Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-1995 Council Packet(*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion b> 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. LARRY TOMCHECK if fey. ■ ROLL CALL 7:00 P.M. PRESENTATION-BOB ILARDLN, WAYZATA * 1. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Meeting of September 25. 1995 PARK CO.^LMISSION CONLMENTS - James \VTiite Representative PLANNLNG CO.MMISSION COMMENTS - Steve Peterson Pl^LIC CO.NLMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMLNISTRATOR’S REPORT 3 #2044 George Olson. 2775 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution 4 /^^049 Chic Dwight'Fred Guttormson. 1220 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Resolution s Mike Hilbelink. 2760 Watertown Road - Road Name Approval 6: «058 tn Ziz Aucografs. Inc.. :525 Shadywood Road - Commercial She Plan Rcv,ew - Fevo/Karen Fuller. 4055 Elm Street - Variance Renewal - Resolution ‘‘057 Bruce and Terry Clark. 625 Old Long Lake Road - Vanance - Resolution 9 #’068 Pat and Kathv Smieja. 40*0 Watertown Road - Variances - Resolution 10 #’069 Cindv and Steve Harris. 3850 Watenown Road - Vanance - Resolution 11 -’071 James and Joann Jundt. 1400 Bracketts Point Road ■ Amended V ariance - Resolution P -07' Gr^vdonic. Newman. Jr.. 1655 Bohns Point Road - Variance.'CUP - Resolution n' :t^073 William and Susan Dunkley. 2709 Walters Pon Lane - Vanances/CLP - Resolution 14^ G"ar>' DeSantis. Sailors World .Marina and Boat Club. 1955 Shoreline Drive - Landscape Plan Deadline .MAVOR/COL-NCIL REPORT engineer REl’ORT *15. Request tor Payment 4\ - Willow Drive Street Improvements CITY \L*^’lNISTRATOR'S REPORT 16' • r. jv.iutment of Community Service Officer 17 B-acKetts Pomt Cur\'e Roadway Improvement 18. Establish Date for Assessment Hearing for Willow Drive Improvements 19. Ice Rink at .Antoine Playground 7. 8. 9. n ft 1 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1995, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT <*20.) LICENSES BILLS LTCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 10/09 10/10 10/11 10/12 10/16 10/18 10/23 10/24 Council meeting 7:00 p.m. School Board 7:00 p.m. Orono Hockey Association 7:00 p.m. Joint Work Session - Council/Planning Commission/Park Commission 8:00 a.m Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. Highway 12 Policy Committee 5:30 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. School Board meeting 7:00 p.m. Public Attendance Meetinc D ate Oclt 0 Council Planning Commission Park COM^^ssION Other Please rll out the lnformation REQLTiSTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1. ^*7/Ay ^ ^ LaU >2^ C 'C 3.^/c; >) 1. / i) f ^ y V/ '*■ 4.< <ryz '*»/Ca' xT /Vi./ ^ ^ c I Sl Ky .s/f4T)y(v wt^ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. •f|395.4 Uoi4CiL[^EETi..v REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 9 1995 CnVOFORONO DATE: October 6. 1995 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Ronald A. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Item Description: Special Recognition of Officer Larry Tomchcck Mr. Bob Hardin of the Wayzata American Legion will present a plaque of special recognition for the lifesavinii efforts Officer Larry Tomcheck demonstrated on Lake \Iinnetonka on June 24, 1994. iXWTM: L-r.raOn o : ORONO CITY' COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25,1995 ROLL 9 1995 ^ ^^i^OHOKO The Council met on the above date wth the followng members present: Acting Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, and JoEllen Hurr. Mayor Callahan was absent Representing Staff were Acting City Administrator John Gerhardson, Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffiron. City Attorney Kevin Staunton, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and Recorder Sherry Frost. City Administrator Moorsc was absent. Acting Mavor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (•#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #6 and #7 were added to the Consent Agenda Hurr moved. Goetten seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 4, Nays 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#2) REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11. 1995 Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 11, 1995. Ayes 4, Nays 0 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Flint reported that the Friends of the Park .Awards will be presented at the Park Commission meeting of November 6. 1995, at 7:00 p m Flint invited the Council to attend Flint commented that the Brown Road trail was completed and receiving use The Crystal Bay Park is proceeding in its completion and being used Jason Christenson has contributed benches that he made for use in several parks. The benches are reported to be very attractive. These benches were made as part of Christenson's work towards earning his Eagle Scout award. Flint reported that the City was racing against lime in meeting the October 15 deadline for the completion of the Old Cry stal Bay Trail The projected construction has not been started Gerhardson confirmed fbr Kelley that only the first 200 feet of trees would be disturbed in the construction north of Watertown Road. Rim commented that the Park Commission is attempting to work on the park planning process. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS No member of the Planning Commission was present. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT («)#I921 MARY ULRICH, 1000 LOMA LINDA AV ENUE - SUBDIVISION - FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - RESOLUTION #3607 Mark Gronberg was present as well as Mr & Mrs LaMere, purchasers of the lot. Gaffron reported that the request was for a final plat tor property located in the 1 acre zoning district at Loma Linda and North Arm Drive. The property with the existing house will be split off from the rest of the property for the subdivision. The existing wetland will be dedicated Dedication of roadway for North Arm Drive will occur of 33' with an additional 25' of Loma Linda, a roadway which does not exist on current plat maps The existing house is connected to sewer via North Arm Drive but will be changed to a connection from Loma Linda. The new residence vvill use the existing sewer connection. Tlie property has previously been assess for two sewer units Ihe proposal is for a 90 ’ view easement for the view from ihe west This still leaves a substandard building envelope The $3600 park dedication fee has been paid. Conditions placed on the proposal include the sewer reconnection, lot I driveway to be located from Loma Linda and approved by Public Works Director Gerhardson. .Any changes in the future would require notification regarding the view easement Hurt moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution #3607 granting final approval for the plat of Lakeside Heights for Mary Ulrich at 1000 Loma Linda Avenue. Vote: Ayes 4, Navs 0. (*#4) #2020 JAMES BRUCE, 565 LEAF STREET: A. VACATION OF DRVINAGE EASEMENT - RESOLUTION #360* Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3608. .Ayes 4. Nays 0. B. FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3609 Hurt moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3609 Ayes 4, Nays 0. w MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITV' COUNCIL MEETING HFXD ON SEPTEMBER 25,1995 (#5) #205S RON RANTZ/AUTOGRAFS, LNC, 2525 SHAD\AVOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW Present were Ron Rantz, ^plicant, and architects, Keith Waters and Blake Bichanich. Jabbour reported that there was a potential rezoning for this applicant. The applicant was given the choice to await approval of the application until the zoning issue has been addressed, which the applicant feels would be necessarv ’ for possible future expansion, or to abandon the rezoning possibility and proceed wuh the application as proposed Jabbour suggested that the applicant obtain City approval on rezoning now it it was in their plans to expand on what is now the ies«dential portion ol the lot combination The applicant was notified that rezoning is a complicated issue and would take time to resolve .Any request for spot-zoning, for which approval is rare, would need to go before the Planning Commission, Waters said the applicant hopes the plan will work without needing to change any requirements but due to the newness ot the business and potential success, the applicant needs to know now what the options are tor possible future expansion The printers and environmental machinery would be difficult to move in the future The applicant asked for direction from the Council regarding changing 35 ’ of the residential property to commercial zoning. Mabusih presented some background ot the history ot the property and current application The property consists of the 3-lot Leach .Addition containing two commercial and one residential lot Kelly .Avenue abuts the residential lot to the west. A duplex was approved for the residential lot with a 24 road easement along the north side of lot 1 and a second curb cut and driveway to serve lot 2 Based on the zero lot line setback to the rear lot lines of lots 1 and 2. The applicant must combine all three lots. A duplex shall not be built on lot 3 There is no longer a need for the easement access The proposal is for a 2-story walkout -type designed building sloping from the north to south No variances are being sought 67 parking stalls have been provided At the Planning Commission review, there was a question with net floor area estimate This has been adjusted. ,md 6 stalls have been added to site plan for a total of 67 stalls. The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the commercial site plan. The applicant does not know if there w ill be a future need to expand but if it became a reality, he would want to expand to il.e west with a slight expansion of 35 ’ on the nonh for parking and building addition. The Planning Commission was uncomfonable with the expansion question and asked that it be raised before the Council. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25,1995 (#5 - #2058 Ron Rantz/Autografs, Inc. - Continued) The site plan review was approved by the Planning Comniission with the legal combination ofthe three lots. All setbacks are based on the combination Rezoning would be decided by the Council for their conceptual approval. The rezoning area in question runs along the west rear lot lines of lots I and 2 Mabuslh reviewed an exhibit locating the zoning boundary and the uses that extended beyond those boundaries. WMe the City does not respond to single spot rezoning, there are these discrepancies that exist along the B-4 zoning boundary Hurr asked how the area under question for expansion would be used. Mabusth said it would allow for a building expansion and additional parking. Hurr asked if it is legal to have combined lots in two zoning districts. Mabusth said the County does review the zoning of a property when asked to complete a combination Jabbour said if the property were to be subdivided, new setbacks would be required. Mabusth advised the residential property could not be developed if the structure is placed right along a zoning boundary line to the rear of lots 1 and 2. This is why the City asKS for an open space easement over lot 3 Goetten recommended looking at the comprehensive plan for the are:t and said she was not in favor of spot zoning Hurr agreed. Jabbour noted there are some business owners in Navarre who would like to change the zoning in the area Mabusth said no one has come forward regarding any zoning change The church property' has had inquiries regarding the zoning Mabusth said there was a purchase agreement for the church property by the owners ot the iMartin station. Jabbour said he was not against rezoning but it would require addressing the whole area. He is favorable to the application and feels it would be a good use for the property. Jabbour noted it would take 4./5th majonty vote of the Council for rezoning. Jabbour said it is up to the applicant on whether to proceed with the application as proposed with the combined three lots. It was noted that nothing could be built on the land in the conservation area Goetten asked if there was a possibility of relocating the structure on the commercial zoned property This was addressed by the Planning Commission according to Mabusth and was found to require more variances. Waters said the property was chosen as it was not part of a typical industrial area but saw it as a good area for a high-tech business I le said the business could have been squeezed into the area nearer to the street but it was the intent to benefit all concerned with a buffered, treed, more natural looking environment He said he was unsure on whether to proceed as proposed. J MLNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25.1995 (#5 - #2058 Ron Rantz/Auiografs, Inc. - Continued) Goetten said she was not against the application but rezoning was a problem. labbour said if the t^jplicant thought there would be no need to expand, he w as excited about the design and would like to have these people livng and working in the area. He said rezoning was a totally different issue. Mabusth commented that if conceptual approval was given. Stalf would bring back to the Council a resolution, which would outline any additional paperwork needed Council informed the applicant that if they proceeded with the application now and then meanwhile addressed the rezoning issue, it would save time Waters questioned whether the Council five years down the road would look differently at the request for rezoning if it was not addressed now He questioned whether the applicant would be told he should have addressed it dunng the initial application. Jabbour said the value of the development is not taken into consideration during rezoning Rantz said he has spoken with the neighbors informing them of his design for the building and the setting on the propertv He said he is concerned with issues ot wetlands and trees and desired to maintain this natural look His only question is what can be done with the back lot He knows he benefits from the residental lot by the building placement on the combined lots Bichanich said with the 235' of length of the residential lot and requesting only the u.se of 35', he is unaware of what exactly can be done with the lot Jabbour noted that any zoning variances are only good for a year, and it a variance were to be granted, it would not be an option in this application if expansion is not planned for the immediate time period. Jabbour reiterated that the conservation easement would be required, which allows no building on the residential lot He further added that the conservation easement should be subject to a zoning change if one should happen Mabusth said the conserv ation easement could be amended if rezoning occurred and siipulated in the resolution Gatfron commented the present Council could not hind a future Council but should make them aware of what arc the present intentions. Rezoning would not be an individual benefit but would afl'ect the w hole aivM Hurr suggested to the applicant that he get together with the other Navarre business owners and lead a rezoning etVon if that was the consensus of the group. TT.’ATAifclimif itaw , ..naan- t ai - J r*' MWUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25,1995 (<#5 - #2058 Ron Rantz/Autograls, Inc. - Continued) Bichanich said there could be an ability to expand upward or manipulate the building somehow. He continued there would be no variances required with this application, but if one was granted and could only be extended for a time period ot a year, could it apply to parking for future expansion Mabusth noted the commercial parking ot vehicles is not a permitted use in a residential zone Mabusth said a future Council could not be tied to such a decision and neither can promises be made for the future. She added that a possible redesign could be done with the building in the future with a request for a parking variance. A variar.ee would have a better chance ot being approved than a rezoning. Jabbour asked if the classification for the property could change Mabusth said it was a B-4 classification and did fit that use. Kelley noted the future could not be predicted. Hurr added that a variance is not a rezoning issue Hurr moved. Kelley seconded, to conceptually approve the commercial site plan review and directed Staff'to draft a resolution. Vote Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to direct Staff to research the issues presented in the memo regarding lake access written by City Attorney Barrett. Ayes 4, Nays 0. Kelley voiced his objection over the recent decision by the VVayzata City Council reizarding the stoplight at the intersection ot Hwy 12 and Wav'zata Boulevard. He has spoken with City .Administrator Moorse regarding this issue. Kelley said he never would have voted for the anne.xation of the property to Wayzata if he had known this would occur Hurr said the Council should have put conditions on the annexation Jabbour said the City should officially objea to the decision made by VVayzata He noted that the mayor of VVayzata voted against the stoplight but new council members voted for the stoplight. Goetten said she was "shocked and appalled" at the decision Jabbour reported that an emergency meeting of the LMCD was called regarding miscalculations made in the levies to several cities. Orono vvas shown to owe an additional $169.00 .A question was asked at this meeting if cities were interested in holding town meetings to inform the public of the dangers of transporting zebra mussel. Jabbour was concerned that such a meeting would attract those on the lake who are interested in halting the transportation of the mussel, and not those off the lake who are most in need of hearing the information Jabbour said he was excited about having a town meeting Hurr noted that the Freshwater Institute was holding a workshop on the zebra mussel on October 7 and suggested a member of the LMCD attend the workshop. Tlie workshop is open to the public. I r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25,1995 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Jabbour commented on the newspaper article by a resident of Tonka Bay, who telt the City of Orono was looking into providing police service to Tonka Bay. Moorse has written a letter to the police chief of South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Dept, in response to the article notifying Chief Young that Orono is not pursuing the provision of police services to the City of Tonka Bay. Kelley said the September 15 issue of "City Business" newspaper referred to the City ot Orono and quoted City Administrator Moorse in the article Kelley has requested a copy of the newspaper. GafFron informed Council that the contia tnr for the Jundt s has requested consideration to move the schedule forward for approving .he amendment to a previous application regarding excavating of retaining walls in tin:' tunnel area located in the 0-75 zone. The Jundt's would be unable to complete replanting this season if the application did not go before the Council until the October 9 meeting. The Council said they had originally asked for a comprehensive plan for the property instead of receiving many different applications. Council denied looking at the application before the October 9 meeting. ENGINEER REPORT City Engineer Cook had nothing additional to report. (*#6) REQliEST FOR PAYMENT #3 - OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD Hurt moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Payment #3 for Old Crystal Bay Road Project to Buffalo Bituminous in the amount of 522,577 70 Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#7) REQUEST FOR PAYMENT #5 - BROWN ROAD NORTH Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Payment n5 for the Brown Road North Project to Buffalo Bituminous in the amount of 594,361.97. Ayes 4, Nays 0. C1T^ ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#8) SCHEDULE A LAKE USE COMMITTEE MEETING Goetten commented that she would like to have been notified ot the September 13 meeting. Gaffron said the meeting had been called on shon notice. Gafffon said two meetings will be needed, one for the use of the site and one for site planning itself The meeting in need of scheduling will be for site planning. It is the intent of Staff to get the application before the Planning Commission but must be discussed by the Lake Use Committee first. i MINIJTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25. 1995 (#8 - Lake Use Committee Meeting - Contimod) The meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 4, 1995, at 8:00 a m. Gaffron said Planning Commissioner Rowlette would not be in attendance Jabbour said other men^Tcrs should be there to aid in resolving issues. Gaffron will contact the Planning Commissioners of the meeting. Jabbour asked that all ot the Council be updated on the issues. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Staunton had no report. (•#9) LICENSES Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the following licenses. Ayes 4. Nays 0. Septic System Installer McCarthy Water & Waste 6250 Highway 12 West: Maple Plain Home Occupation License Annual Review Ben Meinhardt 3585 Sixth Avenue North (*#I0) BILLS Hurr moved, Goetien seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Hurr moved, Jabbour seconded, to adjourn at 8 00 p m Ayes 4, Nays 0. Gabriel Jabbour, Acting Mayor ATTEST. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 1 ...COUNCIL MEEnrCG REQUEST FOR COUNCn. ACTION OCT 9 1995 DATE: (5?ntOf.OBONO ITEM NO; Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning A Zoning Administrator _________________ ______ _____^ Item Description: )?t2044 (jeorge Olson. 2775 Shadywood Road * Variance - Resolution Zoning District; LR-IB. Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 1 acre. Application: Request for hardcover variance in 75-250’ setback zone tor an addition on the lake side of the existing residence. Pertinent Code Sections Section 10.22. Subd. 2/Seciion 10.56. Subd. 16 (L): Hardcover in 75-250’ zone limited to 25%. Existing Proposed Allowed 75-250' Hardcover 8.011 s.f. (44%) 5.777 s.f. (31.7%) 4.553 s.f. (25.0%) 0-75' Hardcover 306 s.f. (4.1%) 12 s.f. (0.2%) 0 s.f. (0%) List of E.vhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Plaiming Commission Action 9/18/95 C - Memo and Exhibits of 9/11/95 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of September llih. Brietly. applicant proposes to construct a two story addition to the existing residence. The addition will meet all setback requirements, but constitutes additional structural hardcover in the 75-250’ zone. Applicant proposes to remove virtually all of the landscape bed hardcover on the property, resulting in only 0.2% hardcover in the 0-^5’ zone and 31.7% in the 75-250' zone. Proposed lot coverage by structures will be 11.1%. well within the 15% limit. - ^ » Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 October 5, 1995 Zoning File #2044 The previous property owner was granted variances to reconstruct the then existing deck in 1987. Son^ time after the deck was replaced, the previous owner constructed a permanent screen porch above it without the required building permit. That screen porch meets all setback requirements and is above the approved deck hardcover. Staff recommends that the enclosed porch be accepted subject to an after-the-fact building permit being issued and subject to review of the construction by the inspection department. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this application at their September 18th meeting and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval of the proposed addition subject to removal of virtually all of the landscape bed hardcover on the property. Planning Commission concurred that an after-the-fact building permit and construction inspection should be required. Planning Commission suggested that the resolution indicate any future strucniral additions only be approved in the context ot trading structural hardcover for structural hardcover. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation, except that staff disagrees with the "structure for structu-e" limitation language for this specific application, because the structural hardcover is only 11.1%, significantly less than the normal 15% limit. A future reque.st for strucmral hardcover up to the 15% limit might be reasonably approved in the future with further reductions in non-structural hardcover. This property is not "over built" as compared to many other properties in Orono w'hich have not been subject to this proposed limitation. Such a limitation is in staffs opinion only appropriate when lot coverage by structures exceeds the 15% limit. A resolution reflectinc the Planning Commission recommendation but not including the "structure for structure limitation” is attached for Council approval. COLNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: seconded bv to adopt ResolutionProposed Motion: .Moved by _________ . __^----------- # granting a hardcover variance to George Olson ot 2775 Shadywood Road tor construction of an addition to the existing residence. Vote:__________ayes, --------------- nays. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MITMCIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND 10.56, SLTJDIVTSION 16 (L) FILE #2044 WHEREAS, George Olson and Bonnie Olson (hereinafter "the applicants") are o\«iers of the property located at 2775 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tracts E and F and G, except the nonheasterly T thereof. Registered Land Sur\ey No. 358. Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property '); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City' for a variance to Municipal Zonine Code Sections 10.22. Subdivision 2 and 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) to permit the construction of a two story addition to the existing residence, such addition constituting haru:'over in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2044. ■> The propertv is located in the LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18. 1995 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 6 4. 5. A.Existing hardcover in the 0-75’ zone is 306 s.f. or Existing hardcover in the 75-250’ zone is 8.011 s.f. or 44%. Applicants propose to remove all landscape beds lined with plastic or fabric on the propeny, resulting in 0-75’ hardcover of 12 s.f. or 0.2% where no hardcover is allowed, and 5.777 s.f. or 31.7% in the 75-250’ zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed. B.Planning Commission finds that the removal of landscape bed hardcover is a significant reduction and bnngs the propeny closer to conformity w ith the Cirv codes. The proposed addition meets the required side and lakcshore setbacks and docs not encroach past the average lakeshore setback. D.Proposed lot coverage by strucmres will be 11.1%, significantly less than the 15% structural coverage allowed by the zoning code. 1:.An enclosed screen porch constructed over the existing deck without a permit should be subject to an after-the-fact building permit and review of the construction by the inspection department to ensure code compliance. 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. 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. Pace 2 of 6 L, CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above lindings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit the construction of a two story addition constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. 5. Prior to footing inspection for the addition, applicants shall remove landscape bed hardcover as shown on the sketch and list attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone shall be limited to 12 s.f. or 0.2%, and in the 75-250 ’ zone shall be limited to 5.770 s.f. or 31.7%. Applicants are advised that any future proposals to add hardcover on the property will require a variance application and might be approved only in conjunction with removal of equivalent amounts of pre-existing hardcover. The applicant shall obtain an after-the-fact building permit for the screen porch, and a construction inspection shall be conducted by the inspection department. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 9, 1996). 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. Page 3 of 6 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of October, 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 9th day of October, 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. Notarv Public Pace 4 of 6 K STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notarv’ 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 .^rWnnwlfniped that hc (they) executed the same as his (their) tree act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of . 199 before me a Notar)' 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 (thev) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 6 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Cnstal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2044 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION action DATE OF NOTICE: 9/26/95 TO: George Olson 2775 Shadywood Road Orono. MN 55331 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance DATE OF MEETING: 9/18/95 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGALNST Planning Commission recommends the follovring: Approval subject to conditions noted below. .NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Hardcover removals required as per proposal. Applicant to obtain after-the-fact building pennit for screen porch, including construction inspection by building inspector. 3. Approval resolutton to note that future structural additions should be mitigated by Structural deletions. Annlicont’s ne.vt scheduled meeting is conlirmed as. City CouncU Monday. October 9, 1995; meettng starts at 7;00 p.m. If vou desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are avaUable tom the Ci^- Recorder ato-r revte'.v and approval by the Planmng Commtsston. jT Or, TO: FROM: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning &. Zoning Administrator DATE:September 11. 1995 SUBJECT: #2044 George Olson, 2775 Shadywood Roau - Variance • Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB. Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. Application: Request for a hardcover variance in 75-250’ setback area for an addition on the lake side of the existing residence. Pertinent Code Section Section 10.22, Subd. 2/Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L): Hardcover in 75-250’ zone limited to 25%. Exu'ing Proposed Allowed 75-250’ Hardcover 8.011 s.f. (44%) ■'77 s.f. (31.7%) 4,553 s.f. (25.0%) 0-75’ Hardcover 306 s.f. (4.1%) 12 s.f. (0.2%) 0 s.f. (0%) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letters of Request E - Sursey F - Hardcover Itemization and Staff Revisions G - Construction Plans H - L'oeumentation from 1987 Variance Approval Pertinent Facts 1. Tus item was tabled at the request of staff and applicant pending a new survey showing all e.xisting hardcover. That has been received (E.xhibit E). 2. Applicant purchased this property in 1994. He notes that all existing hardcover predates his ownership of the property. Existing hardcover in the 0-75’ zone is approximately 30o s.f. (4.1%). All but 12 s.f. of this is in rockbeds with plastic, which are proposed to be eliminated. Zoning File 4^2044 September 11, 1995 Paee 2 Area of the 75-250’ zone excluding the 20’ road easement is 18.210 s.f. (this ditters from applicant ’s calculation because it includes a portion of the northeast cor I'er ot the lot which is within 250’ of the Narrows Channel). Existing 75-250 ’ hardcover is 8,011 s.f. (44.07o). The proposal is to again eliminate the fabric or plastic underliner from all landscape beds, resulting in final hardcover including the proposed addition of 5,777 s.f. (31.7^0). The proptised addition meets the required side and lakeshore setbacks, and does not encroach past the average lakeshore setback. Lot area * 30,594 s.f. - 2,000 s.f. (easement) = 28.594 s.f. Proposed lot coverage by structures is as tollows: House 2.030 s.f. Deck/porch 526 s.f. Shed 195 s.f. Addition 425 s.f. Total 3.126 s.f. -5- 28.594 = 11.1% (15% allowed) This property was the subject of a hardcover variance in 1987 for deck reconstruction. Tlie 1987 approval was for 6,177 s.f. of hardcover which included areas of rockbeds with plastic. Further, the proposed deck and stairway in that approval was only 422 s.f., but the deck that ultimately was built is slightly larger, and an enclosed screened porch was at some point constructed on the deck, without a permit. Apparently this was done by the previous owner, and was not discovered by staff until the current application review. That construction meets all required setbacks. Staff would suggest at this point that the enclosed porch be accepted subject to an after-the-fact building permit being issued, subject to review of the construction by the inspection department. niscussion The existinc house is a one storv with walkout basement which meets all required setbacks. The proposed tvvo level addition at the southwest comer of the house will similarly meet the required setbacks but does constitute additional structural hardcover on the property. Lot coverage by structure will be less than the 15% allowance. The proposed final hardcover after landscape hardcover removals is 31.7% in the 75-250’ zone, while overall lot hardcover would end up at 20.2%. meeting the DNR’s 25% standard. Zoning File #2044 September 11, 1995 Page 3 The only additional hardcover which could be removed to decrease the 75-250’ percentage is in the existing driveway, which varies from 16’ to 25' in width. Narrowing this may reduce guest parking ability. The 195 s.f. utility shed is a possible structural hardcover removal, but would eliminate needed storage space. Issues for Consideration 1. Are the proposed removals of virtually all landscape bed hardcovei sufficient, or should additional items of hardcover be reduced? 2. Does Planning Commission concur with staff that an after-the-fact building permit and construction inspection should be required for the above-deck screen porch constructed without permits? 3. Does Planning Commission have any other concerns about this application? Staff Recommendation Any recommendation for approval should identify the hardships and justification for the hardcover variance approval; should specify removals required in order to approve the current request; and should address the issue of the screen porch construction. Opt ions for Action 1. .\pprove as proposed. 2. 3. 4. 5. Approve with funher reductions. Table for further information. Deny. Other. ■ y \ O f t i.1 \u ch CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.(X) (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S-(X) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application tee) A ' f V- • i ^ * . V,'. A AW-’. — . W VV PROPERTY CsTORMATION Site Address 2775 SRiU)YWOOD ROAD ORONO. >tN 55331 Propertv' Identification Number (P.I.D.) -■’'Ci. oi iiT-TT ■'A nnnq • •-* • . k V ^ I . V “ • .w .a ■ V • Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired______tttv ?i loga --------------------—---- I not) also own the adjacent parcels of land Present use of property: w residential -----other tspecify)_------------ Zoning District:_____t ___________________________________ (month/year) APPLICANT Name GEORGE E. OLSON Address: ?77=i g’^anv’crvsn Cirv': Phone (home) Phone (work)_ npo^jn_______Zip;_^55S^ 0\\'N'ER (if different than applicant) Name HO.VNIE K. OLSON. TRUSTED Phonahonie) Phone (work)_ >’7’ -Q<J. Cirv: npnvn Zip:___552^ Estimated Construction Cost S 60,000 Address: 777s .20AD ------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: NTED TO COMPLY/: K)DIFY VARIAMCE RESOLUTION QF OTTY mt:sa:iL '10 mTC-n t»p.uspnrn-ra tit nnn;-n .Tin k<»irp AmTTTftM m HTffT.’^r. “ — (attach additional sheets it necessary^ VARLANCES REQLTRED Lot Area ___Width Setback:Front Side XX Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage .Average Lakeshore Other (specify) M vrd SHIP/DESCRIITION of UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS unduf^ or practical difficulty or unusttal property conditions preventing c. mnliance with Zoninu Code reouiremenis: CURREfT HARDCOVtr. .yppROVeP BY t^rfiOr.imm Xo/2115 FOP THE 75~'-250 ’ SETBACK ZONE CANNOT BE INCREASED. THT?^ REQUEST FOR, --------------------— ~ ^-----------pTfTTTvp TTTRaddition '.^LL RESQaT IN NTT DECREASE IN HARDCOVTR PROPERTY IN BETTER COiPLI.ANCE tTITK THE ORDINANCE THAN DII^TS X(T.V '..MIlER. 77cnT.nTT0N NO. 2117...(attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 2 j 4 REQUmED SUBMITTALS All of the follo^vinp information must besubmitted bv th<? appHcatipnijeadline da for vour application to be considered comBjetei XX Completed Application Form . .. r iT Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtam this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603. Govt Center. 34S-3271). XX Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). W Certificate Oi Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x IT for N/ATopographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z” x U" tor reproduction. XX Sketches or plans of floor elevation views (provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11"). vY List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). N/A As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list ot any other persons you wish notified of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. Tlie Applicant and Propertv Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance anplicationjsngt^niBLcte if the above inform.itionjiasjiot been inclutlecL APPLIC.VNT'S SIGNATLT^E . u ^7 The applicant herebv agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by origmal fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that tie information supplied is true bnd correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature V-<K(Pv<l ^Date /-11-95 OV.'NKR’S SIGNATURE The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further auiliorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes-f»f investigation and v^'ication of this request. 6 7, 8 9 members tor purposcs-iJi Owner’s Signatur^<_/Date 7-11-95 Applicant must have all submittals imo^th^ity ofes 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. \DDlicants must he present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office ot this change prior to the meeting. 8 6.f I THOMAS J. CASEY Adjacent Propcrtj* Outers’ AcKnowledgement Form of 2785 SHAPy.vXXJD RD. ORONO ~ [print address][prim name(s)] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 2775 SHADYI^D ROAD also referred to as Land Use Application No.-------------. *****’*** I (we) RICHARD G. OGLF (print name(s.)] of 2771 5R\Dr.vOOD RD- OROA^O (print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the propeny located at 2775 SHADYt’OOD ROAD 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 propertv’ or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the propobcu neighbor s project or usej:equires Council approval. PrOpeityOwner Date / - /7- DatePropertv' Owner If vou have any imomiaiion that may assisi the City in the review of this Und Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 ays pn to the scheduled meeting date. V PUM PATI tr/U/filAfCN f*tmm AomOMNeR MAHi TAKRAVfR NAW/AOM . MfC/APOII •* t: r*r »• \ AOOR V,; ' OMCR NMC TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR f ♦ J } ■f. , 4.1; • * . * )* PROP AOOR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER“S .'t .. NAHE/A03R f L .• W lS < ! ! '"'1.*« I I ■ , V m::h.f' ♦ V • MEftCPIM COIMTY PMPCITY XNFOettTXQH iVSTfN PROPERTY OM4EIS LISTW tl-117-ES IS OOES OEOOO SNAOYMOOD RO K SEVCRZNRON I E P NOFFHAN REMCTN SEVERINSON ERRR SRAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR m S5SS1 SO 21-117-ES M OOAO OE7AO SMAOYNOOO RO A J RLOTSCNE A J A RLOTSCNE ALLAN J $ JUDITH A RLQTSCHE C7M SNAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR N4 5S3S1 SO 21-117-23 24 0057 02771 SNAOYNOOO RO R 0 A N J 06LE RICHARO e A NARLYS J OGLE 2771 SNAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TOTAL BATCH 502 00009 ■■'I- ♦ . * ^ ■> r>f: REPORT NO.PAGE P14354017SO 21-117-23 24 0009 02775 SNAOYNOOO RO B R OLSON IRUSTEE OONNtC K OLSON 2775 SNAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR M4 55331 30 21-117-23 24 0035 0003A ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO S R A P A DECK STEVEN R A PEGGY A BECK 2795 SNAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR HN 55331 SB 21-117-23 24 0041 02700 SNAOYNOOO RO N R NITTNER ASK NITTHER N R NITTNER ASK NITTNER 2700 SNAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR m 55331 SB 21-117-23 24 0054 02785 SNAOYNOOO RO T J CASEY A S 0 tasEY TNONAS J CASEY 2705 SHADY NOOO RO‘ EXCELSIOR m 55331 SB 21-117-23 24 0040 02745 SNAOYNOOO RO i L NILNELH A 0 I NILHELN BURNIS L A DORIS I HILHELH 2745 SNAOYNOOO RO eXCELSICHl NN 55331 SB 21-117-23 31 0002 02795 SNAOYNOOO RO S R A P A BECK STEVEN R A PEGGY A BECK 2795 SNAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR NN 55331 10 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE MENTIEPIN COUNTY OEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOMLEDGE ANO BELIEF. DATE jj r — • I t I • N i. I <i »• I f I • I » . >R George E Olson 2775 Shadywood Road Orono/Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 •D'f August 27r 1995 1*^ 0’-75' Setback 7500s.f. 75’-250' Setback 17,500s.f. Planning Coraaission City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, 55323 Dear Plauaning Cocnission: Re; Zoning File ^ 2044 Our application for variance was tabled from the 8-21-95 meeting and moved to the 9-18-95 meeting in order for us to submit an updated survey. Attached are four copies of the new, updated survey for your file and consideration. Please refer to City of Orono Resolution #2115 and to my previous letter dated July 11,1995. IMPORTANT; We purchased the. property cm 7-21-94 and we have net added any hardcover since the purchase. The following chart illustrates numerically what exists and what we are proposing to do, if the variance is approved. deck S. stairway rock beds w/plastic TOTAL house sidewalk & stairs dri\'e^vay rock beds w/plastic deck & stainray proposed addition TOTAL % HARDCOVER Resolution 8-18-95 OLSON'S #2115 Survey Proposal 12 s.f.12 s.f.12 s.f. 0 s.f.294 s.f.*0 s.f. 12 s.f.306 s.f.12 s.f. ♦estimate 2,080 s.f.2,030 s.f.2,030 s.f. 120s.f.213 s.f.213 s.f. 2,797 s.f.2,316 s.f.2,316 s.f. 758 s.f.2,659 s.f.0 s.f. 422 s.f.598 s.f.598 s.f. 0 s.f.0 s.f.425 s.f. 6,177 s.f.7,816 s.f.5,582 s.f. 35.3%44.7%31.9% Our proposal is, if you approve the addition, we will remove all hardcover from the rock beds and floxrar gardens. O George'C. OfsOri 2775 Shadywood Road Orono/Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 1^'2- Request for Building Permit & Variance July 11» 1995 Plamning Cccmision City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, 55323 Dear Planning CoBnission: My vife purchased the property located at 2775 Shadywood Road in the city of Orono on July 21, 1994. We have a re<^est for a building permit pending with Mr. Lyle Oman for an addition to the existing house. He told our builder that we would need council approval. The orior owners were granted a variance on Resolution of the City Council No. 2115 dated February 23, 1987. A copy is attached for your revie*./. This variance states in part, "an increase of hardcover will not be approved, and might be approved only with concurrent removals of existing hardcover resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the property." w N /X ro This building permit request will result in a net DECREASE^in hardcover on the property because we will remove the plastic under the flower beds in the front of the house prior to the start of construction. The hardcover results will be as follows: 0-75' setback zone- No change 75'-250' setback zone- Current coverage Net addition Ronove plastic Net coverage \ k, t S4J 1/1 P \ \ 6,177 sg* ft.(37.6^> + 200 sq. ft. - 758 ft. 5,619'^sq.^'ft. (34.2%) / Tnis request therefore results in a reduction of hardcover as to what currently exists as approved by the Council in 1987. A copy of the survey is also attached shcndng the proposed addition and the area where the hardcover will be removed from the rock beds. My wife and I hope this information, combined with the information that Mr. Onan has, will be sufficient to warrant approval by the Council for a change in the variance, if necessary, and for approval of the building px^rmit. incerely. ge E. ulson z < 0 UJ f ■ .INUK I Iri r-7 0 EXCEPTICW FD WON Loo "> ^ C * ' UTIIITY SHED ON Cl)NC.- (195 SO FT.) ZSO y iK '■Wri SCALE 1” = 30 1*4''VVy r/\ * ___ L ■? C 20 Oi 4 0-~ LANDSCAPED AREA 1.775 SO FT.) .--1.0 WALL (18 SOFT ) (2. 16 71 - ' house fc. r*" CONCRETE' JL\ fi'lto- SerBAc.lt Diip-, ey Mo«sev ^4 So'1 !:iv7 :/5S *- ^ ^ *i ROAD EA& TRACT F ( NO, 4772: / A ^0DS£- I ir i GARDEN AREA - ' (NO HARD-COVER)''', ‘ \ ' / '''v» ^ ^ c Cu ^ to ^ 0(5 (j ^ s'-# 'T *^03 •F) !r- e'« 0- r 5?#QCj «o i.oX^ tJ'*"^ ^ tX'^1.5 t^ U nc K • U;a SopvrT F/A/p V'.'.'® a 1- o»o I fS CM«n CN CO OV CO SHORE LINE AS LOCATED AUG. 16. !'J95^ (water ELEVATION = 929 54 FEET) 929 4 CONTOUR LA0' ■ •• -M f» k;ir :v*- .->- :V*4 ‘ i^ -*^ 4 Jr ‘ •* » 4 •*? ? BXJSr?MC> '._Z^A_':z^Do_vO __________ 1"; » :. • • f ! • . 4 30o -r.. J/JJZ»_______ \&r^OK • ! --X. • ‘ rn ;■■■ '■* r#*» • F/2<2PQitD ; V*" •r ! |z S’^- , 3^.3'^//e ___ -70)0..“_2.I ^ •iji:-.' li‘ J 4 . -■ ; ' •' < > AtU* AJ9*^ tAi.ey'.<rNT___oc teitivf»j>v •» • > A »:■ I *. * i' .Z0 3>0 zJ^. hh^z^________ ..„ 2. (3 pS. .ACA4>hJ^Zi^s/.:.7tc^/'y^k)^^^ _2,3 /6s' .. 5-f . _^/a / e lAJAy ___ _______________ 718>_ ■ P‘i^fO^/£>exj£:/ I /^r.. ! a 0/1 ^ / 1 • i I ;• "(60 PoS e '__Eo --_s _________________2^ L:^ .. ''. fA>atc,___ ._2-2. lU. _sA , »• / • « V ________S.^L 5» Patip/^>tgc t^ ______6'2^Sl._3^._APJ^_iIl^-sL _____ ; • •r US" ^-^_-lSH^ }.:: • • •r V * I^ • „._^p2_7 - _._5^_c__±iy / .p. ■/ i*.^^'SO.r-^O. .f*•% ^30,SW ^^,^-15,1.10-7^TO^ Z-B3^ * * 4 i* «■ *.. i ^ « I ;■■tls. •' I ' 4 3*^,4i!, «M i . ..• •■j I / •• J > • ■•/•; r , ;.t ■;. • iA ;•», ? « A wt - i9 % f.‘ A6'/^..___ fitsPpst^^ Cl ■. p- ‘O'/. If • i ^ v*> xi> , .:• y^H .V i'S-- .V .•4'L L’S? >;«• H -••4-^ . ^ .A; ■y- it* % • .* '■ r^ *A • ' ■s :. >: . • .% ■ : -a.v:'^r i .* <'■ ^ • ■A-tv• • A'^ir • *• . /w. * ■: ^ . *4 t.TS ^ ■' ;i^-' hardcover calcination worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONT> 0-75’250-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ■, Length ^^idth X X X B. Garage ^ ^ C. Dnveway io^\ X D. Sidewalk 2£*i.X X E. Paiio/Deck X X feS = F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic X X X n G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (PERTY .Atotal property area in zone ^ ^ PROPOSED ILARDCQNTR IN ZONE A. House .^4.4 (ai^K^ Length WulLh X X B. Garage /i^’ct.v^D'cT) C. Dnveway ____I _____ t)[A/SL<iCL S D. Sidewalk MS 4 -.^ /rt«rA E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plxstic X X X G. Other TOTAL Hz\RDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -SU^L,J B 4^ X 100 SOO'IOOO’ S.F. S F. S.F. S.F. S.F J.1^7 S F S.F. iAo S.F S.F. SF. S.F, S.F S.F. S.F G, 177 S.F /b_ W.Ng S" 31 % ,^,^0 - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 7,7H7 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. f- ♦ 4 A B 1^ 4 it -0f\ ^ S.F. S.F. \/l < C‘ ^1 S.F. SJdi /L. 4 S.F. S.F. A B ■**« .1 »*w ^ »A r.. ■*•/ • ’( ■■■ ‘■' 9^ 1 VA) i i U. \iisHir c }f\r* That* 2>or Vv r 4 ►T’ M-! f » M J ^ ' v.t^.y .H r *w. I I ♦ £i a •> dL i I Ul \) Ul/^ S’fe i!i e 1 f tn'>5 hHh:^^ UjQop 7^ nM 4nn&4r \ \ u A i I I IiORONOj City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 fc 2 AND 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 FILE #1060 WHEREAS, J. F. F1eischhacker (herei. after "the aoplicant”) is the owner of the property located at 2775 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Tracts E and F and Tract G except the Northeasterly 7 feet thereof. Registered Land Survey No. 358, Files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of a stairway within the 0-75' lakeshore yard, constituting structure and hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore yard where no structure and hardcover is normally allowed, and to permit construction of a deck in the 75- 250' lakeshore setback zone constituting hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1, This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1060. 2. Th ■» property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 18 and October 20, 1986, and recommended approval of variances, finding that: A) The applicant's stated hardship is that there is no quick access to the beach from the upper level of the house without an outside stairway. The stairway proposed provides such an access without blocking the views from existing picture windows. Page 1 of 4 j \ CITY OF I ORONC^ City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2115_ _ _ _ __ B) The concrete patio existing under the deck and stairway area is proposed to be removed except for a walkway. The applicant proposes to use very narrow spacing between the deck boards for safety purposes. The deck and stairway are at a second-story level. The deck and stairway should be considered as hardcover. C) The deck and stairway will be partially screened from the lake by existing shrubbery. 4. The City Council reviewed the application on November 10, 1986 and tabled the application requesting applicant to reduce the extent of variances needed. 5. The applicant subsequently submitted the proposal attached as Exhibit A to this resolution. The Council finds that the variances requested in order to construct the deck and stairway per Exhibit A are justified per the findings of the Planning Commission as noted herein. C 'he City Council has considered this application including thw bindings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, rts by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect » t; ' proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the mmu i ity. 7. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of a deck and stairway constituting 0.16% hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, constituting 37.6% hardcover in the 75-250* lakeshore setback zone, constituting a 3' structural encroach­ ment into the 0-75' lakeshore setback requirement, subject to the following conditions; Page 2 of 4 1 City of ORONO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2115_________ aximum allowed hardcover on the property follows : 0-75' Setback Zone: 12 s.f. (0.16%) (consisting of deck and stairway) shall be as 75-250* Setback Zone: 6.177 s.f. (37.6%) consisting of the following: House 2,080 s.f. Sidewalk 120 s.f. Blacktop Driveway 2,797 s.f. Rock Beds w/Plastic 758 s.f. Deck and Stairway 422 s.f. 6,177 s.f. The applicant is advised that any further proposals resulting in an increase of hardcover will not be approved, and might be approved only with concurrent removals of existing hardcover resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the property. 2. The maximum allowed encroachment toward the lake is 3.0 feet as proposed per Exhibit A attached. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (February 9, 1988). 4. 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 applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himseli., his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th d*’-^ ‘ February, 1987. ■' I OF I ORONC^ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2115__________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ _ _ _ day of /^.SrucKru- - - - - - - -» before me a Notary Public within and for saiQ/county, personally appeared *■ /.fy), f"/ei ^ uJiM known to me to be the person (s ) d e s c r i b e d i n and who exeodited the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. HENNEPIN COUNTY comm»»»*on iza m ✓ NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 198 , before me a Notary Pub lie 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 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 il2.IT' Z' AJ^' ‘ /jtT^\!^ l>:C^K^£rA\fiu^f^! PlAAJ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE C’ '’*T't - . 8 1995 ■■ ITEM NO.: /i Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffroo Title Assistant Planning &. Zoning A.iminisQ'ator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2049 Fred Guttormson Chic Dwight, 1220 Tonkawa Road - Variances/CUP - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. One Acre .Application: Request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to replace existing deck, construct a screen pxjrch underneath it, excavate to create access tor proposed walkout door, and create some low boulder walls, all in the 0-75' setback zone. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/23/95 C - Planning Commission Minutes 8/23/95 D - DNR Letter Received 8/21/95 E - Memo and Exhibits of 8/14/95 NOTE: Councilmembcrs have each been provided a letter from the applicant received bv staff on 10/4/95. Please review this letter. Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of August 14. Brietly. applicants propose to remove their existing 8* x 24’ deck and 4' x 6 ’ stairway (216 s.f total) located 34* from the shoreline, and replace it with a ground tloor screen porch and 9 ’ x 30' deck/stairway above it (270 s.f.) .Additionally, applicants propose to replace existing lower level windows at the southeast front of the house with a glass door, requiring excavation in the 0-75' zone to create the ability for a walkout. Finally, applicants proposed a series of low boulder retaining walls between the house and the shoreline for erosion control purposes. Request tor Council Action contimicdl Page 2 October 6, 1995 Zoning File #2049 Fred Guttormsoa Chic Dwight Planning Commissioo Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their August 21 meeting and recommended conditional partial approval as follows: 1. Approval of 8' x 24’ screen porch addition. 2. Approval of 8 ’ x 24’ deck above screen porch plus stairway at north end of deck (deck and screen porch not to extend past southerly wall of house). 3.Approval of excavation along south wall of house to allow installation of walkout doors, including boulder retaining wall adjacent to front stoop. 4. Denial of proposed low boulder walls between the house and lake. The above approvals are to be conditioned on the following: 1. 3. Remove grade-level wood patio portions outside of existing deck footprint (3’ x 8 ’ portion of wood patio). Remove small accessory building at southeast side of property. Remove detached deck structure at the lakeshore (this is an existing 120 s.f. deck structure located at the shoreline). 4. Top dress and revegetate area of old 8 ’ giavel driveway. DNR Recommendation In a letter from hydrologist Joe Richter received by fax on August 21. the DNR recommended denial of the proposal on the basis that the proposed screen porch and deck will increase the non-conformity of the house and do not conform with the Shoreland Standards. Staff Recommendation Stalf questions whether there is adequate hardship demonstrated for expansion of the already non-conlbrming residence to a location 34’ from the lake. Replacement of the deck in kind may be justifiable, but placing a substantial screen porch undemeatli it visually and practically expands the bulk of the residence structure nearer the lake. Request for Council Action continued Page 3 October 6,1995 Zoning File #2049 Fred Guttormson'Chic Diyight The excavation alone the easterly portion of the south facade to create ability for walkout doors, would seem to be somewtai in conflict with past City practice. Although this is a very minor excavation compared to many that have been denied in the past, it has been the City s goal to not excavate existing grade in the 0-:5 rone to allow creation of a walkout. Applicants no^that this area appears to have been artificially filled when the house was constructed m 197l.The minor degree of proposed excavation must be weighed against the potential precedent-setting aspect. In summary, staff would recommend only approval of replacement of the existing deck in kind. However, the attached resolution reflects the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Applicants' Comments Please review applicant's letter and the minutes of .August 21. Applicant has indicated to staff he would withdraw the application rather than agree to removal of the deck located at the shoreline. Options for Action 1 Approve per Planning Commission recommendation (per resolution attached). 2. Approve per staff recommendation, considering appropriate removals/condiuons. Some combination ol #1 and #2. 4. Conceptual denial. 5.Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt attached resolution as drafted, amend it. or direct staff to redraft, A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO \nJNlCIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS I AND 2, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISIONS 16 (C, J, & L) FILE NO. 2049 WHEREAS, Fred Guttormson and Chic Dwight (hereinafter "the applicants") arc owners of the property located at 1229 Tonkaw a Road w ithin the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; That part of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying southerly of a line parallel with and 125 feet southeasterly at right angles from a line described as follows; Beginning at a point on the easterly line of County Road No. 135 disunt 1141.25 feet southeasterly along said easterly line from its intersection with the north line of Lot 10. said Auditor's Subdivision; thence northeasterly 143.2 feet to a point distant loot.29 feet south at right angles from the north line of said Lot 10; thence continuing northe;’. terly on the extension of the last-described line to the shore of Maxwell's Bay, and there terminating (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicara. ' w've applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoninu Code Section 10.22, Subdivish*' I, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8. and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (C) to allow construct!.-n of a screen porch and replacement of an existing deck vsithin the U-75' lakeshore setback zone where no structures are normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2. Section 10.55. Subdivision 8. and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L), to allow hardcover in the 0-75' setback /one where no hardcover is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.55. Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (J) to allow e.xcavation artd retaining wall construction w^hin the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where grading, filling and excavatim: is normallv not allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; Page 1 of 6 I I 1 \ t 1. 3. FINDINGS This applic-..v>n was reviewed as Zoning File #2049. The property is located in the LR-1B Single Family Lakcshorc Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 21, 1995 and recommended partial approval ot the proposed variances based upon the follow ing findings; A.The existing 8’ x 24' deck and 4' x 6 ’ stairway (216 s.f. total) are in poor condition and need to be replaced. Since there are existing dwrs opening to this second le\cl deck, it would be appropriate to replace the deck in kind to preserve a substantial right of the propeny t)wner. Construction of a new- 8' X 24' deck plus a stain-vay at the north end of the new deck will result in no new encroachment of the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone. B.Construction of an 8’ x 24' screen fKirch directly below the proposed deck will have minimal visual impact as viewed from the lake, due to partially being below grade and due to existing screening along the shoreline. Further, the existins and proposed deck constitutes hardcover under the City's hardcover policies and therefore no new hardcover results from the screen porch addition. C.Neither the deck nor screen porch will have an impact on neighboring properties' view s of the lake. D.Excavation along the south wall ot the existing residence to allow installation of walkout doors to replace existing windows is minor in nature, involving the removal of only 4 cubic yards of material ranging in depth from 0-3 ’ alone a small portion of the foundation wall. The excavation is necessarx’ in order to allow access via the proposed patio doors. 1 he visual impact ot the additional facade opened up to lakeview is verv minor. Pace 2 of 6 Replacement of tlw existing S’ x 24’ deck and reltKation of the stairway to the north end of the deck will result in an overall structural hardcover increase of less than 10 s.f in the 0-75' zone. Further, structural hardcover on the property can be reduced significantly by removing the 120 s.t. non- conforming deck structure at the lakeshore. Further. 0-75' hardcover has been reduced by removal of two sheds and a remaining small shed approximately 10-15 s.f. should also be removed from that zone. Other hardcover in the 0-75' zone includes a circular gravel driveway, an addition to sidewalk and walls adjacent to the house. Applicants have recently remov ed an 8' gravel driveway leading to the lake which constituted approximately 800 s.f. of hard surface That is a positive improvement to the pnvpeny . although that area has not been revegetated and should be. Further, the ptMiion of grade-level wood patio extending outside the footprint of the existing deck. i.e. 24 s.f of wood patio, is unnecessary' and should be removed. The remov al of the detached 120 s.f deck structure near the lakeshore and concurrent removals of other structural and non-structural hardcov er, are an improvement to the property. No adequate justification has been presented to support granting a variance for construction of low boulder walls between the house and the shoreline. Ti.c City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff comments by the applicant and the etfect of the proposed v ariance on the health, safety and w elfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a Page 3 of 6 I demonstrable hardship or dilTiculty; is necessary to preserve a substanual rropeny right of the applicaru and «ould be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and C omprehenstse Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDF.R .\NU CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a vari^ce to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.:2, Subdivision 1, Section 10.55, SuKlivision 8 and Section 10 >6, Subdivision 16 (C) to allow construction of an 8* x 24- screen porch and reconsmiction ot the existing 8’ x 24’ deck plus stairway structure; and grants vanance to Sections 10.>>, Subdivision Section 10.55. Subdivision 8 and Section 10 56. Subdivision 16 (L) to allow construction ot said structures which constitute hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback zone where no allowed, and grants a vanance to Sections 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section Subd.v^on 16 (J) to allow excav ation in the 0-75' zone where excav ation is nomiallv not allowed, to ^commodate said screen porch and additionally to allow alteration of grades to accommodate a walkout door on the .ouiheast facade of the residence, subject to the following conditions: I The deck and screen porch shall not extend past tlie southerly wall ot the house. ITie said stairway may be in addition to the 8’ x 24’ deck and shall be located at the north end of said deck, and shall not exceed 4' in width, and shall be only ot the length necessary to accommodate said stairway and landing. - This approval allows excavation of fill in the 0-75 ’ zone only in the amounts to accommodate construction of the deck and screen porch, in addition to approximately 4 cubic yards of removal at the southeast wall ot the house to allow access to the propissed walkout doors, including the necessary retaining wall adjacent to the tront stoop. 3. Ihe proposed low Moulder walls between house and lake are specifically not approved, and shall not be constructed. Page 4 of 6 4. Prior to footing inspection, prv perty owner shall remove the grade-level u ood patio 3’ X 8' portion that extends outside the cxistmg deck footprmt. Applicants shall further remove the small accessorv* building located at the southeast side ot the property, and shall remove the 120 s.f. detached deck structure kvated at the lakeshore, prior to footing inspection. Further, applicants shall topdress and revegetate the area of the previously removed 8* x 100 ’ gra\el dmevNay by topdressing and seeding or sodding, such work to be substantially completed prior to final inspection of the additions. 5. Final hardcover in the 0-75 ’ rone shall not exceed 2,643 s.f as follo vs: House - 770 s.f Attached deck and screen porch including stairway - 232 s.f I.oop driveway - 1,530 s.f Sidewalks, etc. - 11 3 s.f Total - 2,645 s.f In the 75-250' zone, hardcover shall not exceed the existing 900 s.f of structural hardcover including house and shed, plus 3.979 s.t. ot non-structural hardcover including driveways, sidewalks, etc. tor a total ot 4.879 s.t. or j6.4% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. Property owners are advised that any future proposals to add hardcover on the property will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover to result in no net hardcover increase. 6. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the appl cant, but are permissive only and must be exerc ’sed by application for a building pemiit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 9, 1996). 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any ot the terms and conditions ot this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Paee 5 of 6 I TIk uKiersigi^ applicants *'ave read. undcrstcKxl and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on belsilf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the proper!). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th dav of October, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF I lENNHPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of October. 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 wn' executed on behalf of the City. Notarx' Public Page 6 of 6 r k U-- cm' OF ORONO P.O Boi 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2049 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: August 23. 1995 ^ TO: Fred Guttcrmson/Chic Dwight COPIES TO 1220 Tonkawa Road Long Like, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION Variance Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: 8/21/95 VOTE 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted beiow NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of 8’x24’ screen porch addition Approval of 8’x24’ deck above screen porch plus stairway at north end of deck (deck and screen porch not to extend past southerly wall ot house). Approval of excavation along south wall of house to allow installation ot walkout doors, including boulder retailing wall adjacent to fiont stoop. 4. 5. Denial of proposed low boulder walls between house and lake Remove grade level woixl patio ponions outside of existing deck footprint (3’x8’ ponton of wood patio). 6. Remove small building at southeast side of property. 7. Remove deck structure at the lakeshore 8. Topdress and revegeiate area of old 8’ gravel driveway. Applicants ’ next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Citv Council Monday. September 11. 1995; meeting starts at 7.00 p.m. If you desire cenified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. I /ififlNirrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 /(#9 - #204d,Jama & Joamn Juxxit - Continued) \ Mabusth said\c septic is non^ooforming, and h is betng quesnoned wh« affect the apartment would have on the sepde. Mabusth said it is a good idea to for sepow inspcoions. Peterson agreed that the goal is not to allow the septic f .ail, noted that this property was considered a hot spot for sewenng at one time, and the applicant has been dealing with this isaie throughout all the applications Schroeder .ddM thit the.Crty c«not allow more people to reside 0,1 septre cen hendle. He is im&v-or ofiirspermons; rmd tfthe system fails, Schroder said that WOU.1 affect the condidonaKusc permit. The property has two separa^ sepdc units, one for the main residence and accessory structures The septid^ts do not meet the separation requirements Peterson commer.ted that normal ins^^ons occur every two years. This propern, according to Peterson, should be inspec^ more often. system rreiv two morahs to show its cipabiiity m handling the increased usage. cha.ge will be meurred by the applicant for e?nra inspection time Oaffren remarked that the earliest (late for sewering of the property would ^ the rad of 1996 It is Staffs sense that rhe septic is not r-anning out onto the ground, but noted tte s * nni met It IS ixrssible that the svsiem may.not be able to handle the usable ^!««rring this period of tun'e. If this is found to be true, the septic would need to be pumped out on a regular basi/ / / There were no public comments / 4 I Ayes 6. Nays Q. j Mabusth commented pn an issue Nvnh tree removal in the 0-75’ zone for waterproofang of ‘ ° 1 th;,T was nor'accroved bv Staft' .Ail of the eanh around the tunnel was moved arunne . -.^-nroofijv orocess Staff will ask for replanting of uhese trees Crawlord eimi were detenorated, and tree roots were extending into the tunnel. P^^f Te tunni'i cncroacnes .be O-Tf setback ,\n am,meed rppucation w^ ^ coming before the Planimig^ofBinission on this issue ana is m. ..pan of itus.appbc_o_------------ letot «049 FRED GUTTOR.MSO,S .AND OllC DWIGHT. 1220 TONKAWA 'rOA^VA^NCES - PUBUC HEARING - 9i25-9:4« P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and .Aflidaut of PubUcat.on were noted. \ <1. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21,1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttorrason & Chk Dwight - Continued) The applicantj were present. Gafiron reponed .he excavated consmictionofa screened porch under the deck. " RMlacement from what is now a spin entix' area. The ensting deck . JI than the would be done of the total foundation as footmgs have oeen ou ■. frost line. This would all occur wnhin the 0-7:' setoack arra average lakeshore setl»ck vartances The residence .s 42' uom the devoid be located 34' from the lake Drainage on the P~P-^' mamre trees toward the proposed screen porch 1.'» be flattened out. .etaunng walls about 1’ m hergh.i be construaed. or ground cover stablishcd to aid the drainage 37.5' shore impaa zone “ -'S'" rs,-,“ r^r:.r sssr wh.. netenorated. The ^ dheovered. Two :0-yard dumpsters were used to ^“ve^d^Sns'rm^rL yid inthouse, ..n outhouse staed bu.lrhng soil exrsts by the lakeside. Peterson sard .he aopUcat.pn has several issues He rei. the nUtng on the <0P "S d^wmTo the lake should meet approval The accessory struaure to the south should be ?^oved It was fei. the reaming walls would crea.e problems and not solve any. •si eV, hac wf»4=>ded three tunes and erosion has washed it out. It is so ItadT'harsoTwfll rTt grow and .hough, a wall would help It .s the appheanfs desire to keep the properrv' natural. Peterson felt the sliding doors would meet his approval but found the deck and screened porch were issues needing di.‘^cussioa i wMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSlON MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 4 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormsoa & Chic Dwight - Continued) Lindquist asked why the deck aiui porch would be be\’OtKl the house. The applicant said there was surface hardcover there already. Lindquist said the desire of the Planning Commission is to remove as much hardcover in the 0-75' zone as possible. Ii vvas noted that there is a 1x6’ patio extentioa leading from the patio doors Lindquist said the deck could be icplaced but the extension removed. The deck should not extena beyond the house Gaffron asked the Commission if approval were given for the walkout, would this be setting a ptecedent by allowing a change to the grade. The applicant said her purpose was to gam light into the lower level o* the home and modernize it. The applicant said it appears the grade was put in when the home was built and not originally there Peterson said he saw a problem with the bench by the dock and asked applicant if the>’ wouid be willing to eliminate the accessory smicture to gam the deck TTie applicant said about 1000 s.f of hardcover has been removed and telt they were being sensitive to that issue The applicant said the properrv' was purchased in part because ot the deck structure by the lake. Peterson said it woaid not be allowed today. The applicant said she would be willing to remove the shed by the lake. Lindquist asked if the deck could be 8’ instead of 8'6" Schroeder said the structural coverage should not exceed the amount on the property as it e.xists now He suggested the dnvewav extension and outhouse-size shed be removed as mediation for the deck .Any additional hardcover in the loop driveway that is unnecessary was also asked to be removed The applicant said this was required to turnaround noting the inabiiiry to park on Tonkawa Berg said sh- used the loop area in w hich to turn around Peterson said the applicant should be concerned with the problems being created by beavers siuwmg on the trees .Major erosion problems could occur in the tuture due to the loss of these trees Peterson asked if the issue is aitenng the iakeshore if the grading is changed Gaffron said it would be a conditional use but St^saw no need for this to be done and would not recommend approval for this or boulder walls Smith asked what could be done to maintain the shoreline Gafrfcn said the boulder wall would heip erosion from coming to the house and np-rap could be done to prevent shore erosion .A Watershed District permit could be obtained to rip rap. