118-23 33 0005 04440 BAYSIDE RD BAN CUFF BOBBIE A NEVA CUFF 4440 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PUIN HN 55359 38 31-118-23 33 0011 00036 ADDRESS‘UNASSIGNE 0 B R LANGE A J B BURRELL BRUCE R LANGE SUITE 415 53 N JACKSON BLVO CHICAGO IL 40404 34 01-117-24 11 000400034 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GARY 0 A THERESA A REIERSEN GARY 0 A THERESA A REIERSEN 4685 CO RO NO 19 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 36 04-117-23 22 0004 00100 NORTH SHORE DR N S M CAMP ET AL STEPHANIE H A ROBERT E CAMP 100 NORTH SHORE DR N MAPLE PLAIN MT4 55359 36 D4-117-23 22 0011 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R S A M N OLSON ROBERT S A MARGARET N OLSON 5010 HILISBORO AVE N HPLS MN 55428 36 04-117-23 22 0014 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIG^JED IRHIN T GEFFRE ET AL CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 38 31-118-23 33 0004 04720 BAYSIDE RD B PFTER ACHEY ETAL MR B PETER ACHEY ROUTE 2 BOX 888 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 36 31-118-23 33 0012 00150 MCCULLEY RO MARCIA A 8Ar>IUM MARCIA A 8ARNUM 10544 PARKER DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 REPCXnr NO. PI435401 PAGE 434 01-117-24 14 000100205 CO RO NO 19 CHESTER H NORMAN A HIFE JEFFERY REISER 205 CO RO NO 19 MOUND MN 55344 36 04-117-23 22 0009 04445 BAYSIDE RO J J PFEIFFER A K J J J PFEIFFER A K J 4445 BAYSIDE RO 0RO40 MN 55344 PFEIFFER PFEIFFER I . • I -n 3a 06-U7-2S 22 0012 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIG»«0 ROBERr S OLSON ET AL CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY W 55559 r - I A I 38 04-117-23 23 0001 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIG^^D C A PASS ET AL TRUSTEES JEAN T ARMSTRONG 235 NORTH ARM LANE HOUND >94 55364 V.-•> . I I* J• •.' I ) 30 31-116-23 33 0007 06760 BAYSIDE RO L YOGERST A 0 DUNN D DLAM A L YOGERST 6760 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55559 36 51-110-25 35 0013 06680 BAYSIDE RD M D SLETTEN A H K SNETSINGER H 0 SLETTEN A M K SNETSINGER 6660 BAYSIDE RO MAPLE PLAIN m 55359 % I U.A mJN DATE 0S/25/H DATCH 502 HE»#«P1N COUNTY PROPERTY INPOIWATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OKNERS LIST REPORT NO. P1A35A01 PAGE 5PROP ADOR a«CR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 70 S6-11S-24 A4 000900007 MCCULLEY RD LARRY A SUSAN VENSEL LARRY A SUSAN VENSEL 07 HCCULLEY RO HAPLE PLAIN hM 55359 TOTAL PATCH 502 Q0Q19 4»: r V- • • C. s f •< (V,v x..-y 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORTUTION AS IT APPEARS THIS OF THE HErtlEPIN COUtfTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE 3^, IS DATE ON THE RECORDS » \ taxation, to the BEST^ ^ ma: •» •• ^ f SS - ftTt ♦ X.-• IS. _t. _ __ V‘ % a HILLOVVAY CORPORATION & GREENFIELD CORPORATION 3220 Hopkins Crossroads Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305 750 3220 April 26, 1996 Ms Jeanne Mabustli Building and Zoning Adininisliator Citv of Orono Post OfTicc Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 Dear Ms Mabusih, Enclosed is the pr:tnoinar> plat information for the subdivision located at the corner of County Road 84 and County Road 19. The ow nership of the parcel being subdivided is betw een Greenfield Corporation and Hilloway Corporation. The dale of the ownership clianged April 23. 1996. The property is being jointly developed by both corporations. Jeanne, please make note for your records the property was originally submitted for sketch plan review by Barnett Corporation. We have since closed on the property with the two corporations as named above and they w ill be doing the development. We want to thank you and the Planning Commission for your efforts in making this the best plat for the property while at the same time maintaining the City 's options for access to the adjoining property. Issues which were enumerated at the the meeting with the Planning Commission included: 1. A cul dc sac to scr\ c as many lots as possible. 2. Property to the cast access 3. Wetlands issues. 4. Septic setbacks. 5. Erosion control. We think that as a result of working w illt you and the City's consulting engineer that we have created a plan that addresses your concerns and the Planning Commission. Specifically: 1. The cul dc sac w ill scr\ e three of the six lots. 2. There w ill be a road graded by us which provides access to the Property to the east. It will be the responsibility of that property ow ner to construct Utc road at the time C al property is developed. 3. The wetlands have been delineated and arc shown on the attached plans 4. Because we know the location of tlic wetlands we were able to have the Percolation Tests completed. A report is attached. 5. There were concerns regarding the erosion associated w ith the grading of the roads. In speaking with the Citv's Engineer we have been able to solve the erosion within the graded but unfinished road by building dams with large diameter rock. Also, we can cut a shallow V into the rod to contain the path of the water. This was a difficult parcel of land to design. We do appreciate the efforts of the staff. Planning Commission and consulting engineer to address the issues involved. We look forw ard to seeing you at the meeting of May 20, 1996. Sincerely, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANMNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 18, 1996 fi SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (Schroedei left the meeting at this time.) (#10) #2119 BARNETT DIVISION CORPORATION AND HILLOWAY CORPORATION, 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - SUBDFVISION/SKETCH PLAN Mark Gronberg was present along with Lori Lundeen, representing Barnett Division Corporation, and Jim Pfennig, representing Hilloway Corporation. Mabusth reported that the sketch plan review involves a 17 acre parcel. The City panted preliminary approval of 2 lot division in 1988. At that time, one residential area was created with a 13 acre outlot set aside for future development. The subdivision was never finalized. The preliminary resolution provide guidelines for the future development of the 13 pli'.s acre outlot. The current proposal is for a 6 lot subdivision with a cul-de-sac located in the northeast comer serving lots 1,3, and 4. Lots 2 and 5 would each have a separate curt) cut at CoRd 19. Lot 6 was to continue to be served fi’om the existing driveway. Mabusth said the access for the lots was reviewed with Gustafson It was determined that the existing access for lot 6 was considered unsafe and suggested a shared driveway with lot 5. City guidelines had stipulated that an internal road should serve the majonty of the lots. Mabusth said she would like to see a redesign of the accesses with lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 served by an internal road. Mabusth continued that the proposal also involves wetland issues. There are designated wetlands on the property along with a wetland designated on the National Inventory Map in the northwest comer, which would be deducted from the total acreage. Mabusth said Staff would ask for wetland delineation. Type 1 and 2 wetlands are not deducted fi-om the acreage. Another issue concerns a recently completed lot line rearrangement with the Gefffe property to the east. The internal road should connea to western boundary of outlot C of Bayview Farms providing access for future development. Mabusth reported that septic testing was completed in 1988 for the existing residence. The alternate site tested did not meet the 75' setback fi-om designated wetland. The On- Site Septic Manager confirms signs of serious leaching fi-om the existing septic. Staff will require septic testing for a new principal drainfield site which must meet the 75* wetland separation. This may present a problem due to the additional right of way being dedicated for CoRd 19. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 18, 1996 (# 10 - #2119 Bamett/Hilloway Sketch Plan Review - Continued) Gronberg asked if the septic site be located in lot 5 if there w’ould be the need to meet the 200' setback for the frontage noting the IT taken from the lot for right-of-way. Mabusth said the Commission would need to decide if they would allow that variance. Gronberg agreed that the access was unsafe to that lot. Mabusth said there was also the issue of number of lots if the internal road was built. There is 8 acres on the north between lots 1-4. Gronberg said there would be a problem with the steepness of the slope on the east lot line, and it would require fill. Gustafson was informed that the road would be a private road built to City standards. Gustafson said the road would be allowed up to a 12% grade, though 10% would be preferred. Jim Pfennig of Hilloway was informed that a private road can be used by another homeowner through an underlying public easement. This would allow the adjacent land owners use but remain private. Mabusth said the costs involved in maintaining the road would be shared and could have an introductory fee but it would be decided with a private maintenance agreement resolved by property owners Pfennig was concerned that an internal road would destroy the look of the lots and would like an additional curb cut for lot 2. Smith said a shared driveway could be used. Mabusth noted that the County ma.y not approve an additional curb cut. Gustafson said there was good site distance, if kept far enough away from the intersection, but it would require following County jurisdiction. Mabusth asked if the internal road was possible and whether it could go beyond the Geffre property. Gustafson suggested putting together different options on what is or is not feasible in determining the road's location. Gustafson said the parcel does have the acceptable location for access road but questioned whether it was desirable to have aU of the lots achieve access from internal road. Irv Wackman was in the audience. Wackman said he has a purchase agreement to purchase the property to the east and is curious about the road situation. It is his iment to build one home at this time and has no current plans to subdivide. Peterson reviewed that the issues for the sketch plan pertained to septic sites, wetlands, and the roadway. Mabusth noted the limited area in the northern part of the parcel. Peterson and Smith said they would be willing to consider a lot width variance for an internal road. They were undecided on a variance if a backlot was created. Gronberg commented that with a cul-de-sac, parcels usually do not meet the 200' requirement and are routinely granted a variance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 18. 1996 (#10 - #2119 Bamett/Hilloway Sketch Plan Review - Continued) It was determined that there was possibly not enough area for 6 lots if lots 1 thru 4 were to be served by internal road. Mabusth noted that the slopes may also change the lot configurations. Berg said she has a problem with a single road. She would be in favor of the present configuration, which she noted was opposite of what is normally done. Berg said she would need to e.xplore this issue further and would like to receive input from the County. Lori Lundeen of Barnett asked what the purpose was for an internal road. Mabusth explained that the purpose was to reduce the number of curb cuts fi'om the county roadways. Mabusth also noted the desire, in this particular case, to tie into the property to the east. It was discussed whether a full road would be necessary or a driveway easement for the property to the cast. It was noted that the connecting property has the potential of 4 lots at 14-1/2 acres for future subdivisioa Gustafson added, if a roadway was not possible, a driveway easement should be requested. Mabusth said Staff would like the internal road but would also like to see acceptable lots. Gronberg added that the slopes were an issue. Pfenrug was concerned with erosion problems of 8% slopes. Gustafson said there was potential for erosion, and this would need to be reviewed in order to slow down the drainage. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Mabusth asked the Commissioners if they would like to consider having two meetings per month when agendas become lengthy. Peterson will canvas the Commissioners and report back to Mabusth. Mayor Callahan informed the Commissioners that Staff has advertised to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission and is awaiting a response. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20, 1996 MEETING Peterson moved. Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the February 20, 1996 Meeting of the Planning Commission. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. TO:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Planning and Zoning Administrator FROM:Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:Mays, 1996 SUBJECT: Subdivision Application #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Septic Review The applicant proposes a six lot subdivision requiring the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. Five of the lots are shown with new residences and two drainfield sites on each. The drainfield sites for lots one through five are all located on slopes of six percent or less as required by city ordinances. The alternate drainfield site on lot four lies fifty feet from a type two wetland, not located on the City or State wetland inventories. No setback is required from this type of wetland. Lx)t six, which includes the existing residence, is very limited for drainfield siting. The existing on site system was observed to be surfacing in 1993, was slightly surfacing in 1995 and is surfacing significantly now. The system has not been confirmed as meeting the three foot separation from the seasonal saturated zone and would likely not pass. Therefore, tw o drainfield sites are required for this lot. Two drainfield sites have been identified north of the existing residence. The primary site lies on slopes of six percent, but the future site requires a variance for slopes up to eight percent. The primary site will also require a variance to be located 60' from the well. Both sites meet all the State standards for slopes and well setbacks. The sites also meet the required 75' setback to the wetland. In summary, all six lots have suitable drainfield sites for on-site systems, but lot six will require a staff variance for slopes of up to eight percent and a well setback of 60 ’. Staff is willing to approve the variances since all State standards are met and the City standards will not be significantly compromised. Bonestroo & Assoc.636 1311 05/14 '96 07:30 NO.424 01/02 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates til • § 11 ft't i\ #i« i<i. ii'i/t .% tr «.'•« i •» If #» .r I litf'w* • • 1*1 »m V ii* ► Nny* ^ i*» • :</I)! 11 t“. 'wl'iii n »i* • I. iiy A h>$ •III.!.. t| 4/ J". 'Mil \i,. M ►rw»liM I »*A >t* m.u v’i </».</• **<»vV »«1 J.Ml I' A • y»tr>t ’ W f'l . « I *. «■ ff l<.'l*« r* •(•tk*! I. A *••!•)><'* "I Vl»t» 'f' * P .ni»n *t* ) • l. 1 » » . •'I *' Hli »f’.lI Voi VN • Wm./*'II Wi Engineers & Architects May l.V 199ft A'4 Ms. Jeanne A. Mahu^th. Building and Zoning Administrator Ciiy of Omni) Post Office Box 66 Crystal Riiy, Minnesota 55.*^23 Hilluway Corpt>ration Flic No/139-2136 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the preliminary plat and road plan for the prop<iseJ s*a lot subdivision to be developed by Hilloway Corporation The sire is located east of North Shore Drive (CSAH I9) and south of Bayside Road (C.R H4) m the nonhwest quarter i>t Section 6. Wc have the follow ing comments m regaids to engineering inallers. 1.Access: The access locations for lots 2, 5 and 6 onto North Shore Drive should be shown on the plan. Wc recommend that Lots 5 and 6 have i>ne shared driveway located near the common lot line. Tlie road plan and typical section tor the private street on Outloi B are acceptable Tlic sulHlivisn>n plan should be submitted to Hennepin County for their review and comment 2.Grading: The grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared for the pond and road construction is appropriate. Tlic erosion contiol measures should be in place piior to any grading. Additional crtision control will be needed during construction of the houses and septic systems. The wetlands have been delineated and shown on the plan. 3. Drainage: Driveway culverts should be sliown on the plan as needed. There should be a drainage easement over the drainagcway on Lot I from the cul-dc-sae to the sedimentation pond The drainage and ponding calculations are acceptable. The plan should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their approval. 4.Easements: Drainage and utility easements sliould be shown on the plat five feet wide along all interior lot lines and ten feet wide along the existing and proposed roadwa> nght-i»f-ways. Drainage easemcnis sht'uld be provided across the drainagcway and wetland areas The drainage easement for the wetland on l.of 4 should he extended mcne i>r less to meet Outkn B. This area may be needed as part of a future .sedimentation ptmd w hen the road is constructed ovci Outlot B Hennepin Ci^unty should determine if additional right-of-way is needed for cither North Shore Drive or Bayside Road. Financial Guarantee: The developer’s engineer should prepare a cost estimate of the total site improvements tor our review Ba.sed on that information we will determine the amount of the financial guarantee required Please cimtact me ai this office if you have anv questions regarding this matter Yours verv irulv. BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Shawn D Gu.stafst'n, P E C? 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55I!3*3898 ■ 612-636*4600 I Hennepin County JL An Equal Opponunity Employer * In V.\JniiOf T fi^'? May 13, 1996 Jeanne A. Mabu^th Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono ; P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 II RE: Proposed Plat - Hilloway Corporation j CSAH 19/84, Southwest Quadrant Section 6, Township 117, Range 23 ! Hennepin Cdunty Plat No. 2319 Review and iRecomroendations 4 I; Dear Ms. Mabusth: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys;, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat -and make the following commentsi- -- - - - v . .. I • CSAH 19, along the proposed plat, is identified in the Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan, as a full accommodation!bikeway. That Is, there should'be both on and off-road bikeways for bikers of all ages and abilities aliong CSAH 19. • In order to accommodate bicycles and to continue to have an economical, rural section to the roadway, there needs to be 60 feet of right of way along CSAH 19 in the north 550 feet of the plat. As shown on the attached drawing from the County’s Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan, the 60 f68t can be provide'^, with a dedication of 50 feetjof shown on the plat plus 10 foot easement. | • Because of the narrowness of Lots 5 and 6, the county is willing to plan for a more expensive suburban section which requires;less right of way. In order to laccommodate both on and off road use, as'shown attached tydical section, the developer should dedic^e an additional 7 feet of right of way, resulting in 40 feet of right of way from and along the CSAH 19 icenterline, plus a 6 foot easement along'the right of way. This 46 feet should provide sufficient width for road, bikeway, and Lot developmenti . Department of Public Works I— I 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343>"8496 ' ’ .;.. ' (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 TDD:(6l2)930-2696 Rfrjdei Fsftr .1.___ { cO'd 0Ti02:,r6 Oi SMdon Dnand aid uodd 966T-ri-AHw Jeanne Mabusth May 13, 1996 Page 2 ! •* Along CSAH si, the developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way[for a total of 40 feet from and along the centerline of CSAH 64. The proposed access for Lots 1, 3. and 4 from CSAH 84 via an entrance is acceptable. A shared access for Lots 5 and 6, from CSAH 19, located on the property line, between Lots 5 and 6, Is acceptable. The existing access on Lot 6 must be removed. • All proposed.construction within County right of way requires an approved Hennepin Couhty permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access, drainage, utility construction, trail development,I and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 "tofor the apprjjpriate permit forms • The developeir* must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed duping construction. : Please direct iny response to Doug Mattson. Sincerely, Thomas 0. Jonnmson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer T0J/08M Attachment M:\»lATS\MIUeVM - -I £0 ’d 0tS0lc.<lir6 S>ldOn Dinaod aid NN3H UOdd t-Z:U 966T-rT-AHN . ... im .: * { p I IT] • • «I >.• «tf<*» > •2 UNE SUBURBANANOMMIUNt: WttWWMI—MWBMtl nOUMNIDUMIt i !•«»: «IHINI •l.i } . COMPATIBLE ROADWAY - -f----------- CtH^T TvncM. •..'vf ; >» — . *..•. moLtimm. HnniBniHmm AMD fwnmmon mmrnum /lint OH) /? by • ■ I.P 40‘ m EASEMENT UNE LME r FUU ACCOMli $ ■f « I l-M^ 4. t■■•. f • n tA- DMVMtUNC limm ©la/aFu ’ t/1«M ■««Im4S/4/W f f IKKt \ NULIMIMPAlM^fflr“\_«._y sssa itMimomMu niHifitc raURIM «A *« • •; ;. . t *. . ‘ ^ f • f •»«4# 1 t I • ) • \ A • 4 ’ I * • •• *4 • »uI •• o H O i •-» Q T) CO. RD.* NO. 19 (NORTH SHORE DRIVE W.) f • m i • » i; I I' J .4 f U_ V - S INVENTORY OF THE INTERIOR I'\r rj^^FPoc 1) FOPclpiwc^Tp^ *W-TisS: A - ■..PEWC- . fgc; & •*kMf X f , 1''-- FtMA I V.y • L?ua6* me PtMCd'T^ PEMW PfMT ^PfOlCi Fuec.-^ I PEMC--^ j, ' PU06 PEMC4 \f^ ■ •-fr;>r !% R£WCd PU5G. ; PSS'C^c^^ : _ _=^ *'■ I PCMGJ PfOKi:^=-^ /7—^ K1C2 I 1 \ p WETLANDS DELINEATION DOCUMENTATION FOR JIM PENNING, PROJECT IN ORONO, MN 0 John Anderson, WETLANDS DATA, Minneapolis, MN delineated and documented wetlands boundaries on the subject property on April 18th and 19th, 1996 at the request of Jim Penning This report provides information as to the dominant wetland characteristics at the site as result of the investigation. The parameters of the wetland/upland boundaries are provided in each delineation report form as this information is redundant below. Please review documentation of these findings (referenced in report and site plan), A sketch of the staked wetland boundaries is included in the report. LOCATION W1/2, NW1/4, NW1/4 Section 6 Til7, R23 Hennepin County, Minnesota METHODOLOGY Wetlands were identified and delineated using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (U S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) Revisions to the former method have been proposed by the U S Environmental Protection Agency and are currently under review. Pending the adoption of these revisions, the U.S. army Corps of Engineers is applying the 1987 Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual. The wetland and/or deep water habitat were classified according to the methodologies set forth in Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39. Shaw and Fredine. 1971) and Classification of Wetlands and Deep water Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31. Cowardin et. al.1979). CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS INVESTIGATED Transect A,#l This is a Type Six (PSSIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Box Elder (FACW), Pussy Willow (FACW), Sandbar Willow (OBL) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Black Willow (OBL) is less common Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as soil is saturated. Transect A,#ll This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Sandbar Willow (OBL) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is saturated. <0 Transect A,#111 This is a Type Two (PEM1 Bd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Sandbar Willow (OBL), Green Ash (FACW), Reed Canary Grass (FACW+), Tall Goldenrod (FACU) and Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is saturated. Transect A,#IV This is a non- wetland checksite. Dominant species are Reed Canary Grass {FACW+), Tall Goldenrod (FACU) and Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-). Soils are Kilkenny, a non wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect A,#V This is a non- wetland checksite. Dominant species are American Elm (FACW-) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect B.#l This is a Type Six (PSSIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Sandbar Willow (OBL) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Pennsylvania Smartweed (FACW+) is less common. Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as soil is saturated. Transect B,#ll This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Sandbar Willow (OBL) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is saturated. Transect 3.#lll This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Box Elder (FACW) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is saturated Transect B,#IV This is a non- wetland checksite. Dominant species are Box Elder (FACW) American Elm (FACW-) Reed Canary Grass (FACW+) and Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-). Smooth Sumac (UPL) is less common. Soils are Kilkenny, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect B.#V This is a non- wetland checksite. Dominant species are Box Elder (FACW), American Elm (FACW-), Green Ash (FACW) Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-), Tall Goldenrod (FACU) and Moss. Soils are Kilkenny, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect C.#l This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetlarKl checksite. Dominant species are Box Elder (FACW) ar^ Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. as soil is saturated. Transect C,#11 This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Reed Canary Grass (FACW+) and Tall Goldenrod (FACU). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is saturated. Transect C,#l 11 This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-), tall Goldenrod (FACU) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Coroova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Site has been effectively drained by a surface drainage ditch. Transect C.flV This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-), Tall Goldenrod (FACU) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Site has been effectively drained by surface drainage ditch. Checksite D This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species is Reed Canary Grass (FACW-i-). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect E.#l This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as soil is saturated. Transect E,#ll This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. Site is saturated. Transect E.#lll This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded or saturated. Site has been effectively drained by surface drainage ditch. i Transect E.#IV This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded or saturated. Site has been effectively drained by surface drainage ditch. Transect F,#l This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Peaty Muck, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as soil is saturated. Transect F.#ll This is a Type Two (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Red Ozier Dogwood (FACW) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Peaty Muck, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. Site is saturated. Transect FJIII This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Red Ozier Dogwood (FACW), Green Ash (FACW), Reed Canary Grass (FACW+) and Kentucky Blue Grass (FAC-). Smooth Sumac (UPL) is less common. Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded or saturated. Site has been effectively drained by surface drainage ditch. Transect FJIV This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Smooth Sumac (UPL), Green Ash (FACW), and Kentucky Blue Grass (FAC-). Common Buckthorn (FAC-) is less common. Soils are Kilkenny, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded or saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. LIMITATIONS OF WETLAND ASSESSMENT My opinions, conclusions and recommendations were based in part on information 1 obtained and evaluated from current sources including state and federal agencies, verification of the authenticity or accuracy of this information is not warranted and is not included in the scope of my services. Wetlands delineated under winter conditions may not be accurate and should be reinvestigated during the growing season. I appreciate this opportunity to present this analysis Sincerely, ®0«vc, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION X 0 199s DATE: ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Asst. Planning &, Zonine Admin Administrator Reviewed:atKevi Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Request for City Sewer. John Maresh. 1095 N. Brow n Rd./2085 Sixth Ave. N. Attachments: A - Letter from Mr. Maresh B - Plat Map/Survey C - Municipal Sewer Preliminar\' Layout Mr. Maresh has a non-conforming failing septic system which is scheduled to be replaced as soon as ground conditions permit. As a possible alternative, he is requesting that the City include his properties in any sewer project that goes forward to serve the Long Lake Country Club area. The properties consist of a vacant 2-acre lot at 1090 North Brown Road and the Maresh's 2.5-acre homestead parcel at 2085 Sixth. Both parcels are outside the area proposed for inclusion in the MUSA, but could conceivably use two of the 50 undefined sewer units we have requested of Met Council. A potential obstacle, however, is that those 50 extra units were intended to solve existing problems, not to serve new development. A few other developed properties along Brown Road North are also likely to make this request for sewer. While it might seem incongruous to bring sewer to these two 2-acre lots which were subdivided (and septic testing performed and accepted) as recently as 1988, Maresh indicates his site evaluator is skeptical that more than one suitable drainfield site exists on each lot. It would be appropriate for staff to meet with the site evaluator for confirmation of this if the Council w'ishes to consider the properties for possible future sewer. Note that only minor revisions to the preliminary design of the sewer in Lakeview' Terrace would be necessary in order to provide seivice to Maresh ’s properties. The vacant lot would need to be encumbered with rn easement to seive the homestead lot. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: If Council wishes to consider whether these properties should be provided w ith sewer, direct staff to meet with the property owner and his consultants to document the need for an alternative to the use of septic systems. City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minn. 55323 i e consideration of sewer connection for properties of 1090 Brown Rd. North and 2085 County Road Six . Orono. Minn. Dear City Officials. My septic system requires replacement. I have signed a contract to have a new system built and would have already done so except that the area is to water saturated to enter into constructton. I have recently heard that a plan to extend the city sewer system north on brown road and into the Country Club area and Dakota Ave I am requesting to have both of the above named properties to be included in this project for the reasons listed : 1. When S & P Testing walked my properties to search for a septic site, they found one site only on my 2.8 acres that would barely meet code Some portions of this site do not meet the requirement of 12 inches of good soil below the septic. 1 was told that all the rest of my land has water right near the surface or that because of heavy truck traffic when my property was a tree farm, that the soil is 'much to compacted’ to place a septic over it With this as a starting point, it is a given that this mound system is doomed to fail. I was told a range of 8 to 15 years When this new system fails, another site for a new system does not exist 2. The site found to be acceptable exists in the middle of very dense, beautiful tree growth. Because this was an old tree farm, many old. tall arborvitae, pine, and birch trees exist here. There arei^ 100 or more trees that would need to be cleared and hauled off leaving a large void amongst the other trees. Besides the anguish of loosing so many old trees, there is the great additional cost of cutting and removing these trees. They would need to be cut and chain dragged out of the site because the area cannot be driven on or the soil would be compacted making the site wortNess. I cannot have any of the tress moved to a new site for the same reason. The only option is to destroy natures beautiful growth. Because of the size of these trees and the dense nature of there growth, There removal adds thousands to the cost of the new system. 3. The lot next to brown road had only one site found to meet the criteria for a mound system also. The problem with this site is that it is directly over the only suitable building site for a house. This makes the new lot essentially worthless unless it had access to city sewer 4. The cost of this septic system has grown to be between $13,000 to $16000 depending on the final tree removal bill. To spend this amount of money on a project that adds zero value to my house is unfortunate, especially with the knowledge that at some point while I am living here that I will be required to spend even more to hook up to dty sewer. Because of the circumstances, it seems prudent and wise to become part of the city sewer now and not have to pay double jeopardy. The timing is perfect If not one year to late. I hope this adequately describes my dilemma. My properties are available for a — 5 tour of the sites which wouid present a better incite to what I have described. My intention is to live in our present home another 12-15 years. I do not interxl to self the lot until dose to the time that I sell my own home. If you have any questions or comments concerning this matter, please call me at either my home 475-3197, or office 475-0989 Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely. 2085 County Road Six Orono, Mn. 55356 TRINITY ENG EVAN LUTH (2) IC NO S45S4«: • ••••• • • • • • 66. M rJI.31 3 LAKEV luTsns 4-50 410.77 • • ✓ I___S__^^IIAJLT o \7 / ► 9 - LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ORONO, MINNESOTA 8 jdi mif 3^^If ^ 15 f 11 or li ^ 10 o IJo 1 ? I^ORTH BROWN IRD.CONNECT EXISTING GRAVITY SEVtER FORCEMAIN GRAVITY SEWER UFT STmTION GRINDER PUMP 200 Scol« in fe«t 1* 1 FIGURE 9 Bontilroo Ro««n« Andtrllk A AaaodalM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION j o 0 J99s ^^Qg._ DATE: June 7, ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: 1995. 1996 Marina Licenses - Lakeside Marina List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E • Exhibit F ■ Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K • Exhibit L - Exhibit M 1996 License Application and Attachments 1995 License Application and Attachments Site Operation Plan 1996 LMCD License Letter to Applicant 6-5-96 re: Crystal Bay Dock Letter to Applicant 5-14-96 re: Follow-up to 5-9-96 Discussions Letter to Marina Manager 5-3-96 Letter to Applicant 2-2-96 re: Licensing and CUP Requirements Letter to Applicant 6-16-95 re: Zoning/Rezoning, CUP Requirements, Licensing Requirements, Styrofoam Conversion Letter to Applicant 3-28-95 re: Licensing and CUP Letter to Applicant 2-3-95 re: Licensing and Ordinance Revisions Seven Operation Standards Incomplete CUP Application Submitted 5-31-96 Discussion Since Council's last meeting Mr. Dunn was advised to apply for Lakeside's 1996 license immediately, which he did without staff having to resort to legal action. The application was submitted with the appropriate $200 fee and $100 late fee, in addition to a current certificate of insurance. Mr. Dunn has confirmed that the site operation plan on file (Exhibit C) is still current. Please note that Lakeside’s 1995 license application was received on time but incomplete (lacking certificate of insurance and confirmation of site operation plan). The lacking items were received in June 1995, shortly after Council reviewed the other Orono marina licenses and indicated no license would be issued to marinas out of compliance with the styrofoam flotation ban. Consequently. Lakeside’s 1995 licen.se was never submitted for Council review, although Lakeside did complete the conversion in September or October of 1995. The application forms submitted for 1995-96 are rather sparse in regards to supplying requested information on numbers of boats at the site for various purposes, as well as parking information. Staff has provided numbers from past Lakeside applications for Council comparison (See Exhibits A&B). Lakeside Marina June?, 1996 '■* Page 2 Regarding compliance with the seven operation standards (Exhibit L) established by ordinance with which each licensee must comply. Lakeside generally has remained in compliance. Those items which require ongoing attention by the marina operator in order to remain in compliance include managing parking in order to avoid congestion on the site, management of boat storage to avoid causing view obstructions for traffic entering and leaving the site, and limiting storage to those locations shown on the site operation plan. It was noted to the applicant that winter storage has never been allowed in the lakeshore yard along the shoreline, but many boats were stored right up to the waters edge last w inter, which is not allowed. Applicant suggested this has alwa>s occurred, but airphotos on file from April 1992 and November 1993 indicate to the contrary. Recent/Future Activity The City on May 31 placed a Stop-Work Order on docks Lakeside has floated out onto the Crystal Bay side of the marina property (See Exhibit E). Mr. Dunn recently indicated that absent his ability to acquire and rezone the Straley property for commercial u.se, he intends to proceed w ith construction of a major addition to the existing marina buildings this year. We have been receiving calls from an architect regarding setbacks, hardcover, etc. for an addition to Lakeside, hence this proposal may come before the Council yet this year. A Commercial Site Plan Review' w ill be required, and it is likely a number of variances will be needed. Lakeside's 1995and 1996 license applications indicate that each of the five activities requiring a CUP under the 1995 B-2 Code revisions, are or will be occurring on the site. An incomplete CUP application with $3(X) fee was submitted by Mr. Dunn on May 31. Staff is preparing a letter to the applicant detailing the necessary submittals to make the application complete, although I have discussed this with Mr. Dunn on 2 or 3 occasions to date. Per Council's direction of May 28, applicant will be given a reasonable but short timeframe to make the application complete, or we will commence legal action. I have kept in touch with Greg Nybeck of the LMCD regarding Lakeside Marina on a regular basis this spring. We are attempting to coordinate our efforts where appropriate in order to maintain a higher regulatory profile with Lakeside. