The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-20-1995 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINITES FOR NOVEMBER 20, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present ( hair Stephen Peterson. Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, and Elizabeth Hawn Charles Schroeder and Candace Rowlette were absent The following represented the City StatT Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael GalTron, and Recorder Sherry Frost Councilmembcr JoEllen 1 lurr was present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p m S( HEDl'LED PLBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING (#1) #2082 RICHARD STARK, 575 OXFORD ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDIT IONAL L’SF PER.MITVVARIANC E AND VACATION - 7:00-7:26 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Aflldavit of Publication w ere noted. The Applicant was present Mabusth reported that the application was in response to a violation for tree removal and vegetation clearing within the 0-7.*'' /one also involving a violation of a conservation and flowage easement filed against the chain of title of the propeily The property is located within the Stielow addition and the City's wetland maps classilying the wetland as marsh wetland type The applicants are asking for approval of a plan with a new delineation, referred to as area "A" Trees removed in the area "A" were 10 in number and 12 in area "B", the remaining area included under conservation and flowage easement. Mabusth said the City Engineer has reviewed the soil delineation report and concurs with the findings and recommends redefining the area The City Staff has recommended filing a vacation of the original conservation and flowage easement and to be conditioned on the granting of a new easement. Mabusth reviewed the issues and considerations set forth by applicant for the Planning Commission to consider including the applicant's lack of knowledge of the conserv ation area and Stark's agreement to replant evergreen and fruit trees in the 0-75' zone Applicant Stark said he purchased the property in June of 1995 and was not notified of the ea.sement. Stark said he made changes that he felt were appropriate. Selected trees were removed, and it was his intent to replant evergreen trees. The City asked the applicant for a current survey locating the 75' zone and new wetland delineation area along with the legal description. Mabusth said the applicant cooperated with the erosion control efforts. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINCi IIEI.D ON NOVEMBER 20, IW5 (#I - #2082 Richard Stark - Continued) Peterson asked it'there were an> problems with soil erosion Mabusth said there were no problems Peterson asked if the plan to restore trees and vegetation was appropriate with Stafl' Mabusth said the plan was to replant 10 trees in the 0-75' zone Stark said his plan was to plant the trees on the sides of the proi>erty and noted there were no evergreens on the property at this time and that he did not propose replantings in areas A or B Hawn inquired about the use ofMn/'DOT 250 grass and asked if it was appropriate to "weed-wack" these natural grasses Stark had told Hawn that sod would give better control Mabusth asked Stark if it was his intent to cut the grass in the wetland area, and Stark said it was his intent to do so Stark said he asked an expert regarding long grass or natural grass' elTort and was told there w as no difference Stark said "weed-wacking" allows for competition of grasses and a fuller growth of the root structure He noted a disadvantage of long grass was its breeding environment for insects who carry diseases such as Lymes Disease Mabusth said the DNR and MCWD would be able to provide answers to these issues Stark addeded that he did not believe there was any regulatory force concerning grass cutting Mabusth reminded Stark ol the City's conservation easements which limits such activity Peterson commented that the City has always encouraged long natural grass in wetland areas and that "weed-wacking" has never been discussed Smith questioned the planting of fruit trees versus native trees She did not feel that this type of tree was in keeping with a wetland area Smith would like to see trees plantings that are consistent with wetland areas Stark responded that the landscape consultant had suggested the type of trees to be planted in view of the large ^M'lpulation of deer Peterson said the Planning Commission has not stipulated in the past what type of trees should be planted but looked more at the mitigation issue Mabusth commented that evergreens are probably not consistent with wetland areas either Smith agreed that it was probably a personal preference issue. Smith asked about another home nearby which had clear cut some trees. Gafffon said that 15-20 trees w ere replanted in the 3"-5" size. The trees were of different varieties. The trees were replaced one for one but not inch for inch. Smith asked if any fine was involved for that application. Gaffron said any fine would have been so small as money would be spent to replace the trees. Lindquist noted that only certain type of trees would grow in wetland areas. Stark said it was his plan to place the trees along the sides of the property and not in the wetland area. r • *1 'T MINI THS OF 1HF ORONO PLANNING ( OMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NO\ EMBER 20, l‘W5 (ii| . «2082 Richard Stark - Continued) Mahusth asked the Commissioners if the trees were replaced in the 0-75’ zone and not in the areas described as "A" or "B" Lindquist was told 10 trees would be planted in 0-75' setback area Undquist saw no problem with area "B" but felt area "A" should have replacement of tree for tree Peterson said that would be consistent with other applications Stark questioned tree replacement under tlie agreement tor the easement Mabusth said there was no direction in the code and has been based on the judgment of Staff Tree removal in 0-75' requires permits issued by Staff Mabusth told Stark if he objected to Planning Commission recommendations to present his position before the Council As far as the easement. Mabusth said the agreement stipulates that no trees can be removed without City approval 1 here were no public comments Smith said she agreed with Lindquist in his request for tree replacement Lindquist said he felt particnilarly strong about tree replacement in area "A" Stark said he strongly objected to placing trees in this area Stark said there are alot of trees on the property It is not his intent to gain a view of the lake At the time, the property was not open to use of the lake Stark noted that the house, itself, was not in view. Mabusth asked Stark how many trees w ere already dead that were removed. Of the 10 trees removed. Stark said probably half of them were dead Hawn commented that a buckthorn was removed, and she was glad to see that particular tree removed Stark said an oak tree was choking it out Peterson received confirmation that the reroofing project completed without a permit was satisfied Lindquist asked Stark if he would agree to the replacement of 5 trees in area "A". Stark said he would if they could be planted to the side Mabusth commented that tree placement was not an issue as long as plantings were achieved in specified areas. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2082 with 5 trees being replaced in area "A" of similar size, 10 trees replaced in the 0-75’ zone, and granting of a new easement. The tree replacement is to be completed by July 15, 1996. Vote: Aves 5, Navs 0 NfINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HEl DON NOVE.MBER 20, 1995 («) #2090 RON R.ANTZ/Al'TOGR.\FS INC., 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VACATION OF EASEMENTS - PA! The Certificate of Mailing and AtTidavit of Publication were noted. Blake Bichanicn represented the applicant Mabusth reported that the property is located in the Leach .Addition and consists of Lots 1, 2. and 3, which are being de\ eloped bv Autografs A condition of the preliminary approval was that the applicant proceed with vacation of the drainage and utility easement within the building en\elope There were no public comments. Peterson moved. Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2090 with the 2 Staff recommendations. Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#3) #2092 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 NORTH BROWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SCBDIVISION - 7:28-7:39 P.M. The Certificate of Mailinu and Affdavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present Mabusth reported that during the sketch plan review the Planning Commission advised the applicant that they could not recommend the 3 lot subdivision due to the lot width and area being inadequate The wode for lakeshore back/front lots require a 200* width at both the lakeshore and 150’ setback The east lot is inadequate in width at street setback into North Brown resulting in the need for a shared driveway There is now an issue of setback variances as the backlot configuration requires 15CW o standard A 45' setback is required from the side lot lines The existing residence is within the required side setback and encroaches 45' into the front setback at 75 ’ The front lot’s building envelope is defined at a 50' setback from the south, west and east lot lines The accessory structure on east lot will be removed by the applicant. The house on the property will probably be moved elsewhere. The pool will be removed when the lots are sold Mabusth said a deadline would have to be set as the code does not allow an accessory structure on lots without a principal structure. An average deadline is one year. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING ( OMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, loqs (#3 - ^2002 I>ennis Plalteter - Continued) Peterson commented that the Planning Commission was split in their opinion of the subdivision Based on the preliminar>' subdivision meeting, Peterson noted that the applicant has addressed some of the issues He did not w ish any changes to be made until the accessory structure w as remov ed Hawn received confirmation from Mabusth that there was adequate lot si/e in which to build There were no public comments Smith commented on the letter from the DNR regarding future views of structures from the lake. Mabusth said the letter outlined standard practices and requirements of DNR. Steve Schroll of 2000 Sugar Woods asked if a joint road would be used for the two lots via access to the back .nan of the subdiv ision Mabusth said a shared driveway would be used but there were no requirements to upgrade The driveway must be at least 1C from the south lot line of r>utlot Schroll was informed that there was no standard or requirement of driveway improv ement. Connie Gray, 819 Brown Road, asked where the two new homes would be built. Mabusth show ed on a map the lot outlines and of building envelopes. The City does not stipulate where a house should be located, other than meeting required setbacks of code Mabusth noted that the home on east lot would be at least 30’ from the side lot line with the Gray property. Peterson commented that the location of the septic systems usually drives where most homes are situated on the lot. Scholl asked and was shown on the map where the septic system for these homes would be placed and the likely home locations. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2092 with a 1 year deadline from ihe date of final approval of plat for remov al of the accessory structure on east lot along with Staff recommendations 1-4. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. 'i \1IM TLS or I nr ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MLETIN(j HELD ON NOVEMBER 20. <«4) #2085 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATl R.AE RESOERCES, 3390 '■ORTf! SHORE RRO’E COMME^C* V* SITE *•! ,\^ pfvifw . Pl'Ri if' INFORMATION MEETING - 8:11-9:06 P.M. The Cenitlcate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The Applicant was represented by Larry Killien and Stan Linnell (iatfron reported that the application is for a commercial site plan review for construction of a public water access which has been in the planring stage for the past three years The property is zoned B-2 and previously w as the site of Cry stal Bay Serv ice and Gayle’s Marina at the intersection of Tonkawa and CoRd 51 (North Shore Drive) The DNR is exempt from meeting local zoning codes but has worked with City Staff and the Lake Use Committee in developing the site plan Gaffr J.1 related a brief history of the project In October of PW2, the DNR obtained the option tc purchase the Straley property east of Lakeside Marina Much resistance was given to this purchase by the neighborhood and City Public hearings were held in January of !0"2 Concerns were with the property zoned residential and what was considered poor traffic access By mutual agreement, the purchase was put on hold The DNR then acquired the Gavle's Marina piopeilv and Civslal Bav Service piooeilies aUmg with the Dunn Property and the Sprague property The property is west of Lakeside Marina. The D in 'R then met with the Lake Use Committee holding three meetings as well as meeting with the Maxwell Bay Residents Committee The DNR removed the buildings on the pri»pertv and have dealt with the fuel contamination, which has been resolved. Monitoring wells are currently m place. Gaffron reported that the DNR is now prepared to begin constructing the lake access and arc at this meeting to discuss the design, and he noted that Staff has reviewed how the proposal fits into the context of the B-2 zone It is not strictly a commercial use but might be considered an institutional or recreational use. and the B-2 code does not address "public access" specifically The overall hardcover existed at 68% and will be reduced to 52® o The B-2 lakeshore code calls for a 75' setback and is proposed at dO' The code calls for a 75’ buffer It was noted that Gayle’s Marina had hardcover right up to the shoreline The landscaping plan includes tree planting as well as the saving of a number of trees on the property The DNR was asked to plant something larger than their standard I ’’ caliper trees and arc planting l-l/2’’-2’* Diainage will flow through filter strips before entering the lake In regards to the site access issue, traffic will be brought in from the west end at Tonkawa with no traffic accessing from North Shore Drive. A counterclockwise flow of traffic will occur within the site. Peterson said the Lake Use Committee has had more meetings on this public access than any other issue It has involved the public, the Council and the DNR Peterson said he was comfortable with what was being introduced and saw it as a viable plan. MINU ri:s OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, I‘K)5 ( #4 - ^2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Continued) Stan Linnell, a DNR landsca()e aichitecl. reviewed the site plan He iet>oiled that in addition to Gavles and the ('rvstal Bay Service properties, the DNR acqutred two residential properties, where the homes have been removed, with the option to purchase a third property which abuts Lakeside Marina The DNR has been working with the County on developing a right turn lane on County Road SI to flow to the main access To avoid a back up on Co Rd 51 a counterclockwise flow has been developed in the site Another traffic lane has been established eastbound for a by-pass lane so as to not be blocked by cars with trailers Linnell continued to describe the access as having three concrete plank ramps with docks plus a remote diKk The rcmrrtc dock would be used by those people idling or stopping for short periods This will enable those boats entering or exiting the lake to do so without interference There will be 80 car-trailer parking stalls and car only parking of 15 stalls An access trail will also be constructed to the fishing pier This trail is near the roadway and will be built as a sidewalk adjacent to Tonkawa Road. It was noted that children would need to be closely w atched in this and all of the area. Linnell said the drainage for the parking lot splits it in the middle Drainage will flow to a grassed swale, thru two skimmers, to a catch basin, and onto a culvert to Crystal Bay. The other side will have a swale, two skimmers, with a possible sheet flow, and then a berm Linnell reported that there will be 4 handicap parking spots with two ”car only" At least two docks and a pier will be handicap accessible. There will be no curb or gutter along the lake side I he access will be asphalt or bituminous. The turn lane and islands will have concrete gutters and boulders to control the traffic A sign near the entrance will direct car/trailer while still allowing cars to pull away from the launch ramp. Linnell said it was the DNR's intent to preserve the existing trees One tree in particular intended to be saved is a 28" oak. New native trees will be planted and existing evergreen trees and 10-15 deciduous trees will be transplanted. A wildflower and grass vegetation bulTei strip will be planted along the shoreline to provide better filtration from runoff from the parking lot fhere will be some screening, but they did not want to block the view in from the road 165 shrubs and 37 new trees will be planted Killien added that two parking spaces were eliminated to save a hackberry tree on the property. MINUTKS OF THL ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MKin ING HELD ON NOV EMBER 20. (#4 - #2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Continued) Killien presented some history' on the property The DNR has conducted clean up of all the contaminated soils from the service station and marina Observation wells were installed, which will be monitored in .»0 days The DNR should know in 00 days what effect has been had on the ground water on the upper level Another set of tankN were recently discovered and removed Small amount of soil was on the tanks but no contaminated soil was left This area was backfilled Lead and asbestos testing was conducted on the building prior to demolition Killien said the last parcel should close before the end of the \ ear, and the building should come down within 90 days He also reported that w etland delineation of the area w here the trail will be confirmed this is only a ditch area The plans liave been submitted to the MCVVD, the LMCD, and the DNR Waters Division Gaffron asked if the cvclone fence would be removed and uuard rails installed between the path and road for protection Linncll said they had observed the area earlier and were considering curb and gutter between the road and path, which he said would perform the same as a boardwalk Peterson asked how far back this would occur Linnell said there was one stretch where the lake came close to the edge and then separated for the pathway which was a hiuh risk area Peterson said the public has been kept informed about the plan and asked for any concerns from those in attendance Dick Engebretson. along with his wife Jean. 1180 Tonkavva. were present. Engebretson asked if there would be a stop sign at the exit of the access to keep cars from rolling out onto Tonkawa without slopping and was told there would be He further inquired if the residents would be notified if the monitoring wells indicated further contamination He was told the DNR w as working with the MPCA and would notify the residents if any problems w ere found Engebretson asked how big the access was in scale to that of North Arm public access He was informed that there is parking for 65 car/trailers at North Arm. and there would be parking for 80 car/trailcrs at this location Killien noted that this access provided a better layout and traffic flow He noted that the DNR is working with Hennepin County on redesigning North Arm It is the DNR's intent to fix the fishing and shore area, paint the no parking areas, adda raised island in the lot, and create buffer strips to deal with stormwater Engebretson asked whether DNR plans to repair the Boy Scout bridge Peterson said this has not been before the Lake Use Committee Killien said this was not part of the DNR plan. 8 ■irtM iTT MINUTES OF 1 HE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, IW5 (#4 - «2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Continued) Jerr\' Gray asked if the right turn lane would be for parking access only and was told it w'as not for the exclusive use of the access but a continuation of a right lane Gray felt the traffic flow would result in a circus Peterson said the traffic has been discussed in great detail including the right turn lane Gray asked if the plans could be changed if they found this plan does not work Linnell suggested staying in the driv ing lane and turning directly onto Tonkaw a It was said a car can turn right from the center lane but Gray questioned whether the County would consider this to be legal or not Hurr said there would in effect be tw o lanes of traffic onto Tonkaw a There would be 300-400' of stacking area in the turn lane No parking signs have been installed Gray was concerned that the no parking would not be enforced Linnell noted that the three ramps would aid in the traffic flow also. Barry Knight, 425 Tonkawa, was concerned with traffic flow at peak times He asked about the normal traffic for a ramp and was told 25 spaces per ramp is standard Knight was concerned with left turns coming out at dusk He felt if there was parking for 80 cars, and with the traffic configuration pattern, it would want to head both north and south on Tonkawa He saw this as a potential problem during "rush hours" Peterson commented that a boat launch creates less traffic than a marina and less turnover It was noted that Gayle’s Marina originally had 140 slips ’Vith a boat ramp, boaters come early and leave late If Gayle's had no problem with traffic, Peterson said he saw even less here (Jray asked if a traffic count was done at Gay le's but that was unknown Knight said he w as less conv inced than the Planning Commission on the amount of traffic considered to come out of the access area. Linnell said Gayle's Marina also had 2 double access, launch ramps. Knight asked about hardcover and was told the access was designed to standards Knight asked what enforcement would be done of the access traffic and local traffic on Tonkawa in order to maintain the 30-35 mph limit and how this would be dealt w ith in the residential area Peterson said if speed became a problem, the police department would have to enforce the law. Killien said the DNR had made suggestions to the City regarding overflow parking suggesting no parking signs and an ordinance to uphold that He felt the DNR was dealing with this issue up front Killien felt education right from the start was important. Killien said he would not recommend cars towing boats to travel on Tonkawa with the snake-like hills He felt that Tonkawa as a route from the north probably would be used mainly during peak times He said he would check with the County on this. MINUI bS OF 1 Hb ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MbEI ING llbLD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1005 (j^4 . ^^2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Continued) Dan Wigen, 3410 North Shore Dri\e (2nd house west of the access), asked if there were plans for an access to Crystal Bay and was told no He asked if people would somehowr be discouraged from doing so He was told there would be no improvement at that area and tratllc will limit pet>ple going across to that area Wigen said people are now parking in the landinu and usinu his dock for fishinu He would like enforcement and education such as signs stipulating private and not public property along that area He also had a concern with traffic and use of private driveways He w as also concerned w ith snowmobilers using the ramp by crossing from C'ly stal Bay Peterson said neither had been discussed but felt the steep banks would discourage snowmobilers and landscaping could also slow them down Killien said the area could be posted for no parking in the winter as the landing would be closed during that time. No other barriers would be installed, however Ken Rolland. 4119 Oak Street, was concerned with traffic and asked if there was a possibility for a traffic stoplight Peterson said this had not been discussed and was a County issue Rolland said he was concerned with eastbound cars with boats making a left turn onto Tonkavva GaffVon thought there was room for perhaps three cars to stack. Killien said there wou!' room for 4 cars with trailers Killien asked Rolland it his concern was with C oKd 51 or Tonkawa Rolland said he was just asking in general, binnell said the County never *'rought up the issue of a stoplight, and south bound Tonkawa w as considered for just tw o lanes He said it could be explored if necessary. Gray asked if the landing was closed in winter if fish houses would be allowed to use the ramp. Killien said the ramp would be posted as closed but not physically barred due to liability. He said the fish houses would need to be dealt with if they became a problem, and DNR has a 48 hour notification process before illegally "parked" fish houses could be removed There would also be no winter maintenance Cars would probably need to be 4-wheel drive to use the ramp A DNR access is normally open 365 days a year but not in this case If there are problems, the DNR will look at options available. He noted that there are only two DNR accesses with gates, both with unusual circumstances. Hurr noted that there would be access at North Arm during the winter. Smith said she liked the idea of an information board rather than signs at diff erent locations Smith also liked the landscaping plan and would like to see one at North Arm. She asked if the lights would be left on or off or on a timer. Killien said the lights were angled and box shaped directed downward and on at all times. There will be three lights on the site. Regarding the lack of proposed garbage cans, DNR believes in the less- containers, less-trash line of thought \ll\l IF sol INI OKO\OP» ANMNOF. 0\1M!SV|0N \1H I I\(. IILLDt)\ NOVEMBLR2U. i9V.S (■■! '2055 Dcpaiirncni. crXaiuiai Resouiccs - Comiiiueut GalTron inquired about the construction schedule I jnnell said it would next go to the Council in December If no maior chanues were ncccssarv the final olans would be drafted in January and Febniary with bidding for early spring Construction would begin in Mav and completed durinu the summer No formal action was required at this meeting. Wigen asked if a motion could be made on signage regarding trespassing He was told these concerns would be addressed by Staff. Lindquist as'<ed that the comments l>e passed on to the Council. Petersr>n closed the public information meeting (#5) #208S WINFIELD STEPHENS, 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD - \'ARIANCESA’A('ATION OF Pl'BLIC ROAD 9:06 9:35 P.M. 1 he Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present Mabusth reported that the application was for the vacation of a 30' alley and setback variances for maior additions lo existing residence The nronertv is made un of 4 separate parcels and involves an improvement plan Existing on the property is a 1-1/2 story home with a garage that is located totally within the 30* alley. The improvement consists of two options, option # 1 involves an addition to the south side and option #2, an addition to the east The Staff'memo was said to discuss the setbacks and hardcover foi the property Peterson said there would appear to be no major concern as long as the applicant was able to acquire the alley. Mabusth advised from calls she received, it appeared that the adjacent owners may make claim to the alley Mabusth said she had spoken with Dennis Hill at the County, who said the entire alley would probably be granted to the applicant as ow'ner of lots 2 and 3. Mabusth said she had spoken with 1 lili again after calls had been received from the neighbors, and he advised that the matter may have to be further studied. Hill informed Mabusth if the neighbors pressed for a piece of the allev. these claims mav be raised during a required legal proceeding. Peterson asked if the application w as not one step ahead of itself He asked if Staff was awaiting information on utilities. The City Engineer reported there were no sewer lines encroaching the alley, and there are no power poles. I I MINUTES OI THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (^5 - H20SS Winfield Stephens - Continued) Both the current owner, Steve Gardiner, and the new owner, Winfield Stephens, were present Stephens said the vacation \ as suggested to minimize impact of variances with the proposed improvements The vacation had also been recommended by StalT He said the area where the alley is located seems to be part of the lawn, and the entire detached garage is located within the alley Peterson asked if the issue of the vacation was frivolous on the part of the neighbors or not Mabuslh said she had just been made a % ire of their interests Peterson asked the applicant if he was aware that he would need to combine lots 1-4. Stephens said that was not an issue Lindquist asked the applicant if he did not gain the vacation of the alley, if he still wished to proceed, and Stephens advised he did w ish to proceed regardless of the outcome of the alley Peterson said the applicant could not proceed without the 30’ alley as both development plans show garage remaining in alley Option //2, Mabuslh said entailed an issue of impact to the neighbor if the addition w as to the east The Wicklands report an impact on their view s There is no legal claim to the view but option also involves new construction at 3 5' from north side lot line Setbacks and hardcover variance are less intense with the inclusion of the additional area from the vacated alley Peterson asked the applicant what he would prefer Stephens said he preferred option in order to save 2 big oak trees in front yard. Option ti 1 does require the removal of 2 large maples The old owner said the oak trees were beautiful He noted that one of the trees was 7' in circumference and would be a shame to lose it I lawn asked if the addition couldn’t be altered and sit where the diseased maple is located but skirt the oak and save the other maple Stephens said it could but would be within the 50' street setback from County Road, which he thought was more critical. Mabusth said it would be dilTicult to approve an encroached of the 50’ setback. She noted that w e are dealing with limited building envelope Lindquist said he had a problem with 3-1/2’ on the north lot line and then doubling the amount I ne old owner. Steve Gardiner, remarked that this was the way it had always been. Lindquist said although this was true, he could not imagine doubling the area. The applicant and ow ner said they had a notarized copy of the easement that provided access along the north lot line MINU I ts OF THt ORONU PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, IW5 (#5 - ^2088 VVintleld Stephens - Continued) Christine Valerius reported that she ovsns the properly they were referring to and noted that the WicUands use the driv eway but that there was no easement in favor of this property She said she looked when she purchased the property and found no easement. Stephens reported on the attorneys who had searched the title and showed Valerius a copy of the easement Peterson said there were other concerns with the garage encroachment and clean up of area to the west Gardiner said a boat had be-m there and rubbish left by previous owner of l.andmark property. Lindquist asked if any improvements involved the tearing down of the garage located on the alleyway Stephens said he had no plans to do so Lindquist said he could not approve any improvements w ith the garage in that location if the vacation was not approved. Berg said it was important to make sure the easement exists She added that she did not feel the Commission could proceed to approve any improvement without the alley v acation. Peterson agreed that this would be an integral part of the application Peterson said he fav ored option ti I and the v acation and asked if the survey (1988) commented on the alley Mabusth said there has been no new construction to require a new survey. Lindquist said the variance should be based on whether or not the vacation is granted. He was not in favor of any furiher encroachment of the west side yard. Smith commented that the addition was very aggressive and could not take a position without a decision on the alleyway. There were no public comments. Gardiner remarked that the connection charge to City sewer was $13,000 and would be a very expensive sewer for a I bedroom house. Gardiner said that is why it should be expanded and noted that the neighbors had expanded. The Wickslands commented that their lot was 1-1/2 acres, and they had to sacrifice a large tree in order to meet building setbacks. Stephens was asked if he planned on living in the house and was told he did. MINLITF.S OF I MF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MFFTING HFLDON NOVFMBF.R 20, 1995 (#5 - «2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) Mabusth asked for Planning Commission’s view if the vacation was not part of the application Lindquist said he was of the position that the garage should come down if it is not located in the legal building envelope He m>ted that it was to the benefit of the applicant to priKeed with the vacation of the alley Gardiner said he had olfered a neighbor $2,000 to consider the vacation but had receK-ed no reply. Gardiner asked if the Commission w ould consider option #1. Berg asked where the garage would go Stephens asked if the vacation of the alley could not be done, if the process could proceed. Peterson said the iiaraue would still nt*ed to he addresst‘d Gardiner remarked that he had purchased the property in 1982. and the garage was built before that time Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2088 Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Peterson suggested the applicants pul the burden on the neighbor to determine the drivewav easement. (#6) #195* LOl'IS OBERHACSFR, 2405 DIINV, OODY AVENUE, 1*65 AND 3*77 SHORELINE DR!\ E PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 9:35-10:02 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and /MTidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was represented by Jack Neveaux Mabusth said the application was for a lot line rearrangement and replat of two lots. The original subdiv ision application was filed in 1994 had also included applicant's homestead parcel. The current application includes 3 substandard lots. The property is in the 1/2 acre zoning district Lot I to the west contains 16,500 s.f, and Lot 2 to the east contains 20,000 s.f Existing now, according to Mabusth are two boarded up structures, one structure had been removed, and one rental unit structure. Mabusth reported that the applicant seeks approval of lakeshore setback variances for lot I involving a 6' encroachment of lakeshore setback line The structure will be located 10' from street lot line and existing detached garage is 6' into the right-of-way. Both structures would meet the 10' side setback. A timber retaining wall is located in lot 2, and the applicant is willing to remove the wall if able to gain the variances for lot 1. There are no lakeshore decks proposed with new construction plans. • 14 — •___T r.- -*T - A’ NfTNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HEI D ON NON'EMBER 20. |QQ5 («6 - #1958 Louis Oberhauser - Continued) Hardcover excesses do exist, though greatly improved Lot 1 in the 75-250' zone exists at 59 047® 0 and is proposed at 36 03®o Lot 2 hardcover in the 75-250’ zone exists at 36 7^o and is proposed at 33 23® # There is a structural coverage variance required on lot I at 15 6® # where 15® # is allowed Lot 2 is under the allowed amount at 10 6%. There were no public comments Neveaux said the hardcover on Lot 2 was unnecessarvf Peterson noted a petition signed by 31 neighbors voicing their concern for the need for demolition and removal of structures fhc petition was dated October 6, IW5 and read into the minutes Mabusth said the petition was sent out by the adjacent new homeowner and came to Stall ’s attention on this date Mabusth said the applicant, Cttterhauser, was to have removed the structure by September of 1995 She had informed the new homeowner that this was a private matter that needed to be resolved with Oberhauser Mabusth said Neveaux was made aware of the hazardous conditions of the structure and its lack of maintenance The stmeture is open and able to be accessed Peterson noted the neighbors' unhappiness with the applicant. Mabusth asked if there was a schedule for the remov al of the structure. Neveaux said there w as no definite schedule but tied to the process He was not aw are of the scope of danger He had thought the structures were boarded up and would pass on the information to the applicant Smith asked if there has been any inspection of the property by the applicant or his representative and whether the problem was incidental or anecdotal Neveaux said the applicant had lived there until July of 1995. Smith questioned if the property had been inspected by applicant seen since July or the condition reported to the applicant. Berg said the structure was still there and was surprised that the City would allow it to be there Mabusth said if the structure is boarded and safe, it can be allowed to remain. The goal, in this case, was to remove the structure. Mabusth asked the representativ e if the applicant wanted to gain approval on the subdivision, if he would be willing to remov e all structures including the rental unit Smith asked if this could be done within 60 days. Neveaux said he did not know. Smith asked if this could be done before it is sold. Neveaux did not think it was contingent with the buyer being in place. 15 MINI TKS OK THE ORONO PI ANNING C OMMISSION MI E I ING Hi l l) ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#(,. 1958 Louis Oberhauser - Continued) Hann said she saw the structures as clearly being in violation and hideous. Hawn said any improv ement would be a benefit but was concerned with tw o substandard lots requiring hardcover and structural variances She said she was willing to kx>k at the application only because of the hidetnis condition of the structures Hawn said she was very concerned with this being adequate grounds for approval and had a serious problem with it. Neveaux said the City and the property owner want the improvement He noted that other proposals have been turned away and considered this a last ditch elTort Neveaux said in site of the numerous v ariances that exists on the property, the outcome would be beneficial He felt the past should be put behind and move forward Neveaux said the wedge of land of Casco/Spring Park was a transitional group of lots He noted that one lot was not economically feasible and out of character w ith the lot and area He felt the proposal blends in with the neighborhood Peterson said that w^s not a concern. He did want the structure to come down and did want the subdivision He felt if there was to be a replat, he recommended 2 lots. Mabusth suggested a possible redesign questioning puting a large house within the smaller envelope She saw no reason to grant a setback variance to lakeshore setback for Lot 1 as the building area could be rearranged to meet the setback Mabusth said the proposal has merit but again was concerned with setbacks and the lack of any real site planning Peterson asked why a larger house on a smaller lot Neveaux said it was only a general plan He said the site and access availability was limited and looked at the aesthetics. It was the applicant's intent to eliminate the setback variance required on lot I but limit the other Mabusth noted the sewer easement along the west line and the utility easement on the line. A shared access was recommended from CoRd 15 The County w as in favor of the shared access also The County saw the Dunwoody access as dangerous. Neveaux said this was fine with Oberhauser He was asked if he was aware of the utility easement. Neveaux said he was but not necessarily to the placement of the easement. Lindquist said he did not conceptually disagree but did not want to see any hardcover in the 0-75' zone He did not wish to see any new construction in this area. He would not 9 approve any structural lot coverage variance or hardcover variance in the 0-75' zone but would consider a hardcover variance MINUTHS OF THE- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Mi l l ING HI l.O ON NON LMBI-R 20. I (ffb - #1958 Louis Oberhauser - Continued) Peterson said the plan should come back with less variances Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to agree with the plat and road change eliminating access from Dunwtxxly A\enuc The new structure requires a revised plan out of the 0- 75’ zone and realigned to show the shared access No hardcover will be allowed in the 0- 75* A»ne nor structural c»>ver age exceeding Ihe hardcover on Lot I at and Lot 2 at 33® o were considered reasonable and the street setback to the garage Mabusth noted that the amended site plan would be required prior to the Council’s formal action on final approval variances N'ote Ayes 5. Nays 0 ACTION ITEMS <#7) #2059 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT. 14*5 SIXTH AVEM E NORTH - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL I SE PERMIT- CONTINUATION OF PI BLIC HEARING - 7:39-8:11 P.M. Manager. Ihomas LaBounty, of the M('WD was present LaBounty reported that they have reached an agreement with the Pearces, who are out of town, and plan on signing the agreement the following ev ening Gaffron repinted that the application was tabled at the last meeting pending additional review The stormwater pond would be constructed on the Pearce property, south of County Road 6 and East of Dakota Avenue The site is within the creek from Wolsfeld and Holy Name Lakes which tlow into Long Lake The pond is to be a 2-cell pond whose purpose is to catch sediment and hold back phosphorus. Regular maintenance would be required to keep the pond functioning The site now exists as a flat, wooded, wetland area Mature trees will be removed and replaced with vegetation around the new ponds The MCWD provided "before" and "after" photo representations of the area at the request of the Planning Commission. Gaftron said the City's main concerns are with the construction process. Peterson added there is a concern with hauling of the fill. Gaftron said thousands of yards of fill will be leaving the site to an oft-site location to be determined by the contractor. The access road would be on CoRd 6, east of Tanglewood The excavation and hauling would be done in mid-winter. 1 he sight distance is good at the access location but there is concern about impacting traffic on CoRd 6 Close monitoring of the road conditions w ould be required along with signage and flagmen during construction It was noted that for security reasons, a gate with a combination lock would be provided permanently at the access drive. NflNlJTFS OF THF- ORONO PLANMNCf COMMISSION MFETING Mi l DON NOVI MBI R 20. 1995 (#7 - #2059 MCWD - Ciwlinued) Peterson asked if the City's appro\ al would need to spell out the hours of operation during construction LaBounty w as asked if this was spelled out in their contracts LaBounty said hours have not been set He relayed the example of another project where the City set the approved hours LaBounty said there would be daily, or even htuirly. scraping and sweeping of the roadway All tmeks would use sealed boxes A priKedure wtxild alsc> be used to rennwe dirt from the tires when the trucks leave the property Hag personnel will also be used dunng operation I he construction is scheduled to start in January of 1998 and last 30-45 davs Revegetation would iKcur in the spring using bare root stock to save nH>ney No final landscape plans have been developed w ith the Pearces as of yet The Pearces will be included in the landscape plan process Peterson asked LaBounty where the MCWD was with the Medina and Long Lake pond projects LaBounty said the Long Lake pond agreements have been signed, and the project has been ordered to proceed Ground breaking is to occur on November 27 with revegetation to tKcur in the spring of 1996 A verbal agreement has been reached with the property owner in Medina, and all issues are expected to be resolved bv December 15 The MCWD is planning for constaiction to begin on December 15, 1995. Peterson commented and LaBounty confirmed that all three cities’ approval for sediment ponds is required in order that the alum treatment of Long Lake be effective. Smith asked if no aureement was reached in Medina if the MCWD would revert back to W' the plans for a 5 acre pond LaBoumy said that was a pr^ssibility at one time but an agreement has been reached with the Pearces only for a 2.5 acre pond He noted that the MCWD is working hard on reaching a negotiated settlement on the Medina pond Smith reiterated that this meant there would be no change in scope or scale if no agreement was reached in Medina LaBounty said no changes would be made as the signed agreement is in etfect LaBounty review ed the photo depictions of the site. He added that the pond requiring the most sediment removal is the pond nearest to CoRd 6 as it collects the most sands The second pond will collect finer sediments There were no public comments Smith asked if all the points have been addressed to the Staffs satisfaction. Gaffron said this was correct. He added that before the application goes before the Council, a compilation or "punch list" of all the requirements and conditions would be drafted. Peterson emphasized the need to stipulate operating times, the use of Hag people, and the total time of construction LaBounty said he w as in agreement with these requirements. MINI THS OK THK: ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION mi:lhng hildon novlmblr 20.1995 (#7 - «2059 NK'WD - Continued) Peterst'»n asked if a drag line vsould be used LaBounty said the work would be done by backhtK Because of winter construction, smaller equipment can be used Haven asked if it was impossible to control the point source of the pollution from the upstream feedlots l^aBounty said the majonty of pollution comes from non-point source over a long period of time The NK'VVD is w orking with Medina and Orono on a cooperative agreement which will use include of "best management practices" Stormwater management plans, when they are dev eloped by each city, will contain the best management practices Hawn asked what are the time lines for the cities’ stormwater plans LaBounty said the stormwater plans should have been in by this time as the two y ear time allotment has expired The M( WD is working with Long Lake on their stormwater plan at this time and hopes to do the same with Medina and Orono Hawn said she w as concerned if the lake w as cleaned of the existing phosphorus, it would be reintroduced creating the same problems LaBounty said would be removed and would result in less internal loading, adding that the alum treatment would aid in alleviating the pioblem Smith asked if the City could stipulate that the application come back before the Planning Commission if the project does not go forward as proposed It was noted that the normal time frame of reviewing an application is one year while the project is not set for another 3 years GatVron said if Planning Commission wishes to extend the approv al time frame, some type of trigger could be placed in the permit to allow the application to be revisited LaBounty requested that the permit be issued for a longer time period as long as there are no changes Mabusth said that the approval conditions could specify guidelines as to what changes would prompt it to be back for review LaBounty asked that the permit use any changes to the Deerhill Pond as a trigger to come back before the Planning Commission. He noted that the agreement w ith Pearce has some leeway for the si/e of the pond LaBounty asked if the |>ermit should be held until a time clo.ser to the aciual construetion, as long as there is an understanding that the construction will go forward He noted the completion date is about 2-1/2 years out Smith felt it could be completed now and only come back if there w ere major changes in the plans Lindquist agreed. It was noted that both judges on the Medina suit have promised a conclusion by December I Since it would be appropriate for Orono's Council to know the Medina outcome before acting, GalTron will drafi a resolution to present before the Council in January. LaBounty concurred with this schedule i MINI' rr.S OF THK ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Ml LUNG HLLDON NOVLMBLR 20. IW5 (#7 - «2050 MCWD - Continued) Smith moved. Lindquist seconded, to approse Application ^2059 with the provision that the punch list be addressed by MCWD with StalTand to Start’s satisfaction, and any special changes to the si/e or scope (specifically, the Medina and Pearce projects) would require future reconsideration b\ the Planning ('ommission V ote Ayes 5. Nays 0. <#S) )(2078 JENSEN HOMES INC., 405 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY SCBDI\ ISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 10:02-10:15 P.M. The Applicam w as present Mabusth reported that the .^0' easement along the stiuth property line has been located The easement has been deducted form the total lot area and is now at 3.07 acres The property is to be developed with rural standards due to the septic There is a backlot configuration but the west lot is not a back lot there is access to the public road to the south Mabusth said the County will not approve any new curb cuts and will require a sliared driveway for lot 2, and lot I may continue to use existing access The applicant had no comment Peterson asked if the applicant was aware that the third curb cut would not be allowed and received a reply to the atfirmative Lindquist inquired if there was to be any park or trail acquisition. Mabusth said the Park Commission has not reviewed the application but will at their December 4 meeting During public comments, Barry Knight, 425 Tonkawa, said he had no problem with the subdivision. He did, howev er, have a concern with the Staff recommendation for condition #I H? noted that since his property is not a back lot, but under back lot standards, item #I would relate to his property and should not be included He was told that item #1, which refers to no more than two residences on one driveway, is a City ordinance and must be part of the conditions. Knight said the deeded access is not exclusive and w ould benefit the division of other lots. If he were to subdivide in the future, which he said he has the right to do, this would affect him, and he should be part of that code Knight was informed that if he should subdivide in the future, the code would need to be applied The parcels in question are not in the MUSA, while Knight's property is within the MUSA. 20 MINUTHS OF THH ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MFLTIMi IILLDON NOVLMBLR 20, 1W5 (#8 - #2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Lindquist said he saw Knight’s concern with losing his right to subdivide in the future as the ordinance under item #1 would aftVect his abilit> to be served b\ this easement road Knight agreed that this would adversely atVect his property Lindquist added that even though this was true. Staff'cannot violate the code now in order to not atf'ect a possible future application It was noted that the ordinance would still be in elflect ev en if it was not listed in the restdiition Mabusth suggested that Knight bring this concern before the Council. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2078 with Staff recommendations I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. and 8 \’ote Aves 5, Navs 0 (#9) #20*3 BERNICE M. Z1 MBl SC'H, 1535 LONG LAKE BLVD. - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:18-10:27 P.M. The ('ertificate of Mailine and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application was for hardcover variance to replace a lakeshore deck with stairs There would be no changes in hardcover in the 0-75’ zone at 16 29?i or in the 75-250' zone at 87.35“ o Structural coverage would remain the same at 20*1 o. There are no setback variances required Karen Hessian, the applicant's daughter, said there were areas where plastic is located under the landscaping which could be removed Mabusth said this would result in reductions of 2 8%, or 131 s.f, in the 0-75' zone, and 3.5%, or 162 s f, in the 75-250 s.f Lindquist asked if not all of the plastic could be removed or if some were needed on the steep hill Hessian said the plastic on the hill was probably for erosion control, but on top of the hill and by the house, the plastic could be removed. Peterson asked w hat Staff would recommend regarding removal of plastic from the hill area Mabusth said she would need to consult with the City Engineer He did note there were timbers in the area. Peterson asked Mark Gronberg, who was •a attendance, if the plastic in that area could be removed Gronberg said it was a possibility Hessian was asked for a time frame She said the plan was to reconstruct the deck in the spring Lindquist said this would allow the Engineer to review and make a recommendation Hessian noted that her mother was out of town now but would be home to attend the December meeting. MINUTI S OF THF ORONO PLANNINCJ COMMISSION MlFlINCi Ml LOON NOVLMBLR 20. 1995 (#9 - #208.> Bernice Zumbusch - Continued) Peterson said the decking needs to be redone He noted the goal was to get a reduction in hardcover, especially in the 0-75' zone, but the City Engineer's recommendation would be required Nfabusth remarked that the plastic removal would result in a 5?« reduction in the 0-75' setback area There were no public comments Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve application p2083 for the replacement of the deck with the plastic as pre\iously described be remo\ ed and by the City Engineer's inspection on the w est side be remos ed in the 0-75' zone if recommended by the Engineer. Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#10) #2084 THOMAS R. MCCIINE* 1473 BAY RIDOE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:27-10:32 P.M. The Certificate of Mailinu and Atlldavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. GatTron reported that the property under review is located on Bay Ridge Road where 100’ lot widths are typical The lot is 115' as measured parallel to the lake The properly is located in the 2 acre zoning, but the average lot size in this neighborhood is 1 acre This property is 84 acre The proposal is for two additions requiring variances for the side setback and hardcover The applicants plan to replace the existing deck with a sunroom. 30' is required for this side setback, and the existing deck and proposed sunroom are at 27' Sunroom location is constrained by a window is located to the north, it is possible to narrow the sunroom to meet the side setback of 30'. The room addition and attached garage to the north side requires a 30' setback and is proposed at 10'. The existing house is at 14' The existing driveway would be relocated. The existing garage and apron would be removed The garage addition will be over the existing septic system, hence, this project must wait until sewer is brought to the neighborhood Gartron reported that the hardcover existing in the 75-250' zone would increase from 23 9^0 to 26 7°0 for a 17% variance where 25% is allowed. The hardcover in the 250- 500' zone is under the 30% allowable The only hardcover existing in the 0-75' is a stairway located in the Co Rd 51 right-of-way McCune said it was originally their thought to have a sunroom continuing along the south line of the house about 14' from the lot line, but it w as slid to the north because of the setback Because of the lake \ iews and the way the houses in the area sit on the lots, McCune placed the sunroom where proposed McCune said by placing the garage addition as proposed to the west, it minimizes the hardcover in the 75-250' zone. MINUIts OF THF: ORONO PLANMN(i COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1W5 (#12 - #2084 Thomas McCune - Continued) Lindquist received confirmation to his question that the septic system is located under the proposed garage McCune noted that all 8 homeowners in the area signed up for sewer which is hoped will rKCur next year The plan is to wait to do the improsements until the sewer is completed This is part of the whole plan Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2084 with the reservation that the project not proceed with the garage construction until municipal sewer is available There were no public comments. Vote: Aves 5, Navs 0. (#11) #2086 ROBERT AND JAMCE CALLAN^ 2915 SOMERSET LANE - CONDITIONAL I SE PERMIT,V ARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:32-10:59 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication w ere noted. The Applicant was present Mabusth reported th,.t the application was for a conditional use permit and variance to create a 6000 s f r>pen water area in a designated wetland of 1 acre si/e The property would have over 2 acres of dry contiguous buildable land Mabusth noted that the City has a conservation and fiowage easement over the are? Mabusth reviewed the codes, specifically 10.55 where amendments would be needed, and 10 56 which lists the functional entities that all wetlands provide and should retain. Of the 6 functional qualities listed, Mabusth said there would be no impact on #5, regarding shoreline or bank stabilization, but had no information on #3, regarding fish and wildlife habitat. Mabusth said the issue is that the code discourages having anv prohibition in code 10.55. Mabusth said the City Engineer and DNR had no problem with the proposal as tong as certain standards were met Replacement would be asked for base and bank levels (2.25 acres). The type 2 wetlands should be replaced for wildlife habitat. Mabusth said she saw a problem with other residents of the 7 residential lots in the area asking for the same type of pond The application was being reviewed by the DNR and MCWD Mark Gronberg said he checked with Kristen George, who is awaiting City ’s decision. George was said to have no problem with the excavation in the wetland. He noted that the Corp of Engineers still needed to approve the application. He also noted that the wetland has become larger after losing the farming in the area. 2.1 MINUTF.S OF THK ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MFtTING IILLDON NOVI MBLR 20. 1995 (#11- #2086 Robert and Janice Callan - Continued) Lindquist questioned if the Planning Commission could ask for mitigation Callan said the area was low wetland He was asking for approval to gain open water for aesthetic reasons as well as enhancing a water fowl area Callan saw the size and sco|>e as having no significant impact on the existing bird or wildlife He saw three areas of Crystal Bay Farms participate in wetland ownership This particular parcel is 1/2 of the area He noted the other 2 have been built on and are located r>n a higher elevation He did not believe anv of these homeowners would ask for any change from the original wetland designation as they are high in elevation and have no view of the area. Callan asked for approval without mitigation There were no public comments Smith said she w as of the opinion that others would make similar requests. Lindquist said he preferred to keep the area as it now is but questioned whether the application could be denied Peterson said he does not like to make changes to wetland areas He did not see the proposal as bad but felt watertbwl would not stay on a small pond area. George Stickney, the current owner, the lot is 380' in width and is a maple forest, he said with the draintile and transitional growth, the area could be opened to maintain the cuirrent wetland area Gronberg commented that agencies are encouraging type I and 2 wetlands. He saw no reason not to build more type 3 wetlands He saw benefits to maintain sediment storage. Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2086 for 1:1 mitigation equal to the open water area, w ith condition #3, with the use of the scoop method. Callan asked if the Planning Commission would consider type 1 mitigation. Lindquist said the mitigation must be type 2 Callan asked for a 8 1 grade on the back side but said would create a substandard grade to the front He said he would consider a 4:1 on the front half o fthe open water for visibility. Peterson said the City Engineer said a 4; I slope was too steep adding that the City Engineer and DNR would make the decision on the slope. Peterson said if the City Engineer was in favor of varying amounts of slope, it could be done. Vote; Ayes 2, Hawn, Lindquist, Nays 3, Smith, Berg, Peterson Motion fails. 24 MINU ri-S OF THF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MLLTING HLLDON NOVliMBIiR 20, 1905 («l 1 - ^2086 Rohen and Janice Callan - Continued) Peterson moved. Smith seconded, to deny approval for application #2086 as it was his opinion to deny all wetland applications Smith said she saw no competing benefit to taking this step and saw the true advantage in keeping the wetland as it now exists Berg agreed Vote A\es 3, Petersim, Smith, Berg, Nays 2, Hawii, Lindquist. Motion passed for denial Smith said she saw the drainage benefits as comparing apples to oranges. Berg said she saw the application as being for aesthelical rather than environmental reasons. George Stickney commented that the Planning Commission has approved a skating pond elsewhere and here Peterson responded that this area is a designated wetland Mabusth said the pond Stickney was referring to was a type I wetland. (#12) #2087 MINNEGASCO, 530 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - RENEWAL CONDITIONAL CSC PERMIT - PCBLIC HEARING - 11:00-11:07 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were p’esent. Representing Minnegasco were Rick Pilon and Jerry Kallstiom. Peterson asked the applicants why a permanent fix could not occur. Pilon said Hennepin County postponed the CoRd 6 project and asked the gas company to do the same. It is possible that a permanent solution could be scheduled for next year but has asked for renewal of 5 year permit instead of asking for a 2-year extension. Pilon said the existing feeder is west of Townline Road, and the low pressure system is east of Townline. The purpose to to bring gas from the high to the low area to stabilize and present an independent leg. Lindquist asked if this w ould eliminate the need for the facility. Pilon said it would and needed one year to verify that. Pilon said the CoRd 84 project was postponed. It fed Painters Creek with a high pressure Seed toward Rockford Pilon said gas cannot be taken out of this feeder to enforce the area He said the project is an insurance plan to ensure gas outages do not occur. Smith asked how often this vaporizer is used. Pilon said it was used 3 times in 1992- 1993, 4 times in 1993-1994, and 3 times in 1994-1995 with 3 standbys. Smith asked if there has been any complaints or concerns Mabusth said there has been none 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING ( OMMISSION MEEl ING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#12 - #2087 Minnegasco - Continued) There were no public comments Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2087 as submitted with the condition that if the lease if not renewed, ‘he vaporizer could not remain Pilon noted that the lease with the landowner is being renewed on a ycar-bv-year basis Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#13) #2089 RICHARD MILLER, 4520 WATERTOWN ROAD - VAIUANCES - PLBUC HE,ARING - 11:07-11:15 P.M. The Certificate of Mailinu and Affidav it of Publication were noted The Applicant was present. Gafifon reported that the application is for lot area and width variances for the existing lot located in the 5 acre zone. The property consists of 3.6 acre dry and 2 9 acre wetland for a total of 6 5 acres A 28% lot area variances would be required The width parallel to the front lot width is 4% short at 287’ where 300' is required GalTron noted the 5 acre zoning was created in 1975 when a majority of the residents indicated they preferred 5 acre zoning to maintain the large lot sizes GalTron said there are very few small vacant lots in this zone. The property in question of 3-1/2 acres is unique according to GalTron. It has not been built on Miller has owned the property since 1972. The buildable envelope requires a 100’ front setback, a 50’ side setback, and 26’ setback from any wetlands. The driveway would come from CoRd 6 Septic testing has been done, and a site is available for a 5 bedroom home Gaffron pointed out the likely building site. GalTron questioned if the City does not grant the variances, does the owner have any reasonable use of the property He noted that the assessor has given the property a lower value compared to buildable lots Miller has paid $5,000 in taxes over 20 years. GalTron asked if constructing a residence on this 3-1/2 acres dry buildable (6.5 acre total) lot would change the character of the neighborhood GalTron commented that when the owner bought the property, the property conformed to the code of 1 acre zoning Miller noted he is considering building on or selling the lot, and when the variance is approved, it mav cause the taxes to increase. Peterson commented that the codes do change but noted the uniqueness of this property. Miller said the homes and lots going towards CoRd 6 and Hwy 12 from his property are smaller. MINI TE;S OE TEEEi ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION ME ETING Ell I DON NOVEMBE R 20. IW5 (#13 - Richard Miller - Continued) There were no public coniniems Ejndquist moved, E(awn seconded, to approve Application #2089 with the hardships listed and with noting the zoning at the time of purchase Vote Ayes 5. Nays 0 (#14) #2091 BI RTON SCOTT BALU 1065 KERNDALE ROAD WEST - VARIANCES - PCBEIC HEARING - 11:15-11:25 P.M. The Certificate of Mailinti and /Vlfidavit of Ehiblication were noted. The Applicant was present GatTron repoiled that the existing residence is mainly located within the 75’ zone with a deck on the lakeside There is also a 4’ overhang on the house GatTron said the request is for a bay w indow abov e the dcxrk and under the overhang but within the 4' of the overhang at 3' This application would involve the expansion of one bay w indow and the addition of tw o more GatTron commented thi; the hardcover is significant on this property The proposal could increase the encroachment to the lakeside by 3*. The west end is 47* from the lake At midpoint, the residence is M 5' from the lake On the east end, the residence is 45' from the lake Hardcover exists in the 0-75’ zone at 36 8%, 41 4® o in the 75-250’ zone, and conforms in the 250-500’ zone at I3.6?« The overall hardcover exists at 36. l® a. The DNR recommends hardcover for an entire property at 25® b Gafi'ron noted that the tennis court located in the driveway has appeared since 1991. In comparison with a .»ur\ ey submitted by the previous owner for a previous application, the driveway and court have expanded He noted the rock and plastic along the house but commented that it is narrower in width than the 4’ overhang but still considered hardcover GalT'^on brought two questions before the Planning Commissioners for their consideration. Should the bay windows be approved allowing a fuHher encroachment of 3 ’ and should approval be tied to the hardcover. Peterson commented that there was the perception of more encroachment but was not really closer when considenng the ov erhang. GafTron suggested that the bulk of the house was getting closer to the lake, and the proposal did add more structure in the 0-75’ zone. While the overhang was more of an encnvachment, the addition to the bulk requires for need for the variances. MlNUTtS OF THL ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEtl ING ULLDON NOVLMBLR 20, 1005 (#14 - #2001 Burton Scott Ball - Continued) Ball said he moved in to the property in Aiiuust of 1905 He said the home is a nice rambler, and he is trying to make it the best it can be He said he had no need for the tennis court and would remove it Ball said he would also remove a portion of the driveway as well as the O' fence Ball said the bay window in the kitchen area already exists The two additional bays are to be located at the same distance in the living room and side areas to add balance There will be no foundation under the bay windows as they will be cantilevered out from the structure Lindquist asked how much driveway or court could be eliminated Mrs. Ball said she would be willing for all of the asphalt to be removed except for that for a driveway to gain access to the house It is her desire to eliminate as much as it as possible Mr Ball said he would also remove any plastic Gatfron indicated two triangular areas of the court area which could be removed Lindquist said he saw no problem with the bay windows with their location under the overhang Smith said she looks for mitigation and would be in favor of the suggestions given by the Balls There were no public comments. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2091 to install 3 bay windows with the asphalt removed as suggested Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#15) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COl NCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 13, 1995 Charles Schroeder was not present. (#16) OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION PLAN - SURVEY RESULTS - PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments on this item. MINLTUS OF TUI: ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MLE I ING HELD ON NOVTIMBER 20. <#I7> APPROVAL OF 1996 CALENDAR Lindquist min ed. Berg seconded, to recommend approv al of the proposed 1996 schedule Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0 <#IS) OTHER ISSI ES FOR DISC USSION Mabusth asked Peterson to remind applicants that Planning Commission votes are recommendations only Applications then proceed to the Council for approval Smith commented that the New Horizon Day Care on Hwy 12 has kept their exterior lights on past the time alloted in the resolution It was noted that the strong bult wattage in the lights along the rwf are also not in keeping with the resi>lution StatTwas asked to loi>k into this matter Berg reported having had attended a meeting regarding wetland mitigation. It was said at the meeting that people request dredging for ponds with the idea of having waterfowl use the ponds With the destruction of the grasses and mosquito zones, it destroys the feeding nabitat and waterfowl do not remain Peterson said this shows the need for all types of wetlands Berg said the meeting made her aware of the view point expressed in past applications by Peterson and the need to Un>k at all ecosystems Smith said she would appreciate receiving feedback from applicant's response on the decisions made by the Planning Commission Mabusth noted that the response has been positive ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#19) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16,1995 MEETING Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 16, 1995. V^ote Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#20) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE DECEMBER 11, 1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Charles Schroeder was selected to attend the December 11, 1995, meeting of the Council -----• • •~z~rrv'*k. MINUTt:s OF THi: ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MFFTING Mi l DON NOVIAIBLR 20, IW5 ADJOURNMENT Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn at 11 35 pm PLANNING COiM\aSSION MEETING MONDAY', NOVEMBER 20, 1995, 7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COLTVCIL REPRESENTATIVT: - JoEllcn Hurr ATTENDANCE Appiicaiits presenting proposals Iwfore the C obihusskmi are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS\PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 1. 7:00 p.m. #2082 Richard Stark, 575 Oxford Road - After-thc-Fact Conditional Use Permit/Variance and Vacation 3. 4. 7:30 p.m. 7:35 p.m. 8:00 p.m. #2090 Ron Rantz/Autografs Inc., 2525 Shadywood Road - Vacation of Easements 5. 9:00 p.m. 6. 9:30 p.m. #2092 Dennis Platteter. 809 North Brown Road - Preliminary Subdivision #2085 Minnesou Department of Natural Resources, 3390 NorA Shore Drive - Comn^rcial Site Plan Review - Public Information Meeting #2088 Winfield Stephens, 3770 Bayside Road - Variances/Vacation of Public Road #1958 Louis Oberhauser, 2405 Dunwoody Avenue. 3865 and 3877 Shoreline Drive - Preliminary Subdivision ACTION ITEMS ^ ^ ^ Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearing. 7. #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, 1485 Sixth Avenue North - Variances/Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing 8. #2078 Jensen Homes Inc., 405 Tonkawa Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing 9. :o. 11. 12. #2083 Bernice M. Zumbusch. 