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 2 L 1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Contiriued) There were no public commentSw for the grade cut to allow a window or walkout door as proposed on the southeast No boulder walls would be allowed. Removal ot the concrete s*ab on . removal of the e^tstmg accessoty stmerare to the sout^ removal oM ^ p and rcsodding of same, and removal of the docK at the shoreline to meram bench-deck area were recommended. Ayes 6. Nays 0 (#11) «050 WILL1A.M TOLES. 3165 NORTH SHORE DR1%T - VARLANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:4S-10:12 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noied^ The applicant w'as present. haie no visual impact A net decrease in the hardcover would result in the 7o-a.O from 33.1% to 32.6®o. Gaffion compared the application to a 19S8 vanance approval, the ^ footage of which w. vt^otnVw^rp;:::^ m 1 p'rfo ” 9,5%. but “3^371%. and ,s proposed at 32.6% The 250.500' zone was approved m 1983 for 24 l» o, exists in 1995 at 20 4®"o and proposes no change. wTl The two survevs from 1988 and 1995 eacn use a s.ightly different base lot area for each lone NVhat Gaffion thinks happened is the dnveway ponion was eimunated b" . miarf. were n< t looked at and the overhangs were bsted separated. Th W8 aredi drtvewav has been changed with not as much loop and the garage additi. built The applicant wall take out the rock and plastic to be replaceu with hard Thf P90 s t- of lar,d in base area calculation change and 400 sT, ot concrete patio wo^ . ^ ,u oooi Wnen the rcoi is built, there would oe no hardcover within n 5"oTth?"^e ffiS rhardcover as a petcentage of the enure lot, there w^^ 21.7®'o before, and as approved, m 198S, now existing at 22.1®/o, and proposed at ^l.S/o. STATI Of ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE NO.METRO WATERS. 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL. MN 55106 h^eno 772-7910 August 21,1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Biiilding and Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O, Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE; Fred Guttormson and Chic Dwight Variance Application, Lake Minnetonka (27-133) City of Orono, Hennepin County Dear Ms. Mabusth: We have reviewed the above-referenced lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance proposal (received Aunust 8, 1995) 1220 Tonkawa Road (City #2049) and w© recommend denial of the proposal fcr the following reasons; The existing house is within the 75’ se.oack from the Ordinary High Water level (OHW) of Lake Minnetonka and does not conform with the shoreland standards adopted by the City of Orono. The proposed screened porch and deck are unacceptable because they will increase the nonconformity of the house. The proposed screened porch and deck are within the 37.5' shore impact zone of Lake Minnetonka. According to State Shoreland Standards, only water oriented accessory structures should be placed within the shore impact zone. 3 There are reasonable alternatives available to placing the screened porch and deck within the shore impact zone of Lake Minnetonka. An examination of the plat indicates that sites for screen porches and decks exist which are outside on the 75' setback to Lake Minnetonka. 4.Hardsh'p must be demonstrated to justify receiving a variance. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites; A. B. The proposed use is reasonable. It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to “functicnal and aesthetic concerns" and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth August 21,1995 Page 2 C. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to tne property, such as peculiar tocography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered - que. D. The problem must not be created by the landowner. E. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. In accordance with the city ordinance, the Department should be advised of the action taken on this request within 10 days of final action. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these variances. Should you have any questions please contact me at 772- 7910. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist c:City of Orono shoreland file Ed Pick, Shoreland Hydrologist Dale Homuth, Regional Hydrologist To:Chair Sieve Peterson aiKJ Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:August 14, 1995 Subject:#2049 Fred Guttormson/Chic Dwight. 1220 Tonkawa Road * Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, One Acre Single Family Residential Application: Request for hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances to replace existing deck, construct a screen porch underneath it, excavate to create access for a proposed walkout door, and create some low boulder walls, all in the 0-75 setback zone. Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.22. Subd. 1/Section 10.55, Subd. 8/Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C): Structures not allowed within 0-75 ’ setback zone. Section 10.22. Subd. 2/Section 10.55, Subd. 8/Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L): No hardcover allowed in 0-75 ’ setback zone. 3.Section 10.55, Subd. 8/Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J): Grading, filling and excavating not allow'ed within 75 of the lake. List of E.xhibits A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Propeny Owners’ List Survev Hardcover Calculations Plans and Elevation Views Staff Sketch August 8. 1995 Memo from Bruce Vang Neighbor Acknowledgement Form Synopsis The applicant,, purchased this propeny in Odober, 1994. Since then they have replaced an existinc didine cl ass door on Ihe walkout level below the extsling deck, and now wash to do addi'tionafwatrk.'ari of which is in the 0-75' setback zone. The proposal includes reniwal of the existinc 8’ x 24" deck and 4' x 6' stairway (216 s.t. total) and replace it with a 9 x 24 cround tloir screen porch with 9' x 30 ’ dcck/staitway above it (270 s.f.). Zoning File #2049 August 14, 1995 Page 2 The existing house is 42’ from the shoreline. The existing deck is 34’ from ^e shoreline. The proposal would increase the bulk of physical structure encroachment in the 0-75 zone In order to construct the screen porch, applicants will be excavating under the exis^g deck, which may result in the need to replace footings under the east end of the house. The proposed screen porch would require perimeter footings. Additionally, applicants propose to replace existing lower level windows at the southeast front of the house with a glass door, r-quiring excavation to create the ability for a walkout. While this excavation is minimal in the number of cubic yards to be removed, it does expose a larger portion of the facade to the lake within 50' of the shoreline. Although applicants have suggested Uiat this excavation plus a twulder wall adjacent to the main entry”are to prevent erosion, there is no existing erosion problem, and the grading is merely to create the ability for a w,tlkout door on the south facade. Applicant additionally proposes a series of low boulder retaining walls between the hou« and shoreline. There are a number of mature trees and some underbrush wtthinlS of the shoreline, but the slope is not so great that any significant erosion is occurring. The s r cettainlv maintainable as it exists without boulder walls, and any excavation or fill ng to establish the proposed walls might have a negative impact on the existmg trees and vegetation. Hardcover Issues There is some accessor)' hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone, including a 10’ x 14’ deck adjacent to the lake, sidewalks adjacent to the house, and a gravel driveway loop wWch ^cent y upgraded. Applicants survey indicates an 8’ gravel driveway that previously led |o lake has been removed, as have a 10’ x IT shed and an 8’ x 10 shed. (See survey. Exhibit D.) •\ faint sketch on the 1970 survey apparently used for the original building permit, as well as* 1989 Citv air photos, suggest that a loop driveway and access drive to t^ lake has existed for manv'vears. The portion leading to the lake (noted by surv'eyor as 800 s.f.) has recently been removed, but is not revegeiaied. The loop driveway has new gravel and sod boundaries and is clearly defined. Most of the loop is wiUiin the 0-75 setback zone. A hardcover analysis of the property is as follows: I. 0-75 ’ Zone (Area = 33.050 s.f.) <;triirtiirnl Hardcover: Existing Proposed House 770 s.f. Deck (attached)216 s.f. Deck (at lake)120 s.f. 1,106 s.f.(3.35%) House 770 s.f. Att. Deck/Scr. Pch.270 s.f. Deck (at lake)120 s.f. 1,160 s.f.(3.51%) os ■- vvio' .A ^ ^ - ^ ’ V Zoning File #2049 August 14, 1995 Page 3 Xon-Stnictural Hardcover: Existing Loop Driveway Sidewalks, etc. Wood patio at walkout 1,530 s.f. 113 s.f. 24 s.f. 1,667 s.f. (5.04%) Proposed Loop Driveway Sidewalks, etc. 1,530 s.f. 113 s.f. 0-75 ’ Totals: Existing Structural Non-Structural Total 1.106 s.f. 1.667 s.f. 2.773 s.f. 1,643 s.f. (4.97%) Proposed (3.35%)1,160 s.f.(3.51%) (5.04%)1,643 s.f.(4.97%) (8.39%)2.803 s.f.(8.48%) There are no rock or plastic covered areas in the 0-75 zone the lot is in the 0-75’ zone. Almost three-fourths of 75-250' Zone (Area = 13.400 s.f.) In the 75-250’ zone, existing hardcover is as follows: Structural hardcover Non-Structural hardcover Total hardcover 900 s.f. 3979 s.f. 4.879 s.f. (6.7%) t29.7%) (36.4%) No changes are proposed in the 75-250’ hardcover zone. issues for ju^ines increasing the bulk of s.ructure encroaching in the 0-75 zone? . Is there any justification for granting a variance (and conditional use permit) for excavation in the 0-75’ zone to create the proposed walkout along the south facade? Zoning File #2049 August 14, 1995 Page 4 • Although removal of the 8 ’ gravel driveway in the 0-75 ’ is a positive step, the City has no real "baseline" dau on what was there, nor on how extensive (or how hard-surfaced) the loop driveway was prior to its recent upgrading. Is the loop driveway in the 0-75 ’ zone necessary? Remember that no permit was obtained (nor technically required) for spreading additional gravel on an existing dnveway. yet this policy results in perpetuation of non-conforming hardcover. . Does prior removal of the two sheds out of the 0-75 ’ zone provide adequate structural mitigation for the proposed screen porch/dcck? . Is there justification for allowing the 12" retaining walls between the house and the shoreline, even though their visual impact might be minimal? If constructed as proposed, what is their impact on the existing vegeution and trees. . If the excavation t- create the new walkout/patio door is allowed, is the additioMl facade exposure m the 0-75 ’ zone significant enough to warrant the need for additional screening? Staff Recommendation It IS recommended that Planning Commission consider this request based on the visual impacts of the proposed addition as well as the perpetuation and expansion of the existing non­ conformities. Lep in mind the distinction between stractural and non-structural Consider whether removal of the 10’ x 10’ shed near the driveway loop and removal ot the 8 gravel driveway to the lake justifies expanding the bulk of the house lakeward. Also, consider me non-conforming status of the freestanding deck at the lakeshore. • • CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee 5200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S 100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming stracturcs i-UU. After-the-Fact Fees ;DoubIe appiicauon tee) #9. // <3 TT "7 /a A ■ r--v “cU a • » •! WM W Jtu* c * -*^* ** r* ”w — ' >• *u^ VI • -uu J. w-vV-V .V •“ t- v.rrv VI i- 1 i.;.-* vrr ••w' - - PROPERTY LVFORMATIOj^ , _ Site I itTi Property Identification Number (P.I.D.), _0_i------------^ ^ - —:Property Identmcauon .Num.Der i . required sui^ey Attach legal descript.on to applicat.on not^mdud.d Date Propeav Acquired_____\Q —--1^ “ (month/year) Zoning District:______________________________ “ applicant k p i\ Name V~r e^V ^ ~ v2gai Address: I i Phone (home) Hi I - < i rc IxQ_______Zip: ONVNER (if different than applicant) Name --------------------------------- Phonedicme) Phone (work;)_ .Address; Cir.';Zip: DESCRllTION OF REQLXST 4^escnbe request in detail ; viik^ Es^iimated Constru^on Cosj^_^^j2/20 .<vv. <c- IN. (afech adthtion^ sheets if necessary) VMUANCES REQUIRED Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Lot ."vTwIl -----— ~ Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) (T\,>^<c> , ^ 3* pcc.v. ! ■ -J --A H..VRDSH.P'DESCR.ri1oN OF ^ Descnce undue hardship or practical di compliance with Zoning Code requirements. (dittich iiddition3.1 sheets if necess^i^) va Tc.eC ^.a~44o.-m s o ,- r' 1. 2. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All .h. fniinwiny j-f^pn^inn he submittH hv the appli.ratioH deadline date in opia: fnr vQur application to he considered complgte: - of >“' <7Hennepin County Department of Fmance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3^ 1). - sr:rt* “(Ssvrr^v-"-’";;, ■.“ts----calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8 A x 11 ?o'^g“pidc survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade - Ire'^foTosed. In Iddiuon. provide one (1) copy S'A" x 1 o^epr^ucnon. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/2 x ). — LUt 0'the leeal names (include marital status) of all persons with an .merest .n the ----nrooerty This would include name(s) of applicani(s) if not current owner(s). _ M L7ddendum 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 statf. The Aoolicant and Propertv Owner must sign this application. Please remember that voup ' .rianre anplicatinn is nut compime if the above iiiformjttinn has not beetijnchnie^ ^^e’’tpplfc^'hefe‘S'^a1Sr^ provide all information required or requested by the Zoning information supplied is true and coirect to tl^besi qthis^^^knowledge. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Applicant’s Signal / ml^wnm torty and agrees to this application and further ^“>h»rizes reasoi^ble "^y :nto me propeny by Cry smff. comultanm, agents^ Co~n members, and CouncU •~7 /.•a 7 Af S" rniincil If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangme m Save araumordt em attend in your place and to advise the Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 iUH OATI 07/ia/«iM 'MTCI< S04-»> j ««»HWC4lTAXPAYER Y : XM)i/AOOR 1. •• V1 MB |-mji- _____ ■'liC'-TAXPAYER • tttXE/AOOR t'fy' ■.’ . 'to;:- .■ t ‘,1 • I'x.fi • I PROP AOOR i t(: OXNER NAME4taxpayer : A 4 *ji I t.*r -• *• t r:*'•■'■■ ‘ i'ft ’W / ’ .r • \ t i '■:1> r •I • I il :!;!^ i.- •■;: '■' \:hr"':’ **. » »*i . •’ .*/. ‘V.; ‘*; » ,4 ■ ill*: ■ '•. .'.i ! -. ‘.V \ • • r% - • ♦ M Pt-U7-» IS 0005 OIMO TCMUOU 00 lOLPOiD OCOOCO I NXFErainico pcoKoItOO.TQNMHA 00 LQNO URC 104 55154 SO 00-U7-tl H OOlS 01205 TOMUHA 00 THQHAS H SHITH A NIFEmoms N swTH 1205 TOriCAHA 00 LQNO LAKE HN 55354 SO 00-117-23 42 (M 01S45 TOMCANA 00 0 I J FUTNAH SALE L PUTNAH 1345 TQNKAHA OOAO NAYZATA HN 55391 1' * t :■> i NifiCFlN• • • ■ 'm COUNTY OOOOfOTY INFOONATION SYSTEN FOOFERTY QM4E0S LIST OEFOOT NO. FACE PI4354011030 00-117-23 IS 01100 TQNRANA 00 0 E ENOEOOETSON ET AL OICNAOO E ENCEOOETSQN 1100 TQNRANA ^tC LQNO I^KE HN 55354 30 00-117-23 13 000701140 TQNRANA 00 0 K HOLLAND 1 E SULLIVAN OANOY HOLLANO/ERIC SULLIVAN 1160 rONKANA 00 LONG LAKE HN 55354 SO 00-117-23 42 0001 01220 TONKANA 00 F E QUTTOOHSON/X J B OHICHT F E OUTTQOHSONA: J B OHIGHT 1220 TQNKAHA 00 LQNO LAKE HN 55354 30 08-117-23 42 0003 03344 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF HINNESOTA STATE OF HINNESOTA DEPT NAT'L RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL m 55155 * \ TOTAL BATCH 504 00007 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEN^«PIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, YO THE BEST OF HY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE • ^ /O {1t I ♦ ’% s j* l» *,v* «■ • I fo^w ® \ fej' '^‘^1Kri. -;i'r: -y \ *V • *. I- V *m ^.•* 92^ 4. Contmur if. 'iK-U ^>* ?,c -\4 <. %J ^*v ^ r r ^ ’ -V ^co^<c^^.-‘'-^J'J•-* W..VV I'X ^co%.c... i.cCAl n^SCMPUGN CF P^E^^lStS I^dt par: 0* LPl 9. AudjUr's Subdivision Numbrr 2’/, riinnesold. lying Soutnerly uf 1 line pdraMni -iin in ejsierly di rigM angles from a linj described as at a point on tne Easterly lirie of County Moad No. feet Soutnea sier I y along said Easte^'ly line 'rcm its ?ne Norm line of Lot 10. said auditor’s suDiJ i v i s 1 on . easterly M3.C feet to a pcini distant 1004.'eet t angleii ^rom the Nortn line of said Lot 10, thence con easterly nn the ejitensiun of the I ast-desc'*'bod I 1 nr Ma>-eil's Bay. and there terninat1ng. •: denotes iron marker found Bearings shown are based upon an assumed ddlum. This Survey intends to show the boundaries of the abi* property, the location of an existing house and sned. tion of all existing ‘hardcover*’ mereon. It :oes not show any other inprovements or encroachmenls. Q z 3 < if^ oo tJ>' z t-q £ lUzzz *UJz I 1 r f 1 r i f w V' II » t% l» 4* I i i’ 1 ■ sEn»cfcjq*)j TV^-yjy ret/ 7^//‘fS 25-50 A. House Lcnsdi X X X B. Garage C. Driveway r* i4tc( D. Sidewalk __ oTHfcoiicfirrE_ *• • m » E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other /o X X X X X X X X X X X fC> X ^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ________ - 3 - PROPOSED hardcove r TN ZONE A. House ______________ ^ Lcfijjdi B. Garage c. Dnveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X ■ X X X X X X X X X X WuiOS ^mm> *• * r am ss ss SOI X 100 WiJih O. Other .Sp 8^ ■“ * TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZWE A -----------:--------- B X 100 - • • 14 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. lS3o ~SToo yo S.F. 1 42 S.F. S.F. c.-:-:..;:.J Z40‘ S.F. IZO /ao ?o yyo ■70 ! xn .S.F. S.F. S F. S.F. S.F. .• - -V •• \£) ! y ■5^ ---------------->ni 3 7S3 S.F. ^ OSO S F. /7 2S % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /^30__ S.F. S.F. OSs-\2^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. " S.F. 7m A B »V ; >r; ^ vvuVC * *• » ; .i . i*. ’ ■ U. :^r i -).: ;'g'’-o‘-> ;? '> . ^ "i ----------i“-T • ^ • • • t ' * •‘fir''----1 ' kiroiMki 1 1 0\ l-\ \ U Or_ ------TTX^n* T \3-9"• r > r» iH . .6 V ». <t I > V* il i ' \/—r .*i.--f___-^t7 t* %. — ,'i« « 4 •• ^4.^*^' Vrr^r tf^JlZ s7 "" ■le 3 ■f!f±r:7E £.“4 i l«» O ^ 19 31 •» 5 • c i: t~!: j^-Li li -1. • 9 - + 4 4 - O MA//^ ^ B =1 I t ::::i J:£t a. V "B \^BD-ToOV6x^ •. Tr w •T * » V• • • I t ‘ A o*‘XT-ft"4 » . * . f \‘> -j..' '•-.r T; % • 00- • S4VO* - . 1 • r ■h r 1 »J H--I .•• ♦*2-9i.LI O w — / I ^ WOClf •• 11 ^ i P U'.-0(< Q *%t ^’Af {*11 *"***! * . » I < . Q» *m EErEF - i . ::::L:__ „ . Lik4/»o%.^( ' Twml . ^ i 9\^m^ . ) /ar i/V Cik :i uy © 'I j ii t> Kf ^ *. »» -p ^ ^ ._ — ««»»«« 4.» <'« I- £=ttt=zr3S—I- ll M l' -t- T a _____________ _. _ I 1.11 4* e fSM.«. F T . . . >UzJ:h »Cir A ( / ^/ :?■■•••r : . '■ *' I I • *1 5\U^ CtiL * X wt ^ I t»MWt r I I I: •«'■ ', 3 “'^ I . ' “ . .*r¥fU>i ct r T i—— ”3 — —— . 9 7‘-o • I S0 7*Ja/yc#‘i Q l 8 ■• o ‘ 2 I b Z-. .»t ' 1 :ii. 4 - i------ 6 - (i.- I 4.-1- n ki I J' e.1 li - t- ^-1- o - ___'iL'.i" ,U»i. V.O .• ^uJevs. ---- y I i I r (S) ^'•»'<-» o<^ l-'vAl'<oC(<io l-« UJ \ 'I U ^ o 'o-^C l< 4of<. ■S^tcl<?ir<. Qcot'^'o ON^ly- OPCTO 1 _1 / '^ - 7 - -'• '■’■'' 1 /' * t : ■' v' ' '• % ^ 1 - / V / ✓y - • /•/m •i 1 /i • / > ^‘ 0 'NJ# ____ ■■! i i AS i—fVC.'f- o L A M A U ' ‘ uj,4 Vn Op c-tJ ctocxo J • — r v’=f7 c:) O t o, i.* •'•• **— ... '-- -■^ -•-t * 'V*'* ♦ • *«•■**%•% •/ 'I • 33- X - ^ -~- - .jr_i_._:.-r,-------- •s ! r*-' 1 1 1 I 1ii 1 * i ji-,—j, / ✓. ;y; .- // y^// ‘ / : / / * / / 1 •r . Pv^o p \/ » p f 'I*’ *W»*’^-»** * ‘ • - • -.• v*v Tn Tv *. i; V S' ^" . . I LoOol^ l\Wi» ^O ^ O '/c. _IS5iOQ^' 'ITW/ ■ i56D"T6nKi^Co ' f- \ *' *\ i-> ? — .« •: ♦• 4 • • -n ' 1 I - i k \ 3' & f ^71/' 7^’-"=> /P'^-n y>v'^ AV .. * • > !! -i ■> i ! h 1 ( I I I’l' -----Vr— ___I'fr. ^ <1^ I /,! » -V*♦ t *; .• f» • « ^ . • - ' Si ' ‘ t / , • , .■«»• *' * . ,' •*!•».*. 1 • • -^ • <•- *i*M* . ^••.'•/ , f ■ •• ■.*v* ^ • . ’••'l 1. ; ■• . ;. V-- . . ‘•; Vj* vll> . 'K ; •.-• .■■ 4'^ Vt V?!^ j'4 ■s'?':;: i.|| : • . •• * /•.■‘•i-r;' 4‘,M ‘j- ‘A -•■ .’ •- •••" ^v- ‘‘ • '{••; • > • r ife' •; ■ - V* '.'! ■ '• ' f ‘ ' a TO: FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Bnice L. Vang. Building Inspector August 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Variance Request - 1220 Tonkawa The existing deck at 1220 Tonkawa is quite old. rotting, and poorly built in the first place. The building department could not allow this deck to be used as a roof for the propo^d ^reen porch. Is a new roof to be built under existing deck or perhaps to replace existing deck. New footings and foundation for proposed porch must be continuous 42" deep footings to replace present post footings under deck. The existing house foundation adjoimng the propiised porch must be replaced at 42" deep when earth cover is removed along wall. •to . » Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form It name(s)][print address] rsarrsv; r„&?. aS£' I (wc) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I ('^e) am (^e) not Cou"u rprop"^ed°Lighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Date 7S. DateProperty Owner ***i*.***^:*:j^»-»**-l^*fj;;jf _________—~......to. ‘ . . f ^ I, ^ S# -■.. »• ■ •* - w . 'toto' “."I ‘ to«- •••-» •»•••■• . . • •* to • •• - 4 ;. ..• • : V;. *./ j. . •' ‘ *- 1: /-i* • *' ' '* • -t’ ’ -;*f'.v • ’ .*; . . • .to .. .‘^0* .‘V . ■ #' •' * . to ■ ‘ . . ’ - !’**••>*.•■ V * . .*•.*• •-• to . * \ ^ ‘ * • ■ * ' .'to.- . toiVto-/to-toto .\ 2- • . to .K' V- -> * - t ‘ * 1* ‘'•• **»‘^*^*r/' _ _ —«to to -• to V ;■• Vv to. • • • .1 to# • .*? * / • • ‘ ■ s » :* *; * , tot,. -to -.. *• * . ,0.... --i*. ‘ . •• • ^••v; V * . •* .*^ ■*• “* •- . . • *. •' * .■• •• ♦ to ................ •• ‘ , • . • »> to^-to. to#rfi^/.«3m^Mr^ COUNCIL MEETING REQITEST FOR COLNCIL ACTION DATE: October 3, 1995 OCT 9 1995 CfTY OF ORONn ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Jeanoe A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: <5^051 Mike Hilbclink, 2760 Watertown Road - Subdivision - Private Road Name Approval List of Exhibits A - Application-Private Roadway Request B - Pages from Hudson Directory C - Preliminary Plat The Police Department, Public Works and Building and Zoning Departments have reviewed the choice of names for private road within the Rosch Addition. The staff unanimously recommends approval of applicant’s first choice. Copper View Drive, finding no conflict with road names within the City of Orono nor within the adjacent cities. A standard stop sign as well as a street sign will be required by the developer. Both stop sign and street sign can be purchased from the City at a fee of S75.00 each, which also covers the installation by the City. Signage cannot be ordered until the City is in receipt of payment (S150.00). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; To approve the name of Copper View Drive, applicant's first choice for the private road within the Rosch Addition plat. • Control Mo. _ _ CITY OF ORONO PRIVATE ROADWAY REQUEST A. The subject of this request Is; ________ an existing private roadway. V a proposed private roadway which Is to be created as a condition of pending subdivision approval. Tlie ovmer(s) of this Private Roadway and/or all abutting property will be (are) the owner(s) of the following described property; Lots 1, 2, and 3 Block 1# Roach Addition B. C- The above owner(s) hereby request that this Private Roadway be known by the following name; D. Choice No.1 Copper View Drive Choice No.2 Copper Meadow Drive % Choice No.3 Golden Meadow Drive (List three cliolces in order of preference. The City Council will approve a name provided no conflict exists with existing names or naming policy. If all names have a conflict, you will be asked to . make new choices. Ihe approved name will be used for all mailing address and official identification purposes.) The above owner(s) hereby request the City of Orono to install the following standard street and traffic signs and said owner(s) hereby agree to reimburse the City for all costs of said installation. (Such signing may be required as part of a separate Developer's Agreement and/or subdivision request.) X standard city street name slgn(s) - number required 1 X standard "STOP" sign(s) - number required _ _ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ standard traffic slgn(s) described below; Total - number required 2 The above ownor(s) do hereby acknowledge the (future) existence of said private road, and that the City of Orono has no obligation to maintain or service said private road, and that the City of Orono does not Intend to acquire or open said private road as a public roadway. Slgnature(s) of owtier(s); Date I# Pi*» Fl. S. Ik". i m <sbsi igm «■s' S;.2v«» 5« «L :lc.6«la :u -* -i* :wC«f*u» MO :wCv««u» • ®'. *•* *• :;,c-f « i£A^ §N ;LCv€«aorie *3 ;;.Cve»C*cI :a» TSC'.f ®Ltaf'_• irf CLCv€»L£A»i . . S’» ;^w«L* *>*•• SwOS "0 SL :;.w« xal.£t "T S'** •Of* :lt€ ®o mo ;»«*CLf *• :x:o -wA ••€ •• CC w.Nf *0 f :0 i. »•€ aO f A»T t S aC>«ma»« •Of! SCaChmahS c> 5* :CACHt(i»«x:o c • A# SCAC^wOOO *0 AS ;CA’f? 8LV0 'T*^ :CATES SLVO .MT CCSAl ’ ••A «A :c»s *0 sv ccemf *»*i.c CT AS :css(.f *Mtc 0* AS :0S8i€-'l. AiCC^f AS ::sslI« ct :• CSSti ?•-••€ §••• SOC»-*A».f A«C €3 c' AS :oc-*AH€ r« AS V-’ f • CCCf. A^f CO S.T£»f"» A M*’. :c^*>4aa cA mp C»tj'A5 la M« » su .o «v :c**aa.s>’» c ■ j^ :C**AH.‘if> 5T Arf CC**ahS€* 5^ S^* -C«*t»5Fv * # ;ct8A.* '■ AS :oc8';*H» S'* :oi.8' *••• :• .” COCflcAA nr CH :ots»A<f «•» C STLB’ .*•£'.« AS :OU: A • £ ( MP- : :’-CS' -o ;0l5 iA'Pf .A M** ■."'CfAl «« .CufA* A .1 COV'AJ :cc£ Ai A »f 'ICLf AI Awf ::ctA AI A,f :oi^£iLi A.f roL/Ai A¥f so * AA LA M*1 C«A -*A ’f • wf MB :c iA'i A.* T' l^IILn A,f .tf »H A,I :ll£ SH c • C'L..t»'A .*: <a Ct^£ j€ A,f :ct.i-if A *t ZLU jA AO :ci..» Jf »*1 if *a COlwt'jf PAH« -U lOCL^vir^’l A »o CLi£»* fS :Cli_ AAi ACB- c A :l^hsa.« •?• -Ov^HS C« »A _______ ZC^2 A * • ' L - c- aa ______ :>V3 ____ aC -J ............ ;>s !A-A1 . -A ' * A .• >.5 .. - C-iS Sa-a* *C JO ‘->♦4 __ . :s-:* -to JO-aO :c-i • 1Z~Z' ' iC-“ B-«A c-'S a ; 48-1 . . lO-J? _ ZC-3T tO-4 ;0-4» .8^ -0 *: :• •>3' AA 47 •AA’ :j 13 S-J4 8 14 :-A j: • A ,‘ ’ 18 • ir- A ' 8; ’ :8 •« '.-• , 18-14 .B S4 A-4 ;>i4 '.s-j: c rA •8 :• A^ .«% J -I . 14 .A- ‘8 '0 :s 3• .0-43 .8-4» ____ i- . 3c^:8 ;o-j4 .: a; ^ .a-a; y> ’ • A> • ’ ■ > ; :o. * 18 :* .->-!■ A :a :a .44 : a3 «8 ‘ 1 .8 A «a-a4 8 V 8 • * <X* r £« OC-MSAAa C' • «M CL-MA.A Avf MPV CiLMSA ABf 4lP» -■ OlcMA A SL'-O M«r. ct-MS A :* ;*-s Ol^mp a c’' 8S . Cl , M» A L' A» ®M CLwMa se .»♦ SO OiLM».jS ?•* CL-MSLSA*? Sl CLLMSlSA.E m*l.. CLoM8*-SA»f **= OVwMSuB c • • . „ JV..MSUS *0 9L Ct-Mr 5* vX. S A,f i'P MAM>•« «0 ? ____:0-3» AA *? :C- f 20-4S 1A47 *<:- I •0-l« ‘A-aS . AO.J* 4A.-3 ■..:i.-i 30-A7 :S-44 iC 14 1CA3 .. 2C--« ...... IC.Af ... ^ ;• .A .........>-0-14 8-40 c :)m4si:**e ** meo a8’4 * 'Mf’ ; A MP 832 "CM?T .^A K*. . 3C- -2 ::me* ,a up .. .832 . UMAM.Hf C" £3 ___ 8-4 --Vur»CEAvf a*2'V44 :' MME«*:f SLVO MC ;a 30 jmmE*l| C A E •“:8'3 : :mme»Lf CiA 1 .8*0 MUf A(.E C " H .8*0 . • UME A'CE C A -S :4 *5 c.'mme»i:ila **_18*0 • :uME»Ci ST COA .. -C-* mme»<:e 5' *v CA ;• mmEpc E 37 Br :c*IkC-' ^ MUE*Cf HAv 3C^ :uuE<»< c ST E :3«^ - : MUf ac Aw AvE *7 3C-18 :cmm'-*t:;A, S’ CP 10-4 : *mme*oaw ST -0 4 . .98 MMfBC Aw ST S’*A )« W4e*n:awste *h lA ; s Mur<.«'Bf C* 82 lA ” r .'jMM'Jshcaw’h S’?;r " _ ; MM ’SWf AW'H A .? »H . 2* MMt SHE.AL’*• C« f*a-VaO MU.. S. • * B 8BN X 1 M 4 .E .; 2* . M. A«E S’”?0-26 2C : CU ' A,E jE us ;8.4 : uO 8w V 0 € j' *4 uo Sk. <0 H S’p ac ;* .. Uk^^> 3'*Av,-;f UkC P*. S’P •*.-•* mh> " f ■ a , e *l ACA* MP* A .C f 2 A 4 • MSf ‘-via S3 .A PJ M 5’ 4 P A «f : *s •8 •• _ :us ’ xp :t s -i**.A 5* US' x;p wA s ui3 0 4 u.s:.^p,p t_A s tv U- 4 US’^CP ®0 MP •A 12 MS’ Y.B HAf ? GH •85* ,M 1 H’O CL A ^A :8 *0 : sl.’aoa.e eo AO-13 AA.A • ,U*B1 CAP Si Oh •0-44 A84 ‘ ' OMLk op '■ a -.mS 4PA CLSaTl AT 0« f*aa-at }M i'0»^ _«.C C CM V 00 f *JH SjP 44 44 'M 1 HC PV SiP • 0-38 4 * 44 SC or ST .1 • 0 1 sc< oic J ’P .S- .4 M coo S’ SH fO M «D 4 ’ S «SP ‘ 844 'M LAO 7f 0 f s • A 4 • .13 IMLOCfP' goN .« 1 ’ -M.-'af-lA Av« -*B 4^15 4 A M L«0<A S’ CO 4A j.) .•.rw* i: .L Sui /*l I s M»* 'All* 4A a S7 1C p*» .SA.f »P •s.,*.,S.S E :*P 'M.*f ss 5' A» 4'* SNU .• S* am . . .3 C 4 1 14-47 .rwi« ’8 >4 .1 4 A8 4 :xsf 5 ’p •c ;•NPEUAAA 'A CM s: 56 :CL ;si4w - ■ MV • A.; A NP E 0 SB) *1 ••A 0 ZOL'CS'Il C’ so •4.B •SS-f .4 V.8 lA .ClCK'A. CA ',v 4. .«HMAAvE mh . . C ) CC.Lsukw CO Hfi *o-v»e NM AC’ MB).o;o CCLCNWAw : A By CO %..PiiLA.i A #E ILL 8 4J4 CXC-NLAL «0 Gv yz-:t S8AU4.E S jH S. 5* :CL Csuk.. 4i*« *3 .SAC * j T SE po 0*6 :X Ls » c” »p •8-4-SAO* ’“ € V.H '.All COLLNY Bi*» t.7 • 4 .4*. SAO* W4 T ? ViH ■ A. * ’ 30lC*LaCO 4 .f s %P CO A . ISS’AE^ f Sl vQ SE H.2* J 5A J :ct-p>cpi A,f p ..p .8-4 -~H.S *AM,E »L .0 SB) 4S 4. 4 . J .:oLCA>rx) 4 .f s 3v iC •'•»ST4m.E C« f 3V 8 .'4 COLOOADO A.f S jv _ ____ JA .5 •IS * AMIE CA B) 3 V :8 ;• ZCLZ^AD>J Avf 3 Sl C8-44 HS*4hp s: S’P -816 CXOO>Lij A*E 5 EUT ____ 48a;Sf stil CA €3 -----------20-13 :XCHAC«5A^f s 3^_____:c C5 ST-SES7 4L CO SB 8 9 cXkCAA.x)4.r 1 -,vi X 54 s>Y0 4«E SSP _____ )C- .14 CXC^OA.B k A Pv ____:.c *»S-.4 A IT Bi*5P 10 14 CX^OAlBl P.A iv _________X ;i .S>SAf4rff MB). >20-29 COLOAAOO AO 8L .____________ 18-44 , svwif 5t S’?->34>2§ CXXC40UP) 6T f •’» .28 34 IL)C>B A#Yi Brm ______ 1C-*3 COA.OHA4A3STS »A .____________ 4847 IvSjP A/? E jro _____ . ._____.X-29 COLOAAOOSTH 5TP ________ 2834 CX3o 4v1 4t STP *C 29 a-sr -• :oci oGf A,f fo SC*?l DO€ Awf 5L :0CL OGf 5 ’ aa ;cci XiE ST s€ M*1 : >x o-if 81 4A : ?os c®f £■ :« s ^oos laa* :• H E8 - x's AAP*: 4 Sk.^0 :• IZCH SAP 04 8k. »0 €.«T :co*****f fo : ocpf* AvE f (jN :0'CP«acA £0 Oh COOP?* .A AV :0O*«A PA”S E •OH :o*'p«* S’ : >CP?* AAB s Oh J :»« A,« MAI ::*? AvE «v ; :*f c’ MH .'PS^SC C* I »1H : P?LAS0*C NO 1 :a?.*NO AAt € <1H :o*'.s''Avi 47* ;c**?* LA £ 3 ;^l»c«4 PL E3 .c^*?* :•- *•* :0PQ«or'gLD CX MP :-ao«ai.:E^0 P(, MP ;QP»«a#»CC0 mb :0CL SA 3’ S\8 PA : ?*.al -a C 3 ;C*A. SfA 3’ HE SN COPCCAaslA CO* :c«ca*.As f : :• , 3*CC*-AS TP Pi cu« .'•C C * SB r 4 ’- sf 8N ar.iSAL : • Cv :c*fss c* MP 0*t'* p A^h * OH lO«USS ha * E Qh *:«ne,iACi8 *0 :: osEt A “• f o -psEl;. JT H »M •:*Sfi.L C« MV CPSEllST’ C* - .psEll '■ H -m UHMlA*i . :»nhal. 5 c* fo .»OSA* CN"0 13 : '«csF ’ r* MP ; _Ba*'PA'« HA* fP -.bp'"o>*e :esT|0 p« f<3 •'3PPAL lA €* • -;BPA^ 80 '•« ;C*«GASC* AV . .. . ,pv AV .:r.«T_AHS -.*• S 3'C . - . :o8tlahs c ? ov ------- .:C**L*HSC N H ov ------ CCn^A^SAWf C"T . COWPCvf »H . ------- CC5MC-? >A ?0 .........- C0T~A if AvE HST -------- LJT'TajE Avf E s ’8--------- CO’^AGE AvE H i'8 ....... :cr*Aof C' HBT -------- C0T^AJ€ >* MP „ . ;C’’*A if I-A M’S C 3'^'A if wA HST Q’”A.,CPL Sv COT’a iE CiOHSa hO -- CQT-'AOf i«cvf AV? M8 :c”'AOf sAo.f r« hs ;'}”*A3e PAMp ‘ D H8L ;,:t-aA.c c*n C0’’’A1EHX'0' € 5T* cc^’^AiE# x>c A.e sf . . ’O-rs ‘ J’'''AaEHOCOCl8 s LI'S _ S4AA CO’^A jEHOOO *0 C*N . 4C-J*. CO^A JE HCCO 7?* is ;0-4 ■0*^ALiE SCOC 7f • SL#» ..AA-'J 0T-CSH'X:0 c • S\H C* *8-4 CQt*0SH>D0-ST ^ - 4A-2 ‘A CCT-TOSH'. CO I A CPS 4C-1 ’ :'?''cswoco LA MU . .. :s-io : : 7”Gsvv(>:o LA s mo . - !0-4a «c-4 .;C7'7C:shCOO LA S »L 58-'6 48-.'a :CT’’CSHC<;0 5T ».v* C8 COT-OshGOO 4T sh 0».1T COT^ :sHCOO T« MED : ?L«j4M o« f 1 :xl,4»t«cd — COLLCE *D ho ----- :-C'-'i’c-»r* :<-s ------ ^•priLCN MP ----------- ^»,7*VC 8 f lC«------------------- AC -U . . . 4C-13 •c-a ...Ill ■ irl •-• • : 4 IC-A .0-13 50-44 !A 51 :c-i3 !A 51 !A-«6 18-5* :8-4” ............. tt *•* 4A..I 50- * 40-;0 lA-51 )0> «A 18-a^A ‘A-5* *c ;? 0-40 ir.ii A-12 5CV *A 4A.2A C-40 AO-4 i8-T 28-T 38-T §-'• ____ «'-5 . 58-4A ac-;4 _ 5A41 _ ....... . iO-44 •8-4* . 48-4 _ . .............48- 73 :a- • aa-OA . ............ - 4C-:i ________50-40 __________’8-48 ------------------jc-ia . . 2C-H3 , . lc-43 - ;A-4 ’ 4A-C0 .... «A- '0 . «A-6t .. ;c-;s JC-i» ........3C-af ____28-77 ____?caT _____30-50 ........s8-*a ____28-26 _____...4C-?7 r: 48- 6 'B-.’l 8-13 •A-12 : 8-0 7 A 2C--9A •0-:l 40-** . . . - 20-27 •0-5 7A-C . 20-14 . 50-40 10-13 4C-2V8 40-19 :o-24 -OLS-7MV r ’ HS :cuN7«t c« lc tCLsrav r« sa „CLNTBV ^ SAN :CLN7«v la 1. CQLNTPv la MP COONTPY la 3'1 CCHjnTPY PL BAS CO'jNTOV BO MA8 COUNTRY TA E ScT JC-44 ____8-20 _____-8-88 .,... .>3C-5. ...- - 2A-4A ______3C-i< .5C-2A.TC-2A . 50-A6 *0-47 u \ Y* r h t «r I rr f REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION &QUi«ULir.£uluj OCT 9 1995 cmroFORONO DATE: October 6, 1995 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approral: Name Jeanne A. Mabusih Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zomng Item Description: #2058 Ron Rantz/Autografs. Inc., 2525 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan - Resolution Council conceptually approved the commercial site plan and issuance of building permit for the new office building for Autografs. Inc. The resolution has defined the conditions of approval and also set forth the Cirv ’s position on applicant's request tor a future rezoning. The City has prepared an open space easement to be taken over Lot 3 that will prohibit all residential development except for those improvements approved viih this application or as required under the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit. Staff has met with the applicants to review both documents. Minor changes have been made and both applicant and applicant's consultants have approved the final draft fonns presented for your review and final a-, tion. The resolution and open space easement was faxed to the City AtTomey's office earlier this week, but as of this writing we have heard no further from the Attorney's office. Council may wish to ask the City Attorney for any comments he may have concerning the documents at your meeting. Applicant's attorney is in the process of drafting an agreement dealing with the phased parking installation plan, fhe agreement will be presented for Council’s review and execution at a later meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQL'ESTED: To either amend or adopt the enclosed approval resolution. Isv L A RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUILDLNG PERMIT FOR RON RANTZ OF AUTOGRAFS CSC. FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 SHADY>VOOD ROAD PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.42, SL^DFV ISION 2 HLE #2058 WHEREAS, Ron Rantz of Autografs Inc., a Minnesota corporation, (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the propert>’ located at 2525 Shadywood Road located within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as: Lots 1. 2. and 3, Block I, Leach Addition. Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono tor a building permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.42. Subdivision 2 to permit the commercial development of Ltits 1 and 2, Block 1. Leach Addition. WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the request for a building permit and site plan for development on August'21. 1995 and recommended unanimous approval of the development plan and issuance of a building permit based on the following findings: A. B. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2058. The property is located in the B-4. Office and Professional Business District requiring 20.0(X) s.f. in area. Lots 1 and 2, Leach Addition consists ot 62,500 s.f. C.Preliminar>' floor plans and elevations developed by Keith Waters & Associates Inc. dated July 27. 1995 propose a two story walkout design structure at 19,168 s.f. total area Paee 1 of 7 E. F. I. The proposal conforms to the intent and uses ^^rmitted in the B-4 Oftice and Professional Business Distnct. The building will house the co^orate headquaners of Auiocrafs Inc. The company designs and prints graphic designs with 3M technology for uses on automobiles, inicks and other vehicle application. The facility will also house a national and regional computerized graphic design center, computerized film printing of the graphics, shipping and storage facilities. The facility will be for the exclusive use of Autografs Inc. The total property consists of three lots. Lots 1 and 2 are zoned Commercial, B- 4 and Lot 3 is zoned LR-IB. Ukeshore Residential. The zomng boundary is located on the shared lot lines of Lots 1, 2. and 3. 1 Per Section 10.43. Subdivision 6 (B), Lots 1 and 2, Leach Addition, B-4 zone - review of lot area and lot width Lot area Required = 20,000 s.f. Existing = 62.500 s.f. 2. Lot width Required = 100 ’ Existing = 250’ The site plan and grading plan prepared by Mark Gronberg ot Coffin & Gronberg Inc dated Julv 31. 1995. most revised date September 1, 1995 (hereinafter "plan") confonns to vard requirements, structural setback requirements, and parking setbacks per Section 10.43. Subdivision 6 and Section 10.61, Subdivision 5. Approval of yard and setbacks have been based on applicant legally combining Lots 1, 2. and 3. Block 1, Leach Addition and not developing residentially zoned Lot 3. Applicant ’s development of the site plan is dependent upon the legal combination of Lots I 2. and 3, Block 1. Leach Addition and on applicant ’s notice to City that Lot 3 will not be residentially developed. Lot 3 is zoned LR-IB, Lakeshore Residential Both strucmral and parking improvements have been placed at the west boundary of the B-4 Zoning District. There is no required setback from a zoning boundary line only from lot line. Paee 2 of 7 [ J. Per Section 10.61, Subdivision 10 (A), net floor area has been determined to be at 13 355 s.f. Based on the required parking formula for office building use. one parking stall is required for ever>’ 200 s.f. of net floor area. Final approved site and grading plan shows 67 stalls as required by code. K. The landscape plan designed by Tom Haugo of Bachman’s dated August 1, 1995 provides 78 varieties of trees and approximately 1,500 other plantings to offset existing plantings removed during the period of construction. Evergreens shall be planted along the west and southwest comer of the property to minimtze impact upon adjacent residential areas. L The Hennepin Countv Department of Traasportation has approved the single curb cuts serving the commercial development as shown on plan developed by Gronberg & Associates. M. Four sewer units and five water units have been assessed and paid for. There is adequate capacity in both the sewer and water facilities to serve the new use. N PO 000 s f of the total property is located w ithin the 500 to 1,000 of Lake Minnetonka. Per Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L), this portion of the property would be allowed 42.000 s.f. or 35% hardcover improvements. The proposed site plan proposes 16,060 s.f. or 13.38% hardcover improvements. O. The approved site plan and grading plan tor the Autograts Inc. office building does not require any variances to pertinent sections of the code. p All drainage from the developed site shall be directed to County Road 19 or Shadvwood Road and will eventually drain under the County Road to the retention areas within the Marsh at Lafayette. No drainage from this developed site will drain to the west or Kelly Avenue watershed. WHEREAS, the applicant has asked the City to consider a phased parking imiallaiion plan whereby in the lirst phase applicant will install 44 parkmg stalls based on applicanfs level of use as follows: 25 employees. 8 business auests. 2 mtscellaneous 9 eontineency total 44. The approved parking plan shows the total required parktng sulls at 67. Applicant has advised he will install 23 stalls or ponion thereot tt City determines there is a need in the future. Page 3 of 7 vvi«TjFi<j „n SfiOtember n 1995. the Minnehaha Watershed Distiici issued WTIEREAS, on beptemDcr , Witerihed asks that apphcant of stormwater ponds. vnw t HFRFFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the site plan, grading .TRln Ranu^f L'.ograh of the Planning Commission and the issuance of a building permit Inc subject to the following conditions: Uach Addition. Watershed District, with the City tha would ^ ow .w wdltetaur additional 23 stalls or portion thereof when required by the L.ty This agreement shall be filed in the chain of title ol the property. 5 With the approval of this commercial site plan and 'h>= "f ^ iofir»n to the existing zonins bound<irics, the City sriiill ^'Tant mex cmea o^n easement'over Lot 3. Block 1. Uach .^dal, mlSg r residents tfevelopment of this property. The open .. easement ‘shall be filed in the chain of title along wtth this resolution. 3. Pase 4 of 7 p 6.The applicant shall execute a Developer’s Agreement and post a letter of credit written to 150% of the cost of all required improvements in order to ensure that these improvements are completed and installed to the satisfaction of the City. The applicant has asked the City Council to consider executing an agreement or contract that would rezone approximately 35-40’ of Lot 3. Block 1, Leach Addition to B-4, (Office and Professional Business District) if Autografs Inc. needs to expand the facility at some time in the fumre. The Orono Couircil hereby advises applicant that zoning boundaries are not altered or redefined because of the needs of a single applicant but that such requests are found to have greater merit when the rezoning is more comprehensive in scope and would respond to documented needs of the Navarre community. The municipal code does not provide a legal means for the City to enter into rezoning contracts with property owners. Council further advises the applicant that the building can be relocated within the commercial portion of the property in order to ensure there is adequate area for fumre expansion needs. The undersigned applicant and owner has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of Autografs Inc., its successors and assigns, hereby aerees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property'. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of October. 1995. ATTEST: Dorothv M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Ron Rantz. an Authorized Representative of Autografs Inc. Page 5 of 7 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPLN ) t The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of October, 1995, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Mim^sota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. I-Notary Public Page 6 of 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this davof ,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. Notarv 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. Notarv Public Pace 7 of 7 OPEN SPACE EASEMENT [ORONO RESOLUTION NO._____1 FILE #2058 THIS INDENTTJRE, made and entered into this 1995, by and between dav of heirs, assigns, successors [hereinafter collectively referred to as the Granior(s)] and the City ot Orono, its successors and assigns, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State ot Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the Grantee). WITNESSETH, Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, hereby covenant, grant, gift, quit claim and convey to Grantee the right to restrict and Grantor(s) agree to limit and preclude the use, improvement and development, under the conditions and covenants herein contained, the following described Land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota; Lot 3, Block 1, Leach Addition. Hennepin County. Minnesota as follows; 1. Grantor(s) hereby covenant and agree(s): A. No structures shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon, above, or beneath the Land including without limitation, principal or accessory buildings, fences, fireplaces, steps, docks, piers, hardcover or roads of any nature whatsoever, or any other structure or improvement inconsistent with the natural state ot the Land. B. No trees, shrubs or other vegetation sha . be destroyed, cut or removed from the Land except for those unp«-ovements approved with Application #2058 specifically the site pl.r* and grading plan prepared by Mark S. Gronberg and Minnehaha Cietk Watershed District Permit #95-203 or as authorized by written consent of Grantee. C. No earth, loam. peat, gravel, soil or any other natural material or substance shall be moved or removed from the Land and there shall be no grading, dredging, or excavation of any nanire whatsoever or any change of the topography of the Land e.xcept for those improvements approved with Application #2058 specifically the site plan and grading plan prepared by Mark S. Gronberg and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit #95-203 or as authorized by written coasent of Grantee. D.No soil, sand, gravel or other substance or material as landfill shall be placed, dumped or stored upon the Land and no waste, trash or garbage shall be placed, dumped or stored upon the Land. E.No use shall be made of the Land except uses, if any. which will not change or alter the natural condition of the Land, and no use which would tend to change the drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, fish and wildlife habitat characteristics shall be made of the Land or the vater simated thereon except for those improvements approved with Application #2058 specifically the site plan and grading plan prepared by Mark S. Gronberg and Miiuiehaha Creek Watershed District Permit #95-203 or as authorized by written consent of Grantee. F.Grantee may enter upon the Land for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of the covenants contained herein and to cause to be removed from the Land without any liability any structure.s uses, materials, substaiKes, or unnatural matter inconsistent with the covenants contained herein, the natural state ot the Land except for those improvements approved with Application #2058 specifically the site plan and grading plan prepared by Mark S. Gronberg and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Pennit #95- 203. This Open Space Easement or any provision contained herein may be released by Grantee but only by adoption of a Resolution to that effect by the Citv Council. In addition to any other remedy the Grantee may have, the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. Grantor!s) do not intend that the public should have any interest in the above land bv virtue of this indenture or otherwise, except as hereinabove set forth. The Grantor(s) herein cenify that the land nerein described are free and clear of all encumbrances except: L * 'J‘I ■ •■A• ’ ^ I ♦ I ■ n •'! RTiT5»rr™ RTiTiK^ REQUEST FOR COUNCtt. ACTION COUNOL MEETING OCT 9 1995 DATE: ITEM NO: Administrator Reviewed;Agenda Section: Zoning Department Approval: Name \fichael P. GafTron Titic Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator ________ Item Description: #2060 Tim Pcyo and karen Fuller-Fcyo, 4055 Elm Street - Variance Renewal - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre Application: RerKwal of lot area variance previously granted in 1978, 1980 and again on September 12, 1994. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning fommission Action 9/25/95 C - Memo and Exhio • of 9/13/95 Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.24. Subd 5 (B) Lot area: Required — 43,560 s.t. or 1 acre Existing = 19.920 s.f. or 0.46 acre Variance = 23,640 s.f. or 54% Discussion Please review the staff memo of September 13. 1995. Briefly, the request is for renewal of the previously granted lot area variance for construction of a single family residence. A residence can be constructed on the property meeting all the required setbacks and hardcover standards. The property is similar in size to neighboring developed properties, and there is no adjacent undeveloped land to make the property any larger. A concept site plan and grading plan submitted in 1994 was reviewed by the City Engineer, who concluded that the site development as proposed was acceptable from an engineering standpoint subject to the installation of gutters and downspouts on the proposed residence which connect to a drainpipe extending north to the edge of tite existing roadway ditch. This will be required as part of a final grading plan which must be submitted prior to building permit approval. • i ingini/ 'j P -A Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 October 4, 1995 Zoning File #2< Note that while the property owners hcve submined a concept building plan, a purchaser of the property likely will propose a different plan. This is not a problem as long as it follows the proposed driveway location and adheres to required setbacks and the drainage concept plan. The neighboring property owners to the west are contemplating a torrens action in regards to the location of the west lot. However, it is siafrs recommendation to proceed with the variance renewal request unless or until a torrens action is commenced which would leave the lot area and width parameters undefined until a torrens action is complete. Plannins Commission Recommendation Planning Commission on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval ot variance renewal subject to the findings, conclusions and conditions of Resolution No. 3462 adopted September 12, 1994. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the lot ar’^ variance renewal per the attached resolution. Note that lots have been legally combined, so that condition does not appear in the resolution. Further, note that a reference to the need to provide a swale or drainage pipe to transport runoff from the area of the proposed house to the road ditch has been added to the resolution conditions for clarity. COUNCIL .\CTION REQUESTED: Proposed Motion .Moved by . seconded bv . to adopt Resolution No.granting a lot area variance to Tim Feyo and Karen Fuller-Feyo for propeny located at 4055 Elm Street Vote:aves.nays. ch A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MU'NICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SL^DFV ISION 5 (B> FILE #2060 WHEREAS, Tim Fuller and Karen Fuller-Feyo (Tiereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 4055 Elm Street within the City of Orono (hereinatter City ) and legally described as follows; Lots 7, 8 and 9. Block 9, Minnetonka Summit Park. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a renewal variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on a property that consists of 19.920 s.f. or 0.46 acres where 43.560 s.f. or 1 acre is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City CouncU of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2060. The property is located in the LR-IB. Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. 3.The Orono Planning Commission r viewed this renewal variance application on September 18, 1995 and recommended approval of the variance application as proposed, based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A.The property has been assessed for a sewer unit and the assessment has been paid and sewer is available to the property. B.The lot has sufficient depth and width so that normal setbacks for 35’ front. 30’ rear and 10’ side can be easily met. Page 1 of 4 C. The 19,920 s.f. lot is consistent with developed lots within the neighborhood ranging from 12.000 s.f. to 37,000 s.f. D. In a report dated September 8, 1994. the City Engineer confirmed that the proposed drainage plans for the developed site will not impact adjacent developed properties to both the east and west side of the property. 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial propeny right of the applicant; and would be in keeping w ith the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of ihe above findings, the Orono City Council hereby i’rants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on the property located at 4035 Elm Street and grants an area variance of 23,640 s.f. or 54%, subject to the following conditions; 1.All residential improvements on this site shall meet all required setback and hardcover standards of the LR-IB, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Upon application for a building permit, the applicants shall provide a detailed grading plan showing proposed driveway grading, tree removal and/or retaining wall. Further, such site grading plan shall indicate the use of a swale, drain tile, or other acceptable method to transpon roof runoff to the north boundary of the property to minimize direct runoff impact on the neighboring propeny to the west. Page 2 of 4 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with tte property not with the applicants, but arc permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 9, 1996). 4. 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. 5. The undersigned applicants have read, understixxl 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 ot the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of October. 1995. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin. Ci. 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 9th day of October, 1995. by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the Citv of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 STATE OP NUNNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ss. ,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 acknowledaed that he (thev) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notar\ Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 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. Notarv' Public Paee 4 of 4 If CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE 4f2060 NOTICE OF PLANNING CONCVUSSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; September 25. 1995 TO: Tim Feyo & Karen Fuiler-Feyo 1677 Long Lake Road New Brighton, MN 55112 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances (Renewal) DATE OF MEETLNG;09/13/95 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following; Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES ANT) SPECIAL CONDITIONS; (Approval per findings, conclusions and conditions of Resolution #3462) Applicant's next scheduled meeting b coniirmed as. City Council. Monday. October 9. 1995: meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If vou desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are avaUable trom the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:September 13, 1995 SUBJECT: #2060 Tim Feyo and Karen Fuller-Feyo. 4055 Elm Street - Variances Renewal Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB. Single Family Lakeshore Residential, I acre ApplicaUon: Renewal of lot area variance previously granted in 1978, 1980 and again on September 12. 1994. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property' Owners List D - Survey/Proposed Site Plan/Topography/Grading & Drainage Concept Plan E - Resolution #3462 F - Recent Background Re: Boundary Dispute G - Memo and Exhibits of 9/8/94 ^ rC«.:ee/vr*^ (O Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24. Subu. 5 (B) A. Lot area Required = 43.560 s.f. or I acre Existing = 19.920 s.f. or 0.46 acre V^ariance = 23,640 s.f. or 54% B.Lot width (per Section 10.03, Subd. 6 (.V1)J Required for existing lots of record = 112’ or 80% Existing = 118 ’ or ^% No lot width variance required Discussion Please review the staff memo of 9/8/94. Briefly, the request is for renewal ot the previously eranted lot area variance for construction of a single family residence. A residence constructed on the property meeting all the required setback and hardcover standards The property is similar in size of neighboring developed properties, and there is no adjacent undeveloped land to make the property any larger. Zoning File #2060 September 13, 1995 Page 2 The 1994 application was made jointly by the Feyos and the Etheringtons who intended to purchase the properu ’ from the Feyos. That sale ultimately did not proceed, and the variance expired September I2ih. Tte site plan and grading plan submitted in 1994 was reviewed by the City Engineer who concluded that the site development as proposed was acceptable from an engineering standpoint subject to installation of gutters and downspouts on the proposed residence, which would coimect to a drain pipe extending north to the edge of the existing roadway ditch. This would prevent an increase in runoff to the adjacent lots. He also noted the driveway would be somewhat steep but acceptable, and prior to construction of a new residence on the property, a full grading plan needs to be submitted and approved. Lot Boundary Dispute Planning Commission may recall that the westerly neighbors to this site, the Laues, had questioned the location of the west lot boundary' The DeMars-Gabriel survey submitted by Fevo showed Laues ’ metal shed encroaching on Feyo ’s parcel. Laues ’ surveyor has contimieu that the shed is encroaching the lot line. The Laues and the Feyos have both engaged attorneys to represent them. Uucs apparently intend to begin a torrens action, claiming adverse possession Fevo ’s attomev indicates he feels the essential elements for a successful adverse possession clam are lacking. The Feyos have constructed a cyclone fence along both side lot lines. As of this writing, staff is unaware whether the Laues have in fact filed a torrens action. It is staffs impression that the adverse possession claim is unlikely to succeed and the lot boundaries and area are as presented. In the worst case, however, if Feyos were to lose 15’ along their entire west lot line by adverse possession, the lot width would be reduced below the 80 .o standard and lot area and building envelope would shrink somewhat. Staff Recommendation It is staffs recommendation to proceed with the variance renewal request in the normal maimer unless or until a torrens action is commenced which would leave the lot area and widt parameters undefined until the torrens action is complete. In that case, statf would recommend holding final action in abeyance until the torrens action is complete. w Planning Commission should review the variance renewal request and determine whether the findings ’ conclusions and conditions of Resolution #3462 are still pertinent. If so, a recommmdation for approval of the variance renewal is appropriate per those conditions. ch CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICAiION Initial Application Fee S2C0.C0 •?.JIT; ($50 00 per each additional varianct) _ ----------- A 'c; Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO ;e."^v (no change from original application)"^^ » Variance for non-conicrmmg sn7acmres 0- After-the-Fac: Fees (Double application .ee) : 'VtjJjir . • . -.\- *• w‘. • • • • ^ • ? f ’ PROPERTY' r^TOR^LATION Blodc 9 I^ts 7,3 & 9 Site Address 4055 Elm Street (MirjTetonka S\VTUt. ?a r^ 06-117-23 41 0083 I ,do) (do oot) also own di. ->21-=-; ^3-,,.;=./,-------------------------------_ Present use or property: .wS4ae..tiai Zoning DLstnet: fn^IC REQUIRED SUBMITTALS . I, miH-rrf npnlication deadline date in ordej: All nf the following jnforT'’^*^" submitted ]L------ for vQur application to hg considered C0TPJB.,gt^ L n j. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Complied Application Fora ^ li5t from cemned GovJ C.ter. 34S-32T1).Hennepm Count>- Depaitmeai or Fmanc., a ov Plat Nlap (obaiaed with propert>’ ONVT‘«^^^^ j.^^ever) and include hardcover addition/provide one (1) copy SIV x 11" for Sketches or plans or a^or i. e*e a . persons with aii interest in the Li« of the legal natr.es tittclude current owner(s). property. This would uicluae nain ( ) PP nj, of anv other persons AS M addendum to this application, please ata.h a separate YOU wish notified of this application Xdditional items as may be requested by City staif. APPLlC.VvT’S SIGNATURE information required or requested by the Zoning The applicant hereby agrees ><> P‘'°'''de “o™ no? covered by'origmal fee payment) Administrator, agrees to pay .“^‘^”°“““„View of this application, and certifies that the best of h.sih/r imowledge. Applicant’s Signamre Date cH- ONVNER’S SIGNATLIIE J ^ application and further authorizes reasonable commission members, and Council members for pSrpLesV investigation and «.'ificauon oi this request. ^ Owner’s Signature Meeting. ^ ^ schediiled review meetings of the Planning Commission Applicants mt^ b P ^ scheduled meeting, please make arrangemen m ta«“'anth°riaed Lent attend in your place and to adv.se the BuUding & Zonmg Office this change prior to the meeting. Date I a, •'.’S jL " ( lOu) > » p a '■^ (105)* s ^ (?3) |o ’ p r (i«)K ’ ^ ^ {22 a a (15) '« : ‘5 a i * » -^Lr•-1 1 r ^1r (!6) ^UJ S' 1(90) ^ (?')»'® '<J:?o)? . a ?S'-"/<'■ • 8 (i«) k^r.3 (,V)a ’0 ,*'/(97) ” 1#)®^\>" ‘ ;M9 0^ / ;■ '» (96) ' i» k s US mits ,;, H tJ s (• ^f^hjnsifs - % 8 '>m,^}ui uTi i»n7/n ■^'i»re» 107■4p»jF *NtrtC^INII NMC IWfAYEl |1MC/Aum «1V' i>|t0|i AOOft *■ * :* V X (Aten NMC V ' y . fWP ADOn _ VV Id HNER NAHi ? •{tAXPAYCR i HAME/AOOR i. t - % ^ PROF APOR ^ QKIiR NAME /, TAXPAYERPname/ador .» f < ' o < • ••. I J \ ‘i' » \ • f ri‘' • ■ M M-U7-2S 41 0001 DOOM AOOOCSS UNASSICNRi S N • i • NUDO STAMJY H 0 KTTY 0 RUDO Ml OMK U UMB UKE MN MSM-97AS 10 M-li: 2S 41 0000 004U mrOCTONCA H6L0 L n NIL! A H J LEE LANCE H MILE A MARTHA J iU HTRA HIGHLAND LANE LONS LAKE IW 5S364 0004M 04-117-25 41 00504 PA»( LA HElfCRIN FORFEITEO LAND CXr.' OF ORONO STREET A DRAINAGE 5/25/04 SO 144505 SO 04-117-25 41 0104 00050 ADOP.ESS UNASSIGNED 1C L FULLER-FEYO ET AL H/L EST KAREN FULLER-FEYO 1477 LONG LAKE RO NEH ORIGHTQN HN 55112 50 04-117-25 4A 0006 00459 HIltlETOtKA HGLD LA R H A K L SPEETER RICHARD H SPEETER 459 HIFtCETOTACA HGLO LA LONG LAKE Itl 55356 . > COUNTY MOTERTY INFORMATION SVSTffi RtOKRTV OMCRS USTOOM50 04-117-25 4104100 ELM ST T P CARROLL ASK CARROLL THOmS PETER CARROLL 4100 ELM ST LCNB LAKE m 55554 50 04-117-25 41 0084 00594 PARR LA ISRHAN LAUE A NIFE HERMAN LAUE 594 PARK LANE LOND LAKE K4 55354 SO 04-117-25 41 0091 00401 MIFtRTOFACA M6L0 LA C CURTIS LEE A HIFE C CURTIS LEE 401 MlFtCTOFAlA HIGHLAND LANE LONG LAKE m 55354 38 04-117-23 44 0003 00650 MINNETONKA HGLO LA J L 8ERG A S R BERG JOHN L BERG A SHARON R BERG 450 MNNETOrRA HIGHLAND LN LONG LAKE MN 55354 36 04-117-23 44 0014 0063C PARK LA H E A J H HROCLEHSKI WILLIAM E A JOAN HROBLEHSKI 430 PARK LA LONG LAKE HN 55354 ISPORT NO. PI4S54Q1 PAGE lA38 04-117-25 41 007204050 ELH ST6 M ROSCOE A R N ROSCOEGEORGE M ROSCOE4050 ELH STLONG LAKE FM 55554 A Sa 04-117*25 41 00504 PARK LA HENNEPIN FOOFEITED lAND CITY Of OaONO STREET i DRAlNAGi 5/25/04 SO 144S05 50 04-117-25 41 0104 04001 OAR ST NIICLAS A DA»ti HATtlAROCRG NIKLAS I OANN HAMHAROERG 40ai OAK ST LONG LAKE m 55554 « • J. 4.- 9^ 38 04-117-21 44 0005 00449 HINilETOIACA HGLO LA S V SHANIEK A P G SMANTEK STEPHEN A PATRICIA SHANTEK 449 MIFMETOFACA HGLO LA LONG LAKE MN 55354 C )V r -jX TOTAL BATCH 507 00014 r 1 ‘ lA* 4* » • . r iQi. £ KJ Uo <o ui § 5i o « : K. ¥*c > CQ % It '* i V -- I ► >1 r' •J' Kj^-‘ ^..i h"1A .« k .*.. A .A-Ai-A • » • 4 \ hj I 1 /NIv cx x^' f i^‘ X0 ' I CITY of ORONO c- RESOLUTION OF THE Cm" COLTiCIL NO. ______ /j - “%5KS5»^’*‘ SECTION 10.24, SUBDfVlSION 5 (B) FILE NO. 1944 WRFRFA^: B'adlev Etherinaton and Dina Etherington (hereinafter "the appnc^.-, J."n “ts; in'ifpropeny io'caied 4055 Ein. S..=: w.0>.n U>= Cio^ of Orono and legally described as follows; Lot 7, 3 and 9, Block 9. Minnetonka Sammit Park. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS the applicants have applied to the City for a renewal variance lo ■ 1 7on?n”r^e Section W 74. Subdivision 5 (B) to permit constniction of a newMunicipal Zomng Sectim ^ ^ residence on a property that consists or is'.v-u s is required. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FLNDLNGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1944. The property is located in ihe LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The Orono Plannins Commission reviewed this renewal variance application on both Julv 18. 1994 and August 15. 1994 and recommended approval of the variance'application as proposed, based upon tlie followmg unique findings hardship; A.The property has been assessed for a sewer unit and the assessment has been paid and sewer is available to the property'. Paae 1 of 5 r c i •• » CITY of ORONO RESOLLTION OF THE CITV' COUNCII, NO. 3 4 6 2------- B The lot has sufftceni depth and width so that normal setbacks -or 35- front. 30’ rear and 10 ’ side can be easily met. C.The 19 0’0 sf lot is consistent with developed lots within the ^e^'ghborh^od ranging from 12.000 s.f. to 37.W30 s.f. D.In a reijon dated September 8. 1994. the City Engineer confirmed Out the proposed drainage plans for the developed site will developed oroperties to both the east and west side ol the property. 4.The Citv CouncU fmds that the conditions e.sisting on tins to it arid do not applv generally to other property in this zomng ‘•'“‘ci- ara^ti^fthe v^cS wotild not adversely affect traffic conditions, light am nor TCse a^fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not tiierel LnVas a converaence to the applicant, but is necessary to aleviate a demoasirable hardship or difficulty ; is necessary to preserve a substantial P'cpc^ rigr"applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and mien, of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5 The Citv Couned has considered this application including the ^ ^^orSiLations of the Planning Commission, reports by City starf. — by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on die health, safety an welfare of the communiry. CONCLUSIONS. ORDER zVND CONDI FIONS Ba^ed upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the cw”a 'new msidence on the property located at 4055 Elm Street and gran, an area variance of 23,640 s.f. or 54-3, subject to the followmg conditions; 1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new residential applicant,'future owner must apply for the legal combination of Lots ,. S ana Block 9. Minnetonka Summit Park. .Ml residential improvements on this site shall meet all required setback and hardcover standards of the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 2 of 5 ‘ k •• CITi’ of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COL'NCIL NO. ^ 6 P--------- 4, 5. permit one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 1995). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constirate a violation of the zonmg code, shall auiomaticall. terminate any audiority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants and current owner have read, understood and hereby a<^ree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heire. successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Cham of Title of the propern-. Adopted by the Cin Council of the Cin of Orono. Minr.esota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of September. 1994. 6. Dorolhy City' Clerk ul Edward J. Calldhan. 7r..“flavor / / Pr\)pert>’ Ovvnert; ^ W i ApplicanVls) ifievy Page 3 of 5 C *. i • • CITY of ORONO REiOLLTION OF THE CITk’ COUNCIL NO. Q ^ ^ ^---------- "sss,*™.,... ««.* ™" "v=“'cn:; September 1994 bv Edward 1. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Halim. Mayor and City Clerk of Uie cTcTof Orono'. a .Minnesou munxipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the am;h^jy. X ^ Notary Public ST.A.TE OF MINNESOTA ) of Oc 4oV>?r _____ Public within and for said county, personally appeared 'T^i h d'irTPnd w^7 / r .r known to me to be the pertoms) described in and Viho/ L J • iL Known lo me lu uc uic pt-idvriucr -w— —----- «ecuted die'frri^ng instT^^and acknowledged that he (they, executed the same as hts (their) free act aruijdfiedv {LYNN M KRAFT NCla*’ WIllC - <»IK'‘«iCtA I M» co.'^tssiON rnJ-Jits I JANUARY n, rcco ^ ^ ^ kJ) ..n, rTitntn in. NOT.ARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HE.NNEPI.N ) y bef^m^a .No^ On this_______day of------------------------- f jr] ]Cj----- /J/J Public within and for said counts-, personally appeared f / U 'UI //. /; /7 ] ^ known to me tyfte the d'esefibed m and/uh^ e.xecuted the foregoing msti-jment~and acknowledged tiat he (they) executed the sambas (Ms (iheir) free act and deed. r\\*p) • Vv-____ NOTARY PITBLIC ■/WVV\ VVVbVVWVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVWVVVA ■ GiNA a. KRAHN Page 4 of 5 notary public -minnesotaMRAVSEY COUNTY My CofTfThssicn EipffM Aug. 25,1998 W VNAAAAAAAAAAAA^VWWNAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/• M01 : \» . r t • » • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITV COUNCIL NO. ^^62--------- 199 before me a Notary Public wiLbbi and for said counr. , “"e me person(s) described in and who exccinid me foregomg msm.memTi;Hd-Icicnowledsed mat he (mey) executed me same as hts (thetr) free act and deed. N0T.\RY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of 199 before me a Notary Public w,thin andforsatd county. me person(s) describedm anTwho exeosted STforegoing mstrument. a^Icknowledged that he (mey) executed me same as tus (tnetr) act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Paye 5 of if r •'"'A ■J 1677 Long Lake Road New Brighton, Minnesota 16 September 1994 Mr. .Mrs. Herman Laue 594 Park Lane Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Laue, I am sure that you already know, the variance request presented to the City of Orono Planning Commission and the City Counsel has been approved for the Lots East of your property . What you may not be aware of is that •!! requirements requested by the Planning Commission of the applicants have been fulfilled, including a resolution of the dispute concerning the survey discrepancies. As per our conversation after the planning commission ’s meeting in August, we contacted our surveyors and pointed out your concerns about the property line between your east lot and our west lot. At our request, our surveyors, Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors Inc. contacted Schoell »& Madson Inc., and a representative of each business met at the lots site to review the discrepancy. According to Demars-Gabriel representative Mr. David E. Crook met with Schoell & Madson representative Mr. Ted Kemna. Both Mr. Crook and Mr. Kemna reviewed their data and discovered that the Scholl & Madson survey was in error. Both individuals double checked their data and discovered an error of three (3) inches by the Demars-Gabriel surv ey (prorated equals one (I) inch for each of our three (3) lots.) WTiat this all comes out to, is that the survey that Demars-Gabriel Inc. conducteti, and the one presented to the Planning Commission and City Cimiisel, is the latest and correct survey to date. We understand that Mr. Kemna went and spoke to Mrs. Laue to report on the finding and errors of the original Schoell & Madson survey. They even went out and reviewed where the property line is located. With the correct property line now firmly established, it is evident that your utility shed is cleai iy on our property. ( To your East.) We request that you remove this structure off our propert> immediately, now that the survey reviews are concluded. We request that this structure be removed no later than 23 September 1994. Failure to remove this structure by this date will only result in forcing us to take one of several actions. One option is to take legal action which would be expensive to both of us . I’m sure that neither of us wants this matter to get that far. As we have stated, the survey review is over, your structure is clearly on our property*, we request you remove your structure. W’e thank you for all consideration regarding this matter and we hope that this letter will resolve all differences. Respectfully 1 Karen Fi^er-Feyo and Timothy Feyo V iJ . 1 J •..•U SCHQELL 6* MADSONi INC. £.\GNeEss * suR'.'rfCss • planners _ =01L TESTING • ENV.PC.WEN^^ SEnV.CES 1C5SC WAVZATA 9CUUEVARO • SUITS * • gg* S-i-*a CS12I e-iS'^SO-l • PAX tei25 s4B-9oes July "17, 1S95 Timothy and Karen Fuller-Feyo 1677 Long Lake Road New Brighton, MN 55112 Subject;Lets 7, 3 and 9, Block 9 Minnetonka Summit Park Dear Tim and Karen: We have reviewed the survey dene by Demars-Gabriel Land Su^eyors Inc. nn '‘uaust 4 1^94 After walking the site and findino e monuments that exist ^ ^rgrL^d is our opinion that ine ^.Cal sned along 'he west lino o the property ,s snovvn correctly on the Demars-Gabriel survey. The location =' ‘h® shed bung across the line was shown to Mrs. Shirley Laue in September of 1994. The west line of your property is the east line of the Laue property, v/hich is Lots 10. 11 and 12. Block 9. Minnetonka Summit Park. Very truly yours, SCHCELL & MADSON. INC. Theodore D. Kemna TDK/cj cc: Mrs. Shirley Laue ^,*B,fc.seATtV6 ACTIC.N . feSUAL OP»CSTUfs41Ty eh.-Ptav6« 1 REED & POND, LTD. ATTORNEYS .^T LAW 5424 SHORELINE DRIVE P O- BOX 9 MOUND. MINNESOTA 553640009 ROGER W. REED Pnp9fty Law SpmHaUar PAUL POND Csrttflmi CMI Trial SpaciatlsT * CarOfhd by lha kOnnaaota Stata Bar Asaoctatlon PHONE612/472-2222 FAX 612/472-2254 LINDA ESENTHER DONALD F. NOACK, JR- ANN C.THIES KAY L. DUNN NANCY C. REHBERGER Lagal Assistann July 20. 