Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-11-1995 Council Packet
1* * NOTE EARLY START TIME * AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1995, 6;45 P.M ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of il.e Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request trom the Recorder. ROLL CALL 6:45 p.m. 1. 6:45 p.m. Truth in Ta.xation Final Hearing Adoption of 1996 Budget and Ta.x Levy - Resolutions cCviiiCiLf.:£ttTi::G 2. 7:00 p.m. Award Sale of Bonds-Resolution OEC 1 1 1995 CITY OF ORONO * 3. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 4. Regular .Meeting of November 27. 1995 * 5. Truth in Taxation Hearing of November 29. 1995 i PARK CO.M.MISSION CO.NLMENTS PLAiNNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Charles Schroeder Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 .Minutes Per Person) ZDNLNG ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT '6. '#2084 Thomas R. McCune. 1473 Bay Ridge Road - Variances - Resolution 7 #1958 Louis Oberhauser. 2405 Dunwoody Avenue, 3865 and 3877 .Shoreline Drive - Replat Preliminary Subdivision and Variances - Resolution 8. #2058 Jensen Homes. Inc., 405 Tonkawa Road - Preliminary Subdivision 9^ #2065 Martleld/Hill/Toles. 2425-35-55 Scotch Pine Lane: • Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane - Resolution • Final Plat Approval - Resolution 10. #2082 Richard Stark. 575 Oxford Road - • Vacation of Easement - Resolution • .\fter-the-Fact Variance - Resolution 11. #2083 Bernice .M. Zumbusch, 1535 Long lake Boulevard - Variances - Resolution 12. #*’ Minnesota Department of Natural Re.sources. 3390 North Shore Drive - Commercial Site p. ••• itc/iew - Resolution . • 13 #2'»80 Robert and Janice Callan. 2915 Somerset Lane - Conditional Use Permit/\ariance Resolution 14. #2089 Richard Miller, 4520 Watertown Road - Variances - Re.solution 15 #2092 Dennis Platteter, 809 Brown Road North - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT „ . . \/l6 Pay Request - Old Crystal Bay Road - 4th and Final 1 ♦ * NOTE EARLY START TIME * ^ AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1995, 6:45 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 17. Ordinance Amendment Concerning Youth Athletic Facilities-Rcferral to Planning Commission 18. Saga Hill Tax Forfeit Property i' 19. Golf Fee Update 20. Police Service Contract with the City of Long Lake 21. Drug Testing Policy 22. Public Works Equipment Purchase - Backhoe Bucket 23. Purchase of 1996 Squad Cars 4<24. 1995/19% Police Lieutenant Contract 25. 19% Police Office Support Staffing 26. Selection of Local Board of Review Meeting Date 27. Extension of Prosecution Serv'ice Contract 4^28. Appointment of Auditor 429. Authorization to Disburse City Funds for Claims Received ^30. 1995 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments 31. Authorization to Disburse Park Dedication Funds CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT (*32.) LICENSES (*33.) BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 12/04 - Park Work Session 6:30 p.m. 12/04 - Park Commission 7:15 p.m. 12/06 - Reconvened Truth in Ta.xation Meeting 7:00 p.m. (it required) 12/07 - Oreno School Levy Limit meeting 7:00 p.m. 12/11 - Council meeting (last scheduled meeting of 1995) 12/12 - Public Information Meeting - Highway 12 Selection (7:00 p.m. map.s) 7:30 p.m 12/25 - Holiday - Christmas 12/26 - Holiday meeting 1996 01/01 - Holiday - New Years Day 01/02 - Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. 01/08 - Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. 01/09 - Orono School Board meeting 7:00 p.m. 01/15 - Holiday - Martin Luther King Day 01/16 - Planning Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. 01/17 - llisihway 12 Policy Committee meeting 5:30 p.m. 01/22 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 01/23 - Orono School Board meeting 7:00 p.m. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; Dccem DEC 1 1 1995 E»aF“ ITEM NO. /. Dcpartmeot Approval: Nanc Ronald A. Moorse Title Citv Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Rqx>it Item Description: Adoption of 1996 Budget and Tax Lew - Resolutions The proposed 1996 budget reflects an effort to hold the line on funding for current services while positioning the city to address a number of long term issues with substantial fiscal impacts. Fxpendimres. Tax Lew and Tax Capacity Rate The proposed 1996 General Fund Expenditures, those with the greatest impact on the tax levy, do not require a tax lev>' increase. Proposed General Fund Expenditures are $3,347,755. This is an increase of $102,740 or 3.17% over the 1995 expendimre amount. The tax levy required to fund the total 1996 budget is $2,080,840. This is an increase of $64,670 or 3.21% over the 1995 levy. The major reason for the tax levy increase is the establishment of a $40,000 levy for infrastn -ture replacement (road, bridges, and storm water drainage). Because of a significant increase in the city’s tax base, the proposed tax levy will result in a reduction in the city's tax capacity rate from 15.604% to 14.843%. This will enable Orono s tax rate to remain one of the lowest in Hennepin County . Impnri r>f Budget on Residential Properties The proposed budget and tax levy result in a reduction in the city’s share of the proi^rty tax bill. For a home valued at $200,000, the city share of the property tax bill is reduced from $511.81 in 1995 tc $486.84 in 1996. This is a reduction of $24.97 or 4.9%. I nng Term Fisc.il Issues and Prog ram Highlights Although the 1996 budget is fiscally conservative it does address a number of long term fiscal issues and program needs. These are as follows: Long Term Fiscal Issues 1.Funding for infrastructure (replacement of roads and bridges, and storm water drainage projects). 2, Funding for storm water management plan liMj Notice of Council Action continued Pagc2 December 7,1995 Adoption of 1996 Budget and Tax Levy - Resolutions Program Highlights 1. Recodification of the city's ordinances 2. Computerized mapping. 3. 4. 5. Employee recognition. Update of the city’s pay structure. Continuation of the multi-year water plant rehabilitation project 6. Continuation of the sewer infiltration and inflow reduction effort. 7. The continuation of a multi-year sewer lift station replacement program. Sewer Fees The sewer and water rates will each increase by 3% in 1996. These increases are needed to match the expenditures necessary to fund both the day-to-day operations of the water and sewer hinds, and the major repair and replacement of the city’s water and sewer facilities. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A. Motion to adopt a resolution adopting the Final 1995 Tax Levy Collectible in 1996. B. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the 1996 General Fund Budget. C.Motion to adopt a resolution adopting the 1996 Special Revenue Funds Budgets. D. Motion to adopt a resolution to approve the 19% Debt Service Budget wr A lESOLimON ADOPTING THE FINAL 1995 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1996 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County' of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following sums, as reduced by HACA, be levied for the current year, collectible in 1996 upon the taxable property in the City of Orono, for the following purposes: General - Operating - Infrastructure Replacement $1,647,940 40■000 TOTAL GENERAL LEVY $1,687,940 G.O. Sewer Improvement Bond 1992 G.O. Sewer Improvement Bond 1985 24.000 46.000 G.O. Sewer, Water, Street Improvement Bond 1982 G.O. Water L Sewer Revenue Bond 1989 4,500 90,000 Bonds of Other Government Units - H.R.A. Building Bond 1991 228,400 TOTAL SPECIAL LEVIES 392,900 TOTAL ALL LEVIES S2 ■080.840 The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 11, 1995. ATTEST: Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk I21T95 I A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1996 GENERAL FUND BUDGET BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County ot Hennepin, Minnesota that the 19% General Fund budget is determined to be as follows: FSTTMATED REVENUES Taxes - General Licenses and Permits Int e rgove rnme nt a1 Charges for Services Fines and Forfeits Interest Income Miscellaneous Transfers From Other Funds Use of Fund Balance TOTAL $1,647,940 185,000 442,630 915,470 61,200 59,285 36,230 -0- -0- 53.347,755 appropriated expenditures General Government Public Safety Street Maintenance Parks and Recreation Recycling Program Engineering - Unallcpcated Reimbursable Expenditures Special Projects and Contingency Transfers To Other Funds TOTAL $ 744,425 1,759,195 482,960 51,870 76,155 15,130 41,850 58,670 97.500 S3.347,755 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 11, 1995. ATTEST:Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 120795.1 rISir .. « Dorothy H. Hallin, City Clerk 12079S.1 A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1996 SPECIAL re \t :nlt : fltmds budgets BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota that the 1996 Special Revenue Funds budgets are determined to be as follows: Ffitimated Revenues Interest Income User Fees Park Dedication Fees Transfers from other Funds Use of Fund Balance Total Revenues Park $ 17,500 25,000 174■500 5217.000 Apnropriated Expenditures General Govt. $ Public Safety Streets Parks & Recreation 217,000 Transfers to other Funds - - -lc— Total Expenditures Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 11, 1995. Improve & EauiD Outlay Building Gao Outlav $ 17,900 3,080 $139,000 97,500 “ — S118.480 S139.000 $ 23,900 4,245 17,235 22,000 $ 5,300 130.000 S 67.380 S135.300 Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: t . „ A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1996 DEBT SERVICE BUDGET BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota that the 1996 Debt Service budget is determined to be as follows: 1982 Improve 1985 Improve Bonds Taxes $ 4,500 $46,000 Special Assessments - -16,690 In t e rgove rnme nt a1 - -- - Interest Income 2,000 14,550 Transfers From Other Funds - -- Use of Fund Balance 14,186 13.910 TOTAL Revenues S 20.686 $91.150 AooroDriated Expenditure Debt Service $ 20,506 $90,070 Other 180 1,080 Transfers to Other Funds - TOTAL Expenditures $ 20.606 $91.150 1989 1991 Public Facil 1992 Revenue Revenue Improve Estimated Revenues Bonds Bonds Bonds Taxes $ 90,000 $228,400 $ 24,000 Special Assessments 73,980 - -103,755 Intergovernmental - -35,442 — — Interest Income -24,515 43,000 Sewer Operations 34,806 - -— — Transfers From Other Funds - -130,000 — — Use of Fund Balance TOTAL Revenues 106.870 - -15.130 $305,656 $410.357 $185,885 AoDrooriated Expenditure Debt Service $303,031 $404,515 $183,145 Other 2,625 -2,740 Transfers to Other Funds TOTAL Expenditures - --- - $305,656 $404.515 $185,385 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 11, 1995. ATTEST:Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Dorothy M. Hcllin, City Clerk 120799.2 CSUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 1 1995 DATE: cCfeXlflf ITEM NO.: ^ Dcpartmciit Approval: Name Ronald A. Moorse Title Citv- Administrator Administrator Reviewed: i'//L Agenda Section: Cit> Administrator's Report Item Description: Award of the Sale of General Obligation Refunding Bonds The City Council has authorized the sale of bonds to refund two existing bond issues to take advantage of low interest rates. The sale will be by competitive bid. Bids are to be received by 12:00 Noon on December 11, 1995. Based on the results of the bid process, staff will provide, at the Council meeting, a recommendation and resolution awarding the sale of the bonds to the best bidder. A draft of the resolution is attached for Council review. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of $1,910,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds of 1995. Ll. Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Orono Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall in the City, on Monday, December 11,1995 at o’clock P.M. The following members w'ere present: and the following were absent; * * *♦♦ ♦ ♦ The Mayor announced that the meeting was convened for the purpose of considering proposals for the purchase of $1,910,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds of 1995 ♦ ★ ♦♦ ★ ♦* 4( The City Clerk then presented the proposals received prior to 12:00 o’clock Noon pursuant to the Terms of Proposal for the General Obliuation Refundmu Bonds of 1995 1 hese were examined and found to be as follows; Name of Bidder Interest Rates Purchase Price Member introduced the foEowing written resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION AWARDING SALE OF $1,910,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS OF 1995, FIXING THE FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREOF, PROVIDING FOR THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY. AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the itv Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, as follows: I The proposal of (the “Purchaser”) to purchase the $1,910,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds of 1995 of the City is hereby found and determined to be the best proposal received pursuant to the Terms of Proposal, and shall be and is hereby accepted, said offer being to purchase Bonds bearing interest according to year of maturity as follows; Maturity (February I) 1997 1998 1999 Interest Rate MaturiW (Februar\ 1) 2000 2001 2002 Interest Rate 2 fo provide funds for refunding in advance of maturity' the redeemable portions of its outstanding General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985 (the “Series 1985 Bonds”) and Its outstanding (ieneral Obligation Water and Sewer Bonds of 1989 (the “Series 1989 Bonds” and together with the Scries 1985 Bonds, the “Prior Bonds”), the City hereby determines that it is necessary and expedient to issue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475 67, its negotiable General Obligation Refunding Bonds of 1995 (the “Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of SI,910,000, dated December 26. 1995, which Bonds shall bear interest at the rates above set forth, computed on the basis of a 360-day year of tvselve 30-day months, payable August 1. 1996 and semiannually thereafter on I'ebiuary 1 and August 1 m each year, and shall mature serially on February 1 m the years and amounts as follows; Year Amount Year Amount 1997 $305,000 2000 $345,000 1998 310,000 2001 340,000 1999 330,000 2002 280,000 all Bonds without option of prior payment. The Bonds shall be numbered R-1 upwar ds in order of issuance or in such other order as the Registrar may determine and shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof not exceeding the amount maturing in any year. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HEN'NEPIN CITY OF ORONO No. GENERAL OBLIGATICV REFUNDING BOND OF 1995 Interest Rate Matiirin Date of Onmnal Issue December 26, 1995 CUSIP Registered Owner: Principal Amount: The City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, for value received, hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above, or registered assigns, without option of prior payment, the Principal Amount specified above on the maturit>- date specified above, upon the presentation and surrender hereof, and to pay to the Registered Owner hereof mtei e,st on such Principal Amount at the Interest Rate specified above from December 26. 1995, or the most recent interest payment date to which interest has been paid or duly provided for as specified below, on Februaiy 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1. 1996. until said principal amount is paid Principal is payable in law ful money of the United States of America at the office of ____, in __________,___________, as Bond Registrar or of Its successor as Bond Registrar designated by the City upon oO days' notice to the registered owners at then registered addresses Interest shall be paid on each February 1 and Augu.st I interest payment date by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name this Bond IS registered at the close of business on the 15th day of the month preceding each intere.st payment date (whether or not a business day) at said person's address set forth on the registration books maintained by the Bond Registrar Any such interest not punctually paid or provided for will cease to be payable to the ow ner of record as of such regular record dates and such defaulted interest may be paid to the person in whose name this Bond shall be registered at the close of business on a special record date for the payment of such defa, ited interest establushed by the Bond Registrai (.Additional provisions of this Bond are contained on the reverse side hereof and such prov isions shall for all purposes have the .same effect as if set forth here ] -4- During such time as this Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co , as nominee of the Depository Trust Company of Ne\s York, New York ("DTC"), the method of payment, notice of redemption and certain other matters are subject to the terms of the OperationaJ Arrangements of DTC as of the date of issuance of the Bonds as such Operational Arrangements may be amended from time to time This Bond is one of an issue of Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $1,910,000, all of like date and tenor except as to maturity and interest rate, issued pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and Laws of the State of Minnesota, including Section 475.67, Minnesota Statutes, for the purpose of providing funds to refund the redeemable portions of the City ’s outstanding General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985 (the “Senes 1985 Bonds’’) and its outstanding General Obligation Water and Sewer Bonds of 1989 (the “Series 1989 Bonds” and together with the Series 1985 Bonds, the “Prior Bonds”), and this Bond is payable primarily from and is secured by a hen on and pledge of the net revenues of the Water and Sewer System of the Cit>’ and from special assessments levied for Improvement Project No 85-1, but this Bond constitutes a general obligation of the City, and to prov ide moneys for the prompt and full payment of said principal and interest as the same become due the full faith and credit of the City is hereby irrevocably pledged, and the City w ill levy ad valorem taxes on all taxable property m the City, if required for such purpose, without limitation to rate or amount This Bond is transferable, as provided by the Resolution of the City Council authorizing the issuance of the Bonds of this scries adopted December 1 1 . 1995 (the “Resolution”) only upon books of the City kept at the ofTice of the Bond Registrar by the Registered Owner hereof m person or by the Registered Owner's duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this Bond for transfer at the office of the Bond Registrar, duly endorsed by, or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer m form satisfactoiy to the Bond Registrar duly executed by. the Registeied Owner hereof or the Registered Owner’s duly authorized attorney, and, upon payment of any tax. fee or other gov ernmental charge required to be paid w ith respect to such transfer, one or more fully registered Bonds of the series of the same principal amount, maturity and interest rate will be issued to the designated transferee or transferees The Registered Owner of this Bond may be treated as the ab.solute owner hereof for all purposes file Bonds of this senes are is.suable only as fully registered bonds without coupons in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof not exceeding the principal amount maturing in any one year As prov ided m the Resolution and subject to certain limitations therein .set forth, the Bonds of this series are exchangeable for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of this senes of a different authorized denomination, as requested by the Registeied Owner or the owner's dulv authmized attorney upon surrender thereof to the Bond Remstrar -5- IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to happen and to be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have been done, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form, time and manner as required by law and that this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the Citv’ outstanding on the date of its issuance, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory ’ for any purpose until the Certificate of Authentication and Registration hereon shall hav e been signed bv the Bond Registrar. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Citv’ of Orono, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed in its behalf by the facsimile signature of the Mayor and b>’ the facsimile signature of the City Clerk, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above. Dated (Facsimile Signature) Mavor (Facsimile Siunature) City Clerk Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication and Remstration This is one of the Bonds described in the within mentioned Resolution and this Bond has been registered as to principal and interest in the name of the Registered Ow ner identified above on the registration books of the City of Orono. Minnesota as Bond Reeistrar Authori/.ed Smnature -6- ,__J r ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ihc undesigned heeby sells, assigns and transfers unto ___________________________________________________________ (Please Print or Typc%vTite Name and Address of Transferee) the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints_______________attorney to transfer the within Bond on the books kept for registration thereof, T-m pow er of substitution in the fH^nises. Dated; Please Insert Social Security Number or Other Identifying Number of Assignee Assignee Notice: The signature to this assignment must correspond w ith the name as it appears on the face of this Bond in every particular, without alteration or anv chanue whate\ er Signature Guaranteed Signatures must be guaranteed by a national bank or trust company or by a brokerage firm bas ing membership in one of the major stock exchanues 4. The Bonds shall be payable upon presentation at the office of . in as Registrar and Paving Auent. or at the olTices of such other successor agents as the City may hereafter designate upon 60 days' mailed notice to the registered ow ners at their registered addresses Interest shall be paid by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered owners at their addresses shown on the registration books on each interest payment date unless other arrangements satisfactory- to the Bond Registrar the City and the registered owners of Bonds are made The C'lty shall deposit funds w ith the Bond Registrar at the time and in the manner necessary to provide for the full and prompt payment of such principal and interest 5 The Series 1685 Bonds maturing on or after January 1. 196? shall be called for prior redemption on January I, 1996 in accordance with their terms The City Clerk has caused contingent notice thereof to be given as provided by law and the terms of the Series 1985 -7- * • Etonds, uhich action is hereby approved and ratified. The City Clerk shall cause confirming notice of such redemption to be provided promptly after the adoption of this Resolution The Series 1989 Bonds maturing on or after Febmaiy I, 1997 shall be called for prior redemption on FebruMy 1, 1996 m accordance with their terms The City Clerk shall cause notice thereof to be given as proMtted by law and the toms of the Series 1989 Bonds 6. The Bonds shall be prepared in typewritten or printed form under the direction of the City Clerk and when so prepared shall be executed on behalf of the City' by the facsimile signature of the Mayor and by the facsimile signature of the City Clerk The Bonds shall not be valid for any purpose until authenticated by the Bond Registrar The Bond Registrar is authorized and directed to register the Bonds initially issued hereunder in such names as the Purchaser may direct The Bonds initially issued hereunder shall be registered as of December 26, 1995, and all Bonds issued in exchange therefor shall be registered os of such date, or, if issued after the first payment date, as of the most recent interest payment date on which interest was paid or duly provided for. WTien the Bonds shall have been so prepared and executed, they shall be delivered b>' the City Clerk in exchange for the purchase price and upon receipt of the signed legal opinion of Faegre«S: Benson Professional Limited Liability Pannership, as Bond Counsel, and the Purchaser shall not be required to see to the proper application of the proceeds. 7. (a) For purposes of this paragraph 7, the following terms shall have the following meanings “Beneficial Owner" shall mean, whenever used with respect to a Bond, the person rec >rded as the beneficial owner of such Bond by a Participant on the records of such Participant, or such person ’s subrogee “C ede <ii: C o shall mean Cede & Co . the nominee of DI C, and anv successor nominee of DTC with respect to the Bonds “DTC” shall mean the Depository Trust Company of New York, New York. “Participants shall mean those broker-dealer.^, banks and other financial institutions for which I) I C' holds Bonds as securities depof.itory “Representation Letter” shall mean the Representation Letter from the City to I) rC', substantially in the form pre.sented to this meeting, unless a Blanket Letter of Representations has pre\iously been filed with DTC, in which event “Representation Letter” shall mean such Blanket Letter of Representations as filed -8- (b) The Bonds shall be initially issued as separate authenticated fully registered bonds, and one Bond shall be issued m the principal amount of each stated maturity of the Bonds Upon initial issuance, the o^^•ne^shIp of such Bonds shall be registered in the bond register of the City kept by the Registrar in the name of Cede & Co , as nominee of DTC The Registrar and the City ma>’ treat DTC (or its nominee) as the sole and exclusive ovw'ner of the Bonds registered in its name for the purposes of pa\’ment of the principal of or interest on the Bonds, selecting the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed, giving any notice permitted or required to be given to registered owners of Bonds under this Resolution, registering the transfer of Bonds, and for all other purposes whatsi»ever, and neither the Registrar nor the City shall be affected by any notice to the contrary Neither the Registrar nor the City shall have any responsibility or obligation to any P;uticipant, any person claiming a beneficial ownership interest in the Bonds under or through DTC or any Participant, or any other person which is not shown on the registration books of the Registrar as being a registered owner of any Bonds, with respect to the accuracy of any ■ chords maintained by DTC or any Participant, with respect to the payment by DTC or any Participant of any amount with respect to the principal of or interest on the Bonds, with respect to any notice which is permitted or required to be given to owners of Bonds under this Resolution, w ith respect to the selection by DTC or any Participant of any person to receive payment in the event of a partial redemption of the Bonds, or with respect to any consent given or other action taken by DTC as registered owner of the Bonds The Registrar shall pay all principal of and interest on the Bonds only to Cede & Co in accordance with the Representation Letter, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the ('ity's obligations with respect to the principal of and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid No person other than DTC shall receive an authenticated Bond for each separate stated maturity evidencing the obligation of the C'lty to make payments of principal and interest Upon dclivciy by DTC to the Registrar of written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co , the Bonds will be transferable to such new nominee in accordance with subparagraph (0 hereof (c) In the event the City determines that it is in the best interest of the Beneficial Owners that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the ('ity may notify DTC and the Registrar, whereupon D'fC shall notify the Participants, of the availability through DfC of Bond certificates In such event, the Bonds will be transferable m accoi dance with subparagraph (f) hereof DTC may determine to discontinue providing its ,scrvices with re.spect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the C'lty and the Registrar and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law In such event the Bonds will be transferable in accordance with subparagraph (f) hereof (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution apparently to the contrary, so long as any Bond is registered in the name of C'cde & Co , as nominee of DTC, all payments with respect to the principal of and interest on such Bond and all notices with -9- J r respect to such Bond rfiall he mixle and gi%-en, respecti\‘dy. to DTC as pro\itied in the Repre^nlation Letter (e) The execution and deliver>’ of the Representation Letter to DTC by the Mayor or the City Clerk, in the form presented, with such changes, omissions, insertions and re\isions as the officer executing the same shall deem advisable, is hereby authorized and execution of the Representation Letter by the Mayor or the Clerk shall be conclusive evidence of such approval The Representation Letter (or the Operational Arrangements referenced therein) shall set forth certain m.itters with respect to, among other things, notices, consents and approvals by registered owners of the Bonds and Beneficial Owners and pavments on the Bonds The Registrar shall hav e the smne rights with respect to its actions thereunder as it has with respect to its actions under this Resolution. (f) In the event that any transfer or exchange of Bonds is permitted under subparagraph (b) or (c) hereof, such transfer or exchange shall be accomplished upon receipt by the Registrar from the registered ow ners thereof of the Bonds to be transferred or exchanged and appropriate instruments of transfer to the permitted transferee m accordance with the provisions of paragraph 8 hereof 8. As long as any of the Bonds issued hereunder shall remain outstanding, the City shall maintain and keep at the ofTice of the Bond Registrar an office or agency for the payment of the principal of and interest on such Bonds, as m this Resolution provided, and for the registration and transfer of such Bonds, and shall also keep at said office of the Bond Registrar books for such registration and transfer Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond at the office of the Bond Registrar with a written instrument of transfer satisfactoiy to the Bond Registrar, duly e.xecuted by the registered owner or the owner's duly authorized attoiney. and upon payment of any tax, fee or other gov ernmental charge required to be paid w ith respect to such transfer, the C ity shall execute and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more fuliv regi.stercd Bonds of the same series, of any authorized denominations and of a like aggregate principal amount, interest rate and maturity I he Bonds, upon surrender thereof at the office of the Bond Registrar, may, at the option of the registered owner thereof, be exchanged for an equal aggregate principal amount of Bonds of the .same maturity and intere.st rate of any authorized denominations In all ca.ses in which the privilege of exchanging Bonds or transferring fully registered Bonds is exercised, the City shall execute and the Bond Registrar shall deliver Bonds in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution For eveiy- such exchange or transfer of Bonds, whether temporary or definitive, the City or the Bond Registrar may make a charge sufficient to remiburse it for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid w ith respect to such exchange or trimsfer, which sum or sums shall be paid b\ the per.son requesting such exchange or transfer as a condition precedent to the exerci.se of the privilege of making such exchange or tran.sfer Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, the cost of -10- preparing each new Bond upon e«:h exchange or transfer, and any other expenses of the City or the Bond Registrar incurred in connection therewith (except any applicable tax, fee or other governmental charge) shall be paid by the City The City and the Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to make any such exchange or transfer of Bonds during the fifteen (15) days next preceding the date of redemption in the case of a proposed redemption of Bonds or to make any transfer during the fifteen (15) days next preceding amy February 1 or August 1 interest payment date. 9. Interest on any Bond which is payable, and is punctually paid or duly provided for, on an>' interest payment date shall be paid to the person in whose name that Bond (or one or more Bonds for w hich such Bond was exchanged) is registered at the close of business on the 15th day of the month preceding such interest pay ment date Any interest on anv Bond which is payable, but is not punctually patd or duly provided for, on any interest payment date shall forthw ith cease to be payable to the registered holder on the relevant regular record date solely by virtue of such holder having been such holder, and such defaulted interest may be paid by the City in any lawful manner, if, after notice given by the City to the Bond Registriir of the proposed payment pursuant to this paragraph, such pay ment shall be deemed practicable by the Bond Registrar Subject to the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, each Bond delivered under this Resolution upon transfer of or in exchange for or in lieu of any other Bond shall cany all the rights to interest accrued and unpaid, and to accrue, which were carried by such other Bond and each such Bond shall bear interest from such date such that neither gain nor loss in interest shall result from such transfer, exchange or substitution 10 As to any Bond, the City and the Bond Registrar and their respective successors, each in its discretion, may deem and treat the person in whose name the same for the time being shall be legistered as the absolute owner thereof for all purposes and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar nor their respective successors shall be affected by any notice to the contrary Payment of or on account of the principal of any such Bond shall be made only to or upon the order of the registered owner thereof, but such registration may be changed as above provided All such payments shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon such Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid If lit) 1 he proceeds of the Bonds herein authorized, together with amounts on deposit in the debt service accounts for the Prior Bonds, arc hereby appropriated and shall be applied to the redemption of the Series 1989 Bonds on February 1, 1990 and the Series 1985 Bonds on January I, 1996 All tuture collections of special assessments for Improvement Project No 85-1 (the “lmpro\ement”) are hereby irrevocably appropriated and pledged to the payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds herein authorized and shall be deposited when collected m the Water and Sewer Bond Account described below- -11- r! « (b) The City has heretofore established a Water and Sewer System Fund (the Water and Sewer Fund ) together with certain accounts therein, including a VV'ater and Sewer Bond Account, for the purpose of accounting for revenues of the VV'ater and Sewer System, expenses of operation, and the payment of bonds heretofore issued From the net revenues of the WatCT and Sewer System, there shall be credited to the Water and Sewer Bond Account amounts sufficient, together with collections of special assessments for the Improvement, to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds w hen due and payable (c) After making the required payments into the Water and Sewer Bond Account, all remaining net revenues in the Water and Sewer Fund shall be used for improvements, extensions, reconstruction or additions to the VV'ater and Sewer System, and to redeem outstanding obligations pa> able from the net revenues of the Water and Sewer System, or to the extent authonzed by the City Council for an>- other lawful purpose, provided that the City Council shall first determine that the moneys and investments remaining m said fund and net revenues trom collections of such charges and special assessments for the Improvement in succeeding years will be in amounts and available at times sufficient to provide for all remaining installments of principal and interest on the Bonds and any additional obligations payable therefrom and a sum at least 5% in excess thereof If the moneys and investments credited to the VV'ater and Sewer Bond Account shall be or become insufficient to pay principal and interest on the Bonds (and any additional obligations authorized hereby), any moneys m the General Fund of the City shall be credited to the VV'ater and Sew er Bond Account to the extent of such deficiency and the amount so credited shall thereafter be reimbursed first from special assessments for the Improvement, and next from the net revenues of the VV'ater and Sew er System (d) It is hereby estimated, found and determined that the said collections of net revenues derived from the VV atei and Sewer System, together with the special assessments for the Improvement, will be sufficient to pay when due principal of and interest on the Bonds and a sum at least 5% m excess thereof, and no tax levy will be required for such payment; but the said Bonds shall be the general obligation of the City, and the City ’ will levy a general ad v alorem tax for the payment of the principal thereof and interest thereon w henev er it may appear necessary'm order to prov ide for the full and timely payment thereof 12 1 he Bonds and any obligations hereafter issued payable from the .special asse.ssments for the Improv ement and the net rev enues of the Water and Sew er System, to the extent authorized by this paragraph 12, shall be equally and ratably secured by a first lien on and pledge of the net revenues of the Water and Sewer System and the special assessments for the Improv ement, without regard to Bond series, serial numbers, order of execution or otherwise The City shall have the right to issue additional obligations to be secured by a parity hen on and ratably payable from the net revenues of the VV'ater and Sewer System and the special assessments for the Improvement for the purpose of providing money for improv ements -12- J or extensions to the Water and Sc%er System of the City Without regard to the limitations provided by paragraph 11 the City may issue bonds payable from the net revenues of the Water and Sewer S>*stem and the special assessments for the Improvement; (a) for the purpose of refunding the principal of all Bonds outstanding; or (b) for the purpose of refunding the principal of and interest on outstanding Bonds not paid v\ hen due for lack of available net revenues. 13. So long as any of the Bonds are outstanding, the City covenants with and for the benefit of each Bond holder that: (a) The City will establish, maintain and collect such charges of the nature authonzed by Section 444 075, Minnesota Statutes, at the times and in the amounts necessary so that the net rev enues of the Water and Sewer System w ill be sufficient, together with the special assessment for the Improvement to make the required payments into the Water and Sewer Bond Account (b) The City w ill continue to own, operate and maintain the Water and Sewer Sy.stem of the City as a revenue-producing utility free from all liens on the property thereof and income therefrom other than the hens herein described or provided (c) The City will use its best efforts to comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the United States of America and the State of Minnesota and each department and agency thereof, including laws and regulations relating to public health and water and sewer quality The City will continue to use and operate the System to the extent such use and operation is not prohibited by court order or regulation, but the City may contest the validity or applicability of any law or regulation so long as the System is not thereby subject to unrea.sonable penalties or risk of damage or forfeiture. The City shall construct any improvements or extensions ultimately determined to be necessary to comply with applicable laws or regulations so that the System may be used and operated as a revenue-producing utility, and the City may issue additional obligations .secured by a parity hen on and ratably payable from the net rev enues of the System, as prov ided m paragraph 12 hereof, for the purpose of providing money for said necessary improv ements or extensions 14 The City Clerk is authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the purcha.sei and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of all proceedings and records relating to the issuance of said General Obligation Refunding Bonds of 1995 and to the right, power and authority ol the t ity and its otticers to issue the same, and saiil certified copies and certificates shall be deemed the representations of the City as to all matters .stated titerein. -1.3- 15. The Official Stalement relating to the Bonds, on file with the Clerk and presented to this meeting, is hereby ^proved and its designation as a “near final" Official Statement for purposes of Rule 15c2-l 2 promulgated by the Secunties and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, aitd the furnishing thereof to prospective purchasers of the Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed, insofar as the same relates to the Bonds and the sale thereof 16. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Secretary of the Treasury a statement meeting the information reporting requirements of Section 149(e) of the Internal Rev enue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code"), by the 15th da>' of the second calendar month after the close of the calendar quarter in which the Bonds are issued. 17. The Cit>' shall not take or permit any action that would cause the Bonds to be “private activity bonds” within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code The City shall comply with the rebate requirements imposed under Section 148(0 of the Code and regulations thereunder, including (if applicable) the requirement to make periodic calculations of the amount subject to rebate thereunder and the requirement to make all required rebates to the United States TTie City expects to be exempt trom the rebate requirements by reason of Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Code I he City Clerk of the City is hereby authorized to make on behalf of the City all elections that he may deem necessary and expedient under Section 148 of the Code In addition, the City shall make no investment of funds that would cause the Bonds to be “arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and regulations thereunder All terms u.sed m this paragraph 17 shall have the meanings provided in the Code and regulations thereunder 18 I he Bonds are heieby designated “qualified tax exempt obligations” for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 19. The City Clerk shall furnish a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, and obtain the ('ounty Auditor’s certificate as required by law. The motion for the adoption ol the foregoing resolution was dulv seconded by Member __________________upon vote being taken thereon the fidlowmg voted in favor thereof and the follovvme voted against the same whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted -14- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS ) CITY OF ORONO ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Orono, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held December 11, 1995 willi the original thereof on file and of record in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to the issuance and sale of $1,910,000 General Oblication Refunding Bonds of 1995 of said City. WITNESS My hand officially and the seal of the City this December, 1995 City Clerk City of Orono, Minnesota (Seal) Ml III -15- f ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVTMBER 27, 1995 ^ ^ T - tU;..C[LP.xETi?4G 0 EC 1 1 1995 f ROLL cmr Of ORONO The Council me! on the above date wth the foDowing members present; Mayor Edward J. Callahan, Jr , Council Members Gabriel Jabbour, JoEIlen Hurr, and Charles Kelley. Council Member Goetten was absent Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Public Works Director John Gerhardson, Asastant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Engineer Shawm Gustafson, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 6 48 p m (#1) ASSESSMENT HEARING - WILLOW DRIVE NORTH - 650’ NORTH OF HIGHW AY 12 INTERSECTION - RESOLUTION #3642 - 6:48-7:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Moorse e.xplained the purpose of the assessment hearing. The Willow Drive reconstruction project was discussed and approved at a prior public meeting. The projevt is now completed and costs and assessment amounts are known The assessment hearing is to provide the two property owners an opportunity to respond to the assessments and ask any questions. The two propeny owners were provided with inlormation regarding the assessment prior to this hearing. One of the properties is zoned commercial The other property is guided by the comprehensive plan as being commercial but undeveloped. Callahan asked what the general plan was based on Moorse said the assessment was based on the benefit to the property owners provided by the reconstruction. John Rice, Attorney for the Orono Plaza property, was present and reviewed the owner’s objection to the assessment A letter outlining the objection is part of the agenda item Rice said the primary concern was their lack ot finding a rational difference between commercial and residential properties in exempting one type of property and not the other when MSA funding is used Rice said he does not raise the issue of value as the property is undeveloped. Callahan informed Rice that he felt commercial properties gained a benefit over residential as the roadway is used by the public to access their properties allownng the commeicial properties to sell products resulting in profit. Rice said he saw the homeowners, the City, and ihe commercial properties all benefiting from the funding but did not see the rationale for assessing commercial property but not residential Callahan responded if both lesidenlial anu commercial gain a benefit fi oiii the stale funding, the commercial gains on top of that with a profit. Rice reminded the Council that residential properties are not assessed for state aid funding projects Callahan said the contribution benefits both but falls more to the favor of commercial properties. rr r i ♦MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27, IffS (#I - Assessment Hearing - Willow Drive North - Continued) Ifcirr asked whoe Orooo Plaza property is located and the acreage comparison between the two com. lerciai properties Gustafson pointed out on a map the nonhwesi quadrant of Hwy 12 anc W'lllow wliere the Orono Plaza propert>‘ is located Rice said the Orono Plaza propertv’ consists of 56 acres but was unaware of the amount ot acreage for the Often property, which he did say was smaller in ms. Callahan tnfomwd the public of the letter received from Otten v oicing his opposition to tl» assessment. Jabbour said the street was designed as it is because ot the commercial properties, and some improvements that were made would not, otherwise, be needed. Gustafson explained that as part of the Hwy 12 reconstruction project, the semaphore w as matched with the traffic to the south A right lane was added to direct traffic to the east to the Otten property, made wider, and for >"ear-around use to withstand the weight of trucks using the commercial properties. Kelley added that the roadway was designed to accommodate the future service road servicing these properties Gustalson said a median would be built to line up vrith the frontage road also Gustafson said the road design was such to handle the increase of traffic benefiting the commercial properties which, otherwise, would not have been needed Cliff Otten. owner of the other commercial property-, arrived at this time He noted that his letter stipulated a starting time for the hearing of 7 00 p m , which he showed to the Council Let it be noted that the affidavit of publication showed a starting time of 6:45 pm Otten said he spoke with Moorse about the assessment He was informed that the assessment amount was 25®/o of the total cost Otten said he does not receive 25% of the benetit of the project He added that Willow Dnve w as the only nonh-south link and only through street maintained in the area Otten said Moorse had informed him that the rest of W illow Drive would be improved at some time with no assessment Moorse was reported to have said the other project would not be as extensive and would require overlays about every five years Otten said if this is true, the cost of additional overlays over a period of time would reach that of the improvement under discussion. There were no additional public comments, and Callahan closed the public hearing. 1LMWirrES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETINC HELD ON NOVEMBER 27,1995 (#1 - ABessment Hearing - Willow Drive North - Coitfinued) Jabbour repeated for Otten's benefit the reason wh> certain in^rovements were made to the road due to the cotnnKTcial properties Jabbour said certain parts of the road were done at City cost, and the only portion assessed to these two commercial properties were costs directly related to their use Gustafson reiterated the project included two through lanes, a right turn lane into the Otten property, and a south bound left turn lane These irnyffovements were designed for the intense usage trom these businesses. The road is a collector road and was improved to handle year round truck traffic and increased commercial traffic. Otten responded that the road was built for more traffic but not just because of his business He gave an example of the high traffic levels into the Long Lake Bank but that road does not go anywhere Willow, on the other hand, is a connecting street from Long Lake to Medina Kellev- noted that if the other commercial property gets developed, additional traffic will occur Kelley said the mam issue is the need for the road improvements because of more commercial use It w as further noted that the heavier use of this intersection resulted in the stoplight being installed Otten said the stoplight was needed before the commercial development occurred Callahan commented that the reason Otten located his property at this location is because it is a commercial area. Otten responded that he was paying plenty already to be at this location. Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded, to adopt Resolution #3642 adopting the assessment roll for the Willow Drive improvement project. Vole Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#2) CO.NSENT AGENDA Items #9. 10. and 12 were added to the Consent Agenda Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINLTES (•#3) REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 13, 1995 Hurr moved. Kellev seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of November 13, 1995 Vote: Ayes4, NavsO. (*#4) SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1995 Hurt moved. Kelley seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Special City Council Meetinu of November 14. 1995 Vote; Ayes 4. Nays 0. MINirrES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27,1995 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS No representativ'e of the Pirk Commission was pfeseia PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS No representative of the Plamiing Commission vsins present. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMLNISTRATOR'S REPORT #2057 JAMES NYSTRO.M, 1745 CONCORDU STREET - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3643 Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution »3643 as resised, granting lot area, lot width, average lakeshore setback, hardcover and side setback variances for James Nvstrom at 1745 Concordia Street. Vote: Aves 4. Nays 0 (•#6) #2079 RICK PERRY, 440 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #364 1 Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution #3644 for variances to Rick Perry, 440 Willcv. Drive South. Vote \yss 4, Nays 0 (#7) SEPTIC SYSTEM CONFORMANCE AGREEMENT - THOMAS AND PAULINE BOUClL\RD, I860 SHOREIJNE DRIVE Mrs Bouchard was present GatTron reponed that the Bouchard property’s septic system was identified as non conforming in 1994. The ordinance allows the Bouchard’s to have until the end of 1996 to bring their system into contbrmity GaflTron said the two issues involved were the Bouchard’s plans for construction of additions to their residence, which triggers an earlier conformity deadline, and the property being located in a "hot spot” neighborhood under consideration for municipal sewer i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27,1995 (#7 - Septic System Conformance Agreement - Continued) At tl« November 14 Special Council Meeting. Gaf&on noted the Council detennmed that tte orooenv o^^ner should be aiio\^ed to oroceed wih construction aaer oroudina a letter of credit for the septic svstem upgrade and a signed septic system upgrade agreement A clause has been insened in the agreement to allow for reconsideration before the work is performed to evaluate where the sewer talks are at The agrwment has been diarted based on the standard devdooeis a«ieeineni with seotic uoui ade to be performed bv Julv 31, 1996 Gallfon suggested a review one month prior to this deadline to evaluate tbr possible sevvenng The letter of credit for 150^ . of septic upgrade costs covers any extraneous costs should the City need to contract for and complete the work Since this has not been done in the past. Gaffron said StalTfelt it should be brought before the Council He asked Council if the 150*o letter of credit is rea^>nable or it the letter of credit amount should be dilfeient than tlial ivoicallv leuuned ol a develooer Kelley asked how StalT would determine what 100®o of ihe costs would be tor the septic UDurade GalTron said the Bouchard's have uotten one bid 150“ q ot that bid jn^otint is approximately $14,000, Kelley asked if there was a din'erent charge trom the bank tor a 150®/« amount versus a 100% amount Mrs Bouchard sa;d the cost was a total ot S40 and did not diifer Detween luu-» and i . Keiiey; said ne teit it was imponant mat me Citv work with the residents in situations such as this Bouchard said she was eager to proceed with construction and would appreciate a decision be made on the matter at this meetinu. Bouchard said she was in aareement with the draft as w ntten She noted that the bank has a fax copy of the example of a letter of credit to aid in expediting the process Hurr asked and received confirmation that Mr Bouchard would also sign the agreement Hurr moved. Jabbour seconded, to approve the draft Septic System U pgrade Agreement between the City and the Bouchards StalT anticipates that a similar aurcement mav be used in the future for similar situations Callahan asked Barrett is he had reviewed the aereement Barrett said he had and the draft was taken from other examoles available, t was noted that no peicentage of letter was credit was noted in the draft but I50 “/o would be used in the final agreement Hurt said she was of the opinion that the City should use the normal practice amount of 150*^0 for the letter ot credit Vote Ayes 4. Nays 0. MAYOR/COLNCIL REPORT Callahan reported having attended the groundbreaking ceremony for the MCWD’s Long Lake Water Qualitv Improvement Project Callahan noted an upcoming meeting in Independence regarding ffighway 12 on November 28 from 9;00 a m. - noon Moorsc said he would be attending this meeting. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27.1995 (Nfayor/Council Report - Continued) Kdley said Gaffron has written remarks regarding the MPCA's septic regulations to pass on II the meeiimt Call^tan reported that Park Commission Chair Flint will be attending the DNR meeting regarding the Luce Line 1 rail. Callahan asked if the Council members w ere still in agreement on w aiting until January', 1996, to hold a public information meeting regarding Highway 12 considering the recent steps taken by the Highway Department The Council Members were in support of holding the meeting the first part of January, 1996 A date will be decided on for the meeting at the next Council meeting ENGINEER REPORT Gustafson had no report CITY ADMLNISTRATOR’S REPORT (#8) SEWER INTERCEPTOR RECONVEYANCE AGREEMENT Moorse reported that the Council had approved a conceptual agreement and parameters of the sewer interceptor reconveyance aureement last year The areas and easements for the interceptor have now been all identified and are in final form for approval Callahan asked what the cost would be to the City to buy back the interceptor. Moorse said the cost would be about $130,000 Moorse noted that the City originally built the trunk line at a higher cost and made use of it belore the MWCC took it over as an interceotor because it served several cities Callahan questioned whether it couldn't be repurchased at a lower cost noting that the Citv naid for the maioritv of its value and is now havinu to reoav a oortion of it. Hurr noted that the credits involved will amount to about $17,400 compared to $29,300 oreviouslv Kelley asked how this would atfect the .sewer budget Moorse said the repurchase is retlected in the 1995 and 1996 budgets Kelley asked why we should buy it back Moorse said it was needed as part of the City's sewer trunk system Gerhardson said Metro Waste has built a new interceptor and no longer needs the interceotor It onlv serves Orono at this time. Gerhardson noted that the new sewer line built by Metro Waste received considerable assistance from Hurr. I ! I mewtes of the regular orono city councilMEETING HELD ON NOVE.MBER 27,1995 (#8 - Sewer Interceptor Reconvevance Agreement - Continued) Callahan asked Barrett if he had roieued the agreement and received confirmation that tefaad. Ctfahan moved, Hurr seconded, to appro\^ the interceptor rccon\e>ance agreement and to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Vote A>-es 4, Nays 0. (•#9) DELINQUENT UTILm' ASSESSMENT ROLL - RESOLUTION #3645 Hurr moved, Kelley secoraied. to adopt Resolution #3645, providing for the collection of delinQuent charges for 1995 sewer and water utilitv services, and fees for the annual septic inspection and recycling programs N’ote: Ayes 4. Nays 0. <•#10) 1996 MEETING SCHEDULE Hurr moved. Kelley seconded, to approve the 1996 Meeting Schedule N’ote: Ayes 4, Navs 0. (#11) 1996 FEE SCHEDULE - ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 143. 2ND SERIES Moorse reported that the fee schedule amounts have been updated to reflect cost of living increases as well as havinii been analyzed with reuards to coverinu the Citv s costs The fee schedule was compared vsith that ot other cities and is in line with their fees Increases are seen in the planning and zomng application fees. 1 he 3® b increase in water and sewer fees is reflected in the schedule. The sewer connection charges have been upgraded, and golf course green fees have been increased. Kelley questioned the installation fee for lawn sprinkling systems He could not understand why a resident would need a permit to install their own svstem Kellev felt uovemment was intruding on a person by this fee and considered it outrageous that the Citv would initiate the oermit for lawn sprinklinu systems Kellev felt a oerson should be able to do whatever they wished with their own homes Gaflron said one reason for the fee w as because of the many examples of encroachments of or damaue to septic systems being seen from the installation ot lawn sprinkling systems The permit will enable the City to inspect to prevent such encroachments Hurr commented that lawn sprinkling systems ha\e been installed in the road right-of-ways in alot of cases Gaflron said it was also to prevent back flow problems and to catch improper installations before they occur Kelley said there were ways to do alot of things wrong, people should have the nght to make these mistakes, and questioned where it all stops i_______ XIINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOV’EMBER 27,1995 (#1 1 -1996 Fee Schedule - Continued) KeDey asked why the City was deleting the annual septic installers license fees. Gaffixm »td the State of Minnesota was takinu over the licensintt of the septic installers alon? with whers The City no longer has the ability to license them Kelley asked if the brush drop-ofF fee was eliminated because of the deletion of the program. Gerhardson replied that this was the reason Kelley asked if there were any rates for children for weekdays in the summertime at the golf course. Hurr added that'it was her opinion that the green fees should be cheaper for Orono residents as residents should benefit from Using in Orono She said this was especially true since reductions were given to leagues Hurr was asked how this could be done, which she replied could be worked out using the Minnesota drivers license Kellc> said children 9-14 are unable to get onto the course or have the ability to pay the tees. Gerhardson said he would follow up on this. Jabbour asked if the new water meters were able to ifansmil signals for automated meter reading. Gerhardson said they arc not at this time but have the capability to do so Jabbour moved, Callahan seconded, to approve Ordinance No 14a, 2nd Series, 1996 Fee Schedule and to adopt the Summaiy Fee Ordinance for publication with modifications to the charges for the golf course to come back before the Council. Vote Ayes 3, Nays 1, KeDey (-#12) FIRE SERVICE CO.NTRACT WITH THE CITY OF LONG LAKE Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the 1996-1998 Long Lake Fire Services Agreement. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. W (#13) POLICE SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH THE CITIES OF MINNETONKA BEACH AND SPRING PARK Kelley noted that the percentages based on population and market value ot property increased the police depanment contract costs but decreased the fire department contract costs and asked how this discrepancy could be explained Moorse said the fire service cost allocation formula includes number of fire call hours provided to each city. Callahan moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the 1996 police service contracts with the cities of Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach. Vote Ayes 3, Nays 0, Abstain 1, Hurr. I • «MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NO\TMBER 27,1W5 (#14) DRUG TESTLNG POUCI’ Moorse reported that a recent Federal regulation called for a drug testing policy to be in place for employers wih less than 50 employees bv January 1, 1996. This policy is required of persons in positions requiring a commercial drivers license Those in the City's employ affected are the public works staft'. The policy has been drafted and needs Council approval Moorse said he worked with other cities reviewing their policies and has kept the employees affected by the policy up to date Moorse said City Attorney Barrett has asked the City to review their policy that is presently being formed to make a comparison Kelley said he felt the police department should also have a drug and alcohol testing policy, which they do not presently have Jabbour commented that the policy was trigeered for those holding a Class B drivers license Kelley also noted the number ol people 'vho drive City vehicles and felt they also should be included in this policy llurr felt all City Staff should compiv with the policy Kelley asked Staff to come back with infromation on policies for these other personnel groups Moorse said the process vvouid be longer to gain the participation of the police department Jabbour said the groups should be separated as the policy for the employees m the public works department must be in place by January 1, 1996. Kelley asked Moorse what was the debnition of random testing being used by the City. Moorse said the names of those aftected w ould be selected by a computer-generated random selection process on a monthly basis to provide random testing Moorse said the random testing would be conducted on those while on the job only. Kelley stressed the importance of definitions and the need for strong communications with personnel considering the magnitude of such a policy Kelley asked that the City ensure understanding of th^e policy by those alTected Kelley said if these employees need to sign waivers that it be understood exactly what was happening in the testing policy Moorse said the law requires training sessions for both StalTand employees. Training sessions have beuun for Staff Hurr asked how the policy drafted by the attorney’s firm is different Barrett said it was drafted from the ground up for a variety of groups to adress constitutional issues Jabbour moved, Hurr seconded, to table this item for further evaluation. Vote Ayes 4, Navs 0. •• • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITV' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27,199* (#15) CITY ADMINISTRATOR SALARY ADJUSTMENT Callahan moved, Jdbbour seconded, to approve the adjustment of the City Administrator’s s^ary to $66,982 effective 1/1/95, and to S68,89<' effective 1/1/96. Hurr stud she was interested in doing a formal evaluation of Moorsc Since the Council e3^>ects formal evaluations be performed by Moorse on other City emplo>ees, Hurr felt the Council was being remiss in not expecting the same for him Hurr noted that the League of Cities surv ey compared salaries of different City employees and questioned the difference between Moorse’s salary and that of Mound s manager, who she said had more responsibilities, more time in the position, yet made $1,000 less than that proposed for Moorse Hurr said she was not necessarily in agreement with the step process used by the City Hurr said she was not comfortable with the salary adjustments, though, she did appreciate the improvements made on his performance. Callahan said the step system was different than that used by other cities, which makes it hard to make comparisons. Callahan said he felt the adjustment was satisfactory. Jabbour said it was his opinion that the City should use the merit system. Hurr said if he felt that way, the Council should look at that process. Vote; Aves 3, Nays 1, Hurr cm' ATTORNEY’S REPORT Barrett requested an E.xecutive Session (*#16) LICENSES Hurr moved. Kelley seconded, to approve the following licenses: Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Renewal Off-Sale Liquor Navarre Liquors, Inc. Steve Corl 3421 Shoreline !.)• ive Renewal On-Sale Liquor Jimmie’s Lounge Jimmie Holtz 3380 Shoreline Drive Renewal Club License VVoodhill Countrv Club 200 VVoodhill Road I rr MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORf»NO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27,1995 (#16 - Lkenses - Renewal Club License Continued) Wavzata Country Chib. Inc, 200 Wavzata Boule\'ard (•#17) BILLS Hurt moved. Kell^ seconded, to approve pa>inent of the All Funds Account Vote Ayes 4, Nays 0. adjournment The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session by Mayor Callahan at 7;53 p.m. Edward) Callahan. Jr . Mavor ATTEST Dorothy M Hallin, City Clerk II cmr OF ORONO public hearingTRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 29, 1995 COUNCIL KEETtu 3DEC 1 1 1995 ROLL cny Of The Council met on the above date with the following members present; Mayor Edward Callahan, Jr., Council Members; Charles Kelley, Gabriel Jabbour and JoEllen Hurr, Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Finance Director Tom Kuehn, Assistant Finance Director Chris Miller and City Clerk Dorothy Hallin. Council Member J. Diann Goetten was absent. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Curt Quady was present and stated he had no comments and left the meeting. Mayor Callahan stated the public would have an opportunity to make comments and asked Moorse to outline the budget. Moorse stated the purpose of this Truth in Taxation hearing is to provide information about the 19% budget that is proposed to be adopted and take any comments from the public regarding the budget. The General Fund Budget, which has the most impact on the tax levy, is increasing 3.17%. The 19% Budget will be $3,347,755. The tax levy that is required to fund the total 19% Budget is $2,080,840 which is a 3.21% increase over the 1995 levy. The increase in the tax levy is due to $40,000 being levied to begin an infrastructure replacement fund. Because the city’s tax base has increased significantly, the proposed tax levy will actually result in a reduction in the city’s tax capacity rate. It will go from 15.604% to 14.843% which will keep Orono’s tax rate as one of the lowest in Hennepin County. The impact of this budget on residential properties, based on the reduction in the tax rate, will actually be a reduction in the city’s share of the property tax of about 4.9%. This budget basically retains services, and the expenditures for services, at their current levels. It also starts to address some long term issues along with several current program needs. The long term issues are the infrastructure funding (roads, bridges, and storm water drainage) and funding for the storm water management plan. The program needs that the budget addresses are; recodification of the city’s ordinances, computerized mapping, employee recognition, update of the city’s pay structure, continuation of the multi-year water plant rehabilitation project, continuation of the sewer infiltration and inflow reduction effort and the continuation of a multi year sewer lift station replacement program. The tax dollars collected from Orono residents is divided among various taxing jurisdictions as follows; 1. 2 3. 4. Citv 11.8% Hennepin County 30.7% School District 51.0% Miscellaneous taxing districts 6.5% A breakdown of the 1996 Tax Levy shows the biggest portion is for police operations at 29.4%, then general government at 25.5% (administration, finance, central services, and recycling). Street maintenance is 11.4% and debt service is 18.9%. The debt service includes various • f I ^ CITY OF ORONO PUBUC HEARE^G TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 29, 1995 sewer projects and the city facility. Building Inspection and Zoning is at 1.2% and fire protection is at 4.7%. Hurr mated she thought the Building Inspection and Zoning Department was self supporting. Moorsc stated that part of the tax levy does go to the Building Inspection and ZorJng Department because their revenues do trot fiilly cover all their expenses. Hurr requested a breakdown of the Building Inspection and Zoning Department revenues and expenditures. Callahan stated the purpose of this meeting was to have input from the citizens and asked if there were any questions. Christa Nejezchleba, 2625 Kelly Avenue, stated she had a question regarding the Kelly Avenue sewer project and road reconstruction. She asked why the project had not continued. Moorse stated the plan had been to do the project this year but part of the project was to replace the sewer line before the road work was started. As the sewer line project work progressed it became more complicated than anticipated and that portion of the project was not completed. The city w ill continue the sewer line project and road reconstruction during the next construction season. Callahan read portions of a letter received from the Commissioner of Revenue which statctl the average state wide city increases in tax levy will be 6.8% although the State had recommended the cities limit their increases to 4%. Callahan noted Orono’s tax levy increase will be at ?%. Moorse slated the Council is required to announce the date and time for the hearing wtitu uic Council will adopt the 1996 Budget and Tax Levy. Moorse stated at the regular meeting of December 11 the bond sale has been scheduled at 7:00 p.m. and the hearing could be set at 7:15 p.m. or 6:45 p.m.. Motion by Hurr, seconded by Kelley, to set the hearing for the 19% Budget and Tax Levy at 6:45 p.m. on December 11, 1995. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Callahan stated this meeting is intended for information purposes and it is not the meeting at which the Council votes on the 1996 Budget. The 1996 Budget and Tax Levy will be voted on December 11, 1995, at 6:45 p.m. Motion by Callahan, seconded by Hurr to adjourn at 7:23 p.m. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST:Edward J. Callahan, Jr. Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk at 7.2% and fire 5 self supporting ction and Zoning Hurr requested a expenditures. and asked if there the Kelly Avenue ontinued. Moorse was to replace the vork progressed it /as not completed, e next construction lue which stated the ; had recommended ease will be at 3%. le hearing when the regular meeting of could be set at 7:15 for the 1996 Budget /s 0. 5 not the meeting at jvy will be voted on .yes 4, Nays 0. COUNCILMEEnNG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 11 DATE: NoviiB3( fif ITEM NO.: DcpartBent Approval: . Name Michael P. Gaf&on Title Assistant Planning A Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2084 Thomas R. McCune, 1473 Bay Ridge Road - Variances Resolution Zoning Dbtrkt: LR-IA. Single Family Lakeshore Residential. Two Acre - not sewered Application: Request for side setback variances and 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of two additions to e.xisting residence List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Planning Commission Minutes 11/20 95 C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 1 1/28/95 D • Memo and Exhibits ol 11/13/95 Discussion Please review the memo of November 13. nriefly, applicai.l proposes to construct two additions to the existing residence: - Guest bedroom/baih witli attached garage (existing detached garage to be removed). - Replace existing open deck with enclosed sunroom. The proposed bedroonvbalh/garage wing to be located on the west side of the residence will be at its closest point 10' from the north side lot line where the existing house is just over 14' from the lot line. A 10' side setback is common in this neighborhood, which developed in the late 1950's (30' side setback required). The other homes in this neighborhood all have attached garages, hence this addition will be consistent with the neighborhood. Since this addition is over the existing septic tanks, applicant intends to not construct it untiyunless municipal sewer becomes available to the property. The Bay Ridge neighborhood is one of the ten hot spots being considered for sewer, and the City has received a petition from all eight residences requesting that sewer be constructed on the lake side of the homes. Re^pea fcNT Council Actxm o Ps^ 2 of 4 November 29, 1995 Zoning File #2084 Thomas R. McCune, 1473 Bay Ridge Road The proposed new sunroom will be over the existing wood deck, which is 2T from the ^uth side lot lii» where a 30* setback is nonnally required. A ptwtion of the c.xisting deck wiU be removed, which will assist in minimizing the proposed increase in hardcover in the 75-250 zone. Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone is proposed to increase from 23.9% to 26.7®/o, where 25% is normally allowed. Applicant noted that the garage addition is located where it minimizes the amount of driveway in the 75-250* zone. planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this application at their November 20 meeting and on a vote of 5 to 0 recommended approval, subject to applicant not proceeding with the garage wing Edition until/unless municipal sewer becomes available to the property, based on the following findings; The proposed side setback of 10' for the garage and 27 for the sunroom instead of the required 30', is consistent with other development in the neighborhood. b.The new ’ garage addition will result in the removal of the existing detached garace which is located less than 3' from the south side lot line where current standards for detached garage would require a 10' minimum setback, thereby eliminating this non-conforming structure. c.The proposed location of the garage/bedroomybath addition in the northerly halt of the property' will minimize the amount of driveway hardcover in the 75-250 zone. The proposed sunroom is over an existing deck and therefore constitutes no new hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone. Further, the proposed sunroom does not encroach on the average lakeshore setback, and its location 27 from the lot line will have no impact on neighboring properties. The increase in hardcover on the property from 23.9% to 26.7% is being minimized by removal of a portion of the existing deck, as well as removal of the detached garage and existing sidewalk. Hardcover in the 250-500' zone of 19.9% where 30% would be allowed also is a positive aspect of the proposal. S<«P -rc Request for Council Actioo continued Pace 3 of 4 November 29, 1995 Zoning File #2084 Thomas R. McCune. 1473 Bay Ridge Road ____________________ f. Because the existing septic system is located in the area of the proposed garage/bedioonvbath addition, and because that septic system must remain in use untiL^unless municipal sewer is provided to the property, it is appropriate that construction of this addition be delayed until such time that sewer is available, while the sunroom addition will not be hindered by the septic system location. iSeptic System Upgrade Agreement Because the propcrt>' is in the shoreland, any request for a variance or building permit triggers the need for an upgrade of the septic system. The existing septic system on this property is non-conforming due to lack of 3' separation trom seasonal saturation zones. This is virtually identical to the recent request for a building permit at 1860 Shoreline Drive, which prompted the City to develop a "Septic System Upgrade Agreement" to be executed by the property owner, requiring a 150% Letter of Credit for the cost of system upgrade. It is assumed that applicant will request a permit for the sunroom before a decision is made on City sewer. Council may w'ish to consider a number ot options: 1. 3. Require that applicant execute a "Septic System Upgrade Agreement" and provide a suitable Letter of Credit prior to issuance of a permit for the sunroom. This will also require that testing be done to confirm that a suitable site exists. Allow the sunroom to be constructed without requiring such an agreement (this would seem to be inconsistent with the 1860 Shoreline situation, but perhaps is appropriate given the total neighborhood is in support of sewer "ASAP"). Delay final action on the entire variance request until a decision whether sewer will be provided to this neighborhood has been finalized. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation for approval, subject to the garaue wing addition not being constructed until sewer is available. Planning Commission did not discuss the "Septic System Upgrade Agreement" since that is a very recent administrative procedure that has been developed. It would be consistent for Council to require the AgreemenLl.etter of Credit before a permit can be issued for the sunroom (although the unanimous support for sewer in Bay Ridge may be a discerning factor), and it would be appropriate that the City not issue a permit for the garage wing until a "completion date for municipal sewer availability has been established, which date should coincide with the date that the septic system will be taken out of commission. li'Redpiett for C ouik U A i^^4of4 NovenAcr 29, 1995 Zoning File #2084 Thomas R. McCune, 1473 Bay Ridfc Road Further, api^cant is advised that upon final approval of this variance application, permits must be issued within one year or a renewal application will be required. The Building Inspector has requested a condition that the new driveway be no closer than 5 to the north side lot line (this is per Code, but it was drawn closer on the proposed site plan). The attached resolution reflects approval of the variances; requirement of the "Septic System Upgrade Agreement"/Lctter of Credit prior to sunroom permit issuance; and delays the issuance of a permit for garage wing until sewer becomes available. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Options for Action 1. Approve per staff recommendation, including requirement for Agreemenl/Letter of Credit. 2. Approve without Agreement/Letter of Credit requirement 3, Table for further discussion. 4. Denial (specify reasons). 5.Othe,. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by____. seconded by____, to adopt Resolution No. granting setback and hardcover variances for Thomas R. McCune at 1473 Bay Ridge Road. Vote: ___ayes,____nays. Isv ■ iir —iM' ~nfi r ■l■■nT■l ii—tr m i ■ n m.