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Lakeside be issued licenses for 1995 and 1996, and that Lakeside is to be monitored by staff as often as necessary regarding adherence to the seven Minimum Operation Standards. 1 Lakeside Marina June 7. 1996 Page 3 Proposed Motion: Moved by ____, seconded by ____, to approve the issuance of a 1996 Commercial Marina License for the period January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996 to Lakeside Marina, Inc., and to retroactively issue a 1995 Commercial Marina License to Lakeside for the period January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995. Further, staff is directed to monitor Lakeside’s operation as necessary regarding adherence to the seven Minimum Operation Standards. Vote:___ayes,___ nays. ® 6037956809 LYNDAAJIHMDUNN 05^29''96 15:54 P02 4--1 Liccn'ic Year CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Phone 473-7357 Dale application sent to Marina Date application returned to City /iNNLlAI, COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION • Pursuant to Orooo Municipal Code Section 5.43. Subdivision 2 - Licensed. Retired. It is unlawful for any persons to engage or participate in business use without tirsi having obtained a license tlierefor from the City. plF-ase complete all items and submit signed application , required ATTACKMENTS. AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY MARCH I OF THE LICENSE YEAR. BUSINESS INFORMATION 1. BUSINESS OR TR.\13F. NAME , J CnC ■----------------- 2 3. Street Address_j|£j5rC74iV^^i *^2 —^39/ Mailing .Address_^^anie— Q.T\ --------------------------------------------------- Marina Phone /<^>/:? J V 7/-Office Phone -----AJ / —------------- OWNERSHIP/OPERATION Fee Owner (if different than ubt>ve) ^ O — -------------- Afldress Of lilt.----- -------------------------------------------- Phone (6',/j) f/7/ ~ ^^Oio . ____________________________________________ BUSINESS ORGANIZATION: (Check applicable item) ____ individual ownership _____ partnership ——corporation List the name of each partner or corporate officer and their title: ______6J / ___________________________________ Name of the marina manager respon.viblc tor daily operation; _________c ~ C) ui At-£ ft.-------------■ — --------- List the minimum number of employees on duty when the marina is open to the public during the boating seo-son: _____ dock attendants ____ repair or service personnel _____ others available for sale.s/pubhc information, etc. y ^ OOM /V/sr^ ®Se //t.7 Pago 1 of 5 r e037959SS9 LYNDAAJ1HMDUNN 05^29^96 15 55 P03 the ^rupiint 0 noted above: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------—^ tha^ 4.PRINCTPAl. BUSINESS ACTlvrrY (Check all services offered): ' Pfi^cipal UsgS in-waier slip rental sales of boats/moiors/trailers/ rnanne accessories boat repair and servicing on-land boat storage ___ winter ___ summer marine fuel sales i:alc of bail and fishing tackle Condlilor^tl Uses (Conditi onaLlISS Perrnlf Is Required) boat club public boat launching, on-dernand public boat launching, transient charter boat porl-of-call caretaker dwelling unit Acceitsorv Usta head pumpout fishing toumameni site sale of prc-packrtgcd food dive shop _____ clubhouse (for slip or boat club customers) lessons/tcaebing boat rental sailboard sales/rental _____iceboat salcs/rcntal ice fishing tackle sales cross-counuy ski salc/rental 5.BUSINESS SCHF.nul.F. (Check appropriate items): y all _____ open during boating season only List proposed hours of operation: dtick access _ _>retail sales •, ^ jjcrvicc _ MARTNA SECURrrY K provided by: — L. jS. AM to __ AM to „ rt 1 PM PM caretaker living on site?---------Lej. . -e e‘4-. 1 S. lfe.-f-erv> “JL-Jura-^—«---------------- SIJB»-A>» BOAT ceeory E»ch slip, moorin* or other .pave ii:;airy%r;™pr^ «“or'^o:^^ n.os. h. r,.d,cared .«<. n„n,hcred on the dock and i»ite plan submitted with this appbeation Owned 7. BOATS STORED IN THE WATER (for lake use) a. At dock slips --------- Total Boats in Water --------- Rental llnatjb Remat Slips/ Other Spaces TotA» BOAt« ? O 'I 5 4iiL. Page 2 of 5 -y-7 LYNI'AAJ I MnDUNN 05^29/96 15-55 PO-1 8. 9. boats stored on land for lake use a. Inside Building-; b. Outside on Racks c. Outside - other means _____ Total Boats Stored on F^ind for Lake L^se TOTAL BOATS FOR LAKE USE (Adr^ 7 and 8l cwP •Acra. OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (SUMMER) a.Transient boats (repair/servicc) b.New boats for sale (inventory) c.Used boats for sale (inventory') d.Other (list;) Total Inside Building Outside Ruikling —(^JlO-nc^e z> OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (WINTER) a. Transient boats (repair/service) b. Contract storage (customer’s boats) c. Invcntor>- (new & used boats) d Other (list; _____________________) Total Total Inside Building Outside Building ,1^000 OFF»STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS 12. SUMMER PARKING ^ a. Retail salcs/seivice customer^ __ 8 spaces minimum (+1 per each 800 s.f. over 1.00() s.f.) * Boating cuslomeri 6 spaces per 10 boats fur lake use (.6 x___(lii e 9)] = Launching ramp customers (day u\e) 10 spacc.s minimum per ramp = Charter boat pmi-of-call 1 space per each 3 seats of gross charier boat capacity Igro.ss charter capacity x 0.33] = e. Total spaces required (add a, b. c. & d) Total spaces available per attached parking plan 13. WINTER PARKING REQUIRED a. 0.20 X (line 12e) b c. d y Total fipaces spaces spaces Spaces -----------------3 of 5^--------------— c,(^ SPACES ,^i^n-AAL^ - A . A I /_ Cv/f^ TO P< ® 6037956669 LYNf'AAJIHMDUNN 05/'29/'96 15-56 P05 DOCK CONSTRUCTION 14.CHECK ALL THAT APPLY; Permanent _____ Seasonal De icing normally used Pilings; _i Decking; . J Wood W'ood Rotation M thod (if ’.ised): LICENSF STANDARDS ADVISORY C-oncrete Metal Foam Metal Other 2s:Other Barrels k Other Businesses required to be licensed under Section 5.43 shall be subject to the requirements and performance standards of the B-2 Zoning District and per the follovving bu.sine.ss use lice^.^e standards; A. Insurance Required. Each business shall provide ccnification of liability insurance covert'ge for the duration of the lieen.se period. ^ T (L a B. C. Licenseholder. The primary business operator on the property shall be the licenseholder, and shall be responsible for notifying the City of any lUid all businesses subleased on the premises. Such .secondary busines.ses shall not be separately licensed but shall be allowed only when in conformance with the provisions of the B-2 zoning district standaid-s Operation Standards. Each business licensee shall adhere to the follow-ing inininuiin operation standards; 1) Parking facilities on the site shall be managed so as to eliminate traffic or parking congestion, eliminate illegal on-street parking, and avoid pcdcsliian traffic through neighboring properly. 2)Boat engine testing and charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to (i;00 p.m. 3)Retail sales and service shall be limited to the hours 7:00 a m. to 10:00 p.m. except as ncecss.try to accoinniodute noiinul fishing activity or private use ot premises stored boats 4) 5) The site shall be kept neat and orderly, ar.d free ot garbage. On land storage of boats shall be managed .st) a.s to eliminate any view- obstructions for traffic entering and leaving the site. Parking and on-land storage of boats, trailers, materials and equipment shall bo limited to those locations shown on an approved .site operation plan, which plan shall be submitted or updated as part of the annual bccnsc application. Such site operation plan shall also indicate seasonally variable uses. 7) Lights shall be shielded from the road, the lake, and adjacent piopertie.s. Page 4 of 5 603795SdS9 LYN['AAJ IMMDUNN 05/29^96 15-56 P06 Business Use Licenses Limited to B-2 Zone. No business use shall be licensed in any zoning di:^trict other than B-2, except that when a business use is allowed by ordinance in anothci zoning district, such use conducted in said district shall not be required to obtain a license. License Revocation. Failure to adhere to the above business use license standards shall be cause for license suspension or revocation per the provisions of this chapter. ATI ACHNTF.NT.S The following must accompany this application I. CERTIFICATE OF SLiRVEY/SITE PLAN/PARKING PLAN indicating the boundaries ot the marina property and the authorized dock use urea, the location of all structures, storage aicas, clocks, slips, buoys, launching ramp.s, ga.s pumps and tanks, parking areas, access areas, fencing and landscaping features 'Ihc drawing shall be updated each year to show- all existtng facilities, all changes from the previous season, and any changes proposed for the duration of the current application The drawing shall also indicate the locations of winter storage and required winter parking spaces. 2 CERTIFIGATE of liability A ssurance coverage for the duration of the license period. • • 3. Copy of your LMCD LICENSE .APPLICATION. 4. COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION FEE u<.w^tumg to the current City fee schedule. Initial Application (ff' $300.00 S________ Renewal Application ® $200.00 $ £iOO>OGt Late Fee (if not postmarked by March 1) $100.00 total due this application $ J2^0.o^ REVIEW_PR0CEDURE When a complete application is received, the City Council will review the license application and will thereafter pass upon the application per the licensing proccdure.s of Chapter 5. THE MARINA MAY OPEN FOR PUBLIC U.SE ONLY UPON .APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE pv THE CITY COUNCR. Pur.suant to Section 5 43 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Marina License application, and agrees and authorizes the City ol Oiono and the City's de.signatod employees or agents to enter upon the marina property at any reasonauiC time to perform safety and_^e compliance inspections. Authorized Signature _ Title Pfiz^i‘dgf\4: Relationship to Owner __Date P /fC _ Page 5 of 5 L. 05 a.3o.-96 11:12 ©612 922 1006 NSIA. INC.I2l 0001 0002 NSIA, Inc. 6600 France .Avenue South, Suite 414 Edina. .%f.\ 554S5 Fax Cover Sheet DATE:May 30.1996 TIME:11 :07 AM TO;Mike Gaffron PHONE: Planning & Zoning FAX:473-0510 FROM:Chris Purdy PHONE:612-922-1005 NSIA PAX:612-922-1006 RE:Certificate for Lakeside Marina Number of pages including cover sheet: 2 Message Dear Mike: Let me know if this is what vou are looking for. If you should have any quesrioo?, pleo5e feel free to contaci me. 05 in.96 11:12 0612 922 liM>6 NSIA. INC.®0002. 0002 • A4M»R».“liaut'DATf? ‘ * ^FfWOU»* os/aoM NSIA, me nOO ffwat A m SouBt Sui»4U IMS CEHTFlCATt IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OA MAORMATION ONLY AN6"“ CONFERS NO RIGHTS UAOM 7MB CWnFICATE HOLDER. THB CWTinCATl DOES NOT AMBfl}, BOB® OR ALTER DIE COVERAQi AFFORDED BY IME MN 5S43S COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE cc-vftflfcv l£TTE*Gftti AiRiteA tmiirms • ifei B Lal»sma Mtftrii PfopirQ» 3324 Noitti Short OriM czuPAia LCTTC^ ^ WayzaU MN S5391 ^ D TTMPAV THI6 IS TO cenurv TI^AT the POtJCiES cr iNSUrwAr^CE LISTZD BQOW have been IGCUEO to the IHGLIRED named 'ABOvS*ro«‘the INCMCATfO. NOT'A'lTH$TANOlNG ANY REC-LlREME^r T?«M C» COND iT-CN ANY CC^^TRACT 0« QTN£R COCUMENT WITH REiFECT TO ArUCH THIS Ct^TitiCATI MAY »t i$SE.'tO CN MAV P^WfAm. Tnf K$CtAf.:| I*" th I K\JZt% CfSCPJEO KEftE'N i3 Sc B jECT TO Aa Th£ TEFA4S EXCUJSiOrfi A-NO COfCJTCNS Cf SL’CH PC-UQES L-MJS S«CWN ^!Ar HAVE BEEN ROUGED BY PAiD CLA;|y!S >•. . .L, *. •»■ - * .f ^ CO LT«TYPE OF NSUUICf POUev NIPMSP WljCY ffftarVE FCUCY OTilATlOM OATF iMktC iW) OATt iMMOOVy,miTTS GENsnAi. UAMjry PAC70600d604 07.1 M3 07/16M 0C‘‘C^4c a <*,cv ^CO at ^ X , CC-Mfc«RCi4. UtiafTY PtOCUCrSCTMFOP A<KS . lAAtc occuft ’w-CKS 4 COf«T?VCrnR?>^ « PfPSC'w. I ov ircu«r' EACH 0:CURREKCC ^..1 I I 11 » • It»11 111 » I I I 111 • damage lA^r Oft# !V»|f MPO 'Vy .'♦y ;S 50000 “ s55o MnotiQBiU UAfliurr A»/r ai TO KX <7HSiD A'.TCS mC mcculid Ajros ACT04 r;"f-svrcu AOTCS «lAPAfj! L-iBUT v CONHNEO Slf^LC Liwrr ^!:iLY IHJL^ (=« pfT,onl *A** 0pm*m \% KiZlVi l‘4iUftY (*« PROPSArr oa »jage ‘1 EXCESS LiAftUTY UMBACUA C'TWEP Tnan UMbREliA FiX\M ! Ea />i OCCUP»ENCf WORKERS COHrettATION AND eMPtOYOl^ UAMJTY OI>CR OeSORiFTON OP Of^riONM.CCAT)CHS7V&«a£S/SFeCUU. rTEMS GERDHGATC flOLOEB* Cdy ofOrono Plwnng A Zoning CANCEUATION ■“^OULD A.NY OF’T^El®bVE‘OE&W860'PSuCTES BE”CWJCJfiiT5~^F5fS“THf EX.RRATICIN DATE TMfcHfcOE. THE tS«>oiN(i CCMP*f4Y WILL EHOEAVUR 10 luiL__312. days wiroten nct .ce to the CEBTincATe hclcer named to the LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO CAUGATON OR UA3:ur< OF AW KKD UFON THE CCVPANY. fTS AGOTTS OR REPRESEMTATr/ES AimcnczH) RBwsanATivE MldTMt B mI(0 V mm . JL.%^«» ----lT/rooroT»RroRATlbTn55b'‘^r --------------- USH tm‘. A'i City of Orono P.O. Box tt Crystal Bay. W SS323 (612)473-7357 06/03/96 09:15:36 LIC06E - OnCR BUS. 1 I 300.00 300.00 UKESIDE DOCK LIC 20(H100 lata 1 B 0.00 SUBTOTAL TAX TOTAL SALE RECEIVe CHANCE CLEAKt 03 TRANSI 1673 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 300.00 0.00 —^ 6-/ CITY OF ORONO License Year P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Phone 473-7357 Tax a 13-3 S7 Da« applicauoo sen. <o Marina Da,aapp.icadoarcmm«l.oCio.ja I A»fge? a license therefor from the City. / /: icensc therefor froni the Citj. roRuiSV 28 OF THE UCENSE YEAR. nllgTS-FAS ESTQgMATlQy ~ ^ Pl^o , business OR TRADE Snee. Address b 3 _I^1Q-Sj onr« Mailing Address S Qjcr\^---^—G^QSl±Qt. 2. [Vl2Liilii3 ^ —r ' - -—--------------- MarinaPhonelfe\^;L2iaV2U^.^Of''.cePhone. OWNERSHIP/OPERATION iolA Fee Owner (if different than above) —----21—Ci_u-£in Address ^ . o. csrT-'CL_SVAa2a^-£^^----------- Phone A~g- OLk^Jg 3. Lift w:** U»>WtV rnouc i --------------------- — business ORGANIZATION: (Check applicable item) individual ownership ------ partnership corporation . ' ^*1 w .*• .• Lis. the name of each pattiar or corporate officer and their mle: M ItA------------------------------------------------------- f W •* vru«’. - • ^ . V • vv* «. V V « W .... - ,r;]i > • ^«» t * •■ i, * ..’ftclA l » f U Lvv* Name of the marina manager responsible for daily opcrahcn: ^r». i^exog S~rroi: „,dnitnnm number of employees on duty when die matuta is open to Ute puhUc during the boai’ng season: dock attendants ____ repair or service personnel others avaUable for sales/public information, cv. llo- \6-aw0 - CJKcL/r^gfi'S J Pace 1 of 5 ■- 7**7"'*.♦ .1 • * ** .^W .*.* W • * *0^ * Un evety short or long torm>sin«roccupanroftl». noted above: imOA CJ-^& other than the Business . IJ CCIPAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY (Check aU services offered): Accessory Uses Pn>ripal Uses PRIN e 01 \1 in-water slip rental ^ sales of boaLs/motors/trailerS: marine accessories boat repair and servicing on-land boat storage __ winter ___summer marine fuel sales sale of bait and fishing tackle / ^ head pumpout fishins tournament site sale of pre-packaged food dive shop clubhouse (for slip or boat club customers) lessons/teaching r-^nriifional U sm (CondU iiaaLLISg permit ts.E£fliiii:edl boat rental sailboard sales/rental iceboat sales/renta! ice fishing tackle sales exU boat club public boat launching, on-demand public boat launching, transient charter boat port-of-c^l caretaker dwelling unit y cross-country ski sale/rental 5.business schedule (Check cppropriare V open all year — U Usi proposed hours of operation: ^ock^«a Sc service AM to 6. marina SECURITY is provided by: XeY^TBi— CARETAKER living on site? ------------------- ( s.i.» PM ‘ SjL<x^or\S>S)cr\Our^ psc ^VTS boat UMTS Each slip, mooting orrpace act^ly iild1^lrT.^nrTeptog°orboats ‘“^^^^^ must be indicated and r. unuu . ‘ on and aiie plan submined with this apphcation. R,„„d SlipV OUrer Teud Owned Boats Spaces : •• t 7.BOATS STORED IN THE WATER (for lake use) a. At dock slips Total Boats in Water Page 2 of 5 ’.•-.*** • i.* .. »• • •• •* 8.BOATS STORED ON LAND FOR Inside Buildings Outside on Racks Outside • other means Total Boats on Land for Lake Use a b. c. 9.total boats for lake use (Add 7 and 8) 10.OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (SUMMER) a. Transient boats (rep^/sei^’ice) h New boats for sale (inventory) c‘ Used boats for sale (inventor}’) d. Other (list:______ ' Total Building Building 11.OTHER BOATS ON PRE.MISES (T\^ER) a Transient boats (repair/service) b. Contract storage (customer’s boats) c. Inventory (new & used boats) d. Other (list: -----------------—' Toul tp^jdf. Building Putsi4£ 'CVxv.v^>o Toul r>ir|r-<;TRFET PARKING 12.SUMMER P.^RKING 7^ J a. Retail sales/sttcyls^^stomers 8 spaces minimum ( + 1 per eacl Boating customers 800 b. s.f. over 1,000^.f.) (line 9)1 = c. d. e. laUUg I.U91.UIUV.- 6 spaces per 10 boats for lake use [.o __ Launching ramp customers (day i^e) 10 spaces minimum per ramp = Charter boat pcn-of*call caoaciev1 space per each 3 seats of gros^ charter boat capacity [gross charter capacity x 0.331 — Toul spaces required (add a, b, c. & ) Toul spaces available per atuched par' g p 13.WINTER PARKING REQUIRED 0.20 X (line 12e)a. spaces Cl^f’ ^ >t--pf^g P(I^ -------------- Page 3 of 5 f ‘ • r* ^ ::;t: • *:;:o TO* pnrK CQNSTRUCTTQJ^ 14. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: A WiJLUa«M»^* Pilings: V Wood Decking: i__Wood jT Concrete Metal normaUw nt^rl ___ Meul ___ Other_____ Other______________ Flotation Method (if used). —— Foam Barrels K Other m b« licensed under Section 5.43 shall be subject to the requiremene and ^rf^^eTn^rds of the B-2 Zoning District and per the following busmess use l.cense standards! A. B. C. In„,renc= Reouired. Each business shall provide certif,cation of liabUitv- insurance coverage for the duration of the license period. On [jsXo T • uv.M«r Th^ orimarv business operator on the property shall be the toS bm" hall L allowed only when in confomtance with the provisions of the B-2 zoning disU’ict standards. e,.ndards. Each business licensee shall adhere to the following minimum PartoTSimies on the site shall be managed so as to etoinaK ^ parWnI congestion, eliminate iUegal on-stttei parking, and avoid pedesm traffic through neighboring property. Boat engine testing and chargmg shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. premises stored boats. The site shall be kept neat and orderly, and free of garbage. Parking and on-lacd storage of boats. pl^^ be limited to those locations shown on annuaMicense application, plan shall be submitted or updated as pan Lch site operauon plan shall also indicate seasonall) vanab Lights shaU be shielded from the road, the lake, and adjacent properties. Page 4 of 5 r • •. -»• V 7. *I •V". ---------17'^. r»»\ « to aca-rc to Ae above business use license standards shaU be cause K^^Ton’or — P-Uio. of ^ c.p.c:. attachments The following PLAN indicating the boundaries of the marina proFs^ a^the 3^ atik^, parking areas, access areas, docks, slips, buo, s. * drawing shall be updated each year to show areas, fencing ^season, and any changes proposed for Sll'd^tiL o?r;u"ppii-ion. Ihe drawing shall also indicate the locations of winter storage and required winter parking spaces. 2. CER-rmCATE OF UABIUTY INSURANCE COVERAGE for the duration of the license period. 3. 4. Copy of your UMCD LICENSE APPUCATION. COMMERCIAL MARINA UCENSE APPUCATION FEE according to the current City Initial Application a S300.00 e jur.ii an’”' OujceK uo'“' Renewal Application a S200.00 S.^adiSL_ CaAeJoka Late Fee (if not postnurked by Uo©cA:<^®^P®^ y February 28) SIOO.OO TOTAL DUE THIS APPUCATION $.. 3 na=.al REVIEW pro cedure . . will review the license application andpFVIEW PK,c^e.CrUui5XL * A fh^ rirv Council will review the licence a <*•= ucensing procedures of Chapter 5. will thereafter pass upon the appli! ,^.r-xTon xsaPTNA MAY OPFN FQR P.UlU^miJW Y iiPON APPRO^^' ’ ™ UC—^ pv THE CITY COUNCIL-- Municipal Code, the applicantPursuant to Section 5.43 of the Orono Municipal ut^. judiorizes the City °f ““ Council to review this Marina License application, „rnnertv at any reasonable tune Authorized Signature rtg-^ _______ pat=_alaigl3S Title Relationship to Owner f __/ Page 5 of 5 r.- - -m n 8037958889 lyndaajimmdunn 02/27/95 16:28 P01 1 •V-- • • . .• •• 0 I TO rn (' FAX#: ffCM:L^Wcs(^<f ThSPASE. FAX f >^'?l-lC.L1 ’-Mr.mh9LC(, ^ I4li' O5'/0 • # •• • • • • JUN 07 *r5 0S5 15«1 PJlEP-ICi^N PPtNCY P.l e-z f acsl m lie TRANSMITTAL to: fax ro; I data: paga^ City of Orono Atm: Mike- Planning/zoning 473-0510 Lakeside Marina June 7, 1995 2, including tWs cover sheet. Pleasjj find attached certificate of insurance for Lakeside ivlarina per your request. I ■i I*. r»• ..••• w T1 Frcm th* datk of... Miho Bwfta Amofican Agoncy, Ino. 5661 Codof UlcB Rood. P.O. B« 16^ MInnoapoUo. MN 85418 612583.8720 Fuc 812893.0733 i I.VJert(tmMrrn C-«t MOeUCM AMERICAN AGENCY INC. P O 30X 16527 5351 CEDAR LAKE RD ST L3UIS PK 06/07/95 ’l^i THIS dlj/mnCATa IS IS8UE0 as a mattir op INKMMATION : ONLY AND CONfUS NO RIOMTS UPON TKS CCITIPICATI ■ HOLOIfL THIS ClimFICATE DOES NOT AMINO, IXTIHD ON ; ALTIW THE COVUUQI APPDWDID lY THE POUCH BELOW, 1 CQMPANIEI AFPOWOtNQ COVIHAOI j MN ?' 16^0527! com ^anv Groat Aaerlean Inaurance CO MWnB LAKESIDE MARINA PROPERTIES COM^ANr B HARTFORD INS. 3324 WAYZ N SHORE DR MA I CCMPANY i c MN 55391 I COM»*W> D uk™ kkvs •*«« l»*U80 TO Tve INELBCO NAMED A5CV6 FOR !><€ POUCY PERIOD THIS IS TO C^. ^fi^ncr°Mnc2e^^ CP ANY CONTHACT C« OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO which "^iS '»™ CC#^CmCN3 or such ®0UC1ES. UMPTS shown MAV have BE6N WgPUCfcO BT HAIU _______________________________________EXCLUSIONS 4NC CO kTm; FOUCr NUIMSfl ’.'Sr.KSVIT ’SS.SSffi.T UMrri QSMIIAL UAMLTT PAC7060093 i X jCCMMSAClAL < B.SAM. LiASAJTV ' ;• I OAAM M kce X I OCCUR lOWNEWA A CC fTRACTORS PPOT AUTOWOMX UAtiiTT ANY AUTO AU.0WN80 Al. tCHCDUlED M HIRED AimW NON-OVmSD A(iT0S OAAAaCUAMJTV ANY AUTO QINSPUi. AQOAICATS 't 500,000 ! FAOOUCTS - CCMP/0^ AQQ: f 500,000 i PERSONAL i AOV INJURY l«500,000 ; EACH OCCUMiNCS il 500,000 1 RSe OAMAQC {/iff !•50,000 MSP SXr (Any aw pfw)Li-5,000 i COMSWEO SmGLC UMfr 1 300,000 SOOCYKMiSy IRWPMAA)s • 1 i »OOILY injury (Hir tocMinO 1 1 : PROPERTY DAMAGE AU7Q ONLY . BA ACOOOff I ueusuAaam IMSmULA AO^ OTHER THAN U ARREIXA FORM WORKERS eOMPO SAT10M AW tUPLOYMT UAM RV THE PROPRIETOR/^ PARTNBMMKICUTT/S QWRC6RS ARC; on«R marina o i »«a 1 OTWM THAN ALfTO CNLYt EACH AOCiOOrr 1is 1 11It ! BACH OOCURf^ENCe i f 1 ASSOEdATE !i i t 1 i 1 rTATirro**' umits ' BACH ACCCENT A 1 t k j ---------- , » piegAae « cach eMPtOYSg • f orators IOMK7004077-01 OHg»ApONaA.O gAT»eN><YR>RCLM/R»«qAL TTEMS MARINA 07/16/94 I 07/16/95 I LI 300,000/ ~ SNOUUJ ANY or T»* AKWe OEACRM) pouacs BE CANCEUEB KPORS T* CITY OP ORONO ATTN MIKE: ZONING & PLANNING PC BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 EXPRUT10N OAT* WSI<«>P. OOmPttir WKJ. *»®«AY0R TO MA*. iO_ DAY* wwrfetLrice TO (wn*«UT*HO^ **•**»« ^ “"• OUT PAKURE UiCH MOncR IMALL atROOp^rO 0RUOAT1ON OR UAMJTT TMB oe MPANY/7rr» ^^^^gyRCStKTATIVM. AUTHORI Mid RB A I . ^ ‘n : m V ■: ■ '-^v' ' ■ ■' 9> «• . • X / 70.00 / / •J ^ \J\ pKVCN^. m^. ■''V : . •.\ /// S67*52'00"c /' / / I ly^ ^ ’n / / j:’ \< ^0 / •^J > isjOt >1 * .'• / / / / y / / ^0 / f-1' 5 ^ - / / / y y , ' >v / V •. ■ - /■ V- •' ■ •■: - ’ ^ •70.00 G37*5Z00'£ - .. I •• .* / ,14-jvo , •'V.':-r..;?■"•;■;. ; . ■. .‘.■■' l-'r I. I* . ' o'- w ■ •• .' ■ .’A . V? > ' ;-. ■ : •■,.. • • A •; • • 4 *rT>Q.l' I;• ni *: f *..: •» ! I . •1 .•V —^ ih:.: :V«; _v >i ,r o'lt)\. A,.«\K iTT It.) Jc JC -c Uj o r V?i/^ v5) >1 / ft -♦-91 1 1 I B o ^ W 1 r*-r ^ 0 "O V / !*• • . • 5 ’ • - ^ •V • I «t 'V.• / *■. i. I / • . . V• ^ . * »‘‘ »» '.* ♦. c i ! 41 V^L. . •? r -_lJ 1.00 S87»l2WEr O’OV mw /// /0 //f / a: 7 / I / / / ^0 ^0 / « •| :d mr* /• S ''o / >r- / • / 59 2' / # 4 > •b /(* / ••• / / //* / 4 / .•> t • .1* 70.00 » sar^2'\‘£ .1 ; ro O vP 7 > ' ^ o'tb» t: » • • * • •-% . !• I • V •:» • % •.'• •*. .* *' '* V *. l • 1 - ‘it •.5J-" ,s ■)\ te p:; V V • i •; ,11^* •» ■< -1-1.,- o SS1“1S^ ^ • • Douglas E Babcock Chair. Tonka Bay Tom Reese Vice Chair. Mound Joseph Zwak Secretary Greenwood Robert Rascop Treasurer. Shorewood Kent Dahien Minnetonka Beach Bert Foster Deephaven Gretchen Magtich Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata Craig Moilet Victoria Craig Nelson Spnng Park Eugene Partyka Minnetnsta Paul Stark Excelsior Herb J. Suerth Woodland Orono LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 160 • WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 G. Alan Willcutt. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR May 10, 1996 Mr. Jin Dunn Lakeside Marina, Inc. 3324 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Jim: The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors has approved your multiple dock license for the 1996 season. The license and the approved site plan with stipulations, if any, are enclosed. Any additional changes will require a new license. Please review the 10/12/95 memo enclosed that outlines the proper number of watercraft that can be stored at a multiple dock facility. LMCD staff fully intends t enforce this section of the Code during the 1996 season. Feel free to call me if you have any questions. Your cooperation in complying with LMCD Code is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Gregory S. Nybeck Administrative Technician end; license, site plan, 10/12/95 memo cc: city of Orono 60% Recycled Cooient 30% Post Consumef Waste No. 96-55 \ $ 1 tlHC® 155 WSU 77 BSU Units MULTIPLE DOCK AND MOORING AREA LICENSE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT County of Hennepin^ Stale of Minnesota ss. has paid the sum Twelve Hundred Twelve and 5Q/lQQ'a _ DOLLARS to the Treasurer ol said LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT as required by the Ordinances of said District and complied with all the requiremenu of said Ordinances necessary for obuining this Lictnw: NOW, THEREFORE, By order of the Board of Directors of said District and by virtue hereof, the said LAKESIDE MARINA# I NO • ______is hcrcl^y licensed §nd Butlionzcd to operate a multiple dock subject to eaisiing and future density policies and regulations adopted by the Disincfs Board of Directors Subject to Variance Order of_ _ _ _ __ 1/28/87 tnat fence and "NO PARKING" signs be installed on the open ends of the wpsfrprlv HnrV Sfirtiong to prp>ypn«- hnat- narlcinn;—flnfl COnOTtlOnS imposed By Board //in that’ licensee cond e snail maintain books & records ablish that m.a lau 1 i t i e s XI iSSd wit NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE 1:4 density;280' of lakeshore fron’ige for ihc period of the 19*^6 nopk season an jn jing December 31 19 96 subject to all ihc conditions and provisions of said Ordinances. Violations of the provisions of the District's Code of Ordinances arc punishable by imprisonment lor not more than 90 days or imposition of a fine of not more than S700. or both. Given un -er my hand and the corporate seal ol the LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT this 10th »ry »pril a d Anest E^^utivc Direcit>]"ai l^I/CU11 Chnirmnn DoiK^as Babcock LIGHTING OF MULTIPLE DOCKS License is subject to LMCD Code Sec. 2.03,. Subd. 12^ which states in part —~ "Dock lighting shall not be directed toward the lake in such a manner that it impairs the vision of, or confuses operators of watercraft. No lighting in the area of the lake shall be installed or directed so as to affect adjoining dock use areas or create a hazard to navigation. The LMCD board encourages all licensees to examine the intensity of their lights from the water. Lights beaming significantly beyond the dock use area should be adjusted by redirecting the beam, adding a shield if redirect ing the beam does not correct the beam intensity and possibly reducing the light source wattage. This cooperation is urged to eliminate the need for more restrictive lighting regulations. £Xa1. g GITYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN S53S6 Mailiof Address: P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Jan es Dunn Lakeside Marina Inc. 3324 North Shore Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Re: Dockage on Crystal Bay Dear Mr. Dunn: On Friday, May 31,1996 the Inspection Department placed a stop work order on floating docks tied to the shore of Crystal Bay across from Lakeside Marina. The purpose of this action was to notify Lakeside Marina that placement of a dock by Lakeside Marina on Crystal Bay is not allowed, for the following reasons: 1.As early as April 13,1964 the City Council established a policy not allowing "the business of docking or storing boats" on the Crystal Bay frontage of Lots 6-12, Lydiard’s Park. 2.Prior to 1981 a dock existed on the Cr>stal Bay side of the site. The City of Orono consistently refused approval of the use of that dock for commercial purposes, and allow ed it to be used only for the property owner ’s personal boat. 3.In 1981 that dock was removed, and a subsequent request by the property o%\ner to construct a new commercial dock at the site was derried. No dock has since legally existed at the site. Armual licenses issued by the City starting in 1981 and as recently as 1992 included the following language: "Council will continue to deny any future extension of Lakeside Marina's commercial use of residentially zoned property on Crystal Bay based on the following findings: a. There is adequate area and lake access provided on the marina’s lakeshore commercial property on Ma.xwell Bay. The proposed cormnercial use in a residential area adversely affects the val .e and use of surrounding properties. The use of a dock across the road from the commercial operation causes traffic and pedestrian problems. b. c. I Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 James Dunn June 5, 1996 Page 2 d.Such use would be adverse to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code." Absent any discussion to the contrary, this is still the Council's position. 4. The shoreline of Cry stal Bay across from Lakeside Marina is zoned LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. No commercial uses are allowed in the LR-IC zone. Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subd. 5(A) notes that "Within any LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: a. Any accessory use as regulated in the R-1A District and "private docks" subject to the City code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations." Section 10.03, Subd. 9(A) states that "No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory." Section 10.02 defines accessory use or structure as "a use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto." 5. From the Code sections noted above, it is concluded that placement of a commercial dock on the Crystal Bay shoreline c cross from Lakeside Marina is not allowed because commercial docks are not an allowed use in the LR-IC or R-IA zones. Further, placement of a private residential dock at said location requires that a principal residential use be legally established on the property and that a principal residence structure exist on the property prior to construction of any accessory structure. Since no principal residential structure exists to which the dock can be accessory, the dock is not allowed. The dock(s) located on the Ciystal Bay shore of the Lakeside Marina site must be removed no later than 4:00 p.m., Friday, June 14,1996, or a violation citation v^ill be issued. If you have any questions, please contact me at 473-7357. Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch o o vV V X 1 J,' f»/ e^- F CITYof ORONO Municipal Cmces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Milling Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0065 May 14. 1996 Jim Dunn Lakeside Marina 3324 North Shore Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Dear Mr. Dunn: Thank you for meeting wi'h me on May 9th. This letter is to follow-up a number of questions you raised; 1. 2. 3. Sewer Billing. Lakeside is charged three units during the first and fourth quarters, and five units during the second and th'rd quarters. This reflects me decreased use during the winter months. Per Resolution No. 1525 attached, your billing units are based on "SAC" (Sewer Availability Charge) units, determined by the nature and size of a facility according to a standard chart. You have the option of installing an approved water meter on your private well to determine actual water use for sewer billing purposes. It may be feasible to exclude the outside sillcocks from metering. Some method for determining the holding tank pump out usage would be needed. We can discuss this further if you wish to pursue it. Manhole. Regarding the municipal sewer manhole on your property, that is an Orono line. You can contact Public Works Foreman Jack brinkhaus at 473-7357 regarding maintenance questions on that manhole. LMCD "In-Out" Rules. Enclosed is a copy of the LMCD Code. Section 2.045 - 'Off Lake Storage Facilities". I believe this is the most current version of their code but you should check with them to be sure. You questioned how they define "in-out use". 1 hey limit such use by regulating off-lake storage with requirements relating to location, density, boat storage units, frontage, parking, etc. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Mr. Jim Dunn May 14. 1996 Page 2 4.Gasoline Tank Replacement Storage of flammable or combustible liquids in above ground tanks is prohibited in the B-2 Zone per attached Section 9.34, Subd. 2(A) of the Orono Municipal Code. This limits you to an underground tank located at least 10 ’ from the side lot line, at least 30' from the street lot line, and at least 30' from the lake (other code sections will require a variance and conditional use permit for placing gas tanks less than 7:5' from the lake). 5.Sprinkler System. You should contact Building Official Lyle Oman (473-7357) regarding the fire suppression sprinkler needs for a new storage building addition. 6.Storage Building Addition. You should refer to the B-2 Zoning Code Section 10.41, specifically Subd. 12 regarding area, height, lot width and yard requirements; Subd 13 regarding additional setback standards, hardcover standards; and Subd. 14 regarding drainage. 7.Fence. On the enclosed DNR plan for the new access, they are proposing a 6' high chain link fence along the boundary with your property. 8.Drainage Concerns. You might contact the DNR's Stan Linnell at 297-4901. Mr. Linnell has been doing the design work for the site. I look forward to receiving your 1996 license application, and am ready at any time to discuss any issues related to the conditional use permit application which you advised will be forth coming shortly. Please feel free to call me at 473-7357 if I can be of additional assistance. Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch Enc. J &Ui.. Cr GITYofORONO Municipal Ofnces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN S5356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-G065 Mr. H. David Strot Lakeside Marina, Inc. 3324 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Re; Licensing/Conditional Use Permit Requirements Dear Mr. Strot: Thank you for meeting with Jo Ellen Hurr, Greg Nybeck and me on Wednesday, May 1. We were pleased to confirm that the removal of unprotected styrofoam floats from your docks has been completed. As I noted Wednesday, Lakeside is currently operating without a 1996 Orono marina license which is a violation of City code. License renewal applications were mailed to each marina on February 2, 1996. We have yet to receive your renewal application. The $100 late fee will be required in addition to the $200 renewal fee. A copy of the application form is attached for your use. Additionally, we discussed the fact that certain facets of your operation require Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval. Such activities which were identified on your 1995 license application as occurring on the site include; - Boat club - Public boat launching, on-demand - Public boat launching, transient - Charter boat port-of-call - Caretaker dwelling unit You indicated that not all of these activities are currently in operation or planned for 1996. It is clear from your advertising that you will be operating a boat club, and this activity is currently in violation until you obtain a CUP. A CUP application package is attached. I discussed this issue with Mr. Dunn during 1995, but to no avail. Operation of any of the above noted activities in 1996 without the proper CUP will result in legal action. Your 1996 license application and all required attachments and fees must be submitted by May 15. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 The CUP application requires compliance with landscaping requirements which I would be pleased to discuss with you and Mr. Dunn as soon as possible. The deadline for CUP applications is Friday May 24 at noon. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Michael P. Gaffron Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator end. cc: Greg Nybeck, LMCD Jo Ellen Hurr, Orono City Council ■ 4 GlTYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Ofono. MN 55356 Mafliof Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Mr. James Dunn L^eside Marina, Inc. 3jz24 North Shore Drive Wayzaia, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Dunn: Enclosed is a 1996 Orono ”.^ual Commercial Marina License" application form for your use. Also attached is a copy of your 1995 application, and a copy of your 1995 approved site operation plan. Please fill out the 1996 application, make any proposed changes to the site operation plan, provide an updated Certificate of Insurance, and return the packet with the proper fee by March 1 . As we d.scussed on June 7, 1995, a conditional use permit is now required for certain uses of your property which have been ongoing or may be proposed. These include. - potential caretaker/security dwelling within marina property. - boat club. on-demand launching of boats owned by the public and s*ored on your propert>\ public boat launch ramp for transient users. - charter boat port-of-call. It is imperative that the appropriate conditional use permits be applied for as soon as possible to avoid any disruption of your operation this spring. I would also note that your 1995 license application was considered as complete m June 199o but w^ never for^varded to the City Council for review and approval pending completion of the dock fioat conversion. Kthat conversion has been completed, your 1995 and 1996 icenses vu c for review by the Council in a timely manner. If you have questions regarding the 1996 license application or conditional use pem;:t procedure, please contact me at 473-7357. Sincerely, Michael P. Garrron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-(i510 Enclosures &iU, X /, // O ;.V» o N • *'v ^ \ \i\ 1 xV 7 ^*ES«0j CITY of ORONO Municipal OfUces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Crcno. MiN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. e:i 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 June 16, 1995 Mr. James Dunn Lakeside Marina, Inc. 3324 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Dunn: Per our discussion on Wednesday, June 7.1 would like to address a number of issues related to Lakeside Marina. 1. Zoning of property south of County Road 51 Attached are zoning maps from 1967, 1975 and the present (1995). As you can see, only property north of County Road 51 is zoned commercial. This appears to be the case dating back to adoption of Ordinance No. 9 on March 11, 1957. Any land which you own on the south side of County Road 51 is zoned LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 'A acre minimum lot size, e.xcept for that portion across from your easterly 70’, which is zoned LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. You are not permitted to have a commercial dock in a residential zone. Mr. Mehner operated a gas dock under a conditional use permit for a non-conforming use granted in 1981 which established his or others’ previous and continuous use n diat dock. Mr. Kempf in the 1960s and ’70s apparenUy had a dock on the Cn'-til Bay side of Lakeside Marina ’s property, which our files indicate the City tomistently disallowed from any commercial use. The B-2 ordinance contains language in Subdivision 8 (E'' indicating that the required parking spaces may not be separated by a public roadway from the dock, a storage space, mooring space, floor space, or ramp they are designed to serve. It has been and continues to be the City’s position that any dock you might place on Crystal Bay across from Lakeside Marina is not legal, because it would be accessory to a commercial use and therefore defined as a commercial dock, whicn is not allowed on residentially-zoned property. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Mr. James Dunn June 16, 1995 Page 2 of 5 Further, the City has only allowed your dock across from the house at 3350 North Shore Drive to continue as a residential dock, accessory to your residential sanctioned by the Sty, although it is zoned commercial. As we have discussed in the past, commercial use of that propert}' would require a conditional use permit, for which you applied in 1985 but never followed through, and which application was declared closed by the Council in 1991. Further, be asain advised that any boats stored at a Crystal Bay dock from ±e 3350 property must be registered to you. If ^y boats registered to Lakeside Marina (or any persons other than the residential occupant of the property) are stored at that site, they will be considered commercial storage and you will have to remove them. 2. Current zoning of DNR property along your east boundary. The enclosed "North Shore Drive Commercial Area Zoning History" and series of six maps indicate the history of zoning in the area. The DNR properties, consisting of four tax parcels along your east boundary, were zoned commercia from 1^57 to 1966. were residential from 1966 to 1967, were commercial from 1967 to 1974, and since December 19, 1974 have been zoned LR-lC-1, Smgle Family Lakeshore Residential, '/i acre minimum lot size, with the possibility of a 50% increase in dwelling unit density via a PUD. This would potentially allow up to three units per acre, in attached dwelling units allowing up to four dwellmg units per struemre, i.e. twin homes, triples, or quads. By staff calculation, the DNR property is approximately 1.51 acres. You indicated to me that your purchase agreement with DNR on the 33^ property grants you the possibility of a "five year lease" for use of the DIW property. Your potential uses of that property are extremely limited under us current zoning. Only residential uses allowed under the LR-lC-1 zoning are permitted on the properry. Absent a principal residence struemre on the property, no dock could be constructed on the property for any purpose. Further, absent a rezoning to commercial, you would be allowed no employee or ciistomer parking, and no temporary or permanent storage of boats/trailers/ smff wou be allowed. 3. Potential rezoning of DNR property. You requested information regarding an application to rezone the DNR property. -i Mr. James Dunn June 16, 1995 Page 3 of 5 4. First, both you as lessee and the DNR as owner would have to that joint application. It is mv understanding that the Ugislature has given DNR approval to dispose of this 'property. Whoever is the owner at the time you make application would have to be a co-applicant. The 1980 Orono Comprehensive Plan discusses and maps only that area from your current east boundary to Tonkawa Road as planned for commercial manna use The Comprehensive Plan was not revised in 1984 when North Shore Dove Marina was rezoned from LR-lC-1 to B-2. However, at that time the Pla^g Commission recommended to CouncU that the area between Ukeside and North Shore Drive Marina only be allowed rezoning to commercial upon accumulation of a 2 acre parcel. The City Council did not take formal action to adopt that policv and in fact, it is merely the recommendation of the Planning Commission in 1984, and nothing more. The City has never formally committed to such rezoning should it be requested, and I cannot predict the result of such a request. A formal application for rezoning would be made via a general land use application (copy attached). The base fee is $300. You would have to provide a complete and current sur\*ey of the propert>- per the guidelmes of the application packet, and provide detailed site planning for your proposed use of the properqr. You should anticipate that the City would grant no variances to any performance standards regarding setbacks, hardcover, landscaping, etc. This would have a significant impact on vour potential use of the property. Further, the location and nature of vehicular access to North Shore Drive would undoubtedly be an issue of concern. I will be happy to discuss with you further and in detail how the City s codes might impact your potential expansion onto this adjacent property. Conditional use permit (CUP) required under amended ordinance. As we briefly discussed on June 7, a conditional use permit is now requued for certain uses of your property which have been ongoing or are now proposed. These include: • Proposed caretaker/security dwelling within marina property. • Boat club. . • On-demand launching of boats owned by the public and stored on your property. • Public boat launch ramp for transient users. • Charter boat port-of-call. « Mr. James Dunn June 16, 1995 Page 4 of 5 -me requirements to be met in order to be granted each of these condittoMl uses are listed in the B-2 ordinance in the conditional use section. The mam mquhLent for all but the caretaker dwelling unit, is demonsuation that adequate narking is available. Application must include an updated survey showmg al existing smicmres and hardcover, and include not only a parking layout but written description of how that parking wUl be apportioned, used and managed rmeet an yom parking requirements. The minimum parkmg requirements are listed 'n Subdivision 8 of that ordinance. The new ordinance was adopted in January 1995, pursuant to a public hea^g held on June 6 1994. That public hearing met all legal notification requiremen , and copies of ihe agenda wle maUed to each of the affected marmas. A copy of the January 23 1995 Council minutes is enclosed. Orono mannas were firs :d“m^akV;ht appropriate conditional use permit applications m a letter dated February 3. 1995. conST use permits and technically in violation of the code until they are ■qnniied for and issued 'fherefore, I would advise you to make the appropnat aScatio^^^^^^ m^June 23 deadline for the July Planning Commission meetmg i^Lssible However notine the amount of information you will have to provide to mwon ofirap^^^^^ I will accept a short extension if you agr« to subm^f a complete CUP application by the July 28 deadlme for items reviewed at the August Planning Commission meeting. ind^stabuL a landscaping plan for Council review and approval. I believe there are certain items of landscaping on your property which need attention, “^cludmg re-establishment of the landscape cribbing at the southwest access to ® as well as reviewing the screening issues. The code also review site drainage as pan of this application, and it would be °ay ° establish a time table by which you will provide will include ponding. Given the intensity with wluch Orono s P|^g Commission and Council have pursued the regulation of hardcover on resid propenies in Orono. I believe you and the City have an obligation to m^ge the runoff from your large expanses of hardcover in an appropnate manner. Mr. James Duon June 16, 1995 Page 5 of 5 5. Completion of stjTofoam conversion. We have noted for the record your stated intent to complete the conversion of vour docks from non-encased styrofoam to an approved notation method by July 1 Althoush this will be six months later than the Orono deadlme and approtiSately two months later than LMCD’s deadline for that conversion I aoDmciaie the expense, time and complexity of the conversion. Since o^e nS^s have similarly borne this expense and completed the conversion, I wUl have little svmpathy for your situation should the conversion not be comp ete y July 1. At'any rate, your candor and willingness to comply is appreciated. 6. 1995 marina license. Now that we have vour updated Certificate of Insurance, your 1995 liceme will t^rTubrntald m the'eounca for approval. Be advised that in approving iceme for the other Orono marinas. Council direcied staff not to issue those licenses untU the styrofoam conversion has been completed, I would expect the same condition on your license approval. Thank you for removing the dock section from the boulevard as requested. o;:ron “a':i miSuh"’rup “:^^^^^ “ -pTon oCr'c?ip";'pTicS:“ Please call if you have questions on any of the above, and advise when we can meet in the next week or two for a site inspection. Sincerely, ^2^ ^Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Admmisirator MPG/lsv Enc. CITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 65 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 C055 1. Lakeside Marina Inc. 3324 North Shore Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 ATTN: James J. Dunn Re: 1995 Marina License Application Dear Mr. Dunn: We are in receipt of your 1995 manna license application. The following mfonnation is required in order to make that application complete. Please provide an updated certificate of liability insurance coverage. The current certificate on file expired July 16, 1994. 2. Please confum that the attached site operation plan is currently in effect and acceptable to you. I would like to meet with you as soon as you are available in regards to a number of items. • Site inspection to confirm you have completed the conversion of your dock floats to an approved flotation method. • Your license application indicates that your business activity will include a boat pliih nn-demand public boat launching, transient public boat launching, charte r boat Dort-of-call . and caretaker dwellmg unit. All of these uses now require a conditional use permit under the code amendments approved by the Council tms winter. We should meet as soon as possible to go over the application requirements for the necessary conditional use permits. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 47S4)510 Lakeside Marina Inc. March 28, 1995 Page 2 I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, It Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator y MPG/ch < Enc. Site Operation Plan Pertinent Code Sections CUP Application . K Wiii CITY of ORONO Municipal Ofllces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55355 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 C365 February 3, 1995 Mr. James Dunn Lakeside Marina, Inc. 3324 North Shore Drive Wavzata, Minnesota 55391 Dear Mr. Dunn: Attached please fmd a 1995 marina license application. Please return the completed application with the appropriate exhibits and fee no later than February 28, 1995. As a reminder, the use of non-encased molded polystyrene foam materials for dock flotation is prohibited after December 31, 1994 by City ordinance (copy attached). We will be inspecting this spring to verify compliance. After months (years) of discussion, the City Council has adopted revisions to the B-2 Zomng District ordinance. A copy of the ordinance as adopted January 23. 1995 (also showing language that was deleted and that which was added) is attached for your information. Si^ficant revisions to the old ordinance which had been in effect since 1975 include: Addition of a list of allowable accessory uses (subordinate to a permitted use). Addition of five specific conditional uses, which may include existing uses for which you will have to apply for a conditional use permit. Minor revisions to parking requirements. Revision to landscaping standards, requiring establishment of an updated landscaping plan for each marina. Limitations in on-land boat density. Upgraded stormwater runoff controls required. I will be pleased to meet w'ith you to discuss the new ordinance as it relates to your specific marina activities. Please feel free to call me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Sincerely, // Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch Enc. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • F.\X 473-0510 L \! such information as mav be deemed necessary bv the Council in order to act on such application. The fee for license aoplication shall be set bv ordinance. Subd. 4. Public Hearing. Upon filing of anv application for license, the Council mav call a hearing upon such notice as it mav deem appropriate. No such hearing shall be mandatory, but wholly within the discretion of the Council, except that a hearing shall be held at the request of the applicant in cases of license revocation or denial. Subd. 5. Business Use License Standards. Businesses required to be licensed under this section shall be subject to the requirements and performance standards of the B-2 Zoning District and per the following business use license standards: A. Insurance Required. Each business shall provide certification of liability insurance coverage for the duration of the license period. The primary business operator on the property shall be the licenseholder. and shall be responsible for notifying the Citv of anv and all businesses subleased on the premises. Such secondary businesses shall not be separately licensed but shall be allowed only when in conformance with the provisions of the B-2 zoning district standards.________ Operation Standards. Each business licensee shall adhere to the following minimum operation standards: 1^ Parking facilities on the site shall be managed so as to eliminate traffic or parking congestion, eliminate illegal on-street parking, and avoid pedestrian traffic through neighboring property... 2. Boat engine testing and charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 3^ Retail sales and service shall be limited to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 n.m. except as necessary to accommodate normal fishing activity or private use of premises stored boats. 4^ The site shall be kept neat and orderly, and free of garbage. ^ On land storage of boats shall be managed so as to eliminate anv view obstructions for traffic entering and lea ving the site. ^ Parking and on-land storage of boats, trailers, materials ^d eouinment shall be limited to those locations shown on an approved site operation plan, which plan shall be submitted or undated as part of the annual license a pplication. Such site operation plan shall also indicate seasonally variable uses. 2t Lights shall be shielded from the road, the lake, and adjacent properties. Subd. 6. Business Use Licenses Limited to B-2 Zone. No business use shall be licensed in anv zoning district other than B-2, except that when a business use is allowed bv nrdinflnfff in another Toning district, such use conducted in said district shall not be required to obtain a license. Subd. 7. License Revocation. Failure to adhere to the business use license of Subd. 5 f A through C) shall be cause for license suspension or revocation oer the provisions of this chapter. SECTION 3 . Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER and shall become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on the 28th day of June, 1993 by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 abstention. Edward J. CallMan, Jr., Mayor ■published in .the :Laker and Pioneer newspaper the week of August 9, 1993. tr 60379566riSi LYNDAAJIMMDUNN 15-57 # c9; _Application________ Date Received ♦ 3 / ~ *9 ip Amount Paid ^on>. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION j ^ ^ Site Address_______a/- ^ ^P / Type of Application to be Filed_ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Name 0 Phone (homel // 7 /- '76^ ^ Address uf • 0^^'NER (if different than applicant) Name________ _____________ Phone (work) V7/~ ---- City Ary ___Zip 9 ^— Phone (home)__________________ ____ Phone (work)_ Address City Zip Date Property Acquired _ --------- ----— ----------------- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERNflTS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application $175.00 Residential Accessor> Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest Housc/Guest Apartments “ $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg (month/year) $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ------- Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and Filling - 101 cu. yd. OF more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore PPLD/PID - see Fee Schedule ^ ' $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from onginal application) ’ Aftcr-lhc-Fact Fee • Double Current Application Fee OTHER ^ $300.00 Vacation ^ $200.00 Easement Vacation ...... ^ ^ $100 00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision -------~ S350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refei to fee schedule) ^ $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF P?^OPERT3r ple«« S^P^^per^______I R=side«ial 0*« (specify). tJ' •'i03795ft««9 LYNOAA.J I MMDl'NN 05^29^96 15-53 P03 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. «-^ Completed Application Form. 2. *----Describe request in detail. 3 pJji Certified Property Owners List ot owners within 350, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 3^8-3271). ^ fUy Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - reter to handout for surv-cy information. . 5 /O^Fidi Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ^ 6. Tope graphic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alicraiions mvolvc chanfic • in elevation (grades). 7 List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in . property. This would include namc(s) of applicant(s) if not current ovv'ner(s). 8. M/A Construction plan, if applicable (sec staff for requirements). ^ ^ 9. AS an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. vnu ARF nrnUTRFD TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR X 17" OR .SMALLER, FOR ALL DOCl^.E^S SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings ot all documents, plans, etc. submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign Uiis application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:_________—------------------------------------------------------ ThTtpRltewT °[ «a»est'<i by the Zoning AdmwUtor. ngr«s .o pny additional fees (staff time not covered ^y ongmal fee paymem) and/or unusual expenses incuned in review ot this application and eenifies that the infomiation supplied is true and correct to the best of his.Tier knowledge. f\Applicant's signature Sv^^wledgeo and agrees to this application and further authored JeasonaWe entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, and Council members for purposes of investigation and venfication of this request, , X ___________ DateOwner's s»gnamre i——5.-^^-------------------------- ' Dote /Ti / j . It vJ nr,ic inirt the Citv officfts 25 divs bcforc the Planning Commission Meeting. Applicant rau.< ba.e ° „^f each month. Applicants most be present at Planning Commusion Meetings are ha^n If „ .ppucaw is enable to anenii a Be„d.n, ^ zoning o.jhis ebange p^.O ^ l/x i -a-- A A City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Ci7stal Bay, W SS323 (612)473-7357 06/03/96 09:27:01 UM) USE flm.ICATUM 1 • 300.00 300.00 LAKESIDE MRRINR, J 0UN4 I2U71 9 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL TAXTOTAL SALE RECEIVED CHANEE OERXI03 TRANSt 1674 300.00 0.00 300.00 300.00 0.00 if I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects June 3, 1996 City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Re: 1996 Seal Coat BRA File No. 13983 Bcnesrroo ffoiere tnc •$ ah Action Equ**t Opportunity Err^iovei Pr,nc p.vi Otto G Bonest'oo ?»E • Joseph C Anderfik PE • M.*rvin L Sorv^^ PE • Richard E Turnrr PE • Glenn R Cooh PE • Thomas E Noyes PE • RoOerr G Schun.cht PE • Jerry A Bourdon PE • Robert W Ro.ene p£ and Susan VI Ebc-^n C PA Senior Consultants Arsocu^te Ho.va«^d A Sanford PE • ke-in A Gordon PE • Robert R Pfefferie. PE • Richard W Eoste P£ • David O Loshota P£ • Robert C Russek Ai A • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann P£ • Ted K Field PE Officei St Paul and Rochester MN • Mequon a’l X 4 ♦i/0. I m\^iOth ’^J V JUN 5 19r;H Honorable Mayor & City Council Members: Bids were opened for the afore mentioned project on Friday, May 31, 1996. Transmitted herewith are ten (10) copies of the bid tabulation for your information and file. The following summarize.s the results of the two bids received: Low Allied Blacktop, Inc. #2 ASTECH Corp. $44,270.00 $45,904.00 The low bidder on the project was Allied Blacktop, Inc. with a Base Bid of $44,270.00. These bids have been reviewed and found to be in order. We are therefore recommending that the City award this project to Allied Blacktop, Inc. for the amount of $44,270.00. Should you have any que.stions, please feel free to contact me at 636-4600. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. GRCPAH:ENC 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 ■ 612-636-4600 knoinctrs 4 Arc^ftfct Project Name 1996 Seal Coat Project No.File No. 13983 J Bid Opening 10;00 a m.. C.D.S.T.. Friday. May 31. 1996 Owner CityofOrono I hereby certify that this is an exact________________________________ reproduction of bids received Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Registration No. 9451 BID TABULATION Tabulation of Two Low Bids of Two Received No. Item Unit Oty. Bid No. I Allied Blacktop. Inc. Bid No. 2 ASTECH Corp. Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Base Bid 1 Bituminous material for seal coat GL 23,000 0.79 18,170.00 0.80 18,400.00 2 FA>2 seal coat aggregate, Class A TN 1,200 21.75 26,100.00 22.92 27,504.00 Total Base Bid $44,270.00 $45,904.00 Firm Allied Blacktop, Inc.ASTECH Corp. Address 10503 89th Av N PO Box 1025 City. State, Zip Maple Grove, MN 55369 St. Cloud. MN 56302 Phone 612.425.0575 320.253.9977 Fax 612.425.1046 320.253.2217 By E.J. Capistrant Mary L. Popp Title President Vice President 5% Bid Bond, Cert. Check, or Cash Eieposit 5% Bid Bond 5% Bid Bond •i 13983BT.WB2 ^6 % REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION % DATE: May 21, ITEM NO: [6 Department Approval: Name Title Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Item Description: Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process The Council has requested staff to provide a report regarding how best to address citizen needs in terms of the planning application review process. Staff has reviewed this issue from both a customer service perspective and land use policy perspective. The following memo identifies a set of customer service elements, current obstacles to meeting customer needs, and options for addressing those obstacles. The memo also suggests the development and/or clarification of policy guidelines for the most common types of planning applications, and changes in the review process for certain categories of applications. I. Improvements to Current Planning Application Review Process. A. Customer Service Elements 1. 2. Ease and clarity of planning application form. Ease and clarity of planning application review process. a.This includes the necessity of going through a full public hearing process at the planning commission. 3. 4. 5. 6. Clarity of ordinances, regulations and requirements. Duration of the process. Perception regarding fairness and reasonableness of the city ’s action. Perception regarding being treated with respect and helpfulness by the staff. Planning Commission and Council. a.This includes staff willingness to assist with items required for the application or to help to clarify the information in the application to the Planning Commission and the Council. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 8 May 21, 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process 7. Perception by the applicant that staff is, or should be, an advocate for the applicant, which is not the case. 8. Costs incurred by the applicant to provide complete information. B. Major Obstacles to Accomplishing the Customer Service Elements 1. 2. 3. Length of the planning application review process (applicants believe the shorter the process the better.) The high number of applications generally overloads both staff and the Planning Commission. Lack of policy guidelines makes it difficult for staff to play a role in expediting the application review process. Causes of an Extended Planning Application Review Process 1. 2. Delay between discovery' that an application is needed and the next application deadline. This occurs when a property owner requests a building permit for a project and is advised that a planning action, such as a variance, is required. The need for thorough application review by staff (including city engineer when applicable.) 3. Requests for additional information by staff. a. To make the application complete. b. To clarify information regarding the proposal. c. To resolve questions. d. To resolve is.sues regarding feasibility. •■I Request for Council Action continued Page 3 of 8 May 21. 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process 4. Staff ensure a complete application prior to moving to next step in the review process. (Items 1 through 3 can add one day to two weeks to the application process.) 5. Continuation of the application by the Planning Commission. (This adds four weeks to the application review process.) D. Causes of Continuation bv the Planning Commission The major potential cause of delay in the planning application review process is continuation of the application by the Planning Commission. The main causes of continuation of a planning application by the Planning Commission are as follows: 1. Incomplete information regarding the application. 2.Significant issues regarding the application and proposal remaining unresolved. 3. 4. 5. New questions needing to be answered. New information requested. Planning Commission requests the applicant to revise the proposal to address concerns. E. Current Time Frame/Chronoloev of the Planning Application Review Process 1.The minimum time period from the receipt of the planning application to the Planning Commission meeting is 22 calendar days. The hearing notices are faxed to the city’s official newspaper on the Tuesday following the Friday application deadline. For those applications received on the deadline day, staff has two working days to review the application for the following: 1.) To ensure the application is complete. 2.) To ensure the applicant is requesting the proper planning action. Request for Council Action continued Page 4 of 8 May 21, 1996 Report Regarding Expediting tne Planning Application Review Process 3.) To determine whether the proposed development meets the city’s codes and is feasible. Generally staff does meet with applicants to review their proposal prior to submittal of the application, although this is not always the case. In many cases, the applicant has already filed a building permit application, and his/her first contact with staff was a call from the Building Inspector informing them that their project requires a ’-ariance. F.Potential Conflict Between Expedited Staff Review and Expeditious Planning Commission Review The current planning application review schedule and process often places pressure on staff to conduct the staff review of the application very quickly in order to place it onto an upcoming Planning Commission agenda. It is important the staff review is a thorough one so that the proposal is clear and the implications of the proposal in relation to the city’s zoning codes are clear, and so that all significant issues related to the application are identified and addressed. This may not be possible within a very short time fram^ However, if an application is expedited to the Planning Commission too quickly, the probability that the Planning Commission may continue an application for additional information or questions is increased. If staff tak s several days to a week or even two weeks to ensure a thorough review, this is a good trade-off versus extending the application review period by four weeks due to a continuation by the Planning Commission, G. Potential Solutions 1. 2. 3. Require an applicant to meet at least once with staff prior to submittal of the planning application. Require a minimum of 10 days for staff review of the application prior to placing the application on the Planning Commission agenda and including the application in the published notice. Change to an official newspaper with a publication schedule that better fits the city’s meeting schedule, or change Planning Commission meetings to Wednesdays, which would match the current official newspaper’s publication schedule. Request for Council Action continued Page 5 of 8 May 21, 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process 4. 5. Develop policy guidelines to serve as an initial guide to applicants regarding what is acceptable, in terms of parameters to guide the magnitude of variances, for instance, and to serve as a guide to staff in working with an applicant to discourage applications outside of these guidelines, or to move an application closer to the guidelines. Determine if there are certain categories of variances falling within specific parameters that could be handled on a staff level with the final decision by the City Council, ratlier than the full Planning Commission review. 6.If the number of applications in any month is very high, schedule a second meeting of the Planning Commission. (This becomes more feasible in conjunction with the expanded deadlines suggested in #2 above.) Alternative Application Review Time Line/Process 1. Applicant meet with staff at least once prior to application submittal. a. ) To explain the proposed project. b. ) To determine if the project is do-able. 1. ) Practical and feasible 2. ) Complies with ordinances and policies c. ) To determine the proper planning action required. d. ) To explain and clarify the application form and requirements. e. ) To explain the application review process. f. ) To explain the city’s ordinances and policies as they relate to the proposal. g. ) To provide some level of guidance to assist the applicant in submitting a proposal that comes as close as possible to meeting the city’s policies as they relate to the proposal-or to advise the applicant that the proposal is something that is outside of the limits of acceptability in terms of the city’s codes and policies. 2.The application is submitted a minimum of ten days prior to the deadline for submitting legal notices to the official newspaper. Request for Council Action continued Page 6 of 8 May 21, 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process 3. 4. 5. During the 10 day period, staff review the application to ensure it is complete-that all necessary information is provided. If the application is not complete the applicant is required to provide necessary information during the 10 day period, or to provide assurance of timely submittal for complete staff review, or the application is delayed to the next month’s Planning Commission meeting. If the application is complete, or staff is confident of timely submittal of necessary information, the application is included in the legal notice. 6. Staff prepares the report to the Planning Commission. 7.The application is reviewed by the Planning Commission and a recommendation is provided to the City Council. 8. The City Council reviews and takes action on the application. Without any other changes to the application review process, the process outlined above would increase the application review time from a minimum of 22 days to a minimum of 34 days. However, it would also substantially reduce the probability of the application being continued at the Planning Commission or City Council level. In addition, there are other changes in the application review process schedule that could bring the application review timeline back closer to the 22 day period. Three calendars showing the current application review timeline and two alternate timelines are attached. :i. Development/Clarification of Policy Guidelines. A. A Major Cause of a High Number of Planning Applications is for Variance.! Related to Existing Non-Conformities Because Orono’s historical development is much different than Orono’s current development standards, Orono has many non-conforming properties. This leads to many variance applications—both by non-conforming properties and by conforming properties that want to develop in a way similar to the non- conforming properties. The purpose of Orono’s current development standards, including the zoning code, is to enable the city, over a long period of time, to move currently non-conforming properties closer to or into conformity with the current development standards. In addition to increasing the number of planning applications, the effort to Request for Council Action continued Page 7 of 8 May 21. 