1S95 ;7 J JMr. Tim Feyo and Ms. Karen Fuller-Feyo 1677 Long Lake Road New Brighton, MN 55112 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Feyo: I represent Herman Laue who purchased Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 9, Minnetonka Summit Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota in approximately 1962. At that time, he was furnished a survey showing iron markers set along the East line of Lot 10. Mr. Laue has relied upon those markers and treated that at his lot line for more than 30 years. Your recent survey has shown the East line of Lot 10 approximately 15 feet further to the West. Assuming that your later survey is correct, then the Laue’s have acquired title to approximately the West 15 feet of Lot 9, Block 9, Minnetonka Summit Park, by adverse possession. Because they have used it as their own for more than 15 years in the manner prescribed by the statute, they have in fact acquired title to the approximately West 15 feet of said Lot 9. They intend to begin a Torrens action to prove that this 15 foot strip of property is theirs and ask that the county records be corrected accordingly. Meanwhile, I would suggest that you refrain from trespassing on this 15 feel of land and I recommend that you consult with your attorney. Very truly you REED a POND, LTD Roger Y/^Reed ~> / RWR;wll cc; Mr. and Mrs. Herman Laue »-'WCTV> i-WTi 25 July 1995 \r-ii * J ! ••t * Mr. & Mrs Herman Laue 594 Park Lane Long Lake, Mn 55356 Dear Mr & Mrs Laue, This letter is to ad\ise your that your shed, located on the your east side and halt on the west side of our property, has not been removed from our property \ ou are hereby directed to remove the aforementioned shed from our property within 10 days. This is your final notice. Respectfully, Karen Fuller-Feyo & Tim Feyo 1677 Long Lake Rd. .New Brighton, Mn 55112 cc; Attorney STUART E. GALE LAW OFFICE V'lllcv Ofticc Pirk Suite 210 IOSCO Lyndalc Avenue South Bloomington. Minnesota 55420 STCAirr E. GALE s. warren gale ST1EVBN .M. GALE July 27, 1995 Phonr (612) 38S-)920 Hx N« (612) 3R8-92'* Mr. Roger Reed r_ Reed & Pond ltd. ‘T f~' 5424 Shoreline Drive P O. Bo.x 9 Mound, MN 55364-0009 Dear Mr. Reed: Your letter of July 20th. 1995 addressed to Tim Feyo and Karen Fuller-Feyo has been delivered to me for response. As I interpret your lener, and based upon the information furnished to me by the Feyos, your client is now making some unsubstantiated claim of title by adverse possession to 15 feet by 180 feet of my client's property .As I understand it. all agree that the survey that my clients have of the premises is now correct. I have discussed the moveable tin shed that your client has constructed, which encrcjaches a few feet into my client's property', and which constitutes an ongoing trespass, although only for the past few years At this point in time, we politely ask that the same be removed within ten (10) days. I say that, because my clients have presently lost a sale of the property, because of your client’s encroachment, and contmuing trespass upon my clients property.. That fact subjects your client to a claim of substantial damages because of the loss of this sale I have also discussed thoroughly %vuh my clients any claim of user by your client. My clients have owned their land for a long time, and are well acquainted with any use of their land. It IS clear to me that essential elements, which must be present, if one is to attempt to claim another's property by adverse possession, are lacking in this case. The tin shed for example occupies less than one percent of the total area you claim to have occupied openly, notoriously, and adversely to the ownership of the Feyo s. ---— Mr. Roger Reed July 26« 1995 Page Two Other than this easily movable structure, there is no evidence of user ot any kind to support a claim bv vour client that he continually trespassed on the Feyo's property over a 15 toot wide stnp of land covering the entire length of the lot for purposes of establishing title by adverse possession. Under the circumstances, ar.d m order to avoid what would obviously be some costly litigation. I strongly urge that your client remove the offending structure from my client s property so that they do not have a problem with marketability ot title. for the lost sale as the result of your client's trespass Let us hope that this situation does not come to that point. SEG km cc; Tim Feyo and Karen Fuller-Feyo r'(S- REQL'EST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Adnunistrator Administrator Reviewed: DATE: September 8. 1994 ITEM NO.: 4^ Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #1944 Bradley and Dina Eiherington. 4055 Elm Street - Variance Resolution Review of Application The renewal variance application was review by the Planning Commission at both the July and August meetings. The application was tabled at the July meeting subject to applicant providing an updated survey and having lot comers staked so that Planning Commission members could view the actual building site. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24. Subd. 5 'B) A. Lot area Required = 4?.560 s.f. or 1 acre E.xisting = 19.920 s.f. or .46 acres Variance = 23.640 s.f. or 54% B.Lot width - Per Section 10.03. Subd. 6 iA-1) Required for e.xisting lots of record = 112’ or 80% E.xisting = 118' or 84% No lot width variance required List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H 1 J .Application Plat -Map Property Owners List Sur-ey Drainage Plan. Lot .Area Survey- Topographic .Map Council .Minutes 7'“8 Council .Minutes 6 80 Planning Commission .Minutes 8/88 Planning Comnaission .Action Notice 8/17 94 Request for Council Action continued! page 2 September 8. 1994 #1944 Bradley and Dina Etheringion, 4055 Elm Street K - Survey of Lance Wile Residence at 615 Minnetonka Highland (not as-built survey) L • Enlargement of Original 1976 Survey M - Current Drainage Plan N - Wile Memo 9/2/94 O - Etheringion Memo 9/6/94 P - Preliminary' Grading Sketch ot Driveway Q - Hardcover Fact Sheet R - Hardcover Site Plan S - Elevation T - Floor Plan U - Current Survey V - Engineer’s Report 9/8/94 Description of Request The owners of the subject properly have initiated their fourth variance application to allow the sale of property as a buildable site, review Exhibits G, H and I. In 1978 and 1980, the City cranted lot area variances to the Fullers and in 1988 a variance application was tiled but applicant failed to complete the review. In the earlier reviews there wjas never a development plan included with the proposal. The current application tiled by the Ethermgtons provides development plans for the development of the site. Review Exhibits Q, S, T and U. The subject lot has adequate depth and width to allow construction of the residence without the need of anv setback variances. The property is located in the 250-500’ lakeshore setback zone and would be allowed 5.976 s.f or 30"c. Hardcover is proposed at 4,686.0 s.f. or 11.1%. The subject property is similar in size of neighboring developed properties, review E.xhibit B The propertv is located to the immediate south of the property at 4030 Elm Street that was ‘’ranted an area variance earlier this year. There is no adjacent undeveloped lands available tbr purchase to make this lot any larger. In fact, it appears the subject property is the larcest of the lots on the south side of Elm Street. Note variances were also panted to 60 and 615 Minnetonka Hishlands Une (part of Minnetonka Summit Park plat) in 1975 and 1976. Ever since the inception of the zoning code and area standards, this area has been zoned one acre minimum lot size. Minnetonka Summit Park subdivision was platted m June ot 1912 prior to any zoning standards for the City. The pattern for development has been the combining ot the various substandard lots into single building sites. < / Request for Council Action continued page 3 September 8, 1994 #1944 Bradley and Dina Etherineton. 4055 Elm Street The property is served by municipal sewer and the three lots have been assessed a third unit for a toed of one sew-er unit. The assessment has been paid. The lot has steep topographies but not so steep as to suggest any difficult\’ in constructing a residence. Review Exhibits M and P. The Engineer has reviewed the preliminary drainage plan and reaffirms the use of underground tiles carrying drainage to the street and away from adjacent properties. The underground tile system will minimize the removal of trees on the property which would be the case if swales were to be installed. The Engineer has met again on the site with City staff to review any concerns with the proposed location of the driveway. Gustafson confirms that the percentage of slope will be 20% but sees no problem with the proposed location. In fact, it will minimize the removal of trees in the street yard. Review Exhibit E. The property owners at 594 Park Lane and 615 Minnetonka Highlands Lane have raised several concerns concerning the accuracy of the current surv'ey. Note the encroachment of the shed on the Laue property at 594 Park Lane. In the Wile memo of September 2, 1994, they note discrepancy in a setback shown in the 1976 surv'ey and the current survey. Review the enlarcement of that survey. E.xhibit O. Note the setback is at 42.4’. The current survey shows that residence at 42.2’. Note the staircase and the upper deck at 41.7’ were not shown on the original survey of 1976. They are apparently later additions. Review E.xhibit K. Note the survey of 615 Minnetonka Highlands is not an as-built survey but ratlier a proposed location for a house. Staff sees no concern with the issues raised by the propeny owner to the immediate east. As for the propeny owner to the west, the Laues had announced at the August 15th Planning Commission meeting that there had been some field survey work done recently that reaffirmed their concern that the lot line was not correct. On September 2nd, the Laues asked for additional time before the City made any final recommendations on the current variance application until they couid provide an updated survey as their surveyor had been away on vacation and were unable to meet the September 2nd deadline. The Etheringtons have met all requirements of the Planning Commission at their August meeting. Please review- E.xhibit O. They ask that Council act on their variance application because^ of the time of year and the need to prtxeed with construction before the colder weather. Planning Comiiiissioii Rccomnieiidation The Planning Commission unanimously voted approval of the renewal variance application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Legal combination of Lots 7, 8 and 9 prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction. Request for Council Action continued page 4 September 8, 1994 #1944 Bradley and Dina Etherington, 4055 Elm Street 2. All improvements shall meet setback and hardcover standards of the LR-IB zoning district. 3. Conceptual grading and drainage plans are to be provided to the City staff for review prior to scheduling the application before the Council. 4 Staff to review neighbors’ claims of survey discrepancies and evaluate whether such claims have potential validity sufficient to cause the City to delay action on this application. Neighbors making such claims were requested to submit their documentation no later than September 2. 1994. It has been three weeks since the original Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 1994. Options of Action To adopt the enclosed approval resolution drafted per the Planning Commission s recommendation; OR To table action on the variance application until the Laues have provided an updated surv'ey that must be submitted no later than Tuesday. September 20, 1994. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution; OR To table application pending receipt of new survey tor 594 Park Lane. Isv i CITY OF ORONO - VAIUANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 a # (no change from original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming strucnires $2Q£k(^ After-ihe-Fac: Fees (Double application fee) i I PROPERTY' CSTORMATION ^.D.) %i-. ____ ... ;f nnr included on reoutred survey. 'A__ /■i I \ ^ ■> ri ■ Tl» •'% rTrv “C'*iuri U-A f » U*« W/'C-lTW '* V .•“C“ 7 » Att-ttuL. W! I a. Oi w-FVrizrv U r tkW M fAA *•av'V • V* ? f* t" :a vv'« "Segra^cription to application if not included on required surve Date Property Acquired___________________—^---------------------- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels or lana Present use of property: V residential -----other (specif>')----------- Zoning Distnet: (raonth/year) APPLIC. Name Address Phone (home) ..^.3 3 ~~ ^ 3Phone (home) •5^ description of REQL-EST BtiyatedCons^ctiojigstS ^ Desenbe request in detail; .Vd^^r* ^~ V.ARIANCES REQUIREDyc - Setback; Lot Width Front __Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) U..UIDSHmDESCRIWION OF L^-eSU^ PKOJ^ nescribe undue hardship or practical diria^uiy I . J? .o. i / U- . compliance w.tt. Zoning Code reguiretnentatj^ -------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS . .r inr-.T^.H.n n,..^ he s>.bmitted_bv lhs -.ppHontion deadline date in order fnr vour application to b«> considered completei Hennepin Councv Department of Finance, A-60a. Govt Center, j48 o ). - - -- " “calculations as required. In addition, provide one U) cops 8.. t'o^^olrapSc survey texisting and P-POs=d cieva.ionsHf any c^nge^^ Sndc “ are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 3 .4 x 11 or reproduction SkeS or Plans of door dt elevation views iprovide one (1) copy S'-i x 1 — LUt oftnrieeal names (include marital status) of all persons with an mterest m the — nrooertv This would include nameis) of applicant(s) it not current ownet(s). ran^ddeSim to this application, please anach a separate list o. any other persons vou wish riotiiicd of this application. Additional items as may be requested by Cit>- start. 1. 'j j. 4. 5- 6. 7. 8. 9. __ Th, Anoli'ant and Propertv Owner must sign this application. Please remember dial yaut ITriancf nr^nr "in is'not compIneinMdibov^nJormi^^ .-APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE information ^eouired or requested bv the Zoning The applicant hereby agrees to pmv^e no? covered by original 'fee payment) incurred m review of this application^ and certifies that the infomiatton supplied is <ru5^'0™ct to *e best ot toher knowle ge. .Applicant's Signature OWNER’S ^3 apnlication and further authorizes reasonable ^'rv°rto Sie“operrvty cliy staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and venticaticn ot this request. Date 6A ■?/f y ...... — Meeting. Planning Commissi . meetings of the Planning Commission .Applicants must be present scheduled meeting, please make arrangements pi- <0 ^ this change prior to the meeting. 8 Q<^VjL / .j.- ^AA 0/\C n *1 i <^1^0 RUN DAT! 0A/2A/9AMTtN Oli♦'A: MOf min| | CNNIR NAHITAXRAYtRNAME/AODR *• %PROP AOOR (RtCR HAHE TAXPAYER w ; / , HMC/AOQR m'.'I •' I) PROP ADOR OltCR NANE .s. TAXPAYER . NAHE/ADDR •' ♦. : PROP ADOR CPtCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR . i . PROP ADOR . ONNER NAHE taxpayer NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OltlER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR II NTHNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INTORMATION SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LISTSR 04-U7-2S A1 0001 OOOSC. AODRE» UNASSIGNED SHARD RUDD STANLi Y N A RETTY D RUDD 401 PARR LALONG kRRE HN 55354-97AS I SR 04-11/-25 41 0072 040S0 EL!I ST G H ROSCOC A K n ROSCOG GEORGE H ROSCOE 4050 ELH ST LONG LAKE m 55554 56 04-117-25 41 0062 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED raren fuller KAREN FULLER 1477 LONG LAKE RD NEH RRIGHTON m 55112 56 04-117-25 41 0065 00564 PARK LA HE^t<PIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO STREET I DRAINAGE 5/25/64 SD 146505 56 06-117-25 44 0005 00650 MINNETONKA HGLO LA J L BERG A S R DERG JOHN L BERG A SHARON R BERG 450 HINNETONKA HIGHLAND IN LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 06-117-25 44 0014 00650 PARK LA N E A J H HROBLEHSKI NILLIAH E A JOAN HROBLEHSKI 650 PARK LA LONG LAKE HN 55556 56 04-117-25 41 005904D61 OAK ST N NAHHARBERG A D HAHHARBERG D NAHHARBERG A N HAHHARBERG 4061 OAK ST LONG LAKE HN 55554 56 04-117-25 41 0080 00415 HINNETONKA HGLO LA L H NILE A H J LEE LANCE H NILE A MARTHA J LEE 415 HTKA HIGHLAND LANE LONG LAKE HN 55554 58 04-117-25 41 0085 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO KAREN FULLER KAREN FULLER 1477 Lore LAKE RO NEH 6RIGHT0N MN 5S112 58 04-117-25 41 0084 00584 PARK LA HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO STREET A DRAINAGE 5/25/84 SD 166505 58 06-117-25 44 0005 00649 HINTiETOrACA HGLO LA S V SHANTEK A P G SHANTEK STEPHEN A PATRICIA SHANTEK 649 HINrrETOriLA HGLO LA LONG LAKE MN 55556 TOTAL BATCH 018 00016 REPORT NO* PI4554Q1 PAGE SO5B 06-117-25 41 0060 04100 ELH ST LUCY L GULLICKSOM LUCY OULLICKSON 4100 ELM ST LONG LAKE HN 55556 50 06-117-25 41 0081 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIl^O KAREN FULLER KAREN FULLER 1677 LONG LAKE RO r^H BRIGHTON ffi 55112 58 06-117-25 41 0064 00594 PARK LA HERMAN LAUE A HIFE HERMAN LAUE 594 PARK LANE LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 06-117-25 41 0091 00601 Mirt4ET0NKA HGLO LA C CURTIS LEE A HIFE C CURTIS LEE 601 MirE4ET0riCA HIGHLAflO LANE Lore LAKE MN 55556 38 06-117-23 44 0006 00659 MINNETOTACA HGLD LA R H A K L SPEETER RICHARD H SPEETER 659 MINNETONKA HGLO LA Lore LAKE MN 55556 1 >^v V V:J j/ >r.’vi*- .1r i •'m ,J •f» £ t‘ ‘ ^ ,v: 'n•*. ;u -•> i * \ 4 4 ^^edificate r/ ^U'lve^ • ; / ./. cr : £ -L.V« w H ^'A’/C r. ETTE / c. ? WIN06N 4 ASSOCIATES. INC.lAKO SU«V|tCIS T»l «43-3t«« 0«l tuilli 3«.. V. **Ul. »»'0* •^fUiLrs r r*>/ >v T I 4. t. ’ • •. ■ ‘ '■■■'■- - fv S»cqW^\ >■; < 0 OenoVes. ^^Dn• ?iocei Dercot^^ korvTo«'f'4^ • . _\'ic.0 P'.aT _ -. •: ssecs . 1-. Lots 7, 9 and 9, Block 9, Minnetonka Suavoit Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota r"• . » /•» . <.... rirriiT TmaI rws fS A Ttut *N0 COMfCT tlMtJlNTAlION Of * ^ II*! ^ e I *4 • A. j-j4n .4«t une o'' C >--^r7WN a 'NC V . •, • ' ' ' . V. "' V • - 1 .1 ir --------■■!-------------““ i^qio ftp N».23l£ *1 lZ - Bt 0\ - ^/«k vT7S*.»^Y* ^ I 5^“ —TPi>Y APOL^^g :i ’ r . I i f • f . f • t • f d '.^- S 1, fUSGOUUt 'miTUMi . ^ •: , ------OKmo comcn, july 25, 1978^«r^>^^iySZ3n?yr*^?? ^ *«rvlc«« that hlaincSS^tjJ^S? ^ 0«»~ pi^^sis; csssijjsr *“ •"'* "■• !?•“,** ""• »* *•“ <i«t itau to b« attand^ tO|. also, • oooalttaa of po*«lbly two ^u^ilwi^iCT and two Planning Coanlaaion aambar> da.iUZ ^ acquaint then witl» the vario^ «5wi5* City; and, to preaent ieeues to varloua other agenolea ae required. CounclpMBber Maaaengale informed the Planning Orono enjoya a good welcomea Input from citizen^ Good public relatlona la a neceaalty. Mayor Van Neat dlacuaaed the fee achedulo auggesting a preference for an hourly i.ato versus a fixed rate. The City Council requested Bruce Malkeraon, City Attorney, to review the proposed Agreement and present to the City for signatures when corapluted. ^saengale moved, Peaek seconded, to request the City Attorney to redraft the proposed contract for appointing the firm of Isberg, Rieaeiiberg, Chelae^ 4 Associates, Inc. as Planning Consultants to include hourly rates as opposed to fixed fees, cost of materials, and to authorize the Mayor and Dick Benson, City Administrator, to sign-off when ready, to be effective upon signing. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). • p « V f ■■ Peg* 14CIT%' PLANMUIQ; SSaVZ (Continued) /O I Nobody present concerning the rezoning request of Jameu McCleary, 3445 Dayside Road. Deferred until the next meeting. RE20NING 3445 Bayside Road •390 - James McCleary Mayor Van Nest moved, ^t-rek seconded, to adopt Resolution #922, A Resolution Approving A Lot Line Rearrangement For Michael Ankeny And William Noll Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). RESOLUTION #922 Michael Ankeny William Noll 1 i:1 Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into thei:'h record the request for a variance of George Ma*chett, 4055 Elm Street, dated June 21, 1978, which statesi- v”*'' 4^ ' f The applicant wishes to construct a new hone on" an existing vacant lot. The property consists of three separate parcels totaling 19,920 sq.-, ft. (0.457. acre) . r r ^ r ' VARIANCE . 4055 Elm Street • 401 George Hatchett (Continued) .. . • • ■ S t %t 1. * «• V-- - • 1. T-*.. V.'•»j'.ri I .smmnAM!«■# •« ' -^ »^-*^^.^ V^ommcovHciL, July 25. msl*nd ftYAilabl* mm th«JJJ l^SSuld'h ^^\**®“** location «» tb. thr.. let. (1/3 unit par p.L.l) . .-.v^VarltiV^^““«.3S.452 - Lot am. ui<S lot width ' ArM,r«qulx«4t ■rr Aotnal aroat Variaaoat •l^th raquiradt Aotoal widths Variancai 43,560 aq, ft. 19,920 aq, ft. 23,640 aq. ft. - 541 140 ft. US ft. 22 ft. • 16% Bardahlp, no additional land available. Planning Cowal.aion Meeting - June 26, 1978 staff Note - June 28, 1970 right-of-vay°^; Hrk A?eSe the*ditch”with would require crossing of worke Lparti^nt to the public nust be such as to prevent°"f l f procedures of the ditch at all^times! clogging The following table compares adjacent properties: Subject Lot: 601 Mtka. Highlands: 615 Mtka. Highlands: 594 Park Lanat 4100 Ela Straet: 4060 Ela Straet: 4030 Elm Street 19,920 sq. ft 19,500 pq. ft P«9* 15VAB2AMCB4059 Bla Street.(Continued) (9- 17,500 12,000 24,700 15.000 35.000 rq. ft aq, ft sq. ft sq. ft sq. ft *• Variance approved 5-10-76 “ Variance approved 6-24-75 (Continued) . ,y .-i - ■'.• ^ Vi';,% i.'V.l'C.. Vr-;, ,n , ^ •« 1 €. f )!*••4.». ♦ • • •r« WlBmning rnmii■•ioa HMtin^*- July 10, 1978 • ' V * .. \ # approval of variancaa finding proporal I ,, , ^ta tha naighborhood and a hardahip ' bflBO^additlooal land availabla, aubjact to no ;aatbaalt variaaeaa, to lagal lot coabination and to "arpniTal y and culvert by tha City Public vNorka. fsparvlaor. . •Oouaoll Maating - July 25, 1978 a ' Potlar novad, Maaaangala aacondad, to approve ^a raquaat for a varianca of Cao-:gj Matchatt, 4055 lla Stxaat, par tha Planning Comodaaion recora- ■andationa of ^uly 10, 1978. Motion, Ayaa (4) - Vaya (0). Mr. Xian Olaon, City Planner, praaantad tha City Council vith a latter to Ruaaall Wonkatem, 645 North Ar« Drive, dated July 19, 1970, which atateat •The City Engineer haa reviewed the aewer connection aaaaaaaent formula aa applied to thia property. Conaiatent with other auch unusually shaped properties, Axui with average aaaeasment charges in this project, the lateral charge will be baaed upon the average lot depth, in this case 150 ft. (as opposed to the actual lot width of 355 ft.). Therefore, the City Engineer’s assensment calculation is as follows: • •’‘A'Paga.ld'.. , • •«»**; 1VXRXXilCB 4055 Bla Street' (Continued) v v: p / :C:5 ' '*- #r. •f % ^ ^ •» SEWER. ASS ESSMBfTS • 645 North Arm Drive «383 Russell Wenkatem Plant Charge - $110.00/acre X 1.22 - Lateral Charge - $18.30/ft. X 150 “ Unit Charge - each ” Total due with connection End of letter $ 134.20 2,745.00 3,859.05 $6,738. ’ Mavor Van Heat moved, Pesek seconded, to aoprove the assessnifcnts for Russell L. Wenkstern, o45 lloxt^ Arm Drive, in the amount of $6,738.25, per the above. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to waive the Planning Commission review for a variance request of Gloria Dotzenroth for 3085 Casco Point Road.- Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). VARIAHCE 3005 Casco.Point Pjoad Gloria Dotzenroth (Continued) . ..L» <. V- fc- • • • •. . t * '••tv Jun« G««t 4053 P*g« The Sub 601 615 594 4101 406' 403 Rlira PLA Rec the rub app ,.VJ SU ^ < ^er • i , 1 T !3i I „ • r 30, i'’«o ,,■«• cci'Ncn.. .'» '»• \ to the f on owing •-« nitxons: subject to 1. r.n*c 21 '■'/tfi..-. ° . , , .i.- p'»n '■''' ro'U""', • - ■ ____s ta \ •ry (JOSH I * <1205 ^^hor street (Cont)nued) lowing ■• ..hvsic.'^l p'-'f'*- . _ .-.•h..cV? And **’••'';? v' :8* hc^d hoo-e I location, ^:.5‘ - 20 ruled -.o ■>- -"ir--'’"'—only P'-rv-no > h.'! • ’■>’^- " pa (three b.*r. >te3 • <■ r. et p"*’ '* ' c, drivewaysarltinc -r *ccsl . ;*) b) 2 3 C-b.nc .ou. . „„,hocfC aU iP'prover'n.. . ^,...„ p limited to -. J I • ‘^ ■* • i-'O' ■- ■ • _limited to - ^ •hr' r-oi ter-.ons ,^rn’t urented e- Conditional J^e ; - only* . „ . ^i:no n. nsci Coun-'il ------- -.lies, traff'C -r pi ur-^ ^ ..ble tMproDiC*ms. ^ .nbl^ rcq’jcst concernino ^j-ea in excess densely (n - •-’''■’ ‘-,,.r,ts. Motion.en^2>. - *nr entered into •■« "a variance, aated -une c tree t, * oi vhic.h states: variance Street Ts62^ ,ler ;;\cn s-.atea: alien ^STn'r-be The y.At’^ lot width running along cf a lot -he drainage _ ^.^vicwed ,^».r of 1928. • ^ynj proper^., ^L.» the Public nm las ana in 'dvi'-ed^na. ,o, and -.ne nPP'Jf.nJ r-nat de-.-rmne “r.iur« ^ ^ ^ vs ariveway to pro,. - i^sion meeting^ Q •'980 Planning . ,Qt width and their ' *5sion approved • ^ hairdship ■r'^nuo-*"^ cendUicn,: •1 i .* i “» •- * ■ ■ . 0T- ■:• 1T. - el ^i '1 OF THE ORONO COUNC’L. JUNE 30. KEt;UEAR KEE.IN. OF• ' 7 fi i 9 nust be ccnbino1, Lots 7. 8. ^ ^ site. variance4055 Elm Street(Continued) s I ve. . »..s-.rk of the zoninq All construction to mee. setb district LR-IB. j culvert .. . . . . . ccnc:.l «e,tin, - -^une Pauras nov,d. sutler s-conded.^ P" '"Tpjo Planning (O). Motion. Ayes (4. Nays entered into the jeann, r'rtSitiSf'd.pa ». I’BO. wd.C s.adc variance 2690 Pheasant Foaa I5G5 Alan Dale Zoning District " .-B IB 1. Side yard variance: 10* -* • i r » 3o< p.eguired: proposed: Variance; Hardships ( fi \ 1 i f. / •■■ SL.x7;.pi • ’ 14. J a) b) adjacent land ayaila.le y,ouse location on .o. ^ n have r»'Contly constructed a dec - extending The .heir home at ^hey would?ron^"eirneighbor;s property^lin^^ ro^^^r^fd^ci th^. will -;-y:s "nsid^red :„ dncrd*cp.np«^.;‘i;li\,dv>.od td»t not !he action meeting.appearance at _ s ft Q n council .ooiin, ^^l-'a'^rsoiution Approving the variance request draft a .v» Tcon Pheasant . of theo£ Alan Jaie. 269P ^ gnd made a par^ of tne °orch never being chain of "?he SSo... P=/« l":r-ioi. did r'’°' ■that the (4) - Nays lO).,;outh. Motion. Ayes (4) ' ‘I4^ 4.^ M i -1 V3 >- a • */Ki > Muuits or THB ruumvc comhissiou rriHG HJOD AOGOST 15, 1988 . / >- lonac rxLS fill? ooarzwnm approval of application 81317, per staff recovaendations, findings and conditions. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays>0, Motion passed. 11311 SOAO B. aiAHABI 1745 rOX 8TUST VABIJUK3 rOBLXC HXABIBC The Affidavit of Publication md Certificate of Hailing were noted. The applicants ware not present for this natter. It was BK>ved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to table 11318 until the next Planning Coaaisslon seating so that applicant can pretentr— •1319 KAUM nnxn 4055 KLM STEXrr BBOHAL VABJABCB PUBLIC EXABZBG The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were •otpd^_ _— The applic.'nts were not present for this matter. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to table 11319 until the next Planning CoiTjuiselon meeting so that applicant can be present. 81330 DR. ABD MRS. RORBRT DRAMDENhURC. 719 MliOIETOaXA BICULABDS LABS VAKIAK3 PUBLIC BXARIBC 9il7 P.M. TO 9i33 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicants were present for this mat er. Saffron explained that the applicants ware seeking approval hardoover varianues to reconstruct a screen porch and existing ^'.rr'deok OB the lakeside of their hone. The existing deck was :'i,?«^KeoBOtraotod aporoxioetely XO years ago with untreated wood end is poor oonditlon. They would liks to replace the structurna in - V^rtbejRaae location but with a different configuration. There ..-Vv would be a revision to the existing walkway. The replacement '.V''Btmctoree will eooroech no further Into the view lino end will be inviaible from the neighboring property to the northwest. There le virtuelly no Incrcxee in hardcover In the 75*350' sone. / Ttimtm no coooMnts tiom thm public r^gardinq this mattar and tho public hearing was cioaad. , , r*e "•»e. a a ap »*i***'“^ • 1 •V> VrfV’ * cmr OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay» NLN 55323 473-7357 TO: Bradley & Dina Eiherington 4631 Aquila Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 ZONING FILE #1944 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 8/17/94 COPIES TO:Karen F. & Tim Feyc 1677 Long Lake Rd. New Brighton. MN 55112 Lance M. Wile 615 Minnetonka Highland La. Long Lake, MN 55356 Herman Laue 594 Park La. Long Lake, MN 55356 Stephen & Patricia Swantek 649 Minnetonka Highland La. Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPUCATION:Variance DATE OF MEETING: 8/15/94 VOTE 4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1 Le2al combination of Lots 7-8-9 required prior to issuance of building permit. 2. Provide grading and drainage plans for proposed house to be reviewed by stall prior to submission of variance for Council action. 3. Improvements shall meet standard setback and hardcover requirements. 4. Staff to review neighbors' claims of survey discrepancies and evaluate whether such claims have potential validity sufficient to cause the City to delay action on this application. Neighbors making such claims are requested to submit their documentation no later than September 2, 1994. If you have questions, contact Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Mike Gaffron at 473-7357. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of grading and drainage plan. Deadline for the September 12ih Council meeting is September 2, 1994. TV H Zoning File #1944 August 17, 1994 Page 2 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. Elm STRfc r • V' * ■'■-■'■<-V :.■.•? ■'• ^•4 ^ ! . * »a 4 ‘ * O GO I 0 t S>caW- OenoVes Denoi'CS \Uo • •• \ron PlaceJ Iron Found •% • *: • c >-• ' V. ''iCw; * -•'."..a' / r> N/ O-N f.»; ,..'.T ■; A ✓ V / \ rN I ^^ory From^ • W «^ a W W f-f • A No . 00 1 r . 0 i PmN! • brand fax ^an5mitta^ memo 7571 • o*qm ► j ^ /Vy cf O^Tn^ T) da C 7 -------------^0 0«pt.azn-'lc^oo ^13-OStc K2^-00?./ /NTot City of orono From: Lance & Marti Wile 615 Minnetonka Highlands Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 Date: Septerrber 2, 1934 Re: Zoning File iil944 Notice of Planning Commission Action Notice Cate: 9/17/94 We hereby request the Orono City Council to delay action on the above variance application until such time that the discrepancies over the lot lines are resolved. When lots 1, 3, & 9 were transferred from the Matchettes to Karen Fuller, this transfer was based on the 3/11/13 survey. This survey indicates that the Wile residence f615 Minnetonka Highland Lane) was 47 feet from the lot line. This same survey was used when the Etheringtons made the offer to purcha.se lots 7, a, & 9. Therefore, they were under the impression that the land was located 4 7 feet from, the Wile residence. When the Wiles purchased their house in 1988, the purchase was m.ade based on the survey dated 8/14/75 which indicated that the house was 44 feet from the lot line. Trees were flashed many years ago, miarking the lot line. One of Che trees is 47 feet from, the Wile residence. The most recent survey indicates t):at the Wile residence is 42.2 and 41.7 feet from the lot line. We do not believe that this survey is correct. In addition, it appears the Laues do not agree that the m.ost recent survey is correct. We would like to work this out with the prospective buyers cf lota 7, 9, & 9. We will be hiring a surveyor in order to obtain a m.ore current survey of our property. We will advise the results of that survey when they are available. One additional concern wc ha*/e is that we have large trees which border the property line. Because it appears a lot of gradir.g/earch removal will be required to install a driveway, we ask that the 10' setback be ob.served for any area where there is a tree that is a minimum of 10 inches in diameter. This is to protect the root system of these well established trees and to preserve the overall aesthetics of Che existing neighborhood. Sent. £). 1994 P Tc : Fro.^: Pe: Ororc Citv Council Brad and Oma It^»sri-»c*cn 4g31 4auila <4ue. ri»w '■^cc», "IN *f433 Addendun tc Zo'^in'5 File Thgre is nn raason aoD1ication. to del action on this var i anr., e Uie have suDpliea all itens and i nf cr n-a 11 cr -aquestad the Planning Commission ana ^ave riet all dnadlmes. b V The neighbors have failed to pro/ide a current survev b/ the deadline stated in the Notice o"-' Planning Conmission Mcticn dated Accordma to Jeame Nabuath, Building and Zoning Adm i n :‘a t r a t c ^ , the Wiles' survey dated B/lA/75 ’/vas based on a praposea reuse ai'«d is no i an ‘NaS built" sur /ev . We have pro/ided a survey dated 3/u'n.^ prepared bv CeMar s -Gacr i© 1 Land r ir'/GV’ors » a tCD^ ’ateo company in the state M ne^o t a - At the time we made the offer to purchase this procertv, we requested that the owner arrange to have a new survey done prior to closing. We realized that measurements wer ^Qprovimate* and did not base our decision on any implied or expressed lot lines cr oravinf>i*:^ to surrourdinq s true tu’-es . / / f HARDCOVER CALCULATIOH HORKSHEi SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE CNE) 0-73' 75-250 Existing H ardcover in Zone 250-5 W 50Q-1QQO' A. House 3^.0 _ X LENGTH Z -O Z ■ O (7.G _ X a. Garage / e> ■ c> /6» *'yo o T)c. DRr/EWAV42_jLL2 (9 "-i X (D Ho.f. D. SiDEWALX (o.Z 3 o X 2. o E. Patio / Decx X /S'O X p.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY PLASTIC SHEETING X X 3>o WIDTH X 757.^ / d>. o ^ ■ o /<=» . €> 3Pc^ /a <5 12.0 f2 . 12.N ^ //.- 7 /2,4 /V.O /H- G. Other _________-— x------- Zc>r~ Total Hardcover Im Zone O s.F. Q s.F. 2 0 0 s.F. /o2. y s.F. S.F. 2^^ O S.F. /C j^ / o 0 •-IC' . o 3 S.F. *7.^.3 S.F. ?___ s.p. ^ S.F. O S.F. Z/0^O_ s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. f/C2.C Y I20 ;2 9'jT ^ 1^0 tZ WoTAL P roperty Area in Zone PO ^?0. y X 100 V^S6.S- S.F. B V^56,r ^22-7 % PLUM INC t TEL: 1-612-329-0021 $«p 18.95 7:42 No.001 P.Ol To:City of Oroiio Froft:Shirley 4 Heini-iti Lauc Lance i M.-.iti Wil*» Dat«:Soptenil.f'rr 13. 199"/ Re:Zoning Fi)o f20b0 Post-It • brand tat transrrrrtfal rnemo ^ C\ i‘i- €/ 0.t\C Ifa' t(-iOtfe. c« Oc^«.82^-M.D '•** 4'?3"C5/o we are opro.e^. to th. ,ra..,.n, of =« 1°' fot the property localod at 4055 Elm Street. First the Pl-evioii^ varienret. were ap.-roved bec..nso defr.on4tr.ite0 ther there w.as a har.Hhip. There is noL ® har.l#«Mp. It’s ou> under»: an.lino the existing owners lot U^t year and the sale fell through becaofse of « lot line d?4i..i^e ^ On seveial ocr-si.ins the neighbors have offeied to U° lot LrLor. th... t... p. Ic- xf waa b..n, ,ol.1fbr last yea*. Thos.: offeis wore Jecl'ned. Secon.l, the above mentioned lot line dlMpute has not yet beon received. Third ainoe th.=* tim.- the (cuirently expired) varian..-e w.ns we expect..! the lot to cr.nfo-.,:, w-.th th. J the cogent tel ohere.'te. of the local >ry_ However * fence has been constructed on two sid-s and rn 3ign.s were hung on all four side.-.. Is this . conforn.an*.e witn the es.sential chara.'tei of the locality? (Section 10.03) Finally, e-ch rih-ighbot on this street h.o;i at setbarks from their hou«e to t»ie lot iin«a. We jT;'' ‘ ^ regne-it that a cov«i.,ii.i be acJ.led which would require a 40 side Utback This would serve to alleviate seme of the run.*, t nrohlems which were considered an is.-tue during a previous council mooting as well as serve to conform with the essential character of the locality. c:\11?orono City of Ofono Ptanning Commission Re; #2060 4055 Elm Street To the Commission: As residents of 630 Park Lane, we would like to express our concern regarding the proposed variance at the referenced location. The run-otf associated with the summer rairts in 1996 along with the resultant damage, has created this concern. Unfortunately, due to scheduling conflictsfback to school night and out of town), we cannot attend the meeting. We trust you will accept our letter as an expression of our position. It is our opinion that any icrease of hard cover within the #2060 area will add to a significant run-off problem to our property. Even more important is the City of Orono lake access on Paili Lane. City records will confirm the amount of gravel and rock which has been used to maintain the access. Yet every year, the run-off results in more gravel/rock and labor to restore the access. All of which becomes our tax dollars flowing into Lake Minnetonka The run-off is the overflow from the small drainage stream which flows through the #2060 area and into culverts. During heavy rains, the pond located in the Oak Street area overflows into the drainage stream. In conjunction with the natural stream drainage, the result has been wash out of the access and problem with the sewage lift station, it Is our concern that additional hard cover at #2060 will only add to an existing condition. Respectfully submitlei aiM^LUJ William E Wroblewski Joan M Wroblewski 630 Park Lane HEQIKST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCHMEETING OCT 9 1995 CITY Of ORONO DATE; October 4, 1995 ITEM N O : Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Department Approval: Name Michael P. Galfron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Adm. _______________ ___________ _____ Item Description: #2067 Bruce and Terry Clark. 625 Old Long Lake Road - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: RR-IB. 2 acre Single Family Rural Residential Application: Side setback variance to extend existing attached garage. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/22/95 C - Memo and Exhibit of 9'5/95 Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B) Required side yard = 30’ Existing side yard = 23.7’ Proposed side yard = 23.4’ V'^ariance = 6.6* or 22% Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of September 5th. Brietly. applicants propose to reconstruct the existing attached 20’x20’ garage and extend it rearward an additional 10’ to make it 20'x30’. The side w'all of the garage is not quite parallel to the side lot line, hence the setback of the extended ponion will be a few inches closer to the lot line than the existing garage. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission at their September 18th meeting recommended approval on a vote of 6-0, finding that the separation between the existing/proposed garage and the neighboring residence is adequate such that tlie proposed garage addition will have little impact on the neighbor. Further, Planning Commission agreed with applicants’ hardship statement that the existing garage location constitutes a hardship, and that the existing garage is in need of major repair. r Mi f 10.) Requ^ for Council Action coniinued page 2 of 2 October 4. 1995 Zoning FUe #2067 Staff Rec III I I w-ndation Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; , seconded by , to adopt Resolution #, granting a Proposed Motion side setback variance to Bruce and Terry Clark of 625 Old Long Lake Road for construction of an attached garage, ch A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #2067 WHEREAS, Bruce and Terri Clark (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 625 Old Long Lake Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City ') and legally described as follows: That part of the west half of the southwest quarter of Section 36, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the east line of said west half of the southwest quarter and the northerly line of the Minnesota Western Railway; thence north along the east line of said west half 211.46 feet to the center line of County Road No. 27; thence deflect to the left 93 degrees 21 minutes along the center line of the road 239.15 feet; thence southerly to a point in the northerly line ot said Railway right-of-way, which point is 238.69 feet westerly, measured along said Railway right-of-way, from the point of beginning; thence easterly along said Railway right-of-way to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the propeny"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of an attached garage addition located 23.4’ from the west side lot line where a 30 ’ side yard setback is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVTD by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2067. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB, 2 acre Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 4 I iiiMyi 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18. 1995. and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A. The existing garage is 23.7 ’ from the west side lot line. The proposal to reconstruct the existing garage and construct an additional 10’ to the rear will result in a final side yard setback of 23.4’. B. The neighboring residence is approximately 30’ from the lot line and the separation between the two houses is approximately 50-60’, adequate to result in no significant impact on the neighboring property . C. The existing garage is in need of major repair, and the location of the existing house constitutes a hardship for reconstruction of the attached garage. The additional 10’ to the rear will have no additional impact on the neighbor. 4. 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. 5. The City Council fnds 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 Vire 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 risiht of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan . ttjc City. CONCLLSIO.NS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28. Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of an attached garage located 23.4 ’ from the west side lot line where a 30’ side yard setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions; Page 2 of 4 1.Authorities granted by this variaiKe run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building perm., within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 9, 1996). 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 9th day of October, 1995. ATTEST Dorothv 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 9th day of October. 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 Citv. Notary Public Paee 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HEiNNEPIN ) 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 f regoinc instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) tree act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of , 199 before me a Notarx' Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 J CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2067 NOTICE OF PLANNING CO.NCVnSSION ACTION DATE OF NO! ICE: September 22, 199J TO: Bruci and Teny Clark 625 Old Long Lake Road W? /zata, MN 55391 COPIES: Thomas Terry 5879 West Branch Rd Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATEOi .ii:ETING:09/18/95 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Citv Council. Monday, October 9. 1995; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m If you desire certified copies of &: official Planning Commission minutes, ihev are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planmng Commission. ( rir./*, • f 1 *rj.i ■ i .i 7 T-rr»ri-imi\ ? /I To:Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cirv Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:September 5, 1995 Subject:#2067 Bruce and Terry Clark, 625 Old Long Lake Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB. Two Acre Single Family Rural Residential Application: Request for side setback variance to extend existing attached garage List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - Application Adjacent Property Owner’s Acknowledgement Plat Map Property ’ Owners’ List Survey Site Plan Construction Plan Topographic Map Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B) - Required side yard = 30 ’ Pertinent Facts Existing side yard setback = Proposed side yard setback Required side yard seioack Variance = 6.6' or 22% 23.7’ = 23.4 ’ 30 ’ Discussion Applicants propose to reconstruct the existinr attached 20’ x 20’ garage and extend it rearxvard an additional 10’ to make it 20’ x 30 ’. The side wall of the garage is not quite parallel to the side lot line, hence the setback of the extended ponion will be a few inches closer to the lot line than the existing garage. This addition will slightly raise the rcof line above the garage, but it will still be below the roof line of the house. The neighboring residence is approximately 30 ’ from the lot tine. hence the separation between the two houses is approximately 50-60 ’. Lot coverage by structures including the proposed garage, existing house and decks, is 5.2% of this 1 .0 acre lot. Applicants* hardship statement indicates that the existing garage is in need ot major repair, and the location of the existing house constitutes a hardship. The neighboring property owners are aware of the proposed addition. Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission finds that there are no reasonable alternatives to the requested variance and that the hardships presented support the variance request, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Planning Commission motion should include the hardships and any conditions of approval. t y ■v-f* riiTffl CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning struemres S200.00 After-ihe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ' 1 - . * w .«t- PROPERTY’ INTORMATION Site .Address ^ -V ... • • > .••i .i - i Property Identification Number (P.l.D.)_____sJ66 -----IL^' A / —^o_o_3 Attach legal descnption to application if not included on required sun ,. . , , ^ _ K ^ (month/vear)Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___other (specify) Zoning Districi:^______________________________—----- APPLIC ANT Phone (home) ^ ^^ VAme' ----- Phone(woy f7f- rY?f Address: rf A/- OU'N'ER (if different than applicant) Name Phono home) YC o Phone (work) A^^3' JiTCG oiy ity : O/^c-riSl----------^‘P:---------- druc^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S------------------------^ npsrrihe request in detail: ^u. t ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ — A .«■-'/ V.ARLANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ tatuch additional sheets if necessary) {f Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage )4 Setback:Front Xside Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship 'descriphon of unxsual property condhions Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zomng Code requirements: presr^T —C V A/e^^D o/=r ___. /T/^^ ^ . T-Ag------et^rxer:. y~A^ ^<3^ rvo^r>/=~ 7~A (attach additional sheets if necessary) <^C^,X f r/ Tec TC A |Z7f /■?_ . X < ! S ft^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS An of the following information must bt submitt^H hv the apglirntion deadline jn ordeg for vQur application to be considered complete; 1. >2. 3. - Sed of o*""^ '50'- P'" “P Tl 60 obtain Oiis list. labels and map from Hennepin County Depanment ot Fmancw,. Govt Center, 3‘18-3271). j • ,i t,arH^'nvr*r __Certificate of Sun-’cy (signed by a licensed sup.eyor) an ^ ^ calculations as required. In addition, provide one ( ) copv T'o^'rapW^survev («mmg a=d proposed elevar.onsHf any changes in easting grade ■“ are^^opLed. In Edition, provide one (1) copy 8 ‘r^ x ^\ f Sketches or plans of tloor & elevation views (provide one "°P> ^ — List of the leaal names (include mantal status) ot all persons — orooertv. This would include name(s) of applicanti.s) it not current ownens). As an addendum to this application, please atuch a separate list of any o er perso you wish notified cf this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City stalf. The Annlicant and Pronerrv Owner must sign thts application. Please remember that v«ui .anniication is cmnplele if thejthovf information has notjLeen_mc]ude-w - ^PLIC.^NT provide all information required or requested by the Zoning A(4Sisiiaior, agrees to pay additional fees (staff tune not covered by original tee and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of information supplied is true and correct to^thejesLoUus/her knowledge. .Applicant’s Signature 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Date ^ Jt ~ . ^ OT-NER b bic- agrees to tfuT^piiduon and further authorizes reasonable emn°omo the' ptoperrv by c[ty suff. consultaSrl^ts. Commission members, and Counci members for purposes>inVcst,gatton^ «nfica.ion ot thts request. / ! // / / Owner’s Signature Date -r s.vP 111 submitia/^nto the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission m tve ai; aJtho™^^^^^^ m your place and to advise die Buildmg & Zoning Otftcc of this change prior to the meeimg. ( Adiacnt PTopen, 0»B Fok.^ ^ ;■) V' r ^ of o/d /ons /6|Cc <o^ ^ I (wc) “IILkSA ----!l__------------- rpnnt adiess] rnHnt nAIZStS)]ipriocnl^is)] have reviewed the No-------------• at Li^ q\A \«^ g.Q- ^‘50 rc......^ I (we) understand that ut e«e-..t=, project or use requires Council approval. Datc^ mmmrnmM I (we)print soameisj)[priiH address . a U Hn, fcr d-c Dtcposed improvcoent or proposed use of the property located have reviewed u-.e plans fcr -^= ^and Use .Application No--------------■ t;;;;;^:^!;;;;;^ in e.«cuiing Si Uto7(tra.4 ‘?areraware of fhe'tapr;ve.er.i plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. Date Prccerty Owner Date Properr/ Owner AppSo,S"-=^^^ SdLg^rzlnt oS^t So days pHor ro die scheduled meeting date. 7'riJtL .J t / MJN DAT! wn^/niv-v V ■ , -tmtch for..V ■ V, ; i SA-UO-U SX 000«• - .mm ffilfCPIH COflTY MMMiTY INTOOHATiq^ SYSTEH PROPERTY OMNERS LISTiifW AOOR 00030 AOORESS iMASSIGNEf J OMCR NAME ; STATE Of HZ»MTAXPAYER 4;. STATE OF HZMN (ONR) HfK/AOOR': (LUCE LINE TRAZLI• %■f'« ■I .•■! ■’f' mr «m tj^TAKPAYEII St^ NAHE/AOM M S4-118-25 52 0005 0042S OtO LONG LARf RO 00 CLARK I T 0 CLARK . ORUCC 0 I TERRY 0 CLARK AES OtO LONG LAKE RO HAYZATA HN SS591 '■ ; 5 .^ (MCR NANB JAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 50 'S4-U8-E5 52 0010 OOiSO RUANN RO R i K STUOEDAKER pm. r a kay r sTyoEOAKER 550 RUAm RD HAYZATA HN 555$I % ’ f. »• »- PROS AOOR * * t TAXPA1 j^/AOOR 10454-110-25 55 0011 00050 HYRTLEHDOO RD J 0 OESSE-LASCOURSy^ S RlETZ J 0 OESSE-LASCOURS/S S RIET2 50 KYRTLEHOOO RO HAyZATA HN 55391 I |4«' ^LSVVV.’':'«r. <r- •irUri ' f " . 4- ' ■ ' 1/1.a*':* ■ •■ t-l.i'W'- '.I- ■■■ ** *.4“i M ji: •Tva \ RERORT NO. P145S401 RAGE 1230 54-110-25 51 000700050 AOORESS UNASSIWED 0 K i A C KARNER DALE R NARNER 575 KAKIFIELD RO HAYZATA HN 55591 50 54-110-25 51 001700575 HAKEFIELO RO 0 K 4 A C KAPOIER DALE K I ANN C HARNER 575 HAKEFIELO RO HAYZATA HN 5559150 54-110-25 52 0004 00445 OLD LONG LAKE RO J 0 CROOK A H L CROOK JAMES 0 < nary L CROOK 445 OLO LONG LAKE RO HAYZATA It4 55591 50 54-110-25 52 0009 00540 RUANN RO 6 S KNIGHT ANA KNIGHT GERARD A NARY ANN KNIGHT 540 RUANN RO HAYZATA HN 55591 50 54-110-25 55 0005 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MIW STATE OF Hir«4 (DNRI CLUCE LINE TRAIL) 50 54-110-25 55 0004 00050 HYRTLENOOO RO SAM CHAMPLIN STEVEN K CHArO»LIN 50 HYRTLEHOOO ROAD HAYZATA HN 55391 SO 34-110-25 54 0001 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGKED HAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB HAYZATA COUNTRY CLl© P 0 BOX 151 HAYZATA MN 55591 TOTAL BATCH 507 00011 I CERHFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENT«PIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF DATI * < i ,*• I •* Mp. Po. i • ! % i t » * f I ? 4 * V> ^ > ■ f I \r »^ ;■ ? M; * i» .^.ir ■K t ■i rP . 'y.- - >. I t ■i.* r ;i ‘ ^{' ^' ‘ . ‘ i• * ’ ^ ’. ' • i r 4 1m in TM£ MtSf \fZ Of THC «/• Of SCC. 3S-Y1i.^3 MfnnEfin counrr. nfmifSQT/l TO ms M.J mii (tCAl DC SCH if nUN lli«l f'd* I Ilf I Ilf Wc**l half of till* SoiilfiKpsi quiftei of '>o(tion 3G. lo^ir.hip MB North, Itangc Wcf.l of U* Olh frlncipat Mpridlan, (les(rjiefl d\ follows: Pcginniurj .u the poiMi of pf tfif Cast line of Sdld West half of ti»e Sou*,mwest Quarter and till* northerly line of lf‘e Minnesota Western Railway, thenre north along the Cast line of said Wesf half ?ti.46 feet I c> tf»r' rcmerline of bounty Road No. thence deflect to ti»e left *3 deurees ?t «funutes along the centerline of the road ?3J.1S feet, thence snotficrl) to a |»oini m the northerly | i nc of said kaiUay right of-way. which point IS ?3H III westerly, nip a so ted along said Railway ri |hi of-way. fro» the po.“t of r»eoinnni4|. fi.iMire paMrr’y v.iil P,ii|,<ay r » ofi t . o f . ^ to the poini ui Pffgifirting. Date S iO Scale r* . Y.v • I r o»i 1 er t tiund Hear Inqs Shown jrr :j m jssumnrt datum / " •“ .2TO* fills Survey shows the locailon of an enisling house in relation to t ne bound.iries of the a- liove described property It does not purport to Show any oilier improvenenls or enc r ua c hniCn I S • 1 hereby certify that this survey was prepared by ■ e or under eiy direct supervision and that I am a duly registered land surveyor under the ||ws of the Slate of Hinnesota. COfflH i GRONHlRG, INC. ark 57 CrorTLergltn . 11 rr~WoT“T7755 • • • . # ^yOi>'r7 /f\ ^ V ^ / } O '.f r><• I Ji- ” -• 1 '-T^ Wff ^ B^P X:V/*^A'X / 4, 1, ® 'O rc ^U !C K \ » I 6^$<i 1<S ' Q\J^ •’t?ocr ]' 11 • I oovnrrrr'T . 'TK'WWVRmrT • TERRYBUILT • TERRYBUELT • TERRYBUILT • TERRYE V V Vi \0 o.0 ! ZO Vf J L /^^ .•* ' \ ' f 1 ; //r'-?, f ,V// / 15'' Oco'- •I :J Id A Q) ^ Mc'Jt 7V’u5/<* ?c •*•01; P d<S f~ • /A- { 5/i?« U4// 'C> » /' // ^»CAt i?/<r7'r ri :ouiit ^ /3i» /?c ^ d ^ Cct.if‘^^!> "i * / / Couf^Sf Sic t - // r> 0 - Cor^/*^C' f£>floor ¥ r^■.c^ & A->/< //5 T/^u i^oor oov'ftrrrr'T • TRRRVBr/rJLT • TERRYBUELT • TERRYBUILT fix) • terry Built • T erry : r/ eiS / 'Jc w '/ #< / /I < i,y-1'V “ ' «T/</5 7//If ---------------------------=;io '-----------------------------------^ >T . Xrrbv B i/FLT ♦ TtCRRYBVtLT • Ter RYBUILT • TEKAYBVUT • T£RlirBB'c^ov ’fCrrr -i COUNCIL McETiiiG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION g 1995 DATE: Oc.0|Y^BONO ITEM NO.; Department Approval: .Name Michael P. Gaffron Title . issistant Planning ft Zoamg Admmistnttor Administrator Re> iewed:Agenda Section: Zoning i.em P«criptto.= «068 Pat and Kathy Smieja. 4040 Watertovan Rood - Variances Resolution Zoning District: RR-l A. Single Family R u-1 ^.esidenual, 5 Acre AppUciion: Request for setback vanances tu construct tuo additions to the existing residence List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice ot Planning Coriiinission Action - C - Memo and Exhibits of 9/6/95 Discussion Please revtc-.v the memo and exhibits of September 6. llrtelly, applicants properse to construct additions m the existing residence as follows: vtA•^ - Tuck under garage and one-stor>' addition to east end ot house (^8 x 36). - Three-season porch addition at west end of house (14 ’ x 16’). In this live acre zone, the required setback from Watenoven Road is lOO’. *e r -quircd_se.back fromin ,h,s I,VC acre zone, me .cqu w the north propei^^ oun _ standards, the proposed garage,one-story proposed "i^There'/o' is required, and 'si'from Watertown Road addition will be J. ch will be 46.S’from the north lot line and 25.7'from where 100’ is required. The three-season porci Watertown Road (see Site Plan. Exhibit E of 9/6/95 memo!. Applieams have removed the pre-existing detached garage. This request ,s similar to one approved for the previous owners in '^ "Hwl Itrted The proposal offsets the garage/one-story addition slightly to the rear to preserve views from the kitchen toward the east. J L Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 October 4,1995 Zoning File 4206S Planning Commission Recommendation At their September 18 meeting. Planning Commission voted 6-0 to appn.>ve the requested \ ariances. finding that the currently proposed garage, one-story' addition is somewhat smaller than that approved in 1994. the property- is of an unusual tnangular shape, the existing residence has been at this location on the property for o%er 45 years, that there is adequate septic capacity to seix e the proposed improvements and adequate area tor future alternate septic site on the limited property, that existing vegetative screening reduces the visual impact ot the additions, and that there is no other land available for purchase. Per staffs recommendation. Planning Commission included the following conditions: a.Existing septic system and area to the south of the septic system must be fenced off prior to any land alterations or construction activities on the property. b.The property owner shall review trafTic visibility at die driveway access and remove plantings as necessary to create a safe access. c.Applicant to provide a site grading p'an for City approval prior to issuance of building permits. Staff Kecommendation Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. COl NCIL action REQl ESTKD: , seconded by , to adopt Resolution No.PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by _____ granting approval of setback variances for Pat and Kathy Smieja of 4040 Waf-rtown Road for construction of a 14' x 16’ three-season porch addition and 28' x 36’ living space/garage addition.construction of a 14 Vote: ayes.na\s. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION ia.27, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. 2068 WHEREAS, Pat and Kathy Smieja (hereinafter "the applicants") are ONvners of the property located at 4(H0 Waterto%vn Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City ") .ind legally described as follows; That part of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 31, Towaiship 118 North. Range 23 West of the fifth principal meridian, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the north line of the southeast quarter of said section distant 743.5 feet west of the northeast comer of said quarter section: thence east to said northeast comer, thence south on the east line ot said quarter section a distance of 303 feet; thence northwesterly in a straight line to the point ot beginning, said U*act lying north of the center of the south Watertown Road (so called), Hennepin County , Minnesota (hereinafter "the property "); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow construction of an addition to the existing residence, such addition to be located 51' from the side street (Watertown Road) where a 100’ setback is normallv required, and 32' from the north lot line where a 50’ setback is normally required; and a similar variance to said section to allow the construction of a three season porch to be located 25.7 ’ from the side street (Watertown Road) where a 100’ setback is normally required, and 46.8’ ft-om the north lot line, where a 50' setback is normally required. NOW, 1 HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV ED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FINDINGS 1 This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2068. I he propertv is located in the RR-IA, Single Family Residential Zoning District requiring five acres in area. The property consists of 1.28 acres exclusive of adjacent public right-ot-ways. Page 1 of 5 3. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September IS, 1995 and recoii jnendcd approval of the variances as proposed, based upon the follouing findings: A. The propeny is 1.28 ac ’-es in area and subject to five-acre zoning st.uidards. B, The property is of an unusual triangular shape. C. The residence has existed on this property for over 45 years and does not meet the current setback standards tor the RR-1 A zoning district. D.There is adequate septic capacity to serve the proposed improvements and adequate area for future alternate septic site o.: this severely limited property. E.TTiere is no additional property available for purchase to reduce the degree of variances required. F.There is adequate existing vegetative screening to reduce the visual impact of the proposed additions. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighKmng property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to allev iate a demonstrable hardship oi difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property nght ot the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan ot the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City statT, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and weltarc of the community. Page 2 of 5 1 ■7 CONCXUSIONS, ORDKR AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27. Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a 28' x 36' living spaceigarage addition located 32' front the north lot line wher^ 50' setback is normally required, and 51' from the side street (Watenonn Roadl lot line where a IM setback 15 normally required; and grams setback vanances for construction ot a 14 x 10 screen porch addition located 25.7 from the side street (Watertown Road) lot line where 100 normally required, and 46.8' from the north lot line where a 50' setback is normally requued. subject to the following conditions; The site plan submitted with the variance application must be adhered to. The existing septic system and area to the south of the septic system must be fenced off prior to ;my land alterations or construction activities at the property. The property owner shall review tralTic visibility at the driveway access and remove plciniings ns ncccssnrv to crcnic n snlc ncccss. Applicant shall provide a site grading plan for City approval prior to issuance of the required building permits. Authorities cranted bv this variance run with the propertv’ not with tlie applicants, but itre permissive onlv and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will e::pire on that date (October 9. 1>96). 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, vind shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants ha\e read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, succcs.sors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title ot the property. Page 3 of 5 r Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting teld on the 9lh day of October, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callalian, Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknow ledged betore me on this 9th day of October, 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 behall of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 Ui STATE OF KHNNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Noiar)’ Public within and for said County, personally appeared______________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) descnbed 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 dav of .199 . before me a Notary Public w ithin 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 Pace 5 of 5 UiTti ngiira 1313!i /J. TO FROM; Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admimstrator DATE: September 6, 1995 SUBJECT: #2068 Pat and Kathy Smieja. 4040 Watertown Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District; RR-IA, Single Family Rural Residential. 5 acre. Application; Request for setback variances to construct two additions to the cxistmg residence. Pertinent Code Section 10.27, Subd. 5 (B): Required front yard/side yard adjacent to street setback = 100 required side yard setback = 50’. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Propeny Owners List D - Sur\ey E - Site Plan F - Proposed Floor Plan/Elevation Views G - Screen Porch Addition Proposal from Application #1956 H - Site Plan from Application #1956 I - Resolution #3465 J - Staff Memo 8/10/94 Pertinent Facts Based on the zoning code definitions, for this tnangular shaped lot the lot line abutting Stubbs Bav Road is front, the lot line abutting Watertown Road is the side street, and the northerly lot line rear of the house is acmally the side lot line (see Exhibit J, page o Aueust 10. 1994 staff memo). 1. 3. I^t area excluding right-of-ways = 1.28 acres. Lot coverage ny the 15% allowance. smiciures is proposed at 2.230 s.f./55.900 s.f. = 3.99%. well within .(9 J Zoning File #2068 September 6, 1995 Page 2 4.A.Side street setback (Watertown Road) Required = 100’ Existing = 30’ Proposed =51’ (Large addition east of existing) Proposed = 25 ’ (3-season porch addition, west end) V^ariance = 75 ’ or 75% B.Side setback (north lot line, to rear of house) Required = 50 ’ Existing = 42' Proposed = 32’ (Large addition) Proposed = 46.8’ (Three season porch addition) V’ariance = 18’ or 36% Application #1956 Tlie previous owners of this property, Tom and Chris Smieja, were granted variances on September 12, 1994 to construct a 1,250 s.f. footprint garage/living space addition directly east of the existing house, plus a 14'xl6’ screen porch at the west end of the house. That proposal included a new basement plus two stories, and would have required significant grading work. It was approved subject to fencing off the septic system, removal of the detached garage, and review w ith possible revision of existing vegetation at the driveway entrance which inhibits sight lines. Current Proposal The current applicants. Pat and Kathy Smieja. propose a less intense addition. With a 36'.x28’ (1,008 s.f.) footprint, the addition will be only a lower level garage with one level of living space above it (see Exhibit F). The proposed screen porch addition at the west end is also included in this request, although the current applicants may delay work on that part of the project. Note from the elevation views that the new addition will be vertically offset from the existing house by approximately 3’. Only minor grading is expected to be needed on the site, however, a grading plan should be submitted with the building permit application. Other than a reduction t.i !• L»print and height, the most significant difference between the previous and current appii: d'u tis is that the easterly addition will now be set back approximately 10' from the front line of the house, ending up approximately 12.5' behind the rear of the existing house, approximately 32 ’ from the north lot line. Note that the neighbor ’s fence is approximately 10’ north ot the actual lot line. Zoning File #2068 September 6, 1995 Page 3 Existing vegetation screening along the north line as well as along the Watertown Road boundary, tends to decrease the visual impact of more than doubling the size of the house. Further, applicants hav'e removed the 684 s.t. detached garage which formerly abutted the north line, in favor of the proposed attached tuck under garage which consolidates the garage into the principal residence structure. As in the previous approval, the location and capacity of the septic svstem is a concern. The proposed addition will not encroach the existing septic system or potential alternate sites, although those sites are to the east of the driveway and need to be protected during construction. The capacity of the existing septic system is for three bedrooms or 450 gallons per day. The existing and proposed floor plans submitted confirm there will be no more than three bedrooms total as a result of the addition. The well is located below the existing entry' way at the east end of the house. The proposed addition will make that well not accessible. Applicants have stated it will be replaced with a new well in the yard as part of this project. Statement of Hardships Please refer to applicants’ lener. The property is 1.28 acres in area but is subject to the 5 acre zoning standards. Also: Tlie property is of an unusual shape. The residence has existed on this property for over forty-five years. 'Ihere is adequate septic capacity to serve the proposed improvements and adequate area for a future alternate septic site on this limited property. Issues for Consideration 1 Is the proposed improvement appropriate for this property? 2 If there sufficient justification to grant the requested setback variances, specifically the 25’ setback from Watertown Road for the screen porch, and 32’ from the north lot line.^ 3. Other issues raised by Planning Commission Members. Option.s of Action 1 Any recommendation for approval or conditional approval should state the hardships and justification for the granting of the requested variances, and include the tollowing conditions: ■» Zoning FUe #2068 September 6, 1995 Paee 4 4. a.Existinci septic system and area to the south of the septic system must be fenced off prior to any land alterations or construction activities at the property. b.Property owner shall review traffic visibility at the driveway access and remove plantings as necessary' to create a safe access. c.Applicant to provide a site grading plan for City approval prior to issuance of building permit. 2. Table for further information (specify). 3. Deny (state reasons) Other. AO:9. / u 1 ■ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S200.00 After-lhe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) sf ■ \ \ - i U - , Vy.il. / Properry Identification Number (P.I.D ) "f/ --------------------- Atmch legal description to application if not includ^d.sji.^^O'l 5“r'=y- Date Property Acquired_____-a — ' .—------------------- I (do)'tdo noi)f^iso own the adjacent parcels ot land. Presenruse'oTproperty; X residential ____other (specify)_----------------------------------- Zoning District:_______________________________________________________ APPLICANt a / Phone (home) AH.-lrecs:L.-^ { City:// '/V^/Z It4^ Zip: OWTsTR (if different than'applicant) J ^ i Name_ Address: . /LZH Phonethome) Phone (work)_ Citv;Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST , EstimatedCons^ctionCost ^— Describe reaucsi in detail: X/l’ 't f. ^ i'I '^L—^'•C f' y-/ * (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARLANCES REQLTRED Lot .Area y Setback: ___Lot Width Front __Side Hardcover Lot Coverage y Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specif)') H-ARDSIIIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNXSV.AL PROPERTY COVDITIONS Descnbc undue hardship or practical difticuliy or unusual propert>- conditions prevcntmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements;_____________________________________— (attach additional sheets if necessary) /3vVA .REQUIRED SUBMirTALS All nf th. fnlloTrin. information irn'c* o.hmitted bv the aPPU«S»tion tf^4|ine date ip.Qtder for vonr applif^*^on to b< considerc*^ <;^<;>Tnplete; ^ Completed Application Form , . • “T Certified Property Owners List of owners witlim 150 ’ Cvou must obtam thas list from — HeSiepin Coun^Depamnent of Finance. A-603. Govt Center. 348-3271). V Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). . . . , ^ ir Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and mclude hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy Sr. .x 11 for V Topo<»raphic survev (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade ~ are proposed. In Edition, provide one (1) copy 81^" x 11" for reproduction / Sketches or plans of floor «fc elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 ^ ^ V List of the legal names (inc’nde marital status) of all persons with an mterest m the property. This would riclude name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). y As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. X Additional items as may oe requested by Cit>' staff. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance applimtinn i. not complete if thejihovgJiLfo not been mduded^ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant herebv agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng AdmSL..or, agre« to pay aidiiional fees (suff time no. covered by ong^l ^ P^^em, and/or consultant expenses incurred in review ot this application, and cemties that the information supplied is truaant' correct to dtf.best oHiis/her knowledge. Applicant’s Ji/? f //.c.^ Dale lyih OWNER’S SIGNATUTIE , . The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry ’ onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and CouncU members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s -----------Z/’6 Date this change prior to the meeting. d. d-6d-^^A^dJLX / scx-y'^ ' ^ r- y^ ^3S^ ^-/'CX. /'l.X'tXX—i—- j WAiXr}i. p7dUyuA- A3c4pL \UxmtO /!dt 'dd/'O- ^ ///,<■ y dt d'jiA- Yij jdii'iiiA.a-^c^ ^M ::1 . f fr d3 dJ O \ • t t‘ **T t ;*i 4H i ! f ii111 < • • < • I ^ •« •■■ v«.»-.t^ . mm. m *•« . ' 2*.*. lOSQ fT N!*09*C?*W - 1/t^ ‘Z 3 'Hi 3ri/&~23-i^ s- «/»u»«o — o S o—o m 0R€HAft9 -FARK-W © © 0 ®2) 31-I/e-2 3 '?-J 2-ne-2 3-32 c ««\ pATE.OA/M/fii^ • 4. :'t'a•j1f 4':; ■■ ■ - ■ '■mmn mmrAXfAYER j IffK/AOOR U* Sl-lia-23 14 0007 04100 NATERTOMN RO OCMIUH H SHOtL OfOORAH n SHOtL 4100 HATCRTONN RO PLAIN m 55359 '*-?■ ' s'-‘ / - t ’ f M ^ ll-lXa-25 0004 «IMm' • . O^XOS HATERTOW RO OMCR NAH^ . D MOUCRC » A 6IGUERE rARPAYfR >i ‘ PAIfULEE HARZE SAHCHUK ?JNM1I/«0DR t - 410f NATERTOm RO ^ fit!/ * •. t HAPU PLAIN M4 5S559 ■if tt/ \ f i>' '-h V .. ^VT v N-v .•1 V IHIOP AOOR OlflER HAMI RORERT J « . ROBERT J S : I, _ sa SZ-11R-2S 23 0008 0 ORCHARD PARK RO TAXPAYER >r! {WHE/AOOR 'rf PROP AODR OlfCR NAHE taxpayer . • . LORRAINE E LORRAINE E 440 ORCHARD PARK RO LQNO LAKE HN 55354 ROOEN RODEN * f . *; TOTAL BATCH t-' 518 00009 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATIQN SYSTEM PROPERTY QNNERS LIST38 31-118*23 41 0001 04040 HATERTOHN RO P A A K P SHIEJA PATRICK A/KATHLEEN P SHIEJA 4040 HATERTQNN RO HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 31-118-23 41 0005 04085 HATERTOHN RO C F DALE A Q L PAULSON CHRISTOPHER F DALE GER; L PAULSON 4088 HATERTOHN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0002 03980 HATERTOHN RO ORCHARD PAm FARM INC ORCHARD PARK FARM INC 3980 HATERTOHN RO HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 32-118-23-23-0010 460 Orchard Park Rd Robert J- & Lorraine E. Roden 460 Orchard Park Rd Long Lake MN 55356 4 I A» » • < » ^ ' 1:it" >•'. i- ''t 1; REPORT NO. PAGE38 31-118-23 41 0003 04045 HATERTOHN RO D S I G S KELLENDERGER DANA A GREGORY KELLENBERGER 4045 HATERTOHN RD HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 31-118-23 41 0012 04025 HATERTOHN RO J S A P D RICE JEROME STANLEY RICE 4025 HATERTOm RD HAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0003 03945 HATERTOFM RO DAVID N STUBBS ETAL DAVID N STUBBS 3945 HATERTOtl RD HAPLE PLAIN ffi 55359 PI43540140 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTi^TION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION» TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. D*TE^ urc^rt I f I fsras i (y i.1%■* .