1535 Long Lake Blvd. - Variances - Public Hearing #2084 Thomas R. McCune, 1473 Bay Ridge Road - Variances - Public Hearing #2086 Robert and Janice Callan, 2915 Somerset Lane - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Public Hearing #2087 Minnegasco, 530 Old Crystal Bay Road - Renewal Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20,1W5, 7:00 P.M. 13. #2089 Richard Miller. 4520 Watertown Road - Variances - Public Hearing 14. #2091 Button Scott Ball, 1065 Femdale Road West - Variances - Public Hearing Planning Conuiii»ioii Conureiits 15. Report by Planning Commission Representative anending Council Meeting of November 13, 1995 (Charles Schroeder) 16. Open Space Preservation Plan - survey results - Planning Commission comments 17. Approval of 19% Calendar 18. Other issues for discussion Additional Items 19. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the October 16. 1995 meeting 20. Planning Commission to select a representative to anend the December 11, 1995 meeting of the Council Adjournment L : --- Public A ttendance Meeting D ate Council Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1. Lxi iTj/ O c t 2. tUllI'* ^ 7- -i. '•i < IC W(\ac ma>\k-' 6 S\7\vV G / / . A -/’ 7 ^ /2-.L #/ 7.^ 8. 9, 10.1 J 2 s/*-^ I -U/(,(1 ^O iAiAii » M'hmiui /m,V-y ^i I 13._0li^lA W-4^ Ic wI^al JCC ^ ^ M A|Pt;- At 091393>4 i m I 1 i;'E itii Kn nil «H5 U!l n !► > K> > & n, Ss h. S s 5?/• Q ^9 o 5- p §!± 2.ai5 o i ! i ” V* I I •? 0 ^^ IS. 8 1 I 2 0-* o ’n 3 tds £ 3•< I- El?Ill ill li K -» U1 Oa I C<r* u9o S’ ?aB.s » B’ UQ o o fs a*s § §|l COia !?0 p g*s s Crt *T|1U cT b)d.I p; o w f?ao a ^ I i ? s' I ? r P ?§ SII I o'a nfc. I ?I o’e G X I nr 8 i* ru Ui CO *< 73 oi *n s' ?2 acn rss ?i. n 2 c fi O’ Kf* (A a OQ n 5 6 ■ I ?cr R X o ^ -n O Xo u* Ho s fd l/»c Z R- s I no 3 C.o 3 ■ a ?§?° 8 %a HI o’ I C?o2. Vii I j] 3" f i?3 8m III i’“lp= 8 (/) 7III g"?i| ?f la O •o a t/i **. ZS 3.^g* ? ° s I o 8 >< □g ta KJt I Ui 00 'O 8 1 00 8 ■o 9 Oft a si i 8 i| ilii " 1/1 ^ IE? <1 c3 l§ •T1 •“s?ooI, o’ B no i o’n a Xc 55 i i§ilag n K» $2 op§ p|5Efjci a’*' /. To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:November 14, 1995 Subject: #2082 Richard Stark. 575 Oxford Road - Vacation/Conditional Use PcrmitA^ariance - Public Hearing Application: Applicant and new owner proceeded to remove mature trees within the 0-75’ setback area and in a protected area defined within a Conservation and Flowage Easement filed against the Chain of Title of the property in 1978. Applicant also proceeded to clear cut areas within both the shoreland protected area and conservation area inv olving the removal of brush to permit the planting of a grass lawn. Applicant seeks to vacate the original conservation area and redcdicate a conservation easement over the newly defined wetland. Pertinent Ordinances 1. ■7 Section 10.12 - Vacation of easement. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (I) (1 & 2) - Vegetation alteration and clearing within shoreland areas. 3.Section 10.22, Subdivision 3 - Removal of live trees within 0-75’ setback area without necessary approval fix)m City via staff-issued permit. 4. Conservation and Flowage Easement, Exhibit L. violation of easement agreement of 1978 List of Exhibits A/B- Application for Vacation/Conditional Use PermitA^ariance C-1-3 Applicant's Addendum D - Plat Map E - Property Owners’ List F - Drawing of Trees Removed in Lakeshore Yard G - Gustafson Letter 8/8/95 H - I - J - Westwood Report - Weiiand Delineation Staff Letter 8/10/95 Sketch of New Wetland K - Survey of Original Conservation Area L - Conservation and Flowage Easement/Stielow Addition M - Inspection Notice 7/20/95 N - Gustafson Report 11/13/95 O - Designated Wetland Map 1971/72 i Zoning File #2082 November 14, 1995 Page 2 Discussioii On a routine inspection of the Oxford Road neighborhood, the Building Inspector discovered violations as noted above and asked that all work cease until applicant had applied for the necessary approvals from the City. The Zoning staff and Cit\' Engineer met with Mr. Stark at the site to review the specific violations and to review the aica originally designated as a conservation area in the 1978 plat. Review Exhibit L, the City wetlands map of the area dated approximately 1971. The subject wetland was defined as a marsh (MA). After inspecting the lakeshore yard, staff concurred that the original wetland designation may have been overly ambitious. The ^^plicant was advised to have a soil delineation made of the area to determine the exact location of the wetland. Review Exhibits F, H and J, the new wetland area is shown at less than half the area of the original conservation area. The City Engineer has reviewed the Westwood report and confirmed the findings. Applicant was encouraged to file the necessary vacation to allow for the redefining of the wetland area. Review Exhibit F, violations on the propert>' include the removal of trees, approximately ten within the 0-75' setback area, ten within the newly defined wetland area (designated as Area "A") a».d approximately twelve live trees located within the original designated wetland to the east of the newly defined wetland line (designated as Area "B"). Applicant asks the City to allow him to replace the ten trees within the 0-75’ setback area to be planted some time in the spring of 19% and to not require the replanting of trees within the remaining portions of the newly defined wetlands and within the wetland areas to be vacated to the east of the new wetland delineation line (Areas A and B). Statement of Hardships Please refer to Exhibit C-1-3, applicant noted he was never made aware of the existence of the conservation easement at the time of the sale of his property nor did his title company alert him to the existence of the easement. The document is filed on the Chain of Title of the property. He was ignorant of the requirements of the ordinance involving the lakeshore protected area and has agreed to replant the trees removed within the lakeshore protected area but asks that the City not require the replacement of trees within the remaining portions of the disturbed area (A and B). He notes the existence of several mature trees within the yard. He also asks Planning Commission to observe that the marsh-like area within 30-40' of the shoreline has not been disturbed and still retains original marsh-like vegetation. Refer to Exhibits G and N. At the time of the original inspection of the property by staff, the majority of applicant's lakeshore yard was absent of groundcover except for the 40-50' adjacent to the shoreline. Applicant was asked to immediately install erosion control, which Mr. Stark installed immediately. Once the soil delineation report was reviewed and approved by the City, Mr. Stark was Zoning File #2082 November 14,1995 Page 3 asked to restore groundcover per approved plan. The areas east of the neN^ljf defined ^^■etland area were to be sodded to prevent further erosion and the remaining disUirbed wetland area was to be restored with seeding using a wetland seed mixture such as Mn/DOT mixture 250. In order to ensure erosion control until wetland vegetation was restored, applicant was also asked to cover the seeded areas with mulch and disc anchoring it into the soil. Staff completed an inspection of the restored area finding that ever>thing had been completed as recommended bv the Citv Engineer. Sod has been installed o\ er the entire disturbed area located out of the redefined wetland. Disturbed areas within the wetland show signs that specific types of the seed mixture have started to grow. These areas remain covered with mulch. The Engineer asks that a final iaspection be completed in early spring to verify that the wetland seeding is successfully established. Issues for Consideration 1. Applicant has agreed to replant fniit and evergreen trees within the 0-75 ’ setback area where ten trees were removed. Will members require additional plantings? 2. Applicant's addendum confirms no knowledge of the existence of the Conservation and Flowage Easement and of the need to receive City approval before trees or groundcover are removed. Applicant has asked that replanting of trees not be required within tlie newly defined wetland area or in the remainder of the original designated wetland. Refer to Exhibit F, will vou require replacement trees in the area defined as A or B? 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Vacation - Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the vacation application of Rick Stark involving the property located at 575 Oxford Road that seeks to vacate the original conservation area dedicated in the plat of Stielow Addition approved by the City in 1978 based on the soil delineation report by Jay Riggs, Environmental Specialist, of Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated July 31, 1995 and on Ac review and approval of the City E.ngineer. Approval of the vacation is subject to applicant executing a new Conservation and Flowage Easement over Ae newly defined wetland area. Options of Action for Planning Commission Concerning Conditional Use PermitA^ariance Application Involving Tree Removals and Vegetation Clearing within Lakeshore Protected Area and Conservation Area 1. Approval as proposed. 2. Approval as amended by Ae Planning Commission. / « 1 \ 4^O -pr \ ♦ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USr ALLIGATION Type of Application to be Filed --------------------- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)------------- APPLICANT Name___________ Phone (home) 4^ ^ ^ Phone tworic) U 2 ___ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name___________________ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address City Zip. Date Property AcquiredropertyA ^ / Z. /9f ^ CUP appIicaUe. $125.00 Residential Accessory Usc^^ __^ $2(X).00 Instimtional (church, school, etc.) ' $175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ^ $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.(X) Commcrcial/Industrial Use --------$200.00 ^ designated wetland or floodplam ------ Gradina and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ------ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore other Site Plan Review (+ consulum fees) ■ $250.00 Vacation T” $175.00 Easement Vacation . $ 75.(X) Easement Vacation With Subdivision $3(X).00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ■ $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). (month/year) 1iw'WV^V'W vv * Tv V J. I^U. t vvv'vv -.V* /'•V» ,V . -•.at -r,n .1 • •• V ■ Vr,-,-* .• V j- vnn ♦♦*■/> fc G •» ! -4 I / a* 10/06 C}£i}( f. f.. « 1. k * k : • “till*." 1 *■ y Pr REQUIRED SUBMITTALS . t i ! ^ -j All of the following information must ^yhinitted bv the applKatiQq in Ord« for vour application to be consider?*^ comolete^^^ C2 1. ^ Completed Application Form ^ CMficd Property Owners List of__ow™n witto >5^0'(you must obntm dtis list (L3. 5. 6. 7. He^ep^^^^^^ Dep^^ent of Finance. A-603, Govt Center. 348-3271). df ✓^Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). . • , JTZ^ Z Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor «id uKlude hardco« calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/4 a II fo ^posraphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any c^ges mexistmg grade an/proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'A" x 11 for rep^MUon Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/4 x II ) .. , ____cramO of aU oersons with an mterest u 8. 9. you wish notified of this application. /yiJAJ Additional items as may be requested by City stair. / - r > The Applicant,and Prppct^ s.“ SSS/3 ^^^r^nsultant expenses infl^ in review of*!* application and cerufies that the information supplied is true ^^oijtet^tte best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date 9/2.y9S The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this appUcation ^nd fii^er^ai^omes OWNER’S SIGNATURE ^geres. Commission members, and Counefi members for purposes of i^^pga^n ^^jr^ication of this request. Date 9A//^SOwner’s Signamre AoDlicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Co^ission MMtine Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each inonth. AnoUcLts must be present at aU scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and roimcil If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements m hi,ve an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office ofto have an authorized agent a^nd in this change prior to the meeting 8 J CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO ^ (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) y ^ ... «>• r S A t ! > A JwV'k. V V'V V - ^ •u* - . r» ^ * v'V « *1 lumber (P.I.D.)_______ PROPERTY INTORMATI Attach legal description to applicaiion^jf_not mciuacu uu h Date Property Acquired----Ig/jl^n^ ------------------------ I M 00^also own the adjacent parcels of pEnh^propeny: 4^_r«idcntial __och.r (specify)-------------- Zoning District:____ (momh/year) applicant Name Kid meA Address: < 7.^ /*) Phrsn^ fhnme’t ^13---- phnnefwofk) <f 1 i" - e- ~ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name --------------------------------- Phone(homcX I^ione (work)_ Address:City:Zip: don Costs (attach addidonal sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore ^ Other (specify) hardship /descri ^ion OF ™ Describe undue hardship or practical dimcuity or compliance with Zoning Code requirements:—m idons preventing (attach addidonal sheets if necessary) ll required SUBMITTALS *rT . 1 W-' Completed Appliciuon Fonn. ^ as Ks;.“<s, u. 0. "— Hennepin County Department of Finance, A 603. oo V __for CUrVC' 2. 3. 4. 5. c. 7. 8. 9. 10. nClUi^^UA -----r £ ^'rmSe of survey (signed by . licensed sut^cyor, - refer to lundout for survey Construction plan, if tLTa sepaate list of any other persons ■ AS an aldendum to this applicanon. please attacn p ' you wish notified of this anplicauon. you ARE REQUIRED TO » submitted.) r\ MW tniict sicn ihis application. Please n ]^lic1t&fcoS^"^f 0^ .Pove information has not been included. remember that your Supplication IS nui wuimij / Cettmeation by Cleti^ Dnpatt-e"* that Und Use Appli^on is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:------------------------------ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE i^ormation required or requested by the Zoning The applicant hereby agrees time not covered by original fee Date Applicant’s signature j {(^f ----------------- OWNER’S SIGNATORE application tmd finther The owner hereby ^^/Sumts. ijents. commission tnembms. tmd Conned :^h:rforpS;;^fe‘°° »■»» T^t^Ay^r — Date me meeting. SEP.-2r 95 (THU) 13:36 PRNA TEL:6I263SO690 P. 002 I # 9, ■ : -’D, Bmptmahmr 20, 1995 I of thi City of Orono Planning Comaisaion _ _ * a» requesting the consent of the City to the removal of trees from ey hoes at 575 Oxford Hoad. 1 removed the trees without knowing that the property was subject to an easement given to the City by the developer of the property. I bought the property in June of this year and the seller represented in the purcMse documents that there were no restrictive easements and insurance company failed to find that this essenent Ihus, I had no knowledge of its existence and 2 would like the Coemission's understanding in light of these «i«nFTMsl measesM In addition, X removed soee trees within 75 feet of L^e tfinnetonka without the City's consent, z have only myself to blame for that. Z relied on a nelj^tbor telling me Z could remove trees there and it appeared to have been done by others in the wwld propose to substitute trees for these trees taken in this 75 foot area. My request of the City consists of two Items with respect to my lot: a. A request for a re-dellneation of a wetland based on • recently concluded expert study of the lot and a request for approval of the removal of trees in the wetland area that Is required by a 1978 Easement in favor of the City; and ... 5’ ^ for a variance for the removal of trees shoreline of the lake pursuant to Section10.22 Subd. 3. Each of these requests is described in detail below: Mo*^ollneatlon of wetland and request for approval of removal of In discussing this Issue with the City's inspection department, it was suggested that I hire a wetlands expert to request is a July 31, 1995 report prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. following testing of my lot accordina to published federal wetland standards that have been adopted by^ Minnesota's Wetlazid Conservation Act of 1991, The report 1 S£P.*2r95(THUI 13:36 PRNA TEL:612635Q680 P.005 ’n o - > ooncludM that a larga portion of mf lot la not actually a watland. A nap is Includad In tha raport to show tha actual adga of tha wetland. In tha area that is a watland beyond 75 faat of tha I ramovad tan trees. This was a saall fraction of tha trees remain on ay property. l astloata that there are 200-300 "y property. The removal of these tan trees did not any drainage problem or in any way change the contour of the land. My lot is covered by a September 20, 1978 "riowage and Conservation Caseaent and Waiver of Damages” entered into between the City and prior developers of my lot and adjoining lots. 2)b) of that Easement states that the City must consent to the resK>val of any trees from my lot. Unfortunately, when I bought my home in June, 1999 the sellers represented that there were no restrictive easesMnts and ®y title insurance company did not pick up the fact that this easement had been recorded whan it Issued my title insurance policy. Therefore, Z was completely unaware that this sgrmmment Z respectfully request that the City consent to the removal of these trees from the wetland area. >«K>val of trees within 75 feet of Lake: I also removed ten trees that were within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka. All had a diameter greater than six inches. Section 10.22 Subd. 3 states that the City's consent to the removal of trees in this area is required and that such consent will require replacement trass of a sise and nature acceptable to the staff. I have no good excuse for removing these ten trees. I was assured by a neighbor that there were no restrictions and it appeared to me to have been done by others in the area. Z certainly did not believe that Z was doing anything against the City's ordinances, but in retrospect, i should have c*>ecked with the City's staff. Z propose to replace these ten trees with the help of a tree expert, fxnding the best species and locations for these replaced trees. I have been advised that the best procedure for me to follow to determine tha best locations for the trees is to winter when the foliage and uzMlergrowth are gone and then detexeine where to place the trees. Z would propose to plant ten trees next spring after having the locations approved by staff, i would like to plant a SEP.-2r95ITHU) 13:36 Wk TEl:61263S0680 P.004 9 c , *2 coahination of fruit raeonaandatlona of an and avargraaa traaa, aubjact to tha and staff appro^l. Your oonsldaratlon In this aattar would ba graatly appraelatad. M j JJ « • . *JL'" V 1 f MM MTE Ot/10/tfMTCN M9 % J MOi> AOM ONCR HM« TAXPAYER NAK/AfiOR ✓ PROP ADOR » OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NME/AMR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR ittttCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROKRTY OMCRS LISTM OE-1I7-2S 41 0011 004« OXFORD RO DON OEORCE DONALD E OEORGE 40S OXFORD RD UMD LAKE HN SSS50 SO OS-117-tS 41 0021 OOSTf OXFORD RO R N STARR A J H STAIK RICKARD N A JANE M STARK STS OXFORD RO LONB LAKE NN 5SS5* SR 05-117-23 44 0004 0S2S0 FOX ST OOMNA LUKIS OOMIA LUKIS 5250 FOX ST LOND LAKE Ifl S5S54 REPORT NO. P14SM01 PA» ttSO 05-117-IS 41 0014 00545 LEAF ST J A C NC COY JOHN L A CHARLENE N NC COY 5525 HILLSIDE CIR EOINA 104 554S4 SO 05-117-2S 41 0024 00555 OXFORD RO CORNELIA 0 KUT2KE CORNELIA 0 RLIT2KE 555 OXFORD RO LOND LAKE M4 5SS5A SO 05-117-2S 42 0001 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R M STARR A J M STARR riciIars n a jane h stark 575 OXFORD RO LOMi LAKE >04 55554 SO 05-117-2S 4S 0004 0S400 FOX ST JAMES 0 FULLERTON III ET AL FULURTON LOWER CO P 0 DOM SO MPLS m 55440 SO OS-117-2S 44 0005 OS400 FOX ST JAMES O FULLERTON III ET AL FULLERTON LUMDCR CO P 0 SOX 50 MPLS 404 55440 TOTAL OATCH SOf 00000 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE REST OF MY KNONLEOGE AND RELIEF. DATE * * ■ ‘ # ■ ' V'....4 • P-”%X , * \ { •'■•M . »M >■ ■■ ^ i CD SJ ' ' • • *• ^ * •* #-•i; eQ 4 .•U 4 ■tv, /'Wjru - 4:. •I* . • i* .•V 0 '• 'X'\J 'r.U • f » i . \\ • *• \ 0; . « I /• »•. * • I. . • * .4 » .1 ( « • . ir y ■A •1 • ' i' %*ip( / .Vw• J. r V . . 1. I ’ . M 4‘.4 t . >•* • F • . L.t.4 • 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Andertik& l\J| Associates Engineers & Architects August 8, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Rick Stark Residence File No. 139-GEN « .*r>j as >,x nc t we Ai.,* c>n f<iuc9> c'*Y>'0>e' M . " C Pf Brian « Gag^ Pf * Te** A ** '• ^ A Pf j-*T»r'. ** V*.*<an<j Pf Re :r> 7 vxx) . • .t r* w • -f C Pf C^'wUMV J Beru ’iif PC 1••;•* "• ••'1 A t *6 Vco»! . 4i H ’>h,iiAn C ow^i^ilicr* '8 - • T • r Z i Z . - ■ "t*.** Ande*Cei oCi.^er »C Z ^ ' r.m ’ jOe'T C A • A V.v. 7 7-jf» »f »x.' G Heue* PC r", A S “'WT30O ■’E V.’M* A Se j Pt P Oo'Jer -rg C‘Va** A H<n\oo Gary Vk V*or er* »E D*wi C Boywrr P£ .T- V £Cf • ?aur»*»»*^ *€Pawl j Garv-orw A i A j>er ‘r^ ; C^ er nger •! • * ''A- *•*_: < ' e j Car* e* .♦ 5 r 'P'rrri p ?x*iecn P ^ne*n i»f Ar>c;e**i,^' “ ' A A ",c»te^ *a v.^ PC 2 *vm 3 C BufC^at i C.^kwr:! **£»*«, A £» ti-. jn -^—.,♦4 A j^*%o .•>!Vaifc 0 Aa !>' Pf i.eo *A ^ ‘ jtf c ; ^M.iew • ®£.m Vt Ouori •A—'-rr *»«L 0 C*’Pf A jret W 7ng V •»'»•.*’ Vwu Aa*e»‘'L "t F £nge r* vo* A *e:e' * o k aa'* 4. i; :* •; Dear Jeanne, We inspected the Rick Stark residence f^575*^^ord Ro^ last Wednesday, August 2,1995. The wetland delineation done by WestwoiVl PfOTessional Services appears correct The upland areas located east of the wetland delineation should be sodded soon to prevent erosion. We would recommend that the wetland area be restored with seeoing using a wetland seed such as Mn/DOT mixture 250. Erosion control in this area should be done by covering the seeded areas with mulch and disc anchoring it into the soil, or by installing silt fence along the shoreline. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2). Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 Professional Services. Inc ft July 31,1995 rr ■ ■ w 14130 Trunk Hwy 5 tc*»n VIN 55344 t i2 93^5150 TAt 5l2 93 ‘^5ar: Rex’.; 95774Mr. Ride Stark 575 Oxford Road Orono, MN 55356 Re: Wedasd Ddincatioa for the parcel located at 575 Oxford Road* City of Oroao* Minaesota Dear Rick: Thank you for taking the time to show me your property the morning of July 28, 1995. As you requested, I delineated aixl flagged die jurisdictional wetland boundary on your property based on fidd evidence of soils, vegitfation, and hydrology. This report desenbes tfte dassiflcation, charadenstics, and location of the wetland. Wedand Ddiiicatioo Methodology The wetland boundary was delineated and staked in the fidd on July 28, 1995 using the Ftdtral Manual for b^ntijying and Dtlintating Jurisdictional Wetland (Federal Intera^Oficy Committee for Wdland Delineation, 1989) and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Coips of Engineers Environmental l.aboratory, 1987). These manuals are currently followed to ddineate wetlands regulated under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, respectivdy. We have found that these manuals often yidd identical wetland boundaries. Background data us^ to identify potential wetland areas before ddineadng wetland boundaries in the fidd indude National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping and the Soil Survey of Hennepin County. Wetlands were dassified according to Wetlands of the United States (US. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine, 1971) and ^^Junds tmd Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31, Cowardi' al. 1979). The wetland boundaries are estimated on die endosed Wetland Boundary Sketch. NWI mapping shows a portion of Stubbs Bay and an emergent wetland fringe within the western ec^ of the pared. Our review of the Soil Survey of Hennepin County and the list of Hydnc Soils ofMinrtesota (1990) si^gests hydric soils exist adjacent to the bay, indudir^ Hamd loam and Marsh. Mapped upland soils indude Hayden loam (6 to 18 percent slopes). Wetland Description The western portion of the site contains a partially deared Palustrine emergent, saturated/seasonally flooded/forested broad-leaf dedduous, saturated (PEMB/C/FOIB, Type 2/3/6 Wet Meadmv, Shallow Marsh, Wooded Swamp^ wetland frii^e adjacent to Stubbs Bay. Ten pin flags were placed: o delineate the edge of this wetland. The wetland fringe is dominated by green ash, reed canary grass, broad-l^af cattail, black willow, and willow shrubs. As your landscaper noted, trees renfioved from the parcel consisted of boxelder and a couple blade willow; he was unable to indicate the location or spedes of any of the deared understory vegetation. The transition to upland generally follows a topographical i .se and vegetation in the adjacent, non^sturbed area is dominated by common burdock, grape vine, black raspberry, Virginia creeper, common buckthorn, and northern bedstraw. tkiiwun Proiei Senmet m em euBJi Mr. Rtck St£ V July 31.1995 Paffi 2 A senes of soil borings were drilled to deiennine the jurisditaional w«bnd in the disturbed area. locations oftheee soil bonr^ are shown on the attached Welland Boundary Sketch and descnbed below • Motde Abundance: F - Few (< 2%). C-Common (2 to 20%>. and A-Abundant (>20%) Condnsions The western portion of the site contains a partially deared Palustrine emergont, saturated/seasonally flooded/forested broad-leaf dedduous. saturated (PEMB/C/FOIB; Type 2/3/6 Wrt Meadow. Shallow Marsh, Wooded Swamp) wetland fringe adjacent to Stubbs Bay. The jurisdictional wdland edge appears to be substantially bdow the stakes that represent the boundary of the drainage easement on your property. If you have any questions concerning this delineation, please do not hesitate to call me at 937 5150. Respectfully. WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. Jay Riggs EnvirontTiental Spedalist Endosure \\u V V o o •* t CITYof ORONO MmikipBl OfRccs Strett Minst 2750 Keiley Partway Crcna. MN' 55356 P O. Boa 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 August 10, 1995 Mr. Rick Stark 575 Oxford Road Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Dear Mr. Stark: I have enclosed a copy of Shawn Gustafson’s report as promised. Gustafson advises of the need to restore ground cover as soon as possible. The newly defined wetland area should be restored with seeding using the wetland seed such as Mn/DOT mixture 250. The remainder of the area may be restored with a seed of your choice. Gustafson specifically asks that erosion control be maintained in the dismrbed area by covering the seeded areas with mulch and disc anchoring it into the soU. Another option would be installation of a silt fence alon<» the shoreline. Please contact my office if you have any questions concerning tlie engineer’s recommendation or if you have anv further questions concerning the preparation for your variance and conditional use permit application. We would like to reinspect the lakeshore yard as soon as seeding and erosion controls are completed. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building «fe Zoning Administrator JAM/ch Enc. Tdephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 o m in o 70 o*m O oi 3 Ou < i/t < CO o ^ 3 IT n CD o o> o O’ o c: 3* 3 ^ <T) d) 3 O 3 3“ CO Q1 3 d. QJ CT P O -» < CD O f\3 O n M 7^ m > o o ;p < m -< "T| O •• 3 3 CO (/I o O CD 3 <-♦ C -n 00 c d CO 3 O •i RWiig m coiscmTioii aaoBn DWWP * this INUNTWE* Mdt »»id tnttrrt 1at« tMt «f 1*T8, ^ Md bttMMR tjfiw L. CfiarltM Mi.lwyi g, Ch«r1s«i ; . Vm-rV''*;' tesHMi Mi Irffg, tstir MsiQfls. kjcctssort {mrafiiaffcar MllMtlMt/ t# as tie Mi tlia Cit/ of (Htno* • MBldgil ctfpiPiMM initr ^ ^ HiMttota, Us socctssors iitf asslins. (litfdraflir .•). \ ) % -• WmSKTH, firMtors for tnd In cMsIitratlM if tut Mi of (to » (lt.00) Mi itor velitolt consideration, herein rnrMMt, fTMt, fift, ' iMt data Mi comto to trantM the right to restrict ani S tmCii afwa ta Ifalt aai pPKlito’thi loa, laprevasMt ani develoMefit, MiM the CMiftfaaa iarila contalnai, the following iescHbei le the CMitg ^ la aai State tf Mnaetota: S m EaMblt A attached hereto for legtl dascHgtiM. Ji -V-M flillaws- ^. rMtore reserve for the benefit of the !»**Ilocfc t* Stielow's Addition, a 10-fdet iHie aalhMy * •** ^ Wnaetaaka ovm and across oMh of Lots 1, 3, 4 aai S, lleck 1, r^•^•*** togrther tdth the right to Mintala mi rigalr tali ua1lM3» iiiMinf. Crmtors farther reserve for the benefit of the nmin mi eecapMta •f Lets 1, 3, 4 aai S, lleefc 1, Stielow's Addition, the Hght te csMtrect, Min- tefe, repair aai om a slegle-fadly residential dock m each of Lets 1, 3, 4 and 5, flock 1, St1e1ee*s Aiiltloe. 2) Sitoact te the rights reserved In Paragrapii 1 hereof, firmtors <1/ a) Me etmetoros shall be constructed, erectad, or placed upon, above, or booMth the Land Including without lleltatlon, fences, fireplaces, steps, hard-cover or roads of any nature whatsoever or aiv ether structure or Inprovenent Inconsistent with tho natural state of tho Land. I k{ f: , ♦ m • other vc9eUtl0A tlMlI 6t <ottro/o4» froB tim U«H.* eiccpt as authoiixad fear wlttiii c) Ha Mrtli. IMB. ptat. }rav«i. soil tr aagp othv wtMrtl^ Bittfial or siibstMct shall be .»ved or ani there shall he ne dre^lnp or excavation ef ever or aay chea p ef the topo9raphjr of the Lani wltheiit the wittan ceesant ef firaetea. a d) P sell, sand* sravel or other substance er Beterlal « tandflll shall te placed* dunped or store<* upea the land aai J - d M wste* trash or prhap shall be placed* dvped or ttarid e • i:. r«- a) P usa sPII P Bade of the Land ancpt asas» If aagr* idrtdi trill net cPnp er altar the natural ceadftlM af tP IMI^ and p usa which weald tend P change tP drelaap* flaad eoatPilt mtnr consarvatleisereslm control* Mil consanratlP* flP a* vlldllP hahIPt charocterlstlcs sPII P ptar situated therooa. f) firantp ap enter upon tP Land fer tP parpaaea af Inspection and pfhrceBBit of tP covenants caatalaad herela M., P cause P P ruBnvP .'roB tP Land without ap IIPIIIp aap , strucPras* uses* Bstarlals* suPtances* or uMsPrai Better Ineoasistaat wIP tP covenants contained harela and tP natural spp af tP Land* 3) Cre a tors harety grant* gift* quit clala and coa vay p firaaPa* a parpaPal fleuape aasaapt and right and privilep P traspass trip Mpr over and pea ap or all ef tP Land. 4) firao ters harela P Preby rcBiss* releaM* acquit aad Preuer discharge* forever* Pa firanPa and any aP all of its officers and apleyaes of . **iV I # o II • • I • • ilf f ^ V' it il* * N ^ • ;l ^1 f • • ^• > r: ij I •• i.. 1 • .-'S' r •' ./* ■• • *• • ' . i '*- • V -‘ •- • ■ ,• % V • V * ^ • • • . * • V * •>•X » A,V- Ir. Mi fr«B aiQf Mi All ctalM, 4k 9T CMSM 9f «ctfM tf 11^ Mii AT MtUTl 0 vIrtM of My fli In oMItloo to My Otiitr rtaoiy tht firontM My iMi, Olt tmnmtM and rastHctloM cantafnM hariln nay bt anforcii by lojMCtlaii. •TMtOfi M not lotooi that Uo public sbooli Iww «y totv In tnc abevo land kjf virtvo of this Indanturt or othandM. oacopt an MfM ; * •ot forth. Tho firmtors hofolo cortify that tha Land horalo incHfeoi It ifMcof oacopt aasMants. rastrletlani mi ♦ • • Vw A* • ‘ V < fm and door of all of ftcerd. If aiy* prooltloni hoMof ttiall run ulth tho land and shall to and MM tha hairs* soeoassors* rnorasantatlvas. frmtaas or aulpis of tit •*r . # '• Mspaetlsa partlas Mrato. fix lyim i^Charlson . . STATE Of MUKSOTA COOMIY OF MDMEf n I »: S3TiIi?2L2*LJJ^ *r "■ -T ' T< *«.. •> •V • THIS SMCCR A SMAZM* LTD. 7900 Xoraos Avanuo South mmoa^s* fM 5S431 r\ .1 m I •2' •‘jj •*« I r V .• , , .iv- • . > :• -•* ••• •• #■ • ■ • . • • • 4i'* T *' • k *-. 't* I • » ♦ ? ♦ ; sf- • r•- i • I • •: ^ . ci •r^All that pftrt at Ut i. Itaek t, STt:L0:i3 £::0i7lC.*f tjrias •f tha f«f.l«wia2 Urs; Co>^-*Tn:i.ts ^h« KarthTaat cor— Rsr of saiA lot t; th«.*-c9 o«i >• ass<^cd bcarlr^ of Rorth At dtgrcaa <2 alnatco IS aocooia alaaj tr.« i.irtn;rly lin« of ssltf Lot 1» a Alstaaoo of 333.%7 ft«t; th«Az« r.orth 33 54 aloatoa 5 14 ooeoada W«at« aloRj; aaitf horth«rly tins o? Lot 1, a Ais-‘ tanco of Sf.SO feat; thaoco !>srth to cs^re** 42 alnutoo 2S hoot, aloRf said Rortharl/ ILaa of Lot i. a distxnco of 20T.S4 foot to tha point of bayuming of tha li.*ta to bo doooriboA; South 3 dofrooo 41 riautao 23 saoc.''.da to tha aharm of Loka AinBotooka «ad thara taraiaatiag. «4 •zi- o ' k • • I All that ^rt of Lot 3, flock i, 5TIS'-c;:S iaoiTIo:i lyiag lioolorlj* * T../* * ] of tlio followiag dtacribod liaat logir-’u.ig at a poiat. ia tha • • * • o i I • ■TV • %. . • » Southerly lino of aald Lot 3 tharaixt <!i\L^;t SsS«34 foot Wootojly of tko Southoaat coraar of said Lot 3; thaRca forth U*dofr«oo JL3 • ^ . • o a aimtoa OS soeonda boat. 201.12 faot, to tha horthorly lino of said • ^ Lot 3 or ita ojctanaloa and thara tar&i.natiRg* f*^ pueposoa of IMa. daseriptiaa, the Southerly lica of said Lot 3 ia saauMaA ta forth 29 docraro 12 cinutaa 37 aaconis ’ll 'f* A, * 4 m- . dt- • '-L• ’A 2s,. '•. r .* Lot 4. flock 1* STXZLCV'S A£3ITXC:;, lying Wootociy \ of fltm foUowiag doaoribod lisa; Bcaic.*ii£3 at a poist in tha 4 tbarain distant 3S2.34 font Vastarty • * comw of uid Lot 4; thefico South 01 dofruji 14 • • nijntas 10 saeands Vaot,.220.90 faot. to t.ha Southarly linn of aoid • d toTBisathag*.' for purpesas of this daserlptiea th» 4 is sssutad to boar Rerth ff dsgcoao ig sisutaa 37 aaconds boat. • • •• All that part of Lat 9, flodi i, STlZLc;i3 ASOITXOK, lyiag tfoata^ of tha foUauing daacribad lira: Bagissirg at a point in tha Sottthorly lino of said Lot 9 thtrris distant 3S9.04 foot Vostarly of tha Southaoat corsar of said Lot 9; thtnaa horth 23 dagrtaa 47 eir.'zUa 01 socoiids Sssfe, a dista.-.sa cf 115.72 foot; thanco Karth 10 dagroao 40 cirxtaa 18 saecndi L»st, a dLstanea of 135.03 faot to tho Itortharly llr.a of said Lst5 a.-d th^x-s tarsteatliig. for purposoo of this doscrlptlon,!?: Southerly line of said Lot 9 is assu^ to baar.fsorth 19 d#gra»» 4i cirutss 21 saco.-tla Want., I •i !i • * I k. ki to Q 2 S q: Si o V 5 Uj q: {2 U j Ui S3ou QC U j Q O O OATI T!ME CITY OF ORONO INSPECTION NOTICE PERMIT NO /70 called m SCHEDULED COMPETED 3jS^ 2-^0- ADDRESS OWNER _ ^75T OicW Vd. CONTR. TELEPHONE NO. - footing Z framing :: INSULATION Z WALL 00 :: FINAL □ PROGRESS O OEMOL z FIRE PREV z PLUMBING Rl C PLUMBING final z mechanical C WATER HOOKUP □ meter SET/TURN ON Z SEWER HOOKUP Z SEPTIC install 3 SEPTIC MAINT 3 WELL TEST PUMP C SITE INSPECTION C EXCAV/GRAOING/FILLING C LAKESHOREyWETLANOS 3 LICENSING Q COMPLAINT a FOLLOW-UP C SEPTIC final 3 FIREPLACE*WOOO burner □ ________________ C COMMENTS: <"S-rgiA 2 1^i rPig r /y-~7^ ' <zfi>j-CcuJn I a uJ ( 111 <PerI.VI f N ^ p-rryiC ad |?(Svtaai 'T~^ Cu VcJ -7<?<?37 Q photo takenc; WOBK SATISFACTOBY: PBOCEED 0 COPRECT WORK. Ca T?FOR°PEINS»»ECTION BEFORE COVERING - CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS INSPECTOR WILL RETURN -i^TOP ORDER POSTED CALL INSPECTOR. S' INSPECTION REQUIRED CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance. Owner/Coni I Inspector ^ -----------------------------473"7357 White /lo»p*ctor'* Filp Ctewni /Site Notic* Si m •• . * .. . . ^* <•/' r • • '• * *• •• 0 • •• •. V* '• • • ... 7-^v’ C*' 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo to»*n* AndMt mt Aisoewws. imc. >% m Attwmmn* AcMn/Equn OwofMMy boptoyw Oft« G •onestroo. F £. tB»it W llosenc. iasepn c Anavnru. P C Marvin L Sofvaia^ ^E •ichard I. Turner P E Gierm t. Coe*. P L Thomai I Noyes. P £. tooen G SctHjrvcm. P f Susan M Ebertm. C P A • * Stmcr Consuitam Noarartf A. Sanfor#. PE. ftetcn A. Goroon.. P E teoert ■ Pfefferie. PE. fficnaro W Poster. P f Oavi« O LosftotA P E tobert C Pusiem. A I.A. jerry A •oorOon. P t Mare A Hanson. PE Micnaet T tausmann. P E Tea R PiHA PC Thomas ■ Anoerson e.i.A James t ffoMnmereei. P E Donald C burgardC. PI Thomas A SyTtco. P E. Frederic J Stenborg. P E tsmaei Martinet. P E Mtchaei P Rau. P E. Thomas df Peterson. PI. dbchaei C lynch. PE James R Maiand. PC erry 0 Pertisch. P E. Scon J. Arganea. PE. Kenneth P Anderson. P Mart R Rotf s P E Mart A Se«p P E. Gary df Morten. P E. Paid J Gannon. AXA Damet i Cdferton. P E. A Rict Schmidl. P E Dale A Grove P E Philip J Casoretl PE. Mart O WaMis. PE. Miles • Jensen. P E. I Phillip GravH. PE Karen L d^iemen, PE. Gary O. Knstohu. PJ. ■nan A GPfd. PC F ToddPofldr. P E. Keith R yapp. Pi. Douglas J Senoit. PE. Shawn O Gustafson. PE. CeciMo Otvior. P E. Kent J diagner. PE. Pam G Heuer. P L John P Gorde r. P E. Dan O. toyum. P.E. Joffrey J Ehien nger . PEL Joseph R Rhem. PE. lee M. Mann. P L Charles A Cnctson leo M. PaweiBty Hanan M. Otson Agnes M Ring James F Engeffiardt November 13. 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Rick Stark Residence File No. 139-2082 Dear Jeanne, We inspected the Rick Stark residence at 575 Oxford Road last Tuesday, November 7, 1995. The disturbed wetland areas have been seeded and covered with straw mulch. The remainder of the property outside of the delineated wetland area has been sodded. The work has been completed in accordance with the approved plan. A final inspection should be completed in the spring to verify that the wetland seeding is successfully established. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612*636*4600 . ian'T,; CiL±:.S^ ei-ipW-M9 a ‘ '* *" 7^ / '% •* “ ■■;■.■ ,,r. '^."-f-V '•t - . “* '» • •».» •...* • ^ *• *»M.*-- •'^* ' .•»■ 0 ■. < • . ' •! f • 'js^: • V * . ^ - SAYS’tE- tfc- ^ •*#'"■ •'•''■ A.’.-A:' >'-■'7.'^r ./.Ar- ’ h<c ^v7''.:iv:.;- ■,■,"-•■• ■ ;• v'7..7 vry.-.>^.;r^--;7vv;,v^^7^^ R- ‘ *-"Jv? '• K-? ‘ ’ ♦ ^ ^ ^ *’ -'* • j ‘' * ‘ • N ' -"j^^ I* ■^■■^^'■' 7 ^a>7V ' ■> V :^7'y;.-vr^ ..-..'■, ?•■ - ',• <'.:;rv .• ,1-. r, V . \''-y i;.\.j< 7.,; : W '’7 ^ : ;•- r-^v^; rt 7>-,. " •- ■ '•V. -;. .-;^:l- ./• . . .■./..X> ; ■ '/ n&lf- »*' 't ’'' * * **V''’-» '*■ ^ «n- %. ■'■ *• *0* !•»•* ■• '**7r'* •♦''■ f \. •’ * : ;^ i A'S:r: •■ \t:3f •■.'7&-:^: k'*- #•' *1'^ • > V--* . '.^ t* •: :f r j * r".1*7 - ki-X‘v:':i-77r- •"4»% ‘ i * *T' pl^^* . k« • ^ - -- '' ‘:‘ . » "• o * "^'. ^ ^ t-/-'?;;i7'-:;• • •' .-^ r -*.- - <•- . ’» V- '»•. li. *'. L5L^'?w»v43iJ* '/<?. 23 -- -V-J. ■!;.*•* • • . . ?'.:'--‘lr. •——»- *Ttr- -^u-:>~:i^t^is:V i.— 4^ To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 10,1995 #2090 Ron Rantz/Autografs, Inc., 2525 Shadywood Road - Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements - Public Hearing Application: Approval of applicant’s commercial site plan was conditioned on applicant proceeding with the vacation of drainage and utility easements along internal lot Imes of Lots 1,2 and 3, Leach Addition. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.12 - Vacation of easements. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners' List D - Legal Description of Easements to be Vacated E - Resolution Approving Commercial Site Plan Application of Ron Rantz-File #2058 F - Survey of Leach Addition Ap^mThas proceeded with the filing of a petition to vacate the drainage and utilities along all internal lot lines within the Leach Addition. The City of Orono cannot i^e a bm ding pecrnit for the new construction until the vacation is completed. The vacation resolution will be filed by the City as soon as Mr. Rantz, the applicant, has completed the purchase of the property and filed an application for legal combination of the parcels. To approve the vacation application of Ron Rantz/Autografs, Inc. involving the property l«a ed at 2525 Shadvwood Road that proposes the vacation of drainage and utility easements along all internal lot lines of the Leach Addition as shown on Exhibit F of this packet This approval is subject to the following conditions: I The Orono staff will present the vacation petition and formal resolution granting approval of the vacation upon proof that applicant has purchased the property and has filed for die legal combination of the three parcels. 2. A building permit for the new construction cannot be issued until the vacation has been filed at Hennepin County. ^ ✓ • .1 4 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ ^ Site Address - Type of Application to be Filed F*. A*->rr.t^jOT Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)-------------------------------- ;; 1 i .\PPLICANT Name HrirM ^ATEg-S S A^^CC. Phone (home) __________ Phone (work) ^ 4 ?. - I O. Zip S’ (Xr^ /Av^T^^fi>FS UJ^ LW, pl^ Zip C<r^7^igg>ii/-r.&A<> g-o Ciiy .^T. u>0 ^‘P SS-Si— Date Property Acquired ___-------------------- ■— I (do) <fgo also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application 5125.00 Residential Accessory Use ’ S200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ■ S150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg 5250.00 Commerciaiyindustrial Use “ $200.00 Land Alteration « j . -------- Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplam ------- Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ‘ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore T^/PID - see Fee Schedule • x --------$100 00 Renewal Fee (no change from onginal application) --------- After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER ^200^™™ercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ' $250.00 Vacation 'l^Tsl^Easement Vacation --------SITSo Easement Vacation With Subdivision --------$300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ' ' 5300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals --------Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPER'Hf Present Zoning District Present Use of Property V^CA^^esidential Other (specify) (monih/year) u. •#Tr t < U. « • 2. 3. 4. REQUIRED SL’BMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. ^ Us, of owners within(g. labels and P>“ ^ mus, obuin L list, labels and map from Herme^toToino- Department of Fmance. ____CertficaK^o'T^^S a’riceLed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey L^oftht re'"lTa;:,ef?Mude mariml sams) of all persons wid, an Ingres, in die ------™ TOS would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ownerfs). ------STSl“ndum“; frLcZS™ te list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Ks sssr.fr?’'.? »itjs='rrsf'sc-sss FOR 1 iv^i V of all jocuments.to-scardra.;. o-n u.uments. piam. etc. to be submitted.) The Aonlicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your ^pltoL is no, complete if the above information has not been mcluded. Certification by Clerical Depamnen, diat Und Use Applic^uon Is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff. — --------- ^ true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.supplied IS true ana corrcui lu ----------- - ^ Applicant’s signature ,^4/r (‘AaMuA Date lt)/.C2a/ OWNER’S SIGNATURE this annlication and further authorized reasonable The owner hereby and - commission members, and CouncU entry onto the of dus request,members tor purposes^n^stigatio^ ^ c y Owner’s signature _,s ^ ' * .ppucanimusihavearisu^^ f.°r rl«T£ Sannios Commissio. -d Cou». Date /O! ^Oj Applicam mu>i— -- ^ Monday of each month. Applicanu must oc pr»cui « Commission Meetmgs ^ mminission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled mw g. o/this change prior to the meetmg. RM DATE lo/ra/nBATOI S02 ICftCPIN COUNTY raOKKTV INFOMUTION SY5TEN mOKRTV OWCRS LIST REPORT NO. fUSX.PIASSADl4 CMCi mm TAXPAYER NAME/AOm St »-ii7-n II ooos OEStS LYtlAtO AVE t J OtSON TtUSTEE tiEHDQN OtSQN EM5 LYDIARO AVE EMCELSIM »fl 55SS1 St 20-117-n 11 M04 t2SY§ lYOlAtt AVE S R FtANK ET At STEPHANIE R FRANR 25fS LYDIARD AVt EXCELSIOR m SSSSl St EO-117-2S li 0007 02S40 RELLY AVE RIRR R NELSON RIRR R NELSON ES40 RELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN SSSSl • S', PROP AOOR , OMCR NAME •• TA)»AYER ’ - NANE/AOOR -'J . •t V CMCR NAHi TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR » ‘•8 . .ir • 1 ’ t * PROP AMR OmER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR i: I ..<; # , r > PROP AOOR fMCR KANE ... TAXPAYER r w ; IMNC/AMR ' Vi ' ' . ■ . . u #f A i . ' r. I I OI PROP AOOR " V OMCR NANE .TAXPAYER . NANE/AOOR0-, ^ ‘. • .$ . r SR M-117-2S 11 ROTl 02545 LYDIARO AVE JAMES T MLSON JAMES T raLSON 25*5 LYDIARD AVE EXCiLSZOR MN 55SS1 Si 20-117-2S 11 0027 02477 SMAOYMOOO RO DUANE N NALL DUMC N NALL 17105 CliESTLINE NUMDLE TN 77SH Si 20-117-2S 11 OOSO 02525 ^SNADVMOOD RO DEAMM H LEACN CLAIR ROQO 2215 KENHOOO HAY NAV2ATA N4 55S41 - •» .V f* ’'V s'! ■* * / * • ■ ? S5 20-il7-tS il 00S4 02500 SNAOYNOOO NO UaVERSiTY OF HIttCSOTA RCeCNTS U OP h/REAL EST OPF SHOPS DUILOINS, SUITE 424 S14 15TN AVE S E MPLS IM 55455*0194 SO 20-117-2S 14 0002 02*15 LYOIARO CIR MICHAEL L OILOERTSON ET AL MICHAEL L A KAREN OILOERTSON 2*15 LYOIARO CIRCLE S EXCELSIOR Ml SSSSl i • ■- r 0 0 '\[r- * • St 20-117-21 11 0022 02S2S KELLY AVE C E i N C TROYAX CHARLES E TROYAlt 2S2S KELLEY AVE EXCELSIOR NN shsi St 20-117-IS 11 002t 02SS5 SHAOYNOOO RO DEANNA N LEACH CLAIR ROOD ms KENNOOO NAY NAYZATA m SSSYl St 20-117-2S 11 0011 02465 SHAOYNOOO RO 1ST NATL OK OF NAVARRE 1ST NATL OK OF NAVARRE P 0 tOK 121 NAVARRE »tl SSi42 St 20-117-21 11 OOlt 02520 SHAOYNOOO RO FRESHNATER FOUNDATION FRESHNATER FOUNDATION 725 CO RO 4 NAYZATA MN 55191 18 20-117-21 Ij^ OOOS 02625 LYDIARD AvE C M KILLIANS ET AL C N HILLIAN5 ACL ALVAREZ 2625 LYDIARD CIR EXCELSIOR m 55111 St 20-117-21 11 0021 0254S RELLY AVE R H PONZETTl A t A PONZETTl ROtERT H/tARtARA A PONZETTl 2545 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN S5111 St 20-117-21 11 otto 02S45 SHAOYNOOO RO DEANNA N LEACN CLAIR ROOD 2215 KENNOOO NAY NAYZATA m 55191 St 20-117-21 11 0012 OOOSt ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 1ST NATL RANK OF NAVARRE 1ST NATL RANK OF NAVARRE P 0 tOX 121 NAVARRE MN 5SS92 St 20-117-21 14 0001 02605 LYDIARO CXR O L NALTZEN I t J LERVIK GARY L NALTZEN tOIME J LERVIK 2605 LYDIARO CXR ORONO MN 55111 St 20-117-21 14 0006 02640 KELLY AVE J R A S L VOLKHAR JOHN R A SHERRY L VOUNAR 2640 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55111 • i * ' ' / - A :* •• V' j.., • i'V • • * • I. ' ■■ i:. : ,. A • ^ .. f ^ *• •'«. f ‘ iV O'1 “r * ? f : '• t 6 ^:p 4 f ^ * I •: V • I • « * ■ . 1 - j ’>•: A ■: • p. ■ ;r • V * * * *' ' I ,'<i. ••• ■ / ,:■* •. * ■ ■ “ RUN DATE itm§/n f»tCRIN COUNTY FRORERTY immUTION SYSTEM RERORT NO,RI415401 •MGRERTY CRtCRS LIST RAGE 5MTCN M2 .•• • # • 0 . • 'i‘v ; ,si 20-117-21 14 ooia SO 20-117-21 14 0019 10 20-117-21 14 0020 • - *• f * . ; JJ r RMR Aoaii 02420 KELLY AVE 02545 KELLY AVE 02505 KELLY AVE • ft 1 . CRtCR NAME OZNOER t PRXTCHARO EVERETT J SCHROEDER ALEDA C RURCH / TAXRAYER BINDER L SCOTT E J SCHROEDER ALEDA C RURCH • •. * /NANE/AOOR 2420 KELLY AVE 2545 KELLY AVE 2505 KELLY AVE •• EXCELSIOR NN 55SS1 • •• EXCELSIOR ftl 55SSI « EXCELSIOR m SSSSl •• 4 • r*i • fr l * AOOK M tt-117-tS 14 ton 0tS87 KELLY AVE UONOIIA II NZTCNEU /■ . I 's I m§mn mm TAXPAYEII * NAMI/AODII •f < *' I* f ■.• •* 'radK AODK ’ <MCR NANEn^..r,»TAXPAYER r -v.\> NAHE/AOOR ' » ■ t .• , , ‘i* ^ •. ^ '' mm ADM ^ j CMCR NANi ; * ./ TAXPAYM ; .: NAIC/AOOA ... I. ' M tO-117-ES 14 0024 02421 KELLY AVI KURT NEJE2CHLE0A ET AL KURT 4 CNRISTA NEJEZCNLERA 2421 KELLY AV KMCELSIOR MN 11511 SO 21«il7-2S 22 OOlS 02101 SMADYMOOO RO OH SCNULTZ ETAL DONALD H SCHULTZ 2101 SNAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR M4 15SSI SO 21>il7-2S 22 0020 02101 OLO lEACM RO E N ILANCN CO LTD PTNSHR E N OLANCH CO LTD PTNSMP SlOO N eOTN ST MPLS »tl 1S4S1 .1 •. ’-'.i ' ■■ •V;: • >.•’ • . ■>; I . •* 1 • ^ '**' * i* 1 • ^|> *V*'»**l ^ Vv V‘>^ * * 1*3?j* >^ *'# • J . • • * * J: ‘ . *'> -» ■ . sa E0-117-2S 14 OOE2 0240S KELLY AVE M J STOMAm A L C STODOAM sa 21-II7-ES 22 0011 02570 LYDIARO AVE T A RYAN i R J RYAN THGNAS A RYAN 2 HACLYNN RO EXCELSIOR NN SSSSl sa 21-117-2S 22 ooia 02505 OLO REACN RO K D SIffRHAN t J D GNERHAN KIRK D/JACQIIELINE D SHERNAN 2505 OLD REACH RO HAYZATA HN 55S41 TOTAL RATTH 502 00051 t • sa 20-117-21 14 0025 02455 KELLY AVE J N EUBSTER i C N EUOSTER ) ■>. TAXPAYEK HRS 0 P HZTCHiU MILLIAH J A LAURii C STOOOARO JACK CUCSTER/CAROI. H fUCSHR NMK/AOOR.2M7 KfLlY AVI $2405 KELLY AVE 2455 KELLY AVE KXCKUIOR m S53S1 ^ 0 EXCELSIOR Itl 55111 EXCELSIOR m 55111 • V ,4 ... ‘ ' 1 % ‘C >•• sa 21-117-21 22 0012 024S4 LYOIARO AVE 0 N NCCUSKEY A C F HCCU5KEY OAVIO N A COrtllE F NCCUSKEY 24S4 LYDIARO AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55111 sa 21-117-21 22 0014 02515 OLO REACN RO T H A A A COaUTE THOMAS H A ALICIA A COOUTl 2515 OLD REACN RO NAYZATA Itl 55191 « r MM BATE BATCH sot •-t"' •'UM ‘ ■■•' V i ' .1^ i « M • • r * *• • . ■ « t V I •♦ *» • I ». '• k • » : * '• . ' L i ; ; • - . ^ * p/i- ^ • V* V. V • . { ■• •■ .,.«:■••-''i ; *.: ■'.«■•.;< *• ‘- ; • ^ • I *- / :.>.■ • • * . I ■ - - *: . • • U * ‘s rf. —. , • . . ^ • , .. . . A'. v»’ •• ; :•';■■ .I'- \v •• • ** . * '»i . * V * . • • . • •, f ' * • * I • •• .t ' •* ■ '!. * • # • . • ' f. ■■'M-v".•"■■ • * . • • • . » I • . •' i i \* I V± '» . V • « r* V ' 93 'IV*" '• i *!'. * '' ' ' * ' /S\‘ • .'i- ♦. ,•»••; . O'*' •;* J’-- ’ T - :4; •• •■■•'■•■ ■ « . '*•*• /.** .•. .*> . • • V • * 9 ■ •.,r’;9 ...V ; ■rh n ’*- 7 ’ \ V *• .'• •*'1 HEttCBXN COMTY MK»f RTY ZNEBonATION SVSTEN MOKRTY OI^CRS LIST REPORT NO. PI4SS401 PAGE A ?) 1 CCRTirV THAT THc FACTS REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS " m JSSK? iSTKiS;""*" " " "• DATE lol(il 'fh^j /’jcj^iZcV .•v 9» 0 -; i » . «• • • •* » . • .. « 4 '• !/"• f. .• * . / I • V - I • • A.' • I I* > I • \ • * • f •|. t . • • • - * •* •• .!»: • • • . r •% • • !* „• ■ ^ A'l'* . . .%•/ Ft# : • I F- / 11. iii.» •< * mm * • ^ m COFHN A GRONBERG. INC miMfm sMwmjm 47»*4I«1 :*4^ 1 Onkrmgm & Utility EM«mtnt DMcrlpdon to t» ViKatid in Lott 1,2 A3, Block 1, LiACHADOiTtON Htnnopln County, Minnotota lOfIMtt That piirt nf thm 10 foot cktinagt and utility M««mtnt lying within 5 feet on each side of the southttaltrly line of Lot 1, Block 1, LEACH ADDITION. Which Ilea aoutfiwetterty of the southweeterty line of the rcnheasterly lOfaetof Lots 1 and 2. said Block 1. Also, that part of the 10 foot drainage and utHHy eeaement lying within S feet on each side of the northeestafly line of Lot 3, Block 1 LEACH AuutriON. wMeh lies northwestofty of the southeasterly 10 fleet of said Lots 2 and 3 and southaaslaily of die northwesterly 10 feet of said Lots 1 and 3. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A BLTLDING PERMIT FOR RON RANTZ OF ALTOGRAFS INC. FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.42, SUBDIVISION 2 file #2058 VVHPBF AS Ron Rantz of Autografs Inc.. a Minnesota corporation, (hereinafter WHEREAS, Ron i^tz oi « « Shadywood Road located within "the aoDlicani") has an interest m the property locaiea at ^ j of Orono (hereinafter 'the City") and legally descnbed as: Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Leach Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesou (hereinafter "the property"); and WHFREAS the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a building permit per Municipal Section 10.42, Subdivision 2 to permit the commerc»l development of Lots I and 2. Block 1, Uach Addition. sf i-"» ““ “ “ A. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2058. nn. located in the B-4, Office and Professional Business Distnct ^a ’l and 2, Uach Addition consists of 62.500 s.f. r Preliminary floor plans and elevations developed by Keith Waters & Ass«ia^ Inc. dated^uly 27,*^ 1995 propose a two story walkout design structure at 19,168 S.f. total area Page 1 of 7 D. E. F. G. H. I. The proposal conforms to the intent and uses permitted in the B-4 Office and Professional Business District. The building will house the co^orate headquaners of Autografs Inc. The company designs and pnnts graphic designs with 3M technology for uses on automobiles, trucks and other vehicle application. The facility will also house a national and regional computerized graphic design center, computerized film printing of the graphics, shippmg and storage facilities. The facility will be for the e.xclusive use of Autografs Inc. The total property consists of three lots. Lots 1 and 2 are zoned Commercial, B- 4 and Lot 3 is zoned LR-IB, Lakeshore Residential. The zonmg boundary is located on the shared lot lines of Lots I, 2, and 3. Per Section 10.43, Subdivision 6 (B), Lots 1 and 2, Leach Addition, B-4 zone - review of lot area and lot width 1 . Lot area Required = 20,000 s.f. Existing = 62,500 s.f. 2. Lot width Required = 100 ’ Existing = 250 ’ The site pirn and grading plan prepared by Mark Gronberg of Coffin & Gronbcrg Inc dated July 31, 1995, most revised date September 1. 1995 (hereinafter "Dlan") conforms to yard requirements, structural setback requirements, and narking setbacks per Section 10.43, Subdivision 6 and Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 Approval of yard and setbacks have been based on applicant legally combmmg Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Leach Addition and not developing residentially zoned Lot 3. ADolicam's developmcn of the site plan is dependent upon the legal combination of Lots 1 2 and 3, Block 1, Leach Addition and on applicant’s notice to City that Lot 3 will not be residentially developed. Lot 3 is zoned LR-IB, Lakeshore Residential Both structural and parking improvements have been placed at the west boundary of the B-4 Zoning District. There is no required setback from a zoning boundary line only from lot line. Page 2 of 7 L. J. Per Section 10.61, Subdivision 10 (A), net floor area has been determined to be at 13,355 s.f. Based on the required parking formula for office building use, one parking stall is required for every 200 s.f. of net floor area. Final approved site and grading plan shows 67 stalls as required by code. K. The landscape plan designed by Tom Haugo of Bachman s dated August 1, 1995 provides 78 varieties of trees and approximately 1,500 other plantings to offset existing plantings removed during the period of construction. Evergreens shall be planted along the west and southwest comer of the property to minimize impact upon adjacent residential areas. The Hennepin County Department of Transportation has approved the single curb cuts serving the commercial development as shown on plan developed by Gronberg & Associates. M. Four sewer units and five water units have been assessed and paid for. There is adequate capacity in both the sewer and water facilities to serve the new use. N. 120,000 s.f. of the total property is located within the 500 to 1,000’ of Lake Minnetonka. Per Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L), this portion of the property would be allowed 42,000 s.f. or 35% hardcover improvements. The proposed site plan proposes 16,060 s.f. or 13.38% hardcover improvements. O. The approved site plan and grading plan for the Autografs Inc. office building does not require any variances to pertinent sections of the code. p. All drainage from tiie developed site shall be directed to County Road 19 or Shadywood Road and will eventually drain under the County Road to the retention areas within the Marsh at Lafayette. No drainage from this developed site will drain to the west or Kelly Avenue watershed. i WHEREAS, the applicant has asked the City to consider a phased parking installation plan whereby in the first phase applicant will install 44 parking stalls based on applicant’s level of use as follows: 25 employees, 8 business guests, 2 miscellaneous, 9 contingency total 44. The approved parking plan shows the total required parking stalls at 67. Applicant h^ advised he will install 23 stalls or portion thereof if City determines there is a need in the future. Page 3 of 7 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1995, the Minnehaha Watershed District issued permit (^95-20/i) approving the proposed stormwater plan. Tne Watershed asks that applicant execute a maintev .nce agreement specifying method, schedule and responsibility for maintenance of stormwater ponds. ♦ NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the site plan, grading plan, landscape plan as noted above in the findings of the Planning Commission and the issuance of a building permit to Ron Rantz of Autogiafs Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prior to the City accepting a building permit for the commercial construction, the applicant and fiinire owner shall have applied for the legal combination of Lots 1,2, and 3, Leach Addition at the Orono Administrative Offices. Prior to the City issuing a building permit for the new construction the applicant and fiimre owner shall have completed the filing of a vacation application for the drainage and utility easements that exist along all interior lot lines within the Leach Addition. Applicant and future owner shall be responsible for the installation of stormwater ponds prior to the installation of other site improvements. Applicant and future owner shall be responsible for the regular maintenance and upkeep of all drainage facilities on this site as set forth in agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Applicant and future owner shall enter into a "Required Parking Stall Agreement" with the City that would allow applicant to install 44 initial stalls as opposed to the total required at 67 stalls. The agreement shall further state that applicant will install the additional 23 stalls or ponion thereof when required by the City. This agreement shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. With the approval of this commercial site plan and the location of the principal strucmre in relation to the existing zoning boundaries, the City shall require applicant to execute an open space easement over Lot 3, Block 1, Leach Addition prohibiting the residential development of this property. The open space easement shall be filed in the chain of title along with this resolution. Page 4 of 7 6. appHcan. baa asbed Ci-y C°u^,-onsMer "a^P™?-^orLtLTSct) if Amografs Inc. «eds .0 axpand dK facUity a. some time in the fumre.. „ sz?r;:^.::“rr.=rr“»»x “ , JsrxrJ=ES?rS,H ”H ^.—=rr rr i«stjt;s=“ The uBletsiliKd *hetehyr" -h,' rss .„.u 0, Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of October. 1995. ATTEST: Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor 55n Rantz. an Authorized Representative of Autografs Inc. Page 5 of 7 • • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on Ws 9th day of October 1995 by Edward J Callahan. Jr. and Dorothy .M. Hallin. Mayor & City Clerk of 0^0? Orono. a Mimtesota municipal corporation and said insmiment was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 6 of 7 ; - < .1 -I ■| * i K i « • ? i ■ > i * • 3 To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, Citv Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:November 16,1995 Subject:#2092 Dennis Platteter, 809 Brown Road North - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Application: Applicant proposes a back lot/front lot subdivision of his homestead parcel at approximately 6 acres in area. Due to the more restrictive setback standards for back lot/front lot configurations, the residence structure and oversized accessory structure do not meet required setbacks from proposed lot lines. Zoning District: RR-IB « j j Total lot area = 5.64 acres (exclusive of right-of-way of North Brown Road and Dickey Lake) Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.08, Subdivision 5 - Lot standards for RR-IB Zoning District 2. Section 10.56 - Shoreland Overlay District. Subdivision 16 (C) - Required setbacks for structures and septic systems from the OHWL of the Natural Environment Lake. Required = 150' . u Proposed septic system and existing structures on Lot 1 meet required lakeshore setback. b.Subdivision 16 (L) - Hardcover restrictions. Both Lots 1 and 2 will be subject to the hardcover regulations for the Shoreland Overlay District. 4.Section 10.03. Subdivision 27 and Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 - Back lot/front lot stand^. A. Lot 1 (back lot) = 3.64 acres (meets 150% of the area requirements of the Zoning District) Required = 3 acres (RR-IB = 2 acres) Proposed = 3.64 acres B.Lot 1 (back lot) lot width requirements for lakeshore lot Required = 200' 1) At OHWL 300+' 2) At 150' lakeshore setback 400+' 3) At street setback 350+' I Zoning File #2092 November 16,1995 Page 2 5.Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C-2) - Oversized accessor>' structure - variances for 2100 s.f. oversized accessorv’ structure on proposed Lot 2. a. E.xisting = 2100 s.f. Oversized structure allowed footprint = 1200 s,f a. Required setback = 50' (rear lot line of Lot 2) Existing = 29’ Variance = 21’ or 42% b. c. Setback variance for existing principal structure on proposed Lot 1 Required for side setback on back lot * 45* Existing = 40' Variance = 5' or 11.11% Front/street setback variance for residence structure on proposed Lot 1 Required = 75’ Existing = 30* Vari?nce = 45’ or 60% List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - Discussion Application Plat Map Property Owners' List DNR Letter 8/21/95 Wetlands Map Preliminary Plat Staff Sketch/Required Setbacks for Back Lot/Front Lot Based on Planning Commission's directives to applicant at their August, 1995 meeting, applicant has submitted a formal subdivision application proposing a back lot/front lot division of his homestead parcel at 5.64 acres. Refer to Exhibit G, side and rear lot lines of the front lot. Lot 2, must be changed to 50’. Side and street setback of the back lot must also be changed, the sides to 45' and the street setback to 75'. During the sketch plan review, ^plicant advised that the residence structure and oversized accessory strucUire were to be moved from the property. The existing structures do not meet required setbacks from the proposed division line. Applicant should advise as to the status of the structures. If they are to be removed, there is no issue. If they are to remain, will you grant setback variances? Based on the location of the bam in relation to the house, it would be impossible to gerrymander lot line in order to meet the required setback. Applicant should also comment as to die status of the pool. How long should pool be allowed to remain without a principal structure? Zoning File #2092 November 16,1995 Pages As Lot 2 does not meet the required lot width at Brown Road at 200* to the rear of the street setback line. Lot 2 will be required to kccss via the driveway outlet along the south lot line. Note outlot has been expanded to 50’ at the east end to include existing drive. Septic testing has been completed. All four mound sites will be placed on slopes at 6% or less. Note proposed septic sites on the lakeshore lot meet the required 150* setback from the OHWL of Dickey Lake at 985.5. Staff Rccommcndatioii To approve the back lot/front lot subdivision application of Dermis Platteter finding all pertinent standards of the Subdivision Regulations, Zoning and Septic Codes have been satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Status of existing structures (residence structure, pool and oversized accessory structure) within proposed Lots 1 and 2. Establish deadline for removal. If structures are not to be removed, will setback variances be granted? 2. J*. Designation of Dickey Lake at 985.5. Applicant ’s surveyor to confirm location of Type 3 wetland at southwest comer of property adjacent to lakeshore. The wetland area should be designated as drainage easements on the final plat. Dedication of drainage and uulity easements along exterior lot lines and 5' along all internal lot lines. 4. Dedication of 33’ of right-of-way for Brown Road. 5. Others recommended by Planning Commission. •' J ^-V 5F0R0N0-S13DIVISI0NAPPLU.A*I^ J * '*^ i!RTY LOCATION ^ *KU^O m --------y —7-------- address J®C£_j54^'I ^ _ _1L 3 - -------- Please check one - rrcwc.-/ Arach legal descricticn to acpiicanon. .applicant Name Zin Phnn^.home^ ’^hcne (work) OWN-ER (if different ±an applicant) Name _ Address Citv __________________, (attach list if more than one) PhoQC(home) Phone (work) existing land use Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / Present use (check) j Acres Dry Land O ^ Acres Wet Land '------ Acres Total, all parcel Residential; no. of units Other (specify)--------- 1 Present Zoning District rfTv .*••• -*:**-’9Li i i w > - i w t i»***f*A.- -. « PROPOSAL Number oTBudding Sites UivU:on for Now BuUdigS^s New Units Total Units 4 ,•' i ruzrv L t ikwt% .-/V A .. -• • V‘» • « • • * t . V « V‘ ../.. .1. w-/ 7 (•’ter to * - t^iUUAtoto. ^ , gjiif.-t’v - - --.'A- 4i ^ Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) / Units per,^^ ^•^^^T/'Sa. Ft. Dry Buiidablc ^y^^R^idendal ----- ^ Other (specify)_____ MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. P^rmeat of fees (refer to *appliozion fees' listed below. 2. Completed applicatioa form. 3. Preiiiniiiary plat informanon on Ccrancue of Suncy. , tt • « rr^- 4. CatUW Pros«ty Owitn Li« of owoen wuhm 350' (you must obtsin tits list ftom Hmmopia County Dopmtment of Fmanoe 5. As sn to tbis applicsnoo. pkss. aitsnh s sopanie list of any oiet apphcntioo. Zoning Official’s Signanire ____________________________________________________________________________ MINIML’M MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COsMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION I. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision .Approval resolution and park in ^ ^ V m * WWw \ m w »ww w m m m ---------- m m 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or myiar copies of fonnol ?iat. 3. Title opinion. •t. Easements, covenants, etc. 3. Developers .Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official’s Signamre______________ and park fees if appicable). Date I. APPLIC.ATION FEES (Zoning .Administrator to check [XI those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: zf S'lcetch Plan Review (Cass I. II & III) S200.00 1^ _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rcairangemeni S300.C0 Subdivision sApplication (.Cass I A II) S300.00 " . , . „ -j • i\ ----^^^Prelimmafy Subdivision ApplicationJ323.00 -r S25.00/lot (Class III A aU non-residential) . _____ Fmal Plat Application (Cass III) S173.00 Legal Review and Filing: _____ Subdivision only S73.(X) Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. S^OO.OO Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Leaal and Engineenng Review Fees (as incurred) ...................... -------- Reiwjl of Oust 1 anU II Subdivisioo Awlication SI50.00 (No dUDge 6om ongmal applicaioo) -------- Rei«»al of aass III. Preliniuuty Subdivision Application S150.00 (No change fiom original w Kriion) -------- Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application S 100.00 (No change from ongmal application) • • W ________________________ ^ ■■ » T<?tall _ lin. ft. X .50 » $. Un. ft. X .50 ■ S B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads S600.1X) + S.50/lineal ft.; Proposed Public Roads S900.00 + S.50/lineal ft., _ -------- Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road S90^OT Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extoision $250.00 + S25/snib ” Proposed Watennain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub^ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) S200.00 * On-Site System. Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applicauons) S50.00/new lot proposed for on-site x_____new lots C. Fle-xible Application Fees/TVIisc. Fees VarisLzicc S200.00 Vacation Associated with Subdivision S75.00 ■ pjy5 Application with Subdivision S30.00/Dwelling Unit CO The applicant hereby agrees Attorney. Planning Commjs^ion established by ordinance^ Applicant's Signangft^ Owner’s Signature ^ ie all tnformatio a or requested by the inning Administrator, City Engineer, City IC06S this application and ftirther agrees to pay ^ additional ees — . . Aoolicani must have aU submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Coi^^n arc held on the third .Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetmgs .___J rrmnrii If 3H aDollcant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an au arc held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must oe present at au scncauicu «v,cw ^ and CouncU. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an agtStXnd in your place and to advise the Building A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meetmg. I i f \mm MTE 10/2S/fS MTCN fM fW ASM CMCR NAME TAXPAYER HAME/AOOR PROP AMR ONNER NANI TAXPAYER NANE/AOM PROP AMR QMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AMR i. PROP AMR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR •'! • :y»’ - \ HE»tCPlN COUNTY PROPERTY XHTORNATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»MERS LIST PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR M t7-118-2S 3S 0004 00900 HILLON OR N LOIS H HATHEHSON LOIS H HATHEHSON 900 NILLOH OR N LONB LAKE HN B535A SO E7-110-2S 34 0002 0091S BROI-M RO N THOMAS N LANE A NIFE THONAS N LANE 91S BR0M4 RO NO LONO LAKE MN 5S354 SO 27>110>23 34 0005 00019 BROItl RO N H N ORAY ET AL TRUSTEE HAROLD N ORAY JR 422 TERRACE RO SAN CARLOS CA 94070 SO E7-110-2S 4S 0014 0192S NEST FARM RO CHARLES L SCHROEOER ET AL CHARLES L SCHROEOER PAMELA FREEMAN SCHROEOER 1925 NEST FARM RO LONO LAKE MN 55354 SO • 34-110-23 11 0004 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNED HARY L STEIL ET AL MARY L STEIL ET AL 744 ORO»f4 RO N LONG LAKE Ft4 55354 30 S4-110-2S 21 0003 02002 SU6ARN000 OR R L A H H GILL RICHARO GILL 2002 SUGAR HOOOS DR LONG LAKE HN 55354 REPORT NO. P14SB401 PAGE 25SO 27-110-23 SS 0004 00734 DICKEY LAKE OR MARIAN M HOYT MARIAN M HOYT 734 DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE m 55354 30 27-110-2S S4 0003 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO 0 A A G J JOHNSON GEO JOHNSON 079 N ORO»94 RO LONG LAKE F«4 55354 SO 27-110-23 34 0004 00009 ORO»tl RO N DENNIS L PLATTETER DENNIS L PLATTETER 009 DROm RO N LONB LAKE It4 55354 30 27-110-23 43 0022 01990 HEST FARM RO A A M ORACHMAN ARHANO E A HARY A ORACHMAN 1790 HEST FARM RO LONO LAKE Ftl 55354 38 34-110-2S 12 0002 00740 ORO»M RO N SCOTT A HAOUSTH ET AL SCOTT A HAOUSTH 740 0R0I04 ROAD NORTH LONO LAKE HN 55354 SO 34-110-23 21 0004 02004 SUOARHOOO DR K A J FIGGE KENNETH J FIGGE 2004 SUGARHOOO DR LONG LAKE 55354 30 27-118-2S SS 0007 00744 DICKEY LAKE OR S L PETTIS A A J PETTIS GERALD L A ALICE J PETTIS 744 OICKEY LAKE OR LONG LAKE M4 55S54 SO 27-110-23 S4 0004 00079 OROm RO N GEORGE A JOHNSON A HIFI GEORGE A JOHNSON 079 OROMI RO N LONO LAKE m 55354 3.^ 27-110-2S 43 OOlS 01995 HEST FARM RO R L PARRISH A C J PARRISH RICHARD L PARRISH 1995 NEST FARM RO LONO LAKE m 55354 SO 27-110-23 43 0024 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO THE FARM AT LONG LAKE THE FARM AT LONO LAKE PTNSIV C/0 TIMOTHY ADAMS 1010 NEST FAim ROAD LONO LAKE m 50S54 SO 34-110-23 12 0005 00744 OROMI RO N T H SCHULTZE AML STEIL N L STEIL ATM SCHULTZE 744 OROFOI RO N LONB LAKE ^ 55S54 SO S4-110-2S 21 0005 02004 SUOARNOOD OR S R SCHROLL A T 0 SCHROLL STEVEN R A TAMELA G SCHROLL S215 ROSENOOO LA N PLYMOUTH m .55441 I*- • J •."'.t . ‘ • .«n' ■ i *1 t..!• • i-v •* ‘-r' 1 *’ r < .A ' 4 • * Is*'- • . « ‘1 #*• ** ••, « •*. :*• * ,1^. -tr ■f-r :•«' • ' k * A • •• :• V f •?.. . -■ • .-»i. •. "J • I ;• • i •• i '» • .. ■ • . » i ■ * . r;• ..■•••.: 4^,^'.- • V j’O. .• v^'h .-i -.i f • 'lUW■ mC*' 'r . ,•*' i > Ci-J V' . •... * * > v: . tv «M MTE iO/U/WJ/< n» AOM ONNER NAME TAX^AYEi NAm/ADM MO^ AOM V . ONNIR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR * « i#' .* PRM AODR OltCR NAME • * TAXPAYER : HAME/AOM » I mw ADM OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOM / * i SD S4-U6-ES 21 DMA 020M SUeARHOOO OR A J CRAF AHA ORAF ALURT J A MARY ANN GRAF 2006 SUGAR HOODS OR ORONO m B5S5A 36 S4-116-2S 21 0011 0200B SUGARNOOO M SCOTT LARSON const INC SCOTT URSON CONST INC 15673 ELOOIE LA HXfMETOMlA >64 55SA5 36 34-116-23 21 0014 02011* SUGARNOOO DR 0 0 PINT A H J PINT 6ERARLD 0 A HAR6ARET J PINT 2011 SUGARNOOO OR ORONO Itl 55354 36 34-118-23 22 0004 00730 DICKEY LAKE DR J 0 RICK A J H RICK JONATHAN 0 RICK 730 DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE >64 55354 NE>iCPlN COUNTY PROPERTY XNF0404ATXON SYSTEM PROPERTY 0I6CRS LIST36 34-116-23 21 0007 02010 SUGARNOOO M R HESN6ESHER A K HESM6ESNER RONALD A KIMBERLY HESHDESMER 2010 SUGAR MOODS M ORONO >64 55354 36 34-110-23 21 0012 02007 SUOARNDOO M 0 N A N 0 SXHONDS 0 NICHOLS A NA464E 6 SIHONDS 2007 SUGAR NOOOS OR LONG LAKE >64 55354 30 34-116-23 21 0026 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO SUGAR NOOOS N0M046IERS ASSOC SUGAR I4000S H0ME0464ERS ASSOC C/O RCBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 MEBSTER AVE MPLS >64 55414 REPORT NO. P143S401PAGE36 34-116-23 21 0010 02003 SUGARNOOO M H F 6 A S H N ASHBY MICHAEL F 6/SUSAN H N ASHBY 2003 SUGARNOOO M L0I4B LAKE >6l 55354 36 34-116-23 21 0013 02006 SU0AI0400B M M N KILEFN ATS KILEEN MARY N A THOMAS S KXLEEN 5405 NOOOCREST M EDINA >64 55424 36 34-116-23 21 0030 00036 ADDRESS 4A4ASSIGNED SUGAR NOOOS N0ME0M4ERS ASSOC SUGAR NOOOS HQNEOMCRS ASSOC C/O RCBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 MEBSTER AVE MPLS >64 55414 o • * ^ ♦ ,;V -* :kJ m O'*"* ■ . f ;V J f i , \ i*i *■ }■ nr ■:]' TOTAL r^TCH 504 00026 CQ I- w •..'♦VI. • - •. •» *.. ♦ V X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFO^TICN AS IT APPEARS THIS OATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HE>A4EPIN COUNTY 0EPART>»4T OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOMLEOOC AND BELIEF. 1 i'i' o' - V'^ <»'i % ■’ ,.v * / H'w ; A r ’ 4 A • ' !*.• • * • / ?'V V rf • * i*4 j/..' 1 •ri *. • A’*V.