‘ I ~naii !r A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.23, SUBDIN1SION 6 (B), 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) FILE NO. 2084 WHEREAS, Thomas R. McCune (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1473 Bay Ridge Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City tor a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a garage./bedroomA>ath addition to be located 10* from the side lot line where a 3()' side setback is normallv required, and construction of a sunroom located 27 ’ trom side lot line where a 30’ setback is normally required, and a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision - and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow 26.7% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone where only 25 /o hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2084. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. J. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 20, 1995 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A.The proposed side setback of 10’ for the garage and 27 ’ for the sunroom instead of the required 30’, is consistent with other development in the neighborhood. Page 1 of 6 B. C. D. E. F. The new garage addition will result in the removal of the existing detached garage which is located less than 3* fiom the south side lot line where current standards for a detached garage would require a 10' minimum setback, thereby eliminating this non-contorming structure. The proposed location of the garage/hedroomhath addition in the northerly half of the property will mim'mize the amount of driveway hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone. The {»oposed sunroom is over an existing deck and therefore constitutes no new hardcover in the 75-250' zone. Further, the proposed sunroom does not encroach on the average lakeshore setback, and its location 27 ’ from the lot line will have no impact on neighboring properties. The increase in hardcover on the property from 23.9% to 26.7% is being minimized by removal of a portion of the existing deck, as well as removal of the detached garage and existing sidewalk. Hardcover in the 250-500' zone of 19.9% where 30% would be allowed also is a positive aspect of the proposal. Because the existing septic system is located in the area of the proposed garage/bedroombatii addition, and because that septic system must remain in use uniil/unless municipal sewer is provided to the property, it is appropriate that construction ot this addition be delayed until such time that sewer is available, while the sunroom addition will not be hindered by the septic system location. 4.The City Council has considered lliis application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by Ciiy staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessaiy to alle\iate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is ncccssar>' to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23 Subdivision 6 (B) to allow a side setback of 10’ lor the garauehedroom^ath addition and a side setback of 27 for the sunroom addition, where jO side setbacks are normally required, and grants a variance to Sections 10.22. Subdivision 2 Md 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone at 26.7 /o where only 25°/o hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1.Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone shall not exceed 5.425 s.t. or 26.7% per the hardcover schedule and diagram attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. All hardcover to be removed in the existing deck area shall be removed prior to footing inspection for the new sunroom. Occupancy of the new earage/bedroom/'bath addition shall not occur until the existing detached garage, blacktop drivewav and sidewalk have been removed. Applicant is advised that any future proposals for hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone will require a variance application, and might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover, resulting in no hardcover increase. The new driveway to be located along the north lot line shall be constructed no closer than 5 ’ from the nortli lot line to allow for snow storage, etc. 3.A permit for the garage/bedrooru'bath addition shall not be issued by the City until such time that municipal sewer is available for connection to tlie property. Paee 3 of 6 TtfUdTumiltl III i 4, 5. 6. 7. A construction permit f(5f the surtroom shall not be issued until one of the following occurs: a. Applicant executes a "Septic System Upgrade Agreement", provides the required Letter of Credit, and provides septic testing and design information to confirm that the septic system can and will be upgraded in a timely marmer absent the installation of municipal sewer; or b.The City Council has ordered the installation of municipal sewer to serv'e the property; or c. A new conforming septic system has been installed on the property. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (December 11, 1996). 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. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 4 of 6 r- Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of Decembci. 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Propert)' Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foreuoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day ot December 199^ bv Edvvard J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk ot the City of Orono', a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Paee 5 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 arai 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 i . 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, per«^ . ally appeared known to me to be the i-^rsonts) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NO rARY PUBLIC Page 6 of 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (« - #2083 B«nice Zumbusch - Continued) Peterson snid the decking needs to be redone. He noted the goal was to get a reduction in hardcover. espedaUv in the 0-75* zone, but the City Engineers recommCTdation would be required. Mabusth remarked that the plastic removal would result in a 5. # reducuon in the 0-75’ setback area. Ttere were no public comments. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve application #2083 for the replacement of the deck with the plastic as preciously described be removed and by the V inspection on the west side be removed in the 0-75’ zone .t recommended by the Engineer. Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#10) #2084 THOMAS R. MCCUNE, 1473 BAY RIDGE RO.AD - V ARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING • 10:27-10:32 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and .Aifidavit ot Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Gafhon reported that the property under review is located on Bay f® lot widths are typical. The lot is 115’ as measured parallel to the lake The located in the 2 acre zoning, but the average lot size in this neighborhood is 1 acre This orooertv is 84 acre The proposal is for two additions requinng variances tor the side Ltback and hardcover The applicants plan to replace the existing deck with a sun-oom 30’ is required for this side setback, and the existing deck and proposed sunroom are at 27’ Sunroom location is constrained by a window is located to the north. It is po^ible to narrow the sunroom to meet the side setback cf 30’ The room addition and attached aaraue to the north side requires a 30’ setback and is proposed at 10’ The existing house is atl4 ’ The existimz driveway would be relocated The existing garage and apron would be removed The garage addition will be over the existing septic system, hence, this project must wait until sewer is brought to the neighborhood. Gafi'ron reported that the hardcover e.xisting in the 75-250’ zone would increase from '>3 9^/0 to ^6 T/o for a 1.1% variance where 25»/o is allowed. The hardcover in the -50- 500’ zone Is under the 30% allowable. The only hardcover existing in the 0-75’ is a stairway located in the Co Rd 51 right-ot-way. MeC.-ne said it was oriuinallv their thought to have a sunroom continuing along the south line ot the house about from the lot line, but it was slid to the nonh because of the setback. Because of the lake views and the way the houses in the area sit on the lots, McCune olaced the sunroom where proposed. McCune said by placing the garage addiiion as proposed to the west, it minimizes the hardcover in the 75-250’ zone MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONMSSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20.1995 (#12 - #20S4 Thomas McCune - Continued) Lindoutst received confirnution to his question that the septic system is under the DTOPOsed garage. McCune noted that aU 8 homeov-ners in the area signed up tor sevver which is hoped will occur next year. The plan is to wait to do the improvements unti e sewer is completed. This is part of the whole plan Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #20S4 with the reserx^ation that the project not proceed with the garage construction until mumcipal sewer is avaiiame. There were no public comments Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #208^ ROBERT AND JANICE CALLAN, 2915 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.TARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:32-10.,,9 P.M. yjie Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit ot Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application was for a conditional use pertitit and variance to create a 6000 s f open water .area in .a designated wetUnd of 1 .acre size The propeily would have over 2 acres of dry contiguous buildablc land. Mabusth noted that the City has a conservation and flowage easement over the area. Mabusth reviewed the codes, specifically 10 55 where amendments would 10 56 which lists the functional entities that all w etlands provide and should retam. Of the 6 ftmaional qualities listed, Mabusth said there would be no impact on #5 regarding shoreline or bank stabilization, but had no information on #3. regarding tish a^d wildlife habitat Mabusth said the issue is that the code discourages having any prohibition in code 10.55 Mabusth said the City Engineer and DNR had no problem with the proposal as long as cenain standards were met Replacement would be asked for base and bank levels (-.-5 Zres) The type 2 wetlands should be replaced for wildlife habitat. Mabusth said she saw a problem with other residents of the 7 residential lots in the area asking tor the same type of pond. The application was being review ed by the DNR and MCWD Mark Gronberg said he checked with Kristen George, who is awaiting City's decision. George was said to have no problem with the excavation in the wetland. He noted that the Corp of Engineers still needed to approve the application. He also noted that the ’vetland has become larger after losing the fanning in the area. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Boi 64 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE R0S4 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 11/28 ^95 TO: Thomas R. McCune 2150 Shevlin Dnve Wayzata, NfN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINSTDATE OF MEETING: 11/20/9S Planning Commbsion recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Subject to not proceeding with garage/bedroom addition undl municipal sewer is available. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Citv Council Monday, December 11, 1995; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the otHcial Planning Commission minutes, they are available from die Cit>’ Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. /O. To: From: Date: Chair Steve Pelereoo Md Oroeo Planning Commission Member* Ron Moorse, City Administnior Michael P. Gaflroo, Assistant Planning & Zoning Admmistrator November 13, 1995 Sabjcct: #2084 Thomas R- hfcCune, 1473 Bay Ridge Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoniag District: LR-1 A. Single Family Lakeshore Residential. Tnvo Acre AppUcation: Request for side setback variances and 75-25(y hardcover vwance tor construction of nvo additions to existing residence. List of Exhibits A • B' • C • D - E - F - G - H - I • J - K - L • M - N - Application Letter of Request Plat Map Property Owners' List Adjacent Owner Acknowledgements letters of Support Site Plan Survey with ProposaLllardcover Depiction Corrected Survey Proposed Floor Plan Llevations Photos Neighborhood LayoutTopography Hardcover Calculations Lot Coverage Calculations Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.23, Subd. 6 (B): Side setback required « 30' for praicipal structure and attached additions. 2. Section 10.22. Subd. 2'10.56. Subd. 16 (L): 75-250’ hardcover limited to 25% Pertinent Facts 1, Lot area (excluding County Road 15 right-of-way and Bay Ridge Road private right-of- way): 36.500 s.r. or 0.84 acre + Lot width: 100' (115’ as measured parallel to lake) ! r ?'■ Zonii^ File #2084 Novoaber 13,1995 Pate2 2,Sye letbacks: ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED VARIANCE 3. Existing detacboi garage 2.2 ’(to be removed)10'— Existing house (N. end)i4.r (no change)30'— Propo»d Gar/BR Addition 10’30 ’W (N. side) Existing house, S. end 16.8’(no change)30 ’mm E.xisting Deck/ProposedI 2T 27 30 ’y SuTJoom (E. side) Hardcover; EXISTLNG PROPOSED allow ED variance 0-75’0%0«4 054 — 75-250’23.9%26.T*/.25"/.1.7% ZSC-SOC 19.4%19.9%30*/.— Ducussion Applicants recently purchased this residence and propose two specific additions: - Guest bedrwnx'bath with attached garage (existing detached garage to be removed). - Replace existing open deck with enclosed sunroom. This neighborhood was developed in the late 1950 ’s/'early 1960 ’s, and the lots average 100' in width, ranging from one-half to one acre in area. 1 he 30 ’ required side setbacks of the two acre LR-1A zone result in most ot the existing homes being non-conforming, since they were built typically with 10' side setbacks when the zoning allowed that to occur. The proposed attached garage/guest bedroom wing will at its closest point be 10' from the north side lot line where the existing house is slightly over 14' from the lot line. The addition is perpendicular to the house and therefore not parallel to the lot line, since all of the houses in this n< ighbo hood iire slightly angled to take advantage of lake views. Applicant correctly notes that a detached garage could be located as near as 10' to the side lot line, although that would not be in keeping with the neighborhood. This proposal will eliminate the last remaining detached garage in the neighborhood. Zoning Fik #2084 November B, 1995 Pige3 The gangeybedroom addition wll be done concurrently with interior remodeling of the bedroom end of the house. \Mxilc the 26 ’ x 43' addition could technically be relocated to meet the 30* side setback requirements, it wuuld not be in keeping with the layout of the existing house. The 18* X 24' sunroom addition takes the place of an existing slightly larger deck on the lakeside of the house. This addition will not encroach past the average lakeshore setback line, is approximately ISO* from the lakeshore, but is proposed to be located 27 from the south side lot line where a 30’ setback would normally be required. A variance for the sunroom could be avoided by reducing its width from 24’ to 21’, or by sliding it northward, although this would eiKroach upon the pool patio area and an existing window opening. Hardcover Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone will increase from a conforming level of 23.9^o to 26.7%, or approximately 350 s.f. over the limit. Although the degree of variance is minor, it is a direct result of the garage and bedroom addition, and is the typical increase in 75-250 hardcover that we see when converting from detached to attached garages on lakeshore lots. However, in this case the increase is minimized due to the angle of the 250' setback line, with the addition requiring the least amount of driveway in the 75-250 zone to serve it. The removal of the detached garage is a positive improvement to the property, and it can be argued that the addition is certainly in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Dependent on Sewer Applicant correctly notes that this neighborhood has requested municipal sewer, and is one of ten areas the City will be requesting for inclusion within the MUSA this winter. It is feasible that sewers could be constructed on Bay Ridge in 1996, although that decision has not been made by the City Council. Therefore, any approval recommendation by the Planning Commission must be conditioned on sewer becoming a reality, since, as applicant notes, the existing septic tanks ;ind drainfield are directly under the proposed garage and new driveway. Issues for Discu.ssion I.Can the sunroom be relocated or decreased in size to eliminate the 3' side setback variance'.^ 2 Is the proposed garage/guest bedroom addition in the most appropriate location given the constraints of the existing house layout, orientation, and lot width'.^ Zoning Fik #2064 Ndvonber 13.1995 Pife4 3. Will granting of tl» variazKcs ha\-c a negative or positive impact on the neighborhood? 4. Is Planning Commission comfortable in granting approval subject to installation of municipal server in the future, which is potentially likely but not yet a certainty? Staff Recommendation Please review the applicant's letter of request. Exhibit B. If Planning Commission concludes that the side selbiKk variances and hardcover variance can be supported by adequate justifications and findings of hardship, those findings should be included in any rrcommendation for approval. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as presented, specify ing justifications and findings of hardship, and conditioned on municipal sewer installation. 2. Recommend partial approval (specify). 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons for denial. 4.Table for further information. 5.Other. ri 'r ... s<2^ O .^*1 '^1111 m CTTY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial i^)plicitioa Fee S200.00 ^ 1 ^ (S50.00 per och additional variance) T3. -W' Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO T& (no cbange from origin^ application) .- Variance for non-conforming stnxmres S-OO.uu ,-; v-v *1 After-thc-Fact Fees (Double appUcation fee) n-ulVyCu-. proper^ r'TORMATION ^^0 ___________ Site Address---------p . frr------------------yL.,1-7 -Z3-3V Property Identification Number 1 on rcouired sui^ey. (Toa ^ Atuch legal description to application if no^c q (momli/year) Date Propenv Acquiied_. 1 eerCMBfri- ---------------------------------- 1 (do) also own the adjacent parcels of PresenflnrSf property; presidential -----^other (specify) ------------------- Zoning District: L 4 w «V • k *• r-ur*V U t vi < u. 1. w .’ • V OW’NER (if different than applicant) Nnme 5 __________-Name Address:Cit>-: Phonethome) Phone (work)_ Zip: r»r nmiTST Estimated Construction Cost S-----^a.oaodescription OF REQLE5T _____^ Describe request indetaU: (? ,L yo’ (1) y/^AEZZ. (T) Jlrr-ywuftp CAif\CC S/PS SST—^/>Cg ^ ---- V nX^dCop/9 d-/AA*f^^ ” (_attach audiiional sheets if neccssar>) zc^.l^/o /n VaVRlANCES REQLTRED width Hardcover ___Lot CoverageLot Area ___*-ot wiam ----- Setback: Average Lakeshore Other (specify) Front Side _ Rear _ Average Lakesnore Pl2>0\tS ---------------------------------------- compli^ce with Zoning Cod^quueme^ ~ de” (attach additional sheets if necessary) • • • • REQUIRED SUBMITTAES AH of the following information for vwir application to be c he mbmitteH hv the offplicatitMi deadline date in ocjg complete; 1. 2. 3. I 4 5. 6. Completed Application Forai ~ CertiTied Property Owners List of owners within 150’. labels and pbl map (you ^st obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Departmem of Finance. A-603. Govt Center, 348-3271). • i a.. vi,rHrrAvir ./ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy Top^pMc survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes m existing grade Le’^mpLed. In addU.on, provide one (,) copy 8-A- * • V. 7, 7. 8. you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Propem- Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yfius nnniication is not comnirte if the above information bps not beep included, rtS Lrebv^au^o provide all information required or requested by the Zoning I^m — agreed tfpav additional fees (s-atf time not covered by original fee payment "consultant expenses' incurred in review of this appUcation and cemfies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best ot his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date ?h'I^wn«‘here‘bv act^ and agrees to this application and further entry onto the pr'operty by City staff, consultants, agents (Toiimussion members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Vonlicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meerme Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday ot each month. must bt present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission ... If applicant is urable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements “tave allttJo^a^^^^^^^^ in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 •3 October 16. WS Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator ^ O Q 3.rr.“ I A City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: My wife and I recently purchased the home and property at 1473 Bay Ridge Road. We have lived in W'ebber Hillsin Orono for 23 years and all of our children have gone through Orono schools. The Bay Ridce home is the smallest of the eight homes in the neighborhood and is the only home with a detached garage. Originally, many of the homes had detached garages. We respectfully request minor variances in side setbacks and in hardcover to accommodate additions to the home. The side setbacks for our proposed additions are generously consistent with the side setbacks of our immediate neighbors for their homes to the corresponding property lines. Please fmd enclosed signed approvals from these two adjacent neighbors tor the proposed side setbacks and the specific proposed work. This request is consistent with the additions and setbacks on all of the other properties in the neiahborhood and would probably still result in this still being the smallest home in the area. Our proposed expansion to the east (lakeside) will be well behind the line connecting the points, closest to the lake, of the two adjacent properties as noted on the survey. The requested variances are: 1. Fast sun room addition Side setback of 27 feet measured perpendicularly from the nearest comer of the sun room addition to the south property line. 2. West attached garage.^guest bedroom addition Side setback of 10 feet measured perpendicularly from the nearest comer of the garage to the north property line. J.Hardcover Hardcover variance in the **75*200 foot zone from 25.0Vo to 2o.7%. If the actual water area ..f the pool is deleted from the calculation, since there is obviously no runoff from this area, the proposed percentage reduces to 22.S% and therefore no variance would be needed. i r i M$. JesBos Mabusth, City of Orono P^2 >./I / --.^1 As ncKed by Orono building officials, side setbacks of 30 feet (2-SKre category) are fiurly unrctiistic for 100-foot-wide lots. A hardship is created by the configuration of the lot in that it quite long (± 500 feet) and narrow (100 feet) and all of the homes are oriented on a bias tc the side property lines to generally parallel the lakeshore. Almost ev'ery hon.c 'a this neighbofiiood has expanded over the years and arc much closer to the side propertv' Ih^es titan the current 30 fo*3t rcstrirfion. We are extremely desirous of an attached garage due to: 1. Security reasons, especially for situations when a person comes home alone at night. 2. Extreme inconvenience during Minnesota winters with a detached garage which is a sienificant distant from the residence. 3. The existing garage is too small and was damaged by a tornado at one time and is in need of repair. The bedroom/garage addition is proposed on the northwest end of tne home as opposed to the southwest to minimize hardcover in the “75-200 foot zone.*’ This happens to be where the existing drain field is located. Since the Bay Ridge neighborhooc has . oted unanimously to petition for city sewer. I’m assumin' municipal sewer will occur in the relative near future and we will wait for this building addition until sewer is in place, which will hopefully be before the end of 1996. The existing garage and driveway w-ill be removed. The existing garage is just two feet from the south property line! The garage/bedroom addition will be shielded from the Johnson property to the north by large, existing pine trees. The neighbor to the south (Kerber) will be delighted to have the detached garage removed, which is very close to his property’. As I understand the regulations, I could build a double or triple detached garage structure with a 10 foot side setback. This would clearly be more objectionable to all my neighbors than my proposed plan. The additions will be no higher than the e.xisting structure and will be tastefully designed, utilizing the same materials, i.e. brick on the bedroom/garage addition. The sun room will be constructed utilizing insulated glass units possessing a high insulating value. It is our plan to take t’ . bedroom area of the existing home, which consists of three very small ’ drooms and two .iall bathrooms, and make this into a single master suite and master bath. With the addition of the guest bedroom and bath, this will result in the home having two bedrooms and two bathrooms (.as opposed to three bedrooms and two bathrooms now), with the possibility of adding a third bathroom in the basement. jj, n\ ^.ti Ms. Jeanne Mabusth, City of Orono Page 3 i 1 1 t ^3-26. To assist with your evaluation and approval of this request, please find enclosed: 1. n) j. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, 11. 12, 13. 14, A survey from Egan, Field and Nowak, dated September 13, 1995, showing the property address, legal description, location of all improvements, easements. Lake Minnetonka high water mark, and locations of adjacent property structures. Permanent iron markers are in place as noted. Site plans showing proposed additions and setbacks. E.xisting and proposed hardcover calculations and corresponding site plan with reference locations for the calculations. Enlarged floor plan drawing of proposed additions. More detailed drawings Nvill be prepared for building permit purposes. Exterior elevation drawings of proposed additions. A check in the amount of S200 for the variance application fee. Completed Vr.’ance .'\pplication form. Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledgment Form and an additional form from adjacent neighbors giving formal approval and consent to the proposed plans. Data Privacy Advisory form. Lot Coverage calculations for both existing and proposed conditions. A certified property owners list, labels and a plat plan from Hennepin County identify ing property owners within 150 feet of our property. Neighborhood plat generally depicting contours and other homes, created by aerial photography. Photos of the property. Plat drawing of neighborhood (Registered Land Survey No. 192) I would be pleased to furnish any additional information or meet with you to discuss details of this request. Current address: 2150 Sheviin Drive Wavzata, MN 55391 Phone: (h) 473-3245 (o) 287-5200 ■ATI la/ra/tii *•''i^<OMCR NMCV?u*TAMAAVM:etV»NMC/AOOR ■ft^'xSsrrr' - I • rs^/: NAHE f>1VkTA>»AVfR ■ ;^V^.NAI«/A00R W '*1 ‘ ‘ \.'.,‘ *i'.' u iR-li7-n 11 doot OMM AMMESS UNASSIflNi6 : miMOb tHTV REO RAIL AUTM . 9AK0TA RAIL INC U AOAHA ST N .MirCMXNSON HN BS3SO yV>> K.i -v; ^7<>.‘M0R aoor . i v;0IMER NAHi ;t/;*TA»AYlR Cvl'NAHE/A0DR UOl R orno h Sy. ■ 1^-' ! •'• ■’ •■• ' * iL" ■ ii,-‘. ;■. ■ ■ r.v 1. \ M 10-117*tS 34 0004 01441 RAY RXOOE RD H J JOHNSON A S r JOAnSON NfCHAEL J A SUSAN JOHNSON 1441 BAV RIOGL RO NAYZATA m 54391 30 .’ 10-ll7-h' 34 0007 OlMl BAY RIDGE RO FRANCES X SCHAFER FRANCES I SCHAFER BAY RXOOE ORNO W4 55391 NEttCFIN COUNTY FROFERTY XN^ORHATiaN SYSTTH FROFERTY OMCRS LIST30 10-117-13 33 OBOE02245 NORTH SHOItf DR KINGSLEY l| NURFHY JR KINGSLEY H NURFHY JR 2245 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA »M 55391 30 10-117-23 34 0005 01473 BAY RIDGE RO P C CORNETT A J P CORNETT PAUL C I JOArtU 4 CORNETT 1473 BAY RIDGE RD NAYZATA m 55391 4-V i * W. . • t •it’i .ift'*': ■ ‘ -'j-v . '-.t . W..; . • •• , F • • i . 1 ■ :»L\ ’ •' tVs^ «■'{ f m.irif:!-: €ir '■ I y ,A'V «'h " '• ’ '’^7 • •-i,ok' • .' §%iry. •,*!> K.* ' '*•■■ • . TOTAL BATCH 504 00007 REPORT NO. PAGESB 10-117-23 34 0003 01449 BAY RIDGE RO O 0 A 0 B HESTBY GERALD 0 A DIANE B NESTBY 1449 BAY RIDGE RD ORONO HN 55391 30 10-117-23 34 0004 014B5 BAY RIDGE RD U P RERBER ETAL URBAN P KERBER 1485 BAY RIDGE ROAD NAYZATA HN 55391 FI4SS40114 I CERTIFY THAT thE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION O^ INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPART»«NT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KN0NLE06E AND BELIEF. DATE lo-i-IS \ru'X^OMAryx^ * 4' ••; *»i.i .V*te‘ * 4j 3 9*. , •' to.y;: t Ay »;e.i . ;t.; ' » ¥»* At* •:V- I ’ • . i . .r'cF'« ■»■ Sj-' 1 - r •> . ^ ■ t- l"i* * '•»' r i i f-^ ‘ • « ". f . V' • ‘L *» ! ^ • I • I -V ' v‘r rii/♦ *!•*;.k:v" Ia I (we) Adjacent Prop.rtj- 0^«ers> Acknowledgement Form „f im.i [print iddrcs^ y AA iCHAei or proposed use of the property located have reviewed the pla^W the propose y - Aoplication No.________■ at /y rrJ Byiy ' .i.Mre,.rTve.nr I (we) am (are) not asked to I (we) understand that in executing this but merelv to connnn for the City declare approval or disapproval of the " i^ns and that the proposed neighbor’s Council that I (we) am (are) aware ot die unproveme-t pi project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner ................................................................................ ...............................................................*....................—...................................................... Date I (we)l/Ef^AAJ ------------------r ________cM[print namets)] ra/g<r HAV |g/pgg_^^ [print address] 1 (we) understand that in executing this ^'ci“ =:si r ““ project or use requires Council approval. fj. . / /r7/7 7,/dC~' -------- iperry Owner Date Date Property Owner AppS'^-rLiro"^^ m^ruulfk'zlnt 0«r^t days prior to me scheduled meeting date. e^'2- .11 O i A ♦ - ^ 11^' «:»*sr»V^ ^ 4^#V- Tt «, *• City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, NIN 55323 Re: Variance Application 1473 Bay Ridge Road 1 have reviewed the proposed plans, dated October 15, 1995, and variance request for the McCune property at 1473 Bay Ridge Road. The garage/bedroom addition is immediately adjacent to our property. The proposed addition and setbacks are consistent with other home additions and setbacks in the neighborhood and 1 hereby give my approval to the variance request. Name: t-U ft (l\h -Sc> lo w V, ^ r:>Siuned; M '^^ssasi Address: L Date: h e-3 ,U, On ,0 ij *-■ -*^ -« City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re; Variance Application 1473 Bay Ridge Road I am an immediate adjacent property owner to Thomas R. McCune at 1473 Bay Ridge Road. I have reviewed the proposed additions and associated setbacks and hereby give my approval to the proposed variance request. We, and I’m sure the other neighbors, would be veiy pleased to see the last detached garage in the neighborhood removed. Address; ^ *7 Date: ______________ Cb n f . /n f f. •, • __y VA 3? § ■3^2VA^ ci ? 3^ Vz-'77x^7 g\ S: a' / :_CA/ .14 ■fir --CORNER OF CONCRETE IS 1 FT.± FROM LAKE SHORE /V£W 0 \V _______ . -—————i^—^—^■■— Zo3 - iNER OF DECK IS U7.2 t FROM LAKE SHORE (S^ACf D^C'4- '7 5'^- "ZO^ Sl’ne' RlamNOTES: 1. The orientation of this Reni-?t<»r^d l.ond Survev N <C ^ -♦•sr4,zr f - 1\ »i 1 1• 1It V i'- ^ )O30 CXXM f Si ‘•'Ifti 1||^i®lo HC 8ii “t V-— L U I? tA 3 3(A.2 0& illfis g “ I o ’ 1 1 ft QB — f i •« • 1 1 f I • { ' i % «) 1 f4 OB ' « » « HI—*• m N V f Is < \ t I t 1 < I % I • : 'ii 6 ■ ti- 9 v> t >I •1] \ -. • 1 t ,✓ f3 I o « ^ GkI a; k crib -t \^ • •V- ... v!, -.Vj Tt ■» «>• fsft -4 wR i % M \ IL t >v ft 1^ 1 o V» i \ i ; I • I % <» 'N '< >ui >1 N * i Ji\u H Lot Coverage Calculatinns Address : 1473 Bay Ridge Road Propertv Area: 49.529 SF . (0D(:^S 1 ^ SDD .r i r, : Existing Proposed Lot Lot V 1 Coverage Coverage « V*,.. - •/. . ^ Home 1,755 1,755 CO Sun Room 432 “'V.. 3 Guest Bedroom 344 ir5i Garage 484 803 Pool Shed 50 50 Pool 800 800 Pool Deck Area 925 921 Totals 4,014 5,109 Lot Coverage 8.1%10.32% (Governing Restriction = 15%) i: I « Joo X (Hi * I‘‘‘bz 2-^ '* SPC? JL^£>^^CZS'J!r^^ eKiS'T’f'^C. Lx£>b i^v^C. - :^tT^. c2J^2 . 2^7.0 -r: . /Zy/2*7 -r. Pr^/^KiC^ (^2 X/r^ ^r r/ //;/ ■po:cC- JLJ^flZ^ co'j ' firff. CJ*^ Cc>£aa((Z^ . jG'L^ 12- /{f^ £> >" 2''2-' pACj-i-ifjO. jjjjj. J.^•)5> 2^?&r/c7^o--/11^ Prvc .r ^I7f\ ••i.— ii iii /Y\CCUAJ^- /*;73 fk)/iOhardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZOSEz (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____27 LeafA Width ^ E- Patio/Dcck i. X X X X X X X X X X X zW'/' 7 L IB T/i T-H - V”?^ -f-/7>V-S ’-77 Ofcic fcandrcgp# Uadtriaw- Bv Plastic 3 I 71___ -4f X X X A B____78 X'Zz- ________ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . _ _ . « r- > fwr BA *V«V4- pwr>POSED HAR yev6 nrovTR IN ZOVE S # i)A House ^ 5^X L£Cg:D CD Z y X So N Roo^X B.R«/t3ArM 2 ti.r X B. Garaee 30.3 X 2)C Dnvewav /8 -X X o n 5ide*.vaJk 30 X X (D E. Patio/Deck I Z- S X X II X 7/X OCt-Hv Plasric-3.^'__X )ec\(.JO 3^0 X 100 Z o i,ao X/oo a 7 __ Wid* 8 G. Other g". 3 X '/ total hardcover in zone total propk^a in zone ^ g^;3^o , .00 \ lyzr ' -r B zo^fz> ;</oo P V 13 * f Pool 250-500’500-1000’ 1.7 STS'S.F. S.F. *S.F. iai S.F. / ]o S.F.j /5-y S.F 1 s o S.F. c S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.i i*Z 73 S.F. j 5*09 !' UJ -*?S.F. *Hzc.S.F.\f\ ^ a a 309 S.F.N Ho S'o S.F. 1 V * ' ' I • N. /■ S.F. A Z O 300 _ S.F. B ^ I 9,0 %\^f7floPf ^ 2 3.9 9^0 LISS- S.F. S.F. ■ S.F. S.F. S(?3 s-v //V sy S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /S'S' S.F. S.F. S.F. ■yo Sf jr/3 S.F. 4^4^$* S.F. A a^h.3 0t3_S.F. B '7,2.. 6----VV/TW^U/T ^ 2<i.7 % W/tH Pool rr-T^-» u-' - •SIT^ ri A 2T>r7 1!5»> .n *v^ ^ rxi^ f ^ Decembers, 1995 Mr. Michael P. Gaffiron Assistant Plannii^ & Zoning Administrator City of OroDO 2750 Kelley Parki^-ay P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Item #2084 1473 Bay Ridge Road Dear Mr. Gafifron: 'P \\ ‘ *•« “A Hi'. 1*^•f,19S6 roUNCILMEEHNG DEC 1 1 1995 crv 0? ORONO I appreciated the Planning Commission's approval of my variance application on November 20, 1995, which was subject to “not proceeding with the garage wing addition until/unless municipal sewer becomes available to the property.” I was just apprised yesterday of the possibility that no building permits would be issued imtil (1) a “Septic System Upgrade Agreement ” is executed, (2) a Letter of Credit is provided, and (3) a conforming septic system desiga'tests are provided. In view of the fact that the Bayridge neighborhood is in the “Shoreland ” area, the fact that 8 properU' owners in Bayiidge have unanimously petitioned for municipal sewer and the high probability that municipal sew'er will come to the neighborhood in the very near future, 1 respectfully request that the above items not be required. It is our intent to immediately apply for a building permit to do interior renovation work to the existing home and add the new sunroom addition, before we occupy the property. If the city council determines that the “Septic System Upgrade Agreement ” and Letter of Credit are required now, I will comply. However, to require an alternate septic system (mound system) design would be costly (and probably academic in view of municipal sew er) and the soil percolation tests would be impossible at this time due to frozen ground. Therefore, to delay a building permit until “perc” tests could be done in the spring would be a major hardsliip and we would have to find alternative housing until the remodeling is completed. I believe Steve Weckman and you w ould agree that the large size and flatness of the lot w ould, in all probability, provide an acceptable site for an alternative system, if necessary'. Thanks for your cooperation. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL fiXEETING DEC 1 1 1995 cn> Of ''Rovo DATE: December 4, 1995 ITEM NO. Departnent Approval: Name Jeanne A. Nlabtisth Title Building &. Zoning Administrator Administrator Revimed:Agenda Section; Zoning Item Description: #1958 Louis Oberhauser, 2405 Dunwotxly Avenue, 3865/3877 Shoreline Drive - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement/Plat. Class 11 Subdivision - Resolution and Variances Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IC Total area = 36,500 s.f. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Addendum C - Plat N'ap D - Prope y Owners List El-3 - Hardcover Inventory Lot 1 FI-3 - Hardcover Inventory Lot 2 G - Existing Plan H - Hennepin County DOT Letter 11/14/95 I - Gustafson Report 11/13/95 J - Sewer As-Built K - Water As-Built L - Sanna'Withers Letter 11/6/95 M - Sanaa Withers Letter to Oberhauser N - N. Babatz Note Received 11/13/95 O - Current Plan of Replat P - Optional Plan Designating Shared Access at County Road 15 Q - Staff Sketch for Adjusted Lot Line with Shared Access R - Petition from Neighboring Property Owners Brief Review of Application For more detail on this review, please refer to the enclosed staff memo dated November 16, 1995 and the minutes of the November 20, 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission. Request for CoOncil Action continued Page 2 December 4, 1995 Zoning File #1958 Louis Obrhauser. 2405 Dunwoody Avenue, 3865/3877 Shoreline Dri\e The applicant proposes a lot line rearrangement and rcplat of three substandard parcels that originally contained four residential structures. The areas of each of the three existing properties range from 7,600 s.f. to 16,900 s.f. Proposed Lot 1 consists ot 16.500 s.t. and Lot 2 of 20.000 s.f. Applicant's oricinal proposal requests hardco\er variances within the 0-75' setback area for new construction. New construction on Lot 1 would encroach the lakeshore setback line by 6'. The garage addition for the new residence on Lot 1 would be located 10' from the street lot line. The existing detached garage encroaches 6' into the County right-ot-way. The residence structure on Lot 2 will not encroach the lakeshore setback area but applicant's development plan shows retention of timber landscape walls in the lakeshore yard also requiring hardcover variance approvals in the 0-75' zone for Lot 2. Lot 2’s residence structure will meet all other required setbacks. Hardcover excesses have been greatly reduced in the 75-250' setback area. For Lot 1 there is a 2,614 s.f. or 23.031"o reduction and for Lot 2 a 449 s.f. or 3.5% reduction, A sUTJCtural coverage variance would also be required for Lot 1 proposed at 15.6% where 15% is allowed. Lot 2 is proposed at 10.6“i. Refer to Exhibits P and Q, both the County (Exhibit H) and the City Engineer's office (Exhibit I) have recommended a shared access at Shoreline Drive as opposed to the use of a Dunwoody access for Lot 2 because of its proximity to the intersection of Dunwoody and Shoreline. Applicant shall prov ide an amended plan locating a shared access and the realignment of the shared lot line along the new curb cut at Shoreline Drive. Review Exhibit J. applicant's final plat must locate the municipal sewer line that intersects property at shoreline and along the west lot line of proposed Lot 1. The City Engineer shall determine required width of the utility easement. Mr. Neveaux. applicant's representative at the Planning Commission meeting, advised that it is Mr. Oberhauser's goal to demolish the residences as soon as the Cit>- has resolved the replat subdivision and variances to be granted for the new construction. If applicant proceeded with an immediate final plat, staff would recommend that applicant enter into a subdivider's agreement and post a letter of credit to assure the removal of structures no later than April 1, 1996. If applicant does not plan to file the final plat but to delay final action of the Council. Council may decide as a condition of the preliminaiy plat approval and conceptual approval of variances for the new development that applicant agree to the removal of the structures by April 1st and to execute a subdivider's agreement and post the letter of credit as a condition of preliminary plat approval. Request for Council Action continued Page 3 December 4, 1995 Zonimi File #1958 Louis Obrhauser, 2405 Dunvvoody Avenue. 3865/3877 Shoreline Drive Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the lot width and area variances that would permit new construction on proposed Lots I and 2. 1 he Planning Commission would not recommend approval of hardcover variances tor either existing or new improvements within the 0-75* setback area. The Planning Commission would not approve any encroachment of the lakeshore setback line for new construction on Lot 1. Planning Commission members opposed the structural coverage variance required for the new construction on Lot 1 finding that the lot line could be adjusted it there is a need tor additional area to support the structural improvement. Planning Commission members approved the much improved hardcover variances sought by applicant in tlie replat and also found no problem witli approving the street setback variance of 20’ for the garage addition on Lot 1 as long as doors opened away from County road and turnaround provided on site. The following variances were approved by the Planning Commission; 1. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B). Required lot area * 21.780 s.t. or .5 acres Required lot width = 100' measured at the OHW'L and at the 75' setback Lot 1 Lot area = 16.500 s.f. Lot width = 42' at OlIWL, 72' at 75’ setback L<2L^ Lot area = 20.000 s.f. Lot width = 84' at OllWX, 77 ’ at 75’ setback Section 10.25. Subd. 6 (B) - Street setback. Required = 30' Proposed = !0' Existing =" -6' Variance = 20' or 66.6% Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) - Review of hardcover variances. I ot 1 75-250' setback area = 11.350 s.f. Allowed = 2.837.5 s.t. or 25% Existing = 6.704 s.f. or 59.07% Proposed = 4,090 s.t. or 36.0a% Variance = 1,252.5 s.t. or 11.03% Hardcover reduction = 2,614 s.f. or 23.03% Request for Couricil Action continued Page 4 Zoning File #1958 Louis Qbrhauser. 2405 Dunwoody Avenue. 3865/3877 Shoreline Dnve IqL2 75-250' setback area * 12,880 s.f. Allowed « 3,220 s.f. or 25“/o Existing = 4,729 s.f. or 36.7% Proposed = 4.280 s.f or 33.23% Variance = 1,060 s.f. or 8.2% HardcoNer reduction = 449 s.f or 3.5% The enclosed approval resolution has been dratied per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either amend or adopt the resolution granting approval of the prelimmar>' plat ot the lot line rearrangement, subject to the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation. Council to determine if applicant shall execute Developer's Agreement and post Letter of Credit at preliminary plat approval or final plat approval. Council shall conceptually approve or amend the Planning Commission recommendation regarding variances to be granted for new construction on proposed Lots 1 and 2. Formal action on the variances will be acted on at the time of approval of the linal plat. It shall be applicant's resfxmsibilitv to provide amended development plans retlecting Council ’s conceptual approval of new improvements and access. Revised plan to be submitted to the City stall jO days before applicant files final plat documents. Council may either adopt or amend the variance approval of the Planning Commission and to direct stair to draft the appropriate vanance approval resolution to be presented to the Council for formal action with the resolution approving final plat of the lot line rearrangement. I Isv A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELLMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A LOT LINT REARRANGEMENT OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2405 DUN'W'OODY AVENUT:, 3865/3877 SHORELINT DRIVT. FILE NO. 1958 WHEREAS, Louis B. Oberhauser (hereinafter the "subdivider") on October 24, 1995, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval ot a lot line rearrangement of a residential plat ot property legally described as: Lots 1 and 2. Block 2, Townsite of Langdon Park. Hennepin Count)'. Minnesota (hereinafter "the properly"); and W HEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 46'^ 3^8 et seq. and the Citv of Orono's Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 20, 1995 at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on December 11, 1995, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application ot Louis B. Oberhauser, noting the following findings of fact: 1. Tlie property is located within the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zonina District requiring a minimum of one-half acre of area within each newly created lot. 2. The property eonsists of three substandard lots. Lot area and lot widths are as follows: Parcel A (western lot) Lot area = 7,600+ s.t. Lot width = 35’ at OHWL, 49 ’ at 75 ’ setback Parcel B (middle lot) Lot area = 16,900+ s.f Lot width = 34’ at OHWL, 63 ’ at 75 ’ setback Page 1 of 6 3. Parcel C (most eastern lot) Lot area - 12,000± s.f. Lot width - 50’ at OHWL. SO’ at 75’ setback The proposed area and lot widths of the two residential lots as a result ot the proposed lot line rearrangement are as follows: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot area = 16,500 s.f. Lot width = 42’ at OHWX, 72’ at 75’ setback Lot area ® 20,000 s.f. Lot width » 84’ at OHWL. 77 ’ at 75’ setback The property has been assessed for sewer and water and there is adequate capacity in each line to serve the two new residential structures. Access to the two proposed residential sites shall be via a shared curb cut at Shoreline Drive. Both the Hennepin County Department of Transportation and the City Engineer. Shawn Gustafson, have recommended approval of a shared access at Shoreline Drive. Three substandard parcels have contained four independent residential units. Two of the structures remain uninhabited and are boarded up because of their hazardous condition. One of the residential structures serves as a rental unit and the fourth has been demolished. The applicant has submitted development plans for the new residential construction on newly defined lots. Council conceptually approved variances for the new construction on proposed Lots I and 2 as follows: Page 2 of 6 A. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) 1) Street setback variance for Lot 1. Required * 30’ Existing * -6' Proposed * 10’ Variance = 20’ or 67®'o 2) Area variance for Lot 1. Required = 21.780 s.f. Proposed = 16.500 s.t. Variance = 5.280 s.f. or 24.2% 3) Lot width variance for Lot 1. Required = 100' Proposed at OHWL = 42' Proposed at 75' setback = 72' Variance = 58' or 58% 4) Lot area \ariance for Lot 2. Required = 21.780 s.t. Proposed ■= 20.000 s.f. Variance == 780 s.f. or 3.5% 5) Width variance for Lot 2. Required = 100' Proposed at OHWL = 84' Proposed at 75’ setback = 77' Variance = 23' or 23% Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) - Hardcover variances within 75-250' setback area. 1) Lot 1 75-250' setback area = 11,350 s.f Allowed = 2.837.5 s.f or 25% Existing = 6,704 s.f. or 59.07% Proposed = 4.090 s.f or 36.03% Variance = 1,252.5 s.f. or 11.03% Total hardcover reduction = 2,614 s.f or 23.03% P,age 3 of 6 2) Lot 2 75-250 ’ setback area = 12.880 s.f. Allowed = 3.220 s.f. or 251i Existing = 4.729 s.f. or 36.7% Proposed * 4.280 s.f. or 33.23% Variance = 1.060 s.f. or 8.2% Total hardcover reduction =* 449 s.f. or 3.5% Additional hardco\er reductions arc proposed in the 0-75 ’ setback area as follows: Lot 1 Existine =“ 166 s.f. or 3.33% to be removed. Lot 2 Existing = 198 s.f. or 3.49% to be removed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findiniis noted above, the City Council ot the City of Orono herebs approves the preliminary plat for Louis B. Oberhauscr of a lot line rearrangement per the survey dated October 9. 1990. most revised date September 29, 1995. by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg. Inc., subject to the lollowing conditions: 1. 3. Applicant shall be responsible for the demolitioa removal of existing structures by April 1. 1996. (Council to determine whether applicant is to execute a developer's agreement and post the letter of credit to ensure the removal cither at this prcliminarv approval time or at final plat approval). Thirty days before final plat infonnaiion is submitted to the City, applicant shall provide an amended development plan for both Lots 1 and 2 as set forth in Findings 5 and 8 aK)ve. The existing western access at Shoreline Drive shall be removed along with retaining walls located within County right-of-way at the time the new shared access is installed. Applicant shall obtain a permit from Hennepin County Department ol Transportation for all work within the County right-of-way. Page 4 of 6 4.Dedication of a utility easement over the municipal sewer line that encroaches the property along the lake and west side ot Lot 1. The City Engineer to determine actual width of easement once applicant has provided a preliminary' plan locating existing sewer line. Applicant to provide confirmation that former wells on site have been legally abandoned. 6.All existing hardcover improvements located within the 0-75 ’ setback area shall be removed at the time of the demolition of the existing structure. 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. 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 to reflect realignment of lot line for shared access at Shoreline Drive. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" along exterior lot lines and 5’ along shared lot lines. Drainage and utility easements need not be shown along lakeshore. Designation and dedication of a utility easement over the sewer line. The City Engineer to determine actual width of the easement. D. Naming of plat. 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. Page 5 of 6 B- The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. C. Signed and executed access and utility easement over the sewer line within the property. D. Execution of a subdivider’s agreement and posting ol letter ot credit to ensure removal of three residential structures and detached garage. Council to determine when applicant shall be responsible lor executing the agreement and posting the letter of credit either at preliminary a pproval or final plat approval. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due; S200.00 (based on 1995 Fee Schedule) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 11th day of December. 1995. ATTEST: Edward J. Callahan, Jr.. MayorDorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk STATE OF .MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of December. 1995. by Edward J. Calkilian. Jr. & Dorothy M. Ilallin. Mayor & City Clerk ot the Citv of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said inslniinent was executed on behalf of the Citv. Notary Public Page 6 of 6 TO.Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building A Zoning Administrator DATE:November 16, 1995 SUBJECT: #1958 Louis Oberhauser, 2405 Dunwoody Avenue, 3865/3877 Shoreline Drive Subdivision of a Lot Lirw Rearrangement/Replat, Class II Subdivision - Public Hearing Application: The applicant and owner proposes a replat of three substandard parcels. Refer to Exhibit G, Paicel A contains a rental residence. Parcel B contains two vacant boarded up residential units Parcel C is vacant (former residence removed). In the replat applicant proposes two residential lots that will require lot width variances and area variances. The current application also proposes new construction within the 75* setback area for Lot I and hardcover variances for both lots within 75-250' setback area. Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.02, Definition 43B - Lot width determination for lakeshore lot. Secti m 10.25 - Lot s’rndards for LR-IC zoning district - review of existing lot areas and lot widths. Required lot area = 21,780 s.f. or .5 acres Required lot width = 100' measured at the OHWL and at the 75' setback Parcel .A (western lot) Lot area = 7,600± s.f. Lot width = 35’ at OHWL, 49' at 75' setback Parcel B (middle lot) Lot area = 16,900± s.f. Lot width = 34 ’ at OHWL, 63’ at 75’ setback Parce' C (most eastern lot) Lot area = 12.000± s.f. Lot width = 50’ at OllWL, 50’ at 75’ setback Proposed lots Lot 1 Lot area = 16,500 s.f. Lot width = 42’ at OHWL, 72’ at 75’ setback I Zomng File tfl958 November 16, 1995 Page 2 3. 4. 5. Lot 2 Lot area = 20,000 s.f. Lot width * 84' at OHWL. 77 at 75' setback Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C-1) - Stnictural setbacks Lot 1 - iakeshore setback variance Required = 75' Proposed = 69' Variance = 6’ or 8% Lot 2 - structure will meet required 7r setback Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C-6) - Average Iakeshore setback, refer to Exhibit P. The new construction will not require an average Iakeshore setback. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) - Review^ of hardco\er variances. Lot 1 0-75’ setback area • 4,980 s.f. Allowed “ 0 Existing = 166 s.f. or 3.33% Proposed =* 270 s.f. or 5.42% 75-250’ setback area * 11,350 s.f. Allowed = 2,837.5 s.f or 25% E.xisting = 6.704 s.f or 59.07% Proposed = 4,090 s.l. or 36.03% Variance = 1.252.5 s.l. or 11.03% Hardcover reduction = 2,614 s.f. or 23.03% Lot 2 0-75' setback area = 5,670 s.f Allowed = 0 Existing = 198 s.f or 3.49% Proposed = 124 s.l. or 2.19% 75-250* setback area = 12,880 s.f Allowed = 3,220 s.f. or 25% Existing = 4,729 s.f or 36.7% Proposed = 4.280 s.f or 33.23% Variance = 1,060 s.f. or 8.2% Hardcover reduction = 449 s.f. or 3.5% -------------- I I,. 4 Zoning File #1958 November 16, 1995 Page 3 6.Section 11.03. Subd 2 - Definitions Definition 65C - Subdi\ision approval required when lot rearrangement involves lots that do not meet the stamlards of the zoning district. Definition 66B - Class II subdivision. The subdivision has been classified as a Class II division as it involves the dedication of new drainage and utility' easements along he newly defined lot lines and utility easements will be dedicated for the sewer lines at west side of property, refer to Exhibit J. 7. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Lot 1 Total lot area * 16,500 s.f. Allowed = 2,475 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 2,570 s.f. or 15.6% Variance = 85 s.f. or .6% Lot 2 Total lot area = 20.000 s.f. Allowed = 3,000 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 2.120 s.f. or 10.6% Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Addendum C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List El-3 - Hardcover Inventory Lot 1 FI-3 - Hardcover Inventory Lot 2 G - Existing Plan H - Hennepin County DOT Letter 11/14/95 I - Gustafson Report 11/13/95 J - Sewer As-Built K - Water As-Built L - Sanna/Withers Letter 11/6/95 M - Sanna/Withers Letter to Oberhauser N - N.Babatz Note Received 11/13/95 O - Current Plan of Replat P - Optional Plan Designating Shared Access at County Road 15 Q - Staff Sketch for Adjusted Lot Line with Shared Access I Zoning File #1958 November 16, 1995 Page 4 Status of Application #1958 The applicant's original subdivision application w’as presented to the Planning Commission at their August 19, 1994. The 2q>plication was tabled as applicant was not present for the review. After the meeting the applicant advised stall that he wanted to add a request tor hardcover variances for proposed redevelopment of the propertv ’. Applicant failed to proceed with the review of the 1994 subdivision application and has now filed an amended subdivision application that now includes hardcover and setback variances as noted above in the factual findings. Review of Amended Plan Access Review E.xhibits H and 1. both the City Engineer and Hennepin DOT recommend the shared access to both properties from County Road 15 finding the access to Lot 2 at Dunwoody too close to the intersection with potential for "erratic’* and "unsafe weave movements". Proposed lot line can be moved to the west so that the shared curb cut and drive can be placed along the internal lot line (review Exhibit Q). This will also result in major reductions of hardcover in the drivevvav areas now proposed at 1,750 s.f. in Lot 1 and 2,100 s.t. in Lot 2. The access as shown on Exhibit P in an earlier review was approved by the County meeting adequate separation setback from intersection of Dunwoody and County Road 15 and with the access drive to the County shop area on North side of road, refer to E.xhibit C. The County also asks that the most vvestem access be removed at the same time the garage and retaining wall that encroaches the right-of-way of County Road 15. The Countv- report asks for 7’ of additional right-of-way dedication for the County Road. The City Engineer in his report, E.xhibit 1. asks for 9 ’ dedication. T dedication would be consistent with a plat approved by the City in 1982 (Navarro). Shoreline Drive is classified as a collector road in the City's comprehensive plan. Collector roads require only a 66’ right-of-way- dedication. The dedication of the additional 7 would have a significant impact on the area of Lot 1. It would be consistent for the City to deny the County ’s request for the 7’ of right-of- way as it has in current subdivision reviews where City ’s classification of road right-of-way dedications conllict with the County. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining a Hennepin County permit for the icmoval of the western drive, garage and retaining wall. G fading^ rainage/Floodplain Review Exhibits I and O, the floodplain elevation is located close to the shoreline and will not have an impact on fumre building sites. The City Engineer notes in his report that the sewer line is approximately 8-9 ’ in depth and will not allow full basements without changing the site siunificantly vv-ith fill. The City has not been provided detail on the proposed new buildings. Zoning File #1958 November 16, 1995 Page 5 Based on the restricted or limited building envelopes the City may have to prohibit the installation of full basements. Applicant should be advised that filling of over 100 cubic yards of fill in the preparation of a building pad would require a conditional use permit. Applicant should also be advised that height regulations are based on existing elevations and not on final elevations. The City Engineer asks that utility easements be dedicated over the existing mumcipal lines that encroach the property along the west lot line, reter to Exhibit A. The City will ask for a 20' utilitv easement. V^ariances The applicant seeks approval of a lakeshore setback % ariance for the proposed residence on Lot 1. The structure is shown as encroaching the lakeshore setback line by 6. Hardcover reductions are shown on both lots. 23.03% for Lot 1 and 3.5% for Lot 2. There will be tunher reductions when driveway areas are reduced with the shared access plan. Applicant also proposes retaining certain existing hardcover improvements within the 0-75' setback area. Review Exhibits FI and O. 124 s.f or 2.19% e.xisting hardcover shall remain within Lot 2's lakeshore yard. Structural coverage for Lot 1 is proposed at 15.6% and 10.6% for Lot 2. Applicant should be advised that all accessory' structures and decks with railing will be included within structural coverage. Note plans do not show' future deck. Issues for Consideration Will members approve lakeshore setback variance for the new construction on Lot I W^ill you approve hardcover variances within the 75-250' setback area based on overall reduction or will new construction be limited to 2,838 s.f or 25% for Lot 1 and 3,220 s.f or 25% for Lot 2. Can railroad tie structure within 0-75' setback area on proposed Lot 2 be removed? The smaller of the lots. Lot 1, is shown at 2,570 s.f structural improvements and the larger lot is shown at 2,120 s.f of strucUiral improvements. Why is applicant proposing a larger residence for the smaller lot? Will members approve a structural coverage variance? 1. a. 4. Zoning File #1958 November 16, 1995 Page 6 5.A{^licant's plans of improvement do not show deck which arc normally to the lake side of residence. Is City to grant %-ariances for future decks? . . . Applicant should discuss this issue. Site Conditions Review Exhibits L and N. letters from adjacent residents elated over the proposed rcmo%al of the boarded up structures and maintenance of yard area. The City receives calls from local residents and nonresidents concerning the condition of this property. The property has existed in this current run down condition for over ten years. The applicant sold his residence this past summer (refer to Exhibit C). A condition of that sale was the removal or demolition of the structures by September of this year. This is a private matter and does not involve the Cit\\m The existing structures encroach the new shared lot line. Should the structures be removed before the granting of final plat approval? If not removed by final plat approval, it will be nece ssary to have applicant execute a developer's agreement and post a letter of credit to cover 150% of the cost of the demolition and removal of the .structures on the property. Prior to the application being scheduled before the Council for preliminary approval, the applicant should provide a written statement concerning his intentions concerning the removal of the structures. Review Exhibit B. the applicant has advised that he will be out of town on the 20th of November. He has authorized Jack L. Neveaux. on attorney and partner of Mr. Oberhauser’s law firm, to represent applicant's interest at the meeting. Recommendation To approve the lot line rearrangement of the properties located at 2405 Dunwoody Avenue and 3865/3877 Shoreline Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for the demolition and removal of existing structures prior to final plat approval. If Planning Commission does not adopt this condition, applicant will be expected to execute a developer's agreement and post a letter of credit to 150% of the cost of the demolition and removal of structures to be submitted with final plat submittals. The demolition permit must be obtained from the City of Orono for the removal of residence structures and detached garage. Applicant shall apply for a permit from the Hennepin County DOT for all work conducted within the right-of-way of the County Road. This will include the creation of the permanent shared access drive at the County Road. L. Zoning FUc #1958 November 16, 1995 Page 7 3. Upon an application for building permits for the redevelopment of Lots I and 2, future owners shall be responsible for providing detailed grading and drainage plans to be rev’ie^^•ed by the City Engineer. Future owners are placed on notice that the filling in excess of 100 cubic yards in the preparation of building pads will require approval of a conditional use permit by the City of Orono. 4. Access to Lots 1 and 2 shall be via a shared access located approximately 100' from the centerline of the intersection of Dunwoody Avenue and County Road 15. The existing western access shall be removed along with retaining wall located within County right-of-way. 5. Preliminary plat drawing to be amended along with hardcover facts to reflect shared drive and realignment of shared lot line prior to application being scheduled before the Council. 6. Dedication of a 20' utility easement over the municipal line that encroaches the property along the lake and west lot sides. 7. Dedication of drainage and utility easements along exterior lot lines and 5' along shared lot line. Drainage and utility easements need not be shown along lakeshore. 8. Plarming Commission recommendations concerning variances requested by application: A. Hardcover variances within 75-250' setback area for proposed Lots 1 and 9. B. Hardcover variances for Lot I within 0-75' setback area and for existing hardcover improvements within Lot 2. C. Lakeshore setback variance for new construction on proposed Lot 1. D. Structural coverage variance for proposed Lot 1. Applicant to provide confirmation that former wells on site have been legally abandoned. 10. Other conditions suggested by Planning Commission. r CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION .UPPLICATION f a? 77 SjjuL^ ■ t^tion Nmnter (PIP) / __________________ PROPERTY LOCATION Site address Prc^rty Identification Number (PID) Please check one - Propert>f ____abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name Address /^/ fClUAJA. Phone(home)'^4^ O/^ V City Zip Phone (work) 3L*r J/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____ Address Citv Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 3 77^ Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL LX Acres Dr>' Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ rrrv - :* i;a: — - *t.’ ' m m ^ 1 /-g - /<^ Aw'wVW-*- - wV - V* a. ..it OiiK •'U-V t-... t.’ # “'5 7?J-^VC^V' . . Number of Building Sites Division for Tax Purposes / Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building .Si'es V Existin'! Units — New Un 's Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) '7 _ Units per t ^3 Acres ^Sq. Ft. Diy Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPUCATION 1 "ayniLat of fees (refer to "applicatkm fees' listed below). 2. -oa|>icied applicxioa form. 3. Preliminaiy plat tnfbnnation on Cenificaie of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350*. labels and plat map (you m-ist obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of FinarKc, A-^03, Government Center. 348-3271). 5. As an to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you Viish notified of this ^plication. Zoninf Official’s Sifoature_______________________________________ Dale_________________ .—------------- MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Cenificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official’s Signature ______________________________________Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check (XI those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II &. Ill) S2(X).00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $300.00 Subdivision Application (Class I Sc II) $300.00 Preliminary Subdivision Application $325.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $175.00 Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.(X) Subdivision w/easements and covenants rain. $200.00 Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees tas incurred) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class III. Preliminan' Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original apphwation) Renewal of Final Class 111 Subdivision Application $100.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: Projjosed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _____ b*'- * -50 — $-------- Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lincal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 S Request for City to Accept Existing Pnvatc Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer .Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 -h $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 Totals I^ii’nOoCU JlUtUl —^ ---------------- —-------------- On-Site System. Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/new lot proposed for on-site x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variance $200.00 Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $75.00 PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator. City Engmeer. City \ttoraey Plannmg Commission and Council nwssary to process this application and further agr^to pw all additional fees Owner’s Signatu Dale 7 Annlicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission mMtines are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zomng Office of this change prior to the meeting. 6 OBERHAUSER & NEVEAUX A PMITNftSH# Of MOffUKMAi COWO«a TION> Anowvm As-n coonwioks at law 1421 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD - SUITE 210 WAYZATA, MN 55391 LOUB B. OBERHAUSER* JACK NEVEAUX* •A (612) 473-2521 FAX (612) 473-7863 BACKUP FAX (612) 473-0265 November 6, 1995 CITY OF ORONO Attention: Jean Mabusth 1335 Brown Road South Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: LOUIS B. OBERHAUSER Dear Ms. Madsusth: PLEASE BE ADVISED that Jack L. Neveaux, attorney at law, is qualified to represent me at the November 20, 1995 Orono Planning Commission meeting and is authorized to answer any questions that may be asked regarding the project. LBOrejw ^ O :.T / “ 90 ],! T5 T3 *3 73.: 1 <» •—1 ^ - 5 -- IS St'.n i' STil•>-- ISil_z^ i irt .* w”» ., ‘ r-.r-i ^5 0 ^'cLTA L^.^33^'^^3 ■L.. ^ fc ^'w•f■) I”r/. " ------=0 — :s If/) ;- -*c. J - fl> ou^oT r * / / / :*4' ' \:.> / •c / ' “" -.ix ■i. ™ /7o^ /jh/ /rrt ^, x: u) ~h * V ^' X- iI ■mMM. MTI. U/0Z/9S Q. ( MTCM S04 t » $*l)99» AOM;,HcTA)9AYi«i 1 r-S4’S .WfC/AOMP‘T^'.* ft Jl ‘ ' /‘r*!*;**»■' u 0 I*n H TAXPAYER NAIC/AM V, . ,>■’■ • •! • V/^ ■<'-*i4J ,■■ f * ' r-:- ■ T . RROA AOOR >v i^:;C»tCR NAIC ih ; TAXPAYER Ot i hame /abor ;■5'^I A-l Mfi: <>/ ■'•‘r ‘ 1- \ . U' ^ ♦ V-f PMP AOOR 0»t€R NAM TAXPAYER . NANE/AOOR •, I* "R ■‘•4 .’ 4* >•= 1' I i ' .» PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER * NAHE/ADDR •• • \ »* ■ V^' PROP AOOR OI^R NAM TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR • - • $ *. • , -.1.' ’i: IT lT-117-« SS 00S7 tStOO SHORELINE DR J J CARLSON A 0 E CARLSON J J CARLSON S 0 E CARLSON SWO SHORELINE DR SPRIH6 PARR m 55SM 17 17-117-23 33 0043 03400 DEL OTERO AVE J N BASATZ ETAL JOHN HENRY OASATZ S400 DEL OTERO AVE SPRINO PARK HN SS3t4 M 17-117-23 33 0003 03660 SHORELINE DR COUNTY OF MNNEPIN ORONO SHOP C/0 HENN CO - P.S. BIG 320 NASHINGTON AVE S HOPKINS m 55343 36 17-117-23 33 0004 03650 SHORELINE OR S RATAINEN SOL RATAINEN STEPHEN RATAINEN 447 PAYM AVE ST PAUL HN 55101 36 20-117-23 22 0001 03925 SHORELINE OR LEONARD LAHPERT LEONARD F LAMBERT 3925 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK MI4 55364 38 20-117-23 22 0004 03895 SHORELINE DR R D JENSEf! ETAL J I S RAUSCHENDORrER 3895 SHORELINE OR NAYZATA HN 55391 HEmEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOmATIQN SYSTEH PROPERTY OmERS LIST17 17-117-23 33 0036 03914 SHORELINE DR DOUGLAS C GAH6LC DOUG GAH6LE 454 HC61LVRA 6LV0 E SEATTLE NA 96112 17 17-117-23 33 0044 03910 DEL OTERO AVE OARRIDGE 6UIL0ERS INC OAKRIOGE 6U1LDERS INC 9216 6RANDYNINE iO NAHEL HN 55340 38 17-117-23 33 0004 03890 SHORELINE DR E J A H J HELD EDHARO J i HARSHA J HELD 3890 SHORELII€ DR NAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 53 0007 03800 SHORELIM OR JANET M OLSON JAf^T H OLSON 3800 SHORELINE OR NAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 22 0002 03935 SHORELINE DR J A S DEDELL JAHES DAVID BEDELL 3935 SliORELlNE DR SPRING PARK HN 55384 38 20-117-23 22 0005 03915 SHORELINE OR NN SASKATCHENAN ACQUISITIONS m SASKATCHENAN ACQUISITIONS 5612 DORON CR EDINA HN 55439 lEPMT NO. PI435401PAGE 4 f17 17-117-23 33 003# 03924 SHORELINE OR CLARK R OLTNAN CLARK R OLTHAN 3924 SrtORELlNE DR SPRINO PARK HN 55364 36 17-117-23 33 0002 03660 SHORELINE DR CO Of HENN ORONO HAINT STATION C/0 HENN CO - P.S. 6A0 320 NASHINGTON AVE S HOPKINS HN 55343 36 17-117-23 33 0005 03840 SHORELINE DR OAVIO UtBEHOCKER DAVID UTBEHOCKER 3840 SHMELINE DR NAYZATA Ttl 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0016 02420 DUT#IO(X)Y AVE CALVARY HEHORIAL CHURCH CALVARY HEHORIAL CHURCH 2420 DUNNOOOY AVE NAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 22 0003 05905 SHORELINE DR RICHARD ADOLPH CARLSON RICHARD A CARLSON 3905 SHORELITC DR SPRING PARK HN 55364 38 20-117-23 22 0004 05877 SHORELINE DR LOUIS D GBERHAUSER L B ODERHAUSER 2425 DUT6IOODY AVE NAYZATA HN 55591 • • • • f , • V, . ’ ; 4 ' • • -la ' I T. • jS' irmA ' — •' IVr r: ' 4 . -'iV :r 4i.'V . • u i * - '• f fmm mte U/ttm>tJATOI SMmmTiU9AYIR ‘ > .HM/ADOR Q'V.'wwwwt ^i>; OMCR HM« •’ TAXPAYER ilAMfyAAIIS I -< ‘V'-r *< ■*?* -li:', •■r^r ’■ • • i ?Mr . -.PUR AOOi '^(MCII NAHE r TAXPAYtt NAHi/AOMl 'I?' i.-'ic-.. •• 4* . . .• ‘I;.-." • i' : • ’ • i ’ **< #• . ‘Vw* ' I*. ■» I > i *. ' '.' t h w • ^ 1 •‘ : : J ' •• / *! '■ in;;: v'-'_ :■ '^\ ‘ I I 4 ♦. fl' » ' * ♦ r V A >• t • % r» f r Sa tO-117-El ZZ 0007 •SMS SHORELINE DR KATHERINE K NAHARA LOUIS S OSCRHAIISER MES OUNHOOOY AVE MAYZATA NN SSS91 SS EO-117-2S 22 0010 OMSK DUNHOQOY AVI HARIQN 0 SEISE JANES C SEISE 2415 OUNHOOOY AVE HAYZATA HN 55S41 SS 20-117-25 22 0015 02445 OUNHOOOY AVE R V UNSENOCKER ETAL R«ERT UMDENOCKER 2445 OUNHOOOY AV HAYZATA NN 55591 «NNEP1N COUNTY PROPERTY rNrORNAnOH SYSTTH PROPERTY OHNERS LISTSS 20-117-25 22 OOOS 02405 OUNHOOOY AVE LOUIS S OSERHAUSER LOUIS S OSERHAUSER 2425 OUIMX)OY AVE HAYZATA HN 55591 50 20-117-25 22 0011 02445 OUNHOOOY AVE A S NELSON ETAL ALVIN S NELSON 2445 DUmOOOY AVE HAYZATA m 55191 TOTAL BATCH 504 00025 REPORT NO. PI4IS40I PAGE 7Si co-nr-ts oeo902425 DUTMOODY AVI H P MITHERS ALA SAM4A HILLIAH P MXnCI»2425 OLffiteOY AVC HAYZATA m 55341 '"V* t:* V f Si 20-117-25 22 0012 024S7 OUMOOOY AVC HAAION 0 iEISE HARION 0 iEISI 24S7 DUiClOOY AVI MAYZATA M4 B5S41 r:. .1 : •: ■ •f ■■ ‘fr-v. lKSr' I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEft^EPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATlONp TO THE OEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. • —. t * ■ mi DATE iis-m. ^ERTY TAXATlONf TO * W' m C.irf’f i HARDCUV i- M ^ AI.ULLA 1 IU*N \yUKIV5tl£.E-1 ACKZaVE: (CIRCLE ONE) C^7Sj 75-250* 250-500* (iOT /) i 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Hmuc ____s.r. Widlll s X X ■■ S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Carafe C. Driveway 5.F. X X S.F. S.F; D.' mtrnaXk-CSjiyc^STe X X // S.F. S.F. £. Paiio/Declc X X S.F. S.F. ' F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic OrTabnc X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. O. Other Cuoeo S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY .AREA IN ZONE A /K6 -r B V 7 oO X 100 // 6 S.F WTTcf S.F, S. 33 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House '_______Z 70 S.F. Lengih.Wuith X • X X ■ S.F. "s.F. “s.F. B. Garage S.F. C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck S.F. S.F, F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ ^ v A 2 7 0 B ^ S.F.. y 9^0 S.F. X 100 —r . VR y* f • •«• • f ^ / OT /o-7.r^ .- .14 A B S.F. • S.F. S.F. B • •• • • *• . •• . 'I* . , :j • iV lartr-nai r-m iirvM'm • Hennepin^County N r I r r V . HriiJv Jinini''* • f Jwnne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: ProDosed PUt - Shoreline Drive and Dunwoody Ave. eSAH 15, southwest quadrant CSAH 15 and Dunwoody Avenue Section 20. Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 227S Review and Recemroendations Dear Ms. Mabusth: Hinn.sota StatuUs 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require bounty review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comT.ents; • The developer should either dedicate an ‘ easement fSJfor a total of 40 feet of right ot way or establish a 7 foot easement tor road purposes adjacent to the existing 33 feet of right of ^ay. ^ - either case, there should be 40 feet from and along the centerline of CSAH 15 available for roadway improvements. . Your transmittal letter submitted with the plat identifies two access notions acceptable to the developer. The first option, preferred by tne ?Sin?; t 3oint acenss for Lo? A and Lot B. ^ '<>= feat west of the plats northeast corner. Since Hennepin County will nermit one access along the plats frontage with CSAH 15 the existing drivwariocated approximately 20 feet east of the plats northwest corner will need to be removed. ♦ The developers second access option is one access to ^AH 15 and one accftss to Dunwoody Avenue. Normally, this would be the County s oreferred option but the access to Dunwoody would be tuo close to the intersection of CSAH 15 and Dunwoody and could ead to some very erratic and unsafe weave movements. We prefer the first option. Depsrinifnt of Public Wori^ 320 Washir^'ten Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 5o343'*S46<S (612)93C^25a^ F.AX:(612)930.2513 .n I I vj Oeanne Mabusth Novaaber 9, 1S9S Page 2 P • The existing garaga, located approximately 60 to:s"sn rs;.s:r,!.s ;:s»i:VL" ~ ,garage removal should also include rea.oval of the wood retaining wan. . All proposed construction within County right of -JX ?" ^Sdis”'* Hen.iep1n County permit prior to beginning ?„11but is not limited to, access, drainage, utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. The developer should contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for the appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Doug Mattson. Sincerely, Thomas D. iJohnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TOJ/DBM ^ kiia i-3U I ir^\J J . T T ceCT-f-f ^r>Oh| 1 1-14-I9S5 9:51AM FPDt BCNE3TPCC iBonestroo ffjg Rosene Anderlik & ^ I Assodates Engineers & Architects November 13. 1995 ZC 612 636 1311 Nttm. AnmniH ^ AwmernM, inc am Q»»fWiry •^99^ W f» # • .MWi C. ^^99ri*K M«rv4A c SOfv«i4 ^1. i cnmrm 1 •wn## • J • Cdoc P C. t Meytf •! a Jcr^icnt i^en M. i9€f*m. C?A.* w>w»a»g A f 1 C#rth A. At. tf«rjr€ W Aett«f. A i. o. iMMCa. A L C. ffytMii A !>. ^ •©yr#A»*. » • t^sm A t%sns9n. p L f Kjutfnerw. A C. T#t A. Pi Thorns* i A*W#flOn AlA j^ei toirr><wAni«< » C C it^rgsret. P f >•«•»«• A At. ; ftenaTt. » • ..••ati Miftjriex, A.l *aich^ P 2«u A ff tr. Aetffwn. .*X At. .A^tl t MjfflPWi A P #e*n 0 AI Icert X Arf Aa««. A t Wenf^Am A r»^ Mtr« « ItmPt Af Mtft A $#*#, At OAry %klrf«f«. A t Af^ A OAAPAfi. A LA S«^e< i. Pt^A^fAA. Af A roi Icwno* AI O^dv* • 1 P^itm J CASwta. .• t UAfp C 9 f. V*fAi t. Jei^iA*^. P E. L •^•:i:§ Ci#vi-( A 5, L yl er^en Af OAr> S Anstoru. A I. t. OA^t. AX p Tt#f A®„er. Ai KAttfi t r«m A J. lyougum J. iewAff a f. u*9mm o OwnjftdA. A t CACIU# C'Ivtf . A^ If AW i. Wagner. f.EL Aaia a Me«;er. ax >A#W% A Goreer At. TmO 99r^ PM #fA^ry y. tAleringe^ A£ yOieph A 'JAAirt A f CAA M Marv\ A t. Chjr«»t A i#« M- AevvetiAy h'irfan Ml 0*IOA • yet M. Atrg 3Arr«et ^ Engamarot Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth. BuildJns and Zoning Administrator Cit>’ ot Orono Post Office B<ax 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Rc: Louis Oberhauscr Rcplai File ,Vo. 139-195b Dear Jeanne. Wc have reviewed the proposed replat to combine four existing units into two lots on the property owned by Louis Oberhauser in Lots 1 and 2. SIcdc 3. Townsitc of L.ingdon Park. Tsvo option.s have been submitted to the City tor consideration. The first has a separ.atc access to e.ach lot. Lot 1 onto County Road No. 15 and Lot 2 onto Dunwoody Avenue. The second option ha.s a .shared driveway access onto County Road .\o. 15 The propertj’ presently has two gravel driveways out to C.R. 15. The proposed access (center of property) would be acceptable for a shared driveway if the westerly access is eliminated as proposed. The proposed access out to Dunwcods- Avenue is not desirable due to its close proximity to the intersection with C.R. 15. Either option has some beneficial aspects, however, wc would recommend the shared dnveway option if approved by Hennepin County-. An existing samtary’ sewer cros.ses through the property, westerly along the lake and northerly along the west lot line (see record plan sheet A126). The sewer is approximately S to 9 feet in depth which will not allow a full basement without changing the site significantly. The cxisrin*^ sesWr should be shown on the certificate of sun-cy. Water ser^ice is available along the south'side of Couniv Road No. 15. A TIk right-of-way tor C.R. 15 is presently 66 feet wide. We would recommend that an additional 9 feet nght-of-way be prosided as par: of the rcplat. Drainage and utility easement.s should be provided 5 feet wide along all lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of-wavs. Existing easeraent.s for the sewer line should either be shown on the certificate of survey or rcdedicated. Please contact me at this office . • you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK &. ASSOCIATES. LNC. A.,u^,j J) Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. ' . c >-i- t.- 4'* ip augereo service IGTH 62 * • ' • ' li * * * 4^^ r 'iI .« .* t'iXt-iVi • :• '•• ••' •’•*: * :* •- ; *..• ‘;: :*t ••* • ••• yfK : . jr W r ■ I' : T ■ ' , t; •' (46^0)(4600• • I •• • • •••• •%ih’ ...... ‘jjii55i ‘rn r| «v^ ek6*’m a PLUG >«to I' Ipp : t* ». 5^10’*^ ml" iCd' ■’ -rH ifmWM ' V' **'H } *i i'i: ^ •S' ‘t • ■- . ■, •/. >3 ! -'I. • * ' I , ' • ^ f V GAa rcip ■J\_________il:=. \1 —^0 ------------?:».• »0i8x^*TEE->, V r --""/; '* ____“k V •VVo.y.. -^^^ - &,^TEE-7i / ^ r •4-r i'*' ........... •ijd •■■tU,;>:v:., i : ;:• I : *./: • •• ••• • •••t.vr fi.*? ’ ' vi • ‘,46 i ..f V,:V‘ "1^-••••■•' w’r-i i ■ ■ •• ,. V. ,.■^114 i •■ s'--; *■ • I .•■;■■ ;;•, . • • • •• •• IrffcafetK; n.- .<■; -i^t • * ! ■■ :/7% . • ' ‘‘ii**- •I -1* *, % \ •• iTi... f». t. • V.;fj5. V i*‘i''v:’t-\ ’L--. 1 'J} f Lee Arm Senna W. Paul Withefs 2425 DiflTwoody Avenue Wayzata. MN 55391 Novembers, 1995 Jeanne Mabusth 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Jeanne: My spouse and I purchased the property at 2425 Dunwoody Avenue on July 1, 1995. In our purchase agreement with Mr. Louis Oberhauser, the seller of the property, there was a clause, “Seller agrees to demolish neighbonng houses by September 30. 