Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-10-1995 Council Packet
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1995, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the ^^order. ROLL CALL . * 1. CONSENT AGENDA 2. Presentation of National Guard award by Scott Boris 3. Presentation by Amelia Kroeger, West Hennepin Recycling Coordinator APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 4. Regular Meeting of March 27, 1995 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Dale Lindquist Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 5. #1950 Glenn Upton, 3685 North Shore Drive - Variances - RcA iuiion ^6. #2003 Art & Kathy Henningsen, 975 Tonkawa Road - Variances - Resolution 7. Planning Commission Recommendation to Amend Residential Code to Allow Shelters for Victims of Domestic Abuse 8. Use of City Driveway for Access to Private Development (Melamed) 9. 1995 Joint use Dock Licenses: - Rhode/Enlow/Lindahl - Resolution - Navarre Cove Homeowners Association - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Hillside Place Administrative Appeal 11 . Adoption of ’95 Building Code - Ordinance 12. Employment of CSOs Turf Maintenance Contract Approval 14. Information System Study Re;.- mn^endation 15. County Road 15 Reconstru«'i.*v>n Vii i CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT (*16.) LICENSES (*17.) BIl LS AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1995, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 04/06 - 04/07 - 04/10 - 04/10 - 04/10- 04/11 - 04/11 - 04/12 - 04/12 - 04/12 - 04/13 - 04/17 - 04/18 ■ 04/18 04/24 04/25 04/26 School Board 7:45 a.m.-4:00 p.m. School Board 7:15 a.m.-9:30 a.m. School Board Training Session 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. • School Board 4-5:30 p.m. ■ Council meeting 7:00 p.m. • School Board Training Session 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. • School Board meeting 7:00 p.m. • School Board 7:45-8:45 a.m. • Council Work Session 8:00 a.m. - School Board 12:00-2:00 p.m. ■ School Board 7:45 a.m.-4:00 p.m. - Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. - Orono School Board 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. • Jim Ramstad, Member of Congress - Town Meeting 6-9.00 p.m. - Council meeting 7.00 p.m. - School Board meeting 7:00 p.m. - 1995 Board of Review 7:00 JJDt PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL ) PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE ATTBiPANCE ■4- /0 96" PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (£rom agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5.. 6*. 7.. 8.. 9.. 10.. 11.. 12.. 13., 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 27,1995 Callahan, jr., councu ivicniucis j l^iohh vjv/v»v.. —- ---------^^ Charles KeUey and JoEllen Hurr were absent. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, PubUc Works Director John 4^ Gerhardson, Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and Recorder Sherry Frost. M'yor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA Item #5 was added to the Consent Agenda. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 3, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (•#2) REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13,1995 Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 13, 1995. Ayes 3, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Park Commissioner James White reported on a minor change to new Park signs The wording, "Orono Parks," will be added to the bottoni of park signs mstcad of the City of Orono designation. The reason for this change is to increase the City Parks visibility. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS No representative of the Planning Commission was present. PUBLIC COMMENTS '<? There were no public comments MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27,1995 POLICE CHIEF REPORT Police Chief Steve Sullivan presented the statistics on the 1994 police activity to the Council Sullivan vs,-ill present an analysis of the statistics at the next Council meeting. The total calls within the four cities increased 16.5% from 7272 to 8475 In April thru September, the four cities reported a increase, or 63 in number, in reported crimes. Sullivan reported this figure was atfected by officer initiated activity The clearance rate increased from 48®/o in 1993 to in 1994 for the four cities In Orono itself, there were 512 crimes in 1993 with a clearance rate of 46®/o and 510 crimes in 1994 with a clearance rate of 48®i>. Chief Sullivan reported that his department had performed traffic patrol of County Road 15 for Minnetonka Beach on a demonstration basis. This could not have been prolonged without added dollars spent. Minnetonka Beach has now agreed to purchase 120 hours of traffic enforcement in addition to the amount already paid in their contract with Orono. This work will be performed by reassigning an existing officer. Mayor Callahan asked that this additional patroling of Minnetonka Beach not result m less coverage for Orono. Sullivan responded that the increase in the number of officers from 15 to 16 this year will assist in offsetting the added hours It was also stated that with the replacement of Lt. Fitzler with Officer Boris, the hours Boris works at the school during the school year can be transferred to work on the street during the summer months. Jabbour voiced the concern that Council Member Kelley has had in the past, and agrees with, that the true cost of the additional hours for Minnetonka Beach be passed on to that city. Sullivan said that he looked at the two officer coverage in Long Lake, calculated the cost on an hourly basis, and will charge that amount to Minnetonka Beach with no discount. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT («) #1979 RICHARD LITTLE, 1890 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3544 Mr. & Mrs. Little were present. This application is for variances in the average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, and hardcover in the 0-75* with the reconstruction of a 14x26' deck. The deck has already been removed and will be replaced in the former building envelope with no further extensions beyond the dimensions of the original deck. This would result in 40 s.f of new hardcover for the grade level deck. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27,1995 (#3 - Richard Little - Continued) Goetten asked for clarification that the deck itself is in the 0-75' setback area. Mabusth confirmed this stating the encroachment will remain as it was originally as defined by hedges already in place defining the original deck area. The applicant commented that the deck was in place prior to the ruling for no hardcover in the 0-75’ zone Jabbour moved, Callahan seconded, to adopt Resolution #3544 per the Planning Commission recommendation. Ayes 3, Nays 0 (#4) #1996 GREGG PERL, 309 WESTLAKE STREET - AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3545 Mr Perl was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a side setback variance for work involving an expansion of the roof area required for a bedroom expansion in the upper level. The Planning Commission's minority opined that the applicant should not have installed a patio door without applicant knowing when stairs will be constructed. The majority approved the patio door as is with a proper bar installed over it. There is an accessory structure which encroaches the neighbor’s property as well as exterior storage violations. The applicant responded that the storage violations have been rectified. The 12x12 shed is still in need of removal. The applicant was given the date of April 15, 1995 by which to obtain both permits needed, which are subject to penalties. Mabusth is concerned with adding a deck off the patio door as it would not meet the 30 side setback. The applicant was informed that the side setback requirement must be met as the deck would be part of the principal structure, and the enclosed approved resolution notifies of a need for a variance would be required if a deck were to be built. Mayor Callahan reminded applicant to make application prior to building the deck. The applicant noted that he has purchased an adjoining property, and the lots have been combined. The applicant originally had .8 acres and now with the acquisition has 1.6 acres. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, adopt Resolution #3545 with the comment that the applicant check with Staff prior to making any additional structural changes. Ayes 3, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Crn" COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27,1995 (*#5) #2001 POWDER PACKERS, INC./RHONDA E. WILSON, 640 ORCHARD PARK ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3546 Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3546 for ffont/street setback variance. Ayes 3, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Callahan asked for a report on the joint meeting of the Park and Planmng Commissions. Moorse reported that the work session was to discuss the development of a plan for open space preservation. This was generated trom the park survey where residents voiced their general satisfaction with Orono Parks and indicated support for preserving open spaces John Shardlow, a planning consultant, was in attendance and discussed with members the Supreme Court decision concerning parkland dedication f«s and the process for developing a parks and open space plan. Gaflfron relayed information on the existing undeveloped spaces within Orono Alternative ways of acquiring or preserving open spaces without the need for funding were discussed. From this meeting, Shardlow and Moorse will draft a questionnaire for the members of the Park Commission, Planning Commission, and Council to identify open space preservation objectives. Jabbour commented on the different visions for the future of Big Island. The wilderness refuge and natural park idea is being challenged by a group who sees the island as an area to develop for active participation, such as company parties or possibly an amusement park. Jabbour says Orono needs to clearly define what parks are to the city to avoid future conflicts. Park Commissioner White a^eed with this assessment voicing the need for a master park plan Jabbour suggested visiting Big Island. He noted that the Veteran ’s Camp, while not for sale, is an area to watch as the state has the first right of refusal if the property were to become available for sale. Orono has no jurisdiction over this camp. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27,1995 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Jabbour has attended the meetings of the LMCD. The LMCD has reported the loss ot $39 000 through investments in 1994. Executive Director of LMCD, Strommen, reminded Jabbour that the LMCD came in below budget last year and not at budget as described in last Council meeting minutes The mayors of Spring Park, Decphaven, and a representative for the mayor of Mound collectively asked the state representative and senator at the LMCD meeting to consider changing the state mandate from having elected representatives from the councils to appointments under the will of the councils and chance the language that cities have the right to a representative instead of an obligated'representative without changing quorums. Jabbour said the mayor of Deephaven agreed with their thoughts. Jabbour also reported that the approval for issuance of permits for parasailing by the sheriff was given unanimously by the LMCD's land'Use committee and not by the ftill board. A permit has been given out for commercial use Callahan asked that Jabbour remind the LMCD of the recent resolution passed by Orono It was noted that cities are not well represented at these meetings and verbal comments by those in attendance are not necessarily acted on. ENGINEER REPORT City Engineer Cook had no report. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#6) HILLSIDE PLACE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL Moorse asked Gerhardson to give a summary of the appeal by Grace Dahl to access her property from Wallace Avenue rather than Hillside Place. Gerhardson refwrted that Ms. Dahl asked to change her access to Wallace Avenue, which is a platted unimproved road. The neighbors on Wallace Avenue, the Mattson's, asked that the request be denied. Ms. Dahl has had contact with Gerhardson since September of 1994 when her request for access on Wallace Avenue was denied. Dahl submitted an updated survey showing her proximity to Wallace Hills. Wallace Avenue, according to Dahl, would be half the distance from her proposed home and would result in maintenance savings. Dahl said her neighbors, the Mattson’s, use the road area for parking of their vehicles and as a garden. Her letters to the City related a problem with having to cross a large drainage ditch for the access on Hillside Place. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27,1995 {U6 - Hillside Place Administrative Appeal - Continued) The access was addressed in the September, 1994, adopted resolution regarding a lot line rearrangement with then owmer, Jacci Segner. Hillside Place was designated as the access for the property in question along with one other property. Because of the driveway designation, only these two properties can use this access. Two other properties, 2260 Ba^'view and 3300 Navarre Lane, owned by Ray Pasch and Jacci Segner, were closed off from using Hillside Place so the Dahl property could obtain acess from Hillside. Segner sold the property to Dahl, who then applied to have access through Wallace Avenue Dahl reported that she was under the impression that the subdivision had to be solved first and the access addressed after the subdivision was finalized. \fs. Segner remarked at the meeting that this also was her understanding and said it was known during the subdivision that Dahl wished to use Wallace Avenue Neighbor, Clair Rood, supported Dahl's reasoning for access on Wallace Avenue. Rood stated Hillside Place access was 525 ’ long and the drainage ditch was a major obstacle to access the property. Dahl, Segner, and Rood all voiced their opinion that it was their understanding that the access could be changed once the lot line rearrangement was completed. Neighbor, Dale Mattson, 2200 Bayview Place, reported that W»5h~c Avenue comes within 8 ’ of his property and does not wish for Dahl’s property to gain access from Wallace Avenue. Ray Pasch of 3301 Navarre Lane reported that he has worked with Dahl throughout the process and was present when Dahl discussed with staff accessing her property through Wallace Avenue. Pasch reiterated hearing that the access needed to be addressed at a later time. Jabbour made it clear that it is the policy of the City to address the issue of access whenever subdivisions come before the Council and make determinations regarding access. This then eliminates any problems such as this from arising in the future. Goetten asked what the resolution stated regarding access. It was clarified through the lot line rearrangement agreement and resolution that Hillside Place was the designated access to the Dahl property. The agreement stated that access could be amended, changed, or terminated by written amendment to an alternate access of open public roadway if the City decided to have an alternate access other than Hillside. It was further clarified that the only use of Wallace Avenue at this time was the Mattson's. The Mattson's have four lots but one house, and there 5S only one buildable lot. Wallace Avenue is contiguous to the railroad right-of-way. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27,1995 (#6 Hillside Place Administrative Appeal - Continued) Callahan said the agreement shows that the City does not plan on opening Wallace Avenue, which should result in denial of the appeal. Dahl countered that she had been in discussions with Gerhardson during the whole process about accessing on Wallace City Attorney Barrett said that the agreement, though, was with Segner. The access was first denied in September of 1994 Moorse commented that the denial was given during the same time as the resolution for the lot line rearrangement. Jabbour saw the issue as whether the City had future plans for Wallace Avenue, which it does not. Whether Dahl could be allowed access was a different issue Wallace is only a 20' road with an existing house that is 9-1/2' from the road; whereas Hillside Place is already 25* in width and access has already been granted. Callahan asked if Dahl would like this appeal tabled until the full Council was present to which she agreed. Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded, to table the Appeal of Administrative Decision until the Council meeting of April 10, 1995, when all Council is present. Ayes 3, Nays 0. Clair Rood asked if Council or Staff members would look at the drainage ditch situation prior to the meeting. It was noted that Wallace Avenue should not be used for storage of any type. Dahl asked to voice her fhistration with the process and with Staff She said she wm led to believe that the lot rearrangement must be decided first and the access at a later time. (#7) VOLUNTEER COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS Mayor Callahan reported that the terms of Sandra Smith and Charles Nol^ Jr., of the Planning Commission had expired. Both members asked to continue serving, and Callahan voiced his support for that recommendation. However, Nolan will not complete the new term, and Callahan advised Staff to advertise for the prospective vacancy. Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the reappointment of Sandra Smith and Charles Nolan, Jr., for the term of 4/1/95 to 3/31/98. Ayes 3, Nays 0. Callahan reported on the rotating chairmanship for the Planning Commission on a yearly basis. Schroeder will be stepping down fi'om the chair and was reported to have performed very capably in this position. Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Steve Peterson as Chair of the Planning Commission and Candace Rowlette as Vice Chair. Ayes 3, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27,1995 (#7 - Volunteer Commission Reappointments - Continued) Park Commissioners Lili McMillan and James White have expressed an interested in additional service on their commissions which recently expired. Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to reappoint Lili McMillan and James White to the Park ComnJssion for the term of 1/1/95 to 12/31/97. Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#8) BID AWARD LIFT STATION #7 Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded, to award the bid for Lift Station #7 reconstruction to the lowest responsible bidder. Ford Construction Company, for an amount of SS/^VS?.. Ayes 3. Nays 0. (*#9) TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES - GOLF COURSE Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the temporary employment of Forest Jostrom, counter helper, $5 80 per hour; William McIntyre, counter helper, $5.80 per hour; John Ross, counter helper $5,80 per hour; Dan Oaes, starter/grounds, $6.20 per hour; Doug Erickson, grounds helper, $6.50 per hour; and Jack Peterson, counter/starter, $5.70 per hour, all effective April I, 1995. The above employee positions will terminate six months after their first day of employment and will not be eligible for PERA benefits and withholdings. Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#10) GOLF COURSE LIQUOR LIABILITY INSURANCE AWARD Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to award the Orono Golf Course liquor liability insurance coverage for the period April 1, 1995 through March 31, 1996 to the St. Paul Insurance Company at a premium cost of $1,500. Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#11) DETERMINATION OF WHETHER TO INITIATE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION AT 1304 ELMWOOD AVENUE Moorse reported that this issue grew out of the initial vacation of the right-of-way of Elmwood Avenue. After the vacation, the City discovered that a portion of the vacated right-of-way served as the only access to the Nelson property. A portion ci tWs access is on the Johnson property. The City has since attempted to reestablish the public easement. Mr. Johnson is willing to provide an easement for the driveway, but is requesting the City vacate the lakeside right-of-way. Mr. Nelson is concerned that with the vacation of the lakeside, he would lose his only legal access to his driveway. Johnson sees the two issues as being unrelated. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27, 1995 (#11 - 1304 Elmwood Avenue - Continued) CaUahan clarified that the reason for the hesitation in vacating the lakeside right-of-way is the fear of cutting the Nelson’s property oflf with no legal access. Barrett said Nelson has a prescriptive (private) easement through the continuous use over the last 25 years but not title to that property. There would be a cloud on the title without court approval. Callahan asked Barrett if the vacation could be completed without incurring liability and damaging Mr. Nelson’s property Barrett said the cloud in the title is already m place with the mistaken vacation of the alley. If the inability to use the lakeside right-of-way as an access to the Nelson property is found to be a matter of fact, and no ftmher damage to title is found, there could be access by getting the alley back, condemning it or representing Mr. Nelson regarding the prescriptive easement. Mr Johnson voiced his fhastration with the length of time it has taken to come to any decision over the vacation of the right-of-way. He reiterated how the easement and vacation are two separate issues. Johnson feels that Nelson is entitled to the use of the road but not entitled to both accesses through the alley and through the lakeside. He said there has been an impact on the sale of properties in the area because of the right-of-way issue. Mr Nelson read a prepared statement of his objection to the vacation of Forest Boulevard", as the lakeside right-of-way was once caUed. His opinion is that he would be landlocked if the vacation is permitted. Orono had vacated all of this lakeside road except that portion in front of the properties owned by Johnson and Nelson. If the City vacated that part located in front of the Johnson property. Nelson feels he would be left on his own to solve his access problem. Johnson was asked by Callahan if he was vrilling to give the easement to Nelson, which he responded he would. Barrett said that the location of the prescriptive easement may not be the ideal way to get from the house to the road and asked Johnson if he would be willing to grant an easement to an alternate route. Johnson said he was not wfilling to do this. Callahan agreed that the City needs to provide access for the Nelson’s. Barrett concurred; though, he believes Nelson would have legal access through prescription. It was discussed that if Johnson gave prescriptive easement to Nelson and the action was uncontested in court, the cost would be about $2,000. The Council would then take action on the lakeside right-of-way vacation. Nelson was agreeable to this solution as were the members of the Council. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27,1995 (#11 - 1304 Elmwood Avenue - Continued) Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded, to instruct the City Attorney to act on the prescriptive easement to gain legal easement for the best scenario that exists for the driveway for Mr Nelson. Johnson is to provide an easement at no charge to the City. Nelson is to take the vacation through to the Planning Commission if needed. If not^ needed, vacation to be brought to the Council. Statf will hold up the vacation for 45 days, or until compliance on prescriptive easement, whiche% er is shorter, and notify landowners of the irtitiation of legal action regarding the prescription easement. Ayes 3, Navs 0. (#12) HIGHWAY 12 SAFETY' IMPROVEMENT AND AGREEMENTS Mayor Callahan said he had two contracts before him for signature, and this was the first that he was aware of the amount of money the City was to pay for the semaphore at Hwy 12 and Willow Road He asked Moorse to explain how this occurred. Moorse said the City's share of the project cost was estimated to be $75,000 until November of 1994 when the estimate was increased to $230,000. City Engineer Cook said that the holding pond requirements changed over the past years which affected costs. Also, the roadwav was changed fi-om a rural design to an urban design to reduce right-of- way needs. The other $100,000 is for a City improvement project to upgrade North Willow to facilitate the signal. Mn/DOT was unable to do this part because of the easemem and procurement process needed. Callahan said that over the seven years this project was in platming, fi'om the be^nning in persuading the state to approve the signal, to the rearrangement of Orono's end of Long Lake regarding the right-of-way, there has never been any indication of (Drono being charged for the cost of this project. Gerhardson responded that when this was looked at in 1990 and found that more acquisition was needed, he had suggested storm sewers which required less acquisition; but the City knew that they would have to pay the City's portion Callahan said he did not know this. Gerhardson said it was part of the MSA program. Callahan asked if these costs were submitted to the City after the Council passed the budget. Cook said this was so but the funding was from the MSA budget. Moorse clarified the costs for Orono to be $300,000. The costs are reflected in two phases. Jabbour referred to page two of the MSA statement which lists Orono s costs. The joint phase with Mn/DOT reflects a cost of $299,000. Moorse said the agreement with Mn/DOT is broken down in two costs of $158,000 and $41,000, totalling $199,000. The improvements to Willow intersection are an additional $100,000 for a total of $299,000. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY’ COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27,1995 (#12 - Highway 12 Safety Improvement and Agreements - Continued) Callahan asked the cost of the Old Cry stal Bay Road bike/hike trail for Orono. Moorse reponed a cost of 5235,000 Callahan asked what will happen with funding for Femdale improvements and Co Rd 6 Moorse reponed that Cook put figures together on the MSA funds which reflect these expenditures. He noted the inclusion of a $50,000 ^ant w hich was applied for to offset the cost of the trail and the possibility of other monies av ailable Femdale is being shown as being improved in 1996 but could be put off until at least 1998 if funds were lacking for the CoRd 6 project. Callahan voiced his amazement at being at the point of signing agreements with Mn/DOT for $300,000 without any priority planning having been done or attention paid to where the money was coming from Moorse did say that two years ago, there were no plans to improve Femdale and Co Rd 6, nor was the large cost expected for the signal, which he assumed is a high priority Jabbour agreed with Moorse’s assessment and commented on the need to address priorities on the Council agenda every six months. Jabbour said he has no intention of spending MSA funds on bike trail at this point. Jabbour says that the Co Rd 6 proj^ and safety improvement issues are important. He said the Council needs to assist Staff in determining the importance of these costs. A member of the public asked what would the state do if notified that there was only $75,000 in the budget and the intersection was not done. The Council reported that the light was being installed at the request of Orono for safety reasons. Council all agreed that the light was necessary, and the City did need to go ahead with the project but to keep costs down. Callahan asked if $199,000 was spent for the signal with $100,000 for Willow Drive safety improvements, if there was any more needed to make this project work. Cook responded that $300,000 is the amount needed for the signal completion. However, the amounts are estimates, and there is a possibility that the actual bids would come in at a higher cost. For example, if the $100,000 signal came in at $110,000, Orono would be responsible for 25% of that additional cost. Callahan voiced the question of whether the City must pay whatever the state says and whether the City has any control whatsoever of these costs. Moorse suggested the agreements not be signed until the final bids are in so the dollar amount is based on the actual bids. The formulas for the state aid were discussed. Moorse said that Staff has not asked the state if the formula« ' be changed. The various costs for sidewalks, utility improvements, and street lighting to be shared with Long Lake were discussed. Council felt that these improvements could be eliminated to save money. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY’ COUNCIL MEETING HE4.D ON MARCH 27,1995 (#12 Highway 12 Safety Improvement and Agreements - Continued) Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to give authorization to the Mayor to instruct Staff to reduce costs of the project and to sign necessary agreements to allow the work to be completed. Ayes 3, Nays 0. Cook commented that members of the Council could attend the next meeting set up with Mn/DOT. Callahan agreed to attend this meeting. Callahan asked if there were other means to pay for the intersection other than by MSA funding. Moorse said assessing had not been discussed. This had not been done at Brown Road because of already having the money in place for the road. Callahan said the Browu Road project was a smaller amount but it did not seem fair to assess for the Willow Drive project when the North Brown Road project was not assessed Cook suggested a bond measure but Callahan was not receptive to this idea. Jabbour asked if MSA funding could be lost in the future as happened with HACA Cook did not tlunk so as this funding has been in place for many years. Jabbour said that it is the perception of the general public that aU roads are built with MSA funding. The public needs to be made aware that this is not so and be given an understanding of how MSA funding operates. Jabbour also reiterated that the MSA funds will not be used for the trail system, and the Park Commission needs to be made aware of this. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Barrett waived his report. (*#13) LICENSES Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve a set-up license for Don Scherven, Navarre Lanes, Inc., at 3435 Shoreline Drive. Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#14)BILLS Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 3, Navs 0.* ^ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27, 1995 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10 04 p m. by Mayor Callahan. Edward J. Callahan, Jr, Mayor ATTEST Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Cq. % DATE: April ITEM NO.: -S 7. Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #1950 Glenn Upton. 3685 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC requiring 21,780 s.f. Total lot area = 11,630 s.f. (3,250 s.f. of area is utility and access easement) Pertinent Ordinances 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Section 10.56, Subd. 1 (B) - Lakeshore setback variance. Required = 75’ Existing = 31’ Original proposal =41’ Amended proposal = 52 ’ (minimum DNR required setback = 50’) Variance = 23’ or 30.6% Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. 0-75’ setback area = 8,380 s.f. Existing = 1,792 s.f. or 21.4% Original proposal = 2,238 s.f. or 26.7% (increase of 5.3% hardcover) Amended proposal = 1,860 s.f. or 22.2% Hardcover increase = 68 s.f. or 0.81% 75-250’ setback area = 3,250 s.f. Review Exhibit Q. The majority of this area is occupied by a utility and access easement. Applicant proposes 550 s.f. or 16.6% new hardcover improvements for relocated access drive located out of the 0-75’ setback area. Existing garage and drive are located within 0-75’ setback. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - The proposed additions will have no impact on the average lakeshore setback. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Structural coverage is proposed at 1,665 s.f. or 14.3% (allowed 15%). Section 10. 25, Subdivision 6 (B) - The proposed additions will meet the required side and street setbacks. The only variances required for the proposed improvements are a lakeshore setback and hardcover variances. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 April 3, 1995 #1950 Glenn Upton. 3685 North Shore Drive List of Exhibits Please refer to the Staff memo of March 10, 1995 for the List of Exhibits Brief Reviov of Application At the September 12. 1994 meeting of the Council, the application was referred back to the Planning Commission as applicant asked to be allowed to present an amended propoMl before the Planning Commission. In reviewing the factual findings noted above, the footprint from the original proposal was reduced by 211 s.f. The new structure will be located 52 from the shoreline rather than 4U as in the original proposal. Deck expansions are no longer proposed within the lakeshore yard. The proposal will result in 192 s.f. of expanded living space and 484 s.f. of attached garage. Total hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area is increased by 68 s.f. The majoritv of the hardcover proposed within the 75-250’ setback area at 550 s.f. for driveway cannot technically be credited as this area is located within an access easement area. The original proposal did require a lot structural coverage variance proposed at 16.1’. The amended or current proposal will not require a structural coverage variance. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the amended proposal adopting the unique*^findings and hardships set forth by applicant in his addendum. Exhibit M. Approval was conditioned on all hardcover improvements scheduled for removal to be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. The detached garage shall remain until the proposed attached garage is completed to allow for the temporary storage of items maintained within storage shed and construction materials during period of construction/renovation. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission Recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution, A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (B) AND 2 FILE NO. 1950 WHEREAS, Glenn C. Upton (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3685 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono and legally described as follows; refer to Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2 to permit construction of an addition to the existing residence that will be located 52’ from the shoreline where a 75’ setback is required and where 1,792 s.f. or 21.4% hardcover exists and where the proposed improvements will result in 1,860 s.f. or 22.2% hardcover where none is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1950. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC LakwChore Residential Zoning District requiring 21,780 s.f. 'fhe property consists of 11,630 s.f. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 15, 1994 and March 20, 1995 and recommended approval of an amended variance application based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. The total area of property is 11,630 s.f. but 3,250 s.f. of that area is dedicated to a utility and private driveway easement. B. The only remaining building area located out of the easement is located within the 0-75’ setback area where no construction is allowed. C. The existing residence is located entirely within the 0-75’ setback area located 31* from the shoreline. Page 1 of 5 D. The proposed improvements will be placed 52’ from the shoreline meeting the minimum 50’ setback required by the DNR for property adjacent to a General Development Lake. E. The existing improvement and proposed improvement will be consistent with improved residences on the adjacent properties in the immediate neighborhood. F. A residential structure has existed on the property since 1914 prior to zoning standards for lakeshore construction . 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2 to permit construction of an addition to be placed 52’ from the lakeshore granting approval of 23’ or 30.5% lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance of 1,860 s.f, or 22.2% resulting in a 68 s.f. or 0.81 % increase where no hardcover is allowed, subject to the following conditions: All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal as shown on plan included as Page 5 of this resolution shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Applicant will be allowed to maintain existing 12.4 x 20.2 detached garage until proposed two-stall attached garage has been approved for use by the Orono Building Department. 1. Page 2 of 5 •j Authorities Erzinted by this resolution run with the property not with the spplictint, but are perinissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (April 10, 1996). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the propeny. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of April, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) . r a i The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of Apnl, 1995 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _____ day of , 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (tlieir) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT A Lecal Descris" . - j - ••'--vs-a’ 3eacr.'*; and all of 2, Block 1, i,ots 0 2nd County, Minnesota, exceut that -crystal Bay in the plat o£ "Crystal Beach", ?:::,= ;.r-o ^it^ ;'n«eo£ or. file or of record in the ■- - "o.jnty recorder in and :or said Count,.office oc t.ne cart of abandc.ned County State Aid Hipnway No. 51 fsnown as Coun./^Sca Une'of Block 2 (and '-"‘rsa^rexter.dei?' Ln‘cne'plat Crystal Bay View northwest- 3-d northeriv of the extensions or the noruheaswe.i. and'soutnerly lin4s of the tol .rf t!ori 1 r K- Ilso beinc the intersection with the centerline of C S.A.H. Mo. 19); thence run northeasterly at an angl of io7'’54' with the north-south centerline of saia C.S.A.K. No. 19 for a distance or left along a tangential curve ..aving a raG-.-5 oe'572.96 feet (delta angle 3l®39') for a distance or 3*46.5 feet; thence tangent to said curve for a dis tance of 344.7 feet and there terminating. ^ Sub-'Gct to an easement hereby retained by the County o- wen~o'“in for utility purooses and sub3ect to an easement «o-'* *-ivewav for tne purpose of ingress to and egress from III ot t.he 'lots in the plat of -Crystal Beach" to and from oresent Count*/ State Aid Highway Mo. 51. To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator March 10, 1995 #1950 Glenn Upton, 3685 North Shore Drive - Variances - Referred Back to Planning Commission by the Council at Request of Applicant - Continuation of Public Heaiina -Written Renotification Zoning District: LR-IC Pertinent Ordinances 1. 3. 4. Section 10.22, Subdiv-sion 1 (B) - Lakeshore setback variance. Required = 75* E.xisting =31’ Original proposal =41’ Amended proposal = 52’ (minimum DNR required setback = 50’) Variance = 23’ or 30.6% Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback. Review Exhibit J. The proposed additions will have no impact on the average lakeshore setback line. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover. 0-75’ setback area = 8,380 s.f. Existing = 1,792 s.f. or 21.4% Original proposal = 2,238 s.f. or 26.7% Amended proposal = 1,860 s.f. or 22.2% Increase = 68 s.f. or 0.81% 75-250’ setback area = 3,250 s.f. Allowed = 812.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 24 s.f. or 0.73% Amended proposal = 550 s.f. or 16.6% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of strucmral coverage. ^ Total lot area = 11,630 s f. Allowed = 1,745 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,208 s.f. or 10.4% Original proposal = 1,876 s.f. or 16.1% Amended proposal = 1,665 s.f. or 14.3% No variance required. Zoning File #1950 March 10, 1995 Page 2 5.Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) A. Side setback Required = 10' Proposed = 11.3' No variance required. B.Street setback. Note: Street lot line is located adjacent to County right-of-way, Required = 30’ E.xisting = 71' Proposed =71’ No variance required. List of Exhibits Original Exhibits A - Application B C F I J Plat Map Property Owners List Survey-Original Proposal DNR Letter Topographic Map/Average Lakeshore Setback New Exhibits K -Planing Commission Action Notice L - Council Minutes 9/12/94 M - Applicant ’s Hardship Statement N - Neighbors ’ Petition O - 0-75’ Hardcover Inventory P - 75-250’ Hardcover Inventory Q - Amended Site Plan R - Amended Floor Plan S - Amended Street Elevation Status of Application At the Council meeting of September 12, 1994, the application was referred back to the Planning Commission as applicant asked to be allowed to present an amended proposal before the Commission. Staff has provided written notice to neighbors because of the extended lapse of time from the original review in August. Zoning File #1950 March 10, 1995 Paee 3 Review of Amended Proposal Applicant has reduced the footprint from the original proposal by 211 s.f. The new structure will be located 52 ’ from the shoreline rather than 41 ’ as originally proposed with construction of a lakeside deck. The current proposal proposes no deck expansions within the lakeshore yard. The proposal now involves 192 s.f. expansion of living space and 484 s.f. for attached garage. All other setback requirements are met except for the lakeshore setback. Hardcover is Increased 68 s.f. or 0.81% over the existing level at 21.4%. Hardcover is now proposed at 22.2% (original proposal 26.7%). The majority of the hardcover proposed within the 75-250 ’ setback area. 550 s.l of driveway should not technically be credited as hardcover because it is located within an eaiement area that has been excluded from total lot area. Strucmral coverage is proposed at 14.3 %. The original application requested 16.1 % with a 1.1% variance in structural coverage. Please refer to applicant ’s hardship statement. Exhibit M. The neighbors who voiced approval and support of Mr. Upton’s original proposal have now signed a petition approving the amended proposal. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the increase of 68 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area justified? 2.Has applicant provided acceptable hardships for strucmral hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area? Any recommendation of approval must include the condition that all hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Applicant may be allowed to retain accessory garage until new garage addition is completed. The existing detached garage must be removed prior to the final inspection for the new addition to the principal residence. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION#1;* *-* IV >>:i r-%J ryj-^ rc wa t • c*t Wl'WIfU* iT ^ '«*'’ * *** r*.* • / *■ f wi I t . .-• . • • • T 4 ~ I • . ■ • I " * 4 wwVi^ V VV'V V •. * 7 • , ......«.. V A vi;Z-• WI. ; V W: U.*H i im 'D'2/tL' ^ VV V^ ?%V^ Initial Applicadon Fes 5200.00 ($50.00 per each additional vanance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming strucrures $200.00 After-the-Fac: Fees (Double applicanon fee^ PROPERTY EsTOR^L\TION Site Address PiL- 9—A—^ Prnn^*Tv TH^nfificutioD Numbcr -------------------------" : T “ legal descripcioa to application if not included on requued suney. Date Property .Acquired^- --- - - - - -- . - - - - - - - - - - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zoning District: ____________—----------------------- Phone (horae)^________________— APPLIC.ANT — /Aj -t ^ly4Phnrv»('wnrk'> Ci ^9 ------- Name I 2. t d^f Zio: g5 H 6 Address: {■< /■ > — >-iiy. ^ tc---------- .*t ••.VIK* — L V • fild r-• "---VA I m /month^'year) OWNER (if different than applicant)Phondhome) U'“7 i Phone (work). X X ^ ----------------------------- ------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width X. Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage p(_ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) Ltp'^ ' v-‘9 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AII nf t h, fnllnwin. information n..L-^ bt submitted hv the appUc?ti«)n d^dljp^ daU iq for vour application to considered complete — CenSed'pro^^Xnrrs Ust of owners within 150 ’ (you must obtain ihis list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3^71). — Cenmca'Ie^orTuteMS ----calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'fi. x 11 for Top^raphic survev (existing and proposed elevations) if any ctoges mexistmg grade ate'^ptoposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8W’ x 11 for rep^uction Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 x 11 ). ----List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the Dtonertv This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ownet(s). ^ Sendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified ot this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. _ 6. _ 7. _ 8- _ 9. __ nie Applicant and Properrv Owner must sign this application. Please remember tot vtaic annlirntion is not complete if the above information hqs not been MKlUtlgd. The^appli^ Lre^^ag^'m provide all information required or request^ by the Zoning AdmiStrator agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee “c?r::il'tife^ in review of MHcatiom and ce^es tot the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. DateApplicant’s Signature S^mr^fre^y a^^edges and agrees to this application and further authorizes Sry onto the property by City staff, consultants, apnts Commission members, and CouncU members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date Anolicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before to Planiimg Co^Kton Meetto ptt^g Commission Meetings are held on to Monday of tohm»^^ must be present at aU scheduled review meetings of the Plannmg Commission and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please mto . “tave“ttho^%ent anend in your place and to advise to Building & Zomng Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ili CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) i r 5.• # i *%J "(TV r-~ WA t t I*'! w. f tu* 1 a \ • w*v*^ V V'V V V... * - •»____va W b : V . - X PROPERTi^ DEFORMATION ^ Site Address ^is A/^ ^ U Propertv' Identification Number (P.I.D.) U ^ /UbM •IZwuir f ^r**VA ’.’iw? — V I -r- ♦ w•^- jy 1"* V w V v' a • T w* a . Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Qaxe Property Acquired (month/year) n (cl^ (do not) also own the adjacent parcels ot land. preWnt use of property: X residential -----other (specify) Zoning District:__________________________________ Phone (home) Mjul£.^RU^ P^(worl0 -------Zip: AddresTTf/. description of request • m • ^ # "" Estimated Construction Cost $ :IX*.‘Z4 /C< x ^------------------------------- (anach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front __Side Hardcover Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) compliance with Zoning Code requirements. (attach additional sheets if necessary) Up'^ ' V ?9 MM DATE 04/29/9AMTCH OMPROE AOOII OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR•*.PROP AODR OMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR • ji l. k .'* •" . • i * • * o-r n /i; ? • ■' I • % so 0e-117>2S S4 0050 03455 NORTH SHORE DR A A 0 HA6EN AL A DONNA HAGEN 3455 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA m SS39130 00-117-23 34 0053 03403 NORTH SHORE OR R 6 RESSLER A S RESSLER REX 6 RESSLER 3403 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA m 5S391 30 17-117-23 21 0011 03705 NORTH SHORE DR H SULLNOLD ET AL M/L EST OR HAROLD SULLNOLD 3705 NORTH SHORE DRIVE NAYZATA HN 55391 4 * HE^t«PIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMCRS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2430 00-117-23 34 0051 03449 NORTH SHORE OR HARREN E DERG ET AL N/L EST NARREN E BERG 3449 NO SHORE DRIVE NAYZATA MN 55391 30 00-117-23 34 005203475 NORTH SHORE OR HARRY SKRYPEC HARRY SKRYPEC 3475 NORTH StIORE OR NAYZATA MN 5539130 00-117-23 34 0054 03405 NORTH SHORE OR GLENN C UPTON GLENN C UPTON 3405 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA HN 55391 0010RO30 17-117-23 2101410 SHAOYNOO DAG ROGERS DONALD A GA':*. ROGERS 1410 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA MN 55391 30 17-117-23 21 0012 01420 SHADYNOOO RD J C ERICSON ETAL MR JOHN C ERICSON 1420 SHADYNOOO ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 000 00000 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE ANO TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFOMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE Otl THE RECORDS OF THE HEf#«PIN COUNTY DEPARIKNT OF PROPERIIY TAXATION* TO THE^EST OF MY KNONLEOGE AM BELIEF. / / f uok v'v* W -- i 4 i *•9- * I • i . • % 5> :t// **• / / X. y - * 5C 2^^Rr 2 X ! 12 i n 3C 3 ! u I n ;?=.»»• * sL • . c .-, !<• - • -I------*.4^: I ; ; ? 2: f 3u ai ^^ I ^ • ' 1 'A.\.......... ^ ••••••V 1 I ■i i «2i''g; 4«)l <1 <49);(X)^! ,ie:)i :;s)‘.: 1 1 1 1 ’» 1 «V ^^ 1 *. i ^ 1 »• 1 \ / > '• '• ySv^ X X 7 X/, JO , . X I X Xr 4wS ^•4•^B^ ;_____X-J: 1;» <50)!-, 4 C3)(3) r» ' *2 . .'ff . 5 ^ I 3 I 2 •'^1 Svrg): *;S!(|^)$ 2'S lOJT, 33*«*****^»** (H) 3 '•■ ‘('2) 233.5 »♦«•«#•••••*»•••••♦•••4 4- 3. 77 i:*; 1 1 t m 3 (34)(35) 5^ (4) 3 •MAPiEffiJTI? SI I ca -.i 1 -a —^E., -M mT\ 2 . 17) C6) Hi (;as St ' '(15) V 3 ? 1^1 - ^ ,\ tpV^”Tr -y r ^ ’5x^5^ •'•* <»?r K L S . !I0 1213 '•» ^ ^ Jp '• ‘'V( :9) S »a.s ^ M «X) t /(^ ^ ^'A‘\ 3) O O ►1 o •••o «r rh O fti n o HI O ^ >1 rr H- O ft ^ ui OH W (B 0« 0 ft oi H- HI fit 0 3 Di HiiO UI 3 fii o a ft rr H* Ui 3* o aK ^ ft r < o O' O H- I 0 d ft <p o C < H 3 «0 W ft I- ^ w K 01 <U ft rr 3 X 01 6 O H- ft H 3 7 9 3 Of (I 0 (0 • H (U *0 0* CL CD CL H - O 10 O 3 7 H HI H- • 3 0>* HO O 3 3 ft C 0i 7 3 3 01 HI II ft CL 3 H* S a H*0 ^ ft II •- HI ft X H• 0 O ft H- H H 3 0 O 3 Hi W O HI II ft HI UI M H« a o 0 CL H O ft ft ft H ft n O - lO O O ft C H ft ft 3 a ft K QD ft H- O H- *< H- <10 • 3 OrO O ft ft ft- ft ft 7 O ft — ft 7 7^ a ft ft ft O ft UIo H H* t) ft H* O 3 If•% tfXo la 5f**\j mm M'm ' »;■'',»tv7 V ••■'( • PHONE NO. STATE OF I, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 772-7910 F'LENO September 3, 1994 Jeanne Mabusth city of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: GLEN UPTON VARIANCE REQUEST (CITY #1950) , LAKE MINNETONKA, CRYSTAL BAY (27-133-21), CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Ms. Mabusth: I have reviewed the above-referenced variance request and racoxnaend that the city deny the request in its current fora. The DNR would object to any new structures or additions, including dec)cs, being proposed on this site within the ainim\ia state setback froa the lake of 50 feet. It appears that a reasonable addition that aeets the SO foot lake setback could be constructed on this site by shifting the proposed addition away froa the lake. We would not object if the city approved a modified plan that is outside the 50 foot setback, assuming that the applicant has demonstrated hardship. The coxirts have said that the applicant has a **heavy burden of proof" to show that all the prerequisites to the granting of a variance a;-a satisfied. This is because a variance allow property to be uso'li in a manner forbidden by the ordinance. The Departaent should be advised of the action taken on the above request within 10 days of final action and a copy of the official record should be forwarded to this office if the variance request is not denied. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, e Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS c: City of Orono Shoreland file CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Glen Upton 3685 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: ZONING FILE #1950 NOTICE OF PI ^':>WING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 8/18/94 COPIES rO:First Landmark Builders 611 South Snelling St. Paul, MN 55116 Variances DATE OF MEETING: 8/15/94 VOTE:4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below. 1. Excessive hardcover (increase in 0-75’ not justified). 2. 3. Does not meet DNR’s 50’ minimum setback nor Orono’s 75 ’ setback from lakeshore. Hardships presented do not support the magnimde of strucmre proposed for the site. