The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-08-1995 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MAY 8, 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 Recorder. ROLL CALL * 1. CONSENT AGENDA 2. Old Beach Road Closure - Resolution APPROVAL OF MESTJTES * 3. Regular Meeting of April 24, 1995 * 4. Board of Review Meeting of April 26, 1995 May 8 n PARK COMMISSION CO\LMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Janice Berg Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT , ,, o t r 5 #1298 Richard Johnson/Gordon Nelson. Forest Boulevard - Vacation - Resolution 6. #1921 Mary Ulrich, KXX) Loma Linda Avenue - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution 7, #2(X)9 Tom and Maureen Palm, 1685 Concordia Street - Variances - Resolution 8 #2010 James Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Variances - Resolution 9. #2011 Tim and Lorie Line, 4415 Forest Lake Landing - Variances - Resolution mayor /council report ENGINEER REPORT 10. Kelley Avenue Drainage Update CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 11. Crystal Bay Park Improvement Plan 12. 1994 Budget Adjustments 13. Irrigation System Repairs at Golf Course 14. Highway 12 Pathway * 15. Temporary Employees at Golf Course CITY ATTORNEY’S RLPi JRT (♦16.) LICENSES (♦17.) BILLS AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MAY 8, 1995, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 05/06 - 05/08 - 05/09 - 05/10 - 05/11 - 05/12 - 05/15 - 05/16 - 05/16 - 05/17 - 05/18 05/20 05/22 05/29 Orono Clean Up Day 8:00 a.ni.- 4:00 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Orono School Board 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Work Session 8:00 a.m. - Re-Convened Board of Review meeting 7:00 p.m. - Orono School Education Fund Meeting 7:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. - Planning Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. - School Board Election Day - No public meetings prior to 8:00 p.m. . School Board meeting 9:30 p.m. (Certify results of school board election) - Highway 12 Policy Committee Meeting 5:30 p.m. - Planning Commission Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. - French Creek Park Open House 2:00 p.m. - Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. - Holiday - Memorial Day Observance PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL J PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE f\\M IT(<. PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 2 3 5 6 9 10 11 2 /!l( t -i 'rtld.cA^ z^iM 'c,il 2 z I)c>'7r A/7^ . 'J 4^*^' vT^-vo/ 'Ali'c y :zsos oLL (ii.tclc'cL .a ’^77.>u ^ OlA (XAti ^ V ‘ji ’AYvi<.^v.-^‘::>3L^,' Oid fic^tcX [m^7^:77XnH'/i' Och Ac :/7^ y-) ;i Cr'c cJci ( P /</c /v /y ■)?-^ h, i' / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE ITEM NO \ %> % Department Approval: Name Pon Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Adriinistrator ’s Report Item Description: Closure of Old Beach Road / Attachments: 1. 2. 3. Accident Information April 24 Old Beach Road Memo Resolution Approving the Closure of Old Beach Road The City Council at its April 24 meeting held a public hearing to receive comments regarding the proposed closure of Old Beach Road. After closing the public hearing the Council considered the recommendation for closure and continued action regarding the closure to the May 8th Council meeting. Additional Information During the public hearing a number of comments were received regarding accident information and the safety of the 15/19 intersection. The following infomiation is provided to address those comments. 1.Accident Information The attached table shows accident information for the full years of 1993 and 1994 and for the time period January to April of ’93, ’94 and ’95. The January to April time frame reflects the period in 1995 during which Old Beach Road has been closed. The information shows that left turning movements have not caused a large number of accidents, either at the Old Beach Road intersections or at the intersectiori of 19 and 15. The information also shows that moving the left turns to the 15 and 19 intersection by closing Old Beach Road has not resulted in a safety problem at the intersection. The 1993 accident information related to the intersection of 15 and 19 reflects accident numbers significantly lower than those presented by a member of the public at the public hearing. His accident numbers were significantly higher, probably because they included all accidents that were within the grid zone used in the city ’s police records system, but not all of these were at the intersection. In 1993 there were no accidents involving left turns from west bound County Road 15 to south bound County Road 19. There were also no accidents involving left turns from 15 to Old Beach Road or from Old Beach Road to 19. In 1994 there were no accidents relating to left turns from west bound 15 to southbound 19. There were six (6) accidents Request for Council Action Continued page 2 May 4, 1995 Closure of Old Beach Road related to left hand turns from 15 to Old Beach Road or from Old Beach Road to 19. From January to April 1995, during the period after Old Beach Road was closed, there were three (3) left mm accidents at the intersection of 15 and 19 and one (1) at the intersection of 15 and Old Beach Road. It is important to note that none of the three (3) accidents at 19 and 15 occurred during the msh-hour time period when traffic is the most congested. In fact, two (2) occurred on the weekend. The probable explanation for these is that the left mm arrow is not set to operate on the weekends. This will be addressed when the left mm sensor loops are installed this summer. Although the 1995 accident information is for a relatively short time period, it does show that the increased mming movements md traffic levels at the intersection of 19 and 15 during the msh-hour times has not resulted in accidents at that intersection. Traffic Engineering Concerns Although the accident information for recent years shows that left mming movements have not been a significant problcn , die accident potential and accident seriousness potential is greater at the non-signalizcd intersection. Even though there is a greater overall level of traffic at the 19 and 15 intersection, it is moving in a more controlled manner than at the unsignalized intersection. Traffic at the Old Beach Road inters) dons is moving more quickly and drivers are not expecting mms onto or off of the county road as they would at the signalized intersection. Engineering Improvements to the 19 and 15 Intersection Staff have worked with the City Engineer and the County Traffic Engineer to identify potential improvements to the 19 and 15 intersection to address the concerns raised by the members of the public regarding the safety of the intersection. Several improvements can be made quickly and at low cost. These are as follows: 1. Install the left mm sensor loops to provide the availability of Jhe left mni arrow to acconunodate a larger number of left mms and to be available at all times of the day and week. The highest number of accidents at the intersection have been related to left mms from north bound 19 to west bound 15. The left mm arrow directly addresses this problem. 2. Provide additional signage to slow down traffic using the free right mm from east bound 15 to south bound 19. This will improve the safety of the merging of the traffic mming left from 15 to south bound 19 and the free right mm traffic. Request for CouncU Action continued page 3 May 4, 1995 Closure of Old Beach Road________ 3.The Coumv is reviewine additional potential improvements to the intersection that »uld ncomphshed when the commercial propeny in the northeast quadrant of the intersection is redeveloped. ■Staff Recommendation The Recommenaaii on of Old Beach Road through the installation of a 15 at Old Beach Road. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: . .. .. .10» All Accidents 15/19 Intersection Old Beach Road and 15 or 19 Left Turn Accidents .Ten. to Apr. 19/15 Old Beach Road and 19 or 15 1993 15 0 0 0 / p^-fvCit4Mtno"r 1994 1995 12* 6** 0 2 3 * * * 1 *In addition to the accidents in the intersection, there were six accidents involving vehicles entering or exiting O’Sullivans. ** All six of these accidents involved vehicles attempting to make left turns. Three involved vehicles waiting to make a left turn being rear-ended. ♦♦♦ None of these occurred during the peak traffic times. Two occurred on the weekend, when the left turn arrow is not available. .4. ^TTPsCLK iIAGUT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 20, 1995 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorsc Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Permanent Closure of Old Beach Road Background ^ Concerns regarding traffic levels and safety on Old Beach Road were first addressed in 1987 when the city restricted truck traffic from the roadway. More recently residents on Old Beach Road have expressed renewed concerns regarding traffic levels and safety. City staff have worked with the County Highway Department staff to determine the extent of the problem and to identify solutions. Problems 1. Traffic safety problem on Old Beach Road a. Causes 1.) Traffic volume a. ) 3600 cars per day b. ) This is a very high volume of traffic for a residential street and is substantially more than on any of Orono’s collector streets, which have been designed and constructed to handle the higher levels of traffic. Old Crystal Bay Road: Willow Drive: Brown Road: 2500 trips per day 2300 trips per day 2000 trips per day 2.)Strc't design and layout a.) Old Beach Road is a residential street design. The roadway was designed only to carry local traffic (neighborhood traffic). The residential street standard calls for a total width of 30 feet, including shoulders. Old Beach Road does not meet this standard, particularly 5t its northern end. The collector road design standard calls for a total width of 40 feet. b.) Old Beach Road has a hill that causes a sight-distance safety problem particularly if traffic volumes are high or if speeds exceed 20 miles per hour. Request for Council Action continued page 2 April 20, 1995 Permanent Closure of Old Beach Road 3.)Speed of traffic a.) Periodic speed enforcement indicates the traffic tends to travel well beyond the 30 mile per hour speed limit. b.) It is not difficult to predict that vehicles turning off of a 40 mile per hour roadway onto a 30 mile per hour roadway for the purpose of a shortcut will exceed the 30 mile per hour speed limit. 2.\ very high volume of unprotected turns to and from Old Beach Road and County Roads 19 and 15. A.)There are approximately 3300 vehicles mining onto or off of County Roads 15 and 19 to or from Old Beach Road. Approximately half of these mms are left mms across traffic that does not stop. B.)Accident information regarding left mms onto both ends of Old Beach Road and at the 15/19 intersection, bear out the increased safety of the signalized intersection for left mms. In 1994 there were no accidents at the signalized intersection related to left mms. During this same time period, there were 4 accidents related to left mms at County 15 and Old Beach Road, and two accidents at County 19 and Old Beach Road. Alternate Solutions Staff has worked with the Hennepin County Department of Transportation and the residents on Old Beach Road to develop solutions to these problems. 1.Provide a high level of speed enforcement by the Police. a.) To be effective this would require a major extended effort to educate drivers and would require continued periodic extended efforts. b.). Although this would temporarily solve the speed problem on Old Beach Road it would not address the problems related to the volume of traffic, especially the mming movements onto and off of the County Roads. 2.Reconstruct Old Beach Road to MSA standards. a.) The cost would be approximately $400,000. The City would not be able to fund this upgrade because Old Beach Road does not qualify for MSA funding. b.)This alternative would not solve the problems related to the mming movements onto and off of the County Roads. In fact, it would encourage more traffic on Old Beach Road which would increase the mm movement problem. I ■« Request for Council Action continued page 3 April 20, 1995 Permanent Closure of Old Beach Road c.) This alternative would duplicate an existing traffic route that carries the traffic and provides for turning movements in a better way than would the reconstructed Old Beach Road. 3.Several solutions involve restricting or eliminating Old Beach Road as a connection between County Roads 15 and 19. a. ) Right in/right out only at County 15 and no right turns at County 19. 1. ) This would place all left turns into Old Beach Road off of County Road 19 which does not have room for a bypass lane and which is very busy in both directions. 2. ) It would be very difficult to enforce the no right turns restriction from Countv Road 19 onto Old Beach Road. 3. ) Drivers would tend to make illegal left turns around the right in/right out island at County Road 15. b. ) Right in/right out on!/ .,a County Road 19 and no right mm at County Road 15. 1. ) It would be difficult to enforce the no right mm restriction at County Road 15 because there has to be a lane both for right mms from County 15 to Old Beach Road and for the left mms from County 15 to Old Beach Road. 2. ) Drivers will tend to take illegal left hand turns at the County 19 end. c. ) Close one end of Old Beach Road using a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac option most effectively accomplishes the purpose of eliminating the connection between County 19 and County 15. Recommended Solution It is staffs recommendation that the most effective solution to the identified problems is to install a cul-de-sac at the County 19 end of Old Beach Road to eliminate the connection between County 15 and County 19. This recommendation includes the construction of a left turn bypass lane on County 15 at Old Beach Road. The cul-de-sac will eliminate the vast majority of left mms from County 15 to Old Beach Road. However, the residents of Old Beach Road will continue to make these mms. The installation of a bypass lane would provide a higher level of safety to those drivers making the left mms. Request for Council Action continued page 4 April 20, 1995 Permanent Closure of Old Beach Road Because this portion of County Road 15 is in the City of Minnetonka Beach, the decision to allow the installation of the left aim lane needs to be made by Minnetonka Beach. 1. 2. Advantages, a.) Eliminates the safety problem on Old Beach Road that is being caused by the high volume of through traffic. b.) Shifts traffic volumes to the roads designated and designed to carry higher volumes. c.) Shifts aiming movements to a controlled intersection that is much better designed to facilitate these movements. 1.)Shifts as many as 1500 unprotected left aims per day (County 15 to Old Beach Road) to a controlled intersection with a left aim arrow. 2.)Significantly reduces the hazard of rear-end accidents for drivers waiting to make the left hand turn from County Road 15 to Old Beach Road. 3.)Eliminates as many as 1500 difficult and dangerous left aims per day from Old Beach Road to south bound County Road 19. These turns occur in the evening when County Road 19 is busy both north bound and south bound. 4.)The County has indicated the additional volume shifted to the 15 and 19 intersection will not reduce the level of service of the intersection. Observations over the past three months bear this out. Disadvantages. a.) Will make trips between County Road 19 and 15 somewhat longer. b.)As with all cul-de-sacs, there is the potential that access to some of the homes could be blocked if the cul-de-sac becomes blocked at any point along its length. c.)Old Beach Road will not be available for use as an alternate route between 19 and 15 in the case of a situation that causes the temporary closure of the intersection of 19 and 15. It is staffs recommendation that the advantages relating to safety improvements far outweigh the disadvantages. Request for Council Action continued page 5 April 20, 1995 Permanent Closure of Old Beach Road Cost and funding The cost of the cul-de-sac improvement is estimated at $9,500. The residents on Old Beach Road have agreed to pay the full cost of installing the cul-de-sac. The propertv ’ owners whose property will be taken for the cul-de-sac have verbally agreed to providing the easements. The costs of acquisition of the easements, if any, will be borne by the Old Beach Road residents. Emergency vehicle access All emergency vehicles will be coming to Old Beach Road from County 15. The one access from County 15 to Old Beach Road will be adequate to provide for emergency vehicle access. The construction of the cul-de-sac is recommended to includ? -^he retention of an eight foot wide section of pavement from the southern edge of the cul-de-iac to County Road 19. This will provide an alternate access for emergency vehicles in the case of a blockage at the northern portion of Old Beach Road. Relationship of the Old Beach Road simation to other publi c streets that have bgen prppQ$ed fo i: CU1 “Cic * SHC s Over the years a number of neighborhoods have made requests to the city to close their local streets to through traffic. The city has been very reluctant to do so. The Old Beach Road simation is significantly different from the past requerts for a number of reasons. 1. 2. 3. The sheer volume of traffic on Old Beach Road is many times higher than the volumes on any other residential streets where cul-de-sacs have been or could be requested. The design, layout and topography of the street make this roadway particularly prone to safety problems with higher volumes and higher speeds. This closure would shift a very high volume of mming movements to a much safer location-a signalized intersection. /I ^3 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF OLD BEACH ROAD TO THROUGH TRAFFIC WHEREAS, there is a serious traffic safety problem on Old Beach Road due to high traffic volume, inadequate roadway design, and traffic speed, and WHEREAS, there are traffic safety problems related to a very high volume of unprotected turns to and from Old Beach Road and County Road 19 and 15, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the optimum solution to these safety problems is to restrict or eliminate Old Beach Road as a connection between County Road 15 and 19, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the most effective method of restricting/eliminating the use of Old Beach Road as a connection between County 15 and County 19 is to install a cul-de-sac at the County 19 end of Old Beach Road. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council does hereby approve the installation of a cul-de-sac at the southern end of Old Beach Road to eliminate through traffic on Old Beach Road for the purpose of addressmg senous traffic safety problems. of May, 1995. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 8th day ATTEST:Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Cleric ROLL ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 24,1995 ^ ^------------------V % The Council met on the above date uith the following members present; Mayor Edwa^^ ^ ^ Callahan, Jr, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour, JoEUen Hurr, and Charles Kelley. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Public Works Director John Gerhardson, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and Recorder Sherry- Frost. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m V* (*#l) CONSENT AGENDA Item #7, Hillside Place Administrative Appeal, was tabled at the request of the applicant. Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#2) PUBLIC HEARING - PERMANENT CLOSURE OF OLD BEACH ROAD 7:00-9:20 P.M. Moorse introduced the subject and background of the proposed permanent closure of Old Beach Road. This road connects County Roads 19 and 15 and is used to bypass the intersection of CoRds 19 and 15. The traffic safety concerns go back to the mid 1980’s. At that time, truck traffic was restricted from f‘-e roadway. Approximately one year ago, residents expressed renewed concerns regarding safety. Staff has been working with the residents and the County to identify problems and develop solutions. Moorse identified the traffic safety problems. One cause is traffic volume. Old Beach Road was designed as a local residential roadway. These usually cany about 500 cars per day. Collector roads carry between 1000-2500 cars per day. According to recent counts, Old Beach Road has been canying about 3600 cars per day. A second cause of concern is the street design The road is 24' width with 3' shoulders until the Minnetonka Beach area, where it narrows to 20-1/2', at the same location as a curve and a hill. The third cause is the speed of traffic, which is generally higher than the 30 mph speed limit. Cars traveling on the road have come from a road with a 40 mph limit. When they turn onto the shortcut, there is a tendency to speed. Once they come to the area with the hill, where speed should be limited to 20-25 mph, it becomes dangerous, due to bad site distance. * Another factor of concern is the unprotected turns finom Old Beach Road to County Road 19, and from the County Road 15 to Old Beach Road. There are about 3300 vehicles tui^g on or off this road. The main problem is with the left turns from Old Beach Road to CoRd 19 or CoRd 15 to Old Beach Road, where both must go across lanes of traffic. MIM’TES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1995 (#2 - Old Beach Road * Continued) Staff has worked with the residents and Hennepin County Dept of Transportation to develop alternative solutions to these problems One alternative solution is speed enforcement With the high volume, this would be only temporary; as history shows, speed is increased once police leave the area An extensive effort would be needed This, however, would only respond to the Old Beach Road problem and not to the turning movements problem. Moorse identified another alternative solution as reconstructing Old Beach Road to MSA standards as a collector road. This is an expensive alternative. Old Beach Road is not eligible for MSA ftinding This also would not solve the turning issue; and in fact, would draw more traffic and increase the number of turns CoRds 15 and 19 were designated for handling that traffic, and this solution would be a duplication of that effort. A third solution would be to restnct or eliminate the connection between Old Beach Road and County Roads 15 and 19 The purpose would be to shift the thru traffic to CoRds 15 and 19. The best alternative was found to use a cul-de-sac, which would eliminate the traffic It is Staffs recommended solution to install the cul-de-sac at the CoRd 19 end of Old Beach Road The advantages found to this solution are the elimination of the safety problem on Old Beach Road that is being caused by the high volume of through traffic; the shift of traffic volumes to the roads designated to carry higher volumes; and the shift of turning movements to a controlled inter.ection that is much better designed to facilitate these movements. When open, the road allows left turns at CoRd 15 and at CoRd 19 resulting in two unprotected left turns. The solution of a cul-de-sac places the turns at one spot which is a controlled intersection and cuts the amount of turning movements in h^f In discussions with the County over the operation of the intersection, the Cc **ity said the impact on the level of service should remain at the same level it is now, which is a "b". There are six different levels, a-f, "b” being good. The disadvantages with the installation of a cul-de-sac are that it would cause longer trips between CoRds 19 and 15; the potential of blocking of access to some of the homes if the cul-de-sac becomes blocked at any point along its length; and Old Beach Road would not be available for use is an alternate route between CoRd 19 and 15 if a temporary closure of the intersertion of CoRd 19 and 15 were to occur. In balancing the pros md cons, the advantages to the safety improvements point to the recommendation for the installation of the cul-de-sac. Moorse relayed other related items. The cost of the cul-de-sac improvement is e^imated at $9,500. The residents on Old Beach Road have agreed to pay the full cost of installing the cul-de-sac. The property owners affected have verbally agreed to providing the necessary easements, and the costs involved writh the acquisition, if any, will be borne by the Old Beach Road residents. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1995 (#2 - Old Beach Road - Continued) All emergency vehicles will be coming to Old Beach Road from County 15. The one access trom County 15 to Old Beach Road will be adequate to provide for emergency vehicle access. The construction of the cul-de-sac is recommended to include the retention of an eight foot wide section of pavement from the southern edge of the cul-de- sac to CoRd 19. This will provide an alternate access for emergency vehicles in the case of a blockage at the northern portion of Old Beach Road. Lastly, in relation to how this solution would relate to other roads that have been proposed for cul-de-sacs, this has been found to be a unique roadway. The sheer volume of traffic on Old Beach Road is many times higher than the volumes on any other residential streets where cul-de-sacs have been or could be requested. The design, layout and topography of the street make this roadway particularly prone to safety problems with higher volumes and higher speeds. This closure would shift a very high volume of turning movements to a much safer location, a signalized intersection. Both CoRd 15 and CoRd 19 are in place and built to handle the traffic. Callahan asked Moorse if a study in time differential has been conducted. Moorse replied that the Staff did not conduct such a study, but a resident study indicated the cul-de-sac would result in a somewhat longer trip between County Roads 19 and 15. Chief Sullivan was asked to comment on any problems since the temporary closure wis made. Sullivan said there has been one major accident after the closure. There has shown to be only minor inconvenience, otherwise, and noted roads available to divert around on North Shore Drive. There generally has been no problems, and Sullivan voiced his support of the effort to permanently close the road. Callahan asked the public for a general show of Orono residents present and opened the forum to the public for comments. Kirk Sherman of 2505 Old Beach Road represented the 15 homeowners along Old Beach Road, who support the recommendation to permanently close the road. Sherman said an intense study has been done for the last year. During 1992-93, the City was adverse to closing by cul-de-sac and looked at other options with John Gerhardson. Sherman said the key issue of safety came to a head with school bus incidents. The road by design is narrow. If a car attempts to pass the bus, the car narrowly misses the children. Three such incidents occurred in a one week period. A petition was passed around and lead to the temporary closing in January. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1995 (#2 - Old Beach Road - Continued) Sherman reported that police enforcement, with *he number of cars and speed, is only a temporary solution to the problems He noted a count was conducted by the County in October showinc 3600 cars on the road during a 24-hour period. This is an average ot 180 cars per hour, which peaked at 400 cars per hour during the e%’cning drive home and 350 cars per hour in the morning hours These peaks occurred at the same time as the school bus routes travel on the road. Sherman said the road design contains a hill near the border Five driveways enter within a short distance of the cresrof the hill and extreme care is needed in entering the driveways or roadway Sherman recognized the inconvenience but felt the use of CoRds 15 and 19 was a reasonable alternative. The study of the distance with the road closure would be between ^ and 5 mile round trip Time savings were harder to determine because of the dependence on the traffic at the moment of travel. Left turns were more ptoblematic with the need to factor in the signal In monitoring the intersection 5-6 times, all vehicles made it through the light except once. He noted that 95% of the intersection was cleared and it took 1 minute 40 seconds for the light to turn from green to green again. Sherman said the residents are 100% in support of the recommendation. The one resident most affected by the closure is also in agreement. The residents recognize the cost involved but willing to pay for the expense. Kelley asked how many residents live on the street; 15 residents, 3 in Minnetonka Beach, with one lot undeveloped. Janis Thacker of 4174 Highwood Road, lived near the Narrows Bridge. She asked if the alternative of making the road a one-way was discussed, such as going east ottly. Thacker felt it was a shame to close the road and considered it a matter of elitism. Moorse said the one-way alternative was discussed. With all right-hand turns, there is still the traffic in the mo^ng and 1500 cars traveling on the road. There would still be left turns in the evening. Callahan noted the inconvenience to the residents. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1995 (#2 - Old Beach Road - Continued) Lawrence Murray of 145 West Point Court in Tonka Bay presented a petition with 658 signatures for the reopening of Old Beach Road. These included 571 petitions from Tonka Bay, Shorewood, and Excelsior Murray passed out information on a review conducted in ’93-'94 on safety and traffic counts He noted the timeliness as this is when the neighbors moved in and initiated action on closing the road The motor vehicle accident files show 5 accidents, with one personal injury, at CoRd 15 and Old Beach Road, 2 accidents, no personal injury, at CoRd 19 and Old Beach Road, and 61 accidents, 14 with personal injury, at the Navarre intersection of CoRds 15 and 19 He asked the Council whose safety they are concerned with those that live there or those who need to go through the intersection of CoRds 15 and 19 Murray suggested upgrading Old Beach Road to alleviate the problems in Navarre saying this traffic is easier to divert He also felt the counts noted regarding traffic volume were incorrect Murray said he had spoken with the County office representative regarding the two counters used One counter was reported as not working and one counter double counted. Murray said the study was not for a 24-hour period but from 5 a m to midnight and projections were made Murray said there is little traffic at night and less during the day and late afternoon than noted He said if most traffic was occurring during the morning and evening times, compressing these figures would result in a car every 12 seconds, which he felt was not credible. Hurr asked him who he spoke with from the County. Murray said the name was Lundberg, or Lundgren, but was the person in charge of traffic counts. Murray also noted that maps from 1896 show Old Beach Road. Jabbour noted that the standards followed today are not those of 1896. Callahan said the cost to upgrade the road would be $400,000, and funds were not available. Murray said he pays by way of his taxes Jabbour noted the need to deal with facts and reality and not emotions. Callahan said he agreed with the traffic peaks at the a m and p m. hours. Hurr asked why Old Beach Road was not eligible for MSA funding. Minnetonka Beach is not on the state aid system, and part of Old Beach Road is in Minnetonka Beach. Ellsworth Peterson of 45 Fariboe Avenue in Tonka Bay, noted when making right hand turns, there are no problems. The only problem is when left turns are made. Peterson suggested building an overpass at each end to eliminate the problem. Peterson has lived in Tonka Bay for 25 years. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24,1995 (#2 - Old Beach Road - Continued) Bruce Kelley of 2340 Fox Street said he was opposed to the closing. Kelley said the road has been there for years and residents moving in now should accept that fact He noted the inconvenience of the closure with 3300 trips from cars daily, or one million a year. KeIIe>’ asked for the road to remain open and improvements made to the road. Richard Brown of 2685 Shadywood, noted the safety issue. Down at the comer of CoRd 19, there is a sharp left turn to be made There are 18 driveways within 100' of the comer If making a left turn, there is then a problem There is also a problem with going from four lanes to two lanes Brown also noted that the school bus goes on CoRd 19 and mavbe CoRd 19 should also be closed Brown felt more accidents would occur by making people go through the CoRd 19 intersection This intensifies the situation and feels there is no justification to increase the traffic. Steve Bakke of 2765 Pheasant Road is opposed to the closing. Bakke presented a summary from the information meeting on Thursday Many of the issues raised were discussed tonight He reiterated the traffic count disparity. He noted the reality of the use of Old Beach Road for connection between CoRd 15 and 19 Bakke asked why the need for the trade off. Bakke felt the use of Old Beach Road was better for safety He did not agree with the 1800 cars in a four hour period assessment. He said that would result in a car every 8 seconds. Bakke would like to see the traffic count reassessed. Bakke thought that special treatment was being given to the few people who live on Old Beach Road and not to the many Bakke noted other examples of safety issues, on Shadywood, on CoRd 15 and 19. Bakke said Kelly Avenue is also used as a short cut, and why not close this road also. Bakke said the issue was safety not inconvenience. Bob Gates of Navarre noted the traffic build-up going west on CoRd 19 with no left hand turn signal. He noted when coming from O’Sullivan’s, there is a big traffic build-up. He also noted when traveling CoRd 15 going east, there is no turn signal either. Gates said the city should look at these areas before adding more traffic to the area. Margaret of 2540 Old Beach Road responded to the comment of receiving special treatment to new residents She said she was not a new resident. Her 8-year old daughter has not been allowed to use the bus. She cannot imagine walking or jogging on the road as cars zoom by She asked that people not pretend there is no danger, especially with the many children on the road. MLNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1995 (#2 - Old Beach Road - Continued) Tom Deckel of 90 Gideons Point Road in Tonka Bay responded to the school bus issue. He said this is a crucial area and all are concerned but rejects that the residents of Old Beach Road have a far more serious issue than those residents of CoRds 15 and 19, where there is greater traffic and speed. He r^ects the idea that these children are subject to greater danger. He noted that the houses are built way back on the lots He felt the issue would be one of isolation rather than greater risk Callahan responded that although he may reject the idea, there is a difference in the design and condition of Old Beach Road from CoRds 15 and 19. Tom said that he felt Callahan and Jabbour showed no neutrality in this issue Judd Mowiy of 445 Lakeview Avenue in Tonka Bay noted the good layout that Moorse did He noted that if fire or emergency vehicle access were needed during winter months and the entrance was blocked, snow would be pushed up against the alternate access and would be unaccessible. He disagreed with the assessment that Old Beach Road wm unique in its street design He said Birch Bluff was also narrow, and the manuevering of emergency vehicles was rather dubious. He challenged the inabiUty to keep speeding in check. Speeds on CoRd 19 could also be checked In relation to the posted speed of 40 mph to a 30 mph zone, the turn is difficult. He noted the example of Hwy 7, where speeds are 45-50 mph to CoRd 19, where 30 mph is posted Mowty also said he lives on a narrow road, which is posted at 20 mph. He said traffic appears to be going faster than it actually is and asked the chief to put equipment out to monitor what the speeds are in reality. Mowry said that there were 12 Orono residents on Old Beach Road, who were unanimous in the closing of the road. He noted the number of petitions from Orono residents who were in favor of keeping the road open plus the many in attendance at this meeting. If the issue were numbers, the opening of the road was supported. If the issue is safety, with turning and volume, this would result in pushing traffic to a more dangerous intersection, where 14 personal injury accidents have recently occurred, Md where it is signalized. He said the City should look at signalizing other areas and wished to know where the cost figure of $400,000 comes from. Kirk Sherman responded to the request for additional information. He provided the graphic for the counter taken October 6 and 7. The figures were taken from the actual printout which recorded each 15 minute segment. Taking the hour amount and statement from the County, it presented a two-hump graphic. The count was begun at 3 p.m. on October 6. Sherman noted an example of a p.m. time slot of a smaller number of cars on CoRd 15 from Old Beach Road because of the difficulty in making the turn. There was not a significant drop in cars between 5-6 am. There were 150 cars through the day per hour and then a drop at nite. Callahan said in his experience all traffic counts have had inconsistencies. The figures can be used to aid each side in the issue. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24,1995 (#2 - Old Beach Road - Continued) Pete Holmberg on Cajun Lane in Shorewood, said he tried to have the road closed on which he lives'^ He noted that he has watched cars turn in front of him onto Old Beach Road, when he is going north on CoRd 19, and half the time he beats the car and the other half, he is beaten by 200 yards. Holmberg felt the closure was good as it eliminates two intersections where people pull out. He suggested abandoning the road to produce tax savings. Roger Day of 1205 South Brown Road has used Old Beach Road for years Day said he is opposed to the closing, which he sees as a hindrance He opined that the actual cost ot building the cul-de-sac was not $9,500 but maintenance needed to be factored in as well as time consumption for snow plowings. Day felt all residents should pay for the cul-de- sac, not Just the residents on the road. Day noted that we all would like to live on a dead-end street A resident, who has lived in Orono since 1927, noted that new residents are aware of the roads when they move into the area. It seems to become a problem when they have lived here for a year and then want changes. He asked that these newcomers leave the roads alone. Elmer Martinson of 2799 Pheasant Road said he has never seen a serious accident on Old Beach Road and travels the road 3-4 times a day He views those turning on Old Beach Road allows the speed of the road to slow down He suggested grading the hill back so the residents on Pheasant Road can see to turn out from Pheasant Road. Martinson also asked why the road was closed without a hearing. Callahan said the road was temporarily closed as a result of a Council meeting, whose agenda is posted. Hurt said no vote was taken at that time to permanently close the road. Hurt asked the public if they would have read the notice. Tom Meyers of 90 Tonka Bay Road noted that if a private street was made, it would increase the value of the property on Old Beach Road. If safety is the issue, the money could be spent to make improvements on CoRds 15 and 19. Eldon Freese of 2648 Lydiard Avenue said he walks Old Beach Road. He noted cars do not use the stop sign. He sees cars who wish to turn left at CoRd 19 and Old Beach Road watch the traffic and go out without stopping Freese said he is not for or against the closure. He also noted cars passing on the shoulders. Freese noted the number of accidents at the Navarre intersection and the large amount of cars travelling through the intersection. Freese noted that the left turn arrows helped ease the situation. Freese felt that the intersection of CoRd 15 and 19 was safer than Old Beach Road. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1995 (#2 - Old Beach Road - Continued) Charlie Bookstal of 2607 W. Lafayette Road said he did not feel gross safety violations justified the decision for a cul-de-sac. He felt there should be more ways to solve this problem. Mike Bloom of Minnetonka Beach, and a representative of the LMCD who he says does not support the road closing one way or the other as it is a land issue, but asked if tte road were closed, if Orono was willing to restore wetlands on the CoRd 15 end of Old Beach Road He also asked if the City would consider installing a cul-de-sac on CoRd 15 end instead of the CoRd 19 end due to the marshy land and high hill. Marion Brown, who lives at 2685 Shadv-wood, said that there were no problems on Old Beach Road at 7 15 a m which she walks three times a week. She asked the engineer if the accidents reported correspond to the facts Cook said that the numbers correspond to those presented by Mr. Murray. David Trudell of 2314 Old Beach Road asked what the number of accidents have been since the turn signal was installed at CoRds 15 and 19 and since the road closure in January ofthis year in relation to accidents in 1993 and 1994. Trudell noted that the residential road was designed for residential use. Tnidell said the amount ot tr^c from Old Beach Road onto CoRds 15 and 19 would add 5% more cars and is considered a b rated intersection. Steven Beck of 2795 Shadywood Road, lives near Shadywood and the Narrows Bridge. He stated being able to live near the lake was a trade-off he made with the traflBc in the area. He wonders if the laws were strictly enforced, if this could not be a win-win situation. An unidentified gentleman asked if the number of violations with school buses wwe documented or only hearsay. He noted the abUity to obtain information on vehicles with only partial license numbers and descriptions. Michael TrudeU of 2314 Old Beach Road said there have been three occurrences where he has personaUy almost been hit by a car. He said the cars were gomg so fast he was unable to obtain the license numbers. Nicole Nejechleba of 2526 Kelly Avenue noted her use of Old Beach Road from Co Rds 15 and 19 She said the turn arrow from 15 W to left on CoRd 19 was only 4 secon s long and saw no difference with a turn from Old Beach Road. She said there is a hill on Kelly Avenue too and children are also in danger there. She questioned the special treatment. She did not believe safety was an issue but did feel turns were an issue. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24,1995 (#2 - Old Beach Road - Continued) Mrs. Burgess of2800 Pheasant Road reported seeing Michael Trudell coming out ofhis garage and straight out into the road without stopping and looking. She reported this to Michael ’s father and suggested the children be taught to stop and look. Burgess suggested a shelter be put out for the children by the Sherman property. Bob of 120 West Point Circle in Tonka Bay said he had spoken with G’cnn Cook regarding the mileage for the street as being included in the MSA adotment. He noted that when his own son was in high school, the bus did not turn but stopped tor pick up on CoRd 15 His son was almost hit and the license was obtained and the driver pulled over. He suggested the bus should turn onto Old Beach Road to let children off. He was informed that this was the case Dan Greer of 1980 Spates Drive reported that the volume on his road had been tested His road is narrow and has three roads serving it. He was told by the City that if they were to close hjs road, they would also have to do the same for Old Beach Road He suggested looking at the management plan of the City He said if the road were closed, it should be closed near the lake at CoRd 15 Mayor Callahan closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m Jabbour said the issues needed to be addressed. He personally used Old Beach Road 4-5 times daily and uses CoRd 1 5 and 19, ten times daily. The issue of property values was not a concern. Jabbour said an educated, intelligent decision needed to be made based on focts. Standards are set based on specific parameters within the comprehensive plan. The degree of danger needed to be taken into consideration, and the Council acted to temporary close the road and were within their legal powers to do so. Goetten said she observ ed traffic and turns at the CoRd 15 and 19 intersection and saw the need to make improvements here regardless of the outcome of the Old Beach Road closure She noted the lack of focus by people when driving, i.e., talking on the phone, and the number of speeders. Goetten would like the police to see what improvements they can initiate. Goetten reported that the decision was to temporarily close Old Beach Road and research the issue from there. Kelley reported he was intrigued by the public actions demonstrated this evening. He said he was in favor of closing the road permanently. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1995 (#2 - Old Beach Road - Continued) Callahan said the Council was justified in temporarily closing Old Beach Road. He Mid that the Council does not have the right to instigate improvements on county roads but can onlv give advice when the county is making improvements Callahan recogmzed the large amount of traffic being carried on CoRds 15 and 19 and the safety issues involved. It was noted that Old Beach Road has been closed due to high water in the past, and Callahan said he was well versed on the history of the road. CaUahan said the road was designed as a residential road and is unable to handle the traffic volume. He noted the undersurface conditions with wetlands The issue now is one of safety with the school bus incidents as reported. He also noted the use of the shoulders by cars for passing. Callahan said it was his inclination to leave the road closed but would like more information on the accidents on CoRds 15 and 19 from the Engineer and Police as well as information on the use of longer turn arrows at the intersection Cook reported that the green arrow was very short causing cars to attempt turns on the yellow and red lights Cook felt extending the time for the green arrow would improve the situation. Jerry Smirka of the Hennepin County Public Works, Traffic Operations Section, said he is in charges of signals. He noted that the information on the counters was correct; one did not work and the other could have double counted a portion of the cars Regardless of the counts, it was documented that there is a high volume oftraffic on this residential street Smirka said the City requested the turn signals at CoRd 15 and 19, and the intersection receives a high level of service as a "b" level mteresection. He noted that the information on accidents received from the Public Works Dept was not current. Smirka described the left turn arrows and how they worked at the intersection 15 and 19. The left turn indicators were for westbound and northbound turns. This is similar to other intersections. The time clock instaUed in January of 1995 aUows for 5-6 seconds of green and 8 seconds on CoRd 19 The controlled use operates Monday- Fridav, but not on weekends or from 7 p m.-7 a m. This was set up on a tnal basis and changes can be made to improve the situation by the use of detector loops. A Iwp is used when demand shows the need and is asked for by the City. Smirka described the efficiencies, or lack of, with loops being installed in different directions. It was noted that Council Member Hurr will abstain from the vote on this matter. Hurr was concerned with conflict of interest with her position as Planner for the City of Minnetonka Beach. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1995 (#2 - Old Beach Road - Continued) Kelle>’ moved, Callahan seconded to permanently close Old Beach Road at CoRd 19 interseaion with the residents ftinding the cul-de-sac. Jabbour asked that if the road were closed, the road be classified as a private road giving the maintenance obligation to the residents of the road. Kelley noted that the City had other dead-end roads where this was not done Jabbour asked that the motion be amended that the road be privately maintained. Callahan said that the Council could not ask this ot one particular road but must apply the general policy to others as well. Callahan also noted that it would be up to the Citv of Minnetonka Beach to make the decision about a left turn bypass lane off County Road 15. Callahan noted that the Mayor of Tonka Bay had tvritten a letter of opposition to the closure ot Old Beach Road. Goetten agreed that the left turn lane on Old Beach Road from CoRd 15 was an issue to be decided by Minnetonka Beach. She did feel that the private maintenance ot the road was a valid issue. Goetten was interested in pursuing what improvements could be made to the CoRd 15 and 19 intersection Ayes 2, Kelley and Callahan, Nays 2, Goetten and Jabbour. Jabbour moved, to permanently close Old Beach Rf^ad as Staff recommended due to the safety issues with the cost paid by the residents Ba-rett commented that if Jabbour was interested in pursuing the road as private, a homeowners association must be created on the road to mandate ftjture ownership. Jabbour said the vehicle by which this would be accomplished could be decided by the City and residents. Kelley noted that when developers develop a street and turn over the street to the City, it must be done to City standards. This would also need to be accomplished in reverse, according to Kelley. The City must meet the standards before giving a road up for private ownership. Gerhardson said the road was not up to City standards by design. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to permanently close Old Beach Road with a cul-de- sac for safety reasons provided the Staff and Attorney gain the cooperation of residents to enter into a homeowners agreement with maintenance performed by residents on Old Beach Road. Ayes 2, Goetten and Jabbour; Nays 2, Kelley and Callahan. Kelley moved, Callahan seconded, to table the permanent closing of Old Beach Road to the regular meeting of May 8, 1995 to puisue the avenues available. The road will remain temporarily closed. Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*W) REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 10,1995 Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve tlie Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council of \pril 10, 1995. Ayes 5, Nays 0. I^flNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24,1995 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS No member of the Planning Commission was present PUBLIC COMMENTS TTiere were no public comments. POLICE CHIEF REPORT Chief Sullivan called the Council's attention to Officer Bruce Anderson, who was recently elected as the State Chairman of the MADD Organization. Anderson is currently serving as President of the Hennepin County Chapter and will assume his new duties this summer. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (*#4) 1995 JOINT USE DOCK UCENSE - FOXHILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - RESOLUTION #3551 Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3551 granting a 1995 Joint Use Dock License to Foxhill Homeowners Association. Ayes 5, Nays 0, MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Callahan expressed his gratitude to the police department for the receipt of the Police Officer Continuing Education Grant from the Long Lake State Bank. Jabbour asked Moorse to send a letter of recognition to Mr. Keaveny for his years of community contribution from his ownership of a local drug store. Hurr encouraged Council members to attend the annual Police Department Appreciation Dinner on April 29, which is being held at the Minnetonka Mist. Kelley commented on the agenda item #12, which updates the Council on the First Quarter Expenditures. Kelley said it makes good sense to establish where expenditures are in relation to the budget early on in the year. Kelley recognized the Finance Staff for an excellent report. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24,1995 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Callahan brought to the Council's attention a letter from Janet McMillan regarding the Melamed development’s use of the French Lake Preserve name Hurr commented that the term "preserve" is a term other developers have used Moorse opined that the name would be used less once the development has occurred. PUBLIC HEARING (#5) APPLICATION FOR GRANT TO ASSIST IN PURCHASE OF LAND FOR PARK AND OPEN SPACE USE IN SAGA HILL AREA 9:30-10:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication was noted. Moorse reported that the proposal of the Saga Hill Preservation Committee is to aceptire 11 acres of open space, which is located adjacent to the 9 acre parcel being acquired through ta-x forfeiture by the City of Orono The Committee is asking the City to sponsor a grant application through the DNR to fund 1/2 of the project. The remaining money needed is to be be raised through private funding. The two key questions are 1 )should the land involved in the application be preserved as open space/park land*, and 2)will the Saga Hill group and Minnesota Land Trust be successful in raising the $100,000 required to match the grant amount The application has to be made by the City by May 1. Irene Silber asked that the City consider Saga Hill area as a priority for open space stating that the land is the largest remaining parcel in an urban setting serving a hi^- density area. Callahan questioned whether the land would serve the neighborhood only and whether it would draw people from other areas Kelley asked the Park Commission for their opinion. The members of the Park Commission voted in favor of the grant application but told the group not to depend on any park funding. Lisa Kuegler of the Minnesota Land Trust reported that the grant's intention was for an annual funding; but at this time, no money has been appropriated for 1996. This is the first year of the program. Kuegler reported receiving a favorable indication of the approval of the application if made. Renay Leone, Executive Director of the Minnesota Land Trust, said they are a non-profit organization, whose intent is to preserve open space in Minnesota. They have successfully acquired 20,000 acres and are privately funded through memberships and foundation grants, such as the McKnight Foundation. All acquisitions are subject to board review. Park Commissioner Susan Wilson is a new board member of the Minnesota Land Trust. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITV' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1995 (#5 - Saga Hill - Continued) Jabbour asked if all the money raised would be used for the purchase and not for administrative costs. He received a reply to the affirmative Kelley asked if the land could be purchased for $200,000. Kuegler said that no fixed price has been determined but all indications show that the bank owning the property would seU for that price or less Steve Valek, a neighbor whose property is adjacent to the land in question, said he was concerned with the possibility of a high-density park area. It was his opinion that the land was currently listed with a realty company at a higher cost. He received confirmation that most in attendance did not reside near the park as he does. Valek said the group has advertised the park, and he has seen his property advertised as a thru-way to the Luce Line trail. Callahan clarified that as part of the 9-acre tax forfeiture land agreement, Valek had agreed to a right-of-way contiguous to the park. Callahan said that if the land is acquired, the Park Commission would determine the use, w hether high or low density Callahan also noted that the concern at this meeting was only for the grant application. Kuegler responded that the 11 acres, owned by Midway Bank, was not listed and had no broker. Their purpose was to put the land into public use. Jabbour noted that once the grant application was made by the City, matching funds needed to be raised by the Saga Hill group. If this was not accomplished, the grant would not be given. Active fund raising is being pursued now, and the grant will be awarded in September of 1995. Callahan was concerned that if not all the funding was raised and the grant was lost, what would become of the funds raised. Kathryn Caswick, historian and fund raiser, told that the group had targeted three prospects for the funds, who are mainly large foundations. Hurt warned about obtaining a grant with "strings" attached by those contributing the funds. Goetten was concerned with the land staying natural. Patty Affelt responded that it was their intent for the land to remain untouched. Callahan said the type of park use or development would be subject to determinations by future councils. Kelley said he believed in open space and the use of park dedication fees to acquire such fand. He also said that this funding mechanism will run out at some point. Also, as the City continues to develop, there will, at some point, be no land available to purchase as park land, and development could happen. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITT’ COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1995 (#5 - Saga Hill - Continued) Jabbour said he also believed in open space and obtaining land where available. He reiterated that the City has contributed financially by taking both the 9-acre tax forfeiture parcel and the 11-acre parcels off the tax rolls. Jabbour also noted that there are many different visions of what parks should be; and future neighbors and councils may have views different from those of the current council. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to lend the City’s sponsorship to the Saga Hill Preservation Committee to assist in obtaining the grant and authorized the Staff to proceed with the grant application. Ayes 5. Nays 0. ENGINEER REPORT Cook had no report at this time CITY ADMINISTRATOR S REPORT (#6) PRESENTATION BY WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT - COMMUNITY CENTER SURVEY Bert Haglund of TSP/EOS Architecture and Patsy Kiesow of the Westonka School District Task Force were present to obtain an indication of support from the Council to conduct a community study for a possible new community center. Council had received a letter from Michael Looby, Director of Community Education and Personnel Services for the Westonka Public School, regarding the proposed study. A 1993 school referendum had $1.9 million set aside for improvements to the community building to include fire safety, accessibility, and major maintenance. A community task force found this was not the wisest use of the funds and recommended replacement of the e.xisting building with a modem facility. The monies set aside would be used as a partid funding and the remaining funds would need to be gathered. The board agreed to this if interest was shown by the public and community. At this time, the task force is at the step of determining community interest. The Cities of Spring Park, Minnestrista, and Mound have given their support of the survey and also to assist in the funding. Independence was supportive of the survey but did not commit to any fund contribution. Haglund asked the Council for their support in surveying the residents of Orono. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY’ COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24,1995 (#6 - Wcstonka School District Presentation - Continued) Callahan noted that it was his understanding that the City of Spring Park’s contribution was contingent on obtaining tunding froin the City of Orono. Callahan also clarified that the money set aside from the referendum was to be used as seed money to obtain more funding for the project Haglund was asked what the taxpayers thought about this idea Haglund and Kiesow replied that this is the reason for the survey to find out how the taxpayers in the school district felt about a ■. ' mmunity center building. Goetten voiced her concern that the voters had approved monies for an improvement to be made, not for a referendum to get what monc>’ is needed. Haglund said that if no support is shown for the concept, the school board will not attempt another referendum for a new building. No cost figures have been done for the new building as yet. It is in the conceptual planning stage at this time. Goetten was informed that the survey itself would cost $6,000 and will be conducted by Decision Resources Hurr moved, Jabbour seconded, to give support for the surveying of the school district. Ayes 3, Nays 2, Callahan, Goetten, stating the referendum money was for improvements only. (*#7) HILLSIDE PLACE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to table item #7 at the appUcant's request. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#8) KELLY AVENUE DRAINAGE Gerhardson reported that the Staff recommended the option for a lift station for Kelly Avenue due to cost savings. In meeting with residents, Gerhardson found that the residents favored raising the road only and did not wish for a project which would result in assessments to their property. Moorse commented that if the Council favored a project requiring assessments, a scheduled assessment hearing would be conducted to gain input from the affected residents. Callahan asked if any other improvements would be made other than the lift station. Gerhardson said the City will go ahead with the sanitary sewer repair. The road would also be raised one foot only because of wetland mitigation. It was reported that the City would save as much as $30,000 by having city crews complete the work rather than private comractors. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24,1995 (#8 - Kelly Avenue Drainage - Continued) Jabbour asked if the City raised the road only as requested by the residents, if money would be wasted. Gerhardson said no, noting that soil borings have been completed, and the City is aware of what work needs to be done. KeUey asked what permits were needed since the storm sewer water is being pumped into Carmen Cove. Cook said Watershed and DNR permits are required. Kelley asked about a possible need for dredging in the future if sediment is pumped into the cove Cook said that with the lift station, only the top water is taken off of the pond. This is considered a better environmental option. Kelley suggested raising the road one foot now and seeing down the road what effect has been made. Jabbour asked why the road will not be raised two feet. Gerhardson said the lift station would accomplish the same as raising the road two feet. Jabbour felt the land should be found to mitigate and raise the road two feet. Jabbour said if the residents did not want the lift station in order to sav e from being assessed, the option of raising the road two feet should be explored Callahan asked if by raising the road to two feet, the road would be widened. Gerhardson said the slope would go back further towards the resident’s property Hurr asked what the point is in going to an assessment hearing when the residents have already voiced that they did not wish for a project requiring asessments. Bill Stoddard of 2605 Kelly Avenue said the residents were not unanimous regarding raising of the road, and assessments would affect residents differently. Stoddard s desire is to see improvements made as soon as possible which alleviate the flooding of the road. Stoddard recently developed a pond on his property which has aided in alleviating the flooding but has not eliminated it. He suggested a possible curb on the road. Gerhardson said this would not aid the flooding situation. Nicole Ncjechleba of 2526 Kelly Avenue asked that the road be raised. It was her opinion that the pond on her property would not be flooded if the road was raised one foot. The Council discussed whether more public information and opinion was needed before proceeding with the project Hurr was in favor of gaining more input from the public. Jabbour felt it was time to act as this project has been under consideration for many years without any improvements made. Callahan clarified the costs involved in a lift station. The total cost of $56,000 would be paid with $11,000 by the City and $45,800 by assessment if this option was chosen. The street construction and sanitary sewer would be paid by the City. Jabbour moved, KeUey seconded, to proceed to repair the sanitary sewer and ^ked Staff to present cost estimates for the feasibility of raising the road two feet and notifying residents of the meeting to discuss a posssible assessment. Kelley asked Staff to report back to Council on possible mitigation of the two feet. Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24,1995 (#9) HIGHW AY 12 SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - RESOLUTIONS #J552 AND 3553 Callahan said the Council needed to make a decision on whether to spend $300,000 for the installation of the signal at Willow Drive and Highway 12 The contract calls for an amount of $275,000. The difference in the cost amount is for a postponed payment for construrtion of k pond north of Hwy 12. Cook commented that there was no statement in the agreement on the postponed payment of the pond, though, the issue may come up at a later date The Council was given information on the MSA cash flow balance. Barrett referred to the contract utilities relocation on pages 8 and 9 of the agreement. Barrett said he was satisified with the wording. Callahan moved, Kelley seconded, lo adopt Resolution M553 approving the Highway 12 traffic signal agreement and Resolution #3552 approving cooperanve agreement, auihoriang the Mayor to sign the agreements Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hurr asked for cost clarification Long Lake’s share ofthe cost is about $30,000, which is l0*Jo ofthe cost, while Orono is responsible for 40%. The storm sewer cost is $135,050, $30,404 for the signal for a total of $165,453.58. The improvements to Willow Drive will be $100,000. Kelley asked to receive a diagram of what the intersection will look like at Willow Road and to the north. Barrett noted that the agreement stipulated that change orders may be recommended and may include City participation in the cost. The agreement said that the appropriate officials would be notified of any changes. Cook expressed appreciation to Mayor Callahan for his work on the agreement. Cook reported that Callahan is credited with having saved the City approximately $60-70,000 in negotiated costs. Jabbour commented on the need to explain to the City of Long Lake why the Orono section ofthe sidewalk is not being done. Long Lake is to pay 10% ofthe cost and Orono's share would have been 40%. The estimated cost of $13,000 needs to be recalculated. Long Lake’s figure of $1,600 for the cost is in error. The Council had decided that funds were not available to construct the sidewalk. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITV COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24,1995 («in) srHFnui.F PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING REGARDING COUNTY ROAD 15 A public information meeting was scheduled for the Council meeting of May 22 to review the reconstruction plans for the east end and the Bracketts Point section of County Road 15. (•#11) FEE SCHEDULE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE #135, 2ND SERIES Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt the Ordinance #135, 2nd Scries, an ordinance amending the fee schedule to reflect the increase in building permit fees Ayes 5. Nays 0. (•#12) nRST QUARTER EXPENDITURES Council received a repon on the 1995 First Quarter Revenue and Expenditures. No Council action was required. Note Kelley’s comments under the Mayor/Council report. (•#13) BOARD OF REVIEW APRIL 26,1995 (INFORMATION ONLY) The Council was apprised of the Board of Review on April 26, 1995. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Tom Barrett requested adjournment to Executive Session at 11.05 p.m. (•#14) LICENSES Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the following licenses: Ayes 5, Nays 0, Special Event Permit:Gear West Ski and Bike Sunday, June 4, 8:00 a.m.-Noon Duathlon (bike ride and foot race) Septic System Installer License: Don ’s Backhoe & Excavating, Inc. Cologne, MN Site Evaluator/Designer License: Don ’s Backhoe & Excavating, Inc. Cologne, MN (•#15) BILLS Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 5. Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1995 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session at 11 05 p m Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk . ‘V A Ay MLNUTES OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING S 4^ HELD APRIL 26,1995 Ha ------------------------------------------------------%t ROLL The Orono Board of Review met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Edward J Callahan, Jr , Councilmembers J Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour, Charles Kelley and JoEllen Hurr. The foUowing represented Cit\- staff; City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Assessors Rolf Erickson, Dave Wilde, Gail Navratil, Lisa Mott, Tom Haller, Tom Carrol, Hennepin County Senior Appraiser Tom Scherer and Recorder Lin Vee. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Callahan at 7:06 p.m. Mayor Callahan explained that the Board would be reviewing tax values as of January, 1995 for the 1996 taxes Rolf Erickson is retained by contract with the City to do Orono’s assessing. Mayor Callahan stated the powers of the Board are limited, noting the reductions in assessments when added together cannot exceed 1% of the total valuation for the City. Hennepin County approves the recommendations of Orono's Board of Review and appeals are made to the County Board if a property owner is not satisfied with Orono's recommendation. The City Assessor will review appeals by property owners and forward recommendations to Orono's Board of Review. The City is divided into four quadrants with one quadrant being physically appraised each year. Erickson explained that the law does not require valuation notices to include a message to contact an assessor before the Board of Review. Hennepin County has had an overwhelming number of appeals and found it helpful to have some of these appeals and questions addressed by the assessor prior to the Board of Review He also apologized for the late deUvery of the notices due to problems at the post office. Erickson continued with an explanation of the valuation process. The City has much data gathered on each house in the City maintained in the Hennepin County mainframe computer Assessments are compared to homes that have actually sold and an assessment ratio is applied. The median assessment ratio of all sales in the Cit>' must be at 93% for Hennepin County. Increases ranged from 2-25%. Mayor Callahan noted that in order to appeal the property valuation it is necessary lo appear before the Board or submit a written appeal to preserve the right to appeal to the County Board He stated that those propeicv v-v^ners who were present and did not want to actuaUy appear before ihe Board but have the a; review their property could leave their name and property identification number with the assessors and they would be contacted to set up appointment^. Erickson asked for Board approval to physically review only those properties that had not already been seen this year. Mayor Callahan asked that those owners be contacted and the position of the assessor be explained. Erickson noted that prior to the Reconvened Board of Review a recommendation letter is sent to each property owner who has appealed stating what the assessor's recommendation will be. The Board may or may not accept those recommendations. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING HELD APRIL 26, 1995 Mayor Callahan explained that appeals would be heard in the order in which they signed in upon arriving He asked that each property owner state his name, address of property, property identification number, value on the 1995 Notice of Valuation and the value the owner feels appropriate Clifford Otten. 22^] Pine Rido^ l ane, ^34-118-23 22 0017_ - 1995 valuation of $123,000 which he feels is worth SI 10,000 - SI 15.000 He explained that his property was in a unique situation because it is a rental property in a nice neighborhood and is probably not kept up as well ..j others. It rents for S900 per month. Non-homestead taxes were S3283 before the increase. Finrpnee Hacbero 740 North Arm Drive. #06-117-23 43 0006 - 1995 valuation is S211,000 with a limited value of S202 400 She has lived at this concrete and stucco home for 45 years. Over the last two vears the increase has been 22.9%. The lakeshore is not sandy but mud. She feels the taxes are too high and the absolute highest value it should be is S184.000. Her son noted the 1994 valuation was $170,000 making an increase of $32,000 in two years. Erickson explained how the limited market value works with 10% applied. In this case, taxes are based on $202 400 for the pay 1996 taxes. Taxes payable in 1996 will be based on $202,400 regardless if the value is lowered to anything above $202,400. If it were lowered below the $202,400, both the limited and market values would change for taxes payable in 1996. Legislation may make changes for next year. Uric nmithit. 300 Rrnwn Road #03-117-23 13 0002 - Estimated market value is $185,000 with a limited value of $ 151, 700. He was unable to give an estimate as to its value. He found it difficult to find any comparables but found a range of similar homes from $120,000 - $200,000.. He has lived in the home for 30 years. There has been an increase of $50,000 from the previous yw with no improvements to the property in the last 60 years other than general maintenance. They would not move from the property unless forced to do so because of taxation. He thought the real estate may be worth more than the structure and is over-valued. Steve Wilson. 94R S North Shore Drive. #09-117-23 44 0001 - Proposed valuation is $605,000 and he feels it is worth about $500,000. The estimated market value has increased 45% over the last 3 years with 17.5% this year. The assessor indicated the closest comparable waj the Mitchell home in his area. The lots are about the same size but 1/3 of Wilson's is wetlands. The Mitchells have made major improvements where he has not The home was built in 1900 of field stone as a summer house. 1/3 of it is not insulated with no air conditioning. He did not feel square footage values could be applied in the same manner to his home as others. n^R.IP. Q7n Rnnlpvard. #35-118-23 41 0004 - Bought for $155,000 about 3 years ago. Last yearns tax value was at $146,000 with this year's at $165,900. He questioned why it would jump $20,000 in one year. Since it is a ranch home there are very few homes for comparables. In loo ng at a refinance last year, it was appraised at $155,000. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF REMEW MEETING HELD APRIL 26, 1995 Tf»rrv Kelly 440*^ Rav>;ide RoaH i^Q6-l 17-23 21 21 0004 - 1995 market value is $72,000 and went up to $81,500 and he thinks this is too high The house is over 100 years old. They just took out a S9 000 loan for a new septic system to bring it up to code. He feels that it is across the road from homes that sell for $250,000 which is why it is valued so high $75,000 would be a fair value for this 2 acre lot. r.r>» r,.r.rd. 2610 M.nl^ridae Lane. »21-I17.23 21 QPQg - 1995 valuation « 1299 He distributed some information he had prepared He calculated the property at a value of S266 000 based on the purchase price of the home (S250.CO 2 years ago), detenoration, rate of .nflat.on (3 /.) market value and comparables of homes nearbv. limited value of probity, limited shoreline and encroachments (neighbor has an easement) on the property In '992 "he . which was reduced to S28I.OOO after his appeal to the County He appealed to the Opr m 1993 and the property was reduced to S250.000 The value for 1994 was $269,000 to which he sent a letter to L City but he was unable to appear at the meeting There has been a 20% increase m two years The home of 1700 s f was built in 1979 but there is major detenoration m the home which was covered up by the previous owner. There is 2 bedrooms with 1 '/r baths The property is very close to the lot lines and hardcover limits. The neighbor is claiming npanan nghts to hs shoreline and he has talked to the DNR about this A home in Minnetonka Beach wmh 120 of shoreline and a better view sold for $200,000. That home is separated from the Lake by County Road 15. He feels his home is actually worth less than the purchase price of $250,000 because of the structural problems he has found. thcldon. 322S Ravside Road. W5-117-23 41,0012 - '995 esdmated value was $353^00 and she feels U is worth someplace between $304,000 ind $330,000 because th^ have looked at similar houses In the last two years there has been a $30,000 increase. They tave foui^ neighboring properties have not gone up as much as theirs The 1994 value was at $342,0W m 1993 value was $320,300. There have been no improvements m the 9 years they owned the property. 1273 knnih Rrown Road 410-117-23 31 0065 - 1994 limited market value was $90,000 but the tax capacity rate caused a 16.7% increase. He questioned why the tax capacity w« TOt stated on the valuation card Mayor Callahan stated that information w« not avatlable at the time the cards are sent out because budgets are determined at a later date. The 199^ vdue is , _ When he called the Assessor’s office, Dave told him it was because of the and 9^". not think a $9,000 increase was reasonable. He felt a reasonable value would be $92,500 We lot is OO’ X 140' with the home built in 1953. Erickson explained that because land costs more inOrono since there are few subdivisions, that is what caused the increase in value. There is a shortage ot smaller, less expensive homes The $9,400 increase did include consideration of the house. The land is valued at $26,900. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING HELD APRIL 26, 1995 Ron Timm. 4496 North Shore Drive, #07-117-23 31 0008 - 1995 estimated market value is at $269,000 with a limited value of $250,800 The 1994 value was $228,000. He has done nothing to increase the value of the property. It is close to the Channel and 19 He feels the house to the east has a deleterious effect as it is a $60,000 house that is virtually uninhabitable. It is decreasing the value of his property since it is a rental house used by snowmobilers, etc. and he rents out five boat slips in the summer. People are coming and going at all hours. He would like to have the Assessor out to discuss the situation in the neighborhood. He felt the property may be worth $225,000. Paul E Tavior. 3883 Chenv Avenue. #08-117-23 33 0087 - 1995 value is $134,400 which is a 12% increase over the previous year It would be fair to raise the value at the rate of inflation at 4% making it worth $123,000. Comparable appraisals are at $103,000 and $91,500 for homes that have sold recently Rav Hoffman- 1000 Tonkawa Road. <<08-117-23 12 0005 - 1995 valuation is $367,000 which is an increase of $52,400 or 16 7“/• $285,000 would be a reasonable valuation based on comparable sales next door. He would c. '"*f'5r his home a tear-down. He has 1.7 acres Houses in the same neighborhood that sold have either been tom down or moved out and none were over $300,000. His home was built in I?-.'’- and could not be moved because it is made of rock. He felt that since interest rates went do *»«x th** * ■^is'.'es did not continue to rise. He was sent a worksheet as to how the value was arrived at for hi ‘me but it was difficult to understand. Jim Gambone 1360 North Arm Drive. #07-117-23 41 0085 - 1995 estimated market value is $180,000 and the 1994 value was at $164,000. There were no improvements in the last year. He was told by the Assessor’s office that the land was a key element. He commented on the term "mass appraisal" He asked if every house in the City went up a minimum of 8% since there is less land available and values are going up. Mayor Callahan commented that the Assessor had stated that some went up as little as 2% while others may have gone up 25%. Gambone asked if it was public information to see what percentage each house was increased. Erickson responded that until the County Board accepts the assessment the information is not public and there is additional confidential information in the property files. Gambone asked if the City could ask Hennepin County to give them a list of all the property increases from 1994 to 1995. Mayor Callahan reminded Gambone that the issue before the Board is th^ value of his property, not general information which should be discussed at another time. Gambone asked if the contract between the Assessor and the City was public information Mayor Callahan responded that it was and could be reviewed with the City Administrator. He felt the value should be established at the rate of inflation w hich was 3% or $167,000. He objected to paying a greater share of the tax assessment than other properties and felt it should be distributed evenly. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING HELD APRIL 26, 1995 rhri.pnH Gail BoHU Stubbs Rav Road North. #32-118-23 42 0003 - 1995 limited market value is at $349,300 with the estimated market value at $350,400 on 20 acres of land. The value has gone up $218 000 in two years He based his objection on the shadow of the proposed freeway across his land taking approximately Va of it. He compared his property to neighboring land. A 16-acre parcel with no house was valued at $62,000 in 1994 when his was valued at $274,000 for land only. That calculates out to $13,700 per acre while the neighbor's property would be at $3,931 per acre. A 20- acre parcel across the road with a house on it was valued at $298,000 for the building and $151,500 for the land or $7,500 per acre A 62-acre parcel was valued at $361,900 or $5,700 per acre. He felt the land had similar characteristics in all cases and all had the shadow of the freeway on the property The property across the street was 5 acre zoning while the other properties were 2 acre zoning The 20 acres w as bought in 1989 and he did not know of the southern route that could bisect his propertv Erickson thought that the appraiser who did that particular property may have found some other'influencing factors Bollis paid $400,000 for the 20 acres in 1989. He felt the potential freeway lowered the value of his property Three years ago the property was valued at $130,000 and he should have been in last year to appeal the valuation. He thought the 62-acre parcel may be in litigation because the seller did not disclose the potential freeway route. He objected to paying more taxes than similar properties and wanted to be treated equally. n.n. 3287 Casco Circle #20-117-23 43 0044 - 1995 estimated market value was $107 000 and the limited value was $106,700; 1994 value was at $97,000. An adjustment was given 2 years ago and he objects to the inconsistency of appraisals - one year there’s a 2% increase and then 18% the next. The property is worth $100,000 by the inflationary level There is noJakeshore and they are surrounded by homes on the water who only got a 2% increase while they had a lO/o increase. T,ilipH;irren 175 Landmark Drive #05-117-23 22 0011 - 1995 market value is $319 000 and 1994 value was $305,000. Her neighborhood is a mixed neighborhood. The new house adjacent to their property of about the same is assessed at $300,000 but they have a panoramic view of Stubbs Bay. Their home is 6 years old and she feels their home should be valued less than the neighbors since they have only 2% acres and the neighbors have almost 4 acres, they don't have a view of the l^e and the houses are about the same size. She feels her property is worth anything less to the neighbors - $299,000 or less. She had pictures to show the Board of her property. She t^ed vn the Assessor who told her it didn't' matter how many acres you had if you only hjd one budding site, how old the home was or if there were lake views. This does not seem fair to her. She no e y are not in an executive neighborhood and have a rental property next door. They bought thert lot for $120,000 while the neighbonng lot sold for $170,000. Erickson clanfied that a comparable is a property that has sold recently, not what another property is valued at^ H^en asked that t e Assessor look at the home on Watertown Road and Old Crystal Bay Road that was listed $295,000 with 2.8 acres as a comparable assuming that it sold for less than it was Usted tor. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING HELD APRIL 26,1995 Frank and Susan Koubslcv. 4784 North Shore Drive. #07-117-23 32.0012 - 1995 valuation was $94,000. They have been in the house about a year and paid $92,500 because of a bidding war. Previous owners had contested the 1994 valuation and it was reduced to $85,200, This is a small two-bedroom home with a very steep driveway. There is little that could be done to correct the driveway. They feel it is worth $89,000. rhri^ and Gary Valpri.K 1750 Bavside Road. i^05-l 17-23 21 0020 - 1995 valuation was $248,300 and the 1994 valuation was $209,000 which is an increase of $39,300. The house was buUt m 1977 and no improvements have been made except a new garage was added last year for $8,000. They feel the house was poorly built and needs a new roof, new windows, siding and doors The lot ;s 50% wetlands and the lakeshore is a wetland. The house was appraised in January for possible refinancing at $212,000 They feel the valuation should be at $212,000 - $215,000. Their lakeshore is a separate parcel that went up in value from $1,100 to $2,000. Phil Rvers. 3083 Farvlpw l^e. #04-117-23 33 0005 - 1995 estimated market value of $410,700 and a reasonable number would be $385,700 Dave at the Assessor’s office cited two comparables - 3090 Faiview Lane sold in 1993 for $457,500 which is newer with a finished basement, paved drive and septic system that is in compliance, and 1895 Fox Ridge Road sold for $459,000 in P94 but he could not find the property. Byers based his figures on the property at 2920 Fox Street that h^ a value of $136,000 for next year which is up 1%. That is a 7-acre property, 1/3 of which is unbuUdable so he took 4 69 acres with 90% of the value in land that works out to about $19,000 per acre. His second argument is that the unfunded septic mandate should be subtracted from the 1995 estimated value as well as the replacement of his driveway and the adjusted land value. r.rl T Johnson, 3105 North Shore Drive. #09-117-23 32_QQ16 - 1995 market value is at $527,000 and the 1994 value was at $454,000. This is an increase of $73,000 which seems exorbitant. He lus sent a letter to the City offices. He wanted to add that an appropriate value for his home would be $480,000 which was an appraisal value from last November when the home was refinanced. T inH. rnmminas 1165 Brown Road South. #10-117-23 24 002Q - 1995 market value was $127 800 and the limited value is at $123,200. The value was at $112,100 m 1994. The home was built in 1900 and is aaoss from the railroad tracks. When 'he purchased the home 4% years ago, the value was at $86 100 She paid $113,000 because there was little choice. There has,been a progressive 10% increase every year since she bought the house. She doesn’t feel property values have actually increased at that rate. The taxes have increased 100%. Fnopnp nark Jr 1Q55 Heritage Drive #10-117-23 13 0014 - Asked to have his appearance recorded to preserve right to further appeal (to County). MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING HELD APRIL 26, 1995 Mark Finney. 4IQS Hiohwood Road. #07-117-23 44 0022 - The value in 1993 was $165,000, in 1994 it was $190,000 and in 1995 it is $231,000 Since the house is over 70 years old, he has applied for the "Old Homestead Tax" and Gail, one of the assessors, explained what a good deal he has He has more than doubled the size of his home with an addition and new basement. Since it is 25% complete, $21,000 has been added to the value The building permit was taken out in 1991 for $92,000 for the addition. He is trying to slow down the increase of value since he does not feel he win be able to stay there if the valuation is too high when the addition is completed. He feels a fair value would be $200,000 Erickson explained that they have to put a value on the increase for the addition even though it is not separate from the old house. The law also limits the increase in size of the home to 50% for a credit. For 10 years the amount of the improvement on the property is subtracted from the value of the complete house. For the next 5 years, 20% of the improvement is added back into the taxes riair Rood. 32SO Navarre Lane 17-117-23 44 0105 - 1995 value is about $440,000. This is a new spec home that he has been unable to seU. It is a 2500 s.f rambler with poor properties around it. He is concerned about the non-homestead tax for the next year. He paid $17,500 for the lot. It was on the market for $475,000. Tames Olson. 4360 Ravside Road. #06-117-23 12 0001 - 1995 value was $162,800 and the 1994 value was $150,000 He has owned the property for 9 years and the estimated market value has increased 38% in that time He has 3.6 acres and the surrounding area is a 5 acre zoning district. Two years ago they refinanced and the appraised value was $147,000. He feels $158,000 would be more fair. He noted neighboring properties were not selling. He tried selling about 5 years ago and was unable to sell. Mayor Callahan commented that the valuations were too high and disagreed with the mass appraisal approach Erickson responded that in Orono they have been trying to identify the properties that are not in line with the ratios. This year the properties in the $200,000 - $400,000 range were a problem because they were lower in assessment ratios than the more expensive or cheaper properties. He has been trying to keep the cheaper houses from going up 8% because they are closer to the market value already. The County does a random check on sales of properties and then checks the whole property type If they are not in compliance, the County will raise the whole property type. Mayor Callahan did not feel houses going up $50,000 - $60,000 in one year was realistic. Jabbour felt that if the assessed values were pushed up, sales will also increase. Erickson added that m the County s market stratification, tH*- mean for homes under $100,000 is 100%, $100,C00-$200,M0 « o, $200 000 -$300,000 is 92%, $300,000-$400,000 is 95%, $400,000-$500,000 is 93% and $500,000 is*^9l’% Erickson stated that in two lakeshore sales that have occurred since the new assessment, one sold for less than the market value and one sold for 1% over - nothing else has sold for less than the Assessor's market value. r MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING HELD APRIL 26,1995 The Reconvened Board of Review wiU meet on May 11, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. as the Board must meet within 20 calendar days. Written Appeals Submitted: Clark Winslow, 1595 Bohn ’s Point Road, #08-117-23 44 0015 Clark Winslow, 1625 Bohn's Point Road, #17-117-23 11 0003 C. L Johnson, 2024 Shadywood Road, #17-117-23 31 0011 Charles Hulse, 95 Femdale Green, #36-118-23 44 0010 William H. Nicholls, 2700 Shadywood Road, #21-117-23 24 0031 Nlaryanne Ebert, 1680 Norih Farm Road, #27-118-23 44 0010 Willard C, Shull, 1125 Spring Hill Road, #26-118-23 43 0004 Dennis G. Esterly, 4765 Watertown Road, #31-118-23 22 0002 Julian Hook, 2650 Kelly Avenue, #20-117-23 14 0005 Henk Boon, Jr., 4045 Bayside Road, #06-117-23 14 0022 Susanne & John Koob, 3065 Jamestown Road, #28-118-23 33 0008 Darrell & Judy Plucker, 2640 Fox Street, #04-117-23 42 0008 Ward E. Edwards, 2474 Carman Street, #20-117-23 12 0027 Betty Hartnett, 4201 North Shore Drive, #07-117-23 43 0007 Carol G. Callahan, 2545 North Shore Drive, #09-117-23 41 0003 Christopher & Claudia Engeler, 790 North Arm Drive, #06-117-23 44 0001 Residents Who Did Not Appear Before Council But Requested Property Review: Harriet Morgart, 1003 Wildhurst Trail, #07-117-23 21 0016 Paul Vitko, 80 Cygnet Place, #04-117-23 22 0017 Stephanie Yule, 3477 Crystal Place, #17-117-23 43 0010 Frank & Kathy St. Lawrence, 253 Cygnet Place, #04-117-23 23 0012 Dean Greimann, 3779 Casco Avenue, #20-11723 31 0066 Jeanne Cashmore, 2075 Webber Hills Road, #03-117-23 34 0025 Tom Walters, 625 Deborah Drive, #31-118-23 23 0003 Charles Affias, 1404 Baldur Park Road, #08-117-23 34 0018 Charles Schroeder, 1925 West Farm Road, #27-118-23 43 0014 Shirley Rezabek, 4185 Bayside Road, #06-117-23 14 0012 * Ed Garlock, 1179 Elmwood Avenue, #07-117-23 14 0030 Aime Bendt, 1120 Tonkawa Road, #08-117-23 13 0009 David N. Stubbs, 3965 Watertown Road, #32-118-23 32 0003 Don James, 140 Leaf Street, #04-117-23 22 0006 David L. Verville, 4209 North Shore Drive, #07-117-23 43 0005 Kirt Woodhouse, 2625 North Shore Drive, #07-117-23 42 0003 Gedney Tuttle, 1225 Shoreline Drive, #02-117-23 34 0002 8 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING HELD APRIL 26, 1995 Residents Who Did Nol Appear Before Council But Requested Property Review (continued): Larry Grabill, 1350 Rest Point Lane, «07-l 17-23 32 0039 James Olson, 4360 Bavside Road, #06-117-23 12 0001 Pat Walsh, 1396 Rest Point Rd, #07-117-23 33 0005 Richard Edwards, 2480 Carman Street, #20-117-23 12 0028 ADJOURNMENT The Board of Review adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CfTy Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed: ‘’V DATE: April 27, 1995 W ITEM NO.: {T Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: <(^1298 Richard J. Johnson and Gordon Nelson, Vacation of Final Segments of Forest Boulevard - Resolutions List of Exhibits A - Council Minutes of March 27, 1995 B - Legal Notice of Public Hearing for Vacation - April 17, 1995 C - Gordon Nelson Letter of April 17, 1995 Confirming Satisfaction with Legal Preparation by City Attorney D - Staff Letter to Nelson - April 27, 1995 E - Utility and Access Easement Granted in Favor of City p - Easement Agreement Drafted in Favor of Gordon and Barbara Nelson Brief Review of Application A third public hearing was held on April 17, 1995 for the vacation of the final segments of Forest Boulevard. Review Exhibit C, Mr. Nelson has submitted a letter affirmmg his satisfaction with the legal preparation by the City Attorney’s office for obtaining a prescnptive easement. Review Exhibits E and F, Mr. Johnson’s law firm has provided easements in favor of both the City of Orono and Gordon and Barbara Nelson. The City Attorney’s office has reviewed the utility easement to be granted to the City and the easement agreement in favor of the Nelson property and found them to be satisfactory. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson have executed both the agreement and easement to the City. Mr. and Mrs. Nelson have reviewed the agreement and have completed the execution of the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: If Council feels that all conditions of the March 27th directive have been satisfied, they may proceed with formal action on the two vacation resolutions prepared by staff. A RESOLUTION VACATING AN UNUSED PORTION OF FOREST BOULEVARD WITHIN THE PLAT OF SAGA HILL REVISED, SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 117, RANGE 23, IN THE CITY OF ORONO, HENNTIPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 1298 WTIEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Richard J. Johnson and Katherine A. Johnson, husband and wife, of 1304 Elmwood Avenue, filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of a portion of Forest Boulevard originally dedicated in the plat of Saga Hill Revised legally described as follows: That part of vacated Forest Boulevard as dedicated in the plat of "Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Co. Minn." which lies between the extensions across it of the northerly line of Lot 1, Block 6, "Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Co., Minn." and the northwesterly extension of the southwesterly line of Lot 2, said Block 6; and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, public hearings were held before the Citv ’s Planning Commission on June 20, 1988, March 15, 1993 and April regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested vacation and the City Council of the City of Orono fm^ that said vacation as proposed, is in keeping with the public interest and in consideration of the following findings: 1.The vacation does not affect the access or the use of adjoining properties. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve, or use the dedicated right-of-way of Forest Boulevard for road purposes nor any other public purpose. 3.The City has not and does not intend to maintain or install utilities within the dedicated right-of-way of Forest Boulevard. Page 1 of 2 4.Major portions of the dedicated right-of-way of Forest Boulevard are located below the 929.4 elevation of Lake Minnetonka. 5. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of Richard J. Johnson and Katherine A. Johnson is hereby granted by the Council of the City of Orono and that the portion of Forest Boulevard legally described above is hereby vacated. Granting of the petition is subject to the condition that upon vacation, applicant must combine vacated adjacent portion of Forest Boulevard with their homestead property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on May 8, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Page 2 of 2 A RESOLUTION VACATING AN UNUSED PORTION OF FOREST BOULEVARD WITHIN THE PLAT OF SAfi \ HILL REVISED, SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 117, RANGE 23 IN THE CITY OF ORONO, HENTVEPIN COUNTW MINNESOTA FILE NO. 1298 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Gordon N. Nelson and Barbara O. Nelson, husband and wife, of 1310 Elmwood Avenue, filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of a ponion of Forest Boulevard originally dedicated in the piat of Saga Hill Revised legally described as follows: That part of vacated Forest Boulevard as dedicated in the plat of Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Co. Minn." which lies between the northwesterly exteiwions across it of the northeasterly and southwesterly lines of Lot 3, Block 6, Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Co. Minn." W’HEREAS, after due published and posted notice, public hearings were held before the City ’s Planning Conunission on June 20. 1988, March 15, 1993 and April 17, 1995, regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested vacation and the City Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation as proposed, is in keeping with the public interest and in consideration of the following findings: 1. The vacation does not affect the access or the use of adjoining properties. 2. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve, or use the dedicated right-of-way of Forest Boulevard for road purposes nor any other public purpose. 3. The City has not and does not intend to maintain or install utilities within the dedicated right-of-way of Forest Boulevard. Page 1 of 2 4.Major portions of the dedicated right-of-way of Forest Boulevard are located below the 929.4 elevation of Lake Minnetonka. 5. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of Gordon N. Nelson and Barbara O. Nelson is hereby granted by the Counc' of the City of Orono and that the portion of Forest Boulevard legally described above is hereby vacated. Granting of the petition is subject to the condition that upon vacation, applicant must combine vacated adjacent portion of Forest Boulevard with their homestead property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on Mav 8, 1995. ATTEST: Dorcthy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Page 2 of 2 •a* k ^MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27,1995 Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded, to a^*.’ard the bid for Lift Station ^1 reconstruction to the lowest responsible bidder. Ford Constniciion Company, for an amount of 556,782. Aves 3. Nays 0. (»#9) TEMPOR.ARY E.MPLOYEES - GOLF COURSE jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the temporary emplo>-ment of Forest Jostrom, counter helper, 55 80 per hour; William Mclntyxe, counter helper, 55.80 per hour; John Ross, counter helper 55 80 per hour, Dan Ores, starter/grounds. 56.20 per hour, Doug Erickson, grounds helper, 56.50 per hour; and Jack Petersoa counter/starter, 55.70 per hour, all effective April 1, 1995. Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#10) GOLF COURSE LIQUOR LIABHJTV’ 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 51,500. Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#11) DETERMINATION OF WHETHER TO INITIATE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION AT 1304 ELMWOOD AVENUE Moorse reponed that the memo relays the history behind the 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. This access is on the Johnson property. The City has since attempted to reestablish the public easement. mimutes of the regular orono cm counch . MEEllNG HELD ON MARCH 27,1995 on thn ink. side of th. properties, a large portion of Ute right-of-way was vacated. The ^ portion along the drivetvay leading to the Nelson property was not vacated since i. served ^ onlv leaal access to the Nelson property. .Mr. Johnson is willing to provide anas the easement but is requesting the City vacate the lakeside. Johnson sees the two issues as being unrelated. Mr. Nelson is concerned that with the vacarion of the lakeside, he would lose his only legal access to his driveway. Barrett said that the two are not related in terms of access but ,n legal terms. Ks opinion was to move ahead with the vacation of the right-of-way. Moorse sid Staff is bnngins this before the Council to either tie the two issues together or move ahead with vacation without the easement being solved. Jabbour asked if the lakeside right-of-way was under water. Moorse replied that it was partially under water and is very low in elevation. CaUahan clarified that the reason for the hesitation in vacating the lakeside right-of-way is the fear of cutting the Nelson's property off with no legal access. Moorse said that Nelson does have legal access. Barrett said Nelson has a prescriptive (private) easement through the continued use over the last 25 years but not title to that property. There would be a cloud on the title without court approval Barrett said it is not a lawyer's right to determine legal access but it is a factual base. If the court is able to conclude a faoual base, the pubUc interest has to be based on actual use. Callahan said he was concerned that the vacation had not been done and asked Barrett if the vacation could be completed without incurring Uability and damaging Mr. Nelson's property. Barren sard the cloud in the title is already m place with the mistaken vacation of the alley. If it ts a maner of fact, and no further damage to title is found, there could be access by getting the aUey back, condemning it or representing Mr. Nelson. & ■ AWc frnctration with the Icnizth of time it has taken to come to anyMr Johnson voiced his frustration wiui u« ^ decision over .be vacauon of .he righ.-of.w.y. He r=..e«.ed how .he easemen. and vaca.ion are ™ o separa.e issues, Johnson feels .ha. Nelson ,s enmled .o .he use of .he road bu. no. enu.led .o bo.h accesses .hrough .he aUey and .hrough .he lakes.de. He sa.d i. e.,u r,f nrnoenies in the area because of the right-of-\^-ay there has been an impact on the sale of properties issue. NU Nelson read a prepared s.a.en.cn. of his objedon .o .he vaca.ion of Fores. Boulevard-, as .he lakeside r,gh.-of.way was once caded. His opinion is .ha. he would be landlocked if .he vaca.ion is pemu..ed, Orono had vaca.ed all of dus lakes.de road excep. .ha. portion in from of .he properties owned by Johnson and Nelson If U.e C.ty vacated .ha. par, located in front of the Johnson property. Nelson feels he would be left on his own to solve his iccess problem. Johnson was asked by Callahan if he was willing .0 give U.e easenren. to Nelson, which he responded he would. Barren said .ha. .he locauon of U.e prescriptive easenten. may no. be .he ideal way .0 ge. from .he house to the road and asked Johnson if he would be w.lling .0 gran, an easem.n. to an alternate route, Jotorson said he was no. willing .0 do this. CaUahan aareed .ha. .he City needs ,o provide access for .he Nelson's. Barren concurred; drouglv he believes Nelson would have legal access .hrough prescript.on, I. discussed .ha. if Johnson gave prescriptive easemen. to Nelson and .be aaion was uncon.es.ed in coun. fr.e cos. would be about S2.000. The Council would then take was fr aalono«th..ak«ideri8h.^f-y" were ihe members of the Coun J. ion. Nelson was agreeable to this solution as Nelson is to take the vacation throu, ^ ^ aeeded, vacation to be befom ^ „ hold up the vacation for 45 das s. ^ •£i 1 r^r.u.’Tiersofsaid vacauon. Ayes.^, Y is shorter, and notify- landov^ticrs ot sai (#12)highway 12 SAFE TV dviprovxment and agreements Mayor Callahan said he had two contracts .sphere at Hwy K . h. was aware of the amoum of money the City was to p y ,. „„i«t was In planmng, from the beginning d. "h.:!"::: Ipr^gn^o rearrangement of Orono. end of Cong Affidavit of Publication Slale ol Minnesota. County o( Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duty sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee oi the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound. Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: TvoFonoNO OTCE TTm Planning Commission has scheduled pubic ha»mg m the Councrf Chambers at ^80 Kallay Parkway on Monday. April 17. 99S at 7:00 p m on the fma ’ matters solving Application #1298. a petition to icaia pomm of an unimproved dedicated )ad known as Forest Boulevard. Saga h.ii evisact Manneptn County. Minnesota tS t<2 I Section 7. Township 117, Range 23) All persons wishing to be heard will A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualillcatlons as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02. 331A.07. and other applicable taws, as amended. B.) The printed aDPefir at this time Written comments are soticited Ethibiis are available for review in the City ofiices. C*ly of Orono By Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth Building 4 Zoning Administrator (Published m The Laker and Pioneer Apnl 3 arxJ April to. 1995) // which is attached was cut from the columns ol said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for _ P- successive weeks: II was first published Monday, 3 ^ay of /Ifl uO ^ / the ____19.^. and was thereafter prin(ed and published every Monday, to and including Monday. Subscribed and sworn to me on this __day of ________.19 ubiic KRISTI MQUI NOTARY Puwe- IfVOOMM ■tigtgtfngmrafwn"- (1) Lowatt dautflad rata paid by oommardal usart for comparabla spaca: $11.48 par Inch. (2) Maximum rata allowad by law lor abova manar: Si 1.48. (3) Rata actually chargad for abova mattar: $6.47 par Inch. Each additional auocassiva waak: $4.45. To: CityofCrcno From: Gordon Nelson Date: Apnl 17,1995 now 9f- 4 fn o ii4s'«oV^ April 27, 1995 D CITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address; 2750 Keiley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address; P 0 Box 66 Crystal Bay. VN 55322 CC65 Gordon N. Nelson 1310 Elmwood Avenue Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Nelson: r u 1 ^ , .*nnv nf the access easement to be granted by Richard Johnson over that part “/review the easement to reinsure that your interests are betng proteeted. I, is .he Citv's Dlan to schedule the vacation before the Council at their May 8th meeting^ Mr_ loLTn wHl :xtu “me easement.- as soon as he receives word from both you and the C.ty of our approvals of the wording. Please advise ray office at your earliest convenience so I raay confum the scheduling of the vacation on the Council agenda. /j\v Sincerely, Ij Jeanne A. Mabusth Buildina & Zoning Administrator JAM/lsv cc:Richard Johnson. 1304 Elmwood Avenue Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 utilities and access easement THIS INDENTURE, r.ade this cv ar.d b-st veer- day of , 1995, -ter-s—a-cs-- -IZ,.^ -^s laws ci tr.e btate M-r.*.esOv-a,c'’oai ccroorativ.*;, -ris-s- —-« hereir.arter reierrea -C ^ ■ n considerat:.cn of t-ts suni o- WITNESSETH, t.oa. itV a--d a.nd valuable cor-sideratior. -e loilar jSl.OC) ^ is ackr-owledged by giver- cy >orar-t«s. -a-craia, sell ar.d ccr-vey to Grantor vs) , doves) .narscy gra-^-, laVemer.’- for tiainter.ance of Grar.--.e, --- access chere-.o, sewer uccGic.es, jc Ker.r.epir. ar.d Scace cn, across anc ur-oer^ -te -. .e r ^-c «(<.■-T's.s '.r a , as t'l-CWS: The Eas -*-iv 00 feet of the following described proper-y: of vac3.09G. Os.k. Placfi'^V'o nsll oilau pa-^ >/<Aw _ • whic-h lies^TcrtJierly "co., Minn., and Southerly of tae “r:fr£:;^'.wav line of summit -V/enue as saiQ :aOUCher-.y ---.*t o- n- SAGA HILL REVISED,avenue is snowr- or- uhe pxaw H0iincpin. Co., Mirn. 1 ,r!4..ci bu- "oc by way of limicacic.c, a fuil and free righr. Md auchoricy co encer upon said land to ma.nca n, cper ^ a sanitary sewer o.ai.-. or aeoessary Ind CO make sue.', use oi saia lar.a Hj“®^°^y'^reoair of Che advisable to '.he maintenance, coerat-on an- re. Imorcvement. injunction. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said easement unto sard Grantee, its successors and assigns, permanentd.y. Th- Grantor(s) herein certify that the lands herein are subject to existing 11 -Revised,driveway easement in favor of Lot 3, Block &, saga .n IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Grantor(s) have set their har-d(s) or. the day and year first above written. easemskt agreement THIS iMDE?mJRS, ~ade ar.a er.terea _nto th.^w day of 1995 by and between Ricnard J. Johnson and Katiier:no A. . . ^Pi « jrefeirfsd to aS Goai4.-N-osJohnson, nusoana a..— n---—• 1 na>--a-a 0 Nelson, husband ana wire,and Gordon N. Nelson ana Bar^a.cx u. . - hereinafter referred to as ‘'Grantees . RECITALS A.Grantors are the ee owners of real property located in Cour.cy of Heonepir., Sface of Mir.r.ssofa, legally described as: Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Co. Minn. (hereinafter referred to as the "Johnson Property".' B.Grantees are the fee owners of real property located in » . •_ ce-at-a V M*r’~csota leoally described as.the County of Hennepin, State o- M-n..esota, ^-y«x j Lot 3, Block 6, Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Co. Minn. (hereinafter referred to as the “Nelson Property".) C. Grantees wish to obtain an easement for ingress and -gress over a portion of the -Johnson Property," formerly platted and known as Oak Place, which was vacated by the Village of Orono through Resolution No. 509, filed with the Hennepin County Recorder on April 26, 1974 as Document No. 4078512. U . Grantors wish to provide a non-exclusive driveway casement over a portion of the "Johnson Property- to Grantees for ingress and ecress purposes. -r MUTUAL PROMISES OF THE PARTIES HERETO,IN CONSIOERA-IwN -r -- the PAP-TIES Avjr.E— AS - 1. Grantors hareby gran- -- "enefit cf nhe Granceea a -‘5XC2-'-IS easerr.er.c for ir.orsss ar.a scrass over ar.d -,, -= —’’-’'^ncly traveled, whicn j.ies ever upon the existing nrtveway -s ------------ y - • o-i'^r'd'—V" described as tolr-ovas:£ portion of one ••Jc.tnscn ?i-?e.-V d-’vewav ourooses over the Easterly 5.00 -Sirc-fth; fTuTAog *scric,d proparry: - > -r ^-^a- oa-t cf vacated Oak Place r-.e >.-ester-y r*.^-;^®^.^;*Vaste'*ly extension across it wr.rch Iraa Xo-7? TIc 2 Siook « Saga Hill Of the scutner-y viA and Southerly of tne Revised, Kannacin - Sunmit Avenue as saia Southerly -‘ “lat of SAGA HILL REVISE2,avenue is snewn on «-..e Hennepin Co. Minn. tfov d’-'vewav purposes over that ?aso an easerna... -01 ^ F which Ires part of the West feet. Northerly of the Westerly oi ^a-a -cuthe’-'y ■> ine of Lot 2, ana Basttrlv extehsron described lir-e: southeasterly ..:2h, y Jmer cf said Lot f; Cor.aencing at the ® n-e of said Lot 2 anhence Northerly along as.^^.^^/ 1^^^ distance o_ vT „^of''pc’-’’'c "ight 25 degrees line being described; ^^;t^'=''_rg‘“^esVe-ly’'^line of said ELt'erlyl.OO feet, and said line there enaing. (hereinafter referred to as "Easeir.ent Property".) 2. Grantors hereby warrant and represent they have full legal authority to execute this doeuxent ana war-an- marketability of title to the easement conveyed herein. :. The easement granted herein and the agreeme-ts cosenants contained within it shall run with the title V,cement Property ana t-he "Nelson Property,’* and shall mure -o the benefit or and be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective representatives, successors and assigns. ''fisccn.sibility for maiiit,aining che 4. Grar.taes 3r.aj.x caSojr.e ^ - cn Che Easer.enC Propercy in adriveway ir. xcs currenc ^oca^ion cn -T rn G''anccrs and Grantees,fashion chat is r.ucuaily accepwac^e ^ o ^ ace o r car h an\^Grancses agree chac they snail ncw s-o.e. c-ac^ . ocher xcsr.s c£ personal prcoercy cn cne ^ - — -• • -^,.^003 herebv indemnify Grantcrs frcn any liability uw n*- their invitees cf thewhich cay arise froci the usage cy urra.--ees o- tne— Easement Prccerty for che purpcses describea herern. Grantors grant this driveway easement subject to existing easements cf record affecting the Easement Property. GRAilTORS: • 6 . Richard J. Jonnscn Katherine A. Johnson GRANTEES: Gordon M. Nelson Barbara O. Nelson ACKNOWLEDGMENTS STATE CT .NINiTESOTA } ) SS. COUNTY or HEN?IEPIN ) Th.® foracoing was acknowledged before me, a notai^ this diy of _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1995 by Richard J. Johnson and husband and wife, who executed“neir own free act and deed. execuuea uhe above as Oi.-iaz. Or MINNESOTA TT>T"^V ' HEM'IEPIN 'T‘A A foregoingthisday of ) ss his ’ da^/o'V*- «c:<ncwledged before me, a notary public, • Nelson, -ugbaV'~'a-i w-C-cracn N. Nelson and Barbara ' .-U„C<1Z1^ a..j W.^e. <»nO &X^nnr-^n -___ ,-ree act and deed. NOTAP.V PU2LIC oia VTlLvCK-SHSaHSK 91f ,-Tfljp,rtf : OT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 5. 19^j^ / ^ ITEM NO.: . Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: if 1921 Mary Ulrich, 1000 Loma Linda Avenue - Preliminary Subdivision Approval - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Preliminary Plat Drawing C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/20/94 D - Planning Commission Minutes 4/18/94 E - Letter from Hennepin County Dept, of Public Works F - Wetland Delineation Report G - Utility Easement Description for Existing Sewer Connection H - Proposed View Easement 1 - Memo and Exhibits of 4/14/94 Pertinent Facts • Total parcel area including roads: 3.07 acres. • Zoning District: LR-IB • Lot area: Required = 1.0 acre Lot 1: 1.52 acre (1.27 acre dry, 0.25 acre wet) Lot 2: 1.10 acre dry (all dry). • Lot width: Required = 140’ Proposed Lot 1 = 166 ’ * Proposed Lot 2 = 210.5’ • Proposes to dedicate 0.21 acres for Loma Linda Drive and 0.24 acres for the 33 right-of-way for County Road 151. Planning Commission Recommendation At their April 18, 1994 meeting. Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision subject to the following conditions: Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 May 5, 1995 Zoning File #1921 1. City to grant front setback variance of 2’ for existing residence setback from Loma Linda right-of-way to be dedicated. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Discussion A conservation & flowage easement required over wetlands. 3. Grants standard drainage & utility easements along lot lines. $225 sewer connection charge due with building permit for Lot 1. To avoid excavation in wetland, existing house sewer connection to be relocated to Loma Linda and new house on Lot 1 to use southerly stub at North Arm Drive. 6. Dedication of 25’ of right-of-way for Loma Linda Avenue. Dedication of right-of-way for County Road 151 only of a magnitude to resolve the discrepancy (staff recommends only a 33’ right-of-way dedication per 4/14/94 memo). Driveway entrance for Lot 1 to be on Loma Linda at least 100 ’ east of County Road 151. Lot 1 subject to standard park dedication requirement. (Park Commission to review at their June 6th meeting.) Applicant to confirm location of existing utility connections and improvements existing with Lot 1 serving Lot 2, and confirm how these will be resolved. Applicant to provide detail for proposed view easement (see Exhibit H). Wetlands on the property must be delineated (see Exhibit F) Surveyor to show delineated wetlands on preliminary plat drawings (see Exhibit B). Applicant has provided the required information for preliminary plat approval, plus a proposed easement for continuing use of the existing house sewer connection across Lot 1 to County Road 51. However, the delineated wetland still encompasses the existing northerly stub on County Road 151, and excavation of the wetland would be necessary to use that vacant smb. A Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 May 5, 1995 Zoning File #1921 It is still staffs recommendation that the existing line from the house to 151 be abandoned, and that house be reconnected to the existing sewer lines to the southeast in Loma Linda Avenue. Then, the new house to be constructed on Lot 1 could make use of the freed up stub at 151 without having to excavate wetland or jack a new stub under 151. Applicant s surveyor agrees this makes sense. View Easement The proposed view easement disallows the construction of structures or hardcover other than a cinale driveway crossing on the south 90’ of Lot 1, leaving views to the west undismrbed. This easement slightly restricts the building envelope but still leaves a significant area in which a residence can be constructed. Park Dedication The Park Commission will be reviewing this plat at their June 6th meeting. The Oty s Comprehensive Bike Trail Plan indicates a proposed trail along the west side of County Road 151 hence this property will likely not be affected, which would result m the standard 8% park fee.’ If Park Commission concludes a bike trail easement is required. Lot 1 is large enough oriented such that such easement would have a minimal impact on Lot 1 s buildability. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat per the attached resolution, COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Adoption of attached resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A T>VO LOT PLAT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - FILE NO. 1921 WHEREAS, Mary A. Ulrich (hereinafter the "applicant"), on March 25. 1994, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval ot a two lot residential plat of property legally described in Exhibit A attached (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462 358 et seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 18, 1994, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on May 8, 1995, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the applicant, noting the following findings of fact; 1. The property is located within the LR-IB, single family lakeshore residential zoning district requiring a minimum of 1 acre of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2 The property contains a total of approximately 2.62 acres of land excluding proposed road right-of-way dedications. Each of the proposed residential lots meets the required 1 acre dry contiguous land area as follows; Lot 1 = 1.27 acres dry buildable Lot 2 = 1.10 acres dry buildable. 3. The required right-of-way for County Road 151 is 33 per the Comprehensive Plan. The sta.ndard right-of-way for Loma Linda Avenue is 50 , of which the northerly 25’ will be dedicated within the prop’ ‘.ed plat. 4. Due to the proposed dedication of right-of-way for Loma Linda Awnue, the existing house will remain at its existing location 33.0 from the right-o -way me where a 35.0 ’ setback would normally be required. The Council fmds i appropriate to grant a front setback variance to accommodate the existmg house. Page 1 of 6 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. Wetlands have been delineated in the northwesterly quadrant of proposed Lot 1. A conservation and flowage easement is proposed to be granted over said wetlands. The property was assessed for two sewer stubs and two sewer units as part of the Forest Lake sewer project. The only connection fee due for sewer for new Lot 1 will be $225.00 per the 1995 fee schedule. The existing sewer connection from the house on Lot 2 crossing proposed Lot 1, will be abandoned and the existing house will be reconnected to the sewer in Loma Linda Avenue. This leaves the existing smb at the southwest quadrant of Lot 1 available for sewer connection serving the house to be constructed on Lot 1. The property owner proposes a view easement across the southerly 90 ’ of proposed Lot 1, allowing merely a driveway in that area. Such easement leaves ample area within proposed Lot 1 for construction of a single family residence meeting required setbacks. Access for Lot 2 will remain on Loma Linda Avenue. A new access driveway for Lot 1 shall be located on Loma Linda Avenue, location subject to approval of the Public Works Director. Drainage on the property can be easily dealt with at the time a new house is constructed, within the standard perimeter and interior drainage and utility easements. 11 . Lot 1 will be subject to the standard park dedication requirements. All lots have been found to meet the standards of the U(-1B single family lakeshore residential zoning district, and a residence can be developed within proposed Lot 1 without the need for any variances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the prelimmary plat application of Mary A. Ulrich per the survey dated September 4, 1991 revised April 27, 1995 by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. and grants a variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B) to allow the existing residence to remain in its current location 33.0 ’ from the front lot line where a 35.0 ’ setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 6 1. The applicant shall grant a conservation and flowage easement over the designated wetlands within the plat. 2. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated along perimeter and interior lot lines. 3. Applicant shall dedicate on the plat 25’ of right-of-way for Loma Linda Avenue. Applicant shall dedicate on the plat 33’ of right-of-A^ay for County Road 151.4. 5.A sewer connection charge of $225.00 will be due with the building permit for Lot 1. 6. To avoid excavation in the wetland, the existing house sewer connection shall be relocated to Loma Linda Avenue, and the new house on Lot 1 shall use the existing southerly stub at County Road 151. 7. The driveway entrance for Lot 1 shall be on Loma Linda Avenue at a location to be approved by the Public Works Director. 8. While the City shall not be party to the view easement over Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2, the location and extent of said easement shall not be revised from that proposed without notification of the City. 9. Lot 1 is subject to the standard 8% park dedication requirement. Prior to final plat approval. Park Commission shall determine whether land dedication is required or whether to require payment in lieu of dedication per Orono ordinance. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTALS ^ The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the zoning administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200’. Drawings to include: Page 3 of 6 A. B. C. D. E. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. dated September 4. 1991 revised April 27, 1995. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10’ wide along all perimeter property lines and 5’ each side of internal property lines. Designation and dedication of a drainage easement over the wetland located within Lot 1 as delineated by John C. Anderson of Wetlands Data. Dedication of 33 ’ of right-of-way for County Road 151. Dedication of 25’ of right-of-way for Loma Linda Avenue. 2. Legal documents required: A. Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat ai:d all other documents affected by such interest. B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. C. Signed and executed conservation and flowage easement over the wetland. Please refer to standard easement language enclosed. D. (To be determined by Park Commission) Signed and executed trail easement, location and legal description to be determined. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: S200.00* ^ A. Subdivision/easements filing fees = $200.00 Page 4 of 6 B. *Park Commission shall review park dedication requirements for this property and may accept park fee in lieu of lands. The City Assessor will be asked to determine the fair market value of the undeveloped lands within the subdivision (Lot 1) so that a park dedication fee can be determined. This fee may be adjusted if acquisition of a bike/trail easement along County Road 151 is required. Applicant will be advised as soon as the City Assessor has submitted his determination of fair market value. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 8th day of May, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of May , 1995, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk ot the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. * Notary Public Page 5 of 6 UU2&LAU^that part of the Southeaat Qviarter of the Northeaat Q«iarter of Section 7. Townahip 117, Uan(<e ?.3. doacribod aa fol- Deflinnlng at a roint on the Beat line of the Northeaat Quarter of aald Section 7 dlatant 832.5 feet North,of the Southeaat corner of eaid Northeaat Quarter of Section 7; thence North aloiui the Eaat line of the Northeaat Quarter.of aald Section a diatonco of 313.00 feet; the^ Weet parallel with the North line of the Southeaat Quarter of the Northeant Quarter of aald Section a dlotance of 331.5 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be doacrlbed; thence Went along aaid dine parallel with the North line of the SouthoSet Quarter of the Northeaat Quarter of Section 7 to the center line of the County Road running through aald Northeaat Quarter of Section 7; thence South- eaaterly Une pf aald CoUhty Road to a point 632.5 feet North ♦ of the South «o''theaat Quarter of aald Section 7; thence Eaet parallel with the South line of aaid Northeaat Qu^ter to a point dietant 338.9 feet Weat of the Eaet IJne of eaid Northeast Qiartor of Section 7; thence North to the actual point of begiimlng. (D ♦Thla should read; North aa meaeured along the Eaat line of aaid Southeaat Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. o Thla survey ahowa the location of an exiating houee in relation to the above deacribed property. It does not purport to show Siiy other improvementa or encroachmenla. Or I ii r ■ i &M • C CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE n91\ NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 4/20/94 TO:Mary A. Ulrich 1000 Loma Linda Avenue Mound, MN 55364 COPIES TO:Mark Gronberg Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. 482 Tamarack Ave. Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 4/18/94 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the fallowing: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: City to erant front setback variance for existing residence. Conservation and fiovvage easement required over wetlands. Grant standard drainage and utility easements along lot lines. $225.00 sewer connection charge due with buildipg permit for Lot 1. To avoid excavation in wetland, existing house sewer connection to be relocated to Loma Linda and new house on Lot 1 to use southerly stub at North Arm Drive. Dedication of 25’ of right-of-way for Loma Linda Avenue. Dedication of righl-of-way for County Road 151 only of a magnitude to resolve discrepancy. Driveway entrance for Lot 1 to be on Loma Linda at least 100 ’ east of County Road 151. 9. Lot 1 is subject to the standard park dedication requirement. The following additional conditions must be completed before this item will be scheduled for Council preliminary plat approval: 10. Applicant to confirm location of existing utility connections and improvements existmg within Lot 1 serving Lot 2, and confirm how these will be resolved. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Zoning File No. 1921- PC Action Notice April 20, 1994 Page 2 11. Provide detail (conditions, prohibitions, etc.) for proposed view easement 12. Wetlands on the property must be delineated per the standard methods referenced in the Wetlands Conservation Act (applicant must hire a qualified person to do this). 13.Once wetlands are delineated, surveyor must stake and define the wetlands on the preliminary plat drawings. (It is anticipated that the northerly wetland will be defined at the 987.1’ contour.) NOTE:Attached is a letter from tlie Hennepin County Department of Public Works. They request 40’ of right-of-way be dedicated from the centerline of CSAII 151. Consistent with City policy, the City will require only a 33’ dedication. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the May 9th Council meeting is May 2nd. Deadline for the May 23rd meeting is May 16th. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. NnNUTCS OFTffi OTY ^ («, «921 MARY A. ULRICH. 1000 LOMA LINDA AYXNUE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION -f rr nnH noted that staff recommended approval subject to the Gaffron reviewed the statf report and conditions listed in the staff report. Mark Gronberg was preseni oTonberg responded negatively. oLussion :ied°ri;^dingVeT-k dedica" on“e and Gaffron noted that ,t would be 3% of the fau market value of the new lot only. .a u- c ta mihlic bearin'^- no one present wished to speak and the ■“•“"" It was moved by Lindquist, seconded LorarUnda Ave^e subject to s»puS;!:ii^s^ Mlt'bsTed in'JLff report and the addition of #12. to require del,neat,on of the wetland along Loma Linda Avenue. Ayes 6, nays 0. #192’ ROBERT AND ELIZABETH MELAMED. 1000 OLD CRYSTAL BAY SOOTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION The applicant was not present. Chair S^^roeder moved Lind^i^^^^^^^^ (#4) amendment of section 10.56. SUBDIVISION 3 Gaffron reviewed the ordinance criteria and definitions what ordinal. Staff recommended approval ®f anj others. He Other cities were doing and Gaffron responded ability to make a Wt Lt the City needed to have *at w®tdd g,« determinatton without having to resort to i ,g concerned aboOt eroston and noted that the Depanment of Natural Resource (DNR)^^^^ protection of the lake shore. Lmdqutst commended statf on a wen Chair Schroeder opened the public hearing. was Road were present. Mrs. Swirling stated she felt th erosion and have gwto see Lme changes made. She noted they ave had a that Ld to build retaining walls on the,r property to a>ab,l.ze ,t. Cha r Sc^oeo drainage was always a concern in the Casco Point area and the Planning Lom looking at where it was appropriate to construct houses. (#3) mi- ^ « <r*. . •. * 4 V I ■;t Hennepin County JL An Equal Opp<.>rtunuv Employer / . M W'*« •nrr\c . Minr> \vlmlm^Ir ii» « RECEIVED Hicheal P. Gaffron Asst. Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 APR 1 9 1594 CnY CF ORONO April 14, 1994 RE: Proposed Plat - Mary A. Ulrich subdivision , „ ^ CSAH 151, east side approximately 150 feet south of Dahl Road Section 7, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2137 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. Gaffron: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: • The developer should dedicate 40 feet of right of way from and along the centerline of CSAH 151 along the plats entire frontage with CSAH 151. All access for Lots 1 and 2 to CSAH 151 must be via existing Loma Linda Avenue. Direct access to CSAH 151 will not be permitted. All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access, drainage, and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Doug Mattson. Sincerely, Thomas D. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DBM Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, .Minnesota 55343-8468 (612)930-2500 FAX;(61 2)930-25 1 3 RecycL'J Pap^r J j 1 3 I 1 1 i; 1 i I 1 WETLANDS DATA John C. Anderson 5831 Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 F Office-(612) 525-2003 Fax-(612) 525-2015 rv* C»T 0 M 0 Uis -A - 0 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT FOR: MARY ULRICH ORONO. MN APR 1 4 1995 c.. ■ WETLANDS MAPHNQ • ONSITE DEIMEATNW • CNAN6E ANALYSIS WETLANDS DELINEATION DOCUMENTATION FOR MARY ULRICH. PROJECT IN ORONO, MN John Anderson WETLANDS DATA. Minneapolis, MN delineated and documented wetlands boundaries on the subject property on March 31st, 1995 at the request of Mary Ulrich This report provides information as to the dominant wetland characteristics at the site as result of the investigation The parameters of the wetland/upland boundaries are provided in each delineation report form as this information is redundant below Please review documentation of these findings (referenced in report and site plan) A sketch of the staked wetland boundaries is included in the report LOCATION County Road #151 and Loma Linda Ave City of Orono Hennepin County. Minnesota METHODOLOGY Wetlands were identified and delineated using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Task Force on Wetland Delineation. 1989) and the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (U S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) Revisions to the former method have been proposed by the U S. Environmental Protection Agency and are currently under review. Pending the adoption of these revisions, the U S army Corps of Engineers is applying the 1987 Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual The wetland and/or deep water habitat were classified according to the methodologies set forth in Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39, Shaw and Fredine. 1971) and Classification of Wetlands and Deep water Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31 : Cowardin et al.1979) CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS INVESTIGATED Transect A,#l This is a Type Three (PEM1C) wetland checksite. Dominant specie isfleed Canary Grass (FACW+) Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as site is flooded. Transect A,#11 This is a Type One (PEM1 A) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-)and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are Cordova, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is in wetland drainage pattern. f I i 1 h I 4 1 i ’t Transect A.#lii This is an upland checksite. Dominant specie is Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC-) Soils are Lester, an upland soil Surface hydrology evidence is not met. Site is not flooded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern.. LIMITATIONS OF WETLAND ASSESSMENT My opinions, conclusions and recommendations were based in part on information I obtained and evaluated from current sources including slate and federal agencies, verification of the authenticity or accuracy of this information is not warranted and is not included in the scope of my services Wetlands delineated under winter conditions may not be accurate and should be reinvestigated during the growing season I appreciate this opportunity to present this analysis Sincerely. f •/ ^ John C. Anderson i.. t% fr :IN SECTION 7-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA7oooC/Jufifi Ai/€ju£4€ S'SJfy “V-* £«a / •/ % #/ %4A.* -* f ttf-13 > I V a —« «. tjn< «»«|li IWHt I ’ ^ • fcut#/ ><rN| V<«'^a CV C W S« 7 07-/I -. !v Sfr^^f4 f AS *f'se ^04 COFFIN & GRONBERG. INC. SU«Vf VINO. CNOlN€C«»NO AND LAND PLANNING 4S2-A TAMAPACK AVCNUC LONO lake . MINN SS396 m. 473 4141 PRELIMINARY UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIPTION FOR MARY A. ULRICH APRIL 27.1995 A 20 foot easement for utility purposes for an existing sanitary sewer service servicing Lot 2. Block 1. ULRICH ADDITION ’ over that part of Lot 1, Block 1, ULRICH ADDITION * which lies within 10 feet on each side of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 1 distant 88.00 feet northerly as measured along said west line, from the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence southeasterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 1, distant 34.00 feet northerly, as measured along said east line, from the southeast comer of said Lot 1. and said line there ending. ULRICH ADDITION OR ANOTHER NAME TO BE CHOSEN /[jOTiS ' ' ^ c Od/17/1555 15:27 CCrr’IN i •-'.■•C. V > • COFFIN A GRONBERG. INC. •U«V«VINO, i»»OiNltPWHO ANO LAND »LANNINa ASt-A TAMAAACX AVINUC kOMOLAKB. MINN H- 47)'«14l f PRELIMINARY SIGKT EASEMENT FOR MARY A ULRICH APRIL 17, 1»6 An tf m»nt for sight purpo—• for tha banafit of Lot 2, Block 1, ULRICH ADDfTlON * ovar, undar and across tha south 90 faat of Lot 1, Block 1, ULRICH ADDITION, said aasamant is to rosthct tha construction of any structuras or "hardcovaC other than oradrNMray croaaing on said south 90 faat of Let 1 • ULRICH ADDITION OR ANOTHER NAME TO BE CHOSEN NOTE; Tha owner is attampttng to locate tha sawar line for Lot 2 which creaaaa Lot 1. It is moat likely in tha sight aasamant area and an appropriate aasamant will be writtan once tha location IS datarminad. To:Chairman Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:April 14, 1994 Subject: #1921 Mary Ulrich. 1000 Loma Linda Avenue -Subdivision - Public Hearing Application: Subdivision to create a new 1.52 acre building site leaving existing house on 1.1 acre parcel List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - Application Plat Map Property Owners ’ List Preliminary Plat Drawing Sketch - Sewer Locations/Right-of-Way Question Sewer As-Built Topography Overlay Soil Survey Map 1975 Orono Wetlands Map 1989 Air Photo National Wetlands Inventory Map Sewer Assessment Documentation Letter to HennDOT Pertinent Facts Total parcel area (including roads): 3.07 acres Zoning District: LR-IB Lot area: Required =1.0 acre Lot 1-1.52 acre (1.07 dry, 0.45 wet) Lot 2-1.10 acre (all dry) Lot width: Required = 140' Lot 1 - 166 ’ Lot 2 - 210.5’ Propose to dedicate 0.21 acres for Loma Linda Drive and 0.24 acres (jwssibly slightly more) for North Arm Drive (due to discrepancy between legal description and County right-of-way plats) Zoning File #1921 April 14, 1994 Pace 2 Summary Applicant proposes to split off a new building site from the homestead property. The property is served by sewer but will require a private well. A wetland exists on ih.