1995.” That agreement is 37 days past due as of today, November 6, 1995 We have contacted Mr. Oberhauser by certified mail asking him to comply with the agreement and mailed copies to our realtor Jill Lawrence-Brown as well as his realtor Nancy Curry. We are circulating a petition for signatures in our neighborhood. Many of the people who live on Dunwoody Avenue and Casco Point are concerned with the potential danger of the unsafe structures northwest of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. We strongly urge the Orono City Council not to entertain any subdivision of the lots northwest of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue until you have escrowed monies for the removal of the unsafe structures on those lots. Sincerely. Lee Ann Sanna 1421 E. Wayzata Blvd Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Oberhauser; It has been 37 days past the agreed upon date of September 30, 1995 to dismantle and remove the homes directly west of 2425 Dunwoody Aver.ue. You signed a purchase agreement that states, " Seller agrees to demolish neighboring houses by September 30. ISQS.” Mr. Oberhauser. • We do not understand why you would bother to sign the agreement and not comply. • We do not understand why you wish us well with a card and plant telling us of the good times you had in this house and not comply with the agreement. • We do not understand why you would want three dangerous structures on the property of adjacent to 2425 Dunwoody Avenue that may endanger lives. We would like to enjoy the entire panoramic view of the beautiful lake and well-kept properties from our new home. Please remove the dilapidated houses northwest and adjacent to the property of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. Please comply with the agreement that you signed on June 4, 1995. Sincerely. n s. ^ Lee Ann Sanna cc Jill Lawrence-B."Own Nancy Curry ♦ jrn» CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, \IN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE NOV 1 3 1995 The Planning Commission will hold scheduled public hearings in the Council Chambers ai 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, November 20. 1995 on the matter of reviewing the following subdivision applications: 1 7:35 P.M. 9:30 P.M. #2092 Dennis Planeter proposes a subdivision of two residential lots of the property located at 809 North Brown Road. #1958 Lou Oberhauser proposes a replat of three lots into a iw'o lot residential subdivtsion of the propemes located at 2405 Dunwoody Avenue. 3865 and 3877 Shoreline Drive. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at the specified times. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available in the City offices for review, by appointment. City of Orono Bv: Planning Commission /; Je:^ie A. Mabusih. Building & Zoning Administrator To be published the week of November 6. 1995 V . /-- ^/C~l^—>—✓v.-y'—J 3 ^ »-c7 c/Six^ , k. i H ^ “ifil »f ! • t' ‘ .')t ». p I I {•i i. i« ♦ >* i h ./ p ■f i t* i 1 ; >• ‘ ‘f« ‘ f ^ 1*: 1 *'• >1 il^ ^ 1 • f ■ii»h .» ■ <i- • ;’«■ '•i: . I • I j: '111 !l;< e p Xa. onr no r1• ! i -. j ' ^ ' . 'j Novembers. 199S W 2 5 1P95 This petition is asking for immediate demolishing and removal of the dilipilated structures northwest and adjacent to the property of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. These structures are dangerous, hazardous and an eyesore to the neighborhood. /3. 7. iLi-i ^ 1 1 1. 1 3^1. ------3^ 2^ 2: Cx<^<^ ^ ^f/s -P/ ^■ 35Ai \hJif PX- 3/ S / Cc”'- ^ c- . OyJ •• ^ ^ / 3' (SV- o^' / ^ A'^- 3 - <1 16. \<d. CA^ fSu2^ 21 . Mil- •5. ^ ( "5>- d'a.’^c cy Pt LS I'S "^u tooo -ft-- ^ V3d) ^ • c^^Ss" “x:>sj<\^coi * Ov^3.c ^]f. / / ^ X ^ ^ irtJ Ak»^*^ ^^cox^ 2Ai'0 2>>-'^^P-^\ ^7 jS/U> 7^' Vj'^ .^/f . C l' ‘ /tv ^V ^/( ./A/%-, ^ A G t / 4', ■.. ^v^ 1,// ^'■l ^ / - i/ 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. lArfxK Cv/ C^U^ui ?r-.roT>J'o-o^-^A>t M:-f-• t • ^ ^ 7 ’■'(.<•; M (.i/ <-' ‘‘ “,' ^ t,,' s i -,_ . LL'>L Vt ^)/\j'^ ,0.^ V 1 - / : /'A Lee Ann Sanna W. Paul Withers 2425 Dunwoody Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 Novembers, 1995 Louis Oberhauser 1421 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata. MN 55391 Dear Mr. Oberhauser; It has been 37 days past the agreed upon date of September 30, 1995 to dismantle and remove the homes directly west of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. You signed a purchase agreement that states, “ Seller agrees to demolish neighboring houses by September 30,1995." Mr. Oberhauser, • We do not understand why you would bother to sign the agreement and not comply. • We do not understand why you wish us well with a card and plant telling us of the good times you had in this house and not comply with the agreement. • We do not understand why you would want three dangerous structures on the property of adjacent to 2425 Dunwoody Avenue that may endanger lives. We would like to enjoy the entire panoramic view of the beautiful lake and well-kept properties from our new home. Please remove the dilapidated houses northwest and adjacent to the property of 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. Please comply with the agreement that you signed on June 4, 1995. Sincerely, Lee Ann Sanna cc Jill Lawrence-Brown Nancy Curry W. Paul Withers i * • CGyrvTllK'ETlIiG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 1 1995 DATE: oCfflfbft^A^WO ITEM NO = Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Adminisoator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2078 Jensen Homes. Inc., 405 Tonkawa Road - Preliminarv' Subdivision Resolution Zoning Districts: LR-IB/LR-IA Total area = 7 1/2 acres. Application: Applicant proposes a 2 lot subdivision of the former Edson Spencer property located at the west side of Tonkawa Road. Portions of the property are zoned LR-IB and LR-IA. The property is not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and will be developed under rural standards. Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B) Lotl,LR-lA Required = 2 acres Proposed = 7.19 acres Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B) Lot 2, LR-IB Required = 1 acre Proposed = 3.07 acres (exclusive of drivcwa> casement along south lot line) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Weekman Report E - Wetlands Map F - Enlarged Plat Map of .Area G - Gustafson Report M - Hennepin County DOT Report 1 - Gronberg Letter 11/8/95 J - Driveway Easement K - Map of Zoning and MUSA Boundar>’ L - Preliminary Plat \ Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 December 6, 1995 Zoning File <5^2078 Brief Review of Application For more detail on this review please refer to the enclosed statTmemos dated October 10 1995 and November 13, 1995 and the Minutes of the October and November meetings of the Plannin, _ A •Commission. The subdivision was reviewed at both the October and November meetmu of the Planning SmmtL At the October meeting a sketch plan application was on the agenda mvo ung Ses to ihe southwest of the subject propeny. The application invol ved the vacm.on of publ c Ss Xvay and the replat of multi parcels into 3 residential lots, re er to Exlub, F. Nme e oronertv defiLd as Parcel A on that exhibit achieves access via a 30' wide easement along *c soul foTCof Lm - o “L current division. Parcel A is located both within the LR- B zoning district Ind rs wttWMhe Metropolitan Urban Service ,\rea. The only public access to this property is via he untaptvod 20 v3th public rights-of-way proposed to be vacated with the sketch p^ aoDlication. The Planning Commission advised that a public access would hate to be teamed ^ serve Parcel A should development occur in the future and that in lieu ol app-ovmg the vaca ion. c "pplka^rwould have to create additional right-of-way for Linden Avenue. 1 he expanded Linden Avenue must be designed to sen'e Parcel A. .,nnlirntion was tabled at the October meeting as Jim Jensen representing the owner, Frank n v*' hnd no knovvledue as to the exact width and area of the easement within Lot - that ser\ es P^^*1 A It was also hoped that the additional time would allow the applicant and adjacent owners r„ taher di^^^ass poSlc acquisilion of kind from Mr. BcnnC. lo include in expanded Linden Avenue. \ ir Iivnovn -utvised that Mr Bennett had no intention of giving any land mtLC w^^^ Mr. J-sen. Exbibi. J. and was found lo be at a 30' width. Lo?2's al!l has been adjusted to exclude the area of the easement now proposed at 3.07 acres. Uoth the County and the engineer recommend that Lot 2 be served by the existing driveway and curb cut at the south side of the east comer ol Lot 2. Both lots have been tested^^^^^ niounds ^ J j , (,c removed prior to final plat approval. If applicant seeks final shared applican. must execute a developer's agreement and post Xer of ciSittensure the removal before building permit is issued for new construction on Lot Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 December 6, 1995 Zoning File #2078 The Park Commission reviewed the subdivision at their December 4th meeting and recommended cash payment in lieu of dedication of land for parks or trails. Tlie subdivision will be referred to the assessor for determination of the fair market value of Lot 2. Planning Commission Recommendation Tlie Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Class 11 subdivision application of Jensen Homes. Inc. involving the .P'rank Bennett property located at 405 Tonkawa Road finding all pertinent standards of the on-site septic code, LR-IA/LR-IB zoning districts and pertinent sections of the subdivision regulations have been satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. 4. Per Orono code no more than two residential units can be ser\ed by the existing easement drive located within Lot 2. Access to Lot 1 shall be via an existing curb cut at the County Road. Access to Lot 2 shall be via an existing private driveway at the southeast comer ot Lot 2. Tennis court located within Lot 2 that encroaches the shared lot line shall be removed prior to final plat approval. If applicant seeks approval of the final plat before the tennis court is removed, applicant shall execute a developer's agreement and post a letter of credit to ensure the removal of the tennis court prior to the issuance of a building pennit for new construction on Lot 2. Septic sites must be staked and protected prior to the removal or demolition of the tennis court and new residential construction. All building envelope shall be defined by the required setbacks for either the LR-IB or LR-1A zoning district. The ravine area in southeast portion of properties to be designated as a drainage easement. Tlie City Engineer to determine the required w idth and e.xtent of drainage easement. Future owner of Lot 2 to be advised that if property is included within the MUSA and further subdivided into 1 acre lots that the City may consider future extensions of public roads from south to serve newly created lots. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution, y*' Sir A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR OF A CLASS II SUBDIVISION AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 405 TONKAWA ROAD - FILE NO. 2078 WHEREAS, Jensen Homes. Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on September 22. 1995, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a two lot residential plat of property legally described as: Tracks A and B and the Southerly 132 feet of the Westerly 205 leet of Track C, Registered Land Sur\ey No. 540, files of Registrar of Title, CounW of Hennepin. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minncsot.i Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Flatting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on October 16 and November 20, 1995, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were gi\en the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on December 11. 1995, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Jensen Homes, Inc. noting the follow ing findings of fact: 1.The property is located within both the LR-1 A. Single Family Lakeshore Residential District, requiring 2 acres of contiguous dr\' buildable land within each newly created lot and the LR-IB, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, requiring a minimum ot 1 acre of buildable land w ithin each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 10.69 acres, all ot w hich is considered dr>- buildable except for a drainage way that intersects the property to the southeast. 3. The proposed plat contains 2 lots as follows: Lot 1, located predominately in the LR-1 A Zoning District, is required to maintain 2 acres of area and consists ot 7.19 acres. Page 1 of 5 7. Lot 2, predominately located in the LR-IB Zoning District, is required to maintain 1 acre in area and consists of 3.07 acres. The property is not located wthin the Metropolitan Urban Service .Area and shall be developed under rural standards. Septic testing has been approved by the City and confirms that each lot has suitable area for the development of a primar> and alternate mound septic system to be installed in areas at 6% or less slopes. Hennepin County has approved access to Lot 1 via an existing curb cut and Lot 2 shall achieve access via an existing driveway curb cut at the southeast comer of Lot 2. Both lots can be residentially developed without the need to grant variances to the applicable zoning standards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLN’ED, that based upon either one or more of findings, the Citv Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminaiy plat for Jensen Homes. Inc. for the property locate.! at 405 Tonkawa Road per the survey dated 9/21/95. most revised date 11/8/95, by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg. Inc., subject to the follow ing conditions: 1.If tennis court that encroaches proposed division line is not removed prior to final plat afproval, applicant shall be responsible for executing a developer’s agreement and posting a letter of credit to ensure structure's removal prior to the City issuing a buildiniz permit for new construction on Lot 2 or within a year ot Council s approval of the final plat whichever occurs first. As required by the subdiv ision regulations, no more than two residential units c:in be serv ed bv the existing easement drive located within Lot 2. 3. Access to Lot 1 shall be via an existing curb cut at the County Road. Access to Lot 2 shall be via the existing private driv eway at the southeast comer of Lot 2. Page 2 of 5 4. Septic sites must be staked and protected prior to the removal or demolition ot the tennis court and new residential construction. 5. All building em elopes shall be defined by the required setbacks for either the LR-1B or LR-1 A Zoning District. 6. Ravine area in southeast portion of property is to be designated as a drainage easement. The City Engineer to confirm the required width and extent of drainage easement. 7. Future ouner of Lot 2 is to be placed on notice that if property is included within the MUSA and further subdivided into I acre lots with sewer at some time in the future, that the City may consider requesting a future extension of the public roads to the south of the property to serve newly created lots. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning .\dministrator two weeks prior to the regularly .scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200 ’. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminar>' survey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg. Inc. dated 9/21/95, most revised date 11/8/95. B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10’ wide along all perimeter property lines and 5’ each side of internal property lines. C. Designation and dedication of a drainage easement over the ravine area. D. Naming of plat. Legal documents required: Page 3 of 5 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. Ihe applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. C. Signed and e.xecuted Drainage Easement over the ravine area within Lot 2. D. Signed and executed developer’s agreement and letter of credit to ensure remov al of tennis court if court remains at time of final plat approval. a.Fees to be paid; Total due; SZOO PO!, per 1995 fee schedule. A. B. Legal review and filing lees - $200.00 *Park dedication fee to be based on City Assessor detennination of the fair market value of Lot 2. The park fee payment is to be paid upon submittal of final plat and accompanying documents. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 11th day of December. 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor P..^7 4of5 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Tlie foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this Illh day of December, 1995 by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Citv. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 TO: DATE: i: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 13, 1995 SUBJECT: #2078 Jensen Homes, Inc., 405 Tonkawa Road, Class II Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing Application: The application \vas tabled at the October meeting ot the Planmng Commission providing applicant additional time to consult with adjacent property owners concerning their request to acquire additional right-of-way for a future improved road at the southwest coiner of the property’. Applicant was also asked to contirm area ot easement serving the Knight property located at 425 Tonkawa Road. The code will require that area of easement driveways be e.xcluded from the dry buildable area of proposed Lot 2. List of Exhibits A - Gustafson Report 10/10/95 B - Hennepin County Report 10/17/95 C - Gronberg Letter Concerning .Area ot Driveway Easement and Adjusted Lot Area for Proposed Lot 2 D - Easement Serving Knight Property (425 Tonkawa) E - Backlot/Frontlot Ordinance F - Weekman Report 10/24/95 G - Preliminaiy Plat Discussion StatT has met with Jim Jensen and applicant ’s attorney concerning status of easement driveway and impact of proposed subdivision. Applicant stated at the meeting that Bennetts are not creating a backloi with this division as the backlot was created years ago at the time of the c-eation of the driveway easement, refer to Exhibit D (10/15/58). The original code amendment jvecificallv states that lots created prior to January 1, 1994 will not be subject to requirements of this code section. Tlie easement mav remain as an easement as the subdivision regulations do not require the platting of an outlet with this 2 lot division. The Knight property at 425 Tonkawa will continue to have access to a public road to the south and is per code not a backlot. Tlie easement is described at a 30’ width. The area of the easement has been deducted from the total lot area proposed as follows: Zoning File #2078 November 13, 1995 Page 2 Easeme*i» area * .43 acres Total area of proposed Lot 2 = 3.5 acres Adjusted lot area = 3.07 acres Required = 1 acre. The future o\\Tier of Lot 2 shall be advised that if property is located within the MUSA and is further subdivided per the 1 acre zoning standards, the City may consider asking for future extension of public roads from south. Lot 2 is currently subdivided based on rural standards. Review E.xhibit B, Hennepin County has reviewed the uvo lot proposal and will not seek an additional dedication of right-of-way on County Road 135 (Tonkawa Road). The County will deny a third curb cut. Access to Lot 2 must be via the existing driveway casement at the southeast comer of proposed Lot 2. Lot 1 will continue to achieve access via the existing curb cut. Any alterations or upgrades of these curb cuts must be approved by Hennepin County via a permit. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Class II subdivision application ot Jensen Homes Inc. involving the Frank Bennett property' located at 405 Tonkawa Road finding all standards of the on-site septic code. LR-IA/LR-IB zoning districts and pertinent sections of the subdivision regulations have been satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. No more than two residential units can be ser\ ed by the existing easement drive. 2. Access to Lot 1 shall be via an existing curb cut at the County Road. Access to Lot 2 shall be via the existing pri\ate driveway at the southeast comer of Lot Tennis court located within Lot 2 that encroaches the lot line shall be removed before building permit is issued for new constmetion on either Lots I or 2. Septic site must be staked and protected prior to the removal or demolition ot the tennis court. All building envelopes shall be defined by the required setbacks for either the LR-IB or LR-IA zoning district. Applicant to provide a soil delineation map and report prior to application being scheduled before the Council. Zoning File #2078 November 13, 1995 Page 3 6. 7. 8. Ravine area in southeast portion of property is to be designated as a drainage easement. City Engineer to determine the actual required width and extent of drainage easement. Planning Commission to make a recommendation concerning possible acquisition of park or trail. If there is to be a fee in lieu of dedication of park lands, it «;hal1 only be based on the area ♦•'nin proposed Lot 2. Future owner of Lot 2 to be adv.^ed that it property is included writhin the MUSA and funher subdivided into 1 acre lots with sew'er, that City may consider future extension of public roads to serve newly created lots. 9. Others recommended by Planning Commission. TO; DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 10, 1995 SUBJECT; #2078 Jensen Homes Inc., 405 Tonkawa Road. Class 11 Preliminary Subdivision Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 11.31, Subd. 5 - Refer to Exhibit J, specifically Item 3 entitled Dimensional Standards for Front Lots. A front lot created as pan of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except at the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlet shall be equivalent lo the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. A. Access outlet a minimum 30’ width. B. Access outlets can be shared. The City will recommend the sharing of the access by the parcel to the west and Lot 2. C. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10’ from the side or rear lot lines of the adjacent lots. Any upgrade of the roadway must remain 10’ from parcel to south. D. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlet. Only two lots shall be served as a result of this subdivision. E. The driveway outlet will not be platted adjacent to another access outlet. This is not ai. issue. Accessory’ structures sh.Jl not be a lowed within the required 30' rear yard setback of Lot 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 27 - Parcel to the west served by an existing access drive is not subject to special standards for back lots created after January 1. 1994. Section 10.23, Subd. 6 (B) - LR-IA. lot standards. Section 10.24. Subd. 5 (B) * LR-IB. lot standards. Section 11. 03 - Definition 66 (B) - Class II subdivision. Zoning File #2078 October 10. 1995 Page 2 Lot of Exhibits A • Application B - Plat Map C - Property 0^^■ner ’s List D - Preliminar>' Plat - Zoning Boundary E • City Wetland Map F - Plat Map Locating Right-of-Way to be Vacated v\iihin Application #2077 G - Existing Land Uses to South and West H - MUSA Line I(A,B,C) - Staff Sketches of Access Options for Properties Currently Ser>'ed by Linden Avenue J - Front Lot/Back Lot Division Ordinance Review of Subdivision Proposal Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 10.6 acre parcel which is located within two zoning districts, refer to Exhibit D. Approximately 4 1/2 acres arc located within the LR-IB, 1 acre zoning district, and the remaining within the LR-IA, 2 acre zoning district. Refer to Exhibit H, the propert> is located out of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. On-site septic systems are required. Lot 2 for the most part is located within the entire LR-IB zoning district, proposed at 3.5 acres and easily satisfies the area needs of a rurally developed property. Unfortunately, because of the difficulty of locating a suitable septic site, the northwest portions of Lot 2 encroach within the LR-IA zoning distnet. The existing tennis court shall be removed. The City will ask that the tennis court be removed cither prior to building permit being issued for new construction but no later than one year from the date of Council ’s approval of the final plat. Septic sites have been completed and all four systems are designed as mounds. The system servim: the existing residence on Lot 1 is nonconforming. The City will ask that a new system be installed as a condition of approval of this subdivision. The owner's representative has advised that the existing house wall be removed and the bam converted into a complete residential unit. Setbacks for Lot 1 shall be those of the LR-IA zoning district, 50’ front and rear a.;d 30 ’ side. Lot 2 may be developed at LR-IB standards, 35' front or street setback, 35' side street setback, 30 ’ rear and 10' side. Portion of Lot 2 that encroaches into the LR-IA zoning district shall be subject to the LR-IA zoning standard and portions of Lot 1 that encroach into the LR-IB zoning district shall be subject to the LR-IB zoning standards. Note applicant ’s surveyor has showm LR- IA zoning setback standards for both lots. Zoning File #2078 October 10, 1995 Page 3 Refer to Exhibits F, G and I, involving Application #2077 (sketch plan at end of agenda). Application #2077, involves a replat and vacation of roadways that provide the only public access to the parcel to the immediate west ot proposed Lot 2. That western parcel consists ot 3+ acres and is located within the LR-IB, 1 acre zoning district. The property could be turther subdivided as well as Lot 2. A 30’ driveway outlot could never serve as a legal access for the additional units. Review Exhibit F, note Linden Avenue does not abut western parcel. .\n approved public access or right*ot*w'ay must be provided. Stall has sketched three options (Exhibits 1. A, B, and C) for an improved public access to the five existing properties and those units to be created in a future subdivision. Stall has provided three options lor access. Planning Commission may have other recommendations. If a permanent public access is platted to the western parcel then a driveway outlot along the southern boundary of proposed Lot 2 would not have to be created with the current division. Staff has discussed this matter with the current owner of the western parcel. It is his intention to continue using the private easement driveway. He recognizes the City's obligation to maintain a public access to his propeny and also prepare for access for additional units. Staff would recommend that the Knight property continue to use the driveway easement until the property is divided in the future. If the City approves Application #2077, a driveway outlot along the southern boundarv of Lot 2 would not be necessarv' but that applicant will be asked to participate in dedicating public right-of-way extension of Linden Avenue. The City s resolution approving this plat would note that the existing easement that serves the Knight property continue to serve the Knight property as long as it serves the single residential unit but il subdivided in the future, the owner will be required to achieve access via the extension of Linden Avenue. Access to Lot 1 will continue to be via the existing curb cut at the County Road. Access to Lot 2 shall be from the existing driveway along the southern boundary. Review Exhibit E. there are no designated wetlands located within the property. The applicant has not provided a soil delineation report. This should be included as part of the preliminary plat application and mu.st be submitted to staff prior to scheduling the application before the Council. The drainaue area within the ravine should be designated as drainage ea.sement. City Engineer will be asked for a recommendation as to the desired width of that easement. The applicant may wish to realign shared lot line along the mid-point of the ravine area. The County has been asked to rev iew the plat. Staff will report on any comments they may have at your meeting Staff Recommendation To approve the two lot subdiv ision of property located at 405 Tonkawa Road for Jensen I lomes Inc. flndinc all standards of the LR-IB, LR-1 A. on-site septic disposal code and pertinent sections of the subdivision regulations have been satisfied. This approval is subject to the following conditions: ) • 1*^ > I ' J' Zoning File #2078 October 10, 1995 Page 4 1. 3. Pending resolve of the v ’acation petition of Application #2077, if City vacates Oak Street and Clyde Place, applicant will be asked to dedicate right-of-way tor an extension of Linden Avenue at the southwest corner of Lot 2. If vacation application is not approved by City, applicant will plat a private driveway ouilot along the southern boundary of Lot 2 at a 30' width. Access to Lot 1 shall be via an existing curb cut at the County Road. Access to / Lot 2 shall be via the existing private dnveway at the southeast comer of Lot 2. ^ If drive is upgraded, the roadway must maintain a 10’ setback trom the property to the south. If City approves option A (Exhibit I-A) for an upgraded access, applicant’s on-site septic evaluator should relocate alternate site to the north and east. 4. i/' The tennis court located within Lot 2 that encroaches the lot line shall be removed before building permit is issued for new construction or year from the date of the Council’s approval of the final plat which ever comes first. 5. y All building envelopes shall be defined by the required setbacks for the LR-IB and LR-IA zoning district. 6. y^Applicant to provide a soil delineation map and report prior to application being scheduled before the Council 7. yRavine area in southeast portion of properly is to be designated as a drainage ^ easement. The City Engineer to determine required width and extent of drainage easement. Applicant ma> choose to realign Lots 1 and 2 along the ravine area. 8. The Park Commission to make a recommendation concerning possible acquisition of park or trail lands. If there is to be a peuk fee. it shall only be based on the area within Lot 2. 9. ^ Others recommended by the Planning Commission. CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address ah*; Tonkawa Road------------— ------- Property Idcruification Number (PID) 0611723 '/"Coj^------ Please check one - Property ____abstract or _X — torrens. Attach legal description to application. In tracts A, B» C R.L.S. # 540 APPLICANT Name Jensen Homes« Inc ¥zo Phone (home)AJflre^? 601 Lakeshore Parkway Suite 1225--------------- -------- O.V ....................... ■ M. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Mr. & Mrs. Frank BenneU --------- Address 315 Tonkawa Road Plione(home) City Qrono, Mti (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Zip55356 Phone (work) 334-5600 1 in 6Q -0- 10.69 1 R - lA Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. ot units ____1 Other (specify)__________ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per in fioAcres 7 acres SQ- Buildable Land X Residential Other (specify) ________ r . - TT-rr J .. • A w‘ w V «• *. .? * 11 Vi .. . • •»- t Vrr,-. ,* V«».' • V , • ^OU ..'1 ■O'Ji: nos airtsiBH.sTs.fv / •t/ii/n 111 It out «Ti t«si JBHaSH 9D13S IKC MAIBUL SIQUIID lot COMPUII milMSfARY ArniCAmN 1- i if >■ ftifcr im "njBmluB Bm* ItetikSow}. 3. S. 4. 3. Atm ifavhi 1^ Uktli a4 bI« aiv (ytt owt tbuk ^ lift. tad fros . M-U71). Ua «f MQT ttte y*TMa« yvu Mib aodfl«4 «f ^ 7 IK r«^ 1. 3. IM KAinuL siQisuD nm coMTixn nro], ArrucA'n(s« •f tat (Mta « mniiftirT AMt*^ «—^ 3. Tbit t^latm. *. S, lAtttt OfllcUl't sigaiMv I. APrUCATIOrr ness Otabii Abastalmw le ttok (X) Ibnt A.Tofali Mlatey Ay^Ueibw SW.Q0 ♦ OS.Wot (CiM U! A lU cea-mltauUl) Plsal flil AffpUmtdmM (Cm CD SlTS.00 Ufil Md FlUat: itoMhriiiMMiarr’soo 1. coo.eo ni2) *150.00 CM* *«»*• ^ M cT^teatTr taJlZim AfpUomiom IlM.oo (N. —pW-t) 7 of nwl GUI m SubdlvUIon AypUctlica JIW-* (N« ci«*. from ippiicalon) Up ft. 1 jo - S ta Cliy It “LiTTr* QQ ^ flS/itifc tZSO.OO -t tu/tok 09-tttiy tat IvmUuloa Itcfttv (ijpUMfcU b mol nfedlviiltt »?ylk*ilaa*) I tor OtAbt t - *®**P*^ Vviavt S200.00 Saacsot VsmIa- nU> ApfUmlm *411 »»Wl*UUa OO.OO/IHrtlllM Ufth t» aravlAi aU Ufhmatot msulfid or itouBUO br ta ZooHvi AimioijuMOf. CW *" lu ------^ I^kataa «d ftiiOiB’ «gn« to pty tU tOilikBii fats DU9 Aoertxf. FUaala* Comolioi* mA Cocoefl •mkUatot lijr oi4bMi Ap^Huat'* 9^«an Owacr*> SijpMar* ■ /9r iiStSIi- =U. N- »- “ '-r— AR ' TT.il j \ R »1 (10) R ^ A> «>• 1 R S<tM * t R n.)'f R V «•"”l R *4) J)•« r 1 P R (•5» • if f R ('«»• _ _ H* r R R 1 IT) •• «Ml t lb • 1 ( >§) •41 • • ' ‘ «t / R 1 -9> <1 -----r■...... .T*.......t A •! J ROSEIlTaAL « 4 U AOO^ 0035Jv^'/OMCR NMC i^iTAMRAYCR ^ lUME/AINM ft. 4 • • I: * * *- V. * i' pn» AOOK CM€R NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR CMCR NAME - TAXPAYER ‘ ■:;* NAME/ADOR •. ♦ » <»V5 -’f:- f •4‘;. • ’*" *K . * ft PROO ADOR (ijf'OHNER NAME ..r: > TAXPAYER >« * > NAME/AOOR p\- 4f ^ . PROP ADDR .1. ONNER NAME .V :. TAXPAYER , NAME/AOOR .• f APp:.. ‘ . . ■* t. * •ri J *. . •. .• 7 • •,. * *w '^"Vi \ * •4 M 04-11 ?S 41 041ES OAA ST CHARUS N NQMMEYER ET AL CNARUS N NGmEYER 4125 OAR ST LONO LARE m 55554 0090la 04-117-25 41 00400 PARK AVE TODD E A TERl L TOGO E NOOO 400 PARK AVE LONG LAKE MN 55554 30 04-117-25 41 0094 04111 OAK ST DAO SIEGEL DAVID H SIEGEL 4111 OAK sr LONO LAKE MN 55554 50 04-117-25 41 0100 00456 LINDEN AVE H D DIETRICK-DLOCKER ET AL M D DIETRICK-DLOCKER 450 LirOEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55554 TOTAL BATCH 509 00040 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INTORHAnON SYSTEM PROPERTY OmERS LIST50 04-117-25 41 0054 04119 OAK ST K B ROLLAND A K S RODEN KENNETH A KAREN ROLLAND 4119 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55554 50 04-117-25 41 0092 00475 TOMCANA RD D L FRITZ APE FRITZ DAVID L FRITZ 475 TQNCANA RO LONG LAKE MN 55554 50 04-117-25 41 0095 04105 OAK ST M J ALBERS AMR GllDON H J ALBERS AMR GILDON 4105 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55554 50 04-117-25 41 0101 04127 OAK ST J A BONEN A D L BOHEN JEFFREY A BRENDA BOHEN 4127 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55554 38 05-117-23 23 0040 309 WESTLAKE ST GREGG S & BETTE J PERL GREGG S & BETTE J PERL 309 WESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI45S401PAGE50 04-117-25 41 0000 D0425 TQNKAHA RO B KNIGHT A J RIESNER KHI^ B KNIGHT A J RIESNER KNIGHT 425 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE MN 55554 50 04-117-25 41 0095 00507 PARK LA ERNIN 0 SMITH ET AL E 0 A M 0 SMITH 507 PARK LANE LONG LAKE »f4 55554 50 04-117-25 41 0097 00499 TONKANA RO M S A R DOTBECK MICHAEL S A ROMAFttE DQMBECK 499 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE MN 55554 50 04-117-25 41 0105 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MURPHY BROS BLDG A RMDLNG CO MURPHY BROS BLDG A RMDLNG CO 2579 EASTMAN DR NEN BRIGHTON MN 55112 • . . . . '-v'rt: '■•■'CPA ’ .» • •• -r •* • V . .IRM MTl OVM/»-^f|;"MTai sot . , 'f,Mi : ■ , •raa» Moon 'OMCR NMC ^'i'-TAXPAYEH ^ : , NWE/AOOR -M '. fii • .• - . tA'.'V '.- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _• ■^•^i t ntm Aoim 3B M-U7-2S 1* 90a MISS MYSIOC m CNAKLES N « HELEN F HAYSSEN CNAHLES N $ HELEN F HAYSSEN AISS SAYSXOE RO HAFLE FUUN M4 S5S59 TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR ^ raop Aocm HAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR •li tr »f r /•, • I PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR tp. ' F ^ ’ i PROP AODR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR *»V . •¥ PROP ADOR (MCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR M 0«-117>2S A1 OOU 004S5 PARK AVE OONALO L HEYER ET AL OONALO t CATHERINE HEYER 405 PARK AV LONO LAKE m 55SSA M 0A-117-2S 41 0020 00400 LINDEN AVE J R NEILSON A A H ICILSQN JAMES R NEILSON 400 LINDEN AVE LONO LAKE HN 55354 SO 04-117-2S 41 0023 00400 LINDEN AVE J R NEILSON • A H NEILSON JANES R NEILSON 400 LINOEN AVE LONG LAKE m 55354 SO 04-117-23 41 0027 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CHARLES H A ANN H HOHHEYER CHARLES H A ATtJ H HOTtlEYER 4125 OAK ST LONG LAKE 55354 30 04-117-23 41 0030 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGfJEO C H H0^t1EYER » A H HOHHEYER CHARLES A AM4 HOmEYER 4125 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 HEItiEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY CROCRS LISTSO 04-117-23 41 0014 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JOHN R 6ERHARDS0N JOHN R 6ERHARDSCM 351 LAKEVIEH AVE LONG LAKE M4 55354 SO 04-117-25 41 0017 0049S PARK AVE DONALO L A CATHERINE A HEYER DONALD L A CATHERINE A HEYER 405 PAIW AVE lONG LAKE HN 55354 30 04-117-23 41 0021 00400 LINOEN AVE J R NEILSON A A H NEILSON JAMES R NEILSON 400 LINOEN AVE LONG LAKE ftl 55356 30 06-117-23 41 0025 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CHARLES N A ANN H HOHHEYER CHARLES N A ATM H HOTtlEYER 4125 OAK ST LONG LAKE m 55356 30 04-117-23 41 0028 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CHARLES H A A^t4 H HOHHEYER CHARLES H A Mi H HOHHEYER 4125 OAK ST LONG LAKE fW 55356 30 06-117-23 41 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED C A A HOHHEYER CHARLES A Att4 HOHHEYER 4125 OAK ST LONG LAKE HN 55356 KPORT NO. PI4SB401 PACE 25 ■■“•Lv .30 04-117-2S 41 0015 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO JOHN R 6EHAR0S0N JOHN R GERHAROSON 351 LAKEVIEN AVE LONG LAKE EM 55354 30 04-117-23 41 0019 00400 LINOEN AVE J R NEILSON A A M NEILSON JAMES R NEILSON 400 LINOEN AVE LONG LAKE EM 65354 30 04-117-23 41 0022 00400 LINOEN AVE J R ECXLSON A A M NEILSON JAMES R NEILSON 400 LINOEN AVE LONG LAKE EM 55354 30 06-117-23 41 0026 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CHARLES H A ANN N HOEMEYER CHARLES H A AEM H HOEMEYER 4125 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55354 30 06-117-23 41 0029 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO J A OONEN A B L BOECN JEFFREY BOECN A BRENDA BOECN 4127 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 30 06-117-23 41 0032 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO K B ROlLANO a K S ROOEN KENNETH A KAREN ROLLANO 4119 OAK ST LOEEG LAKE EM 55354 t *•>T--' H.r>*E »•> i?--- ' ^ I-.’. ' .4 *■ f• -irt;V i ^->7 mm pm pfnp/nJmu^i.JJiATaiiOf'mm-*' t TAXPAYER It' V ; f>flOP AOOR t 0»t€R NAME ff TAXPAYER Vt i' NAME/ADDRiji'i ' Vm- - r ^v;a ■■::■ ■: 0i ,. ^ *R PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR 0»t4ER HAJHB TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR ■ • ; • PROP ADDR (MIER NAME TAXPAVER . NAME/ADDR V M OS-117-25 25 0000 05HS MYSIDE RO FRED SUNCH JR FRED StANCH JR 5905 SAYSIDE RO tONO LAKE MN 55554 50 05-117-25 25 0024 00541 NESTLAKE ST X E A H K BERGSA6EL IRV OERGSAGEL PO OOX 149 HAYZATA m 55591 56 05-117-25 25 0027 00569 NESTLAKE ST JATCT DONALDSON JANET DONALDSON 569 NEST LAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55550 58 05-117-25 52 0001 00420 TONKANA RO ANNICK R M PRATBERNON EDNIN C GAGE 2X1 BARBARA C GAGE PO BOX 59159 MPLS MN 55459-8250 58 05-117-25 52 0000 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CURTIS L CARLSON CURTIS L CARLS0T4 550 TONKANA RD LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 06-117-25 14 0020 00405 TONKAHA RO F 8 A M M BENNETT FRANK A MARTHA DEM4ETT C/O HAYCROSSE 1\K PO BOX 4^00 DEPT 20 MPLS MN 55440 mNNEPlN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OM€RS LIST56 05-117-25 25 0022 00525 NESTLAKE ST I E A M K BEKSAKL IRV BERGSAGEL PO BOX 149 NAYZATA m 55591 58 05-117-25 25 0025 00549 NESTLAKE ST EDNA T ANDERSON ET AL H/L EDNA T ANDER»N 177 PENINSULA RO MEDICirOE LAKE MN 55441 58 05-117-25 25 002B 00575 NESTLAKE ST P M LANGERT ET AL N/L EST PRISCILLA M LANGERT 575 NESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 05-117-25 52 0002 00460 TONKANA RO EDNIN C GAGE ETAL GAGE EDNIN C 12715 B STATE HNY 55 MPLS MN 55441 56 06-117-25 14 0012 04185 BAYSIDE RO ALLAN E REZADEK ET AL ALLAN I SHIRLEY REZABEK 4185 BAYSIDE RO MAPLE PLAIN ffi 55359 56 06-117-23 14 0021 00515 TONKANA RD f B BENT4ETT « M M BErt4ETT F B BENT4ETT 1 M M BENNETT 515 TONKANA RO OROfK) MN 55556 REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE 24 4•. > •• * V ,58 05-117-25 25 0025 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO I E A M K BEROAGEL IRV BERGSAGEL PO BOX 149 NAYZATA m 55591 58 05-117-25 25 0026 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO E C GAGE III t 8 C GAGE EDNIN III I BARBARA GAGE 460 TCRiCAHA RO LONG LAKE m 55556 58 05-117-25 25 0029 00565 NESTLAKE ST ICSTERN UNITED LIFE ASSUR CO JOSEPH D i MARY 8 FIEDLER 565 NESTLAKD ST LONG LAKE rt4 55556 58 05-117-25 52 0005 00520 TONKANA RD PREMIUM SERVICE CORP CARLSON REAL ESTATE CO ATTN TAX DEPT P 0 BOX 59159 MPLS MN 55459-8250 58 06-117-25 14 0019 04165 BAYSIDE RD s J I M ALT JAMES A A MARIk A ALT 4165 BAYSIDE RD ORONO MN 55559 ': fj’ • ‘'V H 1- U ‘ ^ ■ 56 06-117-25 14 0022 04045 BAYSIDE RD HAL BOON HENRICUS C A CORNELI«% A BOON 4045 BAYSIDE RD ORONO m 55559 .•n i ^ .v- ■! •■li'i Wt!;' v.Vir m mm DAT! OVtO/99>"4M1Ctl iO» .-; >r.* if 'f •. 1 ytHiirs:_ ■<^ •r"- '’ll*'I .r- !r\ ’ 1' J:.» ^ t . \ V ^ **4 i . t i; V .»tr ^ . Jr-' i \|4 ■ •Hi ♦ ;' I '*'' ■{• i-^ ,' ■V r ^ ^ I * i ;■■:»* %• I ♦ V : • < • » Vi '•» n^".1 4-‘! T .' v.'m^ V' ‘V.,/- 1 !**: T'-J S*-.? J I": j .'.v;. •« w 4 -- • ♦ ..4 r'* ■ •' ' W t ♦ • # ,;i'{ ’ ■' ' ■ • ■ •v4:v; ■ A*' r*r *• ■■"U v . ■li ir • > . V .V. •:. rc'1 • ' V •• NEIICPIN COUNTY PtOPERTY INFORHATICN SYSTEN PROPERTY OWERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4S5A0I W*PACE 17 . '-Tv ,.ciV.^ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEfATEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. t ♦A > j .V. • • 4va, -KSy- 5 TO: DATE: JcEnne Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administration FROM: Stephen Wcckman, On-Site Systems Manager October 24, 1995 SUBJECT: Subdivision application #2078, Frank Bennett - Septic Review D The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision requiring the use of on-site septic systems. Soil testing been provided by S-P Testing for primary and alternate sites on each lot. The drainfield sites all meet City and State standards for five bedroom residences. Soil testing indicates that all proposed systems use mound drainfields with site slopes of six percent or less and meet all setback requirements. The soil testing and design has been approved as submitted. Based on the soil testing, I would recommend the application be approved. U'cf I 0*vv.O<S ii V:/ yu . mm \<x Ui*.5i mm 50 -^fcAi'' iMJ>r->*'~^Tv's-‘■’‘j* •" - *, uV ^ •' ~~ ‘ 3gi UV vv •r 9 4^ • -f 3 V. .5V \• SA^x 8 2 ' ^VL \' -^F-1 " "'\ 1 ‘Q.; '^V^• « L^(\. :■ ,' V r TWE£I- i'l ’>5ii •^*« »<t> «f^ ^TL A‘l'5>. m 3- Li*l r'??‘3:i-\ r7 ^'5 5»«f>i m''m : .v !^ Jf?. T- y' 44 - £-1-1 •»» 5r. i £■* f'3^.t*' „' y'mm L«ijj %: ,fi CJ 2 - rv ." _:T' . 2- <> V 4 rf V>V r *^^-^.- • n -Li**.V*^/*•'’i">5^*-:-"V ’’‘»----'S€i i?’ '^J ^.1 1 J r • - *•. 999 ,V '- i.*f >*t'y i r. *U'k v^. ^' ••St / ift » :Vpi •Vi mn m i>?tj ( «•. r <tTWE£I^. u * •- *' s, f^J *t<k^ •!'-» • ^ * • * ' *. • # » -‘ :• • " rv 7?« Tt 'fl/TT Mj-jch 42? U (2?) (25)» , V X-J, X ''• “>■ 7^ n* «f*® f,^. a 3 a I'il r a, ‘1^ ' a ' '^ '■ (105)a-* ^ a « N 14 a ^ 3 a 3 j 13 a ; 4 a «i,1(90) *a i (g*;) a a 1"a'- 8 a a /'o ,^’ /on ^ ,j/9 » “^/ U5 a"* ® a R 107.;a 1 / ^ ;M0.00 1 ; ; 'S (96)a ^ ” '?5 « ^'ife?-!isutow- fd5/- 14 -f*o ■rrS 40 ,40 — t08 9? ^ ¥> [if)« "• • X lan • • • * a ’ a 'ts — R ^ a (90) ^ a ' aU5 4. (^0) '0 (?e; l>!*. 4 I zi.n *'•’•■ 't* » 4 * • » • • I. I s • I -• • I » .*» *• • .5.1 • \ • .! •• . I u ' ! • • I - ;• \ : " V. .?«* 7 • • . » • I t < 1 w’ , liV --!'! • r » ;. i ' • ** . ‘ * I ’ • • I. ' • r . •1 • ‘ ».* s • » • *• . 1 •. • • » J ■••• r j • • t •>' • • *. * I *1 • ‘ !.»: : • < * X V ^.* V '! * • I *•. I M .• ' • ,1 • I • !•> * 7.. • * » *, • . *• ti*#*• »■ » ' / » • .. • • •. . .* ■ t‘.. « >• .•. •• •■ •• '• . •!• »..■ • . , • J t * • , . i ! • '"'•r*** *•" t>oun<«rl#» of ttit obovt dtscruod froportjr, *ncJ the locitlon of «n- Milling houid, birn pool end tonnis court tborooo. It doot not gurporl to ihou ony othec loprove- WAis or tncroichatnis .* « I nuMWtt r o»n<». /iM-fi 4n^/jfg i0r 4/0/ <2>f! Mf m C(£IJ'^&GR{)\B!JGJ\C. ‘I • I hrrt4n trflilt (hji ihi^ uirtrv b*4s pnr^nrJ mr i« urtilrf my dirtcl Mipfft jnJ th4l 14m 4 Juit rr)(i»lrrrj Civil lnf(inrrr 4nd l^od SurwyoMmWf ihr Umv i4 Ihf Sl4ii ’ tH Mif«r>rvi44 t A \ *» • H Mark S CnmbrrK MinnrtuU UcrnM Numktf I275S S-SS2, I’ I • . • •• * 1 \s . (SJ m •nir^o = — I I 111 ‘f I b fk ! \*xo * »• n-»4^.' P* • msa1 __ _ A _ I V;X « \ ^ f * «lB^ j fc - r ■ J j T-ifl 1 J ► -p '*J@i-> ■- •» ♦ m j' @)?;/ \, a - fi .3, , \„0^ *i ,^__^_^.3..C —JL^-jg —g.^ ^ - X - «. »^~?*"! •* U>' ■ t. «»N ; ------''^l^'.—-XC?fl‘/f/^------'^TTV ' ■*' '-----.A'rv't' s -s \V OCt 25 ‘95*08;3:i FH WAVCfCOSSE INC f>li 74i 73'JO 7t'l m dffwiw 4 ♦ t;i* _ flfil ••' SHKa._MWa4 mA vlf* W«U.4-.«CIIiai ..4.*-^U t. «tl«ai.-W-4 ..4 *tt. . - _____mi th • irtui. ^ C#»»fV f Vltntflft^ '»*«^* •■'* ^ __. . a,____.m l_____________ . JM4. •/ Wta—.. iix; tTMl A, l«a»t*r»4 U.4 »•. 5-0. fUM ff »•€»• I » “•* 7”*r ’. ..I.'—' - —*- c*-tr *fi . ^ filr« mt »ffl«‘rtr •f .UlM* ciMiP^rtr».l Mcitttrt4 Uii4 •nrr^r !•. 7<*ao •» • •fPBVflB Hoto. U^rftrt. nu-..* •“ # Anal Aar allttflL.*’ note. «!)«rTtrf. rM«.« r--*'-- ^ «.*J.r.4..N W.*» • '• •“* -tb.!! lAc tHi«wo<w4 •/—XA a A JTIA^^*- ——— - -■• «*«■—«» ^ .w./ ««t.»«‘ •/ r-'" • •' ----------------------- » m m ^ #§•#% av U, •rrr. ------------------- S^.K tbl.tr f-t (». 30M .f tr..» *. 1U.l.t.rU UM su„v K*. 5-1. m.. . )l*(l»«r«r •/ ?ltl#«. Cov«oty »f «MiB«pla . ro /Mrr .f.vo to ttM.O ^4t0 F.iSKJ,K.VT -.<1 Jl" mmil -------------------------------------------- . M-M . •« — • * •»••••» mi t* . . -^ • * k»f«»«l« .*• . . fcnml • .!»•( ««f*Jrtlilln,*. MljttrtC. .w./C—k«....«..,i «. .<•» •.«»»/«' >•'■* (Sj^, S>.lr4 O.U.«U !• P* ...IV-iili-lC'VvLv rA-/:.rt; fSK.if.) (Sr.JI.i T 5 C 1 . (301 W/199S 12:02 473-d455 CCr=-lN % <3?CKFE=<3 PAijc PI 4 corns ••a * ,^,«0 U-l*. B-^** AWfMW* a«*M ^soverabcp * Ciiy of Orono 2750 KcUv Paik\%4> Ofono. >5<'“ Attn; Jeanne MabusJh Dear Jcaru'tf r„ .^u«. «..r FranL B«incti - pmp.«d ^ 3 q7^ wres The pii'^le easemeni foni pmaie dme^av casement b approximate^ 3.07.. contains appro'.nn.iicK <».43r acrci. ,„he. questions, please do not hesiute to caUIf there .are an\ Sincerch. COFFIN & c;p.o''!nHR<’i. Inc. Mark S Gronbera P I & I-S MSG/cr H Jeanne Habusth October 17, 1995 Page 2 Please direct any response to Doug Mattson. Sincerely, Thomas 0. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DBM Mh Hennepin^County . ’ 'V aniHnniilMHHliiinnilllinniilHHHHHHHIHHIH <-.-‘^ /••^•j^iw: i,-? ■;’•• 'V* ■^,. rfj• ^ .' •* ^ • . * ,rr- /OCT 2.0W er 17, 1995 Jeanne Mabusth r Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 RE: Proposed Plat - Jensen Homes Inc. CSAH 135, west side approximately 440 feet south of CSAH 84 Section 6, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2275 Review and Recommendations Dear Ms. Mabusth: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: • The existing 33 feet of right of way from and along the centerline of CSAH 135 is adequate. Hennepin County does not need additional right of way at this time. • The access locations for the proposed development are the existing driveways located approximately 260 feet south of the plats north line and approximately 12 feet north of the plats south line. These access locations are acceptable. Hennepin County will not permit any other access cuts to CSAH 135. Any proposed revisions to either of the existing drives require an approved entrance permit from Hennepin County before beginning any access construction or reconstruction. The developer can contact Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548 for access information or entrance permit forms. • All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access, drainage, utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for the appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed during construction. Department of Public VVork.s H 320 W;tsliincton .Avenue Si>uth Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 (612)930-2500 F.AX:(612)930-2513 Pdper ^ I Bonestroo MMRosene Anderlik & ^1 Associates Engineers & Architects Oaober 10, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 Re: Bennett Subdivision File No. 139-2078 Associetes, Ihc, ii jn AffiMfUtn#® ActiorVt^^^^ Op^ortywty EfhpiDyef Ofwa»liiMtrM.PE 999mm. PC* Joiiph C An^ertl i. P C. Marvin L Sorvaia. P E Ihcnara E Tumar. PE Glenn t. CaaE PE Thomas C Noyes . P f. loOort a Schyrsicht. P E SMsan M. Cbenm. • Sarwor Consultant MowarO A. Sanford. PE Renn a. Gordon.. PE toOert R. Pfeffersa. PE Richard W Poster. PC David O Losftoca. p C RoOert C RutseE A.LA jerry A. Rourdon. PE Mart A. Hanson. PE Michael T Rautmann. P E Ted R. Field. P C Thomas R. Anderson. A.l>. Jamos R. Roscnmertel. PE Donald C. lurgardt. P E. Thomas A Syfto. PI Frederic J. Stendorg. PC Ismael Martinet. PE Michael P Rau. P E Thomas W Peterson. P C. Michaei C lynch. PE James t. Maland P E Jerry O Parttseft. PE. Scott j. Arganet, PC. Kenneth P Anderson. P E. Mars R Rolfs. PE Mart A Seip. P E Gary 9f Monen. P £ Paul J Ganrson. A lA Daniai J Edgerton. P E A Rkk Schmidt. P E Dale A. Grove. P C. Phdid J. CaswreU. PE Mart D Wains. PC Miles t Jensen. P E L PhiMip Gravel. PE Raren L Wiemen. PE Gary D Rnstofiti. PE •rian E Gage. PE P Todd Poatar. PE Reiih • PE Douglas J. lerso it PE ShawnO Gustafson. PE CeciMo ORvier. PC. Rant J, Wagner. PE. Paul G Newer PC John P Gorder. PE Dan D. toyum. PE Jeffrey l Chle nnger. PE. Joseph R Rhein, P C. Lee M. Mann. P E Charles A. EncRson Leo M. PaweisRy Han^ M Olson Agnes M Rirsg James F EngeihardI 6 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the subdivision proposed by Jensen Homes. Inc. of the property at 315 Tonkawa Road owned by Mr. & Mrs. Frank Bennett. The proposed subdivision will create one new building site on the 10.69 acre parcel. The property presently lies outside of the MUSA boundary. The subdivision appears acceptable from an engineering standpoint and we would recommend approval contingent on the following criteria: 1. The subdivision should be done by plat to adequately describe easements that should be granted to the City as follows: - 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines. a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the Tonkawa Road right-ot-way (ROW). Hennepin County should review the subdivision to determine if additional ROW is needed for Tonkawa Road (C.R. 135). a minimum of 42 feet for the west half of the road is recommended. a drainage easement over the drainageway crossing the parcel. 2. Primary and alternate septic sites should be shown tor both lots. (Note: There is an existing 9-inch PVC sanitary sewer line along the west side of Tonkawa Road that could serve these properties if the MUS/\ line ever is expanded. 3. An outlot should be platted for the existing gravel driveway. Lot 2 should have access to Tonkawa Road by making it a shared driveway. Wc do not recommend a new access onto an arterial roadway such as Tonkawa Road, unless there is no other feasible alternative to provide access to a property. Also, a new driveway would cross the existing drainageway. requiring a culvert, tree clearing and regrading of the area. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours vcty' truly, BON'ESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, ____________________________________ 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 1 DATE: Dec 1995 ITEM NO Department Approval: Name Michael P. GafTron Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section; Zoning Item Description:#2065 Marfield'Hill/Toles, 2425. 2435. 2455 Scotch Pine Lane . Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and Utility Easements in Dicon Addition - Resolution . Replat of Dicon Addition - Final Plat Approval - Resolution List of Exhibits A B C D E F G - Vacation Resolution Final Plat Approval Resolution Preliminary Plat .Approval Resolution No. 3632 Hennepin County Plat'Access Approval Letter 11/27/95 NSP Vacation Consent Letter 11/20/95 Minnecasco Vacation Consent Letter 11/21/95 w Final Plat Drawings Discussion This application involves the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and existing utility easements within it. with the subsequent replat of Dicon Addition into a new plat to be known as "Scotch Pine Addition", including dedication ot new drainage and utility easements. The applicants have completed the requirements lor tlie replat, including. Provision of appropriate consent fomis from NSP and Minnegasco regarding vacation and rededication ot utility easements. Grantine to the City a utilities and access easement over Outlet A and Lot 1. Granting to the City a conservation and tlowage casement over tlie wetland in Lot 3. Pavment of $200.00 legal review and tiling fee. Completion of all requirements of Resolution No. 3632 4,t Request for Couoeil Action continuedi Page 2 December 6, 1995 Zoning FUe # 2065 MarfleldHiliyToles. 2425. 2435. 2455 Scotch Pine Lane_______________ Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and easement i within Dicon Addition (vacation resolution), and recommends approval of the replat of Di» on Addition to be known as "Scotch Pine Addition" with concurrent dedication of new easements (final plat approval resolution), per the attached resolutions. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: PROPOSED MOTION: A. Moved by . seconded bv . to adopt Resolution No. resolution vacating a portion of Scotch Pine Lane within the plat of Dicon Addition and vacating dedicated utility easements within the plat ot Dicon Addition. Section 9. Township 117, Range 23 in the City of Orono. Minnesota. Vote: aves. navs. B, Moved by ____, seconded by ____. to adopt Resolution No. resolution approving the plat ol Knoll Manor. V'ote; ____ayes.navs. A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF SCOTCH PINE LANE WITHIN THE PLAT OF DICON ADDITION AND VACATING DEDICATED UTILITV' EASEMENTS WITHIN THE PLAT OF DICON ADDITION, SECTION 9, TOWTVSHIP 117, RANGE 23 IN THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 2065 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corpt^ration organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on August 25. 1995, Samuel F. Marfield on behalf ot himself and Joyce C. Marfield. H. Douglas Hill and Cheiy l R. Hill, and William M. Toles tiled a petition with the Cit> of Orono requesting the vacation of a portion of Scotch Pine I ane within ute plat of Dicon Addition, as well as the vacation of utility easements in the plat of Dicon Addition. legally described as tollows: A. Description of Scotch Pine Lane 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. B. Description of utility easements to be vacated: All utility easements in Dicon Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County. Minnesota; and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held before the Orono Planning Commission on September 18. 1995 and said hearing continued on October 16, 1995. regarding said vacations and all interested persons desiring to be heard concerning the application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and Page 1 of 6 WHEREAS, at\er due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended appro%al of the requested right-of-way vacation and utility easement %acation and the Council of the Cit>’ of Orono finds that said vacations, as proposed, arc in keeping with the public interest in consideration of the following findings: 1.The applicants concurrently propose a replat of Lots 1 through 4 Dicon Addition, incorporating the portion of Scotch Pine Lane to be vacated. The replat will result in three lots. Prop«ised Lots I and 2 vs ill gain access to North Shore Drive via a shared driveway located within a proposed outlol at the current location of Scotch Pine Lane. Proposed Lot 3 will no longer gain access from Scotch Pine Lane but will create a new driveway access directly on to North Shore Drive approximately 200' east of the existing Scotch Pine Lane intersection. The applicants are the only property owners which both abut the right-of-way of Scotch Pine Lane and which use said right-ofway for access to their properties. As a result of the replat. none of the applicants will require a dedicated right-of-way for access to North Shore Drive. 3.The concurrent vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and all of the utility easements originally dedicated within the Dicon Addition, requires rededication of new utility easements for existing and future utility lines, which the applicants have aereed to dedicate. 4.In a letter dated November 21, 1W5. Stephen VonBargen on behalf of Minnegasco. consented to the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and the vacation of platted utility easements subject to creation of new utility ea.sements to protect Minnegasco's existing gas main. 5.In a letter dated November 20. l‘)95. Tina Olson on behalf of Northern States Power Company, consented to the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and the vacation of platted utility easements subject to creation of new' utility easemems for existing NSP faci'ities. Page 2 of 6 6. In addition to the Minnegasco and NSP easements, additional easements tor the existing municipal sewer and other existing utility lines will be rededicated within the concurrent replat. 7. Upon vacation. ptMtions 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, allowing the removal of the existing storm sewer. 8. Unique findings which support the requested vacation with concurrent replat include: a. Net hardcover reductions of 2,033 s.f. will occur within an area ol the shoreland overlay district that drains to Lake Minnetonka, and will decrease the runoff of salts and oils directly to the wetland and lake. b. c. d. e. f. 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 proposed new driveway directly on to North Shore Drive (County Road 51). This is the only three family cul-de-sac that drains into Lake Minnetonka that can be easily revegetated to slow down the drainage over blacktop into the lake. This is the only three family cul-de-sac that involves a lake lot separated into tax parcels. This separation requires the property owners to cross a public cul-de-sac to gain access to their lakeshore. Tliis is the only three family cul-de-sac that attracts strangers looking for access to the lake. Removing it vvill decrease the number of trips on to and off of North Shore Drive. Pane 3 of 6 8* I. This is the only three family cul-de-sac whose removal is supported by all three property owners and the two alTected neighbors. This is the onlv three familv cul-de-sac alone North Shore Drive where the norm is single and double private driveways. This is the onlv three familv cul-de-sac the Citv of Orono has considered ^ m 9 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. The unique aspects of this proposal as stated in items 1 through 8 above are suiTicient 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 are not generally found in other areas of Orono where private or public roads and cul-de-sacs serving as few as three residential lots are still appropriate. The Council further finds that because Seotch Pine Lane serves only three residential lots, does not provide access to the lakeshore for the public, and does not provide a potential future access to neighboring properties, the public interest in Scotch Pine Lane is limited to the provision of services to the three property owners, which interests can be suitably served via private drivewavs and easements. 0 I he vacation of Scotch Pine Lane does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. Page 4 of 6 11 . The City no longer intends to develop, improve or continue use of the dedicated right-of-way as a road except for utilities and access purposes hereinafter described, 12. In conjunction with the concurrent replat, the dedicated right-ol-way as it currently exists will serve no further public purpose. 13. The vacation of utility easements in conjunction with the replat and rededication of utility easements, will not affect access to or use ot any adjoining property. 14. The City ’ does not intend to further develop, improve or use the dedicated utility easements described above, subject to concurrent rededication of easements upv^n the concurrent replat 15. The dedicated utility casements to be vacated upon concurrent replat and easement rededication, will serve no further public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of Samuel and Joyce Martield, Douglas and Chervl Hill, and William Toles is hereby granted and that the portion of Scotch Pine Lane legally described above is hereby vacated, and the utility easements dedicated within the plat of Dicon Addition arc hereby vacated, fhe granting of this petition is subject to the following conditions: 1, Upon vacation, applicants shall complete the replatting ot Lots 1 through 4, Dicon Addition and vacated Scotch Pine Lane to include the rededication of drainage and utility casements acceptable to the City ot Orono, NSP, Minnccasco. and any other utilities making use ot easements which have been vacated. 2. Upon vacation, applicants shall grant over Outlet A and the necessary portions of proposed Lot 1. an easement for utilities and access from County Road 51 to the municipal sewer easement. Page 5 of 6 I......is-r ',fp- 3. Upon vacation, and upt>n the concurrent replat, the new Lots 1 and 2 shall maintain a shared drivewav within Outlol A. Removal of blacktop and regrading of the site shall be in accordance with the grading and drainage plan approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Department. The owners of proposed Lots 1. 2 and 3 ot the concurrent replat shall jointly obtain a land alteration permit prior to commencing the removal of Scotch Pine Lane and filling^grading of the site. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December II, 1995. AITEST: Dorothv M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNn^ OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of December 1995. by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. &. Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor & City Clerk of the Citv of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Pane 6 of 6 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF SCOTCH PINT ADDITION FILE NO. 2065 WHERE.\S, 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 City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a replat subdivision by Samuel and Joyce Martleld. Douglas and Cheryl Hill, and William Toles (hereinafter "the applicants"); and WHEREAS, on November 13, 1995 the City' Council approved Resolution No. 3632 cranting conceptual approval of the vacation ot Scotch Pine Lane and utility easements with*in the dTcoo Addition, and granting preliminary approval of a three lot plat of property liKated within Dicon Addition; and WHEREAS, the property being replatted is described as "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 sout^herly of the northwesterly continuation of the nonheasterly line of said Lot 4" (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, 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; and WHERExVS, the property contains a total of approximately 3.37 acres, including Lots 1-4 and the rieht-of-wav of Scotch Pine Lxine. Existing Lots I, 3 and 4 each contain a single familv 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 two acre mimmum lot area requirement. These lots were developed prior to the current zoning standards; and Page 1 of 6 WHEREAS, Lots 1-4 and Scotch Pine Lane will be replattcd into three building lots and a private driveway outlot. 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) Outlot A = 0.05 acres; and WHEREAS, as a result of the replat, each of the three proposed lots increases m acreace eained from i.he vacation of Scotch Pine Lane, and in the case of proposed Lot . a so resultWfrom the addition of area incorporated within the esisting Lot 2. 1. 2 and 3 will, however, remain at lot areas less than the required two acre minimum tor the LR lA Zoning District, requiring a lot area variance; and \VHERE.\S. each of proposed Lots I, 2 and 3 are lakeshore lots but required 200' lot width at the shoreline and at the 75' lakeshore setback line as required m the LR- lA district, requiring lot width variances for each ot Lots 1, ^ and 3, .in i,s“rsr si... s ,c-». ..iin.. a requirement at 1 esc e ^ ^ requirement ol the LR- ',A dtirlct: anTls subject to a side yard depth of 150% of the 30' LR-IA side yard requirement; and WHEREAS, as a result of the replat, the Marfield property (proposed Lot ) K . hacUot with 45' required side setbacks rather than the 30’ side setbacks normally becomes a back L J Marlield's residence structure non-conlormmg de lac^re — ^he Hill property (proposed Lot 2) bece.nes a trontto the side setback q ^ ^ ^^e common lot subject to a .0 side revised setback requirements boundaiy line wit ^ ^ into account in future improvements impacting proposed LoU 1, a. anu a, wmen to those properties; Page 2 of 6 'WHEREAS, the Council finds that it is appropriate to grant variances for the "front lot" and "back lot" non-conformities created by the rcplat; and >VHEREAS, proposed Lots 1 and 2 will gain access to North Shore Drive via a shared driv'eway located within Outlet A, at the current location ot Scotch Pine Lane. Proposed Lot 3 will no longer gain access from Scotch Pine Lane but will create a new driveway access directly onto North Shore Drive approximately 200 east ot the existing Scotch Pine Lane intersection. Hennepin County Department ot Public Works has given preliminarx’ approval for this new driveway access; and WHEREAS, the new shared dri\eway in Outlet A. the extension of the driveway to ser\e proposed Lot 1, and the new driveway to be created tor proposed Lot 3 have been designed to Cit>- of Orono residential street weight bearing capacity standards to provide adequate access for fire fighting equipment. Further, the Long Lake Fire Department has indicated the proposed driveway construction and proposed widths are sufficient tor the necessary staging of fire fighting equipment; and WHEREAS, the concurrent vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and all ot the utility easements originally dedicated within the Dicon Addition, requires rcdedication of new utility easements for existing and future utility lines. The proposed rededication includes a 30' municipal sewer easement over the existing municipal sewer laterals within Scotch Pine Lane. Additional drainage and utility easements will be granted to accommodate Northern States Power and Minnegasco facilities on the property; and WHEREAS, the proposed plat includes dedication of standard drainage and utility easements along the perimeter and interior lot lines, and includes the dedication of a drainaee easement over the wetland located in proposed Lot 3. Said wetland will allso be subject to a Conservation and ITovvage Easement to be executed by the owner of Lot 3; and WHEREAS, portions of the paved surface ot Scotch Pine Lane are intended to be removed bv the applicants and those areas filled and graded to provide lawn areas with surface drainage. The existing stomi drain .ind stomi 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 Citv Eneineer. It is the intent of the City to release any drainage easement for this abandoned stonn sewer that may be recorded against the title of proposed Lot 3; and Page 3 of 6 WHEREAS, per the request of the neighboring property owner to the east, it is appropriate to require that the new driveway created tor proposed Lot 3 shall be set back at least 15’ from the east line of proposed Lot 3; and WHEREAS, unique findings and factors supporting the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane resulting in the elimination of this public dedicated roadway have been enumerated in City Council Resolution No.______adopted December 11, 1995; and WHEREAS, the applicants have completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 3632. 2. Dedication to the City of a flowage and conservation easement providing for limitations on the use of wetlands described therein and shown on the plat as "drainage easements". 3. 4. 5. 6. Dedication on the plat of the standard perimeter drainage and utilities easements, as well as additional utilities easements for existing and fumre use bv Northern States Power, Minnegasco, and other utilities. Granting of a utilities and access easement to the City of Orono for access from Nonh Shore Drive to the municipal sewer easement over Outlot A and proposed Lot 1. Provision of suitable documentation from Hennepin County Department of Public Works approval for the new access for the Toles driveway. Provision of confirmation from NSP and Minnegasco tliat they consent to the vacation of existing utility easements subject to rededication of the proposed new easements. 7. Payment to the City of final plat legal review and filing fees in the amount of*S200.00. Pace 4 of 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVTD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Scotch Pine Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1. A variance is hereby granted to the 2.0 acre minimum lot area requirement for Lots 1, 2 and 3. 2. A variance is hereby granted to the 200' lot width standard for Lots 1. 2 and 3. 3. 4. A variance is hereby granted to the "back lot" lot width and lot area standards for Lot 1. Funher, a variance is granted to the "back lot" setback standards for all existing structures and improvements within Lot 1 that are subject to the increased "back lot" setback standards. Lots 1 and 2 shall maintain a shared driveway within Outlet A. Outlet A shall be privately owned and appropriate easements shall be granted by the owner or owners of Outlot A sufficient to ensure access over Outlet A for both Lots 1 and 2. A new drivway to serve Lot 3 shall be consumeted with access directly to North Shore Drive. The new driveway shall be set back a minimum of 15 ’ from the easterlv lot line ot Lot 3. Removal of blacktop, regrading of the site and new driveway construction shall be in accordance with the grading and drainage plan by BRW. Inc. dated September 12, 1995 revised October 11, 1995. All grading shall be subject to the use of appropriate erosion controls during the grading work and shall ensure that revegetaion of the site is completed as soon as possible upon completion of the grading. The owners of proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall jointly obtain a land alteration permit prior to commencing the removal of Scotch Pine Lane and filline/grading of the site. A separate land alteration permit will be required for construction of the new driveway serving Lot 3. Page 5 of 6 8.The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office on or before June 11. 19% together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the utilities and access easement and flowaae and conservation casement documents noted above. The approval granted by this resolution shall e.xpire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 11th day of December. 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 11th day ol December. 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. Notars' Public Pace 6 of 6 ► • *. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 3 682 _ A RESOLUTION GR.\NTING CONCEPTUAL^PROOF THE vacation OF SCOTCH PINE LANE AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE DICON ADDITION - FILE NO. 2065 ttcno rn-Xftcr "Citt- to vaca.ion of'tha right-of-way of Scotch Ptnc Lana ana for approval of l0Mc"idcnt.al rcolat of Scotch Pine Lane ar.d rcidanttal proper, located at .ape, and 2455 Scoich Pin.^ Lane, legally decenbad xs lolicws: Lots 1-4, inclusive. Block 1. Dicon Addition, .according to Uie recorded piai ;h»r“of Henneoin CountA, Minnesota and all that part of the ngb.t-Oc-ua> of Scotch Pine Lane, as donated and dedicated by said Dicon Addition, xvnich hes southerly of the northwesterly continuation ot the northeasterly line ol s.u 4 (hereinafter "the propeny”';, and WHEKEAS. after due publ.shed and tr.ailed notice -n aacorcanca with Mint^^ta r , -ss et sea and the Citv of Orono’s '.Drunu ano .■>abdivision Cones, toe - C"- C-n'tlsL held a public h^anng on Sep.en-.ber t». ,9,5 .rd cont.nued said heanng OP Oc’ober i6. WQ5. at which times all persons uesinnu to be neard eo.K-cm .ir-iieat.ion were given the opportunity to speak thereon; :md \\'HERE.\..S. at their regular meeting held on November 13. 199b. thw Orem Ci:> Council considered the application for public road vacation and replal subdivision, noting die' folicwing findingi of fact: The nropeitv is located v itinn the LR-lA Single Family Lakeshore '‘^'fidenum Zoning Disinc: reauiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dr>- buildablc land and 2'>0 ’ of width for each building lot. Th-w rropenv conuains a total of approximately 3.37 acres, including Lots 1-r and the'ncht-of-wa:- of Scotch Pine Lane. Existing Lots 1. 3 and 4 each contain a 1. Pace 1 of 9 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 10 8632 J. sinde residence. Existing Lot 2 provides lat e access for existing *-ot . and is not considered as a buildable site. Each of existing Lws 1. an contain less than the two acre nr. niinum lot area requirement. These ots uere developed prior to the current zoning standards. Existing Lots M and Scotch Pine Lane will be replaned into three building lots and a private driveway outlot. with lot areas as tollows; Proposed Lot 1 * 1.13 acres (Martield) Proposed Lot 2 * 0.85 acres (Hill) Proposed Lot 3 = 1.34 acf€> 0.^6 acres dry) (Toles) Outlot .A * 0.05 acres As a res Jt of the replat. each of the three proposed lots increases in acreage earned 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 a:id 3 will, however, remain ai lot area.s less than the required two acre minimum loi the LR-1,\ Zoning District, requiring a lot area variance. Each of proposej ois 1. 2 and 3 arc lakeshorc lots but lack the required -00 lot width at 0 shoreline and at the 75' lakeshore setback line as required m the LR-l.A District, requinng lot width variances for each of Lots 1. 2 and 3. Proposed Lots 2 xnd 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 dnveway seizing proposed Lots 1 and 2 wuhin proposea Outlot .A. By definition, proposed Lot 1 is a "back lot" per Municipal Subdivision Code Section 11.03. Subdivisi. n 2. Per Section 11.31. Subdivision > (C-**). proposed Lot 1 is required to meet 150®'o of the two acre zoning district lot area requirement; is required to meet the 200' lot width requirement at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line, and at the street yard setback line; is subiect to a street yard or front yard depth ot 150% ot the 50 front requirement of the LR-l.A District; and is subject to a side yard depth of 150% of the 30 ' LR-l.A side yard requirement. 1 Page 2 of 9 « •• • CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 6 82 _ 7.As a rtsult of the repUt. the Mm.elti propert> (proposed Lot 1) ^con-.es a bock to tto 45 requtred side setbacks rather than the 30; side setbacks norntail; reouired in the LR-IA District, making more ol s:'T p-rosc:Lots 1. : and 3. which must be taken into account tn luture improcemen those propenies. The Council finds that it is appropnate to grant variances for the "front lot" and "back lot" non-conibrmities created by the replai. Proposed Lots 1 and Z will gain access to Nonh dnvewav located uathm Outlot A. at the current location Proposed Lot ? will no longer gam acces.s trom Scotch Pine Lane bu ^re c a dnveuav access directly onto Nordi Shore Dnve approximaielv -00 c- of the e.Mstinu'Scotch Pine Lane intersection. Hennepin County Department o Public Works'has given prelimmar> approval for this new drive\%a> acces.. The neu shared dnveway in Outlet A. the extension of the dri.eway the proposed ' ot 1. and the ne'v driveway to be created for proposed Lot .? a\ been de'en^ Citv of Orono residential street weight bearing capacity standards to prov.de adequate access for tire fighting equipment. Further t e Lon- Lake Fire Department has indicated the proposed dnveway construction Ld 'proposed widt£ a.c sufficient for the necessary staging ot fire fighting equipment. The concurrent xacation of Scotch Pine Lime and all of the utility easements oi.umallv Jedicatud within ihe Dicun .Addition, requires rcdedicutuin of nevv utiiV easements lor e.visttng and future utilttv- lines. The proposed reueditoi includ-s a '0- niunicinal sewer easement over the existing municipal sewer laterals within Scotch Pine Lane, .-Additional drainage and uttitty easements will be granted to accommodate Nonhem States Power and Mmnegasco facilities on Pace 3 of 9 § *9 ’m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 6 32 thp proper^’. Additional private easements between property o\Mters 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 ol a drainage easement over the wetland located in proposed Lot e. Said wetiand will also be subject to a Coruer%atijn and Flowage Easement to be executed b> the owner of Lot 3. 13. Portions of the paved surface ot Scotch Pine Lane are intended to be removed by the applicants and those areas filled xnd graded to provide l-awn areas with surface drainace. The existing storm drain and storm sevver leading trom th». cul-de-sac to the wetland is intended to be removed per the submitted grading plan subject to approval by th.- City Engineer. It is tlie intent of the City to release anv drainage easement for this abandoned storm sevser that mav Lc recorded against the title of proposed Lot 3. 14. Per the request of the neighboring property owner to the east, it is appropiiate to require tnat the new driveway created for proposed Lot a shall be set back at least 15' from the east line of p ^.osed Lot 3. 15. Unique findings and factors supponing tlie requested vacation and rcplat resulting in the elimination of this public dedicated roadway include the following: A. B Net hardcover reductions of 2.033 s.f will occur v>iihin an area ot the Shoreland District that drains to Lake Minnetonka, and will decrease the runoff of salts and oils directly to the wetland and lake. The Long l.ake Fire Depanment has accepted the proposed driveway surfacing plan vshich provides adequate fire equipment access and staging capability. Hennepin Counw Department of Public Works has gra tied preliminary approval for the proposed new driveway directly onto N jrth Shore Drive (Counts Road 51). Paee 4 of 9 16. D. E. I. J. K. L. M. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 36S2_ This is the oiUv three-family cul-de-sac that drains into Lake that can be easily revegetated to slow down the drainage over blacktop into the lake. Th:s is the only three-family cul-de-sac that invohes a lake lot separated into two tax parcels. This separation requires the property owmrs cross a public cui-de-sac to gain access to their lakeshore. -ntis is the oniv three-family cul-de-sac that attr.u:is strangers looking for access to the lake. Removing it wtil decrease the number ot trips onto and off oi North Shore Drive. This is the onlv three-family cul-de-sac whose removal is supported by all three property owners and the two alfec ’ed neighbors. This is the only three-family cul-de-sac along North Shore Drive where the norm is single and double pnvate driveways. Tliis is the only three-family cul-de-sac the City of Orono has considered removing for ainK>st twenty years. The City will no longer bear the cost of maintaining the existing street. Removal of the public street will make the area safer tor children. Removal of the public street will increase security to the existing homes. Remo\al of the public street will improve the aesthetic view trom the lake. The Council finds that the unique aspects of this proposal as noted above are suflicienl justification to allow the removal of this public road and cul-de-sac. •nie Council finds that the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane is supporteu by unique circumsumccs that are not generally found in other areas of Orono whe'e pnvate Pace 5 of 9 •* •w CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 6 3 rv or public roads and cul-de-sacs sersrns as fe« as three appropriate. The Council Jlakeshore for the ;rrd rfr rdefr^t^^arfor at:;:. ne.phbon„. properttes, foe pub “ct tLs. ,n scotch P.ne Lane ,s l.nuted to the patvt.on of sea^ to the three propern' ouriers. which interests c.’n be bUiiac > -v. v p driveways and easements SOW THEREFORF. BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of foe nndtnes no«d!Je foe Cin Councl of the Cit> ofOrono hereby cc.nceptu,.lly approves vreanon of Scotch P-at= Lane, anc hereby approses foe prehmtnary plat appl canon ot Nfo -rd Mrs Marfield Mr. and Mrs. Hill and Mr. Toles per the prelimma.'y plat dra«ini,s . oifo"i:"995 by Keith Dahl of BPeW. ijrL' 1 variance for substandard side yard setbacks for the existing structures located -c. vh. L ieouired 45’ from the side lot lines of proposed Lot !; grants a variance -..H Int 1 beino 1 13 acres in area where a minimum three acres would normalK Ic for a back lorin the LR-l.A Zonina Distnct, grants \arianccs for lot area and lot wiuth requ.rcu tor a b ^ ^ recneciweb 0 85 and 1-34 acres in ;irea where a two acre S ^Xno^ali; "dtnred. xnd ufoc^^rc respeettveh ^fpro-ately 35^and IdT In^dth u u r«3 .n t ,t The lakeshore setback line where a minimum width ot .00 is normain " tre“^ ^ °r‘"access outlet, lo be 25 ’ ,n wtdth uhere a cO’ tntn.m.m urdth ts normu,.y r.