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, September 12, 1994, meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. I (Item #6 - Etherington - Continued) Huir asked how closely ricd is this propetty ^ ‘(.'’"u^STe b cvhat would happen if this property w^ -Jowed to the east sale plan. The drainage plan is tied to this applicant omy. Goetten asked about the shed on the property line. It was determined that it belongs to S^bor Laue. Mabusth wall request Laue to move the shed, Hurr moved, Kelley seconded to Btadlev and Dina Etherington. Resolution .ado.. Ayes .. a .1,49 SANFORD AN^ '''' landing - V ARLANCE - RESOLLTION -3463 Jabbour moved. Goetten Resolution .3463 . Ayes 4. Sanford and Margaret Enkson, - ■ o. est ui.e i. Nays 0. ,.M. 01.EN mON. M: TO..TH SBORE DRIVE. VARIANCES Plannina Commission for amendment. Ayes a. Nays 0. ,..9, .1954 LARRV ELSEN. 3S79 CASCO POLNT ROAD - VARIAiNCES - resolution #3464 , was moved by iabbour. seconded by Goetten, to adopt Application #1954. Resolution :?3464. .^ves 4, Nays 0. ,..,0) #1956 TOM AND CHRIS SM^dA. 4040 AVATERTOWN ROAD - v IZn CES - RESOLUTION #3465 U was moved by iabbour, seconded by Goetten. to adopt the Application #1956. Resolution j#3465. .-^yes 4, Nays 0. ( February 28, 1995 Orono City Council and Planning Commission SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP AND LTMIQUE FINDLNGS On August 15. 1994 I was turned down by the Planning Commission on an application for a variance to build an addition and a garage on my property at 3685 North Shore Drive. The denial was for the following reasons: 1. Excessive hard cover (increase in 0-75' not justified). 2. Does not meet DNR;s 50* minimum setback nor Orono's 75 ’ setback from lake shore. 3. Hardships presented do not support the magnitude of structure proposed for the site. I now wish to resubmit with the following corrections made: 1. The proposed new deck has been eliminated and the size of the new room reduced for a total savings of 504 square feet of hard cover. 2. Although I could not meet Orono's 75' setback because the lot is only 100* wide, I did manage to meet the DNR's 50' minimum setback. 3. The Tax Records for this property indicate that there was a structure on this lot in 1914. Building Permits do not go back 81 years, nor do hard cover, setbacks and other ordinances. The point I am trying to make is that if the house were here before the ordinances, can't some improvements like a two car garage be grandfathered in even if they don't comply with today's strict regulations? There are five homes on our private road. Mine is the worst looking and the smallest. My neighbors homes have ail been updated and they have two car garages on their properties. My neighbors have 50 feet on the lake and 50 feet on the road. My lot is 90 feet on the lake and 162 feet on the road. I have more land than my neighbors and yet I cannot make improvements. I request that this body grant me what they have granted my neighbors in the past. The right to build a new attached garage and to add 191 square feet on to the room that I built in 1986. I want to improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood by updating my property. Everyone will benefit including the City of Orono. Thank you. Sincerely, Glenn C. Upton I ■ TO THE ORONO CITi’ COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION: We the undersigned think that Glenn C. Upton should be allowed to build an addition plus a two car garage on his property at 3685 North Shore Drive. ADDRFSS: 3655 North Shore Drive 3669 North Shore Drive 3679 North Shore Drive 3683 North Shore Drive 3705 North Shore Drive NAME: Haizen Berg Skr\'pec Ressler Sullwold ■SIGNATURE *0n Vacation JM * * Warren and Vernice Berg are out of town on vacation. ■ 1 .6' 0t^er<. hardcover CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) rn^rmr. A. House ___ 20 lA.----- (0)75-250’25-500’500-1000’ "f3ZZy g.s — X X ZlOH ^ X2. 2 s.F: X X Width /2. 3^ "XT" ss /^9, ^ s.F. 33. g ~ s.F. s.F.zm >B. Garage / a. a /:i:2 s.F. C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. /I'b* D. Sidewalk /.?X X lA /o^-y:r s p yi? s.F. E. Patio/Drck j2A Ut*d Stiffs — X X /X XI /<r S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X /LO S.F. u S.F. S.F. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone A _ML£X----- s.F. S.F. A B 1 B X 100 =%/O Lcogtbf Widtb B. Garage _AA----- C. Driveway _ X X X 2AL QiOUQ<*i D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck / 3-« ^ ^ ^— X X X X /A F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other total hardcover in zone total property area in zone A B - S3S0 X100 s.F. 8S S.F. X5 S.F./??-S.F. U89 S.F. io O S.F. =3 S.F. ^0 S.F. S.F. S.F. //S.F. S.F. _S.F. S.F. S.F. AC F/gye ------^3^'s.F.B % 3- 1 ^ hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S’ -J- 25-500'500-1000’ F.YT5rnNG hardcq v ^ in ZQ^ A. House _ Lcnftii Width X X • K—' S.F. B. Garage ^nr P S.F. S.F. S.F. —5:f. c. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape __ Underlain __ By Plastic __ X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B A100 A. House Leogtb widm B. Garage C. Driveway X X 2^ D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other total hardcover in zone total property area in zone -7 A ^ ® S.F. ^ S.F. 2.H X 100 S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. — S-P- <f.<f % A B O-*! a ^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 4 -o 1 r*^ o» o o (ft i *n »n ft i)1) ft*< Ul Q» 1 u h- L 0 ft 04 ■* •««HI o j ►-»(ft Q U 3 (ft ot (0 a o rt H* 01 O 0.*< »4 H* V ft r <ft 3” 0 t- t •-• » ft (0 n 0 < H 3 y s c a l Beach " , Hennepin 2 embraced o la t th ereo Vo rt» a 3 O O 3 ft C P» 1 U- D 3 * rfi (ft ft Do n: ►-^•0 ^ (ft 0» X H- 0 ft H- r( 3 0 0 3 rti 3 (ft k ‘ W (-« ■ 0 0 ** »t O ft rt DMA*V' 3 •< «. Ki 0 W ^ ft (ft Do ftl X 09 m H* O H*0 f-« (ft 0 3 CD'O 0 (ft ft X .-t O rr — I Di V i; Pi&l •# ^ * c / ( mt < { « i w% y 1 I /. ■ i • i ls3<n -5 >>5» ^ o ^ ^ 2 on 3 ^ I3 rA-- > gw*»i t M Wf^trms -? «c— CT\ y X V 2: r^ €, 4 i o c I- V- — r — rr\ O <y>o -i' ,:3 c-S:) n X <- j>C\> 1 c_.o r- 9:s- (T 1 ! - 1 1 i [j REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 4, 1995 ITEM NO.: (c % % ^ A is' \\ Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2003 Art and Kathy Henningsen, 975 Tonkawa Road - Variances Resolution Zoning District: LR-IB, requiring 1 acre in area. 140* of lot width. Total area = 100.740 s.f. or 2.3 acres Lot width = 140’. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.22. Subd. 1(B) - Average lakeshore setback variance, refer to Exhibit H. A. Screen porch extends 23’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line. B. Lakeside deck extends 25’ in front of average lakeshore setback line. Section 10.22, Subd. 2. - Review of hardcover. 75-250’ setback area = 24,650 s.f. Allowed = 6,162.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 8,291 s.f. or 33.6%** Proposed = 8,159 s.f. or 33%*^ Variance = 1,996.5 s.f. or 8% Hardcover reduction = 132 s.f. or 0.50% ♦‘Hardcover facts have been adjusted to now include landscape areas underlain with plastic to the street side of the residence determined to be approximately 282 s.f. ♦’Applicants propose 132 s.f. hardcover decrease. Improvement results in 1,()52 s.f. of new hardcover improvements and the removal of 1,184 s.f. of existing hardcover improvements. 712 s.f. or 2.8% of structural hardcover in exchange for the removal of 1,184 s.f. or 4.8% of nonstructural hardcover improvement. Please refer to the staff memo of March 13, 1995 for the list of exhibits. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 April 4, 1995 Zoning File #2003 _______ Brief Description of Request Applicants propose construction of screen porch, deck with railing and grade level patio to the lakeside of the existing residence and a I%’x8'x4’ entry addition to the street side of the residence. Applicants seek hardcover approval and an average lakeshore setback variance approval for two additions to the lakeside of the existing residence (252 s.f. screen porch, 460 s f deck with railinc). The existing residence is not designed to provide outdoor use areas at lakeside of residence. There is a small patio (233 s.f.) at the southwest side of the residence but because of toposraphy and plantings there is limited view of the lake. Applicants have provided two levels of access use based on the sloping topography of yard - the three season porch and deck at the southeast and at the higher elevations to the southwest a grade level patio. The Planning Commission visited the site and confirmed thai there is very little impact upon the lake views of the residence to either side of the property because of topography and mature plantings in lakeshore yard of the subject property. Members recognize that the hardcover improvements are structural and are being proposed in exchange for the removal of nonstructural improvements such as plastic beneath landscape areas and bnck patio. Members concurred with applicants that the existing residence was not designed as a typical lakeshore residence designed to take advantage of views or use of lakeshore yard. It was noted that the property consists of 2.3 acres but because of its long narrow shape the majority of improvements have been placed within the 75-250’ setback area. No hardcover improvements exist within the 0-75’ setback area and 7% exists in both the 250-500’ and 500-1,000’ setback areas. Planning Commission was concerned with the obvious signs of flooding problems within the lower level of residence and cautioned applicants against removing the plastic areas adjacent to residence without consulting with contractor. Applicants advised that they have been workmg with their contractor and that certain tiling and drainage improvements will be installed as a result of these new improvements. The drainageway that intersects the subject property was discussed and found to be in satisfactory condition and cautioned applicants of the need to maintain the drainage facility. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the average lakeshore setback encroachment variance and hardcover variance within ^e 75-250’ setback area for the improvements as proposed, subject to the following conditions; Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 April 4, 1995 Zoning File U2Q03 1. All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal are to be completed prior to the footing inspection for new construction. 2. Applicants are to provide detailed grading and drainage plans ^itn building permit application. The plans are to be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure that the e.xisting drainage facility shall not be impacted by new construction and to ensure that proposed grading and storm sewer improvements will be effective in combating the flooding at the lower level. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (B) AND 2 FILE #2003 WHEREAS, Arthur and Kathleen Ann Henningsen (hereinafter "the applicants") have an interest in the property iocated at 975 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Lot 1, Block 1, Parwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Mumcipal Zonins Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2 to P'™i| ^ screen porch, a IS'xSd' deck with railing and grade level patto “‘340 s.f. a^ a 1» **^'* «"^ addition to the street side of the residence resulting in 8,159 s.f. or 33% hardcover •» 250' setback where only 6,163 s.f. or 25% is allowed and where the screen porch will extend 23- and the lakeside deck 25’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line where no such encroachment is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE )T RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2003. 2. 3. The property is located in the LR-IB, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. The property consists of 2.3 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 20, 1995, and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following unique findings and hardships; Page 1 of 6 4. 5. A. B. C. The property is a long narrow lot measuring 140' in width and totalling 2.3 acres in area. The majority of hardcover improvements are located within the 7^-250’ setback area. Hardcover within the 75-250’ setback area shall be reduced by a 132 s.f. or 0.507c. There is 0% hardcover in the 0-75’ setback; there is a 7.16% hardcovc’- in the 250-500’ setback area where 30% is allowed; and 7.17% in the 500-1,000’ setback area where 35% is allowed. The sloping lake yard topography and mature forested area in the west yard already places visual impacts upon the views of the adjacent properties. The sloping topography minimizes the impact of the strucmral improvements to the lakeside of the residence upon the residence to the west side. The lake views of the property at the east side are impacted by the mature plantings in the lakeshore yard. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2 to permit construction of a screen porch, second level deck with railing and grade level patio and entiy addition to the street side of the residence granting approval of encroachments of the average lakeshore setback line and hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area of 1,996.5 s.f. or 8%, subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. 4. 5. All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal as shown on Page 6 must be completed prior to the footing inspection for new construction. Applicants to provide detailed grading and drainage plans upon application for building permit to be reviewed by the City Engineer. Grading and drainage plans to address correction of historic flooding problems of lower level and to ensure that existing drainage facility is protected. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (April 10, 1996). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constimte a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 6 i Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 10th day of April, 1995 ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) Applicant(s) i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of April, 1995, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personaUy appeared ------------^^------------ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, an'dicknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared-------------------w ____________known to me to be the person(s) descnbed m and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTAR PUBLIC Page 5 of 6 I • N "*“*““* *^5T' siv^^nr 1 r. f^ « % •N34*3<?’27'V' \^00\*______' t • N34MT ’25V I40 92^.*,^,«,/1.. TO:Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:March 13. 1995 SUBJECT: #2003 An and Kathy Henningsen. 975 Tonkawa Road - Variances - Public Hearine Zoning District: LR-IB. requiring 1 acre in area. Area of property = 100.740 s.f. or 2.3 acres. Lot width = 140’. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) - Average lakeshore setback variance, refer to Exhibit H. A. Screen porch extends 23’ + in front of the average lakeshore setback line B. Lakeside deck extends 25’ in front of average lakeshore setback line. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. A. 0-75’ setback area = 10,570 s.f. Hardcover = 0. B.75-250’ setback area = 24,o50 s.f. Allowed = 6,162.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 8,009 s.f. or 32.49%*' Proposed = 7,877 s.f. or 31.96%*‘ Variance = 1,714.5 s.f. or 6.9% *' Refer to Exhibit J, at the time of the surveyor’s site inspection hardcover improvements were difficult to discern at the street side of residence. The surveyor advised in the hardcover inventory that the 75-250’ facts may not be complete. ** 1,052 s.f. of new hardcover improvements are to be added. 1,184 s.f. or 4.8% of nonstructural hardcover to be removed. Applicant proposes 712 s.f. or '* .8 /0 of permanent structural hardcover in conjunction with the removals of the .lonsti jctu.al. 250-500’ setback area = 35,120 s.f. Existing = 2,515 s.f. or 7.16 (allowed 30%). Zoning FUe #2003 March 13, 1995 Paae 2w D.500-1,000’ setback = 30,400 s.f. Existing = 2.180 s.f. or 7.17% (allowed 35%). E. Total hardcover review Area = 100.740 s.f. Existing = 12,704 s.f. or 12.6% Proposed = 12.572 s.f. or 12.4% Section 10.03. Subd. 14(C) - Structural Coverage. As property exceeds 1.99 acres, structural coverage is not an issue. List of Exhibits A - Application Al- Applicants ’ Hardship Statement B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Neighbors Acknowledgment Forms E(l-4) - Hardcover Fact Sheets F(l-3) - Elevations G(l-2) - Floor Plans H - Average Lakeshore Setback Plans I - Topographic Map J - Survey Description of Request Applicant proposes construction of a 18’xl4’ screen porch, deck approximately 15 x34 ^d patio at 340 s.f. to the lakeside of the existing residence and a new 1 3/4’x8.4’ entry addition to the street side of the residence. Excesses of hardcover exist in the 75-250’ setback at 32.4%. Applicant in mm proposes the removal of some 1,184 s.f. or 4.8% of nonstrucmral hardcover consisting of plastic underliner beneath landscape areas and brick patio at the southwest side of residence. The new entry way has not been shown on the hardcover facts which suggests that roofed entry addition shall be installed over the brick walkway at the street side. Review Exhibits I and J, there is a major drainageway that drains from a wetland and then via a culvert beneath the driveway in the eastern property entering applicants ’ property at the e^t lot line then draining through a second drainage culvert. As the drainageway approaches the paved parking area adjacent to house, it is directed underground via a 100’ length culvert that evenmally drains out to the lakeshore side to a drainage outlet at approximate 940 elevation that allows drainage to flow along shared lot line to lake. Great care must be given to not dismrb the existing drainage system. Applicants shall be required to provide detailed grading and drainage plans with building permit for new construction. Zoning File 1^^2003 March 13, 1995 Page 3 Upon stafFs recent inspection, additional hardcover areas were found at street side ot residence, review Exhibit H. Approximately 282 s.f. of additional landscape areas underlain with plastic were found. Adjusted hardcover 'within 75-250' is now at 8,291 s.f. or 33.6%. Applicants will probably agree to remove the plastic underliner. In early discussions with applicants, staff advised that based on topoeraphv and drainage patterns for property', the removal of plastic may result in Hooding problem's wit'hin lower tloor. The applicants were advised to consult with contractor. Upon your site inspection, note signs of flooding problem in lower floor at lakeside. Currently the only outdoor sitting area is the patio (233 s.f.) at the southwest side to the lakeside of the residence. There is an extensive deck system to the lakeside of the residence to the west. The owner was granted an average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances in 1987 for the deck. Upon your site inspection try to determine the degree of visual impact by the proposed new construction upon the residences to the east and to the west. Statement of Hardship Review Exhibit Al. applicants’ hardship statement. Issues for Consideration 1. Will there be a negative impact upon the lakeshore views of the residences to the east or west? If so. which of the strucnires would have the most impact? Are there ways that the improvements could be installed to minimize the visual impact, refer to G-1 and H-2? What of the topography at the lakeside and existing plantings? 2 Proposed improvements consist of 712 s.f. or 2.8% of structural improvements and 340 s.f. (grade level patio) or 1.4% of nonstructural in exchange for the removal of 1,184 s.f. or 4.8% nonstructural hardcorer improvements. Once again the code provides no direction on nonstructural versus strucr..ral. The only code section that deals with strucniral considerations is the strucmral coverage code and it does not apply for a lot in excess of 1.99 acres. 3. Are additional hardcover removals necessary ? 282 s.f.± additional hardcover has been found. 4. How do existing flood problems of residence impact your review of accessory structure adduions to lakeside of residence? 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Zoning File #2003 March 13, 1995 Paee 4 Options of Action To either approve the application as proposed; or Tabling application if major changes are proposed in improvement plan Any condition of approval must include the following conditions: 1.All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the footing inspection for new construction. Applicants to provide detailed grading and drainage plans with building permit application for additions to lakeside of residence. rr fs 3 ?i /Initial Application Fee S200.00 "gS (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S200.0U After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY EST0R>UTON ^ Site Propern- Identificauon Number (?.1.D.) ‘7 ‘ VTf o W' wi I r Wi'WtVw - »*** . • • ... . .. v. \ • - .—I V VvV !•* r*j •b' ^ W V b ^ ^ Tw ASegard”on .0 applicatioo if no. mciujed on required sur>-ey. Date Propertv Acquired____32c2Vikiii ' ° ® -s' I (do) fdono5>lso own the adjacent pax.w.. v,. ‘“*‘- Present use of propertv-: ^p residential -----o er ( p Zoning District: (month/year) applicant // / // / I Address: / 'T fi / ^ . /7J ^ -- --- ---- yy Phone (home) ^ jP ^ P_ Phone (work) -^*7^ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phonefhome) Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip: A-J<t4-hg^---Q± P<-C.K J!________. 1 ■* 1 .>-g Hatattach'^^ditional sheets if'’necessary)^Ttii, VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width yX Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear V'‘^^^verage Lakeshore Other (specify) P'OP'"’' preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) ti ^ ,f\, O \3 -V .V IV- •■: '*\ Initial Application Fee S200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION . Site Address ^! )D Tip u* h iJTY Jf ^.ICr^O •-*-.u; *. Jh. V VVV* ’ ^ T*f •'-'k..* - . V • «»• « 9 • ■ ^ ^ m • 9 cV • 9 • • *.w I V V ^ ' w* * w' '• W J ^V . Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^'5/7/ •» 3^/ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property .Acquired ) > 9 ? ^ -- - - --- - - - - - -^ I (do) fdonotTalso own the adjacent parcels of land. PresentusTofpropeny: ^^residential ___other (specify)-------------------------------- Zoning District:______________________________________—---------------------— APPLICANT // / ,/ .' , Name Hii 'T V rJ^S> Address:_j2j£_£2 Phone (home) ^ Phone(work) . City- ^ ,dc»________Zip:. ^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________________ Phone(home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQLTiST Estimated Construction Cost $_2£‘ <C>C>C>_r-------- D^cribe^que^ in^^^^^ : ft rM V I j *^d 7u V dd4-fit?a: w-r ir t iir nr ^ \ \ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback: _ Other (specify) Front Side Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Rear V^'^'^verage Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPilON OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Z 'ing Code requirements. (attach additional sheets if necessary) Arthur and Kathy Henningsen 3099 Farview Lane Long Lake, Mn. 55356 March 13, 1995 Variation Application # 2003 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth; This letter should accompany our Variance Application with the City of Orono. It is a written statement of the hardships demonstrated at 975 Tonkawa with respect to our proposed remodeling plans. 1. The shape of the property is long and narrow. Although It is 2.3 acres, the width of the property is 140 feet. The majority of the hardcover is centralized in one area where the house is located. 2. The house and neighboring homes are existing structures. 3. The existing home is 17 years old. It was not built with the lake orientation in mind. Presently, there is not any decking or doors along the lakeside to gain access outside. 4. A screened porch is a necessity to enjoy the outdoors without our friendly Minnesota mosquitoes. The proposed placement of the screened porch is related to view impact. The existing porch and patio area is located on the north end of the house. The sloping of the land, and the existence of trees in this area infringe on the lake view, and really prohibit the placement of a new screened porch in this area. Furthermore, the present porch will be converted to a family room which can be used year round with access doors to lakeside. This is an attempt to update the existing interior of the home and to benefit from the lakeside orientation. The proposed location of the screened porch enhances the street appeal of the property from the front of the house, compliments the architectual style, and updates it. We are aware of the impact of this upon the neighboring house to the south, and wish to respect their right to privacy. For this reason we would like to transplant the 12 foot evergreen in th s ar.>a, and move it closer to the property line. This should compliment the existing 4 evergreens that are already planted, and create privacy for both ourselves and our neighbor. 5. The proposed overhang at the front door is to be built on existing brick. 6. The dormer roof at the rear of the house is to be changed In an attempt to add windows and create a view of the lake from the master bedroom. The proposed roof line is actually less root than the dormer it replaces. Hopefully, this letter will serve to explain our hardship issues, and familiarize you with the reasons behind our plans. We have tried to be reasonable and considerate in our planning process. We think that our remodeled home at 975 Tonkawa will be a real asset to the neighborhood and the community of Orono. Thank you for your consideration. Arthur and Kathy Henningsen I 1 i RUN PATE 01/E7/95PATCH 508>1 .' PROP ADDR ‘ ONNER NAME ’ TAXPAYER NAME/ADORf ••Se 08-117-25 12 0001 00960 TONKAHA 00 L 0 OORit^ A DORR TRUSTEES LAHRENCE A HARILYN DORR A555 HOOOLEIGH* FLINTRIOGE LACANAOA CA 91011 PROP AOOR . 0»t«R NAM8 .TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 56 06-117-25 12 OOOA 00990 PARTENNOrt) RO 6RUCE « HARY EN6ELSHA BRUCE I HARY ENGELSHA 990 PARTENHOOO RD LONG LAKE HN 5555A •N • PROP ADOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 06-117-25 21 0016 00985 TONKAHA RD GABRIEL E JABBOUR GABRIEL E JABBOUR 21 UNIVERSITY AVE N E HPLS »tl 55A15 n 7 ■ f' : 9 I.9 \i ■ • r • f ' 1 • i < 4 i« • V »•’*.r . .. * ♦ r 4 ’U , n 'JV . ..•Tn.. O **■ ■*« ■. ■ ' ••. 1^-; ■ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INEORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT MO. PI455A01 PAGE 1658 08-117-25 12 000200970 TOM(ANA RODAN BOOTHDAVID A MARILYN BOOTH970 TONKAHA ROLONG LAKE FW 55556 5B 08-117-25 12 0003 00960 TONKAHA RO H G A L J CORNELIUS HILLIAM G CORtCLIUS LORI J CORNELIUS 960 TONKAHA RD ORONO MN 55356 36 08-117-25 21 0014 00955 TONKAHA RD JAM GILBERT JAMES H A MARY M GILBERT 955 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 56 06-117-25 21 0015 00975 TONKAHA RO A J FARAS A H K TAVEGGIA ANTHONY J FARAS 975 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE »tl 55356 TOTAL BATCH 508 00007 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AM ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF.- j /■30-fSDATE 4 » * 4 , t ♦ •I. * . t • it • • t V. ' it . • I Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^/S also referred to as Land Use Application No. / I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare -noroval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the Ci^ Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. Date Property Owner /ts Date 1 (we) ('tAhn/J^TniinCv^ of [print name(s)] [prmt address] Land Use Application No. r^CTT^ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (^) not “ked m declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor project or use requires Council approval. /;u.0 nUa hboUj-_ Pioperty Owner Date V. PropertyOwner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zonmg Office at least 10 days p to the scheduled meeting date. • ^ w V-.* / / L^rH'T tAUr t1£HNiH6,s£hi C-2/-I -; SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (j~7^ 75-250 #250-500'‘ 500-1000' E xisting Hardcover in Zone • • • At Housf ’ X s • • •• S.F. •LENGTH WIDTH •• • X 8 •S.F. X 8 • •• • • • S.F. m X 8 _ S.F. X .a S.F. B.(lARAGF X a S.F. c,Drivfway X ■ 1 S.F. X . 1 .• • S.F. 0.f^rnFWAi K ■ X . » • • • f ' S.F. _ X a ' S.F. X a • • . S.F. E.’atio / )eck X • • • • •. S.F. c J ANnsr.APP X ts . • • •• • • S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN nv . X . 1 S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X . • ' S.F. . • • ' X___^^________ » a ( • • • S.F. • n. Qthpb X S.F. V • • Total H ardcover in Zone '"~o 8.P. • . • Total Property Area in Zone .4CE • • X 100 - *. « • !•«•* i£5MS^s-'- [3 o-% N Kathy ^ HeNNin^sen M - 4.7- ] HARDCOVER' CALCULATION' WORKSHEET ’ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (75-25^ 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone . ; A. House ■ooehi m COUC. WOOO RSTA ihim^ 3. Garage . c. D riveway LENGTH(5.6 17.0 15.e 4,0 width X 1. 6.3 3.g .5" X _ 3^81 S.F. / UL£. 71. i IS S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.• • 274s t .... ■ ■ ■■J' D. Sidewalk B rick E. Patio / D eck F.Landscape AREAS UNOERUIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other - X X X X S.F. . I 233 1121 _ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. « • it« •. ^PLUS 5<=^F ] , S.F^ UA/t)fi< /C(F J S.F, S.F. S.F» S.F Total Hardcover in Zone - t Total Property A rea in Zone - ^4; s.p. 1 B>1 32>.6»7<d ......■ ^7 ^ ^ 3!^»4^ fjurrjfvfi AoACYi S.7L3Z) YfAtct; ^a Tjo \'^Z33 / f .A 4)fc*e — \ /^S2. .ZaF >//54 = *”/72 Ytfr.ct/An: . - j -g gJ? -h 4.B /4fefA^f€ c //t =a ^ock A,A4ArrAC a 930 H£NNiH6<>efi 2 -27- 9'S HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0“75" 75-250* { 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House S.F. LENGTH • WIDTH X • • • • S.F. X 4 • • • • S.F. • • X _s S A p i •X .ss ................ ' S.F. B. Garage .X S.F.' c. D riveway X • ___s ZfJ^t S.P. X • • • 0 S.F. • I* t *• <• D. Sidewalk 'X m S.F. X S3 S.F. X a * • • • S.F. E. Ja TIO/ D eck • • X • S.F. F. Landscape X • « f S.F. AREAS • 9 underlain BY X s S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING • X s • S.F. • • • X • • *t S.F» G. Other X • 1 ' S.F. # Total H ardcover 9 IN Zone • 2.S a.F. • Total Property A rea in Zone 3S./23i .... • • 1 1 2S/S J.T . X100 -. JZiL£—.* • 9 r' .t < • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500'( 500-1000, Existing H ardcover in Zone A. H ouse B. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio / Deck F.Landscape AREAS underlain BY , . plastic sheeting G. Other LENGTH - X X X WIDTH X . X _ 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.Ft S.F. Total H ardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone 2/ro -t-rn X 100 - zieot S.F '2--27-'ls I • 30.A-Q0t «... m •7./7 % I M 0 * I*#*. I '» -'r -4—'» •. y».•»-•ta‘ »-2|| ^ •• f\-L -t- .1 ii •*•-1 f ____^cpnA... 1^'. rirr;’i'‘:r ••; -ilit U-.T• I I: 4-4 ill "i t. .t '%u /^€JiK e'^wwA/ .mi V . ««>•• ■—:*»1 I . L ■“i'j'i'r'r ■ ■ -i '..'h i 'iA,v. • • • • •■••• • 4 ^ ^ —: P^..r J V '• . * ■*'r* .ilfi ..It;: »• ?• Vi)m VtiJ*• •m • : ■ J —------i.L_ • N ' r*. 4 t!i • 1 J ■1 ------------r-h—==d H ' iff 1 rr • • I •I <« V 4-12: i Tj r I J ♦f • » •J ..» I i r n - 1... % I ii 4 I------------fC 1 ►i p it\ f V »«i r ^ i >■'1 k •i« t»4[' -1ii9 • >4-B 4- wt- «- c c A Co • • • • I. :* *1! i ^ i ' ■_! i !« -5^ F®U^i3't>A- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION % ■ ■f / ^ DATE: April 5, 1995 ^ ITEM NO.n ? Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Recommendation of the Planning Commission to Amend Residential Code to Allow Residence Shelters for Victims of Domestic Abuse List of Exhibits A - Workshop Study Outline A1-Outline/Listing of Handouts Exhibits for Public Information Meeting of 3/7/95 B - Gaffron Memo 3/13/95 C - Mabusth Memo 2/6/95 D - Minutes of 1/6/95 Workshop E - Minutes of 1/20/95 Workshop F - Minutes of 2/21/95 Workshop G - Minutes of 3/7/95 Public Information Meeting H - Map of Notification Area for Public Information Meeting I - Site/Topographic Information/Setback to Adjacent Residential Properties J - Zoning Map K - Concepmal Site Plan L - Conceptual Floor Plans M - John O’Sulllivan Letter 3/7/95 N - Hessburg Letter 3/8/95 O - Sue Aumer Letter 3/31/95, Sojourner Project. Inc. Status of Review At Council's direction the Planning Commission has completed a 2 1/2 month study of the request of Westonka Intervention to amend the code to allow a residential shelter at the property located at 2380 Shadvwood Road. Staff has copied the Council on all packets and information prepared for the Planning Commission for the three work sessions and public information meeting (Exhibits D. e/f and G). The outline for the work study. Exhibit A, has been carefully followed throughout the study. The staff memo of 2/6/95, Exhibits C, covers the majority of the discussion of outline items except for the land use issues and specific site issues discussed at the February 21st workshop. Minutes of that meeting. Exhibit F, provide the background discussion on the existing zoning of Navarre, specifically, a review of the B-4 zoning district that allows retirement homes and nursing homes under a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission could not support Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 Ap^il 5. 1995 Recommendation to Allow Shelters rezoning the propert>- to a commercial district fearful that if a shelter was to fail, the property would now be opened to other commercial uses that would not be as compatible to the adjacent residential area. If there was to be commercial rezoning, it should be considered under a comprehensive smdy or possible redevelopment of the Navarre area. The Planning Commission determined that the zoning must remain residential and the use allowed under a conditional use permit w ith appropriate controls. Review' E.xhibit C, Gaffron s memo of 3/13/95 lists many of the criteria discussed by both Planning Commission members, visitors, and residents during both the February work session and the public information meeting After discussion of the necessaiy contents and criteria to be included in an amendment of the code, it appeared that the use would be compatible at the site proposed by the applicant. In fact the Planning Commission intends to survey areas of the City to determine the number of properties that would qualify for shelter use based on the final established controls and standards, during the amendment process. Review Exhibits G and H, the minutes of the public information meeting and the notification map, 205 residents received written notification of the meeting of March 7th and approximately 35 to 40 people were in attendance. There appeared to be no organized opposition to the proposed use. Many of the questions raised by the residents were the very same questions raised by Planning Commission members during the work session discuss ’ons. Planning Commission members were comfortable fielding the questions raised by residents now that they were more familiar with the subject matter. Planning Commission Recommendation Pages 10 and 11 of the minutes of the March 7th public information meeting contain the indWidual recommendations of each of the seven Planning Commission members. Their recommendation asks that the zoning remain residential and that a conditional use permit be developed that would not only provide the necessary protection of the existing residential surrounding neighborhood but would enable the success of a shelter at the proposed location. Many felt although we were unable to document immediate shelter needs in the Orono community or its contract cities, domestic problems exist every where; and that once located in the community the shelter would be available to serve the needs of the commumty. Next Steps/Timeline The applicant has advised staff that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency will extend the grant award to fund the purchasing and remodeling of the building until the end of August. Based on Council ’s directive on this request, staff would schedule a public hearing for the proposed zonmg amendment in early May and bring the final draft of the amendment back to the Council at their meeting on May 22nd. Once the code amendment is finalized, the applicant may file the Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 April 5. 1995 Recommendation to Allow Shelters required conditional use permit. Staff will notify the same 205 residents for the public hearing that were notified of the public information meeting in March. Applicant. Planning Commission members and staff will be able to answer any questions Councilmembers may have concerning the request to amend the code. If additional information is needed, please advise staff prior to the meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either accept or reject the Planning Commission’s recommendation to amend the residential zoning code to allow a residential shelter for victims of domestic abuse as a conditional ise. If Council accepts the recommendation, direct staff to draft the code amendment and schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission in early May to consider the code amendment. OUTLINE - ADULT ABUSE SHELTER WORK SHOP - PLAN'NTNG COMMISSION FRIDAY, JAiNUARY 6, 1995 7:45 A.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CONFERENCE ROOM I.General Review of Proposed Use A. Short-term vs. long-term residency B. C. D. E. Victims of domestic abuse vs.less specific groups, i.e. Services provided • Care • Food • Lodging • Training • Education • Supervision • Habitation • Rehabilitation • Treatment • Protection Number of occupants Staff 1. Professional/trained - full-time/part-tinie 2. Volunteers n.Background Information on Shelter A. Review of pertinent legislation 1. Federal 2. State 3. County B. Licensing requirements for shelter 1. State 2. County C. Non-profit status D. Other agencies involved with needs of victims of abuse 1 fv E. a. b. c. 1. Duplicaiion/overlapping authorities 2. Other shelters within State Where located Total number Other similar facilities, i.e. group home What agency or governmental body is facility responsible to? 1. Initial 2. Annual reviews through licensing 3. Monthly inspection/reporting, etc. 4. Fiscal reporting III. Funding A. How is project funded? 1. Initial/start-up 2. Commitment of funds/grants once in operation 3. Does non-profit corporation pay real estate taxes? 4. How is need addressed in other areas of the State? B. Who oversees spending/budgets, etc. 1. Once established, how can corporation be assured of funds needed to serve client? IV.What are the unique physical characteristics or needs of this use? A. Residential vs. commercial, urban vs. rural B. C. Special site needs - parking, lighting, security, additional policing, transportation, proximity to schools, fencing Define service area 1. West Lake communities 2. All of Lake Minnetonka 3. Lake Minnetonka plus Metro area V. Orono Needs/Communiiy Needs A. Documentation of Orono needs 1. Reports from Westonka/Orono school districts 2. Reports from Orono Police Department 3. Other local agencies’ future expansion needs 4. How many Orono residents have been served by this facility? B. Incidence of problems necessitating calling of police 1. Review Minnetonka/Plymouth Police Reports on similar facilities within Minnetonka and Plymouth VI. Land Use Issues A. City options include: 1. Denial of use based on its not being listed as an allowed use in any zone. 2. Zoning code amendment to allow this use as a permitted, accessory or conditional use in one or more zoning districts (may also need to rezone this specific site if LR-IC is not a zoning district where use will be allowed) 3. Note that granting a variance to allow this use or expanding interpretation of existing code to allow as a conditional use pennit is not an option! B. In which zoning district(s) is this use appropriate? Factors to consider include: • Need for this service Regional Local • Proximity to services Public transportation Sewer/water/utilities Retail shopping • Proximity to documented areas of need • Impact on surrounding community Residential Commercial V -J. c. Impact of community/location on facility Residential Commercial Do any specific factors or requirements inherent in all such uses suggest the need for a site location in a specific zoning district? Screening ' Lighting Parking ‘ Noise Hours of Operation - Security Etc. Should the use be allowed in some districts and not others? Would the magnitude of use (number of users) be a factor in defining allowed locations? Should a CUP be required at greater levels of use, but make it an allowed use at lesser levels of use? See Plymouth Zoning Code example What special standards are appropriate to require for this use? An example is the Minnetonka Zoning Code which includes the foUow-ing standards: • Minimum lot area per occupant • Minimum building area square footage per occupant • Character of building and facade • Traffic generation impacts • Minimum required parking standards • Minimum building and fire code compliance • Landscape/buffering/screening from residential • Submittal of program information sufficient to determine if other conditions are necessary • Board of Directors required Organization Minimum requirements Neighborhood representation Backsround investigation of director/program Site plan review requirement Required State/County licenses if applicable Signage 1. J. 4. VII. Site Specific Zoning Issues - Navarre Site A. Site location characteristics defined Zoned LR-IC, Single Family LaliwShore Residential Adjacent to B-1 Business District on the south and across County Road 19 to the west Existing church building at south end of this 1.6 acre property which consists of four tax parcels Buildinsj lot ation is commercially oriented, with parking areas adjacent to the residential property to the north Building is 250 ’ or more from adjacent residential property Existing/proposed parking lot could be located to allow substantial screening and buffering from the adjacent residential neighborhood Good access to site on County Road 19 Potential secondary access from rear of property All utilities are available Site is on MTC bus line Shopping and retail within walking distance High visibility site, not secluded Across County Road 19 from Navarre Playground B. Building characteristics 1. Proposal includes $165,000 renovation 2. Modifications will include conversion into a number of assembly areas and sleeping rooms 3. Note Jie existing non-conforming front setback to County Road 19 C. Potential concerns 1. Proximity to and impact on adjacent residential uses 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. I - i PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PUBLIC INTORMATION MEETING - FOLUTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADY3VOOD ROAD TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1995, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Introductory conunenis - Chairman Charles Schrocder 2. Review of proposed use - Daniel Hessburg. Representative of Westonka Intervention Project 3. Physical characteristics or special site needs of use - Applicant and Orono Staff 4. Review of existing land use and zoning of area - Orono Staff a. General land use issues b. Specific zoning issues for Navarre site 5. Public comments and Questions 6. Planning Commission recommendation to the Council - Discussion of Planning Commission members 7. Adioumment List of Pertinent Exhibits Prepared for Three Previous Work Sessions Persons in attendance are encouraged to obtain exhibits placed on tables to rear of Council in attendance find that exhibits are not available, then provide your name and address to staff mer^n i attendance viho will see that the exhibits are mailed to your residence. (Please reference exhibits by letter designation.) A - B - C • D - E - F - G - H - I • J - K - L - M - N • P - Q - Discussion Outline for Work Sessions List of Board of Directors - Westonka Intervention Westonka Intervention Project Report - 12/27/94 Minutes of 1/6/95 Minutes of 1/20/95 Draft of Minutes 2/21/95 List of Permitted Uses in Residential Districts List of Permitted Uses in Commercial Districts Police Activity Report - Minnetonka - Plymouth - Calls to Shelter Summary Orono Police Department - Domestic Assault Incidents - 1993/94 Comparison Population Size with Domestic Reports Made to Police on Current Westonka Service District (117 cities) Estimate - Armual Operating Budget Initial/Stan Up Budget Zoning Districts - Navarre Zoning for Shelters in Other Cities Notification Map for Public Information Meeting of 3/7/95 b TO: FROM: DATE: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator March 13, 1995 SUBJECT: Possible Shelter CUP Criteria At its four work sessions regarding domestic abuse shelters. Planning Commission reviewed and considered a number of criteria which might be written into an ordinance amendment allowing shelters as a CUP, or might appropriately be placed within the CUP resolution for a specific application. The criteria generally fall into Jiree categories including location, site/buildings, and operations. A summary of the possible criteria discussed by the Planning Commission is provided below. A. Lx)cation: • Limit to residential zone(s); could be just in LR-IC District, or could be in all residential districts that refer back to R-IA District standards. • Must have City sewer. • Must access directly to an arterial roadway without bringing traffic through neighborhood streets. • Must be on a bus line (public transportation). • Should be within walking distance of retail shopping (groceries, drug store, etc.). • Must be within __feet of a retail commercial zone (B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5 maybe B-6). • Must not be within feet of another shelter. B. Site/Buildings: Building/additions to existing building shall be consistent with the character and scale of the neighborhood. Exterior materials compatibility required. Appropriate transition to neighboring property via landscaping and site design consistent with City ordinances and policies. Subject to applicable regulations regarding signs, parking, other zoning district performance standards. Shelter Memo March 13, 1995 Page 2 Minimum__ (3,000 s.f. typical). s.f. of lot area required per overnight resident based on proposed capacity • Minimum___s.f. of residential building area required per overnight resident based on proposed capacity (300 s.f. typical). • Traffic generation: Applicant shall provide detailed analysis of expected traffic generation. ililM- To avoid unreasonable traffic impacts on adjacent residential neighborl limitations established: Shelter use not permitte 1 on properties gaining access via private road or shared driveway. • Shelter use not permitted on properties which would require regular access via local nonarterial streets. Amount of traffic generated onto arterial roadways shall not significantly impact local streets. • On street parking not allowed. Adequate off street parking based on anticipated uses shall be provided. On-site circulation required to avoid backing onto streets. Driveways and emergency vehicle access to be maintained at all times. • Privacy fence/screening may be required. • Facilities must conform to Minnesota State Building Code and Fire Code requirements. • Formal site/building plan review required. C. Operations: • Facility shall comply with all applicable codes and regulations and shall have current and in effect the appropriate state or other licenses. • CUP becomes invalid if state or other licenses become invalid. • Applicant shall submit detailed program information including goals, policies, activities schedule, staffing patterns and targeted capacity which may result in the imposiuon o reasonable conditions to limit the offsite impacts. Shelter Memo March 13, 1995 Page 3 The facility shall be overseen by a Board of Directors. Applicant shall submit by-laws of the Board of Directors, resumes of members of the Board of Directors and articles of incorporation to the City. A committee shall be established consisting of the Orono Police Chief, an Orono City Councilmember, a neighborhood representative, a representative of the applicant organization, and a fifth member to be agreed upon by the City and the applicant. The committee's purpose shall be to review the operations and complaints, if any, associated with the shelter, and upon an annual basis, to report its findings to the Orono City Council for determination as to compliance with the terms of the conditional use permit as well as other state and local ordinances, statutes and regulations. In the event that upon such a review by the committee, the Orono City Council finds that the terms of the CUP are not being substantially complied with or that state and local ordinances, statutes or regulations are being violated, the conditional use permit shall be revoked. A background investigation shall be performed to verify the qualification of the director/administrator and the responsible operation of the program, such investigation to be paid for by the applicant. Per City ordinance requirements, the conditional use permit will be issued for the shelter use for a specific site and not to a specific applicant; however, any material change in the operations or purpose of the facility shall be cause for the City Council to review the conditional use permit. Additional conditions may be required by the City in order to address the specific impacts of a proposed shelter. (3 To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator February 6, 1995 Status Report/Work Sessions to Study Proposed Amendment to Code that Would Allow Adult and Children’s Shelters for Victims of Abuse List of Exhibits A - Outline for Work Shop List of Board of Directors of Westonka Intervention Project Margaret Weber Report to Items Listed in Outline Draft of Minutes of Work Shop 1/6/95 Draft of Minutes of Work Shop 1/20/95 Current Listing of Crisis Agencies Used by Orono Police Staff Letter to Applicant 12/2/94 M. Weber Letter 12/16/94 Map Locating Setback of Facility/Structure from Residential Lot Lines Zoning Map of Area Site Plan Floor Plans List of Shelters in Minnesota Application for Designating Battered Women ’s Shelter Facilities Estimated Annual Operating Budget Funding of Initial Operation Orono Police Operation Manual for Domestic Assault Victims Police Handouts to Victims . c Comparison of Population with Domestic Report Made to Police Withm Service Area of Westonka Intervention Project-Prepared by Applicant Orono Police Report of Domestic Abuse Cases 1993 and 1994 Summary Sheet Police Activity Report Cities of Minnetonka and Plymouth Hearing Notice 2/21/95 Work Session u.- u ^ Hearing Notice 3/7/95 Public Information Meeting (This notice will be published in the official newspaper of the City.) X - Map of Future Service Area of Westonka Intervention Project Status Report on Planning Commission ’s Study of Shelters for Victims of Abuse and Request to Amend Code to Allow Use (Refer to Exhibit A, Outline for Work Shop) The Planning Commission has held two morning work sessions on January 6th ^d January 20th. The Planning Commission was able to complete items I - V of the maj(^ outlme topics. The final work session of the Planning Commission has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 21, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. to complete Items VI and VII of the outline dealing with land use issues and site specific zoning issues for the Navarre site. B - C - D • E - F • G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T-1 T-2 U - V - w - Status Repon on Adult and Children’s Shelters for Victims of Abuse February 6. 1995 Page 2 of 5 The Planning Commission feels strongly that in order to complete a comprehensive smdy report that we should hear from the public receiving the most impact trom the use betore developing a final recommendation to the Council. A notice will be sent to prop>erty owners w ithin 500+ feet of the proposed site of the facility in Navarre in addition to publishing notice of the public information meeting in the official newspapers of the City. The public information meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 7, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. At the Januaiy- 6th work shop. Westonka Intervention was represented by Dan Hessburg of Westonka Intervention Project, Greg Sichender of the Board of Directors, the Honorable Mary Davidson. Judge of the 4th District Court and Margaret Weber, consultant for Westonka Intervention Project.