‘ proposed new building site. Because this is a sewered property, area credit for the wetland is allowed. Applicant proposes a view easement over the south end of the new building site, which presumably would force a new house to be constructed on the north half of the new lot. There appears to be adequate envelope meeting setback requirements for construction of a new house. A number of factors and issues affecting this proposal are discussed below. Road Rights-of-Way Loma Linda Avenue is a loop road with two entrances on North Arm Drive about one- quarter mile apart. The northerly segment has never been platted, hence the 25 'x 376’ proposed dedication is necessaiy- and appropriate. Apparently the County plat maps for County Road 51 show a discrepancy from the applicant's legal description. The County has been requested to address this issue but we have received no word as of this writing. It is possible that the County will ask for an additional 7’ to 14' of right-of-way for some portion along the County road. This will not reduce Lot 1 to below the minimum acreage required. Note that it is likely Hennepin County will request a total of 40' of right-of-way from the center line of County Road 151 as a general policy. The Orono Comprehensive Plan considers County Road 151 a "collector street" with a required right-of-way width of 60-66', which it already has. In a similar plat further south a few years ago called "Loma Valley" the City did not grant the extra 7’ of right-of-way, and to be consistent, the City would not require that extra 7' in this application. Sewer Connections The property was assessed for two sewer stubs and two sewer units a% part of the Forest Lake project in the early 1970's. The only connection fee due for sewer on Lot 1 will be S225.00 per the 1994 Fee Schedule. Two sewer stubs exist, both on North Arm Drive. Please refer to Exhibit E. The existing house is connected to sewer across the proposed new building lot to the southerly stub. The northerly available stub ends in the wetland. This presents a number of concerns an options. Applicant would need to: Zoning File #1921 April 14. 1994 Page 3 1. a. Grant an easement over Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2 for the existing sewer connection. If this is done, then Lot 1 will have to either: Dig up wetland to connect to the northerly stub. This would require review and approval from a number of agencies and a variance from the City; or . . j .• • •Jack a new stub under County Road 151 at a location to avoid digging m the wetland (jacking may be expensive due to other utilities in the right- of-wav); b. OR Move the existing connection to the southeast corner of Lot 2, to the sewer line in Loma Linda. It appears that the Loma Linda sewer is deep enough to accomplish this. If this option is chosen, then the southerly stub can now be used for the new house on Lot 1. This would avoid an encroachment of the existing home's sewer line across the new vacant lot. Staff recommends that Option 2 be required. Access Access for Lot 2 will remain on Loma Linda. A new access driveway for Lot 1 would have to be on Loma Linda and at least 100’ east of the intersection with North Arm Drive. Existing House Setback With the proposed 25' dedication for Loma Linda, the existing house will be 33.0 from the front lot line where a 35’ setback is normally required. Due to the angling of the house, only a small portion will encroach the front line. Given that this is an existing simation, it is essentially a non-issue. To avoid the technical need for a variance to front setback, the City would have to accept less right-of-way. Staff recommends granting the front setback variance. Other Utility Encroachment? Applicant should be asked to provide information on any other known utilities serving Lot 2 that will exist within Lot 1, and if there are, how they will be dealt with. View Easement Applicant should address the intent and purpose of the view easement proposed, a^ address what specific restrictions would be placed on it. Such an easement would have to^ enforced by the owner of Lot 2, since the City would not enforce such a private covenant. 1 he potential exists for the City to unknowingly issue building permits that would violate such an easement. Zoning File n92\ April 1994 Page 4 W Grading and Drainage The probable house location on Lot 1 is in mid to lower slope of a hill. The drainage area above that site is less than one-half acre, hence any drainage concerns can easily be dealt with at the time a new house is constructed. The standard perimeter drainage and utility easements will be required on the plat drawings. Wetland A wetland exists in the northwest quadrant of the property. A review of the area topographic maps suggests that this is a pothole that would overtlow to the north at elevation 987.1' under the 100-year storm conditions. The City's topographic mapping and the City's wetland boundary as dep-cted -n maps in 1975 do not coincide. Staff recommends that the wetland boundary for purposes of defining a conservation and flowage easement (which is required) be defined at the 987.1' eiw/ation contour which likely will correspond fairly closely with the actual wetland as it currer^ly exists. As always, a 26' setback would be required from that contour line for any construction, changes in grade, etc. Since no grading, filling or draining of this wetland is proposed (or allowed by the City), it does not require Wetland Conservation Act review by the Watershed District. Park Dedicatiun Fee The new Lot 1 will be subject to the standard park dedication requirement. This will be presented to the Park Commission for review. Staff is unaware of any trail needs for this area and anticipates that the park dedication fee of 8% of the pre-development fair market value of Lot 1 will be required to be paid prior to final plat approval. Staff Recommendation * The property appears to meet all pertinent code requirements for subdivision to create a new buildable lot. A variance should be granted for the front lot setback of the existing house. Any recommendation for approval should include the following conditions.: * 1 Prior to preliminary plat review by the Council, applicant's surveyor to stake and define on the preliminary plat drawing the 987.1 ’ contour. 2. Conservation and flowage easement required over wetland. Zoning File ^^1921 April 14, 1994 Page 5 3. Grant standard drainage and utility easements along lot lines 4. 5. S225.00 sewer connection charge due with building permit for Lot 1. To avoid excavation in wetland, existing house sew’er connection to be relocated to Loma Linda and new house on Lot 1 to use southerly stub at North Arm Drive. ^ 6.Applicant to indicate whether other utilities or improvements exist in Lot 1 serv'ing the house on Lot 2, and if so, describe how they will be dealt with. 7. Dedication of 25' of right-of-way for Loma Linda Avenue 8.Dedication of right-of-way for County Road 151 only of a rnagnimde to resolve discrepancy. * 9.Prior to Council review of preliminary plat, applicant to provide additional background on intent of view easement proposed. 10.Driveway entrance for Lot 1 to be on Loma Linda at least 100 east of County Road 151. 11 Lot 1 is subject to the standard park dedication requirement. * : To be compl^d prior to Council preliminary plat review l"!l OP ORONO - SDBDIVISIoil , -^PI^CATION J ___________^ toPERTY LOCATION ^7*i ' Site Address 1/A/lA --- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^7-//7-2-3* Please check one - Property X abstract or - - torrens? Attach legal description to application APPLICANT Phone (home) ^72^7/fS Phone (work) Address: ^^6".citv:Zip; OWNER (if different than applicant) Name € Phone (home) Phone (work) citv:Zio: (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND DSE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) /_ _ _ _ _ _ 2J2. a .*/s x:^ r jTv fir rnjiTAin will Ul Flt^ASCE OFFICE Acres Dry Land 1300200000 Acres Wet Land j^v}. Acres Total, all parcelft^x<f<*^>e<?-f^,^ ^ , mEIFT-THANK YOU Residential; no. of Other (specify)__________________—OS t’25^ Inn i\‘ w _ /Vw W* v\ Present Zoning District Z/f /S PROPOSAL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites; _____-Z /~r Proposed Gross Density; Minimum Lot Size; Proposed Use: (check) Existing Units [ New Units I Total Units Units per 7,^7. Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential " Other fspecify) - - - - r •I ' y * A •ION* i 2. 3. MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPl^^T&^PRELIMINART APPLICM! 1, Completed Application Form j jj , ^ ' Zy Preliminary Plat information on Certificarte of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain' this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). As an addendum to this application# please attach separate Ixst of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature^_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of fees (parlc fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature^_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FEES S)cetch Plan Review (Class I, II 6 III)$200.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement 300.00 Preliminary Review (Class I 6 II Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III i all non-residential) 325.00 + 25.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 175.00 Renewal of Preliminary Subdivision Application 150.00 Renewal of Final Subdivision Application 100.00 '•T The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. < Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Dattf ______ Date < "3 V Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held w the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please malce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ” ** ,'I53* -2SJM- 40.09 AO'* 5 7 ?: •c5 (6) ^ i s 170 ^ i'i:7i iLl^ ai 1 («) 10 7-13-67)-^ V lot” /V# •* >06 d4 Part c ^i \(66) •V' ..S^^TTF |5I4. 5 ( N “Tom .343. 7t A . I ^ ^4C 7*ld*49 LINDEN la c#«f____2^,5 ' • lImdfn t (15). v*c 4-?9l5 ; 4 l-FCOT S^«lP f ■////■■^/. ’ >• / /,I^ST P.-n‘,T if; (,s?r5 I5S ‘*^155 vvVl (23) ^ iULi :m 3 “p >; 5 ?10 ^ .1 •(57) °- 155 Hi® (63) g 72 r J - vs',(26)6 ^ -1^3^ ^■?t 14 ^155 •» *fV .*- •< •* . 32 t ( 64) ,55 169 ^^.4 ^ f S>'.Mi ■ g\ ■■■ - I ^*>**C’^V:rA A^r^^ > 1C (3d),55 s ^1 331.5 339 9 25B.4 ••••♦•« (24) LOMA LINDA AVE 46 ^31 40 i6 S6 20130 (23) • • ^ - .*( 1- 50' 29 ’•1* •50 r// V in ;v 19):(20) iO r ^20 21 1 w # 22-.23 1 1 9T -4p 1• J9’59 (61) (12) ^5 it - V a \ ® (29) 15^ ' (62) mm.k£l :s - A** N lIV ■A^ icm / (67) 39 , »* «i ( ^.4 )fcl 33^31 / 325.44 UJ• MUr-^ (63) —fo « • “rs« . 589*04* 15'• ^0/. f9? ?.> r V i'. ( 14) 15 ( 15) 16 4-^Il£0 I0-I5-7I OCC S3 3912002 (2) \ 2: f 'yyy RUN DATC. 0S/23/9A BATCH 005 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OlOIERS LIST REPORT NO. PI43540I PAGE 5PROP AODR QHHEn NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 07-117-25 11 0004 04175 FOREST LAKE DR T I S THEISEN THOMAS J THEISEN 4175 FOREST LK DR HOUND HN 55344 36 07-117-23 11 0007 04155 FOREST LAKE DR FREDERICK J YOUNG FREDERICK J YOUNG 4155 FOREST LAKE DR ORONO HN 55364 38 07-117-23 11 0017 00996 NORTH ARM DR J H HEIDORN A J L HEIl J0T4 M A JANENE L HEIDORN 996 NORTH ARM DR MaJtK) m 55364 • I*, • • / • i ' PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR • .. . - .. ■ PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR . J I • ' PROP AODR : ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 07-117-23 11 0018 04080 DAHL RO JAMES J STARKMAN A HIFE JAMES t SANDRA STARKMAN 4080 DAHL ROAD MOUND m 55344 38 07-117-23 II 0021 04040 DAHL RD JOHN L LEPPU A NIFE JOHN L LEPPLA 4040 DAHL RO HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0002 04025 DAHL RD L H A P B KLOSTERHAN L HENRY A PEGGY B KLOSTERHAN 4025 DAHL RO HOUND MN 55364 58 07-117-23 14 0004 01029 LOHA LINDA AVE R A R KNOX RALPH B KNOX 1029 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55364 ^ 38 07-117-23 14 0012 01145 LOHA LINDA AVE JEFFERY D JOHNSON ETAL JEFF 0 JOHNSON 1145 LOHA LINDA AV HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 11 0019 04070 DAHL RD H D SCHUHAN AHA SCHUMAN MARK D A MARY A SCHUHAN 4070 DAHL RD MOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 11 0022 04030 DAHL RD JON H r^LSON JON H NELSON 4030 DAHL ROAD HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0003 04035 DAHL RD D E STEHART A J E STEHART DONALD E A JUDITH E STEHART 4035 DAHL RO HOUND HN 55344 38 07-117-23 14 0007 01025 LOHA LINDA AVE M E HARNES ETAL K/L EST MYRTICE HARNES 1025 LOHA LINDA HOUND MN S5364 38 07-117-23 14 0015 01067 LINDEN LA L C A K H KASPRICK L C A K H KASPRICK 1067 LINDEN LA HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 11 0020 04060 DAHL RO J A J NEVE JR JAMES P NEVE JR 4060 DAHL RD HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0001 04015 DAHL RD R A 8 HAAPALA ROBERT J A BONITA L HAAPAU 4015 DAHL RO MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0004 01000 LOHA LINDA AVE MARY A ULRICH MARY ULRICH 1000 LOHA LINDA AVE HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0008 01001 LOHA LINDA AVE GILMAN 6 SORENSON GILMAN 6 SORENSON 1001 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0018 01055 NORTH ARM DP R A A DAHL RONALD D DAHL 1055 NORTH ARM DR HOUND MN 55364 % 10, f n o ». • I I o • • f-f. .K- I # # •• - r > .1* » * . • • • • >i. ,5 . ‘o **. RUN DATE 03/23/94BATCH 003PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR ; PROP ADDR ONNER NAME • TAXPAYER ' * NAME/ADDR ^ • • • \ •* ^ : . .. li.•# . * « • HEFfCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST3D 07-117-23 14 0019 01045 NORTH Am DR SALLY A RHYLICX SALLY A RHYLICIC 1045 NORTH Am DR MOUND MN 55344 3D 07-117-23 14 0056 01030 LOMA LINDA AVE L A HUINKER ft G N NOLLNER LORI A HUINKER GARY N NOLLNER 1030 LOMA LINDA DR MOUND MN 55364 3D 07-117-23 14 0065 01125 NORTH Am DR DAVID J ft VALERIC DAVID J ft VALERIE 1125 NORTH Am DR MOUND MN 55364 J PETERSEN J PETERSEN PROP ADDR ONNER NAME / TAXPAYER . t NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 003 00027 k ' •*4 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 63D 07-117-23 14 0020 01015 NORTH Am DR R ft L CONRAD RONALD C CONRAD 1015 NORTH Am OR MOUND MN 55364 3D 07-117-23 14 0055 01034 LOMA LINDA AVE R ft J HECG ROGER A HEGG 1034 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 3D 07-117-23 14 0057 0003D ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NILLIAM R HIBBS NILLIAM R HIBBS 1101 ELMHOOO AVE ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0061 01140 NORTH Am DR TIMOTHY L BRO TIMOTHY L BRO 1140 NORTH Am DR MOUND MN 55364 I. •I’ : i 3D OD-117-23 23 0001 039D0 DAHL RD THOMAS P MCGLYNN THOMAS P MCGLYNN 39D0 DAHL RD MOUND MN 55364 3D OD-117-23 23 0024 01030 LOMA LINDA AVE R N SANDLER ETAL R W SANDLER 1038 LOMA LINDA LANE MOUND MN 55364 • 1 h c •l * » ; Z CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTAnON OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERJX,4;AHATION> TO THE.BEST OF HY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF OAT 4 . ■) n PRELIMINARY PLAT CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MARY A. ULRICH IN SECTION 7-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA M • i-|. ■ UCAI. All thit p»t of th« Southeast ftiarUr of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7. Towiahlp 117, Ranio 23. described as fol- lows; . . Betlnniac at a point on tho Bast line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 7 distant 832.5 feet North of tho Southeast comer of said Northeast Quarter of Section 7: thence North alone the Bast line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section a distance of 313 00 feet: thence West parallel vlth the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section a distance of 331.5 feet to the actual point of beglnnine of the tract of lend to be herelnafUr described; thence Hast along said dine parallel with the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7 to the center line of the County Road running through said Northeast QuarUr of Section 7; thence South easterly along ^ center line of said County Road to a point 632.5 feet North a of tho South line of the Northeast QuarUr of said Section 7; thence Bast parallel with tho South line of said Northeast fturUr U a point distant 338.9 feet Heat of the Bast line of said Northeast OiarUr of Section 7; thence North to the actual point of beginning. »Thls should reed: North as Masured along the Bast line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. This survey show the location of an existing house in relation to the above '' described property. It does not purport to show eny other iaproveaents or •ncroachMnU. /a' I : '£ " ; V. • j . <• iv..^ - SiJli K4.?it iJ/Jlsiii I• * •» 5 5l4-.t>0 U 1^ ^tNl |/> lA n 5> 5? o« 'D ^2 tfjr itno I • ,e??.5o^ =: c 3= u»u» !>• \M U 0*34-’J 3(3.00 \' e ■ .'vl ->) \ ‘Qu iHva i • • X I 9 ^10 — Of \-------- \ V -!V \ o .* *< .'* I • \♦ h. >..-v .* , \ *N \—. r. : s.'./ s\ - - - -4--^ M- \- --T 0\ •.,-1 v*‘V-* y-5’- .^ •. w-y\\-•••••: •^,v •IN Q.-0 ■* o' V ••• .• •m'.'S^. t '• •■* ■n - V > 1 1 ^*- If ./ o oo :M.M! M ! :r l-H i I ! • h i Uj2 ’■:rs i i'll j j i i j-j i M ! igK^li 'ftrH' I'I t : ! Mi M i I I ! i .iili illl!i : i im I t I I i ; : l'!i >:. i ! '. i ! !•-1 \ ,4-> mtij i I M-i ! i iI j.mn ? : t : ^jei i V 0><I> r ; i i i miiLiii i i rJ.! i »^ I li I ! :• I :I I I ;.I : : t i i i I ! i-l II I i M !.miir Ini.ij : ! J I I i i'i i® U id ! i ; ^C> I ! - i ! i ih- i ;• : i i !;Hi : ! : : I ! i lUi • : • ?.* : i'i I i ‘ i N •! ! i • •• : [ i i M ii! m_i_ H-Uit| IT i H i • ilT •(• I i- * • j'i i i ‘ .’i-! i ! i . i.iHlihi'i irrn.!M-i^ i.i i s ; < i ; i. I i ri i’tn n u MllilU i ! -1 i i 5 i'!i I i fffiiiii * ■ ' *T '•* *:, y-. > *• >« {*I»/.. - LJf i i -*i n i I r|*i rr liitlllJl' ni:iriKii :■ !■! : i i J :} iiwtii i i*i t »1 I'l'ni- Mi! i -ii ' ■• ■ :I .* T *. i" 1 / i . i i .1 y :fj.if i ■in mi ffli ['i? I r-? 'h f r].: ■iSMi- filf : r I; ^ i : '•‘hV.. •Ty;-• ‘ ^ O'- .'■•-■•■• ■^5’' : - ^4 \ M 1 11 M ill i V i ! 1 ifjlliimiiii I i uirri ; • *•r r. *• • ,N3gSn T’ ■••...• . « • • • - ^ • «•. • A . ^ I ;. I I • P# ^ ‘K"-S"d3“''■"Is ^8 5 o.® CL I -i , OOl'Z ® “8 I rito:S oo I * •a. voNn 7 . ^ ; i'5 i ' ' ■fill i I I i i I ^ I i i j H iilillir 11 rr I i‘? I i Hi !riii. ri-fr'i apiir • i -i •! > I ; i-i ;mi.! If! : !-* : ■ : I . HI Mi rrv \1.1 • ? i I'll! ■; : :mi Tt 1• r ■' 11 I ■! 1; i 1 iiJi! • • • • ilH i it I ma 1 n'i ii Hj H:ii.l|il-r*i j !• {.f f. r 1i;i , 1 r t.'i'.i ’ iTH’imi ..r !•!•!.! 1 rvt I : : I t t i I« • • •• * • • • : { i i * > j i t i ' •: i : iJ t ;• r: t t: I l■.{•i} i. ! i :_i i-,5wC: I ; <Nl I r li t • lit Jti;m it • i .j (• i I. i-Mmi i I •.<»:: I I I I Irit,n n m 1 mi ■m ■i 0 A i T t .t f :* : li 1:1 H>!' ii MM;Vi : •^ I. fef , V. .-'s' ^ ■,,?>»‘tt-. N*1 r.‘-• ^ ■} I ;i V •S* " : •* V b* V ' ; ^' i**i or»i» ^ •ILLL p- ■ - t' • ' ^.' L' V- mm r^rv 1 ' : \ !• V4',t ' **"^ ^ . .. . f^-/-' '•■ ■ !‘. % % isSt iK ». • i ■> . ^ • y • ' 4'i *.>• • .■/. •/ I <,«." a - . «r.’ * ,r ^ ■ -^1 »s .^-• n • ••' • %Oi ;.'v%cr.- •♦'" (:• ; .n-- r “ V • ■ « • •' • *.•'*'> ’i ***yi.'V *'‘'V»** ’^ ' *• ,.\:' ' - . .1 - • ■ :-; \ . •' ,v ^T„ ••^, :.• • ■■ V - ■ V ‘.'‘•'■';; ■ •'\ y’■■. ■ ■.'• ‘^‘.'r■. • ;,".• yV. - ^ 1. • '.. * :*•' •.'•v ' '- ' . . . , .. ^ ^ v-^ ., - »; •.*. ;rV; *Vjyt .•• '• . ■,. .'i6 -. ■■ •■ • ••s'.‘>;’ ■.»•••• ■• A :•-••' ’• • • 'yJ ..4. ; ■. jj-- .^-v. ... . : . •• :• . •; ./ '-.~r‘vr. . -.• • .• •.'• : - • . ■ r ■ ••■•>■■• / ; • - V •’. : • \ • y.-ly'T-v • r".' • f-« H H ,. S\t^ e I < H*c V' > y- Blui a iXJ '■I o 2 < h- 0 V) ■JJ ZZ >- kz D 0 U 2 2 ittJ 2 '• I 1 > ► t 7 - ^ A »''x - \ * V '• % ' :v<^^ W wVa ^T£S3i:?‘'f.' iT h. mwkm’^m. m/mmm y^rt^ * Ji nci:v *1 ti* hir. yc -"W%y ) V “ m f.AT^ s wM >W' , * • '>’>V‘^ '•' 'is •? ( •- .>• b ’•lA * <1 >“i*^f ^ • **’ . >'» Sli»Mf?;,:ife-jv :;!^rv:.v fei D AHL a i JU»-'v^^ti^3»*UkL h' # -'.a X /-li T^sm_i>sLM..:, : f u;«* 4 I.:»s itw I iv/i I,€1 ? # -Vi ■w rv. .>- flw^ >• 1 f • k t i< / i';! iij *’ '-'^S ■^Pkhtti--%'^' ■" •™ VS" i^B if illi iiHii ifih I " in)' ‘^.IfrZl^iHS 'Wfr ’ti> -V Kl'y '-^ c Pm |RP>(*;< H, -41 V J>* * • *5-1 -I H k ^:'^'M; •Ht ; '2??^ • ■ '-^ a tMC Av ^ic^ 'r * K •T t* -.- H:.121166* peMf V N- ^ •.. / • '! • -V • f^ , PEMF \ ^ V/’ PU66 '• 1 /LIU6H ^•* *. W66i 4979 66« V.- PtMCd PU6G» _«5* \< JKAiU % •utew*' PUBF t ...... ••' fhM:7H'.t>c ^ Dcrr®*^ '., ■ > • Sa«a ■<< -I- 4 • /’^ . \ij'.-v rx ■ -L^i•/’-w. pcur •'A '0?/ l7 uubh . Oi ♦•.r; 7 « •V -••X PU^..] 57^3(y' ,\ * •: * T. , • ■\ . 'i'U#* 4»78 • sib" 1 V. v: *• •. ^ ^. . -PCMC - • ‘V*-. • w.. *« • * . '*S> • »• • • ' V / • • • 'A:*• • JVjr •• •; vA'! .. . •- /V/ &m, o . ^ Vlt* M307 *0 940 •• I Or. M»-• « *.«.VIII. %0U * t. . . limn 1 1 •.!! <« ■nOo-'I "-!• J. J • • 1400'0 C* 1. %• 20U0-'0 M 22<?0^0 I* 2*!C0^1 1 *9 1 • - - • • # 2630'1 2 CD. f? 2640*1 ](Mi. t) 265!)'2 .71*0 0 26Bo^ii J06-O 26V(K I •(»!• ? 2700-''1 1>'J P 3000-1 r*. 5 3303'i ?o'; r 3305 1 .10*: n 330?-1 1 •»*. , • 331.'-^1 D 1C2Q-2 'JC *. V 363 0'3 Ml 3800 0 65 0 4200^2 1«.M /; 4710-1 III D 4750'1 ?.? 1 f)Pm!6o-2 <' i M 56*40-1 ?.0I* II *5650 1 ino (1 6005^2 D.'O. 641 h-]f*?1 • 6670'^3 /|1»M h ,0 • 500*.)"0 •,i;. 0 6 MM)-'J 1) .1 OOU"1 11 ; 20OO--1 7 300<i \•/; 6 4os.‘?K 1 * •; ' • • 4 50i ‘0 ^J.i'.:. 0 60(D)/'#%K !!*•. 700'J''y 8ori(w 1 •••. ri n • ii 1 * • I.• »• „N*.. I .1 :i 19 I) J I. I • • 1 U I• • 0 1 i 1 1 I t) 0 0 f* 1 0 0 T 6 0 1 f- 0 1 1 I I I 9 • ;» I n -l?V0 00 .1^70,00 0 0 0 ;i po j?.7oico .1 >70- 00 v<Uo l>fi 3?.70i00 I >70.00 l?70.00 1??70,00 U', 00 •TJ*7U.0(J 3^7»» 00 i?70,on r*V!o.no i;:vo-ou 0 :'yio.oc »?70,00 Jl ’yo.oo '' !071'0 .* •. VO. DO 3H70,0t' ?s4o.oo 1770.00 3?U0,(0 0 i;' ^D.no 1770.00 1770.00 1?70,00 1:1/0.00 r ym.oo 1770.00 « w Ik All •; 0,00 715 7T *.07 J ‘-no n 0 i.*f 790.00 yuo.oo >00.00vBo.on ini2.i}4 565.50 X . 76 795.60 1*1.9 no 1 ‘-t'O-OO p o• • ,» . j** :*>o,co 351 c 00 00 06.5.80 1739.40 T7fi'i “4o .1 'ioO. 00 7CU.00 c’ir.O, (JC 63.1.02 30.17.32 390.00 390.00 V»;9.?6 <M?.3o 600.60 50 637.60 20 .5/3.30 6‘lS.OO .C.'ll i Ox i225.00 I i\0 7ZS.00 0 0 0 225. ni* 225,60 c23.0U :-25.0o/,s:4a/yy»^'^^^ 0 .225. 00 0 225,00 225.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 0 0 0 225.00 o 0 225.-00 -■* 225.00 0 i-9r. CO Q 22 s.00 22^.00 225 rDO Ts •^5.00 yvj:iro *• 50. DO 725.00 "X5. 00 0 .. . ■ ••.t t a *»*. \ r o o\> ^ iW&U ^ \CITY of ORONO MunJctpal Officts PMO(Tk«Box66 Crystal Bay, MinnesoCa 55323-0066 April 5, 1994 Hennepin County Department of Transportation 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 ATTN: LesWeigelt Re: Subdivision Application #1921 Dear Mr. Weigelt: Enclosed is a plat map and survey for a proposed subdivision of property abutting County Road 151 The survey notes a discrepancy regarding County right-of-way. Please review and comment on this application, which is scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission on April 18, 1994. If you have any questions, please contact me at 473-7357. Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch Enc. TELEPHONE - 473-7357 • FAX - 473-0510 ^'ly t 'A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 24, 1995 ITEM NO.: 7 Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2009 Tom and Maureen Palm. 1685 Concordia Street - Variances Resolution Additional ExhibUs^^^ Acknowledgement Forms/Notes of Approval/Telephone Messages of Approval Brief Review of Application The applicants have advised that they would not proceed with the major renovation and second story addition to the 20.5’ x 54.3 ’ structure. Various builders contacted by applicants advised against the original proposal of improvement and recommended a rebuild. Please review applicant’s statement. Exhibit B-1. The applicants amended proposal involves the relocation of the principal structure to a 50’ lakeshore setback in line with the average lakeshore setback line, review Exhibit L. The proposed lakeside deck at 10’ x 30 would extend 10’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Review Exhibit N, the elevations show bay windows and a covered porch entrance at the lakeside of the residence. The Planning Commission advised applicants that additions to the lakeside were considered part of the principal structure and would have to meet the proposed 50’ lakeshore setback. Applicaius aereed that the structure would be moved 3’ to the street or to the east to meet the 50’ setback, planning Commission also noted the hardcover decreases were reflected in all setback areas as cited in the staff memo of April 7, 1995 and Exhibit M, 1-3. The applicant asks that you review his statement of unique findings and hardships comparing the benefits of the amended application over the original proposal approved by the City in December of 1994 (Exhibit B-2). Five of the seven member Planning Commission recommended approval of the application as proposed subject to the condition that the covered entry porch and bay window at the lakeside of the residence meet the required 50’ setback from the shoreline. The Plamun Commission approved new construction of a 30 ’ x 46 ’ two-story residence to be l^ated 5»- from the shoreline, the 10’ deck would be located 40 ’ from the shoreline and extend 10 in irr-.s of the average lakeshore setback line and new hardcover improvements in the 0-75’ setback area proposed at'986 s.f. or 25% (existing = 28%). and in Ihe 75-250’ setback area proposed at 2,901 s.f. or 32.4% (existing = 33%). Hardcover in the 250-500’ setback area is reduced to a conforming 34% (existing = 40%). Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 April 27, 1995 #2009 Tom and Maureen Palm, 1685 Concordia Street The minority opinion of two found it difficult to approve new construction Utat would be located within the lakeshore setback area. The applicant advised that it would be mpossible to relocate the structure to the 75’ setback line as house would be facmg t|«^ °f ^ residences on both sides. The new owners of the residence to the south advised that they were not currently considering rebuilding a new residence on the property but Plan to live in the current residence for the next few years. They have yet to consider a rebuild. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the approval recommendation of the Planning Commission. The DNR reviewed the proposal and found no problem with the grade-level deck without railings being located within 40’ of the shoreline. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt, amend or deny the enclosed approval resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION I (A & B) and SUBDIVISION 2 file no. 2009 WHEREAS, Thomas L. Palm and Maureen A. Palm (hereinafter the applicants ’) are owners of the property located at 1685 Concordia Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: The north 50 ’ of Lot 16, Coffee’s Addition to Shadywood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Mumcipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (A & B) and 2 to permit construction of a 30 x 46 two-story residence with 10 ’ x 30’ deck at the lakeside of the residence, the principal resident to be located 50 ’ from the shoreline and the lakeside deck 40 ’ from the shoreline where a 75 setback is required; the 10 ’ x 30’ deck will be located 10 ’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line where no such encroachment is allowed; hardcover excesses are P^^^ed “i the 0- 75 ’ setback at 986 s.f. or 26% where no improvements are allowed and where or 28 k exists and in the 75-250 ’ setback area 2,901 s.f. or 32.4% is proposed where 25% is allowed and 33% exists. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. 9 This application was reviewed as Zoning File <1^2009. The propert}' is located in the LR-IC. Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 21,780 s.f. or 0.5 acre in area. 3, The property consists of 14,140 s.f. or .32 acres. Page 1 of 6 4.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 17, 1995 and recommended approval of the variances as amended based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. B C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Lots in the Concordia neighborhood were developed prior to zoning standards for residential development of lakeshore properties. The subject property and two other lots on Concordia are the only 50 wide lots in the neiehborhood. Two-thirds of the existing residence structure is located within the lakeshore protected area. The current proposal would now place one-half of the improvement within the protected area. The proposed improvement will result in an overall decrease in hardcover existing at 32.79% and is now proposed at 30.95%. The lakeshore view windows of the adjacent residences will not be negatively impacted by the proposed new construction. The homes on either side have partial second stories. The City has received no negative comments from the neighbors who would receive the most impact from the improvement. The City has been contacted by adjacent neighbors supporting the new proposal. The proposed new residence will meet the required side setback of 10’ on a lot that is 50’ in width. The improvement would be consistent with recent improvements on adjacent properties. The proposed improvement would not have a detrimental impact on the values of the surrounding residences. The proposed improvement will result in a decrease in hardcover within the 0-75’ and 75-250’ setback areas. The 250-500’ setback area has been brought into conformance proposed at 34% where 35% is allowed. Page 2 of 6 5 The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that erantin2 the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely ser%e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial proi^i^ right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, co^ents 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 unique findings or hardships noted above, ^e Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning ’ Subdivisions 1 (A & B) and 2 to permit construction of a two-story structure with lakeside deck granting setback and hardcover variances as specified above, subject to the following conditions. 1. 2. 3. Hardcover improvements shall be limited to the improvements as shown on the site plan included as Page 6 of this resolution. Hardcover m the 0-75 setback area is approved at 986 s.f. or 26%, in the 75-250’ setback area at 2,901 s.f. or 32.4% and in the 250-500’ setback area at 490 s.f. or 34%. All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal shall be completed the footing inspection for the new construction. Applicants’ contractor shall obtain the required demolition permits for the removal of both the principal structure and the accessory shed at 103 s.f. The current applicants and future owners are hereby advised that the granting of these variances has been based on the existing grade-level deck at 300 s.f. located completely in front of the average lakeshore setback line and within the lakeshore protected area and this deck shall not be intensified with roofing or stiuctural enclosures. Page 3 of 6 4. Authorities granted by this varianwC mn 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 (May 8, 1996). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of May, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of May , 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 4 of 6 r ■ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this da)' of , 199 before me a Notar>' Public within and for said county, personall)^ appeared ______ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 5 of 6 Page 6 of 6 From: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusih. Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: April 7, 1995 4^2009 Tom and Maureen Palm. 1685 Concordia Street - Variances - Public Hearing Status of Original Application Approved for Applicants on December 12, 1994: Review Exhibit E. the resolution that granted approval of an average lakeshore setback lakeshore setback and hardco% er variances for a proposed second story addition over the existing principal structure. Pertinent Ordinances Involving Current Application 1. 3. Section 10.22, Subdivision I (A) - Lakeshore setback. Allowed = 0 Proposed deck = 40 ’ Existing deck = 28’ Principal structure = 47.5’ (Cantilevered window extends 2.5 ’ into lakr^liore setback, note roofed entrance. Exhibit O, at lakeside not shown on lloor plan. Applicant to provide additional information.) ‘ 'f- Op Principal structure varianwc = 27.5’ Deck strucpjre variance = 35 ’ Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Proposed deck encroaches 10’ in front of average lakeshore setback. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - R .iew of hardcover. A. 0-75’ setback area = 3,750 s.f. Existing = 1,064 s.f. or 28% Original application = 1,064 s.f. or 28% Current = 986 s.f. or 26% B. C. 75-250* setback area = 8,940 s.f. .Allowed = 2,235 s.f. or 25% Existing = 2.979 s.f. or 33% Original application = 2,876 s.f. or 32.1% Current proposal = 2,901 s.f. or 32.4% Hardcover decrease = 78 s.f. or 0.6% (Otiginal 103 s.f. or 1.15%) 250-500 ’ setback area = 1,450 s.f. Allowed = 435 s.f. or 30% Existing = 594 s.f. or 40% Original application = 594 s.f. or 40% Current proposal = 490 s.f. or 34% Hardcover decrease = 10-1 s.f. or 6% (original 40%, no change proposed) Zoning File #2009 April 7, 1995 Page 2 Review of total hardcover. Lot area = 14,140 s.f. Existing total hardcover = 4,637 s.f. or 32.79% Original approved application = 4,534 s.f. or 32.06% Current proposal = 4,377 s.f. or 30.95% 4.Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of stnicniral coverage Total lot area = 14,140 s.f. Allowed = 2,121 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,057 s.f. or 13.1% Proposed = 2,020 s.f. or 14.2% No structural coverage variance required. List of Exhibits A B-1 B-2 B-3 C • D - E - F - G - H • I - M-3 K - Application Applicant ’s Addendum-Current Application Comparison of Original Findings of Approval Original Hardcover Statement Plat Map Property Owners ’ List Resolution No. 3507 Existing/Survey Existing Site Plan Existing Floor Plan Proposed Site Plan-Hardcover Map Hardcover Key/Inventory Diagram Comparing Existing and Proposed Structural Improvements within Lakeshore Setback L - Site Plan-Average Lakeshore Setback M-I-3 Hardcover Comparison-Table N - Elevations O - Floor Plans Review of Current Proposal As applicant ’s addendum notes, in his discussions with various builders, he has been advised to proceed with a rebuild rather than the installation of a second story over the existing 20.5’ X 54.3’ structure, review Exhibit B-1. The current proposal involves the relocation of tl*e principal strucmre to a 50’ lakeshore setback in line with the average lakeshore setback line, review Exhibit L. The proposed lakeside deck would extend 10’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The 30’ structure will meet the required 10’ side setback. With the relocation of the principal strucmre there will be a negligible impact now on the lakeviews of the adjacent residences. Zoning File #2009 April 7, 1995 Page 3 Hardcover reductions aie shown in all thr"e setback areas. More structural improvements are placed out of the 0-75' zone and with the reduction in the width of the driveway and the removal of the shed, hardcover reductions are renected in both the 75-250’ and 2^0-500’ setback areas. Note the structural improvements are still held to less than 15%. This includes the roofed porch to the street side of the residence. Staff does not have any accurate dimensions for the roofed lakeshore entrance but it is still doubtful whether that ponion of the structure would bring the improvement over the allowed 15% but applicant must provide clarification. The visual impact of the total structural envelope will not change significantly with the current proposal. The original application proposed a two-story 20.5’ x 54.3’ residence and the current proposal involves a 30’ x 46’ two-story residence. The current proposal involves a 10 X 30’ deck extending from the lakeside of the residence where the original proposal showed a 30’ X 10’ deck that also extended along the side of the house. As of this writing, the City has received a call from a neighbor noting complete support of new proposal. Statement of Hardships Applicant asks you to review his comments concerning the comparison of the findings of the original approvals. Exhibit B-2. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the fact that we are dealing with new construction have any impact on your consideration of this current proposal? Applicant is meeting with Ceil Strauss of the DNR to discuss his new proposal. Note the principal structure will meet the 50 minimum setback of the State for General Development lakes. The applicant has asked Ms. Strauss to comment on the proposea grade-level deck without railings. 2. Is the proposal too ambitious or is it consistent with the total improvements approved in Application #1983 ... or is it better? 3. Does the fact that the City will more than likely be dealing with ^e rebuild of a residence to the immediate south have any impact on your current decision. Options of Action To either deny or approve the current proposal as presented; OR To table application providing applicant additional time to address any concerns raised by Planning Commission members. CITY OF ORONO - VARLVNCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) | > Renewal Variance Fee SI00.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S200.W After-the-Fact Fees (Double application tee) • \\ 9 ' Zu m 4 V‘ - r \ T* » -'An • v\ V V ‘ W b : ^• «w » i u • • k t PROPERTi' INFORMATION ^ Site Address ^ y , Propem Identification Number (P.I.D.)__L7 ’It7 ----QQ-^^-cL. Attach legal description to appl^ationjf ‘ (month/vear) Date Property ’ Acquired —f ^ ------------------------------- I (do) (tfon^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property ; (specify)^-------------------------------- Zoning District: ---------------------------------------------------------------- applicant Name ~T2>rv> Phone (liome) V?y* *77// PhQne(work) ^7/' OWNTR (if different tlian applicant) Name______________________ Phone(home) Phone (work)_ Address;Ciry:,Zip; description of request Estimated Constniction tot S (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side yC Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ---------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 • • 4*i# • 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of Ihf following infnm.a.ion Iw ...hmittwl bv »h«! appli<atipn jline djt«; inorda fnr your anniiriilion to be considered coniplctgj. Completed Application Form Cettified Property Owners List of owners wtthin 150’ (you must obtam this list from ^ Hennepin Coun^ Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center. 348-3271). y Plat Map (obuined with property owners list). . ■ , j ,. j ■y Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor and iiK ude haricover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8W all for X Top^mZc 'survev (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In Addition, provide one (1) copy 8W" x 11" for r=P™ductiom y Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S/i x 11 ). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property This would include name(s) of applicani(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. y Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remembw that J2l!£ annlirnrlnn is not complete if the above information hds not hgen (ncMed. applicant 's signature * « u *7 • The applicant -.ereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by *' 2°^ Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not coveted by 5* and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Applicant’s Signature Date The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonab ^ entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Councu members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature 'A Date this change prior to the meeting. JLl O TO: CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: AMMENDED VARIANCE REQUEST A \ i ' \ • ■ ^ 4- ] I- ON DECEMBER 12TH, 1994 WE WERE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO ADD A SECOND STORY DIRECTLY ABOVE OUR EXISTING SINGLE STORY HOME. IN JANUARY I CALLED FOUR REMODELING CONTRACTORS TO COME TO OUR HOUSE FOR AN INITIAL MEETING TO DISCUSS OUR PLAN. THERE WAS A GENERAL CONSENSUS AFTER EVALUATING OUR SITUATION. THE BUILDERS FELT THAT THE WORK COULD BE DONE, HOWEVER THE INVESTMENT IN A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN 1955, HAS 1000 S.F. AND IS ONLY 20 FEET WIDE MAY NOT BE PRUDENT CONSIDERING WHAT HAD TO BE DONE. WE WERE TOLD THAT THE FOUNDATION WAS ONLY 32" BELOW GRADE, THE EXISTING ROOF WOULD COME OFF AND A NEW STAIR CASE AND SECOND FLOOR ADDED. NEW WINDOWS WERE RECOMMENDED TO MATCH UPPER WINDOWS AND PROVIDE BETTER INSULATION AND MAINTENANCE. ALSO A NEW FURNACE, WATER HEATER, EXTERIOR SIDING, AND CARPET WERE DISCUSSED. WE ALSO HAD TO OPEN UP SOME WALLS TO RUN PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND HEAT DUCTS TO THE SECOND LEVEL. TO FINISH THE PROJECT WE THOUGHT IT WAS ABOUT TIME TO GET RID OF THE ORANGE FORMICA COUNTERTOPS AND DARK WOODGRAIN VINYL FLOORING IN THE KITCHEN AND THE OLD TILE IN THE BATHROOM. ONE CONTRACTOR EVEN CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF BRINGING THE MAIN ENTRANCE THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE SO YOU DID NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE KITCHEN TO GET ANYWHERE! "IF I WERE YOU I WOULD TEAR IT DOWN AND START OVER BECAUSE THERE WILL BE VERY LITTLE LEFT NEW WHEN WE ARE DONE ANYWAY AND WONT COST MUCH MORE" THIS WAS A COMMON COMMENT. THEY DID LOVE THE LOCATION HOWEVER. IF THE GUY FROM "THIS OLD HOUSE" NEEDED A GOOD PROJECT WITH EVERYTHING THIS WOULD BE PERFECT! WE SPENT THE NEXT TWO MONTHS LAYING OUT A NEW FLOORPLAN AND FOUND HOW NICE IT WAS TO HAVE 30’ TO WORK WITH RAT HER THAN 20’. AFTER THE MODEL HOME SHOW, PARADE OF HOMES, OPEN HOUSES AND DRIVING THROUGH NEWER DEVELOPMENTS WE FEEL VERY GOOD ABOUT THE DESIGN AND HOW IT CONFORMS TO THE CFFY CODES. PLEASE REVIEW THE LETTER FROM OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND THE FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE FIRST APPLICATION AND HOW THEY RELATE TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. ALSO ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR EXISTING LAYOUT FOR REFERENCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATfER. TOM, MAUREEN, MATTHEW AND KELLY I- CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE C.TT COUNCIL NO 8 50? •* I*' J. 4. OAJ^y 3 y Va jS'L oesfte^se/^^ The property consists of 14.140 s.f. or .32 acres. Three members of the Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 21. 1994. and recommended unanimous approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following fmdings: A. The lets in ihe Ccnccrdia neighborhood were developed prior to zoning standards for residential development of lake shore propenies. B. C. 135S> lfAP/<r D. Two-thirds of the residence structure is located within the lake shore protected area. The proposed second stoiy expansion will not result in an increase in hardcover. The lake shore view windows of the adjacent residences will not be negatively impacted by the second story addition. E. The homes on either side have partial second stories, RsfeftAfB p- lotrH !o‘ stOB vies 5. The City has received no negative comments from the neighbors who would receive the most impact from the improvement. The Citv has been contacted by adjacent neighbors supporting the proposal. The lot is 50’ in width and the existing footprint of the residence struemre is 20’. The stmeture conforms to the required side setbacks. The improvement would be consistent with current improvements on adjacent properties. The proposed improvement would not have a detrimental impact on the values of th*: surrounding residences. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other propert>' in this zonmg district, at granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor H. I. Page 2 of 5 n j if £ S / ^ * ^' i '. .1 • mW .•S TO: CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST MAUREEN AND I MOVED INTO OUR HOME IN MAY OF 1988. THE HOUSE WAS PERFECT FOR OUR NEEDS AT THAT TIME. WE NOW HAVE TWO CHILDREN AGED 1 1/2 AND 3 1/2. AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE ENCLOSED LAYOUT OF THE EXISTING SPACE, THE BATHROOM AND CHILDRENS BEDROOM IS A PROBLEM AND WILL GET WORSE WITH TIME. WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS AT THIS POINT - ADD ON OR MOVE TO A LARGER HOUSE. IN TALKING WITH MIKE GAFFRON IN PLANNING AND ZONING REGARDING THE FIRST OPTION, BUILDING A SECOND LEVEL ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND NOT INCREASE THE GROUND COVER SEEMED TO BE THE ONLY REASONABLE OPTION BUT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE. ADDING TO THE SIDES OR REAR OR MOVING THE HOUSE BACK WOULD INCREASE OR MAINTAIN THE CURRENT HARDCOVER. EACH OF THE TWO HOMES ON EITHER SIDE OF OURS ARE TWO STORY HOMES AND ARE LOCATED SUCH THAT AN ADDITION ON OUR HOUSE SHOULD NOT OBSTRUCT THEIR VIEWS OF THE LAKE. IN TALKING WITH THEM THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE IN THIS PROJECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT A HARDSHIP MUST BE DEMONSTRATED AND THAT IT MUST BE UNIQUE TO THE LAND. THE HARDSHIP HERE IS THE 50 FOOT WIDE LAKESHORE LOT. THE VAST MAJORITY OF LOTS ON FAGERNESS POINT AND ELSEWHERE SEEM LARGER THAN 50 FEET AND KEEP GETTING LARGER. WHEN BOATING I NOTICE THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW HOUSES THAT ARE ONLY 20 FEET WIDEI MEETING THE LOT, LAKESHORE AND HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS IS CHALLENGING AND IN LOOKING AT THE SURVEY THE PREVIOUS OWNERS SEEM TO HAVE CONFORMED. THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION THAT STRICT ENFORCEMENT WOULD CAUSE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP, AND THE END RESULT WOULD BE NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORS OR EXISTING LAND USE. OVER THE PAST 6 YEARS WE HAVE BECOME ATTATCHED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS PROPERTY. WE LOVE THE WEST FACING VIEWS AND HARD SAND BEACH THAT HAS NO WEEDS. WE LIKE LIVING ON A QUIET DEAD END STREET AND HAVING A NICE PARK AND SKATING RINK SO CLOSE. WE DO NOT HAVE A LONG DRIVE TO WORK AND OUR NEIGHBORS ARE FANTASTIC PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THE AREA. WE WOULD HAVE AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TIME TRYING TO DUPLICATE THIS ENVIRONMENT ELSEWHERE ON LAKE MINNETONKA REGARDLESS OF THE COST. IT IS TRUELY A WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE AND RAISE A FAMILY AND HOPE TO STAY FOR A LONG TIME. SINCERELY, TOM, MAUREEN, MATTHEW AND KELLY 1 I -• j n GOVT LOf .? • . ♦ VC oo # .2! •• • • RUN DATE 09/27/94 BATCH 504PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 17-117-2S 22 0021 01705 CONCORDIA ST JANET JACOBSON SACHS JANET SACHS 7545 17TH AV SO RICHFIELD m 55423 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPE'RTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST38 17-117-23 22 002201685 CONCORDIA ST T L PALM A M A PALM THOMAS L PALM 1685 CONCORDIA ST HAVZATA MN 55391 REPORT HO. PI435401 PAGE 1058 17-117-23 22 002501695 C0»«;0R0IA STD J A 0 R BELAHSKl DONALD JOHN BELAHSKl 3819 COLORADO AVE N CRYSTAL HN 55422PROP AODR OFMER NAME TAXPAYER NAI«/ADOR 38 17-117-23 22 002401687 COFCOROIA ST GLEN E BENNETT GLEN E BENNETT 1687 CONCORDIA ST HAVZATA MN 5.J91 38 17-117-23 22 003001740 COrxrORDIA ST 0 J BELAHSKl ADC BELAHSKl DAVID J A DAYNA C BELAHSKl 1740 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA r I 55391 . 