- Yr: MIml raONE NO STATE OF Ldepartment of natural resources TCTRO WATERS - 1200 WAITER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 551^'' .Vit - -772-7910 file no August 21, 1995 Ms. Jeanne L. Strommen Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Dennis L. Platteter Subdivision Proposal, Dickey Lake (27-161W), City of Orono, Hennepin County Dear Ms. Kabusth: We have reviewed the site plans (received August 18, 1995) for the above—referenced subdivision at 809 North Brown Road (Cxty 1^2053, Section 27, T118N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1.Dickey Lake (27-161W) is on the property. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of 986.82' (NGVD, 1929), which alters the course, current or cross-section of Dickey Lake, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. The applicant and plans should inform prospective lot buyers that the DNR, Army Corps of Engineers Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City Minnetrista have jurisdiction over Dickey Lake. 2.Dickey Lake has a 100-year floodplain. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District should be consulted to ensure that each of the lots will having a building site that is above the 100- year floodplain elevation of Dickey Lake. All the work that is done on these lots must comply with applicable floodplain regulations of both the city and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3.Dickey Lake has a shoreland classification of Natural Environment. The shoreland district of Dickey Lake extends 1000 feet from the OHW. The proposed lots must be consistent with City shoreland management regulations. In particular: a.Each lot must have a building site and, if they are unsewered, sites for two on-site septic systems, that are located outside of the 150* setback from the OHW of Dickey Lake. b.Lotbuyers should be encouraged to screen future structures from view from Dickey Lake using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I th« city. Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth August 21, 1995 Page 2 4. The following comments are general and apply to the proposed development of all lots: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. C. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Haters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, /Joe Richter Hydrologist cc: Minnehaha Creek WSD USCOE, Joe Yanta City of Orono Shoreland File Dickey Lake (27-161W) File Orono Floodplain File 55^ U ' ^ (v ;•■••• S/ ■■ ■'' ife' -'■&■ >'SC CMi,..J::.-k ^ V ' -^4'*;■i?5 .:-4'^Ki-'li m ¥.W'i^W am m feiiii IW' '(■ <>■■■' ISIHWi ’*II’• •" r*. ''/•■ 'I *'%*'*’*>*^*^ !»;••▼* A J f . .. PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR' DENNIS Sc URSULA PLATTETER IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 27-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA • f Si N W4y ,it- w /6M.74 \f/fr y/ yy / y "■ ■■ ^ I N ee*4ri9-w £ < C[ f —y ; 'Ml.#-—• T“r -/I. •, 1 \ I Mey<«-n-w/,/3n«7|. <vi^ v». .' /1 l i.ijU! '. 'r ,{. K ‘^/ fyyu M* I -<:r^:i::.wjxb^ S- K' I i- f\ ✓99021 -7^ iJM A, 'S J I 33 s s GO 33 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:• The South 3S4.75 feet of the Fast 990 feet*. EXCEPT the North ISO feet of the East 323.4 feet thereof, of the Southeast Quarter of the Souths west Quarter of Section 27. Township 118 North. Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. » , V -<*•1—: Filsting contours frow Orono City aaps Bearings shown are based upon an assuaed datua r. . DtSK>m}IV tXAMNit nviuiM lun llUAMrfHM ■ ComN & Gronberg . Inc . Loihiillni^ f.M\nriVf>. Ijiihl Snru'i/or<, Stic /’/inmtT'< 482 r.im.u.uk Au-nm* • Li»ng Liki*. MN 553!^ 1 hnrK »rtlih llul Ihw umn nj% ptrj\»rt%l h menw vadrt mr JWnl wpff- % »«4in iritJ llul I jm » Julv n'jtnirtrJ Ci« il tn|pnm inj Ljnil Surmuf undrf the i4 Ihr SUIr (4 LiiitnrM44 M2 473 4141 LUik S Stiniio« r* r+ TJ rr i/> O o» o c c 3 .o# m n- n -I o# rr T3 n> a> o» -5 cn •— . U) ^ d is>* -*i OJ ro • tn •1 ^ — (D Q. o -h rt (• O# ^ n> r» 3 O «-► • 3 O r*‘ “h f\»=r•s|<» r> - n 3- (9 ^ O o -«i m c • o» D V» lA O rt ar -♦» lO<o u> ZT O -• (* r*i CT > Om (/> o 30 oz o -n 30 m 3 i/> m trt '00 I/I (D o (t •Z C r^ ■ 0 ^ 3 r*^ rt> m 3 0* X • ui o r» m 30 O 01 O *H 3 C IQ O# r» -1 3 I® ro <t> w *n Z o z o -I (D -•* r» U> 3 3 -* O (D Ol O tn rf O -H 3C f» ri* (V : ■ • •’ • ♦ • * : : • » "m ■ ••# ^ V ■. 11 • 'i i : A. •. .. ». . / . * • * • ‘ *.* •> . . ’ - V • • W .• • »• • • • • 0- % North I#:'Hk ■ \- ‘ .'■*’■ -r tiBRONN .'East lin# o4sw 1/4. Soctlon 27-118-23 Jt___________1 ----i------------------------- - • ROAO k •• * * •» : » ‘ •;< • t ^ \-- “... ■ »?•I • To:Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:November 17, 1995 Subject:#2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 3390 North Shore Drive - Maxwell Bay Public Water Access - Commercial Site Plan Review • Public Information Meeting Zoning District: B-2, Lakeshore Business District Application: Request for Cit>/public comment and input regarding the proposed Maxwell Bay public water access. NOTE:While the DNR technically is exempt from complying with local zoning ordinances, the DNR has involved the City and the public in a review process that has taken place over the last three years. This public information meeting and plan review is being held at the request of the DNR to allow the public the opportunity to review the plan and provide input on the access construction and landscaping plans prior to City final approval. The de% elopment of this public water access plan was based upon discussions the MnDNR has had with area residents, the Orono Lake Use Committee and City stalf. The DNR has incorporated numerous design elements and changes into the plan which were a direct result of these meetings. The public water access construction plan is based on a compilation of the City and area residents’ input and DNR design requirements. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - Application & Submittal Letter Plat Maps (Site and Notification Area) Property Owners’ List Public Notice Site Topography Map Preliminary Site and Grading Plan Landscape Plan Toilet Screen Detail Information Board Detail Skimmer Detail Hardcover Calculations Zoning File #2085 November 17. 1995 Page 2 L - Selected Exhibits Documenting Review Process to Date DNR Proposal #2, Januaiy 21. 1992 Lake Use Committee Comments to DNR, March 31, 1993 Maxwell Bay Residents' Committee Comments, April 3, 1993 DNR Response/Update. September 6, 1994 Selected Lake Use Committee Meeting Minutes M - Letter from Attorney General's Office re: Exemption Background Summary Pursuant to their goal of providing public access to Lake Minnetonka, in October 1991 the ''•nnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) obtained an option to purchase the 1.5 acre 'Straley property" east of Lakeside Marina for dev'elopment of a public access. On January 6, 1992. the Orono City Council held a public hearing to review the DNR’s proposal for development of the Straley site. The Straley location met with significant resistance from both the City and its residents. On Januaiy 21, 1992. the DNR held a public informational meeting and open house, and suggested a second proposal in which DNR agreed to delay purchase of the Straley site while investigating purchase of Gayles Marina, Lakeside Marina and/or properties between them as a better alternative for an access site, which the City generally supported. Later in 1992 the DNR completed purchase of the Straley site and tq;)plied for LCMR funding in order to pursue the possible acquisition of Gayles Marina and adjacent properties. In November 1992, the Orono Planning Commission held a public information meeting for review of the conceptual site plan for the Gayles site. The Orono Lake Use Committee held three meetings in February and March 1993, resulting in the March 31, 1993 letter to the DNR (Exhibit L-2) indicating the Lake Use Committee's comments and concerns regarding the concept plan. A Maxwell Bay Residents' Committee also submitted comments to the DNR and to the City early in April 1993. These comments were reviewed at a meeting between the DNR and Lake Use Committee on April 14, 1993. During the remainder of 1993 and into 1994, the DNR obtained LCMR funding and pursued acquisition of the Gayles Marina site and adjacent properties. In September 1994, the DNR submitted a revised site plan and a letter of response to the City's 1993 comments and concerns. The Lake Use Committee subsequently met with the DNR in November 1994 and again in January 1995. Zoning File #2085 November 17,1995 Page 3 Having acquired the Gayles site and the Crystal Bay Service site in 1994, the DNR proceeded v\ith resolving fuel contamination issues at those sites, and in 1995 acquired the Dunn and Sprague properties to the east In the fall of 1995, buildings uerc removed from the acquired properties. On October 6, 1995, the Lake Use Committee met with the DNR to review the status of the project as well as continue discussions on site planning issues, resulting in the current "preliminary site plan" being submitted for Cit}' and public comment prior to expected commencement of construction in the spring of 1996. Zoning Issues While the DNR is not subject to local zoning ordinances, the DNR has worked closely with the City on site design, in order to create an access that is functional yet remaining sensitive to the natural environment as well as the residential nature of surrounding areas. The site has been zoned for commercial use since 1957, although that portion on the south side of North Shore Drive is zoned residential. Less than 1% of the City's land area, and only 2.2% of Orono’s Lake Minnetonka shoreline, is zoned for commercial uses. The remainder is zoned for single family residential use. During the reviewr process to date, the DNR was requested by the Lake Use Committee to be especially sensitive to specific City concerns in the redevelopment of this site: Minimiyatinn of hardcover. While the Gayles Marina and Crystal Bay Service sites were almost totally covered with hard surface, the adjacent residential lots were relatively low in hardcover. Overall, existing hardcover in the 0-75’ zone was 67.9%, where the B-2 zoning standards allow no hardcover. In the 75-250' zone, overall pre-existing hardcover was 66.1%, where the standard is 25%. The DNR proposal would reduce 0-75’ hardcover from 67.9% to 23.5%, while resulting in a slight increase from 66.1% to 69.7% in the 75-250 zone. Including both zones, total site hardcover decreases from 66.8% to 52.6%. f .nkp«;hnre setback. The B-2 zoning standards require 75’ setback for structures as well as hardcover. The intent is to create a 75’ "buffer zone’’ at the lakeshore. The westerly 70% of the site for many years has had virtually no buffer, with gravel parking e.xtended virtually »o the shoreline. The proposal results in parking lot setbacks ranging from 40-70’ or more from the shoreline, with grass buffer strips proposed for treatment of parking lot runoff before it reaches the lake. These buffer areas also provide a location for sigmflcant landscaping to occur.I 1 Zoning File #2085 November 17, 1995 Page 4 l.andscape plan. The B-2 standards require development of a landscape plan that provides not only for an aesthetically pleasing appearance but also provides a natural buffer and screening from adjacent users. The proposed landscape plan will result in the saving of a number of existing mature trees on the site, planting significant numbers of new trees on the site, as well as substantial shrubbery and wildflower/prairie planting areas. The proposed landscape areas exceed the B-2 code requirements for a 10' side yard landscape area, 10' along County Road 51. and 25-30’ lakeshore landscape area. Per the B-2 requirements, the parking area is intended to be curbed or otherwise provided with physical barriers to eliminate the encroachment of vehicles onto the landscape areas. Except for parking areas and designated walking paths, all groundcover in landscape areas is proposed to be living materials. Additional issues related to the B-2 District standards have been addressed, including: Site access. The B-2 Code requires that vehicle access points through the perimeter landscaping areas be limited in width. The ramp area comprises appro.ximately 75' in width or about 10% of the 700’+ length of shoreline along the parking area. Further, access from adjacent roadways is limited to the separated entrance and exit located along Tonkawa Road, with no access to the more heavily traveled North Shore Drive. A westbound/northbound right turn lane along North Shore Drive will allow stacking of vehicles out of the normal driving lanes durmg peak use periods. However, interior stacking capability is quite significant given the lineal nature of the site. Note that DNR has been working with Hennepin County regarding development of the turn lane and regarding the entranre/exit locations. Sanitary facilities. Although the B-2 standards require sanitary facilities connected to public sewer, DNR is proposing the seasonal installation of portable toilets, with suitable screening. This would appear to be appropriate from the transient-type use of the site and the need for minimal maintenance and to minimize security issues. Lighting. B-2 standards require that lighting on the premises be shielded so that no direct glare can be seen from adjoining residences, from the lake or from the roadway. Lighting is proposed only at the ramp area and at the exit/entrance area, and will be directed downward to meet City requirements. Hours of operation. The B-2 standards limit retail sales and service for a normal marina to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The Code does not address suitable hours for a public access, but this has been a topic for Zoning File #2085 November 17, 1995 Page 5 discussion during the rexiew process. The City has discussed the appropriateness of setting official "closed" hours for the access site, but has reached no specific conclusion. Also discussed has been the vvinter use of this access, with the City preferring it be closed. Trash and gn^h.^ge control. The B-2 standards require the provision of garbage cans or dumpsters on the site. DNR is proposing to not provide such containers, since their experience has been that if no trash containers are provided, users will cany out their trash; but when cans are provided, they attract nuisance garbage as well as that from users of the access. nrainage. The B-2 standards require that drainage plans be developed and implemented to manage the expected quantity of runoff and enhance its quality prior to discharge to the lake. The DNR is proposing natural grass sheet flow areas. All site drainage must flow prior to discharge to the lake. Additionally, each sheet flow absorption/filtration area will be provided with a skimmer to collect floating debris from the runoff. Additional Issues (Addressed or to be Addressed) In addition to the items noted above, in March, 1993 the City noted these additional concerns: • Traffic flow on the site should be designated as one-way. The proposal is for a one-way counterclockwise flow pattern, with the southerly Tonkawa Road curb cut being the entrance and the northerly curb cut being the exit. This maximizes the sight distance for car-trailers leaving the site. . The mouth of the ramp backup apron will be striped to discourage "short- circuiting". . The three ramp lanes are proposed to be striped, although the Orono Police have suggested that while striping provides drivers with a guide for backing, it also can result in potential user conflicts. . The City proposed that the southerly row of parking spaces be back-in car- trailer parking only, similar to what is used at the North Arm Landing. The DNR has not implemented this suggestion for a number of reasons including: traffic flow, user backing capabilities, etc. The DNR has widened the lane between the parking blocks to 30' from its original 25’ proposal. Zoning File #2085 November 17, 1995 Page 6 In addition to the proposed right turn stacking lane westbound on North Shore Drive/northbound on Tonkawa, it is intended that the existing bypass lane on eastbound North Shore Drive just west of Tonkawa be expanded and extended to allow for continuous traffic flow should stacking occur in the eastbound driving lane. Note that no accommodation has been made for stacking in southbound Tonkawa, and while the City expects low volumes of car trailer traffic from southbound Tonkawa, this actual usage pattern will need to be monitored. The City has purposely assigned a North Shore Drive address to the access to discourage the use of Tonkawa Road as a route to the access fix)m the north. Car-trailer parking has been eliminated on County Roads 51 and 135. While this has forced car-trailer parking onto certain nearby neighborhood streets in the interim, it is expected that the 80 car-trailer spaces provided at this access will eliminate most of the local on-street car-trailer parking. The Lake Use Committee suggested that DNR give special attention to the number and size of trees and shrubs to be placed on the site, with the intent to provide a finished natural landscape as soon as possible. DNR has significantly exceeded their normal standards for plantings in addressing this concern. Regarding the fishing pier, DNR proposes a bituminous path from the northwesterly parking area to the pier, generally paralleling the shoreline. It is proposed that the existing cyclone fence be eliminated, and that where the pathway is adjacent to Tonkawa Road, a railing along the pathway be installed. The Lake Use Committee initially expressed concern about this safety aspect as well as whether shore fishing would be limited to specific areas to avoid e.xcessive pedestrian traffic negatively impacting the grass buffer areas. The Lake Use Committee and the DNR consider this to be a boat launching facility and not a park. Therefore, picnic tables and benches will not be provided. 15 car only parking spaces are provided near the fishing pier area for fisherman, canoeists or boaters using cartop carriers, etc. The site will be posted "No Swimming". Additionally, the DNR proposes an information board sufficient to eliminate the clutter of individual signage. There has been discussion regarding the use of a "milfoil bin" near the ramp, which DNR suggests may attract trash. Milfoil control is an issue that needs to be further addressed. Zoning File #2085 November 17,1995 Page 7 The DNR has provided a separate •'make readj- dock” awdy from the ramp area as well as a boat beaching area, to assist in traffic flow at the ramp. DNR proposes to do shoreline stabilization where necessary on the site. The DNH has been proactive in dealing with Aicl conUmination cleanup at the site as well as dealing appropriately with existing wells, foundation removal, sewer line capping, etc. The City has expressed concern as to the impact of this site on the neighboring marinas. Note that the proposed access ramp will be approximately 200* west of Lakeside Marina’s ramp area, therefore minimizing boat traffic conflicts. The final issue addressed during previous reviews is operation and maintenance of the site. DNR will be responsible for maintenance of this site, although there is the possibility of an agreement with the County for certain maintenance aspects. Note that it is the goal of the City that the Maxwell Bay Access will relieve pressure on the North Arm Access and potentially eliminate the amount of time spent by Orono Police on traffic control during peak use periods. The City has also expressed concern that winter use of the site is not intended, is potentially risky with the location near the channel and adjacent marina which may "bubble" all wdnter. Items for Consideration 1.Have all concerns of the public and Planning Commission regarding this access been suitablv addressed? 2.Are there specific issues which the DNR should address before presenting this proposal to the Citv Council for final approval on December 11? 3.Are there specific site plan concerns in regard to any of the following major topics discussed above: Off-site traffic accommodation. On-site traffic accommodation. Landscaping. Stormwater control. Fishing pier. Amenities. Operation and maintenance. Other. Zoning File #2085 November 17,1995 Page 8 Staff RecoBBfiidatioB Given the DNR's exemption from local zoning requirements but in light of their spirit of cooperation on this project over the past three years, a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Plaimin r Commission should identify any specific concerns that should be addressed by the DNR prior to the December 11 Council meeting. Similarly, since this is a public information meeting, any comments by members of the public should be forwrarded to the Council. J CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION City APPLICANT (Larry Killien) NamCMn/nNR Tra-ilg & Address e;nr> T,wf;^ypM-<» Rnad--------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____________________:---------- Phone (home)______________ Phone (work) fti2-297-29Il c- Da,n _Zip__ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address City Zip. DateProperty Acquired 1994-1995----------—- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels ot land. FEES - with CUP application $125.00 Residential Accessory Use $200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $175.00 Guest House/Guest Apanments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg (month/year) ~ $250.00 Commercial/Industrial U.se “ $200.00 Land Alteration „ ^ . Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore ■pRD/PID - see Fee Schedule ^ ■“ $100.00 Renewal Fee (no change from onginal application) ■” After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS>C $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+consultant fees) Exempt $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation ■--------$ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ' $300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Commercial Previous Present Use of Property Residential X Other(cp^riMMarina. Service, Station REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owiars within 350 ’, labels and plat map (you must obtain th. Mst. labels and map from Hennepin Count}’ Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). . List of the legal names (include marital satus) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (sec staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE CUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENT^ SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has nc' been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete Initials of Clerical Staff: ----------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant herebv agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Administrator agrees to pay additional fees’^ (staff time not covered by onginal fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and cerufies that the informatioa supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. * - Applicant’s signamr f t Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE . ui The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff consultants, agents, commission members, and CouncU members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. DateOwner’s signatur^gi^^r^^^ -----------------------^----------------------- A I m,.« have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning ApphcMt mus b ^ Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled p'cMC make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. : '7E' .............. .• /I-Z- Minnesota Department of Natural Resources .MX! Lafj>cne Road Si Paul. MinncNou 55155-40. October 26, 1995 Mr. Mike Gaffron Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Maxwell Bay Zoning Commission Review Application Mr. Gaffron: The MNDNR is submitting the plans for the development of a Public Water Access at 3390 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono. The project involves the conversion of five parcels from their existing uses to a Public Water Access Site. This conversion involves the demolition of all of the existing structures. Oversight of the cleanup of fuel contaminated soils, sealing of wells and sewers, and a general site cleanup. The new site will include three launch ramps, four ADA accessible docks, an accessible pathway and fishing pier, portable toilets and screening, parking for boaters and fishing pier users, shoreline improvements, storm water management, landscaping and other amenities. We are hopeful that the site review will help the City staff and members of the public to understand the project and assist us in this access site development. Sincerely, Lawrence M. Kiiii'en Water Access Specialist c: Dennis Asmussen, Director, Trails and Waterways DNR Information: 612-296-6157. I-«(X)-766-6<XK) • ITY: 612-296-54.S4. !-800-657-3929 An Opr* "unu> Km oyer Who Valuer bi%crMiy 0% Pnmed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum of l(Kt PoM-Consumer W‘a>lc ita • \ ^ \___________ i_________ /- vfZ : \»V /^Wxr «••*«* \\m 1*4 .*% \f’ ----------------------------...................................................^ rfrariTa- g-2-; / / ,\.Vr- 1}s\ 0 ''^-X-.VE- =.y V *^“3.*y* ^ X•V AV'.'X .'X* \xn)-.VJS^NV m ♦ ;/•’ \ . J - f-j i« «j •!^in • li—J*- I • ir; •.. a,. I »JJf* ?v?iT.^- •••:• '" ■='*• I ' s* ♦ Ii2l ^ »/;; I ■■ ■ r 1^ ••• » r= \ \ /' \t 4<%l - \S5! I V I ;;i-* a3 ZCR ^ 'f^ *V/ i 582 *•., /\iOVf^lCAcfio^ - /S' (’Afic.iTLS 3S73 -P 6AV(:±VS> V ^.1 t ^(2£J^ dS i Til *■ covr LOT I GOVT lot Propoorty Owners List for Application #2085 08-117-23 13 0009 John fc Anne Bendt 1120 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0010/11 Marvin Borman 3300 Norwest Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 08-117-23 13 0020 John & Janet Watson 1070 Tonkawa Road Long Latke, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0019 Keith fc Susan Swart 1060 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0013 Robert & Joan Bauman 1040 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0015 Robert & Debra Edmunds 1030 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0014 Doug & Margaret Williams 1020 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 12 0005 Raymond Hoffman 1000 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 12 0001 Dr. L & M Dorr 980 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 12 0002 David 6 Marilyn Booth 970 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 12 0003/4 William & Lori Cornelius 960 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 21 0006 Bruce Engelsma 990 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 21 0017 Gary Krimmel 960 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 21 0007 Dr. Maland Hurr 930 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 21 0008 Edward & Barbara Eschbach 900 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 21 0009 Robert & Joyce Humboldt 850 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 05-117-23 43 0001 Jerry & Cynthia Gray 880 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 05-117-23 21 0009 Hunt Greene/Jane Piccard 065 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 05-117-23 43 0004/44 0001/02 Fullerton Lumber Co P.O. Box 30 Minneapolis, MN 55440 04-117-23 33 0010 David Maas P.O. Box 392 Long Lake, MN 55356 05-117-23 44 0003 William & Judith Trubeck 3300 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 04-117-23 33 0011 Alan & Susan Carlson 3125 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 05-117-23 44 0004 Donna Lukis 3250 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 04-117-23 33 0007 Phillip Dadaill 3067 Farview Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 4-117-23 33 0008 :d & Karen Baker 059 Farview Lane lOng Lake, MN 55356 04-117-23 33 0009 Ronald & Susan Burger 3051 Farview Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 09-117-23 21 0005/1 Judson & Elizabeth Dayton 825 Old Crystal Bay Rd S Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 21 0004/6 Leonard Carpenter 15500 Wayzata Blvd #1020 Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 13 0018 Thomas Smith 1205 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Property Owners List for Application #2035 09-117-23 24 0001 Henn Co Park Reserve Rte 1, Box 296 Maple Plain, MN 55359 09-117-23 32 0003 Jack Swenson 3020 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0004 James 6 Rosella DePietro 3048 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0017 Duane Brodersen 3060 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0019 Laurence Reardon 3080 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0006 Daniel & Deberah McGlynn 3090 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0007 David & Pennie Pomije 3120 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0008 Ken & Jaye Ann Zullo 3160 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0009 Paul & Beverly Blomberg 3180 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0010 F & M Pacovsky 3186 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23-41-0001 Lillian Bonander 3200 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 41 0002 Barbara Millard 3210 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-118-23 41 0004/5/6 North Shore Marina Inc. 3222 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 41 0008 Stephen & Beth Brown 3262 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 44 0011 Joseph & Mary Dooling 3220 Bohns Point Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 08-118-23 41 0004/5/6 North Shore Marina Inc 1415 Toledo Ave N Golden Valley, MN 55422 08-117-23 44 0018 08-117-23 41 0011/10 State Of MN-DNR Tax Spec 1201 East Hwy 2 Grand Rapids, MN 55744 08-117-23 44 0008 F E & L Churchill 3260 Bohns Point Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 08-118- 23 41 0007 Daniel Torberg 3260 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 44 0019 Metro Waste Control Comm Mears Park Centre 230 E 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55101 08-117-23 41 0021/12 08-117-23 44 0005 James Dunn 3324 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 41 0013 Mrs. Ida Kane 3332 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 43 0016 Kenath & Donna Stein 3400 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 43 0017 Daniel Regan 3410 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 43 0018 Ambrose & Alice Kivus 3420 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 42 0004 Gale L Putnam 1365 Tonkawa Road Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 •.! 0001 Fred Guttormson/ Chic Dwight 1220 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0006 Richard Engelbretson 1180 Tonkawa Road jOng Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0007 Randy Holland Eric Sullivaui 1160 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0008 Richard Kyle 1140 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 5535<t CERTIPICATK OP MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. CITY OF ORONO I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #2085, was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 6th day of November, 1995. Jamie Bosma T) CITY OF ORONO NOTICE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MAXWELL BAY PUBLIC WATER ACCESS The Orono Planning Commission will hold a plan review and public information meeting on Monday November 20, 1995 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Paricway on the matter of application #2085, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ request for a Commercial Site Plan Review for the construction of the Maxwell Bay Public Water Access. The access construction will begin in the Spring of 19% on the site of the former Gayle’s Marina and adjoining properties. The site is at 3390 North Shore Drive in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Countv Roads 51 and 135. This public information .necting and plan review is being held at the request of the MNDNR to allow the public the oppo.tunity to review the plan and provide input on the access construction and landscaping plans, prior to City final approval. The development of this public water access plan is based upon discussions that the MNDNR has had with Area residents, the Orono Lake Use Committee and City staff. These meetings have taken place over the last three years. The MNDNR has incorporated numerous design elements and changes into the plan which were a direct result of these meetings. The Public Water Access construction plan is based on a compilation of the City and area residents input and the MNDNR design requirements. The MNDNR, though not required to receive any local permits or approvals, looks forward to the review process as a positive step in the continuation of the development of this Public Water Access. All persons wishing to review the plans of the Public Water Access site are welcome to attend aiKl will be offered the opportunity to offer constructive commenls on the construction plans. Written comments will be acce|«ed through 4:30 p.m. November 20, 1995. A copy of the site plan is available for public review in the City Offices. City of Orono By : Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator To be published the weeks of November 5 and 12, 1995 o _ is ! » • * 'm i • I ; ; r. \f i- • i V ; vi; 55«s° ^ > p im MHIififl m' ' IffPI „ tflu VU ei3o8!:88& r •»•!%•! r •■' T r r V B ili 3r3i^ hi :^:is ■ i f *•. rjv^ 5 5^ l.r 1% ■§ r i?.jf.-.0;'4' :§U;i '•‘1 '■■■.•’■^nrt^ I :'"'i sik^o-O- S ^1 It I IIIr s> ri: •p r •I?4 I I I . *-• <• {•.. V r‘ ^Vc..'/'••-‘A Kj *. a - ••V *v •••- Av' • r•:r c vY„«* imC i:?is • > ,„ .**•F< .*:*.’•■ ;; IL'rv ' O I a VjN * fiNP pgL 4C\rmn\ muv/ pHfc -rfWKTW? V/mt CCAy (P^ TCP £7.4- vt>/cxk. PC Fermnc^. (au ub/ai.pr pctajipet? ftT^ ^FCUHc? f ) Au- PA-?TWCP.» 4mJ- ee coNrtp. «HAU- Be LA^ C:C?UP5IP -fZ7 , /z." < v/t", 1. PK»- ChiP; I .4 fc' 4 4+-AU- ce. fA$?ItaiKP VfTVI VtC¥, I^*, Ht^^P-l-r^b+TAU K|CHe«^. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RiSOURCiS BUREAU OF ENGINEERING Drawn S* #y CHackad . U4»KA Datvm ilavita^ ceTAll>?^wc^ m4<jc: PPK. Hot^\tAX. fi3fwi£ TPiLerwrm AtX7iTlP»^L NC?H AC.4^84»^feLF: fpc. !li««t M flU 15» 4x8 MORTISE - 4x2x1 1/2’4’ MIN. - 6 ’ MAX. PLYWOOD k MOLDING DOWEL BOLT - 3/8 X 5’ CADMIUM plated CARRIAGE BOLT - countersink m-i .1 Pm: L ■ I L-J- —J . I li £J L- U.J- 12’ SECTION INFORMATION BOARD #1 - FRONT VIEW SCALE: 3/4"-V-0*SCALE: 3/4"-1*-0" NOTES; WOOD ABOVE GROUND TO BE STAINED WITH BROWN EXTERIOR LATEX PAINT. REFER TO ONR SIGN MANUAL FOR COLOR SPECIFICATIONS. WOOD TO BE CCA/ACZA TREATED TO 0.4 LB/CU.FT. RETENTION. BULLETIN BOARD PLYWOOD TO BE EXTERIOR GRADE (AC). 2-1/4’ SHEETS SACK TO BACK (GLUED). MOLDING STRIPS TO BE USED ON BOTH SIDES TO HOLD PLYWOOD IN (MOLDING TO BE 1/2’ x 1/2’). IF A LEXAN WINDOW IS DESIRED - USE INFORMATION BOARD N0.2, SDG.00014, SHEET #7. BUREAU OF ENGINEERING DttiQner Date LISKA JUNE 78 Design Unit/Region Supr. (Intis) SITE DEVELOPMENT Revision OQte(s) AUG 94 (R.L.) MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION DETAILS INFORMATION BOARD #1 Dole Assistant Administrator Digital Hordcopy I X \ Sheet No. M nie No.SDG .00014 3 ’ OiTCH BOTTOM 3:1 S.DESL^=^ FLOV^ - “• 1 c ~>r“' " D!TCH T r — 5< - •’ 5 /o’*• — / Z ^\r^. ----^ A'-SHEO FIVER • STONE - 12” ThiCK FLOW T—PLAN VIEW _■•■'• SCALE: r=10 ’-0" \ : C\ 1 COMPACTED SwBGRADE ------------ ■ I '/'y />' -X NO I lS: ALu 'WOOD TO EE RED OR SOUTHERN YELLOW PINE. CCA CR AC2A TREATED TO 0.6 LBS./CU. FT. RETENTION. ATTACH 2”x12” ’s WITH NCN- CCRROSIVE LAG BOLTS. V i i V.^ ' ' /“BOTTOM V i ' I: V 10 ’ 6"x6” TiUBER TO DEPTH REGL'RED FOR STABiUTY. <l SECTION SCALE: 1/2"-1 ’-0” ■ms IP^ mm i l!/( \ COMPACT-' /)( SUaCRADE ^1! f -■i':Si? ^'/.iJr----6"x6'’ TIMBERV V SKIMMER - VIEW DOWNSTREAM SCALE: 1/2 ’’=1 ’-0” 3UREAU OF ENGINEERING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Zts-yt- Ds'.e = R.-C<E FEE £5 CONSTRUCT ON DETAILS OeS'C-- ^n.t/*^t9ion Supr. (intls^ I-E DEVELC^VENT ••*vs cn jote<s> JiJL'' 94 (S.9.) SKIMMER ww'e M D.9-.3' (XI Hardcopy I X I - - s:'c:c* S*eei No ^ri*e No. S 3 G ,000b DNR BUREftiJ OF ENG.TEL:6r2-2-:«?-5818 Oct 27 95 15:17 No.006 P.02 HARDCOVER CALCULATIOIM WORKSlffiET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) f(pS*y 75-250’ 250-500’* ^ SXKIOQO’ (JA-Y uWt. 4^EPaS <3rT. c-o: |Aj^ f3«55 EXISTTNO nARDCO\’ra IS ZONE A. Houte a^jL AVC (<>30 S.F Len|Ji J B. C. Dnvc\*(ay X X X 3 /r't D. SideM^alk E. Paio/Dcck F. Liuidst:ipc Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X 2^G. Other _ TOTAL HARDCOVr.R IN ZO TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A PROpo«;Fn ^lAUpCOVER LN ZONE A. House ______________* length B. Garage C. Dilvcway X X X :Prr Widik /Y -f’H' S.F. •S.F. 7 35 S.F. 10 ^0 S.F. "^V, S'OO S.P. —«S.F. -2»mm AO S.F. m 1—— S.F. f/h S.F. a — S.F. S.F. as — s.r. s ------ S.F. 533 -5fC 4/4 S.F. (3 -7^^, (? -75 «)74 »joo S3 43,+33 S.F. S.F. A-r.9 ft *V S.F. Width \ S.F. fs \ S.F. \ S.F. S V S.F. «« S.F. *----- ■ S.F. D. Sidewalk E. PjttlOTOcek I*. Landsc.ii« Underlain By Plastic :lT7 1^. 1 12^5 X X X X X X X niS -s.p.ig s.p. C. Other s !f ! s.p. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE„..L„iSSi £2i S.F. S.F. S.P. % A a A B DNR BUREAU OF ENG.TEL:6l2-297-53l8 Oct 27 95 15=17 No.006 P.03 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET FA<M SA't OHvJ MMC (i}Xl -fSiSS EXISTING HARDC0\1:R IN 70XF. ^*^75-250^ 250-500’ • ' 50IK1000* ■^ilsSl^rr A. House f1 6^> ^Li B Canges C. Driveway D. SiJewallc OI-A6 X X X IT »7-?5 <7NJe!5i7./<r7i 51 ^ 5^6□3! B es w E. l*»7trfffeek.S't^~^ lO "ftVO xY 9<6F. Llnffafiiin DC ftXiTfc G. Oihcr X X X X X X X X X >* X 71^ <50 /a. .si 31 o =B¥^ TOTAI. HARDC OVER IN ZONE 75 -^5^ *♦• m7 TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE X 100 PROPOSED HARl>COVEK IN ZONE A. House ______________ LtnfUi Wiilili B. Cange X X X C. Driveway ____ x t0\^fkk4 kt^ tP X D. Sidewalk ______________ E. Paijo/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 0. Other X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 75* ^ total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 75 ' A __________ -i- B ____________ X 100 S.F. -ji3±. lilk\o^ LO lyiO 16 0 S.F. S.F. S.F. J')*. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. I ___S.F. S.F. 33^ S.F. S.F. _28^33 jL S.F. s.p. I % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B A B -•: Dr4R BUPEfiU OF ENG. SETBACK ZONE: (CrRCLE ON FXIS1T>G tURnrO>TR LN ZONE A. House _______________ UnctA TEL 95 IS^l? No.006 P.04 'J'C/TAI^ Mi HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET Ia /A*. o 25Q-5Q0’ • SMMOQir WiMt B. Gar^e C. Diiveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape UndCiUm By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X S.F. s.r. S.F. S F. S P. S F. S.F. SF. S.r. S.F. S.F. S.r. S.F. S F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE O -^50 f TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE C7 - -F __________ + B * lO'J “ PROPOSED HABtM-OVER IN ZONK A. HuuSC __________ -- * ---- / >5,773-^ S.F. FA % Lenfth WiM B. Garngc C. Driveway D. Sidewal!: X X X E. Paiio/Dcck ____ F. Landscape Underlain ___ By Plastic __ X X A X X X X X X G. Other mi S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE ^ .2^0 -h TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ - ^5"« f A ® M2X^^ * 100 /-Zy i3S S.F. A B Ml 1^ StAIi Of 4-1 I ^DEPARTMENT OF natural resources FILE NO PHO««CNO T*rK KIIIBTOIIA public fATO ACCESS PBOPOSAL 92 January 21, 1992 is described in tie Concept Flan document accompanying this document. '3: S BS HHS irS- SLf-SrrlS place in a joint meeting on January 16, 1S»2 of the City, the LKCD, th LHLOA and the DSH. Proposal #2 consists of the following actions; zv.r^.i ?Tor‘to st„.x the feasibility of purchasing and developing the Gayle a the Lakeside Marina site, and residential property located between the two marinas in addition to the property Included In is undertaken. Uses of this larger area may Include a combination of a public access, shore fishing, fishing pier, o^n space and uses deemed aprr opr late by the cooperators in the study. If decided feasible, the cooperators will Jointly support and obtain funding from the LCKR, Metropolitan Council, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and other sources deemed appropriate. Difi aggrees to postpone development of the Proposal #1 site until this cooperative effort is completed or is determined infeasible. ^ ^ . . A task force is established consisting of all implement the public access- siting process as called for la the LMCD plan for management of Lake Minnetonka. The task force will proceed immediately to meet the plan's objectives. Proposal #2 addresses the following concerns: 1) Proposal #1 represents a responsive, rather than * This would be an addition to traffic associated with three marinas, i tt. lorth Ar. Access sits, end resldeots o£ tta area. 3) Soft density in the vicinity of the sarlnas, Hanwell Bay, and on Lake Klnsetocka in general. 4) Concerns over the compatibllty of the access In Proposal #1 with the zoning ordinance and standards of the Cit/ of Orono. Rationale and Benefits of Proposal #2: 1) Vill be a cooperative effort allowing all the parties to have influence on the outcoaw. while ensuring progress towards Inproving public access to Lake Hinnetonka. 2) Kay possibly result in aeeting Zone 1 parking goals called for in the 1563 Lake Hinnetonka Task Force Report and the 1551 LKCD plan. 3> Kay result in creation of a multi-purpose site providing several forsB of public recreation. 4) Vill allow for developsent coi^Tatible with the land use goals expressed by the City and LKCD. 5) Creates a aechanisa to address the concerns mentioned above. It is suggested that the LKCD lead and provide the framework for completion of Parts 2 and 3 of this proposal. This is consistent with the LKCD’s role as coordinator of public access issues described in the LKCD management plan. It is further suggested that the task force proposed in Part 3 consist of all communities, whether they have adopted the plan or not, the DFR, the LHLOA, Hennepin County, and all other parties Identified as having a role in the LKCD plan. It is hoped this proposal will begin the process of cooperative, successful efforts to reach the goals for providing reliable public access to Lake Hinnetonka, while meeting the needs and concerns of the communities and citizens of the Lake Hinnetonka area. Further informatian on both Proposal #1 and Proposal #2 can be obtalnad by attending the Public Open House hosted by the DIS betweea the hours of 4:00 PI 8:00 Pl« January 21, 1992 at the Orono Educational Link Building. If unable to attend the Open House, further information any be obtained or cumments made by calling: Gordon Kimball, Begional Superrisor or Kart ha Reger, Vest Area Supersiaor Metro Region Trails and Vaterwsys Kinnesota Department of latural Resources C612) 772-7935 %' t^-'L ^ iCi.1 /a ^ I - , - : V «f, 9m *. * c IM.§k 7^ii- yjfi.'lg^^ ■ % , j < CITY of ORONO Munxfpai CfS» PoaOiEc*Bo«« Cntxal Bar. Mino«»« Gordon Kimball Trails Operations Super/isor Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Gordon: Enclosed are the thoughts, comTOnis. ^d gggoso otgJty Charles -h SXrSd donunissioners Cand, Row.ette and Charles Schroeder. , u i, crt<.nf reviewing Site planning and zoning issues, also giving The Committee s time has coLiittee ’s comments and suggestions should not some thought to the operational p ' . ^ Orono, but rather the first step m Police Officer Kurt Erickson. we looh fon^ard to meeting widi you on April 14. Please contact me at 473-6633 or Mike Gaffton at 473-7357 if you have any q-aesuons. Sincerely. . Diann Goenen Chair, Lake Use Committee JDG/lsv „c- Mayor CaUahan and Orono CouncUmembers Ron Moorse. City Administrator Lake Use Committee Enclosures telephone -473-73S7 • FAX-.*73-aflO CITY OF ORONO OLTLINE OF LAKE USE COMMITTEE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MAXWELL BAY ACCESS *\LARCH 1993 I.Traffic Patrsm and Lavout# A. On-site B. Off-sue n. Landscaping in. Fishing Pier rv. Amenities (Liahtina, toilets, etc.) V. Environmental Issues (Stormwater controls, rip rapping, dredging restoration, site preparation, etc.) VI. Operation and Mamtenancc Vn. Other Issues • J. I. Traffic Pattern and Layout (see sketch) A. On-site 1. Traffic fiow should be designated as one-way throughout the site. This mav result in the need for a mid-site crossover to acccmLiiOdatw auto o > m traffic. 2. Two curb cuts should be developed, the most southerly desigMted "Entrance Onlv" and the most northerly "Exit Only". The purpose of is to increase exiting sight distance for car-traUer traffic leavmg the site. Consider a barrier (or striping) across the mouth of the ramp backup waiting area to eiimiiiate short circuiting. 4 We’ve received mixed reviews regarding striping the three ramp lanes and the use of make-ready docks within the ramp. Please give us some background regarding the ramp width, striping of ramp lanes versus not stripin-, your e.xperience with the use of docks between the ramp lanes, and generally a shon overview of how you e.xpect this ramp to ftmeuon. 5 Given a positive e.xperience with back-in car-traUer parking partially on orass at North Arm Landing, we would suggest strongly that the southwest foop be omined. and this area as well as the remamder of the south row be re-^<^led for car-trailer back-in parking with surmountable swale and^s for traders; also consider widening these parking spaces (but may still end up with additional total spaces!). This should also reduce hardcover... We fe-1 that the lane between the middle and southerly parking blocks shouWbe widened if possible, especially to help accomot^te ^ar- trailer parking. The proposal shows approximately 25 ; could it be widened up to 40? n Off site - We have real concerns about how this project may affect traffic flows “■ area would expect DNR to work with Hennepin County ^ City to develop a suiiable plan to address them. Our concerns mclude: 1. 2. We agree fully with the stacking right turn lane for westbound County T\oad 51. A. hv-nass lane will need to be developed (as part of this proj«t) for esstbound County Road 51 to accommodate left turning car-traders h^g on Tonka^ to the access. We are concerned about stac^ of e^ound overflow traffic ftom North Arm Landing waiting to get into the Maxwell Bay Access. 1 m. While we expect reladvely J°" southbound Tonkawa, we “Sl*' ° ^ more thought on left turns into the access during the busiest this. 4.As a result of ^^rnfvTaSgl where car " "o incompatwe (o^ maybe altogether). Elimination or on-street parkin, is of the reasons the Maxwell Bay site is attractive... n. Landscaping 1. o *» • 3. S 'r!lT“ w"o s«VSemaeS'ptoLg scSe"“^d scale site and landscape plan. Wm grass areas be bermed or flat? W'hat is best for maintenance? Fishing Pier 1. 2. Please comment on the pier desi^ (width length, handicap accessibUiV, radmg height, capacity and use cxpectanon, etc.). We anticipate nto^ c^tlmc becomes so popular “ “ ^he abUity to revisit the issue; i.e. !';St?bir^n^°S^wl along me shoteline. or potentially limiting fishing to the west half of the site, or ?.... We are concerned aboutiSrSSiSrsr.. s:» design, etc. IV. Amenities V. 5. 6. 7. “Ja. .s- conceot of using ponnble satellite toilets Sanitnr:/ facilities, a^ee at each end of the site. ui screened enclosures. We net- P; (^'e think a fountain Will you provide a founain or ru fisii cleaning on the Vtc.). This desar.xs some discuss.on. We don’t want picnic tables or benches on the site mttiaUy, but a fe.v benches might be a future consideration. wooden sign board of some sort. We would like the site to be posted "No Swimming*. We are concerned ^d‘^wm'bTmo^mSg the success North likely be minimal. It seems logical to us t^t docks extending away from the tamp area, rie Environmental Concerns CJ.. ® pn-a. ■ X”' “ ““ exist at the site. , «f the art stormwater controls (site grading, ponds, of *0 P‘“- ' provided. be rip rapping the entire shorelme... , . , The . ^nmibUitv for restoration of C3ayle ’s Ulegal dredging? The Will DNR or toolvement in this.City wants no respon-i»- iity 8. 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. We from Gayle ’s, 6. /. 8. Proposed 52% hardcover is acceptable, but might be reduced under the car trailer back-in grassed parking schematic. We assume DNR is aw^err.s“S.s r,?,* ™ for total removal of all building foundations. Again, note that a -milfoU bin' wUl help to raise the public's awareness of this issue. Yl^ Operation and Maintenance vn. 1 to be in the area regularly to do the same at North Arm... 2 Who will contract for sateUite toilet maintenance? Who wiU pay the costs of same? s.*iri"r=; - start... .u civen the nature of the site near a 5. We wish to >void^Uy o^o ^taUon (we ate Tp:” m^L^rn^n^oKrlLtance^ow does closure front 11:00 p.ot. - 5:00 a.m. strike you?). 6 in general, the City is "" and any major maintenance acuvity m the future. Other Issues for Discussion 1. 2. W, with additional site control concerns... •«amived currently pay approximately $55,000 per year in real The properties I, just over $8,000. We would tlunk an«mte taxe^ of wh^^h ^ ^ Sr-H ai" See. etc. would be appropriate. ' t»t ,*•»* 'I ---- ij/ ^ A«. ' n^ vibinsliiLi- *•••. [Q(CT.-rs C=o:-:-C [APR. .6 April 3.1993 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron ^ Assistarrt Planning 4 Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323-0066 Dear Mr. Gaffron; regarding the Maxvwell Bay access. Blomberg (471-7756). Marge Gasch (471-8178). Sincerely. Beverly Blomberg Kll ^ R^^n-a-lve. IMCO Public Acc«5 T«A Fee Director. LMLOA cc Ron Moofse. City Administrator Lake Use Committee Mayor Callahan 4 Orono Coundlmembers Gordon Kimball. DNR # •3n2Trrr±cr. /Vli?©7 C) T3r:r~rr ATTZNC.-.NCZ CITY OF OF.CNO [ZZTING DATE —nr-^c-^D BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PL2AS2 FILL OUT TK2 IMFOKLAT-ON .-^5L-—L MAI'IE (pls—ss pjrinti) NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda \ -FT A/r ^ »* ; / 2-C' 77:^-^^** -**^ ^<r/" • 9 " /*J . r» C’».. T«L 1. 15. iVir££_£Qiii • 0 maxwell bay residents concerns regarding public access traffic After discussing the following it««srrrzsr.2 tr;rsss“s;» a process to do so. I. Installation of a 3-way stop sign at-d stacking on 51 and Tonkawa); 2. Reduced speed area - signs alerting drivers that they are entering a reduced speed area; Lg%tJS^ns°3nSmH^^^ ^SedgldlSIilbuilt into lot by the DNR designers. ACCESS concerns regarding winter ac^ss ®*J currents that bo not allow for th,^^^ of Tonkawa; also HOURS Agree that since North Arm is open 24 hrs. this site would have restricted hours. landscaping Additiori of pines to soften: "park-like" look. This would be on-going. fishing pier s~. w «"•«»«•«» “™» “ provided. SANITARY FACILITIES Satelites are appropri^e, buiM that if s difficult to roll them into the water. 1 MILFOIL Signage regarding eurasian milfoil and zebra mussel; trash cans for milfoil. For Zebra mussel plan for hot water washes. PHASING IN If DNR is unable to secure funding for this large lot would it be phased in and if SO how will the City deal with this? m. A state of of natural resources Sglon6 Trails SWacenways. 1200 Warner Road. St. Paul. Minnesota 55106 phone no . {61 2J 772-7935 file no September 6.1994 Mr. Ron Moorsa City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr. Moorse; This letter »« define some of the details of the MaxweU Bay Access Oevelooment. wthin the Oty of Orono, S'mmST ^SJamTo'a tel'lf “ r»ng?th«" ;ie‘‘o™3ie°'g™p‘'5'M^^^^ where they' provided ideas and suggestions on things that should be wcludrt m the development. Listed below are the various items and how they relate to the development I. TRAFFIC PATTERN AND LAYOUT A. Design an access w«r oneway traffic flow, d agreeable to Hennepin County Highway OepwtmenC. with two curt, cuts if possible. B. Stripe the ramp area and launch lanes. if feasible and allowed by DNR Division of Waters, fc/^. C. Install two make ready docks. D. Provide a boat beaching area OFF-SITE TM ONP ag^ *aS2f” rngTJy-^r Oh Courtty Poads 51 and 135. extent possible and convert existing hardcover to turf/native vegetation wherever II. LANDSCAPING A. Limit hardcover on site to possible. B. Slope or barm the turf area to facilitate drainage C Consult with City in developing a tree planting/landscaping plan for the sta. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Hi. FISHING PIER ». .see. «s^s ~ □NR snaineerma tvpical design and on what is approonate for th B. A fence wdl be installed, if Sl^baoly be blacktooped except in one then* BOW). The path to the fishing pier vmil be ouiit to ADA standards, area vwhere a boardwalk may be needed. IV. AMENITIES A. Lighting shall be provided as required for safe operation. 8. NO oicnic eles »I1 be installed. bowe«r ACA aooroved benebes may be squired along the patb to the tisleng area. c. Informational and required signage vwll be installed on a kiosk. 0. Po^bl. to«<s, w. b. fun.,sb.d .r the boadng season « a con«» Wood»t screens w« be b«« » »*roond the toilets. E The site shall be posted *no swimming.* F. The ONR win look at tb. .ssu. of a winter gate at tbe «,tran«/boeC rwnp frpm a safer, standpoint V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Drainage plans will be developed as a part of the development plan. B. Erosion controls win be implemented dunng construction Tf« des^n «,d pneess sha. =*, tepresentat^s wid ^ .p.* from oB«r .g.bd../..,.ni«ion. .. deemed necessary. VI. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 8 EPfomement of tfw sit. sba. be . cboP.r«iv. effot between tb. «» C. Co««, «rd tb. ObR a. tnrorwjmciiw ------------------- p.as. wrderstwb,«« w^ aeais are undear at acknowMging th. Dey^ appro«l of tb«. Mm. Mm«»T«details are unclear «this acknowledging lb. Cit/s apprtMl of tb«. ■»»» I The ONFI is committed to working with the Cr/ of Orono ^ projlrt'Sd imo the future, the City has made to date and took forward to working with you throughout P L-S’ MEsTJTES of the lake use committee - March 24, 1993 «f fhf. T^e Use Comminee of the Civ/ of Orono was held pursuant to notice The \farch 24 1993 at the Orcno Council Chambers. Chairman J. Diann«7:45a.m.. WedMSdiy. MaKh.,, ^ Schroeder of Coc:=ii«o we.-o Gcenea. Mauresa ' ’ _ Moor'e Assisaiat Plaaniaa & Zoaia? Admiaisaator Michael ^^00 Budd“ Zoniag Adninis^or Jeaaae Matusda aac Deputy Cerlt Lia Vee were Frese^represeatlns staff. Mayor Callahaa was also m aaeadaace. ^ TMTrrrxse of the meetins is to discuss the concerns and questions the cotaminee to foT^a DNIt whea they appear be-fote the Lake Use Cotmniaee (probably Apnl 7 or 21). Gaffron reviewed -me of tb.e ^e Plaa ^ The staff at Hennepin County DOT. ^rono PoIk. . made more sense. The distance, especially for cars leaving the site. these tvpes oi iiLuuuwiu.™ rr s”r»"2r£Ksrr, “ have easier access. It was suggeste which takes more hardcover and forces have grass for traUer paring as nay not be necessary and there was a fo* ofm^g SK'^^ces along Lt south side adjacent to County Road 51, From a landscape and hardcover ‘^“coSn« agreed with the ^roTo^^Sn^asL^ « P^-* """ entering the lake. There are concerns over the road sysmm there room for a passing lane? Should a felt prohibiting a left mm onto thought the DNR might be able to suggest ‘o hatoe^ weekends rSrt^tlf'^ScU -came a tea. problem, there ^^^-UrES OF THE LAKE USE COMMTITEE - March 24, 1993 Should be a police off.cer to D^■K. Bellows f °aho'’Jl=oS^^c^i ^-“or^holo into this proposing a 'best, case jnu Ui ------------ The width of the on-site na..tc lane questioned if there had ™ necessary information and would have designed maer. Gaffron felt the DNR asked what the DNR’s view of a ability to successfully back into spaces.-----^ Kslliv uWd bo. i^y bt ilKuru" ”o^P >P»o“ We eiie DC DdCKwU uuuv-f curbhtg would be lower. KeUey asked what the elevation drop is at^e Mp. ^.“higher than the rri^^rte to^fne"^ moving bottom sediments around. MUfoa was discussed and the woSd L^» be decided, available for coUection but not a trash can. The maintenance tnis .M. _________________,M.u„»..t,...«=b«.«.. '‘s,s;rbS“c".s—“ ““s.rs S'aSN.rc: worked out with the DNR and County. Kelley asked if a sign were pl^ed f°‘j^“fJ°^ce°Lid*pSSr« ^e comer STd md r?h" md p^lrnromc signfs) should he discussed with the DNR- • I* •■ • • "T »n J - March 24, 1993 A * — were discussed. The Comminee would suggest one at the launch and entrance/exic coin'J. Tne lights would shine down and not out. * a.ksd sbeut th= hours. Gaffron stattd the ir.teat was to have a sian mdicatir.g 5c...e--- coctrolliEg this. Toe Police eaiorce dus at North Ugsed. Cauahan noted t^e DNK’s pos.tion is that in orde: ,0 be a qualified re“ S“s“o b'e“pen co«fiy aM the would probably negotiate on the hours of operattoa. T^e s.grt posting hours of operation at Notih Ann seems to work wed. asked how the site could be posted with hours if the DNR wants it open 24 I’-H fV'ir if the Ciev wants some control of the site, as long as there is hours. and DNR on other issues, the DNR might be wUling to negotiate agreement between the <-.t> conside- some "trade-offs”. Goenen reiterated she M'rk"?o‘«-to™c'*ss c'osed ft M time during the night and during the winter. KeUey cTcSriifttidte me hdtiai position ^ overnight d n?^ parking would be 'reflations. She did not want to receive calls cotnpiainmg or overnight noise at this access. a problem with boat propellers commg through this area. atdiis access and include wooden fencing where appropnate. Schroeder asked if the DNR were really o^ffistog“^t'’on of the goals here was to provide a fishtng^cys m W ^ ^ the lake but the only one m the area. Schroeder felt mis bring their children to the fishing pier. Gaffron stated one of the safety concern the Co^we bv fishermen on County Road 135 and one way is to prov.de off-street paxkmg a^eed there should be no parking on 135. I to accsct some responsmuu/ m at this access would likely be a ^vould be to have some sealing would collect runoff and re.e^e i floating thinzs like gasoline, etc. from the parkmg sediment with skimmers (baifle . . 45 of these with no trees m the basm. ot, from geoing to the lake. There ,,, marinas. Gaffron replied ±eys:s r^;?;rr:»'srj?s Mabusth asked if the issue of nNR^h “ eqLed Gayle’s to do some agreement from the sale may that If the DNR buys ^ “'S*''”’”® the DNR completes this dredging residential area. . . ae DNR couia not come ------------- According to Dennis from the County, ^ pam'^r placing buoys ^d barkers in the lake. Tto will^«^ touwXLfoT:Lis also but it should be noted boats and fishermen. Presumably, the DiNK woum to them. minutes of the lake use committee - March 24, 1993 Be'lows asked how restoration of an area dredged too deeply would be done. CaUahan rhoua-^t this couid be found out since it has been a subject of litigation with the Minnehaha CreelTwatershed Disu-ict and the DMl to n:ake ±eni restore this area. <tchrced-' asked if there were any ongoing disputes ber.veea Gayle’s and the Ciry. ;Sied±«v have no license but ±ere have been no coo-Tontations. Gafrron added the Cailanan re?.icw ___ haven ’t nianted the trees or orovided a lanoscape It was noted that rip rapping is expected to be placed along the entire shore, given the ongoing problems Gayle has had with mamtaimng shoreline. Kellev a<rre-d with the reouest for larger tree size and requested a more deuiJed landscape drigrai. He favors signage like that typical for state parks, wooden mstead ol me.al. TvViif-v ouestioned who would assume responsibUity for any poUuted soils at the ser/ice unks are probably in or below ±e »«'• environmental issues. If anticipated. AS discussed at the last meeting, the sanitary facilities should be screened sareUites. possibly with wooden fencing like in the parks. Kellev asked about the residences on the property and if there Gaffton thought there could be but they rankTcouW b”left as long as they are The drainfields would probably not be a „eus would have to be ruled with dirt. Foundations must be removed from the site. Any weus properly abandoned. Goetten brought up the possibility of having a water fountain. Water would have to be provided from a well. KeUey asked if the Dm was ^c^^'^aS ’ ‘cSl^Gaffron stated that U why they had submitted the c^ pl^ <- p,,„ planning on using the entire site and the plans submii^ „ work with Otono and are stage. The DNR is pleased with the way they have been able to work with uro m • *. • ynSUTES OF THE LAKE USE COMMTrTEE - March 24, 1993 • nmnn The DNR currently docs not have enough funding to s;“£l5S;SSSSiEE!“r^ siii Goenea thought the resideats ui Callahan thought it might he easier to close at City could dose it for some Closing should be dene with signage and 10:00 p.m. rather than not °P‘^ ' Bdlows'asked if a gate could be considered not plowing would effecuvely close it m the ^ bubblers, this is unsafe m at me ramp as previously disc^sed^ discussed in the Maxwell Bay group, the winter. The winter snowmobile problem na ,.„.rmatr« how these are mainuined and enforced would be an issue. Gaffron noted the DtfR doesn't wuId°^^*of*lt for them except agreement either with the City or narking lot This was mentioned at the Cou^ smee sr.SJs.r. s —n: rjsr.5- KeUey noted the City is actually losing wo wm wSlly He feels this access is for non-Orono ^ L the Orono residents. If we have te from Orono. Therefore, these costs should not be b^ W ^ ^ budget an agreement with the DNR. funds shw Hennepin County residents KeUey would expect most of the use ^ doesn’t solve the problem of lost tax nuvbe the County should maintain the site. Tlut sou revenue (S8,000/year) and costs of poUemg. MEsUraS OF THE LAKE USE CO^D^I^rEE - March 24, 1993 . ,4 unie! raicht need to be 'revisited' in agreements with the DM1. launch, boats . The next meeting is tenatire^y ^'^ntelii^g and they wUl be ^oS^tra-Lr ^ompde?^^^ copies of the minntes pHor to the tneetmg. Tee meeting adjourned at 9;05 a.ru. ^ (Note: Next meeting has been rescheduled to April 14, 7:45 'K' L-(^ The Orono Lake Use Comminee met on the above m,d Charles KeUey, Planning Chairman J. Diann Goetten. Councilmembers Members Steve Peterson and Commission Chairman Charles Schroeder Pi^g ^ Zoning Administrator Michael Candy Rowlette. Cicy staff was represented by A . Minnesota Department of Gaffron and Building & Zomng Larry KUlien, Martha Reger, and Naoiral Resources was represented by Water ACw^ss Sp * Stan Linnell. Chairman Goetten called the meeting to order at /.5a a.m. Goetten requested that DNR staff ^ surrounding the Maxwell Bay access over the last >ear, ana men site plan. Reger noted that there had been She^indicated Larry Killien was placed in rry^il Bay Service. TTie DNR is proceeding that the DNR has purchased Gayle s . la removal of buddings, etc. Reger noted with arrangements to get the sites three private parcels to the east, dLugh lSli« riI'discussio “ idlh each of *e clmee proper owners. Reger indicated that she - -or involve^ address when he arrives. She notrf mat tne ■ Qj^„n noted he had been be the PCA -s in process due to^ome ,fter removal of die present when the Cjysml exhibited signs of minor spillage or perhaps small leaks, r ayle’s Manna tanks, and both sites S ^ to be in the nullion dollar range. but it f P?*""" conLninauon was likely from tank overflows during fillingssS “IS rSS»..»«»- r— .“I.. of Lakeside Marina. the three houses, which should the pL*Ldina fumre use°of the property, DNR has no specific plans at dus ^rbuT^itSted^^La'^'^'i' Marina dial the propetry is not to be used for their parkmg overflow. At approximately 8;10 a.m.. Larry KUlien arrived. 1 MINUTES OF THE LAKE SESSION held WEDNESDAY, JANLARY 11, - . is in discussion with owners of two Killien reiterated that DNR has u^s been unresponsive so far. Goetten asked of the three remaining parcels but the ihiid owne if they are not acquired whether DNR’s ultimate goal is to acquire these will DNR proceed with develcpmg the development of whatever contiguous propenies, but if they aren’t successtul, will go ahead vvith P lands they do acquire. Gocnca as.,, how soon w.H >h.,ydegrc, on resolving the coma^uunon.ssu«. H^ ^ each of the completed purchases to cover ^ die sellers’ escrowed money remedial investigation as well as the acrua * reimbursed from the petro fund, but that may for that purpose. [L'^rWined a contractor to go ahead with the ^ccessa^ be some years down the road. DNR has , j^ionitoring wells. The mvestigation investigation work and wtiich PCA wiU determine whether and to what process may take two to three ran^e from continued monitoring to acmal degree contamination by May 1995 whether they can develop the site TrlThave to SeTi^ific cleanup actions ftrst. Killien continued that with the September, bm if :SditS"c.ra™p Xlopment of the site would likely not commence untU 1996. Schroeder asked *e pc«ham prices of me ^.“of toe^Hgures had paid $170,000 for Crystal ^av Serv ce 5250,000 in escrow for the manna for M 10.000 is escrow ^ servtc^ muon ^ i, P«r contamination cleanup pur^ses. me c Environmental Consultants Inc. Mabusm asked how much had „0ted P^f.i*^:;mglrk as neS^ed. and that Use costs of any needed dredgmg ?::;mrio"d be U of Kelley asked what was meir rout%Vi“ are equipment to pull the a platform for winch equipment, hence they hope to get a could remove them usmg me iv. better price for winter removal. MEVUTES OF THE LAKE USE COMMITTEE SESSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1993 SchTMder asked whether this was a high priority ^oriw^He^ constituting about 60% of his work, and that this access IS ' for operations and he is responsible for the acquisitions. Reger for the desian and maintenance, and that Reger working with Linnell will be responsiDie tor construction phases. Goenen asked the acreages of the property “qfed “d ^ " the old site plans indicated Gayle’s and Crysal Bay Sen ice comprised -06 acres, three other properties are added totals 3.85 acres. Hua asked whether DNR would "for S^ee'p^^^ntstoulif :'ulT'in e.sp'aTon of the pa^g likely would remain at what would then be the midpoint of the toul property. LinneU handed out four alternative she pSInd rdS^“:^ef~ tr r ItfSiTS doTtX up on Z two concept plans dated November 1 and November 2. 1994. service station sue ^ ^ to improve traffic circulation and setbacks, efficient parking layout. ^ ^ nNR determines the optimum number of spaces for an access. LiMcll Schroeder ^ke buffers to neighboring properties as well as lakeshore indicated they 1 increasing on new accesses in recent years. He mdicated setbacks, which ^ about which cities or counties are concerned, but th^t fr^SvrtVoLo’s concerns and will be providing stormwater ponding to deal with runoff. .. U w.,hese concent plans are in conformance with DNR’sShoreland Regulations Kelley asked "^bren ““P'^ l“ve to apply for with which ^ nions Linne.l indicated that it is likely not aU aspects of the concept vanances to its ^ standard but that DNR as a State agency technically does not have " — from local ordinances, but anempts to be in as great a MINUTES OF THE LAKE SESSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, iw given the amount of money spent m acqumn. this , ' c concern Linnell added that Of spaces possible while erse/se^'and mo« ,reen space acquisition of the remauung three * ^^ded that while it is DNR’a intent and yield a lower overall percentage or hardco concerns they still ultimately have to to buUd an access that addresses the City's ^vTOt^enu the number satisfy the LCMR that the appropriation of money tor this project justitte of spaces is important. Goetten commented that the 45-50'/60-63' ctrehL'^spe^^ y«r reviLingDNR should keep that in mind. Schroeder added ,ha the C.tyM^^ sm™“su«!"GXn ^0.^0™^ “at it's taportant in this site redevelopment that we end up with something better than was there betore. Hurr commented that it is impotent “ ITulS^k^lStow^^ use of car trader “^d that h is not DNR's initial intent to place suchof signage became a problem. Reger noica uieu signage 2lI this access. 1., ui. v» c—I." “ p"» November 1 and 2 P‘^ S because the boats must be backed with with the reverse circulauon ( —tUg- than out his left window. The November 1 plan driver looking over his nght s ou ^ lO^oar only spaces. He noted would accommodate “PP"”‘'™'“',^/!'^„j circulatiL pattern with counterclockwise flow, that the November ^ P'-n Provides the ramp similar to <^°"“P' shoulder, and contains angled head-in parking on *e north «d rurperet*: tr;rpl"ot. November 2 plan accommodates 55-59 car trader spaces and about 8 car-only spaces. Gaffron asked whether there is any difference in hardcover between the November 1 and 2 plans. Linnell fell they were about equal. H ,h,f the Dlans show a single "make ready" dock to one side plus two Linnell commented that P'^“ i, is „ost likely those two wdl end up outside additional between rarnp lanes. g evperience has shown that the configuration as dTaw^s^rricrbeSrhoa^ riln“the wa^y of the next launcher whde trailers are bemg parked, etc. < ^ rf 5Tirl ^Ttcndccl inrn the lake 10 mainum a greater window of operationUliu UlC lOXVW tvy Gaffron commented that both new plans do h°' show 1% ^ide ^ving lane S»£SS%3SS “HSi area is needed so that from a hardcover „oted that in their recent generally does not use baclom P^^lssn, “ su^oLed they not use the back-in trailer parking discussions with Hennepin Coun,, concept. Gaffron noted that the west proposed as discussed previously, an . .. when car-trailers are not stacked of traffic coming around the comer ^ extended as far east on No^ Shore turn lane. Killien noted the County , Countv Road 135 by-pass lane for south Drive as possible, my also ^ 51 east bound by-pass lane is pamally m place bound trailers stacked on 135. The County no but may need to be upgraded.but may need to dc upgiauwv*. Killien noted that the County north as possible. Their imtial setback and cause circulation p. ._____ u..e thar would force a lesser lake seioacR <xn _____ be located as far “ras“p^ibr «iai rseXull^oS" TOter^i *e SJttom'entrance ^ toe curve, and Peterson noted his ^ noted they had indicated to the County ronldng a right hand rum any oo^ems and the entrance locations are cnttcal dot that they are ''Tto “ b“‘“” but not all of the people they talked to at to the circulation plan. Mhen 1 preferring a single entrance/exist dot that they are trymg .o va».-- - - p^pie mey tautco - Se^e;"; w« opposed to the rwo enhance concept, prefeming a single entrance/exis point. r-nr/frailer combinations could be stacked in the right mm lane Goetten questioned how 'if was slighdy more ±an 200’, and P««to “"rf before the entrance. ^uers. Rowlene noted that only on tare occasions has she this would accommt^K ^ „a<l get into the North Arm access parking come across car-traUers wail lot. R.ger reiterated that DNR doesn't have coonol over '’l" ^^'fjte«1o Kelley asked about the fence along the fistog P‘'^ commemed the Lake Use Commiuee had re^e ^ posted no parking, purposes. Kelley conunemed that it was e i. ^ w.---- »« nark at the access rather than One of the benefits of a fence is that it encounges along Tonkawa Road. It was agreed that a fence of some Kelley questioned the location of the ^ote^dXfthe T-portion of the be casting their lines across the channel. Peterson brought up the issue of ruset'o^f'S^’«cSs"'S has been that garbage cans attract garbag . it home with them. Therefore, elimination of garbage cans genera y dumosters at the site Lirmell commented that DNRdoes not propose » P people are tending to with the costs of residential ptc p ' _i.j,L Killien noted that at accesses where they had find public dumpsters for srill was pUed where removed commented that at the sites for which she is responsible, lack ofsr;s*crcn;^iis s's.”