^ At the January 20th work shop, Margaret Weber and Greg Sichender represented the application. It is the intent of the Planning Commission that no conclusions be drawn until the final phase of the study is completed. The final study report and recommendation of the Planning Commission will be presented to the Council at their March 13, 1995 meeting. Review of Outline Topics Already Considered by Planning Commission Study 1. General Review of Proposed Use The applicant has proposed use of the former Grace Baptist Church in Navarre as a shelter for victims of domestic abuse providing 10 bedrooms at a maximum 20 bed use. The average stay of a resident would run from 14-20 days. The current sei^ice area of Westonka Intervention Project covers the cities of Minnetrista, Mound, Spring Park, St. Bonifacius. Minnetonka Beach, Orono and Long Lake. The current service area covere a population of approximately 20,000. It is the goal of Westonka, once the shelter is realized, to expand to a 100,000 population covering the cities on the southern and eastern shores of Lake Minnetonka. There will be 24 hour supen^ision of the facility. The facility will be maintained by approximately 3-4 trained full-time professionals and the majority of staff will consists of volunteers ranging from 20-30. It is not the intention of Westonka at first to provide major education or counseling activities as do the larger more established shelters such as Sojourner (Minnetonka) and Home Free (Plymouth). Children who stay at the shelter will either be bused by normal school bus service to Westonka and Orono or taken by shelter personnel to their respective schools. Westonka is governed by a 14 member Board of Directors, all of whom live in the Lake Minnetonka area, review Exhibit B. Two of the Board members represented the applicant at the work study meetings. The new facility would continue to provide the same level of counseling, either individual or group sessions, that is already provided at the Mound facility but it is clearly the intention of the Board to first establish the 20 unit shelter and then look to expand in the coming years. Status Report on Adult and Children’s Shelters for Victims of Abuse February 6, 1995 Page 3 of 5 II. Background Information on Shelter (review of pertinent legislation, licensing requirements, non-profit status, other agencies involv ed with needs of victims of abuse) The Orono staff and contributing speakers confirm that there is no specific legislation providins guidelines or standards for the operation of a shelter. If the shelter was to receive funds from a private or governmental agency, as would other crisis agencies, all would follow the typical guidelines; none are specifically related to a shelter. None of the governmental or private agencies require inspections of shelters except for the Hen^iepin County Environmental Health Department who will inspect the shelter to review the method of food maintenance and preparation. Review E.xhibit N, the application for the designation of a battered women s shelter provided by the Minnesota Department of Corrections. Note Page 4 of that application has a very brief list of guidelines for the operation of shelters. The other standards or guidelines within the application form are typical for all crisis or advocacy agencies. The Minnesota Association of Battered Women’s Shelters is a loose confederation of the 20 Minnesota shelters who establish standards for the training of volunteers who make up the majority of the staffs for shelters. There are no other shelters within the seven cities served by the Westonka Intervention Project but other agencies such churches. West Hennepin Human Services, Interfaith Outreach and Mental Health Clinics provide counseling and advocacy assistance within the defined service area. Westonka is a non-profit charitable corporation quite typical of the status of other independent shelters. There are 20 similar shelters within the state of Minnesota, refer to Exhibit M. All shelters must submit annual budgets to the Department of Corrections. The Department reviews the budgets, security and safety aspects of the facilities and formal written procedures for communication with the local police departments served in their districts. In 1990, enforcement agencies such as the Orono Police were required to develop a policy for the handling of all domestic abuse cases and to report such cases to the Minnesota Department of Corrections on a regular basis. Review Exhibits Q and P. As Westonka is a non-charitable corporation, they would also be responsible for filing their operating budget with the Attorney General’s Office and the Internal Revenue Service each year. No site inspection by any Federal. State or County agency is required for shgltsis. Slams Report on Adult and Children's Shelters for Victims of Abuse February 6, 1995 Page 4 of 5 III. Funding Each shelter files a monthly report of the number of persons served by the facility with the Department of Human Ser^’ices. The shelter receives $68.96 (rale for 1995) per day per victim. Sojourner and Home Free report 95-100% occupancy level and that the majoritv of their annual budget is covered by the per diem pajments trom the Department of Human Services. Review Exhibit O. the estimated annual budget has been shown at approximately $282,000. Consultant .Margaret Weber has adjusted the figure to a more realistic figure of $350, The applicant has received confirmation of a grant from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency at $210,000. Refer to E.xhibit P. The applicant estimates with the purchase price at $190,000 and the rehab of the strucmre at $170,000 that the total start-up cost is $360,000. The Conservative Baptist Church shall assume a short-term noie/mongage of $110,000. The balance of $40,000 will be covered by additional grants from various private foundations or other governmental agencies. Refer again to Exhibit P, if the shelter had an occupancy of 75% based on the $68.96 per day per victim, total funds received from the Department of Human Services would be $352,385. The applicant ’s consultant has confirmed that Sojourner and Home Free are 95-100% occupancy and receives the majority of their operating budget from the Department of Human Services monthly per diem payment. rV. What are the unique physical characteristics or needs of this use? The applicant advises that the best location for a shelter is within a residential district but not "tucked into" that residential neighborhood but preferably at the border adjacent to a commercial area where victims will have easy access to retail stores and shops. The building must be easily secured providing the necessary safety. The location of the facility should be somewhat close to the target area population. The facility should have access to public transportation. There should be adequate room within the facility to provide a suitable number of beds for the target population to be served. The current 20,000 population service area of Westonka would not support a 20 bed shelter but the expanded 100,000 population area could support a 20 bed shelter. If beds are available, the other service areas within the metro district would be able to send victims to the Navarre facility. The applicant ’s consultant noted that the price of the structure at $190,000 for a 20 bed shelter makes it one of the highest priorities for selecting this site. Although in review of the adjusted service district. Exhibit X, Navarre is defined as the hub of Lake Minnetonka and is centrally located with adequate roads providing access to the site. It was also noted that the majority of the population to be served would be to the far east and south (Excelsior, Greenwood, Deephaven, portions of Minnetonka). Status Report on Adult and Children’s Shelters for Victims of Abuse Februarv' 6, 1995 Page 5 of 5 V. Orono Needs vs. Comprehensive/Community Needs In reviewine the reports from the Orono Police, school districts and Department of Corrections, it is impossible to claim that there is a real need for the shelter within the citv of Orono or its contract cities. Review Exhibits S, T-1 and T-2. Of the 78 domestic calls received by the Orono Police in 1993, only 16 involved domestic abuse. General domestic calls mav deal with runaways, juvenile delinquency, child abuse, children abusing parent, etc'. In 1994 the Orono Police dealt with 22 domestic abuse incidents within the city of Orono and its contract cities. Planning Commission members felt that if a shelter was within the community that Orono residents would identify with the Navarre facility and would consider using the shelter rather than calling the police to the residence announcing to all in a neighborhood of the problem. They felt the stigma of admission of abuse would deter most families from announcing it to the public with the visit from the police but that if a shelter was in the area that persons mav be more willing to seek assistance. The Orono Police noted that they advise all victims of their options and that they would never allow a victim to stay within a dangerous situation. They have often made use of motels as they have found Orono residents prefer the privacy of the use of a motel rather than being placed in a public shelter. Planning Commission wanted additional information as to the degree of increase in police activities once a shelter is installed in a community. Staff asked for reports from the Minnetonka and Plymouth Police Departments, refer to Exhibit U. The calls involved the following activities: fire alarms, suspicious activity, vehicle lockout, parking, abandonment, juvenile runaways, thefts, and medicals. Note the high number ot calls in 1987 for the first year Sojourner was in operation. Many of these calls resulted from unhappy neighbors within the residential neighborhood who were severely impacted by the increased parking at the facility overflowing onto the adjacent public road. Sojourner is tucked into a middle class residential neighborhood located on a cul-de-sac. Parking of vehicles is restricted on the site to approximately 6 stalls. Please refer to Exhibits D and E, the detailed minutes of the January work shops. They have been specifically drafted to incorporate the comments of the applicant, applicants consultant and the findings of staff prepared for outline. One of the most interesting comment from a member of the public that attended the first work shop noted that the use was fme wiA him as long as the property was not rezoned to commercial because he was concerned J*® shelier failed that a PDQ or similar use could be installed next door to his residential property. Staff will continue to take detailed minutes of the work shop and the public information meeting of March 7th for the public record. MCS'UTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANTJARY 6, 1995 He^ber. was represented by consulunt Margaret Webber, Judge Dodson and Bojud Member Greg Sichender, Members of the public present mcluded ^ck Meyers of -19b Bayview Place and John Ericson of 1620 Shadywood Road. City Councilmember JoEllen Hurt was also present. The work session was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 7:57 a.m. Mabusih gave a brief over% iew of the request for approval of a banered women;s shelter in the former Grace Baptist Church near the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19 in Navaire_ She noted the site is Lned LR-IC Single Family Residential and exists adjacent to the B-1 Commercial Zoning District. Mabusth noted the proposed site plan includes parking and a future playground area for the shelter. She noted that no expansions of the existing buildmg are proposed, although of the interior is proposed to provide for office areas and 7-8 sleeping rooms. She indicated ^t space would be provided for small meeting rooms for counselmg and job training sessions. S further indicated that provisions would be made for school age children from both e esto a and Orono school districts to be picked up at the site. Mabusth indicated the work session ouUine is stnictured to first bring forward discussi^ regLing the nature of the proposed use, and secondly to consider the zoning issues and compatability of that use in Orono. Dan Hessbero introduced himself as applicant on behalf of Westonka Intervention Project. He indicated tha° Westonka Intervention currenUy is a group .u' >pproximately at the request of local police departments intervene in cases oi domestic abi^. . domestic abuse victims are provided with one or more ad - -cates who assist victims m u.-1erstanding their options for dealing with their situation. *:.ompany them through the hearing processes, etc. Hessberg mdicated that ^ years they have found it impossible to place victims m a shelter due to lack of space m exi « shelters. Schroeder questioned how Westonka Intervention was funded. Hessberg replied that ihey mnde“bv *e cities through Block Grant Funding and through various local organizations and private donations. He indicated they have an extremely lumted budget at this time. i 1 MEVLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1995 of the 15-membcr Board, job training sessions, individual counseling, day care for victims children as well as counseling for community members not using the shelter for housmg. She indicated that while 24 hour staffing would be provided, there would be no staff members who reside at the site She indicated that there would be a full-time executive director and additional professional full and part-time staffing. Mabusth provided an overhead listing the members of the Board of Directors. It was indicated that the majority of Board members were from the 7 cities served by Westonka Intervention, which include Minnetrista, St. Bonifacius, Orono, Minnetonka Beach. Long Lake, Spring Park and Mourd. Resident John Ericson, who owns vacant lots adjacent to the site, questioned how dus activity would fit into the residential character of the adjoining neighborhood. Schroeder mdicated that was an issue for discussion but would be considered later in the outline. Margaret Webber, the applicant ’s consultant, arrived at approximately 8:20 a.m. Mabusth indicated that in 1990 the Legislature adopted regulations requiring police dep^ents to establish procedures and policies for dealing with victims of domestic abuse. They also were required to send in reports to the Department of Corrections, which is the prime agency overseeing such shelters. The Department of Corrections reviews daily per diem budgets as well as budgets for facilities receiving grants. Webber indicated that in the case of Westonka Inten-'ention, the Department of Correction would be reviewing the Department of Human Services per diem reimbursements but Westonka Intervention will not be receiving a grant from the Department of Corrections. In response to Schroeder’s question, she indicated that she knew of no shelters which received neither a grant nor a per diem reimbursement. Rick Meyers of 2195 Bay view Place questioned whether the reports required of the Police Department suggest that there is a need for a shelter. Mabusth mdicated that the Police Department ’s computer system cannot distinguish or track which cases have been referred to Westonka Intervention nor do the reports reveal which involved domestic violence. They are merely able to provide a list of general domestic abuse calls with no breakdown. Schroder commented that Meyers’ question relates to the need for a shelter, and^at woulo ^ for discussion later in the outline. Schroeder followed up by askmg Webber how the ivw legislation regarding procedures and policies was being fulfilled. Webber indicated that it was handled differently by different cities and she was not completely familiar with the v^ous reporting procedures. Peterson suggested that perhaps the better source for data is e Department of Corrections. Mabusth presented an overhead supplied by the applicants with data for the Westonka area. Mabusth reiterated that there is no specific state legislation regulating or providing requirements for shelters. She noted that the Minnesota Association of Bartered Women’s Shelters is a loose MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1995 confcderaiion of 20 Minnesota st-eiters, which sets then s^dards for training of volunteer who makeup the majority of staffing for the shelters. Webber confirmed for Schroeder that the standards for shelte;s have evolved ever 20 years as a result of formal or mfotmal interact,on beuveen people involved with shelters. There is no licensing mvolved with shelters except for the food service aspect. Schroeder asked whether the budget review by the Department of Corrections constituted an informal or "de facto" licensing. Webber was not familiar with the dep^ of revuew prosuded by the Department of Corrections in their budget review. She did indicate that a de facto liMiising probably exists when a county or state grant is involved since die contract for the gram specifies conditiins. Lindquist requested that information regarding the Depattmenl ot c'litTections review process be provided. Webber acknowledged she would be “ending a seminar and would provide that information after auending. Schroeder reiterated Planmne Commission is being asked to review an activity for which w_e have no baseline to compare the structure or activity happening within, and added that another agency s licensing guildclincs would provide thit baseline. Mabusth confirmed that Westonka Intervention is a non-profit charitable organization. Webber confirmed that all existing shelters are non-profit. Schroeder noted that shelters are one option for solving the abuse problem t^at exists. There mav be other ways such as housing victims in hotels or other facuties. * Webber describe the relationship between all of tl.e various agencies who are involved m the domestic abuse problem. Mabusth indicated that there are no other local agencies provi g Liter in the area of the 7 cities Westonka Intervention serves. Rowlette questioned whe^er all 7 cities automatically call Westonka Intervention in dealmg with domestic abuse situations. her information is that the Orono Police might use Westonka Inte^entmn or mieht call Sojourner or Home Free, two shelters in neighbormg cities to the east, if shelter was needed immediately since Westonka Intervention does not yet have that ab.lity. Rowlette questioned whether she was mterpreling correctly that the figures provided people who have wanted to get into shelters have not been able to because of the Stis^area. Webber commented that that may not be quite accurate, that the 0™"° a different relationship than some other Westonka cities with Westonka ^ Mound and Minnetrisia Police may use Westonka Intervention in most or all cases, Or^no Police do not necessarily use them in evety case. Webber continued “'J Minnetricia Police over the last 10 years had never been able to j^ted Home Free due to a lack of available space. She noted that it is possible *at 0™“ as advocates themselves and contacted Sojourner or Home Free on their own imtiame rath than involvins soincbociy from Wcstonkii Intervention, Rowlette requested diat if possible a representative of the Orono Police Department be asked to come over to the meeting to describe their policies and procedures. ^^NUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN^G ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1995 It was noted that the Mound and V anemsta Police may have had a policy of using Westonka even prioMo the 1990 procedtr mandate. Discussion ensued as to whether Orono s pohc.es ^rpr^edires are similar to tn .se of Mound and Minnetrista. or whether pr«edures are bemg foUowrdMabusd. noted that the law does no. specincally require Ore use of an She indicated that the law required immediate action and required that a policy be m place, but does noi require the use of a specific organization. Judoe Davidson indicated she had brought along some materials which she would leave related to domestic abuse laws She indicated the law defines what police departments are supposed o S^ “wLt happens if they don't follow their adopted procedures Doiice departments held accountable for enforcing their own policies. Judge Davidson mdicated that in any bureaucracy it takes time to deal with issues and the Depanment of Corrections migh not take any action unless there were complaints. I. was concluded that discussion on how die Orono Police Department is dealing with domestic abuse p .'icy would be suspended until the Police Department represenutive was available to COm''..yrnt. Cr-. -dint in the outline, Mabusth provided a list of the 20 shelters located throughout the stat^ larger populated areas. Planning Commission requested that this information be copiec 4 provided to them. Peterson questioned what the capacity of ^eltws sm ^ Minm .n’s 4 million-pius population as compared to the existmg capacity. Wci^ ,»d that in most areas demand greatly exceeded capacity. Judge Davidson indicated that Hennepin bounty handles more than 10,000 hearings for protection in any iust 100 beds in the City of Minneapolis. Judge Davidson also noted that Orders for Protection often result in placement of conditions on the abuser rather than the victim, such as the abuser to have no contact or stay away from the victim. The shelters do provide a safe p for victims when such orders are not complied with. Victims are at the highest time of abuse and the time a Protection Order is granted, that is the time dunng which victims are at greatest risk in need of safe housing. Many people find shelter with fmily through their own resources, but those that do not have those resources available need a plac to go on a generally short-term basis. <?rhroeder Questioned whether it would be possible to determine the number of people who don t me re~ other means of shelter and would make use of Westonka’s proposed shelter Judge Davidson replied that it is virmally impossible to come up with those ’ and that because no shelter exists, many victims will remain in the abusive situation because they don’t have another housing option. Greg Sichender indicated that with other shelters having to turn away 50% of ^ Lfy that there are numbers of victims not finding shelter. Webber agreed, ^ is likely that the majority of victims don’t find shelter and remam m abusive siwations. She referred to a recent news article regarding several women who had become murder victims a MCSXJTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1995 a result of their abuser violating Protection Orders. It was also noted that while living wi* fatnUy is often an option, the abuser typically knows all of the vtcttm s f^.ly and has l.tUe problem finding the victim, hence staying with family is not always a good solution. Lt. Gary Cheswick of the Orono Police Department arrived and introduced himself. Lt. Cheswick indicated that the State Stamtes require that cetlain procedures and policies be adopted and followed, and that the Orono Police Department does follow the policies which they have adopted. Those policies include the ability of each officer to assess the specific situation, and viettas are alwavs provided with an information card as a resource for phone num^rs who to contact for specific assistance, etc. Lt. Cheswick had provided a copy of the Pohee Department s adopted poliev to Mabusth and she read excerpts from it. The policy requues that officers advise victims of dieir legal rights, available shelters, and commumty services, and provide victims with copies of "Rights and Services for All Crime f appropriate course of action in domestic abuse cases, the primary concern of the officer protection of all from further acts of violence. U. Cheswick noted that each victim typically has some idea of how they want to handle the situation, and that each case is different. Peterson questioned whether the Police Department had transponed any within the last year. Lt. Cheswick indicated that in the past he personally had on occ^ on transponed victims to Pioneer House but would have to check the computer listmg to dctermin where other victims may have been taken. Rowlette questioned whether Orono Police are directed to involve m advocate from Westonka Intervention immediately for each domestic abuse situation. He indicated that the the discretion to assess each situation individually and bring in a third party as there is no specific policy directive mandating the use of Westonka Intervention or any thu^d ^any He TndicateS he would provide Mabusth with a copy of the informauon matenal provided to victims by the police. He further indicated that quite often m domestic abuse cas« where the police are called, the abuser is taken to jaU which allows some time for the victim to consider options for action. Our police normally wUl discuss with the victim their option and assist victims in the options they choose. He noted that quite often m their own avenues and resources for dealing with the situation and consequently do not request shelter. Lindquist asked whether the Orono Police had had difficulty in locating shelter *{»« ™ who need it. Lt. Cheswick replied that the Police Department fcis the fvailabUity of motels in the area and the cost for short-term stays m them by victims is Hennepin Human Services if necessary. He also indicated that Sojourner and the Mission Home we 2 additional options that could be used. 5." 22 22,22"" SSS^SmT, J22S?22SmZ,"S « are hired, and that it is a Department mandate that ongoing traimng occur. He noted that m Februarv- the Department is scheduled to attend a training session in domestic abuse. JoEllen Hurr asked what additional assistance officers provide victims other than handing them a card with their rights and contact resources. Lt. Cheswick replied that qmte often victims are in the police office'', and that the officer will advise and assist them until they ^ m a position of safety, i.e. they may be transponed if so requested to a safe location, then they are assisted in making the contacts they deem necessary . Lindauist questioned whether Lt. Cheswick felt a shelter in Orono would be of benefit. Lt. Cheswick noted that in some respects it would mean more work for the department, noting that the number of police calls to the shelters in Plymouth and Minnetonka were sigmficant _ Mabusth noted Itat many such calls were due to -suspicious Klivity , a shelter is sensitive to intrusion by the victims’ abusers. This has lead to numbers of false alarm calls She also noted that at one of the shelters located on a cul-de-sac m a middle clas nlighborhood a large number of the calls were made by a single neighbor who was apparently adversely impacted by the activity, car parking, etc. generated by the faculty. Lt. Cheswick noted that in many respects having a shelter in Orono would be helpful, m Aat it would provide a nearby location and an additional option for victims. Schroeder questione liorln^mcidences of domestic abuse the Police Department responded to m a typical year. Lt Cheswick indicated he would have to review the computer records, but that there are nmy i^ffereXL of domestic abuse, and he would have to do some research to present a clear picture. Mabusth showed an overhead with information provtded by the dumber of domestic abuse calls repotted for Orono including its contract ctties. noted that those numbers were somewhat different than City records, and Webber noted that her numbers might be incorrect due to some errors. Schroeder indicated he had received some information from the 19 incidents of domestic assault which Lt. Cheswick chatactenzrf as the senom incidents in 1993, as opposed to somewhere in the range of 80 total domestic assault mci Schroeder indicated he woula provide his information to everyone. Schroeder reiterated that the reason for all of this discussion regarding the number of in^^e^w is to somehow establish whether or not a need exists for the proposed shelter in • Peterson asked, of the 78 incidents reponed for 1993, does Lt. Cheswick have a sense of how many actually were referred to or transported to a shelter. Lt. Cheswick suggested the was probably less than 10. Lt. Cheswick also noted that in his experience tte ^eP^em not had a problem gening people into safe housing when it was necessary, be it ^ shelter or motel. He noted that he personally had not experienced the inability to get a vie MINUTES OF ORONO PLANNING COM^IISSION \VORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1995 shelter He indicated that motels were typically used on a 1-3 day basis, and shelters would likely be used for a longer term or when there was a question of safety for the victim, which was always of concern to the officer. He reiterated that quite often the abuser is arrested on a tvoical fifth decree assault and is jailed for up to 36 hours. Judge Davidson indicated that all custodies are reviewed on a daily basis and the Coun will decide whether an abuser is released or not. Rowlene noted that information provided by the applicants regarding Sojourner iridicated they turned awav victims on a daily basis due to lack of space, but that the information she is hearing today suegests somethin" else. Lt. Cheswick replied that in Orono s e.xperrence, the police have alwavs been able to find a spot in a shelter for a victim who needs it. although he would not dispute that on a given day a given shelter might very well be full to capacity. Peterson questioned whether Orono's response was to hand the victim a card and do nothing more for the victim. Lt. Cheswick replied that that was not the case. Sctooeder suggested that it is more likelv that ihe perceived low numbers of abuse in Orono ^ a function of jwpulation numbers as compared to the popufation of the much larger cities of Plymouth arid Minrietonka where the two nearest shelters are located. It was suggested that while the incidence of abuse on a per capita basis may be as high in Orono as it is in other places, *e numbers requmng the use of a shelter are relatively low compared to the numbers of people from the city of Plj mo requiring shelter in any given year. Judge Davidson suggested that Sojourner and Mission Home be contacted and asked if track of where their calls are coming from and if so, provide that mforiMtion for us. Commission directed staff to do so. Peterson noted that he volunteers m a homeless shelter m Minneapolis and they mro away people every night. Webber i^icated that m their shelters she was advised that there is more demand for space than they can handle. Webber also indicated she would provide information regarding numbers accepted and turned away from area shelters. Schroeder suegested it may be appropriate also to ask area have or any referrals they have made regarding domestic abuse. Judge that her information is that churches often tell the woman she is subservient to her husband a L Should go home and take cate of her family, rather than offering shelter did not expect much information would be supplied by churches. She sugptrf * Department of Human Services. Candy Rowlene sugg^ted conmctmg torfat* C^t^ Greg Sichender suggested contacting Pyramid, a mental health dime m Mmnetonka Pte^ Commission also requested that they be provided with copies of the cards provided by Department. Discussion continued regarding the need for shelter in Orono. Mabusth officers she interviewed consistently commented that Orono residents have their own r MlMj-reS OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO^^IBSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANTJARY 6» 1995 to deal with this matter. LindquUt commented that we should be looking at tins in context of the general communitv, not just within Orono ’s city boundaries. Mabusth^reed, and noted ttat the applicants acknowledge that, and have presented their application as bemg of benefit to the eeneS Lake Minnetonki area. Mabusth noted that in her contacts with the Westonka and Orono school district personnel regardmg this issue, they did not recogn^e city bounces m tolin« with the problem. Schroeder suggested that it is somewhat ditficull for Orono s Plannina Commission to look at the area-wide issue, although that is what is needed. Mabusd. presented a map of the Lake area noting the Nav arre location m relation to the area to be served Not onlv the service area but the population served would be greatly increased by a shelter at this location as compared to Westonka Interventions current service area which is generally the northwes ’terly quadrant of Lake Minnetonka. Mabusth questioned whether the shelter was limited to, or gave priority to, residents of the defined «rvice area. Webber suwested that the shelter would e.xist to serve its local commumty. but there certaiidy are infonnal agreements between shelters that encourage referrals to other shelters when one is lull^ Webber noted that the outreach and educational efforts, however, general y ate co me service area. Turning to the funding issue, Schroeder asked how is the project funded, how much does it cost, where is the nioncy going to come from. Webber advised that Westonka was approved for a $210,000 grant from the Minnesota Housing Authority. Schroeder asked whether Minnesoa Housing Authority is the entity that funds most shelters. W^ replied no they haven ’t traditionally funded shelters, and that is TOt necessanly pan of their mission For various reasons, the MHA Board chose to fund a shelter m some other use, Webber noted that shelters in this area have traditionally been funded by tte Depanment of Corrections, both from their Sute allocation and Federal momes. Apparently me cunent available funds are spoken for, but if the Ugislamre allocates more Depanment of Corrections, there may be competitive requests for use of that “Iditioral allocation. She noted that shelters generally rely on their per diem as review y Department of Human Services. Mabusth confirmed that the per diem is funding administered by Department over which the Department of Corrections does budgetary review. Hessberg noted W«to^ Intervention is cur^ntly raising approximately $30,000 per year from vanous sources. Webter indicated they were hoping for a grant from the McKnight Fo^dation Webber noted that Westonka Intervention would have to follow a similar ^ck as oth ^ont organizations preparing a plan for fund raising from all of the potential sources. She also has suggested that over time Westonka Intervention develop a political strategy to con County Commissioners to allocate funding. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN*N1NG COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1995 Schroedcr questioned whether there is a mandate that cities provide funding for shelters. Webber replied no, but their experience has been that the cities served typically contribute from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars each on a % early basis. Schroeder asked whether it was possible for a shelter to "fair, i.e. run out of money. Webber noted that yes. shelters are non-profit business, and businesses can fail. However, she indicated ihat her e.sperience has been that if an operation that is providing a service fails, then other organizations who wish to see that serv ice continued will step in. Schroeder asked what is the biJoest risk facing Westonka Iniervention with this project. Webber suggested that balanced sta'ffmg is critical, especially in this size an operation. She noted that the Executive Director is typicallv the highest paid staff person, who is hired by the Board. The Executive Director hires staffing as budgeted by the Board, and the exact level of staftmg for the proposed shelter has not been finalized yet. Schroeder suggested this was probably a good place to stop for today and reconvene at a later date. John Ericson, adjacent propert>- owner, commented that while he has no specific objections to the shelter use and understands what is proposed, he would object to a rezomng of the property to commercial, which would open the door for commercial uses should the shelter become defunct. He noted that the church existed as a conditional use in this residenual zone for many years, and he would object to the property being rezoned commercial. Rick Meyers commented that rezoning to allow commercial uses might result in a lucrative financial situation for the shelter should it fail and sell to a commercial user. Schroeder replied that that is a valid issue and will be the subject of future discussions. Judge Davidson provided a video tape to staff for review regarding domestic abuse. The next work session on this topic was set for Friday, January 20, 7:45 a.m. in the Council Chambers. The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 a.m. Charles J. Schroeder, Chairman £: MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DONffiSTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1995 Mabusih. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Micha^Gaffron. and Police Lt. Gar> Cheswick. Citv Councilmeraber JoEllen Hurr was present The applicants were represented by Margaret Webber and Greg Sichender. No members ot the public were in anendance. The work session was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 7:40 a.m. Mabusth brieny reviewed the January 6th work session, noting that the Commission had concluded there was relatively little bv way of standards for domestic abuse shelters other than the gmdelmes established bv the Association of Battered Women Shelters^ She a so reviewed die fmancol needs noting the likelihood that additional staffing above and beyond the imtial level would b needed if the shelter functions like those in Minnetonka and Plymouth. Mabusth presented an overhead indicating the annual budget needs of the shelter. Webber commented that she had discussions with Home Free Sojourner, and the Depat™«ii of Corrections, who indicated that approximately 95% of the shelter operation was covered by the per diem payments, and at this time Westonka is not proposing to add major education or couSrelina activities to their program such as occur at some of the larpr shelters. She Westonka'would like to get the shelter established and continue using volunteers rather than hiring a large staff at this time. Lindquist asked whether the grants are awarded on a yearly basis. Webber reph^ that grants from the County are awarded annually, and funding from the State is whether the per diem amounts are set or if they vary from shelter to shelter. Webber “^dicated that the State has budget review policies that look at all aspects of the operauon and establish an appropriate funding level based to some degree on occupancy rates and the average costs (ter occupancy day. Any expense incurred by the organization that is directly related to providmg shelter is an eligible cost. The expense of providing counselmg or job traimng is not an eligible cost. Webber noted she had learned much from her discussions with the other shelters. For instance, she learned that the staffing level for a twenty bed residence would be two people on the site from 7 00 a m. to 7:00 p.m., and one person from 7:00 p.m to 7:00 a.m. She also found concerning standards of operation, the Department of Corrections "Application ? a Battered Women Shelter FacUity" contains a four page set of standards wiA whichjh^ s -Iter must certify that they comply (application copies distributed to Planmng (pommiss Members). Webber indicated that no one from the Department of ^ shelters specifically, but shelters are expected to be in compliance with the sta^ards. indicated that likely the only agency which would inspect a shelter would be Hennepin o ty Health Department in regards to food handling and storage. The shelter subject to any inspections required by the City. Mabusth also indicated that th S 1 vfTvimrc OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 20. 1995 dep.nn.en. ro^nsSlrl^^r sprinkled. Schroeder suggested that me uiiy may resardless considering the expected use. Schroeder expressed a final ^ non-profitTusti*e'^^ and** not immune from indicated the shelter is ^ funding com^na from arants and donations, funding Sall^n hrs^oo^ufprauhe and has been able to lobby effec.ively in pas. w experience. rY r Tff.m IV Physical Characteristics of the Facility, Mabusth noted the Moving on to Outlme Item I , . adjacent residential properties. She indicated the building location ^ „is,ing buildina, only remodel it. She noted that applicants have no mtent “ ^^5,^ on specific feamres including safety. and children to be served within die projected operatmg budget and cost. Webber indicated that die Navatm site ^able^i-. ,“eC^ STplenty" rf t“a« for a “leSistrSt^wiXtom '‘'<^3^^007 vSi7^^^ iTete" !s"fpto' widun a reighborhood. He also noted die ^0 “^, also indi««d E.r:,rs Navarre site. toause afthe shelter some one is watching, die violence does no. occur. Schroeder questio “is rs." s=s it -f=~3 *s =s,,^. appear until the application reached the Council level of review. This led to approval delays which conflicted with the propertv owners’ schedule, the building ended up being demolished. when there was no e.xisting building. Schroeder questioned how the service area would change with a building in the proposed loc^ton Mabusth showed an overhead indicating Westonka s service area is generally the "est quaSt of Lake Minnetonka but would expand to include most of |he I^e Mimemi^a area cities. Schroeder asked if Westonka had its choice, where would it place a shelter to serve its community. Webber indicated that centrality is not as critical as access and other site specific characteristics. Affordability is also a large factor. Peterson asked whether high visibility is expected to bring in walk-in traffic without police referrals Webber indicated affirmatively, noting that is a benefit of this visible sue. She further noted that one of the jobs of volunteer or paid advocates is to assist '''I*™* dem^Wnr'vhether or not they wish to involve the police and the legal system. Pe eraon uuesrned whether the low estimate of need indicated by police reports is actually an iriicator of an unmet need for a shelter. Sichender noted that statistically in an affluent family husband has a hi»h income the woman has more to lose, such as her life style custody of children etc and therefore affluent victims tend to suy in a bad situation. Such vicnms ^ potential users of the shelter on a walk-in basis, Peterson suggested that *e flie police, which raises a red flag in the neighborhood, may be a reason for the histoncally low number of referrals to shelters via our police department. Sichender reiterated that 60% of the requests for shelter at Home Free and Sojourner awav due to lack of space, and in essence ate operating at 100% occupancy with no a “V servi the total need. Mabusth and Webber both agreed with Sichender s assessment. Li^^ist questioned whether uhere are any statistics indicating the numbers °f Webber indicated she could provide that infotmauon but did not have it with her. Pe erson suggested that while his gut feeling is that whUe Orono is an affluent coi^^V >■ the same problems as other communities, yet the statistics great need. He noted that the police department’s recent analysis indicates of 38 abusers jaUM. r^yl victim was referred to a shelter, 2 went to suy with friends. 1 went to a hospiuL and this’^is from a toul of 160 domestic abuse calls over a two year penod. Sichender Tis hard to determine how much a facility might be used when it currently isn ‘ noted that in the 38 cases where the abuser went to jail, that action nude it safe to suy at home as was suggested by Lt. Cheswick at the last meeting. Berg suggested that when the abuser is released or later If the abuse continues, the lack of a shelter option b«oi^ ”0' Obvious. Mabusth commented that it was initially clear that sutistics would specifically for Orono, and that the need for a shelter would have to be reviewed m terms of J MTXTITFS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Stones “c^usE shelters held on January 20,1995 • ct fh^ r;rv of Orono She reiterated that the current Westonka the documented lack o spa possible reluctance of a victim to go to an commented that the lack of a local shelt ’ P ^ eliminated by a criminal justice s>stem « . ^ jo shelter, go back home, gors.»no some other tact is taken. o T r rhP^wick how many of the 38 abusers jailed were repeat offenders, i.e. are WC«X oTm/jV we« :Sa. " de“ Sk if h'e the victim to determine how the victim wants to handle the situation. rsrsr.roio''srs;rr.‘7..r^^ reiterated Judge Davidson’s comment that churches are not always supportive of the vie ways that solve the problem. Hurr asked Lt. Cheswick about procedures when the police are called to a ^ noted that domestics are one of the most dangerous simauons, an 8®"®” ^ ^ respond. Hurr questioned whether that eliminated coverage for e ty Cheswick time and questioned how much time officers actually could spend wi a vi • r i “at .Tneed be dtey call in reserves, interns or CSOs to "t„ If orior to arrival of backup the officer(s) receive another call and can t lea • J 8 "mumal aid", calling in assistance from neighboring cities. He noted that an a be called if the victim requests. MESTJTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1995 Mabusth coramemed she had discussed the needs for a shelter with Chief Sullivan, and he had indicated for the record that while he can’t provide statistics for Orono or its contract cities Lhat document the needs of the community that he directly supports the need for a shelter, m general a facilit>' like this is needed, and he doesn’t anticipate that the number of police calls generated by this facility will be a problem. Bera commented that it is unlikely tha: the statistics will ever demonstrate a need, since domestic abuse is such an emotional issue and the stigma attached to involvmg the police, i.e. the potential for a "hidden’’ problem to become «. isifcle to the neighborhood, keeps manv victims from cornin® forward. Smith agreed, noting that we may never have a statistically reliable picmre of thi problem. Sichender commented that smdies indicate domestic abuse is not limited to the lower end of the income scale, and that every community has degree of domestic abuse. Schroeder suggested that whether or not domestic abuse exists is not the question, but rather, is the proposed shelter the right solution for Orono. The infuunation provided suggests that the nearbv shelters are used to capacity. Mabusth interjected that she had been advised by an Orono officer who has been on the force for 15 years had four opportunities during his tenure to require the use of a shelter, and had never been able to place a victim at Sojourner or Horrie Free, but had to take them downtown to the Harriet Tubman shelter. Peterson noted it is st a fact tiiat with the relatively few cases requiring a shelter, the Orono Police had always been able to find a space somewhere, if not close by. Hurr likened the placement of a shelter in Orono to the placement of the Maxwell Bay lake access in Orono. It may not benefit most Orono residents but it is a benefit to the metro area in general and the City has some responsibility to the general public. Peterson questioned whether, when abusers are jailed, are they jailed in our facility or elsewhere. Cheswick noted they are held in our facility until transported to the Hennepm County jail. Cheswick commented that if the shelter is ultimately located in Orono, it w-.H be used, but if it s full, we’ll have to go elsewhere. We will use it if there is space available. Smith commented that the written information provided to victims by the police might be made more user friendly. Cheswick commented that if all we did was hand victims the information, he would agree, but that in fact each simation is handled individually, the information is provided to victims as needed rather than simply as a handful of paper. Smith concern that she would have a hard time sorting through all of the infonnadon available it sne was in that situation. Cheswick suggested that individual Planning Ccmmissioners might to ride with an officer once, to get a sense of how they handle various situations. Schroeder continued with the land use portion of the outline, questioning how the sheltw fits mio the zoning code. Gaffron noted that each zoning district has a list of allowed uses, and uses not listed are'’not allowed. Further, neither a "domestic abuse shelter" nor anythmg reasonaDiy MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Jjy^ONE^^USE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1995 • •Uf trt it Jc in allowed use in anv of our residential or commercial zoning districts. r!efe“.d To me com^lairof rLidcmfa. and commercial dis.ric. uses handed om a. U.e meeting. Peierson questioned what is a "public service strucmre" and would a shelter fall into tWs !ameoT/. Gaffron replied that a public sers-ice structure is defined as electric transmission lines, lift stations, telephone exchange stations, etc., t.e. items of mfrasmicmre. thni Iher- ate two apparent wavs to amend the code to accommodate a shelter. BotrmquirfcreTln of a use withperformance standards. The first method would be to amend the LR-IC District to allow the shelter conditional use. without rezomn^ propenv The second option would be to rezone the property to perhaps B-4, a coi^etcta rnT which allows somewhat similar uses such as nursing homes, rest homes and retirement homes. The B-4 zone would be amended to include shelters as a conditional use. Gaffron noted that rezonmg the propenv to B-f mi.nht ultimately lead to commercial use of that property if the shelter fails. Uaving it LR-IC ..id allowing the shelter as a allows the City to place restrictions in ihe perfoimance standards to smelly limit the nature of the shelter use. All Plaunine Commissioners present indicated rezoning to commercial would be and amending the LR-IC zone would make sense. Lindquist noted that is also in Ime wi± wha the neighbors present at the last meeting wanted. Schroeder asked whether we had ^^ard fro more tLn jast the two neighbors. Mabusth commented she had heard from John O SuUiv^ who had recently purchased the Te.xaco site to the south, and he at least at this time m the preliminary discussions had no problemc w'h the shelter use. Gaffron indicated the ne.xt step wou' oe to consider what specific controls would be appropriate to accomplish the City ’s goals for a shelter. Is it the goa rrheker m iust this site or to allow one in other areas? Do the specific needs for visibUity transponation, etc. help defme locations to which a shelter should be limited? Gaffron noted that die Minnetonka City Attorney, who is an Orono resident, had shelters a conditional use in a residential zone would be her preference that proceeded, but that due to a number of factors they might have preferred that the Sojourn shelter be in a location not as "tucked into" a residential neighborhood. Gaffron continued that there are certain needs inherent in the shelter use such P^^^| availability which would become minimum performance standards. He also suggeste Coiiunissim should consider whether only the LR-IC District would be amended, or whe^er other districts could appropriately have a shelter. He indicated L^pianning allow a shelter only in the LR-IC District and in no other residential districts if Commission feels that is appropriate. Schroeder sugpsted staff may wish to chec wi Attorney u/r his comments. Lindquist noted that since staff has to admimster dus. have a preference which zones would allow shelters. Gaffron indicated that it perhaps cou MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMAIIS^ION W ORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1995 allowed via an amendment to the R-IA District and therefore allowed in all residential districts that refer back to R-IA, as long as the performance standards are wnnen so as to limit the potential locations to those which Planning Commission feds are appropriate. Refetrins to the list of shelters and crisis organizations, Schroeder suggested ttot there is a general need for shelters and the question the Planning Commission is faced with is what will we do to accommodate that need in Orono. We cannot necessarily support one specific shelter in e.tclusion of all others. I iiidquist noted that as a conditional use, each applicaimn would come before the Planning Commission. Hum suggested it may be possible to restrict the number of shelters within a given area. She suggested Orono should do its fair share but not more than its share. Lindquist requested that staff provide information as to how other cities have dealt with the zoning issues surrounding shelters. Peterson indicated he is eenerally in support of the shelter but feels there is an apparent lack of documentation of the need, and noted that society has many needs today and unknown fumre needs that we will have to deal with eventually. We need to balance allowing these uses while appropriately restricting them. Schroeder sue«^ested that at least one additional work session was needed to review the zoning code issues. Discussion ensued as to what level of public notification is intended for the next work session, and whether it should be in the morning or evening. It was generally concluded to do an evening meeting. Staff will do a fax calendar to all Planmng Commissioners to establish possible dates for the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 a.m. V- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON FEBRUARY 21, 1995 The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Charles Schroeder. Vice Chairman Steve Peterson. Sandra Smith and Charles Nolan. City staff was represented by Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron. The applicants were represented by Dan and Valerie Hessburg and Margaret Weber. No members of the public were in attendance. The work session was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 7.00 p.m. Gaffron briefly reviewed the January 20th workshop and noted that the February 21st work session is intended to specifically review land use and zoning issues. Gaffron indicated that a domestic abuse shelter is not currently listed in any of Orono ’s zoning districts as a permitted, accessory or conditional use. Therefore the code would have to be amended to allow such use. This amendment could take the form of adding a conditional use in the LR-IC zone in which the proposed shelter site is located; or a conditional use in the R-IA zone to which all other residential zoning districts refer; or a conditional use permit in a commercial zone. In the latter case, a re^oning of the specife site from residential to commercial would be necessary. At your January 20th session. Planning Commission indicated that such a rezoning would likely not be appropriate for this site. Gaffron further commented that once the Planning Commission concludes whether the domestic abuse shelter use should be allowed somewhere in the City, the next step is to determine what criteria should be used to establish suitable locations and operation standards for such use. A zoning code amendment can be constructed to limit the use to locations meeting those criteria. The criteria might include facto*^ such as availability of sewer, proximity to shopping center'-, public transportation, etc. Schroeder requested confirmation that this use could not be allowed as a variance. Gaffron indicated that is correc», and to do so would constitute a .