38 17-117-23 22 003101695 CONCORDIA ST P HERNDON/K ORTHEIER-HERI400N PAUL L HERNDON 140 CARLSON PKHY 1101 HimETOrOCA IffI 55305 * =1 PROP AODR 06MER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 17-117-23 22 0032 01680 CONCOROIA ST LAO SEBOK LINDA 0 SEBOK 1680 CONCOROIA ST HAYZATA HN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 504 00009 38 17-117-23 22 0040 0163S CONCOROIA ST HOlURO R ALTON III HOHARD R ALTON III 1< 3 CONCOROIA ST OHONO HN S5391 38 17-117-23 22 0043 01675 CONCOROIA ST HELEN K TRAINOR HELEN K TRAINOR 1675 CONCOROIA ST HAYZATA It4 55391 * V < • ' • A ■J -1 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCLRTATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HETtTEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY T/.XATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KrWHLEDGE ATTO BELIEF DATE UdHU.'■ ■■ J • • • I . • CITY of ORONO resolution of the cm' council ^ ^ NO- .t. ^ESH^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING V.ARLANCES TO MUNTCIP.YL ZONING CODE SECTION 10,22. SU-RDIVISION 1 (,\) AND (B) and SL13DIVISION 2 FILE n9S3 WHEREAS Thomas L. Palm and Maureen A. Palm (hereinaner tne applicants-) of’the property located at 1685 Concordia Street w.thtn the Cry of O^rono (hereinafter "City”) and legally described as follows. The north 50* of Lot 16, Coffee’s Addition to^Shadywood Uke Minnetonka. Hennepin County', Minnesota (hereinafter "the property ); and WTIEREAS, the applicant ha« apphed^o *co^^rllct^^^^^ Zoning Code Sections 10.—. u ■*'’*^~cidence 'that is located 39* from the shoreline of Lake «ory ,0 installed -fr - ^ fonsmretion will be located 10* Minnetonka where a 75 setback is encroachment is allowed and perss s. 34“ V “‘“i: ss“ "isr, "J s t'i' SJ;- **a;l'arra:''^Vpm^^^^^^ result m no additional hardcover but will intensify Structure where these excesses exist. Minnesota: NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1983, The property is located in the LR-IC, Lakeshore Residential Zonin^, D' requiring 21,780 s.f. or 0.5 acre in area. Pase 1 of 5 r««30C! 9 « CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 5 0 7____ j. 4. 5. A. The property consists of 14,140 s.f. or .32 acres. Three members of the Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 21. 1994. and recommended unanimous approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following findings: The lots in the Concordia neighborhood were developed prior to zoning standards for residential development of lake shore propenies. B. Two-thirds of the residence structure is located within the lake shore protected area. C. The proposed second story expansion will not result in an increase in hardcover. D. The lake shore view windows of the adjacent residences will not be negatively impacted by the second story addition. E. The homes on either side have partial second stories. F The City has received no negative comments from the neighbors who would receive the most impact from the unprovement; The City has been contacted by adjacent neighbors supporting the proposal. G. The lot is 50’ in width and the existing footprint of the residence stnicture is 20’. The structure conforms to the required side setbacks. H. The improvement would be consistent with current improvements on adjacent properties. I. The proposed improvement would not have a detrimental impact on the values of the surrounding residences. The City CouncU rmds that the conditions existing on this propetty ^ to it and do not apply generally to other property in granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor Page 2 of 5 rwrnvm MOw CITY of ORONO resolltion of .toe city council NO. DOse a fire hazard or otlrer danger to neighboring property; would not merely serv-e as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessar>- to preser%'e a substantial proper^ right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with tlie spirit and intent of Utc Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6 The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community, CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS BaseJ upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby crams variances to Municipal Znning Code Section 10.22. Subdivisions 1 (A). 1 (B) and 2 to permit construction of a full second story addition granting setback and hardcover variances as specified above, subject to the following conditions: 1 Prior to the final inspection by the Orono building staff of the second story addition, the storage shed within the 75-250' setback area at a 103 s.f. shall ^ removed. Applicants' contractor shall obtain the required demolition permit prior to the removal of the structure. 2 Hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area shall remain at 1,064 s.f. or 28%. Hardcover within the 75-250 ’ setback area has been approved at 2.876 s.f. or 32.1%. Hardcover within the 250-500’ setback area shall remain at 1.43U s.r. or 40%. 3. completely in front of the average lakeshore setback line and withm the lakeshor protKted area shall not be intensified with roofing or stiuctural enclosures. Page 3 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLLTIO iN of NO___ CITY COUNCIL07 ^ 4. 5. 6. Authorities cramed by this resolution run with the property not with Uie applicants but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of die date of Council approval, or this resolution will expire on that date (December 12, 1995). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The 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 acree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of December, 1994. Ed^nl J. Cakid^ Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOl'A ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) • • n » i . -.rThe foreuoing instrument was acknowledged before me on tins Iztii uay oi December, 1994, by Edward J. Callalian, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on e a of the City. UN0AS.VEE NOMrPUBUC^aNNSOU temEPIN COUNTY MyConunissianEipinsJan.31.2000 S y. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 * • •» # V CITY of ORONO V-.. \ ^eWg^ resolution 0^ NO. _____—— ' COL'NCIL STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 4foigo4'£si^.. aD~d7 ckE0wledgcd Lhat h. (they) executed the same as hts (theu) act and deed. JAMIE LBOSI^ notary PUBUC-MINNESOTA HEWEPINCOUMTY My Comm. E«II« 12-19-97 NOT^Y PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary the foregoing instrument, an act and deed. notary public Page 5 of 5 fwmyano^Cr o nrr 2 O N.83*54*Z0 “E n ^65.90 — * ■• 1 «S»»2 ‘Sr«r*»c . ^ - ? '' .......V*» '•..............; 1-STORY FRAME 'S dwelling ? 'v ^ yi' V *^1685 ^0 f DECK K |T^ 1^ S 0 mr r 1 o ^THE south '■"' " «M «tT 0. ,0T ,. A 3# >. *; ^V;?l Vi-.<^- l<A 16SS CONCORDIA STREET SCALE 1/1«^ ■ 1 FOOT (b gXlSTTA^M ' ft 1 HX^ST7A>6- ^/h » tMS CONCORDIA STREET SCALE 1/1«" • I toot 3/17/tS 7^ PROPOSED HARDCOVER CALCUUTI ON WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONS) 7d -2:?0 Existing Hardcover in zone 25Q-300' SOO-1000'■^-1 A. House • 8— x . LENGTH WIDTH ' / . / 3. Garage \q,. Driveway '1 i D.. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck IQ. F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN 3Y , PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other V #N V /V — X 30 3^ Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone £16 986 S.F.; S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F _ S.F. 5^ S.F. S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F 2375^ S.F. ~fT) ^7SO X 100 = ^ 0 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEiJ^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0~75 R50-500 iOO-1000 Existing Hardcover in Zone A Mnn^r 1ft0X11 S.F. 3 length • • WIDTH X _____________" - • •S.F. y = • • S.F. • y = « S.F. S.F. 3. Garage — c. Driveway *7 _ X 3— = - y ------ * ^•0— ni7 S.F. ^ S • r • • D.. Sidewalk E. Patio / D eck —X a___= «3 S.F. S 70 y - 5?Y51_S.F. 7 3St X <#.75-. )SS.S.F. 8 X = 75__S.F. ^ F. Landscape AREAS underlain BY , . plastic SHEETING G. Other Total Hardcover in Zone S.F S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F Total Property Area in Zone S.F. B Q^O) - m 89V<g X100 .. #' 1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' /5-250' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House LENGTH 3. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN 3Y PLASTIC SHEETING 6. Other WIDTH Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone 230-300'> 300-1000' S.F. S.F. S»F. S.F. _ S.F. _ _ _ _ _ __ S.F. V9<g S.F. lO S.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F. S.F. S.F /y^S.F. £ B ij^ j.m yys*(g x loo = c.i m ' • •• :* H ')» ' • /"'.?• • ’‘r tr ■'•. »'. u f •■■V'J V. '''%n V V dwelling %r EXISTING ; It 1685 CONCORDIA STREET HARDCOVER BREAKDOWN HOUSE 0-75 697 75 - 250 416 250 - 500 0 TOTAL 1113 DECK 352 0 0 352 SIDEWALK 15 465 0 480 GARAGE 0 641 0 641 SHED 0 103 0 103 DRIVEWAY 0 1354 594 1948 HARDCOVER 1064 2979 594 4637 PROPERTY 3750 8940 1450 14140 PERCENT 28 33 40 32.79 APPROVED I . - 1685 CONCORDIA STREET HARDCOVER BREAKDOWN 0-75 75 - 250 250 - 500 TOTAL HOUSE 697 416 0 1113 DECK 352 0 0 352 SIDEWALK 15 465 0 480 GARAGE 0 641 0 641 SHED 0 0 0 0 DRIVEWAY 0 1354 594 1948 HARDCOVER 1064 2876 594 4534 PROPERTY 3750 8940 1450 14140 PERCENT 28 32 40 32.06 N X i PROPOSED 1685 CONCORDIA STREET HARDCOVER BREAKDOWN 0-75 75 - 250 250-500 TOTAL HOUSE 686 615 0 1350 DECK 300 78 0 300 SIDEWALK 0 450 0 450 GARAGE 0 641 0 641 SHED 0 0 0 0 DRIVEWAY 0 1117 490 1607 HARDCOVER 986 2901 490 4377 PROPERTY 3750 8940 1450 14140 PERCENT 26 32 34 30.95 I.ITFT RLEVATION SCAU 1/fmV-tr -'Ul.4‘:'V. f A ^0 «LimsarriT i fASClA MAmroMicc fit lA^ tllINC RICHT ELEVATION SCALE #/r«f-r It I STREET ELEVATION SCALE r/^«r-o’ LAKESIDE ELEVATION SCALE r//«r-4f S CM flSSTVt(wio Ml MW iX) Ota m \ Hmi »io< —< M •WT iwna wi H— . ^ AoMi • ••> (f i: Minnetonka design , inc . 5'•f f mvtoiHit roMt rOAT ih MAVREEH PALM LOt I^.OCI^ IcOUHTT; ocvuor«AMi • *MfT »• *' To UNTtt Kvtl WrMQVf ymmtmt amivc Mon urn wum f NKMI UM lUM /\V X X •***«^ VtHTXX «At fPCFLAcr 1 I It- ■ ^ ■v-3ri - V V- ^.;-= <"■ 1 ■ '■Si (C , m4tt-' 0 ITi^ t4M «ti« tTA I ♦ OFTIfiML VMJLt 9«mKka Cdl««tU/CAili€li I ••T VA»« ! (rtlONNt. VHM.? MTU '5'ES A«1 ^^'U. ^1* TUI V/ IM V I»CS/t« n LINCN ■ itfv '\A► 9 1 } I WttPf^OOM 2 !#•«••• HI#** 4« El 9-I4M L I__________I 2.%^ m,f3Cg l»L^ §CfkSt/ 4*»I*«9* i#f 9 Mrr. *.t • i4tuJi <tX£j yC^t r--------------- 7k-m^ I : ^J* ■) IMPOHTAIWT MESaAGE) FOR DATE M___ y V/'^^ S \i )/yAA^^ OF. PHONE. □ FAX □ MOBILE APEA ccoe ^^U^^BEP EXTENSlCiNJ APEA COCE ^gU^^tBEP TIME TO CAU. telephoned Y ii PLEASE CALL j CANE TOSS YOU Wai CALL AGAIN U—-------------------------- 1 WANTS TOSS YOU• RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL WILL FAX TO YOU | .4^ SIGN TOPS C9 RDRM 7<a600 Lnxo IM U.S.A. lOO^ RECYCLED o I (we) Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form oHAi aiOn t^aK/filCrbf 16.^7 CoUCcEsyiP, ^ [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^so referred to as Land Use Application N.v _. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires CouncU approval. Owner (NbOy M(VV Date ________________ ProfJ^rty Owu6r OF MAT I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date DaleProperty Owner If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days poor to the scheduled meeting date. I (we) 7 A Adjacent Property Ownere’ Acknowle^g^e^t 1 J ^ VC [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the pr^ located aiso referred to as Land Use Apphcatton No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (^e) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but mere^ to confirm for the Ci^ Council ttat I (we) am (^e) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed netghbor s project or use requires Council approval. 0 n Propert)' Owner Date /J. )‘=7<^S /ffS Date yProperty Owner I (we) [print rianute(s)j [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the pt^ located a]so referred to as Land Use Application No. x:^"7S-rj.sri—t Council ttat I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor project or use requires Council approval. ^ ^ ^ .. . Property Owner Date n L...s/l DateProperty^wner App™"^'^^ ^e1ui« zl^g Om^at iLTlO pri^r to the scheduled meeting date. Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form ScWCc-ttfI (we) C ' ___of [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the p^rty located also referred to as Land Use Application No. ... I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (^e) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neigh, or s project or use requires Council approval. '■'V '/ / . / . w a* -V—«_________--- /v Property Owner /, T .•«. ^ -i •I f. f V Date Property Owner *♦♦♦♦♦♦***♦♦**’*•** ♦♦****♦’**************** Date *♦♦***♦*♦♦**♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦*•*♦♦*****♦***♦*♦* I (we) f of ^7 Co 4l_ [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the prop^ located //, —________also referred to as Land Use Application No. —• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for die City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor project or use requires Council approval. y - /j Property Owner Date DateProperty Owner If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days pno to the scheduled meeting date. DAVID A. SEBOK Strategic Urban Development Coii!>ultinc Services April 14, 1^95 Ms. Jcamic A. Mabusth Ciiy ot On mo F .O Bo x 66 Crystal Bay, MN ,S!>?23-U066 Subicet:April 17, 1995 Planning Commission Item #2009 Dear Ms. Mabusth; 1 have reviewed the current pluas referenced above. This proposal represents an improvement in that: 1 The resulting shoreline setback is greater and more consistent with adjacent stmetures. representing less of a variance. 2. 3, Ihe overall lot coverage is less. The resulting sirucnirc will not in any way decrease views to the lake, will be nmre aesthetically pleasing architecturally and result in a more permanent property value enhancement to the neighborhood «014. David A. Sebok DAS/lf 16H0 Concordia Street • Wayzata, MN 55391 Po8l4t “ brand lax iransmittal memo 7671 iTgfpags* » Tq. t \n(w‘\IV 0 V.V, hfi VV\'*\ (i.I;C . W liL I'iuxMaj REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION A.A 4t <9 DATE: April 25. 1995 <7 ’^'oITEM NO.: t :% Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabustb Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: /f^2010 James and Joann Jundt, 1420 Bracketts Point Road - Variances Resolution The applicants have applied for setback variances and a variance to the allowed area for an oversized accessory structure to permit structural improvements to the portion of the structure containing the caretaker residence. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the variances as proposed. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either approve or amend the enclosed approval resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MLTVICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (C-2) AND SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE #2010 WHEREAS, James R. Jundt and M. Joann Jundt (hereinafter "the applicants ) are owners of the property located at 1400 Bracketts Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City for variaiKes to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C-2) and Section 10.23. SuMivision 6 (B) to permit structural repairs to an oversized accessory structure that is located 4 from a side lot line where a 30’ setback is required and approval of a vanance that would^low structural improvements to an oversized accessory structure at 5,478 s.f. where only a 3,000 s.f. structure would be allowed. Minnesota; 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2010. The property is located in the LR-IA, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. The property consists of 13.8 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 17, 1995, and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based on the followmg unique findings and hardships: Page 1 of 7 A. B. The property consists of 13.8 acres. The structures on the property were constructed prior to development of standards where residential construction on lakeshore propert>'. C.On-site septic testing has been completed for the property and testing has confirmed there is adequate area and suitable soils for development of on site septic systems to serve the principal structure and the caretaker residence within the oversized accessory structure. 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 thi3 application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the unique findings and hardships, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C-2) and Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit structural repairs to the nonconforming oversized accessory structure that does not meet the required side yard setback or allowed area for an accessory structure, subject to the following conditions: 1.The City has approved these structural improvements to the guest residence wi^ the understanding that the applicants will either install a conforming on-site septic system or connect to municipal sewer during the 1995 construction period. The City once again notes the letter from Thomas Crosby, Jr., applicants’ attorney. Page 2 of 7 2. 3. 4. ATTEST: dated March 7, 1995 confirming applicants’ willingness to comply with the septic standards set forth in the Shoreland Regulations of both the City and State Department of Natural Resources. Authorities granted by this resolution 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 (May 8, 19%). 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. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of May, 1995 Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 7 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of May, 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 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this dav of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 I CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. T *.• 1 - VTT-rmr ^•-s^^=T7T ’rr^^: r? csryTgrc c:;rj, U-.S I ‘■-■i ot Cr^r:= r-"'----: ,> • in ci Orcr.^ ?oir.*w v.- A-c: -.hi-. >--r-. ■••=■ Irj det-r-.iet- 'rca t-i S<ir*.hu«5 ’'.iriV =*”•** Center .■‘.v^r.u^ scu*.r.<rly SAxici c«r.t^rlir;^ t diitir.es o. “ 221.17 isst; 4 dis- tir.£sr.*wlil cur/s *.o %w„«a»/irly tv.3sr.t te th.\'l Vi.'.cs oi 169.35 i*rst;^t.*i*^'’-« 'th^ir.es aouthvestsriy or. 4 d-iicriV;*'! otirv^ i distar;cs j^. >- oi -445.72 isst i dlsi^iios tirxsr.tiii our*.’s -o tirisr.t »o 84*d Its- oi 11S.25 isst; thsr.es ec^*...we-t--u^-terly ar. serit-sd eur/s t diatftr.es o- ^.,I »-'£r.t s die’-sr.cs oi '9.2 ftT.£ls oi 44 sr.d tr-srs ts:t:lr.4^1=£; oub- teet to ths snow oi Do<rja«r.t r/j. 209255o; ject to Border Averjae aa Oper.e<i nw aild Urjs there sndir.a. Page 6 of 7 r««M» :«»«« /o^ o\CITY of ORONO resolution of the cm' council NO. ’ " I t ^ c;u* dsclci^*^- ov^r Th^. Oi of Oror.o ?r.n^ ^ tr.d &CWSS 0. _:;.j.iy line of stici Confer r-vcnue which lies becveer. ^ =order Avenue a’ rieh' er.s.e8 .^..*- lir.e ^-ewT. Ij “,e :rc= ihe icir.-, 'r;*.me lope —ft -res tr.e po.-v ............................ , aide llr.ee of sai<^ Avenvie with a li-e describe^' • ihe cantarllno OS cens«nii“* of a*ld bot 5; thence f’f;;;:*L;ic*‘*sou?her{y &nd scuthwesterly along 4 = » dlv.4T.ee el , r»dlu. of 2:i.l' i«'. «_f.4-4 dlatar.ee or . Vv.. „ith i radius of 221.17 :eet a dia- tar.fientiii cu^^e -o tangent to last ea.d *.ar.ce of 169.25 :eet: along ^ ,:i11cri6r:d fee;.: i.er.«.=c^ curve e dl»-.:>.-.ce of .1-15.73 feet • dlJ'-ence o. 011.1 curve to t.-.e to lost 0»14 «rve > _ 11S.3S feet; thence ’^ea*e-'y alor.g a tAr.»entlr'T. _ -r -ft-T 'tn thence aou»nwea.c.-y . - - page 7 of 7 r««iX(5 >«Orv 7 To: From: Chair Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: April 10, 1995 ttlOXQ James and Joann Jundt, 1420 Bracketts Point Road - Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) - Side setback variance for the multiple use structure containing guest house/caretaker residence. Required = 30’ Existing = 4’ Variance = 26’ or 86.6% A setback variance is being considered as applicant proposes minor structural improvements to portion of structure located within 30’ setback. 2. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C)(2) - Allowed area for oversized smicmre. A variance once again is required to this section as a major structural improvement is proposed for a portion of the oversized accessory strucmre. 3. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover approved with Application H992. 0-75’ setback area = 110,243 s.f. (20,591 s.f. of public road has been excluded from setback area consistent with requirements of code) Allowed = 0 Approved = 1,098 s.f. or 0.90% 75-250’ setback area = 317,893 s.f. Allowed = 79,473 s.f. or 25% Approved = 55,163 s.f. or 17.35% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners’ List D - Approval Resolution Application #1992 E - Site Plan F - Floor Plan G - South Elevation H - North Elevation I - Section J-1-2 Approved Hardcover for Application #1992 K - Survey-South Yard Segment-1" =40’ Zoning File #2010 April 10, 1995 Page 2 Review of Current Request Applicant proposes major structural improvements to oversiied accessory stnicture. Planning Commission members recently approved major stmcmral improvem^ts to the greenhouse portion of the oversized accessory structure and the detached garage. The current application involves an expansion of the roof for that portion of the accessory structure that stdl trains the flat roof design immediately adjacent to the gteenhouse addttton. Refer to Exhtbits E, F, G and H. Structural repairs are proposed to portions of the oversized structure located within the required 30’ side setback. No expansions of the existing building envelope are proposed within the 30’ setback area. The caretaker/guest house two-story unit is being renovated. The City already approved a conditional use permit for the guest house with Application #1866 approved in 1993^ No other improvements are proposed with this current application. Hardcover facts remain the sanie as shown on Exhibits J-1 and J-2 and as approved in Application #1992. Note hardcover ^e 0- 75’ zone has been adjusted to exclude the 250 s.f. of paved driveway that was located wito the 0-75’ setback area. One of the conditions of that approval resolution is that all disturbed areas are to be restored to natural groundcover by June 1, 1995. All conditions of the enclosed approval resolution will still hold true for the current application, specifically the matter of installation of an appropriate waste treatment system eithw with municipal sewer or a new septic system to be finally installed within the construction penod of 1995. Statement of Hardship Applicant refers to the unique findings and hardships set forth in the approval resolution for Application #1992. Issues for Consideration Are there any other issues that Planning Commission members wish to raise during the review of the current application? Staff Recommendation To approve per the unique findings and hardships of the enclosed approval resolution for Application #1992. ; • CITY OF ORO^’O - VAJUANCE APPEICATION Initial Application Fee S200.CO ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming smicwres S200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double appUcation fee) PROPERTY’ INFOR>L\TION Ste Address Se“al'Stioa .Tapplicadontf no. included oa reguTca survc,. Date Property Acquired__March 199? ..ZT I (do) (do nor) also d.e “'oS^'cspcdiy) Present use of property. __^resiaenuai ----- Zoning District: ------------ / ■r A u a i * •■ V • t « v’v I W .•^;r (month/year) APPLICAOTug_An(jerson Construction Name --- n ~ uj il _ i. n i i i i ' "—City:_xixiile-eiaes Ar1Hress:g(j fP?) ^-------- 612-786-7711 (Office) Phonc(work)__ Zip: ^qni nir pfoUEST EstimatedConstnictionCost$_500,000.00 description OF MQUEST , gir-24A. B and 0- SK-14 Describe request m detail:. — (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES required Lot Area Lot Width X Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) complianoo with Zoning as .nooroorareu ro oTjnIIK7IiEiiHiI=: '...a^h the ex-i^tino north/south structure^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS K. o.hmittcri i)Y tM; WBliattM iniliTrTi 1. 2. *7 • 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. r SS'”^ jSKT‘E.'^» reproduction. . elevations) if * Topographic survey copy 8V4" x IT for reproduction.^ arc proposed. In jjion views (provide one (1) copy 8’A“ x 11"). — ye;, wish notified of <hi»*ppli'“‘'>«- yo THE CITY OF ORONO. ---- -THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN PHEVIOU, «momb«r thtt MSI ; included^ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE mfonnatior ijuired or requested by the Zonii^ Tte IppliMM hereby egi*** “.^^Sunie not coveted by oii*iial *te Administrator. Agrees to pay this Appltauion. and eertides thit the ^or cot»-i.»t exi^ ^^or consultant the best of hisAer knowtedge. Appucanfs Signature bate 3» 7^3 ___________Date_______________ Owner’s Signature ~ ^ Appliiam must have aUsubmitL^inio^i'^f^"_J*^'^^^,^^ hSting. Ph“»“8 Conun^ouM;^,^ W ^ p„^ Conu^n to have an auuxonzeu tHs change prior to the meeting 8 RUi OME OS/24/M IIEII EPIII COUHTf PROPERTY ItffORMATIOII SYSTEM PROPERTY OI#IERS LIST REPORT in. PI435<i01 PACE 12RATCII 004PROP AOOR OlOIER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 11-117-2S S2 0004 01400 BRACKETTS POINT RO J R JUNOT I MARY J JUNDT JAMES R JUNOT BOX 1CRYSTAL BAY HI 55S25 PROP ADDR OIBKR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 11-117-2S S2 0017 OISOO BRACKETTS POINT RO GEORGE S PILLSOURY ET AL GEORGE S PILLSOURY 4000 PIRST BAIK PLACE MPLS MN 55402 PROP ADDR Olt4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR SB 11-U7-2S SS 0001 01420 BRACKETTS POINT RO J R JUNOT A M J JUNOT JAMES R JIAIDT BOX I CRYSTAL BAY MN 55S2S PROP AOOR OtMER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 11-117-2S SS 0006 01500 BRACKETTS POINT RO MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REED MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REED 1500 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA M4 55S91 SB 11-117-25 52 0010 01265 BRACKETTS POINT RO MICHAEL E LYW III A WIFE MICHAEL A JORJA LYItJ III 1265 BRACKETTS POINT HAYZATA Ttl 55541 SB 11-117-2S 32 0011 01420 BRACKETTS POINT RO J R JUNOT A M J JUIIOT JAMES R JUNDT BOX 1CRYSTAL BAY MN 55325 • SB 11-117-2S 32 0018 01220 BRACKETTS POINT RO ELLA P CROSBY ELLA P CROSBY 1220 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA rtt 55S91 SO 11-11T-2S S2 0014 01200 BRACKETTS POINT RO JOHN S PILLSOURY JR ET AL JOHN S PILLSOURY JR 4800 FIRST BAIAL PLACE MPLS Ittl 55402 SB 11-117-25 SS 0004 01450 BRACKETTS POINT RO MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REED MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REED 1500 BRACKETTS POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55591 50 11-117-2S 35 0005 01480 BRACKETTS POINT RD R A L HEAOniCK ROGER L A LYLAl C HEADRICK 1400 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA III S5S91 TOTAL BATCH 004 00010 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INTORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE D A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 AND VARIANCES TO SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1(A) AND 2; SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(C-2) AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(E) FILE NO. 1992 WHEREAS, J_.nes R. Jundt and M. Joann Jundt (hereinafter the "applicants") are owners of the propeny located at 1400 Bracketts Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Refer to Exhibit "A" attached hereto (hereinafter the "propeny"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to allow the reconstruction of a retaining wall and a variance to Section 10.22, Section 1(A) as retaining walls are located within the 0-75’ setback area at approximately 45 ’ from the shoreline where no such structures are allowed; a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(C-2) as major structural repairs are proposed to a greenhouse addition of an oversized str. cture at 5,478 s.f. where only a 3,000 s.f. accessory structure is allowed; a variance to S :tio*. !0.03. Subdivision 9(E) as structural repairs are proposed to a three stall garage in e: ss of 750 ‘ .f. t’*at is located 0’ from a side lot line where the code would require a 15^side y^rd setback and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 for a hardcover variance in the 0-75’ setback area resulting in a 0.10% increase in hardcover where 0.80% exists and 0.90% is proposed and where none is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1992. 2.The p 'perty is located in the LR-IA Lakeshore Residential Zoning District rtquii i two -teres in area. The property consists of 13.8 acres. Page 1 of 7 3. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 22, 1995 and recommended approval of the conditional use permit and variances as amended based on the following unique findings and hardships: a. The property consists of 13.8 acres. b.The structures on the property were constructed prior to development of standards for residential construction on lakeshore properties. c.On-site septic testing has been completed for the property and testing has confirmed there is adequate area and suitable soils for development of on site septic systems to serve the principal structure and the caretaker residence within the oversized accessory structure. d.Structural repairs to the nonconforming accessory structures do not involve the complete restoration but merely partial structural or cosmetic repair. e.The retaining walls at the underground entrance to the greenhouse provide the necessary support and stability to the only exterior entrance to the lower level of the greenhouse. f.The paved walkway located within the 0-75 ’ setback at the east shoreline has been installed at 4 ’ meeting the required width of accessory access stairs within the 0-75 ’ setback area for lots with steep slope. g-The paved walkway will minimize erosion of grassed lawn resulting from the more intense use of the lake access stairs providing the only bathing and boating access to lake for this property. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the restoration of the retaining wall within the lakeshore protected area will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighbormg properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with me mtent and objectives of me Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of me City. Page 2 of 7 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that grantins the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; 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 applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(A) to permit the restoration of retaining walls located 45’ from the shoreline of the property and grants variances to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(C-2) and 10.03, Subdivision 9(E) to permit structural repairs to two nonconforming accessory structures and per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 approves a 0.10 increase in hardcover within the 0-75' setback area where 0.80% exists and 0.90% is proposed, subject to the following conditions: Applicants’ contractor to complete the removal of 250 s.f. of driveway pavement located within the 0-75’ lakeshore protected area prior to City’s issuance of a building permit for restoration of structures. Applicants or applicants’ agents shall be responsible for maintaining erosion control within disturbed area until groundcover is restored no later than June 1, 1995. 2. The City is in receipt of a letter (dated March 7, 1995) from Thomas Crosby, Jr., applicants’ attorney, confirming that applicants will install a coirforming on-site septic system during the 1995 construction period failing to obtain the necessary approvals from both the City of Orono and the Metropolitan Council to extend sewer to the property. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution 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 (March 13, 1996). 1. Page 3 of 7 Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of March, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of March, 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 4 of 7 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 Notaty Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT A f rci? r- 'srviTc?; • . 4, ^• ^ C* R-!i<Lrr«‘^^='sr.t ot Crcr.o ?oin--;ur-s A .-,1 1A Orcno roir4T» v.d Also: th%’. '5- ■^/-f .I..«iv 4x.d «6.a*.ftrlv --i “-^** i«<U«w 1-..C it m ^h* c^n-v^rUr.^ oi ln£ dcscr'.ieci ilM. j-ca tht Sorthwea^^^riy comer Or.t'^r Avisr.uo wc-..-- ^ '* T>,iri.* acutheny Alena «id c»r.-.«’.i.r., « LiflrlSturoi's:!.H ->« * dis- c*-rv< \fi “••* . .-„w -j^na^nt to aoid iMt etr.co oi 169.38 i%^x.; thene.^ ^ aouihv<eeeerly * d*!acrlV.«r'i cniTve a o? 441.72 tt*s\ a dlatAnoe tAnaeneiAl our/o to to SAid lAat de- o: 11S.21 i^AV. thence thence weexerly sAkir.a at. aor--'«'i our« o '‘l«^'.o. « IOT.3 ol 79.3 «nsle of 44 dearees 42 ;° -here teza'.r.Atls«;f»*r •'*1 ahfire of LAke WlnnetoiikA • ^ enoePSt?*:ft«^ -j .«.e »nur- bv Doouaer.t no. ZOStcoo,.ggt to Border Avenue aa Oar'eneo «/ Al« th« F«r-. «£ 7»c.t.d C.«« Ave^ M ;-:'c£ urA; Mid 5.«r«ae»at ot |^no ;;r.»i;ru.t 4 A line drA.wn veeterly (ea 29 leet northerly troa froa A P^Ant on aeid west }^;*® f f t-t* UU Oi the weeterlv the eoathvest comer ot. saIc. .r3uth*-'y of eil'i Above de- hAlf of vAOAted Center Avenue ‘i, the veaterlV ecribed perpendlculAr line; the weeterly c^" htlf of VAOAted Center Avenue [;**'• ly.ns -outherly of tar.aicn of the northerly line of said .une of a line drAwn eenterly At riant ana.ea . J!l''*«ption of aAid west- v^*^ed Ont/^rr Av^nu« tren .he ^in ^^ry*g£''the lollcwlr^ erly line with a line orewn 10 feet A^.a of eAid Cen- acril>td 11ns: Coeasnaina At a ‘";^"\he r.oVthweaterly cer .Aver.ue diat^t 553*a* eta sAld centerline a :ti?:Lfor5"fS to ; ’rL^^wltraTadS^^^^^^^ »uxt;.^e of 169,33 feet, er.d •aid line there endir.a.M % Page 6 of 7 r««MCA :•»«« r;i3-.ar.« Ci 5 r.dl«. of 22--1- -'«« 0 c'JT'/e to ^westerly twiger.t to iMt 9&-<i *.ar.ce oi 169.28 t»«t^ iTjt-''•^erLce acuthweetarly along ® , curve a dietance o. - ’** «(iiua of 440.72 feet a diswance o* ^lal o'Jrve to the rig.n- to laat aeld wrv« ‘ , IIS.K seutiwesterly »1«R* »d^a'tince cf x07,a>0 .eet% dlBt^r.ce oi 19• 7 curve to the left with a curve a dlata.nce of thBP.cs souther.y ttfticn tAna^rz* tl curvB to the left e.S feet; thence of 63.9 feet; thence aO\;th- erS taigeirtf l«t ‘da;rrlbJd cu^e\ 20,5 feet;^^ A«.-.ue. »nd «»ld Ur., tlier. «ndlni. Page 1 of 1 5S Q ?1b ' I'' '' T- r.r ^ . ^ m ' ^' '' y' y'' y ----------------------^ ^''"' -'*'■' -'^^■' • —f r< '' '' ' •' ■“ ^— fi 5'^ l^' id ' '' ^-" ' \ \ \ * \ s I i !• r % if./ >iBiiia j'A d Hi -\t f'fi^ I 1^ i ml'I 111 !i ii f •nil«; •Vf. r i)l n ii SI \i S.' I ? i;ji st J.1 •» S 5 1 I I .X- % ? r '•-.-•r r.... -J PI 4 " ^ <, - fM A-:f’'r fi(' I ■^■'' —^ *•- r i II I'i'l \i ;• r f Bci^ i 3P.f' J V 1 ^ I ,.lII 5t h n A j> n 5?• ^ '-1 < : 'I I »jjjf 3 I I______ -d)' pft 5*J iSi R ) I n> t N V“ K "'it». Sit!; r J (n> A 1 \ =ten i! f' .;, •' •• *^»* »v 1 Hi \. f'?s • A -c- ' ■ -■ e .<■ : /A ■ \, ■ <• . I • • ' *1 ‘* » - •< »•*» •* I *w ...», %r ‘ • . . N . • . • ♦ # . , * • ' • 9 «« «• • ‘* * : . •'* •* I • •* • ^ ^ ♦ ^9 9 • ^ n» • 'I-J . ;r. . * r# .9 ■ r I . s* 4 » «\ » -. ♦ • » * -Ir ft * *ii . : . • • ‘ « 4 S / « * •m I ' . *•• • 4 * >' • I I ft M I i . liA • r > . - • 1 \ •-•■>* s .* • ..•■» • l- n'v- '• ■• . ■ H.'" ‘r • ,• •% • 9• V m f • t * • • ;•; ^ i • . .* f • * ♦ ’. *» • • •• *:• ^ f •, •* • -i ** ♦I** . . •* . •• 1 9 ' • I ,• • • i »* ^• . •»» • . • * ••; r • /'/ • ' •’ * ■ • r,.,; ,% 4 ■ H' ^’ * /'* 'V - '•- V .a’*• r • . /. 1 ’. • f ^ . ^ w ■ ', ■• : . * • * V *s ♦ ‘. %■•*•% •■'t-;.’. ;.v <••• * *^7 V. . tf ,'v ? ■ • • .. V' / • • • ** . " ♦ ‘ •*- •*' . V /rf'f.TO / * • r ^r H.AJIDCOVER C.AXCLXATION WORKiHZET 3-5-95 er-"' SETBACK Z0>T:; (CIRCLE ONE1 0-T5'TS-IiO’;5-500’500-1000’ EMSTCsG FLa RDCQ\'ER [>' ZONT A. Hcuic_______________ Boat 196 w<Sg'-".S.F, S.F. S.F. B. Gangt S.F. C. Dr.vr*av S.F. S.F. 525 D. Sids'A/aik Stone Steos S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X 245.5 S.F. S.F. F. Lacdacapc Underlain Bv Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY .AREA IN ZONE 9 6 6.5 - B 13 0.8 3 4 __ -t 100 .6 6.5 S.F. A r 130.834^S.F. B A . 90 PROPOSED hardco ver IN ZONT A. House _____________ Bo ^t 196 S.F. L^sgtli fViddi \i - X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage .X S.F. C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk Stone Steos X X 525 S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck Pathway 187 TbU S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other Retaining Wall S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 1.098 S.F. 1JQ.034- S.F. A B /» 1.098 •r B inn Rid X ICO -% . 90 I t SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) /t-/'// Yc} vj ^ a^COV-ER C.\LCl.XATION WORKSHEET (^75-25^0-75’ 25-500’ yVTSTTNG HARDCOVER IN ZO^S A. House --------------------- L^sgt^i C3retaker * s House widiji X X X B. Gang^X Caretaker's Garage C. Dr/___.. -----------X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic# X X X G. Other Tennis Courjt total hardcover in zone total B 117.393 x 100 PRQPOS^T^ har dcover tN ?ON£ A. House _ UQgtti Paretaker's House Wtfich X X X C^r^etaker*s Garag^ C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X r. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Ote Tennis Court TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * A 55.163 - B 317,8^X 100 13 (.7-“ 500-1000’ s 8,386 S.F. ss 5,884 S.F. SS S.F. -S.F.« 1,400 S.F.n X 822 23 R77 S.F. s S.F. 229 S.F. 9 i i *• / a.150 S.F. 1.600 S.F.t ■ '• —U>c>cnS.F.■V • S.F. s S.F.H V. j as S.F.VL 7.320 S.F. S.F.A S.F.B 15.7 % a . 386 ✓ S.F. 5.884_^ S.F.>^ S.F. S.F. 1,400 V S.F. --- > M t 23.827yS.F. ____ -sTJ^s.F. — 229 7 S.F. 150 ✓S.F. 1.600 ^S.F. 305/S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 7,320/s.F. 55,163 S.F. A - S.F. B 1 7.3 5 <h. \‘p V* request for council action ^ DATE: April 28, ITEM NO.: J Department Approval: Name Jeanne A Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2011 Tim and Lori Line. 4415 Forest Lake Landing - Variances - Resolution Pertinent Ordinances - Please refer to the first page of the enclosed staff memo dated 4/11/95 Additional List of Exhibits M - Blake Bichanich Letter of 4/13/95, Applicants’ Architect Brief Review of Application In 1993 the City approved hardcover and height variances for the residential development of the undeveloped propern- that consists of five separate parcels. The current height variance involves an observation tower located within the central portion of the structure, reter to Exhibit , specificallv to the north elevation. Legal height is defined at 35’. The peak height of the structure from the lakeside is approximately 47 ’ (southeast elevation or lakeside elevation). The applicants’ consultant notes the remainder of the stnicture satisfies the legal height requirements The architect also noted that the structure could be redesigned by increasing the .olume and eliminating the tower. This would create a more massive look or impact without the need for a height variance. Applicants’ addendum or hardship statement. Exhibit B. notes the need to provide internal lighting to lower internal levels. The Planning Commission was not concerned with the height variance as it involved a small portion of the structure located to the interior. Members noted the attempt of the architect to conserve outdoor living area with the stacking of patio, veranda and overhead deck at the lakeside of the residence. They approved the overall design of the structure. As in the 1993 application the excess of hardcover is to be offset with the installation of a drainfield to the west of the residence to treat or maintain surface runoff. The current design will handle approximately 20% of the total 29.2% hardcover on the site. 1^The applicants’ architect attempted to explain the area difference from the original 199 boundary survey. In the current survey, Bichanich advised the surveyor to stake in 50’ segments the ordinary high water level and the 75’ setback. In the process of shooting more elevations the 929.4 elevation was redefined at the shoreline resulting in 7,000 s.f, more of area, compare Exhibits E and F. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 April 28, 1995 Zoning File #2011 Neighbors in attendance at the hearing noted concern with the location of a future dock to serve the property and any potential impact on the existing trees. Applicants advised that they would not be placing their dock at the south shoreline because of the location of the wetlands but would locate the dock at the higher elevations along the east shoreline. Applicants advised the neighbors that they too were concerned with any removal ot trees and have specifically placed the house to preserve as many of the mature trees. In fact, it is their intention to plant many more trees at the time of the development of a final landscape plan. Applicants were advised of the need for permits from the City if trees were to be removed in the 0-75’ setback area. Six of the seven member Commission voted to approve the application as proposed adopting the unique findings and hardships set fonh in applicants’ addendum and as noted in the original variance resolution of 1993. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation. Staff has added an additional condition dealing with the placement of a future dock at the east shoreline rather than allowing the encroachment of the wetlands along the extensive southern shoreline. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve, deny or amend the enclosed approval resolution V A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDFVTSION 2 AND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) FILE #2011 WHEREAS Timothy J. Line and Lori Line (hereinafter "the applicants ) have an interest in ihe property located at 4415 Forest Uke Unding within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Lots 13 through 17, Tonkaview Gardens, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10 24. Subdivison 5 (A) applicants seek approval of a height variance for an obse^ation tower deftned at a legal height of 35’ where 30' is 75-250’ setback area where the new construction will result in 5,628 s.f. or 29.2% where only 4,803 s.f. or 25% is allowed. Minnesota: j^Q\Y^ XHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2011. The property is located in the LR-IB, Single Family Ukeshore ^idential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. The property consists of 62,660 s.t. or 1.4 acres. 3.The Orono Plannine Commission reviewed this application on April 17, 1995, and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the followmg unique fmdings and hardships: Page 1 of 5 4. A. Total lot area is 62,660 s.f. but only 19.210 s.f. lies within the 75-250’ setback area. B. A standard lakeshore lot with 62.660 s.f. in area would have yielded much hieher hardcover allowances within the 75-250’ setback zone. C. D. E. The property is located on a pensinsula. The property contains unique topographic constraints The house has been designed to limit horizontal expansion utilizing the building footprint to provide additional outdoor recreational space. F.Surface runoff from 20% -I- of the total 29.2% of hardcover improvements will be heated within a drainfield area and will not run directly into lak;. G.The major portions of the roof strucmre will meet the allowed 30’ legal height. A small obervation tower located within the central portion of the building will be at a 35’ height. H. The majority of the structure will be located beneath the tree line of the property. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other propertv 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 substanfial proi^ity 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 5 3. 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 2 granting a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area of 825 s.f. or 4.29% and per Section 10.24 Subdivision 5 (A) grants a height variance for an observation tower that will be 35 in height subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to filing an application for new construction, applicants must apply for the legal combination of the five separate parcels that make up the building site. 7 Upon application for a building permit, applicants will make payment for a sewer connection charge at $11,744.50 per the 1995 fee schedule and a Sewer Availability Charge of $850.00 based on the MWCC’s 1995 fee schedule. The City shall require permits for the installation of the drainfield and extension of municipal sewer to residence. Applicants ’ consultant/contractor shall provide engineering plans with appropriate design and spec information for the review of the City Engineer. 4 Upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the completion of the residence structure, applicants may apply for a permit to install a residential dock^ Applicants shall install dock at the eastern shoreline so as not to encroach wetlands at the southern shoreline. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution 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 (May 8, 1996). 6 Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of tWs resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authorit} granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 5 7.