-qu.rcd. Conceptual approval of the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and approval of the prclimiLy subdivision replat of Dicon .Addition is subject to the follovvmg conditions. 1 A-'-tlicants shall provide documcntalion of fomial I Icnnepin County Departinenl of Public Works approv al of the new access for the Toles dnveway prior to tina plat approval. ^ The new Toles driveway shall be set back a minimum of 15 ’ from the easterly lot line of proposed Lot 3. Pane 6 ot 9 V.- CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 6 32 4 :>. 6. Applicams shall provide vsTitteir conf.rrraiion from NSP. Mitmeyasco and ^ X uXies mlms use of easements to be vacated, that the dratnace and easements to ^ rededicated are acceptable to said utihtv companies. An easement for access from County Road 51 to the municipal setv„ element shall be granted over Outloi A and the necessa.-s portions of proposed L . be approved by Orono Public Works Director. ProDosed Lots 1 and 2 shall maintain a shared driveway within Outlot A. Ltlot A shall be privatelv owned and appropriate easements shall granted ^ the clner or oLrs of Outlot A suffieicnt to ensure access over Outlot A for both Lots 1 and 2. The ovtner of propo.sed Lot 3 shall gram a Conserv ation and Flovvage Easement to the City over the wetland located in proposed Lot .•>. Removal of blacktop and rectadine of the site shall be in accordance vvilh a grarga^d drainage plan ri be approved by the Cty Enc.neer and Public Works Depanmem prior lo linal piat approval. The owners of proposed Lots I. 3 and 3 shall jointly obtain a land alteration retrnt prior lo commencing the removal of Scotch Pine Lane tmd filling grading of the site. A separate land alteration permit will be required for eonslruelio of the new driveway ser\ing Lot 3. 9. Final approv al of the vaeat.on of Scotch Pine Lane shall occur coiicurremly with final plat approval. 10. This replat is not subject to park dedication requirements. pjn.ll Plat Submittals Th- final submittals must be submined lo the Zomng Administrator two weeks prior to .he rcgu^ar'lv silled Counc.l meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. 8 Pace 7 of 9 « *—■% • CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ ______ 1.Record plai 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 "drainace and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each sid. of internal propeny lines and dedication of drainage and uiiiir. 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, mortgaee holders or Others with propeny interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. B. The applicants shall preside certified copies o.' all recorded casements currently affecting the property. C Sinned and executed Flowace and Conserxation Easement over the wetland located in Lot 3. Please refer to the standard easement document avaiia’rle from the Building and Zoning Depanment. D Sinned and executed Ltiliry and Access Easement over Outlet A and the nonhwesierly 25' of Lot I nonheasterh of the municipal sewer lines within the existing Scotch Pine right-of-way. E. Formal wiitten documentation from NSP and Minnegasco of their acceptance of the proposed drainage and utility easements. Pane 8 of 9 • - • • CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 8632_ 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: . 52^0,PQ— A. Legal review and filing fees » S200.00 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Mirjtesou at a teeiilar meeting held this 13th day of November. 1W3. ATTEST: Doroiiiy City Clerk • / /! , ' '/ • I Edward J. Caliahan. Jr.. Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COLTsTY OF HENTsEPIN ) ) ss. Tb,e foreaoine instrument was acknow lodged befote me on this 13th day of C^Senra Mirera‘^manic!pd “oiomtio^ il.mment was executed on behalf of the City. MOTAPYPUBLC-MINNtSOTA » HENNEPIN COUNTY » J ---- Noliuv Public Paue 9 ot 9 Hennepin County '1 JL An Eqiial Orr«>nunirv Emriover _____________ A.:. Mike Gaffron \ Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 tMint\ \ilmiiu'*ir ir.‘I ovel^b^%, 1995 RE: Proposed Plat - Scotch Pine Addition CSAH 51, south side approximately 2060 feet east of CSAH 84 Section 9, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2283 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. Gaffron: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following consents: The existing 50 feet of right of way is adequate. Hennepin County does not need additional right of way at this time. The proposed access revision as shown on the Site/Grading Plan proposed plat, dated September 21, 1995 and revised October 11, 1995, is acceptable to Hennepin County. As proposed. Lots 1 i 2 will have J joint drive located approximately 20 feet east of the plats west line, 'his joint access will replace the existing Scotch Pine Lane access. Lot 3 will have a new access located approximately 25 feet west of the plats east lino. Hennepin County will not permit any other driveway access to CSAH 51. All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access, drainage, utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for the appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Doug Mattson. Sincerely, Thomas D. Johnson, P. Transportation Planning Engineer Dep.jrtment of Public Works TDJ/DBM ““Wasluni ’ton Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 (612)930-2500 H'MX;(612)930-2513 RtLytlcJ r Wi- November 20.1995 Norttwm Power Company 414 NiCOlM Mat! Mtnn«apo(i*. Minnesota 55401-1927 Tetephon* (612) 330-5500 City of Orono Attn; MikeGaffrcn Assistant Planning and Zoning Admn. P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE; Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane Section 19. Township 117. Range 22 Hennepin County. MN Dear Mr. Gaffron. NSP recently had a request from Mr. Keith Dahl, RLS, of BRW Inc., to vacate existing Scotch Pine Lane, and the Proposed Plat of Scotch Pine Addition, in the City of Orono. The request has been reviewed by the NSP Shorewood Distribution office. NSP can consent to the Vacation, subject to the platted utility easements as dedicated in the Proposed Plat of Scotch Pine Addition. NSP would need to maintain a 15 platted utility easement on the East line of Lot 3, as opposed to the proposed 10 feet. This 15 foot utility easement on the East line of Lot 3 has been approved by BRW Inc. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerdlydfy. A Tina Olson Asst. Real Estate Rep 330-5983 cc; Keith Dahl, RLS BRW, Inc. HUmnegax ENemr Cott^Mur November '21-,—1995.^. I 1 Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administiator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 RE: Street Vacation of Application #2065 Dear Mr. Gaffron: NOV 2 2 with reference to Minnegasco's letter dated September 15, 1995, concerning the street vacation of Scotch Pine Lane, I had a meeting yesterday with Keith Dahl, RLS, BRW. Mr. Dahl presented plans to create a utility easement across part the Easterly half of Scotch Pine Lane to protect Minnegasco's existing gas main lying 7 feet West of the East right of way line. With the creation of a utility easement on the new plat, Minnegasco, therefore removes its objection to the above referenced street vacation. Sincerely, Steven Von Barge: Real Estate Specialist Minnegasco pc: R. J. Pilon, Minnegasco Howard Jensen, Minnegasco Keith E. Dahl, BRW TOO West Luiden A\ enue P.O Box 1U>5 Miniu’apolis MN November IZir;—199S,^ NOV 2 2 'i.QO': I September 15, 1995, Pine Lane, I had a Mr. Dahl presented art the Easterly half 's existing gas main ine. t on the new plat, ttion to the above erely. / en Von Barge: Estate Specialist egasco 3o c» o z z §ooo h- on • •oc o 1^-. x'V . o H—I Q f q < w:zi PLh o oo CO i e I s £ it u.o 5VI I t Jf tl \n i 9 1* 0? fin 3fV I I 8 CD 2^ I X - 1 I I n- u. O 5 VI I I I f <• I j o i- « i 4 -i II I f I I Ui K: >- Ul>•( 8u sK I* o ■* 1 It' i I V> O I fi u. O u. O < P/- 6 v-» I U I s a. I « .2 '3 3 ^ ^ i5 l§ 4 4i 1 I < X I f I JK u i 2 11^ I Hi io| t I I 9 fi f 1«c ^ ?f ii I ej s il I tv O C-IV. .T U 1- I Ou « € I |i !I C ^ I^ I X A 'S i s II 4 I 3 » uj .M t''3'- It. UJ2 ^ I*I ^ I ? ijs y;;: o lif 5 t 8 2 iCik^o { ?> I CD % o o o o o o Q Q Od Od o I f Wiz; P h ffi o e -hoo CO § I I ^® o § § CD i R§ &: tfi 5? §ii !!s“ g ♦ ai CQ U 5C CO o H U]w X to COUNCIL MEEHNG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 1 1995 DATE: 9Fn(h(^0||eKO ITEM NO,IC Department Approval: Nanu Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoninu Item Description: #2082 Richard Siark.575 Oxford Road - Vacatioa'After-the-Fact Variances Resolutions Brief Review of Application Please refer to the staff memo dated November 14. 1905 and the Planning Commission minutes of the November 20, 1995 meeting for more detail and background on this review. Applicant (purchsed property in August 1995) had no knowledge of a Conser\ ation & Flowage Easement as former owner and title company had never noted its existence. The designated wetland protected bv the easement covered all of applicant's lakeshore yard (refer to Exhibit K). Applicant proceeded to remove trees within the 0-75' setback area and within the protected area under the 1978 Conser\ation Easement created at the time of Stielow Addition. The Building Inspector discovered the violation in a routine inspection of the neighborhood and advised applicant's contractor to cease all work until necessarx ’ approval had been obtained from the City. The zoning staff and City Engineer have met with Mr. Stark on at least two occasions. We discussed the need to install erosion control and inspected the originally defined protected area to determine if a wetland truly existed within the boundaries of the protected aiea of the Conservation Easement After inspecting the lakeshore yard, staff concuired that the original wetland designation may have been ov erly generous. Applicant was advised to hav e a wetland delineation made of the area to deiemiine the exact boundaries of the true wetland. Refer to Exhibits G. H and J, the delineation report was reviewed by Gustafson who confirmed the findinus and approved the redesignation of the wetland. Applicant was advised to immediately install'suiiable groundcover over the nonwetkuid area and to plant appropriate wetland seeding such as Ma Dot mixture 250 in the wetland area. The City staff have inspected the area and confirmed that certain plantings within the wetland have taken and ;he Engineer will reinspect the properly in the spring to detemiine if other wetland seed types have also surv ived the winter. Refer to E.xhibit F, 10 trees were removed in the 0-75’ setback area. 10 trees within the area defined as A (newly defined wetland area not included in the 0-75' zone) and approximately 12 trees in the Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3' December?, 1995 Zoning File #2082 area defined as B (nonwetland area prou .'ted under original Conservation & Flowage Easement). Some of the trees were dead or dying and others were selected tor removal because of their specific species. Tree removal does not provide lake views for the residence as the residence is located close to the street. The original marsh t) pe vegetation adjacent to the lake prevents clear view of lake. As applicant's hardship statement notes (Exhibit Cl-3). the goal was to develop a lawn and maintainable yard. The Planning Commission recommended that 10 trees be replanted in the 0-75 and 5 trees in area A. Plantings were to be completed by July 15, 1996. Applicant continues to maintain erosion control. StatT can report there has never been a problem with erosion or the degradation ot the 0-75 setback area where a marshlike wetland exists. At the Planning Commission meeting, applicant asked if he could use a weed wacker within the wetland areas. ^StatY would recommend against the cutting of vegetation w ithin the wetland at this time but to allow the wetland time to restore the natural vegetative cover. .Applicant must contact staff before any cutting or removal of vetatation is planned w ithin the protected area. Planning Commission Recommendation Tlie Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval ot the vacation application ot Rick Stark involving the property located at 575 Oxford Road that would vacate an original conservation area dedicated in the plat of Stielow Addition approved by the City in 1978. This approval is based on the soil delineation report by Jay Riggs. Environment Specialist, ot Westwood Protcssionals Serv ices. Inc. dated July 31, 1995. and on the approval of the report by the City Engineer. Approval is subject to applicant executing a new Conserv ation and Movvage Easement over the newly defined wetland area. Conservation and Flowage Easement has been prepared similar to the one originallv granted in 1978 that allowed for a 10' walkway through the wetland prov iding access to the shoreline and residential dock. The Planning Commission also recommended unanimous approval of the variances to Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (1) 1 and 2 and v iolation of the Flowage and Conserv ation I-asement that would approv e the remov al of the trees in the protected areas subject to applicant repEmting 10 trees within the 0-75' setback area and 5 trees within the remaining portion of redefined wetland (area A). Plantings to be completed by July 15, 1996. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A. To either approve or amend vacation resolution vacating original Conservation Ea.sement dedicated in the Stielow Addition. w Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 December 7, 1995 Zoning File Jjf2082 ________ B. Approval of after-the-fact variance application involving tree removal and vegetation clearing within lakeshore protected area and conser\ation area. 1 A RESOLUTION VACATING A CONSERVATION AND FLOWAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 2, BLOCK 1, KLITZKE ADDITION IN THE CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 2082 WHEREAS, the Cit>' of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 1995, Richa ’-d MiHer Stark (Tiereinalkr the applicant) filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation ot a conserv ation iuid tlowage easement orginally dedicated in the plat of Stielow Addition. Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally described as follows; Refer to Exhibit A attached; and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held before the City's Planning Commission on November 20. 1995 regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the proposed vacation; and WHEIHi^AS, the City Council of the City ot Orono finds that said vacation as proposed is in keeping with the public interest and in consideration of the following findings: Applicant’s consultant. Jay Riggs, an En\ ironmental Specialist of Westwood Professional Services, Inc., has submitted a wetland delineation report dated July 31, 1995 locating a wetland area within lakeshore yard of Lot 2. Block 1, KJitzke Addition. The City Engineer Shawn Gustafson in his report dated August 8, 1995 reconfirmed the findings of that wetland delineation report. ITie findings of the report confirm that the wetland area protected under the original conservation easement dedicated in 1978 with the Stielow Addition was incorrectly designated. 1. Page 1 of 3 r,.... 3. The Flo wage and Conservation Easement as it exists today serves no public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Uie petition of Richard Miller Stark is hereby granted bv the Council of the City of Orono and that the Flovvage and Conservation Easement legally described above is hereby v acated. The granting of the petition is subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to grant a Flovvage and Conservation Easement over the redefined wetland area within Lot 2, Block 1. Klitzke Addition. Adopted by the City Council of the City ot Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held on December 11, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr.. Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COLWY OF HENNEPIN ) The forecoinc instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of December, 1995. by Edward'J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT A Afl that part of Lot 5. Block t, STIELOWS ADDITION, lying Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 5 therein distant 365.06 feet Westerly of the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 22 degrees 47 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 116.72 feet; thence North JO degrees 40 minutes 18 seconds West' a distance of 135.03 feet to the Northerly line of said Lot 5 and there terminating. For purposes of this description, the Southerly lino of sold Lot 5 Is assumed to bear North 39 degrees 41 minutes 21 seconds West. ^ Page 3 of 3 A RESOLUTION CR*ANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(1) 1 & 2 FILE #2082 WHEREAS, Richard Miller Stark (hereinafter "the applicant") is o\\ner ot the property located at 575 Oxford Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") legally described as follows: Lot 2. Block I, Klitzke Addition. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for after-lhe-lact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56. Subdivision 16(1) I & 2 to pem.it clear cutting of shrubs and vegetation and the removal of 10 mature trees within the lakeshore protected area, clear cutting and the removal of approximately 22 trees within an area protected by a certain Flovvage and Conservation Easement filed against the chain ot title ot the property in 1978. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2082. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA. Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. The propertv- consists of 2+ areas. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed tliis application on November 20, 1995, and recommended unanimous approval of the proposed variances based upon the following unique findings and hardships: Pane 1 of 5 A. Applicant had no knowledge of the existence of the Consen’ation and Flowage Easement at the time of the sale of his properU’ nor did his title company advise him of the easement. B. Applicant was not aware of the restrictive ordinances governing tree removal within 0-75' of the lake but has willingly agreed to replant a like number within the lakeshore protected zone. C. Erosion control has been maintained while lakeshore yard was in a disturbed state and absent of groundcover. D. Jay Riggs. Environmental Specialist of Westwood Professional Services, Inc. has prepared a wetland delineation report dated July 31. 1995 redefining the wetland area within applicant's lakeshore yard. The findings confirm that the original conservation area defined in the 1978 Con.servation and Flowage Easement was only partially involved with a wetland. E. All disturbed areas have been replanted with suitable groundcover. The wetland area has been planted with MnDOT mixture 25 and the remainder of the disturbed yard located out of the newly defined wetland area has been sodded. F. There are no signs of contamination or erosion within the marshlike wetland adjacent to the shoreline nor of applicant's shoreline area. G. Section 10.56. Subdivision 16(1) 2, would allow for clearing of vegetation to allow applicant to achieve a view^ of the shoreline. This was not the intent of the applicant as the main goal was to create a lawn within the lakeshore yard that could be maintained. H. The newly defined wetland area shall be allowed to be restored to a natural wetland. Pace 2 of 5 4. 5 The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not applv generallv to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely alTect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preser\e a substantia property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 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 elTcct of the 7'onosed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.?6. Subdivision 16(1) 1 and 2 to approve die clear cutting of shrubs and removal of mature trees within the lakeshorc protected area and conservation area protected under an easement granted to the City and filed in the chain of tit e of the property, subject to the following conditions; I Applicant shall complete the following replanting schedule by July 15. 1996: A. Within the 0-75* setback area. 10 trees shall be planted. In wetland area not included in the 0-75 ’ zone. 5 trees shall be planted. The wetland areas shall be protected under a new Conservation and Flowage Easement to be filed against the chain of title of the property. Any plan to alter or remove vegetation by applicant in the future must first be reviewed and approved by the City ot Orono. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, and arc permissive only. Pace 3 of 5 B. 4. 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation ot the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of December. 1995. ATTEST: Dorothv M. Hallin. City Clerk Eduard J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor Property Owner! s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11 th day ol December, 1995. by Edward J. Callalian. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Citv. Notar>' Public Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this dav of , 199___,b*’. ^/re 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 (ihey) executed llie same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this d.iv of , 199 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the per."on(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 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 foregomg instrument, and acknowledged that he (theyt e.xecuted the .same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 /, To: From; Date: Subject: Chair rderson und Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator November 14. 1995 #2082 Richard Stark. 575 Oxford Road - VacationConditional Use PermiLA^'ariance - Public Hearing Application: Applicant and new owner proceeded to remo\ e mature trees within the 0-75’ setback area and in a protected area defined within a Conserv ation and Flow age Easement filed against the Chain of Title of the property in 1978. Applicant also proceeded to clear cut areas within both the shoreland protected area and conservation area involving the removal of brush to permit the planting ot a grass lawn. Applicant seeks to vacate the original conservation area and rededicate a conservation easement over the newly defined wetland. Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.12 - Vacation of easement. 2. Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (I) (1 & 2) - Vegetation alteration and clearing within shoreland areas. 3.Section 10.22. Subdivision 3 - Removal of live trees within 0-75’ setback area without necessarv- approval from City via staff-issued permit. 4. Conservation and Flowage Easement. Exhibit L. v iolation of casement agreement of 1978 List of Exhibits -VB- Application for Vacation'Conditional Use PcrmitA/ariance C-1-3 Applicant ’s .Addendum D - Plat Map E - Property Owners' List F - Drawing of Trees Removed in Lakeshore Yard G - Gustafson Letter S/8/95 H - Westwood Report - Wetland Delineation 1 . Staff Letter 8/10/95 J - Sketch of New Wetland K - Survey of Original Conservation Area L - Conservation and Flowage Easement/Stielovv Addition M - Inspection Notice 7/20/95 N - Gustafson Report 11/13/95 O - Designated Wetland Map 1971/72 Zoning File #2082 November 14,1995 Page 2 Discussioa On a routine inspection of the Oxford Road neighborhood, the Building Inspector disco\ered violations as noted abo\*e and asked dial all work cease until applicant had applied fc .le necessar> approvals from the City. The Zoning staff and City Engineer met with Mr. Stark at the site to review the specific violations and to review the area originally designated as a conservation area in the 1978 plat. Review Exhibit L, the City wetlands map of the area dated approximately 1971. The subject etland was defined as a marsh (MA). After inspecting the lakeshore yard, staff concurred that the iginal wetland designation may have been overly ambitious. The applicant was advised to ha\e _ soil delineation made of the area to determine the exact location ot the w etland. Review Exhibits F, H and J. the new wedand area is shown at less than halt the area of the original conseivation area. w on a SOI The City Engineer has reviewed the Westwood report and confirmed the findings. Applicant was encouraged to file the necessaiy vacation to allow for the redefining of the wetland area. Review E.xhibit violations on the property include the removal ot trees, approximately ten ^^*^**| the 0-75' setback area, ten within the newly defined wetland cuea (designated as /Vrea A ) an approximately twelve live trees located within the original designated wetland to the east of the newly defined wetland line (designated as Area "B"). Applicant asks the City m allow him to replace the ten trees within the 0-75’ setback area to be planted some time in the spring of 1996 and to not require the replanting of trees within the remaining portions ot the newly defined wetlands and %viihin the wetland areas to be vacated to the east of the new wetland delineation line (Areas A and B). Statement of Hardships Please refer to Exhibit C-1-3, applicant noted he was never made aware of the existence of the conserv ation easement at the time of the sale of his property nor did his title company alert him to the existence of the casement. The document is filed on the Chain of Title of the property. He was ignorant of the requirements of the ordinance inx olving the lakeshore protected area and has agreed to replant the trees removed within the lakeshore protected area but asks that the City not require the replacement of trees within the remaining portions of the disturbed area (A and B). He notes the existence of several mature trees w ithin the yard. He also asks Planning Commission to obseiv ’e that the marsh-like area within 30-40 ’ of the shoreline has not been disturbed and still retains original marsh-like vegetation. Refer to Exhibits G and N. At the time of the original inspection of the property by staff, the majority' of applicant’s lakeshore yard was absent of groundcover except for the 40-50 ’ adjacent to the shoreline. Applicant was asked to immediately install erosion control, which Nlr. Stark installed immediately. Once the soil delineation report was reviewed and approved by the City, Mr. Stark was Zoning File #2082 November 14,1995 Page 3 qcli,-pf| to restore groundcovcr per approved plan. The areas east of the newly defined wetland area were to be sodded to prevent further erosion and the remaining disttirbed wetland area was to be restored with seeding using a wetland seed mixture such as Mn DOT mixture 250. In order to ensure erosion control until wetland vegetation was restored, applicant was also asked to cover the seeded areas with mulch and disc anchoring it into the soil. Staff completed an inspection of the restored area finding that everything had been completed as recommended by the City Engineer. Sod has been installed over the entire disturbed area located out of the redefined wetland. Disturbed areas within the wetland show signs that specific types of the seed mixture have started to grow. These areas remain covered with mulch. The Engineer asks that a fmal inspection be completed in early spnng to venfy that the wetland seeding is successfully established. Issues for Consideration 1. Applicant has agreed to replant fruit and evergreen trees within the 0-75' setback area where ten trees were removed. Will members require additional plantings? 2. Applicant's addendum confirms no knowledge of the existence of the Conservation and Flowage Easement and of the need to receive City approval before trees or groundcover are removed. Applicant has asked that replanting of trees not be required within the newly defined w etland area or in the remainder of the original designated wetUuid. Refer to Exhibit F. will you require replacement trees in the area defined as A or B? 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Vacation - Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the vacation application of Rick Stark involving the property located^ at 575 Oxford Road that seeks to vacate the original conservation area dedicated in the plat of Stielow Addition approved by the City in 1978 based on the soil delineation report by Jay Riggs, Environmental Specialist, of Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated July 31, 1995 and on the review and approval of the City Engineer. Approval of the vacation is subject to applicant executing a new Conservation and Flowage Easement over the newly defined wetland area. Options of Action for Planning Commission Concerning Conditional Use PcrmitA'ariance Application Involving Tree Removals and Vegetation Clearing within Lakeshorc Protected Area and Conservation Area 1. Approval as proposed. 2. Approval as amended by the Planning Commission. Isv / /7 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USETAm-IGATION O P O ^f? V. ’ < —’I property LOCATION^^^ Site Address Type of Application to be Filed property Idcntificaiion Nundjcr (P.I.D.) applicant A.MTCS& ^ Phone <>mfT»g> ^ 7t/ ' ^ ----- Phone <^«/nrk) ^3(J7^------ ritv ^ -------Zip ^ \JSJi— OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home). Phone (work) Zip. Date Property Acquired____ I (do) /fio non also own the j^acent parcels of land. $125.00 Residential Accessory Use ” $200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $175.00 Guest Housc/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250 00 Commercial/Industrial Use = - -*«iSoa..d wetland or Hoodplain = S 01 ..ea^ote OTHER She Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ■ $250.00 Vacation Sn%" With Subdivision -----$300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to f« schedule) ----- $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule present use of PROPER^ Present Zoning Distnet — Present Use of Property__Residential Other (specify). (month/year) < T“»*i .*• * f* '*a JwVe;.*-'V V' V V j. ^ Z *, ;r,- ChECS " ";:zrr » ’ . V .'.V - !• V« V 5'5.: •-V -v.v you . t ■ • i : - - • ' M. " ’ .1* A. V" > u- f rr 'i •r>, 1. C2* 6 3. '*• 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must he submitted bv the ^ppligatio*^. * ,adl»ne date m prder for vour application to be considered complete: ^ ^ Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ’ (you must obwm^s Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603. Govt Center, j^8-j-71). k^Plai Map (obtained with property owners list). , . , ^ — Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surv'eyor and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy Vh. x 11 for To^rapUc survey (e;cisimg and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/a" x 11" for rep^ucuon. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy ih all )• T^List of the legal names (include marital status) of aU persons with an interest m the ----property. This would include oame(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). __As „ 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 suff. — __ The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember flat jauE vnri.inee applirniion is mil complete if the above information has not been iBClud.ea. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ ^ ^ _ . _ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonmg AdmWsuator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by ongmal fee payment) and/or consultant expenses in review of this applicauon and cetofies that the information supplied is true ^ Applicant’s Signamre --------------Date OVV7*fiER ’S SIGNATTJRE . ., The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this applicaaon and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by Citswitaff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of i^^ga^n jgtt ^ication of this request. Owner’s Signature Date 9/C//^ S Aonlicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Co^ission Meetine Planniug Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. ADDlicMts must be present at aU scheduled review meetings of the Plannmg Commission ..nH r mincil If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO (no change from original appheauon) mLL 'o • Variance for non-conforming structures 5-<.uu.uu^^ / . __ • • _____ri*Ai St ^ ••• ••• ^ wa » » w! w w •w ‘ — to. wf-r.^. Arr.^\v%- - a Jwv'te V V V w . t ^ : * * *! u V • VV AfteTthc-Fact Fees (Double"application fee) / j f • s '•to PROPERTY INFORMAT^N Site Address t Property Identiflcition Numoer ^—r ^ ^ ri«rmired sunf-ev Attach legal description to application if^ot inclu e q Date Property Acquired----Uf/H-n') . -------------------------- I ^ also own *e PJ'' oiher'(sp«cify) PrSentusTofproperty: ^ residential -----« 2^ning District: (month/year) APPLICANX Name _ Address OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_______________________ T/y2j^ PhOIK^---- Phrrr^{ I'i ~ ^ ^ , - Zip: 5 Sfe. Phone(home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip: (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area Setback: Other (specify) Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSfflP/DESCRIPrlON OF I^TISUAL PROPERTY CO^mONS. . Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual or o r^y gn . comXccwr;^^^ ditions preventmg (attach additional sheets if necessary) Fonn. ^ ^ofF^e^ Hennepin County Depaitment of Fmance. A ou ir%t_. V U^tyAnwt fof SMT\C 2. 3. df ^ ^ ’ '' ' 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Hennepin i.,ouniy - ^ ^InS of Suney (signed by a Uoenaed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. «u..,,;nn if not included on required survey. "'■ ------- you Wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO bsns"wa.‘”;ui«" -cardrawinss of a), docutnents, p.ans, etc. to be n r must sign this application. Please remember that your uTTbove information has not been mcluded. Cettification by Clerical Department dial Land Use^caUonJscom^_____________ Initials of Clencal Staff.---------------------- ;».2 j;— AdmiSLator. agrees >“ P^^'““l/r:/oiis application, and certifies that the information Applicant ’s signature owner ’s signature -------------- ' Meeting Planning .„acanim»h.entw — ?;^3'S!l^gTp“«“-> -he Date SEP.-2r95lTHUI 13:36 PRNA TEl:S12635068Q P. 002 // 1 Sep«6flib«r iO, 1995 HealMura of tho Planning Conaission City of Orono 1 aa requesting the consent of the City to the removal of trees from my home at 575 Oxford Road. I removed the trees without knowing that the property was subject to an easement given to the City by the developer of the property. I bought the 1*^ Jtme of this year and the seller represented in the purchase documents that there were no restrictive easements and my title Insurance company failed to find that this easement existed. Thus, X had no knowledge of its existence and 1 would like the Commission' s understanding in light of these unusual circumstances. In addition, I removed some trees within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka without the City's consent. X have only myself to blame for that. I relied on a neighbor telling me I could remove trees there end it appeared to have been done by others In the area. I would propose to substitute trees for these trees taken in this 75 foot area. My request of the City consists of two Items with respect to my lot: a. A request for a re-delineation of a wetland baaed on a recently concluded expert study of the lot and a request for approval of the removal of trees In the wetland area that is required by a 1978 Easement in favor of the City; and b. A request for a variance for the removal of trees within 75 feet of the shoreline of the lake pursuant to Section 10.22 Subd. 3. Each of these requests is described in detail below: Re-delineation of wetland and request for approval of removal of trees: In discussing this Issue with the City’s inspection department, it was suggested that I hire a wetlands expert to determine what part of my property was actually a wetland since it appeared that much of the area was not. Attached to this request is a July 31, 1995 report prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. following testing of my lot according to published federal wetland standards that have been adopted by Mlnxiesota's Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. The report Sff.-2r95(THU) 13:36 PRNA TEL:6126350680 / / P. 005 > Tj^ ooncludas that a larga portion of ay lot Is not actually a vatland. A map is Includad in the rst»rt to show the actual edge of the wetlax^. In the area that is a wetland beyond 75 feet of the lake, I removed ten trees. This was a small fraction of the trees that remain on ray property. 1 estimate that there are 200-300 trees on ay property. The removal of these ten trees did not create any drainage problem or in any way change the contour of the land. My lot is covered by a September 20. 1978 "Flowage and Conservation Easement and Waiver of Damages* entered Into between the City and prior developers of my lot and adjoining lots. Section 2)b) of that Easement states that the City must consent to the removal of any trees from my lot. Unfortunately, when I bought my home in June. 1995 the sellers represented that there were no restrictive easements and my title insurance company did not pick up the fact that this easement had been recorded when it issued my title insurance policy. Therefore. I was completely unaware that this agreement existed. I respectfully request that the City consent to the removal of these trees from the wetland area. Removal of trees within 75 feet of Lake; I also removed ten trees that were within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka. All had a diameter greater than six Inches. Section 10.22 Subd. 3 states that the City's consent to the removal of trees in this area is required and that such consent will require replacement trees of a size and nature acceptable to the staff. I have no good excuse for removing these ten trees. I was assured by a neighbor that there were no restrictions and it appeared to me to have been done by others in the area. I certainly did not believe that I was doing anything against the City's ordinances, but in retrospect, I should have checked with the City's staff. I propose to replace these ten trees with the help of a tree expert, finding the best species and locations for these replaced trees. I have been advised that the best procedure for roe to follow to determine the best locations for the trees is to wait for winter when the foilage and undergrourth are gone and then determine where to place the trees. 1 would propose to plant ten trees next spring after having the locations approved by staff. I would like to plant a SEP.-ar«ITHU) 13:36 PRNA m:6126350680 F.OOA C'3 oowhlnation of fruit troes and avargrean traaa, subject to th< raconmandatlona of an expert and staff approval. Your consideration in this am^raciatad. ■attar %rould ba greatly - t 3 J ' > N V*- . >DATE 0a/10/«5 ^ Q^iDATCH SOf 'U ' v' ■•...T^pdop aiW ^ (AMEII NAME TAXPAYER rt ‘ NMC/AOOR ’ • ''Y., ■••-■■ • •^ M 0I-117-2S 41 6011 4 0049S OXFORO RO ' D A H 6E0R6E .DONALD E CE0R6E 4«S OKTORO RO LONS LAKE HN 55356 *V t•V 1 • •y • MOT ADMO'" 1-TAXPAYER NAHE/AM i‘ ••' »,• r.1 /Iv * *if V' /i% 0^1’ V * • . , PROP AOOR ■ OWCR NAHE '■ TAXPAYER • NAME/AOORo\ ’V‘ I • ' 'i- ■ >h t. * 9 # 4 » • ^ V V::- •/ ( 38 05-117-25 41 0025 00575 OXFORO RO R N STARK I J N STARK RICHARD H A JANE H STARK 575 OXFORD RO LONB LAKE M4 55354 IS 05-117-23 44 0004 05250 FOX ST DONNA LUKIS DOMM LUKIS 5250 FOX ST LONB LAKE ft4 55354 HT»#CPIH COUNTY PHOPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LISTSa 05-I17-ES 41 0014 00545 LEAF ST J I C MC COY JOHN L t CHARLENE H HC COY 5525 HILLSIDE CIR EDItU m 55439 36 05-117-23 42 0001 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO R M STARK i J M STARK RICriARO M A JANE H STARK 575 OXFORO RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 05-117-23 44 0005 03400 FOX ST JANES 6 FULLERTON III ET AL FULLERTON LUMBER CO P 0 BOX 30 MPLS m 55440 REPORT NO. P1435401 PAGE 26.36 05-117-23 41 002400555 OXFORD RD CORNELIA D KLITZKE COmELlA D KLITZKE 555 OXFORD RO LONG LAKE NN 55356 36 05-117-23 43 0004 03400 FOX ST JANES 0 FULLERTON III ET AL FULLERTON LUMBER CO P 0 BOX 30 MPLS NN 55440 . .'A inm:**■ TOTAL BATCH 509 00006 V J C' ^ 3 V I CERTIFY THAT THE FAC1S REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY lAXATIONp TO THE BEST OF Hi KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE g -It- IS I I . iji:. I ^ lAi r*-. ‘ ‘ ivvV i" y ■ .................. • • ‘; ' ;* • frV’' . it'* 1 . yriT , • f'?, Tar I Bonestroo Rosene «ni Anderlik& iVjf Associates Engineers & Architects August 8, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Rick Stark Residence File No. 139-GEN Dear Jeanne, 4sjor*<*reiL m fi ^ Action Ooporttgurv trrro»0¥fr A Vvtftxo P(f Vlicr>jei C Grvn P£Bnan K Gdgp Pf •* •tie-rn A Gonoon Pf J^vnei P VWuand Pf Ke<m R V4Q0 PE 9x30tri • Pf^^^e»»e Pf Jerry D P^rt/vch Pf j Benoir PE Mar«:nL Sor.<«L4 **5 »tfwfl W Vc** . Ata««iet Pf 0 Cr^ytatior Pf *f 0 Lovkota ®€9 Ar‘r’^'\'>n Pf Cet 0 0 ve» ^ f CaoA P?C Pyue« A1 A VMrk ? Pf ».<uj G "«euer Pf A touroon Pf Vl#« A Seo **f ionrt p rjorae* ®E Ma** A Hwror Pf Gat* a V*or»en »f Ojit 0 Bo/um Pf VI C PA •r«ui J G^'onon A i A je**'ev J EMe»'nger pf • Sef' or C.jr*sw.tjni ^ « d Dante ’ J fage*‘on Pf X''ieoh P ^he'n Pf Tfytmsi ^ Aru^ von A. k A ?.c« Sihrrwa: **£Ire M \*anr -»f Dor*Hl C ®f p^-iio „ PI Cfv^ es A (' It ion A D .Vprii . >f Leo VI Pa^r’%1% ( . Irpnov^a P€M a i-Mr an M on VMr* ner *»f t ^ 0 J- •• •’’£A^.»^r*, *A " 'V; V P Pf • ••en . A ’f ..fres ^ E'^grih^f *•* A p?r Arntc» Pf We inspected the Rick Stark residence ^STSQ^rd Ro^ last Wednesday, August 2, 1995. The wetland delineation done by Westwood PrdlessKMial Serv'ices appears correct. The upland areas located east of the wetland delineation should be sodded soon to prevent erosion. We would recommend that the wetland area be restored with seeding using a wetland seed such as Mn/DOT mixture 250. Erosion control in this area should be done by covering the seeded areas with mulch and disc anchoring it into the soil, or by installing silt fence along the shoreline. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612*636*4600 ft July 31.1995 fr ■'14180 Tfurh Hwy 5 Eden Prair>* MN 55344 612 937 5150 FAX 612 937 5822 Ref.; 95774Mr. Rick Stark 575 Oxford Road Orono.MN 55356 Re: Wcdand DcliacatiM for the parcel located at 57S Oxford Road, City of Orono, >finnesota Dear Rick: Thank you for taking the tune to show me your property the morning of July 28, 1995. As you rec^u^ted, 1 delineated and flagged the jurisdictional wetland boundary on your property based on field evidence of soils, vegetation, and hydrology This report descnbes the classification, charactenstics, and location of the wetland. Wed and Delineatioa Methodology The wedand boundary was delineated and staked in the field on July 28, 1995 using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Junsdicnonal Wetland (Federal Interagency Committee for Wrtland Delineation, 1989) and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory. 1987). These manuals are currently followed to delineate wetlands r^ulated under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and SecUon 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, respectivelv. We have found that these manuals often yield idsitical wetland boundaries. Background data used to identify potential wetland areas before delineating wetland boundanes in the field mclude National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping and the Sod Sur\ey of Hennepin County. Wetlands were classified accordmgto Wetlands of the United States (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39, Shaw and Fredine, 1971) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin el. al. 1979). The wetland boundaries are estimated on the enclosed Wetland Boundary Sketch. NWT mapping shows a portion of Stubbs Bay and an emergent wetland frir^ within the watem edge of the pared. Our review of the Soil Survey of Hennepin County and the list of Hydnc Sods of Minnesota (1990) suggests hydric soils e?cist adjacent to the bay, including Hamd loam and Marsh. Mapped upland soils include Hayden loam (6 to 18 percent slopes). Wetland Description The western portion of the site contains a partially cleared Palustnne emergent, saturated/seasonally flooded/forested broad-leaf deaduous, saturated (PEMB/C/FOIB, Type 2/3/6 Wrt Meadow, Shallow Marsh, Wooded Swamp) wetland fringe adjacent to Stubbs Bay Ten pin flags were placed to delineate the fdg** of this wetland. The wetland fnnge is dominated by green ash. reed canary grass, broad-leaf cattail, black willow, and willow shrubs As your landscaper noted, trees removed from the parcel consisted of boxeldcr and a couple black willow; he was unable to indicate the location or speaes of any of the cleared • •nderstory vegetaUon. The transition to upland gaierally follows a topographical rise and vegetation in the adjacent, non-disturbed area is domiruted by common burdock, grape vine, black raspberry, Virginia creeper, common buckthorn, and northern bedstraw »’8»m 8Mt •»€ <• tm »«M«I 8PMW|«»» I Mr. Ride Sark My 31.1995 A scfis of soil bo ring! were drilled to determine the jurisdictional wetland in the (Ssturbed arra. The locttians of these sod borii^ are shown on the attached Wttland Boundary Skdeh and described below ED B1 SutC k* C—ditfoa Dtscnption Evidence of Dstsr- mhuitlon WetUod Deptti b-5 5-9 9-15+ lOYR 3/2 lOYR 4/( lOYR VI Msttisi* C7 5YR6r4 Ttiturt sandy loam sand sandy clay Hydrology? Yesyard B2 Uodifturted 0^lOYRSi^loemy land yard 6-15 I0YR5/2 sand No Non-Wetland 15-18 5YR6/4 F lOYR 4/4 sandy clay B3 Undimabad 0-6 lOYR 3/1 aandy loam - high VcgaOiMa organic Yes Wetland 6-12-t-lOYR 3/1 sandy clay loam B4 Exposed 0-4 lOYR 2/1 loam Soil 4-S lOYR 2/1 sand No Noo-Wetlaod 8-15+10YR2>2 sandy loam B5 Uodistivbed 0-5 lOYR 2/1 peaty muck Veoetaboo 5-12+lOYR 4/1 Streaking loamy sand Yea Wetland B6 Undisturbed 0-7 lOYR 3/2 sandy loam Vegelatioo 7-12+2.5Y6/2 sand No Non-Welland B7 Exposed 0-6 lOYR 3/1 •andy loam Soil 6-12+lOYR 3/1 sandy clav loam Yes Wetland B8 0-4 lOYR 3/2 silt loam Exposed 4-12 lOYR 3/1 tilt loam No WeUxod Soil 12-18 lOYR 3/1 F 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam Edge 18+lOYR 3/1 silty clay loam B9 Exposed 0-8 lOYR 3/2 silt loam Soil 8+lOYR 4/3 silt loam No Non-Wetland • Mottle Abundance: F * Few (< 2%), C ” Common (2 to 20%), and A =» Abundant (>20%) Condasions The western portion of the site contains a partially deared Palustrine emergent, satunited/seasonally flooded/forested broad-leaf deaduous, saturated (PEMB/C/FOIB; Type 2/3/6 Wtt Meadow, Shallow Marsh, Wooded Swamp) wetland fringe adjacent to Stubbs Bay. The jurisdictional wttland edge appears to be substantially bdow the stakes that represent the boundary of the drainage easement on your property. If you have any questions concerning this delineation, please do not hesitate to call me at 937-5150, Respectfully, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. LNC. Jay Riggs Environmental Spedalist Endosure J t i -it; CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Keile? Pirkway Orono. MN 55356 Meiiiiif Address: P.O. Bo* 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 August 10, 1995 Mr. Rick Stark 575 Oxford Road Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Dear Mr. Stark; I have enclosed a copv of Shawn Gustafson’s repon as promised. Gustafson advises of the nwd to restore ground cov^r as soon as possible. The newly defined wetland area should byestored wim seedi^g using the wetland seed such as Mn/DOT mi.xture 250. The remainder of the area may be restored with a seed of your choice. Gustafson specifically asks that erosion control be maintained in the dismr^d area by coveri^ S wii'h mulch and disc anchonng it into the sotl. Another opt.on would be installation of a silt fence along the shoreline. Please contact mv office if you have any questions concerning the engineer’s recommendation or if vou have anv further questions concermng the preparation for your vanance and conditiona use permit application. We would like to reinspect the lakeshore yard as soon as seeding an erosion controls are completed. Sincerely. Jeanne A. Mabusih Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/ch Enc. Telephone (6U) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 r . »-• fty; *"'■'• -^‘ ‘ fJw»» •*.•■'* *> : ‘^^.'.-r‘'* ■ - 5^, , ti'C^ ■'■■:■ -'v .•”■.•• *. •J name awd cwstmi um eamwt AWO WAIVER OF Duaert tf«y ofthis IIOOITWE, Mdo «nd entered Into this . 1978, by and between lomn L. CfMrIson and Beryl If. ChafUon iMSband id wife, thttr heirs, assigns, successors (herelRaftor colTactlvoly *e- “ ***• the City of Orono, t oailclpal corporation under IV' ' ^ ***• ®T Minnesou, its successors and assigns, (tenelrafttr rot ftrred to as the •Brantoa*). | WTHESSETH, Grantors for and In consideration of the sia of One . Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, hereby covMant* grant, yfft, Oult dale and convey to Grantee the right to restrtet and Grantors agree to 1i»1t and preclude-the use, leprovenent and developoent, under tilt conditions ; and covenants haraln contained, the following descHbed Land le the Cewty of . Hennepin and SUte of Minnesota: • « See Exhibit A attached hereto for legal description. I as folloos;. ,. , j* VI :3L • ^ I • • V- -J- Grantors reserve for the benefit of the 4 'O'- the benefit of the owners end Ko^ants iots i; 3,.''4 and 5, Block 1, Stielow's Addition, a lO^foot irlda walkway aase- ' »t to Lako Minnetonka over and across each of Lots 1, 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, ,^.St1a1(«*s Addition, tOBothor with the right to oainuin and repair said ualkway •asenent* Greniors further reserve for the benefit of the owners a nd occupants tots 1, 3, 4 and S, Block 1, Stielcav's Addition, the right to construct, ne1n> tain, repair and usa a slnglt-fanlly residential dock on each of Lots 1, 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, Stielow's Addition. 2) S«^ioct to the rights reserved in Paragraph 1 hereof. Grantors htreby covanant and agrM: a) No stnicturos shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon, • * •bovt, or beneath the Land including without linftatlon, fences, fireplaces, steps, hard-cover or roads of any nature whatsoever or 0 p Shy other structure or inprovewnt inconsistent with the natural State of the Land. T.:r ^ X f fl4 ^ %> 1 . : •»-'^* c V » # _•» 1 • •".■ *? #•>«*«* * V * ^ i •• ~ f ■*i ■ / Vv . f.L *• ■i' •• f ^ I ' ■ !v«... ^ I 'i'.. • } - 2 A IT \ ■■ W---“/'I* »i ^'*Vt I* ■ • -■•;‘^_V» • •». \ U-m -*i *% r % ’ «.' i t :• f (•V . [Lr*- fA' *• ' I ’ ;V^ !;i: ri h Ei.r rv-^r . F*V* *. • fe" » 1 • ., 4«I-: :s ^. ir.t f. ■ h'r <r r 1 •; «;• •• #• . « iJ’ .-T- A. • ,*J. • • »• b) No tmf • shnibt'or other ve9cUt1on shall ht 4tstrojrtd» cut or roaovorf froa tho Lani.' except «s authorltod feg^ arltteo cofsant of firootM.«• • c) No earth, loaa, peat, gravel, soil or any othor natoralv aatorlal or substanco shall be ^nved or reaovod frm tho Land •4 and thtra shall bo no dredging or excavation of aiQf naturo iNiatiON tvtr or any change of the topography of the Lend wlthevt the Witten consent of firantee. «e d) No soil, sand, gravel or other substance or aeteiiel n lairfflll shall be placed, duaped or storecf upon the Land and no waste, trash or garbage shall be placed, due^ or stored upon the Land. e) No use shall be made of the Land except us«» If any* t a idilcb trill mt change or alter the natural condition of tho Uind», and no use which would tend to change the drainage, flood control^ water conservation erosion control, soil conservation, fish and ,y •4 wildlife habitat characteristics shall be oMle of the Land or the water situated thereon. . f) Grantee aay enter upon the Land for the purposes of Inspection and enforcenent of the covenants contained herein end . to cause to be riwirnl fron the Land without any liability any structures, uses, naterlals. subsunces, or unnetiirav natter Inconsistent with the covenants contained herein and tho natural state of the Land. 3) Grantors hereby grant, gift, quit clain and convey to Grantee, a perpetual floMge easenent and right and privilege to trespass with water over and upon any or all of the Land. 4) Grantors herein do hereby remiss, release, acquit and forever discharge, forever, the Grantee end any and all of Its officers and e^iloyees of } * \k U, V !;f I » .It [ijfI % I: I irsr ^1 4 ' ■MW >’ '.-»•*' .J ‘^*' .. .?* V • • •11 elalw, limnili or uums of octiofi of any Hoi or noturo vlrtuf of aoy fToMoo or tmpasi ultli • vltiifo torw of thaw agroewnu. 1» addltloo to aoy othor rtndy the Grantee my havo, tho M rntrictlan conuiMd h.r.fn »y b, ,„f<,rc«l hr SrtutOTf do not Intmd tktt t>.e public shMid hmt «v iMntdt <« tl« .bm lud bp virtui of ttu ,, otb.n,1„. oooooi „ ImfHMmo sot forth. Th. Granten herein certify that the Land herein dncHbed 1c fn» Kd eteer of ell encabrcncec ewept eai».nts. restrictlonc end recervetloni Of recori. If any. All tho provisions hereof shall run Mtth the laitd and shall extend to and bind the heirs, successors, representatives, grantees or assipis of the •sportive parties hereto. fleryl U. tharlson------- STATE OF NlfdeSOTA COmiTY OF HEHREPIN)SS: r personally a----1978, before w a notary .Beryl h. Charliiii. 0«-l*«i end 'Sworn did say that they are tho known who being duly j^fcj?y^K.WUKK THISli SMEW A SALAZAA. LTD. Attorneys at Law 7900 Xanos Avenue South SulU 1401 Minneapolis. NR 55431 f • t •t..rf, * >> \‘r} • ■>: f * e i .i V d % (•' I « •f:Lot. 1. ll«ck t, sriZLCws ;j:oL7ic:f ViAS VjrsWly ‘ .tha'ifoUaMlBj tfMsrib«l lie#: Co.=-:ncLr.; ct f:h« Korfchnat cer- Rsr «f Mid Let t; ths.-ca on an ass«i=cd bearirj oC t^rth S9 dt^rsve <2 edautee 19 eecenia alo.i; t>.« i'.-irth:rly «r sai^ Let 2, ft distance of 303.feet; th«ni; rorth jj tLj^rim* SO olnutea • > * 14 seconds W«st« sIoa; said northerly lir.s of Lot 1» s dis-' tanee of 39.SO feat; thence tiorth CO cs2<'-re £2 ainutes 19 seconds tfest» slong said northerly ILae of Lot l, a di.sta.*tco of 207.29 feet to the point of hagirnieg of the li.'ie to be desez^bed; South 3 defrees 41 clautes 22 secc.'.da to tha shore of Lake ftincetoBka asd there tersiastiej- •■i••• I e r a • i All that part of Lot 3, Slock l, STISL2'.-S «oinc:; lying Westerly' * of tho foUowiag described lias: Besia.-iir.j at a point i& the Seuthcrly line of Lot 3 thereir. distar.t 5aS.34 feet Westerly of the Southeast cemsr of said Lot 3; the.«:ee North 11 degrees JL3 *. > . ■fwntee Q9 scconds V*t, 201.12 feet, to the horSierly lir.a of said Lot 3 or its extersioa a.-.d there tcrzir^tLr.z. for purposes of VboM, description, the Southerly lice of said Lot 3 is tssiineA to beer north 99 degre*^ 12 cL'wtes 37 seconds v;cst. 'V *. . ■ .• • * % - "i •V. Im • ^ - 1 # 4 All that part of Lot 4, Block I, STIILCV'S ;j:3ITIC:.*, lying Westerly ^ of the foLLoulag described line: BeaLc-Ticj at a poict in the hortherly line of said Lot 4 tl'.e.-eir. di-tzat 358.34 feet Vastsrly of the northeast comer of said Lot 4; thence South 25 degrees 14 pirates 10 seconds West,.220.90 feet, to t.-.e Southsrly line of said. 'Lot 4 and .there terrisstiiq. Tor ourpoccs this dcseriptiea the--iT.nortfierly.line of said Lot 4 is assuerd to bear "lorth 99 degrtes 12 cicutes 37 aecor.ds Mcst. • • ' a All that part of Lat 9, Block 1, STiZLC.tS ASomox, lying Westerly of the foUouir.g described lir.e; Begiccirg at a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 9 therein distast 385.09 feet Westerly of the Southesst corr;er of said Lot 5; thtr.oe North 22 degrees 47 cirutes 01 seco.-.ds Scot, a diit2.rzs c: Hi.72 U*t; thar.ce Korth 1C dAgrtva 40 ci.-.ctes 18 secccdi Lsst, a dista-.ce of 135.03 feet to the northerly line cf said Ls:9 c--d t.-.cre terrinatieg. for purposes of this dsscription,fr: Scctherly line of said Lot 9 is assumed to bosr.horth 39 degree* 4'. cirutea 21 seco.als West. ^ t J I! ) > % ii I • ^*.*. ** • • - •• i ■ Uj 2 scc U4 Q. § O q:ou. Ui q: i2 tu Ui 0: o Uj QC Uj Q O U . .• . DATE TIME CITYOPORONO INSPECTIOI PERMIT NO INSPECTION NOTICE^n /70 CALLED IN SCHEDULED COMPLETED v/mI'S' a-J o ADDRESS OWNER _ 5" *7^ (Djc^n^ CONTR. TELEPHONE NO. a footing 3 FRAMING Z INSULATION z wall so 3 final 3 PROGRESS Z OEMOL 3 riRE PREV 3 PLUMBING R1 Z PLUMBING final 3 MECHANICAL 3 WATER HOOKUP 3 METER SET/TURN ON □ SEWER OCKUP 3 SEPTIC install . 3 SEPTIC MAtNT 3 WELL test Pi'MP 3 SITE INSPECTION 3 EXCAV/GRAOING/FILLING 3 lakeshore .^etlanos 3 LICENSING □ COMPLAINT 3 FOLLOW-UP 3 SEPTIC final 3 FiREPLACE.^000 BURNER COMMENTS: ___________________' M c (symdixAn hrpp rp,vuf^da.i r t . / / ____L____t-e /yJi'-^fiA f) ^p:-\aOcX^ 'rrOvM td (J-)t(itC<^ ’-pe<~_ K t-jn A CalLy. va yWS7 *48.^1 c photo taken3 WCRK Sa TtSFACTORV PROCEED 3 CORRECT WORK 4 PROCEED — CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR RElNSPECTlON BEFORE COVERING - CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS INSPECTOR WILL RETURN. iiSTOP ORDER POSTED CALL INSPECTOR ^ inspection required CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance. Owner/Cont^^-oe sit( Inspector 's:i /Xu/ Whitt /Inspector s Flit 473-7357 Canary /Site Notice \ Ii • • - • - •. ? >• , - .tU .#.M S’ • •• •- .*• .... • ■ - ‘•ifv **•.* 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & ^1 Associates Engineers & Architects ■Mm. And*ffil tna Auocww*. •«. ti •" AttiorvtqMil Opportunrty EmptOy*» Oft* a tor^estroo. Pt IMcrt W »otene. PI • Joseph C AispefWi, P i. Morvm L Sonreio. P E KicAarO f. Turner. P L derm i. Cooi. P E. Thomas t Noyes. P E. KoPert G ScMmichi. P R Susan M EbefUn. C.P A* * Ser«or Comuttsnt Howard A Sanford. P C Ketfh A. Gordon.. P £ ffoocrt e Pteffene. P i. irtchard W Poster. PC Oavid O Loskote. PE. KoPert C Puisee. A I.A. Jerry A. tourdon. P £. Mart A Hanson. P E. M^chaei T Pjutmarsn. P E Ted K 'lefd. PE Thomas I. Anderson. A.I.A James t tosenmeriiei. P E Oorsaid C fyrgardt. P E Thomas A Syfho. PE freaenc J Stenporg. P E Ismael Marnnci. PI. Michael P Pau. P E. Thomas \P Peterson. P E. Michael C. Lynch. P t James t Mai and. PE. Jerry D Pertisch. P E Scott J Arganeii. P.t Kenneth P Arsoerson. I Mart t toif s. P E. Mart A Seip. P E. Gary W Monen. P E Paul J Garmon. ALA Darstel J Edgerton. P C A PICK Schmidt, P E Date A Grove. P E Philip J Caswell. P E Mart 0 Wallis. P E. Miles • Jensen. P E L Phillip Gravel. PE Karen L Wiemen. PE. Gary O Knsiof ll. Pt •nan A Gage. PX E Todd Foster . P E Keith R Yapp. PI Douglas J Benoit. Pf. Shawn O Gustafson. PX CeciMo Odvier. P E. Kent J. Wagner. PE Pasii G Heoer P E. jonn P Gorder P E Oan O Boyum. P£ Jeffrey J Ehieringer. P E. Joscpn P Phetn. P E. lee M. Mann. P E Chariei A Erection Leo M Paweisty Harlan M Olson Agnes M. Pirsg James f Ersgelhardt November 13, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. .Vlabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Ciystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Rick Stark Residence File No. 139-2082 Dear Jeanne, We inspected the Rick Stark residence at 575 O.xford Road last Tuesday, November 7, 1995. TTie disturbed wetland areas have been seeded and covered with straw mulch. Tlie remainder of the propertv ’ outside of the delineated wetland area has been sodded Tlie work has been completed in accordance with the approved plan. A final inspection should be completed in the spring to verify that the wetland seeding is successfully established. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regaiding this matter. Yours vciy truly. BONESTROO, ROSENt, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 M*.__^\ ft j 4J<: <«i .A,:.« =* - •; • "'• ' •» flras. * <' ’% - f *r •—■^-aV. J^r— T' ► * teiM *^ “ / '• ■ -* • ^(vtIb COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 1 1995 DATE: December 1, 1995 ITEM NO,0.: // Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building &. Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2083 Bernice Zumbusch. 1535 Long Lake Boulevard - Variances Resolution Additional Exhibit I - Gustafson Report Zoning District: LR-IA Total lot area = 9.140 s.f. Brief Review of Application The applicant proposes complete replacement of an approximate 38’ x 10' deck and stair at the lake side of tlie existing residence. The deck is approximately 347 s.f. and the steps at 54 s.f Tlie structure will require no setback variances. Excessive hardcover exists within the 75-250' setback area as well as structural coverage excesses. In 1968 and 1972 variances were granted to the owner for the residential construction as it exists today. In 1986 the current owner received approval of a conditional use permit and variances that allowed for the restoration of existing timber walls, repair of lake side access stairs and installation of new timber walls in Uikeshore yard and adjacent to the residence. The improvements were to provide for greater ease and safety in the maintenance of the steep banks within the lakeshore yard. Tlie Planning Commission recognized the need to repair the deck and stairs. They also noted the need to reduce existing hardcover improvements on this severely substandard parcel. Refer to Exhibit H. tlie applicant's representative at the meeting agreed to remove the plastic underliner beneath the rock patio area to the south side of the existing deck. Planning Commission asked the City Engineer to review the area that contained landscape boxes at the southwest comer of the lakeshore yard to determine potential for erosion should the underliner be removed. Shawm Gustafson has completed an inspection of the lakeshore yard and notes that there would be no problem with the removal of the plastic underliner (Exhibit I). He noted in all of the gentler sloped areas where underliner was to be removed that surface runoff absorption would be increased. Removal of the underliner will result in 8.29% reduction in hardcover in the 0-75’ area and 3.5% in the 75-250’ setback area. »y Request for Council Action continued Page 2 December 1,1995 Zoning File #2083 Bernice Zumbusch, 1535 Long Lake Bou levard_______________________ The pertinent ordinances as amended by the Planning CommissiDn recommendation arc re\’ie^^•ed as follows: 1.Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Total lot area ■ 9,140 s.f. Allowed * 1,500 s.f Existing » 1,832 s.f. or 20% Proposed * 1,832 s.f or 20% Variance = 332 s.f or 3.6% 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. A. 0-75’ setback area - refer to E.xhibits F and H. Area = 4,610 s.f Allowed = 0 s.f Existing = 751 s.f or !6.29% Proposed as amended by Planning Commission = 370 s.f or 8% (original proposal 751 s.f or 16.29%) Reduction in hardcover of 381 s.f B.75-250' setback area - refer to E.xhibits G and H. Area = 4.530 s.f Allowed = 1,132.5 s.f or 25% Existing = 3,957 s.f or 87.35% Proposed per Planning Commission recommendation = 3,795 s.f or 83.7% Hardcover reduction = 162 s.f or 3.5% Variance = 2,662.5 s.f or 58.7% Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the application subject to the removal of the plastic underliner as designated in Exhibit H. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed approval resolution. * 9 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C) AND 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE NO. 2083 WHEREAS, Bernice M. Zumbusch (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the propertv' located at 1535 Long Lake Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 19. Albee’s Long Lake Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the propert) "); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City' for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the reconstruction of an approximate 38’ x 10' deck and stair to the lake side ot the existing residence where structural excesses exist at 1,832 s.f and where 1.500 s.f. would be allov^ed and the deck located within the 75-250* setback area consists of 3.957 s.t. or 87.35% hardcover and 3,795 s.f. or 83.7% is proposed and where 25% is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 3. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2083. The property is located in the LR-IA Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 9,140 s.f or .21 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 20, 1995 and recommended unanimous approval ot the variances as amended, based upon tlie follow-ing unique findings and hardships: Page 1 of 5 » . B. F. I. Major portions of the property recei\'c excessive runoff from Long Lake Boulevard during heavy rains and the majorit>- of runoff pools in the grassed, flatter elevations at the shoreline of this property. The majority of hardcover from the stairs and timber walls within the 0- 75 ’ setback area was approved b}’ the City in The stairs installed at a 4 ’ width is allowed on a property with steep elevations. C. The deck is unsafe and in ne *d of major repair or replacement. D. There is a concrete patio beneath the deck. E. The deck will have no impact on the lake views of adjacent residences. Removal of plastic underliner in the gentle or more flatter sloped areas of the property will allow for greater absorption of runoff from the road and higher elevations to the north. In the City Engineer's report of December 4, 1995. Shawn Gustafson notes that the removal of the plastic underliner from rock patio and timber wall landscape bo.xes will result in "very little potential for erosion". He also notes that runoff infiltration would be increased in these flatter sloped areas. The City approved variances in 1968 and 1972 to allow residential construction on this severely substandard parcel. Hardcover in the 0-75' setback area has K*en reduced from 16.29% to 8% and in the 75-250' setback area from 87.35% to 83.7%. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property ’ arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traflic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely Page 2 of 5 serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preser\e a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City stall, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, salety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) and 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the reconstruction of a 38’ .\ 10' deck and stairs to the lakeside of the existing residence and approves a structural coverage variance of 332 s.f or 3.6%. a hardcover variance in the 0-75’ setback area at 370 s.f or 8% and a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area at 2.662.5 s.f or 58.7%, subject to the following conditions: 1. All hardcover improvements as shown on the attached survey as Page___of this resolution shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (December 11. 1996). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as » misdemeanor. Page 3 of 5 iigiy m ?, 4.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title ot the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City' of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the llth day of December. 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNl Y OF HENTS'ERIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this llth day of December, 1995 by Edward J. Callalian, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and foi said Coimiy. 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 dav of ,199 , before me a Notary Public withinand 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 a.'; his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public 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 Page 5 of 5 To; From: Dote: Subject: 9. Chair Petereon and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building 8c. Zoning Administrator November 10, 1995 #2083 Bernice M. Zumbusch, 1535 Long Lake Boulevard - Variances - Public Hearine Application: Applicant seeks to replace existing lakeside deck placed over concrete patio. Excesses of hardcover exist within the 75-250’ setback area as well as excesses in structural coverage. No increases are proposed. Hardcover and structural coverage will remain the same. Pertinent Ordinances 1. 2. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Total lot area = 9,140 s.f. Allow ’ed = 1,500 s.f. Existing = 1,832 s.f or 20% Proposed = 1,832 s.f or 20% Variance = 332 s.f or 3.6% Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover. A. 0-75' setback area (refer to Exhibit F) Area = 4,610 s.f Allowed = 0 Existing = 751 s.f or 16.29% Proposed = 751 s.f or 16.29% No changes in hardcover proposed. B.75-250’ setback area Area = 4.530 s.f Allowed = 1.132.5 s.f or 25% Existing = 3.957 s.f or 87.35% Proposed = 3.957 s.f. or 87.35% No changes in hardcover proposed Variance = 2,824.5 s.f. or 62.3% Zoning FUc #2083 November 10,1995 Page 2 List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H Discussion Application Applicant's Addendum Plat Map Propert>' Owners' List Neighbors' Acknowledgement Form 0-75' Hardcover Inventor>' 75-250' Hardcover Inventorv' Survey/Hardcover Improvements Applicant proposes the removal and replacement of approximate 38' x 10’ deck to the lakeside ot the existing residence. The deck is located immediately above a concrete patio. The reconstruction also involves the replacement of the steps attached to the deck. The deck is approximately 347 s.f. and the steps at 54 s.f. The structure will meet all required setbacks and will be located out of the 0-75' setback area. The property is located adjacent to a 25 ’ tire lane to the west. Excessive hardcover improvements exist in the 75-250' setback area at 87.3%. History of Property In November of 1968. a former owner received approval of area and width variances to allow the construction of a residence. In 1972, additional variances were granted to the owner allowing for a 0 line setback to the side lot line adjacent to the fire lane for the installation of a septic system in the lakeshore yard. The residence structure was built sometime in 1972. The City has no record of the permit. The deck structure was built either in 1972 or sometime after 1972. In 1986. the current owners received approval of a conditional use permit and variances that allowed the restoration of existing timber walls, repair of the access stairs and installation of new timber walls in lakeshore yard and adjacent to residence. The timber walls installed within the lakeshore yard were to allow for ease and .safety in mowing the steep banks of the lakeshore yard. The existing deck and stairs have been confirmed by the Building Inspector as in need of immediate repair. The applicant proposes complete reconstruction of deck and stair structure. Statement of Hardship % 1. Review Exhibit B, the property receives excessive runoff from Long Lake Boulevard during heavy' rain and a majority of runoff pools in the grassed, flatter elevations at shoreline. Zoning File #2083 November 10, 1995 Page 3 2.The majority of hardcover from stairs and timber walls within the 0-75' area was approved by the City in 1986. Note stairs have been installed at a 4’ allowed width and would be allowed on a property with steep elevations leading to lake. 3. The deck is unsafe and in need of repair or replacement. 4. There is already a conv-rcie patio beneath the deck. 5. The deck will have no impact on the lake views of adjacent residences. Issues for Consideration 1. Stairs and timber walls were approved by the City in 1986 to allow for safe access to the shoreline and for use and maintenance of the steeply sloped yard. Can the plastic underliners not approved in 1986 application installed beneath the rocked areas be removed without danger of erosion.’ 2. Can existing hardcover improvements be reduced in the 75-250' setback area? A. 400 s.f to the east side of the residence consisting of concrete patio block and rock with plastic. B. V^Tiat of the rock with plastic area to the lakeside of the existing deck and patio, portions of which are located within the 0-75' and 75-250' area? C. Plastic underliner beneath rock in lakeshore yard at west side. Options of Action To either approve the variance application as proposed or as amended. Isv ) - • *■' *•» ••A - ' c3<^ d c i' o CrrY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional vanance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no chanze from original application) Variance for non-conforming struemres $-00.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double a, plicauon fee) PROPERTY I>TOR>L^TION Site :,rlrlr— r : Propert>' Identmcation Number (P.l. ■) ■ *1* j requirea survey. Attach legal description to application if nut inc.u _________^(monih/year) Date Property Acquired \ A /: ^ ^ r - ’ W w • Present use of propen>’: _v^resideniiai ______________ Zoning District: APPLICANT; . y Name Address: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name---------------------------------------- Phone I'home) ^ ^ Phone(wcrk) /c/?5 Cit>;_^•.A.Zip: t?tfL 7 Phono home) Phone (work)_ Address: City:Zip: description of reqltst Lsscribe request in detail: _ Estimated ConstructionCost S—^^-------- J (atuch additional sheets if necessiry) V/JUANCES UEQUIREP Lot Area Setback: Lot Width Front Side t^Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Averase Lakeshore Otlier (specif}’) PL\RDSHn>/DESCRI^ION OF ™ preventing Desenne u^due h^dshtp or ptncttcal diff.cuitv compliance w.tb Zoning Code tequuements: ---------^mich additional sheets if necessary) /72^ REQU]SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 4. of thefnllowing information must be submitted bv th? deadline daf(^ Iq ordg: for votir annlication to b€ consiftprgd complete; ~ C°“Sd 0f0OT.er5 within ISO’ (you must obuinte list from ' Hennepin Councy Department of Finance, A*60 j . Govt Center, 8o-71). Plat Mao (obtained wiuh prcpertv’owners list). v — Certiftcnto of .ur.oy (stgned by a " ----calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S.. x 11 for S’p'^mphic 'survev (extsting and proposed elevations) if any changes inexistmg grade are'^prcposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 31a x " Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S A — List of the leaal names (include mantal stanisl of all persons with an interest in the ----oropenv' This would include name(s) of applicanus) if not current owneris). _ KTddendum to this application, please auach a separate list ot any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by Citv’ staff. 5. 6. _ 7. 8- _ 9. The Applicant and Propertv Owner must sign this application. Please remember *al vou£ annMrn..nn is nm complete if .he above informa.ion.h^n^ienjIuMsdU The'*taol^^ berebv^a^Ss*^ provide all infoniiation required or requested by the Zomng IdL^uam aererto pav add^itionai fees (staff tune not covered by original fee payment) " or^ulml expenses'incurred in review of tWs applicatio.i and certifies mat the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. .'IP Applicant’s Signamr^Date The ow^r hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further aulhorues reasonable entry onto the propertv bv City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signarurq.^</^^ry^Date OX/,a sro. - - ---------------- ^r- ^ m taveTn autho^ h. your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Off.ee of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ■i, ■■ October IT. 1995 Mr O // • t . I r- ^ ■> Orono City Council; We have been seeking a permit to replace an existing deck on our house at 1535 Long Lake Blvd. (Lot #19). Our intent is to rebuild die deck exactly as it is now, but apparently there are some issues with the amount of total hard cover on our property. W’e would like to prov'de some insight that may help you understand our situation better, since much ot the issue seems to be about water run-ott. Our house is located on a hill, but we do not have run-off from our lot. The only time we've seen any water from run-off is when we have had a 4-5"* rain in a short amount of time — and even then, is sits on the lawn at the botton of the hill. There is run-otT. however, from Long Lake Blvd This shcald be on record with the City- of Orono because wc have called on it at least three times (but to date no acmn has been taken). All of the water from the east end of the neighborhood runs dov n Long Lake Blvd. and down out driveway ..bringing with it gravel from neighbors' driveways which we then hav e to remove from the bottom of our driv eway. Even when neighbors on the east end wash their cars we get the water down our driveway. All of this w ater runs into the right-of-way (owned by Orono) between our lot and lot #18. If there s a problem with run-off. that's where it is. It has created a deep gully. Our wish to rebuild our deck w ill not change this run-off situation - nor would removing any hard cover from our property . In fact. ;f wc remove any of the hard cover from our property, it could create a bigger run-off problem — by washing our hill into the lake. Our deck - which was there when we bought the house ~ is no longer safe. And we fear that obstruction to rebuild will rt:ult in someone's injury. We ask that you take these special circumstances into consideration and allow us to rebuild the deck as is. Thank vou. Bernice Zumbusch 1535 Long Lake Blvd. i ii .• • L ^ t V. • . 4 «, Ry ,_jttii-Sl » -• (I) GOVT LOT 1 35-H«-2?-77 : V, V .4 ,imm MTi mnk/n MTCN fQ4 ^ ‘i > TM^AVCII rm AOOR TAXPAYER V,.; . NAME/A0OR 'J ■ * M • '» ^ I PROP AOOR Ty:v OHNER NAME . -» TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR ■ „4 . - . IW.>' .*'• •* ..■ PROP AOOR '>■ OMNCR NAME 'TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR • • *1 - • It;--:- .■' iL••'. r.' ,^ • » *r *nr V*. ^ • W » t '« » # ' s * _ __ • *A , •I*, 'h ;■ V- t; ■ •M t • M U-llB-Zl IS 0002 01400 LONG LAM OLVO T 0 ANDCnON i C A ANDCIWM nOV A CATHfOINi ANOCASQN 1400 LOHO LAM OLVO tONB LAM KN S5S54 St 24*116*21 SI 0004 01510 LGK6 LAKC OLVO OfUKT D iOGENOCAG oo/tfir D ieGcwEoo 1510 LONG LAAC 6LV0 LONG LAM !tl 551S4 16 24*116-21 11 0014 01515 LONG LAKE 6LV0 OERNZCE zureuscH 6CRNICE H ZUHBUSCH 1515 LONG LAKE OLVO LONG LAKE Hi 55154 NifOCPIN COUNTY POOPERTY INrOOHATlON SYSTEN PMPERTY OmERS LIST16 24-116-21 11 000401514 LONG LAKE 6LV0 CINDY J fREORICKSON CINDY FREORICKSON 1514 LONG LAKE OLVO LONG LAM m 55154 16 24-116-21 11 0007 01540 LONG LAKE OLVO RODIN E CRAirORO RODIN E CRANFORD 1540 LONG LAKE OLVO LONG LAKE MN 55154 16 15-116-21 22 0002 01525 LONG LAKE OLVO L H CAPRON ETAL K/L EST L H CAPRON A MARIE HEIRIT 1212 OOIL DR AfCHORAGE AK 41507 TOTAL OATCM 504 00004 REPORT NO. PI415401 PAGE10 24-110-21 IS 000501520 LONG LAKE OLVO RAYMOND GORDON JOHNSON RAYMOND OCmON JOHNSON 1520 LONG LAKE OLVO LONG LAKE ftl 55154 16 24-118-21 IS 0012 01545 LONG LAKE OLVO J E OIGHAM A C A OIGHAM JAMES A CYNTHIA OIGHAN 1545 LONG LAM OLVO LONG LAKE m 55154 10 15-110-21 22 0001 01504 LONG LAKE OLVO THOMAS N CASHMAN THOMAS N CASNHAN 1504 LONG LAKE OLVO LONG LAM m 55154 , "11#- ^1 \■t- ^ ^ i,i-i“'-' • •* ' .r>:i >♦41<' 4. . • ^J'. Tkr R^i ' ‘40 -mm 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 DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXAJIQN* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGF AND BELIEF. g-'7-?5..DATE It ' ^ Tv . • '•* 4 ' - ? i- • ■ w S' “I • V ^ 'I^ ip I m ), Adjacent Property O^-ners’ Acknowledgement Form I, (we) (prim name(s)l of f5^5 Lit s/9 I • am m <n 1 _ ■(print address] have revievv-ed the plans for the proposed improvetnent or proposed use ot the propert>- located at rj/.u also referred to as Land Lse Applicatton No. ja ,;r;,..r-r- ........ I (we) understand that in es«utmg to plans and that the proposed net^hhor’s __r'nitnril nnnroval. have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located also referred to as Ijind Use Application No. ------------ - I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (arc) not Risked to dedarrapp“oval or disapproval of the propeny or use but merely to confirm °r to C ^ Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor project or use requires Council approval. ( Property Owner 7 Date DatePropert>' Owner If vou have any information that may assist the City in the review of tWs Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 y P to the scheduled meeting date. HARDCOVE^^CAt........................... SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^75y EXTSTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____ TPu>^P C(?y/pfZ Lcnfth ZiA___ __________ .? f X X X B. Garage C. Driveway !•«- • • D. Sidewalk i !NCL. ^ ,«• ro6»> 6 2- 4. E. Poiio/Oeck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X G. Other Cd/ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 7^/ ^ ^ f c. ^KnPOSFD HARDCOVER IN ZONE H House ______________ C/LtngL^ c & B. Garage I C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other X X X X X X X X X 75-250’25-500 ’500-1000 ’ ♦ • • •• i • a S.F. Wk!s2le?.sT ts (08 S.F. 2 X e>S.F. S.F. • ** • • ••S.F. «s S.F. »S.F. J,Z4S S.F. S.F. •4 • •S.F. m S F. •39/S.F. m S.F. m S.F. 7 sx 6 S.F. 7£/S.F. Cr4s S.F. X 100 m % • •• • 1 S.F. Wnj(h MA *•S.F. r**S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X-S.F. n S.F. s S.F. s S.F. •a S.F. • ss S.F. S.F. ■■S.F. S.P. total hardcover in ZONE total property area in zone •VA_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B X 100 - S.F. ~ S.F. A B a B • ' 14 hardcover CALClJLAUUi^VORK5mJ!.i .