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process improve nonconforming properties involves a significant amount of discretion in the decision process, i.e. in terms of determining exactly what level of conformity or non-conformity is acceptable for each individual application. Although these decisions tend to generally involve a certain amount of discretion, it is important that Council, Planning Commission and staff have a policy framework to provide parameters within which the discretion can be exercised. Without this framework, problems can result at both the staff level and the Planning Commission level. Without policy guidelines, it is difficult for staff to provide guidance to applicants in terms of the level of conformity necessary in their proposal. This sometimes results in the Planning Commission sending an applicant back to the drawing board to iiKrease the conformity of the proposal. This can result in customer relations problems for two reasons: First the process gets extended significantly. Second, although staff have not provided any encouragement to an applicant regarding the probability of a successful application, simply being involved in the process leads to an expectation of approval. When the applicant is sent back to the drawing board after waiting for a month to get to the Planning Commission, the applicant has a negative view of the process. B. Development of a Set of Policy Guidelines A partial solution is to develop a set of policy guidelines that provide guidance to applicants, staff. Planning Commission and Council Members for planning application review. The city needs to be clear on its overall goal or vision in relation to land use issues, for instance, on lakeshore development or redevelopment; so that the city moves toward that vision continuously as properties develop or redevelop. The decisions on individual applications need to be made within that overall framework to ensure that over time the totality of the decisions on individual applications result in the city achieving its overall vision. This may be happening currently because the current City Council and Planning Commission are in sync in relation to their land use goals or perspectives. However, currently there are no specific policy guidelines, other than the broad guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, that explain the general thinking, philosophy, and policy that undergird the decisions the Council makes regarding each specific application. This potentially could result in individual decisions beginning to move inadvertently in a different direction, or new council members moving decisions in a new direction, because there are no explicit written policy guidelines to keep things moving in the current direction. Request for Council Action continued Page 8 of 8 May 21, 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process A further benefit of having a clear set of policy guidelines in place is that staff could ensure that these were made clear to all applicants in an effort to assist the applicants in bringing proposals to the Planning Commission and Council that are within the guidelines. Once a set of policy guidelines is in place it may be possible to identify a category of applications that, if within certain parameters, could be reviewed at the staff level and brought directly to the Council rather than going through the full Planning Commission hearing process. This could reduce the size of the Planning Commission agenda and free up the Planning Commission to address more significant planning issues, rather than negotiating set backs and hard cover variances. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 1. 2. 3. Direct Zoning staff to propose specific changes in the application review process. Direct City Clerk to investigate and report on options for using a different official newspaper with a more beneficial deadline. Direct staff to investigate whether Wednesday Planning Commission meetings would be feasible for current members. 4.Direct staff to analyze past variances and propose policy guidelines or code changes for categories of applications to result in abbreviated variance review. (iuAiCe'AJr (jTV^v(7\ ^(^CiCjqio (T> SrAfi^ 4 mx/AlUivv Tt:^ Ai^PHCA^C>^^ P(\/^^ l^P^pf l^XCM^S ^ (r^C. . APft/TS m ST^FF • T ^PPi.it:4v'7«»>; — LOf 1 H Jl2-(^ TO a2£ '\ (?-' '/FVo (T<r, (T'; uVirTTAj :Ss^crc-? (ej (V 4P STAFiP WUpTS A^rTtCG^^E>tAb*VAJt' dT'r'^/^Ti)CtH !0\T&' cF 1 fu6MOfrJfc» '•(7^ jli)ri^(zc>_^?T) /0-bAVb pr-jc.'?^ 1 9 “'^VJ ; pao/z. ■C^3) . pr-*c- (S?' '7-^A^^J pate .C- rsP) 6*£:>‘ws P-2-/0.C_ r-DAvs P/C.IC.<2. V' C^'Y’S (S> 3 bM5 Z'b^S pC(C,'L f>a^c.<L (-^v VVVTG» (a>>(T3^; 6^<rY$>(lD i (v7) jffe) ,. (5> 9 1 » 1 rs?) ^ r\M-i 1 1 (?5 1 1 1 i* f AL'TirOAjttrl^ ri-^cs St*sr -rkt;ctu=ncc^ /Uc^^SPAPt]^ i2>/\7VS i~r VTAPP AfT^lc^rtcf A-'•''^J(T;a>(S) *-----------^ (sD 6)(^>t: (?D /W»c:.rA,>t,i ^ cr A^UAj^ JJ^__f?TJ TyjicF P'«f54,/C4r?c<'^ ;c* D'vvs \ t] - ■(n) ^ ;>W5 r-V r- dl) 7t>e/»'S ' 6 b*yj r- »^4VS t'liiC.^ y-bvW5 f'i^o.'l. (Jz^> ■5 «yvYs pc^c,c cTTj 1 Z'DMTS i r.ucvz, (zi^ , 1 /’.‘L c .''v_ (J? fC (?fe)Pi^)ri?)So 6-r> t'.rr^ riyj (3?>rv?) (^j>_($Tj (w^c vr) (v’t. ^ ^tC-. ( r-^ '"■ -^— 1 f j11 1 f I $ ! ? i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION is$e DATE: ITEM NO: ) Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Title Item Description: A Opportunity to Purchase Hennepin County (Library) Parcel Hennepin County currently owns the approximately 2 acre parcel on the northeast comer of Old Ciystal Bay Road and Highway 12. This site became surplus property when the County made the decision not to use the property as a County Library site. At the time the site was designated as surplus property, the city indicated it was interested in a possible purchase of the property. The County has completed an appraisal of the property and has made the site available to the city at a cost equal to the appraised market value. Cost and Fundine The appraised market value of the parcel is $250,(X)0 or $2.89 per square foot. Although this is a large amount, it appears to be a reasonable amount. The Council has discussed the sale of a parcel of city property near McCuIley Road as a partial source of funding for the purchase of the County property. The value of the parcel is estimated to be approximately $120,(XX). The remainder of the purchase could be funded from General Fund Reserves, which were increased $206,000 as a result of 1995 General Fund Operations. From staffs view point, funding for this parcel is "interim " funding, because the property would be sold at the time the city received a development proposal meeting the city’s needs. The city’s initial acquisition cost would be recovered by the sale of the property. Benefits of Acquisition The benefit of acquiring this site is that it gives the city some control over the type of development that occurs on the comer. It also gives the city significant influence over the type of development that occurs on the 2+ acres directly adjacent to the County parcel to the east. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends acquisition of the property with funding from the general fund reserves and the sale of the McCulley parcel. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve/deny moving forward with the acquisition of the 2 acre County parcel on the northeast comer of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; June ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Title Item Description: Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Local Performance Aid Certification Attachments: A.Memorandum from the Minnesota Department of Revenue describing the new Local Performance Aid Program The City currently receives approximately $300,000 per year in HACA (Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid) revenue. The 1996 State Legislature has taken a portion of the current HACA aid funding and placed it into a new program called the Local Performance Aid (LPA) program. For Orono this amounts to approximately $7,400. Under the new program Orono ’s HACA aid will be reduced by $7,400. However, Orono can recapture this aid amount through the LPA program. The LPA program, as its name implies, is a program to encourage cities to develop performance standards or measures related to the delivery of various city services. This involves first developing basic units of measurement for each service, such as work load measures, i.e. miles of streets swept, number of lift stations inspected, number of utility customers billed, etc. The next step is to develop performance standards related to each of these work load measures, to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of each of these service areas. In order to be eligible for the LPA aid, the city needs to begin a process to develop performance measures. Although the relatively small amount of the LPA aid is not a significant incentive to Orono, the concept of performance measures for the delivery of city services does have merit. The lake area city managers and administrators have included efforts to develop performance measures in their work plan for the next six months. The one caution is that it is important the time, effort and resources required to develop and carry out a performance measurement program do not exceed the benefits provided by the program. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends moving ahead with efforts to develop performance measures. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to support efforts to develop performance measures for the delivery of city services, and to authorize the Mayor and one councilmember to sign the LPA certification to indicate the city is in the process of developing and implementing a system of performance measures. MINNESOTA . Department of Revenue Property Tax Division Mail Station 3340 Phone(612)296-5141 St. Paul, MN 55146-3340 Fax (612)297-2166 * I April 22, 1996 APR Z 3 199^TO: ALL CITY CLERKS, ADMINISTRATORS, MANAGERS, AND FINANCE DIRECTORS ................ RE: CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR LOCAL PERFORMANCE AID PAYABLE IN 1997 Laws 1996, Chapter 471, Article 3, Section 48 provides for a new state aid for all qualifying counties and cities beginning in calendar year 1997. This new aid is called Local Performance Aid (LPA). tn order to qnalif\’ for this new aid. your city must have a system of performance measures for services provided by the city, and must regularly compile and present these measures to the city council at least once per year. If there is currently no system of performance measures in place, your city may still qualify for this aid if it is in the process of developing and implementing a system of performance measures. However, eligibility based upon being in the process of development may not be used for more than two consecutive vears. For the purpose of the enclosed certification form, “in the process” may include having the subject of performance measures on the agenda of the city council. The city should then use the time period between this year's certification and ne.xt year’s certification to develop basic measures such as “workload,’' unless it has already moved beyond this stage. The second year of “in the process” must be used to move to a higher level of performance measurement, such as measuring efficiency and effectiveness. All cities should be able to qualify to receive LPA in the first year of the aid program. This new aid will be determined as follows for calendar year 1997: The total amount of aid available for cities is $441,735 plus SI times the most recent population of each qualify ing city. A per capita aid amount is then determined by dividing the total aid available by the total population of all cities that qualify for the aid. Each qualifying city would then receive an aid amount based on its population times the per capita aid amount. It should be noted that the $441,735 is appropriated from the general fund, and the additional amount ($1 times the most recent population of each city) is a permanent reduction in each city’s homestead and agricultural credit aid (HACA). The HACA reduction applies whether or not the city is eligible to receive LPA. Distribution of this new aid will be based on yearly certifications for each qualifying city. Cities will be required to submit cin annual certification in order to receive LPA payable in calendar year 1997 and subsequent years. LPA will be paid in two equal installments on July 20 and December 26 of each year, beginning in 1997. Qualify ing cities will receive a certification of their 1997 LPA by July 31, 1996. (continued) An equal opportunity employer TDD (612) 215-0069 r Page 2 As mentioned above, yoxir cit>- may qualify for LPA by (1) havina a system of performance measures in place, or (2) by being m the process of developing^d implementing a system of performance mc^ums. If your city qualifies for LP A criteria, and your city wishes to participate m Ac distribution of this aid for calendar year 1997 vour citv must fill out Ac enclosed certification and return it to our office by June 30 Please note; if our omce does not melve a certification from your cityby June 30,1990, your city will not be eligible to receive this aid in calendar year 1997. If you have any questions regarding Ae completion of Ais form, please feel free to call me at (612) 296-5141. Sincerely, Larry L. Bewley Research Analysis Specialist F^operty Tax Division Enclosure ______. nliTTr . Form LPA - Cl Certification of Local Performance Measures for Local Performance Aid Payable in 1997 Compt«to and rrtum to: Mlfwmota Dfartiwnt of R>vtnu«. Property Tai tXvitton ■ Mail Station 3340 . St Pad, M4nn—oU 881444^40 Phow: C12)Mi414l Name and mailing address of governmental unit Name of person filling out form Telephone County of location 1. Does your city have a system of performaice measures for services provided by the city, and are these measures regutariy compiled and presented to the city council at least once each year?YES NO 2. If the answer to question 1 above is no. is your city in the process of developing and implementing a system of performance measures?YES NO This form must be returned to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division, by June 30,1996 in order for your city to be eligible to receive Local Performance Aid payable in 1997. Note: City certifications must be signed by the Mayor and by a member of the City Council. W6 do hereby certify that, to the best of our knowlecge and belief, the facts presented in this certification are true and correct. Signature of Mayor Signature of City Council Member Date •'•nr ®0««Q JUn X REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION “ DATE; June 6, 1996 ^ ITEM NO: J 3 Department Approval: Name Tide Item Description: ^ Public Works Maintenance Worker Appointment Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: At a previous Council meeting, the Council approved a conditional offer of employment to Donald DeBaere subject to a physical examination and drug test. Mr. DeBaere has successfully completed the physical examination, and the drug test result was neg.ttive. Based on these results, staff recommends the appointment of Mr. DeBaere to the Public Works Maintenance Worker position effective Monday, June 24 at a starting pay rate of $13.23 per hour. This rate is at Step 2 of the Public Works Maintenance Worker pay range. Staff is recommending the Step 2 rate based on Mr. DeBaere’s substantial experience in light and heavy equipment operation and maintenance, and in water and sewer construction. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the appointment of Donald DeBaere to the position of Public Works Maintenance Worker effective Monday, June 24, 1996 at a pay rate of $13.23 per hour. Park Intern Appointment The Council has authorized the hiring of an intern to assist with tasks related to the park system master planning process. Staff wUl provide a hiring recommendation at the Council meting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the hiring of a parks intern Jui^ X ^ ^996REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 4, 1996 ITEM NOiO.: Department Approval: Name John R. Gerhardson Title Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Works Item Description: Equipment Purchase •Parks The City currently installs docks at three beaches and swim area buoys at four beaches. Subsequent to the adoption of the 1996 budget, it w as disco\ ered that a number of swimming beach buoys had, due to age and use, been damaged beyond repair. There a:. typically two large swim area buoys at each swimming dock. The buoys are $122 each; therefore we will need to purchase eight buoys for a total cost of $976 including tax and freight. It is recommended to purchase the buoys through the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the purchase of eight swim area buoys from Roylon Inc. for a total cost of $976 and to purchase the buoys through the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund and to amend the budget by that amount. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUM 1 0 1996 COY OF ORo/vo Date: June 5, 1996 Item No: / 4? Department Approval: Name: Gary Cheswick Administrator Reviewed: Title:Chief of Police Agenda Section: Item Description: Hiring of Community Service Officer Exhibits: None DISCUSSION Michelle Alexander had been employed as a CSO with our department since May I, 1996. On May 31, 1996, Michelle informed us that she has been accepted as a full-time officer for the Mound Police Department. Therefore, a Community Service Officer positic. needs to be filled. In March, 1996, we interviewed ten applicants. The hiring boa. d picked Michelle Alexander as the number one candidate and Anthony (Tony) Wittke as .text on the list. Tony has been a reserve officer with our department since 1994, has gone through Reserve Officer Training, 1st Responder training, and is working toward his law enforcement degree. He has a good background and is very interested in working for the Orono Police Dep^nment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Request permission to hire Anthony Wittke as a part-time Community Service Officer, beginning Tuesday (6/11/96) at a salary of $7.30 per hour, with no benefits, whose compensation is not expected to exceed $5,100 annually ($2,975 for the remainder of 1996). REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUr ° I3se DATE: June ITEM NO; j ^ Department Approval: Name Title Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: / Item Description: 1997 LMCD Budget A copy of the proposed 1997 LMCD budget is attached for Council review. Significant elements of the budget are as follows: 1 2 3 The administrative levy has been reduced, due to the use of $48,000 of reserves to fund the administrative portion of the expenditures. However, the Exotics Management (EW Milfoil) levy has been increased due to a substantially reduced use of reserves to fund the EW Milfoil expenditures. (A reduction from $50,000 to $12,000) This results in a proposed cost to Orono of $26,052.22 vs. the 1996 levy of $24,728, an increase of $1,324 or 5.4%. The budget calls for the expenditure of $17,500 for office technology upgrades. The budget includes $15,000 for operational expenses related to zebra mussel control. The LMCD is soliciting input from cities regarding the budget prior to June 19, so that the comments can be considered at the June meeting of the LMCD at which the budget will be adopted. Subsequent to the budget adoption, cities have an opportunity to request a public hearing regarding the budget. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion regarding comments concerning the LMCD budget, if any. REVCNUi 0?^ «f- < 1 LMCO CommunitiM Admn L«¥y 2 Hmmvm Fund Contribution 3 Court Finoo 4 Lioonooo 5 Intoroot, Fiibfio Fundo 9 StuKolond Orvitt* DNR 7 Othor Inoomo iiibTotd« Adminiolfotion (a) Inoomo Prwpmd ot SO % in 1992 8 Exotioo Monooomont o LMCO Commun^>«o Exotioo Mgmt Lovy b Othor ^iblie Aoonoioi o Privoto Soboitotion • Intoroot •ubToloL IW Mato« 0 TOTAL A8V89ltAI -^ x •. MSWMfMEMTt i';... , >> J ADMINISTRATION 1 Solorioo 2 Employor Bonofrt Contributiono 3 Total Paroonoal iotMooa % y ■ -;y: ,y . r> Contractual Sarviooa: 4 Offioo Loaaa b Storaga 5 Profoaaional Sorvicoa >■- Office b Adminiatrativa; 7 Offico, Ganaral Supplioa 8 Talaphona 9 Poataga 10 Printing, Pubi., Adv. 11 Maintanartoa, Offioa Equipmant 12 Subacriptioni, Mambarihipa 13 Inauranco, Bonda 14 Public ...formation, Lagal Notkw 15 Milaaga. Expanaaa, Training 16 Total Offioa b Adminlatrotion itii I 80,322 39,626 41.000 86.000 6,000 0 0 1262^7 •63,000 40^000 0 18,500 8,000 •126,600 •3«2>847 • 113,000 19,700 • 132,700 DRAFTIMS A,tMd IflM IMS VTD 13/311 1M7 77.367 0 34,316 32.161 14,030 0 2.026 221420 (M11.300S 40.000 36.000 6,000 0 0 •248 JOO 41,331 0 6,167 80,763 2,447 0 462 <J0H4J 4 o!550 36,000 3.000 0 1.000 130J16 263,824 61,024 26,600 0 0 16,276 101.7idD 24,600 1,000 MUUiPO;) lo.oc-^ I118XKIO 11,077 1,000 0 0 2,336 18,013 C67.6007 24,600 ,L0QO_ Cl2,Q0e^ 12,000 117iW0 322.774 1220400 146426 380424 31,212 1106,000 14714 18,000 108464 1124,000 27,036 111,413 4,763 13.646 31.768 130.064 •11,647 12,262 • 12,200 3,143 17,160 5,700 13,333 10,000 2,718 10.000 •17447 28.160 422400 8461 27,160 •4,500 2,683 •4,500 1,613 4,500 2,000 2,425 2,000 363 2,000 4,500 3,143 4,800 1,072 6,000 2,000 2,626 2,000 764 2,600 2,000 1,238 2,000 1,243 2,000 200 275 300 65 300 4,200 7,224 7,500 0 7,000 1.000 1,767 2,000 620 2.000 2,500 1,428 1,500 168 1.500 •21,300 22404 •26,600 B«814 20.800 P«0«2 199S iu9s«t 199S Aetual Outtay: 1996 1996 19976u6s«t VrD 19/31) 6u6s«t J.OOO,17 Fumilyfa, iquipmant 19 Computer eoftworo § )t«r4«m updetae: Troininfl •2.000 192 • 1.000 2.600 0 0 It Tout Capiti) OwOar ....#2.000 192 •3J00 0 Lagat 20 Lapal Sorviooo •22,000 21.410 •22.000 4.118 21 Proaaoution Sarvioee 30.000 30.429 27.000 4.400 22 Harm. Cty Room 6 Board 3,000 1.269 6,000 0 23ToMLoBal •§§.000 §3.107 •66.000 §J7§ Contraot Sarvioaa/ Studiaa 24 Shoraiand Ruiaa, DNR Canaullant 0 0 0 0 25 ShoralMtd Ruloa. OMI City Oranta 2.641 0 0 0 26 Laka Raiatad Studiaa ft Programa 0 0 7.000 0 27 Mgmt Plan Implamantation • 13.000 0 7.600 0 28 Boater Ed. Pilot Program 29 Rooord Arohival 410,000 0 0 0 30 Total Cawtraat tarylaaa §tiHtoi>. :•26.941 0 • 14J00 0 11M 20.000 26.000 3.000 §1.000 0 0 0 31 TOTAL OOlMINIffTIIATtOM .sr ..SiC a07M» 1249. 6.000:^ If. (5'5S -L ^f(re(,cU/(ti(C>n - iriioo': opucdiM ... §2.040 293.024 Exotioi Minaam«nf )N—d HarvMtinQ Operational Expantaa 32 Salariaa ft Employar Taxaa/ Inauranoa 33 Truaking Contraot 34 Adminiatrativa 35 Oparatioo Suppliaa 36 Contraot Saqrioaa 37 Haavy Growth Saaaon Extanaion 36 Zabra Mutaal Oparational Expaniaa 3f TOTAL EXOTICi MANAOEMftMT 40 TOTAL EXKN6U Sava tha Laka Program Inooma: a. Privata Oonationa b. Other Inooma e. Intaraat SubTotaly Sava tha Lake Sava tha Laka Program Expanaa: a. Admin Exp b. Program Exp INFORMATIONAL: EWM Equipment Raaarva Aflocaf ion X* 36,240 30.991 36.000 130 36.000 •26.000 13.990 •26.000 0 21,000 4.060 0 4,000 0 1.000 16,600 25.169 20,000 0 22.000 16.900 16.769 16.000 336 i6,ooa 6.000 0 16.000 0 C7.000 ci 5,000 • 106.000 §§J0§•116,000 466 I390.696 294.499 •360.900 62J19 360.624 •27.000 34.602 •27.000 2.096 2.000 936 2.000 0 4.600 5.854 4,500 734 •33.600 41.392 •33.600 2,629 •: 1.500 13.657 1.620 12.037 •33,500 2.500 31,000 3,207 628 2.679 •36.000 35.000 •36,000 0 Vitu*Tw CaMdtv T«td >>■7.6001 <f0.»24> »14a.0241_ D*apltav«t OtmawmO Miww<nlM MiAAMMa M>yA4 i^HAg fmk ToAha lay Victacia Waytala WaadtaAO 359.315.600 107.361.600 71.237.300 3.285.662.400 81.076.400 323.100.500 363.145.600 773.956,000 521.071,900 57,607.200 146.711.600 190.061.600 400,017.200 93.736.500 6.179.319 2.366.016 1.304.053 66,181,131 1,512.712 5.709.028 6.060.020 14,100.320 0.103,097 1,422.296 2.603.962 3.341.040 7.906,324 1,767^074 7.72 2.95 1.63 20.00 1.69 7.13 0.32 17.60 11.37 1.76 3.36 4.17 8.87 2.21 5.211.00 1.991.25 1.100.25 13.500.00 1.276.75 4.612.75 5,616.00 11.660.00 7.674.75 1,201.50 2.268.00 2.814.75 6.662.25 1.491.75 6.216.45 11.427.46 2.376.46 4,300.71 1,312.54 2,412.79 10.104.60 29.004.90 1.621.90 2.797.06 5,741.30 10.664.11 0,699.60 12.316.00 14.172.22 20.062.22 9.155.60 10J30.33 1,433.33 2.034.03 2.706.61 4,973.01 3.357.65 0.172.00 7,947.72 14,009.97 1,779.58 3.271.3 3 ioToolmioO >1324^1iM--------ioblir-0T6bO.00 90.624.06 149.024.00 Laaa MiAAatonla:-mm Total ol Aal tax capaoitv laaa Minnatonka baeauaa Minnatonka la a conatant 20% Calculating paraantaoa: City nat tax capactty dividad by 64,067,865 tanaa .60 aquaia parcani Uaa oAly 80% baeauaa Minnatonka m alwaya 20%. amount of dty nat tax capacity dividad by 64,067.665 X .80 - % of total Tb« folloviag aasuaptioBS wrm Md* in tb« dr«ft iff? LMCD Budgets BDMIlllBTRATTQlf Executive Director Adainistretive Technician Adninistrative Secretary Administrative Clerk SALARIES (tl\ CURRENT $ 48,000 28,000 22,000 8 per hr. Iff? $ S0,flf I 2f,fl4 f 23,1SS I s.ooo 1111,418 Sll ATTA A M . • . 1.4 (LfiXEE ggWriT COWTRIBDTIOMS (#2) P.E.R.A. (4.23%) P.E.R.A. Life Ins. Commercial Life Ins. F.I.C.A. (7.65%) Medical Insurance* 4.0 % INCREASE $ 4,712.98 432.00 43.20 8,523.48 4.933.92 $ 18,645.58 * Current LMCD Health Insurance Policy Office (900 sq. ft.) Storage ($80/month) filUfil LEASE £ STORAGE l£ii $ 16,200.00 960.00 $ 17,160.00 Specialty Bookkeeping Claire Link Other Service lOFESSIOMAL SERVICES t#5l $ 7,000.00 $ 2,200.00 i 800.00 I 10,000.00 Property Inland Marine Municipal Liability Excess Liability w/ Waiver Bond Contingency mSURAMCB/BOWDS l#13> $ 100.00 1.023.00 3.510.00 1.230.00 105.00 1.032.00 7,000.00 EEOTICS MANAGEMENT WEED harvesting PRCX5RAM 8ALARIEB 6 EMPLOYER TAIES/INSDRAMCK |#33> Salaries F.I.C.A. Insurance Auto Workers* Compensation $ 29,994.43 2,294.57 700.00 2.011.00 2,711.00 Total Salaries & Employer $ 35,000.00 Taxes/ Insurance * A new harvester will be purchased in 1997 from the EWM Equipment Acquisition Fund. Salaries (200 Hours) F.I.C.A. Insurance Operation Supplies Education Contingency $ 2,400.00 183.60 1,000.00 1,000.00 3,000.00 7.416.40 $ 15,000.00 * A second high-pressure sprayer will be purchased in 1997 from "Save the Lake** Funds. yjekRVg IsniB MtALYSIS ADMIMISTIIATXOM BUDGET ACTUAL 1995 12-31-94 $193,202* Allocation 39,625 Transfer to 28.000 Eg. Acq. Fund YOIID BALANCE $125,577 $193,202* 0 Q. $193,202 $175,630* 18,500 7.000 $150,130 $175,630* 0 35.000 $140,630 * 12-31-94 AUDIT TZOURB8 ADNZMI8TRATZOM budget tSSSlMi 1996 12-31-95 $125,577 $203,971* Allocation 0 0 Transfer to £ Eq. Acq. Fund rUMD BALANCE $125,577 $203,971 * 12-31-95 AUDIT FIGUREB BUDGET $150,130 50,000 0. $100,130 BNM 1996 ACTUAL $144,910* 50,000 A $94,910 12-31-96 Allocate Til u Transfer to Eq. Acq. Fund FUND BALANCE ADNZNI6TEATZOM 1997 BUDGET $203,971 48.000 35.000 $120,971 LMCD Reserve Fund Policy Administrative (6 month*?) BUN 1997 BUDGET $94,910 10,000 A $84,910 EWM (12 months) ATnkCnCBMT A lf97 LMCO BNFL0YBB8 8ALAAXB8 f:• 1997 LMCD ITAFF 8ALAAI18 Executive Director 4.0% Increeee $ 50,919 - Administrative Technician Administrative Secretary Administrative Clerk $ 29,314 $ 23,185 $ 8,000 TOTAL 1997 XMCD SALAIIZtS •111,418 IZBCDTZTE DZRBCTOA 1999 Jan-June ($48,000) Julv~ Dec _ TOTAL SALARY 1997 Jan-June Julv-Dec TOTAL SALARY 4.0% IBC: $24,000 S24.960 (849.920^ $48,940 $24,960 $25.959 ($51.9171 $50,919 ADMZNZSTRATIYB TBCHMZCZAll 1994 Jan-Oct ($28,000) Nov-Dec TOTAL SALARY 1997 Jan-Oct Nov-Dec TOTAL SALARY 4.0% ipcraase $23,333 i 4.853 ($29.120) $28,184 $24,267 i 5.047 ($30.285) $29,314 ADMINISTRATIYB SBCRBTARY 1994 Jan-Aug ($22,000) Sep-Dee TOTAL SALARY 1997 Jan-Aug Sep-Dec TOTAL SALARY 4.0% Increase $14,667 i 7.627 ($22.880) $22,294 $15,253 S 7.932 ($23.795) $23,185 X REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ 199$ DATE: June 6. 1996 ITEM NOiO: Department Approval: Name Title .lf*jninistrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Item Description: Cooperative Police Services Study Report and Meeting The final report of Lake Minnetonka Area Cooperating Cities (LMACC) concerning cooperative police services is attached. The cooperative police services study, and the preparation of the report, were coordinated by a subcommittee made up of the city administrators of Long Lake, Mound and Orono. The report reflects the findings and conclusions of a study that analyzed police services in the lake area, with the goal of identifying options for maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of police service delivery. The report recommends two action steps: 1. 2. Lake area city administrators and police chiefs work together to select a set of cooperative arrangements to be implemented within a short time frame. Conduct an in-depth feasibility smdy of consolidation of police departments in the lake area to obtain the range and depth of information needed to enable cities to make informed decisions regarding consolidation. It is the hope of the LMACC that the report will spark discussion in individual cities and police departments, and among cities and police departments regarding opportunities for enhanced cooperation and opportunities for consolidation to improve the delivery of police services. A meeting to present the report to representatives of each of the lake area cities is being planned for 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 10 at the Shorewood City Council Chambers. The cities are being invited to send at least two city councilmembers to the meeting. The meeting will include a presentation of the report, including a discussion of the recommended action steps. Because one of the action steps involves the lake area police chiefs working on enhancing cooperation among police departments, the meeting is planned to include a presentation by the police chiefs regarding potential new cooperative arrangements. Councilmembers are encouraged to attend the July 10 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED No action required. LAKE MINNETONKA AREA COOPERATIVE POLICE SERVICES STUDY Prepared by the Lake Minnetonka Cooperating Cities (LMACC) May 15, 1996 Introduction The lake area is made up of a large number of relatively small communities, each with its own unique identity-each striving to preserve both its unique identity and its economic viability. In the midst of a trend toward consolidation of local units of government (in the interest of efficiency and cost effectiveness, and in some cases basic financial viability), the lake area cities have been in the forefront of efforts to create cooperative arrangements to provide services at lower costs while maintaining the independence of local government units. Increased demands for more services and lower taxes has meant continuing efforts to find ways to do more with less. Backeround of Cooperative Service Study The Lake Minnetonka Area Cooperating Cities group (LMACC), which is made up of the city managers and administrators of the lake area cities, has initiated a process to identify and develop new cooperative arrangements among cities to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery in all areas of municipal services. This process grew out of discussions regarding "Right Sizing" for the most efficient and effective delivery of municipal services. Right Sizing is an effon to ensure service delivery units are organized, structured and staffed for the most cost-effective delivery of services. Because of the small size of most cities around the lake, if a city was to piovide all services independently, the service delivery would be ver>' inefficient. "Right Sizing" requires cooperative arrangements across cities to gain the advantage of economies of scale. Out of these discussions the various municipal service areas were grouped into five categories for more in-depth study. These categories are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Public safety (Police and Fire) Public works and Engineering Parks and recreation Finance and administration Planning, zoning and building inspection As in all cities, a large amount of resources are dedicated to police services in the lake area. Although each of the police departments has a substantial budget, the magnitude of resources becomes clearer when the financial and staff resources dedicated to police services in the lake area are combined. For example, even when the resources used to prcviue police services to the cities of Minnetonka, Chanhassen and Victoria are excluded, the remaining lake area cities spend a combined $5 million per year, and have a combined 64 sworn police staff. This magnitude of resources makes the argument for additional efforts to enhance the cost- effectiveness of police service delivery a compelling one. In 1995, the LMACC applied for and received a $5,000 grant from the Metropolitan Council to study police services in the lake area. The study, in its final form, is to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council and to the city councils of the lake area. Purpose of Study The overall purpose of the study was to analyze the current delivery of police services in the lake area and prov ide options for maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of police service delivery. More specifically, the study was to identify opportunities for enhancing cooperation among departments, and to preliminarily assess the feasibility of consolidating police departments in the lake area as a method of improving the delivery of police services. Study Area TheLMACC communities include: Chanhassen, Deephaven, Greenwood, Woodland. Excelsior, Long Lake, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound. Orono, Shorewood.. Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria and Wayzata. The study area includes seventeen communities (one of which is not a member of the L.M,-\CC) served by seven local police departments and the Carver County Sheriffs Department. The police chiefs of each of the departments were very cooperative in providing the requested information, and in making themselves available for questions. The following is a breakdown of communities and their corresponding law enforcement department: Carver County Sheriff s Department: Cities of Victoria and Chanhassen. Mound Police Department: City of Mound Wayzata Police Department: City of Wayzata South Lake Public Safety Department: Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood, and Tonka Bay St. Bonifacius & Minnetrista Public Safety Department: Cities of St. Bonifacius and Minnetrista. Minnetonka Police Department: City of Minnetonka. Deephaven Police Department: Cities of Deephaven and Woodland Orono Police Department: Cities of Orono, Spring Park, Long Lake and Minnetonka Beach. Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to encourage and facilitate discussion about improving police service delivery among the cities of the lake area. The report explores two approaches to improving police service deliver>—enhancing cooperation among departments, and changing the current system of police service delivery through consolidation of departments. It is hoped the report will spark discussion in individual cities and police departments, and among cities and police departments, regarding opportunities for enhanced cooperation and opportunities for consolidation that would improve the delivery' of police services. Substantial Cooperative Arrangements Are Currently In Place The police departments in the Lake Minnetonka area have, over the years, developed a broad range of cooperative relationships that have allowed them to provide police service more cost effectively. E.xamples of these cooperative arrangements include the following: 1. 2. 3. Provision of dispatching to the majority of the lake area cities by Hennepin County. Provision of animal control serx'ices to several lake area cities by the City of Chanhassen. Mutual aid agreements to enable assistance across jurisdictions. 4. 5. 6. ,ne efficiency and effectiveness ui y «xv.ce while reducing costs. •••<•'“ ________Lhese opporiuuu.v. - A Cooperative arrangement for ^|^\|^;X'a7eaToU^^^^ uanspotration lo the Coun^ J >'■ ^“oJf.cer to transport suspects to must send an officer, CSO, or a to develop a cooperative ,he Hennepin countv Jar ,^^,t stamng and holding ^rSt^inCoumv-Jail. amnaement with a city ^ another joint transport >s suspects to the County Jail. Joint maintenance of police vehicles. Joint access to police records across jurisdictions. snared human resource administration, i.e. recruitment, select.on etc. Joint animal control service/impound facility. Contracted investigative services. creation of a ve fraTiC oTU- Staffing needs i.e. curing Joint juvenile diversion program. cooperative arrangement for administrative investigations. Sharing of staff for DAIfE and school liaison officer acttviues. S:^nst.e-:UT— D. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. ccx)perative arrangements with the greatest potential for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of police service delivery. Consolidation of Departments A second approach to increasing services and lowering costs is consolidation of police departments. The lake area has substantial experience with this approach. The South Lake Public Safely Department is a consolidated department that serves four cities through a joint powers agreement. The Orono Police Department provides police service to four cities through a contractual arrangement. The St. Bonifacius.'Minnetrista Police Department serves two cities through a joint powers agreement. The cities of Chanhassen and Victoria receive police services from Carver County. The lake area currently has eight police agencies serving seventeen communities (this includes Carver County serving the City of victoria). Six of the eight departments have less than 20 sworn officers. Half of these ha’e less than 12 sworn officers. This is substantially less than general standards for ideal organizational size. In 1973 the National Advisoo Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals recommended consolidation of police departments with less than 10 full-time sworn officers. In 1975 a report by the Michigan Advisorv' Commission on Criminal Justice suggested that the minimum acceptable size of law enforcement agencies is 20 full-time sworn officers. The results of a study published in the November 1976 issue of Public Administration Review suggested that departments with 12 to 76 officers were able to provide police services most effectively. Based on these standards, it appears that sev ’ combinations of existing departments could provide increases in efficiency and effectivece: Please see Appendix A for a staffing chart of each of the lake area police organizations. Advantages and Pisa 'vu.itages of Cooperative Arrangements and Consolidation Doing more with le can be accomplished by both enhancing cooperation among existing police departments and by consolidating smaller departments into larger units. The lake area cities have followed both approaches, since the two are not mutually exclusive. The two approaches each have an important role to play in increasing services and reducing costs. The two approaches each provide economies of scale which enable increased service levels and reduced costs. Each of the approaches has specific benefits. There are also obstacles to impiementing each approach. Benefits of Cooperative Arrangements 1. Enhanced cooperation does not significantly disturb current organizations. 2. Cities retain the overall method of service delivery with which they are currently comfortable. 3.Cooperative arrangements promote stronger relationships between police departments and between cities. Obstacles to Cooperative Arrangements 1. Requires sustained efforts by multiple departments to identify and implement cooperative arrangements. 2. Fears that cooperative arrangements may reduce local independence. Benefits of Consolidation 1. A preliminary analysis of the organizational structures and staffing levels of the lake area police departments suggests that consolidation of departments could significantly reduce the ainount of top and mid-management positions and would enable significant efficiencies in the office support activities and staffing. This would free up resources which would enable putting more sworn personnel on the street and/or would enable additional specialized staffing. This staffing could include School Liaison/DARE Officers or a Community Building Specialist to assist in building relationships between the police department and community organizations that are necessary' for successful community policing efforts. 2.Consolidation brings a large number of potential cooperative arrangements within the purview of a single department. Rather than developing cooperative arrangements across cities and departments, cooperative arrangements can be accomplished internally. 3. Consolidation provides an opportunity to create a new organization, and encourages new^ perspectives and new ways of doing things. 4. Consolidation can enable a greater level of economies of scale than can cooperative arrangements. a. ) Reduced administrative and support staff. b. ) More efficient and effective patrol supervision. c. ) Potential reduction in the number of police facilities. d. ) Centralization of police records. Obstacles to Consolidation 1. Fears of loss of local control and loss of local identity. a. ) Responsiveness to community needs and desires. b. ) Quality of service. c. ) Quantity of service. 2. 3. Fears of loss of "high touch" provided by a small department and close relationships between the police officers and citizens and businesses. Merging of the departments requires dealing with union issues such as seniority, different pay and benefit levels, etc. 4. Consolidation requires developing new governance and cost allocation arrangements Conclusion The study has identified significant opportunities for increased services and reduced costs uiTOugh enhanced cooperative efforts among departments. The lake area Police Chiefs have suggested and committed to immediate and sustained efforts to study and implement additional cooperative arrangements. The informal assessment of the feasibility of police department consolidation, in terms of enabling improved services and/or reduced costs, suggested there are significant economies of scale possible through consolidation. However, the preliminary assessment did not provide sufficient in-depth analysis to provide a clear picture of the benefits versus costs of consolidation. A more formal feasibility study would be required to provide sufficient information for decision making regarding consolidation. Recommended Action Steps Based on the results of the study the following action steps are recommended: 1 Lake area city adniinistraiors and police chiefs work together to select a set of cooperative arrangimf.its to be implemented within a short time frame. 2.Conduct an in-depth feasibility study of consolidation of police departments in the lake area to obtain the range and depth of information needed to enable cities to make informed decisions regarding consolidation. A preliminary listing of the components to be included in a consolidation feasibility study is attached as Appendi.x B. This information is taken from a report titled Small Police Agency Consolidation: .'Uggested Approaches, prepared by the Office of Development, Testing and Dissemination; National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice; authored by Terry' W. Koepsel and Charles M. Girard in July of 1979. f - APPENDIX A . I Ml ■ I ■ jrrii ¥ CURRENT STAFFING BY CITY Top & Mii Mgt Patrol Sup^rv. Non- Patrol Superv. Patrol (incl-g Corponls) Investig Total Sworn Office Support (plus dispatch) CSO*S Total Staffing Population Served Deephaven Chief (1) 1 1 5 7 1 -8 4,103 Mound Chief (1)2 7 2 12 1 1.3 14.3 9,592 Orono Acting Chief (1) U. (1) m m 13 1 16 2.75 .75 19.5 11,730 St. Boni/Mtrsta Chief (1) 1 u 5 1 8 1.5 1.3 10.8 4,950 S. Lake Chief (1) Lt, (1) 2 7 (plus C.O.P.) 2 13 (plus C.O.P.) 2 •15 (plus C.O.P.) 10,641 Wayzaia Chief (1)1 5.5 .5 8 1 1.0 10 3,860 1 Subtoul S 7 42.5 64 9.25 4.35 77.6 44.876 1 Minnetonka • Chief (1) Captain (1) Director (3) 7 2 27 9 49 9.5 + (7.5) 3 69 50,569 TOTAL 13 14 2 69.5 (+COP) 15.5 113 (+ COP) 18.75 + (7.5)7.35 146.6 (+ COP) 95,445 1 1 . APPENDIX B COMPONENTS OF A CONSOLIDATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 1. Demographic information related to each of the potential panicipating jurisdictions, “7 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A profile of the level of police activity in each jurisdiction. a. ) Reported criminal activity b. ) Calls for service (this requires a common definition of "calls for service") Organizational structure and general operating procedures of each of the existing agencies; including the range and depth of services/programs provided, i.e. DARE, School Liaison, Crime Prevention, etc. Staffing information for each of the existing agencies. Analysis of the management and administration of each of the existing agencies. a. ) Personnel policies 1. ) Pay scales and benefits 2. ) Trailing policies b. ) Evidence and property control procedures Inventory of major equipment and facilities in each of the agencies. Police service cost information. a. ) Salaries and wages b. ) Benefits c. ) General operating expenditures d. ) Capitai costs e. ) Miscellaneous expenses Public opinion survey (optional) a. ) Citizen attitudes regarding the current system of police service delivery 1. ) Quality of service 2. ) Costs b. ) Any problems or short comings perceived with the current system c. ) Attitudes regarding the development of a merged or consolidated agency Assessment of the existing delivery system using the information provided in Items 1 through 8 above. 10. Development of alternative approaches to oiganizing for the delivery of police seivices I N request for council action X DATE: June 7, item NO: \ Department Approval: Name Title Item Description: Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Purposes As the telecommunications industry gear P . jgj^j.of-wav. Attached for Council . KSsrss5s^-j; i> 1 “ “«r£ Eonl^E'aiE" “II the Council for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED No action required at this time. J|J< or '9t. 0i:I5R1 LEwI'i.C -I-T ITi CITIES P. 1 ^fr- LMC I CiVij* = F riday F ax /I 't tvA/v fVi'iJiufn c- updau ’fn-'m :!:c League of MrittiiOUJ Cuiti V(^l 1. Nc 13 June 5. 199f) Special Edition Lawsuit dismissed, but issue is far from settled PUC, legislative actions still to come I n the wake of the District Court I decision to dismiss the US I West lawsuit against Redwood Fails, Minnesota city officials should be satisfied w'ith the outcome, but wary of the future. "We are obviously very pleased with the District Court ruling." said Jim Miller, League of Minnesota Cities Executive Direc tor. "However, we know full well that this decision will not finally resolve the issue. Cities need to prepare and implement a long term strategy for shaping a state telecommunications and utility right of way policy,” Late Friday afternoon, Judge George Harrelson of the Fifth District Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by US West against the City of Redwood Falls asking for preemption of local regulation. US West claimed that the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has exclusive authority over the con&truction of telephone lines and that cities do not have the authority to regulate how fiber Optic cable must be installed or determine how much private utilities must pay to use city streets. US West objected to a Red wood Falls ordinance requiring utilities Durymg major trunk fiber optic cable to either encase it m concrete or limit the city's liability. After considering potential state wide i.mplications. the League of Minnesota Cities Board of Direc tors authorized League interven tion on behalf of Redwood Falls. In the joint motion to dismiss the case, the League and Redwood Falls argued that state law autho rizes cities to regulate the con struction and maintenance of Utility lines within streets, alleys, and o ’hor public grounds. The suit in District Court is only part of US West's strategy to chalier.ge local control of the public rights of way US West has also asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to intervene and take control of local rights of way. That decision is expected later this sur imer. "It's important to remember that the proceedings initiated by US West with the Public Utilities Commicsion remain an immedi ate concern." said Miller "Any PUC action will not be directly affected by the District Court ruling." In his order dismissing t'ne lawsuit. Judge Harrelson wrote "...The Minnesota Legislature has not divested Minnesota cities of their right to impose reasonable regulations and to charge a rea sonable franchise fee for the use of titeir streets and services ' The judge's order, v^hich US V/est IS expected to appeal, does not preclude US West or other telecommunications providers from bringing additional district court actions alleging impi-oper or excessive regulation. If your c.iy needs further information or assistance in establishing defensible regulations that meet your city specific needs, please contact the League. Cjntrol of public rights of way is high on the agenda as cities gather next week in Rocneatcr for t'ne League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference. At the League Annual Meeting, mem ber cities will discuss an ambi tious and unique work program related to the right of way issue. As proposed, this work program contemplates a substantial additional financial commitment from members. City officials do not need to register for the Annual Conference to attend the Annual Meeting on Thursday afternoon, if a repre- sentafive of your city can not attend the Annual Meeting, we encourage you to contact us regarding your thoughts on this matter. LMC Laagum of Minnesota CiUiu Cihmt promoting ^c»^IIencQ Jlities Bull etin Number 17 May 31, 1996 City officials will consider rights of way policy statement, work plan and financing Board and members will finalize details at Annual Conference Joel Jamnik City officials will help decide over the course of the next two weeks who. if anyone, will take care of public rights of way. Member officials will be asked what role the League of Minne sota Cities should take in protecting streets and other public rights of way. The League is moving toward adopting a position strongly in favor of retaining city authority over the use of rights of way, and establishing a work plan and financing sufficient for its successful implementation. Prelimi nary estimates are that this extra effon could directly cost Minnesota cities a quarter of a milli n dollars, or more. The need to address this issue became urgent in February when US West asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to take exclusive jurisdiction over municipal public rights of way and set aside local regulations. US West specifically objects to a Redwood Falls ordinance that requires utilities burying major trunk fiber optic cable either to encase it in concrete or limit the city's liability in respect to damage to the cable. The League has long worked on public policy is<»»es surrounding the deregulation of various utilities and other ’.idusiries ihai commonly use the pubi c right of way. The utilities and indusrries have generalK sought to obtain the unrestricted and low cost use of the right of w ay. City officials are concerned thai if industry is successful, streets will be regularly tom up and underground facilities w ill resemble a plate of spaghetti. W'ithoul some oversight, local taxpayers w ill further subsidize private interests and will pay higher taxes to build and maintain city sueets. The League Public Rights of Way Task Force will consider a policy statement and work plan at their June 6 meeting. The League Board of Direc tors will review the task force recom mendations at their meeting on Tuesday, June 11 in Rochester. The draft policy statement argues that cities are the best level of govern ment to determine when and under what conditions private individuals and businesses can dig in and use street and other rights of way. Tlie policy also 1 Page 3 — Road financing 1 Page 5 — Conference info f i The Court of Appeals recently struck down an Eagan street financing plan. The decision could have a far reaching impact on all city funding mechanisms. New addition to this year's Annual Conference include a grants area and an opportunity to send a press release directly to your local media. addresses what level of compensation, if any. is appropriate, and other matters. Given the complexity of the issue, the Board has scheduled two opportu nities at the Annual Conference to ask questions and offer thoughts on the matter. An Annual Meeting briefing is scheduled for Thursday. June 13 at 9 a.m. The issue is also on the agenda of the Annual Meeting itself, which begins at 4 p.m. The League sends the Cities V Bulletin to the mayor and to the administrator or derk. Be sura to . route It to your councllmembm . • and department headsJ •' | ^' • - j ... • ■. . w- i \ . . ••i. ■■ .... ■ ■ V V-' 'f'*** ■■ ■ r • . . • t . • . ,-M^. % * 1 ■ t . J ^ ’JX'; - r; .. - i V* . • ^ - ■ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Ji'M 2 1995 SRA City Managers/Administrators ‘ ■ f Jim Strommen. Holmes & Graven ! June 1. 1995 SRA/League of Minnesota Cities Model Telecommunications Permit Ordinance Attached is the product of the SRA’s collaboration with the League of Minnesota Cities regarding a permit ordinance for telecommunication construction and operation in Minnesota cities. This model ordinance is based on the SRA Model Telecommunications Permit Ordinance that has already been circulated to SRA cities during the past few months. As with any document like this, additional review and final preparation of SRA/LMC ordinance has resulted in some appropriate modifications and additions. I would like to highlight them briefly for your consideration. If previous ordinance adoption has occurred, the city council might consider the following additions. If there has not yet been any adoption of an ordinance based on the previous model, the provisions below serve as further explanation to a document we recomr'end you consider for adoption. The additions in the SRA/LMC Model: Section 2, subd. 3 . Establishes a procedure for applicant contest of permit denial. Section 2, subd. 5 . Provides a procedure for a single security for multiple projects. Section 6, subd. 3 . Requires prior notice to the city whenever the company closes a street due to an emergency. Section 6. subd. 6. Broadens the city’s right to require installation of service connections prior to pav ing or resurfacing. Section 8 . Includes an acceptance by the coinpany of requirements in the ordinance. Section 9. Clarifies that no additional rights to use non-right-of-way public ground are granted by this ordinance. Rather, if the city allows non-right-of-way public ground to be used, the terms and conditions of that use will be governed by this ordinance. If you have any questions please call 337-9233. sui?:-;’ w- f; A ■4 r a research memo for city officials Model Telecommunications Permit Ordinance ^.'*- -r. League of Minnesota Cities © 1995 League of Minnesota Cities All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America mm League of Minnesota Cities 3490 Lexington Avenue North St Paul, MN 55126 (612) 490-5600 1-800-925-1122 TDD: (612) 490-9038 Fax: (612) 490-0072 I ! May 18, 1995 Background to Model Telecommunications Permit Ordinance The following model ordinance is the result of a cooperative effort between James Strommen. of Holmes & Graven Chartered in Minneapolis, attorneys for the Suburban Rate Authority ("SRA"), and Stan Peskar, General Counsel of the League of Minnesota Cities. The model ordinance is based primarily on an SRA model ordinance prepared by Mr. Strommen and Dave Kennedy, also of Holmes & Graven. The SRA is a joint powers organization consisting of 32 Twin City suburban municipalities. The SRA has actively intervened in electric, gas, and telecommunications matters before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissio.a since the Commission’s formation in 1974. Holmes & Graven acts as city attorney for a number of Twin City municipalities and is bond or special project counsel for other Minnesota cities. The purpose of the model ordinance is to provide uniform police power regulation over existing and new telecommunications equipment and facilities on public property. This is not a franchise. The right ot Minnesota cities to require a franchise from telecommunications carriers is unclear, whether they be local service providers, long distance, cellular or providers of new technology such as video dialtone. This issue is the subject of a legislative study to be conducted in 1995 for a report to the legislature by February 15, 1996. The powers set forth in this model ordinance are consistent with police powers generally and specifically granted to home rule and statutory cities in Minnesota. To the extent franchise rights exist, these ordinances would still be relevant and applicable. The provisions in this model ordinance are typical of what would be included in a franchise agreement, with the exception of a provision for franchise fees (e.g., gross receipts) and the more comprehensive provisions found in a cable franchise. This ordinance allows cities to define rights and responsibilities regarding the location and relocation of utility equipment and facilities, repair obligations, public safety and indemnity. This ordinance does not apply to electric, gas, or cable utilities. They are government by Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 216B and 238, respectively. This ordinance should be reviewed carefully and coordinated with existing ordinances and permitting policies of your city. If you have any questions about the proposed provisions or the background to this ordinance, please call Stan Peskar at 612-490-5600 or James Strommen at 612-337-9233. c\sgp\sn.ord SRA/LMC Model Telecommxinicationa Permit Ordlnanc?** ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF COUNTY, MINNESOTA An ordinance governing the construction, installation, operation, repair, maintenance, removal, and relocation of facilities and equipment used for the transmission of telecommunications or related services in the public ground of the City of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORDAINS:^ SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. The terms defined in this Section have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. Company. A natural or corporate person, business association, political sxobdivision, public or private agency of any kind, its successors and assigns, who or which seeks or is required to construct, install, operate, repair, maintain, remove or relocate facilities in the city. Subd. 3. Director. The director of public works (or equivalent position at the city) or designated representative.’ Subd. 4. Facilities. Telecommunications ecjuipment of any kind, including but not limited to audio, video, paging, facsimile or similar service, not governed by Minnesota Statutes, chapter 238, including all trunks, lines, circuits, physical connections, switching ecjuipment, wireless communication equipment of all kinds, and any necessary appurtenances owned, leased or operated by a company on, over, in, under, across or along public ground. Subd. 5. Public Ground. Highways, roads, streets, alleys, public ways, utility easements and public grounds in the city. SECTION 2. PERMIT PROCEDURE. Subdivision 1. Permit Recmired. A compeuiy may not construct, install, repair, remove or relocate facilities, or any part thereof, in, on, over, under or along public ground without first obtaining a permit from the city. ^ Enacting clauses are different in various charters. The statutory city enacting clause is used here. "The director of public works, the city engineer, the street superintendent, etc." Some cities prefer to designate the city manager as the administrative authority in all cases relying on the numager to make the appropriate assignment. JMStS»13 SUICO'17 Subd. 2. Application. Application for a permit is made to the director. Subd. 3. Issuance of permit. If the director determines that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of this ordinance the may issue a permit to the company. An applicant may contest a permit denial or the conditions of approval by written notice to the clerk requesting a city council review within fourteen (14) days of the director’s action. The Council shall hear any contest of the director's actions under this ordinance within forty-five (45) days of the city clerk's receipt of the contest notice. Nothing in this ordinance precludes the city from requiring a franchise agreement with the applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to the issuance of a permit set forth herein. Subd. 4. Permit fee. The application must be accompanied by the permit fee set by the city council by resolution.® Subd. 5. Security for completion of work. Prior to commencement of work, the company must deposit with the city security in the form of certified check, letter of credit or construction bond, in a sufficient amount as determined by the director for the completion of the work. The securities will be held until the work is completed plus a period of _ _ _ months thereafter to guarantee that restoration work has been satisfactorily completed. Upon application of the company, providing such information as the director may require, if two or more work projects are to be constructed during a calendar year, the director may accept, in lieu of separate security for each project, a single^ security for multiple projects in such form and amount^ as determined, in the discretion of the director, to be sufficient to assure completion of all projects which may be in progress at any one time during that calendar year and to guaranty that restoration work will be satisfactorily completed. The security will then be returned to the company with interest if required by law and then interest at the applicable statutory rate.^ Subd. 6. Inspection of work. When the work is completed the company must request an inspection by the director. The director will determine if the work has been satisfactorily completed and provide the company with a written report of the inspection and approval. Many cities set permit and license fees annually by resolution. If this is not done, the actual fee should be inserted here. The amount of the fee should not exceed the amount reasonably expected to cover all city costa of administration', inspection and enforcement. ^ The rate of interest could be the statutory rate of recognized rate such as prime or a T-bill rate. % or some JMS88913 SU160-17 SECTION 3. RESTORATION AND RELOCATION. Subdivision 1. Restoration. Upon completion of the work, the company must restore the general area of the work, including paving and its foundations, to the same condition that existed prior to commencement of the work and must exercise reasonable care to maintain the same condition for two years thereafter. The work must be completed as promptly as weather permits. If the company does not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and restore the public ground to the same condition, the city may put it in the same condition at the expense of the con^any. The company must, upon demand, pay to the city the direct and indirect cost of the work done for or performed by the city, including but not limited to the city's administrative costs. To recover its costs, the city will first draw on the security posted by the company and then recover the balauice of the costs incurred from the company directly by written denicuad. This remedy is in addition to any other remedies available to the city. Subd. 2. Company initiated relocation. The con^jany must give the ci*,y written notice prior to a company initiated relocation of facilities. A company initiated relocation must be at the company's expense and must be approved by the city, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. Subd. 3. City required relocation. The company must promptly and at its own expense, with due regard for seasonal working conditions, permanently relocate its facilities whenever the city requires such relocation. S\ibd. 4. Relocation where public around vacated. The vacation of public ground does not deprive the compeuiy of the right to operate and maintain its facilities in the city. If the vacation proceedings are initiated by the compeuiy, the company must pay the relocation costs. If the vacation proceedings are initiated by the city or other persons, the company must pay the relocation costs unless otherwise agreed to by the city,® company and other persons. SECTION 4. COMPANY DEFAULT. Subdivision 1. Notice. If the company is in default in the performance of the work authorized by the permit, including but not limited to restoration requirements, for more than 30 days after receiving written notice from the city of the default, the city may terminate the rights of the company under the permit. The notice of default must be in writing and specify the provisions of the permit under which the default is claimed and state the grounds of the claim. The notice must be served on the company by personally Vacation proceedings are often initiated by property owners and occasionally by the city itself. This provision authorizes cost sharing among the city, company and propv^rty owners if agreement can be reached. JMS8a913 SU160-I7 delivering it to an officer thereof at its principal place of business in Minnesota or by certified mail to that address. Subd. 2. City action on default. If the company is in default in the performance of the work authorized by the permit, the city may, after the above notice to the company and failure of the company to cure the default, take such action as may be reasonably necessary to abate the condition caused by the default. The company must reimburse the city for the city's reasonable costs, including costs of collection and attorney fees incurred as a result of the company default. The security posted under Section 2, Subdivision 5 will be applied by the city first toward payment for such reimbursement. SECTION 5. INDEMNIFICATION. Subdivision 1. Scope. The company will indemnify, keep and hold the city, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims and actions on account of injury or death of persons or damage to property occasioned by the construction, installation, maintenance, repair, removal, relocation or operation of the facilities affecting public ground, unless such injury or damage is the result of the negligence of the city, its elected officials, employees, officers, or agents. The city will notify tha company of claims or actions and provide a reasonable opportunity for the company to accept and undertake the defense. Subdivision 2. Claim defense. If a claim or action is brought against the city under circumsteuices where indemnification applies, the company, at its sole expense, shall defend the city if written notice of the claim or action is given to the company within a period wherein the company is not prejudiced in the defense of such claim or action by lack of such notice. If the company undertakes the defense, the company shall have complete control of such claim or action, but it may not settle without the consent of the city, which shall not be unreasoned^ly withheld. This section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the city. In defending any action on behalf of the city, the company is entitled to assert every defense or immunity that the city could assert in its own behalf. SECTION 6. OTHER CONDITIONS OF USE. Subdivision 1. Use of public around. Facilities must be located, constructed, installed, maintained or relocated so as not to endanger or unnecessarily interfere with the usual and customary traffic, travel, and use of public ground. The facilities are subject to additional conditions of the permit as established by the director including but not limited to (i) the right of inspection by the city at reasonable times and places; (ii) the obligation to relocate the facilities pursuant to Section 3, Subdivisions 3 and 4; and (iii) compliance with all applicable regulations imposed by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission JMS889I3 SU160-17 and other state and the federal law, including prompt compliance with the requirements of the Gopher State One Call program, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 216D. Subd. 2. Location. The facilities must be placed in a location agreed to by the city. The company shall give the city forty-five (45) days advanced written notice of the company's proposed location of facilities within the public ground. No later than 45 days after the city's receipt of the company's written notice the city will notify the company in writing of the city's acceptance or rejection of the proposed location. If the city rejects the company's proposed location, the city shall propose alternative locations. The city does not waive or forfeit its right to reject the location of facilities by failure to respond within the 45 days. Subd. 3. ^eraencv Work. A company may open and distiirb the surface of public groxmd without a permit where 2ui emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of its- facilities. In such event the conpany must request a permit not later than the second working day thereafter and comply with the applicable conditions of the permit. In no event, may the company undertake such an activity which will result in the closing of a street or alley without prior notification to the city. Subd. 4. Street improvements, paving or resurfacing. The city will give the company written notice of plauis for street improvements where permanent paving or resurfacing is involved. The notice must contain (i) the nature and character of the improvements^ (ii) the streets upon which the improvements are to be made; (iii) the extent of the improvements, the time when the city will start the work; and, (iv) if more than one street is involved, the sequence in which the work is to proceed. Subd. 5. Company protection of facilities. The company must take reasonable measures to prevent the facilities from causing damage to persons or property. The company must take reasonable measures to protect its facilities from damage that could be inflicted on the facilities by persons, property, or the elements. The company must take specific protective measures when the city performs work near the facilities. Subd. 6. Prior service connections, in cases where the city is undertaking the paving or resurfacing of streets and the facilities are located under such street, the company may be required to install service connections prior to the paving or resurfacing, if it is apparent that service will be required during the five year period following the paving or resurfacing. JMS8S913 SO160-17 SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY TO EXISTING FACILITIES.* Companies with facilities, in, on, over, under or along public ground on the effective date of this ordinance must take prompt action to comply with this ordinance and the permits . authorized by this ordinance. A company, however, is not required to reapply for a permit obtained from the city prior to the effective date of this ordinance. A company is not required to pay the difference between the permit fee of a previously obtained permit and the equivalent newly obtained permit under this ordinance. All other provisions of this ordinance apolv to existing facilities. SECTION 8. ACCEPTANCE OF REQUIREMENTS. By receiving a permit pursuant^ to this ordinance, the company accepts and agrees to comply with all of the requirements of this ordinance. SECTION 9. PUBLIC GROUND OTHER THAN RIGHT-OF-WAY. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to grant to the company authority beyond that given by Minnesota Statutes Section 222.37 for use of tJtie public right-of-ways for construction euid operation of facilities. If the city allows the company to use its non-right-of-way public ground, the terms of this ordinance apply to the extent they are consistent with the contract, statutory and common law rights the city owns in such property. SECTION 10. REGULATIONS; PERMIT SCHEDin.RS. The director is authorized and directed to prepare suitable regulations and schedules for the administration of permits issued under this ordinance. SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance is contrary to law and therefore unenforcecible, such provision will be severed and will not affect the other provisions of this ordinance. Passed and approved ATTEST:Mayor Clerk Effective daces vary from charter to charter. In statutory cities, the ordinance ffective on publication. This section grandfathers fees already paid an exii._ing permit, but requires compliance with the new permit issued under tnis ordinance. JMS88913 SU160-17 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS Comment Many cities will have existing ordinances or regulations setting out the permitting process, insurance requirements, and other public safety requirements. If your city does not already have such provisions, the following sample regulations of the Direct or Public Works may give some suggestions. Such provisions could also be adopted by ordinance, but substantial flexibility to change as experience shows ways to improve the process may be desirable. Public Grounds Use Permitting Recrulaticna SECTION 1 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT. Any person desiring to so use public property shall apply for a permit or renewal of a permit a minimum of two (2) working days before starting work and must submit detailed plans for street or sidewalk use and pedestrian safety on major projects. This provision or portions thereof may be waived by the Director of Public Works in the event of an emergency. SECTION 2 GUARDING OF OBSTRUCTIONS. FENCES Any permittee obstructing any street, alley, sidewalk or other public property shall keep such obstruction or obstructions properly guarded at all times. From sunset to sunrise, all obstructions must be guarded by a sufficient number of warning lights placed in such manner that they will give proper warning of said obstruction. The Director of Public Works may require any permittee obstructing a sidewalk to build adjacent to such obstruction a tight board fence at least six (6) feet high, except at street intersections where a six-foot open board fence shall be built cind maintained, and adjacent to each such fence shall be built and maintained a temporary walk at least four (4) feet in width for the use of the public with a railing along the outside edge of the walk at least thirty-six (36) inches high. The Director of Public Works may waive the requirement for a temporary walk when it .is determined that a temporary walk is not necessary and that pedestrians can more properly be protected by rerouting them to a walk across the street. SECTION 3 DERRICKS AND HOISTS PROHIBITED No person shall place or use derricks or hoists of any kind or any portion thereof, including outriggers and pads, upon any sidewalk unless the permit specifically permits such action. JMSS6913 SU160-17 SECTION 4 LIFTING Whenever any person applies for a permit for the use of a or sidewalk or portion thereof for the purpose of hoisting or lifting equipment or material over, across and above said street or sidewalk, he shall provide for closing off those portions of the street and/or sidewalk encompassed within the lifting area with suitable barricades, signs, and warning lights and shall provide a four-foot pedestrian walkway around said lifting area, said walkway to be suitably enclosed on the street side with barricades and warning lights. SECTION 5 FLAGGERS The Director of Public Works may direct that flaggers, as described in Section 6P of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, State of Minnesota, be used to control traffic. SECTION 6 NOTICE OF TRAFFIC CI.OSTTRP. The permittee shall notify the Director of Public Works when the permit area is closed to pedestrian and vehicular traffic and again when it is open to such traffic. SECTION 7 PERMIT REVOCATION ^ Any permit issued under this chapter may be revoked at any time by the Director of Public Works when he finds it in the best interest of the City of SECTION 8 INSURANCE The permittee shall obtain liability insurance for both personal injury and property damage in an amount not less than $1,000,000. The City shall be named as an additional insured under that insurance for the services provided under the permit. The permittee's insurance will be the primary insurance for the City. Permittee shall provide a certificate of insurance on the City's approved form which verifies the existence of the required liability insurance coverage as well as worker's compensation coverage. SECTION 9 PARKING PROHIBTTEn The parking of private vehicles within or adjacent to the permit area is prohibited. The loading or unloading of trucks jMSiasii SU160-17 8 adjacent to the permit area is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the permit. SECTION 10 DOUBLE FEE Should any person or persons begin work of any kind without having first secured the necessary permit therefor, they shall be required to pay double the fee provided for such permit. SECTION 11 PERMIT TO BE DISPLAYED Permits issued under this chapter by the Department of Public Works shall be conspicuously displayed at all times for ease of inspection on the indicated work site. Approved by the Director. JMSSI913 SUKO-17 ______J INg REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION X 0 199$ DATE: June^7?l^^^OA/o ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval: Name Title Administrator Reviewed:m Agenda Section: Item Description: Ho‘»'-;ng Action Plan In November of 1995 the Council adopted a resolution approving the city’s participation in the Livable Communities Act. The Livable Communities Act requires cities to prepare a housing action plan by June 30, 1996. The City’s Community Management Plan currently includes a "housing improvement plan" which appears to be similar to what the Met Council is looking for in terms of a housing action plan. A copy of the housing improvement plan is attached for Council review and comment. It is staffs recommendation that the housing improvement plan be redrafted as the Housing Action Plan with any changes as determined by the Council. The final Housing Action Plan will need to be adopted at the June 24 Council meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Provide comments to staff regarding any changes to be made to the Housing Improvement Plan as it is redrafted into the Housing Action Plan. HOUSING JUNE, 1980 RURAL HOUSING PQLTCTFS 1. HOUSING IN RURAL ORONO WILL BE LIMITED TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT ESTABLISHED RURAL DENSITIES. Oronc's Land Use Plan for an ultimate rural density of one dwelling per seven acres on minimum lot sizes of 2 to 5 dry-buildable acres each. This density is consistent with the City's environmental protection commitment and is consistent with the overall Goal of preserving the historic rural character of the area. Because of this preferred use, and because there is no prevision for any municipal sewer, water or other urban services, multi-family development or any densely clustered residential development will not be appropriate for rural Orono. 2. THE CITY WILL PROMOTE REHABILITATION OF EXISTING OLDER OR SUBSTANDARD RURAL HOMES. Rural Orono contains a significant number of older homes, which also require repair, energy conservation measures or major rehabilitation. These rural owners also require the same type of assistance often reserved for urban areas. Therefore, the City will promote private and subsidized public rehabilitation efforts in both urban and rural housing improvements programs. r HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PLAN-4^ Orono's Housing Improvement Plan is a set of implementation policies designed to achieve the above stated Housing Goals and Planning Policies. As has been indicated, the dominant land use in the City of Orono is primarily that of single-family residential homes. There is very limited industrial-commercial development or opportunities for employment and shopping within the City. Orono residents have always relied on the historic town centers in adjacent communities for shopping as well as employment. The general lack of commercial and industrial development and the limited availability of city services such as municipal sewer, water and mass transit will limit the opportunities for, and make it difficult, if possible at all, to provide opportunities for new subsidized housing developments anywhere in Orono. On the other hand, there are deteriorated and dilapidated housing units located throughout the City. Most of Orono's urban dwellings have been upgraded from seasonal cabins through either private or public rehabilitation programs. Other remain in need of attention. CMP 5-14 I I JU^IE, 1980 HOUSING i 1 I 1 1 • «S Developraent Franework Guide, Cxty, Orono's Housing both urban and rural, and improving the condition of Orono s older h moderate and fixed income the housing conditions of Orono'i many low, m residents. 1. f a 1 'X’2* 1 ORONO WILL ENCOURAGE COMMUNITY '’’^^pjo^rans^will be pursued been a charaoterstio of Orono ‘ ^^Hrof all properties and :: rr:rtr:hr;rjv“triy"riLT=:r»ra^biJ?tat?on of old.r and under- used properties. ORONO WILL participate IN HOUSING^MHABILITATION^S^ ‘r^i^n-rhar::d;-reiated r^-ri^L^n^irst^^Jh^rw^iA substandard living con and their neighborhood's lihe to improve their housing income. In appearance, but are ® forced to choose between heat or food many cases, older couples ar „in continue to or leaving t.neir place , oevelooment Block Grant and ri“rsoL^H::rinr“in:nor"A:rii:Lre programs designed to help these ci?irens meet their very immediate housing needs. ORONO WILL PROMOTE ENERGY^CONSERVATION^THODS ^ND PRO^ Building inspection "^rnoieowners in auditing and systems and products *"“%heir homes. Orono -ill actively j:?::r"and‘a;v:rtn^ :ri^:i:irable programs for energy conservation funding. riTTT cTTRccTnTZE LAND COSTS FOR CERTAIN NEW LOW AND MODERATE ORONO p OPPORTUNITIES. Zoning variances will be grante INCOME HOUSING of existing urbi..i lots for new whenever Tax-forfeited lots will be purchased for !:t:ir:t^o::rtrp:rv!de :in\Ll cost property for the construction ort^- and moderately priced housing. \ CMP 5-15 HOUSING JUNE/ 1980 j^5. ■^6. ^7. ORONO WILL ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND COST RANGES. Whenever a nultiple family or clustered housing development is proposed, Orono will actively encourage setting aside a reasonable number of units for large families and/or for low and moderate income families. Orono will participate and assist developers in applications for loan guarantees or other suitable forms of housing subsidy aids which may be available. Orono does not have suitable land for extensive new development and therefore will not individually pursue new construction subsidy programs. In addition, Orono is philosophically opposed to regressive subsidy programs that place excessive burdens or debts on future taxpayers. Therefore, Orono will be extremely reluctant to participate in long term or open- ended programs such as HUO Section 8. ORONO WILL COOPERATE WITH NEIGHBORING CITIES TO FULFILL AREA-WIDE HOUSING NEEDS. Most apparent is the need of many elderly Orono residents who desire to live in the immediate area, but who cannot find available elderly housing. Orono will actively participate with nearby municipalities in pooling of quotas, allocations, bonding capacity, subsidy dollars and/or staff expertise in order to work toward jointly providing cost effective elderly housing at locations that are near to home yet also convenient to necessary shopping, transportation and medical facilities. HOUSING CONSTRUCTION WILL BE SUBJECT TO UNIFORM STATE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS BUT WILL NOT BE BURDENED WITH UNNECESSARY ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Orono does not intend to require arbitrary minimum dwelling sizes or minimum amenity installations as these artificial standards only drive-up the cost of housing while limiting the buyer's freedom of choice. Zoning standards for lot area and lot density will be based strictly upon environmental concerns and public facilities availability. Zoning performance standards will be based upon minimum health and safety standards such as fire protection and open space availability. State Building Code performance standards will be enforced to ensure structurally sound, weather resistant buildings providing adequate health and safety protection for the future occupant and for the general public's welfare. CMP 5-16 r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 7, 1996 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Title Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: /, Item Description: Grant Programs Available for Police Staffing Two new grant programs have recently become available at the Federal and State levels for police staffing. One is a three year grant of $25,000 per year to hire a new officer with the focus on Community Oriented Policing. The second is a School Liaison Officer grant program that enables cities to have a School Liaison Officer, or increase the School Liaison Officer’s hours, by assisting in funding an additional officer to replace the officer who is taken off the street to perform the school liaison duties. The School Liaison Officer grant program is a one year program that provides a grant to match city ftinds. It may be that these two programs used together could enable the city to add a police officer and increase the hours of the School Liaison Officer for a three year period with a relatively small cost to the city. Because the maximum duration of the grants is three years staff would develop a three year work plan of specific short term projects that could be accomplished with the additional a police officer. This would enable the length of employment of the new officer to be tied to the duration of the grant. Staff has not had an opportunity to review the potential of these grants in any depth. However, the three year police officer grant application dcudline is June 14. The School Liaison Officer grant deadline is in August. Because of the short time frame for the application, staff requests authorization to submit the grant application with the underctsiiding that this is not authorization to accept the grant if received. This would enable additional analysis and discussion with the Council as part of the 1997 budget process. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to authorize the submittal of an application for a grant under the Community Oriented Policing grant program. 1 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ 0 J99g DATE?TKfiP<?RDN($ ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Dorothy Hall in TiUe City Clerk i/'i Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT: Long Lake Chamber of Commerce King Royal Brothers Circus Date & Time; July 26, 1996 - shows 4:30 p.m. & 7 p.m. Location: Northwest comer of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve listed license. . 1 Date:May 30, 1996 To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Subject: Special Event Permit King Royal Brothers Circus I have reviewed the application from the Long Lake Chamber of Commerce to sponsor a circus on July 26, 1996. I have also reviewed application from same organization in 1994. I have no objection to the issuance of this permit. PARADES & SPECIAL EY^NTSf ERMIT APPLICATION tifeONO; VONNESOTACITY 0»» Permit #: Fee: $50.00 Date Received6- Phone Number: Name: ^ cf/^ »c'!^^S - Address: /5' u/. _________________________ City,State,Zip: L^aj^ ______/n Location of Parade or Event: t aaJ ^lO crysr^t' Cm 12~ e^y ttA Date of S'/ent: J“^y Hours of Event: f '3<^ *■ 7 Typeof Event:d ! f cui Insurance Company:Amount: (Copy of insurance certificate must be submitted with this application) I am aware of all applicable State and other laws regarding parades and special events and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City of Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise directly or indirectly from the parade of special event approved by the granting of this permit. I understand some events may require off-duty or reserve officers and a Remarks: 013396.3 t I cr i '* o# # I Q 4 Jun 1996 Tud 8:33 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Data Name Check Nlmber 51593 51593 CITY COONTY CREDIT ONION 05-Jun-96 CITY COUNTY CREDIT ONION Totals Check Number 51593 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Oieck Number 51594 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 51594 51594 51594 05-Jun-96 05-Jun-96 05-Jun-96 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Totals Check Number 51594 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 51595 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 51595 05-Jun-96 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO Totals Check Number 51595 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO Check Number 51596 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT 6 COLL 51596 05-Jun-96 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL Totals Check Number 51596 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 51597 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL 51597 05-Jun-96 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Totals Check Number 51597 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 51598 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 51598 05-Jun-96 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Totals Check Number 51598 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 51599 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 51599 05-Jun-96 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Totals Check Number 51599 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 51600 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 51600 05-Jun-96 M?l DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 51600 MN DEPT OF RE’/ENUE Check Number 51601 MN MUTUAL LIFE 51601 05-Jun-96 MN MUTUAL LIFE Totals Check Number 51601 MN MUTUAL LIFE Transaction Amount 5.744.00 5.744.00 2,947.24 2,947.24 7,183.99 13,078.47 1,190.00 1,190.00 164.82 164.82 184.50 184.50 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 3.031.84 3.031.84 55.00 55.00 % WPage 1 Comments SAVINGS W/H k TRANSFERRED FICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA.MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THOMTCN SC0266780 SKREEN 8C0262310 DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUES W/H STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP W/H 1 4 Jun 199$ TM 9:33 AM Chec^ Regitter City of Orono Check Hunber Date Name Check Sunber 51602 51602 MM STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP 05-Jun-96 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Totals Check Number 51602 MN STATE RETIRQOJT-DEF COMP Check Number 51603 PEBSCO/OBRA 51603 05-Jun-96 PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number 51603 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 51604 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 51604 05-Jun-96 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Totals Check Number 51604 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Check Number 51605 PERA 51605 51605 05-Jun-96 05-Jun-96 PERA PERA Totals Check Number 51605 PERA Check Number 51606 UNITED WAY 51606 05-Jun-96 UNITED WAY Totals Check Number 51606 UNITED WAY Grand Total Transaction Amount 150.00 150.00 195.80 195.80 1.742.50 1.742.50 3.835.77 5.067.50 8.904.27 29.00 29.00 34.570.20 Page 2 Comments DEFERRED COMP W/H OBRA DEFERRED COMP N/H USCM DEFERRED COMP W/H PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS W/H 6 Jun 1996 Thu 2:30 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number S1607 5160; M.L STAR 5LECTRIC 04-Jun-96 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Totals Check Number 51607 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Check Number 51608 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TEST 51608 03-Jun-96 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TEST Totals Check Number 51608 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TEST Check Number 51609 ASPLUNDH COFFEE 51609 05-Jun-9€ASPLUNDH COFFEE Totals Check Number 51609 ASPLUNDH COFFEE Check Number 51610 AT6T 51610 51610 51610 23-May-9€ 03-Jun-96 03-Jun-96 ATSiT ATiT ATtT Totals Check Number 51610 ATfcT Check Number 51611 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF 51611 03-Jun-96 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Totals Check Number 51611 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Check Number 51612 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 51612 51612 03-Jun-96 03-Jun-96 BCA/FOPENSIC SCIENCE LAB BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB Totals Check Number 51612 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB Check Number 51613 BCA/TRAINING k DEVELOPMENT 51613 51613 03-Jun-96 03-Jun-96 BCA/TRAINING k DEVELOPMENT BCA/TRAINING k DEVELOPMENT Totals Check Number 51613 BCA/TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT Check Number 51614 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP 51614 03-Jun-96 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Totals Check Number 51614 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Check Number 51615 BIFFS INC. 51615 05-Jun-96 BIFFS INC Transaction Amount 75.96 75.96 1.933.75 1.933.75 211.98 211.98 88.60 16.55 31.25 136.40 39.24 39.24 200.00 200.00 400.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 1.621.01 1.621.01 130.52 Page I Comments REPLACE LAMP AT O.C.B. RD SOIL BORINGS-KELLY AVB COFFEE CELL PHONE-GERHARDSON LONG DISTANCE CHARGES LONG DISTANCE CHARGES SANDWICHES FOR RESALE FISCHENICH-INTOXILYZER BORIS-INTOXILYZER SCHOENHOFF-DOM.VIOLENCE DEMBOUSKI-DOM. VIOLENCE E.MPL BENEFIT-JUNE BEDERWOOD PARK i € JUn 1996 Thu 2:30 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Muller Date Check Humber S16IS 51615 51615 51615 BIFFS INC. 05-Jun-96 BIFFS INC. 05-Jun-96 BIFFS INC, 05-Jun-96 BIFFS INC. Totals Check Number 51615 BIFFS INC. Check Number 51616 BLACKOMIAK 4 SON 51616 06-Jun>96 BLACKOMIAK 4 SON Totals Check Number 51616 BLACKOHIAX 4 SON Check Number 51617 BLACKOWIAK 4 SON 51617 06-Jun-96 BLACKOWIAK 4 SON Totals Check Number 51617 BLACKOWIAK 4 SON Check Number 51618 BRUCE KNUTSON ARCHITECTS 51610 05-Jun-96 BRUCE KNUTSON ARCHITECTS Totals Check Number 51618 BRUCE KNUTSON ARCHITECTS Check Number 51619 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. 51619 04-Jun-96 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. Totals Check Number 51619 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. Check Number 51620 BUDGET PRINTING 51620 03-Jun-96 BUDGET PRINTING Totals Check Number 51620 BUDGET PRINTING Check Number 51621 CDP IMAGING SYSTEMS 51621 51621 04-Jun-96 03-Jun-96 CDP IMAGING SYSTEMS CDP IMAGING SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 51621 CDP IMAGING SYSTEMS Check Number 51622 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Check Number 51623 CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK Transaction Amount 130.52 130.52 65.26 456.02 150.00 150.00 521.70 521.70 293.00 293.00 320.03 320.03 16.50 16.50 2.010.41 16.245.51 10.255.92 Page 2 Comments SUMMIT BEACH KACKBERRY PARK GOLF COURSE LEAF PICKUP SPRING CLEANUP REFIR^ APPLICATION 12146 LtmSTOHE ROCK LABELS ANNUAL COPIER MAINT. MINOLTA 6000 COPIER 51622 05-Jun-96 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 102.27 0172 OIL CHANGE. SERVICE 51622 03-Jun-96 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 57.32 0174 ELEC WORK 51622 03-Jun-96 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 42.22 0175 OIL CHANGE. TIRE ROT 51622 03-Jun-96 CHL*NKS LAKESHORE AUTO 112.73 0174 REPLACE SUPPORT BAR Totals Check Number 51622 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 314.54 % i .j 6 JUn 1996 Thu 2:30 PM C3ieck Humber Check Humber 51623 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 516^3 CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK 03-Jun-96 CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK Totals Check Number 51623 CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK Transaction Amount 395.00 395 00 Page 3 Comments MOROWCZYNSKI-TRAINING Check Niimber 51624 CITY OF HOPKINS 51624 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Number CITY OF HOPKINS 51624 CITY OF HOPKINS Check Number 51625 51625 51625 CITYVIEW PLtWING k HEATING 03-Jun-96 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Number CITYVIEW PLUMBING k HEATING CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING 51625 CITYVIEW PLUMBING k HEATING Check Number 51626 51626 51626 51626 51626 CO^«ERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE 03-Jun-96 03-Jun-96 03-Jun* 96 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Number COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMMERCIAL LIFF INSURANCE COft4ERCIAL LIFE INS'JRaNCE COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE 51626 COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE Check Number 51627 51627 COMMISSION OF TRANSPORTATION 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Number COMMISSION OF TRANSPORTATION 51627 COMMISSION OF TRANSPORTATION Check Number S162S 51629 CT SYSTEMS 05-Jun-96 Totals Check Number CT SYSTEMS 51628 CT SYSTEMS Check Number 51629 51629 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC, 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Number CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC S1629 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC 34.00 34.00 62.00 112.87 174.87 0.85 2.66 •..14 281.03 285.65 25.00 25.00 377.47 377.47 383.40 383.40 HALLIN-LAKE TOUR CLEAN FLUSH METER MISC SUPPLIES JITNE LIFE INSURANCE JUNE LIFE INSURANCE JUNE LIFE INSURANCE JUNE LIFE 1NSJRANC-: SIGN PERMIT REPAIR i3 SOFTENER QUAD TINES M/ TURF GUARD Check Number 51630 51630 DYNAMED 03-Jun-96 DYNAMED Totals Check Number 51630 DYNAMED 18.60 18.60 handwheel W/ CHAIN Check Number 51631 E-Z RECYCLING 51631 »)3 - Jun-96 E-Z RECYCLING 5.422.92 MAY SERVICES € X996 Thu 2:30 PM Cheek Bufober Check Bumber Check Register City of Orono Dete Name 51631 E-2 RECYCLING Totals Check Number 5163X B-2 RECYCLING Check Hunber 51632 51632 EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC. 04-Jun-9€ Totals Check Number EARL P. ANDERSCm k ASSOC. 51632 EARL P. 9tKDERSO» k ASSOC. Check Number 51633 51633 Eli^ J. PETERSON CO. 04-Jun-96 Totals Check Number EUSR J. PETERSON CO 51633 ELMER J. PETERSON CO Check Number 51634 51634 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Number ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS 51634 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS Check Number 51635 51635 ENVIRONMENTAL RE-CREATIONS 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Number ENVIRONMENTAL RE-CREATIONS 51635 ENVIRONMENTAL RE-CREATIONS Check Number 51636 51636 ESI COfPIUNICATICNS 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Number ESI COWUNICATIONS 51636 ESI COMMUNICATIONS Check Number 51637 51637 51637 ESS BROTHERS k SONS 04-Jun-96 04 -Jun-96 Totals Check Number ESS BROTHERS k SONS ESS BROTHERS k SONS 51637 ESS BROTHERS k SONS Check Number 51638 51638 51630 FEED RITE CONTROLS 04-Jun-96 04-Jun-96 Totals Check Number FEED RITE CONTROLS FEED RITE CONTROLS 51630 FEED RITE CONTROLS Check Number 51639 51639 FROST. SHERRY R. 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Number FROST. SHERRY R 51639 FROST. SKERRY R Transaction Amount 5.422.92 318.09 318.09 150.00 150.00 20.98 20.98 55.06 55.06 343.34 343.3^ 90.53 149.10 239.63 80.18 30.00 110.18 495.00 495.00 Page 4 Comments 12* TUBULAR POST PUMP L.S. 16 ENLARGQ!ENTS SEED MIXTURES DESK PKONE-CHESNZCX ADJUSTMENT RINGS ADJUSTMENT RINGS HYDROFLUOSILICIC ACID CONTAINER CHARGE PARK COWIISSION MTG Check Number 51641 G k K SERVICES 6 Jun 1996 Check Reglater Thu 2:30 PM City of Orono Qieck Transaction Number Date Name Amount Comments Check Number 51641 G k K SERVICES 51641 04-Jun-96 G 6 K SERVICES 10.28 RATHBUN 51641 04-Jun-96 G 6 K SERVICES 66.15 STREET EMPLOYEET 51641 04-Jun-96 G k K SERVICES 4.73 STEFFENKAGEN 51641 04-Jun-96 G k K SERVICES 10.28 RATHBUN 51641 04-Jun-96 G k K SERVICES 52.29 STREET EMPLOYEES 51641 04-Jun-96 G k K SERVICES 62.57 FLOOR MATS 51641 04-Jun-96 G & K SERVICES 4.73 STEFFENKAGEN 51641 04-Jun-96 G 6 K SERVICES 10.28 RATHBUN 51641 04 -Jun-96 G k K SERVICES 70.24 STREET EMPLOYEES 51641 04-Jun-96 G k K SERVICES 5.74 STEFFENHAGEN 51641 04-Jun-96 G k K SERVICES 10.26 RATHBUN 51641 04-Jun-96 G k K SERVICES 48.24 STREET EMPLOYEES 51641 04-Jun-96 G k K SERVICES 4.73 STEFFE22HAGEN Totals Check Number 51641 G & K SERVICES 360.54 Page S Check Number 51642 51642 GARELICK STEEL CO INC. 03-Jun-96 GARELICK STEEL CO INC. Totals Check Number 51642 GARELICK STEEL CO INC. Check Number 51643 GERRING'S CAR WASH 51643 51643 05- Jun 96 06- May-96 GERRING'S CAR WASH GERRING'S CAR WASH Totals Check Number 51643 GERRING'S CAR WASH Check Number 51644 GOLF CAR MIEWEST 51644 05-Jun-96 GOLF CAR MIEWEST Totals Check Number 51644 GOLF CAR MIDWEST Check Numl)er 51645 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 51645 51645 04-Jun-96 04-Jun-96 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. Totals Check Number 51645 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. Check Nuft^er 51646 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER 51646 05-Jun-96 KA^C:L BUILDING CENTER Totals Check Number 51646 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER Check Number 51647 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 51647 05-Jun-96 HEN*NEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Totals Check Number 51647 HEN7JEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 96.20 96.20 10.12 6.06 18.18 1.200.00 1.200.00 32.38 32.37 64.75 21.96 21.96 54.45 54.45 SANDY BEACH GATE SUPPLIES CAR WASH TICKETS CAR WASH TICKETS MAY LEASE APRIL SERVICE APRIL SERVICE REPAIR CASCO RINK BENCH APRIL BOOKING FEES € Jun 1996 Thu 2:30 PM Check Humber Check Number SI648 51646 Check Register City of Orono E)ete Name 51648 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 03-Jun-96 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 06-May-96 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Totals Check Number 51648 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Transaction Amount 483.00 133.00 616.00 Page 6 Comnents APRIL ROOM k BOARD MARCH ROOM k BOARD Check Number 51649 I.C.I.B. ST. MARY'S UNIV. 51649 05-Jun-96 Totals Check Number I.C.I.B. ST. MARY'S UNIV 51649 I.C.I.B. ST. MARY'S UNIV Check Nun^er 51650 51650 IMS/MN 04-Jun-96 IMS/MN Totals Check Number 51650 IMS/MN Check Number 51651 51651 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 04-Jun-96 Totals Check Number INTERSTATE BATTERIES 51651 INTERSTA'TB BATTERIES Oieck Number 51652 51652 JOHNSON. NORBERT 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Number JOHNSON. NORBERT 51652 JOHNSON. NORBERT Check Number 51653 51653 KOEHNEN'S AMOCO 05-Jun-96 Totals Check Number KOEHNEN'S AMOCO 51653 K0EHNEN*S AMOCO Check Number 51654 51654 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY 05-Jun-96 Totals Check Number LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY 51654 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY Check Number 51655 51655 51655 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 04 -Jun-96 04-Jun-96 Totals Check Number LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIF.MENT 51655 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIF.MENT Check Number 51656 51656 MIDWEST ASPHALT 05-Jun-96 MIDWEST ASPHALT 400.00 400.00 16.23 16.23 52.13 52.13 991.12 991.12 190.98 190.98 77.87 77.87 44.50 1.101.60 1.146.10 723.04 TRAINING-STREET EMPLOYEES METER HALF TAPE BATTERY FOR ASPHALT ROLLR REFUND APPL. 82130 GASOLINE PURCHASES TRANSPARENCY FILM BACKHOE DOOR REPAIR BACKHOE TiRBO CHRG HAND PATCH € Jun 1996 Th^ 2:30 PM Check Register City of Orono Check HUfT^r Date Name Check Number 51656 51656 51656 MIDWEST ASPHALT 04-Jun-96 MIDWEST ASPHALT 04-Jun-96 MIDWEST ASPHALT Totals Check Number 51656 MIDWEST ASPHALT Check Number 51657 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 51657 05-Jun-96 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Number 51657 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Oieck Number 51658 MINNEGASCO 51658 51658 51658 03-Jun-96 03-Jun-96 03-Jun-96 MINilEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO Totals Check Number 51658 Mir^rEGASCO Check Number 51659 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION 51659 03-Jun-96 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Totals Check Number S16S9 KN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Check Number 51660 MN CLERK'S 6 FIN OFFCR ASSN 51660 04-Jun-96 MN CLERK'S fc FIN OFFCR ASSN Totals Check Number 5166C MN CLERK'S li FIN OFFCR ASSN Check Number 51661 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC. 51661 03-Jun-96 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC, Totals Check Number 51661 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC, Check Number 51662 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 51662 03-Jun-96 MN DEPT OF HEALTH Totals Check Number 51662 MN DEPT OF HEALTH Check Number 51663 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 51663 51663 05-Jun-96 05-Jun-96 Mli DEPT OF RE\T:NUE MN DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 51663 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 51664 MN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM 51664 O0-Feb-96 tCi POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM Transaction Amount 432.74 97.72 1,253.50 13.50 13.50 11.33 155.99 697.07 864.39 74.22 74.22 10.00 10.00 68.15 68.15 1.058.75 1.058.75 1.819.00 121.00 1,940.00 138.00 . 1Page 7 Comments HAND PATCH HAND PATCH MEDICAL OXYGEN GAS CHARGES GAS CHARGES GAS CHARGES JUNK INSURANCE ADD'L DUES-HALLIN. VEE SEARCH WARRANT FORMS 2ND OTR WTR TESTING FEB MAY SALES TAX MAY SALES TAX 3RD. 4TH O'TR EXPENSES 6 Jun 1996 Thu 2:30 PM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Dete Name Check Number SI664 MN POLICB RECRUITT^NT SYSTEM Totals Check Number 51664 W POLICB RECROITMEOT SYSTQf Check Number 51665 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOC. Transaction Amount 138.00 Page • Comments 51665 05-Jun-96 Totals Check Number NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOC. 51665 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOC. Check Nufflbeir 51666 NORTH STAR TURF 35.00 35.00 NRA AFFIL^;i.iON 51666 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Humber NORTH STAR tURP 51666 NORTH STAR TURF Check Number 51667 NSP 109.63 109.63 OIL. FUEL FILTERS 51667 51667 51667 51667 51667 OS-Jun-96 05-Jun-96 05-Jun-96 05-Jun-96 05-Jun-96 Totals Check Number NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP 51667 NSP 88.94 3.415.63 418.00 1,711.51 152.54 5,786.62 NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES HWY 12 6 WILLOW Check Number 51668 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. 51668 51668 03-Jun-96 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Number OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. OLD DUTCH FOODS INC, 51668 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. Check Number 51667 51669 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 06•Jun-96 Totals Check Number PERA LIFE INSURANCE 51669 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 15.40 7.70 23.10 132.00 132.00 CHIPS FOR RESALE CHIPS FOR RESALE JULY INSURANCE Check Number 51670 51670 PIONEER 05-Jun-96 PIONEER Totals Check Number 51670 PIONEER Check Number 51671 51671 PRAIRIE OFFSET 03-Jun-96 Totals Check Number PRAIRIE OFFSET 51671 PRAIRIE OFFSET Check Number 51672 51672 PROLAWNS 05-Jun-96 PROLAWNS Totals Check Number 51672 PROLAWNS 68.25 68.25 238.99 238.99 1.215.00 1.215.00 LAND USE APPLICATIONS P.O. FORMS PARK a LAWN CARE-MAY € Jun 1996 Thu 2:30 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Dete Name Check Number 51673 51673 RDO EQUIPMENT CO. 04-Ju^-«6 RDO EQUIPMENT CO Toteli Check Number 5K73 RDO EQUIPMENT CO Check Number 51674 REED /ENDING 51674 03-Ju--96 REED VENDING Totals Check Number 51674 REED VENDING Check Number 51675 ROLLINS OIL CO. 51675 03-Jun-96 ROLLINS OIL CO. Totals Check Number 51675 ROLLINS OIL CO, Check Nusiber 51676 SNYDER DRUG STORES 51676 S1676 51676 03-Jun-96 03- Jun-96 04- Jun-96 SNYDER DRUQ STORES SNYDER DRUG STORES SNYDER DRUG STORES Totals Qieck Number 51676 SNYDER DRUG STORES Check Number 51677 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COMM. USA 51677 04-Jun-96 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COMM. USA Totals Check Number 51677 SOUTHAM BUSINESS CCm. USA Check Number 51678 SPALDING 51678 03-Jun-96 SPALDING Totals Check Number 51678 SPALDING Check Number 51679 THORPE DIST CO. 51679 03-Jun-96 THORPE DIST CO, Totals Check Number 51679 THORPE DIST CO, Check Number 51680 THRALL DIST. 51680 04-Jun-96 THRALL DIST Totals Check Number 51680 THRALL DIST Check Number 51681 TOP SQUADS 51681 03-Jun-96 TOP SQUADS Totals Check Number 51681 TOP SQUADS Transact ion Amount 61.41 61.41 34.00 34.00 2.440.00 2.440.00 75.25 1.70 29.0? 106.02 170.10 170.10 344.40 344.40 295.10 295.10 242.44 242.44 84.85 84.85 Page 9 Comments REPLACE ALTERNATOR LIGHT CANDY FOR RESALE UNLEADED FUEL FILM fc DEVELOPING FILM DEVELOPING FIRST AID KITS SEAL COAT BIDS GOLF BALLS FOR RESALE BEER FOR RESALE L.S. i26 REPAIRS 8174 REPAIR SIREN 4 € Jun 1996 Thu 2:30 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Wusiber Date Name Check Number S1682 51682 TOWN k COUNTRY 04-Jun-96 TOWN k COUNTRY Totals Check Number 51682 TOWN k COUNTRY Check Number 51683 TREADWAY GRAPHICS 51683 51683 03-Jun-96 03-Jun-96 TREADWAY GRAPHICS TREADWAY GRAPHICS Totals Check Number 51683 TREADWAY GRAPHICS Check Number 51684 TRI STATE PUMP 51684 04-Jun-96 TRI STATE PUMP Totals Check Number 51684 TRI STATE PUMP Check Number 51685 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 51685 51685 05-Jun-96 05-Jun-96 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Totals Check Number 51685 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Check Number 51686 US WEST CELLULAR 51686 05-Jun-96 US WEST CELLULAR Totals Check Number 51686 US WEST CELLULAR Check Number 51687 US WEST CCMMUNICATIONS 51687 51687 51687 51687 05-Jun-96 05-Jun-96 05-Jun-96 05-Jun-96 US WEST COMWNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COf^RINICATIONS Totals Check Number 51697 US WEST CCWUNICATIONS Check Number 51688 VESSCO INC. 51688 04-Jun-96 VESSCO INC. Totals Check Number 51683 VESSCO INC. Check Humber 51689 WARNING LITES OF MN 51689 04-Jun-96 WARNING LITES OF MN Totals Check Number 51689 WARNING LITES OF MN Check Number 51690 WATERPRO 51690 04-Jun-96 WATERPRO Transaction Amount 963.83 963.83 14.00 202.55 216.55 320.78 320.78 37.86 89.50 127.36 397.56 397.56 283.27 29.79 68.74 690.11 1.071.91 162.03 162.03 95.85 95.85 364.87 Page 10 Comments JUNE SERVICE DARE SUPPLIES DARE SUPPLIES G.S. 86 REPAIRS L.