* are always overflowing. , ^ , 5c miifnil tvoicallv handled. Killien indicated at the Spring Park access, a Goenen asked o boaters will at least rake the ramp area, leaving milfoil piled to mUfoil rake is provided so ^ ^ one side. . pNR finds acceptable. Peterson noted that the law requires people have to be "P'/'f*’Lve a lake, and they could be fined if they don t. to remove people meet their obligation. Perhaps a compost bin or some We need to P® P™^* Ham Reaer noted Uiat any type of receptacle, as well as merely a °oto b^S semef end up being places whe e people will congregate dieir garbage. .1 ,h,r the committee had recommended that DNR's vegetation program iimMeGaffron noted tot the co^d«^^ planto "wS ‘Tey "ormally plant I" to 1 'A' caliper stock, which is relatively mexpensive take for 1" trees to grow to a size where they because 1" stock has" lost less of its root five years before they provide significant stock, hence after a period system in iransplantmg. it tends to r(^over bcwe-n tte trees planted at 1" and 2". of five or ten years there may not be much dirfercn - provide a one year Linnell noted that whoever DNR contracts for monitor father conditions guarantee, and DNR would expect that a Pn^dent contr^or ^ ™ R,ger and provide whatever care is necessary- to ensure the ^ on the new added that DNR access maintenance people t^ they would plant a variety plantings and water them as needed if thmgs are dry^ ' of native species, dependent on the landscapmg needs of the site. Hurr oo«d Out i. was her undersunding d,c "in «Uh"ssment after five years. TTis bill needs .0 be remtroduced. Moving along in the ouUine, 0^^^- impact of fishing at the site, but wou ^nace etc Linnell noted they have discussed if fishing activity starts to cause ° ^ address this problem, as wcU as the use of in-house some methods 'that the walkways wUl have to be wheelchair fencing or signage if necess ry. „ -dee of the narking lot was also discussed. Reger ™ a parL walicways may no. b. the b«. idea. All agreed to eliminate a walkway along the parking lot. J k fichina nier Re<’er noted it would be 6’ in width typically, perhaps shghtly In regards to the P ’ * walkway along the shoreline has not been specificdly narrower along the shorelm ' aggregates, and a shoreline retaining waU or designed, but the lot width narrows. One or two benches may be will temam at its shift fonher eastw^ later on. KUlien noted that one item of noted that >be^P * locauon of the tamp, and he would like it as far from his MDOJTES OF THE LAKE USE SESSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, Hurr questioned whether the fishing pier would be their fishing piers winter Reger noted it would probably be a iith the day-to-day are maintained by the local unit of govemmen . she suggested that at this mamienance aspects, so this pi„ „ay just stay in place all ta-int«. location, ice damage may not be a , ^rc encased in plastic. Linnell noted that the foam floats DNR typica . • for this Dier Reser noted that although most Goetten asked what is DNR’s maintenance is part of the complete other piers arc awarded by grants to cities \ ^ Gaffron access package and would be mamtained b> DN^l g noted DNR’s wrinen response to the mamtenance maintenance of the site. Killion noted that the site would ^ them are noted that DNR does not plow any or its 1. wishing to gain lake access to plow thern not zated or chained and it is not uncommon P P j^^-cess be closed in winter, and out Goetten noted that the Comimnee had discussions with the neighbors. C noted that she felt DNR had CO— „„^„bile route from Reger commented that ^ ® \ ^oted that during the DNR open house on the Lake Minnetonka to the Luce Lm commonly cross private property at the south Siraley property, residents g ^ die DNR access might become a route to end of Ma.xwell Bay to reach Crystal Bay a impossible to keep snowmobUes eliminate this trespassing, ^he notcd^i ^^^y^b p snowmobile traffic onto the from using the access, and me. , damage Killicn noted that there are two accesses landscape areas of the site, ^ausmg p topography creating a dangerous condiuon, the in the metro area with gates. could freeze if traffic compacts the snow other due to a City water mam ne^ citv government opened a road or parking lot nearby to above it. In both cases, t e expr«sed by Hurt that without closing the access, it may provide winter access. Co trailers although it was noted that this docs not seem become a parking Id Uiis fs an issue for further discussion, although .....« Killien stated that while that ^ St. Croix which experienced car trailers at theu accesses, except ^ camping up river. Reger noted that most DNR accesses parked for the weekend or longer j arc pan of a maintenance agreement wi* Le open 24 hours, and those pJj, dJ has controlled hours. Killien gave the local government or residential nei^borhoods, and even though they were bi^y - — U. hou?of acuvity. Killien suggested that he would 8 E¥.r,rst*:=“SXJ2 ^HcSi occurred. This is done via a Commissioner s orter^ Kd ^ oUier a limiiation cannoc be placed on a sue miiially when neishbor here and since she hour-resirictive location. Reger noted the DNR would want to deal with any problems is in charge of operation and maintenance of the site, she v.ould want to quickly if they occur. u 'If fhp It W51S noted thut there is ^ Goetten brought up the concept of an emergency phone aMh ^ phone pav phone on the Crystal Bay Service property ,'ohone is somewhat costly and prone to at‘L^eside .Marina. R'8« noted the placement o a pho« ^ vandalism, and they normally don't place phones at their accesses. Peterson commented that he is quite c^“Tonc^°^o“ed representatives for their efforts ^ ^ ^ jjiejj- next step. Killien unresolved issues yet to be worked out. Linnell would be drafting more detailed noted that once the contamination issues spring 1996. Gaffron noted plans as his time permits, with potential cons cjtg plan review at a public hearing L City processes would Discuss^ continued before the Planning Coranussion. with Hml Cou ^ regarding the tftents of holdmg a pu ic i ,jphnically they are not required to follow City while the DNS is cooperating with the Jsides„p any processes. Killien added requirements. Reger noted it is not the s mtem to sio^ ^ y ^ that the only potential pitfall is ^ jhe public hearing is not a forum for the public as to the process that has diat I public notice given for the S "TarlSny-Hed fo ensure the public understands the process. Killien noted he would keep in touch with staff regarding progress on their acquisition of property and the contamination issue. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY ID AirOSMT CCHEMI. State of Minnesota OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL October 30, 1995 n.’VUC AND HLl^ AN RESOttCa sum«o 44^ MINNESOTA STREET 5T PU*L MN 55101 :ir rtLERIQNE lOUi 2t7.|<r5 Mr. Mike Gaffron Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 Re; Ma.\well Bay Access Site Hennepin County \ 1995 Dear Mr. Gaflfon; This is in response to the request of Larry Killien for a letter from me regarding buildiof projects conducted for or on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, an agency of the State of Minnesota, within a governmental subdivision. It is the position of the Department and of this office that the State of Minnesota is not subject to local codes or ordinances except where the Legislature has specifically authorized a local governmental entity to regulate state government activity. This applies whether or not the state is acting directly or through a contractor. As far as I am able to discern, the ordinances o the City of Orono relative to the proposed project by the Department are not applicable. Please see Minn. Stat. § 394.24. subd. 3. In spite of the above-described situation, I know that the Department generally tries to work cooperatively with municipalities to address their respective concerns and needs as construction projects progress. I hope that this information is helpful to you. If you or your city attorney wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contract me at 296-0696. ._JSi5^;.jruly yours, BRUC e)a . SPfeCKTOR Assistant Attorney General (612) 296-0696 cc: Larr>’ Killien AG;14326vl Facsimile: (612) 297-U39 • TOD: (612) 296-1410 • Toll Free Lines: (800) 657-3787 (Voice). (800) 366-4812 (TOD) 4 C^A«S. ^ TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:November 15, 1995 SUBJECT: #2088 Winfield Stephens, 3770 Ba>-side Road - Vacation/Variances Public Hearing Application: Applicant seeks to vacate 30' alley at the west lot line of the property. Acquisition of the alley area will improve building envelope and setback needs. Applicant seeks setback variances for two options of rede%elopment of the property. The improvements involve two story additions either to the east or the south side of the residence at an approximate 25’x31.6* footprint. Zoning District: LP.-IA Lot area = 15,717 s.f. or .36 acres. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03. Subd. 14(C) - Reviewr of structural coverage. Total lot area = 15,717 s.f. Allowed = 2,358 s.f, or 15% Adjusted allowed = *3,141 s.f. Existing = 864 s.f. or 5.4%, adjusted *4.1% Option 1 Proposed = 1,910 s.f. or 12.1%, adjusted *9.1% Option 2 Proposed — 1,909 s.f. or 12,1%, adjusted *9.1% No variance required ♦Area adjustment for inclusion of vacated alley. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. A. 75-250* setback area = 13,188 s.f. - adjusted area *16,008 s.f. Allowed = 3,297 s.f. or 25%, adjusted = *4,002 s.f. Existing = 913 s.f. or 6.9%, adjusted = *5.7% Proposed Option 1 = 1,575 s.f. or 11.9%, adjusted = *9.8% Proposed Option 2 = 1,897 s.f. or 14.4%, adjusted = *11.8% No variance required Zoning File #2088 November 15, 1995 Page 2 B. 250-500* setback area = 2.529 s.f., adjusted « *4,929 s.f. Allowed = 758.7 s.f. or 30*/.. adjusted = *1,479 s.f. or 30H Existing = 865 s.f or 34.25%, adjusted * *17.5% Proposed Option 1 - 1,081 s.f or 42%, adjusted ■ *21.9% Proposed Option 2 = 758 s.f. or 30%, adjusted * *15.3% No variance required with acquisition of vacated alley area * Adjusted area calculations for inclusion of vacated alley area Section 10.23. Subd. 6(B) - Setback \'ariances A. Side street yard (determined from west lot line of alley) Required * 50’ Option 1 Proposed * 50^ Option 2 Not applicable B. C. Side yard Required ■ 30' Existing * 3.45* Option 1 Proposed = 29* Variance = 1’ or 3.33% Option 2 Proposed = 3.45* Variance = 26.55' or 88.5% Rear yard setback Required = 50' Existing = 44' Option 1 Proposed = 44' Variance = 6’ or 12% Option 2 - Not applicable Zoning File #2088 November 15, 1995 Pase 3 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant's Addendum C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Survey F - Hardcover Plan - Option 1 G - Building Envelope - Option 1 Hl-2 • Hardcover Fact Sheets - Option 1 I - Floor Plan - Option 1 Jl-4 - Elevations - Option 1 K - Hardcover Plan - Option 2 L - Building Envelope - Option 2 Ml-2 - Hardcover Fact Sheets - Option 2 N - Gustafson Report 11/14/95 O - Wicklund’s Survey Vacation The applicant has been encouraged to file the petition for vacation of the 30* alley originally dedicated in the plat of Ottoville Lake Minnetonka. The applicant has been advised by Dennis Hill of Hennepin County that the entire 30 ’ wide alley would revert back entirely to the fee owner of Lots 2 and 3. Underlying fee ownership of the alley at the time of the Ottoville plat did not include the property to the immediate west (properties located within the Bayside Landing plat). Refer to Exhibit N, the City Engineer has reviewed the area of the alley to determine if any municipal sewer lines encroach the unimproved right-of-way. The Stubbs Bay sewer project did not make use of the unimproved alley. The vacation will be referred to utility companies that serve the area to determine if utility easements would be required although there were no signs of power poles within the vacated alley area. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed vacation of 30' alley subject to applicant filing for the legal combination of the 30' alley with the homestead parcels upon the filing of the vacation resolution with Hennepin County. Setback Variances Applicant has presented two options for major improvements to the existing 1 ‘/a story residence. The addition consists of an approximate two story 25'x31l4' addition with a two story bay at Zoning File #2088 November 15, 1995 Page 4 8'xl5’. Applicant has submitted floor plans and elevations of Option I's development plan. Applicant notes that floor plans and elevations for Option 2 are similar to those presented for Option 1. Both plans would meet the requirements of the structural coverage ordinance without inclusion of the area of the vacated alley (with alley proposed at 9.1%, without the alley 12.1%). With the inclusion of the vacated area, there are no hardcover variances proposed with either Options 1 or 2. Acquisition of the additional area within the 250-500’ setback area has had a major impact on the hardcover percentages, refer to tactuai review above. Both options will not require side street or street setback variances. Option 1 requires a 1' side yard variance and a 6' or 12% rear yard (existing is 6' or 12%). Option 2 will require a 26.55’ or 88.5% side setback variance, review E.xhibit L. Note the entire addition is located within a required side yard setback. Review Exhibits G and L. e\ en with the acquisition of the alley area, the building envelopes are severely limited. In comparing both options of development, the majority of Option I’s improvements are located within the kgal building envelope. The majority of the improvements for Option 2 are located outside of the legal building envelope. Refer to Exhibits F and K, applicant notes that with Option 2’s plan, the mature oaks will be saved within the south street yard. Staff has located two mature maple trees located within the east side yard which would be removed wdth Option 2. Staff met with the Wicklunds to discuss the variance application and the potential impact on their lake view? of their newly constructed residence. Members may remember that the Wicklunds were required to meet all required setbacks with their new construction. A 50’ setback was maintained from their south lot line, refer to Exhibit O. Mr. Stephens has met with Mrs. Wicklund and provided her with information on his plans for development. The 30’+ addition to the east (Option 2) would have a major impact they feel on their lake views. Their home was designed specifically at an angle to capture that view. The structure would be located approximately 63’ from their residence. Wicklunds noted they are very happy to see the proposed improvement of the property and ask the City to consider Option 1 as opposed to Option 2. The Wicklunds also noted that the two mature maple trees would be lost with the addition to the east. Wicklunds will submit a written statement setting forth their position. During the review of the Wicklund variance application, the issue was raised as to whether the owner of the subject property had legal access via the driveway easement along the north lot line of the property. It is not certain as to whether the current owner, Mr. Gardner, has claimed his rights via a prescriptive easement through years of use. Applicant may request use Zoning File #2088 November 15, 1995 Page 5 of access at Landmark Drive that will abut property as soon as vacation is finalized. The applicant may have some knowledge as to the status of the driveway easement. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. Is the proposal too ambitious for this size property ? . . . Review factual findings above. Property owners to the immediate north (Craig and Renee Wicklund) have no legal claim to lake views as we are not dealing with lakeshore lots. How shall we address their concerns? 3. Which option best satisfies the standards of the City's municipal zoning code? . . . Which option will Planning Commission recommend for approval to the City Council? Any recommendation '*f approval must include the condition that Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and the vacated alley be legally wombined before a building permit is issued for the new construction. o PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address S *1 “’v O ^ fi': >. j. - : < ^ fC; ' T>pe of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.i.D.) o S ^ ^ i qioi ^oiq >-.4-'^ ^*^3 X. / I ^APPLICANT iy ^ Name Address 2 3>5“ Phone (home) Phone (work)'YSy-iicti firv- Zip SrSS-9. OWISER (i Name ^different tf^ a^Jlcaj^ ^Phone fhome) ^ Phone Address /^n/ T City Zip ^ c~:?CY Date Property Acquired____---------------------------- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. fees - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application • ^ir ^ ’ $125.00 Residential Accessory Use ' S200.(X) Institutional (church, school, etc.) ’ $175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ' $150.00 Duple.x Credit/Bldg ' $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ■ $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or niore Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore PRD'PID - see Fee Schedule . . x $100.u0 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER .APPLICATIONS , r a $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation^ ^ $ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District ______ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) (month/year) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 4m • 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’, labels and plat map (you must obtain thi< list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital sams) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the abeve information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff;__________________________----------------------------—----------- APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE . The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and cenifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. DateApplicant’s signature______________—----------------------- OWNER ’S SIGNATURE u. The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature Date Applicant must have aU submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meetmg. Plannmg Co^ssion Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at aU schedtded 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 anend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 5^ 7^0 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION h r"\ /•O 1 Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.CX) per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S2(X).00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ . P v Site Address_______3*710 KoAu Property Identification Number (P-I.D.) —---------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ____other (specify) Zonine District: APPLICANT . . . _ Name Addresst^<::> Co^->T) ^ ---------- OWNER (if different Phone ibome) Phone(work) irtr 9- _ City: A^ApfC ____Zip:_5^CJ^2. Name ,grille. Addresl: KA DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail:__________ Phonefhome) _ Phone (work) W Zip: <£!£!? Estimated Construction Cost 5 (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) compliance with Zoning Code requirements:^------------------------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) ? r «■. 7 t \ Pr X 1. 2. j. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the foPnwing information must be subr^****r*^ apnliratiQB tfafg IP Ordtr for vour considered, conipl6»^« __Completed Application 7onn , <o- labels and plat map (vou mustCertified Property 0^^’ners List of o\^-ners within 150 . labels ana P — obmin this list, labels and map from Hennepin Counts- Depamnen. of Fmance. A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). ;rarinH<» hardcover __Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed survevor) ^ calculations as required. In addition, provide one ( ) P, _ ?o'’;:S^pS sun-ey (existmg and Ptopos^,f-r “V;“^r are proposed. In addmon, provide one (1) cop, - • Sketches or plans of floor dt elevation views :ran mteres! ^ the List of the legal names (include inantal status) of all persons — p opetX TOs would include name(s) of applicant(s) tf 5S^^7ddendum to this applicauon. please attach a separate list of any other persons. vou wish notified of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. Ttie Applicant and Property Ow"f^ tH^r^lTI" J^‘notvnrifincp aDpHration js not rnmolete if thp abQve iniorm^uun APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE infr^rmation reauired or requested by the Zoning The applicant hereby agrees ^ fees^taff time not covered by original fee payment) Administrator, agrees to pay review of this application, and certifies that the 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. I Date /q/S// fg Applicant’s Signamre ^ OWNER’S SIGNATU^ ^ ^ application and further authorizes reasonable The owner hereby Jc consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council Owner’s Signature — II Kvr,;ftt>u into the City offices 25 davs before the Planning Commission Applicant must have ^ Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Meeting. Plai^g aU schedied review meetings of the Planning Commission AppUcants ^ uSw^o attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements "haveTamho^^^^ your place and to advise the Budding & Zomng Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 Hardships 3770 Bayside Road, Orono I am requesting variances so as to obtain a building permit to expand the present 744 sq. ft. home located at 3770 Bayside Road. It Is my understanding that 15% of the square footage may be used for building structure purposes. The allowable area for structure Is 2358 sq.ft, based on the surveyed total of 15717 sq. ft. My request would not exceed 1913 sq-’The requests for variances arise because of this irregular, triangular shaped lot and the location of the old home built only 4’ from the north property line. This 1/2 acre lot is configured so that it is difficult to meet the present 2 acre standards. I would like to propose two options for expansion to the existing home. Option 1 would extend to the south and Option 2 to the east. Both scenarios would have simillar floor plans and elevations as those presented. Option 1 almost satisfies the 30’ setback from the north by 2’. However, by expanding this direction, two beautiful mature oak trees (2.5 ’ diameter) would have to be removed. Option 2, or east expansion would enable the trees to be saved but this addition would follow the same line as the old house and not comply within the 30’ setback. Option 2 allows for a better factual finding hardcover area. Option 2, as seen in the photograph would not restrict views from the neighbor to the north. His floor plan is such that all windows are located on the east end of the residence. Both options are not located in the 0 to 75 ’ area and both would remain outside the 50 ’ setback from the north line of the highway easement. Both options would mean that the west boundary setback would remain at 20’, however I have requested a variance for vacation of the alley ( a 30’ wide strip to the west) and was told by Dennis Hill at Hennepin County that this parcel would be attached to Lots 2 and 3. Therefore, both options would met the west line requirements as well as improve the hardcover requirements. My preference is for Option 2 as I would prefer to save the oaksand it would be better for the hardcover requirements. Thankyou. ________ FT LOT S3 (14) 4<*i 5* • % ' O4 »4 Has*«o'«^/,'i j 2JO •» ®%s5 >5C|t9 IDTI 4^ ^ ‘ ^ os) ^ I (39) §1 •. 2t . ••^(Ill) > * ( 105) >^V ••, X ’ \ « (1.6)^ XI ' ■ 1^ irVijl 14^03 ^ 'I !5 U X ^ 13 A (U5) » M4 u\ • (118)^ 14/ IV ^D|EY$i^ PtkRJ Cr (lit; ^ 2? CO) *3 C\96« ^ :c» (14) 7 ^u. 27 (.5) 8 ilO. 48 •a 78 ( 16) 9 K6.7 a> 60 ( 17) '8 499 I Q^V V- Mi MTE U/24>fS (J MTCN fM 4 . . - u o HOP AOOP OPCI NMC TAXPAVEK NATC/AOIMI M 0S-117>2S 21 0005 osrao BAYSioc m C L • K J HICKLUNO CIUIO L I RENEE J raCRLUND 5780 BAYSIOC RO U»e URE Mi 55354 MEItCPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INPORNATION SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNEB LISTIB 05-117-ES El 0014 03700 BAYSIOC RO J B HAUS 4 J E HAUS JM«S B A JOAN C HAUS 5700 BAYSIOC RO LONG LAKE HN 55354 KHRT NO. PX4S5401 PASC 4 u u PROP ADOR OMCR NAHC TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR 0»WER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 5B 05<117>E3 22 0010 00055 LANOHARK OR B S PERRINS A P H PCIBCINS DANIEL S A PATRICE N PERRINS 65 LANDHARR OR QRONO 65354 50 05-117-23 22 0014 00185 LANDHARR OR R F A R A RYLE RICHARD F A RATHLEEN A RYU 1140 TONKAMA RO LONO LARE 104 55354 PROP AOOR ONNER NAHC • TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR \ V_.PROP AOOR OttCR NAHC TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR V,, ' • SO 05-117-23 24 0070 00030 ADDRESS UNASS16NE0 J B HAUS A J E HAUS JAHES B A JOAN E HAUS 5700 BAYSIOC RO LONS LAKE M4 55354 30 05-117-23 24 0101 03770 BAYSIDE RD SAC GARDINER STEVE GARDINER 235 GAHC FARM RO N HAPU PUIN m 55359 30 05-117-23 22 0011 00175 LANDHAIK DR L C NARRCN A J H NARREN LIE C A .AH.IE H HARREN 175 LANDHARR OR LONG .ARE m 55354 30 05-117-25 25 0035 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DIANE EVANS IT AL HARK A CARENA CASEY 255 LANDHARR DR ORQNO rt4 55354 M 0S-U7-2S Zl 0037 30 05-117-23 23 0030 PROP AOOR 00255 LANOHARK DR 03050 BAYSIOC RO s 0»tCR NAME HARK L A KARENA S CmSEY P H HAOSON A R F HAOSQN ( 'TAXPAYER mm L I KMEKA S CASEY PAUL H A KAREN F HAOSON NAHE/AOOR 4320 ENCHANTED DH HOUND HN 553A4 520 GEORGIA AVC N GOLDEN VALLEY W4 55427 38 05-117-23 24 0082 00038 ADDRESS UNASSXGNEO DANIEL P CAHILL HRS DANIEL CAHILL 224 N 5TH ST OELAVAN HZ 53115 38 05-117-23 24 0102 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SAC GARDINER STEVE GARDINER 235 GAME FARM RO N MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 50 05-117-25 21 BOM 03750 BAYSIOC M JOHN A MARY JAM BUROCR CHRISTINE A GARY VALERIUS 3750 BAYSIOC RO LONG LARE HN 55354 30 05-117-23 22 0013 0003B ADDRESS UNASSIGNCO 0 S PERRINS A P N PEMCINS DANIEL S A PATRICE N PERRINS 55 LANOHARK OR ORONO MN 55354 30 05-117-23 23 0034 00030 AOORSSS UNASSIGNCO LANDMARK OR HOHEOFCCRS ASSOC LANDHARR OR HOHEOMCRS ASSOC C/0 UC C HARREN 175 LANOHARK OR LONG LARE HN 55354 58 05-117-23 24 0049 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNCO J B HAUS 1 J C NAUS JAHES B A JOAN C HAUS 5700 BAYSIOC RO LONO LAKE iti 55354 38 05-117-23 24 0100 00038 AOORCSS UNASSIGNCO SAC GARDINER STEVE 6AR0INCR 235 GAHC FARM RO N MAPLE PLAIN IM 555S9 38 05-117-23 24 0103 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SAC GARDINER STEVE GARDINER 235 GAME FARH RO N MAPLE PLAIN Ml 55359 4i-{% -h % • • t ! •» L « J 9 . J. jC.^ H-ft/ V,' ? -.' i' • I f . > . - t i it-'’ % * ^ • 4 '■•! V* r.-U •V, ? ktu" t V 'll •'* ’ 5 .i. t * » .*• ill tN ■ . ■. V ;,f :;4 :Vr:,^vN l'* •IT? * ♦ ' V. >.-• » J T * r . » ^ • ♦ .1 V • I': A • 3 ,‘.\.... '-Jj. ' • 4 un u/tun'f ’•Q MTCN BM v^ij MOP AOM Q CHNER mm TAXPAYER NAHi/AOM #. •. » ^ PROP AOOR ONNiR HAW TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 'sj '/ . %• * • M 05-117-2S 24 CIOS OOOM ADDRESS UKASSIGNEO NEMCRIN FORFCITEC LAND CITY OF ORONO DRAINAGE A CONSERVATION B'lD'OQ ST DEED tlTSSAl SO 05-117-2S 24 OllA OOOSD ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NENNERXN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF OnONO CONVEYED 2/D/D2 ST DEED 16114D fKffCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEH Pn»>ERTY (MCRS LIST Sa OS>117-2S 24 Dili 0S77S MYSIDE RO 6 R t CE RONLETTE GERALD L MHLCTTE 5775 DAYSIDE RO LONG LAKE ifl SS55* 56 05-117-25 24 0119 00056 ADDRESS PENDING JOHN A NARY JANE DURGER OmiSTINC A GARY VALERIUS 5750 DAYSIDE RO LONS LAKE (t4 S555A V . 1 9 i ■> ’ <• ♦ ‘ KPORT NO. PX4U401PAM ? 58 Q5-117>25 M OliS 00058 AOORESS UNASSIONED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ONONO PARK 4/15/79 ST DEED U47B5 TOTAL DATCH 604 00025 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HErl«PlN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXAHON* TO THE DEST OF MY KNONLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATI • 9’ I*,-* •’Mr • • ■ . H’» . ■ wf) * i; ■ pf 'V. 'M 'i'ir vl /.?> • ‘ V r :;;i • ' ‘ • V 05 # • 8 . . 0 =tfc ' *• .•. -v . • .. . ’.o .-i • • -'Z ! . • . » . 1 * •V!. ‘t : '4.-a;- • •• . >• y • i'jJV-i. V ••V / ft . ♦ • ; : /V ■ *• :.:.V •: * * * *1 ' ^ • I ik *4 . .V,: 'i CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared fori STF.VF, AND CARMEN GARDINER SETBACK ZONE ZONE AREA IIARDSURFACE AREA PER CENT COVERAGE 0 to 75 75 to 250 250 to 500 O Q Q v,>0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: / Lots 1,2,3 aivJ 4, OTTOVILLE LAKE MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA, according to the plat thereof on file cr of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for snid.County. Revised 2/21/90 to sliow hard surface area calculations. GENERAL NOTES; M •*X Denotes iron monument Denotes cross chiseled in concrete X93I.3 Denotes existing spot elevation |987| Denotes proposed spot elevation - - - Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denote proposed features Solid contour lines denote existing features Proposed top of foundation elev, « Proposed basement floor elev. ■ Proposed garage floor elev, = BENCHMARK: ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Ph: 475-1433 I hereby certify that this survey, p?a.n or report was prepared by me or under my direct sup€>Lvision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Jllnnesota, DATE /ohilee REG. NUMBER SCALE BOOK \u PAGE 12 FILE NO. 88175 B <;<»thac;t< Zon«» Zone Area Old Harsurface Area New Hardsurf ace Area Allowable Area Total 0 to 75 0 75 to 250 13188 913 (7%) 1454(11%) 3297 (25%) 7«;nto500 ?S29 865 (34%1 1081 (42%)_______758 (30^------------ Totals 15717 1778 2523 4055 Option 1 Tr •• _^ •••o ■ » <:^thack ZoP«» 7one Ar^a Dtd Harsurface Area New Hardsurface Area Allowable Area Total 0 to 75 0 75 to 250 13188 91 j (7%) 1454 (11%) 3297 (25%) ?«^f>tn50Q 2529_______865 (34%)_____1081 (42%)________758 (30%)------------ Totals 15717 1778 2523 4055 Qptiaa.1 7T h }\ tO o h 1 • •.-2 _ hardcover calculation WORKSffiET SETBACK ZONE: (ClRCLt ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HAIUXTOVER IN LOME A. House " * 75-:50* ,250-500*4(IV Ltfifili a t4-~ S- IS - Wldlh D. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk C8 \LO E. Patio/Deck ---- F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic O. Other X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPEKTY AREA IN ZONE / , fgQ A ® ------ —X 100 A. House 2^r. 8 '-72- uoain WIM B. Garage ________ C. Driveway _ /o' D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape — Underlain __ By Plastic __ a X X G. Other o TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PRO;g^A IN ZONE ^ ^ . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.® S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B 975“ s.e.<5) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.C^ "S.F. tlx S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ' % A B SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCqyTR IN ZONE A. House ^ I * * HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 75-250’250-500 SDD-K aisi Lxofth Wtd± X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 4^0 ' n G. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 9<>S' - B .\ 100 “ PROPOSED HARDCOVER CS ZONE A. House _ I • Length 3s:g Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other <30 /AO X X X X X X X X X SB xs TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE B total PR^gTYA^ IN ZONE ^ X100 = S.F. (D S.F. S.F. S.F. O___S.F.® S.F.g) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ® S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i S.F. A S.F. B S.F.® S.F. S.F. S.F. S.?CE) S.F.® S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % s ATr,. C.• V-\ . *• » , **#; {'V 1 1 1523.36 ft -\ Laundr Bath 0.0 X I I II 50' ” Den------ 15.5 X 13 Dining 1 BQedroom 16x17 Up • ^ 4 Old wa)!^ Foyer • A X44 :hen 4V8" 3770 Bayside First Floor Plan Option 1 Scale 1 /8 » r - r '' •>. 4 1 u \ ) 1523.36 ft j:- 50 3770 Bayside Second Floor Plan Option 1 Scale 1/8" = r N▲ . • >1 • North Elevation Scale: 1 /8" = 1' a •» j ^ r'.C- A 1 South Elevation Scale: 1/8" » V __# Vrr o ■• •. : ■ ) j/ [ «;>rharW 7one Zone Area Q|ri Harsurface Area New Hardsurface Arca AHOVyaWt Artt .TaUl OvTo)Oto75 0 75 to 250 13188 750 to 500 2522_ Totals 15717 913 (7%) »fi5 f34%1 >^ruiinii) 1 1778 2523 40SS 3297 (25%) 758 f3Q%1 Option 2 ■O •» ^ # * ^ yj •tv^ J <^Arhark 7one Zone Area Old Harsurface Area New Hardsyrface Area Allowable Area Total ism OvTo)0to75 0 75 to 250 13188 7SntoSQQ 2529 Totals 15717 913 (7%) 865 (34%1 ■»<i<i11flf) 1778 ) 3297 (25%) 758 (3Q%L 2523 ^5^302^4^ Option 2 I M TT . O • • V* — ■ A »•. r. SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 // HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 250-500* A. House 3 / Leaf* B. Garage C. Driveway O. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landsc^ Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X WIdm at- 24 % % % X X X X % X /o r 3vS / oj TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE PERT\ ILI TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ /3/S^ x 100 panPosED HARDTOVER IN ZQWE A. House 11 Length Wklih B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic <TP- ' X X X X X X X X X X X X o <ss-o O. Other total hardcover in zone TOTAL PR^^ area IN ZONE ^ ^ A fVv -\ .1 i^ni S*F.® S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.© S.F. S.F. S.F. s.fCD S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. __________S.F. S.F. A B S.F^^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.® S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. " ^S.F. A 3 v’ V • J HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 msL 75*250' <S(5T LctgA Wid:& B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Oeck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 0. Other ;?0 9* X X % X X X X X X 9' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ - A - B I 100 - A. House HARDCOVra IN ZONE a4 . Ltoftli Wadih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio'Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Elastic /^<=> 0. Other X X X X X X X X X <s'£6 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROP^^AREA IN ZONE ^ X 100 « 4I 13 I I li s.F® S.F. S.F. S.F. s.f(5) S.F S.F. S.F. [S.F. S.F S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B S.F.^§> S.F. S.F. S.F. %.fC^ S.F. S.F. S.F. I S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. » S.F. S.F. S.F. % B J/1 Bonestroo Rosene v=5 Andeiifk & ^ 1 Associates Engineers & Architects November 14, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabuslh, Building and Zoning Administrator Citv’ of Orooo Post Office Box 66 Crestai Bav. Minnesota 55323 Bontstreo. Sas^nc An#e^ Atsaciaiat. lae ft an Af#irmKiv« Actton/rauai Oaaartwnity Otto ^ iartstroc. Pt ko^rt w taaanc. p,£.- C Ano«f:«4i. PX Marvin L. Sonrafa, P C, Hitaara t Tcrntr. P f. ®arh n Cooiu Pt Thainat t f^<ayt*. ^ f. Roaart G Scnwmicnt. PX Swsan M. faariin, CP a. • • 5Chf0f COAJuiUnt Mawara A Sanfarx P J. Hattft A. Garaar.. P C, taBart P. e^faric. p i. ticpara w Patter pc. 0a¥<# O LotPota. P|k Pooarr C ftutiep, axa. Jarry A. Baaraan. PX Mart A mmnwmt. a f MRhaai r tauanonn. p f TM IL P J Tharjai R. Ar.aerxcn. A c«i. 4a»»»« P Patah-rer^cc p.I ConataC Suraardt PC A Sy*Po. P£ F'^aatnc J. Stenaarg. P f. Martinet. PC Mtchaci P »Ju. PI Tnomat w Parerf^ a g Mtcaaai C Lynch. PI. jamat t UaLtna; pp. ^arre O ParttfCh. P4I Seatt j ArgaraP. PP iCamatP p. Anaartan, PX Mart t Baits P|. Mart A W4a. p f. Gary W Marian, af Plul J Gannon. A i A C^vai J. Cagartan. P C A. RiCK V.:nm««it P C Oa*a .A Grave P ff priir«)p i Cat'A'a*! PC- \*»rk D ® t Miici G JanMert. F.g. t GfSvH Pf K areh L ’XriareeH P C Gary 0 Pr.ft'?*.ft PE Brian t Gage, P f. f Ta#a Patter. P j KakA t Vaap. P e Oas^gtes i tanait PX ShtwA O Gustafsaa PF. Caciflo CiKrief. P C Kant J. Wagaar. PX Paul G Mfvtr. P X Jahn a Gorae^ p£ Oan O Boywm. ax Jaf^rav J fh'ar«ngef. P.L .las apA B »ham. a 5. tea M Mann. P C. Chariai a gr<ct'sc*n Leo M Pav^tisty HtrIJn ML C.san Anr>ei M Bing P »-ige*hafC? J, \ a Gardiner Vacation File No. 139-1958 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the proposed alley vacation at 3770 Baysidc Road for Steven Gardiner. There does not appear to be any reason for the City to retain the 30-foot wide alley and we would recommend the vacation. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. Mr. Gardiner’s property presently exists as four separate lots. The vacated alley will represent a fifth parcel. We would recommend that a replat be done at this time to combine all of the parceb into one lot. TharH4ght-of-wav for Bayside Road (County Road No. 84) We ....lid !(■( 1 iTimTnTrniiiil airiiili1ijjfy«»f 9 as part of the replat. Drainage and utilitv.ease«effgSiOultibe uiuvid^>fe^udde along all lot lines and 10 feet wide.aloiMrTffe'ro^vay right-of-ways. ‘■'"---J:" Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours wry truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 I63SM % MEMO Date:! 1/15/95To: Orono Citv Planner <0 From: Craig Widdund RE: Win Stephens Addition 37 70 Bayside Road We do appreciate that Mr. Stephens wants to improve the property at 3770 Bayside Road. However, we prefer the proposed option 1 because we feel it would have less impact on our property. Option 2 would greatly change the view from the front of our home. Option 2 has proposed to build 3 1/2 to 4 feet from the line which is the front of our home. The N.E. comer of this new addition would sit approximately 25 feet from our driveway. Due to the elevation of the lot, the back of the new home would be 2 1/2 stories high in the N.E. comer. Which faces our front lot line. We would mu; h prefer that the end of the new home adjoin our front line as proposed in option 1. This would not extend the 3 1/2 feet setback that is already there. Last spring we applied for a variance to be 26 feet from our front line. We wanted our home to be on a higher elevation of the lot. We were denied that variance and had to comply with the 50 foot setback. In doing so, we adjusted the angle or position of our home to face more of our front lot line than our original proposal. With the construction of option 2 the front of our home would be looking at the back of the 2 1/2 story home. In light of the alley that is to become part of this parcel, we feel the construction should be done as per option 1. The alley allows reasonable setback to the west line. We welcome improvement on property and feel that option 1 is the reasonable plan. TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:November 16, 1995 SUBJECT: #1958 Louis Oberhauser, 2405 Dunwoody Avenue, 3865/3877 Shoreline Drive Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement/Replat, Class II Subdivision - Public Hearing Application: The applicant and owner proposes a replat of three substandard parcels. Refer to Exhibit G. Parcel A contains a rental residence. Parcel B contains two vacant boarded up residential units Parcel C is vacant (former residence removed). In the replat applicant proposes two residential lots that will require lot width variances and area variances. The current application also proposes new construction within the 75' setback area for Lot 1 «md hardcover variances for both lots within 75-250' setback area. Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.02, Definition 43B - Lot width determination for lakeshore lot. 2.Section 10.25 - Lot standards for LR-IC zoning district - review of existing lot areas and lot widths. Required lot area = 21,780 s.f. or .5 acres Required lot width = 100' measured at the OHWL and at the 75' setback Parcel A (western lot) Lot area = 7,600± s.f. Lot width = 35' at OHWL, 49' at 75' setback Parcel B (middle lot) Lot area = 16,900± s.f. Lot width = 34' at OHWL, 63' at 75' setback Parcel C (most eastern lot) Lot area = 12,000db s.f. Lot width = 50' at OHWL, 50' at 75' setback Proposed lots Lot 1 Lot area = 16,500 s.f. Lot width = 42' at OHWL, 72 ’ at 75' setback Zoning File #1958 November 16, 1995 Page 2 3. 4. 5. Lot 2 Lot area = 20,000 s.f. Lot width = 84* at OHWX, 77 at 75’ setback Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C-1) - Structural setbacks Lot 1 - lakeshore setback variance Required -15' Proposed = 69' Variance = 6' or 8% Lot 2 - structure \vill meet required 75' setback Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C-6) - Average lakeshore setback, refer to Exhibit P. The new construction will not require an average lakeshore setback. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) - Review of hardcover variances. Lot 1 0-75' setback area = 4,980 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 166 s.f. or 3.33% Proposed = 270 s.f. or 5.42% 75-250' setback area = 11,350 s.f. Allowed = 2,837,5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 6,704 s.f or 59.07% Proposed = 4,090 s.f or 36.03% Variance = 1,252.5 s.f. or 11.03% Hardcover reduction = 2,614 s.f. or 23.03% Lot 2 0-75' setback area = 5,670 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 198 s.f. or 3.49% Proposed =124 s.f or 2.19% 75-250' setback area = 12,880 s.f. Allowed = 3,220 s.f. or 25% Existing = 4,729 s.f. or 36.7% Proposed = 4,280 s.f or 33.23% Variance = 1,060 s.f. or 8.2% Hardcover reduction = 449 s.f or 3.5% Zoning File #1958 November 16, 1995 Page 3 6.Section 11.03, Subd. 2 - Definitions Definition 65C - Subdivision approval required when lot rearrangement involves lots that do not meet the standards of the zoning district. Definition 66B - Class II subdivision. The subdivision has been classified as a Class II division as it involves the dedication of new drainage and utility easements along he newly defined lot lines and utility easements will be dedicated for the sewer lines at west side of property, refer to Exhibit J. 7. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Lot 1 Total lot area = 16,500 s.f. Allowed = 2,475 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 2,570 s.f. or 15.6% Variance = 85 s.f. or .6% Lot 2 Total lot area = 20,000 s.f. Allowed = 3,000 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 2,120 s.f. or 10.6% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Addendum C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List El-3 - Hardcover Inventory Lot 1 FI-3 - Hardcover Inventory Lot 2 G - Existing Plan H - Hennepin County DOT Letter 11/14/95 I - Gustafson Report 11/13/95 J - Sewer As-Built K - Water As-Built L - Sanna/Withers Letter 11/6/95 M - Sanna/Withers Letter to Oberhauser N - N.Babatz Note Received 11/13/95 O - Current Plan of Replat P - Optional Plan Designating Shared Access at County Road 15 Q - Staff Sketch for Adjusted Lot Line with Shared Access r=:-i'rT x—..T I Zoning File #1958 November 16, 1995 Page 4 Status of Application #1958 The ^)plicant’s original subdivision application was presented to the Planning Commission at their August 19, 1994. The application was tabled as applicant was not present for the review. After the meeting the applicant advised staff that he wanted to add a request for hardcover variances for proposed redevelopment of the property. Applicant failed to proceed with the review of the 1994 subdivision application and has now filed an amended subdivision application that now includes hardcover and setback variances as noted above in the factual findings. Review of Amended Plan Access Review Exhibits H and I, both the City Engineer and Hennepin DOT recommend the shared access to both properties from County Road 15 finding the access to Lot 2 at Dunwoody too close to the intersection with potential for "erratic" and "unsafe weave movements". Proposed lot line can be moved to the west so that the shared curb cut and drive can be placed along the internal lot line (review Exhibit Q). This will also result in major reductions of hardcover in the driveway areas now proposed at 1,750 s.f. in Lot 1 and 2,100 s.f. in Lot 2. The access as shown on Exhibit P in an earlier review was approved by the County meeting adequate separation setback from intersection of Dunwoody and County Road 15 and with the access drive to the County shop area on North side of road, refer to Exhibit C. The County also asks that the most western access be removed at the same time the garage and retaining wail that encroaches the right-of-way of County Road 15. The County report asks for 7 of additional right-of-way dedication for the County Road. The City Engineer in his report. Exhibit 1, asks for 9’ dedication. T dedication would be consistent with a plat approved by *e City in 1982 (Navarro). Shoreline Drive is classified as a collector road in the City ’s comprehensive plan. Collector roads require only a 66’ right-of-way dedication. The dedication of the additional 7 would have a significant impact on the area of Lot 1. It would be consistent for the City to deny the County ’s request for the 7’ of right-of- way as it has in current subdivision reviews where City ’s classification of road right-of-way dedications conflict with the County. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining a Hennepin County permit for the removal of the western drive, garage and retaining wall. Grading/Drainage/Floodplain Review E.xhibits I and O, the floodplain elevation is located close to the shoreline and will not have an impact on fiittire building sites. The City Engineer notes in his repoM hat the sewer line is approximately 8-9’ in depth and will not allow full basements without ci,anging the site significantly with fill. The City has not been provided detail on the proposed new buildings. Zoning File #1958 November 16, 1995 Page 5 Based on the restricted or limited building envelopes the City may have to prohibit the installation of full basements. Applicant should be adrised that filling of over 100 cubic yards of fill in the preparation of a building pad would require a conditional use permit. Applicant should also be advised that height regulations are based on e.xisting elevations and not on fmal elevations. The City Engineer asks that utility easements be dedicated over the existing municipal lines that encroach the property along the west lot line, refer to E.xhibit A. The City will ask for a 20* utility easement Variances The applicant seeks approval of a lakeshore setback variance for the proposed residence on Lot 1. The structure is shown as encroaching the lakeshore setback line by 6'. Hardcover reductions are shown on both lots, 23.03% for Lot 1 and 3.5% for Lot 2. There will be further reductions when driveway areas are reduced with the shared access plan. Applicant also proposes retaining certain existing hardcover improvements within the 0-75' setback area. Review Exhibits FI and O, 124 s.f or 2.19% existing hardcover shall remain within Lot 2's lakeshore yard. Structural coverage for Lot 1 is proposed at 15.6% and 10.6% for Lot 2. Applicant should be advised that all accessory structures and decks with railing will be included within structural coverage. Note plans do not show future deck. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. 4. Will members approve lakeshore setback variance for the new construction on Lot 1? Will you approve hardcover variances within the 75-250* setback area based on overall reduction or will new construction be limited to 2,838 s.f. or 25% for Lot 1 and 3,220 s.f or 25% for Lot 2. Can railroad tie structure within 0-75 ’ setback area on proposed Lot 2 be removed? The smaller of the lots, Lot 1, is shown at 2,570 s.f structural improvements and the larger lot is shown at 2,120 s.f of structural improvements. Why is applicant proposing a larger residence for the smaller lot? Will members approve a structural coverage variance? Zoning File #1958 November 16, 1995 Page 6 5.Applicant's plans of improvement do not show deck which are normally to the lake side of residence. Is City to grant variances for future decks? . . . Applicant should discuss this issue. Site Conditions Review Exhibits L and N, letters from adjacent residents elated over the proposed removal of the boarded up structures and maintenance of yard arex The City receives calls from local residents and nonresidents concerning the condition of this property. The property has existed in this current run down condition for over ten years. The applicant sold his residence this past summer (refer to E.xhibit C). A condition of that sale was the removal or demolition of the structures by September of this year. This is a private matter and does not involve the Citv. The existing structures encroach the new shared lot line. Should the structures be removed before the granting of final plat approval? If not removed by final plat approval, it will be necessary to have applicant execute a developer’s agreement and post a letter of credit to cover 150% of the cost of the demolition and removal of the stnictures on the property. Prior to the application being scheduled before the Council for preliminary approval, the applicant should provide a written statement concerning his intentions concerning the removal of the structures. Review Exhibit B, the applicant has advised that he will be out of town on the 20th of November. He has authorized Jack L. Neveaux, an attoraev and partner of Mr. Oberhauser’s law firm, to represent applicant's interest at the meeting. Recommendation To approve the lot line rearrangement of the properties located at 2405 Dunwoody Avenue and 3865/3877 Shoreline Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for the demolition and removal of existing structures prior to final plat approval. If Planning Commission does not adopt this condition, applicant will be expected to execute a developer’s agreement and post a letter of credit to 150% of the cost of the demolition and removal of structures to be submitted with final plat submittals. The demolition permit must be obtained from the City of Orono for the removal of residence structures and detached garage. Applicant shall apply for a permit from the Hennepin County DOT for all work conducted within the right-of-way of the County Road. This will include the creation of the permanent shared access drive at the County Road. Zoning File #1958 November 16, 1995 Page 7 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Upon an application for building permits for the redevelopment of Lots 1 and 2, future owners shall be responsible for providing detailed grading and drainage plans to be reviewed by the City Engineer. Future owners are placed on notice that the filling in excess of 100 cubic yards in the preparation of building pads will require approval of a conditional use permit by the City of Orono. Access to Lots 1 and 2 shall be via a shared access located approximately 100' from the centerline of the intersection of Dunwoody Avenue and County Road 15. The existing western access shall be removed along with retaining wall located within County right-of-way. Preliminary plat drawing to be amended along with hardcover facts to reflect shared drive and realignment of shared lot line prior to application being scheduled before the Council. Dedication of a 20’ utility easement over the municipal line that encroaches the property along the lake and west lot sides. Dedication of drainage and utility easements along exterior lot lines and 5' along shared lot line. Drainage and utility easements need not be shown along lakeshore. Planning Commission recommendations concerning variances requested by application: A. Hardcover variances within 75-250 ’ setback area for proposed Lots 1 and 2. B.Hardcover variances for Lot 1 within 0-75’ setback area and for existing hardcover improvements within Lot 2. C. Lakeshore setback variance for new construction on proposed Lot 1. D. Structural coverage variance for proposed Lot 1. 9. Applicant to provide confirmation that former wells on site have been legally abandoned. 10. Other conditions suggested by Plaiming Commission. CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION y ^ 77 Sl^uL^ t^ation^Nunilxr (PIP) f________— ■ '■ ' n—— PROPERTY LOCATION Site address Propern’ Identification Number (PID) Please check one - Property____abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT / Name A^Ui<0 Address /^/ (2 fCLUaJA. City lOa.a-^Zip Phonelhome)**^^^^ ^ Phone (work) V7,-? OVV'NER (if different than applicant) Name __________ Address City Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 3 Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Acres Dry Land ________ Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels _ Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ LX -.r - WX • » •- w r:;;A; -r- ~-r 1 4 7? A£.*,\*\AAA X »-*wv«.\.’V vv V .‘O T*? /-e - Id I'jrrv* VO. :-J« HBCEIP^• %•r U . • •,f - Division for Tax Purposes ^ ^ ^ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites V Existing Units X Number of Building Sites — New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) **7 Units per «SS Acres X Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to 'applicatioa fees* listed below). 2. Completed application form. 3. Prelimmary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Ownen List of 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, 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 MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicablc). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Lener of Credit. Zoning Official’s Signature_____________________________________ ------------- Totals I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, 11 & III) $200.(X) --------- _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S300.(X) ■■ _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $300.(X) --------- Preliminary Subdivision Application $325.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) --------- _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $175.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 . - _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $2(X).00 . .. _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) --------- Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original applicauon) ______ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original ^plication) ______ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application S 100.00 (No change from original ^plication) --------- B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads S6(X).(X) + $.50/Iineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 *» S______ ■— Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 - $______ ______ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 ---------- Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 -t- S25/stub ' Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 ---------- On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/new lot proposed for on-site x_____new lots --------- C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variance $200.(X) ' - Vacation Associated with Subdivision $75.00 --------- PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit --------- The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrcM to ^ all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant’s Signanire Owner’s Signatu Date j/i Date 'r“ ADDliciml musl have all subminals into the City Office 2i days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission mwtings arc held on the third Monday of each month. Applicanu must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. OBERHAUSER & NEVEAUX A PAtTNCWMlP Of PHOftSSlONAL COWOMTIONS ArrC«NfY5 AND COLNSflORS AT LAW 1421 EAST VVAYZATA BOULEVARD - SUITE 210 VVAYZATA, MN 55391 LOUIS B. OBERHAUSER* )ACK NEVEAUX* •A hoftn*ondi Assocjjuyi (612) 473-2521 FAX (612) 473-7863 BACKUP FAX (612) 473-0265 November 6, 1995 CITY OF ORONO Attention: Jean Mabusth 1335 Brown Roaci South Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: LOUIS B. OBERHAUSER Dear Ms. Mabusth: PLEASE BE ADVISED that Jack L. Neveaux, attorney at law, is qualified to represent me at the November 20, 1995 Orono Planning Commission meeting and is authorized to answer any questions that may be asked regarding the project. LB0:ejw r- >■ is /m\ .-1mt? *..x: , . h* '901 X ^ r •. ’*=>> .? . -/ .^ •' .. 1 i i ^ j ■ I i''9 -j « _i 7 i! s vi r M 4 • ,£ ^ -■'95) ,i(5:)?'!'"''^;^^5'.^‘'-■’;•“(i-55ii'/--*-) a •:o 'v' ri?- L_ ^ « > 7r ’ i'> r> ‘ 5s.' irf L\l=* 4*4 Li 'J'\ f?- 4 V* sj --------------------' -r • _ —^ 1 i4.' V -j-5 ' """J ^ -— __________^ ^ t *•. (2) M)K / 9 / " 7' as- i o y: RUN DATE 11/02/95 BATCH 50A RROP ADDR ONNCR KANE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROR ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP ADDR Olf€R NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR CAfCR NAHE TAXPAYER • NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 17 17-117-23 33 0037 03900 SHORELINE DR J J CARLSON IDE CARLSa4 J J CARLSON I 0 E %^ARLSON 3900 SHORELINE rR SPRIH6 PARK HN LZS^ 17 17-117-23 33 0043 03900 DEL OTERO AVE J H BABATZ ETAL JOHN HENRY BABATZ 3900 DEL OTERO AVE SPRINQ PARK HN 55364 36 17-117-23 33 0003 03660 SHORELINE DR COUNTY or HENNEPIN ORONO SHOP C/0 HENN CO - P.S. BIG 320 NASHINGTON AVE S HOPKINS HT4 55343 36 17-117-23 33 0006 03650 SHORELINE DR * S KATAINEN I B L KATAINEN STEPHEN KATAINEN 967 PAYNE AVE ST PAUL HN 55101 36 20-117-23 22 0001 03925 SHORELINE OR LEONARD LAHPERT LEONARD P LAfDERT 3925 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK HN 55364 36 20-117-23 22 0004 03695 SHORELINE OR R 0 JENSEN ETAL J I S RAUSCHENDORTER 3695 SHORELINE OR HAYZATA HN 55391 HENr4EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 17 17-117-23 33 0036 03916 SHORELINE DR DOUGLAS C GAMBLE DOUG GAMBLE 456 MCGILVRA BLVD E SEATTLE NA 96112 17 17-117-23 33 0044 03910 DEL OTERO AVE OAKRIDGE BUILDERS INC OAKRIDGE BUILDERS INC 9216 BRANOYMINE RD HAHEL MN 55340 36 17-117-23 33 0004 03690 SHORELINE DR E J A H J HELD EDHARD J I MARSHA J HELD 3690 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 33 0007 03600 SHORELINE OR JANET H OLSON JANET H OLSON 3600 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA rt4 55391 36 20-117-23 22 0002 03935 SHORELINE OR J A S BEDELL JAMES DAVID BEDELL 3935 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK HN 55364 36 20-117-23 22 0005 03915 SHORELINE DR NH SASKATCHENAN ACQUISITIONS NH SASKATCHENAN ACQUISITIONS 5612 DORON DR EDINA MN 55439 REPORT NO. PAGE 17 17-117-23 33 0039 03924 SHORELINE OR CLARK R OLTHAN CLARK R OLTHAN 3924 SitoRELINE OR SPRING PAI6C MN 55364 36 17-117-23 33 0002 03660 SHORELINE DR CO Of HENN ORONO HAINT STATION C/0 HENN CO - P.S. BAG 320 NASHINGTON AVE S HOPKINS rt4 55343 36 17-117-23 33 0005 03660 SHORELINE DR DAVID UBEHOCKER DAVID UTBEHOCKER 3660 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA m 55391 36 20-117-23 21 0018 02420 DUNNOOOY AVE calvary HEHORIAL CHURCH CALVARY HEHORIAL CHURCH 2420 DUNNOOOY AVE HAYZATA 494 55391 36 20-117-23 22 0003 03905 SHORELINE OR RICHARD ADOLPH CARLSON RICHARD A CARLSON 3905 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK HN 55364 36 20-117-23 22 0006 03677 SHORELINE DR LOUIS B OBERHAUSER L B OBERHAUSER 2425 DUNNOOOY AVfe HAYZATA HN 55391 P145M01 j . ,/x A f • ': ; A;'-. . ' J • ‘ y ‘--V- • ^ I / f ‘ J • Y • I • i'. <;* •; 'j v.\ •’-t' •'r V. • : V. • > . • • i« 11 •V V .: ;' > « /-I'.V ''3 J ; ■ .“.i- • ■. i ' HUN DATE ll/OZ/n ) "*BATCN 604 PROP ADDR Olf€R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR , PROP AOOR . OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 1 J . I PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR i. » , t ■ ! ‘ **. . . SO 20-117-2S 22 0007 0S865 SHORELINE OR KATHERINE MC NAMARA LOUIS B OBERHAUSER 2425 DUN^IOOOY AVE HAYZATA MN S5S91 SB 20-117-23 22 0010 02435 DUNHOOOY AVE MARION 0 BEISE JAMES C BEISE 2435 DUNHOOOY AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 3B 20-117-23 22 0013 02465 DUNHOOOY AVE R V UMDEMOCKER ETAL ROBERT UMBEHOCKER 2465 DUNHOOOY AV HAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 3B 20-117-23 22 OObB 02405 DUNHOOOY AVE LOUIS B OBERHAUSER LOUIS B OBERHAUSER 2425 OUNNDOOY AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 3B 20-117-23 22 0011 02445 DUMXXIY AVE A B NELSON ETAL ALVIN B NELSON 2445 DUNHOOOY AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 504 00025 REPCmT NO. P1435401 PAGE 7 •. * .'h ‘ t' I' ’ 38 80-117-2S tt 0009 02425 DUNMOOOY. AVE H P HITHERS 8 L A SAIMA NIUIAn P HITHERS 2425 OiMkOODY AVE HAYZATA m S5S41 SO 20-117-2S 22 0012 02437 OIAMOOOY AVE MARION 0 telSE MARION 0 OEISC 2437 DUNNDQOV AVE hayzatA m 55sn ... • - 'tM Y / ■ • :' ' • 1 i*’ ' V '' ■ ■ • ■ • .if. 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* t6 THE REST OF MY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF. DATE ui'im, PERTY TAXATION. TO 1 1^'»■■ ■ ^■‘r.-ilril .•.■=IVV If'Vi: : ’ r < • ;S HARDCOVhK CALCULAIlU.N wuKiv3|i£ti ACKZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ ' 75-250’ Q50-5001^’ ’500-1000' 06dtNJiA/fA Clot i) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE . House L<n|ih B. Cange • • •• C. Driveway % % % X % % D; Sidewalk % X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Liadscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ‘.’•TOT.\L PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A O ^ B PROPOSED HARDCOVTR IN ZONE A. House _____________X Length X X X B. Cange • • C. Driveway ■a 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 cor /zra'^Soo *. K S • • • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. ” S.R S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 5.F, ■*S.F. Width f S.F. • ♦•S.F. m S.F. • • S.F. ■ - • • • • •• • *S.F. S.F. • • «« •S.F. •S.F. S..F, . • .•• • •S.F. • S.F. S.F. m S.F. . -% m* • • • • m.S.F. • •• • • •o S.F. . . . 1 ^ • • • •• • • •S.F. ' X 100 -n % •• * • •i S.F. S.F. s:f. .% ** .1 . :• A fi . U' A B • .» I* HARDCOV tK ACKZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) FVlsnNG HARDCQVTR IN ZONE . House ______ ,LCLLA11U.N WUKlvatlJUil 75-250’ 250-500* (^OT /) 75-250’ 250-500* 500-1000* ^-I X L«nfth X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X b. CiJLwalk-CV^X'^^T'f X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X * F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic OrTabne X X X G. Other Cd/POQ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ® - PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length X •• X X B. Garage • « « C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other / i ? S.F \Vteia> S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. s.f; // S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /€ 6 S.F. xloo S.F. 55 Z 70 S.F. Width. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • » . •S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • • » ml*’__S.F. S.F. S.F. • • • « S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . r . ■ TOTAL B ■I I • .^77" /0-7^* ••• . 'i •• • A B . A. B • ♦ • • HARDCOVbK CAl-CLl-AU12i^VKiv.an£,iii ACK ZONE: (CIRCLE 0>X) f ^I^TYNG hardcover IN ZONE A. House ____________ L«iifA A 11U> n \ 0-75’ QmSO^250-500’ Cior 2) Vifldih B. Cange • • C. Drivewiy D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck (A/0*C F. Landscape ______^ Underlain ________ By Plastic ________ Or Fabric4*-o€k.f G. Other dW^c/ X X X X X X X X X • •% TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE V72.^B /7. ?PO X 100 • - PROPOSED HARDCOVXR IN ZONE A. House ____________ Lenf^ii X X X X Widm B. Cange C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X X X X X X X total HARDCOVER IN ZONE . • ; . total pRorem^EA W zone ^ y j, fpg »too .> 500-1000’ Z€OSt.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /JYO S.F. S.F. i • iz s F. • - S.F. V? S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. /*7 S.F. . V7iLJ^SF 12.^^O S.F. Cf.% 2/7^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Zioo S.F. S.F..• «r^* ^^7 S.F; S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _______SF- S.F. /2.y yg-s_,p A B A B /ar Z 7S -z sa HARDCUVbK CALCtLAnu*\ ACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250’0-500*.500-1000' rviSTlNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ .. LMf*' 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 O. Other •• •TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE i ^ X 100 - Proposed hardcover in ZONE A. House _____________ Length B. ' Garage ' . C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X Width X X . X • • X X X • X X X , • # •. I • • •• G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROl £RTY AREA IN ZONE A __ ------B /33S_ X 100 - (Lor i) % • •• , ^ ■ • '"■ ■ S.F. Width* • ‘ ■ . ... • • S.F. S.F. S.F. • ♦ • • •S.F. ------S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ■ . . , • . • • S.F. • * S.p. S.F. S.F. S.F. • ir •• » S.F. .' 0 S.F. i33S S.F. A B Q. i •• •• • • . • •• S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.Fl » ZS^ S.F. • . S.F: S.F. S.F. S.F.. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B /ar- ?.2SO ) A Hennepin^ounty 4 ^ M F>.r,f. v ' ’•'»»'> ^Ji'ninisr u t Jeanne A. Nabusth >®®* Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 REt Proposed Plat - Shoreline Drive and Ounwoody Ave- CSAH 15, southwest quadrant CSAH 15 and Ounwoody Avenue Section 20. Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2278 Review and Reconinendations Dear Ms. Mabusth: M1nn«sota StJtutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Su/veys, r^ulra Cojjnt)' , . review of proposed plats abutting County roads. Me reviewed the above plat and make the following comments; • The developer should either dedicate an I«lLnt 'firfor a total of 40 feet of right of way or establish i 7 road purposes adjacent to the existing 33 feet of right of . either case, there should be 40 feet from and along the centerline of CSAH 15 available for roadway improvements. identifies two access option, preferred by the located approximately 105 Hennepin County will CSAH 15 the existing the plats northwest corner Your transmittal letter submitted with the plat options acceptable to the developer. The first County, is a joint access for Lot A and 'ot B. feet west of the plats northeast corner. Since permit one access along the plats frontage with driveway located approximately 20 feet east of will need to be removed. The developers second access option Is one ‘®,“AH J5 and one preferr^ option Lt the access to Ounwoodyintersection of CSAH 15 and Ounwoody and could lead to some very erra and unsafe weave movements. We prefer the first option. Department of Public Wor^ 320 Washington .Avenue South Hopkins. Minnesota 55.343'«S46S (612)930-2500 F.AX:(612)^30-2513 — I 9 -••• -w . •—I I I • T T ^ 1 iU'd iC*wX vJeanne Mabusth November 9, 1995 Page 2 • Tht existing gerege. Incited tonorthwest corner, encroaches on bounty right of «y^ The note that the developnent plans show ® ^ .^a”ing wall,garage removal should also Include removal of the wood retaining wa. . All proposed construction within County right of -V !" HennSp?S County permit prior ?ra11 5“e5eUprnt!’;i51aJ»r ’ oir Permits Section at 930-2550 for the appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way* disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Doug Hattson. 4 Sincerely, Thomas 0. «5bhnson, P.E* Transportation Planning Engineer TOJ/DBM |v e,^^» ♦ e • I • » H • • • •me^ mT^ I ! l-ia-IQc.5 9:51AM aSSCC 612 636 1311 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene m « Anderlik 6i Associates Engineers & Architects November 13. 1995 BOA#ftrM. 9osen«. Andtfiiit M AttooMn. inc u Affirn*«rtvt AcrtoA/E^u«t Ooporturitiy Sh^ioyef A (ar*o*a P£. <#<tn A. CoTfiort. P E «e9#rt E P-# C::0 <1 idheitroo. • 1 jr reserve. P f • • •SP9A C AP9#«% • S. M»rvy% ^ ;pfv4ii. •£. £ c^^fC 1 •X (^«nn E Cooc .* 1 r^amjf t Ncyet. ^ ^ is^-t a 5cr-p c^ ^X S«^f«r* M f5fr«*h, C? A* • C.hu^ tiTt t'CTM W. POITPf. » X -tv# a iostoLiL # X taec«t C. tOiitE A.LA. Jw^ry A 3oor#e«i tX ^iltrt A P X MitTPe* T .tjucmtr^. t E Tea F*eifl Pf T^omw # Anctrso.*t. A lA A t/«jj Scnmiot PM. Jtrpvi X foic/vntr%«l f C. S»t A Grov« Pf. N44ChM4 C Wyncn. P t i^tn E Otge. P X jtmet ff PE. p t ^eo Poner. Pi ^rry O Pt^»tc?\ PI Ktitf* I rapn, p^ Scot? J. Ar^tTHw. P1 OOu^its J. ttnoff. P X iccnntm P Af^oeramf* p.x Shtwvi O ^MittfsoA. P X Mtrt t PoiFl. PX MHH A S#iA. PI Otfv sr PX P*yi J. OtA^en A la Oarie? /. fa';tr?oA. PX A S^'ko Pf Prtderc - Stcroorg. » • Mtrunea. PE Micntti P 2jwi P i Jt. P*!*':er'. •! P^ti’9 J CPf'veu Pt *Atf« O ^adli. e ^ V*<4tt X P X L Pi^.itd C/mv^i. PX L. Pg Ctry 0. Krtnoru. P X CtCUiE OfMtr. P •. ItAf X Warner. PX Ptu< a Mttitr. P t >PPA P Gerber. P E 0th O Xtyum. PX. Jt^frty J. E.hftfirtoe^. P X ;QieoP» • PPtIrt P f Ur M. Mina. P X Cht^ri A C*^CJc9Ca LM M. Ptwtuty Mtrfan %L 0<SOn A^*t Ml pw»e JtP>P> P Irge<har<n Ms. Jeanne A. Mabasth. Building and Zoning Administramr Citv’ of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Rc: Louis Oberhauser Rcplai File No. 139-1958 Dear Jeanne, Wc have reviewed the proposed replat to combine four existing units into two lots on the property owned by Louis Oberhauser in Lots 1 and 2, Block 8. Townsitc of Langdon Park. Two option.^ have been submitted to the Citj’ for consideration. The first ha.s a separate access to each lot. Lot 1 onto County Road No. 15 and Lot 2 onto Dunwoody Avenue. The second option has a shared driveway access onto County Road No. 15. The propert)' presently has two gravel driveways out to C.R. 15. The proposed access (center of property) would be acceptable for a shared driveway if the westerly access is eliminated as proposed. The proposed access out to Dunwoody Avenue is not desirable due to its close proximity to the intersection with C.R. 15. Either option has some beneficial aspects, however, wc would recommend the shared driveway option if approved by Hennepin County. An e.xisting sanitary’ sewer cros.ses through the property, westerly along the lake and northerly along the west lot line (see record plan sheet .A126). The sewer is approximately 8 to 9 feet in depth which will not allow a full basemen: without changing the site significantly. The existing sewer should be shown on the certificate of sun’cy. Water service is as'ailable along the south side of Countv Road No. 15. The right-of-way for C.R. 15 is presently 66 feet wide. We would recommend that an additional 9 feet right-of-way be provided as par: of the rcplat. Drainage and utility easements should be prorided 5 feet wide along all lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of-ways. Existing Ctfiscmcnt.s for the sewer line should either be .shown on the certificate of survey or rededicated. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. yALu^ri '2). Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. ' .* V>^'—. .. #*^ , Vr’ ;*• augereo service TH 62 . • .-^5 •1 ■«-#«£»*• i ,.T. ^ - ‘gk*- “»“*'» '* ^ rVrt -* •'7! r ^ r-f • • • \ *p • • •• • •• • ! • ♦ •••§ !••••• • • •• ; • • • ••• • # v«^(4620)(4601)• • #•• .• *•-X rcrp~ ” i. « .. 1 ■ 10 i8«tfTEE-v X' "A-" '' /.- ■ 8»(6TEE^ I / .* Mi-W. -t wm '}■,(< cVv- ■ I- • ,'■-■ V. 5^V' ** ’'ri ' •'■ •*•*''■* ■ * ^ ' • •. •;/ ’* . • '• .'■; ii;j v ................ F• • t. - ,,... .P. 'I *',♦* •‘i*L* % *• * i * •». V. •• Lee Ann Sanna W. Paul Withers 2425 Dunwoody Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 Novembers, 1995 Jeanne Mabusth 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Jeanne; My spouse and I purchased the property at 2425 Dunwoody Avenue on July 1,1995. In our purchase agreement with Mr. Louis Oberhauser, the seller of the property, there was a clause. ‘Seller agrees to demolish neighboring houses by September 30. 1995." That agreement is 37 days past due as of today, November 6, 1995. We have contacted Mr. Oberhauser by certified mail asking him to comply with the agreement and mailed copies to our realtor Jill Lawrence-Brown as well as his realtor Nancy Curry. We are circulating a petition /or signatures in our neighborhood. Many of the people who live on Dunwoody Avenue and Casco Point are concerned with the potential danger of the unsafe structures northwest of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. We strongly urge the Orono City Council not to entertain any subdivision of the lots northwest of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue until you have escrowed monies for the removal of the unsafe structures on those lots. Sincerely, Lee Ann Sanna Lee Ann Sanna W. Paul Withers 2425 Dunwoody Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 Novembers, 1995 Louis Oberhauser 1421 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Oberhauser; It has been 37 days past the agreed upon date of September 30,1995 to dismantle and remove the homes directly west of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. ‘•'OL signed a purchase agreement that states. ' Seller agrees to demolish neighboring Iir>uses by September 30, 1995." Mr. Oberhauser, • We do not understand why you would bother to sign the agreement and not comply. • We do not understand why you wish us well with a card and plant telling us of the good times you had in this house and not comply with the agreement. • We do not understand why you would want three dangerous structures on the property of adjacent to 2425 Dunwoody Avenue that may endanger lives. We would like to enjoy the entire panoramic view of the beautiful lake and well-kept properties from our new home. Please remove the dilapidated houses northwest and adjacent to the property of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. Please comply with the agreement that you signed on June 4, 1995. Sincerely, Lee Ann Sanna cc Jill Lawrence-Brown Nancy Curry CO W. Paul Withers CITY OF ORONO 2750 KeUey Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax . 73-0510 NOTICE NOV 1 3 1995 The Planning Commission will hold scheduled public hearings in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, November 20. 1995 on the matter of reviewmg the followmg subdivision applications: 7:35 P.M. ^092 Dennis Plarteter proposes a subdivision of two residential lots of the property located at 809 North Brown Road. #1958 Lou Oberhauser proposes a replat of three lots into a two lot residential subdivision of the propenies located at 2405 Dunwoody Avenue. 3865 and 3877 Shoreline Drive. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at the specifted times. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available in the City offices for review, by appointment. City of Orono By: Planning Commission 1 2. ‘9:30 P.M. Jeahne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator ►—s •J {= T —- -* . — ----r * ♦ J November 6,1995 m 2 » 1P95 This petition is asking for immediate demolishing and removal of the dilipilated structures northwest and adjacent to the property of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. These structures are dangerous, hazardous and an eyesore to the neighborhood. 3. 8. ^ Q. yv-os'^iK^__ y-•2 / 10. 1. 15. *^ 16. 2Q.(^er 21. if Vo Gu^ l"i ^ 2J^ t* Cl c<)c’ ^ C.O^ecF-1- R-A- A^/S (^Sr^ 'f/ 35c5t5 Ojjc^ pa • 3/ S / . L^/tJ .• ^ Xc/- ^ 7,^ /Xf 6^ . ,5^*^ I <Gc:ts^O % 3o3o Pf- ~^u »> <<ooo t ^xS 4^- dJ^Sy y?/7r' J O 0 oO vj^co^V 2l f^6 ^'Ouj<n-^'//9-0-c. j:? LOi..u-’,LAC( a'''^ ‘' /v.;:;7 i'ff^pyh^Sj/ z-^^C f\,..CL^UX^Ac V 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. C'■(glLA^o^V:i 7r:.roI>:>M\worcx i\o^,: _____- Z’^.'