* SETB ACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) O-TS^• • EXISTING HARDCOVER !N ZONE CP5» €vvwu< o!v v!?^ Q5-250y \\ou^E^ - 25-500’ h S£, «nca . WWlOi # • .upM fA^r ^(0^ 1^. fyp tT/^04fr2> B. Garage X X X «*4 y fSLAO^Op C. Driveway X X • . D, . Sidewalk Timi?02 IZiz. X X E. Paiio/Deck ; <9PtN PORCH X X pf{:K ujim — F. Landuape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric .\ X X G. Other ^ 7u • ^/. ^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE J9S7 ^ B ^30 X 100 -■ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE House ______________ >RO Length Width C. - X X X - y B Garage C. Driveway X X ( I D. Sidewalk X X •v. E. Paiio/Dcck X X J ' » •»F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other total hardcover in zone total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 4* B A --------------------- 500-1000' I4-8S"S.F. • £SO 1* S.F. S.F. 400 S.F. S.F. S F. S.F. S.F. ■ 'iH m f S F. Z7S S F. S.F. S.F. m 14 S.F. 3 ?57 S7 3 5 S.F. A S.F. B % - • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • 1 • • •S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • • »• S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A % ICO I -• • • 9 • • % DOUGLAS J. ZUMBUSCH« • ^^9 Lafr,6B, • * t < Wev F U)T 19, ALBEES LONG LAKE ADDITION Qrcy %HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA (i^ t * « • ir Long Q ^_LEGAL description of PREMISES: ^Lot 19, ALBEE'S LONG LAKE ADDITION o: denotes Iron marker ^ Bearings shown are based upon an assumeddatum. NOTE; Boundary information is taken from ^40 our survey dated 8-6-86. LaKe TNis survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the loca- tion of an existing house, and the location of all existing "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other Improve ments or encroachments. Topographic information is- taken from city maps. 7^/' f- }) f h 12-0A-I995 11i36AJ4 FROf BO jESTPCO ’ ASSCC S12 636 1311 P. 1 I 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik £i ^ 1 Associates Engineers & Architects M AnoCi It m Aff\rmm^ Actioa (M< Opp^iMty On«a W. • 1 • >O9t0i^ C P tL L. P S. C. Ttiimer. A C««^ CL ^ Sc*»^*c^. W««< C^A * * Caaiuftafyt December 4. 1995 MewAre A 9 S. A 9 S. tefcert t Pfe^fe^. PC nr P 5 C*«»n 0 Loskoc*. P£ i«d«rt C twIiAA AJ A Jerry A teyrn#A. PI. Mer* A Pf *" tAurf^r*^ • t 7vA C THrms* • A»yee/'to<y A f A Jimef /?. t'Jtmrrefke* p f OoAAid C Sur^A’i!?. • E r»WT*M A iyfiC' f-teeric J. :t«AO«ra PX l«MMM P f. ^C^aef P tAu. P C X Petfrjoa. P.f VyehAef C L/r^ P t jAft^AS t. MATAra P f jer^ 0 Perdue"! Pf Sfon i. ArgAP#« PX P aacc ^joi^ px MAT* A Po»M PI. MATH A S#iO. P J CATV W MO/>AA. P I. PA u I J SAAf^OA A I A. 1 t«fg*re«A. P S A tick P C Ok/eA CfOvt P* J Catweii. PI Mari'. P XP»M. PI. M*its X J#r^5PA Pf L •P*‘<^0 Orpv*' P • •Caren U \S'fcA»rrt. P |. Sary O enitohtr. P f •rifA X Ot9#. PX P T04d Potter P X Keiw t rape. P X Dewgiet J. eenott PX. Saawa □ OynefioA. P f. Cecuro 0»i¥:ef P f. K aai i. JCaenof. Pi. PAut Ol Meuer PX J«A« P GafOer. P S Oar D 0«y«i«vi PX Jef*'“ry J ShreriA^er, P f. JOitpA P '!h#iA. P X Lte Pf Matvi . PX CAAftPI A ErfCtSOA L»a V4 Ptv^yitiiy Hj»’nr M AoTf f .VS Pmg jemei P. Incerherdr Ms. Jennne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administratur City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crv'stal Bav, .Minnesota 55323 Re: Zumbusch Residence File No. 139-2083 Dear Jeanne. We have inspected the Zumbusch residence at 1535 Long Lake Boulevard, located on the north shore of Long Lake. There are two landscaped areas in the backyard of the property that have rock over plastic lining. Both of the areas, near the concrete patio and along the west lot line (enclosed by wood timbers), have level grades and very little potential for erosion. Removing the plastic lining beneath the rock would have no impact on the propertv' other than increasing the amount of runoff infiltration in these areas which i-s desirable. Please cont.act me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours veiv tiulv. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIAl'ES, INC. tSuyyl Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. rw fm’ COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 1 1995 £■■ f TV n r DATE: December 7, 1995 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaftrop Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed;Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2085 Minnesota Depanment of Natural Resources. 3390 North Shore Drive - Commercial Site Plan Review - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Planning Commission Minutes 11 /20/95 C - Notice of Planning Commission .Action 11/29/95 D - Citv Engineer's Comments 11/20/95 ' ^ \ E - Memo and E.xhibits of 11/17'95 ^ S\ ^ Discussion 1 he Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will be commencing construction of the Maxw ell Bav access on the lormer CJavie's Marina property and adjacent properties beginning in the spring of 1996. In keeping w ith the spirit of cooperation between the City ot Orono and the DNR dating back to 1991 when an access on Maxwell Bay was originally considered, DNR has subjected this project to the City's commercial site plan review process. Pursuant to published notice and mailed notice to property owners w ithin 350' of the site as well as to all property owners abutting Maxwell Bay. the Planning Commission held a public information meeting for tlu purpose of endueting a commercial site plan review and gaining public input, on November 20, 1995. The Planning Commission reviewed the site plan in the context of the B-2 zoning in which the property is located. Specific issues addressed during the review include minimization of hardcover, lakeshore setback maximization, landscape plan, site access, sanitarv facilities, lighting, hours of operation, trash and garbage contrM. and drainage. Please review the staff memo of November 17, 1995 which addresses a significant number of issues which have been discussed over the last four sears. Site Plan Review Suniman Tlie site plan submitted by the DNR dated October 25. 1995 is designated as a "preliminary plan", subject to Citv approval. The final plans to be drafted for actual con.siruuion will be developed by the DNR to rellect any changes which the City and DNR agree to. Tlie follow inu is a summary of the various aspects of tht die plan: JT' y 1 Request for Council Action continued p^ge 2 of 5 December 7, 1995 Zoning File #2085 Provisions for 80 car/trailer spaces, 15 car spaces. Three concrete plank ramps, with 4 "make-ready docks. Ramps located approximately 200 ’ west of Lakeside Marina ramp to minimize boat traffic conflicts. Boat beaching area west of ramps. Driving and parking surfaces to be bituminous, with curb and gutter along south side, traffic control boulders along north side. Runoff management via detention ponds or grass swales w ith skimmers. Raised traffic contr ’ islands. Shoreline stabilization as necessary. Shore fishing and fishing pier at northwest end of site. Bituminous path from fishing pier to parking area, including concrete curb and gutter/side walk adjacent to Tonkawa Road. Separate entrv ’/exit access points, one-way tralfic on-site. De\elopmept of new right mm lane for wesi hound North Shore Drive/north bound Tonkawa. Enhancement of east bound North Shore Drive by-pass lane. Siunificant car/trailer stacking area wiiiti.'^ site due to linear layout. Sanitary facilities provided. Trash facilities w ill mii be provided. Lighting at entry/exit and at ramp only. Kiosk for consolidated signage. Fence along east boundary abutting Lakeside Marina. Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 5 December 7, 1995 Zoning File #2085 • Landscaping to include 37 new 165 shrubs, designed to prcser\e certain existing trees. planning Commission Comments/Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and landscaping plan on No\ ember 20, and discussed various aspects of the site plan as well as operation and maintenance issues with Larry Killien and Stan Linnell. Planning Commission noted the extensive review conducted by the Lake Use Committee, as well as input from Maxwell Bay residents. A number ot residents were in attendance at the November 20th meeting and made a number of general comments which Planning Commission requested staff to for%vard to the City Council. The public comments are detailed in the minutes of November 20th meeting, and are briefly summarized as follows: Will a stop sign be placed at the exit on to Tonkawa? (Yes) Will residents be informed of further fuel contamination if encountered? (City will be notified) How does this access compare to North .Amt? (Slightly larger, better traltic flow) - Are there plans to improve Boy Scout Bridge? (No^ • Concerns regarding how the turn lane will lunctici.. » Concerns regarding amount and flow ot traffic during peak periods. Concerns about enforcement ot speed limit on Tonkawa. Access from site to Crystal Bay? (None will be provided, but may be difllcult to stop snowmobilers from crossing between Ma.xwell and Cry stal Bay at this location. e\en though it is probably an unsafe location) Concerns about public fishing overflowing to private shoreline and docks, its well as auto traffic using private driveways. Stoplight proposed? (No) Concerns about w inter use. especially fish houses (Intent is that access not be open in winter) Planning Commission noted that because the DNR is exempt from local zoning requirements and because this is technically a public information meeting, no formal Planning Commission action is required. However, Planning Commission indicated general approval of tlte project, noting that the DNR has substantially addressed all site planning concerns and issues raised by the Lake Use Committee during its review. Site Operation and Kelaivo In their letter of September 6, 1994, DNR addressed a number of operation and maintenance concerns The DNR will provide for general operation and maintenance of the site, which includes such items as litter pickup, mowing, tree trimming, etc. The DNR will also take responsibility for any major maintenance needed on the site. Enforcement of the site shall be a cooperative effort between the City, County and the DNR. Request for Council Action continued page 4 of 5 December?, 1S>95 Zoning FUe #2085 Planning Commission did express some concern regarding the hours of operation as well as closure of the site during the w inter months. The DNR can commit to winter closure and dailv limitation on hours of operation only if a cooperati\ e agreement is reached between the DNR and the City. Such an agreement might include some decree of site maintenance bv the Citv, and there mav be additional benefits the City can prov ide to enhance the public’s use and enjov ment of the site. A cooperative agreement between the City and the DNR would be necessaiy if the City w ishes to have significant control over the site. Staff' and DNR have discussed some possibilities for such an agreement biit no draft has been developed yet. The access has been designed to be functional without the need for an attendant. However, it is likely that at peak periods the City will need to provide a police officer or reserve to control traffic, as has been required at the North Arm Landing in the past. Also, it is staffs understanding that Orono Police will have enforcement authority regarding illegal parking, etc. for the Maxwell Bay access similar to their authority ’ regarding North Arm Landing. Note that North .Arm Landing is posted "no overnight parking" but no hours are posted. Regarding the issue of winter closure, the DNR does not plan to erect any gates at the ramps, but also has no intent to plow the site in the winter. There is some concern that the site will become a jumping off point for snowmobilers. although that has not become a concern at North Arm Landing. This is one of a number of concerns that perhaps the best solution is to see what happens in the first few years and react if necessary to resolve issues that become apparent. Draft Resolution Staff has drafted a resolution to approve the site plan for the Maxwell Bay access. The resolution has attempts to provide some background and basis for the City's support of this project, and lists a number of conditions or "expectations". Staff would welcome any suggestions or revisions which Council feels are appropriate. Construction Schedule Upon City approval of the site plan. DNR intends to complete the final construction plans, with constniction to commence in the spring of 1996. Substantial completion of the improvements is expected in the fall of 1996. Staff Recommendation Subject to any revisions or additions Council may direct, staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution approving the site plan for the Maxwell Bay access. StatT further recommends that Council give staffdirection regarding development of a cooperative agreement between the City' and the DNR. Request for Council Action continued page 5 of 5 December 7, 1995 Zoning File #2085 ______ Options for Action 1. Adopt resolution as drafted or with revisions. 2. Table for additional review (specify reasons). 3.Other. . seconded by to adopt ResolutionProposed Motion; Moved by __________ #_____granting site plan approval for the Maxwell Bay public water access at 3390 North Shore Drive. Vote: _____ayes.__________nays. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SITE PLAN FOR THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATUR.\L RESOURCES MAXWXLL BAY ACCESS FILE NO. 2085 WHEREAS, the Ciw of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Depanment of Natural Resources (DNR) intends to construct a public waters access facility on property located at 3390 North Shore Drive at the southwest comer of Maxwell Bay, Lake Minnetonka; and WHEREAS, in a spirit of cooperation with the City of Orono the DNR on October 26, 1995 filed an application for a commercial site plan review with the Orono Building & Zoning Department to facilitate a public information meeting and gain public and City input prior to construction of the Maxwell Bay public vsater access, and WHEREAS, on November 20, 1995 the Orono Planning Commission held a public information meeting for the purpose of conducting a commercial site plan review of the Maxwell Bay public water access pursuant to published notification of said meeting in the olTicial newspaper as well as individual mailed notification to all property owners within 350 feet of the property and to all owners of property abutting Maxwell Bay; and WHEREAS, at the aforesaid public infonnation meeting all members ol the public wishing to comment on the project were allowed to speak thereon, and the Orono Planning Commission directed City staff to foi^vard those public comments to the City Council; and \MIERE.AS, the Orono City Council has reviewed the proposed Maxwell Bay access site plan at a regular meeting held December 11, 1995 and has considered the public comments _ j!^___:-4 m thp fnllmvinu tlndines reeardinu the Maxwell Bayreceived regarding said rkm. and hereby makes the following findings regarding the Maxwell Bay public water access; 1 The City of Orono recognizes its obligation to provide for access to Lake Minnetonka tor members of the public w ho are not riparian owners of property abutting Lake Minnetonka. The City of Orono has and continues to more than adequately fultill this obligation by providinc and maintaining numerous swimming beaches and public access lanes tor shore fishinu, pedestrian access and winter vehicle access; has provided for zoning allowing tlie Page 1 of4 I 3. 6. 7. continuation of five existing marinas within the City containing in excess ot 425 rental slips for use by the public; and is home to Hennepin County's North Arm lake access which provides approximately 63 car/trailer parking spaces for use by the public. In 1983 the DNR in conjunction with the Governor's Lake Access Task Force concluded that 700 reliable parking spaces were needed around Lake Minnetonka. T he lake was divided into five zones, and the Maxwell Bay access site is in Zone 1. as is the North Ann access. Tlie DNR established a goal of 139 "reliable" car/trailer spaces w ithin Zone 1. A majority' of Orono ’s shoreline is within Zone 1 . • The 80 car/trailer spaces proposed for the Maxwell Bay access in conjunction with the 63 existinu car/trailer spaces at the North Arm access, total 143 reliable car trailer spaces within Zone L thereby meeting and exceeding the goal of 139 spaces. Further, in light of the above mentioned 5 marinas and additional public lake access provided by the City, the City of Orono has more than met its obligation for providing lake access to the public, and no additional access nor expansion of existing access should be required in the City ot Orono. The DNR initiated discussion of a new public water access site on Maxwell Bay as early as 1991, and has included the City and its residents in numerous discussions and reviews of the proposed site plan as it has developed over the past tour years. At the request of the City of Orono. the so called "Straley site" originally proposed by the DNR for a 25 car/t.-ailer access facility, was discontinued as a feasible location tor an access, and DNR has subsequently acquired a site located in the B-2 Lakeshore Business District which is in the opinion of the City a location superior in many ways to the Straley site for development of a lake access, and for which acquisition costs by the DNR have e.xceeded S2.000.000. In establishing guidelines for development of the Ma.xwell Bay access, the DNR has met the intent if not the letter of Orono's environmental protection ordinances in regard to maintaining adequate green bulTers at the shoreline, providing adequate storm water controls, and providiniz adequate landscaping and vegetation while minimizing hardcover. Tlie Maxwell Bay access with 80 car/trailer spaces will provide adequate ofT street parking to allow the City to eliminate on street car/trailer parking in the area which has become an annovance and a hazard to local residents. Page 2 of 4 8. The proposed Maxwell Bay access provides a number of amenities that w ill be enjoyed both by Orono and non Orono residents, including a fishing pier, toilets, 3 concrete launching ramps with make ready docks, and adequate signage and lighting to make the site user friendly. 9. The proposed site plan incorporates upgrades to County Road 51 and 135 including right turn lanes and by-pass lanes to accommodate the anticipated tralTic generated by the access. 10. The City Council finds that the concerns of the City and of the public in regard to site design and function have been substantially addressed by the Department ot Natural Resources in the "Preliminary Plan Lake Minnetonka Water Access Maxwell Bay Site" dated October 25. 1995 and the "Landscape Plan Lake Minnetonka Water Access Maxwell Bay Site" dated October 26, 1995. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota, that the Maxwell Bay access Preiimitur\ Site Plan dated October 25, 1995 and the Maxwell Bay .-\ccess Plan dated October 26. 1995 are hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The DNR is urged to discuss storm water controls for this site with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, especially in relation to the use of grassed sw ales in lieu of storm water ponding at the site. 2. This site plan approval is granted with the clear understanding and expectation that the DNR will pursue no further public w ater access sites w ithin the City of Orono. a 4. 5. DNR and its contractors and subcontractors shall during construction adhere to the "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban .Areas". I'JNR shall continue to keep the City advised of the status of petroleum contamination monitoring and cleanup on the site. Operation and maintenance of the site shall be in accordance with a cooperative agreement to be developed prior to completion of the access. In absence of such an agreement, DNR is expected to provide for the complete operation and maintenance of said site. Page 3 of 4 E------- 6. Because certain aspects of the function and operation of the access will be unknown until the site is in full use, the City approves the site and landscaping plan subject to an expectation that DNR will work with the City in addressing any future concerns generated by the access. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono this 11th day of December, 1995. ATTESF: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mavor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknow ledged before me on this 11th day of December, 1995 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr., and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary' Public Page 4 of 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#4) #2085 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATLTIAL NORTH SHORE DRP:T - COMMERCL\L SITE PI_\N R-VIE - *-------- INFORMATION MEETING - 8:11-9:06 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was represented by Larr>- Killien and Stan Linnell. Gafffon reported that the application is for a commercial site plan review for constmction of a public water access which has been :n the planning stage ^r twC puoi i irce >e|u^ propenv is zoned B-2 and previously was the site of Crvstal Bay . Marina a. the imarseciion ofTonkarva and CoRd 51 (Nonh Shorn exempt from meeting local zoning codes but has worked with City Staff and the Lake Us Committee in developing the site plan. Gaffron related a brief history of the project. In October of 1992 the DNR obtained the option to purchase the Straley property east of Lalteside Marina. Much res.sunce was .eiven to this purchase by the neighborhood and City Pubhe heanngs were held m January of 1992. Concerns were with the propertv zoned residential and what was conatoe poor traffic access Bv mutual agreement, the purchase was put on hold The DNR then Luired the Gavle's Marina prooertv and C.ystal Bav Seiwice orooert.es along with the Dunn Propenv and the Sprague property. The property is west ot Lakeside Manna^ The DNR then met with the Lake Use Committee holding three meetings ^ well as mee mg with the Macwell Bav Residents Committee. The DNU removed the buildmp on the property and have dealt with the ftiel contamination, which has been resolved. Monitoring wells tire currently in place. Gaffron reported that the DNR is now prepared to begin constructing the lake access and are at this meeting to discuss the design, and he noted that Staff has reviewed how the proposal fits intolhe context of the B-2 zone. It is not strictly a commercial use but might be considered an institutional or recreational use. and the B-2 code does not address "public access” specifically. The overall hardcover existed at 68% and will be reduced to The B-2 lakeshore code calls for a 75 ’ setback and is proposed at 40 ’. The code calls for a 75 ’ buffer. It was noted that Gayle ’s Marina had hardcover right up to the shoreline The landscapinu plan includes tree planting as well as the saving of a number ot trees on the property The DNR was asked to plant something larger than their standard 1" caliper trees and are planting l-l/2"-2 ’’. Drainage will flow through filter stnps before entering' the lake In reuards to the site access issue, traffic will be brought in from the west end at Tonkawa with no traffic accessing from North Shore Dnve. A counterclock-wise flow of traffic will occur within the site. Peterson said the Lake Use Committee has had more meetings on this public access than anv other issue. It has involved the public, the Council and the DNR. Peterson said he was comfortable with what was being introduced a iu saw it as a viable plan. • • • minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#4 - #2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Continued) Stan Linnell, a DNR landscape architect, revieu-ed the site addition to Gavles and the Crystal Bay Service properties the D.,.. ^ residential properties, where the homes have been removed, with the optio p third property which abuts Lakeside Marina. The DNTl has been working w h the Counn on developing a right turn lane on County Road 51 to How to the back up on Co Rd 51 a counterclockwise flow has been developed m the ^'te^ /pother traffic lane has been established eastbound for a by-pass lane so as to not e > cars with trailers. Linnell continued to describe the access as having three concrete plank ramps with docks plus a remote dock. The remote dock would be used by those people idling or stopping for short periods This will enable those boats entenng or exiting the lake to do so without imerference. There will be SO car-trailer parking stalls stalls An access trail wiU also be constructed lo the lishing pier. This trail is near the roadway and will be built as a sidewalk adjacent to Tonkavva Road. It was noted that children would need to be closely watched in this and all ot the area. Linnell said the drainage for the parking lot splits it in the middle ^ “ Brassed swale thru two skimmers, to a catch basrn. and onto a culvert to Ctvsta IBay^ The other side wiU have a swale, two skimmers, with a possible sheet How, and then berm Linnell reported that there will be 4 handicap parking spots with two "car only". At least two docks and a pier will be handicap accessible There will be no curb or gutter along the lake side The access will be asphalt or bituminous The turn lane and islands wiU have concrete gutters and boulders to control the traffic. A sign near the entrance will direct car/trailer while still allowing cars to pull away from the launch ramp. Linnell said it was the DNR's intent to preseive the existing trees. One tree in tonded to be saved is a 28" oak. New native trees will be planted and existing evergreen U«fr^d 1C !s deciduous trees will be transplanted. A wUdflower and grass vegeimion buffer strip will be planted along the shoreline to provrde better hltration trom runofflrom the parkina lot. There will be some screening, but they did not want to block the view in from the rrad 165 shrubs and 37 new trees will be planted. Killien added that two parkina spaces were eliminated to save a hackbeny tree on the property. 1 • ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#4 - #2085 Minnesota Depanment of Natural Resources - Continued) Kfllien presented some history on the property. The DNR has conducted dean oP of aU the contaminated soils from the service station and marina. Observation ^ instaUed, which will be monitored in 30 days. The DNR should know in 90 days what effect has been had on the ground water on the upper level. Ar.other set of lan s vver recentlv discovered and removed Small amount of soil was on the tanks but no contaminated soil was left. This area was backfilled Lead and conducted on the building prior to demolition Killien said the before the end of the year, and the building should come down within 90 days He also reported that wetland delineation of the area where the trail will J’f ditch area The plans have been submitted to the MC\VD. the LMCD. and the DNR Waters Division. Gaffron asked if the cvclone fence would be removed and guard rails installed between the path and road for protection. Linncll said they had observed the area earlier and were considering curb and gutter between the road and path, which he said would pertorm the same as a boardwalk. Peterson asked how far back this would occur. Linnell wid there was one stretch where the lake came close to the edge and then separated for the pathway which was a high risk area. Peterson said the public has been kept informed about the plan and asked tor any concerns from those in attendance. Dick Engebretson. along with his wife Jean. 1 ISO Tonkawa. were present Engebretson asked if there would be a stop sign at the e.vit of the access to keep cars ftom rolling out onto Tonkawa without stopping and was told there would be. He ftmher inquired if the residents would be notified if the monitonng wells indicated fiinher contamination. He was told the DNR was working with the .MPCA and would notify the residents it any problems were found. Engebretson asked how big the access was in sea e to that ot Nonh Ln public access He was informed that there is parking for 65 car,'trailers at Nonh Arm. and there would be parking for 80 car/lrailcrs at this location. KjfiiCT noted that this access provided a better layout and traffic fiow He noted that the DNR is working with Hennepin County on redesigning Nonh Arm. It is the DNR's intent to fix the hsiung and shore area, paint the no parking areas, adda raised island in the lot. and create buffer stnps ,0 deal with stormwater. Engebretson asked whether D^ plans to repair the Boy Scout bridge. Peterson said this has not been before the Lake Use Committee. Killien said this w as not part of the DNR plan. 8 V ’ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION meeting held on NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#4 - #2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Continued) detail including the right mm lane Gray asked if the plans could be . they fou d this plan does not work. Linnell suggested staring in the dnving lane and mming dirw y onto Tonkawa. It was said a car can mm right trom the center lane ut ^ whether the County would consider this to be legal or not Hurt smd there would m eftect ^e L lanes of trie onto Tonkawa. There would be 300^00' of sta^ng men tn^hj mm lane No parking signs have been installed Gray was concerned that the would not be enforced. Linnell noted that the three ramps would aid m the trafltc also. Barrv Kniuht, 425 Tonkawa, was concerned with traffic flow at peak about the "normal traffic for a ramp and was told 25 spaces per ramp ts was concerned with left turns coming out at dusk. He felt if there w^as parking tor 80 c^s, and with the traffic configuration pattern, it would want to head both north and sout Tonkawa. He saw this as a potential problem during "rush hours Peterson commented that a boat launch creates less traffic than a marina and It was noted that Gavle's Marina onginally had 140 slips With a boat ramp, boaters ci^me earlv and leave late, 'if Gayle's had no problem with traffic, Peterson siud he saw even less here. Gray asked if a traffic count was done at Gayle's but that was unknown. Kniaht said he was less convinced than the Planning Commission on the amount of traftm considered to come out of the access area. Linnell said Gayle's Marina also had - double access launch ramps. Knight asked about hardcover and was told the access was Sed m standards. Knight asked what enforcement would be done ot the access traffic and local traffic on Tonkawa in order to maintain the 30-35 mph limit and how this would be dealt with in the residential area Peterson said if speed became a problem, the police department would have to enforce the law Killien said the DNR had made suggestions to the City regarding overflow parking suoaesting no parking signs and an ordinance to uphold that^ He felt the DNR was de^aTing with this issue up front Killien felt education nght from the start was 'mportant. Killien said he would not recommend cars towing boats to travel on Tonkawa with the snake-like hills He felt that Tonkawa as a route from the north probably would be used mainlv during peak times He said he would check with the County on this. - f * MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CON^SSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#4 - #2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Continued) Dan Wigen, 3410 North Shore Drive (2nd house west of the access), asked ^ plans for an access to Cr>*stal Bay and was told no. He asked peop e wou som be discouraged from doing so. He was told there would be no improvement at that and traffic >^11 limit people going across to that area. Wigen said people are now parking in the landing and using his dock for fishing. He would like entorcement and et^ticat o such as signs stipulating private and not public property along that area. concern with traffic and use of private driveways. He was also concerned with ^ snovvinobilers using the ramp by crossing from Crystal E . Peterson sai nei ^ _ been discussed but felt the steep banks would discourage sn. > mobilers and p could also slow them down Killien said the area could be p..sted or no par 'in^ i winter as the landing would be closed during that time. No otner barriers would be installed, however. Ken Rolland, 4119 Oak Street, was concerned with traffic and asked it there was a possibiUtv for a traffic stoplight. Petersen said t.his had net been ^^^^ussed and was a Countv issue. Rolland said he was concerned with eastbound cars with boats ma g ^ left turn onto Tonkawa. Gaffion thought there was room tor perhaps tj^ee cars to ..ac., Killien said there would be room for 4 cars with trailers. Killien asked Rolland it his concern was with CoRd 51 or Tonkawa. Rolland said he was just asking Linnell said the Countv never brought up the issue of a stoplight, and south bound Tonkawa was considered for just two lanes. He said it could be explored if necessary’. Gray asked if the landing was closed in winter if fish houses would f ramp. Killien said the ramp would be posted as closed but not physically barred due t liability He said the fish houses would need to be dealt with it they bec^e a problem. Ld DNR has a 48 hour notification process before illegally •'parked" fish houses could be removed There would also be no winter maintenance. Cars would probably need to be 4-wheel drive to use the ramp A DNR access is normally open 365 days a year but not in this case If there are problems, the DNR will look at options available He noted that there are only two DNTl accesses w-ith gates, both with unusual circumstances. Hurr noted that there would be access at North Arm during the winter. Smith said she liked the idea of an information board rather than signs at different locations Smith also liked the landscaping plan and would like to see one at North Arm. She asked if the liuhts would be left on or off or on a timer. Killien said the lights vv ere Lgled and box sh'aped directed downward and on at all times. There wiU be three lights on the site. Regarding the lack of proposed garbage cans, DNR believes in the less- containers, less-lrash line ot thought. MINl-ITES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOV'EMBER 20. 1993 (#4 - #2085 Deparaneni ofNaiurii Resources - commueo; Gaffi-on inquired about the construction schedule. Lmnell Council in December. If no maior chances %vere necessary-, drafted in January and February with bidding tor early spring. C in Mav and comoleted durinc the summer. No formal action was required at this meeting. Wigen asked if a motion could be made on signage regarding trespassing. He these concerns would be addressed by Staff. Lindquist asked that the comments be passed on to the Council. Peterson closed the public inlbrmation meeting. (#5) #2088 WINFIELD STEPHENS, 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARiANrESA^ACATION OF PUBLIC ROAD - 9:06-9:3..........VARIANCESAACATION The Certificate of Nailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. a garafe^a s .0 ^ (he east^The S atrmemo was said to discuss the setbacks and hardcover for the prooerrv. Person said" ouid appear to be no major concern as long as the apphean. was able to acquire the alley. Vlabusth advised from calls she received, it appeared that the adjacent owners may "take cWm o the Iv. .Vlabusth said she had spoken with Dennis HiU at the County, wbo sard th^Entire allev would probably be granted to the applicant as owner ol lots - and 3. w U u rt'chp had sDoken with Hill again after calls had been received from the Mabust sai , • ^ matter mav have to be further studied. Hill informed "S" n^^i:h"s:d for a piece of the allev. these claims mav be raised during a required legal proceeding. Peterson asked if the application was not one step ahead of itself He asked if Staff was awaiting information on utilities The City Engrneer repotted there were no sewer hnes encroaching the alley, and there are no power poles . < c CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Larry Killien Nln/DNR Trails & Waterways 500 Lafayette Road St.Paul/NIN 55155 ZONING FILE #2085 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 11/29^5 COPIES TO; TYPE OF APPLICATION:Commercial Site Plan Review DATE OF MEETING: 11/20 95 VOTE:-- FOR - AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Planning Commission indicated that the plan appears to adeq ately address all previous concerns, and directed staff to forward the application to the City Council along with a record of the public comments received at the meeting. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Citv Council Mondav, December 11, 1995; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the otTicial Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the Citv Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Ott« G fonrrtroo, Ft totft W. tostffis. Ft* Jotcufi C AnOriHL Ft Marvm L Sofvala. F t tlcn«rtf t Turner. F t Qtnn t Coon. F t Thomet t Noyes. Ft to^ert a Scfiurucm. Ft Susan M Ebertin. C FA.* * Senior CorstuManc J/1 Bonestroo jK^Rosene vS Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Nov ’cmber 20, 1995 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bav. Minnesota 55323 Re: Maxwell Bav Access File No. 139-Gen anb Asjooatet. bsc is AfTirmative ActtorV^guii Opportunity twpioyer Howard A. Sanford. Ft Keitn A. Gordorv. PI. Ilooen ». Ftefterie. F E ticnard W Foster. FI Oavid O Loseoca. Ft. tooert C Ruste*. AiA Jerry A Bourdon. F t blerii A Hamon. F E Micnaei T ftautmann. F t Ted t Field. F t Thomas t Ar>derson. A IA ijmes R Roscnmertei. F E. Donald C Burgardt. F E Thomas A Syffco. FE Frederic J StenOorg. FE iiunaef Mamnex. F E. Michael f Reu. F E. Thomas ^ Peterson. FE. Michael C Lynch. Ft James R. Malarsd. Ft Jerry O Fentsch. F.E. Scon J Argarset F E Kennetn F Anderson F t Mart t. Rolfs. F £. Mart A. Seip. F t Gary W Monen. FJ. Faul J Gannon. A.IA Daniel J Edgerton. F E A Rick Schmidt. F E Dale A Grove. F £ FhiMp J Caswell. F E Mart D viratfis. FE Miles B Jensen, F E L PhiUip Gravel. F E Karen L dTiemen. FE Gary D Knstofttx. Pi. Brian IL Gage. Ft F Todd Foster. Ft Keith R Yapp. F t Douglas J Benoit F t Shawn D Gustafson. F E. Cecilao OWvier F E Kent X \iragner. Ft Paul G Hauer Ft John P Oorder, F E Dan D Boyum. F E. Jeffrey J Ehiermger. Ft Joseph R. Rhem. Ft Lee M. Mann. FE Charles A Erickson Leo M Fawefsky Harlan M Olson Agnes M. Ring James F Engeihardt •NOV 2 2 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the plan for the proposed improvement.s at the Maxwell Bay public access site. The project is proposed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Trails and Waterways Unit. The proposed improvements include 80 car/trailer parking spaces, 15 car spaces, three boat ramps, four docks, a fishing pier, right-turn lanes on County Road No. 51 (North Shore Drive) and County Road No. 135 (Tonkawa Road), bituminous pathways, fencing, shoreline stabilization, landscaping and wildflower/prairie plantings. The improvements also reduce the amount of hardcover on the site and manage the stormwater runoff through the use of vegetated filter strips, grass swales with skimmer structures anil^or detention ponds. The plans appears to be well done. The improvements will make good use of the propert) and we would recommend approval. We have no comments other than a maintenance schedule should be established for the three areas with skimmers. They will tend to collect trash and debris and should be cleaned periodically. 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 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator November 17, 1995 #2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 3390 North Shore Drive - Maxwell Bay Public Water Access - Commercial Site Plan Review - Public Information Mectine Zoning District: B-2, Lakeshore Business District Application: Request for City/public comment and input regarding the proposed Maxwell Bay public water access. NOTE: While the DNR technically is exempt from complying with local zoning ordinances, the DNR has involved the City and the public in a review process that has taken place over the last three years. This public information meeting and plan review is being held at the request of the DNR to allow the public the opportunity to review the plan and provide input on the access construction and landscaping plans prior to City linal approval. 1 he development of this public water access plan was based upon discussions the MnDNR has had with area residents, the Orono Lake Use Committee and Cit>’ staff. The DNR has incorporated numerous design elements and changes into the plan which were a direct rcsult of tliese meetings. The public water access construction plan is based on a compilation of the City and area residents' input and DNR design requirements. List of Exhibits A n c D E !• G H I J K Application & Submittal Letter Plat Maps (Site and Notification Area) '*ror»erv Owm.!-;' List Public Nutice Site ro,.«>grap' y Map Preliminuiy Si.e and Grading Plan Landscape Plan Toilet Screen Detail Information Boaid Detail Skimmer Detail Hardcover Calculations w Zoning File #2085 November 17,1995 Page 2 M - Selected Exhibits Documenting Review Process to Date - DNR Proj)osal #2. January 21, 1992 - Lake Use Committee Commfr.is l)NR, March 31, 1993 - Maxwell Bay Residents' Conimittee Comments, April 3. 1993 - DNR RespKjnse/Update, September 6, 1994 - Selected Lake Use Committee Meeting Minutes Letter from Attorney General ’s Office re: Exemption Background Summary Pursuant to their goal of providing public access to Lake Minnetonka, in October 1991 the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) obtained an option to purchase the 1.5 acre "Straley property" east of Lakeside Marina for development of a public access. On January 6. 1992. the Orono City Council held a public hearing to review the DNR's proposal for development of the Straley site. The Straley location met with significant resistance from both the City and its residents. On January 21, 1992. the DNR held a public informational meeting and open house, and suggested a second proposal in which DNR agreed to delay purchase of the Straley site while investigating purchase of Gayles Marina, Lakeside Marina and/or properties between them as a better alternative for an access site, which the City generally supported. Later in 1992 the DNR completed purchase of the Straley site and applied for LCMR funding in order to pursue the possible acquisition of Gayles Marina and adjacent properties. In November 1992. the Orono Planning Commission held a public infomiation meeting for review of the conceptual site plan for the Gayles site. The Orono Lake Use Committee held three meetings in February and March 1993. resulting in the March 31, 1993 letter to the DNR (Exhibit L-2) indicating the Lake Use Committee's comments and concerns regarding the concept plan. A Maxwell Bay Residents' Committee also submitted comments to the DNR and to the City early in April 1993. These comments were reviewed at a meeting between the DNR and Lake Use Committee on April 14, 1993. During the remainder of 1993 and into 1994, the DNR obtained LCMR funding and pursued acquisition of the Gayles Marina site and adjacent properties. In September 1994, the DNR submitted a revised site plan and a letter of response to the City ’s 1993 comments and concerns. The Lake Use Committee subsequently met with the DNR in November 1994 and again in January 1995. Zoning File #2085 November 17, 1995 Page 3 Having acquired the Gayles site and the Crystal Bay Service site in 1994, the DNR proceeded with resolving fuel contamination issues at those two sites, and in 1995 acquired the Dunn and Sprague properties to the east. In the fall of 1995. buildings were removed from the acquired properties. On October 6, 1995, the Lake Use Committee met with the DNR to review the status of the project as well as continue discussions on site planning issues, resulting in the current "preliminary site plan" being submitted for City and public comment prior to expected commencement of construction in the spring of 1996. Zoning Issues \VTiile the DNR is not subject to local zoning ordinances, the DNR has worked closely with the City on site design, in order to create an access that is functional yet remaining sensitive to the natural environment as well as the residential nature ot surrounding areas. The site has been zoned for commercial use since 1957, although that portion on the south side of Nonh Shore Drive is zoned residential. Less than 1% of the City’s land area, and only 2.2% of Oono's Lake Minnetonka shoreline, is zoned for commercial uses. The remainder is zoned for single family residential use. During the review process to date, the DNR was requested by the Lake Use Committee to be especially sensitive to specific City concerns in the redevelopment of this site: Vlinimj7.*ition of hardcover. WTiile the Gayles NIarina and Crystal Bay Service sites were almost totally covered with hard surface, the adjacent residential lots were relatively low in hardcover. Overall, existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone was 67.9%. where the B-2 zoning standards allow no hardcover. In the 75-250’ zone, overall pre-existing hardcover was 66.1®o. where the standard is 25%. The DNR proposal would reduce 0-75’ hardcover from 67.9% to 23.5%, while resulting in a slight increase from 66.1% to 69.7% in the 75-250' zone. Including both zones, total site hardcover decreases from 66.8% to 52.6%. . [ nkeshoro setback. The B-2 zoning standards require 75’ setback for structures as well as hardcover. fhe intent is to create a 75’ "bufTer zone" at the lakeshore. The westerly 70% of the site for many years has had virtually no buffer, with gravel parking extended virtually to the shoreline. I he proposal results in parking lot setbacks ranging from 40-70’ or more from the shoreline, with grass buffer snips proposed for treatment of parking lot runotf before it reaches the lake. These buffer areas also provide a location for significant landscaping to occur. Zoning File #2085 November 17. 1995 Page 4 - I plan The B-2 Standards require development of a landscape plan that provides not only for an aesthetically pleasing appearance but also provides a natural butfer and screening from adjacent users. The proposed landscape plan will result in the saving of a number of existing mature trees on the site, planting significant numbers of new trees on the site, as well as substantial shrubbery and wildflower/prairie planting areas. The proposed landscape areas exceed the B-2 code requirements for a 10' side yard landscape area, 10' along County Road 51, and 25-30' lakeshore landscape area. Per the B-2 requirements, the parking area is intended to be curbed or otheixvise provided with physical barriers to eliminate the encroachment of vehicles onto the landscape a''*as. Except for parking areas and designated walking paths, all groundcover :n landscape areas is proposed to be living materials. Additional issues related to the B-2 District standards have been addressed, including: Site access. The B-2 Code requires that vehicle access points through the perimeter landscaping areas be limited in width. The ramp area comprises approximately 75' in width or about 10% of the 700'-^ length of shoreline along the parking area. Funher, access from adjacent roadways is limited to the separated entrance and exit located along Tonkawa Road, with no access to the more heavily traveled North Shore Drive. A westbound/northbound right turn lane along North Shore Drive will allow stacking of vehicles out of the normal driving lanes during peak use periods. However, interior stacking capability is quite significant given the lineal nature of the site. Note that DNR has been working with Hennepin County regarding dc%elopment of the turn lane and regarding the entrance/exit locations. - Sanitary facilities. Although the B-2 standards require sanitary facilities connected to public sewer, DNR is proposing the seasonal installation of portable toilets, with suitable screening. This would appear to be appropriate from the transient-type use of the site and the need for minimal maintenance and to minimize security issues. 1 ighting. B-2 st;indards require that lighting on the premises be shielded so that no direct glare can be seen from adjoining residences, from the lake or from the roadway. Lighting is proposed only at the ramp area and at the exit/cntrance area, and will be directed downward to meet City requirements. Hours of operation. Ihc B-2 standards limit retail sales and ser\ice for a normal marina to the hours of 7:00 a m. to 10:00 p.m. The Code does not address suitable hours for a public access, but this has been a topic for Zoning File #2085 November 17,1995 Page 5 discussion during the review process. The City has discussed the appropriateness of setting official '‘closed" hours for the access site, but has reached no specific conclusion. Also discussed has been the winter use ot this access, with the Cit\’ preferring it be closed. Tnvih and parhaye control. The B-2 standards require the provision of garbage rnng or dumpsters on the site. DNR is proposing to not provide such containers, since their experience has been that if no trash containers are provided, users will carry out their trasht but when cans are provided, they attract nuisance garbage as well as that from users of the access. - Drainage. The B-2 standards require that drainage plans be developed and implemented to manage the expected quantity ot runott and enhance its qualitj' prior to discharge to the lake. Tlie DNR is proposing natural grass sheet flow areas. All site drainage must flow prior to discharge to the lake. Additionally, each sheet flow’ absorption/filtration area will be provided with a skimmer to collect floating debris from the runoff. Additional Issues (Addressed or to be Addressed) In addition to the items noted above, in March, 1993 the City noted these additional concerns; . TrafTic flow on the site should be designated as one-way. The proposal is for a one-way counterclockwise flow pattern, with the southerly Tonkawa Road curb cut being the enuance and the northerly curb cut being the exit. This maximizes the sight distance for car-trailers leaving the site. . The mouth of the ramp backup apron will be striped to discourage "short- circuiting". • The three ramp lanes are proposed to be striped, although the Orono Police have suugested that while striping provides drivers with a guide for backing, it also can result in potential user conflicts. . 1 he City proposed that the southerly row of parking spaces be back-in car- trailer parking only, similar to what is used at the North Arm Landing. The DNR has not implemented this suggestion for a number of reasons including: traffic flow, user backing capanilities. etc. The DNR has widened the lane between the parking blocks to 30' tfom its original 25' proposal. Zonmg File #2085 November 17,1995 Page 6 In addition to the proposed right turn stacking lane westbound on North Shore Drive/northbound on Tonkawa, it is intended that the existing bypass lane on eastbound North Shore Drive just west of Tonkawa be expanded and extended to allow for continuous traffic flow should stacking occur in the eastbound driving lane. Note that no accommodation has been made for stacking in southbound Tonkawa, and while the City expects low volumes of car trailer traffic from southbound Tonkawa, this actual usage pattern will need to be monitored. The City has purposely assigned a North Shore Dri\e address to the access to discourage the use of Tonkawa Road as a route to the access from the north. Car-trailer parking has been eliminated on County Roads 51 and 135. VVTiile this has forced car-trailer parking onto certain nearby neighborhood streets in the interim, it is expected that the 80 car-trailer spaces provided at tliiC access will eliminate most of the local on-street car-trailer parking. The Lake Use Committee suggested that DNR give special attention to the number and size of trees and shrubs to be placed on the site, with the intent to provide a finished natural landscape as soon as possible. DNR has significantly exceeded their normal standards for plantings in addressing this concern. Regarding the fishing pier. DNR proposes a bituminous path from the northwesterly parking area to the pier, generally paralleling the shoreline. It is proposed that the existing cyclone fence be eliminated, and that where the pathway is adjacent to Tonkawa Road, a railing along the pathway be installed. The Lake Use Committee initially expressed concern about this safety aspect ^ well as whether shore fishing would be limited to specific areas to avoid excessive pedestrian traffic negatively impacting the grass buffer areas. The Lake Use Committee and the DNR consider this to be a boat launching facility and not a park. Therefore, picnic tables and benches will not be provided. 15 car only parking spaces are provided near the fishing pier area tor fisherman, canoeists or boaters using cartop carriers, etc. The site will be posted "No Swimming". Additionally, the DNR proposes an information board sufficient to eliminate the clutter of individual signage. There has been discussion regarding the use of a "milfoil bin near the ramp, which DNR suggests may attract trash. Milfoil control is an issue that needs to be further addressed. Zoning File #2085 November 17, 1995 Page 7 The DNR has provided a separate ’'make ready dock" aw^y from the ramp area as w'ell as a boat beaching area, to assist in traffic flow at the ramp. DNR proposes to do shoreline stabilizatioD where necessary on the site. The DNR has been proacti\e in dealing with fuel contamination cleanup at the site as well as dealing appropriately with e.xisting wells, toundation removal, sewer line capping, etc. The City has expressed concern as to the impact of this site on the neighboring marinas. Note that the proposed access ramp will be appro.ximately 200' west of Lakeside Marina ’s ramp area, therefore minimizing boat traffic conflicts. The final issue addressed during previous reviews is operation and maintenance of the site. DNR will be responsible for maintenance of this site, although there is the possibility of an agreement with the County for certain maintenance aspects. Note that it is the goal of the City that the Maxwell Bay Access will relieve pressure on the North Arm Access and potentially eliminate the amount of time spent by Orono Police on trafllc control during peak use periods. The Cit>’ has also e.xprcssed concern that winter use of the site is not intended, is potentially risky with the location near the channel and adjacent marina which may "bubble" all winter. Items fur Consideration 1. 3. Have all concerns of the public and Planning Commission regarding this access been suitably addressed? /\rc there specific issues which the DNR should address before presenting this proposal to the City Council for final approval on December 11? Are there specific site plan concerns in regard to any of the following major topics discussed above: OlT-site traffic accommodation. On-site traffic accommodation. Landscaping. Stormwater control. Fishing pier. Amenities. Operation and maintenance. Other. Zoning File #2085 November 17, 1995 Page 8 Staff Recommendation Given the DNR's exemption from local zoning requirements but in light of their spirit of cooperation on this project over the past three years, a recommendation tor approval would be appropriate. Planning Commission should identify' any specific concerns that should be addressed by the DNR prior to the December 11 Council meeting. Similarly, since this is a public information meeting, any comments by members of the public should be forwarded to the Council. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3390 North *^hore OrnnQ» Mli Type of Application to be Filed Zoning Commission Revi^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) •__________________ APPLICANT (Larry Killien) Name Mn /DNR Tra-ilg & V)fa1-f»rwaYS Address c;r>n t .afaygi-i-*:* Rnad OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______________i Citv Phone (home)______________ _ Phone (work) 12-297-2911 ___Zip__5_5j_55_PAlil Phone (home) Phone (work) Address City Zip 1994-JJi£lh.DateProperty Acquired . ,. ^ ^------ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels ot land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application $125.00 Residential Accessory Use $200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $175.00 Guest House/Guest Apanments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg (month/year) $250.00 Commercial/Indusirial Use ”” $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule ~ $100.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) “ After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS y $200 00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Exempt $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule)^ ~ $300.00 Comprehensive Plan /Amendment $100.00 Appeals ~ Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District commercial Previous Present Use of Property__X Residential X Dthprr^perifvlMarina. Service Station 2. 3. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. X Completed Application Form. US. of ow«rs within 350-. labels and pla. naap (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-32.T). ____Cenificate of Survey (signed by a !icen.sed surveyor) - refer to handout for sutvey information. . , X Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations invo \e X utTrlie feeai ZtXctade marital sarus) of all ,«rsons with an interest in dre ------- property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Y Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ------- As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. SSofrx forTll SuSvinmD. (Staff will require to scale drawings ol all documents, plans, etc. to e submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your applicaLn is not complete if the above information has not been mcluded. Certification by Clerical Department Uiat Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 ^PLICANT provide all information required or requested by the Zoning me apphcani hereby ag P feeS^(siaff time not covered by original fee payment) ^ntr unu:ual in review of thts application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. f •nme Applicant’s signatur 0\3T«;R’S SIGNA-^TO application and further authorized reasonable Irn'r^o the property- by City smff,'consultants, agents commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verincation of this request. Owner’s signature,Date 1 ill«. ________________________ It enhm.it-ils into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Applicant must have all submi h Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled Commission Meeting ^ rommission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, of this change prior to the meeting. -7 t /1-Z- Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Lafa>ettc Road Sr Paul. MinncMMa 55155-40, October 26, 1995 Mr. Mike Gaffron Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE; Maxwell Bay Zoning Commission Review Application Mr. Gaffron: The MNDNR is submitting the plans for the development of a Public Water Access at 3390 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono. The project involves the conversion of five parcels from their existing uses to a Public Water Access Site. This conversion involves the demolition of all of the existing structures. Oversight of the cleanup of fuel contaminated soils, sealing of wells and sewers, and a general site cleanup. The new site will include three launch ramps, four ADA accessible docks, an accessible pathway and fishing pier, portable toilets and screening, parking for boaters and fishing pier users, shoreline improvements, storm water management, landscaping and other amenities. We are hopeful that the site review will help the City staff and members of the public to understand the project and assist us in this access site development. Sincerely, Lawrence M.Kiilien Water Access Specialist c:Dennis Asmussen, Director, Trails and Waterways DNR Infomiaiion: 612-296-6157. l-8(K)-766-60(X) • 1TY: 612-296-5484. 1-800-657-3929 An Fqual Opp- *tunii> F-mpI»’>ct Who ValueN l>i%crMiy Primed on Recvcfed Paper Containing a Minimum of Po\l• Con\umer Waste A’? Z57 la • « .X i / .X23^t<iS’ (•f ,v, ! / / / / _X____ A? V\'l......\ \ / i t / / l<£^ yV '•' i* '« 1,. "■ .A"£ ; *. /\)DVf^lCA^^^ A-C^^Cr • (^•<-- ' / U\ — /S IpirU/^ 3^^ ^'p ' YAAnomL- V * Ita i ,&> COVT LOT I CCVT lot I (1. •» I 9i. Si \ Propo»2rty Ovmers List for Application #2083 08-117-23 13 0009 John & Anne Bendt 1120 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0010/11 Marvin Borman 3300 Norwest Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 08-117-23 13 0020 John & Janet Watson 1070 Tonkawa Road Long L^tke, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0019 Keith & Susan Swart 1060 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0013 Robert & Joan Bauman 1040 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0015 Robert & Debra Edmunds 1030 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 06-117-23 13 0014 Doug & Margaret Williams 1:20 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 00-117-23 12 0005 Raymond Hoffman 1000 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 12 0001 Dr. L & M Dorr 980 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 00-117-23 12 0002 David & Marilyn Booth 970 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 12 0003/4 William & Lori Cornelius 960 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 21 0006 Bruce Engelsma 990 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 00-117-23 21 0017 Gary Krimmel 960 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 21 0007 Dr. Maland Hurr 930 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 21 0008 Edward & Barbara Eschbach 900 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 21 0009 Robert & Joyce Humboldt 850 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 05-117-23 43 0001 Jerry 6 Cynthia Gray 080 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 05-117-23 21 0009 Hunt Greene/Jane Piccard 865 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 05-117-23 43 0004/44 0001/02 Fullerton Lumber Co P.O. Box 30 Minneapolis, MN 55440 04-117-23 33 0010 David Maas P.O. Box 392 Long Lake, MN 55356 05-117-23 44 0003 William & Judith Trubeck 3300 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 04-117-23 33 0011 Alan & Susan Carlson 3125 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 05-117-23 44 0004 Donna Lukis 3250 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 04-117-23 33 0007 Phillip Dabill 3067 Farview Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 04-117-23 33 0008 Zd & Karen Baker :>059 Farview Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 04-117-23 33 0009 Ronald & Susan Burger 3051 Farview Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 09-117-23 21 0005/1 Judson & Elizabeth Dayton 825 Old Crystal Bay Rd S Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 21 0004/6 Leonard Carpenter 5500 Wayzata Blvd L020 ayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 13 0018 Thomas Smith 1205 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Property Owners List for Application #2085 >9-117-23 24 0001 lenn Co Park Reserve Ite 1, Box 296 laple Plain. MN 55359 09-117-23 32 0003 Jack Swenson 3020 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0004 James & Rosella DePietro 3048 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 >9-117-23 32 0017 >uane Erodersen >060 North Shore Drive fayzata, MN 55391 >9-117-23 32 0007 David & Pennie Pomije >120 North Shore Drive ifayzata, MN 553 91 19-117-23 32 0010 f & M Pacovsky 1186 North Shore Drive layzata, MN 55391 08-118-23 41 0004/5/6 North Shore Marina Inc. 3222 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 38-117-23 41 0008 Stephen & Beth Brown 3262 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 3-117-23 44 0011 Dseph & Mary Dooling 220 Bohns Point Lane ayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0019 Laurence Reardon 3080 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0008 Ken & Jaye Ann Zullo 3160 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23-41-0001 Lillian Bonander 3200 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 00-118-23 41 0004/5/6 North Shore Marina Inc 1415 Toledo Ave N Golden Valley, MN 55422 08-117-23 44 0018 08-117-23 41 0011/10 State Of MN-DNR Tax Spec 1201 East Hwy 2 Grand Rapids, MN 55744 08-117-23 44 0008 F E & L Churchill 3260 Bohns Point Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0006 Daniel & Deberah McGlynn 3090 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 32 0009 Paul & Beverly Blomberg 3180 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 00-117-23 41 0002 Barbara Millard 3210 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 00-110- 23 41 0007 Daniel Torberg 3260 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 44 0019 Metro Waste Control Comm Mears Park Centre 230 E 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55101 00-117-23 41 0021/12 08-117-23 44 0005 James Dunn 3324 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 8-117-23 41 0013 Irs. Ida Kane 332 North Shore Drive layzata, MN 5 53 91 00-117-23 43 0016 Kenath & Donna Stein 3400 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 43 0017 Daniel Regan 3410 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 8-117-23 43 0018 mbrose & Alice Kivus 420 North Shore Drive layzata, MN 55391 08-117-23 42 0004 Gale L Putnam 1365 Tonkawa Road Wayzata, MN 55391 00-117-23 4jl 0001 Fred Guttormson/ Chic Dwight 1220 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-il7-23 13 0006 Richard Engelbretson 1180 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0007 Randy Holland Eric Sullivan 1160 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 08-117-23 13 0008 Richard Kyle 1140 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 CntTZFXCATS OF HJaLlKO STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) S3. ) CITY OF ORONO ) I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #2085, was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 6th day of November, 1995. Jamie Bosma y ^ iFw j (A^iAimnn I fi D CITY OF ORONO NOTICE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MAXWELL BAY PUBLIC WATER ACCESS The Orono Planning Commission will hold a plan review and public information meeting on Monday November 20, 1995 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on the matter of application #2085, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ request for a Commercial Site Plan Review for the construction of the Maxwell Bay Public Water Access. The access construction will begin in the Spring of 1996 on the site of the former Gayle's Marina and adjoining properties. The site is at 3390 Nonh Shore Drive in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of County Roads 51 and 135. This public information meeting and plan review is being held at the request of the MNDNR to allow the public the opponunity to review the plan and provide input on the access construction and landscaping plans, prior to City final approval. The development of this public water access plan is based upon discussions that the MNDNR has had with Area residents, the Orono Lake Use Committee and City staff. These meetings have taken place over the last three years. The MNDNR has incorporated numerous design elements and changes into the plan which were a direct result of these meetings. The Public Water Access construction plan is based on a compilation of the City and area residents input and the MNDNR design requirements. The MNDNR, though not required to receive any local permits or approvals, looks forward to the review process as a positive step in the continuation ot the development of this Public Water Access. All persons wishing to review the plans of the Public Water Access site are welcome to attend and will be offered the opportunity to offer constructive comments on the construction plans. Written comments will be accepted through 4:30 p.m. November 20, 1995. A copy ot the site plan is available for public review in the City Offices. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planninc & Zoning Administrator To be published the weeks of November 5 and 12, 1995 i \s\ a 2.^5 §^^3gS5S<s< n a. i! « < ^ z 5 ^ ^ Z (T. y-;. 111* i‘ »■/•!.Ll'.y. t: ;' i 'Sl j I si \ a t 5 I i ^ . • • i '< ^•. ■ • ■I ri;) <S :C' »t,l . j;•«» I# •p -t«• r/i * i y t •^ .. . , ^ • P‘ I xX .-1 11 § f\O .1 .5 » ^ *> ' il* 3 2^ •5w^' :-,v' Ujvy/ *syy// v:;iT'.‘' ‘ ' ' • 1 '4SS>, ■'% mx •I \ ‘ \ I.'. •» !.i I I; ^ . . ^ :i ♦ *•• UJ -I• '. * ‘ - < I ^ ;. < 2 ‘ H Oi< f:.* U4.;, i.i i. -1- ‘ !‘; i> . ^ r.» \ I . .1 (V «•:* I i:* I : ; I 1 :• I. . • ' .! , I ..I'j., lAl ^ ^ % *. 1. 1. L. 1. i. !■ i piNe pHt -TT^TtP WITH A42A, TC? £7.4- \Jb/6U. pt: pe^-nc^. (ai^ ufc/oj.pr P^i2UIFet7 PtTF. ^POJHC? ^Wl?«2r fie^e^^.) AU- PA'TT&iEP^- ee ^hau- ee LA^ KPurw:? 'W Fcp^^, /z." 'L ?t^tX\V) I ^ t’ 4 ^KA-L ce. f/ATwet? vttn HrFPl'rz^t'iTAU KIE^CtC^. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BUREAU OF ENGINEERING 0r« w M Svr v»y CK«<k«ii U14KA D«* wpn <^C7W4='-rPU OTu^H- t^AlL>7 WCW m4(j£: PPKHct^vtxL 'TC’iLer wrffl Ac>r?t-nc»iA.L NC?H Acz-e^ifbt-S r^rice 0«t« SK««f M. MU IPPC71*. MORTISE - 4 K 2 * 1 1/2’4 ’ MIN. - 6’ MAX. PLYWOOD & MOLDING MODlMC - 1/2* 1 1/2' OOWEL BOLT - 3/8 X 5* CADMIUM PLATED carriage BOLT - COUNTERSINK m I___I -J L_J - 12* SECTION SCALE: INFORMATION BOARD #1 - FRONT VIEW SCALE: 3/4"-1*-0’ NOTES: WOOD AECVE GROUND TO EE STAINED WITH BROWN EXTERIOR LATEX PAINT. REFER TO DNR SIGN MANUAL FOR COLOR SPECIFICATIONS. WOOD TO BE CCA/ACZA TREATED TO 0.4 LB/CU.FT. RETENTION. BULLETIN BOARD PLYWOOD TO EE EXTERIOR GRADE (AC). 2-1/4 ’ SHEETS BACK TO BACK (GLUED). MOLDING STRIPS TO BE USED ON BOTVI SIDES TO HOLD PLYWOOD IN (MOLDING TO BE 1/2* x 1/2"). IF A LEXAN window IS DESIRED - USE INFORMATION BOARD N0.2, SDG.00014, SHEET #7. BUREAU OF ENGINEERING Dttigner LISKA Dote JUNE 78 Design Unit/Region Supr. (intJs) SITE DEVELOP'.^ENT Revisioo Dote(») AUG 94 (R.L.) MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION DETAILS INFORMATION BOARD #1 Dote Assistonl Administrotor Dlgltol (Xj Hofdcopy I X 1 Sheet No.5 M nie No.SDG .00014 DNR BUREAU OF ENG.TEL:612-29?-5818 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXTSTlNf; HARDCOVER IN ZONE A VlAtiCA ^ rAy ^ A^t<T Oct 27 95 15:17 No.006 P.02 /)t AxtVfei-*- £i/\Y HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 7S-2S0* 250-500* * SKWlonO’ /?rr. ^ a JL f/x * Av/c LenfOi f J B. C. Dnvcway x; I A Widih •a'10 I* X X D. Slde\^alk X X E. ratio/Deck X X 7^ F. Lmidscape Underlain By Plariic X X X :^0 G. Other j-'?- CCf\JO y TOTAL HARDCOVF.R IN ZONE 0 - ~^0 y TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 0 ' 7^5 A * B ‘^7^, * 100 PROPOSFI) hardcover in 70NH A House ______________ Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D SidewaJk X X 33:z_f sr«a. X X E. Pxtir>n>cr4(1,X X a 7 J-. Laudsunjie Underlain Dv Plastic X X X tn. Ut G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVF.R IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A _Z.‘^e4±_ - B ^ 100 ^30 S.F •rji S.F. S.F. S.F. ^0 S.F. 3i7, ?'o0 S.F. "^104- S.F. AO S.F. — S.F. S.F. SF. ----- S.F _________S.F. ------ S.F. 33^5 s.p: S.F. it±3. S.F. S.F. /O m3 __S.F. .sa5L-SF. 5F: 7.^^ S.F. Lci.a__S.F. __i»r-- — ____ S.F. ____^S.F. — S.F. S.F. % lew A B A B DNR BUREAU OF ENG. TEL:6l2-29?-5818 Oct 27 95 15:17 No.006 P.03 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SmACKZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 250-5vK>'* EXISTING HARDC0\1:R IN ZONK ' A. House 2d tn Lefifill _I4. 6^ £>Ia. B. Carafie# C. Driveway D. Sidewalk OLA6 X X X Wkhh 1^ 39^ T 3 E. Pwic.^tytek i'W‘0 (O F. I ,;fv^~oTT Urtflrrliiii DT^asfTc 0. Other % X X % X X X X X >* X np Co ,2:1 a O 3^ 20 J L HARDCOVER IN ZONE 7,5 -^5o 4 'HA>Lp5i/W7£, TOTAl. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 75 " - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER LN ZONE A. House \ Lens ill WiJth B. Garage C. Drivewny X X X X X t€\A)kf^ fvA m /g^/tCr^ X D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Occk F. Landscape _ Underlain __ By Plasuc _ X X X X X X X G. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE 75* ^0 ^ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 75 ' ^ A -5- B X ICX) a a a X lOO = n a S.F. 57^ 1^ 2030 ^64- 7i?4 _6q_ 76 0 S.F. S.F. S.F. i'.P. S.F. S F. S.F. S.F. 7'^^— 5-F. 74^__S.F. S.F. _7^33 ‘?_s.f. 4_o?IJ?7A_ S.F. I__!j66^L_» S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S F. ^ S.F. A B A B ^ •• ••I j BUREAU OF EN6. ..1 TEL 7 95 15:17 No .006 P .04 SETBACK ZONE: (CIKCLE ON EXTSTING HA^CO>nER IN ZONE A. House ______________ MV .AS. hardcover CAIXULATION worksheet tvA*, o ------------------------------------ 7S.2JtO*-r-Nl 150^00’* 5MVI000* B. Caraftf C. DiivcwaV D. Sidewalk B. Pntio/Deck F, Umd^cupc Under Uin Bv Plastic G. Other S % X % A % X X X X widm n •? TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE O f TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE O - P-tJo ■+• * + B ____ » 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S P. .S.F. S F. S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 'jrL.5%61 S.F. _____» ^'5 A B proposed hardcov 'EU in zone A. House ______________ Length B. Garngc C. Driveway D. Sidewalk F. Lafldscape Underlain By Plastic G. Otlicr E. Paiio/Deck _ X X X X X X X X X X X X Widih TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ^ “F TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE S.F. S.F. S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.B % Ml STAIi or 4-r l,DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Rhone NO,file NO LiD iquhtoio. public vateb access PSQP06AL #2 January 21, 1992 TAis proposal is Bade in response to suggestions and concerns Identified in tAe review process of tLe property optioned for purchase on Jtaxwell Bay in the City of Orono. This original proposal is now called Proposal #1. It is described in the Concept Flan docuaent accompanying this document. To date, no formal coamitnent to pursue Proposal #2 has teen received from the City of Orono, so the DITB considers both proposals to be active for purposes of public review and comment. Preliminary evaluation has taken place in a Joint meeting on January 16, 1592 of the City, the LMCD, the LELOA and the D5P. Proposal #2 consists of the following actions; The DjIK will exercise the option to purchase the property Included in ProDOsal #1. A 60 day extension (beyond January 30,1992) has been requested to allow action on Parts 2 and 3 described below. A cooperative effort between the City, the LMCD, and the DNR to study the feasibility of purchasing and developing the Gayle's Marina site, the Lakeside Marina site, and residential property located between the two marinas in addition to the property Included In Proposal #1 Is undertaken. Uses of this larger area may Include a combination of a public access, shore fishing, fishing pier, open space and other uses deemed appropriate by the cooperators in the study. If decided feasible, the cooperators will jointly support and obtain funding from the LCKR, Metropolitan Council, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and other sources deemed appropriate. D3R aggrees to postpone develupoiut of the Proposal #1 site until this cooperative effort is completed or is determined infeasible. A task force is established consisting of all affected Interests to iuolement the public access siting process as called for in the LMCD plan for management of Lake Minnetonka. The task force will proceed liaaediately to meet the plan’s objectives. Proposal #2 addresses the following concerns: 1) Proposal #1 represents a responsive, rather than a proactive approach to site identification, which will result in a series of small access sites that will may not fully serve access needs, while disrupting land use patterns in the City of Orono. 2) Proposal #1 will add another source of traffic to County Road 51. This would be an addition to traffic associated with three marinas, a gas station, the Sorth Arm access site, and residents of the area. 3) Boat density in the vicinity of the marinas. Maxwell Bay, and on Lake Kianetonka in general. 4) Concerns over the conpatiblity of the access la Proposal #1 with the zoaiag ordinance and standards of the City of Orono. Eationale and Benefits of Proposal #2: 1) Vill be a cooperative effort allowing all the parties to have influence on the outcose, while ensuring progress towards laproving public access to Lake Hinnetonka. 2) Kay possibly result in aeeting Zone 1 parking goals called for in the 1983 Lake Hinnetonka Task Force Report and the 1991 LXCD plan 3) Hay result in creation of a multi-purpose site providing several foras of public recreation. 4) Vill allow for developaent compatible with the land use goals expressed by the City and LXCD. 5) Creates a mechanism to address the concerns nsntioned above. It is suggested that the LHCD lead and provide the franawork far completion of Parts 2 and 3 of this proposal. This is consistent with the LXCD s role as coordinator of public access issues described in the LXCD inanagenent plan. It is further suggested that the task force proposed in Part 3 consist of all couBunitieS( whether they have adopted the plan or not, the DFR, the LMLOA, Hennepin County, and all other parties identified as having a role in the LXCD plan. It is hoped this proposal will begin the process of cooperative, successful efforts to reach the goals for providing reliable public access to Lake Hinnetonka, while meeting the needs and concerns of the comcunlties and citizens of the Lake Hinnetonka area. Further information on both Proposal #1 and Proposal #2 can be obtained by attending the Public Open House hasted by the DHR between the hours of 4:00 PH and 8:00 PH, January 21, 1992 at the Orono Educational Link Building. If unable to attend the Open House, further information my be obtained or comments mde by calling: Gordon limball. Regional Supervisor or Martha Reger, Vest Area Supervisor Ketro Region Trails and Vaterways JLinnesota Department of latural Resources (612) 772-7935 > s ^ •m \ ' w »«v#Ss'* .fl^e C- ... \. sut\°'.^ Gayles Marina O ^ s.\ i *J* -- -1* • ...• *\ - •V-..’. I i'i * ■ * ^ *I'"xM-' "«efl •* ••tel, i- / *: 4y M'- ' ' % V ' I*-.# • •. • 'I ' ^ PCIo coo > =tfero -•A Private - ‘ - - - I \ VWW Private• - #(•iV jr: r.\ \.x \ \ \ xy ;‘■X x 'a \^ -y ' §x\ \t\ \ \ \ \ \ Lakeside Marina vl\ -N.N ,% Acw \ \ 5|* * ^ rt« jc \ »3. ft * * \ Straley (DNR Optioned Parcel) \ \ ^ A " ^ \ \ \ «9k ;i % fcj*'’vU 7 V ,'*■ JL • *1^ • tr-.•r^' • . . • ♦• •». i-^. % #i*?t= ■ rrc: ••t « ;n ■ 'i R I *.; ' vl >* r,:«4»ii ^lijt ^r«fi r«iitiMi Mnlft) Miflft rtTfitj rtsifi [tlMfllj rtrttiiii trails ••Kill RJiHO f4 ^•IW Cf CITY OF ORONO OUTLINE OF LAKE USE COM> MAXWELL BAY ACCESS >L4RCH 1993 t Traffic Panem and Layout A. On-siie B. Off-site W n. Landscaping m. Fishing Pier TV, Amenities (Lighting, toilets, etc.) V.Environmental Issues . fstormwater controls, rip rapping, dredgmg restoranon. sue preparation, etc.) YI, Operation and Maintenance VH. Other Issues 1. Traffic Pattern and Layout (see sketch) A. On-site B. 1.Traffic flow should be designated as one-way throughout the site. Tms may result in the need for a mid-site crossover to aCwOnUxiO atw auto or traffic. sit r is to increass exiting sight distance for car-trailer traffic leaving the site. J.Consider a barrier (or striping) across die mouth of the ramp backup waiting area to eliminate short circuiting. 4.We’ve received mixed reviews regarding striping the three ramp lanes and and^genemUy a shon overview of how you e.xpec: this ramp to funcaon. Given a positive e.xperience with back-in car-trailer parking partially on for trailers; also consider widening these parking spaces (but may stiU end up with additional total spaces!). This should also reduce hardco\er... 6.We fe-I that the lane between the middle and southerly par^g blocks should be widened if possible, especiahy to help accommodate back-in car- trailer parking. The proposal shows oppro.ximately 25’; could it be widened up to ^0? nrr site - We have real concc.-ns about how this project may affect traffic flow ^^^e area ai^ would expect DNR to work with Hennepm County Md City “ffk'als to deveioo a suitable plan to address them. Our concerns mclude: 1.We agree fully with the stacking tight turn lane for westbound County Road 51. ■7 Maxwell Bay Access. 1 \ 'K >>. * *t ’ / 3. ihis. 4.AS a result of the access, sve tvould inteud to e'.itniMte aU c^-uuUer parking on County Roads 51 and 135. We are also cons.do^g car-only parking on these roads where car pm mg wou ic nne incompatftle (or maybe altogether). Eliminat.on ot on-street pa. .ong ts one of the reasons the Maxwell Bay site is attractive... H. Landscaping 1 'y site and landscape plan. Will grass areas be betmed or Rat? What U best for main.ena-ace? m. Fishing Pier 1. We are somewhat concerned regarding confhct between fishermen and boaters at the channel, but recognize that ’s where the fish are. 2. Please comment on the p.er desi^ (width, length, handicap accessibUity. railing heisht, capacity ana use e.xpectation, etc.). • • iicf» of «;horeIir.e near the paiic 2 area for fishing, but if it 3. We -ticipate — ,,,, J „.s, or foot traffic wears away becomes p P ,ssue; i.e. f^ssfale future boardwalk along the shoreline, or potentially limiimg fishmg to the west half of the site, or ?.... .h.nf nedestran traffic on Tonkawa related to fishmg and the /walSIav™ We would like to see a fence along Tonkawa if possible to lumt Sheet pedesSiau traffic onto the road, but are not sure as to available room. design, etc. IV. Amenities We consider this .0 be a boat launching facUiry as opposed to a park, and the 1.amenities noted below refiect that view. V. 2. A ^1 4. 