Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-13-1995 Council Packet
p 1 ------------ AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1995, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (♦) Asterisk items arc considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. /-ROLL CALL ' . *1. CONSENT AGENDA L)lc 2.Refunding of ’89 and ’85 Bonds - Call for Bond Sale - Resolution s/ NOV 1 3 1995 CITY Of ORONO APPROVAL OF MINUTES ♦3. Regular Meeting of October 23, 1995 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Charles Schroeder PUBLIC COiVLMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT . „ , ^ 4 John O’Sullivan. 3340 Shoreline Drive and 2420 Shadywood Road - Council Direction *5.' #2022 R. Melamed/R. Lauer, 920 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Final Subdivision - Resolution •S’b #2031 Bruci R. Kelly, 2340 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution 1 #2057 James Nystrom, 1745 Concordia Street - Variances - Request for Reconsideration ^'8 #2061 Arne Wasberg, 3134 North Shore Drive - Variance Renewal - Resolution 9.#2065 Marfield/Hill/Toles, 2455/2425/2435 Scotch Pine Une - Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane - Preliminary Subdivision Approval (Re-Plat) - Resolution 10 #*>066 Robert & Iris Waade. 1487 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Resolution J/11.’ #2074 John & Kristen Gehring. 1687 Concordia Street - Variances/Conditional Use Permit - r\2. #2075 Howard R. Alton III, 1635 Concordia Street - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Resolution 13 #^>079 Rick Perry. 440 Willow Drive South - Variances 14.#2081 Patrick & Nancy Walsh, 1390 Rest Point Road - Variances - Resolution \UYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT i 15 Pay Request #1 - Old Crystal Bay Road Bike/Hike Trail •>' 16. Pay Request #7 & Final Payment - Navarre Lift Station No. 7 ./11. Pay Request ft! - Willow Drive Street Improvc^nts CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT ^ 18.Police and Fire Service Contracts with the City of Long Lake 19^ Dangerous Weapons and Articles - Ordinance Amendment 20.1996 Sewer and Water Fees 21 Non-Union Compensation for 1996 - Resolution 22! Joint Powers Agreement - West Hennepin Recycling Commission AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1995, 7:00 P.M.ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Continued 23.Kelly Avenue Easement Acquisition 24.Luce Line Trail - Long Term Planning Process CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT (•25.) LICENSES (•26.) BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 11/10 11/13 11/14 11/14 11/15 11/20 11/23 11/24 11/27 11/29 HOLIDAY - Veterans’ Day Observed Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Special Council meeting 8:00 a.m. School Board meeting 7:00 p.m. Highway 12 Policy Committee 5:30 p.m. Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY - Thanksgiving Day Observed HOLIDAY Council meeting 6:45 p.m. Truth In Taxation Hearing 7:00 p.m. r TiLKHETWIfi NOV 1 1 1995 CITY Of ORONOREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 8, 1995 ITEM NO: <3^^ De|»rtnieiit Approval: NaoM Ron Moorse Title City Administrator ator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Item Description: / Refunding of 1989 and 1985 Bonds - Call for Bond Sale Attachments; 1.) Resolution Providing for a Bond Sale 2.) Letter from Carolyn Drude of Ehlers and Associates and Attachments The city has two bond issues that have reached, or will soon reach, their call dates. The call date is the point at which the city has an opportunity to refund those issues at a lower interest rate. The two issues are die 1985 Crystal Bay sewer bonds and the 1989 Highway 12 sewer and water bonds. The 1985 bonds have $360,000 of principal remaining at interest rates of 8% to S.25%. The 1989 bonds have $1 ,550,000 of principal remaining at interest rates of 6.25to 6.60%. Staff has worked with Carolyn Drude of Ehlers Associates, the city's bond consultant, to detennine the net savings to the city of calling both issues in 1996 through a refunding bond sale in December of 1995. The refunding will enable the city to replace bonds with interest rates of 6-8% with bonds with interest rates of under 5%. The maturity schedule of the bonds will not be changed. The new bonds will be retired within the same time frame as the existing bonds. The actual cash savings, net of all issuance costs, over the six years of the bonds will be $120,310. This translates to a reduction ot approximately $20,000 per year in the tax levy required to fund the debt service. The present value of the tota*. savings is $100,801. Calling for a Bond Sale If the Council decides to move ahead with the refunding, the Council needs to call for a bond sale on December 11, 1995. The resolution calling for the bond sale is attached for Council adoption. Staff Recommendation . . , r- r It is staffs recommendation that the 1985 and 1989 bonds be refunded to obtam the benefit of the savings due to lower interest rates. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution calling for a bond sale on December 11, 1995 ^rr ■ r • > - 1,^ 0« RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $1,910,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA A.WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesou, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue $1,910,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds (the "Bonds"), to refund the City ’s G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1985 and G.O. Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds of 1989; and B.WHEREAS, the City has retained Eblers and Associates, Inc., in Minneapolis, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, as follows: 1.Authorization: Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Bonds. 2.Meeting: Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet on December 11, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering proposals for, and awarding the sale of the Bonds. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. irilhiiiii ifiiifiriiiii The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member and was duly seconded by C ouik :!! Member and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the follow ing Council Members voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted this 13th day of November, 1995. ATTEST:Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk ------------------------------------------------------------"»'■ ir.'tr KM^ so » v''-lii » L.^ Enters and ilssociaies.lnc. IfSOiRS IN rudllC riNANCt November 8, 1995 Ron Moorse City Administrator Orono City Hall P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 cc: Tom Kuehn Finance Director Re: Current refunding of 1985 G.O. Imjjrovement Bonds and 1989 0.0. Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds Enclosed ire schedules indicating projected savings by refunding the 1985 Improvement Bonds which can be called 1/1/96 and the 1989 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds which can be called on 2/1/96. The refunding can be put into one issue, and then separated for accounting purposes in the sale resolution. The exhibits enclosed illustrate the following: The “Original issue" debt schedules are both included; £.\hibit 1.00 combines tlie two “Original issue” debt schedules; Exhibit 2.00 projects the debt schedule for the refunding bonds, using rates which we are currently seeing for simila.- o/Terings; Exhibit J.OO compares the e.xisting and projected schedules, resulting in .m estimated gross savings over the remaining life of the issues of S15 8,680. (The present value of this savings is $ 139,170.77). The Cit)' has two choices with regnrd to costs of tlie refunding: (1) To increase the principal amount of the refunding to include the costs oi the refunding, or (2) To pay the cosm of the refunding out of funds on hand in the specific bond funds. The schedules enclosed assume the City will pay the issuance costs and the discount (underwriler’.s fee) from funds on hand. Total costs of issuance including Faegrc & Benson (a firm the City has used as bond counsel for many years), paying agent/registrar. Moody ’s Investors Service rating fee, and Ehlers and As.«ociates. Inc. including printing and distribution of the oftkial statement, will be $25,600. We estimate underwriter’s discount to be $12,770 (this is bid competitively with the coupon interest). Deducting these cf)st.s from the $158,680 savings results in a net savings to the City of $120,310. We have also enclosed a resolution should the Council wish to proceed. Let me know if you have questions Sincerely, / Carolyn Drude n.xecutive Vice President/TDirector OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS. MN AND BROOKFIELD, Wl 2O.S0 Norw/ost Cenipf « PO .South .Seventh Slfppl • Minnp.'ipniK. MN 5S407-41 00 'Nrsr 1 , TAV ri *2 .-^oej.PP c/i 1 IWV Uci 20 UKJUr'2> »■. OrJyinuT issue: 1935 DATE 1/01/1996 //01/19V6 i/oi/iwr 7/01/199T 1/01/WS 7/01/1996 1/01/1999 7/01/1999 1/01/2000 7/01/2000 1/01/2001 City of Oicno, MM E*iltir9 Iiiu* DtSl SERVICE SCHEOVa pa I NCIPAi f.OUPCM ibtfrest 60.noo.oo V75.0Cfl.00 75.0C0.OO m 75.000.00 r..-' . 75.000.00 5.30CCOX B.IOOCOl «.20000t 0.25000X ' v; 8.2S000X U. 700.00u.rco.co 12.J03.CO iV12.J0O.00 9./S2.50 9,7S2.50 6.1V. 50 6.ia\so ;:v:::3.093w/: J.09J.75 total 560.000.00 91.067.50 nt Bonds OEBf SEaviCF 71 SOI TOTAL 16.700.00 m 76,700.00 69.4C3.C3 12,300.00 - V 87.3co.oo '^^■ ■'99.600.00 9.262.50 - 86,262.50 93,575.00 6.187.50 81.187.50 87,375.00 ■;.- V5.C95.75 J-. . .. ...,•••-* •• 'H M e .>■>.■••. .•H s a •,v »• '..•.••••..• 78,093.75 81,187.50 451,067.50 451.087.50 EM«P9 and Aisociate^, Inc. rin»nr1al Advisors FILE » CHONOCOO 10/30/1995 ’0:56 AM YIELD STAflSnCS Accrued Intsrtst from 0*/01/1996 to 01/01/1996. Average life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bond Years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Cocoon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net Interest Cost .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bond Yield fo- Arftltrsge Purposes.......................... True Interest Cost (TIC)............................................ Effective interest cost (FfC).................................. 3.063 YEARS 1,110.00 3.20606m 8.20606m 6.2Q29957X 8.2C29957X 8.20299571 ‘jy V.ic.:d.Hi LHLLHb «I . * .• Original Issue: 1989 Ororo. MH GO W4t<*r anJ S»»«r Ptv*f<u* 90^* of 1989 Rtfuft2lng Aralysis. Old Defat «./ir/95 OESr S?5V1CE SCHt?j;£ DATE pel PC I PA’.cc-jww INTEPtSl OtST SERVICE FISCAL total 2/01/1996 8/01/1996 7/01/1997 8/01/1997 2/01/1998 8/01/1998 2/0V1999 8/01/1999 2/01/2000 8/01/2CQ0 2/01/2001 8/01/2CC1 2/01/2002 225.000.00 725.0CQ.00 25C.0C0.00 275.OC0.0O TTS.OCO.OO 300.000.00 «.250CCt i'.iscoov m ft.tSOOCX 6.5CQQC% ft.50CK)C*: 6.6C00CX ♦••’ 50.012.50 50.012.50 A2.98:.25 42.981.25 35.837.50 35.837.50 27,775.00 27.775.CO 18.837.50 18.637.50 P.9CC.00 9.9CO.OO .u: 50.012.50 275.012.50 42.981.25 287.981.25 - 35.837.50 285.837.50 27,773.00 302.775.00 18,837.se' 293.837.50 9,900.00 309.900.00 525,025.00 .:jS10.962.50 321.675.00 330.350.00 312.675.00 319.800.00 TOTAL 1,550.000.00 570.687.50 1,920.687.50 1.92C.6S7.50 ElUers and As$3iiates, I’ic. Financial Advito'*s m£ ■ CPCN0890 4/17/1995 11:11 Am TlELO STATISTICS Accrued ’ntereyt ^ron 02/01/1956 to 02/01/1995.. Averege Life................................................................. Bend Tears.................................................................... Average coupon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ne: Intcest Cost (NIC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bond ne'.d for Arbitrage Purposes. . . . . . . . True l.oterest Cost .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effective Interest Cost (EIC). . . . . . . . . . 3.677 TEARS 5,700.00 6.5032S95X 6.503 2855’, 6.4994954X 6.4994954X 6.499499U :I. k. Exhibit l.UO Orono. m RBfuntHn9 of GO WOter and SewT tevonue tom^ of 19W ®nd $900,000 C.O. lBpro»e*ant Banda of 1985 Herged Existing tssuos OeSI SERVICE SCHEDULE DATE PRINCIPAL COUPCS INTEREST DEBT SERVICE FISCAL TOTAL 2/01/1996 8/01/1996 2/01/199P 8/01/199/ 2/01/1998 8/01/1»98 2/01/1999 8/01/1999 2/01/7000 8/01/2000 2/01/2001 8/01/7001 2/01/2002 289.000.00 m 300.000.00 ■ j'-::: S2S.0U0.00 »• .i' %* 550.000.00 550.000.00 a • 300.000.00 64.ri2.:>o 64.712.50 55.281.25 55.281.25 45.100.00 45.100.00 53.962.50 53,962.50 21.951.25 21.951.25 9,900.00 9,900.00 64.712.50 349.712.50 55.201.25 355.281.25 45,100.00 370.100.00 53.962.50 383.962.50 21.951.25 571.931.25 9.WO. 00 309.900.00 414.425.00 410.562.50 41').200.00 417.925.00 393.842.50 319.800.00 total 1.910,000.00 441.775.00 2,371,775.00 2.371.775.00 and Associatas, inc. finaneiaL Advisors mi • ORONCMER 11/ 7/1995 12:20 PH ♦rj T V.**-'II i - I I ^M I L--.' Exhibit 2,00 Orono, Iti Htfund^ng of GO wottr in4 Sowtr Rtwiuo Bondi of 1989 md GO Ifiprovoiwent Bonds of 198S R#fund1n9 issut OATE PRINCIPAL COUPON INIERESr 0EB1 SERVICE FISCAL lOIAl 7/OI/1W6 --- 8/01/1996 •e»42.U5.00 A2.175.00 “ 7/01/199/505,CX)0.00 42.175.00 347.175.00 589.S50.00 8/01/1997 *-36.075.00 36,075.00 • 2/01/1998 310.000.00:.' 4.2C0001-:B6.07S.00 ->846.075.00.>.'i:'382.150.00i 8/01/1998 .29.565.00 29,565.00 • 2/01/1999 330.000.00 4.35000%29.545.00 359,565.00 589.130.00 8/01/1999 --22.387.50 22,587.50 • 2/01/2000 345.000.00 4.50000%22.587.50 367,587.50 389.775.00 8/01/2000 \''*'^‘14,625.00 .•K::=-^:16,625.00 2/01/2001 340.000.00 ‘ 4.6S0C0i U,625.00 354,625.00 369.250.00 8/01/2001 •-6.720.00 6.720.00 7/01/2002 780,000.00 4.80000%4.720,00 286.720.00 293,440.00 TOTAL k- 1,910.000.00 m 503.095.00 2.215,095.00 2.213.095.00 Ehlert and Associates, Inc. financial Advisors nil m 0ft0HCf9N 11/ f/199S 12:?5 PH YIELD STATISTICS Accrued Interest from 02/01/1996 to 02/01/1996... Average Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bond Years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Coupon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net Interest Cost (NIC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purpoiet. . . . . . . . . True Interest Cost (TIC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effective Interest Cost (ETC). . . . . . . . . . . . 3.495 TEARS 6,6/5.00 4.540/4911 4.54Q/491X 4.5336296% 4.5336296% 4.5336296% *? wo --c--4.£,-3 ^ «32vCI«T£5 P.v. Exhibit 3.00 Crono. Ml* ft*funo*ng of CO u»fr trd S«M«r <**vcriu«of 1989 one 50 Improv«r?wt aonds of 1985 ^fijnding Ittj« OBT SERVICE CC^PARISCN FRC^2/01/1996 OATE PRINCIPAL IMTESSST NEW MET 3/s PRIOR net C/S SAVINGS fiscal ro^AL 2/01/1998 * 8/01/1998 -42,175.00 42,175.CO 64.712.50 22,537.50 ’ 2/01/1997 305,000.00 42,175.00 347.175.CO 349.712.50 2.537.50 25.075.CO8/01/1997 -38.075.00 38,075,00 55.281.25 19.208.25•'a/Ot/1994 •--3t0.0C0.00 .::-* '1-: 18,075.00 348,075.00 :•i' 355,281.25 “9,2C8.2S •.U:'2S,412.Sa.:8/01/1998 -29,585.00 29.585.C0 45.100.00 15.535.CO2/01/1999 !30«000.00 29,585.00 359.585.CO 370.ICC. CO 1C.535.CO 26.CTO.008/01/1999 -22.387.50 22,387.50 33,942.50 11.575.002/01/2000 S45.CC0.0Q 22.387.50 367.387.50 383.982.50 18,575.00 28.150.00^ 'S/01/20QO* •••• •. ••• • 9 *•90 • ••••..-tm>9 •«•14,625.00 ■ ••-14.625.00 2i,93\'»^7.508.2S-• •S * ^ •9 .♦.... 2/01/2001 343,000.00 14.825.00 354.625.ee 371.931..>17,308.25 24.812.508/01/2001 -8.720,00 6,720.CO 9.9C0.C0 3,180.CO2/01/2002 280.COO. 00 8,720.00 288.720.CO 3C9.900.ee 23,180.00 28.360.CO total 1,910,000.00 303.095.CO 2.213.095.C0 2,371.775.CO 158.680.00 158.680.00 EM«rf 8i>d AltoelatM, Inc. Finanelal Advisors FILE - ORONC39N 11/ 7/1995 12:25 PM GROSS PRESENT VALUE 0E9T SERVICE SAVINGS SenefUs .................................................................... CcoQsit to Ocot Service Funo......................................... Amount released from P»-ior Issue OSR Funds.............. Other Costs.......................................................................... Cash Contrt&uHon.............................................................. Transfers from Prior Issue Scot Service Fund.......... HU PRESENT VALUE BENEFIT Savings as a % of refunded bond princioal amount.. $139,!7Q.77 S139,770.77 L li-^v Ub LIiUli*^ri:^>.H^iH*t.^r . w 1 Exhibit 4.00 Orono* m R«fgnd<ng of QO uatc** and Sawar M¥««ua londa of and CO iMprovonant Bonds of 1965 Rafunding issua SOURCES AMO USES Oatad ?/01/199«DrUvery 2/01/1996 Pmr ftf . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . .. . . . . . .$1,910,000.00 Total Sources $1,910,000.00 Deposit to Escroiv Fund«. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.910.0OG.0O Total Uses $1,910,000.00 CM#ri aorl A^5oriar^^, Inc. financial Advisors FILE • WONC89N 11/ 7/1995 12:25 PH ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 23,1995 NOV 1 3 199 ROLL CfTf Of ORON The Council met on the ^>ove date with the following members present; Mayor Edward Callahan, Jr, Council Members J Diarm Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour. Charles Kelley, and JoEBen Hurr. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse. City Attorney Tom Barrett, Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Galfron. and Recorder Sherrv' Frost. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 6 58 p m (#1) PUBLIC HEARING - OFF-SALE LIQUOR APPLICATION - WILLIAM WEAR, 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD 6:5»-7:11 P.M. The Certificate of Mailinc and Affidavit of Publication w ere noted The Applicant was present. Moorse reported that an olT-sale liquor application had been applied for by William Wear at 2160 Wayzata Boulevard, located on the north side of Highway 12 in the Orono Shopping Center. This propertv' is zoned BI business retail Off-sale liquor is a permitted use within this district The City ordinance allow s for two off-sale liquor licenses within the City. The second license must be located at least one-halt mile from the existing off-sale liquor operation in the City The one issued license at this time is for an establishment in Navarre Mr Wear noted that the library' is no longer located in the shopping center. He said it has been his desire for quite some time to obtain an off-sale liquor license for this property. NVear said the Hwy 12 improvements eliminated a letf-tum lane trom the west into the shopping center It is his opinion that this has resulted in loss of business and feels the off-sale liquor operation will aid business sales for the shopping center Wear said he has an excellent manager in mind for the operation, who has upwards to 20 years of expenence in the business Wear said he has been in business at this location for 30+ years He has plans to build next door but is unsure of w hat he will do with the building, it is possible the gas station would move to that location There were no public comments Callahan asked Moorse if there were requirements for police investigation Moorse said the backtiround investigation has been completed and found to be satisfactory The Police Chief reported to Moorse that he saw no reason to deny the application for this business Hurr asked if there was any other area within Navarre that the zoning would allow an off- sale liquor license Mabusth said there was none taking in mind the 1/2 mile restriction. ^ W^.T MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1995 (#I - Off-Sale l.iquor Application - rontinued) Jabbour cOTunented with only two licenses allowed in Orono and with only two commercial zoning areas, one in Navarre and the othCT along Hwy 12, this location would be the logi^ place for such an establishment. Callahan said the City was in the process of looking at the zoning along Hwy 12 at this time. It was his opinion that the license should not be granted until such time that the study was completed on Hwy 12 to see what other commercial development would arise. Wear responded that there was only one more license to be issued. He noted, in speaking with state representatives, that the number of establishments was an internal issue, and the number could be increased to more than one if the City so chose. Callahan agreed that the City could reduce the number of licenses or add to it. Wear said he understood thift commercial property along Hwy 12 has been sold tor potential development, and this is ^hy he has initiated the license application at this time He noted the property is zoned for this use, and if a license is issued, he should be allowed to obtain the license Callahan noted the close proximity of an existing off-sale liquor store in Long Lake to this location. Hurr said that instead of speculating on the future commercial use ot the are^ and since this was a permitted use, instead of saving the license, she was in support of issuing the license to Mr. Wear The mibtic hearing was closed. Jabb.vjr moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the off-sale liquor license for Mr. Wear at 2160 Wayzata Boulevard, based on first come, first served Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Callahan. (•#2) CONSENT AGENDA Items #4. 9, and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item s^l 5 was removed. Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Consent .Agenda as amended. Ayes 5, Navs 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (•#3) REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBE R 9, 1995 Hurr moved. Goetten seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of October 9, 1995. Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23. 1995 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Park Commissiotier Howells invited the Council to attend the Park Commission meeting of November 6, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. for the Friends of the Park Av^ard Callahan intormcd the public that this award is given to citizens in appreciation for their service to parks in Orono. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS No representative of the Planning Commission was present. PUBLIC COMMENTS Scott Brown, 2673 Pheasant Road, who lives in the Mound VVestonka School District area of Orono, asked for Council’s support of the school levy up for vote on November 7. Baown noted the financial problems within the district He said in polling the citizens, those that are for the levy understand it; those who are opposed are unable to e.xplain what the levy is for It is his opinion that if the levy was e.xplatned to the citizens, they would in turn vote for the levy Brown said if the levy was voted down in the upcoming election, the school district has said they would reduce the school week to four days, reduce the number of teachers by 19 (reduced by 9 teachers last year), and the classroom size would increase to 44 pupils per class He said this would probably result in the reduction in home value for homeowners living in the district. It is his goal to campaign to inform the citizens of the need to vote for the levy. Callahan noted that people who voted in his area for the last referendum w ere generally in favor of it and most school votes are very close in numbers for or against. Hurt asked if it was not a state law requiring a five-day school w eek Brown said he understood it to be a matter of school hours versus days He cited the e.xample if the levy was turned down, the kinderganen classes would go to full days .Another problem with four-dav school weeks according to Brown is that it would losult in increased costs to m families for day care costs James Nystrom of 1745 Concordia on West Arm Bay of Lake ,\linnetonka asked the Council to reconsider his application ??2057. which was denied at the September 31 meeting of the Council It was his suggestion that it was no accident that the Planning Commission had unanimously voted for his application Nystrom said he has spent alot of time and money on this application and ask that the full Council consider it Only three members of the Council had reviewed the application at the time it was denied. Nystrom said the rebuilding of the house was a S400-500.000 project, and the application involved the need for additional 6" on each side of the home. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1995 (Public Comments - Continued) Huit said she recalled the application noting the problem with side yard and roof overhang. Goetten said she would need to review the application Callahan did note that the applicant himself was not presem at the meeting where it was denied He was represented by his architect, Greg Frazee. Callahan moved. Goetten seconded, to put the application back on the Council agenda for the Novembtf 13 meeting of the Council. Hurr questioned if by law the Council can reconsider a denial within the six month time period. Barrett said a Council member who had a prevailing vote could vote to reconsider the application. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (•#4) #1820 HENNEPIN COUNT\’ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT - NORTH ARM ACCESS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3620 Hurt moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3620. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER, 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD - CLASS I SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3621 The Applicant was present. Mabusth reponed that the application is for a Class I subdivision requesting the division of Lot 1 from legally combined lots 3. 4. and ouUot 1 Tie Planning Commission had tabled all consideration of the application providing applicant adequate time to consider the impact of code and options for fiiture divisions The property was purchased by Cloutier in 1967, who legally combined the lots but said it was done in order to receive one ta.x statement In proceeding with the review of the division of Lot I, all LR-IC standards are satistied Combined lots 3 and 4 meet standards for lakeshore lot of LR-IC distnet. There wa.s a question regarding the access driveway with the division of Lot 1. The Planning Commission was concerned if the dnveway was to remain serving both lots, an easement would need to be created. It has been determined that there will be 1/2 acre of dry buildable west of the shared driveway. The area of easement dnveway has b^n deducted StalT supports currem division of lot 1 from lots 3. 4. and outlet I Stafr has asked to state in the resolution that the City and Cloutier agree to disagree but division may occur but future division is subject to City regulations. Cloutier inlbrmed Callahan that he has seen the resolution and is satisfied. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\’ COITNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1995 (#5 - #2000 Cortlen Cloutier - Connnued) Hwt questioned if the sewer ut' . nas bcM paid. Mabusth said one sewer connection charge is to be paid but the lateral and trunk charges have been paid against the property. Two water units have also been paid. This docs not include lot 3. Hurr noted that the payment of sewer and water charge does not guarantee that the lot will be buildable. Jabbour inquired about the boathouse on the property Mabusth reported that if Cloutier desires to make any changes to the boathouse, he must apply tor a variance for structural improvements. J^>bour moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3621. Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hurr clarified that the division of the property is not based on the connection with the ownership between family members. Mabusth concurred that this was not in the findings ofthc resolution (-#6) #2051 MICHAEL H1 LBELINK. 2760 WATERTOWN ROAD - FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - RESOLUTION #3622 Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3622 Vote Ayes 5. Nays 0 (#7) #2041 PHIL AND DARCY OTTO, 4116 HIGHWOOD ROAD - AFTER THE FACT CONDITIONAL USE PER.MIT - RESOLUTION #3623 The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the original variance application for new construction was approved for a single access off of Highwood The property contains steep elevations requirinc cuts to gain access to the garage Retaining walls were shown on the original plans During construction, however, further excavation was performed, some during the dieeing ofthc well and some due to the difficulty in maneuvering at west stall, which resulted in two tiered retaining walls being constructed 4' from the lot line A new curb cut was also created, which has subsequently been approved by John Gerhardson The additional fill was placed in the side and rear yards The drainage was a concern and a catch basin was discussed Gutters and downspouts with a tile tunneling through to another tile was added There was a question on how to restore the bank without encroaching the neighbor. The slope was restored with planting crown vetch and placing a curlex blanket to stabilize the soils The Engineer lias signed off on this but will reinspect dunng vanous stages of restoration. One such reinspection will occur before seeding to look at the island area and the grades The Engineer did approve the retaining walls also MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1W5 (#7 - #2041 Phil and Darcy Otto - Coniimicd) Mabusth explained that the neighbor to the east, Mr. Sauer, was concerned with runoff !&oni the Otto property, due to the excavation and filling, collecting in his yard. Drainage has been a proWem in the past in this ncigWxjrhood. Due to this coiKxm, the application was tabled at the July meeting until the Engineer could make a determination. The Engineer has reported that no change should occur from the 150 cubic yards of fill Staff has recommended approval Callahan asked if Sauer was satisified with the findings Mabusth said a letter was sent to Sauo’ informing him of tlw Eng ineer's determination, and Sauer did not appear at the Planning Commission meeting to voice any further concern. Hurr inquired, if the application was after-the-fact, why the fee was not doubled. Mabusth said the land alteration fee of $200 should have been doubled This is in addition to the charge for the application .Mabusth said the additional fee would go towards the costs incurred by Mabusth and the Engineer. No credit would be given for any difference. Hurt moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution #3623 with the notation that the land alteration tee would be doubled and the Engineer's cost incurred from the application would be charged to the applicants in addition to the normal fees. Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#S) #2056 MICHAEL AND BARBARA WIGLEY, 1035 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE/CUP - RESOLUTION #3624 The Applicants were represented by Landscape Designer, Matt Laue. Gaffiron reported that the request is for a conditional use permit and variance for land alteration to construct a boulder w-all in the 0-75‘ /or»e The 75' line is approximately at the location of the house. The original application requested a boulder wall at the base of the slope as well as the top ot the slope and for grading and revecetation ot the slope poison ivy is growing The Planning Commission asked that no grading be done and saw no justification for the wall at the base of the slope as there was no visible erosion. The application was tabled to allow the applicants to revisit their plan. MmUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1995 (#8 - #2056 Michad and Barbara Wtgley - Continued) GafBron said the revised final omits the base retaining wall and grading and calls tor a 2 high retaining wall at the top of the slope where surface erosion has occurred. The wall is allow this area to be flattened out AH fabric hardcover with mulch will be removed as I Mtpf saki it serves no purpose. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the revised plan with the condition of the use of best management practices and erosion control. Gaflfron explained to Callahan that the best management practices was a relation created by the DNR, PCA, and MCWD to protect the water quality and required grading permits and silt fencing. Gaflron ftirther stated that the use of the best management practices is in the City ’s comprehensive plan, though, it is not part ot the code. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3624. Jahbour asked how Staff*can be sure that the boulder wails would not come loose and roll down the trill. He noted that the Engineer does not usually approve boulder walls. Gaffron said the ma.ximum height of the boulder wall is 2' with a small amount ot excavation below the wall and a small amount ot fill above the wall with a break where the boulders fit in place Hurr noted a typing error in the resolution, which Staff* reponed has been corrected for the final resolution. Vote; Ayes 5. Nays 0. (•#9) #2080 GREG AND DANA KELLENBERGER. 4045 WATERTOWN ROAD -VARLANCE - RESOLUTION #3625 Hurt moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3625 V^ote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#10) JOHN O SULLIVAN. 3340 SHORELINE DRIVT, 2420 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COUNCIL DIRECTION Mr. O'Sullivan was not present. Mabusth said that Mr O'Sullivan is of the impression that he has been singled out in the requirement of a conditional use permit for the changes he w ould like to make in the convenience store Mabusth would also like Council's direction on the former Martin 66 station There was formerly outside storage, and .Mr. O'Sullivan would like to continue with limited outside storage to cease in May of 1996 It was noted that O'Sullivan has been advertising for temporary storage through signage. Mabusth asked Council if they would approve this continual storage Hurr noted that the past storage was pan of that particular business. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1995 L:(#10 - Jo Ihi O'Sullivan - Continued) Hurr moved, Callahan seconded, to table this request until Mr. O'Sullivan was present. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Callahan scheduled a work session to discuss City action regarding the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for Tuesday, November 14, 199>, at S:00 a m Moorse provided information for the Council via a memorandum regarding this issue and asked to be contacted if any further information is needed Callahan suggested discussing the neighborhood sewer study at the w ork session scheduled above. Council Members commented on the e.\cellent report done by Gaffron. CUlahan noted that the comprehensive plan required of the Jundts was received. Goetten commented that the plan only involved the work performed so far on the property. Mabusth said Kraus Anderson said only final irrigation and plantings remain to be done Goetten commented on a situation on Shadywood requiring the assistance of police start. Moorse said the County has been asked to be involved in solring the problem. PRESENTATION BY DR. MICH, SUPERINTENDENT - REGARDING ORONO SCHOOL REFERENDUM Dr. Mich reported that the purpose of the Orono schools referendum was to create a central campus and refurbish the existing buildings, the middle school, the Schumann building, and the high school The original library was considered to be temporary and, there is a need for new locker rooms, media center, and science area The proposed new K-3 school building will result in all of the buildings, 4 schools total, being located on the central campus and in age-appropriate buildings Mich said it is estimated that there would be a growth to 2900 students in 5-7 years with a gain of 30 pupils yearly and then a leveling ort'of students to the current figure of 2500-2600 Mich stressed the school board's attempt to do "double duty" by incorporating community service into the use of the buildings He cited an example ot spending $100,000 more than needed on the K-3 building to build a regular size gymnasium instead of a K-3 gym so it can be used by the community The physical education facility to the west of the middle school wo, .d contain a synthetic tloor for running which would work for use by both the physical education depanmem and the community education depanment Mich said the multiple use and central campus would be cost etfective for the smaller cities served by the School District. MINUTES or THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1995 (Dr. Mich - School Referendum - Continued) Mich said the major portion of the referendum cost of528,975,000 is for building the K- 3 and middle schools. He said there are competing interests in the City with the desire for open space and rural density housing conflicting with the desire for quality schools. In order to compete with other school districts, it costs the taxpayers more money. Huit inquired about open enrollment and the cost incurr^ by the schools for these students. Mich said the number is 378 students, but with 70 Orono students leaving tor open enrollment into other schools, the net gain is 300 students Mich said the same facilities are needed whether for 2600 or 2900 students. He said the reterendum had more to do with improving the spaces. The middle school w’ould house the same number of students as it was built for in 1951 (400), but the facility itself is inadet]uate for the needs. Mich said the purpose of the referendum is to position the buildings tor the tliture An example was the high school's need for science rooms The board looks at the colleges for the needs the high school students require The high school was built in 19t>8. At that time, there were relative few girls involved in physical education activities, and the building needs to be changed to accomodate the physical education needs. Additional playing fields are also required Mich said there are no sprinklers in tlie high school or in the building in Maple Plain. There is also the safety issue of Old Crystal Bay Road The plan is to redesign the area for traftic to handle parent cars and buses as well as to provide additional pai king. Callahan said he had a philosophical problem with building to accomodate more students and the end result of leveling off of students and needing less buildings. He noted the social movement toward population stabilization. Secondly, Callahan was concerned with the growth to the western part of the community With one central campus, the growing western segment might desire to form a separate school district or its own facilities In response to this, Mich said there are programs now mandated that were not in 1970. There are specialized areas, technology has changed, computer labs did not exist, so the school is unable to accomodate the same number ot students in the same size building with all these additional needs The space will accomodate the growth of technology while maintaining 4 schools on one site The staff would remain the same with the move to the centra] campus The only aaJitionaJ overhead would be for utilities and janitors If more students arrive, then more teachers would be needed. If real growth occurred with a new school, the costs would rise. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23.1995 (I^. Mich - School Referendum - Continued) Kdley asked if the operating costs were projected to increase. Mich said the operating costs would increase by S200,000 per year out of a $14 million operating budget. This amount is paid by tax dollars but the school district cannot go back to the taxpayer and asked for the additional $200,000 The state teUs the school district what amount they ran levy. The state has withdrawn contributions to education when the State has financial problems which has produced less money for the schools on which to operate. Callahan remarked the people who turn out for voting for a referendum are generally not a true representation of the general populous It was his opinion that the majority of a smaU minority of people make the decision. Callahan said he was concerned with people io^g the ability to pay their increasingly high taxes The bond would increase the ta.xes further by 9®/o Callahan felt that the school district was budgeting for what they want and not necessarily what is needed. He was concerned that the general taxpayer did not uritterstand the tax ramifications involved. Mich responded that in a referendum, it was one of the few times the people actually make the decision rather than delegating decisions to those they elea. He agreed that the tax system was unfair, especially to the metropolitan area and there was a need to work with the legislature in making changes Mich said he needed to work with the givens and look at the students and at what was best for the next century. He said it was his responsibility to inform the public and listen to their response If the response by voting was no, he would need to figure out what that meant CaUahan commented on the recent park survey and how it reflects on the school’s swing to involving community activities in their buildings When the citizens were surveyed on spending money for activity fields, the majority did not wish to do so He noted that the hockey and little league association paid for their facilities with money from those people interested in these activities Callahan questioned whether this could be done wuh other group interests Mich said if the referendum fails, the usage of the activity fields by other interests would be decreased. He noted if these community interests were not at the school doors, they would be at the City's looking for alternatives .Mich said athletics was not the issue but the need to provide wholesome activities, which involves athletics MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1995 (Dr. Mich - School Referendum - Continued) Goetten said during the year and a half of discussion on the new school building, the school district has not discussed with the City until recently the sewer situation. Mich said the architect and City made contact early on and was assured that the sewer connection sites were available for connection. He w'as asked if this occurred prior to the purchase of the land, and Mich said no Mich said he believed sewer was always available. Goetten said the bond was in place but the costs incurred would be collected from the user Jabbour said this would involve at least $500,000. Mich said he understood 60 units were available and the bond money provided for the connection and the charges to the schools would be the ordinary charges. Callahan said the sewer connection charges were a complicated matter. He noted that no connections were available and there was actually a shortage of 24. If sewer units were available, it would cost up to $1,000,000 Mich said this was new information to him and would need to dikuss it with the architect. Jabbour said the school district should take recourse against iffeir architect. Moorse said he called Neil Lawson prior to the School District’s presentation The current capacity shows 60 units available. However. Moorse said they are spoken for, but not yet used The bond issue for the 1989 water and sewer project included tunding for the expansion of sewer capacity to serve the Highway 1 2 area But those connecting to the sewer and water system need to pay their share of the w ater and sew er project costs. Mich said this was different than he understood it to be. Mich was asked what was wrong with the schoc building in .Maple Plain. Mich said it was small and required running a shunle. He said the building would continue to be used and maintained for early childhood developmem which involves 600 children and 700 adults. Jabbour commented that he did not feel the City and other local government units were working as a community. He was concerned that Westonka School District was considering a 4-day week. Mich commented on the Westonka District and the possibility of a consolidation. He said Orono was not interested in this option Kelley said he was involved with the hockey program and agreed that outside agencies should pay for their interests He noted the support given by Mich for the ice rink. .Mich said it is not his desire to go before the public for a bond referendum. He said it comes to a point where the referendum is in the best interest of the schools. Mich said he then tries to communicate the information within the six cities involved. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1^ (Dr. Mich - School Referendum - Contimied) Kelley asked how many classrooms were in the "link" Mich said there wee 9 classrooms, and they arc planned for continual use as classrooms, though may be different classrooms than at present. Hurr again noted her concern with open enrollment. Mich said it was the law to ha\e open enrollment. It can only be closed under certain guidelines. He noted that state aid was received by the school district for those students entering under the open enrollment format. He also noted the drop in funding per pupil. Mich said if open enrollment was reduced, it would affect not only operating items such as supplies, light bulbs, but people. The classroom size would increase to 34 or 35 pupils Mich noted that except for kindergarten, open enrollment has been closed for about two years Callahan said the community education should be funded by those involved in community education. Mich said there was no state aid for this program. He noted that members of community groups serv'e on the community education board and assess the needs Jabbour said the park survey initially showed interest in services until the citizens realized they would need to fund the additional costs The City then found that only lO^o were willing to pay for additional semces He said he was concerned with the people who are putting the numbers together and in legitimizing the needs Mich responded that the park jjurvey results would be Quite different if the schools did not provide the facilities. Callahan noted that the community members that are on the different boards are there because of their interest in the area He said the general population might not feel the same needs are necessary. NCch said he is notifying the public of the school referendum through a newsletter that has already been sent and one forthcoming, as well as meeting with many difTcrent groups, through chambers of commerce, ministers, and city meetings He noted an upcoming meeting to be held on November 2 at 7 00 p m Mayor Tod Olson of Long Lake commented that most agencies look at the operating dollars and if any money remains, they look to reduce their budgets. Mich commented that there is the need to look at requested needs. Jabbour noted the increase of the referendum is equal to 70% of the entire Orono budget. .Mavor Callahan thanked Dr. Mich for his presentation ENGINEER REPORT City Engineer Cook was not present MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COt'NCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 2J, 1W5 OTY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#11) OVERLAY TO END OF WILLOW DRIVE Moor sc provided the Coonc:i members with a spread sheet on MSA budgeting for roadway improvements. Staff has suggested doing an overlay project on the north end ot Willow in conjunction with the Willow improvement projea in order to use MSA funding for the $32,160 50 cost Moorse reported that the section of roadway is in poor condition and had been on the schedule for next year for reconstruction, but has been moved back due to other priorities. The overlay is expected to last at least five years before reconstruction would be r«juired. Goetten asked what the cost of reconstruction would be. Moorse said the cost would be about $550,000. KWey asked if any fabric is laid before the overlay material. Moorse said this was not done The new gravel for the shoulder areas will be done by the City. Hurr clarified the balance amounts on the MSA funds Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Willow Drive o\erlay using MSA funds Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Callahan was not present during this item of the agenda. (#12) COUNTY ROAD 15 ROADWAY PROJECT - EAST END - RESOLUTION #3626 Callahan reponed that the right-of-way costs have been reduced by the County to an estimated 557.500. County Representative, Jim Grube. reported that the property located on the south side of CoRd 15 to be used for wetland mitigation purposes was reevaluated. The field inspection based the findings on about 30,000 s f of propeny eligible for use as wetland mitigation, and the cost was determined by the expertise of the County's Real Estate Manager at SO 50 per square foot for a total of $15,000 Based on the County's policy, a 50/50 split is done between the City and County for a S7,500 value to the benefit ot Orono resulting in the 557,500 right -ot-way acquisition costs. Callahan inquired if there were any other costs that the City would be involved in paying. Grube said he was unsure if any of the consiniaion costs were passed on and weald have Bruce Polaczvk comment on it. \foorse said he did not know ot anv construction costs that the Cit>’ would be responsible for except for stonn sewer, but there was no storm sew er in the area Moorse said the only participation he was aware of was for wetland mitieation and restoration. 13 &ONIJTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1995 (#12 - County Road 15 Projea - Continued) Callahan informed Grube that tl« Cit>''s jkjHcy regarding wetland mitigation was sfxnewhat different than that of the County and asked if any adjustments were possible in the costs. Grube said the City and County were close to reaching an agreement and felt the two bodies could reach a deci^n. He asked that the City recognize that the costs lay in the area of S50.000 to S65.000 without the wetland mitigation Gruoc said the numbers would be fine tuned, and he did understand the City's philosophy Grube cited the example of the recent stoplight installation and the escalating costs. It was his desire that the same problems would not arise in cost escalation tor this project and assured the City that the County was attempting to make a fair representation of the costs involved. Bfuce Polaczyk answered the question of the City’s cost responsibilities The City would be responsible for costs in creating the wetland site The digging and the landscaping would be costs incurred by the County. Minor retaining walls may be required, which wBuld be at the expense of the City Berms, curbs, and any minor drainage encountered would involve a 50“/o responsibility to the County and is expected not to exceed $15,000. Callahan asked the County representatives if they could anticipate the total costs for the construction including the retaining walls Polaczyk said there were no solid numbers available at this time The method of construction has not been determined. There are some unsuitable materials in the area, and the County has not yet decided if the materials would be removed or the road floated over the material. .Also of concern w as the difficulty in knowing the impact on the wetland as it relates to wetland mitigation. There is 0.6 acre of area to mitigate If more area is needed, it could prompt a higher right-of- way cost as well as higher construction costs. Kelley said he was concerned with open ended construction costs and would like to agree on a fixed amount for the City's allocation. Polaczyk said more detailed design work would need to be done to come up with a more solid estimation of the total costs involved Kelley asked if the County would be willing to sign that the City would pay a fi,xed maximum cost. Grube said he would not be willing to do so Callahan said with the costs unknown at this time, it would be diflicult for the City to commit to the project. Grube said he understood the City's need to be conservative and their desire to refine the final project costs. Kelley asked what would happen if comingencies arose Grube said there would need to be a cap or control on these. The City^ would know the boundaries of the right-of-way acquisitions, but they would be subject to market value changes The County will finalize plans and know the storm water amounts and be able to estimate tfom the completed plans a cost that would create a greater comt'ort level tor the City. MINUTES or THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1W5 (#14) JU^VENILE CLTIFi:\% ORDINANCE AMENDMENT #142,2ND SERIES Mocmm reported that the change to the curfew ordinance was to bKng conformity to that of the County standards. Go^en clarified that this curlew is for children out alone wthout parental supervision. KeUey said he sw of the c^nion that government should not regulate a time curfew for children, but it was up to the parents individual perogative. Goetten died an example of where the police notified parents of their children’s whereabouts and the parents were not aware of where the children were. Hurr said this would aid parents in using the law in guiding their children HBrr moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Juvenile Curlew Ordinance Amendment #142, 2nd Series. Vote Ayes 4, Nays 1, Kelley (#15) 1995 THIRD QUARTER REVTNUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT Callahan said he was pleased to see the balances as reported for the year He did voice concern with real estate tax collections being down Moorse said it was possib e that collections were behind It is his hope that the collections will ev en out by the end of the year Moorse said the report was constructed by the finance staff w ho are doing a great job. The report utilized the new computer system. The Council appreciated the timeliness of the report, it being received so near the end of the quarter. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Barrett requested an Executive Session. (*#I6) LICENSES Hurr inquired what type of service was performed by the license applied for by Ginger Scott. Mabusth said the service involved manicures Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the following licenses: V^ote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. ,------------------------------rr,.*''.f ,rj’j .i i\llNlJTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1995 (#16 - Ltcooe - Contmued) Home Occupation License Annuai Review Ginger Scott 2620 Kelly Avenue Home Occupation License Inhi^ Review Ross R. Rcpke 3380 WatertowTi Road (•#17) BILLS H utt moved, Goetten seconded, to approv e paymcm of the Ail Funds Account. \'ote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Till meeting was adjourned by Mayor Callahan to Executive Session at 10; 10 p m. Edward J Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk •fiiii riniMiiUgaiyrri'ni^Myiinffi'T'-^rir J fi > § • o If fi9“'II ^ e ® 5li ^ IS/-s ^ 1=2« >N ^ « Q t5 -»«a -2n3 H '' iillll •t* ^ a 1 3 o ^ H U, ^ n w M a --w g. f i£q J{2z r-- o6 Os o •-• ri —• T4 ilif m¥ n{> nil tffl'st r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE COOMOlMCB'"'* NOV 1 5 ITEM NONO.: ^ Department Approval: Naa< Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building Sl Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description; John O’Sullivan. 3340 Shoreline Drive/2420 ShadvAvood Road - Council Direction Staff has been in contact with Mr. O’Sullivan and he has confirmed that he will attend the November 13th meeting of the Council. The original packet prepared for the October 23rd agenda has been recopied. Councilmembers arc- asked to contact staff prior to the meeting if they wish additional intormation. Isv I request for council action DATE: October 19. 1995 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Matnxsih Title Building & Zoning Adminiss^atcr .Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: John O’Sullivan. 3340 Shoreline Drive/2420 Shad>Avood Road - Council Direction A.' 2420 Shadj-wood Road - O’Sullivans/Navarre Auto Repair Staff seeks Council direction concerning an expansion in food ser\'ice use within the "convenience store". Re\ lew E.xhibits D. E and F. In the original layout when the store wa.s opened to the public, food serv ice occupied a quarter of the store area with packaged food and other food items such as hot dogs cooked or heated by microwaves. At the time of the opening, Mr. O'Sullivan advised that he was required to get a license from the Health Department as food was prepared on the premises. The food service area provided heated and refrigerated food display units and a counter against the wall that provided additional food items. There were three or four small tables for customers’ con\ enience. The current food ser\ ice area now occupies approximately half of the con\ enience store. A separate counter area has been installed within the middle also providing expresso coffee. Additional stool and counter area is adjacent to the center counter :irea. A separate cash machine is located behind the counter area so that food service customers can make pavments at the tood serv ice counter rather than at the cenir,il cashier. Tlie Building Department does not issue permits for the relocation of internal structures or the installation of new fi.xtures. In late summer, the Building Inspector stopped the installation of a take-out food service window being installed at the northwest comer of the facility. Refer to E.xhibit F. The work was stopped because a building permit had not been issued (Code would have required a building permit for this type of window installation) and the impros ement proposed a major change in the operation of providing food service. When staff compared the current le\el of food service use with the original, staff advised the owner of a need to apply for a conditional use permit for a restaurant use. Mr. O’Sullivan has set aside his plans to install the food service or take-out window at this time. Review Exhibits B and C. During the review of Application «958 in 1987, the applicant made the City aware of the multiple uses and services that would be provided within the convenience store area. The City questioned the need for a zoning amendment for convenience store use with service station and decided against it finding that the physical limitations of this site and standards of the B-1 Code would be adequate (refer specifically to the section of the staff memo in Exhibit C that addressed this very issue). Request for Council Action continued page 2 October 19,1995 John O'Sullivan, 3340 Shoreliiw Drive/2420 Shady^ood Road, Council Direction _________ The .87 acre site has obvious physical limitations with limited parking, multiple uses and traffic layout or design pushed to its limit when large-sized delivery trucks arrive at busy times with customers for both convenience store (gas pumps) and Navarre Auto. Staff has discussed the expanded food serv ice use within the conv enience store with Mr. O’Sullivan. The owner feels that we are singling his operation out. noting there have been no parking problems or accidents at his facility because of the use. In tact, he noted the intensified use of the food service has happened gradually over the years without any problems or concerns voiced by the Orono staff. In my discussions with John O'Sullivan. I adv ised that I would feel more comfortable if Council was asked to provide direction on ' this issue. % Based on owner ’s current level of food service use, should the owner file for a conditional u e permit? Refer to Exhibit G. Section 10.40. Subdiv ision 4 (C and D). If Council finds the current level of food serv ice use does not require conditional use review, would Council require a conditional use permit if owner installed a food service pick-up window? COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To provide direction to staff and owner. B,3340 Shoreline Drive - Former Site of .Martin's 66 Service Station John O’ Sulliv an and Irv Smith are the new owners of the former service station site. The new owners have removed much of the equipment and material stored on the site. John O’Sullivan asks that he be allowed to continue using the fenced in area for limited winter storaue for the 1995-96 season. His letter notes that all equipment stored must be removed by May 1. 1996, refer to E.xhibit A. As .Mr. O'Sullivan notes, this use had been conducted by Martin's, the prev ious owner, over the vears. The use will not be intensified. In fact, this will be the only use conducted on the site during the winter months until the new owners decide what new business use will be installed on the B-1 zoned property. As outside storage yards are permitted only in a light industrial zoned district, staff advised Mr. O'Sullivan that we would seek Council's direction on this matter also. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To prov ide direction to applicant on the temporary use of the fenced in area for outside storage of equipment and vehicles through May 1, 1996. V' I#* ■>-vv.' *'#■■ ■■■.®^-'..''!i^j iW'- •■■-•- ■.■^ ^ .. - *. .A i. K||A^ .. - \ t », Vr i>-,' -■.. v»v. S;r •„ .^=’- iV.r , cttv OP ' ORONO **CSOtUT(0)W Of Tw £ CirvcOUNQt X- ••. ••i osm nmir nZ"“ »0»X«C gwnt »««?o S?*22J2 * «■» S“ •“•i- ,FIL* #9Sf |i saS2 s.^vSaS;r as # ■ SHSS'isa' . . tbMc« *«sr2x • '*<*i«* Of m Cm r>5^ •««th 23 dmTml^it 5*41u* of 841.51 fo^’ ______________ £2?2Ss««SS52Sf'o?*/ /"VO" »«»i.SSffi^2S tl Twiii ijiLa w«QI.Veo by th« rif^^o ^ ‘I City CpQflcii of Ormo"' <• V J -•■V . • '«cL>‘ .*r •’■* .V ^ I-.. -* *. ■ •• ’ *•* CITY* j' OF - Forono 3* Th« pr< tli» *-l City of OROISO RfSOLUTtOM Of TNC ClTVCOUMOL M3. .::9 3 7.i«i •.f. or .•? «(■District nquirea 20,000 «.f. 1«lA «r««. 4« tiM IS, If§7, If t, ' w j«» o.i2r,srT.’.v:L'ii: '5?:7?.!Sli‘‘SiS:.r:;jss^ss MISSIS? fi’niillTiT*”**®‘ *’'•»«»••«•C th« ,/N.,1 V •* •. ■ 4»- •• • *• f•# **.- , I • . -. .•-i • P«rkl»f stsll varl.nc. of 3 atsll. TMittirsd bMSd OA tJM foUcong finding.. •»^^rtlng .t«ll..r« aYAilsDlA st «i 'V ( .' 1 log L.- \ r _ ro- ifUtruwiiiiy OMbJMMd^AOt ird <*r2-‘f •tallA ar« ’*"’••S«‘ -------- thct th. CO. -------- ■ i do not Apply « log prop«rti.«2 hordahip er^SrVln11yf rrssar.a A.fl^^tioi Xoolcg Cod. .04 CoupMlMMigs-Dliii^, th* •eoMUtisii.1 «• Mfitv »t4ltlSA «ii M>«wTotlig!Sw5i^ ?*' *#l£srs «f thTir^-*TT r~Z'^r^*T light, *ir nor poM a fig» «»«* objocuto* of tho xoSjTeod*rxOA oc too City. •..kV, •. *i--r-'^ V '•“Vv '■ -Faoo 2 of S *• ••> -3,^^•-••-•'" 1>4S* -i/V?.-V <T* “>*/ *•.j'i'*-«^ --‘-'1 '*;V>4- ;i,»v s • ^^ » ^.. •* *.}>’%.,'-irii.- t#* ••* •/ ' \ *I • •••^•4 *. »/;>' •• *,’Ki / - ^ ;4 ••■*-• ■ •^ ■*>:i .;•»♦• *af**V' . /.-4 • lr-1 I^ORON<^ City of 0R0>0 RCSOLUnOH or the CITV COUMaL Z22>* IXTI ♦f' li l‘ . B«Md spM OM or ooro of tbo obovo findlnfs, tbo < Coescil boroby groats ootbock vorioaeoo par Huaicipol Zoolag Oo *f'; .SobOlvlsioa 4 CS)« offstroot porkiog vananco p«r Soct Sobdiviolon 10 oa4 por Soetioo 10.40, Subdivirioo 4 (S) ^'Ceadltleaal aso porait for tho oxpoaslon of tn« existiag fol r>';5:otatioa «so sad por Soetioo 10.41, Sobdivlslcm lo apprevos tbo , y<..-sXto sad bttildlag ploas por drowiago by Jack wclah and Asm • folloosi ' '>;v. "•..•*• a) Slto plaa, tS-Olt rooiood 4/30/17 1 b) Ploor plaa sad boildiag olooatloos, 63-016 dstod 4/30/tl H* c) CaaopT olooatloos, drawo by SJ». dated 7/14/67 sad rooii I -;j. V Council's roTlso st tbolr aootkog of July 27, I987> subject to tbo follovlag eoodltlonoi yrlor^to'^asuiag!a 1>olldloy ponalt or gaaaral «oC.’.tbOt proporty bosod oo the plana aot bo oaboklttod te'^tbo Cityt jgbb-of< ttOdJI byi-lloaaood/roglav.ered aurroyor^'Jtl lyi'Oad.pKOpoood i^rovcooots; ■•/W y'5'-L^doOCTiptloo\7 of,^tbo- right-ot -way to bo ____;^-i^oaty nay creato logal&« »«TMa« for UlcSeterfM ud •*. .r u.lt to VT^•^T !:! tr:’:;;.'1 :>t».tao .dty.apoo flaaL.cooioo of,working plans.. lyiiV- ttr^ r-* •*•. • s •'" j •* • ^•k 4 f >.y. ■;A’ ’1 d)' Exocot ion of a Dooolopors Agraaaaat to landacaplag is rootorod la all disturbed areas, ropoolag Off all; dlsturbod sraas, lastallatloo of curbs *nd guttata stroctoro if roqoirod by tbo ^>w.p. o)Lottor of Credit la an aau iaproTcooBts sot forth ic Itoa i •. equal to 1304 of we. 2.Morkiag',lrwiag« to bo sobsdttod with building porsdt sppiloatisdP aust bo slgaod by an arcbltoct aad an engineer liconaod wttbia Stato of “■ e-w •. s*',or : ' *•••- • ‘"y- . . • ,* / • •■• 3. Jfm motJjrm mtrmerwtm shall bs ssrviesd by m sprisklsr Appmn^iw E of tho 8tsts Bnildisf Oods iktul the drive oo tbo oortll of tbo bolldiog pootod so s *Flro Lsoo*. 3 of 5 i; -I ‘:•■■*•* .<’*.**rv . •. ^'cttyofOROIVO ’.1 i 1 i ■u 1A .a i 1 1*5 orv ORONO 222^ ?1«» A t«^air«d for tk« rMovot •■4'? of tuiortro—a faia.*^' V ..'■‘4:.^ . •2i*^ • ■ *’ I. ••■» •.», • ••^ . #. . 'i . W**^ ■• jl’-■ 4«.>w ^ ^ ^ W ■■' ■. .*• Iftc*4 MrM m tehalf of ttaasolvorr ^ do## off oiUior ooo or bot«> accoomo cl Cocoty Boo4c IS end is up^n doewr^ ^rifiontloo bf tbm City of Orooo or ttm UcAxu*pio Couoty soBor fteaoportotlCB thoi Orel dontn (poroonel injury end/or prooorCy OMonni “ “ ,i<^*y* vorijSuUrStSvrxr^on nodoo by rbo dry of Orono or the County of ♦••■tod.by thio rooolatioo run wit» tA« wlth^tlM. •pplleaat#>.bor nr» poraioniv* only iivd nao» im «mm pygpit within oo« yonr of^S^ CBBPXIMCO with any of tito , 111ute a vlolatl«.«Ki«M "y nuthority ^xsmtmAjpmmv; •V■ohalli|b•^ pnol ohohl# 'xmim; gnaoraignodfj undorot«>d-.«^JliBSiJ' ‘torM^of thlo r*s«>'*o«loo and on bahalf of tbnMlvM ,;hoir., ouccaosw. and oMagao. teraby agroa to tbo rocordiM ! ^Orooo City Conacll on this 27tb day of JU] 'A r d t if . .. *" t 1997 V y 9»9im§ ^•>yAIg!«tio« took pl«c« at tlM OO —**.H*** ^ ••■■•rclAl rotail dovolopMac. fl^uU^TcmmSSSSm'^'-t MMMrs with thw mmmX v # Mt^ck variaaciM wmww/ht hw^ —*gy T»«^ 9^ ialaiwla. Tba orl«laftl «lt* > f*** “^“^f*** »•*» ■■nlilMH Ifia (iMiibit fj. In that jirnpiiaal • If ' *«*5 ••thack far tte oaaapy ms rsqaastsd. Tha appllcatlos «ss tsklsf *'' panfisf rsasipt sC sffitisssl isforMtlsa as4 r*vi«w of tbs sits slsfc ks . twssfSBBspis CsBBtr li.«BsBy DspartMBt BBS tbs City ensinssr. tlsaBias •. ’ -C—Btrosply BBOOsrapBd appllssat to pul 1 canopy atrocticrs fsrfclwrM' 999 9t rsqaiCBd strast asthack yard. w«ar -IMT a ' Oaa »-»-l Wacnll Balaa asstaass •'r<<vlm " la a sir aaa oceaoaacr - cazMab/aarvlco center/conv< All thras saas V ^.aaa pamlt par 8actiaa.liot thm fall sarsloa raqairc* approval of a 10.40, fobdislaiaa 4 (b). ^^ V. m m Planning C<xatsoiiMI,«aa.';lMiHii_n_^ a IIm a conv#nl#sc ^X#COAMnded Against ___ }y.Tfm questions of rniwimm ^XOllmd^\hf:tbm physical site end •4 »I 1 y..ttaf.- c t tlie northwest corner fiteeriM eed with the Couaty'e dslind to deed easesMit TiifhtB*t0i These inprowi___________ . •i*. ,v^ww^y wy wwA^i vk reeei ena eaoeweiK* Tnese inproeette apprsaad by tbs City as part of tba fatnro upgrading of Cooaty Plantings sill hasa ta ha lialtad In height adjaosat to tba sidaui.___ tha right torn lana rondaay. Noch of tba otbsr arsas of axistiag laad^ scaping will ha aasad. Tha aaginaar has called for coacrata eorh gottsr on tha projact. •• .• . . .-. ri , . n.*.' ‘;l' 4 ' •••i ;• * ."*-•*'-V *i--V .*■>V. . s* • .. r*. V .-/. .‘I'*. ^. . .'v- ‘4 \{ .V > 7. , 7m^ •'■ji I • . 4»V ' -Vf: 4V.>:ji k#‘V <; •• *a PiVS r •* *i • ».* . *!* .■I • : • • i J 'Siwi^r'Jj^O kn%.fSfi n 1i —X ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • . .' >J. 1—Lzrzizrr^v^'- '*»«*■j r-. • • • t ‘•i'ii; ’ j V 1 ."V -n •f —---------------------------—------ • -------------ill % •N# I I I 4e?g?ts '. t >i______ ‘satft r =*--------;-------IE#- *::: V- J. f I I • • . .. . • ..• . ,. . . . •• •.••. . . I . . . I • . ' . .. I . . :.. . .. . �• •I I I ' . . ... . II ....--:-- f -I • -:-. ___ ,'-- __ ,_ �1--- --I - Ti� .. (=::=-,=--=-::::-=-==--==.--. �===-===-:::::::: _ _:::��-=���===-=-==-dJ I . , I I .. . .•• • I s 10.40 varieties and hone supplies. tree lots. 21.Postal substation. 22.Real estate sales. 23.Retail food of all 24.Sewing center and yardgoods. 25.Sporting goods store. 26.Tailor shops. .. 27.Temporary sales such as Christmas 23.Travel bureau. 29.Variety store. 30.Wearing apparel store# shoe store. 31.Off-sale Liquor Store Source: Ordinance 29# 2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 B.Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered to be an office use. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses.Within the Sales Business District no structure or lano shall bemused for of the following uses except by conditional use permit: A.Garages. For the servicing and repair of automobiles provided repair functions are totally enclose building.Stations.Subject to the provisions set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 18. C.Restaurants (Class I). Pood is served to customer while seated at counter or table. selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumption. Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in Restaurants (Class I.) Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 D.Restaurants (Class II). Fast Food, Convenience, Drive-in, and Liquor Store Restaurants. A restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their fooo at a counter in^?ackaqes prepared to leave the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in ^where most customers consume their food in reaardless of how it is served, or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. E.Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking when the rr^ncipal site of the off-street parking abuts on a another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land*in the "3" or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and such other conditions as found necessary by the Council. ORONO CC 333 (4-1-84) CQjliCHMEEnNG NOV \ 3 1995 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORQNO DATE: NovembcrJ, 1995 ITEM NO.:5 Dcpaitmeot Approval: Naac Jeanne A. Mabusdi Title Building Sc Zoning Administrator Administrator Rokwcd Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2022 R.Melamed/R.Lauer, 920 Old Cr\stal Bay Road South - Final Subdivision - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Final Plat Resolution B - Resolution #3570 - Preliminary Plat Resolution C - Final Plat D - Final Plan Locating Drives, Drainage Facilities, Conservation/ButTer Areas, Trail The applicants have fulfilled all conditions and provided all necessary submittals as set forth in Resolution #3570 that granted preliminary plat approval of the four lot subdivision. Noted at the time of preliminary plat approval, the original outlot designating the bike trail did not define the actual location of the bike trail. The applicants and City Engineer completed a field inspection of the area and have staked out the bike trail. Members may have observed the preliminary grading of the trail. The City will take an easement over the trail rather than an outlot to be consistent with the City ’s method for obtaining trail-easements with subdivisions. Major portions ot the trail will be located within each lot. Bike trail easement will include a legal description and map locating the trail as it encroaches Lots 1,2 and 3. A declaration of covenants to be filed with the plat includes the obligation of property owners to maintain dl drainage facilities and Lots 3 and 4's responsibility for the sharing in the cost of the maintenance of the City driveway. The surveyor has confirmed that 1,900 s.f. of the bike trail will encroach a Type 1 wetland. Ihe applicants propose the excavation of approximately 7,800 s.f of the City ’s wetland located to the southeast providing mitigation area for the encroachment of the wetland by the Hike trail and prov iding 5,800 s.f of area to be banked by the City for future need. Staff recommends approval of the final plat French Creek Woods subject to the findings and conditions of the resolution enclosed for Council’s review and action. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution r--*f~.FBg-I UH f>. ■ I ■ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF FRENCH CREEK WOODS FILE NO. 2022 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the Cit>-; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a four lot plat by Robert iMelamcd of Melamedl^auer Partners, a Minnesota Limited Parmership (hereinafter the subdivider); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-IB, Rural Residential Zoning District, finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1 .Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 3570, the resolution granting preliminary approval of the Class 111 subdivision. 2.Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 3.Dedication on the plat of right-of-way for a public road shown as Old Crystal Bay Road. 4.Subdivider has dedicated to tlie City drainage easements over all detention areas, wetlands, and drainageways within the plat providing for limitations on the use of these areas and shown on the plat as drainage easements. In addition the subdivider has dedicated to the City a Flowage and Conservation Easement also setting forth the limitations on the use of the wetlands, drainageways and retention areas described therein and shown on the plat as drainage easements. Page I of3 'A 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Subdivider has created private covenants dealing with the upkeep and maintenance of all drainage facilities and fwotectiv^ covenants for all lots containing wetlands not included within conservation maps of the City of Orono. The covenants shall include metes and bounds descriptions of the protected areas and a site plan locating these protected areas within each of the involved lots. Subdivider has executed a Developer’s Agreement providing for the installation of certain improvements as a condition ot subdivision approval. Subdivider has also provided a letter of credit written to 150% of the cost of these required improvements. Subdivider has created private covenants providing special buffer or conservation areas 50* along exterior lot lines, 30' in width along internal lot lines and 30' in width on each side of the shared driveways within French Creek Woods. Covenants would restrict all land alterations and the removal of trees 2" or more in diameter at 4‘ above the ground unless the trees are dead, diseased or a hazard without first obtaining the written consent of the City of Orono. Covenants shall include a map locating the special buffer/conservation areas as they impact each lot in the subdivision. Execution of an Easement Agreement establishing the obligation ot all residential property owners benefitting tfom the use of the City's private driveway located to the immediate south of French Creek Woods. Lots 3 and 4. Block 1, French Creek Woods shall be served by a single shared drive. Subdivider has provided written confirmation from the State Health Department that the well on Lot 1 has been abandoned. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat, easements and covenants in the amount of $200.00. 11 Payment to the City of final plat application in the amount of S175.00. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of French Creek Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1.Erosion control shall be maintained over all disturbed areas until natural ground cover is restored. Page 2 of3 ISJr .m 3. No building pennits will he issued by the Cit>' until all drainage facilities have been installed and approved by the City, and a satisfactory road base installed for the shared drives serving Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 3 and 4. •Subdivider to dedicate a trail easement for a perpetual easement for public ingress, egress, access and trail purposes over and across an easement that encroaches Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block I of French Creek Woods. The easement shall include a legal description and a plan locating trail alignment within the subdivision. Dedication by deed to the City of Outlot A. Subdivider to create access easements over Lots 1 and 3 in tavor ot Lots 2 and 4. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or a Registrar of Titles' Office on or before May l.>, 1996 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements, deeds and covenants noted above. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event U will be necessary- to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 13th day ot November, 1995. ATTEST: 4. 5. 6. Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 1. day ot November, 1995 bv 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 ot the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 3 mrr- CITY of ORONO RESOHmON OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 570____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY approval of a class in SUBDIMSION of a PRoraR?? located at 920 old crystal bay road -file no. 2022 LVHEREAS. Roben Mdamcd of Mdamod/Lauer Z -subdivider-), on April 21. 1995 filed a formal suMivision application ith approval of a four lot residential plat of propern- legally descnbe refer to Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property '); and WTIEREAS. after due published and mailed notice in acco.dance ^ith Mm^^- Statutes 462.358 et. VVTTFREAS at their regular meeting held on June 12, 1995, the Orono Cit> council consid^y^uSi'sion appUcaticn of .he Snbdivider. noting the following findings of fact: 1 A . The nrooeriies are located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Sning District, requiring a mimmum of two acres of contiguous dry buildao.e land witliin each newly created lot. The propeny contains a total of 15 acres, with approaimately 2.5 acres oi designated wetland. The orooosed plat consists of four residential lots each meeting the requhements of two acres of dry buildable area exclusive of designated wetlan . and driveway easements. 4 All four lots meet the required lot width to die rear of the 30' front/street setback. All four lots have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site septic treatment facilities. Pase 1 of 9 1 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 0 9.The neishbors in attendance at the public hearing and the Sacent-neiahbora have all e-.-outaged the Ot>- to vanances thit would allow an “!"ewt driveway remain in its present condition and stams as a dn\e a.. The Ctv Attomev. Thomas Barrett, has drafted a memo to the City staff Affirming that it is within the City ’s authority to grant itself varianc.s. The Planmng Commission at their May 15. 1995 meeting recomrnended that the Citv vrant variances to Section 11.33. Subdivision 43 that would allow Ctty dnvewav to re.main in its present condition otoviding access to two additional tsidential properties via a single carb cut. based on the following umque tindmg and hardships: A. B. The two residential lots shall be served by a single curb cut. t. F. The Citv driveway is approximately 1.000+ ’ in length. ^ar'd single ciirb cut is located 55’ from the intersection of County Road 84/0 Crv'stal Bay Road and the City driveway. All neichbors in attendance at the public hearing and supFon'and encourage the City to grant vanances that would allow th road to remain at its present status and condition. The two existing residential units. Park Presene. facility ate located within 650 ’ and 1.000’ from the intersection of Old Crystal Bay Road and the Cit>’ drive. At the time of the residential subdivision of the City property, it w-as the intent and voal of the City to retain the simple gravel drive as an ac ” the resiaential development and tf.e Park Preserve. It continues to remam a goal of :be City. Th- upvrarte .f mis roadway to a 34’ paved width with 3’ ditches and 80’ ^I'de^sac at the northeast end would have a negative impact on the Preserve Park-like atmosphere surroundmg the City s dnve. Pase 3 of 9 CITYof ORONO A/ m ijT' ^ '// RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 5 7 0 G.The installation of a cul-de-sac would result in a major loss of trees within the immediate area of the Park Prcscr\'c. 12.Outlot A shall sen'c as the area for development of a bike tr'^il. It has been designated at a 15’ width and consists of .36 acre. 13.OuUoi B consisting of .84 acres of dr>- land shall be open space/park use and contiguous with the French La.-ve Puserve Park. 14.Upon ruing this current four lot plat application, applicant agrees to make any tinrnv#.m(>nt to the Citv drivewav located at the south and east side ot th nronertv deemed necessary bv the City Council either through its ordinances or L a’^ondiuon of granting variances to subdivision regulations by not requiring an internal road to serve the four lots. NOW therefore , be it RESOLVTD, that based upon one or more of the findings noted ‘above’, the Ctty. Counc.i of the Oty-of O recent revised date June 5. 1995. subject to the following conditions. 1.The Subdivider to create access easements over Lots 1 and 3 in favor of Lots 2 and 4. All wetlands desisnated on Cin- Conservation .Maps shall be shown as drainage ermems ts the' plat. Dramageway at northeast and southeast portion or property to be shown at a minimum 15 width. -5 The well on Lot 1 to ‘oe properly abandoned ’oefore final I^bdivitr to contact City staff to confinn uhat this has been completed to State s satisfaction. The Subdivider shall be responsible for grading and seeding 10’ bike tmil Ilthin Outlot A. If trail is located out of boundaries of Outlot A. Subdivider grant easements to City. i'agc 4 of 9 t oT o CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 9*70-------- 6. 7. 8. 9. r,l«-d in the Chain of Title of each of these propemes advising future owners oti “?£=sr,r.t SpTovcmcn«'.« proposed a< some future date before fust obummg approvals and/or permits from the City of Orono. Prior to the Subdivider filine the final plat application. Subdivider’s ^un’eyor Thau provil an amended pla'n =on.-rrmmg rhe dry bu.ldable area o. Lots 1 and 3 exclusive of driveway access casements. Dedicarion on the plat of 1.2 acres of park lan^ as shown on preliminary plat as Outlots A and B. Subdivider to deed Outlot B to Cit>’. Dedication of 33’ of right-of-way for County Road 84 (Old Crystal Bay Road). Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10’ wide along the perimeter boundaries of the property and 5’ along the shared lot lines. Prior to the filin<^ of the final plat, applicant to provide a preliminary grading plan fo" ^retty En/meer and CitC staffs review. Such plan to include the following. A.Grading to confirm that drainage shall be directed away from all septic areas. B,Detailed grading on sh.ared drive at Old Crystal Bay Road providing a :0’ minimum landing with 2% grade. c Detail on fuial approved retention pond within designated wetland and hydraulic information to suppon sizing of retention area. D.Detail on pnvate drive sera-ing Lot 4. specifically, pomon that will encroach drainageway. Pase 5 of 9 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3?72__ 12 E.Resolve of remo\-al of oak tree within right-of-way of Count}- Road 84 adjacent to shared dnve of Lots 1 and 2. The City shall require wnnen statement from County D.O.T. F.Plan to locate bike trail and grading detail for trail. If wetlands are to be filled applicant to designate mitigation area within wetland area on City propenv to southeast of subdivision. If trail is to extend out of County richt-of-way and Outlet A, easements shall be granted m favor of City over such area. G.Provide detail on dredning of City wetland that has been filled over the vears. This wetland shall provide mitigation area for bilte trail gradmg and City' to bank remaining dredged area for fumre mitigation needs. H.Subdivider to provide engineering plans for upgradmg of City drive for the section beeinning at the intersection of the driveway with County road extending to the east of the snared curb cut serving Lots a and 4. Road section to be 24 ’ paved width with 3’ ditches. These road improvements ^hall be subject to the final discretion of the City Engineer and Orono staff. Access to Lots I and 2 shall be via a shared private driveway at Old Cry stal Bay Road. Access to Lots 3 and 4 shall be via a shared private driveway at City driveway to the south. staked '■'o improvements can commence until the City Engineer has approve grading,drainage pians. A Lener of Creuit -st accompany a ml y executed D ve oner™ -men to liOCc of the cost of the required .. ..'ll tII Hnin.nfTp fnrilltieS!mproi«^ building pe.nniis will be issued until all drainage fac.li.ies have been installed and approved access for inspection vehicle has been completed. Pa2e 6 of 9 13. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ *70____ Applicam to provide copies of pnva.e covenants resections oehe removal of trees and the ^rrorm^e af la^ ™ “r the conservaiion/buffer area. Covenants to be created m a ^™ j; on the Chains of Title of all four properties. The final plat resolution sh reaffirm tlie responsibility of future property re/ulations to readvise the future owners that these 5^,, created in lieu of the Subdivider installing an imertial toad reference the final amended preliminary plan that designates thes lurm^onlmeLed that the covenant for each lot also include a site plan locatmg these protected areas. the monih. Tnese submittals are as follows; 1 Record plat drawings in the form of two O mylar copies [one “Py f""; cio records and one (U for filing with Hennepin County) and <ane (1> vQCy raHnrt.d to r = :0Q: Drawing to in.lude: A. of Coffin B. C. D. E. is sirlirreSrr m^d Dedication of drainage and utility easements as noted Item 9 above. Designation and dedication of Outlots A and B for bike trail and park purposes. Dedication and designation of drainage easements over all protected wetlands of the Cit>' of Orono. Naming of plat. Please note the City asks that 'Preserve- not be used in the naming of the plat. Legal documents required; A.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mongage holders or Ithers with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and Other docurienis affected by such interesi. Page 7 of 9 0> B. C. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 570 _ Si’iied and extcuKd Consenauon and Fiowagt Easement over designaied wetland area. Applicant to obtam copies of standard easement documents from City. Signed and executed Developer’s Agreement and Utter of Credit for drainage improvements and possible road improvement. Applicant to obtam’copies of standard Developer’s Agreement and Lcner of Credit. Signed and executed Bike Trail Easement over Outlot A and adj^ent areas included in trail. Applicant to obtam copies of standard easement document from City. Signed and e.xecuted Declaration of Private Covenants covering upkeep ani maintenance of drainage factliiies. Future owners ot Lots a and 4 to also share in the maintenance and upkeep ot the City driveway if fin access is approved. Subdivider to create access easemems in favor of Lots 2 and 4 over Lots I and 3. Completed private covenants for Lots 1. 2 and 3 involved with protected wetlands not included within Conservation Maps of City. H.Completed restrictive covenants for use of buffer.'conservation areas involving all four lots. 3.Fees to be paid: Total due; 5-------- F. G. A. B. Final plat fee = S.175.00 Ucal review <s ~ 200.00 w and filin'^ fees for subdivision and associated documents Page 8 of 9 CITY of ORONO u RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mn 3 57 0 _ Adopted by the Cttj Council of the Cir of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 12th day of June. 1995. ATTEST: •orbthv M. Hallin. Cin* Clerk *£d\vard J. Call:^an, Jr., Mayor /T STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) )ss. The foreeomg instrument was acknowledged before me on this day “oia “ —eaLte^'™ behalf o^ the Citv. -y / ^^^j'y'^^ LiNOA S. VEE „ _____NOTAPYPUBUC-MINNESOTA S ^HENNEPIH COUNTY 4 i.'tt MyCcmnnssionExO'fesJan. 31.2C00 V ______________------------------------A I Noury Public Pa2C 9 of 9 I CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. EXHIBIT A L£GAL 0-- ^?-E.MISES_: Ccmnencing 2l a of the Nortneas •Lhence North ^9 !i ne of tne tra South at rignt to the center c being <ncwn as the center of s Quarter of said to the point of less, according Hennepin County point 53.72 rods South of the Northwest corner t Quarter of Section 9, Township li7. Range 23, ^ 53 faoc’ tnence East 990 reet along the bcutn conyeved to Charles 0. Velie; thenceCt S O' angles f said County i an r* 5.7 feet'; thence West at right angles7 - = / 0 French Road, so called, said Road also thence Nortnwestar 1y alongRoac No. 3‘ a'd Road to tne West line of the said Northeast Section 9; thence North along sai becinning, containing seventeen to ^ tne United States Govern.-nent Minnesota . d West line acres, “ore or Survey thereof. -thnn. Co> 0tcn. ofMWeor. afUtf/* HB.y* S9e.% Twp. njtf.. fift. 23 W. tf 6^ P.M, ^.oo T Hm 9f HWhUth, Sec.9 T 0f MW% ^£Jifc 5^.9 Limefr/^^Hf/99 U/br/fi \ Horfh im ef So. hS.lft of No. UB7.5P. •ff/kf\N£lS$,Stc.9 Ceoherlme ofCo.^N-Nb.Q^ Old Crph! <P3.4^ ■^^7 tVesf \ae2 44-■r ,„..P {... 5o. hno of No. 1187.5 ft. ef NW^o. NEV^^ Soc.9 LI, ',3 ll I I ., I ... I I I I I I I I • I � � - ("') -""a�-...... (' ,)-l\'... _ r"\ ' .... J I ll -, ' \ ... _ - ' &...' ' ,.--,.... :s'...�--,.! ' ..... J I I t . . . ... ---- . . . --------... ,.,_�&; t --------.. - . .. . . .. . . .' . . . 974.H · · : �. ,,, .. ., .,,,,-.. S.&.9 -=-��� -., -e_.--- - - -- - - - -- - - --- - -.z,--- - - - - - -""" �. .,, .. IP'!•,,, -;::I�" HI. �,. • �" � -::;; __ _. .," �· . _., rf/ve, I � � .� ... •. f • I I I ti-: ,� ,� C to ...I ----------- '· • I I I I I 1-::, c.,,,-linc ./ Co. ftJ.Nf>.,-;,,..; lo.A.I. Oltl O phi 8ot .• 3 ... '"° .. ·• \ t ' ..... : ....... f •, i .·. •· ., : ..... i ··.J;J., "c.-> � -� ............... r-' V\ �! %i-V,,ivewot � eo.c.mt.t,f i ..,,...,...... "'· ' , aI ..._ t I --- 4 ..' # ... _ • I I I I I -• ""4 .:.·'� a •• (!I ,· �� �� .. ' ' . -... �� .. ·• ; • • • • •, \ t • COUNCIL F" REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NOV 1 3 1^5 DATE: ITEM NO Dcpartmeiit Approval: Naiae Jeanne A. Mabusth Tttic Building Sl Zoning Adminisoaior Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #.:031 Bruce Kelley, 2340 Fox Street - Preliruinary Subdivision - Resolution Zoning District:RR-IB Total area = 6 acres Application: The application involves a Class II subdivision of two lots that was reviewed at both the June 19th and October 16th meetings of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission tabled the subdivision application at the June 19th meeting pending receipt of additional septic testing and revised preliminary survey in order to complete reejuirements ot the preliminarj ’ plat application. The application received unanimous approval of the Planning Commission at their October meeting. List of Exhibits A -Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners ’ List D -Wetlands Map E - Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, i 95 F - Park Commission Minutes of August 7, 1995 G - Gustafson Report of June 7, 1995 H - Plat of Bill Kelley's Land, Filed 12/19/1977 I - Current Subdivision Proposal Brief Review of A, p.ication For more detail on diis review, please refer to the Planning Commission minutes of the June meeting (Exhib.. Z) and the enclosed staff memos dated October 10, 1995 and June 12, 1995. Both lets meet the reovired standards of the RR-IB Zoning District. The City Engineer has reviewed and approved the existing access located within proposed Lot 2. The access may continue to be used by both property owners. The City Engineer has also approved an access at the most eastern edge of the property- if applicant chooses to have a separate access. rc Request for Council Action continued Page 2 November 2, 1995 Zoning File #2031 Bruce Kelley, 2340 Fox Street The applicant has been made aware of Section 11.03, Subdivision 24 (Lot Area, Minimum). The future owner of proposed Lot 2 at 4 acres shall be placed on notice as to the Code requirements concerning the exclusion of driveway easements from total lot area. Sc'.tic systems have been approved for both parcels. The current system serv ing the residence on proposed Lot 2 is located within Lot 1. The system is non-conforming and must be replaced. The failing system must be abandoned prior to the City’s issuance ot a Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence on Lot 1. It is the applicant's plan to live m the residence on Lot 2 while their new home is constructed on Lot 1. The future owner or purchaser ot Lot '> must be advised of the need to install a new septic system prior to occupancy. The resolution granting approval of Uie plat shall define the obligation of the applicant concerning the need to abandon the existing septic system on Lot 1 and providing notice to future owner of Lot 2 of need to install new septic system prior to occupancy. The Park Commission reviewed the subdivision application on August 7th and have asked for a park dedication fee. The Assessor wi” be asked to determine the fair market value of the undeveloped land based on 8°o of the total area within Lot 1 only. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the preliminary subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1. Bill Kelley's Land, finding all standards of the RR-IB Zoning District, On- Site Septic Code and pertinent sections of the Subdivision Regulations have been satisfied. Their approval was based on the following conditions: 1.Applicant to grant 10’ drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of the property and 5’ drainage and utility easements along internal lot lines on the final plat. 2 Payment of a park dedication fee based on 8% of the fair market value of the two acre parcel. Lot I, as homestead parcel would not be subject to the park dedication fee. Applicant and owner of Lot 1 will be responsible for abandoning the existing septic system within Lot 1 prior to the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence. 4.Notice to future buyer or owner of Lot 2 of need to install new septic system on Lot 2 prior to occupancy. Request for Council Action continued Pages November 2. 1995 Zonii^ File #2031 Bruce Kelley, 2340 Fox Street 5.Further division of Lot 2 shall be subject to all current standards of the Municipal Code at the time of future division. The future owner of Lot 2 is advised of the minimum lot area requirements sei forth m Section 11.03, Subdivision 24 of the Subdivision Regulations which specifica.'ly addresses the issue of easements and their impact on lot area. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution. i V ,.*■ A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS D SUBDIVISBON OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BILL KELLEY’S LAND -FILE NO. 2031 WHEREAS, Bruce R. Kelley (hereinafter the "subdivider") on May 26. 1995, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a tw o loi residential plat of propert)" legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Bill Kelley ’s Land, Hennepin Counr/, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on June 19, 1995 and October 16, 1995, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were giv'cn the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHERI:AS, at their regular meeting held on November 13, 1995, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dr>' buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 6 dry acres. There are no designated wetlands within the property. 3.The proposed plat consists of two residential lots each meeting the minimum requirement of two acres of dry buildable area. 4.Both lots have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site septic treatment facilities. Page 1 of 4 J -i 5.The Cit\' Engineer, in his report of June 7, 1995, has approved the continued use of the existing drive located v^ithin proposco Lot 2 as a shared drive to serve both lots or proposed Lot 1 may be served at a single curb cut located to the extreme east side of the lot. 6.The plat of Bill Kelley's Land was approved by the City in December ot 1977. The City did not ask for an internal road. Each lot met the required lot width along the public road and had been approved with individual curb cuts to each building site. 7.Both Lots 1 and 2 have adequate lot width along Watertown Road and Willow Road to provide individual curb cuts or access to property. 8.The existing structure on proposed Lot 1 shall be demolished and a new residence constructed. The existing septic system located within Lot 1 is non- conforminc and shall be abandoned and a new system installed per septic testing and design information submitted by applicant’s consultant and as approved by the Orono staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Bruce R. Kelley per plat drawings by Bruce R. Kelley, a professional engineer and land surveyor. Registration Number 5713, dated May 26. 1995, most revised date September 11, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. Dedication of drainage and utility ea.sements 5’ along interior lot lines and 10' along the perimeter boundaries and adjacent to road rights-of-way. Prior to residential construction on Lot 1, all preliminary and alternate septic sites must be fenced off prior to any construction activities. Prior to the City issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence on Lot 1, the existing non-conforming septic system must be abandoned. Page 2 of 4 4.The suMivider and future owner of Lot 2 are hereby advised that a new septic system must be installed to serve the existing residence on Lot 2 prior to occupancy. 5.Subdivider and future owner of Lot 2 is advised of the minimum lot area requirements of Section 11 .03, Subdivision 24 of the Subdivision Regulations of the City that would require the exclusion of all private pedestrian or vehicular easement areas from the dry buildable lot area of a property. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Required sujmittals are as follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200 ’. Drawing to include: A.Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Bruce R. Kelley, dated May 26, 1995, most revised date September 11, 1995. B.Dedication ot "drainage and utility easements" as noted in Item 1 above. C.Naming of plat. 2.Legal documents required: A.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. B.The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently atTecting the property. Page 3 of 4 3.Fees to be paid: Total due: S7S.00* A.Legal review and filing fees for subdivision only = $75.00 *Upon Council's formal approval of the two lot plat, the subdivision shall be referred to the City Assessor to determine the value of the two acre lot. The park dedication fee shall be 8% of the fair market value of the undeveloped two acre lot. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this I3th day of November, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of November, 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 Page 4 of 4 To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:October 10,1995 Subject:#2031 Bruce and Inna Kelley, 2340 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing Status of Application: The preliminary subdivision application was tabled at the June 19, 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission pending receipt of additional septic testing and revised preliminary survey in order to complete requirements of preliminary plat. Zoning District: RR-IB Total area = 6 acres Lot 1=4 acres (if shared drive remains, easement area at approximately 11,034 s.f. is deducted from total lot area) Lot 2 = 2 acres Lot width. Lot 1: Lot 2: Required = 200' Proposed = 200’ Proposed = 300+' No variance is required, Pertinent Ordinances Section 11.03, Subdivision 24 - Lot area, minimum. Each lot shall contain the minimum area required for each proposed lot as proposed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements... Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) - RR-IB lot standards. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - Staff Memo Dated June 12, 1995 Plat Map Engineer's Report 6/7/95 Revised Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Minutes 6/19/95 Park Commission Minutes 8/7/95 Zoning File #2031 October 10,1995 Page 2 Review of Amended Application The new survey submitted satisfies the preliminary plat requirements as existing structures have been located and drawn to scale. Building envelopes have been defined by RR-IB y^d requiremen^^ Septic sites for both lots have been tested and approved by the On-Site Septic Manager. As ^ existing house on Lot 2’s current septic system is located within Lot 1, a new system mus e installed within Lot 2. As for Uie issue of oocess, the applicant is advised that any of the shared drive win ^ a consideration if Lot 2 is further subdivided. StalThas approved a location tor an independent curb cut for Lot 1 to the east side of the property. The use of the ex- rang rock dnve by Lots 1 and . is also acceptable by the City. Review the Park Commission minutes of August 7, 1995. The Park Commission had originally considered obtaining trail easements along Fox Street from the acquisition and will ask for park dedication fee. The City Asses^r will ^ fafr market value of the undeveloped land for the detemiination of the park dedication tee. The lee will be based on 8% of the total area within Lot 1 only. Staff Recommendation To anprove the preliminary subdivision of l ot 2. Block 1, Bill Kelley's Land, finding idl st^dards iftte RR-IB Lning District. On-site Septic Code and pertinent sections ot the Subdivision Regulations have been satisfied. This approval is subject to the following conditions: Applicant to grant 10' drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of the property and 5' drainage and utility easements along internal lot lines on the final plat. Payment of a park dedication fee based on 8% of the fair market value of the two- acre parcel (homestead parcel would not be subject to the park dedication fee). ApplicanL^subdivider to be responsible for ensuring that septic system on Lot 2 is installed either as a condition of the sale of the property or prior to issuance of a building permit for new construction on Lot 1. Further division of Lot 2 shall be subject to all current standards of the Mimicipal Code at the time of the future division. Applicant is once again advised ol the minimum lot area requirements set forth in Section 11.03, Subdivision 24 of the Subdivision Regulations, which specifically addresses die issue of easements and their impact on lot ar<' \ of a parcel. 1. vatr TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 12. 1995 SUBJECT:#2031 Bruce & Irma Kelley, 2340 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR>1B - Minimum 2 acre requirement. Total area = 6+ acres, dry land Lot 1=4 acres, dry Easement area = 11,034 4^ s.q. [amended area of Lot 4, = 3.74 acres) Lot 2 = 2 acres Pertinent Ordinances Section 11.03, Subd. 24 - "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the minimum area required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements. ......... Section 11.03, Subd. 66 (C) - Class III Subdivision - Lot 2 does not meet required 200’ of width to the rear of the street yard setback. Required = 200’ Proposed = 195’ Variance = 5’ or 2.5% Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B) - RR-IB Lot Standards - it is difficult to determine actual setbacks of existing structures from lot lines. As structures have not been located based on field survey work. Applicant has used topographic/aerial maps of City that do not provide the required accuracy for a preliminary plat. Lot 2 at the street lot line measures 195’ not 165 ’ as shown on survey. List of E.xhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner’s List D - Wetlands Map El-3 - Preliminary Subdivision Application - Information Required F - Gustafson Report G - Weckman Report H - Septic Plan Lot 2 1 - Septic Plan Lot 1 J-Bill Kelley’s Land - Plat 12/77 K - Preliminary Lot Layout Zoning FUc #2031 June 13. 1995 Page 2 RcTiew of Applicadon The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Bill Kelleys Land. It is staffs understanding that Lot 1, the most western lot, will be retained for a possible resubdivision. Lot 2, the most easterly lot, measures 195’ at street lot line, and not 165.44 ’ as shown. Lot line can be slightly altered so that lot width is increased 5’ at the 50’ setback line. As already noted, the driveway easement will have a major impact on the potential division of Lot 1 in the fumre. Based upon the directives of the code, the area of the vehicular easement must be excluded from dry land area Lot 4, adjusted at 3.74 acres. Review Exhibit F, Engineer reports, that he would approve the shared access at this controlled intersection, but the shared easement would have a negative impact on future subdivision plans. Staff reviewed a potential curb cut at the east lot line of Lot 2 at the top of the hill. Engmeer notes that an alternate access at the easterly lot line would satisfy sight distance requirements. Weckman’s report. Exhibit G, recommends that the application be tabled until applicants consultant provide^: au.M-^mal septic testing along with scaled drawings indicating the dram field dimensions, lot mes, hardcover, and well setbacks. The consultant has also recommended that the existing system that serves the house now located on Lot 2 be used to serve the proposed new residence. The consultant has labeled the system as a mound system. Weckman notes that based on the presumed year of installation (1960 ’s) that mound systems did not exist m that day. The consultant has not provided diagrams to scale showing the exact size, location, orientation of the site or the property line setbacks. The surveyor should also locate the soil borings and perc tests holes on the preliminary plan as requested in preliminar>' application information. Another prime concern is the fact that we have not received a preliminary plat survey signed by a licensed surveyor. Existing structures have not been determined from field inspections but from the City ’s topographic maps. Review Exhibit E 1-3, the application information clearly asks for detailed survey information when filing preliminary plat. Staff Recommendation Staff must recommend the tabling of the application until we are in receipt of a prelimina^ sur\'ey and additional septic testing and mapping so that we are able to confirm all co e requirements have been met. Staff will attempt to meet with the applicant prior to our meeting so that we may discuss in more detail the issues that must be addressed by applicant. jb ■ji O o i #JL .1 ^XCSl CIT y IoF^RONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION / • PROPERTY LOCATION MiU 5-5“5;^4 i' Site address QO<^bite address c^P'ri^—.' ^-r 11-y - rS Z. QOg> 7Property Idestincation Number (PID) O 5 - ^---------- Please check one - Propern' __^ abstract or — - • ^eccers LajOC Attach lesal descrimion to application. LoT I , 5c.^>cia I, 15/Ld. APPLIC.4NT _I . \ 1/ Name ^gL>Cg —I gMA sJ* f— Address F^x --------------------- City MAJ-----------——----------- Phone(home) 4l3~4^SS ^ Zip5gJ5^hone (work) 9"SO~SSIO OWNER (if different than applicant) Name SAM Phone(horae) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Ta.x Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dr>' Land Acres W'et Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units___C Other (specify)_________ H. PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes --------------Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new builijTmg sites) ■Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites--------------Existing Units _______ New Umts Toul Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ CITY OF ChVHO FUiAiiCE OFFICE 1:^0200^0 ^, ..f01 £E.V fUCr'c TL '^tlPT-TFASK YOUdm v^/ m minimum material required for APPUCA r.Payment of fees (refer to -application fees* listed below. 2.Completed application fonn. 3.Preliminary plat information on Certificate list from Hennepin County Department of Finance 4.Certified Property Owners List ofownetswuhin 350 (you must oo A xi«.T77n.- ...________ nnrified of ihls aDoUcation. 4.Certified Property owners Lost oi owoHi — w p.«-.SCP3..C ...of any o..,.peno. you «iah app..caooo. Zooing Official’s Signature ------------------------------------------------------------ >ONIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED fe« appicable). 1.Paymem of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approv^ resoiu 2.Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal pla . 3.Title opinion. 4.Easements, covenants, etc. 3.Developers Agreemem and Letter of Credit.________________________________ Zoning Official’s Signature---------------------------------------------------------~ I.APPL1C.\TI0N fees (Zoning Administrator to chei.. PO those which pp y) A.Application Base Fees:' Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II & HH S-W ^ ^ -------- Subdivision of a Lot Line Subdivision AppUcauon (Class I & ^0-^^ (Class III & all -------- Preliminary Subdivision Application^S325.00 t- 525.uu/ioi t Final Plat Application (Class IlD Sl/5.00 ^Legal Review and Filing: ^___ "Subdivision only S75.00 --------Subdivision w/casements and covenanB mm.^00.0 Park Fees (to be detenmned per Scaion 11.6-) 'L.8 ”! und EugiuKriug l!e»i=w ^ Totals non-residential) Legal and Engineering Review Fees S150.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class I and II Anolication $150.00 (No change from original applicauon) Rraewal of Class “*•SIOO.OO (No chsogc from origmal applicmion) lin. ft. X .50 = S . S.0(,m=. fr.E.s .50 . S--------- Request for City to Accept Existmg s-5/snib = ^Xfs^sr.S0M.V.S.00 appllcmloos, 550.00/new lot proposed for on-site x--------ne^f ots . _iT««.:/MUr. FeesC.Fle.xible Application Fees/Misc. Fees ■------- Foment ^V^ation .Associated with Subdivision $75.00 ------- PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwellmg UmtrKU -----------P?tv bv aerees to provide all information required or requested by the additional feesTheapplicant hereby agrees to pro to to ^cess this application and funher agrees to pay Attorney. Planning Co^.on and _________ established by ordinanc«< /Z Date ^------------- Applicant’s Signature Owner’s Signature Date Commission and C°unal. I 4, zoning Office of this change pnor to the meeting, agent attend m your piacc au I -\n n- . ' .. J . ( lo I ,,, . I J l ) l I 1· -• • II 03-117-d.3-I ' 03 I I I 7, I '·}) ;r� } I 1 ' ' I - ( I � /! I I I ·-', . / 11 ', ,, , , s . »t nJ tiATOI 104 HEMCFXN COUNTY PMKRTV INFOWIAnON SYSTfHMWKirTY ONWRS LISTi TAXPAVIt'MMK/MNM >■•<;*■. . • • ••* % -n. • ’ ■ .WWOr mDOR " ^ OMCR NMC •*■■ -iTAKPAYf* « NMC/AOM ■1* Tw;,* . •. . »' '•• PROP AOOR ■QHNEII NAHi ■..'TAXPAYER V NANi/AOOR M 0S-117>2S SE IK>0«OOOM ADDRESS UNASSZ6NE0CHRISTOPHER J KELLEYCHRISTOPHER J RELUYM7 LAREVXEH AVE NUMB LAKE HN SSS5* M 0S-117-2S 12 0014 022D0 FOX ST J N a J ANDERSON JANES N ANDERSON 22D0 FOX ST LONO LAKE M4 BBSS* SB 0S-117-2S SS 0001 0226S MEBBER HILLS RO S.i^SsT.'SlitH I«««« 22B5 NEBBER HILLS ROAD HAYZATA NN SS591 r'.-SB 04-117-2S 44 0002 . PROP ADOR OOOSB ADDRESS UUSSIGNED QMCR NAME P E ECKERLINE/M A ECKERLINE .' TAXPAYER PETER E ECKERLINE ' ': . NAME/AOOR 2555 FOX ST ORONO rt< 55S91 V '# *. :‘7f•i . M'‘ ; K t ‘ A • 3-63/ ‘« i M QS-117-2S IZ Q0Q702SM FOX STMUCE R KELLEYMUCE II KELLEYEMO FOX STORONO Itl B51S4 M 0S«I17-2i SS 0001 OOOSa ADDRESS UNASSIOCO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND S-ia-90 ST KED tlFSSAl SO CH-117-2S 41 0001 00S05 HILLON DR S NXLLXAN 0 ROBINSON HILLIAH 6 ROBINSON 505 NILLON DR S LONG LAKE MN 55S54 TOTAL BATCH 604 00010 REPORT NO. PX4S5401PAGE ItSB 0S-117-2S S2 OOlS02S00 FOX STE CUNN1N6T0N i K OJNNINBTONE CUNNINQTON A K CVJNNINQTQN2SOO FOX STLQNB LAKE MN 55354 5B 03-117-2S S3 0002 02325 FOX ST ALVIN H LANDBERO ETAL ALVIN N LANDBERO JR 2325 FOX ST HAYZATA HN 65391 36 04-117-23 44 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO ROAD 10/1/82 ST DEED 161920 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATIONi TO THE BEST OF MY. KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. ^ 5~-3^-5>5 by ^DATE ; r’Jv-r-H-i:.' I Vit•♦• jr •,i'V *V v.; O4* 4 ■'^ ‘ . • »• • ■% •YM-■■ J ». '■ '. J* 4:.. ..41 ' 4 , 4 •\ , \ ' 'i’Vvf '?■ / ... .r •' J ‘1.V V **•*.' v'V .-.•v ' . ' ..«• '•* • */ V •; f . -* \ : '.., . .. .iff f , '■-■V'v;. *-'vy ■ ■. (■('I SfsJ <!,M' }->y ii,‘W .s • * 7 . . • ♦*■ •vr'i'-.V '■A-,'i^ ;V*,':• >.- • i - V'* t: Vt>* t ■ s tl.''- s-i-zrmh- |7!^BSi 3iM VJ}:V { '. J Lm- ffl 1% n^Kisvr '?) l>/\.r JV,' •1 >. ?.S ,i rs<«^4 ^ /■'''fM K ili ^K u ".:/t •■ iZi*^‘wf^iii ' Jvi ■ ' -‘1' r‘..* ->4 w .V?•*1 L • . / ' A.' i. l L^V J wfm :«Sse ■mm m-m ■! «.*r j: . {ti.'i.r.*’' •% yunh.,- •■■ fi •r-.’s‘ ;t*‘/ H»" T >■ ' 4 'f)ti ;< ]y Irr mf:^mm'' " ■ y.'' t>. ■ :*w zry.r?rr^-vn ‘.'»*'', ■v'. ^ V . ^'■i) !; ■ . *A<; i »- I ^ vL > »* t 7,." 1/\i\k\^\^v/;*‘.:v^ V j-«r' • #1 >1 H, , -jil .’•r-., /;’)' < M 'i rv ':V.v -r.''• V "*• ‘I' ‘ ^ 5 • - I' I ^' ‘ i}d.#i* I'*/ l^.»vi Htc N ''' *7 '*1iJii'.iJj 1, :ri u: »' * ^1 ^n.p 'T 7 r i <.f. (?.♦ > /»'yi■'I* .->7 ^ jii- 1 «, < •> ^'f'ivi^'&YW ORONO P.a RK commission MEETING MINLTES FOR AUGUST 7,1995 ATTENDANCE The Park Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Richard Hint, Lili McMiUan, Sherokee Use, James White. Robert Howells, and Andrew McDermott ID. Susan Wilson was absent. CouncU Member Goenen represented the Council. Chair Flint called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. AGENDA (#1) INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY APPOINTED PARK COMMISSION MEMBEIL ANDREW J. MCDERMOTT lU The newly appointed member of the Park Commission, Andrew McDermott III, was introduced and welcomed by Chair Flint. McDermott is employed by the U S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, as a landscape architea dealing with site design, park designs, as well as kiosk and building designs. McDermott also is familiar with the ADA requirements. He has lived in Orono for 8 years (#2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 13. 1995 McMillan asked that the minutes clarify that the amount of $14,227, approved by the CouncU for Crystal Bay Playground, be noted as money approved for playground equipment. See page 6, 4th paragraph, of the minutes. Howells moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the minutes of the Park Commission meeting of July 13, 1995, as amended. Ayes 5. Nays 0 (W)PRESENTATION BY ANTOINE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCUTION This item was tabled as no member of the association was present. (#4) CONSroERATION OF LAND OR MONEY TO BE DONATED TO PARK DEDICATION FUND IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOLLOWING SUBDIVISIONS: (Citv Staff to provide dollar amount of the park dedication fee involved if we acc.ept cash and how much this wiU be reduced if we accept a 12 fool traU easement along tl.e north side of Fox Street in lieu of cash.) •* • MEsXmES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 (#3) #3031 BRUCE R KELLY AND IRMA J. KELLY, 2340 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SITBDIVISION - 8:3<M:45 P*>L The Certificate of Mailing and AfiRdavit of Publication were noted. Mr. & Mrs. KeUy were present The property in question is located at the intersection of Fox Street and Willow Wve in a RRIB zone requiring 2 acre minirnum lot size and 2 acres ot contiguous - ' ^ ^ land. The applicants propose a shared access at the existing curb cut, which has been approved by the Engineer. Mabusth cautioned the owner that the driveway easement would have an impaa on division of Lot I in the future. The area ot the vehicui^ casement must be excluded from dry land area. It was noted that the top ot t e at t e east side of the new lot was an acceptable location Mabusth said there was a problem with the septic testing. The existing septic system serving residence is located on Lot 2 and would not meet current septic standards. Mabusth noted there appears to be no problem with the septic sites on the new bt, but Staff is unable to locate the sites because the septic diagrams are not to scale. They nee to be redrawn to scale. Mabusth said new septic testing needs to be completed for developed lot and a preliminary survey. An additional 5* is needed to have 200 ot lot width to the rear of the 50’ street setback. The Applicant said both lots were over 200’ wide Kelly did not understand that the easement area is deduaed from the dry buildable. The reason for the subdmsion is to build a retirement-type home on the other lot. Kelly said the lot line was not necessanly fixed, but he only wanted to make it easy and simple KeUy understands that n-vo new sepiics are needed and cited a repon saying there is adequate space on both lots for mound systems. He does not understand the need for tabling the application Rowiette commented that the survey identifies the property. Kelly had thought the survey was certified Rowiette said she could not approve the application without 200’ on Fox Street for the new lot. Mabusth said struaures need to be located in the field and setbacks confirmed from a fixed lot line, and the Itxatmg of structures through topograpical mapping does not satisfy requirements of a preliminary plat. Schroeder said, .ilthoueh the Commission can not aa on the application, direction can be given. Schroder noted ’thai the septic seems to meet the requirements. Rowiette said caution was needed so as not to destroy a future subdivision. Peterson moved, Nolan seconded, to table .AppUcation ?2031 for City review of the septic sites and for a survey pinpointing structures and wells. Ayes 7, Nays 0. I MINIJTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 7, 1995 (#4 - Park Dedication of Land or Money Considerations - Continued) A.#2031 KELLEY, 2340 FOX STREET - POSSIBLE TRAIL EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF FOX STREET ». #2029 SMITH, 2580 FOX STREET - POSSIBLE TRAIL EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF FOX STREET D.#2043 BLURER, 2620 FOX STREET Items 4A, B, and D were discussed together as all properties lay on Fox Street. Any determination would affect all three properties. Mr. Smith asked to again table the matter as he was unable to attend the meeting. Smith would like to meet on site with Commission members to see where a trail could go if that option w as chosen. Gerhardson said tabling this issue would not impede the process at this point. Flint noted a trail on Fox Street was shown in the conceptual bike/liike trail plans. No decision on whether it would be located on the nonh or south side had been done, however Flint commented that the homes were closer to the road on the south side as well as wetlands and utilities. The utilities do switch to the north side farther down the road. Because of this, Flint said a recommendation would be to place a trail on the north side if a trail were decided upon. Flint expressed the desire of all the Commissioners is to keep Fox Street as it is now. The disagreement Ues in whether an easement should be taken now in case of a ftiture upgrade of Fox Street. Flint said he believed an easement would allow a trail to be built inland negating the need to have a contiguous trail to a 4’ boulevard Hint reiterated that there is no need for a trail now but an easement would allow the type ot trail the Commission would want if future changes were made to Fox Street. If an easement was not taken now. and an upgrade was to be done on Fox Street at some tuture time, a trail could be built only along'the roadway Goetten voiced her concern with negotiating the wetlands where Fox Street approaches Brown and Orono Orchards Roads. McMillan said she believed a trail at this location would duplicate that of the Luce Line, which also runs east/west. McMillan thought the money would be bener spent in other areas It was further noted that Fox Street is pretty weU developed with only a couple lots where addiuonal easements could be available as subdivisions occur. There is very little dividable land in this area. McMillan latei added that the Luce Line geographically divides Orono and saw CoRd 6 as a possible northern trail route and the lake area as a proportionate, albeit unlikely, southern trail. Howells asked if Mr. Smith was for or against a trail on Fox Street. Gerhardson said Smith was originally not for a trad, but he has softened his view and is willing to discuss it. I/J Bonestroo gjS Rosene Anderiik£t IvJl Associates Engineers & Architects June 7. 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Kelley Subdivision File No. 139-2031 V' e 4c * or Cooorn^tY 0*TO G 9orw*foo •€ ^* C ^ r L !.3r-.,%ua ^ 1 E G »Coo« Pf E Nio^’es ^ aoCe'T G ScfH^'C^ Suvar 'J £Be* «« C *-4 •Se^o» CjrswiJnt A VanftonS ^ a e rr 4 G<rar:^ PE .•'.*'0 A f ■**■ •ooe*t C Pusset ^ t ^ A BcA^Oor Pf *A.r« A Hemcn Pf •£ ‘e« » ^ e»d Pf T^ygmsiM Anapfujn AlA D.ja«»C Siroarot »f A Sv'*o Pf r . ■ ;!e**0-'**3 *E .^.►e Vt^tnef ^ Acnae* p 3 a-. PE ■» ?e*^\9n »E VI<f'A*: C L>rcr •£ ,«vres ? VAAfxJ •€ je*«, 2 'p'rnc'' •€ K — - Pf »Arvje**'^ Pf M.«»» ^ •:»t ^ Uar« A ien. Pf C.*rv AT Vk>Tfen Pf ^ ’ • G-^' e £ Joe* •O'' pf A '‘.c» Pf •p I# j was'AT ’i ®E VMrt C Pf •Ae*. 9 e''se« Pf V ^ 3 0' *ve; Pf Ac= ?r „ A e^e' Pf G-»V 0 Ar«WO»»tf PC \\iW 8?AA« Gaoe Pf xe^'h P ^*900 Pf Gous^*<n J •rxjti Pf Vv*<An O Gustafsor Pf Cer»>H5 O' vie* Pf P-A-i G He-wje* pf jcen P Go^def Pf Oan 0 Boyvire Pf ie»f*eir J t’'«e*«n9e' Pf JO -eor P P?">e'e Pf Lee M Vam Pf C^arei A t*'tHion leo M p.»«»re<vfcy V O«*00 A;^\ M f»ng ^•Tkes f £»>je ’*'.e jt 6^, Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the proposed subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Bill Kelley’s Land for Bruce and Irma Kelley. The property is located at the northeast quadrant of Willow Drive and Fox Street. The applicants propose to use the existing driveway as a shared access to the two lots. This access is located at a four-way stop intersection. As long as this intersection is controlled, the driveway location is acceptable for a shared access. This would require that a driveway easement be provided to the easterly lot. If the westerly lot is planned to be further subdivided in the future, the driveway easement may be deducted from the overall area, which would not allow two lots at the 2 acre minimum. An alternate access for the easterly lot could be located near the east lot line as this is the top of the hill and has good sight distance. Drainage and utility easements will be required 5 feet wide along the proposed division line. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul. MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 . V / V •* •o J ■C'* avod sni ,. [t 1..'. • • REQUEST FOR COUNC»L ACTION NOV 1 5 tjTY Of DATE: November 6. 1995 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaifron TUte Asst. Planning & Zoning Admimsirator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zonins Item Description: #2057 James T. Nystrom, 1745 Concordia Street - Variances - Reconsideration Ost of Exhibits A - Applicant's Letter of 10/16/95 B - Resolution #3602 C - Council Action 9/21/95 D - Council Minutes 9/11/95 E - Memo & Exhibits of 8/30/95 Council voted 5-0 on 10/23/95 to reconsider Mr. Nystrom's variance request with the full Council present. Council had voted 3-0 on September 11th to approve hardcover and average setback variances, as well as lot area and width variances, for construction of a new residence on the property to replace the existing residence which is very near the lake. Council required that both the proposed new residence and its deck meet the 75’ lakeshore setback, as well as 10' side setbacks required in the LR-IC zone. Applicant had requested 0.5' side setback variances on either side, to allow a 9.5' side setback on either side of the proposed residence. The Councilmembers at that meeting felt there was insufficient justification for granting the side setback variances. Note that the applicant's representative was at the September 11th meeting, how'ever. the applicant was not present. The applicant specifically requests that Council reconsider the request for 9.5* side setbacks on either side of the proposed residence. Options for .Action 1.Reconfirm the findings, conclusion, order and conditions of Resolution #3602 (i.e.. denial of side setback variance request). Direct staff to make specific revisions to the findings, conclusion, order and conditions of Resolution #3602 (i.e.. grant the requested side setback variance). m. Request for Council Action continued* page 2 of 2 Nowmbcr6, 1995 Zoning File #2057 3.Refer the matter to Planning Commission for further review. (Note that Planning Commission recommended approval of the side setback variance). 4.Table for further information. 5.Other. 1 NT8TROMIMC. 1701 Madi*ion Street Northeast Minneapolis. Minnesota 55413-1400 (612)781-3491 FAX (612) 781-1363 A Nystrom Products Company Nystrom Contracting OCT 17 1995 October 16, 1995 Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Orono City Council City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Cirystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Callahan and City Council Members: Please accent this letter as my request to have my variance application number 2057 placed on the October ^3rd City Council Calendar. The Council approved my variance application at September 9th meeting, but only after revising "1^ deleting a very important tide yard set-back variance that the Planning Commission had unanimously approved earlier. I was out of town on September 9th and therefore could ^ot attend the City Council meeting that evening. I was informed that three Council members were in attendance for the vo ^ variance application. In view of my time, energy, expense and accomodations associated with this application, I appreciably request that my application be reviewed and by^the entire City Council with an opportunity for me to address any concerns they may have. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Resp^t^ully submitted, James T. Nystrom cc: Greg L. Frazee Michael P. Gaffron t f t f oT O'''CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. n 2 A.RZSOLLTION GR.A>TCsG V.\RL\>CES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION lO.If. SUBDIMSION 6 ’S), SECTION 10.::. SUBOIMSIONb 1 .. -ANT) SECTION 10.56. XO xSD DEN-\TSG A SIDE SETBACK V.ARLANCE TO SECTION 10.:5. SUBDIMSION 6 ^B) FILE 7:057 u -x-.niirant"') IS o’.vner of the propercv' . . ,^:;S:°^fcroVor;n7.-h=;=^ner Xlcy') -d l^aily deSwnbed as roilows: Lo. 13. Corf«. ,.dd.ica :o Shadvwood, Ke^.puiCouc.-, Mi^d-ota ,h.«d.an« ’die properr>^')i .Q rh- C'cv for var.inces to Mumctpal . »So1 cana^acnoa of a s«a,i. famaiy :es._caa« Zoamg Cace bacuoo ,vce:e 0 5 ac:a lot ar=a 'Is r:qu«o. acd a m and detached garage on a .ot 0.-*6 ac.- --cide-ce strucaare being 9.5’ frcn the norm wiGLh. where iCO’ is normally requnea^^an^- cetbac.< ;s normally requured. acd a vanance to and south side lot lunes 'Acere ^tr'cmr** m be located less man the normally requirea Section 10.::. Subdivision . to I^.^oacmna on me average iakeshore setbac.< <emack from me a vanance' to Sections 10.::. Sucdivision . ..vhere no --oacnmem is property in e.xcess of the hardcover and ’0.56. Sucaivision 16 'L; m miu ihmtations mposed by me zonmg :cae. Minnesota: 1. / %. jt ^ sow. THEREF0R£. be rr RESOLVXD by ±e Cty CouDCtl of Oroao. findings r,->r, --v; '<»v—'.veu as Zoains File ^051.This aooiicction «as Page 1 of /oT•fe- 'I % A m >» .N./' ^esho^,>^ CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. iv • j. i in ±t LR-’C. Single Firrniy Lx^esncre Residential .A B. The prccefT.' is locate Zocmg District. T-.. 0-0-10 ='iTiiii02 Cooooiss.on rtvir-ved L-js acplicof.oo oa iia d™^ip?roval of lor.oi :=,a.s:od vanooc^s ao-o daoia. or oU.. requested vanances based upon T.e rollo'-ving .^cxgs. r« :oi “ppucaot ;o =a..=ioc area aoo -.v.ath rocre * cooiorrmng. ....'•nn^rmc^icQ ot a cecic m .i.e 0 - me proposed vanance .0 ^‘adecuate ha'dslup has laxesoore seiback aoK rocuia .e 'V-e'„-;oval of :b.o existing '“-:S «-"afS;'a ev'^'Forramrx' ar.a ab.Ur>- :o oomrruci r-“o=Vc= ana Je-ak oi«im-a -die requaed Tf -4 1 ...rr-'-t ’^e :t the residence stracrure oa .e.ata.e aLc-uuu ‘•ardsaiD to 'ustirv '.ne granting ot .neorocerr/ do net proviae iJiaf-.— .*araia.p lu . requested '.akesaore setoack vanacce. c.i^e avara^o la.k=abora ^ “ «' f br avTraae i=*ack ;iiie '.vmco wouid :orce aa.w --o.r-—- -0 be Sinuiariv cistant trom the .a.kesnor-. ^0:ro«%;T-7=a?aaoc=s aoi of abarac-.ar -vr. :== ..«rai rtsidential deveiopoieai in ±e r.e:gboornood. . , -.roDOsea -0 :s=ove tte s.xisung decacasd garage -.vhica ’s"'. i-:fc “irscum's.da -a ana 30va -diat garage :o a iocatiOQ aeeabg 111 setbacyc :ecuircsi«iii^- «.,o -ar-irc-s -0 aUow a s-.de setback of 9 i' on boda the nonh E.The reques.ea ;s comaily required, are -diouafe:cij^.a -vo=e.xasuna l.b' aouth stae aetnack by .uatir.eu ^ a oei^- atrucrure' meeting 95 f« of -Jie requiredreplacing that scruw.-rc Page 2 or r ^esho^^ CITYof ORONO F.ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.3 -^0^^ instisc of ins s.xistins 16^. ond said ssioack '.a^.a^-c-s a*- ^urif-^Tv :n' —tive -oac: oa rcoci sii« and nouss :ayoui ii -a-an^s are not ”-"an:ed. and ±e -nnoroved Iccatioa of me resicence in .oloc ImeVprovices farmer overaU jus:i::cation for ±e seibacK vanances. ,in Lde 0-Tf' :cce is ncc jusuTied since ihe removal of -s<idsr.c: ica liscd illo'vs for xt rspiacrrorot O! u • ’ ' L’d-“-e*-x- X. T5- ;x<«oo,x xtoack and X.raxx xy dxcco^e. Tx;-. --f 7o« xn xady be avo.ced, App^ or hardcover *ji die ‘J-o ^ocw.adecuace horcicip lO >sar/ '^cn*s rircDOsed to Lccrease kTum ^ fulrS-'ra aT^To^ocoVed bv arpiicant. Movm? X= proposed bouse and out ot’Xe b--r zone’results x a rliai bardaover - accoutmng xr re-^uced side'MiJ: lexrX) of acproxunaieiy d.oCO s : or fo.O^. x xe x- 'vS^xxe'^r^m Xe existing ::.3-a to oOf, :f4val ofTaxdcover x Xe O--.- zone xd generx :econst.^=don o ■-irdcover at locations fanner from Xe lake xan currently exists. OveraU ifdc^ver on Xe nrocert;/ is proposed to decrex^e rrom -'■■‘P 'ri ‘\) to accroxixateiy 5.:-:0 s,:. -b.T-.), -.vnere Xe entire lot -.vould noriaily be aiiowea iS.a "o hardcover under normX hardcover iimiat.ons. -■r-.i ■f'-'i';--e ne22ave ancac: on rcom sines and house layout ine U.r/reiatioa to lot lines as compared :o the .u* Cpunc’ 'mcs mat because die existing bouse .s o-m- vanances.X -case of iirferent snare ind design, the ne<.v house repiacea ;.vitn m semac.^^ ’.viLnout causing a hardsnip to the can oe ^ .eecuote -nardsnips to justify ±e .granting otproperr/owner, ana n-xv..-. -x-u^ a side setbaci: vanance. Page 3 of i CITYof ORONO resolution of the city council NO.■> /'/ I v! • ^ .-;t '>r->i'ca''f'n Lncl’-db? 'J'.e fincir.?s me'Tzs C:r>- Com:a r.i5 :crjicersc ms ac-uca...n ..c^ • ^. ...^ p:,____ C'rmmssioQ. :sror.s dv C;r. san. v0rm„w..c5 of -= • """ ■•veifirs ot ±e ccnrr-jr.ir''. e.r'*v Cjurc'i **“cs iat ±a cenettiona ixisiini ao *iis prcc«../ are r=—dv -0 ate: aroeertv' i:. ±;s aorai,? d-.itna:: ^ac :o ;t and do ..ot acpt> |e----u> -o "pd-'-ons dsat. air aor sraaiaag xe vana.-.ce -vou.d r.ot ^ovataeiy a^..--d-t...^•..vould act n-.ere:y fose a to .aaaard ot otae: aan?er o a.levute a ^er.e as a ccoveareace :o_'ae op?‘--‘p^^“‘^;t,.::;;rsTbstar.^ ^^r“^raS^i topm,;.v;d:-:a; spir-.t aad laieat -af to Zoomi Code and Coeprsnsnsive Plan or -e C.c>. CONCLUSIO.NS. ORDER .A>D CO.NT)ITIOaN;> Based apor. to above ,0 .Maraepai Zoma? Code iecaon -0 -',;,v ,.s;deace. deck aaa deaacaed resiceace, deck and ;s roraally tequded. and on a lot of ratage on a lot ot area 0,-6 ''=" ■''[■-•-^ and grams a var.aace :o Section 10.... widti ■;■ a ICO' lot vtadi -s ’4;“ .g be co'osmcted lakesvard of to defined Subdivision 1 :o allow 'Jae Pacw res.Sections 10.22. Subdivision 2 and 10.o6. average sctnaci: line, ana -^e-f-ZfO’ zone wnere only 25 "o harccover Sucaivision 16 'L'l to al.ow :2.0 c •250-:C0’ zone ••vhere omy }0% IS aomaily adowed t^^ce to Section iO.Ci. Subdivision o .B) to hardcover ts normally ailc ■;ocaiea 9 a' from tte norm and soum side lot ailcw -to netv t«id=_=c=:diiowmg condiuons: lines where a lU s.ue iC.w.-u.. o . • ^ .n...v -s-^-'-ce and zeck dhail net be ’.ocated wuhin ±e 0-/b *•S'escore'^ac; zone, me no nardcover will be aUowed .be 0-75’ zone. -< -<n- -Qne 'hall be limited to -J-.600 5.:. (35.05^') per .be 2.Hardcover m E.xmbit .\. Funner, hardcover in the 250-oOO diagram ana per die schedule and diagram attached aotw snail oc ‘advised that any future proposals to add hardcover cO ^ ExhiDii .\. ^approved in this resoluaon will require an the properrt' ce and ought be aoproved only with concurrent "“tig i-dcov=r to result m no net Hardcover toteose. Page 4. of 7 r. o.0\CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. J.New hocit :cr^;.-^::;ep. spill =tt: -ii rtiuirii 10' side seibicia. Autiori'.:« jmced by pps or ■- .anir.ci -v. exrLrs on 'J:at na:s iSep:s=cer U. .99oV % ■- .«,■ 'h» •».—nc ird conditions or Violation of or tonm^ oode. snaU autctr.aacaily resolution snail teCTUUtc any autnoncv- granted „e.. a., oeu iuoi. . rnc undersigned acpiicant has 'Sd^a's'S' ?L^;t 0.- :.ae o. .d property. Adopted by ±e Oreno Crt C.'unctl cm mis Utd day of Septexoer. 1995. ATTEST; Dorotny M. Hallin. C.t>' C.erk /)/ ss. Properr/ Ownensj ST.^TE OF MINNESOT.-^ ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN > The i En C.ers of me CA^ofoio^’^MiP^ercS .mumcicai corpcr.poa no si.d micnneot cvai e.xecuted „o eepi.t of the City. Notary P’abtic Page 5 of •m o STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this “iav of CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.8 5 -> . 199_ before me a Notary Pablic within and for said county. personally appearec ^^v.^"uted~h- fnre-’oinc mitrjmenc.ind known to me to be the person, s. descrioea m and acknowlejgej ihat he .they) executed the same as ms unetn ire. a.. a..u -e... STATE OF MINNESOTA ) >ss. COLTsTY OF HENNEPIN > On this aav of NOT.\RY PUBLIC 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said councv.personaily appeared ,,^ve'u't^dTh^ foreuoins instrument, ana known to m.e to be the person.si ;^s th n ee act and’deed. ac'tmowledged that he .they) executed me .ame as .us .tnein STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 1 ss. NOT.ARY PUBLIC 199 before me a Notaiy Public withinCOUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this_____ day of __— ^ ^ and for said couny. personaiiy ^executea the foregoing instrument, and NOT.ARY PL'BLIC Pase 6 01 - %•. / • - . • #*.^:V **, A- .• . • . . » .• ^* ,..,;V ;,«u..-'.u*wt..^____:•. ..-^. .1^. t:.; lb A>>f r»n-* ^ '<lk.:!.t*««M»« ............................................................................................^ •^ ••• ■ " *'~ ^*** *-■*f *■'•.•O'lf/jo jl/»*l>Cf^r^- /tioojrts.75 ^ro' roA)(S : jMtftv-oop/j /u/'uxbiI Ipij^p/C'ecK/s IZ>6VJA.A(,<=^ ,v»va • ^ ^lAtL MoT //^^OO r^. (3f-.o'<^ \ii ■v^ Cl i /Mofyoi/rP-//^y\ \^p,\\\}viA't «^»»o(t a>dt C'’ (MOCO « -3 ? o5 VI *MO S' Oi .,«i ■■■ 'Vr- • A^V'■.^v.,y,,,.4: :v -A .:-r'’.jr ■.!-i•■■.■ r';';:'C; • '- ■ • ■ ;im.>..- '.’r.4'.' ‘r-?; •:<" - -t-4rt W’fwBSEP f;.' . c CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, M\ 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. 2057 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 9/21/95 TO:James T. Nystrom 1745 CoiKordia St. Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES:Greg T. Frazee 121 West Franklin Ave Mpis.. MN 55404 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 9/11/95 VOTE:3 FOR 0 AGALNST COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you. except that the request for side setback variances is denied. The resolution has been revised to rellect this denial and a copy of the revised resolution is attached. Please arrange to sign the 3 original resolution copies at the City Offices (Monday through Friday, 8;00 to 4:30). All persons with an interest in the property must sign the resolutions. You must apply for and obtain a building permit prior to commencement of construction. (The building permit application is a separate application from the zoning variance or conditional use application.) Variance approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plan and as noted in the approval resolution. Changes in approved plans are subject to funher review by the City. Variance approval expires one year after date of approval. Permit application must be submitted no later than September 11. 1996. If you desire cenified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. ch 9 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CTTY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 11,___________ --205rMichaei Kiibeimk/John Vogt - Continued) Miiusth said there is an issue of two drain oude-j on the eac side °f *' Piennan Addinon and dhected along the lot lute to Old Crs-srai Bay Road. The outlets ser.-e no function and can be closed according to the nnemeer. The access for three lots v-iH be served by private road, ^v^ln lot 4 curb cut that served the ongtnai house. It was noteo teat tt a new the east side, it would create a thru lots in the Peterman loo.uon current orooosal with a lot surrounoed on three sides oy a . o ‘ .brested area best sers ed'by an tntentai road, one reason of which to move around ,r.e toresteo ,uea. Hurt asked about rwo aiteraate septic sites snown in He noted secondary, sue w. ,n me ^ that if a road were to oe lOcatew .w —s*., septic sites. -V. • 1 '• nrsT '*00' would be adiaceni to the road, Hurr asked about the 10 ana ease i 'u.7-be 1would be reauired to according to Cook, due to the weaves on .ne^o^^ ..I^Vaheadv ttrantedfor the rn:::"brou.!;-nm ' The v.ue of the acreage wouic' he deouaed asaii’.st the 8®/o p3iic dedication. Kurr moved, Kelley’ seconded, to approve Rasoiuuon 113601. .Ayes Nays 0 <h,0) «0£7 J A.MES fA STROM. 1745 CONCORDU STREET - VARLANCES - resolution #5602 The applicant was represented by archiiea. Greg Frazee. r- - , A rhor nnolicmcn is for a .number of variances. Tne original proposal Ganron noted th .pianamas Cominission was not m lavor T’^e;"e5;r;oos; w^-e::r.tea tor a-new nouse located at the 75' of tne aoaition. .An • •„„croachinc the 0-Tf zone. The proposed new garage was setoacK line ^ iocaiiom which w'ouid meet seioack requirements. Hardcover wasprooosed at a central loc on. ^ru ^ ^ ^^ 'Vhe PlL^^lTcimm^rsioo'saw no lusr.f canon m encroac^ng the 0-7f^zone ^ro" rr® house and deck to be moved back out or the zone. Tne OTth a oecK and asK ' T „ • o' to 4 o' It was noted bv the aopiicant's architect that S,de setbacK ^ room smes anv c.hange m tne aouse vie... wk.u*u -w .k,.. -sr-cf-ir nrcDcsal shows the house out of the 0-75' zone with C^or.zo^and at 60-k u, the :5CU500' cone A new TeZZ^u:;;.^n.:es a large pcoton of'olacktop. Hurr sato sne saw no hardship for a side setoack vanance. IvnNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm COUNCIL MEETING TTFY.D ON SErTEMC ^ rv JL 1.«1995 f#10 - #2057 James Nvstrom - Continued) Frazee said the home v^'as designed as an understated cottage v.-ith an ucper master bedroom and bath. With the nziro'wness of the iot, the applicant wanted a low proaie. Il the house were to be made narrower, it would require a second siorv’ design. Frazee said this would not be in keeping with the neighborhood. Kurr voicec concern with the house height changing in the furure if this proposal w ere approved. Hurr said she was concerned with the dnp line P*orn the proposed resicence. ihe code requires a 10' separation with a mavunum allowed 1-1/2' encroacnment or an ovemang in the 10' setback. The proposed residence shows a 9 z' setcack ana —. overhang, which would bnng the roof drip line closer to the side setoack linI i«V. It was noted that the neighbors home to the south sits on the lot line as well as the zaraee. It waa said that a new home would be anticipated in the rurare on tne iot to the north. Kelley said he agreed with the need to meet the side setback and maintain the house out of the 0-75' zone. Keliev said thus would require the house to be I' narrower on each sidof the 0 wnh the overhans. Hurr said this desicn recuires more land man the lot provides Frazee said the owne. took steps to make imorovements on tne iot by propcsuic a new house Hurr noted tne old residence "on average ' met the 10' side setback. Cailahan queruoned this conciusion. opininu that it was better to move fanner m than i 6 as presentlv located on one side. Hurt said it was her ooinion that the side setback should be met as well as no e.xceeding of the I-i/2' overnang allowabie. CaUahan noted that the house was moved out of tne 0- 75' zone. Gafiron asked if the fcotpnr.t to the house were to change, if the Council would like to see the application again. It was aetenraned it the design met codes, met tne side setoacks. .met the 3o'hardcover requirement, and was out of tne 0-"5' zone, the Council would 3pprovc ihe zppiic^tion Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution =3602 with amendments as noted. .Ayes 3, Nays 0 (^il l) #2033 DONALD & ARLENT lOELLEY. 16'0 SELAD^AVOOD ROAD - VARLANCES - RESOLLTION =36 '* .Mr. Kieilev and contractor. Jerry Roelors. were present. £ \ k ■:4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: i' * Yn r Department Approral: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administraior Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoninit Item Description: #2057 James T. Nystrom, 1745 Concordia Street - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC. Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre. Application: Request for lot area, lot width, average setback, side setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover variances to construct a new residence to replace existing residence. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Letter from DNR Received 8/21/95 C - Planning Commission Action Notice 8/22/95 D - Planning Commission Minutes 8/21/95 E - Memo and Exhibits of 8/16/95 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of August 16, 1995. Briefly. the applicant originally proposed additions to the existing house but revised that proposal to a complete removal and replacement. While the existing house is 35 from the lake with deck 23 ’^ from the lake, applicant proposes to construct a new house 75* from the lake, with Jeck 65 from the lake. Applicant also proposes to remove the existing garage and build a new one centered on the property fleeting all setback requirements. Applicant proposes hardcover \ ^riances in all three zones. »:tN 'gh the net hardcover on the property would drop by 328 s.f. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission at their August meeting recommended 6-0 to approve all requested variances except for the hardcover and structure in the 0-75 ’ zone. Their recommendation is as follows: j Approve averase setback variances and lot area, lot width variances. 2,Approve hardcover variances associated with garage/driveway relocation as proposed. N Reque'» for Council Action continued paqe ^ f 2 August 30, 1995 Zoning File #2057 3.Approve side setback variances for residence as proposed. . 4.No hardcover to be allowed in 0-75’ zone. Therefore, applicant ’s options include; Move house and deck/patio further from lake to meet 75’ setback (75-250’ final hardcover would be allowed to increase 568 ± s.f. to approximately 4,636.5 s.f. or 35.3%: less sidewalk length needed reduces this to approximately 4,600 s.f. or 35.0%). Omit deck/patio, leaving house in location that meets 75’ setback. Hardships and justifications noted by Planning Cvimmission include the magnitude of improvement as compared to the existing situation; decrease in overall hardcover; movement ot hardcover areas further from the lake; side setback variances justified due to impact on room sizes and house layout; minimal impact or improvement in neighboring properties ’ view of lake. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with Planning Commission recommendation recomm endation is attached for Council adoption. A resolution reflecting that COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Proposed motion: Moved by , seconded by . to adopt Resolution ^granting lot area, lot width, 75-250’ and 250-500’ hardcover, average lakeshore setback aiidside setback variances to James Nystrom. 1745 Concordia Street for construction of a new residence and detached garage. Vote; _____ayes,_____nays. ch ^ 'i-r • ' r-O tr\ '■'TV'J->JO - U <1 » / 5 / PHOH€ NO |f^ STATE OF ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS. 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL. MN 55106c,no 772-7910 August 21, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Builcfing and Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway. P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE; Greg L. Frazee 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 August 8, 1995) 1745 Concordia Street (City #2057) and we recommend denial of the proposal for the following reasons: 1 The proposed house is within the 75' setback from the Ordinary High Water level (OHW) of Lake Minnetonka and does not conform with the sf Teland standards adopted by the City of Orono. There are reasonable alternatives available to placing the proposed house within the setback of Lake Minnetonka. An examination of the plat indicates that sites exist for structures which are outside on the 75' setback to Lake Minnetonka. The proposed amount of impervious surface exceeds the percentage of impervious surface that is allowed by the shoreland standards adopted by the City of Orono. The City of Orono should work with the applicant to reduce the amount of impervious surface for this proposal. Hardship 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 "functional and aesthetic concerns" and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. AN EQUAL opportunity EMPLOYER p Ms. A. Mabusth August 21.1995 Page 2 The difficxilty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. D. E. The problem must not be created by the landowner. 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 I 1*c,’ . C cmr OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-73h TO; James T. Nystrom 1745 Concordia St. Wavzata. MN 55391 O' TYPE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF MEETING; 8/21/95 Variance ZONING FILE #2057 NOTICE OF PLAiNNING COMMISSION ACTION DAIT: of NOTICE: 8/22, 95 COPIES TO:Greg Frazee 121 W. Franklin Ave Mpls.. MN 55404 VOTE;6 FOR 0 AGAINST ^ if*'..' Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1.Approve average setback variances and lot area/lot width variances. 2.Approve hardcover variances associated with garage/driveway relocation as proposed. 3.Approve side setback variances for residence as proposed. 4.No hardcover will be allowed in 0-75 ” zone. Therefore, options include: -Moving house and deck/'patio further from lake (75-250 ’ final hardcover would be allowed to increase 5683: s.f. to approx. 4.636.5 s.f. or 35.3% less reduced sidewalk length). Omitting deck/patio, leaving house in location that meets 15' setback. 5.Hardships/jusiiftcaticns for approval include magnitude of improvement as compared to existing situation; decrease in overall hardcover: movement of hardcovered areas funher from lake; side setback variances justified due to impact on room sizes and house layout; minimal impact or improvement in neighboring properties ’ view of lake. .Applicant ’s ne.xt scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday. September 11. 1995. meeting stans at 7:00 p.m. If vou desire cenified copies of the official Planmng Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. ch r'MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#14 - #2056 Michael & Barbara Wigie>' - Conunued) Hawn said if the boulder wails were wanted to hold soil before revegetatioa, a landscaper should be ^le to provide plants that germinate quickly Silt fencing was noted to be an option to prevent erosion into the lake while vegetation was germinating. Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to table .Application ^2QS6 tor redesigning and gaining of a MCWT) permit. .Ayes 6. Nays 0. Lindauist said the wails would more than likely be denied by the lake and is not in tavor of going ahead with this proposal. Schroeder said if erosion was clearly shown, then he w ould be willing to lOok at the proposal. Smith said she did not see the project to include boulder walls The applicant responded that her major concern for the project was the safet>- of her children (#15) #2057 JAMES N YSTROM, 1745 CO.NCORDLA STREET - V.VRLANCES - PUBUC HEARLNG 10:58-11:22 P..M. The Cenlhcaie of Mailing and .Affidavit oi Publication were noted Nlr. Nystrom and his architect, Greg Frazee, were present Gaffron repcned that the application has been amended and is now proposed as a residential tear down and replacement. The pnncipai structure is presently located within the 0-75' zone and is proposed at the 75' line with a 10' wide deck encroaching the 0-75 zone The detached aaraee will also be taken down and reconstruaed to meet the setback requirements. Hardcover'in the 0-'5' zone would be significantiy reduced with increases s’nown in the 75-250' and significantly so in the 250-500' zone The side setback is proposed at 9 5' ..here 10' is required. The average lakeshore setback :s also an issue to the house on the nonh. Lindquist asked if the deck and house could be moved back 10'. resulting in no hardcover in the 0-7f zone Frazee said this couid be done but preferred the proposed scenano. The house to the south e.xtends into the '5' setback with a porch toucrang the side lot line. With the proposed house located a: the 75' line. *t allows the appLicant to maintain the same view- as the neighbor and the ability to look beyond the house Lf the house is moved back 10', the view of the lake would be limited. Lindquist said he had a problem with any structure in the 0-75'. NilNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONINflSSIONMEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21. 1995 (^15 - =*2057 James Nvstrom - Continued) Peterson said if a new house was built to the north, it also would be at the 75' line Schroeder appreciated the tremendous unprovemcnis made in the proposai and saw no problem with the deck as there were hardships with the house Hawn asked why the 10' side setbacks could not be met. Frazee said he worked with the floor plan trying to minimize room sizes to meet the requirement He found it would be necessary to move rooms upstairs, and it was the intent of the applicant to mamtam an understated and lower profile Peterson read into the minutes a iener received from the DNR recommending denial of the application due to strucrure within the 0-75’ zone Tne DNR determined a reasonable aitemanve would be to move the strucrure back 10' Peterson informea the applicant that this is the only opponunity the City has to make properties meet current codes Schroeder noted lakeshore properties are a "Catch 22" proposition Owners want to be on the lake, vet it is bad for the lake Ga&on noted that the average setDack. lot area, and iot width problems are inherent to the propeny. The pertinent facts relating to the e.\isiing ana oroposeo houses were reviewed. A major improvement with setbacks vvas proposed for the garage. Schroeder moved to approve .Application -205“ as proposed due to the obvious hardships of the property, the substandard lot. the considerable etfort to meet regulations, m particular the 0-75' zone, to warrant the proposed e.xceptions There was no second to the mouon Peterson said the property had tne amount of space needed to move the house back and set the standards where they would meet City requirements The applicant said there was a pnvacy issue invoived The neighbors screen porch being on the property line looks directly into the home Lindquist said, although the reasons were valid, many other applications also have valid reasons He noted it was oeconimg more dilfrcuit to allow any encroacrunent mio the 75’ lakesnore area Schroeder agreed. Ga&on said the City cannot predia what wiU happen with other homes in the area Deasions cannot be made based on possible prediaions The applicant said the home to the south was in good condition. X-X • .N V. ___A MINXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21. 1995 (#15 - #2057 James Nystrom - Continued) Lindquist s»id there were three choices, to table the appUcanoa deny approve the proposal wtth an amendment moving all structure out or“ applicant suggested amending the appiicauon to move the structure ana ec Lindouist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Aepneation =:05T wuh the stipulation that aU structure be moved back out of the O-Tf setback zone .Ayes 6. Nays 0 (#16) #205* RON ILANTZ/AUTOGRAFS P M- COM.MERCIAL SITE PLANA’.ARIANCE - PUBUC HE.ARINC I .................... The Cenificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant and contractors. Keith Waters and Blake Bicnanich. were present, Mabusth reported that the proposal is for a interseettons of CoRds 15 and 19 The property is maoe up ol -• ' ^ front CoRd 19 with a 250’ fromace anc zoned B-1 commerciaJ The ot is zoned residential and would suppon a dupie.x The lots would be single office budding would be ereaed to house a natic.iai office center tor .Autogrars, Inc. The aoDlicani proposes to reduce the amount of parking available lo what actual usage is prediaS p ovide space for future expansion ,f needed The goal ,s to matmaul open s^h P^-gs Ins the applicant s destre to protect the woooed. treeo area There is a provision for lutlire parking with the current plans The busmess is a prototvpc. and the applicant would like to know if there ,s an abiiitv lo expand the buildine and parkims into the resioentiai zonea area m the tumre if nee Retamina ponds w'ou.d be located on the propeny with drainage lor t^w mual buii^g a d expansion proposad lo dram irao the pone li would be coimeaea with a 1. v'tb w. ■ dramage w^ be d.teaed away from Kelley .Avenue and to the east under Count) Road 19 Ron Ramz relaved the backcround on the use The building would be a corporate office Ld t^aohic desian center us'ing 3M technology The comoariy is creating ^ ™^'tPlace „ i.t.. 'V4 nirf-v'hnme The number 01 emoiovees would be lUTiiteQ The ~ a cemrouee envircnm.enl of lemperarute an.d humiditv Ibr the prmling "Ronm report -People are apie to remain u. ffie room throughout the process with no personal harm. rL A./5. To:Chair Sieve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Dstte: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning Sc Zoning Administrator August 16, 1995 #2057 James Nysirom, 1745 Concordia Street • Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC. Single Family l^eshore Residential, '/s Acre ApplicaUon: Request for lot area, lot width, average setback, side setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover variances to construct a new residence to replace existi g residence. Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B): Required lot area .50 acre, required lot width 100’, required side yard setback 10’. 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 1: 75’ lakeshore setback required, average setback encroachment prohibited. 3.Section 10.22. Subd.2/Section 10.56,Subd. 16 <L):Hardcover regulations. Pertinent Facts Existing Proposed Required or " .Allowed Lot Area Lot Width 0-75’ Hardcover 75-250’ Hardcover 250-500’ Hardcover Side Setback (S) (N) 0 46 Ac. 75’ 39 24.6% 22.8% 1.6' 25 3 ’ 0.46 Ac. 75’ 10.1% 31% 60% 9.5’ 9.5’ 0.50 Ac. Min. 100’ Min. 0% Allowed 25% Max.'1,1 * ' = 30% Max.^ 10’ Min. 10’ .Min. Lake Setback: House Deck 35'Ji 23'±. 75’ 65'± 75’ .Min. 75’ Min.' Garage (Det.): Side Setback N Side Setback o.r 52’± 24’± 24’± 10’ Min. 10’ Min. Average setback; •Existing * Entire house encroaches •Proposed - Panial encroachment Zoning FUe #2057 August 16, 1995 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - II - •r - Summarv Application Plat Map Property Owners ’ List Survey (Existing) Survey (Proposed/Existing) Topography/Average Setback Line Hardcover Calculations by Applicant Plan and Elevation Views Mr. Nystrom appeared before the Planning Commission in April with a proposal for additions to the existing residence, which is located 35* from the lake and has a deck 23 trom the lake. The Planning Commission tabled that application in order for applicant to revise his plans. Applicant now proposes to remove the existing residence and replace it with new construction. This presents the oppe^rtunity tor construction meeting all City requirements upon granting of the necessary lot area and lot width variances. Additionally, however, applicant requests a number of variances, including. •9.5’ side setbacks instead of the required 10*. Also, the proposed 2.2’ overhangs will place the drip line 7.5’ from the side lot lines where the normal 1.5’ non encroachment allowance would leave the drip line 8.5 from the lot line. •While the house itself will meet the 75’ lakeshore setback, a deck is proposed at 65’ from the shoreline. •This deck results in hardcover in the 0-75’ zone where none would normally allowed. In the 75-250’ zone, hardcover is proposed at 31% where only 25 .b would normally be allowed. In the 250-500’ zone, relocation/reconstruction of the detached izarase and reorientation of the driveway and parking area results in an increased hardcover percentage, although the net hardcover area devoted to drivewav and garage will decrease signiticantly. •Due to the location of the neighboring house to the north, there is still technically an encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line. m Zoning File #2057 August 16, 1995 Page 3 Hardcover Analyds As can be seen from the following table, the overall hardcover decreases by more than 300 s f , and substantial areas of hardcover are pulled out ot the 0-75 zone. As compare to the previous proposal to merely remodel and expand the existing residence, the new proposal is very positive. Hardcover Summary. 0-75’ (Area = 5,630 s.f.) 75-250’ (Area = 13,140 s.f.) 250-500’ rArea = 1.250 s.f.) Entire lot 20.020 s.f. Existing 2.197 s.f. (39.0fc) 3.223 s.f. (24.6%) 285 s.f. (22.8%) 5.715 s.f. (28.5%) Proposed 568 s.f. (10.1%) 4.069 s.f. (31.0%) 750 s.f. (60.0%) 5.387 s.f. (26.9%) Allowed 0 s.f. 3.285 s.f. (25%) 375 s.f. (30%) 3,660 s.f. (18.3%) Lot Coverage by Struemres (Proposed): House Garaee 1.935 s.f. 784 s.f. '» 719 s f./20.020 = 13.6% QK (15% allowed) Note that while removal of the existing garage and construction of a new garage meeting setback requirements (with driveway revisions that decrease driveway areal is a positive, the hardcover percentage in the 250-500’ zone increases because, again, hardcover is moved into that zone from the 75-250' zone. Hardships Whenever a lakeshore prtf eny is proposed to undergo a total reconstruction, there is an opportunity to meet all setback and hardcover requirements. The hardship statement provided bv the applicant suggests that removal of the existing residence troin the 0-75 zone, and conlLr^^e merelv ‘a low level deck in the 0-75'. is a vas, improvemem over the existing Situation. The architect also notes that the location of the patio area ot the neighboring residence to the south played a pan in their decision to seek the variance. .Applicant should be given the opportunity to define specific hardship reasons to justify the lakeshore setback variance. w Zoning File #2057 August 16, 1995 Page 4 No justification has been given for the side setback variance, although the same arguments might be made. i.e. the existing house is only 1.6’ from 'he side lot line, and the new construction will be much more conforming. Reconstruction of the garage and driveway area is positive from a hardcover and setback standpoint, and the "technicality" of a high percentage in the 250-500’ setback zone is justified by the minimal area of that zone. The average setback line is defined by the neighboring residences, the northerly of which is located quite distant from the shoreline. That residence will likely be removed and a new one constructed up to the 75’ setback line at some future date. Even if that did occur, the proposed deck encroachment in the 0-75’ zone would not necessarily fall behind the redefined average setback line. Planning Commission must consider the long-term goal of the City that there should be no encroachment of the 0-75’ zone, and approval of the current proposed encroachment would delay achievement of that goal. Finally, it should be noted that while hardcover excesses are proposed in each of the three zones, overall hardcover reduces from 28.5% to 26.9%, still slightly higher than the DNR’s 25% standard. Staff Recommendation The proposal has many positive aspects, including hardcover reductions and moving hardcover further from the lake. The improvements are especially positive as compared to the existing situation. However, Planmng Commission must determine whether or not sufficient hardship and justification exists to grant the side setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover variances requested, considering that this is the City’s opportunity to start with a "clean slate" and require that all setback and hardcover requirements be met. Any motion for approval should clearly define which variances (in addition to the lot area/lot width/average setback variances) are recommended for approval and clearly specifying the hardship and justification for those additional variances. - A'’i£' . ; /t -• % O A ;fV. ^ - ^ • -/s t /' ••'' > ' / ' C r i (-o He .o o S ..a ’;:"...--/.,, &-<=>r 5'----------'jT-y’r' CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI00.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures ^200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) I 1 -«s=*7% r % .• 0 PROPERTY INFORMATION... 1745 Concordia Street Site Address_________________________, ,t oo ->o nn^ P^opcny .dernmcaucn Number . n ^ Attach legal desenption to application if not included on required sur\ey. Date Property Acquired (montiv'year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels ot land. Present use of property: J^residential ------other (specify) Zoning District:------------------------------------------------------- applicant Name Greg L. Frazee Address.121 w. Franklin Aveni^ Phone (home) 920-2357_____ Phnnelworkl 372-6349 rirv: Minneapolis______Zip: 5540a OVVT^TER (if different than applicant) Name Ja>^es T. Nystrom Phona home)___^ Phone (work)__ljl-3491 Address:1745 Concordia Street City:_Qror^z.ip: DESCRnn-lON OF REQUEST Descr.be request .ndern.l ■SfeTe>ACJ^ Estimated Construction Cost S VrUU.ANCES REQUIRED X Lot .A.rea ___Lot W idth X Hardcover Lot Coverage X Setback:Front X S ide Rear X Average Lakeshore Other (specifv) ‘^ D^nbfund ‘'ufh‘^rrs”^P«'''^"""S comphance will. ZomngCode requ.-'me.als:—----------------" The existing ho^ is ioc -a within the 0-/:> setbacK ..on£_----------------- l. ^t/uAC ^ v—^----------—— % «< J ■^iU REQUIRED SUBMITTALS • • n ■ All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered com plete: 1. '2. 3. 4. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain ^s list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with prcpert} owners list). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8Vi x 11 for reproduction. Topographic surv'ev (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes m existmg grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'A" x 11" for reproduction.^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/^" x IT). List of the legal names (include mantal status) of all persons with an interest in the propert y. This w'ould include nameis) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ___Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remernber that your variance appHration is not complete if the above Informati oD -bps not been inc luded^ ai *plicant ’s signature . u u 7 The applicant herebv agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Adminis trator, aarees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultam expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true^n^correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Applicant ’s Signature ^4 Date / \ OWIVER’S SIGNATURE The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to tliis application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and CouncU members for purposes^:^mvestiganon andjvenlication Owner's Signature __'^Date n' 7 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Plannmg Commission Meeting ’ Planmne Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. ApplicLits must be pre.sent at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements !o have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office ot this change prior to the meeting 11 X • %•-t ..•^.7/W PPP^ mm DAT! Q%/i7/nItATCfl SOI miiftPlN COUNTY MOrCRTY XNY0I»IAT1QN SYSTEMHKN^RTY QHNEtS LISTnm MMTAXSAYCiNAHE^'AOn M I7-I17-IS 12 0014017M CONCOOOIA STR T OULIN ISO OULINRC^N OULIN I OAOeARA OULIHITOS CONCORDIA STNAYZATA m SSI41 fROP ADOR CMCR NAHf TAXPAYiR NAMC/AOOR Sa 17-117-25 22 ^Olf 0174S CONCORDIA ST JANES T NYSTRON JANFS T NYSTRON 1745 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA HN 55591 PROP ADOR ONNCR NAHC TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 50 17-117-25 22 0025 0149S COI^OROIA ST 0 J A D R SEIAWSKI DONALD JOHN OELAHSKI 5019 COLORADO AVE N CRYSTAL NN 55422 ••. PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER IIAME/ADDR 58 17-117-25 22 0030 01740 CONCORDIA ST 0 J BILA»GKI ADC BELAE&KI DAVID J A DAYNA C BEIANSKI 1740 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 5559I ' , . • If’ •“ ».> n N&. P14SS401"tCi 1sa ir-iir-fs zt 0017017il CONCORDIA STrUROARET L ANTOir«HARGARCT/RONALO ANTOINE TRSTWSPT CUSS lANARLES FL SSfoO sa 17-117-25 22 001801755CONCORDIA ST6ERAL0 H KIECKNERCERALO N KLECKlffR1755 CONCORDIA STNAYZATA**i 55551 58 17-117-25 22 0«« 01725 CONCORDIA ST CHARLES H OLSON CHARLES M OLSON 1725 CONCORDIA ST S NAYZATA NN 55351 58 17-117-23 22 0021 01705 COICORDIA ST JANET JAC08S0N SACHS JANET SACHS 75<*5 17TH AV SO RICHFIELD NN 55A2» 38 17-117-21 22 0027 017AO CONCORDIA *^ H 0 HOLD A S L HOLO H:NT0N 0 HOLD 12300 MARION LA N H1131£T0Ft(A MN 55305 38 17-117-23 22 0023 01750 CONCORDIA ST PAUL J BOZONIE PAUL J BOZONIE 1755 FAGERNESS POINT RO ORONO MN 55351 38 17-117-23 22 0031 01655 CONCORDIA ST P HERNBON/TL ORTMEIER-HERNDON PAUL L HERNDON 140 CARLSON PKHY 8101 MIIRIETONKA MN 55305 TOTAL BATCH 501 00011 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS OATb ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE ANd BELIEF DATE %t ' 0 0 0 � >-0 < LU :r: Cl)' UJ N�,.r-r• -G -. --. r-< •0 er: 0 � u.. '-" ' -w w LU LL 0: LL 0 l? (_) ... (0 ,- l-9 LL 0 \ � U) UJ z -1 •' I l ' ' - ( ( ----·- � >-r-z 0 0 --;:, ,A.--CL w z z I . . . ·-- u\ ., l Jl --i . -. � --. ·-. - . . . I . . ... ' .. . -.... " ,. {:� w ' \.J :r: \ I-O l l -0 J - ....._ -c; . -.. ) 0 \ I V) , '- \ - -- \ I I - - / - I -·, . ., . • ' , � , "· \ , ' I ' r ;, ' I I' .' .' • ' l ' •, �· . ' ' ---1 . . .� I -•• . .' ' ' . . ... ... ... . . I l ' ... V o·-- (;J'. \ I ' t ---- I • • ' � ... -. "' C) }- Ll - ' . . . . . ' . . '' ·� ' .......... . , I I I.... ,.,-I l I In I I. ,. 'l I .. t I• I -.... ( 5: • . I I I I I . .. I.. II (o II -t .... ' ,( (," ,... -.' , . :1 I • ·-1111 U� I ..r .. . 'l�t l. ) � 'I 1 I ' -�-♦ I • 1 . \ 1-) • , I• l I I _l-�-� c:u ·-- -- •.. '• Q ., L1 0 0:) l" " C • - ) ,... . I "' . l..., I : --- •• .. \ V 0 '-' l -0 -- I ·I ll I'1 -• 0 1'» .b ' •, I -. ' �, ta. {) � • -...! ::! ., ,.,c _,, r>.:' A./ o,-,, A <"O' f" q· r '-'/a/' ;f 0.-I /,,.,,,,·J ; WEST . . -.. . • • • # . . . . . . . ,. .. -.• 258.75CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GREGFRA�EE I ·-·-OF LOT 13, COFFEE'S ADD. T0 SHADYWOOD , ••I ---- ·10N OF 929. 4 CONDUE TO ICE HEAVE A 7'5/ J I HENNEPIN COLINTY, MINNESOTA . ... . ; ,' . .... -. • l Existi,,� J-lou.s�.,,, ,1.. ,,,c, 4 C 1 4 l ◄ d 4 I I I ◄ -... �- I - .. -EAST 243JZ _ 5 .., .. __ '' ,-,_._..;'r_ '·�• � !O.I I -�� t I > ;; _____ ...... .... _ . . , . •'"'"'....' J. Ck �·� ._,. ,-: , .. II I r,ve�y -,�.,,•_J' -'rt) 1d? t ,.,., •• ... -.1 -PJ Jr-75'st, I ..c.r•1•r, .,; ...... ,..•'\- \ .. ' � '2.<;. 422 ;,:.., f Existing ,.-,,, "'> r,rt-e!!�--r::: llous e (91.1. � ...... ZJJ.s "•--,.,' " ::::JUE.,I C • ,,.. • ,. ,c · " " / L . ... , .. . , ', . ..I • . . ... -.. · o I I< (Y.l'.o} kro .-�,''",.11,11'..,....... - r..,... -.. �y � ' . 250 1 �,· .ITBAC.� I ' • _,,, °' I c.,.,.<,..�:�1 l 16�, � • PQ. tio :0 I I�� u.,i,o. /k ,, re r /ex,.qt,o --, cw,lc,..,o,c.v,, dve to ic � � . tx:ist,n9 • I --!j : . ,., ... _.,,.,..,, •. (iara.ge � I :) i,,� • _ ,, . :-;;:,_�r'�F WEST , .... .,. 0.1 •••• 2+.3 • • .'<''., ... , .. , .,.-, � • ,,. - ,,., 258.75 -�-· • O./ ;' �,.,.. -. ') . ..· ... . . .• • ,, .. . \. .. -• . . 41'9. 9 +QJ +v, .'1 0 u C a J ii-' � . -,, •. -. ,i 8 .. _,.. � I f--.-. __ ., , l J ? . w hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75-150’ |;X1STTNG hardcov er IN ZONE A. Hotse _________ — LenfTti B.Gifltga C.Driveway D.Sidrvaik STEPS E.Patio/Deck “ ((uwe-”) F.Landscape X X X X X X U Oder lain By Plastic BSQ, G.Other X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ • A 2 iqT J - 8 proposed HARDCQV F-R ln zone A. House _____________— Ling'S B.Garage C-Dnveway X X D Sidewaik X X E.Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Ucderiain Bv Plastic X X X G.Other total har T'-'O ver in zone total PROPE^^^A in zone ^ 25-500 ’fOO-lOOO’ l\OZ-.a S.F. S.F. z S.F. z S.F. s oo S.F. s Q o S.F. 3,S.F. S.F a lO o S.F. z^n.o S.F 1^6.0 S F. 0.0 SF S.F. S F. 5ft <3 S.F. 2.1^*7 .o . S F. 5,a'50-'5 S.F. 5T.C2. T a 0.0 S.F. =S F S.F. z S.F. 0.0 S.F. 0.0 S.F «S.F. a O O S F. -S.F. SteZo S.F. a S F. a 0.0 s F a S.F. -S.F. 0.0 S.F. Sb&.o S.F 5 (55«n.O S.F. ID A B A B H4S Cot.iCafis:>iK "STR€£.f. . . ... hardcovtr calculation worksheet setback ZONT: (CIRCLE O.VE) 0-7r f YTSTISG HARDCQVTR IN ZONX A.House_______ Lxr^^ B.Garage C-Driveway D.Sidewaiik E.Patio/Deck F.Landscape ______ Underlain _____ By Plastic ___ G.Otiier _____ X i X X X X X X X Lcng'Ji B.Garage C,Dr.ves«>3y D Sidfi’A-aik E.Paao/DecK F Landscape Ucdsriain Bv Plastic X X X T t X G.Older ___------ 25-500 ’ Wnia TOTAL HARDCOVER iN ZONE total property A«a iN ZONE ^ ^ A ---------------------- PPOPD^FD H^PnrONTR IN ZONE A.House----------------------'-Wtd’Ji =: 5=. as ss total hardcover in zone total B >y> '40-^ ' '00 5QO»lOOO’ \y5.0 S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. $4-2...dd S.F. ,12*10 O S.F. S.F. 430.0 S F. ■"s.F S F S.F S F S F S F 95 0 S.F Z33.0 S.F 13.14.0.0 S.F Z'>^.ho ' l.<^34.S S.F S F S.F S.F 7&4P S.F Scg>.0 S.F S.F 44o-0 S.F S.F 244-.q_ S.F S.F O S.F S.F S.F SS .0 S.F 4 Ofea.g S.F. ~l V 140 . O S.F, 20?lb "o A 3 A B 145 . . - hardcover calculation \v orksheet r SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-Tr f YTSTTNG ^ A.House ________ Leof^ X X B.Garage C.Driveway D.Sidewalk E.Patio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plasnc G.Otlicr r X X X T X T I TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone A Z^g-O - 3 propose :i> hardco vtr in zone A.House —--------------' Len{':^ B.Garage C.Dnveway D.Side‘A/alk E.Patio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic G.Other 75-2i0 ’ wida I , Z.SO .Q ’■‘ N^ Wsdih TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE total PROPERTY .AREA IN ZONE ^ -7900 -B LZgO.O X 100 fh5o£)500-1000’ 0.0 S.F. S.F. S F. «S.F. C C s F. ZSS.O S.F. S.F. s 00 S.F. -S.F s 00 SF *S F s 0 0 S F. S F S F 4M*00 S F. 2?-g.O s F 1.2,90.0 S.F s zz.ao '•'i 0.0 S.F. S F e S F as S.F sr 0.0 S F z *190.0 S.F =S.F c.o : ^ —S.F 0.0 S.F —S.F C.o S.F r;S.F S.F Oo _ S.F s ’793.00 S.F _J j 290.0 S.F (aO .00 ‘!’o A B A B r •4, JJ 4'^ « ----------rj --H ? I 1 ------' 1 1 -------Hi ■~1 I JL I I --1 -1 I 1___ . 1J----------------^ J1 1 1 1 1 i 11—r 1 J1 1 nTj 4\i S (ft 1 € I m-‘i-i lii^^ 1 'HIlu -4 V ^ 00 ^ i II LLiJ l!fl; LIJ I I 1-1:1 I I-:2III I1 i ■'y f P i\ ^ IV - o trj s 0 i' I 1 I- 4l t’pJ' f # ------ r ~ ” i ii'i 1 A L [KfMk / / ,«-------- f . ^ , ,t------------------------ __ ...I ,c-ae » i j i £ ' • , !-- I , ' , r � ,' I . ------J�• I 1--,-- I I _J 1 •.• • i 0 'f: •' M. '■if i#- imm- /?ras;v'^v iyipPfiS -Jk • TIHHil•vV -'.S . 1 f 1^ ii__1^ |j_.I I J V» i tc. 3 »A □r; TLLl Tin -.. I*^cf£ ^'a:j: iSfc ♦ *^VI_|*' "1 . I L_fl m I n 111Q hfrrfl n \'f r-'0 • > 4.1 Jf O'// : ' •.. ' ■• •'•• •-2 ■■■■.' •<i,' .•• " ■••■•'••v».______1%!^ -4 — -n --U I [A •5 rd i'- I € MINX'TES OF THE ORONO CWM MEEir'.'G HELD ON APRIL I / , 1995 (f#8 - #2011 Tim & Lori Line - Continued) The Robert Wolfe’s inquired if any tree trees and roof line is below the tree line Lon Lme noted that tt .s then add more if necessarv- .olanntoved. L.dquis. seconded, to and hardcover vanarce in the /0 zone the design mtugaung restnaions. The prmapal, asStaff recommendations. Ayes o. Nays l.Rowlette.voieuma. y hardcover variance is required for new construction. («,) «0U JAMES NVSTRO.M. 1745 CO.NCORUL4 STREET - V.ARlxVCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:59-9:20 P.M. The Ceruficaie of MaUing and .Affidavit of Publication ivere noted. NU. Nystrom was present and represented by his architect. Greg Frazee. Mabusth reported that the apphca.ion is ffir p^^sed " is::K:::re:b:fhr ““ee.usun7s^crure ’s^au S'wI^irbitcmeVl» sLTh'side lo, Irne and the rear bedroom addi.ron 1.6' from the same side lot line. Frazee reported therr surprise when the "riemf' dXln:m"^-a^^a^d starrweU to gam access to the master bedroom. Peterson ^fa^room or' ' Se" ‘ad “norteelg .he srde setback, and a change m plans would be necessarv' Frazee asked for commission s comments on the hardcover in the 75-250’ zone. Lindquist sli^ffie area needs to be measured out ana figured .or reouctions. „ S..1 If .he foundation would be able to handle the new additions. Frazee said theBerg asked 'f'^e rounto Ser! c"r^°^ ot^'stmcmr^'entpneer. for if a new foundation is needed, the whole Structure could be moved. r'" ■'1 i M1^■UTES OF THE ORON'O CONMSSION MEETING HELD ON .APRIL 17, L95 (1^9 - ^2014 James Nystrom - Continued) P«erson moved. Nolen seeonded. to table Application «014 to allow time for new plans to be drawn. .Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PL.AaN REVIEWS ,*10) «006 JAMES BRUCE. 565 LEAF STREET - SHETCH FLAN/SUBDrVTSlON James Bruce was present. This sketch plan is for a 3-lot subdivis.cn of'o. 6 of th^Snelow ™ consists of 5.9 acres, and the app leant ^property is within the „e,ghbor to meet the smbs are nrw in, and one MUSA, and sewer is available from ^^easement would be Sding envelop It was noted that an existing residence .s locateu on lot .. the drainage easement could be up against the setback, where the building envelope wou vnirpd noting a good building envelope to '„t:rmaylTn“e:^'rmay just^be a matter of redefimng easentenr. A separate CLIP for the subdivision would be required .f dramageway is relocated. Rowlette asked if there was any lake vrew on ihis property. The applicanr said tha. there was a minimal view in the winteniir.e. The aecess to the property was discu.ssed as two dmes coming trom O.xlord Road r cihle^Less oorioM to lot 3 .vere discussed noting the need to not cut lot a m half. Nofa^ wi concerned rv,th the narrow conngurauon of lo, 3 and taking the port,on ot driveway out of the west side of lot 2. cci'NCiLf'Ecri;; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NOV 1 3 1995 cm 0? URCNfl DATE: November 1. 1995 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2061 Arae Wasberg, 3135 North Shore Drive - Renewal Variance Resolution Zoning District:LR-IB Total lot area = 43,529 s.f. Brief Review of Application The applicant has filed a renewal variance application for the property previously owned by LeRoy and Wanda Fischbach (Application #1941). The original variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover variances were granted by the City in September, 1994. The original proposal dealt with a two-storv' addition and upper level lakeshore deck that would extend no closer to the inland lagoon than the existing structure. Structural hardcover increases were to be offset bv either the removal of plastic underliner beneath landscape areas or new structure placed over existing hardcover improvement. Hardcover facts have not been amended from the original proposal, staff can confimi that Mr. Wasbere has removed all of the plastic underliner beneath landscaped :uea. It is the applicant's intention to live in the residence to determine the kind of structural improvements they would wish to build. The applicant has advised that their proposed improvement will not be as ambitious as the one approved by the Ciw tor the former owner. It is the intention of the Wasbergs to close off the existing access at North Shore Drive and to access property via the driveway to the south that encroaches their property. Major paving improvements will also be removed in the 75-250 ’ setback area. Applicant also proposes the creation of a bemi and the planting of evergreens along the North Shore Drive lot line to reduce visual and noise impact of the adjacent County road. The Planninu Commission recommended unanimous approval ot the renewal variance application, subject to the findings and conditions of the original resolution approved by the Citv in 1994 (refer to Exhibit G). COUNCIL .ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution I A RESOLUTION APPROVING RENEWAL VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONLNG CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDI\ ISION 1 (A) AND SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #2061 WHEREAS, S. Arne Wasberg and A. M. Decandia (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 3135 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tract A. Registered Land Sur\ey No. 1113, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have reapplied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (A) to permit construction of a two story addition and upper°levcl deck that would e.xtend 27" from the shoreline of the adjacent lagoon where a 75" setback is retiuired and where the e.xisting structure encroaches 27" from that shoreline, and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 as hardcover within the 0-75" setback area is proposed at 3,195 s.f. or 10.6% and where 3.694 s.f. or 12.3% exists and none is allowed, and in the 75- 250" setback area hardcover exists at 5,131 s.f. or 37.8% where 25% is allowed and where 3,242 s.f. or 23.9% is proposed requiring no variance approval. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYTiD by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS This renewal variance application was reviewed as Zoning File #2061. The property is located in the LR-IB. Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 43.560 s.f. in area. The property consists of 43.529 s.f. Paae 1 of 6 3.The Orono Planning Cominission reviewed this application on October 16, 1995 and recommended approval of the renewal variance application as proposed, based on the following unique findings and hardships: A.80% of the total property is unbuildable. B.The original structure was placed on property in 1973 prior to current lakeshore setback standards. C.The majority of the existing house is located within the 0-75 ’ setback area. D.The interior lagoon connected to main lake by a dredged channel is considered part of the main lake placing greater setback restrictions on building envelope. E.The current proposal involves decreases in hardcover within the 0-75' and 75-250 ’ setback areas as follows: In the 0-75 ’ setback area there is a 499 s.f. or 1.7% reduction and in the 75-250 ’ setback area there is a 1,889 s.f. or 14% reduction. 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 ot the City. The City Council has considered this renewal application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, repons by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Pace 2 of 6 ‘' -n-rfvrTII CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby approves a setback variance of 48' or 64% for the lakeside two story addition and upper level deck and a hardcover variance within the 0-75' setback area of 3,195 s.f. or 10.7%, subject to the following conditions: 1.Upon application for a building permit, applicants must provide an updated survey showing location of all existing and proposed improvements to be accompanied by a detailed grading and drainage plan. If it is found that new additions will encroach any closer to lagoon than existing strucmre, applicants will be required to file an amended variance application with both the City and DNR. 2.All landscape areas underlain with plastic shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed new construction. 3.Applicants to provide necessary erosion control along the shoreline of the pond and wherever deemed necessary by the Orono Building staff prior to any land alterations on this property. 4.Applicants have agreed to replant specific mature evergreens to be removed as a result of these improvements. Applicants have submitted a site plan indicating existing and proposed plantings in the 0-75' setback zone included as page 6 of this resolution. Plantings are to be completed prior to the final inspection for the new construction by the Orono Building Department. 5.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 13. 1996). 6.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. Page 3 of 6 7.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of November, 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 13th day of November. 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 ot the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of . 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared_____________________________^^--------------— known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the toregoing 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 dav of . 199 before me a Notarv Public within and for said countv. personally appeared_________________________________________—- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing mstrument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 6 <3:. I"' ^ X\WAI - 0‘ (/louic ,o\'^w/yys^ b^YC W4t io-bih I9y3^'c of Ci ^ ^ oi ^ ‘.,si^.- / •£"#" TKS ira K i C j ^<:2. NT) o~D^no^es /ron A'^Of7U/77€/t/ I hereby certify that tliis is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: TO: FROM: /. Planning Commission Chairman Peterson Jeanne A. Mabusih. Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:September 12, 1995 SUBJECT:#2061 Arne Wasberg, 3135 North Shore Drive • Renewal Variances Zoning District - LR-IB Total Lot Area - 43,529 square feet Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.03 Subdivision 14(C) Review of Structural Coverage Allowed = 6,529.3 square feet or 15% Existing = 4,461 square feet or 10.1% Proposed = 4,923.4 square feet or 11.3% No structural coverage variance required Section 10.22 Subdivision 1(A). Lakeshore Setback Variances. Refer to E.xhibit E A.Existing principal structure = 30 +. feet Proposed principal structure = 30 +. feel B.Existing deck = 27 jf feet Proposed deck = 27 ± feet Variance for principal structure = 45 feet or 60% Variance for upper level deck = 48 feet or 64% Existinc gravel area underlain with plastic is to be removed and is located 20 feel from lagoon shoreline. 10.22 Subdivision 2 Review of Hardcover Variances A.0 - 75* setback area = 29.974 square feet Existing = 3,694 square feet or 12.3% Proposed = 3.195 square feet or 10.7% Hardcover reduction = 499 square feet or 1.7% B.75 - 250’ setback area - 13. 555 square feet Allowed = 3.388.7 square teet or 25% Existing - 5.131 square teet or 37.8% Proposed = 3.242 square feet or 23.9% Hardcover reduction = 1,889 square feel or 14% f*. Zoning File ^061 Arne Wasberg September 12, 1995 page 2 of 3 List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G -Application -Property Owners List -Plat Map -Existing Site Plan -Proposed Site Plan 1-3 - Elevation -Resolution #3461 Description of Renewal Request The new owners of the property have applied for a renewal variance application tor the variances that were granted in 1994 to the previous owners (1941 Lee and Wanda Fischbach). The owners have advised that they wish to live in the residence to determine the design modifications needed for their level of use. The applicants have not revised the hardcover calculations, although they noted to staff that they have already removed much of the plastic underliner beneath the landscape areas around the house. They have also advised that they would like to remove the existing driveway at North Shore Drive that currently serves the residence and to relocate a new access at the existing driveway to the south. This will also result in a reduction in hardcover. They would in turn plant trees along the North Shore Drive yard, providing a landscape buffer to the noise and activities on the county road. The original application involved a two siorv' addition at the lakeside of the residence. The existing upper level lakeside three-season porch would now be replaced with a two-story addition plus upper level deck. The existing upper level porch is 30 feet from the inland lagoon or lake. The proposed two-storv’ addition would extend no closer to the shoreline referred to Exhibits D & E. The proposed upper level 3 ’ deck at its closest projection is 21' from the lagoon shoreline and would extend no closer than the existing uppei level deck. The two story lakeside addition was to provide for an expanded familv room and living room on the upper level and an exercise room and familv rec room at the lower level. No grade level deck improvements are proposed beneath the three foot upper level deck. There is a lower level 4X14 ’ deck proposed below the cantilevered upper level expansion of a master bedroom area. The improvements also included a new entry addition at the street side of the house requiring no setback variances. Major decreases in hardcover are proposed and structural coverage held at 11.3%. \t their September 12. 1994 meeting the Orono Council approved the application as recommended by a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. Oic enclosed resolution records the conditions of the Planning Commission’s original approval. Zoning File #2061 Arne Wasberg September 12. 1995 page 3 of 3 Staff will not get into any further detail on these improvements as it is clearly not the intention of the current owners to proceed with construction. The new owners will present a new and less ambitious plan in the near future. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission may adopt the findings and conditions ot the enclosed approval resolution. It is not clear to staff why the applicants wish to renew the previous application for improvements that they do not plan to implement. The variance application officially expired on September 12, 1995. Applicants may be best advised to withdraw the application and file a variance application when they are ready to proceed. p CITY OF ORONO - VARLWCE APPLICATION ^ - •t; f %V Initial Application Fee S2C0.00 (S50.00 per each additional vanancS; Renewal Variance Fee SI CO. 00 (no chanze from original application; Vanance for non-coniorming straemres i--.0.UU After-the-Fac: Fees (Double appacation :ee! 1..^ / I PROPERTY INTOR-NLATION'/___________________ Site Address__^% ✓ -T-. 3 Procerr*' Identiricauon Numcer (P....D.)—‘ -Property Mer.mxauon on reouirea sur.-ey. Attach legal description tO applic>.tiC^t ^ ^________ __(month'year; Date Propertv' Acauired i(ft!on^ Present use of prop! Zoning District:__ :ri’) .APPLIC.AV^' . Name ^ Phone I heme') 'x Pheneiworit) ^ ^-C~/wy; z.p:^,£S2^/ O'VNFR ' if different than applicant;^_ Phonaheme) Phone (work) Address ____Sj—•—■* Zi r» description OF REQIXST ^ Desenbe request mdetail:Ai/ / /n ^ - V.ARLANCES REQUIRED Lot .Area _ iX Setback: Lot Width Side Hardcover Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specif)') ^<n ,:±U-^y:^y ^______________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS An nf fh> Mln-vinp information must h> ...hmitted hvth? npplication deadline d^ejn^ for vour application to be considered complete: —of owners Hennepin Countv Department ot Finance. A-oOj. Govt Center, 8 ). ----calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copv 3,. x 11 ?opovnDhic'survev (e.tisting and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade — are pFopLd. In addition, provide one (1) copy 3'a" x 11 tor reproduc ion. Sketches or plans of floor Sc elevation views (provide one U) copy 3-. x 11 ). ----List of the lesal names (include mamal statusi of all persons with an interest in e ----property. This would include nameis) of applicant(s) if not current As LTddendum 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. 1. 3. 4. 5._ 6-_ 7._ 8._ 9.___ The Applicant and Propertv Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour .nnlirntion is noi complete if the above inf,.mi.ujpnJiaiJ!.ot been included. ThTapptom Lfe*by^a”^Srro provide all infotmation required or requested by the Zomng AdmiSstrator aerJs to pav additional fees (staff time not covered by original tee pa>nient) " omul’tam expense'incurred in review of i^s application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. '7 Date / Applicant’s Signamre The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further auth^orues ^trv onro the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Conned members for purposes of investigation and verification ot this request. DateOwner's Signature Anniir.nt mustffme all submittals into the Cin^offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Me-tine Platans Commission Meetings are held on the third xMonday of each mon ^ ADD k^ts must b'e present at aU scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission ind^CouncU If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeung. please make arra^ements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the BuUdmg & Zomng Office this change prior to the meeting. 8 SS 09-117-23 32 000&03090 NORTH SHORE OROMOEL J HC6LYNNDANIEL J HCGLYNN3090 NORTH SHORE ORNAYZATA HN 55391 SO 09-117-23 32 0009 03100 NORTH SHORE DR P J BLOMOERG A.O J BL0M0ER6 PAUL J A BEVERLY J BLOHBERC 31B0 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA HN 55391 PROP AODR l»tCR NAME TAXPAYER NAtC/AODR 3B 09-117-23 32 0016 03105 NORTH SHORE OR I 0 LUNOGUIST t C T I 0 LUNOqUIST ACT 3105 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA NN 55391 JOttCON JOHNSON PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 3B 09-117-23 33 0002 03165 NORTH SHORE DR HILLIAH TOLES WILLIAM TOLES 3165 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0016 03185 NORTH SHORE OR T A S ENLOH THOMAS C t SUSAN S ENLOH 3185 N SHORE DR HAYZATA T94 55391 ^TMEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFCHtHATION SYSTEMPROPERTY ONNERS LIST38 09-117-23 32 000703120 NORTH SNORE DR0 R POMIJE A P L PQMIJEDAVID R A PEtRUE L POMIJE3120 NORTH SHORE ORHAYZATA m 55391 38 09-117-23 32 0010 03186 NORTH SHORE DR F P PACOVSKY AML PACOVSKY FREDRICK P PACOVSKY MICHELLE L PACOVSKY 3186 NORTH SNORE DR HAYZATA m 55391 38 09-117-23 32 0018 03135 NORTH SHORE DR S A HAS8ERG A A M DECAIOIA S A HASBERG A A DECAIOIIA 3135 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA 194 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0009 03175 NORTH SHORE DR MAC RUS3IN MICHAEL A CATHERINE RUSSIN 3175 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI635A01PAGE 19SB 09-117-23 32 000803160NORTH SHORE DRK A ZULLO A J A ZULLOKENNETH A ZULLO3160 NORTH SHORE ORNAYZATA 194 55391 38 09-117-23 32 0013 03115 NORTH SHORE DR RICHARD J OLSON RICHARD J OLSON 3115 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA 194 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0001 03155 NORTH SHORE DR RONALD D LAUER J L MANDEL A P HANDEL 3155 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA 194 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0013 03195 NORTH SHORE DR MARTHA J SHEDEieORG MARTHA J SHEDENBORG 3195 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA 194 55391 uu CO'w C.'l- TOTAL BATCH 506 00013 MM MTIBATCH MB ’‘•■'All I ^ r ^ ^ f r i a ISMCnN COUNTY MWEBTY INFORHATiaN SYSTEMBHQPCHTY aMNERS LIST report no. PIASSAOlPAGE 20 I CERTIFY THAT Ti:E FACTS REPRCSENTCO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY T^TION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOt'lLEDGE AND BELIEF. 'T')(j (^•Z5‘75by v/0<IDATE .U )St ii ...) U OU I\ UMI � "be ,1 0) . ' • --, ___ • •.•• • �� .. ',, � ( 15) :·· ·.. �--t . . . ' ·:··>· .� ( ") ', ',,_ ;:-· � � •, .a ( 18) . . .... 5 ................................................ .... Q 1 -- ,,.--' • • J -• - --------- �-i,·id,;;;oos JJdveWAj - .. ------- - \\ \\ I If__i »ci 0 U-* V\NI �-r 1 1 ,. 1 , . · .. .. . . ;' . ' ,,. • \ L\_ • • --. I � ➔ I I ' ' I I . I I I . I I I . I ! • II t I I I j ... II I . i'' I I I ' II I I I I i I I I 'I I ; I I I I I ' • •' I i I• I j I ' ' I ' , _,. I I i I I I . . . I : • I I • I I' I I I I I I I I I ' I • I . - lQ..J ' I I 0 -- ' IM, I • ' • ' ·. • ( I I I I I . I • I I l - !).,,. .::t- � s• V) u5 \ � LU l-3 ,\ 4 CITY of ORONO BESOLITION OF THE CITY COl NCIL NO. 84^ j ___ »h A UESOLUTION AI’PRON INC VARI/VNCES ro MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.::. SURDIVISION I (A) and SI IIDIVISION 2 I ILE ^1941 WHEREAS, LeRoy J. Fisclibach and Wanda L. Fischbadi (hcicinalier "Uie ai'plic.Tiiis") are die u.vncrs of ihc propcity located at 3135 Nortit Shore Drive wuliin the City of Oroivo (hereinafter ’City") and leually described as lollows; Tiact A, Registered Land Survey No. 1113. Hennepin County. Minnes.ita (hereinafter "the property and WHEREAS, tlie applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10,22. Subdivision 1 (A) to permit consti-uction of a two story addition .md upp.crlevel deck liiat would extend 27’ iiuin the shoreline ol the adjacent lagoon wheie a 75' scilMck is required and wheie the existing structure encroaches within 27’ of that sluucline and a v.iriance to Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 as hardcover within the 0-75’ setb.ick .nca is pi\.pt.,sed at 3.195 s.f. or 10.6% and where 3.694 s.f. or 12.3% exists and wheie none is allowed. NOW, therefore , I5E IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. .Minr.esota; FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^1941. Ihc property is located in the I.R-IB. Lakeshoie Residential Zoning District requiring 43.560 s.f. in area. I he property consists of 43.529 s.f. Paiie 1 of 6 J . K CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE Cm COU'NCIL NO 8 4 61_____ 3. •* The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 18, 1994 and August 15, 1994 and recommended approval of the variance application as amended based on the following unique findings and hardships: A.80of the total property is unbuildable. B.The original strucmre was placed on property in 1973 prior to current lakeshore setback standards. C. D. E. The majority of the existing house is located within the 0-75 ’ setback area. The interior lagoon connected to main lake by a dredged channel is considered part of the main lake placing greater setback restrictions on building envelope. The current proposal involves decreases in hardcover within the 0-75 ’ and 75-250 ’ setback areas as follows: In the 0-75 ’ setback area there is a 499 s.f. or 1.7% reduction and in the 75-250 ’ setback area there is a 1,889 s.f. or 14% reduction. The City Council fmds 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 tfie variance 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 intent of the Zomng Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Cit>' 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 commumty. Page 2 of 6 son CITY of ORONO RESOLLTIO.N OF THE Cmf COUiNCIL NO. 3 4 61 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER .\iND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby approves a setback variance of 48' or 64% for the lakeside two story addition and upper level deck and a hardcover variance w'ithin the 0-75 ’ setback area of 3.195 s.t. or 1 . c su ject to the foMowing conditions; 1 Upon application for a building permit, applicants must provide an updated survey showing location of all existing and proposed improvements to be accompanied bv a detailed grading and drainage plan. If it is found that new addition will encroach anv closer to lagoon than existing structure, applicants will be required to file an amended variance application with both the City and DNR. 2.All landscape areas underlain with plastic shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed new construction. 3.Applicants to provide necessar>' erosion control along the shoreline of the pond and wherever deemed necessary by the Orono Building staff prior to any land alterations on this propeny. 4 Applicants have aereed to replant specific mature evergreens to be removed as a result of these improvements. .Applicants have submitted a site plan mdicating existing and proposed plantings in the 0-75 ’ setback zone included as page 6 of this resolution. Plantings are to be completed prior to the final inspection for the new construction by the Orono Building Department. 5 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 (September 12, 1995). 6 V'iolation 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 anv authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 6 . ^ /oX o\CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3-4 fi-J-------- 7.The undersiened applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolwion and on behalf of themselves, their heirs successors and assigr^ hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title ot the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of September. 1994. ATITEST: Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor X STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of Sentember 1994, bv Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono. a .M'innesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. {?«***LINOA S. VEE MOWnr PU8UW«MNB0U HBmEPm COUNTY My Conwitsswn 31.2000 A . .’ 1 . / Notary Public Paae 4 of 6 vm o>u ■■» . • % CITY of ORONO RESOLtTION OK THE Cm COl'NCII. NO. S 4 fi 1_____ STATE OF xMINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) day of -19^5' before me a Noiar>' On this _________—. --------------------7—; / / C' ' / • J Public within and for said counc>’. personally appeared _yakne rilChDiCh, PTirritji.—^----- known to me to be the person! st described in and who executed :he foregoing .nstmn.enc, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his Ithetr) tree act and deed. I CAROUAHASEMAM inttftr fuuc4iNNES0tt HBmffW COUNTY MyCoiTMnisianExDi'aJin. 31 . . ^ NESOtt E fTY g r .31 ? i00 S NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav 01 /). 199 before me a Notary’ Publicwithinandforsaidcounty.personallyappeared J t '^chb.Lh know n to me to be the person(s) described m and who executed t'he foregoing instrument, and'acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. f*I UNOAS.VEE H0TAWPUaX4»«BflW HEfWEPW COUNTY ■ III lll»>TI! kVEE I J*'. 31.2000 j y ’\ /1 .' // NOTARY PUBLIC Pace 5 of 6 lv«S0a »a u REQUEST FOR COITSCIL ACTION DATE COUNCIL nr:r NOV 1 3 1935 CI1Y Of ORCKO : November 7, 1995 ITEM NO.: C Department Approval: Name Michael P. GafTron Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2065 Samuel and Joyce Marfield/Douglas and Cheryl Hill/William Toles, 2455/2425/2435 Scotch Pine Lane - Proposed Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and Easements Within Plat of Dicon Addition - Replat of Dicon Addition (Preliminaiy Subdivision Approval) - Resolution Zoning District:LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshorc Residential, 2 Acre List of Exhibits A - Preliminar>- Plat Approval Resolution Planning Commission Minutes 10/16/95 Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/18/95 Watershed District Grading Permit Approval "Back Lot" Impacts Sketch Memo and Exhibits of 10/13/95 D C D E F Summary' of Request The applicants arc the three property owners abutting and making use of Scotch Pine Lane, wJiich is a dedicated public road constructed to City standards. They propose to vacate the Scotch Pine Lane right-of-way and convert the cul-dc-sac and a significant portion ot the road into lawn areas. Further, they propose to replat the vacated right-ot-way so that each owTier will acquire title to their respective portions of right-of-way in a configuration acceptable to each owner. Marileld and Hill will maintain a shared driveway at the current street location. Toles will develop a new driveway onto North Shore Drive. The application involves the vacation of easements dedicated to the public for utility and drainace purposes as well as the regranting of specific easements for drainage and existing utilities. Summan' of Issues In the October 13 staff memo, a number of issues wiih the proposed vacation and leplat were identified: 1.Fire safcty/cmergency vehicle access. bkaSIii 'iEt 'fi Eequest for Counci] Action continued Pagc2 November?, 1995 Zoning File #2065 Samuel and Joyce Marfield/Dougias and Cheryl Hill/William Toles 2.Subdivision petfonnance standards, including "back lot" requirements, lot width and area, and lack of frontage on a public road. 3.Easement vacation/rededication, including the need for accommodating City sewer lines, NSP and Minnegasco as well as other utilities, and the need to suitably address any drainage concerns. 