#. 4:i t•itA .♦J■* "'I’.'S.:. :-y||[|^11 S'• ‘ ■ •1 ^; :1 O'''- "• ' ky:V r 1 “4 11 ■J'.i v^>- i ■*U-..V U J .<• . I f I • ^ I’’ ; .VI't I ‘ .' "f •■••• • i ! i f i ui'tm'ti j* *5!js ♦ow ^‘v !'•? — nm ^..go.t-2.oM avow MWVd aWVHOWO - - \ *1 ti M «( Oc z o — »i •-« o u C -.; IT ^ t. o f8 fB ^u lo c ui u) 4. fiCe o Ul flt <a Ula:a cn Ul o z <o o 2 ft cO VA j: #2 <c i« S Ul i >« H cn CmO U H<1 U ;; 0) lO 1 >* 1 ^ *m»r>H o >o V* ft)cc CD 2 4,* m Q ^ m 5 ^^ — o* • < •» aft) ^ O w 10 ftA H IP H S i cs oV fO f\J <J !i [il! ■‘ift ft i j5 U' ft4 § o X o hJ« ft THE PRECEDING DOCUMENT(S) H VE BEEN REFILMED FOR LEGIBILITY \ U V) c UJ Ul crou. o Ul (T <la Uia;a o z < Q ms «o vl> (£> U tD CO O H § fjt-4 b M H U CO ol >*u D CO Q <JJ Hi O H M Hi U>in fOm in o in «> 4» o D* S -J •»«> cs O K> (M ro rO5 I to f*. x; Q. !*^& * * hi?# t/i ^ xl^ •5‘f 1 :• i':^ § 6z o!UKi S<^ ^ ki K «>#s.ui^si!.u *!!?H*_a H.£ auiocs. Uiaca. <a o cO\n It m 9 Cl CDs hi u 1C § Ul ill Ml 1 H % 0cn & H < H H Q < O u S o «*cc «l Jtfo rO lO 5T O*s I m h- •I ft) iZa £X o fO f\j \\u^ «r^ u r * • C C vl^ S f[|:^ * $?*Nah 6 X o ftl K s s I t *•M {. «>•V *. o :•t. <r- gv 4 * • Ul 1» !r I • 1 • t im •♦ I ••• !l: on * ».*'•.; c:o * I '‘Cl •• !“ :♦ ’ .,J: j- • i % ,l I, '' ^ • •I s'' "•.-1.^ ' t • m % •• . . •*» -• ♦ : c C 00 c W (9n> Js V •• : . •• ' ft «• c .' • • • . '« , t to Ul o oc LU :5 Ulu t: Q) E 3 C O c ft o ':: :: 41 ::: «» 4) V, 0 Q> 0 S' ^0. ft 0i ft ft u 4) V) 0a o a cn i:i: E w 01 ?5o to Ol 01 0» 01 W i i \6 0 01 0 a co> ? ^ ij to ^ Ol *• ;' • .• <:»• «• * ii 1 ;•M__.. * I* t ^ ^ - ft I .'5 5 -5r* 7! Vi (0 3: c to V) 3 C U m O ft S O ■o O ft ft ft 4) ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ^ ^ ^ OOOOOOOOOccccqccccftftftftftftftftft QQQQQQQQQ U) tn 0) H r- 0) 0)s>i!c©0. O c / 1 0 u . •»■vX ft U iJUft ft ft cUCs u ft ft<^ OJ X 0U) u u ft u a ft j: n o <u x: <t u ocox: «ri. cx:»M •• o u o o H'M .• On*rl 3 .u*. 0 ft <*• u o qj ^ t«ftf>Ol/)Oft*. ft O n ft rj'C ft Wr-lTlU in ft ft"r-l 0)Jr-4»- ’^,<^,0 «•<) d ft. I * J jC C» ft U 5 3 * »Jc0tHJC*OJC<on w .H ■ W <M ft o *0 -O : ft .H • 4 i:nJ c o o;S a gy.! q X) X *H *. (iJ *1-^ U XJ ^ u o o U fO ^ t» U OJ O (U 1 XtoOCO^H# V)CC u Xi (U ai_juL_V.5i 54.3 --------\-------1 -------- i:»>yi3k YY ^<iorf^/OetJ 1 -----h 4' 7-b I J. ]0tJho^ C* 0’ e**A-i*** .- i>^ ci»“^ BfA 13 i ‘O 00^ f - r n ----------- Wt U I C •‘P*. • 3.M.J Oo*' LiV.Aij ^UOr^ 33 >»> rrr—i H---------►- PcXC'-S ., a «<i,,4 -- I -' < >■ <•' fC',4-c Wfi r\ i:3< i\ PcKC^ M' m !i.° G' h“I sf *5 • 'h-l n.'? Q«i-l p*rtk U l?e tv't’rC'c Ai- f.*»' * -/ U l?e tv'rt'fci . .1.1X .. . Wded, ^ • y •res.e>^' \ae(iv^c><^09 r~ Kj A C • O \n£^ iM.ade. ty clew, — e-i^se c^>yr ao<f^. * > > : *•• - . . - f • • •*-;r ••V > ,4i • • , #• ••• •• • V ■ •• I- . * \ - • . ^ i •• • •• «v . • • • ' I »• •*•'*1 .1; • . I*-.* .‘.•s' I •/< • '\ .7 * • •• # .• 'I:. »I • tI I t• •••. • • • •,3d -ti' V------M. ------------I ♦ V. V' X \ s /n V4 W. • • 1 ft 1 * ! t 1 > f • • 1 i 1 • • 1 i • ; i 11 1 •i — ^ . A. ' ol‘ V {iK<^ I I i ^5 J- I I I I I • : : w^i* I Cw»ji 1 ! t j • I i %ti ..w ! ! I i !I i . C'^ I.': I ■'.!>’ ■■ 1*1- I •/ u :v • 1 I. -,iI.J bnn<>^ (eAsr-e^A U>if>s0(L. (j£\flfL. > J . ■ : . ^ v' - • V • • • *•• • ^ '’'75* • %*•* t : V.- s' 0 "X Sj / T K ! » ia -• : i -r -I -ijO & Oja ? a 3 O U- " H ca • ; /: ^I I \.) ’ ) ) ) J-v c u I^ i C ^<v(l C «nr-I. -J \ QO /T:^^ • •. \ • * ^ r - ^iKG\l [ifpen. \ » 1 • ! 1 • 1 I ! P • 1 ! ! ! • • 1 R t ’ Jl • • : 1 : 1 I 1 ^1 1 1 : • 11 1 ft « I —. X V. - ^ . MiTiutyt 9j y"\ • mr»« »—-♦♦ J If I. r- ii___ I I I ^ ‘ ! : i i . l . 1 u. \ fieoAir €1^aT?oa/e>1 V N ! - - .Jtjx CK) c o^ * / # At' - • /^.v:j =te I --------^ • It • \\ CITY of ORONO resolution of the cm' council ^0 8 4 6 o _____ A RESOLUTION GR-ANTING TO ML^TCIPAL ZONING C9?^„v SECTION 10.27, SUBDI^TSION a (B) file no. 1956 D cmipH and Christinii NL Smicjfl (hcrcinQftcr the WHEREAS. 4M0 Watenow Road w.thin .he Ciw of applicants") have an interest in the property located Orono and legally described as follows: refer to E.xhibU A, atoched (hereitufter "the property'); and WHEREAS, dte applicants have applied .0 the City Zontng cede Seetton 10.27, Subdiv.s.on MB) - ^ sfo; dtr^elis'on pS f lola^rS'Tri^t^^ Side street lot line .nsfead of dte re,u,red 100' and S- from the side lot line where a 50’ setback is requtred. Minnesota: NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. findings This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1956. Tlte property is located ,n the RR-IA Single requmina 5 acres in area. The property consists of 1..3 acres excius. adjacent’public right-of-ways. The Orono Planmna Commission reviewed this application on August 15 1994 Ind «coLended-approval of the vanances as proposed, based upon the following unique findings and hardsiups. A. B The property is 1.2 acres in area and subject to 5 acre zoning sundards The properu" is of an unusual iriaugulax shape. Page 1 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLLTION of the city COL ’NCEL NO. 846^_____ c.The residence has existed on this propcrt>' for over 45 years and does not meet the current setback standards for the RR-IA zotimg distnct. D.There is adequate sentic capacit>' to serv'e the proposed improvements and adequate area for a future alternate septic site on this severely limited property. -n,= Citv Council fmds *a. the contl.nons existing on this to it ami do not appiv generally to other property m this zoning district, that «rantmg the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions hght ^r nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely «^e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to ^ lev.ate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spim and intent of the Zorunc Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety an welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS. ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based uoon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council • K . a-nnr. ' inanc“s‘to Mumcipal Zonins Code Section 10.27. Subdivision 5 (B) to permit S^Tcon/a^tion of a 26* x 4Sf 2- story east side addiuon and the 16 ’ x t^nee- season porch west side addition approving a side street setback variance of /5 or 5, side variance of 5’ or lOfc. subject to the following conditions: 1.The e.xistin2 septic system and areas to south of septic system must be fenced off prior to any land alterations or construction activities at this property. .■\Dplicant must obtain a demolition pennit from the City prior to removal of the detached oarage. Garage must be removed prior to the final inspection by tne Orono Buiiding staff for the new construction. Page 2 of 5 I CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. ^ 4 fi 5-------- 3. Applicant and future owner of propetu ’ shall review sighting at imetsection of Watertown Koad as dense plantings at sneet lot line block view ot vehicles leaving property. 4 Authorities sranted bv this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive inlv and must be exercised by application for a buildmg permit within one yea^ of the date of Council approval, or this vanance will expire on that date (September 12, 1995). 4. 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 undersianed aoplicants 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 propert>'. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of September. 1994. ATTEST; Dorothv M. Halim, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr.. Mayor / Thomas R. Smieja .-\pplicant(s) Christina M. Smieja Susan Kokesh Property Owner Page 3 of 5 /3 To; !From: Date: Subject; Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmcmbcrs Ron Moorsc. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning, Aijuinistiaior August 10, 1994 #1956 Tom and Chris Smieja, 4040 Watenown Road - Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.02 - Definitions. Definition 35 - Lot comer. A lot situated at the junction of, and abuning on two or more intersecting streets. nefinition 38 - Lot line. The property line bounding a lot except that where any portion ""extends L the pSblic r^ht-of-way or a proposed public right-of-way. the line of such public right-of-way shall be the lot line. Definition 39 - Lot line front. That boundary of a lot which abuts an e.xistmg or ° dedicated public street, and in the case of a comer lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street. The lot line adjae mt to Orchard Park Road would be the front street lot line for a determination of required setbacks. Definition 40 - Lot line rear. That boundar>' of a lot which is opposite the front lot line If the rear lot line is less than 10’ in length or if the lot forms a point at the rear, he rear lot line shall be a line 10’ in length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. The rear lot line would be appro.ximately 110’ from the poinl at the western side of the property. Definition dl- Lot line side. .Any boundary of a lot which is not a front lot line or a tear lot line. The northern lot line is the only side lot line for the property. . ■ 11 oa n..finition 24 - Lot area. The dry buildable area must be exclusive of public or^private right-of-way. The right-of-way areas of Orchard Park Road and Watertown Cd have been excluded from the total lot area of the property. Adjusted lot area = 55.900 s.f. or 1.28 acres. 1 Zoning File #1956 August 11, 1994 Page 2 3. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (Q - Review of structural coverage, Total lot area = 55,900 s.f. or 1.28 acres Allowed = 8,385 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,743 s.f. or 3.1% Proposed = 2,501 s.f. or 4.47% 4. Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) A.Front/Street setback Required = 100’ Proposed = 100+’ No variance required. B.Side street setback Required = 100* Existing = 30’ Proposed = 38’ - principal structure addition Proposed = 25' - three season porch addition Variance = 75 ’ or 75% C.Side setback Required = 50 Existing = 42’ Proposed = 45’ Variance = 5’ or 10% List of E.xhibits A • B - C - D - E - F - G - II - .Application Plat Map Propeny Owners ’ List Survey Weckman Memo 9/3/94 Floor Plan. First and Second Floor Levels South/street Elevation and Basement Floor Plan North'East Elevations Description of Request The applicant proposes a 26’ x 48’. Vh story addition to the east side of the existing residence and a 16' x 14 ’ single story three season porch to the west side. The property is of r Zoning File #1956 August 11, 1994 Page 3 a triangular shape and equals approximately 1.28 acres in area and is subject to 5 acre zo^g setback standards. The additions require a street side setback variance and a side set at' variance. The structure will extend no closer into the side yard as existing structure is 4_ trom the side lot line. The proposed new addition at its closest point will be 45’. The applicant proposes the removal of the existing detached garage that encroaches the side lot line. Based on the recently amended height definition, there is no height variance required tor the proposed addition at the east side. Structural coverage is propose<i at 4.47%. Weckman confirms that the proposed improvements do not involve bedroom additions nor an increase in the number of fLxmres or water use devices, review Exhibit E. He confirms that the areas to be occupied by the new additions would not be suitable for septic expansion but alerts applicant to the need to protect the area to the east of the drive and to the south of the existing septic svstem for future use. Weckman asks that you condition the approval of this variance on applicant’s fencing off the existing septic area and the future alternate site before any Ian alterations take place on this property. Statement of Hardships Please refer to E.xhibit A. The propeny h 1.2 acres in area and subject to 5 acre zoning standards. The property' is of an unusual shape 3. 4. The residence has existed on this property for over 45 years There is adequate septic capacity to serve the proposed improvements and adequate area for a future alternate septic site on this severely limited property. Issues for Consideration 1 Is the proposed improvement too ambitious for this property Other issues raised by Planning Commission members Options of .Action To approve m amend the proposed improvement plan for property located at 4040 Waienown Road. Any approval must be conditioned on the following conditions: 1.E.\isting septic system and aiea to south of septic system must be fenced off prior f' anv land alterations or construction activities at this property. Zoning File #1956 August 11, 1994 Page 4 2. Applicant must obtain a demolition permit from the City pnorjo ^ removal of the detached garage. ^ ‘ 3. Applicant and fumre owner of site should review sightmg at mtersection ot Watenown Road. Dense plantLngs at street lot Imc block view of vehicles leaving property. 4. Others recommended by the Planning Commission. f-OiC;2^|•J■r r- l r p f / “ 2- *- *-/-o REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 9 Off Of OWJWO DATE: October 3,1995 ITEM NO.: / Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaftron Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2069 Cindy and Steve Harris, 3850 Watertown Road - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: RR-1 A, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 Acres Application: Request for variance for construction of swimming pool located nearer the front lot line than the principal residence structure. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/25/95 C • Memo and IZ.xhibits of 9/5/95 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of September 5. Briefly, applicants propose to construct a 12’ X 24' inground pool adjacent to the existing residence which is located in the center ot a 25 acre parcel. However, the pool is an accessor>' structure that is to be located on the Watertown Road side of the house, and therefore is located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building, and technically requires a variance. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this request at their September 18 meeting and voted 6 to 0 to appros e. tindine that the pool is appropriately located in relation to tlic walkout level ot the existing house, the poolwill be approximately 35' higher than Watertown Road and approximately .^00 trom the road, and therefore will be virtually invisible from neighboring properties and Irom the road. I-lannim; Commission agreed with staff that once the pcwl is eompleted. .m as-bum sun ey showing the corri-cted house footprint, pool and all existing accessory structures should be submitlcd. ■ V ^ « TOO rr' ' T. M >m. Request for Council Action coniinucdi page 2 of 2 October 3, 1995 Zoning File #2069 _____ Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval conditioned on applicant providing an as-built sur\ ey once the pool is complete, per the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: , seconded by ___, to adopt Resolution No.PROPOSED MOTION; Moved by ____ to Cindv and Steve Hams of 3850 Watertowm Road for construction ot agranting a vanance - ----. linu pool located nearer the front lot line than the principal residence structure. Vote:swimmini ayes,navs. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (D) FILE NO. 2069 WHEREAS, Cindy and Steve Hams (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3850 Watertown Road witnin the Cit> of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1. Hillaway Farm, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (D) to permit the construction of an inground swimming pool to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal residence strucmre on the property, where no accessoiy ’ buildings are normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FUNDINGS 1 This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2069. 2. The property is located in the RR-IA. Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18, 1^5 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A. The proposed pool will be adjacent to the existing residence, which is located in the center of a 25 acre parcel. Page 1 of 4 4. 5. B. The proposed pool will be located approximately 500' from Watertown Road, and topographically located approximately 35 ’ higher than the road. The pool will not be visible from the road and from neighboring propenies. The proposed pool location is appropriate based on existing grades around the house as well as the layout of the house, garage, driveways, porches, etc. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existmg on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to presen-e a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CO.NCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to .Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (D) to permit the construction of an accessory inground swimming pool h)caied nearer the front lot line than the principal residence structure where no accessory structures are normally allowed, subject to the tollowing conditions. I. Prior to final inspection of the pool construction, applicant shall provide an as-built survey of tlie property, showing the corrected house footprint, pool, barn, and all other buildings existing on the property. Page 2 of 4 i 2.Authorities granted by this variarKC run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application tor a buildmg permit within one year of the date of CouncU approval, or this variance wUl expire on that date (October 9, 1996). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate anv authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City CouncU of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9ih day of October, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The forecoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of October. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____, 199 before rue a Notar>' 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 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 e.xecuied 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 Notar>' Public within and for said county, personally appeared ____________________________^^---------------- known to me to Ije the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument.and acknowledged that he (they) e.xecuted the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2069 NOTICE OF PLANTSTNC COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOnCE: September 25. 1995 TO: Cindy and Steve Harris 3850 Watenown Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 09/18/95 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGALNST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AiVD SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant to provide an as-built survey upon completion of pool, showing corrected house footprint, pool, bam and all other existing buddings on the property. Applicant's ne.xt scheduled meeting is coni'irmed as: Citv Council. Monday. October 9. 1995; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planmng Commission minutes, they are available from the Citv Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. J TO: FROM DATE; Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, AssL Planning & Zoning Administrator September 5, 1995 SUBJECT: #2069 - Cindy and Steve Harris, 3850 Watertown Road - Variance -Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IA, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acres. Application: Request for variance for construction of swimming pool located nearer the front lot line than the principal residence structure. Pertinent Code Section Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (D) - "Location. No detached garages or other accessor>- buildinp shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot . . . List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D • Neighbor Acknowledgment E - Letter of Request F - Survey/Site Plan G - Location Diagram & Construction Plan H - 1988 Plat Drawing I - Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subd. 9 <D) J - Topography Map Showing Existing Structures on the Property Summarv’ of Request Applicants propose to construct a 12’x24’ in-ground swimming pool with grade level patio surround. The pool will be adjacent to the existing residence, which is located m the center of a "*5 acre parcel Unfortunately, the pool is considered an accessory structure that, per Section *10”03. Subd. 9 (D). must be located to the "side" or "rear" of the principal residence, i.e. not belween the residence iind the road. For a '>5 acre lot where the house is set back more than 500’ from the road, this code requirement mav seem ludicrous, however, it was likely adopted with smaller lots in mind, to keep detached garages, pools, tennis courts, etc. out of the front yard to maintain an attractive residential character in the neighborhood. Zoning File #2069 September 5, 1995 Page 2 The proposed pool location is to the functional rear (walkout level) of the Harris home, and sits approximately 35’ higher than Waienown Road. The pool will be virtually invisible from neighboring properties or from the road. The proposed pool location is approprate based on existing grades around the house as well as the layout of the house, garage, driven avs, porches, etc. Please review the applicant’s letter ot request. As-Built Surrey Recommended The surv ey submitted for this proposal is the same survey used for construction of the residence in 1988 'it does not show the as-built house footprint, which vaned slightly from the detail shown on that survev. Further, the existing bam "to be removed" is now gone, but the surv'ey does not show the other, much larger bam located turther south (see Exhibits F and H). It is perhaps noteworthy that the location of the house built in 1988 is more distant from the road than the large barn which has existed for decades. It could be argued that placement ot the house at that location should have required a variance to the code section in question. If that barn had appeared on the 1988 surv-ey, a red flag might have been raised. The house has existed since 1989, and the City will not require an atter-ihe-tact variance for it. It is however staff’s recommendation that once the pool is completed, an as-built surv-ey showing the corrected house footprint, pool, and existing accessory- structures be submitted by t e applicant as a correct record of structures on the propeny Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission finds sufficient hardship and justification for the requested variances tor pool locatron. a recommendation for approval wouM »'e appropriate. Staff recommends that such approval be conditioned on applicant providing an as-built survey once rb- pool is complete, showing the corrected house footprint, pool. bam. and all other build-gs existing on the property. ch f ' I / v \ ••*:**; • m ^ ^ «.*. . ••* '* « • «* V. ' ** ■ cm' OF OROKO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Applic" ”>n Ftc S200.00 ^550.00 per -ach additional variance) Rene*, il Variance Fee SIOO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S2C0.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) j..--__ PROPERTi' CSTOIOUTION o rn"-^ - llv, i <'7 Property Identificauon Number (P.I.D.)---------------------------- . Attach legal descnpiion to apolication jf Mt mcleded on required sur^ e,. Date Property Acquired y___----------—-------------—--------------- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propern': %__residential ------other (speciry)--------------------------- Zoning District: APPLICANT^ , Name UVAdU t •J . .* Phone (home)-^3"501 o Phcne(work) I '* IName ^ ^^ ------ Addres7i !s’7l fYV QV?ONr€Cirv: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____c<<? YY\^ --------- Phoneihome) Phone (\vork)_ Address:Cirv:Zip: „iscm..t,o^ot:uQasT,„, fll vl}v^ n/lriA' or GviJ __-------------------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessa.-y) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___ y Setback: J<_ Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specif)-) rr ipnSHIP'DESCRIPriON OF UNXSE.AI. PROPERTY CONDITIONS ''Sfct'bf undue hardship or praaical diificulty or unusual propeny conditions prevemin, comnliance with Zoning Code requirements:------------------------------------------ ---------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 r ^ ^ -CvCiiUU-- brtix " -f^, ^ REQLTRED SL-BMITTALS I'A^h f^T, ^ All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadlingjatejnm^gr ^ for vour appUcation to be considered complete: 'J 1. Completed Application Forni 2. V Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County’ Department of Finance, A-bOa. Govt Center, 348-3271). , • , j u ^ 3. Cenificate of Sur\’ey (signed by a licensed su^^’eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy <* .x 4 .—■ Topographic sur.'ev (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any changes m existing grade ■ — are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy x 11" for reproduction. 5 ^ Sketches or pians of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 /2 x A ). 6 List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the oropertv. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owuwi(s). 7. L an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. __Additional items as may be requested by City' staff. The Applieani and Propem Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vouc vnrinnrp nnnljratinn is not comnlete if the a bove inlormattnn has not been tnUitdejL me‘’aDDl^anT'Lreb^'^^^ provide all information required or requested by the Zoning riSslmtoJ trL to pav addittona] fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant e.spetises' incurred in review of this apphcatton and centftes that the information supplied is true and correct to the best ot his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s Signamre _ owL^erl^v acln^^^^ and agrees to this application and further authori2es reasonable entrv' onto the prooeru’ bv Citv staff, consultants, agents, Coaiimission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and venfication cf this request. Date .f-ar-y Owner's Signature _ \nnlicam must have all submittals into tLe City offices 25 days before the Planning Coi^iission Meeting Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each rnonih. ADoIicants must b'e present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Comni.ss.on If an aoDlicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please maJce arrangements “tve antumonz Jagen. aue.,^ in your place and .0 advrso dre Building & Zoning O.T,ce of this change prior to the meeting. I' #— 11^- fi! d3-± I o: 5;* ) A ft Os •J :p WT • . «•irf"'''»;;; i«m mti oa/Mm^-MTPi sot HEfWEPIN COUNTY ""TPCtTY nVOnUTIOH SYSTtH PtOKRTY OM«RS LIST0»tCR NMC TAXPAYER PROP AOOR i^'.-^OMCR NAME :’»V TAXPAYER mtK/utm ' ••r ...|.' •.A Rv.-; , ..*U>PRap AOOR ONNER NAME ^^.TA)»AYER '^l^vr •, '• PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYEIIc hame/aom V ' : .:] i-*''**: PROP AOOR .•.- OHNER NAME TAXPAYER . NAME/AOOR ‘lir'' ■ ;i't'svr? . »1. 'i-.il • ' * ' J.ipj * * >St S2-lia-ES ts 0004MOSa AOOMSS UNASSIQNED STEWEN 0 TONLE STEmiN D TOHLEills SIltaCtE DflOtDSHM FL S4477 M SE-ilS-El SI 0005 0S740 HATERTQHN SO CATHARINE A CRAN CATHARINE A CRAH S740 HATERTOm RO HARLE PLAIN HN 55SS9 SO 1E-118-IS SE 0004 OSfSi HATERTONN RD HRRY L RUTZ nRRY L RUTZ S95S KATERTOm RO HAPLE PLAIN HN 55S59 SO SE-IIO-ES SS 0004 0S05S NATERTONN RO CATHARINE A CRAH CATHARINE A CRAM S740 HATERTONN RO HAPLE PUIN m S5S59 #>• TOTAL BATCH 506 00012 . ‘ ITV'P* • r I , k ' • f..f''•* 'i M SE-llO-ES E4 0004 OOOSO AOORESO UNASSIQNED LISLE VICREIHUN JR ET AL ORCHARD PARR FARM INC S9R0 NATERTOm RO HAPU PLAIN HN S5S59 SO SE-UO-ES SE 0001 0S940 HATERT0I04 RO V N i R P HELIN V NILLIAH A RATHLEEN P HELIN S940 HATERTOm RO HAPLE PLAIN HN S5S59 SO 52-110-ES SE 0005 0S050 HATERTOI^ RD S H I C A HARRIS STEVEN H HARRIS SOS rURHAH RD HAPLE PLAIN 55359 SO SE-llO-ES SS 0006 0S9E5 HATERTONN RO L V A B F BUTTERFIELD L V A B F BUTTERFIELD S9E5 HATERTO^A^ RD HAPLE PLAIN MN S5S59 REPORT NO.PAGESS 5E*110*ES SI OOOS 00S55 STLMS SAY RO N T R SCHUPP A J H SCHUPP TIMOTHY R/JEANETTE H SCHUPP S55 STUBBS BAY RO N LONG LAKE HN 55S56 SO SE-110-2S SE OOOE 0S980 HATERT0I#4 RD ORCHARD PARK FARM INC ORCHARD PARR FARM INC S960 HATERTONN RO HAPLE PLAIN m S5S59 SO 5E-1I0-2S SS OOOE 0S785 NATERT0At4 RO JAFKS F BROOKS JAMES F BROOKS S785 NATERT0lt4 ROAD HAPLE PLAIN HN S5S59 SB SE-118-ES SS 0010 000S8 ADDRESS UNASSIQNED L V A B F BUTTERFIELD L V A B F BUTTERFIELD 5925 HATERTOItl RO HAPLE PLAIN HN 55S59 PITS54Q1IS 4 ' ' f 'f . I I * * .V ; .j, <# ; « u '< ' V ¥ *.f • •i<« ' • * ! A J • • t ’ Y / 9 ♦. t If 1, r V. t . •! ? i' r i < '‘ •• • } . i4* v . . ■ ti ; ‘" 'Kl i ' i * * ■* r ♦ ^ J • * • '<’v»'• • r T .• • « . * I : , I t • ^• • . V 'I ^ ^ ■: 1 • f ‘IT-.* . L #2 - X M ^ * *? V- Adjacent Prop.4^0v™S^cknjSfdge^^ Form 1> r\ajaLcuL i. ^ [print rumei^s)] have ai. VC rcviewecktheplans for the p I (we, understand .at jn «™ Z X project or use requires Council approval. ?-^l35_____ Date Propen>- Owner Dace 4iacai rnMJttmmmmm mmmmMrnmmm mMMrnrnm I (we)[print address][print namecs)] H ,>-, „iin5 for the procosed improvement or proposed use of the propetry located have reviewed u.e p.a.d fo Application No.------------.■ _ - , (we) understand that in e.secuting fo' CouJ^U “rr'cl'a^'°f fo' “'■• ' project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Date property Owner Aop![ci^^.1-“"^^^^ SurUtg^^Z^tunt ^t ^Isf^ P- to the scheduled meeting date. I If / J J :■ 4 •!A e JL .-du&L(M-/.^\ bdOA /'■t<t. /I/1 cLm />vl-^ a J iiV ktdX) c *►1 2/n^ /?,<- 'Urzt'b'A-HuA^^ -Mi ,/'7( I- fl- gy ^n/-< .ILi^L /?y^uo, fXM fVfVy-l^ IA /yi< I ^cc' ' um-f'' l^'.-^tAX), ^ ^ v^2-v Vyy\^*Aj-L^i (^QajLo _±^J^\£6^_. AJrzSi h(n<ie^ . COyQ (WcAXLa< Citx hi'M.'i^^. v> CL> ^[nJd. _—y _____ Ui^ruJl^/Uxf-- . JlJtfjLeAyL^ .. O'^^yyyx^ Li__(I^U___(iJUpi^-L l/jiL ! ^ JjU 7hji4-xk im'Vv.An ^>wi -f^rn-t 1 "/y CKAAyt^ 3>c5 C> y ninii-oiioiin ^ ^'in i '\:i (■.i;-. ||i,;|| M, X ' i< • • M ' I IM 'llll M ' r -I!'. I-r- ■ //'./-2>S I li(?i'('l)y cet'Lify UidL Lli i s is <i t t no iiiid (.nnecL rf‘iu o son 1. ci L i on ol u surv(!y ot Llie hoiiiular i eof l.ol 1. liloiK 1, llillawtiy l(inii, iiml of do exisLiny linildhuj diul Llie proposoU local ion I'f a pioposcU house Lliereun IL (loos nol piirpoi'l Lo show any olln'r iniproveiiienI s or encroachments. con-IN & GUOrilJERG. INC Scale Da Lo o 1" = 2UU' 10-26-na Iron Marker O 7^ \ p stake our 'U'-slr' CV.I^OeCK iLtYtkTiQN mtNT OOfOe STWE QME cyMff jr mmuai0^ i^nm^V ^ \r ;a No divinfl board* to bo otad urdan maat>m DMi^ E«|«ipMONt Manufactiirort Spacificatlom, Local Coda* and N.S.P.I. Standard*. Follow all locri building coda* and ra|ulai«oot.Kaap pool fdlad with wator at all tima*. Corwult inatallar for wmtariiing practicaa.Ii0~y££l PMCL COtMCr/AtS S£*MS A. Miiom ft- tMTttt, OVTiioC' vP^'C. HTUML 0OOI OmtENHOMi —----y ^ rV KTQML mu rOi UMir * iuicr MCTuM POOL aec€ enrAjioN fO€ tXtmfATM 70 TVllOtf.^ All 0£prt^ OfAAlNitOAH Alt BAUD ON TmS POiNT EitsiMw'tMilappNntotlaalwaNttructur*. * DinwnaiofM moat N.S.F.I. lotidantial tlandatdt. tf fl INI « MMIf %m:rt t*M CMtt Nm mxm Ml mitn m tmi iuilma to mtmt, mmtg, tLOPtt amo m MUt Ml i«DH 0UilCM« N0MI MMIMi JMUPCfWW COMf AMO MOUlAliOMf r_W£ mu AuciL i 1 -i/ucf mLO£K follow all local building cooes and regulations ,, I /Vf « tor HIM AtXJJ rj/ ^ J- I STifl A PANU ^ ~\ -n CAltr iTt£l mtai L .» • ime noLD£n I- Sf 54i I SAmO /<^b SAAJP A«/V. UNI-L irr-im 1.1----- /-ll’--- J 5icnoN R'R Z3*5i " CUiUO SNT. tlO /1 ^ iJPAfBNl ^MT. t£0‘P TQTNU to peei^eru- ho fr mtm- 7,000 6/ky - 140 so FT. APfNtm QSE ^f^jNTS jNUj^UT^q/^BO^ CLAYTON m LAMMirr MTA. oo. tAafWO^AJL «T NSPI • TYPE r riMri uN£x crret U' •£* ‘ oaiOAio •j9"nmi i **t *7*0' •Old il/-W SP-lSOi'C ?r CATHARINE A CRAM IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I EXISflNG LEGAL DtSCRIPtlOM n»«Jl pan of U'C Soullicasl (}uarlcr of the SouUiwcSl (Jwinei . jCCllon 3.?. fown'jMp HU, Namje l bc(j a*j l>e«jlnnlntj <ji j polnl on Ifio LiV^l line of said Soulhcasl Quarter of IbC SoulhwCSl Quuner UlSlanl feel Soulh from Ibe HoilhcasL corner of said Soulheasl Qoai ler of lf>e Soulhwesi Quarter, Ihcncc Wesl, at rlfjhl aiujlcs lo sold Lasl line, a Ulslonce of I60 feel; Ihcnce SouHi. al .1 rlrjht aiujlc to the center line of Oiono Road No. <1'j, (.iH.o known as Minneapolis and Watertown Road); thence Sout»«easterIy along sold center line lo the cast I me (f said Southeast Qua»le» of the Southwest Oujiler; thence Not th along said East line lo the |*oli»l of beglnnltij. au ordlng lo the Govcinnnnl Sui u'y Ihetedf. fhal pail of the Southwest quarter of 5ectlo»» 32, lownsliip 110 North. Range 2J West of the blh Principal H^,*! idlan. destrlhcd as follows: lleglnnlng at a point on the East line of said Southwest quarter distant <109.32 feet South, as measured along said East line, from the Noriiieast comer of said Southwest quarter; thence West parallel with the North line of said Southwest qtiarier a distance of S/S.00 feel, thence Soulh paiallcl with said East line of the Southwest quarter a distance of 3SU.U0 feel, thence v;esl parallel with said Niriii line of trie Southwest quarter a distance of <l<lS.0n feci, thence florlh parallel with said East lino of tiic Southwest quarter in said North hue of the Southwest quarter ; thence West alcinj said North line to a polni 990.00 feel Cast, as measured along said North line, from the Nut Un.est cornet of said Southwest quartet , thence South parallel with ihe west line of said Southwest quarter a distance ot 4J9.JI feet; tiienco west paiollci with said North line ui me Scutiw.e’.c quai let a Ui-,la.oce uf .iu.su A-t; 11. fM* al lei whit said vi>si lire of Uc !aiUvir>t dJOtlct a dist ICC of <IT).3I feet; He^ee u si huallel with said lUlh lin?of tie SutUm'si quarter lo a point b20.b feel East rrteasmed along said parallel lino from the West line of said Southwest (|uartct ; thence Soulh parallel with said West lli»e lo the Soulh line of said Southwest cpiailer; ihetice last aioitg said South line lo the Southeast cotner of the Southwest tpiarlet of said Sou»hwesl quar let . Ihinre North along the last line of said bnnUiwesl tjuji ter of the Southwest quarter to the ci»»lcr lire of Water town Road, thence Southeast y alottg the center line of said road lo the Last litte of said Sttuthwesl t;uaricr; thence North along said East line of the Southwest quai ter to llu» ptilnt of boglnr»lng, EXCtPf that part of said Southeast quor ter of the Southwest quarter described as beginning at a point on the last line of said Southeast quarter of the Soulhwr*st tjuar ter dlsla»'t <119.62 feet Soulh from the Nui Iheasl cr)rr*er of said Southeast quarter of tfe Southwest quarter; thence v/est, at riuht gnulos to said East line, a distance of IQS feet: theme Rntiilt. at .1 1 hilii amiie. muiB <T L I Inc of SdlJ ter; tiicnee ) known os i(?r; llicntc nninij «il 0 (J Suulhwcsl no of lltc nee north a 9U0.U0 feel I Southwest \\?\ wllfl SulU vhst n<j soiU poral Id nee Lost along t <|ujf Icr of tiiwest ijuaricr; hwest gtiorlcr boost corner 0 l ight onijlc, qiiorter ; >oU right of urJLnrdn^on^^ __ [ § 10.03 \ V iTwSwf I ^ J If the property^ is structure and principalsubdivided, the oversize accessory structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. the setback required for the defined herein shall remain. iii. In subdivision approval, oversize accessory structure as Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 D, Location. No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located within the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requirements of Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B), Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) except that detached garages may be located 10 feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turn-around is provided on site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots divided by roadways or corner lots. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 1. Location of Principal Building to Lakeshore. No principal building shall be located closer than 75 feet to the natural ordinary high water mark of a lake abutting the croperty. This lakeshore setback shall be determined as the mean horizontal distance between the natural ordinary high water mark on the lakeshore and the allowable building line. 2. Variance From Lakeshore Setback. Any application for a variance from the requirements of Item 1 above shall be referred to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for its approval before final action by the Council. Source: Ordinance No. 155 Effective Date; 2-14-74 ORONO CC 255-2 (4-1-84) J \ \ \ \ \ ' / •/'■'h/i7 li!^ ■/;' J:! I I \ W lli>/;■^^ \\\\ / / \ \ '.^ \ t 1 V »«• I \s •# • ' » • f r , i ‘ ' •' I^-v'' i' \> j'Cv:! * vV \ \ VV\V, \ \ \ \ •OM.Iv> v:>\\v: / •«}« / a; ■ \ X \ \", v\\ r —' / / / V , \ . \ \ • > ■ i m.\ V \]/CA \X w \• I S X N X, V- ' V , . ,„, ?,£iPsSet^v^. ■rvi'.X xV \\ \ i / • fM/ ■• V //•N v\' • « M \ “',i\ X'\ "'Uif \1 ^ IHit l> \\c 01) • V-r\• •V y%- 0«) 1 1 i)> s\v\/ V '\\y w \v • / «• •MO •\JIJ •Y'l^J I ITX \ vi^V' \n \ \ I \ r < / { i I / / / \ \ V A# A V I i r*i r \ I i ^ . C f / y.\ ^ ^ s ON ./ '0J«.J i < t •' *5 / u 'X rx •020.• •\\ 020 2 //- \ i\ —.—^ 1 . I _____ ----------- i • V » \ s /\\" YiO^ 2jf\ \ I \ V rn N, '' \ \X H X & M ■~'Th.,\ .■\. / «•«. I i».\ 7lsJ^r/ X \•00).0 , REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 5, 1*595 CCUKCfl ttcETTii 3 9 1995 ^OFOltONO ITEM NOJO.: //. Deparfmenf Approval: Name Michael P. GatTron Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zonintf Item Description: #2071 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Braoketto Point Road - Variance Resolution Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 2 Acres Application: .Amend prior approval to allow excavation in 0-75 zone to repair tunnel access to creenhouse (no change in hardcover) and request approval for mitigation ot alter-the- fact tree removal in 0-75' zone Pertinent Code Sections 1. Sections 10.55, Subd. 8/10.56, Subd. 16 (J): No grading or filling allowed within 75 ’ of lakeshore. Section 10.03, S.'bd. 19: Conditional use permit required for grading in 0-75' zone. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 3/10.56, Subd. 16(1): Tree removal regulations - pennit required, List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission .Action 9/26/95 C - Memo and Exhibits of 9/11/95 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of September 11. Brielly. in .March 1995 applicants received variance approval for rebuiluing the brick and stone walls located at the entrance to the tunnel leading from near Bracketts Point Road to the basement of the greenhouse. Not shown on that plan nor discussed bv applicants’ contractor \sas the intent to waterproof the tunnel. This requires^ excavation of all’soil material from above and adjacent to the tunnel, then applying waterproofing treatment and filling-regrading to pre-existing conditions. Applicants removed a 36" elm adjacent . .. ____Irt -7C in r.r,*n'imtir»n I'nr thic work, at which Doint stalTbecame aware ot theto the tunnel in the 0-75' zone in preparation for this work, at which point stalT becam intended waterproofing work. "’k Request for Council Action continued page 2 of2 October 5,1995 Zoning File #2071, James and Joann Jundt Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this application at their September IS meeting and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the proposed exca\ ation, waterproofing and re-establishment of existing grade, subject to a requirement that the disturbed areas be re-sodJed as soon as practical after grade restoration. Planning Commission Jso reviewed the applicants’ proposal to replace the 36" elm with two AVi diameter maples, and recommended approval ct that proposed mitigation. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution is attached for Council adoption. COUNCIL .ACTION REQUESTED: PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by ,seconded by . to adopt Resolution No.____, to amend the approval granted in Resolution No. 3539 for James and Joann Jundt at 1400 Bracketts Point Road to allow excav ation in the 0-75’ zone to waterproof an existing tunnel. Vote: ____ aves.navs. Isv A RESOLUTION ORANTINO /ONnC CODE Se'ct ION 10.03. SUBDIVISION 10 A iri^S^ECTIONS ;0.S5. SUBDIVTSION *. 'Section ie.56, subdivision i6 (J) file no . 2071 V'llEREAS. James R. Jimdt (herJiLler "Cily") o.««of Ac property located a. UOO Bracketts Road tstA.n . and legally described as follows: Exhibit A. attached Ihereinaftet the -property"); and yviIEHEAS. the =PPr^e";:■ trc^rR-lS^^ variance conditional use promt approval S'" Sections 10.55. Subdivision 8 and 10.56. 1045. tequcstira a varai.ee to ® ^vithin 75' of the lakeshore vvhete no such vcotk and filling- Minnesota; NOW. therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of Orono. FINDlNCib I This application was re viewed as Zoning File ^2071 The propeny is located in the 1-R-l A Lakeshota Residential Zoning District. • cirxn reviewed this application on September 18. 1995 ir: "'jrjd'^ap;'::::!^.' A c proposed vanance and conditional use penult. based upon the follovving findings: Page I of 7 L a. The proposed exca\ ation and filling is to allow for the waterproofing of an existing tunnel leading from near Bracketts Point Road to the basement of the greenhouse. A portion of that tunnel is in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no excavation, grading or filling is normally allowed. b Work on the retaining walls at the entrance to the tunnel was approved with Resolution No. 3539 on March 13, 1995, but th* information with that V anance/conditional use permit request did not indicate the proposed excavatioii/vvaterproofing/fillingaegrading work was intended. c. Applicant's contractor removed a 36" elm tree in the 0-75’ zone without obtaining a permit as required by Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 3 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(1). Removal of this tree was necessary in order to allow proper completion of the proposed waterproofing work. d. The applicants propose to mitigate the loss ot the 36" elm by planting two 4V2" diameter rr.iples in its place. e..Applicants propose to complete the excavation and waterproofing work and restore the site to existing grades in a timely manner. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the ef*'' t of the propi^sed variance on the health, safety and w elfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the \ ononce and conditional use permit would not adversely alTect trafllc conditions, licht. air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessiu-y to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or dilficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property riuht of the applicant: and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent ot the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Pace 2 of 7 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono Cit> Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.55, Subdivision 8 and 10.56. Subdivision 16 (J) to permit the exca\ ation, waterproofing, filling and restoration of pre-existing grades tor the tunnel located in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no grading or filling is normally allowed, and grants a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 tor said work, subject to the tollowing cond dons: 1.Areas disturbed during w aterproofing of the tunnel must be restored to pre-existing erades and sodded as soon as practical after grade restoration. Applicants sl.uil mitigate the loss of a 36 ’ elm tree in the 0-75 ’ zone by replacing with two 4'i" maples per the site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit B, such replacement to occur as soon as practical after grade restoration. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner, but are pennissw e only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one week of the date of Council's approval, or the special conditions ot this resolution will expire on that date (October 9. 1996). Violation of or non-compliance %vith 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 ot 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. Pace 3 of 7 il Adopted b>' the Orono City Council on this 9th day ot October, 1995 ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr.. Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day ot October. 1995 by Edward J. Calli^an, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mavor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instniment was executed on behalf of the City. Notarv ’ Public Page 4 of 7 h n STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTS' 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 persoms) desenbed in and who executed the toregomg instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) tree act and deed. .Noiarv Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTi’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 persoms) desenbed in and who executed the toregomg instrument, and acknowledeed that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 cm’ OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Cn'stal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: James &. Joann Jundt 1400 Brackens Point Rd Wayzata, MN 55591 ZONLNG HLE #2071 NOTICE OF PLAN70NG CO>LMlSSION action DATE OF NOTICE: 9/26 95 TYPE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF MEETING: 9/18/95 COPIES TO: Variance Kraus Anderson Const. Co Midwest Division S625 Rendova St. NE C;rcle Pines. MN 55014 ATTN; Scon Crawford VOTE 6 FOR 0 AGAINST g: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES .AND SPECLAL CONT)ITIONS: 1. Areas disturbed during waterproofing of tunnel must be sodded as soon as practical after grade restoration. 2. Tree replacement as proposed (2 maples). Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, Ociober 9. 1995; meeiing stam a( 7:00 p.ra. If vou desire cenified copies of the official Planning Commission minmes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Note Per reguest of Scott Crawford. City' Council was asked at their September :5th meetmg 10 allow this work to proceed prior to the October 9lh meetmg at which final approval is anticipated. Council denied this request. Do not commence *is_wo_rk until wouncil approval is granted. If you have any questions, contact City stall at 4/J-/.55/. ch ^ /,77 TO; FROM: DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members !Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator September 11, 1995 SUBJECT: #2071 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road Amended Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR*’A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acres Application: Request to amend prior approval for excavation in 0-75 zone to repair tunnel access to greenhouse. (No change in hardcover.) Pertinent Code Sections 1. Sections 10.55. Subd. 8/10.56. Subd. 16 (J): No grading or filling allowed within 75’ of lakeshore. 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 19; Conditional use permit required for grading in 0-75’ zone. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 3/10.56. Subd. 16 (I): Tree removal regulations - pennit required. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Site Plan E - Site Detail F - Letter Re Elm Removal in Relation to Tunnel Work G - Resolution #3539 H - Shoreland Ordinance Tree Regulations -4—City Enginoor ’c Comm <»nt^ J - Documentation from File #1992 Summary of Request In March 1995 applicants received variance approval for rebuilding the brick and stone walls located at the entrance to the tunnel leading from near Bracketts Point Road to the basement of the greenhouse. Not shown on that plan nor discussed by applicants’ contractor was the intent to w^aterproof the tunnel. This j-equires e.xcavation of all soil material from above and adjacent to the tunnel, then applying waterproofing treatment and filling/regrading to pre-existing conditions. Zoning File <1^071 September 11, 1995 Page 2 In preparation for this activity applicants removed a 36" elm adjacent to the tunnel and in the 0-75 ’ zone. Apparently it was at this point that staff became aware that the additional waterproofing work and grading in the 0-75* zone was intended. The current request is for approval to complete the excavation, waterproofing and re- establishmeni of existing grade. Funher, this is an opportunity for the City to have the applicants mitigate the loss of a 36" elm by requiring replacement plantings, perhaps in more strategic locations where they will not have a future impact on existing structures. Issues for Consideration 1. Given applicants’ comment that the removed elm was in poor condition, what degree ot replai'.ting does Planning Commission feel is appropriate? 2. Does Planning Commission have any other concerns regarding the proposed work? Staff Recommendation Any recommendation for approval should reference this as an amendment to the approval granted in Resolution «3539 on March 13. 1995, should require that the areas dismrbed during waterproofing should be sodded as soon as practical after grades are restored, and should define the number and placement of trees to be replanted in mitigation tor loss of the 36 elm. Options for Action I. Approve variances and conditional use permit with conditions as noted above. 2. Table for further information (specify). 3. Deny (state reasons). 4. ch ** f Other. , CJ~ t-:.1^ ir CITY OF ORONO - V/\RlAiNCE 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 $200.00 Aftcr-lhc-Faci Fees (Double application fee) #2'.N • / i • i • k.** *. t PROPERTY lNFORi%^\TION Site Address 1420 Bracketts Point Poad, Orono. MN 55331 Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) n-il7-21-^^-nn2Q Attach legal description to application if not included on requited survey. Date Property Acquired March 1992 (inonUi/year) 1 (do) (do not) also own Uic adjacent parcels of land. Present use of properly; x residential ____oilier (specifyy Zoning District:___________________---------------------------- APPLICANT Kraus-Anderson Construction Name Company, Midwest Division Plwnc ____ Phonefwoik) 612-786-7711 _ AddiesTi 8625 Rendova Street ME City: Circle Pines______Zip; 55QI4------ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name James and Joann Jundt Phoiic(lionle) 612-473-9524 Phone (work)______________ Address: 1400 Bracketts Point Pcad City: Orono Zip:__55191 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST i<\iinmtcdConstructioiiCost$ 150,000.00 Dcscribcrequcst indct.iil: Exliibit '*A“ and Exlubit "B" --------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) . • ■n j • y.VIUANCES REQUIRED Lot Aiea Lot Width X Setback:Front Side Ilnidcovci Rear I-ot Coverage Avciagc Lakeshore Other (specify) IIARDSimVDF^CRlKIION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual pivpcriy conditions prevculmg compliance wiUi Zoning Code rcQuirenieiits: The axisting tree that was placed ---------- along side tiie tunnel, caused arid excoleratO'J tlie deterioration of t-iio-------— tunnel waland rubble vail._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _— , , . - -- - - - -- (attach additional sheets if necessary) required SUBi\aTTALS 1 ''1H 3. -i-- . “tt ■■■■■ All Ilf !lie follo^yiiig fnforniatloii must be subniittcU alp m order fur vuur a^iollcation to be consltlcre ti comulctei — obuin Uui list, litbels auU map from Hcnncpii. Cauuty Dc,.aruncn. of I m.a«cc. A-003. Oovt Ociiicr« 3^S*3271). iur’infif* li^rclcci/cr Ceriificale of Survey (signed by a licensed suive^or • cilculaiioQS as tequired. In addition, provide one (1) oopy 8 /a x u S oroiriegal names (include marital status) of aU persons w.ili an mtetest n. tire property. Tlus would include name(s) of applicint(s) if ,j,so„s M L addendum to Uus application, please attach a separate hst of any other pe.sons you wisii notified ot tiiis application. Additional iieins as may be requested by City stalf. ♦•niESE ITE21S HAVE BEEH PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO TOE CITf OF ORONO. The AuDlicam and Property Owner must sign Uiis application. Please rcniember tliat jjiui: .urini.ce anulicoHon is nut com ukfi; If Tl!7aDDliMnt hcfeS^'^ag^ces^ provide ail infonnation required or requested by the Zomug iid'oiniatlon supplied Is Hue c^tjeeVto die best of lus/her knowledge. i//U- ' Applicant's Signature A_/__,/r;'------ 4. 3. 6. 7. 8. Date ?te S.c.‘e‘'by tiSowLges and agrees to this application and furd.cr Owner’s Signature Dale . .■ ., ™.,<t h..ve -ill submittals into the City ofFiccs 25 days before die I’lanuing Coiiunission Appheam roust liave Meetings ate held on the thud Monday of each moitdl. r'nlts muT^e pr“ of the Planning Conu.dssio.t Tr^irTf a^ aopton is unable to atleud a scheduled meeting, please tuake ar7a.T.cments “tave antithordCrauend h. yout p'tce and to advise da, Buildu.g Zoning Outce of Uiis change prior to the meeting. 8 I i • I. (I I I • \ • m «»• •MTCH OMADO«otHtn fwrTAat •f fcR »UHE/AOim$ pm^ ADDH ofcii wm TAKPAYER IIAIC/ADOll S9 ll-lll-Zl IZ OOOY OUOO BRACKIIIS POINT PO J n JUNDT I MARY J JUNOT JAMES II JUIIOT iOK iCRYSTAL BAY Iff! SSlll3B 11-117-TS 31 0017 01500 BRACKETTS POINT RO GEOROE S PILISOURY ET Al GEORGE S PILlSOUnY ABOO riRST GAIK PLACE HPLS Itl SSA07 PfO»»ERTY OHCRS LISTSB 11-117-eS S2 0010 012AS BRACKET IS POIIIT RD MICHAEL E LYNN 111 I MITE MICHAEL I JORJA LYttI HI 1E45 BRACKETTS POINT MAYZATA Itl 5SS9130 11-117-7S 37 001501770 BRACKETTS POINT RD ELLA P CROSOY ELLA P CROSOY 1770 BRACKETTS POltlT RD MAYZATA m 55391 PAGE38 11117 73 37 001101A70 BRACKETTS POINT RD J R JUIIOI I M J JunoT JAMES R JUNUrBOX 1CRYSTAL DAY III 55373SO 11-117 75 37 0019 01700 DRACKETTS POINT RD JO!!N S PILISOURY JR ET AL JOHN S PILISOURY JR | AOOO FIRST OAlftC PLACE ^Iwl MPLS MN 55^07 PROP AOOR OlfCR NAME TAXPAYER tlAME/AilOII SB 11-117-7S SS 0001 01A70 DRACKETTS POINT J R JUNOT I M J MtmX JAMES R JUIIOT BOX 1 CRYSTAL DAY Itl 55373 3B 11-117-7S 33 000^ 01450 DRACKETTS POINT RD liARTUA S I A lACIllAN REED MARTHA S I A LACIllAN REED 1500 onAc-''ns point ro MAYZATA I. 55391 30 11 117-73 33 0005 01400 DRACKETTS POINI R A L lICAimiCK MOGIR L A LYNN C HCAORirK 1400 DRACKETTS POINT HO MAYZATA Mil 55S91 RO PROP ADDR OIAIER NAME TAXPAYER IIAME/ADOR SB 11-117-73 33 OOOti 01500 DRACKETTS POINT RD MARTHA S I A lACHlAN REEO lURTHA CIA LACHLAN REED 1500 DRACKETTS POINT RO MAYZATA m 55391 TOTAL BATCH 004 00010 I CERTITY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF irirORMATlON AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HUINCPIN COUNTY DEPAnUirNT OF PROPERIY TAXATIOIK U) Tilt DCST OF HY KNONIEOGE AND DELIEF. DATE PAGE -117-2J 32 0011 DHACKETTS POIttr RO lOr t II J JUIOT R JUIIOT L DAY Itl 5D325 -117-25 32 0019 ORACKETIS POltir RO PILISOURV JH ET AL PIUSOUIIV JR ^1 „ IRST DAIlK PLACE m 5S'i02 -117-23 35 OOOS DRACKETTS I'OIlir RO IIEADIIICK L t Lvnn C lirAOIIICR JRACKCUS POIlir IlD lA MU G5591 :cuRME Aim inuE Ills OAU on THE RECORDS TAXATlOtl, 10 lilt DESr UlSlOI-NCP.\I • I • . : \ fmr ** I \ ♦ 1 / • I • ! i9>wi* / / • I : -n’• (Atl •1 /r,'m.z' p '■IS Ji^ ‘V — '■ (itt 0 ✓ / / » I » \ ,y, ; I |/» •UIlNNfAL \ ! AREA ^ GARDLK t‘nVC I 1 •*Ut' IfHAUrtW] u*r ■ ■y mj Mi « I / //< T I I fegS / I / I.t •<7A .* * ^ o X**' V \ ✓ / I » / > --------->r*^^ ti. upc 'X >*•> ’ / I I \ \ I I \ ■7»5) I > , < ' ':^i-\ / * \ |4. ’*M7G i) c; CKJ>r IK <;) y// c >«*n/ at* ►'*fxA '' o\ A. i' .V; v\ all Kvm \■•■..: ^CC'' ..L")» ' \ 'MZ\'': _- n:rf - 1 ri>i / 1P9 flV /CiO>^ ,#tilMI I tf« * \ I = ^ ^ S i K»^ ~C -~ Remove portion of Service Access Road and restore to original condition. (3/6/95) >v ARIiAJiiimS; Vr>f) 5{^ area I FOR SERVICE COUR1 f SEE AREA IA FOR MA1T< TER RAC t00 k 4* A SEE AREA 2 FOR POOL, TENNIS C‘ AND PERENNIAL GARDEN SEE 3U _.CALE DRAWRK^FCm areas NOT COVERED BY ENL^M OR AS NOTED »■>) Sj^aor^sudon could be install^^ in 1995 consiracnoQ pened u Xz=a. m c=-.v SCPC.C , „rz.f.cat= of occupancy .vul cc se-.v'« is not approved for propetty- granted in tbe near future. ,„,,jh|e to removing the paved roadway Mr Benson reported that the applicant be changed to a rime of two but asked that the date off the roads. The Counc.l agreed that weeks past the date when loao 'amrts are lute June I was acceptableJune I was acceptaoic. u 11 ^ Kellev felt thest the 250' of roadway going a h^dship for the location, wd tbbour responded that the Xt Twav from the area and be connected to ;£.S',=; £ r;s;r,s*.,..... —reiterated tne ncea iw. - aa. - ^ - ,*to....... o.'-'" " ST. replaceincr.i ui ---- cKoe rr»-.» «rSTc>Ke swrer . v»w»cx . . ,• __iiinoA fo th<» (^) ^1996 ^ or not applicant is present. WEST - V,UUA.NCES - RESOLUTIO.N S3540 Mr. Robert MitcheU represented the appUcants. Mabustn rcpoiECk. Lua^aw va.- impacted bv both the lagoon aiiu ca.^w •*- from the main lake w nere X Se IcT^ne setback is at 11.T where 10 u r^uued, rne property is also encroached by the flood plain at 931.5 elevation _____________- vacation ob E-ASEMENT - resolution »3f38 j H to jdoot Resolution ;S3533 for Roben W. Carlson of Goeticn moved, Kelle>' secon e , \ycs 4, Na>'S 0.710GooderRoad foravacattonofeosement. A>es .to t w n^DT 1430 BR.\CKETrS POINT ROAD -. MSOLrnos Go..y Benson of Kraus .Anderson Construction represented the applicants. .. ■, ,--,r hardcover variances in the 0-7f, a vanance Mabusth reponed that this application is ' structure to include replacement ,0 aUotv for major repair ^ jiumuium and glass super structure and :rbSur,oraUs. and The accessory structure Tcc^^ structure os it exceeds the allowed •'0®^;^ soprovols. Major repairs to the thr^- results in any stmctural ^.^j“^dows and doors, and roder details. The car garage include new tasc.a, rc , a_ ^.unck of 15’and ^v^ll require vanance garage also does not meet the requite si pathway on the east shore Approval for structural repaim. „as originailv shown at 3 ’ but was Z m the 0-75' to the TSd^ov ^ eustmg retails constructed at 4’ wade and adds loO s f ^ ^ included in the to be restored. The 160 s.t. ot nlan showed a 12' wide access dnve. original hardcover facts. The ^avel bed that would not have bwn „ ...as shovm os a ^,^^0^ no acceptable hardship to ^ow considered hardcover The Planning ^ of additional hardcover m the 0-/5 a new curb cut on the public roadway and • d replaced with saiback area. An amended sue p im sn^ pavtd area ore atber-rhe-ftet a grass lawtu h,,, requued Clry approval. It was noted that .here LToTeed « go onto the netghboPs property ,0 make the tequned tepairs. f L- I j-i I I n °‘'° >HyUTES^FOR FEBRUARY 22.1995 Nolan amended his motion, Jundt for property located at i-.u f"" ' . ....... ^ .................... s f. of increased hardcover as a re^ t ° ^ ® ^ applicant will provide an amended plan to be restored to its pre-existing grassed condition. The appnc h presented to Council. .Ayes 4, nays 0. («4, S.993 CALVIN C. KORTH. 900 DAKOTA AVXNUE - .VPPE.ALS - PUBLIC HE-ARING This application ha, b«n tvnhdra.n by .he applican.. These wa, no one p.eaen, .0 discus, .he application Candy Rowlette arrived at 3 42 p m ROBERT WOLFF. 4450 FOREST LAKE LAND.NC - VARLV.NCES - PUBLIC hearing - 8:47-8:54 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Wolff were present. JL U niirnnK? ha-e received variance approvals, per Application f#1945, for rrs: ” r'*• changes. NO,an ashed if .he applicant would cons.de. teplacing .he conc.e.e pad with stepping stones and Brass Wolffindicated he would. W There were no public comments m.1. s™,h Aves 5, nays 0 ,,,, GREGG PERL - 309 WESTLVKF. STREET VARLVNCE - PUBLIC BEAUNG - 8:55 -9:05 P.M. Gregg Perl was present. Mabusth explained that ' ^^7 ?ed' already been legally combmed. e!t JansTon upper level a. the southwest comer. The roof toe toSn 'ht substandard side setback tequiring variance approval. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Smith confimted the retaining walls were to be repaired with no changes, greenhouse. . • j • nrtt \i/r\rlf Crawtbrd responded that service and Mabusth rei«ra.ed Pcerson's comments tha, much of the because of the fact that there was only about 17 . m the 75.a50 zone. !i!“” d ofusin lno.dd. cu-d ... SM d.d "d. ft.l m™d«. “."d"'"'""" ■* to support a vanance for the portion of the dnve m the 0-1 5 zone a nexv septic system sinoe the study ^ ,^bmit a written statement with Bracketts Point area responded that the owners were reviewing information ?e .ardinu Sver and septic and may peiition the City for sewer^ Mabus.h noted that sewer to this property'would require a Comp Plan ..Muendment and would lake a long time There were no comments trom the public. Nolan moved, Peterson seconded, to deny Application el992 as proposed. .... ; r,r”“;xszf “s “s:r of ■"of the pro'perry and the hardship for the retaining wall at the Mabusth no ^ Schroeder would prefer to see the dnve connect to greenhouse bei g , ^ Mabusth indicated an amended plan would be e'"san- shawms there was no increase in hardcover as a result of road paving in the 0-75' area. The awHcant couM choose to put the dnve into grass or connect to the mam driveway. ORONO PL.VNNLNG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 (#3) #1992 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1420 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA'ARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:01-8:40 P.M. Scott Crawford of Kraus Anderson represented the applicants. Mabusth re\-iewed the application noting this property has been before the Planning Commission for review several times. She explained the need for variances for the structural repair of a greenhouse and existing garage and a variance and conditional use permit for the repmr of retaining walls that support an underground opening into the greenhouse located in the 0-75' setback area The comprehensive improvements application also involves the reinstallation of 6 high bnck walls along the side lot line and along the front street setback. The walls are 50V from the street yard meeting the required setback. .Another issue is a paved path located in the 0-75 setback area that^ xv-as not calculated in the original hardcover review The applicant has installed a 4' path instead ot the 8* path and this request has also been included in current application On the original plans there was also a 12 ’ utrassed access drive that was to have an underliner of gravel to be covered with grass, ^ . ... . 1_________1 MOW was also a i-: iirassea uuve uiai .....c--- - - . . • iT which would not be considered hardcover A 10 ’ paved path has been installed instead which now adds hardcover in the 0-75' zone and requires vanance approval. Peterson questioned how the applicants could be allowed to install the path in the 0-75 zone when it was not approved on the original plan Cravslbrd commented that the path was installed in the "heat of construction " to sers ice the pool and terrace area The portions of the path in ihe 75-250" setback area are not a hardcover probleni . w. .. ______U ...........1.4 nr iiict nortion in the 0-75 terrace area Ihe portions oi me pain m uil, .w. • . n nc* Craw ford questioned if the entire path would need to be removed or just the portion in the 0-75 setback area Schroeder questioned the amount of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area Mabusth responded that 21 557 s f or 16 47 ”'o was approved in earlier reviews The additional 4’ paved walkway, 10 ’ paved drive and retaining wall repairs in the 0-75 ’ zone brings the property to 16 76% hardcover in the 0- 75' setback area' He did not object to the walkway but did question the drive Other members agreed Peterson commented that in the 1993 review members questioned the foundation of the greenhouse and were told that no fuaher improvements were planned. Crawford responded they were not planned at that time Peterson asked if there were any other violations staff had observed since previous approvals had been granted Mabusth responded that the Building Inspector works very closely with Cravvtbrd and was not aware ot any other violations. Smith asked Crawford if there were any other improvements planned for this property in the near future Crawford responded that there has been some discussion of restoration/structural repair of the caretaker house. Variances would be required for a side setback and repair to an oversized accessory structure. Ty UOAU^ fpUlP0 ^ r / V^tVNN^U )tL i.A> W-^ 4. « i! « ! #« f® 1-------- k 1 I i — IV r X. I • —» 6^ ■4-T^ • • • • w/ ^ 1 .^.p,< I[ i k i ^ -. {5Ea? w> &K( Wa: « \ \ m U X • ■ v :; '‘••‘i% ‘;f / CtJW.** ■» ; •%T T CITY OF ORONO VARIANCE APPLICATION EXHIBIT A 1420 Bracketts Point Road Orono, MN DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Repair and rebuild existing stone wall at tunnel that connects to existing Greenhouse. 2)Construct a new Greenhouse structure on existing foundation and rebuild existing brick wall at Garage Service Court Area. 3)Repair and rebuild existing garage on existing foundation and repair existing brick retaining wall that runs east ana west on property. u 6. Facilities necessary to provide shore area physically handicapped persons shall be allowed provided dimen*iaDna 1 and performance standards of subitems 1-5 of the Minnesota ^hiS^dlmenc^n^ afcecomp lJ|tedfim^ddition to the requirements r 1340. 7. A building permit shall be obtained for obstruction of stairways, lifts and landings regardless of whether such improvements are constructed above, at or below grade. G. Steep Slopes. Any applicant requesting a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes, shall provide adequate information to allow the City to evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and deve1opmentvisibility from public waters before such permit may be issued. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. H. Height of Structures. No structure within the Shoreland Overlay District shall exceed the height limitations set forth in the standards for the underlying zoning district. Alterations. 1. No live tree within 75 feet of the shore 1 ine/*.with a diameter of 6 inches or more (or 19 inches in circumference or greater) measured 3 feet above the ground may be removed without first obtaining a permit from the City staff provided that at least the equivalent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff are planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those removed. Appeals of staff determinations as to type, size and quality of the trees to be replaced will be to the Council. Removal of trees that are dead shall not require a permit but such trees must be inspected by City staff prior to their removal. 2. Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline and on steep s lopes ^within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accomodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lock boxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. \ \ S i J Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. 1. Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, all grading and filling activity approved permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways shall adhere to the grading and filling standards of this section. ^ 2. Grading, filling and excavating is 7C' ordlnar”’ H^ah Lev«»l of the CITY of ORONO s&>-. •» *• RESOLUTION OF THE Cm’ COUNCIL NO. SS!^3 - wmof “?=ru:: ••- .-iv-n v.rcs: =.-- f^--:.' .., ^.-.. c: l-'-.r!..--'-:. c• ««»#« ^ ^ • • W •lir.« drrv-n crtwr. &crc== ... c: :r.',^riic-.:c; , aids lines of said with t line descrlt-sa ^^3 j tha cn'.Tlt-ne c: j centerline c- s«‘.d .3.J lc«a; Bectrr.lr^ f- Ii: oi the ntrthweet _ccrr^r -• -> ti_n£sn..--_c-/-^ .o ___-sui'r.westerly t-anger..^ tar.cs 0: .=5.-a •««•: ;::vr.u.^c9 scuthwestsrly tiOng t cr-rve a distance oi = c*' AAo.72 test a clatar.cs c. val curve to the right with a .a — c.- i*2* fti— c*ur^’5 i ^ ^Q 2i frtt; thcr.cc scu-r.vcstcri/ •<119.2, -’'r-n-T*'^ tr-.ncs icuth-actorly alc.-^ adl3tar.es c: .0(._w0 ..... 55 a distance 0: .e.7 :cut c-rr-ze to ths left with a c: i-3 I'’oi S3.9 I..--: ■-■■>’■■ Ulth a radi'us 0: It;..- -'-•ar.es 0: IC.5 feet: ,rly tar.is.nt to :ast ^rthc left with a radius thsnes scuthsrly on ^Uv'vr.s centerline of said cor­ gi 75.1 to ita --------- ctr Avenue• *na etii —f - Page 7 of 7 l0m &i CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 5 8 9 E:*2iIBIT A L/;*3 '•! Gr“”0 rOir.wi •*. tr.d ............. vj. . i.l:c:w r ‘ t,.. Q trd ^0, Crcn'j rr;ir.- >-••* ^ 1? r/*,• ^ ^ *- *-to-«V CT. ;:..d t:VV* <=-=- *..=ir.£fer.'wl6.1 <-:’-r'v-3 ’.o “.-_r.s«;r.z tH'.d Iv:- zt-v-^ oi 169.38 i'r*:*.: zr.tr.r.3 -rjuzr.wstz^riy cr. t ^:.=crav: z*.zr.-. >- ::/*!!“: AA'-.72 z: 119.2"^ *^.z-c= zhtr.ct --:zerlv -* t':r'.'--td fMT'-’t z d'.szir.ct 0- - -•i.-z z dl£*-■■)r.c^ 'ZZ 's*-i -.7 tr.trt ------------ - , ftrj^re ol cjiJ'.t ^4-..-*-'^rc: = M.::;• '-c^ 5or^tr Avcruit ^ Also t^.zz 7^' vtciztd Co^.-ft. .. -— cjj.^^._r.^fer.tnz of Oi'ono ci-idicfczed zo zh'^j p.utllc -^ of ?,,r.z. lyi- PoiT.z BT.d r.orzr.erzy 0 : •ir.'j drv-T. vfcszcrlv :k';.23 t-,-A r.orzhcrlv fro:, zrzr 3. *^;ir.T. zn jild wrsz ]y^ Jw.7 P^-rz z" zr.^ •.•feiztrzy V,r^r.-.^r Aver.u, V'-V* -IZr.";:!,';-: -"IW i^wr.-;i'.d;--r llr.5: -Z.'-Z'-Z ci -.r.s v^.-.^rly V.-.-- C- V>r.tzs4 Cir.zzr Avtnue ^ 'I.,-. rouzh*:rly c. -'e'::-.; of zh. r.crz..r:y Ur., oz i,r.. cz dr.wr. .‘..zcrly zz rz;:r.z t::f:-:77-',:.z:r-.;ozzon oz bvU w.bz- v^3ztd Cr.z.r Av.nu. : rr,,:,,:--.,, ot zT.. ^ t, ^ < to =rly lir... -•---i' '--” --" =:r.-.^r';r.s c; tt-'^.'f- • ^ ^ ^ • tf - ^^ T^Cr ...r ..•««.--- .---c-i “cuzrjsriy t——t - .___ce-ccrr.sr oz s'lld U- -. -•—~ ol Z.z^ ..........."•* .•,4...ty--- cz 6 i;ez zo zz^ po^.- o.. -.--__— cur-’^ zo zr.t ,3.« •tLd Ur., zh.r. .ndzr.i. . , Page 6 of 7 frtoIXl : fmmirn CITY of ORONO R£50Lirri0N OF THE CITY COUNCIL NA 3 5 39 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Onihis day of — ----------■ ----- wiihinand for said Count)', personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who/txeiiUtcd the ^ _ acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (iheir) tree act and deed . 199 o" . before me a Notary Public ' going ii^strument, and KOMCPMCOUNTY n,, ___ MyCawrtsjkwEipiwJjnSi.JOOO STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) /-fgre A 199 ^ ^ before me a Notary PublicOn this ____day of ______i-im i. n__________ ^— , withinand for said County, personally appeared melt, ry^firncd. r X 1 __- 1 __A fnri»amno inslru“,o me io be .he person(s) described m and . ho esecu.ed .he fo.ego^^ng ins.run.en., and acknowledged .ha. he (.hey) execu.ed .he same as his (.heir) Iree ac. and deed. CMOEAHASEMAN MomnrMu^MNCSonleaow COUNTY _ MyCflBwtaWtow Jn* } STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Noiarv Public ss. On this day of , 199___, before me a Notary Public taosrnTo'^me'm be^r’pVrsrnlsM i" and who e.secn.ed .he foregoing ins.rumera. and acknowledged .ha. he (.hey) execu.ed .he same as Ins (.heir) free ac. and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 fr« Hin CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 3 539 4.Violation of or non-ccropliance with any of ih: terras and conditions of this resolution shall constituie a violation of the Zoning Code, shall autoraaiically terminate any authority cranted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. J.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree lo 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 ot the propcrT>'. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13ih day of March. 1995. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN > The foreeoina instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of March ,995 by Edwald J Callahan. Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor and City CUrh of >he C.,y of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said mstrament was executed on behalf City. notary PUBU>MWN£SOTA H i j HEWfflN COUNTY Notarv /Public A hennwncouhtt » Mv Commission Expwts 31 . J*® Paee 4 of 7 I mm SOU) CITY of ORONO RESOLLTION OF THE Cm* COUNCIL NO. J3 S88 ^ F', 5. Hie CUy Council finds ilut ihc conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do iK)t apply generally to oilier property in this zoning district, that granting the variance would not adversely alfect trafnc conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neigliboring 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 applicanis; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Compiehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby giants a conditional use peimit and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(A) to permit the restoration of retaining walls located 45 ’ fiom 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 stiuctures and per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 approves a 0.10 increase in hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback area wheie 0.80% exists and 0.90% is proposed, subj ;ct to the following conditions: 1 Applicants’ coniractor 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 applicanis agents shall be responsible for maintaining erosion control within disturbed area until iiroundcover is restored no later than June I, 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 conforming on-site septic system during the 1995 constiaiction period failing to obtain the necessaiy approvals from both the City of Orono and the Metropolitan Council to extend sewer to the propeity. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution tarn with the properly not with the applicants, but ate 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). Page 3 of 7 tmm CITY of ORONO ^ RESOLUTION OF THE Cm’ COUrNCIL NO. 3539 ____ A RESOLUTION GRANTLNG A ZON^-G™stcTloN^ VAr SJ^ES TO SECTION lO.-. SCBDIVISIONS HA) .ANT) 2; SECTION 10.03, SLTJDIVISION 9(C-2) AND SECTION 10.03, SLTBDIVISION 9(E) FI1.E NO. 1992 whfr FAS J"Ties R Jundt and .M. Joann Jundt (hereinafter the “applicants ) .e owners of”-; )4«) BracUcus Pen. Road w.rh.n d,c C.y 0, O.ono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Refer to E.xhibii "A" attached hereto (hereinafter the "propeny"); and whfr EAS the applicants have made application to the City of Orono tor a oversized s.rvcmre a, „pa,rs are proposed ,0 a .lyee stall variance to S=aion ^ q . 3 lot line where the code would require garage in excess ot /50 ..f. l-.a Subdivision 2 for a hardcover variance :„\i;^r7rst"cw"ar:a1e:u\r,^' 1 0T0«. increase in hardcover where O.SOr. evls.s and 0.90% is proposed and where none is allo\'.ed. NO)V. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLA-ED by the City Councl of Orono. Minnesota: findings This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1992. The P'cperry is located in the I.R-IA Ukeshore Residential Zoning Distt.c. requkin^wo acres in area. The property cons.sts of 13.8 acres. Pane 1 of 7 r»a KM August 14,1995 OSTVIG TREE, INC. SINCE 1933 A Tradition ui Excellence EXHIBIT "B Kiaus-Anderson Attn; Raniona 1400 Bracketts Point Road Orono. MN 55391 } t *; rW*. > :WJJr-a . , ^ V Dear Ramona: This letter is to follow up on our telephone conversation of last week concerning the elm tree next to the greenhouse. Tliai particular elm was in very ptKir health. We had removed a laige pomon of it last \eai' which had died back. Tlie cxcavaMon of the soil around the tunnel, in my opinion, would have caused so much damage to die root system that a healthy tree would not have surv ived. A U^ee that was declining, as the one in que.stion. definitely would not have been able to survive that kind of ueatrnent. .Also, with all th.e .supporting roots being removed the tree would have eventually become a safetv concern. ,Anv hieh wind would easilv be able to cause it to fall onto the road so we felt it was best removed now . PIea.se feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you may .still have about the above information . Thank you. JDO;kao Suite 200 • 1421 E. Wayzata Blvd. • VV'ayzala, MN 55391 Business; 473-0534 Kesid.-nce: 479 3711 Fax; 473-7863 A Family Owned Business For Three Generations 75'-0" Setback Line-ruMuitX V v ‘',^ I , ••; • 'i -I I >•••y ■ ‘ • 1 • • •. 1 . • • O' •• ^ k * * • % I •*. »/- •-V * LAillBii’ A - i>.iLf4UlTuL CWniiilE ■4 • — .— i-KUL TO lii: • •• • » • . •^,- -: 4‘df] "D • • t *'■* * • ^ * • .* J '• *. • • • 1 *■. -»* .;. • . r\ f •• • j ■ • ■• • . • * * . ~ ^ ; rri^'iCh .r- - i -t.lUflLCoM . • ' , ** .-^ /. ~ (^•4- ■ Windsor ay^'d'5‘‘c 3 p e.'S :. -I* * 1 ‘‘r ; , -? . »» ^ •• • it * § UlMHtMM *. .' >1)7S £m« Hiflhwtt i® ! '. - M. ’*StPiuiMN55tO»-M« •. . («121 4IJ-0205 . • V ’; ;'r. • -: ; V- r* i ’ • _ I. f ,;i;iCf2icTlV» •* . • - - % • 4 • » w * 4 i ^OATtO \ 8-}5-9S . COUNCIL MEETING REOtTST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 9 1995 DATE: QRQNO ITEM NO: . Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:Department Approval: Namt Michael P. Giffron Title Assl. Plannin g & Zoning Kdm _ Item Description: #2072 (jraydon Slewman. Jr., 1655 Bohn's Point Road * Variance/ Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IB. Single Family Lakeshore Residential. I acre. Application: Request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances and land alteration conditional use permit in 0-75’ zone to allow reconfiguration of lakeshore access, walkways and shoreline improvement including sand till and boulder wall improvement. Pertinent Code Sections Section 10.22, Subds. I and 2/Section 10.55. Subd. 8/Seciion 10.56. Subd. 16 (L): No hardcover allowed in 0-75’ zone; allowed e.xception is 4’ walkway leading directly to the shoreline, per Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (F). Section 10 22 Subd. l/.Section 10.55. Subd. 8/Seciion 10.56. Subd. 16 (J): No grading alio ved m 0-75’ zone. Section 10.03, Subds. 19-21: Conditional use permit required for land alterations in 0- 75 ’ zone. List of Exhibits A - Resolutioii B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/26/95 C - Memo and E.xhibiis of 9/14/95 Discu.ssion Please review the memo and exhibits of September I4th. Briefly, applicant is proposing to remove a pre-existing deck platform located at the shoreline that encroaches into the neighboring propenv relocate his dock, and construct an access walk-way to the dock. The new walkway is proposed at a 5’ width and follows the shoreline for a distance ot approximately 30 . extending from the base of the existing concrete stairway to the new dock location. An additional proposed improvement is adding an additional 6-12" tier ot riprap, placing boulders acainst the existing inner retaining wall for additional stability, and adding approximately 12" depth of sand between the riprap and the retaining wall above the exisiing patio block surface. The intent is to add native grasses in this sand area (see Exhibit E ot September 14th memo). % * ‘ n Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 October 5, 1995 Zoning File #2072 Planiaifig Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this application at their September 1 8th meeting and on a vote of 5-1, recommeiKled approval as follows: 1. Shoreline maintenance work approved per proposal. 2. 3. 4. Patio block may remain "as is" under proposed sand layer. The 604 s.f. platform deck shall be removed as proposed, The proposed walkway from the existing concrete stairway to the new dock location shall be constructed at a width not to exceed H. The dissenting voter indicated it was her opinion the patio blocks should not remain in place under the sand layer. Planning Commission noted that hardcover in the 0-75’ zone would be reduced from 14.4% to 12.2% ^ originally propvised. Assuming the concrete patio blocks under the sand layer will still be considered hardcover, and accounting for the reduction and w idth of the wocxl walkway trom 5’ to 4’, final .hardcover in the 0-75’ zone will be reduced by approximately 484 s.f. yielding a final 0-75’ hardcover of 12.5%. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with the Planning Commission approval recommendation. The patio block in place under the sand may provide some stability to the shoreline, especially in this type of terrace situation where wave action may cause erosion to occur. Staff also concurs with limiting the walkway to a 4’ width. The attached resolution reflects the Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Proposed Motion: Moved by __, seconded by , to adopt Resolutionlotioii! iMOvea oy ___________» t # granting hardcover and lakeshore setback variances and land alteration permit to Gray don Newman,^ Jr. of 1655 Bohn ’s Point Road for reconfiguration of lakeshore access w'alkways and shoreline improvements. Vote._____ayes,--------nays. i pir... A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUTOIVTSIONS 1 ANT> 2, SECTION 10.55, SU’BDIVISION 8, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (J) AND (L), AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIO.N 19 FILE NO. 2072 WDEREAS, Graydon Newman, Jr. (hereinafter the "applicanr) is owner of the property located at 1655 Bohn ’s*Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and leeallv described as; Exhibit A attached ((hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivisions 1 and 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) for the placement of hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone where no hardcover is nomially allowed: and for a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8. and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (J) for tilling and grading work within the 0- 15' setback zone where no grading or filling is normally allowed; and for a conditional use permit for land alterations in the 0-75 ’ zone per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FLNDLNGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2072. A* The property is located in the TR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18, 1995 and recommended approval of the proposed variances and conditional use permit based upon the following findings: Pace 1 of 7 4. A. The existing 604 s.f. deck platform located at the shoreline encroaches into the neighboring property and is proposed to be removed, resulting in signirjcant decrease in hardcover near the lakeshore. The net decrease in 0-75’ hardcover from 14.4% to 12.5% is a positive improvement to the property. B. Applicant’s dock similarly encroached the neighboring property line exteiKled and is proposed to be moved to meet LMCD ret^uirements, thereby creating an access point offset by approximately 30’ from the existing concrete stairway which leads down the lakeshore bank and provides access to the shoreline for the applicant. C. Planning Commission finds that it is appropriate to allow a 4’ walkway laterally along the shoreline to connect the new dock access point to the existins concrete stairway, thereby avoiding an additional cut into the lakeshore bank. D. The proposed addition of boulders adjacent to the existing retaining wall approximately 10-15’ back from the shoreline is appropriate to provide additional support for the lakeshore bank, and the addition of 6-12 in height of riprap at the shoreline is appropriate to protect the shoreline. The proposed 12" depth of sand between the riprap and the retaining wall has been reviewed by the City Engineer who finds it acceptable from an eneineering standpoint. The majority of the sand area is proposed to be revegetated with native grasses, leaving approximately a 10’.x20’ area of sand exposed to provide a "beach " character. Planning Commission finds that leaving patio bkKks in place underneath the sand layer may provide additional stability for the shoreline and therefore it is appropriate to leave the patio blocks in place. 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. Pane 2 of 7 5.Tte City Council finds that the conditions existing on this propertj’ are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other propcn> in this zoning district; that granting the variances and conditional use permit would not adversely aftect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propertj’; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or ditticulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property’ right ot the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Citv. CONCLUSIONS. ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8. and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) for the construction of a 4’ wide walkway parallel to the shoreline for a distance of approximately 30 ’ and within the 0-75 ’ zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allow’ed, and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8. and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) to allow filling and grading in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone where such w "^rk normally is not allowed, and grants a conditional use per it per Section 10.03. Subdivision 19 for land alteration in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback zone, subject to the following conditions: The shoreline maintenance work including boulder wall improvement, riprap improvement and sand fill shall follow the plans submitted by the applicant’s landscape designer. The existing patio blocks may remain "as is" under the sand layer. 3. 4. The platform deck shall be removed as proposed. The walkway constructed from the base of the existing concrete stairway to the new dock location shall not e.xceed a width of 4’. 5.Applicant is advised that hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone shall not exceed 12.5% per the sketch and listing attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Applicant is advised that any future proposal to add hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with the removal of equivalent or greater square fooiages of hardcover in that zone. Page 3 of 7 5. The City Council fiiKis that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district: that granting the variances and conditional use pe!'^vould 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 applicant; aiKl would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) for the construction of a 4 ’ wide walkway parallel to the shoreline for a distance of approximately 30’ and within the 0-75* zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) to allow filling and grading in the 0-75 lakeshore setback zone where such work normally is not allowed, and grants a conditional use permit per Section 10.03. Subdivision 19 for land alteration in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. 4. 5. The shoreline maintenance work including boulder wall improvement, riprap improvement and sand fill shall follow the plans submitted by the applicant’s landscape designer. The existing patio blocks may remain "as is" under the sand layer. The platform deck shall be removed as proposed. The walkw’ay constructed from the base of the existing concrete stairway to tiie new dock location shall not exceed a width of 4 ’. Applicant is advised that hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall not exceed 12.5% per the sketch and listing attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Applicant is advised that any funire proposal to add hardcover in the 0-75’ zone will likely not be approved, but might be app oved only in conjunction with the removal of equivalent or greater square footages of hardcover in that zone. Page 3 of 7 6.Auihorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only ai»l must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (October 9, 1996). 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 authoritv granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigm. hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain ot title ol e property. .Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of October, 1995 ATTEST: Dorothv M. Ilallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr.. Mayor Property Owned s) Page 4 of 7 1 STATE OF NHNNESOTA ) ) COUNTV OF HENNEPIN ) s$. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of October. 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 insmiment was executed im behalf of the City. Notarv 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. Notarv 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) tree act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING ¥UX #2072 notice of PLA.NNTNG COMMISSION iVcnoN DATE OF NOTICE: September 26. 1995 TO:Graydon K. Nc^fcmaB 1655 Bohn’s Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES; Gusufson Design. Inc. 1845 Wisconsin Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55427 TYPE OF APPLICATION: V’ariances/Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETLNG: 09'18/95 VOTE: 5 FOR 1 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below notes and SPECL\L CONDITIONS: Shoreline maintenance work approved per Gustafson proposal Patio block may remain ’as-is' under proposed sand layer. 1. 3. 4. dock location at a width not to e.xceed Remove platform deck as proposed. Construct waUeway from existing suirway to new (5’ was proposed). The dissentmg voter tndicated it was her opinion the patio blocks should no. remain in place under the sand layer. Applicant ts advised to contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding permits which may be required for this project. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is conTumed as: . , nn .. m Citv Council. Monday, October 9, 1995; meeting starts at 7,00 p.m. / TO.Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:September 14, 1995 SUBJECT: #2072 Graydon Newman. Jr.. 1655 Bohn’s Point Raul - Variance/Conditional Use • Public Hearing Zoning Dritrict: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre Applicatiot; Request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances and land alteration permit in 0*75’ zone to allow reconfiguration oflakeshore access walkways aiui shoreline improvement including sand till and boulder wall improvement. Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.22, Subds. 1 and 2/Scction 10.55. Subd. 8/Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L): No hardcover allowed in 0-75’ zone; allowed exception is 4’ walkway leading directly to the shoreline, per Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (F). 2.Section 10.22. Subd. I/Section 10.55. Subd. 8/Scction 10.56, Subd. 16 (J): No grading allowinc in 0-75’ /one. 3.Section 10.03. Subds 19-21: Conditional fse permit required for land alterations in 0-75’ /one. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Site Plan/Construction Plan F - Cross Section G - Hardcover Calculations H - Code Section re; Ukeshore Stairways T * Ml'- ■, Ji,-'*'* f S Pertinent Facts 1.Applicant recently purchased this propeny. and upon obtaining a survey tound that his nre-existine deck platform located at the shoreline was encroaching into the neighboring property. ^Further, applicant ’s dock was also found to be encroaching the extended property line, not meeting LMCD setback requirements. Zoning FUc #2072 September 14, I99S Page 2 To make these structures conforming, applicant proposes to remove the 600 s.f. deck platform, and replace it with a 5’ section of walkway paralleling the shoreline lor a distance of 30’. The purpose of this walkway section is to connect the proposed new dock location with the existing concrete stairway system within applicant s property located approximately 20 ’ south of the side lot line. Additionally, applicant proposes to make certain improvements to the shoreline in order to reduce pre-existins hardcover, and provide additional stability to the e.xisting shoreline riprap as well as the 2*3 ’ tlagstone retaining wall located 10-15’ back from the shoreline. Applicant’s landscape archTtect proposes to add an additional 6-12" in height to the shoreline riprap; place boulders against the existing inner reuining wall for additional stability; and add appro.ximatcly 12" depth of sand between the nprap and wall above the existing concrete patio block surface. The intent is to add native grasses in this sand area. Hardcover Review Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone is 3.654 s.f. or 14.4%. made up of the following items; Wellhousc (SW end) "Boathouse" (near dock) Stone stair (SW end) Cone, stair (near dock) Cone, walk from house (near dock) Patio & deck (near dock) Stone «&: cone, walls Cone, stepping stones (along shoreline) 47 s.f. 40 s.f. 65 s.f. 96 s.f. 192 s.f. 604 s.f. (pan over water) 1.030 s.f. 1.580 s.f. 3.654 s.f./25,360 s.f. = 14.4% Proposed removals Patio & deck Cone, stepping stones under sand 604 s.f. -(-100 s.f. 9^ ^ 45 s.f.w r : Proposed additions Wo(xl walkway 5x9 at botiom of steps ^ , Wood walkway (2.5x30) 4- (5x6) 105 s.f. i7 v to relocated dock (portion ^ f over riprap) (. - r 3^ \ Net reduction = 554 s.f. /j*+ 3,654 - 554 = 3.100/25,360 = 12.2% r (2 Tlie net reduction of 554 s.f. in the 0-75’ zone reduces 0-75’ hardcover from 14.4% to 12.2%. Zoning File #2072 Sq?tcmber 14, 1995 Page 3 Citir- Engineer's Comments The City Engineer in his lener of September 13th advises that the proposal to add an additional course to the existing riprap, install sand behind riprap and plant native grasses, b acceptable from an engineering standpoint. He also noted verbally to statf that the proposal to place additional boulders to support existing walls may increase their longevity and is okay from an engineering standpoint. He also suggests that the concrete patio blocks be removed prior to installing the sand layer. If not. that area should be considered hardcover (this would leave tinal hardcover at about 3,170 s.f. or 12.5%). He also suggests that lop soil may be more appropriate than sand for cstablbhing grasses and that erosion control should be installed along the areas to be graded, if anv. Applicant ’s landscape architect. Dale Gustafson, has indicated that native grasses can easily be established within the sand as proposed (see E.xhibit E). and that near the dock area it is proposed to leave appro.ximaiely a I0’x20’ area of sand exposed to provide a ’beach" character. Issues for Consideration What is Planning Commission’s opinion regarding the hardcover starus ot patio blcx:ks under 6-12" of sand? This generally would be considered hardcover under past City practice. Applicant is willing lo remove, but notes that they may provide some stability in this area ol .loreline where waves apparently commonly surmount the height of the riprap and wash into the flat walkway area. . . Does Planninu Commission have any concents about the width of the walkway to the dock, which is proposed at 5’ rather than the standard 4' width allowed by code? Dt^es Planmng Commission have any other concerns about this project? Staff Recommendation Any recommendation tor approval should address the removal of the deck platform, the addition of a lateral v alkwav along the shoreline leading from the existing steps to the new dock location; and should aacress le proposed sand fill and new stone retaining wall support proposal. The recommendation should also specify the hardships and justification for allowing the hardcover variances as well as the variance (if one is granted) to the 4’ stairway width standard and the need for excess length to extend to the new dock location. r^>- Zoning File #2072 September 14, 1995 Page 4 Options for Action 1. Approve as proposed. 2. Approve with cooditions. 3, Table for further information. 5. Denv. Other. 1 CITY OF ORONO - V.\RL\NCE ^JlPPLICATION A?pU«ucr. SICO.CO (S50.00 per each addiucmi var.an—) Renewal Variance ?c- SICO.CO i “ /«« or'^inai acDiicatioa)(no cna^gc trw^ V__-ur-s S:C0.C0Variance fer non-ccnicmnng s^-wn-.s ^fter-uhe-Fac: Fees iDoubie appiicancn .... - v V ' N - PROPERTi-I>tORNLATON- PAiiA- ------------------------------- Si» A-:.ir.ss U.S-5 — Prccerr.’ Idennficaucn Numccr u ‘ :iTn^^oa required inr ey. AKch legil dtsc-pnon »jpp!i==“°"‘I “=‘ ■"- ' --------(month/year) DiteJ>roper:y Acpoirri.ISIS'S- S:r'i!cS: (sp«:fy)rfsent use or prcj.w.*>. ^— crang Diiinc::__------------------- V-2/h ~|7 uy;<.c<^^>^^LJX^Address: I'^H^ pKnr/».hnn:e> j ---------- OUTsTER ‘il dilfeccn:'-ban apphdcnt) , p^rr^ (o7^<2 ----— description of REQt.TST Es:una:ei ConsonenonCos: S. (attnen addinoimi sdeeis n necess^’) V.AKL\NCES REQLTR£D Lot .AieA _Lot ’.Vidth Setback: Other (specif)') Front Side X Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore conditions preventingaARDSHIP/DESC^^ONOF^C^^^ \rkr^ b?;r?CTZZ: f f- »/o i-tjf wi ( ---------;---------------------- ^2.rLacii additional-sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS w hvXhe annlication date in ordegAll of the follouing information mu?t ^.bmitteQ.--------vim fnr vour annlication to be con5ider?4 .^ompklgl 1. 2. j. 4. Completed Appliciuon Fora ^ ^^5 ,i„ ftcm Cenined P^F'^'J'pdmcc- \^3. Govt Cedier. 3dS-3271). Ksnztoin Counr/ Depaitmcnt or j4_ Plat Map (obtained surveyor) and include hardcover ^Cera-tcate of “ one (1) copy SIV .IK for caicuiaiioos as required. In acaiuon. t'f reprcducrion. el-vations) if anv changes in existing grade ^ Topographic survey (existing an p p ^ x 11" for renroduction. are proposed In =l tprovide one ,1) copy 3H- x ID. _ Sketches or plara ot floor & '•= ^ i^tssesi in the List of the legal „f appiicant(s) if not current ownerts). property. This would mc.uoe ,^. ( ) separate list of any other persons MA As an addendum to this application, please am.cn p vou wish notir'ied of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City statf. .-VPPLIC.ANT’S SIG.NATL'RE information required or requested by the Zoning Applicant’s Signature QA,^I ' / 0\N'XER’S SIGNA”^^ , thisqpplicauon and further authorizes reasonable °:r rproperbTcp^ff^^^ a"ats, commission members and Conned members for purposes of up4r'iS«/o veraicauoo ot this request. T / 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. “DateOwner’s Signature hasi^I submiitals'into the City offices 23 days before the Planning Applicant must ha _ ■ ; Meehnvs are held on the third Monday ot each month. Me.;uig Plan^g Co^^ ^u'scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission AppUcanis mus J ^^^ble to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangement ““ ^f^tu'tborized Lent abend in your place and to advise the Budding & Zoning Office Sis change prior to the meeung. mm MTt i»/n/n•ATCN Sit'i omii mmbilAXPAVEi M ^ i r ♦ i . (M€R HAM ]S^"^TAXRAYfl^ HME/AUHt .«k' '■ 1 rnv AOM ONNm NAHi taxpayer I ! .r 'NAME/AOOR ‘. •:I • f' * I' V PMR AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR It I PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER / NAME/ADOR iis i i ’» I i if r- HENNEPIN COUNTt PWERTT INTOmUTItli SYSTENLISTSi 14*117«n tl OOif•IMO ROHM POMT RO i i i RUHLAP RAVXR J A DIANE J DUNLAP I44R ROIi« POINT AOMYZATA m issn Si 17-117-tS 11 0001 0144S RONNS POINT RO HXCHAEL N CASNNAN KICNAEL M CASRKAN liif RQHNS POINT RO MAYZATA m USfl Si 17-117-ES 11 0004 014S5 Doms POINT RO S P MOSELEY ASP HDSElEY STEPHEN P A SUSAN P MQSEUY 14SS DOHNS POINT RO NAYZATA m BSS91 Si 17-117-2S 11 0009 OOOSi ADDRESS UNASSIGTCO 0 R NEIttAN JR A M M C NENMAN 6RAYD0N K NE^tlAN JR MICHELLE M C NEMMAN 145S BOHNS POINT RO ORQNO m 55591 Si 17-117-25 11 0012 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 6 K NE»t1AN JR A M H C NE^AN GRAYDON r <PHMAN JR MICMELtr ^ c *€WriAN 1455 BO^« Pe iff RO ORONO h 5^591 RIPORT NO. PI455401 PMa S758 14-117-2S EE 0004 017E0 RONNS POINT Rl DAS ANOERSON ET AL DAS ANDERSON 17E0 DOIte POINT ROAO HAYZATA m 55591 50 14-117-ES EE 000501725 iONNS POINT RO raCNAEl N CASHMAN SR MICHAEL M CASHMAN SR 17950 BREEZY POINT M) NAYZATA m 55591 Si I7-117-ES 11 0002 01455 iONNS POINT RO R R NENMAN JR A M H C NENMAN IGRAYOON R NEItUN M raCI^LLE N C NENMAK 1455 RONNS POINT 1^ ORQNO HN 55191 56 17-117-ES 11 0004 OOOSi ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 0 A S ANDERSON ET AL DAVID A MARGENE FOX 1445 DOHNS PT RO NAYZATA ftl SSS91 Si 17-117-ES 11 0007 01445 BOHNS POINT RD J L CONNER A G J PAULUCCI J L CONNER A G J PAULUCCI 1445 BO;tlS POINT RD HAYZATA m 55591 SB 17-117-ES 11 OOOB OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 6 R NEWAN JR A H H C NENMAN GRAYDON R NEKtUN JR HICI^LLE H C NEFtUN 1455 BOHNS POINT RO ORONO HN 55391 SB 17-117-E5 11 0010 0005B ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 6 K NENMAN JR A M M C NEHhAN GRAYDON R NENMAN JR MICHELLE M C NEIR1AN 1455 BOHNS POINT RO ORONO MN 5S591 SB 17-117-25 11 0011 00056 ADDRESS UNASSICR4ED G K NEIA1AN JR A H H C NENMAN GRAYDON R NENMAN JR MICHELLE M C NEM1AH 1655 BOHNS POINT RO ORONO MN S5591 S6 17-117-25 11 OOlS 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED C R NENHAI4 JR A M H C NENMAN GRAYDON K NEM1AN JR MICHELLE H C NENMAN 1655 BOHNS POINT RO ORONO m 55591 tOTAL BATCH 512 00014 r’ i I ©s u • .* ✓ ■ ) $PRW© PAiK-1? 17-117- 4.- % .‘^.* 5; ■'5' .*•.•. •. gustafson design ; 7 ■«w • X “■-rr y -■ \ -- f August 26. 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Ms Mabusth: In reference to the Newman application we intend to propose to do the following work: Move the dock and canopy to a conforming location. Remove the existing non-conforming sections of deck at the lake shore. Add a connecting deck walk over to the new dock location. Add a course of riprap to the existing nprap. Install sand behind riprap on shoreline, approximately 6 cubic yards. Plant native grasses to stabilize the area behind the riprap. The plam included with the application delineates the detail of this proposal. If there are further questions, please call my office. 18-. 5 Wisconsin Ave. No. Golden Valley, MN 55427 tel (612) 544-4215 I'A--.m ^ A '■• V i > jk >y • • • ■;) \ A 4 ,>-sTf V N. X IT III ^ • «# * V, -, Pt.\ I III < / Ir^vv^* A/''\ ^ 7 /• if •v' lX<->% O ;,:r A-n X J*^Vv !-<r V\ z^- vX N X N XX V ^ X V ^ m _ 7 / > v>'•v ^ X. />X. >*■> Z :ji: ■s'' \ if*r, K \ M ru''r V » ^ • ','' ' / \'>-X \ /' K r* \' - - V2^> ' V ^ ' / V V m>Mm f~ i..’T ,N / ^ /";F t 1^-/ '\ • •!•«#? r|»«|»i fMl *ai« rt'ft •^•a M t|»«af ••• aatatafa a> «a • at*» • »<#f't « »t« <i iM at» •a* t ax a » • ##?ia'ta|x ■«.a • a tfaa <%«•#• *»i %•« '■i !•« ■ a<t e« aiaxiaaia «*» * ' ^ ~ •»* •» '••fl aJ« X j ^ •• ;^ •* X. 1 ata- aarf • •AOf ,, V4l» flr -ill X::\ - »'• X“ 7 . I ’ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for GRADY A SHELLY NEWMAN f r •*» •aa V, y m •m. w ammtmm • y/ ♦•# »V^» % #f«. ^ .%•• 'to e«w:n2-‘is.u a* aiaaa* «*a« •—«at S-Mt «i aw«A«* •« «••»*• '•• »• *•• " wuii^U-j— W «M»MM I n i«a«a«M •■«••*•* | •a^taa^taMiMatM MfeM •«•. laaMfia raaaar. _ nt” —-* a*«v*«M« a# a*a •*#« aa-e*#^ a* »l»a aajM ri^aa aa «*«a a4i.aa al MS Aa«iauat al •••«a# *• a-a« •aa aaa« ttaaaav ^ . to . ..^ Existing Boat Hous , ' Ex. Mapt«: Add Sand To Replace Concrete Increase Rip Rap Height - Existing Lannon Wall Add Native Grasses 05 ?.rj .,,.) ■^i- ■ tv! «ihit •ft S X JZ?.r -' J / > -L__ LAi^€ - V_..." /:/2oS£ -^^ct70/0 SETIACKZONX: (CDICLE OMO 75-25Sr 2^509 ’ msTWG HA.fiprnm TS ZONE A. ifciu*'' ~7r '2^—111 o. ^ 8 1 % B. 0-3 C» % C Dnvew*y s X r 4»i» - a- D. S«tew^ C»o£^j^£±£_^cm 17 Z-. E. Pmo^k F. Landscape Underiaia By Plastic Or Fabnc X X 0. OU«r TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA LN ZONE - ^ ^ , iqq A * B |.Tini»nSFD HAJRprOVTR CS ZONi; A. House _______________ Lcofiti widm X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . B X 100 = - i^~7 S.F. S.F. •S.F. IK S.F. c^O S.F. S.F. «S.F. S.F. S.F. - S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. -S.F. 1^ 1^0’S.F. 4 (e^fLS.F. A S.F. B '/CJ. ¥% S.F. .: S.F. - S.F. *S.F. , .. , S.F. : ^ S.F. '» S.F. S.F. F ^ ^ *S.F. \:j S.F. '^•^3 S.F. S.F. S.F.- ag S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % fRF ■ •STTBACKZONE: (CIRCLE Of® C2flS?^23-iiW'$!»>1UU0’ EXISTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ ft ft X BL Carate C Driveway X ft D. Si*.n V E. Pstio/Deck F. 1 jnrtscapc Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc icac 7^ « _____ X X X 0. Other ifcjf(^/e^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A Lj^MOO XIQOt proposed hardcover (N zer^ A. House ___________— * \jn§it WidOl B. Garage C. Dnveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Piasuc Or Fabnc X X X X X X X X X X X G. Oihcr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________B X 100 • 3.!z^ s.F. s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ______S.F. ~S.F. S.F. S.F. Ce S F. S F. S.F. ____S.F. II C?0(^ s F. // S.F. "■7 % A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.01 S.F. (■/ - aS F. I S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.FVif • ‘ s.F. , S.F>^^3 S.F>J^ s.F. s.F. S.F. % A B SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONX) 9-W 75-250*diAHAuiiy HARDCQ A. House S y “73^ Lrark X X X B. Garafc C- Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paao/D«k % X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Oibcr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER1T AREA IN ZONE * A *100 “r ppOPOSEP hardco ver in 2 ^.-E A. House -------------------- Lengdi WidKa X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Uoderiain Bv Plastic Or Fabnc X X X G. Other TOTAL H.^RDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . -r B a,S.F.V S,F. »S.F. m S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. «S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. m /% S.F. S.F. m S.F. m S.F. S.F. S.F. *S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. s S.F. S;S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 % A B A B SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ’75-250*^ soo-iooy^^ H^pncnvER in ZONE A. House _________ — * ,«C|H B. Cents C. Driveway D. Sidewalls i. ^io/Deck F. Laadscape Underlaia By Plastic Or Fabric s a a a X X X X X S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Oiber total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA LN ZONE ^ ^ A --------------------- PROPOSED HARDCOVFR IN ZONE A. House _______________ S.F. "S.F. /O" % S.F. Lcn(ili WhIA X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic Or Fabnc X X X X X X X X X G. Ollier TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY ARE.\ IN ZONE A ______________-r B X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B S 10.56 6 Average lakeshore setback. No principal T located closer to the lakeshore or accessory structure shall be locat ^vf^tino residence than the average distance from the s does not apply to buildings on adjacent lots, ®Further, the averagestairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes, turt^^^^^^ lakeshore “’’-^'e av"erag'e lakeshore setbaok line shall £r.*°slrailht^Vine conniorina the most residence buildings on the immediately adiacent la D. Minimum Lowest Floor ^levations . A 11 struotures located within the Shoreland 0„rlay Drstrio.^^ of'thisstructures located within tne - section 10.55 of this ordina^e°shal/ b°e"^^^ a^'t'^a^'n elevation consistent _with^theordinance shall be placed at , flood protection requirements of that section. ij, section 10.55, Subd. elevation shall be established ^"«\5°cted with?^^^^^7 of this code. All structures^constructed wit^^ basement. Overlay District shall have thei. lo ^ regulatory flood placed at an elevation no lower ^®^_Yain elevation protection elevation. where the lle^tion at which the cannot reasonably be determined, nlaced shall be determinedlowest floor, including basement, may be placed shall as follows: 1. For lakes, by placing the e 1 X -5 .:»hove the highest known water level, or j feer^^bov^e^ the^ ordinary High Water Level, whichever is higher. 2 For rivers and streams, by placing the lowest floor at least'3 feet above the flood of record. E Water-oriented Accessory Structures. The only water-oriented accessory structure a1 lowed to be looeteo nearer^ the ordinary High water Le ve l t*-^norma l^st-^_^ :":a“e /oet in a*rL no higher than 48 in^es in height. Such a |?rS«ure requires a buildi.ng permrt rrom the Crty._ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ Stairways, Lifts and Landings. Stairways and --- ^a^hiirS ^»rSp-a^. Vow;:^?Sfalterations for q-airwTvs lifts and landings shall be :iirwed^lnnre%^"V'se4'-/4"tTe a^nV^m^us%" meet thi following design require.ments: 1.Stairways and lifts must not exceed 4 feet in width. 2. Landings for stairways and lifts shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. 3, Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stair*ways, lifts, or landings. ORONO CC 376-12 (2-24-92) r \ S 10.56 A wavs, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the and built'^in^a manner into the ground, provided they ar that ensures control of soil erosio . 5 Stairwavs, lifts and' landings must be i?ewe'd®'^fron''the'"s°u^^^^ assuming summer, leaf- on conditions, whenever practical. 6. "®=®=®t7,,'°braTlowed'’provid“ ^ access to Physically handicapped persons subitems 1 - 5 /\ that the “tn to the requirements of the Minnesota / )are completed in addition to the req RegulationSf Chapter 1340* 7 A buildino permit shall be obtained for ,• of stairCavs^ lifts and landings regardless of whether such improvements are constructed above- -- - - - - --- - ------------ST^ Sloces. ^y applicant requesting a permit for = ?mD^roveme"n\V orsteep'slS|«, shall frovnrliequItriSfo^mation^o allow the City to evalua^ Lil erosion impacts and When determined waters before such P®"'” ^ 3^hld to issued permits to necessary, exi-V^g veqetation screening of prevent erosion and I®. ?iuies as viewed from the itructures, vehicles, other vecetaticn. Lrface of public waters, assuming su.jner, lear (^t-T-nc^ures. No structure within the Shoreland Overl'ky Ois1:%t forth in the standard^J XX Vegotiat:icn Alterations. r 1 No live tree within 75 feet of the shoreline^with a the g^^oun'd'may be circumference or V per'mit from thi City staff removed least t^e equivalent number of replacementprovided PhaP at ^be staff are planted at of a site and nat ^ chore'line as those removed. Appeals of the same setback pp®" P^^and ouality of the trees to staff <3®P®PP'p.'\®,Pb'i fo the Co'uncil. Removal of trees that are oead rha\? n%” t:c^^^e^1ermit “but such trees must he inspected by ci?y Staff prior to their removal.«• • J0 • •2 ; J ORCNO CC 376-13 (2-24-92) SH13-1G9S 1 i26^l FPCJI * AiSwC if i Bonestroo Rosene Anderfik & ^ 1 Associates Engineers & Architects Ottt 3. i»Aeit*«a. •J. yr iiMr-e •!• Z /Nrtto- lu >1 ^■rvei L t9rv«^ £ • i.-arf| Tymm-' *£ 6i«W« C«9« mffS 6 UnMprc.*-:. C ? ^ ' (\e rr* ,4 „^r#aA. P # ^9^*^ * We^fecte. • f # C^'3 AT •9f*»' * I • r #«•»« A.. A A. ••l.fMA. ^ k A -«•« • * •»* A .• i *waa4 j< » An^'n.^ <j>. >AH4et W * i September 13. 1995 ' - c*^e. A *y*» A f : - :ranMh| ^1 ;»V09 iMarr.Mef * 4 W»C-»»I • • C. #^re*fae *t WTAW C L • • t ¥iif«Ae • f e • ; J Apf!W»p? 4e-«re4^ > A^^'taA ^£ M*'« fi tWt »f M#f4 A • ? •»W' .’ ‘ 4 • 2 ^ t • f • t i .':#f»»a;. Afi vie^» ? W» i ? • k vi..e« A * ; . •«%-f * Qr*v»! •£ K e^en t A ;»e»er • » 3*fv D t- jfe^rf • f K Z*94 ^i » *MA*«X!^ A I V«|» «. tip* eAMfVt J MnpA AI Cec»i*n 0*tv«#e f C Aem « WAfApr f f »»fc- 5 *S r^ • Z'.'St* A F It-? AAv'-*^ • • -a***»v * fi J>ie3*' <* •£ .♦t M M.-v^ Af Crr ts • fc" ;*:y* 1-*. M tew^eisitir '4«r*^ V* ^.ior Afnn ^ Mr. Michael P Gaffron. Asst. Duildiag and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crt'xtal Bav. Minnesota 5532? Ncv\man Residence File No. 139-2072 Dear Mike. We have reviewed the proposed shoieline alteration.<; on the Newman properly at 1655 Bohns Point Road, located on the north shore of Cr\«;tal Bav. The proposal to add a course of riprap to the e.xisting riprap, install sand behind the riprap and plant native grasses i.s acceptable from an engineering standpoint. We offer the folloNving comments: Tlie e.xisting concrete patio blocks should be removed prior to installing the sand lavor unless the aiea will be considered hardcover. An alternative to removing the blocks would be to crush them in place. A layci of topsoil may be more appropriate than sand for establishing native grasses. Eiosion conti ol should be installed along all areas to be graded prior to the work to protect the lake Please cuniaci me .it iliis office if 'nu ln\e an\ nuesticns rer.irdjn? this matter i w w "h ours ver\ inilv, BONESTROO. ROSENE. AN'DERI.IK & ASSOCIATES. INC f fM Shawn D. Gustalson. P E / 2335 West Highwoy 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 ■ 612'0J6 ‘4600 ®W*nilBiwe OCTREQl'EST FOR COl'NCn. ACTION DATE: cOff^ ITEM NO: * S 1$95 INO Department Approval: Administrator RcTiewed: Agenda Section: Name Michael P. Gaffroa Zoning ^ ^ Title Asst. Plaxmiog A Zoning Adm. ___________________________/ w Item [yescription: #2073 Wllllain 1ik1 Susan Dunkiey, 2709 Walters i^ort I-ane - Variance, Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 1 acre. Application: Request for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances for a number of proposed property improvements; 1. Repair of driveway, retaining wall around driveway, tront walkway and front sloop. 2. Replacement of retaining walls along lake. 3. Replacement of retaining wall and steps along side garage. 4. Addition of front entry to house to alleviate water problems. 5. Three season porch and deck along lake side. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/26/95 C - Letter of Request from .Applicants D - Revised Driveway Sketch E - Memo and Exhibits of 9/I5'95 Discussion Please carefully review the memo and exhibits of 9/15/95. Briefly, applicants propose a number of projects on this severely limited property. Nearly three-fourths of the lot is in the 0-75’ zone, and the entire house is within the 0-75’ zone. During the Planning Commission review it was confirmed that applicants had completed replacement of the driveway while this application was in process. Staff had advised applicants’ entry way contractor that completing the driveway would be inappropriate in the midst of an application for hardcover variances. ~On 10/5/95 staff measured the new driveway and concluded that it is approximately 150 s.f. greater in hard surface area than the original driveway. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this multi-faceted application at their September 18th meeting and recommended partial approval as follows: ^f*d| 15 T03 Request for Camcilt-Action continued page 2 of 3 October 6, 1995 Zoning File #2073 1. Approval of replacement of existing wcxxl i *taining walls with modular block walls per the site plan (Exh..>it K of Sepu t>ei 15th memo). Planning Commission agreed with the City Engineer fhat the existing wood walls adjacent to the new block walls should be removed rather than buried. 2. Approval of a front entry'way addition of approximately 100 s.f. (Exhibits G and H). Denial of the profH>sed 10'x33’ enclosed porch addition and lO’xlo ’ deck addition on the lake side of the house behind the garage area. Planning Commission felt there was no justification for the additional deck or enclosed fnirch given the extensive decks and patio areas on the propeny already, and given the minimal setback from the lake where these additions are proposed (Exhibit E-2). 4. Planning Commission recommended f^'at a significant amount of existing landscape hardcover areas be removed per the S’te plan attached to the Planning Commission notice (Exhibit B ot this memo). Applicants* October 2nd Letter of Request (Exhibit C) Applicants have indicated that there is an area of existing wood retaining wall they would like to retain on the aivise of their landscaper and engineer, since removing it may affect the paver patio blocks atM>vc it. This apparently is the area centrally located along the lake side of the house ou ’ frr m the second level deck. Staff would recommend approval of this subject to applicants’ acknow ledgment of the funire por^* al p'-oblems associated w ith the wood retaining wall decaying underground in the tuture. Secondly, applicants propose to enclose a deck oil the bedroom not at the back of the house, which staff assumes (without having a floor plan) is at the south end (left end as you stand al the driveway) of the house, overlooking the terraced stairway area leading down to the shoreline. This existing deck is approximately 40’ from the shoreline, and enclosing it would tend to increase the visual length of the house as viewed from the lake. Also, a portion ot that deck is only 6’ from the side lot line, and therefore w.,uld require a setback variance if it was to be entiiely covered. Finally, applicants further request that two areas of landscape hardcover shown on applicants attached sketch be allowed to remain in place. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs ..ih the Planning Commission that this property already has entirely too much hardcover and that with existing lot coverage by stractures at 15.1% (15% allowed) addition of the enirvway is the onlv appropriate structural addition. Staff does not recommend appro v'al for enclosure of the existing’ open deck with a sun room. Staff is not convinced that all ot the Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 October 6. 1995 Zoning File #2073 areas suggested for having hardcover remain arc nccessar>' The apparent expansion of the driveway by 150 s.f., vkhile being a relatively minor increase, docs not help the situation. Staff has not attempted to recalculate hardcover in cither zone based on the Planning Commission recommendation a. the driveway changes, but would note the following: The modular block retaining walls will constitute approximately two to three times the hard surface area ot the existing wood walls they replace. Tl^e driveway is approximately 150 s.f. greater than previously Most of the rockbeds in the 75-250’ zone will disappear, and they constituted approximately 2.155 s.f. or about 31% of the 75-250* zone. Their removal should drop the 75-250’ hardcover from 74% to around 45-50%. Proposed landscape hardcover remosals in the 0-75’ zor« are less significant, compnsing approximately 1.000 s.f. net. reducing 0-75’ hardcover from 49.6% to approximately 44%. Staff recommends that applicants be required to provide an as-buiIt survey and as-built hardcover calculation of the sue once the approved piojects are completed. It this is not acceptable to Council, then the applicants should be required to provide a "proposed hardcover calculation based on the approved site plan either prior to final Council action or, as an alternative prior to issuance of permits Note that a land alteration permit will be required tor the retaining walls, and building permits will be required for the proposed entry addition and anv other construction to be done on tie site. The attached resolution retlects the Planning Commission recommendation; does m take into account the applicants ’ October 2nd -equests except as regards the retaining walls; includes staffs request for an as-built survev and hardcover calculation once the walls and additions are completed; and references the site plan rather than specifying hardcover in numerical detail. COLNCIL .\CTION REQUESTED: Proposed Motion: Moved by . seconded by , to adopt Resolution # granmg variances lo William and Susan Dunkley of :709 Walters Pon Lane for certain items of excessive hardcover and constmetton uithin the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, as well as a conditional use permit for construction/replacemcni of retaining walls. Vote; _ ayes. — navs. J A RESOLUnON GRANTING VARIANCES TO NOFNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, Sl'BDIVISION 1, SECTION 10.55. SUBDIVISION 8 AND SECTION 10.56. SUBDIVISION 16 (C) A> D (LI, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03. SUBDIVISION 19 FILE NO. 2073 WTIEREAS, William Dunklcy and Susan Dunkley (hereinafter the "applicants’) are the owners of the property at 2709 Walters Port Lane located within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 4. Block 3. Walters Port. Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); ami WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1. 10.55, Subdivision 8 and 10.56. Subdivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the construction of an entry way addition constituting structure and hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no structural hardcover are normally allowed, and requesting similar variances for an enclosed porch and open deck locait within 75’ of lakeshore where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed, and for a conditional use permit per Section 10 03, Subdivision 19 for the reconstruction of retaining walls within the 0-75’ zone. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE. BE 11 RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2073. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family I^keslioie Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 8 3.The Orcfio Planning Commission roicwTd this application on September 18. 1995 and recommended approval of certain of the requested variances and conditional use permit and recommerKkd denial of certain vanances per the following findings: A. B. E. Planning Commission recommended approval of the nccessarv hardcover variance and conditional use permit tor replacement of existing retaining walls, finding tl*at such walls arc necessarv to the integritv of the propertv', and that such walls should be constructed per the rccomrticndations of the City Engineer regarding removal of the existing wood walls prior to construction of new walls. Planning Commission recommended approval for repair of the driveway, replacement of a retaining wall along the north side of the driveway, and replacement of a front walkway from the stoop to the driveway, finding that such improvements arc rweessary to protect the driveway and the neighboring property and provide access from the driveway to the house. Planning Commission recommended approval ot an approximately 100 s.f. front entry addition to the house to alleviate a water problem due to lop<3graphy and roof piicli at that location. Planning Commission rccoimnemled denial of the proposed 10 x33 three season porch and 10’xl6' deck behind the garage, which construction would be located as near as 24' and 19 respectively from the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, which construction would constitute additional structural hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback /one, and which construction would increase lot coverage by structures on the propertv to in excess of 16% where only 15% lot coverage by structures is allowed, and which additions would add to the bulk of the sttuemre as viewed from the lake, and which additions would encroach into the average lakeshore setback. Planning Commission further recommended that substantial amounts of landscape hardcover on the property be eliminated, given that existing hardcover in the 0-75 ’ /one is 49.6% where no hardcover is nomially Page 2 of 8 ■ t tmgs 4. 5. allowed, and given that hardcover in the 75-250’ lakcshorc setback rone is 74.2% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed. Planninij Commission finds that the hardcover areas recommended for removal are noc necessaiy to support the integrity of the property, and there is no hardship to jusnf>' the continued existence of said hardcover in light of the current har dcover variance request. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by die applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, satetv and welfare of the communitv . The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it airf do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances and conditional use permit would not .adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propeny; 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 inient of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Citv. CONCLLSIO.NS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or m».)re ol the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby crams a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Cixle Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 and variances to Sections 10.22. Subdivision 1 and 2. Section 10.55. Subdivision 8, Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 <C) and (L) to allow cenain structure and hardcover and retaining walls in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed, as tollow's and per the following conditions: Pace 3 of 8 2. 5 Approval of ihc replaccriciu of existing retaining walls with nwxlular block walls per the site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Existing wood w'alls adjacent to new block walls must be removed rather than burKd. except in the locations shown on Exhibit A. Approval of the 100 s.f. front emryway addition as profH^sed. per the construction plans submitted with the application. This approval is subject to specific hardcover removals as shown on the "removals' site plan. Exhibit A, and subject to the final site hardcover allowai.c'* shown on the "final" site plan attached as Exhibit D. The propeny owners are advised that all hardcover required to be removed shall be removed prior to footing inspection for the proposed entry addition. Applicants or their contractors shall obtain the appropriate permits for construction of the proposed entry addition and construction of the retaining walls. Further, within thirty days ot completion of the additions and retaining wall replacement, applicants shall provide an as-built survey of the property, showing the emryway. new retaining walls, and all hardcover, including a hardcover calculation by applicants surveyor confirniing the tinal percentages ot hardcover in the 0-75’ and 75-250 zones. The proposed 10’x33 ’ enclosed porch and 10’xl6 ’ open deck arc specifically denied, and shall not he constructed. Any future hardcover placed or constructed on the property of other than the nature. kKation and area of that hardcover shown on the final approved site plan. Exhibit B. shall first require approval of the City Council, and likely will not be approved without substantial removals ot pre-existing hardcover resulting in no net increase or a net decrease in hardcover on the property. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application tor a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (October 9, 1996). Page 4 of 8 W r 8. 9. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zonmg Code, shall automatically terminate any authoritv' granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants has 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 9th day of October. 1995. ATTEST Dorothv M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr.. Mayor Property Owmeris) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of October. 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 Pace 5 ot 8 STATE OF MiNNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of .199 . before me a Notarv’ Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to nw 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. Notarv Public STATE OF MINNTuSOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of .199 . before me a Notary Public within and for said Counts', personally appeared known to me to be the persoti(s) de.scribed in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he tthey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notarv Public Page 6 of 8 m • cm^ OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2073 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 9/26 95 TO: William & Susan Dunklcy 2709 Walters Port Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 TYPE OF APPLICATION: COPIES TO:Carl Smith 610 Pleasant View Rd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: 9/18/95 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Hanning Commission recommends the following: Partial approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES .\NT) SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of replacement of existing wixxl retaining walls with modular block walls per attached site plan. Existing wtxxl walls adjacent to new block walls must be removed rather than buried. 2. Approval of front entry way addition as proposed. 3. Denial of porch/deck addition. 4. Hardcover removals required \kt attached site plan. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council Monday, October 9. 1995; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they arc available from the Citv Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. ch Li j; ■'*1 ’ — * TY ■iWC'O ) ^ —1 • • ‘ ^ October 2,1995 OCT [4 1995 CityofOrono P 6. Box 66 Co stal Bay, r, N 55323-0066 Dear Sir or Madam; Bill and I arc ven' disappointed to be out of town on business tor this veO'' important meeting. We worked with Mike in your offices to change dales. b„. waiting until October 23, 1995 is not an option .Nince our retaining walls are eroding and work needs to be completed before winter. The Planning Commission recommends the following: 1.Approval of replacement of existing wood retaining walls with modular block walls per attached site plan. Existing wood walls adjacent to new block walls must be removed rather than buried. We agree to remove all wooden walls, e.xccpt one section on the lake side that still has good wood and holds the paver bricks above it. There is concern that if this one section is removed it will make the paver bricks abi)ve it move and shift, and the level pavers will never be the same. We would like to leave it in place as our landscaper and engineer have suggested (only one section). Approval of front entry w ay addition as proposed. 3. Denial of porch/deck addition. We understand the City's position and would like to get pennission to then enclose a deck that is olf our bedroom, instead of in back of the house (a solarium-type enclosure as attached). We have submitted letters previously indicating consent from all our neighbors, particularly Dean l erry, the only neighbor who will be visually e.xposed to the sun room. This does not change hard cover at all. because we would just be enclosing an e.xistine deck area. City of Orono October!, 1995 Page! 4. HardcoveP pewovab required per attached site plan. We will be removina a areat deal of the hardcov er, more than a 2:1 ratio which was suggested at the planning commission. Steve Dombach and Dave Lecke are here on our behalf to help e.xplain whv one small area in the front yard will need to have som«* rock because tree roots have surfaced and nothing will grow in this section. 5. We will be changing large amounts of hardcover to annual flower beds, grass and hosta. A smaller strip along the front of the house already has great bushes which will stay in place and will need to have some rock, according to plan. We will take all hardcover out, except tor a very small strip in Iront ot the house and urea where roots from 100 year-old trees protrude and allow nothing to grow. Thank you for your consideration. ' r> *or LOT 4. BLOCK 3. WALTERS PO«T HEHHEIHM county. MINNESOTA * ^HAXiet, A«£AS JO d-AA.SS ___ ^ ^ f^CT'lT \ ' VI•V V__________4 \ * - ys^ _____A «>*> ,**»»■»• / 'Zo OUTL07 J’ («M^ *«»<••'"••_**_!ii*?n?* '***v'j *•11 !•»••* lAtt*** l» •••• t*» *••••••**! •* ••• ■ •••«'l»«« •»«•••«•. ••• !•♦ I**!*!** •• •• •••••. ••• iH ?♦*••»• •••*•••»•♦* !••»•••■ •••* ••% ••♦•••« •• •••• ••$ ••••» ••#»•»•••••• • l«t* •••«•• $•••••«« ••••• •'• A«i*4 •AM •• ••!••. t^Awu rr I w»%r.»y4 j UAir j l* V FlI ’V »< CFHTiriCATtOF SUffVLY FOfI %Ai11 I IA.E4 nittJI^I CV SCAU September U. 19^5 Mr. Dean Terrj' 2710 Pence Lane Excelsior, NtN 55331 K£; William and Susan Donklcy 2709 Waiters Port Lane Dear Dean; We are working on plans to rq>air our walls and dnveway and to add a new front entry as well as a three-season porch to our home. Enclosed is a copy of our memo to the City of Orono which outlines the work we hope to have the City approsc. Please review this memo and then sign and return the enclosed copy of this letter, indicating either your agreement with our plans, or your need for further information. Thank you in advance for your cooperation! ^ L'we agree the planned improvcmcnls will enhance the neighborhood and therefore Itave no issues I/we need to discu.ss the planned improvements with Bill and Sue Dunkley Namc/addressand _ f.Teirir phone number: __ > «> M-i SD;as Enclosures r y ^•I •i A A#t Private R For Your "Sun" ■■■'I'lie lAfhole Family Will Ei^oyl MNtM*<3n ^ftmcdloof^rstm mt}L Affordably Priced Three Season Or Year-Round Enclosures & Solarlums * We Specialize In Enclosing Under Existing Roofs ★ Custom BlirwJa & Shades For AH Makes Of Sunrooms. Home & Offk:e l>^«: .1; !• I If If ^ Ff*« Ni-Mon»« EstmMN • 100% flnmcing • No Monty Down • No Equity Roquliod j* Long Distance Minneapolis S!. Paul Hi676: Call Collect 525-1494 221-0099 ‘ visit Our Showroom: 6120 Cedar Lake Road • 8l Loult Parti. MN 66416 • 1 Showroom Open: Mon. 8AM-8PM. Tubs - FrI. 8AM5:30PM. Sal B 30AKHPM m lAr Low Fall-Season Prices Now In Effect it [r TO:Chair Peterson and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: September 15. 1995 SUBJECT: #2073 William and Susan Dunkley, 2/09 Walters Port Lane Varianccs/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 1 acre. Application: Request for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances for a number of proposed propeny improvements: 1..Repair of driveway, retaining wall around driveway, front walkway in front stoop. 2. Replacement of retaining walls along lake 3, Replacement of retaining wall and steps alongside garage. 4. Addition of front entry to house to alleviate water problem Three season porch along channel side. Pertinent Code Sections 1 Sections 10.::. SuM. 1/10 55, Subd. 8/10.56. Subd. 16 (C); No smicture allowed within 75’ of lakeshore. 2. 3. 4. Section 10.22. Subd. 1 (13): No encroachment of average lakeshore setback allowed. Sections 10.22. oubd. 2/10.55. Subd. 8/10.56. Subd. 16 (L): Hardcover regulations Section 10.03. Subd. 19: Retaining walls in 0-75’ zone require conditional use permit. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Propeny Owners List D - lajtter of Request from Applicants E - Lakewood l^wnscape Proposal F - Survev Zoning File #2073 September 15, 1995 Page 2 G - Site Plan H - Entry Proposal I - Three Season Porch Plan J - Retaining Wall/Landscaping Plan K - Survey with Staff Interpretation of Where Retaining Walk are Proposed - Hardcover Calculations M - City Engineer’s Comments Pertinent Facts 1. 2. 3. Please review the applicants* letter ot request. This is a many faceted proposal on an extremely limited property: Lot area = 0.56 acres Lot coverage by structures = 15.1% (proposed = 16.5%, allowed = 15.0%) 0-75’ hardcover = 49.6% (proposed = ?, allowed = 0%) 75-250’ hardcover = 74.2% (proposed = ?, allowed = 25%) Overall hardcover = 56.6% (proposed = ?, DNR standard is 25%) An usuallv larse proportion ot the property is covered with rockbeds with plastic or fabric underliner. The driveway includes a fairly large parking area, and the existing patio area only 10-15’ from the lake also adds to the hardcover excesses. Some portions of the pre-existing retaining walls have been removed, and driveway reconstruction is underway. Exhibit K, provides statt s interpretation of the retaining w all replacement plan as described by Lakewood Lawnscape. Cenain of these walls are near the shoreline but above the tloodplain elevation. While the landscaper proposes to set in a new block wall just shoreward of the existing wooden wall on the channel side of the house. City Engineer suggests in his comments that it would be better to remove the wood walls since they w ill eventually deteriorate and leave an unstable area. Associated with the retaining wall replacement is replacement of landscape beds. Planning Commission should carefully review which hardcover landscape areas might appropriately be eliminated as part of this project. Additionally, the Dunkleys propose to construct a new entry at the mid-point of the house on the street side. Tliey suggest that not only will this provide a needed amenity for the house, but will solve a water problem in this area. This entryway will not be visible from the lake, and will not impact any neighbor’s view of the lake. However, it is within 75’ of the lake, as is the entire house. Also, this entryway adds to the "lot coverage by structures", which is already just over the 15% allowance. Zoning File #2073 September 15, 1995 Page 3 6.Finally, applicants propose to construct a sci?cn porch and deck on the lake side of the house, comprising additional structural hardcover, increasing the lot coverage by structures to 16.5%, and will be located 19-24’ from the lake (see Exhibit F-2). This addition may have a slight impact on neighbor’s views ot the lake. City Engineer ’s Comments City Engineer Shawn Gustafson indicates that the proposal to construct modular block retaining walls is acceptable but he would like more information regarding the specific product identified by the landscaper. The engineer also requests a cross section of the proposed wall construction^ He notes that although the landscaper suggests placement of the new block walls just outside of the existing wood walls (leaving the wood walls in place), this is not a recommended practice because the wood walls eventually will decay, leaving an unstable slope. Staff would note that anv individual walls in excess of 4’ in height must be engineered. The City Engineer further notes that the driveway presently drains to the east and north down the neighbor’s driveway. The new driveway should be constructed so that drainage is directed westerly down the lot line to the lake without impacting the area of the neighbor’s house and driveway. He further notes that the paver walkways would appear to cause an increase in hardcover. Staff would note that existing hardcover numbers have been submitted, but no proposed tinal hardcover v'orksheet was submitted (see below). Finally the engineer makes a general comment regarding letters of credit for insuring projects are completed. The City normally ilots not require letters of credit on individual residential construction projects, although there are some projects such as the extensive Lear retaining walls on Dunwoody, or the extensive driveway retaining walls for the Bangert project on Bayside Road, which perhaps should have been subject to a letter of credit. However, the current proposal does not seem to be subject to the same risks as those projects in staff s opimon. Hardcover \s noted above, hardcover on this propeny is extensive. In addition to the extensive terraced areas on the channel and lake side of the house, there is a deck at the south end. Funher, much of the lawn area is covered in rock. Exhibit F-1, the survey, indicates existing hard surface areas as opposed to those which are grass. Staff would recommend that virtually all ot the existim: rockbeds be convened to grass (when not part of a narrow wall system) or have the fabric or plastic underliners omitted/removed where retaining walls systems would make mowing problematic. Zoning File ^073 September 15, 1995 Page 4 Staff has not attempted to calculate the square footage of the odd shaped rockbeds on the property, but from the hardcover calculations they comprise 2,538 s.t. in the 0-/5 zone and 2,155’ in the 75-250’ zone. Totally omitting hardcover from these areas would reduce 0-75’ hardcover to 35% in the 0-75’ zone and 43% in the 75-250' zone. Entrv'way Addition The foi^tprint of the proposed entryway addition is approximately 100 s.f. Its roof system will acmally be approximately 2’ higher than the existing roof, but in the context of the house it is a minor addition. Further, applicants’ suggestion that this will resolve a water problem gives the project some merit. However, the lot coverage by struemres increases from 15.1% to 15.6% as a result of this addition. Proposed Screen Porch and Deck Applicants propose a 10’x33’ enclosed screen porch on the lake/channel side of the house. A portion of this porch is over the existing paver patio, but a portion is over existing lawn area. The 330 s.f. porch (in conjunction with the 100 s.f. entryway addition) result in a final lot coverage by structures of 4,004 s.f. or 16.5%, 1.5% higher than the 15% allowed. Further, the porch and deck constitute an additional approximately 230 s.t. ot hardcover over existing grass area. And. the deck and its railing, by virtue of their height above the shoreline, constitute a visual encroacliment of approximately an additional 11 into the lake views of the neighboring property owners to the north The deck as proposed w ill be 19’ from the channel. The northwesterly comer of the porch will be 24 ’ from the channel. The southwesterly comer of the porch will be 34 ’ from the shoreline. Issues for Consideration Is there any justification or hardship to suppon approval of the 10’x33’ porch or the 10’.xl6’ deck on the lake side of the house? If so. how will the additional hardcover and structure be mitigated? Is there sufficient hardship and justification to allow construction of the 100 s.f entry- on the street side of the house? How will that additional structure be mitigated? Is there sufficient hardship and justification to allow replacement of the wood retaining walls with a keystone tvpe bkxk wall system? Will the keystone wall system be more visible from the lake? How will it be screened? Will applicant remo'-e the wood retaining >Oulls which will be replaced by block walls Zoning File #2073 September 15, 1995 Paee 5 4. 5. suggest that parking should be provided on this property for its occupants and guests. Does Planning Commission have any other issues with the proposed work on this property? Staff Recommendation Any recommendation for approval of the various facets of this proposal should whit improvements are being allowed and what actions are required m order to mitigate those improvements. Options for Action 1. Approval as submitted, applicant to provide retaining wall details per City Engineer s request. 2. Approval or partial approval with conditions and specitic hardcover removal requirements. 3. Table for funher information. 4. 5. Deny. Other. \ i r* V ‘7 ^ 7 CITY o/^RO;^Sf2:6EN®liVL LA>.1> PLICATION H3-0 •? 5 :\ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2709 waltp-^ O^r.n, ".'.1^ Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLIC.4NT Name v.’illiain M. & Susan K.■LCle'/ Address 2709 l^^ters T.-^g Phone (heme^ 4" 1-944"_________ Phene or 339-1290 Citv Ore no__________Zip 5o33------------ O'VNER (if different than applicant) Name William M. & Susan K. Dunklev Address 2709 Walters Port Lane Phone <~hcm.e) 471-944 _______ Phone s^T-n-i- .^r 139-L290 Cit>’ Orono __________—p53?X —----------- Date Property Acquired Oulv 1984 (monthyyear) I ido) (do net) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FFES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - % S 50.00 For each variance request widi CUT application S125.00 Residential Accessory Use “nIOO.OO Institutional (church, school, etc.) SO £T0> VA.li. i - $175.00 Guest House.Guest Apartments ~ $150.00 Duplex Credit Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ^ - d«,gnawed wedand or Hcodplaua Grading and fiiling - 101 cu. yd. or niore )T Grading seawall/retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule • x $100.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original app ication After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER •^PJ;j‘^g™^ercial Site Plan Revie-.v (- consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation ^ $175.00 Easement Vacation ' $ 75.00 Easement Vacation NVith Subdivision $300.00 Rezoning (PUD - reier to tee schedule) $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ■ ’ $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning Distnet--------- Present Use of Property__— Residential Other (specify) 1^'' INQUIRED SUBMITTALS « • A t *Completed Application Form. SSfS Es:;" u. .<»™» -- M»- w « “m."Hennepin County Depanment of Finance. A-60 j . Government Center, 348-3271). Cenitote of Suney (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey Attach lesai description to application if not included on required sur\ey. Topoeraphic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve L^Tti;: 'e'::rlef'^dude tnarital satus) of all petsons with an interest u. the propenv. TlUs would include name(s) of apphcant(s) if not current owner(s). Consiniction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendL to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons vou wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SLTPLY 30 COPIES OF ^ARGE DOCOIENTS OR C^^ FOR ^PRODUCTION (11" X 17 ’ OR SM.ALLER) FOR ALL DOCL^IENTS SL^IimD require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Cenification by Clerical Depanment that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Statf;_----------------------------------------Date----------------- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ^e ow^er^hfrl^^ac^i^edges and agrees to this application and fiinher authorized r^asonab^ entr\' onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. ///.■ > ///Date 8-23-95Owner’s signature ______________^- William M. uunKiey f. . vii cihmtnals into the Citv offices 25 davs before the Planning Commission Meeting. Pla^mg Appl.cani Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled Commisston Meetm^s If an applicanTis unable to attend a scheduled meeting pk^e m:le airangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building &. Zonmg of this change prior to the meeting. CITY OF ORONO - VARL\NCE APPLICATION 'f tInitial Application Fee S2C0.00 - / .}- (550.66 per each additiorul variance) Renewal Variance Fee 5100.00 (no change frcn: original application) ^ - Variance for noc-ccnforming stractures -- Arier-the-Fac: Fees (Douole application :ee) • * .o ; J property rsTOR^LATION .-.VAcuch legal des.' '^oa :o application it not T.ciu.ca on .--,aue. - • (^pnclL'ycar) Date P:cc«rt>- Acqu^"*d Julv , 19qi.uaic r.uL-c.cv .-vwMw.