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8lh day of May, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. JIallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Applicants Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of May, 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 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this dav of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said Comity, 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 ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of ss. , 199 , before me a Notary Public within and for said Cou nty, 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 ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. 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, ana acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Pace 5 of 3 TO; DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cit>' Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusih, Building & Zoning Administrator April 11. 1995 SUBJECT: /?2011 Tim and Lorie Line. 4415 Forest Lake Landing - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, total area = 62,660 s.f. or 1.4 acres; 55,500 s.f. or 1.2 acres in a 1993 application. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.02. Definition 13. "Building Height". Section 10.24, Subd. 5(A) - Height variance. Required = 30’ Proposed = 35’ (refer to Exhibit L northwest elevation) Variance = 5’ or 16.6% Section 10.22, Subd. 2(A) - Hardcover review. A. 0-75’ setback area = 42,450 s.f. No hardcover proposed. >0- t'- '■ ! •' f B. 75-250’ setback area = 19,210 s.f. (13,700 s f. in 1993 application) Allowed = 4,803 s.f. or 25% Proposed = 5,628 s.f. or 29.2% based on adjusted area or 41% based on 1993 area calculations Variance = 825 s.f. or 4.29% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicants’ Addendum C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Original Survey Application #1892 F - Current Survey G - Hardcover Inventory H - Resolution #3375 - Appro" mu Application #1892 11-2 - PC Minutes 11/15/93 & C<-um‘il Minutes 12/13/93 J - Proposed Site Plan K - Floor Plans L - Elevations/Section Zoning File #2011 April 11, 1995 Page 2 Description of Request In the later pan of 1993, the City granted a hardcover variance and height variance for a residence to be constructed on the undeveloped property. The height variance involved a separate section or addition of the house that contained three stories. The current application involves a walkout desi£”i. Based on the height definition variance. Section 10.02, Definition 13, vertical height is determined at existing elevations not final or proposed elevation. Refer to Exhibit L, the northeast elevation and the northwest elevation. The code asks that a comparison be made between the highest existing elevation (943 at garage level) and the adjusted elevation of the basement floor (934+ 10’ = 944). Vertical height is measured from the lowest of the two elevations. Top or highest point is measured to the mean distance between highest point of the pitched roof and the ceiling joist, refer to the northwest elevation. The legal height is 35’ + . Refer to the southeast or lakeside elevation, the peak height of the structure from the lakeside is approximately 47 ’. As in the earlier variance application, the design and shape of the house results from the unique shaped building envelope and need to conserve horizontal hardcover improvement. The property is surrounded by lakeshore on the three sides. Review Exhibits E and F, in the earlier review the total lot area was found to be 55,500 s.f. The current application shows a total lot area of 62,660 s.f. with an increase in the 75-250 ’ setback area at 19,210 s.f. (original was 13,700). Staff called the surveyor to question 7,000+ s.f. of additional area. The surveyor advised that the same field crew shot the elevations in both 1992 and 1994. The area is flat and they shot more elevations resulting in the redefined shoreline at 929.4. Staff has asked for the field information from the surveyor to reconfirm findings. The applicants’ consultant proposes a drainfield to maintain runoff from roof of structure to offset the 4.2% excess of hardcover. Review Exhibit L, specifically the "Sections", note that all outdoor use areas have been stacked to conserve on hardcover by placing veranda immediately over grade level patio and topping veranda with a deck at third lakeside level. The property has not been assessed for sewer. Review Exhibits M and N, the sewer is approximately 120’ away from property boundary. It will be the applicants’ responsibility to extend sewer to the property. Sewer connection charge will consist of the following charges: Plant charge 5 225.00 Unit fee for 1970 LS-1 project 4,263.00 Lift station 10 by-pass charge 2,269.00 Front footage charge $26.25 per front ft. (190’ x $26.25) 4,987,5 0 Total fee Service availability charge $11,744.50 $ 850.00 Zoning File #2011 April 11, 1995 Page 3 Statement of Hardship Please review Exhibit B. applicants’ addendum. Hardships are reviewed as follows; 1. Total lot area is 62,660 s.f. but only 19,210 s.f. lies within the 75-250 ’ setback zone. 2. 3. 4. Unique topography. TTie property is located on a peninsula. Standard lakeshore lot with 62,660 s.f. in area would have yielded much higher allowable hardcover within the 75-250 ’ zone. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 4. 5. Are the hardships still valid for hardcover excess of 4.29%. The City originally approved a 7.5% hardcover excess at 13,700 s.f. in 75-250 ’ setback area. Has this house also been designed to minimize use of hardcover? Is a 3,883 s.f. building pad reasonable for this property. Total hardcover for the property is at 8.98%. Strucmral coverage is 6.2% (allowed 9,399 s.f. or 15%). 3. 20 % of the hardcover within the 75-250 ’ setback shall be treated within drainfield area. Applicants’ addendum notes the following additional fmdings to support request for height variance. "Note that a small portion of the house does not comply with the 30’ height restriction. The upper level of the rotunda protrudes up beyond the adjacent complying roofs in order to capture light which then filters down to light the levels below." Bichanich then asks you to review the sections, Exhibit L. Staff asks that you review Exhibit K, the floor plans, if the purpose is to filter light to the interior, it would appear that walls are being proposed adjacent to all levels of the circular atrium section. The architect shall be present and will respond as to the purpose or need for the lighting. Are there sufficient hardships to support the request for a height variance? Can the light need be satisfied with other adjustments or improvements? > Zoning File #2011 April 11, 1995 Page 4 Options of Action To approve or deny as proposed; or To approve as amended. Any condition of approval must include the following conditions. 1. 2. 3. Prior to the filing of an application for new construction, applicants must apply for the legal combination of the five separate parcels that make up the building site. Upon application for a building permit, applicant will make payment for a sewer connection charge at $11,744.50 per 1995 fee schedule and a SAC payment of $850.00 based on MWCC’s 1995 fee schedule. The City shall require permits for the installation of the drainfield and extension of municipal sewer to residents. Applicants’ consultant/contractor shall provide all design and spec information for the review of the City Engineer. i 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) #2 r 'v---- GT..5 PROPERTY INFORMATION , , Site Address___^ L-AV'F •V w. Propert)' THpnrification Number (T.I.^) CO / Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (^o not]) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: y residential 1-Q T other (specify) Zoning District:___________________________________ APPLICANT Name ^ Address:(r.^4n \)iiaKJ<ra bg. HQ— City:£,g£j^n.^^ Phone (home)_____________ Phone(work) A Z. - 10(oCS Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Tirvi 4- L.d P-1^ — ^ A. ^ Phone(home) __________ Phone (work) Addre.ss: (p City:S.S.354 DESCREPTION of request Estimated Construction Cost S ^OOpOQ ----- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width • Hardcover Front Side __Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore y Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UTVUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or pra^ compliance with Zoning Code requirements,_ (attach additional sheets if necessary) a * . 1. 2. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the information must be submitted bv the applicationdeadline (jate in order for vour appUcation to be considered complete: Completed Application Form Cenified Property Owners List of owners within * T (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SW' x 11" for Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade ““ are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/2" x 11" for reproduction Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8Vi x 11 ). ----List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest m the propertv. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff The Applicant, and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember Aat yfiUE vnriance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE . me applicanl hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by **^8 Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this appheatton. and cenifies that the information supplied is knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Uviru u ^’----- The^iwr^herSv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff consultants, apnts. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. ♦ — 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Owner’s Signature c-Date3 -^3- 93^ Applicant must have all submit^s into ±e City offices 25 days before the Planning Comi^sion Meeting Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each mon*^ Annlicantv must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and CouncU. If an applicant is unable to anend a “^uled meeting ple^e^e^^ to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Buildmg & Zomng Ottice o this change prior to the meeting. 8 March 23. 1995 \ .M f' Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth; Facta: • Lot Area - 61,500 sq. ft. • Main Level Area - 2472 sq. ft. • Garage Area - 768 sq. ft. • Drive Area -1016 sq. ft. • Veranda Area - 528 sq. ft. • Walk Area - 374 sq. ft. ■i • I •' j Protective Border - 292.sq.^ft. a-/is - Total Hardcover: 6664^q. «t-^<s- 9 t KEITH WATERS & ASSOCIATES, Inc. DESIGNERS & BUILDERS 10340 Viking Drive Suite 110 Eden Prairie MN 55344 (612)942-1060 fax (612) 942-1058 License Number • 0001508 There is no proposed construction or grading within the 0* - 75' zone. All construction lies within the 75' to 250' zone. Hardship Although the total lot area is 61,500 sq. ft. only 19,000 sq. ft. lies within the 75' to 250' zone due to the lots topography and unique peninsular shape. Twenty five percent of the area within the 75' to 250' zone yields only 4750 sq. ft. allowable hardcover. This is inadequate for house, walk & drive. A standard shaped lakeshore lot would yield a much higher allowable hardcover for this large of a lot. Proposed Solution • Limit amount of hardcover generated by utilizing space above and below garage as living space • Lower level patio lies under cover of main level veranda, which in turn lies under the upper level roof deck. This stacking of outdoor hardcover areas helps limit t_______I —overall hardcover. The roof design allows for the collection and control of all precipitation falling on the structure. Heated roof drains collect water and direct it into dispersion tanks. Over 4000 gallons of runoff can be held within the tanks (the equivalent of 2" of rain falling In one hour). The runoff is then dispersed and absorbed by the soil in a manor similar to a septic field. Only the runoff from the walk, drive and landscape border would need to be shed onto the surface of the surrounding landscape. This area would only be 12% of the 75' to 250' zone. Alternatively, it would be quite simple to control all of the runoff on the drive by using a curb, sloping the drive to a large grate drain, and then directing the water into our dispersion tanks and controlled runoff field. This method would reduce uncontrolled runoff by 5.4%. This reduction alone would bring the hardcover percentage down from 29.2% to 23.8% in the 75' to 250’ zone. The site will be left in its existing heavily vegetated condition where possible. Note that 292 sq. ft. of hardcover is due to a 2' wide protective landscape border. This Border can be omitted, but our experience shows that this border significantly helps direct water away from the foundation. Additional Finding Orono currently has a 60' street right-a-way on Forest Lake Landing, but only requires 50'. If 5' were vacated on each side and deeded back to the property owners, this would increase the 75' to 250' zone by 740 sq. ft. Please note that a small portion of the house does not comply with the 30' height restriction. The upper level of the rotunda protrudes up beyond the adjacent complying roofs in order to capture light which then filters down to light the levels below. (See section) We ask that a height variance be granted for this limited condition. Sincerely, BB/hks u RUN DATE 03/23/95 HENNiPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEMSATCH 507 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME • TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER . NAME/AOOR 1 *' . • * I • . PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 07-117-23 13 021A 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO FLOOD CONTROL fUNDER WATER) 2/5/82 ST DEED 81611^ /Q 58 07-117-23 24 0016 04450 FOREST LAKE LANDING R L I V A KOLFF ROBERT L A VELMA A WOLFF 4450 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED T LINE A L LINE TIMOTHY A LORIE LINE 4415 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0022 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO T LINE A L LINE TIMOTHY A LORIE LINE 4415 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0038 04465 FOREST LAKE LANDING JON D BLACKSTONS ET AL JCN 0 BLACKSTCNE 4465 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23-24-0038 4465 Forest Lake Landing Jon D Blackstone et al Jon D Blackstone 4465 Forest Lake Landing Mound MN 55364 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST58 07-117-23 24 0005 04445 FOREST LAKE LANDING T M LEMSKE A A M LEM3KE TIMOTHY M LEM3KE 4445 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0017 04440 FOREST LAKE LANDING R S MULLIN A L F MULLIN ROBERT A LISA MULLIN 4440 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0020 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO T LINE A L LINE TIMOTHY A LORIE LINE 4415 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0027 01146 WILDHURST TR LYLE E RAHN ETAL LYLE E RAHN 1146 WILDHURST TRAIL MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0037 01200 WILDHURST TR DAVIO J KRUSKOPF A WIFE DAVID J KRUSKOPF 1200 WILDHURST TRL MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23-31-0037 1200 Wildhurst Tr David J Kruskopf & wf David J Kruskopf 1200 Wildhurst Trl Mound MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 18 t • 38 07-117-23 24 0007 01186 WILDHURST TR B D RASMUSSEN/S J RASMUSSEN BRIAN D A SANORA J RASMUSSEN 1186 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0018 04415 FOREST LAKE LANDING T LINE A L LINE , TIMOTHY A LORIE LINE 4415 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0021 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNfO T LINC A L LINE liMOtHY A LORIE LINE r 4415 FOREST LAKE* LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0037 04455 FOREST LAKE LANDING *S H A H J ERIKSON SANFORD A MARGARET ERIKSON 4455 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 • V' * •**i “ •%}* --M* • • • • = *v ."‘fc * • . ». ■' ‘ ri .V? '* ‘ J • ■. . ■ ••,, , •** *•. , f - . , , ' y ■■ • V .■ ■; '■ •••.■ '^4 '. ‘ ‘r V’ -• 11 ' » *. *.• ■ * c. ^ •v'’ . . ■ ‘.‘‘V • . ’ • * ; .*• I jM.,Vf , *5 V •* » *1 • ■ . : ^ * ■ . f •• -r V » • • . ^ ' V -, * * , • . ‘A •* • .t i ' t *•* • .t . TOTAL BATCH 507 00014 r‘** i - ^ **• • >r* * * ■ ? •? » I \ I 'l.-v f '• • • * *' • i 'ilk • • • , ?vvV’-'• h . 4 , 1 •* »y / V . ..<Y <•' I'-J":, : ' • :‘r‘' n V . ' • I j \ CernificatG of Snrvcv for Roncr M. iwboth of r.ofj; 13-17, Tonk^view Garden*; llrnncpin County, Minnosotti - Legal Doscrintlon Lota 1.1-17, Tonkftviow Gardens. This «urv#»v shovia the location of the boiindarioH of the *ihovc described property and the topoqraphv of said lots. It does not purport to show anv other improvnnents or encroachments. SURVEY WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS • 1 /r0A O < 0T»m f€f r. w . .. ' • w V ' :vy COF^Ni:'&«GRbNBER0;;INg;i^^ 5'.>:r*Tv5 ; Aig fjfT>jf.vK l«rr^Utr. ; * *1^Vi V1711I if »"• W.*/X' I hcrirl'y cerlify U»i^ Mirvi*y w.»\ prv|viiwl by nu* or uiuK'r my diri-xl MijH'f* vision, and llwl I am a duly r;*);iskTc\l Civil Fjiginccr and Lwul Smvfvof muU r llic bws of Ihc Slak* of Mmiu-sola. Mark 5. Cmiik-r); MinncMMa Lkenv Number I27S5 IIAIH 4*28 /".• xe ' Ccrtiflcato of Survey Ic.r COUNTY MtNN.* / ^ rr ^Afrf ***‘‘J!li. ll’lil?D * I U.ts IJ-17, -T()NKAVII.t< GAUOUNS lIKNNEPtN COUNTY MINN.- *rin«? survoy slinws existing contours and two soil boring location on the al>ovc described proper;ty. It docs not IMirport to show nthor Improvements or encroachments. •: Iron marker found o: fron marker set .i:xi*;ting «*lcvarion */^c iTroposcd struct urc9 odied J-^9-95 ComN & Gronberg . Isc . f Sr f 1 V*' f - I lK*n*by OMliiy lh.il llu^ Muvrv WJ'* l>\ im of muU i uu slirixl hu|H*i vt^Kin. and that I am a duly rc^iilcK-d Li\ il i:n>;!mvr .iihI I .mJ Sur\ evor uiuK r ihc III ihe Siau* «*l Mmm‘MUa I im.1* >.W tYnn » t 1^. m: 4.*'11*1 r 4 Mark 5. Ci iibif*; Ijiiiim* iN'iiiiiIxt I2« // -A0 - 9^ xMi /-tro* h«.mi - #/d ;v \-x\ h .5 4 i- ..5 k: I- I"’ * •* r! Au !.• . i; *• • f. » .'t: * • I* r i r•• L ffJS ■ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) HARDCOVE^^^ULAllUiN i 75-250 ’25-500 •500-1000 FXTSTTNG HARPCOV^)^ IN ZONE A. House - Lencm Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X % X X X X X X X X X -G S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PF PERTY AREA IN ZONE__a -r B X 100 PROPO.SED HARPCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________ Len(ih Width B. . Garage I C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X X X• * X X X X X • X X total hardcover in zone total property area in zone A o 4. B 434^ X100 - 9 ^ , S.F.• 4 ■ m ‘ S.F.•• m S.F. S.F. a , S.F.1 • • a S.F.1 * a S.F.. % a S.F.* % a S.F. • y , % • a ..S.F.% 1 • S.F. • • • i < « S.F.A * f : . S.F. ^ B • # « S.F. • • S.F. ; a S.F.• • a —•S.F. •S.F.■4 •S.F.H- a S.F.1 I’l- • S.F. a .S.F. •1 •S.F. * .•S.F.:rc S.F. .:? ft S.F.u •a S.F.V’ • % ••• •S.F, A !•*id • • S.F.A ta 4_ S.F. .B tf % •••• *k i ‘I* I* t; ?• f* \ y * i «- * f !• Lit4£p ' SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EVISTTNG HARDC ^ ZONE VVOKK:5ilt-i 1 A. House Lentil X X % B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape ^ Underlain By Plastic__ Or Fabric • X X X G. Other proposedhar J )rnvER tn zone A, House Len|ih X X X B. Garage _ C. Driveway __X X D. Sidewalk _X X den.AMOA E. Patie/Bedc X X F. Landscape _ Underlain _ By Plastic _ • • Or Fabrics. • X X X G. Other WALV5. Width T( TAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL Pf OPERTY AREA IN ZONE , - ^ A O___ - B l<^ZlO^X 100 Width total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total F ROPERTY area IN ZONE A ____+ B /fg/g X 100 - S-SO'500-1000 ’ & • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. a S.F. s S.F. a S.F. • S.F. a S.F. S.F. a S.F.• a S.F. a S F. S.F.A M2/0 S.F.B • • 1 8 %• S.F. • m • • S.F. % 1 • m S.F. S.F. S.F.-S -/a/i>S.F. S.F. S33 S.F.1 S.F.i f; 34^ ••S.F.•)! ,.1:S.F.’ll • ^9t S.F.{ S.F. S.F. . •* • . S.F.!• 5628 S.F. * - A' B . tl^-LiO S.F. *%•1 ■•I ?! r 1 H CITY of ORONO RESOLLTIO.N OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ 3 7 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) FILE NO. 1892 WHEREAS, Bruce Kehring (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 4415 Forest Lake Landing within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Lot 13 - 17. Tonkaview Gardens, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and ^VHEREAS, per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (A), the applicant seeks approval of a height variance for a portion of a new residence that will be at three stories where the code allows only 2 Vi stories and a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area where the new construction will result in 4,462 s.f. or 32.5% hardcover where only 3.425 s.f. or 25% is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1892. 2. 3. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 55,500 s.f. or 1.27 acres. The Orcno Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 15, 1993 and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. Tota Jt area is 55,500 s.f. where only 13,700 s.f. lies within the 75-250’ setback area. Page 1 of 5 I . CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE Cm’ COUNCIL NO. 8 3 y B. A standard lakeshore lot with 55,500 s.f. in area would have yielded much hieher hardcover allowances within the 75-250 seioack zone. C. The propert)’ is located on a peninsula. D. The property contains unique topographical constraints. E. The house has been specifically designed to limit the need for horizontal expansion beyond building footprint to provide additional outdoor recreational space. F. Surface runoff from 25.2% of the total 32.5% of hardcover improvements will be treated within a drainfield area and will not run directly into lake. G. A small wing of the new residence will be at a three-story height. 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 variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Plaiuung 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 Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 granting a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area of 1,037 s.f. or 7.5% and per Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (A) grants a height variance for a small portion of the residence that will be at a three-story height instead of at 2Vi stories, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 o V O CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITT COUNCIL O O r * r.NO. ^ ^ f '______ Prior 10 the filing of an application for new construction, applicant must apply for the legal combination of the five separate parcels that make up the building site. Upon application for a permit, applicant will make payment for a sewer connection charge at SI 1,331 per 1993 fee schedule and a SAC payment of $750 based on MWCC’s 1993 fee schedule. The City shall require permits for the installation of the drainfield and extension of municipal sewer to residence. Applicant’s consultant/contractor shall provide all design and spec information for the review of the City Engineer. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (December 13, 1994). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property . Page 3 of 5 Wn • • CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY' COUNCIL NO. 3 8 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of December, 1993. ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of December, 1993 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. CAROLE A. HASEMAN NOrAAY PUBIC-««NES0TA HENNEPIN COUNTY w OOUUISSION Ex>>mEs Notary Public Page 4 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITl' COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 1993 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared C^- JC<^h C«r>4. ^itT^ know n to me to be the person(s) described in and who ejCecuted tiie foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. rJkflOLE A. HASEMAN MY cw <.*.ccN cxpim NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared ------------------------------------------------ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 5 of 5 10. planning commission minutes CITY OF ORONO “/[T NOVEMBER 15, 1993 L- . r-«romicQioner Nolan agreed, and stated he felt that steps should be tarn'TolTsen the amor, of hardsurface coverage. He supported staff's recomroerrdation for removal of 7 square feet of patio. .. ^ ______cornnHpd. for aoproval of 891 Variance for Brian J. -,r-, __I. r,f harHrnver area and The appncgnt will sgpmit a .reYL The 0-75 Sgtba ^------------■ , ■ ^ area at no more than 30°r^ cihnwinQ thp hardcover within the ------------------ »»»....................................... -» ~ dimensions on it. commissioners Nolan. Schroeder, Peterson, and Lindquist voted -aye-. Motion carried. #1892 Bruce Kehrlng 4415 Forest Lake Landing - Variance - Public Hearing Buiiding and Zoning Administrator Jeanne ^^-^usth gave tpe stafnepo^rL ^ Blake Bichanich, the architect for the applicant was prese . ' j,, ^gve to was 150' away and the applicant will be able to connect to it. The applicant win make a payment of a front footage charge as part of the sewer connection fee. Bruce Kehring, the applicant, explained that the roof of the ^ ^He stafed°the highest an exterior entertainment area to avoid the ° „ portion of the house will be point of the house is 30'. Ms. Mabusth stated that ahouse meets the 30' three-story and the ordinance allows for a 2.5 stories. The prop height requirement but will require a variance for three stories. ThP Piihlir: Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak Tho Publin Hearing was closed. Ms. Mabusth explained staff's position regarding lake e property there is no problem because the lots are separated by a stated he had owner has no claim on the view. The current property owner, Roger Byboth, talked to the neighbors and they were glad to see the proposal. Ms. Mabusth discussed the hardcover variance and the hardship ®'^®®^®^^jL3jp,age system parcel. Discussion ensued regarding the drainage on the P’’®P®‘^' , > .q- four holding for the house was explained. The water will drain down from th 12. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 15, 1993 lot was discussed m relation to narosnip ueuo the lot limits the area available for the building. j /.Tort tho Hp<;ian of the house in relation to the shape of the lot and Discussion '"^ctr^^ssioner Peterson comroented that this was a unique the surrounding neighbo • drainage from the house. Chairman Schroeder “me'dt'^h the'dts'gn was inconsistent with the neighborhood, and Mr. Kehring responded that it was dictated by the shape of the lot. H I -rrnnrl-d nf #1892 Variance...ffll Commissioner l tA/ith tHp hardcover variance and a variangg fof,^ Pmce Kehring 44.1!? Fprest ^ ^ „„ mrhamshin nf an unusual Shaped M Lindquist voted "aye”. Motign caTied. 11. #1893 Christine Freeman 2240 Shadywood Road - Variance. Public Hearing (Rescheduled to January, 1994) 76rBmw!TRo'a*sLth - Variance - Request to modify approved Development Plan Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne MabusW ''J® proWems wTh the up after Council had approved the original plans. j D . «« ea/'nnrioH tD aDorovo the modifications to theimmissioner Nolan movgdi ?eoQ ^ ^ npuelonment Plans for Tpm Brpwnn at 7eQ grgwn ””7 Moton ciTaff report. Commissioners Nolan, Schroeder, Peterson, and L q carried. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW ^^Ifstrrivrnurrrt'h Review for proposed subdivision Commissioner Peterson left the table for the following discussion. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth stated <'>8' '•’j® XV^rzoning wa^the and required no action by the Planning Commission. She stated that the zon a most important issue, and reviewed the staff report. 8 o, THE ~ (#8) #1880 CRAIG HERTZENBERG, 115 SMITH AVENUE - VARIANCE - resolution no . 3373 Tl.. amended variance request was reviewed by Mabusrh. Tbe petitioner was present and had no additional comments. u was moved by labbour. seconded by variance ,^fl880 for Craig Hertzenberg at 115 Smith Aven . y (.#9) #1891 BRIAN EHALT/DON JARNES, 140 LEAF STREET - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3374 i^prumr-taSoUm afllo S's^t"* Ayri. nays 0. (nO) #1892 BRUCE KEHRING, 4415 FOREST LAKE LANDING - VARIANCE - resolution no . 3375 ,t was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by “ f SnrAy«? «ys 0. approving variance #1892 for Bruce Kehrmg at 4415 Forest Lake L^naing. y (#11) 1340 BALDUR PARK - SEWER CONNECTION (#12) FLAG LOT ORDINANCE ADOPTION ORDINANCE NO. 122, 2ND SERIES Gaffron reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended adoption of the flag lot ordinance. Mayor Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded to adopt Ordinance No. 122, 2nd Series, the Flag Lot Ordinance, as presented by staff. Ayes 4, nays 0. '#13) B-2 STATUS REPORT (INFORMATION ONLY) FOREST LAKE LAKE MIMNETONKA FOREST LAKE LAKE MINNETONKA I SITE PLAN SCALE VW^-9 un —n mt MMi us w**—MW tw sasA rTii i.. mi I I I ! §I J 8c ■8II 11JI 125 1 P i 1 ©LOWER LEVEL PLAN •CMJt mnrmtan •»« . •• • •«■I ©MAIN LEVEL PLAN HP1MP* i piI P I Ouc «T> S M ^ec fl? iffe i!Ij i e UPPER LEVEL PLAN •CMjvr**-* M'tM**e ROTUNDA PLAN KJAtvr*«-«^ tvMrf. 1 \ \ P K < 1-^i • 1 |i } I O Uco•o®gj V''• V.Vv’li'll' p llM Sf j:: . S'- S I » TH WATERS SSOCIATE& INC gners &buiuders 4k39 sVz 10340 V;king Dr., Suite 110 Eden Praitic. MN 5S344 (612)942-1060 fax 9-)2-10S8 Line Residence 4415 Fom$t UM Undkig Orono. MN •jeenae Nmnbgi-OOOISQM t I a £L S.W. ELEVATION5.W. e SECTION tCMM Mwm^\c ^ e SECTION •UM L I ') I ij 1«i 8 S ll H1^ II h Q * 5" u ' 'v<' ninf li n fiTffl ©M.W. etCVATIOH acMM v«**t- U ©Rt ELEVATIOM fei' I I!||« J 8c •o S w H [ < I«x IIit i April 13. 1995 n UvW V____ ^ : * f f * ^cr/ APR 1.7 1895 Jeanne Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Jeanne; I' KEITH WATERS & ASSOCIATES, Inc. DESIGNERS BUILDERS 10340 Viking Drive Suite no Eden Prairie MN 55344 (612)942*1060 fax (612) 942-1058 License Number - 0001508 This is a follow-up to our conversation at your office yesterday regarding the surveys for 4415 Forest Lake Landing. The original survey provided to us by Mr. Bybuth was a boundary survey, as indicated on the survey. Coffin & Gronberg surveyed the 5 separate land parcels and established their common boundanes and the boundaries between adjacent properties. No additional information was requested by us or Mr, Kearing at that time. Prior to the purchase of 4415 Forest Lake Landing the Lines requested, upon their attorney's advice, that we have Coffin and Gronberg provide more detailed information. I asked Mark to clearly stake the 931.5 floodline contour, to clearly stake the 75' setbacks and sideyard and entry setbacks, and to locate the soil test borings that Braun Testing had done. I asked Mark Gronberg to have his crew take as many readings as necessary to accurately stake the property. Mark had the same field crew perform the work that had done the original work. The Lines reviewed the site staking, were satisfied and purchased the lot. Just prior to submitting our proposal for a Variance Request I asked Mark Gronberg to calculate the lot area, the area within the 75' to 250' zone, and the hardcover for the project. This is when we discovered that we now had more area than previously thought. I followed up with a phone call to Mark Gronberg and he stated that the 929. 4 countour lies within a fairly flat area and by taking more readings this time they were able to more accurately determine its location. I brought this finding to your attention when I submitted the variance request to your office. Pursuant to our conversation yesterday at your office and to my conversation yesterday morning with Bruce at the site, I once again called Mark Gronberg. He stated that he had talked with you and faxed your office the field notes upon your request. # / /! /I He also restated that the current survey more accurately depicts the 929.4 contour and the actual conditions of the site. If I can assist you in any further manner regarding this issue please let me know. Sincerely. 6'^:^/yi Blake Bichanich BB/hks REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE;May ITEM NO.: /O % Department Approval: Name John Gerhardson Title Public Works Diicctor Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer Report Item Description: Kelly Avenue Storm Sewer At the April 24, 1995 Council meeting staff was directed to determine the necessary mitigation if we were to raise the road two feet. Because of changes in the mitigation rules and regulations as it pertains to right-of-way, we will not have to mitigate filling within the right-of-way. We will have to compensate for the storage of water and we can accomplish that upstream in the right-of-way or by other means (see attached letter from Glenn Cook). Therefore, it is staffs recommendation to repair the sanitary sewer line, raise the road two feet and not to construct the lift station at this tune. After the road is raised, we will monitor the effect of raising the road to determine if a lift station will be needed in the fumre. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To direct the Public Works Department to repair the sanitary sewer line as necessary and to raise that section of Kelly Avenue as previously described two feet. The funds to repak the sewer line will be paid from the Sewer Operating Fund and the raising of the road will be funded from the General Fund. l/jl Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects .. ,VV H- t •'V- ^ « .ir* f-* r*‘ <•!« t <»• »’l 4 i ■ •. .• f ^ . . r A a N »• *•« * ■ •«• \ • r«»:;r #<•«« : .If *• I'l. * N»‘f i f? * '♦f .1% f - v ^ .‘'•hr *; A •• r ..• A * # •• -1 i May 5,1995 V. ^ H ' I *. « t* u ‘ *• r A * . , .1 i U..‘ ............. . A V , '» ■ "II , > . ...........r V.. ' •/ * V *1 •' ^ *1 »■• tv A *<|t| ".f ’ < t wht • ' . ..i » ft » • , t. *•*«;• 1^^ ••♦.• »| 3 4*‘^* ■ . 1 • >K ^ f* *// V h' . . »..rna- ' t .. M %-■ J : •. tpl 1* A * • 4 y. •" y .. V '%*«• V.- • / vVf.v 1 »• |S '• *• I *• 5k «*•’ < . *1 M *.i* •• ‘ *:uj I * *4> I I* •• w V *—f*' .4 I ' i : Wt 1 . ■** H .............................. : ►'• )f»r . ; u • ;• f. \L. I * '!. I : ,Cr '•* . . It V ♦ •••*’ Au' • V ? . ♦ rt » » ' *• • , Mr. John Gerhardson City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Re; Kelly Avenue Storm Water Drainage Our File No. 13976 Dear John: Wc have reviewed ihe wetland encroachment on Kelly Avenue ntsuWng from raising the street two (2) feet. The total area to be impacted will be less than 6.000 square feet. We will not need to mitigate this area as a weUand impaa based on recent amendments to the law. We will need to subnat an exception permit to the LGU. We will, however, be fiUing below the 931.J contour, and watershed requireinentt need to be ™h We will have to provide equivalent storage area below the 931.3 contour. Thia storage can be wi the right-of-way or on private property in the area. Please contact this office if you have any questions, Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC.pr 7335 west Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 - 612-636-4600 request for council action Jn *» >DATE: May 3, 1995 ‘V ITEM NO.: /j % Department Approval: Name John R. Gerhardson Title Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Works Item Description: Crystal Bay Playground Fencing and Landscaping Proposal Recently the City has developed a comprehensive plan for Crystal Bay Playground. The plan shows landscaping, fencing, playground equipment, ice skating rink, a walking path and gazebo. Council directed the Park Commission and staff to acquire bids for Phase One of the improvements which is landscaping, fencing and playground equipment. Although we are in the process of acquiring one more playground bid, we have received bids for the fencing and some of the landscaping. The landscaping low bid from McKay Nursery is The fencing low bid was from Sterling Fence at Pathway (will be done at time of parking lot construction) $4,000 $3,500 $1.000 $8,500 The above items should be placed in May because of the planting of trees and bushes. Playground equipment bids will be presented when received and reviewed to assure compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). COU’NCIL ACTION REQLTISTED: To approve the landscaping, fencing and pathway bids for Crystal Bay Playground for an amount of $8,500 and that the amounts be paid from the Park Dedication Fund. % Cfty 0REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 5, 1995 ITEM NO: / Department Approval: Name Tom Kuchn Title Finance Director / Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: 1994 Budget Amendments BUDGET AMENDMENTS: The 1994 General Fund Budget year end results show revenues exceeding expendimres by approximately 5203,224. General Fund revenues were at $3,285,820 versus the budgeted amount of $3,152,666, a budget surplus of $133,154 or 4.22%. General Fund expenditures were at $3,082,596 versus the budgeted amounts of $3,152,666; under budget $70,070 or 2.22%. Although the total General Fund expendimres are under budget, several departoients require budget amendments. A tabulation follows indicating the departments, original budget, amendment requested, and tina! budget amount. Department Elections Legal Fire Emergency Prep Engineering Park/Rec Spec Serv/Police :'pec Serv/Consult Recycling Spec Proj/Conting. Original Amended Budaet Amendment Budaet $ 8,390 $ 1,470 $ 9,860 88,500 10,280 98,780 199,473 (16,685)182,788 2,550 975 3,525 13,100 7,735 20,835 53,696 2,044 55,740 7,400 3,725 11,'25 18,300 23,960 42,260 91,327 (4,844)86,483 130,495 (28,660)101,835 -0- 0 Net amendments A brief explanation of the amendments follows: • The Elections budget increase is due to higher than anticipated personal service costs, as 1994 was an election year. • The Legal budget increase is for higher than normal consulting expendimres. The extraordinary items were the MPRS lawsuit, $8,650; Lasher Landing, $3,460, and the OBA ball field lease, $2,000. The Fire budget amendment is mainly to reallocate $20,000 to the General Fund Special Projects/Contingency account, so that this amount can be transferred to the fire truck reserve in the Improvement & Equipment Outlay Fund. The Fire budget amendment also includes an increase to reflect higher than anticipated charges for the Maple Plain service area. As the amount billed for 1993 is greater than the 1994 original budget amount, vve teel it is necessary to compensate for the anticipated short fall in the 1994 budget. The Emergency Preparedness department budget adjustment is for electrical repairs on a warning siren which were not covered by a maintenance contract. The Engineering department budget adjustment is for higher than normal consultant costs due to such items as the O.B.A. ball tields, sewer hot spots analysis, the Fox Street project, etc. The Parks and Recreation department should have a reallocation of the Temporary Employee Wages account to the Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds account, as the City contracted with an outside maintenance company for the 1994 summer season in lieu of hiring temporary summer help. In addition the expenditures for parks maintenance supplies were greater than anticipated. The Special Services/Police and Consultants department increase is for higher than anticipated use of patrol officers at area restaurants and other special events. The increase for the consultants is for higher than anticipated legal and engineering services related to land use application. The additional amounts for these services do no "cost" the City as they are recovered through billing the various users of the police officers or the land use applicants. The Recycling budget is being reduced by $4,844 to fund part of the budget amendments. This still leaves the Recycling department $14,0C« under budget, primarily due to the reduction in the city clean up program during 1994. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Approval of, and authorization to implement, the 1994 budget amendments*as listed PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by_, seconded by_, to approve the implementation of the 1994 budget amendments, as noted. Ayes_, Nays__. request for council action DATE: May 3. 199f% r? ^ ITEM NO.: / 3 Department Approval: Name John R. Gerhardson Title Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Works Item Description: Irrigation System Repairs Orono Golf Course Recently the above ground water storage tar^k for the irrigation system and club house water supply at the Golf Course developed leaks in the bottom of the tank. The tank is at an age and the leaks are so numerable the tank is beyond repair. We have determined that it is the appropriate time to upgrade the irrigation system and install a tank and appunenances to allow for future improvements to the irrigation system. Therefore we have received estimates for just the tank replacement and a newer design pumpmg system with a smaller tank with the ability to supply the appropriate amount of water to the entire course as the remainder of the irrigation system is replaced. The cost to replace just the 760 gallon tank is $4,010. Tlie cost to install a smaller tank, piping and valving for a pressure system is $4,250. Because this item was not budgeted, the monies to pay for this item will be funded from the Golf Course reserve fund which has a balance of $231,745. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the repairs and upgrades to the Golf Course irrigation system in the amount of $4,250 to be funded from the Golf Course reserve fund. ch request for council action DATE: May 4 \, ITEM NO: / c| Department Approval: Naifs Ron Vioorse Title Ciiv Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: . Bike/Hike Frail in Conjunction with Highway 12 Safety Improvement Project Background ^ . • u i-.-. As part of the decision process concerning the Highway 12 safety improvement project, the City Council was asked to determine whether to include a four foot wide sidewalk on the north side of Highway 12 between North Brown Road and Willow Drive at a cost of approximately $13 000 This proposal was initiated through a discussion with the City of Long Lake which is itistalling a similar sidewalk on the south side of Highway 12 to provide pedestrian access to the various commercial proper.: in the area. At its April 24 meeting the Council directed staff to confirm the cost of the sio -v^ilk and to exclude the sidewalk from the highway project if the cost was not substantially Io axa than the estimate. Staff requested the City to confirm the cost of the sidewalk. The City Engineer determined that the city ’s cos. f a four foot wide concrete sidewalk would be approximately $8 730 The Engineer also c'. ermined that the city ’s cost for an eight foot wide bituminous pathway would be approximately $8,000. The combination of the lower cost and the substantial additional utility of an eight foot wide pathway versus a four foot wide sidewalk led s^taff to focus on the eight foot pathway. The benefit of the pathway is that it would provide the first half of a pedestrian/bicycle transportation route from the north-central portion of Orono, and downtown Long Uke. to the Orono schools and the numerous recreation facilities provided by the schools, and to the proposed Old Crystal Bay Road bike trail which will connect the Luce Line and Baker Park. The advantages of installing the pathway at this time are as follows: The city would pay only 40% of the costs of the pathway. ^ The grading required for the pathway will be done as part of the roadway project, so that the costs of the grading will be paid by Mn/DOT. If the pathway were to be constructed as a separate project, at a time separate from the roadway project, the costs would be substantially higher. Staff Recommendation .. It is staffs recommendation that an eight foot wide b-tummous pathway ^n ° Highway 12 between North Brown Road and Willow Drive be included as part of the Highway 1. 1 12 safety improvements project at a cost to the city of $8, COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the inclusion of an eight foot wide bituminous pathway on the north side ot Highway 12 between North Brown Road ?nd Willow Drive as pan of the Highway 12 safety improvement project, and to approve the city ’s share of the cost of the pathway as S8,000 to be funded from the park dedication fund. request for council action DATE: May 3, 1995 ITEM NO.: f ^ Administrator Reviewed: ^/'l______ Item Description: Temporary Employees - Orono Golf Course Department .Approval: Name John Gcrhardson Title Public Works Director Agenda Section: City Administrator's Repon Each vcar i. is necessarv to employ temporary employees at the Orono Golf Course. The following persons have applied for positions for the 1995 golfing season. Jeremiah Callahan Grounds helper S6.50 per hour Jerr\' Alch Counter helper/starter $5.70 per hour A1 Ruther Counter helper/starter $5.70 per hour The above positions are for a six-month period from acmal start date which is May 9. 1995 COUNCIL ACTION REQL'ESTED: To employ the above persons at their respective hourly raters. REQUEST FOR COUTSCIL ACTION DATE: Mav 5y 5, 19?^ < ITEM NO:% Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hallin Title Citv Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses r/ A. Item Descnption: Licenses Septic System Installer Clover Hill Co., Inc. Shakopee. MN Garbage & Refuse Collector’s License Blackowiak & Son Sanitation & Rolloff Service Mound. MN Baldy Sanitation. Inc. Maple Plain, MN Cleanway Sanitation, Inc. Long Lake, MN R & W Roll-Off Service, Inc. Carver, MN Westonka Sanitation Mound, MN Woodlake Sanitary Services Eden Prairie, MN COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve above listed licenses CITY OF ORONO (612) 473-7357 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 C^^'SUll Bay, NIN 55323 H T !«nse fee bond. Cenificnte of Insurance and evidence of MPC.\ All questions must be answered. subject to a ten (10) day approval period. Certification must be attached. All applicatio ^ ^ 1. Business or trade name firll fn Ttic Business address l/W Sh kadiL (strttU ^ J. 4. Business phone ~~7 2 "7 I ^ ^ Name of (City) U:pj Residence phone ^ ----- f^pplican. or compt^y repres«.ative(s) holding MPCA certif,cation e. if IL—Oh^--------------------- 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Type of certiftcation held: ^ Installer _ Ihrmper Expiration date: Have you ever held a Septic System Installer license in Orono before? Most recent year ----------- Have you ever had a license revoked? — When. _ - Where? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes _2)C- Do you pump out septic unks? Yes ------ 0^ - 9 :T -----. -‘r-r~r^g ' '..’i'- *—i-V-- - * • ij-'J tv'. . ti.* u »- s u . - ; — . ••‘—•.N • '.‘V SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: K: 1. S50.00 License application fee. ^ Plumbers —2 S2.000.00 license and permit bond lumu^C ty Bond wUl not be accepted. ■J 3 $50-100-300.000 minimum Certificate of Insurance. ‘j.-fS-rS 4 Copy of current MPCA Certificate. licenses will not be processed until all items are submitted List persons other chan applicant who ate authorized by you to apply for pemuts under your hc^ and the Ordinances of the City of Orono. - ^ Date V- lill^^ApplicanfsSignature ^ /-T-rv Staff recommendation: Approval Denial------------------------- Tjcc Reason for denial:-----------------------------------------Annroved Denied ONLY City Council Action: Date ------------Approvea Date license mailed 1-rY Of O-RONO -.0. 3ox 66 ^ V s ^ s i 3 2. V f **12^ w w 2 3 <47 3-7 3 57 V License Year 1/01/95 to 5/31/96 Date Received _ Fee Paid _________Initials n COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION garbage & REFUSE . ./-he indicated business in the City of Oronc and The undersigned wishes to ccera-e -^-^-^^^^^ 3^^ herewith nahes appiicanion - 5urmyfiei.g_;i^ (Stress! J72-3398 Business Phone Numcer ^sp)c Blac^cowiaX Aaolicant's Name- - - -/ , . Mound Address llro -- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- (^rreer . _^ 472-2977Phone Number r Ooiinf*^ glc^rvic^ Mn. - (Stare) Check Cne: individua Partnership 55 354 (Zip Code) Corporation Number of Vehicles to be usee m O.ono Description of Vehicles ^ Loaded - , T, 'ir Size/IarosM'cr. Gross «t._ Sear_Asle_Wt^ - - - - - - - i 6 S • * * ^ r <- •- - ■' CITy.^ .V LicenseNum^ fSKE attached) , jA iV’ , riM .1, •‘-Mr,''' ^•| iWWJ' — — •■‘.klek** —Jll* C c /*' ^ ‘ ’• / A ^ -»•' uLweU ^ - A t T A , wv.'i r ATTACHED^----------- ;ohedule of Collection charges/ dates „ number of customers in Orono —Approximateljf (Norwood, Mn.) approximate numcer or -- Transfer -^cation of dumping area -- - - -m^KisVT^'Foi^^^< n, order for tbIS AP i„,oPance in the ^mo^la f S30.00 flat rate_fe_e_,__plu_s_S15/« - - --- - - - - ITm the owner and The ^above'’inSrmlt^^^^ is correct, and taxes - M 21, 1995 Date pplicant _ _ ;rclTY OSB ONLY: A^ter teview_of ^appli cation. htaff^reoo^end^ . Approval --------------- sigHStwe of CxtY uiiiwiZr Date 2ITY OP ORONO p.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MU 55323 473-7357 License Year ^ .5 Date Received a, VJ^'^ Fee Paid_ _ Initials garbage a REFOSE COLLECTOR- S LICENSE APPLICATION *.e. indicated business in the City of Orono and The undersigned wishes to do so. herewith makes application fo Business/Firm Address (Street) Business Phone Number (Zip Code) applicant's Name Address _■y Tstreet) >hone Number _ _ _ ''' - - - --- - - (State) (Sip Code) :heck One:Individual Partnership umber of Vehicles to be used in Orono /- - - - - Corporation ^ * . • •• vV ’■« t «i .• r t lesoription o£ Vehicles (attached list i£ more): rear crott°wt. RearAale wt^ License ‘ 4 i i V y A fC /yj22_Zk±!L^ General area of City served —^- - - - - - -- Schedule of Collection charges/ dates .. Approximate number of customers in Orono - - - - - -- -- - - -— / /O . r;r. y. ^Location of dumping area - - - - --- - - - - - ™'o^‘^‘i;^R"l^^V'A^7Li'clVi;7TO BE COMPLETE, TOO MOST ENCLOSE THE POLI.DWING: Surety bond in the amount o£ ‘’^°°fiffion^:lause. ^*Ann^^ is,® 2r^iS'^iro«ir'ii^er;;;iew'or;^ =“hL”s;«t?y > ‘ ■ Approval __ _ _ _ _ Denial- - - - - Signature of City otticill Date CITY OF ORONO ?.0. Box 66 Crvsoal Bay, Mil 55323 .-2-7357 License Year ^ 1995- - - - -- AOi'^'ate Received - - - --—^^— ^’Fee Paid _ _ _ _ Initials COIiECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION rhe indicated business in the City of Orono a: The undersigned wishes to Opera-- to do so. herewith xakes apolicanion .or a _ _ _ _ _ p =r-.v -- - - - - - - -' --- ■' Business/Pim Address_ _ (Street) Business Phone Number (City)(StateT (Zip code) .... ■. ... 479-2C03 •m • < • i * » • « *-n . V Phone Number Check One; Corporation Oescription of Vehicles -ttac^ed lish^ if cross wt. Rear Axle - - -—Y s a r ^ ^ • — 1994 FORD Sl.OOQ.36.000 7nYDS VMQ122Q eastern area of City served schedule of Collection charges/ dates .ooroxinate number of customers in Orono .ecation of dumping_area HENN CCUgl.ccation of d™pi"f_“!!.rTr=rcrTcrrrirrTrrrrrr^c^^nnn^^Y^';oLLOwwG: - - - - - - - -‘^rVlipLlCATION TO BE COMPLETE, TOO MOST ENCLOSE Turn HI ORDER FOR THIS APPLi amount of J30.00 flat rate fee, p _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ license fees -- - - - - - - -f the above business and I have paid all rate tee, plus $15/trucKf anas v___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ fees xes requ^uyby law. me ___ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - _ , Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^carfft __———---------------------- , tf.+.-iff -recoinniends 5;;rcii;'^--ONLT: After review^of^appUc^staff^recc^^^^^^ Approval- - - - -- Signature of ciry i Date ;ITY OP ORONO >.0. Box 66 :rvstal Bay, 5 = 323 i73-7357 License Year ^ Date Received Fee Paid _ _ Initials ZuSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION garbage & REPOSE . the indicated business in the City of Oronc and he undersigned Wishes wO ow - a license to do so. .erewith raxes application -or a l^c. o u Pnll-Off Service_j_lIIC:---- (Stirssti ) Jusiness Phone Nximber -------------- (State) (Zip Cede) ?iic!.<n Leistiko <;amp IS above (City)(staue) partnership pplicant's Name .ddress __ _ _ _ _ _(Streer) 'hone Number :hec)c One; .ueber of vehicles to be used in Orono -- - - - - - - - - -- • t<on of Vehicles (attached list if more): 'ascription of Vehl^^^^ Sit./Yards Year Mfgr. Gross Wt^ Pear Ax^- - Corporation 380 Mack 46,000 34.000 3sa Mack /■A nno 10 to ^0 Yds License Nun<b^ vMO'^ni 1 sneral area of City servedjnexrax - r :hedule of Collection charges/ dates _ ....................... md ---------of customers in orono Jo residential, constoi^ti^ntainers var, .. .u-~=i"<, area -------r'" Co.. Dee-c n MrmYl1lP ^r)n)rnrT-lltlg^ibfa:g^!t H ORDER FOR THIS Atrtruj. amount of ;rcOT‘oir°“^= i^fter tevie«_of^application, ' Approval --------------- §IgHSt3?r^« City otticHI Date CITY OP OKUNO ?.0. 3ox 66 Cryswai Bay, ;*2J 5z2^3 License Year , Date Received Fee Paid __ _ Initials ,73-7257 ,^oTTr-r"’OR*S LICENSE APPLICATION garbage & R^OSE COLLECTOR 5 ^ ^ \ t % j^erewttii rr.a.<es appi—c—on Business/Eirai Address^_ _ _ _ _ _ __ (Street) Business Phone Number - j ? ,i; '■* U-c- ycity) ^ ''(StaTreF -* -I i “T n (Zip Cede) -.1 - v-i« . i. a . • i.* * • • . 9 • f»« • Aoplicant's Name Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _(Street) Phone Number u / Z - e - - Check One: x Individual Partnership Corperatien ;,..ber of Vehicles « be used in Orono T-jt* P.ear Axle /f ^ - - -——-Year Mfcr. Gross ^- -- - - - - I 'Id r'yf(>> ' -if iHTiifi 3J_cc* /JP J-xPO /£ Jol C>»«^/7 schedule of collection charges/ dates - TP I n 14.25 1 CAN 1 PC 9 r AM sr> -?c •; r&M, 180nuTibe’" of customers m Orono ----------------Aoproxrmate numce- '-»j- ;V“ paid aU U=ense fees -Ttaxe°s“"r/cuSre71f/law. The above infonnation is correct. \m - --3^_ ;^rMK'oS'o;^ir After ' “Iher" Up^if / > ' Approval - - - - - gIgH5tH5i-of exty official Date 3ITY OF ORONO ?.0. Box 66 Crvstal Hay, MM 3--2- 472-7357 License Year _ ^^pat.e Received ^ V>"'Fee Paid _ _ Initials not. roLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION garbage i REPOSE COLL-CIUK ...a-e the incicated bus-ness in the City of or 'he ondersicned *-'isnes ' ''cense to do so. lerewith nakes atolicstton .0. a - ^ ^ t /,./<• t’ c,. /) I /-Cl '' 1.-------ifi'iy/ Jusiness/Firm Address ^ ^ _ (Street) Qv/- 0 7^ Business Phone Number -----------------^ cr.c ar.c ■ • • •’ a Vpolicant's Name \ddress '9c*/'/ // (Street^ r yv. ^ 7^ \ W — V-J ' // / p / ^ TFTTTTl (Zrt Ctde ) V w w— wee» . ' Phone Number ZheeJe One:Individual Partnership ^ Corporation K.nher of Vehicles to be used in Orono Year mk 22_ Mfcr. Xni’ Ml±- 2Vt renic-L«=> ------------ ^ , Loaded >•- Gross wt. ?£ar Axle <! 0 0 /g;'. /4 - .-Too 7rc’i? <~/ oco /*? size/Vards ^c\J- Licen yrri se 7/V4i ■ 9 v7T"yi'il S'J’V?/ . O W' c/ 5r ya )<%yi Alaneral area of City ser'/ed _ . ^ . ;chedule of Collection charges/ dates Y ^ erv\c ^ — ppcoxi.ate netber of customers in 5./^- of du-tpinc area ^rc.kVr- --------------------— _________ Me MB MB “• ““ _______fWV location of dumping area -----------------------;-------------THE FOLLOWING: - - - -"Vor'^Vs APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE. YOO MOST ENCLOSE THE tN ORDER FOR THIb iur-riax amount of S30.00 flat rate ^ee, _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , license fees I am t.he owner and operator or '^e b .^j^^^tion is correc^. and taxes recurr^ by law. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^ —-- - - - - - Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ pplicant _ _ _ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Illf^"recommends: _ or«S'w2 only: After review of application, (specify) Approval --------------- Official Date 9 : i\ # ■•t>'iP )4/23/55 PR: -'•8 C3 PRREGOR 471633060 474553339 475921819 471840371 475443862 453113870 453343003 472503991 459525026 475989721 453321013 472529007 463701968 470089708 469686552 463420832 458420832 474667912 475390151 477500665 475444249 477453877 471569863 473141624 477647279 471849180 472500574 12126241- 475344512 480843542 470987727 477700023 477700023 334506281 473108428 468909535 476783251 476866274 470700901 469848107 471487919 174167795 175382983 173746173 473609629 470566529 169629194 475569177 267460042 472563051 474663296 470704904 475505292 468629488 477881539 .‘!A:4E ^;ZZRSC'.i, 3R 3CRIS. SCOTT 3CSMA, JA.MIS CALLAGHAN, JEREMIAH CARL3CM, MICHAtL s CHESWICK, GAR: 3 CORillCX, JAT'^ES L DEMBOUSKI, JAY C ENGLISH III, IRVING 3RICKSCN, HGRi R rISCHENICH, DA;4 T FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER GAFFRCN, MICHAEL ? GERHARDSCN, JCnN R ERHARDSON, JOHN R DPT GROSS CJRRENT GROSS 31 16223.90 1900.44 31 9651.26 1071.20• •w 31 11156.43 12C4.87 1 A 12 5661.35 617.05 CHN F 42 14904.00 1656.00 Gc.o~MESGREGORY, HALLIN, GROTHY M HAJISEN, STEVEN C KA*NSING, CAROL J HASEMAN, •Ai*,„,Lr, JCHN’SCN, 5RAELEY ? JCGTRCM, FOREST J XARNITZ. RICKY D KI.'CLLENBERG, KRISTIN KUEHN, THOMAS M MABUSTH, JEA:.’MS A MCINTYRE, WILLIAM E MCNICHOLS, DAVID L MILLER, CHRISTOPHER MOORSE, RONALD J MCORSE, RONALD J MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES OAS, DANIEL O OBERAIGNER, SCOTT G OBRIEN, RANDY L OLSON, JOHN C. OMAN, LYLE E PALMER, GREGORY A PERSELL, WILLIAM R. PETERSON, JACK W QUAST, WAYNE A RATHBUN, BARRY J ROSS, JOHN A SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B SKREEN, DALE S STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD SULLIVAN, STEPHEN X THCMTCN, MARK R TCMCHECK, LAWRENCE F TCMCZYK, MARK W VANG, BRUCE L VEE, LINDA S WECKMAN, STEPHEN J 35 31 31 31 31 31 i. 31 35 33 42 42 42 31 3 1 93 31 31 15 33 93 31 15 12 12 31 93 42 92 15 33 42 31 93 92 92 93 31 42 93 31 31 31 31 33 12 33 3050.50 15971.04 16045.55 16194.44 15243.35 14554.04 14140.16 273 . 33 13958 . 37 19801.92 21C42.15 12005.61 12024.19 11055.96 5557.67 9702.54 15304 .39 31 . 20 1419.44 3203 . 01 20535.06 17400.56 318.30 14474 10133 20395 22844 15107 155 11728 11495 9696 13958 11420 3400 659 13253 11377 89 10323 11399 12024 19595.52 14523.85 15232 14503 11622 9802 11149 97 98 51 95 96 00 66 54 15 08 21 75 85 92 57 90 17 00 16 95 68 15 90 08 403 1774 1990 1056 1610 1611 1551 199 1555 235 2240 1337 1340 1143 500 1071 1611 81 179 408 2268 1948 142 1539 1160 200 2449 1671 68 1315 1143 1000 1555 1143 364 236 1403 1143 89 1239 1336 1340 2177.28 1665.38 1501 1611 1340 1071 . 96 .56 . 96 .37 . 03 . 52 .20 .36 . 52 . 00 .23 .50 .00 . 68 .40 .20 .52 .20 .54 .17 .48 . 08 . 10 . 03 .17 . 00 .44 . 94 .20 .24 .67 .24 .52 .69 .68 .55 .92 .68 .90 .52 .67 .00 .36 .52 .00 .20 1242.49 64,653.44 j | 05/31/95 PR: CM PRREGOR z49 EMP » 469188026 NAME DPT YTD GROSS CALLAHAN, EDWARD J 11 1500.00 GOETTEN, J.DIANN 11 1208.35 HURR, JOELLEN L 11 1208.35 JABBOUR, GABRIEL 11 1208.35 KELLEY, CHARLES 11 1208.35 CURRENT GROSS 00 67 67 241.67 241.67 300 241 241 1,266.68 f COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Wed Apr 26 1995 00:19:04 CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR Page.1 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT n INVOICE PO NUM.MANUAL 9999-2030 002668 OH 9999-2030 002662 OH 9999-2032 002662 OH 9999-2030 002661 OH 9999-2030 002671 OH 9999-2030 002666 OH 9999-2030 002667 OH 9999-2030 002670 OH 9999-2030 002665 OH 9999-2030 002663 OH 9999-2030 002672 OH 9999-2u30 002673 OH 9999-2030 002675 OH 9999-2030 002674 OH 9999-2031 002664 OH 9993-2030 002664 OK 9999-2030 002669 OH 032992 1995/04/25 1995/04/25 1995/04/25 $5,591.00 $5,691.00» CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNI SAVINGS W/H 6 TRANSF $9,542.71 $2,856.87 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FIT,FICA,MEDCR W/H FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CITY SHARE FICA. MED 032993 $12,399.58* 032994 1995/04/25 $36,332.63 $36,332.63* 032995 1995/04/25 $1,381.50 $1,381.50* 032996 199F '04/25 $155.50 $155.50* 032997 1995/04/25 $174.50 $174.50* 032998 1995/04/25 $100.00 $100.00* 032999 1995/04/25 $375.00 $375.00* 023000 1995/04/25 $2,858.43 $2,858.43* 033001 1995/04/25 $55.00 $55.00* 033002 1995/04/25 $100.00 $100.00* 033003 1995/04/25 $78.52 $78.52* 033004 1995/04/25 $1,323.46 $1,323.46* 033005 1995/04/25 1995/04/25 $4,725.93 $3,597.04 $8,322.97* 033006 1995/04/25 $30.00 $30.00* FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NET PAYROLL GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURA DEF COMP W/H HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPOR THOMTON #C0266780 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPOR SKREON #00262310 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- DEF COMP W/H LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR UNION DUES W/H MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVE STATE "^.OC W/H MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEF COMP W/H MN STATE RETIREMENT-DE DEF COMP W/H PEBSCO/OBRA DEF COMP W/H PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYO DEF COMP W/H PERA PERA PERA CITY SHARE PERA W/H UNITED WAY CHARITY DONATIONS W/ $69,278.09 COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY Wed Apr 26 1995 00:19:08FUND # 999 riYROLL CLEARING $69,278.09 $69,278.09 Page 1 ■ • tT ■ t —COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Pri May 5 CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT 1995 01:54:06 VENDOR DESCRIPTION Page 1 ACCOUl’T #INVOICE PO NUM.MANUAL 0129-4320 002699 OH 0129-4320 002714 OH 0590-43:.0 002713 OH 0249-4232 9272-37 OH 0907-4630 002727 OH 0099-4210 66454801 OK 0099-4372 19712 ,OH 0099-4379 002726 OH 0590-4379 002726 OH 0129-4379 002726 OH 0549-4379 002726 OH 0569-4379 002726 OH 0099-4210 73450 OH 0129-4340 002707 OH 0165-4342 4093173 OH 0129-4356 002706 OH 0591-4002 20739 OH 9673-1193 002681 OH 9673-1600 33457 OH 0360-4305 33456 OH 0419-4305 33459 OH 0355-4305 33453 OH 0360-4305 33455 OH 0200-4305 33452 OH 0590-4322 9228 OH 0129-4210 48940 OH 033010 033011 033012 033013 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $19.55 $5.45 $5.30 $30.30* A T i T A T t T A T t T CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN POLICE LONG DISTANCE GOLF COURSE LONG DIS 1995/05/08 1995/05/38 1995/05/08 $43.54 $43.54* ALL STAR ELECTRIC REPLACE LIGHT HWY 12 $25.00 $25.00* AMERICAN NATL BANK BOND DESTRUCTION $1,047.96 $1,047.96* ANCHOR PAPER COPY PAPER 033014 033015 033016 033017 033018 033019 033020 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $446.00 $1,961.10 $199.00 $3,307.00 $225.00 $553.00 $6,691.10* APPLE APPLE APPLE APPLE APPLE APPLE VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY AGENCY AGENCY AGENCY AGENCY AGENCY AGENCY BOILERS-NEW BLDGS AGENT FEE AGENT FEE AGENT FEE AGENT FEE AGENT FEE 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $184.50 $184.50* ASPLUND COFFEE $44.05 $44.05* AT6T INFO SYSTEM 20# DECAF LONG DISTANCE CHARGE $28.39 $28.39* ATfcT WIRELESS SERVICES CSO PAGER SERVICE $65.00 $65.00* ATOM $68.18 $68.18* AUGIES MOBILE CHEF ATOM CONFERENCE-ENGL SANDWICHES FOR RESAL $30.24 $30.24* AULT, STEPHEN REFUND OVERPAY-CLO.SE 033021 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $8,471.99 $65.00 $3,543.10 $272.25 $460.39 $345.43 $13,158.16* BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO ROSENB ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN L.S. #7 RENOVATION N. BROWN RD-ENG KELLY AVE STORM SWR OCB RD BRIDGE-FEB BROWN RD RFP #3 ANNUAL BRIDGE INSP 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $54.21 $198.14 BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING CART RENTAL BOOKS BUS CARDS-MELTO",PER COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Fri May 5 CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT 1995 01:54:06VENDOR Paga 2DESCRIPTIONACCOUNT It INVOICE PO NUM. PICKUP SLIPS 9001-3505 9164 OH1000 ENVELOPES 0129-4210 9216 wit OHDAILY REPORTS 0129-4322 9024 vjn OH RELOCATE POWER LINE 0355-4530 002692 OH CELL PHONE UTILITIES 0549-4320 002711 OHCELL PHONE UTILITIES 0569-4320 002711 OH REIMBURSE FOR CONF-C 0129-4356 002704 OH OIL CHANGE, REPAIR S 0129-4341 5864 OHBRAKES,DIAGNOSTIC #1 0129-4341 5877 xyn OH PATS INSTRUCTOR 0129-4356 004298 OH M.P. FIRE PD ON ACCT 9001-2224 002728 OH POP FOR RESALE 0591-4802 03884425 OH MAY INS 9999-2030 0409950001941 OHMAY INS 0129-4152 0409950001941 OH • REPAIR L.S. #3 0569-4j44 • 3573 OH REPAIR L.S. PANEL 0569-4344 3570 OH TRANSPARENCY PAPER 0099-4210 2121823 OH CON FERENCE-MOORSE 0039-4356 002719 OH JOI'.r PARKS/PC MTG 0385-4306 16480 OH APRIL RECYCLE PICKUP 0295-4392 002697 OH 033022 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $47.94 $124.86 $125.27 $550.42* 033023 1995/05/08 $13,385.00 $13,385.00* 033024 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $21.72 $21.72 $43.44* 033025 1995/05/08 $49.62 $49.62* 033026 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $182.11 $160.75 $342.86* 033027 1995/05/08 $819.50 $819.50* 033028 1995/05/08 $1,607.70 $1,607.70* 033029 l<>'‘*/05/08 $438.49 $438.49* 033030 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $187.68 $505.84 $693.52* 033031 1995/05/08 W $163.78 $163.78* 033032 1995/05/08 $94.98 $94.98* 033033 1995/05/08 $100.88 $100.88* 033034 1995/05/08 $315.73 $315.73* 033035 1995/05/08 $312.60 $312.60* 033036 1995/05/08 $5,422.92 $5,422.92* BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING CELLULARONE CELLULARONE CHESWICK/GARY CHUNKS GARAGE CHUNKS GARAGE CITY OP MAPLE GROVE CITY OP MAPLE PLAIN COCA COLA VENDING CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL COPY DUP PR INC CRAGUNS LODGE & CONI DAHLGREN SHARDLOW E-Z RECYCLING . «rvCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Fri May 5 CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT 1995 01:54:06VENDOREARL P ANDERSON ASSC Page 3DESCRIPTION WATCH FOR CHILDREN S ACCOUNT #INVOICE PO NUM.MANUAL0249-4232 140282 OH 0591-4015 510428-6 OH 0039-4306 0039-4306 0174-4306 002708 002708 002708 6H OH OH 0249-4221 0590- 1221 0549-4221 0549-4221 0249-4221 0590-4221 501121 501120 501122 497296 497295 497294 • OH OH OH OH OH OH 0185-4360 002718 OH 0129-4232 3836 OH 0129-4232 002693 OH 0590-4331 002717 OH 9673-1193 002680 OH 0129-4550 12001 OH 0569-4344 22699 OH 0080-4350 000381 OH 0080-4358 002703 OH 0039-4380 0039-4380 002700 002701 OH OH 033037 033038 033039 033040 033041 033042 033043 033044 033045 033046 033047 033048 033049 033050 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $542.95 $542.95* $216.00 $216.00* $120.00 $120.00 $100.00 $340.00* $66.26 $2.60 $15.49 $15.49 $48.05 $2.60 $150.49* $60.00 $60.00* $616.00 $616.00* $10.00 $10.00* $1,000.00 $1,000.00* $77.09 $77.09* $596.40 $596.40* $50.00 $50.00* $2,635.76 $2,635.76* $504.37 $584.37* $90.00 $60.00 $150.00* EAST SIDE BEVERAGE FROST, SHERRY R. FROST, SHERRY R. FROST, SHERRY R. G fc K SERVICES G (t K SERVICES G 6 K SERVICES G 6 K SERVICES G 6 K SERVICES G 6 K SERVICES GANGELHOFF, DONNA BEER FOR RESALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION STREET EMPLOYEES STEFFENHAGEN RATHBUN, QUAST RATHBUN, QUAST streeV employees STEFFENHAGEN DEER PICKUP GATEWAY SAFETY PROD,IN SAFETY FLARES GBRRING'S CAR WASH GOLF CAR MIDWEST GOMEZ, LUPE GRAFIX SHOPPE HENN CO TREASURER HENN CTY FIN DIV HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT INTL INST-MUNI CLKS INTL •NST-MUNI CLKS CAR W:iSH TICKETS GOLF CART RENTAL-APR REFUND OVERPAY-CLOSE STRIPING #173,174 UTILITY PERMIT-FORCE ROOM k BOARD-MARCH MARCH BOOKING FEES INTL INST OF MUN CLE INTL INST OF MUN CLE lOONCIL < IHBCK NO CHECK REGISTER Fri May 5 CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT 1995 01:54:06VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT n INVOICE PO NUM.Page 4 MANUAL 0330S1 1995/05/08 $38.18 $38.18* J H LARSON ELECTRICAL FLUORESCENT BULBS 0099-4232 04175-899885 OH 1995/05/08 $29.89 KUEHN, THOMAS MARCH MILEAGE 0069-4381 002724 OK 1995/05/08 $9.96 KUEHN, THOMAS MARCH MILEAGE 0569-4381 002724 OK 033052 1995/C':/08 $6.64 $46.49* KUEHN, THOMAS MARCH MILEAGE 0174-4381 002724 OK 033053 1995/05/08 $38.82 $38.82* LAKER/PIONEER AD-TEMP ST MAINT WOR 0249-4323 002696 OK 033054 1995/05/08 $1,488.00 $1,488.00* LMCIT-BERKLEY ADMIN 94 W.C. AUDIT 9001-1299 002725 OH 1995/05/08 $239.00 LMCIT-BERKLEY RISK GREGORY ACCDNT CLAIM 0099-4374 11007833 OH 033055 1995/05/08 $220.00 $459.00* LMCIT-BERKLEY RISK GARAGE KEEPERS INS 0129-4370 56584 OH 1995/05/08 $2,205.00 LOGIS - SUITE 300 MAR SERVICES 0099-4352 AR0395 OK 1995/05/08 $526.00 LOGIS - SUITE 300 MAR SERVICES 0569-4352 AR0395 OH 1995/05/08 $21.18 LOGIS - SUITE 300 MAR DISC SPACE 0569-4355 AR0395 OK 1995/05/08 $9.08 LOGIS - SUITE 300 MAR DISC SPACE 0549-4355 AR0395 OK 1995/05/08 $17.40 LOGIS - SUITE 300 MAINT MUIX 0099-4340 AR0395 OK 1995/05/08 $762.02 LOGIS - SUITE 300 MAR DISC SPACE 0129-4355 AR0395 OH 1995/05/08 $359.43 LOGIS - SUITE 300 MAR DISC SPACE 0099-4355 AR0395 OH 1995/05/08 $226.00 LOGIS - SUITE 300 MAR SERVICES 0549-4352 AR0395 OH 033056 1995/05/08 $667.00 $4,793.11* LOGIS - SUITE 300 MARCH SERVICES 0129-4352 AR0395 OH 1995/05/08 $19.14 MABUSTH-JEANNE APRIL MILEAGE 0174-4381 002720 OH 033057 1995/05/00 • $17.69 $36.83* MABUSTH-JEANNE MAY MILEAGE • 0174-4381 002721 • OH 033058 1995/05/08 $43.06 $43.06* MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT CABLE 0249-4232 2953854 OH 1995/05/08 $30.00 MCFOA MCFOA RENEWAL-OLSON 0069-4380 002678 OH 1995/05/08 $30.00 MCFOA MCFOA RENEWAL-VEE 0039-4380 002677 OH 033059 1995/05/08 $30.00 $90.00* MCFOA MCFOA RENEWAL-HALLIM 0039-4380 002676 OH 033060 1995/05/08 $4.50 $4.50* MCNICHOLS. DAVID PARKING FEE REIMB-MC 0129-4381 002682 OH 1995/05/08 $160.71 MED CTR HEALTH CARE MAY INS 0129-4151 1343423 OH 1995/05/08 $532.02 MED CTR HEALTH CARE MAY INS 9999-2030 1343423 OH 1995/05/08 $461.72 MED CTR HEALTH CARE MAY INS 0249-4151 1343423 OH 033061 1995/05/08 $602.02 $1,756.47* MED CTR HEALTH CARE MAY INS 0174-4151 1343423 OH 0 • .* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Fri May 5 1995 01:54:06CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT INVOICE PO NUM.Pag* 5 MANUAL 033062 033063 033064 033065 033066 033067 033068 033069 033070 033071 033072 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $21.28 $167.71 $8.31 $197.30* MIDWEST BSNS PROD MIDWEST BSNS PROD MIDWEST BSNS PROD MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES LIQUID PAPER 0129-4210 0099-4210 0099-4210 203686 203686 206143 $44.66 $44.66* MILLER, CHRIS APRIL MILEAGE 0069-4381 002722 $79.81 $79.81* MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COM OXYGEN 0129-4232 437846 $159.44 $359.84 $28.15 $584.55 $1,131.98* MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO GAS CHARGES GAS CHARGES GAS CHARGES GAS CHARGES 0549-4324 0099-4324 0569-4324 0099-43.24 002695 002695 002695 002695 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH $810.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE APRIL SALES TAX 9672-2222 002729 OK$18.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE APRIL SALES TAX 9001-3500 002729 OH$1,127.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE APRIL SALES TAX 9674-2222 002729 OK$4.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE APRIL SALES TAX 9001-3527 002729 OH$12.00 $1,971.00* MN DEPT OF REVENUE APRIL SALES TAX 9672-2222 002729 OH $360.00 $360.00* MN DEPT PUB SAFETY CJDN OPERATION CHARG 0129-4340 95Q1225 OK $80.00 MN DEPT PUB SRVC-WGHTS INSPECTION #128637 0129-4342 12385-12698 OK$240.00 $320.00* MN DEPT PUB SRVC-WGHTS INSPECTION #128587 0129-4342 11842-12698 OK $60.00 $60.00* MOROWCZYNSKI/JAMES MEALS FOR TASK FORCE 0129-4382 002705 OH $280.00 $280.00* NORTH MEMORIAL MEDICAL PTAC TRAINING BAL DU 0129-4356 0026/9 OH $965.37 NSP NSP CHARGES 0569-4324 002731 OH$174.43 NSP NSP CHARGES 0249-4324 002731 OH$34.53 NSP NSP CHARGES 0290-4324 002731 OH$103.60 NSP NSP CHARGES 0590-4324 002731 OH$905.27 NSP NSP CHARGES 0099-4324 002731 OH$405.37 NSP NSP CHARGES 0129-4324 002731 OH$9.42 NSP NSP CHARGES 0175-4324 002731 OH$1,931.42 $4,529.41* NSP NSP CHARGES 0549-4324 002731 OH $1,083.34 $1,083.34* NSP STREET LIGHTING 0249-4325 002698 OH COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Pri May 5 1995 01:54:06 Page 6CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT #INVOICE PO NUM.MANUAL 033073 1995/05/08 $13.11 $13.11* OLD DUTCH FOODS INC.CHIPS FOR RESALE 0591-4802 771519 OH 033074 1995/05/08 $16.84 $16.64* OLSON, JOHN C.APRIL MILEAGE,MEALS-0069-4381 002723 OH 033075 1995/05/08 $27.84 $27.84* OMAN/LYLE MILEAGE 4/17-4/19 0174-4381 002689 OH 033076 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $24.00 $96.00 $120.00* PERA INS PERA INS JUNE INS JUNE INS 0129-4152 9999-2030 002712 002712 OH OH 033077 1935/05/08 $39.80 $39.80* PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR FUEL FOR TRUCK 0249-4220 109 OH 033078 1995/05/08 $40.44 $40.44* PIONEER AD FOR BID-WILLOW DR 0352-4323 359 OH 033079 1995/05/08 $138.13 $138.13* R C INDENTIFICATIONS ID CARDS 0129-4210 018836 OH 033080 1995/05/08 $77.40 $77.40* REED VENDING CANDY FOR RESALE 0591-4802 15190 OH 033081 19<>5/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $5.37 $33.32 $5.21 $12.85 $56.75* RITZ CAME.IA RiTZ came:ia RITZ CAMEKA RITZ CAMERA FILM PROCESSING FILM PROCESSING FILM PROCESSING FILM PROCESSING 0129-4210 0129-4210 0129-4210 0129-4210 3763939 3764145 3763743 3763495 OH OH OH OH 033082 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $1,520.30 $126.5'J $1,646.80* SAFE BENEFITS SAFE BENEFITS SAFE BENEFITS-MAY SAFE BENEFITS-MAY 9999-2030 0299-4306 14619 14619 OH OH 033083 1995/05/08 $1,026.27 $1,026.27* SCHARBER & SONS INC DECK MOWER 9674-1500 002702 OH 033084 1995/05/08 $35.00 $35.00* STA-SAFE LOCKSMITHS OPEN SQUAD DOOR 0129-4341 2530 OH 033085 1995/05/08 $21.45 $21.45* STAR TRIBUNE SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 0039-4240 002694 OH 033086 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 1995/05/08 $74.44 $17.01 $23.38 $114.83* STrSICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS SETUP NEW SQUADS FINGERPRINT INK REMO BATON HOLDER 0129-4550 0129-4232 0129-4221 22178.1 22155.1 21394.1 OH OH OH 1995/05/08 $16.98 TELEPHONE SPECIALIST THREE PHONE CORDS 0099-4340 39091 • OH y r - m «V • •COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Fri May 5 CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT 1995 01:54:06VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT #INVOICE Po NUM.Pago i MANUAL 033087 1995/05/08 $16.98* $26.65 THOMTON, MARK MEALS « CONFERENCE 0129-4356 002691033088 1995/05/08 $26.65* $185.25 THORPE DIST CO BEER FOR RESALE 0591-4815 56191033089 1995/05/08 $185.25* $16.40 TOMCHECK, LARRY MILBAGB/GAS-D.B.M. S 0129-4356 '^02690033090 1995/05/08 $16.40* $90.00 TWIN CITY SCALE COMPAN RECALIBRATE SCALP 0129-4342 26013033091 1 1995/05/08 $90.00* $282.06 U S WEST CELLULAR CELLULAR PHONE SERV 0129-4320 002710 033092 1995/05/08 . $21.75 V 3 WEST C^LULAR CELLULAR LONG DISTAN 0129-4320 *002709 1995/05/08 $303.81* $40.45 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED TROUSERS-GOMAN 0105-1221 406053033093 1995/05/08 $40.45* $175.00 UNIVERSITY OP MN WORKING WITH PEOPLE0249-4356 0026861995/05/08 $210.00 UNIVERSITY OP MN MANAGING PER. PROB.-0249-4356 0026071995/05/08 $175.00 UNIVERSITY OF MN WORKING W. PEOPLE-BR 0249-4356 0026051995/05/08 $210.00 UNIVERSITY OF MN MANAGE PER.PROB-QUAS 0249-4356 CO26001995/05/08 $399.00 UNIVERSITY OP MN EFP. SUPERVISION-QUA 0249-4356 002684 033094 1995/05/08 $399.00 UNIVERSITY OF MN EFF. SUPERVISION-BRI 0249-4356 OG2603 1995/05/08 $1,568.00* $253.76 US WEST COMMUN APRIL CHARGES 0129-4320 00273C1995/05/08 $55.66 US WEST COMMUN APRIL CHARGES 0099-4320 0027301995/05/08 $212.19 US WEST COMMUN APRIL CHARGES 0590-4320 0027301995/05/08 $53.75 US WEST COMMUN APRIL CHARGES 0590-4320 0027301995/05/08 $379.62 US WEST COMMUN APRIL CHARGES 0099-4320 0027301995/05/08 $12.65 US WEST COMMUN APRIL CHARGES 0549-4320 002730 033095 1995/05/08 $29.53 US WEST COMMUN APRIL CHARGES 0569-4320 002730 1995/05/08 $997.16* $90.00 WARNING LITES OF MN TRAFFIC SEMINAR-QUAS 0249-4356 0003538033096 1995/05/08 $90.00* $8.69 WRIGHT HEN.l ELECTRIC SECURITY LIGHT 0249-4325 002715 033097 1995/05/08 $9.00 WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC SECURITY LIGHT 0249-4325 002716 $17.69* OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH $70,365.73 COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY Pri May 5 1995 01:54:13FUND#001 GENERAL FUND $30,659.72FUNEIt112PARK FUND $312.60FUND»344 82 IMP BD D/S FD $25.00 FUND n 423 MUN ST AID CO/FD $14,223.08 FUND n 424 PERM IMP REV FD $3,543.10 FUND ff 672 HTR OPERATING FD $3,438.29 FUND »673 8WR OPERATING FD $11,042.99 FUND «674 G/C OPERATING FD $4,784.95 FUND «999 PAYROLL CLEARING $2,336.00 $78,365.73 Page 1 information ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL MEETING M AY 8 1995 cnv OF ORONO OF r i Mr. Edward J Callahan, Jr Mayor of Orono Municipal Offices Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 4/26/95 Dear Mr. Mayor, I was in attendance at the Public Hearing on Monday night and did not have the opportunity to speak, nor was the atmosphere friendly to supporters of the road closure I am a resident of Shorewood and have driven Rt 19 and Rt. 15 for the last seven years I want to go on record that I am very much in favor of the closure of Old Beach Road and the left turn arrow at the intersection of Rts. 19 and 15 I cannot understand any Tonka Bay or Orono resident preferring to make two unprotected left turns across traffic and drive down narrow Old Beach Road versus the alternative of making one protected left turn at the light. The turn from Old Beach Road to Rt. 19 is particularly difficult and dangerous due to the very poor visibility and rate of speed of oncoming cars from two directions Since the left turn arrow has been in place, I have not had one problem making a left turn from Rt. 15 to Rt. 19 The small time difference is certainly outweighed by my peace of mind While driving down Old Beach Road prior to its’ closing, I have been passed while observing the speed limit and have seen the heavy volume of traffic backed up at either end both in the morning and at night. Not all residents of Tonka Bay and Shorewood agree with the position taken by the self appointed petition spokesperson. For everybody’s safety and welfare, I hope that you and the Council will vote to permanently close Old Beach Road and to maintain the left turn arrow at the intersection. It is the right thing to do. Sincerely, Rick Bums 26170 Birch Bluff Road Shorewood, MN 55331 cc: J. Diann Goetten Jo Ellen Hurr Gabriel Jabbour Charles Kelley 11998 C': ,• VWTERSKI •k:!i i m0- rPresideiitm' . 4. * -•‘v. V >•^ - - •»»i > V . ' •.' V* r:' • .• . ^>4 V « . .r te' ' i April 25, 1995 City of Orono City Council Members PO BOX 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Council Members: I am writing you on behalf of the University of Minnesota Waterski Show Team. We have been pgoifining ski shows around the state for several years and are currently searching for a new location to call home. You may be familiar with us from the show we do on Long Lake during Buckhorn Days. Our shows are free to the public and are focused towards families. We are currently working with the City of Long Lake on the possibility of doing a weekly show there. We have received very good feedback from the Chamber of Commerce, City Council, and residents of the city. Due to the fact that much of the land surrounding Long Lake is in Orono, we feel it is necessary to also have your approval to make this venture a complete success. We feel that we can make a positive impact on the economy of both cities by bringing in spectators to watch our shows. We would also like to introduce a youth learn-to-ski program to your community in conjunction with the University of Minnesota. Our organization has received excellent press for its community involvement. We strive to keep this positive public image intact, and will bring favorable press to both Long Lake and Orono. We would appreciate any help or feedback that you can provide. I would also be happy to answer any questions you may hdve. Please feel free to contact me by phone or mail. S3 ncerely, 'Joe Held 724-5742 MAY 1 1996 IltiNRY Thomas DeNeko o C'cfy ^j /h^ ro ~P -t* ^ (P,rsvix> u^ ^iv-es' L-O-^^L^k^^ IVVu/J e£ejj-c£en^ty^^ • «2. / / <=* Vr 7^/^ y&2/ ^U=-V^ orz:>ftcr^<-ct.<i ^ . irc»^ c^Ci.'y^' LT^— -f-2, L^^Cake. lM<y* <nc^ <>2^. Su-^t, Jdy'-i^VL, U'i^'% ^ ^ e^ s’tJs . ^<'5<*o ‘'^- «=^ ^,'rc, (^fr-rziT^ y^''- UAJu/ck ^ ; A y^>^pwnp^cW^ ^c^v-e^ pi^~Ufjc:e^ CV'- l<i^cc^:':rt ^a\<-e. <5 />-y^’'^ CO <--^ <c<oe^'s 4\ ^ ri^sr ^ (-Va ^~f^fc^ C4^C'f*^ ^ C'<?'^ / > Lo'^/ /o 7^/^ t/y 1^ O'-^'^'^ Uu~aL^^>-~^ h «i' ^ ‘n. Cti 'fi<i3^ rrr— cJit'-jp*^ >—; i/ C,-Ot . cAi>,<-e: <c <3^ <3o>C<2<M, L{ ^ . ^ ^/l/ex-<:--- Ccy^—La.C^ ^<i<^ ~ •^99^ C historic Excelsior On the shores of Lake Minnetonka n AREA CHAMBER OR COA April 28, 1995 TO CITIES OF: Woodland Wayzata Minnetonka Orono Spring Park Minnetonka Beach Mound Minnetrista Victoria RE: 1995 Fourth of July Celebration DEAR MAYORS AND COUMCILPEOPLE: The Excelsior Chamber of Commerce will again this year offer a the Fourth of July celebration from the waters of Lake Minnetonka adjacent the Excelsior Commons. The celebration will include live music, food and a fireworks display launched from Minnetonka Portable Dredging's barge. Unique this year, will be a recognition of the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. The Clarence Clofer American Legion Post in Shorewood, together with other local VFW and American Legion groups, is organizing the celebration. Special festivities are planned and we will be host to a fly-over warbirds. On behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, I would like to ask your City to consider a donation in support of the annual Fourth of July celebration. Ours is the only celebration in the surrounding area and I am confident that many of your constituents enjoy the tradition and wish it to continue. Your cities donation in the amount of $500 will greatly assist the continuation of this tradition and it is our sincere hope that you will support it. As chairman of the Fourth of July Committee, I stand ready to answer any questions that your city may have. We will be in touch with you to provide additional information as the date approaches and, in particular, to get the word out to our veterans so they may attend the festivities. Thank you for your willingness to consider our request. Sincerely, EXCELSIO.; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE By Mark W. Kelly ^Board Member & Fourth of July Chair 474-5977 POST OFFICE BOX 32 • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 • PHONE 16121 474^1 cm' OF ORONO P\RK COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 1, 1995 7:15 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY * COUNCIL CHAMBERS ATTENDANCE AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes of April 4, 1995 Park Commission Meeting Open Space Planning Questionnaire j.Cr>stal Bay Playground. 4. Update on Orono Baseball Association Plans for 1995 Including Dedication Plans for New Baseball Field. 5. Planning for June 5th Parks Tour. 6. Rescheduling of July 5th Park Commission Meeting to July 11, 1995. 7. 8. 9. 10. Report on Tour of Big Island. Planning for French Creek Preserv'e Dedication - Saturday, May 20, 2:00 p.m. Update on Bike TraU Construction Planned for 1995. Report on Construction Planned for the Following Parks During 1995: a. Lowry Woods b. Highland Nature Trail. 11. 12. Repon on April 24th Public Hearing Regarding Saga Hills Park Funding Request. Review of Status of Various Items on 1995 Action Plan (copy attached). 13. New Business. adjournment ,J r ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 4» 1995 draft ATTENDANCE The Park Corami3sio- j.ee on the^aDove^ Lili McMillan? works Cireceor John Gernarason an^ec^^^^^^^ at 7:23 p.ra. Staff. Chair Flint cax-ea ^ne me-t-i^g PUBLIC COMMENTS Lisa Kugler, an Orono /"J^tcqSLe^the'saga Hill area Land reported on rieignoorncod^jjj.^ . through next to the nine acre parcel grant available fromtax forfeiture, ^u^ler reported on a poss Natural the Natural Scenic ,y Cities need to aooly for the Resources basea on land quality. ^ deadline for the grant grant and hearing is required for the application is May „gnt will be decided by September of 1995 and must be spent by ' ^oolrty sooner but they l°l"?nterlstS°ll''plrSuing this |lant and ask for a 1:4 match from the City. Kugler “".inaga^^Au'^rr^a plrk‘'cLSx^oners^Jd^contributions of the Saga ar g^^^ed that Park Dedication funds 'S' no/ be' avl^lable because existing projects were expected to exhaust the funds. Motion to ask the Council « help in applying for^a^D^ grant^for ^^?sHn e"gu^\'/:/un°/^Wil°sonmr^ Use s'econded. Ayes 5. Nays (#1) APPROVAL OP MINUTES OP PEBROART 6, 1995 AMD MARCH 6, 1995 on page 6 of the "c//sentente' "Wilsorsaid'the'^groip has Action Plan, 1st parag attemcts at fund raising at this not /“/jf/Yn/erested in pursuing a bond referendum for open TaiS^ w'af c'/a'nged « «ad^ r'a'^^i/g^t ®trs%ofnt "°andV ?r?:te'res\eS InTursuing Hl^lT of^t^e”'^!?!; SmtsirM-eetrnrotpe™ and March S. 1995 with the above change. Ayes 5, Nays 0. ? \C.t^ ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 4, 1995 (#2) Discussion of Proposed Development near French Creek Preserve Bob Melamed was present. He handed out 2 sketch plans, Plan A is offering a buffer area where no trees could be removed within 30' to 50' around the entire property boundaries, plus an 8% cash Park Dedication fee. Plan 3, is to donate 1.23^, acres of land on Lot 4, adiacent to the French Creek Par.k Reserve. Flint asked for the buffer dimensions on Sketch A. .Melamed stated it is 50' on t.he east. There is not much on the north because there is not much vegetation there. The owner of Lot 1 and Art Ellis are going to want more privacy from each other and we are going to have to do some more screening. What I'm trying to do for the people who are living there, is feel like the home is not out in the o'pen to Old Crystal Bay Road. Flint summarized Melamed, saying that on the east it would be 50' easement, on the north it would be 30' easement, on the south it would be a 50' easement and basically 50' on the west except on the west it gets wider as you get north of Lot 2 and 3. Melamed agreed. Flint asked Mabusth, it was true that the envelope around the property would be required irrespective of Park Commission consideration. Mabusth stated that the City is granting this developer, if it goes with Plan A, a variance to the subdivision regulations because the regulations require an internal road, with one curb cut so as to serve all 4 lots. The Planning Commission has accepted this property as unique and need to be addressed for its special consideration so they are willing to grant the variance. But in return for the variance, the City wants to be assured that the trees would be protected and not only would we be looking for exterior buffers, we would probably look for buffers a^ong the lot lines, something similar to Sugarwood, where the whole point was to preserve the trees. The City would require preservation of the trees notwithstanding Park Commissions consideration, but additional limitations such as prohibition of along the buffer might be imposed because of Park Commission considerations. Flint questioned the city road entering the preserve, being improved as normally would be required by the addition of even one driveway. ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING minutes for APRIL 4, 1995 draft (Discussion of proposed Development near French Creek Preserve Ccr.tinued) Mabusth stated that cul-du-sac at that n°rtneas. Jo'uld result in the loss of too the parking area_ "t^us imoact on the preserve atmosphere. many mature t ees „iy improvement berng paving the Planning '^^t.eloLr Sould be responsible for.existing dirt road wnicn tne a-/e.uu j wu - 4 - wanted the road paved, then he would. c!fl'dl-sac a'nd 't.^4 ditches and the widening of the road tiri3.c Hw wishisd. to 3.voLci. Mc.Millan questioned it lo^ld°be, be. in order to neet V^Vfflfnn would be^ touch the last according to Engineer u have to be cut out. Melamed driveway wnich is the Watershed District to redredge thf pcnd%rea° whTch is fill of garbage the City has been dumping for years. be^"nvo?vld for"the“park7ee"ff ctsh «;'re^r°e"q^ired inltelTS^ ^andf Melamed replied $30,000. Mabusth agreed. McMillan asked if t.he septic sites are final locations or can they be moved? TellTnis ^”rthfritSlkr^o°rrht °sep^ic"fite1^it^roel^u:it* thf locations available. Wilson stated the ^“erttnd p”o^n<? .Aldufe pr«tr?e ?rarfhrcity --i,- Tf need to w^ld be first to protect the prairie and the proposed ae/e-o.^^ water fowl. The other purpose would be the wetlana area wiw... tn . . ‘^^one often in conservation ro rh°e''li?? property t^tht worenberg wildlife propertyorojects) from the c y P ^ wildlife Its a key conservation for deer and pheasants and other protect the S5?Ln."^feft the best wa^to do it would be “/-^^atThS froS riLser^ati:rs\\“n%:int^^ecausTthiVW taken the effort and ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 4/ 199 j (Discussion of proposed Development near Frenoh Creek Preserve - Continued) soent Dublic money to set aside the fe^ t this the City did not have many opportunities to ^ ®ith was a key issue for the ?ar.< Commission .o deal witn. Flint asked if some of the neighbors had any input to orrer. Mike Ell’S of 1020 Old Crystal Bay Road South, statea Plan A einoo' ^ an c-rc«^’'ed about maintaining tnings as much as made sense. " we-e, I realize they can't stay that possible as to the ^ay the road. I was one ofbut one Question is accut pav.-ng i*.u^ several who went back if"^tVse°t^eJs^are\aintained the any difference with the pond. Sirs sr ".s“ .* Wilson questioned, so your adding 50'. Melamed stated its 50' plus 40' that the City already owns. Flint said that if we go with Plan B, which is to take the land, tir Planning Commission may require that you still provide a buffer. Mabusch, felt Che Planning Commission would require building a barrier/buffer along the boundaries or the property. You can assume the other buffers are going to happen, stated Melamed. Flint indicated that it might be possible to Provide * nf all three - some land to be donated, some casement to buffer t property Ind some money Co be contributed. He asked what would be the maximum land if that were all. Melamed indicated that the calculations Chat Gronberg came «P «ith are 1 23+ acres, which the Park Commission was entitled, 1-2 acres was dr^ an^the other .03 is wetland. This asssumed a corridor 95 to 100' along the east side of the property. Wilson stated that the Nature Conservation does a of conservation easements so she had talked to them. ^atiire Conservancy said the problem with the conservation they need a lot of monitoring, you need to have some one ^hec 9 ^ and make sure they are being followed and as a general prsct?ce that ts a real hasLl. Their advice was for the City to ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING minutes FOR APRIL 4, 1995 ORAFi Continued) own the property rather than to obtain an easement. -hat >-eDlied Flint. It is different As a lawyer, i agree v-rsus an easement on your own when you are coming on^o ^ ‘ still your land, subjectland. When you grant an easement, lu ;o -he easement and hone ,t®,*’irwas better t, take the land easements w:ll have . he fe ^ ^si^ed Melamet to go back to than the easement develop part of Lot 4, and thereWilson's origtnal point oi not to it, but it is is no reason you snoula bea_ t-- nar'-•! cioate. The Park certainly possible tnat "maybe some of the neighbors Commission could buy a ^ fourth ^ot from being developed, could help to try to the wetland by havingI am personally concernea about the^impac^ the road going across ana V ^ wooded now, is there a way at the septic system site ^ran vou think about this until theto prevent building on Lot 4. Can you tninK ecu next Council meeting. . 1 ^hd,^ he would not rule that out, it would becomeMelamed replied that he wou nredicted that it would be an economic questioned for they would like to buy unlikely that the neighbors that would work, even if ^^4y°Ln^ef ti^’ “Mltnr^h^fwoull Sra^^ssue for the City and myself." af A20 Old CrYStsl Bay Road, felt that to George Hust, resident back then find out the bike trail take Plsn ^ front as neiahbors we didn't get the buffer, the ??:il^tTea‘^etfenrbufthenwe get the bike trail down the front. , . 1 ioH that, vou will get the buffer, per what Mabusth ; aid. ?irb;ffe"r'rotth‘!"eaT,''and Sest will be there at any rate. Mrs. Hust, stated that when ^^®^^^g°3®^ike\rai\^ in’will be coming built close g and that is not going Co >=e 9«at and fS the^^ikTtr^^ theffplorie "an" hale" a n"ice "bi'ke^ ride rather then on the road, on chrSeste?n edge of this property. Flint stated if we decided „PJ°ron\he w«t"side"thln and not make any where we would put it. He stated rharhel,ou"rd St ---rt/triiTnSr%^ifth^ duck" t%re" ?fwe tur" down Che opportunity to Cake some land on the west sld ORCNO PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 4, 1995 drah (Discussion of Proposed Development near French Creek Preserve Continued) if the orooertv we will forever lose that option. m terms of our own planninc I can show you where the City conceptually acoroved a bike trail. There is one aown Ola Crystal Bay Roac. Construction along the south portion from uhe ^Luce Line to Norenberg has not been a high priority. We coulan >. even put one in f^ont of your house because we don't have an easement. If you sometime divided your orcperty in the future, we_could ask for an element at that ?ime,*but we just can't put a oi.