6. 7. Ushtini. We agree with havicg ligating ju« at Tonkav^a. The Ughting should be directed downward per your pre Sunitar/ facUiiies. We agree with the “ceept of site, b sareiaed eacics-ures. We note dte P “Jf (^v*; dunk a fountain WUl you provide a fouatam or on be •rgr^Lf;;™ ^ we don-r want picnic tables or beaches on the site initiaUy. but a few beaches might be a future consideration. We would like to see an attractive. ti nonglotaeratton of individual s.gns a.nd posts we fi-d vfoo'deu sign board of some son. We would like the site to be posted "No Swimaiing'. We are coucenred“issir« asss-r—-»-»- IDcelv be minimal. . , ,h„ be-e should be some e.xteaded (50--60-)-make-ready" o It seems logical to us iha • please address this.'■ docks e.xteading away from the ramp area, fie Ea>'irorjnental Concerns • . i >, . fh-it our 75 ’ minimum lakeshcre setback is cnticd m .ajthougia we fee! strongly tha o^. '= proposed 45’-65 ’ setbacks trom maintaining the shoreiand 2°^°'^ ^ provide a better situation than currently OHWL, while not meetmg that Cod.,, P exist at the site. rwf fhf. art stormwater controls (site grading, ponds. «:.)tel 'St-“"‘P' P‘“- S’.be rip rapping the eume shorelrae... . 1. remonsibiuty for restoration of Gayle’s illegal dredging. The Will DNR take involvement in this.City wants no responsiOUity ot . • fhTt Hennepin County has told us about concrete obstructions out ftS’t s! wUch we assume you wiU warn to remove. 1. 3. 4. 5. VT. ProposKl 52% hardcover is accepuble, but might be reduced under the car-traile! bi^k-in grassed parking schematic. 7. vn. 8.Again, note that a 'milfoU bin' wdl help to raise uhe public's awareness of this issue. 3. Operation and Maintenance to be in the area regularly to do the same at North Arm... 2. Who will contract for satellite toilet maintenance? Who will pay the cobts same? start... » »v,» mmn i«elf aiven the nature of the site near a SZera4 neTa which may be bubbling all wmter.... - T? “ r atn's^^^itroT^^ron (t t:: op«1o discussion on hours; for instance, how does closure from 11;00 p.m. - 5:00 a.m. strike you?). In general, the City U opposed to taUng on any ongoing maintenance of the site and any major maintenance activity in e ture. 4. 5. 6. Other Issues for Discussion 1.We have a mmer concern “Shore wol Sah> fu'‘ with additional site control concerns... 2. • -ovniv^ currently pay approximately $55,000 per year in real The “““rlTament-in lieu-of-uxes of this amount plus any addmonal costs meurred Civ. ttuch as police, etc. would be appropriate. \A^B CO^'UWl'TTt?!? i ' ^C. *' \'f‘ >1 * \ V '^v r7^ » # rf- - *i.' ■■•*.& r::;•c. ■IV- ''"lv>'.;i , ---------------Lr^ e: C-T'/C*for « 3 1 [APR.6 April 3.1993 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistarrt Planning 4 Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 Dear Mr. Gaffron; regaining the Maxwell Bay access. Blombetg (471-7756). Marge Gasch (471-8178). Sincerely. Beverly Blomherg 5J^;l vs, S«n,a„ve. LMCP Public Access TasK Force Director, LMLOA cc: Ron Moorse. City Administrator Mayor^SlIahan & Orono Councilmembers Gordon Kimball. DNR r*T5!!rt5Ttcr. C-rr&a^-^ Co/-i-A 1 -« ?0*3 lie j^^’T’T'ZNCANCZ Or ORCNO MEETING DATE r—'•'^"'T OW FOB- OUR CITY B-iv.ORDS . SLSAS2 7IL- OUS KS lyFOBMATZO: MA2'!E (plesse pr^nti) ADDRESS NAJ^ OR NUMBER PP2SEMT FOP. (ziTOni acenCii 1 2 . A (jr^v>-r^ ■' t^r U' p^ 1A04.^ 4^. |3y^ !L * ' / / Z-P / V—>^**—•* ^ 3i g.i - .c^* Uc<i.m a -4-C^-' 9^0 C-i-^Xi-.-Q—iN' u /^lidJl^Kav: 9. n / I VI,. / / ; »r >-» r-v 1 4). O -“.,A (J » ; ____£ktv^ ^Qn Tdr~lfni0O(f^cLA k /A)7tl ^sre ^rt'M • m maxwell bay residents concerns regarding public access TRAFFIC After discussing the following it was agree commitment from the City of Orcno that the f J^jJe will be need to be made to make the area more accessible and/or safe that there a process to do so. L insultation of a 3-way stop sign a. me that this could cause traffic delays and stacking on 51 and Tonka ), 2. Reduced speed area - signs alerting drivers that they are entering a reduced speed area: lot by the DNR designers. ACCESS Concerns regarding winter access as ^ f SnlinTdIn r"afsigrbe^^ Pu^Nc <c"a==-s West of Tonkawa; also mrsigns be placed on shore alerting public to thin ice conditions. HOURS Agree that since North Arm is open 24 hrs. this site would have restricted hours. landscaping Addition of pines to soften: "park-like" look. This would be on-going. fishing PIERhlonlPMO p".°«.»n. as". “ provided. SANITARY FACILITIESbANIIMTLT MILFOIL Signage regarding eurasian milfoil and zebra mussal; trash cans for milfoil. For Zebra mussel plan for hot water washes. phasing in jf DNR is unable to secure funding for this large let would it be phased so how will the City deal with this? A STATE Of ^^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BeSafsTraWSWn**^. 12CDW»wBMd.aP*ol.MinnM0t» E5'06 file NO fHONf »M>. {6121 772-7935 LrH September 6.1994 Mr. Ron Moorse Administretor City of Orono P 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr. Moorse. This tena- wil «<.n. som, of to. deuJs of the Max»o« Be, Access Oe.eloi:-r.ent. «h,n the Ct, of Orono. "r c^ai“oi rTsJ* a rj^ngTt,!^ «4"n,nr. ^ «e,s sno suggesoons on thags that should 0. adudad «th. da«Wmanc Usted betow are the various «ms and how they relate to the development. I. TRAFFIC PATTERN AND LAYOUT wth one«y trade dow. i agreeaole to Hennepe Count, Highwa, Oaoamnent weh tae curt. A. Design an access cuts ^ possible. B. Senpe the ramp area and launch lanes. c. Install two make read' docks ■ea if feasible and allowed by CNP Division of Waters, fe./.D. Provide a beat beaching area OFF-SITE A. The DNR agrees to g^^Jicrea?^^^^ counc ^0.0. S, .no ,35. II. landscaping A, Un,d nardccar on s*a to artent poss,0le and Cdovert ...song hardcdvar td turt/natca vegataodn possible. B, Slope or benri the turf area to facNtate drainage C, Consult »«h C*y in developing a oee plaoting/landscaoing plan for the site. wherever AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SR' m. FISHING PIER A. Tha stnjccureCs) vwl be mstaDed v^ere fishefiea determines t^e fishing ONR engineering typical (tesign and on what is approoriata fcr tha locacion and water depth. B. A fence w- b. .staled » needed, ateng Ton^w. (assuming Hennepin Ccu^B. A renco w» o« msw»i»u, » i.It wiii nrcoaotv te blacictopped excent m one their ROW). The pah to the fishing pier w«l be buiit to ACA standards. It w p 7 area where a boardwalk may be needed IV. AMENITIES A. Lighong shall be provided as required for safe operaccn. B. NO p^nc »*» WJI M -istplIPd. ho»o.^r AOi approved PencPea roa, 0. redded aton, tP. path to Or. hshing area c. Informational and required signage wiU be installed on a kiosk. D. Portable toilers) will be furnished for the boacng season via a the toilets. contract. Wooden screens will be built to surround E The see shall be posted "no swimming.* f, m ONB Wdl look at tha ,ssua ot a wit^ar gat. at tha entfanc/boat romp trorr, a safety standporntt V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Drainage plans will be developed as a part of the develcoment plan. B. Erosion controls will be implemented dunng construction. Th, d.s,gn ahd prpcss sha« Mud. Or, r.pr.s.r.tat..s and allow ihput from othar agancws/organitaPPhS as deemed necessary. VI. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE r- n. fnr npopral ooerauon and maintenance of the s.te. which includes items such as littar pickuo. ITng mm™, The DNB w.ll also ta« mspons.P,ld, for an, ma,or ma,ntenanca needed on the see. B. Enfontement of the see shall re a poopereme ertoa Der.veen the tha Cry. Counry and the DNB^ ^ -L- ^ rh. Qreno in establishing this access facility. We aopreciata the efforts Sincerely, Water Access Speoatist cc: Mar^a J. Reger Mike Markell Oet Barber Dennis Asmussen Lake Minnetonka Conservation Oistria L- MINinrS OF THE LAKE USE COMMITTEE - March 24, 1993JVlliNU JIXLO vyL ------- r=?«scnt!ng s-aif. Mayor Callaim was also in actondanca. • . nf the me-tin-^ is to discuss the concerns and questions the 7 or 21). ..,r- fh^ c:rf> nlan '«:sues beginning with parking anc traffic flow. Gaffron reviewe ^' Qroco Police Department and manager of the North The staff at Hennepm County DOT, Oroco ^ r ^ more sense. Tae 'in and‘out would be preferable allowing bener sight distance, ’especially for cars leaving the sue. Changing some of s.dTsSL« -p*^:jr-pof.cV L^af^Xtcli'up ^”t?o^:voTpoople goioiooisidc laoes. aod .dels s.npiog would reduce these types of situations. mere was discussion about the^ other direction and have easier access. It was suggesie ^ aiore hardcover and forces have grass for trader parking as oppose^o ^ P“^-“ - ^e necessary and there was a SScM- along Lt so'nth side adiaceat to County Road 51. From a landscape and hardcover ’ '?tTcoSt«'agreedi^ith the P^p^^^reS-ooTasto’tolSgTaoff from th.e parking surfaces to be treated betote entering the Icke. ^ rr^irr^iniT enterin'^ the access and stacking, s mere are concerns over the road Som North Shore Drive onto there room tor a pa*--ing lane? Shou. a e , Kellev felt prohibiting a len turn onto Tonknwa Road and rrom Tonkawa Road .,re'a'and left turns should be lUowed. Goeuea Tonkawa is an imposition to the residents m ^ handle this traffic problem and bow e Lught the DiN-R might be able “STTrob^^ only occur on P-X other accesses handle tut^g proble^ ^^lat if stacking became a rea' problem, the.e but should stiU be considered. Kelley mou^i 1 MINUTES OF THE LAKE USE COMMITTEE - March 24, 1993 1- to direc: traffic and this should be included in cost calculations to the should be a police stacking space so diis access is actually in DNR. Bello^^s po recommended that Orono go into this proposmg a "best case scS^'”t'fa4raWe design, rather than starting from an already cotnprotmsed posttton. ee u e.;f» tmfFir hne was also a concern to Goenen and Bellows. Kelley • ^^^Tth?re°had*be-n a^srudy done on the radius of a mm necessary for a ve^cle and rr »5 ~ •" £ ability to successfully back into spaces. nri'i'na •m-'-es are available. Gaffron counted 71 on the DNR Kelley asked how many p / - ^ There are about 12 car-onlv soaces. Tne site Caliahan commented that the DNR for parking so this should be Sss throughout the boating season but ponds. For the back-in spaces, the curbing would be lowe.. KeUey asked what the elevation drop is at^e about 2°higher than the :-o^d ne':? m^l^^ded out mto the lake a distance to avoid propwash moving bonom sediments around. Milfoil was discussed and the decided, available for collection but not a trash can. The maintenance tni Maintenance of the site is another issue. counv the bener. KeUey attest '-Ss and uash pick-up. Tnis would have to be since thev also mamtam North Arm, at least worked ou'. ’-he DNR and County. Kelley asked if a sign were planned for po^sibira^t Ihe comer rnfand^S^^^' p“~t 0f “e sign(s) should be discussed with the DNR. minutes of the lake use COIVEVIITTEE - March 24, 1993 L’>his were discussed. The Commirtee would suggest one at the launch and entrance/e.xit coints. rne lights would shine down and not out. Schreeder asked about die hours. Gaffron stated the intent was to have a sign Indicating th- hours of ooeration but no gates or person controlling this. The Police emorce lus at . onh If a -a^ is parked ovemisht. it is tagged. Callahan noted ±e DNR s posiuon is n.at in Arm. If aw . .,i ■ ,,5 it should be open 24 hours. Tne Comnunee may want to order to be Lsition rs^irdin^y U2hts if the DNR would requLre the access to be open DN^ wou.d probably n=30.ia« on hours of oconrica. Tbo sijn posting hours of operation at Nonh Arm seems to won. weJ. C U how the site could be posted with hours if the DNR wants it open 24 ration replied'that if ±e Citv' wants some control of the site, as long as there is hours. Gar,ron ^ ^NR might be waling to negouate be™-«u ±0 and DNR ou , Goedan :=uo:a:ad she on mis. The,w se-,^ • ‘.a f^r'enrr*-. rir-e during the ni2ht and durdag the winter. Kelley would like to see the access c.osed fo - ^ Bellows thought the "No concurred and this should be the mitia posi i • the 4th of Jufv would be Ovemight Parkins- parkmg would b= foU“n“itb"?orS^^ s'rUalatio'ns. Ste did not wont to receive calls complainmg or overnight noise at this access. -!>= nNR has sta-ed the fishing pier is located in the most logical place because of*e bod^: ^d^^= cbannei and uhey ^ Sl^^ded^r w^ethS/» thought casting into the channel could become a problem with beat propellers coming through this ar.a. Kelley was concerned over what a may look - - cyclone f.^cing Gcetten thoucht ±e Committee snouid pnontize wnat the, wouia mce to at this access and include w'oeden fencing where appropnate. H -f fbf nVR 've'e reallv "«^old" on the fishing pier. Gaffron thought one Senroener asked u the ' ^hi, *ouid not be the only fishing pier on of the goals here was to provjde a fismng ao„ss ^ p„p,s ,o the lake but ±e only one m ±e area. Schroeae. teit tms bring their chhdrea to the fishing pier. Gaffron stated one of ±e safety conceriu the The Committee by fishermen on County Road 135 and one way ,s to provide oa-stie.t parun. a^eed there should be no parking on 1j5. as not MES-UTES of the L.XKE USE COMMITTEE - March 24, 1993 PO.cr.aa. for —* ^ «f -an -aiTTe-nen: with the DNR, the City should have the KcUcy suggested that as P“" out or additions need to be made. need to accent some responstodity m temna tor our u 1.4- -^nnnHc Gaffton cxolaihcd that thc tv’pc ofholdihg pohd Schroeder inquired about ^ lake level with slopes at 3:1. It at this access would likely be a The'intent would be to have some senling time for would collect runoff and re.e^c it - noatinc' diings like gasoline, etc. from the parkmg sediment with skimmers (barise vvoid be 4 or 5 of these with no trees in the basin, lot, from gening to the laxe. The e would marinas. Gaffron replied they Schroeder asked if this rmrt in the future Minnetonka Boat Works has a holding absolutely could be and would be Voout 5 years with little or no sediment Mabusth asked tf the issue^oi what would need to be done to • ’ have'jurisdicuon over this. The DNR has responded it was a concern but Orono <jredgin8 too deeply 3-4 years ago. required Gayle’s to do some from the sale may be that L%R «mP>-^ residential area. Coetten asked if the -mess’ -o agreement as she would not want tlus to faU on i^^oived in any of the discussions. It ber.veen Gayle’s and the DNR an rp-ment that this restoration would not be the .culd a good idea to put this m the agreement ;X"4-uM -. come bac.k and require According to Dennis from the Countv', mis area mat he is aware of because he “ f U would be a harard to TormfSh^t ‘tesrbirt^th;^ " - - - of mis also but It should be noted to them. minutes of the lake use committee - March 24, 1993 BeUows asked how restoration of an area dredged too deeply would done CaU^ thought tli could be found out since it has been a subject of litigauon with the Mmneaana C-e-k Watershed Distnct and the DNR to make them restore this area. u was noted that rip rapping is expected to be placed along the entire shore, given the ongoing problems Gayle has had with mamtatmng shore.me. landscap/dfaVaS'te ftvortsignSa sution. kjaiii =_ nnc-ss r‘*'^uired in abandoning a gas station ana icc development. ^ nobbed out there could be spills at Gayle ’s also. The gas ;rb‘2t ^ Srfu\a “-uro^ i- It could cost'the DNTl considerably more than they anticipated. AS discussed at the last meeting, the sanitary facilities should be screened sateUites, possibly with wooden fencing like in the parks. K-elley asked about the residences on the Gaffron thought there couad be but ±ey could L left as long as they are The drainfields would probaoly not be a pro . ruled with dirt. Foundations must be removed from the site. Any properly abandoned. Goetten brought up the possibUity of having a water fountam. V/ater would have to be providc?d frcm 2l well. KeUey asked if the DNR was cw^re no'tefthe ^“s Gafnron stated that is why they had submitted to^Orono are still in the sketch plan planning on using the entire site ^ ® P ^ ^-ork with Orono and are Lge. The DNR is pleased with the way they have be.a aoie anNUTES OF THE l AKE USE COMMITTEE - March 24, 1993 • • The DNR oirrcntlv does not have enough funding to vcors hcTo. cc.4 h... Kelley asked how the DNR Cdmdo “-1o° ““ future. Coe.eo asked how .e hr^lTfo " a%“t d h"affa::;7;u:7h.lca.ed heoches woold he heoer.clal. Schroeder asked again about teSd'anv^"* flm'thrMlxwen Bay group, scong feelings about ^ She thought the Goetten thougnt CaUahan thought it might be easier to close at City could close it for some time l ^ ^ Closing should be done with signage and 10:00 p.m. rather than not openin, u ’ . Bellows asked if a gate could be considered not plowing would effectively close .t m the Js bubblers, this is unsafe in at the ramp as previously dis,.usse . . discussed in the Maxwell Bay group, the winter The winter sr.owmobUe problem has be.n ais,.ass Lw these are maintained and enforced would be an issue. Gaffron noted the DNR S^lufriieT^e of it for them e.xcep^t agreement either with the C.ty or some . i jjiis ^35 mentioned at the County since for major maintenance such as repavmg^ p Countv crew to mow and pickup they already maintam North ^ved bv the appropriate people at the County. cw u »* ij». ”• ”>;;rs sSS™. He feels this access is for non-Orono ^ ^ Orono residents. If we have be from Orono. Therefore, these costs should DNR budget. an agreement with ±e facilk^'iU be from Hennepin County residents and KeUev would expect most or the use ^ • doesn’t solve the problem of lost tax mavbe the County should mamtam the site. That still deesn revenue (S8,000/year) and costs of policmg. is: sz’SS ~ *'ErXE'iS.vr METOTES of the lake use committee - March 24, 1993 Schroeder^d" If you have that control. “ s°“-^ -e-d to be considered as pan ot :^\“;e»"t “p«^nT;;et^ that this is a parh but a place for nshermen to launch boats. The next meeting is tenathwly ^ ^'Vel’ti and they wiU be Tne meeting adjourned at 9:05 a.m. ^ (Note; Next meeting has been rescheduied to April 14. 7:45 MINUTES OF THE LAKE USE CO>DUri^ ^>0^ SESSION iTFT n Wednesday , January ii, 199a n EtSS SSSi ^ p« • Gaffron and Building & Zoning Admimstrator ^ ^a Killien. Manila Reger, and Natural Resources was represented by Water .Access SP««'f ‘ Stan 1 innHl. Chairman Goenen called the meeting to order at - -b a. Goetten lequesied that DNR staff provide *e,^"e with a review of the surrounding the Mrxwel! Bay access over the last year, ana men site plan. Reger noted that there had been She'indicated Larrv Killien was placed in charge ot the acquisiti ■ ^ ,5 proceeding that -the DNR has purchased Gayle’s temovSXildings. etc. Reger noted with arrangements to get the sites c P’, g,- [pj-ee private parcels to the east, that diey do not have purchase oiLrs. although KUlien is in discussion with each of the tnre. prop . Reger indicated that she was "“yXluheVid^ follow-up work address when he arrives. She *"‘Xnce of coniamination. Gaffron noted he had been be the PC.A was in process due to some e vid ,Pe present when the C^sul ay e^i spillage ot perhaps small leaks, f ayle's Marma tanks, an _ ^Pp npjpon dollar range. but it ^^^‘XilSS nomd that the contamination was likely from tank overflows dunng tillmg ^'l"lras ftl” aks at piping joints, rather than from tank leakage. Gaffron asked Reger for an mauLtrrorrn^r^b^ of Lakeside Marina. ^^^"XVgo SieS to remove the three houses, which should the demoliiion contractor h g ^ property. DNR has no specific plans at this :;X“uT^ifndSed th.e‘’proVny is not to be used for their parkmg overfiow. .-alar 8-10 ‘I iTi LaiTV FCilHen arrived. At appro.xiniaieiy 8.1U a.m.. lui , 1 minutes of the lake use conl ™e wo^ session held WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1993 KiUien reiterated that DNR has purchased two ’(^wn^Lted of the three remaining parcels, but the third “d if thev are not acquired whether DNR’s ultimate goal is to acquue these toee^^_^ will DNR proceed with developmg the . development of whatever contiguous properties, but if they aren’t successtul, will go ahead wim F lands they do acquire. Goenen asked how soon will they proceed escrowed from degree on resolving the contaimination issue . n^^minaiion cleanup costs, including the each of the completed purchases to the sellers’ escrowed money remedial investigation as well as the actual t^om the petro fund, but that may for that purpose a contractor to go ahead with the necessa^ be some years down the road. DNR monitoring wells. The mvestigaiion investigation work and he shou e s , determine whether and to what process may take two to three raon . continued monitoring to actual sol removro™trTrn by M^y or will have to take specific cleanup actions tirst. Killicn continued that with the c-ent conom.na.ion —’ adltS deTn^p Csneeded° development of the sue would likely not commence un.d 199 . Schroeder asked the purehase prices j ^”4^^iS.“of diese figures, had paid $170,000 service station and S250.000 in escrow for the marma tor SI 10.000 is escrow for the s consultant doing the cleanup investigation is Peer contamination cleanup purposes. -Hie consuita Environmental Consultants Inc. Mabusth asked how muc^ad^been^^ noted that . sur%evmg work as needed, and that the costs of any needed dredging resTorarion TuM be part of DNR’s site development cost. Kelley asked what tarethe^relveli'be^^^ have been conmcting con >- ^ limited number of contractors on the lake who av is out. Reger added Hnrne the summer, but a significant number ot contractors w equipment to pull the ^ platform for winch equipment, hence they hope to get a could remove them usmg the better price for winter removal. IrtINUTES OF THE LAKE USE COMMITTEE WORK SESSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, l99o Schroeder asked whether this was a high priority for the DNR. constituting about 60 % of his work, and that this access is lus g es p ^ ^ he is responsible for the acquisitions. Reger would be responsible for operations ^d maintenance, and that Reger working with Linnell will be responsible or construction phases. Goetien asked the acreages of the propeny acquired and yet to the old site plans indicated Gayle’s and Crystal Bay Sers-ice compnsed 2.o6 acres, and tshen tn three other properties are added totals 3.85 acres. Hum asked whether DNR would l^ely would remain at what would then be the midpomt of the total property. 1994. service station sue with pote f improve traffic circulation and setbacks.X Xh. i-«..........«». efficient parking layout. o L I hnw DNR det“rmines the optimum number of spaces for an access. Linnell Schroeder how f NR det-mm „,i,i,boring propenies as well as lakeshore indicated diey increasin'^ on new accesses in recent years. He indicated setbacks^, whic ^ j55ue about which cities or counties are concerned, but they fr^sSiv-rto Orono’s concerns and will be providing stormwater ponding to deal with runoff. . 1 u th^r fhe<;e conceoi plans are in conformance with DNR’s Shoreland Regulations Kelley been required to comply, and if not, will DNR have to apply for with which . ions Linnell indicated that it is likely not aU aspects of the concept vanances to iiso standard, but that DNR as a State agency technicaUy does not have plans meet variances from local ordinances, but attempts to be in as great a MINUTES OF THE LAKE USE COMMITTEE WO^ SESSION TTFT n WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 199s of spaces to place on this or any specific ^ „ maximize the number siven the amount of money spent m acquiring this site they luii an p 5f spaces possible while addressmg all of the other - ^ space acquisition of the remauung three parce.s would ^ ,, ,5 d NR ’s intent and yield a lower overall percenoge of hardcover. ultimately have to to build an access that addresses the City s cnvironm . . ^ justif ed, hence the number satisfy the LCMR that the appropriation of money tor this project is justit.eu, of spaces is importam. Goetten commented that the 45-50-/60-63- DNR Should keep that in mind. Schroeder added Uia ih4 Cit^ha^^^^^ —d r uTmT^^ant in this site redevelopment that we end up with sometliing better than was there betore. Hurt commented that it is wS be'^placed disallowing show relatively few car only spaces. example on Prior Lake where the lack Ser is not Jn R's initial intent to place such si<^nage at this access. oL.c*. "y S November 1 and 2 e) is not ideal because the boats must be backed with with the -reverse circulation ^3 window. The November 1 plan driver looking over his ng spaces and lO-car only spaces. He noted would better circulation pattern with counterclockwise flow, that the Novembe - P'“ P™ ' ^ xhis provides ability to back down the ramp similar 10 Concept P'""" ° ^ contains Mgled head-in parking on the nonh and spaces and about 8 car-only spaces. Gaffron asked whether there is any difference in hardcover benveen the November 1 and 2 plans. Linnell felt they were about equal. , a- U oi-arsd ^how a sinc^ic "make readv" dock to one side plus two Linnell commented that ^3= 3,03, ukel'y those two will end up outside additional bet\veen r^p -_^'^^ experience has shown that the configuration as draw^s^ineri-mie^becaus boats remain in the way of the next launcher while trailers are bemg parked, etc. af a 13*^ grade, and extended lakeward as Linnell noted that most DNR ramps are where lake bottoms are necessary to accommodate normal lake Ie\el flu • 50-70 ’ of concrete planking out shallow near the shoreline and flucmations great, X into tho lake to maintain a gteater window of operation for the ramp. Gaffron commented that both new plans do ^la^'u" a 40 ’ wide driving lane was had earlier suggested. Linnell commented additional of grass. He necessary to accommodate backing, plus a _ p parking noted that with the head in car .here is no real benefit. He noted that DNR area is needed so that from a hardcover P ♦ ramps Reger noted that in their recent generally does not use back-in parkmg ^ ^ l use the back-in trailer parking discussions with Hennepin County, it was suggested they concept. Gaffron noted that the west proposed as discussed previous y, a ^ north when car-trailers are not stacked in the ^f Lfic commg around the comer ^tended as far east on North Shore mm lane. Killien nwd the Countv Road 135 by-pass lane tor south Drive as possible, my also ^ 51 bound by-oass lane is pamally m place bound trailers stacked on 1j5. me i-oumy iv but may need to be upgraded. A .ktf th;. f»nrnnc- to the access be located as far Killien noted that the County it up near Gayle’s existing Tonkawa Road north as possible. lake setback and cause circulation problems. Lumell driveway, but that would ^vember 2 plan was about 30 ’ wide with a gradual noted that the combination is 46’ long and would have a hard time curve, and Peterson noted his car indicated to the County making a righ. hand mm any ^h^^Yn^bS of cLccms and ihc'entrance locations arc critical dot that they arc ^”8 <o balan ibcy talked to a. C'c;ScouX w- o’^po^d m the two entrance concept, prefemng a single entrance/eatst point. s- V rar/tniler combinations could be stacked in the right mm lane Goetten questioned how *as sliahtly more than 200 ’. and Peterson noted before the entrance. car-trailers Rowlette noted that only on rare occasions has she on"' county road to get into the Nord, Arm access parkmg lot. ^mmTES OF THE SESSION Reger reiterated that DNR doesn’t have condol over ^uc^oad. 1 and 2 plans to four or five people from Hennepm Public Wor. . simatiou work toge±er with the County and the City to end up w.th the best possible tratf.c situation. Keiley asked about the fence along the fishing pier for safeev commented the Lake Use Committee had requested that parking, purposes. Kelley commented dr- i: was the City s intent *at *is ^ ^e bn? of the benefits of a fence is nv . it encourages f apmop^ along Tonkawa Road. It was agree- that a fence of some sort PP P Keiley questioned the location of the 'jf^htg pier ta telano^^^^ fishing pier would not e.atend into '““^aiiel so that fishermen would not likelypier would likely be approximately jO south of the Ltunnei. be casting their lines across the channel. Peterson brought up the issue of milfoil and ‘-h ^^ftha^^lu:" VccS'aS has been that garbage cans attract garbage trom more Therefore, elimination of garbage cans genera y resu ts m ^ Linnell commented that DNR does not propose “ ^ p„p,e are tending to with the costs of Killien noted that at accesses where they hadfind public dumpsters for their residential garoa e , ^ s,Ul „as pUed where removed garbage ^ ,3,, of the dumpster had been^ Re,er garbage ”^^3 ’“he noted that the County ’s new Coffey Bridge site. ‘:Sdtnr.?cou?rsSr ars always overflowing. . , • n/nif'nilv handled Killien indicated at the Spring Park access, aGoetten asked how is mi . pUed to milfoil rake is or four weeks before they are stolen and one side. f^^js acceptable. Peterson noted that the law requires people have to be replace ^ If don t. to remove ^ ^ jp|^, people meet their obligation. Perhaps a compost bin or some We need to Proactive in he^m p^^P receptacle, as well as merely a roU« Sg screcrend up being places where people will congregate their garbage. Gatfron noted « b“?Te! td Voulir 'iQU^'i^dicated they normally plant T to 1 '/i" caliper stock, which is relatively me.xpensive OF USE^CO^^^ SESSION as compared to larger caliper sizes, and which aUows it misht plant screening shrubbery as required for a gtven stte.it may tie for 1 • trees to grow to a size where they appear substanttai. L^eU sug, five years before they provide significant shade. S“' tS>' '»“u ^ svstera in transplanting, it tends to recover soon^ than lar^, c P j V and 2". of five or ten years there may no. be h " to provide a one year Linnell noted that whoever DNR contracts for landscap = monitor weather conditions guarantee, and DNR would expect that a P-^ent con^ L year. Reger and provide whatever care is necessary to " dire-^ed to keep an eve on the new added that DNR access noted thev would plant a variety plantings and water them as needed if things are dry^ ' of native species, dependent on the landscaping nee Hurr noted thst it was her understandmg die ru'"mTes.‘”lSlfa small amount (S3.00 per year session but not passed, allowing a yearly Z ol^TZTonl of the purchase value of die property, payable amiually. S^;h”ssmect after five yeais. This bill needs to be reintroduced. Moving along in die outline. Gaffron no.d that *=City does not hno^ impact of fishing at the sue, but would want to revisit the ^sue m if fishing activity starts to cause erosion of greer, space, etc. ,3, „f in-house some methods mat the walkways will have to be wheelchair fencing or signage if necessary. narking lot was also discussed. Reger accessible. The idea of a with the DNR and City s ■» *" ■"”* - eliminate a walk\vay along the parking lot. t. ^ u- oir.r Re-e- noted it would be 6* in width typically, perhaps slightly In regards to Pd,.; ^ fhe walk-wav along the shoreline has not been spec.fic^ly designed, but P?" ” Lows. One or two benches may be Sed <: me“sLdards for handicap access along the pathway. i- lornrinn on the November 2 concept plan. Gaffron asked whether the ramp Regarding the ™ me last three properties are evenmally acquired. Lmnell will remain at its ^ j^ift further eastward later on. Killien noted that one item of noted d.at the ramp location of the ramp, and he would like it as far from his manM'LpL’as possible, with a minimum of a. least 100’. MINUTES OF THE LAKE USE COMMITTEE SESSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 199a Hurr questioned whether the fishing pier would be winter. Reger noted it would probably be a doesn'fdeal with the day-to-day arc maintained by the local umt ot government su«^«jested that at this tnaintenance aspects, so this would an unusual ““place all winter, location, ice damage may not be a big tacior. and the pier may just so p Linnell noted that the foam floats DNR typically used ate encased m plastic. Goenen asked what is DNR’s raamtenance intent t P - = complete other piers are awarded by grants to with’the rest of the access. Gaffron access package and would be mamtamed b, ‘ ’ j included general ongomg noted DNR’s written response to the maintenance issue nao inciu maintenance of the site. Killien noted that the site would ^ are noted that DNR does not plow any of its 1.400 4=“^ ' ^ them not gated or chained and it is not uncommon for and out." Goetten noted that Cominittee h^d Hurr noted that She fell DNR^adco^ f Reger commented diat Maxwe 1 Bay UKe Minnetonka ” ^u« cross private property a. the southStraley property, residents noted m ^ ,q end of Ma.'twell Bay to ‘ *e physically impossible to keep snowmobiles eliminate this trespassing. blocking off the ranip will force snowmobile traffic onto the from using the access, an . y f. j^,gg Killien noted that there are two accesses landscape areas of(q jiggp topography creating a dangerous condition, the in the metro area with ga . surface which could freeze if traffic compacts the snow other due to a Ct^ water mam n opened a road or parking lot nearby to above It. In both cases the mc^^^ e.xpr ’essed by Hun that without closing the access, it may provide winter access. . althouvh it was noted that this does not seem to become “ P4rki^°aor ^snow b ^ discussion, although °“m:‘ w" "ratroblem develops before we try to solve it. ^ rr...* hill reauesied the access be siened for no overnight parking. Gaffron noted the ^ ovemicht parking generally had not been a problem Killien stated that '*"t “ d b^^^ experienced car nailers at their accesses, ex p ^ while camping up river. Reger noted that most DNR accesses parked for the weeken or = linked generallv are pan of a maintenance agreement with are open 24 hours, and tho« hat ine 1^^ ^ ^ ,„„„o|,ed hours. KiUien gave the local ^ nbjg residential neighborhoods, and even though they were busy ‘'‘ces^rhad not generated cornffi^itits about hours of activity. Killien suggested that he would 8 ■VHNUTES OF THE LAKE USE held WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1995 prefer not to limit the hours on Uie o^tation if problems have for DNR to review . site after .t ts opened and m^= " hfs understanding that such occurred. This is done via a Commissioner s • vyithin a park area or some other a limitation cannot be placed on a sue initial^w en i ^ neighbor here and since she hour-restrictive location. ^ *“ she would want to' deal with any problems is in charge of operation and maintenance ot the site, sn quickly if they occur. u -af ‘jitc It was noted that there is a Goetten brought up the concept of an emergency phone th is an outside phone pay phone on the Crystal Bay Service property .'[luone is somewhat costly and prone to at L^eside Marina. Reger noted the placement o ^ vandalism, and they normally don't place phones at their Peterson commented that he is quite conrfortable wi* '^et'arf ew representatives for theu efforts in addressmg 'riNR sees as their nc.tt step. Killien urnesolved issues yet to be worlted out, and more deuiled noted that once the contamination issues are re . sprin® 1996. Gaffton noted plans as his time permits, with potential u! pL ^^w at a public hearing Lt City processes would normally Discussion continued before the Planning Commission. a public hearmg. noting that regarding the merits of holdmg a pu ic ‘ lechnicailv ihev are not required to follow City wmie the DNR is c~P-‘f^;,'^.r"sitftep any processes. Killien added requirements. Reger noted it is * h»»Hna k held the oublic must be well iniormed mm the only potential pitfall is ! P“^'" “fomm for the public as to the process that has gone rotate ^d tat Jbe puWic h^^ S mnst%TcJmy worded to ensure the public understands the process. Killien noted he would keep in touch with staff regarding progress on their acquisition of propert)' and the contamination issue. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY HI AnOLNKY CEKOUL State of Minnesota OmCE or THE ATTORNEY CENTRAL October 30, 1995 Pl’BUC AND AN RtS«A RCES SLTrE<«no -M5 VONVESCTTA STRETT ST PALX.MN 5S101 :ir TELtmiNE 1642) 29?40-5 Mr, Mike Gaf&on Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 Re: Maxwell Bay Access Site Hennepin County NOV •-t 1935 •6* Dear Mr. GalTron: This is in response to the request of Larr>- Killien for a letter from me regarding building projects conducted for or on behalf ot the Minnesota Department ot Natural Resources, an agency of the State of Minnesota, within a governmental subdivision. It is the position of the Department and of this office that the State of Minnesota is not subject to local codes or ordinances e.xcept where the Legislature has specifically authorized a local governmental entity to regulate state government activity. This applies whether or not the state is acting directly or through a contractor. As far as 1 am able to discern, the ordinances ot the City of Orono relative to the proposed project by the Department are not applicable. Please see Minn. Stat. § 394.24, subd. 3. In spite of the above-described situation. I know that the Department generally tries to work cooperatively with municipalities to address their respective concerns and needs as construction projects progress. I hope that this infonnation is helpful to you. If you or your city attorney w ish to discuss this matter turther, please feel free to contract me at 296-0696. „_y^,4ruly yours. bH uc &^a . Spegktor Assistant Attorney General (612)296-0696 cc: Lany Killien AC. 14326 VI Facsimile' (612) 297-1139 • TDD: (612) 296-1410 • Toll Free Lines: (800) 657-3787 (Voice). (800) 366-4812 (TDD) A, vv- D.—.y _ o ' •« CCUNCfL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 1 1995 DATECPscfe’b6«r^^g? ITEM NO.: J ^ Department Approval: Name Jeanne A Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zonine Item Description: #208^ r\r*‘^wit Janice Cailan, 2915 Somerset Lane Conditional Use Permit/Variance Zoning District: RR-IB Total lot area = 3.25 acres Drv area = 2.25 acres Brief Review of Application: Applicant proposes the excavation of approximately 6,250 s.f. or .143 acres of spoils within a designated wetland (Type 2) to create an open water area. Review Exhibit D. applicant’s addendum notes the reason for the wetland alteration is for future preservation, drainage and enhancement. Based on applicants comments at the meeting. (Manning Commission members felt the main purpose for the land alteration was to create an open water area for aesthetic reasons. The original grading plan and addendum information did not address the usual standards employed to create a pond to attract water fowl. The wetland ordinance Section 10.55 provides no direction in dealing with applications involving alterations of designated wetlands. This section of the code specifically deals with fiood plain issue The COMP Plan specifically addresses need to preserve wetlands. Section 10.56 discusses the functional qualities of a wetland and the need to maintain those functions and look for enhancements should alterations take place. A majority of the Planning Commission voted to deny applicants Conditional Use Permit and Variance application (3 to 2 vote). Based on the following findings. I Applicants presented no compelling reason to suppon the alterations within the designated wetland area. 2. Applicants provided no acceptable benefits and it appeared to members that aesUietic reasons were applicants principal concern. 3. Approval of this application would establish a negative precedent should other adjacent land owners wish to alter designated wetland in same manner. Page 2 December 7, 1995 Zoning File #2086 Roben & Janice Callan Staff offered the applicant an opportunity to present additional information to respond to the Planning Commissions denial recommendation. As ot this writing, applicant has provided no new information. Staff would recommend that you review applicant ’s addendum. Exhibit D. Staff would also encourage members of the Council to review the staff memo enclosed, dated November 15, 1995, that will address the code issues, the standards and guide lines established by other state agencies for such alterations and the unique issues to be considered when dealing with the alteration of a designated wetland. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; To provide staff with conceptual direction so that an appropriate resolution can be drafted for Councils action at their Januarv' 8, 1996 meeting. //. To: From: Date: Subject; Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 15. 1995 #2086 Robert and Janice Callan. 2915 Somerset Lane - Conditional Use Permii'Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB Total lot area * 3.25 acres Dry area * 2.25 acres .Application: Applicants propose the e.xcavation of appro.ximately 6,0C*C s.f. of spoils from a Type 2 wetkinds within their undeveloped rural residential lot. Tiie wetland is a designated wetland and falls under th-. protective covenants of the City Code. The application involves not only the conditional use permit required for the excavation but a variance to the Code that would prohibit grading and filling within a wetland. Pertinent Ordinances A. Section 10.55. Subdivision 8 - Prohibition. Tlie Ctxie specifically prohibits land alterations within w'etlands and within 26' ol the boundaries of those wetlands. Applicant proposes e.xcavation and grading within the vseiland. B.Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J), 5 (A) (1-6) - Grading or filling in Types 2, 3.4, 5,6, 7 and 8 wetlands must be e\aluated to determine how e.\tcnsively the proposed activitv would alfect die follow ing functional qualities of the wetland: 1. ■y 3. 4. 5. 6. Sediment and pollutant trapping and retention; Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage; Fish and wildlife habitat; Recreational use; Shoreline or han't stabilization; Noteworthiness, including special qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or other. Tlie applicant has applied to the Watershed District for a permit and Corps of Engineers has been asked to review the project. C . C.MP -:nvironmer.!al ction - Specifically sections referring to wetlands. CMP 14-4; Na -ral features - function of wetlands. Zoning File #2086 November 15,1995 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application r - Plat Map C - Property Owners' List D - Callan Memo 11/15/95 E - Grading Plan F-1 -2 Engineer's Report Plus Guidelines G - DNR Handout Excavated Pond for Waterfowl H - piatofOldCiysialBayRoad Addition Locating Designated Wetlands I - Soil Delineation Map Locating Designated Wetland Tvpe 2/3 (Basin 8 and Basin 9) Discussion Applicant proposes the excavation of approximately 6,250 s.f. or .143 acres of spoils within a designated wetland to create an open water area. Applicant hopes to attract waterfowl to a permanent open water area. The Type 2 wetland contains open water areas only during wet seasons of the year. On staffs inspection we found a wetland with predominantly cattails and some canary reed grass. The Engineer's Report. Exhibit F-1-2, reports no problem with the proposed excavation of the open water area as long as certain guidelines are followed. The side slopes are too steep at 4:1. The guidelines included w ith the Engineer's report suggest an 8:1 side slope. Portions of the pond have a depth of 2-3' with a maximum depth of 4’ over 25% of the pond's surface. Per the attached handout from the DNR concerning excavated ponds for waterfowl, it would suggest even a more irregular shoreline with the flattened side slope. As predominant cattail growth exists within this portion of the wetland, the Engineer recommends that the topsoil be salvaged for respreading over the disturbed area. Cattails will grow once again within this area of the topsoil. All disturbed areas should be restored with seeding using a wetland seed mixture such as Mn/DOT mi.xture 250. Applicant may also be advised to construct the pond with a more irregular shoreline to further encourage use by waterfowl. Per the DNR handout, the size of the open water area should be no smaller than 2,500 s.f. Applicant's duuout is proposed at approximately 6.000-^- s.f. Applicant should be encouraged to install the pond with variable depths to encourage vegetation growth within the open water area which is attractive to waterfowl. In no case should pond ever exceed 5 depth. Code Requirements Code provides little direction as to alterations creating open water areas within designated wetlands. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J) (5-a) lists specific functional qualities that all wetlands provide and should retain as follows: Zoning File #2086 November 15,1995 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sediment and pollutant trapping and retention. The open water area will provide for better sediment trapping. It will also provide greater retention. Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage. Storage capacity will be improved. Fish and wildlife habitat. The existing Type 2/3 wetland ser\es as a habitat for certain species of wildlife. It is the hope of the applicant to now encourage waterfowl to the open water areas but w ill result in a loss of habitat for some. Recreational use. The frozen water area c ''uld certainly seive tor winter recreational use. Shoreline or bank stabilization. Side slopes of banks will be installed to encourage waterfowi - no potential for future erosion or impact on remaining wetland. 6. Not clear if there is any noteworthy reason for creating the open water area for preserv ation of special wildlife species or vegetation. Section 10.55, Subd. 8 specifically prohibits the alteration of wetlands and any land alterations within 26’ of that wetland. Section 10.55 specifically addresses flood plain and wetland issues. Members are encouraged to review Section 10.55 to determine if there are any standards appropriate for the alteration of wetlands. The Code relates specifically to flood plain issues. Refer to your Comprehensive Plan, the sections on environment and natural features. The wetlands of the City function as the natural stormwater retention areas. The current Federal regulations would require that stormwater runolT be treated before draining into protected wetland areas. Runoff from two acre rural sites will have a negligible impact on altered wetland. The Comp Plan does not prohibit the creation of open water areas within a wetland area; the CMP is concerned with the preservation of wetlands. General Comments Refer to Exhibit H, the specific designated wetland encroaches several lots within the Old Cry stal Bay Road Addition plat. How shall we address other requests of adjacent property owViers to excavate open water areas within their portion of this wetland? The existing Type 2 and in some sections Type 3 wetlands provides a habitat to wildlife. 6,000+ s.f. of open water area will now attract waterfowl. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to replace the lost 6,000+ s.f of Type 2 wetland. We suggest that the replacement be either at the southeast or southwest contiguous with the existing Type 2 wetland. The property at 2.25 acres w'ill still retain the 2 acres of dry buildable: 2.25 acres exist 2.11 acres adjusted dry. Zoning File #2086 November 15,1995 P^e4 Review Exhibit H, this specific ^^•etland encroaches seven properties. It other property owners seek to dredge open water area within this same wetland system, we would expect each owner to mitigate equal areas of Tvpe 2 for the area of dugout. Any proprerty owner seeking to make similar alterations wxjuld have to have a minimum 2 acres ot dry contiguous lands within their lot. Issues for Consideration 1. Applicant hns provided no information as to the method of excavating the pond. The City will not approve the bulldozer approach but would require a scoop method whereby only the area to be excavated is encroached upon. Topsoils, as the Engineers report requests, would be used to spread within the disturbed area to allow tor the renim of the cattails. What other issues should be addressed by applicant or applicant's contractor with this land alteration? 2. Should the mitigation area be equal or greater to the open water area ... or should the City require mitigation? 3. The City will recommend that the guidelines set out in the City Engineer's report and the DNR handout be followed as closely as possible. Applicant's amended plan should address the following guidelines, side slopes, irregular shoreline and location of mitigation area. Applicant's sur\eyor to confirm that there is no impact on adjacent properties with the expansion of the designated wetland at either the southeast or southwest comers of propert>\ 4. Has applicant convinced members of the need for the open water area within the designated wetland (review Exhibit D)? Do members perceive of conflicts with future requests for open water areas within this wetland? 5. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Any recommendation of approval must include the following conditions: a. b. Prior to scheduling the application before the Council tor final action, the City must be in receipt of written comments from both the Corps of Engineers and the Watershed District concerning this application. Prior to scheduling the application before the City Council, applicant must provide an amended plan following the guidelines set forth by City Engineer and DNR. The plan is to reflect mitigation area if recommended by the Planning Commission. Zoning File #2086 November 15,1995 Page 5 Applicant to provide information on method of excavation of wetland, scheduling of alteration, and tv-pe of seed mixture to be used in the replanting of the disturbed area (reuse of cattail topsoil). Options of Action 1. Approve as propxised, 2. Approve as amended. 3.Denial, - \ /V " \ Ar-*‘ ♦ ^ CITY OF ORONO - GENLR.\L LAND USE APPLICATION A Of '.V, PROPERTY'LOCATION _ / / Site Address _______^9/6 Ss^erj^'t Ty-pe of Application to be Filed Property Ideniificaiion Number (P.I.D.) ' \—-------------------- Phonr ^ F ^ ?6 AH OWTS'ER (if different than applicant) Name _______c—*: nc,-. -r>~ < <• v — Address -2-j'7j Jj—LL—Citv Phone (home) ^ ------- Phone (^work) ------ ____ Zip — Date Property Acquired _____/fyu^. --------------------- I {d^ (do not) also own-^e adjacent parcels of land. fees - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 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 Apartments 5150.00 Duplex Crediu'Bidg “ S250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use “TT” $200.00 LamJAlteration ^ • “ ^ filling - designated wetland or floodplain “^(^GmjSeind filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ^ “ Gradmg. seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ ot lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule --------$100 00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) -------- Alter-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLIC.ATIONS $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation —^ $ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ^ $300.00 Rezoning (PUD * refer to fee schedule) $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals ^ ^ Other - see Fee Schedule (monih/year) 1 **T X w w'V*—* • • 1- t cv •' 4 '• ^ • ? •- • « present USE OF PROP^TY . Present Zoning District ^ V Present Use of Propeny _ Residential Other (specify) OCT-26-1995 16:1? requireo submittals 1. 2. 3. #s F . 02. 02 * \ o , '-•I N i \ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certined Property Ov^ners List of owners wiUiiu 350', labels and plat map (you must obain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Depanment of Finance, A 603, Govemmenr Center, .348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surv'eyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations Involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital satus) of all persons with an inieiest lu Uie property. This would include naaac(5) of applicant(s) if not current owner($). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any ctlter persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (IP X 17 ” OR SMALIER) FOR AIX DOCUMENTS SUBMriTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use .Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: __________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Adminisuator. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) aixjyor unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and corr^t_j£>.:l'bn_b£srdT' br^Cher knowledge. ^ Applicant's signatu Date lOl^ol OUTVER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this applicauon and further authorired reasonable enrrv’ onto the propeit>- by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of invcstigation';and verification of this request. Owi.er's signature Date Applicant must have aU submiitals into the City ofTicca 23 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Fla&nillf Commission Mecuugs -vc held on the third Monday of each monlh. Applictnis must be piesciu ax all scheduled tr.'iew mcclinK'* «f «bc PlaauLng Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meetiog. j’lrasc make arrangements to have an auihun,:cO «*cui ativcU layout place and advise the Duildinj A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. (10) ! •4 4^^ -r r^^*06'A-VZ < :2) CS) __", i .. ~*i X TZ5 OVTL-^!7) ^'■ *V.S, V.;;v;. ; ;.:.:.,377.e^ :-;-:^.;:; ^:::x.::-:’;;.Sv:::::v>:':X i^r-50 <•2-^ ^ »P) • ^ ' • • I •••X V •..' *. X •*. ■.x’.x m yX* . • • *. ■ X.'ly! ft • « •!fX •X-:-:-Xyi .\'X*X‘X, ft • « • •- •** I eec- » 1 —-------■» 7f,?. » ’ S29*:'^’E ' X*. «y, ^ ?,'O''* Vf‘ii- » •tc5 1 T.R; 170 iCCf < ?:iy‘lC' ( 17) M '. L't t r<. '4. .^. ' ^7-----—J" J! -■" FR. \ I m:178. r^'Oi'l T75T ||u|i^MTf. io/ia/9i' ■#.« -117-^tS tl 0007 HEAfI LA i C DC SANTIS SANTISvOAKV 4 CHERYL OE(•0 HEAR U LONB LAKE »M ' i, ■ «t 55354 IffMCPlN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST3R 04-117>» El 0011 02*90 SOMERSET U C L A 0 C KRAMER CHARLES 4 KOtGATN RRATCR 2990 SOMERSET LA LONO LAKE HN 55354 K-- % I «o *■. •5.'S *• 04-117-23 21 0013 >AOOII V" 02050 SOMERSET U OMI^R NAME COfriM CORNERS PARTNERSHIP AMPAYER .'i^K ORONO LIHITEO PARTNERSHIP NIMi/AOeR ^ 7000 CREEKRIDOE CIR 0310 OLOaHXNBTQN m 55439 ,*Vf ym'I JL^'j 9> ill (PROPJIOOR- ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/AOOR -‘v< jUj •fr<9tPPR0P ADOR li^^'OIOCR NAME TAXPAYER SO 04-117-23 22 0029 OSOiO SOMERSET LA N e 4 S J CARSON 'NALLACE 0 4 SHARYL J CARSON 4000 CHESHIRE LA 'PLYMOUTH m 55444 7 : so 04-117-23 24 0014 • 02040 DEER RUN TR H T GILLEN A J A GILLEN MICHAEL T 4 JULIE A GILLEN 2840 DUM RUN TR - S' ■«- if PRdP ADDR 0»tlER NAME -^TAXPAYER • NAME/ADDR '"T i- t * .1 i,jr •• . . n. « • ‘ 58 04-117-25 24 0018 02475 SOMERSET LA COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 7608 CREEKRIDGE CIR 8310 8L00HINGT0N MN 55459 ('^^^ROP ADDR ^J^3tO»t€R NAME TjJjiSt TAXPAYER .t:. ■■■■ TOTAL BATCH ,M'J^^'MAME/A00R S . • 504 00015 4 * t -f s • - * * * i' *• iife. 30 04-117-23 21 0014 02805 SOMERSET LA COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP ORONO LIMITED PARTIffRSHXP 7000 CREEKRIDGE CIR 8310 BLOOMINGTON 7M S54S9 30 04-117-23 24 0002 00225 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO R J 0EM4Y a H F DENNY HILLIAH OEMIY 444 2ND ST BOX 9B EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 04-117-23 24 0015 02820 OEER RUN TR COFFIN CORhSRS PARTNERSHIP ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 7808 CREEKRIDGE CIR 8310 BLOOMINGTON Mt4 55439 38 04-117-23 24 0019 02915 SOMERSET LA GROVES STICKNEY LLC GROVES STICKNEY LTD LIAB P 0 BOX 1267 MPLS MN 55440 38 04-117-23 23 0031 R P HARE V & B R HARE RODERI & BENITE HARE 1600 LONG LAKE BLVD ORONO MN 55356 REP(MT NO. PI435401 PAGE 938 04-117-23 21 0012 02920 SOMERSET LA COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP STICKNEY A SCHHAR2 BUILDERS 307 MANITOBA AVE S HAYZATA MN 55391 58 04-117-23 21 0017 00038 AOORESS UNASSIOCO OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO ASSOC INC ROBERT HARE 1400 LONG LAKE BLVD ORONO MN 55354 38 04-117-23 24 0013 02900 OEER RUN TR J L BUCHANAN AHA HAMM JEFFREY L BUCHANAN MARCIA A HAMMOrffi 4204 PARKNOOO RO EDINA MN 55434 38 04-117-23 24 0017 00038 AOORESS PENDING OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO ASSOC INC ROBERT HARE 1400 LONG LAKE BLVD ORONO MN 55354 38 04-117-23 24 0020 02855 SOMERSET LA GROVES STICKNEY LLL GROVES STICKNEY LTD LIAB P 0 BOX 1247 MPLS MT.I 5S440 '? Va-X . ’ •' ' • ■ J* • . ' • ,r CD::; I: ■' '.rr.iiif* I \- i %; . A . ■ • . V •.V,!: "■: *.‘-v' .V- ^ *_•»-. .V^• ■-Vv• 't^Vi . ■•• --'t "• -y ^' •' '■•*-w -Jw, b A j:.i ■ •:;> : ^ . ^ 4*’iii-i'vM •; ; .. '- ■■- •I', ijUltjl' ^ I ; vH** *' .1*' • m. lii *; ■: -'t ■ •'• "■ ''V •'**»•■ ^ . . • •v-’*'*; :r\i^ . i-ff»)-i ■ -'» • 1 ► * ’•^* . ii ' ' ■;;*' i:’:' •j ' v .■■■» ' •■* ' jmjMijf, • f■ * ■' v4f'*'» ■' ■ «• fifMJrrtM OUHTY WOPHTV IHFOWMATION SYSTfH raOKRTY OHMlftS LIST REPORT NO. PIUS401 PA(» 10•i‘. 4-^ /r• f •*’■ 'i • * %% #* 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 •C^^aNLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE * % • I ' •'I'm-;, • -f V % %</ % nnXc£/ •f'-- .v;. i’’ ii , ^ 'A ^ >:’r ; • 'i ■ , • j V <■” •■ h.t •i »• ■ ■•. ■'■' t;V: • • ( ■ >' '*j- ' .:i'V--1' >u ’ki!’ I‘*' •■ •}v' * <|i ■*■ • ■• •: I Noveaber 15, 1995 ■Rov: 14 1995 TO: CITY OF ORONO Th« •Honorable Mayor Council Members •Planning Coonnisslon fROM: BOB AND JANICE CALLAN ^re asking for this variance to excavate mainly the transitional area of this designated wetland portion of our property for future preservation, drainage and inhancem6nt reasons. We feel that this will cause minimal impact to existing area inhabitants and neighbors and will enhance and improve the conditions and opportunities for waterfowl and all other wildlife. By the creation of this sediment pond, we will also insure that better drainage conditions will always exist for our proposed home. In our discussions with the Army Corp. of Engineers, the Watershed District, our planner and surveyor, we agree with them in stating that this project, as it occurs mainly in the transitional portion of our wetland, will have little or no effect, and be seen only as an overall improvement for all involved. • T ^ « « • ■ { A/ 9T*t*/ A ^</.y / / / / ^ % r ‘ ’X — — — lExisting contour-^ •• ~ ; Proposed contour '-•. f*' 3. A S’ A. as i / SEED & MULCH OR SOD ALL DISTURBED- AREAS WITHIN TWO WEEKS AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING. Vuiltal f ; ‘ • I..'• .N y 7 ■ ..vjl o <o oc < ffi -I < H" (/) D j. *• ‘r'' •r- i'.' p ,».r f ^. y' ..n >v^'Slili 9BB i?i ‘= >Yv ^-•:' 1 ».' V wflP-- i 5 K ■ >J P ";''.■■■ V-'fcv ' fMi > T iW^* .5 (•7» .1 ‘X/ n fit' / i ^ii OCo W fc»«Tr^vV.; ™|i y ViPi;i %,'• r-1 1^ . • /•■I'.Vi.W x'A^•'-v,-ws'■•). ,,' i -r.' laHl . / fl WBrWffII ffll 13 j‘»'»"‘ li^MiaaR -tO' HSkcH^v; m y ■ • * *., j imp;waa Eyai SI ' \ ' I ■ ..•. 'If** k '• S . • >1 ''i,-.'.. ... i • »»‘V< / V 1 lk ‘1 r «*i.4ii# ■ •'. iys«r¥jc:te»®iM53^ 'Kiftie n UJ Dd UJ a. O c^ a. -r> UJ Dz < c CX3 T3 C rj QJ T3 OJ rrs KJ O O Zo Qdo coa rj IJ C> s C o u q r IJ la M «j XJ » • 8«/) :?. ao n u: 1^3 U p VO rj ‘4 •;i t) ,U zu ■-Hli i< U. 1/1 Bonestroo Mjm Rosene v-||| Anddiik & Associates Engineers & Architects November 13, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. .Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 AtsKtMf. melt Affirmwtwt Actiorv Ceuai Opp«ffi#iiiy Iwpioyr OlM <L iontiir—w FJ. ioftcrt «r ftoscnc. f 1.* Joseph C AnderfHt f ^ Morvm L Sorvoio, P JL fflchpro t Tumef . P E. Gfonn i. Cook. PE Thomoi £. Moyes. P£. toOert G. SchuoKht. P £ S4.sjfi M Ebonin. C P.A • * Senior Cohfufiant Howopp A. SonPorP. P E Kefth A ^fpon.. P E tooft *. Pfeffcno. P £ INcfiorP W Pottof. PC Ooesp O. Lotkota, P E tooen C. tussek. A I.A Jerry A. SourPon. P E Mark A Hohion. P£ Michaei T ffautmann. PE. Ted K PfetP, PE Thomas E AnPerion. Al A James E Eosenmertev PI OonaiP C lurparpt PE Thomot A. Syfko. P £ Predenc J Stenoo rp. PE ismaef Martirei. PE. Michaef P Eau. P L Thomas W Peterson. PC. liictioet C. Lynch. P E James E Maianp. PE Jerry O Perttich. P E Scott J Arpanet. P£ Kenneth P. Anderson. I Mart E Eotft PE Mart A Seip. P E Gary W Morten. P I Paul J Ganrson. A i.A Darnel J Idge rton. P £ A Eick SchmidI Pf Dale A Grove. PE pnnip J Casweif. P£ Mark D WaMt. P£ Miles • Jensen. P E L Phillip Gravel. Pf taren L Wiemen. P£ Gary O Kristofiu. P£ •rtan £ Gape. P E f Todd Poster, P £ Keith E Tapp. PJ. Doupiaf J. lanoft. P f Shatvn O. Gustafson. PE Cecilfo Olivier. PI. Kent J Wagner. PE. Paul G Heuef. P£ John P Gorder. P E. Dan O to yum. PE. Jeffrey J ENerinper PE Joseph E Eheirv. P E. Lee M. Mann. P £ Charles A Enckson Leo M Paweisky Marfan M. Otion Agnes M Eirsg James P Engeihardt Re: Stickney Pond File No. 139-2086 Dear Jeanne, Wt have reviewed the proposal to create a pond within an existing Type 2 cattail wetland at 2915 Somerset Lane, located on Lot 2, Block 4, Old Crystal Bay Road 2nd Addition. This wetland is protected by the City of Orono by ordinance, regulated by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District at the State level as part of the Wetland Conservation Act (WC,-\), and under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of F.ngineers (COE) at the Federal level. I discu.s.sed the propo.sed pond with John Smythe, a wetland scientist at our office. He had the following general comments in regards to excavating ponds within wetlands. It depends on the conditions of the wetland in question. It the wetland consists mainly of one type of plant such as reed canary grass or cattails, we prefer to see an increase in diversity by adding different types of habitat such as open water. For certain types of priority wetlands such as sedge meadows, Type 1 or 2 scrub-shrub, or wxx>ded wetlands, we do not recommend excavation. We prefer that fK)nds are constructed near the wetland fringe to remiwe reed canary grass whenever possible. The COE has a general permit No. 18 for excavation of a wildlife pond which should be followed. .Mitigation of the excavated wetland area could be required b>' the City c*r COE. however excavation is not regulated by the WCA. If the pond is con.structed in accordance with permit #18 the COE would probably not require mitigation. Cattails do have a benefit by providing habitat during the w inter months when other plants are beneath the snow. However, there Is a benefit added by excavating in an area of reed canary grass The profHised pond does not conform to permit #18 only because the sideslopcs arc too steep (4-foot H to 1-foot V). We would reci^mmend approval of the proposed pond if the grading plan is revi.sed to follow the attached guidelines. E.xisting topsoil should be salvaged for respreading over the disturbed areas. These areas should be restored with seeding using a wetland seed mixture such as MaDOT mixture 250. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson. P E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 ■ 612*636*4600 DRAFT ;,x:ir>r . ’V*'* . . _ _ _ _ _ _t . r-Hv. -t jiarl*dici;ional threshold la lo%#f in cartnin inatancas tha radapoaition o£ a^l aaaociatad with rhaaa actlTitlaa through tha rapaatad uaa of thaaa traila and/or - ‘if patha. could dagrada or daatroy watara of tha Unitad Stataa by altaring hydrology^T ! (a«g*. drainaga pattama) or advaraaly affacting habitat, valuaa. For tha actiTity to qualify for thia. ganaral parmit^ tha following conditiona ouat ba mat:** ‘ . 1 ... .. . * 2J1.— * .at*.* r*. * aHt• • * 2. Thi* g«n*ral p«zmit domm noC authorize land clearing or discharge fill material for constmction of new trails or paths. ^ a ^ • 1. The activity must taka place on an existing trail or path. .... • *■ ^Wildliff Wxhitatr Tmorovement Activities (Popds.* Level-Pitches and DuQOutS not-^^. regulated bv the Minnesota Department of Natural Besources). - includes excavation • . • ^c^lvities whose primary purpose is to enhance or create wildlife habitat. Ponds must be cgnstructed with irregular shorelines, shallow horizontal to vertical ' sideslopes (e.g. 8-foot H to 1-foot V), and a shallow water depth (2 feet to 3 feet) with a depth of 5 feet over 25 percent of the pond surface. The permit area may not be harvested for agricultural purposes, grazed by domestic* livestock*,, used as (ource of irrigation water, used as dumping area or outlet for draining other wetlands, drained, burned, filled, clipped or used in a manner that would destroy its «Nitland character or wildlife value. The permit area may not be used as part of a . cranberry operation. Level ditches may D2i h*ve an inlet or outlet. The area of ’ ■ land excavated may not exceed one acre in size. -.=:r-r* - r r c. Road Maintenance Projects - Includes excavation associated with cleanout of^^ roadway ditches and culverts. Roadway ditches may not be dredged to a depth that exceeds the original (as built) depth. The invert elevation of culverts may not ba lowered to an elevation lower than tha original elevation. i« « »• d. stormwater Holding/Detention Pond - Excavation of stormwater hoiding/detention ponds in wetlands in conjunction with upland development projects is authorized under this general permit provided the pond is constructed in accordance with Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) design standards. Won-aoricultural Plowing - Includes plowing and discing in wetland areas associated with planting (e.g. gardens, golf courses, yards). For this general pejjjnit to apply, the following conditions must ba met: • .* « i .*• .1 ■ • * 1. Work is performed only in non-agricultural areas. * .* . 2. 3. 4e 5. (niix 1 nmn depth shall not exceed 9 inches. Planting and seeding oust be done as soon as possible after plowing. ..... . i ■ • May not be used for peat mining activities. ^ -- - ^ a Additional fill material may not ba placed in the wetlands. I • » ■J S • •is••f - 2 ■i: > c Excavated Ponds for Waterfowl *t f! ; , V “ '’- i Mi ■#' ^ ♦^r**V* J •v4w U Landowners frequently ask natural resource agencies how the\’ can improve their land for waterfowl. Specifi cally, many people wonder if excavating ponds will help. This brochure will outline when and where dug ponds, or “dugouts ”, can be beneficial, and provides construc tion guidelines for optimum waterfowl benefit. Refer to our “Ecology of'X ctlands ” brochure tor more informa tion. SHOULD YOU CONSIDER A DUGOUT FOR YOUR PROPERIT? Dugmits should be considered only where other wetland management options are not possible. Before you decide to excavate a pond, you should surs ey the site to determine if other options, such as ditch plugs, tile breaks, or dikes would work. \Xetlands restored by reducing drainage are always preferable to dugouts. In general, dugouts should only be constructed if there are other open-water wetlands within one-half mile. W aterfowl use dugouts primarily for courtship and territorial sites, and must have other wetlands to fulfill feeding and brood-rearing needs. Small dug- outs (less than one-half acre) are used mostlv in 4 spring or fall migration, less so in summer. Larger dugouts will get more summer use, if they’re the right depth (1.5-3 feet). You should not excavate a dugout in an existing wetland, especially one with open water. This can destroy the existing wetland by draining surface water ofT. Excavations should be outside the edge of the wetland, where the water table is still adequately high. Cattail-choked wetlands are an exception to this rule, where vegetation covers the entire surface of the wetland, and surface water is rarely present. In these cases, it may be acceptable to dig in the wetland basin, but you should still stay close to the edge. For these projects, you will need to observe permit requirements described below arid should talk to the local DNR Wildlife xManager. • ♦ 1- * ■ CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES I. PERMITS. Wetlands arc protected by several laws, and a permit may be required for your project. Four government agencies regulate wetlands, and should be contacted if j’ou will be working in an existing wet land. These agencies arc: U.S. Army Corps of Engi neers, USDA - Agricultural Stabilization and Conser vation Service (ASCS), the DNR Division of Waters, and your city or count}' zoning office or local water shed district. Phone numbers for the first 3 agencies arc given at the end of this brochure; check your local directory for the number of your local office. 2. DEPTH AND SLOPES. Waterfowl need shallow w-ater. When filled with water, your dugout should be no more than 5 feet deep. In mid-summer, much of your dugout should be less than 3 feet in depth. Your pond should generally have the following depths when it is foil (as in spring): Water Depth 0 to 1 loot 1 to 3 feet :) to 5 feet Pet. of Pond at this Depth 5 to 15 40 to 70 25 to 40 Likelv Result CattaiLs/emergent vegetation, usually dry by July. Mixed cmcigent vegetation and open water, dry in droucht. Mostly open water, drv in severe drought. If you are constructing a dugout in cattail-choked wetlands, you will ni)t be able to achieve the above depths. In these cases, the slopes of your dugout will have to be fairly steep. This is okay as these dugouts will function mostivas territorial sites, and mav not be heavily used for feeding. Maximum depth still should not exceed 5 feet. In mineral soils, steep slopes prohibit growth ofdesirable vegetation, encourage erosion, and reduce waterfowl use. As much as possible, grade the slopes of your basin at a 3:1 (steep) to 10:1 (flat) ratio. Flatter slopes are better, which is not the same as a flat bottom. , - ‘ * - ( Figure I. Topographic diagram of a good basin design; this design emphasizes shallow slopes and depths (each line represents one foot of depth), and good shorelinefeatures. Adjacent uplands are seeded to native grasses. A pond bottom with variable depths (i.c., an undulat- ingbouuMi' is very desirable. This allows an intersper- sion ol veget.ition and open water which is very attractive to » Tcrfowl. .Some biologists prefer to construct dugouts with one deep side to ensure water availability and allow for viewing of waterfowl. Figure 1 show's an example of a good basin design from the perspective of slopes and depths. 3. SIZE. W'aterfowl use .ill sizes of wetland, but usually, bigger is better. In building your pond for waterfowl you should consider a minimum size of 2500 square feet (equal to a square with 50 foot long sides). Larger, irregularly shaped ponds are preferred, however costs get quite high. 4. SHORELINE FEATURES. A pond with a shore line which is irregular, and has many points and bays, is more attractive to waterfowl than a dugout with a straight shoreline. Flan your dugout to have as much shoreline as possible, as in figure 1. c . V. . . V • V >• .A i *t M ( 4P ( y. NUMBER .\ND DISTRIBUTION. As explained above, your dugout should be near an existing shallow marsh for brood-rearing purposes. If you have ad equate space and funding, you can consider digging more than one dugout. In general, two closely-spaced small dugouts will receive more use than one larger dugout. If you construct more than one pond, space them about 100 to 300 feet apart. Ponds can be closer if tall vegetation screens the ponds from each other (breeding ducks are territorial and won’t tolerate oth ers of the same species if the\’ can see them). 6. ISLANDS. Dugouts less than two acres are too small to include an island. As an alternative vou can use nest baskets, boxes or floating rafts for nesting. A floating log. anchored in place, provides an excellent site for waterfowl and turtle loafing. See our brochure entitled “iArtificial Structures for W aterfowl.” 7. SPOIL. Excavating a pond means you end up with a lot of soil removed from the dugout: this is called “spoil.” Spoil must be carefully dealt with to optimize waterfowl use. In peat soils and cattail-choked wet lands, you should remove the spoil from the wetland if at all possible. zVgain, check with the appropriate agencies (see list at end) to determine if you need a permit. In mineral soils, the top 6"-1 2" will probably be black topsoil, high in organic matter. This should be saved separately for later spreading over the excavated bot tom. The underlying nonorganic soils (clays, sands, etc.) should be moved to an upland site and spread evenly. It is important that this material be removed from the wetland basin and not piled adjacent the dugout. The edge of the dugout should not have a discernible “rim”; that is. the slope should be continu ous below and above the water surface, as shown in the cross-section in figure 2. Finally, all disturbed uplands and spread spoil should be seeded to native grasses for a minimum of 1 SO feet around the dugout. This will provide w aterfowl cover, minimize weed growth, and prevent sedimentation within the basin. Providing 4 acres of upland nesting cover for each acre of wetland is best for duck produc tion. Do not plant trees near your dugout; these ser\e as predator perches and dens, and will reduce water- fowl use. Use nest boxes to attract wood ducks. Remember to get any necessars' permits before vou start digging! 8. FINAL TRFAT.MENT. Theclavand sand under- lying most mineral soils arc vcr>- sterile and won’t support plant growth. In order to establish a food chain in your dugout, you must provide an organic base. This can be accomplished by spreau.ng 4"-6" of black topsoil over the entire excavated area. 7 his can be the topsoil you originally removed (and stockpiled) from the site when you started digging. zVnother technique is to spread 2"-6 ” of clean upland hay over the excavated surface (wild hay can spread noxious weeds). Both can be used simultaneously. Once covered with water, either of these bases will quickly allow vegetation and insects to grow, providing the building blocks for a desirable marsh. Don’t worry about planting aquatic plants in your basin - they will establish themselves naturally in time, given a suitable site. 20 Feet . • .. . ^ I. .- f.;. Figure 2. Crois-section of pond bottom shotving smooth, f shallow gradt at waterline, and undulating bottom contours. ^ ' .4. » * A . - SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS In general, a bulldozer or scraper is best capable of constructing ponds as they can be fairly precise in “sculpting ” the landscape. A backhoe (power shovel) or excavator can do a good job, and a dragline can produce fair results. The nature of your projea will likely determine to a large degree exactly which equipment is used. If you have a dry site, use a dozer, scraper, or backhoe. If it’s a wet site, a backhoe or dragline must be used. Minimize the disturbance to existing v^etation around your dug- out or you will encourage undesirable weed growth. Blasting with dynamite or ammonium nitrate gives unsatisfactory results, is dangerous, and should not be used. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE Most resource agencies discourage the u^e of dug ponds for waterfowl because of their high cost. However, you may be able to get some further technical or financial assistance. Some county ASCS offices will cost-share construaion costs through the Agricultural Conserva tion Practices (AGP) program. Local SCS or Soil and Water Conservation District offices may be able to provide further technical advice. The DNR Section of 'Xnidlife can give general advice for your area, and should be checked for permit requirements. In forested areas of the state, vxjur DNR forester may be able to provide cost- sharing through the Forest Stewardship Program. Fi nally, local and statewide clubs may oRer cost-share assistance; check with them for specifics. AGENCIES WHICH REGULATE WETLANDS OR PROVIDE TECHNICIAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR WETLAND PROJECTS AGENCY FUNCTION PHONE NUMBER Agricultural Stabilization and Consen-ation Service Regulators' & financial .assistance (612) 290-3651 Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory (612) 220-0375 DNR - Forestry Technical & financial .issistancc (612) 296-4491 DNR - Wildlife Technical assistance (612) 296-3344 DNR - Waters Regulator)'(612) 296-4800 i Soil Conservation Serv ice Technical assistance (612) 290-3675 (' r t V • _ C 1992. State ot Minnevna. Depanroent of NaruraJ Roourua. %^ 9 Printed on recycled p4per*‘ . • ' i ( C • ! COUNCIL MSTING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 4,1995 DEC 1 1 1995 ITEM NO.: / j Department Approval; NaBM Michael P. GafTron Tide Asst. Planning &. Zoning Administrator Administrator Revieised:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2089 Richard Miller, 4520 Waterto\vn Road - Variances • Resolution Zoning District: RR-1 A, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acres. Application: Request for lot area and width variances for construction of a single family residence on this vacant parcel. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Planning Commission Minutes 11/20 95 C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 11/28/95 D - Memo and Exhibits of 11/14/95 E - Septic System .Approval by On-Site Manager 11/17/95 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of November 14th. Briefly, applicant has owned this vacant parcel in single separate ownership for more than twenty years. He purchased the property prior to the 5 acre zoning. The property contains 6.5 acres gross area, of which 3.6 acres is dry buildable and 2.9 acres is wetland. Existing lot width is 287.56’ as compared to the 300' width requirement for the RR-1 A District. Planning Commission Recommendation Planninu Commission re\ ievved this application on November 20th and recommended approval on a vote of 5-0. based on a number of findings: • The parcel would have been buildable without variances at the time the applicant purchased it in 1972. • Applicant has demonstrated that suitable primary and alternate sites for an on-site sewage treatment system exist on the property. • A single family residence can be constructed on the property meeting the required lot line, wetland and drainfield setbacks. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 December 4, 1995 Zoning File #2089 • Construction of a single family residence on the propert>’ \niI1 be in keeping with the rural nature of the neighborhood. • The buildable envelope of approximately I40'x400* provides ample area for construction of a single family residence. dn\ eway (already constructed), and on-site sewage treatment systems without impacting neighboring properties. It was noted by staff that the 5 acre zoning became effective in 1975 at the request ot residents in the northwest comer of Orono, who wished to preserve the rural nature of the area. No members ot the public were present at the meeting to comment, and no public comments have been received regarding this variance request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances per the Planning Commission recommendation, subject to no other variances being granted. Options for Action 1 . Approval per attached resolution. 2. Table for additional infomiation. 3. Conceptual denial (specify reasons). 4.Other. , seconded by to adopt Resolution UProposed Motion: Moved by . granting lot area and width variances for construction of a single family residence on property owned by Richard O. Miller at 4520 Watertown Road. Vote:aves.navs. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.27. SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE ^^2089 WHEREAS, Richard O. Miller (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 4520 Watertown Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: The East one-half of the West three-eighths of the East onc-half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian. Ivinc north ol the W'atertowTi Road. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (Q) to permit the construction of a single family residence on a lot containing 3.6 acres dry buildable area where 5 acres of dry buildable area is normally required, and lot width 287.56 ’ where a lot width of 300.0’ is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 3. 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2089. 2. Tire propertv’ is located in the RR-IA, Zoning District, requiring 5.0 acres of dr>’ buildable area and 300’ of width for a building site. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 20, 1995, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: Pace 1 of 5 I* 4. A- The parcel would have been buildable without variances at the time the applicant purchased it in 1972. B. Applicant has demonstrated that suitable primarv' and alternate sites for an on-site sewage treatment system exist on the property. C. A single family residence can be constructed on the property meeting the required lot line, wetland and draintield setbacks. D. Construction of a single tamily residence on the property will be in keeping with the rural nature ot the neighborhood. E. The buildable envelope of approximately 140'x400' provides ample area for construction of a single family residence, driveway (already constructed), and on-site sewage treatment systems without impacting neighboring properties. 