/L ^/'’ Ho<»! Lee Ann Sanna W. Paul Withers 2425 Dunwoody Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 Novembers. 1995 Louis Oberhauser 1421 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata. MN 55391 Dear Mr. Oberhauser; It has been 37 days past the agreed upon date of September 30. 1995 to dismantle and remove the homes directly west of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. You signed a purchase agreement that states, * Seiler agrees to demolish neighboring houses by September 30, 1995.” Mr. Oberhauser, • We do not understand why you would bother to sign the agreement and not comply. • We do not understand why you wish us well with a card and plant telling us of the good times you had in this house and not comply with the agreement. • We do not understand why you would want three dangerous structures on the property of adjacent to 2425 Dunwoody Avenue that may endanger lives. We would like to enjoy the entire panoramic view of the beautiful lake and well-kept properties from our new home. Please remove the dilapidated houses northwest and adjacent to the property of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. Please comply with the agreement that you signed on June 4. 1995. Sincerely, Lee Ann Sanna cc Jill Lawrence-Brown Nancy Curry W. Paul Withers 7, TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cit> Administrator FROM: .Michael P. Gatiron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:November 15, 1995 SUBJECT: #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District/>V'illiam R. Pearce Property, 1485 6th Avenue North - VariancesConditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing ~ Zoning District: LR-IA. Sii.Je Fair.ily Lakeshore Residential, 2 acres. Application: Request for variances and conditional use permit to construct 2.5 acre wet detention basin/wetland. The purpose of the project is to remove sediments and nutrients (principally phosphorus) from the major creek flowing into Long Lake from the north. Note: This item was tabled at Planning Commission's September meeting. List of Exhibits A - .Additional Information Submitted by MCWD - Letter 11/13/95 - Photo/Rendition of Site Before and After ^ N - Additional Items B - DNR Permit 9/22/95 C - William Pearce Comments Submitted 9/18/95 D - Settlement Agreement Submitted 9/18/95 E - Planning Commission Minutes 9/18/95 F - Construction Plan Excerpts Re: Orono Project G - Staff Memo of 9/15/95 with Selected Exhibits Discussion After nearly an hour of review at the September meeting, Planning Commission tabled this item in order to give the matter further consideration, and allow applicant to provide additional information. Applicant ’s letter of November 13th addresses certain issues raised by the City including: - Restoration of vegetation, considering the loss of a number of mature trees in the area to be excavated (see photo renditions as well as Exhibit F4 which has been updated to include an emergent vegetation planting schedule) - Installation of an access gate with a common lock - Pond maintenance Zoning File #205^ November 15, 1995 Page 2 Included in this packet are the comments submitted by the property owner, William Pes^e, at the September 18th meeting, as well as a copy of the settlement agreement. Additionally enclosed is a copy of the DNR permit issued in late September. Construction plan E.\hibits F3, F4, F5 and F7, have been slightly revised since the September packet. F3 and F4 now include the planting schedule. Note that in F4 and F5, the two basins of the Orono pond are separated by a peninsula rather than an island as noted previously. F7 contains additional detail regarding the gate proposed for the access road. Issues for Consideration Please again review the memo of September 15th (Exhibit G) which reviews the variances and conditional use permit required, discusses shoreland ordinance permit review guidelines, reviews the City Engineer's comments, discusses health, safety and welfare issues specifically dunng the construction process, and defines a list of items for Planning Commission review and consideration. Finally, note that while MCWD is pursuing legal action against the City of Medina due to their refusal to issue the necessary permits, MCWD remains optimistic that the Medina pond will be constructed this winter. Therefore, it is critical to address the safety issues regarding spoU disposal for that project, which may require extensive truck traffic at the County Road 6/Tamarack Drive intersection. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval with specific conditions. 2. Recommend approval, directing staff to develop appropriate conditions. 3. Table, specifying what additional information or review process is appropriate. 4. Recommend denial, stating specific reasons. 5.Other. MINNEHAHA CREEK ^ WATERSHED DISTRICT T ~^E0 O'-15500 Wayzata Boulevard Suite 611 Twelve Oaks Center Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 onice: (612) 476-7970 fax:(612)476-7973 BOARD OF BUHAGERS: .orn E. T^or'as P^esicer: a G S.ixt. =fes ar.:. Mar.ra S. Har7iei. Secretary. ThoxastiV LaBounr; Treasurer Monica Gross. C iVcooro.v lo’^; Thomas Mao-e. Jr.. DiStna Cireaor ^ Strommen WATtnSHCO BOUNOARV hO'I lake MINNETONKA Mike GafTron City of Orono P C Box 66 Orono. MN 55323 November 13, 1995 Dear Mike, Thank you for meeting with me last week to discuss the vegetation restoration plan for the Orono site of the Long Lake Improvement Project. As we discussed, the project involves removal of vegetation along a portion of the creek that flows through the Pearce property. The district has reviewed the city’s ordinance on vegetation removal along shorelines. The Long Lake Improvement Project includes water quality and revegetation in this area which we feel satisfies the areas outlined in the city’s ordinance. The before and after photos of the site suggest what the area will look like when new vegetation and plantings become established. The District is committed through a number measures, to ensure that this vegetation is maintained. The District recommends and supports having a common lock to the access gate located off County Road 6 for emergency and maintenance purposes. Keys v,ould be held by the watershed district and il'.e City of Orono. The maintenance schedule for the Pearce pond will be the responsibility of the watershed district. The District's intentions rje to reach an agreement with the City of Orono to perform this maintenance as part of a cooperative agreement. The frequency of cleaning and maintaining these ponds is greatly dependent upon the best management practices of the up stream municipalities. Sincerely, Thomas W. LaBounty Lead Manager cc: Mr. & Mrs. William Pearce 60% Recyrleo • 30% Post-consumer MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT r '^HED 0^ 15500 Wayzata Boulevard Suite 611 Twelve Oaks Center Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 oftic*: (612) 476-7870 fax: (612) 476-7973 80ABD OF MAMGERS: John E Thomas Pres 3er*. Pame aG E rt Vice PresdS"! f.lanr'a S Hartliei. Secretary, Thomas W LaBount, Treasure'; Monca Grcss C Woosrow Love. Thomas Maole, Jr. D'Stnct DirectO' Euoer'e P S'rommer November 16, 1093 Flannini; Commission City of Orono rO Pox 66 Orono, MN 33323 Re; l>ong Uke Improvement Frojccl Pear rianning Commission Memliers, Enclo,.d for your revirw are rw"ert rsTit““ Pearce’s select the species they preter in this area. Tlic vryrtalivc restoration plan has also been reviewed with your confidini that the plans submitted ,s..lisfy the requirements of the conditional u.e permit and of the city. We look forward to working with the City of Orono on this prqieet. Sincerely,______ . ^ Thomas \V. LiPounly . Lead Manager, Lont; Uke Improvement I roject ReeveUkI • PosT-convu'^* w:iitr'. <4 '-i;H; . sr, , • .,,. 5 V's,- *■■>’ ' .. . ^ V ^' - • ii ‘>-^- r,.r ^ ,* '-Vr.-*?'{ \'l*' ’ K - 1. • W'*aii S!?' iCV fpil? R‘^.* ;.-VV>ill: ■ i>''. • .i <V <v ^ ii s:; *»x^ r ' .- 0i > y't.N., > :v: #. ” ’■ r I ^ \f ». I « • - €t i f' n /. I? Pi ♦ «c 7 fe f t- ^ ; ^ fcS ^i.i K '1 • • • Ti» fcl im #^>.^ •“V* . •J •• • . *' ^ "f- iJi *! '•4*V ■>:%$’; tv> v 1 'A ' ' ' t!*.' • V , :Jf-M .V* .%;‘'.j ■•■.■ r'-ii'- ' hi' ■ ■ jj* «■ - ■•>* .,- LilJ •SH< ^ ■,'V' * 5fci::t’3v^' ' • •• T'^ * -' ^gL>a-. ». / S',. i * . ^ lCS|M ’iW« ’M- v^4 rt-- r ^ •« ■• A ^ # - M -t* A-' '■'! ,^ v *25C m mm;•’■ ■‘'•'< ;«fcV/ ■ • -. v.- ■■'■ LImItL w > /<m 'L- - ■•='"■’ ■ m4J^**' W4V«- " 'H- & ’'4' ■•-■*»V .1 V» '■»*. V' ' •S/- * V ..V 'T '* > •%>.l*' '<p* ' • 1 t *4 -» .1/ • yr ^ f •f^.cTr^ V ‘ ' * tij? '■» • '•’**• . . figii^i V* jK 1 ?3fef^•**^*^ ^ " / -\ *K ;•;--■.- ' ■ i ■ /' ■' ■• >>v.V- y. -L \ ,\' vyr ^ \ omam A V"•• O'a x'' / \*• 1 ) / / / /' IWIh . y/7//>y>lii w\\' ' y ''-y^■ . jjV, > : ' \l\:\ / V / I \1 / *, Jt ///mm <yy^-y:-y^y:- v .- '/yA ^'y^'A- :■ '••, V//-' '!. t! . m / ///7 'h /. /////* II//" 1 r •'/ gicp •^AfsK ,ll.. SA'lb--- I <5 'ti-'/'m i / /' .; RrtV^((•,''■ SO” V } ■- -r- i \ . ■ ^ '____I _ /1/// • / 7/\ 11 bb / A , ]i!! y/ I 11 h'l! ! 11 I »3 A3 %3 3 S3 8^ ir? ^ 58 z8 ^8 m8 f*i Ofi o«’» rmito o o mo m -n T» < S§ ii IMI 8 / 0' // ^ i'!i (( (} ’^.1?*! V'Vo:\\:X)i « \ V- - - ■ ■■ 5 Wenck • ••ak kaaaatalaa. !■• MOO C^ta* C^lar (till «>f «700 ••fliak«anl«l tailaaM* K««a AaK M4 35}!« r«a> lIUI «rt-4l«a MHfCKAMA CHEEK WATERS>€C DISTRICT LONG LAKE MPft0VEI4ENT PROJECT «cci mumssm xiwa,^ 0ATt<yAr OAfI NCvoo 4ca» «M> Mc mm 7-t^ ow—ai - OMN—ML_ m_jii(L PHONE NO STATE OT _^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATERS, 500 Ufa>ttte Road, St Paul, 55155 296-4800 - ; Pile no e 1S2&Septonber22,1995 Miniidiaha Creek Water^ed District Attn: Michael Panzer ,.^»i Twelve Oaks Center Suite 611 15500 Wayzata Blvii. Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: PERMIT NO 95-6231; LONG LAKE (27-160) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Dear Mr. Panzer: Attached find a permit that authorizes the portion of the Long Lake Improvement Project requiring a Protected Waters permit fiom the Department (^Natural Roources. Please note that you wiU need a separate approval fi-om the Department’s Division of Fish and Wildlife for the proposed alum treatment of Long Lake. Please read the attached permit carefully and make sure the contractor fiiDy understands all provisions of this permit. Note in particular Spe^ Provision No 1, which roquiw that a plan ^ report on any temporary or permanent spoil disposal plans be submitted to the Regional Hydrologist for review and written approval. The authorized work must not be started unless or until this approval is obtained by you and/or your contractor. Also note that the permit is not valid unless a similar permit is received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any mitigation eflfortt worked out with the Corps are also considered requirements of this permit. If you have questions regarding your permit, please contact Regional Hydrologist Dale Homuth at 772-7910. Good luck on this valuable public improvement project. J<^L. Stine, Administrator Peimits and Land Use Section JLS/DEH c:USCOE, Joe Yanu Conservation OflBcer, Tom Hemker City of Long Lake, Joe Lynch City of Medina, Jeff Karlson DNR Fisheries, Taylor Polomis Central Waters, Ron Anderson MPCA, Larry Zdon Conservation Officer, Tim Konrad City of Orono, Mike Gafifron Hennepin CD, Ali Durgunoglu DNR Wildlife, Jon Parker Long Lake (27-160p) file AN EQUAL opportunity EMPLOYER INNESOTA PROTECTED WATERS PERMIT Ptssuut to MinwJto Staum, Chaptor 103G, lod on the basu of statements and information oontainad in the and plans submitted by the appUcant and other supporting dau. aU of t*hich an made a part hereof by teferenoe. PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to the applicant to perfomi the work as authorized below PrctectetlW4 Long Lake (27-160p) and Unnamed Tributary to Long Lake Cammty Hennepin TtUpkoma Stumkar (iaebidfArtm Coda) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Attn: Michael Panzer (612) 476-7970 Adirau (Sa. A S^aat, RFD, Box No. Cky. StaU, Tip Coda) 15500 WavzaU Blvd., Twelv’C Oaks Center. Suite 611. Wayzata, Minnesou 55391 To reconstruct two stormwater treatment ponds and to install a stormwater discharge structure and ditch into the bank of Long Lake at Long Lake City Park; and to inttall two ceU w« detention basms in the bed of Unnamed Tributary to Long Lake at the County Road No. 6 site and Deo Road site, all as shown on the “Plans for the Long Lake faiprovemcnt Project”, dated August 25, 1995, and in accordance with the General and Special Provisions listed herein. Pmrpoaa af FaamM Water Quality Improvement Project Ej^koBmD^afParmk » 1Novend)w30, 1999 Proparty Daacrikodoa: Sections 26 and 34 of Tl 18N, R23W Addraa i/Proparty, ^Kmomm:---------i Aslmdicoladm GattatolPuniUomNo. tl: The Or High Water Levd This permit is granted subject to the following GENERAL and SPECIAL PROVISIONS, GENERAL PROVISIONS •n*1.bor hm Bat tiflMitdio. iht U.S FiAh SMI Era. St Paul MN 9510M63S. aad Miify oomplalkMi wiihifi oapueny, or locatiofi 3. 6. 7. S. tothciiUit>Uf»M<'TuV»«i«»«-<fc»»«g«»«<«aMeiMawiciionto>uit>oru<dfiB>ww*itivwoftli»CoiBiiiiMWB<rofNiiiiimlRwowccifa dtcmC i^oa f«iuM to dw OMniMMr of Nilinl Rmourm.juungllit •-Ith* by pirfoniiiiif tte woA «dhonirf by p«a ihiU iiivolvt Iht Uking u«ng or ilMitMitU or iny |«fi^ pBMB or p«om. or ofLiy piAlkK th»wn « tto btfort proo««lio*. ih«U ol««m •fmcMi, or tulbarilMi ooocotwd, Mto *«ll ooi^urs all propeny, n( 10. 11. 6. miy SohMtity^ht Mt b» OOHHrUM M MQffVlf or or J ^ oft! Til Aiy No of tew. fnmemiwmnmdkk ifmmtthyftm publi. h¥tm 111 iMi M ro^iyfoi by i»Act of 1991. SPECIAL PROVISIONS Pwnrtiee AaU«M» Am tfag contractor has reocivedindtborougfaly understands >11 conditions <rf this pcnnit A report (i.e.,iMp and brit descrqjQon) afasU be submitted to the Refional t^drologist descnbing the temporary and permanent disposal oi the excavatkn spoils. Th excavalioo ^8 Pffmit shall not commgnce until dn? T”** **** approved iw mritiiiy bv the Rgyr>n:. HvdroloyiM. Excavated material shall not be pennanently placed within coamiunity dwaiyiated floodplain or ahoreUaid arena, unleaa a. neceaaary local permits and approvals have be» obtained This pcarmit is not valid tmlesscr until a permit is received from the U S. ArnqtCoips of Engueen. Mitigation for adverse effects from thi project shall be carried out in accordance with any agreements with the Corps, which are hereby made a part of this permit The prntMtlBf is audionzed to maintain the approved work to the dimensions hereto described. Prior to coromencing any maintenance work the permittee must advise the Department ^Natural Resources of the extent and OKthod of maintenance fpuat not b. commenced unleaa or until the Temporary dewnering far consmictian, in excess of 10,000 gallooa per day or 1 milliao gallons par year, is audtarized by this permit provider the following cooditioos are met: a. A plan for the dewatering shall be submitted to the Regional Hydrologist far writtm prior approval b. All necessaiy erosion ani sedimentation control measures shall be taken to prevent transportation of sediment The permittee shall monitor all disturbed areas for the presence of purple loosestrife and control the plant as described in the oclosec pang^ titled Tiaple Looaestnfe Alert*. The DNR aquatic plant maniger should be contacted at 772-79S0 for permit needs and additions iafonnahoa Erosion control measures shall be adequately designed for the site characteristics. They m^ include haybales, diversion cb sediment ponds, or sedinient fences. They shall be instslled in aooonlanre with Trotecriiiy Water ntialiiv in Tlrhan AmM - Re<e Mans Practices for Minne^nu* MPCA, Octoto 1989, prior to commencement and throughout the project All exposed soil shall be stahilired as soon as possible and no later than 72 hours after the completion of the project Topsoil should be used to re-dreas disturbed soil areas and indigenous plant species should be used to revegetate disturbed areas whenever possible. Any work below the water level shall be encircled by a flotation »"*«"*"* curtain to prevent wvt«"w"* from iwing transported beyond the construction site. This sediment curtain shall be constructed and mainfain#rf illustrated on the a««rhm#inf entitled ”6.6 Flotation Silt Curtain.” The barrier shall be removed upon completion of the work after the silt has settled. USCOE, Joe Yants MPCA, Larry Zdon City of Long Lake. Joe Lynch City of Orono, Mike Gaffion City of Medina, JeffKarlson Hennepin CD, Ali Durgunoglu Conservation OfBcer, Jim Konrad Conservation OfBcer, Tom Hemker DNR Fisheries, Taylor Potomis DNR Wildlife. Jon Paricer Central Waters. Ron Anderson Long Lake (27-160p)FUe c The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has approved a plan for improving the water cjuality of Long Lake. This plan designates certain property south of County Road 6 in the City of Orono, identified in attached Exhibit 1 (hereafter referred to as the "Subject Property^) as the site for a two-cell wetland detention pond with associated weirs, fish barriers, access roadway and other structures (the "Orono Project"), designates certain ether property near Dear Road in the City of Medina as the site for an additional two-<ill wetland detention system (the "Medina F*roject"), and improves two existing detention basins in the City of Long Lake (the "Long Lake Project"). The MCWD committed to the following conditions in its agreement with the owners of the Subject Property: a. The MCWD will complete the Medina Project in accordance with the plans included as attached Exhibit 2 prior to beginning the Orono Project. bt The wetland detention basin in the Orono Project shall be located and shall be of the size, volume and shape in strict conformance with the conceptual design set forth in attached Exhibit 3. c The MCWD shall not locate permanently within the Subject Property any equipment, buildings or other structxires except the outlet structure identified in Exhibit 3, provided that the MCWD may temporarily locate equipment on the Subject Property for construction or maintenance purposes. 'f' d- The access road for maintenance of the wetland detention basin shall be aligned as set forth in Exhibit 3, shall follow the natural grade of the site without excavation or other modification of the existing landscape, and shall have a cleared right-of-way width not exceeding 20 feet, with a natural surface not covered with gravel, rock or impiervious surface. f. The wetland detention basin shall be constructed and completed %vith six months after commencement of construction activities. g In constructing the Orono Project, and thereafter operating and maintaining it, the MCWD shall require its employees, contractors or agents to use the best reasonably available techniques for controlling erosion and for minimizing disruption or damage, either temporary or permanent, to the Subject Property resulting from clearing, grubbing, excavating, damming, ditching or any other construction activities and the equipment and personnel associated therewith. h. After the Orono Project has been initially constructed and/or any operational or maintenance activities thereafter performed, the MCWD shall cause its employees, contractors or agents to employ promptly the best reasonably available techniques for restoring to their original appearance and characteristics any and all areas impacted by the MCWD's construction, operational or maintenance activities and the equipment and persormel associated therewith. i. The MCWD at all times shall properly operate and maintain the Orono Project, and shall conduct such periodic maintenance as is necessary to keep the Orono Project in good repair, to maintain the natural characteristics of the Subject Property, and to prevent the deterioration of or damage to the Orono Project or the Subject Property through erosion, eutrophication or any other means. j. As part of the Orono Project, the MCWD shall develop an acceptable landscaping plan. The required landscaping shall include trees, shrubs, grasses, groundcover, bankcover or such other vegetation as is suitable for the Subject Property Uking into account native plant characteristics, soil and drainage conditions, sunlight or shade conditions, and other pertinent factors. The landscaping shall be intended to preserve and enhance the nahiral appearance of the Orono Project and Subject Property, promote erosion and runoff control, provide improved wildlife habitat and increased plant diversity, and screen undesirable views. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the following additional co.-ditions in connection with the design plan changes made by the MCWD without consultation with the owners of the Subject Property: • The MCWD shall, before the City Coimcil meeting to consider the Orono Project, provide an artist's rendition, with views from both the south and the east, of the physical appearance of those portions of the Orono Project that will be located above water level, and a landscape architect or desiper's delineation of the specific types and locations of the various vegetation to be included in the emergent wetland edge, wooded wetland and any other landscaped areas in the final design for the Orono Project. • The MCWD shall, before the City Council meeting to consider the Orono Project, identify any differences between the conceptual plan attached as Exhibit 3 and the design specifications approved by the MCWD (for example, increasing the height of the sheet pile weir, adding a baffle weir, adding fish barriers) and shall address any issues raised by City staff concerning such differences. • The MCWD shall provide an acceptable schedule for maintenance of the Orono Project by the MCWD, including at a minimum plans for (i) removing debris from the detention pond and control structures at least once per month from April through November of each year, (ii) cleaning out algae and other floating vegetation at regular intervals during each year, (iii) inspecting aimually the physical integrity of the structures and access road, maintaining the structures and road as necessary, and repairing damage due to storm events, ice loading or other causes, and («v) removing sediment on a periodic basis. EXHIBIT 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel 1: That part of Lot 1 lying West of a line drawn parallel with and 395 f*et East of. measured at right angles to. the East line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest Quarter of Section 26. Township 118. Range 23 and the same extended, and lying North of the North line of Lot 2 and its Easterly extension; that part of Lot 2 lying North of the Easterly extension of the Northerly line of Tract A. Registered Land Survey No. 1379; all in "Auditor’s Subdivision Number 291. Hennepin County. Minnesota", according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County. Parcel 2; That pan of Government Lot 1. Section 26, Township 118. Range 23 described as follows; Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 2, "Auditor’s Subdivision Number 291. Hennepin County. Minnesota ”, thence West along the extension of the North line of said Lot 2 and along the South line of Lot 1. said Auditor’s Subdivision, to the most Westerly line of Lot I, said Auditor’s Subdivision; thence South along the extension of the most Westerly line of Lot 1. said Auditor’s Subdivision, to the South line of said Section 26; thence East along the South line of said Section 26 to its intersection with the West line of Lot 2, said Auditor’s Subdivision; thence Nortli to the point of beginning; except that portion thereof embraced in Registered Land Survey Nos. 934 and 1379; and except the West 50 feet of that part of above described Government Lot 1 lying North of the North line of Registered Land Survey No. 934; and except that part of Government Lot 1 lying Southerly of the Easterly extension of the Northerly line of Tract A. Registered Land Survey No. 1379. Certificate of Title No. 601905 Also: That part of Government Lot 1. Section 26. Township 118. Range 23. described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly extension of the North line of Lot 2, "Auditor’s Subdivision No. 291, Hennepin County, Minnesota," with the East line of Johnston’s Rearrangement of Albee’s Long Lake Addition; thence North along said East line and along the East line of "Albee’s Long Lake Addition" and its extension to the Southerly line of Douglas Estates; thence Easterly along said Southerly line to the Northerly extension of the most Westerly line of Ldt 1. "Auditor’s Subdivision Number 291, Hennepin County, Minnesota"; thence South along the last described extension and along the most Westerly line of said Lot I to the Westerly extension of the North line of Lot 2. in said "Auditor’s Subdivision Number 291. Hennepin County, Minnesota": thence Westerly to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof. Cenifr ite of Tide No. 608676 ( r-tr;.■Mi..v' ___________"_____-**^i _ ^ ^ ‘V-*i ik—1 —Id. ~ tumiiack aoao*'« Miu-------^\ -: ^ , // - .‘.I ' KCfSS IW5Afl—\| 1 1 I '.r> .- - .’.- - i '::,:z^/ ' -A .£.£^^1 - ' »//•.«. I /' ^ \ !- ■' •'Ir! / r-3 ;; V •\N. ■4?c'?*SKf a.‘a^, • / \ '• •I I fc.--' j. . r.v Av .V \ o - n Asj: y a ASS rnostoNC <A1’Wth 4S^eur " \ \ , , ( V’l |\;./ Mi L\>. «i* Oft. xw 9/ftifit^m sicriQNs CQMTWAQTtll ro f^UOVC 4-'--^t- — ^ Lm class srcLosroic SS cm,4I 30* oia: cifj crc sc Cl IONS • ■' i ^3‘''*, . A-" ■"'.or‘,;::; •M4 - r -■?y'' ':-JVi\lm/ ■ .-— ? :--U.\--:pA-r-^ T.Z. ^. *.r, • I' *7^., * ' ' \ , $ • y ^ '<y~ HI _ .4*^ ■~ ' M ”•''i'' **''■ —.......................................- '■- '■ ~ '1^ '',-.,'*^"U5 S?52c - t\ •. .'iv --. •. I. LECENOrr-ctr 5SS*'«'“"• — «-------*— UitriMS rcfct MVlIItT 1.1|« f CLIV^ON • CJIIftll« POmM PQLt t/////A KS^RBr*” ail 1 1 n OTVRap- SSffVa^ mmm 12* j.oi 7•* loot cmiSHCo uicsrQNC miooi class v typical access road detail Sul 18 M/il e P(26fOSe^ PoA»^5 f ■"■1 I "I- ^«0 w* EXHIBIT! ! _=i EXHIBIT 3 Project Description Design Parameters: * 2.47 acres surface area * * aggregate volume (Both cells) 16.2 acre feet * outlet elevation 950.4 feet ioo/coo® DNI OOSSV MDN3J1 “Hall in f££x 9Lf ZX9 rvj so:rt c«.Trrc„ L SFTTf FMFNT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into by and between William and Barbara Pearce, husband and wife (collectively referred to as "the Pearces"), and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD"), on May^, 1995 (the "Effective Date"). WHEREAS, on Set>tember 22. 1994, the MCWD Board of Managers at a public hearing approved a feasibility report designating property owned by the Pearces and located on County Road 6 in Orono, Minnesota, as the site for a three cell wetland detention pond to be constructed for the purpose of >nproving the quality of stormwater runoff before it enters Long Lake, and the MCWD has indicated that it also planned a second phase, wetland detention basin to be located further upstream in the subwatershed draining into Long Lake, near Deer Hill Road in Medina; WHEREAS, a dispute arose between the Pearces and the MCWD concerning the scope and location of the three cell wetland detention pond at County Road 6, and on October 21. 1994, the Pearces commenced litigation against the MCWD under numerous legal theories, alleging that MCWD’s administrative actions violated, inter alia. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B, the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, and 42 U.S.C § 1983; WHEREAS, the Pearces-commenced an administrative appeal of the MCWD’s administrative actions to the Board of Water and Soil Resources, alleging violations of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B, Minnesota Statutes Chapters 1 16B and 1 16D, various sections of the United Slates Constitution and the 537/22080000 5/23/95 * . • ! i Minnesota Constitution, and claiming the MCWD’s actions were coirtran' to a restrictive covenant on their land: WHEREAS, the parties believe it prudent to avoid further litigation and administrative action to resolve their differences by agreeing to a revised design and construction schedule of the two phases described above: and, WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to a full setUement of all issues in dispute between them: NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises made in this Settlement Agreement, the MCWD and the Pearces do agree as follows: 1. Granting of an Easement. The Pearces hereby agree to grant to the MCWD, pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth below, a permanent easement to construct, operate, and maintain a wetland detention basin on the property described and identified in Exhibit 1 attached to this Agreement. This wetland detention basin shall be located in an area identified in Exhibit 2 attached to this Agreement and is referred to hereafter as the "Easement Area." The MCWD, within 30 days after the Effective Date, shall cause a survey, mutually acceptable to the MCWD and the Pearces, by a registered land surveyor selected and paid for by the MCWD, to be completed to identify the precise boundaries of and providing a legal description for the Easement Area., 2. Easement Documentation . The parties agree to execute on the Conveyance Date (as defined in Section 8 below) a separate easement agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 3, incorporated herein by reference (the "Easement Agreement"), to be filed and recorded in the Office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. The MCWD. at its 537/22080000 5/23/95 sole cost and expense, shall file and record said Easement Agreement with the Office of the Hennepin County RegisU'ar of Titles within three business days after the Conveyance Date. 3. County Road 6 ProiecL The MCWD, in its sole discretion and at its sole cost and expense, may. upon execution of the Easement Agreement, construct a wetland detention basin and associated access road within the Easement Area (hereinafter referred to as the Project"), provided that consuuction of the Project shall not begin prior to January 1, 1998, and provided further that the Project shall meet the following requirements: a. The objective of the design for the Project shall be both (i) to further the MCWD’s Long Lake water quality improvement goals and (ii) to create a Project and adjacent land within the Easement Area that has a natural appearance consistent with the native characteristics of the Pearce propeny and that has a minimal aesthetic and economic effect on the Pearces and their property; b. The MCWD shall prepare and deliver to the Pearces and their consultants on or before May 12, 1995, for their review and approval, a final written design plan addressing in detail all of the requirements of this section; c. The Pearces shall complete their review and approval of this written design plan no later than May 22. 1995, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and shall be deemed given if not specifically withheld in writing by no later than May 22, 1 1995; d. The wetland detention basin in the Project shall be located and shall be of the size volume, and shape in strict conformance with the conceptual design set forth in Exhibit 2 to this Agreement; 537,720«0000 3/23/95 3 c. The MCWD shall not locate perntanenily within the Easement Area any equipment, buildings or other structures except the outlet structure identified in Exhibit 2 hereto, provided that the MCWD may temporarily locate equipment in the Easement Area for construction or maintenance purposes; f. The access road for maintenance of the wetland detention basin shall be aligned as set forth in Exhibit 2 hereto, shall follow the natural grade of the site without excavation or other modification of the existing landscape, and sh^l have a cleared right-of- way width not exceeding 20 feet, with a natural surface not covered with gravel, rock, or impervious surface; g. The wetland detention basin shall be constructed and completed within six months after commencement of construction activities, provided that the MCWD may extend the construction schedule to respond to a force majeure event beyond its control, and provided further that MCWD shall use its best efforts to minimize any such necessary extension; h. In constructing the Project, and thereafter operating and maintaining it. the MCWD shall require its employees, contractors, and agents to use the best reasonably available techniques for controlling erosion and for minimizing disruption or damage, either temporary or permanent, to the property, resulting from clearing, grubbing, excavating, damming, ditching or any other construction activities and the equipment and personnel associated therewith; i. After the Project has been initially constructed and/or any operational or maintenance activities thereafter performed, the MCWD shall cause its employees. 537/22080000 5/23/95 contractoi^. and agents to employ promptly the best reasonably available techniques for restoring to their original appearance and characteristics any and all areas impacted by said construction, operational, or maintenance activities and the equipment and personnel associated therewith; J The MCWD at all limes shall properly operate and maintain the Project, and shall conduct such periodic maintenance as is necessary to keep the Project in good repair, to maintain the natural characteristics of the Easement Area, and to prevent the deterioration of or damage to the Project or the Easement Area through erosion, eutrophication or any other means. The design plan required under this Agreement shall include a minimum maintenance schedule. k. As part of the Project, MCWD shall develop a landscaping plan for review and approval by the Pearces, said approval not to be unreasonably withheld. The Pearces must provide their comments within 30 days of receipt of the landscaping plan; the failure to conmicnt within this period shall be deemed approval. The MCWD shall allocate and expend the sum of .$30,000 from the Project budget to implement the approved landscaping plan; l. The landscaping required under paragraph (k) above shall include trees, shrubs, grasses, groundcover, bankcover^ or such other vegetation as is suitable for the Pearce property, taking into account native plant characteristics, soil and drainage conditions, sunlight or shade conditions, and other pertinent factors. This landscaping shall be intended, inter alia , to preserve and enhance the natural appearance of the Project and Easement Area, promote erosion and runoff control, provide improved wildlife habitat and increased plant diversity. 537/22080000 5/23/93 and screen (through vegetation located either near the wetland detention basin or the Pearce house) undesirable views. 4. Access. The MCWD agrees not to enter the Easement Area except through the access road identified in Exhibit 2. The Pearces acknowledge and agree to provide access prior to commencement of construction of the Project to the MCWD or its agents and other permitting agencies for survey and permit consideration purposes. The MCWD shall provide the Pearces with at least 60 days written notice of Project commencement before beginning construction of the Project. After completing Project construction, the MCWD shall provide the Pearces with at least seven days written notice before entering the Easement Area to conduct any scheduled maintenance or other activities involving the use of heavy equipment, provided that if the MC7WD must conduct such activities on an emergency basis, or in all other circumstances where it is not feasible to provide seven days written notice. MCWD shall provide the Pearces with as much notice as is practical. 5. Deer Hill Road Project. The MCWD. at its sole cost and expense, shall construct a wetland detention system at the Deer Hill Road site identified in Exhibit 4 attached hereto, and said system shall be in general conformance with the size, volume, and other design elements set forth in Exhibit 4. The MCWD will construct said system by January 1. 1997. provided, however, that in the event that unforeseen circumstances cause delay in the construction of the "Deer Hill Road project, MCWD will construct that project prior to commencement of the County Road 6 Project. 6. Compensation for Easement. As compensation for the execution of the Easement Agreement referenced above and immediately upon filing of a Stipulation of 537/22080000 5/23/95 Dismissal as discussed below, the MCWD agrees to pay the Pearces by check the sum of $20,000. 7. Contingencies/Condiiions Subsequent. The rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement are contingent upon satisfaction of the following conditions subsequent within 120 days of the Effective Date, subject to renewal as provided in Section 8 below; a. Deer Hill Road . This Agreement is contingent upon MCWD obtaining without resort to condemnation all property rights necessary to construct the wetland detention basin at Deer Hill Road in Medina. Minnesota; and b. Permits. This Agreement is further contingent upon the MCWD obtaining all necessary federal, state, and local permits or approvals for the construction of the wetland detention basin on the Pearce property. These permits and approvals include; • a Public Waters Work Permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; • a Section 404 Permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; • a Section 401 State Water Quality Certification from the Minnesota Pollution ConU'ol Agency; and • A conditional use permit and a flowage easement modification from the City of Orono. The MCWD agrees to seek promptly and diligently all necessary permits or approvals for the Project, to take all reasonable actions necessary to obtain said permits or approvals in accordance with the terms hereof, and to advise the Pearces in a timely manner (including reasonable advance notice of substantive meetings with the permitting authorities) of any 537/22080000 5/23/V5 relevant developments regarding same; the Pearces agree to support the MCWD’s applications for permits or approvals in conformance with this Agreement and agree not to interfere or otherwise impede the application process for such permits or approvals; c. City of Orono. The MCWD shall obtain from the City of Orono a written approval, addressed to both the MCWD and the Pearces, of the Project and a written modification addressed to the Pearces and provided in a form acceptable to the parties hereto and suitable to be filed and recorded with the Office of the Hennepui County Registrar of Titles, of the flowage easement the City holds over any portion of the Easement Area; d. Morteagee Consent. The Pearces shall obtain from any mortgagee which holds a mortgage on the Pearce property written consent to the conveyance of the easement to be granted to the MCWD hereunder, and a written agreement that any rights said mortgagee possesses under said mortgage are subordinate to the terms of the easement to be granted to the MCWD hereunder. e. The MCWD may waive the conditions in Paragraphs a and b of this Section. 8. Be.st Efforts to Satisfy Conditions. Stay of Litigation. Renewal. Each party shall use its best efforts to satisfy each condition subsequent for which it is responsible hereunder within 120 days of the Effective Date. The parlies agree to stay all litigation and appeal activities during this 1 20-day period, and immediately upon the execution of this Agreement to execute a stipulation to continue die litigation pending dismissal attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 5. The parties shall by mutual agreement schedule a closing meeting to be held within 20 days of the date on which the last of these contingencies is satisfied to 537/22080000 5/23/95 convey and execute the Easement Agreemenu Stipulations of Dismissal. Withdrawal of Appeal, and any other pending necessary documents, and this closing date shall be referred to as the "Conveyance Date" for purposes of this Agreement, and all pending obligations hereunder shall become final and binding on said Conveyance Date. In the event that notwithstanding the required best efforts of the parties, ?ny of the conditions subsequent identified in this Section are not satisfied within 120 days after the Effective Date, then this Agreement shall become null and void, provided that prior to the expiration of the 120 day period, the MCWD may renew this Agreement for a second period of 120 days upon payment of a check to the Pearces in the amount of $1,066. 9. Release of Claims. In consideration of the foregoing, and effective upon the Conveyance Date, both the Pearces and the MCWD release and hold the other party harmless from any and all claims, demands and causes of action which either of them or their representatives may have against the other party or their representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, arising from or in any manner related to the siting of the Project within the Easement Area; provided, however, that the Pearces and their representatives do not release or hold harmless the MCWD or its representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, with respect to any claims, demands, or causes of action not related to the siting of the Project within the Easement Area, including without limitation those relating to any acts or omissions of the MCWD or its employees, contractors, or agents with respect to /'onstruction, operation, or maintenance of the Project; and provided that neither party leleases or holds harmless the other party or their representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, with respect to any claims. demands, or caus ^s of action related to breach of this Agreemeni 537/22080000 5/23/V5 I 10. Waiver. The MCWD agrees, effective upon the Conveyance Date, that the Project within the Easement Area as set forth herein is the sole and exclusive project or improvement of any type whatsoever that the MCWD will ever construct on the Pearce property, provided, however that the MCWD reserves the right to construct or reconstruct any necessary refinements to the Project within the Easement Area which the MCWD may deem necessary, to meet the performance standards established in the approved design plan described in Section 3 of this Agreement, and provided further that any such refinement must be in strict conformance with the approved Project design described in Section 3 of this Agreement; the MCWD agrees, effective upon the Conveyance Date, to waive and not exercise any right or authority it may have to condemn any portion of the Pearce property for i:\y purpose whatsoever. 11. Indemnification . The MCWD hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Pearces, and each of them, and their representatives, heirs, successors and/or assigns, from and against any and all suits, actions, causes of actions, claims, or proceedings asserted against the Pearces or either of them, or their representatives heirs, successors and/or assigns, arising out of the Project and/or the MCWD’s construction, operation, or maintenance activities in connection therewith, or any other acts or omissions of the MCWD or its employees, contractors, or agents in connection with the Project, except to the extent caused by the negligence or wrongful conduct of the Pearces. 12. Stinulation of Di.smissal and Withdrawal of Appeal. The parties agree that they shall cause their counsel to execute, or they shall execute themselves, a separate Stipulation of 537/22080000 5/23/95 Dismissal With Prejudice and Withdrawal of Appeal With Prejudice in the forms attached hereto as Exhibits 6 and 7 immediately on the Conveyance Date. 13.Fees and Expenses. The parties will be responsible for the payment of their own attorneys’ and consultants ’ fees and expenses in this matter. 14.Settlement Agreement Lindine on Successors and Assiens. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding on the parties, and their heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. 15.Notices. All written notices required or permitted to be given hereunder, other than those relating to the design plan described in Section 3 of this Agreement which shall be delivered personally, shall be deemed delivered when personally delivered to a party at the address below, or if mailed, three (3) business days aftei deposit in the United Slates mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: If to William and Barbara Pearce: 1485 County Road 6 Long Lake. MN 55356 With a copy to: Greg Fontaine. Esq. Dorsey & Whitney 2200 First Bank Place East Minneapolis. MN 55402 If to the MCWD: 15500 Wayzaia Boulevard, Suite 611 Twelve Oaks Center Wayzata, MN 55391 537/22080000 5/23/95 With a copy lo: Louis Smith, Esq. Popham. Haik. Schnobrich & Kaufman. Ltd. 222 South Ninth Street. Suite 3300 Minneapolis. MN 55402 16. Survival . The obligations and indemnifications set forth in this Agreement shall survive and not merge into any deed or other form of conveyance given by the Pearces to the MCWD. 17. No Waiver: Entire Agreement. The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any terms, covenants and/or conditions of this Agreement, or to exercise any right or remedy herein contained, shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment for the future of such term, covenant, condition, right or remedy. This Agreement and attached Exhibits constitute the entire Agreement between the partes with respect to the litigation referenced above. 18. Construction. It is mutually agreed that this Agreement shall be construed and interpreted as if drafted by each party and it is further acknowledged that this Agreement is the product of negotiations between the parties and shall not be construed or interpreted against either party based on such party having drafted this Agreement or any portion thereof. 19. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 20. Dispute Resolution. It is agreed that any dispute arising between the Pearces, or either of them, and the MCWD with respect to the interpretation of this Settlement Agreement shall be resolved through binding arbiu-ation. The parties agree to select an arbitrator from among the Administrative Law Judges of the Office of Administrative 337/22080000 5/23/9.3 Hearings as follows: the parlies will first request ihe services of Adminisiralive Law Judge Bruce Campbell; if he is not available within 60 days of the request, then the parties will request Administrative Law Judge George Beck; if he is not available within 60 days of the request, then the parties will request Administrative Law Judge Allan Klein. If none of these persons is available to serve as arbitrator within 60 days of the request, then the parties will lake the list of remaining full-Ume adminisiralive law judges which according to the Office of Administrative Hearings are available to serve as arbitrators within 60 days of the request, and beginning with the MCWD, alternately strike a single name, and the last person remaimng on the list will serve as arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to enforce this Agreement The expenses of the arbitrator and the arbitration shall be divided as follows: the prevailing party shall pay twenty-five percent (25%) and the remainder shall be paid by the other party. In the event that no one party prevails, the arbitrator shall specify the percentage of expenses to be contributed by the parties. 21. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence hereof. 22. .Severability and Enforcement Each of the terms of this Agreement is essential to the purpose of this Agreement and the parties do not intend for the remaining provisions to be enforced if any provision hereof is adjudged invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, unless the parties otherwise mutually agree. 337/22080000 5/23/95 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the panies hereto, have executed this Agreement on the day of May, 1995. ’’Grantors" "Grantee" MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 7« STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ^lJTc^ ; The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ^4Tday of 1995. by William and Barbara Pearce, husband and wife. CANDACE J. KRALL Nomiw nmjO'MmNtsoTK ANOKA COUNTY 1.2000 Notary Public / 537/22000000 5/23^5 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing insirumenl was acknowledged betore me this cDS^av of fTVuLU 1995. by 0y\- . President of the Board of Managers, on behiilf of the Minneh^a Creek Watershed District. d.swi^V of the State of Minnesota. -P '-IHO, Cx ' Notary Public J THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: ^ Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman. Ltd. 222 South Ninth Street Suite 3300 Minneapolis. MN 55402 (612) 333-4800 OEWALHAgmilQ HilMIMN COUNTY 537/22080000 5/23/95 NDNITTES OFTHE ORONO MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER . (^^4 . ^#2044 George Olson - Coniinued) 2’„“£zr.ss:s;sr^ should work with the builder on thus but the Planning Comnussio pertorated from tabric-laid areas. A member of the pubUc noted hardcover so thehardcover. She \vas inibmed by the Commission that the p P material underneath does not matter. PUBLIC Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. Se n S^'va ^^C ES iS™ hearing 8:48-9:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. MC^V'D Engineer. Andy Syversoa and Manager, Tom Laflounty, were present. Gaffion reported that the * 2.5 acre wet detention . ^^.^IJ^Lake ftom the north. The area in question “on ffifp of Tanglervood Road and east of Dakota Avenue and Long Lake Boulevard, on an easement. eK- tK. ritv desienated wetland but is on the national wetland inventoiy The site IS not protected under the Wetland Conservation map. It consists of type 2 y . ^rea drains southeast from Medina under Act from filling or draining Th ^ ^ 4.1 CoRd 6 under a .^th a fish banier to keep fish from Sp ““ Major ewavation « well asjture S t “^-he Lefi.s would be taken. This would be determined by the comraaor. variances and condiuonal us. p.™« wo^^ "eS"ar» X” » to the No intensive vegetation clearing is aUowed within 75’ MESXTTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONIXA^ION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 19-- (#5 - ;#2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) The project has been in the plannmg stages for the past the construaed early 1998. The project will be done m the -if-g the sprinabeginning of February with revegetaiion and replanting taking plac P . Peterson clarified that the project would only occur and be the corridor to the Mississippi and is pan of the overall scheme, expects to have all the permits in hand by the end ot September. projea. LoBounty said contractual agraements have been mad. with th. propeny owners when asked by Smith. Performance stipulations have been set out. TKe. ainiTi treatment of Long Lake will occur after the ponds are completed. The<r • «eenf the treatment will depend on how effective the ponds are and their effectiveness effectiveness depends on the Best Management construction watershed The clarity level would be a progressive improvement. wtohTa ^^eren^ from .he f clariry presently in Long Lake, is ocurring, .he improvement in clarity will hi. a flat spot, but wdl then continue to improve. "■■If" "s “h.™would be removed problems being created. Syverson noted that would contribute SQo/o the sedimenfremoval would be a hiSer^CTcenUge 80-90%. This would result in a significant decrease of sediment to tL alum *50% is the tvpical efficiency found according to Syverson. Further gams cover th -^re nonds and would be too large to be feasible. Syverson said the S !^d tb^rrSl™ out from Utem msulung in a higher p^cenuge^ Reestablishing vegetation then gives Ihe lake a chance to work on its own. The pr,^^ is a helping hand which allows the lake to work on its own. NIINXrrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) Peterson inouired about long term maintenance. LaBounty said fi^^barrier If agreements ‘ Long Lake has already entered into an agreement regarding a fish barner. It no agreement is made ^^^th Medina or Orono, the MCWD would handle the maintenance. Lindquist asked how often cleaning out of the sediment would occur. S.wcrson s^d this is site specific and depends on faas such as erosion and d^ elopment, w increase^he amount of cleaning done. Syverson sdd the Orono project is r--cell Jhe first cell would catch the most sediment and need to be cleaned out m • larger cell would require less fi-equeat cleaning projected at 15-^0 years. e ® is dependent upon the management practices upstream. Hwy U consmicnon w^ ci« ™pie. If silt fencing wVe not done on the ponds there, more matenal would faU into th * ponds requiring frequent cleaning. Sy\erson said the management is cooperative effort. Lindquist inquired about the Dickey Lake arei Syverson noted this y = * '"'J' ohosphotus loading area and the cost would not justify a pond. It was noted that the wetlMd area on thf east end of Long Lake where there are streams wor^ as a deten'ion pond. This area was noted to setve as a natural stormwater management pood as the water comes out of this area quite clean. Schroeder inquired about mno6Ffrom roads such as H- yU. L^ounty said this does exist but they try to make up for it with projeas such as the pond. Peterson asked for public comments. Bill Pearce, joint owner of the subject property, along with his attorney, Greg f the Dorsey L> were in attendance and asked to presem a s^ry Ihe Sent agreement between Pearce and the MCWR Fontatne sard Pe^ce b«^ involved when the plans for the pond were announced. The origin^ proposal ^ for a 3- ceU 5 acre pond south of 6, not Deerhill m Medina, with st^ ponds m Long Lak^ Pearce then retained an engineering firm to come up with a better solution. The size the detention system on the Pearce property was then reduced which was a substantial improvement. Pearce said he understood the need for the detention pond on his prope^, Luld prefer it was not necessary, and was generaUy supportive, and still is, of the project. Fontaine said there have been design specifications and si^cant ^thout consultation with Pearce. He cited an example with changes to the fi* bmer upstream ftom Long Lake. LaBounty later noted the net efifect of the change in the bLier would not affect the outcome. ME mT jTES of the ORONO planning CONCS-flSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#5 - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) Pearce felt it would be to the City's interest to include conditions in the a^eement between Orono and the MCWT). A summary of these condiuons were ^ Commission members. The conditions are intended to reduce the vfrvvT> be restorative of the area. Fontaine said there has been difficulty wth the MC complying with timely notice to Pearce wiffi regards to revision ot o^ ^ pan thru on design elements. He believes it is in the best interest or t e -_/?„p]ain the of their review an artist's rendition of the area showing the revegetation, expl^n he differences between the specifications and what the MCWD is doing, on is necessary for the MCWD to spell out the maintenance requirements with who g what, w^paying, and on what schedule. Specific recommendanons were given m the handout for such maintenance. Schroeder commented that the project was complicated and asked jL has bora due to the project. Pearce indicated engineenns costs have ran $85,000. and the easement will only trover about $20,000. Schroeder noted that the report will have a positive influence on the project It wtu flso hjs bebet ^ TOeting is required for the Commission to look over the findings, especially in baht of the time and cost consideration Pearce has given to the project. LaBotinty said the project began in 1988. It was originally proposed w totally P'»“ in Medina, then was changed to two ponds in Long Lake, then changiM to include the Pearce pond and DeerhiU, and now to include Long Lake, Medina, and Orono. The phosphLs reduction amounts have remained the same. LaBotinty potmrt out d no agreement can be acquired on the DeerhiU Road pond, the projert would be back to a 5- acre pond on the Pearce property. LaBounty asked, regarding the 7 engineering findings, that while 1-5 met aooroval #6 LaBountv would like the agency to be treated as would any other federal aflCTCV bn #7, the special conditions under which haulmg can be stopped. L^oumy s^d ^es^ be imposed on the contractor. He further noted no fertilizer would be tree removal has been taken care of To control erosion, LaBounty said the slope down to the pond would be 4:1 with a 6:1 slope out of the pond. Ptterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to table the application. Fontaine noted that LaBounty has only recently taken over the project for the MCWD and has done a good job with communicating with Pearce. Schroeder asked that copies be made of the Barr report for the Commissioners. Smith thanked Mr. Pearce for his time and cost considerations he has taken. - Continued)(#5 - ^2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed JStnu a^ked what would happen if the MedinaRowlette questioned item A on the nroiect LaBountv said it would be Pearce. Vote: Aves6.Nays0. 1,^ m schedule a joint meeting with th* Council regarding The Planning Commissioners asked to scheouie j tlus project. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of ^blication were noted. Gaffron noted that the aPP«^" sbiV granted in 1978. 1980, and 1994. The prop rty of Tonkawa A lakeshore residential zoning 4^ acre lot. The lot meets the lot 54% variance for lot area ^eque^ whei^ 80% or 112‘ is required requirement as it contains 118or 84,o 01 for existing lots of record. Gaffion reported that of a conceptual footpnntsatisfaction of the Engineer. Concern The grading plan showing the downhill. A proposed downspout and"rs flows to North Ann. Peterson received confirmation f:«wal application only. P««7^7 “’^hltteSon^^ rh^pJorisSTloSTwai'^ted that the shed belonging to the netghbor ,s rtUl located on the Feyo property. and stipulate the location of the shed. »• !l’-l i^i^^Wenck UMHAMA Cfi£CK WATERSHED CMSTRlCT ucii nut KvtK«CS o«u LONG LAKE M>N0VEMENT PROJECT nfLO'«£t «00ts wit M I M-M f iMk 4«*«*U«M. I»« *00 rwwv C<Mk Ull* «1»^«>00 t«,|r>rU r i It) ••••■* t .»•-• I»*. .. 1 It i« I I* i I ii i i o\ I ^ *^isS fUlMMmwmiMN WTiinq ritnpt<maN.tKiir>c»«Dtt4 5 t^HWenck *«a«k Amm4»I««. U«. WM *W««w C«**k C«*l«« Ull> 4T»-«}00 ■atlraaaaaUI l»|la»(«« W«^r>4^Ui9MM ra«* IIUI UNNiHAHA CREEK WATERStCO DISTRICT LONG LAKE APPROVEMENT PROJECT vict line L0» i 0Mc>w«i ats I MCvil«3ra PAIf / r TTiir 1 U‘;i MTl ; . V, ....' fc' ■'V ‘ ’* ^ / ,* VA r 7 \ ' t iat]4-, VI jUdb Hi % • / W mI' ii ? 'kl\IW'~--4^ll [ \ZJ / 33 m 33 tn > trJCzn Z0 ^ 031 OZ Omo mW zm 31z oH mz H P ''Cr. T* MW imowow wm«.«fin.»c<wiw»>.«.i« tc J II P I 11 ^1“g bg bg ^1 5 5g §; pi ” ” ' ^ -_______- — ■' W_____________<(iil.-3^ ...."" —‘"'"'-’iiv ci 5 ii^HWenck l«a«k AmmUU».U«. moo nwiMf &••» CMl«r Utl» ITO ttM ■•«l(M»»aUl l••l•««t• U«<« rM\ IM SS33I r«a> I4l» <f»-41«l y*«t UWCHAMA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT LONG LAKE M>ROVCMENT PBOJCCT »cci imc mm OAtt»M*T ma NCM10«OATf mvmp teats aojc me mm 7-]»>m NM—Jtt— MON. CUVAnON IM FCU I i EUVA1ION IN rttf •i—...j » f I-/' ■ ■ ig ^ ! : n \ * ic 11 8, ............. 1 jo f 1 K 1 . ...^.. 15 S‘ ............. >SlJ;i ii. ll —i ‘ ■ r ;j i 4 —j! CUVATION IN net I o ► al 8 CLIVAtlON IN fUl •j-—+ ;. ............ ' 1 ? hy^3n |I.....i 1n \ 4 • 1.............. \ K...................... 1 ! ii 1 ^ ii 8 a a 8 1-... - n i * ‘ - j ^ i|Vi ucvAiiot IN net 8 I i tLlVAIlQN IN mi i %P ''cr • §Wenck AMMUIt4. U«. MOO nvMW C<««% CmW itui ito-ooo • ■tUcMMUk umt» FNKM4 93»0 ftoitdl 4I»-«2«I tiNNEM>HA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT LONO LAKE lyPROVEMCHT PROJECT •III mtf ( 1 i i 1 da ’I'wav wn 1 «vno«OAIC iM.»MN 111 rtt m>g«ucm$seow wrwDct rtcvtoacooi 5 i^HWenck ««t*h MO nHMw CiM« uin tri-oooM«rK fWKMt ssiM •ri iKi *»<ci IINNEHAHA CRCCK WATERSHED DISTRICT MCI nuc DArt’UAT «m OTMONS OAIC 5- TO:Chair Peterson tnd Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, C‘.ty Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: September 15, 1995 Zoning District: LR-IA, Singie Family UJceshore Residential. 2 acre. Variances/Conditional Use Permit Required 1.Section 10.03. Subd. 19-21: Conditional use permit required for excavation exceeding 100 cubic yards (25,000 cubic yards proposed). Section 10.56. Subd. 16 - Shorcland ordinance variances: Live tree removal within 75 ’ of the shoreline of a protected tributary. ■nten-i-c vegetation clearing wiUiin 75' of the shoreline of a protected tributary. Grading, ftlling and exca- ating within 75 ’ of the OHWL of a protected tributary. •hrction 10 55: the floodplain ordinance deftnes this tributary and its floodplain nart of the "Floodplain and Wetlands Conservation Area which requires a cotrfitlonal use permit for land alterations within the floodway and floodfnnge. List of Exhibits A - Application Plat Map C - Property Owners List n-Letter of Request rvey ot Pierce Site/Area Maps and Sketches ^ -.nstruciicn Plans (Excerpts re: Orono Project) G - Design Report (E.\cerpts) lo DNR and Corps of Engineers J - Corp of Engineers Memo 9/6/95 Zoning File #2059 September 15, 1995 Page 2 K - MCWD Memo - Finding that No EIS is Required L - Orono Staff Response to EAW 7/18/95 MCWD Response to Orono EAW Staff Response 8/7/95 /23city Engineer ’s Comments 9/13/95 o . October ’93 • T T TP Feasibility Study October 93 ^ • T T TP Feasibility Report September ’94 • LUP Design Report May ’95 ,cAu;^ ms . LUP Environment Assessment Workshwt ^W) May 95 . -Phosphorus Removal by Urban Runoff Derention Basms (W.lham W. Walker) SUe/Wetland Status f aW and the southeastern quadrant of the City of Medma. The site of the proposed pond is a LoiK^by'te ”aS^OroTO^patt of its Inventory, but is not one of ^bas^ T^fore administration of the WeUand Conservation permit. Shoreland Ordinance Permit Review Guidelines c • in <;ubd 16 (J) (Topographic alterations/grading and filling), item 5, requires a Section 10 56. SuM^ 6 (J) (lop^^P^^ ^ of number of consideration ,„h filling oeraiits, conditional use permits, variances andnumber of con6^on.l use permUs. variances and Ihose Wlin« are included as Exhibit P at the end of tins packer. • •• X- u nrniect on the Wetland in regards to the six items of Subdivision ^^(Tsz) are addressed in Exhibit K, the MCWD memorandum and resoluuon 10.56, Subd. 16 (J-5a), are adares statement is required. Further, the proposed plans and SLtoK°ge'«SrMicate that the MCWD wiU be adhering to the standards of Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J-5d-k). I 1 Zoning File #2059 September 15, 1995 Page 3 •• V ' 2. 3. City Engineer ’s Comments Citv Ensineer Shawn Gustafson of Bonesiroo and Associates is in the unique posUion of also beine the Citv Engineer for Medina. In that capacity, he has rwponded to Medina s many ^ 'a- thi. Kicic and need for the Dccr Hill Road project, the location, as well asconcerns regardmg the basis and need tor me uccr nm f j rnimtv Road construction concerns. That project is upstream approximately 1 mile from the County Road 6 site, and is an integral part of the Lx>ng Lake Improvement Project. In reviewing the Orono Countv Road 5 project. Gustafson was asked by saff to ^ coiS^icto plans and the construction process. His comments of September 13th are summarized as follows; 1 A haul route and disposal location map. construction phasing schedule, and a traffic Ltrol plan must be submined to the City for approval pnor to commencmg with the work. Written construction schedule must be updated or modified as necessaiy to accurately reflect the rate and progress on the project. A preconstruction conference should be held with the MCWD. contractor. City. County and other parties involved in the project. Traffic control for the project should include a minimum of traffic control signs and devices conforming to the MMUTCW, flag men, a street sweeper, a saiidmg truck and a bobcat. The equipment will be necessary because it will impossible to remove mud from Ures before leaving the site. The MCWD should be responsible for cleaning die surface of any becomes soiled due to ±e construction activities on this project. When the M constructed the Gleason Lake p.oject in 1994. there were many problems associated with hauling on Highway 12. Deoending on the haul route proposed a letter of credit in an amount calc^ted by the Ci^ should be provided for potential damage to the should be in addition to ^ For safera'i^'^ in times of inclement weather or early thaw, the City must ^ authority to stop ail hauling activity untU such time that the City determines necessary^ The City Engineer also asks the foUowing clarifications or that additional detaU be provided; What seeding mixture is proposed. wUl fertUizer be used, what is planned for disposal of the cleared trees? j ^ 5 4. 5. 6. 7.V / 1. Zoning File #2059 September 15, 1995 Page 4 2. What erosion control practices and methods will be used during construction. 3.The City typically S fot n^inuining Otc ponds assenting tha t beavers or dead falls will block the drainage. 4.Will Ute easement be gtanted to die City of Otono? The pond wiU become an element in the City’s drainage system . . . 5. table 1 and table 3? Environmental Assessment Worksheet The environment assessment wo^heet is a m MCWD a’t -V J—. —to toto. to. ,0 toto. it. Health, Safety, Welfare IssuesHealUit oaiciyf staff is extremely concerned MCWD-s ~ Site* wS of Old C^sjal ^ ^ Thd* constant dump truck traffic was problematic m itself. TTie ivu^wu i vjicaov.a ^ nrnno to the Eisincer landfill site west ot Uld t^rysiai oay Wayzata The constant dump truck traffic was problematic in itself. The Road, was less ^ »irtno Hiehwav 12 made the driving surface dangerous. The c«t mqnSurrl conLts fromW Otono PoUce regarding the need for cleanup and closer monitoring of hours of operation. The County Road 6 slop leaks from the Bucks hauling will tend of County Road « ^.^nUy is in the winter. The proposed to freeze ^ si^hi distance for the Otono County Road 6 project access road iMatton to amy g disallow use of Tamarack north of te However, staff is a vi . traffic from that project during the winter of 1995/1996, Deer Hill Tamarack The Tamarack/6 intersection is fairly dangerous ,0 go south to county ™tng perhaps 2 to 3 seconds to react to tnfftc as is. wiUi *«*°^ “f^^Vi,Jiehe^ly supports the Civ entering from T^^ck S this inter««ion “O* o^ly Road 6 pond SL" "T9W1998^ li this winter during the Deer Hill project. I Zoning File #2059 September 15, 1995 Page 5 Staff Recommendation u r » for Planning Commission review and consideration. Folic wmg IS a punch list of items f L in attendance at Monday night ’s meeting Watershed District representatives are expect sclow are addressed in the attachedto address any issues of concern. Many of the issues noted below are addresseo in materials. justification? does Planning Commission accept the revegetation plan as adequate. Is the project necessary or are there alternatives? u c MrWD adeauately addressed mitigation of weUand per Wetland subwatershed? From a safety standpoint for the finished pond, does Planning Conmission comu tot the access road should be gated? Does Planning Commission •>?« “V ^ncems regarding the potential for this area to become an attraenve nuisance . Ate there any concerns of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Pierce, that the City should be aware of and address? The following questions and possible concerns relate specificaUy » 0* constniction process: .. ,<..iin. fnrees traffic from this winter's Deer HiU Road project on to the often, and may have specific comments . . . Sro ”^r.7nm «P^ afrer one year, but extend to the expected start • • X ■ m t-S I m Mur Zoning File #2059 September 15, 1995 Page 6 If not the MCWT) would have to apply for a renewal of date. ir not, me i . . case a land alteration permit would «b.„ » » .!» r« Should be advised that v,hich is a ■minim um wo month ie^rLJ^sTVeWD ii^s” to-date n^ted dut soi^^i^sa, « the connacofs problem. However, it is also a potential problem for the City. Are there other concerns of the Planning neighbormg property owners and general public which need to be addressed. 1. Options for Action Recommend conceptual approval, directing staff to develop appropriate conditions of approval for further review. Recommend approval without conditions. Table, specifying what additional infoimation or review process is appropriate . Recommend denial, stating specific reasons. 2. 3. 4. 5.Other. ...J I /Vwl VU6Ti>JtS ANt> fiftoTccrv^ ' \ ■■■ 'J^ ■ ■ ■ '■ ./.!' .^7*•'•^! *^*, • • •",' ' '.7*'•‘T•7'**’**r •* •■• ^-\------------- . . , _ , , p. 1 ^14.-1995 7:00AM FPD1 BC^JES"ASSCr 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene ^5 Anderlik Si Associates Engineers & Architects A,.0M«v me.» .A Aft.-..nv. a«sa,1 — Crta G km^gy^ .fOOt^t Jf K0»cn€ PI* C P1 M«rv^ .. Sft'vAtP * t- ■iOpra L TMf»»«r. G«enrt e. Com. Thw^M it ^iOfn. .Past-? C. :a*ir.‘Cr^ PX :*.wr « Oc*;:n A.* • S«n.ar C&r-wfi.ht September 13. 1995 •49W#r0.C k«.|i» A. 00/6»A. rX ^,arri « e. P t t.en«<^ w Pcstor. PI- Zm^fkG v#uc:t PI «00^^ c. A>> Jf'*/ A. iOurMA. •• ,Vi0/* A PX M c^oo* ^ P Z Tea <. P.fiX PL T.*tcfl^OS * AAOerton. A uA. ..amc; P POi«r«.'»e*. P L Csna.0 C P f »as A Svtso P.fi ?, efle ‘-c J • t iirw‘Aor:.hPl •L M.tn#e' P PX X Pete-jon P f J«n«es It MotOAdL P L jtfTf 3. P«rMs<x P L S:*r! J. Arf*AM P.L ne-^etP P Aaeorfm P L Mem t. toifC PL Marc A. S«»0. PX Gary OT. Moeton. PX Pr-rf - Gannon. A.LA. Oan.a« j go^nOfL P L A P»ek Senmifft. P L Ca*a A Grova P L Pn.«»# J Caivv«?i- PX Marti O xawii. P L Maas a. Jtman. P f t. •nrtao Grava*. P J ca^en L 'JParwan PX Ca*v ^ Itr stofti •!. 9nsn IC Gaga. PX P ToO#Pae:ar Pt ra»tn L Tica. PX. S«»m9iM j Mnait. pc. L-.awn p. Oiftuf SM PX CaaiPa O.Kmtr. PX X Wpgntr. PX Pau< a Mawtr PX jr^j^ P Garatf. PL ^jn P iaywrn. PX >a*rrey J. fh^ef^nc**' PL ;aiep*» t Pniin. PI 4,** M PX C,'a*»Pt ^ friciuon H P*«raflt> •-a*'pr* fA C:ian p M. i.ng ja-^i P. L-»fflhir« Mr. Michael P. Gaffron. Asst Building and Zoning .Adrr.inisrmior Cin- of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crvstai Bav, .Minnesota 55323 Re: .Minnehaha Creek Watershed District File No. 139-2059 Dear Mike, We have renewed the proposal to construct a wet detention pond uithin a wetland on the property owned by Williani Pearce. We recommend that the following conditions be m a part of the conditional use penniL A haul route and disposal location map. construction phasing schedule, and ^an musi be submitted to the City for approval prior to commencing with the ''ork.^e~ ■f-itts,—r.sr."ssK»"2 [he MCWD contactor. Ci^. Counn- and ouher parties involved in the project S to at FoTe" should include a minimns of naffic connol si^t >nd confonnmg to ^0 MMLTC^ „ „move all mud from tires equipmen ^ should be responsible for cleaning the surface of any before leavin, ■ , construction activities on this project ?VhM S^MC V^ cOTsmeted the Gleason Lake project in 1994, there were many Problems When the MC uiohwav l"* Deoendinz on the haul route nroposed. a letter of associated with nauhng ^'*’1 ih.'cip- should be provided for potential damage to the credit in an anv repairs or overlav, proposed local road system. V" °r“ vveather or earlv thaw, the Citylocal of inclement vveather or early thaw, the Cit>. mu2 ha« IhfauLrity to stop all hauling activitv- until such tune that the C.tv- determines neccssan.'. "v?“Je ed trees? The plans do not appear to show any erosion control during disposal of the ,.. addressed The slopes just below the water line are shown at 6-.i ai additional measure of safety, unless the area ^rbrfence” v^at v*5l be the prowdure for maintaining the ponds assuming that beavers •: ty/Acr Hiahwav 36 • St. Paul, MN 551T3 • 6U-ua6*4600 1.. Sr— I \ 7 : U i A? *.r *• c,w A/r. Michael F. Gaffron City of Orono Page -2- Septcmber IS, 1995 OT deadfalls v-nll block drainage? Will the easement be granted to the Cit>' of Orono? The pond Avill become an element in the Cit%’*s drainage s>stem. It would be interesting to see how Long Lake’s characteristics compare to the urban basins identified in the article by William VV. W'alker. Jr. Specifically, how would Long Lake compare in Figure 1. Table 1 and Table S'* Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours ven* truly,• • BONESTROO. ROSEXE. ANDERLIK ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawm D. Gustafson. P.E lu £ S 10.56 a For novement of 1-100 cubic yards of ^terial anyvh.re within ih* * issued land alteration pemit shall te requ conditions must be\^dj;^d to conditional use permits,permits, grading and filling permits, conait-on variances and subdivision approvals: a. Grading or filling in any Type 2, 3, , J .,4- evaluated to determine how 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 wetland would affect the following extensively the proposed acwiv. y functional qualities of the wetland: (1) and retention;(2) Sediment and pollutant trapping Storage of surface run—off to prevent or reduce flood damage; (3) (4) (5) (6) Fish and wildlife habitat; Recreational use; Shoreline or banJc stabilization; Noteworthiness, including spe— cial qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. This evaluation must also include a a.