\NGANKI-HANDCUFF CASE LANGANKI-TROUSERS CELL PHONE-CHESWICK US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES MAINTENANCE KIT BARRICADE RENTAL CURB STOPS.STANDPIPES 6 Jun 1996 Thu 2:30 PM Check Number Check Number Check Register City of Crono Date 51690 WATERPRO Name Totals Check NLnber 51690 WATERPRO Check Number 51691 51691 r^^STSIDB WHOLESALE TIRE 04-Jun-96 Totals Check Number WESTSIDB WHOLESALE TIRE 51691 WESTSIDB WHOLESALE TIRE Check Number 51692 51692 WRIQTT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 04-Jun-96 Totals Check Number WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 51692 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC Check Number 51693 51693 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS 05-Jun-96 Totals Check Number ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS 51693 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS Check Number 51694 51694 ZIEGLER 04-Jun-96 ZIEGLER Totals Check Number 51694 ZIEGLER Grand Total Transaction Amount 364.87 897.80 897.80 292.16 292.16 60.727.87 Page 11 Comments 10.00 REPAIR TIRE 10.00 17.12 STREET LIGHTING 17.12 BROOM FOR SWEEPER FRONT WINDSHIELD-GRADER information ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING OOUNCLMEETMa JUN 1 0 1996 CtlYOFOnONO OF • • STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BUREAU OF REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE : June 4, 1996 TO : Mike Gaffron, City of Orono FROM l(LtC : Stepkanie Wame, Land Sales CooMinator NTBlim PHONE : 296-0639 SUBJECT : June 17 Land Auction Tkanks gain for your assistance in tkis land sale. Tke zoning detail kas keen quite effective in averting unproductive inquiries to our office. Additionally, tke use of your mailing lists and PINS certainly kavc saved us alot of time. My staff and I are kigkly appreciative of tke cooperative and prompt response from your office tkrougkout ckis auction preparation. Wken we spoke ky pkonc last week, you kad expressed an interest in attending tke auction. Tkis would ke particularly kelpful, since its keen our experience tkat kidders still manage to kave unanswered questions wken tkey skow up on tke day of tke auction, (strange -kut true!) if you can attend, tke registration kegins at 1:00 and tkats wken we encourage kidders to ask any cmaining questions. Tkanks again and kopc to see you at tke auction. c: Larry Killien Jill Crowson •vy PROPERTY DATA SHEET Propert) # 2700 A Surplus State Land Lakeshore property on Maxwell Bay - Lake Minnetonka 1.49 acres of bare land - 140.91 feet of lake frontage Property I.D. D escription Municipality Sec.TV vp. Rge. (city ) A cres Land Timber S ale Minimum V alue V alue Costs Bid 27001 Part of Govt Lot 1 8 117 23 Orono 1.49 $180,000. $0. $3,546. $183,546 Description (above) is an abbreviated land description, see attachment for complete legal description of property. \ Maxwell Bay Marina (12) : uD (a) (T) •?r-— ♦ vflOl (f)—(6) 1 -V tm t i) 4jf)|1 1 1 % Cri;stal Ba^; Pioportv #27001 BOHN'S POINT LAKE MINNETONKA PROPERTY DATA: #2700 1 1.49 acres on south shore of Maxwell Itny - Lake Minnetonka vacant land - no existing buildings See Attachment A for zoning requirements Financing A vailable by the S tate of Minnesota 20 year fixed rate financing; 7.75% interest rate I 5% mininurp down payment: Annual installments No "points" or loan origmatiori fees Contract length determined by purchase price See entire Terms & Conditions of Sale on reverse side. Public Land Auction Ot CAHfMtNt n# Sale Conducted bv: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources JUNE 17, IQ06 I :00 RM. R egistration 2:00 RM. AUCTION ORONO HIGH SCHOOL AUDFTORIUM 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD ORONO, MINNESOTA Please be knowledgeable of the full terms and conditions for property 27001 prior to bidding (sec reverse side of this sheet). OUlcial announcements made at the auction will take precedence over an\ material published about ibis event. <3 vN ''A Property #27001 pot w L NOUtOTBOC ^H040K1AL ;kt 7 PAKI ccrAUULNftM w>iHT MlNNETOh lEACH aiwo y ii Z ponrr^ NVKmtoroM r poiirr SEGIONAl PA£| *: ca»co Kil L' - FlDfb •ArU,..: ..Vj If you have questions about the auction or the terms and conditions of sale: (612) 296-1015 Terms anti C onditions of Sale: Property U 27001 1 ) No propcrtN shall he sold for less than the appraised value which is the ’’Mirimum Rid" I he Minimum Rid ;imount lor this properly is the total of the land value and the limber value and sale costs. A bid is a binding and irrevocable agreement to purchase pr^ pertv for the price hid. 2) Sale costs (any survey and/or appraisal charges) have been added to and made a pari of the appraised value of this property . 3) The purchaser shall pay in cash, at the time of sale, the appraised value of all timber. At lea.st 1 5% of the successful bid amount (not including limber value) must be paid at the lime of sale 4) Personal check, cashier's check or certified check are acceptable. 5) Agents acting for purchasers must furnish a power of attorney or other proof of authority . 6) The successful bidder will receive at the auction a receipt acknowl edging the pay ment(s) made at the auction. If the balance of the purchase price is to be Unanced by the state, a Contract For Deed will be delivered to the purchaser 30-60 days following the date of auction A sample Contract For Deed is available upon request. If the purchaser pays in full on the day of the auction or w ithin 30 days of the auction, the stale will issue a Quit C laim deed within 30-60 days following pay ment in full. 7) I he State w ill transfer possession of the property: a) as of the date the Purchaser and Seller enter into a Contract For Deed (if financed), or...... b) as of the dale Seller pays in full (when paying in full the day of sale or within 30 days of auction date). 8) LENGTH OF CONTRACT DETERMINED BY THE SLC- CESSFllL BID AMOUNT (NOT INCLUDING TIMBER): a) if the the successful bid amount (not including timber) is under $5,000, payment in full must be made within 3(/ days (no interest charged ). b) if the the successful bi<l amount (not includiini timber) exceeds $5,000 but is less than $10,000, the balance of the contract must be paid in no more than 10 equal annual installments. c) if the the succc.ssful bid amount (not including timber) exceeds $10,000, the balance of the contract must be paid in no more than 20 equal annual installments. ♦ Amount of purchase price w hich is “bid up" over the minimum bid amount will be attributed to land value. 9) Annual installments are payable on or before June 1, each year follow ing that in which the purchase w as made, with simple interest at 7.75 percent per annum on the balance remaining from time to time unpaid, pay able w ith the installments of principal. 10) Any installments of principal or interest may be paid in advance but partial pav nent of an installment shall not be accepted. For the purpose of computing interest, any insiaMment of principal not paid by June I. shall be credited as of June I, next following. 1 1 ) When full payment has been received by the State of. 1inne.sola, the buyer must surrender the Contract l or Deed and then ti.c State will convey the properly by Quit Claim Deed. The State of Minnesota w ill not furnish an abstract. Prospective bidders arc hereby admonished that the State assumes no obligation to perform any acts or to pay for any expenses incurred in connection with possible deficiencies except to deliver a properly executed Quit Claim Deed. 12) Ibirchascr .shall pay all real estate ta.xes and special assessments due and payable in the year of the auction. 13) The properly is sold AS IS. '“he state makes no representations or warranties regarding the property conditions or its use including warranties as to the condition or habitability of rny buildings, wells, septic system, soils, roads, or any other thing on site. Prospective bidders arc adv i.sed to inspect the real estate, plat maps casements, conditions of title and encroachments in order to insure full knowledge of existing conditions. Property is open for inspection during daylight hours. 14) The property is sold subject to all railroad, highway or other easements and any utility licenses issued pursuant to Minnesota Statute Sec. 84.415 or applicable laws. 15) The property is sold subject to the zoning ordinance now or hereafter adopted by the City (Sec Attachment A). 16) .All minerals and mineral rights on the property arc reserved to the State by the laws of the Slate. 17) Information regarding location of any wells on the property and whether they are in use, not in use, or scaled, is available upon request. The Stale shall furnish this information to prospective purchasers at the sale. 18) Under M S. I03F.535. properties determined to contain non- forested marginal land or wetlands will have a restrictive covenant placed upon the deed or patent. This covenant w ill preclude enrollment of the land in a state funded program providing compensation for conserv ation of marginal land or wetlands. A notice of existence of non-foresled marginal land or wetlands will be prov ided to prospective purchasers upon request. 19) According to Minn. Slat. Sec. 15.054, no state employee or employees of the state’s political subdiv isions (county*, city, township, school district, etc.) may purchase state lands 20) Any and all bids can be rejected. The property may be w ithdravvn from sale by the Commissioner up to and including the day of sale. 21) Official announcements made at the auction shall take precedence over any material published about ihi.s event. Infonnation included in the property data sheets is from sources deemed reliable, however the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources resen es the right to correct errors and'or inadvertant omissions via official announcement at the auction. Special Note: The Stale docs not pay any real estate commissions. Special Note: Maps on reverse side of this sheet are illustrations intended for locational purposes and should not be construed as survey drawings. DIRECTIONS TO ORONO HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM Orono High School is north of Highway 12 on Old Cry stal Bay Road (just w est of the l ow n of Long Lake). At the intersection of Highway 12 and Old Cry stal Bay Road go North School campus is on the west side of the road (io to the sixth entrance on left hand side to the parking lot. The High School is the last building on the left hand side. Sec vicinity map on reverse side for loc .:ion of school. DIRECTIONS TO PROPERTY #27001 Properly #27001 is located on North Shore Drive (also known as County Road 51).... between Cry .stal Bay and Maxwell Bay. From the town of Long Lake, lake Highw ay 146 south out of lown approximately 2 miles. Turn west onto North Shore Drive (County Road 51 ) and continue west on this road approximately 1 .5 miles. Properly #27001 lies about half way between Nocrenberg Memorial County Park and Tonkawa Road (Highw ay 135). l.ook for red FOR SALE sign on north side of North Shore Drive 0 the and :quest ; at the It llmcnt r of cctive iship. rawn Ic. knee rd in r the nent at urvey RIUM load h'vay ; west I side. town }unty Ics. norial IFOR PROPERTY DATA SHEET A Atticfeamt h Propertx "27001 Zoning Remiiremcnts Special Note: These Zoning Requirements were provided by the City of Orono. The DNR property located east of Lakeside Marina consists o- our tax parcels. PI D numbers 08-117-23 41 0010.08-117-23 41 0011.08-117-23 44 0002. and 08-117-23 44 0018, The total area of these four parcels is approximately 1.49 acres. Since December 1974. the property has been zoned LR-IC-I, Single Family I.akeshore Residential. The LR-IC-I zoning allows the following as permitted uses. A. Single family detached dwellings B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. C Municipal buildings. The LR-IC-I zoning allows the following uses via conditional use permit: A .Schools.. R. Churches. C. Clubs, camps, etc. D. Public service structures. E. Greenhouses. F. Recreation areas. G. Guest hou-scs and non-rental guest apartments H. Duplex. I. Apiar>' J. Antenna slfucturc. Additional conditional uses relating to farming and the keeping of animals aot . ‘owed in the LR-IC-I zone, but the subject property is too small to for those uses. Also, some of the above listed uses are subject to CTmiitfons which the property is unlikely to meet. I Hr < /< ‘-I zoning also allows, via a IManneZ Residential Development * Conditional Use Permit, a credit for 50% increase in dwelling unit dt "^..ty over the two-pcr-acre LR-1C district density subject to compliance w'ith the provisions of Section 10.32, Planned Residential Development. Provisions include: -All dwelling units must be attached but not more than four dwelling units to any one structure with maximum height of 30 ’. -Musi meet hardcover standards. -Ihiilding size and location must meet Council approval. -Vehicle ingress and egress must meet Council approval. -Parking requirements must be met. -Density provisions under Section 10.60 must not be exceeded. -Subject to all other standard provisions of the Zoning Code. Sale of the property as four separate lax parcels to more than one purchaser may not be advisable due to the following inherent limiia- lions of the propcrt>': -Parcels 0002. 0010 and 001 1 arc each less than the 0.50 acre minimum lot size required for con *' action of a single family residence. -Parcels 0010 and 0011 do not abut a public road and no casement currently exists over parcels 0002 or 00 1 8 to provide them acce_s. l*o create such an casement would require City appro\al through the subdivision process. -Only parcel 001 1 abuts the lake shore, and only this parcel would have any lake rights. Given the above noted facts and limitations* the following represent likely development schemes for the property: A. Combination of all four parcels into one tax parcel for construction of one single family residence or one duplex (may require lot width variance per Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(A). B. Combination of all four parcels and subdivision to create a ‘Tront lot” ahiming C ounty Road 5 1 and a “back lot” abutting the lake shore plus a 30 ’ w ide oiiiloi for access to County Road 51. The back lot abutting the lake w ould have to meet 150% of the half acre minimum requirement for a single family residence. The front lot abutting County Road 5 1 would have to meet the onc-half acre minimum area requirement for a single family residence. It is unknown whether enough acreage exists to expand cither the front or back lot suRlciently to allow construction of a duplex, but it is highly unlikely that both front and back lots could support duplexes. (Note that property docs not appear to contain enough acreage to create three 0.5 acre lots plus the required road uullol to serve three units.) C. Combination of all four parcels and subdivision via a Planned Residential Development (PRD) subject to Section 10.56, Subdivision 19 and Section 10.32. It is eslimatH that no m^^e than four attached dwCiling units are feasible under cennHo, and it is likely that not all units would be granted lake fhe options for residential de\ eIopmcnt of this propert) are limited* and the nuances of the pertinent Code sections arc too complex to be dealt w ith adequately in this attachment. Potential purchasers of the property are encouraged to contact Orono N!unicipal Offices at the number given below w ith their plans prior to purchasing the property. U.SC of the property for other than residential purposes is extremely limited. No commercial uses of the property are allow ed, and it is anticipated that the City Council will not approve a re/oning. Most residential accessory uses and a number ol the residential conditional uses would be allowed only when a principal residence exists on the property. For instance, no dock w ill be allowed on the propert) until a principal residence structure is in place. Potential purchasers of the property with specific questions on how the property might be developed should contact Mike Gaffron or Jeanne Mabuslh at the Orono Municipal Offices, (612) 473-7357. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FULL LEG.VL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTV W2700I ty of el would have represent likely construction of )t width lie a ‘‘front loi ” ake shore plus lot re minimum abutting inimum area whether 3l sufTicicntly that both front icrcage to erve three Planned f). Subdivision )ur attached kely that not all are limited, and ; to be dealt w ith he properly are e number given ^tremely limited. ^ anticipalcd that lenlial aecessoi^ □uld be allowed l-or instance, no Icnce structure is ions on how the iTron or Jeanne i7. :ription of PROPERTY DATA SHEET Propert) "2^()()1 1 cgal DcscriplionA AlUcbmcnt The DNR property located ea&t of Lakeside Marina consists of four tax parcels, PID numbers 08-117-23 41 0010,08-117-2341 0011,08-117-23 44 0002, and 08-117-23 44 0018. The total area of these four parcels is approximately 1.49 acres. All four tax parcels w ill be sold together as one contiguous property. TAX PARCEL II. (PID «(1S-1 17-23 41 0011) Thai part of the West 15.7 feet of the East 539 feet of Govern ment Lot 1. Section Light (8). Township One Hundred Seventeen (117). Range Twenty three (23;. lying North of a line drawn at right angles to the east line of said section at a point 394.5 feel South of the meander comer on the cast line of said section together w ith an easement for road purpo.ses over that part of said 15.7 feet lying southerly of said line and North of the county road. ALSO, all that part of Government Lot 1, Section 8, Township 117. Range 23. described as follows; Commencing at a point where a line drawn parallel w ith and distant 539 feet West of the cast line of Section 8 intersects the northerly line of county road known as Markeville and Maple Plain Road: thence North parallel with said section line 556.0 feet to the shore of Maxwell's Bay, Lake Minnetonka; thence southwesterly along the shore of said lake 188.78 feet to a point which is 710.1 feet West of said section line and also the northeasterly comer of land conveyed by deed recorded in Book 488 of Deeds, p. 237; thence southerly along the easterly line of land so deeded 400 feet to the northerly line of said county road, said point being 724 feet West of the section line; thence southeasterly along said county road to the point of commencement, EXCEPT the West 70 feet thereof, said 70 feet being measured at right angles from the westerly line thereof; EXCEI’l that part of Ute entire above described premises lying South of a line drawn at right angles to the east line of said section at a point 394.feet South of the meander comer of the cast line of said section, together with an casement for road purposes over the West 15 feet of that part of the above described premises lying southerly of the line drawn at right angles to the east line of said section at a point 394.5 feet South of the mean der corner on the cast line of said section, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the I lennepin County Recorder. TAX PARCEL 10.( PID « 08-117-23 41 0010) file West 15.7 feet of the East 539 feet of that part of Govern ment Lot 1 lying North of a road. AI-L IN Section 8, Township 117. Range 23. and all that part of Lot I, Section 8, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows; Commencing at a point where a line drawn parallel with and distant 539 feet West of the east line of said Section 8 intersects the northerly line of county road known as Maikeville and Maple Plain Road; thence North parallel with said section line 556.0 feet to the shore of Maxwell’s Bay, Lake Minnetonka; thence southwesterly along the shore of said lake 188.78 feet to a point which is 710.1 feet West of said section line and also the northeasterly comer of land conveyed by deed recorded in Book 488 of Deeds, p. 237; thence southerly along the easterly line of land so deeded 400 feet to the northerly line of said county road, said point being 724 feet West of the .section line; thence southeasterly along said county road to the point of commencement, EXCEPT the West 70 feet thereof, EXCEPT that pan of the entire above described premises lying South of a line draw n at right angles to the east line of said section at a point 494.5 feet South of the meander comer on the east line of said section, said last described line being designated as line “A”, and EXCEPT that part of the entire above described premises lying North of a line drawn at right angles to the east line of said section at a point 394.5 feet South of the meander comer on the east line of said section. TAX PARCEL 2. (PID #08-117-23 44 0002) Commencing at a point distant 447.8 feet West of a point in the cast line of Government Lot I distant 376.35 feet South from the meander comer at the northeast comer of Lot 1; thence South 82.05 feet; thence South 11 degrees 47' West 115.38 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing South 11 degrees 47' West 103.17 feet; thence South 12 degrees 37' East 71 feet to the northerly line of County Road No. 5 1; thence w esterly along said road line 47.2 feet to a point distant 523.3 feet West from the cast line of Lot 1; thence North parallel with said east line to a point due West from point of beginning; thence East to begin ning, Section 8. Township 117, Range 23. TAX PARCEL 18. (PID #08-117-23 44 0018) Lot I, Block I, Moellers Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with all here litaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions; Utility casements, road easements, zoning ordinances, and mineral reservation of record. If you have questions about the auction or the temts and condi tions of sale: (612) 296-1015 Sx. reverse side for zoning requirements. • » TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City' Council • • ■Ron Moorse, City Administrator ///^ ‘y June 3, 19% SUBJECT: Letter of Complaint Regarding the Police Department A letter and materials related to a concern by Mr. David Leighton regarding the impounding of his vehicle for expired license tabs are attached. His letter indicates two concerns. 1, Impounding of a vehicle for expired license tabs is an extreme action. 2. Lack of response from the Acting Police Chief regarding his complaint Mr. Leighton is correct that generally the police department does not impound vehicles for late license tabs. However, what his letter omits is that his license tabs had been expired for nine months. The department generally treats this as an unregistered vehicle for which impounding is generally considered. Acting Chief Cheswick has indicated he follows up on these types of complaints with a phone call. His log indicates attempts to contact Mr. Leighton upon receipt of his letter, ^ut he apparently was not successful in reaching him. Acting Chief Cheswick has recently contacted Mr. Leighton to explain the officer ’s action, which has resolved the complaint. If any member of the Council has additional questions regarding this complaint, please call me. City of Orono City Council P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 * r Ladies: Gentlemen: Enclosed is a letter I wrote to the Orono Police Chief several monts ago. Also enclosed is a letter I wrote to the Mayor of Ororw These are for your information only. However, any assistance you might give me in obtaining some sort of reply would be very appreciated. ]^urs Truly, f 27150EdgewoodRd Shorewood, MN 55331 474-6356 Mayor Edward J. Callahan 2545 North Shore Dr. P.O. Box 72 Crystal Bay Mn. 55323 28 May 1996 Or}^ Dear Mayor Callahan: Enclosed is a letter I wrote to the Orono Police Chief several months ago. I received no reply from him. Frankly, I was honestly willing to let the whole matter drop and get on with my life > pondering the mysteries of local law enforcement - and perhaps just a little thankful I didn't live in Orono. But everyone keeps asking me what I heard from the Police Chief - and indeed at least four or five people suggested I should continue to pursue that matter to the point of hearing "something" in response. My friend at the MPD was the most vehement on this point. Perhaps you might enquire and give me some response - or suggest a means to obtain one. I would greatly appreciate it. Yours Truly, David L Leighton 27150 Edgewood Rd. Shorewood MN 474-6356 enc.: Letter to Police Chief cc: Orono Police Chief Chair City Council • • Dear Sir:liT' On the morning of the 1 2th of February I was driving along highway 1 5 near the Crystal Say Bridge when I was stopped by an Orono Police Squad Car driven by [Badge # 525]. I was initially a bit perplexed - as I was not aware of any violation - when the officer - after checking my license and insurance - announced my registration tags had expired. Naturally I was slightly embarrassed that the Tags had been overlooked due to a move [and the fact that the renewals are not forwarded in the mail]. I anticipated a citation, a warning to get the tags "up to date" - and frankly I was also a bit relieved I hadn't been speeding or guilty of some "moving" violation. The officer then announced my car was to be "impounded". At first I couldn't believe it - and asked " if there was a better way to handle this". The officer repeated that my car was to be "impounded' I asked again "if there wasn't a better way". He again repeated the car was to be "impounded' I was dumbstruck! I said, "Officer, there has to be a better way to handle these things". He repeated the car was to be "impounded" - and went back to his car. By the time the Tow Truck arrived and secured my vehicle - I was both angry and embarrassed - and perplexed that the matter was handled the way it was. [I won't even bother to tell you of my problems with the PCA - since the emissions stations are closed on Monday.] I asked the officer if I was to "walk home" and he replied he would a.'wp me off at O'Sullivan's and I "could make my own arrangements". With that, I got in the back of the squad car and was dropped off without any further conversation. Chief, I have been a long-time resident of the lake area, am a family man, a veteran, and have never been arrested. The car was no clunke^ was registered to me, was insured, had nothing outstanding against it - the were indeed expired. People have been absolutely shocked when I told my story. I considered letting the matter drop, but several friends, including one with 20 plus years with the Minneapolis Police department suggested I at least send you a letter. His first question was "Did I get smart?" No. "Anything on the car - or other violation?" No. He vehemently suggested such an action by a police officer reflected badly on all of them - and I should send a letter or talk with you. Indeed I was angry, embarrassed and frankly humiliated - watching my car hauled away because of a legitimate [and acknowledged] oversight on my part. I am over that now, but there is a deeper practical and philosophical question involved here. It seems to me that the police have more important and more difficult things to accomplish - than to "impound" cars of essentially "law abiding" citizens - for paperwork oversights. Indeed - I would argue - you are not mandated to "teach" anyone "not to forget their registration" - as that pious and rather nasty lady at the PCA suggested. Even so - a simply citation would have sufficed. Everything else was over-kill and frankly sir - abusive and counterproductive. I can't imagine why that police officer - or any police officer - would want to alienate people who are their natural allies. It doesn't make sense to me - or to my friend on the MPD - or to those who have heard my story. I guess I would like a reply - although I will understand that you are busy. And I would hate to hear our laws are so rigid the police have no way to make judgment calls. My friend in the MPD suggested he has never done anything similar - unless he experienced a "truly bad attitude ” - or suspected some other problems. At any rate, you should know how - more than a few - people feel about this. Sincerely David L. Leighton 27150 Edgewood Rd Shorewood, MN 55331 612-474-6356 i Clop ^ Minnttsota Dspartment of Transportation i ------------------------------------ Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville. MN 55113 May 31,1996 Mr. Thomas B. Mich, Superintendent Crono Public Schools 685 Old Crystal Bay Road North P.O. Box 46 Long Lake, MN S53S6 Dear Mr. Mich: This letter is in response to your letter of May 16, 1996 concerning Mn/DOT’s Trunk High\vay (TH) 12 Corridor Study and our recent decision on the concept and scope of this study. Our recent decision eliminated four-lane alternatives from further consideration and announced our intention to proceed with a project of reduced scope. The concept we are proceeding with includes new two lane alignment immediately south of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks in Long Lake and a new connection to Watertown Road. Additional alternatives including alternative alignments have been suggested and may be included in future studies. Individual elements of each alternative will be evaluated in the coming months. This evaluation will lead to a decision to include exclude or otherwise change each of the elements of this project. A Brown Road overpass of future TH 12, and a Orono Orchard Road intersection with a new Watertown Road are examples of the elements we will be evalu^' ig. Mn/DOT plans to institute a design review committee made up of representatives of the cities, the county, neighborhoods and others with an interest in this project to asssist in the design of this project. Please let me know how you prefer to be kept involved. If you have further questions please do not hesitate to call me at 582-1296, or you may call Patti Loken, Project Manager at 582-1293. Sincerely, Tom O’Keefe Preliminary Design Engineer cc: Mr. Tod Olson, Mayor City of Long Lake 1964 Park Avenue Long Lake, MN 55356 Mr. Ed Callahan, Mayor City of Orono POBox66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 An equal opportunity employer Lili l oJ McMillan JU/V June 5,1996 Dear Mayor and Members of the Orono City Council: I have enclosed a copy of my response to MnDot's Alternative 6 for your information. 1 appreciate you taking the time to read this and for all the work you have done on this issue in the past. Truly yours, idL' 1275 Lyman Avenue ■ XCayzata, MN 55391 ■ 612-476-8626 WRITTEN STATEMENT Name L/li Address I'^*^6 ^oc LuAVzArA Hn S^Sll DATA PRIVACY WARNING ALL “WRITTEN STATEMENTS" WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD OF THE MEETING. Check One Z Elected Official Z Public Agency Representative I Group Representative X Private Citizen Position, Agency or Group lliere are 1\n\) issues 1 would like to address: EIS vs. EA The following factors are reasons I feel an LIS is warranted on Alternative 6: a. the plan involves installation of a whole new roadbed. b. cuts through \er> mature woodlands on the east end (see attached). c. eliminates part of the old l ong lake sewer pond (see attached). d. travels through low-densit> residential property. In detail, Alternative 6 invohes the creation of a completely new roadbed which is significantly removed from the current corridor. The construction of the east end of the new roadbed would call for the destruction of part of a large, mature woodland area. This area consists of \ er> old oak trees which can not be mitigated. This woodland area serv es as part of a north/south wildlife corridor that is important to many species, especialK migrators birds. living on the west side of this woodland parcel, I have had the great pleasure of witnessing how valuable a "big woods" tract can be. I have spent the last 24 s ears studying birds and hav e reco-ded a total of 105 species spotted within 1/2 mile radius of Lyman Avenue. 1 attribui.e this large number to the combination of woodlands and wetlands in this area that provide varied habitat versus monoculture environments (i.e. farmlands, high-density zoning) that by nature cannot sustain different varieties of species. The abandoned Long I.ake sewer pond, which is also on the west end of this woodland parcel, is another example of an unrecognized wildlife habitat. Old sewer ponds are known to be great birding spots because the\- are generally large bodies of open water surrounded b\ mature and second growth woods without the human disturbance found on mans other lakes. As a case in point, just last weekend 1 saw 8 different species of warblers for a total of 200 birds in the 20 minutes 1 spent at the pond. The City of Orono has preserved its sewer pond as a nature sanctuarv and it is a valuable asset to the community. 1 suggest Long lake looks seriously at making their pond into a park so its citizens can enjoy the benefits that exist so close to their homes. Retired sewer ponds do have intrinsic value and are important wetland bodies. Lastly, low-density housing is generally more environmentalh sensitive and thus running a road through such zoning demands the more thorough study. THE NEED FOR AN TTMTTED BYPASS AITRRNATIVR THAT UTILIZES PARTS OR ALL OF THE CURRENT CORRIDOR. F would like to touch on the general issues surrounding Alternatix e 6 and stress the need to look at using sections of the current corridor to reduce the negative effects of urbanization that exist in this present plan. Advantages of Alternative 6: -less disruption of present trunk highwas traffic during construction. -less cost and disruption of homes (although estimates are still preliminarx ). -little loss of commercial land. -ability to upgrade road to four-lane in the futi re. Disadvantages of Alternative 0: -creation of new roadbed creating more urbanization in residential areas. -loss of \ isibilit\ for Long lake businesses (an economic bypass). -spreading environmental degradation by creating a wide corridor bcuveen the old and new roadbeds. -separates central Long lake. MnDOT has dropped the four-lane alternative on the current corridor but has not looked at utilizing the current corridor for a two-lane limited access highway. Now' is the time to explore configuring an alternative using the majority of the existing corridor with deviations off the current roadbed in the difficult spots. The City of Long lake is dependent on the trunk highway for its financial well-being. An in- depth studs- of the current corridor w ould create more responsive dialog of the issues involved instead of avoidance b\ pushing the road to the south. The City of Ixjng lake could capitalize on this b> maximizing the redesign to benefit the commercial interests as well as create a more pedestrian-friendly city. This could be a cooperative effort in urban planning that in soKing a highway problem, promotes the commercial health of the cits and allows its residents safer accessibility through redesign. 1 would be more than willing to discuss these issues with you. 1 will remain an involsed citizen on this matter. Thank vou for sour time. ■ ■ ■ n ■ ■ ■ ■. a ■ >9-c/)^^mcocom(/m =r.L5^V. iny>0 _Z>:oo V V \ ® \ ^ J' s.’y^h£fn ,,,^ I*'»*■'/' yi> fs H2 V) ii t /•■O') W; m; / ..Mi / ® . . / ; M r / : ■! vsp/' ■ w if ^/W /, 4m \ O' '•bk^ -**• -Ij • ‘ * ..osS^SS^^'i » liiiill# .r'“ \ *4 * H . ♦'•'■ -'(liX **/| \ ‘NX-J ; t ■" /-'I # ^ ’• J^ ij kI’H- > ■' m { ■■ f l| ^ t ”r.V. / If -I • ^ y I.31 ^ \PI * •'./% /■?'/'K-^* j*:i Vw M /Sr'S-^ vm •< w I^SI«.- 'hif^K ■CO ^ ‘•’Ba I J \l ._. U»)ri.'.fcjl^_V y ♦ *I ■• ?>. % W\-K /%. ON •< O**s% o iflIMo 3o V USXlite/a sX f—1 j^!L i "V my '» 6 •■ ;,: Y :_. . y ’ ^ lli«»j|, * I? ,*. ^ 'J -.. t W ||* ,'g '■•ton m Y 5¥ -s./ < (A y'\,.- 4I I 4^1 ■■'■%*> Jf J _jt j "\-’._i j.j^ S jatisif SP / ;Xff»»r ...vf/J.. «~ • ooo I— —r» o L'*' r>4 § i 1 ■0 la ^ \ y — ^9^ W, ‘4 ,■•/• !;■ 0^^ 0 *0 0 »* 0 •/ 0 0* ..f \ ” • ^ ■■■ •'«< tl«Utt ■t* V-%/>• J .VI &m \ N } \ 0 '•s *0 I0- ;C if.(iy/: / / 's^j/ ^ ' I WA V' AVy • • Vr,. © " 1:-•v » iHiu *..ip r w O 33 ij y. .... ’ ^■y '' ‘ w?s\ ... .0M'^^- t.. ' fV| ■■. S^©.'^.'/..'' V/ \-, % rV . •: V. '; V p>K^ /'. . , iiiiii y '.; #i-?l ■■ y# - M;:(/ ~- 4 • I' I 0* • • ' > *:^7 . s / ^ ./ 1 :© ;.*> ’ /C i V(r .“iv/^‘^^:^Assr- ‘ '^T' ^ -‘rv ' \Mf # ^/■ 'sXX^/^Vy*1 / •fe j .ilMlP' ft.i ^ ‘ r—; i V .: rr-;.. jg, iW'«^ f ‘i. :*y L t: ^ i * A*:;/ \ i A i i% !. -i s ^ ^ \ I©*;P--4 \Vm.. V, fe-' ' /...-. \\ /p \ >t:/Y) ./• . 'L«.»* ^'■—ii ^ 'f* 45^..' 'i ■ .#0 ______________________ I i''^';,-yr 3> ♦*;:*' O *s 3 {..,:p* y /' *® '••'T !■ [• j ,. :/' ;: * # l¥%, X f 1 = | ■ :/1 ^ .aL/' W.'’l g \ i< \ . ,/,<“! ■- I Sif- ' ; M f / \i - ki ;j * ^/ W., f '%/ !#■ I < -^Z 5^.zz y>CDr-n 5T y> ___*» ^ A k I c '•* ^ " I / Ati ■ V.; ? > / y • ).. •' / V c V /r f ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 20, 1996 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present Chair Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Eilrabeth Hawm, and William Stoddard Charles Schroeder and Janice Berg were absent The following represented the City StalT Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Sherr/ Frost Councilmember Gcetten and Mayor Callahan were present Chair Peterson called the m.eeting to order at 7:00 p m Peterson welcomed Bill Stoddard to the Planning Commission. Stoddard was recently appointed to the Comanission by the Council. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW («l) #2136 GREENFIELD CORPORATION, 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST- PRELIMINARV SUBOIV ISION - 7:02-7:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted Jim Pfennig and Laurie Lundeen were present along with surveyor, Mark Gronberg. Mabusth reported that the property consists of 17 acres and was reviewed in a sketch plan at the March, 1996, meeting The key issue is access, and the difficulty of proMding an internal road to serve all six lots based on topography, location of wetlands, narrowness of 17 acre parcel and desire to preserve building sites The road as proposed serving lots 1, 3, and 4 would preser\ e the views to the south an i east The existing access at lot 6 to the south of the property needs to be eliminated as it is unsafe and encroaches property to south. A new access would be provided along the shared lot lines of lots 5 and 6. A new access for lot 2 would be located 37 ‘ ,,outh of the intersection of Co Rds 84 and 19. The County, Mabusth reported, has approved the locations for the two new curb cuts. Mabusth continued by reporting on the wetland areas within the property There are designated wetlands and tjqje 1 and 2 wetlands, which are not designated wetlands under the City code but are protected under State and National laws. The applicants will be asked to file the usual protective covenants on the chain of title of each of the lots that contain these type 1 or 2 w'etland 5 In reviewing the hardships for not providing an internal road to serve all lots, topography and location of w etlands w ere noted. The need for the septic to meet the 6% slope requirement is also a concern. The internal road has been designed to provide a road outlot exten.sion to .serve property to the east when developed MINX'TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#1 - #2136 Greenlleld Corporation - Continued) Mabusth reported that all 12 septic sites tested will require mound systems The existing residential septic system is failing on lot 6 and primary and alternate sites were tested Eleven of the sites meet the 6® o slope requirement The alternate site for lot 6 is at an 8% slope, which was appro'. ed by Weckman jhe proposed primary site does not meet the 75’ separation from the well, but would meet the State setback The applicant could be asked to relocate the well Mabusth described the variances required with the proposal Three of the lots serv ed at the cul-de-sac do not meet the width requirement Applicant's surveyor noted lot 1 is surrounded by County road at tne north and west, and lot 4 by the future road on that along the east. Lot width variances have been granted by the City in the past for the lots adjacent to the cul-dc-sac Mabusth noted that lots 2, 3, and 4 are long and narrow Mabusth asked the Ccm.mission how they would physically define the rear lot lines of the 3 parcels and protected septic sites from uses of future property ow ners Peterson asked how that could be accompli,shed and .still protect the .septic sites’’ Mabusth said signs or plantings are possibilities, but snow fencing was not acceptable as it could be easily removed Mabusth said it shall be the responsibility of all three ow ners to know the boundaries Lindquist asked if this notation could be placed on the deeds, but Mabusth said property ow ners are not always aw are of w hat is recorded on the chain of title. Mabusth informed Peterson that there are no plans for sewering the area in the near future Mark Gronberg noted if lot 1 was built on, a mound system would be used, and would define the svstem. Smith noted the difficulty in defining the septic sites for lots 2, 3. and 4. especially with the need to go through a septic site aiea to get to the lots She suggested the establishment of a corridor to notate where the septic sites would go. Mabusth asked if this would be a natural barrier? Smith said it could be delineated across the two property lines. Peterson commented on the que.stion of balance in developing the property and possible need to eliminate a lot. which was noted during the sketch plan review. He noted that if a lot was eliminated, it would solve the width and septic problems Peterson said the applicant, beyond this issue, has responded well, noting the issues were contingent on the 14 recommendations made by Staff'. MIMjTES of the ORONO PL.ANNING COMMISSION' MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (^1 - ^2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Jim Pfennig of Greenfield Corporation asked to -espond He noted that the property to the east, which is proposed to have road access from Out lot B, has an outlot access located more to the east Regarding the septic site discussion. Pfennig said the subdivision would have an architectural review committee and covenants He thought the first owners would have know ledge of the septic sites but did not know if that w ould continue with subsequent ovvners Pfennig remarked concerning lot 1 and the 200' frontage on the County roads He noted if Outlot A was extended to the west, there could be more frontage, but he did not believe it would make sense to blacktop in order to gain the 200’ width He also noted that the type 1 and 2 wetlands go up to 16 in elevation, which is unusual Gronberg added that alot of the area will not be landscaped He envisioned lawn for the areas adjacent to building sites and road but then leaving the remainder natural Pfennig said the initial plans were to plant in alfalfa Gronberg commented that then? is a loss of 70’ with Outlot B and the 50’ road setback rather than a 30’ side setback at east lot line Outlot B will not benefit this development. Gronberg said he saw the development as similar to a PUD with clustering to the north, but saw no problem with the septic sites being close together as it does not interfere with the wells Peterson asked about easements Mabusth said the City will asking for a bike easement along North Shore Drive and Bayside Road The County has recently shown a comprehensive bike trail plan along North Shore Drive on the east side The Park Commission asked for a bike trail within the drainage and utility easement Mabusth said there is an issue with lots 5 and 6 regarding additional right-of-way There will be a 10' easement Mabusth said Weekman informed her the bike trail easement of 10’ will not impact lots 5 and 6 The County's comp, ehensive plan calls for 46’ of additional right-of- way and trail easement The City w ill ask for only 10’ of bike trail easement and no additional right-of-way adjacent to lots 5 and 6. There were no public comments Lindquist asked what different would occur regarding width if outlot B was eliminated. Gronberg said lot 3 and 4 ’s lot widths would be expanded Lot lines would be moved with lot 4 to the east and lot 3 would be alittle laruer. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#I - ^^2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) ^ ^ Mabusth reported that the developer is being asked to grade the road bed in outlet B for future use for the property to the east It is Staffs understanding that the owner of property to east does not plan to develop at this time but plans only to construct his own residence and driveway. The road bed will be seeded and grassed ' Pfennig said he met with the owner and discussed the plans He added that care would be needed in dealinc with the wetlands Gronberg informed Mabusth that he has submitted an application to the MCWD but no action has been taken Mabusth said the sediment detention pond may have an impact on lot 4 Gronberg said this would come into play when the road was paved Mabusth noted the occurrence of runoff from proposed drainagew ay along west side of Outlot B Pfennig said he was willing to dig the pond at this time The pond would be panially located in lot Mabusth clarified that there would be a drainage pond in the northeast corner A drainageway easement would e.xtend from Outlot A to the pond at northwest corner Gronberg said there are two drainage divides with drainage running to a culvert under Co Rd 19, north under Co Rd 19, and northwest through ditches to the lake The southern drainage runs toward Lakeview Golf Course Gronberg noted most houses will be to the north, which is the reason the pond leads to CoRd 19 so as not to increase the runoff He added that when the blacktop is done, there will be some additional runofi'to the south. Peterson asked if the Engineer agreed with the grading plan? He suggested the sediment pond be established right away Smith asked if there were other developments with similar situations regarding the house, septic, and wetlands, especially noting lot 4. Mabusth noted similarities with the lots in the Farm at Long Lake approved in 1978. Lindquist said that property has worked out well Gaffron noted the lack of flexibility for the buyer of lot 4 Smith said the potential problem should be made aware to any buyers Mabusth said the covenants will expose the problems, especially with the drainage easement over detention ponds, and protective covenants dealing with wetlands and septic Smith said her main concern was that no future problems be created for the City and noted that the land being developed was marginal MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (^1 - »2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Stoddard asked Mabusth about the City's positionreview regarding the lot width variance. Mabusth said the width was tight with the location of the road and the more restrictive road setback at east lor line of lot 4 She commented that this occurs often adjacent to cul-de-sacs It was noted that lot I is surrounded b> County roads Lot 4 is adjacent to a future road Mabusth advised lot width is measured from access road Mabusth said Staff is concerned with lot 4 Pfennig interjected that lot 4 is the best lot Mabusth agreed that the development has kept the vistas open Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application <^2136 with Staff recommendations as listed and the inclusion in the grading plan of a pond area within lot 4 and the extension of outlot A to the east Lot width variances are recommended for approval. The covenants will delineate the septic sites along with the wetland delineation. The site plan locating access drive to serve existing residence on lot 6 must meet the 26’ separation from the designated wetlands and be 20’ from any ^eptic sites The 17 of additional right-of-way along ti je west boundaries of lots 1 and 2 w ill be for North Shore Drive only, not Bayside Vote; Ayes 5. Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS («) #2112 RICHARD PUTNAM, 2765 CASCO POINT ROAD - AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:40-7:48 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaftron reported that the application was for an after-the-fact variance for hardcover in the replacement of an existing deck in-kind, w hich was built before treated wood was available The proposal replaces hardcover when the property is already over the 25% allowable, thus, the need for the variance Gaffron noted a resolution for a remodel from five years ago, which included an addition as well as a garage addition It was approved as an attached garage. In reviewing the hardcover for this application, it was found that the hardcover changed from 40.2% to 44.45% The new survev results in an additional 400 s f of hardcover The lot area on this new survey is less resulting in an increase in the hardcover calculations Gaftron said the hardcover differences are likely due to the differing surveys and interpretations of rock walls. He noted that the patio blocks and walkway areas are necessary to this property and are as intended in the 1987 application Gaffron. therefore, recommend.s approval of the application noting the applicant has paid the after-the-fact fee and the necessity of the deck replacement MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (^2 - #2112 Richard Putnarr - Continued) Pulnarn added that the deck was falling down, and he could not wait for variance approval to receive the permit before reconstructing the deck There were no public comments Smith commented that if the deck had not already been replaced, the Planning Commission would look for additional areas for reduction of hardcover GatTron said it might be argued that the deck replacement is a continuation of work that was authorized in 1987 He noted the pavers and rock walls w ere appropriate, and the w idth of the driveway was necessary Smith asked if the replacement was part of the past resolution. GafFron said it was not, but it could he argued that it possibly wa.s based on the wording Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2112 per the Staff’s recommendation V ote Ayes Nays 0 Putnam asked to comment on the Casco Point area bringing the Commissioners attention to the plat map in Exhibit B He noted that although the area was zoned for H2 acre lots, 100' minimum width, and related setbacks, only 5 or 6 of the lots on the plat meet the 100' width Putnam said most ot the lots do not meet the existinu zoning codes, and he secs no merit to the codes as they exist. He does not understand the need for applicants to request variances when the ordinances do not work for the properties on Casco Point. Putnam noted that the homes in the area are not tear downs He said Casco Point was a diverse area, unique, and he is irritated by the social engineering caused by the bureaucracy, and the waste of time and money spent in gaining approval for such .■'rejects as his deck replacement Putnam said others w ere not coming in to the City for review of projects but doing work without permits, adding that the process was not working. Smith commented about requesting reductions in hardcover and justification of existing hardcover. Putnam said the taxes were outrageous for the area and felt people wzre treated poorly. He saw the issue as being a double standard between lakeshore and non-lakeshore properties. Putnam asked that the Staff be allowed mi e flexibility in situations such as what exists on Casco Point Peterson said he understood the frustration. He noted the problem with property ow'iiers building more than what is allowed for the lot sizes. Putnam asked that the City tell the County to put a "throttle" on taxes He acknowledged the job well-done by Staff in his dealings with the City in his remodeling, and asked the Commission to address these issues as soon as possible. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996 («) #2133 JOHN AND KLARLA SPOONER, 1385 ORONO LANE - V ARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:59-8:04 P.M. AiNt tN The Affidavit ol Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant, Karla Spooner, \vas present Mabusth reported that the application is for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for improvements to a lakeside deck The existing deck consisting of 650 s.f of hardcover would be removed, along with 37 sf of connecting brick walkway, and replaced with a grade level granite patio. I'x7' step will extend from both sides, and l'x24' step will extend at the lakeside. The existing hardcover of 4.140 s f is proposed at 3 851 s f for a reduction of 298 vf in the 0-75 ’ setback Mabusth noted that the property is 1.2 acres of w hich half is located in the 0-75' setback A 4'x6' cement pud is proposed being located 50' from the lake at the base of the stairs for use of outdoor cooking. The deck is 26' from the lake. The proposed patio would be 40' from the lake. The proposal would result in an overall improvement in reduction of hardcover. The applicant said they were willing to give back in hardcover to replace with what is suitable for the property. Peterson said he saw the proposal as an improvement to the existing conditions and to the lakeshore itself There were no public comments. Lindquist voiced his approval of the proposal. Mabusth informed Smith that the shoreland regulations allow fiar stairs and pad Spooner said the steps are not an access to lake but to replaceloose stone steps adjacent to the house Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2133 as recommended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2134 ROBERT CHARLES ALBRECHT, 1810 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:04-8:26 P.M. The Affidav it of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#4 - #2134 Robert Charles .Albrecht - Continued) GafFron reported that the after-the-lact request for hardcover variance was due to the construction of a 207 s f deck to the lakeside of the residence. GalTron said the property was originally in ownership with an adjacent lot, which was subsequently sold i;ach lot now has a house with amenities A resolution in 1984 allowed for 2775 s f of hardcov er, or 25? 0 of the 75 ’-250’ zone A permit was issued in 1985 for additions to the residence subject to the use of grass pavers for the driveway resulting in a hardcover proposal of 19«/o It was found in 1991 that the driveway had been paved with asphalt and had constructed decks without approval resulting in 5080 s f of hardcover The 19' driveway with backup apron was approved in 1991 to eliminate the need to back up onto Co Rd 19, Work in progress was recently stopped when it was found that another deck was being constructed Also seen was a hot tub, which is to be placed on the deck This deck, along with ditferent interpretations of calculai.ons, result in 5352 s.f of haidcovci, 270 s.f moie than what w as approved in 1991 Including the area outside of the 75', there is a net increase in hardcover of 165 s f L andscaping proposal by Otten Bros of landscape patio blocks result in a net increase of 54 s f of hardcover The proposal is to reduce the driveway to a narrower width and leave the backup apron, resulting in a net reduction of 35 s.f in the 75-250* zone. The lakeshore stairway, shown on the landscape plan, was rebuilt since 1991 This additional hardcover was addressed in 1991, and the owner was informed that a permit would be required The City also made an effort at that time to ensure that a new owner would be aware of these restrictions The stairway is 3'x 19' long with a 6'x 13* landing, where 4'x4* 's allow ed Gaffron said the square footage of the structure is not much more than code would allow, but since it is aflei-lhe-fact, it is necessary to review the structure. Gaffron noted that the present owner has owned the property since 1991. The applicant, Albrecht, disputed the calculations of the hardcover. It was noted that the hardcover calculation in 1996 included the entire properly, while only the 75*-250' ^oac was included in the calculation in 1991 Gaffron explained it was a matter of differing interpretations Smith said the existing driveway was necessary for safely reasons No further encroachments or hardcover were said to be allowed in the ftiture by the Planning Commission in 1991. Smith said this was an opportunity to honor what a past Planning Commission had recommended. Lindquist commented that this application w as a good example of why cov enants are necessary for properties Hawn agreed with Lindquist and Smith that no additional hardcover should be allowed. They, along with Peterson, agreed that the backup apron was necessaiy Ibi safely. MINUTES OF THE ORONO i LANTsTTNC COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#4 - ^^2134 Robert Charles Albrecht - Continued) Albrecht responded that, although he has owned the property since 1991, he was not aware of hardcover variances. He also noted that the proposal results in a net decrease in hardcover of 78 s f Peterson commented that the applicant knew that a building permit would be required to construct the deck. Lindquist said he would not have agreed to a new deck. Peterson noted that the deck is not in the 0-75' setback. Albrecht informed the Planning Commissioners that the 1991 approval of hardcover in the 75-250' zone of 34% was comparable to other homes in the neighborhood Lindquist responded that there .vas a discrepancy in the hardcover calculation Gaffron said the current calculation by Staff should be considered as accurate. Smith said there were no opportunities for exchanges in order to further reduce hardcover. Gaffron agreed that the stairway to the lake was necessary. Peterson reiterated that the 1991 resolution implied no more hardcover would be allowed and reconstruction of a deck would have to meet City codes Albrecht responded that he was informed that if he replaced the stai'^ vay and deck, board by board, he woulo not need a variance Stoddard commented that a neighoor had complained that the lakeshore stair encroached on their dock Peterson said he personally had no problem with the stairs. Hawn said approval of the deck would render the process meaningless. She did comment on the attractiveness of the deck. Albrecht asked, if he would reduce the size of the driveway, if the Commission would approve the deck He was informed that the issue was the approval in 1991. Albrecht said owners should be made aw are of variances Lindquist informed him that this would have been done if Albrecht had followed the procedure of seeking a building permit. Smith followed this comment with noting that building permits are a trigger mechanism for discovery of necessary’ information Gaffron asked the Planning Commissioners to read the notation on the inspection notice from 1991 on the building peimit that the "lesolution provided to new owner". It was further noted that there is no policy requiring the City to relay this information to new buyers. NfINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996 (itH - iV2i34 Roueii Cliaiici Albiedil - Conlinued) Smith moved. Lindquist seconded, to deny approval of the after-the-fact deck The stair landing was approved with the condition that the applicant work with Staf. .o meet the 90-100 s f compliance for stair landing si7e Vote Aves Navs 0 The applicant was informed that the application would go to the second Council meeting in June. It was noted tor the record that the Planning Commission was not concerned with the stairway to the lake but would like to see the City work with the applicant in meeting size requirements (#5) #2135 PAUL A.ND SUE HEDLIJND. 1575 LO.NG L.\KE BLVD. - VARLANCES- PUBLIC HEARI.NG 8:28-9:12 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailinc were noted The .Applicants was present Gaffron reported that the property in question was a 34 acre lot. the bulk of which is l.'iCHfed in the 0-7S* setback with 17,600 s f in the 0-75' setback and 11,000 s f in the 7.5- 250' setback The house on the property is small and mostly located within the 0-75' setback The single car garage encroaches into the right-of-way Gaffron said the proposal to purchase the p.^operty is contingent on approval of the additions .An addition is proposed to the rear, r.on-lakcsidc of the house, but still partially in the 0-75' setback. A second story is also planned. The garage w ill be removed and replaced by a 2-car attached garage Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that the variances required for this proposal are for hardcover, side setback to the east, proposed at 18’ where 30' is required, and street setback. The attached garage requires a 50' street setback and is proposed at T. Gaffron said Staff recommends a 10' setback to the street lot line. The normal setback for a detached garage, when doors are to the side, is 10', which Gaffron said should be strived for Gaffron reported that the average depth of the lot is such that there is no buildable envelope The exi.sting house does not meet setbacks Any upward changes results in visual impacts Gaffron said it should be noted that the height of the structure he limited to 2 stories. If this limit was not placed in the resolution, the structure could be built to 2- 1/2 stories. .Any more than 2 stories w'ould not fit the neighborhood and would be disproportionate from the street view A letter from the neighbor to the east stated his opposition to allowing a side setback less than the 30' requirement. Gaffron said there could be ramifications to changing the garage to the other end of the house 1 MIWIES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (^5 - ^^2135 Paul ami Sue Hedlund - Cuiiiinued) The hardcover in the 0-75' setback exists at 1200 s.f and 900 s f in the 75-250' zone. The proposal would increase these calailation.s by 85 s f in the 0-75' and to 1781 s f in the 75-250' /one The overall allowed hardcover of 25% is 2724 s f and is proposed at 3063 s.f, an increase of approximately 300 s.f over the allowable. Gaffron continued that this is also a bluff situation The addition to the bulk of the structure w ould have an impact. Grading w ould also be required wnthin the bluff impact zone for the driveway. Gaflron said the bluff impact is minor, however, when compared to other issues involved A main concern is with the septic system for the property. The current septic system is non-conforming and requires replacement, for which a site exists There is, however, no available alternate site on the property for the proposed 3-bedroom house The neighborhood is proposed for sewering but thus is an unresolved issue Gaffron questioned whether the house should be expanded lo 3 bedrooms without an alternate site or withhold final approval until the sewer issue is determined Applicant, Paul lledlund, said the property was veiy unusual. It is their intent to keep the home intact and build onto it as opposed to tearing it down and starting over with new construction Peterson commented on the large number of variances for the application He noted that, although the propcity deserv es to have a home on it, the applicant needs to work with Staff to make it a viable proposal Hedlund said he sees the plan as the best for the property and reiterated the purchase was contingent on City approval. Stoddard acknowledged the good design and elevations, but asked the applicant if he would consider moving the garage to the west. Sue Hedlund said the west side of the lot was steep and questioned the encroachment of the bluff area. Paul Hedlund also noted that the well was located on the west side of the property. During public ''omment.s, Charles Truman, who lives across the .street from th«s pr'^perty, voiced his app'Ov'i >f the proposal He said it would cause no hardship to the neighborhood. MINiTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996 (#5 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued) Peterson noted the concern from a neighbor regarding the side setback. He agreed that the concept was good in general but was concerned with the major issue of sewering Peterson said the application should be tabled until a solution is "determined Peterson saw ^he need to provide a septic system for a 3 bedroom house or wait until the sewer issue is resolved Hedlund said he would prefer sewering and would not want to invest in a new- septic system if sewering was in the near future Lindquist said with the need for MUSA amendment approval, planning, and review, it could be at least another year until any decisions would be made Hedlund said he could wait a year but would need to receive approval of the improvements for a fliturc time Lindquist informed Hedlund that he saw the properly as it now is, a 2 bedroom. 800 s f home. Lindquist said it was his opinion that this was all the land could handle. Lindquist said he would not want the applicant to wait for septic approval and then find that the improvem.ents could not be made Jeff Martineau, a Realtor with Burnet Realty, said he was representing the Albee family estate He acknowledged the problems with septic but noted that this was not the only site in the area with no alternate site He asked the Planning Commission to consider alternate solutions Martineau noted the uniqueness of the property and said a 800 s.f home was not consistent with homes of the '90's He felt the design, location, and size of the property was consistent with the neighborhood Peterson informed Martineau that the Commission was in the planning process of what would be allowed for the property. He agreed with Lindquist on what could be done with the property as a fact of reality, rather than one of marketability Peterson said the main issue was the sewer He said the application could not move for.vard without an alternate site, which is a recent regulation, and a system which meets zoning requirements. Peterson noted that other auencies are involved Martineau said he was in attendance not as an agent but to represent what was good for the homeow ner He said he sees the proposal as a reasonable use of the property Hawn said she saw the proposal and issues as very troubling. Hawn noted that the property was in the 2 acre zoning and was only 1/4 size of the requirement She noted the fragility of the area with the bluff and the one septic site Hawn felt it would be irresponsible to take this substandard lot and increase the building size. She noted this property was an example of w hy there were building codes. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#5 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued) Susan Albee said she saw the Hedlund's plan as being quite conservative. She noted that there were no homes on the north side of the lake with alternate sites Alhee said the proposed septic system for the propert>' has a 25 year guarantee She did not believe the applicant was asking for anything unreasonable with the addition of one more bedroom and an attached 2-car garage. Albee said there was only a 10% building envelope on the property, and her parents have lived there for 60 years Smith said she had no problem with the house increasing in height but with covering more of the lot with structure The main issue with Smith was the sewering. Stoddard noted the sewer issue along with the height of the addition and encroachment into the 0-75' setback He said there was still the issue ofbeinu 300 s f over the hardcover limit He asked if there could be design changes to include movement of the garage to decrease the footprint especially in light of a complaint from a neighbor It was also noted that there was no guarantee when sewering would come to the neighborhood. Gaftron was asked about the status of the MUSA application. GalTron said the City is working with Long I.ake to determine capacity availability and make changes downstream as necessar>' Once that is worked out, the Met Council will probably approve the application. Gaffron said sewering w-as a matter of timing and cited examples of w'hat might occur. He said he was concerned with the proposed improvements if the septic system fails Stoddard said he saw the footprint as a problem Peterson said he had a problem with the garage He did not w ish to set any precedent by allowing a garage that near to the lot line. Sue Hedlund asked the Commission if the bluff was a major concern. Peterson said it w as the least concern of all the issues involved Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application //2135 for redesign of location of garage and architectural redesign for fit on the property, along with a solution on how to handle possible future failure of the septic system Peterson noted the possibility of holding tanks if necessary. He brought the applicant's attention to the clean up being conducted of Long Lake. Callahan said he was in favor of the tabling He said the issue was similar to that of the ice arena proposal w ith awaiting resolution of the sewering issue. Callahan said he saw the issue as political and was not clear whether it would be resolved favorably or in the near future. Callahan also noted the need for an agreement to be reached with both Long Lake and Medina on sewering issues. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2137 WILLIAM AND SUSAN DUNKLEY, 2709 \\'ALTFRS PORT LANE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:13-9:38 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Carl Smith Gafffon reviewed the proposals and improvements to the Dunkley property. .\n addition to the house, revamping of a garage wall, replacement of retaining walls, and a new entry wav w as approved in 1995 with revision to hardcover w ith remov al of retaining walls that were replaced with plantings. The current proposal is to change a deck on the south side of the residence and replace it with a room with a pool spa This addition would meet the 10’ side setback but is located within the 0-75' setback Changing the deck to the proposed enclosed structure would decrease the hardcover by 24 s f but would increase the lot coverage by structure from 15 6® o to 16 7% The additional structure also encroaches the average setback line GatTron noted that the homes to the north and southeast are set far back on the properties The visual impact of the Dunkley property, with its bulk in the 0-75' setback, would not affect the views of the other properties Gaffron said there may be opportunities for hardcover reduction but the intensive review of the hardcov er was done with the earlier application Gaffron added that the driveway is ver>' large and could be an option for hardcover reduction. Peterson eommented that the applicants have done a fantastic job on replacing the retaining walls and redoing the landscaping He noted their compliance with the requests of the City. Letters have also been receiv ed from the neighbors approving what has already been done on the property. Peterson noted the limitations to the property but agreed that the deck needs to be retnoved or replaced He asked if the deck could be moved forwarcU Gaffron agreed that this could be an option and asked how it would affect the side setback variance? Carl Smith responded that the location of the spa room w as best suited to the location with the patio door on the left side. Hawn was informed that the spa was a therapeutic need for the applicant. I lawn asked why the hot tub room located beneath the area in question could not be used for the spa. Carl Smith said that hot tub was not in good condition, and the spa was probably too large for that particular room Gaffron questioned whether there was any logic to placing the spa at the other end of the home*’ This w ould be a location near the master bedroom. MlNim S Ol IHH ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION M1;1;TING IILLD on may 20, 1096 • U2\}7 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued) Wlion asked al>,>ut hardships. Lxhibit A was noted, which lists the reasons for the spa, but l J.inioii said no liaulship statement was included Fvhihit R cites medical reasons for the N|M IVteison said he did not see the a\ cradle lakeshore setback as a problem with this p:opos,tl ti.jtVjon sc.^^kicstcd a possible mitigation wjth screening of trees or landscaping C.itl Smith showixl an visual representation of the deck along with a representation of the spa room addition He noted that the ivtd'tion was an improvement to the visual impact Hawn imiuired wh.tt wa.s being placed under the spa room Carl Smith said this was undecidcxl I indkjuist questioned whether this addition was too much for the property Peterson noted th.1t the deck dx.'cs need to be replaced Smith questioned why it was not included in 0ngu1.1l ptopv'sal Hawn noted that the Commission denied a screen porch and could not see aiiv d tVeieiicc between a porch and this addition Gath-on remarked that the spa uvm W.1S bu'ught up at the Cv'unal meeting at the end of the process with t.he last Aj'j'hc.srioM Kit \\.<s tv' N* v.bmTrrcvl i <epiroe p-oiecr He added f’rur D.ile v»u'«i:.i'‘son had cggcNted v'f the wa'Vwav ravels coaid he removed Gath-cr. •v'.ed that the drive''av is kvatea out of the >"’5 setback The retamina wails are :vv cv>d:\ d..c to the vo:v of the and Gad^on accec that i: could be arg-aed that h,a;dcs'vc: is hiaidco-.er Smith comi-c-ted. if the .ufw'cned porch was dented, rtd ±erc wete IX' other iieas where hardcove' co-’d be 'educed, t^e ::nut in lot coverage may s'-eisN have Seer teachev^ Vhcie wete rv,' pub. c oonmerts larvxvvs: nx'vod. Pctcr-sov" soccrooc. to arprc-. c Arp I moquist. Peteixom Navf • Stooaacc. S'mtn. Haw :oa:\ ote A*. es 2, ivvoc fo c tSr x'oe v —ot c“ .v -eiso~.s f: V ^ O • • » — • • ^ t •• ; V Go- - vv.'* *ooc :c tjoe :*e arc* cat :'- cer.a. htcccarc nctei tr:» r 1 i*r***^ I- >cM WO- .f : 'e - is t ■'Jh^ ^ ^ a» . V • *- -4k. '•O'* -v ive •*e*-» . .. TLZTl - ii r*i iTClIIItiC TI ^ rC r- c-er.tg - ;r mc-*-g : Hli-**: • <i«. «•> s • •• • V j. • Nm ' • !> —cc r 'io oc. "-'c irctto-in .*n c:iuo : :r'c r*iOi rertre me o’iinnrrii MINLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (db - #2137 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued) Smith moved. Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2137 to work with landscaper in minimizing the visual impact and take the above ideas into consideration V^ote Aves 5 Nays 0 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#7) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Hawn suggested the possibility of a Consent Agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting. Smith asked that Staff request applicants to post application notices near driveways of the residences for easier identification. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#8) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE APRIL 15, 1996 MEETLNG Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the April 15, 1996 Meeting of the Planning Comjnission Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#9) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE JUNE 10,1996 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Lindquist will attend the June 10, 1996 meeting of the Council. ADJOURNMENT Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to adjourn at 9;45 p.m Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person