*se variance which is not allowed. Schroeder asked whether there were any currently allowable uses that approximate this shelter use. Gaffron indicated that the most similar uses listed are hospitals and nursing homes, in the B-4 commercial district. Smith requested that staff review the information provided from other cities with sheltere. Gaffron noted the City of Plymouth allows shelters as a conditional use in their higher density residential zones, although a facility serving six or fewer persons in a single family dwelling is permitted in their single family zones. Plymouth’s ordinance has detailed application requirements as well as specific development standards and performance criteria. He briefly reviewed those criteria noting the 1,320 ’ required separation between facilities, and other requirements such as consistent architeemre with the neighborhood, required licensing, parking and signage, etc. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON FEBRUARY 21, 1995 Gaffron continued that the City of Minnetonka also allows shelters as a conditional use in residential zones, with specific site criteria such as 3,000 s.f. of lot area for each overnight resident. 300 s.f. or residential building area for each overnight resident, maximum impact standards for traffic 'generation, parking standards, etc. Schroeder asked on what basis the Minnetonka and Plymouth shelters canw to be located where they are. Mabusth noted that the Plymouth location is a natural outgrowth of the institutional uses surrounding it at that site. Tlic Minnetonka shelter site is embedded within a single family residential neighborhood, and their City Attorney indicated in hind sight that may not have been the most appropriate location. Peterson noted that Inver Grove Heights took a differen approach, and allowed shelters as a conditional use only when accessory to a church, post secondary school, or hospital, and only in what they define as an 'instinitional zoning district". He noted this is similar to what St. Paul Park did. allowing the shelter as part of an existing church use. Gaffron noted that Hill House in White Bear Lake was located in a downtown commercial area in a "diversified" zoning district. "Rogers House" in St. Paul Park is accessory to a church use with the church holding"the lease, located in a residential zone. The church is allowed through a conditional use permit which was '’dopted as an ordinance. He noted that the ordinance establishes a committee to review the shelter on an annual basis. Nolan asked what authority the committee would have if the shelter was not being operated property. Gaffron noted the Council could presumably rescind the CUP. Peterson noted the 42 police calls to that shelter in 1994. Nolan questioned what was included in the Miscellaneous Service Calls portion of the list. Valerie Hessburg commented that some might be due to parking problems or other issues. Mabusth noted that at Sojourner, many of the calls related to parking issues, kids skateboarding on the driveways, etc. Hessburg noted that the same questions were asked in Mound, noting that that proposed site was next to a convenience store which had a significant number of calls. Hessburg suggested that the shelter use would generate no more calls than a convenience store, for instance. She questioned how often the Orono police were called to the proposed Navarre site already, due to vandalism, etc., which has apparently been a frequent occurrence given the degree of damage inside the church building. Gaffron noted that the City of Blaine was proactive in locating "Alexander House" in a "flex district" which allows flexibility in allowing non-standard uses. Blaine concluded they wanted the existing shelter use to remain in the city and found a new location for it of the City s choosing, allowing them to locate it to have minimal impact on neighborhoods or traffic. Gaffron further noted that the City of Eagan has an "interim use" district, which allows non standard uses via conditional use permit. Nolan suggested that an interim use district might allow uses normally not allowed in a district, but limit them to a finite period of time m anticipation of a change in the use once the area’s master plan development begins to take place. He indicated he had run across an interim use district in Burnsville. Mabusth questioned whether such a district was appropriate for Orono or the Navarre area which is essentially MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON FEBRUARY 21, 1995 developed, as opposed to open lands in Burnsville where interim development might be a stepping stone towards a final development plan. Nolan noted this was used .o encourage development even though the ultimate use of the property might change in say 15 years. Schroeder noted that suggests a great degree of future planning toward reaching a significantly different end point, not Orono's current situation. Gaffron noted he had obtained the zoning information from the cities, and had not contacted each of the shelters listed. Only information from those cities in the metro area was gathered. Gaffron indicated the proposed zoning code changes in Mound were merel> lO include a definition of "victims of domestic abuse shelter" and add that rse to the list ot allowed uses in a general business district. Peterson commented that it may be inappropriate to specify "domestic abuse" shelter as opposed to other type of shelters, such as a teenage or runaway shelter or some other shelter that might be appropriate. The idea would be to allow shelters generally without limiting their scope. It was noted that Mound never did go through with the proposed amendment. Gaffron noted that other cities defined the shelter more broadly, such as a "residential shelter" or "residential tacility'. Gaffron briefly reviewed that other cities had adopted "flex" or "interim" districts which gave them great flexibility in allowing uses via a conditional use permit. None of those cities had noted any problems with claims of "spot zoning". Mabusth questioned whether this was a direction the Planning Commission wished to pursue, or whether it was appropriate for Orono at this time. Nolan suggested that it may be more appropriate to create some "institutional" districts rather than auopt a flexible zoning district. The obvious existing institutional uses could be rezoned without much fear of "spot zoning" charges. Mabusth questioned whether that is more appropriate than merely amending existing residential zoning to allow shelters under limited conditions. Schroeder and others concurred a simple zoning amendment would be the best way to accomplish the shelter use. Mabusth questioned whether the Planning Commission concurred with Councilmember Hurr that the code should be amended in such a strict manner to eliminate the possibility of other types of crisis agencies pursuing a similar use under the same amendment. Smith indicated she would prefer to struemre the amendment to allow similar uses but only tinder very restricted circumstances and locations, perhaps requiring a separation between facilities, etc. Nolan felt that he wouldn’t mind facilities being near each other as long as they are in an appropnate location. Peterson expressed concern regarding the degree of restrictions to be placed, notmg that writing criteria too loosely would allow any number of unwanted uses to qualify. Gaffron agreed, but noted that once Planning Commission identifies inappropriate locations or uses, the amendment can be worded to be extremely restrictive. He used the example of Orono s duplex credit, which allows a duplex only within 200 ’ of a commercial zone. He also noted that certain MEWTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO>LMISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON FEBRUARY 21, 1995 of the criteria provided by the applicant that made this location attractive, could be easily written into the amendment as required criteria. Mabusth questioned whether Planning Commission wanted to limit the use to the LR-IC district, or to anv residential district that meets specific criteria. She suggested that once the criteria are selected', it would be fruitful to examine the various City maps and determine all potential locations meeting the criteria, in order that the criteria can be tested. Schroeder asked how the proposed Mound amendment was structured. Dan Hessburg indicated the shelter CUP would have been allowed in four different areas of the City zoned similarly, although none contained buildings suitable for a shelter. Since the amendment was not approv'ed. Wcstonka Intervention has no formal office facilities currently, and is operating out of the Hessburgs' residence. Gaffron noted that excluding the B-2 Marina zones. Orono s commercial zones are limited to the immediate Navarre area and the strip west of Long Lake along Highway 12. A stipulation that shelters be within a residential zone and within a specified distance from a commercial zone, would strictly limit their potential locations. In reviewing the Plymouth ordinance, it was noted that shelter services were limited to the shelter’s residents, which would not allow the educational aspects of Westonka Intervention’s proposal for Orono. Possible reasons why Plymouth chose this language were discussed Other aspects of the Plymouth ordinance were briefly discussed. The Minnetonka ordinance was also looked at notine they included specific standards for building and lot size related to the number of possible residents in the facility. The Navarre site would meet Minnetonka’s standards. Minnetonka also limits shelters on the basis of traffic generation and accessibility, and again the proposed Orono facility meets Minnetonka’s standards. It was also noted that Minnetonka and a few other cities require shelters to have a Board of Directors including members of the coininunity, which Planning Commission felt was appropriate. Peterson reiterated that the ordinance needs to be written specifically enough that uses similar to shelters but which are perhaps inappropriate, would be excluded, or so regulated that they aren ’t a problem. Mabusth suggested that aspects of both the Plymouth and Minnetonka codes might be appropriate. The code should be written so that only sites meeting all criteria would be allowable. Gaffron asked whether Planning Commission feels it is at a point where it wants to consider specific criteria, or whether it would be appropriate to first hear from the the March 7th public information meeting. Mabusth noted that the public has been notified by mail of the March 7th meeting, and that will be the first oppormnity for public reaction to the proposal. At the end of that meeting, Planning Commission may be in a position to ni^ke a recommendation to Council regarding a code amendment to allow shelters. Procedurally, if the Council agrees. Planning Commission would be directed to proceed with the code amendment process. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM\IISSION WORK SESSION ON DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS HELD ON FEBRUARY 21, 1995 Nolan asked at what step in the process would specific criteria be assembled. Mabusth noted that an amendment would likely be presented to Planning Commission for public hearing at its April meetin£. Valerie Hessburg noted that their financing lias been extended to late summer, so timing is not as cri*ical an issue. At the request of Nolan, Mabusth and Schroeder clarified the differences between a public information meeting and a public hearing. Mabusth noted that approximately 250 residents in the Navarre area were mailed individual notices of the March 7th meeting, and it will be published twice in the local newspaper. It was noted that at the public information meeting there should be short presentations by the applicant and City staff, with the majority of time spent hearing public comments and resiwnding to their questions. Informational materials will be provided to the members of the public present. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:25 p.m. Charles J. Schroeder, Chairman ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 7,1995 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - FOLTUTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADY WOOD ROAD (r> ROLL s:~5js=:€ifs- Ciiv Staff Buildina and Zoning Administrator kanne Mabusth. .Assist^t Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron. and Recorder Sherr>’ Frost. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7 00 p m. (#1) LNTRODLCTORY COMMENTS - CILVIRMAN CHARLES SCHROEDER Schroeder informed the public that this pubUc information meeting is the foimh in a senes of meetings retzardimi a proposed shelter in Navarre for Westonka Intervention Protect^ Schroeder reponed that this process has been a real learning experience for tdl members ot the Commission The Planning Commission has looked at the need for a shelter, how i operates, and the zoning issue .At this time, enough information has been gathered m the application process to solicit input from the public. A large numbCT (205) ot notices were slm to people in the vicinitv of the proposed shelter site. The notification ot this me«mg was also posted in the City Hall, the Post Otfice. and pubUshed m two newspapers. The Planning Commission felt it was important to go be>ond the normal realm of notification to inform the public of these meetings and receive their input. (#2) REVIEW OF PROPOSED USE - DANIEL HESSBURG, REPRESENTATIVE OF WESTONKA INTERVENTION PROJECT Dan Hessbura, representative of Westonka Intervention Project (hereinafter ”W«tonka"), gave some background to how the project began. A cotninittee was formed in 1983 in response to coninunity problems in the west suburban area Domestic abuse was a topic that frequently arose which led to the formation of the proiect. The Mound, St. Bonifacius, and Minnestrista areas were served until 1985 when the non-proht oreanization was formed and grant Amding was received. The service , 1988 to include Orono. .Minnetonka Beach, Long Lake, and Spnng Park. Maple Plain ^ Independence are now beina added. Westonka has spoken with other cities m the south shore area for future inclusion. Tb-y are Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood, and Wavzata. The projea serves about 150 families a month. Of that number, lO-20/o request a safe home. In the last 12 years. Hessburg reported that they have not been able to place anyone in either of the nearest shelters. Sojourner in Minnetonka, and a Plymouth shelter, due to no space available. (?2 - Review of Proposed Use - Hessburg - Continuea» Church's convent was available but needed to ^"‘1° " ? f-:„ '-There was some The sale was based on receiving permission tor the uSv public opposition The project was not able to meet the deadline Hessbure reported that the Navarre location is in the heart of their service area It is ^ w Minnetonka, allowing children to attend their own schools An offer was made and accepted with the Conservative Baptist Conference ™ 'The church offer was for SIdO.OOO with SI 10,000 earned by the church over a fitlyear period The project qualities for Minnesota Housing finance NLXfa“ree?.o"onate SMOO/year for the ne.vt hve years The project also qualifies for funding from the Depanment of Corrections. An architectural drawine of the floor plan was presented. The outside will remain basically the same with the exception of window changes to aUow foi egress m the Iowct Lvd The^^^^ will be a porch on the front. The lower level will be the dormitory ar^ tjmh bedrooms hous^a 20 beds. There will be men and women bathrooms and kitchen and dining facilities on this floor. The upper level will house the areas along with men and women bathrooms. Storage wiU be in the inezzanme area. A landscaping plan will be developed with the City. Fencing is planned for tne rear area for parking and play areas. The outside wiU be Ut by mercury bghtmg. Hessbure outlined the process their project goes through with a victim Th^ 8*‘ from the'police department after the initial arrest. Two advocates in^ with the woman, who is inl'ormed of her riahts and options available. There is generally m order o ;m«tlon r^etved from-the coun system. The advocate vvill attend the couri ht^ng Lid assist the victim through the court process. Dunng this time, a safe shelter out and funded through a voucher system. This shelter which will have 20 beds will serve about 7-9 famiUes at one time. There is an average of 2+ children per viaim. The average stay is 17-19 days. Hessburg read to the public a statement of non-violence. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO\MSSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PUBLIC INTORNLATION MEETING - FOURTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED ISSof ZONING SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT -j80 SR\D\AV00D RO.AD (W) PHYSICAL Ca\R.\CTERISTICS OR SPECIAL SITE NEEDS OF USE - APPLICANT AND ORONO STAFF Schroeder inlbnned the oitblic that the City ofOrono's zoning code does not protide for Lehers at thts t.me The Planning Commission has been ,n the process ot answenng several questions. .Ve shelters appropriate m cenam zones. Is this apphcation appropriate if a conditional use permit is granted” Mabusth went over the zorang of the area. The site is in a residential zone on the edge of the commercial district Mabusth reported that research and expenence have tound that a shelter is best located on the edge of commercial and residemiiU dismas with close pro.ximltv to stores, public and school transportation. The building can easily be convertSl and easilv accessed. The building contains 5000 sq ft. The building is located 263 ’ from east residential lot line and ’OS' from the other north residential lot Une. (#4) REVIEW OF EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONLNG OF AREA - ORONO STAFF A) GENERAL LAND USE ISSUES The site is located in a LR-IC single family 1/2 acre minimum l^eshore zoning area. There is B-1 commercial zoning on two sides of the property. This zoning ^“°** *' types of business uses B-4 is for professional and business office. B-3 lor shoppingmost center, and LR-IB for one acre single family residential. B) SPECIFIC ZONING ISSUES FOR NAVARRE SITE Gaffron repotted that the shelter cannot receive a land-use variance. The zoning would need to be chanaed in one of these zones to aUow this use. The church was pven a conditional-use permit. The options are to change the LR-IC resident.^ zoning to ^l^a shelter as a conditional-use or re-zone to commercial and receive a in a commercial zone. The problem with this is if the shelter were to dissolve, what would happen with the zoning. Gaffion repotted that the Planning Commission is leaning towards a possible conditional- use permit within a residential zone. LR-IC. to aUow a shelter. There concerns especiallv with the need for service trucks in and out of the area. The Pla^ng Commission is aereeable with this site because of the proximity to pubhc avaiiabUity of sewer, convenient location and accessibility, a large site .or this ^ location being on a major road so as not to require any access through a residenual are . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION PL.UC abuse '“'s°Su“4'^*“S.Tv?SS (#4B - Specific Zoning Issues - Continued) The shelter will heve to meet cenatn limits and crttena which have not yet been d«e^ri A public hearing will also be regutred. The Planning Co^sston wall ne^ to ask the CouncU to direct them to make a zoning amendment Stand^ds tor the shelter would then be made E.vhibits G-H list the permitted uses m l-Kidential tmd commCT^^^ areas Schroeder reported that a conditional-use permit would be the vehicle for the shelter if it is done GaiTron has looked at other cities and thetr zoning laws. Most cities have not had codes allowing for a shelter until a shelter was proposed. 1 (#5) PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Phvllis O-Mallev of Kellv Avenue addressed the safelv- issue. She voiced the lack of a fence for the aiea and more traffic bemg brought mto the area becau^ ot the closure of Old Beach Road Hessburg answered that the site is two acres. ^ 8 S-in ^ea will be created for children Schroeder added that performance standards would be made in regard to the safety ot children. Jackie Mever of Mound said she was a friend of Westonka Intervention and has visited five shelters in Minnesota, Harriet Tubman. Plymouth shelter. Sojourner and two in St Paul. Onlv one ofthese shelters had a vacancy She also noted tto the sheers were not fenced around but had fenced-in areas There were stnct regulations and an intercom and a security system in place. Children were not allowed to go m ^d out and were under the watch of volunteers A form was filled out if a child was taken out by someone other than their mother. Richard Mevets of 2195 Bavview, Orono. ask if adolescents were handled in the same manner as younger children. Hessburg said that policies and guidelines were “• each group of children When victims and chUdren come to a shelter, they must loUow the policifs or would be removed from the shelter Schroeder said that one ot the questio s the Commission looked at were calls to the police depariment reg^dmg at a shelter. Of the 30-40 calls, the vast majonty were for parkmg problems, alarms, and y locked in cars. There were no serious problems associated with the calls. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PUBLIC INTORNLATION MEETING - FOURTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED amendment OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SffiLTCR located at 2380 SRAD^AVOOD RO.AD (irS • Public Comments and Questions - Continued) Gre- Sichender a Westonka Intervention board member, reported that adolescent boys are not .tllovved or a limited number are allowed at the NUnnetonka shelter to eliminate potential behav oriai problems Schroeder asked Hessburg if adolescCTt boys would be Lted but Hessburu did not know. Peterson said there was the need tor safety but people should realize that not ail of the victims even have children. Hessburg said that there has never been anv v lolence in regard to a police caU to a shelter in Minnesota, bojoumer had one call reuardina a batterer possibly coming to the shelter but this never matenalized. Banerers rLn the'whole aamut of social-economic class and are people you see every day. The victim vvoui: he und'er court protectioa and the last place the batterer would want to be would be at the shelter to cause himself more problems V'al Hessburg reporte researchina police depanment calls. Home Free Shel'er in Plymouth had 2 calls in 199.. I call in 1993, and no calls from January through May ot 1994. Richard Mevers was concerned with calls to other parts of the communin ’ related to the shelter Mevers was not womed about in-facility but outside-facihty probleim saying statistics show that problems don ’t come as a result of the shelter itself. Hessburg reponed that when a victim is unable to be in a shelter, the violence will be seen out on the road at the store, etc. If the victim is in the shelter, the violence vviU not be there. Peterson said that a banerer knows where friends and famUy are located to hnd the victim but if at the shelter, they won ’t go there. Ray Pasch of 3300 Navarre Lane, was concerned when the victims are out in the neighborhood going to the bus, the store, etc. Children are restricted to the site but what about the victim. He wondered if the batterer would be watching and wamng for the victim and incidents would then occur. Hessburg said by that time, the viaim is under coun protection, and anv occurrence of violence would result in actual jail time, which is a deterrent to anything happemng. Schroeder said the concern was if the shelter would attract an undesirable concentration of people. Pasch also asked about the location and drawing additional traffic through the area and not through the residential streets but by Co Rds 15 and 19 only. He asked if the access to the facHity would be from the county roads only and what about the side vacated road. Hessburg -lU the victim would be brought to the shelter by an advocate and stay about 17-19 da. The traffic would be greater from the staff personnel. If a viaim is working, they would use the parking lot. The lower level area would also create traffic with service trucks Mevers asked if the access road would be deadended so the road would not go through the neighborhood. The Planning Commissioners thought that all access would be from the county road but will look at this issue. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - FOLUTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENT)MENT OF ZONING CODE TO .\LLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD (rF5 - Public Comments & Questions - Continued) Meyers also asked about the tumaway rate. If it is 60« 'o and there has never been a victim from Orono able to enter Sojourner or Home Free, could the area people get turned away from this shelter if it is tilled. He was concerned with the shelter being generally filled with people from other areas. Hessburg said that people could call to check on space available. If there was an opening, it would be filled with people from our area but others would not be turned awav because thev were not from this area. Meyer asked then if there would be no guarantee of a bed available. Hessburg said that the shelter would be filled on a first-come, first-served basis The shelter would be operated by Westonka advocates and would make it available for local people if beds were open. Schroeder said that you cannot guarantee a bed, and the shelter would serve a bigger area than Orono. Meyers asked if the shelter w ould be expanded with the expansion of the service area. Schroeder said this would be addressed in the conditional-use penmt. Perform^ce standards would be set. This shelter is limited to 20 beds, and the Commission is not anticipating other shelters. Once an amendment of the code is passed, other shelters are conceivable in the area but performance standards would limit where this would happen. At present, there are no expectations of any larger facility than stated. Hessburg said this structure is limited in size and there are budget constraints. Peterson reported that he has worked for ten years at the Simpson House located at Lake St. and Lyndale Ave. in Minneapolis. Half of the people using the shelter at any given time are not from our state and are not turned away. Peterson said to keep in mind that there are only 25 shelters m the whole state. Dee Smith of Corcoran who has also resided in Mound, is a volunteer at Hamet Tubman Shelter and an advocate of Westonka, as well as a previously battered person. She reported that the mothers are given alot of responsiblity while at the shelter. They are given a curfew, must sign in and out, and given specific instruaions to live by. She is in favor of all communhies having a shelter. Smith said some wornen who come are terrified while others just need to get away from a situation and are hurting people who need help and are not there to bring more violence to the area. Phyllis O'Malley asked if the side road was vacated. Gaffron said it was not technically \ i.* itcd, just barricaded, and is a city dedicated road. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONL\USSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PUBLIC CsTCR*\L-\TION MEETING - FOLTR-TH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE S^^ located AT 2380 SHAD WOOD RO.AD (rr5 - Public Comments & Questions - Continued) Eldon Frieze of Navarre asked for a clarification of the location for the childrens play area, the parkinu lot. and if any expansion of the lot was expected. Hessburg said the architect will look at where the best location is for the play area. A possibility ’ is the nonhwest section of the back side near the walk-out area. There arejio state requirements on plav areas. The shelter would be licensed throu^the state. Sc^oeder said the Commission looked at what standards there were from different entities but tound that there are no specific laws governing shelters; but because ot state tunding, there would be guidelines to be followed Hessburg said a consultant, who is tamihar with the guidelines’has been hired to aide the shelter in meeting the guidelines Schroeder said the Planning Commission would look at all areas, such as lighting, and require that there be no alare impact upon a neighborhood, etc. The kitchen operation would have a County Health Depanmeni license. There are also fire codes, etc. to follow. Hessburg said the architect specializes in reconstructions of schools and institutions and is familiar with the guidelines. Schroeder read a letter from John O’Sullivan, owner of O'Sullivan's. He sees problems with having a shelter at this location and prefers rezoning the area for protessional or business uses. He wrote that the building does not meet zoning codes, and Orono is limited in the number of businesses in the community It was answered by Schroeder that the site would not be rezoned commercial. An owner would not be permined to sell the property in the future for a greater value due to rezoning. The site will stay zoned as it is presently. Marilyn Renier, neighbor on Navarre Lane, voiced approval of the shelter. She said the building itself is battered and bruised and needs to be used. Peterson reported that there have been many cases of vandalism reported to the police department. Richard Mevers said he thinks that this is a good commercial area. He asked if ariyone has ever com'e forward to the Planning Commission to try to develop it commercially. Gaffi-on said there have been calls asking what can be done with the property. People have been informed of the residential zoning code and what can be done in residenti^ areas. Peterson said that this would not typically scare off a determined developer from proceeding with a rezoning request. Hessburg said that the property had been for sale for six years, and no purchase agreement has been presented contingent on a use. He did not feel that this was a booming commercial area. Schroeder said that there are two commercial areas in Orono, one around the City Hall area and one in Navarre, but the Uty has received no application for anything business-related for this site. Mabusth reported in 1987, the City invited Navarre business owners to discuss re-development, but no initiative resulted from these discussions. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION PL^LIC W (s5 - Public Comments &. Questions - Continued) Jackie Mever said that durina her visits to shelters, she saw only young children. There were single'"men too. She teit that women will sometimes suck out a r^dren come alona and then face the problem. The playrooms f and contained toys for young children She did „ot see any adolescent problems, Pasch asked the reasons why the Mound site was found not appropnate tor the sheltw. So? H?s:?.hte\r:reTu?ea"sons?:?e sh^S”o?om tbrt|e Mound to solve the problems in the time frame allowed by the convent. Schroeder said that this is an emotionally charged issue affected when standards are set and the shelter operates quietly Hessburg said that Sojourner neighborhood found that their fears oflowered propeny values were unfounded Hessburg said the condition of the building on the Navarre sue is deterioratina rapidlv Schroeder feels that a residential area is not appropnate for a shelter but this location is good. He feels the shelter will be used by Orono residents but will be filled by the larger community. Diane Carlson, on Casco, said that the neighborhood would benefit from the counwling "“^provided by the project, without using the beds available, once they know that they may'^call for this service. She said she. along with several neighbors, are in favo the shelter. Schroeder reponed that the Commissioners do not take changing codes and uses lightly. He feels that the site is good and would be an improvement to the neighborhood. S MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CON^SSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PL^BLIC INFORMATION MEETING - FOLUTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED zoning code to allow DOMESTIC ^USE located at 2380 SHADWOOD RO.AD (#5 - Public Comments & Questions - Continued) \ neiahbor reconed that he did not know this issue was being discussed until the last mon^THe ielt that mote of the public would come to the n« m^tmg, Mabusth satd ZTe notice for precious sessions was posted in the post office. The three previous work sessions provided both Staff and Commission members time to study ^1 issues voiced with this request .Ml three of the pnor work sessions on To, 1/aO. and -/-I, ere □r^ted " have been neiehbors present a. the meetings. This session was opened to a i™Lent due to the iniSrmation now gathered. Schroeder said that the Pl^ng Commission went one step fanher than needed by sending letters out to the nei^bors. The next step in the process would be to make a recommendation to the Council to send the issue back to the Planning Commission to review all the information ^ heannn for the conditional-use code amendment. The above-mentioned neighbor as ?hai thi work sessions be advertised also in the legal paper of the !p advised that although not legally required by law, that appropnate notification of the public is important. Gene Scanlon of Casco Point reported having been at the Mound hearing of the Lady of the Lake shelter proposal He said that the Mound Police Chief had ^o. of mlormation on shelters and police calls Hessburg said that the chief did give alot ot mtortnanon on repeat caUs He reported how well the system can work when the police, infeivemion projects work together Hessburg said that Judge Davidson vvtll contaa the Orono Chief and others for a day forum of professionals who work with these problems and how thev can be served. Scanlon reported on heanng the statistic that 85 /o o students at Mound High School have either experienced or know someone who has experienced domestic abuse in the home. Schroeder said that the shelter was in appropriate response to the dome^ic violence in society Peterson said that Judae Davidson had advised where the church was in these situations. The churches seem to refer the problems back to the family. Berg reponed that Interfaith of Wayzata receives about five calls weekly from people looking for he p with domestic abuse.’ Schroeder feels the Orono Police Depanment would welcome workmg with a group like this. O’Malley asked if all notices were in the Pioneer paper, which they are. Pasch asked if the parkina lot would be e.xpanded if the shelter was given approv^. Looking at the topographical maps, Pasch noted that the land falls if hardcover and drainaee issues had been discussed. Schroeder reported that these issues have not been discussed but will be with a future application if CouncU approves a code amendment. MINXITES OF THE ORONO PL.ANNING COMNOSSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995 PL^LIC INFORMATION \IEETING - FOLUTH WORKSHOP PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE TO ALLOW DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD (#5 - Public Comments & Questions - Continued) Mabusth reponed on the on-uoing process for the application. If the Council agrees with a request to amend the codefthe Council will direct Staff to place the application on an upcoming agenda of the Planning Commission. Written notification will again be sent to the 205 neighborhood people advising of the public hearing tor the amendment to the code. (#6) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE COL NCIL - DISCUSSION OF PLANNLNG COMMISSION MEMBERS Schroeder asked for comments from each member of the Commission. They are as follows; Peterson said he struggled with the statistics shown by the Orono Police Department. Lt. Cheswick was present at meetimts and was questioned about the need for a shelter and related police calls. The records''show that over the last several years, only one hotel voucher has been given out. Few have been taken to shelters. The lieutenant had reported having had taken women to shelters in Plymouth and Minnetonka and had counseled women. The Ueutenant did feel that a shelter would be used. Peterson voiced his approval of the shelter. Rowlette was impressed with the Orono Police Department but felt women were left to their own devices. If a shelter was in Orono, it would save poUce time. There are no officers trained in handling domestic abuse situations. Rowlette feels the location is good. She liked the idea that the site could serve children from three school districts, Rowlette felt the shelter was needed. Berg reported having had e.xperience with Cornerstone Shelter in Richfield. She feels that domestic abuse is a closed-door problem. The site is excellent. She lives nearby and is okav with it. Nolan said he was originally concerned with possible violence. He felt that violence must be connected with it, but he now feels this is not true. He said that a situation must be bad if police are called. He feels the location is appropriate for the greater Minnetonka area. He feels site planning can solve any problems associated with the building. Lindquist concurred with other commission members. He r^orted that Judge Davidson was present at a meeting and said the courts were working with abuse centers. Batterers were being held in jail until coming in firont of the judge. He feels the location is good, and it is the responsibility of the community to have a shelter. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMN MEETING HELD ON MARCH 7, 199^ o. -O, rr TV-POR viInON ^ ' FOL-RTH WORKSHOP :=6 - Plamiing Commission Recommendation to the Louncil - Commued) ” Sn.Uh repcned .ha< It was dep^men. “ het n rntlka and Plyntiuth. The Planninu ?:;,r c u ^ <;mith seconded to recommend that the Council pennit the Planning Schroeder moved. S'" aspect to a shelter of this type as a Commission to look at ^ ^ perfotmance standards for an rrr^tLTol Pla-nm,^ comndsston. Ayes 7. Nays 0, The public is invited to attend the Council meeting, formal Planning record for the Council’s review Richard Mever asked if this shelter would require park dedication fees. Schroeder ^tatedt-lT^^^^ since it is not a subdivision. The nearby park was repotted as needing updating. (#7) adjournment Rowlette moved. Lindquist seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person TOR^GRACI" BAWfl-tHURH OF NAVARRE IN WILEY'S NAVARRE ADDITION, AND LOT ,5. BLOCK 3 TOWNSITE OF LANGDOK^PARK • t COFFIN a.. GRONBERG,' INC- ENGINEERS, LAND-SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS ^ /long lA ke , miK jnesota ' ‘ • f • •st*/ * Lnjsic, »)!> I tf' *’-1 <tM I . * .* iiaiiSSSm^^M W'1 aT 1 • «’ti:. •• • * m ki;*B .fJ. fn fiin {fSsI*: \ »*•• .• *:, V•r-* -« • U-lc il I' ' i \\V ‘‘'*y^\^ V.r f. v*«?,^rTf, s3S!9a*|527t2rnvmvirSltM gSQjll fS^% I I • • * : x&: •• * I » i. !% •• *• • , •.*■+2^*- n,^ i/2 - -7,M* \VJ. • • • » .rr-’*‘ pz'T^rNvi '^r *••«*. • !'/^.*r--. . -X.*•. ■••• • f^*. •—*•• •• .** •: .................. ■ ■ — • ••■■ •»•*••■ *••••.«• • * • • ' ‘ t\ *•*•’ •-• ••.*'•• ^ * T * r"» *• • • - • • *T^iy.___.-• " " .• • * "* >" \ »• •• • • ••• 3TK & ASSOC., LTD. RCHITECTS & BUILDERS L- pLP^. / i WESTOMKA INTERVENTION program SI^LTEI fLAh( U^jwep^ usveu /\fpp^x. Jute's-I xt sfr^piKbe •7»4. C Hero: TO B»e peeicj^ep DM. VE5TIB0UC. NCerit'b ’’ PCOM 1 O -l MAiM.ueveu plah TK & ASSOC., LTD. ^CHITECTS & BUILDERS WESTONKA'INTERVENTIOlsr PROGRAM SHELTER U CPrcr2«?--c?A - .....AH*. nPP-G?-l533 13:ppcn 0’SwLLr---IS 612 471 S644 4730510 P.Ol Co'duUitmA^ V LAKE MiNNgTONKA ^ Ccur'.tv Sc3dS 15 19 • P.C Box 65 • Navarre MN 55392 • (612'. 471-0725 Navarre Auto Repair • '612i 471-7554 • / / •*'V #'» • ^ • I V - ir 3 ■-» i tnV- I I ; f, / c7 - • ■! -■-1-vL.vi »• , • /* ^ / •' '* r ^ V r- ^ - . . /7 ^. ; ! t^\ I A£-i^ Jt--<-<-''-X' v-ii- CC. i.v^. ,-1.C^.r>'-'^ - w -T-'— : /'v- wU' • / w - /y > J1 » <• X: c.c.e<- <--^^ % # tr >.‘Vj2.x~4y / '' ■! “;i-^. / r ^f>\Xc^<^. cy^ /) _sj : O ry0^'^Umo J^xxXXo fM /.'/» •’ / / / / - /ly^iX'V-x'V'jr- ^U’'i>iy2yyt'y^'>^ Ci!-crv>vi'>./.c/>-^-'V<y|:rfei 0- ..^ /“' .'“ • y /i'y u ✓ ^ »# ^ C-/t< C' •''^ .- .' .-V.' <"t'/ />' * 3 yi^^ysw ■ ( «• • Qjjcgtonfca ^^nte/ii/eniiOH ^fioject MAR 13 1995 March 8. 1995 Planning Commission and Staff City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono, MN 5535b Dear Commission Members and Staff: On behalf of our Board of Directors, 1 want to sincerely thank all of you for your hard work and study regarding our request. The staff in particular for your diligent work on research of this issue It was and is remarkable. Beyond all of this. I love to watch you as you work with the ntir>ns of your community You treat them with respect no matter what their viewpoint I have attended many city meetings, and this is not always the case. You are all to be commended for your real concern for what is best for your citizens. I am very optimistic about the results in regards to the approval of our shelter. But no matter what the final result may be, at least we are educating people in regards to domestic abuse in the community. Thank you again for all of your efforts and keep up the good work. Sincerely yours, Valerie J, Hessburg, Executive Director 472-2141 • P.O.BOX 34 • MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 P.O. Box 272 Hopkins. MN 55343 SOJOURNER PROJEa INC.o Serving Buttered Wonrien and Their Children Business 612933-7433 Shelter 612 933-7422 Vote e/TDD Community Advocacy 612-935-1004 Intervention 612-935-7007 APR c.. 3 W95 March 31. 1995 •Mayor Callahan and Orono City Council members City of Orono Municipal Offices P.O. 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Dear Mayor Callahan and Orono City Council members. Sojourner Project has offered shelter to battered women and their children for over 15 years. We are able to house 12-16 women and children in our facility located in a residential area of Minnetonka. Our shelter is not able to house most of the battered women and children who contact us needing a safe place to stay. Historically and currently, the vast majority of the thousands of women requesting and using our shelter services are from the inner city of Minneapolis. We work with all women we turn away in an attempt to find other options for their Immediate safety. It is getting increasingly difficult to find and connect battered women and children with safety options that adequately meet their needs. Based on our experience at Sojourner Project, there is a critical need for additional shelter space to meet the needs of battered women and children particularly from the metropolitan area. Sincerely, StGWWve*— Sue Aumer Executive Director cc: Valerie Hessburg. Executive Director, W'estonka Intervention Project UnitodWqr o REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 3 <*-5. ITEM NO.:/ % Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:Direction from Council Regarding Use of City Driveway that Currently Serves Two Lot Plat of French Lake of Orono 2nd Addition. French Lake Preserve Park and MWCC Lilt Station Melamed/Lauer Partners presented a sketch plan review at the March 20. 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission proposing development of a 15 acre undeveloped property owned by the Leonard G. Carpenter Trust, refer to Exhibit C. The property is abutted by Old Crystal Bay Road along the west and on the south and east by the City ’s driveway. The existing drive consists of a grp^'el bed and is jointly maintained by the private residential landowners and the MWCC. The responsibility of the private property owners was defined in the deeds conveying the land. Review Exhibits E and F. The Planning Commission supported Plan A for development of the property that would minimize the negative impact of tree removal and the filling of wetlands by allowing single or shared driveway accesses rather than the required internal road. A private road with cul-de-sac would result in the loss of some 640 mature pine and spruce trees and the filling of some 2400 s.f of wetlands. The Planning Commission encouraged the use of the City drive for access advising that Lots 3 and 4 of Plan A could be served by a single curb at the south side of the City drive. Planning Commission and Park Commission represenutives at the meeting supported access only along the south side prohibiting curb cuts along the east side so as to save the mature and dense plantings and to maintain the preserve atmosphere. Many of the hardships and unique findings accepted by the Planning Commission to discourage the installation of an internal road for the subdivision were repeated once again when the issue of a required upgrade of the City drive was discussed. The drive would now serve 3 or possibly 4 residential units required by code to be upgraded to public/private road standards. Members were concerned with the impact of a cul- de-sac or. be dense plantings at the northeast end of drive. The upgrade to a 24 ’ paved width road with 80 ’ cul-de-sac would have a negative impact on the preserve park. Planning Commission members felt required improvements could be limited by paving of existing road and that if a turnaround was necessary that a more innovative approach could be developed by engineer with the intent to save preserve atmosphere. i 3 Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 Ap'^rU 3. 1995 . . ^ . t.. Direction from Council Regarding Use of City Driveway that Currently Serv'es Two Lot Plat of French Lake of Orono 2nd Addition. French Lake Preserve Park and MWCC Lift Station Prior to the applicant developing preliminary plans for the development of the property, it is necessaiy that the applicant be advised as to the Council's decision concerning the use of drive and if the additional use is approved what level of upgrade would be required. COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED: A. Will Council allow additional residential units to be served by City drive? Proceed no further if Council ’s response is negative. B. What level of upgrade would be required of developer? 1) Typical road section for rural road: 24’ paved road with 3’ ditches 80 ’ paved cul-de-sac OR 2)Upgrade of existing drive to a 24’ paved width with innovative turnaround at northeast end. OR 3) Pave existing drive with innovative nimaround at northeast end. OR Leave drive as is. / «« CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2004 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION A ACTION /T DATE OF NOTICE: 3/28/95 TO: Melamed/Lauer 1212 East Wayzata Blvd. Wavzata. MN 55391 COPIES TO:Leonard G. Carpenter Trust c/o Curtis Lee 15500 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 1020* Wavzata. MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Sketch Plan/Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 3/20/95 VOTE:No formal action of the Planning Commission is required with a sketch plan application. The Planning Commission provided the following directives to subdivider; Members unanimously supported Plan A providing access to the property via a shared 0 “aV racherthan an imemal/priva.e road. TT,* Planning Comm.ss.on accented applicant's statement of unique findings and hardships allowing for the granting of the variance to the subdivision regulations. The majonty of the members wo Lnpott access to either Lot 4 or Lots 3 and 4 via the City’s driveway but to access only on the south side. Members wanted to discourage any attempt to the east side of the propeitv to minimize any impact on the Preserve- Park • The Plarminc^ Commission seemed to stress the safety issue as far as pursuing access for Ilj's 3 aT/frotThe City's drive as opposed to another curb cut on the curved section ot Old Crystal Bay Road, The Park Commission will be reviewing your subdivision application at their Monday meeting on Aoril 3rd at 7'15 P m You are encouraged to attend. Per our recent site memLrs of the Park Lmmission. the members in attendance will report back to the full body of the Park Commission to discuss one or more of the following issues: Acquisition of land for bike trail either along west or east. Park dedication versus cash payment. Park dedication versus covenants controlling tree removal within defined setback areas. Controls on other improvements allowing for the continued use of the area as an "open animal preserve", i.e. no fencing, etc. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth (473-7357) if you have any questions penaining to die riling of the preliminary subdivision application. Prior to the riling of the subdivision application, taipSrie thai we resolve the Lue of the upgrade of the City driveway wid, |he mcreased ^ of a third or fourth residential driveway curb cut. It ts my intention to place this ma Council agenda of April 10th for conceptual direction. MELAMED LAUER PARTNERS (612) 473-2588 March 13. 1S55 Orono Ci?