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 etYcct of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; tliat granting the variance would not adversely aiTeci traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preser\e a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and mtent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 1. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27. Subdivision 5 (B) to permit construction of a single family residence on a lot containing 3.6 acres dry buildable area where 5.0 acres of dr\ buildable area is normally required, and said lot having width of 287.56 ’ where lot width ot 300' is normally required, subject to the following conditions: Applicant shall protect the tested and approved on-site sewage treatment system drainfield sites from any trafTic or disruption which could render them unusable. No variances other than lot area and lot width will be granted for this propert>\ Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will e.xpire on that date (December 11, 1996). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby acrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. 2. 3. 4. 5. Page 3 of 5 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this lllh day of December, 1995 ATTEST: Dorothy M. Haliin, 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 11th day of December. 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 e.xecuted on behalf of the City. Notarv Public Page 4 of 5 r 'h. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____, 199 before me a Notar>- Public within and for said county, personally appeared ______________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing insirument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____, 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared ____________________________^----------------- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared----------------------------------------------------------------- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#12 - #2087 Minnegasco - Continued) There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Hatvn seconded, to approve Application «087 as V condton that if the lease if not renetved. the vaporizer could not remam^ “ '5 the lease with the landowner is being renewed on a year-by-v ear basis, o •. Nays 0. (#13) #20*9 RICHARD MILLER. 4520 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING -11:07-11:15 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidaxi: of Publication were noted The Applicant was present. Gartron repotted that the application is for lot area and width variances for the existing lot SinTeTacre zone The property conststs of 30 acre dry 2 9 acre wed^ a total of 6 5 acres. A 28»/o lot area variances would be required. The width parallel the front lot width is 4»'o short at 287* where 300' is required. Gafifron noted the ? acre zoning was created in 1975 when a majonty of the residents indicated they * acre zoning to maintain the large lot sizes. Gaflfon said there are very few small vacant lots in this zone The property in question of 3-1/2 acres is unique according to Gaffron. It has not been built on MiUer has owned the property since 1972 The buildable envelope requ.res a IW front setback, a 50’ side setback, and 26' setback from any wetlands. The dmeway would come from CoRd 6 Septic testing has been done, and a site is available for a 5 bedroom home. Gatfron pointed out the likely building site. Gaffron questioned if the City does not grant the variances, does the owner have any reasonable use of the propeny. He noted that the assessor has given the propeny a lower value compared to buildable lots Miller has paid S5.000 m ta.xes over *.0 years. r-qffrnn asked if constructine a residence on this 3-1/2 acres dry buildable (6.5 acre total) bttould change the characier of the neighborhood, Gaffron consented that when the owner bought the property, the property conformed to the wde of 1 acre zoning. Miller noted he is considering building on or selling the lot, and when the vanance is approved, may cause the taxes to increase. rcerson commented that the codes do change but noted the uniqueness of this property. Miller said the homes and lots going towards CoRd 6 and Hwy 12 from his property are smaller. i • - - W. . I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20. 1995 (#13 - #2089 Richard Miller - Continued) There were no public comments. Lindquist moved. Hawn seconded, to approve .\ppUcation «0S9 with the hardships listed and with noting the zoning at the time of purchase. Vote Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#14) #2091 BURTON SCOTT BALL, 1065 FERND.ALE ROAD WEST- VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARLNG - 11:15-11:25 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit ot Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffi-on reported that the existing residence is mainly located within the ' 5’ zone wath a deck on the lakeside. There is also a 4' overhang on the house Gafiron s|ud the request for a bav window above the deck and under the overhang but within the 4 ot the overhang at 3’. This application would involve the expansion of one bay window and the addition ot two more. Gaffron commented that the hardcover is significant on this propetty. The proposal could increase the encroachment to the lakeside by 3' The west end is 47 from the lake^ At midpoint, the residence is 51 5' trom the lake. On the east end. the residenee ,s 4a from the lake Hardcover e.cists in the 0-75' zone at 36 814. 41 dl b ,n the 75-250 “"e. “<• conforms in the 250-500' zone at 13.6%. The overall hardcover exists at j6. I /o. The DNTI recommends hardcover for an entire property at 25® o. Gaffron noted that the tennis coun located in the driveway has appeared since 1991. In comparison with a survey submitted by the previous owner for a previous application, the drivetvay and court have e.xpanded. He noted the rock and plastic along the house but commented that it is narrower in width than the 4’ overhang but still considered hardcover. Gaffron brought two questions before the Planning Commissioners for their consideration Should the bay windows be approved allowing a fimher encroachment of 3’ and should approval be tied to the hardcover. Peterson commented that there was the perception of more encroachment but was nm realiv closer when considenng the overhang Gaffron suggested that the bulk ot the house wasuetting closer to the lake, and the proposal did add more structure m the 0-75 zone. While the Overhang was more of an encro.achment, the addition to the bulk requires for need for the variances. '1 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-'/357 ZONING FILE #2089 NOTICE OF PLANNING COM>nSSION action DATE OF NOTICE; 11/28/95 TO:Richard O. Miller 2290 Brewster St. Paul, MN 55108 COPIES TO; TYPE OF APPLICATION:Varianccc DATE OF MEETING: 11/20/95 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: If vou desire certified copies of the officiol Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. /J To: from: IDate: Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaf&on, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator November 14. 1995 Subject: #2089 Richard O. Miller, "4520" Watertown Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IA, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 Acres Application; Request for lot area and width variances for consuuction of a single family residence on this vacant parcel. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners' List D - Survey E - Topographic Map F - Siaff Sketch G - Septic Sites Depiction H - Tax Valuation Histoiy I - Five Acre Zone Map Pertinent C'nde Sections 1. Section 10 27, S ibd. 5 (B): Lot arer .equired = 5 acres, lot width required = 300'. 2. Section 10.02 - Definition of lot area/'Section 10.55. Subd. 15 (A) (Flood Plain and Wetlands Management Ordinance); Wetland areas not creditable as lot area in unsewered zones. Pertinent Facts 1.Lot area:Dty buildable Wetland I'otal 3.6 Ac 2.0 Ac 6.5 Ac Required diy buildable = 5.0 Ac (2 Ac contiguous) Variance =1.4 Ac or 28% Zoning File #2089 November 14,1995 Page 2 2. Lot width: (measured parallel to front lot line per Code definition) Existing width: 287.56' Required: 300.'^' Variance: 12.44* or 4.1% (Functional width is about ?43' measured perpendicular to side lot lines) 3. Required setbacks: (see E.xhibit F) Front: 100* Sides: 50' Wetland: 26 ’ (Buildable envelope is about 140' x 400 ’) 4. Parcel valuation for ta.x purposes has been relatively low (S8400 lor the last live years) as compared to land valuations for similar nearby developed parcels, suggesting that the City Assessor has not valued this as a building site. Taxes on the parcel have averaged around $300 per year over the last ten years. 5. Applicant notes the parcel was purchased in 1972, although the tax records don I reflect a change in ov.Tiership until 1977. 6. Zoning: This area of Orono was first zoned in 1957 as the "Residual Zoning District", desicnated as private residential with no limitations on lot size or wndth. Subsequent Code amendments required a minimum lot size of one acre/140 ’ width. In 1967, this area of northwest Orono was rezoned as "R-IC". Single Family Residential. I acre miiiimum lot size. In 1975, the area was again rezoned and became part of the "RR- l.\" Simzie Family Rural Residential District requiring a minimum of 5 acres in area. 7. Ihe Zoning Code requires that a buildable property in the 5 acre zone contain 5 acres of dry buildable land, of which at least 2.0 acres must be contiguous with tlic building site. In the current application we are dealing with a single contiguous dry buildable parcel of 3.6 acres, with an additional 2.9 acres of wetland to the north of it. Septic System Considerations The Orono On-Site Sewage Treatment Code. Section 12.30, Subd. 4 (F) requires that no building permit shall '.c issued for any new building which will be connected to a new on-site system until the Site Evaluation Report and System Design Specifications as required by the MPCA Regulations Chapter 7080 and the City Code have been reviewed and approved. The applicant's site evaluator hits been working with Septic System Inspector Steve Weekman in Zoning File ^^2089 November 14, 1995 Page 3 attempting to define suitable drainfield sites on the prop)crty. It appears that suitable sites are feasible in the locations shown on Exhibit G. one site on either side of the driveway (the driveway was constructed by the applicant in early 1980's). As of this writing, a complete Septic System Site Evaluation and Design Report has not been received from the applicant's site evaluator. Buildablc Envelope With 50’ side, 100’ front and 26’ wetland setbacks, the buildabie envelope for this site is approximatelv 60,000 s.f., certainly large enough to accommodate a single family residence. Tl\e probable building site is in the northern half of the dr\- buildabie area, approximately vv.here the driveway fill ends. .\ny building site in the south half of ihe lot may conflict with septic sites. Five Acre Zone Standards/Philosophy In 1975. the City Council agreed to a rezoning of the northwest quadrant of the City to require a lot area minirnum of 5 acres per building site. This rezoning was a response to the many property owners in that area who wished to preserve the open space character ot nortliwest Orono. The RR-IA zone contains approximately 1330 acres (13% of the total land area in Orono). of which approximately 290 acres is wetland. This vacant substandard lot in single separate ownership is quite unique in the 5 acre zone. It is one of the few remaining vacant substandard IMS in singk owner ship in the 5 acre zone which remains to be developed. It has good access o;..o Watertown Road, and construction of a residence on the property appears quite feasible subject to confirmation that septic sites are available. Issues for Consideration 1.Mas adequate hardship been demonstrated to justify granting the lot area and width variances? 2. If the property was not granted buildabiliw, what other uses does it have to the property owner ; 3. Will development of a single family residence on this property change the character of the neighborhood? 4. Does Planning Commission have any other issues to be considered? Zoning File #2089 November 14,1995 Page 4 Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission concludes that the hardships noted by the applicant or other hardships determined by the Planning Commission provide sullicicnt justification for granting ot the lot width and area variances, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Such approval should be conditioned on final confirmation by the Septic System Inspector that suitable {»i;nary and alternate drainfield sites arc available. Options for Action 1.Approval. Table for additional information.A r 4^AI- .. 3.Denial (specify reasons).1 , \ 4. Isv Other. / c (. V- ,o <»aio 'ii CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE AFPLICATIOIi Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) I ■ Renewal Variance Fee $1(X).00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY ESTORMATION Site Address ^ S"^0 A Zc/g./^ >4 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)__3_Z_ri^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date ProBCfiy Acquned ______^ -------------------------------- I (do) /do nq^ also o .vn the adjacent parcels of land. .y _ Present use of property: __r«idential ------other (speci.)------ Zoning District: /? ^ / ^ ------------------------------- (month''year) Address: .---- Phone iTiome)z. ^ Phone (work) zipxrLg-S OW*NER (^different ttian^p^icant)^ Name Address: If Phono home) ^ ^ ^— Phone (work) ^----— description OF REQUEST BtimriiedC^tructioDCostS, Desenbe request indetail: —L—----------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARL4Np:S REQURED .Area _ Setback: Lot Width Front __Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coveiage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) • • • i . II V oncHTP/DESCRlI'TION OF L’NUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS '"rent undu! ha.dsh.p or pracuca, d,mc^.y or o„p,Iance w.rS Zo.^. ^ f I ^ I-Op ^ I'O- REQUIRED SUBMlTT^j^ ^7 ---- All of tht follnwing informatioii must be submittfhv the applicatioT^deadjine date IB order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 5. 6. of owners w.OUn ,50'. UOe.s and p,a. n.ap O ou must Obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department ot Finance, .\-60a. Qtvt Center, 34S-3271). a • i a K,rHr*r«v(»r 3. t/cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include harico ■^calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8A x 11 fo survev (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade Sketches or plans of tloor & elevation views (provide one (1) copv 8/2 x I List of the I^sal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in ----oroperty. This would include name(s) of applicam(s) if not current owncr(s). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list ot any other pers vou wish notified of this application, g. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vqui is'^oi complete if the. nho.vHaitenMmJ!^^ provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Adminfstrator agrees to pav additional fees (staff lime not covered by origmal fee and/or consultant e.xpenses inem^ in raview of this application and ccmties tha Wdrmation supplied is tnjrZj^r^^t^^bes. of his/her ' DateApplicant’s Signature OW>'ER’S SICaNATL'RE application and fiinher authorizes reasonable rpr^pe"f.:^X^^^^^ agents conumss,on members, and Council members for purposes aijii/cnu m Date ^ _ Owner’s Signature --------- u 11 .hmrn-ii*; into the City offices 25 davs before the Planning Commission Applicant must have an s Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Meeting Planning * ‘ all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission Applicants must be p ^ scheduled meeting, please make arrangements p-= this change prior to the meetmg. \ ^ 8 i . m-r ■ •tnuf BATt j9^7/n i > t iKMinN coNTY PRoi>Eimr xM^tmanoN systemPIUKRTY OMCRS LISTM M*US-n S« OMl: ABMfSS UHASSXGNED >y-m KXf A NfiaON K RIP MELSON /AOBRr ABM NATEKTIMI M f V MAPU PUON m BBSI9 ■ »I^ •* V^ .5-.. k •-ist Sl-lU-ES El 0003 M • vOASM NATElrrOMI AO OMCR NMC jirllXP A NELSON >TA)(PAYEII^rA> KXP A NELBON NWOAOOIII *ASM NATERTdHN ROAD ■ i .4.34 ^PROP AOOi .-kk. i^ONNER NAME!i. >4|i,i., ■' •' iM,TAXPAYER fTBTAL BATCH !AOOR if}-^^ SOI 00004 •* ,P ' 4 \.1 hVt^ K’- '" % • W ♦ ’ ■^Se^W^ ■■ ■ -2‘ * j’. 4'‘■* ■■ ■' ■ ^ ■ "^5^^ J v,,-- * . -.tw 1.V ‘' \-v •fv;.^■^. t'^•v -rv, i."' ' V. « V •' i-;;ify '.‘S. .V .,.. ,,, . r !,- ■ .' - vfZ -'-■ 30 31-118-ES El 0001 04490 HATEATOMI AO KENNETH tUMHAH ETAL KEftCTH t KATHAYN TURMUm 4490 NATEATQM4 ROAD HAPLE PLAIN rt« B5SS9 30 S1-118-E3 E4 0004 04545 NATERTOHI M J L A M A OROLL JCFP OROLL P 0 Box 304 MAVEALY MN 55390 REPORT NO. PAGE30 31-118-23 n 000200038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO RICHARD 0 MILLER RICHARD O MILLER 2240 ORENSTER ST PAIR. »ti 55100 SO 31-118-23 24 0004 0440S HATERTOMI RD J F SERENA 4 J H SERENA JOHN F • JOAN M SERENA 4405 MATERTONN RO MAPLE PLAIN W4 553S4 Pi4S54011 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCIWATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION kr INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEF’.tPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY Kti .(LEDGE AND BELIEF. . • fi'v), ;.,s' !,-S ' f > k 1. ' Vjl'^ ■f{-*w V'. 'h}' .»•,:fe ':-;0 ■ I Hfr . • s. > il' :P lO ' ■ .itii*-*.': ;i-ud|/b" m\^k *!'■. nL->. ; O^ 'i’.' i xtV'-.i 4 . . I ••• • Ctriificata of Sunrty for Elchard 0. Miller of part of the Norttonst 1/h of Section 31-118-23 r-rs ■■I /me ^ 0Vy^i^ ef .//-//#j £0t^ '/i '>V # f Wi7^ iejf */i •4‘Uest 0l £mS*^ ' X 'Z-p A/9J '/ir J'ec ^ ‘/”i/ ^ >o % s. \ y> y ItJaroynd loco Hid 10 tS-^S ** (3.4 t TJ A/ *fr Ce^fr eA Secf*O0 ---------a^ ^ . ».> 9/f.3f of '> e* A/UJ \S 3/- '9-2} Q» v; e> t! % % a. % I hereby certiiy that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the hast half of the Vi'est 3/8 of the hast half of tAe Northwest quarter of Section 31, Townshi. 110 North, Range ?3 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying North of tne Watertown Road, and the location of all existing buildings, if any, thereon. It does not purport to show other iaprovements or en- croachsients. For purposes of this survey, the "West 3/0 of the bast half of the Northwest quarter" has been assuced to be that part of said East half of the Northwest quarter lying ' West of a line drawn from a point on the North line thereof distant 3/8 of the distance East from the Northwest corner of said East half of the Northwest quarter to the Northeast comer of said East half of the Northwest quarter, to a point on the South line thereof distant 3/0 of the distance East from the • Southwest corner of said East half of the Northwest quarter to the Southeast corner of said East half of the Northwest quarter. GORDON R. COFFIN CO., INC. 1" . 200' U-21-03 £d^eo(l^wjrsundadded!03$ Iron marker Cordon R. Coffin Reg. wo. oOou Mark S. Gronberg Reg. No.12755 Land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, Minnesota *. • > <> I" /oo H #2089 Richard Miller 4520 Watertown Road Tax Valuation History PINS #31-118-23 21 iitli Plat/Parcel 41331-3910 Xsai 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 22 Years T anti Valuation Taxes $2,200 2,200 2.400 2,900 3,200 3.500 3,700 5,000 5.000 6.500 6,500 6.500 6.500 8.000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8.400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 $ 97.20 105.96 104.08 115.94 125.58 132.28 154.52 170.34 184.76 251.54 267.20 258.20 279.58 332.82 355.30 392.36 383.58 429.54 458.90 265.54 243.36 243.36 $5,300 approx (City has tax records only for period 1974-1975) • • TO: FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Building and Zoning Administration Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systerns Manager November 17, 1995 SUBJECT: Variance application #2089, R'chard Miller - Septic Review The applicant proposes a new residence on a vacant lot requiring the use of on-site septic systems. Soil testing has been provided by Don's Backhoe and Excavating indicating primary arid alternate sites exist for a five bedroom residence. Review of the soil testing has been completed and proposed drainfield sites meet all City and State Codes. Both drianfield sites are located on slopes less than six percent and meet '.ll hardcover and lot line setbacks. Soil mottling indicates a seasonal water table at depths between 12 and 36 inches resulting in the use of "mound" drainfields. Based on the soil testing, I would recommend approval of the application. ItW- il.vr •- • <T ‘. -*.v ii f ^* ’ • « r 1^ rj.. .-l'V' " . • -K' ll‘l, ■■m • • ' ••» ir'¥**m' ^ ~ r » •* jt- if"^ ^ TT'**. - "T" V"'^ ' A^' •♦' V > .* - • ^4\‘. ^nrl-Cl"-’-^ /- .*- * iT • ^p “*, ^% A ^ -<•m tX '‘•X * ■<r'.\ I v'^ii'k'* * i <• » ✓ I r»l!®; t A *1 ,* .* ,^> * iLry^rv -. ....^ •-Tjf .• • §1^ .v>' \ .; ,''r" -' < •fr:j;vf? r ■ •■'-• ';V‘K.“'s<- •■' ^ *r*-•**'^‘ . <'-c..;-:,' --'rf ■ .'.' .-'.f :-/;77.~ '('• / • i . * }► A* ' <•-. . ~^ - ■:^r^ .yT.r*^'^• .< /• •, ">'-**j«ii I * ->*• i y^ % • iP .rr jls • * ;> '•‘A X ♦. V rv-j • *; »'i» -. 7 ■ * r«^ 1^ ;v r>n t u. ♦ 1 -...' yj' ^*'-5S# «a?j .V-.'!^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DEC 1 1 1995 DATE; December 5, 1995 / ITEM NO.;/5 Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Adminismitor Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2092 Dennis Platieter, 809 Brown Road North - Preliminarv- Subdivision Resolution Zoning District: RR-IB Total area = 5.64 acres (exclusive of right-ot-way of North Brown Road and Dickey Lake) Brief Review of Application Please refer to the enclosed staff memo dated November 16, 1995 and the minutes ot the Planning Commission meeting of November 20th for more background and detail on this review. The applicant submitted a sketch plan of three lots at the August 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had to recommend against the division because of the need to grant lot standard variances for the creation of new lots. Applicant has filed a fomial subdivision application of two lots (back lot/front lot). Lot 1, the western lot, meets 150% of all required standards. Review Exhibit G. Lot I’s building envelope is defined by the street or east lot line setback at 75 ’ and the side setbacks 45 ’. Lot 2’s building envelope mu.st also be redesignated sht»wing a 50 ’ setback along Outlot A, the drivewav outlot. and the west or rear lot line. m Applicant has advised that all accessorv' structures will be removed. To be consistent w’ith previous approvals, the City w ill allow one year from the date of Council’s approval of the final plat for the removal ot acces.sor}* structures. Both lots will achieve access via the driveway outlot. If any upgrades of the dri\eway are contemplated in the future, all improvements must be located 10 ’ from the south lot line of Outlot A. Applicant has recently advised staff that all accessory structures will be remo\ ed. 1 he large bam at 2 100 s.f. is currently being dismantled for removal to another property. The pool will also go. As of this date, applicant is not certain w hether the house is to be removed. Staff would advise that at the time of final plat approval if applicant advises the house is to remain, then lot line should be adjusted so that structure meets 75 ’ setback from east line of Lot 1. Hiere would also be a need to SiT'ailf ' IV Request for Council Action coniinued page 2 of 2 December 5, 1995 Zoning File #2092 address a side setback variance for the slight encroachment of the existing residence into required 45 ’ side setback at the south lot line. Septic testing has been approved by the on-site septic manager. Septic testing confirms there is adequate and suitable area for the installation of mounds at slopes of 6% or less. At the Park Commission's meeting of December 4. 1995. they voted to acquire a fee payment in lieu of a park dedication. The assessor will be asked to determine the fair market \alue of the 2 acre mral lot. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the two lot subdivision application finding all standards of pertinent ordinances of the subdivision regulations and on-site septic code and zoning code have been satisfied. As accessory structures are to be removed, there is no need to address the issue of variances. At the time of final plat approval, status of the principal residence on proposed Lot 1 must be resolved. If structure remains, lot line must be adjusted so that a 75 ’ setback can be achieved from the cast lot line and City will grant 3' encroachment of south side yard. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation and includes City's understanding concerning the removal of the accessoiy structures on the property and need to resolve the status of the principal structure on Lot 1. COU.NCIL ACTION REQL E.STED; To either amend or approve the enclosed approval resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PLAT AT 809 BROWN ROAD NORTH FOR DENNIS PLATTETER - FILE NO. 2092 WHEREAS, Dennis L. Plaiteter on October 27, 1995, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a uvo lot residential plat of property legally described as: The South 354.75 feet of the East 990 feet, e.xcept the North 150 feet of the East 323.4 feet thereof, of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 118 North. Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, (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, platting and on-site septic codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 20. 1995, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on December 11. 1995. the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Dennis L. Platteter 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 2 acres of diy contiguous buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 5.64 acres, all of w hich is considered drv' buildable. j. 4. The proposed plat contains two lots each meeting or exceeding the 2 acre minimum lot area requirement. The property is located in the Shoreland Overlay District. Lot 1 is a lakeshore lot contiguous with Dickey Lake, a natural environment lake. Lot 1 meets the required 200' width at the OHWL, 985.5 elevation, of Dickey Lake and at tlic 150' building setback line. Page 1 of4 5.Lot 2 is 155’ in width to the rear of the street setback line measured from Brown Road North. The code w ould require 200' of width and as a result access to Lot 2 shall be via private driveway outlet. 6. The oversized accessoiy structure at 2.1 00 s.f. on proposed Lot 2 shall be removed along with all other accessory structures (i.e. pool, shed, etc.). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLN ED, that based upon either one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminarv plat for Dennis L. Platteter for the property located at 809 Brown Road North per the sur\ ey dated 11-15- 95, by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1, If the existing principal structure is to remain on Lot 1, north/south lot line shall be adiusted so that structure meets required 75' setback from east lot line. 2. Approval of the 2 lot plat and the lot lines as shown is based on the removal of all existing accessory' structures on both Lots 1 and 2. j.Prior to the removal or demolition of accessory structures and new residential construction, future owners shall be responsible for staking and protecting septic test sites. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to tlie regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: 1. Record plat draw ings 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 sur\ey by Mark S. Gronberg dated 11-15- 95. Page 2 cf4 B Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines (not to be designated at shoreline of Dickey Lake) and 5 each side of internal property ’ lines. Portions of lot located below 985.5 at northwest comer to be designated as Dickey Lake. Applicant's sur\eyor to determine it a Type 2 or a wetland exists at southvsest comer of property adjacent to shoreline of Lot 1. The City s wetland maps have located a protected area in that portion of the property. If the v\etland exists, it should be located as a drainage easement on the plat. Dedication of 33' of right-of-way of Brown Road North. F. Naming of plat. 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 ot all recorded easements currently affecting the property. Fees to be paid: Total due: !S200.00* ba.sed on 1995 fee schedule A. B. Legal review and filing fees - $200.00 •Park dedication fee to be detemiined upon City Assessor's valuation ot fair ma'-ket value of 2 acre rural lot. Park dedication fee payment is due upon the filing of the final plat and associated documents. Page 3 of 4 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 11th day of December, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin. Citv Cleric Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) TIic foregoing instrument w as acknow ledged before me on this 11 th day of December 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 e.xccuted on behalf of the City. Notarv Public Pace 4 of 4 I LI i >=- ■■ I- 3^To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 16,1995 #2092 Dennis Platteter, 809 Brown Road North - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Application: Applicant proposes a back lot/front lot subdivision of his homestead parcel at approximately 6 acres in area. Due to the more restrictive setback standards for back lot/front lot conligurations, the residence structure and oversized accessor>' structure do not meet required setbacks from proposed lot lines. Zoning District: RR-IB Total lot area = 5.64 acres (exclusive of right-of-way of North Brown Road and Dickey Lake) Pertinent Ordinances 1. 2. 4. Section 10.08. Subdivision 5 - Lot standards for RR-IB Zoning District. Section 10.56 - Shoreland Overlay Disuict. a. b. Subdivision 16 (C) - Required .setbacks for structures and septic systems from the OHWL of the Natural Environment Lake. Required = 150' Proposed septic system and existing structures on Lot 1 meet required lakcshore setback. SubdiN ision 16 (L) - Hardcover restrictions. Both Lots I and 2 will be subject to the hardcover regulations for the Shoreland Overlay District. Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 and Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 - Back lot/front lot standard. A. Lot 1 (back lot) = 3.64 acres (meets 150% of the area requirements of the Zoning District) Required = 3 acres (RR-IB = 2 acres) Proposed = 3.64 acres B.Lot 1 (back lot) lot width requirements for lakeshore lot Required = 200’ 1) AtOHWL 300+’ 2) At 150’ lakeshore setback 400+’ 3) At street setback 350+’ Zoning FUe #2092 November 16,1995 Page 2 5. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C-2) - Oversized accessorv' structure - variances for 2100 s.f. oversized accessory structure on proposed Lot 2. a. Existing = 2100 s.f. Oversized structure allowed footprint = 1200 s.f. a. Required setback = 50’ (rear lot line of Lc '*) Existing = 29’ Variance = 21’ or 42% b. c. Setback vaiiance for existing principal structure on proposed Lot 1 Required for side setback on back lot = 45' Existing = 40’ Variance = 5’ or 11.11% Front'street setback variance for residence structure on proposed Lot 1 Required = 75’ Existing = 30’ Variance = 45’ or 60% List of Exhibits A - B • C - D - E • F - G - Discussion Application Plat Map Property Owners' List DNR Letter 8/21/95 Wetlands Map Preliminary Plat Staff Sketch/Required Setbacks for Back Lot/Front Lot Based on Planning Commission’s directives to applicant at their August, 1995 meeting, applicant has submitted a formal subdivision application proposing a back lot/front lot division of his homestead parcel at 5.64 acres. Refer to Exhibit G, side and rear lot lines of the front lot. Lot 2, must be changed to 50’. Side and street setback of the back lot must also be changed, the sides to 45’ and the street setback to 75’. During the sketch plan review, applicant advised that the residence structure and oversized accessory sUucmre were to be moved from the property. The existing structures do not meet required setbacks from the proposed division line. Applicant should advise as to the status of the structures. If they are to be removed, there is no issue. If they are to remain, will vou grant setback variances? Based on the location of the bam in relation to the house, it wouid be impossible to gerrymander lot line in order to meet the required setback. Applicant should also comment as to the status of the pool. How long should pool be allowed to remain without a principal stmeture? Zoning FUc #2092 November 16,1995 Page 3 As Lot 2 docs not meet the required lot width at Brown Road at 200' to the rear of the street setback line. Lot 2 will be required to access via the drivewuy outlet along the south lot line. Note outlet has been expanded to 50' at the east end to include existing drive. Septic testing has been completed. All four mound sites will be placed on slopes at 6% or less. Note proposed septic sites on the lakeshore lot meet the required 150' setback from the OHWL of Dickey Lake at 985.5. Staff Recommendation To approve the back lot/front lot subdivision application of Dennis Platteter finding all pertinent standards of the Subdivision Regulations. Zoning and Septic Codes have been satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. Status of e.xisting structures (residence structure, pool and oversized accessory structure) within proposed Lots 1 and 2. Establish deadline for removal. If structures are not to be removed, will setback variances be granted ? Designation of Dickey Lake at 985.5. Applicant's surveyor to confirm location of Type 3 w etland at southwest comer of property adjacent to lakeshore. The wetland area should be designated as drainage easements on the final plat. Dedication of drainage and utility easements along exterior lot lines and 5' along all internal lot lines. 4. Dedication of 33’ of right-of-way for Brown Road, 5. Others recommended by Planning Commission. h I O* • \CITY OF ORONO - SXJBDIVISION APPLICATI^I^ .; PROPERTY LOCATIW < /. M 'Rwh-On ^ Property Ideamanra Number jorrtS? ^ Please check one - Propcrcy —^- - Attach legal description to apclicauon. :rs I'O City Phnnethome) ip.cr^'^Pht^t^e (work) 0^^'NER (ii dinerent dun applicant) N'aine Address City------------------^ (attach list if more than one) Phone ihcme) Phene (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / £?.“i4^ Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) -— / ,-rrv U • • PROPOSAL - - ^\ -r, * * " . - ^SSnly (uo CU..V build.iug sites) Subdivision for New Building Situs / _ Existing Umts New Units Total Units i • • * ■ J, t- wfVw .'V^ V W • • V' ri-rru u .* .1.1.1% /r'“-• -• Number of Building Sites •i i / Proposed Gross Densir/ Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) / Units per^-^ Acres ^ Ft. Dry Buildable Lund ^ ^Vl^'^ ResidentialResidential Other (specify) FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPUCATION kes* listed below. MlNlMLl^f MATERIAL REQl 1. Pajrment of fees (refer to *appli( 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliimnary piat information on Cemficaie of Survey. ■ ^ r- 4. Certified Property Owners List of ownen witliifl 350’ (you must obuia tliis list from Henccpm County Department of Fmaoce A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). . 5. As an to this appiicauon, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notined of this applicauon. Zoning Official’s Signature_______________ ______________-— - — MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATK3N 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivisioo Approval resolution and park fees if aspicabie). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers .Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official’s Signamre________________________________________------------------------------------------------------------ L APPLIC.ATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check PQ those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: ^ _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1. II & III) S2C0.00 Ki. _____ Suodivision of a Lot Line Rcarrange.'ne.nt S300.00 Subdivision .Application (Class I ID S300.00 " .. ----;7 ^P.-di m.nnry Subdivision Application 5325.00 + S25.00/Iot (Class III & all non-rcsidenual) . _____ Final Plat Application (Class IID S175.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only S75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. S200.00 Park Fees (to be determmed per Section 11.62) Lezal and Engineering Review Fees (as incorred) . Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application SI50.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class III. Preliminar/ Subdivision Application $150.00 iNo change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application SIOO.OO (No change from original application) Totals lin. ft. .X .50 » S lin. ft. X .50 = $ B. Special Improvement Fees; Proposed Pnvaie Roads S600.00 + S.50/lincal ft.; Proposed Public Roads S900.00 + S.50/lineaI ft.:-------- ---- Request for City to Accept Existing Pnvaie Road 3900^00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer .Main Extension 3^0 00 325/smb " Proposed Watermain Extension S250.00 S25/stub ^ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding ailvens) S2C0.00 On-Site System. Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) S50.C)0/new lot proposed for on-site x _____new lots C. Fle.\ible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variance S200.00 _ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdisnsion S75.(X) PRD Appiicaiion with Subdivision S30.00/DwcUing Unit -cpo The applicant hereby agrees to^pr67pc all iaformatio Anomey, Planning Comi^sion established by ordmancf Applicant's Signarur^^^ Owner's Signature or requested by the Zoning Administrator. City Engineer, City s this application and further agrees to pay additional ees • * A I- cf hivf all subiTjnals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning CoiMiission Applicant m third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the g i 1-i'b !MN MTi ia/U/9f7 5-MTCN BMi^nioB Aom 90MCII NM« 4 TAXPAYER <NAfC/AIMM ^ - ;>>(MCR NAHE ; TAXPAYER . NAIC/AOOR » •.;m-| • IP , pmp AODR ONCR NAHE »• TAXPAYER * * ' NAHE/AOfM14': ' -i- .}•V- - * « .fir- • > r. i PROP AOOR (MCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 'Vi =-.•i ‘ iK • % ‘ 'll t '.■y ir PROP AOOR OI-tCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR .'i '■ PROP AOOR . OlfffR NAHE i .r TAXPAYER rV NAHE/AOOR « »■<- ■; M * j • j* 1*. » -t-. Sa E7-118-2S S3 OOOA OOfOO NILLON OR N LOIS H HATHEHSON LOIS H HATHEHSON 900 NILLOM OR N LONS LAKE HN B535A 5S. 27-110-23 34 0002 0091S BRONN RO N THOHAS N LANE A NIFE thohas h laic 9IS BR(»t4 RO NO LONB LAKE Ml 55354 30 27-110-23 34 0005 00019 OROIM RO N H H CRAY ET AL TRUSTEE HAROLO H gray JR 422 TERRACE RO SAN CARLOS CA 94070 30 27-118-23 43 0014 01925 NEST FARH RO CHARLES L SCHROEOER ET AL CHARLES L SCHROEOER PAMELA FREEMAN SCHROEOER 1925 NEST FARM RO LONG LAKE HN 55354 30 34-110-23 11 0006 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO HARY L STEIL ET AL HARY L STEIL ET AL 744 BROEffI RO N LONG LAKE MN 55354 SO 34-118-23 21 0003 02002 SUGARNOOO DR R L A H H GILL RICHARD GILL 2002 SUGAR HOODS OR LONG LAKE HN 55356 HBfeWli COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PKJPERTY OOCRS LIST38 27-110-23 33 0004w DICKEY LAKE OR►••.KiAN H HOYT HARIAN H HOYT 734 DICKEY LARI OR LONG LAKE m SS354 30 27-110-23 34 0003 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIOCO e A A 6 J JOHNSON GEO JOHNSON 079 N 0R069I RO LONG LAKE Ml 55354 38 27-118-23 34 0004 00809 BRONN RO N OEtAlIS L PLATTETER 0Ett4IS L PLATTETER 809 BROTffI RO N LONG LAKE Ml 55356 38. 27-110-23 43 0022 01990 NEST FARH RO A A H BRACHHAN ARMANO E A HARY A BRACHHAN 1990 HEST Farm ro LONG LAKE Ml 55356 38 34-118-23 12 0002 00740 BROHN RO N SCOTT A MA6USTH ET AL SCOTT A MABUSTH 740 BROMI ROAD NORTH LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-1X8-23 21 0004 02004 SUGARNOOO OR K A J FIGGE KEfA4ETH J FIGGE 2004 SUGARHOOO OR LONG LAKE MN 55354 REPORT NO. PAGE I' 't►-'438 27-118-23 S3 000700744 DICKEY LAKE OR O L PETTIS I A J PETTIS GERALD L A ALICE J PETTIS 744 oicKET Lake or LONG LAKE HN S5S54 38 27-118-23 34 0004 00879 BROMI RO N GEORGE A JOHNSON A NIFE GEORGE A JOHNSON 879 BROMI RO N LONG LAKE Ml 65354 38 27-118-23 43 0013 01995 NEST FARM RO R t PARRISH A C J PARRISH RICHARD L PARRISH 1995 HEST FARH RO LONG LAKE Ml 55354 38 27-11B-2S 43 0024 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO . THE FARH AT LONG LAKE J" THE FARH AT LONO LAKE PTNSHP V’! ■7^ tr .'.'Y* " • • •' • % -4 immA. ' V T-J ^ nr w c/0 TIMOTHY ADAMS 1010 HEST FARM ROAD LONG LAKE Ml 55354 38 34-118-23 12 0005 00744 BROMI RO N T H SCHULTZ! A H L STEIL H L STEIL A T H SCHULTZE 744 BRONN RO N LONO LAKE HN 55354 a -' t -i-. •-'? 'u C • ; I , *.,. ... • V. V 38 34-118-23 21 0005 02004 SUGARNOOO DR S R SCHROLL A T O SCHROLL STEVEN R A TAHELA G SCHROLL 3215 ROSENOOO ik N PLYMOUTH Ml .55441 ■ ■■ - ;«UN MTf lO/tVfllIiUMOP AMm TCMCII NAM TAXPAYCA . . /n CMCII NAHi J: I taxpayca «. I- J f . .^:'r PROP AOOR OMCR NAMi i. TAXPAYER V:.' NAHi/AOOR - >.‘H. .. J* I ^p 7^* . • iM PROP AOOR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR u.-. •\ . i*' « l ■f« ' ■• *1' : - \R-, •. V M' J 0 il * M' 1 ' i I 1 ',u;» >f I •> J : . sa S4-ua-ts 2i oom oaooa sucARMooo oa A J ePAF AHA OPAF AtaiRT J i HAflY ANN «AF tooa suoAR Nooas dr OMNO f#l R5S54 Sa I4-1I8-2S 21 0011 OtOOi SUQARMOOO OR SCOTT LARSON CONST INC SCOTT LARSON CONST INC 15S7S 2L001E U HI»#€T0NRA HN 553<f5 sa S4-118-2S 21 0014 02011* SUGAmOOD DR 0 0 PINT t H J PINT 62RARLD 0 I HAR6ARET J PINT 2011 SU6ARH00D DR ORONO rt4 55SS6 58 S4-118-2S 22 0004 00750 DICKEY LAKE DR J 0 RICK I J H RICK JONATHAN 0 RICK 750 DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE HN B5556 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATIQN SYSTEM PROPERTY QNNERS LIST58 54-118-25 21 000702010 SUOAWDOD DR R HESNRESNER I R NESH8ESNER RONALD I KIMBERLY MESHBESHER 2010 SUGAR MOODS DR MONO m 55554 58 54-118-25 21 0012 02007 SUBARNOOD DR 0 N A N B SXMONOS G NICHOLS A NANNE B SIMONDS 2007 SUGAR MOODS DR LONG LAKE MN 55554 58 54-118-25 21 0028 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SUGAR MOODS HOMEOFtCRS ASSOC SUGAR MOODS HOHECRt^RS ASSOC C/O REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 5525 MEBSTER AYE MPLS MN 55414 TOTAL BATCH 504 00028 REPORT NO. PAGE PI455401 24 \58 54-118-25 21 001002005 SUGAmOOO DR M F G A S M N ASHBY MICHAEL F 0/»JSAN M N ASHBY 2005 SUGARMOOD DR LONG LAKE HN 55554 58 54-118-25 21 0015 02004 SUGARMOOD DR M H KILEEN ATS KILEEN MARY H A THOMAS S KILEEN 5405 NOOOCREST DR EDINA HN 55424 58 54-118-25 21 0050 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIC^O SUGAR MOODS HOMEQItCRS ASSOC: SUGAR MOODS HOMEONNERS ASSOC C/O REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 5525 HEBSTER AYE MPLS MN 55414 J'!?; i-.- I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENFATlON OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HErtffPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. OAT ‘ : ■ it-: ; • 'f: 4 iN‘4^1': -V * M STATf Of ^DEPARTMENT OF %TRO HATERS > 1200 WARNER PHONE NO 772-7910 NATURAL RESOURCES R ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN - -FIUE NO August 21, 1995 Ms. Jeanne L. Stromnen Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Dennis L. Platteter Subdivision Proposal, Dickey Lake (27-161W), City of Orono, Hennepin County Dear Ms. Kabusth: We have reviewed the site plans (received August 18, 1995) for the above-referenced subdivision at 309 North Brown Road (City #2053, Section 27, T118N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Dickey Lake (27-161W) is on the property. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of 986.82' (NGVD, 1929) , which alters the course, current or cross-section of Dickey Lake, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. The applicant and plans should inform prospective lot buyers that the DNR, Army Corps of Engineers Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City Minnetrista have jurisdiction over Dickey Lake. 2. Dickey Lake has a 100-year floodplain. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District should be consulted to ensure that each of the lots will having a building site that is above the 100- year floodplain elevation of Dickey Lake. All the work that is done on these lots must comply with applicable floodplain regulations of both the city and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3.Dickey Lake has a shoreland classification of Natural Environment. The shoreland district of Dickey Lake extends 1000 feet from the OHW. The proposed lots must be consistent with City shoreland management regulations. In particular: a. Each lot must have a building site and, if they are unsewered, sites for two on-site septic systems, that are located outside of the 150' setback from the OHW of Dickey Lake. b. Lotbuyers should be encouraged to screen future structures from view from Dickey Lake using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER th« city. Ms. Jeanne A. Mabustb August 21, 1995 Page 2 lx 4. The following comments are general and apply to the proposed development of all lots: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. C. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, fV. d . /Joe Richter Hydrologist cc; Minnehaha Creek WSD USCOE, Joe Yanta City of Orono Shoreland File Dickey Lake (27-161W) File Orono Floodplain File t • Rosenc Anderlik& ^ 1 Associates Engineers & Architects **. rnmwt>*. f e.* C AfiiMUrt Lienr iiLPi dim t. Co«lt.^f. nwp%« e. N»yei. ^ t. RgttftO IchMwem. >1 *4 iMnirv C> A • * MMT Corttuit JfU December 5,1995 ■■■m «. #f«tfeei«. # i. ilMr^ W P«aMf. Pi 0av««O louetA FI iC^en C futte«. A IA jefvjf A. l•wrODf\ PX A IMnsoA. f t MtchMl T tAUOf»n»> f i A f»e<«l f A. Thomat • Anae^aA. AI A. i»n«t ft. Be te nmeri-e*. P C. TAamai A &>fiia. p I fredettc J tl«i f c*«g f C- ItniMl Marlin^ f ••«. f i T*ho4 v««^ ^ f^tet ion f t 4M«vy Ck f^- tcMi A ri aenxe m f. Awrte r wn. f t Mart* iiaKt. ft. Ma«k A. f I Oary w Morten, ft. ea««i A Cennoo. A LA OanMt J. ea9t<ien. f4. A ••€» KAnwat. f & 0#K A CfOve, ft Fr^ilp J. CekntM, f £ Marao Wawi ee 4iuctft iemen. ML i.. ftwfi^ G* j^ct f £■ Kaitni 'i»enw‘fi ei Gary O K.'ittoru; Kk teoo ft. V^a« f f. OMO^fti A MAM, f ft, W*«nm 0 OMMa#aor\ f C Cacaia Omrer. f ft. Aen« J Urjfner. f ft Paul O Heue» f 4. John f Goroer. Pf. 0«n 0 fte/wnvPft Jeffrey A ihiefinfer. P ft js»ei^ ft ftrvaiii. Pi t«t M. Marm. P ft CneMe-. A Irtcfeson Lee M. Pivytfiuy Hj«i«n M 04wn A^ti M Ring I (o Mr. John Ccr!iardj>on City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Rc: Old Crystal Bay Road SAP 152-102-11 Our File No. 13960 Dear John; CQ'JNCIIWSETING DEC 1 r t-n o‘ ORONO Enclosed please find three i3) signed copies of the 4th and Final Request tor Payment for die ubose referenced project. The project underran the original contract amount by $482.54 or .03%. This work has been satisfactorily completed and we recommend the City accept this project and make final payment. If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, BONEi^T^OyROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCUTES. L\C. Harlan M. Olson HMOab End 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 Z d list 9£9 S19 OQSSV , C0a±S3N0U UOdJ Hdl7d S661-2.0-21 City oC Otoao, P.O. Bo» 66, Bay, MN 3532i September 20,1993 to December 5,1993 Contractor Boftalo Biniminoiu, lac., P.O. Bos 337. Buffalo, MN 55313 Date Dec 3,1993 Kcqnest No. 4 4I( Final REQUEST FOR PAYMENT Munidpjl Slut** Aid Slieet Iniprin'cmtnt Old Cr>st.'»l B.'»y Road ProjetlNo SA.P 152-102 M File No. 13960 SUMMARY 1 Otiginal Contract Amouni 2 Change Order - Addition .3 Change Order - Deduction 4 Revised Contract .Amount 5 Value Completed to D.ntc 6 Material<m Hand 7 Amount liarncd 3 Less Retainage 5% 9 Sub-Total 10 Lejs Amount Paid Previously 11 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 3 $ 4 Final 157,105.00 $1.57,105.00 $156.622.46 $0.00 s 156,622.46 s 0.00 s 156,622.46 $140.937.69 $15,684.77 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROp^ RQSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCLVTES, LNC. Approved by Conlraclor: HUfFAl.O BITUMINOUS, INC Approved by Owner; cn^ OF oUONO, MN SpecilieU Contract Completion DaIci Restoration & cleanup ; 6,1/95 A ll other work : 9/20/94 Date: 13900.RFP £ ‘d lie I 9t9 S19 OOSSV . (XldiS36HDQ MOdJ HdlP=l S661-Z.0-31 BicBid -S-AJ. 152 102 U 210U02 Ckamg (tree) 2101.507 Gnibbing(ttcc) 2104J01 Reaoove plate beam fuaidrsd 2104J01 Remove 15" CMP ctiK-ert 2104.505 Remme bituminous pavemeat 2104.521 Salvage chain link fence 0104.601 Relocate mailboxes, signs, etc. 0103.609 Gcotexlik fabric. Tj’pe V 2105.501 Common excavatioa (P) 2105 j07 Subgrade excavatioa 2105.521 Granular borrow (CV) 2105.535 Sabaged tojsoil (CV) 2211.501 Aggregate base. Clj. 100% crushed quarry rock 2211.502 Aggicgatc base. Ck 3 (F) (CV) 2331.504 AC'l bit. material for mixture 2331-508 Type 41 wearing course mixture 2331.510 Type 31 binder course mixture 2331.514 Type 31 base course mixture 2331.518 Bituminous mature for walk SP-1 Driveway restoraliou 2357.502 Rilumiiious material for lack «at 0412.604 Modular block retaiumg waU 2451.511 Coarse filter aggregate (CV) 2501.515 12* CM pipe .ipron 2501- 515 12" RC pipe apron 2502- 541 4" ;ierforated PE pipe drain 2.503.511 12“ CM pipe sewer 2503- 5U 12“ RC pijic sewer (Cl. V), Dcs.3006 2503.511 15" RC pipe sewer (O V). I>s.3006 2503.573 Furn. di install I2“xl2 CMpipc ice 2503 57j Furnish 4: install 12" CM pipe 14 dcgTcr be lid SP-2 Coiuitiucl catch bxsin, design SP 2 SP-i Constiuct catch basin, design SPo lJ9<)0RrP C««ir*ct v*sn Qwaatily Uail QttaoUty Prwe T* Dsi*To Date EA 10 50.00 4 200.00 EA 10 50.00 4 200.00 LF 220 3.00 200 oOOOO LF 75 6.00 7.5 450.00 SY IJ530 3.00 1.300 3.900.00 LF 320 4 00 300 1.200.00 LS 1 200.00 1 200.00 SY 2.760 1.00 2.500 2.500.00 CY uoo 3.50 1.500 5.25000 CT 500 4 50 500 2225U.QU CY 22>00 9 00 1.870 16.830.00 CY 440 7.00 263 1.S41.00 TN 1.600 9.50 2.40l.!70 22.S 18.05 CY 950 12.00 656 7.S72.00 TN 43 120.00 44.20 5,.304.00 TN 195 17.00 204 3.469.87 I'N 260 16.00 251.56 4,024.96 114 325 16.00 325.63 3,210.08 TN .S4 30.00 115.55 3,466.50 SY 150 6.50 f GL 350 1.00 150 150.00 SF 2,1.50 13.50 2,362 31.887.00 CY 80 )5tK)XO 1,200.00 E.\>60.00 ■>120.00 E-A 400.00 n mm 800.00 LF 500 3.00 500 1,500.00 IJ-120 35.00 176 6.160.00 I.F IIU 2100 110 2.420.00 LF 200 23.00 200 4.600.00 E-\1 150.00 FA 1 250.00 4 1,000.00 E.\1 650.110 1 650.00 EA •)1.200.00 3 3,600.00 RP-1 V 'd ll£l 9£9 319 JOSSb . 0Oi±LS3N03 ItOdJ lld3r= I 50*51-2.0-21 iwm Vf ». [ • 4 t 251 UOl Raadom tip tap. CUsi U1 2S3L501 Cooctet® curb k |uttefD«i|n B618 SP-4 Reioforcinf for cone, enrb & Ruttei 0557.603 Furnish & iasUll chain link fence. 6’ tall 0557.603 Famish A install chain link fence, 42* tall 0564.603 4’ «-kk solid line. >^ow paint 0564.603 4’ wide soUd line, white paint 2573.503 Silt fence, prcasscniblcd 2575.501 Roadside seediiif 2575.502 Seed, mature 500 2575.505 Sodding. T>iw lawn 2373.511 Mulch matenaU T>pc 1 2575.519 Oiskanchonng 2575.531 Commercial feililUi/. anal)"'** 20-10-10 Total Work Completed to Date 13960 'tl-'l’ CY 4 80.00 LF 950 7.00 046 6.622.00 LF 60 0-3Q 60 30.00 IF 340 lO.OO .340 3.400.00 LF 120 12.00 120 1.440.00 IF 1.300 0.30 1.300 390.00 LF UOO 0.30 1,300 39»)«X) LF 100 3.00 AC 04 1.100.00 0.4 440.00 LB 40 2.00 40 SO.OO SY 2.000 150 1.23S 1,857.00 TN 0.8 250.00 0.8 200.0C AC 04 lOO.UO 0.4 40.0C 300.00 0 60-0' TN 0.2 s 156.622.4 RF.2 Sd liei 9£9 2'9 00S5V . 00aiG3N0Q UOdJ y\dZV' I S66l-ii0-3l HP % ‘ .4 •.•t I f I PROJECT PAYMEKT STATUS Owiitr Project Project No. File No. Contractor aty of Orono Municipal State Aid Street Impiovcment S.A.P. 152-102-11 13960 Buft.nlo Bituniioous. lac. ORDERS No* Date 1 Amount Total Change Orders • *dd yA\•^fE^T StTVIMARY No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Period Start 11-1.94 12-29-94 9-20-9.S 11- 1-94 12-29-94 9-20-95 12- 5-95 Pa>’mCDt $29,830.00 88,529.99 22,577.70 15.634.77 Reiainage $1.5/0 00 6,229.47 7,417.77 0 00 Completed $31,400.00 124.589.46 148.355.46 156.622.46 Total Payment to Date Rotain.tge, Pytnt No.4 «'c Fin.al Total Value Completed 156,622.46 0.00 $156,622.46 Original Contract Cluangc Orders Revised Coiitiacl 157,105.00 0.00 $157,105.00 13960 I-FI’RP-3 f-i ,■< IliTl 9£? 319 oosev . nn>il/T-UMOn im>iJ t566l-20-.3l REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 1 1995 m OF ORONO DATE: December 7, 1995 Department Approval: Name Ronald A. Moorse Title City Administrator ITEM NO.^ / Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Cits Administrator’s Repewt Item Description: Amendment to the Rl-A Zoning Ordinance Regarding Athletic Facilities The Orono Hockey Blasters group is preparing a sketch plan application for an ice arena tacility located on the Orono school property at the southwest comer of Old Crystal Bay Road and County Road 6. The propert>- is zoned Rl-A. The Hockey group is planning to make its application for the ice arena under the conditional use section of the Rl-A Zoning District, Paragraph C. - Clubs. Camps, etc. (please see the attached Section 10.20 of the Rl-A Zoning District listing of permitted and conditional uses). Staff has a concern regarding the City considering a conditional use permit tor such a facility’ under the current Rl-A Zoning Ordinance. StalTs concern is that if an ice arena facility, which is an intense use, is allowed as a conditional use under Paragraph C it opens all residential districts to similar intense uses in other areas of the City. As a solution, staff proposes amending the Rl-A Zoning Ordinance to add "Youth Athletic Facilities", which include the ice arena use, as an accessory' use under Paragraph A. - Schools. This ane'ndment would provide a limitation on the potential sites for ice arenas and other similar facilities in residential districts. If the Council believes such an amendment merits consideration, the Council may at this time refer the amendment to the Planning Commission for review at its January 1996 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to refer an ordinance amendment, adding Youth Athletic Facilities as an accessory use to a school use, to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. ^ S 10,20 SBC. 10.20. R-lA OHB PAMILIT RBSIDKHTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "R-IA" One Family Residential District is intended to provide a district which combination of low density residential development and 1 agricultural activity. Planned residential allo^'ed by conditional use permit. The district shall immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any Residential District, no structure or land shall be used excep one or more of the following uses: A. One family detached dwellings. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds* C. Municipal buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any Residential District, no structure or land shall be used f following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Schools. Public schools and private schools which teach a curriculum similar to J provided no building shall be within fifty feet of an/ lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District and ^^at/ fence be erected fifteen feet or more from all street lot .*1® abutting use is for open play, and nursery schools providing fifty square feet of playground space per pupil. B. Churches. Churches including those related structures located on the same site which are an 1 part or the church proper, convents or homes for persons related to a religious function on the same site provided no I reliLnce shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. C. Clubs, Carnes, etc. Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimming pools serving more than one family, scout camps, YMCA camps, WCA camps, church camps, or private non- rarks, playgrounds and other similar uses. The principal lt?ucture for any="!f the above listed uses shall be 100 feet or . -• — .... non District, a lid accessorymore from any abutting lot x,, «.* .v -- - - - -- - structures shall be a minimum of fifty feet from any lot line. in an ORONO CC 279 (4-1-04) S 10.20 D. Public service Structures. structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone exchange sta pressure regulating stations, wells,Elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within 50 from any lot line of an abutting lot in an -R- District. Prior granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural 1 ^^ structures is compatible to the neighborhood m located and thus will promote the general welfare. Pu 1 , structures as defined above that have been approved y required public hearings for public improvement projects shall not require a conditional use permit but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standards set f anH/or section; amendments to approved plans involving * ? . placement of these structures will require City to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adopt of the amended plans by the Council. Source: Ordinance 29, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 E. Greenhouses. Commercial greenhouses provided all outside storage is fenced in such a manner so *^or stored material from view when observed from the publi adjoining lot. Commercial greenhouse located in a required yard area, and are subject general zoning code requirements pertaining o structures. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 F. Recreation Areas. Private gun clubs, archery ranges, ski slides, provided the area is fenced and no part of the principal use is less than 150 feet from any lot line. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 G. Guest Houses & Non-rental Guest Apartments. 1) Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occucants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees their non-pa^ng guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. Source: Ordinance 29, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 ORONO CC 280 (4-1-84) - .1*.•• • I « •mm I DEC 1 1 1995 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CPY 0? mom DATE: December 7, 1995 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: NaoM Ronald A. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Citv Administrator's Report Item Description: Saga Hill Tax Forfeit Parcel Background . When the nine 2icre undeveloped piircel in the SQgn Hill jrea became available to the City as a tax forfeit parcel, the City indicated an interest in acquiring the property for a public use at no cost. Due to a number of delays, the County has not taken action regarding the City's acquisition of the property. At a recent meeting regarding the property. County staff indicated they do not want the City to acquire the total nine acres at no cost. Although Orono staff indicated the City continues to be interested in acquiring the total parcel at no cost, the County has proposed the parcel be divided into three separate parcels (please see the attached sketch). Under this proposal, the City could acquire an approximately four acre parcel at no cost but would have to pay market* value for the northerly four-plus acre parcel. Although this would presen-e a sicnificant amount of the most heavily wooded land, it would not preserve the total parcel W as the City had requested. The County’s proposal could have a substantial effect on the plan of the Saga Hill neichborhot^ to preserve the major portion of the undeveloped property as open space through their effons to acquire the eleven acres of bank foreclosure property. It could also potentially create problems regarding determining how or whether to provide access to a landlocked piece of property, if the nonherly parcel was acquired by private interests. The County has had a "hold" on the property for the past year while a determination was being made as to the disposition of the property. The County has indicated the hold will come off as of December 14. At the time the hold is taken off the property, it becomes available for private purchase through a competitive bid. The County has indicated the City needs to request the hold be extended on the parcel the City wants to acquire. The City's hold request needs to be made by December 14. ■St.iff Recommendation It is staffs recommendation that the City request the hold on the entire mne acre parcel be extended until March of 1996 for several reasons: •‘7 • n Request for Council Action continuedi Rage 2 December 7, 1995 Saga Hill Tax Forfeit Parcel_______ 1.To provide lime to determine whether the Saga Hill group will be successful in their effons to raise the funds required to purchase the bank foreclosure property. 2.To ftmher analyze whether it is practically or financially feasible to develop a landlocked four acre parcel if the County allowed a private party to purchase it. 3.Based on the outcome of Items 1 and 2. the City would have another opportunity to make a case to the County regarding the City ’s acquisition of the total parcel at no cost. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize staff to request an extension of the hold on the Saga Hill tax forfeit property through March of 1996. ii ! <© >'>' 1 SECOSIIS f•/••••• I r • • • If ADD^'I ' (2^ *'*’’ __________wsw****’^^! (in t? "V’V <J»A. #• \j ;i V -j, ^WM or I^U«l Xlf «»CAifX • IC VI • • • • • • » J • • ; [6-.0' ,if^'.. VJV'''’' h:;?’ • =1 (:) ^ J•i] (3) 1 11 1 1y (2B),., J ■ cc i (ff^ (5) 1 i cc (jl^^ (6) U1 5 V. A'y.pL-.iT -,5 7S uW ^ > I .'it*-*^ N ,«• /i ^ »•{*) ^ic^APirc •»v* • * ^ /./ K (*) (t)^fA' t' „C»V 136) »>*?• .i .5 \' C« f®V ^ .. V e A ssatk ^^/t AtN-JU' s-’-‘i;'~. P-: •'--fr ‘ ^ :j il___________5S __________t .- ^■0 1^’^ ---------------—^ ___ / *? ^ *>!/. I ■■■■'eAEBESJS(43) 1 yn (T3)■r\ ..-AVI state Micrographic Services Center 1600 Gervais, Maplewood, MN 55109 16^W Microfilming Procedure Sheet 8Job #1 Department |M0509|ORQNO, CITY OF - - - I Division I ADMINISTRATION ^ MAPS Org H GOV II Document Title/Series ID COUNCIL & PLANNING COMM MINUTE Ret. Sched.jj Last UD 1 3/07/96 Authority DOROTHY HALLIN II Contact I DOROTHY HALLIN Phone 473-7358 ii Address II PO BOX 66 II PLANETARY |j REG II 29:1 Ji IYES / LARGE YES If II Iff «ff •* ** ||R ReadingjjRcvd Stamps||Blnk Frms||Film Jacket|| Oversize ||Frame #|| File Target II \rmrt il YES ^ * *YES NO NO II NO II II CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 || y Camera Used || Film || Red RatiojlModeiisidesjlAuthenticity/Size IjRes Target 1 - -- -H u II II “If “ .. . . .. ' It 11 II II =HI IIBlip ^f^edium |Small 1 Space Between File|MHS Testing| ijon N/A 1 N/A N/A YES II 1 YES It 11 1 ||How Retakes if 1 Jacket Type/Color II |Make New Jacket On 1 |AS NEEDED* 11 [BOTH II /WHITE DATE II -!1 If II j[ IlDupe RequiredI Dupe Type/Number||Dupe 11 Color|Duplicate Film Location ii1 I YES 1 JACKET 1 [WHITE [RETURN TO CLIENT 1 II- - - - - - - - - - - - - II Jl II _ _ _1 jjoriginal Film Location|original Documents [return to CLIENT |RETUP.N TO CLIENT [Shipped Via || COURRIER j Notes:USE MINK BED, COVER BLIP. BLIPS NOT NEEDED! 509 *11X17 AND ABOVE FILM HEAD UP, LARGER DOCUMENTS FILM "SEE OVERSIZE" TARGET PiND STAND UP FOR MRG. - SEE NOTE BELOW - JACKETS WITH OVERSIZE DOCUMENTS ARE LAST IN THAT DATE SERIES. **FILM FILE FOLDER AS LOADING TARGET CUT OUT AT LOADER. COUNCIL MINUTES AND COUNCIL PACKETS GO INTO SEPARATE JACKET SERIES. NOTE: CLIENT WA14TS AS MAm' FILMED ON 16MM AS POSSSIBLE TO MAKE THEM FIT. 11 X 17'S ON PLANETARY, NOT MRG TRY File Information File # Line(s)Filed by COPY - COPY - COPY - COPY - COPY - COPY - COPY - COPY - COPY - COPY - COPY | PREUMINARY PLAT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR DENNIS 8c URSULA PLAHETER IN THE SW 1/4 OF SEOTION 27-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA I fi a S M «e*4f .tf W y 86» 74 y/yW \ /y y / t / / : / .• y >7 7:y./. =L^r~'-4 ^^A 4 Jy •Kj.4 ......- I• ' ? ♦J 33 > I 'B I I ’ s I r LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: » The South 354.75 feet of the East 990 feet. EXCEPT the North 150 feet of the East 323.4 feet thereof, of the Southeast Quarter of the South west Quarter of Section 27, Township 118 North. Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. Existing contours from Orono City maps Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum OCM/^li) IT REVrSKiN nATF DTHRirrHTN immmmm I comN & grqnberg. inc . Cof hill tills; Ln^imrr<, btiiif Snn\yors, Site /V/I umits 4S2 rini.ir.Kk Au*nue • Long Lake, MN 333V> T hii«T*\ ii »iil\ lh.if ihi' Mif\n w jv pn*p.m ‘d In meuf umkf mv Jirrcl 'uprf* %isnm iiul lhal 1 am i duly rrgisU’fi'J Civil Enginvff and Lirkl Surveyuf under ihc tins i<l Ihr SUIr ol MmnrM'li 612173-4141 Milk S (.fimheri; MmnrM>U I Kimn? Number I27S5 i i '. '7 V. • 'v. • '•■* • . * • I . » • * •. *^v ‘7-.' •• . i'- ■ 4‘ . « # ► *■ • • ‘S .w ■’ • . ; *.• * * » t» .* * •’ ' l » ' > : ■ t f \ t ** * ** . * **'* • i‘ ' . « ' .... • * k ^ . t • • • i- •*. * fc • * ■ *0 . • ’ V . . ' . • #• I «<CAU 1 Jifwl Miprf*i*4too' 1 rvfyuf under IMH 1 ^ ll-W-H 1 lot NO 11 V ■ • -wmim H feii4- 1 ! i ♦' • • .4 I ^ 'v.- jl • •f I "; ■ •■ * r* . f * *\V*^woa mom^ « • • < w ■>Cl-iU-Zl «0»p*s *lr/l («f*o •«( JSOJ-' « ^ rV-. - • • # ■•. » : «* ( • *•-# ■<v * / ■ j A / :.! ' '• * « 'f , # i •. %V f .•> ¥ *> \ V * * ‘ ....K-Vv\ \ :\ r V \\! \ A '■'vN^xKW \N '«■ \ : \\ \ : (\\ \ 1 C0>9r H\ MyoN 1 ♦ ,^i»' V i;.,’* » * •*• • I t* i;a.*/?;*“ A' «•♦ *-t r; •-. V; V? « *>* «' *W 4*“ V .iV'A* ,HT. . * '‘ji'% V V. ■ >n , . ‘ • * i ' T.* #£;t. V. % I '.’r*^ ; * • .‘ ’ *•» * -t . ^ j* ^ ^ % .■•/‘••'I'• - * V.-4 «4^ f ' •* _ tc- >' > : ; V * 4^ >» ^. -• • ^ • ■ » < ♦ V ' * , 01 -M 0>A > 0> 3 ^ ‘ mm o \ •. in o>> o *' ni;>* ‘ ^ * * 01 ; :.rtm o JOou cn^ I , .. ■-'^:S:g' ?ro «o o: , a UJ 4-», 4 Uk #1 •*% -. 4 • r ' 3K fO X: Ul ^ 4-» iz &. '-»4J O 1^ » OI o > 0M/>CQ V' IM. • ‘*' •• ^ O) ON Ck .’ OV ■>''■ w.,is., ., r 4J 0«»« •• • ■ 4rt(‘ C' y-c^ ^ ^ •/: UI4. o ;- ■ O 1^ UJ. lo ‘ u • 4-> «M> £XT CU iU H- 4^o^.O C • CL o c 0/ •#>» «c U.01 0^ 4*t *94- 0 1 « 0) V ^ !>.• * 0> ar •tMn L o . in • o X h-•CM O OL ,mtm m L. nc QC CO 4-> or c O to to £: rd U L LU 4-» U4 <0 C o a 3 o or cr t —J to XT D <o • or to X UJ .x: *4- o> 4. >- O 31 u .u «•» •¥Jr '- . ^ • ‘ < . " -i * > . \ ' 9 ’. I .• •V 9 . • U ^ •‘;'* 'r •t:..'"' y ' » !• «• »«» ^ ^ ‘.y *» /I .• ■ . . V .V V f . :W't. .. /^ • . ! *’ .jVA V. f **. JL ’ ^ r • .* 'IX * • • ». ♦ ♦ • V./i//,; • * % , '•* . •«r- -7 t" ■> •*« - ■• «!.-•» , • #. r >• M ♦ •. . A ■ * . ■• ■■>• > : ; ■■.■'< . ;V .n..*.. V I ^' . 'v • . ‘ I 4^ JS . <U 4J ‘0» <u r> ’ m - v •O.v , %n oy • >• 9 ^ V ' ( ,'••'■ **>¥• :/.V5:DS. . ' t- o 3i • o jc k. <n r-.■■' '-^va.cr ^ o PC *1 ^ 4* / Ui ^ ■• V-M lOiT LU 01• ,r> ;:-■ sz u A * - /• **4-» O , • •.' -.1 01 O • r * <U (/>QQ V*' * ,0) ^ I • S . C * •••/: “ujH-^ o ^OlT U.o l/> UJ.\.D.OI • 4CU • — V O^IS s: jcfu ' UJ ' PC. o c • £k* O C 4-J O H-f «c 0l/<U 4-^ -^ <u V u t: Ik- . m • 0 X • cvj o ^ cn .to t- «(* CO 4-> 0> C to Kl.-^ £ «tf u c . 4->tM Id c Cl * 3 . ’O ’Oior V iy>xr D 4-> 4-> 01 ■ 1/^ X .x:<K Q} 4. 2:o H- Ol PC o totu Q < C3 UJ O ^ u ... • V XF--‘ '. ‘ \ •I * . V.V J»l . ;•.,. • ‘ « 4 • --W >* ' V' % ’^*7 4^ >- • I .'- ■ » • I . .‘ iiW ‘ T« *l5i .TV-il V t*-k¥'‘ « 'f# . B1 m F’„ mm if-' mm irV? J'f • I j .-NTX-" -*T' *■ >" y ' : ec> 1^ r V. y msm !>> , :‘^.» l;j :v- mmm■r.:x-± Si’S ‘ •;* • t' * '} m it 4 IMi m k d \ f ' '* U ^ 1 U I i ’.'I''>}< V;w V*\' 'i.'^'.■' !;.•■• I i Bm ■!mmM.1 ’ V , . ' mk,imv. mm V'» V’ 1J •k \ . '■ , •’ * ' if ^0 -: ■■ XX \ r» c * * ■. >•- ‘4 #' •% ..- 7’ 4-% f •n • ‘ .»;*f V ^ •w ^ ..- ^ 'a •'^: r » • 1 . .’r*' . » • • *. t h :■ I • Y-'' ■ >V‘ f>V ■ J-it: , r I* •*. ^ * • •*. ■c . V VI *.v I . ' ".k .* »■ \r.. ;* w . i * -i; *1^ ‘•.I'!'-. r., . v’v ' 1. ‘ • •. 'X-Vr • •‘l *. ' f\' H ^ •r • 5>'- • - :i > ri V» '!v .V - N > • » . * . v>‘: ?. • v;-- •‘.r;■ •; • *’ « 'f v'i ♦ •• •\v-\">'>rXfy. k <F I ..<--1 • .'•• •• V V •\ » CO'JiiCIL MEETING DEC 1 1 1995 cmf Of ORONOREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 7, 19Q4 ITEM NO / .A^1 Department Approval: Name Ronald A. Moorse Title City Administnitcr Administrat«>r Reviewed:.Ascnd:i Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Golf Course Fees At Its November 27 meeting, the Council questioned why the golf fee s-'hedule did not include a reduced fee for junior players and for Orono residents. In following up on these questions, stall confirmed that the fee schedule does include a reduced fee tor junior players. I he schedule is attached. The resident fee is a more difficult issue to address both in temis of the feasibility of identifying Orono residents and the potential financial impact. Stall'will prov ide a report and recommendation regarding the resident fee prior to the start of the 1996 golf season. warn-■■*■**»*il’CCCOI4' COUUSE CllAK(;iCS -Kfrciiivc date 1995 Season Monday thru Friday (iidudiiig Holidays)Begin Hay Ucrure 12:00 Noon1st Nine Holes j 7 252nd Nine Holes j 5_0 q After 12:00 Noon and Weekend Kales 1st Nine Holes 5 8 7s 2nd Nine Holes | 25 \ League l(al« Monday iliru Friday % H.25 Senior Ci(i/.cn (Over 60 yc;trs old) . Begin Hay Before 12:00 Noon - Weekday s 1st Nine Holes j 5 yo 2nd Nine Holes j ^ qq Season licket (Scnlur Cili/ens Only) J125.00 GOLF CART lUiN l AL Muloiizcd: Isl Nine Holes (AUcr 12:00 ^ Weekends) $ in.lm 2nd Nine Holes ^ g 00 Begin I’li-y Before 12:00 Noon 1st Nine Holes 2nd Nine Holes roll Calls - Ter Round Golf clubs - I’ci Round S'l UDFN r RAl !• (AGIiS 12 - 17) Begin ri:iy Before Noon Moiid;«y - Friihiy, I'xeludiiig Holidays Isl Nine Ilfics $ 500 2nd Nine Holes 5 5 0() CONCKSSIONS As l-oMe,l % 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.50 tMX Baif;s Beginning Scjit. Isl llie morning rale Mould c.xicnd to all day M«ni.-Fii. Weekend talc wnild remain llic same. .CfL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 1 1995 CTY OF ORONO DATE: December 7, 1995 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Ronald A. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Cit> Administrator's Report Item Description: 1996-1998 Police Serv ice Contract with the City of Long Lake The 1996-1998 Police Service Contract with the City' of Long Lake has been approved by Long Lake and is ready for Council approval. Approval will extend the current agreement with Long Lake throuuh 1998. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the 1996-1998 Police Service Contract with the City of Long Lake and to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract. COUNCIL MEETING DEC 1 1 1995 request for council action £|tv DATE: December 7, 1^)95 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Ronald A. Moorse Title Citv Administrator Administrator Reviewed;Agenda Section: Citv Administratof's Report Item Description: Drug Testing Policy Federal regulations mandate a Drue and Alcohol Testing Program for the City’s Public \Vorks maintenance workers effective January 1. 1996. StalT has developed a pohcv patterned alter policies developed by numerous cities of the metro area. Although the adoption ot the policy wus continued to provide an opportunitv- to review the pi^licy developed by the City Attorney, that policy has not been provided to the City at this time. Because the City needs to have a poliev in place to guide its compliance with the drug testing requirements at the lirst of the vear.'it is recommended the attached policy be adopted at this time. If a review ot the Popham Haik policy identifies changes needed in the attached policy, they can be made adminisU-ative y prior to January 1. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the attached Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy. r , j r • CITY OF ORONO TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT TABLE OF CONTENTS Pag» 13 12 Acknowledgment of Receipt of Policy and Related Information Alcohol and Controlled Substances Contact Person Circumstances Under Which Drug/Alcohoi Tests ShaB be Required or Requested During the Application Process Reasonable Suspicion Post-Accident Return-to-Duty Testing Follow-up Testing Random Testing Confidentiality of Test Results Consequences to Employees Engaging in Prohibited Conduct Coverage Definitions: Accident Alcohol Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT) Confirmation (Confirmatory) test Controlled substance Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) Drug Evidential Breath Testing device (EBT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Medical Review Officer (MRO) Random selection Reasonable suspicion Refuse to submit Safety-sensitive function Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) Discipline Drug and Alcohol Testing Effects of Drugs (Appendix A) Employee/Applicant Rights Licensed Testing Laboratory Other Alcohol Related Conduct Policy Modification Policy and Rules Prohibited Drug and Alcohol Related Conduct Refusal to Undergo Testing and Consequences of Refusal 5 6 6 6 6 11 9 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 11 7 14 10 8 10 12 1 8 10 111795.3 CITY OF ORONO TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT The of drugs and alcohol is a nationwide problem which affects persons of every age, race and gender. The City of Orono recognizes that work performance and safety problems are created when employees use or abuse illegal drugs and/or alcohol. The City of Orono wishes to provide a safe work place for its employees and to maintain a drug and alcohol free work place. The City of Orono has established the following policy on drugs and alcohol with drug and alcohol testing provisions mandated by the Ommbus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991. POLICY AND RLXES A. All employees are strictly prohibited from using, possessing, selling, transferring, or being under the influence of drugs or alcohol while working or performing job duties or while on the City of Orono premises or while operating the CiW of Orono’s vehicles, machinery or equipment. Drugs are defined as any controlled substance. B. No employee shall perform safety-sensitive functions within four hours after using alcohol. C. No employee shall report for duty or remain On Duty when he or she uses any Controlled Substances, except when the use is pursuant to the instruction of a physician who has advised the employee that the substance does not adversely affect the employee’s ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle. D Any employee using a prescription drug which could potentially affect safety or the employee’s performance must immediately notify his or her supervisor of the drug the employee is taking, the name and address of the doctor prescribing the drug and length of time the employee will be taking the drug. The supervisor will immediately notify the MRO. When in the MRO’s opinion, after consultation with the prescribing physician, the employee’s use of the drug will impair the employee’s Job performance or will create a threat to the safety of the employee or others, the employee will be deemed medically unqualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle. The City will work with the employee to determine if there is a suitable temporary job alternative. E. No employee shall repon for or remain On Duty if the employee tests Positive for Controlled Substances. «# TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT Continued F. The distribution or sale of Drugs including, making arrangements during working time or on City property for the sale, purchase, or transfer of Drugs is strictly prohibited, even if the acmal sale, purchase, or transfer of Drugs occurs during non-working time or off City property. G. All employees must notify the City Administrator of any criminal drug statute Conviction for a drug law violation occurring in the workplace. The notice must be given to the City no later than five (5) days after the Conviction. H. Any employee found to be in violation of this policy is subject to discipline up to and including termination of employment. COVERAGE The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act require that ail employees whose Job duties include operating a commercial motor vehicle and who are required to hold a coi^ercia driver ’s license shall be subject to drug and alcohol testing. "Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used to transport passengers or property if the motor vehicle meets any one of the following criteria; A. Has a gross combination rating of 26,001 or more pounds inclusive of a towed unit with a gross vehicle weight rating ot more that 10,000 pounds, or B. C. D. Has a gross vehicle weight rating of 26.001 or more pounds; or Designed to transport 16 or more passengers including the driver; or Is of any size and is used in the transportation of materials found to be hazardous for the purposes of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and which require the motor vehicle to be placarded. All annlicants, includina persons currently employed the City of Orono, that apply for a position wher7job duties include operating commercial motor vehicles wUl be required to take a drug and alcohol test if a job offer is made. DEFINITIONS 1.Accident means an occurrence involving a CMV operating on a public road which results it: TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER the omnibus TRANSPORTATION E\H»LOYEE TESTING ACT Continued 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. a) A fatality; or b) Bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or c) One or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring the vehicle to be transponed away from the scene by a tow truck or other vehicle. Alcohol means the intoxicating agent in beverage alcohol, ethyl alcohol or other low molecular weight alcohol including methyl or isopropyl alcohol. Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT) means an individual who instructs and assists individuals in the alcohol testing process and operates an EBT. Confirmation (or Confirmatory) test. In drug testing, a second analytical procedure to identify the presence of a specific drug or metabolite that is independent of the screening test and that uses a different technique and chemical principal from that of the screening test in order to ensure reliability and accuracy. (Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is the only authorized confirmation method for cocaine, marijuana, opiates, Lnphetamines. and phencyclidine.) In alcohol testing, a second test^, following a screening test with a result of 0.02 or greater, that provides quantitauve data of alcohol concentration. Controlled substance has the meaning assigned by 21 U.S.C. 802 and includes all substances listed on Schedules 1-5 as they may be revised from time to time (21 C.F.K. Part 1308). DHHS. The Department of Health and Human Services or any designee of the secretary, Department of Health and Human Services. Drug means any substance (other than alcohol) that is a controlled substance as defined in this section and 49 C.F.R. Part 40. Evidential breath testing device (EBT) means an EBT approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminismation (NHSA) for the evidential testing of breath. FHWA. The Federal Highway Administration. TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT Continued 12. 10 ‘. Medical Review Officer (MRO) means a licensed physician responsible for receiving laboratory results generated by an employer ’s drug testing program who has knowledge of substance abuse disorders and has appropriate medical training to mterpret an evaluate an individual’s confirmed positive test result together with his or her medical history and any other relevant biomedical information. 