4.Neighbors concerns (15' setback to Toles driveway requested). 5.Access policy issues, including: -City requirement for road serving three or more lots. -Potential for setting a precedent. -Necessity of unique findings. Fire Protection Please review Exhibits A and B of the October 13 memo regarding fire protection. Dale Beckman of BRW at the request of the applicants evaluated the fire protection aspects of the proposed conversion from a public street to a shared driveway and a single driveway. He concludes that the fire protection situation will be improved. Applicants ’ engineer has designed the proposed driveways to incorporate additional width and weight handling capacity to allow for adequate fire fighting access. The Long Lake Fire Department in their letter of October 13 indicates the proposal is acceptable to them. T ot Standards Because the proposal includes a replat, the performance standards of the LR-IA district must be taken into consideration. At an average of one acre each, none of the existing lots meet the minimum lot width or area standards for the two acre zone. The replat results in slightly laruer lot areas but creates additional non-conformities. The Marfield lot becomes a "back lot" in the replat, requiring 150% of the two acre requirement (three acres), yet it will remain at just over one acre. Further, the Marfield lot loses its frontage on a public road in favor of abuttinu only a shared driveway outlol. And. the 150% standard for side setback on a back lot leaves more of Marfields existing home encroaching into the required side yard. (See Exhibit E). #•# L U Reipiest for Council Action continued Page 3 November 7, 1995 Zoning File #2065 Samuel and Joyce Marfield/Douglas and Cher> l Hill/William Toles Thilitv Easements The proposed replat grants a 30* easement over the existing City sewer line. Further, it intends to provide new utility easements to accommodate NSP and Minnegasco lines as well as other potential utilities. The City is gaining the perimeter drainage and utility’ easements which were not granted along the interior lot lines with the original Dicon plat. Applicants must provide confirmation from all utilities affected that they accept the proposed vacation-rededication of easements. An easement for access to the City sewer lateral trom North Shore Drive should be required. Grading and Drainage With the proposed grading plan, the e.xisting catch basin and storm sewer leading from the cul- de-sac will no longer be necessary. The grading plan will bring some fill into the area ot the cul-de-sac to provide gradual sloping lawn areas for the Hill and Toles properties, in place of the cul-de-sac. The City Engineer has been provided with a copy of the grading and drainage plan. Preliminaiy plat approval should be conditioned on his review and approval of those plans prior to final plat approval. Neighbor Request Mr. Toles has agreed to locate his new driveway at least 15’ from the Levy property line to the east, meeting their request tor maintaining a buffer to their property. Access Policy Issue Throughout this review staff has cautioned Planning Commission that this vacation/replat is contrary to current City codes and policies. In the two acre zoning district under today’s codes, creation of these three lots would be subject to platting a private outlot road 50’ in width, with 100' platted cul-de-sac. and paved to a width of 24’, with 80 paved diameter cul-de-sac, similar to what currentlv exists. Planning Commission was advised of the importance of making strong findings that this specific request is unique, in order that it not be precedent-setting. Staff also reviewed the extent of similar situations which exist throughout the City, noting that there are few identical situations but a number that are similar (see Exhibit H of 10/13/95 memo). Planning Commission Recommendation At their October 16 meeting. Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to recommend approval of the vacation and preliminaiy plat as proposed, subject to. Request for Council Action continued! Page 4 November 7, 1995 ,TTitm/n ti Zoning File #2065 Samuel and Joyce Marfield/Douglas and Cheryl Hill/William Toles Applicants obtaining formal Hennepin County DOT approval. Subject to confirmation of location of existing utilities, to be relocated or easements granted for them. -Minimum setback requested by Levy for Toles driveway (15* requested). Replat subject to standard drainage and utility easements. Subject to the granting of conservation and flowage easement over the wetland as defined by current topography. Subject to grading and drainage plan approval by the City Engineer/Public Works Department prior to final plat approval. Specific variances to be granted in the replat include: •Lot area and width, all lots. .Lot area and setback (150% standard), Marfield back lot. .Lack of frontage on public road (Marfield lot). •Other variances as may be subsequently tound (stafl has encountered only one additional variance, that for width of the outlot for access to the back lot, 30’ required, 25' proposed). Planning Commission noted a number of unique findings in support of the request, including the significant hardcover reductions that would occur as a result of removal of the cul-de-sac and portions of the roadwav; acceptance by the Long Lake Fire Department ot the proposed driveway surfacing plan which provides adequate fire equipment access; acceptance by Hennepin Countv Public Works of the proposed new driveway directly onto North Shore Dnve for the Toles residence: and a number of findings suggested by the property owners, including: .It is the only three-family cul-de-sac that drains into Lake Minnetonka that can be easily reveizetated to slow down the drainage over blacktop into the lake. .It is the only three-family cul-de-sac that involves the separated lake lot into two parts. This separation makes its owners cross a public street to get to their lakeshore. Request for Council Action continued Page 5 November 7, 1995 _ Zoning File #2065 Samuel and Joyce Marfield/Douglas and Cheryl Hill/William Totes It is the only three-family cul-de-sac that attracts strangers looking for access to the lake. Removing it uill lessen the trips onto and off of North Shore Drive. It is the only three-family cul-de-sac whose removal is supponed by all three owners dnd the tw*o affected neighbors. It is the only three-family cul-de-sac along North Shore Drive where the norm is single and double private driveways. It is the only three-family cul-de-sac that the City has talked about removing for almost 20 years. It will remove several thousand square feet of hardcover and lessen the runoff of salts and oil from the street into the marsh and the lake. It will save the City the cost of maintaining the existing street. It will reduce the number of car trips to and from Scotch Pine by lost people, It will reduce the casual driver from turning down the street looking tor access to the lake. It will make the area safer for children. It will increa.se security to the existing homes. It will improve the aesthetic view from the lake Staff Recomm' tdaiirm The Citv Enuineer has recommended that the proposal be denied, but also noted a number of and utility easement issues, all which have been addressed bv the applicants. support of the proposal. rStr- Request for Counci* ction C(5iitinued Page 6 November 7. 1995 . Zoning File #2065 Samuel and Joyce Marfield/Douglas and Chery l Hili/William Toles Staff advised Planning Commission that in order to appro\'C the vacation and replat, they must be able to find that: The necessary variances involved in the replat (lot xvidth/frontage^ack lot issues) are clearly justified and supported by adequate findings. It is in the public's best interest to vacate the road. All utilities and access needs will be accommodated. This vacation is unique and supported by compelling justifications that apply to this neighborhood but not to other simila' neighborhoods, in order that a b^is to deny similar requests without such conditions e.xisting, is possible (i.e. show why this vacation does not set a negative precedent). The majority of the Planning Commission felt that the proposal is supported by adequate findings. While the applicants have provided compelling arguments for the proposal and have addressed the issues in great detail, staff is still hesitant to recommend approval mainly due to the access policy issues. Vacating this public road which screes three residences may evei^en the Oty s ^sition in requiring creation of new private roads serving three residenees. From a pol.cy ^andpoint. allowing additional driveways to aceess directly to a collector road such as Norih Shorrorive may not be in the City's best interest, although m this specific request the justifications may be adequate. Procedurallv if Council concludes that approval is appropriate, conceptual approval of the vacation and preliminary plat approval can be granted per the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Options for Action 1 Adopt the attached resolution conceptually approving the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and granting preliminarv- plat approval with the conditions noted in that resolution. 3. Table for further information. Cancepiual denial, directing staff to draft a resolution specifying the basis for denial. 4.Other. A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE VACATION OF SCOTCH PINE LANE AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A THREE LOT PLAT OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE DICON ADDITION -FILE NO. 2065 WHEREAS, Samuel and Joyce Marfield, Douglas and Cheryl Hill, and William Toles (hereinafter the "applicants") on August 15, 1995. filed a formal application with the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") for vacation of the right-of-way of Scotch Pine Lane and for approval of a three lot residential replat of Scotch Pine Lane and residential property located at 2455, 2425 and 2435 Scotch Pine Lane, legally described as follows: Lots 1-4, inclusive. Block 1. Dicon Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County. Minnesota and all that part of the right-of-way of Scotch Pine Lane, as donated and dedicated by said Dicon Addition, which lies southerly of the northwesterly continuation of the northeasterly line ot said Lot 4 (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 18. 1995 and continued said hearing on October 16, 1995, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on November 13, 1995, the Orono Citv Council considered the application for public road vacation and replat subdivision, noting the following findings of fact; 1.The property is located within the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land and 200' of width for each building lot. The property contains a total of approximately 3.37 acres, including Lots 1-4 and the right-of-way of Scotch Pine Lane. Existing Lots 1, 3 and 4 each contain a Page 1 ot 9 r' .y 3. 4. single family residence. Existing Lot 2 provides lake access for existing Lot 4, and is not considered as a buildable site. Each of existing Lots 1. 3 and 4 contain less than the tv^o acre minimum lot area requirement. These lots were developed prior to the current zoning standards. Existing Lots 1-4 and Scotch Pine Lane will be replatted into three building lots and a private driveway ouilot, with lot areas as follows: Proposed Lot 1 * 1.13 acres (Marfield) Proposed Lot 2 • 0.85 acres (Hill) Proposed Lot 3 * 1.34 acres (± 0.96 acres dry) (Toles) Outlet A * 0.05 acres As a result of the replat, each of the three proposed lots increases in acreage gained from the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane, and in the case of proposed Lot 2, also resulting from the addition of area incorporated within the existing Lot 2.Each of proposed Lots 1, 2 Jind 3 will, however, remain at lot areas less than the required two acre minimum for the LR-IA Zoning District, requiring a lot area variance. Each of proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 are lakeshore lots but lack the required 200' lot width at the shoreline and at the 75’ lakeshore setback line as required in the LR-IA District, requiring lot width variances for each of Lots 1, 2 and 3. Proposed Lots 2 and 3 both abut North Shore Drive, a platted County road. Proposed Lot 1 as a result of the replat will no longer abut a public roadway, but will gain access via a shared driveway serving proposed Lots 1 and 2 within proposed Outlot A. By definition, proposed Lot 1 is a "back lot" per Municipal Subdivision Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 2. Per Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 (C-2), proposed Lot 1 is required to meet 150% of the two acre zoning district lot area requirement; is required to meet ihe 200' lot width requirement at the shoreline, at the lalceshore setback line, and at the street yard setback line, is subject to a street yard or front yard depth of 150“'b of the 50' front yard requirement of the LR-l.A District; and is subject to a side yard depth of 150% of the 30 ' LR-IA side yard requirement. Page 2 of 9 7. 8 9. As a result of the rcplat. the Marfield property (proposed Lot 1) becomes a back lot with 45' required side setbacks rather than the 30' side setbacks normally required in the LR-IA District, making more of Marfield's residence structure non-conforming to the side setback requirements. Similarly, the Hill propert\' (proposed Lot 2) becomes a front lot subject to a 50 side street setback along Outlot A, and 30’ side setback along the common boundary line with proposed Lot 1. The replat results in revised setback requirements impacting proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3, which must be taken into account in future improvements to those properties. The Council finds that it is appropriate to grant variances for the "front lot" and "back lot" non-conformities created by the replat. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 will gain access to North Shore Drive via a shared drivewav located within Outlot A, at the current location ot Scotch Pine Lane. Proposed Lot 3 will no longer gain access from Scotch Pine Lane but vsill create a new driveway access directly onto North Shore Drive approximately 200' east of the e.xisting Scotch Pine Lane intersection. Hennepin County Department of Public Works has given preliminary approval for this new driveway access. The new shared driveway in Outlot A, the extension of the driveway to serve the proposed Lot 1, and the new driveway to be created for proposed Lot 3 hav e been designed to City of Orono residential street weight bearing capacity standards to provide adequate access for fire lighting equipment. Further, the Long Lake Fire Department has indicated the proposed driveway construction and proposed widths are sufficient for the necessary- staging of fire fighting equipment. The concurrent vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and all of the utility easements originally dedicated within the Dicon Addition, requires rededication of new utihty easements for existing and future utility lines. The proposed rededication includes a 30' municipal sewer ea.semcnt over the e.visting municipal sewer laterals within Scotch Pine Lane. .Additional drainage and utility easements will be granted to accommodate Northern States Power and Minnegasco facilities on Paizc 3 of 9 the property. Additional private casements betvseen propert)’ owners may be necessary to accommodate existing individual sewer connections. 12.The proposed plat includes dedication of standard drainage and utility easements along the perimeter and interior lot lines, and includes the dedication of a drainage easement over the wetland located in proposed Lot 3. Said vsetland will also be subject to a Conservation and Flowage Easement to be executed by the owner of Lot 3. 13.Portions of the paved surface of Scotch Pine Lane arc intended to be removed by the applicants and those areas filled and graded to provide lawn areas with surface drainage. The existing storm drain and storm sewer leading from the cul-de-sac to the wetland is intended to be removed per the submitted grading plan subject to approval by the City Engineer. It is the intent of the City to release any drainage easement for this abandoned storm sewer that may be recorded against the title of proposed Lot 3. 14.Per the request of the neighboring property owner to the east, it is appropriate to require that the new driveway created for proposed Lot 3 shall be set back at least 15' from the east line of proposed Lot 3. 15.Unique findings and factors supporting the requested vacation and replat resulting in the elimination of this public dedicated roadway include the following: A.Net hardcover reductions of 2,033 s.f. will occur within an area ot the Shoreland District -hat drains to Lake Minnetonka, and will decrease the runoff of salts and oils directly to the wetland and lake. B The Long Lake Fire Department has accepted the proposed driveway surfacing plan which provides adequate fire equipment access and staging capability. Hennepin County Department of Public Works has granted preliminary approval for the propi>sed new driveway directly onto North Shore Drive (County Road 51). Pace 4 of 9 D.This is the only threc-lamily cul-de-sac that drains into Lake Minnetonka that can be easily revegeiated to slow down the drainage over blacktop into the lake. This is the only three-family cul-dc-sac that in\olves a lake lot separated into two tax parcels. This separation requires the property owners to cross a public cul-de-sac to gain access to their lakeshore. F.This is the only three-family cul-de-sac that anracts strangers looking for access to the lake. Removing it will decrease the number of trips onto and off of North Shore Drive. G.This is the only three-family cul-de-sac whose removal is supported by all three property owners and the two affected neighbors. H.This is the only three-family cul-de-sac along North Shore Drive where the norm is single and double private driveways. I.This is the only three-family cul-de-sac the City of Orono has considered removing for almost twenty years. J.The City will no longer bear the cost of maintaining the existing street. K.Removal of the public street will make the area safer for children. L.Removal of the public street will increase security to the existing homes. M.Removal of the public street will improve the aesthetic view from the lake. 16.The Council finds that the unique aspects of this proposal as noted above are sufficient justification to allow the removal of this public road and cul-de-sac. The Council finds that the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane is supported by unique circumstances that arc not generally found in other areas of Orono where private Page 5 of 9 or public roads and cul-de-sacs serving as few as three residential lots are still appropriate. The Council further finds that because Scotch Pine Lane ser\es only three residential lots, docs not provide access to the lokcshore tor the public, and does not provide a potential future access to neighboring properties, the public's interest in Scotch Pine Lane is limited to the provision ot services to the three property owners, which interests can be suitably served via private driveways and easements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV ED, that based upon one or more of the findings no*ted ateve, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby conceptually approves the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane, and hereby approves the preliminar>- plat application ot Mr. and Mrs. Marfield, Mr. and Mrs. Hill and Mr. Toles per the preliminary plat drawings dated October 12. 1995 by Keith Dahl of DRW, Inc., and grants variances to Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 (C) to allow the creation of proposed Lot 1 as a "back lot" not meeting the required 200' lot width at the shoreline, at the 75' lakeshore setback, or at the 75 front setback; grants a variance for substandard side yard setbacks for the existing structures located less than the required 45' from the side lot lines of proptised Lot 1; grants a variance for lot area tor proposed Lot 1 being 1.13 acres in area where a minimum three acres would normally be required for a back lot in the LR-IA Zoning District; grants variances for lot area and lot width for proposed Lots 2 and 3 which are respectively 0.85 and 1.34 acres in area where a two acre lot area is normallv required, and which are respectively approximately 35' and 123' in width at the shoreline and at the lakeshore setback line where a minimum width of 200' is normally required; and grants a variance to Section 11.31. Subdivision 5 (C-4) to allow Outlot A. the access outlot. to be 25' in width where a 30 ’ minimum width is normally required. Conceptual approval of the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and approval of the preliminary subdivision replat of Dicon Addition is subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicants shall provide documentation of formal Hennepin County Department of Public Works approval of the new access for the Toles driveway prior to final plat approval. 2.Hie new Toles driveway shall be set back a minimum of 15' from the easterly lot line of proposed Lot 3. Paue 6 of 9 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. Applicants shall provide written confirmation from NSP, Minnegosco and any other utilities making use of easements to be vacated, that the drainap and utilitv easements to be rededicated arc acceptable to said utility companies. An easement for access from County Road 51 to the municipal sewer easement shall be granted over Outlot A and the necessary’ portions of proposed Lot 1, to be approved by Orono Public Works Director. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 shall maintain a shared driveway within Outlot A. Outlet A shall be privately owned and appropriate easements shall be granted bv the owner or owiters of Outlot A sufficient to ensure access over Outlot A for both Lots 1 and 2. The owner of proposed Lot 3 shall grant a Conservation and Flownge Easement to the City over the wetland located in proposed Lot 3. Removal of blacktop and regrading of the •' i shall be in accordance with a grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Department prior to final plat approval. The owners of proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall jointly obtain a land alteration permit prior to commencing the removal ot Scotch Pine Lane and fillinggrading of the site. A separate land alteratii^n permit will be rec|uired tor construction of the new drivevvav serving Lot 3. Final approval of the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane shall occur concurrently with finJ plat approval. 10.This replat is not subject to park dedication requirements. Final Plat Submittals The final submittals must be submitted to die Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: Pace 7 of9 i Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1" * 200'. Drawing to include: A.Lot lines platted per preliminary plat drawings by Keith Dahl of BRW, Inc. dated October 12, 1995. B Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5 ’ each side ot internal propert)' lines and dedication of drainage and utility easements as shown on said preliminary' plat drawing. C.Designation and dedication of a drainage easement over the wetland located in proposed Lot 3. Legal documents required: A.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. B.The applicants shall provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. C.Signed and executed Flowage and Conservation Easement over the wetland located in Lot 3. Please refer to the standard easement document available from the Building and Zoning Department. D.Signed and executed Utility and Access Easement over Ouilot A and the northwesterly 25' of Lot 1 northeasterly of the municipal sewer lines within the existing Scotch Pine right-of-way. E.F jrmal written documentation from NSP and .Minncgasco ot their a.’ceptancc of the proposed drainage and utility easements. Page 8 of 9 r 3.Fees to be paid: Total due; S200.00 A.Legal review and filing fees = $200.00 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 13th day of November, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of November, 1995, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. «S: 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. Noiarv Public Pace 9 of 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#7 * #2061 Arne Wasberg - Continued) Mabusth reported that the new owners of the property have filed to renew the original variance application. Peterson asked Mr. Wa^rg why he would wish to do so. Wasberg said he purchased the house in February of 1995 and wants to refurbish the house. In order to do so, it would require a \’ariance. This renewal would allow him time to develop apian. Mabusth noted that the applicant has removed all of underiiner hardcover on the property. It was noted that the 2-story improvement was not to encroach the lagoon any further than existing structures. The approval included a deck. The applicant has advised that they would like to remove the existing driveway at North Shore Drive and relocate a new access at the existing driveway to the south. They would plant evergreens along North Shore Drive to provide a landscape buffer to the noise and activities on the county road. MaRjsth further added that the applicant's plan was improvements to the home would not be as ambitious as that of the previous owner. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application s2061 because it had been approved in the past. Even if changes were made. Schroeder noted the changes would be to the better. There were no public comments. Vote; Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#8) #2065 MR. & MRS. SAMUEL IVIARFTELD, 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE/MR. & MRS. H. DOUGLAS HILL, 2425 DOUGLAS PINE LANEAVHUAM TOLES, 2435 SCOTCH PINE LANE - VACATION OF SCOTCH PINE LANE, VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTTLITY EASEMENTS, PRELBVHNARY SUBDIVISION (REPLAT) - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:31-8:58 P.M. The Applicants were present. a minutes of the orono planning CONMSSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1993 (#8 - #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Gifton reported that at the last meeting of the discussed and tabled awaiting review by the Long depaitment i^ tightmg a fire on these properties. New exhibits as part of tins policy and philosophy regarding public roads, e .jj,e Martieids and traffic and environmental conditions, and a revised ^ ,increasing the the driveway serving the Martieids and Hills. ySkc Brown of the Long Lake Fire a c^n road width concerns of the fire department. Brown sai roadway also needs to be able to allow for suging for uucks to get past each otto^ The ^s^ay m to handle 40,000 lbs °f .^"k^wruid not be able to accesi the pomon of the the fire depanment to operate.^ nroncrtv with dnvewav as proposed will aUow driveway to the Toles residence. The p p - ^Marfields. while asking to the street to remam the same wntn t ®^ depanment to maintain the narrow their drivew-ay rV to uam access to the road at a wider wadth, which Ihlioles res'.dence to be ^vide house. The fire depanment grown said he would need a road enough to enable personnel to w q OO o O 000 lbs This would be asking more '^■Ht^h. cHdr-tdl a^^^4 Oty street. The City code than required by the C‘V, “ ^ 15 j^e first time the nre -iE‘« H.»... Peterson ashed Browa if he ^4^" Brown said he is not 1? ^^^ouip benefit fi-om gaining a wider road, and he revision involves maintaining some of the driveway blacktop. ^ U e the fire issue, there is the issue of subdivision performanceGifiron reponed that besides^ ^ 55 ,o ,he lake. By today's standards. The propen,es tlu« D^om^^s^^^ standards, three ,ots m ^approval of this application. The applicants have ;"tded"nre on why they feel the proposal is appropriate and unique to the surroundings. mr MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONMSSIONMEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#8 - #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Marfidd read these findings into the minutes and are part Scotch Pine is the one 3-lo, cul.Je-s.c that drains into year effort to sain the grass and trees back to the property. i •t « th^ nublic ^t^^e-sTc with o^t in two parts divided by a toad. Due to tts ^ is attraaed to the road in order to gain access to the lake, yet in all three cppBcants are supportive of the proposal. He also note a ? !be area have more than one driveway access, where these propetttes have only the one access. Gaf&on said another standard issue is with 3 lots currently Marfield’s property will abut only an outlot. Gaffron t s cr ^ ^ coiifiguration. He also noted the lot size being substandard with 1 zoi^iog. L area ^rL^ed back to crass. Engineers revew would be required pnor to presentation to the Council. Gafiron said the neichbors to the east, the Levy's, ask for a 15' f back for the new j • car tn thf Toles orouenv Gaffiron said this was not a code requirement excepuh rS i= nonnally allowed within 5' of the lot line. Tolcs sdd he would honor thts request. Ga&on voiced concern over the possibility of setting a Precedent by approving a proposal w^h is in contrast to what is being currently asked of other subdivisions. r ffi-nn noted that CoRd 51 is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as a parkway, which Gafiron not coUeaor roads does not require new lots to use an funaions as a comorehensive plan suesests that this be done when it is possible. Son fodScdfoe Planning c;nu™ss.on sh'ould make specific finduica of uniqueness d they approved the proposal. 5.. \ ■w / MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COxMMISSION xMEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#8 - #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Peterson said he was in favor of retaining a road and utility casement for possible fijture needs of the City. He asked what opinion others had if approval for the proposal ^ given while maintaining the easement tor the cul-de-sac. Toles said tuc partiw o ^ application would need to discuss the maner, but he was of the opinion that if tne cu - e- sac was turned back to grass, no one would care to change it again to blac.»top ^ ® future. Marfield said he'*was worried that another governmental body would make the change once again to blacktop in the future, and he would be uncomfortable wit maintaining the easement after working so hard to eliminate it. Schroeder asked StaflFif these propenies were a possible candidate for a loop road but was told by Gaffron no. Schroeder acknowledged the uniqueness of these properties and notid the undesirability of a cul-de-sac except for fire depanment use, which is disputable. There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2065 as revised for the removal of the cul-de-sac and addition of a dnveway from the Toles residence to CoRd with a 15' side setback for reasons stated in the memos, specifically, reduction in hardcover, result of fire department review wnich showed no increased nsk, with approval by Mn/DOT for additional curb cut, approval for vacation of Scotch Pme with condmons as noted, aooroval of replat, and rededication of utUity easements. Vote: Ayes 4. Nays I, Peterson, for reasons of sening a pi ecedent and desire for maintainmg the cul-de-sac easement for future access if needed. (#9) #2066 ROBERT AND IRIS WA.ADE, 1487 SHORELINE DRTVT - VARLANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:58-9:11 P.M. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the application was before the Commissiori at the last meeting tor a number of vanances to remodel and build an addition to the residence on Shoreline Dove. The 'ot is small and does not lend itself for rebuilding. The house and garage currently has a camort and is covered with a flat roof. The original proposal w-as for a second story with a 10 12 pitch roof From the lake side, the house was proposed at a ground-to-peak heiaht of 46* but technically did meet the code height limit. The Planiung Commissions earW r-view concluded that foe proposal was too ambiuous for foe lot. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2065 NOTICE OF PLAiNNlNG COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 10/18/95 TO: Samuel & Joyce Marfield 2455 Scotch Pine Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO:Douglas & Cher\l Hill 2425 Scotch Pine Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 V''»iam M. Toles c/o Tol-O-Matic 3800 County Road 116 Hamel, MN 55340 TV’PE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF MEETING: 10/16/95 Subdivision/Vacation VOTE:4 FOR 1 AGAINST Hanning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Approval of vacation and preliminary plat as proposed, subject to: Applicants obtaining formal Hennepin County DOT approval. Subject to confirmation of location of c-cisting utilities, to be relocated or easements granted tor them. Minimum setback requested by Levy for Toles driveway (15 requested). Replat subject to standard drainage and utility easements. Subject to delineation of wetland (topographic basis may be acceptable) and granting of conservation and tlowage easement over wetland. Subject to grading and drainage plan approved by City Engineer/Public Works Department prior to final plat appioval. Specific variances to be granted in re; ’ t include: •Lot area and width all lots. •Lot area and setback (150% standard). Marfield back lot. •Lack of frontage on public road (Marfield lot). •Others as may be subsequently found as the review process continues. Zoning File #2065 October 18, 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission referenced a number of unique findings in support of the request, including: •Hardcover reductions -Fire Department accepuncc Hennepin DOT acceptance Findings per prior discussions and Marfield submittal. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, November 13, 1995; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If YOU desire certified copies of the official Planning CommUston minutes, they are availaole from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 15500 Wayzata Boulevard Suite 611 Twelve Oaks Center Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 efflc*; (§12) 471-7S70 a*: («12) 47«.7»73 HMIIO OF WUUCIRS; Jofifl E, TftOiias. PrtSiaeit PiTela G. B«xt '/»c» P-TOOem: Mama S.MifCiel. Secretary, ’Stomas ft laBouniy. Trwsurer Monica Groat; C. '.Vooorow Love; Thoinas Mapt* Jr.; Oistnr ~" Etigant P Strommer October 27. 1995 Permit Anplkation No. 95-221 : Applicant: Sam Marfield/Douglas HillAVilliam Toles 2455/2425/2435 Scotch Pine Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 L>ocation: City of Orono, Tl 17N, R23W, Section 9 Purpose:The removal of an existing cul-de-sac, and the abandoning of an existing stormsewer. Dear Sam Marfield, Douglas Hill and William Toles; At the regularly scheduled October 26, 1995 meeting of the Board ot Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed along with the following exhibits: 1.Permit application 95-221 received September 20, 1995 2.Grading and drainage plan received September 18, 1995. 3.City of Orono planning commission approval received September 18, 1995. 4.Erosion control and restoration plan received September 20, 1995. Action was taken approving your permit application pending receipt ot Rule J fees in amount ot $60.00. Please note tha» due to size and complexity of certain projects, the Board requires that site^ inspections be conducted. In these cases, the applicant is required to pay to the District a fee equ >1 to the actual costs of field inspection of the work, including investigation of the area affected by the work, analysis of the work, and any subsequent monitoring of the work. These costs are referred to as Rule J fees. N'01*5^1-1 V^WORiri^l92T5U-KMG-*jT Recycled • >0% Pom * irr h* Sifli Marf^d/Douglas Hill/William Toles Permit A{^Uctdon No. 95-21 1 October 27, 1995 Page2 Wmmtm be advised that the project is not authorized until the above has be m submitted and you have been notified of permit issuance. Sincerely, WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC Engineers for the District Khstin M. George ^ KMG/ljv cc: City of Orono Keith Dahl, BRW, Inc Ni^ll5«M5dVWOIlD^LSMl(J2"3 Lir-»CWG^/v ...•rzr.rwr': \ , \ th' ) I r ♦ 'f v^ LiV hill res. V. 'V .0' fc POOL .c t » *•*li' 'V' •-V -4 .'!*■ x-> r»' T# ^EXISTING FOUND A WN line • \ TOLES RES. >\ >4> V- K,w N \.\> V \ \i S' yy .<■. ^*.,y;V l:iv"‘ vl'< ^ I N’’U v 'JMQ^ V <1:i'-^.. ',V*>- ;-iLA K'X A «4 N' Vc <#5A''j \ r* ^ y / / > > 1 y\ \ %>\is-,-\b\ I \ \ / !^/ / Barfield Iree 4 / A / i / •t /\ I i .: » •L,'y wipAc^ S “i—S'" A :a* •• A'K * To: Fr Date: Sabject: Chair Steve Peterson ais.5 Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator October 13, 1995 #2065 Samuel and Joyce Marfield/Douglas and Cheryl HilbWilliam Teles, 2455/2425/2435 Scotch Pine Lane Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and Easements within Plat of Dicon Addition • Replat of Dicon Addition (Preliminary Subdivision) -Continuation of Public Hearing E - F - G - H - 1 - J - K * L - M - N - O - P - Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Two Acre List of Exhibits A - Comments from Long Lake Fire Department. 10/13/95 B - BRW Letter and Map, 9/21/95 (Fire Protection) C - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing. 10/12/95 D -Existing Conditions Map, 10/12/95 ^ Site and Grading Plan, 10/11/95 Letter of Transmittal, 10/12/95 BRW/Preston Memo. 10/11/95 (Traffic Issues) Staff Review of Low Usage Cul-de-Sac's Comprehensive Plan Excerpts re: Transportation Subdivision Code Excerpts re; Road Standards BRW/Sandberg I^ilei. 10/11/95 (Euviromnental Benefits) Planning Commission Minutes, 9'18/95 Letter fo-m I'o’o^hy and Mcrri.s Levy, 9/l!^/95 NSP Letter, 9/18/95 Minnegasco Letter, 9/15/95 Memo anti Exhibits of 9/14/95 Additional Information Since the September Planning Commission meeting, the following has occurred: Applicants have submitted additional items: 1 A report by Dale Beckman of BRW, Inc. regarding fire protection issues associated with the street vacation. 2.BRW comments on traffic issues and environmental benefits. Revised preliminary plat. Zoning File #2065 October 13,1995 Page 2 4.More detailed 'existing conditions ’ map. 5.Revised proposed sile/grading plan addressing fire acces.> Mike Brown and Jim Cox of the Long Lake Fire Department met on the site with the applicants and staff on Monday, October 9. While the Fire Department representatives fell that the existing cul-de-sac provides for excellent tu^ fighung access to all three properties, they expressed willingness to consider other options under a private driveway scenario which could ieave adequate width of clear driving surface capable of supporting heavy trucks. BRW provided them a site plan with driveway specifications for review; their comments are provided in Exhibit A. In response to the Planning Commission query as to how many additional such situations are "waiting in the wings", staff has compileu a list and plat maps of public and private cul-de-sac roads that serve three or four users (Exhibit H). There are a handful of cul-de-sacs which, similar to Scotch Pine Lane, provide road access and abutment for three lots where only one of the three doesn ’t abut the collector road. Staff has included in your packet excerpts from the Orono Transportation Plan relating to direct vs. indirect access. Also enclosed is the Subdivision Code section regarding road requirements for subdivision. Summary of Issues The issues identified by staff regarding the proposed vacation and replat are detailed in the staff memo of September 14, 1995, and are summarized as follows; 1.Fire safety/emergency vehicle access. Subdivision performance standards Back lot issues. Lot width/area. Frontage on public road. Easenjent vacation/rededication. Utility locations/NSP and Minnegasco comments Drainage. Neighbors' concerns (15 setback to Toles driveway). Zoning File #2065 October 13,1995 Page 3 5.Access policy issues. -City requirement for road serving three or more lots. -Potential for setting a precedent. -Necessity of unique findings. Staff Recommendation Please carefuOy review the new exhibits provided as well as the memo of September 14. As n oted in that memo, in order to approve this vacation and replat. Planning Commission must be able to fiiKl that: -The necessary variances involved in the replat (lot width/frontage/back lot issues) are clearly justified and supported by adequate findings. It is in the public’s best interest to vacate the road. -All utilities and access needs will be accommodated. The vacation is unique and supported by compelling justifications that apply to this neighborhood but not to other similar neighborhoods, in order that a basis to deny similar requests without such conditions existing, is possible (i.e. show why this vacation does not set a negative precedent). Options for Action 1.Approval as proposed, subject to: Applicants obtaining formal Hennepin County DOT approval. Subject to confirmation of location of existing utilities, to be relocated or easements granted for them. Minimum setback requested by Levy for Toles driveway (15’ requested). Replat subject to standard drainage and utility easements. Subject to delineation of wetland (topographic basis may be acceptable) and granting of conservation and tlowage easement over wetland. Subject to grading and drainage plan approved by City Engineer/Public Works Department prior to final plat approval. Zoning File i?206S October 13,1995 Page 4 .Specific variances to be granted in rcpiat include: •Lot area and wid^, ail lots. •Lot area and setback (150% standard). Marfield back lot. •I..ack of frontage on public road (Marfield lot). •Others as may be subsequently found as the review process continues. •As part of any recommendation for approval. Planning Commission should specify' how this proposal for this neighborhood is unique as compared to other similar three-lot subdivisions, and define why this one might be approved while others might not be. 2.Table for further information (specify). 3.Denial (provide specific reasons). Other. Long Lake Volunteer Fire Dept. Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 __^ r"E' Tot Pros Rot Date orono Planning Comaission Long Lake Fire Department Scotch Pine Lane vacation October 13, 1995 We have aet with the three hoBieo%niers of Scotch Pine Lane who wish to vacat'» their street. They have asked US for our advise in how to provide fire fighting access to their hones if the street is vacated. We have suggested the following: 1.Improving the fire staging area for the Marfields and the Hills by making it stronger. The planned added thickness of blacktop and newly created graveled areas are to support a 50,000 pound fire fighting vehicle. 2.Building a new 12 foot driveway to the Toles' house which will have a 60 by 24 foot fire staging area at its south end and another 2 feet of open working area on each side. The hard surfaces are to support a 50,000 pound fire fighting vehicle. 3.Making a wider and stronger driveway to the Marfield's house. It will be widened to 12 feet and will have a 2 foot open working area on each side. It will be strengthened by adding a layer of blacktop. These suggestions are fine with us as long as all of the work is carried out as shown on their plan and as discussed above. H r ICT B R W INC FUrming Transportation Engineering Urban Design Thresher Square 700 Third Strifet So. Nlinneapolis. MN 55415 612/370-0700 Fax612/370-l37B Denver Milwaukee Minneapolis Orlando Phoenix Portland San Diego Seattle Memorandum r ri -—,.-o.^ W y ‘ I__I ‘, t SEE 2A1SS5 DATE: TO: September 21, 1995 FROM: RE: Mike Gaffron City of Orono Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Dale Beckmann Proposed SCOTCH PINE ADDITION Orono Zoning File # 2C65 Street Vacation/Fire Protection Issues By way of introduaion, I am a vice-president at BRW with approximately 30 years of experience in engineering and development work. I was also the Assistant Fire Chief for the City of Inver Grove Heights for 6 years and the Fire Chief in that City for an additional 9 years. I have extensive experience in both engineering and site design activities and in firefighting and fire protection i 'ues as well. I understand that, based upon review of your staff report for the above referenced project, there mav be concern both on the City’s part and the Long Lake Fire Department’s part with respect to potential Life Safety and Property Protection issues if the project vacating the existing street is approved. I have reviewed both - our report and the site maps prepared by our office in analvzin<» this issue ' would offer the following comments regarding these issues: •The curr. '•t roadway layout requires a "Dump and Go ” operation. The "first-in" engine would drop a hose (large diameter) at North Shore Drive and lavout hose up to the residence. The engine company would utilize its water tank (3CC i.CCC gal) for an initial attack of a fire. A second engine or a tanker would connect to the hose at North Shore Drive and pump water to the first engine to continue to fight the fire. 1 Mr. Mike Gaffron September 21, 1995 Page 2 •This is the same fire attack scenario the Fire Department would use with the proposed street vacation, as well as with any fire in residences along North Shore Drive. I have attached a half-seaion aerial map which shows the approximate length of the driveways for homes along North Shore Drive. Note that the Marfield driveway which would result from the vacation will be about the same length as the majority of those homes and will actually be shorter than several of the existing driveways . •Fire fighting capabilities for a fire at the Toles residence is improved. The proposed new driveway places the residence less ihan 2wC leet from North Shore Drive versus the current 450 +feet. ^T>-:_____ k-a,ic 1------ •- h?-' r*'-*-'. r i* r*; .any other residence along the south side of North Shore Drive. SI JXTMARY Three criteria can b.- a‘cd to evaluate the fire protection issue for the proposed change: •Life Safety •Property Protection •Fire Fighter Safety Hill Marfield Toles Life Safety No Change No Change Improved Property Protection No Change No Change Improved Fire Fighter Safetv No Change No Change Improved Fire safety .u the three residences requesting the change h.is not been a problem during the last IZ years the Dicon .addition has been in place. .As you may be aware, there vv.is a fire at the Marfield residence several years ago which w.is successfully fought by a single truck which utilized the Marfield's driveway for .iccess and wa^ able to maneuver close to the source of the tire by this means. .At th.it time there was an island in the driveway which is not present today. The truck was able to enter and exit the Marfield drivew.iy and property without damage to the site. I* Mr. Mike Gaffron September 21, 1995 Page 3 The probability of a future fire in this area is low based on the past 20-year histor>% which indicates a low potential for a fire truck to damage the roadway. In faa, the weekly trip a garbage truck makes over this proposed driveway in the spring time causes much more roadway damage than a fire truck which has been needed once in the past 20 years. I would be happy to meet with you and/or the Long Lake Fire Chief to discuss this matter. Thank you for your consideration. attachment cc:Keith Dahl/Jeff Sandberg/BRW Sam Marfield, Douglas Hill, Bill Toles file 3233 A CO dnbjsked.mem ■■"'• \<-' ' '^- V>' 1 i '\ ; rjL m iii^ WP'.4'atar r^ h- CT) u iO CM (/■) a t<**-n 3-a 4 r C-' O'< 3 X Q. «1 T O f' ?•i a O P Q C 55 Dh 5r|oH O O C/3 O E-* <j5 5>h (5 <3 W K o ftu U1 0 1 2 ji I ( i!ii>«ln» ■I H I Si I if l\ im\ 5!BI SSSs 686iill*.I itttg fUttl. ir, < < •s : I? 8 9 § O ft 2 8 f •• * I 1 I V \ >X'i ' . VN U 9 u *> /o-i i-*7r ms B R W INC. Planning Trareportation Engineering Urban Design Thresher Square 7CX) Third Street So. Minneapolis, MN 55415 612/370-0700 Fax 612/370-1378 Denver Milwaukee Minneapolis Orlando Phoenix Portland San Diego Seattle October 12,1995 IL\ND DELIXTRED Mr. Mike GafTron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Cit> ofOrono PO Box 66 Cr>stal Ba>. MN 55323 RE; PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL PROPOSED SCOTCH PINE ADDITION CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE #2065 Dear Mr. GafFron: Enclosed are the following materials for our preliminary submittal on behalf of the Marfield. Toles and Hill properties: 1.6 full size and 1-11 X 17 copies of our Preliminary Plat, Existing Conditions Map and Site/Grading Plan for the site. Note that we have revised our drawings to reflect those comments we have received to date. Those revisions include, addition (and revision) of proposed DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS as requested by the City's Engineer, location of wetlands in proposed LOT 3 and delineation of a DR.-\rNAGE EASEMENT surrounding that area ( note that the wetland boundary has been shown from a field survey locating the top of the pronounced bank surrounding the wetland area), additions to and revision of the Grading Plan both per onsite meeting with Long Lake Fire Dept, personnel as well as comments received from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Note that we have also made a minor re\ ision to the lot line between the Marfield and Hill residences , and lot areas have also been revised to reflect that change. In addition, we have also added the location of utility lines to the draw ings to the E.xisting Conditions Map and have also added easements around them as well as around the sanitary sewer services. 2.Letter from Mr. Jeffry Sandberg regarding environmental benefits from Scotch Pine Lane pavement removal. 3.Memorandum from BRW Traffic Engineers regarding proposal for new Toles drivewav. We have made application to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and are on tonite’s Board agenda for approval. ► l(: f Mr. Mike Gaffron October 12.1995 Page 2 Please contact me at 373-6465 if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance with this matter. Respectfully Submitted, BRW, Inc. Keith E. Dahl, RLS Senior Associate attachments cc;Messrs Marfield. Hill & Toles (w/attachments) Mr. Jeff Sandberg Mr.Howard Preston Mr. Jeff Holstein File 3233 A 00 spasub.klO I BR W INC Planning Transportation Engineering Urban Design Thresher Square 700 Third Street So Minneapolis, MN 55415 612/3704)700 Fax 612/370-13:^ Denver Milwaukee Minneapolis Orlando Phoenix Portland San Diego Seattle Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: October 11, 1995 Keith Dahl Howard Preston, PE. Vice President of Traffic Engineering Jeff Holstein, PE, Senior Traffic Engineer RE:SCOTCH PINE ADDITION; Scotch Pine Lane Vacation We have investigated the traffic-related issues associated with the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane as proposed on the SCOTCH PINE ADDITION Preliminary PlaL It is our understanding that the proposed action would result in an additional residential access drive to Hennepin County State Aid Highway 51 (CSAH 51) approximately 250 feet east of existing Scotch Pine Lane and that existing Scotch Pine Lane would be vacated as a public street and maintained in it’s current location as a common residential driveway. The proposed new access drive would serve one home and the common access drive would serve two houses. The following paragraphs describe the traffic-related issues that were investigated and the conclusions of our analysis. Appropriate Access Snacinti Alone C.SAH 51 The appropriate access spacing along CSAH 51 is dependent upon the design function or functional cla.ssification of CSAH 51. Roadways are typically divided into functional clas.ses for purpo.ses of applying design criteria, establishing jurisdictional authority and determining available sources of funding. The two characteristics that determine a roadway ’s functional classification are acce.ss and mobiliiv. These two functions conflict with each other as the roadway network attempts to serve its two basic purpo.ses. Typically, the greater the access, the less the mobility that is possible and as the degree of access is limited, the mobility of the highway segment is increa.sed. Keith Dahl October 11, 1995 Page 2 In general, roadways are typically classified as either local, collector or arterial (major, intermediate and minor) facilities. These classifications are defined below. -Local roadways have virtually unrestricted access to adjacent properties. However, they also have limited mobility or ability to move through tral'tic. -Collector roadways, while providing acce.ss to abutting land parcels, also enable moderate quantities of traffic to move between local streets and arterial roadways. -Arterial roadways provide limited access opportunities to adjacent land parcels, mostly only to major cro.ss-streeis or traffic generators. Arterial roadways are designed for the efficient movement ot through trallic. The September 13, 1995, letter from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and A.ssociates to the City of Orono indicated that "The City should discourage an increa.se in the number of accesses to an arterial roadway such as County Road 51 " and that the request for vacation should he denied. We hi arterial roadways should be limited. However, our investic ions indicate that CSAH 51 is not an arterial roadway. Di.scu.ssions with the Hennepin County Highway Department indicate that CSAH 51 is currendy classified as a "collector" type roadway. Therefore, the propo.sed 250 foot access spacing appears appropriate and adequate, especially when compared to the existing 150 foot to 3(K) foot residential access spacing along the remainder of CSAH^51. Sieht Distance of Proposed Access Drive A second traffic-related issue that should he considered is the sight distance of the proposed acce.ss drive. The typical rule of thumb for traffic engineers for adequate intersection sight distance is ten .seconds. Ba,sed on the existing po.sted speed of 40 mph along this .segment of C.SAH 51. ten .seconds of sight distance would equate to 5S8 feet. Therefore, if a driver stopped at the estimated stopbar of the access can .see an approaching vehicle for at least ten .seconds or 588 teet in each direction, the sight distance at the access would be considered adequate. Field observations conducted at the propo.sed acce.ss loeation by BRW, Inc., in October of 1995 indicated that, at a standard driver eye height of 3.5 feet, the sight distances to the east and west along CSAH 51 ranged from 12 to 16 seconds in both directions. Therefore, the intersection sight distance from the proposed access location is adequate. •. > * Keith Dahl October 11, 1995 Page 3 Conclusions -CSAH 51 is currently classified as a "collecior" type roadway. As such, it is appropriate for CSAH 51 to provide access to adjacent properties at some reasonable spacing, typically a lot width or the length ot a city block (200 to 3(X) feet). -The proposed 250 foot access spacing is consistent with the other residential access spacing along this section of CSAH 51. -The intersection sight distance from the proposed access will be adequate. In summary, the investigation indicated that there are no traffic-related problems as.sociated with the proposed access spacing and Scotch Pine Lane vacation. If you have any questions or comments concerning this matter, please call Jetf Holstein or me. PUBLIC/PRIVATE CUL-DE-SAC ROADS SERVING 3-4-5 USERS Public: X Private: o ROADS SERVING Length 3 USERS Possible Addt’l Users o X X X X o o o o o o o o o 'Stronghold' Wear Circle Scotch Pine Lane Partenwood Lane Eileen Street Gander Road Sussex Circle Ridgewood Circle Wear Lane (S) (Hilbelink Subd.) X X X ROADS SERVING 4 USERS Cristofori Circle Ru-Ann Road Woodhill Avenue Knoll Manor Road ROADS SERVING 5 USERS Built to City Road Standards 1100'Yes No 500'Yes Yes 350'Yes Yes 400’Yes Yes 400’Yes Yes 475’Yes Yes 200’Yes Yes 700*No No 400’Yes No :ii0'No Yes 1050’Yes Yes 800’Yes Yes 650’No Yes 500’No Yes 0 Cox Farm Road (N & S)350’/550'No Yes 0 North Stream Road 375’No Yes X Lydiard Circle X 200'No Yes 0 French Creek Circle X 425’No Yes 0 Landmark Dr X 200’No Yes t . / .* •> V ✓ ” •il i r-v I i.hJilM W iU ; 1 * • % H 5 n ■» -= P-. f i ' * y-o yfn- *tr^ © ‘»\>^ «rw D-V- . b. u ri ;3 j 1 ; -: ____________________1.^________________;_ il 111 :n orccs C-5 % va til 5 s3 2 ^ r •*2 ?- ?5 *•E it =- ^ r •*-1 «« i -r { w « |*J n t-as 1^1 o A.o 1*1in t>»•il #if t*l -9 -V 11 •t \ «A nr I ^1 “ T- —^-1 I I 1 2 I •'z Km I I f/ ? <' I /.3fl I I I A'-' 7.'lX)4^^.-L-U-iC- jy • • \ \ wT ------------»:--------- I I I U-------^ \nt r- r\ 1 \ :>o »>4 \w 3 ii> 2 00 ^\ ffi i \ It tic J. SM M OiCI .♦ V I • \ t • / I • I • ( ' • »‘\‘* O;:. 0. d .:•.. I-1 X Vi J,;: o 1 ftiM1 •f 1 » w * |i i: 4 f? •stts w • \-4 •«.M M •9 m bU 'nrmsirTTir •tA X .tM ■t i 2, / hAi *o;;;is J4 ac ! 3 ixc. UJ U«c le B li iIlM -••Ml.' J Transportation JUNE, 1980 TRANSPORTATION OPALS AND PQLTCTTS Oronc*s Transportation Plan is based upon the following goals and policies which are designed to be consistent with our regional responsibility for coordinated trans portation planning, and with the goals, policies, and plans of the other elements of the Community Management Plan . TRANSPORTATION GOALS 1.TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE, SAFE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK SUFFICIENT TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF ALL ORONO RESIDENTS. 2.TO PROVIDE A COORDINATED TPsANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE MODES AND TRAVEL CHOICES FOR MOST ORONO NEIGHBORHOODS. 3.TO PROVIDE A COORDINATED PLAN FOR LAKE AREA TRANSPORTATION WHICH WILL SATISFY BOTH ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. 4.TO ACHIEVE THE ABOVE GOALS WITHIN THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITIES OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS. POLICIES 1.COMMUTER AND GENERAL ARTERIAL TRAFFIC MUST BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM LAKE MINNETONKA. County Road 15 has become the "Main Street" of the Lake Area primarily because of habit and the lack of alternative routes. Shoreline Drive was originally built as a military road in the 1860's. The road provides the only access to Minnetonka Beach and to many Orono residences. Meanwhile, traffic has increased substantially to where the road is crowded because of commuter traffic. The sensitive environment of Lake Minnetonka, and the property rights of the riparian landowners, are being damaged by continued reliance on this outmoded roadway location. 2.ORONO WILL ACTI^/ELY PROMOTE THE RING ROUTE CONCEPT TO PROVIDE VIABLE EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES TO CONTINUED OVER-USE OF COUNTY ROAD 15. The City has constructed one link in this system which already has reduced travel time by up to ten minutes between Mound and Wayzata. With additional linkages and intersection improvements, a transportation corridor can be developed to handle the majority of truck traffic and commuter trips from the Westonka area while relieving the strain from County Road 15. CMP 7-8 JUNE, 1980 TP i&n<;pqrtatiqr 3. Thus, in one moolon. thru-«.££ic^noven.n increased xn ®tLted fron degradation, sensitive areas will be p—--^'Xinrpf ORONO WILL ACTIVELY ?^C.MCTE A SCENIC THOSE ROADS TRAVERSING scenic ATTRACTIVE AREAS. The ^^gcial designation parkway system i* .curJy. slow-speed connoting tne typically n parkways provide character of ; ...atural Lenities and are special vistas of 0-ono * t-avel. High best suited for relaxing j coomeroial voluoe traffic. '“'-‘^^ntcoarkways traffic is not appropriate = .he because these users o nature of the road is attraction and the movement, not conducive to efficient , ,,„3 , scenic Because of natural provide local property -0^:r:nriLli:d -^^tror-ro^ functions. 4. TMDonv^n transit SYSTEMS AND INVESTIGATION OF ORONO WILL ENCOU^GE IMPROVED .-^ANSI^ alternative transit f e^LrdLLLding trans- innovative approaches auto. portation L pedestrian and ?his includes such <=°" = "P"^/\^Loved bus “rJ!c:,“a:d^Inv^-t;ation of light rail transit. 5. 3 Q 2^jL C S I ^ ^ onrr ThH" TAK^ MINNETONKA conservation DISTRICT IN THE ORONO WILL oL^T^ON ON LAKE MINNETONKA.CONTROL OF SEAP^MEgOPERAT-a^ „p„,rion is The existing i ^ City will support -rL^ro'in^h:!^ itofing^of^se. nece^Sa^rf^rc-ent -apian, conflict with the prinary boating use of the lake. CMP 7-9 I TRANSPQRTATLQM JUNE, 1980 URBAN TRANSPORTATION PQLtCTgS 1.LOCAL STREETS IN THE URBAN AREA WILL BE OWTIED AND MAINTAINED BY THe CITY. Because the land use and street use density of the urban neighborhoods is relatively high, the City will provide public street access to all urban properties. City responsibility for proper maintenance levels will ensure passable, all-weather streets available at all times for emergency vehicles and for general public ingress and egress. 2.ALL URBAN PROPERTIES SHOULD BE DIRECTLY SERVED BY THE PUBLIC STREE* SYSTEM. Urban density development is not appropriate on narrow or poorly niaintained private roads. Significant exceptions to this rule are in the case of a planned residential or connercial development having private maintenance personnel> or on sensitive lakeshore lots where two homes could be served by one common private driveway to reduce hardcover and topographical problems. 3- 4 URBAN STREETS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS. All urban streets will be paved and of sufficient width to accommodate the number of properties being served. Intersections and drrveway aprons wil- be designed and regulated according to commonly accepted engineering safety standards. Street drainage will be designed to utilize existing natural drainage systems and to avoid direct runoff into the Lake. CURB CUTS AxND DRI^/EWAY LOC.ATICNS WILL BE LIMITED FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY. All new curb cuts and driveway locations will be subject to performance standards relating to sight distance, lot width and proximity to intersections or other driveways. Al* properties will be allowed access, but the number of access points and the location of allowable access will be limited for public traffic safety purposes. ON STREET PARKI^^G WILL BE STP.J.CTLY LIMI-eD. No parking will be permitted on narrow streets or at hazardous locations. All urban development must provide adequate on-site parking facilities. CMP 7-LO TRANSPORTATION JUNE, 1980 6.THE CITY WILL PURSUE ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE-HIKE TRAIL FACILITIES. The completion of an interconnected bike-hike trail system is important to the further ance of alternative transportation incentives. .he City will encourage Hennepin County to speedily implement the planned bike-hike trail system along several county roads. The separation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic is of the utmost importance in accident prevention. 7.THE CITY WILL PROMOTE IMPROVED .‘-IASS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS. Orono has established a Park and Hide Transit System. Orono encourages improved bus scheduling and improved service, especially at off-peak hours. Orono strongly supports the "Tonkamobile” program and encourages expansion to provide improved Excelsior-Wayzata service via Orono's North Shore neighborhoods. RllRAt, TRANSPORTATION POLICIES 1. 2. 3. PUBLIC STREETS IN THE RURAL A-REA WILL BE PRIMARILY LIMITED TO THE EXISTING COLLECTOR AfID ARTERIAL GRID SYSTEM. The low rural land use density does not require nor can it economically support an extensive public street system. Rural lot arrangements have always been served by the existing grid streets and are capable of subdivision to the planned rural density without requiring additional public street investments. THE RING ROUTE CONCEPT UTILIZES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE EXISTING RURAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM. The principal corridor for traffic from Mir.netrista and points west utilizes Hennepin County Roads No. 6 and 19 and State Highway 12.The City of Orono has constructed a key link j^gbween County Roads 6 and 19. Additional ring route traffic uses the existing north-south collector roads to travel away from the Lake toward these principal travel routes. THE CIT'^ OF ORONO WILL ENCOURAGE ALL NECESSARY ROAD SUPEACE AND INTERSECTION IMPROVE.MENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE AND TO FACILITATE THROUGH TRAFFIC ON THE RING ROUTE. This will include cooperation with the City of Long Lake in accommodating traffic on Highway 12. CMP 7-11 TRANSPORTATION JUNE, 1980 4. 5. 6. RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL UTILIZE PRIVATE ROAD TO SUPPLEMENT THE EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD GRID. Because of topographical density of rural land use, nost new rural are best preserved by short dead-end roa off the existing street system. -he dwellings on each road, the dead-end and the scattered road locations make p ^ maintenance excessively costly compare w / oublic benefit. Therefore, most be directly served by privately owned ^where roadways. New public streets will be ^ = a -through’* configuration provides a genera, public benefit and/or where the number ot residences justifies public maintenance expense. PRIVATE RUP^ ROADWAYS HILL 3E CONSTRUCTED TO STANDARDS. The City cse -.yp^ a„a „iath of road surface required will vary with the number of rlsTilLe. to be served and hence the amount of expected vehicle usage. The length of dead-end roads will limited for public safety purposes. THE CITY WILL GUARANTEE REASONABLE MAINTENANCE LEVELS AND PUBLIC ACCESS ON ALL PRIVATE ROADS. In the process of approvin, rural subdivisions, the City will acquire underlying public ingress, egress, and access eatemeits over all private roads. These easements will ensure legal access of the public to all orooe'tLs served by the private road. Development contracts backed by acceptable forms of financial responsibility will assure that are^designed and constructed according to City aporoved standards and specifications. .he City w^l^further guarantee that all private roads are Tiaintained to reasonable standards at all times through required maintenance agreements and/or tnroug h , . ^-----that failure of the prin'trgrourto''srmaintain their private road miLnte^.ncrLd°to''aLes^t^e LnefLted properties for the direct cost of such maintenance. t L tt :r CMP 7-12 JUNE, 1980 TDAM<^pnRTATIOti 7. 8. 9. neighborhoods ion conflicts for and a lesser number joint use of the same degree of iill generally be carefully located J to public highways preferred over direct^access onto p from separate properties. .t^’vrnaTE TRANSFORATION oati T of the total AL rural trails are A^^^'’^':5^^tc*ess to the Hennepin SYSTEM. Rural trails o-- areas of the City, county park J di^g as well as walking Rural trails offer City will encourage and bicycle ’ biie-hike trail system and completion of the p ann ^^j^al trails connecting t e the private developnen rural properties, public trail system ^^t motorized use of The City will continue “^^-^.ate to the trail’s trails within ible with adjacent basic purpose and as .ncompa residential properwies. --ot.-rvc rOR RURAL ORONO. the city will not ecLomlca^^ pass through the -hese routes are sufficient Wayzata and urban ‘‘g and will in fact provide to serve Orono’s J^^^^al n additional additional rural service -f locations are urban ^;‘::rresiden ts desiring to use transit necessary established park and ride ^^a^^ns“ia^“avLr: a„a Wavaa.a. CMP 7-13 rrI-. -'i JUHE, 1980 TPANSPORTATIQN transpqrta T^QN PLAN. 4 ol4n for streets and roads. Oron .•-,i„sit. The principal need and has little planning requirement -o residential neiqhborhoods is a plan to provide for """'.tc^enf com-tuter movement away from the and «“"«=i*^“''“”’,ffe;nJitiCe Hheshore. congested, envxronaentally sensit-^e The principle components of OronCs Transportation Plan are as follows: 1. principle - - - -^ col^ec^ors developing the ring fic^away^from Lake Minnetonka. 2.developing the scenic PA^WAY^CONCEPT^includi^ parkways for slow sp attractive routes,shoreline and other scenrcally at.racti 3. snu t c j-•— developing the private road concept for access to low density rura residential properties. 4. PROMOTING R^^ASONAB^ LE^LS OFJUBLIC^Ti^NSIT^Sc^ MT^^Sus ““tL'’“=iS-i:n“of alte^ comnuter travel to tne center . npni^r^Vq RQAP'^ft^ CLASSIFICATION SYSTEH A a t a II s p o T w a 11 o H system 1 commonly --P”^^,”^Lton‘'s-/st^'whLh J^riin lollows ;;rvfc:rand —%^rdi:elop:r:;;r:dorterby th. Minnesota Department TT:;n:po;trt!rar Ti^rii ^the typ.s of roadways servin, Orono. verm rnii-'rT'cciFICATION PLAN FOR STREETS AND ROADS IN -lAP NO. 14 INDICATES t with the regional transportation :R0N0. This plan ^^^^e-o^olitan Council, the Minnesota Department ind facilities of -he ‘ . county Department or Transpor-ation. . rransportation and roadway systems of adjoining tions -his plan is consistent The following descriptions ^"‘^vid^detailid explana^ions‘of each of Orono’s roadway classification CMP 7-14 r 1 ■I J JUNE, 1980 transportation 1 iT'r#»r'al is a grade-separated, high PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL A Principal ^ to tiove vehicles through an capacity, controlled access hig.way arterials have no local land use area, not within a comnunity. orono is that portion of State access. The only principal arterial n Orono’s eastern boundary Highway 12 that becomes limitec-access eas. or with Wayzata. out-state cities west of Orono in •access is intended to oe Limited to are limited and controlled. ^^*‘2 Access to residential properties, niajor traffic generators er ial through Orono although many State Highway 12 is an tvpical of a minor arterial access and intersection characteristics are .p or collector. nr* nPPAH’”'iEMT OF TRANSPORTATION JURISDICTION: MINIMUM 100 F-ST FOR TWO LANE HIGHWAY right-of-way WIDTH: MINIMUM 100 F--T •1 >controlled access, moderate capacity MINOR ARTERIAL A Minor j, ^ ^ ^ -within plannin, subregions and Street or highway designe Lake Minnetonka Ring Route is a minor between adjacent subregions. "‘‘^^^pally commuters and truck traffic, arterial functioning to move, p ^ ^ s .^to the urbaniced areas of iron, the western Lake channels traific away from the Twin Cities. The ^ ..2lvs I”* and 55, and in the near future, to Lake Minnetonka to ‘ ^ 4°4 in Plymouth. Land u.se access a direct = £ic generators and local street i = tt;re"cri:nrw^:ho^;rd!^ec: ::^:ss to individual residences. 3 ! ,„pisd:ction. coumiy llpariment or tp.amsport.ation RIGHT-Or-WAY WIDTH: MIMIMG" 30 FRET FOR TWO LAME HIGHWAY A collector street^ Functions to collect Ic^Fro^^^ Streets ana ^ r-^nals . T LocL land use access i-. permitce access p e rn\ i 11: e d to be on s JURISDICTION: COUNTY OR CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 60-56 FEET C:4F 7 -L 5 JUNE, 1980 TRAN<^PQRTATIQN . r'lacsification used SCENIC PARKWAY Scenic by Orono to those hy the Citt-??-o£ eHvironnentslly significant roads which traverse especxally »=«• tvoically a narrow, curvy, slow areas of the City. The scentc ^Las and special vistas speed road which provides access Iv,^o„ch t^af^'C and conraercial traffic of scenic attractions. High volune ^3ers do not benefit is not appropriate on scenic par ways . -i nature of the roadway is not from the attraction Because of environmental conducive to efficient through ‘ ‘e-ebuilt into higher capacity sensitivity, scenic parkways adversely affecting the natural collectors or minor arterials ‘ And/or" the prooertv rights of / pepping, the scenic f t,,”^:prnrLno^r^phy of'Ph. ecee.pepping, “.scenic !..,rnaPurrr^o;o;riphrof' Ph.'a-'en . scenic parh-ays also provide ‘ functions of both local and collector streets. JURISDICTIOiJ: COUNTY OR CITY right-of-way WIDTH; 50-66 FBFT ui;,- err-pAts that function to provide T.OCAL STREETS Local streets i^ocal streets carry traffic within direcP access Po abuPPing bePween neighborhoods. InPer- c"i:;p:"sp:erPrLe"co;proUed by Shopping Phe local sPre.P traffic. JURISDICTION: CITY “=“^::r“"rrwxir"AL";Y0 by P..-BiXC sapb^y conbxbbbayxonsDEAD-END: LENGTH WX.,- a- roads be constructed and 3, egress and access to all properties :-Ph:-pr-nriif:- ?h^»; o^.l po i^of^ph. ,-x? :: rs:a?:r;riirppirrn:i:;s;in?nnded for xomp and several ownership by all the benefitted property owners. JURISDICTION: HO.MEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH UNDERLYING EASEMENT TO CITY maximum SERVICE: APPROXIMATELY TEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES pXdHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 30-50 FBBT DEFENDING UPON NUMBER OP « = dead-end: DENGTH WILL BE LIMITED BY PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERATION CMP 7-16 i f TRANSPORTATION JUNE, 1980 PRIVATE DRIVEWAY_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A driveway is a privately owned and privately nvaintainec vehicle path between the street and private property. Private driveways shall be subject to access peraits according to the classification of the abutting street. Private driveways will not be subject to any public easement or access right, but do require recorded private easements where driveways cross an intervening private lot between the residence served and the street. JURISDICTION; PROPERTY OWNER MAXIMUM SERVICE: DRIVEWAY WIDTH: 1 RESIDENCE TYPICAL; JOINT DRIVEWAYS ALLOWED WITH MAXIMUM THREE RESIDENTS PER DRIVEWAY IN RURAL AREAS MORE USERS REQUIRE PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS WILL 3E REGULATED WHERE MORE THAN ONE USER IS INVOLVED OR FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES WHERE THERE IS EXCESSIVE LENGTH BETWEEN THE RESIDENCE AND THE PUBLIC ROAD EXISTING ROADWAY .MAINTENANCE JURISDICTIONS ARE .REASONABLE AS THEY P.ELATE TO THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN. The State of Minnesota has appropriate jurisdiction over the only Intermediate Arterial in the City. The Hennepin County Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over the only .Minor Arterial designated in the Plan. It is anticipated that Hennepin County will assume jurisdiction in the future over the City- built ring route link between County Road 19 and County Road 6. Hennepin County has jurisdiction over most of the designated Scenic Parkways which is appropriate in that these roads serve as access to Lake Minnetonka and to County maintained landings for many County residents who do not reside in Orono. The City has jurisdiction over those Scenic Parkways that are away from the immediate lakeshore, including the access road to the Orono Golf Course, The City has appropriate jurisdiction of most of the Collector and all of the local streets which serve all Orono residents. Certain key street segments have been designated for Municipal State Aid construction assistance, i.n eluding: OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD from County Road 6 to Fox Street, County Road 34 WILLOW DRIVE from County Road 6 to State Highway 12 and from the Long Lake border to Fox Street FOX STREET from Willow Drive to County Road 146 McCulley Road (Ring Route link) between County Road 6 and County Road 19 Finally, individual property owners have appropriate private jurisdiction over those Private Roads serving only their individual properties. ^-45 j-I *»•*-r:. IVII*•-• io,IVI \o lu Q _j r:-3 S _J tiJ<C ^« o LJ^s: o to?W' .1 >' V. y|;^ /i I (// V / /7--mI V 40 , $ ’'■'":fi _ VIf] r II ■<*•?*«< nlltlllllll \V___r-' \ [\ , lllhllllllll f I \j \ /O ‘^1 ,'1 \Ns % I /* y : \ I ■7 I aw * iiltlilflllii 125 11111 fi 111111111 it 1111111111 ■■■ft ' tI Kil i null aI \\>x ftI% \ IfXl-} ^ <\ T= ui\ ih- m \\. i) 'B-i \OXi (••c::ai"r "4.r-':s;v^' b N ■c rz>j I./ t 'It if' / t «..» s fl ‘'aI IIJ \ ••tv. ,K J,n|iii^ !,>/ ••. V .# I •< ay} >■ M'*v\'i''\ ^‘^ /j® i S.^|VJ54\ ! 6i’.v) l\\* d;! Kiu V \ } ^ y \ ' r !j . : y.-------------------^^a|»fiaflii«!ti»iai|RBuiiiiaiaii :■'^•a I VT tr<-^ m i'I y r !*• 2 / / f / / ‘ y/ / 4 ‘A e)2-;^o ^^cro< I ■ 1' ml . . '.■II hk rc. /o'/3*9f S 11.31 \ C. Lot ^ots Sha^ll^^^^individual provide posi^ve drainage ger>/ral storm drainage lot drainage skjall oe he designed so as to avoid oattern for thevarea. Drainage ssh ^___^o^ t-o adiacent f\st trees, timber, or other wasteSubd. 7.Xoebris and Waste.,;^ debris, earth, rocks,\s tones, t°"^'nrird' in an'/ land, or left materials of any <inX sna- ^ at/lhe time of* the issuance of deposited on any lot shall anv be left wi. ceJtificate of °==“Py-=y Tk/s^Jj^/i'sion'at the time of expiration deposited in any dedication of oublic imptovementa,of thr performance bond ox geoicatiuw whiche^ir is sooner.wnicne\ii. y^\ c ,hd Q Wa-er'-odi-s^nd Watercourses. If a tract d®^hg subdivided contains 'a Wy tt" dVst?ibu'te° the portion thereof, lot luies shall r « owners of adjacent Ltire ownership of yi'ose areas whereby the lots. The -ate main^ ‘hose areas °i/?^,i?l^°"wu"l"noi becomWhe City's responsibilityIs so placed that' it «tom theWhere a -atercourse separates the hui^Wable^area „ade for ?nIt%UatIon''of 2 cul«?2 or othel struotureV of design approved by the City. / \ SEC. 11.32. ROADS Subd. 1. Off-Site Premises; Roadways. A Access to Improved Public or Private ^^Ofdways. c*hail be aDorov<»d unless the area to be subdivide^ NO f;^°^"^^^"°2au3te^\cc»ss“from an existing publicly dedicated and shall nave adequate ’rivate roadway ooen to travel or vehicular opened "^^asem^ent between perso'ns or between persons and use pursuant^ roadway must be suitably improved as required by the v^ity. . "^Minnesota or Hennepin County. In the event the City, including but not limited to existing bridges, the public -lirjhtina shou''ders, base, pavement, alignment drainage structurei^ Jiot^suitable to handle the ‘proposed additional or siv.e distanc.-,-..ue subdivision, the subdivider at his vehicular tra first improving the public standard acceptable to the City, to insure that the health. ORONO CC 456 (4-1-84) s 11.32 safety and welfare of the citUens presently asln, t!« in the future will be protected bvsubdivision. by the increased use of the nrior to final subdivision This improvement shall be accompl P j. provides aapproval unless the City agrees and the subdi,^ suitable performance bond to coraple.e cne subdivider'3 agreement. 3 Access to Improved Public Roadways Over Existing Private Roadways*.WhVrever to the public roarwiv?"l/=h^'p%'^are^?o"adwa;'ttJu 0% suitably improved as orovided herein above for public roadways. Subd. 2. On-Site Roadways. |^d"*sUi1i=ari:rs^nd -IrL^a^oved 4s to de.,,„ and^specUi; =P?a'ir?e,^^;ed SVed i^ior?o'^^nal subdivision approval. B.Topography and Arrangement. 1 Roadways shall be related appropriately to the topography.^^ance ul'roadwayV shaL^b^ arranged avoid conforhiity of lot the building sites at, or.so as to obtain as ”any as^possrble^o^f^^.h^e rriose1y%^r^pSssfe'-to Se ot^plRal^t^^^^ “L^^^ntard^n ?h^e des7g\^of this Chapter. 0 A^l str‘»‘»ts shall be properly integrated ^ .^ronosed svstem of thoroughfares and did‘?caf/d " ght4"o’f-way Comprehensive Municipal Plan. 3 All t.horoughfares shall be properly related to specific Inching ie"nte?sr tV pop4Vat!ln ^enriti«; /nTt°o the'pa4tern of existing and proposed land uses. 4 Roadwavs shall be laid out to conform as ccihio to *the toDographv, to discourage use by through mucn as gfffcient drainage and utility systems, “gui- th°e-:\n\mum‘nu4ber of roadways necessary to provrde convenient and safe access to property. 5 The gridiron roadway pattern need not •1 Ko Adhered to, and the use of curvilinear roadways or 5!00“0“r0ad0ays shall be encouraged where such use will result a more desirable layout. ORONO CC 457 (4-1-84) s 11.32 ...... ;n.Vwi;?a:» necessary or cesirable for i,.,ru.'- or tbe most advantageous subdivision with the = future develooment of adjacent ui.acw . 7.in business and industrU^ldeve the roadways and ®="®®3^^V4tion o facilities, and with the grouping of ijad'-ng and maneuvering areas, and the provisions of al.eys, to min^imize conflict of movement walks and parking areas so including pedestrian,between the various types of traffic, mc.u y C.Blocks. 1 shall have sufficient width to. 1.B*ock ‘ lots of aopcopriate depths. provide for two (2)block width shall be permitted in !S^aT,aclnt";ra?t%%\Yl^railroads, or waterways. 2.The lengths Vht"\=ocauty'anr thf ty^'e'ol Shall be such as are '"^lock lenaths in residential areas development __j fiv** hundr’ed (1,500) feet or twelve shall not exceed one thou “required in the zoning district, (12)times the minimum fe«t in length from centerline ior be less than four ^wherever practicable, blocks rlo^^^"rr\e^Tal°s^^ol\-^"=r^“^^^^^^^^^^ ®Hall be not less than one thousand (1,000) feet in length. ?hVouc^fhl block\^o^ fc^d^Te^ uti^^^^ reservation of oldestrian traffic. P^^estrianways ties, drainage dO) feet wide, may be by or crosswalks, _/g^ of'blocks more than eight hundred (8 )the City througn the center or oioc circulation of access feet long where deemed essential tojcovi or other to schools, playgjourids,^^P.industrial uses shall be orL^ch "length and w'idth as may be determined suitable by the for prospective use. '^^rir ‘con^i^”s*'an \'k\Vt\ng"’or proposed ^“?"1ir*°"the """may" re"ui"re that access to such roadways be tinifted by one of t'he following means: 1 The subdivision of lots so as to back onto no access ^ball be p property line of such be provided in a isu.it' lots. ORONO CC 458 (4-1-84) s 11.32 -i series of cul-de-sacs,U-shaped streets, or short loops entered from ^nd designed generally at^r^^^ to such a parallel street, with the rear xine lots backing onto the arterial. 1 A narqinal access or service road separated 3. A n-ass strio and having access from the arterial by a planting 9*- thereto at suitable points. plan as sub^lt^ted'^shairiJot Tp"r/u°.'ln “y irairb ““ufm\UVdif£erent in'sbu^ irtcTs“plinnfd%r;%1fnbfnartU%rr e'^xistln, .oad sHall bear the same name. F.soad Regnlatocy deposit with the City at ga^h toad sign and the sum of money The^City shall install all road signs installation ®°®^f’=‘’*^®J\Vicates of occupancy for any residence on rhrs^.^»tTlp°pro^-/d. ^^^The City sb 1, pia„ ^^h^rv^Yon. \r"rpc anf loJat^n of which to he approved hy the City. Ts\o%rnra=-ss Ir^radjacent property to such street. H.Construction of Roads and Dead-End Roads. 1.Construction of Roads. The ^ K 11 nrrtvide for the continuation of streets betwee streets shall .-r, such continuation is necessary for adjacent properties traffic effective fire protection, for convenient movement ^iiities^and where such continuation is in efficient ^'^ity fnd accordance '^^th undeveloped and the street must be a dead-end adjacent property is ^ t-of-way shall be extended to the street ^empor ar^ily,^ length of temporary dead-end It^irts'in'alicrdahce with 'the design standards of this Chapter. 2.Dead-End Roads (Permanent). Where a road aoes, not ®*«"Vt°re\''ulr^r5y^tL°C^ty'’1o/“a^^^^^^^^^ aljoining contrhhation IS not not be nearer to ®uch property. Its However, the City may require the “serVa'’tion o/ an^pprUtiate easement to accommodate drainage ORONO CC 459 (4-1-84) L.■Ik.i.a.ll ..~k . PSl*C:a« M ■ i Iliai •lA] E^T« r*7;r* M liil r»Tsf« •XA1 [•^iO »7Hra r«T;r« M»r#l9ii^l«J r#M«j r»w« s 11.33 2 Railroads and Limited Access Roadways. Subd. 2. j arcess roadways where so located Railroad rights-of-way and jg shall be treated as as to affect the subdivision of adjoining lanos follows: A. In residential districts a fhe^^llt LViVed in tt?dLtAot^"han°"be';ro?*ded°a7Ac.nt-to the railroad right-of-way or limited access roadway. B. In districts zoned for ieV or industrial uses the nearest ^, shall be at a sufficient 5?rt!"rt^%^Jefr*^f i:^^n°su?e'/uYt^-^ d%^^\^ for oonneroial or industrial sites.parallel to the railroad when intersecting a street whio.h cros«s ^the at a distance " j .jith due consideration of the «V^ed" frr^L\*ure separation of grades by means of appropriate approach gradients. D.Streets crossing the railroads shall be avoided. Subd. 3. Intersections. a qt'eets shall be laid out so as to intersect as • Ki o apqles. A prooosed intersection of two nearly \'L or less than seventy-five (75) degrees(2) new streets at an angi- or street should be curved |pproaoring°In^int%^seotion^an^^^ should b®“jje fI^:*lw'o°^2^^ g^??e%%r sh1ir\^nte ‘r^“e“^t'ir a'^ny one point unless specifically approved by the City. B oroDOsed new intersections along one side of an h *<5h3*ll 'coincide with any existing intersections on existing . .£ such street. Intersection jogs with center-the opposite side of sucn scr permitted, except line offsets of dual drives without where the ‘"“'“father intersection. where streets intersect median breaks shall be continuous.Intersection Sf^rtteru! roadways shill be at least eight hundred (800) feet apart. r Minimum curb radius at the intersection .two 1 . <,haTl be at l«ast fifteen (15) feet; and minimum(2) local s..reets involving a collector street or curb radius at an or industrial area shall be at least local feet Alley intersections and abrupt changes in twenty-five (“SJ tee •shall have the corners cut off in Sdllcb“w\th standard engineering practice to permit safe vehicular movement. ORONO CC 461 (4-1-84) ill[•f=r«r*a^¥*WAV* BTiTi _____' s 11.40 SBC. 11.40. ROAD DEDICATION AND RESERVATIONS. perimeter half-streets. Where an " ^he street shall be to a new subdivision, the o^her^ hal citv may authorize a improved and dedicated by imocoves and dedicates new perimeter street wnere th. of-wav wi'dth within his own the entire required street rignt-of way subdivision boundaries. Subd. 2. Widening and ^-Ugnm^e^ Where a subdivision some'’otLr agency indicates plans Comprehensive Municipal ° would recuire use of somefor realignment or widening a road that wouia required to of the land in the 1‘ -go gych areas for widening or improve and dedicate frontage roads and streets shall ^e^I^ro-d °^d%^e1icattd*by't^e s\bdiv?der at his own expense to the full width as required by this Chapter. subd. 3. Land reserved for V/ To^inl counted in °to Ve“ dedicated to the City in fee or''area%^afe’n\ \s"aranted to the City. SEC. 11.41. DRAINAGE AND STORM SEWERS. subd. 1. Gener al adequate^provision for aporove any subdivision "''bic.water drainage oatterns shall slirmcr £^5°^ ““f/J°“;,,;^'orand ^100^. fhe'storn. water be shown for each and ' ^independent of any sanitary drainage system shall bp required, shall be designed by sewer system. Storm _--cooy of design computa- the method as with plans: Inlets shall be tions shall be subm i t w car^ried across or around any provided so that surfa distance of more than 600 feet in the intersection, nor when calculations indicate that curb gutter in urban ^ ^ ooint, no further allowance shall be |fde'''“orftol "eyood that point, and basins shall be used to intercept flow at that point. Subd. 2.Nature of Storm Water Facilities. A Location. The subdivision shall be ^ ^ awav bv pipe or ooen ditch any spring or surface the City to carry .%/ oreviously to, or as a result of the water ^ ^'drainage facilities shall be located in the road subdivision. ^uch ^ perpetual unobstructed easements 'i’'";!o;r?It: twth! and shall be^o^structed in accordance wxth the^City^s construction standards and specifications. ORONO CC 464 (4-1-84) 3 MR.H 0 W LNC Hanning Tiansportation Engineering Urban Design Thresher Square 700 Third Street So. Minneapolis^ MN 55415 612/3704)700 Fax 612/370-1378 Denver Milwaukee Minneapolis Orlando Phoenix Portland San Diego Seattle K /o-;3'-‘=yr' October 11,1995 Mr. Nfichael P. Gaf&on Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Cirv of Orono ¥ P.O. Box 66 Cr>ial Bay, MN 55323 RE: Scotch Pine Addition City Zoning File #2065 BRW File 3233AOO Dear Mike: This letter is in response to comments from your letter dated September 14,1995. Specifically, I would like to address the environmental benefits from this project. A budget analysis program was used to estimate the contaminant loading for the before and after conditions for the proposed street vacation. The results of the budget analysis show a contaminant reduction of approximately 50% for the drainage area contributimi to the adiacent wetland and ultimately to Lake Minnetonka. This analysis does not take into account the oils, rubber, and other garbage commonly associated with street run-off that currently enters directly into the wetland by way of the existing storm sewer. A permit has been applied for through the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the plans for this project have been revised to reflect the comments of the Board. A Site/Grading plan was submitted to your oflice on 9/13/95. which addresses erosion control, utility adjustments, and pavement removal. If you have any questions, please call me at 373-6362. Sincerely, BRW, INC. S.Sandberg, FIT Project Engineer Sam Marfield Keith Dahl/BRW c: *•uMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN’NTNG Cc vlNflSSlON MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER IS, 1995 (REPLAT) 8:00-S;37 P.>L The Cenificate of Mailing and .Affidavit of PubUcaiion were noted. The applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Maifield. .Mr. & Mrs Hill, and William Toles, were present. ThVre^X^s^d allow the Htll propet. necessary to accommodate existing and future utility needs. Gaffion noted that a lener from NSP indicates there is a distribution facility' in the area. \SP will not JDve their approval for the easement vacation and any changes will have to be LTe at tlHxpense oHhe appbcants Gafiron thought if the exrstmg located that NSP would possibly approve the easement vacation in ^^oange fo locateu laa J r^^t^ral gas lines in the area, and the “v obi^cts to tiie proposal unless suttable nght of way and rededi^no^esolved. Peterson clarified that the utiUty easements must remain as they now exi . confirmed this r,ffmn said Citv sewer was extended to the area in 19S0 with 10' easement on either side 1 tL Citv Enameer indicates 30' total width is needed for that uulity easement, h W^ noted that the applicants have not proyid^ a surv ey of where all the utility Imes are located This is required and is being asked tor from the appbcants ' -f- -.• *' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#2 - #2065 MarfieldTiilLToles - Continued) The paved portion of Scotch Pine Lane would be removed and the propert\‘ replatted in this proposal. The Hills would gain a portion of Scotch Pine adjacent ot their house as well as the rnajorir>' 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 of the cul-de-sac area. The Toles driveway would be revised to gain access from CoRd 51 Regrading would be done to eliminate the existmg drainage pipe. The Marfrelds would gam the west and southwest portions of Scotch Pine Lane A 20'x90' outlot is proposed for the shared portion of the proposed Marficld/Hiil driveway. Staff is concerned that the replat would result in a "backloi" configuration which would not meet the 150% acreage or setback standards. The Marfield ’ot would appear to become a backlot under the proposal. Another Staff concern is that with the area being zoned for 2-acre lots today, if this 3-lot plat was proposed, the City would require planing of 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 w’as his opinion that all of the blacktop to serve the three small parcels was too much He noted City officials in the past had agreed with this opinion. Peterson commented that requirements are changing. The Fire Department 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 and Bohn's Point. He would like this road to be similar to the other accesses in the area, most of which are drivewavs. Hill suggested that the fire depanment use the grassed areas to gain access It w-as commemed 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 property as it now exists Rowlette concurred with this notation. l.Iarfield noted that, although Orono is into ereen spaces, it allow ed this 3/4 acre of blacktop to be built where it isn't necessary The Commissioners agreed that they too like the green grassv' areas but trends are chanuinu for emeruencv situations The police depanment has responded that they approve the proposal The fixe depanment had not been notified of the proposal. areIt was noted that the public uses the road, even though it is marked dead-end. and _ creatma a safetv' hazard bv 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. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER IS, 1995 (#2 - #2065 MarficId/HillyToIes - Continued) Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2065 until the Fire epartment could give their recommendation regarding the proposal. Toles noted that tao g wou upset liis plans for rebuilding on liis property this fall. Gaffron asked the Commission about the issue wth creating a backlot by having an outloi resulting in the Marfield property being more substandard tor setbacks and area ® requested whether there is also a problem with the outlet to be owned by both N arhe and Hill. Schroeder commented that he had no problem with it. A letter from neichbors, the LevVs. favored approving the application providing the new driveway not be closer than 15’ from the lot line and the uiilitv- easements to the^propeny remain in effea. 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 approval motion for Application #2065 subject to the approval of the Fire Department. Easements are to be dealt with, and the dnveway must be at least 15' from the neighboring property. Gaflfron suesested it mav be inaporopriate to place the hre depanment in a position to approve or'disapprove this request without tur.her Commission input. GaSron asked the Commissioners to address the issues under item # 1 in the Staff memo relating to the vanances requested for replamna and rededication of easements, the wetlands delineation and dedication on the property, and whether special findings are adequate to dehne this as a unique request as compared to other three-lot subdivtsions, or be prepared to gram approval to other neighborhoods ma>dng similar requests. Rowlette said she did feel there are soeciiic findings in regards to this appUcation noting the existing substandard access to the Toles propem- There would be better 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 without crossing the road would be a benefit. Smith asked Gafrron if he envisioned requests from many other residents of 3-pam' cul- de sacs to ask for removal, is this ooening the door for similar requests. Gaffron said it could be open.no a "little door", and that is the reason good findings are important here. Pederson said he was concerned that the Commission was moving this applicauon roiward to ‘the Council in a mess>- form and requested that it be tabled. Lindquist said some ot the issues mav 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 m addition to the fire safety issue. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#2 - 5=^2065 Marficld/Hill/Toles - Continued) Hawn withdrew her amendment to the nxjtion. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2065 to gam specific input from the Fire Department and general input on the issues. Vote Ayes Na\s , Rowlette, who would have liked to have voted on the amendment. (#3) #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER. 2480 CASCO POINT RO.AD - CLASS I SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HE.ARESG WITH RENOTIFICATION 7:18-8:00 P.NL The Cenificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Weckman reported that the proposal is for a two lot subdivision from p^pertv that ^d been combined from a 3-parcel property consisting of lots 1. 3, and 4. The applicam^^ ■ previouslv stated he had nor intentionally combined the lots but it was done as a rest'., o request for one tax statement. The nvo lots meet the area and width requo-emems. Weckman said the main issue is with the access roads on the propeny. Lots 3 and 4 are the current homestead and have access from Fredenck Street. A more recent dnveway was established from Casco Point to the lots and is now a thru dnveway with a circ e. The applicant said this dnveway existed between 1931 and 1985, but he allowed vegetation to grow over the driveway after 1985 The dnveway was reestt*hshed in W4 The on'ginal subdivision shows an outlot with a dnve circling around and conneaing to The cul-de-sac. but the dnve used as the connector cuts through lot 1. W eckman asked for direaion from the Commission on what to do with the With the dnvewav serving lots 3 and 4 going through Lot 1, the requirement of 1/. acre contiguous on Lot 1 with'the pnncipal structure placed on the lot is not men .An opuon was noted to end the driveway 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 dnveway on ^ ‘empor^ basis while using the adjacent two propenies and n£l adding an easement m favor ot lots 3 and 4 V.1 •• -T 1 A ***** *'H . .. .••■I .Vy 23 ;.^ ■] •,*,. •* -W-U •»-: ' ••>.-* .* .* . .1 '% * m A ; - ..I• • • %* 1.^ *• ^ *» »- i; ^« #.•« :-.~-3 -•si* %• r * -. tM « *» •i 612 473 o332 From ; MORRIS G VBTf JR PH0€ No. ' 612 AT3 6392 Sss. le 199S"'4:SPH- P0V“ M MORRIS G.LEVY. .IR. 2^25 Northshore Dr1v«» Wnyzat*, MM 55391 (612) 473 5223 FAX - (612) 473 6392 F A C S I M 1 I. Ji TRANSMISSION HATK: Si*i)tomlu*r 1«, 1995 FAX ‘J’O: F1 onr.lr.!■ Cnnr.l3si ort Hi V «> I Pro no FAX No.: ____(01?) 47?. 05 H)__________ WUMliKM OF PA(.:i;S: 1 inclii«nur; covur pa;: i.’c: A|>p1 i c.i 1.1 on i'2065 Sc otch IM no l.nno To I lie IMniininn ConuH .;y ion : Uo arc^ Uic nciufihnr*. ubni.tJnB tin* ouhjocv property Lo Lho Past arnl lilt- I horc'f or.; dJioctly off ci; L oti. Fe tavui the opprovnl of this npplJcatiuu provlfMnji ihut the tolluwiuij cond .1 t Ion.«) ori'veLiup. otir property fit «> K'cltlotic*!: 1)Tlint no part of Hio propoRcnl drivov/uy loinlin*; to the To1c.'» pryporty ni 243';'jcotch Flru* Lane he clowor th.m I'M'Lcrn feet *n u uini'nnm to our property Jirir separutin^ the l.wu pro po r V. 1 es. 2)’I'll.It nny .nul oil utility cnsfi.ionlt; lyJoi.j within ».ho stihjc’Cl property wii I cli cr.'ci.ciid to our propet ly lino or into our proi»erty roniflii hi ful! rurre .’iiid cflcctt All slated tihovo,if Ihoue conditions ere ootiafied, wc favor your f.ron tiiiK op prove 1 of thi-. o pp 1 i c n t i on . -:•*'••■■ r.; •T • •• ? V __ . I MP m ;d-'S Northern States Power Company 414 ^«CON•t MaH Minnaapolis, Mirjwsoia 55401*1993 Tetephone (612) 330-5500 Sept. 18, 1995 City of Orono Attn: Michael P. Gaffron 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE: Vacation of utiltiy easement in Dicon Addition Dear Mr. Gaffron, I was notified by our Minnetonka office of Application #2065, a petition by Samuel and Joyce Marfield, and H. Douglas and Cheryl Hill, and William M. Toles, for vacation of ail that part of the right of way of Scotch Pine Lane, as donated and dedicated by Dicon Addition. NSP’s Minnetonka area Distribution personnel have informed me that NSP has Distribution facilities in the subject area, and will not consent to the vacation of utility easement in Dicon Addition, per Application #2065. Any relocation of NSP Distribution facilities wili he at the requester ’s expense. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Aina Olson Asst. Real Estate Rep. 330-5983 cc; Lou Howard SEP 1 9 C.. nmnegasci o AMtmAmENBtarCottPANr lO'\%'-^^ September 15, 1995 Michael P. Gaffron Aasiatant Plazming fc Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parlcway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 RE: Street Vacation of Application #2065 Dear Mr. Gaffron: With reference to the proposed street vacation mentioned above, Minnegasco does have an existing natural gas main, and natural gas service lines, in that portion of Scotch Pine Lane proposed to be vacated. Since this gas main and service lines are necessary to serve all of the customers mentioned in this proposal, we must object to this proposed vacation unless suitable easement rights are reserved to Minnegasco, pursuant to MSA 160.29. Please reserve an easement to Minnegasco, created by and within the document eatabllshlna the street vacation and filed with the Hennepin County recorders office, over the following area of the proposed street vacation: All of Scotch Pine Lane mentioned in this proposal. Minnegasco has no objection to the vacation of all of the utility easements mentioned in this proposal. Thank you for the advance notice and please send me a copy of the "final action" of this proposal. Sincerely, Steven Von Bargen Real Estate Specialist Minnegasco pc: R. J. Pilon, Minnegasco Ron Humbert, Minnegasco fax #473-0510 700 VVeht Lin<1f*n A n piuh * P.O Box IUm SEP 1 8 C-. Chair Sieve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator r From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator IHtfe: Subject: September 14, 1995 #2065 Samuel and Joyce Marfield/Douglas and Cheryl Hill/William Toles, 2455/2425/2435 Scotch Pine Lane - Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and Easements Within Plat of Dicon Addition - Replat of Dicon Addition (Preliminary Subdivision) - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Two Acre List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O Applications Plat Map Property Owners ’ List Letters of Request 8/23/95 & 9/13/95 and Staff Letter 8/24/95 Existing Dicon Plat Existing Conditions Map Description and Map of Proposed Vacations Preliminary Plat Drawing Proposed Grading Plan Citv Engineer Letter 9/13/95 Air Pho ‘J Docume v-ation from Original Subdivision 1973-74 and 1979 Variances Storm Dram Easement Sketch Private Driveways Moratorium Letter from Hennepin County DOT Summary of Request <siihdivision Background Dicon Addition, comprising Scotch Pine Lane, three building lots and a private lake access corridor, was platted as a one acre density PRD subdivision in 1974. At that time, this area of the City was zoned R-IC, Single Family Residential, one acre minimum lot size. Based on a gross area of just over 3'/2 acres, the City apparently felt obligated to allow this three lot diviiion with a full-t :dged cul-de-sac being constructed to serve all three. Zoning in this area changed to two acre minimum in 1975. Under today ’s zoning, that 3'/6 acre tract would be allowed only one house. Under the one acre PRD standards in 1974, the City did acknowledge the need and did grant a variance for lot width frontage on a roadway for the easterly existing lot. ■DXjiMim1 I Zoning File #2065September 14, 1995Page 2.i™-, ^ road »«i Ihe City has maintained it as such evermce. Such a road m Orono’s rural zone today would be platted as a private road outlot.Protwsed Vacation/ReplarAfter many years in which only two of the three property owners in the Dicon Addition Scotch Pine, William Toles, has petitioned alone with the Marfields and the Hills, to vacate Scotch Pine Lane. Their intent is to use a shared drivewav over the vacated roadway for 2425 (Hill) and 2455 (Marfield). Mr. Toles at 2435 is proposing a separate driveway access directly onto County Road 51, abandoning his use of Scotch Pine Lane altogether. Further, the property owners have agreed on a proposal to split up the vacated Scotch Pine Lane, which they have to do through a replat since their proposed boundaries do not follow the normal center line at which the County would automatically split out the ownership. Referring to Exhibit E, note that the Hill property includes Lot 4 with their house plus Lot 2 which IS the platted corridor giving them private lake access. They currently cross the Scotch Pine I.ane cul-de-sac in order to get to their lakeshore. Under the proposed vacation and replat, (see Exhibits F and H) Marfield will gain the west and southwest portions of Scotch Pine Lane; Hill will pick up the portion of Scotch Pine adjacent to their house, as well as much of the cul-de-sac, giving them a continuous single parcel trom the County road to the lake; and Toles on Lot 3 will pick up the end of the cul-de-sac. A short (20 ’x90 ’) outjot is proposed for the shared ponion of the proposed Marfield/Hill driveway. Planning Commission is asked to consider whether the replat results in a new "back lot" which won’t meet the 150% acreage or setback standards. The Marfield lot would appear to become a "back lot" under this proposal. The propeny owners intend to remove most of the blacktop, do minor filling as necessary to essentially re-establish the natural grade, and turn the area back into grass. They are willing to grant to the City and the public all necessary drainage and utilitv easements, and have received preliminary verbal approval from Hennepin County Public VVorks for the additional access location onto County Road 5 1. Easement Vacation Referring to Exhibit G. note that a significant number of easements were originally granted as pan of the 1974 plat. These include utility easements along the east and west Doundaries; a 50 ’ utility easement running from the cast boundary to the west boundaty and the road easement itself, as well as dedication for 50 ’ of County Road 51. The plat also’showed a wetland to die southeast, but staff is unaware of an easement dedicated for that wetland, and no easement is dedicated in the plat language. Zoning File #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 3 Regarding the 50’ utility easement, that portion within original Lot 3 (Toles) was vacated in 1979 except for the southeast 10’ of it. At that time the City concluded there was no real need for that easement, and accommodated the previous owner s wishes to allow construction of a pool in the area of that easement. The portion of easement heading west from the cul-de- sac is still in existence. There is probably no good reason to retain this easement within Marfield’s property, except for the northwesterly 10’ along the lot line. Staff is unaware of any existing utilities within this easement. Additionally, in 1979 when the City vacated the 50’ easement portion, it required the then property owner, ^Tialen, to grant a drainage easement for the catch basin and outlet pipe within Lot 3, leading away from the cul-de-sac. City files contain a survey and descripnon for that easement, but staff is unaware whether it was ever filed. Applicants propose grading that would eliminate the need for the storm drain. In the early 1980 ’s when the City constructed municipal sewer from the center of the Scotch Pine Lane cul-de-sac westward to Old Crvstal Bay Road, a ponion of that sewer was constructed under Scotch Pine Lane and part of it within the Marfield property. Staff anticipates finding that this sewer easement was granted by Marfield. however, any vacation of Scotch Pine Lane right-of-way would have to be conditioned on retaining an easement for the existing sewer lines below it. The City Engineer notes this should be a 30’ wide ea.sement. To Summarize, if the proposed vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and its associated Dicon Addition easements occurs, the City should retain or obtain the following easements (assuming the replat also occurs): 1.A 30’ wide sewer easement centered along the center line of the existing sewer in Scotch Pine l^ne. The City should retain some easement for access for sewer maintenance along the driveway that replaces Scotch Pine Lane. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements, being 10’ in width along the nonhwest and southeast lines of the plat extending from the County road to the lake; a 10’ drainage and utility easement along County Road 51 within the replatted lots; and drainage and utility easements 5’ in width either side of the new boundaries between the lots, extending from the County road to the lake. Utility easements should also be granted for any utility lines which may already be in place, including gas. electric, cable, phone, etc. 2!oning File 1^065 September 14, 1995 Page 4 5.Property owners will need to grant easements to each other for their sewer connections which may cross over what will now become private property. 6.Confirmation that the drainage easement for the storm sewer leaving the east end of the cul-de-sac is legally filed and in effect; as an alternative, the need for this storm drain system may be alleviated by the property owners regrading the entire site as proposed. Access Issues, Policy Issues A review of the extensive files attached regarding the original Dicon Addition approval and the later Whalen easement vacation and variance request, suggest tnat former City Councis and staff mav have felt tha» Scotch Pine Une should never have been built. Mr. Martie d s recent recollection of the extensive tree removal that took place when that road was built is confirmed in the Citv files. Apparently former City Planner Alan Olson, former Mayor Van Nest, and others are purported to have noted the road was eveevove for serving just three lots. However it is a fact that absent the lot areas being substandard, in the two acre zoning district under tod.iv ’s Co des, these three 1 ts would be required to be platted with a pri^ nmiot rmd beinc^ 50 in width with 100’ platted cul-de:.sac and paved to a width of .4 . with 80 raved diameter cul-de-sac. similar to what currently exi_sts. As Planning Commission and Council are aware, the City is currently reviewing the issue of the use ol private roads vs. nhvaf drivewavs. and tandards for their construction. Planning Commission will certainly retail 'the recent' di cussions with the Long Lake Fire Chief that lead Planning Commission to wonder whether juiier.t standards were not strict enough. Further, there may be an issue of whether a current moratorium which "prohibits the eramir'’ of prcliminars' subdivision approval or ouier permits and approval for private dnvevvays which swerve three or 'more residences”, applies to the current request. It was not intended, in staffs opinion, to necessarily apply to the case where there will be two private driveways, one serving one residence and one serving two residences, although one might interpret it that way. Additionally, while the residents have pursued this application with much zeal over the last month staff has dilieentlv attempted to make the applicants aware that there are policy issues that miahi derail their proposal. Not the least of which is the possible precedent set by addin.’ a driveway access to a busy County road, when the City’s policy has been to not only iiniit the number of drivew ays, but to require that private roads be constructed to City standards whenever three or more lots are created as part of a subdivision. Absent all of the compelling reasons why the proposed vacation is a positive improvement tor this neighborhood (and perhaps will reduce^City maintenance costs), it still seems to be flying in the face of what has been consistent City policy tnroughout the rural zoning districts. Zoning File #2065 Sqwember 14, 1995 Page 5 Applicants’ Basis for Vacation/Replat Applicants in their August 23, 1995 letter provide the following reasons for making the request: 1. 2. 3. 4. It will remove several thousand square feet of hardcover and lessen the runoff of salts aral oil from the street into the marsh and lake. It will save the City the cost of maintaining the existing street. It will reduce the number of car trips to and from Scotch Pine by lost people. It will reduce the casual driver from turning down the street looking tor access to the lake. 5.It will make the area safer for children. 6.It will increase security to the existing homes. 7.It will improve the aesthetic view from the lake. It is difficult to argue against these mostly factual justifications for removing the street. How *ver, while the vacation may be die most appropriate action for this neighborhood, the City has many similar existing situations involving short private cul-de-sacs which might make many of the same arguments. Appro\ al of this request may open the door to similar requests by many similar neighborhoods. Comments by Public Works and Police Departments Public Works Director John Gerhardson has indicated he would support the proposal from the standpoint that it will reduce the City’s maintenance cost of this significant amount ot roadway serving only three lots. He notes that the proposed new driveway liKation for Toles appears to be a cood safe location with adequate sight distance. Police Chief Gary Cheswick similarly indicates that he sees no safety concerns with eliminating <:cotch Pine Lane and adding a driveway, noting that it is a safe driveway location and there are so many dnveways along County Read 51 that this one additional driveway will not have a traffic impact. While we have not discussed tias spiecific proposal with the Long Lake Fire Chief. Panning Commission will recall that in the discussion with the Fire Chief earlier this year, ^e Fire Department preferred the use of loop roads rather than cul-de-sacs, but was concerned about fire Zoning File #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 6 trucks damaging private roads and driveways, for which the Fire responsible when damage occurred during a call. It can wnamly be driveways Lm as it exists is a bener situation for fighting fires than if we have separate narrow driveways in place. Hennepin County DOT Comments Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County met with staff atri the property owners on August 23id ZenLirom verballv indicated that based on the proposed driveway location, and the po''"' £S rJ«ighborhood. the County was likely to i ^ would issue a permit for a new curb cut for Toles. That has been confirmed in a letter recei i'3day (Exhibit O). City Engineer Recommends Denial Citv Engineer Shawn Gustafson in his September I3th letter indicates that ^hould di^oufaee an increase in the number of accesses to an arterial roadway such « County Road 51 and hi recommends that the proposal be denied. From a policy die new driveway accesses lo a County Road should only occur if there is no feasible altemati . He notes that approval could be considered precedcni setting. rustafson also notes that the wetland and fioodplain boundaries should be delineated (and easements granted), and that a grading/erosion control/dramage plan should be prepare (received from applicants on 9'13/95), if the proposal is approved. Further he sucacsts that all existing sanitary sewer, water, storm seer, 8“; r^rnhnne and c'able television lines should be located and shown on a survey. Note that while r^:r=trcort"“ I^^ouU ^e relented before final approval of the replat so that appropriate easements can be cranted or utilitit. moved to match new easement locattons. Staff Recommendation In order to approve this vacation and replat. Planning Commission must be able to find that:The necessary variances involved in the replal (lot widih/frontage/back lot issues) are dearly justified and supponed by adequate tmdings. It is in the public's best interest to vacate the road. All utilities and access needs will be accommodated. This vacation is unique and supported by compelling justifications ^at apply o this neiiihborhood but not to other similar neighborhoods, in order that ^ basis t deny similar requests without such conditions existing, is possible (..e. show why this vacation doc> not set a negative precedent). : t V Zoning Flic #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 7 Options for Action 1.Approval as proposed, subject to: «Applicants obtaining formal Hennepin County DOT approval. -Subject to confirmation of location of existing utilities, to be relocated or easements granted for them. •Replat subject to standard drainage and utility easements. Subject to delineation of wetland and granting of conservation and flowage easement over wetland. -Subject to grading and drainage plan approved by City Engineer/Public Works Department prior to final plat approval. Specific variances to be granted in replat include: •Lot area and width, all lots. •Lot area and setback (150% standard), Marfield back lot. •Others as may be subsequently found during review process -Aj part of any recommendation for approval. Planning Commission should sp-ecify how this proposal for this neighborhood is unique as compared to other similar three-lot subdivisions, and defining why this one might be approved while others might not be. 2.Table for further information (specify). 3.Denial (provide specific reasons). 4. Isv Other. CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICAT PROPERTY LOCATION , a i - Site address Pf.Oa ^A/C*c: Property Identification Number (PID)_________ Please check one - Property abstract or —torrens?w • i • ^ -’ “ •' / *• b. — • »»•»‘A u ^ *«* '• »-v -. v'V Attach iesal description to application.w, APPLICANT L>(tX/4M /V ^ u>3r 17a UtF Phoneihome) ^^ Address 1 ^'^C(work) ^'yfe I •«' ■V. v\ . •T .* V -7 y,iL r;ry ir/Ay:?-/irA M V OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address City Zip Phone thome) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District ^^35 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential: no. of units Other ^specify)_______ PROPOSAL Number of Building Sites Lol Ltoe Rea]^n«iTOnrOn^ (no new buildling Subdivision for New Building Sites Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (speciiy)_________ ONIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPUCATIO?! . Pyment of fees (refer to 'application fees’ listed below). . Coap toed ippticstioo form. PreUmmary plat infonnauon on Ccnificate cf Survey., ^ i j , Cetified Property Quiien l i<« of owners within 350 ’, labels and plat (you must obtain this list, labels and map irom Hanepin County Departmem of Finance. A-603, Govemmeat Ccnicr, 348-3271). . As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ioaiag Official’s Sifuiure ____________________________________----------------------—--------------------------------- ONIML'M MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision .■\pproval resolution and parit fea if appic^lc). . Sifoed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. . Title opinion. Easemenu, covenants, oc. Developers Agreement and Lener of Credit. Itming Official’s Signature ----------------------------------------- 1.APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A.Application Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (Class 1, II & III) S2(X).00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangracai-5?6fta)D Subdivision Application (Class I &(tT) S3(X).00 Preliminary Subdivision Applicatio^S3i5:€e^S25.00/lot (Class III & aU non-rcsidential) Final Plat Application (Class III) SI75.00 Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) ~ Legal and Engmeenng Review Fees (as incurred) ,• ^ -------- Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from ongmal application) Renewal of Class III Preliminary Subdivision Application S150.00 (No change from original application) -------- Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application S 100.00 (No change from original .application) B.Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads S600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; Proposed Public Roads S900.00 + S.50/lincal ft.; Toiaii lin. ft. X .50 Im. ft. X .50rTOpOSCU ruuiic INUOIAO • ----------------- ---------- Request for City to Accept Existing Pnvate Road S900.00 Proposed Sanita.y Sewer .Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermam Extension $250.00 $25/smb Proposed Storm Sewer Svstem (excluding culvens) S200.CO On-Site System. Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/new lot proposed for on-siie x _____new lots C.Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variance S200.00 ■Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision S75.00 PRD Application with Subdivision S30.00/Dwelling Unit . ,nrlicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Admimstraior. City Engineer City tomey Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees FofL 'TCie -^45 vner’s Signature ______— ----------------—— -----------— u ,11 c.hm.ttiU into the Citv Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission mus, have Applilu ma.t b. pr.sem a. all sch«lal»l review meeimgs of me Planning oi! md CouMil^ If an applicant is unable 'o ..tend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements in have an auihoruerl r“a"nd “you°7« L lo" v,se .be Budding i Zomng Office of dus change pnor lo dre meeling. Mli f O CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION _ Site Address <co <Pi.k^S Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Phone (home) U 1 'Z ^ C4T^ 7 f applicant ^^ A ! A Ti'Pf /7 Phone G 0-Cc ±_ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name___________________ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address City Zip. DaicProperty Acquired_--------------------- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels ot land. wiO, CUP application $125.00 Residential Accessory Use ~ $200.00 Instimtional (church, school, etc.) $175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ’ $150.00 Duple.x Credit/Bldg $'’50 00 Commercial/Industrial Use —X Grading and filling • 101 cu. yd. or more lakeshore ------- Grading, seawall, retaining walls within /5 ot lakeshorc PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule ... , -------- $100 00 Renewal Fee (no change from ongmal application) ■-------- After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Applicauon Fee X' $250.00^acation ^"iTTr^OO Easement Vacation ^ • ------$ 75 00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ------S300.00 Rezoning (PUD -‘o ff schedule) ■------- S300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals ------- Other • see Fee Schedule present use of property _______ 7/^nina District /S___L ---Present Zoning Distnet Present Use of Property Other (specify) (month/year) L* • • I * wf ’vif.* .*• .V — A w*W -'to •• .= T "rrr'.c Vf • Ui. -:: u V' .■ ZrO.OC CHECK 'L you C ^vl • • * I* • J »%/ f 2. 3. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1 Completed Application Form. ™ U3t of owners w.thin 350'. labels and plat ^ Cvou must obtain to to. labels and map from Hennepm County Departmem of Fmanc . ^eSnrof surveyor) - refer to handout for survey sr:s5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Attach legal description tc application u noi ^ ^ • i^^^lve ■Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land ■changes in elevation (grades).npr.;ons with an interest in the -s=:”i.« you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUT^V 30 POR^J^L^^DOCU^ t‘’scardra^ro™ doeuments, plans, etc. to be submitted.) “ s“s. Si— “ - Certif,cation by Clerical Department that Utnd Use Appl.ca.ion is complete. Initials of Clerical Suff:---------------------------------------- r", .”Sr - »;i-"■ £”■ supplied is true and correct to the best of hts/her knowledg . Applicant ’s signature rinrg ^ ^ H '• Q 5^_ p^;l THe OWNER’S SIGNATURE application and further authorized reasonable The owner hereby "consultants, asents, commission members, and Council Owner’s signamre Date Applicant must have all tubmitos .«o “app'o^*m^’prTscn “l‘dl scheduled Commission Meetings .ire held on ®‘ ^ council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled o/this change prior to the meetmg. r PROPERTY OWNERS SCOTCH PINE LANE AiL SAMUEL S MARFIELD JOYCE C MARFIELD 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE H.DOUGLAS HILL CHERLY R. HILL 2425 SCOTCH PINE LANE WILLIAM MARK TOLES (A SINGLE PERSON) 2435 SCOTCH PINE LAJJE 08/24/95 THU 09:59 PM SSM ms. fA il2065 - Corrected Property Owners List 41 O •<?yf-'■ >'■' ’<!' f J/ V V y/e. 09*117-23 41 0007.0008.0009 Outrles and Brigitu Schoen 2430 North Shore Drive Wayzau. MN SS391 09-117-23 44 0002 Duane A. Luke 2463 North Shore Drive Wayzau. MN 5539! 09-117-23 44 0004 Samuel and Joyce Marfidd 2455 Scotch Pine Lane Wayzau. MN 55391 09-117-23 44 0006 William M. Toles c/o ToI-0-Malic 3800 County Road 116 Hamel. MN 55340 10-117-23 33 0001 Trust Real Estate NW National Bank 7th & Marquene Minneapolis, MN 55480 09-1 17-". 44 0001 C.Steven Wilson 2485 North Shore Drive Wayzata. MN 55391 09-117-23 44 0003 Dorothy C. Levy 2425 North Shore Drive Wayzau. MN 55391 09-117-23 44 0005.0007 H.Douglas and Cheryl Hill 2425 Scotch Pine lune Wayzau. MN 55391 10-117-23 23 0004 French Creek Homeowners c/o William Donald Larson 1205 French Creek Drive Wayzata. MN 55391 MPG 8/31/95 Mailing List for Utility Companies for Application #2065 Triax Attn: Tom Wmiler 2381 Wilshirc Blvd. Mound. MN 55364 Minnegasco Ann: Kaye Sivoginan P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Minnegasco Attn: Bill Nord P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Northern States Power P.O. Box 63 lx)ng Lake, MN 55356 U S. West Attn: Carla Stenzel Room CO E2.36 700 West Mineral Avc. Littleton, CO 80120 i [•■tfUffl 'J"' - B R W INC. Planning Transportation Engineering Urban Design Thresher Square 700 Third Street So. Miiineapolis. MN 55415 612/370-0700 Fax6l2/370-137S Denver Milwaukee Minneapolis Orlando Phoenix Portland San Diego Seattle September 13, 1995 HMID DELIVERED I!r. Mike Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL SCOTCH PINE ADDITION fka DICON ADDITION Dear Mr. Gaffron: Enclosed are copies of the following materials for our preliminary submittal for the Marfield, Hill and Toles properties. Note that in our original submittal on August 25th we had called the replat DICON 2ND ADDITION, but have now decided to call it SCOTCH PINE ADDITION. Our revised graphics arc; labeled accordingly. 1.11" X IV" copy of the revised preliminary plat. Note that minor modifications to the interior lot lines have been made based upon input received from the land o*/mers. Note also that we are proposing to dedicate a 20 foot wide utility easement centered on the in place sanitary sewer main which serves the properties. 2.11" X 17" copy of existing conditions map for the project. Note that from a building setback standpoint, the existing and proposed building setbacks are either identical or they increase based upon the revised lot lines incorporating the right of way being vacated. 3 11" X 17" copy of preliminary grading plan showing proposed grading, existing and proposed hard cover areas, notes regarding utility adjustment and abandonment and erosion control. Mr. Jeffrey Sandberg is the engineer here at BRW who pi spared 0 0 0 0 C 0 ..CITY of OR ON O Strnt AddnSS:275 0 Ke lley ParxwayOrono. N 5356 Municipal Offices Maillnt AddnttP.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, N 55323-0066August _4 1995 Scotch Pine Lane Residentsc/o Sam Marfield 2455 Scotch Pine Lane Wa zata Minne ota 55391 Re: Propo ed Conversion of ot h Pine Lane Dear Mr. and Mrs. Marfield Mr. and Mrs. Hill [r. and Mr . T les: ow that I ha bad a han t \.�n id r th merits and implic rio n of ur propo al I tillcon ur that the po it i se m to '1Ut ei0 h the n aci e . Ho e r there ma. b om City p li questions hi h n ed to b aa res d an \! hi h ma., or ma not have n im pa ton ourrequ s t. Thi letter i to a ise J ou tho po sible issue a wel a d fine the proce � rpro din to ompli h our oal. Pote nt' aJ City Policy Is ue •I no rine the u tio of lot �ize ur lots e a e ab ut 1 acre each in a ac e zone , if ou re t subdi �d und r urr .. nc City ordinan c es and po li c ie a roadid ntical to exi tin S otch Pin Lan ould be requir t o serv a three lotde elopment. H e er that road ould e pl tterl a a par t outlot to be ownedn maintain d b a home wn rs as ociati n. •On of the oals . che abo e poli y is to limit number of curb c u ts on our maj r roads. Therefor<:. your documentation rhac e actual number of trip ·will decreases a re ult o the proposal ma ha e bearing. •Th hardco er redu tions, ost a in .:,� to the City an d ntic ip te d inc rea e in ai ry curi _ and aesthetics, re all osici e factors which th City uncilultimat l \ ill ha e to eigb gainst City olicy i sue . ., There is moratonum in e feet of July 4th, which prohibits the grant in g of preliminary subdivi sion appro al or ther permits and appr o val for p riv ate drive ways hich serve three or more residences. This mora torium may ha· e an impact on your reque c dep nding on how the City Council interprets the intent o f the moratorium. Telephone (612) 473-7357 •FAX 473-0510 T Scotch Pine Lane Residents August 24, 1995 Page 2 The moratorium is intended to provide the City with the opportunity to review a number of issues regarding the use of private driveways and private roads. We are submitting your letter to the Council in their packet for this coming Monday night meeting, although this item is not intended to appear formally on the agenda. A copy of the memo to the Council is attached. Approval process , u ,u Your request involves two defmed applications which require review- and approval by the Plannin g Commission, including a public hearing at the Planning Commission. These include a request for vacation of Scotch Pine Lane, and additionally a replat of the entire Dicon Addition. These two applications can be applied for concurrently and reviewed concurrently. The application packages for each are attached. I have discussed with Keith Dahl of BRW the general requirements for vacation and replat. While the specific mbmittals are listed in the application packet, basically you must provide a detailed certificate of survey which includes all imormation shown on the original Dicon Addition plat, plus showing all improvements including house locations, existing driveways, actual sewer and storm sewer locations, etc. Additionally, the dimensioned location of proposed lot lines must be defmed, along with proposed location and layout of the new driveways. As part of the vacation approval, the City will require granting of the necessary utility easements, and likely will expect you to redefme the wetland easement to match current wetland boundaries. Additional submittals listed in the application forms must accompany your application, including the certified property owners list which is obtained from Hennepin County. The application deadline for the September 18th Planning Commission meeting is Friday, August 25th at noon. This deadline is necessarv in order for staff to complete the necessary documents for publishmg legal notice of the public' hearing required in these applications. If you were meet the August. '?5rh Hf-.-iflline a Dublic hearing would be held by the ^lanning Commission on September 18th, luh rn.mril review scheduled for October 9th, and, otential final approval by the City Council ^n October 23rd. If you can ’t meet the August 25th deadline, the ne.xt deadline ^ate would be September 22nd7which would result in a Planning Commission public heanng on October I6th. with CounciF review on November 13th and final Council action as early as November 27th. I am enclosing the vacation (general land use) application and the replat (subdivision) application packages, in addition to a memo with your letter which is being forwarded to the City Counci . We should know after Monday night’s meeting the Council ’s initial reaction to your proposal, and can proceed accordingly per the schedule dependent on when your formal application is received. Scotch Pinc l.anc Residents August 24, 1995 Page 3 Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions. Sincerely, �� Michael P. Gaffron � Asst. Planning & Zonin0 Administrator MPG/ch Enc. ----------------------------------'V-9r , I 5a ... , / / DICON (e I I { \ I / I - 1 ADDITION ,T7NG fLNr) I - io••• ' I I I ; , /.� '► I .. INCH IO I . , I �-. �., I ..f . ., SCALE •,o ft:ET ,0 I IO O DENOTES 1110 N MONU"'ENT BASIS l'OR 11(.ARINC.S IS ASSUMED 0 .. • \ ' - • 4 I·• O Q Q < Ph ffio E- O O CO Pio •< CO!z; o Q:z; oo O I—I E-« CO H M «.§ a 5 l/> Uio o ISsJI -Iil S8* 5;‘ 2sI sll <O zwO QCw % OCa 8 8I II IT TS 8 i'i 1 ( 2 : A ' -r-$ (V)V 3 3 I I ii < UJ q: < < < % i o «• s?$5 o < UI ~:ic a 8 « § - S'3 : S p a § ! I i ? ?w^s D o 0 UI1 9 ? J !2 ? II ^ «A Z, 5 jj« sr 5 s§i §6fcO►too h < I I s r ( 2 5f i i S £ lA y § AUGUST 24,1995 . ‘r*/y-?r' RIGHT OF WAY & UTILITY EASEMENTS VACATION DESCRIPTION DICON ADDITION CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COLWY. MIN’NESOTA DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATED All that part of the right of way of SCOTCH PINE LANE, as donated and dedicated by DICON ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the northwesterly continuation of the northeasterly line of LOT 4, BLOCK 1, said DICON ADDITION. DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED All the UTILITY E.^SEMENTS in DICON ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. dicon.kd9 KiGHi'Ul« WAX & UilLlii L,A^£jL\k£ji.^ I --------------- DICON ADDITION ORONO, MINNESOTA DENOTES RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATED DENOTES UTILITY EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED ?'/y-9r nokthwesterly continuation of WRTNEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 4^ LAKE CAKE elevation s 929 40 FEET0»M4o,j *t 2*r8-73 ) MINNETONKA o H Q Q <3 W PU ffi u H O O CO o fr* <J Oh >H ct; <3 2 § H K pL. o:o i/i UJ O <«■» 1M I I 0 s31 H if 6 Ijs ‘I"'dl §1 • »|5 '^1-=? ® « S ill M fc OC Ui IDI <u z Uio IT Ui & (Ka s -8 I I : 3 il 33 I I I I S 8 II I I 3 3 I I O "O M r« I I #s. ii iP •3- i55?~ c'«aii «» O 565x iir 5.U u u < Uioc < itpis: i • I ^ -r.^O o o O O D►- ^ -j ^ o !g55 5S OzSi fw o < UI - ^ 3 Iwi Os^L^>HJHOM i! § 1 o h ►-< fi! o 2 ► t !SZ 5U 8u «/> IS ^ < S' ^ r j-s/ >Sf -· . f I ' I .. II , -- . , , ,, --.... __ ... .. . ..... / 1\ .. .. •. '. . ' I ' .. •I /. t> ___ .,.,,.._-I I... ---47 A .__ • .... ,. Dfl�I --........ .... -· ........... .. ------.... ILA8t:l_-......... . --·----.. .. � .. ,.. ......... , \ El 'I r . ) I I \ ......... ... .l,,,;::.. ..... ·' ¥fl ... I I I • ... () ... ... ... I I I .... ........ ' ..... ,,-'b, ... , ' ' ... ' ' ' \ I I I I I \ I I \ \ J ,I ;., I ii� .• I '' ', 'v ',I / . . 0 15�� wl., ·, , • I ,,. / I / I I I I .. r I .. ,I • / # I ' .I • I .I / , I . , , , I , ' .• /' I I I : I I '• • • 'L' , /.\ I / / I I \ -I 0 '• 0 / I / j I ,I' .. '\ I I I I ' I �I I / . I . \\ .. ,, ' \\ •I W'W DN KMltlJUS AWNRU1W Nfl'ONoll> NOIUCIIJV lNW H:llOOS .. • D . .' ' l • ,. . I) \... . I 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & ^1 Associates Engineers & Architects September 13, 1995 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Scotch Pine Lane File No. 139-2065 liiiiliwn Rosan*. Andmm AtfoaatM. me » an Attirmttivt Acaen/eo^ Oppommity En\ploy«f_ . .__.__^ . .r r I K Brian Gam. PJLOfto a •oMStroo. PX tobcft W Roserw. Pf Joseph C AfsdefiilL P£ Marvin L Sorvala. P E Richard E. Turner. PX Glenn R. Code PX Thomas E, Moyei. PX Robert G SchurncW, PX Susan M. Eberiin. CP>.* *Senior Consuitarsf Howard A Sanford. P E. Keith K Gordon.. PX Robert R, Pfefferte. PE Richard W Foster. P E David O. Loskota. P E Robert C. Russet. A i A Jerry A, Bourdon. P E Mam A. Hanson. P.E Michael T Rautmarm. P E Ted £ F.e<d. P E Thomas R. Anderson. A I.A. James R. Roservncrtel. P E Oorsaid C Surgardt P E Thomas A Syfko. PE Frederic J Siendorg. P E- Ismaei Martirtet. P E Michael P Rau. P E. Thomas W Peterson. P E Michael C. Lyrsch. P E James R Maiand. P E Jerry O Pertrsch, P € Scott J. Argarset. P E Kenneth P Arsderson. PX Mart R Rolfs. P E. Mart A. Seip. PE Gary W Mor*en. PX Paul J. Gannon. A.I-A. Daniel J. Edgerton. PX A Rick Schmidt. P E. Date A Grove. P E. Philip J. Caswell. P £■ Mam O Wallis. PX Miles B. Jensen. P E. L Phillip Gravel. PE Karen L W*emeri. P E Gary O. Knstofiti. PX Brian K. Gage. PX V F.Todd Foster. P E.vj Keith R. Yapp. P E ^ - _ Douglas J. Benoit. PE. d Shawn 0. Gustafson. P1 * Ceclllo Olivier. P S. Kent J. Wagner. PX Paul a Heuer. P E. John P Gorder. P E. Dan O Boyum. P.E Jeffrey J Ehiertnger. P X Joseph R Rhetn. P.E. Lee M Mann. P E Charles A Enckion Leo M Paweisky Harlan M. Olson Agnes M. Ring James F Engeihardt Dear Mike, We have reviewed the proposal to vacate the right-of-way for Scotch Pine Lane, vacate utility ca.scments and replat the area to the three adjacent lots. The proposed arrangement is shown on the preliminary plat of Dicon 2nd Addition. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. On all subdivisions or replats in the City of Orono we recommend the following easements be granted to the City as a condition of approval; 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines. lO-foot wide drainage and utility casements along all road right-of-ways, ineluding county roads. A minimum 30-fool width for utility easements centered on all existing or proposed sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water mains. Drainage easements across all drainageways. floodplains, ponding and wetland areas. The proposal to vacate the utility casements is not appropriate and wc would recommend denial. To facilitate discussion, all existing sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, electric, gas. telephone and cable television lines should be located. The wetland Kmndaries and floodplain contour should be delineated. A grading, erosion control and drainage plan should be prepared that would identify locations of drainageways on the property, should the roadway be removed. These utilities and features should be surv’cycd and shown on the preliminary plat. The protx)sal to vacate the right-of-way for Scotch Pine Lane and create two private driveways out to County Road No 51 should be reviewed by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works, Orono Public Works Director. Police Chief and Fire Chief for comments regarding access and public safety. The Ciiv should di.scourage an increase in the number of accesses to an arterial roadway such as County Road No 51 unless there is no other feasible alternative to provide access to a property. This is not the case in this circumstance, and we would recommend that the request for vacation be denied. The City should certainly look at an approval of this request as a precedent setting decision and be cautioned that it would lay the ground work for numerous similar requests. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. / _____________________________ 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 - 612-636-4600 I •4•« 9 Hi/ I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 16, 1973 Pape 3Mr. Stone of the neighboring Dairy Queen, expressed a concern over problems that might occur because of the lack of parking. He felt that any establishment tnat would have customers stopping for any length ov time would not be able to survive because of th limited parking. / SPECIAL USE PERMIT (Continued} L-( tne Chairman Poisson expressed the desire to table this matter until the Planning Commission had received a statement from tlie oivner ^f the property that adequate parking would be available for Mr. Jack's operation. '\^ \1 Kullberg moved to deny the special use permit because of the parking problem that would undoubtedly be created, ffotion died for lack of a second. Searles moved, Elliott seconded, that approval be conditioned upon no full-scale kitchen for the serving of food be established and the serving of food should be limited to reheating pizzas, sandwiches, and serving soft drinks. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (1). Kullberg Nay. ? The Planning Commission felt that there should be provisions so the patrons will know tliat there is parking in the rear of the building. The Planning Commission questioned the street vacation procei’ure which limits vacations to situations where there is a public purpose. The Ramstads explained that they would like tiie Village to vacate Hill Street west of Tonka Avenue so they could construct,a garage on tJicir property. The Rams tads,explaipcd that the present Hill Street runs directly into t;\e I\ome on Parcel .2100 and so it would not\be feasible to ever extend the street. HILL STREET VACATION /Chairman Poisson moved, Searles s tiia/a public hearing be called a reiiular Planning Commission meeti (conded, the next on May 21, 1973. Motion, Ayes (8) Mr. Richard Conry reqtiested a division of Parcel 5600, which is 3.48 acres, into three building sites. This request requires a variance in lot width of approximately 40' for one of the lots. Cnsch felt that granting a variance In an undeveloped area might set a dangerous precedent. (Continued) DIVISION Conry 2425 North Shore Drive ••• - r c ’S£r CS»fc af.I 1 II*"II T"r~ H fTrg ♦■-•t;->•“■*> 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MliCTING HELD APRIL 16, 1973 Chairman Poisson felt that this was the most logical development pattern for this particular piece of property. Because of the street pattern around the laic and the shape of some of the old nlats, it is difficult to avoid some variances according to Poisson. Ryerse felt that it would be difficult to deny 3*i acres ns three building sites. Kullberg moved, Ryerse seconded, that approval of the subdivision be based on the condition that a so* road easement (rather than the 40* easement that is shown on the plat map) be provided for. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nays (3). Hays, Gasch, and Searles Nay. Elliott departed the Council Chambers 9:S0 P.M.■/ Mr. Winters owns AS0,000 sq. ft, tract of land on Tonka View\Lane, He would like to create two building\sites on the five lots that he owns. Since^thc lots are narrow, Mr. Winters felt that;, a variance would not be unreasonable. A variance of approximately 10* per lot would be necessary for the lot widtn requirement. i / \'' Searles moved, Ryerse second'ed, that given the amount of undeveloped land and the site of the variance requested/ tiiis request should be denied. Motion, Ayes (8) - Nays (0), / Chairman Poisson moved, Ryerse seconded, tiiat the Alan Sweetser request for n wetlands variance be tabled until more information is presented to the Planning Commission,^ Motion, Ayes (6) - Nnys (0). Hoys abstained. / f The staff will consult witii the Lake .Minnetonka Conservation District to make .;ure that the Tanager Lake dock was not expanded or relocated onto tJie County Road US right-of-way. /,/ Poisson moved,;Kullberg seconded, that the meeting be adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). ^Respectfully submitted.V Dexter J. Marston Secretary Page 4 DIVISION (Continued] DIVISION 6 VARIANCE Tonka View Lane VARIANCE - ORDINANCE N017S Sweetser TANAGER LAKE DOCK ADJOURNMENT •% % • • ! • >f• • .* I ' / f 1. TO:James Cosby FROM:Dexter Mars ton DATE: SUBJECT: April 20, 1973 Division - Richard Conry - 242S North Shore Drive The Planning Connission approved this *y^‘^^'''^^®u°£tted**late”and'^I*^have SO* wide -stfeet easement. This request'was submitted late anU i na not h.d . good ch.nc. to examine "«• •cxaniJLi&c - -- --- and if 4sthS*^adJoinlngIpwDertv owners ioild^be between Mr. Conry’s calculations, as sho^ on the map, an^ nu . that he did not exclude the area included in the easement. ■« .. . . .. a dangerous precedent Hennepin County has been notified regntding this division but we have not received a reply. 'a.. I i ! >-- i V ‘ MINJTES OF A REGULAR :-.IEETING HELD APRIL 23, 1973 Butler moved, Welsh seconded, to approve tile variance request of Mr. Crist with t.ie ..aition that no dock can be built on Outlot 4 and no Riparian rignts are to be conveyed to Outlot 4, Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Butler moved, !Iassengale seconded, that a Dublic hearing on tiie special use permit for ton Jack for May 14, 1973 at 3:00 ?..f. in tne Orono Village Council Chambers, be called. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0)« Dorn moved, Butler seconded, to grant conceptual approval to the Conry division as a Planned Residential Oevelopment preliminary ^ plat in accordance with Section 58.600, suojec^ to tiic road way witii a 50' easement aeveloned to Village specifications, of a performance bond or cash with tne village Administrator and that the water and sewer easements are given in accordance v/itn v.ne requirements set forth by the ViUage Engineer. Section 33.650 of the Village code will be complied with, witn tne e.xception tnat tne Planning Commission will informally review^ oronosal at its work session of and'will foreward its comments to tne Villap Council. No area variance is required duc variance from 140' to 127' on frontage Lots 2 6 3 would be granted due to uniaueness of the snape of these lots. Section o9.1/0 and *^Q 1^0 o£ the Village code will also apply. Mono?. Ayh (4)- Says (0).-layor Oberi.aaser abstained. C^cilman Dorn departed the Council Chambers at 10:46 P.M’. and returned at lU.so . ..i. riassaagaie moved, liotler Council's next regular meeting ot May 1,1 3. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Massen^rale moved, Butler seconded, to table tne Wavliier variance to Ordinance i<^o. 125 uu.il Page 3 VARIANCE Lydiard Avenue SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3530 Shoreline drive division 2425 North Shore Drive DIVISION 6 VARIANCE Tonka View Lane VARIANCE - ORDINANC NO. 125 V/agener STREET SEALING PROGRA I Public Works Phen*93S*338i 32C Washington Av. South, Hopkins, Minnesota 553^ HeNNeFIN COUNTY MW f CS nif 2. 1973 Hr. Otxttr J. Marston Zenirg Adnrfnfstrator V111ng« of Orono P.O. Box 66 OqrsUl.BAy«. NInnosoU .$5323 ••• 'iSS^tJsed Plat - "01/Con Subdiv*$1on" CSAH 51 - Section 9. Township 117, Range 24 *• .■ Hennepin County Plat No. 203 Review and Recoranendatlons Thank you for submitting the above referenced plat for our review. He have reviewed the proposed plat and have the following reconmendatlons. 1.Dedicate an additional 17.0 feet of right of way - a total of 50.0 feet from and along the centerline of CSAH 51. 2.Access to all lots should be from the proposed street rather than fj^ CSAH 51. Streets and entrances from CSAH 51 will require permits which must be obtained from the Haintenanre Section of the Hennepin County Department of Public Works. 3.All proposed construction or altercclons witnin county right of way must be approved by the Hennepin County Oepartnent of Public Works. If there are any questions please contact Craig D. Spencer at this office. Very t^y yours, Heroert 0. Klossner, P.E. County Engineer i»• T: r f *s * * 0** • ,• a* 9r»’ • "V . r.\. ••••••*f rinoTOS©V^wofefwoBfeld inc. t«(t* «•« StM n«Hk twiwilw s»n> |anMS •. b««rhov« r.l.s^ ph«n« Hay 14, 1973 r*' iI I i’* V ^41 Mr. Bill Dickey DIConjJnc. Office PUi* ■r^l.Hn.ry Piet of OlCon Addition Dear Bill: It Is my understending Idd1t?onel°1nfor- lUVol tVul%rtl lSo,:"rrfrr.Sc.d pr.l.m,n.ry pl.t, last revised May 8, 1973. The plat as we have It street right-of-way. Internal street as a ^i!^!^„hHiv1s1on establishing three lots Also, the plat i SSs! As Is apparent 1nto •ccommodate single famlydweing^^^^^^ something the configuration The total area In the tract, different than Is ^ 131 ,400 square feet more exclusive of road ^^9hts-of better than one acre or less which Is * y]® sites With the thought In mind that each for three m the tract to meet minimalwe have enough square footage pi^t as you see It tTmlkTSSa^’wrfJerthe most reasonable distribution of the land Involved. WUh this lot .rr.nggment w.jr. m.Mn, .^Jo««tIon th.J^ . planning arthitwcfure Mr. Bill Dickey May 14, 1973 Page 2 Lm Chapter 505 of Minnesota 4*because the an additional lot, being *5 jUS^reason for this iviU'i Y»irAiSuoT"?i?’•--.with the Registrar of DeedSt County Audito t __ ■*i <•i. ••.ip *■.. ■ - .i-■ -'- V-•., rf-^ ~ ••: ’^-•■•:•_ • •;: »OSE-dOLSFELD'^*INC.^^^^r? ‘-f:--:; vcr> ^ .ut -’ -.ii**..*»• 4*1./•*»—^•“ ....■ r ^ 1t^5! ^aMS'^E.. Boerhave, RLS •r •I•• ••JEB:sn ••■•-».•••• • ei ..« «•• «v>•' • **. r*. . « • .. . •• %•« .'s ’I •i * y •■*:;■ V. - ^ j;;. '»rt- t-*r^•*>T^: VILLAGE OP ORONO Q Regular ‘feeting of the Planning Commission, May 21, 1973 Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members oresent: Acting Chairman Searles, Gasch, Kuilberg. Guthrie, Paurus, and Ryerse. Absent: Elliott, Hays, Kokesu, Poisson, and Van Nest. Guthrie moved, Ryerse seconded, that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 16, 1973, be approved. Motion, Ayes (6) - Nays (0). The Acting Chairman announced that this was the time and place for a public hearing concorning the vacation of Hill Street from Parcel 2100 to Tonka Avenue. The Zoning Administrator presented the Notice of Public Hearing, the Affidavit of Publication and the Certificate of Mailing to affected property owners. The Ramstads request to vacate tiill Street was initated because of a need for an additional 10' to build a garage. The Planning Commission members were in agreement that Brook Street, to the north of Hill Street, would more logically provide access to the property west of Baysido Addition to Lake Minnetonka. Ryerse moved, Kuilberg seconded, t'lat Hill Street, between Parcel 2100 and Tonka Avenue, be vacated, with the Village retaining a 20' utility easement down the center of the street. Motion, Ayes (6) - Nays (0). , Gasch expressed a concern about the applicability of tJie PRU ordinance to this particular situation. Gasch also felt that other people In similar situations had not been informed ox this alternative. Paurus moved, Guthrie seconded, thot the Coiiry PRD application be approved with an easement to che east as was desired by Orr-Scliolen- Mayeron, as well as a utility casement to the west. Motion, Ayes (SJ - Nays (0). Gasch abs tained. ..je zoning Administrator reminded the Planning Commission that the area Mr. Swoetser wanted to dredge was not shown on the U.S. geodetic map. Kuilberg questioned Mr, Sweetsor about his letter where he states the depth of the pond will be S* plus. Mr. Sweetser assured the Planning Commission that because of the cost, he would go no deeper than necessary to prevent the regrowth of aquatic vegetation. (Continued) Bt* 7:40 P.M. MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING Hill Street DIVISION Conry-Dicon VARIANCE Sweetser -ORDIKANCP !.» i e e • e •«rr ••a • f . V• ! »»'• r‘ »• »4l*.5- ^ ikt:- •4 .,.-4 # fr, \ m ?3 •‘2 •^4**i •4'i -* ■•N- tA i I 1^ TO:Jim Cosb>* FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Dexter Mars ton May 24, 1973 Division • Dicon - PRD g,Ih.r.\«. alteratlons;?^^^di..n5ion^.nd^sjj.p^ b«au« •*3 W: -Ja*N i •■i^^^£^^u£.:aI^i34 ’^~<..i.r>.a,'>IilB>9C6UlU»-ROad *5i Ot Lots * « -> b.cause a single lot re^laticns. euppo«0 ■^^^^to^b<2gow»ated by a public*road.^Mr% Dickey . ^VEE-^vIiicK C?u»Sl*o«May 29, 1973. »ith th.-necessary restrict.ons Mach '. will’assure that Lots 2 S 4 remain together. . -T-*Mr. Dickey ha. also been esked to supply *4 ”“fSr?hf J«p«edV the Homeowners Association Agreement and drawings oi t v v homes for Council reviewal. •r \ :>.V 'isv-'i's'. •*. e TBi. «. accepted by the Council at the Mey 29, 1973 »^ln9. e • .*• .• N W • •• f •> w #lv ^ r • '^-.1 - a-% ,^7* •e t*« •?V « • % . I < »•.: •t 4 *: 1 *: j ?«NUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 29, 1973 Mayor Oberhauser offered the following motion: Obcrhauser moved, Butler seconded, to give conceptual approval of the transfer of residential ci ‘dits from the IDS property, east of Highx^ay #19 into a single tabulation and apply them to the IDS property on the southwest corner of Highways #1S 5 #19. Tliis is with the understanding that IDS will donate their remaining property that is east of #19 to the Village for park and recreation purposes. ’lotion. Ayes (2) - Nays (3). Councilnen Butler, Massengale, and V/elsh Nay. Motion defeated. Page S IDS PROPOSAL (Continued) Council deferred action on the Hill Street vacation until June 11, 1973, so that all Council members can go and looV at the property concerned. Massengale moved, Butler seconded, to accept the preliminary plat of Dicon addition along with the utility easements and subject to the Village Attorney review and approval of the home owners association agreement. The ovmers are also required to pay 5% of the raw land value for Village park purposes. Tiiis approval is being given in view of recognizing the unusual shape of the land and the hardship involved in trying to plat under normal procedures. In view of the hardsiiip, the Council is allowing the use of a PRD this time for this small acreage proposal. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). STREET VACATION Hill Street DIVISION 2425 North Shore Drive Butler moved, Welsh seconded, to approve the dred'Ting permit for Mr. Sweetser for the Council did establish a fact finding conclusion t;iat the property is not a marsiiland as defined in Village Ordinance No. 125, the property is not listed on the geodetic map as marsnlana and the Village Council did visually inspecL the property. The granting of t.iis aporoval is subject to the six conditions listed in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's letter of April 23 , 1973. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) . Butler moved, Massengale seconded, to approve the variance for Mr. Coakley subject to receiving approval from the Hennepin County Higiiway Deoartnent concerning the relocation and width of the driveway. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). DREDGING PERMIT Sweetser VARIANCE 2166 Shadywood Road % m ' jb fI•t.t i:I « • It* I 4A City Council Dich Bensonr Acting Administrator July 17, 1974 ticVd. that -th;|i>*tJ^ ^Cjcyatal Bay *'*™®*®® Itraas on thA building tha'i .T.'rAT’ KaglnAAT**'office has b««n "V- data, toa policy shall ^^*^^J'5?^?J^J,truction*of^any”newly,,. not only tha design but also tha.ac^n^construccion o* i ;• davalopad atraet in Orono. ]V‘ *•^ ^ .* -•i*' f */• .r. .% . ‘K : lOAdavalopad for tha DiCon '“>unty*itoad‘#51 has been yn^har^ than traes that would ^ot.tha _straat. hat in the future or from this •V * 1 V«i ?*“r‘V *•-vr- •'-'jr »• i f. V-inV^S '. • ••. •.« A\ - .♦ . '\0k^ ^ • *•#• • . «T*‘*4. V- .* • • ’ • 1. Doug and Cheryl H11] ____ .Larry and Clcyo Whalen ^ v Duane and Nancy Luke/•nSPSi-- • - Stey,, jnjj 5y^y Wilson Jrad Van Nest .. WA1'Olson ^ _____________ ,.*• -.•■ ■ . — -* • T ' V •» V ■ • ..•••. •#. / • 1 as Marflcld T»tf- \WV=\ , ,.. VAeAtj<«y/iW*^ 't icatlon of Scotch^ inuary 30, 1979 "%)yrc',.-*- v,-*‘.v\»t-- r. nJ9 •l JwC- ■'^5t ;;:;' • r ?!; -,. C-i?*v‘ '■■ ; V^ ’ . r r . . «• er- V .•\ .; ^V. , ■ . • , e •. : **^*''>enn> . '• ' e to vacate Scotch PIlowfng to . t • '• SI ., • ■-a .- ^• Quote from the City of Orono ; "Why do you choose to live on Orono? Msny people say they do because of tte lifestyle and quality of life available here. They describe uncluttered views of woods and hills, quiet lakeshores, wrshes full of wildlife and hobby farm acres with cropland and horses. For many, the large lots offer a feeling of Independence,freedom and a place to get away from the pressures of the worfc-a-day world." . THE VILLAGE PLAN •*. Hie city Council has recognized the special attractions of Orono and the special desires of the people who live here. In 1974, they pre pared a Conorehensive Guide Plan tc establish goals aimed at preserving this quality of life including the preservation of lakes and wetlands and the maintenance of open spaces. I feel that our street is inconsistent with the "Village Plan" and with our neighborhood. We ’have the only public street between County Road 15 and Bohn ’s Point. There is no need to have a cul-de-sac capable of serving 20 homes for our pretty J*home area. ■k * ’ * . .'■ ‘-• t •'— * • • , • , »•> •. V-*. ’* ' ‘ i : .vs'v-*!‘.• \J .T % • r •♦ . A . ^ . ■■'-1 T *.!• ♦' t > 1 5^-Cr’/ •. - ^ r 2m Wg have little privacy . It seems that the rural style of life In Orono conflicts with the running of hard-surfaced streets fn front of our houses. If our street were not In existence now and the City asked to blacktop our little private area» we would be most upset. We cannjt keep the public out of our little area; It should be.- private! Look at the ni» privacy the Lukes and the Wilsons have. 3m ■ CltV*S Crror. ~ % 4^ave spoken to some *•**-• ****■»- ''4 **v offthe xounell''and'planning coeeriss 1 on^members . *« . 1 y-.- , ■/ ' *' ii«r ♦"J* * >-^ if.>; ■ k" . _ i., , ibout why this street went In. They^ald It slipped by'th«r because of a irevlous planner's error. .'Tho]rHritii|ft:;had*not;geno<^n:h(Our«close''nalghbor3:t''^; taihMtUlk* this street elthorv^abort^sfnot^^Plne*Lane..'^^:',v'; ^ —' “ittican get good accrai£gi»tti^r«|prfv^ ‘ .....................- I ^ d-i 1<*3!V-- .. xE •>. t:.-: iVWW-* J renberg Gardens 1!1 thiwt^att^l ve^too'; ^ ' •v 1 r *A. county plans to 1mprove*>th1^rea In the near future. Parking low'. buildings, walkways, etc. Here:are ’Some'exerpts from their proposal:-.v... . . . "This site is located within the estate area of the Lake Minnetonka Region . , . . . "Travel to the site from other parts of the Metropolitan Area Is' by private auto and public bus transportation." . . . "With existing bus service to the sit'' from downtown Minneapolis, this site will be readily available to all population groups." Scotch Pine Lane is the only public Street between County 15 and the gardens where "all population groups" can view the homes of "The Estate Area". I feel we might be on display during the warm months once these gardens arc improved. That does not appeal to me. 5.Too much blacktop . I would like to rerove all the blacktop from this street except for the area between Hill's driveway and North Shore Drive. The CUy constantly discourages hard surfacing near the lake. Here Is a chance to get rid of most or all of this blacktop that sends water running Into Whalen's marsh. The access from the bottom of my present driveway to Hill's would be replaced oy gravel. I also suggest that fie driveway next to Whalen's h** removed and sodded. .u* •7^* •• »• k;. •V ' <4 • • t • 4 A? ♦ V. Here is my plan : A.Petition the City of Oropo to vacate the street. •• • B.Remove most of the blacktop and replace H with grass* land scaping and gravel. 9 C.Divide the street up as seems fair to each of us three hone- owners. •** • V • '.j • -w . • , *'. • >• -• * ♦* ■ woods -kS- I*' <i 5 < ■'i~ a- x-.5^f4d£!tu*:-D-.. Plant trees and bushes. Try to.replace'some of the woods.’the to occupy Scotch Pine Lane. This street used to be'a dense^fT'.*'*" that you could not seor'tnrough. Let's do a little sone-.yj^^f ’v . iPut a decorative enujnaaj^iKh'ftstfehcthgfei^gatesTat*oui-?access V' 5* r.' ;. V*-' ^ tiling to bring sijisto North Shore Drive ►+‘the word “Private*.-$' ^^^^nuM^g^^igfi'aYong with .V* • a' I • How will this be paid for? A. ■.**— ■mf . V *Jt •.' .: i **fc «• »»f • % «#v .•’.iH *• < ' .tu • -I • •vi. I asked Al Olson, City Planner, If the City would treat It as a public improvement project, do the work, and assess It back against the benefiting properties. He said this aright be difficult, but that:{ the City might want our street eliminated bedly enough that they might do the work. He suggested that we at least ask. He thinks the City would really be In favor of the vacation proposal. s ^t V w* • -OC.m w. I.. B.Each of us three property owners pay our share in cash. Surriary It would, I feel, be good for our three homes to be rid of our street. The val^ of our nomes would Incrco.^e by several times the cost of the oroject.We could t.ben have houses that fit Into the life style of Orono. It would be good for us, Orono and Lake Minnetonka. V^<S- STR.e-eT ” Ar 4-fexr ^ 0 (Cl 0 S H- CAILS (£) SCO Tf?eei/ /loSN£i TO:Walter R. Benson FROM:Alan P. Olson, Village Planner DATE:February 7, 1979 SUBJECT:Scotc'' Pine Lane Th« attached infonMtIon was ni*to*vacflta ^otch°Pine Lane,regarding hie tentative proposal to vacate oc think the‘Council should take rubUc note of this idea with any pertinent*cownents.gLllJ pV^ -------------- 1 «ul<l not. th.t ^^eg.'rJlns'^hr about January 30. 1979 j^lon. he was told that the Ci^ matter. In response ^ vacation request but that th might in fact looic favo y physical work. He was told Ci?y would most likely not do JJ^^J^elopers to pay Iniprovement tha? the City r^r^iously done such work on an assessment basis. this would not be approved, of the Council, but that assesstpent policy. The Council may want to comment on cnis M w-r^leld was advised that a formal I would also note that Mr. That a hearing oust be application, including affected property owners oust i‘c«ion brfor. th. Council would con.ld.r proposal• I- I f i: I 4 ►- ir *•* • i:. 1-- , V 4 • . « ff. r kiv (•« ■r ir... i- t %• • • • f F ’ I . V - • 3.' I* r V-*.Vt$ V.y bv* r/. R I “ a*.- {• »> I •f I ‘ ♦ •« . I I.: 1| •i 4 • 1 I . j:i *' I *■■ ij r*%- M e §1 es N ^\kGULAR MEETIUr. OF THE OPONO COUNCII.» FEBRUARY— - --------- -•concp^^” several neighbors fron unwanted SrcS5i"Ihfu!5 S'=n?;r?^rinS‘Lt .now thi. proposal. Pred Herfurth, 635 . ^"Jhii'pto^^aal!"*st>?e that would occur with this propo ttoyor van Neat: Mayt^be appropriate here tc- pr t protected ‘.f.rnSr«%u“ df^inutioi: oi value,. Issues are: 1, PRD, Conditional Uses . . units, possibly seven) 2.variances to garages (consider amending 3 Attached versus detacnea gai: j code R-IA District) n like to present our reasons for Jiia Bruce: We wuld like P variances to the City. table the Mayor Van Nest moved, ®'^^i®^th*‘^225*North Ferndale, 2Jve request ?%^«f;^^^'iI^;aUable. Motion, until further inf ora-ion i -r_- Ayes (3) - Nays (0). - - - - - r^: ^ m 1 ***•-.•J . 4*a«^ ' *9»^ -HI page 23PRD/SUBDI'' I ? * 225 North Fc?rr: (Continued) Mr. San MartieW- “otch^Pine^Lane,^^^^ his letter of January Jw, Letter - Pages 24-27 "^^^ti^'rtJIe^straranf assessvacating the s^ ^ require: the property owners. 1.A petition 2.Public property owners.3.Agreement of all prop SCOTCH PINE LANE ~7h repo: i / / - A'5^-V> -r P ,1 ^-1. , V.‘ •' ^ - ' V- ’^rrnts rv7lV •-T;,* r~ ‘ ' •. ■' i- 47^735t >!^^>*r- ■*' > r, ,^CITY k ^:0F . I hORONOj CITY of ORONO Po.i ome. Be, «.Crr.«l B.y. Mian«oU 5MC3.M»«idp.« On the ^’orth Shore of Lak* Minnetonka February 15, 1979 Mr. Sam Marfleld 2455 Scotch Pine Lane Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Proposed Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane Dear Mr. Marfleld: Od Febniary 13, 1979, the City ^he*proposal. presentetlon end discussed ^he re 3-ye.nent emong the neighbors, il r —of thr th“:irte% c'::' b^^'id^^essed. j - cM»o will be to arrive at a “ S^'d lurttar. “:optebi: to .U three property ovners. ?£. ?^1 eppllcetlon to the City will Involve. 1.a petition signed by all three owners ^ a legal^d«?rlptloi of the proposed rtghls-of-«ay (perhaps requiring a survey) 4.an application fee of $100.00 e.^h vou at any reasonable time to review Zlictlll and to answer any question, that may arise. AY«n P. Olaon Village Planner APOrkh cc:MlTe MlTfle Hill Mr. & Mra. Whalen V •# -? ' r , t* r • « I ^■ .j r: •/• • ’.'r"‘, ■“• ' mH l B I T '^jy .* •. C#rtlflcat* of for Lovr«rc» J, «h»l«n of Lot 7, "lock I, dcoo Addition K«ni>«pln Cousty, rtrjiAsot* \ •'0'' ''W-' 'J ■‘ ' . >'«>i t ^•<,1 - aoVj©/ C COAtftft. ^ Cl% 5ci#- %*9c!c^. *M? f ^aU of SuT¥#yi cv certify th«t L i and corrtet a 'mi ►V.' rrc^ « f »‘f \j ♦-! on of ^r.... ri«8 < • i.» L* • on Addl '. oV alli/i •. - » : I drlrr !• **et nrtt I fci .0 ‘ 1%' f fTVHcaer.ta .-^A ** ^an(^ »«v. / .o r*J t r. kivl:: •I \a;v hat', i-o. 6064 I'jct;. So.13295 Lann«ra 0>. \ Craitf >U rn. 4 n I f > I \ 1 roi-f^TfKT .i. •••-’. XI • »•" -rf . • ,••♦.. —•“ -rt- ICASSOCUTESiNa •^ mr IS, 1979 Mr. 8oa Marficld 2455 Scotch Pine Lane WayzatO/ Minnasota 55391 RBt* Utility SaMoant Oronof Minnaaota Daar Mr. Marfialdt In raaponaa to your <|uaationa concaxfnin9 the future utilization of tha utility aaianant east of your property, I have tha follow#- ing cooBBantat 1.Tha easaaiant could accotanodate sewer lines servicing tha approxiBiata seven acre parcel to the east. With the present two acre lot mininum there could be two additional lots subdivided in this parcel. The low area possibly would require a lift station which could access through the casement and serve the residences on Scotch Pine Lane. 2.The easemanttalso .could'{eccomnodate a water main that would serve.jtha. residents'on Scotch Pine Lane and also extend itonservavtha■♦proparty*.on the east. This.possibly ^ J. would,parBdt^ratiE,loopl»gt£.'o* ..the water system whictbii^ - > M . — irtant^i^tor^in>water.;main design. .re 'a; ■"'assess ;the actxuil utilization of the easement. However, it ■ISS appears that the easement could be used for either one or bo 'sewer and water. , It is ray opinion-that the easement shOoXdlDO , ^aj^doned unless it can be shown that future water and sawar- design will not require an easeniant in this area. sincerely, temple asscxtiates ikc. 'X?*cv»ul4s Duane H. Temple, P.E. DHTibjh I *. *• *3La ’ •. ^ .T»„ . NOWUO OAHLSRIN ASSOCUffIt:; 21 May 1979 OMC QRO vC wanO tciiaacc S^* MIMMCA^OMm* MIMMCSOTA •CAOJy mnomifcnjN tOf City Counci I» City of Orooo John ShArdlow •».^ • . #• • |r. *■ ^VariAncte Requested ^Dicon Addition* foi ttliolr front Yard/.^ ^j«.. •;? •►w. of the Council! V.■A ■**» ^ V-- '•im •1. -I 5t:-^' 'v. . recently been asked.liyfl^jyirnmrfleId^Lot^l»4Block 1» Dicon tion to review the above Mfitionod^rariance* request: end edviee hie A#f^xe9Ardinq its affect on his property»I^1!he Marflel^ sored to Orono to 'take advantage of the quality of life afforded by Orono*a *Sstate Area” and are very concerned about the effect of the lfhalan*s proposal on their privacy and quiet life style. The Coaq>rehensivc Plan for the City of Orono which was prepared in 1974 recognised the City's special attractions and the special desires of its residents. The establisheent of soning districts with generous perfonsance standards provide the aeans of insuring that the goals expressed in the Comprehr isive Plan can be siet* After reviewing the variance request and several of the unique characteristics of this plan* we can only conclude that this variance as proposed* is detrimntal to Mr. Marfield*s interests. Certainly one of the major reasons for this conclusion is the inclueion of s public street in the plat.We noticed with interest that this waa the only public street between County Road IS and Bohn's Point and waa clearly over-designed for servicing these three properties. The area in which the Dicon Addition is located ia currently soned for two acre minimum lots with 200 foot minima lot widths. Although nens of the lota in the Dicon Addition conform to the required performance standards* we were unable to find any indication t!at the City intended to vary from the purpose and/or intent of the ZJl-lA District in approving this plat. Consequently, we can only conclude that the required minimum performance standards in this District should be applied to these lots. With the Indus on of Scotch Pine Lane in this a •^••city City of Crooo *♦«#• •*• •.f »•-r-:-.w \./ Si/JSTSJ? ** l«coto4 la. tu ,. With tho int«t «4^I*S2rj5^thI* T* ^ la A''!• PropoMd. J«*po*o of th* zoning dl.txlct 1« i*hlS^lt f, ; * • < -*r ‘ -■ I ••. Propo^ that thl. atroot bo^atad ts.^i' !^ ^■ *raa Urgaly raforaatad. if ,' *^raaovad, ao4 tha ' • thara imild ba no naad for^a **v»eatl», currantly propoaa to. Howavar aa Iom e*^*pool whara tbay • public atraae, tha >larflalda will actiCJi Pina Lana raaainaa ' raqulrad front yard aathach for J ^^.®*’****varlanca froa tha Thora la auffiolant IZ ••i-S M, ••long aa Scotch Plna^^ lo«taTpoJl^ tor a privata pool.^«PPropriau loStlao •• •a >- l••T I • I'i. 'curranaj i*^It ia »• • « I a • Sincaraly HOWASO DAHLCSai ASSOCIATES. IMC. •• • John VA'i.7 \ ' r‘..: • - . W.ff!f » *■^:-V 4V'#. V^^ m f!?; • • isKtSfe • •* ^wm 4 '■'. ^ ‘.*f ■■■".•••'V-- I L *x-V'. ■*^* ;s .♦•%^y ------------------------------------------------------------------------■-• 2435 Scotch .Mjm Lmm Conditionoi:^Oco Porale -; --- ftAFP HQffg . mr 30. 197a eThTbTt #478 »ld and found no conflict m 1^ Sttff located tho axiatlng dralnflald and found no conflict with tho propoaad location of the pool. Mr. Mar fie Id haa written a ^*®^**’ ^applicant • taring that he does not oppoaa the granting of a front yard aetbaek variance for the pool. <’Clty haa not received a copy,) ^taff recosBcnda approval of the front yard variance of ? feat baaad on the following hardahlp clainis: 1.A location In the rear yard would Invclve the removal of many treea. 2.Narrowneaa of. lot with 2-acre aR-lAl zoning aetbaek requlreaMnra, Staff recoc«er.la approval of the 50' utility vacation bacauae It aervaa no apparent purpoae now or In future plana. The applicant Buat fumlah proof that the 20' drainage easement la r. *5ordad In title of their property (»eo Exhibit 8). if there la no auch record, a 20' drainage eaacoent must be granted by the Whalena and filed an a condltlcm of Council's approval. -- - % .r- -• sSi.' c’r'y • Twi.J.iv ^ - *'• •CV jV».* ^ •-MiaajgA; r • ■t« *■ .*9 ‘ 'j.v :{ft';-r5-. -V*. .V y t *. **. jr» *. <-• ••>. ••• 'u. ..>• 4**T. --^t' -.Vrf *.-.•-*.•*••^--.»-•?,*•,♦•faWUTES or a PLAKHING COMMISSIOH meeting held on JUNE. 11, 1979PAGE' 2.••V.k.i- ,1*1- - 2, Payment of park dedication fee on the two near ?ots. 3.Lot E Is to be designated as unbulldable. Motion seconded by Hannah. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0),-- Motion, passed unanimously. . !iLARRY OSGOOD36i Willow Drive-No. SUBDIVISION' ■ Public Info. Heet^g Cont. (#437) W-J. ' r-s i .- »*> **• .‘*r- '. i I y^. J.3WHALENr* . VcStj;r7f PinetLsne Milsonj'amounced the Public Hearing.^^Mabusth. stated: ^Iw^hai^h'cii^Affidavlt ot* Pub 1 ice eienamd?*Certi:£i<Sitia^^243 It^l'and Mrs. WTialen.,V«(^resend’^^M^UrrLlTT*’EASQ!^^ tsCwere heard. Wil's<m^ote<^fo: 1 _ ^Publ Ic • Hearing ,3WHALENr 5T?Scotch'? LITT^^EASE kVA CATION/VARIANCEr •- -.a-, 5^fSeoiitchl|plne'Lane, who had *?n<^obJeccl6n?to?tji^M^3^8:05 P.M, racation^bf^the utility oasements'4^andrMc^and'MrsH?^r^j>^ (#478) ^.,Luke, 2465’North Shore Drive. who**have no objection * regarding the pool or vacation of the easement*'. Frahm moved to recotnnend vacation of the 50* utility easement and approval of the 24’ front yard variance contingent on: 1, 20* drainage easement must be granted to the City and recorded in the Whalen's title. etters w- re rcceivt -8:10 P.M. 2.Pool vrlll be drained by tank truck when required. Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays Motion passed itnanfr-mn;: v . Mr. Kans Hagen, Ban-Con Corporation, presented a proposed townhouse project (38 units) for Long Lake. The presentation was made because the property abutts a 3.12 acre parcel in Orono. The main discussion pertaining to Orono was that the lake access for the townhouse project could not be provided by the Orono parcel, as our zoning would only allow one residential dock serving a principal structure located on that parcel. APPEARANCE Ban*Con Corporation •e;:;. RESOLUTION NO. 1057_ A RESOLUTION VACATING A PLATTED UTILITY EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 3, BLOCK 1, DICON ADDITION IfflEREAS. the City of Orono is a municipal , organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and ;JHEREAS on April 25, 1979, the owners of Lot 3, Block 1, Dlcon Addition pektioned the City Council for vacation of an unused 50 foot wide utility easement across said lot, an IvHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held before the City Planning Commission on ^ regarding said vacation, all interested persons were given opportunity to be heard, the only comments heard being in favor of said vacation^ and 17HERE.AS, the owners of Lot 3, Block 1, Dicon Addition have granted to the City of Orono a perpetual drainage and utility easLI^t over, across and under a portion of said lot which is being used for storm water drainage; and WHEREAS after due study and consideration, the Planning Conmission recommended approval of the requested utility casement va^iiononditioned upon granting of the new drainage and utility easement, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby grants said petition and hereby vacates the utility easement described as follows: That part of Che fifty foot utility easement labeled "50 00 UTILITY EASM'T" within Lot 3, Block 1, Dicon Adaption, according to ^ .1 N£C»r.0fLoi*2 A 20 foot drainage and utility eaaenent over, under, and acroaa Lot 3, ^Block 1, DICOH ADDITION, ’^Hennepin County, Minnesota, •according €o the record^'d Vsplat, being 10.0 [feet c eaeh^side of .the following . ^ . __ _ __ a ^ 2 ^ ^ m. . ' <1 Mi^^descrlbdd ,lines^^Connencing :3>* at'the‘northeast corner of u Lot 2.Of'said Block it thence AM, an*assuii*ed bearing ofww—- -- - - -— - m South 34 degrees 49 minutes ‘50 seconds West along the southeasterly line of said Lot 2 a distance of 20.00 feet; thence South 21 degrees 20 minutes 35 seconds Cast 70.00 feet to the beginning of the line to be described; thence North 21 degrees 20 minutes 35 seconds West 60.00 feet; thence North 46 degrees 21 minutes 35 seconds Cast 85.00 feet and, there terminating. ^tNNET0N/<A McCOM^-KN t^SON_A^q^^^NC. tsoNa PttEPAREO fon' e9 1^7 "i/Od City op Orono ORDIN'A>'CE #_133_.SERIES INTERIM ORDINANCE PURSUANT ™p^^HNARY SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION 4. PROHmmNG THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS approval or other PERMITS AND APPROVAL FOR FKlvAi WHICH SERVE THREE OR MORE RESIDENCES. THE cm' OF ORONO ORDAINS: TEC .Mumcipal Code of tSc Cry of Orono is ascended by adding Ordinance .No. 138, 2nd Series rearrangements of e.xisting developments. nf iilowins such private drives may be It appears to the Council that the and welfare of the Citys;"a‘sn- r ",T™; - - w- j r; would allow such roads. L -tf A «ciiit of this studv the land use controls and zoning The Council further finds that ‘f- “ “^.45,on is a process that cannot provisions contained in the city code -^^ hearing held. During this penod. it is be accomplished until a imdy has -5* tor the benefit of those who wish to develop desirable that the Council esuoltsh and to provide the property in order to bring about st^mgs ^ ^,,dtneot to the code would pubUc guidelines to mtuce _ conc-rninv perautted land use and zoning perfonnance undoubtedly applications or other permits for Standards, the granting or P -residences would be contrary to the purpose of the private driveways ser. ing ' Se-'hon a62.551. et seq. The Council further tmds that zoning enabling act,“o allow individual development to occur dumig this it would be unwise.authontv to grant preliminary approval to subdivision study. Tueremre, th driveways outside of the subdivision conie.xt shall not be apphcatior^^^d ^ ordinance, e.xcept as provided m Section a. c-rr'TTHN ^ Studv Tne Council hereby refers this matter to the Planning ^ T .n*dvi;^dm2 ±e implications of its current ordmances governing Commission to ' ' I residences and the potential need for amendments to Page 1 of 2 * * SECTION 3. F'lnjitinre ^ Ci^for "SSS£»w';2S'.m ». - «»si driveways to serve tliree or more rcsidccc-s. SECTION 4. Euasian- without Council action, or it may be renege »anoropriate evaluation and action, including smdies have been completed and adopted an . Ymalized. The daration of this Ordmance any necessary revisions of the zonmg. cone have p ^ ^^^an 18 may be extended by adoption or a subseque..t additional months. . •The CouccU mav srant a variance to this Ordinance SECTION 5. Vanac^.^^at'a proposal is not contrary to the if the Council finds after caretul plan, that it is compatible with the zoning intent of the comprehensive pv die Cirv. that it does not adversely impact and official control ,„d tda; tt o±cr^vise meets the requirements of the the health, safety or welfare ot die citizens Orono City Code and state law.Urono v^uuw -— •Tn.. Fve'v ^e-jon. provision, or part of this Ordinance SECTION 6. -SeparaDihiv- Every . -oarr and if anv section, provision, section, provision, or pan. SECTION 7. This Ordmance shall he published in the THE PIONEER and THE UAKER and shall be effective immediately. July iaiAAA w. w --- ~ w “ tit?'» ” . 1995, cy a vote or ^ ayes ana------ . Edward J. Caliban, Jr., .Mayor 11/-^U Paae 2 of 2 I Hennepin County JL An Equal Oppominity Emplovcr S _ I \! f<. Mir< \ ^ . 'nfifN \ •) William Toles 2510 Crescent Ridge Road Minnetonka, MN 55343 I I w V Re: Scotch Pine Lane 0 CSAH 51, Orono 'SFP 1 1995 Bill: As we discussed. Hennepin County will issue a permit for the new private driveway and any necessary revisions to the Scotch Pine Lane approach to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 51. However, the permit cannot be processed until the appropriate municipal actions are enacted regarding the street vacation, etc. Upon'achieving all municipal approvals the permit will be expedited. If there are any further questions, please call me at 930-2548. Sincerely, David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator c: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Sam Marfield, fax 473-2363 OKZ/saa Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 F.AX:(6 12)930-2513 TDD:(612)930-2696 Rgcycltd PapfT . ^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: ^«M£nwe 1 3 1995 Nove^i^«,0|fgJjjg ITEM NO.^' / ([3 Department Approval: Name Michael P. GafTron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2066 Robert and Iris Waade, 1487 Shoreline Drive - Variances Resolution Zoning District - LR-IA. Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 2 acres, Application: Requesting variances for additions to existing residence. List of L.'^hibits A - Resolution B - Planning Commission Action Notice 10/19/95 C - Planning Co. .mission Minutes 10/16/95 D - Memo and E.xhibits of 10/11/95 Discussion Applicants propose a number of additions to the existing two level residence: I.Construction of a 10:12 pitch roof to replace the existing tlat roof. ±250 s.f. addition near entrx'way. 3. 4. Conversion of carport to living space. 30 s.f "bumpout" behind carport area. D. 6. 316 s.f addition to garage. 12 s.f trianuular addition on lakeside The variances requested are as follows: 1.0-75’ hardcover - decrease from 39.18% to 36.14% (0% allowed). •.C'rf”^WW .A-T'•r—r - Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 November 6, 1995 Zonii^ File #2066 _____ 2.75-250' hardcover - reduce from 15.96% to 9.25% (25% allowed - no variance). 3.Construction of new roof structure in 0-75’ zone and within required 30' side setback. 4.New garage addition 16’ from side lot line, 30’ required. 5.Carport area "bumpout ” approximately 19 ’ from side lot line. 30’ required. 6.Entryway area addition within 0-75’ zone. 7.Small triangular addition within 0-75’ zone. 8.Average setback encroachment of 13 ’ for new roof over existing house. 9.Lot coverage by structures of 15.37%, 15% allowed. The applicants had originally proposed an additional story- above the e.xisting upper level. However,Planning Commission indicated that that proposal was too ambitious and would result in too much bulk and too high a structure located only 21' from the shoreline. Planning Commission Recommendation At their October 16th meeting, Platining Commission recommended approval of applicants ’ revised proposal with the variances noted above, on a vote of 4-1. Planning Commission Chair Peterson voted against the motion, noting that in his opinion the revised proposal still results in too much structure for this 0.6 acre lot. Discussion Tlie need for numerous variances is due to the pre-existing location of this residence very near the lakeshore. It was originally constructed in 1959, prior to current codes. Removal of the existing residence and replacement with a home meeting setback requirements would be difficult on this property due to the purported Indian mound between the County Road and the shared driveway, and the existing septic system which takes up much of the yard area southwest of the house. If sewer were to become a reality for this area, the likelihood of constructing a new conforming residence would be much greater. However, absent sewer, the existing septic system must be protected and applicants' proposal does not require changes to the septic system. Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 November 6, 1995 Zoning File #2066 The side setback variances in the garage area could likely be minimized by removing the existing garage and constructing a new three stall garage which opens to the west. This might also result in slightly less 75-250 ’ hardcover, but would also change the character of the property and yield less potential for screening the residence firom the road, which may or may not be important. Stair Recommendation Given the above factors and constraints, staff does not disagree with the Planning Commission recommendation, although it seems possible that further plan adjustments might be possible to reduce the magnitude of side setback variances and eliminate the 100 s.f. excess lot coverage bv structures. A resolution reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation is attached tor Council approval. Options for Action 1.Adopt attached resolution per Planning Commission recommendation. Adopt resolution with revisions. j.Table for applicants to consider additional revisions, 4. 5. Deny. Other. Proposed Motion Moved by___________. ----- ------------------. - -- r ——----- - lakeshore setback, side setback, average setback and hardcover variances to Robert and Ins Waade at 1487 Shoreline Drive for construction of additions to the e.xisting residence. Vote; , seconded by , to adopt Resolution #_____granting ____ - • V • ayes.navs. RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C & L), AND 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 FILE #2066 WHEREAS, Robert and Iris Waade (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the propert>- located at 1487 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 5 and 6, "N. J. Stubbs First Subdivision in Lot No. 2, Section 11, Township 117, Range 23", Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and 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)to allow construction of residence additions within 75' of the lakeshore where no structures are normally allowed, and for variances to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2, 10.55, Subdivision 8 and 10.56, Subdivision 16(L) for hardcover in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback where no hardcover is normally allowed, and for a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to allow encroachment of the average lakeshore setback w here no encroachment is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 for construction of additions encroaching the side yard where a 30’ side yard is normally required, and a variance to Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) to allow lot coverage by structures of 15.37% where only 15% lot coverage bv structures is normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2066. The property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum residential building lot size of 2 acres. Page I of6 3. 4. The property is 0.6 acre in area and contains an existing residence which was constructed in 1959. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18, 1995 and again on October 16. 1995 after revisions were made by the applicants, and on a vote of 4-1 recommended approval of the proposed variances as revised based upon the following findings: A.The proposed 10:12 pitched roof to replace the existing flat roof will result in an update of the appearance of the residence without increasing the height to a level inconsistent with other homes in the neighborhood, and will not appear e.xcessive as viewed from the lake, given the minimal 21' setback of the existing house from the lake. The originally proposed third level addition plus 10:12 pitched roof was considered by Planning Commission as excessive. The proposed pitched roof and 12 s.f. triangular addition which encroach lakevvard of the average lakeshore setback line will have no impact on views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring properties. The proposed one stall garage addition and north side bumpout will be located 16' and 19' from the side lot line respectfully, where a 30‘ setback is normally required, but both additions are further from the side lot line than the existing garage at 8.3’ from the lot line, which garage is intended to remain in place. Neither of these additions will have an impact on the neighboring property. Tlie prop*- '1 enuy way addition and north side bumpout which constitute additional structure and hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone will have no impact on neighboring properties, arc located further from the shoreline than the bulk of the existing house, and will be offset by hardcover decreases in the 0-75 ’ zone which reduce 0-75' hardcover from 39.18% to 36.14%. Page 2 of 6 I ¥ Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone is proposed to be substantially reduced from 15.96% to 9.25%, well within the 25% hardcover allowance for that zone. F.Overall hardcover on the lot. including the shared portion of driveway, decreases from 8.433.5 s.f. (29.6% of the total lot area) to 7,017 s.f. (24.7%) as compared to the DNR’s 25% overall hardcover standard. G.The 100 s.f. (0.37%) proposed excess of lot coverage by structures is justified by the difficulty of condensing the plans any further yet maintaining a suitable floor plan. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City stall, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6.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 graniinu the variance would not adversely aflect tralfic conditions, light, air nor pose a lire 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 Compr**hensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS. ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1, 10.55, Subdivision 8, and 10 56, Subdivision 16 (C) to allow ronsmiction of a 250 s.f entryway addition, enclosure of an existing carport plus 30 s.f bumpout. 12 s.f triangular room addition, and replacement of Pane 3 of 6 fsmjum RTiVi^ \ -•S. T.f 0 d i a ,f ts Vo m :d ,n Ln :r ly :ie re d g ty. d h ·a ice T TE OF co �,ESOT EPI On this_____ a ithin and for aid County. known �o me to be the per acknowledged th t h (the T T O • 11 CO T FH , 1 bli -----------onall app ar n s des ·b . LO an exe uted th m th ir the for t nd d d. s. be or m Publi n this_____ o ithin and for aid Coun per kn n to me co be th person a kno l d d that he th y e, d ------------------d s ribed in an d the f in inscrurn od ut d the s me s hi their fre t and d d. Publi P ge 6 of 6 ■f '.* lie CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55J23 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2066notice of planning CONMSSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 19,1995 TO: Robert & Iris Waade 1487 Shoreline Drive Wayzata,MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances VOTE:4 FOR 1 AGAINST DATE OF MEETING: 10/16/95 Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Variances recommended for approval for revised site plan include; 0-75' hardcover: 0% allowed; 39.18% existing; 36.14% proposed. 75-250' hardcover: 25% allowed; 15.96% existing.; 9.25% proposed. .New roof struemre in 0-75' zone and less than the required 30' Drom side lot line. .New garage addition 16' from s.d lot line (30 required). "hnmn out ” aDDroximatelv 19' from side lot line (30' required)..Carport area bump out appru,%uuaitijt .Entiyway area addition within 0-75' zone. ,Small triangular addition within 0-75' zone. Average setback encroachment of 13' for new roof over existing house. .Lot coverage by structures of 15.37% (15% allowed). Conditions of Approval: f .aviefinp seoiic system during construction process (there will be a ‘ •feXc;rLvTS"in the d^area given the limited area of the sue). a Removal of all hardcover areas not artproved to remain in place, prior to the footing inspection for the new additions. 2U}ning File No. 2066 October 19, 1995 Page 2 r'. 3.Remove as TT"«'b atkiitional bituminous as possible (in addition to that proposed). Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, November 13, 1995; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. i I : / / MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 Peterson said he was in favor of retaining a road and utility easement *or possible future needs of the City. He asked what opinion others had if approval for the proposal was given while maintaining the easement for the cul-de-sac Toies said the parties ® ^ ^ application would need to discuss the maner, but he was of the opinion that u the cml-de- sac was turned back to grass, no one would care to change it agam lo blaclaop in the future. Marfield said he'’was worried that another governmental body would make the change once again to blaclaop in the future, and he would be uncomfortable wit maintairang the easement after working so hard to eliminate it. Schroeder asked Staff if these propenies were a possible candidate for a loop road but was told bv Gaffton no Schroeder acknowledged the uniqueness of these propenies and noted the undesirability of a cui-de-sac except for lire depanment use, which is disputable. There were no public comments. Schroeder moved. Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2065 as revised removal of the cuWe-sac and addition of a dnveway from thejo «s resioence to CoRd > I with a 15' side setback for reasons stated in the memos. speciticaUy. reduction in ha'dcover. result of fire department review which showed no increased nsk, with approval bv NL-vDOT for additional curb cut. approval for vacation ot Scotch Pine wi con lOons as noted, approval of replat, and rededication of utility easements Vote: •"‘V'S ^ Peterson, for reasons of ser.ing a precedent and oesire for maintainmg the cul-de-sac easement for future access .f .'deeded. (#9) #2066 ROBERT AND IRIS WA^U)E. 1487 SHOREL^E ” VARIANCES - CONTINUAnON OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:28-9:11 P.M. The Applicants were present. G-ifPon reooned that the apoiicauon was before the Commission at the last meeting for a SSer of variances to remodel and build an addition to the residence on ShoreUne Dnve The lot IS small and does not lend itself for rebuilding The house and garage currently has a camort and is covered with a Hat roof The onginal proposal was tor a second sory w-uha 10 12 pitch roof From the lake side, the house was proposed at a pound-to-peak heiL of U6- L. technicallv did meet the code height limit. The Plan^g Commission s earlier review concluded that the proposal was too ambiuous ror the lot. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#9 - #2066 Robm aod Iris Waade - Continued) Gafi&'on said the revised proposal calls for hardcover removal with cutting back the driveway area. The revision would alter the foot print area with the addition of a garage stall and an entryway area. The sharp comers would be cut off and an area would be bumped out. There would be no second story Some additional height would be gained from a 10; 12 pitch roof over the entire structure. The residence would encroach past the average lakeshore setback. A side setback vanance would be required as the garage would be located within the 30' setback. The new setback is proposed at 16' where it now exists at 8* The bump out is located at 19' from the side lot line. The entry is within the 0-75’ zone. The house would encroach 13' past the average setback with the new roof Gaflfron noted that the house located to the north of this property is on low topography and would not be affected by this proposal. The house to the south has minimum view ov^ applicant's house now and would no longer have any view of the lake with this proposal. Gafffon reported that the lot coverage with this proposal would be at 15.37% where 15% is allowed. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone e.xists at 39 18% and is proposed at 36.14%. 25% hardcover is allowed in the 75-250' zone and exists at 15.96% and would be decreased to 9 25% The hardcover for the dnveway portion serving the neighbor is not included in the calculations. No height variance would be required with the new roof proposed at a ground-to-peak height of 35 S’. The applicant said it was his desire to minimize the impaa of the house on the property and neighborhood while still gaining a house up to today's standards. Hawn inquired what would become of the broken asphalt on the property near the shoreline. Waade said it will be removed and replaced with pea rock, which he understands to be non-hardcover Lindquist asked about the open area between the house and garage. This would be expanded for the master bedroom. WTien inquiring about the size of the garage. Lindquist was told the saraue would be increased to a 3-stali from its present 2-stall configuration. Schroeder was concerned with reduaion of rock/'plastichardcover in the 0-75’. Gafifon said the entryway area included rock and plastic which was not noted in the calculations. It was noted mat the 4 ‘ overhang would be eliminated and replaced with 1-1/2’ overhang, which has not been figured into the calculations as eaves are not defined in the code as whether they are actual hardcover. Hawn save her suppon of the proposal noting the applicant's diligence in keeping additional hardcover to a minimum while gaining the desired space. \ • \ \ 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#9 - #2066 Robert and Ins VVaade - Continued) Schroeder noted that the proposal was an improvement, but asked whatit would take to reduce the lot coveraee down to 15%, or a 100 s.f. reduaion Tne app cam respon e that It would be difficult to condense the plan an>' funher and still maintain a decent tio plan. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2066 subjea recommendauons with removal of the excess bituminous matenal m tne y-ard proteaion of the septic system, removal of hardcover as noted, and an insuec^ion ot nar removals prior to oouruig of the footings. Vote: .Ayes -t. Nays 1. Peterson, v o adiowledge the applicant’s attempt to reduce hardcover but was ot the leelmg n was still too®dmbitious a proposal for the lot. (#10) #2074 JOHN AND KRISTEN GEHRING, 1687 STI^ET - VARIANCES - CONDITIONAL USE PERNDT - PUBLIC HEARING /.lO-/. P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and .Affidavit of Publication were noted. The aLoiicants were present* * The application consists of two pans. Mabusth reponed that the first pan involves a condidonal use permit and vanance to install 2‘ timber wall along the lakeshore bank. Ice movement in early spnng has created problems along this shoreline. is similar the wall on the Palm propeny to the nonh. The Engmeer has reviewed the applicmion. Staff is of the opinion that the vail is not a permanent solution to the erosion problem ^d has encouraized the applicants id consider np rap. The applicants do not wisn to io^ their sandv beachT which would occur u np rap was mstalled There is no room to ^ter the bank'itself with only 41' to the residence fi-om the lakeshore. Staff said the wall will work but not penTLanently. Mabusth reported that the second pan of the application is for the instaJation of a 2^0^^ detached earage located m the street yard ot the property. The g^^ge would side se’back The doors of the garage would open to the street. . ne garage would be nlaced M' from Concordia, where 30’ is required Mabusth sard ihanhere rs concern with L tlood Dlam b-mi: encroached bv the strucmre. The raaionty ot dramage m the ConLdia nenthborltood drams to this area and includes the Palm ProP'ny, Runoff flows eventuallv to Wes. Amt The apphcan. connrmed wrdi a new survey ttot the flood plain ,s !m<roachcd bv at least half of .he structure. The Palm’s garage would be flooded rf “mpensarorv or matching excavations are no. completed. If this ts true, permits would b™equTred from both the Corp of Enmneers and the Watershed. 13 r a To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. GafEfon, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator October 11, 19f'5 #2066 Robert and Iris Waade, 1487 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Two Acres Application: Revised proposal for additions to existing residence. List of Exhibits A - Revised Site Plan/Survey B - Revised Floor and Elevation Views C - Revised Hardcover Calculations D - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/25/95 E - Planning Commission Minutes 9/18/95 F - Memo and Exliibits of 9/8/95 Revised Proposal In the revised proposal, applicant is omitting the additional story, while proposing a 12:10 pitch roof to replace the existing flat roof. Additionally, he proposes four relativelv minor additions (see Exhibit B-3): -jh 250 s.f. addition near entryway. -+. 30 s.f. "bump out" behind existing carport (carport converting to living space). -316 s.f. addition to garage. •±. 13 s.f. angle on lake side. The entry addition and the bump out are in the 0-75' zone; the entry additio; is substantially below the existing overhang, as is the bump out. The proposed garage addition is in the 75-250' zone, and is offset forward of the existing garage, over existing concrete or bituminous hardcover. The garage addition will be approximately 16’ from the side lot line, about double the setback of the existing portion of the garage. Additionally, the driveway proposal has been further revised to eliminate encroachment of the dminfield area and reduce hardcover. Zoning File #2006 October 11, 1995 Page 2 Rerised HardcoTer Proposal Referring to Exhibit C, 0-75’ hardcover decreases from 39.18% to 36.14%. Excluding the driveway area serving the neighboring property from the calculation, in the 75-250' zone hardcover decreases from 15.96% to 9.25%. (Note that the driveway serving the neighbor will remain in place, and the net hardcover decrease on applicant's property is 308 s.f. in the 0-75' zone, and 1,108 s.f. in the 75-250' zone, or a hardcover decrease of 1,416 s.f. overall). As a percentage of the entire lot, including the neighbor's driveway, overall hardcover is decreasing from 8,433.5 s.f. (29.6%) to 7,017.5 s.f. or 24.7%, as compared to DNR's 25% overall Hardcover staiKlard. Excluding neighbor's driveway, it decreases to 19.4%. Lot coverage by structures increases from 13.14% to 15.37%, just over the 15% limit (15% = 3,993 s.f.; the proposal is for 4.093 s.f.). Per Exhibit C-6, the net reduction in roof overhang by revising the roof line is nearly 1,0(X) s.f. The overhangs were not originally calculated as hardcover, but were, for the most part, over landscape areas that were calculated as hardcover. Also note that the 13' average setback encroachment of the house is not changed from the original proposal nor from the existing house. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission is requested to consider whether the revised proposal is acceptable. The variances involved are summarized as follows: .New roof structure in 0-75' zone and less than the required 30' from side lot line. •New garage addition 16' from side lot line (30' required). .Carport area "bump out" approximately 19 ’ from side lot line (30 ’ required). •E.ntr> way area addition within 0-75' zone. •Small triangular addition within 0-75' zone. .Averace setback encroachment of 13’ for new roof over existing house. •Lot coverage by structures of 15.37% (15% allowed). Zoning File #2066 October 11,1995 Page 3 0-75* hardcover: 0% allowed; 39.18% existing; 36.14% proposed, 75-250’ hardcover: 25% allowed; 15.96 % existing; 9.25% proposed. No height variance required (defined height 18.0'; peak-to-lowesi grade height 35’ 8"). In any recommendation for approval. Planning Commission should define which variances are to be granted, and indicate the specific hardships and justifications for the granting of said variances. Any approval recommendation should be conditioned as a minimum on the following: 1 Protection of e.xisting septic system during construction process (there will be a tendency to have traffic in the drainfield area given the limited area of the site). 2.Removal of all hardcover areas not approved to remain in place, prior to the footing inspection for the new additions. Options for Action 1.Approve variances as proposed, with conditions. 2.Table for additional revisions. ^ ^ J Denial. •r *( I * • • 4. , U Other. I- i I r' / V t •. f- c J v) I •« I I i’AUlhi !• rt «•M H > ^ fr n-ts* «H %4 •m <V N ^ «•> «« ««• • fy <T\< 8. S g »4 I I•^ a O ^ r« O f> v| 4 .•» O' ^ o k ' U' ^i VV ^l!) i'-#• sJ 5» K^ r •0 ^ tfi 0"£ 1 !J 11«J 0, *i 3 • ^0 IT 1 ♦ Sf1 i ^i ?• (11 lU J 1 0-o u. ue h- u' 2 h n ■i 0 2 *rv V' 3 u d t> t-w C j 7 S ?• n* -U.