/ Flar.r.irg Ccmmission P.O. Bex 63 Crystal Bay, MN 53223 Ladies and Gentlemen: as the "Carpenter Preoerty". This 15 acre parcel, located cn the east side cf Old Crystal Bay Road, is truly cne cf the most unique carcels of undeveloped land IP ® Orono. It was planted heaviiy with Pine and Spruce in the 1950 s and remains today as an outstanding example of forestation within our City. wetlands exist within the boundaries of the properties as well and have been delineated cn the adacneo sketch plans. It is our goal to develop a four lot subdivision of wooded home sites that will take advantage of the wetland areas. We net only contemplate a very minimum of wetland ^liSiUrbance but are going to co to great ends to preserve as many of the t-ees as possible. It Is our gSl to complete this development in such a manner that when the homes are looted within, there will be almost no visual disturt^nce to the neighboring property owners as well as the City of Orono's French Creek Preserve located to the east and north cf the property. We wiil ask for variances from the City of Orono ordinances to accomplish this ooal. First of ail, we are not going to asK for connection to city sewer. We recognize the political and logistical cifficulties of doing so and have been assured bv preliminary seotic testing that sites exist for primary and alternate septic sites for a minimum of four lots and probacly for more. Although we have two sketch plans to show you, there are clear advantages to all concerned, particularly the Citv for your granting us the variance request to use a driveway plan over an internal road and cul-da-sac plan. We wii ask the City for a variance P5*’!r ^ (j«e cf a shared driveway access at the north end of the property from Old Crystal Bay Road, a single let access to the southwesterly lot, also from Old Crystal Bay Road, and a single lot access from the city driveway to the easterly lot. I reviewed this access plan with Hennepin County and they have given it tentative approval. They readily recognized the advantages to all concerned of our net disrupting the forestation and wetland areas in the manner that would be required to utilize an internal road and cul-de-sac. The mature Evergreen trees present the same concerns to the City as you have expressed about Sugarwoods and the results that were achieved there are the minimum that we would hope for on this property. If we dont have to develop a road to access the building sites, the wetlands and forestation can truly be preserved much in the same as they are square fee: of wetlands with roadways. — rr>an>/ rpaerns v/p.v th? Citv shouid fict waHt to upQrads I nere are g,, I q owns this driveway and 1 deiieve is their driveway to a read. F,. f^r ‘he park land located at the end committed to keeping a cul-ce-sac. itdriveway. In order to buld the road and ccnsiru.^^^^^ y criveway on would be necessar/ to do mass,ve TOs would have a maior City preperry to Sewell as to the resicents in the area,impact on the natural ?'^®2erve aimosph . unique ana to prevent If one of the goals is to to oefs^ens walking in the preserve area, visual impact of any residential P ^gj u 300933 to lot four wouldthen it is mandatcry that this ^cad not be cc^ P°K, ifsss “s r.sst5r.a?KSiT~« ^ “■ “more trees would be rem.cved in that area as well, the least amount of v/etlands. Sincerely yours, Robert L. Melamed, Partner Melamed Lauer Partner:s RLM/tlw 0^vc^tcfono.^oc3/ ^ 3/ 95 m m -JfAi 1A ijK m C7i I J.;'l!iijr k' :rj\ 'i ^'- m\' }t *iil. wmm iMl a'*^ Wfi^' 'I skxfij?MSl^ite HC, :.y' BC-'-ill M^=w» ®SAv'<''f ^ ’<• WM gSSfr^/B| Ki I -» ‘Vfc Vr:‘ m N, ■f 2 OO I ^ •j n m "D ^ \ ''i Si • s . •N « :^(o<Z 2 2 = f>r ^ ■. # ®0 Tl TO: FROM: DATE: Orono Council The Park Commission April 6, 1995 The Orono Park Commission met on Monday, April 3 and among other binness matters listened to Mr Robert Melamed’s presentation of his Lakewood proposed deve^ment. This piece of property is of extreme importance to the Park Commission because it is crndguous to the City ’s only namre preserve - French Creek Preserve. Mr. Melamed offered tematives to the Park Commission in regard to the taking of the Park Dedication fee. After ieliberation and mput from several city residents, the Park Commission passed three recomnmlauons to be sent to the City Council. 1 The Park Commission recommends that the Council and Mr. Melamed provide only three building sites on this property rather than four,tUminating the site on the'east side of the internal wetland. This would provide fcr the least ecological and conservation damage to the Preserve and wetlands su^mnding it, as well as eliminating the need to upgrade the road that currentlj serves the Melamed residence and French Creek Preserve. Ayes 5 nays 0 2. The Park Commission recommends that the City take lairfas opposed to dollars for the Park dedication fee. The Park survey of Orono Bidents shows highest interest in natural areas, birdwatching, and walking. Frach Creek Preserve is the best Orono has to offer in waterfowl viewing with a Biking trail around the perimeter. In terms of open space protection buffering tii park would be of the highest priority. Ayes 5 nays 0 3. The Park Commission recommends that the City Council «ke the full amount of land on the east border of the proposed development (ajpoximately 95 to 100 feet wide) to act as a protective buffer for the waterfowl md as a conservation corridor between the prairie located on the Nature Preave and the restricted wildlife segment of Noerenberg Park. Ayes 3 nays 2 This report submitted by Park Commission. The minutes ^ foUow as soon as available. To:Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Vx ^ > 7 From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator / April 3, 1995 1995 Joint Use Dock Licenses: - Navarre Cove Homeowners Association Enlow/Lindahl/Mandel List of Exhibits (for each application) A - Resolution B - Application Discussion The two joint dock users noted above have submitted then 1995 applications and appropriate late fee. Both applications are renewals, and indicate no changes from past licenses. Staff recommends approval of 1995 Joint Use Dock Licenses for Navarre Cove Homeowners Association and Enlow/Lindahl/Mandel. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by _____. seconded by ______, to adopt Resolutions and directing staff to issue 1995 Joint Use Dock Licenses to Navarre Cove Homeowners Association and Enlow/Lindahl/Mandel for the period of January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995. Vote; ____Ayes,_____Nays. RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISStT A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE TO NAVARRE COVE HOMEOWTVERS ASSOCIATION SL'BJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1995 TO DECEMBER 31, 1995 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City” is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes. State Statute 412, et. secj. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Namral Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State. LMCD, and the City of Orono, ail of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their propeny. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a muhial right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and Page 1 of 2 WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as lone as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained bv three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing ot Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 10th day of April, 1995. Edward J. Callahan, Jr.. Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of April, 1995 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 J CITY OF ORONO EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DQCK_UCENSE I. LICENSEE: Navarre Cove Homeowners Association Dock Address: 2505 Kelly Avenue Aseni: Daniel T. Lindsay (Attn: Kim A. Goebel) Address: 100 South 5th Street, Suite 2500, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Licensee is:unincorporated homeowner’s group incorporated homeowner’s association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group other _______________ License Period - January I, 1995 to December 31, 1995 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year’s license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bavm Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY Carman same Exhibit A Resolution No._____ Page 2 Exceeding this maxunum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation ot Section 5.4« Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. III. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit B. Any chances in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the Citv. •'None V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. . RESOLUTiptI S " f 2^nn-o'A • m / ' rV-^\ •a .—- / ]\SiT .•> •• • • • • • ••• • ••••^!' I.- C7JG80 Ea EDVIIW e. OTST f -r % ii Y cyii.in ^ llzMIIg)iTo n! • > ^^{iBir- a r> p.tA*^ r » n 7ZUc*'»t^ ^9- <frf/tr y<^ ie -< !5 H T<1Z' U^ i 11'\H' 1 ^7^ 7‘?l'f^ A ap'/V - •• ... ./ • -. .'/ -•••/ S.-1 j^2^C>Li —^ LtJ$U . A* . •* CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 MAR 3 i 1995 • 0 LICENSE YEAR i: ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 am •• m ■ • • U A / ^ U . * A w to' • '• V V ^wV Af* • ““ T - A .r V - . V A .V Date Form Sent bv City Staff January 3. 1995 to v \ 1,* * Ik •' r *,-4/ • ? ** • ^ *.'J Ji/ Date .^.pplication P.,erarried to C:t\’ Fee Received S S_______ . A" By Employee Section 5.42, Subdivision 2. I irFNSE REQUlRfD - It is unlawfiil for any (group or association of persons or families, more than two in number, whether mcorporated or not) to engage or participate in ... joint use (of any lakeshore property) without first havmg obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPUCATION. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY JANUARY 31 OF THE UCENSE YEAR. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION A > /\ > ( f\ Jl 1. A«;<;nciationtitleorname(ifany)^hLft^1^J_ Lake __________ Bay ------------------------------—2. 3.Person responsible ^r tlus application: aVame ible for this ap| A. l^hl Mailing Address fiT) )■T' '/ m _ Phone f^f7.l -------- 4vy2>J- 2‘srf) .Ude, 4. Relationship to association Association is (check applicable items): unincorporated homeowner’s group. \/ incorporated Homeowner’s Association, unincorporated club or recreation group, incorporated club or recreation group. Page 1 of 5 5. 6. 8. 9. Principal purpose of joint use dock is (check applicable items). ,/ provide boat mooring and lake access for residential property, provide swimming access, beach, or offshore dock, provide a club or association gathering place for activities. Dock is located on (check applicable item); one member’s private property. v/" easement or outlot owned in common. property leased by the group/association, property owned by the group/association 7. List Dock location and ownership information; 1/Street address ‘ (j J Ugal propeny rf^.^riminl, niltir)^ A (Ma Listed property owner(s) \j \(X I j Names of abutting l^eshore property owners; rNorth/We^> W/>l (Name Address) (Name + Address) Names of other affected property owners; (Name + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) Insurance Coverage - The jointly used dock is insured by one of the following; property owner ’s homeowner ’s policy. ^ separate group/association owned policy List the following information; Name of insured flfK 9MM Name of insurance carrier i iJt/^ (l Name of insurance agency mm nimwAiP- — Name oi insurance agency ^ ^----j------ Policy No. Effective date of coverage (?i f^— Amount of coverage; Publicliability, per person, per occurrence Public liability, per occurrence $ ^W\WD- Page 2 of 5 10.Security and policing of the jointly used dock and property is provided by (check applicable items): ____ fencing ____ security lighting __^ property owner’s presence contract security service other (specify) DOCK INFORMATION 11. List Dock Use Area Specifications: Width of shoreline: ft. Length of main dock from shore: Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore: '2X) ft- and Dock Construction (check applicable items):12. 13. 14. 15. ft. ft. seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year) permanent piling with seasonal deck i/ permanent pUing and decking wooden decking ____ metal decking List Dock Accessories: Number of fire e.xtinguishers available at the dock Number of life preservers available at the dock List number of slips in each category ("slips" includes boat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips 0 Transient (day use) off-shore buoys 0 _ Permanent moorage slips Permanent moorage off-shore buoys J2_ Dry storage (rack) slips 0 Maximum number of boats at the dock List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the Joint use dock. Parking, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road. 0 spaces. F.WOSTON AND SEDCVTENTATION CONTROL 16. Shoreline is protected by (check applicable items): stone rip rap ___ wood seawall ___ metal seawall concrete seawall grass and vegetation only other (specify) ^ -- ------ ^ " ----- • --------^ ^ 17. Depth of water at shoreline: Q ft; at 50 ft. out: ^ ; 3t 100 ft. out: Page 3 of 5 REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: A. B. C. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIQNS .. . ^ A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shorelme width of this property, the side property lines and the location, layout and dimension of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan. UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATION 1. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. T A certified copv of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note- This copv is not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: •'T’is =s ■’ -newd applicator, and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in _ (state year) and on file with the City.* Applicant ’s initials INCORPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS . .#- Y; a list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers 2. 3. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association. ____ members A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note- These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: •This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be openued the ^e articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended m (^80 - -y®^^ on file with the City.* Applicant ’s initials D. ANNUAL ITCENSE FEE - AT I. APPLICATIONS Joint Uf* £Ki^.k License Application Fee according to the current City Fee Schedule INITIAL APPLICATION FEE renewal joint use fee, per year PT IT.S .SLIP FEE for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy ip slips ® 2.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $ $ $ $ 20.00 12.00 32-00 Page 4 of 5 LATF FEE - Renewals Application for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than March 1 of the license year. Jhe City shall not accent renewal license applications received after January 31 unless the application is accompanied bv a late fee of S25.00. REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City CouncU and. in the case of new’ or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Comminee. The Council will pass upon the application after complete revir v. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UTON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City’s employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safeQ' and code compliance mspections. ________ Date dh\2M^^____Signed / Page 5 of 5 RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO isslt: a joint use dock license TO THE OVVTSERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3155 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, 3185 NORTH SHORE DRIVT), AND 1406 BOHN’S POINT ROAD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1995 TO DECEMBER 31, 1995 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq.. to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters nra on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners, WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be "no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 This mutuol right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WHEREA.3. •'' purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns arul the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Do ,r 1 ne described on Exhibit A attached, NOW, THE jL fore , be it resolved , that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the .itaff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 10th day of April. 1995. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of April, 1995 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ORONO EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE; Property owners of 3155 North Shore Drive, 3185 North Shore Drive and 1406 Bohn ’s Point Road Dock Address: 3155 North Shore Drive Acent: B. John Lindahl, Jr. Address: 1406 Bohn's Point Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 Licensee is: XX unincorporated homeowner ’s group incorporated homeowner ’s association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group other ____________________ License Period - January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the pnor year’s license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY Crystal 1 1 Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42IS a Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. Exhibit A Resolution No._____ Page 2 III. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit B- 2. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the Citv. This license is granted subject to the findings and conditions set forth in Resolution #1212 of the City council, summarized as follows: a) The three properties to which this Joint Use Dock License is granted are described as follows: i) (P.I.D. #09-117-23 33 0001) "That part of Gov’t Lot 1 lying East of the West 442.93 feet thereof and North of the South 1058.3 feet thereof and South of Registered Land Survey No 269" (3155 North Shore Drive - Mandel) ii) (P.I.D. #09-117-23 33 0015) "Tract I and the West 28.5 feet of Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 269" (1406 Bohn’s Point Road - Lindahl) iii) (P.I.D. #09-117-23 33 0016) "Tract G and that part of Tract H lying East of the West 28.5 feet thereof. Registered Land Survey No. 269" (3185 North Shore Drive - Enlow) V. b) There shall be only one dock allowed on the Mandel lot (P.I.D. 09-117-23 33 0001) which dock shall be no greater than 100 feet in length, and which dock must be constructed in accordance with all applicable City and LMCD ordinances, and which dock is intended to serve only the owners and their successors of the 3 properties described in a) above. c) On the Mandel lot (P.I.D. 09-117-23 33 0001) either attached to the dock, moored in front of the lot or located on the lot, there may not be at any time more than three watercraft, as defined by the LMCD, either docked, moored, or stored. d) The three watercraft allowed may be owned only by the owners of the properties described in a) above. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the piemises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. - 0 M I » L* ^xu. B'Z- sr-iPr CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 LICENSE YEAR 1995 V. • ANNUAL .lOrNT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 January 3. 1995Date Form Sent by City Staff------------ Date Application Returned to City-----n a , r; r-- w’ • - Fee Received S By Employee. Section 5.42, Subdivision 2. 1 irFNSE REQUIRED - It is unlawfti) for any (group or association of persons or famUies, more than two in number, whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in ... joint use (of any lakeshote property) without first having obtamed a license therefor from the City. JANUARY 31 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. associatio n information 1. Association title or name (if any) 2. Lake \\ wi.’ ilTf 5F JFCSO■ *rrrrr Bay C Person responsib Name - VatttO e for this application: _X Phone 1 \i *r“*i»»A W'w V vvw I * «. »•••«»»«•• •• « •c • ••. *•. t ;i -Tsl* XV. -k-* • w hErEIPr-j^^^^ !iu ^Sjlciu iCOi ■iC’i X w‘ r f*“C Mailing Address______ Relationship to association Association is (check applicable items): unincorporated homeowner’s group. ____ incorporated Homeowner’s Association. unincorporated club or recreation group, incorporated club or recreation group. ryS ^‘*~^*^*^*'___Mo'^ Page 1 of 5 5. 6. /. 8. 9. Principal purpose of joint use dock is (check applicable items): X provide boat mooring and lake access for residential property, provide swimming access, beach, or offshore dock, provide a club or association gathering place for activities. Dock is located on (check applicable item). X one member’s private property. easement or outlot owned in common. ____ property leased by the group/association. property owned by the group/association. List Dock location anu ownership information; ^ ^ Street address ^.^5" / orthiWest), YSoutl^ast) Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: ^ (Name + Address) Mg.vTW LXrvjyVL (Name + Address) Names of other affected property owners: J + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) Pr, Insurance Coverage - The jointly used dock is insured by one of the following; ^ property owner ’s homeowner's policy, separate group/association owned policy. List the following information: Name of insured____----------------------------------------------------------------- Name of insurance carrier ^ / __________________/* A-^ /- Name of insurance agency X'-T. Policy No.__________________Effective date of coverage ------------— Amount of coverage: Public liabUity, per person, per occurrence Public liability, per occurrence $----------- Page 2 of 5 10. Security and policing of the joinUy used dock and property is provided by (check applicable items): ^ fencing security lighting property owner’s presence contract security service other (specify) DOCK INFORMATION 11. List Dock Use Area Specifications: Width of shoreline: / > C ft. Length of main dock from shore: ft. Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore: _________ ft. and ------------- ft. Dock Construction (check applicable items):12. 13. 14. 15. seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year) ___ permanent piling with seasonal deck ____ wooden decking ____ metal decking permanent piling and decking List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock Number of life preservers available at the dock___ List number of slips in each category ("slips" includes boat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips ______ Transient (day use) off-shore buoys Permanent moorage slips 3 Permanent moorage off-shore buoys-------- Dry storage (rack) slips ___________ Maximum number of boats at the dock____ List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the joint use dock. Parking, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road. ^ spaces. FRO.SION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL 16. Shoreline is protected by (check applicable items): stone rip rap ___ wood seawall ___ metal seawall concrete seawall ^ grass and vegetation only other (specify) 17. Depth of water at shoreline: ^ ft; at 50 ft. out: ^ ; at 100 ft. out: _ Paee 3 of 5 REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: A. norK PIJVN - AT T applications A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan. B. C. D. UNINCORPORATED TiROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. 2.A cenified copy of the by-laws or agreement for jomt use. Note- TTiis copy is not required if the applicant initials and ccnifies the following statement: •This is a rerewil aoolication and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement ongir.allv made in _______(state year) and on file with the City.* Applicant ’s initials INCORPORATED CT.UBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers 2. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association. members 3.A certified copy of the anicles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note- These copies arc not required if the applicant initials and cenifies the following statement. •This is a renewal application and our Joint use dock is to be oper^ed under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended in ------------ (state year) and on file with the City." Applicant ’s initials annual license fee - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application Fee according to the current City Fee Schedule INITIAL APPLICATION FEE renewal joint use fee, per year PT T T.S SLIP FEE for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy slips @ 2.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $ $ $ $ 20.00 Page 4 of 5 LATE FEE - Renewals Application for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than March 1 of the license year. City shall not accept renewal license applications received after January 31 unless the applicatiQn is accompanied bv a late fee of S25.00. REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application wUl be reviewed by the CUy Council and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Pbonmg Commission and Manna Comminee. The Council will pass upon the application aftei complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City’s employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perpnn~^fetyTnd yode^ompliance inspections. Signed Date Page 5 of 5 ^/a>e,C5) 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 7.^1995 /p« ITEM NO.: /Q Department Approval: Name John R. Gerhardson Title Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed: dh Agenda Section: Public Works Item Description: Hillside Place/Wallacc Avenue Access Request This matter was continued at the March 27ih Council meeting. The attached memo from Mike Gaffron provides additional background information regarding the access issue. The staff memo from the March 27th meeting is also attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the request to use the Wallace Avenue right-of-way as the access to the Grace Dahl property. REQIXST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 22, 1995 cn • ^ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name John R. Gcrhardson Title Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Works Item Description: Appeal of Administrative Decision In September 1994 a request for access over a platted unimproved right-of-way known as Wallace Avenue was denied to an applicant wanting to develop a residential parcel which would normally have access from Hillside Place. The reasons for the denial were as follows: 1. The frontage of the property is on Hillside Place. 3. 4. 5. 6. Sanitary sewer is served from Hillside Place. Municipal water will ser\e this property in the future from Hillside Place. There would be a negative impact to the resident adjacent to Wallace Avenue. It has always been assumed that diiveway access to this property would be served from Hillside Place. Having a Navarre Lane address but accessing the property from Bayview Place may cause confusion for emergency resnonse. The applicant is still interested in appealing the staff decision, and has responded with a written follow-up to the reasons for denial (see attached). I have advised the applicant that to continue the process they should obtain a survey showing Wallace Avenue and how close the driveway will be to the existing house, to talk to the resident adjacent to Wallace Avenue, and to have the resident respond as to their approval or denial regarding the construction of the driveway. The resident has responded in writing (see attached) and has informed me that it is his understanding that Wallace Avenue was created to allow access to his rear lot but not to property served from Hillside Place. Therefore, the applicant has requested to appear before the Council to appeal the administrative decision to deny access across Wallace Avenue. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is reque‘-*ing Council to confirm or deny staff decision. To:John Gerhardson. Public Works Director From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:April 4. 1995 Subject: Hillside Place/Dahl Request for Wallace Avenue Access List of Exhibits A - 1908 Plat of Wallace Addition B - 1911 Replat of Lots 42 and 43, etal. C - Current Plat Map D - Topography with Plat Overlay, 1" = 50’ E - Dahl Survey F - Staff Utter 3/22/94 G - Staff Letter 4/26/94 H - Engineer ’s Letter 8/8/94 I - Staff Memo to Planning Commission 8/9/94 J - Planning Commission Minutes 8/15/94 K - Staff Memo to Council 9/8/94 L - City Council Approval Resolution 9/12/94 M - Council Minutes 9/12/94 N - Agreement Between Segner and Marinos 10/27/94 I’d like to provide some comments and documents in relation to the Grace Dahl request for access to the Hillside Place property from Wallace Avenue: 1. 2. 3. The 1908 plat of "Wallace’s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach" shows that Wallace Avenue did not exist at that time. Lot 43 abutting Bayview Place extended north to the railroad right-of-way. In 1911 Lots 42 and 43 were replatted into four perpendicular lots, the rear three of which would have been landlocked if the 20’ Wallace Avenue right-of-way had not been created. Wallace Avenue was dedicated to the public on that plat. It seems obvious that Wallace Avenue was created to serve these new lots, and to give each of them frontage on a roadway, but this can ’t so easily be construed as being intended to provide access to Lot 44, which already had access to Hillside Place. Further, it should be noted that if Wallace Avenue was to be vacated today, the entire 20’ width would revert to the owners of 2200 Bayview Place, the Matson’s. There is an argument to be made that it would not be in the City’s best interest to vacate Wallace Avenue because it might be needed for future utilities (for instance, bringing City water to Lot 44 from Bayview Place). There is, of course, a significant difference between the benign existence of utilities as opposed to an active driveway use. April 4, 1995 Page 2 Hillside Place/Dahl Request for Wallace Avenue Access 4.From a topographic standpoint, I question the applicant’s position that Wallace Avenue is a more suitable driveway. There is an 8 ’ drop in 55’ (15% slope) downhill within that right-of-way about tw o-thirds of the way back from Bayview. Much fill or cutting would be needed to make that into a suitable driveway. This w ould likely require the use of retaining walls. Access off Hillside Place, on the other hand, appears to be relatively level. The drainage way of concern is not a wetland nor is it protected by easement, and might be moved to allow driveway construction from Hillside Place... 5. 6. 7. The potential impact on the property adjacent to Wallace Avenue is extreme. It places a driveway directly adjacent to the existing residence, and through its back yard. This is conceptually identical to the impact Planning Commission intended to avoid when it adopted the "back lot" ordinance in 1993. That ordinance required (for any new back lots created) that the house on the front lot be located to meet the side street yard setback requirement from the outlot corridor. Relating this to the Matson’s situation, the house would have to be 15 ’ from the right-of-w'ay. According to the survey it is only 9.5’ from the right-of-way. While the Dahl lot is not technically a back lot, it has the same impact as a back lot situation would, but doesn’t meet the minimum standards established by the City for mitigating that impact. The agreement between the City, Segner and Marinos (Segner representing the Dahl interest) establishing limitations on the use of Hillside Place, contemplated the potential for approval of an alternate access for Dahl’s property, and made provisions for revising the agreement if that occurs. The agreement would have to be amended, and can be amended, if the Wallace Avenue access is ultimately approved. Regarding the question as to why this access issu-; "was not addressed at the time of the subdivision", I would offer the following: • In discussions prior to August, 1994, staff had considered the access for this property to be from Hillside Place. The City has sewer lines in Hillside Place, and the corridor was driveable and essentially clear of obstructions. Ms. Segner had conceptually agreed to the use of Hillside Place to serve the rear lots and the need to eliminate access to her two existing houses using the Hillside right-of-way. • No mention of a proposal to access via Wallace Avenue appeared in Jeanne Mabusth’s memo to the Planning Commission on August 9, 1994. However, at the August 15 Planning Commission meeting, Segner asked about access for the northerly parcel via Wallace Avenue. 1 indicated that April 4, 1995 Page 3 Hillside Place/Dahl Request for Wallace Avenue Access the Planning Commission had no information on which to review that request and it couldn't be addressed at that time, but that the Public Works Department would have to review it. It was then (and is today) my opinion that the lot line rearrangement for the purpose of ensuring that each of the two resultant lots had 0.50 acre in area and 100’ of defined lot w idth on a public road (Hillside Place), is a separate issue from the actual driveway location. The lot line rearrangement w ould result in two conforming lots regardless whether Lot 44 ’s access came from the front or the rear. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to elimination of access to the existing homes, resulting in no more than the two new homes using Hillside Place; installing barriers to use of Hillside Place by the two existing homes; and the granting of appropriate drainage and utility easements. My staff memo of September 8, 1994, on Page 2 indicates to the Council that there is a request for access off of Wallace Avenue, and acknowledges that if such access is granted, one of the two existing houses could maintain its existing Hillside Place access. The Council at their September 12 meeting did not specifically address the access issue, although the limitations on the future use of Hillside Place were touched on in my verbal review of the application for Council. When asked by Callahan, Segner indicated she was satisfied with all of the requirements. At that time, it was the expectation of staff and the applicant including Ms. Dahl that a staff decision on the Wallace Avenue access would be forthcoming as a separate action. Your denial decision was dated September 19, and Dahl chose to appeal it. Please advise if I can provide you further information. 1-v n.t • • \ "T-urr ■ -hr —“ C-if, *•* • Wallace’s Acoitioh Tplfe-i '' TtiE Village V ■ - t MllNINETQNKA BE AOH - . joFcctToOhc Inch •;r- \rt>. .. .«v^ I / -Sin • f^yts/ V‘’*a’'v »• •i i:t. A^ . '1'•5; If. \S-§,: ^ •• %■ ■ x • •f. 4^ i/'I it.., •' ‘r• .«. -V.' • ■/. ;v'... - • ■ -;.;; •;•'' .,*;*• .• • v».; V;. .v .. . r.iV«» V I ^ »• i-- .* ■ > ’»^ ■ .... .*4 *. *. ] ! / »- ’*.11 • • ■■■r TT rt i.v. • « 1 • W*.* lAXF.H »'A|D IKAl.bl^tH tNTEHED, .. • •;.u. Re-ff NOEMEN'Tor Lots jt-mnort OrHnLLHCE^ Hdditi on To Th £ Vf L L ff G C OF Mf NN^TONKH B eRCH tSm m/m /% imm/i 9H /"rm^FT S //o v « • cR V. : • •> / .' X X ^ .• Ar^v-' V--.' - V * * • /. /• ^^ ••*.**.* ••#.*•• _ ^ m ^ * • ‘V •• 7mr^ulTi»frDkntf WXiMi Wa ■t e 930. .I11T1 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GRACE DAHL IN LOTS 44 & 45, WALLACE'S AODITION’ I TO THE VILLAGE OF MTKA. BEACH HENNEPIN COUNT Y. MINNESOTA .c •: .1 ^ I. I ,\V lY-OaO- -\T> • f l9f Aii u tU »f 1^1 K# f«»fi ^ \ l*tf * $0 %U V.l.*«f4T Aim V •:v 1U!L V lillu- /r>0,i t^rAtr 0ri0i AJJ I# V •.J \ $#nf*«r#irrrf^ f.W •/*Uf AdJ §0 fi< V,tt0j0 ’ 9#*«A • ■ I ^ . ••iit: .1. 1 ,t; 4> N •••# a»0m0^AMi ,• ;« Aft, \ \ I'.•;r »i » n W f. •iV' LEGAL DESCniPTlON OF PnCHISES SUITVEYEf): Those parts of Lots AA and A5. "WALLACE•S. AOniTI ON TO THE VILLAGE Of MINNETONKA BEACH" which lie northerly of ^iline aTd its exfi'nions said line being drawn from a point on the Northeasterly I in'* of said lots distant 100.00 feet southeasterly from the most Northerly corner of said Lot A1 to a point on the Soethwester1y line of said Lot AA distant 116.00 feet southeasterly from the most Westerly corner of sain Lot AA. o: denotes iron marker set //O K I A T March 22, 1994 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address; 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. V.N £5255 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 65 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0C65 Rod MacCnaries Remax A-l Excellence Realty 2477 Shadywood Road Orono, MN 553.? 1 Re: Lots 44-47, "Wallace’s Addition to Minnetonka Beach Dear Mr. MacCharles: t rrpr m Del Wasset in 1988, the enclosed letter of July 17, 1990 to Cunis st; polices regarding deveiopnren. of rhese lo.. Please be aware of the following poL s. 1 . Assuming you wish to ^^^bdiWsion^^' ^^lot^hJe m^arrangement creating more atcraciive lots. 2. Two rewer stubs have been provided, in Lo« 43 and 47. The property was assessed for sewer in 1965. 3. City water would have to come from Place) at your expense. Please -nta« Pubte Wojte D about how this connectioa woul K„;iHina <;ite is SI 933 per‘sn'ss:“ “£ a/rS -« .. ‘■r—“'S^ "nnectiin charge may be in ^ddidon to any i^f^Tcity referred to would only be imposed if the City extends the water lines project- Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Rod MacCharles March 22, 1994 Page 2 4. Place, conditioned oa the p p HUlside Place. PUcc absoIu«ly stae a driveway. Tbe Urird City code allows driveway to a road standard. Again, please:“rs g,srss^.—”-™ ■"»-»•“ Hillside Place. I ant enclosing a snbdivision application form for your use. Bod, John Gerhardson and I may be reached at 473-7357 if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron _ Assistant Budding & Zoning Administrator MPG/lsv cc* John Gerhardson. Public Works Director . ■ Jeanne A. Mabusth, BuUdmg & Zoning Admtmstnior Jackie Segner, 2260 Bayview Place Enc. July 17. 1990 Uner Subdivision Application ZZCpO 'T CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Keliey Parkway Ofono. MN 55556 Mailint Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 1. Mr. Bob Marinos do Rod MacCharles ReMax A-1 Excellence Realty 2477 Shadywood Road Orono, Minnesota 55331 Re; Lots 44-46, "Wallace ’s Addition to Minnetonka Beach* Dear Mr. Marinos: , have been asked by Mr. MacCharles to provide a not be limited to, ih** following. Provide confirmation from Hennepin County that Lots 4546-1-7 have been legally combined for tiix purposes. 2 Provide confirmation from a certified surveyor that I'meamred^l mtaimum lot area sundard of 0.50 acre, and minimum lot w.dth as measured at the 30 ’ front setback line of at least 100 ’. Access is to be by private driveway within the platted right-of-way of HUlside Place Public Works Director John Gerhardson has confirmed that he i rdn'ev^y construction permit. This approval is expressly before a budding permit will be issued for your H',,°fd^p,ace existing users of Hillside Place must discontmue their use of " ri2ht-of-way for access. The minimum physical changes require "discontinuation" of the driveway use include: Regrading to re-establish any shoulder and swale at the property line; and Creation of a berm or permanent fence just inside the property line, and 3. A. B. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 Mr. Bob Marinos April 26, 1994 Page 2 C. 4. Property owner of 3300 Navarre Une/2260 Bayview Place (Segner) must rien a^owledgement that Hillside Place cannot be used for dnveway ^ ncp. and a^v re-establishment or use of said driveway approach shall b“?oiid’ered a % iolaiion of Sections 6.05 and 6.06 of the Municipal Code and punishable as a misdemeanor. . nf a huildins permit would be conditioned on meeting all C:=*^^‘lrdcove^. huUding height iitnits. etc.) and paying me appropriate fees and connection charges. I have reviewed the above with f^bh^ ^or^ coSedTer^are^noTpparent reason why the If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 473-7357. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch cc:Jeanne A. Mabusih, Building & Zoning Adm. John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director 0 ^1- C V^fV r t SOK* rKTi'O C ^J'T'er. ^5 Qi^nn f Cock. ^t. XSor*niS I NCy*^ tCCfT a scvrcx. ^1 Sj«n M, Cae*'*^ •5c* ?• l/]l Bonestroo MjM Rosene &9 Anderlik & Associates Engineers A Architects August 8, 1994 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Jacci Segner Lot Rearrangement File No. 139-1957 Dear Jeanne, a. 5in^0*0. Pf. n#im A Ccw AC i^ocn • mmm. ai ttht'e w fmwu O LOSHM AC. 9oor\ C tuww. A i> .fty A. HueeA At Mam A. N«fnor\ AC MCTjr T. iJiiirina AC TW «. Afia Af >gr^l • Ar>CtmOA A LA caAtiC C Cu^insL A.C. Thomii A Al. FTCffX i Sarwe At. t|fnat< AC A lau A^net M mr^q, A.1CA Thorrw w. ^ngn, AC. Mcntfi C. At. J4fr^t C. M«ian& f e jrry Q ^rasen. A| Scoa i A-^nfik AJ. Xfnnftn A Arctrtar. AC. Mara • M. At. M^ A. 5rn AC. 047 W Mgnea A f AiW J CAnn9#\ AJA 04^^ 1 Cecfftan. ac. A Ctk So>m«. At. map j CaiwfH. At Man 0> 'Apikt AC. Man a Al U A*%lki &•••. At U«n L AC C47 0 ICn||g#tL AS. A.MCaiCf. AC Utah i Yapp AC Oqu^ ; Bfooc. AC Sh*Mr a Al Cn^ka O^ew*. AC Aa.a a Htv^ AC .CAA A GOfCK AC ChAntiA Cncaicn iso M Afwvikf C'idrk ^♦rtn F Cn^pnra We have reviewed the proposed lot lire rearrapgement prepared for Jacci Segner in Jeirra^gemem fs acceptable, however there is an access issue that need to be addressed. The two proposed lots, as weU as two existing homes, use Hillside Place (a g««l „ their Less to Navarre Une. the City Code allows only two lota to b* * single driveway. Three or more lots wfll require a private street *’*j;®”?*™'*'. ^ ^ ,J... The City Code requites a 24.foot wide minimum paved width for a private street. The street should be constructed as part of the lot reanangement. AS an option, the two existing homes could eliminate P“"“ This would require that a new driveway be constructed out to Navarre Lane tor southerly lot, as well as landscaping or fencing across the driveway of the no y • Drainage and utility casements will be required 5 feet wide along all lot lines and 10 feet wide along Hillside Place and the railroad right-of-ways. 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. ^ —,'T •••• TO: (D Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator DATE; August 9, 1994 SUBJECT: #1957 Jacci J. Segner. 3286/3290 Navarre Lane - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement, Class I - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B) - LR-IC Lot Standards Section 11.03, Definition 66 (A) - Class I Subdivision Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 - Typical Section , Public/private road is required when ser\’ing three or more residential umts List of E.xhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Propeny Owners List D - Gustafson Report E - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement F - Format for Class I Lot Line Rearrangements G - Water As-Built H - Sewer As-Built I - Staff Letter 4/26/94 J - Staff Letter 3/22/94 ^ . .. n -»• K - Staff Sketch of Accesses to Subject Properties and Adjacent Properties L - Sur\'ey Description of Application Tlie purpose of the lot line rearrangement is to create two residential lots that meet both area and width requirement of the LR-IC Zoning District as follo^^s. A. Area required = 21,780 s.f. or .5 acre Lot A -H C = .5 acre Lot B + D - .5 acre B.Lot width required — 100 ’ Lot A + C = 100 ’ Lot B + D = 135’ Zoning File #1957 August 9, 1994 Page 2 The subdivision results in two conforming lots. The major issue for the review of this subdivision is the issue of access to the n\ o new building sites via Hillside Place an unimproved planed right-of-way at 25’. Review Exhibit K, the unimproved right-of-way currently serves 3300 Navarre Lane as the primary access to the property and as a secondary access for 2260 Bayview Place. If roadway is to remain as a driveway based on the criteria set forth in Section 11.33, Subd. 4 of the subdivision regulation, total number of users of this roadway must be limited to t>\'0. Review E.xhibiis I and J, the applicant’s realtor and potential buyer of Lots B and D were notified earlier this year of the requirements of the code regarding the use of Hillside Place as a private driveway. The applicant who resides at 2260 Bayview Place and who owns ^e residence at 3300 Navarre Lane has agreed to eliminate the use of both accesses at Hillside Place. Review Exhibit L, the survey of 2260 Bayview Place, reveals adequate area for Ms. Sesner to achieve access to the lower level garage within the existing rear yard. Upon your site inspection, note the location of the detached garage at 3300 Navarre Lane. There is adequate siting distance for the relocation of an access drive to this property but it will be necessary to trim back on the existing vegetation to provide safe access at the intersection. It would also be beneficial for Ms. Segner to trim back on the landscaping adjacent to Hillside Place to improve siting at that intersection. Refer Exhibit D, Gustafson recommends two options concerning access to the property. He recommends that either the existing driveways be relocated or to upgrade 25’ Hillside Place to a minimum 24’ paved roadway serving the four units. Given the limited right-of-way and the known desire of the applicant, staff would recommend that we agree to allow the applicant to relocate accesses as noted above. Ms Seener must first contact the Public Works Director prior to installing new driveway at 3300 Navarre Lane. As for 2260 Bayview Place, the engineer recommends fencing or landscaping. Staff members advised of a need to provide not oriy fencing but berming as fencing can always be removed. Applicant may also have the option of planting trees behmd the fencing as another means of providing permanent barrier. The property has been assessed for sewer and two stubs have been provided at Ixts 45 and 47, refer to Exhibit H. Municipal water is not available to the site and applicant is given the option of either extending municipal water or installing on-site wells. It is staffs understandmg that both applicant and applicant’s prospective buyers would prefer to install on-site wells. Refer to Exhibit H, municipal water is located at the intersection of Hillside Place and Navarre Lane. There is nothing in the Orono code that requires a connection to municipal water when the Imes are not immediately adjacent to the propenies to be served. Per the current Orono ee schedule the future owners will be responsible for payment of $225 per unit charge for each sewer connection in addition to an S800 SAC fee (1994 fee schedule) to be paid to the MWCC. Zoning File #1957 August 9, 1994 Page 3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed lot line rearrangement involving the properties located at 3286/3290 Navarre Lane finding all standards of the LR-IC Zoning District have been met and that there is adequate capacity within the existing sewer facilities to serve the two residential units. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Building permits shall not be issued for new construction for the properties located°at 3286/3290 Navarre Lane until the primary access to 3300 Navarre Lane and secondary access to 2260 Bayview PLce at Hillside Place are removed. A new access is established for 3300 Navarre Place. Owners of the property at 3300 Navarre Land and 2260 Bayview Place have an option as to the type of landscaping improvement (berm or trees) to be installed providing a permanent physical barrier at Hillside Place. The Planning Commission Members may also wish to add the need for the installation of fencing. 2. The granting of drainage and utility easements 10’ along exterior lot lines and 5’ at each side of shared lot line. Upon application for a building permit for new construction, future owners shall be responsible for payment of $225 sewer connection charge to the City and a SAC payment of $800 (based on 1994 fee schedule) to the MWCC. 3. The applicant has advised that all visitors to this site must not drive on the roadway if it is wet because of the condition of the roadbed. (E) © 1-^0 ,, I \nNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 rifn #1937 JACCI J. SEGNER, 3286/3290 NAVARRE LANE - SUBDIVKION OF A ^ LOT LINE REARRANGEME xNT - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:36 TO 7:47 The Affidavit of Publication and Cenificate of Mailing were noted. Jacci Segner was present. . ,u- ,nnino reauirements Unique to the parcel is an undeveloped road. Accordtofio “odc, a road must be brought up to vegetation, or fencing is suggested to eliminate contmued use of the driveways. Lots 44 through 47 have been assessed for sewer. Water is not available c°de does ;er'%pS wybe r^p'o^bL for S225.00 co^ection charge for each sewer connection plus S800 SAC charge (1994 rate). !:ya'c:"d“ “ddys[:d y^s1 ’^e^Ke“ w^l^. to be involved in making a decision to allow that alternative access. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. The potential buyers were present and expressed concern with access. I. was moved by Smith, seconded by ^ind^^ rearrangement involvmg propemes at 3286/3-90 primary access to 3300 conditions: building permits will Bayview Place at Hillside Place arc removed; Navarre Lane and secondary access to - ^ , fencin® to be approved by staff; installation of a bamer at Hillside Place o ® „ exterior lot lines and 5 ’ at each sideand drainage and utiiity easements to be granted 10 along extenor lot imes of shared lot line. Ayes 4, nays 0. Jacci Segner requested that berm not be a requirement because of potenUal water runoff problems to the Rood property. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; Septembers, 1994 ITEM NO.; Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zcning Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Building & Zoning Administrator.. Item Description: #1957 Jacci Segner/Bob Marinos, "3286/3290 Navarre Lane - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution Application: Revise lot line between Lot 44 and Lots 45-46-47 resulting in two conforming 'A acre building sites. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Survey C - Sketch D - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/25/94 E - Memo and Exhibits 8/9/94 Discussion Applicant Seener owns Lots 45-46-47, and recently sold the adjacent Lot 44 to Mr. Marinos with the proviso that they would complete a lot line rearrangement resulting in a total of two building sites meeting the required Vi acre lot area and 100 ’ width requirements. This proposed lot line rearrangement accomplishes that. Please review the memo and exhibits of August 9, 1994 for additional information regarding these properties. Briefly: • Sewer was assessed to these properties previously. Each resulting lot has a smb available. Fumre owners will pay a $225 unit charge and current SAC charge upon issuance of building permits. • City water is not available and applicants have the option of installing private wells or requesting municipal water extension at their expense. • Hillside Place is a 25 ’ public right-of-way currently existing as a private driveway serving 2250 Bayview Place and 3300 Navarre Lane, both of which are owned by Ms. Segner. Because adding even one additional unit would trigger the requirement for an upgrade of Hillside Place to a private road, Ms. Segner has agreed to eliminate and redirect accesses from the two existing houses, leaving Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 September 8, 1994 Zoning File ^1957 only the two new lots to use Hillside Place as a driveway. She has agreed to do minor regrading and install a fence along Hillside Place to eliminate access to the existing houses, as well as construct/reconstruct driveways to Navarre Lane and Bay view Place for those residences. This must be completed before the City will issue building permits for the vacant lots. • Drainage and utility easements will be granted along the interior and exterior lot lines of the uvo new lots. In addition, Ms. Segner will be required to execute an acknow ledgment (possibly in the form of a restrictive covenant) restricting future use of Hillside Place. There are tw-o related matters of which Council should be aware, but which are not conditions of this lot line rearrangement: • Permits have been granted in the past for Segner ’s residence at 2260 Bayview Place based on her ownership of Lots 36-37-48-49-50, the legal combination for which was applied for in 1978 and again in 1980 but apparently rejected by the County due to delinquent taxes at that time This residence is now for sale. These five lots must be leo''.!’. co ”"b”ied before the City would issue any future permits for this propeny. • Ms. Segner has requested that Public Works Department consider allowing access to Lot 44 via an undeveloped 20’ alley off of Bayview Place. The Public Works Director is currently reviewing this request. If granted, this does not affect the lot line rearrangement itself but may result in one of the two existing houses maintaining its existing Hillside Place access. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and a lot line rearrangement for Jacci Segner and Bob Marinos at 3286/3290 Navarre Lane per the attached resolution. Proposed Motion: Moved by___________, seconded by___________to adopt Resolution #_____, 2nd series approving a subdivision of lot line rearrangement at 3286/3290 Navarre Lane for Jacci J. Segner and Bob Marinos. Vote:______ayes, _____nays. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 4 66__^ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3286/3290 NAVARRE LANE FILE NO. 1957 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement by Jacquelynn J. Segner and Charalampos and Linda N. Marinos (hereinafter "the subdividers") of properties legally described as follows: Lots 44, 45, 46 and 47, "Wallace ’s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach", Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for a metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for division and combination purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Jacquelynn J. Segner and Charalampos and Linda N. Marinos as shown on the Certificate of Survey "by Mark S. Gronberg, a Registered Land Surveyor of Coffin & Gronberg Inc., dated April 14, 1994, revised July 22, 1994, revised September 8, 1994 and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Applicants shall complete conveyance of the "residual" parcels from one owner to the other in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. Applicants shall provide a title opinion of both parcels confirming ownership and encumbrances. Page 1 of 2 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COL'NCIL NO. 3 4 6 6 __ 3.Upon approval of this subdivision by ihc City Council of Orono, llic respective owners must apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes all of the existing and newly created parcels by intended ownership per the proposed legal descriptions labeled A and B in that same survey, and per the combinations shown on the sketch attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. 4.The aforesaid division shown on the attached Cer , ..Icate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Office on or before March 12, 1995 together with a certified original copy of this resolution. 5.The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this 12th day September, 1994. AT EST: in, City Clerk Edward J. Callah^xC^tT, hfa>w STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of September, 1994 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of tlie City. ^ • / Notary Public '-OT.!Wuc*-. „ HENNEPIN COUNTY commissicn expires ^12>96 Page 2 of 2 »** L- NAVARRE LA]SE - SUBDIVISION ‘of A LO? Z^x‘^^NGE>ffiNT'- RESOLimON Ur JL^v/ r ----------- G.^on reponed .his is ,0,5 44^7 3.d sold 45. 46. 4.0 47.0 „,5,„ .he V2 aero and 100 end is roquesrins to ««“Se ji.es. The SAC charges svnll be p^dand is requesting to ^earraf S« ^ sites. The SAC charges will be paid. There is no water avauablc to 3300 Navarre Lane, owned bySegnCT. agreed to instaU a fence .0 ebn-anate access to i..e.e 41^1 4V-f - ^ -;7 49 49 and 50, o^^Tied by Scgr»cr, Gaf&on said .here is also^.e issue °^«;^';:^®,aclied for .;vice bo. rejected due .0 ..Vhich need .0 be ccntb.ned .0 ce sold T - ^ condition of thts delinquent taxes a. those tunes. This is re-tea lot line rearrangement.lOl nnc \ ----- Gafiion said there is a minor ^han|e to^he in format of the surxey for metes i^^^Xh is not needed by the county. T e that each parcel has separate legJ •,„ lar.g-uage: A city approved Ctv .Anomey requested the ^-ropeny owner to the other (a deed conveyance of the residual P*"«B ho ^ ownership and any e.xchange); and a title opuuon P;°^, h-neter drainage and utility easements encumbrances matnly because we are _'Kin=. .0 p for this rearrangement. Sesmer replied to Callahan that she is satisfied with the reanangement. Hum stated the need to add the condition that the five lots be combined at thds ..me. nun ----- r t’nn subdiN'ision of a Ici line reiursng^nient Jabbour moved .0 approx •^PP'^“''°"bv Jacci Segner .0 combine lots #36. u7, resolution pending the hung 0 t PP “ g motion. .Ayes 5. Nays 0. 43.49. and 50. Resolution #u466. Huir seconu (#12) SEPTIC MORATORIUM UPD.ATEyrriJL) OX--* A AGREEMENI hSd and «I-: fcou Jvely. "Mdri-nos-). and the City of Orooo. a Mmoesou mumcpalhusband and wife (collectively ccrporaticn ("Ciry"). RECITALS: A. Segner is the owoer of real propercv located at ^86 Navarre Parcel") and 2260 Ba>^iew Place (Lie "2260 Parcel") and Parcel"), all in the City of Orono, Minnesota and leg ally ^scribed on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (coUecdvely, Lhe "Segner Property ), B. .Nfarinos is the owner of real property located at 3290 Navarre Lane (Ae ":>.i90 Parcel"), in Lhe City of Orono. Minnesota and legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Marinos Property ); r Hillside Place is an undeveloped public read right-of-way dedicated on the plat of " Wa^oce-s of MiSetonlca Beach". Hennepin Co-ty. M^esota. whichti no, bdt opened by d>e City for public uevel. in *a. it he. a substandard road right-of-way width of 25 feet; D The City has maintained municipal sanitary sewer lines Md manholes vd^ Hillside Place since 1965. and has maintained the capability for vehicular travel on HUlside Place only to the extent necessary to maintain the sewer system. E City .Municipal Code ("Code"). Sections 6.05. Subdivision 9 and 6.06 Subdivision 9 provide standards for placement desipn and construcaon ot t«’6enu^ ^ driveways accessing onto public and private toads. Those secuons state “ driveway approach shall be allowed from up to two single tes.denual p^ls of land to the tme nubhrtor Private) toad provided that appropriate easements exist between parties Site driXy -d drivLay approach. ParceU ha^g frontage on mote one public°(private) road shall be allowed a driveway approach to one public (or pnvate) road . F The 2"60 Parcel and the 3300 Parcal have previously utiliaed a private drive within Hillside Place. - Diete is no cutrent use of Hillside Place by the owner of the 2260 Parcel and the 3300 Fared; n Seener and Marinos have requested the City to approve a private drive within Hillside Place to allow access to the 3286 Parcel and the 3290 Parcel, and the City has approved such request provided Segner and Marinos enter into this Agieemenu /22059422 lQ/26<94 2. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Qty allowin® the private drive servicing the 3286 Parcel and the 3290 Parcel to be located Ln Hillside Place and the mutual benefits to be derived ‘therefrom. Segncr and Marmos agree as foUows: AGREEMENTS: 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as part of this AgreemenL All use of Hillside Place for access purposes to ^.d from Lhe 2260 Parcel and the 3300 Parcel shall be discondnued immediately upon execution of lV.s AgreemenL 3 Segner shall Immediately construct, at her sole expense, a peraancnt fence alcn^ the -ntire easterly boundary of the 2260 Parcel and ‘the 3300 Parcel abutting Hillside PlacI Said fence shall at a minimum be 36" in height -Ai‘th tj-o 2”X4" rails at approi^ately 18" and 36" above grade, with 4"X4" posts spaced 8* aparL No gate icr vehicul-»r tO Hillside Place shall be installed as part of such fence. 4. Segner shall immediately and exclusively utiHze the existing driveway from the 2260 Parcal to Bayview Place for access to and from the 2260 Parcel. ^ Qeo—r shall immedia*.ely consmict at her sole expense, a new driveway access to Navarre Larre To'ser^ ice ih.e 3300 Parcel, and shall Lhereafter exclusively utilize such new driveway access to and from Navarre Lane to Lhe 3300 Parcel. 6 Segner and Marinos agree that only the owners of the 3286 Parcel ^e 3290 Parcel, and their respective invitees, shail be allotved to utUire f Place legally described on Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof (the Pn\ate Drive") for private driveway purposes as allowed by the City’s Code Section 6.06, Subdivision 9, exceot that incidental use of said right-of-way by public and/or private emergency vehicles; school buses a.nd the public for access to adjoining properues or other incidental travel shall be permitted. 7. Marinos and Segner hereby agree: (a) The Private Drive shall be constructed and mamtained at Segner and Marinos sole expense in accordance with all applicable City Code requirements; and Cb) Immediately upon notice to Marinos and Segner that the City desires to 0. n Hillside Place for pubUc travel. Marinos and Segner shall, at their sole expense, immediately remove the Private Drive and restore Hillside Place to grade. /2:a59422 10/26/94 8. Segner and Marinos hereby indemnify and hold ihe City hamless from any and all claims, causes of action, liabilities, damages or other losses (includmg anomeys fees and costs incurred by City in connection therewith or in eniorcemenl of this Agreement) sustained or incurred by reason of use of the Private Drive by Segner and Marinos, and their respective invitees, successors or assigns. 9. City shall honor any request of the owners of the 3286 Parcel and the 3290 Parcel to post Hillside Place with "No Parking" signs and subject Hillside Place to enforcement of same by the City's Police DepartmenL 10. This Agreement shall run widi uhe land, shall be binding upon Segner and Marinos, Lheir respective successors and assigns, and may be enforced by the City at law or at equity. 11. Any future use of Hillside Place by an owmer of the 2260 Parcel or the 3300 Parcel shall constitute a violation of this Agreement and of Municipal Code Section 6.05, Subdivision 2, and shall constitute a misdemeanor. This paragraph does not apply to Segner, her successors or assigns, as uhe owner of Lhe 3286 Parcel. 12. This Agreement may be amended or terminated only by a recordable, written agreement between die parties hereto, their successors and assigns, which shaU be filed in the office of Lhe Hennepin County Regisuar of Tide against the Segner Property and Mannos Property. Circumstances arising which may rtquL-e amendment or termination of this Agreement, include but axe not li.mited to. the City’s approval of an alternate access for eidier Lhe 3286 Parcel or the 3290 Parcel to an opened pubUc roadway other than Hmside Place or changes in City Code provisions. Notwithstanding anything contained in this paragraph, the amendment or termination of this Agreement and any requirements contemplated by any such amendment or termination, must be approved by the City and meet ail applicable City Code provisions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. Segner. Marinos and City have made and entered into this Agreement effective as ot 0C'^h-r'f—, 1994. aSiuclyTU^ Segner / .CV Ch,a^ampos Marinos Linda N. Marinos CITY OF ORONO Tls thf^'iCri^ /j t^cs=C^ ^ Ifc O/jTV dc^cT^C STATE OF MIXNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ■_ ) The foregoing insirunieni was acknowledged before me diis®£2f:*day of k^r_______. 1994, by JACQUELYNN J. SEGNER, single. CAROLE A. HASEMAN ______ NCTA«r rUJlC-VlNNESOTA L^SSF j'? HENNEPIN COUNTYcr-./.-;:::cv expires s-rsas Notary Public STATE OF MLNNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF hU,\ n f p.'r\_ ) The foregoing insirumeni was acknowledged before me this .£2rd^of dcfthrrr____ husband and wife. 1994, by CHARALAMPOS MARINOS and LINDA N. MARINOS ! My cor „“p?et,e ■- mwissoia ^ J'l it A. l/ju-' Notary Public ST;^TET5rMlKNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowlec^ed before me this day of __________. 1994, by ^du/nrA S.—vA.lUh6%?^d. U UiJh'r. the respectively, of the CITY OF ORO aNO, a Minnesota mumapal corporaaon. on behalf of the corporation. ^ (A'. //L CARCXE A. HASEMAN NOTARY PUBUC-UMNC50TA HENNEPIN COUNTY ^ MY CCMMtSSCN £XPtR£;» »>2>g6 Notary Public this instrument was ltd . POPHAM. HAIK. SCHNOBRICH & IC^UFNT , 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55-^02 (612) 333*4800 CLB i:^' -.r» - EXHIBIT "A” SEGNER PROPERTY Those pans of Lots 44 and 45. "WALLACES .ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF NCNNETONICA ;Jd Lot -»4 .0 a pomt on tha_Sou,hw«t«ly line of Lot 45 distant 116.00 fee. sou.heastetly from the most Westerly comer of said Lot 44. EXHTBIT "B" MARINOS PROPERTY MINTvETOMC^ BtAL jUlj QU souiheasteriy irom the most from a point on the Nonheastetiy line ot said Lot 45 distant 116.00 feet Northerly comer of said Lot 44 to a point on the southtser.er y line ot saia r-o southeasterly from the most Westerly comer ot said Lot ,4. EXHIBIT ’*C ” PRIVATE DRTVT: The westerly 15 feet of Hillside Place, an undeveloped public road right-of-way, dedicated on the plat of "WALLACES ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETOMCA BEACH", Hennepin County, Minnesota. J September 19, 1994 CITY of ORONO Municipal OfTices Street Address: 2750 Kei'ey Faraway Orcro. V.N 553:5 \ Mailing Address: P.O. Box £6 Crystal Bay. MM 55323 CC65 1. Ms. Grace Dahl P.O. Box 222 Waconia, Minnesota 55387 Dear Grace: Your request to access the propeny in question from Bayview Place and through Wallace Avenue is hereby denied for the following reasons: The frontage of the property is on Hillside Place. Sanitary sewer is ser\ed from Hillside Place. Municipal water will serve the property in the future from Hillside Place. . ■mere would be a negative impact to the resident adjacent to Wallace Avenue. It has always been assumed that driveway access to this property would be served frorn Hillside Place. Having a Navarre Une address but accessing your property from Bayview Place may cause confusion for emergency response (911). I have enclosed a copy of the administrative appeal section of our Code should you decide to exercise that option. j. 4. 5. 6. Sincerely , •f. A / John R. Gerhardson Public Works Director JRG/ch Telephone (612) 473-7357 • F.4X 473-0510 September 23, 1994 Mr. John R. Gerhardson Public Works Director City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay^ Minnesota 55323-0066 Dear Mr. Gerhardson: I received your letter yesterday and I want to thank you for the time you spent in reviewing my request. Also, thank you for enclosing a copy of the administrative appeal section of your Code for my review. Since I truly believe that the best access to the property I am purchasing from Jacci Segner is through Wallace Avenue/ I am choosing to appeal your decision. I will be preparing my appeal in the next several days. Again/ thank you for your time and I look forward to seeing you again soon. SEP 2 8 1994 CITY OF ORONO NOV, DEAR JOHN GERHAHDSON, THIS LETTER CONCERNS OUR OBJECTION TO A ROAD BEING BUILT WITH* IN APPROXIKATELY 7*ti FEET OF OUR HOME. WE LIVE AT 2200 BAYVIEW PLACE IN ORONO. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO.# 17-117-231ii* 0002. ON THURSDAY NOV. 17*1??U KR. A BUILDER, INFORMED US THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY EEHIN'D US AND IS PLANNING ON BUILDING TWO HOMES IN THE SPRING. HE PLANS TO HAVE OUR PROPERTY SURVEYED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING A ROAD BESIDE US TO ACCESS ONE OF THE HOMES HE IS BUILDING. THE BUILDING OF THE ROAD IS OUR OBJECTION. BOTH HOMES, WHEN BUILT, WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO HILLSIDE PLACE ROAD, THERE IS NO NEED FOR A NEW ROAD TO BE BUILT. THE PROPERTY ON WHICH HE PROPOSES THE ROAD WOULD COME APPROXIMATELY 7-<i FEET OF OUR HOME, WHICH WE FEEL IS A KAZZARD IN ITSELF, ALSO THE PROPERTY RUNS DOWHHILL AND WOULD DISTURB THE NATURAL FLOW OF WATER AND COULD CAUSE FLOODING OF OUR PROPERTY. WH HAVE MAINTAINED THIS PROPERTY FOR OVER 23 YEARS, PLANTED EVERGREENS, MOWED AND KEPT THIS PROPERTY CLEARED AS DID THE PREVIOUS OWNERS. MAY I SAY AGAIN, THERE IS NO NEED FOR A ROAD WHEN THE DEVELOPER HAS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE FOR ROAD ACCESS ON HILLSIDE PUCE. Wi: WOULD APPRECIATE A RESPONSE AS SOON AS POSSIBE. DALE M MATSON PATRICIA C MATSON 2200 BAYVIFW puce WAYUTA, MN. i>i>3>l (ORONO) u71-77p7 r February 22, 1995 FEB 2 2 1995 ( City of Orono Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 To The Honorable Edward Callahan, Mayor of the City of Orono and the Orono City Council Members: This letter is in regard to a one half acre building site which I purchased last year from Jacquelynn Segner. I am a resident of the City of Orono and plan to build a permanent residence for myself and my 2 children on this property. This site is located near Clair Rood's pond and is approximately 525 feet off of an undeveloped and unmaintained City of Orono street called Hillside Place. During the process of designing a home to build on the property, it became apparent to myself and others involved that Wallace Avenue would be a better access to my property than Hillside Place. A consultation with an architect supported this plan. Wallace Avenue is currently a platted but undeveloped public street which is located adjacent to the property belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Dale Matson. The street is 20 feet in width. Last summer I contacted John Gerhardson regarding the access to my lot. As a result of that contact, I later met again with John and Ron Moore, accompanied by Mrs. Segner and Ray Pasch. At that meeting, it was suggested that I have a survey done showing the location of Wallace Avenue and how it relates to the Matson's property and my property. You will find enclosed a copy of that survey. This letter is again requesting that the City grant me permission to use the northern most 15 feet of Wallace Avenue as a driveway to my property. Wallace Avenue will be a better access to my property for the following reasons: 1. Wallace Avenue is a shorter distance to my property thereby less of a maintenance burden. It is about half of the distance of the Hillside Place access. 2. A large drainage ditch crosses the Hillside Place access before it meets the southern most edge of my property. This drainage ditch must be crossed to reach my property. 3. The most logical and best use of the lot will be to build a home that takes advantage of the view to the east of the property which includes Clair Rood's pond. Because of this, I would like to build a home that is placed on the lot in such a manner that the backyard, decks, familyroom and kitchen face east--or Hillside Place. The garage and front entry would then face west. Access from Wallace Avenue would allow all of this. 4. My home would be more easily accessed by emergency vehicles (911) should that be necessary, because it would be a shorter distance using Wallace Avenue. The address would be Bayview Place. The major concern about my request seems to be the adjacent neighbor's proximity to Wallace Avenue. The enclosed survey shows that Wallace Avenue is, at its closest point, within 9^ feet of one corner of the Matson residence. Since I would use the northern most 15 feet of Wallace for my driveway, this would still leave 14^5 feet between my driveway and the corner of the Matson residence. The distance of 14^ feet between the edge of a driveway on one property and a home on an adjacent property is adequate and not unusual in our neighborhood. An example is as follows: Clair Rood recently constructed a home that is currently on the market for a price of $625,000. Obviously this home is an upper bracket home and also very well planned and quality built. This home is situated next to Hillside Place. The distance from Hillside Place to this home is 16 feet. Similar situations exist within the neighborhood. On Bayview Place there are additional examples of driveways that pass close to the adjacent house. The driveway at 2275 Bayview Place passes within approximately 10 feet of the house at 2265 Bayview Place. The driveway at 2250 Bayview Place passes within approximately 12 feet of the house at 2240 Bayview Place. At this point I have spent considerable time, effort and funds preparing to submit this petition to the City of Orono. Thank you for the time you will spend in consideration of this petition. I respectfully request your approval. Sincerely enc. Hu;- BtSSTI i i. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GRACE DAHL [N LOTS 44 & 45. WALLACE ’S ADDITION' TO THE VILLAGE OF MTKA. BEACH « HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I J NcrvltfrV r« Ai/. r# rA< #4«<A » » LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Those parts of Lots 44 and 45. "WALLACE’S. ADDlTION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH" which lie northerly of djline and its extensions said line being drawn from a point on the Northeasterly line of said lots distant 100.00 feet southeasterly from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 44 to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Lot 44 distant 116.00 feet so’jtheaster I y from the most Westerly corner of said Lot 44. o: denotes iron marker net. % V, REQUEST FOR COUNCH. ACTION c DATE: April 5, 1995 V/ ITEM NO.: j O '% V * r> Department Approval: Lyle Oman, Building Official Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Adoption of 1994 Uniform Building Code with State Amendments List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - Table Comparing Permit Fee Increases Draft Ordinance Adopting 1994 Uniform Building Code 1988 UBC Fee Schedule 1990 UBC Fee Schedule The Uniform Building Code is updated every three years and the State of Minnesota adopts the Code with Amendments generally one to two years after the Code is issued. The State then refers the approved Code to cities for their review and adoption. Once the State adopts the Uniform Building Code, all cities in the state are required to adopt the Code having some options in choosing certain Appendix chapters. Staff recommends adopting the same Appendix chapters approved in 1987 and 1990. The Appendix chapters are listed in the draft of the ordinance presented for Council’s review and action this evening (Exhibit B). The City now enforces the 1988 UBC. The State of Minnesota has taken an unusually long time in approving and adopting the 1991 version of the UBC. Because of the long delays in reviewing the 1991 UBC, the State of Minnesota has decided to adopt the 1994 UBC that already includes the 1991 additions and amendments. The State of Minnesota adopted the 1994 UBC on March 20, 1995. Staff will also prepare the necessary ordinance amendments for its contract cities. Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach. The 1994 UBC does include a significant increase in the Fee Schedule proposing a 40% increase in permit fees. While this is a substantial increase, it is the first increase since the 1985 Code was adopted by the State of Minnesota in 1987. The City of Orono adopted the 1985 Fee Schedule in 1988. Assuming 1995 total permit fees to be equal to the average of 1993 and 1994: 1993 = 175,000 1994 = 149,500 AVERAGE = $162,250 Current fee rate would total 40% increase would yield or an increase of $162,250 $227,150 $ 64,900 Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 April 5, 1995 Adoption of 1994 Uniform Building Code with State Amendment This increase breaks down to: Average valuation of 1994 new house $337,1 Current Fee Rate Increased Fee Rate i:i:i $2350 $3290 Average valuation of 1994 remodel $14,<mil $200 $275 We may want to "minimize impact" of this increase by spreading it out over 2-3 years, refer to Exhibit A. The average permit fee for a new house would then go up $300-$500 per year rather than $1000 the first year. The average fee for a remodel permit would go up $25-$50 per year rather than $75 the first year. Staff would recommend taking the entire 40% increase the first year based on the following findings: 1.The increase reflects a 5% annual increase in permit fees since last fee increase in 1988. 2.Orono ’s average house with a permit valuation of $337,000 actually sells for $600,000. 3.Orono ’s average house is very complex and requires more frequent and longer inspection times. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; To adopt Ordinance No._____, Second Series and to adopt the updated version of the Minnesota State Building Code (1994 UBC) . _____Ayes, ______Nays. To further direct staff to prepare an amendment of the Orono Fee Schedule for Council ’s action at their April 24, 1995 meeting to reflect an increase of: '> 40% - Total increase 1st year 20% - Spread over two years 13.32% - Increase spread over three years IMPACT OF BUILDING PERMIT FEE INCREASE Current Fee Full Increase 1st Year 1/2 Increase 1st Year 1/3 Increase Per Year 1994 1995 1996 1995 1996 1995 1996 1997 Average New Home Permit $2350 3290 3290 2820 3290 2663 2977 3290 Average Remodel Permit 200 275 275 237 275 225 250 275 Yearly Revenue Increase 0 64,900 64,900 32,450 64,900 21,633 43,266 64,900 ORDINANCE #, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE; PROVIDING FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT; REGLXATING THE ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION, ENXARGEMENT, ALTERATION, REPAIR, MOVING, REMOVAL, DEMOLITION, CONVERSION, OCCUPANCY, EQUIPMENT, USE, HEIGHT, AREA AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL BUILDINGS AND/OR STRUCTURES IN THE CITY OF ORONO; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND COLLECTION OF FEES THEREFORE; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF; AMENDING SECTION 12.01 - BUILDING CODE ADOPTED, OF THE ORONO MU*NICIPAL CODE AND ALL OTHER ORDLNANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH AND REPEALS ORDINANCE 87, SECOND SERIES WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 13, 1990. The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Subdivision 1. Building Code. The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes 16B.59 through 16B.75, one copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby adopted as the Building Code for the City of Orono. Such Code is hereby incorporated in this Ordinance as if fully set out herein. A. The Minnesota State Building Code includes the following chapters of Minnesota Rules: 1. 1300 Minnesota Building Code 2. 1301 Building Official Certification 3. 1302 State Building Construction Approvals 4. 1305 Adoption of the 7994 t/m/o/7n Coi/e including Appendix Chapters a. 3, Division I, Detention and Correctional Facilities b. 12, Division II, Sound Transmission Control c. 29, Minimum Plumbing Fixtures 5. 1307 Elevators and Related Devices 6. 1315 Adoption of the 1993 National Electrical Code 7. 1325 Solar Energy Systems 8. 1330 Fallout Shelters 9. 1335 Floodproofing Regulations 10. 1340 Facilities for the Handicapped 11. 1346 Adoption of the 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code 12. 1350 Manufactured Homes 13. 1360 Prefabricated Buildings 14. 1365 Snow Loads 15. 1370 Storm Shelters 16. 4715 Minnesota Plumbing Code 17. 7670 Minnesota Energy Code Page 1 of 2 B. Administration Optional. The following optional Appendix Chapters of the 1994 Uniform Building Code are hereby adopted and incorporated as part of the building code for this municipality as authorized by Minnesota rule part 1305.0020. 1. 15, Reroofing 2. 31, Division II, Membrane Structures C. The following optional chapters of Minnesota rule are hereby adopted and incorporated as part of the building code for this municipality. 1. 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems with option 8 (Group M, S, or F occupancies with 2,(XX) or more gross square feet) 2. 1335, Floodproofing Regulations Subdivision 2. Organization and Enforcement. The organization of the Building Department and enforcement of the Code shall be as established by Chapter 1 of the Uniform Building Code 1994 Edition. The Code shall be enforced with the corporate limits of the City and extraterritorial limits permitted by States Statutes 1984. A. The Building and Zoning Department shall be the Building Code Department of the City of Orono. B. The Administrative Authority shall be the State Certified Building Official C. The appointing Authority shall designate the Building Official for the jurisdiction of Orono. Subdivision 3. 1. Permits, Inspections and Fees. Permits, inspections and collection of fees shall be provided in Chapter 1 of the Uniform Building Code 1994 Edition. 2.Surcharge. In addition to the permit fee required by Item #1, the applicant shall pay a surcharge to be remitted to the Minnesota Department of Administration as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes 1984, Section 16B.70. Subdivision 4. Violations and Penalties. Shall be in keeping with Minnesota Statutes 609.033 - 609.034 which provides for a maximum fine of $700.00 Subdivision 5. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption, and a short summary shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 10th day of April, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Pace 2 of 2 W 1988 EDITION 3-A 9 ( K TABLE NO. 3-A-BUILDiNG PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION $1.00 to $500.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $1,000,001.00 and up FEE $15.00 $15.00 for the first $500.00 plus $2.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $45.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $9.00 for each addi tional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $252.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $6.50 for each addi tional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $414.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.50 for each addi tional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $639.50 for the first $100,000.00 plus $3.50 for each additional $1.000.00 or fraction thereof $2039.50 for the first $500,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00. $3539.50 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $2.00 for each additional $ 1,000.00 or fraction thereof ___ Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours.................................$30.00 per hour* (minimum charge—two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305 ..............................................................................S30.00 per hour* Kr ........................SJO.OO per hour* (minimum charge—one-half hour) 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions * ->r revisions to approved plans.................................................... 530.00 per hour . ninimum charge—one-half hour) _________________________________ •Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall ‘ndude supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the emp oyee involved. 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 1-A TABLE 1-A —BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION FEE SI.00 to S500.00 $22.00 S501.00 to S2.000.00 $22.00 for the first $500.00 plus $2.75 for each additional $100.00. or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 S2.001.00 to S25.000.00 S63.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $12.50 for each additional Sl.OOO.CX), or fraction thereof, to and including $25.(X)0.00 S25.001.00 to S50.000.00 $352.00 for the first $'*5,000.00 plus S9.00 for each additional SI.000.00. or fraction i..ereof, to and including S50.000.00 S50.001.00 to SI00.000.00 S580.00 for the first S50.000.00 plus S6.25 for each additional SI.000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including SI 00.000.00 SI00.001.00 to Sf00.000.00 SS95.00 for the first SI00.000.00 plus S5.00 for each additional S1.(XK).00, or fraction thereof S500.001.00 to SI.000.000.00 S2.855.00 for the first S500.000.00 plus S4.25 for each additional SI.000.00. or fraction thereof, to and including SI.000.00 S1.000.001.00 and up S4.955.00 for the first S1,000.000.00 plus $2.75 for each additional S1,000.000.(X). or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours .................................................................$42.00 per hour* (minimum charge—two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 108.8.................................................................................................................$42.00 per hour* 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated......................................................$42.00 per hour* (minimum charge—one-half hour) 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans.......................................................................................................$42.00 per hour* (minimum charge—one-half hour) 5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections, or both ...........................................................................................................Actual costs** 'Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include superv'ision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. •*Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. % r ^ ’ 0 %'Q REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ ^ ^ /% DATE: April?, 199$' ITEM NO.: / r- C Department Approval: Name Steve Sullivan Title Chief of Police Administrator Reviewed: 0 Agenda Section: Police Item Description: Hire Two Part-Time CSO/Animal Control Officers Both D. J. Goman and Anita Goman have recently resigned from their CSO positions to accept full-time employment with other cities. We conducted a selection process and recommend that we hire Chris Fischer and Jeremiah Callaghan as part-time employees. COLWCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to hire Christopher Fischer and Jeremiah Callaghan as part-time CSO’s at an hourly rate of $6.43 1/hour with no benefits. 1 Date; To: From; Subject: March 30, 1995 Chief Sullivan Lt. Cheswick Hiring of Community Service Officers On March 29th, Sue Bobzien, Anita Goman, and I completed the interviews with the C.S.O. candidates. The interviews came down to only four candidates. Of these, we selected two people that we feel would be able to handle the position. They are; Christopher Fischer ^ ^ ^ Chris lives locally (Maple Plain) and has worked with the Orono Police Reserve for several years. He was Reserve Officer of the Year in 1991. Chris would work Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday morniras. He is very knowledgeable of our jurisdiction and has transp'>rted dogs to the shelter in the past. Chris has a current certil- e for being a First Responder. He would be available to wotK inunediately• Jeremici 4 Callaghan Jeremiah & lives locally (Maple Plain) and has worked as a high school i :jrn with us for both his Junior and Senior years. He would be available to work Thursday and Friday afternoons and be available for ••call—outs** • He has had training in CPR and First Aid. Jeep has had experience working with horses and dogs. Jeep is available to work immediately. REQUEST FOR COUNCa ACTION o. ^%C/, >.x DATE: AprU 4, 1995 ITEM NO.: I ' Department Approval: Name John R. Gerhardson Title Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Works Item Description: Contractual Mainieifance - City Parks and Properties In 1994 the City contracted out the maintenance of City parks, beaches and other City properties. This'program worked very well and we are planning to do the same for the 1995 season. We have received proposals from the following companies as follows: Groundscrews Hammerschmidt Co. Lawn Detailers $15,348 $14,377 $14,058 For 1995 we budgeted $15,000 for this type of service. It is recommended to contract lawn maintenance service to Lawn Detailers for the 1995 season. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To award the contract for lawn maintenance for designated parks and City properties to Lawn Detailers for the 1995 season. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 1 DATE: April V 1^95 Ciry ITEM NO ^ ISss a Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Admin^trator Reviewed: 'A Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: ^ Financial Reporting and Information Systems Recommendation As part of the 1995 budget process, staff identified the potential for significantly reducing data processing/information systems costs through the installation of an in-house information processing system. The city has been a member of the LOGIS information processing system for a number of years. Staff has analyzed the LOGIS system versus in-horse systems in terms of capabilities, ease of use, versatility/flexibility, and costs to determine if the city would be better served by changing to an in-house system. The report regarding this analysis is attached for your review . Benefits of In-House System The comparison identified a number of benefits in the areas of capabilities, ease of use, versatility/flexibility, and costs. Several benefits are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. The in-house system would be installed on a Local Area Network which would significantly improve the city’s ability to share, retrieve, process and preserve information. The proposed new financial and accounting system enables more effective and efficient work processes in the areas of accounting and financial reporting. The in-house system would place the city into a more flexible position in terms of being able to take advantage of opportunities provided by new technology. The Local Area Network p* )vides an environment and opportunities which encourage staff to develop skills in the use of personal computers to increase efficiency and effectiveness of operations. The in-house system would enable the city to make the most effective use of in- house expertise in the areas of personal computers and management information systems. The in-house system provides significant cost savings: A. When the initial comparison of costs was conducted, the cost savings related to changing from the LOGIS system to an in-house system were Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 April 7, 1995 Financial Reporting and Information Systems Recommendation substantial. Subsequently, due partially to a new cost allocation formula and partially to an effort to be more cost competitive, LOGIS proposed a 40% cost reduction. This substantially narrowed the cost differential. However, even with the LOGIS cost reduction, the payback period for the initial purchase of the hardware and software is five years; at which time the annual savings with the in-house system versus LOGIS is projected to be $13,000. Costs The transition to an in-house system would bring a number of responsibilities and activities in- house that are currently handled by LOGIS. The key area of responsibility is the administration of the Local Area Network and managing the in-house software systems. These new responsibilities will be added to the duties of several current staff. The in-house option cost projection includes costs related to estimated pay level increases for three staff whose duties would change significantly with the change to an in-house system. The actual pay levels would be determined through both internal and external comparisons. The internal comparison would compare the level of responsibility and level of knowledge required of these positions with other positions in the city. The external comparison would involve an analysis of the pay levels of similar positions in other cities. Although significant further analysis is needed to determine the extent of the pay level increases, a "not to e.xceed" pay level increase was included in the analysis to ensure an accurate cost comparison with the LOGIS system. Staff Recommendation It is staffs recommendation that an in-house information system be installed to replace the LOGIS system for all information processing needs except those of the Police Department. The Police Department has a police records system through LOGIS. The current analysis and recommendation do not address options for the police records system. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Options for Council action. A. Motion to approve/disapprove the staff recommendation. If approve, authorize staff to move ahead to implement the recommendation. B. If there are questions or concerns that cannot be addressed at this meeting. Council may wish to schedule another opportunity for additional discussion prior to making a decision. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 7,^5 ' € \ I ITEM NO.: j ^ Department Approval: Name John R. Gerhardson Title Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed: ----------------------------------------------------Agenda Section: Public Works Item Description: County Road 15 Reconstruction In 1994 it was determined that County Road 15 from Orono Orchard Road west to the Areola Bridge would receive a bituminous overlay and paved 4 shoulders as well as drainage improvements and a right turn lane at Heritage Drive. It was also determined that County Road 15 east of Orono Orchard Road would receive further study due to the poor condition of the roadw’ay. Hennepin County has submitted a plan for reconstruction of that section of County Road 15 east of Orono Orchard Road to the Wayzata border. The plan shows a complete rebuild of a portion of the roadway, an overlay and widening to allow for left and right turn lanes at the intersection of Orono Orchard Avenue and County Road 15, and a center left or right turn lane east of Orono Orchard Road. Hennepin County Public Works Director Jim Grube and Chief Design Engineer Bruce Polaczyk will be in attendance on April 10, 1995 to present the plan to Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Provide direction to the County regarding the County 15 reconstruction plan. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION % > ^^ Sk.DATE; April 7, 1995 Z' ITEM NO: •P^ Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hall in Title City Clerk ator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval Site Evaluator/Designer Koch ’s Soil Testing Loretto, MN Home Occupation License Taylor Moor 735 Femdale Road North COUNCn. ACTION REQUESTED: Motion of approve licenses. CITY OF ORONO site evaluator /designer 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 All quesuons must be anssvered. License fee jnd evidence of MPCA Cemf.cation-inuW| anached. All applications are subject - a ten (10) day approval period. V * *-• 1.Cr aC / 4. X Site evaluator Cenificate expiration JD£(L -----3J / 5 Type of certification held;X System designer 6.Have you ever performed site evaluation or design work m Orono before? Most recent year / V~V^_____ 7.Have you ever had a license revoked? A/c?---- When? Where? __________ ________________— SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: 1. S 100.00 License fee. ~y 2. Copy of current MPCA Certificate LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS .ARE SUBMITTED The undersianed hereby makes application to the City of Orono. Minnesota, perform site”evaluation and septic system design subject to the laws of the State o mn and the Ordinances of the City of Orono. Applicant’sSignamre CITY Staff recommendation: Approval USE Reason for denial: _______ qjsjLY City Council Action; Date _ Date license mailed______ kj(,*#.*iycj(c**j!c***iic>!i>«*>icA:i<:i«>!t****=!>*‘i‘*******’^*** .1®Denial Date Approved Denied . « V Business or trade name /-/ ' 5 _ Business address ^ Business phone V 7TI1 C- 3 ^--------Residence phone---------------------------------- Name of applicant or company represema^e(s) aiding MPCA cemfication-------------- Application Date; Date License Approved:^ CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66, 1325 So Brown Rd , . Crvstal Bay, MN 55323 Date License _ Expires:_ _ _ _ _ __ APPLICATION POR ANNUAL HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE ___________ PHONE; _______________NAME; 77t ^ CCR fiOOC/7-.___________ ADDRESS; Ttn^nir Ai~C CLT*. A/CITY; CPr^m No. of Employees within operation:__j^------------ v. • P^ovids li.Sw cd nsLines od employees on back Ca. tii—s application. Type of Business to be Operated; License may be revoked if any violation occurs. City staff shall have five (5) business days in which to investigate and aaJce a recommendation pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.02 & 5.03. If a site inspection is required by City staff/ the review time will be extended to ten (10) business days. The license application with sta ff recommendation will be scheduled before the Council at the neart regularly scheduled meeting held on the second and fourth Monday of eac h month. ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS ON HOME OCCUPATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 4 (C) Prchibired Heme Cceuoaticn Practices. f V. • V • ■ V V . V - 4 i..-” . i. 4. 5. 6. It is unlawful for any business operating as a hene occuPa:ticn to encage in eperatien witheut proper licenses. All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling. No commercial signs permitted other than signs permitted in the residential zone. No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. . - Over the counter retail sales is not allowed. Entrance to the home occupation must be gained from within the 3 w 6 • The undersigned hereby agrees to the conditions quoted above from the Orono Municipal Code and any additional conditions the City may require. Signature of Audi cant:Date : j/?/95’ FOR CITY USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommenas tne following; ______ Apuroval cf License ______ Denial cf License Signature of Zoning Official: Signature cf Fire Inspector:fJl __________ Date:_2LIi2£------ # 03/26/95 Pn. 245 C3 PRREGOR EMP « NAME 471608060 474563339 476921819 471840871 475443062 463343003 472503991 469526026 475939721 468821013 472529007 463701368 469686562 463420032 476020397 474667812 475380151 477500666 475444249 477463377 471569363 471348130 472500574 121262417 430043542 477561040 470907727 477700023 334506201 463909535 476783251 476066274 170700901 469040107 471487919 475302903 473746173 470566529 469629194 475569177 267460042 472563051 474663296 470704904 475505292 463629483 477381539 ANDERSON, BRUCE L BOBZIEN, SUE A BORIS, SCOTT W BOSMA, JAMIE L BRINKHAUS, JOHN F CARLSON, MICHAEL B CHESWICK, GARY B CCRNICK, JAMES L DEMBOUSKI, JAY C ENGLISH III, IRVING ERICKSON, KURT R FISCHENICH, DAN T GAFFRON, MICHAEL P GERHARDSON, JOHN R GOMAN, ANITA D. GREGORY, JAMES D HALLIN, DOROTHY M HANSEN, STEVEN C HAN3ING, CAROL J HASEMAN, CAROLE JOHNSON, BRADLEY P KNOLLENBERG, KRISTIN KUEHN, THOMAS M MABUSTH, JEANNE A MCNICHOLS, DAVID L MELTON, NEIL W. MILLER, CHRISTOPHER MOORSE, RONALD J MOROWCZYNSKI, JA1-1ES OBERAIGNER, SCOTT G OBRIEN, RANDY L OLSON, JOHN C. OMAN, LYl.E E PALMER, GREGORY A PERSELL, WILLIAM R. QUAST, WAYNE A RATHBUN, BARRY J SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B SKREEN, DALE S STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD SULLIVAN, STEPHEN X THOMTON, MARK R TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F TOMCZYK, MARK W VANG, BRUCE L VEE, LINDA S WECKMAN, STEPHEN J DPT YTD GROSS CURRENT GROSS 31 12718.90 1747.17 31 7503.86 1071.20 31 3746.60 1219.94 12 4311.43 700 .92 42 11592.00 1656.00 31 2297.47 437.62 31 12421.92 1774.56 31 12510.27 1390.97 31 12557.36 2120.79 31 12051.95 1591.36 31 11331.00 1611.52 31 11037.76 1614.22 33 10347.03 1555.52 42 16326.70 2240.23 35 1232.34 315.99 42 5505.06 1371.04 12 9344 .13 1340.00 42 3760.59 1143.68 31 4396.71 530.49 12 7560.14 1111.37 31 12031 .35 1902.39 31 2531 .81 335.43 15 15958.09 2299.48 33 13584.41 1948.00 31 i1429.76 1717.98 31 962.21 157.10 15 7060.57 1110.24 12 17746.07 2449.44 31 11024.50 1611.52 42 9269.73 1143.63 92 9208.19 1143.69 15 6731.83 964.07 33 10847.04 1555.53 42 3961.29 1350 .13 31 2761.16 493.72 92 10446.06 1614.49 92 3000.71 1143.67 31 7344 .13 1242.53 42 3704 .18 1143.68 93 9344 .16 1340.00 31 15240.96 2177.28 31 11277.11 1501.37 31 12070.23 1996.43 31 11280.64 1611.52 33 5344.15 1340 .00 12 7660.50 1071.20 33 3664.10 1242.48 = S 3 64,735.22 sssssssss; #COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Tue Mar 28 mt- :heck no CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT0328331995/03/28 $5,541.00$5,541.00* 032834 1995/03/28 1995/03/28 $2,838.85 $9,499.37 $12,338.22* 032835 1995/03/28 $36,492.31 $36,492.31* 032836 1995/03/28 $1,381.50 $1,381.50* C32837 1995/03/28 $146.50 $146.50* 032838 1995/C3/28 $174.50 $174.50* 032839 1995/03/28 $100.00 $100.00* 032840 1995/03/28 $375.00 $375.00* 032841 1995/03/28 $2,852.78 $2,852.78* 032842 1995/03/28 $55.00 $55.00* 032843 1995/03/28 $100.00 $100.00* 032844 1995/03/28 $98.69 $98.69* 032845 1995/03/28 $1,323.46 $1,323.46* 032846 1995/03/28 1995/03/28 $3,681.96 $4,851.16 $8,533.12* 032847 1995/03/28 $30.00 $30.00* 1995 23:26:35VENDOR DESCRIPTIONCICTCOUNTY CREDIT UNI SAVINGS W/H fc TrT^SFFIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CITY SHARE FICA.MEDC FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FIT,FICA,MEDCR W/H FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NET PAYROLL GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURA DEFERRED COMP W/H HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPOR THOMTON #00266780 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPOR SKREEN #00262310 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- DEFERRED COMP W/H LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR UNION DUES W/H MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVE STATE TAX W/H MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEF COMP W/H MN STATE RETIREMENT-DE DEF COMP W/H PEBSCO/^'ORA DEF COMP W/H PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYO DEF COMP W/H PERA PERA PERA W/H PERA CITY SHARE UNITED WAY CHARITY DONATIONS W/ $69,542.08 o Page 1ACCOUNT #INVOICE PO NUM. MANUAL9999-2030 OH9999-2032 9S99-2030 002574002574 OHOH 9999-2030 002577 OH 9999-2030 002584 OH 9999-2030 002580 OH 9999-2030 002579 OH 9999-2030 002583 OH 9999-2030 002578 OH 9999-2030 002575 OH 9999-2030 002585 OH 9999-2030 002586 OH 9999-2030 002588 OH 9999-2030 002587 OH 9999-2030 9999-2031 002576 002576 OH .1 OH 9999-2030 002582 OH COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY Tue Mar 28 1995 23:26:38FUND tf 999 PAYROLL CLEARING $69,542.08$69,542.08 1 i ]oCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Apr 6 1995 05:19:54 Pag* 1CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT #INVOICE PO NUH.MANUAL1995/04/10 $28.44 A T 6 T LONG DISTANCE-G.C.0590-4320 002595 CH032851$28.44*1995/04/10 S44.05 ATfcT INFO SYSTEM MAINT 3/20-4/19 0129-4340 S220658679 OH032852$44.05* 1995/04/10 $76.22 BLACKCWIAK k SON PICKUP 0 G.C.0590-4343 002614 OH 032853 $76.22* 1995/04/10 $168.58 BLACKOWIAK k SONS TRASH SERVICE-MARCH 0099-4343 169732 OH 032854 $168.58* 1995/04/10 $6.87 BUDGET PRINTING LARGE COPIES 0099-4322 48786 OH 1995/04/10 $5.70 BUDGET PRINTING UPS CHARGES 0129-4210 48921 OH 032855 $12.57* 1995/04/10 $96.11 CELLULARONE CELL PHONE-GERHARDSO 0249-4320 002619 OH 1995/04/10 $23.30 CELLULARONE CELL PHONE UTILITIES 0569-4320 002606 OH 1995/04/10 $23.30 CELLULARONE CELL PHONE UTILITIES 0549-4320 002606 OH 032856 $142.71* 1995/04/10 $21.80 CHESWICK/GARY REIMBURSE PHONE EXPE 0129-4320 002611 OH 032857 $21.80* 1995/04/10 $423.45 CHUNKS GARAGE TRANSMISSION WORK «1 0129-4341 5724 OH 1995/04/10 $89.25 CHUNKS GARAGE MISC WORK #166 0129-4341 5772E OH 032858 $512.70* 1995/04/10 $22,260.50 CITY OF LONG LAKE 2ND QTR FIRE PROTECT 0130-4315 002610 OH 032859 $22,260.50* 1995/04/10 $3,779.18 COPY DUP PR INC MAINT 3/30/95-3/30/9 0099-4340 2108347 OH 1995/04/10 $189.87 COPY DUP PR INC MAINT 3/30-4/29 0129-4340 2107892 OH 032860 $3,969.05* 1995/04/10 $185.81 CYS UNIFORMS UNIFORM-TOMCHECK 0129-4221 13822 OH 1995/04/10 $287.45 CYS UNIFORMS WINTER JACKET-ENGLIS 0129-4221 13033 OH 032861 $473.26* 1995/04/10 $104.63 DPC INDUSTRIES INC.HYDROFLUOROSILIC ACI 0549-4234 1090405 OH 032862 $104.63* « 1 1995/04/10 $5,422.92 E-Z RECYCLING MARCH RECYCLING 0295-4392 002599 I • OH 032863 $5,422.92* 1995/04/10 $266.25 EARL F ANDERSON ASSC FRENCH CREEK SIGNS 9112-3840 139948 OH 032864 $266.25* 1995/04/10 $82.80 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE BEER FOR RESALE 0591-4815 35920 OH 032865 $82.80* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Apr 6 1995 05:19:54 Page 2 ' CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT #INVOICE PO NUM.MANUAL 032866 1995/04/10 $375.00 $375.00* ELM CREEK GOLF SHARPEN 5 UNITS 0590-4232 1411 OH 032867 1995/04/10 $269.71 $269.71* FAST GLASS INC REPLACE WINDSHIELD H 0129-4341 125121 OH 032868 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 $33.00 $275.50 $308.50* FIRST CHOICE UNIFORMS FIRST CHOICE UNIFORMS CLERICAL UNIFORMS CLERIC/L UNIFORMS 0129-4221 0129-4221 5903 5625 OH OH 032869 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 $200.00 $80.00 $180.00 $460.00* FROST, SHERRY R. FROST, SHERRY R. FROST, SHERRY R. MARCH SERVICE MARCH SERVICE MARCH SERVICE 0174-4306 0290-4306 0039-4306 002607 002607 002607 OH OH OH 032870 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 $39.27 $15.49 $2.60 $48.05 $39.27 $144.68* G i K SERVICES G i K SERVICES G t K SERVICES G «t K SERVICES G i K SERVICES FLOOR MATS RATHBUN, QUAST STEFFENHAGEN STREET EMPLOYEES FLOOR MATS 0099-4343 0549-4221 0590-4221 0249-4221 0099-4343 489665 482298 482296 482297 489664 OH OH OH OH OH 032871 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 $.89 $26.68 $25.81 $53.38* GAFFRON, MIKE GAFFRON, MIKE GAFFRON, MIKE EXPENSE REIMB. MILEAGE REIMB MILEAGE REIMB 0174-4210 0174-4356 0174-4381 002608 002608 002608 OH OH OH 032872 1995/04/10 $32.30 $32.30* GALL'S INC.CLERICAL UNIFORMS 0129-4221 622861 OH 032873 1995/04/10 1595/04/10 $11.54 $11.17 $22.71* HALLIN/DOROTHY HALLIN/DOROTHY MILEAGE REIMB MILEAGE REIMB 0039-4381 0039-4356 002593 002593 OH OH 032874 1995/04/10 $3.48 $3.48* HASEMAN, CAROLE MILEAGE REIMB.0039-4381 002591 OH 032875 1995/04/10 $1,217.63 $1,217.63* HENN CTY FIN DIV ROOM & BOARD-FEB 0080-4358 002912 OH 032876 1995/04/10 $115.33 $115.33* HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT BOOKING FEES-FEB 0080-4358 002590 OH 032877 1995/04/10 $257.41 $257.41* HOTSY CORP STEAMER HOSE 0249-4342 706624 OH 032878 1995/04/10 $50.00 $50.00* lACP RETHINKING STRESS-SU 0129-4356 002620 OH i yCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Apr 6 CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT 1995 05:19:54VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT «INVOICE PO NUM.Page 3 MANUAL 032879 1995/04/10 $350.00 $350.00* JOHN REID k ASSOC INTERVIEW k INTERROG 0129-4356 002594 OH 032680 1995/04/10 $24.75 *24.75* LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPN CHAIN SHARPENING 0590-4342 6164 OH 1995/04/10 $47.49 MIDWEST BSNS PROD MISC SUPPLIES 0099-4210 164568 OH 032861 1995/04/10 $15.14 $62.63* MIDWEST BSNS PROD MISC SUPPLIES 0129-4210 184568 OH 1995/04/10 $13.50 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COM MEDICAL OXYGEN 0129-4232 103950843 OH 032862 1995/04/10 $31.50 $45.00* MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COM OXYGEN FOR STREETS 0249-4232 103950842 OH 032883 1995/04/10 $25.00 $25.00* MN DARE OFFICERS ASSOC DARE MEMBERSHIP 0840-4243 002596 OH 1995/04/10 $20.00 MUNICI-PALS MUNICIPALS 0174-4356 002618 OH 032884 1995/04/10 $60.00 $80.00* MUNICl-PALS MUNICIPALS 0039-4356 C02618 OH 1995/04/10 $12.18 NSP NSP CHARGES 0590-4324 002615 OH 1995/04/10 $9.42 NSP NSP CHARGES 0175-4324 002615 OH 1995/04/10 $17.00 NSP NSP CHARGES 0290-4324 002615 OH 1995/04/10 $422.63 NSP NSP CHARGES 0129-4324 002615 OH 1995/04/10 $2,097.22 NSP NSP CHARGES 0549-4324 002615 OH 1995/04/10 $332.15 NSP NSP CHARGES 0569-4324 0026X5 OH 1995/04/10 $894.85 NSP NSP CHARGES 0099-4324 002615 OH 032885 1995/04/10 $174.53 $3,959.98* NSP NSP CHARGES 0249-4324 002615 OH 032886 1995/04/10 $16.82 $16.82* OBRIEN,RANDY MILEAGE REIMB 0249-4356 002617 OH 1995/04/10 $76.89 OLSON, JOHN C.MCFOA CONFERENCE 0069-4356 002598 OH 032887 1995/04/10 $7.11 $84.00* OLSON, JOHN C.MILEAGE 0069-4381 002598 OH 1995/04/10 $24.00 PERA INS PERA INS-MAY 0129-4152 002602 OH 032888 1995/04/10 $96.00 $120.00* PERA INS PERA INS-MAY 9999-2030 002602 OH f ( OH 0328^9 1995/04/10 $48.53 $48.53* PIONEER LAND USE APPS 0174-4323 810 032890 1995/04/10 $127.50 $127.50* POST BOARD PEACE OFFCR LIC 0129-4383 002592 OH 032891 1995/04/10 $128.71 $128.71* PRAIRIE OFFSET PURCHASE ORDER FORMS 0099-4322 104793 OH COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Apr 6 1995 05:19:54 Page 4 'CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT #INVOICE PO NUM.MANUAL 032892 1995/04/10 $19.53 $19.53* PRO TIRE 6 EXHAUST OIL CHANGE #172 0129-4341 5413 OH 032893 1995/04/10 $31.25 $31.25* RETTINGER BROS OIL CO KEROSENE 0249-4220 002613 OH 032894 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 $18.50 $23.36 $9.84 $51.70* RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA FILM PROCESSING FILM PROCESSING FILM PROCESSING 0129-4210 0129-4210 0129-4210 3761471 3760522 3761092 OH OH OH 032895 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 $126.50 $1,922.94 $2,049.44* SAFE BENEFITS SAFE BENEFITS SAFE BENEFITS-APRIL SAFE BENEFITS-APRIL 0299-4306 9999-2030 14289 14289 OH OH 032896 1995/04/10 $102.60 $102.60* SCHOENHOFF, JOHN SCHOOL-ST. CLOUD 0129-4356 002603 OH 032897 1995/04/10 $12.07 $12.07* SNYDER DRUG STORES INC MISC SUPPLIES 0249-4210 155965 OH 032898 1995/04/10 .