- ---------------------— I (do) also .vn ±e adjacent pat.ei. Present use of property; _residential _ ■ • -\r Zoning District: applic .ant William M. Donkley Address: 2709 Walters ?orr Phone iliome) 471-944_/------------ Phrne(work) 557-1111 or 339-1^^0 rifv:~Qrcno _______'--------§5331--- ONVNER (if different than applicant) Name same ---------------------- .Address____________________— Phonethome)_ Phone (wor.k)_ Cit\’:Zip description of REQUEST Estimated Consmticticn Cost S Describe request indetaii. (anach additional sheets if necessary) V.ARLANCES REQLTRED Lot .Area Lot Width X Hardcover Lot Coverage K Setback: Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify)L.Ae-£SWO<^g‘ •^tETT~t^ClC compliance with Zoning Code requirements:---------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SU'B.NnTTALS i.. .f ,H. ■.,.« h> ..hmilted npplico.ion deodlin, in ordst for vQur aDDH<*^^>*^n to be considgrgd complete;. 1. 'j 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. cSprcp=.^“o.v“«s^ of owners Henneoin Countv Department of Finance. .V60 j . Gou Cente*. j 8 .. ). Plat Map (Obtained .ursevor) and mdude hardcoverCertificate oi Saney (signed by a 1k-.^o -oi =. calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) vopv 8.. x 11 ?o^;d"phic survey (existing and are proposed. In addition, proude one (, ) <-opy .. Ske'ches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (i) copy 8,. x 1 ). L^t of he lesal names (include manul status) of all persons with an interest m the orouem- This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ownens). L L?ddendum to this application, please anach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City siarf. The AoDlicart and Propertv Owner must sign this application. Please remember ^at your i^nHcruion is^noi comyM^iLlhtAhoisJnforn,n,m. hns not been includsd. j^PLIC.^NT ® provide all infomiation required or requested by the Zoning I^SLator agrees to p'av adLiotial fees (staff lime not coveted by original fee Payment) dtor consultant expenses incurred in review ot this application and cemfies iha information supplied is .rue a^correc, to the best ot his.her knowledge. .Applicant’s Signature A ---------tvilliam M. DunKiGV ?h'=^wfeSv and agrees to this application and further authoriaes reagmble I^irv onto the propertv bv City staff, consultants, agents. Cotmnisston members, and Council members for purposes of investigation andwenfication ot this request. Owner's Signarure Date 8-23-95 William M. Dunkley . . Anniicant must have all submittals into the Cry offices 25 days before the Planmng Conunission Mee S Planninc Commission Meetuigs are held on the third Monday ot each mo^ a' Same must b'e present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission ■■'•’J’- i| If ,n anplicant is unable IP anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangemems m have antiho^^^^^^^^^^ in your place and to advise the Building & Zonmg Office of this change prior to the meeting. A V % tJ) Afcw* y W T"T'\ ns* ...-<....-5 ia.,.J ^(38) _ (34) Auo'sueo 344 <”) J5L3 ___l7 (54)q i -jfe iw i 2 1/ “iy<^z\r' ‘' t \n J *h (W) - (>*);/", \/^ -V? )4 ^ “ -mY---' -/•'7-23 111. id 2s^. i ')O(40) (4iL_.p^_» -ilUL iiti I73u54 1 » 3 I? /• 01 3 I (42) <x _-i“ ' « (s& j V *>ia Oc;,|(48) |£i|(4 3) giy ° 0-e?s.;_ 1 (24) rot s •<** *A rs. r\ rs. L^.ta S J i , .T . ^ T L 1^ ri Of 10> 10 § (25) '3 ^ ’06.3' ^ 1 104. J4 „ o Cv ? ' ^ , o 4! * J « Ft 3 ma k k(5)run or lor 10 aJ ’ *0 ♦ (1) o 1 / — GOVT LOT A \A <3 -in-z5'5^ ' RUN MTl rMTCfl MfaUOMNiR NMC . : TAXPAYERmm/Aoon iI u0 \i PROP AOM lOWCR NANI [;|TAXRAYER ^r<NArC/AQDR m- ‘ V\ • •r' ]•. PROP AODR -n OWCR NAHi .\ TAXPAYER ^1*. NAME/AOOR • t• V -V' 'V* ” ( * PflX» AOOR ^1. OHNiR NAME > V TAXPAYER NAME/AODR i;/ ■ i "f.-» * PROP AOOR , ..Oi*CR NAHE ;; TAXPAYER . ! 'Im NAME/AODR •i.- ► t M M-lll-n 14 dOoT OE4W MUY AVE SAN RAPLAN GARY ilRISAUN A44S RELLY AVI ExciuxQt m Bsni 19 tl-117-ES El 0040 OA701 RILIY AVE T R A M N STORLIE TED R A KENDY NEINE STORLIE 1701 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR m 55111 lA 21-117-tl El 0041 0E705 HALTERS PORT LA 0 J SELL ASK HESELY DOUGLAS SELL I SUSAN HESELY A7DS HALTER'S PORT LA EXCELSIOR m 55111 19 n-117-21 21 0044 02710 PENCE LA DEAN E TERRY DEAN E TERRY 27X0 PENCE LANE EXCELSIOR HN 55111 18 21-117*21 21 0049 00010 ADDRESS UNASSIQNED DAL UPHOFF DARYL L A LUCY S UPHOFF 2699 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR m 55311 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INEOISUTIQN SYSTEH PUPERTY OHNERS LIST19 20-117-21 14 0012012 75 CAfOIAN RO SORAHAE 6 HALIAOAY SOfUnAE 0 tULLAOAY 1275 CARHAN ROAD EXCELSIOR HN 5S111 19 21-117-21 21 0041 02699 KELLY AVE DAL UPHOFF DARYL t A LUCY S UPHOFF 2699 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55111 18 21-117-21 21 0044 02707 HALTERS PORT LA N D 9LUNT ADM SlUNT TRSTES HUBERT D SLUNT 2707 HALTERS PORT IN EXCELSIOR m 55111 19 21-117*21 21 0047 00018 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ANOREH J MCDERMOTT 111 ANDREH J MCDERMOTT III 2702 HALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117*21 21 0051 02710 PENCE U DEAN E TERRY DEAN E TERRY 2710 PE^4CE LANE EXCELSIOR HN 55311 PiLPQRT NO. PI415401 PAGE 2818 21-117-21 21 002502765 PHEASANT RO STEPHEN L 8AKKE ETAL STEPI^H L SAKKI 2765 PHEASANT RO EXCELSIOR m 55111 18 21*117*21 21 0042 02701 HALTERS PORT LA HILLIAH H REESE JR A HIFE HILLIAH N REESE JR 2701 HALTERS PORT LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55111 18 21-117*21 21 0045 02709 HALTERS PORT LA H H A S K DUNKLEY HILLIAH M A SUSAN K DUKLEY 2709 HALTERS PORT LANE EXCELSIOR m 55111 18 21-117*21 21 0048 00018 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ENVIRONMENTAL PLAft4INQ INC ENVIRONMENTAL PLArt4IN0 INC 4530 IDS CENTER MPLS MN 55402 18 21-117*21 12 0005 02789 PHEASAirr RO PAUL L POHLE ETAL PAUL L POHLE 2789 PHEASANT RO RR 2 EXCELSIOR MN 55311 r* n pnop AOOR Olt€R NAME taxpayer NAME/AODR v|’« 1’’ *>• so 21-117-23 32 0007 02715 PENCE LA R E EZERSKI A L 0 EZERSKI RONALD E A LESLIE 0 EZERSKI 2715 PENCE LA ORONO HN 55331 '■u ■. I ■M' TOTAL BATCH 509 0001b • r, •i.. o August 23, 1995 M. O O TO:City ofOrono TP FROM: William and Susan Dunklcy RE:2709 Wallers Port Lane, Excelsior, MN 55331 Following is an itemization, followed by descripnons, of work we hope to be permitted to comolete on our propeTt>". 1.Repair of driveway, retaining wall around driveway, a-ont '.vallcway and tront scoop. Replacement of retaining walls along lake. 3. Replacement of retaining wall and steps aiongsida garage. 4. Addition of &ont entr.' to house to alleviate water problem. Thrce-season porch alonr channel jide. We suichaseJ said propcrt>’ in ’984. TTie house is approximately 30 years old. Wc sir on approximatelv have about 150 feet ot shoreline and 1^0 feet on the channel that serves five other homes on Wallers Port Lane. Seve-ai vears ago. during the "100 year rains." our side retaining walls, which were sacked limestone, gave way. We rebuilt the wail and it has now given way again. Our brick on the back of our garage on the channel side has cracked and moved. Enchneering reports are attached that incicate our foundation was lauiW, and to our dismav net covered bv insurance. We have removed the garage floor wafli permission ttom ihe err,- to retniotce te woll anc rdur.datioa. We wiil replace our 30 year ola ccrr.er.r dr.vewav at ie same nme. (The driveway has sePdea and cracked over the veais.) Our retaining ■•vails -.vlil be replaced with Keystoce-r-pe material covering the same areas as before. While the tracks and mess are on site, we are requesting that we would be allowed to -onclete r.vo re-hab jobs that will enhance, not just repair, the existing problems. The firsViob would be to iemodel the front entr>-way. .Although we only want to e.xpand it a f»w fee' on the front of our house, this should address a water problem wc have hao over D n • i > « V • » » - >’»* the past eleven yeaxs. Our iiont entry is indentedsnd water collects in this area and runs down the inner wall to our lower Ic'.'cL We hope to correct this problem and enhance the front of our home by pulling the entry out and roofing correctly to allow more water to move awav from the foundation. Hard cover requirements for our lot arc probably grandfathered in. We arc very close to the \vatcr. Our home, although over hard cover requirements, gives the feeling of being m a very natural, wooded setting due to all the wooded property next to ours. We are requesting permission to enclose a 20 X 10 foot area up and down on our channel side to allow us to use the two existing deck areas free from mosquitoes and bees. The lower deck is now a paver-brick patio, and the upper deck is wooden. We would prefer to install a three-season glass porch, if possible. Thi. location is close to the water trom the channel at this point, not the main Carmens Bay. This porch would not be blocking any other resident's view of the lake since the area we are hoping to enclose is behind our garage. We will present our plans to the neighbors before the council meets to make sure we have full agreement from everv'one involved. Lakewood Lawnscape d J Ciyw p<»*g y«w/VoMr»e Prof9$sioral Lawn Martwwica 1549 143«Tj. Avenue • Ham Lak®. Miuiesota 65304 • 612 *6T‘2317 To vvhQiTi it miv conccni. lAkewood L*\^nscape is coniracicd to do itc landscap* renos Jiiioa .u BOl & Sue DunUm'sproperty r§! 2709 Walters Point Lane, Orono. MN. Tlte project \ni1I go as follows. i) The drivewiy area (perimeter) tnstan levcler f’ad, 1 lc^ ci Pisa H 6" interlock block and re\ers-a-cap with one Bgbted block e\ cry I? feet, 2 sound speakers in front area. Rcplacetnmt of rock and ns shrub front area Paver walkway vsill be installed between the front door and dnvewav. 2.) The north side of the propeny along the garage, a new retaining wall will be built 3'9‘' high leaving the existing wood retaining wall in place. The block retaining wall will go just outride the wood retaining wall. Block iighting will be used. Along cI tin eway an additioiul level will be added to come up to the needed height A paver stringy will bo added to this area to replace existing stairevay. Fo\ir o\ er grown shrubs will be rqdtccd and new rock will be added. 3.) Along back side nr west side of propeny a block retaining wall will be added just outside c.xistiug wood retaining wall. The hill along the lake wiH be landscaped whh additional shrvibs installed alotig the hilL 2 paver walkways will be installed. Land.scape rock will be changed along house as needed. Mcnvinf! • Fcj tilizins • Weed Control • Deihaidun^ • Seeding • Tnr Removal Sodding • Pruning,Trimming * Landscaping • Design • Snow Removal • Sprinkler Systems K5y 3 .f'it s: ^ • (i r-.: J .tj ..:•> ■ I *> ! .9 ijj • •V? c:*i»<• • wpi! 1-5?-If • V - jiii. MOj «> • *» 9 « C » k flirk atc *I? I •fm mm i ! V mti ii ■i tI O ti r I,'is 6 1 mm ' •.^jusemsuii 9 • MVBKJN UATl nCSTUlTTKiN Corns k GRONBEKu. INC. — CERTIFICATE Of 8UHVEY FOW WILLIAM DUNKLEY OF LOT 4. BLOCK 3. WALTERS B««T MENNERm COUNTY. XIWMESOrTA m INL&UTA i»n — o> »ifim imttt I I. vunis Mti lattMl t# •••• «M. tmt All tUltIt *Mr M'Mrt !• •••• ••/ Mali. • Sirttr ««* tr« »«!•« mmm •• tti IVEY FCm HKLEY fALTERS ^ORT MINNESOTA ; E>tLL_ ' DUMVILEY bE-MCE i Zio^ WAL.Tt(iiS PORT L-AME, Nj/^VARRts- o # • * .r . (?. O: •» X I ' V \ \: \ \' u. rc \ •J \ u “fe V ['O \ \ \ s \N \ \ y \' \ \ V \\ N^' y '> v'-•\ \ ' \ v^' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ A _cc •ii % u 'Vt't: T -- N a I rr\ -1j < :i___ ? DMH ino Q W VV\\\a' 3 (.« <1. a*?mH O O ir <X)r UJ IL >-m _i :2 Q Lpi (7> CM C^l m U < »-oa) LU Zz E LLO I— u-I 111z: <l (L y~tu Q LU »— Os spp - • m ^ N 1X1 I-z: O IK It. «> • t U1 rsi <1 I <r>r _J LU tk^a_ >- 1 X D in OT Cm CM ’Z O t- > lU _J ii-lu S «• liJ u ou> 111 ILo ^ ■» su _l IJJ § y~ to Q lyus ••• ■ d / ♦ . / \ \ s. \ ,;1 X' ;i \ \ \ / \ y-.— - idi”!:::::;:^.|||| i's:^i 1 9 * f / \ I ,' r \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' 3 »-‘kVk.*^.Vk AK \ » v» V* ..V» k^V \ tI Steli » ® cO <l % r UJ >- HI -I N/:z Z3 Q m <p Cs| CM <t _J Uuo O ft: O tf) LU UL O I- '•'r O' O -I UJ Q >~ CQ O lu '3 ii % ■ -fs % % 1 V * *> « ■» 4^ W ^ V . V % (■t I ft ;* 4‘i,. s. %7 > W V •* ^ ^ e > V IV -i 4 % % •? x'^ tc^ o 1^1 V <j i* 6* M 1^ V) ra o y^ 5^ O *) i C ( js" ^ .t % V< w V I r 0 r 4 (V j b! ij ¥ u) Wl r o V- vr I r k) r « 5 f 0 O */ Vi Ir JLfr > ^ c y) ^ ^ •L. o -J > r*i . r \ V i- fiX k ^% ^ k •ff J 1 A 'M t « N3 ^ % i ll 1ji O j Nd • ^ y? cv 1 3 ^ 4 i ?5-^rv<rt: ^ yj V w 0 «iy'•X *<> ^ i 0 'U j V. « I V \ .V V -4 %) O H V»J fV V k P? v> VJ <-1 V f^~<s c-d ir I 5 «. t •J •<J il e.<» f» ‘A • J t V, >If '0 :i ^ V J • t»ys«%:J 3 «]s 1•I«r -<tO •4 1 V V 7 O VI J UJn . C (/) cy > h <3 \0 W r n? . j s * it Ki V m \ « « I ^ 1 ^1 '» ♦ t i < • 1* «i r?i •Til* *-4 *i • 3t i 'T i I- Ki * ‘1 ‘ * K c5 i i4K t V«c V^ C"v» .4 r» oi J w* M W \^ ^ » v»X ^jl ?V 4* U C i >}'•3 o ■?‘“ 1 fw % V* —4 3(1 4 v» o c t/>^ i %. «i. waLTLH;* txm IHCNNC^ COUNTY. MNNCSOTA OUTL07 3 V C4l44AiAi4^L 11iw m t>*» l«t «. ftlvit I. kMnil fMt tmi ••rvtf l•t•»4» !• l»« fr« «Mf« ««BcrlMi »r*««rir. •»« |ftt M«lt. ••« «ll *> It n*! M'***-! !• »»•• •! •r ••cr»«ck*t»tl. • |r»<i •«rl»r Mgriiifi ftr* ii»m •• 4 V 3 K6t £,rx.<» i 'y,n tk^f “ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (0^5^ hardcover CALCULAilOiN \VUKK5rtLEi ICLE ONE) CO-75') 75-250’ 25-500’500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVTTR IN ZONE A. House S.F. Length Wkhh X X X B. Ctfiie 4,9 C. Drive-.vay X X 3g9 O. Sidewo]'*;-7 <5 Sr£ff^ 113^ f 5" ^^ / I*C? E. Patio/Deck x<»-5 X X is.i F, Landscape Underlain By Plastic ^Socifc Or Fabric • X X X SB S G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 8BT7 - B /7Z90_ S67r f-rz90 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER LN ZONE A. House______________ Lcng'Ji Width X X X B Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X Landscape Underlain By Plasiic Or Fabnc X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __----------------- B X 100 - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S F S.F S F. S F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ~ S.F. 4^.^/___% S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B « » SETBACK ZOiVE: (CIRCLE O.VE) 0-75’ ^^ARD^S^T.R CALCULA EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONi; A. House Un|i2l % X X B. Car2ge C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X m * E. Patio/Dcck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plas::c Or Fabnc • X X X G. Other ^OC,i£, TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A S/ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X X X B. Garage C. Driveway .X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape UndcrioLn By Plastic Or Fabnc X X X G. Oihcr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -i- B • • • :ULAri5Jli VV 1 05»2SQ^25-500’SQQ-lOQO' widiii S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S F. S.F. £T ^<3 ^/33 49/S X ICO 7^.2^ WiJth X 100 - ■ 14 S F S.F. S F .5 F S F. S >*. S.F. S F S.F. 'fo S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F S.F. S.F. •'S.F. " S.F. S F, S F, S.F. • S.F. - S.F A B A B if i Bonestroo Rosene Andcrlik & Associates Engineers & Architects September 13, 1995 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron. As^t. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 06 Crystal B;iy. Minnesota 55323 Rc: Dunkicy Residence File No. 139-2073 Or« <k Bmmnnrnm PE t—ert # PE * iosepn C An«ertit P E Mervm L. P£ chare I ▼ume" p E G«enn ff Cmh. P f. i PE ffoaer t G &c?«ur«cm. P € S«aan fte PtorUM. CPA* * Scn«r CoAfMfUnt me It an Affirtitatiw Actmn Em««l Oppnmamty Einpioyer Howard p Sanfnrc. PE ae»fh A Gordon • E Pooen t Pfefterto. p € Pichard >ar Pdttdr. P E David O louota, P E Pooert C Pwfsea A i A Jerry A to»a^dor P E Mart A Kamon P £ Micoam T Pammann PI **ed P P>md pe *homas • Anoerson, A I A James P Potenmertei. P E Donald C iurgardt. P E Tf^omas A SvtkO. PE Eredenc J '■•enoorf. PE fimae* Marttn#* PE Micnaei P lau. * E rnomas df Peterson PE MicAac4 C Lyncn. P E James P tiaiand. PE ierry O Peetrscfv P E ScdPt J Arpanet. P E Kenneth P Anderian. P i Mart P Polfs. PE Mart A SeM. P E Gary jr Moricn. P£ Paid J Gannan. A.tA Danm* J Sayerton Pf A P k« Schmidi. P S Dale A Grove P E Pnmp J CasweM. P E Mari O tPaiiis. P E MMes ■ Jensen PE L Phdfio Gravel Pf taren l Wre**»er^i Pf Gary O KrisioflU. P E »r«an C Gate P E F ro#dPotter. PE «e*tn P vapp. Pf Douglas J. tenon. P E. Shawn O GuttaPton. P E Cecdio OPvier. P E Kent J dTagner P E PaM G Heuer P E John P Gorder. P E Dan O toyum PE .^hey J EMennger PI joseoh P Phem. P E Lee M Mann. P E Charles a CiKiton Leo M Paweisfcy Hanan M. Oiton Agnes M Ping James P Engemartl Dear .Mike. We have reviewed the proposed driveway, retaining wall, and svalkway replacement on the Dunkley property at 2709 Walters Point Lane located on the north shore of Carman Bay in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1 4 of Section 21. I hc proposal to construct modular bItKk retaining walls is acceptable, except that more information is needed for the propi>scd Pisa II interliKk bkKks and revers-a-cap. including the manufacture’s specitlcations and installation recommendations. Across-scctional detail of the retaining wall should be submitted that includes the ma.ximum height proptised. We do not recommend that the new walls be constructed "just outside of the existing wood retaining walls" as proposed. There is a p»nential for problems to i>ccur as the wood vvalls deteriorate with time. The c.xisting walls should be demolished and disposed of at an approved landfill prior to constructing the new vvalls. Tlie existing driveway presently drains easterly and then north down the neighbor ’s driveway. The new driveway should drain north to a curb cut and'or a spillway where the drainage is directed westerly down the lot line to the lake, without reaching the ncighbt>rs ’ driveway. The paver walkways arc acceptable, lunvever. it docs appear that there will be a net increase in hardcover proposed on the property. The amount of increase should be calculated and included with the application. Erosion control should be installed along all areas to be graded prior to the work to protect the lake. The City should discuss whether a letter of credit should be provided for private construction projects as a requirement of approval. 1‘his would give the City a measure of control during construction and may insure that the project will be completed satisfactorily. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK Sc ASSOCIATES. INC. 0 jtu^ Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55II3 • 612*636-4600 r " f CILMSnMG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^CT 9 1995 ^OFOROliO DATE: October 3, 1995 ITEM NO.: j JJr / / iDepartment Approral: Name Jeanne A. Mabusih Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Gary DeSantis/Sailors World Marina and Boat Club, 1955 Shoreline Drive At the time of Council ’s approval of a conditional use permit for a boat club use at Sailors World Marina. Couircil reviewed the status of the landscape plan to be installed upon the property. Applicant advised of the inability to install plantings when he was dealing with the cleanup of contaminated soils on his property. He advised also of a contamination at 1960 Shoreline Drive that was extending into his property adding more time to the cleanup. Council approved a conditional use permit for the boat club but also advised applicant that if the landscaping was not installed by September 15. 1995 that Mr. DeSantis .vas to appear before the Council. Please review the enclosed letter from Mr. DeSantis. He advises that the landscaping plan has not been completely installed based on the continued problems with the cleanup ot the site. COINCIL ACTION REQLESTED: Isv SBILOftS UJORLD marina & boat club Ayvyv/v/vyvyv, “Pv»€'t & Sdil "TVC^ ^CSO September 15. 1995 Hon .VfoorK Citv(rfOrono 27M Kelley Paxk\va> Orono. MN 55356 Dear Ron; -'2i<va IkVw — \J ■SPP T V IfiSS Al Gene Mabusih request I want to acKise the City on my currcr»t status to ha' e the iandscapiog completed at my busings site September 15. 1995 was the date I hasc been trying to fulfill at cites request to have my landscaping down A letter of credit w hich is currently tn place against the landscaping will remain in effect unul the landscaping is complete. My current property and financial situation in regards to a contaminated soil clean up and the NfPCA status on the desire for me to continue to do geo-technical probes and or monitoring stations have made it a undo hardship to fulfill this date The environmenul agency working al our leak site will be issuing reports by the end of next month to the MPCA trying to close the project so 1 can mov e forward with the landscaping w ith a deadline of early Spring of 1996 1 also want to bnng to the City of Orono’s attention that part of m> dilemma rests with more contaminated soil across the street at the once long time gas station wliere a phase I study was done indicating contamination from ground water likely moving to my property. This was confirmed by the environmental company I currently am working with w hich is doing a Phase U complete soil momtonng remcdution As a result 1 have been bearing the expense over the last two yean of a clean up that may be fuulc m regards to the property across the street 1 have records of a recorded spill with piaurcs the City of Orono engineer took jn 7-21^7^'Nothmg has been done by any parues to clean this up and as a result it has adv ersely effected nfypropcrty and financial capabiliues 1 would like the Cities help in concluding the responsibility of the owners of the property across the street and obviously an extension for the landscaping project. Thank You in advance for your cooperation P.O. Box 176, C rv 5ta1 Bay, MN 55 J2J PIione (612) 475^5445 Fax (612) 475^551^ " 'Swiilis Bav. LaIce MiNinoNltA* 1/1 Bonestroo Andeiiik & Associates Engineers & Architects IwmtfM Kofcnc. AA^pHa M Aiioc*«fesi. n jn Affirw^>%e ^ct.dA Ot^mrfk^my Oft«a »i !»«• ^i. W 9mmr^t. Pf * C Awonifc %Mrvm L Sorwete P C tIcnM L Tumer. P £ Qlwma. CML PS. f N»yet. PC. Q. Schyracf^l. Pf H CPA* October 2.1995 M»«eer^ A. A Ger —w. PC •oaen t Pfe »fr<> Pf CicAAr« W P<m«r PE 0«<Ma O LMP«(A p E taacvt C ffMuet. A kA ievry A. •■wrAaa PC MV« A MMAA Pf m€fsmi T tjmiiuwR. p f Te<f n F.e«A. PS TI>omM C AnAer t»f%. A.I A i«mt t wiwrtet. P i OAMd C. CyrfMt. P E. A SyfE# PI F»-e<3rrtc j Stenoorg. PE Maainet. P S MtchMH P Pen. P S Thomas W Perertoo. Pf. C Ly*^PC I umm^ PI JOfry O. POftwcA. P C Uoft J Arfvwl P f Pmmeth P Anoor«on P f Mart I toifi. PS Mart A Sa«». Pf Gary W MonoA P E PaM J GanwA. ALA. Danim j f#farron« Pf A tict SchmiAi. P S Dam A Qrova P S PhftM i Caimaa. P f Mart 0 Vaaift PE M»»«s S iOhien P E L PhMip Gravei P E laroh L ateman P S. Gary O Cnttohti. P f P T) C Ga«a PC aaPoMor. PC Pippw PC Ooufmt J tan an. PC. P«a«mO OuMafsoAPl. Cacilia Olhnar, PX lam i Wafnar. PC PaM a Hauar. PC Jaim P Qortfar. P C PanO toytjm. PX Jaffray J Ehiarmyair. PC iataph a Pham P C. lea M. Manh. PE Chartes A Ef»ct$on Leo M Paareisky Marian M. Oiton A9nai M. tmf Jamas P Infamarat Mr. John Gerhardson Director of Public W'orks Citv of Orono P.O. Box 66 Orono. MN 55323 COUNaLMSnilG ^ 6 OCT 9 '99* CITY Of OMNO iOC*f 3 ^996 Re: Citv of Orono Willow Drive Street Improvements SAP 152-101-11 File 13962 Dear Mr. Gerhard.son: Enclosed piea.se find request for payment #1 for the above referenced project. Thi.s portion of the work has been satisfactorily completed and we recommend payment. If you have any questions please contact me Yours verv trulv. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INCBONESTROO. ROSENE. Harlan .M. Olson HMO :rb# I2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 i ir \\ivi REQUEST FOR ^A^'^IENT MUNICIPAL STATE /VID LMI’ROVTMENTS WILLOW DKlMi: (SAP I5210111) File No. 13962 Owner Citv of Ori>no. P C^ C»^stai Bay. NIN 553^1 For Palod:Reqiif^t N«x 1 Contractor Buffalo Inc.. PO Box 337. Buffalo, MN 5?M3 SUMMARY 1 Original Contract Amount 2 Change Order - Addition 3 Change Order - Deductu'n 4 Revisal Contract .Anu'unt 5 Value Completed to Date 6 Material on Hand 7 Amount Earned 8 Less Retainage 5% 9 Suh-Toial in Less .Am<Mjnt Paid Previously 11 ^AMOUNT DUE THUS REQLTST FOR PAY.MENT NO. $ S s s s $ s $ $ i 131.^82.50 131 982 50 59.945 50 59.945.50 2.997 28 50.^48 23 0()O 56.^48 2^ Recommended tor Approval by; BONESTROO. ROSENE. .AVDERI.IK iV ASSOCIATES, INC, Approved by Contractiir; BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, INC ■Apprcnal by Owner: CM Y OF ORONO, MN Specified Contract Completion Date:Date: 13962\request wb2 I 2101302 2101.307 2104.501 2104.501 2KM.505 2104.503 0104.601 2105.501 2105.507 0105 604 2105.535 0105.609 2211.501 2221.501 2331.508 2331.510 2331.514 2357.502 2502.541 2501.511 2.01 515 05'U()02 2531.501 2531.503 2563.601 2564.531 0564.602 0564.602 0564.603 0564.603 2573.503 2575.501 lien Raw Bid Oe«ing urce) Grubbing (tree) Remove concrete ciab & gutter Remove pipe culvert Remove bituminous pavement Sawing bituminous pavement Relocate mailNixes. signs, etc. Common excavation (FI Subgrade excavauon Select granular bonow Salvaged topsoil (CV') Geotexule tabrK. T>-pc V Aggregate base. C1.5. 100^ crushed quarry rtKk Aggregate sbouklcnng. Class 5. 100 ‘r crushed quarry rock T>pe 41 weanng course mix. T\pe 31 bmder course mixture T\pe 31 base course mixture Bituminous matcnal tor tack coat 4" pertoraieil PE pipe dnun 12 ” CM pipe culvert 12" CM pipe apron Adtust viUve box - water Concrete curb & gutter-Design Bbl8 Concrete median Tralfic control Furnish & install sign panels. Type C Pavement mes.sage (left arrow i epoxy Pavement message (nght anowi epoxy 4" wide solid line, yellow epoxy 4" wide solid line, white epoxy Silt fence, preassembled Roadside seeduig Unit: CootriK't QuantitT L'nii Prkr« Qunntitx In Date) Amount to Date TR 11 65.00 11 715.0(3 TR 11 65.00 11 715.00 LF 70 3.00 58 174.00 LF 70 1000 60 fXIO.OO SY 1.700 1.50 1.650 2.475.00 LF 160 1.50 LS 1 10(3(3(3 CY :.3(X)5.(X3 2.300 11.500 00 CY 503 5.50 325 1.787.50 TN O.200 l.OO 4.528 4.528.00 CY 24(3 7.00 50 350.00 SY 4.(300 1.00 3.850 3.850.00 TN 1.300 1500 1.190.40 17.856.00 TN 100 20.00 TN 260 35.00 TN 370 29 00 TN 555 29.00 GL 5(30 1 00 LF 500 7.00 LF 54 30.00 54 1.620.00 EA 20(3 00 ■>400.(K) EA 2 150,00 LF 750 15.00 675 10.125.00 SY 250 40 00 LS 1 5.(X3().00 0.5 2.500.00 SF 26.5 35.00 EA 1 130.00 EA 1 130.00 LF 2.0(X)0.88 LF 1.0(30 0.88 LF 400 5.00 150 750 00 AC 0.2 2.0(X).0() 13962Vequ«stwb2 2575J02 2515305 2575ill 2575319 2575331 Seed, mixtioe 500 Sodding. Type lawti Molcfa matenai Type I Disk anchoring Commercial fcrtih/er, non-phospha*e Total Work Completed to Date LB 20 20 00 SY 1,200 3.00 TN 0.4 50000 AC 0.2 500.00 TN 0.2 500.00 13962Vequest wb2 IPROJECr PAYMENT STATUS OwBfT City ofOrooo Project Na. 13962 BolTalo Biiumingcn. loc. FfleNo. Contractor CHANGE ORDERS 1 1 3 Tol;il Change Orders PA\TV1ENT SUMMARY W ^ A En 1 Start :.W7 2S 5g/)45 50 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 in r—------------ Material on Hand Total Pavmcnl to Date S56.1MS :t ()riLMnal Ctmtract sit 1.982 50 Retainace. Pavmcnt N(v 1 2.997 28 Chant ’c Orders Total Amount Famed S59.945.5I Revised Contract SI31.982.5n 1396Zrequestwb2 RSQUBST FOR COmiCXL RCTIQM CCU;4CIL MEETING OCT 9 1995 ITEM MO:I Depart Mat RpproTalt AdaiBistrator Revia%»d: »■■■ 1 0«ry Ca«swick ^ Sitl*> Chi«f Agenda Section: Citf Artaln. Kpt« m{ Xtea Description: Hiring of Community Service Officer Exhibits: I have chosen Correy Pomiok to becosM our next Coomiunity Service Officer. Correy t«orked with us as an intern earlier this year and is currently part of our Police Reserve unit. He is familiar with the police department and the cities we serve. During his time with us, he has proven himself as very reliable and I am sure he will be a real asset to the city. I recommend Correy Famoik be hired as a CSO effective September 25# 1995 at an hourly rate of $7.10 hour. I also recosasend Chris Fisher# the current C.S.O. have his paj i:ate increased from $6.44 per hour to $7.10 per hour. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Approval of the hiring of Correy Forniok at $7.10 per hour# and the increase of pay for Chris Fisher to $7.10 per hour. foras/counciI.act COUNCUMEEIINI OCT 9 1995 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ______________CfTY OF ORONO DATE: October 5, 1995 ITEM NO.; ) Department Approval: Nime Ronald A. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: ffi Agenda Section: Cil> Administrator’s Repon Item Description: Bracketts Point Curve Roadway Improvement Attachment: Minutes of the October 3. 1995 Public Intormalion Meeting Ba<;kgrQuiid In the Council's initial consideration of the maintenance of County Road 15, the Council considered two options; an overlay of the existing roadway and major rehabilitation of the roadway. The Council determined that a majoriw of Count>- Road 15 would be overlaid rather than undergo major reconstruction. The Council also directed that mo areas be reviewed further for potential major rehabilitation. These included the Bracketts Point curve and the area east of Orono lane. Reconstruction vs. ^ erlav The County has provided a design that enables a widening of the roadway on the Bracketts Point curve without recjuiring the purchase ot additional right-ot-way. A public intormalion meeting was held on October 3 to provide an opportunity for residents adjacent to the Bracketts Point curve to provide comments regarding the preliminarv' design. These comments are retlected in the attached minutes of the meeting. Council now needs to determine whether to direct the County to go ahead with additional work on the preliminary plan that will address the concerns identified related to the loss ot trees and the Indian burial mounds; or to direct the Countv' to discontinue work on the preliminar}’ plan in fiu or of simply overlaying the existing roadway. C OL NCIL .ACTION REQl ESTED: Motion to provide direction to the County regarding the Brackens Point curve roadway impr-. -nent project. s># MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING BRACKETTS POINT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS-7:00 P^M^ TUESDAY , OCTOBER 3,1995 Councilmembers present: Staff present; Others present: Gabriel Jabbour. Acting Mayor Councilmembcr J. Diann Goetten Councilmembcr JoEllen Hurr Councilmembcr Charles Kelley Ron Moorse, City Administrator John Gerhardson. FHiblic Works Director Jim Grube Bruce Polaczj'k, Hennepin County Department ot Transportation Acting Mayor Jabbour opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. by asking the Hennepin County representatives to describe the preliminar\’ plans for the Bracketts Point Roadway Improvement Project. Jim Grube described the background of the project and objectives ot the project. Bruce Polaczy k provided a brief outline of the preliminary' design plan. Robert Waade of 1487 Shoreline Drive indicated the retaining wall planned for the east side of the road would conflict with burial mounds located at that location. It would also require the removal of a number of large trees. He suggested that if the proposed shoulder area could be eliminated from the plan the roadway would be kept out ot the Indian mounds. Mr. Lenny of 1510 Green Trees Road indicated concern regarding the extent of the construction limits and their impacts. Susan l.enny asked why the City is proposing improvements that would increase the speed limit. She suggested that this location is not really a dangerous curve. There have been no personal injury accidents in the last five years. Curt Bearinghouse read a letter provided to the City two years ago, when the County Road 15 project was first be^ng considered, objecting to the project and providing documentation of Indian burial mounds. 1 le indicated concern that even though the City indicates the plan is only preliminary, it still shows significant impacts. He indicated this project will add substantial hardcover close to the lake which will negatively impact the lake. Sue Platou of 1480 Green Trees Road indicated that a large number of beautiful trees will be affected by the project. She understands the concerns regarding safety. Her property is the most affected property. Carl Platou expressed a concern that as the speed increases at this location, it will become more difficult to access onto County Road 15. He also indicated the project will require approximately 10.000 s.f of their property. Also, the loss of trees will damage the property aesthetically and will eliminate a large part of the noise barrier the Uees currently prov ide. MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING BRACKETTS POINT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS-?:©© P.M- TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3,1995 Susan Lenny indicated her concerns arc in three areas: 1) speed, 2) access, and 3) impact on the neighborho^. She asked why this project is being proposed if there is not currentl> an ^‘dent problem et this location. She also indicated it will be \-cry difficult to access County Road 15 if the speed is increased. She suggested that as the width of the road increases it becomes much more difficult to have pedestrian access across the roadway to the shoreline. Dave Rversc of Green Trees Road suggested that the provision of a safe location for a bicyclist is to ntaintain County Road 15 as a scenic parkwaj. Mr. Dcannghousc suggested an alternative to the proposed project which would be to only resurtace the roadway and not w iden it. Sandv Larson of 4:85 Sixth Avenue North indicated she hopes the Council feels the s^e wav about the imponance of protecting trees when they deal with the plan for the realignment ot County Road 6 between Watertovsn Road and Highway 12. It was suggested that the Council should have a 1 0-year history of accidents at the curve prior to making any decisions regarding the property. Acting Mavor Jabbour indicated that at the October 9 Council meeting the Council will consider whether to move to the next stage of project design or simply repave the existing roadway. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m COUMCiLb'ctli «% J OCT 9 1995 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OTYOFORONO DATE: October 6,1995 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Ronald A. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrators Report / Item Description: Scheduling ot Willow Drive Assessment Hearing The reconstruction ot Willow Drive to match the new Highwas 12 intersection is neanng completion. Because a portion of the project costs are to be assessed to the benetitting property owners, an assessment hearing needs to be scheduled. To prov ide suttlcicnt time for notification requirements, it is recommended the hearing be scheduled either prior to the November la Council meeting or prior to the November 27 Council meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to establish a date and time for an assessment hearing for the Willow Drive Improv ement Project. CuU{%CiL [I'.EcTi. • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCT 9 1995 OTYOrORONO DATE; October 4, IQ95 nX>I NO.: I Department Approval: Name John Gerhardson Title Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed: VC Agenda Section: Citv Administrator’s Report Item Description: Ice Rink Maintenance - Antoine Playground Citv Ice Rinks The City currently provides ice rinks at the following locations: Casco Point Ice Rink Antoine Playground on Fagemess Point liackberrv Park # Bedervvood Park 1 evel of Need Demand for Ice Rinks For the past two vears. the Park Commission has been monitoring the use of the ice skating rinks, llieir obser\atioris indicated very' little use at Antoine and llackberry'. Recently letters were sent to the neighbors of/Vntoine and llackberry requesting comments about whether or not there is a need for the rinks. The residents ol Hackberry responded w ith a list of signatures requesting the rink to be kept open and to improve conditions. I ow' l,e\cl of Need/Demand at .Antoine Playground Rink Of the 60-plus homes mailed to in the Antoine Pla\ ground area, four requested the rink be kept open with impro\ ements and two thought it was a good idea to close it. Becau.se of the amount ot responses from the Antoine Playground area, the Park Com.mission is recommending to not maintain a rink at the Antoine Playground this winter season. Impact of Rink Closure Those residents who requested the .Antoine Pla> ground rink to be kept open requested that lighting be provided If the rink was to be closed, the nearest aliemati\ e rink would be the Casco Point nnk located approximately 2 miles away. ITe closure of the rink would save significant maintenance stalTlime in relation to the initial flooding of the rink, periodic flooding to maintair, ihe ice quality, and snow removal. Snow removal can be a pmbkm because the icc rink needs snow removal at the same time as the City streets need snow removal. p in r* 1 Request for Council continued Page 2 of 2 October 4, 1995 Ice Rink Maintenance - Antoine Playground Staff Recommendation Based on the apparent low level of need and demand at the Antoine Pla> ground Ice Rink, it is stall’s recommendation that the Council consider not maintaining a rink at that location. Prior to a final decision, the Council may wish to provide an opportuniw for the residents to provide additional information to the Council regarding need and usage. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to indicate a process to be used for the Council s consideration ot whether to continue to maintain an ice rink at the Antoine Playground location. - V, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Dorotbv Hallin Title City Clerk Itetn Description: Lk( DATE: October 5. 1995 ITEM NO: Auministrator Rv iC^cd:Agenda Section: Licenses HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE ANNUAL REVIEVV HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE INITIAL REVIEW Charles and .\nn Anderson 1295 Loma Linda Avenue John Hallson 120 Golden View Drive - JKCti KEETING 9 1995 CITY Of OftOMO COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTI H Motion to approve above listed licenses cirr OP cpcNo_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ?.0. Sex So, —u I -'azi license ^ -- .. "T" ak5^'ec« ocrrrA^OJi ^c=rsr ---rV.?IJv ree - rac.oo —T - '■ac-i’Ce »^•r:r—“‘'“ . ,• _«^«.*, 2.—“'"cvce:~ae9 w-ceese -'*-• Ifciceese Zxp—-es: ---------- 3°cx°5?fl32S SC Srcv- ?.c ____3£-fii - • ^ A vstLBii Bay# ^ ^^> X ppi^cs .txck ?cp . aknuai . —. s — *t *w ^ «i Da-s •“—®— -:^.-fts*licer-sc i.-^.----**•- Cn~^ur »» ^ « ff,~ ?.«vi*w r ee “• i ^ U • ^ r -•<? g : \ L5^5al Hsviiw ?«e ~ S2C.00 ----------- ”TY : 1^* ^** »*»«»»=**- ■“"” wrv^''*”=’\I* corn R2^^^3T*A — —S^OK *4 (C)CRCNO KUK-'-----*-^ __ 'n.2'J» S-£2«-. pUKSr?JIT TO S-—cn - • rr*--rr —• CSS• ^ ^ ^^ C •• -»**«* ^ •***zicrr*® wwi-— rtTv *“C »*vr*A'0ii i » wf wf^ctiw- r -rrr-r ~it;s- ;:c=:e -------r^-- _ ^ ,c . her.* ------. as a *— rT.^uw-vw_--aw^”* ^er any hes-r.ess -r--^ * ,^.y ,.0. is un-.aw'-.-------..,-1,___ crerer------ p ^HwC-e — ------- • •. - ->e / \i\ rersens erpa?® _ -o.-'-^s ir. ch*. —-<» ■'■•••='* nsss res - -— ~~c — ri ----- __^ — • ^ — «5 r> A CCl C • - ® ^-.--er r--ar. si?r-s _«•.--■>* saer.s -*—---------o ecrer.e------- •» - f'*rJCrv J1 Jv* ’■‘*’^*—*o» *'U'4/V ’"*" 4>C » , iVhiVA ' v«- - '•-'.'■i* .:•.•>* ;<w w a »» A ^..-ciVeed cr. resieenee-i-- rcr.e. ^ ^-erhses. •■ * seech ie -erace ...2/-------NO excess--e s . sa-2S -s . . .^ -- ever ace ac’-------- frer. .........................---- — use ce^ ^ eccapa................ «=-*==»*=»*-^-^ . ,. a—aes ec eee ---------------® -av reeears.heresy - -daeaens ene C--.' ' - he --- as’-' aeeaaacea- - - - .unaeaea- ... i.s" -6^ _ - frciT. ese C ® r-^^^'CaCCS Uww------— ' .------cce cw *• »^ — — - -A<A — _ — e» . *y--^— & _ = • I - A '* " C. *d-» r;»rL'^: Acce^ rer _e:p. CTTT - -^ - —< -- -c-asc Ciaacaal: a /l'‘\ ^/ - 6 - / -• ^ 5 — o • /C...S /VJ24/U:1/y^.ce: L______ _ r ^ ‘"‘1 ^ SEP ^- ^ ’ ■■ SEPTEMBER 23, 1995 cm’ OF ORONO P. O BOX 66 1335 SO. BROWN ROAD CRYST.\L BAY, MN 55323 ATTENTION: LYLE ENCLOSED IS MY .\PPUCAT!ON FOR .\N>aJ>iHOME OCCL’P.XTION LICENSE. THIS LETTER SFilVES .\S A FLUTHER EXPL.\INATION OF Vl\ BUSINESS ACnvmES. I HAVE HELD A FEDER.AL FIRE.ARMS LICENSE FOR THE LAST EIGHT \E.\RS .\NT) ITLS UP FOR RENEWAL. P.\RT OF THE RENEWAL PROCESS IS TO SATISFY' THE CITY OF ORONO *S LICENSE REQUIREMENTS. MY PRIMARY FOCUS IS AT GUN SHOWS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE STATE. BUT ON OCCASION GUNS C.\N BE PICKED UE AT Vn’ RESIDENCE. IN MY OPINION IT IS NO WORSE THAN HAVING GARAGE SALES, OR NEWSPAPER ADS TO SEIX THINGS. PLEASE REVIEW THE APPLICATION AND MY LETTER AND LET ME KNOW AS SOON .\S POSSIBLE AS THE BATF INSPECTOR IS HOLDING THE RENEWAL PROCESS FOR THIS RESPONSE. THANK YOU FOR V OUR IIME and attentton to this MVTTER SINCERELY, JOHN HALLSON SEP 2 6 1995 3 O'rv O oo O zo CO CO Ol V icii. a Kmism nil, sep 29, i9fs, sisi* m pag« 4ACCOUNTcancK MSS CKCK KtKffMt VEMDOR DESCRIPTION NUM4ER INVUlCl NO NUMBER lONUAL341091995/09/24 $5,572.00 CITf COUNTT CBEOlt UMIQII SAVINGS W/H A TRANSFERRED 9999-2030 003253 OH <•>$5,512.00* 34110 1995/09/21 $9,421.54 FIRST NATIONAL AJUTK OF LA FIT,PICA,KEDCR W/R 9999-2030 003251 oli 1995/09/24 $2,844.47 FIRST MATIQIIAL BANK OF LA CITY SNARE MCA.MEDCR 9999-2032 003251 OH <•>$12,710.45* 34111 1995/09/28 $1,245.00 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE DEFERRED COMP W/1 9999-2030 003260 OH <•>$1,245.00* 34112 1995/09/28 $144.02 HENNEPIN COUNTT SUPPORT A THQHTQN #CQ2447I0 9999-20J0 003255 Oil <•>$144.42* 34113 1995/09/28 $174.50 HENNEPIN COUNTT SUPPORT A SKREEN #C0242310 9999-2030 003254 OH <•>$174.50* 34114 1995/09/28 $100.00 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEFERRED COMP W/H 9999-2030 O0J25U OH <*>$100.00* 3411S 1995/09/24 $420.00 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SER UNION DUES WITHHELD 9999-2030 003256 Oli <*>$420.00* 34114 1995/09/28 $2,874.91 MINNESOTA DEPT OP REVENUE STATE TAX W/U 9999-2030 003252 OH <*>$2,874.91^ 34117 1995/09/28 $5b.00 HINNESUTA MUTUAL LIFE DEFERRED COMP W/U 9999-2030 003264 OH <*>$b5.00* 34118 1995/09/20 $100.00 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF C: DEFERRED COMP W/H 9999-2030 003257 OH <*>$100.00* 34119 1995/09/28 $119.44 PEBSCO/OUKA DEFEKHED COMP WITHHELD 9999-2030 003261 OH <*>$119.44* 34120 1995/09/28 $1,085.00 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYUKS DEFERRED COMP WITHHELD 9999-2030 003262 OH <•>$1,085.00* 34121 1995/09/28 $3,444.26 PERA PERA WITHHELD 9999-2030 003263 OH 1995/09/28 $4,811.30 PERA PERA CITY SHARE 9999-2031 003263 Oil <*>$8,455.56* GOVCXL cases BSaiSTEIl rsi, scr 2f, 199S« 9t9# AM p««« '>• I MTB esses MiOniT VEMDOl asscRimoN ACCOUKTIHMBER INVOICE HO PONUMBER MANUAL34132 199S/09/24<•>129.00 UHITBO WAT $29.00*$33,125.4t*CIARITY DONATI(»IS W/B 9999-2030 003259 fir™ s ost im nw 2:to m ClMck QmcA fifUt«!> City «# Or«n» rif« 1 ©Itf S01Q9 Tattlt Chack Qwck MuiiMf 5C1Q1 Totals Chock Chock IvMMf 50102 50T» aom fA»n 05-Oet-95 aaow 50100 Akcuoa hA»£l 50101 UUCf. 03-Oct*W 8«U«, J*MS 50101 UtXf, JfilES 50102 BUFFALO lITywIkOUS INC. 03-Oct-99 BUFFALO BITUMthOuS IKC. Totals Chock kcsitjor 501C2 BUFFALO BITUtlMQUS IkC. Chock M«jrt)ar 50103 KILLED. CMBIS 50103 50103 50103 03-Oct-95 03-Oet-95 03-OCI-95 miller. CHRIS MILLER, CHRIS MILLER, CHRIS Totals Check H».rS3or 50103 MILLER, CHRIS Chock Huicer 50104 HN OEPT OF REVESUE 50104 50104 50104 03-Oet-95 03-Oct-95 03-Oct-95 MM DEPT OF REVENUE wi| dept of revenue hJi DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Chock Nunbor 50104 “N OEPT OF R£\/ENLiE Check HiJi<5or 50105 AFFILIATED EMERGEHCT VET 50105 05-Oct-95 AFFILIATED EMERGENCY '.-ET Totals Check H ut ^p 50105 AFFILIATED EhESGESa VET Check MJTCor 50106 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 50106 05-OCt-95 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Totals Check Nurcor 50106 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Check Nenoer 50107 ATAT 5010/05-Oct-95 AT&T 50107 05-Oct-95 AT&T 50107 05-Oct-95 AT&T 50107 05-Oct*95 AT&T Transaction 575.10 575.10 1,600.00 • ••••••• 1,600.00 56.64B.23 56,948.23 1,650.00 55.00 55.00 164.70 164.70 COPT PAPO FEE RErUNO-565 LEAF ST uILLCW DRIVE PATIIEilT f1 15.53 COPY PAPEK 75.40 SEPT COI«E NtLEAGE 42.34 SEPT MILEAGE 133.27 434.00 SEPT SALES TAX DUi 207.00 SEPT SALES TAX DUE 9.00 SEPT SALES TAX DUE save 8/06/95 CONNECT Hew lights 0.19 LONG DISTANCE CHARGES 5.30 LONG DISTANCE 28.44 LONG niTTANCt 57.71 long DISTANCE St mi I 2:to ra ChMsk teaftttr City •# Craft# omti Citi 50107 50107 50107 50107 ATir 05-Oct-95 OS-Oet-95 05-Oet-95 AT&T AT»T ATiT Total* Chocii Kaiter 50107 ATIT BC« lu^r 50108 ATIT UtlELESS SCAVICCS 50108 50108 C5-Oet-05 05-Oet-95 ATIT VIRELESS SEAVICfS ATIT UIKELESS SERVICES Total* Chock Mtaeor 50108 ATIT WlRlL^iS SERVICES ock NU*or 50108 AU61E8 M08ILE CHEE 50109 50109 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 AUCIES W8ILE CHET AUGIES O081LE CHEf TotAtS Check kuitier 50109 ACKIES WaiLE CHEF •ck Hunbor 50110 BIFFS IOC. 50110 50110 50110 50110 05 -Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 BIFFS IHC. BIFFS INC. BIFFS INC. BIFFS INC. Totals Check Mtpwr 50110 BIFFS INC. eck Nvjiter 50111 BUDGET PRINTING 50111 50111 05-Oct-95 05-Cct-95 BUDGET PRINTING budget printing Total* Check Nweer 50111 BUDGET PRINTING eck Nuicer 50112 CDP imaging SYSTEMS 50112 C5-Cct-95 CDP IMAGING SYSTEMS Total* Check NuitJeP 50112 CDP IMAGING SYSTEMS -.eck Hunber 50113 CHUNKS LAKESHCRE AUTO 50113 50113 50113 50113 50113 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 C5-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 CHUNKS lAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Totals Check Noitjer 50113 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Tranaactlon It 10.10 5.30 U.05 151.C9 27.23 ',216.83 1.2AA.06 39.50 32.24 71.74 130.52 130.52 '30.52 65.26 456.82 32.43 16.99 n9.42 189..N7 189.87 120.05 72.67 20.80 147.55 92,97 454.04 P*M« 2 CaPiwentB iCNG DISTANCE LCN5 distance ECUIF MAINT-OCT CEIL PfiOSS CHARGES PACER SERVICES COFFEE SANDWICHES FOR resale HACKBERRY PARK-OCT SUMMIT BEACM-OCT BEDERwOOO PARK-OCT GOLF COURSE-CCT ■ :r post CAROS NO'ARY stamp LEASE payment #167 WIPER MOTOR #174 REPAIR LIGHT #170 REPLACE STROBE #172 REPLACE IDLER ARM #166 REPAIR U JOINT f Oct ifu ZiiQ m Omck CKcclt tcyistii* City of Ororw 501U Date M«w 531U cm 6t WAT2ATA 05-Oet*95 CITY or WATMTA ’otal* Cheek MiJitoar 501 U CITY C? WAT2AU Cheek Hu^r 50115 50115 CUYVIEW nu«^mG t h EATINC 05-Oet-« Totals Cheek lUiiter CITYVIEW PLLlMSrM& i iiEATIKS 50115 CITYVIEW ntWISC t '•EATING Check lij^r 50116 50116 COBNICK, JAMES 05-Oet-95 Totals Check Nusber CCkNiCJt, JAMES 50116 CCBNICk, JAMES 3cck Riflber 50117 50117 CUMMINS DIESEL SALES tkC. 05-0ct-9j Totals Cheek Nwr^r CUWIIIS DIESEL SALES INC. 50117 CUMMINS DIESEL SALES INC. Check Nunber 50115 50115 50118 CYS uniforms 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 Totals Check NiAiMr CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS 50118 CYS UNIFORMS Check IhJitier 50119 50119 CCHADUS CORPORATION 05-Oct-95 Totals Check Surfser DCRADUS CSRPCRATIGN 50119 OORADUS CORPORATION Check Nunoer 50'20 50120 £-2 RECYCLING 05-Get-95 totals Check NcrkDer E-Z RECYCLING 50120 E-Z RECYCLING Check Nunber 50121 50121 EARL F. ANOERSCM i ASSOC. 05-Oct-95 Totals Check Nurtwr EARL F. ANDERSON & ASSOC. 50121 EARL F. ANOERSCH 4 ASSOC Check Number 50T22 50122 FCRO CCHSTRUCTICN 05-Oct-95 Totals Check Number FORD CONSTRUCTION 50122 FORD CONSTRUCTION Traneaction AMbVTt 2.650.00 2.650.00 79.90 79.90 119.90 119.90 236.85 236.85 36.95 313.75 350.70 20A.0O 204.00 5,422.92 5,422.92 14,227.00 14,227.00 150.00 150.00 Past 3 CoaewTts 4TH art FIRE PtOTECTIOB REPAIR UNIT 914 BIKE PATRa UNIFORM TUNE UP CENFRATOR SHOES-TOMCZYK UNI FORM-TCMCMECr SIREN MAINT SEPT RECYCLING PICKUP PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPAIR L.S. «7 Jet 1f« I 2:10 I ClMck ••fisttr dry of Orono Oat* 50123 FORMS & STSTEMS C5*Oct-95 FODiS t STSTEMS;50123 Tatala S*J>fetr 5Q123 fC*ms t SYSTEMS i Kk BirfStr 50124 FUt, T, SHEMT «. Total# Chock ftutsor 50124 F«CST. Sh£«*T «. lhJit»er 50125 0 4 S SERVICES Totals Check M<Ji*»er 50125 G i K SESVICES Jack MvJitJer 50126 CAFFROM, MIKE 50126 05-Oct-95 GAFFRCM, MIKE Totals Check Hunber 50126 GAFFRCM, HIKE heck HurOtr 50127 GAMCELHOFF. OONMA 50124 50124 50124 50124 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 FROST, SMERRT R. FROST, S-ESIT R. FROST, sherry i. FROST, SHERRY R. 50125 50125 50125 50125 50125 50125 05-Oet-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oet-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 C 4 K SERVICES C 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES 50127 50127 50127 50127 50127 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 GANGELMOFF, GAHGELHOFF, CANCELHOFF, GAHGELHOFF, GAHGELHOFF, OOHNA OOHhA DOMNA DONNA DONNA Total* Check Nirr>er 50127 GAHGELHOFF, OOHHA heck Huit>er 50128 GOLF CAR MIDWEST 50128 05-Oct-95 GOLF CAR wiDUEST Totals Check H^r 50128 GOLF CAR MIDWEST 50129 GOPHER STATE CNS-CALL INC.HecK HMxr 50129 50129 05-Oct*95 05*Oct-95 GOPHER STATE CHE-CALL INC GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC Totals Check Nurber 50129 GOPHER STATE CUE CALL INC. Trafsssction Assurt 256.H 256.86 71.75 8.46 2.64 132.41 4*0.84 40.84 296.96 59.74 59.74 50.00 50.00 50.UO 50.00 50.00 250.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 63.00 63.00 126.00 1 R*3* 4 WIn OOU EnVlLOMS 80.00 PARK CO»1ISSIC1i MTG 90.00 COUNCIL MTG 150.00 PLAN COMMISSION MTG 30.00 COUNCIL MTG 400.00 STREET EMPLOYEES rathsum STEFFENNAGEN FLOCR MATS FLOCa MATS FLOOR MATS JUNE-SEPT MILEAGE DEER PICKUP DEER PICKUP DEER PICKUP DEER PICKUP OEER PICKUP SEPT L'ASE august SERVICE AUGUST SERVICE 5 art ifW Hu 2:10 rai QMCkt aKit Ch*ct City of Orono S013Q 50130 Cttf S0T59 Q5-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 rr ■nuiiiwi stivicc OOVlIljWMT misiso SMVlCf COVf*«»e«T TlWlnINC SElVICf TaUlt Ol«t 50130 GCVfRW*£MT TUISIKS SERVICE Nuitwr 5013*. lUILCIIIO CEITER 50131 05-O?t-99 ■Ut!-3IHC CEMTES Tout* Ol«rk mjitoer 50131 iU«L lUILOIKO CENTER 0»CN lUMtxr 50132 HESttPI* COUNTY SHERIEf 50132 05-Oct-95 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIff TfiUlt UhNClt N*«r 50132 HEHSEPIN COUNTY SHtHlFF «5»«ck NuiOtr 50133 HEWJEPIN COINTY TREASURER 50133 05-Oct-95 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER TOMU ChNCk H^r 50133 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Chtck Nuit*r 50134 J H U/RSCN ELECTRICAL CO. 50134 05-Oct-95 J H L*“S'^ ELECTRICAL CO. Totals Check Nu«er 50134 J h LAPSCN ELECTRICAL CO. Check No*«r 50135 JOHNSON, RAY 5Q135 C5-Oct*95 jC hn SCH, RAY ’otals Check Nirt»r 50135 JOHNSCN. RAY Check Nu*Nr 50136 kCEHNEN'S *HOCO 50136 05-Oct-95 tCEHNEN'S ANOCO Totals Check N.r«r 50136 kOEHHEN-S AHOCO Check Nva^er *. .137 LAkE COUNTRY CHAPTER 50137 50137 05-0et -95 05-Oct-95 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER lake COUNTRY CHAPTER Totals Check NLiwer Check NUTOer 50138 50137 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER 50138 LAND CARE EOUIPNENT 05-oct-95 land care EOUIPNEMT Tr»»aetion UaXiS 30.00 30.1» 6Q.OO 382.32 382.32 159.36 159.36 352.50 352 50 154.13 154.13 200.00 200.00 190.16 •Ct 16 125.00 125.00 250.00 206.78 SLOG CODE SOUSAI-VANG tiPC CODE SEMiNAR'OMAN LUMER-CRYSTAL lAY PARK AUGUST SOOXlHG TEES ROOM & 80AR0-AUGUST ICHTBULBS APP <2028 REFUND GASOLINE PURCHASES REGISTRATION-VAHG REGISTRATIOM-OMAM REPAIR STEINER HOUER oet 1995 III 2:10 PM Chccic iURter •ck Htater 50139 ChKk Resister City of Crooo Date Name 50139 LEAGUi OP MN CITIES 05*Oct-95 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES Totals Check MiJifcer 50139 LEAGUE ''' flU CITIES lieck «Ui*»P 50140 LONG LAKE PC-ER EQUIPMENT 50140 05-Oct-95 LONG LAKE POWER EOUIFMEHT Totals Check Nuitoer 50140 LCNG LAKE POWER EOUIF-ENT lieck Rurtiep 50141 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 50141 05-Oct-95 LCNG LAKE TRACTCR E3UIP-ENT Totsls Check Nijrtber 50141 LCNG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT leek Huiiier 50142 MEOICA CHOICE 50142 05-Oct-95 MEOICA CHOICE 50142 05-Oct-95 MEOICA CHOICE 1 50142 05-Oct-95 MEOICA CHOICE 50142 05-Oct-95 MEOICA CHOICE 50142 05-Oct-95 MEOICA CHOICE 50142 05-Oct-95 MEOICA CHOICE 50142 05-Oct-95 MEOICA CHOICE 50142 05-Oct-95 “EDICA CHOICE 50142 05-Oct-95 MEOICA CHOICE Totals Check NUTtwr 50142 MEOICA CHOICE heck Ntirber 1 50143 MICRO ACE 50143 05-Oct-95 MICRO AGE 50143 05-Oct-95 MICRO ACE Totals Check Nurocr 50143 MICRO AGE heck Nunber 50144 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO 50144 05-Oct-95 MIDWEST COCA COLA 30TTLING Totals Check NiiTter 50144 MIDWEtT COCA COLA BOTTLING heck Nurber 50145 MINNEAPOLIS »T^k .>*'wANY 50145 05-Oct-95 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 50145 05-Oct-95 MINNEAPOLIS OXYCEK COMPANY 50145 05-OCI-95 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Hufiber 50145 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Transaction AiaounC 4.138.00 4.138.00 22.70 22.70 9.97 9.97 237.50 76.08 313.58 96.40 96.40 31.50 13.50 13.50 58.50 Cocments AHNUAL DUES REPAIR LEAF BLOWER OIL FILTER 1,163.50 OCT INSURANCE 675.33 OCT INSURANCE . 69.56 OCT INSURANCE 488.17 OCT INSURANCE 1,204.04 OCT INSURANCE 112.29 OCT INSURANCE 262.03 OCT INSURANCE 1,272.42 OCT INSURANCE 2.368.64 OCT INSURANCE 10,515.98 LAN CONSULTING BACICL'P CARTRIDGES POP FOR RESALE OXYGEN OXYGEN MEDICAL OXYGEN Page 6 :heclc Munb«r 50146 HINNEGASCO Oct 1W5 M 2:10 l>ii Check Rcfistef City of Orooo duck Dote San iodi mater 50140 50140 50140 50146 MIMMfCASCO OS-OCt-95 MINNECASCO 05-Oct-9S MIIWESASCO 05*Oct-95 MINNEOASCO Total* Check Suiter 50146 HIltHEGASCO Mck mater 50147 SOSTHERS STATES POWER 5QU7 05-Oct*95 NORT.HERM STATES POWER Totals Check Ntrter 50147 NORTHXRN STATES POWER leck Nunber 50143 VSP 50143 05-Oct-95 MSP 50143 05-Oct-95 MSP 50143 05-Oct-95 NSP 50148 05-Cct-95 MSP 50148 05-Oct-95 MSP 50148 05-Oct-95 MSP 50148 05-Oct-95 MSP 50148 05-Oct-95 MSP Total* ChecK Nuter 50148 MSP heck Nuiter 53149 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 50149 05-Oct-95 PERA LIFE insurance 50149 05-Oct-95 PERA LIFE INSURANCE Total* Check Ntfnber 50149 PERA LIFE insurance heck Nuter 50150 PIONEER 50150 05-0ct*95 PIONEER Total* Check Nuter 50150 PIONEER heck Muter 50151 PRO TIRE 4 EXHAUST 50151 05-Oct-95 PRO TIRE 1 EXHAUST Total* Check H{jTtxr 50151 PRO TIRE & EXHAUST :heck Nutiser 50152 REED VENDING 50152 05-Oct-95 REED VENDING Total* Check Nuter 50152 REED VENDING ;heck Nuiter 50153 RITZ CAMERA Trantaction Aanurt 11.15 54.85 59.93 201.10 10.88 10.88 108.00 24.00 •32.00 102.00 102.00 21.53 21.53 55.20 55.20 GAS CHARGES GAS charges GAS CHARGES STREET LIGHT BilL 1,173.93 MSP CHARGES 592.39 MSP CHARGES 9.42 MSP CHARGES 192.33 MSP CHARGES 17.42 MSP CHARGES 19.98 MSP CHARGES 2.573.81 MSP CHARGES 191.30 MSP CHARGES 4,770.58 PERA LIFE INS PERA LIFE INS PRINT CRO #141 #170 OIL CHANGE CANDY FOR RESALE P*9e 7 50153 05-Oct-95 niTZ cwm 16.57 FILM i PtoCESSlMS , Oct 1W5 tel 2i10 Pt» Ch«cn ••fister City of Orono Check bate jMck Nuiter 50153 50153 aiTZ CAKKA 05-Oct-95 «IT2 CAI1ERA Total* Check luiter 50153 RIT2 CAl»£RA giMck Rmfcer 50154 ROtUMS OIL CO. 50154 C5-Oct-95 90LLIHS OIL CO. Totals Check Hv^er 50154 ROLLINS OIL CO. Qieck Rvrter 50155 SAfE BENEFITS 50155 50155 05*Oct-95 05-Oct-95 SAFE BENEFITS SAFE BENEFITS Totals Check NuiBier 50155 SAFE BENEFITS Qieck Nu^r 50156 SENIOR COWWNITT SERVICES 50156 05-Oct-95 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES Total* Check Nurtoer 50156 SENIOR CCMMLINITY SERVICES Check tewber 50157 TOHCHECK, LARRY 50157 05-Cct-95 TOMCHECIC, LARRY Total* Check Nertser 50157 lOMCHECK. LARRY Check Nurtoer 50158 TOWN B COUNTRY 50158 50158 50158 50158 35-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 TC-N a COUNTRY TOWN i COUNTRY TOWN 4 COUNTRY TOWN B COUNTRY Totals ChecK Nuieer 50158 TOWN B COUNTRY Check Nuiijer 50159 US WEST CELLULAR 50159 05-Cct-95 US WEST CELLULAR Totals Check NLTber 50159 US WEST CELLULAR Check NLrtjer 50160 US WEST C3MMUM1CAT IONS 50160 50160 50160 50160 50160 05-Ocf95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COieRJNICATIONS Transaction Amount 39.03 55.60 50.99 50.99 121.00 1,076.89 1,197.89 3,155.00 3,155.00 438.23 438.23 28.83 19.22 530.11 ^33.72 1,011.88 569.78 569.78 53.84 377.89 12.60 29.39 259.26 Pa9* 8 Commants FILM B PROCESSIMS HANO CLEANER ACMIN FEE SAFE BENEFITS DEDUCT 4TH QTR SERVICES EM wgRS CCNF REIMS TRASH LINERS TRASH LINERS CCTCBER SERVICE OCTOBER SERVICE CELL PHONE CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES 5 Oct 1W5 Thu 2:10 m ChecK City of Orono Check rr Date m SMck njiter 50160 50160 50160 50160 US UCST CQMMIlCAnONS 05-Oct-95 US WEST COMWUKICAT lows 05 -Oct -45 US WEST COHHUSICATICWS 05 -Oct -95 US WEST COMMUMICATtCMS Ota Is Check Nuiter 50160 US WEST CCmniCATICWS Check Nuiiier 50161 VECTOa ELECTStC IWC. 50161 05-Oct-95 VECTOk ELECtmC IliC. Totals Check Nuiecr 50161 VECTC* ELECTRIC INC. Oteck Munber 50162 -n MUELLER t SONS 50162 50162 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 UM MUELLER t SOWS WM MUELLER 4 SOWS Totals Check Niarber 50162 WN MLKLLER 4 SONS Check Nvjiber 50163 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 50163 50163 05-Oct-95 05-Oct-95 WRIGHT hEKNEPIH ELECTRIC WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC Totals Check Nuioer 50163 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC Check Nintw 50164 YOCUM OIL CO INC. 50164 05-Oct-95 YCCUh OIL CO INC. Totals ChecK Ntroer 50164 YOCUM OIL CO INC. Grand Total Transaction ASOtfit 55.49 156.90 56.41 1,001.78 328.84 328.84 761.76 1,312.43 2,074.19 8.50 9.00 17.50 1,478.89 1,478.89 123,858.41 Page 9 US WEST CHARGES DIRECTORY AOS US WEST CHARGES REPAIR GRINDER ST. R3 SEAL COAT ROCK SEAL COAT ROCK SECURITY LIGHT SECURITY LIGHT DIESEL FUEL Oct 1995 tUtt 3:20 PM iMck BiipIoy«« r InployM hoc Code 001 ADMIN 40043 40t6294tS VSE, LINDA S. 40100 400029498 VEE, LINDA S. 40039 471940071 BOSMA, JAMIE L. 40102 471843071 BOSMA. JAMIE L. 10040 475380151 KALLIN, DCROTHY M. 40103 475380151 KALLIN, DCROTHY M. 40041 477463877 KASEMAN. CAROLE A. 40104 477463077 KASEMAN, CAROLE A. 40042 477700023 MOORSS. RONALD J. 40105 477700023 MOORSB. RCNALD J. XotAlo Check Loc Code 001 admin tbeck Loc Code 002 PIEANCS I4004S 470987727 MILLER, CHRISTOPHER K 401C0 470987727 MILLER. CHRISTOPHER K 140044 472500574 KUEHN, THOMAS M. 140107 472500574 KUEHN. TffiDMAS M. 40046 476866274 OLSON. JOHN C. 140109 476866274 OLSON. JOHN C. Total* Check Loc Cod© 002 FINANCE 2i©ck Loc Cod© 003 POLICE :40062 40124 40056 40119 )40054 40117 40050 D40113 40052 D4011S 40064 40097 40126 40067 40129 40063 40115 >40059 40121 340047 40110 40060 334506281 334S062S1 466701968 468701868 468821016 468821018 468843008 468643308 469S26C26 469526026 470566529 470566529 470566529 470704904 470704904 471407919 471497919 471569863 471569863 471688060 471688060 471948180 MOROWCZYNSKI. JAME<; MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES FISCHENICH. DAN T. FISCHENICH. DAN T. ENGLISH III, IRVING H. ENGLISH III. IRVING H. CARLSON. MICHAEL B CARLSCN, MICHAEL B. rCRNICK, JAMES L rCRNICX. JAMES L SCHOENHOFT. JOHN B. SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B. TCMCZYK, MARK W TCMCZYK. MARK W FEPSELL, WILLIAM R. FERSELL. WILLIAM R. JCHNSCN. BRADLEY P JOHI^SCN. BFADLEY ? A'^DERSCN, BRUCE L. ANDERSON. BRUCE L. KOfOLLEriBERG. KRISTIN L •Unpaid Register City of Orono Social Security Check Date 468<42 468>42 471-84 471-84 475-38 475-38 477-46 477-46 477-70 477-70 9488 9488 0871 0871 C151 0151 3877 3877 0023 0023 13-Sep-9S 24-Sep-95 13-Sep-9S 24-Sep-95 l3-Sep-95 24-Sep-95 13-3ep-95 24-Sep-95 13-Sep-95 24-Sep-95 470-98-7727 13-Sep-95 470-98-7727 24-Sep-9S 472-50-0574 I3-Sep-95 472-50-0574 24-3ep-95 4^6-86-6274 13-Sep-95 476-86-6274 24 Sep-95 Check Amount 688.64 688 64 201.37 250.83 891.14 891.14 731.33 755 23 1.516.89 1.694 81 8.310.02 823 11 923 II 1,223.31 1.223 31 769.50 753 28 5.615 62 Peg© 1 Check Gros.*^ X.071.20 1.071.20 597.43 670.16 1.340.00 1.340.00 1.071.20 1.106.35 2.449.44 2.649.44 13.366.42 x.iao.io 1.180.80 2.288.46 2.286.48 1.075.69 1.051.82 9.066.07 334-50-6281 13-Sep-35 1.296.47 1.687.56 334-50-6291 24-S«p-95 1.213 31 1.612.00 468-70-1068 13 Sep-35 955 02 1.S81.60 4^58-70-1868 24-Sep-35 995 44 1.700.22 468-82-1018 13 Sep-35 479.47 1.918.84 468-82-1018 24-Sep-95 366 07 1.700.22 468-04-3008 13-Sep-95 496 21 628.98 469-84-30C8 24 Sep-35 399 90 4 94.12 469-52-6026 13-Sep-95 1.400.08 2.292.06 469 52-6026 24 Sep-95 1.217 35 2.050.27 470-56-6529 13 - Sep-^5 904.12 1.307.32 470-56-6529 15-Sep-95 1.036.60 1.768.65 470-56-6529 24-Sep-95 926.23 1.235.74 470-70-49C4 l3-Sep-95 1.106 51 1.612.00 470-70-4304 24-Sep->5 1.078.51 1.612.00 471-48-*’919 13-Sep-35 70.71 157.22 471-48-7919 24-Sep-95 396 12 612.04 471-56-3063 l3-Sep-95 912 90 1.612.00 471-56-3863 24-Sep-35 927 90 1.672.45 471-68-8060 l3-Sep-95 569 81 2.032.53 471-68-9060 24 - Sep- 95 292.21 1.682.45 471-84-8180 l3-Sep-95 396.14 514.46 S Oct 199S Tbu 3t20 m ^mpkid RcgUter City of Orono P«g« 2 BnployM Hmw Social Security Check (lumber Date C2ieck Amount Check Groaa dheck Loc Code 003 POLICE 040122 471MI1S0 KHOLLENBERG. KRISTIN L 040051 472503991 CKESNICK. GARY B. 340114 472503991 CKESWICX. GARY B. 340355 472529007 ERICKSCN, rjRT 040111 472529007 ERICKSON. KURT 040065 472563051 THOMTOW. MARK R. :43127 472563051 THOMTON. MARK R. C40040 474563339 B(»ZIEN. SUE A. 040111 474563339 BOBZIEN. SUE A. 940066 474663296 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. 040126 474663296 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. 040057 475444249 HANSING, CAROL J. 040120 475444249 HANSING. CAROL J. 040053 475969721 OE(®OUSKI. JAY C. 040116 475969721 DE900USKI. JAY C. C40049 476921B19 BORIS. SCOTT W. 040112 476921819 BORIS. SCOTT W. 040059 477647279 KARNITZ. RICKY D. 040061 480643542 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. 040123 480843542 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. Totals Check Loc Code 003 POLICE OifCk Loc Code 304 ANIMAL’ CTRL 471- 64 472- 50 472-50 472-52 472-52 472-56 472-56 474-56 474-56 474-66 474- 66 475- 44 475-44 475-98 475- 96 476- 92 476- 92 477- 64 480-34 430-84 8160 3991 3991 9C07 9007 3051 3051 3339 3339 3296 3296 4249 4249 ■9721 9721 1819 1819 7279 3542 3542 24-Sep-9S 13-Sep-95 24-Sep-95 13-Sep-9S 24-Sep-95 13-Sep-9S 24-Sep-95 13-Sep-95 24-Sep-95 l3-Sep-95 24-Sep-95 13-Sep-95 24-Sep-95 l3-Sep-95 24-Sep-95 13-Sep-95 24-Sep-95 l3-Sep-95 13-Sep-95 24-Sep-95 437.10 1.330.64 1.302.84 1.044.35 1.159.35 875.56 847.56 652.15 561.26 189.24 206.66 376.22 334.05 1,256.69 1.094.02 785.12 722.06 251.16 403.76 694.01 31,384.42 574.66 1.945.60 1.945.60 1.612.00 1.653.60 1.581.60 1.581.60 1.175.40 1.071.20 1.581.60 1.660.66 611.64 546.72 1.952.30 1.715.05 1.254.56 1.205.60 286.37 1.697.05 2.163.10 59.400.60 340068 463113870 CALLAGHAN. JEREMIAH P.468-11-3870 l3-Sep-95 322.17 405.05 340130 468113870 CALLAGHAN. JEREMIAH P.468-11-3870 24-Sep-9S 174.60 194.70 }40096 469087884 GOMAN. DAVID J 469-08-‘»884 14-Sep-95 23.09 25.00 040069 470089708 FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K.470-08-9708 13-Scp-95 153.57 193.20 040131 470089708 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K.470-08-9708 24-Sep-95 131,01 161.00 Total! Check 1Joe Code C04 ANIMAL CTRL 804.44 978.95 Check ]Joe Code 005 BLDG/2CNING 040071 121262417 MABUSTH. JEANNE A 121-26-2417 13-Sep-95 1.193.42 1.948.08 040133 121262417 MABUSTH, JEANNE A.121-26-2417 24-Sep-9S 1.193.42 1.948.08 040070 469686562 GAFFRCN, MICHAEL P.469-68-6562 13-Sep-95 909.25 1.555.52 ■340132 469686562 GAFFRCN. MICHAEL ?.*69-68-6562 24-Sep-9S 909.25 1.555.52 340072 470700901 OMAN, LYLE E.470-70-0901 lJ-3ep-9S I.096.40 1.555.52 040134 470700901 OMAN. LYLE E.470-70-0901 24-Sep-95 1,096.40 1.555.52 C43073 475505292 VANG. BRUCE L.475-50-5292 13-Sep-95 913 25 1.340.00 040135 475505292 VANG. BRUCE L 475-50-5292 24-Sep-95 913.25 1.340.00 040074 477881539 WECKMA:!. STEPHEN J.477-88-1539 13-Sep-95 60.15 1.242.48 040136 477881539 WECKMAN, STEPHEN J 477-88-1539 24-Sep-95 60.15 1.242.48 Totals ChccK Loc Code 005 BLDG/2CNING 8.344.94 15.283.20 Check :Loc Code C06 P’JBLIC WORKS 040076 468420B32 GERHARTSON. JOHN R.468-42-0832 I3-Sep-95 1,279.39 2.357.74 i:1 Oct ms toi 3:20 PH *T3hpaidl Register City of Crono Heck ie^loyM Seployee lecic Loc Code 00( PUBLIC WORKS 10131 4(0420832 GERHARDSOM. JOKH R. I007f 468909S3S OBERAIGIfER. SCOTT G 10141 460909S35 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT G 10083 449429194 SKREEN. LAL£ S. I014S 449429194 SXREEN. DALE S. 10081 449848107 PALMER, GREGORY A. 10143 449848107 PALMER, GREGORY A. 10082 4737461/3 RATHBUN, BARRY J. 10144 473746173 RATHBUM, BARRY J. 10077 474667612 GREGORY, JAMES D. 10139 474667812 GREGORY. JAMES D. I007S 47S443862 BRIKKMAUS, JOHN F. 10137 475443862 BRINKHAOS. JOHN P. 10080 476783251 OBRIEN, RANDY L. 10142 476783251 OBRIEN. RANDY L. 10078 477500666 HANSEN. STEVEN C. •0140 477500666 HANSEN. STEVEN C. Total* Check Loc Cod* 006 PUBLIC WORKS heck Loc Cod* 007 GOLF 40090 40151 40084 40087 40148 40085 40146 40089 40150 40088 40149 40066 40147 40091 40152 468320409 468320409 468622840 4731G0429 473108428 473141624 473141624 473609629 473609629 47416779S 474167795 475344512 475344512 475569177 475569177 RUTHER, ALVIN C. RUTHER, ALVIN C. ERICKSON, CCUGLAS J :AS. DANIEL 0 CAS. DANIEL 0. JOSTPCM, FCREST J. JOSTROM. FCREST J. ROSS. JOHN A. RCSS. JOHN A. FETERSCN. JACK W PETERSON. JACK W. MCINTYRE. WILLIAM E MCINTYRE. WILLIAM E. STEFFENKAGEN. RONALD E STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD E Totals Check Loc Code 007 GOLF heck Loc Code 7GB COITNCIL 035 018 324677 GjETTEN. J DIANIi 034 469188026 CALLAHAN JR.. EDWARD J 1036 470366069 HURR. JGELLEN L. 1037 473646272 JABBCUR. GABRIEL 1038 476527186 KELLEY. CHARLES rocals Check Loc Code 008 COUNCIL Social Page 3 Security CSieck Check Check Nuflter 0*tc Amount Gross 468-42>0832 24-Sep-9S 1.279 39 2.357 74 468-90-9S3S 13-Sep-95 820 52 1.144.00 468-90-9S3S 24 -Sep-99 820.52 1.144 .00 469-62-9194 13-Sep-9S 767 26 1.401.40 469-62-9198 24-Sep-9S 710.56 1.315 60 469-88-8107 13-Sep-9S 721.05 1.315.60 469-88-8107 24-Sep-99 663.94 1.229.80 473-78-6173 13-Sep-99 964.67 1.144.00 473-74-6173 24 -Sep-99 1.037 42 1.401.40 474-66-7812 13-Sep-9S 606 39 1.163.20 474-66-7812 24-Sep-99 606 39 1.163.20 475-44-3862 13-Sep-95 1.100.37 1.701.48 475-44-3862 24 -Sep-99 1.100.37 1.701.48 476-78-3251 13-Sep-95 98 42 1.144 CO 476-78-3251 24-Sep-95 98.42 1. 144.00 477-50-0666 l?-Sep-95 680 91 1.144 00 477-50-0666 24 -Sep-99 680 91 1.144 .00 13.936 90 25,116 64 463-32-3409 13-Sep-95 64.88 71.25 468-32-0409 24 -Sep-99 23 36 25 65 468-62-2840 13-Sep-95 100.61 110 50 473-10-8428 13-Sep-95 304.34 334.90 > •3-10-8428 24-Sep-95 321 77 353 40 4 -14-1624 13 - Sep 95 192.75 211 70 473 14-1624 24-Sep-95 155.79 171.10 473-60-9629 13-Sep-95 129.38 142.10 473-60-9629 24-Sep-95 21.12 23 20 474-16-7795 l3-Sep-95 307.09 347 70 474-16-7795 24 -Sep-95 282.65 319 20 475-34-4512 13-Sep-95 277 24 304 SO 475-34-4512 24-Sep-95 216.51 237 90 475-56-9177 l3-Sep-95 981.50 1,340 00 475-56-9177 24-Sep-95 981.50 1, 340.00 4,361.79 5,332.90 019-32-4677 Il-Sep-95 223.19 241 67 469-18-3026 ll-Sep-95 223.65 303.00 470-36-6069 11-Sep-95 223 19 241.67 473-64-6272 :i-Sep-95 223 19 241.67 476-52-'7I86 ll-Sep-95 223 19 241,67 1,113.41 1,266.68 i S Oct 199S Ihu 3:20 m Oimdk Enploy^e Skmtmr Suaber Employee **TSipeid RetUter City of Oxono Social Security Slumber Page 4 CheeR Cate Check Amount Check Grose Check Loc Code 009 COCSCIL Grand Total 74.371.54 129.811.69 Oct ms M 3:20 » User Initials Suffer Nane 'Unpaid ftegister City of Orcno Page 5 Payroll BOS Thursday 5 October 1995 3:20 PM Start 3:20 PM Finish Checa Reg Records Read IRimber of Pages 111 S Sorted by Check Loc Code Beiployee Number Totals No Page Breaks No Totals No Page Breaks r-ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Stephen Peterson, Charles Schroeder. Sandra Smith. Dale Lindquist. Candace Row lene, and Elizabeth HawTi Janice Berg was absent. The following represented the City Staff: Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael GatiVon, Septic Inspector Steve Weekman, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Councilmembcr Goetten was present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at / .OO p m (#1) #2064 ROBERT S. OLSON & IRVTN T. GEFFRE, 4665 BAYSIDE RO.\D - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRVNGEMENTA’ACATION OF DRXINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS 7:02-7:18 P.M. The Certiticatc of Mailing and .Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaftfon reported that the application is a request for a lot line rearrang. cm between Lot 1. Block 2, owned by Geffre and Outlet C. owned by Olson. This property was platted lit year with an outiot for the 14 acre rear parcel The outlet was created for ftiture development. No septic testing has been done nor any park dedication tee taken .As part of the orininal proposal, Olson agreed to sell Geffre the portion ot Outiot C with the shed on it. and outiot A .At the current time, GetTre has a 1 94 acre lot, and the portion of Outiot C would add 35 acres Outiot A consists of 27 acre, yielding a total of 2.56 acres in a 2-acre zoning district and would, therefore, conform in area. I he remaining Olson property will total 14 2 acres The proposal would require a setback variance for the shed, which is over the 1000 s.f. standard and is, therefore, considered an oversize accessory structure subject to minimum lot area and setback requirements The proposed setback is 30'. where 50' is required from the new south (rear) lot line It presently exists at 12' from the northerly lot line. It will meet the required 30* easL'west side setbacks. The oversize accessory structure requires two standard variances, one for its size ot 24?0 s t where 1200 s t. is allowed, and needing a lot size of 6 acre minimum The allow ed footprint of all accessory structures on the propenv is 2400 s f Existing on the property is a detached garage, a small shed, a quonset, and the oversize accessory structure These structures total 4182 s f requiring a variance of 1782 s f The size of lot required to accomodate this much accessory stnicuire is a 3 acre minimum Gatfron asked the Planning Commissioners to consider recommending a reduction in the number of accessory buildings to reduce the number of variances MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANT^'G COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#1 - #2064 Robert Olson/lrvin Gefifrc - Continued) The proposed lot line does not pr'xlude the use of the Outlot corridor tor a future roadway To meet code and not impact future development, an option is to come down the west side of the properties requiring a 50' corridor, which will not be limited by the lot line rearrangement. The City is requesting vacation of the utility and drainage easement. Minnegasco has no interest in this being done. NSP, thru a verbal communication, asked that the electrical lines not be vacated. This would need to be confirmed New dedication of drainage and utility easements is proposed to be required along the new lot boundary Regarding the oversize accessory structure square tootage variances. Gaflfron asked the Commissioners if Geflfre should be required to remove the smaller shed or quonset to minimize the amount of accessory structures It was noted that both applicants were present at the meeting l.indqulst asked what the uses were for the quonset and other shed The quonset. which would be on the new lot, is used for storage The applicant would consider removing this structure. The other shed is used for garden tools The applicant requested maintaining this small shed. The quonset is 1014 s f, and its removal would reduce the variance to 768 s f Peterson commented that Outlot C at 14 acres was large enough to consider moving proposed rear lot line turther south into Outlot C The applicant responded that it would not be a problem to change the lot line 20’ more to the south When questioned by Peterson whether the lot line change would affect the future road. Gatfron said it would not affea the future road Gaffron noted that as part of variance approval, the City should require the standard oversize accessory stmeture cov enant stipulating that Gelfre’s lot size cannot be decreased by a future division without requiring the removal of the oversize accessory' structure Rowlette asked that a date for the quonset removal be noted in the resolution There were no public comments. Peterson noted that there would be no impact on any neighbors. Schroeder moved. Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of .Application #2064 with the removal of the quonset 60 days from the final date of approv al, an additional 20' be added to the south end of the lot. a covenant placed on the property requiring the removal of the oversize accessory structure if the lot is made smaller, and new drainage and utility easement be granted Vacation of the existing easement will be approved subject to confirmation of the interest of NSP Ayes 6. Nays 0 NflKUTES OF THE ORONO PL.\NNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#2) #2065 SAMUEL MARFIELD. 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE/MR. & MRS. H. DOUGLAS 2425 SCOTCH PINE LANE, AND WILLIAM TOLES, 2435 SCOTCH FINE LANE - VACATION OF SCOTCH PINE LANE - VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY’ EASEMENTS - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (REPLAT) 8:00-8:37 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and .Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants, Mr. & Mrs. xMarfield. Mr & Mrs Hill, and W'illiam Toles. were present. Gafifon reported that the request is for a vacation of a road right-of-way and utility vacation with a redcdication of utility easement and replat ot the Dicon Addition. The property was planed to create 3 buildable lots and a public road in 1974 when it was a 1- acre zoning area and consisted of 3-1/2 acres The replat would allow the Hill property better lakeshore access A 50 ’ utility easement runs east to west in the existing plat The current plat includes a 50 ’ dedication of CoRd 51. The proposal is to regrant easements necessary to accommodate existing and future utility needs Gaffron noted that a letter from NSP indicates there is a distribution facility in the area NSP will not give their approval for the easement vacation and any changes will have to be made at the expense of the applicants GatTron thought if the existing utility lines were located that NSP would possibly approve the easement vacation in exchange for new easements A Minnegasco letter said there are natural gas lines in the area, and the company objeas to the proposal unless suitable nght of way and rededication is resolved Peterson clarified that the utility easements must remain as they now exist. Gaffion continned this Gaffion said City sewer was extended to the area in 1980 with 10 ’ easement on either side of the line The City Engineer indicates 30 ’ total width is needed for that utility easement It was noted that the applicants have not provided a suney of where all the utility lines are located This is required and is being asked for from the applicants NtDWTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#2 - #2065 Marficld/HilLToles - Continued) The paved portion of Scotch Pine Lane would be retno'cd and the property replatted in this proposal. The Hills would gain a portion of Scotch Pine adjacent ot their house as well as the m^ority of the cul-de-sac, giving the Hills a continuous single parcel from the County road to the lake Mr. Toles on Lot 3 would gain the end portion ot the cul-de-sac area The Toles driveway would be revised to gain access from CoRd 51 Regrading would be done to eliminate the existing drainage pipe The MarfieKls would gain the west and southwest oortions of Scotch Pine Lane A 20'x90' outlot is pr(\)osed for the shared portion of the proposed Marfield/Hill drivew ay Statf is concerned that the replat would result in a "backlot" configuration which would not meet the 150® i acreage or setback standards. The Marfield lot would appear to become a backlot under the proposal. Another Staff concern is that with the area being zoned for 2-acte lots today, if this .3-lot plat was proposed, the City would require planing ot a private road 50* wide with a 100' cul-de-sac and a 24' paved road. The application as proposed does not meet the current City codes, but what currently exists does meet code Marfield commented that if the three lots had 6 acres, the lots could accommodate the roads It was his opinion that all of the blacktop to serve the three small parcels was too much He noted City otTicials in the past had agreed with this opinion. Peterson commented that requirements are changing. The Fire Depanment feels the road as it even now stands does not totally meet their needs and would ask for more road if that were possible, i.e., larger cul-de-sacs or loop roads Marfield said Scotch Pine Lane is the only public road between CoRd 51 iuid Bohn's Point. He would like this road to be similar to the other accesses in the area, most of which are driveways Hill suggested that the fire department use the grassed areas to gain access It was commented that fire trucks could get stuck in the grassed areas creating new problems Mrs Hill noted that the fire depanment could not access the Toles propeny as it now exists Rowlette concurred with this notation .Marfield noted that, although Orono is into green spaces, it allowed this 3/4 acre of blacktop to be built where it isn’t necessar>^ The Commissioners agreed that they too like the green grassy areas but trends are changing for emergency situations The police depanment has responded that they approve the proposal The fire depanment had not been notified of the proposal. It was noted that the public uses the road, even though it is marked dead-end. and arc creatinu a safety hazard by driving 30 mph Mrs Marfield noted that her grandchildren had a close call from being hit by such a car driving on the road Other concerns were noted regarding security of the area NLINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLNtlSSlON MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#2 - #2065 Martield/Hilin'olcs - Continued) Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2065 until the Fire Department could give their recommendation regarding the proposal. Toles rwted that tabling would upset his plans for rebuilding on his property litis fall Gaffron asked the Commission about the issue with creating a backlct by ha\ing an outlot resulting in the Marfield property ’ being more substandard for setbacks and area. He requested whether there is also a problem with the outlot to be owned by both Marhcld and Hill. Schroeder commented that he had no problem with it. A letter from neighbors, the Levy’s, favored approving the application providing the new driveway not be closer than 15’ from the lot line and the utility easements to their property remain in eftect The neighbors to the west, the Luke’s, also had no objection They asked that the City stipulate that no additional buildings be allowed on the site Hawn moved, Schroeder seconded, to amend the tabling motion to an approv'al motion for Application #2065 subjea to the approval of the Fire Department. Easements are to be dealt with, and the driveway must be at least 15’ from the neighboring property Gatfron suggested it may be inappropriate to place the fire department in a position to approve or disapprove this request without turthcr Commission input. Gaft'ron asked the Commissioners to address the issues under item «»1 in the Staff memo relating to the vanances requested for replatting and rededication of easements, the wetlands delineation and dedication on the property, and whether special findings are adequate to define this as a unique request as compared to other three-lot subdivisions, or be prepared to grant approval to other neighborhoods making similar requests Rowlette said she did feel there are specific findings in regards to this application noting the existing substandard access to the Toles property There would be belter access from CoRd 51 for emergency vehicles under the proposal Hawn noted the additional finding that removal of the cul-de-sac to allow the Hills to cross to their lakeshore parcel wnthout crossing the road would be a benefit Smith asked Gatfron if he envisioned requests from many other residents of 3-party cul- de-sacs to ask for removal, is this opening the door for similar requests Galfron said it could be opening a "little door"’, and that is the reason good findings are important here. Peterson said he was concerned that the Commission was moving this application forward to the Council in a messy form and requested that it be tabled. Lindquist said some of the issues may come back to haunt the Commission Schoeder agreed this could happen, and not only on the cul-de-sac issue, that there are many issues involved in addition to the fire safety issue \flNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1W5 (#2 - #2065 Marfidd/Hill/roles - Continued) Hawn wTiWrew her amcndmcni to the motion. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application ^^2065 to gain spccihc input from the Fire Department and general input on the issues \'ote; Ayes 5, Nays 1, Rowlette, who would have liked to have voted on the amendment. (#3) #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER. 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD - CLASS I SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING WITH RENOTIFICATION 7:18-8:00 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present Weekman reported that the proposal is for a two lot subdivision from property that had been combined from a 3-parcel property consisting of lots 1, 3, and 4. The applicant had previously stated he had not intentionally combined the lots but it was done as a result ot a request for one ta.x statement The two lots meet the area and width requirements Weekman said the main issue is with the access roads on the property. Lots 3 and 4 are the current homestead and have access from Frederick Street A more recent driveway was established from Casco Point to the lots and is now a thru driveway with a circle. The applicant said this dnveway existed between 1931 and 1985, but he allowed vegetation to grow over the driveway after 1985 The driveway was reestablished in 1994 The original subdivision shows an outlot with a dnve circling around and connecting to the cul-de-sac, but the drive used as the connector cuts through lot 1. Weekman asked for direction from the Commission on what to do with the driveway With the dnveway serving lots 3 and 4 going through Lot 1, the requirement ot 1/2 acre contiguous on Lot 1 with the pnncipal structure placed on the lot is not met. .An option was noted to end the dnveway as shown on the drawings, or since Lot 1 is being sold to the applicant’s son. an option would be to allow the use of the driveway on a temporary basis while using the adjacent tw o propenies and not adding an easement in favor of lots 3 and 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#3 - #2000 Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Peterson asked the applicant if there was a reason to leave the driveway going through Lot 1 Cloutier said when the property was subdivided in 1962, outlot 1 provided ingress and egress to lots I, 2, 3, 4. When lot 2 (owned by Mr Paurus) was sold, provision was made for lot 2 to use outlot I up to the lot line. The applicant added that lot 4 casement right to use outlot 1 as well as lots 1 and 3 Cloutier preferred that only Paurus use the drive near his propenv in order to maintain pnvacy tor all parties concern^, the driveway through lot 1 is used to access Clouiiet-s lot 4 instead of the driveway through Paurus' lot 2. Weekman said there was no easement for that dnveway to come through to lot 4. Cloutier said the driveway provides use as an alley to his residence and as the mam drive for delivery trucks and other large vehicles Peterson suggested closing the access from Frederick Street or have the applicant deade between the Frederick Street access or the dnveway through lot 1 Schroeder commented that any decision should be based on the possibility of a subdivision If lot 3 were proposed as a separate lot. the road by lot 2 could be used tor access The problem with that solution would be the use ot 3 properties on one substandard road Weekman was concerned with lot 3 not having the 1/2 acre of land required with the structure Schroeder said the resolution would need language to adoiess access for tiiture subdivision Gatfron noted that lot width was also a potential issue tor splitting oft'Lot 3 in the future. Cloutier said he had no plans at this time to subdivide lot 3 He did not wish to be cut otT from the thru road Hawn noted that emergency vehicles would have a difficult time accessmg Clouuefs property from Frederick Street Hawn suggested extending the center road to the cul-de- sac from Fredenck Street Topography was found to be a consideration with this suuuestion It was further noted that this option would not solve the problem with ^tting lot'T in half Weekman said if the 1/2 acre requirement could be met by relocating the driveway on l.ot 1. this would be an option This would require new plans and calculations. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNUSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#3 - <^2000 Cortlen Gouticr - Continued) Peterson asked if there were any otlw issues to conader. Weekman noted that no park dedication fee would be required The City Attorney said the property had already been subdivided as of record. ThCTC was also a different'e of opinion on whether this was one parcel or 3. Weekman said Mabusth had requested language be added to note that any future aibdivision must meet current standards and codes It was further noted that the property has been assessed for two water and one sewer connection but would require a^essment of another sewer and SAC charge Cloutier responded that it was his belief this was incorrect as lot 4 was connected to sewer from Frederick Street He added that when water was provided on Casco in 1971, a stub line came from Casco to his property Gaffron said he would follow up on the charge for the sewer unit Weekman said if the sewer line crosses a neighbor’s, the City would need to verify' and identify any easements During public comment, Wilbur Anderson, 3555 Frederick Street, read a letter from Norm and Fusty Paurus. The letter said the Paurus’ approved the application if no changes were submitted from the 3/20/95 submittal, or asked to allow their feedback on any changes made. The Paurus’ asked the proposed house be mov ed 5-6' to the northeast to save several mature trees and that all construction and driveways comply with current City ordinances Peterson asked for Cloutier’s comments on the letter The applicant was unsure what trees were being referred to as there was a solid line of trees on the lot Cloutier did not believe it to be reasonable to redesign the house with the topography since there was no lack of trees on this or neighboring properties Peterson said the proceedings cannot be stopped because a neighbor was not in attendance Commissioners noted that the driveway w-v the main concern with the application. The lack of 1/2 acre contiguous on lot 1 because of the configuration of the driveway was the problem, Cloutier commented that lot 1 consisted of 3/4 acre and contained woods continuous over to Frederick Street He asked for approval of the dnveway for he and his son Lindquist said he was uneasy with the proposal The applicant was told that there would be a time when the properly did not serve Cloutier and liis son. Lindquist noted that the roadway by Paurus’ lot 2 could serve both Paurus and lot 3. Rowlette asked if Frederick Street was used on a daily basis. Cloutier said he used the access from Casco Rowlette noted that the Casco dnveway was not well maintained The applicant said red rock had recently been brought in but said further destruction of the driveway would occur during the construction process Rowlette said she saw no reason for the middle driveway to serve lots 3 and 4 when outlet 1 was already in place to serve those lots. 8 \nNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 ¥3 - #2000 Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Smith opined that three drives for one house was unnecessary. Cloutier said he would be willing to close off the drn eway from Frederick Street The issue of the 1/2 acre contiguous would still be a problem. Gaffron suggested moving the driveway to the northeast and refiguring if the 1/2 acre was available Lindquist said if the 1/2 acre was present, it was his opinion that the application could be granted urKler the present code without coming back to the Planning Commission Gaffron said there would still be a subdivision needed to separate Lot I from lots 3 and 4. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2000 for subdivision subject to Lot 1 meeting the zoning standards with the 1/2 acre of contiguous w ith respect to how the driveway bisects the propcny Applicant shall make pavTnent to the City for a sewer connection charge of S1.284 50 based on the current 1995 Fee Schedule plus the service availability charge of $850.00 Applic;utt is to provide an updated survey locating sewer and water service at Frederick Street prior to scheduling the application before the Council. Final resolve by the applicant is necessary concerning dedication ot easement tor Frederick Street access drive that encroaches Lot I .Applicant will sign off on a resolution with the disclaimer drafied by City Attorney, and clarification will be made that the property is one lot Applicant will work with the City to clean up the property of miscellaneous items. Lindquist asked if the applicant would consider abandoning the driveway from Frederick Street due to the number of dnveways The applicant said he would prefer not to but would do so if that is the desire of the Planning Commissioners The applicant was told that an easement from the road to the west for Lot 2 cannot be vacated as it is a private easement Schroeder said another alternative would be to dedicate some land for the roadway. The applicant made a suggestion of taking a portion of lot 1 to lot 3 and remove the boathouse. The 150% lot area requirement for a back lot on 3 was rioted This suggestion was not to be considered at this time Vote Ayes 5, Nays 1. Rowlette. who noted if Frederick Street access is not in use. it should be closed. MINiTTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, !9<)5 (#4) #2044 GEORGE OLSON. 2775 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUBUC HEARING 8:37-8:4S P.M. Gaflron rq>orted that the application is for a hardcover variance in the 75-250’ setback area for an addition on the lakeside The property is also near the Narrows Channel, which affects the 250' line The addition meets the required side and lakeshore setbacks as well as the average lakeshore setback Very little hardcover exists in the 0-75’ area with a patio consisting of rock with plastic constituting 4.4? o hardcover. The hardcover in the 75-250’ area exists at 44% where 25% is allowed. The proposal calls for removal of rock beds with plastic or fabric underlayment reducing the hardcover to 31 7?'o A new survey has been done on the property It shows that some of the rock beds have been added since the 1988 deck was approved This was not done by the current owner, who purchased the property one year ago The property consists of 28,000 s f or 6 acres in a 1-acre zoning district. The lot coverage by structure is 1 1® o where 15% is allowed A concern is the addition of the 3- season porch above the deck, which was built since 1988 without permits. Staff is asking for an after-the-fact permit for the construction of the porch, which meets setbacks, without any penalty assessed. As to the hardcover variance issue, GaftVon noted there is no structure feasible to remove, just rock and plastic. The shed on the property is needed for storage The applicant commented that the 1987 resolution allow ed for 37 b% of hardcover. With this proposal, the hardcover will exist at 317®/®, less than what was approved in 1987. Olson noted that the net square footage for the addition was 267 s.f Peterson said the Commission currently often trades plastic and rock for structure, and under the code Peterson saw no problem with the application and noted it had no eft'ect on the neighbors Smith asked if the removal of rock and plastic included that in the front of the property. She is concerned with an erosion problem with removing that rock area. There were no public comments Lindquist moved. Rowlette seconded, to approve Application #2044 subject to the removal of plastic in the beds Rowlette amended the motion to include the 317% of hardcover would be the maximum allowed in the future and any ftiture structural additions should only be approved by trading structure for structure. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNLNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#4 - #2044 George Olson - Continued) Mrs Olson asked on the hill portion of the propcrt>’ if it would be sufficient to pertorate the fabric in order not to remove the fabric so as not to affect the area. Peterson said she should work with the builder on this but the Planning Commission cannot distinguish perforated ffom fabric-laid areas. A member of the public noted that the material under the rip-rap was not considered hardcover. She was informed by the Commission that the rip-rap itseU is ha'^dcover so the material underneath does not mattei. Vote; Aves 6, Navs 0. (#5) #2059 MINNEKAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, 1485 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:48-9:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted MCWD En.iiineer, Andy Swerson. and Manager, Tom LaBounty. were present Gaffion reported that the request is for variances and conditional use permit to construct a 2.5 acre wet detention basin/wetland. The purpose of the project is to remove sediment and nutrients from the creek fiowing into Long Lake from the north The area in question is on the Pearce propeny, located southwest of Tanglewood Road and east of Dakota Avenue and Long Lake Boulevard, on an easement The site is not within the City designated wetland but is on the national wetland inventory map It consists of type 2 and type 7 wetlands protected under the Wetland Conservation Act from filling or draining The Wolsfeld Lake area drains southeast rrom Medina under CoRd 6 under a culvert to the 2-1/2 acre pond area It would be a two cell pond with 4; I slopes with a peninsula feature and contain an outlet with a fish barrier to keep tish from movinu up creek. The tvpe 7 wetland is a wooded wetland in a low tlood plain area. •Major excavation would be required, involving removal ot 25.00C cubic vards. A gated access driv eway would be con.structed off of CoRd 6 for spoils remov al as well as future access A concern is with the fill material being taken off-site and its affect on traffic on CoRd 6 It is unknown at this time where the materials would be taken This would be determined bv the contractor Variances and conditional use permits would be required for the excavation. A variance to the shoreland ordinance is required as this is a creek/tnbutary protected area where no tree removal is allowed within 75' No intensive vegetation clearing is allowed within 75' nor grading or filling, all of which would be done. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#5 - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) The project has been in the planning stages L. the past couple years and is slated to be constructed early 1998 The project wll be done in the beginning ol January to the beginning of February with revegetation and replanting taking place in the spring. Peterson clarified that the project would only occur and be etfective it the Deerhill project in Medina is completed Tom LaBounty said the Medina project is in condemnation process at this time He noted that the easements for the other two ponds, one in Long Lake park and the other on the private land, have been completed The object of the Long Lake project is to clean up the water discharging from Long Lake to Lake Minnetonka to the corridor to the Mississippi and is part of the overall scheme Schroeder asked if there was anyihing that would prevent the Deerhill project from being completed. LaBounty said he expects an appeal to the condemnation proceeding but expects to have all the permits in hand by the end of September LaBounty cited the Gleason Lake project and the concerns regarding the disposal of materials from the site on Hwy 12. He would like to address the problems relating to this project LaBounty said contractual agreements have been made with the property owners when asked by Smith Performance stipulations have been set out. The alum treatment of Long Lake will occur after the ponds are completed. The effectiveness of the treatment will depend on how etfective the ponds are and their construction LaBounty said alot of the etf^cti .ness depends on the Best Management Practices in the sub-watershed The clarity level would be a progressive improvement. 5+' is expected, which is a radical difference from the 1' clarity presently in Long Lake When the revegetation is ocurring, the improvement in clarity will hit a flat spot, but will then continue to improve Hawn asked about the sediment ponds She was informed that 50% of the phosphorus would be removed by the alum treatrncm IlawTi questioned whether the remaining 50% would coiiinoute to future water quality problems being created Syverson noted that while the phosphorus removal was believed to be 50%, the sediment removal would be a hitther percentage. 80-90% This would result in a significant decrease of sediment to cover the alum 50% is the typical efficiency found according to Syverson Further gains would require more ponds and would be loo large to be feasible. Syverson said the process is two fold The internal process would recycle the alum which would be taken out and sealed and then more taken out trom there resulting in a higher percentage of 75%. Reestablishing vegetation then gives the lake a chance to work on its own. The project is a helping hand which allows the lake to work on its own. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PU\NNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#5 - <^2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) Peterson inquired about long term maintenance. LaBounty said this would be done thru agreements. Long Lake has already entered into an agreement regarding a fish barrier It no agreement is made with Medina or Orono, the \ICWD would handle the maintenance. Lindquist asked how often cleaning out of the sediment would occur, Swerson said this is site specific and depends on facts such as erosion and development, which would increase the amount of cleaning done. Sv-\erson said the Orono project is two ceil. The first cell would catch the most sediment and need to be cleaned out in 3-5 years The larger cell would require less ftequent cleaning projected at 15-20 years. The maintenance is dependent upon the management practices upstream. Hwy 12 construction was cited as an example If silt fencing were not done on the ponds there, more material would tall into the ponds requiring firequent cleaning Sy\erson said the management is a cooperative effort. Lindquist inquired about the Dickey Lake area. Syverson noted this was a very small phosphorus loading area and the cost would not justily a pond It was noted that the wetland area on the east end of Long Lake where there are streams works as a detention prnd This area was noted to serve as a natural stormwater management pond as the water comes out of this area quite clean Schroeder inquired about runoff from roads such as Hwy 12 LaBounty said this does exist but they try to make up for it with projects such as the pond Peterson asked for public comments. Bill Pearce, joint owner of the subject property, along with his attorney, Greg Fontaine of the Dorsey firm w ere in attendance and asked to present a summary of the conditions of the settlement agreement between Pearce and the MCWD Fontaine said Pearce became involved when the plans for the pond were announced The original proposal was for a 3- cell. 5 acre pond south of 6, not Deerhill in Medina, with small ponds in Long Lake Pearce then retained an engineenng firm to come up with a better solution The size of the detention system on the Pearce propeily was then reduced which was a substantial improvement Pearce said he understood the need for the detention pond on his propeny, although he would prefer it was not necessary, and was generally supportive, and still is. of the project Fontaine said there have been design specifications and significant alterations made without consultation with Pearce. He cited an e.xample with changes to the fish barrier upstream from 1 .ovw. Lake LaBounty later noted the net effect of the cliange in the barrier would not affect the outcome. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBEP.! 8, 1995 (MS - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watersh«l Distrirt - Continued) Pearce felt it would be to the City's interest to include conditions in the agreement between Orono and the MCWD A summary of these conditions were given out to the Commission members The conditions are intended to reduce the impact ot the area and be restorativ'C of the area. Fontaine said there has been dithculty with the MCWD complying with timely notice to Pearce with regards to revision ot documents and toUow' thru on design elements. He believes it is in the best interest ot the City to require as part of their review an artist's rendition of the area showing the revegetation, and explain the differences between the specifications and what the MCWD is doing. Fontaine said it also is necessary for ‘he MCWD to spell out the maintenance requirements with who doing what, who paying, and on what schedule Specific recommendations were given in the handout for such maintenance Schroeder commented that the project was complicated and asked Pearce what costs he has bom due to the project Pearce indicated engineering costs have run $85,000, and the easement will only recover about $20,000 Schroeder noted that the Barr engineering report will have a positive influence on the project It was also his belief that another meeting is required for the Commission to look over the findings, especially in light of the time and cost consideration Pearce has given to the project LaBounty said the project began in 198S It was originally proposed to totally take place in Medina, then was changed to two ponds in Long Lake, then changed to include the Pearce pond and Deerhill. and now to include Long Lake, \ledina, and Orono. 1 he phosphorus reduction amounts have remained the same LaBounty pointed out if no agreement can be acquired on the Deerhill Road pond, the project would be back to a 5 “ acre pond on the Pearce property LaBounty asked, regarding the 7 engineering findings, that while 1-5 met with the MCWD approval. -76 LaBounty would like the agency to be treated as would any other federal auency On #7, the special conditions under which hauling can be stopped. LaBounty said fines can be imposed on the contractor He funher noted no fertilizer would be used and tree removal has been taken care of To control erosion. LaBounty said the slope down to the pond would be 4; 1 with a 6 1 slope out of the pond. Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to table the application Fontaine noted that LaBounty has only recently taken over the project for the MCWD and has done a good job with communicating w ith Pearce Schroeder asked that copies be made of the Barr report for the Commissioners. Smith thanked Mr Pearce for his time and cost considerations he has taken NfINUTES OF TIfE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER IS, 1995 (#5 - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) Rowlette questioned itan A on the handout and asked what w ould happen if the Medina project was not completed prior to the Orono project LaBounty said it would be suriicient to condition Orono's approval on the completion ot the Dcerhill Road project. LaBounty said he would furnish an anist's rendition of the revegetation and will meet with Pearce. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. The Planning Commissioners asked to schedule a joint meeting with the Council regarding this project. (#6) #2060 TIM FEYO AND KAREN FL'LLER-FEYO. 4055 ELM STREET- VARLYNCE RENEWAL - PUBLIC HEARING 9:40-9:55 P.NL The Cenificate of Mailmg and Affidavri of Publication were noted. GalTron noted that the application was for a renewal of a lot area variance previously granted in 1978, 1980, and 1994 The propeny is located in the LR-IB single tamily lakeshore residential zoning district requiring I acre on Elm Street, west of Tonkawa^ A 54^i variance for lot area is requested for the 46 acre lot. The lot meets the lot width Requirement as it contains 118’or 84» o of the 140* standard, where 80 “/o or 112* is required for existing lots of record. Gatfron reported that the three lots were combined into one parcel and received approval of a conceptual footprint in 1994 with 10’ side setback, 30* rear, and 35’ front setback. The grading plan showing the driveway meets the satisfaction of the Engineer Concern with the grading is from direct runoff traveling dow nhill A proposed dow nspout and underground tile will direct drainage to the road ditch at the front of the lot, from which it flows to North Arm. Peterson received confirmation that there are no changes to the application, and it is a renewal application onlv Peterson inquired of the applicant if it was their intention to do anvihing with the propertv Fevo said it is their intention to sell or build The Feyo's are in the process of secunng loans. It was noted that the she<l belonging to the neighbor is still located on the Feyo property. Schroeder inquired if there was a lot line problem Gafrron said the shed still exists over the lot line and the neighbors still disagree Schroeder asked that the lot line be located and stipulate the location of the shed. 15 ! ! i MINXrrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HEIJ> ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (U6 - #2060 Tim Fcyo and Kam Fulla’-Fcyo • Contiraicd) Peto^on said regarding this survey dispute, his position is to look at the survey submitted by the applicant as the one by which to gauge the application A neighbor's survey would rally be considered if it differed from the one supplied by the applicant. During public comments, Herman Laue said he is concerned with drainige, hardcover, and the lot line issue He said he is working on a survey and may pursue a forrens action in order to settle the lot line dispute Peterson commented that Laue has not to date shown by documentation any discrepancy with the survey done by the applicant. Rowiette moved. Smith seconded, to approve the renewal of Application )»2060 with the same conditions previously laid out. Gafrron noted receipt of two letters from nei^bors, Laue and Wiley, opposing the renewal of the application, which were read into the minutes and are part of the application package. Another letter from Mr Wroblewski, 630 Park Lane, neighbor down hill from Laue, opposes the renewal due to a concern with runotf from stormwater It is his opinion that the increase in hardcover would add to the runoff problem and cause erosion to the public access Schroeder commented that any home built on the property would have to have an approv-ed drainage plan that met City code. Peterson noted that this was a case of dispute between neighbors Gaffron clarified conditions previously stated regarding legal combination of the lots, setback and hardcover requirements, and detailed grading plans showing driveway and any tree removal, and retaining walls Vote Ayes 6, Nays 0 .Motion carried. (#7) #2061 ARNE VVASBERG, 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE RENEWAL - PUBLIC HEARING 10:00-10:02 P..M. The Cenificate of Mailing and Atfidavit of Publication were noted. Weekman reported that the application was for a variance renewal, which expired September 12. 1995 The applicant w as not present There were no public comments. I NflNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION NfEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#7 - #2061 Ame Wasberg - Continued) Lindquist commented that the application was a ditScult proposal and suggested tabling the application until the appUcant was present. Schroeder moved, Limiquist seconded, to table Application #2061 until the applicant was present. Ayes 6. Nays 0. im #2062 TED ROZEBOOM/JOSEPHINE KM USON, 2967/2965 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:02-10:33 P.M. The Certificate of .Mailing and ,Mfida\it of Publication were noted. The applicant, Ted Rozeboom, was present Galfron reported that the application is a joint request for variances to certain performance standards of the home occupation use in the 1/2 acre. LR-IC, single tamily lakeshore residential zoning district. The request is to allow a home occupation to occur on a tax parcel not owTied by the home occupation applicant, in a building not occupied by the home occupation applicant, and in a building where the entrance to the home occupation is not gained from within the structure but has a separate dedicated entrance Gatfron noted that Rozeboom lives at 2967 Casco Point R^d The dwelling at 2965 Casco Point Road, owned by Josephine Knudson, the mother-in-law of Rozeboom, received building permits for remodeling to create an office area in the lower level with an c.xistine dwelling unit in the upper level The remodeling involved a workroom area, office space, and sitting area During rev iew of the remodeling plans, the inspector noted the need for a home occupation license and advised the applicant of the requirements The space was reviewed in Apnl of 1995 and found cenain home occupation conditions were not met A letter of August 18 to Mabusth defines the use of the space by Rozeboom By ordinance, the only person allowed a home occupation licen.se is one who is residing at the residence, which is not the case in this application If the lots were combined into Rozeboom's name, the residence at 2965 Ca.sco would be considered a guesthouse, not the pnncipal structure, and would still not met the conditions of the code for residency It was noted that the two properties were originally one with the residence at 2%5 Casco being the original carriage house ot the home at 2'^/67 Casco The properties were separated in 1968 bv subdivision Gaiiron questioned whether the home ocupation use now proposed w ould be acceptable with merely a lot combination Stall'questioned if this would be a case of a use variance, a commercial use in a residential zone, but the City Attorney indicated it would not because a home occupation is allowed in a home in a residential zone. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#8 - #2062 Ted Rozebooin.'Jcssq)hin: Knudson - Continued) Gaffiron asked Commissioners to ignore for the moment the tact that the propertie arc adjacent to each other and the relationship that exists between the two parties in\t)lvcd. The property at 2%5 Casco would not be owtied by the person conducting an occupation there, would not be lived in by that person as his residence, has the possibility of clients coming to the site for business purposes, and there is the possibility ot a third party using the upper residential space This would then seem to appear as a mixed residentiaL'commercial use and then possibly be a use variance. Gaffron said if the Commissioners now factored in the adjacency of the properties and the family relationship, then the appearance of a use vanance still e.xias it the lots are 'Separately owTied and not combined If both properties were owned by Rozeboom but not combined, it may be closer to the appicarance ot a home occupation Finally, with legal combination, this is much more clearly a case of a home occupation occurring with performance standard variances Variance approval does require findings of hardship. Peterson said he felt the ordinance was clear in that the home occupation license requires the person running the business to live in that dwelling Peterson said he would vote to deny the application Rozeboom asked if the type of business had any bearing on the application and home occupation use He was told it did not Rozeboom said he could change the residence at 2%5 Casco to be in his name and asked if that would have any bearing on the approval or denial He was asked if he would then live in that residence, which Rozeboom said he would not Rozeboom said he was an architectural consultant and the purpose of this proposal was to provide a place for his elderly mother-in-law to live Rozeboom said if he combined the properties, he would lose the market value of the properties said he would not consider changing the <>rdindnce, to which Lindquist agreed. Rowlette said there should be some way to resolve the issue without the need to lose value of the propeny by combining lots She saw no reason why the applicant could not work out of the residence at 2965 Casco when it was the original carriage hou.se for his own home at 2967 Casco The applicant offered to remove the dock, stairs and asphalt to reduce the hardcover and be retlective of the neighborhood and of a home Schroeder commented that a hardcover trade would not have any bearing on a variance for a home occupation license. There were no public comments 18 KONirreS OF THE ORONO H-ANNLNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#8 - #2062 T«l Rozeboom/JosephiDe Knudson - Continued) Sclvocder asked the applicant if he would be able to work out ot his own home. Rozeboom said he would lose the intevrity of the Victorian style home and needed the iq>ace provided by the other residence Several ideas were aired regarding a lot combination and a "skyway" or structure ot some sort to connect the homes or ownership change of the residences. Gaf&on commented that one option to consider absent legal combination but with common ownership was a "special lot combination" document that is filed on the chain of title of both properties that would define what may be done on the properties. Hawn inquired of the applicant again if he would be willing to combine the lots Rozeboom said he would lose too much market value but would be willing to put the other residence in his name and homestead it Gafifron read a letter from Mr Henney . 2941 Casco Point Road, voicing his support of the application. Gaftron again noted the Attorney's opinion on the use variance as to whether it would allow the use in that residence Barrett opined that it would not be a use variance. Rozeboom asked, and received confirmation, that if the "special lot combination" were to be done, it could be terminated if the lot ownership would change It was ftirther commented that if the relationship w ere to change or the residence sold, it could also be terminated but it cannot exist in the present configuration, Rowlette moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2062 with a special lot combination defining the relationship of the panics involved, with both parcels being placed in Rozeboom's name but not required to be legally combined The use would be flowed until Rozeboom was no longer the owmer of both properties He would be required to meet the home occupation conditions except the three noted No signs or rental of the property could occur, A portion ot the blacktop would be removed and a landscaping plan be presented prior to going forward to the Council Schroeder asked for clarification of what is a special lot combination document GalVron cited an example of separate but commonly-owned properties located on two sides of a road The owner wants a house on one side but the garage on the other side, Tliis might be allowed under a "special lot combination" as the lots were sold together, Schroeder asked if the application was a typical example. Galfron said it was an unusual example of the use but with the City ’s discretion, it could be done The document would be on the chain of title, and if broken, it would revert back to its original intent. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#8 - #2062 Ted Rozeboora/Josephii^ Knudson - Continued) Commissioners noted they would not want to see any outward evidence of a business or any parking Vote: Ayes 3, Hawn* Smith, Rowlette, Nays 3. Peterson, Schroeder, Lindquist Motion faiis The applicant asked if it would work if his wife owned the property. Peterson said that would set a bad precedent Smith said specific ground rules need to be laid. Rowlette moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2062 to allow applicant time to consider other possible solutions Ayes 6, Nays 0 (#9) #2063 GERALD AND CANDACE ROWLE1TE, 3775 BSIDE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC IIIL\RING Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2063 at the request of the applicants Ayes 6, Nays 0 (#10) #2066 ROBERT AND IRIS Wi\ADE. 1487 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:33-10:59 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and .Affidavit of Publication were noted The applicants were present. Gafffon reponed that the application is for a number of varianres for a 3rd-level addition to a lakeshore property located off of Shoreline Drive in a 2-acre zoning district The house curremly exists at 21’ from the shoreline with the deck 16' from the shoreline A bituminous walkway is located under the de<:k near the lake. There is an 8 3' side setback where 30’ is required The average lakeshore setback currently encroache.s 13 ’ for the house and 24’ for the deck and would remain the same under the proposal Hardcover in the 0-75’ exists at 28 l®/o for structural and 1 1 l“i for non-structural for a total of 39,2%. The lot coverage by structure is proposed at 13 8® '© meeting the 15®/© allowable There would not be much of a change in the footprint of the house The proposal is for what IS by defimtion a three-story- home by eliminating the existing fiat roof and adding another level over the main level and basement, which is considered a story with its 18 courses The street side of the residence is a walk-in with the proposed story- to be located above that The tloor plan shows a car port on the main level, open with a roof, and proposed with a second story- The pitch of the roof would be 10:12 The height of the residence meets the ordinance at 28-1/2’ as normally defined, but the house is 46' in total ground-to-peak height from the lakeside view 1 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#10 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued) The variances required include lakeshore setback, side setback with no proposed change, second stor^’ 25.3’ front the side where 30’ is required, average setback encroachment with no change, and hardcover in the 0-75\ which will decrease with the remo>aJ ot the bituminous walkway Pea gravel with no liner is proposed to replace the walkway The loop drive and an existing portion of the driveway w ill be removed hat will remain will allow a car to back up and enter the street as well as an apron tor the garage, which will need to be redesigned to avoid encroaching the drainlleld. The septic sy stem will serve this 3-bcdroom home. There is no change to the number ot bedrooms but a change to the bulk of the residence. Gaffron asked the Commission to consider the issues. The proposed third level is questioned due to its close proximity to the shoreline Staff questioned whether the replacement of the w alkway was an acceptable form of non-hardcover The southerly neighbors are currently able to view the lake over the home .As proposed. Staff questions whether the house would tower over and impact the neighbors to the north The hardcov'er would yield a decrease but are the additions and removals a reasonable trade for the 148 s f of structural hardcover It was noted that the existing overhangs average 4' in width and are proposed at 18" The rock and plastic between the dnveway and front entry have not been listed as hardcover, a portion of which is below the overhangs. The backup/parking apron will need to be relocated as it encroaches the existing drainfield The removal of the concrete driveway is seen as a positive improvement, howev er There are no feasible alternate septic sites available on the property The area is being considered by the neignborhood for sewenng Staff questioned whether enclosing the carport and changing the roof pitch would be a v iable alternative to the third story' proposal. Staff is asking whether the hardships or justifications are enough to support the proposed changes Peterson claritled that the house will still have three bedrooms but the common rooms and master bedroom will be enlarged. Lindquist was concerned about adding to the struenure wiicn it was located so near the lakeshore. Hawn questioned whether it was possible to enclose the carpon and add a story above the carpon to open up the view for the neighbors and not present such a massive struaure. The applicant said he had considered lowering the structure by adding dormers and bury ing usable space in the roof line, which would reduce the height by 7-9’ to soften the look Peterson said the home was already substandard by its location encroaching in the 0-75’ setback area and did not see how the applicam could ask for an even greater impact on the property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNtlSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#10 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Contimicd) Rowlene said the basement consists of 18 courses and considers the home now too large It was her opinion that no more can be added to the structure. Galhron asked if there was an>* logic to changing the roof pitch from its present flat look. The applicant said the roof was old and a flat roof was not conduciv e to the Minnesota winters It is his intention to redo the windows and plumbing. The root does not present any curb appeal and a low pitch roof would not help to improve the look. The applicant felt the high pitch would aid in setting the second stoty into the structure and is currently proposed at 25' in height The applicant said the original house had the boathouse in the lower level, but now houses the utilities, and that is the reason for the 18 course basement. The rest of the house has 8’ ceilings The applicant said the height would be 24’ with the use of a different pitch Rowlette said she could not approve the application as proposed The applicant asked for aiggestions. Rowlette said the applicant needs to soften the look, and she would be open to enclosing the carport area Lindquist and Hawn agreed The applicant asked what the Commissioners opinion was of an addition of a 2-car garage with a rambler style home, w hile maintaining a regular roof pitch Commissioners said side setback and lot coverage would be issues m that scenario. The applicant was told to come back with an amended proposal Rowlette moved, Schroeder seconded, to table .Application #2066. GatTron noted receiving acknowledgement forms from the neighbors on each side of the property The applicant asked for an opinion on what could be done to the propcTty Most of the Commissioners voiced that it w as their belief that very little could be done to the property. Vote .Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2067 BRUCE A.ND TERRY CUARK, 625 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:59-11:00 P..M. The Certificate of Mailing and .AlTidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants were present Gatfron displayed a survey showing the proposed side setback variance for extending the existing attached garage MESXTTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#11 - #20t 7 Bruce and Terry Clark - Continued) There were rro public comments. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to approw Application #2067 Ayes 6. Nays 0. (#12) #2068 PAT AND KATHY SMIEJA, 4040 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 11:00-11:06 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaffion reported that an appheation was proposed in 1994 by the previous owners for two additions including a 3-scason porch. This application is for a lower level garage with one level of living space above it. plus the 3-season porch The property is a comer lot located in a 5-acrc zoning distnet The code requires a 100' setback from Watenown Road.^ which is ftinctionally the front of the property but is technically the side street A 50' sideyard setback is required north of the house and 100’ troni Orono Orchard Road The lot area excluding the right-of-ways is 1.28 acres The setback vanance to the rear results from the proposed addition at 32' and 46 8’ tor the 3-season porch The setbacks from ^ Watertown Road are proposed at 25' for the porch and 51’ to the house comer where 100* is required The house will remain at 3 bedrooms and not require any expansion ot the mound septic system. The well is being replaced on the property. Rowlette asked about the status of the property located to the north containing wetlands. Gaffion said it has recently been sold He noted a buffer area between the two properties. Smith questioned why the addition would be set back rather than brought out even with the existing house. The applicants said it was to maintain a view trom the kitchen area. There were no public comments Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2068 for side street and side setback varia:*.< ' with the conditions as noted .Aves 6. Nays 0 (#13) #2069 Cl\ J\ -VND STEVE HARRIS, 3850 WATERTOWN ROAD - V^\RL\NCE- PUBLIC HEARING 11:06-11:09 P.M. The Cemficate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The applicants were present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#13 - #2069 Cindy and Steve Harris - Continued) Gaffron reported that the application was a request for a variance to construct a swimming pool in what is technically the front yard of the property located between the road and existing house. The code does not allow for such a structure in this area The residence and pool would be located in the center ot a 25 acre parcel, 500 from the road, anJ locked in a 5 acre zoning district Gaffron said Staff would request an as-built survey once the posM was constructed as the bam on the property is not shown on the cinrcnt ?ur\ ey There were no public comments. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2069 with the request for the as-built survey’ upon completion of the pool i\yes 6, Nays 0 (#14) #2071 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - AMENDED VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 11:09-11:12 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Scott Crawford of Kraus Anderson Construction represented the applicants. Gatfron reported a request to amend the prior approval for excavation in the 0-75’ zone to rehabilitate a tunnel with retaining wails to the greenhouse. During the repair, it was found to be in need of waterproofing, which would require the need to excavate and remove an elm tree This was not included in the plan previously submitted to the City. The applicants agree to mitigate the loss of the elm tree It was noted that the tree would have been a detriment to the tunnel if left in place Applicant noted 2 maples were proposed to replace the elm There were no public comments. Peterson moved. Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2071 for excavation and after-the-fact tree removal based on Staff conditions and with tree mitigation. Ayes 6, Nays 0 (#15) #2072 GRAYDON K. NEWMAN, JR,, 1655 BOHN’S POINT ROAD - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:12-11:18 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present with his landscape designer. Dale Gustafson. 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#15 - #2072 Graydon Ne\^'man, Jr. - Continued) Gafiron reported that the property is located on Bohn's Point and contains a house and carriage house. The application is for hardcover aiul lakeshore setback variances and land alteration permit in the 0-75* zone to allow reconfiguration oflakeshore access walkways and shoreline improvement to include sand fill and boulder wall improvements The existing deck platform located at the shoreline was found to be encroaching into the neighboring property. The proposal is to remove the deck platform and construct a new 5’ wide walkway laterally in the 75’ zone leading to the dock, which will be moved over into the applicant's property. The application is also to support the existing stone wail with additional stone and add another course of rip rap with sand and plantings between the rip rap and wall The Engineer suggested remov al of hardcover pavers The rip rap is located all along the property. The plan calls for the additional stone in a smaller area The deck itself will not be replaced. Smith asked w hy a 5' instead of a 4’ w alkway to the dock Gustafson said it was in order to use the existing heavy modular materials. Schroeder asked if 4' would work in this application and was told it would. Gustafson noted the rip rap alone is not enough to maintain the shoreline on a busy day on the lake. The stone pads keep the waves from eroding the area and undermining the rip rap. It was his opinion that only way to help would be to add another course ot rip rap. Smith said the present configuration seems to be working for the maintaining of the property Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2072 with the walkway amended to a 4' width and to leave the patio blocks in place There were no public conimcms Vote Aves 5, Navs 1. Rowlette, who felt the concrete blocks should be removed (#16) #2073 WILLIAM AND SUSAN DUNKLEY, 2709 W ALTERS PORT LANE variances /conditional use permit - public hearing 11:18-11:45 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and .Affidavit of Publication were noted The appiiciints were present. 25 W--: MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLXNNTNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#16 - #2073 Wtliimi ind Susan Diinkley - Continued) Gaffit>n said the application is for a number of projects to update tte property to include the replacement and enhancement of additional retaining walls of keystone-type product 1 - 2* lakeward from the wood walls, which arc 2' to 4' in height. The property is located on a channel to a lagoon area and contains a stairwell to the lake side The proposal also calls for replacement or enhancement of retaining walls to support the driveway The Engineer was concerned with the wood walls being left n place, whicn would ev’cntually rot. The second part of the application is for an entryway over the existing front steps to ease a drainage problem This would add 100 s.f. of structural hardcover to the property. The third part of the application is for the addition of a 10'xI6’ deck and a IO'x33’ enclosed porch area, to be located 19* and 24’ respectively from the lake The lot coverage by structures is proposed at 16-1/2% where 15% is allowed Gaffi"on reported there is extetisive amount of hardcov er on the property with the driveway, existing rock, and patio areas The 0-75' zone contains 49.6% ot hardcover, the 75-250' zone contains 74 2%. for a total of 56 6?V hardcover, which is double the DNR standards By removing all of the rock and plastic, the hardcover would be reduced to 35* # in the 0-75' zone and to 43% in the 75-250®/o zone. Rock would still exist along the garage area. Hawn asked what the reasons were for the wall The applicant said it was to replace walls that had fallen over and to strengthen the walls The applicant said it was staned by erosion of the foundation of the garage GalTron said the Engineer has recommended removal of the existing w ood retaining walls rather than leaving them m place behind the new walls Hawn said with a new entry and newf retaining walls and the three patio/deck spaces around the house, it was a densely covered lot Hawn recommended taking the deck and turning that into a porch instead to reduce the structural coverage. The applicant responded that there was no first floor family room and was putting a family room where the lower level and upper level decks were by the garage area so as to not impede the view The roc*'line would remain the sa.ne Smith agreed that the lot coverage was excessive Rowlette commented that the lot was maxed out in lot coverage as it now stands. She noted the driveway area was large and saw no need for that much space tor a turnaround. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO I ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 19<?5 (#16 - #2073 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued) The ^}pltcant said there were two areas where rock could be taken out and add ^ass andl still do the breczeway as proposed. An>’ other areas could make it ditlicuit to maintain with the slope of the lot Schroeder said the rock removal should be done, and he would not approve any additional structure Rowlene asktsl to look at what could be done with the dnveway. The applicant said a sidew'alk was eliminated, and the new driveway replaced what was there already Rowictte added that the hardcover calculations are then higher than what is listed Schroeder asked if any of the poured driveway could be removed Smith questioned how all the hardcover was approved when 25% is allowed and 74% exists in the 75-250' zone GaBron noted that he had advised the entry addition contractor that applicants should not redo the driveway as the Planning Commission would not look favorably upon new hardcover appearing during a hardcover variance review, but it was completed without a permit Schroeder moved. Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2073 limited to the replacemcm of the retaining walls by the shoreline, retaining wall and step along the garage, and to repair the retaining wall along the driveway There were no public comments. Havvn questioned whether the entry could be added without the addition ot any more lot coverage. The stoop was noted to be a permanent part of the house as it covers the well pit and is included in the penmeter of the house It was asked that the overhang not exceed 4 ’ Schroeder said he would amend his motion to allow the entry due to the existing water problems with the condition that 2x the amount of hardcover would be eliminated elsewhere and all rock and plastic be removed No screened porch or new deck would be allowed Lindquist seconded After further discussion. GatlYon noted on the site plan the areas where hardcover is recommended to be removed. Galfron noted receipt of letters from neighbors voicing their .ipproval of the application Vote: Aves b. Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS (#17) #2043 GORDON J. BUURER, 2620 FOX STREET - SKETCH PL.\N OF PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING The Cenificate of Mailing and AiTjda\it of Publication were noted. The appHcani was present Gaffron reported that the property is located on Fox Street and abuts Fox Run The request is to split an existing 4 I acre lot into two lots, 2.1 .ind 2 0 acres in size No drainageway or wetlands have been substracted from this gross acreage The applicant proposes to split the land into an east lot with the existing house accessing onto Fox Run and a west lot with ftiture access onto Fox Street The front lot line of the existing 4-acre pared is along Fox Street but the driveway access is from Fox Run In conceptual plan 1, the new building site would access Fox Street and front on Fox Street. The existing house lot would also «ill front on Fox Street In plan 2. the only frontage for the existing house would be on Fox Run The vacant lot would have additional frontage along Fox Street. Plan 2 avoids the need for a lot width variance for lot 1 The front lot line along Fox Run is only 19 6' from the existing house where a 50' setback is required The existing house was built in 1968 and required a 20' side street yard setback at that time GatVron said the septic sites reportedly would conform for either configuration ot plan I or plan 2 There is a buri^ tile in the drainageway which runs from White Oak Circle to an open channel to a pond. No easement exists over this drainagcway Staff recommends the requirement of a 15' drainage easement the entire length of the tile and chatuiel The problem with this, according to Gatfron, is, after excluding the area of this ea.sement, the property would end up with less than the 2 acre minimum for each lot A solution would be to redefine the drainageway and retile or rechannel A perimeter drainage easement would allow for a credit of 5' or a lot area variance could be granted Granting of the area variance with a new subdmsion has onlv been approved twice since 1975, and this application is not so umque as to justify vanance approval. 1 he Engineer has suggested relocation of the drainagewav A question would be if the dry buildable credit can be given for the entire 7 5' easement needed in each lot Gaffron said hydraulics and drainage calculations are needed to confirm the flood plain extent, and the City would need to know where the septic sites would be located. No septic testing has been submitted for the site The proposed building site is not shown I he comprehensive plan suggested that new lots be served by driveways accessing to pnvate roads rather than directly onto public roads 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER IS, 1995 (#17 - #2043 Gordon Buhrer - Continued) Gafifron said the applicam has suggested that since the pond at the southeafi corner is man made, to fill in the pond to gain dry build^lc acreage The pond is not shown on the national wetland inventon’, but if dciineaicd, it would very likely be defined as wetland. Lindquist inquire about the driveway access onto Fox Street Gaffron said there would likely be good sight distance. It is narrow, not arterial, but should be no problem. The applicant said the current house faces Fox Street, and he preters a north south configuration. He noted two alternate septic sites hax c been located on both lots, percolation testing has been done, and approved for a mound system He asked if access on Fox Street would gain approval Rowlette said the north/south configuration would not work because ot the drainage easemem The easement would be excluded from the dry, buitdable area except to add to the perimeter. A lO* drainage and utility easement was noted to be no good tor utilities if the ground was underwater. Relocating of the drainageway seemed to be the only solution. This could be pertbimed with a backhoe GatTron noted that the drainage tile continues to WTrite Oak and on occasion mav be plugged somewhere. The applicant would be better otl with an open channel The applicant noted that 3/4 of it is now open and the area does dry out. Lindquist noted that if this was not done and no credit received, there would not be the 2 acres needed He saw no other solution to the problem 11 the drainageway could be moved in order to gain conformity, this could be done, fhe drainagcway could then be followed for the lot line After the tile was removed, the remainder should be left as open ditch. The applicant noted that the survey for the property had recently been done by Mark Gronberg. Hawn asked if the utility easements are excluded from dry buildable area. She was told they were not if on the penmeter easement. The Commissioners advised the applicant to proceed as long as the lot area minimum was met with the rural 2 acre contiguous dry buildable excluding the right-ot-way. easements, wetlands, and tlood plain levels Peterson asked for the applicant to work with Gaffron to work out the details MINXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 <#lt> #2070 L. E. BRUEGGEMAN COMPANIES, 372 \VESTL.AKE STREET - SKETCH PLAN OF PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIV ISION - PUBLIC HEARING The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. De^■elopc^ Loren Brueggentan and property owner. Dean Maeser, were present. The property in question is located on Westlake Street The sketch plan is a review of a proposed lot line rearrangement or reptat to result in two building sites from a I 99 acre group of 3 tax parcels. This property is located in the single tamily lakeshore residential 2-acre zoning district requiring 200* width minimums The home currently on the property overlaps lots 10 and 11 with a storage-type building on lot II Two rental cabins overlap lots 11 and 12 but arc mainly located in lot 12 The property currently operates as one single property One sewer unit was assessed to the existing house but not granted to the ca bins, which arc non-conforming and arc in need ot removal. Council directed the applic^t earlier this year to connect the house to sewer and allowed the cabins to remain in use for two more vears before they must be removed. The cabins are using the septic system on the property, and the house must be connected to sewer immediately The cost of connecting to sewer is 514,000 per unit The applicant decided to pursue a lot line rearrangement or replat of the property into tw o building sites The lots would meet the required setbacks with 50’ front and .30' side but would create a back-lot situation The potential nghts of the owner to have an additional building site would be much greater if each existing lot was buildable but they are not as many vWiances would be ne^ed If a back lot were created and replatted, it would not meet the 150®'o requirement Lot area variances would be required. The lot width as noted in case 1 is dependent on the 75’ line but would probably meet the lot width retjuired The lot coverage by structure allowance is limited by hardcover maximums. An average lakeshore setback variance would also be required In the question of a replat, would the City allow a narrow corridor to access the back lot or would 30' be required as per the code’ It is questionable whether two parcels would be allowed in this 2-acre zoning The lots use currently overlaps resulting in the 3 lots functioning as one property If a subdivision is not possible. City questions what relief could be grien to the owner Would it be possible to sell land to a neighbor ’’ Developer Brueegeman passed out sketch plans to the Commissioners showing two potential building sites on rearranged parcels meeting hardcover requirements One site would contain a 2-story residence. 3300 s f, and the second site would contain a 4400 s.f footprint with a walkout rambler style home, square footage of which would be 4000+ s f with both upper and lower levels. Both would be on substandard lots but would be sellable according to Brueggeman. .^0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COViMISSlON MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#18 - #2070 L E. Bnicggeman Companies - Continued) Galifron questioned whether the driveway across the top jxirtion ot the property was included in the calculations. Brueggexnan said the parcel contained 49,680 s f. He eliminated the area within the 75’ zone, netting 28,000 25*/# of that figure equals 7000 s.f. and took off the driveway for a net amount of4500 s f Peterson questioned the ability of the property to have two homes on one lot. Brueggeman said this is consistent with the homes in the neighborhood at this time which average 7 to 8 acres with the largest at 1-1/2 acres These two lots would be 1.0 acre and .9 acre in size. Rowlette said she saw this application as an opportunity to gain a 2-acre lot in the 2-acre zoning district adding that as a single building site, it would be beautiful The applicant's concern is with property value and overbuilding tor the homes in the neighborhood. Peterson said he liked the proposal but questioned whether it should be two lots when it is one to begin with. Lindquist noted that other lots built on were 1 acre in size. Hawn asked if the adjacent homes in the naghborhood were connected to sew er. Gaflfron said sewer was available to ail ot the homes but not necessarily connected. Hawn asked if any other lots were combir in the neighborhood There was one other lakeshore lot that was combined and is a 100’ lot The rest ot the lakeshorc lots were individual lots. Brueggeman said this was an unusual case with 4 buildings on 3 lots adding that the proposal would clean up the site Peterson commented that the cabins have been directed to be removed anv^vays regardless of the result ot this proposal. GatTron noted that the property has existed as a non-conforming use When the sewer came available to the property, the non-conformity was brought to a head. Maeser is looking at the options available. Gatfron added that the deadline ot June 1995 for connecting the house to sewer has yet to be dealt with Brueegeman said the rights of Maeser need to be considered by the Commission and Counal, which he felt has not been done, 't is his desire to solve the problems. Gaffron said the property is 3 separate tax parcels. In the sewered zone, it is required to look at each separately as to their buildability. The current standards do not allow these lots to be buildable. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION xMEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 l(#18 #2070 L E Brueggenan Companies - Contiraied) lindqmst commented that with one parcel, 2 acres in size, with the concerns ot the fwoperty and tlw houses in the area on 1 acre or less parcels, it was his opinion that it would be difficult to enforce the standards. Lindquist suggested gaining the opinion ot the City Attorney. It was decided to gather more information, gain the counsel ot the Attorney, and ask the Council for their direction regarding the propertN*. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#19) REPORT BY PUANNLNG COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDLNG COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11. 1995 (DALE LINDQUIST) Lindquist noted the delay in the start of the meeting due to a lack of a quorum. (#20) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING PARK COMMISSION .MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1995 No representative of the Planning Commission attended the Park Commission meeting of September 4, 1995 (#21) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCI SSION Schroeder will attend the October 2 meeting of the Park Commission. Gatfion brought to the attention of the lake use committee possible meeting dates of October 4, 5, or b Gatlron asked that all open space surveys be completed and turned in to City .Administrator Moorse GatTron said Mabusth has suggested a work meeting be scheduled concerning zoning issues ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#22) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 2L 1995 MEETING Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the .Minutes of the August 21, 1995 Planning Commission .Meeting Ayes 6. Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSIC5N MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#23) PLANNLNC COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE OCTOBER 9,1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Peterson will attend the October 9 meeting of the Council. ADJOURNMENT Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to adjourn at 12;34 a.m. Ayes 6. Nays 0. Stephen Peterson. Chair Person To: From: Date: Mavof and Citv Council Ron Moorsc, Citv Administrator October 6, i995 ///- Subject:Proposal for Management and Support Ser\ices to the Wa> zata Police Department Attached is a draft letter to the City of Wayzata setting out Orono's proposal for the provision of maiu^ement and support services to the \Va> zata Police Department. The net annual revenue to be generated by this proposal is $46,370. The majoritv ’ of this revenue is a proration of the police department's fixed costs - costs the department would incur regardless of whether the police department provides management and support services to the Wav ’zata Police Department. The two ke>’ items are the facility usage fee of $20,960 and the management and support services fee ot $25,410. Although the City of Wayzata will obtain a number of benefits through the management and support services arrangement, the actual cash savings to Wayzata are approximately $17,580. Ihis is approximately 3% of the proposed 1996 Wayzata Police Department budget. If any Councilmember has questions or comments regarding the proposal, please let me know. Isv CITYof ORONO Monkipal OfBce Stmt Adiinss: 2750 K*l!«y Partway Orono. MN 55356 laAni yrfrtss: P.O. 3qx 66 Cfyatil Bay. MN 55323 0066 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Wayzata 600 East Rice Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Honorable Mayor and City Council; The Citv of Orono does hereby submit a proposal for the provision of police management and support serv ices to the City of Wayzata for the year 1996. The major focus of the proposal is to enable the Cit> of Wayzata to continue to receive the benefits of providing police serv ices through its own sw orn police siatf. while gaining the advantages of shared management and support services and shared facilities. This arrangement will provide significant benefits to both cities. Benefits 1.This proposal will facilitate increased levels of cooperation and coordination in the provision of police serv ices. The proposal will provide both Police Departments with the flexibility and high level of customer serv ice of an office with two full-time and twd part-time office support staff I he proposal will provide a closer coordination of investigative activities. This w ill provide the two departments with a wider range of investigative resources, and will enable the departments to better handle periodic work load surges, especially relating to major cases requiring substantial resources. The proposal will enable a much more efficient use of police facilities. The Orono police facilities include a squad room, a training room, a secured hooking room, an intoxilizer room, an interview room, two certified holding cells, a locker room, a secured evidence room, a secured sallyport, records storage space, and a secured reception and lobby area. These facilities are either being duplicated by the Wayzata Police Department or are not available to the Wayzata Police Department. Telepbooe (6L2) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Tlw Honorable Mayor and City Council October 6. 1995 Page 2 W Serv'ice Explanation A simple explanation of the management and support serv ice arrangement is that Wayzata vvill^ continue to be responsible tor all activities and expenses related to its sworn officers. The City ot Orono will take on responsibility for all other operating activ ities and expenses. major element of this arrangement is that all police activities (with the exception ot a small office area in the Way zata City Hall) will be housed in the Orono Police Department. Under this arrangement, the Way zata Police Department will retain its current patio! >crvice level and scheduling, and its current sw orn staff with the exception of the Police Chief. Also, the current Way zata Sergeant will continue to play a significant role in day-to-day supervision and scheduling ot the Wayzata officers. C*ost Under the proposed arrangement, the City of Wayzata will be able to eliminate the Police Chief position, and eliminate all police-related facility u.sage. In turn, the City of Wayzata will pay a fee to the City of Orono that includes operating expenses, facilities usage, and management and support services. There are four major components to the serv ice cost: 1. Sm • 3. 4. The facility usage fee. The management and support serv ices fee. The pay and benefits of the Community Service Officer and office support staff person currently employed by the City* of W^ayzata (taken directly from the 1996 Wayzata Police Department budget). General expenses for day-to-day operations including materials and supplies and contractual services, less Police Chief training expenses (taken directly from the 1996 W^ay/ata Police Depiutment budget). Total S 20,960 $25,410 S 66,040 S 44.900 $157,310 Ifie Orono Police Chief, the entire Police Deparunent, and I are committed to improv ing the quality and efficiency of police serv ices in both Way zata and Orono through increased cooperation and coordination among the two departments. We respectfully request that the Mayor and Council consider the City of Orono's capabilities and commitment to top quality police service, and select the Orono Police Department to provide management and support services to the Wayzata Police Department in 1996. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully submitted. Ronald J. Moorse Citv Administrator RJMylsv TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor Callahan and Orono City Councilmcmbcrs # Ron Moorsc, City Administrator ^ t ^ October 6, 1995 SUBJECT: 1996 Police Service Contracts and Cost Allocations Staff is preparing the 1996 police service contract documents for approval by the ccnur.ct cities and the Orono City Council. The attached materials are the cost allocation information. Due to efforts to hold down police expenditures for 1996, and to the relatively niinor shift of additional costs to the City of Orono through the cost allocation formula, the cost increases to the contract cities are minor. The cost to the City of Minnetonka Beach has increased by $658.00 or 1.7%. The cost to Spring Park has increased by $6,066.00 or 2.03%. The co'i to Long Lake has increased $2,451.00 or 1.06%. The two factors in the cost allocation formula are population and market value. The minor shift of costs to Orono is due to both the population and market value of Orono im:reasing faster than the population and market values of the contract cities. If any Councilmembers have questions >r concerns regarding the cost allocation formula or amounts, please let me know. POLICE SERVICE CONTT^ACT BASE BUDGET FORMULA FACTORS IPD96BUOI ♦ ji, • APPENDIX A BUDGET YEAR 19S6 1 CRaNO Lcmif^ MlTtf'itrONKA BEAC^ *«»«***»» SPRING PARK TOTAL mmmmammm&t POPULATION 7.444 1,951 578 1,753 11,723 % Or TOTAL 6147%16.64%4S3%14.96%100.00% •A€!GHT 50%31.74%0.32%2.46%7.48%50.00% MAF.KET VALUE S70i.am7oo $94,611,300 $74,618,700 $56,630,000 $927,738,700 % OF TOTAL 75.65%1020%8.04%6.10%100.00% WEIGHT 50%37.33%S.10%4.02%3 05%50.CO?', TOTAL PERCENT 69 56% SB a s a aa a s a s 13.42% saraaassa* 6.49% 3 3 ass a as 10 53% aaaaaaaa 100.00% a m a aa a ass CHY CF OnONO - POUC^ CEPAmmT FD96BU01 APPEND« A DISTPlBimON CF COSTS SERVICE YEAR 1996 MnMNETONKA SPRING TOTALCRC3VO 8S8SSSS3SSS LCNQlAiC e^3»*»*** BEACH sasssssca PARK aaaaasBaa PERCENT APF12D 69 55% SJBSaSSSSSS 13.42T3 ssasssxss 6.49%10 53% aaasssass 100 00% szssassaa: 3ASE BUDGET SS47,S83 S123.SB0 SS9.933 SS2.173 $324,070 TOWN AID CREDIT 134.553)(6,665)(3,222)(5.233)(49.680) TOTAL 513,425 117.315 56,711 86,940 874,390 ADW1N CHARGE (10^61.343 11.731 5,671 3,694 87.439 TOTAL EASE S674.763 3* «« s * = =:*■■ * $129,046 S62.382 M8?%8Z-mX=S $95,634 sa** aaaaa $361.329 sssa'sssszx ADDITIONAL OFFICERS $115,520 $221,057 $346,585 TOWN AID {11,04C)(22.C80)($33,120) TOTAL ADOL OFFICERS S1CW.488 $208,977 SSX3S3SSSSSSSS $313,465 GRAND TOTAL S674.768 = 3SSi3S= = = * = $233.5:^S6Z382 = za aas $304.611 $1,275,294 cmr OF ORONO POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT BUDGET YEAR 1996 P096BUD2 APPENDIX A POLICE DEPARTMENT EXPENSES S St a s s at SALARIES - REGULAR OVERTIME - REGULAR SALARIES - P.T. OFFICERS SALARIES - TEMP CLERICAL HOLIDAY PAY (LELS) PERA - CITY CONTRIBUTION FICAyMDCR - CITY COnT" BUTION HEALTH INSURANCE LIFE INSURANCE WORKER COMPENSATION INSURANCE OF CE SUPPLIES MOTOR FUELS i LUBRICANTS CLOTHING & PERSONAL EQUIPMENT BLDG & GROUNDS M&R SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT PARTS & ACCESS BOOKS & PERIODICALS TRAINING SUPPLIES DARE PROGRAM LEGAL CONSULTING SERVICES OTHER CONSULTING SERVICES TELEPHONE POSTAGE PRINTING/PUBLISHING/ADVERTISING UTILITIES RADIO RENTAL OFFICE i BUILDING RENTAL MAINT - OFFICE EQUIPMENT MAINT - AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT MAINT - MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT MAINT - BLDGS & GROUNDS JANITORIAL SERVICES DATA PROCESSING SERVICES TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE PROPERTY INSURANCES UMBRELLA LIABILITY INSURANCE INSURANCE AGENT OF RECORD MEMBERSHIPS TRAVEL-MILEAGE-PARKING MEETING EXPENSES LICENSES A TAXES OTHER CHARGES BUILDINGS A STRUCTURES OFFICE FURN-FIXT-EQUIPMENi automotive EQUIPMENT OTHER EQUIPMENT POST TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICcR REIMS TOTAL 1995 1996 Budget Budget 1 * IS * C * aaaasass $725,460 $730,185 19,000 21.000 14.500 20.000 5.820 7,000 24.300 25.700 85.800 36,415 3.170 9.175 61.220 60.375 4.4C0 7,300 33.970 27.545 7.000 8,300 24.000 22.000 10,000 12.000 500 500 4.000 4.000 1,000 1,000 2.000 2.300 1,800 1,300 1.000 1,000 7.000 7,000 7,700 7,700 1.500 1,600 2.600 2.600 9.000 9,000 17,000 17,000 43,500 45.000 3.400 5,000 17.500 20.000 2.500 2.500 1,000 1,500 6.000 6,000 25.090 22.970 9.270 10,000 10.378 11,110 8.633 7,725 7,531 7,500 1,326 3.500 1,230 1,000 650 400 1,000 300 180 180 100 100 500 500 1,500 1,500 30,000 45.180 2,500 2.500 (6,000)(6.000) (11,138)(11,885) $1,237,440 $1,270,655 % • LONG LAKE ADCKTIONAL MANPOWER 1996 SERVICE YEAH EXHIBIT C PD96BUD3 Projected Salaries, 20 Officers S86.778 Overtime 2500 Holiday Pay 3.520 P.E.RA - City Contituticn 10.579 FICA^'MDCR - City Contribution 449 Health - life Insurance 7,534 Worker Comcensation Insurance 3.469 Clothing & Personal Equipment 650 Total S1 15.528 Deduct Town Aid Credit (11,040) Total Additional Officers 104,438 Tota Base Cost 129.046 Total Cost of Service S233.534 APPENDIX A ■ i-k> SPRING PARK AOOfTTQNAL MANPOWB? 1996 SERVICE YEAR EXHIBIT D PD96EUD3 Projected Salaries, 4.0 Officers SI 73.555 Overtime Holiday Pay 7,040 P.E.RA. - City Con^bution 21,153 nCA/MDCR - City Contribution 897 Health - Life Insurance 15.163 Worker Compensation Insurance 6.938 Clothing & Personal Equipment 1,300 Total 3231,057 Deduct Town Aid Credit (22.C80) Total Additional Officers 208.977 Total Base Cost 95,634 Total Cost of Service $304,611 APPENDIX A To:Mayor and City Council From:Ron Moorsc, City Administrator jy Date:October 6, IW Subject:Hennepin Countv Sale of Library Property The Hennepin County Libran Board has ov^ned a two acre parcel of property in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 12 and Old Cry stal Bay Road for a number of years. The property had been planned as the site for a County library. Due to budget constraints, it has been determined that the site will not be used tor a library . The City had requested that it be notified if the County was going to sell the property. Notification was recently received that the County Board will take action in early November to authorize dispersal of the property^ Because of the City's prior request, the City will be given an opportunity to purchase the property at the appraised value prior to any competitive bid sale. The property was appraised a year or so ago at S22 /,000. The appraisal will be updated after the County Hoard takes action to authorize the sale of the property . The City- Council may w ant to consider whether the City could benefit by the purchase of the property. Isv il CITY OF ORONO PARK CONLMISSION MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 2. 1995 7; 15 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS ATTENDANCE AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes of September 5, 1995 Meeting. 2. Update on Trail Progress: Old Cr>'stal Bay Road Signage. 3. Update on Highwood Nature Trail. 4. Progress Report on Crystal Bay Park. 5. Discussion on Planning for Park on Dickey Property 6.Winter Recreation Program Letter on Ice Rinks Golf Course. 7. Planning for Friends of the Park. 8. Other Business. AI).I()LRN.MENT ORONO P.\RK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 5,1995 DRAFT ATTENDANCE Tbe Park Commission ma on the above date tvith the fotlo^ng McDermott III. Commission White arrived dunng discussion ot Item “ was absent. Representing Staff were Publ.c Works Director John oerhardson and Recorder Sherry Frost. Chair Flint called the meeting to order at 7 .. p.m. (#1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 7,1995 The minutes were amended with the following correction. Page 9, paragraph 4, the reference to a berm is at .Antoine Park not Hackberry Use moved. Mc.Millan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Park Commission .Meeting of August 7. 1995 as amended. Ayes 5. Nays 0 (#2) PRESENTATION BY .ANTOINE PARK .NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCUTION (HOWELLS) There was no representation from the neighborhood at the Park Commission meeting. McMillan sungested a sub-commiiiee be set up to contact the group and determine the nleds of the pik With the time allotment for pork improvements. NkM.llanlelt plans should be initiated immediately if anything is to be done ihis year She rvmmde Commission that the group had identified certain salety concerns and had asked that the sheds be removed The Commission had noted on several park lours that this should be done Flint will wme a letter to be sent 10 the people who signed the petition asking for p^k improvements a. .amtoine The letter wall ask for then, to notitv the (. ommission when thev are readv to discuss park improv ements and place the item on an upcoming age The letter will indicate that park improvements can best be earned out when mghborhood works closely with llie Park Commission In the meanl.me, ^«^«>n was asked 10 see whether ihe sheds could be removed and the equipment checked to assure us compliance with salety standards. \ffisTJTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTENIBER 5, 1995 (#3) REVIEW BIKE TRAIL HILBELINK PROPERTY G^rhardson asked for Commission input on the route ot the trail on the Hilbelink property. Coming from the south, the trail will be located on the right of way tor about -00 and then move in on the property and continue north until it again moves closer to the road on the back side of the bank slope but otf the right ot way. Gerhardson noted that the trail was brought out into the back slope of the ditch because ot the way the tree line jogs It was determined that the easiest place to bring the trail out was where the developer will be installing the driveway. McMillan asked about tree loss. Gerhardson said little tree loss will occur on the northern portion of the trail What will be lost on the southern portion is mainly scrub trees McMillan suggested planting tamarack near the wetland area. McDermott noted that dogwood handles wet areas well. rise said she liked the openness of the trail and how it w as designed to come out onto the road Kiving it a good profile as well as a good satety tearure Gerhardson said the design should provide a reasonable stopping distance of about 200' A couple accidents have ocurred because of the heavy foliage on the north side of Watertown Road The trees are located on the builuable lot rather than the easement The culvert is located about 250’ north of Watertown Road Curb and gutter is being installed and will allow tor surtace drainage The work on the trail must be completed by the end of September The easement has been obtained, and work is set to begin as soon as the DNR signs the contract. The trail design nonh of the Luce Line trail will include curb and gutter with storm sewer throughout the trail (#4) UPDATE ON TRAIL PROGlLtSS; NORTH BROWN ROAD SIGNAGE Gerhardson reported that the North Brown Road trail is in High usage levels have already been reponed Landscaper, Steve Kelly, will make recommendations on plantings for the area between the trail and the retaining wall Planning Commission Schroeder had requested plantings rather than grass in this area. While suggested the use of vines, w hicn would wind up the retaining walls It was noted that vines have been ertectively used on other trail areas and retaining walls The vines do need to be snipped back to keep from getting too thick MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO P.\RK CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 (#4 - Update on Trail Progress - Continued) White also commented that Hennepin Parks has small shrubs available as well as native species, which thev ’ propogate Wildflower packets are also available for use The Commission would like to see the neighbors involved in adopting the trail area. Gerhardson said that now that the trail is completed, Kelly can provide intormation on what will be needed, make suggestions as to the plantings, and the neighbors can then be asked for their •volvement. The signage will be installed once landscaping is completed. Gerhardson will be meeting with the sign people this coming week regarding the size and olacement of signs. Smal “stop" signs and "no motorized vehicles" signs will be utilized. McMillan asked that the subcommittee review the signs prior to installation Hennepin County will be contacted to obtain their catalog on signage Gerhardson said the signs may be supplied by the same company that is providing signage to Hennepin Parks Flint displayed a picture of a trail in Duluth betw een Lake Superior and Interstate j5, which eftecuvelv makes use of a small area using retaining walls, railroad track area, an asphalt bike trail, and a wood walking trail. Flint said this trail depicts what can happen when good planning occurs in connection with road improvements (#5) UPDATE ON PLANNING FOR P.XRK ON DICKEY PROPERTY (ILSE/MCMILLAN/MCDERMOTT) Use reponed that a meeting of the subcomminee is planned for Friday. September 15 at - 00 p m with the landscaoer. Rvan Buttcrt'ieid. to waik the propeny as well as inventory the property She suggested that Gerhardson and the City Engineer also be present. Use asked that tne boundaries be marked. Use said she has been noting the points of interest from materials obtained from Pat Dickev McDermott said the committee siiould know what they would like to stress, whethe*’ it be ueolouical. the Native .-\mencan background, or just a restfril place to visit. Use noted ["here Is a history involved in how the City obtained the property anc it was donated in order to protect that history It was noted that there is very linle namral area left on the site but it could be replanted with prairie grasses. McDermott said he was unsure what the desire is for the park He noted if the land is sacred ground, an archaeological inspection might be needed 1 MINLITES OF THE REGUL.\R ORONO PARK CO.\L\USSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1 995 (i!r5 - Update on Planning for Park on Dickey Property - Continued) It vk-as reponed that the bam and building has been taken do^^■n. The concrete foundation was removed as is required by code The holes created by the demolition will need iome fill and have been bamcaded. McMillan said >he did not see anv barricades when she viewed the property prior to the meeting. No timbers were conserved trom the site but were notal to be >mall in size and ot no great value. (#6) OPEN SI .ACE PLANNLNG PROCESS (MOORSF/GERHARDSON) Gerhardson said ilic questionnaires were now completed and wou|d be tabulated. Moorse will attend the October Park Commission Meeting to discuss the findings {HI) HIGIINVOOD nature IRvIL (GERHARDSO.N) The parking area Highwood Nature Trail will be completed this month according to Gerhardson. (#8) AERIAL MAPS (GERHARHSON) Gerhardson said he had not vet coordinated with Gafixon to determine what maps the City already had available, but he would do so soon i order that the aenal photos be available for planning purposes as soon as possible Flint asked what would be done with the maps once they were available Gerhardson said the commission would need to see what was available .and whether the maps wo.ild tit their needs If the maps were found to be adequate, copies wall be made, and kept available for usane at the rnectinvs (^9) REVIEW OF LETTER TO BE SE.NT Ol T TO NEIGHBORS OF II \CKBFRRV AND ANTOINE PARKS SOI IC ITING THEIR V IEW AS TO El LMIN ATION OF SKATING RINKS FOR I9‘<v96 SEASON Commiss’oners were asked to turn their written comments in to Gerhardson on the draft of the ’ It w as suggested that a phone number be included well as the reason tor a timely r .ponse (1 4 days) Use asked that the letter expiam the cost and lime involved in creating a qualiiv rink and advise the residents that the Commission was seekmg to deiemu.ie whether usage justified continued maintenance of the nnks "he letter will be sent out to the neighbors around Antoine and Hackberry Parks as soon as the letter is finalized MINUTES OF THE REGULAR OnONO P.\RK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPT ilMBER 5. 1995 (#10) OTHER BUSINESS The agenda for the October meeting will be prepared by McMillan Flint will be absent. BENCHES Gerhardbon reported that a bov scout from Orono is working on his eagle badge and has asked for approval to build 4-6 benches to be used in Ciw parks. The boy scout lives near Old Crystal Bay Park and would like to see at least two benches used mere. The City would need to pay for materials only, which would cost about S55 per bench The boy scout wUl instaU the benches, which vvall sit on conaete pads The concrete will cover the perimeter of the bench with one end extending the size to allow a w heel chair to be placed thereon. Footings will be dug and the concrete slab poured over it by the City The benches will be 4\6’ in size with a 4’x4' back using 2x6 for the seal and 2x8 for the back. There is a 17" height requirement. Gerhardson presented a sample ot what a bene would look like .McDermott noted the ADA requires an arm rest. Gerhardson noted the considerable savings over the estimate received lor the two benches approved for installation at Old C;. xal Bay Park ot S924 The posts for the benches are designed to be made ot cedar. Both White and McDeimott said that cedar would rot in concrete. It was suggested that treated lumber be used for the posts. Metal posts vvere not recommended as the connections are difficult to do. McMillan said she preferred not using a concrete slab. Flint said a concrete slab would create a solid base McDermott noted that concrete is used because it requires little maintenance and upkeep and creates a clean edge. He also said the color could be tempered with a surface treatment He said that concrete is a durable matenal and recommended for areas of footing placement. The cost for the concrete will be appro.ximately $25 per bench. Concern was voiced over safety trom faUs onto concrete Gerhardson said, because the concrete would not extend over the edge of the seat, a person would fall onto the grass. Gerhardson said the specifications have been draw n and are of a professional quality. If this was acceptable to the Commission, Gerhardson wall present the proposal to the C incil for their approval. f 1-v.d- a for the benches wall come trom the Park Dedication fund Gerhardson said the baiance“in the Park Fund as of the meeting date is S296.000. A ponion of this has been set aside for the trail, which will be built this year MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO P.-VRK CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 ORAF'f (sflO - Other Business - Continued) Use moved, McMillan seconded, to recommend approval ot six benches with.. to 4 used at Old Crystal Bay Park. Ayes 6, Nays 0. BEDERWOOD BASKETBALL COURT Use said she was recentiv questioned by Mrs Shields on the status ot the proposed basketbaU coun at Bedenvood. Gerhardson said the projea would be scheduled tor next spring. An updated cost estimate will be done now that the court placement has been decided upon Grading options will also be evaluated. FRIENDS OF THE P.\RK AWARD The Friends of the Park Aw ard was discussed. Certificates will be made in the tomi ot a resolution for each of the girl scout troops and the OBA who will be receiving the awards. The award ceremony wi!' take place in the foyer of the Council Chambers at 7 00 p^m. on the nitiht of the November Park Commission Meeting. The meeting will be held at /:30 p.m. A letter of invitation will be wntten by McMillan and sent out to aU concerned. SAGA HHL PARK Flint asked Gerhardson if there was any update on the proposed park on Saga Hill. Gerhardson was not aware of the status of the project The Saga Hill Community Group will be asked to attend the October meeting and update the Commission on the status ot the tlmd raisimz projea and grant application Howells suggested staking the park area to designate the land acquired by the City through tax forfeimre and the land under consideration for purchase by the Saga Hill Community Group The access points to the land were discussed A public access is located otf Tonkavnew Gerhardson will check plat maps to identity the e.xact location of the 10' wide access smp. The land is also accessible through the church parking lot located adjacent to the property but no formal legal access has been acquired. Flint said the issues needing addressing are what to do with the existing piece of land and what the status is of the Saua Hill Group's endeavors Mc.Millan will contaa Irene Silber or Patty AtTelt of the Saga Hill Group to ask for their representation at the October meeting. « • » MINUTES OF THE REGUL.\R ORONO P.MIK COMNnSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 5. 1995 ADJOinWMENT Flint adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. with a vote ot Ayes 6, Nays 0, Richard N. Flint, Chair • # *state of Minnesota Board of Government innovation and cooperation, .in, V - •, __• ’ \ S09 •ullHInf • SO SUf^urn# A¥#wm# • Saint Paul. WTfib—of f>1»i • •12/2M«aW) • JF«t €13/2»2-t>Il ^ Attention (^iL loct A i9S5 t ^d.min an a^erAJCU Please extend xffls invitation to THE Mayor , ALL City Council Members, AND ALL SENIC'R APPOINTED OFFICIALS Thank you for your assistance !!! % • state of Minnesota Board of Government innovation and Cooperation sot Atfiilnittrttlofi tuMIfia • iO SHtftyrwt Avti ^ Mtfifmt. wm * aw - tn/m tin Sepiembcr 29, 1995 Dear local government officials: • As stale legislators, we recognize your responsibilities have become increasingly difficult in recent years. While strong public sentiment has precluded state and local officials from approving tax increases, the demand for high quality public services continues to grow. In an effort to discuss opportunities for addressing the fiscal challenges we face, we would like to invite you and your colleagues to a public forum on Wednesday, October 18, 1995. The public forum will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. in the Hopkins City Hall CouncU Chambers. The Hopkins City Hall is located at 1010 First Street in Hopkins. The purpose of our reg.jnal forum is to unite ail elected and senior administrative officials from om counties, cities, and school districts to discuss our common goals. A portion of the public forum will focus on opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration as a means of improving the efficiency of our public services. This forum will also give local officials an opportunity to let us know what the state can do to assist you in your effort to improve the quality and efficiency of the services vou deliver.m The public forum will be facilitated by Jim Gelbmann, Executive Director of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation. This state Board was created by the 1993 Legislature to promote intergovernmental cooperation and innovation in the delivery of public services. Jim will be on hand to inform local officials about the various programs of the Board. The programs of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation are designed to empower local officials to develop more efficient and effective ways to achieve desired public policy outcomes. For example, the Board has a relatively simple process for waiving state administrative rules and procedural laws that may impair the ability of local officials to administer their programs in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Jim will share with us the results of several of the projects the Board has sponsored in other areas of the state. If you have question about the forum, please feel free to contact Jim at (612) 282-2390. We have enclosed an agenda for your review. Please feel free to extend an invitation to all senior administrative officials ft'om your jurisdiction. We look forward to seeing you on October 18th. Sincerely, Te^ >f6frdale Senator Roy^ /Terwilliger Senator Edward C. Oliver Senator .Martha R. Robertson Senator Steve Kelley Representative "JijjrTlhodes lepreseniative Eric Paulsen Representative Barbara Sykora Representative state of Minnesota Board of Government innovation and cooperation BO# MmfnYttratlofi • SO SlMr#yrM • SaTnt PayL I . 6:30 P.M. 6:45 P.M. 6:55 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 7:20 P.M. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFTICIALS’ REGIONAL FORUM Hopkins City Hail Council Chambers Wednes^y, October 18, 1995 6^30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Introduction By Legislators Introduction Of Forum Attendees Overview Of The Evening ’s Activities - Jim Gelbmann The Board of Government innovation and Cooperation: A Resource For Local Officials Identification and Discussion Of Several Pilot Projects and Waivers Panel Discussion Of Local Officials - One representative of each of the following levels of government: County, City, and School District “What is the current status of intergovernmental cooperation and innovation within the region?” Are there any intergovernmental fomins for discussii^ expanded opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation and innovation? Identify specific intergovemment^ initiatives that are currently in progress. What other activities have been tiied? Have there been any notable successes? Have there been any initiatives that did not meet expectations? How do citizens react to intergovernmental cooperation and other innovative imtatives? Is there inlerest in pursuing consolidations of one or more loral governments wtfain the region? What are some of the bairiers to intergovernmental cooperatlOD and innovation? How ran those barriers be eliminated or minimized? Can you identify specific opportunixs for future intergovernmental cooperation and innovation relative to the delivery of local government services? Are there examples of duplication of effort that results in inefficient or ineffective local government service delivery? 8:00 P.M. What role can the State play in assisting local officials? Participants will be asked to identify and discuss state policies that may impair the ability of local officials to effectively and efficiently deliver essential public services. 8:20 P.M. Small Group Discussions “What opportunities may exist for increasing intergovernmental cooperation within the region. Identify specific actions that need to be taken to take advantage of these opportunities. 8:45 P.M. 9:05 P.M. Summary Of Small Group Discussions Where do we go from here? How do we assure that there will be follow up to the day’s discussions. To: From: Date: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator October 6,1995 Subject: County Road 15 Update (Orono Orchard Road to Wayzata Boundary) The County has taken another look at the right-of-way costs for the Counw Road 15 reconstruction project. They believe they have found a way to reduce the right-of-way costs from approximately $100,000 to approximately $75,000. They plan to achieve these savings by purchasing a clear zone easement along the railroad propert}' vs. purchasing tee title in the propertv'. The Council will need to determine whether this level of right-of-way costs is acceptable in terms ot moving ahead with the project. k *i«ti • i *«•I . JC, El DEN C O M R A M Y Ms. Jcaanc A Mabustli Building and Zoning Administrator Cit> of Orono 2780 Kelley Pai k\va> Orono, MV September IS, 1995 Dear Ms M.ibusth RJi Your File ^2055 2800 Countr>-side Drive West/2425 Thoroughbred Lane Sinn \'ariances By this letter The Tony Eiden Company hereby withdraws the captioned applications. We have directed our sign designer to redraft our monument si<.m plans to complvwith the Orono Znnina Code Sincerely yours. The Totiy Eiden Conipanv CharlCsc Dillerud Director of Land Development 4100 BERKSHIRE LANP»PI Vmoi ITM MiNjwcc.r»TA ee/i .r-r-fs 9 Comm iinUi— in Coliabolggon Council Polly Sonify; Coo^ll^tor j » ' '■ < - r f A I— - IJ U' OCT ,3 a895 Dear Community Leader, On behalf of the Communities In Collaboration Council and the Community Education Services Advisory Council, we cordially invito you to attend a special legislative breakfast forum on Thursday, November 2, 1995, 7;00am- 9:00am In MIthum Hall at the Wayzata Community Church, Ferndale & Wayzata Blvd. We have extended an invitation to all the state legislators within the Wayzata School District community to participate In this breakfast forum. The three issues to bo covered will bo School Funding, Social/Welfare Reform, and Affordable Housing/Transportation, The format will be split into three equal half hour time periods. In the half hour, two questions on the issue will be covered with 5 minutes for pro/con stands form the legislators and 10 minutes allotted to the audience pro/con concerns. This will allow two 15 minute discussion periods for each issue addressing two questions pertinent to that issue. John Berg form Norwest Banks will act as the moderator. Enclosed is a post card on which you can submit questions on any of the issues to be discussed. Two questions on each issue will be utilized in facilitating discussion on these vital topics. We look forward to seeing you on November 2nd. Sincere Mike Leonard Chair, C.E.S. Advisory Council Mary Anne Chair, Comrhtfnities In Collaboration Council P.O Box 660 Wayzata, MN 55391 612/476-3243 FAX: 612/476-3138 fiOAfID MEMBERS Wilfiam A. Jonnstone Crtair. Minnetonka Douglas E Baocock Vice Chair. Spnng Park Joseph Z^ak Secretary. Greenwood Robert Rasccp Treasurer. Shorewood Mike Bloom Minr>etonka Beach A.'bert (Ben) Foster Oeephaven ^mes N Graihwoi Excelsior Duane Markus Wayzata Ross McGiasson Tonka Bay Craig Moiiet Victona Eugene Partyka Minnecnsia Tom Reese Mound Herb J. Suerth Woodland Orono 60% P»oci#0 Cooivn :0% Post Consun'«r LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT MO EAST WAY2AT. 8O0LEVAH0. SUITE 160 • WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 5S391 • TELEPHONE 611473.7033 9 October 6, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 10/11/95 Board Meeting Chair Doug Babcock has cane.lad the 10/1 V”_^board ?e^i«ly“tchedulerboL/»«t?ng will be held on ii(h rspeoiai planing/ workshop meeting scheduled for 6:30 that same evening. Please call the LMCD office if you have any questions or concerns. ThanXs. cnncr to see our neW''.^ office \i nd ?nn riu r t \ay93 }i] ' ' Iu I • I il ’• '■ •' ill ' \ , ‘-i-jf >«|f ■iji'A L IV • ■. .•/ . 9 • ' f • i « * X *. •f .• I N i 4 i Peter Me Lauohlin COMMISSIONER • I w dl2-5^-30d5 FAX 3*43 ft701 Board of Hennepin county commissioners A-2400 Government Center Minneapolis . Minnesota 554*7-0240 October 4, 1995 Mr. Ronald Morse Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Cry stal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Morse On behalf of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, I would like to personally invite you to attend the 1995 State of the County Address, which will be broadcast live on Metro Cable Channel 6: Hennepin County: Recreating Community Thursday, October 12, 1995 4 P.M. General Mills Corporate Headquarters Number One General .Mills Boulevard (1-394 and Highway 169) Golden Valley, .MN Reception to follow in Atrium Mv speech comes in the midst of vast changes emerging from Congress, changes that represent both a threat and an opportunity I would be honored by your presence, and would welcome seeing you at the reception which follows Please RSVP to my office (348-7884) by Tuesday, October 10th as seating is limited Parking is available in the General Mills visitor lots to the south and west of the main entrance. • ■ Sincerely, '----■' /..V' Peter McLaughlin, Onart Hennepin County Board of Commissioners OCT.iS95 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER IMCCLAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 540 SECOND STREET • PO. BOX 473 • EXCELSIOR. MN 55331-0473 612 474-5539 • FAX 612. 474-0430 September 28,1995 ofimxvEN EXCELSIOR GREENWOOD LONG LAKE MEDINA M1NNE10NKA BEACH MINNETRISTA ORONO ST. 80NIFACIUS SHOREWOOO SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA WOODLAND Mayor Edward Callahan and City Council Members City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Callahan and Council Members: A few weeks ago, you received some "draft" language and a cover letter from the League of Minnesota Cities, regarding an official city ordinance dealing with current and future use of dedicated rights-of-way and city easements. Since that time, the wording has been changed to include some favorable and more detailed terms. I have enclosed the most recent updated "draft" ordinance language, and suggest that you compare it to the version that was sent earlier. This represents a combined effort by your Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC), its' attorney Tom Creighton and the League of Minnesota Cities, that is designed to improve the city position of having authority over the dedicated easement space. It is important to note that your LMCC cannot institute the necessary ordinance action that will be required, and it must officially take place at your city council. I urge you to give this expeditious attention, and have your city staff/city attorney review the enclosed ordinance and recommend whatever changes are appropriate to bring your city authority to the level suggested in this newest "draft" ordinance. Once completed, 1 would ask that you send a copy of the final and passed ordinance to Jim Daniels at the LMCC office. To help you understand the LMCC concern, 1 have also enclosed a copy of a speech Mr. Creighton delivered at the national NATOA Convention last week. > a n iar September 28,1995 Mayor Callahan and City Council Members Page Two I believe that you must give this issue of “future telecommunications, some preferential treatment at your city council level. The coalition ot our fourteen cities will have a direct bearing on the communication services that will ultimately be available to our residents in the next few years. Needless to say, if you or your staff have any questions, you can certainly call Jim Daniels, our Administrator, at the LMCC office (474.5539). Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ann C. Thies Chair Enclosures cci Commissioner Pattrin »OSS A. SuSS^mam nCaw »**a^«*0 SAuc A. •(••••CM* TmOmas O. scor-r A ci^sOM 0AV10 «. MlO(^’^*^OAUC* •AWV QWA*T* ▼‘MCMCSA M rtOWACSHI MCSCCCA *«C *ZC» • VQ9C Bernick and Lifson A ^AOrCSSiOMAA ASSOCtATfO** ArTO•^4CrS AT fc*AW suiTC *aoo. ■^••c c3co^»**AOc 9900 wwa ^ZAT a SOouCVa AO MlMNCAl^OUiS. >^INNCS0TA 9SAl«-iaTO •A^o AO«»’**CO '•« '■^9C3»**'A >^4^9 CC»*^’»’CD Aj9W'C rCt.CA*«0««C (OKI 9AO*KOO rACSiiAicC tOl«l «aO-4003 wCOAw ^S<*‘*‘A*«»^ wO ^OAM *m. MaTi-iA'^'^ <3. %• A9TCA»* A#»i ORDINANCE CITY OF (COL•^ rv, STATE) .An ordinancs governing d:e constracrion. instalution. ocention. repair, maintenance, removal, and relocation of Facilities and equipment used tor the transmission of telecommunications or related ser/ices in the Public Ground ot the Citv* of • THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORD.AINS; SECTION I nFFTNTTTON.S Subdivision 1. The terms defined in this Section have the meanings given them. Subdivision 2. C.^mpanv. .A nararal or corporate person, business association or other business entity including partnerships and sole proprietorships, political subdivision, public or private asenev of any Icind. its successors and assigns, '.vho or which seelcs to. or is required to constnict, install, operate, repair, maintain, remove or relocate Facilities in the City. Subdivision 3. Director. The Director of Public Works (or equivalent position at the City;. Subdivision d. Fncilities. Communications lines or equipment of any kind, including, but not limited to. lines or equipment tor die transmission of audio, video, or data, or other similar communications services, not other^vise governed by rany sDte law granting e.xclusive jurisdiction to the state level), including all trunks, lines, cables, wires, optical fibers or other fiber optic cables, laser equipment, circuits, physical connections, switching equipment, wireless communication equipment of all kinds, towers, and any necessar/ appurtenances owned, leased or ope ;..ted by a Company on. over. in. under, across or along any Public Ground. Subdivision 5. P'hiir Ground. Highways, roads, streets, alleys, sidewalks, skyways, public ways, uiilir/ easements and public easements in the City. SECTION : PFRAfTT PROrFDL'KE Subdivisign 1. Prrrr.h A Company may not construct, insall. repair, remove or relocate Facilities, or any part thereof, or cLhervise open or disrupt any Public Ground without first obQiring a permit from die City. The City shall require a separate permit of a Com.pany for each location where construction, installation, or other disturbance of the Public Ground is to occur, or for each convenient subdivision of construction, insullation or other related '.vork for which the Cir/ determines in its sole discretion a permit is required. Each permit shall state specifically the locations of any FacUiues. and the nature of die work necessitatmg the permit, and shall contain reasonable regulations and conditions to protect the health, safety and welfare of the populace of the City. Subdivision 2. Application. .Application for a permit shall be .made to the Director. .A Company shall apply for a permit or renewal of a perm;: a minumum of two *2) wee.ks before starting work and must submit detailed plans for street or sidewalk use and pedestrian saretv' on major projects. This provision or portions thereof may be waived by the City :n the event of an em.erger.cy. Upon application by a Company for a permit authorizing construction, installation, repair, removal, or relocation of Facilities, or other disturbance oi Public Ground, the Citv' may deny or approve such application. Denial of a permit shall be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for such denial. Denial of a permit shall be appealable to the City Council which shall issue detailed findings in the event such denial is sustainec. An appeal of denial shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled Council m.eetmg and any findings issued within thirty (30') days of such meetmg. Subdivision 3. Issu.Tnce of Permit. If the Director determines that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of this ordinance the Director may issue a permit to the Company. Subdivision 4. Permit Fee. .A Company shall make a permit fee payment for each permit requested m an amount determmed by the City. The permit fee shall include an application fee for administrative costs, plus an additional amount to be computed according to the portion of public right-of-way being occupied, computed by the length of area in fifty-foot increments, and the duration of the permit. To the e.xtent that a company applies for a permit to indefinitely or pe.mnanently occupy a right-of-way. City shall set a pennanent occupancy fee requiring periodic permit payments payable at such times as dete.Tnined by City, but in any event at least annually. Tne Cit>' shall establish a table of permit fees, which uible shall be subject to approval by the City Council and a copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk. The table of fees shall be amended annually and may be amended at other times as deemed necessary bv the Citv. The permit fee shiil be determined so J-s to i\iily reimburse the Cit\' for ail costs incon^d as a r^uit of tttc construction, installation or other work approved by a permit, inc.uding but not limited to the costs for administrative p.'ocessing of the application, engineering, inspection, and for any costs iiKurred in rctunung the Public Ground to its original condition. Should the construction, installation or other work approved by the permit decrease the useral life or value of the Public Grouril. or should die same not be reninublc to its ongiral condition, the City may recover such decreased value, damage, cost or tees from the permit ice. Subdivision 5. T-»r^ Occnrar.cv Permit. Pne .'raxLmum period allowed for a non-permanent occupancy permit to periorm installations or repairs shall be three (o) months. Construction, insiailation or other opening, disturoance. or obstruction ot Public Ground bevond the period covered bv each permit, including construction, installation, repair or other opening of Public Grounds covered by a permanent occupancy permit, shall require obtaining a new permit with payment of applicable fees. Application for such permit shall be lUbje-t to thw same review as the original permit application. Subdivisions, ^.-r-irry r.>mriet:on :'f Work. Pnor to commencement of work, the Companv must deoosit with the Citv securir.' in the term ot certiried check. letter or ..edit, or constriction bond.‘in a sufficient amount as determined by the Director for the completion or the work. If more than three work projects are to be constructed during a calendar year, the applicant mav, in lieu of individual secunties. deposit S_________widi the City in a torm satisractorv :o the Director. The securities will be held until the work is completed plus a period of • 1 _____-_____M ^ r .Amonths thereafter to guarantee diat restoration work has been satisfactorily completed. The security will then be re’tumed to die Company with interest if held for a suftlcient length ot time to be requi''ed by law und then interest at the applicable statutory' race. Subdivision T. or '.Vnrk. When the work is completed, the Company must request in inspection bv the Director. The Dire'-tor will detwimine if the work has ^e-n satisfactorily completed and provide the Company with i written report of the inspection and approval. Subdivision 8. m nisrinved. Permits shall be available at all times for ease of inspection on the indicated work site or at a site mutually agreed upon by City and a Company. Subdivision 9. Penalty. Failure to secure required permits prior to beginning construction, e.xcavation. insullation. or work of any kind in Public Ground shall constitute a misdemeanor under this Ordinance. SECTION 3 rfstor .xtton and reloc .\tion Subdivision 1. RpsTortition. Upon completion of the work contemplated by a permit, the Company must restore the general area of the work, including the pavement and its foundations. to the same or bcaer condition than e.Tisted pncr to commencement of the work necessitating a permit. The work must be completed as promptly as weather permits. If the Company does not promptly perform and complea the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and restore the Public Ground to the same condition, the City may put it in the sam.e condition at the expense of the Company. The Company must, upon demand, pay to the City the direct and indirect cost of the work dene for or performed by the City, inclading, but not limited to. the City's administrative costs. To recover its costs, the City will first draw on the security posted by the Company and then recover the balance of the costs incurred from the Company directly by written demand. This remedy is in addition to any other remedies available to the City Subdivision 2. Corrmriv Iniriaferl Relocatinn . The Company must give the City written notice prior to a Company initiated relccation ot racilitics. A Company initiated relocation must be at the Com.pany s e.xpense a.nd must be approved by the City, such approval shall not be unreasonably widiheld. Subdivision 3. rjp.- pf-guired Rgiocarion . The Company muse promptly, wim due regard for seasonal working conditions, permariently relocate its Facilities wheriCver the City in writing requires such relocation. If the relocation is a resuit of the proper CAercise ot the City s police power in grading, regrading, changing the location or shape of or otherwise imiproving Public Ground or constructing or reconsiructing i public seri^ice or utility system therein, the relocation will be at the expense of the Company. In other cases, the Company and City may by written agreement apportion the costs of relocation between them. If such relocation is done w’lthout an agreement fust beine made as to who is to pay the relocation cost, me relocation of 'ne Facilities bv the Company is not to be construed as a waiver ot its right to reimcursement to*, its relocation costs. If the Comoanv claims reimbursement for the relocation costs, it must notify the City wiLhin 30 days after receipt of the City's request for the costs. Subdivision 4. Relocation Where P’lblic Ground Vacated . The vacation of Public Ground does not deprive the Company of the nghi to operate and maintain its Facilities in the City. If the vacation proceedings are initiated by die Cir/. die City must pay the relocation costs. If the vacation proceedings ore initiated by the Company, the Company must pay the relocation costs. If djg vacation proceedings are initiated by other persons, the Company must pay the relocation costs unless otherwise agreed to by C.ty. Company and the other persons. SECTION 4 rOMPXNY nFFAULT Subdivision 1. Notice . If the Company is in default in the performance of the work or occupancy authorized by the permit, including, but not limited to. restoration requirements or permanent occupancy fee payments for more than 30 days after receiving written notice from the City of the default, the City may terminate the rights of the Comipany under the permit, subje"ct to Cin-’s absolute dght to revoke at any time in the exercise ot City's police powers. The notice of default must be in writing and specify die provisions of ±e permit under which the default is claimed and state the grounds of the claim. The notice must be ser/ed on the Company by personally delivermg it to an officer thereof at its prir.cipai place of business in .Minnesota or by certified mail to that address. Subdivision 2. nrv Arnon on Defauh. If the Company is in default in the performance of the work or occupancy authorized by the permit, the City may. after the above notice to the Company and failure of the Com.cany to cure the default. ta.ke such action as may be reasonably necessary to abate the condition caused by the default. The Com.pany must reimburse the City tor Che City s reasonable costs, includins costs or collection and attorney tees incurred as a result of the Conipany default. The security posted under Section 2. Sucdivision 6. will be applied by the City first toward payment ror such reim.bursem.ent. SECTION 5 intif MVTFTC.VTTQN Subdivision 1. Score . The Company will indemuiify. keep and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, empiovees and agents free and harmless from any and all claims and actions on account of injury or death of persons or damage to preperr/ occasioned by the constniction, instailauon. malntencace. repair, re.movai. reiccaiion or operation of die raciliiies arfectmg pub ic <^round. unless such iniur/ or damage is the result of the negligence of the City, its elected officials, empiovees. officers or agents. Tne Cir/ will notify the Company of claims or actions and provide a reasonable ooporturnty for the Com.pany to accept ar.c ur.ertake the derense. Subdivision 2 r--nm Defense. If i claim, or action is brought against the City under circum.stances where inde.mnirication applies, the Company, at its sole e.xpense. shall defend the C^ty if wntten notice of the claim or action is given to the Company within a period wherein the Comoanv is not prejudiced in the defense of such claim or action by lack ot such notice. The Comoanv shall have ccmolete control of such claim or action, but it may not settle without the consent of the Citv. which shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not. as to third oar.ies a waiver of anv defense or inunumr/ other.vise available to the City. In derendmg any action on behalf of the City, the Company is entitled to asser. ever/ defense or immvimty that the Citv could assert in its own behalf. SECTION 6 (-ITHFR CONT)mONS OF USE Subdivision I nr P^ihlic Ground . Facilities must be located, constructed, installed, mainmined or rdocaied so as not to endanger or unnecessanly intenere with the usual and custocnarv traffic, travel, and use of P'ublic Ground. Tne Facilities are subject to additional conditions of the permit as established therein, including, but not limited to. (i) the right or inspection bv -die Citv at reasonable limes and placesi (ii) the obligation to relocate the Facilities pursuaiu to Section 3, Subdivisions 3 ind 4; and (iii) contpiuince with all applicable regulations imposed by the Public Utilities Cemmission and other state and federal laws and regulations. Subdivision 2. r i^cafion . The Facilities must be placed in a location and in such manner as is designated in a permit by the City. The City may designate whether Facilities shall be placed above ground or in subsurface conduits. Subdivision 3. Fmef^enev Weric. Company may open and disturb the sunace of Public Ground without a oermit where an emergency e.xists requiring the immediate repair of its Facilities. In such event, the Company must request a permit not later than the second working day thereafter and comply with the applicable conditions of the permit. Subdivision 4. Siryer Trnrr'^vi^’ner'fs. Paving or Resunaemg . The City will give the Company written notice of plans tor street improvements where permanent paving or resurtacing is involved. The notice must contain (i) the nature and character of the improvements; (ii) the streets upon which the imorovements are to be made; (iii) the e.xtent of the improvements, the time when the Citv will sun the worlc; and (iv) if more than one street is involved, the sequence in which die work is to proceed Subdivision 5. Company P-orecrion >^f Ficilities. .A. Company must take ail reasonable measures to prevent its FacUiues from causing damage to persons or property*. A Company must take ail reasonable measures to protect its Facilities from damage that could be inilicted on the Facilities by persons, property’, or the elements. The Company must take all reasonable protective measures when the City performs work near the Facilities. Subdivision 6. Cuarding Ohsmicrions nr Dangers . If a Company shall obstruct any Pablic Ground, such Company shall keep such obstrucaon or obstructions properly guarded at ail times. From sunset to sunrse, all obstrucaons must be guarded by a sufficient number of warning lis.hts placed m such manner that they will give proper warning of said obsunction. The City may require any other restrictions or safety reg’alations as may be in the public interest. Subdivision 7. P-mr Ser-dr? C.-innections . In cases where saeets are at final width and grade and the Citv’ has installed underground sewer and water mains or other utilities and service connecdons to the preperr/ line abuamg the streets pnor to a permane.nt paving or resurtacing of the streets, and the Facilities are located under such street, a Company may be required to install service connections pnor to the paving or .'csurfacmg, if it is apparent that service will be required during the five year period following the paving or resurfacing. SECnO^ 7 EFTKCTiyF DATF AND 4PPLirABTL!TY TQ E 4KII[NG EACnJTIES The Director is authorized and directed to prepare suitable regulations and schedules for the administratioa of permits issued under this ordinance. Passed and approved Prepared by: ThoTias d. Creighton and Robert J. V. Vose BERNICK .\iND LIFSON. P.A. 55CO Wayzata Boulevard. Suite 1200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 546-1200 REMARKS THOMAS D. CREIGHTON CONTROLLING OLH PL'BLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY NATOA CONTERENCE September 21, 1995 Heilo 10 old friends and new. Welcome to pan II of 'You and Your Public Rights- of-Wav.- My message today and for the future is W.AKE L!P CITIES! I have two major points regarding the use of public property for the delivery ’ of nonessential communications services tor a protlt. These points boil down to two words Where and How much? First as to 'How Much'. It is quite simple. Not since the Oklahoma land rush has this country e.xperienced such an anempt at the free grab of public land. Our cities and states hold in trust billions of dollars worth of public land, streets, rights-of-way and easements. The communications industry’ wants access and occ ’jpancy of these lands for free for the sole purpose of making a profit. "Profit" is good in this counuy’, but profit is not the exclusive purview of the private sector. Let me put my thoughts in context. Picture the following headlines in your local newspaper: U.S. West builds phone store on front lawn of city hall-claims right to occupancy rent free. Thomas D. Creighioa Remarks 2 "Blockbuster video builds new store in city ’s central park, likes locauon because it is fro of charge." How long would it take your cities and states to get upset by such things? Yet the communications industry is seizing public land and building an infrastrucnire unparalleled in history — and in the name of competition, doing it without any pay back to the owners of the land. IT IS P.\ST TIME TO GET UPSET PEOPLE!! Let me put this in its legal conte.xt. I know much of this legal mumbo jumbo is strange to many of you, so let me try to break down the components of my argument. First, what land are we talking about, and who owns it. It may be easier to say who does not own it— the communications industry. But. do we really own it. Certainly as to the public streets, public land, parks, etc. the public owns it. What about f-asements and rights-of-way? Ownership is a complicated legal issue. But again, we know that the communications industry does not own them. One of the most sacred rights in this countr>' is the right to real property. Entire areas of the law are built around this issue, and some of the oldest legal precedence relates to real property. Wars have been fought over land. Since this country transformed to a system of private ownership of land, public policy dictated that 've set aside land for public purposes. Hardly a parcel was platted without the deed saying something like, "The rear 6 feet to be dedicated for public purpose for the installation of utilities for the delivery of essential services for the general public good." r Thomas D. Creighton Remarks 3 As a people, through general public discourse, we have decided that such things as gas. electnc. water and sewer are ail services for which we arc willing to set aside pomons of private property. When telephone came along, we had a dialogue and decided it would qualify for use of this public mist in land. And we gave away rights to such land because we decided that the cheaper these essential services, the bener. I do not recall any public discourse as to whedier we should give away public lands for ±e making of a profit from the delivery of call waiting, video on demand, high speed data transmission, and a mynad of potential non- essential services, currently or to be delivered via the public rights-of-way. It seems to be presumed *hat such non-essenual services can be added without any additional compensation to those holding the pubic trust. I say it is time we all say. "The hell ±ey can be delivered without adequate compensation to the public." I will discuss ideas for collecting these fees for the use of public property for the delivery' of nonessential services for a profit after I address my second point, "Where Where should this infrastructure go? Again WAKE UP CITIES! We are not at the table in the discussions being had as to where will this information superhighway be built. Private interests are solely deciding where and how much of this new technology wiU serve our towns and states. Our foremothers and fathers would never have Thomas D. Creigbton Remarks 4 considered not deciding where city and state roads should go. The same economic deveiooment issues and iransponation haves and have-nots issues were present then as are present now. Let us learn from history. The last major communications proliferation in this country’ whose location was developed by private interests was the railroad. Railroad barons made decisions based on their own private protii motive and the landscape of out country was altered forever. Hardly a sate here cannot point to towns who thrived or died depending on whether the railroad passed them. The biggest mansions of the day were the railroad barons. Today hardly a state here cannot point to railroad inffasirucmre which the public has had to dig up. We face the same issues today as to the proliferation of the communications infrastruemre. Cities or even portions of cities will thrive or languish depending on their access to this communications infrastruemre. We therefore have a legitimate public interest in controlling its proliferation through our control over the public rights-of-way. So where do we get the power. I hear all day at these conferences whining about federal preemption and e.xisting 100 year old franchises with telephone companies. Slates are a recognized level of government in our federal system with specific powers reserved to them. A specific and sacred premise of the establishment of our federal system was the limitation of the federal government’s power and reservation to the states of power over certain things. Property and contract rights were two of those areas which were specifically heralded as not in the purview of the federal government. Of course in the never ending Thomas D. Creighton Remarks expansion of the federal govenanem. the feds have stepped all over sure and local rights in this area. Now is a crucial tune for us to rear our ugly heads and say, "Not as to our contract and property rights as related to our public property’ and public rights-of-way. As an aside, since I have heard it aU day today. I believe that the federal government has no power to preempt our zoning authority’ as to satellite dishes and towers, and if they try it we need to mount an immediate constiruticnal challenge. Now how do we do this with the least e.xpense and within our traditional power. I harken to our police power to ensure the health, safety and welfare of our ciiizc.ns and the permitting authonty’ which ensues from such police power. Cities should immediately take the communications industry' at its word and "level the playing tleld" for them. I am net talking about negotiations here. I am tallang about the unilateral adoption of Broadbanc. Telecommunications Ordinances requiring the securing of a permit before any provider of service touches our rights-of-way or alters the service currently offered pursuant to any existing grants of authonty to delivery current service, It cannot be argued that the health, safety and welfare of cur citizens are not effected or impacted by the proliferation of the commumcations mdusiry via our rights-of-way. Our police powers are as old as our federal system of government. And there is not a city who docs not know how to permit. We have developed a generic model ordinance which secures to the city not only the right to dictate the iocation of the communications infrastructure in its city, but the right to assess three levels of fees for this proliferation. Thomas C. Creighton Remarics 6 First fees can be charged for the issuance and enforcement of the pcfrnit. This tee power is as old is our system, and must be reasonably related to the actual expense of administration of the permit. This can include city staff, regulation expenses, and consultant fees. The second fees relate to the diminution of value in the public righLs-of-way as a result of construction. This not only includes usual expenses, but also such things as diminution in the useful like of asphalt, for example, due to the smeet cut. Why should the public pay to replace a street that once iiad a useful life of 20 years but now has a useful life of 10 years because of the consmicuon of a communications network? The third set of fees is frankly the most controversial, but is also within our authoriry-the assessment of fees for the occupancy of public property. Call it rent, and boldly assert that the public has a right to share in profits made from the offering of nonessential services via property which was set aside only for the delivery of services which we as the public have decided are essential to our orderly function as a society, or more for the health, safety and welfare of our citizens. This ordinance is only a stop gap. I propose that you go further, and have done it with some of my clients, by using your ordinance making authority to establish minimum standards with which any user of your public properrv to deliver services must comply. Hiis should be in the form of a general ordinance (which by the way looks like many of your franchises now) and need not be negotiated with cable companies, phone companies, or anyone else. We do not negotiate our sign restrictions, zoning ordinances or other exercises of police powers. We need not negotiate restrictions on the use of our public property. I have • • • Thomas D. CreightoQ Remarks 7 brought with me the stop gap ordinance, but not the more compfchensive one since it really mvsr be developed faking in account your individual needs ind situations. Suffice it to say, why do we negotiate with communications providers such things as construction standards, time limits for construction, letters of credit, performance bonds. insurance requirements, customer service standards, assessment of tees and a plethora of aulhonry within our police power? We will gladly level the playing field as to all these things, but will no longer negotiate them on a case by case basis, other than in the traditional manner of variance to our ordinances. How do wc do this? Tnrough our permitting power. They should not touch our public property without a permit. .\11 of the things I mentioned are attached to the securing of a permit, are evenly applied to all providers, and are for the purpose of secunng the health, safety and welfare of our citizens. This process will require us to rethink our traditional ways, and cities are not very •food at rethinkmg traditional ways, but desperate times require sometime radical departures from the norm. I believe all that I propose is within our power. That will not make it easy. The commumcations industry will not sit still for this. I anticipate challenge at every step. We will have to fisht, even in the courts, and that will cost money, but at stake is billions of dollars nationwide. If we listen to ounelves here and elsewhere, we will hear bits and pieces of this solution already being done in many of our cities. Some have some minimum standards in Thomas D. Creightoa Remaria 8 tteir onlinances. Some charic fe« Uke I describe. We have just never nationally pulled it all together. Some companks loleram some of us doing these things as long as we do not iiell anyone else. I say it is time to tell each other, pull it all together, and control our public property, receiving a reasonable fee for the use thereof. It is tune to stop giving it away for free, we all know what they call people who do that! •f) oirrae'^odlc . r* # * ** SS ' JV' % *ar ^ A <4r - 1 ir * m C f; t; • ^ c' nr %• * . V ^ ^--.W.. V'-.* y. •$ . VUf, % •'. \* ^^ • . .*7^ U^ iw. *n ^1 I i ' **■ - * *.• • V ’ ^ it **j- i »■ * ■* -r»*.*»- i» ^ ••.*•50 If ■‘A ,;•••'•* ,>■ •• • i* ■ V - ■'^-' »*• - V '^s 5i'-^ *•- ■'%*%* , . A .-5 A- i X* •T *>i^ a •T-^* J# • • . •* % • -.•A guide to IMng in the Minneapolis-St Paul area ...: ■ _ m^iilL tOSiSi ____________ ITUS rtitn •fUfC than kiale T 1 5 Oropa i r «k. V- • -• ->v:' RUOUII''* '» '** ’*'* ' O rono Prestigious commurun iraws cno5^ S4;ei<ang Turai uarf cf life Countv: Hennepm • Population: 7J13 Median household income: 56*.o.a '. Av«. home value: S:i6.;C6 1 Avx. annual property tw; 34.5J5 Av?- monthlv rent: 5675 ; Av?- commute: 16.1 minutes ; For more mtormauon. call 4. j -. 5 < T Tnni lS5l. Orono and the teuton J around It remained laraeiv ...explored bv white ,ettierv partW -ecause ot its phvs.ca. isolation a.no parti because or the Dakota in-ians enort, ^^^^ ' Laice Minnetonn-a a >e>..e. - - ::as-i.*oovereo."settienana.arme^^ ;,oveO into tne area. ,ust a 4av s ,oumev "lc.cvmatKeta.rneybei5anceann, ono in tneiate iS6Csma lines :,;:ncarr.:ne vacationers.no ru.it • ^ ouar?Tc>ua». orono - . f rv i" urn it continuesn .vestem rlenne=m c.-ut.r. .t •a -raw -eop.e m .eaten ot a rural.3-raw .ecv --r-njnitv. *itn ,te It IS a pcestie.ou, ..mmar .vocxce-3 .SKesnere ots anJ estates 'ete mailboxes are r:,e w.tn names u ;.;nvo.tne area s:ouname ana-- „ro.reT)U3 I3miuc>—tnc*ux-i* Ptesetse a ^ laxesnore, • ^“rS'dential development philosopny is one Of slow gtowtn ano .ow -e~. ; Citvomciahsaiatnom^-^^^^^ ^ :lt::r:ot;cretts. The city still has sW 500 acres av*Uble tot development PotetKial home bydders m Orono ha^ Leptron. tot buiUine sites: awayr^ Ulce., where there «ul s l*nd.oronabke. wtiere an existm, Sailiine wcuU have ro be removed Because retail and maustnai re^ivier.ts rear mostievei jcment is s<.af*e. o, 'te -XX 'rutoen. Most ot Orono i'ldenu .ommerc^l and retail neeos ate met in ccmm.un.ries sucn a* Nayanr Besides Uke .Mmnetonxa. v,rono has tive small lakes mat aiso prov^e watetTront property. In tact. 4^, Crono is open water ot marshlands. Plymouth and 556.67S. resp^enveiv. The nrst mhacitants were the Wahpeton Sioux, making their encampment on the north end of Nteo.cme Lake. Indian bunal mounds * ititl be seen there Medicine Uke is or a doren lakes m the cicv and was a ma. tourist ittncnon and resort area at the turn cr trre cencurv. .\ntoine Leiwount. „hje mo explorer, .as tne nrst Euror ,et:;er .n the ?Kmourn area arriving •: ’ipas and tinallv settling in IS32. The Jo-souate-mile citv has a mux residential, business and induscnal sp»i Its ro.l.r.g, .ooded terrain features a 0 mile -rail svstem that links parxs. neignpofho.30s. commercial centers ai ichoois. in addition, mere are 3S pats -ec^eatioral areas anO French Region. «‘y 1 not Psrks, Lik^S- abound in 36'SamTe-miie sucurb Coantv: Hennepin Popuiitiom 55,13f Median household income: : 51.314 Av?. nome value: 512S.3CI Av^. annual propertv tax: 5...ib Avg. monthlv rent: 50 i I Av^. comniute: 12.5 minutci For more inionnanon, call 550-5CC0 Ivmouth IS a ^econd-ner suourb (hac _ seen cremendous pocuiauon ^tcv ^th '.n une raat r*o uecaues. u.ocjced IJ miles *est :f Minneapolis. iCS -oruiacion nai rr;p«ed since 1970- Ciev population projections ror the vear 2C00 arc oS.CCO and tor me vear 2010. 70.CXX3. sMcedlcss to sav. it is one ot trie faster '^o'vmg communities in the Twin Cities tnetro. A large percentage ot its residents cam upward ot :75.cCC annually. .Average home value and income are higher chan the Twin Cities arc-a averages of 589,; 11 T ree Cities , rtowi The National Arbor Dav Found. U S. Forest Service and the Nation, recegnues U.S. ciues that meet the proeram. The program rccogniaes cities t. and encourage the implementation four standards set by the touisOatior forestrv program, require the progra the state rorester'i ortice and provu the c’.ties residents. Cmv Ohio has more ireeC.n- following cities in the metro area i Yan C»CY .Anoka Apple Valiev Arden Hilb Belie PUinc Blame Blcommgron BrookU-n Ceacer Burnsville Champim Cdcic Pines Coiumcra Heights Coon Rapids Coctage Grove Eagan Edina Falcon Heights Famungton Golden Valiev Ham Lake Hopkins Inver Grove Heights .117 •UmititJ. fast 90 • Schoois, MCt I I i