^-i rc «T- ^ V ^ & o u. cL ^- f^» <D r r I c oa • S i ill5{e H »* rt I hUw ^ d£2 i» »• »t -ill|{ ««%««• 9 .• w wg »r\ u tf i >>« 9 u <O fyv 31 := H ^ n- t« •t 9 ali «•• •• N N 5.! 35 o V) C)n;V. JB5 j« w 2 4 «* S J tn M 8. s a I I•^ a O r« ,*v' .' X 1'-i «' «. *• •- O' U . <1- •♦ o O' V Vi^ o f> S| ^ •*» 0<o I C- o o ^ — 3«• f- If a’e ui \-%/ 2 h I r>w n\ n »f\od 0 (0 '' 4 3 0 ii »:• f•* io i^ •1 4 V ci 4l o 9 h 3 u r' d t> 5 y ^ \# lU J I ‘Z t-w W tf^ o vT< «o •"' o »T*r- ^u ;i i 6 t S ti ki rJ n 2* P K- iJT3 r. 3 fV if J tc ?p a & c* u. cL h l> ^ a: vf h -en 4><V r-n •* o »n r'** r4 rr c* r'^ o c<> a I y P.o a ? Jx a' {.!v: 1 ••W**> 9 «•«<*<*<* -J* i IS3U 3QVVAA m pm%S‘»w Clf^ XAM »v mMW ^9 ou( ■••^•f^o#•• pu» -6^C V-.; -• V:.: ^ :..i^=;' c:vf^v=l: ;Hi 1 ■. ■• . r •.. t -. \f’ *1 n -V- ^ , V ^.y^>T'"Jk *^-H.. r i i 11 1MI • 1ir t 1 ""--------fJ I. '1 0rI &i HARDCOVERC^CULATION vVORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)7^2i0•2S-500’ jfir.RTTNG ^^RDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _ Leagth Wkltii X X X CAMOfT B.Garaje C.Driveway D.Sidewalk E.Patio/Dcck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONn total PROPE^TY/REA in ZONt ^, o t X 100 A ^- -—'—^ PPOPOSEP HARDCO^T.R IN ZONE ^ _ A.House _ Length Wid'Ji B.Garage C. Dnvcway‘ D.SidewaLk E.Patio/Dcck F.Landscape X X X Underlain _ By Plastic _ X X X X X X X X X 85 xs G.Other total h .ardcover in zone total property area in zone ^X 100 500-1000' 2lc>^ Zoo S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2,M. ^ S.F. "s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ S.F (O. 0*^Q> S.F. ^9. /^ -fo 3 oo. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. __S.F. S.F. O S.F. ~S.F. C'l S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Caff'S--C S.F. S.F.jOOjt^ % A B A B SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)0-75’75-25rnt -K.500 ’ |-T.;i<rnNG ^ A.House------------------- Leofth WjdtH X X X B.Garage CJOO^oe-T' C.Driveway X D.Sidewalk X X E.Paiio/Dcck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - total property area in ZO^SE ^qz ‘^,o X 100 A "2C^37«o___.^ ppr^pO^FD HAKDCQVER.TN ZONE A.House WidUl Length X X B.Garage C.Driveway X X D.Sidewalk X X E.Patio/Dcck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G.Other total h .^rdcover in zone • total property area ln zone ^ ^c>X 100 A --------- 1*5 500-1000’ /o*>'-9X^ S.F. /3^2A. S.F. S.F. S.F. 6<74. V- - S.F. S.:. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 'PC^’^7.0 S.F f U 0_S.F 7* S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. 3/L^_£___ 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 ^24.0 S.F. <0. 2-^% A B A B \. tn. wi.L\^ ■= '1. VC\, W^\>|' t;. pn-\v)t^/Jt'{ ' *V. ' 10lf»U M G(j> 2.44.0 'ZOO lb rz.1 t^j P^vc\\o^^ 5.UGO^^e -KPO'^J' ' 'a. t^OO^ 1.':P\rm)hL\>-_______ •lOT.fsU Z'^ "1 it* •5Uft*T«-act/ » M •;» &. = fi,p-n.• o.V^\\)OM^'( e D.Or.vjCv\r.'^» T t.PP-\vX.VlN^ \eA<:p 4(/»& lO'iO TcnAL-!)7'7'b *^1 upp\'OoK30. f;'\t>0'V ppvvio»>A'’\’ -7'?>4t) V\. t/\oev'^u<- r WSijj I.^l■\)■^l' - ^A(^vb “ID^L vji^'i \iCOijC'(ioiA 362)yit TH^'^vo> \ C^^S jCA /2v'r/>>AI I ^ tJ ^*\ }./Lfi~L.C^tJ‘0.-“ I ti> I ^ /JftT /fJ OAi-C..'^ 1.^r.</JeT f^e^ocnot<^ j 0S> pfo-A-bcr'y'--’^- i: rt^iTi ■ iirfciT iin ni u^anrom CALCULATIOl SUmU?A. Lakcahor* S«cb«ck Lac Ar«« ta Zofxm 0 - 75* 75 - 250* /oc9(ii ,f B.C.D. HzisCtog iardcovar to Zoo« Exlsclas aardcorar Ptrcencaia (3/A)xlOO Final Propoaad Hardcoaa r La Zooa 395^5 J9 />? ^ 4479 2437 le'li.p u.yi 15. \|oc,coC>c37 CPAuCtoA'^ ^ W \HtUJpfc Pt7^lu6lA^A*f # . •A Ak^ A *.% I. aardcoTYT PtrcraCJ^Y (0/A)xlCO V*15 % r.Al. All<«Yd aardcorar ParcaaCata rt-|t<La«e*«>(SA. 'MN4t£C.aAM<»6 ’.. 3.0 4^ "• 'bc9>_±f> -X •/0«1' *U O a / f n •JAAPS' ^">1. JO "M- \ U3T C<?U€W.AC-€5-sn aaj crtov^e* 'Z-IOS -5.^. t vr ) AJA?^1Qe XifZ^V C^zk,\9 \0-G-iS O’-tOfOS CTruoirrofie coi>enAc,e im ?w>^Jt °p-o,^(i.vyT MuSj Vto05»C. I ^157. P«^:^ '. 5»*^t ^'Z-l 4^. \o4-n l2cor o'(i/^'i<‘^'- a 4' r*YrorMi^ ^ Ig," k)t' (^•7 (T-f.|07 (p UT05 ^a<A a o'.^'ir. -C u(h) 7 •>■<&<- I “'*?> ^jd^xj l3' WCY r^f*'1'’^^ /•>^<7' (4-C^i-^C» ‘V,cf<r> 7r./z<:>j ..../-Lyyv-/- f^^TfXAJ \^ o'\»A*oC • MfuT r^r-oocr'i^*^ «5f 0‘^\C»-)C3 o'-’4 I 3 A0 \t>oP UAt^^ ^^>uCfi-AC^ ^\5f.<»’ D CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING I-TLE #2066 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 25, 1995 TO: Robert and Iris Waade 1487 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 type of APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 09/18/95 Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled to allow applicant to revise proposal. Planning Commission gave the following general direction: ^e omitted. Soften the impact of struemre as viewed from the lake. Consider making carport area into useable space. Other additions are 'iffy'. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is contumed as: , -r nn « m Planning Commission, Monday, October 16, 1995; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If vou desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they ate available from the Citv Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#8 -#2062 Ted Rozeboom/Josephine Knudson - Continued) Commissioners noted they would not want to sec any outw’ard e^ridcnce of a business or any parking. Vote; Ayes 3, Hawn, Smith, RowieKe; Nays 3, Peterson, Schroeder. Lindquist. Motion fails. The applicant asked if it would work if his wife owned the propertv'. 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 ROWLETTE, 3775 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2063 at the request of the applicants. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#10) #2066 ROBERT AND IRIS W A.ADE, 1487 SHORELINE DRTVE - VARIANCE‘S PUBLIC HEARING 10:33-10:59 P.M. The CerrifiLdte of .Mailing and .Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants were present. Gaffion reponed that the application is for a number of variances for a 3rd-level addition to a lakeshore property located off of Shoreline Drive in a 2-acre zoning district. The house currently exists at 21' from the shoreline with the deck 16' from the shoreline. .A brruminous waJkwav is located under the deck near the lake. There is an S.j side setback where 30' is required. The average lakeshore setback currently encroaches 13' for the house and 24* for the deck and would remain the same under the proposal. Hardcover in the 0-75’ exists at 28.1% for smtctural and 11.1% for non-structuraJ for a total of 39.2%. The lot coverace by structure is proposed at 13.8®o 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 definition a three-story’ home by eliminating the existing flat roof and adding anotlier 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 floor plan shows a car pon 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 around-to-peak height from the lakeside view. minutes of the orono planning conimission MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#10 - #2066 Robert and Iris VVaade - Continued) The variances required include lakeshore setback, side setback with no propos^ change, second story 25.3* from the side where 30* is required, average setback encroac ent wi no change, and hardcover in the 0-75 ’, which will decrease with the removal ot the bituminous walkway. Pea gravel with no liner is proposed to replace the wa^ay. ihe loop drive and an existing portion of the driveway will be removed. WTiat wi remain wn allow a car to back up and enter the street as well as an apron for the garage, need to be redesigned to avoid encroaching the drainfield. The septic system , this 3-bedroom home. There is no change to the number of 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 \^ether the replacement of the waikwav was an acceptable torm of non-hardcover The sout .^r y neighbors are currently able to view the lake over the home, .^s proposed. Staff questions whether the house would tower over and impaa the neighbors to the nonh. The hardcover 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 avCTage 4 m width and are proposed at 1 S" The rock and plastic between the dnveway an^ont 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 drauifie^ The removal of the concrete driveway is seen as a positive improvement, however. There are no feasible alternate septic shes available on the property. The area is being considered by the neighborhood for sewering. Staff questioned whether enclosing the carport and chaneing the roof pitch would be a viable alternative to the third story proposal. Staff is asking whether the hardships or justifications are enough to support the proposed changes Peterson clarified 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 structure when 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 structure. The applicant said he had considered lowenng the struaure by adding dormers and burying usable space in the roof line, which would reduce the height by 1-9' to sotten 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'. 21 minutes of the ORONO planning COM\nSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 *' (#10 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued) Rowlette 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. Gaffron asked if there was any logic to changing the roof pitch from hs present flat look. The applicant said the roof was old and a flat roof was not conducive to the Minnesota winters. It is his intention to redo the windows and plumbing. The roof does not present My curt) appeal and a low pitch roof would not help to improve the look. The applicant telt the high pitch would aid in setting the second story ’ into the structure and is currently proposed at 25' in height. The applicant said the original house had the boathouse n the lower level, but now houses the utilities, and that is the reason for the 1S course basement. The rest of the house has S' ceilings The applicant '=aid 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 suggestions. 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, while maintaining a regular roof pitch. Commissioners said side setback and lot coverage would be issues in that scenario. The applicant was told to come back with an amended proposal. Rowlette moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2066. Gaffron 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 propeny. Most of the Commissioners voiced that it was their belief that very little could be done to the property. Vote. Aves 6, Navs 0. (#11) #2067 BRUCE AND TERRY CLARK, 625 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC REARING 10:59-11:00 P..M. The Certificate of Mailing and .Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants were present. Gaffion displayed a survey showing the proposed side setback variance for e.xtending the e.\isting attached garage. TO: FROM DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator September 8, 1995 SUBJECT:#2066 Robert and Iris Waade, 1487 Shoreline Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acres. Application: Request for side setback lake setback and average setback variances to construct third level addition with pitched roof over existing two-level residence with flat roof (additions are above existing structure). Pertinent Code Sections 1.Sections 10.22, Subd. 1/10.55, Subd. 8/10.56, Subd. 16 (C) - 75’ lakeshore setback required for struemres. 2.Sections 10.22, Subd. 2/10.55. Subd. 8/10.56. Subd. 16 (L) - No hardcover allowed in 0-75’ zone. 3.Section 10.22, Subd. 1 - No average setback encroachment allowed. 4.Section 10.23, Subd. 6 - Side yard setback required = 30’. Building height maximum 30’ or Vh. stories. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey with Proposed Additions and Removals E - Staff Sketch (Site Plan Before and After) F - Hardcover Calculations G - Structural Coverage Calculations by Applicants. H - Building Height Ordinances I - Construction Floor Plans Pertinent Facts 1.Uikeshore setback House Deck Existina 21’ 16’ With 2nd Story Proposed 21’ 16’ Required 75’ 75’ Zoning File #2066 September 8, 1995 Page 2 2. 3. 7. Side setback Existing garage (attached by roof) Existing house Propos ed 2nd story/roof Average setback encroachment Existing and proposed house: 13’ Existing and proposed deck: 24’ Existing 8.3’ 25.3’ Proposed (no change) (no change) 25.3’ Required 30’ 30’ 30’ 4.0-75 ’ hardcover (0% allowed): Structural Non-strucmral Total 5.75-250’ hardcover (25% allowed): Structural Non-structural Total Existing Proposed 2.832 s.f. (28.1%) 2,932 (29.0%)* 1.174.5 ni.1%)564.5 (5.6%) 3.956.5 (39.2%) 3,496.5 (34.6%) E.xi.sting 684 s.f. (4.2%) 1.953 s.f. (11.8%) 2.637 s.f. (16.0%) Proposed 732 s.f. (4.4%) 1 059 s.f. (6.4%) 1,791 s.f. (10.8%) 6.Lot coverage by structures (proposed) (15% allowed) House Garage W Deck (No variance required) 2,205 s.f. 1,032 s.f. 427 s.f. 3.664 s.f./26,620 s.f. = 13.8% Building height (30’ allowed, maximum Vh. stories): •Oy definition . *-8 ^ •Lowest walkout level to highest peak (for illustrative purposes only ): 46 9 •However, because a portion of the lowest level is 12’ in height, it is considered as a stor>' by the Building Code, hence the proposed house will technically be 3 stories in height. Summary of Proposal Applicants recently purchased this one story walkout residence which was built in 1959. He proposes to eliminate the existing Bat roof, and add a third level to the mam P^ion of me LuL plus 10 12 pitch roof overall. The addition and roof expansion adds sigmficantly to me Zoning FUe #2066 September 8. 1995 Page 3 bulk of structure within the 0-75’ setback zone. Virtually the entire house is within the 0-75 zone, portions of it being only 21 ’ from the shoreline, with deck only 16 ’ from the shoreline. Likewise, the proposed addition is entirely within the 0-75’ zone, and will raise the lakeshore facade from its current approximately 20 ’ height to approximately 46 ’ height at the new peak. Clearly, adding this much mass so close to the lake will have a significant visual impact as viewed from the lake. This 0.6 acre lot is subject to the 2 acre standards, i.e. 75’ setback from the lake, 30 ’ setbacks on either side, and 50’ setback from the County Road. If the house was to be tom down and reconstructed, it would be further limited by location of the existing septic system south of the looped driveway, the driveway serving the neighbor to the south, and the purported Indian mound between the driveway and the County Road. The septic system is conforming but there appears to be no location for replacement if needed This property is within the Bracketts Point area for which the City is being petitioned for municipal sewer. However, at best municipal sewer would not be available to the property until late in 1996, if that project goes forward. There is no proposed change in the defined number of bedrooms, it will stay at three. Planning Commission is advised that Mr. Waade realizes the third level addition may be too intense, and is willing to consider other alternatives to yield some additional living space, with the intent to end up with at least three garage stalls and converting from a flat roof to a pitched roof. He has indicated that he is interested in removing driveway hardcover and is requesting direction from the Planning Commission if approval of the third level proposal is not acceptable. Issues for Consideration 1.Is addition of a third level as proposed, justifiable given the close proximity to the shoreline? Applicants are willing to remove the bituminous walkways on the lake side of the house, and would like to replace them with pea gravel with no fabric or plastic underliner. Is this an acceptable form of non-hardcover? Will expansion upw-ard of this house lakeward of the average setback line have a negative impact on views from neighboring properties? Additionally, will the additional height within the substai. 'ard side setback encroach on sunshine enjoyed by the neighboring property to the north? Are the proposed hardcover additions and removals (yielding a net hardcover decrease of about 460 s.f. in the 0-75’ and decrease of 846 s.f. in the 75-250’ zone) a reasonable trade for the approximately 148 additional s.f. of structural hardcover? Note that the existing overhangs averaging 4 ’ in width have not been factored in as hardcover but r. Zoning FUe #2066 September 8, 1995 Page 4 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. comprise some 1,400 s.f. which would be reduced by approximately 60% with the proposed 18" overhangs. The area of rock and plastic between the driveway and the existing front entry has not been listed as hardcover by the applicants and a portion of it is ow t e ’ tSs area is approximately 400 s.f., of which about half is below existing overhangs. While removal of large portions of concrete driveway is positive improvement, the ^p!os^ blkup/par4 apron (item G on the survey) needs to be relocated, smee « encroaches over the existing drainfield. Knowing that there is no feasible alternate septic site, what deg^ of improvements to this pro^rty are justified? Should any improvements be ailowed unul/unless munic p sewer becomes reality for this property? Would mere transformation of the carport into an enclosed garage, and conversion of all Sto piKh^lfs, be acceptable as part of a remcKleling of the house wuh.n the existing footprint, as an alternative to the applicants proposal? Further, what is Planning Commission's view of changing the carport to living space , adding one or two Mails to" *e end of the existing garage and placing a pitched roof over the entire Structure? Clearly there is an issue of additional side setback encroachment, ut a eas the additions would be in the 75-250 zone . Are there specific hardships or justification that support any of the above Menarios which add to bullTof structure in the 0-75' zone? Is it reasonable to allow the creation ot a pitched roof to replace the fiat roof, justified merely by the aesthetics, or can .ipplican provide technical reasons why the flat roof is unacceptable (is it leaking, maintenance problem, etc.)? Options for Action 1. 3. Approve all setback variances as proposed, including proposed hardcover removals and additions (subject to relocating backup apron out ot drainfield). Approve only placing pitched roof over entire garage/carport/one story house structure, with proposed hardcover trades. Table for applicants to bring back a revised proposal (give applicants direction as to what additional infonnation or parameters are required). 4.Combination of the above r j* L... Zoning File #2066 September 8, 1995 Page 5 5.Recommeiid no changes be allowed that require variances (i.e. only allow interior remodeling). 6.Other.O ^ o CITY OF ORONO - VAELVNCE APPLICATI0> Initial Application Fct S2CO.OO (S50.00 per each additional vanance) Renewal Varia'-e Fee SIOO.OO (no Chang' ivom original application) Variance for non-conforming strucmres - \fier-the-Fact Fees (Double application re.; •*v • • Site Address Properrv Identification Number -J :__,„Hed on requirea survey. Actich'legal deacnpt.on .0 aopUcaiion not uacl uded ^ Date Property Acquired__JA\A nf land I (dolfid^Waiso other ( (menth/'year) i r,-c¥entialPresentuse of property.‘ Zoning Discrict: other (specify). ''Robert Phonethome) Phone (\vork)_ Zip: 00 C.CO rnuiK vuvaixtw,----■ ^-y OWTS-ER (if different to applicant) Name_------------- Address: ,,-rcT EstimatedConstrucnonuosi a ; description of reqce ^ I ^ ^ ^,r kr ^iiii-fT- l -r; Describe request mdeuul.. •ririrV(iii'eyA<-r-/ I'lfr ^ ------------------------— (^ueb a^dtoJnall^^f tj'dess:^)£J^U£o<^ a-fcbb^cV VARIAN-CES REQLTRED _ Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Lot Area ----- V- Rear Average Lakeshore Setback:Front Other (specify) ---------------- naiuuu:>-----fric-o irrn^rl ^ Ctv^»3x\xUa-' ['-^n^LyrJ §^\r£iux^ Ccyun^^ riXnz nd. 1. 2. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All nf .h, fnlln»in. n.ua be Xv application deadline Oate in orda for vour application to be considered coroplgte^ Hennepin Councy Depanraent of Finance. A-603, Govi Center. j48o-71). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list)., • , ^ “ Cenificaie of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor)f" calculations as required. In addition, provide one ( ) p. ^o^nrapWc survev (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade — areVoposcd. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8^ x 11" for rep^uctto^ cire.rhes or platis of floor & elevation views -provide one (I) copy »^ ' >■ — List of the legal names (include marital stams) of all persons with an interest m the property. This would include name(s) of apphcant(s) if not current owner(s). ___M M^dendum 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. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please ^niember that vour v.riiince nnniicotinn is not complete if the above information has not been incluflgd. Th^appliSu tefe^^agSs*m provide all information required or requested by the Zonmg IImS. agrees to pay additional fees (suff time not covered by original fee parent) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and cemfies a infonnation supplied is ttu^ correct to th^est of his/her knowledge. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Applicant’s Signature. ^e owSr^ere^y acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the propetrv by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Councd members for purposes of^^estigation and verincation of this request. '<^0^ Date 5?-.^rS-9^Owner's Signature ^ y' Annlicant must hav5i^ife^ttM?ilf^‘?^^^=s 25 days before the Planning Co^ission ,'=r iS-wS VnH rnuncU 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 & Zonmg Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ^ data «• 1637.0? T» 161 47 1*321.9 CRtEM TREES OH TARACER LAKE GOVT LOT 2 .1 • 1 LCGAL DtSCRIPriON INFORMATIONINQUIRY CODE 103 PRC*“ •‘TY ID 11 117 23 23 0002 SCN DST 278 WTR8HB 3 DST *'IFPROJ • EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREA6E «‘.SO PAGL ‘4 4-‘ ?:c OWNER O N A E A 8CHNIT _ _ _ _ PROP ADXm 1475 ’ SHORELINE“DR TAXPAY N/A DOUGLAS R 4 ELLEN A SCHMITT 02/18 147S SHORELINE DR UAYZATA HN SS3?1 *HUMIC 38 D2V STATUS *LAST STAT CHS CONDMN PREVIOUS OUNER NEXT aPSC C PLAT '413^1 PARCEL 4417 LOT VERF LEGAL “block APPROX PARCEL SIZE TAAN TWfcTPQ n^/A«/Q'^ IRREGULAR M < *U ^ -I t : LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORhATlON INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 8CH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ • EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER C HOORE INO SPECIAL TRUSTEE PROP ADDR “1491 SHORELINE DR- - - - - TAXPAY N/A RICHARD HARRY EVANS 05/15 C/0 CELESTE MOORE 05/17 13325 SOUTMRIDGE RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 NEXT » PSC c PLAT 43340 PARCEL 1010 PAGE 23 0008 MUNIC 30 DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG CONDMN# LOT PREVIOUS OUNER R H EVANS APPROX PARCEL SIZE U175X243XL185X190 TRAN OATES 11/01/94 02/08/93 / / VERF legal ■ BLOCK . LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 23 0009 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ t EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER ELMER S CONOVER 4 UIFE PROP ADDR 1489 SHORELINE DR- - - - - TAXPAY N/A ELMER S CONOVER 1489 SHORELINE DK PACE MUNIC 38 DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG CONDMN I PREVIOUS OUNER NEXT * PSC C PLAT 43340 PARCEL 3025 VERF LEGAL BLOCK UAYZATA MN 55391 APPROX PARCEL SIZE U130X245XL132X245 >*4 U LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 23 0010 PAGE 1 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ # EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER R L UAADE 4 I L UAADC PROP ADDR 1487 SHORELINE DR TAXPAY N/A ROBERT L 4 IRIS L UAADE 1487 SHORELINE DR UAYZATA MN 55391 MUNIC 38 PLAT DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG CONDMN • PREVIOUS OUNER NEXr a PSC c 43340 PARCEL 5200 LOT VERF LEGAL BLOCK APPROX PARCEL SIZE U130X210XL120X245 LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ ♦ EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER D L 4 M H VERGEYLE PROP ADDR 1485 GREEN TREES RD TAXPAY N/A DAVID 4 MARGARET VERGEYLE 1485 (3REEN TREES RU UAYZATA MN 553V1 PAGE NEXT « 23 0011 PSC C MUNIC 38 PLAT 01128 PARCEL DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG 04/10/81 VERF LEGAL CONDMN I LOT 001 BLOCK 001 PREVIOUS OUNER I .*I • APPROX PARCEL SIZE S405X24OXL1BOX196 TOAM HATirq 1 1 /ni /QA O’^/OQ/q'^// LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ • EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER C 4 S PLATOU PROP ADDR 1480 GREEN TREES RD TAXPAY N/A CARL & SUSAN PLATOU 1400 GREEN TREES RD UAYZATA MN 55391 PAGE 1 NEXT a ::3 0016 PSC c MUNIC 38 PLAT 01128 PARCEL DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG 04/10/01 VERF LEGAL CONDMN i LOT 006 BLOCK 001 PREVIOUS OUNER f. APPROX PARCEL SIZE IRREGULAR LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 23 0017 . * ► PAGE SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ # EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER C 4 S PLATOU PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ‘ TAXPAY N/A CARL N 4 SUSAN PLATOU 1480 GREEN TREES RD UAYZATA MN 55391 MUNIC 38 DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG 04/10/01 CONDMN ♦' LOT PREVIOUS OUNER NEXT » PSC C PLAT 01128 PARCEL i VERF LEGAL BLOCK APPROX PARCEL SIZE IRREGULAR LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 23 0018 PAGE 1 4 t*': ,.i H SCH DST 270 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ « EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER GREEN TREES HOMEOUNFRS ASSOC PROP ADDR 38 ADDw C UNASSIGNED TAXPAY N/A GREEN TREES HOnEUUNLRS ASSOC C/0 JACK 0 YOST ^*1515 GREEN TREES RD • UAYZATA MN 55391 ADN GREEN TREES ON TANAGER LAKE MUNIC 38 PLAT 01120 DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG 04/10/81 CONDMN ♦ LOT PREVIOUS OUNER NEXT a PSC C PARCEL VERF LEGAL BLOCK --4'•r ■ r APPROX PARCEL SIZE TRAN DATES 02/08/93 IRREGULAR METES / BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OUTLOT B ADDN DATE FILED 11/17/1900 I CREATED BY DIV PREV PROP IDS 001290 DATE 00/12/01 11 117 23 23 0003 23 23 0004 23 23 0005 23 23 0006 23 32 0012 SUBSEQ PROP IDS 11 11 11 11 117 117 117 117 eo •t i ) : ‘t - %k.V ••^^ •s '.; ^ c-T -- %r \f Sk - mId ’M -M-"~ « V « » ■ . *» • \ \ \\ N mMi I'i^I •/ J^t>^ B J mm ^4741 ,iO 5 SETBACK LI'IE " concre'e s-vaie V » M ^\c/> VN‘iA SEV.ER t CLEANOUTS / \ ^ \\ i- LEGAL i , :::. I -I .._ ! 2 -'-J I . L' I ' ! JI ' .- J I J l I / ! ' I I ' rj ' � •-.... t 1 LEGAL ,, - � "l. 0 -.::, • i ell 0 0 v , "' 2 � V\ �' l ' hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75-250 ’250-500 ’500-1000 ’ fVTgriNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House Length Wiilth X X X B. C.Driveway X X s sr D.SidewaJk X X E.Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G.Other total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE .-i-w, A B -X 100 PROPOST^n hardcover in zone A.House ____________— Length Width X X X I . ' B.Garage C.Driveway X X D.Sidewalk X X E.Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X r. G.Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total IN ZONE B ^ S.F. S.F S.F S.F ^LOO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. -■(-'Ll S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. |g?i 0^1^ S.F, S.F, .1^/O 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 'h¥\Qy^ S.F >0.0^1 (a*S.F. % vvV • - - „ .......r.V ly-'-Cy n•»^ . A B A B I E: SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE)0-75 EXISTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________* hardcover calculation worksheet Lcfiftn WhJiH X X X B.Garag^ C.Driveway D.Sidewalk E.Patio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X G.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ X 100 PROPO*!EP HARDCOVER IN ZONK A.House______________ Length Width B.Garage C.Driveway D.Sidewalk E.Patio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic G.Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL H/UIDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone B \c* t X 100 13 250-500*fOO-IOOQ* S.F. ss S.F. ^ . .-Tn %s S.F. a S.F. s Q/bAr S.F. S.F.•i r V. \ S S.F. K S.F. B S.F.# /•/ «S.F. m S.F.v ‘-\ ^ S.F. ^ ’A / ' •». m S.F.1 1 s S.F. -r^iS.F. S.F.A l(^5Z4-.o S.F.D % S.F. S.F. a S.F. s S.F. S.F. KoSh,i^S.F.• a S.F. S.F. -S.F. S.F. B S.F. a \S.F. ssz S.F. a S.F. S.F.• rnr^S.F.A S.F. % n ••• ff : • • rrr'-sr 1^' 4 "^4 V.. V O- ■i^(2>OCrru^Xe>l»^ lpt2^?rvjX L-I m€ .^Kit^r.- .e^^, p^op- CpZO t:fi ^7T[ tfa 10^1 1^ «»• l-NS^wJ p-wr2- 'cp BxitpT.t^oo^ «^fu;cTiJn^ A^*^A- -y'tt> I • Z50 zo^e < 4 ’* poop- o*^4^irfO^ : \^0 tj] Sr*'2-f'‘lj' 44- -• II ,jU3T coueiiAiite- e=*^ s-roocsruafe is.yc\'^,') .1 •I •I Woote 2-los tti 40-2. <{j ?6»4- ttl ■tf-zn t{> i| i^) ^ t£>,C^2J0> ‘ 15.H% urr £?\7^.,_. -----------------; U2^(pwoeui^ A ujea "a T*)2X^1 cyLo II U^uo^f^v^'errz^crcutz^ (jooepA^e^ ' zc^j (azo - tfa I: i.: 1,4’c>VAf->(j^ : \4‘2-'Z-(^e^C^UOlJOC- A«2^ |49C06^G4 i.i l«l i • . I .1 Ml M *'l .1 f'i-i-if ■•: s 10.23 Subd. 2. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover, and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the "LR-IA'' One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A.Any permitted use as regulated in the ”R-1A" District. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. A.Anv conditional use as regulated in the R-IA District. Subd. 5.Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-lA" One family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use: A.Anv accessory use as regulated in the "R-IA Disfict and 'private docks' subject to the City Code and otner °nnUr:/ble rtauLtions,iacl^dinc boat regulations. Subd. 6.Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A.Heiaht. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. uots be observed: The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street Rear Yard 50 feet2acres 200 feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet SEC. 10.24.LR-LB ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose.The "LR-IB" One Family Lakeshore Residential District is intended to provide a district which allow a combination of medium density residential developments and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permits. The proposed land use may not endanger the quality of storm water runoff into Lake Minnetonka or Long Lake. Because of the location of the district near Lake Minnetonka or Long Lake, special regulations are necessary to orotect these natural resources from the etfects or dense develooment. This district shall have immediate access to highways and‘public sanitary sewer. ORONO CC 284 (4-1 84) S 10.02 . ... -a htiildincr other than a motel or11."Boardinghouse hv oriafrangement for definite hotel where, for compensation ^ j® three or more persons, periods, meals or lodgings are provided for tnree or cut not to exceed eight persons 12."Building" - Any structure may provide shelter or enclosure of without ooening, each when said structure is divided by P J te deemed a separate portion of such building so separated shall be deeme building. -13. "Building Height" - The vertical distance^ be^tween^ the highest adjoining ground lower and the top of the the lowest ground level, i of . nansard roof, or the cornice of a flat roof, or roof, or the average uppermost point on a round “oitched or hipped roof. height of the highest °ad^ioining ground level above Topographic changes considere^d in determiningthe existing terrain shall not be consiae building height.Source: Ordinance 101, 2nd Series "Rnllc Station" - Distributors warehouses for materials which are stored in tanks above ground in aggregate capacity on the site of 6,000 gallons or more. 15."Carport" - An automobile shelter having one or more sides open. ifi "Cellar" - That portion of the building having more than one-half of the f loor-to-ceiling heigh.- below tne grade of the adjoining ground. -Clean Fill" - Clean fill shall consist of all native so\uVas “ascribed in - ^^tl^rtL^/al^.^totlori^an^ ^rrclr-lar°ge^^\^hkn^??2Trub?c\rr^”T“9'%rameter, 'shall not be considered clean fill*Source; Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted; 2-22-88 17 "Commercial Kennel" - Any premises where three or more domestic animals over si,x months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale. "Commercial Ooerations" - Operations where is i^nducted b'v the sale or exchange of goods and/or selvile% on site for money or other valuable consideration. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 IP "Commission" - The Planning Commission 243ORONOCC (4-1-84) r lir -It f‘:V ^ •) 1 / ii'K 141^ f=«f*wT V* IT f(^^)PD&?^ I'Aaiw F<-«xxe V I -•» L , «-4 r.'t^A fWPIt pUUrJ Esif'Ajr pUioti, *^/feofbs€t> ecffisit^^s \y%r '■) / ft0 .i —Il ✓\ ^:^ECo»j O “pv-oo*. •M’ • » r»*42 ^*r^ K)OT^ PdoPweti AJew XAtfeoJi'Loo/i. AT/\)e «vi0^ r > >1• • 4 4^ ■ ^ /? N> ?' : \ •/P- /i' F yj %M: ''V. •• V * ^ . « :-n.^ .O' v//e-(o fT2*M ^AA^ ^ 1 i I -^ , - r -5i * ".V rt v: ■ w-r./:;..:-'; • r . **. $f i " vC‘l;sTitee^ lMf^H f:n r-A*LL6 lo* /r:.'> y« I C'* •< r r -♦ 4 c" V 25 2" V0^ !lii! '.ii' !lI ii9 9 9 m w » JW REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 9,19^P/>^ ^57 ITEM NO.: // Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2074 John N. and Kristin R. Gehring, 1687 Concordia Street - Conditional Use Permit^'ariance - Resolution Application: Applicants propose the installation of a 2' timber retaining wail approximately 4-5' from shoreline where no structures are allowed. The application also involves construction of a 25’x30' accessory structure w ithin the 75-250' setback area that will meet all required setbacks. The property has excessive hardcover, 24.21% within the 0-75' setback. A portion of the proposed garage and part of the access drive w ill encroach the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka requiring a conditional use permit from the City of Orono and a permit from the Watershed District. The Watershed District will review the application at their November 9, 1995. The City is in receipt of staff memo of the Watershed District recommending approval of the application as proposed. Zoning District - LR-IC. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03, Subd. 4 - Prohibition. It is unlaw ful to convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the Zoning Chapter. Applicants have been asked to file a variance application because of the excesses of hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. Section 10.03. Subd. 9 (E) - Accessory structures greater than 750 s.f. are subject to more restrictive setback standards as structure is at 750 s.f. I'he structure need only meet the 10' side setback. I he proposed accessory’ garage will be located 10' from the north and side lot lines. No variance required. Section 10.03. Subd. 9 (D) - Detached garage will have doors facing street. Structure must meet a minimum 30* setback. Required 30' Pr'posed =51' No variance required. Request for Council Action continue i page 2 of 5 November 9, 1995 Zoning File #2074 Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Lot area = 13,090 s.f. Allowed = 1,964 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,423 s.f or 10.9% Proposed = 1,922 s.f or 14.6% No variance required. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover review. A.0-75' setback area = 3,747 s.f Allovsed = 0 Existing = 907 s.f or 24.2% No reductions in hardcover are proposed. B. C. D. 75-250' setback area = 8,743 s.f Allowed = 2.186 s.f or 25% Existing = 2.124 s.f or 24.29% Proposed - 2,162 s.f or 24.73% 250-500' setback area = 600 s.f Allowed = 180 s.f or 30% Existing = 156 s.f or 26% Proposed = 120 s.f or 20% Total hardcover area = 13,090 s.f E.xisting = 3,187 s.f or 24.3% Proposed = 3,189 s.f or 21.4% Section 10.55, Sulxl. 8 - Code specifically prohibits placement of structures within the 0-75' setback area and floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. Applicants propose installation of a 2' retaining wall approximately 5' frotn shoreline and portions of detached garage and dri\eway will be located below llie 931.5 elevation in the street yard. Section 10.56. Subd. 13 (A & B) - Conditional u.se permit within shoreland protected area. A evaluation criteria/'recornmended conditions of approval. Section 10.55. Subd. 10 (B) - Conditional use pennit required for all structures constructed within lloodfringe/floodplain area. Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 5 November 9,1995 Zoning File #2074 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicants Addendum C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Elevation - Retaining Wall F - Elevation - Garage G - Photos - Current Shoreline and Example of Similar Retaining Wall H - Sui^ev IT I - Gustafson Report 10/9/95 Jl-3 - Haidcover Inventory K - Hardcover Map - Proposed L - Letters from Adjacent Neighbors M - Topographic Map - Watershccl'Drainage Area N - Future Hardcover Proposal for the Year 2000 01-3 - Hardcover Inventory' Year 2000 P - Topographic Detail of Property to North 1685, Tom Palm Property Q - Grading/Drainage Plan - Plan Prepared for Watershed District Review Providing Compcnsatoiy Excavations to Offset Filling of Floodplain R - MCWD Staff Memo Recommending Approval Discussion Conditional Use Pcrmit/Variancc - Timber Retaining Wall The eastern shoreline of West Ami is se\ erely impacted by ice mo\ ement in the early spring. A ridge has been created adjacent to the shoreline of several properties along this stretch of shoreline. The bank is at a 1:1 slope and unable to retain ground cover and is subject to sei ere erosion. The neighbor to the immediate north has installed a similar 2' timber retaining wall, review Exhibits E and G. The City has no record of issuing a conditional use pcmiit for the wall. As Gustafson's report advises (Exhibit 1) this is merely a temporary solution to the problem as the ice movement may damage this wall in any given year. Gustafson also asks that the wood used in the construction be treated wood. 1 he owners along this section of shoreline have attempted to solve this problem by either installing riprap or as in another application reviewed this evening (Application #2075), the alteration of a lakeside bank is proposed at a 3:1 slope, fhe more graduated slope allows for ice to ride up over the more graduated elcvatitms rather than against the vertical bank at the shoreline. Riprap also placed at a minimum 3:1 slope provides less of an obstacle to the movement of ice at the shore. The Request for Council Action continued page 4 of 5 November 9, 1995 Zoning File #2074 applicants were encouraged to consider a more pemianent solution but applicants adv ised that they would lose their only bit of sand shoreline with riprap and that there was not enough depth from the shoreline to the lakeside of the residence to allow for the alteration of the bank. At a 3:1 slope the majority of the lakeshorc yard w ould be lost. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the conditional use permit and variance required for the installation of the 2' timber wall. Approval was conditioned on the placement of silt fence along the shoreline during the period of construction until all disturbed areas are restored and that the timber wall be installed with treated timber. Mr. Richter of the DNR has asked if the impact of the structure could be minimized by requiring plantings at possibly the top of this bank to minimize the visual impact from the public waters. Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Installation of Accessory Structure/Garage The proposed 25'x30' accessory structure will require no setback variances. There is no excessive hardcover within the 75-250' setback area nor will structural coverage excesses result from the improvement. Hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback area exists at 24.2. Applicant proposes no reduction of hardcover improvements within the 0-75' setback area (855 s.f. = house and steps, 52 s.f. vvalkwav). The only approvals required for the installation of the accessory structure is the prohibition and conditional use pennit required for placement of structures within the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka, review Exhibit Q. Approximately a third to a half of the garage structure will be located below the 931.5 elevation and a small portion of the drive. Review Exhibit R, the Watershed District will ask for a matching excav ation to olTset the filling of approximately 14.8 cubic yards of filling will take place within the floodplain. Refer to Exhibit Q, applicants propose the excavation of a swale along the north side lot line (10'xl50 ’) that will take drainage to a drainage tile to be installed within the Tom Palm property to the immediate north. Rev iew Exhibit M, the topographic map that defines the local watershed and existing drainagevvay within neighborhood. The majority of runoff from the properties along Concordia drain to this property and the Palm property to the immediate north that contains a drainage swale along Palm’s north lot line that ev entually drains to West Arm. Representatives of the City have diseussed this matter with both Mr. Palm and Mr. Gehring. Both property owners are willing to cooperate in constructing the proposed drainage facilities to minimize the potential of flooding of both garage structures located in the lower elevation within their street yards. It would appear the Watershed District will approv e floodplain alteration as proposed at their November 9th Planning Commission recommendation. n Request for Council Action continued page 5 of 5 November 9, \S95 Zoning FUe #2074 ______________ Planning Coffimission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application as proposed subject to the Watershed District approving drainage plan submitted to both the City and the Watershed District. Shawn Gustafson has reviewed the plan and conceptually approved the proposal subject to his reviewing the area calculations of the floodplain encroachment to confirm adequate area is being providing by applicant in the s\%'ale along the north lot line. Approval of the conditional use permit shall be subject to the issuance of a MWCD permit and approval of the final plan by the City Engineer. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission and based on the findings and hardships set forth by applicants and appropriate conditions of the Planning Commission's approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either approve or amend the enclosed approval resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTIONS 10.55, SUBDIVISION (B) AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 13 PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE FILE NO. 2074 WHEREAS, John N. Gehring and Kristin R. Gehring (hereinafter the "applicants”) are owners of the property located at 1687 Concordia Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: North 50' of the South 100' of Lot 16, Coffee's Addition to Shady wood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for \ ariances to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit construction of a 2' high timber retaining wall within 5' of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka where no structures are allowed and where portions of a 25'x30' accessory structure and drive shall encroach the floodplain \shere no such encroachment is allowed and a conditional use permit per Section 10.56, Subdivision 13 for the retaining wall at the shoreline of the lake and a conditional use permit per Section 10.55, Subdivision 10 (B) that would allow the filling of approximately 14.8 cubic yards within the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2074. 2.fhe property is located in the LR-1 C Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre of 21,780 s.f. in area. The property consists of 13,090 s.f. or .3 acres. Page 1 of 5 LL 3. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16, 1995 and recommended unanimous approval of the variances and conditional use permits as proposed and recommended appro\ al of the comprehensive application based on the following unique findings and hardships: a. b. c. e, The eastern shoreline of West Arm is severely impacted by ice mo\ ement in the early spring. The bank at a 1:1 slope is unable to retain ground cover and is subject to severe erosion. The 2' treated timber retaining wall will pro\ ide a temporary solution to the erosion and will not address the issue of ice pressures on the shoreline bank. The installation of riprap would result in the loss of the natural sand beach along the shoreline. There is n sufficient depth between the shoreline and the lakeside of the residence to allow- for the alteration of the baitk to a 3:1 slope. The majority of applicants' hVeshorc yard would be lost w ith the alterations. Applicants shall provide a matching excavation below the 931.5 elevation to olfset 14.8 cubic yards of filling w ithin the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. f I he accessory structure will meet all required setbacks. g.fhe proposal will not result in an excess of structural coverage. Structural coverag e will be maintained at 14.6% where 15% is allowed. h.The majority of hardcover w ithin the 0-75' setback area at 907 s.t. is the residence structure and access stairs at 855 s.f or 22.8%. 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 lUher danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a Pace 2 of 5 5. 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. ITie City Council finds that granting a conditional use pennit to allow the installation of a 2' retaining w all at the shoreline and the filling of approximately 14.8 cubic yards of fill within the floodplain will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property w ill be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Citv. CONCLl SIGNS, ORDER AM) CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the abo\ e findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.55, Subdivision 8 and a conditional use permit per Section 10.55, Subdivision 10 (B), and Section 10.56. Subdivision 13, subject to the following conditions: 1.Silt fencing shall be installed along the shoreline during the period of installing the timber wall until all disturbed ground area is restored with natural ground cover. Suitable plantings to be installed adjacent to or at top of wall to minimize visual impact from public waters. ITie wall shall be constructed of treated wood. 3.fhe building pennit for the garage cannot be issued until the drainage tile is installed at the property to the immediate north located at 1685 Concordia Street. Tlie City Engineer shall approve the final grading and drainage plans for the encroachment of the lloodplain to reconfirm for City that the Hooding of accessory structures located at 1685 and applicants' propeny will not be flooded as a result of the proposed impro\ement. Faue 3 of 5 It r 4. 5. Applicants are further advised that the City shall not address future plans for the reconstruction of a residence on the property as Application No. 2074 will have no impact on a future residence structure being located on the property meeting all required setbacks as set forth in the current municipal code. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building pemiit \n ithin one year of the date of Council's approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (November 13,1996). 6.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. 7.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13 th day of November, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, .Tr., Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13ih day of November, 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. 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. Notary Public STA I E OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUN l Y OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Pace 5 of 5 »N i *f • CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION^^* •L fe ■' . ■» ;/E>4 /3 Initial Application Fee S200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $1(X).(X) (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures Sz.00.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) w •J i m X<m • — PROPERTY INFORMATION ^Site rc.m.ePll\ e>ig£gi Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) \JI\^2-pZZOCZ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required s Date Progepv . I (do)^go no^also own th^djacent pa Present use of property:residential Zoning District: (month/year) >oTTrAMT ,Phone (home) mi Q^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name__ Address:_City: Phonahome) Phone (work)_ Zip:, ------------------------------------- 3^/DESCRIPTION OF REQLTST Estimated Construction Cost $-----« Describe request in detail:____SgC.--------------—---------------— (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore _ Other (specify) hardship /description of unx 'SU al property conditions Describe undue hardship or practical d=Ticulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requireme .:----------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 m /. A , y A . j .*• ’0- * 1. 2. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS An .r ,H. fnll^n. inf.,^«inn must b« suhmittf^l ^v tM Wpli<;i^«i°n jfadlint date jg wto for vour aDpHcation to considfred <;onipl^t,61 — List of owners within 150 ’ (you must oburn ^s list from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603. Govt Center. 348-32 1).-ss'"r£4 “<ss'»Tt;s. ^ ~ ~ ----calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 A X 11 ?o^t^c survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade -^'^^^.Tlddition. provide one (1) copy S-A* x Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 ' | )• — Ust of flie legal names (include manul sums) of all persons with an mteresi m the ----oropeny This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not cutient ownet(s). L L^dendum to this application, please aiuch a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The AonUcant and Property Owner must sign this application. Plea.se remember that yom enmnlete if the above information has .not been indudeiL TS terebv^«r^*ro provide all information required or requested by the Zomng information supplied is true and correct to the tast of tosflier knowledge. j /f. J n A. II 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Applicant’s Signature S^ner^errty teto^edges and agrees to this application and further onto the property by City suff. consulunts. agents Commission members, and Council Sbers for purposes of investigation and venfication of this request. y Date uaie___________Owner’s Signature--------------------------------------------------------------------------- rsr Tsr; io—c te^mg^rt'drt^: s ^ ^ this change prior to the meeting. 8 J to U) V.J “»..< - - u s i Si 1 **1 1 o.'J *\ • lifi MTS 08/2^fSiATOf IIIOMER mmTAXPAYfR mm/Aom 'J mOR AOOR CMNER mm TAXPAYER . mm/AOM ' I . PROP AOOR OHNER mm TAXPAYERmm/AooR k * p»np AOOR OMNCR NA»C TAXPA/CR NAME/AOOR I < PROP AOOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR ASS 17-117-ES EE 0007OS9E1NORTH SHORE ORILAP CHRISTINELYNN R CHRISTINE SnS NORTH SHORE OR MOUND MN 553AA Se 17-117-E5 EE 0017 01741 CONCORDIA ST MARGARET L ANTOINE DAVID A MARGARET HOLSTE 1741 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA m 5SS91 SO 17-117-25 22 0020 017ES CONCORDIA ST CHARLES H OLSON CHARLES. M OLSON 1725 CONCORDIA ST S NAYZATA m 5S391 5« 17-117-23 22 0023 01495 CONCORDIA ST 0 J A 0 R BELAHSKI DONALD JOHN BELAHSKI 3819 COLORADO AVE N CRYSTAL SS422 38 17-117-23 22 0030 01740 CONCORDIA ST 0 J BELAHSKI ADC BELAHSKI DAVID J A DAYNA C BELAHSKI 1740 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA Itl 55391 HEf«EPIM COUNTV PROPERTY IIRORNATiaN SYSTEMPROPERTY OmERS UST38 17-117-23 22 000903995NORTH SHOtt DRH RICHARD ZUCKMANH RICHAM) ZUCKMAN 1819 DUPONT AVE S MPLS MN 55403 30 17-117-23 22 OOIS 01755 CONCORDIA ST GERALD H RLECKNER GERALD N KLECKNER 1755 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0021 01705 CONCORDIA ST JANET JACOBSON SACHS JANET SACHS 7545 17TH AV SO RICHFIELD MN 55423 38 • 17-117-23 22 0024 01487 COrCOROIA ST G E A N BEM4ETT TRUSHES GLEN E BENNETT 1687 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA HN 55391 58 17-117-23 22 0031 01695 CONCORDIA ST P HERNOON/K ORTMEIER-HERNDON PAUL L HERt400N 9337 HESTBURY HOODS DR f€ CHARLOTTE NC 28277 REPORT NO.PAGE P143S4013158 17-117-23 22 001301645SNADYNOOD RORALPH HARVEY ETALRALPH HARVEY 1445 SNADYNOOD RD NAYZATA rtl 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0019 01745 CONCORDIA ST JAMES T NYSTRON JAMES T NYSTRON 1745 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA N4 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0022 01685 CONCORDIA ST T L PALM A M A PALM THOMAS L PALM 1685 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0028 01750 CONCORDIA ST PAUL J BOZONIE PAUL J BOZONIE r 35 EAGERNESS POINT RD wiiONO EM 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0032 01680 CONCORDIA ST LAD SE80K LINDA D SEBOK 1680 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA EM 55391 .•'u•V J•f2.1 *? 1 ^ ■«r - k I .■ I I . % k ••1 »i ‘ t *’ ■ 'k-'i" < • ^ .-4 ; A PROP ADOR CPt€R NAm TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 38 17-117-23 22 00^0 01635 COfCOROlA ST HOmRD R ALTON III HOHARD R ALTON III 1635 CONCORDIA ST ORONO MN 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0043 01675 CONCORDIA ST HELEN K TRAINOR HELEN K TRAINOR 1675 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 513 00017 t-v,,;s r / *• # 6*^ .♦f I - - , AR AN AC'"'u� ..... -'r'.,. APP AS P O R U>*»n5fAti # 2 0 ' "i 4 \ ). 1 #1 •1 '« «1 ■■-■ 1 ^ 77^. :;_.....1 .......1,1 . 1 • 1 1 1 -■ : 71... : • • • *ju w&mi-■M- ■ -mm'V ^•m: '.vO,.v^;.iiilwis^ (..:0 ’^ i »f • .,1 /I6,'X te:’v-:*"'nmmWmmk •.•4 * «'»^ •' • t • —'I# *--«>' ^ ^•*^ » K. '»^ , *, „.*■. VTv,tt ‘.; i',v '■•: <1 k' :U IL L^ L^ ^ 1 |l IlciCL:!:!rjL3:_.inrL;ll !^-.,.41'=-^r ► ^ V.,it-4^ -2 i:^:v:;:>■ r-^* ^1 f "7 I[L«4 tmJ. 4^ UnJI ifc itfc’4 te. *4t ‘4 fL.J Li —• * • k■;;l*1L*1!* " ' ■ ■ ^ *oii-ii 7? VVVH’l*/V/—. * ^. %-» 1 V .r•^.-4 'y■■'*Vx■/•■. /».r vr ‘f*. ■m^ 'i-i -r-■I •■'vSj •• »V '•1 ».•; • l: > .‘ I.V• • V - • k .V.'r pH? ., ■-/■'.4''' •% *i 'I •*’ \ I 'V • V - • k I . , •'a--, •...'«• -.» • % !■ « ^».» ' •4 •^.. ! .* A •» 4. « * f. 4 ( . . ' V ,V V ■ .■•-•■>■ :■ ' . ;'?si r# . I . A 'Wm ■rv:-mmm% t *’ •« ■* I • /. f ,' ■N . .. # i . % , y ‘■w ^, -. ■ $ % i • * 4 • ‘»4 \ 4 • :• ••< .-.y» ,,• >,.T---------k */ . # ' \ ' * .* '.L *\ i 1 ♦'■‘.’\••/ 4'i‘ •>.-■■'vW:?•f •* *» i 1 •i* V» . r i • ««•’ » 1 plilCM ./•r; f> • *• ’ ' / 4 4 aiiss:? < -. t *, ,y A, il»i ■%'■ m-m ^ ■: ■:./su'v-y-ft' ■ •'-s/¥<a^:is mmmwmhy;r.-■VV:K/“^ •■■ -?V., •■■ . W;■'-■■:■,:■:.■■■'■■■■'.■•■■■•■■••.•‘■,;■••': \.. ■■ :-.';."''*--1•!‘. "‘■-•M'; - ^i'.\* !■•:!*-;.s.'* #*j|R’*'''*"''■■- '*■ ■-•.— '■■.*.•,'■*V ><^9E9^9*'■■■'-'‘‘‘■-%'SK----• ' ■■ .-y’■ '■'• ■ •• *'/■''• '‘- -it--'" ■ 't’v...■• '*< rI •/ I »; 'I ' • 1 . .'V.- ..'• -; r'4 ’•* l’ .. . < ' i i,• * . .‘#v'* . '•t : .r . ' •;. t».jm/ • • • • . ,• • • • ✓ • • f I»• . . . * . / '••,•** ‘ 1 . . I r i;I i . « . -i ..:.i •» ■ t'yMiiV ;r’rvt- .■ i^y'- vfKr- •: --y.mm::y wm■^K&ssi^iiylgJ-^1 «r 4»,' I• • -w .* -'i. .Vj mSSiS^mm:fc.-, :i^.':lillm-< •; ■ /4:;;'-.-*v'-,r<.;.?'♦».» v' .fc. «> rA--vVy*.' V '■‘■•■'.;*' mrcyyy Sit b i:; / V - . : rV/< Jr 8,••■./n.%>J',/^;,’,,*. V ' * *> ‘r* ^ »■••■•• . i' 6r^/d/ ■’yyyyyy •;yy'-y y^y *"1 V I i fV;Vt-,Vi;i ;',.X >v:i^ ^<T#. > ■'. # ^ V * ,*4’»•1 . ♦ ^ r. <,■ •.'*.V ■■.f» iT*.< 4^-« >t •t* *■ «...ft • • W .A •.►. ♦ 1 I ^ ./, •» 4 • « .» ...M •V ■’»,•%•*••.», 4.. » .• ^. . . » . Z • 4 • - •» • ..♦.4 -i • 't A • ;• :v^i r ^ J 41 *. A. ,.‘ '»_«/• 4 4 . «• .* V- 4 piS '' /!\iHii:':t'‘-i>1 I:*-; S-' i' b-it ^''.-'■♦■■■"■ '■■■••■:■••:-'.V "..'■ -v •: ‘.‘ rt-.V;; -’>■■ ii«i» I* •* I ; • I i* V.M v {::’ •-*»._ -» . * • ' r • •> » 4 ,* \ •-/’.U ■'-’'^=;- ■*■.V'-'-:-. « » . /:. ■ •••4 ..... ‘ I i»*»*. i» !%V.^V ' • I ' ».. «..»•• * • « • • . - !.< 4 • ^V • • • V ,« HI y^* ^*iiM. * ’• ' ’ •'*«•>. .\ • ^ •* V /r T. »».. * • , ■# •/. f ... . V •• •.I I \»»-• » • ». **\‘ • >:*'.• ’». .,r ..' ; .- V '• ;■'■*,. * ‘T •I .f »» ^^ • 4 • k • i7. 4* f ,• S ' • ;, • I ••f ••,^i. ♦ # ♦ ■ ■■" • :-'*A‘’.'-■•.'•; . ••: • . ‘l> lT;.V ,*.' •.• vi-'/ •' ■V ‘ S' ' •*' M i* .' V‘.‘ VVV^^Pr'.. V ..' , v.i'i'. •!■... '''•■• •.’>. » » ' I. ■ •I '■'■■■yryy-y'mmmm:ymyy\yy::yyy»y-yr mmimW""Mmym mm •'»»■ •*!«; j V :.w ;/:-V: >. # /*”'. -a'* 'r *m . « .''• V;i i ;; ,vjs .4^' i* ^>t ■%‘ iMt' j'rt'l I n JU4 * ■■ ^S'''' .*^fs. -K ■■/•■',■■•'— ifj I • M » p-*£« IP ^ll yimfyy :yrj-r:-‘-yyy,yi-:- mmm /■♦ 'V^* '■'V ” "' ' ♦■'■\ -■ L < b.;- ,.>:.:;!j^'.'■/■.•'■•■'\-y:y.i.'*>■■:-v.'^ -'V••..................■-■*■•■'•■'•'•■-''■■■■■■;•: il’^V ^It ;X-. ..'i: 'sife,;.' . - •>%•;•...•■. ■ ■ yy/^^y-y '^W^yyymy wm^^Mmrn: !\V J I 'if v: .• .VM: ...__________ ..--vy:'..:::; y.rx'y;;::y y’^yy::fy:y,ym:- ^ y¥--^yy:'^bbiy''''■''' -' * %■'- ■ '.'a yy-^ hr ' ■. J ■•'' y ^i;‘‘ i?.:i yy'r-y^yy'^i'h.y^ry:-' :\ rry^ry ryrryyy^ry^iy-^r ,'^sjjv I Jtj^v ^ m-. ■ ■■■ . '. f ''■.■’ ■> ' ■ ■ , '--^:.c;--. :;.*v,.'.. :'„ • • -■. -'v.' .-.: / ■ :. v-;" ■•vvv •:'.--v;1'^\;,^.,\7^^':j.:.7::.:;.v::^ ■ ■, ••■■■■•4 ’r-^v y .: • :V.^. ■ •;v : ' rii.■ '®a’; ' r"rMV0ir rr yy.-ihiy •ibb4#’-’'y'b4:6 ' •a-bva^::■' ■■ •■■'■'■■ ■-. M\ ■ : -“''',' .'•• , .. iiv-: rm-. ''‘y:\--M. -V ,. .^.. ♦;.% »• .V ..J •• ■ V--.,.’; ••■: •: .:•: • '■.! ■•..■: ■..- J - my 5 ‘’v^ ’-: - '.V • ■'■' ' ' 'isitesctiaHifc:-.' mwwm-:s««''. a:S; yyppiiW , -,. ...-,-,.r ;■•■■•'■,•-••• hyyyr.mrr-* y ■ • '■i" •' ■' V'.<-msky-'rw ■::. r;mmm'yyy^mmy&Mmm^;i■ »i mmm ntm- m:y. h :-.v. mmmy■ i-rprc 'na ’.vv , o . W’.- ’ ■-/'V ■**.. m mryyyfi. . : ■>:.,!■ ^ r/y-ry’-^*--^ yyyryu mi /■■■■/% ,^' .v%. :• *^'p.-ryy ' V.7 «ayys,::y.b ■■•;. V ■-' ryyyyyyr :'. - 7 a:: :mmwmy :77;::77‘:a-:7afafg;,:a:77| '7V‘a -.-a :! >:■:.■->•v--'mryymv,' %rr^rMm mm Bm fe57vi.>: IE- a.;- ^aa*7. iib' yms-r.::;:u.:rrrry--:mmm-- ■■7>-:-- . .aa-. -'^7. VT-. ■'■p"'■*■ ,.^..-.,-4,;,.-•.•••• •. ... •.•.. r-.- y"V-,:aV;a^ • ■ :7a^bV-avvvv&tryryr:',., '>^yy i,y>7myrn-xM, 4a;:a;v. ; ,.4 a. ^7-,>:::;;;.,. ^a-' ' a ’a/...;,;.a.-, ■ -. 77:7;v.^a7'b77:a4. yym X-ry-rW ■■yjy^y-yy . mmxmcmmmmmBmm"^7a':7.'v v;>a^,:a'':''^-iaa/s^^Mrimry^my'‘X.yyM^Ar ■ life’iya-yaa.SXa-ta'^^ y'liiii !i!a 7™*:?; 3.^fc.'..,., &;^.:7’:. &;77V;.7'7 ; ,y ' ‘ w^ ’ ' '.m . l‘;' - ‘ '■‘'m ■ ■■■■■■ ■'! *•-"' ;■ ■*y y-XilUtii ■ :4..-.. a;aaaa7aaa7i^^^Mp,. .,: !^taa7:aa7a,;a'.730'aa777 .7 r^smmm ■ ■ •■"aa 7 7.a.u.a.r,^i.>;-.,.V ‘;y.^-:‘\. 7 aa^yv: >7;, a7V-ag1>ya^iSfe^3:T777:7iy rb: a7aaa:a5^^a7aa77.:,,:3,v7a.aa7^ yyy\y,:..-,:;>y::V.. yy^r'- 'yy-y-. :'#-aa-.:;iyrmirsr, yyry% :,r y ■ aya -y: aayya;a7?apa:;. . yyr- :■■ '-. 7 7a : 7:,-a*.y myyysmmrnmyy •:.: ii::fi-3,.*yay,y.-:.i . ' :.y^:im^-f:yyy .yyyrmrtyyy:: m'^^y^rnhy • I /I'.• I ( ., ... -. - .,. ,. . .... .., ' - .J \ ... , .,. ' . I I ) \ ,, -,, ' \ \ • I , . • • . r ... • \ • • ' ' I \ I 0 • I ) \ . . 0- ,, r \ \ ) \ \ � �•!' \... ' \ \ \ \ , ... .. .,. .,. • 'r ,P 5 \ \ ... I ' ) • \ ., /,. \ \ \ \ Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects October 9, 1995 me IS an Affirmmwft ActiorvCquil Qp^ormmty £fnp4oyer oo»ati .PM, PM,* Jmamh C Antfenut P E Manna L SoorM iichard t Tumar. f E GMnii E CooE Thamw C Ndy«. ^ E- ■<Mmt a Scmmichi. SMsan M Ebertm. CPA • ’ Samar Coasuitam HMMrd A. SawPmE PE KeiCi A. Omrmtu PE f arrt E Pfaffanc. P E tlciwaw PMar.PE Dawd O taskacA P C toaert C tyaiaE a i a jarry A >ei iraan> P £ (Mara A. Hanaon. P E Wichaai T ffautmam P E Ttd K. Ptmd. P E Thoffias t Anaarsan. A i A Jamai • tosanmarnai. PE OanaM C. Eurgarai. P E ThOifiat A Syfko. P E Pradaric J Stenaarg. P E. isfiiaai Martinat. PE (UNchaa* P Pau. P fi. TAomas W Patarson. P E Micnaai C Lynch. P £ Jamas P Malar^ PE Jerry O. PartxscfX P E Scott J Arganak. PE Pemmh P Anaarton. P E. Mart P PoiPt. P £ Mart A Sa<a- ^ E Gary W Monan. P E Paul J Gannors. AJA. Oamal J Etfgarton. P E A Pkt Schimdl. •£ Oaia A Grove. PE Phiue J CaswaM. PE iMart O JPaiNt. PE Miiai t Jansen. PE L PniHip Gr aval P £ Karen L \inemen, P E. Gary O Knstohta. PE ■nan E Gaga. PE P Todtf Potter P E Keith p. Yapp. PE Oocgiai J. tanoic. P E Shawn O Gustafson. PE. CtcMo ONviar PE Kent X Wagrsar. P E. Paul a Hauer. PE John P Gorder. P £ Oan O toyum. P S. •ff-ey J Ehiermga r. PE Joseph R Rhein. PE Lea M Mann. PE Chanas A Erktson Leo M. Pawetsty Hanan M Oison Agnes M Rtrsg J«Ttasf EngaiharA Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Ciystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Gehring Shoreline File No. 139-2074 Dear Jeanne. We have reviewed the proposed shoreline grading and retaining wall at 1687 Concordia Street on the property owned by John N. and Kristin R. Gehring. The applicant proposes to grade the shoreline to flatter slopes and install a hvo foot tall timber retaining wall. 1 he plan is acceptable from an engineering standpoint and we would recommend approval. We offer the following comments: Silt fence should be installed along the shoreline prior to grading. The timber wall should be treated wood. Although this tvpe of wall is acceptable, it should no! be considered permanent and will need to he replaced in the future. Ice mo\emcnt may damage the wall in any given year. We encourage the planting of vegetation along the shoreline. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours verv truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 T 0 s -o hardcover CALClJlATIQtiWORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0*75’75-Z50’25-500’ EXISTING HA PP^QV™ P* zone A.House_____________ Lesfib __________X X X WiM 7JL,h \ Bj V « Gange i^A 'C. Driveway 7''’•7 '.D D.Sidewalk ion a. • ^ •-s, n>,. ^ - \ p. Landscape \y Underlain '••-J ’' t.By Plastic X X X X X X X X X i4 i4 ' 'Other ^ i TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 2JZ.4 -B - l^yj^fPOPOSEP HARDCOVER IN ZOi^ ^ Lenffb ________ B.Garage C.Driveway D.Sidewalk E..Eaiio^©«cfc F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic 3Q ID. n X X X X X X X X X G.Other total hardcover in zone total property area in zone A ZUr?Z- -B . Wkidi 1Z.3 Z2\o m m S‘74?? a 100 X 100 = 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. S.F. ^l^4 _S.F. S.F. z4. z.4~~ % S.F. 350 S.F. S.F. S.F. •7^0 S.F. 540 1^0 33 zz^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2-1 (^2^ S.F. S.F.Wh* # A B A B hardcover calculation WORKSmCT SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ ff^ynroVER IN ZONE A.House ____________ Leostb t. i.Cange C. ' Driveway D.Sidewalk E.Patio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic G.Other X X X X X % X X X X X X total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B . hardcover IN ZONE .jeogtti B.Garage C.Driveway X X [V D.Sidc'' *^. E.Paiis^/Dcck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X G.Other 75-250 ’500-1000* Widdi 1 \6U> UCO X100 Width 10 to 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. l^nn S.F. 'Zi^.O ^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total prop ^t^ area in ZON E ^ I ^X 100 VLO S.F. <oCO ~~S.F. mo ~ % A B A B A __ IlfH ms ,>r>, pr>.| '7 ^. ^9 M i ./ ! j t no' V \ J'. •3oi ^o\ t>.\»_ ;m;I fs 5»tPJ / / // f i i / A »/v l>»b . 7 N f-'tr •to : ‘ ' .*.'. '* •• *x‘ •** ««' ••• : % !: ••••.' •• » . • .* **/■ •% », % »\.' *. j. •*. I ’'■** •f•- » s k « . ,••"■ ■*« « : *• • I • .. 0 .I F . I ·--) I ·i /•. , .· � o 0 X Q. 93 v\o<i£' ■ \ V tS" iiiK-miX- ■'.p 10 N -/ »e •7 .» •^ t i*. 4> * V *• I ' * . / ‘* •I \ *' I* •; ‘4 '•■ .V hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) fYISTING hardcover IN ZONE 5Q0-K A.House Ltoftk c t-. B.Cange C' Driveway D.Sidewalk E.Patio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X WIdA ZLi B.(g 2Xj> X X X X X X X X X 2-_____ G.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ ^^f^WoPOSED ^ A.House _____________ Length 30___ B X 100 X X X Widib 30 B.Garage C.Driveway D.Sidewalk E.Paiio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X G.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PR0P|R^ area ln zone ^ 3-^4-^ ^ IT3 /3 ^07 900 /3 9/3 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. J7*^7 S.F. 2k-. l\ _% 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. 37^7 S.F. 24.37 % 0 A B A B !1 3 rf'i hardcover calculati on worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ ETISTING HARDCOVER IN ^QN£ A.House_____________ Lcngei 14.^X X X B.Garage C.Driveway IDT X X iD. Sidewalk X X ^tctmnc\ Caiie^BecK X X / CJ ,F.Landscape " • »» ^Underlain T ^By Plasuc G.Other X X X A.House Length 1*0 X X X B.Garage C.Driveway 30 'ZO_X X D.Sidewalk X X iCemrvcl E.Eaue/0€Ck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G.Other X 25-500* widei 2Z.h 103 l4 i4 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROregT AR£A IN ZONE ^ Widdi 3o_ Zb Z1 10 7 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE X 100 = TOTAL PROPE^AREA IN ZONE ^^ A _— SOO-K S.F. 350 S.F. IV S.F. S S.F. \un S.F. I4‘^&S.F. *S.F. 45 S.F. *S.F. S4 S.F. *S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 24 z4-S.F. ^1^6 S.F. =Z^,ZJ^% S.F. s.F. S.F. S.F. n£0 S.F. Cl- S.F. S.F. 35 S.F. S.F. 51 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^333_s.f vj>.\o % 0- A B A R ^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ FXISTINO HARDCOVER IN^ hardcover calculation WORKSmET 75-250’/ 25-500*500-11 A.Hotise 1 1 I .-• I Lcogdi Width X X X B/ Cange C.Driveway » 0.Sidewalk E.Paiio/Deck {V ^ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G.Other X X % X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER^ AREA IN ZONE ^(^cQ , joo hardcover in zone Lengltl Width B.Garage C.Driveway D.Sidewalk E.Palio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic 7,X X X X X X X X X ID G.Other total H.MU5COVER IN ZONE total property area in zone ^ |5(p L?OQ 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. ■7JU?.0 % \ZO 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. m__X 100 0 , *» A B A B ---... ·-·--· .. - s00-1000• 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. ACoop S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2..0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B ?_.D.O % • ..J uJ uJ ff> uJ _J ct � en uJ C) <{ z <( er:: 0 ------:: - ""' c,, _, �· I I CONCORDIA s. --so. ro BE RE.MOYI / I / -+-- ' ·O -- a, �o� <t �" � "'«> (fl-u. "· 0' I ·"o.w : �irl ! �-,., (11 (1l I' ' ,'"\ " \� )' - ,�t: I • ' :! tJ•'c � t Ov, lD UJ - cf)•I-.. I L-OLLJ ...J _J u.. ct 03 I ti (/) Id UJ lJ.. C!} � gcr oZ lfl -•::x: er3t-o = 0:: oo cJ z -� UJ0 ::J: 0 I-(1l � u. uJ z-_J 0 lf) •... D Ell.ING '111 6 9 �'. - Permit Aopjication No. 9S»235 November 2, 1995 Applicant: Location: Purpose: John and Kristin Gehring 1687 Concordia St. Wayzata, MN 55391 City of Orono, T117N, R23W, Section 17 Floodplain alteration involving the filling of approximately 14.8 cubic yards for the construction of a residential garage. Annlicable Rules: Rule C - Floodplain Alteration Exhibits Reviewed: 1.Permit application 95-235 received October 18, 1995. 2.Project summary received October 18, 1995. 3.Site survey received October 18, 1995. 4.Floodplain mitigation calculations received November 1, 1995. Staff Review and Summary; The project involves the filling of approximately 14.8 cubic yar between the elevations of 929.4 and 93 1.5 feet adjacent to Lake Minnetonka. The site is locate- .rithin Subwatershed Planning Unit U-10 LM-38 The purpose of the proposed floodplain alteration is for the construction o a garage and a proposed driveway. The total drainage area for the site is less than three acres and there are less than four living units on site, therefore a stormwater management plan is not required. Compensatory floodplain storage will be provided along the north boundary of the property. Recommendations: Approval as submitted. Project Review Status hv Other Govemmen fnl Units: The project has received plaraiing commission approval from the City of Orono. 6 W96 / 0(1 I' ., / IJ , ' .. Ho\j , -//'/cZ »fp) jl'l Howard R. Alton, HI I63S Concordia St Wayzata, MN 55391 CfTV Of •i NOV 8 1995 November 6,1995 Council Members City of Orono do Jeanne Mabusth P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Conditional Use PermitA/^ariance # 2075 Dear Council Members, I simply misunderstood the full process in obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. Having paid the required fees, provided the necessary documentation and obtained a unanimous approval of the application from the Planning Commission and DNR1 understood I could proceed with the needed work. I was surprised to !eam the process was not yet complete. The written materials provided me are somewhat unclear. However, the mistake is entirely mine for which 1 apologize. Sincerely, Howard R. Alton, III HWRinicv i i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE ITEM NO ^c/i MfEniVG i 3 1995 [ 9— Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zonins: Item Description: #2075 Howard Alton. Ill, 1635 Concordia Street - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC Total lot area ‘ icres *» Pertinent Ordinances , • j • u- -jc 1.Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (J-2) - Grading, filling and excavating is prohibited within 75 ot the Ordinar>' I ligh Water Level of Lake Minnetonka designated at the 929.4 elevation. 2.Section 10.56. Subd. 13 (A&B) - Evaluation criteria and conditions of approval tor conditional use permit. Brief Review of Application Applicant proposes the removal of approximately 34 cubic yards of soi'. from a 4' hish lakeshore bank for a distance of approximately 90' along the shoreline. The existing 1 :1 bank will be altered to a 3:1 slope and restored with grass consistent with the remainder oi the shoreline. Tlie 1:1 banks consist of sand along the shoreline and there are visible signs of severe erosion into the lake. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the application as proposed, finding a permanent solution to the impact of pressure of ice movement in early spnng. Unlortunately, the applicant did not understand the process of the land use application review and proceeded to make the necessary repairs without receiving Council’s approval. ITe Inspection staff found the bank completely a ered to the 3:1 slope and rather than stopping the operation, allowed the applicant to install the oroundcover. Staff has advised the applicant of the \ iolation. He is now aware ot the process an he has also been advised that his contractor or he will pay a penalty tee at the time oi the application for the land alteration permit at the City ottices. The enclos'd aoproval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the resolution and also includes the need for applicant to pay the penalty fee for staff issued land alteration permit. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution. Isv A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (J-2) ■> PER MUNICIPAL^^^SUBDIVISION 13 (A&B) FILE NO. 2075 WHEREAS, Howard R. Alton, III (hereinaaer and the propem- locked m 1635 Concordia Street tvithtn the Cty ol Orono (here.n legally described as tollows; refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter the ■’property"); and where no land alterations are permitted. Minnesota: 1. 1 NOW, therefore , be it resolved by the City Councii of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2075. • 1 A ■ fia,x I R ir Sincle Familv Lakeshore Residential irnrScrre'“tr« rM^t"ln"::^e::. The property cons,Sts of four ncrcs following unique findings and hardships: The proposed land alteration will reduce the potential of erosion of the lakeshore bank. a. Page 1 of 5 ;rmit eline rono. lential f four , 1995 >n the 4. c. e. The 90 lineal feet of shoreline bank is at a 1:1 slope and will be constructed at a 3:1 slope. The 3:1 slope wtll allow the restoratton ot grass groundcover. The propeity is located on the eastern shoreline of West Ann and subject to the impact of ice movement in the early spring. Both the City Engineer and the DNR have approved the proposed alteration of the b^ finding the improvement will be a permanent solution of the erosion of the bank and intense impact ot ice movement on this shoreline. Land alterations will not impact the views from the public waters. f The proposed land alteration will prevent the further erosion ot the shoreli ne into the lake. The Citv 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 properties, would not merely serv'e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessar> to a eviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial propertv right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Citv Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the proposed land alterations within the lakeshore protected area will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare ot the public, would not adverselv affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to "‘^'S^onng nropertv nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code md Comprehensive Plan of the City. of the Page 2 of 5 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS upon one o. .o. C -" d^a ■• l.Erosion control shall remain in place until natural groundcover is restored within the disturbed area. 2.Banks are to be installed at a minimum 3.1 slope. 3.Applicant or aPP>‘“"''5 apVoved"i*d areradonrcmnpl'etedirs=ur..»"—■ - -> ■— permit lee at $150.00 ($75.00 initial. $75.00 penalty lee). 4.Authonties granted by tWs resolution r^ propeny the ow«n but are th da« approval, or the i‘::i:r:o:ror:. 'h.s'’Tesolut,on w,U expire on that date (Xovember 20. 1995). I- , -.nv nf the terms and conditions ot this ’9 =: vxx" XiX “i misdemeanor. b,m.undersigned applicant has read ".-^IrttL^ " r r““lu“ ch.» or .. C- .e property. Pace 3 of 5 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of November, 1995 ATTEST: Dorotl;^ M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mavor Property Ov\Tier(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of November. 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. Notarv Public Page 4 of 5 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 forego ng instrument, and acknov^ledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) tree act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this dav of .199 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared---------------------------------------^----------------- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who e.xecuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledeed that he (they) e.xecuted the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notarv Public Pace 5 of 5 \ LEGAL DESCR 1 PTI'^N : That part C't Gcvernr;ent Lot 1, Section 17, described as beyinnincj at ch.e ii'.tersecticn the north 148.S feet of said Gcvornment Lot parallel wit*i ,.:id 777.3S f a. '!'ov.nship 117, Ranye 23, of Che south line of 2 and a line dra*.vn oet west, !noasurod at riyth anyles, from the west line of "Shady Wcod"; rhor.ce soutiicrly iilt>ny said par allel lino 230.61 feet to the south line of the north *420.50 feet of said Goverrur.ent Lot 2; tl.enco west alony the soutli line of ti'.e nortli -428.50 feet of said Goverr.ment Lot 2 a distance of 300.65 feet to a point thereon 1077.35 f«ot >/est, fucasured at riyht angles, from t!io west line of "Sliady '.•.’oGd"; tiic-nce nortnwestorly to a point oti the south lir.e of the n.ort.h 363.50 feet of said Government Lot 2, distant 1097.85 foot west, measured at right angles, from the west line of "Shady Wood"; theiice .vest along tlic south line of the north 568.50 Loot of said Govern:r.onC !.ot 2 to the shore of Lake .Minnetonka; thence northwesterly along said shore to it.s intersection with the soutli^line of the norm 1-48.50 feet oi: s.ii*J '.L.'V-.-: nmonC Lot 2; thenco e ist along the last, :;u.*ntiwiivje s«juUii line to the point of beginning. i !'• I ^ 11 t ‘ »J« s*. r I :.»• * I ,j s f t • I j i L.J t I, ; • .%T r 1 J j - . I 1 !!• : •T :‘OW!:S\ 1 p 1 22, i ‘•I i.ti 1 :;e north i ; nv ot said Go*.'.•rnm>-nf .vi r,*r !;v .Mean.:- r Gorn*..*r c>n s ii i ncu t.h t.’ieni't.- .•,^L■sr..livtig .-.lai.: n-.i'tt. 1;;k- 47 t.ht-nce South at a r icihr angle I4fc.j fi-et;tnirice lasr at a i;ant angle 4' f-eet; tt.once tortr. at a right angle i48. - ti-c-t to t!u.- poir.t of bocinning. II- To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Citv Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:October 10, 1995 Subject:#2075 Ho\\-ard Alton. \U, 1635 Concordia Street - Conditional Use Permit/V'ariance -Public Hearing Application: Applicant seeks approval of a conditional use permit and variance tor the alteration of a 3’-4 ’ high bank located approximately 5-6' trom the shoreline. The purpose of the application is to alleviate erosion of bank and to allow tor the restoration ot grass groundcover. Pertinlnt Ordinances 1.Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J-2) - Grading, tilling and excavating is prohibited within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of Lake Minnetonka designated at the Q29.4 elevation. Section 10.56, Subdivision 13 (A & B) - Evaluation criteria and conditions of approval for conditional use permits. List of Exhibits B C D E F G H Application .Applicant's Addendum Plat Map Property Owners' List Lot Survey Gustafson Report 10/9/9:? Existing Shoreline Elevation Proposed Shoreline Elevation ■y'l'-n / I’ Description of Re<;ucst Applicant proposes the removal of approximately 17 cubic yards of soil trom a 4' high lakeshore bank for a distance of approximately 90' along the shoreline, refer to Exhibit G. The bank is a pressure ridue created over the years by the movement of ice similar to the condition of shoreline to the south on both the Palm (Application #2009) and Gehring (Application #2074, October Auendai properties. Upon your inspections for Applications #2074 and #2075, view^the east shoreline of West .Arm Bay. Note where the slopes of the shoreline are more graduated at 3:1 or 4; I there me no visible signs ot iiny impact ot the ice movement. Zoning File #2075 October 11, 1995 Page 2 Refer to Exhibit F, the City Engineer approved the proposal but notes that if bank is to retain a minimum 3:1 slope, bank would have to be cut back 5-8' and would result in the removal of approximately 34 cubic yards rather than 17. Applicant would then place 8 cubic yards of clean soil to be covered with sod. A silt fence will be installed along the shoreline to prevent further erosion into the lake. Fencing shall remain installed until groundcover is restored over all disturbed areas. Issues for Consideration 1.' Does the proposed land alteration project and the conditions under which it is conducted •^conform to criteria set forth in Section 10.56, Subdivision 13 (A)? 2.Will the installation of a grass groundcover address the concerns of the view from the public waters? J.Review Section 10.56. Subdivision 13 (B) - conditions attached to a conditional use permit. Planning Commission should determine which of these conditions are appropriate for the Alton conditional use permit application. Note no structures nor the removal of trees are proposed. The baitks have no grass cover and consists of exposed soil and sand. The Engineer's report encourages the planting of vegetation along the shoreline. Will additional plantings in addition to the grass cover be required of this applicant? Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit and variance application of Howard R. Alton. Ill for the propertv- located at 1635 Concordia Street that would allow the removal of 34 cubic yards of soil from a 4' high bank for a distance of <^0' parallel to shore and the placement of appm.ximately 8 cubic vards of cle^ fill to allow for the restoration of natural groundcover finding all pertinent evaluation criteria of Section 10.56, Subdivision 13 (A) have been satisfied. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Erosion control shall remain in place until natural groundcover is restored within disturbed area. 2.Banks arc to be installed at a minimum 3:1 slope. 3.It shall be the responsibility of the applicant and owner to contact the City offices to arrange for an inspection by the City Engineer of the finished grades before groundcover is installed. 4.Will additional plantings be required along the disturbed section of the shoreline? f-. cmr OF ORONO - general l.and use ap 4f^O D PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address _______1635 Concordia Street Type of Application to be Filed Conditional h *^p Permit Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 17-117-23-220040^ .APPLICANT Name Hn»«t;^rd R . A1 ton . Ill Address 1635 Concoroia Street Phone rhome) d7i-snp.0 Phone (work) ^an-Q6'j6 Citv Wayzata________Zip 55391 OWiSER (if different than applicant) Name __________ Phone (liome) Phone (work) Address Citv'Zip Aucust 1994DwePropert>-Acquired__________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application 5125.00 Residential Accessory Use 5200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 5175.00 Guest House/Guest .Apanments 5150.00 Duple.x CrediuBldg 'S250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land .Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more X Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule ~ SlOO.OO Renewal Fee (no change from original application) --------After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/'year) OTHER .U’PLICATIONS , , $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant tees) ^ $250.00 Vacation ' $175.00 Easement Vacation ” $ "^5.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ■--------$300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment SlOO.OO .Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District______________ Present Use of Property Residential x Other (specify) 1. 2. 3. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ____Completed Application Form. ____Describe request in detail. Certified Propert\' Owners List of owners within 350’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - reter to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital satus) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant!s) if not current owner(s). ____ Construction plan, if applicable (see statf tor requirements). ' As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SLTPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENrS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings ot all documents, plans, etc. to e submined.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use .Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:_______________________Date -------------------------------------- 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE u 7 „„ The applicant herebv agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonmg Administrator, agrees to pav additional fees (staff time not covered by origmal tee payment) and/or unusual e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and cemfies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best ot his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s signature Date 7 - /5 ■ f S OWNER’S SIGNATURE . ^ , Ihe owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entrv onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of Lus request. DateOwner’s signature__^ ADDlleant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Comimssion Meetmg. Pla^g ?^mmKs.on Meetings ore held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled Commissi ^ of the Planrung Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, pk^r moke a^angements to have an amhonzed agent attend in your place and advise the Buildmg & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. # .'t. ^ ...^ \i V- ^ % •■’')9/15/95 CITY OF ORONO - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - APPLICATION Owner/Applicant: Howard R. Alton III Site address: 1635 Concordia Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Request Detail: Applicant respectfully requests a Conditional Use Permit be issued for the purpose of grading within 75' of the Lake Minnetonka shoreline. Of the 280 feet of shoreline property that the applicant owns, approximately 120' has a gentle slope to the sand beach which will remain unchanged. The next 90' has a steep drop off of as much as 4' to the beach and the remaining 70' has a gentle slope but is very overgrown. AJiplicant is requesting a permit to grade back the steep drop off to match the slope of the adjoining land grade. This would prevent what is now constant soil and silt errossion into the lake. A more gentle grade would allow for the planting of grass and proper lake shore maintence to prevent the run off from every rain from further eroding the shoreline. At the same time grading of the the overgrown area to the north would clean up a rather unsightly area and prevent errossion by allowing the planting of grass and a lawn to be maintained. The project is designed to eliminate a safety and environmental concern as well as improving the esthetics. An estimated 17 yards of soil will be removed and approximately 8 yards of clean soils brought in to finish off the area and allow for planting. A silt fence will be installed on the shore line to prevent er .‘ossion into the lake while grading. Sod will be immeadiately layed following prepara ion of the sight to finsh the area. .-· .. . ..... : ... • . . -.. 1 . ... . ' i I RUN DATE 09/1S/95 HCMCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY IMFORHATXON SYSTIHPROPERTY OMCRS LIST REPORT NO. P14359QIPAGE 11BATCH 503PROP ADOROMCR NAMETAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 38 17-117-23 22 003501729 EAGERNESS POINT RD0 EVEMIOUSE A J KRIMMELDAVID EVENHOUSE/JILL KRIftlEL1729 EAGERNESS POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 30 17-117-23 22 005701793 EAGERNESS POINT ROJ G HENSON JR A G C CLAROSJOHN A GENEVIEVE C HENSON1795 EAGERNESS POINT RO HAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 22 003903905NORTH SHORE ORHOHARO R ALTON IIIHONARO R ALTON III1935 CONCORDIA ST ORONO MN 55391 PROP ADDR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 38 17-117-23 22 0090 01935 CONCORDIA ST HONARO R ALTON III HOHARO R ALTON III 1935 CONCORDIA ST ORONO m 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0093 01975 CONCORDIA ST HELEN K TRAINOR HELEN K TRAINOR 1675 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA HN 55391 ■u TOTAL BATCH 503 00091 ''■''.'•••it '4 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INTORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENIIEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF ( DATE iliiWf'kY CM % DATE Q9/U/9SBATCH SOSmm ADDS(MCH KAHE TAXPAYER NAMC/AOOR SO 07-117-2S 44 000104005NORTH SHORE DRSUSAN N NALRER SUSAN DIL6ER 4005 N SHME DRIVE HOUND MN 55144 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INTORHATION SYSTEHPROPERTY ONNERS LIST10 07-117-21 44 000404009NORTH SHORE DRM L FLECK AST FLECKHICHAEL L FLECK SUSAN T FLECK 4009 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55164 REPORT NO. PI415401PAGE 910 07-117-21 44 0005D4017NORTH SHORE DRJOHN F THEOBALD ETALJOHN F THEOBALD 4017 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55164 u'J PROP ADOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 10 00-117-21 11 0012 00010 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED G R LANDBER6 AMR LANOBERG GALE R A HARIE R LANDBERG 1545 NAPLE PL HOUND HN 55164 10 00-117-21 11 0011 00018 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED G R LANDBERG AMR LANDBERG GALE R A HARIE R LANDBERG 1545 MAPLE PL MOUND m 55164 18 00-117-21 11 0014 00010 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 6 R LANDBERG AMR LANDBERG GALE R A MARIE R LANDBERG 1545 MAPLE PL MOUND MN 55164 .J PROP ADOR (MCR NAME TAXPAYER NAT^/ADDR 10 00-117-21 11 0015 00010 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 6 R LANDBERG AMR LANOBERG GALE R A MARIE R LANDBERG 1545 MAPLE PL MOUND MN 55164 10 00-117-21 11 0048 01090 NORTH SHORE DR ROGER GRANNING A NIFE ROGER GRAr«4ir4G 1098 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55164 10 08-117-21 11 0049 00010 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D M ENGLUND ETAL COL A MRS 0 M ENGLlt40 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22012 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 10 00-117-21 11 0050 00010 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D M ENGLUr^D ETAL COL A HRS D H ENGLUND 5101 SPRING ROCK COURT FAIRFAX VA 22012 10 00-117-21 13 0067 01950 NORTH SHORE DR AMY L A HEINER AMY L A HEIfiER 1950 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55164 38 08-117-21 11 0051 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGT^EO HEmEPIN FORFEITED LANU CITY OF OROTK) PARK 4/11/79 ST DEED 156754 38 08-117-23 31 0068 01970 NORTH SHORE DR TIMOTHY L ZWART TIMOTHY L ZHART 1970 NORTH SHORE DR MOUt^D MT4 55364 18 00-117-23 31 0054 00018 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HEM4EPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/11/79 ST DEED 156754 18 08-117-21 11 0069 01980 NORTH SHORE DR R H ANDERSON APS ANDERSON RICHARD H A PEGGY S ANDERSON 1980 ^40RTH SHORE OR MOUND MN 55164 1:0 4 1 *S i‘ PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 10 08-117-21 11 0071 01570 NORTH ARM DR GLORIA HAGEN KLINGELAHTUZ COf^T COMP P 0 BOX 09 CHASKA m 55318 38 08-117-21 11 0080 03660 NORTH SHORE OR NAfCY E KRAUSE D H HAt.OLIN JR A N E KRAUSE 3660 NORTH SHORE DR MOUT40 MT4 55364 10 17-117-23 22 0001 01045 NORTH SHORE OR LOREN R FRITZ ETAL LOREN FRITZ 3845 NORTH SHORE DR MOUT4D MN 55364 Q4 % MM MTI 09/U/9S... • 0ATCN SOSONNEO MAHETAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADOR O^R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR Qlt4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR ICNNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INTORMATION SYSTEMPROPERTY ONNERS LISTS6 I7-117-2S 22 0002OSMi NORTH SNORE DRN A A N A DOBRATZNARR A i MARY A DOBRATZ SB45 NORTH SWRE DR HOUND HN 55SAA SB 17-117-25 22 0007 05925 NORTH SHORE DR L A r CHRISTINE LYNN R CHRISTINE 5925 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND MN 5556^ 58 17-117-25 22 0015 01A95 SHAOYHOOO RO RALPH HARVEY ETAL RALPH HARVEY 1645 SHAOYHOOO RD HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 22 0021 01705 CONCORDIA ST JANET JACOBSON SACHS JANET SACHS 7545 17TH AV SO RICHFIELD MN 55425 58 17-117-25 22 0024 01687 COfICORDIA ST G E A H BErt4ETT TRUSTEES GLEN E BENT4ETT 1687 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 22 0051 01695 CONCORDIA ST P HERNDON/K ORTMEIER-HERNDON PAUL L HERNDON 9557 HESTBURY HOODS DR AC CHARLOTTE NC 28277 58 17-117-25 22 000505895 NORTH SHORE ORDALE F BERQUISTDALE BERQUIST 5895 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55564 58 17-117-25 22 0009 05995 NORTH SHORE OR H RICHARD ZUCKMAN H RICHARD ZUCKMAN 1819 DUPONT AVE S MPLS MN 55405 58 17-117-25 22 0019 01745 CONCORDIA ST JAMES T NYSTROM JAMES T NYSTROM 1745 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 22 0022 01685 CONCOROIA ST T L PALM IMA PALM THOMAS L PALM 1685 COrCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 22 0028 01750 CONCOROIA ST PAUL J BOZOrUE PAUL J BOZONIE 1755 EAGERNESS POINT RO OROfK) MN . 55591 58 17-117-25 22 0052 01680 CONCOROIA ST LID SEBOK LINDA 0 SEBOK 1680 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA m 55591 REPWT NO. PI455401PAGE 1058 17-117-25 22 000600058ADDRESS UNASSIGNEDLYNN I FAITH CHRlSTir4ELYNN I FAITH CHRISTINE 5925 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND MN 55564 58 17-117-25 22 0012 01655 SHADYNOOD RD RALPH E HILLER ETAL RALPH E MILLER 1655 SHAOYHOOO RD HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 22 0020 01725 CONCOROIA ST CHARLES H OLSON CHARLES H OLSON 1725 CONCOROIA ST S HAYZATA MN 55591 IQ ^ I ■: 58 17-117-25 22 0025 01695 CONCOROIA ST 0 J I D R BELAHSKI DONALD JOHN BELAHSKI 5819 COLORADO AVE N CRYSTAL MN 55422 ' •i" -'sC\ 58 17-117-25 22 0050 01740 CONCOROIA ST 0 J BELAHSKI I D C BELAHSKI DAVID J I DAYNA C BELAHSKI 1740 CONCOROIA ST HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 22 0054 01755 EAGERNESS POINT RO TONEY J HILLIAMS T0f4EY J HILLIAMS 5719 GEKLER LA APT 44 BOIS ID 85706 o o K} 5 c%.O c k/% ♦* V vTk : 03 -- r- o %> c ^ €Zd! - u; % p CA Em O U y Em ►H H Eti u tfo ><i E>3 % P 73 u) •'V • » ' 0 01 «u Qi 2 <Jj v4 fl -C •r o \J fO Ki a*» N- ca V 11?1 I i $ 1 1■ V d 1tn11 ^OJ 1 C 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Ancterlik & ^1 Associates Engineers & Architects October 9, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Alton Shoreline ^File No. 139-2075 toMfw. Anmnik and Aisoomi. me. n <n Affirmative Act»on,T(^#J Oppom^efy Employer Offo G. Oowe mee f E toOft W tosene P E * Joseph C Ahoe^iiL P E Mervm L SorvM. P £ tichero £ Turner. P £ Gierm R Coo*. P E. Thomas E ^*oyes. P E Rooert G. SchufHcht. P £. Susars M. Cberun. C F.A * •Senior Consultant Mowrg A SanTorO. P i. feim A Gorpon P E. RoOert R FfeTferie P E Richard tP Foster RE David O losaeta. R £ Rooen C. Rutsee, A i.A. ierrv A tourdon. Pi. Mark A Hanson. R E Michael T Rauimarm. R E. Ted R Field. R E Thomas R Andersor^. A IA iamei R Rosenmertei. R E Oonaid C Burgardt. R E Thomas A Syfko. R£ Rredenc J StenDorg. R E isman Marttnei R E Michael R R«u. R E Thomas W Ptttno^. P E Mkheel C. Lynch. R£ James R Maiarsd. P E Jerry O Rermch. R E Scott J Argar^ek. R E kenneth R Anderson. R Mark R Rolfs. R E Mart A. Se»o. R E Gary VP Morien. R E Raul J Ganr>on. A i A Daniel J Edgerton. R.E. A Rict Schmidt. R£ Dale A Grove RE Rhilip J CasneH. Pi. Mark O PaiiiS. RE Miies 8 >ensen. r E L RhiHip Gravel. P E karen l vPiemen. RE Gary D knitofitr, RE .OCX 1.0 ■nan K. Gage. P £. R Todd Roster. R f. Keith R rapp. RE Douglas J BenoiC P E. Shawn O Gustafsoix RI. Ceciiio Olivier. R S. Kent J. Wagner. RE. Rauf G. Heuer. P i Jorsn R Gorder. R E Dan O. ioyum. Pi. Jeffrey J Ehienngef. RE. Joseph R Rhein. Pi. Lee M Mann. R C Charles A Enckion Leo M Raweisky Harlan M Oison Agr>et M Rmg James R Ersgeihardt s •AV f Dear Jeanne. We have reviewed the proposed shoreline grading at 1635 Concordia Street on the property owned by Howard R. Alton 111. The applicant proposes to install silt fence, grade the shoreline to flatter slopes, haul in 8 cubic yards of clean soil and sod the area. The plan is acceptable from an engineering standpoint and we would recommend approval. Wc offer the following comments: We encourage the planting of vegetation along the shoreline. The area should be over-e.xcavated to allow for the 8 cubic yards of clean soil and sod. We estimate that the amount of soil to be removed may be more like 34 cubic yards. This material should be hauled away to an approved dispo.sal area. The flatter slopes will not be affected as much by ice movement. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours verv' trulv, BONES! ROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ui^.i Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. ' 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 •'■“V Wa t» r 929.S 9 I X 9 3 0 4 0 i- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; November 7, 1995 COUNCIL MEEt NOV I 5 CHY OF OFf!? .1 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2079 Rick Perry, 440 Willow Drive South - Variances Application: The application involves a request to attach a 24'x22’ addition to an existing detached garage at a substandard side yard setback and located in front of tlie front line of the principal structure. The existing 24’x22' garage was approved via a setback variance in 1978. The addition to the structure will create an oversized accessory structure requiring a more restrictive setback and building size limits. The Planning Commission denied the application as proposed. Applicant has offered an amendment for Council’s review and consideration. Zoning District: RR-IB. lot area - 27,338.5 s.f. or .62 acres. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03, Subd. 9(C-2) - Variances to allow area for an oversized accessory structure on a property less than 1.99 acres. Allowed = 1,000 s.f. Proposed = 1.077.09 s.f. Variance = 77.09 s.f. or 7.7% Section 10.03, Subd. 9(A-3) • Side setback variance. Required = 30* Existing = 5.2' (1878 variance approved substandard side setback) Proposed = 6.4' Variance ~ 20.6' or 78.6% Section 10.03, Subd. 9(D) - Structure will be located 55' in front of the front line of the principal structure. Code would require that a detached garage be located no closer than the front line of the principal structure and to be located within a side or rear yard. Additional Exhibit M - Perry Letter of 10/31/95 M Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 November 7, 1995 • Zoning File #2079 Brief Review of Application Applicant proposes a 24'x22.3' addition to the west/street side of the existing garap located in front of the front line of the principal structure. As already noted above the existing garage received a side setback variance in 1978 but the issue of the structure being placed in front of front line of the principal structure was never addressed. The addition will now create an oversized accessory structure at 1,077.09 s.f. The property at .63 acres would be allowed a 1,000 s.f. oversized accessory structure. Staff has met with the applicant to review his options for providing additional storage on his property. As already noted in the staff memo of October 10th, the narrow width of the lot prevents access to the rear yard. The rear yard is the only gentle sloped area on the property suitable for septic use. Flatter elevations at the west or street lot line were filled in area and not suitable for septic development. The only area available for accessory storage/garage would be within the 140' in deep street yard. Please review E.xhibit M. applicant has asked Council to consider a revised plan whereby the addition would be reduced so that the structure would not exceed 1,000 s.f If structure is over 750 s.f, the side setback would still be 15’ (750+ s.f to 999 s.f required side setback = 15', 1,000+ s.f side setback required = 30'). Mr. Perry has offered to redesign roof on sloped property to minimize impact of addition at street and south side of property. Applicant proposes planting of evergreen trees along the south and west side of structure to minimize impact. Applicant's letter also suggests that because of his need for additional storage with his mature family, be would be willing to execute any special covenants over the structure if Council would approve the side setback variance. The amended application would no longer require a variance to the allowed area for an oversized accessory structure on die .63 acre parcel. The only variances needed would be side setback and setback that would allow an addition to a structure that is already located in front of the front line of the principal structure. Side setback variance would be amended as follows; For a structure 750+ to 999 s.t. Required = 15' Proposed = 6.4 ’ Variance = 8.6’ or 57.3% (original proposal 23.6 ’ or 78.6%) Options of Action Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 November 7,1995 Zoning File #2079 ________ To adopt the planning Commission recommendation of denial or to approve application as proposed or approve application as amended. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; To provide conceptual direction to the staff so that an appropriate resolution can be prepared for Council's formal action at their November 27, 1995 meeting. To; Trom: Date: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commissioti Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 10, 1995 Subject:#2079 Rick Perry, 440 Willow Drive South - Variances - Public Hearing Application: Variances are sought by applicant to allow an addition to a garage located in a substandard side yard and located in front of the front line of the principal structure. The addition will create an oversized accessory structure requiring a more restrictive side setback and building size limits. Zoning District; RR-IB, Two acre minimum lot size Lot area = 27,338.5 s.f. or .62 acres Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C-2) - Variance to allowed area for oversized accessoiy structure footprint on a property less than 1.99 acres. Allowed = 1,000 s.t. Proposed = 1.077.09 s.f. Variance = 77.09 s.f. or 7.7% 2. 3. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A-3) - Side setback variance. Required = 30' E.xisting = 5.2' Proposed = 6.4' Variance = 23.6' or 78.6% Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) - Sf-Victure will be located 55' in front ot the front line of the principal structure. Code would require that a detached garage be located no closer than the front line of the principal structure anc -o be located within a side or rear yard. List of Exhibits A -Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners' List D -Sur\ey E - Floor Plan F - Profile G - Front Elevation H - Neighbors' Acknowledgement Form I - Planning Commission Minutes 11/13/78 (Application #435) J - Council Minutes 11/14/78 (Application #435) K -Septic Map L - Topographic Map #Zoning File #2079 October 11,1995 Page 2 Dcscriptioo of Request Applicant proposes a 24' x 22.3' addition to the west side of the existing garage located in front of the front line of the principal structure. The structure at 1,077.09 s.f. is now classified as an oversized accessory structure subject to more restrictive standards. The required side setback is no longer 10’ but 30'. Based on the area of the property at .63 acres, applicant seeks a variance to the allowed maximum footprint for an oversized accessory structure proposed at 1,077.09 s.f. where a 1,000 s.f. structure would be allowed. In 1978, applicant received approval for a side setback variance of approximately 5’ for a 24' x 22’ garage placed in front of the principal structure. The as-built surv ey shows a 5.2' setback for the existing garaiie and a 6.4* setback tor the proposed addition. In the 1978 review, the issue of the structure being placed in front of the front line of the principal structure was not addressed. Hardships dealt w ith the narrowness of lot and the steep topography commencing at the front line of the structure to the west street lot line. The garage was placed close to the side lot line to allow adequate room for backing out of vehicles. Applicant's tuck under giuage within principal structure was to be converted to additional living space. Applicant should provide clarification as to status of that portion of structure. The propertv- is not located in a shoreland area therefore hardcover standards are not applicable. The 27,338.5 s.f. propertv would be allowed 4,100.9 s.t. of structural coverage, fhe applicant proposes a total of 2,404.09 s.f. or 8.7% structural cov erage. No v ariance would be required. The Building Inspector has reviewed the building plans (Exhibits E, F and G). Lyle Oman notes no problems with the plans as proposed. Rev iew Exhibit K. the septic system is located to the rear of the structure. The area to the rear of the house is the only gentle-sloped portion ot the property and should be retained for future septic expansion if needed. Note the lower, flatter elevations adjacent to street is a fill area and could not be considered for septic use. Issues for Consideration I.Should there be two separate detached structures rather than allowing applicant to create an oversized accessory structure? The second detached structure would have to be at least 10’ from side lot line and 10' from existing garage .structure. Wliat would the visual impact be on adjacent property owners if structure is moved further west to the lower elevations? Would the structure continue to be functional in use if relocated? If an addition to detached garage is preferred, should structure be allowed to exceed 1,000 s.f? Zoning File #2079October 11.1995 Page 3 3.,f «idUion is placed a. d.e pn,po^ f"^ plantings be required along the »uth lot me. ^should to deal with power pole? existing improvements limit access to the rear of property. Outline of Issues 1 .Should applicant be installing two detached structures? 2.Should the oversized accessory structure e.xceed allowed 1 ,000 s.f. in area? 3.Need for additional landscaping based on substandard setbacks and size ot structure. 4 Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Isv PiTiFTt] RlSfiira ^MMf] RRITTIililK rtitiws^ RfWJ RlKHra •VI19J Rium rius liYaatlJ ^■li [..frco .WN BATEJ ^BATCH SIO‘r^ •. 4 . * ADORI MM TMAYEII Wm/IMk ‘». >MOP ABOR OMR MAHE / TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR r o\ %, M 0S>117-2S ti 001400400 MXLLON OR SARTHUR A EOITN NELSONARTHUR A EDITH NELSON 400 NILLON DR S LONB LAKE m S5S54 SO 05>117-ES SE OOU 004S0 NILLON OR S A»M L NHITE ET AL ANN L NHITE 450 NILLON DR S L0N6 LAKE NN 55354 HEMIERIN COUNTY RROfERTY INFORHATION SYSTENRROPERTY OMCRS LISTSO 03-117-23 32 000400030ADDRESS UNASSIOCDCHRISTOPHER J KELLEY CHRISTOPHER J KELLEY 347 LAKEVIEN AVE N LONS LAKE »M 55354 30 04-117-23 41 0001 00505 NILLON OR S KILLIAN 6 ROBINSON NILLIAN 6 ROBINSON 505 NILLON DR S LONG LAKE W 55354 —•*. 0 •• REPORT NO. PI4S5401PAGE UM 0S-117-ES 32 001100440 HILLOM DR SRICHARD JR A DEMIC PERRY RICHARD JR A DEWIE PERRY 440 HIILON DR S L0N6 LAKE m 55354 TOTAL BATCH 510 00005 4 ^ . •>’ • VV’V ' ■. ‘V-Sv^O ••V v •O •i. €' »I 71•r • \V V* ' . ;rfrv-fr>: V".. •*1* t. 4 * ^r .1 •\.4« ' : < A ’ /. . 'W'rte' i - .'v ’• • J 1 • >, 4'4;»w ' -.A' '• V.V rj ^4: I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESErfTATION OF If4F0RMATI0N AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTICNT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY K^40HlEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE C>vv!crr\. V •V'l'i+Jf' T *«1 * • • : *% ‘ " '.i .0 ♦4* . • ^. *•. i V < *» : ^ f 'V *rU:-* ■•/> for Richard W. Perry, Jr. in the SW 1/4 of Sec. 3-117-23 Hennepin County, Minnesota *•« • yr .' j XJ --'f) -<»■ yj.oo -i yJei ^ pf^^rfk V 0f SLu% 0i % ct Ok I ,f/Uarfi y» 0f A^U/'/s /pf. I 0.7# f 4A r^/Vli a.^IS4€, 2^0 m >#rrry>a-> ,/V.J 4 * f ' /l.f V|, -..• N 5 V/.^2 Jo.»o — A/ 9J.70 [>J4c^ 9^* oo % N S « iv 22 7. 7r j-^/4//>! */^ • • V vi /(/«ri<4 '/» A'Ciri‘4 a / ' „ A/u>'/»f»f s^'A h 2 I y ®- A/a»7/.Vi a(rcA//r/£>/w of the West 76.46 feet of the North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 3. Township 117 Itorth, Range 91 u««t of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the following described property;, .u ,».* th« ihrthwesi '^S!oinLna at a w nt on the West line of Section 3. Township 117 North. Range 23 West of the 5th-Principal Meridian distant 31 chains &uth the Itorthws of taid SJ theJce South 24« East a disiance of 5.26 chains; thence South 5» West a distance of 9.09 chains; thence South 30» West a distance of 3,08 chains to said West line; thence North on said West line a distance of 15,92 chains to the pint of beginning. That^part^f^the ijS'half'of the'^torth'^half'of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 3. jo‘'hS''lP torth. Range 23 Meridian described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of ... SSlrtif Se »rt*.lo.g tne Weil line Ihlreof e elslence of 198 feet; thence Eeil perellel jllh the Sooth lihe of selO »rth he f » ouar»erof the Southwest quarter to the centerline of the former County toad; thence Southwesterly along said centerline to Its intersection w th ine ^Hth ?lM^of said North half of the North half of the torthwest quarter of the Southwest quarter; therce West, along said South line to Pr?lc?M?’ So^ALSO^hat part of the torth quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 3. Township 117 torRange 23 West of the J^'Jt ouartei Sidlan described as follows: Coranencing at the point of intersection of the South line of said torth quarter of the torthwest quarter with the'centerline of the former County toad; thence East along said South line 247.5 feet; thence torth a distance of H5»5 centerline land to be described; thence continuing torth 82.5 feet; thence West parallel with said South line to said centerline; thence Southerly along sadcenleril^ to% ?lne drawn^Mest through the point of beginning parallel with said South line; thence East to the point of, beginning.EXCEPT that part of the follwing descri ‘’^'teSinnlng at a point on the West line of Section 3. Township 117 torth. Range 23 West of the Sth-PHncIpal Meridian, distant 31 mrner of said wtlon; thence South 24" East a distance of 5.26 chains; thence South 5" West a distance of 9,09 chains; tlicnce South 30 West a distance o 1 oa chains to said West line; thence torth on said West line a distance of 15.92 chains to the point of beginning. «f lying East of the West 76.46 feet thereof and South of the North line of the South 115.50 feet of the torth half of the torth half of the torthwest quarter or the Southwest quarter of said Section 3, I. i ! * b« • • —i 1 < ' 1 ’ t • ■ J ' i B 1 1 ( fi • -1 c. i ! 1 1 ' I I •0 . 1 .«1 1, ••.(1 i •1 1i • • 1 -» •»1 11 1 1 <*4» ^4 >11 j••••4 •i ••• •___i 1 '«••\i ,.J1... .'i #1 ■11 V 11 1 1 «« •• 1 r1 \\\ \!1 1 ■ 11 i ,1 ,i 1!i 1 1 I I I I I I I II I I I M I I I 1 II II i I I I I •I I I I I I I i i 1 j • > I i I I h'sI I I I I I I I 'S' I I I I i J^T’- ~T1N - \ I > I M l I / !\ I 7 7l /I I SVfSi lM<h- Crr<3 “£r".J / y~\ /I y ' I ■ I r—I-----1 — I i I nv: f I I t » \ X \ \ i I I i I i .; I 1 •' * I i I i V .1 I I ! ! 1r~r^ I ; I I <5'rtP.A(y£^&otirrroN I t 1 '! I I / /I /N 1-----r 1^-1 I 1-------r \i J--H I 1 a'^ I I I I I I I i !I I f 1 I I I I I I •I I I II t I i I I I I P(?oR;5Se£:)i I I ^ I . i i 111 ^;ts 9^ I f I I i i • ill! MM 1/^ 1I ^ “i 12- I I \yi I II I i I I I :t i ! I ! _L 1 L.•«***_JI 1 1 1 •••L • •I .u ■J J V •••••• •1 1 *• •irI V 1.IC • ••• «IX i ...ril 1 •1 1i 1 1 1 11 « t %Ii I•! «'I I 1 I i i ' I i I i .i toj&br sTM do'f^Mtcg rb ________ \ ckS^tL - 7 ■2I-2-V- f£ei^b I I I I i I •' 1I• ! ' »I I Kief 1^1 tg I t I '^■iH ••• » • ----------------I 'J' I t I . » X ^'■' Ficop. 6 till ISIcxLk. I t c> tn <v 6»* • iB ic 3>b _ l. I....L. i I I A\F<3,. /to 6 <r(I'STrlvcr 5-^ai4<i-£'___ Sit) w|6- u3 I I aM !!11CPN ....•..f -•-. ■% L. 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 i ( 11 1 V — * 1 i ••- I i Sf X / J i b6o ^ i I FoL^Hibi^r/ ohA I < W I I V s V H8 ^ G'yIO' ij -/ ^ » Adjacent Property Ovners^Xctaiowledgement Form I (wc)_____Of P^. [print name(s)l [print address] ¥( iv.. •" have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the propeir/ located aj _______ also referred to as Land Use Application No.------------. 31(we) understand that in executing this “ Couk U that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. ^• Property Owner Q-4^ ^ Date r* ................................................................................................................................................................ _____of .1/ ■ra W' ///»uv S. [print address]1 (we) [print name(s)j have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located also referred to as Uind Use Application No.------------• I (we) undersDnd that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not ^ked m declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm tor City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor project or use requires Council approval. PropeiTv Owner Date Property Owner AppI!ca'iton.'pleyelbmu ”rco.l“ ^ *e BuiWing''rzL!^oTfifc m kasHO days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 1I I . 1 v'.'r ^ *^. •.^ f*•*•*»• ‘. ••i-‘>f. “..V^- .«••: '.«-• ' -•••,. ••. ■•^v' •;••-• •.»••■**.'•*••'r.;.■■■■-.'I-' [SSra MEETZBG HELD ON NOVI Ua«l$a« Ntatad diat aoat of tho bona* locations had baan dataralnad and time tb^ vara vorklng with tba CLtj to raaolva ^ ramlnlag proble&a. wvad to add tiia raquiraoant of no variances baing graatad for conacruetloo oa tha two lots (lot 2 4 3) aa tiia varlaaea for lot araa has already baan graatad. Hotioo aacoadad by Baaaah. Vote: Ayaa (?)• Naya (0). Motioa passed uaaalaously. Baaaal aovad to approva tha resolutloay vitL ’ \e addltloa sMda in Burr's ootloa, aotlag that the Council graatad approval to divlda iato 13 lots Iseludlsg two aubstaadard lots (83Z-98X) which bava already been graatad lot area variances by tha Council. Motion seconded by Baanarel. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unanlaoxialy. Itf. Perry was present. Mabusth briefly explained tha raquast. Tha hardships ar« tha narrow width and tha extrsBe grada of tha lot. Conditional Psa Perait - of tha proposed work, he has already brought la approxlsiately ^ten truckloads of fill, but at tha City's ^raquast.has removed about half of tha .fill. '^During,discussion. It was determined that.a^study ofjtha affect of the fill on tha wetlands ^would be .needed j^from rha engineer before .the Planning CoMlsolen 'could ndca any recoiaamdarf.ms4 ‘r 3(1?^'ii Mabusth antarad .Into \tb» \roeatdtm\lmttn. from 'Mr/.4 Mrs»’>Barold*llhita,*^450 VUlov Dr.* South, dated October 17, 1978, stating: *Ve have' no objection to his erection of a garage or filling in and leveling off low spots adjoining our property line." Variance - »as noted that Mr. Perry had already excavated for tha garage. It was questioned whether or not tha hardship was valid since he does have an existing garage. Mr. Ferry stated that In the future ha would probably need the existing garage space to add on to his home. In the interim, ha stated ha needed a place to store several old ears. tot 13, 1978 ' 2=1.^ Page 2 COLPEFPIK Um C0« 40 SUBDXVZSKV (#306) Ooht. m >^C8AID KJUOr 440 Vlllow Drive Variance 4 ' Cond. Use Pexalt #435 Vr»rs I*. - -v ••".tJ 4 - ft » /X ••• v»*C** ' i I • . TBS or A Fuiorac COfttSSIOII MEETINC HELD OH SOVl p .0 ••»♦•*- *.'•^ ' ‘ • P>i^\ •i.: 4 ■<-.V'. . -<:• r* .*■*-*'‘. •' *r 9 i' • 4 '' . * m •i k‘'--v. iP >A •« • '•i *t' ' /n- Tt nils BOtttd thAC duA to wusy trsM in th* are* th« S^rcs« would not cauoo any fight problcma to eho nai^iborf. Vllfon flwad to apinrovo tho variance of the fida yard aatbaek dua to tha narrow width and extreaa grada of tha lot at wall aa tha difficulty of entaring naw garaga* Motion oeconded by Hurr. Vota: Ayea (7), Maya (0). Motion passed unanlaoualy, ffabuath fxplained the request. Due to the complexity of the application, tha Planning Conmission decided that the purpose of this meeting would be to sort out ^**d clearly define the violations and the requests of this application. Tha violations are: 1.Hardcover 0-75* of lakeshore . 75-250* of laJ-eshore 2.Fence height over 6* in side and rear yard. The requests are: ^ ,c. ,cn.1.Variance for hardcover from 75 -250 . 2.Variance for fence height on side and rear wall. 3.^ -Conditional ‘Use Permit for jading and 13, lf7S faga 3 mT«iAl> fOB 4M) Willow Drive So. Good. Osa rarmit #435 (Coat#) 2677 Caaeo Point Rd. Varlanca k Cond. Ufa Pasnit #436 ' r/' "W- L- I’A’ Cona«ts"^e;h^ Mr. Gronberg (civil engined working for Bolzer), Mr. Smerllng, Mr. Nekich (Soerllng’s attorney), and Mr. Downey (a nai^ibor on the.other ?»lde of Holzers). Althou^ Mrs. Bolzer, Mrs. Sowrllng, Mr. Oberhauser (Smerling's attorney) and several nei^ors were present no cosnents were siade by them at this meeting. The Planning CoBsaission felt the following issues sust be addressed before they could make any recomnendations: 1.Written determination of front yard by tha City attorney. 2.Reasoning behind the height restrictions. *r 0 ^ u • MMM MBliM OP ns OMMS COOHCIL. HOVEHBEH 14, U7$ Flanwlnf P»gm IS -variiSS »-«rrv«l of tho Si^Ssts"clMima an no adioim^p. iJ! VMtZAHCB . ^121 Blatood Avonu (Contlnuad) k -* >*•* r 5» k>.*» » • ir-»»•/ • *•• • clalM am haTi4I4.4 , g»rmgm. Hardship Ci^toaioMr ^ ^ reviewed by Of road.•“•nt with the C,.ty before construction I*- Council Meeting - Noveober 14, 197^ ■ent'to the cl tv ^*^”*9**nd Hold Harmless Agree- the requeet*of'Richard^pJ?JJ' Jr^^440^v5i?i record l/v^A»CB 440 Willow Drivo #435 f..r Variance - Side yard setback (Zoning District RR-lB) five Richard Perx]f, Jr, Se/?J5S ?i to construct a 22* X 24' garage ^ •outhem lot line. The hardship claiae are narrow lot width (82 S'^Zn^^ grade of slope fron aiddla^of extremelot line, “iooio or lot to the western Conditional use p. nait - Work Session applicant pxoposee“fiillni shaded area on fill^Seltin^*!! plantings. < Hardship claljss .hazardous driveway conditions In^wlntZZ •staff recoxnnende the arelllUt^uS^7iZ ">cnth8. ^^'SfSir flli^KZ^##^ grade and proposed grades ^'InS^Srfiiiie*^ wetlands to .ov'r area to be on wetlande to the west reviewet* b/ the city Engineer. Connleelon tteetlng - Nc- anber 13 ig7H (Variance request only) **noer ij, 1978 - wroval Of Richard vard sl«^k ^ *^ive foot side (Continued) I >« ■ ■ ^w " •« RSCaXJUl MEETING OP THE ORONO COONCIL^ HOVnOaR 14, H78 4,’»-•r*r*'.• m i WEST SaORS 1MM^9TT2 BAT REPORT; ;> ^<9, 8BWBR HOOKUP P*9« !• ' ^ rhm hardshir clains were the narrow lot width and * axtrana grade of slope to weat of lot. -Planning* ***5»*^^r* Cttonlsaion requested Council action on tha varianca _ fwOntlBiiaoi ...s. application at the Novonber 14, 1978 aeeting bacauaa of the inclement weather. ".'V- -: COU1.C11 Heating - November 14, 1978 , *.' *‘.■"J —,j:; Butler aovad, Pesek seconded, to approve the earianc* .. . -^ request of Richard Perry, Jr., 440 Willow teiw, »V"? :A* for construction of the garage only, at this tiaw, Mr PlAnnliiQ Comrnission recomnandation* Of dOvaODOr IJ# W7». »tlon. Ayes (5) - Hay. (0). w Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, presented the City Council with a status report concerning the West Shore Lafayette Bay dredging project. Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, presented the City Council with a report from Michael Gaffron, Septic System Inspector, concerning the status on aewer hookups. Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record the following memo concerning a sewer connection for Joan Bloom, 1399 Park Drive, dated November 8, 1978, which atatest Mrs. Bloom is requesting SJ lS?0 'of a pump required to connect her house to the 1970 Saga Hill se%fer project. This 5 ”^? a few which were to require pumps as P*J^ ^ overall project design. at the time the project was o*^®^**' J'** been to reimburse the homeowner f-r «*e "JJJ* of f}i0 pusq>. These costs have axJi.a'.^ 8400 to . . $550 over the last three y-*ars. This connection was made in October. The connection should have been completed by JMua^, 1975, . . accordino to State law and local ordinan^. Obviously, connection years ago would have been at less coot than now. A pwp h.. b«.n in.t.lUd .hleh i. “2*" .i?Jd toh»di. th. Job. Th. t.sSi3*^20 including labor. This may have to be . 1 ^P- P'»-P ''Wch «uld co.t .ppr«.l«t.ly REPORT . .-7;'r : '1,:': .'' •.% */, • SEWER CONRBCTIOR r:: 1399 Park Drive *.;r-rH *ifi'f i‘* ,• A, • r* A m •• •- - •;• •. • •• .. • •■V -f.. I I it I IT^-V*'<i r W.r;J 10/31/95 Rick Pcrrv 440 So. Willow Dr. Long Lake, MN 55356 /■ xov s ^ Dear Mayor and Members of Council, Rrsl off ril intT(xluce myself as a 46 \ear old Orom^ resident and a iwcnt)' year property ON\ncr at 440 Willow D^^e, Soutfe Most of \ou probabh' know me frt>m tnir past tire contract problems with LcHig Lake/Oiono. I’ve been on the fire department 28 years so far, the last 12 years as chief. I’m writing this letter to you in hopes of explaimng my situation at 440 Willow Dnve South. Cher the years I’\ e collected some com erubles and I’\ c run out t^f space to su>ie them as well as snowmobiles and wave runners ftv mv teenaee children. « W In conversauon with Lyle Oman 1 asked his opimon on adding onio my existing detached garage. His comments were favorable stating I’ve already got a garage in frtmt of my house and side yard set back was granted before because ol the narrow lot w idth. So I proceeded to apply lor variances and had the property surx ey brought up to date, Kx:ating the garage, incurring about $500.00 in expenses. When 1 attended the planning commission meeting and was Hat turned down, I lelt the meeting w ith options, sell your cars or mo% e After talking to Jean Mabusth the next day I've scaled dow n my plans to fall under the UXX) square foot limit I’m allowed to ha\c and changed the roof line to be less Msiblc fmm Willow Dnve and as I stated at the planning commis.sion meeting I plan to screen it further with truck spade planted eiergrcen trees for instant screening. I noted some concern at the planning meeting if this w as to be used for commercial purp«^ses, which IS definitely not the case, as 1 own commercial property in Long Lake. In fact. I’d be willing to set this up on a conditional use permit to gi\ c the city more control if they feel it necessary to do so. So please rcMew my situauon and \ otc in fa\or of our needed addition as my family and 1 would like to stay at 440 Willow for a long ume to come. Thanks for reading this lengthy, but important letter to our family. Sincerely, Rick Pcrrv REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION -13 ms ^^OfOt.Of^Q DATE; November 7, 1995 ITEM NO.:j ^ Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building A Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2081 Patrick and Nancy Walsh, 1390 Rest Point Road - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IB Lot area = 9,792 s.f. or .22 acre Application: Applicant proposes one-stoiy additions at the east and west sides of the existing residence and an approximate 8* x 13' roofed concrete stoop to the entrance at the northwest comer of the residence. Improvements also include a second floor expansion over the existing garage and at the lakeside ot residence providing expanded bedroom areas. The second floor expansions will result in an encroachment of the average lakeshore and lakeshore protected area. Excesses of hardcover exist in the 0-75' and also within the 75-250' setback areas. Increases in hardcover are proposed within the 75-250 setback area and structural coverage excesses are also proposed. Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback variance for bedroom expansion over existing structure located within lakeshore protected area. Required = 65' Existing = 68.6' Proposed = 68.6' Variance = 6.6' or 8.5% 2.Section 10.22. Subd. 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback. Proposed bedroom expansion at upper level will encroach the average lakeshore setback line by 6'. 3.Section 10.22. Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. 0-75’ setback area = 4.960 s.f. Allowed = 0* Existing = 592.1 s.f. or 11.9% Proposed = 592.1 s.f. or 11.9%. No changes are proposed. t 4^^ Request for CouiKil Action continued Page 2 November 7, 1995 Zoning File #2081 Patrick and Nancy Walsh 75-250* j^ethack area == 4.832 s.f Allowed = 1,208 s.f. or 25% Existing * 1,943.8 s.f. or 40.2% Original proposal presented for Planning Commission • 2,718.3 s.f. or 56.3% /Xmended proposal * 2,488.5 s.f. or 51.5% Increase = 544.7 s.f. or 11.2% Variance = 1,280.5 s.f or 26.5% (original proposal = 31.2%) 4.Section 10.25, Subd. 5 (B) - Street setback variance required for expansion above garage located within the substandard street setback. Required = 35' Existing = 20.9' Proposed * 20.9' Variance = 14.1' or 40.2% 5.Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review- of structural coverage Total lot area = 9,792 s.f. Allowed = 1,500 s.f or 15% Existing = 1,351.3 s.f or 13.8% Original proposal = 2,095.9 s.f. or 21.4% Amended proposal = 1,957.9 s.f. or 19.9% Variance = 457.9 s.f or 4.6% List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - n - 1 - J - K - L - Application Applicant’s Addendum/Mardship Statement Plat Map Property Owners' List Neighbors' Acktiowiedgement Forms Sur\ey/Site Plan-Original Proposal Hardcover Inventory First Floor Plan-Per Amended Plan Second Floor Plan-Per Amended Plan Staff Sketch/New Hardcover Improvements Elevations Amended Site P*an J Request for Council Action continued Page 3 November 7, 1995 Zoning File ttlO%\ Patrick and Nancy Walsh Description of Request The single story ’ additions at the sides of the residence will allow for expansions of the limited first floor living area. The left side expansion will allow for an expanded master bedroom and closet area and on the right a kitchen with a seating area. Review Exhibits H and K, the covered entry pouh or stoop is proposed at entrance to residence. The upper le\el expansions will be placed over the existing structure. Both side additions meet the required side yard setback of 10 ’. The additions will not encroach the average lakeshore setback line nor are they located within the 0-75' setback area. The only encroachment of the average lakeshore setback or lakeshore protected area is by the expansion of the upper level bedrooms over the existing structure. All of the improvements result in an increase ot 544.7 s.t. or 11.2% hardcover in the 75-250' setback area where 40.2% exists. New structural additions result in 457.9 s.f. or 4.6% increase in structural coverage. Structural coverage exists at 13.8®o and is now proposed at 19.9% (original proposal 21.4%, allowed = 1,500 s.f. or 15.3%). Statement of Hardship Please review E.xhibit B, hardships are reviewed as follows: 1.The lot is small. There are no additional lands available to combine with the homestead parcel. 2.The elevation of the lake in relation to the property prevents a basement being installed beneath residence. Applicant's storage and utility facilities are all locate d within the first floor living area. 3.Tlie expanded footprint on the first level will not encroach a side yard, average lakeshore setback or lakeshore setback. The five member Planning Commission had a difficult time with this va»-=ance review finding request modest but yet the improvements had an impact on sunctuial and hardcover allowances for a property of this size. Applicant did provide an amended proposal ba.sed on the issues raised bv staff in original memo prepared for the Planning Commi.ssion. The applicant proposed a 44 s.f reduction in the master bedroom addition at the left side and a 94 s.t. reduction at the right side, removing a mudroom and 14 s.f of the covered entry porch. In addition the applicant proposed the removal of a planter area underlain with plastic and a deck totaling 91.75 s.f of hardcover improvements. Request for Council Action cootinued Page 4 November 7,1995 Zoning File {K081 Patrick and Nancy Walsh Planning Commission Recommendation Tbrec of the five member Planning Commission recommended approval of the application as amended by applicant at their meeting and approved the variances as set forth above. Two members of the Planning Commission felt the improvements were too ambitious for this small lot. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions ot the Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either approve or amend the enclosed approval resolution P A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (A&B), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) .\ND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C) FILE NO. 2081 WHEREAS, Patrick J. Walsh and Nancy S. Walsh (hereinafter "the applicants*') are the owners of the property located at 1390 Rest Point Road within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Lot 4, "Subdivision of Lot 14 Rest Point Park Lake Minnetonka", Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to the followinu Municipal Zoning Code Sections to permit construction of single story first floor additions" and second floor expansions over the existing structure requiring variances to the following sections of the Municipal Code: 1.Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback variance for bedroom expansion over existing structure located within lakeshore protected area. Required = 65* Existimi = 68.6* W Proposed = 68.6* Variance = 6.6* or 8.5% 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback. Proposed bedroom expansion at upper level will encroach the average lakeshore setback line by 6*. 3.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. n~7S ’ setback area = 4,%0 s.f. Allowed = 0* E.xisting = 592.1 s.f. or 11.9% Proposed = 592.1 s.f. or 11.9%. No changes are proposed. Page 1 of 7 4. 5. Minnesota: 1. J. setback area == 4.832 S.f. Allowed = 1,208 s.f. or 25% Existing = 1,943.8 s.f. or 40.2% Proposed = 2.488.5 s.f. or 51.5% Increase = 544.7 s.f. or 11.2% Variance = 1.280.5 s.f. or 26.5% Section 10.25, Subd. 5 (B) - Street setback variance required for expansion above garage located within the substandard street setback. Required = 35' Existing = 20.9' Proposed = 20.9' Variance = 14.1' or 40.2% Section 10.03. Subd. 14 (C) - Review ot structural coverage. Total lot area = 9,792 s.f. Allowed = 1,500 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,351.3 s.f. or 13.8% Proposed = 1,957.9 s.f or 19.9% Variance = 457.9 s.f or 4.6% NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\ ED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^'2081. The property is located in the LR-IR Takeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 9,792 s.f. or .22 acre. Tlie Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16, 1995 and recommended'^ approval of the \ariances as .mended, based upon the following findings: Page 2 of 7 A.The lot is .22 icre in area. B.There are no adjacent lands available to combine with the homestead parcel. C.The elevation of lake in relation to the propert>' prevents a basement being installed beneath residence. Applicants’ storage and utility facilities are all located within the first floor living area. D.A residence structure has existed on this property for over 45 years. The property is connected to municipal sewer, E.All new hardcover improvements are located out ot the lakeshore prc .ected area, do not encroach the average lakeshore setback line and all meet the required 10' side setback from both the east and west side yards. 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 the v'anances would not adversely affect tralTic conditions, light, air nor pose a fi.-e 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 vvoulu be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the elTect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 3 of 7 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections noted above to permit construction of single story additions to the east and west side of the existing residence and expansion of the second level over the existing structure providing for an expanded bedroom and recreation room as shown on Page 7 of this resolution. Approval is subject to the tollowing conditions: 1.All existing hardcover improvements scheduled for removal and as shown on Page 7 of this resolution shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Applicant to provide an updated survey confirming location of all approved additions to the existing residence upon application for a building permit. J.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this varicmce will expire on that date (November 13, 1996). 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.Tlie 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 propertv Page 4 of 7 ] Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of November, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of November, 1995 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. 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. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) tree act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of 7 rr'4i . I > LAKE MINNETONKA V/EST'aR!^ Paae 1 of 1 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 12. 1995 SUBJECT:#2081 Patrick Walsh and Nancy Walsh, 1390 Rest Point Road - Variances Public Hearing Application: Application involves one or one and hall story?? additions at the east and west side the residence. An appro.ximate 9’xl 1' concrete stoop at the new entrance at the northwest comer of residence. Improvements will also involve a second floor expansion over the existing garage and an expansion at the lakeside c; residence providing expanded bedroom areas. These improvements will result in an encroachment of the average lakeshore setback by the upper level expansion of the bedroom area. The bedroom addition will also encroach the lakeshore protected area. Excesses of hardcover e.xist in the 0-75* and alst» within the 75-250 setback area. Major increases in hardcover are proposed within the 75-250 setback area. Zoning District - LR-IB Lot area = 9,792 s.f. or .22 acres Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback variance for expansion of structure within lakeshore protected area. Required = 75* Existing - 68.6 ’ Proposed = 68.6 ’ Variance = 6.4 ’ or 8.5% Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback. Proposed bedroom expansion at lakeside of residence encroaches average lakeshore setback line by ‘ Section 10.22. Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. 0-75' setback = 4.960 s.t. Allowed = 0 Existing = 592.1 s.f. or 11.9% Proposed = 592.1 s.f. or 11.9% No change is proposed Zoning File #2081 October 12, 1995 Page 2 75-250’ setback area * 4,832 s.f. Allowed = 1,208 s.f. or 25% Existing = 1,943.8 s.f. or 40.2% Proposed = 2,718.3 s.f. or 56.3% Variance = 1,510.3 s.f. or 31.2% Hardcover increase = 774.5 s.f. or 16% Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B) - Street setback variance required for expansion above garage located within a substandard street setback. Required = 35’ Existing = 20.9’ Proposed = 20.9’ Variance = 14.1’ or 40.2% Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Structural coverage. Total lot area = 9,792 s.f. Allowed = 1,469 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,351.3 s.f. or 13.8% Proposed = 1,971.3 s.f. or 20.1% Variance = 502.3 s.f. or 5.1% Structural increa.se = 620 s.f. or 6.3% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicants Addendum/Hardship Statement C - Plat Map D - Property OwTiers List E - Neighbors Acknowledgment Form F - Survey/Site Plan G - Hardcover Inventor)' H - First Floor Plan 1 . Second Floor Plan J - Staff Skctch/New Hardcover Improvements K - Elevations Description of Request The one and a half story additions at the sides of the residence will allow for expansions of first fioor living area On the left side the improvements will allow for an expanded master bedroom and closet area and on the right side a mud room and kitchen with seating area. The left side addition will also allow for an expansion of an upper level bathroom. It is not clear from i WT" Zoning FUe »20»l October 12, 1995 Page 3 information if side additions will allow for any other expansions on second level. The upjier level bedroom expansions and recreation room will be placed over the e.xisting structure. Both side additions will meet the required side yard setback ot 10 ’ nor will these additions encroach the average lakeshore setback line nor be located within the 0-75 setback area. Applicants propose an approximate 9’xl 1’ concrete .‘^toop at the new entrance at the northwest comer of the residence. All of the improvements result in an increase of 16% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback area where 40.2% exist. New structural additions result in a 620 s.f or 6.3% increase in structural coverage. Structural coverage exists at 13.8% and is now proposed at 20.1% (15% allowed). Statement of Hardship Please review Exhibit B, hardships are reviewed as follows: 1. 2. The lot is small. No additional lands are available and no adjacent lands are available to combine with the homestead parcel. The elevation of lake in relation to the property prevents a basement being installed beneath residence. Applicants' storage and utility facilities are all located within the first floor living area. I.ssucs for Consideration 1. 3. 4. Will Plarming Commission members recommend 16% increase in hardcover improvements within the 75-250 ’ setback area? Are there existing improvements that can be removed or reduced in size? Can proposed improvements be reduced in size? Will members approve a 5.1 structural coverage variance for this property? Can the structural additions be reduced? Can there be more of a vertical expansion and less of a horizontal? Do members have a problem \vith expansions where portions of a structure exist within substandard setback areas? What of the average lakeshore setback encroachment by the bedroom expansion? Will it impact the views of the adjacent residences? Options of Action To denv or approve as proposed or to approve as amended or table providing applicants additional time to amend plans that would address concerns of the Planning Commission. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2081 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 24, 1995 TO: Mr. & Mrs. Patrick J. Walsh 1390 Rest Point Road Orono, MN 55364 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances DATE OF MEETING: 10/16/95 VOTE:3 FOR 2 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Planning Commission recommended approval of the amended application as presented to Commission members at the public hearing. Your amended proposal results in hardcover in the 75- 250' setback area as follows: Original proposal = 2,718.3 s.f. or 56.j% Amended proposal = 2,488.5 s.t. or 51.5% Increase = 544.7 s.f or 1 1.2% Variance = 1,280.5 s.f or 26.5% (original proposal = 31.2%) Amended structural coverage facts are as follows; Original proposal = 1,971.3 s.f. or 20.1% Adjusted original = 2,095.9 s.f. or 21.4% Amended proposal = 1,957.9 s.f. or 19.9% Reduction in structural coverage = 138 s.f or 1.4% Staff will present your amended proposal to the Council at their November 13, 1995. If you wish to include any additional information for Council ’s consideration, please see that this new information is submitted no later than Tuesday, October 31. 1995 (before noon). Prior to the November 13th meeting, you will receive a copy of an approval resolution setting forth the findinus and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation. If you have any questions pertaining to the information in the resolution, you are asked to contact staff prior to the meeting. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth if you have any further questions concerning the review of your application. ch •*mjk / CITY OF ORONO - VAMANCE APPLICATION li ^Initial Application Fee S-00.00 JL^ (S50.00 per eaci additional variaocs)' Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO *‘ ‘V -r w a. J » «. - • :•»~“ « WiM vi. *'LT*V u/ «....(no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S^OO. After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION^________________ Site Address Cl___n ^_? Property Identiilcauon Number (P.I.D.) tO *7 ~ jf reauired survey ^ ^ Atmch Itgal description to application ii^not tndnded on required sum .. Date, Property Acquired______lO Jl ——-r-------------------------------- 1 /^^isPalso own the adjacent precis _____________ — • V « •—w'u* ■* 'T pfSmtuse^propert>-: X residential Zoning District: Phone (home)Phone (home, Addres7fi3|!J:3ZIZ3EI^^— H12-^S33 ^~7 4? ~ <?V 3 P-r- Zip: OWNER (if different than appliemt) Name______ ______ Address: Phondhome) Phone (work)_ City:Zip: ? DFSCRIPTION OF REQUEST Est^tedCons^^nCostS^----l^a) Describe request indetail: jU'/]'^^efad^ti^ri^'^^ets iTneces^^^^J^^ « VARLANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot'Wldth X Hardcover •w? Setback:Front Other (specify) Side \ A Rear / Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore ■---------------------------- ------------------------------- “\* -TTmmircrTjrPTTON OF L^XSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS n^unduc h^Ship or practical difficuliv- or unusual property conditions preventin. compliance with Zoning Code requirements:--------------------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) cuJiA (T/f 1. 2. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information mu^ hg submittpd hv the application deadline date in ord er for vour aPDli^^^tinn to be considered complete* <’sr-"S";"' “Hennepin Councy Depamnenl of Finance. A-60a, Govt Center. j48-a2 1). Plat Map (obtained with propeny owners list).hardcover Certificate of Snrvey (signed by a calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy ih x 11 Too'^vranSc survev (existing and proposed elevations) ifany changes in e.xisting grade ^?pfo7o«d Tn Idd^on.’provid'e o'^ae (1) copy 8'A- x ll" for reproduction. l“ rieTarnames (utclude mantal stams) of all persons with an interest tn the p opem Tlhs would include nanie(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). L LTddendum 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. 5. 6. 7. 8._ 9.__ The Applicant and Property Owii:. u.uo. sign this application. Please remember Aat vour .orion^ onnlirniinn is not compi re if the above information has not been include^ Thf mpI^^ Lre^^a”t^*ro provide all infonnaiion required or requested by the Zoning USS . agreos fpay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee p^tnent " cTtLultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied 5 Applicant’s The'wKr\erSv tcknowledees and agrees 10 this application and further authorizes reasonable Mtry onto die property by cfty staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes^vestigation and verification of this requeri. 0.,., vnnts must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission nd CouncU If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements “have rau*o™g^ at«nd in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 y / A 4 J J September 21,1995 Jeanne MabusthMikeGaffronBuilding & Zoning Adm.City of Orono2750Kelley ParkwayP.O.Box 66Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Subject: Land Use Planning - Zoning Variance ApplicationHardcover VarianceDescription of Hardship Dear Jeanne and Mike: We have experienced a hardship because our house is located on alotthat is nearly level with the lake. Since the property iscloseto lake level we are unable to have a basement for utilitiesandstorage. The lack of a basement has caused us to use much of our limitedfirstfloorsquare footage for utilities. Excluding the garageourfirstfloor square footage is only 890 square feet. Lack offirstfloorsquare footage and the lack of a basement has causedthefollowing hardships: 1.The kitchen is in the only entry/hallway of the house. 2.It was necessary to install the washer & dryer in thefoyer/entry closet. 3.The kitchen lacks an eating area. 4.The area that could be useo for the utilityroom/washer-drver is presently being used as a downstairsbedroom. 5.The water softener is in a small cupboard in the kitchen. 6.The water heater is on a shelf between the kitchen and asecond floor attic. 7.The bathroom is only a 3/4 bath and lacks space to add on. (. , ■>%Ay>> •^ 0 i V ' J/ J --;"r- - / j The proposed addition would solve the hardship problem by doing the following: FIRST FLOOR Add bedroom space and space for a kitchen. SECOND FLOOR Add an upstairs bathroom, enlarge the two existing bedrooms and allow room for more storage. Thank you for your help and the help of your department in this matter. UU / 3 y./ (10) I /v/T f / (5T)> D » /f/ ,(1lK< ^ ^ I ^*»A** '"<(9)5 s FT OF 4Q ;" TOMKAVIIi i60. ? (4)1 71 ( (46) t 1 0 «6 (38) f *7 7B« «7?0 5 467.1 -----------1 (29) «*93*38-, SAR0)E (27) '*’^•57 I >1 or flOl 79 .^(50) rr or lOT SCLT (26) e B ~ (25) fcl lOT 46''X# 9.f (31) ••••, s (24) (17);^’ >•••.. ) V#(27) irAH4f/S/^ "OX-7 C07£ty/ , 9 78 > ^ o .^7 .-o-^"’(56)3^ ^/ /'V 77 */ •» 74 V» 73 (53)y (52)imr (30) '*•955 ^ i ?' 7 (39): 'JO 17 (37) "A 7A '-r\ '? '\ yA^A (34)\^/A^^ .'♦''V<A V'«^, , (61)r \' wC 5v> Cl 1- \ (17) (16)V<r X ^.' L (60) vW I, „ w " V22)^V( ?3)\ (•• * \I kT ^ VAC COC NO 3309007 ' A V ,(6)^ 0t ^\ ‘f lOi / y RUN DATE 09/22/95 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 1PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 07-117-23 33 00011410 REST POINT RO ROBERT 6 BREDESON ROBERT G BREDESON 15 E ST ALBANS RO HOPKINS MN 55305 07-117-23 33 00021400 REST POINT RD DAVID A WILLIAMS ETAL DAVID A WILLIAMS 1400 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 33 0003 1406 REST POINT RD L R HORN & M HORN LESTER R 4 MYRTLE HORN 1406 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 07-117-23 33 0004 07-117-23 33 0005 07-117-23 33 0006 PROP ADDR 1398 REST POINT RD 1396 REST POINT RD 1386 REST POINT RD i UOWNER NAME L K JOHNSON & C B JOHNSON P & N WALSH TERRY C SMITH ETAL .4 TAXPAYER LYLE K JOHNSON PATRICK J WALSH TERRY C SMITH NAME/ADDR 2737 IRVING AVE S 1390 REST POINT RD 1386 REST POINT RD MPLS MN 55408 MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 . •'/« 07-117-23 33 0007 07-117-23 33 0009 07-117-23 33 0010 V.«;>■:/. PROP ADDR 1380 REST POINT RD 1395 REST POINT RD 1405 REST POINT RD OWNER NAME W & V KRAKE JR ROBERT G BREDESON WENDY M OLSON TAXPAYER WALTER F & VAUGHN D KRAKE ROBERT G BREDESON WENDY M OLSON NAME/ADDR 1380 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 15 E ST ALBANS RD HOPKINS MN 55305 1405 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 07-117-23 33 0011 1385 REST POINT RD SUZANNE AUSTIN 229 OAKWOOD RD HOPKINS MN 55343 07-117-23 32 0037 1375 REST POINT RD M B & L K GERLICHER MICHAEL B & LYNNE GERLICHER 1375 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF ,r Qhilk'fOi rs\$^ifl)Pl AI # O f ^ a 'TIT ^ . / /A^Wprop«rty 0>vners ’ Acluio»ledgtinent Form ‘^■ ^Ufaddrossf^ e :djiie plans fo^<K^TrJ^i of the property located . <„,m.. ™*. “z 2 » project or use requires Qwidl approval. ropeny Owner Date Property Owner Date iiti^rn**************'* *♦##• di ***** XI »*■•«♦♦>•«*♦»** * I (we) [print name(s)l [print address] have reviewed rhe plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property locatedhave revteweo tne p f Application No.-------------■ at____________________ I fwel understand that in executing this acknowledgement. 1 (we) am (are) not to ?otncVtotT(l7am(a'ra™ project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date JCILY App![carn,'’;™blro-:l"n “o to the scheduled meetmg date. r .'I Adjacent Property 0^>'nets^ Acknowledgement Form //I (we)/7. ''[print namc(si/[print address] of the property locatedhavereviewed the plana for the proposed improvement or Z Ar-7^,r.-r-^P referred to as Land Use Apphcatton No.------------ I (we, understand that in executing this ”“;;;;i;tTo,n Z tV:. declare approval or disapproval ol me (,,31 me proposed neighbor’s Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the impro •P project or use requires Council approval. /rg __________- ^^/f Jr 1 ^ Property C^ner Proper^ * *»*»■» »‘**’^*^ Date Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed ^e of the property located also referred to as Land Use Application No.----------—• at ______________ , (we) -dcmtand that m «e^ ptpe"'slTurL‘ririoTo.mi^ Z ?otdl XaTweram (are) aware of'the unpro^ment plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Date Information that mav assist the City in the review of this I^d Use Applicarn ;ie'as “ib^To- comments to the Budding & Zoning Office at least 10 days pnor to the scheduled meeting date. • • / I I I 1� I I I I I N l[) ()) 'I" - I.J.J co l[) t.I l/) ... I \ --- ----... _ -o · 9 M .. -..,._ \ j V �1 " I � ➔-h-7777n7n7r,�' g·t l -0 a. - _, 'O 'O c( VI 0 0�E :, to·c;g avotr " 0 , LL. ... 0 _, I') Vl I) � r..,. " g l I L Z:. lNIOd . - i.... ... C .. gL LL. ._,, , , ·r i-- ij • : 1 -_ ,:, en g J g- 8 I ... (D WI ,:, 0.. a...Vl ci: t 8 � I /II � I 'lo�,( ..J l.11.1 I fJ ♦ L() / c_; N / - LS3tl I I I J I " I I I I ID F , Lu • LO ., E 0 �-.... LI. °' �.:-- V) - I Legal Description: Lot 4, ^Subdivision of Lot 74 Rest Point P ctk Lcks Minnetonka Hardcover ^eakdown SetbacK Zone 0'~ 75'75'-25Q' Existira Harocover House Sc Garage UT J 1220 Driveway ^20 Concrete 324.4 ^35.7 Lc^asccpe/Rock 56.4 ”J.7 Wood Decks/Steos 40 24 Retaining Wai's 10 9.3 Brick Surface 20 Total Hardcover 592.1 J94j.fi Total Area in Zone 4960 ^332 Existing Hardcover Z 11.9Z 40.2Z //o/io^c*a - /J/ S'3 ^S/oo/» J /SS7 X-ssss ^/ff 3 //9 //f/S ■2»vte) PREPARED FOR: Z OF SURVEY % PATRICK 0 I 0 -� 0 9 N "' N � □ D � -:z --::'.J. _.J ---- .1' '> ,t:::t.L � I I I I I I II I r: -- I -- / I I I I I I I I ..,__ __ ____, - - - - - - - - [ J - - - - - - - Ii Do Q z w --- • -- / / � J-l1d u - - - •:=.. ·------------ I l l.I I I I I'I I I ml � - - 0-01 I 01 I ' O ! -I 0 I ..9 \ I 0 I 3 ' . ' • '7: ¢ .9 -\1 �· §i t' u..� �� � - +I 0 I j - .fl () ..., I 0 --9 t rN Q I 0 n ' -j l I I ,,I 'l f J _ _-·, 0 \J 1�7-2 �: �l --,-��---f � • I • -\J w DL -------1-_:.:... --ti----u ------ --L_ _ _;_--_- - - -:. - -------- -oz ' lL D 0 \f) I 0 ^dS \ \ V /».'-V ^ \ ' i‘ > \^ \^ \*'* .lyY LAKE MINNETONKX WEST ARIA 1/a . ! •i CL n 4\ V __________ \ J V A Ja if) -I •I . _;. ·- . - -- I I I I ..-�. I • -�- -·tLI i r----- _J I / • \ • c{ .-..___ (' 0 • I -n . & �:<.� .. ::-6 > . ' ( J ' ,, ' I i ., . ? j ,.: I I I /i' .;/-·, . . , I'-· ---, --- .. _ ____,!_ - I \ I •. I l · I I I 'I I --I--1-. )- sx.. : ' ' \ ' -·- --. -· ··--·- ------ ------ ' I : I I ' I I ! I · I :I • I . I I I ; I ' I . I . • I I I •I I I .i I' !l I • I ! : II' 1. I • I ------:- ' 'I . ' ' i i I I l I I • -,__I . ---- --- : I ·- � G . .......' n L '.± I . I ·,\j {'l • I I • I I 2 0 -1-, __. <r 1 ; ,. ·,)l�. 'LL � r I .. ··r-· . 1 I • , � --l � ., . ,.,,,., I• I I I • • 1 iJ "'� I-.. -:i It I -,,-•. :I •.'·I-..... �\--. j c! I iii l l I I I I I I I ^0% 7'/ I Po*e -O '\ O H I V\o V V N ^ \ '-’> "^V^ i\A \ ’•\‘^-> »< o -o\ C *V- ( \ 9 9 y-^^i ’ 'r9 1 yj <3'*. >" -I /' 1 ». f \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ CP. 'O’ % \ f■* /' /- \w \ \ % 0°' .O' LAKE MINNETONKA WEST ARM j/ JM-M Rosene v5 Anderlik & ^ I Associates Engineers & Architects Ee>e^. Andtfim ^ Affirmative Act.oA'Iquai Opogriur<t> Eftviujftf Ott# <S ien»ftrM, f i- F;»Otn W »e!er%t. FA • ^oieph C AnoereiL P C. I 5C'V»«« mche*dl Tjintf. 6*«nn t f F f T>»omas f. Np) ei. p f t«A*rt Cl Uhw^cM. P f SufAn M e^erf «. C ^ A • • Itnlof November 9.1995 Howjfi A. lanfard. ^ I. Keitfl A. Oardorv ■otert K Afefferit. f t ft charfl W. Foster. F t Cftvt4 0. Lailoto. F | C ftu*»«A AlA Itfry A tourdOA, F f MFftL A. Manson. F E Mifnaci T ftoutrre-vi FF. Tea K F*eid. F C The'T'ot t Aoeenon A^i A. iirnts F ftoi»nr^^ff#| P.f. Conatd C Surgs dt F f Thomos A S/fliO. F.ft Fredrrie J Stf ncorg F E Km>«i Martinet. Ff Mtchaei F. Rfm. FI Tlmmas F«t*i soa. F C. lAchaol C LyAcA, P C. Garnet t VUtftnd. P C. ^rt| O F»ri/t«:h. P.|. Icett J Argai^aft. fJL Rffinath F Andtrsorv FI. Mart ft ftoift FE Ma^ A WiA. F i. Cary 4/ Marttn. FJE. F.''*»4 ) Cannarv AlA Oan.ol J fd^rtun. PJ. A Sicft lenimdt. PI, Dale A Grove Pft arfilp j Css well FI D F f M.iet a jerticn F K L PhMio OiF^ei. F E Karerv L U^emerl Pi Ca^y O F'^itcfitr, PP inan« Oact. PI. F Teaa aosTtr. F t Ke ih I Yaj^. PC Dow^iai J. Benoit, F I. IhavvA 0 Guitafloa F |. Ctcitio OltetOf Pt Kent I Wegntl. PI. FjmI G Hoviar. r C. ionn F Gordtr. F.l. Can D Boyum. Ff. Jeffrey J lMtrir>0cr. FX JoftcpA ft fthtin. f C. iet M Mann Ff Chat let A friction lea M Faweitly Harian M Ouon Agnei M ting James F. CngePtardf it b Honoi^ble Mayor and City Council Mcmbeis City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Cr>'stal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Re: Old Crystal Bay R<^ad File 13966 Honorable Mayor and City Council: r^... - NOV 1 3 1995 CITV Of URCKC Tr.nnsmitted herewith is the Pay Request #1 for the above mentioned piojcct. The items have been satisfactorily completed and we recommend payment tor this pay request. If you have any questions please call this oftice. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROStNF., ANDF.RLIK & ASSOCIATES. LNC. Shawn D. Gustafson SDG:rb L 2J3S West lljqhw.nv 36 ■ St. P.iiil, MN 55113 - 612 636-1600 m « • l/UBotmtioa b9 Rofene Owner.Cite ’ of Orofto. 2750 Kelly Pkwy. Orono, MN 55323 Dale Nov. 9.1995 HAndertlil. |\||AsMd9tei For Period:.Start to November 8. 1995 Request No. 1 Contractor:Hardrivet, Inc . 9724.10th Ave N . Plymouth. MN 55441 REQIIF-ST FOR P iYMENT OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD WALKW AY MSAP NO. 152-102-12 Flic No. 13966 SUMKfARY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II Orighul Contract Amount Change Older • Addition Change Older - DeJucii>^i Rcviik'd Conir.'itt Anioimt Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Less Retainage 5C4 Sub-Total Lcks Amount Paid Ptcviuu^Iy AMOITNT DUF. THIS REQITST FOR PA^'MF.NT NO. S s $ s s $ $ $ % $ .*^6 628 96 .'6.628.96 48,217.09 4S217 09 2.410J5 45.806 24 0.00 45.806.24 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCI ATES, INC. Approved by Contractor. IIAKDUIVES, INC. Approved by Owner; Cn YOEORONO, MN Siiecified Contr.net Completion D.tte October 15. 1995 Date: 13?66\rcqur;kl \\b2 No.Item Unit ConiracI Quantity I'nil Price Quantity to Date Amount to Date Part A - Old Crystal Bay Road MSA? 152-102-12 2021501 Mtil'ilualion li 1 W.ftOOOO 1 4,<KIOOO 2101 501 Gear and grub trees LS 1 5.883 00 1 5 88500 2104501 Remove CMP or BCP aih*CTl IF no 5.3>no 58H 50 2104.513 Saw bitnminous pavf IF 1,060 1 30 600 78(3.0<» 2105 JOl Common excavation CY 515 4.50 5f)0 2.250 00 2105.321 Granular btarow (CV)CY 350 1050 175 1,837 50 2105523 Common bortOtv (CV)CY 850 4.50 600 2.700 00 2105.535 Sahaged topsoil CY 210 3 50 50 175.00 0112.602 Subgrade preparation SY 830 0 30 8.30 249 00 2211.301 Aggregate base, Cl 5, 100^ crushed TN 117 7.35 125 918.75 2211.501 Agg.hasc, Cl. 5. 100^ crushed (walk)TN 520 7.65 648 4.937 20 2211.501 Agg.basc* Cl. 5.KX)?& cnished(dwy)TN n 7.85 IS 117.75 2331.50.5 BituminoiiS material for mixture •IN 72 00 136 00 2623 3.567 28 2331.508 T>pe 41 w’exkfing course mixture TN 61 18.25 2331 514 Tv’pe 31 base course mixture 'IN 61 17.25 67 U5575 2331.513 Tjpe 41 bit. mixture for walk TN :09 1870 111 5.078.36 2331 518 Type 41 bit. matcri:d tor ilriseway TN 6 3500 8 280.00 2357.502 Bituminous material for tack coat GL 60 1.00 2301.511 15” CM pipe culvert LP UV)22.50 nx)2,250.00 2501.515 15" CM pipe apron r.A 4 7500 4 300 00 2531 501 Concrete curb Ar. gutter. Design B61S LF 965 5 80 8(30 4.640.(k3 2573.503 Silt fence. pica?^reinblevl IJP 2(K)2 50 100 250 00 2575.501 Ro.stlsido scediiu?AC 1 161.00 2575502 Seed, Mixiuie 5i»l.B 50 3 50 2575.505 Sodding, type \^^^n SY 2.660 1 50 2575..511 Mulch inatcfial, Type 1 TN 1 161 00 • 2575519 Disc aiichoniig AC 0 5 60t)0 2575.531 Commercial feit.. Analysi.s 20-10-10 IN 0 12 428.00 7M« B • Storai $cw«r . MSAP 1S2-10M2 2501.515 1 ft* RC pipe apron w/trash fuard EA 1 $750.00 1 75000 2503.541 1 ft* RC pipe cul\ cit. Qass V LF 120 31.00 uo 3.72000 SP-2 Constnict catch basin. Design SP-2 EA 1 750.00 I 750.00 SP-3 Construct manhole. Design SP-3 EA 1 1,017.00 1 1,017.00 2511.501 Random rip rap. Class 3 CY 4 S6.00 Total Part B - Storm Sewer $6.237 00 Total Part A - Old Crystal Bay Rd. MSAP 152-102.12 Total Part B - Storm Sewer - MSAP 152-102-12 Total NVork Completed to Date 41,98009 6,23700 $4H,217.09 I.A*566'feqiieil »*K2 ; PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS Owner Giy of Orono Project No. FUcNo. 13966 Contractor Hardrivcs. Inc. CHANGE ORDERS PAYMENT SLIM.MAR Y No. Period P:i^ iitriit Rvlain:if*r CoTTlpIl fi e! 1 SlaK H R 95 45.S(»6.24 2410S5 4K.2 17.09 '1a. 3 4 5 6 7 9 IQ, Malirial on Hand Total Payment to Date $45,806 24 RcUiinace. Payment No.1 2410li5 Toul Amount Hnrnc<l $48,217 09 Oiipin.^1 (rontrnci ni-inwe Orders Revised Contrael 6iS.‘'6 $56.6'.’S.96 11/ JRosene Anderlik & ^1 Associates Engineers & Architects idA#ftroo. ffoim. An^trm M Asiocijcei. inc. u m Affirmative Action/C^ai Oppenu mty Empioyef Otto G ione itroo. F C. •oMft W Rosene. R E.* Joie pn C Anoemk, RE. Merv»n L Sorveij P£. Ricnerd £ “^umef . R E Glenn R. Cooe. R E Thomjf E. Noyes. R E Robert a Schieecm. R E. Susan M. Eberim. C R A* *Senior Consultant October 9, 1995 How^ard A Sanford RE Keith A. Gordon.. R E Robert R- Rfeffene. R E Rtenaro W Roster R E. Oavtd O Loffeota. R C iooen C Rusiee, a i A Jerry A Bourdon. R E Vlare A. Hanson. R L Michaet T RauCinann R E Teij K Fteid. R E Thomas R Ar»oe»^son_ A i A James R Rosenmersei R £ Donato C Burgardl. R S Thomas A Svffeo. RE Frederic J Stenborg. RE :smaci Mar?tr»ei. R E %lichaei R Rau R £- Thomas Jr Reterson. RI RRcnaei C LyrKh. R E J«nes R Maiano. R E Jerry D Rertzsch. RE Scott J Argar^s, R E Kenneth R Arvierson. f Mark R Rolfs. R E. Mars A Seip R E. Gary a Monen. R E Raul J Ganr>on. A.I.A Oartiei J Edgerton. R£ A Ric» SchOHOt R E Dale A Grove RE Rhiitp J Caswell R E. Mart O Wallis. R E. Mites • Jensen. R E ^ Gravel RE Karen L W'emen RE. Gary O tmtofiti. R £■ Brian t. Gage. R E. f '^ood Foster . R E teith R rapb. RE. Douglas J Benoit. R E Shawn O Guitaf son R E. CecHio OHv*ef. RE. tent J. Wagner, R.E. »»aui G. Heuer RE John R Goroer. R E Dan O Boyum. R £ Jeffrey J Ehiermger. RE- josepn R Rt^m. R E. Lee M Marm RE Charles A. S net ion Leo M Raweiity Marian M 0>son "Rgres jame^ R Eng^hardt 1 City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono. Minnesota 55232 ((o Attn: Mr. John Gerhardson ^OCT I S Re: Navarre Lift Station No. 7 - Final Request for Payment. Our File: 13973 COUNCIL MECnWG NOV 1 3 1995 Cf^ Of ORONO Dear John: Enclosed are four (4) copies of Request for Payment for the Narv arre Lift Station No. 7 Renovation. We have reviewed the final Request for Payment and recommended payment for the enclosed sum of $51,387.71. Sinccrelv. BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES 'frul Mark D. Wallis 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 Bonatroa AndertkCi Associates 4 AfCMltm Owner: Citv of Orono 2750 KeFIv Parkwav. Orono. N!N 55232 Dale Sept 26^ 1995 For Period; June 19. 1995 to September 26. 1995 Request No. 2 & Final Contractor: Ford Construction Co.. Inc., P O Box 667. Excelsior, MN 55331-0667 li V * ••* It-» % '% •»L REQUEST FOR PAYMENT Navarre Lift Station No. 7 Renovation •Flic .No. 13973 .. -a SUMMARY 1 Onginal Contract Amount 2 Change Order - Addition 3 Change Order - Deduction 4 Re vise? Contract Amount 5 Value Completed to Date 6 Material on Hand 7 Amount Earned 8 Less Retainagc 9 Sub-Total 10 Less Amount Paid Previously 11 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQLfEST FOR PAYMENT NO. S $ 2 & Final S S s s $ s $ s 56.782.00 5ft.782.00 56.782.00 0(X) 56.782.00 0.00 56.782.00 5.394.29 51,387.71 Recommended for Approval by; BONESTROO. ROSENE, .\NDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved by Contractor; FORD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. .Approved by Owner; CITY OF ORONO Specified Contract Completion Date September 15. 1995_____________ Date: 13973RFP.wbl RFP-I mm A A Item Unit Contract Qitantity Unit Quantity Price to Date Amount to Date Part 1 - Total Base Bid Renovation of Lift Station No. 7 for the LUMP SL'M of: Total Work Completed to Date $56,782.00 100%$56,782.00 $56,782.00 l3973RFP»bl Rn*-2 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS Owner City of Orono Project No. Fite No.13973 Contractor Ford Construction Co.. Inc. CHANGE ORDERS .Amount 4 1 2 - 3 Total Chance Orders PAYMENT SUMMARY I Siarl 6-19-95 S5.394 29 $28391 S5.678.20 ->6-19-95 9-26-95 $51,387 ■’1 $56,782.00 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 10 Material on Hand Total Payment to Date $56,782.00 Oncinal Contract $56,782.00 Refiimaee. Pvmi No 2 & Final Chanee Orders Total Amount Earned $56,782.00 Revised Contract $56,782.00 13973RFPwbl RFP-3 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene SS/nderlik& ^1 Associates Engineers & Architects •oatftroo.AndrrWi and Assocuces. me. n an Affirmacive Action/Equal Opportunity E'npioyer October 31, 1995 Mr. John Gerhardson Director of Public Works City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Orono: MN 55323 Oro G. ■onestroo. P C. fooart W llosone. iosopn C And^fim. P E. Marv»n L Sorv«ta. P E ticnarO L Turner. P E Gicnn 8. Coo&. P £. Thomas E. Moyet. P E toPerr G Schuntcm. P E. Susan M Ebenin CPA.* •Senior Consuiijnt Menard A Sanford. PE Keith A Goroon.. P £ tooert 8 Pfefferie. P£. Picharo W Foster. P.E. Oavto O LosKOta. P E. »oOert C Pusset. A I A. jerry A Bourdon. P £. Mare A Hanson. P E. Michael T tautmarm. P E ’ -1 K P.e ’d. PE Thomas 8 Anderson. A IA James 8 8osenmcriiei P E Donald C Burqardt. P £ Thomas A Syfko. PE. r^eoenc J Stenoorg. PE .imaei MarTirei • E Michaet P 8au. P E Thomas sP Peterson PE. Michael C. Lynch. PE James 8 Maiand. P E Jerry O Pertneh. P E Scott J. ArganeK. P E. Kerweth P Anderson, f Mart t tolfs P E Mark A Seip P E. Gary 4f Monen PE Paul J. Gannon. A.I.A Oamei J EOgerton. P E. A Rick Schmidt. P E. Dale A. Grove P E. Phtlip J Caswell P E Mark O Wailii. P S Miles B Jenien. P E. L.Phifi'O Gravel. PE Karen L J^temeri P E Gary D Knstof ce. PE •nan 8. Gage P L F Todd Foster P E. Keith 8 raop PE Oougias J Benoit. P E Shawn O Guitaf son. P E. Ceciiio ONvier. P t Kent J Wagrser. PE »aul G Meuer • E jonn P Oorder P E. Oan 0 Boyum. P E Jeffrey j Emenngef PE. joseon R Rhein. P E Lee M Marsn. P E. Charles A Erickson Leo M. Paweisky Hanan M. Oison Agnes M. Rirsg James F Engeiharot ,v /7 Rc: City of Orono Willow Dnve Street Improvements SAP 152-101-11 File 13962 Dear .Mr. Gerhardson: Enclosed please find request for payment #2 for the above referenced project. This portion of the work has been satisfactonlv completed and wc recommend payment. If you have any questions plea.se contact me. Yours verv trulv, /' BONESTROi SENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC Harlan M. Olson HMO-.rb 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 I^Bonestroo lUB Owner:Cilv of Orono. P 0. Box 66. Crvstal Bav. MN 55.03 Date October 30. 1W5 |SAnder»(&For Period;October 2, 1995 to October 30 1995 Request No. 2 [iifirwtn4ArdiMcf<Contractor Buffalo Bituminous. Inc.. P.O Box 337. Buffalo.55313 REQUEST FOR PAY.MENF MUNICIPAL STATE AID IMPROVE.MENTS WILLOW DRIVE (SAP 152-101-11) Flic No 13962 SUMMARY 1 Original Contract Amount 2 Change Order - Addition 3 Change Order - Deduction 4 RevisS Contrari Amount 5 Value Completed to Date 6 Material on Hand 7 Amount Earned 8 Less Reiamagc 5% 9 Sub-Total 10 Less Amount Paid Previously 11 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PA\'MENT NO, S s s s s s s s $ s 131.982.50 131.982.50 120.813 81 120.813.81 fi.040.69 114.773.12 56.948 23 57,821 89 Recommended for Approval by; BONESTROb, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Approved by Contractor; BUFFALO BITUMINOUS. INC. .Approved by Owner; CITY OF ORONO. MN Specified Contract Completion Date Date 13962\fequesl.wb2 No. 11 :*• 2101.502 2101.507 2104.501 2104.501 2104.505 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 2501.515 0504.602 2531.501 2531.503 2563.601 2564.531 0564.602 0564 602 0564.603 0564.603 2573.503 2575.501 Ttem Base Bid Gearing (tree) Grubbing (tree) Remove concrete curb & gutter Remove pipe culvert Remove bituminous pavcrncnt Sawing bituminous pavement Relocate mailboxes, signs, etc. Common excavation (P) Subgrade excavation ^elect granular borrow- Salvaged topsoil (CV) Gcotextile fabnc. Type V Aggregate base. Cl.5, 10045? crushed quarry rork Aggregate shouldering. Class 5. 1(X)% crushed quarry rock Type 41 wearing course mix. Type 31 binder course mixture Type 31 ba.se course mixture Bituminous material for tack coat 4" pertorated PE pipe dram 12" CM pipe culvert 12" CM pipe apron Adjust valve box - water Concrete curb & gutier-Design B618 Concrete median Tratfic control Furnish & install sign panels. Type C Pavement message (leii arrow i epoxy Pavement message mght .urowi epoxy 4" wide solid line, yellow epoxy 4" wioe solid line, white epoxy Silt tence, prcasscmblcd Roadside seeding Unit Contr?' t Qunntity Unit Price Quantity to Date .Amount to Date TR 11 6a .00 11 715.00 TR 11 65.00 II 715.00 LF 70 300 70 210.00 LF 70 10.00 •’0 700 00 SY 1.700 1.50 1.711 2.566.50 LF 160 1.50 160 240.00 LS 1 100 00 1 100.00 CY 2.300 5 00 3.522 17.61000 CY 500 5.50 325 1.787.50 TN 6,200 l.OO 4,528 4.528.00 CY 240 7.00 240 1.680.00 SY 4.00(J 1.00 4.000 4.000.00 TN 1.300 15.00 1.708.21 25.623.15 TN 100 20.(K)46 929.60 TN 260 35.00 TN 3*'0 29.00 361.06 10.470.74 TN .-^55 29.00 54908 15.923.32 GL 500 1.00 200 200.00 LF 500 7.00 500 3.5(X).00 LF 54 30.00 54 1.620.00 EA ■*200.00 ->4(X).00 EA ■>150 00 LF 750 1500 777 11.655.00 SY 250 4000 221 H.S40.00 LS 1 5.000.00 1 5.000.00 SF 26.5 35.00 EA 1 130.00 E.\1 130 00 LF 2.000 0.8S LF 1.0(K)O.L'S LF 400 *^.00 3o0 1.800.00 AC 0.2 2.000.00 13962\request w62 2575J02 2575J05 2575.511 2575 J19 2575.531 Seed, mixture 500 Sodding, Type lawn Mulch nuuehal. Type I Disk anchonng Commercial fertilizer, non-phosphate Total Work Completed to Date LB 20 20.00 SY 12200 3.00 TN 0.4 500.00 AC 02 500.00 TN 0.2 500 00 S120JU3.81 13962Vequest.wb2 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS Owner City of Orono Project No. FOcNo.13962 Contractor Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. CHANGE ORDERS 1 2 3 - Total Change Orders PAYMENT SUMMARY 1 Start 1 10-2-95 1------------------------------------------------ 56.94,S.23 2.9M7 2S Sg Q45 SO 10-2-95 10-30-95 57.824.89 6.040 69 120.813.8 1 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 .Material <»n Hand Total Payment to Date $114,773 12 Oneinal Contract $131,982.50 Reiainaee. Pavmenl No.2 6.040.69 Change Orders Total Amount E;irned $120,813.81 Revised Contract S 131.982.50 13962\request. wb2 CCwV.C/i [ NOVREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ ' ^3 iggc nsiu^DATE: Novemfei^Wfl ITEM NO'■■H Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: III Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Item Description: 19%-1998 Police and Fire Service Contracts with the city of Long Lake The 1996-1998 Police and Fire Service Contracts between the cities of Orono and Long Lake are attached for Council review and approval. Both have been approved by the city of Long Lake. The 1996 Police Contract cost to Long Lake is $233,534. This is an increase of $2,451 or 1.06% over 1995. The 1996 Fire Contract cost to Orono is $92,174. This is an increase of $3,132 or 3.5% over 1995. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the 1996-1998 Police and Fire Service Contracts between the cities of Orono and Long Lake and to authorize the Mayor to sign the contracts. CITY OF LONG LAKE OCTT ^-0 1996 October 18, 1395 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Honorable Mayor and City Council: The City of Long Lake does submit for your approval a proposed contract for the provision of Fire Protection Service for the three year period 1SS6, 1997 and 1398. The enclosed materials include a copy of the Agreement and Contract for Service, as well as the three year (1996-98) budget package. The year Two and year Three costs are based on holding the maximum increase to 4% per year. The City of Long Lake and the Long Lake Fire Department are committed to oelivering an excellent sen/ice at a fair price. We would respectfully request that you approve the extension of the Fire Sen/ice Contract for the three year period 1996 -1998. There are two original copies enclosed, please sign both and keep one for your records. Sincerely yours. Joseph P. Lynch City Administrator IParK .Avenue • Lone Lake. .Minnesota 55356 • 612-473-6961 612-476-9622 (fa.K) C i T Y Or LONG LAKE Agreement and Contract for Fire Protection THIS AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT made and entered into this 19 95__ by and between the City of Long Lake day of 19 95 by and between tne uiiy oi uuny a municipaj Contracting City) witnesseth: WHEREAS, the City of Long Lake has the facilities and equipment and is willing and able to provide fire protection service to the Contracting City, and WHEREAS, the Contracting City is desirous of having fire protection service furnisheo by the City of Long Lake Fire Department. NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the covenants herein contained the parties hereto agree as follows; 1.Definitions A The term Contracting City or the Contracting Cities means any city which is a party to ■this Agreement or similar Agreement which by its terms is interrelated with this Agreement for the purposes of sharing the costs and the services of fire protection provided by the Long Lake Fire Deoartment. The Contracting Cities are: Orono. Medina and Long Lake. B C.tv Fire ServiceAre^is the area within a Contracting City receiving fire protection from the Long Lake Fire Deportment. (City Fire Service areas are shown in Appendix A attached.) The Total Fire Sen/ice Area is the sum of all City Fire Service Areas^ 2.^arvices to be rendered^ During the term of this agreement Long Lake shall furnish all the fire fighting sen/ices to the Contracting Cities for the Total Fire Service Area outlined in red on the attached mao marked Exhibit A hereinafter referred to as 'The Total Fire Service Area . All of said Total Fire Service Area is located within the corporate limits of the Contracting Cities. Pa^e I 19M Park .Avenue • Long Uke. .Mmne-ota 55356 • 6i:-a73-6961 6I2-X76-9622 (fw) r 3.Levet of Service Long Lake through its fire department shall endeavor to protect and save life and property from destruction by fire in the City Fire Service Area of each Contracting City to the same extent as it dees within the City Fire Service Area cf Long Lake. In the event of two fire calls received within the same time frame, the call first received shall have priority and the second call shall be answered as soon as possible. Long Lake will furnish sufficient staff to each call to safely, legally and effectively operate all necessary vehicles and equipment and provide all necessary services. 4.Command Responsibility The Fire Chief of Long Lake or his Deputy shall have the sole and exclusive right and responsibility to prescribe the m.anner and method cf giving the alarm for fire within the Total Fire Service Area and to prescribe the manner and method of responding to calls and rendering the services contemplated. The said Fire Chief or his Deputy shall immediately upon arriving at the scene of any alarm or fire emergency have the sole and exclusive responsibility and authority to direct and control any and all fire fighting and the emergency operations at such scene cr scenes. 5.Volunteer Fire Fichters of the City of Long Lake Personnel assigned to provide fire protection services in the Contracting Cities shall be volunteer firemen cf the City of Long Lake, which City shall assum.e all obligations with regard to Worker's Compensation, Firem.en's Relief Association, withholding tax, insurance, etc. for such volunteer firamen, if any. The cost of such cbligaticns shall be a part of the costs attributed to the operation of the Long Lake Fire Department and will be included in the Annual Budget Package. 6.Nature of Lena Lake Underraking In no event shall this agreem.ent be construed to fix upen Lcng Lake any responsibility or liability to the Contracting Cities or to third parties which are greater or different in kind than the resocnsibiiities and liabilities borne by the Contracting Cities if they were providing such services through their ewn fire departments. 7.I lability Insurance Long Lake snail carry liability insurance in the amount of $1,500,000.00 protecting itself against damage claims of its fire fighters fer personal injury sustained while in service within'^the said limits of the Contracting Cities as hereto set forth. And further. Long Lake shall carry liability insurance in the amount of $1,600,000.00 saving both parties harm.less so far as acts of the City of Long Lake, its fire department and its fire fighters are concerned. The cost of such insurance shall be a part of the costs attributed to the Page 2 1 operation of the Long Lake Fire Department and will be included in the Annual Operatin g Budget. Nothing in this contract shall be construed as waiving the statutory liability limits of any city which is a party to this contract 8.Budget Package 8.1 Definitions A The Annual Operating Budge t refers to the calendar year budget of the Long Lake Fire Department during the first year of any three year period covered by this agreement. This budget will become the ofncial Annual Operating Budget upon ratification by the Contracting Cities. The Annual Budget may include both operating and Major Equipment items and incorporates all costs of operations including, but not limited to. the rental of space for the fire department and discretionary funding of the Fire Benefit Association Retirement Fund. B.The Year Two Budget refers to a single number, not to be exceeded, dollar amount which will be used as the budget limit for the next calendar year in the event the Annual Budget Package is not ratified by all Contacting Cities by October 1 of the first year of any three year period covered by this agreement. C.The Year Three Budget refers to a single number not to be exceeded dollar amount which will be used as the budget limit for the next calendar year in the event the Annual Budget Package has not been ratified by all Contacting Cities by October 1 of the second year of any three year period covered by this agreement. D.The Annual Budget Package refers to the grouping of the Annual Operating Budget, the Year Two Budget and the Year Three Budget which is submitted as a unit by the City of Long Lake for ratification by the Contracting Cities. The Annual Budget Package must be ratified by all Contracting Cities prior to October 1 in the year suomitted to become the valid budgets for the following three years. The Annual Budget Package must be accepted or rejected in its entirety. 8.2 Bucget Process By August 15 of each year during 'which this agreement remains in effect, the City of Long Lake will provide an Annual Budget Package covering the cost of fire protectio n for the next three calendar years. The budgets presented to the Contracting cities must have been presented to the Joint Advisory Committee prior to August 1 for discussion and review. Although it is expected that the Annual Bucget Package wnicn is provided to the Contracting Cities by the City of Long Lake will have the consensus support of the Joint Advisory Committee, that is not a Page 3 requirement since each Contracting City has the opportunity for final ratification or rejection. 9.Term of this Agreement This Agreement is for three contract years and covers the period January 1, 1SS6 through December 31, 1SS8. A contract year covers the period January 1 through December 31 of a calendar year. This Agreement will become effective upon ratification by the Contracting Cities of ail its parts including Appendix C which contains the initial Annual Budget Package. The term of this agreement may be extended as described below. 9.1 On each occasion that the Annual Budget Package is ratified by October 1 by the Contracting Cities, this Agreement will be renewed for a total period of three contract years beginning with the contract year following the current contract year. The details of this process are covered in sections 9.2 through 9.5 following. 9.2 When during the first contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is ratitied by Contracting Cities by October 1. this Agreement shall be extended by one contract year. When during the second contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement shall be extended by two contract years. When during the third contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement shall be extended by three contract years. The elements of the Annual Budget Package so ratifed will replace the elements of the previously ratified Annual Budget Package. 9.3 When during the first contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, the amount previously ratified as the Year Two Budget shall become the Annual Operating Budget for the second contract year and the term of this Agreemient shall not be extended. 9.4 When during the second contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, the amount previously ratified as the Year Two Budget shall become the Annual Operating Budget for the third contract year and the term of this Agreement shall not be extended. Page 9.5 When during the third contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement will terminate at the end of that contract year. 10.Annual Audit of Actual Costs The Contracting City understands and agrees that it impossible to project with complete accuracy the actual costs of labor and equipment as well as the service to be required by each Contracting City for the forthcoming contract year and thereby hereby agrees to a yearly audit to adjust the prior year's estimated cost of service as set forth above to the actual costs incurred by the City of Long Lake. On or before April 1 of each year the City of Long Lake will tabulate the actual cost of the fire department budget for the prior contract year and will submit to the Contracting Cities a sum.mary of the actual costs. The actual costs set forth fcr the prior contract year may result in either a surplus or deficit with respect to that year's Annual Operating Budget. Any surplus shall be refunded to the contract cities in the same ratio as the cost allocation formula. Any deficit shall be funded by the contract cities in the same ratio as the cost allocation formula. It is expected that expenditures will remain within the Annual Operating Budget amounts and will only exceed such budget amounts in the case of an extraordinary event or when mutually agreed to by the Contracting Cities as provided in Section 12. 11 .Contract Payments The City Budget Share(See Section 16.2) of each Contracting City shall be paid in equal quarterly installments on January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 of the next contract year by the Contracting City to the City of Long Lake. Long Lake agrees to provide the Contracting City with reasonably detailed information relating to the actual expenditures against the Annual Operating Budget at us request and agrees to make its records available to the Contracting City for inspection for the purpose of determining the basis fcr the allocation of costs to fire protection. 12,Unforecasted Expenditures Nohvithstanding any of the above, the Contracting '.. .ies shall have the right to be heard regarding any proposed expenditures 'which a.e not identified in the Annual Operating Budget and ’which exceed 35,CC0.C0 . Notice of such proposed, non- budgeted expenditures shall be given in writing to the Contracting Cities prior to actual expenditures fcr sucn items and the Contracting cities shall thereafter have 21 days in which to approve or disapprove the same in writing and if there is no response which disapproves the expenditure, it is agreed that such proposed expenditures may be made and the cost thereof shall be included in the Annual Operating Budget as if ratified originally. Page 5 13.Arbitration If a Contracting City is aggrieved by the determination of the City of Long L^e as to the allocation of the actual costs of the prior year's service, the Contracting City may appeal said determination within 30 days after receipt of the City of Long Lakes au i. Said appeal shall be in writing and shall be addressed to the City of Long Lake asking for arbitration by a board of arbitration. The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three persons: one to be appointed by the City of Long Lake, one to be appointed by^e appealing Contracting City, and the third to be appointed by the two so selected. The name of each arbitrator shall be submitted in writing to the other party. In the event that the two arbitrators so selected do not appoint the third arbitrator within 15 days after receipt of written notice of appointment of either of the first two arbitrator's, the Chief Judge of the District Countv of Hennepin County shall have jurisdiction to appoint upon apolication of either the Contracting Cities the appealing Contracting City, the third arbitrator to the Board. The third arbitrator selected shall not be a resident of either Contracting City, and snail be a city manager or administrator. The arbitrator's expenses, not including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of me arbitration shall be divided equally between the parties to the arbitration. Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration act. Chapter 572 of the Minnesota Statutes, and any decision shall be rendered within 60 days of appointment of the third arbitrator. Said arbitration shall be binding on both parties. 14.Special Fire Funds In order to facilitate the accounting and reporting of all fire funds associated with the Annual Operating Budget, a Fire Operating Fund will be maintained by the C4y of Long Lake No Major Equioment Fund will be maintained by the City of Long Lake on behalf of the Contracting Cities as a part of this agreement since under the provisions of Section 17 each Contracting City agrees to maintain an equipment Fund on its own. 15 Joint Advisory Committee Each Contracting City may appoint hvo volunteer members to a Joint Advisory Committee and the name of such appointees shall be furnished to Long Lake. The Joint Advisory Ccmm.ittee shall m.eet periodically to discuss and make recommendations regarding concerns or problems identified regarding the provision of fire'service. to periodically review budget updates. The Joint Advisory Committee shall have the specific task of reviewing the Fire Department's budget proposal for the next calendar year and arriving at a consenL Js Budget Package consisting of an Annual Operating Budget, a Year Two Budget amount and Year Three Budget amount by August 15 of each calendar year. 16.Cost Sharing Formula Each of the Contracting Cities receiving fire service fnm the Lcng L?^e Fire Department shall pay a share of the costs of the Annual Operating budget. The City's Budget Share will be based upon a formula which takes into account the Market Value of the protected property and the fire department manpower resources utilized to protect the property. The objective is to fairly allocate "insurance” type costs and "effort and variable" type costs. The Contracting Cities have agreed that 70% of the share allocation will be based upon Market Value and 3C% upon fire departm.ent hours expended cn calls to the City Fire Service Area. 16.1 Definitions: A.City Fire Service Area is the area within a Contracting City provided fire protection under this contract. The City Fire Service Area for each Contracting City is shown in Appendix A attached B.City Fire Service Area Market Value is the assessed market value of the property in the City Fire Servic?^ Area, and is based upon the assessed market value for the year immediately preceding the budget year. The source of the assessed market value data shall be the Hennepin County Assessor's Off ce. C.Total Service Area Market Value is the sum of the City Fire Service Area Market Values of all contracting cities. D.City Market Percen t is the percentagf .ornputed by dividing the City Fire Service Area Market Value by the T jtal Service Area Market Value and multiplying oy 100. E.City Call Hours is the total num.fcer of fre fghter hours expended in responding to cails ;n the Citv Fire Service Area as recorded by The Long Lake Fire Department during the preceding three year period measured from June 1 throughout May 20. otal Call Hours is the total number of fre fghter hours expended in responding to cails in all contracting cities during the previous three year period measured from June 1 through May 30. G.Call Percent is the percentage computed by dividing the Citv Call Hours by the Total Cal' Hours and multiplying by 100. H.Citv Budeet Percentace is the percentage derived from the sum of the Citv Market Percent multiplied by 0.7 and the Citv Call Pp.-cent multiplied by 0.3. Page 7 16.2 Budget Share Computation: City Budget Share is the City Budget Percentage multiplied by the Annu^ •Operating Budget less any Major Equipment expenditures and the resulting product divined by 100. 16.3 Formula for Calculations A.City Market Percent = (B x lOu; / (C) percent where B = City Fire Service Area Market Value C = Total Fire Service Area Market Value B.Call Percent = (Ex 100)/(F) percent where E = City Call Hours F = Total Call Hours C.City Budget Percentage = [ (City Market Percent x 0.70 ) + (Call Percent x 0.30 ) ] D.City Budget Share = (City Budget Percentage /1 00) x (Annual Operating Budget less Major Equipment expenditures) E.The City Budget Share of Major Equipment expenditures is determined under che provision of Section 17. 16.4 City Call Hours, Total Call Hours. City Fire Service Area Market Values Total Fires Service Area Market Value, and City Budget Percents for 1994 are shown in Appendix B attached. 16.5 The Annual Budget Package fcr 1996 (Which includes the Annual Operating Budget fcr 1996, the Year Two Budget (for 1997), and the Year Three Budget (fcr 1998) are shown in Appenaix C attached. 17.Maicr Eou'omient Funding Each Contracting City agrees to maintain its own fund for Major Equipment. Major Equipmen t is definac as "rolling sicck' or similar major equipment assets required for performing the fire depanme" Tiission in the Fire Protection Area. To qualify as Major Equipment such assets must have a initial purchase value of at least $20,000.00 . When a Major Equipment item is to be purchased the following process for sharing the funding will be used. Pa^e 8 17.1 Funding A.Long Lake will have the option of funding any percentage of the total which is equal to or greater than the average of its last three City Budget Percentages •including the current calendar year. B.Medina w'll have the option of funding the remaining amount. If Medina does not wish to fund the total of the remaining amount, it must find at least the average of its last three C.ty Budget Percentages including the current calendar year and may fund more if it chooses. C.Orcno will fund the balance remaining to be funded after Long Lake and Medina have specified their funding amounts. 17.2 Termination In the event that this Agreement shall be terminated based upon the method described in Section 9.5 or by mutual agreement of all the Contracting Cities. Long Lake will have the right to purchase each Contracting City’s ownership share of each Major Equipment item at the original amount funded by that city, in the event that Long Lake waives its right to acquire full title to a particular Major Equipment item, the Contracting City with the largest ownership share of that item snail have the right to acquire full title to the item by paying the amount funded by each of the other Contracting Cities. If that City declines to acquire full title, the rerr.aining Contracting City may acquire title on the same terms. In the event that no Contracting City wishes to acquire full title to a particular Major Equipment item, it shall be sold and the proceeds of the sale divided between the Contracting Cities pro-rata to their original -nding. All Major Equipment items funded during the term of the contract, including extensions, will be covered by this terminating procedure. The dissolution language applies to ail equipment purchased, and fund balances accrued, since January 1 of 1993. This language is not intended to address any ciaim cities may have regarding equipment purchased prior to January 1, 1993. 18.Termination of this Agreem.ent This Agreement may be terminated by either the method detailed in Section 9 or by mutual agreement of all Contracting Cities. Upon termination, the method descrioed in Section 17 will be used to distribute Major Equipment assets and the audit of operating costs for the final year of the Agreement shall govern the handling of amounts due between the Contracting Cities. All incidental materials and equipment will remain with the Long Lake Fire Department. 19.Special Provision for the City cf Medina The objective of this Agreement is to orovide a three year continuation of Fire Prote<^ion Service for the Contracting Cities under known terms and within agreed upon financial limits in excnange fcr a com.mitment by each Contracting City to participate for a minimum cf three years. Notwithstanding that, the Cities of Long Lake and Orono extend to the City of Medina the Fire Protection terms of this Agreement during the years 19So, 1G37 and 1998 with the following Special Provision to allow the City of Medina to review its Fire Protection requirements in more detail before committing to this Agreement fcr three years. During the Period Covered (19.1), City of Medina ratification of 1997 and 1998 Annual Budget Packages is not required fcr the term of the Agreement be extended. If the City of Medina does ratify the either the 1997 or 1998 Annual Budget Package the City shall by that action be considered to have agreed to the terms of this Agreement and commits to its three year provisions. However, even if the City of Medina does not ratify either the 1997 or the 1998 Annual Budget PacKage it shall "be considered to have met the terms cf this Agreement for the initial period 1994 througn 1996 but it will not be a Contracting City thereafter. 19.1 The period The period covered by this Special Provision shall be the Contract Years 1997 and 1998 except as provided in 19 4 below. 19 2 Prevision to adjust C.ty Fire Service Area During the period covered, the City cf Medina m.ay request that its City Fire Service Area be reduced or increased in size to meet the requirements cf the City of Medina. Such a request must be made prior to July 1 of the Contract Year to allow tim.e fcr preparing the Ar.nuai Budget Package. In the event that the City of Medina, proposes an increase to its City Fire Service Area, the C.ty cf Long Lake in consultation with the Long Lake Fire Department shall have the right to limit the increase to assure that coverage at the service level provided under this agreement can be achieved by the Fire Department. The service area shall not be increased to the extent that it requires the purchase of additional equicm.ent unless ail parties to the contract agree. In the event that the City of Medina wisnes to decrease and/or alter the location of its City Fire Service Area it may do so by specifying those changes in writing by July 1 cf the contract year. If the location of the City Fire Service is altered, such Changes must be agreed to by the City of Long Lake in consultation with the Long Lake Fire Department before they will be covered by this Agreement. 19.3 City Fire Service Area adjustment limitation. Page 10 ’I In the event the City cf Medina reduces its City Fire Service Area to a point wi .ere using the calculations cf Section 16 their City Budget Percentage is less than 2%, the City agrees to the following: *A. Concurrence cf the ether Contracting Cities will be required to remain covered.by the terms cf this Agreement. B.The City will relinquish the right and requirement that it ratify successive Annual Budget Packages but will continue to pay its City Budget Percent of each Annual Operating Budget Page 11 1996 Three Year Budget Proposal It 4 •• • i -tj- - ^ORONQ LONG LAKE MEDINA (^1996) Year One Operating Budget S130.208 1996 City Share ___________ 76.79%ZU.oitvo O.o^ >0 92.17*1 27.201 10.833 (1997) Year Two Operating Buccet $135.416 1997 City Share 70.79%20.89%8.32% 95.861 28 288 (1988) Year Three Operating Bucicet $140 333 70.79%20.89% 11.267 8.32% 1998 Citv Share S9.6S6 29.420 11.717 "e S-» t -i ■V. L CITY OF LONG LAKE ATTEST MAYOR The above agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of Long Lake by a Motion on October \i 19 95 . CITY OF ORONO ATTEST MAYOR CITY CLERK The above agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of Orono by a Motion on _________________, 19 ____. U;. •'V 4 ■V A-itds Aafea«*«..Ak. ■'f AOP-SlKKMT AMD' COSTRXCT TOR LAW SNTORCXSBDIT THZS AGRjtEKEMT AMD CONTRACT made and entered into this 17th_________day of flrtab^r 19^.between the CITY OFi7tK Clay oz October # 7^/ ORONO, Minnesota and the CITY OF LONG LAKE, Minnesota^, is made under and by virtue of Minnesota Stat’.’tes, Section 471.39. WZTMBSSBTR: WHEREAS# the City of Long Lake is desirous of contracting with the City of Orono for the performance of law enforcement services within the City of Long Lake, ana WHEREAS. the City of enforceme t services on the forth, and Orono is agreeable to render law terms and conditions hereinafter set whereas, a contract such as this is authorized under and by virtue of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Orono agrees that it will provide law enforcement services for the City of Long Lake on t.he following terms and conditions and the City of Long Lake agrees as follows: 1 f i .11 ri^n "«rms. For the purpose of this Agreement, the terms ii. -his Agreement shall have the meanings given to them in this 36'"*'ion. A "Contract year" means a 12 month period during which law enforcement services are to be rendered or were rendered to the Contract Cities by the City of Orono. The contract year shall commence on January 1 and terminate on the next December 31. 3 "Contracting Cities" means any city which is a party to this contract or a similar contract which by its terms is interrelated with this contract for the purposes of allocating ch<''^t:- cai cost for law enforcement ser*/ices. The contracting ^ '2 Oro Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach, and Spring ParK. C. ore Qc Orono Police Budget" shall include all liminary estimated and actual costs of operating the Police Page 1 K-f. J */Vi#>-« p fi r^' D«p*rtttient of the City of Orono for a given contract year, including but not limited to: 1.All insurance costs including PERA, OASI, Workers Compensation LiaJbility. 2.All Salaries, fringe benefits, overtime. 3.All costs of eqnaipment and apparatus acquisition and maintenance. 4.All non-prosecution consulting fees. 5.Holiday and severance pay. 6.Unemployment benefits paid. 7.Utilities. 8.Teleohone Service. 9.Gasoline and oil for police cars. 10.Books and periodicals. 11.Wearing apparel. 12.Officer equipment. 13.Rental costs or estimated fair market rental value of building. 14.All ocher expenses normally and reasonably incidental CO Che operation of a ten officer, Chief included, police department. 15.Administrative overhead charge of 10% of all the above costs. 2.public Image. The designation "Orono-Long Lake-Minnetonka Beach-Spring Park Police Department" shall be affixed to all police cars used by the Orono Police Department under the terms of this agreement and the City of Orono shall cause the Page 2 II lilting for the Police Department for each Contract City to oe inserted in the appropriate telephone directories as may be distributed in the contracting cities. If another city contracts with the City of Orono for service, its name may also be added to the above. 3. nf The quality and level of ser^/ices rendered to the Contract Cities shall be the same as ^tne services rendered to the City of Crono, except as hereinatter stated. It is the desire of the City of long Lake to purchase from tne City of Orono police service beyond the basic seir/ice; sue service to be delivered in a method that provides ser-zice equivalent to that which would be received had Long Lake hired two individual officers to ser'/e it exclusively. The equivalent of two full-time officers is agreed to be a total of 3640 in-service hours per year (35 hours per officer per week for 52 weeks) because provision is made for vacations, sick days, training, etc. This two officer equivalent will be provided in the form of staff hours ser'/ed within the boundaries of the City of Long Lake. The exact numner of hours during any given month may vary by mutually agreed upon scheduling, but the aggregate average over the year will be 70 hours per week with variations of plus or minus 10 hours in any given week being considered acceptable delivery of the contracted extra service. During the oeriod in which such additional service hours are orovifed, the staff member(s) assigned to provide such seio/ice will”be physically within the city limits of Long Lake at all times save for the following: A.Resoonding to Calls which are defined as calls created by immediate necessity for police ser/ice, such as responding to a medical emergency, a crime in progress, an officer requiring immediate assistance, etc. Such calls will always be a part of the communications ■■og* of the Orono Police Department and the officer responding will have been directed by official communication to respona to the Necessary Call. Page 3 B. Scheda.'. rd travel to the Orono Police Department Offices at the ceginning or end of shifts, or for break periods as called for by Union Contract. C.Looping through Orono as a part of regular patrol patterns through the City of Long Lake. The loops that ere permitted will have been agreed upon in advance by the Long Take representatives to the Police Commission. D.Transporting prisoners to the Orono Police Department, Hennepin County Jail, Juvenile Detention Center, Detox Center, or other locations as necessary. There shall be the equivalent of four additional officers, who when on duty shall be stationed within the City of Spring Park. During the period in which supplemental police seir/ice hours are provided, the staff member(s) assigned to provide such service will be physically within the city limits of Spring Park at all times save for the following: A.Responding to Mecessar-/ Calls which are defined as calls created by immediate necessity for police ser'/ice, such as responding to a medical emergency, a crime in proaress, an officer requiring immediate assistance, etc. Such calls will always be a part of the communications log of the Orono police department and the officer responding will have oeen directed by official communication to respond to the Necessary Call. B.Scheduled travel to and from the Oronc Police Deoartment Offices at the beginning and end of shifts, or for break periods as called for by union contract. C.Looping through Orono as a part of regular patrol patterns through the City of Spring Park. The loops that are permitted will have been agreed upon in advance by Spring Park. D. Transporting prisoners to the Orono Police Department*, Hennepin County Jail or Juvenile Detention Center, Detox Center or other locations as necessary. 4 ^ ni .qt-ar-ve Resuonsibilitv^The law enforcement services rendered to the Contract Cities shall be under the Page 4 T*J i sole direction of the City of Orono. The degree of services rendered, the standards of performance, the hiring and discipline of the officers assigned, and other matters relating to regulations and policies, shall remain in the control of the City of Orcno.Any disputes^ between the parties to this agreement as to the extent of tunctions and duties to be rendered hereunder, or the level or manner of oerformance of such seir/ice, shall be resolved by the City Administrator of the City of Orono. If a Contract City disagrees with the resolurion. the Contract City may appeal within thirty days of receipt of written notice of the resolution, by giving written notice to the City of Orono asking for arbitration, as provided in paragraph 17 The City Administrator of the City of Orono, through the Chief or Police, shall submit to the Contract Cities a monthly report of services rendered to the Contract Cities, as well as suggestions regarding any changes that may be helpful, and a quarterly budget update. These reports will include copies of Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Criminal Justice Information summaries for law enforcement services rendered within the Contract Cities. 5, ,T,-.-inr Arivi<:nr-/ Committee^ Each Contracting City may appoint two volunteer memJsers to a joint advisory committee and the name of such appointees shall be furnished to the City of Orono Administration. The Joint Advisory Committee shall meet periodically to discuss and make recommendations regarding concerns or problems identified regarding the provision of police ser’/ice and to periodically review budget updates. The Joint Advisory Committee shall have the specific task of re'lewing the Police Department’s budget proposal for the next calendar year and arriving at a consen£,us Budget Package consisting of an Annual Operating Budget, a Year Two Budoet amount and Year Three Budget amount by August 15 of e-'i calendar year. 5 Fmpinv^os of the City of Qrono^ Officers assigned to duty in the Contract Citiei shall be police officers of the City of Orono. The City of Orono shall assume al^ iligations with regard to workers compensation, PERA, withholding tax, insurance, etc. arising from the employment of such officers. The Contract Cities shall not be required to furnish”any fringe benefits or assume any other liability of employment to any officer assigned to duty within the Page 5 J Contract Cities unless a Contract City employs officers directly, independent of this agreement, to provide special law enforcement ser’/ices in the Contract City. In such event all obligations and liabilities with respect to employment of special law enforcement officers shall be the complete responsibility of the Contract City. No such direct employment shall be entered into by the Contract City without first obtaining written approval of the City Administrator of the City of Orono which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7. Rn for cement Pn 1 r i e s . Enforcement policies within the City of Orono shall prevail as the enforcement policies within the Contract Cities. The enforcement policies of the City of Orono shall be provided in writing to the Contract Cities. 