$444.00 $444.00* ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERS ADV DRIVING COURSE 0249-4356 002600 OH 032899 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 $11.07 $173.65 $121.59 $21.61 $327.92* STREICHERS STRETCHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS FLASHLIGHT REPAIR TINT METERS MIRROR LIGHT #170 LENSES 0174-4232 0129-4232 0129-4341 0129-4232 19515.1 18556.1 17779.1 19557.1 OH OH OH OH 032900 1995/04/10 vl85.25 $185.25* THORPE DIST CO BEER FOR RESALE 0591-4815 54482 OH 032901 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 $385.53 $578.30 $963.83* TOWN k COUNTRY TOWN k COUNTRY APRIL SERVICE APRIL SERVICE 0129-4343 0099-4343 002601 002601 OH OH 032902 1995/04/10 $295.00 $295.00* UNIVERSITY EXTENSION EFFECTIVE ZONING TEC 0174-4356 002597 OH 032903 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 $23.79 $290.88 $314.67* US WEST CELLULAR INC US WEST CELLULAR INC CELL PHONE-CHESWICK CELL PHONE CHARGES 0129-4320 0129-4320 002589 002609 OH .OH 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 $55.66 $246.05 $35.56 $375.64 $12.52 US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES 0099-4320 0129-4320 0590-4320 ’0099-4320 0549-4320 002616 002616 002616 002616 002616 OH OH OH OH OH oCOUNCILCHECK REGISTER Thu Apr 6 1995 05:19:54 •Pag* 5CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT It INVOICE PO HUM. MANUAL0329041995/04/101995/04/10 $212.19 $29.22 $966 84*US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES 0590-0200569-4320 002616002616 OHOH0329051995/04/101995/04/10 $44 .40 $44 .40 $88.80*WEEKLY NEWS INC WEEKLY NEWS INC DISPLAY ADS DISPLAY ADS 0590-43230590-4323 1992019957 OHOH0329061995/04/10 $107.36$107.36*WESTONKA GLASS SERVICE PLEXIGLASS WINDOWS 0590-4343 3556 OH0329071995/04/10 $47.19$47.19*WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIR TIRE REPAIR 1427 0249-4341 76256 OH0329061995/04/10 $1,078.28$1,078.28*WM MUELLER it SONS STREET MATERIALS 0249-4233 002612 OH 032909 1995/04/10 1995/04/10 $8.31 $9.00 $17.31* WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 0249-4324 0249-4324 002604 002605 OH OH $49,072.57 COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY Thu Apr 6 1»95 05:19:59FUND#001 GENERAL FUND $42,918.40FUND112PARK FUND $268.25 FUND »672 WTR OPERATING FD $2,253.16 FUND »673 SWR OPERATING FD $384.67 FUND 674 G/C OPERATING FD $1,231.15 FUND 999 PAYROLL CLEARING $2,018.94 $49,072.57 Page 1 information ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL MEHIN6 APR 1 0 1995 CITY OF ORONO OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20,1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date uilh the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Candace Rowlette, Charles Nolan, Jr, and Janice Berg Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Nfabusth and Recorder Sherry Frost represented Staff. Councilmembers Jabbour and Goetten were present. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7;00 p m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING (#1) 7:00 P.M. #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER, 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, CLASS I - PUBLIC HEARING 7:00-7:53 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The .Applicant, Mr. Cloutier, was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a dhision of legally combined lots 1, 3,4, and outlot 1, w hich is a type 1 classification of subdivision. These lots were originally combined for tax purposes. The applicant is asking for a division of Lot 1, which meets all requirements. The issue is access. The existing access will serve lot 1 The access currently serves the homestead parcel. The drive w'ould be altered to only serve lot 1, and the homestead parcel (combined lots 3 and 4) will be served by existing drive at Frederick Street. When the land was subdivided, an outlot (20' wide) was created within the Tillson Villa Carman subdivision. Lots 1-4 could gain access from the road outlot and lot 5 from Frederick Street. Today, lot 2 achieves access from outlot and combined lots 1. 3, and 4 from direct accesses at Casco Point Road and Frederick Street. At this time, Mabusth ceremented that it w'as important to determine what are the future plans for the lots; mainly, if there would be a future di\ision of lots 3 and 4. The new lots must meet requirements of current code and provide approved legal access. There is adequate area to subdivide lots 1, 3, and 4. The required area for each lot will depend on whether the lot will achieve access via a private road or dnveway outlot. Lot 1 has access from Casco Point Road from an existing approved curb cut. Lot 4 has an existing access from Frederick Street. The code states that only two lots can be served from a driveway outlot and that the back lot meet 150% of required area. The lines of existing sewer and water service to residence would need to be located and shown on survey. The location for the water connection for the original house is unknown. The sewer may come from Casco Point Road. There may be a need for an easement depending on their locations. A municipal sewer line intersects lot 4 at the northwest comer. The City would ask for an easement over the sewer line. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (# 1 - #2000 Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Mr. Cloutier said he had nothing to add to the report and had no plans at this time for lots 3 and 4. He reported that he purchased 4 lots in 1965 The property was platted with a roadway on outlot 1 providing egress and ingress Cloutier said he used outlot 1 for access at one time, and then he put in a guest driveway and now uses access off of Frederick Street. The applicant said that the outlot 1 roadway has existed for over 30 years. The driveway he created has been used for less than 30 years along with the access on Frederick Street. The applicant reported he created the access so as not to inconvenience the residents of lot 2, the Paurus family. Mr. Cloutier said he called the County tax division in 1967 and asked for one tax statement. He reported that he was not aware that he had legally combined the lots, which was done. Cloutier would like to divide lot 1 to build a house for his son. The lot division can be done through metes and bounds division through the City The lot meet the area and width requirements With the lot division, the driveway through lot 1 would be removed, as it was never legally installed. The Commission members discussed what would happen with lots 3 and 4 if lot 1 were to be divided now. Rowlette said that lot 3 would become a back lot. Rowlette questioned whether access would be through a new road or an outlot for the back lots. Lindquist thought that since it had been subdivided in the past that it would have to be allowed to be so again. Rowlette suggested having the city attorney peruse the situation to eliminate a problem with subdivision in the future. Wilbur Anderson of 3555 Frederick Street asked how the lots were declared for sewer and water hook-up. Mabusth responded that the property has been assessed for 2 water units but with this sewer project, by lineal footage along the roads were assessed. John Erickson, 1620 Shadywood Road, who owned two lots on Shadj'wood, which his parents had since 1941, said that people w ere asked at that time if they wanted one or two tax statements if they had two lots. He reported that he has one statement but owns two lots with two sewer stubs. Mabusth agreed that their land use planning was not consistent when sewer and water stubs were given out to properties. Schroeder noted that 3 sewer hookups would be needed if the lots were subdivided. Mr. Cloutier said that the house located on lot 4 is not hooked up on Casco Pt but hooked up through Frederick Street. When Casco sewer was installed, he had been asked where he would like the sewer stubbed in. There is a sewer stub to serve lot 1 at Casco Point Road. An easement runs through lot 1 for lot 3 for both ingress/egress and utilities. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#1 - #2000 - Coitlen Cloutier - Continued) If the lots have been combined,' ch Mabusth verifies that they have indeed been combined, then the Planning Commission would have to determine the size of the lots for subdivision and how access would be provided. Rowlette questioned whether lot 3 should be treated as an already designated lot or not. Mr. Paurus asked about the boathouse located on the property. He reported that it was old and unsafe and needs to either be repaired or remov ed Schroeder responded that this application does not apply to the boathouse but did ask the applicant what his plans were for the future of the boathouse. Mr. Cloutier reported that he wished to rehabilitate the boathouse. He had installed a 3-season porch on top of the boathouse and said he had thought he had been given verbal approval to do so by the building inspector at that time. Mabusth said that the permit on file was given for a single story boathouse only. Rowlette informed the applicant of the City's desire to have no structures in tfie 0-75' zone. If the boathouse is to be repaired, and the cost w ould be more than 50% of the value of the boathouse at the time of the 1975 code, the boathouse must be removed. No repjurs can be done without a permit. Rowlette said she would like to have the city attorney's opinion on whether there would be any rights grandfathered to the property if it had been legally combined. Mabusth responded to the negative sa>ing that the current code would apply to the property. Lindquist agreed that any further division of lots 3 and 4, once lot I was approved for subdivision, would have to follow the current codes. Nolan reiterated to the applicant that if he desires any future division of the lots, the commission needs to see the plan at this time. Cloutier responded that he did not wish to be concerned with future division at this time, only the one lot as presented. Schroeder emphasized that the present plan for lot 1 could mean that lot 3 would not be able to be subdivided in the future because of the issue of access and would be subject to current standards. The commission members suggested to the applicant that he come back before the commission with an amended application with plan > for all the lots. Mabusth said, once again, that the subdivision could be done with a simple metes and bounds subdivision. Mabusth put the applicant on notice that any future subdivision would ne^ a new plat due to the -’ccess issue. The current code may not allow the division of lots 3 and 4 at a later date. If the applicant's intentions are anything other than the two lot subdivision as stated in the applicant, the intentions of the applicant needed to be known at this time. The applicant said he had no plans at this time but that his children said they would like to see a future division of lots 3 and 4, therefore, requested tabling of the application. Mabusth said the property would have to be replatted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL,\NNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#1 - #2000 - Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Schroder moved, Peterson seconded, lo table application #2000. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#2) #1950 GLENN UPTON, 3685 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARUNCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:53-8:03 P.M. The Applicant, Mr Upton, was present. The application originated in the summer of 1994 for an increase in hardcover in the 0-75' sc.back requiring a variance for a deck. The Planning Commission denied the application. The applicant asked to go back to the Planning Commission with an amended plan. The amended plan is for 192 s.f of additional living space and 484 s f for an attached garage. The amended proposal is for 52' lakeshore setback, where 75' is required. It does meet the minimum DNR required setback of 50'. A hardship list is included as well as a petition from the neighbors which support the second proposal. John Erickson asked where the property was located from him. Erickson asked about the garage location, and how the proposal affects the deeded access and the public right-of- way. The original garage is being removed, and the new garage will be attached to the side of the house. The applicant said that the land crossing the public access had been deeded to him hy the county. -hioeder said that this issue does not affect the application. Rowlette informed the applicant of the city ordinance disallowing any boats larger than 20' to be stored outside on a property. Schroeder noted the 68 s f increase in hardcover in the 0-75' zone with the remainder of the increase in the 75-250' zone. He also noted the attempt by the applicant to meet as many requirements as he could and the large number of hardships pertaining to the application. Peterson asked about the status of the survey and side setback. !t was determined that the survey had been updated last year with the filing of the current application. Mabusth and the applicant confinned that the side setback requirement was met with il.3'. Nolan asked if the applicant w as willing to remove the shed and other items located in that area, which the applicant said he w ould. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve applicant #2950 as amended with the condition that all hardcover removal be completed prior to construction to include shed and miscellaneous items. The access garage could be retained until the proposed attached garage is completed. Ayes Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 («) #1979 RICHARD LITTLE, 1890 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - WRITTEN RENOTIFICATION 8:03- 8:09 P.M. The applicant, who was out of town, was represented by his son-in-law. Mabusth said that the application was before the Planning Commission in November and required an updated survey of the shoreline. The proposed reconstruction of the 14x26' deck would result in 40 s f of additional hardcover located in the 0-75' zone and the entire deck is located in front of the average lakcshore setback line. The Planning Commission had approved the application in November awaiting updated survey showing that the deck was not in the 0-75' zone. Mrs. Little had given her approval over the phone for the reshaping of the deck to eliminate the deck portion in the 0-75' zone. Their representative at this meeting asked that the deck remain as proposed sitting on the original footprint. The trees in front of the deck would remain. Nolan said it would be out of character to approve any structure in the 0-75' zone. He asked the representative if the applicant would consider removing brick hardcover that extended beyond the dimensions of the deck above the patio to reduce hardcover to offset t he reconstruction of the deck. The representative said this would be acceptable. Nolan moved. Smith seconded, to approve application #1979 for replacement of the 14x26' deck as previously existed with the removal of hardcover extending beyond the deck dimensions in the patio area. Ayes 7, N.-ys 0. (#4) #1999 DAVID AND VICKI VICKERMAN. 2475 DUNWOODY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:09-8:22 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Vickerman, were present. Mabusth reported that the application would involve the removal of a 16x24' boathouse and replaced with a 12x15* deck and access stairs leading down steep bank to the lake. The problem with the structure is that it would be 10' above the lake and 9’ from the shoreline. The code allows for a 8x4' landing with access stairs. The applicant reported that due to the steepness of the lot, there is no where to do anything to enjoy the lake without beinn ibl«* to walk out onto a deck. This would be the only access to the lake and use of the KSi esl .ofe itself Mrs. Vickerman asked if a wood deck could be installed where the boatheuse is now located. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20. 1995 (#4 - #1999 - David and Vicki Vickerman - Continued) Mabusth responded that the only allowed structure would be the 4x8' landing as part of the access stair structure. Rowlette informed the applicant that the area where the boathouse is would need to be stabilized but could provide an area to sit and enjoy the lake but no deck would be allowed. The need to eliminate hardcover in the 0-75' zone was emphasized. The applicant was informed that open-timbered decking is considered hardcover because the timber does not absorb water. The deck as proposed would not allow any vegetation to grow underneath it and would result in runoff into the lake. Added vegetation on properties to improve water runoff was discussed. The applicant w'as informed of the need for a plan for the removal of the boathouse with stabilizing of the area possibly through retaining walls. If retaining w'alls are required, a conditional-use permit would also be required. The Planning Comrrussion would review the plans for approval which would be forwarded to the Council for final approval. It was reemphasized that the code only allows for a 4x8' landing on the access stairs. Schroeder moved, Nolan seconded, to table application #1999 until the April Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the applicant will present a plan for the boathouse removal, hill stabilization, and landing; amending the original application to a conditional use permit. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2001 POWDER PACKERS, INCJRHONDA E. WILSON, 640 ORCHARD PARK ROAD - VARUNCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:22-8:36 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication w ere noted. The Applicant, Ms. Wilson, was present. The application is for a front/'street setback variance where 100' is required, for a 33x23' garage and 4x12* entry. The setback proposed is for 75' at the entry addition and 7I.T at the garage addition where the existing residence is located at 75.7'. There is an existing overhang that travels the length of the residence. The proposed entry would extend 2' beyond the oveihang. Wlien the house was originally built in 1959, the five-acre zone standards did not apply. The property is 4.79 acres in a 5-acre zone, which had been changed after the construction of this house. The addition will meet the required 10' separation setback from the tennis court. Smith asked why the garage was moved forward from the rest of the house. The applicant responded that this provided a thru corridor right into the house entry door. The driveway plans were shown to the commissioners. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#5 - #2001 - Powder Packers, Inc./Rhonda Wilson - Continued) Peterson commented that the plans are consistent with the neighborhood. He voiced concern with the location of a water pipe he saw that was located close to the sewer. It was reported that the pvc pipe was buried and came up at this point and fed off the main well but adequate distance separated the well and septic. Smith inquired of the deadline date for sewer connection. The applicant said that although the number of bedrooms increased from 3 to 4, this did not increase the square footage. Applicant did note that the sewer would be updated during 1995. Mabusth reported seeing water pocketing near the culvert on the westside in the ditch area. The culvert will need to be checked to ensure it is working properly. Smith noted that the tennis court is non-conforming. A variance would be required if any structural changes would be needed. Rowlette moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2001 for front street setback variance with the three conditions listed pertaining to the septic, the culvert, and the tennis court. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #2003 ART AND KATHY HENNINGSEN, 975 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARLNG 8;36-«:54 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Henrungsen, were present. The application is for an average lakeshore setback variance. The screen porch and deck improvements are all located in front of the average lakeshore setback line as are portions of the house. Because of the shape of the property, the hardcover improvement is concentrated in the 75-250' zone. Hardcover exists at 32.49%. 1052 s.f of new hardcover is to be added and 1184 s.f of hardcover is to be removed. 712 s.f or 2.8% of proposed structural hardcover shall be traded with the removals of 1184 s.f of nonstructural hardcover. The grade level patio has not been included as structural hardcover. The brick patio is being removed as part of hardcover tradeoffs. The property is 2.3 acres in LR-1B zoning district, requiring one acre in area. The impact on the lake view for the neighbors was discussed. There has been no problem voiced. Council member Jabbour, who is a neighbor, commented that he has no problem with the home location. Row lette commented that the Gilbert family, neighbors of this property, hadn't voiced any concern, and had also received the same average lakeshore setback variance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20. 1995 (#6 - #2003 - Art and Kathy Henningsen - Continued) There were no public comments Mabusth reported on the drainage system for the property. Water drains from the wetland to the SE under two culverts, into a pond, to an underground 100' culvert, located under the applicant's driveway pavement, with an outlet at the grassed lakeshore yard draining along a line of pine trees eventually to lake. No erosion was noted. Mabusth was unaware of erosion problems of lakeshore bank area. Once the plastic is removed around house, Mabusth and Nolan both said this might bring flooding problems to the lower level. The applicant said that the builder assessed the hardcover in relation to drainage. The builder plans to build up around the foundation with soil. Water has pooled in the lower level entry. The drain tile pumped water out but drained back into the house. The grading needs to be looked at. Commission members were asked for their viewpoints. Schroeder is concerned with making a distinction between structural and non-structural hardcover. Nolan commented favorably on the use of natural vegetation between the house and lake. Lindquist thought the plan was ambitious but had no problem with it. He earlier made note of the large amount of up-front structure with the two patios and deck in comparison with the hardcover removals required. Rowiette noted the long narrow lot and how that resulted in the hardcover pooling in one area. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2003 with the understanding that the plastic under the rock and hardcover removal be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Detail grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed by City Engineer. Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS (#7) #2002 WILLIAM SIVUTH, 25S0 FOX STREET - SKETCH PLAN/SUBDIVISiON Mabusth reported that this is a sketch plan for a subdivision of three lots. The French Lake Upper Basin has been redeflned as wetland and is no classified as a protected lake. The property is no longer located within a shoreland area. The RR-IB zoning requires two acres of continuous dry land. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#7 - #2002 - William Smith - Continued) This plan is for a division of a two-lot subdivision originally approved in 1985. There is adequate area to meet requirements of a back lot division w ith 7+ acres. The applicant was advised in 1985 that future access considerations required access conforming to a 3- lot subdivision. The City acquired no underlying access easement over the roadway in the adjacent RLS division. The owner of the RLS said he would never approve any easement or curb cut. This results in only two options, A and B, for the applicant, not three as proposed. Mabusth reported that the existing driveway comes very close to the wetland. 26' setback is required. A separate conditional use and variance application was filed with the original subdivision application that w ould allow encroachment of protected wetland for drive to north. The barn on the property was placed in front of the principal structure also requiring a variance review. The drainage comes from both the northeast and northwest into a large wetland and continues draining through a drainageway along the driveway to French Lake Basin wetland. Option A calls for the use of the existing driveway to serve all three The northern lot meets the back lot requirement but a 30' driveway outlot can only ^erve 2 lots per code. There is 2.12 acres to the west of the easement maintaining the required continuous 2 acres for the new building env elope. Option B calls for a 60' wide private road with a cul-de-sac along the eastern border. Major portions will be located within a designated wetland area. Mabusth said that in 1985, the applicants chose to develop a shared access drive and did not attempt to acquire an access off the RLS drive. Rowlette noted that this application is similar to the problem faced with the Cloutier application previously discussed. Rowlette suggested a possible new curb cut off of Fox Street to service new lot. Schroeder said this would require a new curb cut. Schroeder also said that during discussions with the neighbors, the property was always planned to have j lots. Nolan asked about upgrading of the existing driveway to a road. Mabusth responded that the setback from a wetland prevented this option. Due to the narrowness of the available land for the driveway, it must remain a driveway but does need upgrading. A loop turnaround was noted to be in lot 2 for emergency vehicles. The Applicant, Bill Smith, w'ould like to keep the driveway, making necessary improvements, and possibly upgrading h with a passing area if necessary. He preferred the aesthetically-pleasing look of the driveway to a cul-de-sac road. Smith said that one possible buyer asked about keeping the bam. Commissioners informed Smith that 3 acres are needed to allow the keeping of one horse. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#7 - #2002 William Smith - Continued) In discussing the RLS road to the west, the Applicant reported having spoken to the owners, and specifically, Keith Anderson, who pays for the maintenance. Anderson reportedly said he sees no benefit to others using the private road and does not wish to blacktop it. Rowlette said if the applied desires a third lot, this should be where the access comes fi*om. Another option discussed was a new driveway from Fox Street, either with a new curb cut or the use of the existing curb cut with an immediate turn to the west. Mabusth said she would check with Gerhardson regarding a new curb cut, but at this time, she was not certain that this option would meet Council's approval. During Commission discussion, Nolan said that the the current driveway would need upgrading, even if maintained with two lots, as no maintenance has been done on it. Nolan also said that this proposal has never been done in the past and sees no reason to allow it at this time. Mabusth responded that we have discussed what the code requires and have not examined the statement of hardships prepared by applicant seeking variances to code requirements. Rowlette said she was interested in using the other curb cut off of Fox Street, and does not see the property as having three lots. Rowlette read from the 1985 resolution where this issue was discussed. The resolution determined at that time that the subdivision could only be done if code could be met. Lindquist felt that a separate curb cut and separate driveway were the only alternatives. Mabusth was asked if City had ever approved a 3 lot division served by a driveway. Mabusth referred to the Stronghold subdivision in the 1980's that allowed for a variance and approved access via a driveway. Schroeder responded that an aesthetic argument is not a good reason for a variance and saw Fox Run as the best alternative. His second choice was use of the original driveway, and third best, another private road. Schroeder said the applicant needed to exhaust all avenues with obtaining the use of Fox Run as an access. If this is not obtainable, Nolan and Rowlette said it was their opinion that this was not a subdivision. Mabusth concurred that the use of the existing driveway, the new road off the existing road, or the new curb cut were not viable options unless the commission were willing to approve the necessary variances. The code calls for a private road to serv'e three lots. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION NfEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#7 - #2002 - William Smith - Continued) Schroeder asked that the city check with the attorney on the affect on the lot as unbuildable if no variance were granted. Mabusth said that the Comprehensive Plan allows for three lots on a driveway but the subdivision code requires a private road. The attorney said that the code has precedence over the Comprehensive Plan. Schroeder asked Mabusth about outlots. Mabusth said that lot 2 has 3+ acres, and there would be no issue with the size of outlots. The Commissioners were asked by the chair their final thoughts regarding the plan. Lindquist asked if the engineer would approve a "y" nithin a curb cut. Mabustl: ihought this would be a possibility. Lindquist said a new curb cut off Fox Street or access from Fox Run or not buildable. Berg agreed with this. Peterson preferred access off Fox Run. He did not wish to see a new curb cut and thought a "y" would be better but not preferred. Schroeder preferred Fox Run. He would like the attorney to look at the situation and determine why it ended up as it now is. Rowlette did not want to set a precedent with three lots on a driveway. She was unsure of her feelings on the "y". Nolan agreed with this. Smith preferred Fox Run, then a new curb cub, and then the "y". (#8) #2004 ROBERT MELAxMED, 920 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - SKETCH PLAN/SUBDIVISION Robert Melamed and Ron Lauer were present. Mabusth reviewed the property and the issues involved. This is a 15 acre subdiNision in a heavily wooded area, owned by the Carpenter family, with designated wetlands and types I and II not designated on City's wetland maps. The applicant has a purchase agreement with the Carpenter trust. The property is surrounded by Old Crystal Bay Road on the west and driveway to the south and east. The drainage flows from the north to the designated wetland, then east via a culvert under drive and eventually to French Lake lower basin. The applicant has asked the commission to look at the findings ard hardships. The code would require an internal road as well as a cul-de-sac. This plan results in the removal of 660 trees and the filling of2400 s.f of wetland type 1 and 2, and major portions of designated wetland for access to the east lot. Peterson asked if access from the driveway to the north was a possibility. The applicant said it was not as it would require turning the driveway into a road. This would also require depletion of a forest area. Another option would be to come in off of Old Ciy'stal Bay Road. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#8 - #2004 - Robert Melamed - Continued) The applicant reported the ability to get adequate septic area for 5 to6 lots. Septic sites were in non-forested areas. The cov enant in future deeds would restrict removal of trees. It is the applicant’s desire to create a development that does not look like one, and one which cannot be seen from Old Ciy stal Bay Road. The applicant Nvished to create the least amount of impact on the forestation areas which resulted in 4 lots. The applicant said that this would be the minimum that is economically "doable" as there was no negotiation with the purchase price. Two safe access points can be located at the western boundary of the property. The most northern will provide a shared access to lots 1 and 2. If the access to lot 3 is changed to a shared driveway with lot 4. it would require a 300' access easement for lot 4. The shared driveway would have an impact on the buildable lot or it could be replatted. This avoids the use of the City road. Smith suggested access to lot #I from the property to the north. Then she suggested dropping down between lots 2 and 3 and putting in a driveway with a "y" serving 2 and 3, south of the wetland. Smith suggested no road from Old Cr>'stal Bay Road but the use of the City drive to access 4. This would avoid the wetland areas. The applicant responded that the City would probably not allow this, and it also does not solve the private road issue. The applicant prefers plan A. If this is acceptable, then asks w hat to do with the City driveway. Applicant said he is prepared to upgrade it but would like to consider the impact on the park and neighborhoods if upgraded to a City road. He also reported having met with Zetterstrom from the County, who asked that fencing be removed, and would grant curb cuts. Nolan suggested leaving lots 1 and 2 as shown but accessing 3 where 4 is shown as the road has to be upgraded anyways. Lot 4 could be accessed at the eastside of City drive. This would take out few trees and no wetlands would need to be crossed. Flint reported that this would be too close to the French Creek Preserve. He said the Park Commission has the right to ask for 8% for Park Dedication and has determined that the land on the east end, about 1.2 acres, approximately 600' long, with a depth of 87', would be a good option. A house plan would have to be changed but this land is virtually forested. It could be left as a natural corridor and is consistent with the results of the survey. It would act as a delinear park. It now has a deer run which would be left open for that use. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20. 1995 (#8 - #2004 - Robert Melamed - Continued) Flint also spoke of where the bike/hike trail will possibly come in along this property. The backbone of the trail is Old Cry stal Bay Road which then extends to the new access apoint to Maxwell Bay. Flint said one way for the trail would come down Old Crystal Bay Road but would be difficult to build. Another way would be to come over Fox Street on Rainy Road, which is north of this area in question, and come down east of the subject property. The trail is 8* wide and requires a minimum of a 14' easement. Lindquist has suggested the trail running east of the MWCC lift station through the City property but Flint said this would impact the preserv e area. Council Member Jabbour asked for discussion on the City/Park driveway becoming a road. Flint did not desire for this to occur. Jabbour said it would be good to pool the Council's opinion on the use of the City drivew ay. Jabbour asked the applicant what kind of arrangement he now has with the City to get to his house, which is located near the subject property. Melamed said he maintains the driveway along with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Whoever gets there first, plows it. He has an easement to use this driv cway. Jabbour said that preserving the area is the main issue. Berg questioned whether there is a 4th buildable lot. The applicant summarized his position. He s£ud he personally will be impacted as a neighbor. Two curb cuts will minimize effect on park and w'etlands. A third would be proposed located on the south side. The applicant plans on redredging the pond at the southeast comer to the shape it originally was before the City filled it. He will make it a natural wildlife pond. Smith would like the applicant to look at her concept. Smith would like to see lot 4 accessed from the City drive. The Commissioners gave their opinions of the project. Nolan is in concurrence with the use of the City drive but would like to have a shared access at the City drive rather than a curb cut off Old Crystal Bay Road for safety reasons. He would propose both lots 3 and 4 access at 4 or take 4 around to the east. Row'lette agreed with Nolan. Lindquist also agreed with Nolan, combining the access for 3 and 4. Lindquist also was in agreement with Flint and the dedication of the 8%. Peterson felt that the basic project was good. Schroeder agreed with Nolan's ideas on upgrading the City road. Schroeder commented to Flint if the main trail was on Old Crystal Bay Road and found less than 87' on the east, to maintain a portion for the west side. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#9) #1800 MICHAEL PLANK, 4115 WATERTOWN ROAD - REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL DIRECTION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION Neither the applicant nor representive were present. Rowlette moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #1800 until the applicant could be present. Ayes 7, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#101 REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 13,1995 - CHARLES NOLAN Nolan reported that the Crystal Creek Subdivision application and Carlson application were approved under the consent agenda at the Council meeting. The Council supported the Jundt application requiring removal of the 25’ of paved road, even though aesthetical y not pleasing but noting that the law is the law. The Council also would like to see the Jundfs present a comprehensive plan. Nolan said Applicant Perl did not come to the meeting. Council moved to table his application and would act on it at their next meeting with or without the presence of the applicant. The Lebedoff application was approved. Nolan said the DNR changed its viewpoint, giving approval to the 20’ setback. The Wicklund application was approved as recommended. (#11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schroeder reported on the change in chair for meetings. Chairmanship will be rotated with Peterson being chair during April, and Rowlette to co-chair. The purpose of rotation is to allow all members an opportunity to become more involved in the meetings. Schroeder suggested that Park Commission Chair Richard Flint attend the tour at the Freshwater Institute as it would be a good resource for the Park Commission. Schroder moved, Nolan seconded, to change the meeting time of the Planning Commission to 6:30 p.m. Ayes 7, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 (#11- Other Issues for Discussion - Continued) Rowlette made several comments on the meeting with the Park Commission. She said it was an important discovery that the Planning Commission could take land instead of money for park dedication. Rowlette felt this would be a great tool in future applications. The Park Commissioners had noted that they did not get copies of Planning Commission activities until after they had occurred. Mabusth said that preliminary subdivision application forms were now being sent to the members of the Park Commission. Rowlette suggested that the Park Commissioners send a representative to the Plamiing Commission meetings. Mabusth said that Flint would like to see sketch plan reviews. Schroeder commented that the Park Commission is a powerful planning tool for the Planning Commission. He also noted the need to take into account the trail system in future planning. It was reported that Park Dedication can take 8% of any undeveloped land where a subdivision is going to be done. Rowlette said the Park Commission is also going to have available maps of large parcels of land to identify that land in which they are interested for future park des elopment. Schroeder commented on the need for the Park Commission to come up with a plan for future park land for the City. There is financial incentive for people to give large parcels/easements to relieve themselves of the tax burden. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 1995 MEETING Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 1995. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE APRIL 10, 1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Dale Lindquist will attend the Council Meeting of 4/10/95. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn at 11:10 p.m. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person To: From: Date: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator April 7, 1995 Subjtct: MUSA Amendment - Progress Update List of Exhibits A - Letter from Met Council Dtd 2/9/95 B - Council Minutes 12/12/94 C - Housing Data from Met Council In December the Council directed staff to proceed with preparation of a MUSA amendment to include the 10 "hot spots" plus the Orono School ’s hockey site. Ron Moorse and I met with Carl Schenk and Marcel Jouseau on January 12 to discuss the application requirements for such an amendment. Although we left that meeting with the impression that this would be a relati\ely straightforward amendment, the subsequent February 9 letter from Chuck Ballentine (Exhibit A) raised virtually all of the old unrelated issues of I/I, stormwater plan, transportation, housing, and generally our land use policies, including development density. Ron and I again met with Met Council staff on March 7, this time including representatives from Transportation, Wastewater Services and Housing. From that meeting and subsequent discussions I’ve had with Carl Schenk, this is where I think we stand: Met Council staff generally understands the City ’s basic intent to sewer existing development without providing sewer for new development. However, they are clearly hesitant to support our proposal without addressing all of the unrelated topics. Our sump pump inspection program and limited (budgetwise) efforts to upgrade our sewer system should satisfy their I/I concerns. While we have amended the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the "Interim Strategy for Reduction of Non-point Source Pollution", we will need to do the following as part of the current amendment: Amend the appropriate section of our zoning/subdivision code to require the use of NURP pionds and Best Management Practices for all new development. (As I see it, this will not require a change in our current practices since we have for some time now been using the NURPs and BMPs.) April 6, 1995 Page 2 of 2 MUSA Amendment - Progress Update Provide Met Council with a revised date by which we expect to complete our stormwater plan as required by State statute. • We will have to provide Met Council with a sense of where our transportation planning, especially Highway 12, is headed. While they would like a deadline on when we will update our transportation plan, our argument since 1989 has been that without Highway 12 resolved, any transportation plan update would be potentially subject to change. I think we need to make the point that we are in the midst of a transportation planning process with Highway 12, and that it may be some years before we have the information necessary to complete a transportation plan amendment. • The issue of expanding Hfe cvcle and affordable housing can be addressed on a conceptual basis rather than "by the numbers". We will need to revisit the current Comprehensive Plan, identify how and w'here the City currently addresses housing needs, and indicate possible strategies to provide a broadei range of housing options. However, we don’t have any "quota" to meet at this time. Carl Schenk suggested that we consider a staging of the proposed MUSA additions. Met Council is currently only approving "year 2000" MUSA additions, and apparently would prefer not to expand the MUSA for projects we might do 10-20 years in the future. He indicated he would get some feedback from his compatriots on whether an abridged version of the amendment (say 3 hot spots and the hockey site) might be less controversial, but we haven’t heard back on this yet. As we all know. Met Council has a philosophical problem with Orono’s two acre development concept. They believe it is an inefficient use of land that will force metropolitan systems to e.xpand outw'ard prematurely. Further, they don’t like the fact that it will cost a fortune to sewer rural Orono in the future, due to the large lot sizes. At this point, 1 am proceeding to complete the documentation outlined in the February 9 letter, and hope to provide you with a draft plan amendment within the next few weeks, for your consideration before we actually submit it to Met Council. Finally, it should be noted that staff has delayed any action regarding neighborhood meetings, as w'ell as delayed widely publicizing the City ’s intent to proceed with sewering certain areas, pending Council’s consideration of Met Council’s apparent intent to encumber this amendment with a number of unrelated conditions. Metropolitan Council Advocating regional economic, societal and environmentietal and environmental issues and solutions February 9, 1995 Ronald Moorse Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 feb c.- IS w*® RE: Proposed MUSA Additions in Orono Dear Mr. Moorse: The Council staff has reviewed the information from the city staff regarding the possible addition of several city areas to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. If the city decides to submit a plan amendment to the Council for review, the following information should be submitted with the amendment. In addition, a number of broad policy issues regarding the city’.s development, wastewater handling/trcatment and housing polices are discussed. We feel these can best be addressed by updating appropriate sections of the city’s comprehensive plan. Based on Council forecasts, the city has an adequate supply of land within the current MUSA to meet the city’s needs through the year 2000. (The Council will not reevaluate the region’s land use needs through the years 2005 and 2010 until 1996.) Based on this, the city must demonstrate that the additions to the MUSA will include only areas that are experiencing failing on-site sanitary disposal systems. These areas could include vacant lots that cannot be avoided in extending sewers, but the numbers should be limited. We suggest that any proposal to include undeveloped land be discussed with the staff prior to including these areas in the plan amendment. The following information should be submitted with the plan amendment. Most of this information is required for local sewer plans as stated in the Council ’s Wast^terT^^^rt COr^PLi^ Handling PoUcy Plan (Tiers 1 and 2). 1. A map showing the location, land uses and extent of the areas to be included and boundaries ^ (-S of the metropolitan interceptor service areas if there is more than one, and any intercommunity connections. Some of this information is indicated on the maps you have given to us at our first meeting. -2* 2. The projected number of households and employees to be served by metropolitan sewers at present and in 2000 and 2010 for the entire city ^ for each individual interceptor service area. (If there is more than one.) / Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1634 612 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD 291-0904 An Equal Opportunity; Ernploy;€r ♦ Ronald Moorse February 9, 1995 Page 2 3. The projected number of RECs (residential equivalent connections) at present and for the years 2000 and 2010. 4, Projected increases in sewered RECi and population for each of the next five years. ^ £2 projected wastewater flows in the years 2000 and 2010 for the entire city and the S jndjvjdual interceptor service areas. Include a description as to how the flows were calculated including the per capita design flows. ' 6. A description and summary of the reasons for on-site s>’stem failure or potential failure for each area to be served. The information for the city of Forest Lake that was previously sent you - * indicates the type of information needed. 7. Consideration given to alternative means of service to these areas, eg. community drainfields. Description of how service will be provided and points of connection to existing sewers. ^ 2,^/0 '9. Capacity and design flows for lateral and trunk sewers as well as new lift stations. 10 10. Sewer construction timetable. 11 11. Method of assessment. Has any of the proposed area already been assessed? I2'A ^2. Summary of city’s adopted objectives, policies and strategies for preventing and reducing ’ ^ excessive infiltration and inflow in the local sanitary sewer system including standards for new ]2-c , ajjjj programs for identifying and reducing excessive I/I. The city should have an ordinance prohibiting the connection of roof drains and sump pumps to the sanitary sewer system. 