<e trail on your property without your consent. He said what the Commission would be addressing later on is the question of whether it should take 15' less on the east, in order to be able to take 15' on the west for a possible future bike trail. an extremely Melamed give wooded these the City was of the plat Mrs. Must, felt that if we take Plan B, this is heavily wooded piece of property, and if we don't make the buffer zone around the outside, it is so heavily people are going to be protected anyhow. She thought better off taking a chunk of land on the east side because the buffer zone is already there. Melamed stated as long as the buffer zone is going to be there on the west anyway the trees are going to stay. Flint stated, as Mabusth was saying that will have to be imposed as a condition of not putting a central road in there. The buffer zone area shown on Plan A on the north, west and south will be there anyway. Melamed questioned suggested maybe the answer was to have a 50 buffer on the east side and have an engineer measure whatever is left over and use it all along Old Crystal Bay Road, so you have both buffer zone areas. If you do it by Park Dedication the only buffer zone you will have is on the north between us and Art Ellis and the property lot lines. Flint stated that from the standpoint of the Park Commission there wer» three matters to consider: _ ” 1. If we want to make a recommendation to the City Council with respect to the development of Lot 4. 2. Do we want to take land or money. 3 . Do we want to reduce the amount we are Caking on the east side in order to take some area for a bike trail on the west. Wilson, agreed. ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING minutes for APRIL 4, 1995 (wiscussicn Ccncir.ued) f ?rc=cs9d 39veloc-er>d near French Creek Preserve . _ rill’d® hew much land we wane on cne --0 take on the west, or vice a verse. .-.a- .... w.w not need more then 15' for the bike trail, ri-nt -el- v-..au .v._ — trees and the wetlands. Because it can be wcu.na in ana out oc ta- , . •• __ t-imo trif^a'l issue. She felt it plays on c^szionedzhe need for a bike trail south the ^w--av. ... -wsaes s..- _____ ^ , , , Crvstal Bay Roadof the luce --t.ne. reasons’ for the ,01d^ Crystal Bay koad ,.. 1 UC with the unique bike trail aBiKe .ra__ .ve-e —a.. . kids to come up to thesayV «;^c-’'d key factor was ror ude Kias co come •- scheif for' bairgarr^e-s. J^he'^soTt'^^^^ til Luce wnicn reasons to do a separated 1 A ^ omiT der that would be somewhat rideable, wheretrail. I tnink a snoulder t.hat wouia ^ redone. you woula 3“st be having 3^ ^^^^^^age at all, rather But a separac- Z, ~ , (-haract=’- of the area and taking people sthen destroying t.ne rural cnaract-- o There are a lot property when ^hat would be almost'impossible to put eet^^^n^d ^tiat\oe;°wIy ba°ck*. 1ve"n^o'^ M°elam^s property, there are major wetlands. ;Sether we forever give up the opportunity to secure the easement. White felt that the Commission should d"® |o®?r5!o6 ylar^from ;s->- J™?-- for D or happen. Who knows 75 years from now. I vote for . Feoacolis they said what vision they had for their remember in vote for a bike trail right now, Park system will be so different in character we but mayoe -n future ye , character of Orono, but we will be won't be oroblems 100 years from now. Who knows?talking aoout the big city now,^ can you imagine what the ?and values^are%ori| 0*^be later. Big $5o''ooo OO^dollars. ' No one could consider buying that kind of la for'any thing close to that price now. ORONO PARK COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 4, 1995 drah (Discussion of Proposed Developmenc near French Cree.< Preserve Continued) I * v-aiv^nrr iDiQ snd ou2Tcd3ses • /?e—eWilson felt Chat White was ® il. ' just calking abouc a 15' sen? ^o . • *. ..War land is Qoina to do in futureWhite said, I'm ta^King^accu things’' could change in years out nere. No c . - future, trying to get once. Things are go-..-- -o v- _ qoina to be very this down the line, 50 years no , it"in the bank costly. ; think^ you would \f for some reason the and say okay it s there. those trees and the deed restricts people in those buf^e- you'll sav gee there's no way them, some ^he* city^^ sky^s wait a minute we have 15' ext?a\ne°we can put century .’"''Won'fthtnk the\e is a good argument for not doing it. ,.5 »->.» hike trail plan was adopted by this Park Flint stated the bike J - f ^3 ^^re on it. If were Commission a we^ should go though the same kind of going to bury that, ^^at ever reason all 'tie ^crs\le«^5o"nr%ugh/'co\e taken into account if we are going to change the plan. 1-ha^ we consider the Melamed development in an Flint suggested that we con ^ recommendation on Lot oraerly fashion. He sugg r, acauire all of Lot 4 so that we4. Is there a motion that the City acquire aii don't have a house built on it. Wilson questioned if the will City will put the money up? ■ -V,,. h. rf-idn't know The Park Commission would have ?i^"LIidr; buytng th^fereage to the extent it exceeds that whrch would 'o6 cionstsci. WcMillan asked if Yna^??!^t Tnditat%d°thal tSfbfffeifwould still be required on the north, south and west sides. -> - rhat if we ao back to the meeting with theIsle, St ted that It we go o ^ agreed upon was that the Commission^ on^d space and preserve it and if it work. Wilson stated that she agreed with Isle. 8 ORC.;0 PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 4, 1995 draft (Discussion of Pro Continued) ^osed Deve*ccu»ent ne^iar French Creek Preserve - White asked fcr a r.cticn. Motion 1. To reccr.r.e to have a house bui_ added to the French end to -he C'tv thar lZ it at all possible not Ireek"preser'/eT I*sle moved, Wilson seconded. that this lot be acquired and , . . - ,-1-^cation on the first motion, in the event Me-amec as.<ea “i^^couire the orooerty on the east side ofTity or t.i._ — aCu_- . - __pg^g*. q£ I assuming Che wetland whcch ^is in'che other three lots cnac tne qnescxon cccterate with Che City io try to wcuia 4.0C . -- - house on Lot 4, and let the City figure ® I still be looking at a park land delication L"fi?'ihe fi^st three lots, or will that have been met by donating Lot 4. ^axiLmTand that w7 arJ SO there is no authority that we can take park lana. so you take what you can take, and then buy what you can't take asked Melamed. Flint agreed. The vote on the motion was. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion 2, do we want to Cake land or money? White moved to cake land, McMillan seconded. Ayes 5, Nays 0. park; or part on the east siae and part on the west. !iS Js:TS'r.»JS:Of v-ew fraamenting the corridor. Taking a S^^ou?dnike'oi^..^nt thTjt^Sjr.e%o buffe-^^steS^^doesn'Twork^wel an envirLmental r hncrtJt \i°a^ceft ^^InotL^? w^ffie ^a^re*^Vn1lA‘o°m^lfeAt ?Sgether. "hft ?s why the best idea is not to build on Lot 4. ORONO PARK COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 4, 1995 draft (Discussion of Proccsed Develccment near French Creek Preserve Concinued) Melar.ed stared that one ari no^t going*co station and are aoing c6 leave every treewant to see tne 1-^w ov^at^on. chere that is oossiole to leave. - • - = 's d^^^erent then a corridor, you caf ia^e Vrefergr^s ‘an/Ve screened, but that is net sufficient for wi_o_ite. Melamed u1:c^ers^t^^^^^ an^lrg^ment can Lr in tah'nc Ta' preserving as much woods as we can nexv- to the preii^^^r a“ huller^ zlnT foTthI citizens°"of "‘oronr®aYo°ng''°01d Crystal Bay Road. Wilson moved to take all, (as much as we can) on the east side to orotect the wildlife area. an "'"ri -tan g^do-%\%’^b!cknow and that coura oe ^sed for a trail it we can g The City also owns where the park is. mere is ui^ j choosing between the routes at that time, trail. Wilson moved her motion, seconded by pie. Ayes 2, Nays 3. Motion failed, white, Flint and McMillan opposed. White moved to take all on the east side and 15' on the west side for a bike trail, Flint seconded. Ayes 2, Nays 3. Motion failed, McMillan, Isle and Wilson opposed. McMillan changed her vote to Wilson's motion. ORCNO PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 4. 1995 draft - near French Creek Preserve -(Ciscussicn cr Prcpcsec -e.eiopui^ui. iica- Continued} .,, - -_•.£» a' 1 53 "^uch as we can cn “he east side to a.c=r.ded. Ayes 3 (Wilson, Use "and McMillan) , Mays 2 iFlinc and wh^-.ei . (#3) Open Space Planning Project -line felt this item did net need to be talcen up now, for he felt it needed a lenezny discussion. Mil sc- s-at^d t'-at Ron Moorse was going to get a questionnaire out trhSip with giving thoughts for a future discussion. Flint agreed to follow up with Ron Moorse on the questionnaire. .. ‘^Ir ---a- we need to loo)c at what happens to the Park Dedi«?^n’fund's: 'she sta’ted that its going to dry up, we probable should go to 10% instead of 8s. (#4) Hennepin County Bike/Hike Trail Information f;^frmft?Sn“n^rto^^e? t^-krow St Snn^pln pSlic*wfr£s is becoming interested in bike trails. isle thought t.hey were starting on the west part of Sixth Ave and McCulley Road this summer. Gerhardson said no that it would be from County Road 19 West, but not all the details are worked out yet. Isle asked if the County's plan was to get to the border of Orono shortly? fhrr-|?Vuf ^th-at t--p\\^^°fs^norparVorth^e u^^|r=ade plan as far as ne knows. Flint stated there is no action on this item, just to let the members know what is going on. ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 4, 1995 ORAfi (#5) Trail Update Flint questioned I-erhardscn as to when the City expects to compete the Brown Read segment of the Bike Trail? Gerhardsen stated that they have not started yet but hopes to by the end of May and finish up in June. McMillan asked hew the bike trail portion wasto be fundea, i-®;' was the City Council planning to use Park Deaication rees or MoA » • 1 e ^w* A • wi J • Gerhardsen was net sure at this time. Flint asked when the paving was going to occur on the portion of the bike trail on Old Crystal Bay Road over the i.ormer Dickey property. Ge>-hardson exoected as seen as the road restrictions were off, and thl bituminous plants open up. Which could be between the middle of April to the 1st of May. •^1 ■'^©fgrred to the memo from Ron Moorse stating that the City does^not have any money to take from MSA funds . The Baker Park to the Old Crystal Bay Road Railroad bridge is $235,000.00. Of that amount we would pay half, which is $117,500.00. White reported that the DNR may be able to award $50,000 out of next yea^^s funding and also perhaps $50,000 out of funding for the first year ending June 1995. There are a number of projects that are in the previous funding cycles that are not going to be fulfilled. Flint summarized that the cost from the park fund maybe as low as $67 500 00 for this ohase or it may be $137,500 if DNR funding available. FliAt moved to recommend to the City that they accent the bids and ao forward, recognizing that the funds are aolnl to come out of' the Park Dedication Fund, for phase one, Mc.'’i’lan seconded. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Flint agreed to remind Moorse that he needs to verify with Doug Bryant that Hennepin Parks funding for 50% is still available. (#6) Review of 1995 Action Plan n-i nt asked if there are any Questions on this item. Flint stated that Council Member Jabbour felt that the Park members should tour Big Island to view the park opportunities there. It was agreed that a tour would be organized in the several months. ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 4, 1995 draft (Review qq:;• 33^ Pisn * O3nciiA^0'^) .Ni-sc: and i cn asKea ii II tne car.< f -he sicrr.s have been ordered yet for ' i-cr let is scing to be built. Hichwood Trail Flint r cn the acoroor uesteo SI ^ - -V V- ^ ^ ^ • 4 w ^ • lew — ian ves • Wil.cn T^escicr.ed if chs -owry Weeds Subdivisien was done yet? Gethardsen replied that it has net yet been eer.pleted. f-at G-'hardson check oat the foot bridge looted --xz.-. A-/e M to see if s-ach a brtdge would be orossing ravr.ne inco Lowry Woccs. w<lson ask-d if the subcommittee wants to go-out and look at a oisI^Sle tr’ail in Kighwood. this weekena or next. Flint would not be available this weekend. Fli.nt stated the need to get an agenda together for which parks to tour. (#7) Coordination with Planning Commission to Obtain Earlier Input of Proposed Developments park dedication -L.ee, Flint felt that we need to keep Mabusth informed so that she is aware cf Park Planning. Wilson felt that Mabusth and Gaffron need to know what our agendas are and what we are looking for. Flint stated that Mabusth suggested that one Park Commission member attend each oi their meetings. Fl<nt a=k-d Ger.hardson if he receives Planning Commission information at all prior to the meeting. Gerhardson replied only the subdivisions, of one lot or more. Wilson asked when is City Council going to appoint a new member to the Park Commission? Flint questioned if they have advertised for the position yet. Gerhardson replied that it is in the newsletter just now going out. ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 4, 1995 (#8) Orono Baseball Association Schedule luescing zhe un ady. Steve Carlson, president of 03A, ^use of 3eder%vocd until the new fields are Carlson was not ; new fields will June. Ifot^ire reldy "^^l^openlnr da^A""'^ Flirt felt that :^ha j^lt^itad use was too ^^^^fds^Tra'fone'o/SntU be the same use as -aS- year a.iu.— VJ i W • Bosma questioned the June 1 date. --ol^ed that OBA will need to request for the^additional use of^siderwood at that time if the new fields are nou aone. Bosma requested that they put July 1 as the date. Flint replied that is the whole season. isle stated that last years schedule was Monday through Thursday and Saturdays. Flint tabled part two of J®^®“fSt"tha\''at®th^^^ C«!^n can come to the meeting and give more informatron rf the field is still needed. Silion moved', McMillan seconded. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) Report on Joint Meeting with other Park Commissions and School District McMillan stated that Remodel sLumann Elementary, Middle school and the High Schoo . White questioned what they are going to rem.odel at the High School? Flint asked if they were going to need a bond issue for this. Center. 14 CRCNO PARK CO>!MISSION MEETING minutes for APRIL 4, 1995 (Repor- cn Jc Discricr - in- y^ee-ing — — - - ..•-V, Park Cor.rr.issicns and Schccl v;irh us, McMillan Park Commissions, ogram was so chey excited about the _.c-'c" wa-^ts to aet togetherIcng laxe rarx »o.....-^^-c.. rhe ot'-e- spaced. We elses ?r ...w/ • - _ _^ ^ *^r-:e SCTiCOl ^3.Scould .nccx-up to, -- — -- - trail. = 3 = Survey with the group and told them McMol-an crscus^ec . .. ..,>.^‘4- «avc- of, oreserving more survey ""^7^ have 3 na'tural preserves naturax areas^ rif. 'toce* Provide educational opportunities it ” !*:*:. to take the kids over there,oarents or •=■- -.w-a -vo-—- Flint asked what tne 3 were? v-'^hwccd Lowrv Woods and rrencn Creek.McMillan repiieo, .-.--.nrfcc-., j onr rho adoot-the-oark brochure and talked aboutGerhardson passea out tne aaop^ l.i- . i ♦" Flint asked if all the surrounding Park Commissions of tne Orono School District attended. p!air7aad"iM"f c"e°vlr?onI' wa^rla^Jf in^r^te?In the brochure. White asked who did the brochure? Wilson stated Isle and Gerhardson did it together. Flint t.hanked McMillan for going to the joint meeting. (#10) New Business Flinc asked .f chare was any ocher business chac should be caken UD . workina out some things to bring the cost of the Af firmed up by the May P^rjc Commission meet^ playground, the planting and City Council bycosts together so we can recommend something to tne uioy May 1st meeting. Gerhardson scaced ic should be brought to Che Park Commission dicing Che beginning of May, Chen to Council. ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING minutes for APRIL 4, 1995 draft (Ne-.v Business - Continued) _ _ _---a- ---^ev have deciced ro utilize equipment that probably increase tne cos.. cOmpj--.0s cx^. w ;q th^ only chine W6 hav6 cost.s ;z^h? goin^-t= -re expensive, sc we need to ;<eep this cost down. C-erhardscr. sugges-.ed establishing the tour route at the May tceecing. V-.- suoaested postponing the July r.eeting one week since many ;i:i be c-.It of tiwn the week after July 4. adjournment use moved. Flint seconded, to adjourn at 9:S0 p.m. Ayes 5, Nays 0 . Richard N. Flint# Chair J3J' ITJDJ'J' i N aaxiANT a w aH.niox J'N j:N h To Be Our Guest for the Tamarack Senior Center 6th Anniversary Party 1 Thursday, May 11, 1995 Lunch at Noon Entertainment at 1 p.m. by "Musical Four" Tamarack Senior Center 133 N. Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Please RS.V.P. by Tuesday, May 9 at 476-2554 •Bf TO:Ron Moorse, Cic>' Aclminisiraior ETIOM: John R. Gerhardson. Public Works Director DATE: May 4, 1995 SUBJECT: Parks Tour June 6. 1995, 6:00 P.M. At Che June Perk Commission meeting the Perk Commission will eonduct a tour of some of the parks facilities. Attached for Council information is a list of the parks that wUl be viewed during the tour. 2780 Kelley Parkway. ORO.VO proposed 199.‘ P^S TOUR .j LTsI: 5. 1995. 6:00 P.M. :3'cr-.n'- 3i:<2 Trail - Filni Crystal Bay Park. - McMillanL.r.'Siai aa'- r-;.% • ...... v:...v of Propo«d DVR Access Mox-veU Bay and Property tv^ch DVR may be Selling - _ . » oiQvcfround - GerharcsonRocerra i_ee .-Ka-on.- . High-.vood Narare Preserv-e • Wilson -^r fho Saaa Hills Preser/ation Socier>-) Saga Hills Park - (meet memoers or the Sa,a HU Lowry Woods Nature Prcsert’e - Wilson Bedervvood Park Cygnet Park - Flint Brown Read Bike Trail - Flint yJew OBA Ball Fields mk<3 i7h.j X I ‘U> } rj\ \ ^ / i fz/ r-^ 1 V a! U ^J /✓/ V ''/ - L- L- Z.O-ud-iyn-U^-Md^—C:uJiJ^*-W ! 4^ tcT J C4^J^/ J ^ f Z/ <_^./7««^/ 4/VWtt^Vf .>^-V /y/ A-fjt. ■• ^f ♦w/ ^ fldj—A - li^jA^^AA^ IaT'^ ltlAjf:il £A>“rTYAlA^ — <Lij A --— Uj^ (2a. e. .^it /> —-T A?t • A -l/-lA^L^- m OaS^JL rTf ^__^ TLa^JI_____________iAJ-^^tjjlALUi .dfCCAA-Mu^.^. iiS^ 1 Cl.Jl,V^J*.C^ A■t^.L'^*'^'lA^Ji^lU.,A.---7^7 t V /f, /^r J^-fU'^'fjy Jf.,^ aZ' ( (5-U-t^^ 1^ --------------------------->^i^/ TJu Zl ^VJiUJ=rlltU>U i-i^-__ ^0f • ^ / N O'* "Uy ,L^ !** \^ 2 .'>v;y < V'S3S Cit^ Tdauil^^ ^Po U C/u^:PFif P*-^ x^dG^ lilnlilmlluililullillinlliiulliiillnUfill » r».#» • t t MEMO 7\!t C‘^vyn>/) -t ^ -f -• i ■ I ^ X^ A ^mA I Ia #i9 ^ •■•C^c w V l~i ~ 'T^<^ from to .. ... Newell P. Weed, Jr. (^'h'‘WC \(rv»xr '7>1-^<''^ Date ‘ij^hS 1 >t Wif Mny0 -e«;ie?t C.+y C'^ cX C1^ Ci-►•> 1 17^ i'y\ b-t CL^ )' _J A-(r/ \ O '-tr~ 3 <T \jVc\9^ 'S ^tL^ . a l|\\JtCo\*<-)-£? p(^- 'i i3vfK WiW'Aj')■'=' ^j^•^ All vCV'C^ S- Co^^c\ ^cTa'Wvirt'^r beev> - c r><*<2-3tfic --^7*^ - V^^Kr«\j yc^ — VrR.T -T'/I ini-cnMij - P-•'<^t'J<; -+■t^,...^^^ f ~r\/cMd( Wt"’^ 1\ 0 *A~ MINUTES OF REC.ULVR MEETING OF APRIL 27, 1 ^^5 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS WAY 8 1995 r The regular meeting of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Manager Love at 7:40 p.m. on Thursday, April 27, 1995 at the Minnetonka City Hall, Minnetonka, Minnesota. Managers present: Vice President Love, Treasurer Tom LaBounty, and Managers Pamela Blixt, Monica Gross and Martha Hartfiel. iManagers absent: President Tom Maple and Secretary John Thomas. Also present:Counsel Louis Smith and Prasanta Reddy. District Engineer Mike Panzer and Assistant District Engineer Andrew Syverson. District Director Gene Strommen and Assistant Director Suzanne Weedman. Monica Gross was sworn in as new manager by Smith. Additions and corrections to the agenda: Item 11 (F) correct permit applicant’s name to John Barlow; add Grass Lake Citizen’s Advisory Committee Report as item 15 (E); add Coordinating Board Meeting under the Chain of Lakes Report; add the items City of Greenwood, Halley Homes I, Landview Undscaping and Pearce Properties under the Executive Session’s Report. The agenda was approved as amended on a motion made by Hartfiel and seconded by La Bounty. Upon vote, the motion passed unanimously. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens not on the agenda were invited to address the Board. Mark Westen, consultant for Cargill, Inc. stepped forward to discuss concerns of Permit 95-76 scheduled to be table. Ix)vc explained this time period was intended for citizens currently not on the agenda. Mr. Westen was invited to voice his concerns during the hearing of permit applications. GLEASON CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE II STATUS REPORT LaBounty introduced and reviewed the landscaping display plan presented by Damon Farber Associates. The final quote for design work, plant materials and construction came in just under $8,000, the preliminary estimate approved at $15,000. Blixt moved to accept the bid not to exceed $8,000 and proceed with the landscaping plan. Motion was seconded by Gross. Upon vote, motion carried. The indemnification agreement for the surrounding landowners was presented by Ready. The managers proposed no changes. The document with a cover letter will be sent to the five affected landowners for review and signatures. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 17, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Stephen Peterson, Charles Schroeder, Dale Lindquist Candace Rowlette. Charles Nolan, Jr , Janice Berg, and Sandra Smith, who arrived at 7 40 p m. BudAng and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Shern Frost represented Staff. Mayor Callahan and Council Member Goetten were present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING (#1) #1298 RICHARD JOHNSON/GORDON NELSON - FINAL SEGMENT OF VACATION OF FOREST BLVD. - 7:00-7:07 P.!VI. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr Nelson was present. Mabusth reported that over the past five years, there has been three petitions for vacation of Forest Boulevard. During the first application, Mr. Nelson advi^ the City of his access problem. Oak Place had been vacated in the 1970's. The City failed to obtain an easement over his driveway, the only access to his property. Nelson s only remaining legal access is through Forest Boulevard. Portions of this dedicated road is located within the lake bed, and the City has no plans to install a road. All other properties have access through other means. The Council authorized the vacation and directed t^ City Attorney to commence the necessary legal steps to obtain an easement over Ndaon s Attempts had been made to gain easements from the four properties owners involved but with no resolve and many delays The City will now proceed with legal action. The Council will complete the vacation when an access easement is granted over a portion of Nelson's drive that encroaches the Johnson property. The casement is to obtained without any financial charge. Nelson is to fM-ovide a statement of satisfaction to the Council. Nelson has contacted City Attorney Barrett, who has commenced action. There were no public conunents. Peterson reported that a public hearing is being held due to the lapse of lime. Peterson asked Nelson if he understood what is needed to be done to complete the vacation, and if Nelson was satisfied with the City ’s actions. Nebon responded to the affirmatiU and provided written confirmation of his approval to the Zoning Administrator. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (^1 - #1298 Richard Johnson/Gordon Nelson - Continued) Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve the vacation of Forest Boulevard, the scCTient west of Johnson and Nelson properties, subject to the conditions of Councils recommendation at the March 27. 1995 meeting of the Council. Ayes 6, Nays 0 (#2A) #1995 FRANK KOKESH, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIV ISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Application #1995 for Frank Kokesh w as tabled at the request of the applicant. (#2B) #2012 FRANK KOKESH, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Application »2012 for Frank Kokesh was tabled at the request ot the applicant. (#3) #2005 SAILORS WORLD MARINA & BOAT CLUB, 1955 SHOREUNE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING Application #2005 for SaUors World was tabled at the request of the applicant. (#4) #2007 TONY EIDEN, 2800 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBt>IC HEARING Berg moved, Nolan seconded, to table Application #2007 for Tony Eiden until the applicant is present. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2008 TESSA MARCHESSAULT/GREGORY BECKER, 3133 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:08-7:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Mr. Becker was present Mabusth reported that this property gains access off of Casco Circle. There is an access easement along the northern boundary of the property. The use of the gravel road of the retaining wall was not obvious. The lower portions of paved drive, and not local in the easement, serves two other properties. The upper level of the property has a pavement area with a drive which extends around to the lower level garage. It was noted that the paved area encroaches on the neighbor's property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#5 - #2008 Tessa MarchessaulLGregory Becker - Continued) The proposal is for a 11’.xlS' single-story addition and a 14'xl4' portico addition to be built over existing non-structural hardcover. All setbacks would be met as well as the average lakeshore setback. The issue is the excess of hardcover in the 75-250' zone. There is currently 29 5%. The proposal would reduce the hardcover to 27.j° o with the removal of the concrete patio and rock area underlined with plastic located in front of the residence. Mabusth reviewed the proposed tloor plan Nolan inquired of the applicant if the sidewalk would be affected by the portico addition. Becker reported that the addition would come up to the edge of the sidew’alk. Nolan, noting that the applicant needs to be sensitive to the drainage area of the property, asked about hardcover concessions at the blacktop area near the upper level garage. The applicant reported having no plans to remove any of the blacktop areas at the higher elevations because of potential erosion problems. Schroeder asked the applicant if there was any encroachment of driveway areas. The applicant responded that the neighbor's encroachment is noted on the application and there is also an easement on the property. There were no public comments Row lette commented on the proposed removal of 574 s.f of patio cement, noting that a partial amount of the cemented area would need to remain for egress from the patio door area. It was found that the applicant did not wish to remove all of this cemented patio area, which would result in the need to recidculate the hardcover percentages. Lindquist remarked that the actual reduction in hardcover in the patio area would be approximately 200 s.f It was suggested to the applicant that the 14'xl4'concrete block patio be made smaller. The applicant agreed to a reduction in the patio area to 5'x5'. When asked by Schroeder if the hardcover in the garage area could be removed to aid in hardcover reductions in the 250'-500' zone, the applicant commented that his only purpose was to acquire approval of the new additions and did not wish to remove any additional hardcover. Becker said he did not see any purpose and perceived negative changes in drainage for the property with the removal of the blacktop by the driveway. Nolan responded that the area in question was not necessary and acts as a means by which runoff travels downhill towards the lake. Nolan noted that if the blacktop was removed and the area properly graded, there should be no problem with water running into the garage. NIINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#5 - #2008 Tessa Marchessault/Gregory Becker - Continued) Peterson commented that there is 100° o hardcover in the 250'-500 zone, where is allowable. The applicant commented that the areas of hardcover were done prior to his owning the property and must have been obtained through the proper channels Rowlette responded that permits are not needed for driveways The applicant was informed that when applications come before the commission, this is the only opportunity tor the City to make changes to areas of excess hardcover It was also noted that the purpose in the limitations of hardcover is to serve the lake Nolan moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2008 for two additions with the stipulation that the hardcover be reduced by the removal of the rock area on the west side of the home adjacent to the sidewalk and a reduction in the concrete block patio to 5'x5' in the 75-250* zone, and the removal of the upper driveway asphalt area east of the garage in the 250-500’ zone Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#6) #2009 TOM & MAUREEN PALM, 1685 CONCORDIA STREET, AMENDED VARIANCE APPLICATION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:40-8:16 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. & Mrs. Palm were present. This property is located at the north end of Concordia and was approved for a second story addition above the existing building envelope for an averse lakeshore setback variance, lakeshore setback variance within the 0-75* zone, and for hardcover variance. The applicant's builder advised them not to proceed with the remodel but to remove the e.xisting structure and rebuild. The new residence structure would be located 50* fiom the shoreline and a 10x30' lakeside deck located at 40* from the shoreline. Mabusth noted questions associated with the elevation and floor plan. The cantilevered window would extend 2.5' into the lakeshore setback The roofed entry at approximately the same depth also encroaches into the lakeshore setback area. Mabusth said the additions are part of the principal structure and must meet the 50' setback. The applicant clarified the need to meet the 50’ setback and agreed to adjust the plans to meet this setback. The deck is shown at the 40' setback. The applicant reported receiving DNR approval from Ceil Strauss for the deck's location regarding the DNR regulations. Mabusth commented that the City has received phone calls and letters from neighbors voicing their approval of the current proposal. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#6 - #2009 Tom & Maureen Palm - Continued) During public comments, John Gering of 1687 Concordia reported being in agreement with the plans as proposed. Mabusth reviewed the variances and comparisons of the existing structure and proposed plan. The proposed deck would be located at 40* from lakeshore and currently exists at 28'. The principal structure now located at 39* will be relocated at 50'. The deck would encroach 10 ’ in front of the average lakeshore setback but the structure would meet this setback The hardcover in the 0-75' zone exists at 28% and is now proposed at 26®/o. Hardcover in the 75-250' exists at 33% and is now proposed at 32.4®/o. Hardcover in tte 250-500’ exists at 40% and is proposed at 34% Total hardcover exists at 32.79% and is proposed at 30 95%. There is no structural coverage variance required proposed at 14.2%. Nolan noted that the house plan is absent of peripheral hardcover and sees no areas where concessions can be made. Nolan also noted the significant natural berm on the lakeside which would result in runoff moving back away from the lake instead of forward. Nolan commented that the plan is consistent with the neighborhood, Rowlette voiced her concern with the substandard setbacks of the area. Rowlette opined that this would be a good opportunity to look to the future of the area and require a 75’ setback. Other improvements in the area in the future could then be changed to meet the 75’ setback. Rowlette did note that she was otherwise in approval of the proposed plaa A public comment was heard from a new incoming neighbor of a sanitary sewer easement which runs through this and other properties luO’ from the road. The applicant reported that the sanitary sewer easement runs next to their garage apron. Mr. Pain responded with the options available. He said the original proposed plan had beer, i^ipi; ved at the 39’ setback, and he was not willing to change the new plan to the 75’ setb^ k palm said this would result in their home being behind all of the homes and was not aware of any immediate changes happening to the home to the immediate south. Palm also responded to the negative when asked by Rowlette if he would move the plan back to have the deck meet the 50’ setback. Smith commented that she would not approve any plan if the deck would not be moved back to meet the 50’ setback. Palm noted the good drainage of the property with the sand base and lack of any pooling of water. Palm also commented on the benefits to the neighborhood if this plan was approved. Peterson commented that requesting a 75’ setback was probably unrealistic but did note that approval would set a precedent. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17. 1995 (#6 - #2009 Tom & Maureen Palm - Continued) Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application tf2009 with the principal structure meeting the 50' setback. Schroeder noted the existing variances, the effon by the applicant to reduce hardcover, the hardships of the lot, the impracticality of setting the new construction at the 75’ mark, and the fact that the drainage is away from the take. Ayes 5, Nays 2, Rowlette and Smith, both prefer the 75’ setback (#7) #2012 JAMES JUNDT, 1420 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:16-8:23 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Scott Crawford of Kraus Anderson Construction represented the applicant. Mabusth reported that the application is for repairs to the oversized accessory strutnure with the expansion of the roof area. This guesthouse ponion of the structure is adjacent to the greenhouse area, and the new roof will be at the same height as the greenhouse roof line A conditional use permit for the caretaker house was approved in 1993. The last issue involving this structure did not involve the guesthouse portion of structure located within a sub standard side setback. Now, because of structural repairs being done, a side setback vanance is required. Crawford reported that the plan is for roof expansions, roof repairs, repair, replacement of windows, tuckpointing, and new gutters. Lindquist asked what is going to be done with the peaked roof area of the structure. Crawford advised an apartment now exists and an expansion of the living area is planned. The structure would be used for guests only. There were no public comments. Peterson reiterated the need for an overall plan to eliminate separate issues coming before the commission each month. Rowlette moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2010 for a side setback variance and repair to the oversized accessory structure. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#8) #2011 TIM & LORI LINE, 4415 FOREST LAKE LANDING - VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING 8:23-8:59 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#8 - #2011 Tim & Lori Line - Continued' The Applicants were present and were represented by their architect, Blake Bichatiich of Keith Waters & Associates. with tfe instLtton of a drainfield The current proposal .1^ mvolves a hardcoser variance and height variance for an observation tower located in the middle of the structure A drtu^field to the west will treat runoff from 20^% of total hardcover requests. Mabusih also noted a win of area due to a redefinition of the shoreline at the 929 4 elevation on the new s'urvey Staff reviewed the field notes and finally the surveyor's findings lacking any spectfic cniena for defining shorelines adjacent to wetlands either within the City ’s or DNR regulations. Mabusth clariBed how the height of the building is d^e^ned. The highest part of the roof, the observation tower, is 35 The structure is 47 at the peak he^ht from the lakeview. The tower is planned in order to gam more bght with the interior of the structure. Bichanich commented to the members that the tower although needmg a heigta vtm^e. is limited in its affect on the area. The applicant could add volume to the home, which would create a more massive look, without requinng any height variance. It was noted that 20% of the hardcover would be treated through the drainfield s^m. NoTa “ a*S the applicant how this is controUed. Bichanich a<Msed ‘l^e would 1000 gallon runoff tanks, which would be equipped to take in 2 of ronoff in a ^ span Beyond that lime and amount, the excess runoff would leech into the * Iffound A pump with valves would pump out any sediment A cheA v^ve would be LaU«l to eliminate any backup of the system If the system is overburdened, this would result in an overflow spilling out onto the lawn. Schroeder questioned if the house plan was worth the cost to tL archh^ responded that without the treatmem, the result would have been a one-thtrd reduction in the size ot the home. During public comments. Mrs, Erickson of Forest Lake Landing asked the location of the dock. Erickson was concerned with the wetland areas. Tim Line reported approval oi the plans from two neighbors, and the letters of approval were read into the record by Peterson. NHNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17. 1995 (#8 - i»2011 Tim & Lori Line - Continued) The Robert Wolfe's inquired if anv tre** removal would be needed. They noted that the roof line is below tne tree line. Lori Line noted that it is their desire to maintain trees and add more if necessary Nolan moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application «011 for a height vanance and hardcover variance in the 75-250' zone noting the benefit of the drainage system and the desiun mitiuatina restrictions The motion includes item 1-5 and 1-3 as noted m the Staff recommendations Ayes 6, Nays 1, Rowlette, voted mainly on principal, as hardcover variance is required for new construction (#9) #2014 JAMES NYSTROM, 1745 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:59-9:20 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Nystrom - piescnt and represented by his architect, Greg Frazee. Mabusth repo ‘^ thai the application is for proposed additions which would require lakeshore se a«Li ■ A.-mces. The proposed additions are located in front of the average lakeshcre setbac* c The existing structure's patio encroaches into the neighbor's property. The no .ooris 3-season porch also enroaches on this property. The great room addition would be located 1 6" from the south side lot line and the rear bedroom addition 1 6' from the same side lot line. Frazee reported their surprise when the survey showed the structure 1.6’ from the lot line. This will affect the preliminary plans as presented. Frazee noted that the improvements stay within the roof line of the existing house. The upper level improvements are for a deck, atrium portion of great room, and stairwell to gain access to the master bedroom. Peterson inquired about the distance between the structures. Frazee responded that a change would be needed for the foyer area and possible move of the great room or guestroom to the north side of the house Rowlette commented that there are problems with either additions not meeting the side setback, and a change in plans would be necessary. Frazee asked for commission's comments on the hardcox er in the 75-250' zone. Lindquist said the area needs to be measured out and figured for reductions. Berg asked if the foundation would be able to handle the new additions. Frazee said the original foundation should be adequate to handle the new additions. Mabusth asked had this been confirmed of a structural engineer, for if a i.ew foundation is needed, the whole structure could be moved. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#9 - #2014 James Nystrom - Continued) Peterson moved, Nolan seconded, to table Application #2014 to allow time for new plans to be drawn Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REV iEVVS (#10) #2006 JAMES BRUCE, 565 LEAF STREET - SKETCH PLAN/SUBDIVISION James Bruce was present. This sketch plan is for a 3-lot subdivision of lot 6 of the Stielow Addition. This property consists of 5 9 acres, and the applicant would need to acquire 0.1 acres from an adjacent neighbor to meet the area requirement. Mabusth noted that the property is within the MUSA, and sewer is available from Oxford Road. Two stubs are now in, and one additional connection wo ’ild be required to serve lot 3. A utility easement would be required and would encroach lots I and 2 and should be located near the shared lot lines. Credit for the wetlands or drainageway areas are available as property is served with sewer A realignment of the drainage easement is proposed because of the impact on the building envelope It was noted that an existing residence is located on lot 2. Nolan asked the applicant what his intentions were for the realignment of the drainageway. The applicant said he felt the logical building envelope is in the northern wood^ area, and the drainage easement could be moved to the south. Smith asked for clarification on where the building envelope would be located. The applicant said up against the setback. Concern over removal of any wooded area was voiced, noting a good building envelope to the south. Lindquist asked if there was a problem with moving the ditch, and Mabusth noted it may not be necesary and may just be a matter of redefining easement. A separate CUP for the subdivision would be required if drainageway is relocated. Rowlette asked if there was any lake view on this property. The applicant said that there was a minimal view in the wintertime. Mabusth said if the guesthouse were to remain as a separate residence, the applicant needed to be notified that the area standard for a guesthouse would not be met. The access to the property was discussed as two drives coming from Oxford Road. Possible access options to lot 3 were discussed noting the need to not cut lot 3 in half Nolan was concerned with the narrow configuration of lot 3 and taking the portion of the driveway out of the west side of lot 2. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#10 - #2006 James Bruce - Continued) The applicant said he has received verbal agreement from Jim Hale to the west for the l/IO acre. The applicant has not yet dealt with the encroachment issue involving the property to the immediate north. He noted that the minimum lot width of 200' on lot 3 was missed by 1/4" according to the survey Bruce also asked if the sewer assessment must be paid up front Mabusth said that this was the general rule with a subdivision as well as the payment of the park dedication fee The applicant asked for a timeline for the subdivision as he has a purchase agreement deadline ot May 15. 1995. Rowlctte brought up the issue of noise from outdoor weddings and services occurring at the nearby church The applicant said he has spoken with neighbors and a church spokesm^ about this It was noted that there were no restrictions on these events at this time. The applicant asked if a residential zone has restrictions, and Mabusth responded that it depends on how the CLT is stated. The real estate agent involved in the transaction noted the reduction in the number of weddings and lack of any problem with the issue at this time. He also noted that he felt the church pastor has discouraged the sale of the property these past years. Rowlette commented that the issue was brought up to inform the potential property owner of the possible noise problem. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#11) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 10,1995 - DALE LINDQUIST Lindquist reported that the Council has asked Staff to present both residential and commercial options on the proposed shelter site at the May 18 meeting. Lindquist noted that Hurr was open to the possible change and Jabbour preferred commercial with B-4 zoning, which is professional offices use with specific limitations. Schroder commented that the commission's review was their recommendation that Westonka not benefit from a zoning change to commercial. Lindquist noted a Council work session scheduled on May 10 on a possible change to the code regarding number of accesses allowed from driveways. This issue stemmed from the Melamed sketch plan for access off of City Drive. If access was granted, the driveway by code would need to be upgraded. Jabbour did not agree with a variance and felt the City should adher to its own code. Council scheduled the work session to review this code as this issue has come up frequently. Lindquist noted the approval by Council of the Upton request for a variance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 (#12) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION It was noted that the conditional use permit application for the Freshwater Institute will be before the Planning Commission next month. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MARCH 20,1995 MEETING Lindquist moved, Rowlette seconded, to approve the Minutes of the March 20, 1995 Meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#14) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 7, 1995 WORK SESSION Schroeder noted on his comment on page 7 that the Planning Commission was not against commercial zoning but preferred remaining in residential zoning to elinunate owner gaining greater resale value if property sold in the future under commercial zoning. Schroeder moved, Rowlette seconded, to approve the Minutes of the March 7, 1995 Work Session as amended. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#15) PLANNING COMNUSSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE MAY 8,1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Berg will attend the May 8, 1995 City Council Meeting. Peterson will serve as alternate ADJOURNMENT Berg moved, Rowlette seconded, to adjourn at 10:03 p.m. Ayes 7, Nays 0. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person SEE OVERSIZED DOCUMEriT!! ■r«.:MWUMMAMV PCAT caKrrcAii tm mnmv fo«MMrrA.ULMCH■ Mcnaif-w-ts •WMra couHn. MMun rj.' :.,=v=i-H 1 .' \ M ■'. ^; ! N' ^ -1^1