8 . Rnforcement of Ordinances of the Contract—CitiSS-,. The City of Orono officers assigned to duty within the Contract Cities shall enforce the Ordinances of the Contract Cities. 9.All Qf~~^cgrs rn be Officers of the cnrract Cities The officers as.-; ,r.ed duty within t.he Contract Cities shall be provided authority to enforce the several laws of the Cities by proper action to be taken by the governing councils of the Contract Cities. T.he Chief of Police of the City of Orono shall furnish the names of all Orono police officers to the Clerks of the Contract Cities. 10.Of■ All offenses shall be charged in accordance with the ordinances of t.he Contracting City in which the offense occurred in each case possible, otherwise, the charge shall be made in accordance with t.he laws of the State of Mi.nnesota or the laws of the Federal Government. 11. r^mmnni car inns. Ecnuioment and Supplies.. The City of' Orono shall furnish communication equipment necessary to perform the ser'/ices which are to be rendered. The City of Orono shall provide the necessary equipment and vehicles and t.he Contract'cities shall provide any necessary supplies which must be specifically printed for t.he Contract Cities. ^2. ror^T^,^r-at-,inn Ar.ei Assistance from the Contract Cities.. The q£ Orono and the Contract Cities shall have full Page 6 r ■’ ^. -I' sit cooperation and assistance from each others officers, agents, amd employees. X3. Readepiiartars. Headcruarters for the services rendered to the Contract Cities under the agreement shall be located at offices owned or leased by the City of Orono, and the citizens of the Contract Cities shall notify headquarters, or radio discatch for ser'/ices requested either in person or oy some other means of communication. Services shall be rendered to the Contract Cities on a 24 hour basis. 14.Cost to the Ccntract Citie ^ 3—Che ~^otax Base Cos^.. tor a..d in consideration of provision of Law Enforcement services under this agreement, the Contract Cities shall pay total base costs determined by the formula, as illustrated in .Appendix A, ..or each contract year. The factors of the formula which shall be weighed equally, shall be defined as follows: O^nnlation '>r rnntr^rr. ina Citv: The population of each Contracting City computed as of April 1, prior to each contract year from t.he t.hen most recent Metropolitan Council estimate, except in a census year when there is a ^ew census ficrure available by August ls>t, chen that ficure shall be used. Valnar ton of 7arh Contracting Citv;. The market valuation of each Contracting City is based on taxes due and payable for the year immediately preceding the contract year. The source of the assessed ^''aluation data shall be* t.he official figures of the Hennepin County Assessor's Department. 3 .rost to ■cna T^>o -additional Manpower. additional ma.npcwer above the base cost contrac of Long Lake, shall be determined as follows: The cost of to the City actual salary of onzicers assigned to the City of Long Lake shall be computed. To this salary figure will be added an overtime cost calculated as the total overtime budget for all officers divided by the number of Page 7 ii i" ■ 'r: all officers times the number of supplemental omcers, 88 hours of holiday ?ay at the hourly rate, wearj.ng apparel, hospitalization, life insurance , memberships, workers compensation and pensions calculated at t e salary figures above. This total (net of town ai -s then added to the base contract cost to determine the cost of service for Long Lake tor tne new budget year. This procedure is illustrated in Appendix A. This cost will be an actual cost. It is -understood that the City of Long Lake may, due _ arbudget consideration in any contract year at tne beginning of the contract year, adjust the number oc additional officers in which event t.hey shall those extraordinary costs as outlined in the thir paragraph of Section 23.5 of this agreement. c. rn gpr-ra Par’< - Addinior.al The cost or additional manpower above the base contract cost to the City of Spring Park, shall be determined as rollows: The actual salaries of officers assigned to the City of soring Park shall be computed. To this salary figure will be added that percentage of the total overtime budget for all officers calculated by dividing the number of officers assigned to the City of Spring Park by the number of all officers, 88 hours holiday pay at the hourly rate, wearing apparel, hospitalization, life insurance. memberships, workers compensation and oensions calculated at the salary figure above. This total is then added to the total cost per ^contracting City (total plus support sem/ice charge, net of town aid) for Spring Park to determine cost of service for Spring Park for the new contract year. This procedure is illustrated in Appendix A. This cost will be an actual cost. TC is understood chat the City of Spring Park may, due to budget considerations in any contract year, at the beginning of ohe contract -year adjust Che numoer of additional officers, in which event the City of Spring Park shall pay all extraordinary costs as outlined in the third oaragraph of Section 23.5 of this agreement. Page 8 i ? 15.BudyeC Package 15.1 Definitions A.The Annual Cr^^ar»ncr Budget refers to the calendar year budget of the Crono Police Department during the first year of any three year period coverea ^by t.tia agreement. This budget will become t.ne ofticial Annual Operating Budget upon ratification by the contracting Cities. The Annua'l Budget incorporates all costs of ooerations. 3 The Year Two Pudcet refers to a single number, not to be exceeded, dollar amount which will be used as the budget limit for the next calendar year in t.ne event the Annual Budget Package is not ratined by all Contracting Cities by October 1 of the first year of any t.hree year period covered by this agreement. Q refers to a single number to be exceeded dollar amount whicn will oe used as budget limit for the next calendar year in the event Annual Budget Package has not been ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1 on the second year of year oeriod covered by this agreement. not the the all any The Annual budget ^ackace refers to the grouping of the Annual Operating Budget, the Year Two Budget and the Year Three Budget which is submitted as a unit by the City of Orono for ratification by the Contracting Cities^. The .Annual Budget Package must be rati.-ied by al- Contracti.ng Cities prior to October 1 in the year submitted to become the valid budgets for the following three vears. The .Annual Budget Package must be accepted or rejected in its entirety. 5.2 Budget Process 3y August 15 of each year during which this agreement remains in effect, the City of Orono will provide an Annual Budget Pac.kage covering the cost of Police protection *for t.he next three cale.ndar years. The budgets presented to the Contracting Cities must have Page 9 been presented to the Joint Advisory Committee prior to August 1 for discussion and review. Aitnough expected that the Annual Budget Package which is provided to the Contracting Cities by the City of Orono will nave the consensus support of the Joint Advisory Cotrmittee, that is not a requirement since each Contracting Ciuy has the opportunity for final ratification or rejection. 16. P:»vmonc3. The City Budget Share (See Appendix A)of each Contracting City shall be paid by the Contracting City to the City of Orono in equal monthly instalxments y last day of each month. and its actual exoenditures so as to aaequately inrorm them o the basis for the calculation of billings mace oy Orono. Under the provisions of this contract. Orono agrees to make its records available to the Contract Cities tor inspection for the purpose of determining the basis for the calculations by Orono under the provisions of this section. 17 «hvAficn■ If the Contracting City is aggrieved by the determi.nation of the City of Orono as to the allocation actual costs of the prior year's service, the Contracting City may acoeal said determination within 30 days after receipt of “he C'Vy of Orono's audit. Said appeal shall be in writing and shall be addressed to the City of Orono for arbitration by a board of arbitration.The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three persons; _ one to be acDointed by the City of Orono. one to be appointed by ^.h aDoealing Contracting City, and the third to be apcointea by t^e two so selected. The name of eacn arbitrator shall be submitted in writing to t.he other party. In the event that the two arbitrators so selected do not appoint the _third a-bit-ator wit.hin 15 days after receipt of written notice of annointme.nt of either of the first two arbitrators, tne Chie. Judge of the District Court of Hennepin County shall have ^u-sd’^-’on to aoDoint. upon application of either the City if“‘orono or the appealing Contracting City. the third arbitrator to the Board. The third arbitrator selected shall -or bi a resident of either Contracting City, and shall be a c^ty manager or administrator. The arbitrators' expenses and Page 10 fees, together with the other expenses, not including cciansel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration, shall be divided equally between the parties to the arbitration. Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act, Chapter 572 of the Minnesota Statutes, and any decision shall be rendered within 50 cays of appointment of the third arbitrator. Said arbitration snail be binding on both oarties. 18. Annual Audit of Actual Costs. The Contract Cities understand and agree that it is impossible to project with complete accuracy the actual costs for labor and equipment as well as the seir/ice to be required by each Contracting City for the forthcoming contract year, and thererore, agree to a yearly audit to adjust the prior year's estimated police gej-t/ice cost as set forth above to tne actual police ser^/ice cost based upon the actual costs for that contract year. On or before April 1 of each year, the City of Orono will tabulate the 'actual cost of providing law enforcement ser^/ices for the prior contract year and will submit to the Contract Cities a summary of said costs. The actual costs set forth for the orior contract year may result in either a credit or a debit applied to the estimated police ser'/ice costs charged to the Contract Cities. If a Contract City is still oarticioating in this agreement, and it a credit, one-halx. of shall be deducted in each of the third and fourth cruarters frcm the estimated police ser^/ice cost payments required of Che Contract City for the current year of service; and if a debit, the Contract City shall pay the additional sum the City of Orono together with Che estimated contract charge for the current year by adding one half of the debit to both the third and fourth quarter payme.ncs. The allocation of the credit or debit shall be made pursuant to the same formula 2g^ above. It a Contract City is not still participating in this agreement at the time the credit or 'debit a'mount" is determined as set forth above, the Contract City shall receive from (in the case of a credit) or shall make to (in the case of a debit) the City of Orono a cash payment in the amount of such credit or debit, one-half on the date t.hat txhe third quarter estimated police service cost uayment would be due if this agreement was still in force and one-half on the dace that the fourth quarter estimated police ser'/ice cost payment would be due if this agreement was still Page 11 L in force. 19 uoiH and As pare of the Police ri “.r:;^ 'against liability incurrad in the rendering or law enrorcement services to the Contract Cities. The City maintain insurance covering its police services with limits or not less than SSOO.OOO for general liabi-ity coverage a - S. million for excess liability coverage. and extent of insurance coverage may not be suf.re insure the City of Orono and the Contract Cities and to oay all expenses incurrad by the Ci-y of ' including attorneys' fees and judgements rendered against the City of Orono and/or the Contract Cities. Thererore, the C-ty of Orono exposes itself to potentially underinsured and noninsured liabilities. Notwithstanding .^^''•^uage to the contrary herein, the Contract Cities agree t.nat t.ne orono is faced with such an exposure _ and Contract Cities agree to hold harmless ana indemnify the -iu/ of Orono, its employees and agents for any loss or damage of any kind whatsoever caused by the rendering of law enforcement se-'/ic^s in the Contract Cities to Che extent Chat Che loss or damage and all e.xpenses related thereto are no_c_ covereo by the insurance policies of the City of Orono in eireot during -he contract yLr in which Che act or alleged act giving rise to any claim for loss or damages occurred. Cities or to third parties which are greater or airterent in kind 'hen the responsibilities ana liabilities borne uy ch r^nr-;ict Cities if chey were providing law enforcement s^l'ces t;r;ugh t.heir own police department.Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the police chief of eWe City of Orono or his designee will have the sole disc-etion as to the officer and equipment Chat will answer Dolice calls, and it shall not be a violation o': 'ioreemenc nor shall the City of Orono be hela responsible to -hi'concracc Cities or to a third party for any loss wnich may :»Llt in Che event that t.he City of Orono, in the exercise or ;;asonable judgment, is unable to respond promptly or Co -Ispond with only limited officers and equipment, or is Page 12 fek. delayed in responding co a call by reason of answering a previous call. The Contract Cities agree that they will hold harmless and indemnify the City of Crono for _ any judgement rendered against it or sums paid out by it in settlement, payment or defense of any such claims, to u.ne exuent uhe of Orono is uninsured or underinsured arising out or any for police services to be rendered in tns Contract CitiSi. under the policies of insurance the City of Orono is required to maintain as set forth above. 20.rTnforeoasted =’vppnditures.. Not withstanding any of the above, the Contract Cities shall have the right to approve any oroDOsed capital expenditures and/or increase in number or officers not otherwise included in the annual budget. Notice of suc.n proposed and non-budgeted capital e.xpenditures and/or increase*in the number of officers shall be given in writing to the contracting cities prior to actual expenditure i-or such items and the contracting cities shall thereafter have until the later of their next Council meeting or 30 days arter receipt of said written .notice in which to approve and/or disapprove the same in writing or else it is agreed that such orooosed expenditures may be made and the cost thereof shaii be 'included in that year's budget. In ^ the event the Contracting Cities shall disapprove such non-budgeted capital expenditure and/or increase in the number of officers, iu ih'all not be liable to the City of Orono for any costs incurred by the City of Orono should the non-budgeted capital excenditure and/or increase in number of officers be mace despite such disapproval. Furthermore, t.he cost of such disapproved capital expenditures and/or increase in number of officers shall not be computed in determining the "Base Cost" or "Contract Charge" herein above set forth for each contracting city for the years in which the disapproved e.xoe.nditure (s) is/are made. 21 Conr-aot. Notwithstanding any language herein to Che contrary, or in prior contracts between the parties, any credit or debit due to the Contract Cities or to the City of Orono on account of prior agreements and contracts for law enforcement between the parties shall be payable in 1995 as orovided herein for credit or debit payments payable in 1995 and t.hereafter. Page 13 A L 4 22. Poligg ganeract Ser-/? r# ?yp1 anar_ion. The City of Orono will deliver 24 hour patrol and response throughout Minnetonka Beach, Spring Park and Long Lake will conduct routine patrol throughout the city as needed, and will conduct periodic security checks of businesses and will conduct such duties as requested by the Contract City's councils. The City of Orono will submit regular reports to the Contract City ofticials and appear at council meetings or any other special meetings as required by the council. This can be the Chief or any ot.ner member of the department as required by the council. Four officers were requested by Spring Park and will be assigned to Spring Park by mutual agreement between the City of Orono Police Department and the Spring Park City Council. Two officers were requested by Long Lake and will be assigned to Long Lake by mutual agreement between the City of Orono Police Department and the Long Lake C*ty Council. 23. Term of this Acrrg»°menc. This Agreement is for three contract years and covers the period January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1998. A contract year covers the period January 1 through December 31 of a calendar year. This Agreement will become effective upon ratification by the Contracting Cities of all its parts including Appendix A and Appendix 3 which contains the -Annual Budget Package. The term of this agreement may be extended as described below. 23.1 On each occasion that the Annual Budget Package is ratified by October 1 by the Contracting Cities, this -Acreement will be renewed for a total period of three contract years beginning with the contract year following the current contract year. The details of this process are covered in sections 23.2 through 23.3 following. 23.2 When during the first contract year of any three year ceriod covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement shall be e<tended by one contract year.When during the second contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement shall be extended by two contract years. When during the third contract year of any Page 14 1 JL'X ‘iv *»,T three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budge Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement shall be extended by three contract years. The elements of the Annual Budget Package so ratified will replace the elements of the previously ratified Annual Budget Package. 23.3 When during the first contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, t.he amount previously ratified as the Year Two Budget shall become the Annual Operating Budget for the second contract year and the term of this Agreement shall not be extended. 23.4 When during the second contract year of any three year oeriod covered by the Agreement tne Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, tne amount previously ratified as the Year Two Budget shall become the Annual Operating Budget for the third contract year and the term of this Agreement shall not be extended. 23.5 When during the third contract year of any three year •'eriod covered by the .Agreement the .Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement will terminate at the end or that contract year. This Agreement may be terminated by either the method detailed in section 23, or by mutual agreement of all Contract Cities. If any one of the Contract Cities terminates this .Agreement, the other Contract Cities may termi.nate or renegotiate the Agreement. In t.he event t.hat a Contract City terminates this Agreement with or without cause, the Contract City agrees to pay^to the City of Orono any of t.he extraordinary costs incurred by or within the Police Department of the City of Orono on account of such termination; said costs include but are not limited to unemployme.nt benefits paid because of the need to lay off existing tclice department personnel and those costs occasioneo" by the need to reduce overhead because of the cermi.nation of this agreement. Extraordinary costs shall not include the costs of day to day operations of the police department of the City of Orono at level of performance and quality of it’s choice. Page 15 PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that no such Germination costs shall be imposed unless and until authorized representative of t parties hereto have met and such termination costs have be^ mutually agreed upon. In the event the parties are ^ ° reach agreement, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration as provided in paragraph 17 of this agreement. Termination of this contract by either party shal,. not - the obligation of either party to perform the contract prior to the time that such termination becomes efrective. All Contract Cities signing this agreement agree to particTpate'Tn a'pro'rata s'hare" of all the operating costs of the department's total base cost based upon a ten ot-icer department. It is understood that the formula for allocation and the distribution of costs will be calculatea year.y as illustrated in Appendix A. 24.Mo nisrrim-ination. The City of Orono agrees that curing the period of this contract, it will not, within the State of .Minnesota, discriminate against any employee or applicant for *»mployment because of race, color, creed, sex, nationa origin, or ancestry and will include a similar provision in all subcontracts entered into for the performance hereof. This paragraph is inserted in the contract to comply with the previsions of Minnesota Statutes Section 131.59. Page 16 »..Xt 'CITY OF ORONO CONTRACTING CITY City Administrator Mayor The above agreement was reviewed and approved by Counci- of the, City of Lang Lake by Resolution No. aated Oc-h}h^< n._ _ _ _ _ _. 19^^- The above agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _P^esolution No. - - - - - -- dated _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __—> - -’ Page 17 \ I CRONO PCUCc SERVICE CC.VTPACT BASE SUOGcT FCfif.lULX FACTCF.S BUDGET YEAH 1SSS PCS60LDI APPENDIX A POPUIATICN % CF TOTAL '^EGHT 50% MARKET VALUE % CF TOTAL WEiGHT 50% CRGNO LONG LAKE .MINNETONKA E£ACH SP.FING P.Ai^K TOTAL 7,444 1,S31 (fa1,755 11.723 4oa.-/%*6.64%4.53%14.95%100.00% 31.7-:%6.22^1.Z45%7.46%50.00% 3701.673.700 334,511.300 374,618.700 3c5.5c0.CC0 3S27.733.7C0 75.55%10.20%3.04%6.10%100.00% 37.32%s.tc%4.02%3.03%50.00% TOTAL PEFCENT 59.55%13.-i2% mm 22 3.<iS%10.53%100.00% 2S • w CITY CF CKCNO - FCUCc DE?ART?.IENT OISTHIBUnCN OF COSTS ScnVlCc'rtAfl ISSo CfiC.NO LONG LAKE MINNETCNKA BEACH PCS6SUD1 SPRING .=.ARK APPENDIX A TOTAL PERCENT AFP'JED 53.£5ro l3A2’'j 5.iS% 33======= 10.£o%1 C0.CC% BASE BUDGET S&i7.325 3123.330 333.933 S32,‘173 SS2i.C70 ;3.2221 :i9.6cC1 TOWN AID CREDIT .3^.==5),6.c5ci TOTAL 513.-125 117.315 35.711 36,9^0 37A 390 ADMIN CriAfiGE (10%)51 3-^3 11,731 5.571 3.53*1 37.439 TOTAL BASE S129.C-i6 352.332 SS5.53A «■»« 3961,329 ADOmCNAL CFriCERS TOWN AID 3115.323 (ll.'O-lCl 3231.057 22.:801 3346.555 ($33,120) TOTAL ADOL OFFICERS 3lC4.4c3 3203.977 3313.465 GRAND TOTAL __ 534 352.332 33W.611 31.275.294 IfIIIIIIitItIIIIi:IIIIIIIIIIIIII1111 CiTY OF ORONO = OL!C5 SERVICE CONT3ACT BUDGET YEAR 1396 POLICE DEPARTMENT EXPENSES SALARIES - REGULAR OVERTIME - REGULAR SALARIES - P.T. OFFICERS SALARIES - TEMP CLERICAL HOLIDAY PAY (LELSI = £RA - CITY CCNTRIEUTICN -ICA/MDCR - CITY CCNTRISUTICN HEALTH INSURANCE JFEINSURANCE /VORKER COMPENSATION INSURANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES MOTOR FUELS i LUBRICANTS CLOTHING i PERSONAL EOUIPMENT slog i GROUNDS M&R SUP°L.ES EQUIPMENT PARTS i ACCcSS ioOKS i PERIODICALS TRAINING SUPPLIES DARE PROGRAM _EGAL OONSULTING SERVIOSS OTHER CONSULTING SERVICES TELEPHONE POSTAGE ^ ^ 3RINTING/FUBL!SHING/ADVERTiSiNG UTILITIES RADIO RENTAL OFFICE i BUILDING RENTAL^ MAINT - OFFICE EOUIPMENi VIAINT - AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT ■MAINT - MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT MAINT - BLDGS i GROUNDS janitorial SERVICES UATA PROCESSING SERVICE^ TRAINING AND OE7ELOPMEN i ^ GENERAL LIABILITY 'NSUFANCc = ROP'^RTY INSURANCES ■JMBRE' la LlABILir/ INSURANCE NSURANCEAGENT OF RECORD memberships -RAVEL-mileage -marking MEETING EXPENSES LICENSES i iAXES OTHER CHARGES buildings i STRUG . UttwO -f=ice =urn-^-ixt-bquipme.nt automotive equipment ■tthFR equipment 30ST TRAINING SCHOOL LIAISON CFFiCcR .-.cIME TOTAL PDS53UD2 AP°=NDIX A 1S95 1996 Budget Budget 3T25A60 3720.133 19.C00 21.300 lA.sOC 20.000 6.320 -GGO 2<i.2C0 25.700 S5.3CO 36.A1 5 3U TO 9.175 51,220 50,375 i.^OO 7.330 33.970 27.5A5 -.000 3.300 2A.OOO 22.000 ‘O.COO 12.000 SCO 5GO A.OOO A,000 1.000 1.0CO 2.0C0 2.200 1,300 1,300 1.000 1.G00 7.000 7.G00 7,700 7.700 1,500 1 .500 2.500 2.500 9,000 9.000 17.000 17.000 A3.500 AS. 000 3.A00 5.GC0 1 7,500 20.000 2.5C0 2.500 1.000 1,500 5.300 6.GOG 25.390 22.970 9.270 *3.000 10.378 11.110 3.633 7,725 -.531 7.500 1.325 3,500 1.2:0 1.300 550 AOO 1,300 300 ISO 130 100 100 500 500 1.500 1.500 30.000 A5.130 2.500 2.5Q0 (6.000)(6,000) (11,128)(1 1,385) 31.237.AA0 31.270.655 LONG UKE ADCmCNAL MANPOWER 1SS6 SERVICE YEAR EXHIBIT C Projected Salaries. 2.0 Officers Overtime Holiday Pay P.E.HA - City Contncuticn FICA;MDCR - Cir/ Ccntributicn Health - Life Insurance Worker Ccmpensaticn Insurance Clothing & Personal Equipmem Total Deduct Tcv/n Aid Credit Total Additional Officers Total Base Cost Total Cost of Service PG56BUD3 appendix A ico,/ /O 2.5C0 *^ 10.57S J-19 7.53^1 3.469 Ww V S115.523 (11.0^) lCA‘i88 129.0-16 S233.534 r APPENDIX 3i 96 Annaal BHdfet S1^5;i94 APPENDIX B 1996-1998 BUDGET PACKAGE Orono Long Lake $% Mtka Beach S fi Spring Park $% 96 City Budget Share Using 95 Cost Allocaiioa Numbers 674.768 52.91 233i34 18 62382 4.89 .^04,611 -3.89 ear Two Budget $1326306 Bar Two City Budget Share Using 95 Cost Allocation Numbers 701,759 52.91 242875 1831 64,877 4.89 316./95 23.89 ear Three Budget $1379358 ear Three City Budget Share Using >95 Cost Allocation Numbers 729829 52.91 2523 90 18.31 67,472 4.89 329,467 23.89 REQUEST FOR COUHCIL ACTION Nov Y/4'DATE;NoTeabCMT^f 1^9^ If>oc Ofoo.ITEM MO:n n Departaent Approval:Adainistrator Revieifed:Aganda Section: City Adfflin. Rpt. HajMi Zltle: Gary clxesMick ^ Cbiaf of Police m Ztem Description:Dangerous Weapons and Articles Exhibits:See Attached DISCUSSION Upon reviewing Orono ordinance 9*10/ "Dangerous Weapons and Artxcles"/ it was found that this section lacked definition regarding hunting. The existing ordinance does not prohibit persons from carrying either firearm or bow and arrow on public lands or waterways. In the event persons are found to be in possession of these weapons, and no discharge had been observed, enforcement of hunting without a permit would not be possible. Therefore, it is recommended that clarification restricting hunting be defined under Subdivision 3,(f) and that it read "Hunting is not allowed (within the City) but for the following excepted activities allowed by permit". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Amendment to ordinance to include above addition. forns/eexjnei I .act ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9.10, SUED. 3 ADOPTED APRIL 1,1988, AND EPO’ITLED "DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND ARTICLES". The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: Section 9.10, Subd. 3 adopted April 1, 1988. and entitled "Dangerous Weapons and Articles is amended to include: Subd. 3 (F) Hunting is not allowed within the City but for the following excepted activities allowed by permit. This ordinance becomes effective after passage and publication. Passed by the Council this 13th day of November, 1995. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk o ;) Subd. 3. Exception.’ nothing in Subdivision 1 or 2 o£ ’^his Section shall apply: A.TO persons who obtain the appropriate perait as set forth in the following paragraphs; or B.To a peace officer in the discharge of his duty; or family; or To a person in the lawful defense of his person •vj D.To a display o£ fireworhs by an °| group o£ organizations authorized in fifteen {15)Police, application £or pernit berng made a. least Eritcen days prior to the event; or Education Prog';aa. In f scLol''supp'J = od faculty, as comnunity-wide supervised cla.-a or ^^row range authorized by the Chief of iolice, o authorized by the Council. A = - -- = j-,\^„“S>,^?,.^=a°y^^or l°e'=/s^=n4y"“'^permits valid for a period oi.^ifteen iia;;'i granted to clubs or persons as follows. 1. skeet shooting. occasional target shooting or trap and 2 Field trials, commercial or professional exhibitions or dipVays^ ° ot other similar lawful purpose as determined by the City police. D.Permits, occasional Up to 120 Days. fff of pests in com-T.orcial or ^ by the L^n\",n\^\r?to^ to Tu-ons. o‘r ^lubs Luting all the following criteria : 1.For control of pests, vermin, dL\"g "pprop^i?^^^or" other'a'niLl^^^a^demonstrated nuisance . methods available. 2.Where there arc no other appropriate ORONO CC 203-1 (ll-l'l-OO) - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C/Ty it. "^1 ^ 3 DATE: November 6, \M^Qf\fQ ITEM NO : C^O Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Item Description: 19% Sewer and Water Fees Background In 1994, sewer and water lees were increased substantially, as an important step in improving the financial health of both funds. The fee increases enabled operating revenues to cover operating expenditures, and also enabled more adequate funding of major facility repair and rehabilitation needs. The 1994 fee increases were the first in a number of years. At that time it was recommended that annual rate increases be made to ensure the ftinds continued on a solid financial footing, and to avoid the need for large fee increases in future years. Staff Recommendation As part of the 1996 budget process, staff recommended a 3% increase in water and sewer fees. After some discussion regarding the need for a fee increase, the decision regarding the utility rates w^as put off to a later time. Staff continues to recommend a 3% increase in both water and sewer fees. The attached cash flow budgets show that although operating revenues are sufficient to fund operating expenses, there is still a need to more adequately fund major repair and rehabilitation needs. The need for the fee increases is most pronounced in the water fund due to two factors. First, the fund balance in the water fund is small relative to the value of the facilities in the water fund that could require major repairs. Secondly, the water plant report recently completed by Bonestroo has identified a large amount of potential expenditures for the repair and rehabilitation of the various components of the Navarre water plant. Staff will be providing a report to the Council regarding the water plant rehabilitation needs and options in late November. If the Council deci ’:s to increase the water and sew-er fees, the fee increases will be officially authorized as part of the annual fee ordinance amendment, which will be on the November 27 Council agenda. COUNCIL AC iTON REQi'ESTED: Motion to indicate the water and sewer fee increase, if any, to be reflected in the 1996 bee Schedule. ^ i 4CITY OF ORONOQUARTERLY UTILITY RATESFOR WATER AND SEWER UTILITY SERVICES Proposed Percent Quarterly Rates Quarterly Rates Increase Currently in Effect Effective 1/1/96 (Decrease) SEWER RATES Based on sewer unit billings: 1st Unit $69.90 $72.00 3.00% Each Additional Unit $63.25 $65.15 3.00% Based on water usage: Charge per connection $6.65 $6.85 3.00% Charge per 1,000 gallons $2.63 $2.71 3.00% Stubbs Bay /\rca Project $32.60Unconnected Properties $31.65 3.00% WATER RATES Navarre Service Area: Billing and Ready to Serve Charge $20.10 $20.70 3.00% Water Usage Rate per 1,000 gallons $1.71 $1.76 3.00% Unconnecte Property Charge $20.10 $20.70 3.00% Highway 12 Service Area: $7.62Billing and Ready to Sen e Charge $7.40 3.00% Water Usage Rate per 1,000 gallons $2.37 $2.44 3.00% Chevy Chase Service Area: $7.62Billing and Ready to Serve Charge $7.40 3.00% Water Usage Rate per 1,000 gallons $1.89 $1.95 3.00% City of OronoWater Operating FundCash I^w Budget Operating Activity Operating Revenue Operating Expenses Net Income (Lx)ss) 1994 Actual 1995 Budget 1996 Budget % Increase 202,446 204,350 210(390 3.0% 169,023 179,169 183,530 14 7o 33,423 15,181 26.860 Capital Outlay & Financing Activity Capital Outlay Interest Earned Net Financing Activity 0 3,863 0 4,150 4,150 0 4,750 4,750 Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash 37,286 29,331 31,610 Comments: Depreciation Expense 6Z495 6Z550 64,200 Depreciation is not included in tlic Cash How Budget However, depreciation represents a cost recovery for fixed assets, and requires a level of funding sufficient to create reserves adequate to cover the costs of replacement and major repair of capital items. This enables rates to remain relatively stable from year to year, rather than moving up or down significantly depending on the level of capital expenditures. Non-Operating Revenues and E.xpenditures are not included. City of OronoSewer Operating FundCash How Budget Operating Activity Operating Revenue Operating Expenses Net Income (Loss) 3% Incr. 2% Incr. Capital Outlay & Financing Activity MWee - CVe MWee — L.S. Constr. 1989 LS. Debt Capital Outlay Interest Earned Net Financing Activity Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash 1994 Actual 1995 Budget 1996 Budget 578^756 608,211 624,633 50Z043 549,999 567,045 76,713 58.212 57.588 35,569 21,957 21,989 0 (3,500)(3,500) (34,712)(36,227)(34,805) (6Q 470)(51,800)(73,850) 49,949 5Z100 55,750 (9,664)(17,470)(34,416) 67,049 40,742 23,172 145,567 149,150 145,050 Comments:________________ Depreciation Expense Depreciation is not included in the Cash Flow Budget However, depreciation represents a cost recovery for fixed assets, and requires a level of funding sufficient to create reserves ade(|uatc to cover the costs of replacement and major repair of capital items. This enables rates to remain rekitively stable from year to year, rather than moving up or down significantly depending on the level of capital expenditures. Non-Operating Revenues and Expenditures are not included. % Increase 3.0% 3.0% REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 6, 1995 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name John R. Gerhardson Title Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Works Item Description: Joint Powers West Hennepin Recycling District For several years the Cities of Greenfield Independence. Long Lake, Loretto, Mapie Plain. Medina and Orono hive been members of the Joint Powers Agreement forming the West Hennepin Recycling Commission. The Commission was eruiblished as a way of providing recycling programs in a most cost effective way. The Agreement has expired and it is necessary to renew our membership in tlie orgamzation. I have prepared a resolution extending the term of the Joint Powers Agreement and am submitting a copy of the .Agreement itself. It is recommended to adopt Resolution extendinu the term of the Joint Powers Agreement of the West Hennepin Recycling Commission to December 31, 1999. COUNCIL action REQUESTED: To adopt Resolution ^____extending the term of the West Hennepin Recycling Joint Powers .Asreement to December 31. 1999. h RESOLUTION TO EXTEND TERM OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OF WEST HENNTEPIN RECYCLING COMNOSSION WHEREAS, the Cities of Greenfield, Independence. Long Lake. Loretto. Maple Plain, Medina and Orono operated their recycling programs through West Hennepin Recycling Commission, a Joint Powers established under the authority of Minnesota Statutes Section since 1986, and WHEREAS, this has allowed the above listed cities to share recycling costs and expenses with the benetit of reducing costs ot the cities, and WHEREAS, the City of Orono wishes to continue the program and cost sharing as outlined in the West Hennepin Recycling Commission Joint Powers Agreement; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Orono authorizes the extension of the West Hennepin Recycling Commission Jomt Powers Agreement through December 31,1996. ______ and seconded byMotion to adopt resolution made by In favor; Opposed: Adopted by the City Council of the City ot Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held November 13, 1995. Edward J. Callahan, Jr. .Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk WEST HENNEPIN RECYCLING COMMISSlOf Greenfield-lnflec«Tdence-Long Laks-Loretto-Mac<e P'ain-Meama-Orono 65 Stubbs Bay Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 476-0012 il- M: ;sEP27 September 1995 To the West Hennepin Reoxiing Commission cities of Greenneid, Independence, Long Lake, Loretto, Maple Plain. Medina, and Orono: Extension of Joint Powen Agreement (JPA) Enclosed is the revised JPA for our dties to extend through December 31, 1999. The revised JPA has been reviewed by wmCs attorney. Jack Vigoren A recap of changes made to the JPA is printed on the opposite side of this cover letter. Please include this item on the agenda for an October or November, 1995 council meeting and send me a copy of your city’s Resolution to extend the JPA through December 31, 1999. I would hope to receive your cit>'’s Resolution no later than December 1, 1995. Call me at 476-0012 with any questions regarding this JPA extension. Very truly yours. Amelia Kroeger Recv'cling Coordinator enclosures - one -Recap of Changes to JPA on opposite she - runded Iv WlriI\C UTf/i au Hoinci'in Pnfiled on luwi/ca'J r.»^7 V.-I•-.n -j Recap of Chaoses to Joint Powers Agreement (JP A) 9/21/95 1.PURPOSE & AUTHORITY Deleted sentences referring to collection fadiities. 2.COMPASSION c OfiScers Incorporated item referring to coordinator keeping minutes from Executrv’c Conunittee section to sentence ir5. 3.POWTRS d Fundins New formula for distribution of Hennepin County grant. Reworded to reSect the current percentage of total household count formula used by Hennepin County to determine each entities entitlement. 7.TERM Extended to December 31, 1999. 11.LLABELITY & WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (item on original TPA) Deleted. No longer applicable since this item referred to drop sites, 12.EXECUTTV’E COMMITTEE Reworded to better retlect the appointment and function of Executive Committee. nr JOCn* POWERS AGREEMENT 1995 - 1999 Elxtension THIS AGREE\IENT made by and among the Cities of Greenceld, Independence, Long Lake, Loretto, Maple Plain, Medina and Orono (hereinafler referred to coUectiveiy as the "Parricipants") is effective on the day and year provided herem. 1.PURPOSE *\ND AUTHORITY. This Agreement is entered into under the authority of Minnesota Statutes section 471.59. The Participants have determined that it is to their mutual advantage to form a single joint powers entiry that shall establish and operate within the present and future boundaries of the Participants a program for recv'cling accqTtable materials. Cities will offer curbside recycling to residents. 2.COMMISSION. There is hereby aeated the West Hennepin Recvcling Commission (the "Commission'*) consisting of seven commissioners a.Appointment and Term. The governing body of each Participant shall, by a majorhy’ vote, appoint a person, who may or may not be an eleaed official of the Parhdpant's, to serv e as a commissioner. .Appointments shall be for a two- year period unless the respective governing body makes the appointment for a lesser period. Commissioners shall serve until their successors are appointed and qualified. Vacandes shall be filled for the unexpired term by the appropriate governing body. A vacancy occurs upon the death or resignation of a commissioner. b.Compensation. Commissioners shall serve without compensation by the Commission. Reimbursemem of expenses for each commissioner shall be governed by state stamtes and the chaner, ordinances, and policies of the Participant that commissioner represents. c.Officers The Commission shall choose one of its members as a chairperson. The chairperson shall be appoiraed by commission action at the first meetmg of the year. The coordinator shall act as a secretary-treasurer. The chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the CommissiorL The secretary-treasurer shall keep a complete record of each meeting and of all proceedings and business of the Commission, keep h's Commissioners regularly informed of the activities of the Commission by distnbution of wrinen minutes to each Commissioner following each meeting, and shall keep an accurate accounting of all receipts and disbursements of the Commissioa The chairperson and secretary treasurer shall siizn ail contracts authorized by and in the name of the Commission. d.Meetings The Commission shall meet at such times and places as it shall deem appropriate but at least once ev'ery twelve months. All meetings shall be open to the public. Q Voting Requirements. .All actions of the Commission shall require a simple majority of the commissioners present and voting. A majority of the commissioners shaQ consfimte a quorum. f.Financial Accountability . The Commission shall establish a separate checking account for West Hennepin Recvciing Commission (\vmC) authorizing Commissicn representatives to sign checks. T^vo authonzed signatures vmU be required at ail times on each check. The Commisaon ■^iH include costs ot raaintainmg checking account in rts annual bu^et. The annual honesty bond will be required in the amount not to exceed 10^^ of anticipated annual WHRC finanaal activity. The comzmssion wiD reimburse Recv ciing Coordinator for the cost of securing honesty bond. 3.POWERS. The Commission shall establish and oversee the operation of the Program. The Commission shall have the authority to. (a)enter into con&acts in accordance with Minnesota statutes section 471.345, subd. 5, as may be necessary to accomplish its purpose, (b)hire, on an independent contractor basis, such persons as are necessary to operate the Program, including, but not limited to a Program Coordinator; (c)lease a site for a central coDecnon facility; and (d)apply for and administer gram monies as necessary to fond the Program. In no event shall the Commission incur obligations in excess of its fonding as provided in the toUowing paragraph. Fundim; Funding for the operation of the Program shall come horn grant monies available from the Hennepin County Municipal Recv'cling Grant, special grant programs, and funds from any sale of rec>-c!able materials. The Participants ag^ to support the annual budgeTof the Commission and that the distribution of Hennepin County Municipal Recycling Gram funds will be based on each cit>’'s percentage of the total household count among the Participants. Participant agrees to contribute to the Commission any fonds it receives from any source for projects or programs involving recyclable materials. In addition, the Participams may. but are not obUgated to contribute fonds additional to the budget to the Commission for the operacon of the Program. Each Parddpam shall provide fonds for any curbside program for that city in excess of the money available from Hennepin County. 5 PUBLIC EDUCATION. The Participants agree to assist in the distribution of recycling-related informatioa The distribution of such information shafl be distnbut^ via muniapal newsletters, water biU enclosures, general media news releases, and other mutually agreeable communication methods. '" iJ' PIP I W9 J 6.EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this Agrccnicnt shall be the date upon \\irich the last of the se\'en Partidpaxits has caused this Agreement to be executed pursuant to an authorizing resolution of its governing body. 7.TERM. This Agreement shall continue in effect until December 31, 1999, unless extended, renewed, or terminated by the Participants pursuant to the provisions of paragraph S below. 8.MODIFICATION. This .\greement may be e.xtended, renewed, tenniiuted or amended by agreement ot all Partidpanis as authorized by resolution of each Pamdpant's go^’eming body 9.WITHDRAWAL. A Participant may withdraw prior to the expiration of the term ot this A^e^ent any sub«*^eat extensions thereof bv giving 90 days' notice in the form of a resolution of its governing o ,, serv y certified mail on the secretary-treasurer of the Commission. Service shall be deemed to have been made on the date of mailing Anv zrant monies or other binds receiv'ed by the withdrawing Pamapant or the Commission, either pnor to or after the eff^ve date of withdrawal, that are aitribuiable to the Pardenanfs partiapanon in the Program pno. to its withdrawal, shall be paid to and remain the property of the Commission. 10 DISTRIBUTION UPON TERMIN.ATION Upon expiration of or termination of this Agreement, any as^s remaning after the payment of outstanding obligations shaft be dismbuted to the Participants m proporaon to their monetary conmbutions calculated over the life of the .Agreement. 11 ADDITIONAL P.ARTICIP.ANTS The number of Participants may be increased during the term of this Agreement bv amendment, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph S above; provided th^ any new ^apant Si cause the .Agreement as amended to be executed, pursuant to authorizing resoluuon ot its goverr ng body 12 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. The Commission is empowered to appoint an Executive Committee consisting ot the Executive Committee will rotate among the representauv'es of the pamcipanng communities on an annual basis, with at least one new Executive Comminee member annually. EN WITNESS WHEREOF the Cities of Greenneld, Independence, Long Lake. Loretto, Maple Plain, Medina and Orono have! pursuant to au±onmng resolution hereto attached, caused this Agreement to be duly executed. I Jk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Hov C/?y mber \ tTr'' 1 3 1995 DATE: November ITEM NO= ^f Department Approval: Name Ron Mcone Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Item Description: Non-Union Compensation for 19% The 19% compensation adjustments include three items; wages, the city’s contribution toward the cost of employee health insurance coverage, and the mileage reimbursement rate. A. C. Pay 1. 2. Pay adjustment criteria a.) Cost of living increase 1.) U.S. consumer price index; annualized increase from September ’94 to September ’95 is 2.5% 2.) Minneapolis/St. Paul consumer price index; annualized increase from the first half of 1994 to the first half of 1995 is 2.5%. b.) Market comparison 1.) A survey of lake area cities and metro area cities indicates increases for 1996 in the range of 2.5 to 3.0%. Pay Adjustment Recommendation It is recommended the non-union pay schedule be increased by 2.85% for 1996. The pay schedule reflecting the 2.85% increase is attached. Insurance Contribution _ ^ , Although insurance premiums are not increasing for 1996, based on maintaining consistency across employee groups, it is recommended the city s insurance contribution be increased bv $12.50 per month to $313.50 per month. Mileaize Reimbursement Rate The city generally ties its mileage reimbursement rate to the rate used by the Internal Revenue Service. The current IRS mileage reimbursement rate is $.30 per mile. It is recommended that the city employees using their own vehicles for approved work-related business be compensated at the rate of $.30 per mile for 1996. COLNCIL ACTION REQLTESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the 1996 non-union employee compensation adjustments as outlined above. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PAY SCHEDULE FOR NON-UNION CITY EMPLOYEES FOR 1996 WHEREAS, the City Administrator is responsible for annually presenting a pay schedule for city employees, with the exception of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements; and WHEREAS, the City Administrator has presented the City Council with said pay schedule for calendar and budget year 1996, which pay schedule is attached hereto and hereby made a part of this resolution; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds have been appropriated in the proposed 1996 Annu^ Budget to fund the recommended pay schedule and such other matters of compensation as herein specified. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Orono City Council as follows: 1.That the 1996 employee pay schedule, refiecting a 2.85% pay adjustment, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is approved. That the city’s contribution toward the cost of employee health insurance be increased to a maximum of $313.50 per month. 3.That city employees using their own vehicles for approved work related business shall be compensated at the rate of $.30c per mile. Adopted by the Council this 13th day of November, 1995 ATTEST:Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 12992.3(99)CITY OF ORONO COMPENSATION PLAN appendix B POINT GRODPIHGS grouping point range 1 44-47 48 - 51 3 4 5 6 8 9 11 52 - 55 56 - 59 60 65 64 63 69 - 73 74 79 78 83 84 - 88 89 - 10® 101 - 110 111 - 124 mid point 45.5 49.5 53.5 57.5 62 66.5 71 76 81 86 105 117.5 POSITIONS IN GROUPING cso Laborer Clerical I Clerical II Police Secretary Sr. Accounting Clerk Deputy Clerk/Secretary Recorder Public Works Maintenance Patrol Officer On-Site Septic Manager Asst. Finance Director (S) City Clerk (E) ^ Golf Course Supervisor (E) Building Inspector Public Works Supervisor I Asst. Zoning Administrator Building Official (E) Lieutenant (S) Public Works Supervisor II Building/Zoning Admin. (E) Public Works Director (E) Police Chief (E) Finance Director (E) City Administrator (E) (E)- Exempt (5 K.* GtyofOrono 19% Onnpeiisatioii Plan — Expected Performance Levels SSE SS Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Step 1 ere:=5» = =sss = = $9.79 $10.36 $11.03 $11.71 $12.50 $13.57 $14.64 $15.76 $17.00 $18.59 $21.29 $25.01 $29.63 Step II $10.37 $10.97 $11.68 $12.39 $13.23 $14.37 $15.50 $16.69 $18.00 $19.69 $22.54 $26.48 $31.38 Step III $10.95 $11.58 $12.33 $13.08 $13.97 $15.17 $16.37 $17.62 $19.00 $20.78 $23.79 $27.95 $33.12 Step IV $11.52 $12.19 $12.98 $13.77 $14.70 $15.96 $17.23 $18.55 $20.00 $21.88 $25.05 $29.42 $34.86 Compensation Plan — E.xpected Performance Levels Part Time Regulai Positions Level Step I Step 11 Step III Step IV Clerical I (L2 SII Max) 2 $9.33 $9.88 $1043 $10.97 Police Secy (L4 SI Max) 4 $9.95 $10.54 $11.12 $11.71 Patrol Officer (L6 SI Max) \vages96 6 $11.53 $12.21 $12.89 $13.57 COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COinMCIL ACTION ^ ^ DATE ITEM NO.: Department Approval: LName John R. Gerhardson Title Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Works Item Description: Easement Acquisition Kelly Avenue Sanitary Sewer Repair Project As a result of a study to determine the condition of the sanitary sewer on Kelly Avenue, it has been determined that a relocation of part of the sewer line is necessary. The attached sketch shows the existirf^ line and the proposed realignment. The realignment will necessitate the acquisition ot permanent easements. The amount of easements needed for three separate parcels is 4.680 s.f In the past we have purchased permanent sanitary’ sewer easements for $1.00 per s.f. l am therefore requestine authority of the Council to acquire the necessiiry sanitary sewer easements tor an amount of SI .00 per s.f. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To authorize the acquisition of sanitary sew er easements for sew er line replacement on Kelly Avenue for an amount of SI .00 per s.f. and that the monies to purchase the easements will be tlinded through the Sewer Operating Fund. ch \iK •CONNECT 8* PVC TOEXISTING 8' VCP T '/ ' Z' V' M'' yy // ' //;d^929.9 •ABANDON EX. BZXJP 7 /93^.# /^// /JOioh^/ //''' ys / ' y'y' y ; I / // /V^><C *' ^__- I /; f ! ! I •! t r f\ \i iiif y s \ ii HH //. \ N i ; : If /V/ iV ' • \ I/^/ V^ y-y'V'Vv^-) X ii- '^v \ REMOVE. ^/MH-r / ___ y ^ / (06 t / / / / / V. / / \ / MH-TJD6A v\>■ >N yj w/ < \ V W ' I /x/vV'v''M/''\\\ '.V' ■'W]1 i ■ ' /\-i \ I r \ ' T A y<9y^{ \'^r - { W \ \ V 92t;' I coNNECi-a ExisnHi 8' % !''?^'» / /,^67:0 >!|;; ! \ f I ' ; .- . / 11 11 ii!l / ( '/ / ,-----i' /i I— y ») i>.\\\ I- I / / / / / ^ / //,7/ V . • s » \\y J \ /V.1 / V + // I \ \. \\ y / ///yI / f I ! I / / ^ y'^ t f f 'll l^ilij !yi\ ' '/ \/ ' '\\ / \ \ \ ' V^^, EXMM A / X /955.9 / A N \ (\N V V V ^ \ xi V/ \N \ V-V \ ^ ,950.x. \ V-r' \ Y y. ^ \ y \ \ \\x+/ / % \ \V \\ '_____X \X V X V \ _ *y[X/ /\\ ^\ A \/ --fLj T>^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CQl'NCILMfniNG NOV 1 3 1995 crry of oroivo DATE: November 9, 1995 ITExM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Thie City Admioistrator linistrator Reviewed: ■v//. Agenda Section: Item Descri^ion: V Luce Line Trail - Long Term Planning Process The DNR has begun a long term planning process for the Luce Line Trail. This process. \^hich involves the entire length of the trail, began in response to a growing number of requests by those who currently use the trail and those who would like to use the trail for improvements to the trail. Many of these requests relate to the western end of the trail which at this time is basically undeveloped. The purpose of the planning prcKess is to develop a vision for the trail in terms of usage, amenities and character; which will provide the framework within which to respond to the many requests for trail improvements. The next step in the planning process is a set of three stakeholder meetings to obtain input from a wide ranee of persons or organizations with an interest in the usage of the trail. The meeting schedule and tentative locations are as follows: November 16 - Hutchinson November 29 - Wayzata December 6 - Watertown Each of the three meetings will focus on a specific section of the trail. The November 29 meeting will focus on the segment from Vicksburg Lane in Plymouth to Stubbs Bay Road. The types of issues to be discussed at the stakeholder meetings are as follows: 1.Identitying elements or characteristics of the trail that are important across all user groups or stakeholders. Preservation or enhancement of the rural character ot the trail. 3.Likes and dislikes regarding the existing trail. 4.Ideas for the management and development of the trail. There have been no decisions made on any trail issues at this point. There will be no decisions cominc out of the proposed set of stakeholder meetings. Any recommendations developed in the stakeholder meetings will be reviewed in future public meetings before any decisions are made. i V Request for Council Action Condnued page 2 of 2 NoTemb«r 9, 1995 Luce Line Trail - Long Term Planning Process The DNR has requested the city of Orono provide two representatives at the Nov ember 29 stake holder meeting. At this time, the Council may want to select those representatives and provide direction to the representatives regarding the Council’s views concerning the current and long term usage and character of the trail. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to designate two city representatives to attend the November 29 Luce Line planning meeting, and to provide direction to the representatives in terms of the city’s views concerning the current and long term usage and character of the trail. COUNCIL NOV 1 3 1995REQUESTFOR COUNCIL ACTION CfTY OF DATE: November 8. 1995 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hailin Title City Clerk Item bcscripcioo: Administrator Reviewed: M Agenda Section: Licenss Licenses HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE INITIAL REVIEW Dale McCurdy 4041 North Shore Dnve GAMBLING PERMIT RESOLUTION Lions Mound Northwest Tonka Club Navarre Lanes 3435 Shoreline Dr. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve above listed licenses i p A.6--S\ c^Z APPLICATION FOR ANNUAL HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY, P.O. BOX 66 CRYS TAL BAY, MN 55323 NAME: p^l-^ 0 ■ M <1 -------- .ADDRESS: 4- O V k J c ^o ^ - 0-^ street BUSINESS NAME: PHONE: 4‘~7Z •' 4 iV\N city/state ' D . J .A O S A V-g. S------- ;;^E OT BUS'^SS of appiicW Number ot Emoloyees Withm Ope.ation.—\ (t'-o c-- <-n nn Check One: Inihal Rev.ew Fee S30.00 ^ Annual Revew Fee SeO.OO------- License may be revoked if any violaiion occurs,^ 5 03. If a site invesrigate and make a recommen^uon ° ^ e o '10>f"'' Ti....n; held on the second and founh Monday ot each month. ORONO MUNICIP.AL CODE REGUL-\TIONS ON HOME OCCUP.ATIONS ORONO .|.Q section lO.CO. SUBDFVTSION 4 (C) Prohibtt^ Home Occupatmn o,,„p,„o„ ,o engage in opera«on^y«^ou. , t iil^ersons eneaaed in the business must reside in the dwelling ic.-c-. ■No commerctai signs pertmrted other than signs permitted in the residential sone.__^ , . ,c.. Z No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. ~ ^ Over the counter retail sales is not allc /ed. -"‘*7.-- e\Entraracs to th« home occupation must be gamed from within the structure. The undersigned hereby agrees to the conditions quoted above from the Orono Murucpal Code and any additional conditions the City may require. ---*>) J. 0 Date:_L2_Ai/3^Signature of.Applicant:—I J ~~- rnu riT^- -SE OaNXY: Alter review of application, staff recommends the followmg;FORCll'l at v^a De.mal or applicationt.Approval or application--------------i-fc.u.14 u . y •' •• -V • .V Signamre of Zorung OfficaUpN-//< ^ Signature of BuildingOtficiai:_^^jeik£.‘----- Date: /O ----— Date:----- .Application Date:Date License .Approved:Date License Expired: m • - • T". M c.4-7 Z - (f: 1/^'T'oM £. ^ OI^PSZ M H A <::ATAL.o6-, PuAc^ T*H^. cc^O^P- W\Tt\ M the:*5H\P^'E^P 'To / \C,OhO~rfK<^ '*7 “ H ^ cTO^T"^Mc:(Z . Th^Y ciIovaE^Jh A»-J*^P aV A kJO |v\^ P^c HA.*J P . \ PO MO T 5Tcciv<- A »-J " Me P-CH A^^^ I L\\/^F^a^ul.‘ \NAc- . I AM Th'^A i-oW ZPuJ I P.AF=^rv<^ ... —. Bu:^jiJE:5i W\TK oMuY A PeW Cu5ToHEA-^ P ^W E n V^ . ,...___f •* cmtral L6214PPR PRINTED:08/11/95 STATS or MZmfK50TJI aUMBLIlR; CONTROL NOUUtD PRRMXSRS FMXItlT RMSSMAL AFPLZCATIOS I FOR BOARD PSR ONLY jjWT PAID_ _ _ _ _ __ jcHBCir NO._ _ _ _ _ _ I DATE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I LICENSE NIMBBR: B-01t30-001 EFFECTIVE DATE: 02/01/94 EXPIRATION DATE: 01/31/96 NAME OP ORGANIZATION: Llons Itound NorthwMt Tonka Club GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION !1AME OF ESTABLISH] Navarra Lanaa 3435 Shorallna Dr Navarra COUNTY Hannapln (TT WHERE GAMBLING WILL BE CONDUCTED 55392 IS THE PREMISES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS?: Y DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION OWN THIS SITE?: No IP NO, LIST THE LESSOR: Donald Scharvan 3435 Shorallna Dr Navarra MM 55392 NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER (WHEN NOT LESSOR): LESSOR INFORMATION SQUARE FEET PER MONTH: SQUARE FEET PER OCCASION: AMOUNT PAID FOR RENT PER MONTH: 500 AMOUNT PAID PER OCCASION: 0 BINGO IS CONDUCTED ON THIS PREMISES: No BINGO ACTIVITY IF YES, REFER TO INSTRUCTIONS FOR REQUIRED ATTACHMENT ,23^ Commarca Blvd Mound MN 55364 STORAGE ADDRESS BANE INFORMATION Marquatta Bank 2220 Coanaarca Blvd Mound MN 55364 GAMBLING BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0031419 ON THE LINES PROVIDED BELOW LIST THE NAME, ADDRESS AND TITLE OF AT LEAST TWO PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CHECKS AND MAKE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS FOR THE GAMBLING ACCOUNT. THE ORGANIZATION'S TREASURER MAY NOT HANDLE GAMBLING FUITOS. 30/6 fyitUKfb^Goinhhnt^ ^^"VvvciW ^0v~Ot^r). Boar(\ lt)ifi/V\bfv (BE SURE TO CO]LETE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS APPLICATION) THIS FORM WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATIVE FORMAT (I.E. LARGE PRINT, BRAILLE) UPON REQUEST .i’A'' ACICNO<IL«Pr ^.»-*V OAMBUllQ PRSMISSS AOTHOAIZATIOM I HEREBY GIVE CONSEHT TO LOCAL LAM ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD, OR AGENTS OF THE BOARD, OR THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OR PUBLIC SAFETY, OR AGENTS OF THE COMMISSIONERS, TO ENTER THE PREMISES TO ENFORCE THE LAW. ■^^CwUmLITO ^ItoL^bSIrD is authorized to inspect the bank RECORDS OF THE GAMBLING ACCOUNT WHENEVER NECESSARY TO FULFILL REQUIREMENTS OF CURRENT GAMBLING RULES AND STATUTES. ^ “Sv^READ^TOIS APPLICATION AND ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD; •AT-T- INFORMATION IS TRUE, ACCURATE AND COMPLETE;; •ATT. OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION HAS BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED;. •I AM THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE ORGANIZATION; •I ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FAIR AND LAWFUL OPERATION OF ALL GAMBLING ACTIVITIES TO BE CONDUCTED;^ .I WILL FAMILIARIZE MYSELF WITH THE LAWS OF MINNESOTA GOVERNING LAWFUL GAMBLING AND RULES OF THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD AND AGREE.IF ISSUED A PREMISES PERMIT, TO ABIDE THOSE LAWS AND RULES,INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THEM; •ANY CHANGES IN APPLICATION INFORMATION WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE CHANGE; •I UNDERSTAND THAT FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION OR PROVIDING FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION MAY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF THE PREMISES PERMIT. SIGHA TIVK OFFICER DATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1.THE CITY* MUST SIGN THIS APPLICATION IF THE GAMBLING PREMISES IS LOCATED WITHIN CITY LIMITS THE COUNTY** AND TOWNSHIP** MUST SIGN THIS APPLICATION IF THE GAMBLING PREMISES IS LOCATED WITHINTOWNSHIP. 2 3 4 5 6 FOR TOWNSHIPS THAT ARE UNORGANIZED OR UNINCORPORATED, THE COUNTY** IS REQUIRED TO ATTACH A LETTER TO THIS APPLICATION INDICATING THE TOWNSHIPS STATUS. THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT (CITY OR COUNTY) MUST PASS A RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY APPROVING OR DENYING THIS APPLICATION. a rnPY of THE LOCAT. UNIT OF GOVERNMENT’S RESOLUTION APPROVING THIS.APPLICATION MUST..£S ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION, IF THIS APPLICATION IS DENIED BY THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT. IT SHOULD NOT BE SUBMITTED TO THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD. TOWNSHXP * BY SIGNATURE BELOW. THE TOWNSHIP ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS APPLYING FOR A PREMISES PERMIT WITHIN TOWNSHIP LIMITS. CITY* OR COUNTY**TOWNSHIP** CITY OR COUNTY NAME 1 TOWNSHIP NAME 1 r SIGNATURE OF PERSON RECEIVING APPLICATION 1 SIGNATURE OF PERSON 1 RECEIVING APPLICATION TITLE DATE RECEIVED 1 TITLE 1 DATE RECEIVED MAIL TO: GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD 1711 W COUNTY RD B - SUITE 300 S ROSEVILLE. MN 55113 A RESOLUTION GRANTING GAMBLING PERMIT FOR NAVARRE LANES LOCATED AT 3435 SHORELINE DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Orono agrees to approve the gambling permit application for the Lions Mound Northwest Tonka Club for operations at Navarre Lanes. 3435 Shoreline Drive. The above listed resolution was moved by and duly seconded by ATTEST: The following Councilmembers voted int he affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative. The above resolution was duly adopted on November 13, 1995. Edward J. Callahan, Jr , Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk f ) i:ikus 8 n O •T> ' s <T> CJ C3 r-t <U^ _o t ^U r.f Wb» IffS titt isu m ilaymm Loc Coda DOl AOMni Mflt7 4itC3f«tt fn.LlUDk S. •44214 44442f4ft VII. Lim S. 040293 44tC294tt VB. LI»4 S. 040171 471040071 OOMi. JJIMIE L. 040210 471040071 lOWI. JMflE L. 040249 471040471 BOMi. JMflE L. ^40179 47S140151 MMXnf. DOIOTHT M. >40211 47S140151 RMXIN.DCmcrTKt M. 34C290 475340151 H4LLIM. OOIOTHY M. >40140 477443477 fUSVlMf. CMTOLB A. :4C232 477441477 HASWMf. CAROLS A. 040291 477443477 HASVIMf. CAROLS A. 040141 477700023 MOORSS. RONALD J. 040233 477700023 MOORSS, RONALD J. 040292 477700023 MOORSS, RONALD J. Totolo Qiock Loc Cod« OOl admin deck Loc Code 002 FINANCE 040144 470947727 MILLER, CHRISTOPHER K. 040234 470947727 MILLER, CHRISTOPHER K. 340295 470947727 MILLER, CHRISTOPHER K 040183 472500574 KUEHN, THOMAS M. 04G23S 472500574 KUEHN, THOMAS M. 440294 472500574 KUEHN, THOMAS M. 040185 474844274 OLSON, JOHN C. 04C237 474844274 OLSON. JOHN C. 040294 474844274 OLSON. JOHN C. Tocale Check Loc Code 002 FINANCE Check Loc Code C03 POLICE 040344 C4C201 44C252 040312 040143 040195 04C247 04C304 040141 040193 040245 040304 043189 040241 334504281 MORONCZYNSKI, JM • 334504281 MORONCZYNSKI. JAMES 334506281 MORONCZYNSKI. JAMES 334506281 MORONCZYNSKI. JAMES 448701860 FISCHENICH. DAN T. 468701068 FISCHENICH. DAN T. 440701860 FISCHENICH. DAN T. 440701060 FISCHENICH. DAN T. 468021010 ENGLISH III,IRVING H 440021010 ENGLISH III,IRVING H 460021010 ENGLISH III.IRVING H 460321Oie ENGLISH III.IRVING H 460043000 CARLSON. MICHAEL B. 460643008 CARLSON. MIOIAEL B. •dpRid Roilster City of ormQ Socisl Security Pe^e 1 468-42 44t-62 468-42 471-84 471-84 471-84 475-38 475-38 475-38 477-46 477-46 477-46 477-70 477-70 477-70 9418 9488 94*1 u 4 •C871 -0871 -0151 0151 •0151 •3877 •3877 •3877 •0022 •CC23 •0023 Ched Dote U-Oct-9S 25 -Oct-95 Ol^v-95 ll-Oct-95 25-Oct-95 OO-Nov-95 ll-Oct-95 25-Oct-95 08-NOV-95 ll-Oct-95 2S-Oct-95 08-Nov-95 ll-Cct-35 25 -Oct-95 OO-Nov-95 « <0-98 470-98 470-98 472-50 472-50 472-50 474-06 476-06 476-06 7717 7727 •7727 •0574 -0574 •0574 6274 •6274 •6274 ll-Oct-95 25-Oct-95 08-NOV-95 ll-Oct-95 25-Oct-95 08-NOV-95 ll-Oct-95 25-Oct-95 08-NOV-95 334-50 334-50 334-50 334-50 460-70 468-70 468-70 460-70 468-82 460-02 460-82 468-82 468-84 468-84 -6281 -6281 -6281 -6291 -19:9 -1960 -1360 -I960 -1018 -1018 -1019 -1019 -3008 -3008 06-Oct-95 ll-Oct-95 25-Oct-95 00-Nov-95 06-Oct-95 ll-Oct-95 25-Oct-95 O0-NOV-95 C6-Oct-95 ll-Oct-9S 25-Oct-95 00-Nov-95 ll-Oct-95 25-Oct-95 Check Check Awunt Groee 709.13 1.101.33 688.64 1.071.20 €88.64 1.071.20 286.17 722.11 204.90 602 62 240.23 654.57 891.14 1.340.00 891.14 1.340.00 891.14 1.340.00 751.81 1,101.33 731.33 1,071.20 731.33 1,071.20 1.516.09 2,449.44 1.694.81 2,649.44 1.516.89 2,449.44 .2.434.19 20,035.08 823.11 1.180.80 823.11 1.180.80 823.11 1.180.80 1.223.31 2,288.48 1.223.31 2,288.48 1.223.31 2,288.48 730.54 1,018.40 730.54 1.018.40 730.54 1.018.40 8.330.88 13.463.04 743.99 095.01 1,272.03 1,655.20 1,244.83 1,655.20 1,295.50 1,606.24 530.22 073.25 1,003.36 1,665.42 990.79 1,706.04 1,032.66 1,716.20 710.10 097.29 571.63 1,949.76 402.73 1.751.74 390.22 1.706.04 295.34 340.13 431.92 539.04 >ttv X#9i nJMpBid R«9i«t«xr Wmfm -’■ 43 m City of Orono • Social talk iO^loyw Socurity OMck dwck Check M>r rnmm rnm^Data Aaiount GroBB SkMk IM Ood» 003 POLXCI M«}*0 440043000ayojGoi. Nic»iL 0.468-84-3d0000-NOV-9S 179.4X 465.63 M«u*449520024ccmrtcK, jMtmB l 469-S2-6026 06-Oct-9S 683.05 8T5.60 ^Ifl 449524024conricK. JMU l 469-52-6C26 ll-Oct-95 1,108.16 X.857.43 ^€•343 449524024COmiCK. JA9BS L 469-52-602625-Oct-95 1,102.43 1,818.74 ^•303449524024CORVICK, JJW.469-52-602630-Nav-9S 974.5X 1.669.60 M«X<T 479544529 sGBoonoPF* joaf b.470-56-652906-Oct-95 517.01 688.30 Mtaoj 4**0544529SC3K)BI«OFF. JOHN B.470-56-6529ll-Oct-95 911.12 1,3X7.35 M«aM 470544529SCSfOBMEOFF. JOHN B.470-56-652925-Oct-95 917.10 1,368.XX tM91«470S44S29 OCHOEIIIIOrP. JOHN B.470-56-652908-Nofv-9S 1,034.11 1.493.82 )M170 470704904 TOMCZYK, M5RK N.470-70-4904 06-Oct-95 667.98 821.98 M«3M 470704904 T04CZYX. NMUC «.470-70-4904 ll-Oct-95 1.137.24 1.655.20 Murr 470704904 TOMCZTK, MMUC ».470-70-4904 25-Oct-95 1.109.24 1,65S.2J Mon?470704904 TCIOCZYB, KMUC N.470-70-4904 OS-Nov-95 1,137.24 1,655.20 M03O2 471407919 mSXLL, WILLIMI B.471-40-7919 ll-Oct-95 29.55 101.07 ^03S347X407919 POSSLL, WILLIAM R.471-40-7919 25-Oct-95 456.12 812.04 M03X3 471497919 PBRSBLL. WILLIAM R.471-40-7919 08-NOV-95 339.33 448.80 M0XC4 47X549043JCKWSOW. BRAOLTf P.471-56-9863 06-Oct-95 714.79 878.S6 >40X97 47X549443JOHNSON, BRADLEY P.471-56-9863 ll-Oct-95 943.62 1.655.20 ^0249 47X549043JOHNSON, BRADLEY P.471-56-9863 25-OC1-95 959.79 1,717.27 >4030047X549443JOHNSON, BRADLEY P.471-56-9863 08-NOV-95 1,208.59 2,027.62 >40157 47X600C60ANDERSON, BRUCE L.471-68-8060 06-Oct-95 713.80 864.50 >40X0447X400040ANDERSON, BRUCE L.471-68-8060 ll-Oct-95 356.57 1,732.80 >40330471600040ANDERSON, BRUCE L.471-68-8060 25-Oct-95 421.02 1,862.76 >40397 47X688060 ANDERSON, BRUCE L.471-68-8060 08-NOV-9S 441.34 1.879.01 >40X55471848180 KNOLLENBERQ, KRISTIN L.471-84-8180 25-Sep-95 24.44 27.73 >40X99 47X848X80 XNCLLENBERG, KRISTIN L.471-84-4100ll-Oct-95 594.69 806.40 >4035047X848X80 KNOT.7.ENBER3, KRISTIN L.471-84-8180 25-Oct 95 446.65 806.40 34031047X848X80 KNOLLENBERG, KRISTIN L.471-84-8180 08-NOV-95 520.67 806.40 340X90 472503991 CKESNICK, GARY B.472-50-3991 ll-Oct-95 1,330.84 1,945.60 M0343472503991 CHESWICK, GARY B.472-50-3991 25-Oct-95 1,302.84 1,945.60 04030X472503991 CHESWICK, GARY B.472-50-3991 Ofl-Nov-95 1,292.34 1,945.60 340X42472529007 ERICKSON, KURT 472-52-9007 06-Oct-95 578.33 833.69 340X94 472529007 ERICKSON, KURT 472-52-9007 ll-Oct-95 1,069.90 1,655.20 340344472529007 ERICKSON, KURT 472-52-9007 25-Oct-95 1,041.90 1,655.20 340 3 05 472529007 ERICKSON. KL-RT 472-52-9007 08-Nov-95 1,069.90 1,655.20 340X60472563051THOMTCN, MARK R.472-56-305106-Oct-95 580.09 842.09 3403044725630517H0MT0N. MARK R.472-56-3051ll-Oct-95 901.10 1,624.80 340255472563051THOKTON, MARK R.472-56-305125-Oct-95 873.10 1,624.80 3403X5472563051THOMTON. MARK R.472-56-305108-Nov-95 901.10 1,624.80 340X53474563339BCBZIEN. SUE A.474-56-333925-Sep-9S 64.15 72.80 340187 4745633393CBZIEN. SUE A.474-56-3339ll-Oct-95 630.80 1.144.00 340239474563339BOBZIEN, SUE A.474-56-333925-Oct-95 630.80 1.144.00 340298 474563339BOB7IEN. SUE A.474-56-3339J8-NOV-95 630.80 1.144.00 340469 474663296 7CMC4ECX, LAWRENCE F.474-66-3296 06-Oct-95 688.OX 897.21 .!C205474663296 7CMTHECK . LAWRENCE P.474-66-3296 ll-Oct-95 214.17 1.624.80 34025647466'*tcmc::eck,Lawrence p.474-66-3296 25-Oct-95 221.32 1.685.73 3403X6474663^46TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F.474-66-3296 08-Nov-95 433.84 2.005.61 340196 475444249rtANSING, CAROL J.475-44-4249ll-Oct-95 334.05 546.72 1 r im f SI i ixd City ©1 Social SacviYity Data mtcU Loe Cbds 001 SOLICS GOOaSi 47S44424S KSIttllKl* CMU)L J. 040107 47S44424f KMISI1K;« CMOL J. oonii 47Sfif721 DM005KX. JAY C. 04iU2 47Sf00721 OMOOSKI. JAY C. 040244 47S0I972I DBMBOUSXI. JAY C. J40101 47S00072I CEMBOQ5KX. JAY C. >40114 47402X1X0 tOAXS. SCOTT A. «w*XSi 47402X1X0 tOAXS. SCCTT A. .4wlii 47402X4X0 AQAXS. SCOTT A. 044240 4*402X4X0 AGAXS. SC7TT A. M0200 47002X4X0 AOAXS. SCCTT A. 040100 477047270 KARNITZ, RICKY 0. 040>00 47'^»472^0 KARSIITZ. RICKY 0. 040X4S 44J441S42 !4C!IICK:L5. CAVIC L. 040220 442041542 Mi3ICHCU. CAVI2 L. 040251 442441542 MOCICACLS. CAVIC L. 044111 442441542 CAVIC 1. 47S-44 47S-44 47S-04 47S-04 47S-04 47$.04 474-02 474-02 474 02 474-02 474-02 477-44 477 44 440-44 440'§4 410-44 440'94 4240 4240 0721 0721 0721 0721 mo lii* ItlO 1910 1910 7270 7270 1542 1542 1542 1542 2S OCt-OO 09 »On^-fo 04 Ort 00 11 iVt 04 2S Ort 00 09 Acwr 00 25 5*p 00 04 Ort 00 1 1 Ort 00 15 Ort 00 79 fiw 00 i I »r* 00 19 P9nrv 00 14 00 4 4 '/Ct-05 25 VTt 00 ;0 Aw 00 Yocala :^cc rrvla :q1 5CLIC3 i-jc 2w5a :C4 \2i:?oAL c:^ '.ajc 23oa ^'24 \IIIMAL CTSI# :j^< ujc :3oa :u5 3LJG. M4 ft *72 79 045 51 1.0T7 14 l.*190 14 t.701 70 Ilf 11 4«4 00 001 47 04 I 00 004 4 f III 04 101 9 1 <44 40 141 10 471 41 ill 41 05.744 11 >♦022 ’4»9iii#’*:449-1X19^7 li-yr TO ;9x >40259 4»41119'J — ?449-lX-19"!25 V** TO .19 .50124 2A.....AJHA2f .-Ca241Ail ?449-i;-i9-7 )9 Avf TO 19 >♦0220 4 ’:\.'9-» 9 FliCiER .!HRUT:?HE3 4.4*7- )9->*:9 .; TO .59 >502aa a’looo’ia rzj'^iSR,C1R2JTCPHS3 R.4*7- 59- f">9 ^0 v- TO )9 .17 >40122 4-0299"*’29 FtlCTSE.comrcpHSR c.4 7-19-4 19 4 ^ >402C4 zTiairr iO ITS 140259 4 ’5?a • 'O'*«*arw ::k.rmasY 4-0.J9-'-4-;0- Trr- >0 :95 .4031?4 *5 94 ’"*4'?ARJi:2I.i-cAHrr 4-0- >9- "*9** 9 5nv 10 .20 77 »i 71 ^7 10 •^94 4 • faae* ) iXtoaii 1.4 1.9 1.0 54i ft 401 07 900 ir ft «n 7 9 04 9 14 01 11 5 It I 10 I 90 M ff »0» 14 »'»9 40 1.9'>9 70 1.917 n 1.991 91 04 "iit I 79 ro 40 50 4 7 70 »99 5 ;42 10 77-’ 20 2>*^ /r 7*4 'io .47 ; oil 4^ :40211 12120241*'ORfiusrrr i2i-;9-.4i- .;-VTt-io . . 57 47 •19 -9 >402>J 121 * * • 4 .A 'AyjL*sT:?. .-ZA:£H2 4..21X9-1417 lO->-T->«.07 47 . >4 9 -9 %wi22 12110241 ^'lAdurr?-.EAU?S 4..21-X9-141* *9- Inv ?0 . -.19 47 1 149 :9 :44.'211 49.*«»d9 392 A7*r0'25. OICHAEL 1 *40-«>9-«t09a -70 >''9 ^0 . 055 17 40 7*»9o 302 . ’•ICHASL 1 iO . 000 ^7 J4U2^1 jATTRCH 4o7o9o:92 ainAjJ. '.4^4.^o.^0aa 9-4w >0 >79 15 i 505 57 )4^i21 jA« *7101 f I ^m •s 4y * 12 4 77 ? ; 2 721 99MI ♦ ^ '991 . i - - >0 . ^90 47 ; 555 57 34w2^J 4 W70T21 .TOMI..'L2 onl .0- '/*r . *0 ’. 99 47 . 555 <7 :9w J23 4 7trT70?0l nail.A ^• -*1' 9^1 9 trr*r- »0 99 4C*1 500 57 ;422iJ 475525232 •ASG. 3RCCT ...,-»/5 >3 >11 10 . 147 17 475525232 •.iacs.3RUCT —>1 1 45 ; 147 19 ;4uj.:9 475525232 -oaa. 3RUCS , to . -k .1 - r X > 2 9 - . ?0 >1 »25 1 197 17 IfM f:S3 m City of OroM Social loyaa m wuao/ 477M1S39 477taiS39 477M1S39 Tstals Choeli hoc Coda OOS ILDG/ZOViaQ Ome* Loe Cdda 004 POILIC NOJtXS 4€0420t3a 444420032 444420032 444909S3S 444909S3S 444909S35 449429194 449429194 449429194 449440107 4494441C7 449441107 473744173 473744173 473744173 474447812 474447812 474467812 474447812 475443842 475443842 475443842 474783251 474783251 474783251 477500444 477500444 477500444 QmUJtDSOM. Jomi 4. GEKHAKDSOH. JOMI R. GKRHARDSOV« JOm R. OBCRAICaiER^ SCOTT Q. 08ERA1GNER* SCOTT G OBERAICafER. SCOTT G SiaHEEN, DALE S. SKRECN, DALE S. SKREEN. DALE S. PALMER. GREGORY A. PALMER. GREGORY A. PALMER. GREGORY A. RATHBUR. BARRY J. RATHBOR. BARRY J. RATHBOR. BARRY J. GREGORY. JAMES D. GREGORY. JAMES D. GREGORY. JAMES D. GREGORY. JAMES D. BRINKHAUS. JCHR P. BRIRKKAUS. JOHN F. BRINKHAUS. JOHN F. OBRIEN.RANDY L. OBRIEN.RANDY L. OBRIEN.RANDY L. HANSEN.STEVEN C. HANSEN.STEVEN C. HANSEN.ST5T/E-N C. Totalo Qieck Loc Code 006 PUBLIC WORKS Check Loc Code 007 GOLF Paad 4 Security Check Check Check Number Date Amouat Gross 477-88-1S39 11-Oct-91 60.li 1.242.41 477.88-1539 25-Oct-95 60.li 1.242.41 477-88-1539 08-NOV-95 60.15 1.242.41 12.440.41 22.924.80 448-42-0832 ll-Oct-95 1.279.39 2.357.74 448-42-0832 25-Oct-95 1.279.39 2.357.74 448-42-0832 08-ROV-95 1.279.39 2.357.74 448-90-9535 ll-Oct-95 937.22 1.315.60 448-90-9535 25-Oct-95 820.52 1.144.00 448-90-9535 08-NOV-95 820.52 1.144.00 469-62-9194 ll-Oct-95 597.15 1.144.00 469-42-9194 25-Oct-95 597.15 1.144.00 469-62-9194 08-ROV-95 597.15 1.144.00 469-84-8107 ll-Oct-95 605.61 1.144.00 469-84-8107 25-Oct-95 706.88 1.294.15 469-84-8107 02-ROV-95 749.41 1.358.50 473-74-6173 ll-Oct-95 864.67 1.144.00 473-74-6173 25-Oct-95 864.67 1.144.00 473-74-6173 08-NOV-95 980.71 1.315.60 474-66-7812 25-Sep-95 183.28 208.00 474-66-7812 ll-Oct-95 747.58 1.337.68 474-66-7812 25-Oct-95 698.78 1.272.25 4/4-66-7812 08-Nov-95 606.39 1.163.20 475-44-3862 ll-Oct-95 1.100.37 1.701.48 475-44-3862 25-Oct-95 1.100.37 1.701.48 475-44-3862 08-NOV-95 1.023.37 1.701.48 476-78-3251 ll-Oct-95 98.42 1.144.00 476-78-3251 25-Oct-95 225.85 1.229.80 476-78-3251 08-Nov-95 282.54 1.315.60 477-50-0666 ll-Oct-95 680.91 1.144.00 477-50-0666 25-Oct-95 831.15 1.364.94 477-50-0666 08-Nov-95 680.91 1.144.00 21.239.75 37.936.98 040226 473106428 OAS. DANIEL 0.473-10-8428 ll-Oct-95 270.96 297.60 040277 473108428 GAS. DANIEL 0.473-10-8428 25-Oct-95 177.82 195.30 040224 473141624 JOSTROM, FOREST J.473-14-1624 ll-Oct-95 174.26 191.40 040275 473141624 JOSTROM. FOREST J.473-14-1624 25-Oct-95 92.42 101.50 040334 473141624 JOSTROM. FOREST J.473-14-1624 08-Nov-95 47.52 52.20 340228 473609629 ROSS, JOHN A.473-60-9629 ll-Oct-95 71.29 78.30 340279 473609629 ROSS. JOHN A.473-60-9629 25-Oct-95 97.69 107.30 V 1»..». mftr ift9« i ftS3 M City of Prow •iOJiT otoaaT Mmi 0tO31€ 04822S 84827€ 08033S 040328 040200 040330 Loo Q>40 007 OOLT 473000428 KOn. JOHN A. 47410778$ KTEKSOV* JACX «. 474X0778$ RTIISQB. JAOC «. 47410778$ PinSSOM. JACK ». 47S344S12 WCIgTTKE, VILLIAH I. 47S344S12 NCXHTTU. VILLXAn t. 47$344S12 NCXirmUS. VILLXAH I. 47SS08177 mrmoMGa. wcbold c. 47S$08177 STVFEBHAQOI. ROSALP E 47S$0fl77 OTCmBHASni. ROHALD E Totala Chock Loc Codo 007 QOLP Chock Loc Cod« 008 COUNCIL 040174 04:285 34:i73 04C284 040175 040280 040170 :4C287 34:i77 34C288 018324077 018324077 409188020 409188020 470300009 470300009 473040272 473040272 470527180 470527180 GOBTTEN, J. OIA^ GOETTEK, J. 0XA£^ CALLAHAN JR.. EDUARD J CALLAHAN JR.. EDWARD J HURR. JOELLEM L. HURR. JOELLEN L. JABBOUR. GABRIEL JABBCUR. GABRIEL KELLEY. CHARLES KELLEY. CHARLES Totals Check Loc Code 008 COUNCIL Grand Total Social Security Check Check Cheat HOnher Oete Aeount Croee 473*00-9028 08-Nev-9$47.52 52.20 474-10-7795 ll-Oct-95 345.50 393.30 474-10-7795 25-Oct-9S 180.40 203.80 474-10-7795 08-NOV-95 115.20 130.10 475-34-4512 11-Oct-95 153.14 108.20 475-34-4512 25-Oct-95 174.20 191.40 475-34-4512 08-Nev-99 08.05 75.40 475-50-9177 ll-Oct-95 981.50 1.340.00 475-50-9177 25-Oct-95 981.50 1.340.00 475-50-9177 08-NOV-95 981.50 1.340.00 4.901.25 0.258.00 018-32-4077 09-Oct-95 223 19 241.67 018-32-4077 13-NOV-95 223.19 241.07 409-18-8020 09-Oct-95 220.65 300.00 409-18-8020 13-NOV-95 220.05 300.00 470-30-0009 09-Oct-95 223.19 241.07 470-30-0009 13 Nov-95 223 19 241.07 473-04-0272 09-Oct-95 223.19 241.67 473-04-0272 13-NOV-95 223.19 241.07 470-52-7180 09-Oct-95 223.19 241.07 470-52-7180 13-NOV-95 223.19 241.07 2.220.82 2.533.30 118,681.89 203.094.00 :ttiu m city •! •M* sasi WiT iffif iira inama ». •MAT istr itPi AifUiMiet 09. S9SB iT mr un 09. »84 M2S4 M-Oct-M >!• 00. tmmx « COLL TM*(« MISS S98S Tctalt ClMCk ’!■ 00. WAAOtT * COli S0IS4 MOMPIA 00. MATCRT t 0011 to COUOTT MAQIT I OQLI. to oowTT suAPOff ft eou SOSS NmiPio OOMTY wmmr ft ooll ICM MTIRCMnT TOUiT • 4S7 l4-Oct-9S T*calt CtMck ICM ■fTIWMHT TMiST • 4S7 S02S4 ICM WTimCNf TiUST • 4S7 50257 LM nra 90257 Totals Otack 24-Oct-95 IT UKM KRVICC UIW EMFOKMiMT LAMA SCfVlCe 50257 LAU ENFOKMCNT LAIOA SCKVICE Mek 50258 M OCPT Of lEVEMUC 50258 24-Oct-95 Totals CtMck MuiOor m 0€PT Of ftEVriiUE 50S8 M OEPT Of ftEVEMUE 50259 M MUTUAL LIFE 50259 Totals Chock lack 24-Oct-95 MN MUTUAL LIFE 50259 W MUTUAL LIFE 50260 MN STATE RETIRENENT-DEF COM 50260 24-Oct-95 Totals Check NuiOer MN STATE RETIRE)€NT-OEF COMP S0260 M STATE RETIREMENT-OEF COM 'lack 50261 PEBSCO/OBRA 50261 24-Oct-95 Totals Chock Hiater PEBSCO/OBRA 50261 PEBSCO/OBRA W-S'-’ i tian 1,26S.OO T.ae.oo 184.12 •••••• %u.u m.5o 174.50 100.00 100.00 420.00 420.00 2,751.74 2,751.74 55.00 55.00 100.00 lOOaOO 86.91 86.91 IPlft 1 0IF13 i our wn TMWTOi iCQ26678Q SKKCEM iC0262510 OEFEUEO CO^ M/n uiiQi DUES wn STATE TAX tl/X OEFERREO COUP U/H DEFERRED COMP U/H 06RA DEFERRED COMP U/H r Ito 12:1t Ml City •♦ tl«n 0^ i.oe.w •••••••• 1.0IS.M (Ml DiFEBSO CSV U/M ma ina KtA PCU 3.S13.6* 4.613.01 6CiA BMiom W* KRA cm SMAIE T«t*lt 30263 KAA •.126.67 30266 Uitftt Wif 30266 24-Oct-95 UilTlO HAT retail CMck 30266 UilTO U6T 29.00 29.00 CHARm OOMTICMS U/N ratal U.3S8.64 1 ■...mi CN^ l^ftW City *f QTM) $020 cm oounv cmoit win cm oowTT CUBIT win cm eow*T CKBIT win riMT iftTIOML BMK « UBSS 0-MV-0 niST MTIOMU MR OF UMSS FIRST MTIOn. INK OF LAKES TMMs SOM* FIRST MTinMk BM OF LAKES $02*7 ORSAT WST LIFE ASSWAHCE CO. SM*7 OREAT UEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. $0*7 RREAT UiST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. $020 IFIN GO. SUFMRT * COLL O7-O0V0 :FIM CO. SJFFWT * COLL T«ta(s CtMcfc $020 NCMHKFIM CO. aJFFWT * COLL $020 NENMEFIN COWTT SUFFWT * COLL 5020 O7-NOV0 NENNEFIR COWH SUFFWT S COLL Totals Chock Huiter $020 NENHCFIR COUNTY SUFFWT S 0)LL |3isek NiaRiar $0270 50270 lOU RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 O7-NOV-0 ICNA RETIREMENT TRUST • 457 Totals Chack Nu0or 50270 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST • 457 Chack NMbar 50271 LAW ENFWCMENT LASW SERVICE 50271 07-NOV-95 LAW ENFWCMENT LABW SERVICE Totals Chack Nuiter 50271 LAU ENFWCMENT LABW SERVICE Chack N(«bar 50272 MN DEFT OF REVENUE 50272 07-NOV-95 MN DEFT OF REVENUE Totals Check NtMber 50272 MN DEFT OF REVENUE Chack NuRtoar 50273 MN MUTUAL LIFE 50273 07-NOV-95 MN MUTUAL LIFE Totals Check Nunber 50273 MN MUTUAL LIFE TrmactloR) Bmmx $.527.00 5.527.00 9.362.52 2.849.47 12.211.0 1.265.00 1.20.00 164.82 164.82 174.50 174.50 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 2.70.57 2.70.57 55.00 55.00 SAVINCS W/N t TRANSFERRED FIT.FICA.MOW W/N FICA.NEOW CITY SNAM DfFERREO TMOHTQH SCO2078O SKREEN tC0262310 DEFERRED COMF U/H UNION DUES W/H STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP U/H Citr of Orono mn m mn mtimsot-mp cam Or-Mvfl m tTATt KTIIDKIT-MF QffP Totals Cliotic son M tTATf ■ntIGCMT-OfP OMF 5QZ79 Totals or-oov-os posco/us oatf OP MTon Touts Chock S0Z7» H»$eOAM COItf OP MTOiS S0277 WM 90277 50277 07*aov9S 07-aov>«9 fiiA PCIA Totals Chock outer 90277 PtSA 9027S UOITfO UAT 5027S 07-NOV95 uaiTEO UAT Totals Chock Outer 90278 UOITED WAT Grand Total tfon 100.00 100.00 121.72 121.n 1,985.001 •••••••• 1,385.00 5,552.21 4,870.39 8,222.80 29.00 29.00 32,105.20 1 DEFE88C9 U/N 088A OEFCI W/H uscn DCFCjmcD POA EMPLOTEE W/N PEIA CITY SNARE CHARITY DONATIONS U/N If - wm tm M %tam C<ty of aioek Nurtwr TrMMCtlon Boio SOZTf sttrt SOITf ALL STfCL ftODUCTS CO IK. AU STIEL NOBUCTS 00 IK. AU STOL nODKTS 00 IK. TWaio S027f AU SmL nODUCTS 00 IK. AMRIOATA SOHO AmiOATA Toeoio S0280 AMDIIOATA K Btator SOai ATAT 50281 02-Hav-95 AT&T 50281 02*N«v-95 ATAT 50281 02*Osv-95 ATAT 50281 02-N*v-05 ATAT 50281 02-HOW-95 ATAT 50281 O2-N0V-95 ATAT 5C281 08-NOV-95 ATAT Tatala Otack Nhj*ar 50281 ATAT 50282 ATAT UIULE» SERVICCS 50282 50282 50282 02-AOV-95 02*Now95 08*N ov*95 AUT WIRELESS SERVICES ATAT WIRELESS SERVICES ATAT WIRELESS SERVICES ATAT WIRELESS SERVICESTotals OiocK CtweV. NuW»or 50283 ALACMWIAIC A SOW 50283 08-MOV-95 ILACKWIAK A SM 50283 SLACKOWIAK A SOWTotals Chacic Wu*ar 50285 MWESTROO ROSEWE A ASSOC3wck Wuifcar 50285 50285 50285 50285 50285 50285 502o5 50285 50285 50285 50285 08 08 08 Mov-95 Mov-95 Wov-95 08*Mov-95 NOV-95 N ov-95 Nov-95 08-NOV-95 NOV-95 Nov-95 Nov-95 08 08 08 08 08 08 lONESTROO ROSENE lOWESTROO ROSENE •OWESTROO ROSENE BONESTROO ROSENE BOWESTROO ROSENE BONESTROO ROSENE BONESTROO ROSENE BONESTROO ROSENE BONESTROO ROSENE BONESTROO ROSENE BONESTROO ROSENE A ASSOC. A ASSOC. A ASSOC. A ASSOC. A ASSOC. A ASSOC. A ASSOC. A ASSOC. A ASSOC. A ASSOC. A ASSOC. 306.02 306.02 1.659.00 124.66 194.17 179.66 4,116.62 1,691.56 651.10 472.00 918.03 330.00 2,097.75 Past 1 SO.M CULVERT A BAKS 271.36 CULVERT A BANOS 775.32 50.00 RIBBONS FOR PRINTER • • • • • 50.00 19.55 CIVIL OEFENK MONITOR 5.30 LOM OISTANCX CHARGES 44.05 NOV LEASE-EOUIP 5.05 LONG oisTAwa snv 12.88 lok distance serv 79.07 LONG DISTANCE KRV 7.43 LONG DISTANCE CHARGES 173.33 . 65.55 CELL PNQNE CHARGES 65.56 CELL PNONE CHARGES 73.75 CELL PNONE-GERHAROSON 204.86 1970 SHADYWOOO CLEANUP KELLY AVE STORM SWR-AU6 OCR RO BRIDGE INSP-SEPT RFP i3, OCB RO ST IMPROV OCB RO ST INSP-SEK WILLOW DRIVE INSP-SEP WILLOW DRIVE CO #1 BROWN RO/WTRTOUN l» RFP«5 BROWN RO/WTRTOUN INSP-SEP L.S. «7 REHAB INSP-SEPT KELLY AVE STORM SWR AUG SAGA HILLS SWR INSPECT rI mm tfis StSPR CH^ i«tut«r City «f rn-rnm-n warn sow sow sow MMSTMO MSCi« 0 ASSOC. ISTSOO MSCMt S ASSOC. [STMO SOSfMf A ASSOC. ESTMO MSCM A ASSOC. IflWSTSOO tOSCNS A ASSOC. ■OWTSOO AOStW A ASSOC. lOtSTlOD OOWt A ASSOC. ESTMO MSSM A ASSOC. TMAlB OlKk MWBr SOW MMSTMO MSUt A ASSOC Mck Mter soat WMM IMTfirtC sow 06'NovfS IRAUM INTtirCC Touts Chtck mmbtr SOW ORAUH imt»tec tack rnattr SOW OUDCCT mimtim SOW 02-MOV-9S SUOCST RilRTINS Totals Chaek wmimr S0287 suoar MISTUO hock Rioter SOW lUFFALO StTUMlNOUS INC. sow 08-NOV9S lUFFALO S1TUMIN0U8 INC. Totals Chock NUlter SOW BUFFALO IITURINOJS INC. hock Huiter 50289 CARGILL SALT DIVISION 50289 02-NOV-95 CARGILL SALT DIVISION Totals Chock Rioter 50289 CARGILL SALT DIVISION hack Nuter 50290 COP INAGIMG SYSTEMS 50290 08-NOV-95 COP IMAGING SYSTEMS Totals Oieck Nuter 50290 COP IMAGING SYSTEMS hock Nl*teP 50291 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 50291 50291 50291 50291 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-95 08-NOV-95 Oa-Nov-95 Totals Check Muter 50291 chuni lock Nuter 50292 CITY OF MEOINA 50292 03'Nov-95 CITY OF MEDINA ttOdi t 2,9iA.0t 19A.75 50.00 100.00 142.50 2,08.92 4,057.44 254.50 513.00 23,185.89 6,655.18 6,655.18 13.70 13.70 57,824.89 57,824.89 1,222.52 1,222.52 189.87 189.87 AUTO UKESHORE AUTO 21e60 LAKESHORE AUTO 87.49 LAKESHORE AUTO 43.20 LAKESHORE AUTO 68.60 UKESHORE AUTO 220 89 277.50 9a«o i CcNWintf AmiC'AM GEN ER6-AU6 EM RETAIMEI'AUG EM RETAINER'SEP CEN EM-SEPT APPLIC-SEPT SAGA HILLS SHR REHA8-SEP AUG MT ^TS SEP SUR MT VOTS :-93-0143 CLEANUP OPEUTION ID CAROS UILLOU DRIVE PAT #2 COARSE SALT COPIER LEASE'NOV f169 ATTACH DOOR PANEL #174 TRANSMISSION SERV 8173 ELEC.REPAIR 8170 ELEC WORK SWR LINE EASEMENT LMte.,Vn «N«.OLrt?Eqteni Tnrrvif I ftSPM City of Orono ioto a cm Of mil* iotn eiTT w icdim SQ2«3 cmviiy KUMIH t MATIM •sun oMiovM cimifw piumiM « ncatim Totoio Owen wmbtr 5«w cmviw mmiK s i»Tme S0294 OOLOMIAL LtFI liSUlAKE CO. S02H S02M Q*Mow>95 02>Mov*95 COLOilAL IIF€ IWUMUCf CO. COLONIAL Lire WSUNANCf CO. Totolo Chock Wimbm-50294 colonial Lire WSUtANCf CO. 50295 COMHCRCIAL LIF£ INSURAKE 50295 50295 50295 50295 50295 50295 50295 50295 50295 02-NOV-95 02*Noy-95 02*Nev*95 02-Nov-95 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-9S 02-NOV-95 CONKRCIAL LIFE COMMERCIAL LIFE COMMERCIAL LIFE COMMERCIAL LIFE COIMCRCIA^ LIFE C.WHERCIAL LIFE COMMERCIAL LIFE COMMERCIAL LIFE COMPCRCIAL LIFE INSURANCE insurance insurance insurance insurance insurance insurance insurance insurance Totolt Chock Mwbor 50295 C0M«RCIAL LIFE INSURANCE 50296 CTS UNIFORMS 50296 OO-Nov-95 CYS UNIFORMS ot.lt Ch«:k lii***r 50296 CYS UNIFORMS k motor 50297 OEPT OF ADMINISTRATION 50297 50297 03-NOV-95 03-NOV-95 OEPT OF ADMINISTRATION OEPT OF ADMINISTRATION 9t.lS Chock Nuiter 50297 OEPT OF ADMINISTRATION It Ruiter 50298 E-Z RECYCLING 50298 02-NOV-95 E-Z RECYCLING ,talt Chock Nuitor 50298 E-Z RECYCLING t Niater 50299 EXPRESS MESSENGER 50299 02-NOV-95 EXPRESS MESSENGER ,t.lt Check NuAor 50299 EXPRESS MESSENGER L TnntKtIon 277.50 19.10 19.10 505.84 187.68 693.52 24.25 2.55 76.76 12.75 33.97 1.14 2.66 0.85 115.52 270.45 56.95 56.95 2.24 2.24 4.48 5,422.92 5,422.92 14.25 14.25 DRESSER COUniNG NOVQUER INSURANCE MOVEMIER INSUIAMCE NOVEMRER NOVEM8ER NOVEMRER NOVEMRER NOVEMRER NOVEMRER NOVEMRER NOVEMRER NOVEMRER INSURANCE insurance INSURANCE INSURANCE INSURANCE INSURANCE INSURANCE INSURANCE IN9JRANCE PANTS-MCNICHOLS microfiche ZONING FILES microfiche council files OCT RECYCLING DELIV. TO POPHAM HAIK i I lov 1995 .ad 5:23 PH Oiack Huiter Check keflister City of Orooo Page 4 • MU Date 50300 FEED klTE CWTROLS 02-NOV95 FEED »>TE CCkTROLS Totals Check MuAer 50300 FEED kITE CCkTkOUS hack NudMr 50301 FORD CONSTkUCTICN 5(001 02-«ov*95 FCkO CONSTRUCT (CM Totals Check tlui*>er 50301 FORD CONSTRUCTICn Check Nudwr 50302 FRAUKLIM QUEST 50302 Oa-Nov-95 FRANKLIk QUEST Totals Check Ma*er 50302 FRANKLJM QUEST neck Muitwr 50303 FROST, SHERRY R. 50303 50303 50303 50303 02-MOV-95 02-MOV-95 02-MOV-95 02-MOV-95 FROST, SHERRY k. FROST, SHERRY R. FROST, SHERRY R. FROST, SHERRY R. Totals Check 50303 FROST, SHERRY R. eck MVJitJcr 50304 G 4 K SERVICES 50304 50304 50304 50304 50304 50304 02-MOV-95 02-MOV-95 02-MOV-95 02-MOV-95 02-MOV-95 02-NOV-95 G & 1C SERVICES G & IC SERVICES G 4 x: SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES Totals Check Muifcer 50304 G & K SERVICES eck No*er 50305 GALL'S INC. 50305 02-NOV-95 GALL'S INC. Totals Check No*er 50305 GALL'S INC. •ck Murtoer 5C- '»^ 50306 50306 50306 08-Ni-*9> 08*Nov-95 08-MOV-95 GENUINE PARTS CO. GENUINE PARTS CO. GENUINE PARTS CO. Totals Check Nudjer 50306 GENUINE PARTS CO fck Nui*>er 50307 HACH CHEMICAL CO. 50307 02-NOV-95 HACH CHEMICAL CO Transaction Aiaowit 191.15 191.15 51.387.71 51.387.71 117.10 117.10 80.00 100.00 110.00 110.00 400.00 2.64 71.64 8.48 40.84 40.84 132.41 296.85 64.91 64.91 108.77 Coimitnts CHLORINE, HYDRO ACID L.S. #7 CALENDAR REFILL PARK COMMISSION MTG COUNCIL MTG PLANNING COMMISSION MTG COUNCIL MTG STEFFENHAGEN STREET EMPLOYEES RATHBUN FLOOR MATS FLOOR MATS FLOOR MATS PILOT LIGHT/SOAP 121.52 HISC PARTS 54.87 MISC PARTS 9.13 HISC PARTS 185.52 TEST CHEMICAL Itaw 199S S:2S m Check tesUter City of Orono Cheek Date 50307 HACK CHEMICAL CO. Tecele Cheek Suiter 50307 MACH CHEMICAL CO. 50308 HASO DRIVES Mck Nuiter 08-MOV95 HARO DRIVES Total* Check Su*er 50308 HARO DRIVES 50309 HEMS CO TREASURER 50309 50309 50309 02-SOV-95 02-SOV-95 08-HOV95 HENN CO TREASURER HENN CO TREASURER HENN CO TREASURER Totals Check Muiber 50309 HENN CO TREASURER ack 50310 HUDSON MAP CO 50310 50310 03-MOV-95 03-SOV-95 HUDSON MAP CO HUDSON MAP CO Totals Check Nutber 50310 HUDSON MAP CO thock H u Mmt 50311 JOHN BECKMAM 50311 03*Mov*95 JOHN BECKMAN Totals Check Huiter 50311 JOHN BECKMAN aieck Hurtier 50312 JOHNSON, BRAD 50312 02*Mov-95 JOHNSON, BRAD Totals Check Hieter 50312 JOHNSON. BRAD Check Nieter 50313 KELLER kenne N ASSOC. 50313 03-NOV-95 Totals Check Hu*er 50313 KELLER KENNEN ASSOC Check NuMjer 503U KOEHNEN'S AMOCO 50314 08-NOV-95 KELLER KEHNEH ASSOC KOEHNEN'S AMOCO Totals Check Muiter 50314 KOEHNEN'S AMOCO Check Nuiter 50315 KUEHN, THOMAS 50315 50315 08-NOV-95 08-Nov-95 KUEHN, THOMAS KUEHN, THOMAS Transaction Afliount 108.77 48,217.09 48,217.09 50.00 1,657.75 15.84 1,723.59 18.90 18.89 37.79 35.00 35.00 20.01 20.01 878.92 878.92 176.87 176.87 9.95 36.55 Page 5 Coaiaents OCB BIKE/HIKE TRAIL UTILITY PERMIT ROOM ft BOARD-SEPT POSTAL VERIFICATIONS 1996 street ATLAS 1996 STREET ATUS ADJUST POLICE BACK DOOR MISC PARTS NEWSLETTER MISC GAS PURCHASES OCT MILEAGE OCT MILEAGE I 1 NOV Md S:Z3 m Check *e«i»t«P City Oronp Pa9« 6 )i«ck Wurtier 50318 LONG UKE TBACTCR EQUIPNEMT 50318 50318 02-NOV-95 03-MOV-95 LONG LAKE mCTCR EQUIPMENT LCNG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Tot.le Check Nu*er 50318 LCNG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT heck Nu*er 50319 MAIL BOXES ETC. 50319 03*Nov*95 MAIL BOXES ETC. Totals Check mrt)er 50319 MAIL BOXES ETC. fleck Nuitier 50320 50320 50320 50320 50320 50320 50320 50320 50320 50320 MEOICA CHOICE 02-NOV-95 02*Nov-95 02-NOV-95 02-Nov*95 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-95 MEDICA MECICA MEDICA MEOICA MEDICA MEDICA MEOICA MEOICA MEOICA CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE Totals Check Nvrt^er 50320 MEOICA CHOICE eck MulRjer 50321 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION Tr«is»ction CiMck Aflnunt CoRiaents Mflbcr D«t«NaM ChRCk NLnber 50315 KUEHN, THOMAS 17.44 OCT MILEAGE 50315 08-MPV-95 icucHM. tmus Tecals Check Nuebpr 50315 KUEHN. THOMAS 63.94 Ctack 50316 LAWN OETAILERS INC. 2 008.28 OCT SERVICES 50316 08-Nov«95 LAWN OETAILERS INC. Totals Chock Riofecr 50316 LAWN OETAILERS INC.2,008.28 Chock Nuriwr 50317 LOGIS 2.205.00 SEPT SERVICES 50317 08-NOV-95 LOGIS 667.00 SEPT SERVICES 50317 08-NPV-95 LOGIS 226.00 SEPT SERVICES • 50317 08-NOV-95 LOGIS 526.00 SEPT SERVICES 50317 08-NOV-95 LOGIS 387.25 SEPT DISC SPACE 50317 08-NOV-95 LOGIS 811.84 SEPT DISC SPACE 50317 08*Nov*95 LOGIS 13.57 SEPT DISC SPACE 50317 08-NOV-95 LOGIS 31.66 SEPT DISC SPACE 50317 08-NOV-95 LOGIS 59.40 ASCII FILES-UB SYSTEM 50317 08-MOV-95 LOGIS 138.60 ASCII FILES-UB SYSTEM 50317 Oa-Nov-95 LOGIS 5,066.32 Totals Check Nt^r 50317 LOGIS 11.82 12.61 24.A3 65.30 65.30 1,163.50 675.33 2,969.56 488.17 1,204.04 112.29 262.03 1,272.42 2,368.64 10,515.98 MALE TIP HUB A SPROCKET SHIPPING CHARGES NOV HEALTH NOV HEALTH NOV HEALTH NOV HEALTH NOV HEALTH NOV HEALTH NOV HEALTH NOV HEALTH NOV HEALTH insurance INSURANCE insurance INSURANCE INSURANCE INSURANCE INSURANCE INSURANCE INSURANCE 19f5 S:23 ra OMck Check B*9Ut*r City of Orono Dot* 50321 METtO WASTE COMTWC OtSWlSSlOII 50321 50321 50321 50321 50321 50321 08*kov-95 08-Nov*95 08-Nov*95 OO'Nov'OS 08-Nov*95 OO-Mov-95 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMMISSIOM metro waste control COPWISSION metro waste control COMMISSIOM metro waste CWTROL COMMISSIOM metro waste control COMMISSION metro waste control cowmssiom Iretats Check »**)er 50321 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMMISSIOM bk HuWwr 50322 MICRO AGE 50322 08*Mw95 MICRO AGE [Totals Check lu*er 50322 MICRO ACE t MuNser 50323 MIOl^ST ASPHALT 50323 02-NOV-95 MIDWEST ASPHALT otals Cheek NvrtJer 50323 MIDWEST ASPHALT k M»j*er 50324 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS 50324 50324 50324 50324 50324 50324 50324 02-NOV-95 02-MOV-95 Oa-Nov-95 08-NOV-95 Oa-Nov-95 Oa-Mov-95 08-HOV-95 MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS PRODUCTS PRODUCTS PRODUCTS PRODUCTS PRODUCTS PRODUCTS PRODUCTS )tals Check Nuiter 50324 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS t Nurtjer 50325 MILLER. CHRIS 5Q325 02*Nov*95 HILLER, CHRIS «als Check mrter 50325 HILLER. CHRIS k NuiRjer 50326 MINNEAPOLIS OXTCEM COMPANY 50326 08-Nov-95 otals Check Ntjicer MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 50326 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Nuitwr 50327 MINNECASCO 50327 50327 50327 50327 02-NOV-95 02-Nov-95 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-95 MINNECASCO MINNECASCO MINNECASCO MINNECASCO tals Check Nurt^r 50327 MINNECASCO Tranaaetfai JNteunt 24,474.75 2,986.58 •302.58 -80.25 -1,529.92 •919.58 24,629.00 190.00 190.00 118.98 118.98 174.72 498.23 8.97 5.74 4.79 23.00 132.04 847.49 36.54 36.54 13.50 13.50 125.00 11.32 148.60 133.58 418.50 P«e 7 MWee-DECEMBER MWCC-DECEHBER MWCC-DECEHBER MWCC-DECEHBER MWCC-DECEHBER Mwee-DECEMBER COMPUTER DIAGNOSTICS HAND PATCH MI SC SUPPLIES MI SC SUPPLIES CALENDAR BASE CALENDAR REFILL CALENDAR REFILL \ i0» ms mi S:2S ra Owett Register City of Orono OMclt Oatt S032S MN KNCFIT ASSKIATION 02*Wv*95 ••ASSOCUTIOi50328 Totals Chock »Jit>or 50328 MN lEMCnT ASS0CIATI08 3Mck Muter 50329 m COUiTIfS IMSUkAMCE TRUST 50329 5(029 50329 03-MOV-95 03-Nov99 03*Mov*95 MN COUNTIES INSURANCE TRUST MN COUNTIES IN9AANCE TRUST MN COUNTIES insurance TRUST Totals Ch«k Nuter 50329 MN COUNTIES INSURANCE TRUST )wck Ihteor 50330 MN DEPT OE REVENUE 50333 50330 50330 08-NOV-95 08-NOV-95 08*Nov*95 MN DEPT OF REVENUE MN OEPT OF REVENUE MN oep: of revenue Totals Chock Nuter 50330 MN OEPT OF REVENUE hock Nuter 50331 MOBIUE RADIO ENCINEEHINC INC. 50331 08-NOV-95 MOBILE RADIO ENGINEERING INC. Totals Chock Nuter 50331 MOBILE RADIO ENGINEERING INC. hack Nuter 50332 NORTHERN STATES POWER 50332 02-NOV-95 NORTHERN STATES POWER •Totals Check Nuter 50332 NORTHERN STATES POWER Chock Nuter 50333 NSP 50333 02-NOV-95 50333 08-NOV-95 50333 08-NOV-95 50333 08-NOV-95 50333 08-NOV-95 50333 08-NOV-95 50333 08-NOV-95 50333 08-NOV-95 50333 08-NOV-95 NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP Totals Check Nuter 50333 NSP ,.ck Nuter 50334 OLSON. JOHN C 50334 50334 OB-Mov-95 08-Nov-95 OLSOM, JOHN C OLSON, JOHN C Totals Check Nuter 50334 OLSOM, JOHN C Trwsaetion Aanjnt 74.22 74.22 62.50 31.25 31.25 125.00 8.00 6.00 485.00 499.00 62.66 62.66 1,115.87 1,115.87 15.08 8.?9 24.07 Pago 8 Comicnta NOVEMBER INSURANCE DRUG i ALCOHOL TESTING DRUG i ALCOHOL TESTING DRUG t ALCOHOL TESTING SALES TAX-OCT SALES TAX-OCT SALES TAX-OCT REPAIR CELL PHONE STREET LIGHT BILL 160.45 HWT 12 i WILLOW 938.22 NSP CHARGES 468.93 NSP CHARGES 9.42 NSP CHARGES 412.84 NSP CHARGES 46.78 NSP CHARGES 2,462.46 NSP CHARGES 1,576.96 NSP CHARGES 134.96 NSP CHARGES 6,211.02 MILEAGE-OCT OCT MILEAGE __ _ _ _ _^ m 1995)t S:2S m OmcIc Oitck keflisterCity of Orono S033S Oatt 50335 ORM, ULE M-10V95 LifLE ratal* Chock Nuiter 50335 OWUI, LTLE 50336 ORONO SELF SERVICE 50336 50336 08-Nov*95 08-Mov*95 OMNO SELF SERVICE SELF SERVICE Totals Chock iuiijar 50336 ORONO SELF SERVICE •ck 50337 PER* LIFE INSURANCE 50337 50337 OO-Mov-95 ra-iiov-95 Totals Check Ruiter PERA LIFE INSURANCE PERA LIFE INSURANCE 50337 PERA LIFE INSURANCE ick 50338 performance DRIVING INC. 50338 03-NOV-95 performance DRIVING INC. Totals Check Nurt*r 50338 PERFORMANCE DRIVING INC. thock Nurtoer 50339 PIONEER 50339 08*Nov*95 PIONEER Totals Check Nuaber 50339 PIONEER :heck Nutber 50341 50341 50341 50341 50341 50341 50341 50341 50341 50341 50341 50341 50341 50341 50341 50341 POPHAM HAIK 8 ASSOC 08-Nov95 08-Nov*95 08-NOV-95 08-NOV-95 08-NOV-95 Oa-Nov-95 Oa-Nov-95 08-NOV-95 08-NOV-95 08-NOV-95 08-Nov-95 08-Nov-95 08-Nov-95 08-Nov-95 08-NOV-95 POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM HAIK & HAIK t HAIK 8 HAIK 8 HAIK 8 HAIK 8 HAIK 8 HAIK 8 HAIK 8 HAIK 8 HAIK 8 HAIK 8 HAIK 8 HAIK 8 HAIK 8 ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC 50341 POPHAM HAIK 8 ASSOCTotals Check Nurber Check No*er 50342 PORTICO COMPUTERS INC. 50342 03-NOV-95 PORTICO C04PUTERS INC, Transaction Anotbt 58.05 58.05 75.18 55.28 130.46 24.00 108.00 132.00 195.00 195.00 95.20 95.20 1,139.04 384.90 312.36 430.21 130.00 30.00 1,126.44 1,084.10 2,589.01 30.OC 76.03 215.00 210.00 385.00 385.00 8,527.06 2,046.93 Paae 9 Comaents MILEAGE REIMB-SEP.CCT HISC GAS PURCHASES NISC GAS PURCHASES PERA LIFE-DEC PERA LIFE-DEC TRAINING-MCNICHOLS ORO #142 SEPT LEGAL RETAINER SEPT APPLIC SEPT GEN LEGAL NAV HGTS LATTIN-SEP LASHER LANDING-SEP G.NELSON-SEPT AUG RETAINER AUG APPLICATIONS HPRS LAWSUIT G.NELSON-AUG AUG SERVICE NAV HGHTS LATTIN-AUG lasher LANOING-AUG NEHRING, RATS-AUG HUBBELL CLEAN UP-AUG COMPUTER 8 MONITOR m S:S M Ol«k »«9ister City of Orono OMCk KBbir Data 503*2 poarico amiws lac. Q8*Nov95 WRTICO COMfUTEIS IIK.50342 Totalt Check Ruit»r 50342 POUTICO CWPUTERS IRC. luiter 50343 PRECISICR BUSINESS SYSTEMS 50343 02*Rov*95 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS Totals 0«eck Huiter 50343 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS Check Nuiiser 50344 PRO TIRE ft EXHAUST 503U 50344 503U 503U 50344 503U 503U 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-95 02-Nov*95 02-NOV-95 02-NOV-95 PRO TIRE PRO TIRE PRO TIRE PRO TIRE PRO TIRE PRO TIRE PRO TIRE ft EXHAUST ft EXHAUST ft EXHAUST I EXHAUST ft exhaust ft exhaust ft EXHAUST Totals Check Nunber 50344 PRO TIRE ft EXHAUST •eck N«ji*>er 50345 PRYOR RESOURCES INC. 50345 03-NOV-95 PRYOR RESOURCES INC. Totals Check Nuifcer 50345 PRYOR RESOURCES INC. ..-.