- « Tuhether the wetland alteration being proposea ?Iquirerpermits, not Yiliied^to°wa?Lsh^^^^ K/ot\^1Te%^*rtrenl“tf=r the United States Army Corps of Engineers. b. Alterations must be designed ^ in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bar |?Sund it taposed for the shortest tine possible, c. Mulches or similar materials must be j Haas-- n,»eessarv, for temoorary bare soil coverage, ® tt^anent* vegt^tion c4ver must be established as soon as possible. d. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature m be used; ORONO CC 376-15 (2-24-92) I s 10.56 e. Altered areas Afield acceptable erosion control water conservation of file technical guides of the l°.=*^^„®“^.a"ion Service, districts and the United States Soxl Conservatxo £. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope, „ Plans to place fill or excavatedg. Plan V City Engineer for material on steep slopes must be |ate*^finished slopes of continued slope stability and must not c-eate 30% or greater; h. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff Impact tones,_ _ _ _■■■ . . . . . .. • ’ f-' "muVt”^rst"^^a^\“^^^^^^^^High Water Level of public Resources under Minnesota CoLiissioner of the Department -2 ; ^ Statutes, Seciton ltJST«-, /.oSC-.tV. ------------------------ ------------- j. Alterations of V, Placement of natural rock rip including associated ^fading of the sho^eline^ exceed filter bla^et, is ,\%‘fcal, the landward extent of the 3 feet horizontal to 1 . Ordinary High Water Level# and the isr.rsu.JS'.Vu... zoning code. 6 Connections to Public Waters. Excavations «nere the intended purpose is boat slips, canals, I®?®®"®^^^^ll^vatlins below the elevation or ordinary High Water ^evel are subject to approval of the the Resources and other agencies withDepartment of ^"aturai concurrent jurisdiction. d ®/°Tha"A ‘%pirir,ddition" tf “"stlndfrdi “Lrirllltio'ls” l“ 5% and 11.41 of the Orono Municipal Code, 1 When possible# existing natural drainageways, vetland^,^ and ^vegetated -il„®-^®®®® "bVloJe dillhar’ge*to° public waters. ORONO CC 376-16 (2-24-92) TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 13, 1995 SUBJECT: #2078 Jensen Homes, Inc., 405 Tonkawa Road, Class II Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing Application: The application was tabled at the October meeting of the Planning Commission providing applicant additional time to consult with adjacent property owners concerning their request to acquire additional right-of-way for a future improved road at the southwest comer of the property. Applicant was also asked to confirm area of easement serving the Knight property located at 425 Tonkawa Road. The code will require that area of easement driveways be e.xcluded from the dry buildable area of proposed Lot 2. List of Exhibits A - Gusuifson Report 10/10/95 B - Hennepin County DOT Report 10/17/95 C - Gronberg Letter Concerning Area of Driveway Easement and Adjusted Lot Area for Proposed Lot 2 D - Easement Serving Knight Property (425 Tonkawa) E - Backlot/Frontlot Ordinance F - Weekman Report 10/24/95 G - Preliminary Plat Discussion Staff has met with Jim Jensen and applicant's attorney concerning status of easement driveway and impact of proposed subdivision. Applicant stated at the meeting that Bennetts are not creating a backlot with this division as the backlot was created years ago at the time of the creation of the driveway easement, refer to Exhibit D (10/15/58). The original code amendment specifically states that lots created prior to January I, 1994 will not be subject to recuirements of this code section. The easement mav remain as an easement as the subdivision regulations do not require the platting of an outlot with this 2 lot division. The Knight property at 425 Tonkawa will continue to have access to a public road to the south and is per code not a backlot. The easement is described at a 30’ width. The area of the easement has been deducted from the total lot area proposed as follows: Zoning File #2078 November 13, 1995 Page 2 Easemeni area * .43 acres Total area of proposed Lot 2 * 3.5 xrcs Adjusted lot area * 3.07 sKres Required * 1 acre. The future ou-ner of Lot 2 shall be advised that if property is located wthin the MUSA and is further subdivided per the 1 acre zoning standards, the City may consider asking for future extension of public roads from south. Lot 2 is currently subdivided based on rural standards. Review Exhibit B, Hennepin County has reviewed the two lot proposal and will not seek an additional dedication of right-of-way on County Road 135 (Tonkawa Road). The County will deny a third curb cut. Access to Lot 2 must be via the existing driveway easement at the southeast comer of proposed Lot 2. Lot 1 will continue to achieve access via the existii^ curb cut. Any alterations or upgrades of these curb cuts must be approved by Hennepin County via a permit. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Class 11 subdivision application of Jensen Homes Inc. involving the Frank Bennett property located at 405 Tonkawa Road finding all standards of the on-site septic code. LR-UVLR-IB zoning districts and pertinent sections of the subdivision regulations have been satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions. 1. No more than two residential units can be served by the e.xisting easement drive. 2. 3. 4. 5. Access to Lot 1 shall be via an existing curb cut at the County Road. Access to Lot 2 shall be via the existing private driveway at the southeast comer of Lot 2. Tennis court located within Lot 2 that encroaches the lot line shall be removed before building permit is issued for new construction on either Lots 1 or 2. Septic site must be staked and protected prior to the removal or demolition of the termis court. All building envelopes shall be defined by the required setbacks for either the LR-IB or LR-IA zoning district. Applicant to provide a soil delineation map and report prior to application being scheduled before the Council. Zoning File #2078 November 13, 1995 Page 3 6. 7. 8. Ravine area in southeast portion of property is to be designated as a drainage easement. City Engineer to determine the actual required width and extent of drainage easement. Planning Commission to make a recommendation concerning possible acquisition of park or trail. If there is to be a fee in lieu of dedication of park lands, it shall only be based on the area within proposed Lot 2. Future owner of Lot 2 to be advised that if property is included within the MUSA and fixrther subdivided into 1 acre lots with sewer, that City may consider ftiture extension of public roads to ser\ e newly created lots. 9. Others recommended by Planning Commission. 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene '■T'w Andcrlik & Associates Engineers & Architects October 10. 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 Re: Bennett Subdivision File No. 139-2078 •onestroo. tosene. Anderfifc tnd Associam. me. is tn Affirmative Action/Eroal Opportumry Employer Otto G- le wes treo. PE. •obert W Vosene. P E.* Jotepo C Anoemt. PE Mjrvm L Sorvaia. PE ticharO L Tumee. P E Glenn t. Coea. P £ Thomas £. Moyes. P £. toOert G. Scnunrcfif. P E Swsan M. Eberiin, C P A • * Senior Consultant Howard A Sanford. PE Ke«cn A Gordon.. P £. tooert ». Pfeffene. P E tichard W Foster , P E Oav»d O Losaef a P E tooert C tussea. A i.A Jerry A Bourdon. P £ Mart A. Hanson. P E. Michael r tjuimann. PE. Ted K. Field. P E Thomas t Anderson. A i. A James t. tosenmeraei. P E Donald C. Burpardt PI. Thomas A. Syfto. P E Frederic J. Stenoorg. P E. Ismael Martirsei. P E Michael P tauL P E. Thomas W Peterson. P E MKhaei C Lynch. PE James t Mai and. P E Jerry O. Pertisch. P E Scott J. Arganet. P E. Kennet h P Anderson. F Mark t tolft. P E Mart A Seip. P E Gary W Moriers. PX Paul J. Gannon. AI.A Oarwel J. Edgerton. P.E A tick Schmidt. P E Date A Grove. P E. Phdip J. CasweN. PE. Mark O Warns. P E. Miles B. Jensen. PE. L Phillip Gravel. P E Karen L Wiemeri. PE. Gary O. Knstofiti. PE. Brtan E Gage Pi F Todd Foster. P E Keith t rapp. PE Douglas J. Benoit. P E Shawn D Guttaf son^ PE. CecMo Odvief P E Kent J Wagner. PE Paul G Hewer. PE. John P Gordtr. PE. Dan D Boyum. P E Jeffrey J Pdortnge r. P E Joseph t them. P E lee M. Marm. PE Chanel A EncKson Leo M. Paweftky Han«i M. Otson Agnes M tmg James f Engetiardt Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the subdivision proposed by Jensen Homes, Inc. of the property at 315 Tonkawa Road owned by Mr & Mrs. Frank Bennett. Tlie proposed subdivision will create one new building site on the 10.69 acre parcel. The property presently lies outside of the MUSA boundary. The subdivision appears acceptable from an engineering standpoint and we would recommend approval contingent on the following criteria; 1. The subdivision should be done by plat to adequately describe easements that should be granted to the City as follows: 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines. a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the Tonkawa Road right-of-way (ROW). Hennepin County should review the subdivision to determine if additional ROW is needed for Tonkawa Road (C.R. 135), a minimum of 42 feet for the west half of the road is recommended. a drainage easement over the drainageway crossing the parcel. 2. Primary and alternate septic sites should be shown for both lots. (Note: There is an existing 9-inch PVC sanitary sewer line along the west side of Tonkawa Road that could serve these properties if the MUSA line ever is expanded. 3. An outlet should be platted for the existing gravel driveway. Lot 2 should have access to Tonkawa Road by making it a shared driveway. We do not recommend a new access onto an arterial roadway such as Tonkawa Road, unless there is no other feasible alternative to provide access to a property. Also, a new driveway would cross the existing drainageway, requiring a culvert, tree clearing and regrading of the area. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612*636-4600 -r * ■ji A » • - wri I ^ 'N ^ ' '. N. i * ^ Hennepin^County OCT 2 0 er 17, 1995 Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 r % RE: Proposed Plat - Jensen Homes Inc. c rcAu oiCSAH 135, west side approximately 440 feet south of CSAH 84 Section 6, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2275 Review and Recommendations Dear Ms. Mabusth: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03. Plats and "S'*);;® review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: Hl^Sep?;: ?run[noernol“:^ee5'’!d5t;l^«]"r.;'t of way at this time. • JJtv^S^ajriiranj°a^pJ«i™ae?;°?ar?e^ertiS?rS‘f ?hl ;^:tr^rr{S^1ne and approximately 12 feet north of the plats south line. These access locations are acceptable. Hennepin County will not any other access cuts to CSAH 135. Any proposed revisions to either of the existing drives require an approved entrance permit from Hennepin County before beginning any access construction or reconstruction. The developer^can contact Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548 for access information or entrance permit forms. sssissgrsss? =r for the appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed during construction. Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 (612)930-2500 RAX:(612)930-2513 I Jeanne Habusth October 17, 1995 Page 2 Please direct any response to Doug Mattson. Sincerely, Thomas D. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DBM /09/1935 12:02 473-W-35 CC"---"'' ^ 3?CNrE='3 P4-G& •Sovcmbcr 8. 1*^*' (S COFFIN * ,OHO Ciiv of Oono 2750 Kelly Park\%u' Orono. N-f^N 75^'“ Attn; Jeanne Mal'osih Dear Jeanne Per yout request m» 1’’^ 2 «cluBve of the 30 contains appro'.mui oh <».43r acres. If there are anv ether qtiestioits. please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely. COFFIN & ffP.oVBFFn. Inc. Mark S. Gronbero. P f & ^-S- MSG/cr JCT 25" 95 ()«;3^ FH WAVX.hOSSE iNC r>iJ 74- 73 >3 .'i.r-t-'-' 7l'l t«n* rir«%il«v •# CUtf llrtlHtWC. -»•«'• •«< . ._ , _,„tTT rr*i tnscn,^W4««iMt« -e^miw.-id -■-.■• • taoMU J. awisoii wa-iaeu t. iKtitai.-W*>««»* ••* •tf* • - c- . S9^ «f wia-.- ................... * ‘ VUitciictll, la___ T«.» A. >.«l.t.r^ UM U^n «».. 5«^. til- Pt t.ci.k«* Af Xmtfla • • n» .».»» w w?o n.uMSMT i«y. «« • —----------------— — — «i/4 7«inL. •— ••• • III lllimf* HletltC. XfM • ki% fc^rci»*C# M mml mml « (»«,to» .*4 S»«lf4 P»4 O^U pp99^ I« Pw • • «m (fK.it,t (XKJtl ‘i ifT ockfZC ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AV ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ZONING not ablt a public or private road THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS; CFmON 1 Municioal Zoning Code Section 10.02 and Municipal SuMivision Code Section lfo3. Subdiv'iti'on 2 ate each hereby amended by adding the followmg defmmons; ■It,t Back- - A lot nnicallv separated from a public or private road by another lot and Lot-BacK a -T ' orivate road via a narrow comdor. Such a separated which gams access P „„jdor :s platted as an outlet. A separated lot IS considered to ^ a back ot wnen ^ ^ l^e cort“?" memly ^ easement over another lot, the separated lot is considered to be an "easement back lot". ■Lot-Front- - A lot abutting a public or private road, across which an ouUot has been platted for access to a back lot. SECTION 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 is amended by adding Subdivision 27 which shall read as follows; preliminary subdivision approval ua^ * • ^ 11 Subdivisions^X^uirements in addition to the standards required in Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 of the Orono Subdivision Code: A.Dimensional standards for back lots shaU be as follows: 1. 9 Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot Ime at ^ street vard setback line of a lakeshore back lot. or at the front setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot. district width requirement. The street yard or front Jor ^ back lot will be a yard starting where the narrow acces coSdor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore ba^ Io« shaE me« the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line, and at the street yard setback line. 1 3. 4. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 15055 of the zooing district front yard requirement. The reauired side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shaU be 1<0% of the zoning district yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shaU meet the zomng distnct lakeshore yard requirements. B Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as of a tontrtiact lot division shall meet aU zomng distnct area ““J setback standards, except that the required side yard ot the front lot aSSm to the access outlet shall be equivalent to the side street yard reauirement for that zoning district. A C. .\ccess requirements. 1. 3. 4. 5. Access outlets shall be 30 ’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screenmg without encroaching on neighboring properties. In aporoving froniAiack lot divisions, the City may requme that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if CouncU determines that creaimg an addiuonal access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 ’ from the sidw or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. No more than two residences may be served by a dnveway located within an access outlot. No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent access ouUot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlets tor creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. D. Screening requirements. 1 Driveways consmicted in access outlets shall be adequatel screened'by fencing or vegetation at the discreuon of the City, all points to the rear of the required street yard of the front lo . as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or r yard of adjacent lots. 2. The street yard of the back lot shaU be adeqxxately screened by fencing or vecetation at the discretion of the City, so as to eliiinate intrus'ion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. E Sondards for accessory sL-ccaires. Accessory sinrcmres shall arttere to ' all require=e=ts of the ronir.g code, with the foUowmg additional reauirements; A 1. Accessory stmemres within a back lot shall be allowed no closer Than 10 ’ to a neighboring property s side or rear yard. Accessory stmetures shaU not be allowed within the required street yard of a back lot nor widiin the required rear yard of a front lot which abuts the street yard of a back lot. 3. No accessor}' stnicrure sfaaU be allowed within an access outloi. SECTION 3. Orono Municipal Code Section 11.51, Subdivision 5 is hereby deleted and the following language substituted in its place. Subdivision 5. Double frontage lots, access to lots, and front/back lot divisions. Double frontage lots. Double frontage and reversed frontage lots shall be avoided except where necessary to provide separauon ot residential development from traffic aneriais or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. B Access from any anerial roadway. Lots shall not. in general, derive access exclusively from an anerial roadway. Where dnveway access from anv anerial roadway may be necessary for several adjoi^g lots, the Council mav reouire that such lots be served by a comomed access dr^^ve in order to limit possible traffic haiard on such roadway Where possible, driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid requiting vc c es to back into traffic on any arterial roadway. C. Front/back lot subdivisions. "Flag lots" and "easement back lots" ^ defmed in this Chapter (see definition of "Lot-Back") shaU not be cheated. Front/back lot divisions shaU be allowed only in conjunction with the erection of an outlot to provide access from the back lot to ” private toad. Such oudot shaU not be aUowed as creditable either the back or front lots. Ftont/back lot subdivisions shaU adhere to the following standards: A. 1. Applicabilit}-. 1. b. c. 2. Front/back lot divisioas may be used when existing procerty dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not aUow for a side-by-side lot split, but acrea<^e is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a back lot without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded. FronL'back lot divisions may be used for individual lot SDlits". but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supponed by unique site factors. A front/back lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abuttmg the proposed access outlot is located nearer its affected side lo line than a distance equivalent to the zoning distnct required front yard depth. Dimensional standards for back lots shaU be as follows: Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at Z rL of the front yard setback line of a nonlakeshom back lot. shall meet the zoning district wid^ , The street yard or front yard for any back lot wiU be vard starting where the narrow access outlo: comdor en 'and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line and at the street yard setback line. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shaU be 150 S of the zoning district yard «qu^demenu. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. a. b. c. d. J. Dimeasional standards for front lots. A front lot created as pan of a fronL'badc lot division shaU meet all zoning distnc: area,^ width and setback standards, except that the required side yard oi the front lot adjacent to the access outlet shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement fer that zoning district. Access requirements: .Access outlets shall be 30* minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate dramage. snow removal and screenina without encroaching on neighboring propenies. b.In aoproving fronbback lot divisions, the City may require that* both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street wUl be a potential safety hazard. c.Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. e.No access outlot may be planed abutting an adjacent ouUot except when the intent is to combine the two access oudots for creation of a public or private road meetmg City standards. Scrsjamz requiremems and accessoo' structure Froni/back lot subdivisions shall be designed in a manner such that the screenmg requirements and accessory struemre standards ot Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. The requirements and standards of this section shaU apply only to those front/back lot divisions which receive preliminary pi approval after Januar>' 1. 1994. SECTION 4 Adoption and publication. This ordinance shall be published in^e Pioneer and thflS^fLspapen and shaS become etfecdve inamediately upon publication. f 1 Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this , 1993, by a vote of__ayes and — day of Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin. City Cleric 1 TO:Jeanne Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administration FROM: Stephen Weekman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:October 24, 1995 SUBJECT: Subdivision application #2078, Frank Bennett - Septic Review The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision requiring the use of on-site septic systems. Soil testing has been provided by S-P Testing for primary and alternate sites on each lot. The drainfield sites all meet City and State standards for five bedroom residences. Soil testing indicates that all proposed systems use mound drainfields with site slopes of six percent or less and meet all setback requirements. The soil testing and design has been approved as submitted. Based on the soil testing. I would recommend the application be approved Soulhtrly Ul.OO ftel of iht Uesttrly mioOiricl C. Rooltitrod l«iid 5ur»#y Mo. 140. fllti of ftooiltrar of mioi. County of Htnntp^ln. 4bo« doscribtd proporly. and the location of in •till or tncfoachiaStJ ^ Itnhli court iMaraon. It dots not purport to shot any other laprote- DBuore?Mn OATI oaenmoM o # • OiAWW w • .. •s •*“ i GIj IN & GKONHrRC., INC iNirK cVTli(TlhAtlhni4tnn t>jtpfrp««d^ mr<«undrrmydiftcf•«• %tMm. And dw( I *m a dulv iTtotimd CiW Cncinm mmJ land Sumyw «d«; thr b»t c4 dir Suir of Mnnr«uU i Ciwibrip MmiwoU Lumw Numbrt IJW •JS-35Z'1 .T KAU OMi 100 MP ?S-3Si • v’ ■ I- 9.I To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:November 10,1995 Subject:#2083 Bernice M. Zumbusch, 1535 Long Lake Boulevard - Variances - Public Hearing Application: Applicant seeks to replace existing lakeside deck placed over concrete patio. Excesses of hardcover exist within the 75-250' setback area as well as excesses in strucmral coverage. No increases are proposed. Hardcover and structural coverage will remain the same. Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Total lot area = 9,140 s.f. Allowed = 1,500 s.f. Existing = 1,832 s.f. or 20% Proposed = 1,832 s.f. or 20% Variance = 332 s.f. or 3.6% 2.Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover. A. 0-75' setback area (refer to Exhibit F) Area = 4,610 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 751 s.f. or 16.29% Proposed = 751 s.f. or 16.29% No changes in hardcover proposed. B.75-250' setback area Area = 4,530 s.f. Allowed = 1,132.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 3,957 s.f or 87.35% Proposed = 3,957 s.f or 87.35% No changes in hardcover proposed. Variance = 2,824.5 s.f. or 62.3% Zoning File #2083 November 10, 1995 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - Discussion Application Applicant ’s Addendum Plat Map Property Owners' List Neighbors’ Acknowledgement Form 0-75’ Hardcover Inventoiy 75-250’ Hardcover Inventory Survey/Hardcover Improvements Applicant proposes the removal and replacement ot approximate 38’ x 10 deck to the lakeside of the existing residence. The deck is located immediately above a concrete patio. The reconstruction also involves the replacement the steps attached to the deck. The deck is approximately 347 s.f. and the steps at 54 s.f. The structiu^ will meet all required setbacks and will be located out of the 0-75' setback area. The propert>' is located adjacent to a 25’ fire lane to the west. Excessive hardcover improvements exist in the 75-250’ setback area at 87.3%. History of Property In November of 1968, a former owner received approval of area and width variances to allow the construction of a residence. In 1972, additional variances were granted to the owner allowing for a 0 line setback to the side lot line adjacent to the fire lane for the installation of a septic system in the lakeshore yard. The residence structure was built sometime in 1972. The City has no record of the permit. The deck structure was built either in 1972 or sometime after 1972. In 1986, the current owners received approval of a conditional use permit and variances that allowed the restoration of existing timber walls, repair of the access stairs and installation of new timber walls in lakeshore yard and adjacent to residence. The timber walls installed within the lakeshore yard were to allow for case and safety in mowing the steep banks of the lakeshore yard. The existing deck and stairs have been confirmed by the Building Inspector as in need of immediate repair. The applicant proposes complete reconstruction of deck and stair structure. Statement of Hardship 1. Review Exhibit B, the property receives excessive runoff from Long Lake Boidevard during heavy rain and a majority of runoff pools in the grassed, flatter elevations at shoreline. Zoning File #2083 November 10, 1995 Page 3 2.The majority of hardcover fiom stairs and timber walls within the 0-75’ area was approved by the City' in 1986. Note stairs have been installed at a 4' allowed width and would be allowed on a property with steep elevations leading to lake. 3. The deck is unsafe and in need of repair or replacement. 4. There is already a concrete patio beneath the deck. 5. The deck will have no impact on the lake views of adjacent residences. Issues for Consideration 1.Stairs and timber walls v.ere approved by the City in 1986 to allow for safe access to the shoreline and for use and maintenance of the steeply sloped yard. Can the plastic underliners not approved in 1986 application installed beneath the rocked areas be removed without danger of erosion? 2. Can existing hardcover improvements be reduced in the 75-250' setback area? A.400 s.f to the east side of the residence consisting of concrete patio block and rock with plastic. B.What of the rock with plastic area to the lakeside of the e.xisting deck and patio, portions of which are located wdthin the 0-75' and *^5--50 area? C. Plastic underliner beneath rock in lakeshore yard at west side. Options of Action To either approve the variance application as proposed or as amended. «A C/•: o CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^:r /f' I \ iInitial Application Fee $200.00 ^ I ($50.00 per each additional vanance) ^ >3 Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 . . t (no change from original application) • Variance for non-confonning struemres After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) * - - • <-r 2 J W- - — - —t . . • > • • • W » U -« • t PROPERTY CSTOR>L\TION Site Address /• y: -V-/ JL:------- rrryj- Site Addrc--------—v T P ^ i ^ ^ T (mon:h/.ear) fXn^rn?.) aS“own °‘o';^'(spe=ify). Present use ot propeny: / residential ^ Zoning District: APPLICANT; Name /H Phone (home)_£y^X—£2-52 Address://S. X Phone(work)___;i£2L2——r Zip: / OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phoneihome)^ Phone (\vork)_ Zip: ^_tx 7CT FcTimnted ConStTUCtiOIlCoSt S—— ------------ -7 (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES required Lot Area __Lot W’idth Setback:Front Side t^^^ardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshorc _ Other (specify) ‘^n^'unfeSlp 222 Compliance wi* Zoning Code requirements: "(attach additional sheets ii necessary) 1. >C 2. V3- 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AH thP following infnrmaiion mus. ...hmitted b^th£.apBli--3tipn tftajlinc iMtto for voor application to be considered completei .—i™- ««■ Hencepin Countj- Department of Finance, A-60a. Govt Cra«r. .48-a.-l). Plat .Map (obtained with propetrt’ owners list). jc'/ ^-Mcover Certificate of Survey (signed by a for ?^p"c survey (existing -dproposed e.evatiorjs)Jf any ctang« ^ grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A x " Sketches or olans of floor tS; elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8,4 x 11 ). Ust of fl.rirgarnles (include mantal status) of all persons with an mterest in the nrooe^- This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). L L^ddendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons vou wish notified of this ap^-xcation. Additional items as may be requested by City statf. 5. _ 6- _ 7. __ 8- _ 9. The Applicant and Propertv Owner must sign this application. Please remetnber ^ XSlur i.nnli--tion k not eo-plrte if the above information mcliidaL provide all information required or requested by the Zoning I^suamJ a^es t^pay addiuonal fees (staff time not covered by original f« parent) "“r^Ufex^ incum^^ in review of this application and certi.ies that the information supplied is true^and correct to ±e best of his/her knowledge. Date ^4. ^£1Applicant’s <;ionamre n'J^SSv a^edges and agrees to this application and further ratry onto the ptipetty by City staff, consultants, apnts Commission members, and Couned members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Date v^. 9SL A 1 • -anr niii« hilve ail submittals 'into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeti^r Plann^^ Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of eac^on*^ . must be nresent at all scheduled review meetings of the Plamung Commission '"‘2 ’Snfa^app^ “umble to anend a sch«iuled meeting, please make arrangements “tave mttlJo™^^^ anend in your place and to advise di. Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 October 17, 1995 Orono City Council; We have been seeking a permit to replace an existing deck on onr house at 1535 Long Lake Bivd. (Lot «19) Our intent is to rebuild the deck exactly as it is now, but apparently there are some issues with the amount of total hard cover on our property. We would like to provide some insight 'r-. »y help you understand our situation better, since much of the issue seems to be about w ater run-otf. Our house is located on a hill, but we do not have run-off from our lot. The only time we've seen any water from run-off is vvhen we have had a 4-5’* ram in a short amount of time — and even then, is sits on the lawn at the bottom of the hill. There is run-otT, however, from Long Lake Blvd. This should be on record with the City of Orono because we have called on it at least three times (but to date no action has been taken). All of the water from the east end of the neighborhood runs down Long Lake Blvd. and down our driveway...bringing with it gravel from neighbors' driveways which we then have to remove from the bottom of our driveway. Even when neighbors on the east end wash then cars we gel the water down our driveway. All of this w ater runs into the right-of-way (owned by Orono) between our lot and lot #18. If there's a problem with run-off. that’s where it is. It has created a deep gully. Our wish to rebuild our deck will not change this run-off situation — nor would removing any hard cover from our property. In fact, if we remove any of the hard cover from our property, it could create a bigger run-off problem -- by washing our hill into the lake. Our deck — which was there when we bought the house — is no longer safe. And we fear that obstruction to rebuild will result in someone's injury. We ask that you take these special circumstances into consideration and allow us to rebuild the deck as is. Thank vou. Bernice Zumbusch 1535 Long Lake Blvd. * * GOVT LOT I tm DATE oa/li/fs MTCH SMPW» ASM ONNiA NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PW» AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR 0»MER NAW TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR M 26-118-2S SS 0002 01090 LONO LAKE M.VD T 0 ANDERSON A C A ANDERSON TROY A CATHERINE ANDERSON 1090 UM LAKE OLVO LONB LAKE m S5S50 SO 20-110-2S SI 0000 OISSO LONO LAKE OLVO 6RANT 0 E06ENDER0 GRANT 0 ECOENBERO ISSO LONS LAKE OLVO LONO LAKE rM S5S5* SO 20-110>23 SS 0010 015S5 LONB LAKE BLVO OERNICE ZUrCUSCN BERNICE M ZUMBUSCH 15SS LONS LAKE OLVO LONO LAKE MN B535A HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY (OOCRS LISTSO 20-110-2S SS 0000 OISIO LONB LAKE OLVO CINDY J FREDRICKSON CXNOY FREDRICKSON 1510 LONB LAKE OLVO LONB LAKE M4 55SS0 SO 20>110->2S SS 0007 01500 LONB LAKE OLVO ROBIN I CRANFORO ROBIN E CRA»tfORO 1500 LONB LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE MN 55S50 SO S5-110-2S 22 0002 01525 LONB LAKE BLVO L N CAPRON ETAL N/L EST L H CAPRON A MARIE NENOT S2S2 OOIL OR ANCHORAGE AK 99507 TOTAL BATCH 500 00009 ttPIMT m. PtOSBOOl PAGE 910 20-110-2S SS OOM 01520 LONB LAKE BLVO RAYMOND SOROON JOMeON RAYMOm GOROON JOHNSON 1520 LONG LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE ftl B5S50 SO 20-110-2S SS 0012 01105 LONG LAKE BLVO J E BIONAM OCA BIGMAM JAMES A CYNTNIA BIGHAM ISOB LONB LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE MN BBSS* SB S5-11B-2S 22 OOOS 01509 LONB LAKE BLVO THOMAS N CASHMAN THOMAS N CASHMAN 1509 LONB LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE BBSS* I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF.THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT 0( PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF NY KNONLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE : * • '1^ " 1 , • * , > • • • 4*; V- - t • >-»9 V* • • ,'4. i’ >' ;i. •• *•I V i % • • i , i y • • 1 . . v '.. #• * .1 4 T» • • ..1. • *-• • • • •••.■. V ;. ** • * . .* R m •Vi ^ • .* • ’‘i*' * *1 . : 4 . * 0 • * , . ' V • V.•p ^ sai - »* Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (we)of |/ xl ^ /v'-J' [print nanie(s)l [print address] tovejevjewed Ap^Tso. I („e) undertund du. in executing tins t t1:i^ project or use requires Council approval. Date • Property <^ner ^Date ♦ iddididi****** **•*’•• i^*****didi*>*d<**>ti***ife#** I (we)[print name(s)][print address] _______ understand^in executing of the impro'ven.em plans and d«. the proposed ne.ghbor s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner y Date Property Owner ApplfcS're'ariLh^"^^^ to the scheduled meeting date. Date UovAcAi J. Ido'A'SOSiiH HARDCOVERj;:A^CL'LAriOiN VVOKlv:>^i:. i SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONT) 75-250* 25-500’500-1000' /- EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______ yyjooo ‘7PU/«P LO\dcCZ f f B. Garage C. Dnvc^va>' L^nfih 2.^ V »• X X X WidlJl <?.5*C£8 D. Sidewal'K i IW£X- TiMtif/Z fc'06»> 62- E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plasiic. Or Fabric • X X X X X X X X X ft SI lis ^48 Ml G. Other Ci/ c S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B ^Sto.X 100 7S( S.F. Cr4^\0 T S.F. tO 0 :C-n i C r 1 O' House , u V- V_/ ▼ X .S.F.. Length X Wid’Ji S.F. X ■i S.F. X «S.F. 4. ■ • r t u. / Garaxe X S.F. Driveway X S.F. X ■i S.F. '' D.Sidewalk X S.F. W i WW “ MAM X S.F. E.Patio/Deck X . S.F. X S.F. : ..I andscaoe X m S.F. Underlain • •X .0 * M S.F. Rv Plastic X a S.F. 0. Or Febrie Other X . • 1 • / S.P* total hardcover in zone total property area in zone A _ _ _ 'B X 100 - • S.F. " S.F. A B A B vJ- Ci-i hardcover CALCULAmi:<V\Ul<lv!>tiJifc.i SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ . QS-ZSO^ 25-500 500-1000' FVr«rTING HARDCQVTR IN ZONE 0^ ^OC Lmi* h5£, «Nct. - --- HOUSE. WidJ> ,uco>< — ,t, IHCL. ^ri'*f0Cf2^ X X X l4-gS~ 23 0 S.F. B. Garage i3 lao ^tc ^P C. Driveway t •« »•D, Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck <^PfcH P^RC#4 njz. ^=3 i: )'• F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X ___________S.F. _________S.F. 4 00 S.F. S.F. 0 S.F. S.F. ZR PfCkL u/irhf A^f~~y=r S.F. S.F. . S.F.,4--'»fc S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Olher <> 7 /. ^S.F TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE J^9S7 •r B 4S3 o X IQO -• 3J57 S.F .A B #0 snsn CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DOUGLAS J. ZUMBUSCH s Lonn l^r OF LOT 19. ALBEE'S LONG LAKE ADDITION a'Lake ^^arcy 5 hennepin county , Minnesota © LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: ^Lot 19. ALBEE'S LONG LAKE ADDITION denotes Iron'marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. NOTE: Boundary Information is taken from our survey dated 8-6-86. 'This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the loca- ♦I—jji^tion of an existing house, and the location of all existing "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improve ments or encroachments. Lake Topographic information is* taken from city maps. M O o X f p f!J) Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. I •• I'm;) I,M.f N.''lit J'l|iMl,f- 4''' l.irv. ifkil otn • I >'•'»: I .'I< \1\ I r i’ 1 hereby certify ilut this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super vision. and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Mark S. Cronberg Minnesota License Nuntfer 12755 DATE S-22-95 SCALE r^20* jODNo. 95-299 .jmuBuBL. r /O. To: From: Bate: Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, Cit>’ Administrator Michael P. GatTron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator November 13, 1995 Subject: #2084 Thomas R. McCune. 1473 Bay Ridge Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Two Acre Application: Request for side setback variances and 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of two additions to existing residence. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Letter of Request C - Plat Map D - Property Owners' List E - Adjacent Owner Acknowledgements/Letters of Support F - Site Plan G - Survey with Proposal/Hardcover Depiction H - Corrected Survey I - Proposed Floor Plan J - Elevations K - Photos L - Neighborhood LayoutH'opography M - Hardcover Calculations N - Lot Coverage Calculations Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.23, Subd. 6 (B): Side setback required » 30’ for principal structure and attached additions. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2/10.56, Subd. 16 (L): 75-250' hardcover limited to 25% Pertinent Facts 1. Lot area (excluding County Road 15 right-of-way and Bay Ridge Road private right-of- way): 36,500 s.f. or 0.84 acre + Lot width: 100' (115’ as measured parallel to lake) Zoning File #2084 November 13, 1995 Page 2 2. Side setbacks: ITEM Existing detached garage Existing house (N. end) Proposed Gar/BR Addition (N. side) Existing house, S. end Existing Deck/Proposed Sunroom (E. side) EXISTING 2.2 ‘ 14.r 16.8’ IT PROPOSED (to be removed) (no change) 10’ (no change) IT REQUIRED VARIANCE 10* 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 20' 3’ 3.Hardcover: 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' EXISTING PROPOSED 0% 0% 23.9% 26.7% 19.4% 19.9% allowed 0% 25% 30% VARIANCE 1.7% Discussion Applicants recently piuchased this residence and propose two specific additions: Guest bedrooin/bath with attached garage (existing detached garage to be removed). - Replace existing open deck with enclosed sunroom. This neighborhood was developed in the late 1950's/early 1960's, and the lots average 100 in width, ranging from one-half to one acre in area. The 30' required side setbacks of the two acre LR-1A zone result in most of the existing homes being non-confomung. smee they were built typically with 10' side setbacks when the zoning allowed that to occur. The proposed attached garage/guest bedroom wing will at its closest point be 10' from the north side lot line where the existing house is slightly over 14' from the lot line. The addition is perpendicular to the house and therefore not parallel to the lot line, since all of the houses in Utis neighborhood are slightly angled to take advantage c " lake views. Applicant correctly notes that a detached garage could be located as near a> .0' to the side lot line, although that would not be in keeping with the neighborhood. This proposal will eliminate the last remaining detached garage in the neighborhood. Zoning File #2084 November 13, 1995 Page 3 The garage/bedroom addition will be done concurrently with interior remodeling of the bedroom end of the house. While the 26 ’ x 43' addition could technically be relocated to meet the 30' side setback requirements, it would not be in keeping with the layout of the existing house. The 18' X 24' sunroom addition takes the place of an existing slightly larger deck on the lakeside of the house. This addition will not encroach past the average lakeshore setback line, is approximately 150’ from the lakeshore, but is proposed to be located 27 from the south side lot line where a 30’ setback would normally be required. A variance for the sunroom could be avoided by reducing its width from 24 to 21’, or by sliding it northward, although this would encroach upon the pool patio area and an existing window opening. Hardcover Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone will increase from a conforming level of 23.9% to 26.7%, or approximately 350 s.f over the limit. Although the degree of variance is minor, it is a direct result of the gara£'v Mid bedroom addition, and is the typical increase in 75-250 hardcover that we see when converting from detached to attached garages on lakeshore lots. However, in this case the increase is minimized due to the angle of the 250 ’ setback line, with the addition requiring the least amount of driveway in the 75-250 ’ zone to serve it. The removal of the detached garage is a positive improvement to the property, and it can be argued that the addition is certainly in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Dependent on Sewer Applicant correctly notes that this neighborhood has requested municipal sewer, and is one of ten areas the City will be requesting for inclusion within tl.e MUSA this wdnter. It is feasible that sewers could be constructed on Bay Ridge in 1996, although that decision has not been made by the City Council. Therefore, any approval recommendation by the Planning Commission must be conditioned on sewer becoming a reality, since, as applicant notes, the existing septic tanks and drainfield are directly under the proposed garage and new driveway. Issues for Discussion 1.Can the sunroom be relocated or decreased in size to eliminate the 3’ side setback variance? 2. Is the proposed garage/guest bedroom addition in the most appropriate location given the constraints of the existing house layout, orientation, and lot width? Zoning File #2084 November 13, 1995 Page 4 3. Will granting of the vririances have a negative or positive impact on the neighborhood? 4. Is Planning Commission comfortable in granting approval subject to installation of municipal sewer in the future, which is potentially likely but not yet a ccrtamty? Stair Recommendation Please review the applicant's letter of request. Exhibit B. If Planning Commission concludes that the side setback variances and hardcover variance can be supported by adequate justifications and findings of hardship, those findings should be included in any reconunendation for approval. Options for Action 1.Recommend approval as presented, specifying justifications and findings of hardship, and conditioned on municipal sewer installation. 2. Recommend partial approval (specify). 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons for denial. 4. Table for further information. 5.Other. A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION , * Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S200.(X) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) \ 4 • 6 ■ )ff ■) ■ U.X f > w» -- w •%/ f JLf * •" • i ‘r/.-r-v.A X WWVi-VVV VV V I PROPERTY DEFORMATION Site Address A V 73 B/iy RiO^^ .-urr^- t. t n L- V. u m V 'J - % . .‘i, •; . » • WU* VV ••■'w* •Property Identification Number fP.I.D.) /0'n~7 -Z3-3V —~ OGo 5^---- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. C oaA 5 e f r£,V\ 3^ I9<r S' _____________(month/year)Date Property Acquired I (do) ^o not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property': -)& residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:_____~ / A_________________________ APPLICANT Name ^ Address: 2fS'^ City: Phone (iKime) 973~3^WS~’ Phone(work) A g ^ - ra Zip: 6-^39 f OWNER (if different than applicant) Name S g_________ Phone(home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^o,oao Describe request in detail: (7) SuaJ \y/va-//4vUer<F f 27_— __ ^____ ^ r> ^ ^ L, /'I C JAi ' I 3) 7 Describe request in detail: i/J "SUfJ i^oo^ 'stot «f_ ^ ^ (attach additioral sheets if necessary) p2C.7% /N Of ViUlIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width _JL Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Setback:Front ^Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify)S€rPA-R.P^r£ ^OCOiSiFt * 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) i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submittgd bv the application dgadllng in Qrder for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. t, 4. I ^ 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). j^Cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V4 x 11 for reproduction. ^ a ^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes m existmg gra >. are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V4 x 11 for reproduction.^ ^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'A" x 11"). ^ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember lh« xoue variance application is not complete if the above information ha$ nQ( APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE . • The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and CouncU members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. DateOwner’s Signamre_____________________________ Anolicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Fla.i-iing Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. ADplicants 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 ^ngements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 3 fr ■ October 16. 1995 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Buildins & Zoning Administrator City ofOrono 2750 Kellev Park^v'av 0 0 P.O. Box 66 Cry'staJ Bay. MN 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: My wife and I recently purchased the home and property at 1473 Bay Ridge Road. We have lived in Webber Hills in Orono for 23 years and all of our children have gone through Orono schools. The Bay Ridge home is the smallest of the eight homes in the neighborhood and is the only home with a detached garage. Originally, many of the homes had detached garages. We respectfully request minor variances in side setbacks and in hardcover to accommodate additions to the home. The side setbacks for our proposed additions are generously consistent with the side setbacks of our immediate neighbors for their homes to the corresponding property lines. Please find enclosed signed approvals from these two adjacent neighbors for the proposed side setbacks and the specific proposed work. This request is consistent with the additions and setbacks on ail of the other properties in the neighborhood and would probably still result in this still being the smallest home in the area. Our proposed expansion to the east (lakeside; will be well behind the line connecting the points, closest to the lake, of the two adjacent properties as noted on the survey. The requested variances are: 1. Fast sun room addition Side setback of 27 feet measured perpendicularly from the nearest comer of the sun room addition to the south property line. 2. West attached garage/guest bedroom addition Side setback of 10 feet measured perpendicularly from the nearest comer of the garage to the north property line. 3. Hardcover Hardcover variance in the “75-200 foot zone ” from 25.0% to 26.7%. If the actual water area of the pool is deleted from the calculation, since there is obviously no runoff from this area, the proposed percentage reduces to 22.8% and therefore no variance would be needed. Ms. Jeanne Mabusth, City of Orono Pace 2 i. ' •*>/I j / ■—■ • *.» As noted by Orono building officials, side setbacks of 30 feet (2-acre category) are fairly unrealistic for 100-foot-wide lots. .A hardship is created by the configuration of the lot in that it is quite long (± 500 feet) and narrow (100 feet) and all of the homes are oriented on a bias to the side property lines to generally parallel the lakeshore. Almost every home in this neighborhood has expanded over the years and are much closer to the side property lines titan the current 30 foot restriction. We are extremely desirous of an attached garage due to: 1. Security reasons, especially for situations when a person comes home alone at night. 2. E.xireme inconvenience during Minnesota winters with a detached garage which is a significant distant from the residence. 3. The existing garage is too small and was damaged by a tornado at one time and is in need of repair. The bedroom/garage addition is proposed on the northwest end of the home as opposed to the southwest to minimize hardcover in the “75-200 foot zone. ’ This happens to be where the existing drain field is located. Since the Bay Ridge neighborhood has voted unanimously to petition for city sewer. I’m assuming municipal sewer will occur in the relative near future and we will wait for this building addition until sewer is in place, which will hopefully be before the end of 1996. The existing garage and driveway will be removed. The e.xisting garage is just two feet from the south property line! The garage/bedrocin addition will be shielded from the Johnson property to the north by large, existing pine trees. The neighbor to the south (Kerber) will be delighted to have the detached garage removed, which is very close to his property. As I understand the regulations, I could build a double or triple detached garage structure with a 10 foot side setback. This would clearly be more objectionable to all my neighbors than my proposed plan. The additions will be no higher than the existing structure and will be tastefully designed, utilizing the same materials, i.e. brick on the bedroom/garage addition. The sun room will be constructed utilizing insulated glass units possessing a high insulating value. It is our plan to take the bedroom area of the existing home, which consists of three very small bedrooms and two small bathrooms, and make this into a single master suite and master bath. With the addition of the guest bedroom and bath, this will result in the home having two bedrooms and two bathrooms (as opposed to three bedrooms and two bathrooms now), with the possibility of adding a third bathroom in the basement. Ms. Jeanne Mabusth, City of Orono f 4' f Page 3 ,.i' •-i' J J <-<r— / To assist with your evaluation and approval of this request, please find enclosed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. A survey from Egan, Field and Nowak, dated September 13,1995, showing the property address, legal description, location of all improvements, easements. Lake Minnetonka high water mark, and locations of adjacent property structures. Permanent iron markers are in place as noted. Site plans showing proposed additions and setbacks. Existing an d proposed hardcover calculations and corresponding site plan with reference locations for the calculations. Enlarged floor plan drawing of proposed additions. More detailed drawings will be prepared for building permit purposes. Exterior elevation drawings of proposed additions. A check in the amount of S200 for the variance application fee. Completed Variance Application form. Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledgment Form and an additional form from adjacent neighbors giving formal approval and consent to the proposed plans. Data Privacy ,A.dvisory form. Lot Coverage calculations for both existing and proposed conditions. A certified property owners list, labels and a plat plan from Hennepin County identifying property owners within 150 feet of our property. Neighborhood plat generally depicting contours and other homes, created by aerial photography. Photos of the property. Plat drawing of neighborhood (Registered Land Survey No. 192) I would be pleased to furnish any additional information or meet with you to discuss details of this request. Sincerel Thomas R. McCune Current address: 2150 Shevlin Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (h) 473-3245 (o) 287-5200 I I NUN DATE 10/05/95 BATCH 500 MON *AOON OMCR NAME TAXPAVEH NAHE/AODR •r-'. ■, •' y •' * 1 '. M ‘ ’ fflQP AOINI ONNER HAM ;* . TAXPAYER .;..NAM/AOOR i): I NNON ABO* i OMNE* NAME : TAXPAYER . . NAME/AOO* W ' • •• • ••i.r- M 10-ll7-tS 11 OOOt OOOSS AOOHESS UNASSIGNEO NCLEOO tNTY REO RAIL AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC ES A0AH5 ST N NUrCHINSON HN 5555* M 10-il7-ES S4 0004 01441 BAY Rioa RO N J JOHNSON ISP JOfiNSON MCNAEL J 4 SUSAN JOHNSON 1441 BA^ RIOOE RO NAYZATA m 55S91 l0;,10-117-is 54 OOo) 01*01 ' BAY RIDGE RO. PRANCES 1 SCHAPER PRANCEN X SCHAPER 1501 BaV ridge RO ORNO »M 55191 NETMEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNPORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMCRS LIST SB 10-1I7-ES 35 0002 02245 NORTH SNORE OR KINGSLEY If MURPHY JR KINGSLEY H MURPHY JR 2245 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA Ml BS39i 5B 10-117-25 54 0005 01473 BAY RIDGE RO P C CORNETT • J P CORNETT PAIR. C 2 J0AM4A ^ CO»<TT 1475 BAY RIDGE RB NAYZATA MN 55591 nr,: '•v*«.f • p «• ^ * • • * .9 * i •* r* -i.> .J .. ' .. . r\> u ■ •; •» A- ■ , y ’ ' * *'.‘4 ;y • . . . . . i . ’ i%•• • f « * • * ' V- . - I .•••'*:■ • O/; ■; > ’■/ “ *..* ’ ' • J !» ■•. mmp *• * % 'A. .-.V, % • 1.*! 4 > .• »,. i * ‘•*1 • i... • ; - ’ * • - V * ^ ; * ■ .'•X, •Nv * 2 • J **'r •?- '* *'-‘^** I f! I- . • \ • * ! * ? • V |v.: REPCXIT NO. PAGE Sa 10-117-ES S4 OOOS omf BAY BIDGE RO G 0 I D B HESTBY GERALD D A OIAM B HESTBY 1449 UY RIDGE Rb ORONO m B5S91 IB 10-117-EI 14 0004 014B5 BAY RIDGE RO U P RERBER ETAL URBAN P RERBER 14BS BAY RIOOi ROAD NAYZATA m B5S9I PX4S540114 TOTAL BATCH S04 00007 • m I CERTIPY THAT tAe PACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION 07 INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OP THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BESTOF Hy knonleoge and belief. lo-k-15 ..DATE 9PLRTT TAXATICW V C7 * t:' I * i ' • • ^ 0 . V, ^ » ’ s . . • t *.»« t • • V ■ ^ ■X.lr-;• •IC- •• K V*-• : •'I * • . • I ^ ' r- ' .Vi. ■'r-’ifiV.#. \ ‘V.r i ...'t f ?*•'!•** * * XT • . • r. 4 • * ’ * ‘ • *'f : 2 ■ *f: . • 't /. • • • • I 4 { *•^ .4 ^ •^ * I . . • • •» V * I ’ }>’t jj i-« • r •^-1 I (we) Adjacent Propertj- Owtters’ Acknowledgement Form nf l')UI mnZ5J(i)r_ - [print iddresq A\ iCHASlM iChAU . or proposed use of the property located have reviewed the pian^^^the propose Application No.________• at ///7^ ^yJv reterred to as LanC PF r-.t, rhi. acknowiedsement. I (we) am (are) not asked to I (we) undersund that in e.xecutm. this . jj^gj-elv to confirm for the City declare approval or disapproval or ±e and th'at the proposed neighbor’s Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improve...e.t p project or use requires Council approval. Dat( Date 1 (we)[print name(s)l [print address] Sation No--------------• I (we) understand that in executing for the City SSTw "a^t^Ta-re of ^^Improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires CouncU approval. perry Owner Date -________________________ Date Property Owner to the scheduled meeting date. ^'2- V • ‘-rr =5 .V' ■’O A S -n*T “• X* -# .t r-.-» .*'• City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Variance Application 1473 Bay Ridge Road I have reviewed the proposed plans, dated October 15,1995, and variance request for the McCune property at 1473 Bay Ridge Road. The garage/bedroom addition is immediately adjacent to our property. 1 he proposed addition and setbacks are consistent with other home additions and setbacks in the neighborhood and I hereby give my approval to the variance request. Name: cJUft 0^7 h-ScP Signed: Address: I Date: -3 ^ '3r f - ./ V / • I O .,y^ 'Ti I*i« City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Variance Application 1473 Bay Ridge Road I am an immediate adjacent property owner to Thomas R. McCune at 1473 Bay Ridge Road. 1 have reviewed the proposed additions and associated setbacks and hereby give my approval to the proposed variance request. We, and I’m sure the other neighbors, would be very pleased to see the last detached garage in the neighborhood removed. Address: Date:__Jcj3 g/ ________ 1 liz* 1 ^ m. i \Ncis iLeaoB^T EAST 430.14 / /s/^W B60|2«>V\ WAY 7 - r x</ ^ ,--SET IRONS^,.^'^^''’ / / I:^ ®' ' --"'7 •A3 j j j j, ,.^ / ‘ ...................... /iL*^ '£1^ £")li^r«fv D£^CV: ---CORNER OF CONCRETE IS 1 FT.± FROM LAKE SHORE T lA CN cvi T $ 403.43 WEST *77"77y Zo3 ' / CORNER OF DECK IS 147.2 FT.± FROM LAKE SHORE ' -p^ZoiB <;gA0e OC’CVL -^^Vm'|-| I I ^ TOM McCUNE 3ay Ridge Road, Orono, Minnesota. 75*'- ZS'o* Hf^9-6c6\/£e. "20A- SITE- PZ.AMNOTES: 1. TTie orientation of this P^nislpr'^d l.nnd Survev f- ^ 9. UN C S c. - ^ -----------VTT.'ri ^ \J CU IT O' u H I k. '•V. i'I 1 tX)O' t\ H Lot Coverage Calculations Address : 1473 Bay Elidge Road Property Area: 49.529 SF ^CL » ± EC., SBO -A .i ^ 1 Existing Proposed i i Lot Lot V A Coverage Coverage V». / - , . • / Home 1,755 1,755 A""''") Sun Room 432 “ - U M *0 . ^ Guest Bedroom 344 Garage 484 803 Pool Shed 50 50 Pool 800 800 Pool Deck Area 925 921 Totals 4,014 5,109 1 Lot Coverage 8.1%10.32% (Governing Restriction = 15%) * (■/.o '/• • • • • •rco' - loo r 2''^ '* SOC^ !J^tJLX>^'J'r^Z, €KfST>f^C> Uk£^ l^v*:C : c>^>S . Z-l^O s*r . ■D'(a/^ |Z>*/2-7 /i ’V'V c^. Zzo s- jy /// / fkofo:cCi ' ^477: C ou ^q^ /D^'UfVJyCr-/ |6»2^^ I 2^ . 8> 2^'2— ff^CAd,lKS(> Ijyfl J. 5"^^. [1 (^ ‘f'JS - r/t764X3'-/f.t>- ^Prvc . ;.cf -s-r^rcij- //-/3-^5^ V HARDCOVTR CALCULATION WORKSHEET 250-500’ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONX) 0-75’ EXISTING hardcover IN ZONT) A. House ______________27 Lcaftti Widil X X X (D B. Garaae y (?/itCliAL) C. Driveway ZZ.X X '/■ 7 z r<3 * X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck ______^ /tf X zV = V”3* +• /7y V<S’-77 3J----- * ----------------- 7y X_______&_________ X X J. LI ■fL F. Landscap# Undwlaia Bv Plastic 4f <3) / S.3 X A XVi. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A y g> B .Z^3<g<g X 1CX5 Zo,-iaa X/oa A. House SO M ROO/A 4T aji Lecgtb z V lO^uJ 0.R./ba T^ B. Garage _ C. Driveway _ z X X X Wkitb ze X X g y'/ (J^ D. Sidewalk 3a X X E. Patio/Deck (Decte^feo) Cg> 700^ @ s X X F. Landscape Undarlaia 3/ Hi r\Ji* — X X X G, Other SH^ Jo 9^. 3 S’ X d TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total prop^y ^a in zone ^ Z « 3^ , ,O0 A A syzsr J ! -T- a zasd>o C' \ , ».!: Un V 7o T O^ry <t^ fOO-lOOO’ 8 1.7 sr S.F. rs S.F. 8 S.F. S3 S.F. /S.F.1 /5-y 1 a Q s.F. a C S.F. as S.F. a S.F. S8 S.F.s3 28 Z73 S.F. •TO^CD a I s-r S.F. m V26 S.F.\n a 30H S.F.ixl 0^Ho 5.^' as 5*0 s.F. S.F./ ✓ "lodoo S.F.I 1 __ 2 3.9 A ?yy s.F. ^3Z s.F. ■ S.F. S.F. S.F. S“V s.F. S.F. liH s.F. S.F. sy s.F. S.F. /gs'_S.F. tJSiia S.F. 3 . 5 \ % .'•<•.> ■•vji'r-- v! . ■ •' ■:> -j • .'-}•- ? —f V-' ^-Vv lr!h?H ''■’*s8p=: 7 ^ !>M\ZLaf Mft —■ ^ s« r •» - ., >>>'i' .;j ijjL •, ’-v;^ :mM i ,i j..*' ■■>’5 ^■|: ^ilifsm-'.-A^v 'V*. • ■“.‘fli • r; -7,f. ■ '>. V;r«'• ■• 4V.'. - , ,^T. ..M/. i%,.;V';;:t L <'><‘/l (- ('>’' Of BfbPc<yA\/ 6 /^/’i\C,(T /I I' b> r/i^/^ X nn • 't.v:) e^^/SF7AJ<lo Oi? 0 CAt^AOf 6r c\l =fe /YFT be; $ p(.)0«'^' p.f /V^ ^ C u O’t /V75 5^1/ /^^i^6^ P-D, t) \ , Ct ^B^b P CO j\pt\0>(Tr/ofJ /fA ) 0 ^OfV irV\ pLf\CCS CB WU\ TnTTTTL nKTili [»TiT<ttfW r^KTiTtl ilUM tmiTiTti Tnuii raioc FsTiTiltliJ RlVt |Sf?v Zoning File #2086 November 15,1995 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners ’ l-ist D - Callan Memo 11/15/95 E - Grading Plan F-1-2 Engineer ’s Report Plus Guidelines G - DNR Handout Excavated Pond for Waterfowl H - Plat of Old Crystal Bay Road Addition Locating Designated Wetlands I - Soil Delineation Map Locating Designated Wetland Type 2/3 (Basin 8 and Basin 9) Discussion Applicant proposes the excavation of approximately 6,250 s.f. or .143 acres of spoils within a designated wetland to create an open water area. Applicant hopes to attract waterfowl to a permanent open water area. The Type 2 wetland contains open water areas only during wet seasons of the year. On staffs inspection we found a wetland with predominantly cattails and some canary reed grass. The Engineer's Report Exhibit F-1-2, reports no problem with the proposed excavation of the open water area as long as certain guidelines are followed. The side slopes are tw steep at 4:1. The guidelines included with the Engineer ’s report suggest an 8:1 side slope. Portions ot the pond have a depth of 2-3' with a maximum depth of 4’ over 25% of the pond ’s surface. Per the attached handout fiom the DNR concerning excavated ponds for waterfowl, it would suggest even a more irregular shoreline with the flattened side slope. As predominant cattail growth exists within this portion of the wetland, the Engineer rccommen^ that the topsoil be salvaged for respreading over the disturbed area. Cattails will grow once again within this area of the topsoil. All disturbed areas should be restored with seeding using a wetland seed mixnire such as Mn/DOT mixture 250. Applicant may also be advised to construct the pond with a more irregular shoreline to further encourage use by waterfowl. Per the DNR handout, the size of the open water area should be no smaller than 2,500 s.f. Applicant's dugout is proposed at approximately 6,000+ s.f. Applicant should be encouraged to install the pond with variable depths to encourage vegetation growth within the open water area which is attractive to waterfowl. In no case should pond ever exceed 5 deptli. Code Requirements Code provides little direction as to alterations creating open water areas within designated wetlands. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J) (5-a) lists specific functional qualities that all wetlands provide and should retain as follows: Zoning File #2086 November 15, 1995 Pi^e 3 1. 3. Sediment and pollutant trapping and retention. The open water area will provide tor better sediment trapping. It will also provide greater retention. Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage. Storage capacity will be improved. Fish and wildlife habitat. The existing Type 2/3 wetland serv'cs as a habitat for certain species of wildlife. It is the hope of the applicant to now encourage waterfowi to the open water areas but will result in a loss of habitat for some. 4, Recreational use. The frozen water area could certainly serve for winter recreational use. 5.Shoreline or bank stabilization. Side slopes of banks will be installed to encourage waterfowl - no potential for future erosion or impact on remaining wetland. 6. Not clear if there is any noteworthy reason for creating the open water area for preservation of special wildlife species or vegetation. Section 10.55, Subd. 8 specifically prohibits the alteration of wetlands and any land alterations within 26' of that wetland. Section 10.55 specifically addresses flood plain and wetland issues. Members are encouraged to review Section 10.55 to determine if there are any standards appropriate for the alteration of wetlands. The Code relates specifically to flood plain issues. Refer to your Comprehensive Plan, the sections on environment and natural features. The wetlands of the City function as the natural stormwater retention areas. The current Federal regulations would require that stormw ater runoff be treated before draining into protected wetland areas. Runoff firom two acre rural sites will have a negligible impact on altered wetland. The Comp Plan does not prohibit the creation of open water areas within a wetland area; the CMP is concerned with the preservation of wetlands. General Comments Refer to Exhibit H, the specific designated wetland encroaches several lots within the Old Crystal Bay Road Addition plat. How shall we address other requests of adjacent property owners to excavate open water areas within their portion of this wetland? The existing Type 2 and in some sections Type 3 wetlands provides a habitat to wildlife. 6,000+ s.f. of open water area will now attract waterfowl. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to replace the lost 6,000+ s.f. of Type 2 weUand. We suggest that the replacement be either at the southeast or southwest contiguous with the existing Type 2 wetland. The property at 2.25 acres will still retain the 2 acres of dry buildable; 2.25 acres exist 2.11 acres adjusted dry. Zoning File #2086 November 15, 1995 Page 4 Review Exhibit H, this specific wetland encroaches seven properties. If other property owners seek to dredge open water area within this same wetland system, we would expect each owner to mitigate equal areas of Type 2 for the area of dugout. Any property owner seeking to make similar alterations would have to have a minimum 2 acres of dry contiguous lands within their lot. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. 4. Applicant has provided no information as to the method of excavating the pond. The City will not approve the bulldozer approach but would require a scoop method whereby only the area to be excavated is encroached upon. Topsoils, as the Engineer's report requests, would be used to spread within the disturbed area to allow for the return of the cattails. WTiat other issues should be addressed by applicant or applicant s contractor with this land alteration? Should the mitigation area be equal or greater to the open water area ... or should the City require mitigation? The City will recommend that the guidelines set out in the City Engineer's repx)rt and the DNR handout be followed as closely as possible. Applicant's pended plan should address the following guidelines, side slopes, irregular shoreline and location of mitigation area. Applicant's surveyor to confirm that there is no impact on adjacent properties with the expansion of the designated wetland at either the southeast or southwest comers of property. Has applicant convinced members of the need for the open water area within the designated wetland (review E.xhibit D)7 Do members perceive of conflicts with future requests for open water areas within this wetland? 5. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Any recommendation of approval must include the following conditions. a. b. Prior to scheduling the application before the Council for final action, the City must be in receipt of written comments from both the Corps of Engineers and the Watershed District concerning this application. Prior to scheduling the application before the City Council, applicant must provide an amended plan following the guidelines set forth by City Engineer Md DNR. The plan is to reflect mitigation area if recommended by the Planning Commission. Zoning File #2086 November 15,1995 Page 5 c.Applicant to provide information on method of excavation of wetland, scheduling of alteration, and type of seed mixture to be used in the replanting of the disturbed area (reuse of cattail topsoil), Options of Action 1. Approve as proposed. 2. Approve as amended. 3.Denial. cm' OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE .\PPL1CATI0N *•. * \ J PROPERTY LOCATION _ ^ / / Site Address _______i-______— ^ Type of Application to be Filed ^ 7 o 3; n Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) O Lt—=----------— rsiT / A APPL1C.\NT , _ ^ ,i / Name /*aL'’ V'> - ^ —Name /*al’vr » . V —pTu Address 9js~/ 'a.->^— * - OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______^ v Phone ^'hnmp^ • F7 / ^ Phone ^vnrVr-> -i\- Zip ------ Phone iTmnie’) ■y • Z Address Ir^____ City Phone twnrk') — _______Zip.. DaiqPropertyAcquired^^,^------------------------------------------- I ^d^ (do not) also owh^Ae adjacent parcels of fees - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - aonlication$ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application ” S125.00 Residential Accessory Use^^ S200.00 Instimtional (church, school, etc.) $175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ■■ $150.00 Duplex CreUii/'BlJg $250.00 CommerciaFlndustrial Use "" filling - designated wetland or floodplam id filling - 101 cu. yd. or more StTawall. reuinmg wills within 75' of lakeshore =S=^S?=r;s:r“ OTHER A^P“*^™^„cial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation --------$ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ^ $300.00 Rezoning (PU*D - refer to fee sc e u e) .-------- $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF . / Present Zoning District ----- Present Use of Property _ ^/I Residential Other (specify) (month/year) rr "v .•'1 t, t ^ ■ ; 4. T • ..» 1” ' •— -----r ,-f - *. j. . ip‘i - 1- •* U-- ^ • ' • V . • A • ‘•'iJ... I • « - • ■ / T . t* I 0:T-£6-1S'56 If: IT r • V. REQUmEO SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. O o 5. 6. 8 9 Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of uwucre wiiliiu 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A 603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not incluood on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations Involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include mariul saws) of all persons with an interest in Otc property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO .SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11 ” X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this 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;________________________Datc__-------------------------- APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Adminisirator. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) aixl/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the infoimation supplied is true and con^tknowledge. ^ Applicant’s OWNER’S SIGNATURE ... w, The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and ftirthcr authorized reasonable cntiy onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigatio^and verification of this request. __________________Date ______Owner’s signature _ ADDlieaat mu« have aU submittals Into the City offloei 23 days bafore the PluaiBS Commlislon NfMiing. Commission MceimSJ «c held on the third Monday of each monib. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meeiinv^ of the Planuuig CommUsion and CouncU. If an applicant is unable to anend a selieduled meeiing. lilease make aiangemenu to have an suiboriacd ascot ailvoa in your plaoe and advise the Duilding dc Zoning OfTiw Of this change prior to the meeting. TOThL P.02 a» » (iO) I .4f5> » 1 (0\ r, "2 ?0) *ir -* N, ' 12) *• '1 ■ < * ' ‘ t ^ j/*a U 'v*.: 1 ■'“S «a» ••- ^ >' 4.- CIS)— !'f ir) ■•’ r» ., - ••• • er. 6 V V ;;•>:: x ;.;:; i9^ liii!::i&:r:-ili ‘V ••V*.*.’-'.' ' *.* * *"***'*’*'* * !•!•.•! i lOu. 3i J .09 • lot 10 1 I -------T 13 262.'7 Sa9*27'E \ (1- :w t>-tZ5 TR) 170 »etT : E 13 —175.67 .. / ??\ V 178 . n t<69*0:'*l 17372 . RUN DATE 1Q/U/9S‘V,.HCrMEPIN COUNTY RROTCRTY WOW1ATIOM SYSTEM raOKRTY OM«RS LISTf, BATCH SMr' • li' • . • *' A * ^ t RROR ADOR ..OMNER NAME .X; TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR St t4-117-ZS 21 0007 OOOtO HEAR LA 0 A C DC SANTIS BARY A CHERYL OE SANTIS to NEAR LA LONB LAKE M4 55SSA * •.V - O ' -ytROP ADOR r.v:^' ONNER NAME TAXPAYER ► ■ NAME/AOOR tt 0A-117>23 21 OOlS 02050 SOMERSET LA COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 7t0t CREERRIDGE CIR tSlO DLOOHlNBTaN m SSAS9 *. ■ j-1'hprop-Aoor ' ;|,-’'.-;flMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR -fi * •. St 04-117-23 22 0024 OSOlO SOMERSET LA N 0 A S J CARSON 'NALUCE 0 A SHARYL J CARSON AOtO CHESHIRE LA PLYMOUTH MN 55444 A ' n".. V-*. f ! 1 CV >fy; . »'TPROP AOOR - .''•ii'OMNER NAME O' ^ A^ TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR St 04-117-2S 24 0014 • 02S40 OEER RUN TR M T CILLEN A J A GILLEN MICHAEL T A JULIE A GILLEN 2040 DUNN RUN TR LONO LAKE Ml 55354 \i i*'-. .t . .. . -a . -P - * / PROP AOOR lOMCR NAMErr. TAXPAYER 'V.'r 'v NAME/AOOR * ' * * * * '* j-1 • ■*. ^ •* ' I- .V;*^ so 04-117-23 24 0018 02475 SOMERSET LA COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 7800 CREEKRIDGE CIR 1310 8L00MIN6T0N HN 55434 j :*PROP AOOR V'>;-.:«OM«R NAME • ' • ''I.'JaTAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH , i.trti;-'.NAME/AOOR ; 504 00015 riA-'' ’■'•'••• ■’ • ■ ' ‘ *4.. * V ■ T v. T*.' -- * '.-r* 38 04-117-21 2i 0011 02440 SOMERSET LA C L A 6 C KRAMER CHARLES A 6E0R0AYN KRAMER 2440 SOMERSET LA LONB LAKE M4 55354 SO 04-117-2S 21.0014 02005 SOMERSET LA COFFIN corners PARTNERSHIP ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP "808 CREERRIDGE CIR 8310 BLOOMINGTON MN 55434 38 04-117-23 24 0002 00225 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S R J DEMIV A H F DENNY NILLIAM DEMIY 444 2ND ST BOX 48 EXCELSIOR M« 55331 38 04-117-23 24 0015 02820 OEER RUN TR COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 7808 CREEKRIDGE CIR 8310 BLOOMINGTON M4 55434 38 04-117-23 24 d014 02415 SOMERSET LA GROVES STICKNEY LLC GROVES STICKNEY LTD LXto P 0 BOX 1247 MPLS MN 55446 38 04-117-23 23 0031 R P HARE V & B R HARE ROBERT & BENITE HARE 1600 LONG LAKE BLVD ORONO MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401PAGE 4 8* . •‘ ’l-’t '> ‘38 04-117-23 21 0012 02420 SOMERSET LA COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP STICKNEY A SCHHARZ BUILDERS 307 MANITOBA AVE S HAYZATA N4 55341 I •*''i-- I,' i * m # I % • T ji I; St 04-117-2S 21 0017 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD ASSOC INC ROBERT hare 1400 LONG LAKE BLVD ORONO Itl 55354 ./ •• , t f . V. ■ i • . • A ^ : ... .4. ■y 3t 04-117-23 24 OOlS 02400 DEER RUN TR J L BUCHANAN A M A HAMMOND JEFFREY L BUCHANAN MARCIA A HMtIONO 4204 PARKNOOO RO . EDINA MN 55434 f r J .