1 — A A C t> Sunitnary of the city’s requirements for on-site sewage disposal systems including installation, ^ ' ' * biennial inspection of all existing systems by certified personnel, permit record keeping, li^nsing, maintenance and remedial actions. The Council s policy is that all systems be inspected biennialy by MPCA certified personnel. New s>’stems must meet Minn. Regs. 7080. H 14. Council records indicate that the city has amended its comprehensive plan to incorporate the Council ’s Interim Strategy for the Reduction of Nonpoint Source Pollution and will amend its land use conlroU to implement the policy by May, 1995. Is the city on track to complete this task by May? 15. There are several city development policies of concern to the Council. These are the city s land use polices for future development, and y plans for handling/treatment of wastewater and transportation to ser\'e this development. Also, the city s plan for expanding life-cycle and affordable housing is a Council concern. The city’s current plan indicates that development in the area outside the MUSA is currently planned for 2-acre lots served by on-site sanitary disposal systems. Given the number of units, planned densities and local soil conditions, the Council is concerned about the pollution of Ronald Moorse February 9, 1995 Page 3 groundwater and surface water and ultimately the impact on the metropolitan wastewater treatment and handling s>’stem if on-site s>-stems fail. The city’s density policy exceeds the Council ’s policy for the rural service area of one unit per 10 acres or no more than 64 units per 640-acre section. The current density policy is too low to support the efficient extension of urban yir services. If on-site systems fail at these densities, the cost of extending services would be prohibitive for homeowners and the city. ^ ^ I *- ------- _ • Given the city’s development policies and th^recent pattern of on-site failures, the city should review its development and wastewater handling policies for the area outside the MUSA. This can best be done as part of a process of reviewing and updating the city’s coii'prchensive plan. In addition, the city must determine the impact of future growth on the metropolitan highway system. The metropolitan transportation policy plan calls for all cities to provide local arterial highways to accomc^ate short and medium Icnth trips which will not be served by the metropolitan system. (TH12 has been designated a metropolitan highway.) If there is not adequate capacity on either the regional or local sy’stem than improvements must be made to accomodate future growth. This issue should also be addressed as part of the city’s comprehensive plan update. In September of 1994, the Council adopted the Reponal Blueprint. The Blueprint states that the Council will work with local communities in a partnership to meet the range of life-cycle housing ^ needs of people and broaden locational choice and access for people of all income levels. The staff would like to discuss these needs with the city and a potential partnership to implement this action. Based on our records, the city’s comprehensive plan has not been updated since the early 1980s. We realize it will take some time to complete this work. The city should include a reasonable _ / schedule with i>s . .uposed MUSA additions for updating the land use, transportation, sewer and housing elements of its comprehensive plan and submitting these to the Council for review. If there aivi questions regarding this letter, please contact Carl Schenk (291-6410). Yours truly, Chuck Ballentine, Director Office of Local Assistance % cc: Mary H. Smith, Metropolitan Council Member District 3 Carl Schenk, Council Staff Mike Gaffron, Assistant City Planner MI^amS OF THE REGUl^ ORONO CTTY COUNCIL HELD ON DECEMBER 12.1994 V B-2 Ordirance Proposed Amendment - Continued)(Itcm#13-B-: to table the B-2 Ordinance Proposed Amendment^o of Ac CoundKAyes 4. Nays 0. ma \or /council report Jabbour voi™^ car/trailer p^g on ' •' ’ specific to the vehicle being fo^Xto'pS R" o„^ lak^ concerned «th boaters nsing Aeir docks to get to their cars and tra^s. Gaffion reported that the Uke ^omtnirtee Meeting is ^eduled for Wednesday. January 11, 1995 at 7i45 a.m. ENGINEER REPOR' (•#14) PAY REQ^T » AND FINAL - STUBBS BAY SANTn\RY SEWER IMPROVENffilrr \ rallahan mSCrf Jabbour seconded, to approve the 9th and final request ^^Kl^l^kLtary Sewer Impotvemen. to Pnrg^ve Contr^ors. Inc\g736 Zach^^uU Osseo. in the amount of $57,512.20. Aye* 3. Nays 0. CnYSBS^lSTRATOR'S REPORT (##15) SEPTIC/SEWER WORK PLAN be included in Ae MUSA amendment. \ 8 Hun^ab^al tTicform the pubUc of the Met Counctl s mvolvet^t m thts pro^ It wes noted te the City «iil t«^«t Bonentr^ 4 A55oa^« to sttbmrt a proposd and price for conducting a feasibility ^dy for this project. Gaffron reported having estimated costs on the actual project rtsel£ Counca confirmed Orono Orchards as a second priority Ustmg. Jabbour however, would like to see those listed first receive sewer in 1995, and those hsted second, receive sewer in 1996. The Coundl directed Staff to explain to the residents the "hot spot" the Cit^s philosophy resarding sewer availability, and to c.xplain that the City nceth to obtain approval from many oiilerent agencies before a se%ver project can move forward. (^16)^S^LISH DATE FOR PERSONAL WATERCRAFT PUBUC hearing ^ Callahan moved, Jabbour^konded, to hold a joint pubUc hearing with Long Lake regarding the proposed persond watercraft ordinance prior to the Co^cil meeting of January 9, 1995. Ayes 4, Nays<^ / (#17) MCTO PROPOSED BUS ROUTE CHANGES Moorsc reported the Metropolitan Coun^ Transit Op^ons is considering climnating • • ____««____n__1 Pr»5i#4 apirl ofi Pniifitv Ro&d 51 froni AH Council members were opp^^ to a bus route on WaleiW>^ Road. Kelley buses should run mainly on^ounty Roads, with the exception ofMcCuUey Road. suggested maintaining scrt4ce on CoRd 51 to the MaxwcU Bay acc>s^ Huir felt pubbe transportation was an hii^nant consideration in the LMCR grant apph>5i^ for the access project. / It was recommend^ that Moorse send a letter to the MCTO reflecting the Couhds view and a City representative be present at the MCTO public hearing on Decemb^s^ • \ Orono and Neighboring Cities Households With Incomes <$20,000 (1990) Households With Incomes <$20,000 And Paying 30+% For Housing (1990) Housing Units Affordable To Incomes of Less Than $20,000 (1990) Number % Of Total Households Number % Of Total Units Region 16%27% Orono 247 9%157 133 6% Long Lake 158 21%103 133 18% Wayzata 484 28%343 313 19% ' Breakdown Of Affordable Housing Affordable Rental Units Affordable Owned Units Number Percent Number Percent 1 Region 53%13% Orono 37 15%96 5% Long Lake 119 48%14 3% Wayzata 281 36%32 4% Note: "Affordable" in this table is defined as requiring no more than 30% of a household income of $20,000. This means a gross rent of less than $500 per month or owned housing with a value of less than $60,000. Rental unit data are from the 1990 census. Owned data combines census data and a council staff estimate. OroDO and Neighboring Communities Owncd-% Valued <$72,000 (1993) Owned-% Valued $72- $115,000 (1993) % Gross Rent <$500 (1990) ToL Pub. Asst As % Of Total Housing (1994) Orono 9%23%18%0.2% 1 Lx)ng Lake 6%46%39%3.7% Wayzata 14%30%36%5.0% Total Developing 21%52%35%3.3% Older De\eloping 24%39%44%2.6% SW Mpls Sector 19%46%39%3.7& Region 31%47%54%5.8% % Non-Single Family Detached (1993) % Rental (1990) % Householders Aged 65+ (1990) Multifamily Housing Density - Units Per Acre (1994) Orono 2%9%15%6 Long Lake 34%34%13%13 Wayzata 51%50%27%15 Total Developing 35%25%9%11 Older Developing 29%28%17%12 SW Mpls Sector 37%33%19%14 Region 41%36%17%15 % Land Undeveloped (1990) Jobs To Labor Force Ratio (1990) % Forecasted Region Employment Growth (1990- 2000) Orono 31%0.21 0.04% Long Lake 20%1.22 0.21% 1 Wayzata 21%2.28 0.05% 1 Total Developing 43%0.67 64.4% 1 Older Developing 24%0.93 110% SW Mpls Sector 30%1.04 13.26% Region 32%0.88 100% Notes: 1. Total Developing" is the total for the 63 contmunitics classified as "developing planning area. 2. "Older Developing" is the average value (mean) for the 31 communities of the developing area that had the lower percent of their total housing constructed during the 1980s. The value shown for the percent of employment growth is the total for these 31 communities. Orono, Long Lake and Wayzata are all included in "Older Developing". 3. Each of these 3 cities are in the Southwest Minneapolis Sector. 4. "% Land Undeveloped (1990) includes only the land within the MUSA. OROMO CITY 111 Hennepin County PAGE 221 Estimate -Forecast-‘ 1990 1993 2000 2010 2020 1. Population 7.285 7,323 7,800 8,350 8,850 2. Households 2,613 2,653 2,950 3,350 3,750 3. Persons Per Household 2.8 2.8 4. Age of Householder 1990 m m m m Percent 15-24 Years 24 0.9 25-34 Years 426 16.3 35-44 Years 733 28.1 45-54 Years 656 25.1 55-64 Years 381 14.6 65-74 Years 242 9.3 75 Years and Over 151 5.8 6. Household Composition:2,613 100.0 Family Households: Harried*Couple Family With Children Under A^e 18: With No Children Under Age 18 One-parent families with Children Under Age 18: Male Parent Female Parent Other Family Households: 902 1,032 34.5 39.5 22 60 84 0.8 2.3 3.2 Nonfamily Households: Householder Living Alone: Householder Not Living Alone: 384 129 14.7 4.9 7. People 8 Families in Poverty 1989 m m 9 m Percent • • Total Persons 104 1.4 Under Age 18 32 0.4 Age 65^25 0.3 People Under 200X of Poverty 659 9.0 Families Below Poverty 14 0.7 Single Parent Families 4 0.2 American Asian/ 8. Race/Ethnicity Total White Black Indian Pac. Isl. Number 7,285 7,164 28 18 55 Percent 100.0 98.3 0.4 0.2 0.8 Total Minority (Includes Hispanic White) *163 2.2 9. Household Income by Race/Ethnicity of Householder, 1989 Less than 815,000 180 178 0 0 2 815,000 to 824,999 258 258 0 0 0 825,000 to 834,999 215 215 0 0 0 835,000 to 849,999 402 387 15 0 0 850,000 and above 1,574 1,556 9 0 9 Less than 815,000 6.8X 6.9X O.OX o.ox 18.2X 815,000 to 824,999 9.8X 9.9X o.ox o.ox O.OX 825,000 to 834,999 8.2X 8.3X o.ox o.ox O.OX 835,000 to 849,999 15.3X 14.9X 62.5X o.ox O.OX 850,000 and above 59.9X 60.OX 37.5X o.ox 81.8X 10. Persons in Poverty By Race/Ethnicity 104 95 0 0 9 1.4X 1.3X O.OX o.ox 11.8X 11. 1989 Median Household Income 862,858 12. 1989 Median Family 1ncome 869,263 Other Race I Hispanic 20 0.3 58 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 o.oxo.oxo.oxo.oxo.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox 100.ox 0o.ox 0o.ox lORONO CITY IN Hennepin County PAGE 1990 Estimate 1993 13. Housing Units K. Total Vacant Units Vacant for Rent Vacant for Sale All Other Vacant 2,787 174 12 44 118 2.829 15. Tenure Owner Renter 16. Units by Gross Monthly Rent less than S300 0 0 S300 to S499 37 37 S500 to S749 55 55 $750 or more 82 71 No Cash Rent 31 22 1990 17. Housing Unit by Type - - One-Unit Detached 2,711 One-Unit Attached 23 . 2 Units 27 3 to 4 Units 9 5 or More Units 5 Mobile Home/Trailer 1 Other 11 19. Owner-Occupied Units by Value Less than $60,000 95 $60,000 to $74,999 129 $75,000 to $99,999 284 $100,000 to $149,999 400 $150,000 to $199,999 262 $200,000 or Higher 911 20. Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing 21. Median Monthly Contract Rent 22. Median Monthly Gross Rent 22. Total White Black American Indian Aalan/ Pac. lal. other R.ce 1 Hispanic 2,372 2,347 6 4 11 4 13 90.8 90.8 75.0 100.0 100.0 80.0 92.9 241 238 2 0 0 1 1 9.2 9.2 25.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 7.1 0 0 0 11 9 Percent 97.3 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 4.6 6.2 13.6 19.2 12.6 43.8 $173,500 $549 $675 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18. Households Paying 30X or More of 1989 Household Income for Housing Costs Households Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied 458 56 Percent 22.0 27.3 No 1 2 3^ Bedrooms by Gross Rent Bedroom Bedroom Bedrooms Bedrooms Less than $200 0 0 0 0 $200 to $299 0 0 0 0 $300 to $499 13 16 8 0 $500 to $749 0 23 19 13 $750 to $999 0 7 6 29 $1000 or more 0 0 10 30 No Cash Rent 0 10 9 12 •Owner-Renter-Total Year Structure Built Occupied Percent Occupied Percent (Inc. Vacant)Percent 1939 or Earlier 553 23.3 84 34.9 679 24.4 1940 to 1949 223 9.4 18 7.5 259 9.3 1950 to 1959 432 18.2 20 8.3 480 17.2 1960 to 1969 340 14.3 26 10.8 384 13.8 1970 to 1979 347 14.6 61 25.3 444 15.9 1980 to March 1990 477 20.1 32 13.3 541 19.4 X of All Mixed Elderly Total Housing Units Federally Subsidized Housing Units (1994)0 0 0 0.0 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse. City Administrator April 6, 1995 SUBJECT: Minnesota City/County Management Association (MCMA) Annual Conference I am planning to attend the annual MCMA conference scheduled for May 10 to 12. The focus of this year’s conference is leadership. I have attached a conference outline that describes the session highlights and the featured presenters. A recent sur.ey of the ICMA rr.err.oersr.ic identified m^esHty as the =1 recuirerr.ent for c:ty county rranacers. This confer ence Offers the cnance to exo.cre hc.v tnat trars ates into cav-tc-day actions. How co we succeed as leaoers ana still Tamtam a strong sense of clues'^ MarK your v,aien:.^ar rig..t .now for May 10-12.1995. 3co Terry from tne Terr/ G.'-ouo wul iead a c.scussion on how integrity translates to tr.e vaiues of today s eacers. oo •.viil cresent the .=nx scn.co s of eaoersr. o: trait, team, organi- cat.cnai. ociiticai. vis.cnar/. a.nc etn ca; ara tnen .acinta.e interaction among conference aitencees. He wnl conc.ude with a resccnse oanei of oract.ticr.ers. The conference oianmng com.mittee s excited accut ihis year s program. P’ease oian to ,om your professional col leagues for a great time cf professicnai ceveiccment. feilow- smo. and fun! Steve Perkins Cc-Cnair Mike Ericson Co-Cnair Authentic Leadership Topics • Leadersnip: What's not. wnafs not Critical issues facing leaders m an uncertain world Six scnoois of leadersnio i trait, team, organizational, political, visionary, etmcaif • Framing the leadership question iwnat ’s really going on?) The Action Wheel (six prociems people oring to the table and how to address them) Core values netced to miake the strateg.es «vork How to build an environm.ent m which people are willing to act on principle • A cnance to acoiv these ccnceots to real city/count/ issues sucn as tax increment f.nancmg. dual taxation, joint lavr enfcrcem.ent. ctners laent.ned by conference participants • Recucmg fear/buiiding ncce (lessons from “The Three P'SS’) ... Addressina kev cuesticns on staff-governing ocay reia- tionsnips'(inc:ud;ng wnen do you say no!?) • "Wcrds from the wise’ on nar.dling the tc.lo’.ving dilem- /^Governing body that claims more power t-.an it should / Governing doay that abdicates more cower than it should y A combination of the t.vo / Dealing with tne ccunhy world of elected policymakers and elected depanm.ent heads Eniployment Law Topics • The employment oontract. ccm.De’'sat;cn Veteran's preference, discnmination laws Emolovment at will, termination, severance agreements FEATURED PRESENTERS Robert Terry, Presicent or The Terry Grcuo For eieven years, he served as the f rst o.rectcr of tne Retiective Leacersnio Center at tne Humcnrey institute cf Puc..c Affairs at the Universitv of Minhescta. He nc.ds ai.c Fn.D degrees in etnics arc ouclic policy from i..e oniveiS.i/ w* Chicago. Boo s teacning. consulting, researcn ara .vnt.rg rave centered on .eacersr.o. aua.iry arc piversT/. He s espe:ia..v ccncem.ed aoout the ccr.necticns cer.veen these crcantzai.on^- al initiatives, wmcn are usua.ly treated as secara.e .ssues. .r. -Q7Q ~0rry wrote Fcr tVi'n'ss On/ywiiun sc.d over iCw.COC CCC'6S. His latest bocK. Ao.renrc Lescersrj. prcocses a pm.cs- opny of leadersnio that -ccuses on action, out aiso suggests directions for sucn act.cn. "1 nave anemoteo to neio .eaoers ‘ram.e 'Ssues. unoerstaro leciti.mate aro 'i’egiti.Tate^uses^C' “Cwer =''6SS com.petirg vis cns. arc art cu.at-- a g v,Ca; c.. c Acove aii. 1 want to mspire leacers to fmo tne ccurage to face tneir fears ana ou.id a more autnentic wcr.o.' During tr.is con ference pan'cioarts .viil explore with ^cc *'cw tnese ceas appiy to iccai govern.m.ent leadersnip. Bill Bassett, C.ry Manager. Man.Katc Roger Knutson, a snaren.o der n the :3w ‘ rm of Camooeii Knutson. Scott & Fucns. P.A. Reger prov ces .egal sendees t: MCMA rniernibers on em.dcym.ent issues. He is the cry attor ney for several sucurcan Twin C.ty ccm.mur.ifes a.no .vcr>'S with cities throughout tne state on specific assignments. Charles Meyer, C.ty Manager. St. Louis Parx: ‘ermer County Manager, Genesee Ccunf/ jNew Yerx). Karl Nollenberger, Chief Administrative Officer. Duiutn. President. International C.ty/County Management Association Dorothy Person, former C.h/ Administrator. Aroen Hills: former County Admmisa-ator. Chisago Counry Dave Unmacht, Deputy County Administrator. Da.xota County; former C.ty Administrator. Prior Laxe CONFERENCE PLANNING COMMITTEE Steve Perkins, Red W.ng Council Aom.ir.istraicr tCo-C .air Michael Ericson, Watenown C.ry Aamimstratcr (Co-C. aJ) John Erar, Assistant to C.ry t/anager. Coen Virginia Erdahl, Wasmngtcn County Decury-d.m n.s.^a. Helene Johnson, E.xecuiive u.rsctor. Govern . -r... .ra.r ..- - - Steve O’Malley, Rice Counry Aamimstratcr Dave Osberg, Hastings C.ty Ao.ministrator Mike Robertson, Caxcaie C.ry Admimst.-atc-' Dan Vogt, Bra neio C.ry Aom.imstrator ^ Wally Wysopal, Assistant ic City Manager ------• - SPECIAL FEATURE Die 252-paQe aarctoand toc«. Aumenlic Action, is available tor purchase by conterence ‘ reduced pnee of S27.C0 unciudes sr-ipping/hantjir.g.t^-ecucns^-- Six Views of Leadersnip, A Model of Leadership. . r.e Ac., ; Key Aspects ot Leaoership. A Seventh 7ij.v Jj.-o ^ Resources for Leacers. if you wouid like to order .» the conference, please crecx the aoproonste cox - . = form arc .nclude payment .viih your conference re'^Si.e ion. _______ association ofmeTropolitanmunicipalities BULLETIN DATE:April 4.1995 TO:Mayors, Managers/Administrators FROM:AMM Staff R£:Twin Cities Urban Summit Update The AMM Boani of Directors at its last meeting determined that in the best interest of the metropolitan area, a representative group of metro leaders should come together to develop a cohesive position on the growing problem of urban decay before divisivencss made the effort impossible. To that end. a small board subcommittee developed a Ust of representative officials from each of the metro subregions. Fifteen of these municipal officials plus nine board members attended the Twin Cities Urban Summit held March 30 at the AMM. They reached three main conclusions: (1) Action must be taken this year to begin addressing the problems of the concentration of poverty. (2) There must be bi-partisan legislative support for this action (3) The best elements of S.F. 1019/H.F. 1156 (Mondale/Long) and S.F. 1482/H.F. 1627 (OliverA^an Dellen) should be combined. The group basically agrees with the proposed strategy for action in both bills, but feels the Legislature must seek a viable funding mechanism that’s fair for all metro cities. A letter outlining the groups conclusions was sent to the main bill authors, the caucus leaders and the governor. The Urban Summit group will meet again at the AMM (3490 Lexington Avenue North) Thursday. April 13 at 7 p.m. to continue their discussion and to review the Legislature’s progress. Enclosed is the invitation list to the initial meeting and the letter sent to the legislators. You arc all welcome to attend the April 13 meeting. We will contact again as this issue unfolds. 3490 lexington avenue north, st. paul, minnesota 55126 (612) 490-3301 association of metroDoiifan munici ropoiiTonicipalities April 4, 1995 Dear Sen. Mondale, Sen. Oliver, Rep. Long and Rep. Van Dellen: Twin Cities history was made last Thursday (March 30). Twenty-four municipal leaders from all comers of the metro area sat down together to discuss the growing problem of the concentration of poverty. This Twin Cities Urban Summit was called by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) Board of Directors because strong leadership and a unified a{>proach by all metro cities is needed if the recommendations of AMM’s Urban Revitalization Report are to be implemented. We reached three conclusions at our roundtable discussion that must be acted upon before time runs out A search for workable metro solutions must begin this year, or we may all be hurt because consensus may be difficult to achieve later. We realize these recommendations are only initial steps as we begin tackling the problems of urban decay. We believe: (1) Action must be taken this year to begin addressing the problems of the concentration of poverty. (2) There must be bi-partisan legislative support for this action. (3) The best elements of S.F. 1019/H.F. 1156 (Mondale/Long) and S.F. 1482/H.F. 1627 (OliverA^an Dellen) should be combined to address several key issues: • Good jobs in areas suffering economic distress. • Contaminated soils clean-up in the core cities and throughout the metro area. • Affordable housing opponunities throughout the metro area. • Better transit links between jobs, housing and other needed services. • Incentives to remove or rehabLlitate blighted housing. 3490 lexington avenue north, st. paul, minnesoia 55126 (612) 490-3301 Wc realize that a solution can only be forged if wc work cooperatively to develop an acceptable funding source. Wc agree with the proposed sttategy for action in both bills, but wc believe you, the authors, must devise a yiablc funding mechanism that s fair for all metro cities. The staff and leadership of our various city organizations are available to assist you with this task. The metro leaders present at the Urban Summit wiU meet again at the AMM (3490 Lexington Ave. N) Thursday, April 13 at 7 pjn. to review your progress in addressing the issues wc have raised. Respectfully, (is arr HAAJA^ m- - ^ f c.«4J!2 jc (chtf- , <M TY\ \\^<K /(hn ier^creivsKl CoMCilmmbe., ------y i<ilxj^ \"0»5\€ r^'-A.^c.'^ c>-y «*y (^ye^x <r^^ (XH^^Sm.^*/• INVITATION LIST Twin Cities Urban Summit: March 30,1995 ANOKA COUNTY 1. Pete Bcbcrg, Anoka mayor 2. Don Poss, Blaine manager 3. Dennis Schneider, Fridley councilmember RAMSEY COUNTY 4. Nomian Coleman, St Paul mayor 5. Robert Benke, New Brighton mayor 6. Jerry Linke, Mounds View mayor 7. Tom Baldwin, Falcon Heights mayor 8. Pattie Butcher, White Bear Lake mayor DAKOTA COUNTY 9. Willis Branning, Apple Valley mayor 10. Thomas Egan, Eagan mayor 11. Kathleen Gaylord, South St Paul mayor 12. Elizabeth Kautz, Burnsville mayor CARVER COUNTY 13. Joyce Windschitl, Chaska councilmember SCOTT COUNTY 14. Lydia Andren, Prior Lake mayor HENNEPIN COUNTY 15. Lyle Hanks, St Louis Park mayor 16. Coral Houle, Bloomington mayor 17. Sharon Sayles Belton, Minneapolis mayor 18. Joy Robb, Robbinsdale mayor 19. Terry Schneider, Minnetonka councilmember 20. Joy Tierney, Plymouth mayor WASHINGTON COUNTY 21. Bill Hargis, Woodbury mayor 22. Barb O’Neal, Oak Park Heights mayor JIM RAMSTAD •Hifio DISTRICT. Minnesota 4 (*r 3' . 1 WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE V5 4- 103 C a NNOA i House O^Ct 0U«^HO WA5H*H<iTo*». DC 2»1S <2021 22S-2Sn TRADE SUBCOMMITTEE OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE Congres^s of tftc ®mteb of ^epresentatiBts lUUashington, Q<C 20515-2303 0»STW C^'CI 8120 R inn Avenue Soutm. #iS2 inoroN. MN S8431 1612)881-4600 MAR 19S5 March 27, 1995 Ronald Moorse City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Ronald: I want to let you know I will be holding a series of town meetings in the Third Coneressional District later next month. As Orono City Administrator, and as a community leader, I wanted to personally invite you to join me at any of these town meetings to express your concerns and ideas. Enclosed you will fmd a list of the April town meetings I have scheduled. As you will notice, one of the town meetings is in your area. Ronald, if your schedule permits, I sincerely hope you ’ll attend and inform me of any questions or concerns you may have. Please ke^ in touch. Sincerely, JIMIU^STAD Memoer of Congress JR:dth Enclosure PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I April 1995 Town Mee ^ • Millie (All Meetings 7 to 8 p.m.) Wednesday. April 12th RiirnsviUe City Hall Community Room 100 Civic Center Parkway Tuesday. April 18th Qrono City Hall Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway lursdav. April 13th Brooklyn Park City Hall Council Chambers 5200 85th Avenue North Thursday. April 20th Hopkins City Hall Council Chambers 1010 South 1st Street For further information, call or write: U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad 8120 Penn Ave. S., il^l52 Bloomington, MN 55431 881-4600 '.V ' . 1 Aii-tT • ’ 1 JV ' April 4, 1995 GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Partowy Orono. MN 55356 Mailiiif Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Senator Gen Olson 119 State Office Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Senator Olson; This letter is to express the City of Orono’s strong opposition to SF 1570, a bill that would take local spending decisions out of the hands of local officials. This bill will have a serious negative impact on the City of Orono. This bill would take control of local financial decision making out of the hands of local officials, who are most in touch with the needs of the community and most accountable to the citizens of the community. The City of Orono has a long history of bemg very fiscally conservative. In Orono, as in other cities, significant needs requinng substantial expenditures occur periodically. Decisions to fund these needs are difficult, and are made only after a process that includes opportunities for input from the city’s residents. These are not decisions that should be controlled by the State. While this bill would freeze and then limit local spending, other legislation has placed mandates on Orono that require large expenditures. Examples include numerous mandates from the Metropolitan Council including implementation of an interim strategy on non-point source pollution, implementation of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act requirements, and implementation of a water supply plan. The cost to 0^"® these, the Local Water Management Plan, is approximately $120,000. In addition the Met Council, MPCA, and DNR have mandated shoreland regulations which have made a large percentage of the septic systems in Orono non-conforming. The cost to replace these septic svstems Is approximately $6 million dollars. Some of these septic systems can best be replaced through sewer projects which will require additional expenditures by both the property owners and the city. The Citv of Orono has been finding it very difficult to determine how to meet these mandates within a level of spending that both the city’s residents and the local officials believe is reasonable. It will become impossible to comply with even the least costly mandates i i new bill is enacted. Tdephoiie (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Senator Gen Olson April 4, 1995 page 2 The Citv of Orono stronglv encourages you to vote in opposition to SF 1570 to retain control of local'spending in the hat«ls of local officials. If you have any questions regarding the impact of SF 1570 on the City of Orono, please call me. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator //n ^ il.*: 'Vi. -4'; / April 4. 1995 GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offkcs Stratt Mdress: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 MaiRnt AMrtss: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Senator Edward Oliver 121 Slate Office Building St. Paul. Minnesota 55155 Dear Senator Oliver: This letter is to express the City of Orono’s strong opposition to SF 1570. a bill that would take local spending decisions out of the hands of local officials. This bill would have a serious negative impact on the City of Orono. This bill would take control of local financial decision making out of the hands of local officials, who are most in touch with the needs of the community and most accountable to the citizens of the community. The City of Orono has a long history of being very fiscally conservative. In Orono. as in other cities, significant needs requiring substantial expenditures occur periodically. Decisions to fund these needs are difficult, and are made only after a process that includes opportunities for input from the city’s residents. These are not decisions that should be controlled by the State. While this bill would freeze and then limit local spending, other legislation has plac- .. mandates on Orono that require large expenditures. Examples include numerous mandates from the Metropolitan Council including implementation of an interim strategy on non-pomt source pollution. implemenU'as*5 of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act requirements, and implementr a.® -f a water supply plan. The cost to Orono of only one of these, the Local Water Managerneni Plan, is approximately $120,000. In addition the Met Council, MPCA. and DNR have mandated shoreland regulations which have made a large percentage of the septic systems in Orono non-conforming. The cost to replace these septic systems Is approximately $6 million dollars. Some of these septic systems can best be replaced through sewer projects which will require additional expenditures by both the property owners and the city. The City of Orono has been finding it very difficult to determine how to meet these mandates within a level of spending that both the city’s residents and the local officials believe is reasonable. It will become impossible to comply with even the least costly mandates if this new bill is enacted. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Senator Edward Oliver April 4, 1995 page - The City of Orono strongly encourages you to vote in opposition to SF 1570 to retain control of local spending in the hands of local officials. If you have any questions regarding the impact of SF 1570 on the City of Orono. please call me. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator A PETITION TO RE-OPEN OLD CeACH ROAD . ITo: City cf Orono, 'vlayor and Council Wember The signers of this petition are resident taxpayers in the area affected by the recent closing of Old Beach Road at County Road 19. We believe the road should be re-opened for the following reasons: 1.O'd Beach Road has been a public thoroughfare for rr.ore than 100 years. II has been maintained with public funds for many decades by the Cities of Orono and Minnetonka Beach. 2. I The City of Creno h •. been the recipient of state aid for read construction and maintenance ter many years. In 1994, tho total of state aid for Orono roads was 1^321,000; tor 199!* '■'.vtir be $335,000. Whether or not any of these funds have been earmarked for 0.^ ci** :'.oad, it is fair to say every taxpayer in this area has a slake in the Orono road sys including Old Beach Road. 3.V/e believe a unilateral decision by Crono, or a joint decision with Minnetonka Beach to : close Old Beach Road is not a fair solution to the reported high traffic volume and safety j Concerns. In effect, closing it off at County #19 will create a private drive for a very \ ijrnited number of homes. This ’would be done at the expense of hundreds of taxpayers j who have relied on this popular shortcut to bypass the congestion at Navarre. • Closing^ Old Beach Read to through traffic in effect defeats the very purpose of government; it • would sen.'e the very few while ignering the wishes of the greater number who use the road and • pay for it. • SIGNED DATE ADDRESS P'ease .f g.n and rna i Oy April 15 to: PETITION, Terka Bay City Hail, 4901 Manilou Road, Tonka Bay, Minnesota 55331 . or c’.'op it tho water bill slot left of the main door. Tfiis is not a Tonka Bay City - sponsored petit.o.n. I -e Ci^y has offered only a co'lection point for responses. Ih£.PiibtiQ.Hearmg m_Z:00_PM^priiJ’4^^^ City. Rail (west cf Long Lake, across from Crono Schools on H.ry 12). See you tltere! To:Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:April 7, 1995 Subject: MUSA Amendment - Progress Update List of Exhibits A - B - C - Letter from Met Council Dtd 2/9/95 Council Minutes 12/12/94 Housing Data from Met Council In December the Council directed staff to proceed with preparation of a MUSA amendment to include the 10 "hot spots" plus the Orono School ’s hockey site. Ron Moorse and I met with Carl Schenk and Marcel Jouseau on January 12 to discuss die application requirements for such an amendment. Although we left that meeting with the impression that this would be a relatively straightforward amendment, the subsequent February 9 letter from Chuck Ballentine (Exhibit A) raised virtually all of the old unrelated issues of I/l, stormwater plan, transportation, housing, and generally our land use policies, including development density. Ron and I again met w ith Met Council staff on March 7, this time including representatives from Transportation, Wastewater Services and Housing. From that meeting and subsequent discussions I’ve had w-iih Carl Schenk, this is where I think we stand: Met Council staff generally understands the City ’s basic intent to sewer existing development without providing sewer for new development. However, they are clearly hesitant to support our proposal without addressing all of the unrelated topics. Our sump pump inspection program and limited (budgetwise) efforts to upgrade our sewer system should satisfy their I/I concerns. While we have amended the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the "Interim Strategy for Reduction of Non-point Source Pollution", we will need to do the following as part of the current amendment: Amend the appropriate section of our zoning/subdivision code to require the use of NURP ponds and Best Management Practices for all new development. (As I see it, this will not require a change in our current practices since we have for some time now been using the NURPs and BMPs.) > > ! April 6, 1995 Page 2 of 2 MUSA Amendment - Progress Update Provide Met Council with a revised date by which we expect to complete our stormwater plan as required by State statute. • We will have to provide Met Council with a sense of w'here our transportation planning, especially Highway 12. is headed. While they would like a deadline on w'hen we will update our transportation plan, our argument since 1989 has been that w ithout Highway 12 resolved, any transportation plan update would be potentially subject to change. I think we need to make the point that we are in the midst of a transportation planning process with Highway 12, and that it may be some years before we have the information necessary to complete a transportation plan amendment. • The issue of expanding life cycle and affordable housing can be addressed on a conceptual basis rather than ”by the numbers". We will need to revisit the current Comprehensive Plan, identify how and where the City currently addresses housing needs, and indicate possible strategies to provide a broader range of housing options. However, we don’t have any "quota" to meet at this time. Carl Schenk suggested that we consider a staging of the proposed MUSA additions. Met Council is currently only approving "year 2000" MUSA additions, and apparently would prefer not to expand the MUSA for projects we might do 10-20 years in the future. He indicated he would get some feedback from his compatriots on whether an abridged version of the amendment (say 3 hot spots and the hockey site) might be less controversial, but we haven’t heard back on this yet. As we all know. Met Council has a philosophical problem with Orono’s two acre development concept. They believe it is an inefficient use of land that will force metropolitan systems to e.xpand outward prematurely. Further, they don’t like the fact that it will cost a fortune to sewer rural Orono in the future, due to the large lot sizes. At this point, I am proceeding to complete the documentation outlined in the February 9 letter, and hope to provide you with a draft plan amendment within the next few weeks, for your consideration before we actually submit it to Met Council. Finally, it should be noted that staff has delayed any action regarding neighborhood meetings, as well as delayed widely publicizing the City ’s intent to proceed with sewering certain areas, pending Council’s consideration of Met Council’s apparent intent to encumber this amendment with a number of unrelated conditions. % X i i 4^ Metropolitan Council Advocating regional economic, societal and environmental issues and solutions February 9, 1995 fEB C '■ 15 Ronald Moorse Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Proposed MUSA Additions in Orono Dear Mr. Moorse: The Council staff has reviewed the information from the city staff regarding the possible addition of several city areas to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. If the city decides to submit a plan amendment to the Council for review, the following information should be submitted with the amendment. In addition, a number of broad policy issues regarding the city’s development, wastewater handling/treatment and housing polices are discussed. We feel these can best be addressed by updating appropriate sections of the city’s comprehensive plan. Based on Council forecasts, the city has an adequate supply of land within the current MUSA to meet the city’s needs through the year 2000. (The Council will not reevaluate the region ’s land use needs through the years 2005 and 2010 until 1996.) Based on this, the city must demonstrate that the additions to the MUSA will include only areas that are experiencing failing on-site sanitary disposal systems. These areas could include vacant lots that cannot be avoided in extending sewers, but the numbers should be limited. We suggest that any proposal to include undeveloped land be discussed with the staff prior to including these areas in the plan amendment. The following information should be submitted with the plan amendment. Most of this ......... .r information is required for local sewer plans as stated in the Council ’s Wasle«^tfer Tr^jJ^ COf'PL^ Handling PoUcy Plan (Tiers 1 and 2). 1. A map showing the location, land uses and extent of the areas to be included and boundaries metropolitan interceptor service areas if there is more than one, and any intercommunity connections. Some of this information is indicated on the maps you have given to us at our first meeting. 2-B 2. The projected number of households and employees to be served by metropolitan sewers at ' present and in 2000 and 2010 for the entire city and for erch individual interceptor service area. (If there is more than one.) Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul. Mmncsoia 55101-1634 612 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD 291-0904 An Eaual OoDOrlunity Employer_____________________________________________ Ronald Moorse February 9,1995 Page 2 3. The projected number of RECs (residential equivalent connections) at present and for the years 2000 and 2010. t/ 4. Projected increases in sewered RECs and population for each of the next five years. ^ R Th® projected wastewater flows in the years 2000 and 2010 for the entire city and the S Jndivjdual interceptor service areas. Include a description as to how the flows were calcu including the per capita design flows. calculated ' 6. A description and summary of the reasons for on-site s>stem failure or potential failure for A ^ ) each area to be served. The information for the city of Forest Lake that was previously sent you indicates the type of information needed. 7 7. Consideration given to alternative means of service to these areas, eg. community drainfields. ^ 8. Description of how service will be provided and points of connection to existing sewers. ^ '9- Capacity and design flows for lateral and trunk sewers as well as new lift stations. ) O 10, Sewer construction timetable. 11. Method of assessment. Has any of the proposed area already been assessed? IZ'A 12.*’^) ^2. Summary of city’s adopted objectives, policies and strategies for preventing and reducing ’ excessive infiltration and inflow in the local sanitary sewer s>-stem including standards for new |2'C ^ 12--^ sj-stems and programs for identi^ing and reducing excessive L7. The city should have an ordinance prohibiting the connection of roof drains and sump pum[)S to the sanitary sewer system. 13. Summary of the city’s requirements for on-site sewage disposal systems including installation, biennial inspection of all existing s>stems by certified personnel, permit record keeping, li^nsing, maintenance and remedial actions. The Council ’s policy is that all systems be inspected biennialy by MPCA certified personnel. New systems must meet Minn. Regs. 7080. H 14. Council records indicate that the city has amended its comprehensive plan to incorporate the Council ’s Interim Strategy for the Reduction of Nonpoint Source Pollution and will amend its land use controls to implement the poliev by May, 1^5. Is the city on track to complete this task by May? 15. There are several city development policies of concern to the Council. These arc the city’s land use polices for future development, and city plans for handling/treatment of wastewater and transportation to serve this development. Also, the city’s plan for expanding life-cycle and affordable housing is a Council concern. The city’s current plan indicates that development in the area outside the MUSA is currently planned for 2-acrc lots served by on-site sanitary disposal sj-stems. Given the number of units, planned densities and local soil conditions, the Council is concerned about the pollution of Ronald Moorse February 9, 1995 Page 3 groundwater and surface water and ultimately the impact on the metropolitan wastewater treatment and handling s>-stem if on-site s>-stems fail. The city ’s density policy exceeds the Council ’s policy for the rural service area of one unit per 10 acres or no more than 64 units per 640-acre section. The current density policy is too low to support the efficient extension of urban ^ services. If on-site systems fail at these densities, the cost of extending services would be prohibitive for homeowners and the city. ^ ^ \ Given the city ’s development policies and th^recent pattern of on-sitTfailures^ the city should review its development and wastewater handling policies for the area outside the MUSA. This can best be done as part of a process of reviewing and updating the city ’s comprehensive plan. In addition, the city must determine the impact of future growth on the metropolitan highway s>-stem. The metropolitan transportation policy plan calls for all cities to provide local arterial highwa>-s to accomodate short and medium lenth trips which will not be served by the metropolitan system. (TH12 has been designated a metropolitan highway.) If there is not adequate capacity on either the regional or local sj'stem than improvements must be made to accomodate future growth. This issue should also be addressed as part of the city ’s comprehensive plan update. In September of 1994, the Council adopted the Regional Blueprint. The Blueprint states that the Council will work with local communities in a partnership to meet the range of life-cycle housing ^ needs of people and broaden locational choice and access for people of all income levek. The staff would like to discuss these needs with the city and a pxDtential partnership to implement this action. Based on our records, the city ’s comprehensive plan has not been updated since the early 1980s. We realize it will take some time to complete this work. The city should include a reasonable schedule with its proposed MUSA additions for updating the land use, transportation, sewer and housing elements of its comprehensive plan and submitting these to the Council for review. If there are questions regarding this letter, please contact Carl Schenk (291-6410). Yours truly, Chuck Ballentine, Director Office of Local Assistance cc: Mary H. Smith, Metropolitan Council Member District 3 Carl Schenk, Council Staff Mike Gaffron, Assistant City Planner (Item #13 - B-2 Ordi\« Proposed Afflendmem - (.onnnuea;{Item IfiJ -D-^ ------- nmved. Huir to table the B-2 Ordinaoce Ptopoeed Amendm^ January meeting of tiie Counci^Ayes 4, Kays 0. MAYOR/COUKCIL REPORT Sfts i. their docks to get to their cars and tra^e«. Gaffion reported that the Lake ys^ommittee Meeting is ^eduled for Wednesday, Jarmary 11, 1995 at 7:45 a m. engineer REPOR' (*#14) PAY REQJkJ^T #9 AND FINAL - STUBBS BAY SANH improvem ^^ LY SEWER Callahan mdCri. Jabbour seconded, to approve the 9th and CrrrSD^®fISTRATOR*S report (#15) SEPnC/SEWXR work PLAN Moorse nresented a summary of Council's direction and foHowmp to the^ri^ott of 12/9. SirfU requesting confirmation ofthe direction men to Staffat that meeting. According to Gafion, the MUS.A amendment materials should be 5.?^ pre«Sn by the .^d of January. Gaffion suggested that the enure Otono SebooU sne be included in the MUSA amendment. V \ 8 » qvutes of the regular oroso cmr council MEETCNG held on DECEMBER 12.1994 (iJlS-Septic/SewcrWoricPlan-CoDtiDued) During discusson of the poteatid North Long UJee sower proj^^ Moo^ ^d the Chy needs to detenninc the costs invoh ed and to what d^« tte Cityjs wffl.^ to paittopale in these costs before a pubUc infortnation meeting ts held. AB ^erf o^e tmpottance of maintaimng open communication with the public on the progression of tto program. Hurr alM^ed to infottn the public of the Met Council's involvement m this program. It was noted that the City will request Bonestroo & Associatw to subrnrt a pro^sal and price for conducting a feasibility study for this project. Gafffon reported having cstirri3ted costs on the 3Ctu^ project itself. Council confirmed Orono Orchards as a second priority listing. Jabbour however, would like to see those listed first receive sewer in 1995, and those listed second, receive sewer in 1996. The Council directed Staff to explain to die residents the "hot spot" areas, the Citys philosophy regarding sewer availability, and to explain that the City needs to obtain approval from many different agencies before a sewer project can move forward. (#16) ESTABLISH D.ATE FOR PERSONAL WATERCRAFT PUBLIC HEARING Callahan moved. Jabbour^nded, to hold a joint pubUc hearing with Long Lake regarding the proposed personal watercraft ordinance prior to the Coimcil meeting of January 9, 1995. Ayes 4, Nays (HIT) MCTO PROPOSED BUS ROUTE CHANGES Moorse reported the Metropolian Coun^ Transit Opwations b considering eliminating bus service on Brown Road south of Watertown Rewd and on County Road 51 ftoin Brown Road to West Ann due to low ridersWp. Tins would require a loop route in or near Long Lake for the return trip to Minnea^,^. Originally, the MCTO’s plan was to have a short loop on Willow Drive but tha^^oS^ be under construction next year. The MCTO proposes to create a loop from Brow^I^ad along Watertown Road to Old Crystal Bay Road, then north on Old Costal Bay Roat^o the Middle School to turn around for its return trip. Moorse asKed for the Councus^put. AH Council members were opp^^ to a bus route on Wa^crw^^m Road. Kelley felt the buses should run mainly otvCounty Roads, with the exception mhil^tilley Road. Hurr suegested maintaining s^ice on CoRd 51 to the Maxwell Bay acchs^. Hurr felt public transportation was an uii^rtant consideration in the LMCR grant ap^^ for the access project. / \ It was recommenri^ that Moorse send a letter to the MCTO reflecting the Co^^s view and a City representative be present at the MCTO public bearing on Decembcrs,l4. Orono and Neighboring Cities Households With Incomes <$20,000 (1990) Households With Incomes <$20,000 And Paying 30+% For Housing (1990) Housing Units 1 Affordable To Incomes of Less Than $20,000 (1990) Number % Of Total Households Number % Of Total Units Region 16%27% Orono 247 9%157 133 6% Long Lake 158 21%103 133 18% Wayzata 484 28%343 313 19% Breakdown Of Affordable Housing Affordable Rental Units Affordable Owned Units | Number Percent Number Percent | Region 53%13% 1 Orono 37 15%%5% 1 Long Lake 119 48%14 3% 1 Wayzata 281 36%32 4% 1 Note: "Affordable" in this table is deGned as requiring no more than 30% of a household income of $20,000. This means a gross rent of less than $500 per month or owned housing with a value of less than $60,000. Rental unit data are from the 1990 census. Owned data combines census data and a council staff estimate. OroDo and Neighboring Communities Ov^"ned-% Valued <$72,000 (1993) Ov,’ncd-% Valued $72- $115,000 (1993) % Gross Rent <$500 (1990) Tot. Pub. Asst. As % Of Total Housing (1994) Orono 9%23%18%0.2% Long Lake 6%46%39%3.7% Wayzata 14%30%36%5.0% Total Developing 21%52%35%3.3% Older Developing 24%39%44%2.6% 1 SW Mpls Sector 19%46%39%3.7& 1 Region 31%47%54%5.8% 1 % Non-Single Family Detached (1993) % Rental (1990) % Householders Aged 65+ (1990) Multifamily Housing Density • Units Per Acre (1994) 1 Orono 2%9%15%6'- 1 Long Lake 34%34%13%13 Wayzata 51%50%27%15 Total Developing 35%25%9%11 — Older Developing 29%28%17%___E__ SW Mpls Sector 37%33%19%14 Region 41%36%17%15 Und Undeveloped (1990) Jobs To Labor For*.e Ratio (1990) % Forecasted Region Employment Growth (1990- 2000) Orono 31%0.21 0.04% 1 1 Long Lake 20%1.22 0.21% 1 Wayzata 21%2.28 0.05% 1 Total Developing 43%0.67 64.4% Older Developing 24%0.93 12.0% SW Mpls Sector 30%1.04 13.26% Region 32%0.88 100% Notes; 1. Total Developing" is the total for the 63 communities classified as "developing planning area. 2. "Older Developing" is the average value (mean) for the 31 communities of the developing area that had the lower percent of their total housing constructed during the 1980s. The value shown for the percent of employment growth is the total for thew 31 communities. Orono, Long Lake and Wayzata are all included in "Older Developing". 3. Each of these 3 cities are in the Southwest Minneapolis Sector. 4. "% Land Undeveloped (1990) includes only the land within the MUSA. OROSO CITY Hennepin County PAGE 2?1 1990 Estimate 1993 2000 2010 2020 7,285 7,323 7,800 8,350 8,850 2,613 2.8 2,653 2.8 2,950 3,350 3,750 1. population 2. Households 3. Persons Per Household 4. Age of Householder 1990 Percent m • m m ••••••• 15-24 Yeart 24 0.9 25-34 Years 426 16.3 35-44 Years 733 28.1 45-54 Years 656 25.1 55-64 Years 381 14.6 65-74 Years 242 9.3 75 Years and Over 151 5.8 6. Household Composition: 2,613 100.0 Family Households: Married-Couple Family With Children Under Age 18: 902 34.5 With No Children Under Age 18 1,032 39.5 One-parent families with Children Under Age 18: Hale Parent 22 0.8 Female Parent 60 2.3 Other Family Households: 84 3.2 .Nonfamily Households: Householder Living Alone: 384 14.7 Householder Not Living Alone: 129 4.9 7. People $ Families in Poverty 1989 Percent • Total Persons 104 1.4 Under Age 18 32 0.4 Age 65^25 0.3 People Under 20CX of Poverty 659 9.0 Families Below Poverty 14 0.7 Single Parent Families 4 0.2 American Asian/ 8. Race/Ethnicity Total White Black Indian Pac. 1s1. Number 7,285 7,164 28 18 55 Percent 100.0 98.3 0.4 0.2 0.8 Total Minority (Includes ‘Hispanic White)« 163 ?.2 9. Household Income by Race/bthnicity of Householder, 19f® Less than $15,000 180 178 0 0 2 $15,000 to $24,999 258 258 0 0 0 $25,000 to $34,999 215 215 0 0 0 $35,000 to $49,999 402 387 15 0 0 $50,000 and above 1,574 1,556 9 0 9 Less than $15,000 6.8X 6.9X o.ox o.ox 18.2X $15,000 to $24,999 9.8%9.9X o.cx o.ox O.OX $25,000 to $34,999 8.2X 8.3X o.ox o.ox O.OX $35,000 to $49,999 15.3X 14.9X 62.5X o.ox O.OX $50,000 and above 59.9X 60.OX 37.5X o.ox 81.8X 10. Persons in Poverty By Race/Ethnicity 104 95 0 c 9 1.4X 1.3X o.ox o.ox 11.8X Other Race I 11. 1989 Median Household Income $62,858 12. 1989 Median Family Income $69,263 20 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 Hispanic 58 0.8 0 0 0 0 7 . oROKc’cirr’ 13. Mousing Units U. Total Vacant Units Vacant for Rent Vacant for Sale All Other Vacant Total 15. Tenure Owner Renter 2,372 90.8 241 9.2 16. Units by Cross Monthly Rent less than S300 S300 to S499 S500 to 8749 $750 or more No Cash Rent 0 37 55 82 31 1990 • • • • 2,787 174 12 44 118 White Estimate 1993 17. Housing Unit by Type One-Unit Detached One-Unit Attached 2 Units 3 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Home/Trailer Other 19. Owner-Occupied Units by Value less than $60,000 $60,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or Higher 2,347 90.8 238 9.2 0 37 55 71 22 1990 2,711 23 27 9 5 1 11 95 129 284 400 262 911 20. Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing 21. Median Monthly Contract Rent 22. Median Monthly Cross Rent 22. Bedrooms by Cross Rent less than $200 $200 to $299 $300 to $499 $500 to $749 $730 to $999 $1000 or more No Cash Rent No Bedroom 2,829 0 0 0 11 9 Percent 97.3 0.8 1 .0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 $173,500 $549 $675 1 Bedroom American Asian/Other 1 HispanicBlackIndianPac. Isl.Race 1 6 4 11 4 13 75.0 100.0 100.0 80.0 92.9 2 0 0 1 1 25.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 7.1 0 0 0 0 0 18.Households Paying 30X or More of 1989 Household Income for Housing Costs Households Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Percent 22.0 27.3 Bedrooms 3^ Bedrooms .Owner -Renter-Total Percent24. Year Structure Built Occupied Percent Occupied mrnmmmmmm Percent m m m m m m m (Inc. Vacant) 1939 or Earlier 553 23.3 84 34.9 679 24.4 1940 to 1949 223 9.4 18 7.5 259 y .3 1950 t 0 1959 432 18.2 20 8.3 480 17.2 13.81960to196934014.3 26 10.8 384 M S M 1970 to 1979 347 14.6 61 25.3 444 15.9 1980 to March 1990 477 20.1 32 Mixed 13.3 Elderly 541 iy.4 X of All Total Housing Units 25. Federally Subsidized Housing Units (1994)0 0 0 0.0