•ek Nui*»er 5034ft PUMP ft METER SERVICES INC. 5034ft 02-NOV-95 PUMP ft METER SERVICES INC. Totals Check Ninber 5034ft PUMP ft METER SERVICES INC Jteck Hu*er 50347 RITZ CAMERA 50347 50347 50347 50347 02-NOV-95 02-Nov-95 02-NOV-95 Oft-Nov-95 RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA ■totals Check Nirber 50347 RITZ CAMERA :hecic Nuiber 5034ft ROLLINS OIL CO. 50348 02-NOV-95 ROLLINS OIL CO. Totals Check Nurtjer 50348 ROLLINS OIL CO. Iheck Nurber 50349 50349 SAFE BENEFITS 02-NOV-95 SAFE BENEFITS Pag# 10 transaction Aimunt Conants 239.98 MONITOR 2,33ft.91 • 532.50 SONY CASSETTE TRANSCRIBER 532.50 21.60 OIL CHANGE #170 29.00 LUBE.OIL CHANGE #171 201.63 REPAIR BRAKES #171 21.60 OIL CHANGE *169 135.85 OIL CHANGE #169 50.00 #172 SERVICE 54.65 ilftft BRAKES 564.:3 99.00 SEMINAR-B.JOHNSON 99.00 163.03 REPAIR GAS MONITORING SYS 163.03 11.57 FILM DEVELO>ING 26.18 FILM PROCESSING 11.70 FILM 15.63 FILM PROCESSING 65.08 2.152.88 UNLEADED GAS 2,152.88 121.00 SAFE BENEFITS-NOV 19*s lUD m Oitclc Check RcfisterCity of Orono Dote 50349 SAFE KNEFITS 50349 02*hov*95 SAFE lEMEFITS Toeals Ch9ck 50349 SAFE BENEFITS 50350 SCHOENtNG EXCAVATING 50350 02-NOV-95 SCHOENINO EXCAVATING Teul* Cheek Nuit>er 50350 SCHOENINO EXCAVATING kk 50351 SNTOER DRUG STORES 50351 OB-Nov-95 SNYOER DRUG STORES ToteU Check Nuitwr 50351 SNYOER DRUG STORES ick Huriser 50352 50352 STREICHERS 02-NOV-95 Totals Check Nmtier STREICHERS 50352 STREICHERS ck HuHber 50353 50353 50353 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS 02-Nov-95 02-NOV-95 Totals Check Nuttoer STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS 50353 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS ck Nurber 50354 50354 50354 SUBURBAN TIRE INC. 02-NOV-95 OB-Nov-95 Totals Check Nuit»er SUBURBAN TIRE INC. SUBURBAN TIRE INC. 50354 SUBURBAN TIRE INC. leek Nuitoer 50355 T.L. STEVENS 50355 OB-Nov-95 T.L. STEVENS Totals Check Nurber 50355 T.L. STEVENS eck Nuiber 50356 TALON PKUG. EQUIPMENT INC. 50356 03-HOV-95 TALON PkWG. EQUIPMENT INC. Totals Check Huiber 50356 TALON PkWG. EQUIPMENT IHC. reck Nurber 50357 TELEPHONE SPECIALISTS 5Q357 02-NOV-95 TELEPHONE SPECIALISTS Totals Check Nuiber 50357 TELEPHONE SPECIALISTS Transaction Afflognt 944,99 1,065.99 973.50 973.50 25.61 25.61 19.06 19.06 95.81 143.97 239.78 492.46 507.69 1,000.15 96.00 96.00 78.79 78.79 65.50 65.50 Pag# 11 Corments SAFE BENEFITS-NOV HATERIALS-STUBBS BAY FILM PROCESSING.BATTERIES E2 JIH 4TH QTR MAIMT FAX PAPER TIRES TIRES FOR SQUADS SERVICE ON WELL SYSTEM REFUND UTILITY CHARGES REPAIR PW PHONES S MOV 199S5:23 PM Oi«ck Muiter 3i«ek Nuitwr 50358 50358 Check RegisterCity of Orono Page 12 Date Me«e 50358 TOIM ft COUNTRY 08-NOV-95 TOWN i COUNTRY 08-NOV-95 town t COUNTRY Totals Check Nuiter 50358 TOWN & COUNTRY Check Ninber 50359 50359 50359 50359 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 08-Nov-95 08-NOV-95 08-Nov-95 Totals Check Ntnber UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 50359 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED ‘ Check Hinber 50360 50360 50360 US WEST CELLULAR 02-NOV-95 08-NOV-95 Totals Check Nuiiier US WEST CELLULAR US WEST CELLULAR 50360 US WEST CELLULAR Check Nunber 50361 50361 50361 50361 50361 50361 50361 50361 50361 50361 50361 50361 50361 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 08-NOV-95 08-NOV-95 08-NOV-95 08-Nov-95 08-NOV-95 08-Nov-95 08-NOV-95 08-NOV-95 C8-NOV-95 Oa-Hov-95 08-MOV-95 08-NOV-95 US WEST US WEST US WEST US WEST US WEST US WEST US WEST US WEST US WEST US WEST US WEST US WEST COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS Totals Check Nurber 50361 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Check Nuiter 50362 50362 VARDA SILENT ALARM 03-NOV-95 Totals Check Ninber VARDA SILENT AURM 50362 VARDA SILENT ALARM :heck Nuttwr 50363 VILLAGE CHEVROLET 50363 02-MOV-95 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Totals Check NLix>er 50363 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Check Nurber 50364 50364 WATERPRO 02-Nov-95 WATERPRO Transaction Anouit 530,11 433.72 963.83 67.45 5.69 56.25 129.39 334.71 45.94 380.65 111.85 54.16 383.02 12.77 29.79 269.18 55.58 156.90 55.97 133.13 17.75 26.63 1,306.73 130.79 130.79 1,900.13 1,900.13 Totals Check Nutber 50364 WATERPRO 194.21 194.21 Conments NOVEMBER SERVICE NOVEMBER SERVICE SHCES-ENGLISH NAMETAC-OEMBOUSKI GUM BELT-THOMTCW CELL PHONE-CHESWICK US WEST CHARGES WEST WEST WEST US WEST US WEST WEST WEST WEST US WEST US WEST US WEST US WEST US US US US US US CHARGES CHARGES CHARGES CHARGES CHARGES CHARGES CHARGES CHARGES CHARGES CHARGES CHARGES CHARGES MAT EXCHANGE REPAIR P428 EXTENSIONS MOV 1995 d 5:23 m OMCk l3icck RtfiistcfCity of Orono Pago 13 Dato Naee 50365 50365 50365 UAT2ATA BAY CAB UASM 03-BOV-95 yATZATA BAT CAB WASH OB-Hov-95 UATZATA BAY CAB WASH Totals Cheek mJ*)T 50365 yATZATA BAT CAB WASH ack BudJor 50366 WESTSIOE ECUIPHEMT jQ3^02-MOV-95 IdSTSlDE EOUIPHEMT Totals Cheek Bud)er 50366 yESTSIOE EOUIt-v.EMT :eek B.Jd>er 50367 m MUELLEB t SOUS Trmsaction AMunt 280.09 2.14 282.23 45.40 45.40 50367 Totals Cheek 08-MOV-95 UN WJELLER t SONS 1,641.28 Number 50367 UN NUELLER t SONS 1,641.23 neck Hcnber 50368 WRIGHT HEMMEPIM ELECTRIC 50368 50368 02-HOV-95 02-MOV-95 URIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC URIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 7.67 8.00 Totals Check Ninber 50368 URIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 15.67 Comnents CAR UASH TICICETS REN. BALANCE REPAIR GAS MOZZLE HAND PATCH SECURITY LIGHT SECURITY LIGHT rand Total 279,139.21 % *CITY OF ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6,1995 7;00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOTE EARLY START TIME 7:00 Friends of the Park Award ATTENDANCE AGENDA 1. 7 Approval of Minutes of Sepit 'tber 5, 1995 and October 2, 1995 Meetings. Open Space Planning/Park Planning (Information Supplied by City Administrator) a.Open Space Preservation Plan (see attached 10/3/95 Memo from City Administrator)b.Park Classification System (see attached 11/1/95 Memo from City Administrator). j Update on Trails Progress; a.Old Crystal Bay Road b.Brown Road c.Signage. Update on High wood Nature Trail Saga Hills Update. Luce Line Paving Proposal. 8. 9. Winter Recreation Program a.Ice Rinks b.Orono Golf Course (Saturdays Only?) Repon on Proposed School Facility - Possible Impact on Park & Trail System, Establish .Meeting Dates for 1996. 10.Other Business. ad jou rn men t ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINXTES FOR OCTOBER 2, 1995 f..- ATTENDANCE The Park Commission met on the above date ^vith the follovving members present: Vice Chair Lili McMillan, Sherokee Use. and .Andrew .McDermott, III. Chair Flint along with Commissioners James ^Vhite. Robert Howells, and Susan ilson were absent. There was a lack of a quorum due to the number of absent commissioners. Representing Staff were Public Works Director John Gerhardson and Recorder Sherry Frost. Counal Member JoEUen Hurr was also in attendance. Vice Chair .McMillan cailed the meeting to order at 7:17 p.m. (#1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 MEETING No motion was made due to the lack of a quorum. (#2) UPDATE ON TRAIL PROGRESS: OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SIGNAGE Gerhardson reported that work on the trail will begin this week and must be completed by October 15, 1995 in order to receive the DNR grant money The trail has been staked out The contraaor has begun the road on the former Rosch property development with three prcp**rties '»ccessinu Old Crystal Bay Road and one driveway offot Watertown Road. Gerhardson said he met with a person today regarding signage, who will develop a plan for trail signs for Old Crystal Bay Road trail and Nonh Brown Road trail. McMillan inquired :f the signs would be the same as those used by Hennepin County. Gerhardson said the county has a good selection but no real guidelines for signage McDermon asked what kind of posts would be used for the signs. Gerhardson said the sism companv provides oniy metal posis. If other than metal is desired, another company would need to be contacted .McDermott responded that he has seen different types of posas for smns and is of the opimon that a standard be set for usage on all signs Gerhardson said he would poll the Park Commissioners regarding posts He would like to complete the work this month before winter weather is upon us The trail sub-comminee will aid in the decision regarding the type of posts. 1^.. MINUTES OF THE REGUL.AR ORONO P.ARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 2, 1995 (#2 - Update on Trail Progress - Old Crystal Bay Road & Signage - Continued) \lc\lillan asked about where accidents have occurred on the road due to heavy toliage in some areas. Gerhardson said the northeast and southeast comers and to the east on Watenown Road are in need ot some cleanng to provide better sight lines He is working with the developer regarding clean up. Hurt noted that controlled burning had taken place last week as well as the bam this evening. («) UPDATE ON HICmVOOD NATLTU: TRAIL Gerhardson reported that work is behind on the trail He thought work would begin this week. The work will be done in house. The road will be gravel. Few trees will be cleared, and the parking lot will be altered, it necessar>\ in order to save trees Gerhardson has the sign as well as the picnic table for the trail area. Both will be installed once the lot is completed. (#4) PROGRESS REPORT ON CRYSTAL BAY PARK McMillan enclosed handouts on the wrap-up meeting of the subcommittee regarding phase one of Crvstal Bay Park. The playground equipment is in and blends in well with the surroundings and is receiving use Transplamauon of trees from the golf course will take place mid month along the fence on the nonh side of the park. Gerhardson said this would be done when the ground dnes out and will make contact with Bendixson regarding this Four wooden benches built by the boy scouts are in place. McDermon inquired about the leakage from the well. Gerhardson said the well was used at one time by the old administration building and was not capped otf correctly The pipe will be exposed and added onto to bnng it to the edge of the post office for hjiure use if needed. The old driveway will be taken out. new sidewalk installed, and trees planted on the north side of the post office according to Gerhardson. The walk-way to .\rbor Street was reported to have turned out nicely Use asked if the pipe would be used for the ice rink. Gerhardson said it would be in the same vicinity but there was a well in place for use to flood an ice rink. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 2, 1995 j\FT (#4 - Progress Report on Crystal Bay Park - Condrtued) McMillan commented on the good job Gerhardson and Staif provided in the preparation of the ground for installation of the equipment. She also said the Park Commission was notified of the Council’s recommendation to photograph the boy scout, Jason Christenson, who was responsible for the new benches. A photo session will be set up on sue with Jason, Mavor Callahan, and a mem'oer of the Park Commission. Mc,Millan said she would ask Randi Carlson, who assisted with the park plans as neighborhood liaison, to take the photograph. Gerhardson will set up the time for the photo session Use added that the Council had suegested nominating Jason Christenson for the Friend ot the Park award next vear (#5) DISCUSSION ON PLANNLNG FOR PARK ON DICKEY PROPERIT Use reported that the sub-committee consisting ot McDermott, McMillan, and Use walked the property recently The majority of the property was staked w ith comers identified. Gerhardson said permanent markers have been placed in the comers. Use commented that plans are being tormuiated to clarity the locus of the park. The Pioneer Museum has been visited for insight into the settling ot the area. It was suggested to Use at the museum that she contact Jim Roehl tor tlirther uitormation. which Gerhardson confirmed would be heiptui .At this point, plans are for a din parking area for 3-4 cars, benches, and a retlective'passive park with possibly some type of photos and siiinage of what the area once looked like and how it was used. McDermott said a garage was still on the propertv' as well as a root cellar, concrete slab, and retaining walls” The well has been abandoned. There is power to the site The trash will be cleaned up Gerhardson said his depanmem has filled in where the bam was located. No regrading was done, only fill to make the area safe. .McDennott commented that he visited the development site The developer has the propeny listed as an outlot in his intbrmation .McDermott said the impression he was lefi with was that the outlot was pan of the development rather than owned by the City He saw two separate plats with different inibrmation regarding the propeny. McDermott fijnher noted that no mtemai trails were shown on the maps provided by the developer .McMillan said she has spoken with .Mabusth, who reponed that the developer was to install internal trails .McDermott also said he was concerned that the people buying or showing interest in the homes in the new development were unaware of the City owned park property. NfINXiTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO P.\RK COMMISSION NtEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 2, 1995 (#5 - Park Planning on Dickey Properry - Continued) McDermott said the DN’R said they had no interest in a small plat ot land. McDermott said it was debatable whether the land was native prune or oak savannah. McMillan said she had been informed that there was very little native prairieiand in (>cno The views were said to be non-existent from the property as with the building ot the new residences, a person will be looking into the second stories ot the homes. .At this point, the park is in the design phase. The upper portion ot the parcel wtll be tor parking It is yet to be determined whether the parking area wUl allow a bus to enter, .McMillan said Flint asked that the park be classified for its usage .McDermott said the property is too small for a nature area and there is no where tor a trail to lead. Hurr asked that direction be received from the Council regarding the park s usage. Hurr said she. as well as Jaboour and Keiley. did not want the parking to exceed 2-3 cars and not to have any bus access. NIcDermott said there was no shoulder tor any vehicle to stop Hurr suegested the interpretation be of the settling ot the area by use ot pictures and short descriptions Hurr did not wish the area to be used for events and large groups Discussion was had by the Park Commission on park activities and usage and the need for the commissioners to dehne clear goals and rules for usage ot the City parks. This panicular park was said to be difficult to interpret as the history is not well documented .A couple ideas for the interpretation area was the geographical location ot Lake Minnetonka in past history as well as the usage ot the land by Native .Americans Hurr also noted that the property was the site ot t.ne Hefrelfmger family at one time .Mc.Millan inquired about costs for the park bringing up issues of future maintenance and management of the open space. McDermott said he saw maintenance as being very minimal with more of a natural sening. .McDermott inquired if a sign should be placed on the property now informing the public that It is park land Hurr felt that it was important to look at the saiety of the area first. She also suggested speaking wuh the developer regarding the park land and the internal trails The trails have been stipulated on the plat for the development. Use said she will continue with research, .A design plan will be formulated over the winter months. It was noted that Brian Butterfield will assist with the landscapmg for the park. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO P,\RK CO\LMISS»m AFT MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 2, 1995 IV (#6) WINTER RECREATION PROGRAM: LETTER ON ICE RINKS Gerhardson sent letters to the Hackberry and .Antoine neighborhoods regarding the low usage of the ice rinks at those locations and the possibiJiw of closing the two nnks. Gerhardson received alot of response from the Hackberrv' area ana subsequently, two benches were placed at that park for usage by skaters this coming winter. The responders also asked for liehting for night skating at Hackberry Gerhardson said eleancity is available on site''and a timer could be used. Comments were made on the poor quality ot ice in the past and the recent improvement in ice quality. Oniv six responses were received from the .Antoine area with four for the rink and two acainst the rink. The neighbors want the buildings to be removed and would like a light for the nnk. It was noted that there is no light at Bederwood. but there is a light at Casco. Gerhardson said the Crystal Bav Park neighbors will not have an ice rink this winter. It is tentatively in friture plans, however. Gerhardson said the ice nnks were tlooded after plowing was completed. He said a nnk can be sianed at any time but it takes time to establish the ice for skating. Hurt said the size of the neighborhood could be used as a parameter in deciding on the standards recarding whether an ice nnk should e.xist. Gerhardson said nnks are put in only when a petition or request has been made. Use commented that some parks need to be dnven to while others are in a neighborhood. It was noted that people drive to Bederwood Use said the nnk usage ai the parks needed to be reestablished once it was showm that the ice quality had improved. The ice rinks wiU be noted in the ne.xt newsletter. A vote on whether .Antoine will maintam an ice nnk will be conduaed at the November meeung. No addiuonaJ letters wtU be sent out to the neighborhoods. .Although the neighbors signed a petition tor new playground equipment, .McMillan noted the lack of neighborhood representation at the Park Commission meeting after the request was made as well as the lack of response to the lener send by Gerhardson. The Commission felt the neighborhood needed to coliecnvely work towards gaming park improvements. Gerhardson said Council action is needed to dose a rink. Hurr said the decision should be delayed until an overall park plan is in place. Gerhardson said he would have intormation available for the next Council rneetmg. MINUTES OF THE REGLTAR ORONO PARK CONL\USSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 2. 1995 GOLF COURSE Gerhardson commented that the ori^al interest for the use of the goif course was t.tade by Gear West. Unfortunately, the weather last winter resulted in poor conditions and. therefore, little or no usage. Use said she thought it was the City s intention to tty the plan one more year. Gerhardson said the golf course could not be e.xpected to budget the costs. Hurr inquired if the sledding'cross country' skiing use of the golf course was to be self supporting. Gerhardson said that w’as true The main cost is for staffing at about S500 for the season. The concession stand was to be open to sell a few items such as hot chocolate. The sale of the items was to pay for the staling. Gear West had paid for the personnel the year before last in a lump sum. which also covered heating and electricity The trail made by Gear West can also be used by the public for skiing It was noted that the location of the trail must be clear of the sledding area. Commissioners felt it would be beneficial to Orono to provide a groomed trail and was in favor of coordinatLns eftorts to provide usage ot the club house on <.he weekends tor skiers and siedders. Gerhardson said the main concern is with the budget Tne operating cost cannot come trom park dedication but must come from operations Hurr asked if the golf course was making money at this time adding that she was not opposed to this usage Gerhardson said an audit and statement are provided on the golf course, which is profitable McMillan said she has not seen an income statemem Hurr said she would be interested in the Park Commission acting as a review board for the golf course to report to the Council on their findings for final say She also noted that there is no residential passes available except tor senior citizen passes. Hurr noted that the City does not provide a lake access in Orono She questioned the percentage of use of the ttolt' course by Orono residents and favored a Orono resident pass. Gerhardson reiterated that the Park Commissioners present wanted the goif course to aiiain to used this winter for skiing and sledding. Hurr .said the money to pay for personnel would have to be found. .A final decision wiil be made in November regarding whether the winter procram would continue Rules on what can be brought into the golf course and what can be sold need to be discussed. The Commissioners asked that the golf course usaue be brought to the attention of the public via the newsletter, which will be pnnted shonly. MINTJTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO P.\RK CONFMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 2, 1995 (#7) PLANNING FOR FRIENDS OF THE PARK Leners have been sent to the nvo Girl Scout Troops and the Orono Baseball Association, the recipients of the Friends of the Park awards at theupcoming November 6 meeting of the Park Commission at 7 00 p m Susan Wilson will provide reireshments Wilson is also working with Gerhardson on the award resolutions, which were approved by Council on Oaober 23, 1995. McMillan will be responsible for the photographs and news amcie regarding the awards. (#S) OTHER BUSINESS City Administrator Moorse will be present at the November meeting to discuss the open space questionnaires. .Also on the November agenda will be discussion regarding park ciassirication and an update from the Saga Hill group Use reported that a meeting wiil be held on Wednesday, October 4. regarding planning tor new school facilities and a bond reterendum .McMillan said the Park Commission should wait on anv decisions regarding the trail by the school propeny until the school boi^d has tinalized their plans Gerhardson said the school board was notified that no MSA fiinding would be available for the trail by the school property. It was unknown whether the cost of the trail would he pan of the referendum cost. Use asked Gerhardson for copies of the list of parks and park inlbrmation from the comprehensive plan to aid the upcoming discussion on park classifications. This inlbrmation wiil be sent to all Park Commissioners as well as Council Member Hurr. .ADJOURNMENT .McMillan adjourned the meeting at 9 00 p m l.iii .Mc.MiUan, Vice Chair ORONO PARK COMMISSION .MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 i ATTENDANCE The Park Commission met on the above date vvHth ihd^following members present: Chair Richard Flint, LiU .McMillan. Sherokee Use. James White. Robert HoweHs. and ‘-^drew McDermott ID. Commission White amved during discussion ot Item Susan i son was absent. Representing Staff were Public Works Ducaor John Gerhar son an Recorder Sherrv Frost. Chair Flint called the meetinsc to order at 7 p m (#1) APPROVAL OF .MLNUTES OF .AUGUST ", 19*^5 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. McMillan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Park Commission Meeting of August 7, 1995 as amended. .Ayes r*. Nays 0 (#2) PRESENTATION BY .ANTOINE P.ARK .NEIGHBORHOOD .ASSOCIATION (HOWELLS) There was no representation from the neighborhood at the Park Commission meeting. .McMillan suggested a sub-committee be set up to contact the group and determine the needs of the park. With the time allotment for park improvements. .McMillan felt plans should be initiated immediately if anvihing is to be done this year She reminded the Commission that the group had identified cerrain safety concerns and had asked that the sheds be removed. The Commission had noted on several park tours that this shou d be done Flint will wnte a lerrer to be sent to the people who signed the petition asking tor park improvements at .Antoine The lener ^vliJ ask for them to notify the Commission when thev are readv to discuss park improvements and place the item on an upcoming agenda. The lener will indicate that park improvements can best be carried out when the netuhborhood works doselv with the Park Commission. In the meantime. Gerhardson was asked to see whether the sheds could be removed and the equipment checked to assure its compliance with safety standards. L. r MINUTES OF THE REGUUAR ORONO PARK COVO.USSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTENfflER 5, 1995 Crerhardson asked for Commission input on the route of the traU on the Hilbel^ pro^tty. Comina iTom the south, the trail ivtU be located on the ncht ot way tor about .00 and then move in on the propertv and continue north until it again moves c.oser to the road on the back side of the bank slope but off the tight of way Gerhardson noted that the trai was brought out into the back slope of the ditch because of the wav the tree line jogs t was deterWned that the easiest place to bnng the trad out was where the developer will be instailing the dnveway McsNlillan asked about tree loss. Gerhardson said little tree loss wiU occur on the nonhem portion of the trail. Wbat will be lost on the southern portion is mainly scrub trees. McMillan suggested planting tamarack near the wetland area. McDermott noted that doR^vood handles wet areas well. Use said she liked the openness of the traU and how it was designed to come out onto the road ^aiv-inc it a good prohle as weil as a good safety feature Gerhardson said the design should provide a reasonable stopping distance of about 200'. .A coupie accidents have ocurred because of the hea^y foliage on the nonh side of Watertown Road. The trees are located on the buildable lot rather than the easement The culvert is located about 250’ north of Watertown Road. Curb and gutter is being installed tind will ailow tor surface drainage. The work on the trail must be completed by the end or September The easement has been obtained, and work is set to begin as soon as the DNR signs the contract. The trail design north of the Luce Line trail will include curb and guner with storm sewer throuiyiout the trail. (#4) UPDATE ON TRAIT PROGRESS: NORTH BROWN ROAD SIGNAGE Gerhardson reponed that the Nonh Brown Road trail is in. High usage levels have alreadv been reported Landscaper. Steve Keilv. will make recommendations on plantings for the area between •die trtul and the retaining wall Planning Commission Schroeder had requested plantings rather than grass in this area. White sueuested the use of vines, which would wind up the retaining walls. It was noted that vines^have been effectively used on other trail areas and retaining walls. The vines do need to be snipped back to keep tirom gening too thick. ,_J ■‘i- r MINUTES OF THE REGUL.^R ORONO P.ARK CON^vUSSlON MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1905 ^ (#4 - Update on Trail Progress - Continued) White also commented that Hennepin Parks has small shrubs available as well as native species, which they propogate. Wlldtlower packets are also available tor use. The Commission would like to see the neighbors involved in adopting the trail area Gerhardson said that now that the trail is completed, KeUy can provide imorrnauon on what will be needed, make suggestions as to the plantings, and the neighbors can then e asked for their involvement. The siimage tvill be installed once landscaping is completed Gerhnrdson will be meeting with the s^gn people this coming week regarding the size and placement or signs bmall "stop" signs and "no motorized vehicles" signs will be utilized. McMillan asked that the subcomminee review the signs prior to installation. Hennepin Countv wiU 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 between Lake Supenor and Interstate 33, which etfectively makes use of a small area using retaining wails, railroad track area, an asphalt bike trail, and a wood walking trail Flint said this trail depicts what can happen when aood planning occurs in connection with road improvements. (#5) ITPDATE ON PL^VNNLNG FOR P.\RK ON DICKEY PROPERTY (ILSE/MCMILI^N/MCD ERMOTT) Use reported that a meeting of the subcomminee is planned for Friday, September 15 at 00 p m with the landscaper. Brian Bunertield, to walk the property as well as inventory the property. She suggested that Gerhardson and the City Engineer also be present. Use asked that the boundanes be marked. Use said she has been noting the points of interest from matenals obtamed from Pat Dickev✓ .McDermott said the comrrurtee should know what they would like to stress, whether it be eeoiogical. the Native .^lencan background, or just a restfril place to visit. Use noted There Ts a history involved in how the City' obtained the property and it was donated m order to protect that history. It was noted that there is very' little natural area lefr 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 fand is sacred ground, an archaeological inspection might be needed. MINUTES OF THE REGLX.\R ORONO P.-\RK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 (US - Update on Planning for Park on Dickey Property - Continued) It was reported that the bam and budding has been taken down^ The concrete foundation was removed as is required by code The holes created bv the demohtton ^v^ll need some fdl and have been bamcaded. McMiUan said she did not see any bamcades wnen she viewed the property pnor to the meetmg. No timbers were conserved irom the sue but were noted to be small in size and ot no great value. (#6) OPEN SPACE PJ^NNLNG PROCESS (MOORSE/'GERHARDSON) Gerhardson said the questionnaires were now completed and would be tabulated. Moorse will anend the October Park Commission Meeting to discuss the nndings. (#7) HIGHWOOD NATURE TR.AIL (GERH.\RDSON) The parking area Gerhardson. at Hiahwood Nature Trail will be completed this month according to (#8) AERLAL .ALAPS (GERH ARDSON) Gerhardson said he had not vet coordinated with Garfron to determine what m^aps the City already had available, but he would do so soon in order that the aerial 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 would tit their needs If the maps were found to be adequate, copies wall be maae. and kept available for usage at the meetings (n*)) REATEAV OF LETTER TO BE SENT OUT TO NEIGHBORS OF hackberry and .antolne parks soliciting their view as to ELIMINATION OF SKATING RINKS FOR 1995-96 SEASON Commissioners were asked to turn their wmnen comments in to Gerhardson on the dr^ of the letter It was suuuested that a phone number be mcluded as well as the reason tor a tim'elv response (14 davsi Use asked that the letter explain the cost and time involved in creatimi a qualitv nnk and advise the residents that the Commission was seeking to determine whether usage justitied continued maintenance ot the nnks The letter will be sent out to the neighbors around .Antoine and Hackbeny Parks a5 soon as the letter is finalized. IXflKUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK CON^-tlSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 (#10) OTHER BUSINESS The agenda for the Oaober meeting wiU be prepared by McNUUan. Flint be absent. BENCHES Gerhardson reported that a boy scout from Orono is working on his eagle cadge and has asked for approval to buUd 4-6 benches to be used in City parks. The boy scou^t lives near Old Crystal Bay Park and would like to see at least two benches used there ‘ '-‘p' would need to pav for materials only, which would cost about S55 per bench. The oy scout will install the benches, which will sit on concrete pads. The con<^ete will cover the perimeter of the bench with one end e.xtendlng the size to aUow a w heel ch^r to oe placed thereon. Footings will be dug and the concrete slab poured over it by the City The benches will be 4*x6 ’ in size with a 4-.x4 ’ back using 2x6 for the seat and 2xS for the back. There is a 17” height requirement. Gerhardson presented a sample ot what a bench would look like .McDermott noted the .-kD.A requires an arm rest Gerhardson noted the considerable savings over the estimate received tor the two benches approved for installation at Old Crystal Bay Park ot $9,^4 The pos-: for the benches are designed to be made of cedar Both WTiite and McD^ermott said that cedar would rot in concrete. It was suggested that treated lumber be used tor the posts .Metal posts were not recommended as the connections are difficult to do. McMillan said she preferred not using a concrete slao. Flint said a concrete slab would create a solid base .McDermon noted that concrete is used because it requires linle maintenance and upkeep and creates a ciean edge. He also said the color could be tempered with a surface treatment. He :>aid that concrete is a durable matenal and recommended for areas of footing placemem. The cost for the concrete will be approximately $25 per bench. Concern was voiced over saiety from falls 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 drawm and are of a professional quality. If this was acceptable to the Commission. Gerhardson will present the proposal to the Council for their approval. Funding for the benches will come from the Park Dedication tlind. Gerhardson said the balance in the Park Fund as of the meeting date is 5296,000. .A ponion ot this has been set aside for the trail, which will be built this year. MINUTES OF THE REGUL.Ml ORONO P.MIK COMNUSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 5. 1995 (#10 - Other Business - Continued) Use moved. McMillan seconded, to recommend approval of six benches \vith _ to 4 used at Old Crv'stal Bay Park. Ayes 6. Nays 0 BEDERWOOD BASKETBALL COURT Use said she was recentlv questioned by Mrs Shields on the status ot the proposed basketball court at Bederwood. Gerhardson said the project would be scheduled tor ne.xt 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 PARK AWARD The Friends of the Park Award was discussed Cenincates will be made in the form of a resolution for each of the girl scout troops and the OB.A who will be receiving the awards. The award ceremony will take place in the toyer ot the Council Chambers at 7 00 p.m on the night of the November Park Commission .Meeting. The meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m. .A lener of invitation will be wnnen by .Mc.Mtllan and sent out to all concerned. SAGA HILL 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 liiiJ Community Group will be asked to anend the October meeting and update the Commission on the status of the tlind raising project and grant application. Howells suggested staking the park area to designate the land acquired by the City through tax forfeiture 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 od'Tonkaview Gerhardson vill check piat maps to identity the exact location of the 10’ wide access strip. 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 Saga Hill Group's endeavors McMillan will contact Irene Silber or Patty Affelt of the Saga Hill Group to ask for their representation at the October meetinij « • MINXiTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO P.ARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 5. 1995 ADJOURNMENT Flint adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. with a vote ot Ayes 6, Nays 0 Richard N Flint. Chair ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MI?OJTES FOR OCTOBER 16,1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Stephen Peterson, Dale Lindquist. Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, Charles Schroed^, who arrived after Items and 3 were discussed and Item was tabled. Candace Rowlette and Sandra Smith were absent The following represented the City Staff; Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron and Recorder Sherry Frost Mayor Callahan and Council Member Goetten were present Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;00 p m. (#1) #2076 ROBERT ROBERTSON AND WELDON H. DUNN, 3535/3565 WATERTOWN ROAD - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, CLASS I - PUBLIC HEARING 7:01-7.04 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and iAffidavit of Publication were noted The Applicants were present Mabusth reported that the application is for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for a division of a smaller parcel The parcel to the east is less than the required 2 acres with the wetland with a slight encroachment into parcel B. Parcel A will be 2 acres and parcel B will remain at 3 acres There would be no encroachment of the septic site area.s The division line follows a fence and along a natural division created by higher elevations A dedication of right-of-w'ay via quit-claim deed for Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road is required Peterson asked the Applicants if they were familiar with the Slaft* recommendations, in particular, the right-of-way dedication and survey, and received confirmation of this There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of .Application p2076 with conditions 1-4 as noted V^ote Ayes 4. Nays 0 (#2) #2078 JENSEN HOMES, INC, 405 TONKAW A ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:40-8:11 P..M. The Ccnificate of Mailing and . Vlfidavii of Publication were noted. The Contractor, Mr Jensen, was present I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#2 - #2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Mabusth reported that the application is for a 2-lot subdivision of a 10 acre parcel The north lot is 7+ acres and Lot 2 is 3 5 acres. The property is located within two zoning distrias, LRIA to the north at 2 acres, and LRIB to the south at 1 acre lots The lot lines encroach both districts and setbacks are subject to the respective zoning The driveway serves a parcel to the west, the Knight property, which is located in the LRIB zoning district and is 3,5 acres in size, and could be turther subdivided. Mabusth located the MUSA line. The property located to the west is within the MUSA and the subject property is located out of the MUSA. The existing septic is non-conforming and will need to be replaced. Staff has asked for two septic sites for the northern lot A1 tour sites would be a mound-type septic system The issue of the driveway is a concern ;br this application according to Mabusth Tr3&itionalIy, Staff would ask for an 30' outlot for the shared driveway, but this is not a back lotyfront lot configuration Another application under sketch plan review on this agenda involves a property to the southwest of this propeny and proposes the vacation ot Oak Street and Clyde Place roadways with Linden .Avenue to remain This vacation may have an impact on this particular application It the two rights ot way are to be vacated, how is the City to maintain public access to property to west ot subject property Existing driveway easement would not meet access standards for development ot ^ lots. Mabusth reviewed various options for achieving access to western property, all involving the subject property Staff has been notified that Bennett would not be in favor of any changes nor of the granting of any more right-of-way for Linden Avenue Jensen said the applicant would also be opposed to the driveway outlot The owner would have a problem dedicating land from her property where the subject property would not receive a benefit and only a negative impact on a future building site Peterson asked how it would be viable to gain access to the property Jensen said the applicant would propose access without a cul-de-sac encroaching the Bennett property. He does not wish to create a plat and give up any portion of the property Jensen said connecting Linden with the e.xisting easement would only serve the Knight property. No future subdivision is proposed and the applicant would like to do private plantings on the south property line Barrv Knight said he does not understand the terms used and asked for clarification on what was an outlot and what platting suggested. Mabusth replied that an outlot would enable the shared access dnve to be seen on a plat map where easements are not designated Both areas of driveway outlots and easement driveway are deducted from lot area MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#2 - #2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Mabusth asked Jensen how wide is the easement shown on the deed. Jensen said the width of the easement was not described to his recollection, only the w idth ot the road. Knight said it was his impression that a dimension was listed, but not the spoken of Jensen clarified that with an outlet Bennett would retain ownership and and Knight s easemem would be within that outlet The easement would also be e.xcluded from the buildable area. Knight inquired about setbacks from the outlot. Mabusth said the setback would probably be 10‘ and noted that 35 ’ would be the setback if it was a private or public road. Jensen noted that there are only two viable draintield options and was concerned with any alternate site. Hawn commented if the vacation was to the benefit of the three applicants of #2077. why not have any access on the properties ot that application instead ot on the Bennett property Mabusth said the Planning Commission could ask for the exact dimensions ot easement, and if the Planning Commission felt it would be unlair to take an easement from Bennett that should be stated in your recommendation Peterson asked why Bennett w ould be opposed to the outlot configuration if it serv es no hardship to either setbacks or draintield and is two independently owned parcels and serves the Knight property Mabusth said it would alTea the property as the side setback would be measured from the north lot line if the outlot as opposed to the south lot of proposed lot 2 There is no setback from an easement drive. .Mark Gronberg said the registered survey shows two tracts The outlot would just trigger the driveway serving two properties He noted that it was always designated a driveway and would not result in any change Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if they would allow the area in question for outlot designation to remain as a driveway easement Mabusth said Knight wants to keep the driveway eas**ment, but this easemem could never serv e ,i future division of the Knight property Lindquist commented that the solution does not aid the Bennett property. Lindquist said the applicant is asking whether the property can be subdivided. He asked it the City can force an outlot or leave as an easement. Nlabusth said the area can be lefr as an easement, but the area of the easement must be excluded from lot area. Lindquist suggested leav ing the area as an easement There were no public comments MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#2 - #2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Mabusth commented that Staff would w ant the easement defined on the plat. It was again noted it was unclear how much area was designated on the abstract. Gronberg suggested looking at the traveled road Lindquist said designation of the number ot feet for the easement would be required. Knight suggested the application be tabled until all parties involved in the two applications can meet and discuss a solution satisfactory to all parties Schroeder suggested tabling the application until the facts of the later application were made known Jen^n asked if the original deed does not specify an easement width, if it could be appfoved subject to the survey by Gronberg ot the roadway It was noted that the easement and roadway need to be designated as the numbers may ditfer. There was also concern if the septic site was in the easement. Jensen noted the easement would only benefit Knight and not the general public He also asked if the approval could be based on what the deed shows as the easement Peterson said without knowing the size ot the easement, the Planning Commission would need to table the application. Lindquist said the Commission also needed to gain information on the other properties in question Schroeder moved. Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2078 subject to determining the size of the easement and the knowledge of the other affected application. Knight commented that he would also like to hear the facts of the other application and suggested that application be tabled also Mabusth replied that Application #2077 is a sketch plan review only and no motion would be needed. Vote .Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2031 BRUCE R- KELLY, 2340 FOX STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:04-7:09 P.M. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a division of two lots of a 6 acre homestead parcel. The preliminary ’ sun.ey has been completed Principal and alternate septic sites have also been determined for each lot. The future owner of the 4 acre lot will need to understand the impact of an easement on lot area. Tlie existing drivew ay location can be shared by the east lot No variances would be required There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#3 ~ #2031 Bruce KeUy - Continued) Peterson asked Kelly if he understood the Staff recommendation and the need for Park Dedication fee on the new lot and a drainage easement. Kelly said he was not familiar with these requirements and was concerned with the process. He asked that the application be approved and moved forward. He d:d not wish to discuss the application fiirther Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval ot Application ^2031 with conditions 1-4 as noted. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain 1, Schroeder, who vs as not present for the entire discussion. (#4) #2041 PHIL AND DARCY OTTO, 4116 HIGHWOOD RO.AD - AFTER-THE FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC Faring 8:ii-8:I9 p..m. The applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application was an arter-the-fact application lor e.xcavation ot street yard which followed a recent vanance application The current application involves the creation of an additional curb cut, two tiers ot retaining walls, and placement ot approximatclv 150 to 200 cubic yards ot till in east side yard and rear. Mr. Sauer, a neighbor to the east, voiced concern with the filling and any impact runoff would have on his property where the drainage tlows into The application was tabled to gain the City Engineer ’s input on the drainage issue Mabusth said Cook reported that there was no perceivable impact from the filling .Mr Sauer was notified and asked to attend this meeting if he had any further concern Sauer was not in attendance Mabusth said a 3 1 slope was impossible to obtain for the east side yard. The yard has been uraded at a 2:1 slope and planted with crown vetch. A special seeding and erosion blanket will be laid to hold the dirt in place until the plantings take hold. Mabusth said a catch basin was originally discussed There is now drain tile in place which will collect the runoff from road into a trench, then flows underground and directed out to the rear yard Start*recommends approval with the City Engineer to reinspect when 1)final grading is completed before stormwater improvements are installed and 2) after seeding. The Applicant noted that alot of detail has been reviewed with the Engineer Mabusth informed the applicant that it was important that the Engineer is called in to reinspect at these critical times MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#4 . #2041 Phil and Darcy Otto - Continued) Schroedcr inquired and received conlirmation that Sauer had no further objections. Otto said he has not spoken with Sauer since the last meeting The owner to the east, according to Otto, has given his approval of the plan as he has not responded to Staffs letter Lindquist asked if the applicant w as still parking his boat on the curb cut. The applicant said he stores the boat off site. There were no public comments Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve .Application #2041 for an after-the-tact conditional use permit with Statf recommendations 1-4 and final grading approv-ed by the Cit^ Engineer The owner is to arrange for inspections by the City Engineer betore seeding and after seeding. V'ote; Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#5) #2056 .MICHAEL AND BARBAR.A WTGLEY. 1035 TONKAWA ROAD - VARLANCE/CONDITIONAL ISE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:19-8:28 P.M. The applicants were represented by landscaper, Matt Laue Gaffron reported that the proposal has been revised The initial proposal was tor a retaining wall located at the base of the slope with till behind it. .Another boulder wall was to be constructed at the top of the hill with grading and till to flatten out the area. The property has a steep bank to the lakeshore The house on the property is fairly new. There are presently 3 1 and 2 1 slopes The applicants are concerned with poison ivy on the slopes Gaftron reported that the Planning Commission has previously rejected the idea of grading to eliminate the poison iv>- Planning Commission suggested elimination of the lower boulder wall Gaftron asked Laue about the drain tile found on the property Laue said it begins on the upper stair to the front and exits by a tree He sees no function for the tile and feels grading above the slope will do a better job in eliminating erosion. Another issue of concern was with the portion ot the 0-75 ’ area lined with fabric covered by mulch Gaftron said this was hardcover but there may be a good reason for the material to exist There are no hardcover calculations for the property If approval is recommended, hardcover calculattions will be needed for the existing and proposed walls and fabric The only other existing hardcover in the 0-75' is the stairs and tops of boulders MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 #5 - #2056 Michad and Barbara Wigley - Continued) GafEron said if the Planning Commission tvas in favor of the revision, clarification should be provided on what walls could be erected and what fill or grading could be done. The applicant was notified that it was not the intent of the Commission to recommend any grading in the slope area containing poison ivy Lindquist said he vvas concerned with hardcov er in the 0-75' but was in favor of the walls near the house. Peterson said he did not recommend any' retaining wall at the bottom of the hill and was undecided on recommending the boulder wall at the top of the hill. He understood the applicant's attempt in addressing concerns of the property Although he was not in tavor of the retaining walls, he would give his approval tor their construction Laue commented that the fabric was only in the area behind the retaining wall It is his intent to remove the fabric as the mulch will accomplish the same purpose Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval limited to the boulder wall at the top of the hill only due to erosion problems. The approval is subject to the removal of the fabric throughout the property. No grading is allowed down to the shore line. Hawn inquired if all of the plantings as originally described would still occur Laue said the plantings as designed \ ill be planted He was unsure of w hat plantings would be done on the slopes. Peterson emphasized that while planting on the slope was okay, no grading could be done. Laue suggested, when asked, that the poison ivy be removed by leather gloved hands during cold weather Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2059 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, 1485 SIXTH AVTNUE NORI H - V ARIANCES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 20TH MEETING) Peterson moved. Lindquist seconded, to table .Application #2059 per the request of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Vote. .Ayes 4. NaysO. (#7) #2061 ARNE WASBERG, 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE RENEWAL - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:28-8:3! P..M. The Applicant was present MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#7 - #2061 Ame Wasberg - Continued) Mtd)usth reported that the new owners of the property have filed to renew the variance application. Peterson asked Mr Wasberg why he would wish to do so W asberg said he purchased the house in February of 1995 and wants to refurbish the house. In order to do so, it would require a variance This renewal would allow him time to develop a plan. Mabusth noted that the applicant has removed all of underliner hardcover on the property. It was noted that the 2-story improvement was not to encroach the lagoon any fiirther than existing structures. The approval included a deck. The applicant has advised that they would like to remove the existing driveway at Nonh Shore Dnve and relocate a new access at the existing driveway to the south. They would plant evergreens along North Shore Drive to provide a landscape buffer to the noise and activities on the county road. MaRusth further added that the applicant's plan was improvements to the home would not be as ambitious as that of the previous owner. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2061 because it had been approved in the past. Even if changes were made, Schroeder noted the changes would be to the better. There were no public comments. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#») «065 MX. & MRS. SAMUEL MARFIELD. 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE/MR. & MRS. H. DOUGLAS HILL 2425 DOUGLAS PLNE LANEAVU.LUM TOLES. 2435 SCOTCH PINE LANE - V.ACATION OF SCOTCH PINE LANE, VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITV EASEMENTS, PRELI.MINARY SUBDIVISION (REPEAT) - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:3l-*:5* P.M. The Applicants were present. s MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#8 - #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Gaffron reported that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, the application was discussed and tabled awaiting review by the Long Lake Fire Department regarding how^ the vacation of Scotch Pine would affect the ability of the fire department in fighting a fire on these properties New exhibits as part ot this package include a rexiew of the City s policy and philosophy regarding public roads, the BRW Fire Protection review of the traffic and environmental conditions, and a revised preliminary plat The Martlelds and Hills would share a driveway from the existing cul-de-sac with each pany increasing the size of their parcels with the vacation of the road. The vacation and replat would enable the Hills to have a continuous piece of property to the lake Mr Toles w ould access his residence throuch a new driveway from CoRd 51. There would occur some narrowing of the dnveway serving the Marfields and Hills Nlilce Brown of the Long Lake Fire Department was in attendance and reported on the concerns of the fire department Brown said the department requires a cenain road width to allow for staging for trucks to get past each other The roadway also needs to be able to handle 40.000 lbs of equipment. Brown said with the street as it is. there is room for the fire department to operate. The trucks would not be able to access the portion ot the drivewav to the Toles residence. The Hill property with driveway as proposed will allow the street to remain the same with the entry area narrower The Marfields. while asking to narrow their drivewav entrance, have been asked by the fire department to maintain the road at a wider width, which will enable fire trucks and their R\ to gain access to the house The fire department would like the driveway to the Toles residence to be wide enough to enable personnel to walk around the area Brown said he would need a road width of 16' able to support a weight of 40.000-50.000 lbs This would be asking more than reiiuired by the City, and he would accept the same as a City street. The City code requires a road to handle 46.000 lbs. Brown noted that this the first time the fire department has been asked what needs they have tor a private driveway. l'»tgrson asked Brown, if he had a choice, would he keep the road as it now exists. Tirown said he is not in favor of cul-de-sacs as the residence becomes cut off once the equipment is set up The fire department would benefit from gaining a wider road, and he is in approv al of eliminating the cul-de-sac and the proposal as revised. Hill noted that the revision involves maintaining some of the driv eway blacknop, Gaffron reported that besides the fire issue, there is the issue of subdivision pertormance standards. The properties contain three building sites and access to the lake. By today's standards, three lots in a rural zone require a private road. Gafrron said he is concerned with moving standards backwards with approval of this application The applicants have provided a response on why they feel the proposal is appropriate and unique to the surroundings MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#8 - #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Marfield read these findings into the minutes and are part ot this package. He noted that Scotch Pine is the one 3-iot cul-de-sac that drains into the lakeshore, and it has been a 20- ycar effort to gain the grass and trees back to the property Marfield said this was the only 3-Iot cul-de-sac with one lot in two parts divided by a road. Due to its location, the public is attracted to the road in order to gain access to the lake, yet there is none Marfield said all three applicants are supportive of the proposal. He also noted that other properties in the area have more than one driveway access, where these properties have only the one access Gaffi'on said another standard issue is with 3 lots currently abuting a public road and now Mtuiield's property will abut only an outlot. Galfron said this creates a back lot configuration. He also noted .he lot size being substandard with 1 acre lots in 2 acre zorTing. Easements are also an issue The existing utility easements would need rededication if changed. A letter from Minnegasco asks if Scotch Pine is vacated, an easement for their facilities should be granted over the existing roadway NSP is not in favor of the proposal, but Gaffron is of the opinion that the easement could be w orked out with NSP Gaffron noted that a drainage plan has been provided, but it has not been reviewed as ot yet by the City Engineer A catch basin would be eliminated and runotf would flow over land as area is revened back to grass Engineer’s review would be required prior to presentation to the Council. Gaffron said the neighbors to the east, the Levy's, ask for a I S' setback for the new driveway to the Toles property Gaffron said this was not a code requirement except that no grading is normally allow ed within 5' of the lot line Toles said he would honor this request. Gaffron voiced concern over the possibility of setting a precedent by approving a proposal which is in contrast to what is being currently asked of other subdivisions Gaffron noted that CoRd 51 is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as a parkway, which functions as a collector. The code for collector roads does not require new lots to use an internal access, but the comprehensive plan suggests that this be done when it is possible. Gaffron indicated the Planning Commission should make specific findings of uniqueness if they approved the proposal. f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 ■s (#8 • #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Peterson said he was in favor of retaining a road and utility easement for possible future needs of the City. He asked what opinion others had if appro\al for the proposal was given while maintaining the easement for the cul-de-sac. Toles said the parties of the application would need to discuss the matter, but he w as of the opinion that if the cul-de- sac was turned back to grass, no one would care to change it again to blacktop in the future Marfield said he was worried that another governmental body would make the change once again to blacktop in the future, and he would be uncomlbrtable with maintaining the easement after working so hard to eliminate it. Schroeder asked Staff'if these properties were a possible candidate for a loop road but was told by Gaffron no. Schroeder acknowledged the uniqueness of these properties and noted the undesirability of a cul-de-sac e.xcept for fire department use, which is disputable There were no public comments Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application ?r2065 as revised for the removal of the cul-de-sac and addition of a driveway from the Toles residence to CoRd 51 with a 15' side setback for reasons stated in the memos, specifically, reduction in hardcover, result of fire department review which shovved no increased risk, with approval by Mn/DOT for additional curb cut, approval for vacation of Scotch Pine with conditions as noted, approval of replat, and rededication of utility easements. Vote .\ves 4, Nays 1, Peterson, for reasons of setting a precedent and desire for maintaining the cul-de-sac easement for future access if needed (#9) #2066 ROBERT AND IRIS \V.A^\DE, 1487 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:58-9:11 P..VI. The .Applicants were present Gaft'ron reported that the application was before the Commission at the last meeting for a number of variances to remodel and build an addition to the residence on Shoreline Drive. The lot is small and does not lend itself for rebuilding. The house and garage currently has a carport and is covered with a flat roof The original proposal was for a second story with a 10:12 pitch roof From the lake side, the house was proposed at a ground-to-peak height of 46’ but technically did :neet the code height limit. The Planning Commission's earlier review concluded that the proposal was too ambitious for the lot. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#9 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued) Gafton said the revised proposal calls for hardcover back the driveway area. The revision would alter the foot print area with the addition ot a g^ag stall and an enttvway area. The sharp comers would be cut off and an area wou bumped out. There would be no second story Soine additional height ® fromTlO; 12 pitch roof over the entire structure The residence woo'd Pasi average lakeshore setback. .\ side setback vanance would be requ.r^ as tiw ^ag would be located within the 30' setback The new setback ousts at S' The bump out is located at 19' liom the side lot line The entry is within the 0-75' zone. The house would encroach 13' past the average setback with the new root Gafffon noted that the house located to the nonh of this property is on low <0P9J^Phy and would not be affected by this proposal The house to the ha*™ ovSf applicants house now and would no longer have any view ot the lake with this proposal. Gaftron reported that the lot coverage with this proposal would be at ' ^ is allowed Hardcover In the 0-75' zone exists at 39 I8»4 and is proposed at aOT4,.. 25% hardcover is allowed in the 75-250' zone and exists at 15 96 .4 and would be decreased to 9 25». The hardcover for the dnveway portion semng the neighbor is not fr^ludXl calculations. No height variance would be required with the new root proposed at a ground-to-peak height ot 35 8* The applicant said it was his desire to minimize the impact of the house on the property and neighborhood while stil> gaining a house up to today's standards Hawn inquired what would become of the broken asphalt on the proper^ near the shoreline. Waade said it will be removed and replaced with pea rock, which e understands to be non-hardcover I mflnuist asked about the open area between the house and garage This would be exnaSded tor the master bedroom When inquiring about the size ot the garage, Lindquist ^a^Told ti«e w»ld be increased to a 3-stall from its present 2-stall conbguration. Schroeder was concerned with reduction of rock/plastichardcover in the 0-75'. Gaifron said the enttyvvay ai ea included rock and plastic which was not „ It was note?thal the 4' overhang would be eliminated and replaced with 1-1/- over g, vvhich has not been figured into the calculations as eaves ate not defined in the code as whether they are actual hardcover. Hawn gave her suppon of the proposal notmg the applicant's diligence in keeping additional 1 Jcover to a minimum while gaming the desired space. 12 MrNUTES OF THE ORONO PL.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#9 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued) Schroeder noted that the proposal was an improvement, but asked what it would take to reduce the lot coverage down to 15%, or a 100 s.f. reduction The applicant responded that it would be difficult to condense the plan any further and still maintain a decent tloor plan. There were no public comments Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application ?^2066 subject to Staff recommendations with removal of the excess bituminous material in the yard, protection of the septic system, removal of hardcover as noted, and an inspection ot hardcover removals prior to pouring of the footings. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 1, Peterson, who acknow ledge the applicant's attempt to reduce hardcov er but w as of the feeling it was still to(?ambitious a proposal for the lot (#10) #2074 JOHN .AND KRISTEN GEHRING. 1687 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCES - CONDITIONAL USE PER.MIT - PUBLIC HEARING 7:10-7:40 P..M. The Cenificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants were present. The application consists of two parts. Mabusth reported that the first part involves a conditional use permit and variance to install 2' timber wail along the lakeshore bank. Ice movement in early spring has cieated problems along this shoreline. The wall is similar to the wall on the Palm propeny to the north The Engineer has reviewed the application. Staff is of the opinion that the wall is not a permanent solution to the erosion problem and has encouraged the applicants to consider rip rap The applicants do not wish to lose their sandy beach, which would occur if rip rap was installed There is no room to altei the bank itself with only 41’ to the residence from the lakeshore Staff said the wall will work but not permanently Mabusth reponed that the second part of the application is for the installation of a 25'x30' detached garage located in the street yard of the property The garage would meet the 10' side setback The doors of the garage w ould open to the street. The garage would be placed 51’ from Concordia, where 30' is required .Mabusth said thatthere is concern with the tlood plain being encroached by the structure. Tlie majority of drainage in the Concordia neighborhood drams to this area and includes the Palm property. Runoff flows eventually to West .Arm. The applicant confirmed with a new survey that the flood plain is encroached by at least half of the sintcture The Palm’s garage would be flooded if compensatory or matching e.xcavations are not completed If this is true, permits would be required from both the Corp of Engineers and the Watershed. 13 -ii.: )' (#10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) It has been suggested by Staff that ^The portion of t r«T^'^L"ln require a n.a,ch,ng «cava«o„ a. .he same area to offset the encroachment Mabusth said .ha. smbac. hardier is'proposed rsi.hin .he 0-75 ’ serback rone A shed on .he property will be removed. Lindquis. asked wha. ,he eieva.ions were, and where .he -nng and P.m properties.„ said he met with Palm and anot er ne^, ,installing a drainage in the neighborhood \ m P to be a workable Xfo?propts^l suggests I ' ^ le rvT ii ^s3Tsu[e \l£ibusth Siiid it is usuallySchroeder asked whax .he nonnal size .s o. a Schroeder asked .he 24'>r24' Lindquis. no.ed .ha.P'°P°J^.he amoun. of hardcover applicants 'ce^m responded that the stze of the garage enables Eirs";--“ tr “S" w »—- - “ between the garage and the house -r :2rrE"-"Er... changes to the pr^p^^^,^^garage and the homes but aoplicant would have difficulty in gaining approval tor a larger house In^^^e'’l5% loXrage lim,.a,ion would be considered He no.ed .ha. .hete 1, no variance required a. this time for lot coverage. iMINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.\NNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Schroeder noted that the lot coverage is at 15®1> now He is concerned with intensification of the structures on the property. Schroeder said the applicant may wish to consider moving the structures back on the lot and noted that the 3-car garage is limiting the applicant for any future building. Schroeder commented that many people tee! a 2-car garage is a right in Minnesota but was not convinced that a 3-car garage was the standard. Berg commented that a 3-car garage was becoming the normal size tor a garage The applicant responded that the size difference between a 2-car and a 3-car garage is minimal. Hawn noted that keeping utility vehicles within a garage is a good idea Peterson asked for the Commission to look at the application in two parts with the first issue being the retaining wall. T«5fn Palm, owner of the propeny to the nonh of the applicant, commented that the temporary pipe used to alleviate pooling ot water was 4" in size A ditch was dug which moved the water toward the larger swale. It was determined that there were no problems with this solution as the pipe was found to handle a 6" rain with no standing water. Palm saw no problem with recreating the pipe as a permanent solution. He noted it was to his benefit to see that the water has a place to go. Lindquist said he had no problem with the retaining wall He did note that ice will eventually take the wall out, which would not occur if rip rap was used. Peterson noted that the Engineer did say it was only a temporary solution The applicant commented that a neighboring propeny has a similar wall, which has lasted for the past 5 years with no problem He noted maintenance may be required and is all right with that. Lindquist asked how far back the wall would be built Mabusth said there is a natural sand beach, and the wall would be 6’ from the normal shoreline Schroeder asked if it should be .a concern with the Planning Commissioners if the solution was not permanent if the applicant was in tavor ot the proposal Peterson said the area could be left natural 1 le understood that while the wall works for the neighbor, the Planning Commission needs to rely on the e.xpenise of the City Engineer He commented that the wall could cause funher problems but was not troubled with the in.stallation of the w all Schroeder noted that the applicant has an incentive to keep the wall in good repair to save the beach area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ive (#10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Hawn moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approv-al of the retaining all with Staff recommendations. Vote: .Ayes 5, Nays 0 As for the garase, LirKlquist asked it the Commission was able to approve a garage without understanding where the pond would be located. Peterson said he had the same concern. Mabusth said this was a recent issue. StatTis unable to issue a permit without seeing an approved grading plan by the Corp ot Engineers and the MCW D. The applicant said he was told by the MC\VD that preliminary approval would be required from the City before the MCWD would look at the issue Gehnng asked if the City would approve the application for the garage with the condition that the required permits were received from the Corp of Engineers and the MCWD .Mabusth said she was not colhfortaHe with bringing the application before the Council with questions unanswered The applicant said it was his plan to build the garage this tall. Schroeder commented that the City Engineer would need to approve the drainage plans Peterson said the Council would not approve the garage without the permits in hand from the Corp ot Engineers and the MCWD 1 he applicant noted that the meeting of the MCWD was scheduled tor October 9, and the Council meeting was scheduled for October 13. Mabusth questioned whether Palm would need to be jointly involved with the creation of the pond Palm said it was his understanding that his pan would be only where the pipe is located. Mabusth said the retaining pond would possibly be located on the Palm propeny too Palm said he was unsure of tlhs and thought the pipe would carry the drainage to the swale on his propeny Peterson noted that the solution may be a swale, but it was possible that a swale may not be enough, and a pond would be required Lindquist was of the opinion that the pond should be a joint proposal by both Gehring and Palm Mabusth noted that Staff w ill be working with both parties on storm water management. Lindquist asked if conceptual approval could be granted Mabusth said matching retention areas on the propeny would be required to compensate tor the flood plain. Schroeder said if Staff could cominue to work with the application, was the Commission and Staff comfortable with turning the proposal over to the City Engineer in this form. Peterson voiced some concern with the size of the structure Mabusth clanfied that it was not an oversized structure and did meet the required setbacks. The excess hardcover is in the 0-75’ zone and not in the 75-250' zone. Lindquist moved. Hawn seconded, to approve the construction of the 3-car garage with the understanding that the application not proceed to Council until it has been approved by the City's Public Works Director and City Engineer, the MCWD, and the Corp of Enuineers. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Scfaroeder asked who sets the code for the tlood plain areas. Mabusth reported that is is a federal flood plain regulation Lindquist continued that the application may involve the Palm property Mabusth said Palm mav need to extend an easement to the City Palm said he would be in agreement to this as he would like to solve the issue together noting the historic drainage problems in the area. V'ote: Ayes 5, Nays 0- (#11) #2075 HOWARD R. ALTON, 111. 1635 CONCORDIA STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:15-9:18 P.M. % The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a conditional use permit and variance to allow alteration of 17 cubic yards within the 90 lineal foot section of the shoreline. Ice movement has created erosion problems tor ; sand bank ridge The applicant proposes to restore the bank to a 3 1 slope in order to grow grass Gustafson has reviewed the application and said it was the best solution Richter of the DNR also noted his approval and the need for no plantings This proposal is a natural approach for solution to erosion, and the applicant was commended for taking this aproach. Mabusth said that while the City Engineer has approv ed the proposal, he noted if the bank is to retain a minimum 3 1, the bank would have to be cut back 5-8 and would result in the removal of about 34 cubic yards instead of 1 7 The applicant would then place 8 cubic vards of clean soil to be cov ered w ith sod The applicant noted his preference for this cnange Peterson moved. Berg seconded, to approve Application #2075 with Staff recommendati ns 1-4. Vote; .Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#12) #2079 RICK PERRY, 440 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:18-9:30 P..M. The Certificate of Mailing and /Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN'^ HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#12 - #2079 Rick Perry - Continued) Mabusth reported that the property is located on the east side of illow. The applicant had previously received approval for a setback variance tor a garage located in front ot the principal structure. It did not meet the current standards but was approved at a 5 side setback The City did not address the need for a variance with garage placed in front ot the principal structure The existing garage was placed 6 4' from the side lot line With the addition, the garage becomes an oversized structure, the structure is now subject to more restrictive area and setback standards The 62 acre parcel is allowed 1000 s t. ot oversized accessory structure. Tlte proposed garage would require an area variance ot 77 s.f or 7 7%. The structure would now require a setback of 30' and is proposed at 6 4’ Mabusth noted that the same hardships of the earlier application still hold true There are steep topographies on the lot The narrow lot limits access to rear of residence The only geUlle sloped areas are in rear yard where septic is located, and this area is needed for foture septic needs Peterson noted the dimensions of the oversize structure and lot coverage increasing from 13.5% to 18.1%. He asked the applicant why four additional garage stalls were needed. Perry said the stalls would be used for his collector cars. Mabusth noted that when the detached garage was approved, the applicant has stated he was going to convert the original garage space to living space Perry said he did not do so as he'^and his wife did not have as many children as they had previously planned He acknowledged that the proposal would increase his garage space to 6 stalls Schroeder asked if the applicant wac going to use the space for a business. Perry said no. Schroeder asked where he now places the vehicles. The applicant said 3 cars are in the tuck-under garage, one is being restored, and bikes and the like are sitting outside of the detached garage. There were no public comments. Peterson said he was personally opposed to the proposal as it was creating a huge oversize structure for a small lot Lindquist agreed that this would be too much structure. The applicant asked if he built a structure keeping within the 1000 s.f allowable, if this would be allowed and no variances needed Mabusth said side setback variance would still be required .Any struaure placed in front of the principal structure requires a vanance. The applicant felt that the garage would be a better alternative than leaving materials stored outside Mabusth noted that there was alot of material outside now The applicant said it was his desire to plant evergreen trees to hide the structure from view as well as installing a hip roof to lower the profile of the house. .Mabusth asked the applicant about the power pole Perry said he spoke with NSP, who said they would move the pole. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#12 - #2079 Rick Perry - Continued) Hawn said she was of the opinion that 6 stalls of garage space w as excessive 'vith 2-3 stalls being the norm. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Application #2079 due to excessive lot coverage for the size of the lot. \'ote; Ayes 5. Nays 0 (#13) #2080 GREG AND DANA KELLENBERGER, 4045 WATERTOW N ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:30-9:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the applicants have two development plans for additions to their residence located in the 5-acre zoning district. The existing house is located in a substandard location at 51’ where 100' is required for the fronPstreet setback The 24'x24' detached garage shown as Option A would require a street setback Option B involves an attached garage to the residence requiring a 50' side setback and is proposed at 26'. The front/street setback from Watenowai Road would be at 52* The existing driveway at east lot line can be saved and used to approach the back yard. A second curb cut further to the west has been approved by John Gerhardson Option A would place a driveway veiy' close to the septic site The Option B for an attached garage would allow access to the rear of the property along east side Staff recommends Option B. Peterson asked the applicant which option he prefers The applicant prefers Option B as it gives them a spot for a patio to the rear of the residence Peterson suggested the Commission review Option B for the attached garage It was noted that the deck does not exist on Option B but the covered porch remains The two-story home would remain but the flat roof addition with a tuck-under garage would be removed and rebuilt in same location The applicant commented that they have horses and would prefer to keep the e.xisting drivewav to use for the horse trailer as it is a safer route to the west being located on a higher portion of the roadway Mabusth said Gerhardson would need to approve maintaining the two accesses There were no public comments Lindquist moved. Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2080 for Option B for front/street setback variance of 48' and side setback variance of 24' for an attached garage. If two driveways are to be maintained, they would need the approval of Gerhardson. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0 w MINtJTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 L. (#14) #2081 PATRICK AM) NANCY WALSH, 1390 REST POLNT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARLNG 9:40-9:58 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Walsh was present. Mabusth said that she and Mr. Walsh met today and went over Statf concerns The proposal at this time is amended from that in the packet as a result ot this meeting The proposal is for two single story additions at the sides of the residence consisting of a mud room/kitchen with eating area, an expanded master bedroom with a walk-in closet and expanded bedroom on the second story , which would encroach the average lakeshore setback by 9* and encroach the 75' line by 9' The upper level above the garage would be for a recreation room or bedrom located 20' from the street lot line and require a street vailhnce because of the intensification. The hardcover in the 0-75' zone exists at 11 9®-'o and proposed at same percentage. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone exists at 40 2® o and proposed at 56.3®/o for an increase of 774 5 s f of 16®/o The stoop will be roofed under the proposal and. thereby, included in the structural coverage. The views and plans were shown to the Commission members The structural coverage is proposed at 20. l®/o and with stoop, adjusted at 21 4®/o. The amended proposal reduces the master bedroom by 44 s.f., eliminates the SO s.t. mudroom. reduces the 14 s f entry, shows removal of 91.75 s.f of plastic, and removal of deck structure with fencing and planter with plastic. The amended calculations for hardcover with 75-250 area existing at 41®/o, originally proposed at 56 3® o. is amended at 5 l .5®i) or a 11 2% increase. The 75-250' hardcover variance would be reduced by 4.8®/o. Lindquist asked if there was any change in the 0-75' zone. Mabusth said there was none and was same as originally proposed at 11 9®'o. .All new improvements are in the 75-250' zone The amended hardcover variance in this zone would be reduced to 26 5®/o. Mr Walsh said he realized the lot was small but so was the house .Any expansion would require a variance. The house is at 800 s f with a 3/4 bath, no utility room, and no kitchen eating space The house is centered on the lot and is a cape code style with a low profile The additions to each side w ould balance off the house The root on the garage would give the hou.se a higher profile The proposal is to give the residents more living space The entry is to aid entry from an icy area. Walsh acknowledged to Schroeder that they have lived in the house for 17 years. There were no public comments. 20 r' Nffi^UTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#14 . #2081 Patrick and Nancy Walsh - Continued) Peterson told Walsh he understood the need for improvements but noted the substandard lot by the lakeshore. The applicant said that is why the>’ have tried to keep the improvements to a minimum Peterson said he would not approve any improvements in the 0-75' and noted all improvements were to be made in the 75-250' zone. Schroeder commented that the lot coverage would increase from 15% to 19 9%. He acknowledged that the additions were not large but that the lot was so small. Hawn said she was undecided. She noted the appeal in tilling out the rectangle of the house but questioned whether any improvements should be allowed that increase the size of the residence. Hawn was concerned that paring down the mud room seemed silly Mabusth said that the applicant read the Staff memo and came in on his own volition to disvuss changes. Lindquist said he had mixed feelings but noted the addition was minimal Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2081 as amended. V^ote: Ayes 3, Peterson, Hawn, Lindquist, Nays, 2. Berg. Schroeder, both commenting that it was too small a lot to consider any additions. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#15) #2077 CHARLES W. HOMMEYER, JEFFREY A. BOWEN, KENNETH B. ROLLAND, 4119/4127/4125 OAK STREET - REPEAT AND VACATION OF PUBLIC ROADS AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the sketch plan review is for a replat of 15 lots and the vacation of Clyde Place, Park .Ave . and the western section of Oak Street. The replat will create 3 lots Lots 1 and 2 would share access from Linden .Avenue Lot 3 would use the existing driveway extending from Oak Street 4111 Oak Street is sensed from the same driveway. Oak Street is maintained by the City to Oak and Linden intersection, the western end of Oak Street serves 4 properties and is maintained by propeny owner With the replat, access for two lots. 4111 and 4119 Oak Street, will be via the driveway outlet. Access to the steep ravine area will he retained via a platted 15' alleyway Staff questions whether the City should retain a walkway easement from the east to the ravine. 11 NilNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#15 - #2077 Replat and Vacation - Continued) Mabusth reviewed the street vacation application. Parcel .V the Knight property, is located in the LR-IB zone within the MUSA. Knight could ask for sewering of this property as well as subdKide with as many as three lots It vacation ot the only two pu ic accesses to this property is approved, the City must provide access to a public road The City approved a lot area variance tor Lots 1 -4, Block j. Mabusth said she met with the applicants and found that n may be possible to maintain ^ ^ public access from Linden but w ith the loss of one small lot The applicant would give r*0 so there would be no need to enter the Bennett property If a cul-de-sac were to be built, there were several options as to the location Mabusth said Bennett indicated he would withdraw his application if required to dedicate a cul-de-sac 20 additional teet will be souiiht for Linden Avenue. nT The Planning Commissioners had questioned whether a loop road would be an alternative in this subdivision. Mabusth said the applicants would lose the whole purpose for the replat if they went to that conliguration It is the applicants plan tor Lots I and 2 to share access up to where Clyde Place'is to be vacated and then branch olVto their individual homes Lot 3 would continue to gain access as it does now Schroeder asked if the problem with Bennett giving any private dedication was that there was no benefit to his property He suggested that Knight cut through the easement to give the benefit tc Bennett. Knight responded that he did not wish to do so as the aesthetics ot the driveway with driving through a canopy of trees would be lost Schroeder said the alternate would be the cul-de-sac should Knight subdivide. Lindquist clarified that the City needs to provide an opponunity for public access to Knight Hawn asked if there was not a grandfathering of the existing easement for ingress and euress if Kniiiht were to subdivide Honmeyer said it would not meet the requirement for public roads'" It was suggested that some land be purchased from Bennett The applicants said they would desire for this to happen Knight noted that this is why he recommends no action taken until all parties can discuss the applications Honmeyer said if land could be purcahsed from Bennett. Knight would have his access. 50' is needed for the access but the prop nies would be dealing with more intense use in the fiiture. There is a possibile division of three lots on the Knight property. Honmever said he would wish to keep the back ponion of the property as buildable. Lindquist acknowledged that access to the Knight propeny would need to be worked out. ••• ^¥MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO.\L\USSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER lb, 1995 (#15 - #2077 Replat and Vacation - Continued) Schroeder said it would be an incentive for all to work out the details and suggested tablLpg the review to allow the parties involved to meet Ken Rolland asked why the road needs to be a 50' width, which he felt was not practical. Mabusth asked about the cul-de-sac and where it belongs on the roadway Statf Is coming from the opinion that the cul-de-sac should be located at the true end of the roadway to eliminate driveways coming off of the road in all directions. Rolland said it 50' were not needed, there would be more negotiating room. Peterson said the amount was not set but an idea on the what the width might be is necessary Rolland emphasized how treacherous the ravine was and considered it a liability Mabusth said it was appropriate to question whether the City would want to take an walking eas?ment to this ravine. Ann Honmeyer asked how much property would be needed to be purchased from Bennett if he would sell. Peterson said Statf could give dire '• ms regarding the amount Mabusth said the two other sketches could be reviewed not involving the cul-de-sac. Schroeder asked the members to consider how that sketch would affect Bennetts subdivision plans. Peterson said he would prefer the cul-de-sac be located at the end of the development. Honmeyer added that may be no cul-de-sac is needed Peterson said that was a possibility The applicant.s will attempt to meet together with the applic.mts of ft2078 to discuss both applications and how they would affect each other. PL\NMNG COM.MISSION COMMK\ IS (#16) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVT: An ENDLNG COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 1995 No member of the Planning Commission attended the October 9, 1995 meeting of the Council (#17) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION It was noted that private driveways were discussed at a recent work session. Gaffron has begun to formulate a paper reviewing conditions under which variances to the private driveway code would be considered. 23 r ••NONXTTES OF THE ORONO PLiVNMNG CONLVllSSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#18) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROV.AL OF MLNl TES OF THF SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 MEETING Schrocder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the Minutes of the September IS. 1995 meeting of the Park Commission V^ote Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#19) PLANNING COMMIS ’ON TO SELECF A REPRESENTAl IVE 'l O ATTEND THE NOVEMBER 13. 1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Schroeder will attend the November 15. 1995 meeting ot the Council ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn at 10 30 p tn Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 0. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person 24 "T.^4 * % TH 12 Corridor Study Policy Committee Meeting Notice & Agenda Location -* Orono City Hall wed. Novembar 16, 1995 5:30 p.m. I.Project Schedule Update Process Update II.Upcoming Timeline for Decision III.Recent Events ►System Management -♦ what has been happening IV.Upcoming Meetings V.Adjournment »r Trunk Highway 12 Policy Committct Meeting Project Discussion October 18,1995 Aiieidfet:Edward Callahaii Vem Geazlinger ValRdnaas Tom O’Keefe Marvin Johnson Dwight Poss Tod Olson Ken Nielsen Ann Thies Dick Hannon Brigid Thykeson Orono Hennepin County MnDOT MnDOT Independence DdaiK) LongL<ake Kandiyohi County Medina Wayzata MnDOT Project Schedule Update There have been no changes in the project schedule which is to be completed by December of 1995. EIS Update Hutorifial ^ ^^ ^ The level of analysis involved in the Historical/ Archaeological review will be efficient for the TH 12 Corridor Study. The analysis does show those impacts which are flaws to potential alignments. This level of analysis is equal for all of the proposed alternatives and more detailed analysis will be completed in the Final EIS stages. ngpartment of Natural Resources fDNRl Future Acquisition The DNR discovered a new Old Growth forest in which they are in the process of acquiring. They have inventoried the area and arc recommending that the area be classified as a Scientific and Natural Area. The location of this forest affects the G3a Segment. Additional information on other possible high quality forested areas in Franklin Township and Independence was given to the DNR Socio-F-conomic Study The consultant Lynne Bly and Associates are working on the relocation impacts and will be reviewing owner occupied vs. rental properties Traffic Forecasting Information Preliminary information was available. Discussion of peak volumes for ail of the alternatives. The TSM forecasts were still coming. Minor Invodimt StiKfios vt t «w kvd of documoitttion ptsud by the legUlsture. Tl« MIS Study. In the evert the MIS time fine ttigreed upon, t meeting with cooperating igenaeswo^^ be arranged for their input and approval t-*M -♦I IlTalSiia^fS^tl^^<*y purpose***'•" Aheniative was explained in detail by Val. -3-lane section with continuous left turning lane Independence - 2-lane expressway with passing lane Maple Plain - 3-lane section with continuous left turning lane C.R. 6 / TH 12 Interchange . Orono/ Long Lake - new alignment south of the Burlington Railroad tracks with bmitcd access at C R. 6 and Watertown Road ^**”^^l^l^ction and relocation of accesses at C R.6 (west end) and TH 12 (cast end). County Road 6 Turning lanes added as needed. Wayzata Boulevard Interchange at TH 12 intersection. Other I^eins of Dtscussioo Delano has a place holder in the Slate Transportation Intplemen^-on Plan (STIP) for C.R 30 intersection in 1997, County Line Road intersection in 1998, and the Crow River Bridge in 199 Next Meetings •Technical Meeting •Policy Meeting November 14, 1995 November 15, 1995 2;00 to 4:00 Delano City Hall 5:30 to 7.30 Orono City Hall SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 10709 WayzataKvd.. Suite 111. Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone 541*1019 Fax 541-0841 •OAnOafOifCCTQRS Daratyn Pttfcr imVlp§Pr9m^9tti Rym Schroadar SndVfo^Pnmdtni William H. Gray Kaatn Kruaetr Tr§uuf9f Tom Tioan PutPr^mdtnf Marty Quritz Utmbtf-tHarg* Alko HIguchl Mary Andaraon Nalaon Barg John C. Boadar Lucilla Crow Robart DaGhatto Dwight Johnson Tad Juda John Kaafa John Nalson Sanator Gan Olson Lawranca Schram Banjamln F. Withhart £x«cuSv* Director a C-E.O PROGRAMS . H.O.M.E. •Multi-purpose Senior Centers & Community Groups •Senior Outreach •Seniors Serving Business l9< MEMO To:Ronald Moorse. City Administrator From: Ben Withhart Re:County Budget Cuts I am writing to ask for your help. The Services to Seniors Division of Hennepin County is proposing to cut our suburban Outreach/Case Management contract 40%. We match city funds/United Way funds/County funds to fund this service with County funds making up approximately one-third of the Program budget. The service goes into the homes of the frailest, at-risk elders and assists them in remaining in their home (out of nursing home.) I have attached a fact sheet, a county budget, and a sample letter. Your assistance with a letter or phone call to the County Board members would be greatly appreciated. I will attempt to call you soon to follow up this memo. A United Aji;tfk. im COUNTY STAFF WECOMMEHOEO SOCIAL SERVICES BUTCET CHANGES (1/1/9S budg»t dffl) 1995 Act Est 1996 R»qyst S Chang*% Chang# Sfvic— to Stiiofs (County pfwwQ $2,419,597 $2,476,819 $57,222 2.36% County p>r»onn»l FTE'»50.3 50.3 None Services to Seniors (Commodities: Services;$404,951 $424,495 $19,544 4.83% Emergency Reiief: Capital Outley: Other Charges) Sub-total $2,824,548 $2,901,314 $76,766 2.72«/o Services to Senior&'Contracted Services *Adult Daycare (ESNS-FrienOship Ctr: Ebenezer Society Day Ekjer-Seniof Resources; West Suburban-Open Circle) $226,967 $186,967 ($40,000)-17.62%1 *Minority Elder Services $218,444 $218,444 (Indian Family Services: Institute for Education and Advocacy; Korean 0.00% Services Ctr. Vietnamese Social Services of MN; Cedar Riverside People's Center) *Senior Resources $694,718 $624,718 ($70,000 -10.08% (coordinators in hi-fises in Mpls-non licensed social worl^ers) *Senior Resources $47,385 ($47,385 100.00% (Retired Senior Volunteer Program) Ebenezer Society $64,546 $64,546 (Legal Guardianship) $0 0.00% •MN Alliance for Health Care Consumers $47,113 $0 ($47,113 -100.00% (Assists nursing home residents resolve problems related to admission 8 residency) •Senior Community Services (Counseling, case management and short $185,004 $110,748 (shopping service) MPHA Pilot Sub-total Contracted Services TOTAL Services to Seniors ($74,256 $1,501,480 $1,275,423 ($226,057) $4,326,028 $4,176,737 ($149,291) -40.14% -15.06% -3.45% r Facts about Senior Community Services ’ Case Management Program •Twice as many people over 60 live in suburban Hennepin County than live in Minneapolis (103,700 compared to 55,400); in the five veari. suburban elderly over 60 increased 7.5%, while the over-60 population in Minneapolis decrea sed 24.8%1. •More people over 75 liv^? in suburban communities than in Minneapolis (33,770 compared to 24.330); in the five years, while the number of Minneapolis seniors over 75 remained virtually unchanged, elders over 75 in the suburbs increased 21.9%. •Over 18% of Minnesotans over 75 are "severely impaired, non- institutionalized"; this rate of impairment represents over 6,000 seniors living in the community in suburban Hennepin County. •Between 1990 and 2000 suburban seniors over 65 will increase 20% to 83,115, while those in Minneapolis will decrease 18% to 39,070. •A study conducted for Community Action in Suburban Hennepin found that 49% of low-income households in the suburbs were headed by an older adult, which represented the largest low-income group. •In 1990, 3,382 suburban seniors over 65 subsisted below the poverty level—42% of poverty-level seniors in the County. In 1995, Senior Community Services receives 21% of the combined contracted service dollars of Senior Community Services and Senior Resources, an agency which provides case management to Minneapolis seniors. In 1996, Senior Community Services is proposed to receive only 15% of these contract funds. •Senior Community Services’ licensed social workers work with frail elderly in their own homes, covering 552 of the County’s 611 square miles. •The County’s Services to Seniors case management program served 879 seniors in 1994. for a cost of $2,753 per client. Senior Community Services’ case management program served 1,183 seniors (in addition to seniors and their families who received short-term services) for a total cost of $294 per client, only $100 of which was paid by the County. •Senior Community Services offers a community-based service, delivered from seven rent-free office spaces, provided as part of the collaborative partnerships with local cities, schools, senior centers, and churches. These local bases for the provision of in-home services are located in Mound, St. Louis Park, Bloomington, Robbinsdale. Plymouth, Hopkins, and Eden Prairie. •Senior Community Services successfully seeks funding from the State and foundations to provide additional services to local communities, such as health insurance counseling and advocacy for Medicare beneficiaries of all ages. Although these funds can only be used for specified purposes and cannot be used to support the ongoing case management portion of the program, these additional services augment the main portion of the program. •Senior Community Services is effective in recruiting, training, and supervising local volunteers for a variety of client services, including monitoring frail older clients, especially those who have no family, after the social workers have set up services. These volunteers are an important part of the preventive focus of the program, alerting the social workers of emerging needs or problems before a crisis occurs. This cost- effective approach makes efficient use of the program’s licensed professionals, who can deal with more clients and concentrate on more urgent client needs. •Senior Community Services’ case management staff works cooperatively or collaborativeiy v/ith over 225 other entities which provide services to seniors, in order to provide a comprehensive combination of services for their clients. These licensed social workers navigate the complexities of various systems, whether local, county, or state. •Senior Community Services' is a flat, not fat, organization, with less than 10% of its budget going to administration. Through the agency’s positive working relationships with local cities, schools, senior centers, and churches, very little of the agency’s budget is used for overhead and almost all of it for direct services—at a very, very competitive cost. Commissioner ______ A2400 Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis. Minnesota 55487 Dear Commissioner: For the past several years, four Citv^ has joined the County and the United Way in funding Senior Community Services' case management program, Senior Outreach, for our older residents. We view this partnership as a cost-effective solution to the growing problems of a rapidly expanding, low-income, frail population. In just the last five years, the number of elderly over 75 in the suburbs has grown 22% (and represents 40% more 75+ seniors than in Minneapolis)—and is on the rise. Senior Community Services' program delivers a quality community-based service. The cooperative funding by City, County, and United Way provides the cost-effective use of limited resources, the equitable sharing of service costs, and the leveraging of more services than any one funding source alone could afford. For this reason, although we realize that funding Is tight, we ask that you not reduce the funding to Senior Community Service's case management program—especially during these years of growing need. Thank you again for not forgetting the frail elders in the suburban area. ■■ hpmnfpi N county CQMMISa >::i= 1 St Mike Opai A-24 Government Center Minneapolis. MN 55487 2nd Sandra Hilary A-24 Government Center Minneapolis. MN 55487 3rd Mark Andrew A-24 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 4th Peter McLaughlin A-24 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 5th Randy Johnson A-24 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 6th Penny Steele A-24 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 7th Mary Tambornino A-24 Government Center Minneapofis, MN 55487 P9ARD OF ifJPQ ■ 348.3081 Dale Achmann Hennepin County Administrator Government Center 300 South 6th Street A-2303 Minneapolis, MN 55487