«* ¥ » ^0 M• Ft 38 04-117-2S 24 0017 00038 ADDRESS PENDING OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO ASSOC INC ROBERT HARE 1400 LONO LAKE BLVD ORONO m 55354 ■■■ • ^ ■ W ■ S8 04-117-2S 24 0026 02855 SOMERSET LA GROVES STICKNEY LLL GROVES STICKNEY LTD LIAB P 0 BOX 1247 MPLS MN 55440 V.-' ;■ - i n .y--' / • ' . * f \ Si^iF • * •• .> ! - «^ <^RUN UTI lOm/M ^ '^tlTCN SM'. *• - I r * ' . / • .r i . % * ^ • • -•'' ' • / ▼ V V 'vvr- ' ft J jl ■ t *'•■■ ; *■' ■.'. . . ,•• • .t • ’)... V:'. . •■ ,. *■ .• ■ :-i toi*.,. ., •Jj/fi.V • • • ..V.. •' ■ • ;., ’ . T ‘ . : VV •• ^7,‘. ; rV ■ • • .* . •■ r., ;.rW • ^ • • ‘Y* \? ',r /*r I ^ v f * * * 4'*. < »./ ’ V-' :vv-;;v/ . ',-v ■■.a’; ■' ■ ‘•■•H •;•;?■■• /■. • ■■• v-> A • It-VivtV...;. • fl 'S ^ 1 *- • *.. * * «- • . ^ ► *• •, . .. ‘ ■ •* NEfMEPIN COUNTY MOPCRTY INFOUmTION SVSTEH PROPERTY OHMERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE 10 • • *J S. X CERTIFY THAT Tki FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATXON AS XT APPEARS TNIS DATE ON TNE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXAnON* TO TNE BEST OF HV KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. KKlOATEMUlLtDBV V». ■* ••* \. • • .1 • • 4 I ♦ - •« - ♦ , - • • ' •: ‘ I: r j * ' ■ .— • • • ,I4 -i.: > P. ,V»Vv *• 'If-.' . r , >■ • r' • f* . • •’!• ;•■ ■ •. u ■. ‘i, p' ^ i "■' •/»<•: ;iv: • •. ♦ 7*. ■ . i :• X.* . <• .V'. •••• ;• ■••.V :■••;•* i • * • ■■ .y November 15, 1995 Hovl 14 19* TO: CITY OF ORONO The -Honorable Mayor Council Members Planning Commission FROM: BOB AND JANICE CALLAN We are asking for this variance to excavate mainly the transitional area of this designated wetland portion of our property for future preservation, drainage and inhancement reasons. We feel that this will cause minimal impact to existing area inhabitants and neighbors and will enhance and improve the conditions and opportunities for waterfowl and all other wildlife. By the creation of this sediment pond, we will also insure that better drainage conditions will always exist for our proposed home. In our discussions with the Army Corp. of Engineers, the Watershed District, our planner and surveyor, we agree with them in stating that this project, as it occurs mainly in the transitional portion of our wetland, will have little or no effect, and be seen only as an overall improvement for all involved. B83S71 PROPOSED POND for GEORGE STICKNEY . - IN LOT 2, BLOCK 4, OLD CRYSTAL DAY ROAD SECOND ADDITION ORONO, MINNESOTA y- ' S8Z. OO / /..'i: /I' / / — :Existing contour*^ ------------- : Proposed contour " V 3 3. 1 SEED & MULCH OR SOD ALL DISTURBED- AREAS WITHIN TWO WEEKS ‘ ' ’ AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING. • / . W-) : -f IfN • ^ COFHN & GRONBERG, INC. l t iivi'hvt- l,hiJ ''jii'; ''th I.Hiut.vk A\i ruu ’ • I iiii; Liki-, 612 47V4UI 1 luTi'by certify Ihiit llii'i mwavv uas pri p,in*il In nu' or rmJor m\ iliiecl super vision. and that 1 am a duly registered (. nil I n^;tneer and l and Surveyor under DA II SCAM /"zSo ' the la\v> of the Stale of Mmiu sol.i Maik S. Cronher^ Minnesota License i\'umher1?7!>.T lull Ml ?s-Syg J// Bonestroo Rosene v=5 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects November 13, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Bo.x 66 Crystal Bav, Minnesota 55323 Re: Stickney Pond File No. 139-2086 Bonestroo tosene. Anderiili end Associoces. me *s an Affirmative ActiOfV'tQMal Opportunity Employer Otto G. Bonestroo. P £ tOOert W tosene. t£* Joseph C. Anderbt. Marv*n L Sorva»a. PE tichard £ Turner. P £ Qenn R Cook. P E. Thomas E. ^toyes, P E Robert G SchunicM. P E. Susan M. Eberfin, C.P A • • Senior Consultant Howard A Sanford. P £ Retm A Gordon. P E Rooert R Pfefferte, P E. Richard Jf Potter PE. David O Loskota. P£ Roden C Russek. A LA. Jerry A Bourdon. P £. Mark A Hanson. PI. Michael T Rautmann. P £ Ted K. Ptefd. P E. Thomas I Anderson. Al A James R. Rosertmerkel. P E. Donald C Burgardt. P E Thomas A Sy'ko. PE Frederic J StenPorg. P E. Ismael Manmei. P E. Michael P Raa P E. Thomas W Peterson. PE Michael C LyfKh. PM. James R Maiartd. P £. Jerry O Perttsch. P f. Scott J Arganek. PE. Kenneth P Anderjon. P Mark R Rolfs. PE Mark A. Seip. P E Gary W Monen. PC Paul J Gannon. A ( A. Daniel J. Cdgerton. P C. A. Rick Schmidt. P I. DaiR A. Grove. P I. Philip J Caivyefi, P C Mark O Waitit P E. Miles 6 Jensen. P C. L Phillip Gravel. P C. Karen L Wtemert. PC Gary O Knnof*ti. PC Brian K. Gage. P E. P. Todd Poster. P C. Keith R. Yapp. PC. Douglas J Benoit PE. Shawn D. Gustafsoa P.E. Ceciiio Olivier. P.E. Kent J. Wagner, P E. Paul G Heuer. P E. John P. Gorder. P E. Dan D Boyum. P C. Jeffrey J Ehleringer. P.E, Joseph R. Rhem. PE Lee M Mann. P E. Charles A. Erickson Leo M. Pawcisky Harlan M. Otton Agnes M. Ring James P Crsgeihardi Dear Jeanne, Wc have reviewed the proposal to create a pond within an existing Type 2 cattail wetland at 2915 Somerset Lane, located on Lot 2, Block 4, Old Crystal Bay Road 2nd Addition. This wetland is protected by the City of Orono by ordinance, regulated by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District at the State level as part of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). and under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) at the Federal level. I discussed the proposed pond with John Smythe, a wetland scientist at our office. He had the following general comments in regards to excavating ponds within wetlands. It depends on the conditions of the wetland in question. If the wetland consists mainly of one type of plant such as reed canary grass or cattails, wc prefer to see an increase in diversity by adding different types of habitat such as open water. For certain types of priority wetlands such as sedge meadows, Type 1 or 2 scrub-shrub, or wooded wetlands, we do not recommend excavation. We prefer that ponds are constructed near the wetland fringe to remove reed canary grass whenever possible. The COE has a general permit No. 18 for excavation of a wildlife pond which should be followed. Mitigation of the excavated wetland area could be required by the City or COT, however excavation is not regulated by the WCA. If the pond is constructed in accordance with permit #18 the COE would probably not require mitigation. Cattails do have a benefit by providing habitat during the winter months when other plants arc beneath the snow. However, there is a benefit added by excavating in an area of reed canary grass. The proposed pond docs not conform to permit #18 only because the sideslopes are too steep (4-foot H to 1-foot V). We would recommend approval of the propc)sed pond if the grading plan is revised to follow the attached guidelines. Existing topsoil should be salvaged for respreading over the disturbed areas. These areas should be restored with seeding using a wetland seed mixture such as Mn/DOT mixture 250. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 / _ **•> •. '«r ^ * T __tsas. DRAFT »* •. I ■i -*■ jurisdictional thrashold is low, in eartain inatancaa tharadapoaition of soil associated with these achiTitles through the repeated use of these trails and/or 4 ' i- paths, could degrade or destroy, waters of the United States by altering hydrology:~r . y •‘NrAi- (a.g.. drainage patterns) or adversely affecting habitat, values. For the activity to qualify for this, general- perait, the following conditions must be aiet:~.- • *. *. .*e‘ r« 1. The activity »ust take place on an existing trail or path * 1 ■, ♦ » • .a cr*.« >r-»t 2. This general permit does not authorize land clearing or discharge of ^ fill material for construction of new trails or paths. •-« • *■ ».w.^*1 _ ^^^yiLldlLfm Tmorovewnt AcrfcivitiM (To^dmr L#vl-Ditchw and Duacmfeg not rmaulmt^ bv t,hm Minnaaotia D#partiaent of Natural nmmourcnm)^ ^ Include McaTatlon . activities whose priinery purpose is to enhance or create wildlife habitats Ponds oust be constructed with irregular shorelines# shallow horiaontal to vertical • sideslopes (e.g. 8-£oot H to l-£oot V)# and a shallow water depth (2 feet to 3 feet) with a. maximua depth.of 5 feet over 25 percent of the pond surface* The perxsit area may not be harvested for agricultural purposes# grazed by domestic* livestock>. used am n souj^ce of irrigation water# used as dumping area or outlet for draining other wetlands# drained, burned# filled# clipped or used in a manner that would destroy ite %#mtland character or wildlife value. The permit area may not be used as part of a cranberry operation. Level ditches may not have an inlet or outlet. The area of (tland excavated may. not exceed one acre in size. • t* A* •• • Road Maintenance Projects - Includes excavation associated with cleanout ofjj* roadway ditches, and culverts. Roadway ditches may not be dredged to a depth that Vi. . exceeds the original (as built) depth. The invert elevation of culverts may not be loviered to an elevation lower than the original elevation. d. stormwater Holding/Detention Pond - Excavation of stormwater holding/detention ponds in wetlands in conjunction with upland development projects is authorized under this general permit provided the pond is constructed in accordance with Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (MURP) design standards. Won—aorleultural Plowing •• Includes plowing and discing in %»*tland areas associated with planting (e.g. gardens, golf courses, yards). For this general permit to apply, the following conditions must be met: ... - . ■ ' . . .-.i , •#. •• • “ • 1. Work is performed only in non-agricultural areas ^•• #• • • £ .• .2.. - Plowing ["»■»■<««nm depth shall not exceed 9 inches. 3. Planting and seeding must be dons as soon as possible after plowing. 4. May. not^"be .used for peat mining activities. . - 5. Additional fill material may not be placed in the wetlands. » , % •; 2 ( Excavated Ponds for Waterfowl Landowners frequently ask natural resource agencies how they can improve their land for waterfowl. Specifi cally, many people wonder if excavating ponds will help. This brochure will outline when and where dug ponds, or “dugouts”, can be beneficial, and provides construc tion guidelines for optimum waterfowl benefit. Refer to our “Ecologj ’ of Wetlands ” brochure for more informa tion. SHOULD YOU CONSIDER A DUGOUT FOR YOUR PROPERTY? Dugouts should be considered only where other wetland management options are not possible. Before you decide to excavate a pond, you should survey the site to determine if othei options, such as ditch plugs, tile breaks, or dikes would work. Wetlands restored by reducing dft ’nage are always preferable to dugouts. In general, dugouts should only be constructed if there are other open-water wetlands within one-half mile. Waterfowl use dugouts primarily for courtship and territorial sites, and must have other wetlands to fulfill feeding and brood-rearing needs. Small dug- outs (less than one-half acre) are used mostly in spring oi fall migration, less so in summer. Larger dugouts will get more summer use, if they’re the right depth (1.5-3 feet). You should not excavate a dugout in an existing wetland, especially one with open water. This can destroy the existing wetland by draining surface water off. Excavations should be outside the edge of the wetland, where the water table is still adequately high. Cattail-choked wetlands are an exception to this rule, where vegetation covers the entire surface of the wetland, and surface water is rarely present. In these cases, it may be acceptable to dig in the wetland basin, but you should still stay close to the edge. For these projects, you will need to observe permit requirements described below and should talk to the local DNR Wildlife Manager. I CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES 1. PERNIITS. Wetlands are protected by se\ eraJ laws, and a permit may be required for your project. Four government agencies regulate wetlands, and should be contacted if you will be working in an existing wet land. These agencies arc: U.S. Army Corps of Engi neers. USDA - Agricultural Stabilization and Conser vation Service (ASCS), the DNR Division of VC aters. and your city or count)' zoning office or local water shed district. Phone numbers fo'' the first 3 agencies are given at the end of this brochure; check your local directory for the number of your local office. 2. DEPTH AND SLOPES. Waterfowl need shallow water. VC'hen filled with water, your dugout should be no more than 5 feet deep. In mid-summer, much of your dugout should be less than 3 feet in depth. Your pond should generally have the following depths when it is full (as in spring): Water Depth 0 to 1 foot 1 to 3 feet 3 to 5 feet Pet. of Pond at this Depth 5 to 15 40 to 70 25 to 40 Likelv Result Cattails/emergent vegetation, usually dry by July. Mixed emergent vegetation and open water, dty in drought. Mostly open water, dry in severe drought. If you are constructing a dugout in cattail-choked wetlands, you will not be able to achieve the above depths. In these cases, the slopes of your dugout will have to be fairly steep. This is okay as these dugouts will function mostly as territorial sites, and mav not be * 4 heavily used for feeding, ivlaximum depth still should not exceed 5 feet. In mineral soils, steep slopes prohibit growth ofdesirable vegetation, encourage erosion, and reduce waterfowl use. As much as possible, grade the slopes ofyour basin at a 3:1 (steep) to 10:1 (flat) ratio. Flatter slopes are better, which is not the same as a flat bottom. C Figure I. Topographic diagram of a good basin design; this design emphasizes shallow slopes and depths (each line ^ represents one foot of depth), and good shorelinefeatures. Adjacent uplands are seeded to native grasses. A pond bottom with variable depths (i.e., an undulat ing bottom) is very desirable. This allows an intersper- sion of vegetation and open water which is very attractive to waterfowl. Some biologists prefer to construct dugouts with one deep side to ensure water availability and allow for viewing of waterfowl. Figure 1 shows an example of a good basin design from the perspective of slopes and depths. 3. SIZE. Waterfowl use all sizes of wetland, but usually, bigger is better. In building your pond for waterfowl you should consider a minimum size of 2500 square feet (equal to a square with 50 foot long sides). Larger, irregularly shaped ponds are preferred, however costs get quite high. 4. SHORELINE FEATURES. A pond with a shore line which is irregular, and has many points and bays, is more attractive to waterfowl than a dugout with a straight shoreline. Plan your dugout to have as much shoreline as possible, as in tigure 1 . 5. NL'MBtR AND DISTRIBUTION. .\iexplained above, your dugout should be near an existing shallow marsh for brood-rearing purposes. If you have ad equate space and funding, you can consider digging more than one dugout. In general, two closely-spaced small dugouts will receive more use than one larger dugout. If you construct more than one pond, space them about 100 to 300 feet apart. Bonds can be closer if tall vegetation screens the ponds from each other (breeding ducks are territorial and won t tolerate oth ers of the same species if they can see them). 6. ISLANDS. Duuouts less than two acres are too small to include an island. As an alternatise vou can S use nest baskets, boxes or floating rafts for nesting. floating log. anchored in place, orovides an excellent site for waterfow l and turtle loafing. See our brochure entitled “Artificial Structures for Waterfowl. 7. SPOIL. Lxcavating a pond means you end up with a lot of soil removed from the dugout: this is called “spoil.” Spoil must be carefully dealt with to optimize waterfowl use. In peat soils and cattail-choked wet lands, you should remove the spoil from the wetland if at all possible. .Again, check with the appropriate agencies (sec list at end) to determine if you need a permit. In mineral soils, the top 6"-l 2" will probably be black topsoil, high in organic matter. This should be saved separately for later spreading over the excavated bot tom. The underlying nonorganic soils (clays, sands, etc.) should be moved to an upland site and spread cx'cniy. It is important that this material be removed from the wxtland basin and not piled adj.tcent the dugout. The edge of the dugout should not have a discernible “rim”; that is, the slope should be continu ous below and above the water surface, as shown in the cross-scction in figure 2. Finally, all disturbed uplands and spread spoil should be scedc*d to native grasses for a minimum of 150 feet around the dugout. This w il! provide w aterfow 1 cover, minimize weed growth, and prevent sedimentation w ithin the basin. Providing 4 acres of upland nesting cover for each acre of w etland is best for duck produc tion. Do not plant trees near your dugout: these serve as predator perches and dens, and w ill reduce water- fowl use. Use nest boxes to attract wood ducks. Remember to get any necessary’ permits before you start digging! S. FINAL TRE.AT.MENT. The clav and sand under-# lying most mineral soils are very' sterile and won’t support plant gr«)wth. In order to establish a food chain in your dugout. you must provide an organic base. This can be accomplished by spreading 4”-6” of black topsoil over the entire excavated area. This can be the topsoil you originally removed (and stockpiled) from the site when you started digging. Another technique is to spread 2"-6" of clean upland hay over the excavated surface (wild hay can spread noxious weeds). Both can be used simultaneouslv. Once covered with water, either of these bases will quickly allow vegetation and insects to grow, providing the building blocks for a desirable marsh. Don’t worry about planting aquatic plants in your b,isin - they will establish themselves naturally in time, given a suitable site. Feet o O. Q p 0 ■q O oO o 0%o O Q :o Feet Figure 2. Cross-section of pond bottom showing smooth, shallow grade at waterline, and undulating bottom contours. SO\!E OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ADDITIONAl. ASSISTANCE In general, a bulldozer or scraper is best capable of construaing ponds as they can be fairly precise in “sculpting ” the landscape. A backhoe (power shovel) or excavator can do a good job, and a dragline can produce fair results. The nature ofsxiur project will likely determine to a large degree exactly which equipment is used. U you have a diy site, use a dozer, scraper, or backhoe. If it's a wet site, a backhoe or dragline must be used. .Minimize the disturbance to existing vegetation around your dug- out or vou will encourasie undesirable vveed • growth. Blasting with dynamite or ammonium nitrate gives unsatisfactory results, is dangerous, and should not be used. Most resource agencies discourage the use of dug ponds for waterfowl because ot their high cost. However, you may be able to get some further technical or financial assistance. Some counts ’ ASCS offices will cost-share construction costs through the .Agricultural Conserva tion Practices (AGP) program. Local SCS or Soil and Water Conservation District offices mav be able to provide further technical advice. The DNR Section of Wildlife can give general advice for your area, and should be checked for permit requirements. In forested areas of the state, your DNR forester may be able to provide cost sharing through the Forest Stewardship Program. Fi nally. local and statewide clubs may offer cost-share assistance; check with them for specifics. AGENCIES WHICH REGULATE WETLANDS OR PROVIDE TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR WETLAND PROJECTS AGENCY FUNCTION PHONE NUMBER Agricultural Stabilization and Consen ’ation Serv ice Regulatory financial assistance (612) 290-3651 Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory (612) 220-0375 DNR - Forestry Technical & financial assistance (612) 296-4491 DNR-Wildlife Technical assistance (612) 296-3344 DNR - W^aters Regulatory (612) 296-4800 Soil Conservation Serv ice Technical assistance (612) 290-3675 ( 0 1992. Sutc of Minncioia. Dcpanincni ofN^mral Resources.Primed on rcc>'cled paper. c r< .1 ^ - ■5^ •r:v.i a-! : *.i <? (^ f •. • I ^Ti*i4 • ■ 'f0 1 ^03 490 »y ______vr^J|. .'•«.7% - (g*J> 5s> r - - . » %• • ' • .- •••■ -. * • , - • 2 * * .t •s C • C3» e V i| IT 1 « (4) T 1 • •• c V- §%am * rrt4^ r ■y„ ^ '^r-, 'h'■'5 -L^f \\'^ ft o »\ n.^ >> I If .\i,Ai ^,.>--. fti/ X\^W ioS^ ***-» Mnr w t# r-'.'V» aV_.' Ti 'n ^ ^ /4 ^\. A m TI In CO<o O' & t:v»8 H IX• 5-n ftz r* IL Q- :?» U op s rtn. Bieo 3 S CL D f» 5- Sn.o 3 ono> o Q. <ro ST D Q. COru 5’ trt 1 T3 O 5* D 8 V»•*» Huo fj nriri i a PwlsaK wr'- •• H.-t - .1(1* ?ii !'l™\'';\'"V:V\r ■'c.'-:’’i--'|L' m o 73 O z O :i-za m T3 ?□ O T3 m 73 mCo lisifi .^VnraiwiSwSlMt^ WmH^: 1 i*'-i ’-^■iii&sgays w»«apakiltfli ®i wm C r D O X -< (/) H >r DD > -< 33 O > D iMm 1V; jlV? »'• V' . Iti*"'k ; i TO: FROM; DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cit\' Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 13, 1995 /J- SUBJECT: #2087 Minnegasco, Inc., 530 Old Crystal Bay Road North - Renewal Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Application: In 1990 the Cit\' granted a conditional use permit for a five year period to the applicant to allow temporaiy use of a portable vaporizer to provide additional gas supplies to the northwest Lake Minnetonka area until more permanent facilities were installed. Applicant has applied for a renewal conditional use permit for another five year period to allow the temporary use of the vaporizer as originally proposed in the 1990 application. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.50, Subd. 3(A-7) - Conditional use permit required for public service structure within industrial zone. Minnegasco proposes the continued use of portable liquid natural gas vaporizer to inject gas into the distribution system during periods of high demand within the winter months. Required setbacks A. Street setback adjacent to residential zone Required = 75 ’ Proposed = 75'+ B. Required rear setback Required = 30’ Setback from rear/east property line = 100'+ C. Required side yard setback (I'/ix the height of the tanker at approximately 15’) Side yard setback required = 22.5’ Side setback adjacent to residential used portion of industrial property = 40 ’ fi’om tanker truck location. Residential use structiue on subject property is over 260 ’ from proposed operation. Section 10.61, Subdivision 5(C) - Vehicle parking areas must meet 5’ side and rear setbacks and 20 ’ street setback. Section. 10.50, Subdivision 5(1) - Outdoor storage fencing is required for proposed use. A. Minimum fence height Required = 5’ Existing = 8 ’ Zoning File ^2087 November 13, 1995 Page 2 B.Type of fence Required = 50% opaque Proposed » 50% to 100% opaque (At time of 1990 conditional use permit Council approved cyclone fencing with wind screening defined as "open” type.) Applicant proposes the same. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant's Addendum C - Attachment-Discussion of Plans for Permanent Facilities D - Plat Map E - Property Owners List F - Staff Letter to Applicant 10/4/95 G - Description of Portable Natural Gas Vaporizer Equipment in Process (Application #1590) H - Glenn Cook Report 9/18/90 (Application #1590) I - Orono Council Minutes Meeting of 10/8/90 J - Orono Planning Commission Meeting 9/17/90 K - Resolution #2879 Granting Conditional Use Permit L - Application Plan M - Site Plan N - Elevation Discussion The applicant was unable to install more permanent facilities to address the gas supply needs of the northwest Lake Minnetonka. Temporary solution approved by the City in 1990 involved the installation of a vaporizer placed on top of a flatbed. Operation was to be completely fenced in with a 8' high cyclone fence covered with a wind screen that provided the necessa^ degree of opaqeness. Minnegasco advises that during the cold weather months a truck will arrive on site in the early morning between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Personnel of Minnegasco are at the site during the filling process the liquified natural gas. The site is only used on e.xtremely cold days in the winter when there is a need. Review Exhibit C, one of the main concerns during the earlier review was the temporary nature of the use and to establish a time frame when the use could be eliminated. Applicant at that time felt that five years was adequate. Review Exhibit C, applicant notes that due to Hennepin County's delays with the reconstruction of County Road 6 at the intersection of Watertown Road that Minnegasco's plans to tie two systems located at Townline Road and Orchard Park Road were never realized. This improvement would have provided additional gas supplies in I Zoning File #2087 November 13, 1995 Page 3 that area. It is possible that this upgrade "may" eliminate the need for the vaporizer station in the Orono Industrial Park. As in the earlier review applicant advises that the facility may not be needed and could be removed in less than five years. The current renewal is for another five years. Over the five year period the City has received no negative comments fix»m adjacent neighbors nor of other residents in the City regarding the use or operation ot the facility'. There have been no accidents resulting fix)m the trucks that visit the site during the early morning hours. Planning Commission members not familiar with the facility should visit the site. Members may not have realized that this was a facility owned by Minnegasco and assumed that it was part of the industrial operation. The current application involves no changes from the original proposal. The use will not be intensified and will continue to operate at the same level. All equipment except for power pole remains during the summer months. Lighting is not required except during the loading or filling times in the early mornings during the winter months. Issues for Consideration 1. <4i** 3. 4. Certain site improvements were not required because of the temporary nature of the use, i.e. landscaping, bituminous surfacing. In the earlier review applicant noted certain limitations placed on Minnegasco by VCI the owners of the property regarding permanent landscaping. Members may wish to discuss further with applicant. Resolution #2879 (Condition 5) specifically cautioned applicant that there was no guarantee of a renewal of this conditional use permit in the future. Will members recommend a renewal conditional use permit for__________five years to the Council? Review the conditions of approval within Resolution #2879. Are there additional conditions that should be added to the current review. Review Exhibit C, applicant's statement notes connecting lines at Townline Road and Orchard Park Road mav eliminate the need for the vaporizer station. Applicant should advise what other types of upgrades are necessary to ensure a permanent solution. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Options of Action To approve application as proposed or as amended. // PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 530 OLD crystal bay road (f^y A ‘ ' ■ V 1 » / V Type of Application to be FUed conditional use permit - renews Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 33 - 118 - 23—13—Qail_ APPLICANT Phone (home) NameMINNEGASCO. A DIVISION OF NORAM ENERGYL_ciftype (work)----M Address 7oo west i tmtifn avf . minneapoli -S--------Q-llo5 Phone (home) -^/C/ 0>VNER (if different than applicant) Lit. 2A37 Name -VEPAr-«<&. (BOB WHITE. SRJ--------^(work) 612- ^ ~ 5^ Address 276s way 2;ata roulevard ----------_orono ---------------------- Date Property Acquired_____1968 (month/year) L»<ucriuptiljr --------— ------------——— I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ““ • “,T» «CUP $125.00 Residential Accessory Use $200.00 Instimtional (church, school, etc.) $175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration -------- Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplam Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore *TTV — U* A • f ^ -1 U* 1 —— jia •— ... vw "nvT:--v v . f • • * • VJ. ' " f* At . \ V « PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule • v $100 00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee ChaSrr ’.-r r •• .--V i • f OTHER ^200^^ommercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) " $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 75 00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision --------$300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ”” $300.(X) Comprehensive Plan Amendment “ $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District industrial Present Use of Property Residential XX Other (specify) industrial October 25, 1995 KUmnegasc A MOIUIM ENBiGY COmtHV Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City Of Orono P.O. Box 66 a a Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 *' " i' Re: Conditional Use Permit Parcel 33 - 118 - 23 13 0011 530 Old Crystal Bay Road Orono, Minnesota tO’ sz. a' J Dear Ms. Mabusth: In 1990 Minnegasco applied for and received a Conditional Use Permit for the installation and use of a portable liquified natural gas vaporizer at 530 Old Crystal Bay Road In Orono, Minnesota. The period of this permit was five years. The purpose of the portable vaporizer is to provide additional gas supplies to the northwest Lake Minnetonka area on a temporary basis until permanent solutions can be completed. Minnegasco began using the Old Crystal Bay Road location on days during the winter of 1992-93 and has used it on cold days every year since. Minnegasco has completed several projects in the western Hennepin County area to increase our natural gas delivery to the area. A list of these projects and future projects is attached. Minnegasco wishes to renew it's conditional use permit for an additional five years. Our plan is to use the facility for two to five years as a backup until we can complete a project along County Road 6 and while we determine the effects of the completed and future projects. Customer growth in the northwest Lake Minnetonka area has increased by approximately 500 new services per year. This is much greater than we anticipated. We expect the population to continue growing at this rate. For this reason we would like to extend our conditional use permit. Should you have any questions please contact me. Siyrj. - ■ Richard J. Pr^^, P.E. Senior Adm^pistration Engineer Engineering Services 612-321-5426 enc: CUP Application Attachment pc: J. Kallstrom V. Rice D. Henningsgaard 700 West Unden Avenue P.O. Bo.x 1105 <8 9% -•••,» f « ATTACHMENT In 1991 Minnegasco arranged for an additional delivery point from Northern Natural Gas Company at North Branch Road ana Painters Creek Drive. Natural gas mains were installed to p..ovide additional service to Orono, Minnetrista, Independence, .ap e Plain, and Loretto. In 1993 Minnt;gasco extt^.-ded a high pressure transmission line Lake Street and Minnetonka Boulevard in Excelsior to Hopivi...> Crossroad and Minnetonka Boulevard in Minnetonka. This pipexine, indirectly, provides additional gas supplies for the northwst Lake Minnetonka area through gas mains along T.H. 12, County Roads 5 and 51 and Medina Road and County Road 101. Additional project are planned in the area. Currently planned is a project on County Road 84, between County Road 51 and Fairview Lane to connect two systems together and provide reinforcement in the area. Another project is planned in conjunction with a Hennepin County road reconstruction project along County Road 6 between Townline Road and Orchard Park Road to tie two systems together and provide additional gas supr.lies in that area. The Hennepin County project has been proposed for a number of years. It has been postponed for at least the past two years. Completion of this project may eliminate the need for the vaporizer station. Other projects in the area are currently in development. The final design and status of these projects depends on development and population growth in the area. 6 ^ V • •^7 f : I i u u I I J mJN OATI 10/26/95 5ATCH 501 CMCi HMC TAXPAYEO NAME/AMfl ^ROP AOOR 0»tCR NAH6 TAXPAYER NAtC/AOOR PROP ADOR OmER HAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR QNHER MAKE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR f - /' v,#-' la S3-110-2S 12 0002 02765 KELLEY PKNY COUNTY OF HENNEPIN HENNEPIN COUNTY LIBRARY RIDOEDALE DR AT PLYNOUTH RO HimETCNKA HN 55S41 ORONO LIBRARY SITE SB SS-11S-2S IS 0011 02765 NAYZATA BLVD H VEDA INC ETAL VEDA INC PO BOX S75 LONB LAKE m 55SS6 SB SS-118-2S IS 0014 02725 NAYZATA BLVO H VEDA INC VEDA INC PO BOX S75 LONB LAKE MN 55S56 HEItKPIN COUNTY PROPERTY X^ORNATIQN SYSTEN PROPERTY ONNERS LIST SB SS-11B-2S 12 OOOa 02745 KELLEY PKKY HILLON PROPERTIES NILLON PROPERTIES C/0 ALBERT B YfIbVfi 1021 IDAHO AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY m 55427 SB SS-llB 2S IS 0012 00450 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N VEDA INC VCI CAPITAL INC PO BOX S75 LONG LAKE m 55S56 SB SS-11B-2S IS 0015 02605 NAYZATA BLVO N NASHIMPTON SCIENTIFIC IND NASHINOTON SCIENTIFIC IND P O BOX S40 LONG LAKE m 55S56 SB SS-11B-2S 24 0001 00595 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RO N ROBERT N NAGNER ETAL ROBERT NAGNER 595 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LONB LAKE HN 55S56 IB SS-11B-2S 24 0002 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JOATM R FR«m^< trustee JOANN R FRS^f TRUSTEE 521 N HILLON DR LONG LAKE HN 55S56 REPORT NO. P14S540I ^ SB SS-11B-2S IS 0002 026B7 NAYZATA BLVO N DUANE R JACOBS DUANE R JACOBS 26B5 NAYZATA BLVO LONG LAKE HN BiS56 SB SS-11B-2S IS OOlS 02605 NAYZATA BLVD N VIDA INC VEDA INC PO BOX S75 LONB LAKE m 55S56 • ■ ■'<: * * *# • • . . ^,'1 i * ■ JL » 1 * ’ ^*'1 it * • X V • J*' V . # 1 • M SS-U8-23 n OOOt 00MB OLD CRYSTAL MY RO N SCHOOL OIST NO 11 ANOKA-HEMCRIN X S 0 NO 11 1129. HANSON BLVD N N COON RADIOS Ml BS4SS ' • *. *:I* ii.': • •: «<> Vi,;.L. >. » TQT6L BATCH 501 00011 I ' ’ -0! '5?*. .V •:'TO'f. f » , • ff. >, V ;• ' ''i:! I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE ANO TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS XT APPEARS THXS DATE ON TM RECORDS OF THE HEM«PIN COUNTY OEPARTnEnT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* it) THE BEST OF HY KNONLEOGE ANO BELXEF. %. ♦ DATE idyihh .Y Mlij) J# ’• • : V- • * , -f * ' • % * * ‘O. • • • • .• • • i ; Tiv :'v* ,v-; ■ :.'W; ' : ' •'* • ij • . (t ^ i’ 1' F CITY of ORONO Munidinl Offices Street Idtfress: 2750 Keiley Partway Orono. MN 55356 Maffinf Mdress: P.O. Bw 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 QQ66 October 4, 1995 Jerome Kallstrom Minnegasco, Inc. 700 West Linden Avenue P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis. MN 55440-1165 7 '3rr - / * y(.Xu RE; Resolution of the City of Orono Council No. 2875 Dear Mr. Kallstrom: I have enclosed a copv of the above referenced resolution advising that the conditional t^e permit that allowed the tempirary use of a poruble liquid natural gas vaporizer on the property located at 530 Old Crystal Bay Road North expires as ot October 8. 1995. A recent inspection conlirmed that the area Minnegasco. is still fenced in and appears to be still in use by If the use is to continue at the site. Minnegasco must file a new condmonal use penmt with the C W- Staff recalls during that review that this was to be a temporary solution for the area and tlut Minneuasco was to provide a permanent facility to meet service needs of the conmuraty. It wot be very' helpful if vou include a status report on this matter with your new conditional use permit. Please contact my office if you have any questions pertaining to the filing of a new conditional use permit or if you have officially ceased all use of the property. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/lsv . Enc. Conditional Use Permit Application rr-cr cc: Veda, Inc., Bob White, Sr., 2765 Wayzata Boulevard, Orono, MN 5 oj56 Tdepbone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734*510 g DESCRIPTION OF THE PORTABLE LNG EQUIPNENT 1 PROCESS WEmmmwm conditions. The need for the equipment is temporary, however, it will be necessary for three to five years. Minnegasco’s portable LNG vaporizer facility is semi-trailers; one with the LNG vaporizer, the other an LNG The vaporizer delivers natural gas from the LNG ® roadside tap which is connected to Minnegasco s system. Before cold weather strikes, ^^e LNG tanker will be brought to the site. Minnegasco personnel wi 11 make al 1 connections. The vaporizing process will begin before 5:00 a.m. and be complete about 9:00 a.m. When the process is complete, the disconnections are made, and the LNG tanker is The vaporizer remains on site to be utilized in the next cold weather. During operations Minnegasco employees will be on ®^^® times. The site will not be attended when the equipment is not in use. Security patrols will visit the site at irregular intervals. There will be very little noise generated by this equipment on the Orono site. Any noise will be much less than the noise caused by passing traffic on Old Crystal Bay Road. The portable vaporizer was used in Spring Park during the 1989-90 heating season. The equipment is currently parked at Minnegasco a Dakota%tation. Dakota Station is Minnegasco’s large LNQ facility located on 11500 12th Ave. S. in Burnsville. I|| I Bonestroo Rosene AnderUk & |\J| Associates Engineers A Architects Septeaber 18, 1990 C30 G aoowPDa PE aoOM X ^wncL »£. ^cwof* C Anorrx Pf Slw^ Pf Pf -amw C C son C em 9 Cooc Pf >ram« £ V?v«. Pf ^COi-t G Sc-orcn Pf VI =be^r>. CPA / . ^ City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 p GO»OOh pf fcnjia w Poscer. Pf. Conjid C Bui^vQt Pf .•»*v A Somoon. Pf. A M'jrson. Pf *w K Penl Pf. VcT4*» T Hauonjnn P£ «oorr f P%P9«p. Pf CjMd O LM3C3. Pf '^O'^WS w PStCiSp PE~ vicrjp C L^fnPi ■-'A JjfT« » VUiano. Pf »<9nr«n P AndfTon P£ Mam aoil Pf ftooert C PUSSK. AlvA Thofnai £ AngyiL Pf H*>^a»o A San^bid. P£ Car«i J. f jgcfton. Pf Mam A Sra Pf. P^n« J. Casvuaa. Pf - irrvirA*iiT>fiaaiaa vCif€ Dr.ta.<n P£. ^ «w TiiS sas'^s Thomas 9 .Anden on A iv% Gary F 9y«and«r. Pf Mdes a Jtnsgr^ Pf L Phiiao Gr^mi a Pf •pne C Pfomart A lA Agnes M Ring. A fC.P Jerry C PpftBCh. Pf. CecJto OiMer. Pt Charm A f ncioon Leo M. Pe nury wanan M. Otsors -:r SEP 2 0 iw w se 19S0 Attn: Jeanne Habusth Ret Minnegasco. Inc. Our File No. 139-1590 Dear Jeanne: Ve have revieved the Minnegasco proposal for teaporary installation of a portable liquid natural gas vaporizer. The unit will be used to provide natural gas during peak heating periods. The driveway access is 550 feet froa the intersection of T.H. #12. This is an adequate distance froa the intersection. Ve would recoaaend Spruce or Pine trees for screening on the west and north sides of the fenced area, the driveway area should be constructed to a 9 ton design. Ve would recoaaend that bituainous surfacing not be required for a teaporary installation. Restoration of the site should be required when Minnegasco moves out. Please call if you have any questions. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. grc/4 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 HlWrSS OP THB REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING TntTJ> OCTOBER 8, 1990 ATTENDANCE 7s00 P.M. The Council men on the above date with the following members present: Acting Mayor Callahanr Councilmembers Nettlesr Goetten and Peterson. Mayor Grabek was absent. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson# Building & Zoning Administrator Mcibusth# Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron» City Attorney Barrett, City Engineer Cook and City Recorder Vee. #1590 MIBHBGASCOr INC. 530 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD PUBLIC HEARING 7:02 TO 7:18 P.M. . — The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Tom Meyer was present representing Minnegasco. City Administrator reviewed this request for an up to S year conditional use permit on a piece of industrially zoned property on Cld Crystal Bay Road. Minnegasco is looking to install a heat saving plant at this location. It is a fenced in area of about 150' X 150 ’, which during the winter months will have a semi-trailer with a vaporizer located on this site. During critically cold times when their supply is low a liquified natural gas tanker will come in. The operation will be supervised by individuals during that time and once the need is passed, the tanker will be removed and just the vaporizer will remain on location. During the non-winter months the vaporizer will be removed. The Planning Commission has recommended approval with conditions regarding natural screening. Minnegasco feels because of the temporary nature that the screening will be cost prohibitive and are proposing an alternate type of false brickwork to meet the opaqeness requirement. Acting Mayor Callahan noted that the original application was also a public hearing but was for property located across the street. This public hearing is held to conform to the public hearing requirements. Goetten asked if the fencing issue had been resolved. Tom Meyer presented plans showing layout with fencing. He f - noted that this is a temporary use, a maximum of five years, and actually anticipating 1 to 3 years use. Distribution in this area is weak and would be used to forestall outages in^r^ely cold weather, below IS degrees. The unit wxll axt in the middle of the property. Photos of a sxmxlar unit used in Spring Park last year were presented to Council for review. .The vaporizer xs__ mounted on a flatbed trailer and a tank truck would be pulled up ; r • in the cold weather for 3-4 months per year. During the^ ^ •I- ....x OROMO REGULAR COUHCIL MEETING mn-.n OCTOBER 8, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING #1590 MINNEGASCO CONTINUED remaining months the property would basically be vacant except for the power pole^ A map showing affected usage area was presented. A permanent installation will be piped from the Minnetrista area and connected to the distribution system on Crystal Bay Road. Nettles asked if neighbors had a fenoing preference. Mr. Meyer responded that they had not heard from the neighbors. Goetten asked if the City had heard from any neighbors. Callahan answered by stating that the screening issue came spontaneously from Planning Commission while considering other concerns of this application. Mabusth also stated that the applicant proposed cyclone fencing which offers no opaqueness. The City code requires 50% opaqeness. The Planning Commission was responding to the code requirements not the concern of neighbors. Goetten raised the point of 6* fencing. Mabusth stated code requires a minimum of 5' for any kind of outdoor storage. Goetten noted that an 8' fence would then have to be very solid. Tom Meyers replied, "This 8' fence is what is required by the Federal regulations when we deal with the liquified natural gas faoilities.” Minnegasoo feels the ohain link fence provides best security with the screening required. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Nettles, to approve Resolution #2879, granting a conditional use permit for the temporary installation of a portable liquid natural gas vaporizer at 530 Old Crystal Bay Road with chain link fencing and wind screening defined as "open" type. Motion, Ayes-4, Mays-0- Motion Passed. CONSENT AGENDA* City Administrator Bemhardson asked to have item t*? added to the Consent Agenda euid tabled. - - - • • • • It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by *"* Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda with the V.;._ exception'.of item #6, which is to be tabled. Motion, Ayes*“4, ~- Nays-0, Motion passed......................... . ' * • -* ' • - —t •*rt s, — V APPPROVAL. OF MINUTES*-r - -----—----- ‘ r. It ’was moved by Councilmember Goetten,'vseconded by _• Councilmember - Peterson, to approve the Minutes of .the — September 24, 1990 Regular Council Meeting, v Motion, Ayes*-4v':j.-^:-;’^^ Nays-O, Motion passed. - ....................... - ---------------- OROaO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1990 ZONING FILE #1589-BLUE CONTINUED elevations. He stated chat he intends to change the roof structure on the house in the near future. There were no cements from the public pertaining to this application and the Public Hearing was closed. any be Mabusth asked Mr. Blue whether he intends to make alterations to the deck. She informed him that it would necessary to apply for a variance to do so. Mr. Blue stated that he does not intend to do anything with the deck. Kelley asked Mr. Blue whether there are frost footings under the deck. Mr. Blue indicated that the deck has a floating slab. Bellows noted that a lot coverage Variance of .046% is also a consideration in this application. Ic was moved by Hanson, seconded by Moos, to recommend aporoval of the side and front street setbacks Variances and the lot coverage Variance to reconstruct a garage addition. Further it is recommended that approval be given for a sideyard setback Variance for any possible repairs to the existing porch. Kelley asked whether frost footings will be placed under the garage. Mr. Blue indicated that he did not intend to have frost footings. Mabusth stated that the garage will have to meet the Building Code. Bellows said, "This is a much more ambitious project than the drawings indicate. I am uncomfortable with the aspect of approving something that has not been included in the application (frost footings for porch). I also believe that the application is incomplete! I do not object to t.he project, but I do object to our voting on it without proper documentation. The application makes no reference to the roof project. I think it sets a bad precedent to approve this without having all the information required. I do not think the elevations provided by Mr. Blue are sufficient." Kelley suggested that the Planning Commission and staff should review the issue of application information at a later time. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Bellows abstained. Motion carried. #1590 MINNEGASCO, INC. 525 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:27 P.M. TO 8:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Thomas Meyer and Susan Turbes, Minnegasco - 14 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1990 ZONING FILE #1590-MINNEGASCO, INC. CONTINUED Representatives, were present. Mabusth presented information relating to this application (see Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated September 12, 1990). She said, "I have received the City Engineer's comments. He has approved the access. With regard to the concern of hazards created by the propane, the City Engineer states there is far less hazard with propane than with gasoline. There is very little opportunity for there to be an explosion. The City Engineer recommended that there be Minnegasco staff present while the vaporizing process is in operation. That is what Minnegasco has proposed." Mabusth provided pictures of a similar tanker and vaporizer located in Spring Park. Kelley asked whether the blue trailer fixture. permanent Mr. Meyer replied, "The blue trailer will be located in the fencing during the winter months. In the summer, all of the equipment will be removed, with the exception of a power pole and stand pipe that will be installed. The fence will remain on the property for the entire three to five years." Bellows noted that the fence will serve only as security, and not as a means of screening the equipment from view, Kelley asked whether the site will be illuminated. Mr. Meyer replied. "There will be a light on during the operation periods. Perhaps I should explain the process and purpose. We are trying to provide reliable service for our customers. Two years ago there was an incident in Mound where 1,000 customers lost gas service for a period of time. The temperature dropped to more than 20 degrees below zero. The problem is that the area has been growing faster than Minnegasco has been able to install additional pipes to provide service. The problems only occur on the extremely cold days of the year, in the early morning, when there is a maximum demand for gas. This will provide a temporary solution to that problem until there is enough of an increase in the area to justify a permanent solution. That solution is currently being designed, but we don't anticipate it to be installed for another three to five years. The unit that is mounted on the trailer will remain on the site during the winter. When there is a forecast in the winter for an extremely cold day, the tanker truck will arrive at the site around 4:00 a.m. The unit would be disconnected around 9:00 a.m. when the process is complete and the tanker will be removed." Kelley asked if there is any other location that would be - 15 - ORONO planning COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1990 ZONING FILE #1590-MINNEGASCO, INC., CONTINUED suitable for this. Mr. Meyer replied, "We did consider other locations, but felt that this location is central to where there is the greatest need. The topography of the land in this location is desirable. We want a flat site that is just off of a niajor road and is readily accessible to our facilities. As a clarification, we be hauling propane as indicated by the City Engineer. We will haul liquified natural gas. The tank truck is a double- walled truck with a nickel-steel interior. It is designed to withstand the temperature of the liquified gas which is 260 degrees below zero." asked this. Mrs. Rose Mary Vickerman, 425 North Old Crystal Bay Road, if there will be much additional traffic resulting from Mr. Meyer replied, "The only additional traffic will be the tanker truck on extremely cold days. It will arrive and stay on the site until 9:00 a.m. or so." Mrs. Vickerraan stated that there are many schoolbusses in that area around 9:00 a.m. She suggested that the tanker be left on the site until 10:00 a.m. Mr. Meyer stated that they could probably do that. Kelley asked how many times last year such a facility would have been utilized. Mr. Meyer stated that the Spring Park facility was used three times. He said, "If we have an unusually cold winter, it may be used more." Kelley asked if the three to five year term of the Conditional Use Permit was reasonable. Mr. Meyer replied, "We would be in this particular location for a maximum of five years. If the pipe has not been installed by that time, we would find another location." There were no additional public comments and the Public Hearing was closed. Kelley stated that he v/ould prefer to have the 8' fence screened. He added, "I would also like to require that should the plant material used for screening die, it must be replaced." Mr. Meyer replied, "Our code does not permit us to have vegetation in the area of the facility." - 16 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1990 ZONING FILE 11590-MINNEGASCO, INC., CONTINUED Kelley asked wnether plane niaesrial could be placed outside of the fence. Mr. Meyer stated t.hat ciay be possible. We would have to request permission from VanDale (owner of the property) to screen outside of that area. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that screening should be provided on tne nort.h, south and west side of the facility. XL was moved by Kelley, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the C.U.P., with the condition that .Minnegasco provide a sketch plan showing screening for the north, west and sout.h side of t.he facility. Motion, Ayes-7, Nays-0. Motion carried. (Planning Commissioner Cohen departed at t.his point of the meeting.) #1555 LANDSTAR, INC. 2501 OLD BEACH ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND RENOTIFICATION Mr. James MacKinnon, Attorney, and Mr, Dennis Developer, were present. Sandin, Mabusth noted that Mr. MacKinnon had just left the Minnetonka Beach Planning Commission Meeting. She asked him to report on the action taken regarding this application. Mr. MacKinnon said, "The Minnetonka Beach Planning Commission gave a unanimous recommendation for approval. The Planning Commission questioned whether we intended to add fill in a particular location. I informed them we did not. JoEllen Hurr indicated that she would reco.Tunend that the outlot be separated according to the property within Minnetonka Beac.h and Orono so each City will have its own outlot." Mabusth depicted the outlot to which Mr. Mac.Kinnon referred, fhe said, "It is necessary for each City to have a separate outlot because of the different City Ordinances each City will ■jse to govern the outlot." Mr. MacKinnon continued. He said, "Ms. Hurr also indicated that she may recommend to Council that they not allow any outlot in that location at all, but require it to be part of Lot One and Lot Two. She stated that she does not trust the University of Minnesota. She is concerned that the Foundation may give the outlot to the University some time in the future. The Planning Commission did not include that suggestion in their motion. The - 17 - cn^ OF ORoma City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2879_________ K A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.50, SUBDIVISION 3 (A)7 FILE *1590 WHEREAS, Minnegasco, Inc. (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 530 Old Crystal ^Bay „ located within the City of Orono (hereinafter Cxty ) and legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Van Dale Addition, Hennepxn County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "property"), and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.50, Subdivision 3 (A)7 to permit the temporary use of a portable liquid natural gas vaporizer. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1590. 2. The property is located in the Industrial Zoning District. 3. On September 17, 1990 the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval based upon the following findings: a) Proposed location of this use within the City's industrial park meets the objectives of the zoning chapter and purposes of the industrial district in which the use is located. b) The proposed use was found to not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity ana will not have a negative residential properties because of its limited period of operation within the year. Page 1 of 4 - CJ-TV OF ORONa City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2879_________ 4. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the temporary use of a portable liquid natural gas vaporizer at the property will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use or the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5, The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.50, Subdivision 3 (A)7 to permit the temporary a portable liquid natural gas vaporizer at the property located at 530 Old Crystal Bay Road North, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall install an 8* high cyclone fencing to include a Tenn-Air windscreen defined as the "open" type in order to meet opaqueness standard of ordinance. 2. Any changes in the hours of operation or expansion in the oeriod of operation (outside of cold weather months) shall require additional review of this conditional use permit or possibly a new conditional use permit. 2^ Qj-^ygway areas should be constructed to a 9 ton design and bituminous surfacing shall not be required for this temporary use. 4 The applicant shall be responsible for the complete restoration of the site at the time proposed use is removed from the site. 5. This temporary conditional use permit is approved for a period of 5 years. Applicant must resolve permanent service needs for this area of Orono within that period of time as there is no guarantee that the City will grant another conditional use permit for an extension of this use. This conditional use will expire on October 8, 1995. Page 2 of 4 i-Ir cmr I I1 ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2879 herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned representative of understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this on behalf of Minnegasco, Inc., it s successors ®**f^”*i hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. ' Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of October, 1990. ATTEST: Tlieresa L.'Naab, Deputy Clerk Edward J. cailahan, Jt., Acting Mayor iyurhorized Representative Yeda, Inc. Authorized Representative of /Minnegasco, Inc. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of October, 1990, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. « Theresa L. Naab, Acting Mayor & Deputy Clerk of °g Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behaX£ of the City. jjp^ UNDA S. VEB notary public • MINNCSOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My cominlMion aiplrM .12-BS Notary Public My Contaission Expires Page 3 of 4 III■ ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2879 STATS OP MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) } ss. On this day of i 199^ appeared -P',f; .ed t-.e foregoing Ind ao'nVwledcec.oh^ he (they) executed the seme as his (their) free act and aeec. •L'fl— THERESA L. NAASHOUnV ^8UO • MINN^A HENNEPIN COUNIT my commission expires STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) . _ ^ On thiton thit “J,^fe^S;r7-^sonai?y^:pSnr:iajiotary Public Within and/or the T-i.C('-r^ Km IlhiiVfnno mfl nUJjfc r_ foregoing instrument, person(s) described in /«.ha»v) executed the same as hisknd acknowledged that he (they) execucea (their) free act and deed. NOTARY >PBM 9k THERESA L NAASNOTAItr Puauo - MNNCSOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY my COMMISSION expires Page 4 of 4 I ! I r ^ 3 'I f 8 i t ? f 8 I i S I c •; . ♦. ■ rw o o 00 N W 00 Wo >c/)no /3 To: From: Date: Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator November 14, 1995 Subject: #2089 Richard O. Miller, "4520** WateiloNvn Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IA, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 Acres Application: Request for lot area and width variances for construction of a single family residence on this vacant parcel. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners’ List D - Survey E - Topographic Map F - Staff Sketch G - Septic Sites Depiction H - Tax Valuation History I - Five Acre Zone Map Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.27, Subd. 5 (B): Lot area required = 5 acres, lot width required = 300*. Section 10.02 - Definition of lot area/Section 10.55, Subd. 15 (A) (Flood Plain and Wetlands Management Ordinance); Wetland areas not creditable as lot area in unsewered zones. Pertinent Facts 1.Lot area:Dry buildable Wetland Total 3.6 Ac 2.9 Ac 6.5 Ac Required dry buildable = 5.0 Ac (2 Ac contiguous) Variance = 1.4 Ac or 28% Zoning File #2089 November 14,1995 Page 2 2. 3. Lot width: (measured parallel to front lot line per Code definition) Existing width: 287.56 ’ Required: 300.9’ Variance: 12.44 ’ or 4.1% (Functional width is about 243 ’ measured perpendicular to side lot lines) Required setbacks: (see Exhibit F) Front: 100’ Sides: 50’ Wetland: 26 ’ (Buildable envelope is about 140 ’ x 400') 4. Parcel valuation for ta.\ purposes has been relatively low ($8400 for the last five years) as compared to land valuations for similar nearby developed parcels, suggesting that the City Assessor has not valued this as a building site. Taxes on the parcel have averaged around $300 per year over the last ten years. 5. Applicant notes the parcel was purchased in 1972, although the tax records don’t reflect a change in ownership until 1977. 6. Zoning: This area of Orono was first zoned in 1957 as the "Residual Zoning District", designated as private residential with no limitations on lot size or wddth. Subsequent Code amendments required a minimum lot size of one acre/140 ’ width. In 1967, this area of northwest Orono was rezoned as "R-IC", Single Family Residential, 1 acre minimum lot size. In 1975, the area was again rezoned and became part of the "RR- lA" Single Family Rural Residential District requiring a minimum of 5 acres in area. 7. The Zoning Code requires that a buildable property in the 5 acre zone contain 5 acres of dry buildable land, of which at least 2.0 acres must be contiguous with the building site. In the current application we are dealing with a single contiguous dry buildable parcel of 3.6 acres, with an additional 2.9 acres of wetland to the north of it. Septic System Considerations The Orono On-Site Sewage Treatment Code, Section 12.30, Subd. 4 (F) requires that no building permit shall be issued for any new building which will be connected to a new on-site system until the Site Evaluation Report and System Design Specifications as required by the MPCA Regulations Chapter 7080 and the City Code have been reviewed and approved. The applicant’s site evaluator has been working with Septic System Inspector Steve Weckman in Zoning File #2089 November 14, 1995 Page 3 attemptine to define suitable drainfield sites on the property. It appears that suitable sites^ feasible in the locations shovsu on E-xhibit G, one site on either side of the driveway (the driveway was constructed by the applicant in early 1980*s). As of this writing, a complete Septic System Site Evaluation and Design Report has not been received from the applicants site evaluator. Buildable Envelope With 50' side, 100’ front and 26' wetland setbacks, the buildable envelope for this site is approximately’60,000 s.f., certainly large enough to accommodate a single family residence. •Die probable building site is in the northern half of the dry buildable area, approximately where the driveway fill ends. Any building site in the south half ot the lot may conflict with septic sites. Five Acre Zone Standards/Philosophy In 1975 the City Council agreed to a rezoning of the northwest quadrant of the City to require a lot ar^a minimum of 5 acres per building sile. This rezoning was a response to the many Dtopenv- owners in that area who wished to preserve the open space character of northwest Orono. The RR-IA zone contains approximately 1330 acres (13% of the total land area m Orono), of which approximately 290 acres is wetland. This vacant substandard lot in single separate ownership is quite unique m the 5 acre zone. It is one of the few remaining yacani substandaid Ifils in single separate Qvvnership m the s acre zone which remains to be developed. It has good access onto Watertoi^ Road, md construction of a residence on the property appears quite feasible subject to confirmation that septic sites are available. Issues for Consideration I Has adequate hardship been demonstrated to justify granting the lot area and width variances? 2. If the property was not granted buildability, what other uses does it have to the property owner? 3. Will development of a single family residence on this property change the character of the neighborhood? 4. Does Planning Commission have any other issues to be considered? Zoning File #2089 November 14,1995 Paee 4 Staff RecommeDdation If Planning Commission concludes that the hardships noted by the applicant or other hardships determined by the Planning Commission provide sufficient justification for granting of the lot width and area variances, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Such approval should be conditioned on final confirmation by the Septic System Inspector that suitable primary and alternate drainfield sites arc available. Options for Action 1. Approval. 2. Table for additional information. 3. Denial (specify reasons). 4.Other. 'C-y> 'i'l CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLIC; Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) A J, ww PROPERTY INFORMATION . . / / Site Address ^^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.). 3 --------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prnnerrv Acquired I *7^(month/year) uaie rmpcTLy _____^ ^ ~--------------------------------------- I (do) <3o not)also own the adjacent parcels of land. // PresenruSrWprop«it>-;^__residential X.other (specily) </«, Zoning District: ^ ^ I applica : Name Address: OW’NER (j^diffejen^an Address: * ^ \ Phone (home)_______ Phone(work) _Zip: 0_St Phone(home) ^ — Phone (work) -Zip: description of request Estimai^^truclionCosts Describe request in detail: 4 fl¥^A /— (attach additional sheets if necessary) Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) wAPnsHlP/DESCRIPTION OF L70JSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (k ■' <• -Or :) -^- '-^ REQUIRED SUBMn TA^ S ' ^3^^ ----------- All of the following information must be submitted bv the aDPlication dea<Miiij.date in Qrder for vour application to be considered complete: /^rapleted Application Form IX Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, GOvt Center, 348-3271). tX:e:Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i x 11 for ;ceproduction. ... . Topographic survev (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes mexistmg grade arepfop555dr"ln Addition, provide one (I) copy 8W" x 11” for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy x 11 ). List of the legal names (include marital stams) of all persons with an mterest m the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember jiguE vnrianrP nnoliciition is not compl«>t«^ »f the above informatlQn has not been mciuded. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ u u *7 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 °"S1m1 fee parent) and/or consultant expenses incu^ in review of this application, and cerufies that the information supplied is trq riigl^^t J<^fii5,best of his/her knowledge 5. 6. 7. 8. DateApplicant’s Signamre members for purposes g#1n>fs>ig^n aqdyerification of this request. Owner’s Signamre Date to have an authorized^agent attend in your place and to advise the Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 I / t . • RUN OATf 10a7/«BATCH 501V ^ * PMP AOOfI ' CMCR NAHE ' TAXPAYCR . NAHE/AOOll . 4 i^ . . H*.. • •rv. • •. • .; PROP AOOR r V OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER * NAHE/AOOR ' t £ . » • ,• *' ‘ ; r . ••V ■■ SB 50-118>21 34 0001 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIONEO KIR A NELSON RXR NELSON 4500 NATERTOMI RO NARLE RLAXN M4 55359 SO 31-110-23 21 0003 04500 NATERTOMI RO KIR A NELSON KXR A NELSON 4500 NATERTOMI ROAD NARLE RUIN m 5SSS9 HEIO^PIN COUNTY PRORCRTY INFOlOttTiQN SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST30 31-110-23 21 0001 04490 NATERTOMN RO KENNETH TURNHAM ETAL ■ KENNETH A KATHRYN TlROfiAH 4490 HATERTO»tl ROAD HARLE PLAIN »«i 55359 30 31-110-23 24 0004 04545 NATERTOMI RO J L A H R DROLL JEPP DROLL R 0 DOX 304 NAVERLY m 55390 PROP ADOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR ‘n TOTAL RATCN 501 OOQQA . T-i ■ V. •V-' ••• .. ' 4»V.‘ • . ’ ^ .♦'I. ^ *. : - .V> . <*• 4\ - •i:#• ' A; - • ^ W‘*<**'*' * • l‘V . ‘ ‘ ■ V “* . . ».• : '-t/v;--:'’''*.'. • • V * • /. '7' ’’r*' . > "* * • , 'i • j ' ' * 4,* . ‘ • . (‘ vp L •:.. • . '•ir j • ^ ■ > • •• l >■'i:r-'»' • ^ T" r. , V. ^ : • REPORT NO. PAGES8 S1-118-EB 21 0002 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO RICHARD 0 HILLER RICHARD 0 HILLER 2290 ORENSTER ST PAUL HN 55100 SO S1-110-2S 24 0004 04405 NATERTQMI RO J P SERENA t J H SERENA JOHN F A JOAN H SERENA 4405 NATERTONN RO HAPLE PLAIN m 55S59 PI4S5401I ' ^9 Tsr? I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TMJE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. .rde-is-Mt;.. UfSHtD t 0 ' *■ V •. rr% ? * » • %' • r * *1 ' I •i •m; ‘ .*■ .-V i' M • 4 - I ’■ i *» \At ♦ •; > ♦ i '•o • • I • p» * i o ■ :'r: • • • • I *•.. V?; --o ■ ' V ■ * ' ♦ I, • • ■ Ctrtificate of Surrfy for Richard 0. Miller of part of the Northuast 1/U of Section 31-118-23 Tf \ 1 a #/ S/-//9-2J ^ V 'r Secf'^A 3/^//9-23 '*ft€ ^ £ml^ Vz of ffOJ */f of Secf'oo ye ft /'At o/ £ojf ^/i *f k/tsf 0f £o3 f Vl Ve of Jtcf om Jf^ ^£^23 -u^ £mJf //>»< a / k/tS*^ of toT^ Vl off^tAJ'Af of StC^foA J/-//^-^3 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the hast half of the Veat 3/8 of the East half of the Northwest quarter of Section 31» Township 118 North, Range 23 Xest of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Noi*th % fS •: loJqf»ynd •. S loeafkd 1015^ (3.4 1 4t.f*I V% of the Watertown Road, and the location of all existing buildings, if any, thereon. It does not purport to show other iaproveswnts or en- croachajents. For purposes of this surrey, the »»West 3/8 of the £ast half of the Northwest quarter** has been assumed to be that part of said East half of the Northwest quarter lylxig' West of a line drawn from a point on the North lii» thereof distant 3/8 of the distance East from the Northwest comer of said East half of the Northwest quarter to the Northeast comer of said East half of the NorthMSt quarter, to a point on the South line thereof distant 3/8 of the distance East from the ■ Southwest corner of said East half of the Northwest quarter to the Southeast comer of said East half of the Northwest quarter. GORDON R. COFTIN CO., INC. 1" - 200* U-21-83 £dqc of tow^nond added to-iS- Iron marker Gordon R. coffin Rsg. so. MU Mark S. Qronberg Beg. No.12755 Land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, MinzMsota I, 1V I"-'too 1 lO 1/1 M #2(^ Richard Miller 4520 Watertown Road Tax Valuation History PINS n 31-118-23 21 0002 f jtnd Valuation Plat/Parcel 41331-3910 XSSL Taxes 1974 $ 2,200 $ 97.20 1975 2,200 105.96 1976 2.400 104.08 1977 2,900 115.94 1978 3,200 125.58 1979 3,500 132.28 1980 3,700 154.52 1981 5,000 170.34 1982 5,000 184.76 1983 6,500 251.54 1984 6,500 267.20 1985 6,500 258.20 1986 6,500 279.58 1987 8,000 332.82 1988 8,000 355.30 1989 8,000 392.36 1990 8,000 383.58 1991 8,400 429.54 1992 8,400 458.90 1993 8,400 265.54 1994 8,400 243.36 1995 8,400 243.36 22 Years $5,300 approx. (City has tax records only for period 1974-1975) caOiEBliSLIAdM ••I H-•iBM- VHlUlc IP t:'mmmsm •• «.V. ' m. •-• nv. £i* j\ <i'lM'«.■> % ^ m^ • #•• A /.'V#*-- "• r '>►'. V r.» kr-.* '/* f -:-V- r '7* ^. •> -; A,-.-A • 9 \ -% ' W r4^ r^- it'-x- *ih i. ;;lk. ItsKllf; f * m. • ’*' ^ ■ f,., •-„. - ■t'i--Tr. <rA ....■: '«'!r '.V,? • *'■» * - • Ilf r^H I - • I A«i. rm .v„.v;«.v .-i; -• 4 Kit rT" ^-»H> «*f: **^».»f r ^ * • . TjMUPBaaa' f g». «* ®irS^‘"-' • • . *• t • 3«l ■KKf Asi- __________________ ^4j»r^ To; From: Date: Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator November 15, 1995 #2091 Burton Scott Ball, 1065 West Femdale Road - Variance - Public HearingSubject: Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. Two Acre Application: Request for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover variance for installation of three bay window areas to be installed on the lakeside of the existing residence within the 0-75’ zone. Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (AV10.55. Subd. 8/10.56, Subd. 16 (C): 75’ lake setback required for structures. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B): No average lakeshore setback encroachment allowed. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2/10.55, Subd. 8/10.56, Subd. 16 (L): Hardcover limitations. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners' List D - Neighbor Acknowledgements E - Description/Hardship Statement F - Survey G - Construction Plans H - Hardcover Calculations/Survey from Prior Application I - Documentation from 1974 Lakeshore Setback Variance Pertinent Facts 1. Lakeshore setback (75’ required): West End House Deck Mid-House House Deck East End House Deck Existing Proposed Bav Windflaw Variance 47.5 ’44.5'30.5’ (41%) 35.5’--(No change) 51.5’48.5'26.5’ (35%) 39.5'—(No change) 45'±44'±31'± (41%) 34'±—(No change) Zoning File #2091 November 15,1995 Page 2 3. Average setback. Existing house encroachment: 5Q'± Encroachment with new bays: 52’± Hardcover (1991 Calculations) Existing:Zone Area 0-75'3,757 s.f. (36.8%)10,200 s.f. 75-250'9,788 s.f. (41.4%)23,625 s.f. 250-500'64? s.f. (13.6%)4.750 s.f. 14,193 s.f.38,575 s.f. 1995 Survey:13^94 s.f.38,238 s.f. (1995 calculations by surveyor do not include 260 s.f. of rock and plastic in 0-75 zone nor 262 s.f. of rock and plastic in 75-250' zone. Also, 1991 calculations include roof overhang as hardcover.) Discussion Applicants propose to add floor-to-ceiling bay windows (matching an existing bay window) along the lakeside of the existing house. The hous- is partially within the 0-75 setback zone, as a result of a variance granted in 1974 (see Exhibit 1). While the proposed bay windows will extend the house 3' closer to the shoreline, they are entirely over existing deck hardcover which has existed since the house was built. Bay windows will be entirely underneath the existing 4' overhang, but are considered an addition to the existing house, requiring a lakeshore setback variance. While the windows extend closer to the lake and increase the degree of encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line (see survey. Exhibit F), they will likely not be visible from either neighboring adjacent property and will have no impact on neighbors' views of the lake. The main impact of these windows will be in their expansion of the majority of the lakeside wall of the house 3 ’ closer to the lake. Hardcover This property was the subject of a variance application in 1991 which was eventu^ly withdrawn by the previous owner. However, survey work with complete hardcover calculations were submitted for that application, and it appears that there are two changes in hardcover over the last four yeais: Zoning File #2091 November 15, 1995 Page 3 A 6' X 7 dock access platform has been constructed at the shoreline above the riprap. Applicant ’s sur\ey indicates this is land^^•a^d of the 929.4 elevation, and therefore constitutes additional hardcover requiring a variance. Applicant should discuss the need for this platform, and Planning Commission should determine whether it should be allowed to remain (no permit was issued for this strucnire). A portion of the driveway in the 75-250’ zone has been expanded since the 1990 survev to create a tennis court. An 8'+ height cyclone fence also was installed at the perimeter of this court. Under current Code the additional paving constimtes additional hardcover, although no permit was required. However, a permit likely would have been required for the fence exceeding 6' in height. Hardcover in both 0-75’ and 75-250’ zones is excessive on tliis property. Using the 1995 surveyor’s calculation and adding in more than 500 s.f. of rock and plastic hardcover, overall hardcover on the property is 36J%, greatly exceeding the 25% DNR standard for the entire lot. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the additional average lakeshore setback encroachment by the new bay windows have any impact on neighboring properties? 2. Although the new bay windows are above the existing deck and below existing overhang, they do result in the wall of the house being perceived as 3’ closer to the lake. Is there sufficient hardship and justification for the lakeshore setback variance? 3. Although the bay windows do not constitute new hardcover, they may tend to intensify the existing hardcover (i.e. whate\er rainfall drained through the spaces between deck boards will no longer do so). Given the excessive hardcover on the proi^, does Planning Commission feel there is a need to mitigate this addition by removing excess hardcover elsewhere in the 0-75’ zone? In the 75-250’ zone? Has applicant adequately justified the 6 ’ x 7’ platform at the shoreline? Should excessive areas of the driveway be considered for removal? Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission finds that the variances are supported by adequate ji^tification ^d findings of hardship, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Plaiming Commission may wish to condition approval on removal of other items of hardcover on the property. Zoning File #2091 November 15,1995 Page 4 Options for Action 1. * Recommend approval as proposed. 2. Recommend approval subject to specific conditions such as hardcover removals, 3. Table for more information. 4.Denial. 5. Other. Isv •r ^ ' ■ TfliHWllMl II CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION 4^A0‘II Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S 100.00 (no change from original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming structures S200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) t. a T I PROPERTY INTORMATION . Site Address —f Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property- Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:__________________________________ APPLICANT Address: \n6i S ^ City: U.r7 ijg^ Phonedxmae) M'73-iHSG_ Phone(wotk) MSP (aoo O )-----Zip: 5S3<^A 0VVNT:R (if different than applicant) Name__________________ PhoDc(home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estkml<(#Co|itnjctonCOTt^ix Describe request in detail: 0#4Pi y ^ ^ VARIANCES REQLTRED Lot Area _ -X Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Lot Coverage VRear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of unusual property conditions ^^ribe undue hardship or praciical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^ A (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the folloHinq information must be submitted bv the aPDlication deadline datg.jp order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. __Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8*/i x 11 for reproduction. Toposraphic survey (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/6" x 11" for reproduction.^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'-6" 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 owTier(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 Propertv Owner must sign this application. Please remember that ISHE vnriance applifation is not complete if the above information has npt »?een inqlutie^ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonmg 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. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and CouncU members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. DateOwner’s Signature------ ----------------------------------- this change prior to the meeting. 8 lot I V'I »>6. fO(T OF lOT I (2) ..................... •" k \ 1 ‘ckmSA _ ( XI 5?# " (giy^TiY (I) 08) -^V !■!>; SK'E its£ *c::«: 10 ^ (>l M \' M V5 .....ini lU ^u\J // ^^ ^kV TRi'.l A (le) * x5» ••• • • ^ ♦ \ \- FmT of i:t 9 (23) cjO. / L S AO !i02 / ;r > »'t 8/)i?<y,i . . o^.y / d :tr^ V. /< —»4:ii K'i'O ( ^‘^O'/i'N. f»SJ5 C^ cf»ffR;X /-.SI C!‘v: Cf ICl n t»Tq JK^E CoKl<*E A'.'IES nz^^i'ius O .'■ECt lO PLAT o2-!17-23'^3 (»?) K • !r- C: ■ ■4‘:' > .’f* % V MM QATi lamm MTCH MS « / TA)9AVEt MlfC/AOm , »< ^ r -. PK» laM OltM NAHt TAXPAYEI ; NANI/ADM H h » Junm OMCI NAMi TAXPAYIR NAIC/AnW i.r, ■ * * * * ^ • • • • SR 02-117-n 4S ROM OOOSS ABRRCSS UNASSICNiO LOmSf N UMRV NORMiST RAMR Nl C/0 TRUST RIAL ESTATE ATM • HARQUETTE HRLS IM SS479-OOM SR Ot-117>ES AS RM7 OlORO FERNOALE RO M N N SNlERiER I J F 8MIEBLER MILLIAH N/JOAfME F 'SHIERLER BAR REACON ST it BOSTON HA RtllA SR Ot-117-ES AS ORES RtRta FERNOALE RR N B A‘R FOX B C I KATHERINE N FOX IRAS N FERNOALE RR NAVEATA HN 5SS91 HENNERIN COUNTY FRORERTY INFORNATION SYSTEM raOKRTY COMERS LISTSR 0E-117-ES AS OORS ROOSR AOORESS UNASSIGNEO NENRY H SRARF HENRY N SRARF IRAS N FERNBaLE RO MAYZATA m SSSAl SR OE-117-ES AS OOEl OlOAS FERNOALE RO H B S BALL SEA BALL R SCOTT BALL IRAS FERNOALE RO N NAY2ATA HN S5SA1 •tJi- " • i A*.‘1 I’ii-I ^ /'7 V V- ^.v J • ' M'• ' y:r\* > * • ^ } .• r-. t •>'». *,*-*4 ‘*'t •*Xr** i/l*,?' * .* jl * mm A f • % \ • 4/.- ■ *.. 7 ^ • . V ». • ‘,W w ;. >v.ni V ■ :55-- ■.................................... r> < •»{'• -v-. •'/ REFORT NO. FACE SR RC-117-E5 AS OORA OORSR ADDRESS CMASSIRNED LOUISE N LOHRY NORHEST BAFK CM TRUST REAL ESTATE ATH A HAROUETTE HFLS m 5SA7A-00AR SR 02-U7-2S AS 0R2E 01055 FERNOALE RO N GERALD T MCCOURTNEY ET AL GCRALO T MCCOURTNEY loss N FERNOALE ROAR MAYZATA m SSSAl FIAS5A0110 TOTAL BATCN MS 00007 X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REFRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT AFFEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEMtPIN fcOUNTY OEFARTMENT OF FROFERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF NY KNOHUDGE ANO BELIEF. DATE • • < R » » • i}0o »■ « » .4^- CD K I..« . % '-r ,7 " J ‘ J 4 ' If • • ' i N. • i . • < ■ :i- ‘ i r »...... • • J • .J *• *<* • • ^ ,I 4- J; .. ]p''r ft u ■4 y b Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (wc) of [print name(s)l [prim address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Couftcil that I (wc) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. r^r / /„, <r%—^ Property Owner f Date F'' ^ Q_cwvl \o * it4 Property Owner Date #********•••*•••*••********♦****♦•* ' [print namc(s)j [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located aj _________________also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. f.^uL • -Cl Property Owner Date / V . jL l -*-----/ Z' DateProperty Owner If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Budding & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ft ^£ A ajv — l4^emAfae ‘ j4^tfi*/a4 ’7’*o^^ Arr^^^rJ ,Dsse4e//>r/o4/ i/*/u.smc /hofiffi'ry 3<*M/7r^S ?^- c/jy ^0- ^iac^ /T^M A - J)Ss<u6/J07y^ ^ w^puBsr 796 A**^ >4srt? f^i/zsA. 796 yjxs t '€Myi^0t^iyA9y Mi0m/Aitf >«/W <f<hw .M?/ iU oif 0c ^4fdc. 7*5^ ' ^ OLSi «K/4*Sy /a*. M rm. <¥/> -CKt^frij ^H*^rrc J Citmifi*^ y^ ’exts/,’»u s^*U*6^ ^iCf yO«y *rt^ y pC( ^tJL% <tm V<^ j^rtV-if-Trra Ml p ''Cu> Jj^ au Uf*Hie, 2. srMStpPt/M* .Aiig^ ^ Ml. <^y jffcr/ ^ '€f^* MfASTJ^ /S^-*7^^‘ • •*« ai*JL *j^*ntey ]f^»¥ g,^yt*ASSA^ /»o l>^ li’ i'fft FRANK R. CARDARELLE (612) 941-3031 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For seott t Bi«»nor Bail 1065 llBst r«rndal« Road Orone« HN RhoneI 473-1450 Boo k 347 Page 4i Fiie. Total Lot Area: 238*5 sq.ft.+ Hard Cover Areas Rouse 3042 sq.ft. Cone. Walk 240 " *• Court 2398 - Drive 1800 « Drive A Turn A. , SB5Q * 13.294 " Seales 1--30* ® Denotes Iren Non. Found DeaeriotlAni Traet "A** R.L.S. No. 1372, Hennepin County# Kinnesota. JThis plan# speeifieation or report vas prepared by M or unajir «y direct supervision and that-T ae a duly Begistered Land Surveyor ii^the State^f Minnesota. Signed this day of -. 1995. ( j r ( J 'CL Frank RV(fai^darelle State Reg. No. 6508 I ei uni inI'i ‘h K| l|l > ^ :k t 1 Jr II rQ D CO • • ,'.s •• • ---------- Wi s>s> PIIsl 14 AP.D C/^LCULATle/v:> r) s *•••< 9{ }•< l>0 M 1 0 5 I \n (/ ;? >;c A •R^.*-.' • ni £it • / ■ .4 :-l-X I ^ ■ ■:;i4ri*a*Pi^^ B'^-it V ,,s ; i;I CALCULATION WORKSHE-i t:u u. S£73AC:< zone : (CiaCLE OME) C0W5^ '' Existing Hawcovehj ^^ne « Z3cO s.F. (j) ■ A. Kcusc-------22— LrNGiH /:,ArfO wiorw WIDTH 3, Garage ^ c. D riveway 25 - X D. Sidewalk d). p BZ _ X g. P^o/ C5!^ _______- p.Landscape ^ ^ --------------- AREAS unoerlah ^ plastic SHEETING areas ___o«' BY —2.. X _ X 2^ G. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Ho «lO^-ZCD ro"ncorf>/.^ >lA.TCrt Total Property A rea in Zone n ^^4 il£ s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2.12 .S s.F. s.F. .0 S . r . / ^ -« ' / S.F. S.F. Y S.F. 12^ s.F. _ S.F. — S.F S.F ^"7 ^ **^ - |0^2C0 S.F., £ B 3757_-rB iO> 2 CO X ICO 3<c.6 ,% KARDCQVES aiCUmTIQ.'l K0RK jrl 3j—^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 (fS^-SP^ Existino Hardcovh qo X 250-SQ0' 500-1QC0' A. House tico^r A'/SitA'st 'WP^ length t" 3. Garage •• t^^c. Drivehay Cd'TErtA' '►iCrO ■•SLO rL-Avey ^^«:T^ioCi /^ff/^cutO L«“ »fa D. SiDEHALK E. Patio/ Deck l2;ruitiu*f SiOc of |Juo&6 'T"7 if oA oNt. iovA-it. F.Landscape SiiLiE-L ----------------------- areas r CMO 0(* MOWV& WOERLAINgMJ PLASTIC ^ sheeting /m Cj e.s7 e**© Cf- rio^sd_______ ^—/ G. Other _ X - X WIDTH Total Hardcover in Zone /U/w. Total Property A rea in Zone m S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. It. •“ S.F. -756Gr s-o S.F. p ,r>^c'*• *'.« •** ^ 'v S.F. • S.F.I S.F. W » S.F. » 4“**^ 3S^S.F. S.F S.F. _ S.F Q S.F. / 7'Z.(a'Z^^ S.F.B B X100 - HARDCOVER CALCUUMIOM WOnKSHE:ii ScTBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 '3 -50 Existing Hardcover in ^n£ 250-500' ;5u0-10C0' A. House Bi Garage ^> c. Drivexay D. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape areas underlain BY plastic sheeting G. Other S.p. length X WIDTH m • X m X m X m X SA X \n^. />?4 <? X a X 1 m Y . s.p. a*?. s.p. s.p. Str • . S.P.10 S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone - Total Property Area in Zone s.p. s.p. s.p. s.p. s.p. i -£.rr| X100 s.p. /3.(^ _% MZMOnS or a bbcoiar hbetzng held MHE 13, to tiM VlasniBf CoMiHHloa. Ilotloa* AyM (3) - H«r« (0). •Min mmi, •mt U* —eoo<^».y».n*£i. thDt this ▼wrlanoo irlll bm aay cImm of uoo £ro« • r««idmtiol o^ ^noofo ooEOEO# ohlch ItMMoiol «oo in tiM futttr*. Motloo, Ayoo (3) • iloyo (0). A xmpoxt VMm pcooootod to tho Cotuicil tHTlooko >• •' *T V. MtotioM fxoB tho I.6.S. Corporjtloo 2s sisrsStS^wKWi-*«» •oothoE osoo» o»4 to chock with tho hiOtosBOf 0*^ tho lof ihooT in rooord to ittrl-- ■oood# loUor oocondod, jo^jmt « !!^ueo to tho 75* ootbortlifcootinro pcoporty. Tho hordohlp^irfoe thio S*t8rS«?ih.t tho -dlo^ oco oil olooor to tho loko oad « _ _ _ _Jfo^oo Ithot to thot kjoo ctioo oro oU olooor to too *oiw««4* m«mio zoooonohlo for Nr* Nocosrory * oiThoiioo in aSo with othor houooo 5^'^liftiSd ri,ht o£ thoo^ they oro not 75* bock. Notion# (3) - Hoyo (0). ____MMd. Btirl** oocondod# to opprowo tho flnr^ plot for Nr* McCirffor^^Lotii #. **•*10 S”11. pat 427C0# north ihoro mil-'**— **rl*** *t th* CemeU CbtbA&n ot f ilO P*N* P090 3 smn*s utfioiHG lxcenss 3210 north Shore Driwo 440^8^ho Boy Bood 4<to Biyoido Beoi 4^ X#D*S* PEOPOSkh Vorionoo Blininotion VBBXMieB NcCoffosy aSs^nStVomdolo .. 1‘ J r i:' i •a »■ M L K-■^'T ^i. fillAf* Of OroBo Zoaiag VarlBBe* Application For omoial tft» ftnii V C bm Me. ^ iUr«otioM to Applicant: • .^•«• V >m out thla form in duplieoto by typing or’printing in ink. If tbo apnoos prerldod nro innnffloioBta um9% _ Yf r.< : ^«^itlonnl ahoot«; koyl^ 'inf '' /,*”it«i nnibor. '”i-: 'r rj • t I ij b.' . A^eh oU aupplanonUry MtorUl by pipor olip 0. m« dupliento opplionUona and filing t— 0( with Zoning Ateiniatmtor* ■■Tinn* Adorotn or ownor ve, •STnSSSn IM loaoi </7i-iHS7 (A omI . I. .. im y C- • MMption or rroporty intoivwdt ♦ ' 0 oa^thia proporty ooroor on or xlo part; adjoining aaniolpalityt rt>Ly w&than an 0* i^aont uaai VAdAC/r 7* rropoaaa iraat ^£51 8* Bait hvporty Aoqvdrodi 7T-f=T. SSir6AC^f< FtlOl^ UA<^ foUowiiv aaotiona of tha Zoning Ordinanoat 3/J#/ -75-.fi', SeTBAMT > .-• HA* AA AssXloAtion foP sonxoc vspxttio# ttB tft# ••■• pyopc hmmk «ot«d vDon by th«- Villac* Counoil uittdn tho loot bl* ■onthot Xf •©, ototo tbo dato of tlm yuiofo Oounoil • notion• A/6. '‘fouJirtS 5 dotnu nftorbofero o oojdonco oaa bo grnatod. lunin in dotnll nftor^ --------------------- ‘loafoiao w onoh ototmont idaoroin jour eooo pSSnprir^tno nrooioiono FOfuirionto aia fca oloior. atrtot ogpilonticn oi* nrooioiono of tno loni^ ordunnoo would voonlt in ^ ‘ al diffieultii OrnntliM of tho yarianoo ia nooooanry ^^5* and onjoxttont of a aubatontial Pfoyof^ ' «;nant and to alloTiato dOBonatrralouUl not aoroly aoroo aa a oonoonionoo to tha applioant. B^lain ia dotail. ^ ,-ri. ■«- i' C« rb [.■** /! k T" ■ ♦ i • • > - 0 I tiOM khm LoCrttmpm ot • lo%, Me^ptional topo^rttphlo or w«t«r eonditioaa or ottaor oactroordiaorj ond •xeoptloDOl condltiont of auoii lot) oppljlaK otruoturoi or land la quoatlon tbot aro poeuliar to ttao proporty iarolrod or Inadiataly adjoining proporty and do not apply gonoral^ to othor land or straoturoa la t^ diatrlot ia thieh laid land la leeatod. Explain ia datail. f- % • 1' • .i. *• •• > •«a 16, M^et oa^Qjgio^rh^d^aa^ cc^rahaaai . a . V Tariaaoo will , ___ _^- -—wr-w -- —— to adjacoat proporty, uaroaaoaa^y iaoroaao tha eoogaatita. la tho publio atrooto, iaoroaao tho daagor of firo, oadoagor tho public aafoty, uaroaooaably diaiaiah or lapair oatabliahod proporty valuoa in tho ourreuadiag aroa, or ia aay othor i«y laDOir hoalth, aafaty, eenfort, aorala, or ia aay othor roapoot bo eoatrary to tho iotoat of tte Zoning Ordiaaaoo and aay applioablo ooBprahanaira plan* &^laia ia dotail # ltdzE: ^Shm roIloMli^ aat^riai aust M aitaolMd to thia appiieatioo. 17* A aap or plat ahotdng tho propartj affoetod aad all laada ulthia 150 foot of tho bouadariaa of tho propartx affootod by propoaod ehango. (^__,,^^coploa) 16. Aa abatraetoro eortifiod proporty oortifleato llatiac tho aaaoo aad addroaaoo of tho owaoro of tho load wlthla 150 foot of tho beuadarios of tho affootod proporty ao thooo aaaoo ^ppoar oa ttio roeordo of tho Couaty Auditor of HooBopia Couaty, . • »- !Z t ' - v »♦ aaiTMM^odjuaynt and Siaaaturo: iho undoroiaaod horobr rooro* ooato t^a ail of tho poaaltioo of lav, for tho puxpooo of iaduoiag tho Viiiago of Oroeo to toko tho aotioa horoia ,ro<(aoatod, that all otatoMato horoia aro tmo aad that all aork horoia aoatlonod vtu bo doao ia aoeordaaoo with tho ordiaoaooo of tho Vino^ of Oroeo aad ttio lavo of tho Stato of Jttaaooota. - I V• »• t i IT.•> ' O !il^ (i/Aoiai cooBioato only: f . • » • • •- * • *• ».* r • A MINNEHAHA CRE^ WATERSHED DISTRICT jMuiary II• H74 McCaffrey ^1475 Shoreline Drive ^WnysAto, Minnesota 55391 ^ :Peroit Application 74 -♦• ;e ii • .. •;- »>' •• • • • * 1 • « e * ^-a ;': * V* •/ - Oroae •• e > ‘■'si »• ‘j^Vsetli*D*u Nr. McC»£frey: Tho ▼ariance will I^t 10# Mcrth Shore to bo built on of Lake MianotoBka in theCettaia Acres on Brown's Bay of fcaao iw— City of Orono. Siacoroly# V *1 • -'' ^ >•'4#. • *•;rBBIC watershed DISTRICTY rA\HllckokrP.B. ^_Bafiaoer for the District BAH/iv cc: ;. ' ■t , .* . <g^ f .* ♦. * *• , * * / • <* ••. • • • • •. *W»l « <’c Larry Kelley D, Marsten • - • Kf V V •♦M HI DtivruAf 1041 (.‘ROUND, 3-4 ft. abovs laka level mg (Alee beeeMQC floor level) Gp9 n. above lake level (Soae Reatoratloa) Ih IvJH (ilOUMD, 12 ft. above lake level PROroSES BOBSl’ *TV' ,* •* *.Tr*/*W*»^ • EXISTING MTU. LISTING 3 fc« StOM iNtalAla^ v.11 .••• ••••• PROf^ED Steoe Ibtalalag Vella tr>-» • * T j H LOU EVERCdjMS •* ............. ••• # EVERGREEN TREES ® CIAIW AUOtrXTil TUES A SLOPING cioiaa> >\\*- <4*. j 4 ' t Hi-y y-r rjjy I i^A v»1;^ <C^ iTM • •• m 0 * • a •• • •• • KIDV 1996 OKUNO MIlETING SCllEUyLE ■ COUNCIL CHAMBERS\—1 7:00 p.ltl. Couiuil MmilU 2ml <tUl Moiuln}'CD 7:00 p.iu. rhuiniiiK Coimnksiun 3rd Muiuhiy* 7:15 p.in. rnrU Comiuissiun Isl Monday \y 7:00 p.iii. Urono School Uoaid/oi Othci Kvciil DC Ollicial nolid;jy ♦PLANNlNi; COMMISSION - May through October - 1st Tuesday is an alternate meeting dale, 199G Januaiy S M 199G r W T P S A 3 d 5 C W10 11 12 13 ©17 10 19 20 23^2*1 2.5 20 2/ 29 31) 31 I'CbtiKuy S M 1 1990 F S 2 3 9 10 Mnrcli W T d Ziii 0 7 0 11 \35? Id 15 10 17 10 He© 21 22 23 2d 25lp?G]W 20 29 S M T W T 31 6 7 1996 F S 1 2 0 9 April S M T W 1996 T F S 17 no) 19 2d?M26 13 Id 15 10 20 21 22 23 27 20 29 30 PRC.(mHC_T 2.*s\Jco^ TiM A 2 3 4 5 67 1®'^ Id 21121^ 20 29 30 'J^IO 11 12 13 17 IB 19 20 2d 25 26 27 1990 Junor 2 r>M I W T 3 d 9 10 11 15 10 17 10 22 23 2d 25 29 30 31 •>C.*<C30C E.UCC_T VOK» 11 12 1990 F S 1 0 15 7 Id12 13 10' 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 20 29 1990 T F S X 0 11 12 13 10 19 20 123 2d 25 20 27 Au()U!;1 ‘ M8 T W 20 29 30 31 T d 7 0 11 ® 13 Id 15 10Q©20 21 22 23 2d 25^27 20 29 30 3l 1996 F S 2 3 9 10 16 17 Scplombor 1990 S M T W T F S 1 X 5 0 7 0 tplO/ilT 12 13 Id 3^17 1C G 22 13 2d 20 no 10 19 20 21 25 20 27 20 Ea_S.e_'T V QVV ____ Oulober M T W 0“' 2 0 9 13Vmi5 10 20gb22 23 2d 25 20 27^20 30 31 T 3 10 17 1990 F S d 5 11 12 10 19 November S M T W T 1990 F S A 1 2 6 7 0 9 10><\I|\13 Id 15 16 Cr?. 17dB>19 G 7 20 2t Z2 23 27 30 December S M T W T 1 A 3 d 5 6 0 iMlO 11 12 13 15 16 17 10 19 20 22 23 2d >< 26 27 20 30 31 1990 F S 7 Id 2 20 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINXTES FOR OCTOBER 16,1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date Nvith the following members present Chair Stephen Peterson, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, Charles Schroeder, who arrived alter Items »1 and 3 were discussed and Item ^6 was tabled. Candace Rowlette and Sandra Smith were absent The following represented the City Staff; Building and tuning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Galfron and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Callahan and Council Member Goetten were present Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m (#1) #2076 ROBERT ROBERTSON AND WELDON H. DUNN, 3535/3565 WATERTOWN ROAD - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, CLASS 1 - PUBLIC HEARING 7:01-7:04 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and .Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for a division of a smaller parcel The parcel to the east is less than the required 2 acres with the wetland with a slight encroachment into parcel B. Parcel A will be 2 acres and parcel B will remain at 3 acres There would be no encroachment ot the septic site areas The division line follows a fence and along a natural division created by higher elevations. A dedication of right-of-way via quit-claim deed for Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road is required. Peterson asked the Applicants if they were familiar with the Staff recommendations, in particular, the right-of-way dedication and survey, and received confirmation of this. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2076 with conditions 1-4 as noted. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#2) #2078 JENSEN HOMES, INC., 405 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:40-8:11 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and .Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Contractor, Mr. Jensen, was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#2 - #2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Mabusth reported that the application is for a 2-lot subdivision of a 10 acre parcel. The north lot is 7+ acres and Lot 2 is 3 5 acres i -c pioperty is located within two zoning distrias, LRl A to the north at 2 acres, and LRIB to the south at I acre lots The lot lines encroach both districts and setbacks are subject to the respective zoning. The driveway serves a parcel to the west, the Knight property, which is located in the LR1B zoning district and is 3 5 acres in size, and could be tlirthcr subdivided. Mabusth located the MUSA line. The property located to the west is within the MUSA, and the subject property is located out of the MUSA The existing septic is non-conforming and will need to be replaced Statf has asked for two septic sites for the northern lot. All tour sites would be a mound-type septic system The issue of the driveway is a concern for this application according to Mabusth. Traditionally, Staff would ask for an 30' outlot for the shared driveway, but this is not a back loPfront lot configuration Another application under sketch plan review on this agenda involves a property to the sou: bwest of this property and proposes the v acation of Oak Street and Clyde Place roadways with Linden Avenue to remain. This vacation may have an impact on this particular application If the two rights ot way are to be vacated, how is the City to maintain public access to property to west ol subject property’ Existing driveway easement would not meet access standards for development of 3 lots. Mabusth reviewed various options for achieving access to western property, ail involving the subject property. Staff ” has been notified that Ber."ett would not be in favor of any changes nor of the granting of any more right-ot way for Linden Avenue Jensen said the applicant would also be opposed to the d .eway outlot The owner would have a problem dedicating land fi-om her property where the subject property would not receive a benefit and only a negative impact on a future building site Peterson asked how it would be viable to gain access to the property. Jensen said the applicant would propose access without a cul-de-sac encroaching the Bennett property. He does not wish to create a plat and give up any portion of the property. Jensen said connecting Linden with the existing easement would only serve the Knight property. No future subdivision is proposed and the applicant would like to do private plantings on the south property line Barry Knight said he does not understand the terms used and asked for clarification on what was an outlot and what platting suggested. Mabusth replied that an outlot would enable the shared access drive to be seen on a plat map where easements are not designated Both areas of driveway outlets and easement driveway are deducted from lot area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#2 - i#2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Mabusth asked Jensen how wide is the easement shown on the deed Jensen said the width of the easement was not described to his recollection, only the width of the road. Knicht said it was his impression that a dimension was listed, but not the 30’ spoken ot. Jenin clarified that with an outlot Bennen would retain ownership and and Knight’s easement would be within that outlot The easement would also be excluded tfom the buildable ar? - Knight inquired about setbacks from the outlot, Mabusth said the setback would probably be 10’ and noted that 35’ would be the setback if it was a private or public road. Jensen noted that there are only two viable drainfield options and was concerned with any alternate site Hawn commented if the vacation was to the benefit of the three applicants of #2077. why not have any access on the properties of that application instead ot on the Bennett property Mabusth said the Planning Commission could ask for the exact dimensions ot easement, and if the Planning Commission felt it would be unfair to take an easement from Bennett that should be stated in your recommendation. Peterson asked why Bennett would be enposed to the outlot configuration if it serv es no hardship to either setbacks or drainfield and is two independently owned parcels and serves the Knight property Mabusth >aid it would affect the property as the side setback would be measured from the north lot line if the outlot as opposed to the south lot of proposed lot 2 There is no setback from an easement drive. Mark Gronberg said the registered survey shows two tracts. The outlot would just tngger the driveway serving two properties. He noted that it was always designated a driveway and would not result in any change. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if they would aUow the area in question for outlot designation to remain as a driveway easement. Mabusth said Kni^t wants to keep the driveway easement, but this easement could never serve a future division of the Knight property Lindquist commented that the solution does not aid the Bennett property. Lind^ist said the applicant is asking whether the propeny can be subdivided. He asked if the City can forc^ an outlot or leave as an easement. Mabusth said the area can be left as an easement, u.ut the area of the easement must be excluded from lot area. Lindquist suggested leaving the area as an easement. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#2 - #2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Mabusth commented that Statf would want the easement defined on the plat. It was again noted it was unclear how much area was designated on the abstract Gronberg suggested looking at the traveled road. Lindquist said designation of the number of feet for the easement would be required Knight suggested the application be tabled until all parties involved in the two applications can meet and discuss a solution satisfactory to all parties Schroeder suggested tabling the application until the facts of the later application were made known Jensen asked if the original deed does not specify an easement width, if it could be ap^oved subject to the survey by Gronberg of the roadway It was noted that the easement and roadway need to be designated as the numbers may difter. There was also concern if the septic site was in the easement Jensen noted the easement would only benefit Knight and not the general puolic He also asked if the approval could be based on what the deed shows as the easement Peterson said without knowing the size of the easement, the Planning Commission would need to table the application. Lindquist said the Commission also needed to gain inlbrmaiicn on the other properties in question. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2078 subject to determining the size of the easement and the knowledge of the other affected application. Knight commented that he would also like to hear the facts of the other application and suggested that application be tabled also. Mabusu splied that Application #2077 is a sketch plan review only and no motion would be needed. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2031 BRUCE R. KELLY, 2340 FOX STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:04-7:09 P.M. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a division of two lots of a 6 acre homestead parcel. The preliminary survey has been completed Principal and alternate septic sites have also been determined for each lot. The future owner of the 4 acre lot will need to understand the impact of an easement on lot area The existing driveway location can be shared by the east lot. No variances would be required. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO\L\nSSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#3 - #2031 Bruce Kelly - Continued) Peterson asked Kelly if he understood the Staff recommendation and the need for P^k D^ication lee on the new lot and a drainage easement. Kelly said he was not tamiliar with these requirements and was concerned with the process. He asked that the application be approved and moved forward He did not wish to discuss the application further. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval ot Application #2031 with conditions 1-4 as noted. Vote; .Ayes 4. Nays 0, Abstain 1, Schroeder, who was not present for the entire discussion. (#4J #2041 PHIL AxND DARCY OTTO, 4116 HIGHWOOD ROAD - AFTER-THE FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC h£1 aR1NG 8;II-«:I9P.M. The applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application was an after-the-fact application for excavation ot street yard which followed a recent variance application. The current application involves the creation of an additional curb cut, two tiers of retaining walls, and placement of approximately 150 to 200 cubic yards of fill in east side yard and rear. Mr. Sauer, a neighbor to the east, voiced concern with the filling and any impact runoff would have on his property where the drainage flows into. The application was tabled to gain the City Engineer's input on the drainage issue. Mabusth said Cook reported that there was no perceivable impact from the filling Mr. Sauer was notified and asked to attend this meeting if he had any further concern. Sauer was not in attendance Mabusth said a 3 ; 1 slope was impossible to obtain for the east side yard. The yard hM been graded at a 2:1 slope and planted with crown vetch. A special seeding and erosion blanket will be laid to hold the dirt in place until the plantings take hold. Mabusth said a catch basin was originally discussed. There is now drain tile in place which will collect the runoff from road into a trench, then flows underground and directed out to the rear yard Staff recommends approval with the City Engineer to reinspect when 1) final grading is completed before stormwater improvements are installed and 2) after seeding. The Applicant ncaed that alot of detail has been reviewed with the Engineer. Mabusth informed the applicant that it was important that the Engineer is called in to reinspea at these cntical times. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#4 - #2041 Phil and Darcy Otto - Continued) Schrocder inquired and received conlirmation that Sauer had no further objections. Otto said he has not spoken with Sauer since the last meeting The owner to the east, according to Otto, has given his approval of the plan as he has not responded to Staffs letter Lindquist asked if the applicant was still parking his boat on the curb cut The applicant said he stores the boat off site. There were no public comments. Lii^uist moved. Berg seconded, to approve .Application #2041 for w after-the-fact conditional use permit with Staff recommendations 1-4 and final grading approved by the Ci? Engineer The owner is to arrange for inspections by the City Engineer before seeding and after seeding. Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2056 .MICHAEL AND BARBARA WIGLEY, 1035 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARLNG 8;19-S:28 P.M. The applicants were represented by landscaper, .Matt Laue. Gaffron reported that the proposal has been revised. The initial proposal was for a retaining wall located at the base of the slope wnth fill behind it. Another boulder wall was to be constructed at the top of the hill with grading and fill to flatten out the area. The property has a steep bank to the lakeshore The house on the property is fairly new. There are presently 3 ; 1 and 2 1 slopes The applicants are concerned with poison ivy on the slopes. Gaflron reported that the Planning Commission has previously rejected the idea of grading to eUminate the poison ivy Planning Commission suggested elimination of the lower boulder wall Gaffi-on asked Laue about the drain tile found on the property. Laue said it begins on the upper stair to the front and ewts by a tree. He sees no ftmetion for the tile and feels grading above the slope will do a better job m eliminating erosion. .Another issue of concern was with the portion of the 0-75' area lined with fabric covered by mulch Gaflron said this was hardcover but there may be a good reason for the matenal to exist. There are no hardcover calculations for the property If approval is recommended, hardcover calculattions wiU be needed for the existing and proposed walls and fabric. The only other e.xisting hardcover in the 0-75' is the stairs and lops of boulders MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.ANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 #5 - #2056 Michael and Barbara Wigley - Continued) Gafiiron said if the Planning Commission was in favor ot the revision, clarification should be prov ided on what walls could be erected and what fill or grading could be done. The applicant was notified that it was not the intent of the Commission to recommend any grading in the slope area containing poison ivy Lindquist said he w as concerned with hardcover in the 0-75’ but was in fav or of the walls near the house. Peterson said he did not recommend any retaining wall at the bottom of the hill and was undecided on recommending the boulder wall at the top of the hill He understood the applicant's attempt in addressing concerns of the property. .Although he was not in favor of the retaining walls, he would give his approval tor their construction. Laue commented that the tabric was only in the area behind the retaining wall It is his intent to remove the fabric as the mulch will accomplish the same purpose. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval limited to the boulder wall at the top of the hill only due to erosion problems The approv al is subject to the removal of the fabric throughout the property No grading is allowed down to the shore line. Hawn inquired if all of the plantings as originally described would still occur. Laue said the plantings as designed will be planted. He was unsure of what plantings would be done on the slopes. Peterson emphasized that while planting on the slope was okay, no grading could be done Laue suggested, when asked, that the poison ivy be removed by leather gloved hands during cold weather Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2059 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, 1485 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 20TH MEETING) Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2059 per the request of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#7) #2061 ARNE WASBERG, 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARUNCE RENEWAL - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:28-8:31 P.M. The Applicant was present. NUNirreS OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONPvlISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 - #2061 Ame Wasbcrg - Continued) Mabusth reported that the new owners of the property have filed to renew the original variance application Peterson asked Mr Wasberg why he w'ould wish to do so Wasberg said he purchased the house in February of 1995 and wants to refurbish the house. In or(^ to do so, it would require a variance This renewal would allow* him time to dev elop apian Mabusth noted that the applicant has removed all of underliner hardcover on the property. It was noted that the 2-story improvement was not to encroach the lagoon any further than existing structures The approval included a deck The applicant has advised that they would like to remove the existing driveway at North Shore Drive and relocate a new access at the existing driveway to the south. They would plant evergreens along North Shore Drive to provide a landscape buffer to the noise and activities on the county road. M^sth further added that the applicant's plan was improvements to the home would not be as ambitious as that of the previous owner. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2061 because it had been approved in the past. Even if changes were made, Schroeder noted the changes would be to the better There were no public comments Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#8) #2065 MR & MRS. SAMUEL MARFIELD. 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE/MR & MRS. H. DOUGLAS HILL, 2425 DOUGLAS PINE LANEAVILLUM TOLES, 2435 SCOTCH PINE LANE - VACATION OF SCOTCH PINE LANE, VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (REPLAT) - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:31-8:58 P.M, The Applicants were present. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.ANNTNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#8 - #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Galfron reported that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, the application was discussed and tabled awaiting rcNiew by the Long Lake Fire Department regarding how^ the vacation of Scotch Pine would affect the ability of the fire department in fighting a tire on these properties New exhibits as part of this package include a review of the City s policy and philosophy regarding public roads, the BRW Fire Protection review ot the traffic and environmental conditions, and a revised preliminary plat. The .Martields and Hills would share a dnvevvay from the existing cul-de-sac with each party increasing the size of their parcels with the vacation of the road The vacation and replat would enable the Hills to have a continuous piece of property to the lake Mr Toles w ould access his residence through a new driveway from CoRd 51 There would occur some narrowing of the driveway serving the Marfields and Hills sdke Brown of the Long Lake Fire Department was in attendance and reported on the concerns of the fire department Brown said the department requires a certain road width to aUow for staging for trucks to get past each other The roadway also needs to be able to handle 40,000 lbs of equipment Brown said with the street as it is, there is room for the fire department to operate. The trucks would not be able to access the portion ot the driveway to the Toles residence The Hill property with dnvevvay as proposed will allow the street to remain the same with the entry area narrower The .Martields, while asking to narrow their driveway entrance, have been asked by the fire department to maintain the road at a wider width, which will enable fire trucks and their RV to gain access to the house The fire department would like the driveway to the Toles residence to be wide enough to enable personnel to walk around the area Brown said he would need a road width of 16’ able to support a weight of 40,000-50,000 lbs. This would be asking more than required by the City, and he would accept the same as a City street. The City code requires a road to handle 46,000 lbs. Brown noted that this is the first time the fire department has been asked what needs they have for a private driveway. Peterson asked Brown, if he had a choice, would he keep the road as it now exists Brown said he is not in favor of cul-de-sacs as the residence becomes cut off once the equipment is set up. The fire department would benefit from gaining a wider road, and he is in approval of eliminating the cul-de-sac and the proposal as revised. Hill noted that the revision mvolves maintaining some of the driveway blacktop. Gaffron reported that besides the fire issue, there is the issue of subdivision performance standards The properties contain three building sites and access to the lake. By today's standards, three lots in a rural zone require a private road Gaffron said he is concerned with moving standards backwards with approval ot this application. The applicants have provided a response on why they feel the proposal is appropriate and unique to the surroundings. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.ANTsfTNG CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#8 - #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Martield read these findings into the minutes and are part of this package. He noted that Scotch Pine is the one 3-iot cul-de-sac that drains into the lakeshorc, and it has been a 20- year elfort to gain the grass and trees back to the property Marfield said this vvas the only 3-lot cul-de-sac with one lot in two parts divided by a road Due to its location, the public is attracted to the road in order to gain access to the lake, yet there is none Martield said all three applicants are supportive of the proposal He also noted that other properties in the area have more than one driveway access, where these properties have only the one access Gaffron said another standard issue is with 3 lots currently abuting a public road and now Msu^eld's property will abut only an outlet. Gafiron said this creates a back lot configuration He also noted the lot size being substandard with 1 acre lots in 2 zoiRng acre Easements are also an issue The existing utility easements would need rededication if changed A letter from Minnegasco asks if Scotch Pine is vacated, an easement for their facilities should be granted over the existing roadway NSP is not m favor of the proposal, but Gaflron is of the opinion that the easement could be worked out with NSP. Gafiron noted that a drainage plan has been provided, but it has not been reviewed as ot yet by the City Engineer. A catch basin would be eliminated and runoff would flow over land as area is revened back to grass. Engineer's review would be required prior to presentation to the Council. Gaflron said the neighbors to the east, the Levy's, ask for a 15' setback for the new driveway to the Toles property Gaffron said this was not a code requirement except that no grading is normally allowed within 5' of the lot line Toles said he would honor this request. Gaffron voiced concern over the possibility of setting a precedent by approving a proposal which is in contrast to what is being currently asked of other subdivisions. Gaflron noted that CoRd 51 is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as a parkway, which functions as a collector. The code for collector roads does not require new lots to use an internal access, but the comprehensive plan suggests that this be done when it is possible. Gaflron indicated the Planning Commission should make specific findings of uniqueness if they approved the proposal. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER I 1995 (?8 - »2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Peterson said he was in favor of retaining a road and utilitv' easement for possible future needs of the City He asked what opinion others had if approval for the proposal was given while maintaining the easement tor the cul-de-sac Toles said the parties ot the application would need to discuss the matter, but he v as of the opinion that if the cul-de- sac was turned back to grass, no one would care to change it again to blacktop in the future Martield said he was worried that another governmental body would make the change once again to blacktop in t^e future, and he would be uncomlortable with maintaining the easement after working so hard to eliminate it. Schroeder asked Staff if these properties w ere a possible candidate for a loop road but was told by Gaffron no Schroeder acknowledged the uniqueness of these properties and not^ the undesirability of a cul-de-sac except for fire department use, which is disputable. There were no public comments Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2065 as revised for the removal of the cul-de-sac and addition of a driveway from the Toles residence to CoRd 51 with a 15' side setback for reasons stated in the memos, specifically, reduction in hardcover, result of fire depanment review which showed no increased risk, with approval by Mn/DOT for additional curb cut, approval for vacation of Scotch Pine with conditions as noted, approval of replat, and rededication ot utility easements. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays I, Peterson, for reasons of sening a precedent and desire for maintaining the cul-de-sac easement for future access if needed. (#9) #2066 ROBERT AND IRIS WAADE, 1487 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:58-9:11 P.>L The Applicants were present. Gafiron reponed that the application was before the Commission at the last meeting for a number of variances to remodel and build an addition to the residence on Shoreline Drive. The lot is small and does not lend itself for rebuilding The house and garage currently has a carport and is covered with a flat roof. The original proposal was for a second story with a 10:12 pitch roof From the lake side, the house was proposed at a ground-to-pcak height of 46’ but technically did meet the code height limit. The Planning Commission’s earlier review concluded that the proposal was too ambitious for the lot. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.XNNTNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#9 - =2066 Robert and Ins Waade - Continued) Gaflfron said the revised proposal calls tor hardcover removal with cutting back the driveway area. The revision would alter the foot print area with the addition of a garage stall and an entryway area. The sharp comers would be cut otf and an area would be bumped out There would be no second story Some additional height would be gained from a 10 12 pitch roof over the entire struaure The residence w ould encroach past the average lakeshore setback \ side setback variance would be required as the garage would be located within the 30’ setback. The new setback is proposed at 16’ where it now exists at 8', The bump out is located at 19’ from the side lot line. The entry is within the 0-75’ zone. The house would encroach 13’ past the average setback with the new roof. Gaffron noted that the house located to the north of this property is on low topography and would not be affected by this proposal. The house to the south has minimum view ov% applicant’s house now and would no longer have any view the lake with this proposal. Gaffron reported that the lot coverage with this proposal would be at 15.37% where 15% is allowed. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone exists at 39 18® o and is proposed at 36.14%. 25®/o hardcover is allowed in the 75-250’ zone and exists at 15.96% and would be decreased to 9 25“/o 1 he hardcover for the driveway portion serving the neighbor is not included in the calculations. No height variance would be required with the new roof proposed at a ground-to-peak height of 35.8’. The applicant said it was his desire to minimize the impact of the house on the property and neighborhood while still gaining a house up to today's standards. Hawn inquired what would become of the broken asphalt on the property near the shoreline. Waade said it will be removed and replaced witn pea rock, which he understands to be non-hardcover. Lindquist asked about the open area between the house and garage. This would be expanded for the master bedroom. When inquiring about the size of the garage, Lindquist was told the garage would be increased to a 3 -stall from its present 2-stall configuration. Schroeder was concerned with reduction of rock/plastichardcover in the 0-75’. Gaffron said the entryway area included rock and plastic which was not noted in the calculations. It was noted that the 4 ’ overhang would be eliminated and replaced with 1-1/2' overhang, which has not been figured into the calculations as eaves are not defined in the code as whether they are actual hardcover. Hawn gave her support of the proposal noting the applicant's diligence in keeping additional hardcover to a minimum while gaining the desirco space P.Ui f.llflil* ra»in*j ^raiiTt mtWiUtJ urn [•mtnflH RTinmri'j ftlfliW* rtT^^i •ICtJtJ rtwi*P.lirinI •KtltliilK mm%i fti r«ithitc»rtifVt r*7;T ^ TuimwilJ L«' ^lilEIIil^[fll Uw)C«J rtHK« % MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) It has been suggested by Staff that a retention area be created to hold runnoff to eliminate the possibility of flooding. Spot elevations will be provided by Gehring. The portion of the garage area which is in the flood plain will require a matching excavation at the same area to offset the encroachment Mabusth said that the setback requirements for the garage will be met. There is an excess of hardcover in the 0-75’ zone of 24-®'o. The hardcover limit will be met in the 75-250' zone. No removal of hardcover is proposed within the 0-75’ setback zone. A shed on the property will be removed. Lindquist asked what the elevations were, and where the pond would be built. Mabusth said the flood plain is at 931.5’, and the garage would be located between 931.5 and 931'. Th^Ppond would be located on the shared lot line between the Gehring and Palm properties Schroeder asked if both parties were in agreement on the building of the pond. Gehring said he met with Palm and another neighbor. Mrs Traynor, who has concerns with drainage in the neigt.torhood. A make-shift pond was built this summer by installing a pipe from under the Gehring and Palm property. It was tested and found to be a workable solution. The grading proposal suggests using a pipe for drainage to flow into and lead to a neighborhood swale. The pipe tested was 4-6" wide. Mabusth commented that the engineering plan would need to be reviewed by the City Engineer and the MCWD. Schroeder asked what the normal size is of a 2-car garage. Mabusth said it is usually 24’x24'. Lindquist noted that the proposal is for a 3-car garage. Schroeder asked the applicants if they had considered building a smaller garage with the amount of hardcover that is located in the 0-75’ zone. Gehring responded that the size of the garage enables him to keep all equipment inside, such as a trailer, instead of sitting out on the property. It is also his opinion that a 3-car garage is standard today. Gehring said the driveway has been minimized. He noted that the shed is to be removed, and no hardcover will exist between the garage and the house. Peterson informed the applicant that approval of the garage would affect any future ciuuiges to the property He noted that many older homes are being removed and new homes built. If this were the case on this property with the larger garage and the hardcover issue, the applicant would have difficulty in gaining approval for a larger house. The applicant responded that if a new house were to be built, it would be the same size and the 15% lot coverage lintitation would be considered. He noted that there is no variance required at this time for lot coverage. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANTMIN'G COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Schroeder noted that the lot coverage is at 15% now. He is concerned with intensification of the structures on the property. Schroeder said the applicant may wish to consider moving the structures back on the lot and noted that the 3-car garage is limiting the applicant for any future building. Schroeder commented that many people feel a 2-car garage is a right in Minnesota but was not convinced that a 3-car garage was the standard. Berg commented that a 3-car garage was becoming the normal size tor a garage. The applicant responded that the size difference between a 2-car and a 3-car garage is minimal. Hawn noted that keeping utility vehicles within a garage is a good idea. Peterson asked for the Commission to look at the application in two parts with the first issue being the retaining wall Tofn Palm, owner of the property to the north of the applicant, commented that the temporarv pipe used to alleviate pooling of water was 4" in size. A ditch was dug which moved the water toward the larger swale. It was determined that there were no problems with this solution as the pipe was found to handle a 6" rain with no standing water. Palm saw no problem with recreating the pipe as a permanent solution. He noted it was to his benefit to see that the water has a place to go. Lindquist said he had no problem with the retaining wall. He did note that ice will eventually take the wall out, which would not occur if rip rap was used. Peterson noted that the Engineer did say it was only a temporary solution. The applicant commented that a neighboring property has a similar waU, which has lasted for the past 5 years with no problem. He noted maintenance may be required and is aU right with that. Lindquist asked how far back the wall would be built. Mabusth said there is a natural sand beach, and the wall would be 6’ from the normal shoreline. Schroeder asked if it should be a concern with the Planning Commissioners if the solution was not permanent if the applicant was in favor of the proposal. Peterson said the area could be left natural. He understood that while the waU works for the neighbor, the Planning Commission needs to rely on the expertise of the City Engineer. He commented that the wall could cause further problems but was not troubled with the installation of the wall. Schroeder noted that the appUcant has an incentive to keep the wall in good repair to save the beach area. MIMJTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION NffiETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#10 - »2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Hawn moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval of the retainmg wall with Staff recommendations Vote; .Ayes 5, Nays 0. As for the garage, Lindquist asked if the Comnussion w as able to approve a garage without understanding where the pond would be located Peterson said he had the same concern Mabusth said this was a recent issue. Statfis unable to issue a permit without seeing an approved grading plan by the Corp of Engineers and the MCVM). The applicant said he was told by the MCWD that preliminary approval would be requir^ from the City before the MC\VD would look at the issue Gehring asked it the City would approve the application for the garage with the condition that the required permits were received from the Corp of Engineers and the .MCWD Mabusth said she was not colhfonable with bringing the application before the Council with questions unanswCT^. The applicant said it was his plan to build the garage this tall. Schroeder commented that the City Engineer would need to approve the drainage plans. Peterson said the Council would not approve the garage without the permits in hand from the Corp of Engineers an the MCWD. The applicant noted that the meeting of the MCWD was scheduled for October 9, and the Council meeting was scheduled for Oaober 13. Mabusth questioned whether Palm would need to be jointly involved with the creation of the pond. Palm said it was his understanding that his pan would be only where the pipe is located. Mabusth said the retaining pond would possibly be located on the Palm property too. Palm said he was unsure of this and thought the pipe would carry the drainage to the swale on his property. Peterson noted that the solution may be a swale, but it was possible that a swale may not be enough, and a pond would be required. Lindquist was of the opinion that the pond should be a joint proposal by both Gehring and Palm. Mabusth noted that Staff will be working with both parties on storm water management. Lindquist asked if conceptual approval could be granted. Mabusth said matching retention areas on the property would be required to compensate for the flood plain. Schroeder said if Staff could continue to work with the appUcation, was the Commission and Staff comfortable with turning the proposal over to the City Engineer in this form. Peterson voiced some concern with the size of the structure. Mabusth clarified that it was not an oversized structure and did meet the required setbacks. The excess hardcover is m the 0-75' zone and not in the 75-250' zone. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the constmaion of the 3-car garage with the understanding that the application not proceed to CouncU until it has been approved by the City's Public Works Direaor and City Engineer, the iMCWD, and the Corp of Engineers. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ("10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Schroeder asked who sets the code for the flood plain areas. Mabusth reported that is is a federal flood plain regulation Lindquist continued that the application may involve the Palm property Mabusth said Palm may need to extend an easement to the City. Paim said he would be in agreement to this as he would like to solve the issue together notii^ the historic drainage problems in the area Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #2075 HOWARD R. ALTON, HI, 1635 CONCORDIA STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA^ARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARLNG 9:15-9:18 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a conditional use permit and variance to allow alteration of 17 cubic yards within the 90 lineal foot section of the shoreline. Ice movement has created erosion problems for the sand bank ridge. The applicant proposes to restore the bank to a 3:1 slope in order to grow grass. Gustafson has reviewed the application and said it was the best solution Richter of the DNR also noted his approval and the need for no plantings. This proposal is a natural approach for solution to erosion, and the applicant was commended for taking this aproach. Mabusth said that while the City Engineer has approved the proposal, he noted if the bank is to retain a minimum 3:1, the bank would have to be cut back 5-8 and would result in the removal of about 34 cubic yards instead of 17. The applicant would then place 8 cubic yards of clean soil to be covered with sod. The applicant noted his preference for this change. Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2075 with Staff recommendations 1-4. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) #2079 RICK PERRY, 440 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:18-9:30 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. MINLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMVUSSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#12 - #2079 Rick PeiT>’ - Continued) Mabusth reported that the property is located on the east side of Willow. The applicant had previously received approval for a setback variance for a garage located in front ot the principal structure. It did not meet the current standards but was approved at a 5' side setback The City did not address the need for a variance with garage placed in front ot the principal structure. The existing garage was placed 6.4' from the side lot line. W'ith the addition, the garage becomes an oversized structure, the structure is now subject to more restrictive area and setback standards The 62 acre parcel is allowed 1000 s t. of oversized accessory structure. The proposed garage would require an area variance ot 77 s.f or 7 7®'o. The structure would now require a setback of 30* and is proposed at 6.4*. Mabusth noted that the same hardships of the earlier application still hold true. There are ste^ topographies on the lot The narrow lot limits access to rear of residence The only geftle sloped areas are in rear yard where septic is located, and this area is needed for future septic need -. Peterson noted the dimensions of the oversize structure and lot coverage increasing from 13.5% to 18.1% He asked the applicant why four additional garage stalls were needed Perrv said the stalls would be used for his collector cars. Mabusth noted that when the detached garage was approved, the applicant has stated he was going to convert the original garage space to living space. Perry said he did not do so as he and his wife did not have as many children as they had previously planned. He acknowledged that the proposal would increase his garage space to 6 stalls. Schroeder asked if the applicant was going to use the space for a business. Perry said no. Schroeder asked where he now places the vehicles. The applicant said 3 cars are in the tuck-under garage, one is being restored, and h^kes and the like are sitting outside of the detached garage. There were no public comments. Peterson said he was personally opposed to the proposal as it was creating a huge oversize structure for a small lot. Lindquist agreed that this would be too much structure. The applicant asked if he built a structure keeping within the 1000 s.f allowable, if this would be allowed and no variances needed. Mabusth said side setback variance would still be required. .Any structure placed in front of the principal structure requires a variance. The applicant felt that the garage would be a better alternative than leaving materials stored outside. Mabusth noted that there was alot of material outside now. The applicant said it was his desire to plant evergreen trees to hide the structure from view as well as installing a hip roof to lower the profile of the house. Mabusth asked the applicant about the power pole. Perry said he spoke with NSP, who said they would move the pole. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.ANNING COMNDSSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#12 - #2079 Rick Perry - Continued) Hawn said she was of the opinion that 6 staUs ot garage space was excessive with stalls being the norm. Lindquist moved. Hawn seconded, to deny Application #2079 due to excessive lot coverage for the size of the lot. V'ote: Ayes Nays 0 (#13) #2080 GREG AND DANA KELLENBERGER. 4045 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:30-9:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the applicants have two development plans tor additions to their residence located in the 5-acre zoning district. The existing house is located in a substandard location at 51’ where 100' is required for the front/street setback. The 24 ’x24 ’ detached garage shown as Option A would require a street setback. Option B involves an attached garage to the residence requiring a 50' side setback and is proposed at 26. The front/street setback from Watenown Road would be at 52'. The existing driveway at east lot line can be saved and used to approach the back yard. A second curb cut further to the west has been approved by John Gerhardson. Option A would place a driveway very close to the septic site. The Option B for an attached garage would allow access to the rear of the property along east side. Staff recommends Option B. Peterson asked the applicant which option he prefers. The applicant prefers Option B as it gives them a spot for a patio to the rear ot the residence. Peterson suggested the Commission review Option B for the attached garage. It was noted that the deck does not exist on Option B but the covered porch remains. The two-story home would remain but the flat roof addition with a tuck-under garage would be removed and rebuilt in same location. The applicant commented that they have horses and would prefer to keep the existing driveway to use for the horse trailer as it is a safer route to the west being located on a higher portion of the roadway. Mabusth said Gerhardson would need to approve maintaining the two accesses. There were no public confimcnts. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2080 for Option B for front/street setback vanance of 48 ’ and side setback variance of 24* for an attached garage. If two driveways are to be maintained, they would need the approval of Gerhardson. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#14) #2081 PATRICK .\>D NANCY WALSH, 1390 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:40-9:58 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Walsh was present Mabusth said that she and Mr. Walsh met today and w ent over Staff concerns. The proposal at this time is amended from that in the packet as a result of this meeting. The proposal is for two single story additions at the sides of the residence consisting of a mud room/kitchen with eating area, an expanded master bedroom with a walk-in closet and expanded bedroom on the second story, which would encroach the average lakeshore setback by 9’ and encroach the 75’ line by 9' The upper lev-el above the garage would be for a recreation room or bedrom located 20 ’ from the street lot line and require a street variance because of the intensification The hardcover in the 0-75' zone exists at 11.9*/'o and proposed at same percentage. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone e.xists at 40.2% and proposed at 56 3% for an increase of 774 5 s f of 16%. The stoop will be roofed under the proposal and. thereby, included in the structural coverage. The views and plans were shown to the Commission members The structural coverage is proposed at 20.1% and with stoop, adjusted at 21.4%. The amended proposal reduces the master bedroom by 44 s.f, eliminates the 80 s.f mudroom, reduces the 14 s f entry, shows removal of 91.75 s.f. of plastic, and removal of deck structure with fencing and planter with plastic. The amended calculations for hardcover with 75-250' area existing at 41%, originally proposed at 56.3%, is amended at 51.5% or a 11.2% increase. The 75-250' hardcover variance would be reduced by 4.8%. Lindquist asked if there was any change in the 0-75* zone. Mabusth said there was none and was same as originally proposed at 11.9%. All new improvements are in the 75-250* zone. The amended hardcover variance in this zone would be reduced to 26.5%. Mr. Walsh said he realized the lot was small but so was the house. Any expansion would require a variance. The house is at 800 s.f with a 3/4 bath, no utility room, and no kitchen eating space. The house is centered on the lot and is a cape code style wnth a low profile. The additions to each side would balance off the house. The roof on the garage would give the house a higher profile. The proposal is to give the residents more living space. The entry is to aid entry from an icy area. Walsh acknowledged to Schroeder that they have lived in the house for 17 years. There were no public comments. NUxVUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#14 - #2081 Patrick and Nancy Walsh - Continued) Peterson told Walsh he understood the need for improvements but noted the substandard lot by the lakeshore. The applicant said that is why they have tried to keep the improvements to a minimum. Peterson said he would not approve any improvements in the 0-75' and noted all improvements were to be made in the 75-250' zone. Schroeder commented that the lot coverage would increase from 15% to 19.9%. He acknowledged that the additions were not large but that the lot was so small. Hawn said she was undecided She noted the appeal in filling out the rectangle of the house but questioned whether any improvements should be allowed that increase the size of the residence. Hawn was concerned that paring down the mud room seemed silly. Mabusth said that the applicant read the Staff memo and came in on his own volition to distuss changes Lindquist said he had mixed feelings but noted the addition was minimal. Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2081 as amended. Vote: .Ayes 3, Peterson, Hawn, Lindquist, .Nays, 2, Berg, Schroeder, both commenting that it was too small a lot to consider any additions. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#15) #2077 CHARLES W. HOMMEYER, JEFFREY A. BOWEN, KENNETH B. HOLLAND, 4119/4127/4125 OAK STREET - REPLAT AND VACATION OF PUBLIC ROADS AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the sketch plan review is for a replat of 15 lots and the vacation of Clyde Place, Park Ave., and the western section of Oak Street. The replat will create 3 lots. Lots 1 and 2 would share access from Linden Avenue. Lot 3 would use the existing driveway extending from Oak Street. 4111 Oak Street is served from the same driveway. Oak Street is maintained by the City to Oak and Linden intersection, the western end of Oak Street serves 4 properties and is maintained by property owner. With the replat, access for two lots, 4111 and 4119 Oak Street, will be via the driveway outlot. Access to the steep ravine area will be retained via a platted 15 alleyway. Staff questions whether the City should retain a walkway easement from the east to the ravine. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.XNNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#15 - #2077 Replat and Vacation - Continued) Mabusth reviewed the street vacation application. Parcel A. the Knight property', is located in the LR-IB zone within the MUSA. Knight could ask for sewering of this property as well as subdivide with as many as three lots If vacation ot the only two public accesses to this property is approved, the City must provide access to a public road. The City approved a lot area variance for Lots 1-4, Block 3 Mabusth said she met with the applicants and found that it may be possible to maintain public access from Linden but with the loss of one small lot. The applicant would give 50' so there would be no need to enter the Bennett property. If a cul-de-sac were to be built, there were several options as to the location Mabusth said Bennett indicated he would withdraw his application if required to dedicate a cul-de-sac. 20 additional teet will be sought for Linden Avenue. The Planning Commissioners had questioned whether a loop road would be an alternative in this subdivision. Mabusth said the applicants would lose the whole purpose for the replat if they went to that configuration It is the applicants plan tor Lots 1 and 2 to share access up to where Clyde Place is to be vacated and then branch off to their individual homes. Lot 3 would continue to gain access as it does now. Schroeder asked if the problem with Bennen giving any private dedication was that there was no benefit to his property. He suggested that Knight cut through the easement to give the benefit to Bennett. Knight responded that he did not wish to do so as the aesthetics of the driveway with driving through a canopy of trees would be lost. Schroeder said the alternate would be the cul-de-sac should Knight subdivide. Lindquist clarified that the City needs to provide an opportunity for public access to Knight Hawn asked if there was not a grandfathering of the existing easement for ingress and egress if Knight were to subdivide. Honmeyer said it would not meet the requirement for public roads. It was suggested that some land be purchased from Bennett. The applicants said they would desire for this to happen Knight noted that this is why he recommends no action taken until all parties can discuss the applications. Honmeyer said if land could be purcahsed from Bennett, Knight would have his access. 50' is needed for the access but the properties would be dealing with more intense use in the future. There is a possibile division of three lots on the Knight property. Honmeyer said he would wish to keep the back portion of the property as buildable. Lindquist acknowledged that access to the Knight property would need to be worked out. i 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAiNNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (^15 - ^2011 Replat and Vacation - Continued) Schroeder said it would be an incentive tor all to work out the details and suggested tabling the review to allow the panics involved to meet. Ken Rolland asked why the road needs to be a 50’ width, which he felt was not practical. Mabusth asked about the cul-de-sac and where it belongs on the roadway. Staff is coming from the opinion that the cul-de-sac should be located at the true end of the roadw ay to eliminate driveways coming off of the road in all directions. Rolland said if 50 were not needed, there would be more negotiating room. Peterson said the amount was not set but an idea on the what the width might be is necessary. Rolland emphasized how treacherous the ravine was and considered it a liability. Mabusth said it was appropriate to question whether the City would want to take an walking easJlnent to this ravine. Ann Honmey er asked how much property would be needed to be purchased from Bennett if he would sell. Peterson said Staff could give directions regarding the amount. Mabusth said the two other sketches could be reviewed not involving the cul-de-sac. Schroeder asked the members -o c'-i^.i^der bow that sketch would affect Bennetts subdivision plans. Peterson said he would prefer the cul-de-sac be located at the end of the development. Honmeyer added that may be no cul-de-sac is needed. Peterson said that was a possibility. The applicants will attempt to meet together with the applicants of #2078 to discuss both applications and how they would affect each other. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#16) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE attending council MEETING OF OCTOBER 9,1995 No member of the Planning Commission attended the October 9, 1995 meeting of the Council. (#17) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION It was noted that private driveways were discussed at a recent work session. Gaflfron has begun to formulate a paper reviewing conditions under which variances to the private driveway code would be considered. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN“NING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#18) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MLNUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 MEETING Schroeder moved. Hawn seconded, to approve the Minutes of the September 18, 1995 meeting of the Park Commission Vote; Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#19) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE NOVEMBER 13,1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Schroeder will attend the November 13. 1995 meeting of the Council. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn at !0 30 p m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person 24