11. Random selection means a mechanism for selection of employees for testing where each employee has an equal chance of being tested each time selections are made. Reasonable suspicion means that the City of Orono believes the appearaiice belmvior, speech or bodv odors of any employee are indicative of the use of a controlled substance or alcohol based on the observation of a least one (1) supervisor or otficial who has received training in the identification of behaviors indicative of drug and alcohol use. 13. Refuse to submit (to an alcohol or controlled substance test) means that an employee: a) Fails to provide adequate breath for testing without a valid medical explanation after he or she has received notice of the requirement for breath testing, b) Fails to provide adequate urine for controlled substances testing without a valid medical explanation after he or she has received notice of the requirement for urine testing; or c) Engages in conduct that clearly oostructs the testing process. U Safety-sensilive function means all time from the time a driver begins to work or is ' required ro be in readiness to work until the time he/she is relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work and includes the following: (1) All time at a carrier or shipper plant, terminal, facility, or other property, or on any public property, waiting to be dispatched, unless the driver has been relieved from duty by the motor carrier; All time inspecting equipment as required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, or otherwise inspecting, servicing, or conditioning a CMV at any time; r3) All time spent at the driving controls of a CMV; All time. o*er than driving time, in or upon any CMV except time spent resting in a sleeper berth; All time loadina or unloading a vehicle, supervising, or assisting in the loading loaded or unloaded; All time spent performing the drive requirements on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations relating to accidents; All time repairing, obtaining assistance, or remaining in attendance upon a disabled vehicle; 15.substance Abuse Sotco^S psychologist, of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors Snincation Commission) with knowledge of and clmical ex^nence rn the diagnosis and treatment of alcohol and controlled substances-related disorders. &aUAAW&Ak V* —------------ during the ^pi->cat .on employed by th^Civ^^^^ - If , offer is made. The job offer IS contingent upOT a “ S ^release to the City of Orono all information on the agreement result of 0.04 or greater, positive controlled s£nces t^t tilts, and refttsals to be tested, within the preceding two years. rant f cTTCPinoN A drug test shall be required if the City of Orono has a reasonable 'lov^e has^iolated the provisions of this policy regarding alcohol ^raSlc " is irdmltld within 2 hours, the reason shall be documented. , o iminktered within 8 hours all attempts to conduct the test shall cease If the alcohol documented Notwithstanding the absence of a reasonable suspicion loh^' msTmllloyefs^rnot t« petmiued to perform or continue to perform safety- 1 I K TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT Continued sensitive functions until tv^enty-four hours have elapsed following the determination of reasonable suspicion. POST-ACCIDENT. A pcst-accident alcohol and drug test is required if an employee operating a CMV is involved in an accident, as defined in this policy, that results in: 1.The death of a person or persons regardless of the amount of vehicle or property damage; or 2 yhe emplovee receives a citation for a moving traffic violation arising from the accident. The employee must provide an alcohol test sample as soon as practicable after the occurrence of the accident. If the employee does not receive the test within 2 hours of the accident, the reasons shall be documented. After 8 hours, all attempts to conduct the alcohol test shall cease and the reasons shall be documented. The employee must provide a urine sample for controlled substances testing as soon as practicable after the accident. After 32 hours, all attempts to conduct the test shall cease and the reasons shall be documented. An employee subject to post accident testing must remain available or the employee shall be considered to have refused to submit to testing. The employee is prohibited from using alcohol for 8 hours following the accident or until the employee has undergone a post-accident alcohol test, whichever comes first. RETURN-TO-DUTY TESTING. An employee found to have violated this policy shall not remm to work until after undergoing retum-to-duty tests indicating an alcohol concentration of less than 0.02 and a verified negative result from conuolled substances. FOLLOW-LT TESTING. Following a determination by a SAP that an employee is in need of assistance in resolving problems with alcohol abuse and/or controlled substances use, an employee shall be subject to unannounced follow-up alcohol and/or controlled substances testing as directed by the SAP. Follow-up testing shall not e.xceed 60 months from the date of the employee ’s return to duty. RANDOM TESTING. The City of Orono will randomly select employees subject to this policy for unannounced alcohol and controlled substances testing using a computer based random number generator that is matched with an employees identifying number. Alcohol testing shall be perfomed just before, during or after an employee ’s performance of safety-sensitive duties. Emplovees selected for testing must proceed immediately to the testing site; provided, however, that if an employee is perfoming a safety-sensitive function at the time of notification, the emplovee shall cease performing the safety-sensitive function and proceed to the testing site as soon as possible. FHWA rules require the City of Orono to conduct random controlled TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT Connnued substances testing on 50% of the average number of employees and random alcohol 25% of the average number of c-mployees. Employees may be selected for more than one test per year. Tests shall be spread reasonably throughout the year. DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING Controlled substances testing is conducted by analyzing an employe s urine specimen^ Split urine samples will be collected according to FHWA regulations The “ urine sample at a designated collection site. The collect,on site person shall pour the urine specimen into two bonles labeled "primary- and -splif. seal the specunens, complete a cha n ofeustody document and prepare the botUes for shipment to the testing laboratory lor analysis. If the employee is unable to provide the appropriate quantity of urine the collection site pemon shall instruct the employee to drink not more than 24 ounces of fluids f mote than two hours, again attempt to provide a complete sample. If the employee b unable to provide a complete sample, the testing shall be discontinued and the City of Oro notified. The MRO shall refer the employee for a medical evaluation to determ.ne if * emnlovee’s inability to provide a specimen is genuine or constitutes a refusal to test, or p - eZlrmVnt "esting! the City of Orono may elect to not have the referral made and revoke the employment offer. Diua test results are reported directly to the MRO by the testing labcratory. The NIRO repoiw L results to the Citv of Orono designed contract person. If the results are negative, the City of Orono is informed and no further action is necessary If the test result P“ the MRO shall give the employee an opportumty to discuss the test result The M review any medical records supplied by an employee to deiermmc if a confirmed posi ive tes is the result of the employee having taken legally prescribed medication. The MRO shall noiify eac^ emplovee that the employee has 72 hours in which to request a test of the split specimen at the emplovee-s e.xpense. The MRO will contact tl.e employee directly, on a confidential basis, to determine whether the person wishes to discuss the positive test result. The MRO wUl review the confirmed positive test result to determine whether there is m rceptable medical reason for the positive result. The MRO shall verify and report a positive test result to the City of Orono when there is no legitimate medical reason for a positive test result as received from the testing laboratory. If after making reasonable efforts and documenting these efforts, the MRO is unable to reach L directly the MRO must contact the designated City of Orono contact person who fhalu'to contact the MRO. If the City of Orono contact person is unable to 1. 2. contact the employee, the employee will be placed on >4^pcnsion. Tbe MRO may verify a test positive without having communicated directly with the employee about the test results under the following circumstances; The employee expressly declines the opportunity to discuss the test results. The employee has not contacted the MRO w ithin five days of being instnicted to do so by the City of Orono. The FHWA alcohol test rules require breath testing administered by a BAT usin, an EBT. T a“:d .0 deteline if a person has a Pff “e" \eT'“ Icolto result less than 0 02 alcohol concentration is considered a negative test, it me aicono To™,on is 0.02 or greater, a second comtrm.uon test must aneraots and fails to provide an adequate amount of breath, the City ot Orono will direct me ^lnT„v« m obuin wntten evaluation from a licensed physician to detennine if the employee s « .0 ptTe is genutne or cons.itures a reiiisal to test. Alcohol test results are repcrxed directly to me designated City of Orono contact person. LICENSED TESTING LABORATORY The testing laboratory shall be n.ime of company , street address, citv state, which is aYab cetaifted to perform controlled substance testmg according to DHHS regulations. prohibited drug and alcohol related conduct Tlie followina alcohol and controlled substance-related activities are prohibited by me FHWA’S drug and alcohol rules for drivers of CMVs: 1. Reporting for duw or remaining on duty to perform safety-sensitive functions while having an alcohol concentrat'on of 0.04 or greater; Being on dutv or operating a CaMV while the employee possesses al^hol, unless tlie aiohol is manifested and transponed as a pan of a shipment, ms mcludes the possession of medicines containing alcohol (prescnption or over-tlie-counter), unless the packaging seal is unbroken; 3. Using alcohol whUc performing safety-sensitive functions; 8 TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT Continued 4. Performing safety-sensitive fiinctions within four hours after using alcohol, 5. \Mien required to take a post-accident test, using alcohol within eight hours following the accident or prior to undergoing a post-accident alcohol test, whichever comes first, 6. Refusing to submit to an alcohol or controlled substance test required by post accident, random, reasonable suspicion, or follow-up testing requirements, 7. Reporting for duty or remaining on dut> , requiring the pertormance of safety- sensitivelfunctions, when the driver uses any controlled substance, except when instructed by a physician who has advised the driver that the substance does not adversely affect the driver’s ability to safely operate a CMV; 8. Reporting for dut>', remaining on dut>' or performing a safety-sensitive function, if the driver tests positive for controlled substances. CONSEQLTENCES TO EMPLOYEES ENGAGING IN PROHIBITED CONDUCT Employees who have engaged in prohibited conduct are subject to the following consequences pursuant to FHWA rules; 1. Employees shall not be permitted to perform safety-sensitive functions; 2 Employees shall be advised by the City of Orono of the resources available to them in evaluating and resolving problems associated with misuse of alcohol or use of controlled substances; 3.Employees shall be evaluated by a substance abuse professional who shall determine what assistance, if any, the employee needs in resolving problems a.ssociated with alcohol misuse and/or controlled substance use; Before an employee remms to duty requiring performance of a safety-sensitive function, he/she shall undergo a retum-io-duty test with a result indicating a breath alcohol level of less than 0.02 if the conduct involved alcohol, or a controlled subsunce test with a verified negative result if the conduct involved controL'. substance use; In addition, each employee identified as needing assisLince in resolving problems TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE DRUG ANT> ALCOHOL POLICY’ UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOY'EE TESTING ACT Continued associated with alcohol or controlled substances shall be evaluated by a substance abuse professional to determine that the employee has followed the rehabilitation • program prescribed; 6. The employee shall also be subject to unannounced follow-up alcohol and controlled substance testing. OTIffiR ALCOHOL RELATED CONDUCT FHWA rales require that in Jie event of an alcohol test result over 0^02 but less than O.W. an employee shall not be permined to perform safety-sensitive runcti jns for not less than .4 hours. REFUSAL TO UNDERGO TESTEs'G AND CONSEQUENCES OF REFUSAL Ail applicants and employees have the right to refuse to undergo drag and '‘"S- “ an individual refttses to undergo drag and alcohol testing required by this policy, no such test shall be given. An applicant who refuses to lake a drag and alcohol test shall be disqualified from further consideration for the conditionally offered position. An emplovee refusing to take a drag and alcohol test required by this policy shall not permined io perform safety-sensitive functions and will be considered insubordinate and will be subject to disciplinary action including possible dismissal. EMPLOYTiE/APPLIC.UNT RIGHTS All applicants and employees subject to the drag testing provisions of this policy 'h-'/jsW to request, at employee or applicant expense, a retest of the spin urine sample wnhm 72 hours of receiving notice of a confirmed positive test result. If the employee requests an analysis of the split specimen within seventy-two (72) hours of hav^g beL hiformed of a verified positive test, the MRO shall direct, in wntmg.^e laboratory to orolide the split specimm to another DHHS-certined laboratory for analysis. If an employee h-i^not contacted the MRO within seventy-two (72) hours, the employee may present to the MRO information docuineniiniz that serious illness, injury, inability to contact the MRO, lack ' f r-nni notice of the verified positive test, or other circumstances unavoidably prevented the of actual If the MRO concludes that there is a legitimate expiation for the employee’s failure to contact within seventy-two (72) hours, the MRO shall f?5, ; ' ^ TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER the omnibus transportation EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT Continued direct the aoalysis of the split specimen. If Uk confinning retest is negative, no adverse action wili be taken against the employee and an applicam will be considered for employment. The employer will not discharge an employee that, for the first time, receives a verified positive drag or alcohol test result unless: 1. The employee refuses to meet with a substance abuse professional for the purpose of an evaluation for alcohol/conirolled substance use/abuse and recommendations for an educational, counseling or treatment program; or 2. the employee fails to enter the recommended program, or fails to successfully complete the program; or 3 the employee fails a remm-to-duty alcohol and controlled substance test at the successful'completion of the recommended program or subsequent unannounced follow-up alcohol and controlled substance testing. DISCIPLIN'E Anv person found to be in violation of this policy is subject to discipline up to and including discharge Disciplinary actions taken pursuant to this policy are appealable pursuant to die procedures established in the Employer’s personnel policy and rules or any applicable collective barsaining agreemeni, but not both. Nothina in this poliev limits or restricts the right of the City of Orono to discipline or discharge an employee for conduct which violates the City of Orono policies or rules provided the employee'is not tested for controlled substances or alcohol. CONFroENTIALITY OF TEST RESULTS All alcohol/controlled substances test results and required records are considered confidential information Anv information concerning an individual’s test results and records shall not be released without the written permission of the individual e.xcept as provided for by regulation or law. • * .-Ste ' 1^- l> TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE DRUG AM) ALCOHOL POLICY USDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT Continued ALCOHOL ANTI CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES CONTACT PERSON Tte City of Orono dcsigiutcd contact person will coordinate the implementation, direction, and administration of the City of Orono ’s alcohol and controlled substances policy. The contact person is the principal contact for the collection site, the testing lab, the NWO, the BAT and the person tested. Employee questions concerning this policy should be directed to the contact person. The designa.ed contact person is: Name: Position: Phottt: ami POLICY MODIFICATION The City of Orono retains the right to modify this policy to conform to changes in regulation or law. 12 t %• • % ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF POLICY AND RELATED INFORMATION I have received a cq;jy of the Transportation Employee Drug and Alcohol Policy and have been provided information on the following: 1. The person designated by the City of Orono to answer questions about these materials; 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Who is subject to alcohol misuse and controlled substance requirements; 3. Explanation of a safety-sensitive function; 4. What driver conduct is prohibited; Circumstances for drug and/or alcohol testing; Procedures used to test for the presence of drugs and/or alcohol; The requirement that employees submit to controlled substance and alcohol testing; An explanation of what constimtes a refusal to submit to testing; The consequences for drivers violating the prohibitions of this rule, including the immediate removal of the driver from safety-sensitive functions; The consequences for drivers found to have an alcohol concentration level of 0.02 or greater, but less than 0.04; and Information concerning the effects of alcohol and controlled substances use on an individual’s health, work, and personal life. Signs and symptoms of an alcohol or controlled substances problem and available methods of intervening when an alcohol or a controlled substances problem is suspected, including confrontation, referral to an employee assistance program, and/or referral to management. Signature:Date: Please print name: OtOI^.I •w . .r ITT DEC 1 1 1995 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION QjtY ORQNO DATE: December 6, 19 ‘)5 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Nanc John R. Gerhardson Title Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed: //A Agenda Section: Public Works Item Description: Equipment Purchase • Public Works Wlien the City of Orono purchased the tractor loader backhoe in 1981, the backhoe came with a standard 30" wide general purpose bucket. The majont\ of the excavating we perform is the installation replacement of 12" culverts. With the bucket currently on the equipment, a trench 72" vndc must be dug to replace a i 2" culvert. Because the backhoe buckets are available in vaiy ing widths, we have determined that a 12" wide bucket would fit our needs in se\era! applications. A narrower bucket will reduce the width of the trench which saves time and money on digging and restoration. The 12" bucket sells for $2,000 and was budgeted for in 1995. Therefore it is recommended to purchase a 12" wide bucket for the backhoe. COUNCIL ACTION RKQl E.STED: Motion to approve the purchase of a 12" backhoe bucket at a cost of $2,000, to be funded from the ImproNcment and Equipment Outlay Fund. ch D«partacat Approval SEfitmSt ra CWWCIt ACTIO* DATE: Dacembar 1995 ITEM NO: 1' Administrator Raviewad:Aganda Section: City Admin. Rpt *1 Title: Gary Chaswick Cbiaf of Polica DEC 1 1 1995 C‘TY OF ORONO Zten Description: Purchase of (2) two 1996 Ford Crown Victoria's Exhibits:Sea Attached DISCUSSION This request is for the purchase of two (2) 1996 Ford Crown Victoria'I. Superior Ford has notified us that the new squads are available to be picked up as of January 2, 1996. A letter of intent to purchase, dated Saptembar 7, 1995 (see attached), has previously been submitted. Attached is a copy of Superior Ford's invoice showing cost per vehicle of 18,887.00 each, totalling $37,774.00. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTEU Motion to approve purchase of squad cars at a total cost of $37,774. *'0. foras/council.act WEftUEST FOR COUNCII. ACIIOM DATE: Septembvc 1, 1995 ITEM NO: D«partaent Approval: xam«t C«r7 dxsswick CJlief Adainistrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: city Adaia. Rpt. Item Description: 1996 Ford Crown Victoria letter of intent to purchase are budgeted for and are to replace two old car's with 100,000 mile on them. This request is due to the restrictive number of vehicle's being built, and the possibility of a cost increase. Chevrolet Kotor Company is no longer manufacturing full size car's and based on information received. Ford Motor Company, the rear wheel drive cars, will be unable to meet the increased demand for squad car's and the cost that goes with supply and demand. COUNCII. ACTION REQUESTED; Approval of letter to be sent foras/ccunciI.ict SUPERIOR FLEET & GOVERNMENT SALES DEPARTMENT ■1 9700 56TH AVE. NO. PLYMOUTH, MM. 55412 PHONE 612-559-9111 FAX 612-559-5950 OPONO POLICE dept.□ UillliiM u vy FAX IIMFO TO: DATE NOYj 2 9 1995 FROM:_ _ _BILL STUART OR CARPI HENDRICKSON NUMBER OF PAGES ( INCLUDING THIS ONE ): _ _ _^ IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THE NUMBER OF PAGES SHOWN ABOVE. PLEASE CALL US AT (612) 559-9111 TO LET US KNOW. FLEET FAX^f (612) 559-5950 COMMENTS: ENCLOSED IS THE BILLING INVOICE FOR YOUR NEW VEHICLE(S), SO THAT YOU CAN PROCESS FOR PAYMENT - WHICH IS DUE ON DELIVERY. YOUR VEHICLE(S) SHOULD BE IN SOON AND AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO PICKUP APPROXIMATELY: ~ WE WILL CONTACT YOU TO ARRANGE AN EXACT DATE. _ IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL US. THANKS!!! :::lrORD « ------* (; SUPERIOR FORD INC. 9700 - 56th AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOUS. M!NN. 55442 559-9111 •OLOTO CITY OF CRCXO Aoonsii PC BOX 80 ©TY. STATS CRYSTAL BAY 55323 0*ft NfW OR iJ9EO NEVt ycSNS* n O. i-XT I -:s PUPCHASE ORPEP NO.LETTER 0 p T 1 O N A L S Q U I P M £ N T A PAYMENT DUE ON DELIVERY A C cz s $ 0 R 1 £ S USED VEHICLE TkADSO YT>v«4 I ia ODCI SiLVtIAL NO.WO. DOOY COLOR I 7 REF \ ?CU wvocs MO.76te9 rooA».« SOURCE 100 SOURCE 200 il27 ^gll VICTO *®^2fALF71WlTXlcS/5U ^OAST.BILL VfiHICLE SALI::> OCSCRiPTICH «CTJ»0 •cr ?N€V» C ar rLECr *3350Cl SEW IXJKT #2470 E NCW TJMt VA.H #3471 *1 new TW<.^ w 9«... ! a £ 1 f-i - c B ___Ue!E 0 c»- r rT .4 V ff 1 E H 1 E.C L E \ •LS£3 can USW -^K j E 18,687.00 r* •. »v*. % /. Y . . • r V*.‘ . • .A ••.1. V m nfe 'I 'c rc ^6 CAR D£AL NO. SALrt tax UCfKSElTLJB OCC. PIE • nCW ? CTL 2151 2152 wa AAAHTV fXS. E TOtAt. CASH PRICT ci^srr CA^M ON USEO molH 1110 1020 1030 m usrs CA« alloa 'anc C TOTAL C.O.S ^6C. PUV serial no . finance «tC. PHANCC INCOME IN9V*W4CI 'EC. l»CLlXA.NCe INCCV6 vSEO Tftt/CK rUNQ V5EO CAA fU n O 4 _ _ B G S'a.m COST . ** .*.. ; ''*• ■ y. • .* .•.»* •.... ‘ * H * • «.»*' ■3Cf ccsis -. A*" « r• S. B IE stock «0 ^"AiC IS 7 CTL us£5 HI1354 #1364 B B 18,867'.?Oi '■ > .•■••'. X-- • *T * *■< • * i8,s87;cai . • • ••'. vp*. •'•••*•?< is.^zvoq' • ;••. .X, ' :.* V*, %• lu;. - . ‘' • V'v-'VV- - . v r*'. . • • *. *• /• • 'v’’»■, T • DISTRIOUTION: 1 .ACCTG. 2.VLMDpR .VENDOR . FILE• e<M<iM»4rMT rxYPY 7669 TQTrt. P.03 SUPERIOR FORD INC. 9700 - Seth AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOUS. MINN. 55442 559-9111 1 ?S£F I ?CTU 5U> TO CITY OF CRCXC ^ORCSS FC sex SO -STAre CRYSTAL BAY 55323 ^»re s-fw cn uSCD an LiCCNSC -l^ *^CHA$e OR06« N’O.LETTER PAYMENT DUE ON DELIVERY VEHICLE TFWCEO MA^C W*OCCL SERIAL. ^O.€NC NE *rC^Y yy.cn souwa 100 souwe 200 f ^ P^SOCi wO,To n C?C^"M VICTO “*^?fALP71W3TX 126751 """^ART.BILL VfHICLI SALES sales *ax 2151 u LCENSC 1 title 2152 DCX. m • '"‘tv* TWUCR 0 WAWWITY »tl ^escwFTict^AOC7i#0 r T' NfW ^PLUT #3350 b NfW TRK LI0*<T #3470 NEW VAN #3471 §NCW TPK. rt?..#35..w M \‘LiJ 0□ E,y I-! 7* 1 W-i U’SIO CA«B USEO ^VCK s 18,667.00 • • *• a ? • 4-v': • CAR DEAU NO, ceST % % r* rt % CTL TOTAL CASH PAtCE DBPCSfT 1110 CASH CN OEVVEPt 1110 NfW 1020 VS CD 1030 US£0 C ar au C iRR>-C€ total c.os aerr POAO ABC. rOA#: SERIAL f*0. n\A*KC PEC. r>Ai4»*ce iNCOwg •NSCPAMIE PtC. t*isv»wicc vNcc^e USED TRUCR PVn O USED CAR ru«0 4 . - B . I i 0 E Q STOCK NO. OF T»V»>5t 7 on. usfe iNvtM0«r #135«^ #136410 E # / >i' .' ; . A'* • - **! Y- •-» jorcdcs^-^ V ’ ‘- v . * A ^ ^Vv .*• ‘.r A.-. . y-.-v 18,887>00- - ’ LV: I •. \ .* • r-* • • •••*. I8.S87;oa{ ■ • . • . V • • % '% : • •'..‘ * *-4 - I ^. •>> r 16,687.007 , * F • .* .• ‘ 'I* ; - ■, ; . ■: ■ - : • *• • •• • . :;i A. .Lv . *.•# (vncf CISTRIOUTlON: 1 •ACCTG. 2 -VENOCR 3 -VENDCS 4 • N’HNOCR 5 • FILE 6-ASSIGNMENT COPY 7670 9' • g*9\ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 7, CiL FLEETING DEC 1 1 1995 ^ qicSSONO ITEM NO (I Department Approval: Name Ronald A. Moorse Title Cit>' Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Cits- Administrator’s Report Item Description: 1995/1996 Police Lieutenant Contract Settlement A settlement has been reached with the Police Lieutenant Union regarding wages and benefits for 1995 and 1996. The settlement calls for the same wage and insurance increases as the Citv's other employee groups received. The terms ot the settlement are as follows. 1. 2. Wages. A. 1995 - 2.75% increase B. 1996 - 2.85% increase Insurance Contribution. A. 1995 - $10.00 per month increase to $301.00 per month B 1996 - $12.50 per month increase to $313.50 per month Staff recommends approval of the Police Lieutenant Contract Settlement as outlined above. COUNCII. ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the Police Lieutenant Contract Settlement for 1995 and 1996 and to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the contract rellecting the approved settlement. Isv COUNCIL MS » fl ■ i; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 1 1995 CITY Of DATE: December 7, 1995 ITEM NO.:It Department Approval: Name Ronald A. Moorse Title Citv Administrator AdmiiiUtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Cit> Administrator’s Report Item Description: Police Administrative and Oltice Support Statfing Background In June of 1995 Lieutenant Gar}' Chcswick was appointed as Acting Police Chiet. There was no action taken at that time to fill the vacancy created in his lieutenant position. As part ot the 1996 budiiet process, staff recommended the Police Chief position not be filled on a permanent basis until the end of 1996. Based on this recommendation, and the need to provide additional statfing to assist the Actinc Chief with administrative tasks, the 1996 budget includes SaO.OOO tor an additional administrative staff person. Interim Solution for .Administrative Surn^rt In August of 1995. staff advised the Council that a temporaiy solution to the administrative task work load was needed. Staff recommended that an interim solution would be to shift some administrative tasks to the Police Secretar} . and to increase the work schedule of one police clerical staff person from part-time to full-time to enable her to take on some of the tasks that were being done by the Police Secretar}. This was to be an interim solution through 1995. and would be evaluated in late 1995 for possible extension through 1996. Kvicnsion of Interim .Arramiement The additional administrative staff position recommended for 1996 was reccm.mended as a way to add skills and expenise to the Department, as well as to assist the .Acting Chiet with administrative tasks. Several factors have lead to a recommendation to extend the interim arrangement rather than hiring a new administrative staff person. These are as follow s: 1 file temporaiy shifting of responsibilities among the police otfice support stall has been very successful in freeing up Gary Chcswick to focus on priority responsibilities. It has also been successful in enabling the police admini.strativc and office support duties to be effectively carried out. 2. Although there are additional skills and areas of expertise that would benefit the Police Department, it is not critical that these be added immediately. The City Administrator will prepare a report in the first quarter of 1996 w ith analysis and recommendations regarding police administrative priorities and staffing needs to guide decisions regarding staffing additions or changes. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 December 7, 1995 Police Administrative and Office Support Staffing 4.The skills of the permanently appointed Police Chief will have a significant impact on the types of skills that need to be added by staffing changes. Staff Recommendation Based on these factors, it is recommended that the temporary appointments of Sue Bobzien and Kris Knollenberg be extended through 1996. It is also recommended that the pay rate of Kris Knollenberg be increased from S10.08 per hour to Si 1.03 per hour to reflect both the additional responsibilities and the full-time work schedule. The e.xtension of the temporary appointments will still allow the hiring of a temporary part-time position or intern position it needed tor specific expertise or projects during 1996. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the extension of the temporary appointments of Sue Bobzien and Kris Knollenberg through 1996, and to increase the pay rate of Kris Knollenberg to $11.03 per hour. rOUuClli'LETluG DEC 1 1 1995 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION jjjy IRONO DATE: December 7. 1995 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Ronald A. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Cit> Administrator’s Report Item Description: Selection of Date tor 1996 Local Board of Review Meeting The City recently received notification from the County Assessor that the City needs to select a date for the 1996 Local Board of Review meeting by December 29. He has suesested Orono ’s Local Board of Review meeting be held on Wednesday. April 24. The Citv needs to confirm that date or provide an alternate date to the Assessor by December 29.* COLTs'CIL ACTION REQLTSTED: Motion to select a date and time for the 1996 Local Board of Review ’ meeting Lidxuimmm REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; December DEC 1 1 1995 --O/.ipNO ITEM NO.^ ^7 Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administration Item Description: Extension of Prosecution Contract for the Years 1996-1997 The City has for several years contracted with the City ot Minnetonka for Prosecution Services. The City of Minnetonka has provided effective prosecution services at a low cost. The agreement to extend the service through 1997 is attached for Council review and approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the Prosecution Agreement with the City of Minnetonka for the years 1996 1997. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR PROSECUTION SERVICES This agreement is between the City of Minnetonka ("Minnetonka") and the Cities of Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Orono, and St. Bonifacius (sometimes collectively referred to as "Cities"), all of which are Minnesota municipal corporations with the power to cooperatively exercise municipal powers pursuant to Minn. Stat. §471.59. 1. Purpose. Each of the Cities and Minnetonka have the power and responsiblity to prosecute criminal matters within their respective jurisdictions. They wish to provide for the exercise of such prosecutorial powers by Minnetonka on behalf of the Cities. 2. Provision of Services. Minnetonka shall provide all of the personnel, office space, and supplies necessary to prosecute the criminal offenses for which the Cities are responsible, including enforcement of the Cities' codes of ordinances. In addition, Minnetonka will provide legal advice and training regarding criminal law to the Cities' departments which have law enforcement and code enforcement duties. All personnel providing these services will be Minnetonka employees, and Minnetonk*" will be responsible for all employment matters related to these employees, including employee benefits, workers' compensation, and unemployment compensation. When hiring any attorney to perform these services, Minnetonka will include a representative from each of the Cities, at their option, in the interviews of the finalist candidates. On occasion, Minnetonka may subcontract for assistance from attorneys who are not Minnetonka employees. Minnetonka will provide the identities of these individuals in advance to the Cities. Personnel provided will consult with the Cities' elected and appointed officials regarding policy and guidelines. 3. year 1996: Fees. The Cities will pay the following fees to Minnetonka for calendar Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Orono St. Bonifacius $ 2,320 per year $21,830 per year $35,880 per year $ 8,970 per year For calendar year 1997, these fees will be increased by the same percentage increase granted by Minnetonka to its management employees for 1997 wages. The fees will be paid in advance, on a quarterly basis beginning December 31, 1995. Minnetonka will notify each City in writing after the 1997 percentage increase has been determined. If this notification occurs after January 1, 1997, each City will have 30 days after the notice to reimburse Minnetonka for the increase retroactive to January 1, 1997. The fees will be for all of the services described in paragraph 2, except that each City will be responsible for the following: a. b. All costs of any appeal, excluding Minnetonka personnel costs. Before pursuing any such appeal, Minnetonka must receive approval from the City Administrator or City Clerk of the affected City. All costs in excess of $100 per case for retaining an outside attorney because a matter involves a City official, employee, or member of their Immediate family. c. All costs for service of subpoenas in excess of the following amounts: Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Orono St. Bonifacius $ 45 per year $510 per year $765 per year $180 per year 4. Term. This agreement shall begin January 1, 1996, and conclude December 31, 1997. 5, Termination. Any of the Cities may terminate this agreement if Minnetonka fails to perform the services provided in paragraph 2 above by giving 60 days advance written notice of termination to all of the other parties. Each City will not bo responsible for paying fees during any time that Minnetonka fails to provide it the required services. Minnetonka may terminate the agreement if any of the Cities fails to pay the fees due within 60 days after Minnetonxa notifies the City in writing, with a copy to the other Cities, of the delinquent payment. At Minnetonka's option, termination by any party voids the agreement as to all parties, upon 60 days advance written notice from Minnetonka. 6. Renegotiation. After July 1, 1997, the parties will analyze the fees to determine if they accurately reflect the costs incurred by Minnetonka in providing prosecution services to the Cities and are appropriately allocated between the Cities. The parties agree to negotiate in good faith a potential extension of this agreement with or without a revision in the fee structure. 7, Exchange of Data. The Cities will provide all information, data, and reports necessary for the prosecution services, including police reports and arrest records, to Minnetonka without charge. The parties will cooperate with each other in every way possible to assist in the provision of these prosecution services. m • 8. Confidentiality. Minnetonka will maintain the confidentiality and privacy of documents which the Cities provide. In accordance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act. 9. Indemnity. Minnetonka will Indemnify and defend each of the Cities against all claims arising out of Minnetonka’s performance of the services specified in paragraph 2 above. 10. Insurance. Minnetonka will obtain professional liability insurance to cover each of the Minnetonka employees providing the services under this agreement. 11. Amendment. This agreement may be amended only in writing signed by ail of the parties. 12. Notices. All notices required or permitted in this agreement and required to be in writing must be given by first class mail addressed to the relevant City at its City Hall. Date.Cb^- t CITY OF MINNETONKA iyor(7 And Its City Manager Date:CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH Its Mayor And Its City Clerk .r:"''. .11 It ah I wn I ^ Date: Date: Date://Mfs / CITY OF MINNETRISTA And Its City Administrator CITY OF ORONO Its Mayor And Its City Administrator CITY OF ST. BONIFACIUS * - COUNCIL MEEnr DEC 1 1 1995 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Qf oro DATE; December 6,1995 ITEM NO:> \ I Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Tom Kuehn —• t ^ x Title Finance Director j Agenda Section: Citv Administrator's Report Item Description: Appoint Auditor for Fiscal Year 1995 We have requested a cost estimate from the audit firm ol Malloy, Montague. Kamowski. Radosevich & Company for performing the 1995 fiscal year audits. They have submitted an estimate of $16,100 e.xcluding direct e.xpcnses. plus $1,500 for any additional expense incurred as a result of application to the Certificate of Achievement for E.xcellence in Financial Reporting. This compares with an actual cost for the 1994 audits ot $15,600 plus $631 for direct expenses and $1,500 for the certificate program. A comparison of the 1995 actual cost to the 1996 auditors estimate is shown below. Audit Costs a) Annual audit for the City b) Minnesota legal compliance Subtotal Audit Cost Certificate of Achievement TOTAL COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Council appointment of the audit firm of Malloy, Montague, Kamow ski, Radosevich & Co., C.P.A.’s to perform the required audits for the 1995 fiscal year records. 1995 1996 Increase Acmal Estimate tDecreasei $14,400 $14,900 $500 1.200 1.200 -0- $15,600 $16,100 $500 $ 1.500 $ 1.500 -0- $17,100 $500 , seconded by., to appoint the auditPROPOSED MOTION: • Moved by,__ firm of Malloy, Montague, Kamowski, Radosevich & Co. to perform the required audits for the 1995 fiscal > ear at an estimated cost of $16,100 plus direct expenses and to assist with the Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting Program at a cost not to exceed $1,500 Ayes____Nays_____. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCILMEETING DEC 1 1 1995 C?TV 3*^ DATE: December 6,1995 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name TomKuehn Title Finance Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Authorization to disburse City funds for claims received This month we have only one Council meeting, scheduled for Monday, December 11th. The second Council meeting, which falls on or near the Christmas holiday, has been can celled, in line with previous years practices. We will have the next scheduled Council meeting on Monday, Januaiy 8, 1996. We therefore are requesting authorization to do a normal claims processing for the canceled Council meeting. This practice has been done in December each year with the Council then formally approving tl»t claims at the first meeting in Januaiy' of the following year. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorization to disburse City funds in payment of claims received for the December 25th Council meeting, which has been canceled, with formal approval of the paid claims at the Januaiy 8. 1996 regular Council meeting. . seconded by., to authorize the CityPROPOSED MOTION: - Moved by,__ Treasurer to disburse funds in payment of claims received for the December 25th Council meeting, wliich has been canceled and that such paid claims are to be presented at the Januaiy' 8, 1996 regular Council meeting for formal approval. Ayes___, Nays___. REQUEST FOR COUNCtt ACTION COUNCIL DEC 1 1 1995 CHY OF ORor^o DATE: December 6,1995 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Tom Kuehn ^ . 4^' Title Finance Director :'' Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: City Administrator's ^ Report Item Description: 1995 Interfimd Transfers and Loan Pavmer ‘i Attachment: Schedule of 1995 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments At the end of each yeai the Council is requested to authorize transfer of monies between funds. These transactions fall into two categories: 1. ) Budgeted Transfers - Items designated in that year's budget when originally adopted for the purpose of providing support from one fund to another. 2. ) Fund Obligations - Loans and payments from one ftaid to another to reim burse expenses incurred by one fund on behalf of another. This is generally for City portions of special assessments. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of transfers as indicated on the attached schedule . seconded bv., to approve the inter-PROPOSED MOTION: - Moved by,__ fund operating transfers, loan payments and special assessment payments on City owned property as presented, effective December 31, 1995. Ayes___, Nays___. r 4 ^ i# 030 SCHFDULE OF 1QQ5 rNTFRFl^D TR ANSFFRS AND I.OAN PAY\fl^NTS FROM FimP TO FUND AMOUNT PURPOSE General General Imp and Equip Outlay 1985 Improvement Bond Debt Service S64.900.00 S 4,780.00 Annual operating transfer for capital equipment purchases, as budgeted. Budgeted payment, 10th of 15 for special assessments re: sani tary' sewer on City owned property in Cry stal Bay (Princ SS'OSO. Int $1,700.) Bal o/s 12-31-95 $15,392. Building Outlay 1991 Public Facilitv Permanent Imp General Revolving (P.I.R.) $123,000.00 $10,043.39 •Annual operating transfer for debt ser\’- ice support of URA Building Bonds, as budgeted Transfer of 1995 special assessments collected to repay monies borrowed for Co. Rd. 15 street light project. Balance o/s 12/31/95 $ -0- . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 7, 1995 COUNClLMEEnKG DEC i 1 Ciry 0^ ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Ronald A. Mocrse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Authorization for the Use of Funds from the Park Fund On the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, staff were made aware of the availability- of mature Spruce trees at a very low- cost. StatT identified two priority sites where the trees could be used for additional screening and ordered seven trees. One site was in the French Creek Preserv’e, the other was on the property where the new Old Crystal Bay Road Bike Trail meets the Luce Line Trail. Each of the trees was 15’ - 20 ’ in height and cost $250 for a total cost of $1750. Stall is requesting Council to authorize the use of Park Dedication Fees for the purchase of the trees. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize the use of $1750 of Park Dedication Fees for the purchase of trees, and to amend the Park Fund budget to reflect the expenditure. COUNCILMEETING DEC 1 1 1995 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Q- ORGFJO DATE: December 7, 1995 ITEM NO: ^ ^ Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hollin Title Citv Clerk Administrator Reviewed; '/7 Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Orono Golf Course 265 Orono Orchard Road OfT-Saie Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Orono Self Service 2160 Wayzata Boulevard O’Sullivans 2420 Shadvwood Road On-Sale and Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Navarre Lanes Malt Liquor 3435 Shoreline Drive 1996 Residential Kennel License Jane Kline/Steve Bell 4455 West Branch Road Wayne E. & Gayle D. Carrier 1376 North Arm Drive Jayne Paasch 2150 Kenwood Way Kenneth & Karen Rolland 4119 Oak Street Judith A. Spinner 940 North Arm Drive Rene’ & Patricia Sternau 440 North Arm Drive COLTS’CIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve licenses listed above, Itf t * 0,^(1 r • Date: To: From: Re: Cecenber 5, 1995 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Gary CheswicJc, Chief of Police Liquor License ~ Orono Golf Course I have reviewed the application submitted by Mr. Ronald Steffenhagen on behalf of the Orono Golf Course. After having conducted appropriate background investigation, I have no objection to the issuance of this license. v; *Wmrm N«t. SM **IIM** r*rwM'^ ittr* n Ml RETAIL *H>N a.\LET ^tnte of Minnesota, ) „yjC3aKiS5LL*^ycoojrrr of __ or ...... To the...Oa?.?............-...of tte......Oi'H...........of......,0.^.a;..Q. ........................................................................^State of jnnnesoU: _____ ___..OsoCF ____________ herrbif Itppl f C5 fnr a lirrnm {•"• thr ff'*** of - .... frvm t&«...........................................dap of -) ftAJO 4fc't ..........— At Retail Only, Non-Inloxicalin* Malt Liquors, <u tha tamo art dtfinriLhw Utw. for conoumplion ■‘OX" (hotf cfrtainrrrmUrt in thr <2.ry ...... of .... l••o•»«• »o»*ooi«aooooooo* •••• ••»••*••• , 19^&. to tett dtmetihetl as fdHov'^, l*»<^(oSZ 0»e^<o o Cwi.tV#Vfcl» . at which ptded idid apptlrnnt oprrntt the bttsinrsB of . and to fhnt rnd rfprrneni and date am follown: that Mid applicant . citltcn of the Unitid Staten; nf foofl nionil character anti rrpafr; and ha attained the afe nf 11 yenrB; proprietor of ihs edithliMhatefti for u-hieh the licence will be irnued if thin appiieati»»n in /Jraefrd. That no nxanufacturtr of nurh nonrintoxicntinfl fruilt liquori has any ou nernhip, in whale or in part, ifi said businern of eaid applicant or any intereat therein; That satd applicant make this arpUcatinn pursuant ayl subject to all the laws of tho State of Minnesottx and the ordinances and te^ulalions of said ..............- ...............................— applUahU thereto, which are hcrehxj made a paH hereof, and hereby aC^es to obseno and obey tho same; llforo s'oto olW f^ialroaaofit^ It %•?. )w«l tm/i Iirnlituiii fitt liter 1/I//CJ ihai In ihe uiiiWHincment of Iwuiwsf ami In July I <<J emit untrtilmg year mid aitf)/Hanl will tia>eI’aitl ihe I eilenil S/iei uil OmiiHtnmiiil la\ to the lliiiraii vj AU ulml. Iiihiimi ami l iieuniisfm a retail dntlvr. t . • Da ted - . 19 »■♦«•♦«••• o*« ••«•»•••• »o»«oo«oo»*o*o« •*••••«•» Date: To: From: Ee: December 5, 1995 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Liquor License ■* Orono Self Service I have reviewed the application submitted by Mr. william Wear on behalf of the Orono Self Service. After having conducted appropriate background investigation, I have no objection to the issuance of this license. ro(^ —Na. ».<—■ Iv Rrwa I ■ Ml* I ••Mi ii»r" RETAIL “OFF SALE" ot ittinncsota.0 /Tl . »• • • »• •Oi2eoQ To the..........Qcv/U^tirrr................of the......G * rt.............of ........................State of Minnesota: krrtby appH for <* lifrnm for tho Urm of .. ...V.^7? ------------------------------- from iKo .........................................................•/ — ...............— —• 19 fa If 11 In Original Packages Only, Non-Inloxicaling Malt Uqaors, a* thr t<tm* art <Ufi>u4 by Uiu>, for consumption “Orr’ those rortainj^emino Ji» tho..... .......................... ............... Oi-n.... ---------------- (^ZJfeoOO ^ert-p 1//d cr-----------drserihrd ns follow, to-veit: ae which plaeo nfiid applletvnl ... OfferaU .... .th4 businrtt of Zl L f. . S*.V W »A t. Oful to that end repreetnt ... and etnU as follow: That said aPPlionnt . ..........of tho Dnitsd States: of good moral eharaoUr andrrpuU; and ha attained the ago of tl yoart, that proprietor of tho ffttahlishmrnt for lo/iio^ tho lirtnoo toill bo issued if this applUation is granted That rai d applioant make this application pursua^ and puAjeel to all tho lairs of the Slate of Minnesota and tho oniinaneeo and regaUlions of said C / ^ applioahU thereto, uhioh are hereby made a part hereof, and hereby agree to observe and obey tho same. • sOnm^%to- so ■ 9s*m*b.oo.—no•• (n«ra mdtrn oOier gdmrnttmmmmtm. If mmp. 9i ImiU To. h ari ’l'i ant further Muiei that hr the amtinen, rnieni of huuness and hr Juh I of eoi h j.«. cedi'ig year rout avpluiwl »,ll hate tuwllhe I edcral SiHiUil Oiiopaiional lay to the nurcaii of ethohol, lottoeto and I oearon Jor a leitid dealer. UaUd ♦ o—eeooa« * dppUoani P. 0. Mdrrwt__.J0------- I . i ; tf f:'-'Date: To; • From; He: December 5, 1995 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Gary Cheswick^ Chief of Police Liquor License - ©'Sullivans Texaco I have reviewed the application submitted by Mr. John O'Sullivan on behalf of the O'Sullivans Texaco. After having conducted appropriate background investigation, I have no objection to the issuance of this license. s I 1«f lH#a I iitMt !• V« N— \imtm *f nr-rnwl<w. RETAIL “OFF SALE” &tate o( illinius^ota, Cmutiff •/......................................................... Cl^iXL/c^...............of theTo the Q*X1 __or...... CLtry........«f ......CA.PMxy. State of Minnaota: ^!)b>>Vsl ... htrtbif arpti ** tirffis* for iKt tfrm of .. ^.4^“.... Ff^Sr- ..........day of.........fnfm the.... In Original Packngra Oniy, Non-Into»icating Malt Liquor* M tU oawna aro defintd by Into, for eonjumptiom ‘OFr’ thooo cvinin pntnitoo in (ho ..................Crry......................./.......... , 19 ^.(ot lo toll drtffrihrd om folUnrn, te wii:SM...04***** 4l whi^h place $aui applicant operate tho buoifUM of ...:^.TCAt^. and to that end repreeent and $UiU at follou§ : That *a«l applio.tnt ........................lO'A. oiiiirn of tho OnUod Slatet; of food fnoral charaotor and rrpute. and ha/^ attained tho ago of tl ymr,. that Tfr-^ propriotor of tho tsUibli'l’trirnt for tchioh tho liernto will be iomed if thio applieatwn U (ranted. That eaid applicant make thio applUation purtiutp^ and eubjeot to all tfc* law* of tho Slate of Minneeot.x and iho ordituxnceo and re(ulatwno of paid L CT1 appUaabU thereto, whioh are hereby made a part hereof, and hereby agree to obeerve and obey tho oame: • ••• •••-^••••OOI (n«#« etoio ¥thm ro^t»»«o«to. If o< laoeJ »o*mUU*eol l ai h arrhranl further M.ttef Ihol h* the t otumem rmcul of Imsinax and hr July I of rat h mu t rrthnt year said arrht am ndl hare paid the Federal SiH-aol Ou uronnnal lax lo the Bureau of Aleohol. Jubaceo and Fnearms for a rctciif (U'olcr Dated .!J.h.9.J.l£.____ 19 Applicant I*»o»»»»o»oeoe»I<■»••• p. 0. Addrtoo ___— ____ IDate:December 5,1995 To:Ron Moorse,City Administrator From:Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Re:Liquor License -Navarre Lanes I have reviewed the application submitted by Mr. Don Scherven on behalf of Navarre Lanes. After having conducted appropriate background investigation, I have no objection to the issuance of this license. f '» ;r I kfU 1FtM^w N«. S35<Ni«4l fcM %r*m»lkrtwm*mS^ altoB Mall I iiTHM ‘*UN‘*rwMair^, II *ii RETAIL "ON SALE’ ^tntt o( iHinncsotn. coujrrr of..^....................... To the . Clbt3lOC4 C .......... Ij ^...Cl.L’n__ .. of the ....CL »Tn or____™J Cife-p.vjr. O- Slate of Minnesota: >iMP aooaaoo«a«o«oo< «. ^^_______»96,. .a At Rclail Only, Non Intoxicating Malt Liquors, from M the eame nr, dtfinr.1 »v (or rcneumpHon "Oy" then, certain P^tnUr, in Vxc _ .............__C/Ty ....................... of ... d>^OKJO ,ooo—«♦♦•>»•»*—»»■•»•*•****** d^Mcfxhrd as follow$, lo-wil: at which ptaee taid applicant aprrntt the btuinat of A'/^ug/i/ze....< ■—no*—-eo —»»• —o*o*o»» and to that end represent and staie as follow n: TIuU raid applicant /S rUi-.rn of the UniUd State,, of iood moral character and repute; and ha iS attained the ate of tl year,; that ............................... pmpnclor of the ctahUehment (nr which the Ucen,e wUl be .eeued if M, appUcatiun „ emnted. That no manufacturer of each nonantoswatint malt liquor, hoe any ownechip. in whote or in part, in taid bu,inc<» of taul applicant or any ,nteie,t therein; That taU applicant make thie arplicniian puriuanl ^ inject to all the law, of the State of Minneota and the ordinance, and reiulatiane of taut appUcabU thereto, which are hereby made a part hereof, and hereby aSree to obten;, and obey the nanu,; (Hero oiaio ollMe roa«*ra*e»t«> If SMt, •• r^aoiotl^ol , a. h uppluan, fmdwr u.,ua du,, hr .he ...mme.neuwm .,/ /..nm.-,, and hy JuU I cea. uud oppluanl ».// h„^ep.ud ,he le.lcol S.waol Oxeuponomd l.„ ,o .he U.ueou of Ah.dud. hd,„..o and! uco.o.S Jo , trtiiti tlntlvr. Dated -.. «ir MM I •• Sdl liMW " retail “OFF SALET ^latt o| iWinnefiota, | ___OjTK- dpo^tf -r:..............of the.......Q'Tt. Co-»/o To the... or— of . 0/2.0 V6 OR <9 ^Jd). State of Minnesota: __ "" - C^AJC ktrtby iippl.L^ for <1 Hern— for tho term of............... t TjT Jafi . from iA*-............................................... .. -.... •»«» ----------- • OO*^ •••««•«• ■ •••♦• • , 19 9.M to Hit In Original Packages Only, Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquors, « the eomo are defi^ Ay Uur. for consumption "OFr’ thorn " deteribrd <u follows, to-wit: ••««*o««•.o*o»*»«e**«* o.'. o»*a»»»ee»i»*» •• •••♦» al ivhirh place eaul applicant .....0,>erate the bueineei of - ^ noomeo -♦••♦•♦•••-•O n!r:r/jn «»/ —* •'‘-7"; and repute; and ha attained the age of tl yoare; that ................... prapruto ctabUehmcnl for ,ch^h the license will be Usued if thU application is granted. Viateoidapplic^int malce thUaPPlwaiionpur.u.u^tande^iecttoalltheUweoftheStateo^^ Minnesota and the ordinances and regulatu.ns of said Cel.r. / applicabU thereto, whwh are hereby made a part hereof, and hereby agree to obeerr,e and obey the same: (Dor« oiavo oOMr If oo». *4 »e«iil«U»»el moil dealer Dated ./LrjL____ KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January I, 19 QU to December jl, 19_V_£. Owien \q.\g- Property Address: V-U — (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different): Phone: Hiome) ------------------('vork). r\xr^n (A^) l\\r. -A - ~V \ _ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.n0 (payment must accompany application) NIaximuin No. of dogs to be kept at one time. (over 3 months of age) Principal Breed:____ Purpose for more than 2 dogs: Dogs normally kept: A-Jnside-------kennel structure COMMERCLAL Kennel License Fee: SlaO.OO (pa>Tnent must accompany application) Name of Business:^____________________________— Business Activities:___ Normal Business Hours:------ After Hours Contact: (name)_ (phone) ■ Dog runs/exercise areas are: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) inside outside both I J \ 1 4 ^ A A 4^^ W 4 • w • ^ - — ■ ° . 1- r.-. rh^. Ornro Citv Council for a Kennel License as The that a ke'nnel license is permissiv-e ordy and specified on this fo ... ‘ violate any provision of any City Crainance or other .aw or does not grmt any ^ ,^e'^Citv permisssion to inspect the premises prior to regulation; the reas'onable time during the license duration; and the undersigned license approval a^d a Municipal Code Chapier 5.36 including any special pfn^ions tposei by the City Council as para of any kennel license approval. (3-3 \j Applicant fnr CilYM^eMnlX K,nml DenialRecommends Approx al_JL- Date / ^ ^ - % ^ (include city and ap) (wefkt kennel license application Effective January U 19 f e?_ to December 31, 19 JIS Owner jA/AVf^ Property Address: Mailing Address (if different): Phone: n^nmg^ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (pa>Tnent must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time. fover 3 months of age) / / // Principal Breed: ^ - -------------------- Purpose for more than 2 dogs: ~ Dogs normally kept: _^inside-------kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: Slc^O.OO (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities:,(example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After flours Contact: (name) (phone) Doc' runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both UOg ------- --------------- . u i-.e anniimtinn to the Orono Citv' Council for a Kennel License as The undersigned ere ^ ^ acknowledues that a kennel license is permissive only and sKci&d oa this tom.; the ci.y Ordinaoco ur c*« '.^.v or does not grant any au on • j-e City permisssion to inspect the premises pnor to regulauom r^as^ble time d^g the license deration; and the undersigned license appro ^ ^ Code Chapter 5.36 ineludmg any spec.al ^^ndiderntp^ed by d.e Ciry Coencl as pan of any Itenne, license approval. Applicicam /2e> Date U 6f^r City UseJ2uIy Date # •« KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1,19____to December 31,19 ! J Owner JAYr^PAASCH __ Property Address: 2150 K£ V? Mailing Address (if difirereni):_ Phone: (home) 471-9366 WAY. WAYZ^T'^, |i]0V Si ^ (include city and zip) (work). RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (pavinent must accompany application) Nlaximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:_6 (over 3 months of age) Principal Rreed: vnRK.^HTl^R TERRI^’^ 1 A'JST. ?KFFPDQG Purpose for more than 2 Hnvs: yn\T a \tyat £--------- Dogs normally kept: __inside-------kennel structure COM.MERC1AL Kennel License Fee: SI50.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: \0NF_________________________ Business Activities:_Nic:£ (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: \ONK After Hours Contact: (name) (phone). Dog runs exercise areas are:inside outside X bothuog ruii2>/---------------------- •Pie undersiEKd herebv makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as The ™“'5ign unjersiuned acknowledges that a kennel license is pemussive only and ,Tr.^t iv auioZ to Violate any provision of any City Ordinance or o'drer law or does not gr • ^ g^^^ts the City perraisssion to inspect the prermses prior to regulation, reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned rrbSit ts of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special condidons imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Appli/ant //" ~ Date ri^ The Only. Kennel inspected by — Recommends Approval —v;_ 5 C Date //- Effective January 1 Propem' Address: KENNtL LICENSE APPLICATION ^^.0 :tive January 1. 19^^ to December 31,19:Z^ /J,eD^t> ~'f^ (include city and zip) Mailing Address fff different):------------------------------------- Phone: (home)______--------------------------------(workl----- RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:. (over 3 months of age^ ^7^ - Principal Purpose for more than 2 dogs:----. Dogs normally kept: .^inside-------kennel structure COMMERCLAL Kennel License Fee: S150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business;________------------------------------- Business Activities;-------- hoarding, breeding, veterinuiy cure, retaii. etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs'exercise areas are:insideDob runsexerciic oiv.a^ ----------- L c .nnlirition to the Orono Citv Council for a kennel License as The undersigned ^ , acknowledses that a kennel license is permissive only and rpecificd on this f-rm: ^ provision of any City Ordinance or other law or does not grant any the Citv peraiisssion to inspect the premises pnor to regulation; the d^e license duration; and the undersigned license ^rrequiTOTents of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special J^didoL taposei by the City Co^cd as part of any Itennel license approval. Applicant Date Cj*f '- a Date I J7, * 7 ' ^ • • KE.V.TL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 19J^ to Dccc mcer j 1.19 —^ Ownt“ vjLLd;4.K A. 5p:«Nnfc<^----------------------------— Property Oa. (include city and z:p> Mailing Address (if different):. (\vcrk) 351*Phone: (home) M~t ^ ~ ^ ^ ^_____________ RESIDE>TI.\L Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:-----,«i__------ - - (over 3 months of age) ^ Principal Sp^'>e.\ , Codre^ , Si-n.-V Purpose for more than 2 dogs:-----O' —-------------- Dogs normally kept: -k-inside-------kennel structure COiVLMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: S 150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:__________ Business Activities:.------------- (examplele: boa^dinc, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:----- After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs'e.xercise areas are:inside outside both L/Og ruii^ ----------------------- -------------- ^ • f • Th= •and.rsi.gn.d hereby specified on this term, the anv provision of any Cir/ Ordinance or other law or does not grant any ^ Citv permisssion to inspect the premises pnor to regulation; the " ^^^ble time dui^g the license duration; and the undersigned license approval ar.d at ^yo_c.^ Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special agrees to abide y ^ ^ license approval, conditions imposed bv tn- v.ii> v. Date /i^licant f - Kennel inspected by .4 M »•/•* Dote //- lo Kennel inspeacu Ricomm^nds Appro^a‘S- ■ IK - KENNEL LICENSE .APPLICATION ^ Effective Jjinuary 1. I9~^C> to Deceinber jL -9— 3 0 m^hcrtcl .. JJQ tjyfh lyFjZ ^Property Address:. Mailing .Address (if different):. (include citv' and zip) /r- /-(work)Phone: ^ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S2e.00 (payment must accompany application) Ma.\imum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:_J::i (over 3 months of age) / age; - 1 " /-/ fc'. ■ 0 ■. y ------------------ --------- / Principal Breed: ' ' ’ - J Purpose for more than 2 dogs._—:—------------------------------- Dogs normally kept: _/_inside ^kennel structure CO.MMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: S150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities:------boarding, breeding, vetcrinarv- care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:, After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) inside outside both Dog runs/exercise areas are; ---------- _ .• .• rt. Ornno Citv Council for a Kennel License as The undersigned hereby ’^^P^'^^^^^.vledees that a kennel license is permissive only and specified on this torm, the . provision of any City Ordinance or other law or does not grant any . the^City permisssion to inspect the premises panor to regulation: the underspend ,^ ^ license duration; and the undersigned license approval and at any other re^ . 3, special agrees to abide «*nart of anv kennel license approval. 3 o» ■TV 'JO I' • *' *X o mo CO<x> Cn mrri • • •m • A ■»•■. v\3 V)) 1999 2:38 PH OMdt QMck tcflitttr City of Orww Oott Nano Tronooetloft AflnAt P«e 1 ConMoti 50439 Total* Qiock lijiber 50439 cm COUOTT CHEOJT UOIOO 06-0OC-95 CITY COUOTT C«E0IT UHICO 50439 CITY COLOTY C«E01T UHIOH hack Nukbor 50440 FIIST 8ITI00AL »AhlC Of LAKES 50440 50440 Tout* Check 06*Oac-95 C6-0*c-95 FlUST OATICOAL lAMK Cf LAKES FIRST OATlOaAL BANK OF LAKES 50440 FIRST OATICOAL BANK OF LAKES Rui«)*r 50441 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 50441 06-0ec-95 CHEAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. Totals Check HM 50U1 CHEAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. a»ck SurtJer 50U2 HEWMEPI* CO. SUPPORT 4 COLL 06-0ec-95 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT I COLL50442 Total* Check IhJiBJer 50442 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT I COLL 3»#ck Nlrtjer 50443 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT 4 COLL 50U3 06-0ec-95 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT S COLL Total* Check Nuwer 50443 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT 4 COLL 3,eck Muitwr 504U ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 50444 06-Dec-95 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Total* Check Nut^er 50444 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 a,eck NUlRjer 50445 LAW ENFCRCMENT UBOR SERVICE 06-0*c '75 law ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE50445 loUI. Cl>«» 5 “** »,„l< nuAer S0U4 in OEPI 01 .Eve«* 50446 06-0ec-95 mm DEPT OF REVENUE 50446 MM DEPT OF REVENUETotal* Check Nurber heckNU*er 50447 MN MUTUAL LIFE 50447 06-0ec-95 Total* Check Muifcer MN MUTUAL LIFE 50447 MN MUTUAL LIFE 5,527.00 5,527.00 13,053.23 2,934.25 15,987.48 1,265.00 1,265.00 164.82 164.82 174.50 174.50 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4,130.54 4,130.54 55.00 55.00 -4. SAVINGS W/N 8 TRANSFEHREO fit,fica,meocr w/n fica,medcr city share CEFERRED COMP U/H THQHTON ac0266780 SKREEN iC0262310 DEFERRED COMP U/H union dues U/H STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP U/H \ 0« ^f9i ta 2:3SPn ChKlt itsfsttr city of OroroClockMCirOattlioek iu*«r 50449 50440 MM STATE KETIREMENT-DCF06-0OC-95 MM STATE HfTIBEKiT-OEP Ct» Totals Oloek auifcor 50440 MM STATE BETtkEMENT'OEP C09 hock Muifcer 50U9 SEtSCO/MtA 50449 06-0ac-9S FESSCO/OtU Totals Chock iKMCwr 50449 aCBSCO/OSSA hock Mtaibor 50450 50450 PESSCO/US CCSf Of MATCfiS 06-0OC-95 PEBSCO/US CCHf OF MATCRS Totals Chock Miinbor 50450 PEBSCO/US CCHF OF MATOBS hock Kurisor 50451 PERA 50451 50451 06-0oc*95 06-0OC-95 PERA PERA Totals Check Nvrber 50451 PERA hock Huiiwr 50452 UMITEO WAY 50452 OO-Oac-95 UNITED UAT Totals Check Nuri»er 50452 UNITED WAY irand Total TransactionAancnt100.00100.00 05.92 85.92 1.345.00 1.365.00 5,317.83 7,242.53 12,560.36 29.00 29.00 41.5U.62 Pas* 2CannentsDEFERRED COMP W/H 08RA DEFERRED COMP W/H USCM DEFERRED COMP W/H PERA EMPLOYEE U/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS W/H ,v • t •• • »•« o«c tm aa 5:34 PM Cti«ck Mck Check icaittcr etty of Orone 50453 Dot* 50453 ALL STAR ELECTRIC OO-OwOS ALL STAR EUCTIIC Tetatt Chock Ruiter 50453 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Chock NtaRior 50454 50454 ASPLURDR COFTEE 11-0OC-95 Total! Q^ock Muiter asplimdn coffee 50454 ASPLUMON COFFEE Check NuMser 50455 50455 50455 50455 50455 50455 ATST 05-0OC-95 05-0OC-95 05-0OC-95 05-Oec-95 05-0OC-95 Total! Check Rvnber ATIT ATST ATST ATST ATST 50455 ATST Chock Riater 50456 50456 ATST WIRELESS SERVICES 11-0«C'95 Totals Check Nu«ber ATST WIRELESS SERVICES 50456 ATST WIRELESS SERVICES Cheek Muifcer 50457 BARTOW sand S GRAVEL 50457 06*0ec-95 BARTOW SANO S GRAVEL Total! Check Nwber 50457 BARTOW SANO S GRAVEL Check NLnfser 50458 50458 BLACKOWIAK S SON 05-Dec-95 Total! Check Huikjer BLACKOWIAK S SOW 50458 BLACKOWIAK S SOM Check Nuiter 50459 50459 BORIS, SCOTT 05-0ec-95 Totals Check Wimber BORIS, SCOTT 50459 BORIS, SCOTT Check Wirtep 50460 50460 50460 BUDGET PRINTING 05- 0ec*95 06- 0ec-95 BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING Totals Check Nu*er 50460 BUDGET PRINTING Check Mirtbep 50461 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. tion 74.08 74.08 103.00 103.00 6.61 5.30 U.05 5.30 52.29 113.55 90.14 90.14 227.29 227.29 300.00 300.00 198.31 198.31 140.55 5.67 146.22 Paee 1 Cannents CO ROAD 6 S MWY 12 COFFEE LONG DISTANCE CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN LEASED EQUIPMENT LONG DISTANCE LONG DISTANCE CELL PHONE-GERHARDSON WINTER SANO LEAF PICKUP UNIFORM REIMS. COMPLAINT REPORTS RETURN TO ELVIN SUPPLY § ote ms md 5:»m Ch»ck Ch«ck ktfistcr City of Orono D«t«Haw 50461 S0461 lUfFAUI llTUMtHOUS INC. 06^DCC‘9S OUFFALO IITUMINOUS INC. Touts Chock suitior S0461 lUFFALO SITUMINOS INC. OMCk Nuiilor 50462 CARCILL SALT DIVISION 50462 06-DOC-95 CARGILL SALT DIVISION Touts Chock Nuitef 50462 CARGILL SALT DIVISION Chock Huriior 50463 CDP IMGINQ SYSTEMS 501^^5 06*DOC'95 COP IMAGING SYSTEMS Tetsts Chock Nu^r 50463 COP IMAGING SYSTEMS OMck Nariwr 50464 CMASPRO 50464 06-0OC-95 CHASPRO Totsls Chock Nuabor 50464 CHASPRO Chock Huibcr 50465 CHESUICK. GARY 50465 05-DOC-95 CHESUICK, CART Totsts Chock MUJbOP 50465 CHESUICK, CARY Chock Nuiber 50466 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 50466 50466 06-DOC-95 11*Dec-95 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Totsls Check Nuibor 50466 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Check Huitwr 50467 COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE Check Nunber 50468 CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ELEC. 50468 06-0ec-95 CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ELEC. Totals Check Nuiber 50468 CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ELEC. Cheek Nuiber 50469 DAHLKE TREE SERVICE 50469 06-Dec-95 DAHLKE TREE SERVICE Transsctiori Aansit 15,684.77 15,684.77 2,260.84 2,260.84 189.87 189.87 225.00 225.00 43.94 43.94 51.07 67.99 119.06 260.86 260.86 315.00 PS9S 2 Cooinents PAY REQUEST m ROAD SALT DECEMBER LEASE SHARPEN CHOPPER BLADES REIMS LUNCHES #169 TEMP GAUGE REPLACE #170 IGNITION WORK 50467 50467 50467 50467 06-Dec-95 06-Dec-95 06-0ec-95 06-0ec-95 'OMMERCIAL i •«ERCIAL i.MIERCIAL COMMERCIAL LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE insurance INSURANCE INSURANCE INSURANCE 0.85 2.66 1.14 265.80 DECEMBER DECEMBER DECEMBER DECEMBER INSURA»'r INSURANCE INSURANCE INSURANCE Totals Check Nuiber 50467 COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE 270.45 REPLACE RELAYS HAND XMAS ORNAMENTS • 199S ma 5:34 PW Ch*ek OMck l«tist»r City of Orono OMCk Miater Totals 0«ack t to Sam 50449 OAMLKE TREE SERVICE 50449 OAMUCE TREE SERVICE 5047Q DNR-DIVISIOH Of WATER t HAIL 50470 06-Oae-95 Totals Oieck Nuntxr DNR-OIVISION OF WATER A MAIL 50470 DNR'DIVISION OF WATER t NAIL Chock iLisbor 50471 50471 E-Z RECTCLIMC 05-0OC-95 Totala Chock iiAter E-Z RECTCLIRC 50471 E-Z RECTCLIRC Slack NcaiMr 50472 50472 EARL f. AMOERSOR A ASSOC. 05-0OC-95 Totals Chock Ncnbcr EARL F. AlffiERSON i ASSOC. 50472 EARL P. ANDERSON A ASSOC. Chock NuiRicr 50473 50473 50473 ESS BROTHERS A SONS 05-DOC-95 05-0OC-95 Totals Check Ntnber ESS BROTHERS A SONS ESS BROTHERS A SONS 50473 ESS BROTHERS A SONS Check Nunber 50474 50474 EXPRESS MESSENGER 11-0ec-95 Totals Check Hiober EXPRESS MESSENGER 50474 EXPRESS MESSENGER Check NkJiber 50475 50475 FIRST CHOICE 06-0ec-95 Totals Check Hucber FIRST CHOICE 50475 FIRST CHOICE Check Noiber 50476 50476 FROST, SHERRT R. 05-Dec-95 Totals Check Nunber FROST, SHERRY R. 50476 FROST, SHERRT R. Check Nunber 50478 50478 50478 50478 50478 G A K SERVICES 05-0ec-95 05-0ec-95 05-0ec-95 11-0ec-95 G A X SERVICES G A K SERVICES C A K SERVICES G A K SERVICES Transaction 315.00 50.00 50.00 5,422.92 5,422.92 77.36 77.36 158.69 240.69 399.38 11.25 11.25 70.00 70.00 400.00 400.00 8.48 72.92 2.64 132.41 Page 3 Coolants WATER PERMIT NOVEMBER RECYCLING CHARGE 'NO DUMPING' SIGNS ADJUSTMENT RINGS ADJUSTMENT RINGS DELIVER TO ATTNEY CLERICAL UNIFORMS PARK COMMISSION MTG RATHBUN STREET EMPLOYEES STEFFENHAGEN FLOOR NATS r ft DM 1995 M 5:3ft m ClMck >•9**^*'' City of Orono OmcIc Ooto MM SOftTB 50ft78 5047B 50ft78 50ft78 50ft78 50ft78 50ft78 50ft78 50ft78 50ft78 50ft7S 50ft78 G ft K 05-0OC-95 05-0«-95 05-0«e*95 11-D0C-95 11-0#e*95 05-DOC-95 05-0OC-95 05- DOC-95 06*0 k*95 06- 0OC-95 06-DK-95 06-DK-95 »tVICCS 6 ft K SERVICES 5 ft K SERVICES 6 ft K SERVICES 6 ft K SERVICES 6 ft K SERVICES 6 ft K SERVICES 6 ft K SERVICES G ft K SERVICES 6 ft K SERVICES G ft K SERVICES G ft K SERVICES G ft K SERVICES Totals Check Ruiiier 50478 G ft K SE!.VICES Check RuMer 50479 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 50479 50479 06-Dec-95 06-Dec-95 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. GOPHER STA^E ONE-CALL INC. Totals Check IkAber 50479 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. Check Hunber 50480 HENN CO TREASURER 50480 05-Dec-95 HENN CO TREASURER Totals Check NiMier 50480 HENN CO TREASURER Otsek Htaber 50481 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 50481 50481 05-0ec-95 05-0ec-95 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Totals Check Nuit>er 50481 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Check NLDber 50482 HONEYWELL INC. 50482 06-0ec-95 HONEYWELL INC. Totals Check Nunber 504S2 HONEYWELL INC. Check NLPt>er 50483 JIM HATCH SALES CO. 50483 05-Dec-95 JIM HATCH SALES CO. Totals Check Nunber 50483 JIM HATCH SALES CO. Check Nuiber 50484 JOHN BECKMAN 50484 11-0ec-95 JOHN BECKMAN Totals Check Nuitjer 50484 JOHN BECKMAN transaction AiBount 8.a 57.44 2.64 40.84 40.84 8.48 72.28 2.64 8.48 51.46 71.79 2.64 584.48 49.00 49.00 98.00 288.68 288.68 138.40 7.157.91 7,296.31 150.00 150.00 661.56 661.56 195.62 195.62 Pa9e 4 Comnenta RATHBUN street employees STEFFENHAGEN FLOOR MATS FLOOR MATS RATHBUN STREET EMPLOYEES STEFFENHAGEN RATHBUN STREET EMPLOYEES FLOOR MATS STEFFENHAGEN OCTOBER SERVICE OCTOBER SERVICE OCT ROOM ft BOARD OCTOBER BOOKING FEES 1995 RADIO LEASE TRAINING-3 OFFICERS CHAIN LINK FENCE REPAIR POLICE DOOR m 4 Dw 1999 IM 5:S4 m OMCk RtfUtvr City o# Ororo Page S Chmdk trar>saction ■later Oatt HIM Aaiount Cdomentt Cli«ck iuitef 90489 KUEim. TMH4S 90485 06-0ae-99 njEm. THOMAS M.45 NOVEMBER MILEAGE KUEm. THOMAS 29.88 NOVEMBER MILEAGE Totals Chad; HUmtmr 50489 KUEHl. TMMAS 88.33 OMck liJitMr 90486 LAND CASE EOUIPMERT 90484 11-0ae-95 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT 136.08 RIM FOR MOWER Totals Chad Huabar 90486 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT 136.08 CfMck Huiter 50487 L0K6 UU TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 90487 05-0ac-99 LOHC LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 6.07 TIRE CHAINS Totals Chock ihater 50487 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 6.07 Slack Murtiar 50488 ffiOia CHOICE 90488 ll-Oac-99 HEDICA CHOICE 262.03 DECEMBER INSURANCE 90488 11*Dac-99 HEDICA CHOICE 112.29 DECEMBER INSURANCE 50488 ll-Oac-95 KDICA CHOICE 10J41.66 DECEMBER INSURANCE Totals Chock tiunbor 50488 MEDICA CHOICE 10,515.98 Check Nuiber 50489 NIOUEST ASPHALT 50489 06*Dac-95 MIDWEST ASPHALT 142.49 HAND PATCH Totals Chack Nic^r 50489 MIDWEST ASPHALT 142.49 iD^eck Nunber 50490 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS 50490 05-0ec-95 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS 22.96 MISC SUPPLIES 50490 05-0ec-95 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS 207.63 FILE, ROLL 50490 05-0ec-95 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS 2.85 CALENDAR REFILL Totals Check Nunber 50490 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS 233.44 Check NiJiA>er 50491 MILLER, CHRIS 50491 05-0ec-95 MILLER, CHRIS 20.88 NOVEMBER MILEAGE Totals Check Nurber 50491 MILLER. CHRIS 20.88 Check Nuiber 50492 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 50492 05-0ec-95 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 13.50 MEDICAL OXYGEN Totals Check Nuitier 50492 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 13.50 Check Nunber 50493 MINNEGASCO ^rtAQ'K 11-0ec-95 MINNEGASCO 31.59 NOVEMBER CHARGES •K mi Ml S:S4 PH Check keffttcr City *f Orons Date SO«^ SOMS SMI9 HtNNifiMCO 11-0«C*95 MIIMCGASCO 1t-0w*9S MtMHi6M00 Tetllt Check MwMer S(K93 MIMMCGASCO i heck Meter S04M MM KN€MT ASSOCIATION SM94 11-Dec-95 MM KMEFIT ASSOCIATIOi Tetett Check Muter 50494 MM KMEFIT ASSOCIATION htek 50495 NN DEPT OF HEALTH 50495 05-Oec-95 MM KPT OF health Totals Check Muter 50495 MM DEPT OF HEALTH Tiack Mtater hack Muter heck Muter 50496 MM DEPT OF HEVEHUE 50496 05-Dec-95 MM DEPT OF lirVEIIUE Totals Check Muter 50496 MM DEPT OF REVENUE 50497 MN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 50497 06-Dec-95 MN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Totals Check Niteer 50497 MN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 50498 MOaOWCZYNSKI, JIM 50498 06-0ec-95 MOaOUCZYNSKI, JIN Totals Check Nuter 50498 MOROyeZYHSKI, JIN heck Nuter 50499 NATIONAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER 50499 06-0ec-95 NATIONAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER Totals Check Ntnter 50499 NATIONAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER heck Nuter 50500 NORTHERN STATES POWER 50500 05-Dec-95 NORTHERN STATES POWER Totals Check Nuter 50500 NORTHERN STATES POWER heck Nutter 50501 NSP 50501 50501 05-0ec-95 05-Dec-95 NSP NSP rrmeetfon Moult 166.18 1,033.63 1.231.40 74.22 74.22 1,038.00 1,038.00 20.00 20.00 75.00 75.00 36.00 36.00 245.00 245.00 1,110.01 1,110.01 130.26 148.21 Pees 6 NOVEMKR CHARGES movemkr charks DECEMKR INSURANCE 4TH QTR UTR SURCHARGE NOVEMBER SALES TAX ANNUAL OUES-MABUSTH MEAL REIMS. SPRINKLER INSPECTION STREET LIGHT BILL HWY 12 6 WILLOW NSP CHARGES r * •• Me 199S UmI S:34 m CtMCk ••gistcr City of Orono yoso 7 Cheek Riaber Oeto iHi Transaction Aanunt CcMMntt Check Rtaiief 50501 50501 MSP 05-0«c-95 R9 2,925.82 iSP CSMQIS 50501 05-DOC-95 ISP 422.»MSP CHAtGIS 50501 05-0*c-9S ISP 1,493.38 MSP CHARGES Totals Check Ntaiber 50501 NSP 5,120.52 CHtck Nuiter 50502 PERA LIFE IRSURAWE 50502 G5-DOC-95 P€1U LIFE INSJRARCE Total* OMck luriMr 50502 PCtA LIFE I15URANCE awck Muiter 50503 PICMEEI 50503 11-DOC-95 PIOREEI Totals Chock Nuabar 50503 PIOKEES Check Nuiber 50504 POSTMASTER $0504 06-Doc-95 POSTMASTER Totals Check NuriMr 50504 POSTMASTER Check Ntjiber 50505 PRECISIOR nJSINESS SYSTEMS 50505 05-DOC-95 PRECISIOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS Totals Check Nvjiber 50505 PRECISIOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS Check Nuibep 50506 PRO TIRE • EXHAUST 50506 50506 05-0ee-95 05-0ec-95 PRO TIRE I EXHAUST PRO TIRE B EXHAUST Total* Check Nuibep 50506 PRO TIRE « EXHAUST Check Nuiber 50507 PRO-TECT MEDICAL PRODUCTS 50507 06-0ec-95 PRO-TECT MEDICAL PRODUCTS Total* Check Nuiber 50507 PRO-TECT MEDICAL PRODUCTS Check Niaiber 50508 PUMP • METER SERVICES INC. 50508 ll-Dec-95 PUMP t METER SERVICES INC. Total* Check HtJiber 50508 PUMP A METER SERVICES INC. Check Nuiber 50509 RC IDENTIFICATIONS 50509 05-0ec-95 RC IDENTIFICATIONS Total* Check Hiaiber 50509 RC IDENTIFICATIONS 132.00 132.00 108.53 108.53 24.00 24.00 255.05 255.05 16.50 64.57 81.07 86.53 86.53 45.00 45.00 63.90 63.90 DECEMBER IRSURAMC8 AOS P.O. BOX RENTAL PERSONAL REC0RDER-KX»SE #174 REPAIR TIRE #174 OU CHANGE,WIPERS PADDED i PLAIN HG REPAIR CAS MONITOR ID CARDS « o«c ms M S:34 PM OMck IcfUtcr City of SOStO Ooto S0510 Rin CMERA 0S-0OC-9S IITZ CMMRA Totals Oiock Ruter S0510 tlTZ CAfCRA Chock Ruiter 50S11 S0S11 lOUIlS OIL 03. OS-Ooe-95 Totals Stack Nuriiar ROLLISS OIL CO. S0S11 RO.LIIS OIL CO. 50512 RTAM P(»D 50512 05-Dae-95 RTM FOkO Totals Stock Ntater 50512 RTAR FORD Chock NtjMwr 505 IS 50513 SAFE BENEFITS 11-0oe-95 Totals Chock Nuabor SAFE BENEFITS 50513 SAFE BENEFITS Stock Heater 50514 50514 SENIOK COHHUNITT SERVICES 06-DOC-95 Totals Stock Ntater SENIOR COMMUHITY SERVICES 50514 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES Stock Neater 50515 50515 SNYOER DRUfi STORES ll'Ooc-95 Totals Chock Neater SNYDER DRUG STORES 50515 SNYDER DRUG STORES Chock Neater 50516 50516 STA-SAFE LOCKSMITH 05-DOC-95 Totals Check NeJter STA-SAfE lOCKSMITH 50516 STA-SAFE LOCKSMITH Stock Neate* 50517 50517 50517 STREICHERS ll-Oec-95 06-0OC-95 STREICHERS STREICHERS Totals Chock Neater S0517 STREICHERS Check Neater 50518 50518 TELEPHONE SPECIALISTS 05-0OC-95 Totals Check Neater TELEPHONE SPECIALISTS 50518 TELEPHONE SPECIALISTS tion t 88.12 88.12 1,941.40 1,941.40 25.86 25.86 979.09 979.09 3,155.00 3,155.00 24.96 24.96 58.34 58.34 34.32 156.48 190.80 755.83 755.83 • 0 « 8 Connentii FILH UKIEADEO FUEL i172 OIL CHANGE DEC SAFE SENEFITS 4TH QTR SERVICES AUDIO TAPES KEY SET FLASHER FUSES FLASHLIGHT FOR 8422 3 PHONES-P.U. tpmnn md ii» m ClMcit i«9ist«r City of Qitdt Doto 50S19 TQHCZYK. IVUIK 11*90C-9» TOC2YK, TotiU Qitck iuiisir 50519 T0MC2YK, mkK Cfiocfc iu^r 50520 TOM ii csminy 50520 05-0OC-95 TOUN I 03UNTRT Totals Chock ly^or 50520 TOyN ft OftATIY Chock UKmtmr 50521 Til STATE PUP 50521 05-0OC-95 Til STATE PUNP Totals Oiock fkM»r 50521 TRI STATE PUMP Oiock itoiMr 50522 ULTIMATE AUAROS 50522 05-0OC-95 ULTIMATE RWAROS Totals Qiock 50522 ULTIMTE AWARDS Check Ntiiter 50523 US WEST CELLULAR 50523 05-0OC-95 US WEST CELLULAR Totals Chock Huiter 50523 US WEST CELLULAR :hock Nupbor 50524 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 50524 50524 50524 50524 05-DOC-95 05-DOC-95 05-0OC-95 05-DOC-95 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Totals Check Nunber 50524 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Check NLOt)er 50525 VILLAGE CHEVROLET 50525 50525 05-0OC-95 05-Dec-95 VILLAGE CHEVROLET VILLAGE CHEVROLET Totals Check iLirber 50525 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Check Ntiiber 50526 UALDOR PUMP 50526 05-0ec*95 UALDOR PUMP Totals Check Hunter 50526 WALDOR PUMP Check Hunter 5C527 WATERPRO 50527 05-0ec-95 WATERPRO Transaction 12.22 12.22 963.83 963.83 449.37 449.37 71 71.89 639.90 639.90 266.11 29.72 12.74 704.30 1,012.87 77.21 2.57 79.78 2,200.00 2,200.00 65.28 Page 9 Cqfffwents meals REIMS DECEMBER SERVICE REPAIR G.S. i6 POLICE RESERVE PUCQU6 CELL PHONE'CHESWICK US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES REPAIR KIT LK RING REBUILD L.S. #2 IMPELLARS OPERATING SCREW mtf 9:34 m Oi«k Cksdt tafiBtcr City of Orono Ootf 9<S27 MTCRMO 09-OOC-95 IMTCRMO90927 TOUU Chock Hu*or 90527 MTEMtO Mator 50528 tffCXMM, STEOHEM 90528 08-0OC-95 UECXMN, STEPHEN TotoU Chock Nu*or 50528 WECKMM, STEPHEN CNCk Muifeor 50529 WISUELL, TOM 50529 06-DOC-95 UlSyEU, TOM Totolo Chock NuiNior 50529 WISUELL, TOM Chock MuiOor 50550 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 50550 05-0OC-95 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC TotitR Chock Huiter 50550 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC dl«k lluitwr 50531 YOCUM OIL CO INC. 50531 50531 50531 50531 06-0OC-95 06-0OC-95 11-0ee-95 11-0OC-95 YOCUM OIL CO INC. YOCUM OIL CO INC. YOCUM OIL CO INC. YOCUM OIL CO INC. Totals Check Niater 50531 YOCUM OIL CO INC. Grand Total 72,270.52 •« • a Past 10 ^tion Affocnt CooDenta 55.07 SCREW COMPLETE 120.55 6.U MEAL RE1H8. 6.44 ,750.00 UUnSCAPING SLRVICES ,750.00 15.99 SECURITY LIGHT 15.99 75.26 204.17 32.65 187.46 HEATING OIL-SHOP HEATING OIL-CLUBHOUSE OIL FC» SHOP OIL FC2 CLUBHOUSE 499.54 r. INFORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING u. kitEnNG DEC 1 1 1995 Cl^ 0!= ORONO OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 20, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Stephen Peterson. Sandra Smith. Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, and Elizabeth Hawn Charles Schroeder and Candace Rowlette were absent The following represented the City Staff Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron. and Recorder Sherr\' Frost Councilmember JoEllen Hurr was present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p m SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS PU BLIC INFORMATION MEETING (#1) #2082 RICHARD STARK, 575 OXFORD ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VAUIANCC AND V.\CAHON - 7:00-7:26 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application was in response to a violation for tree removal and veuetation clearing within the 0-75' zone also insolving a violation ot a conservation and flowage easement filed against the chain of title of the propeny The property is located within the Stielow addition and the City ’s wetland maps classitying the wetland as marsh wetland type The applicants are asking for approval of a plan with a new delineation, referred to as area "A" Trees removed in the area ”A" were 10 in number and 12 in area "B", the remaining area included under conservation and tlowage easement Mabusth said the City Engineer has reviewed the soil delineation report and concurs with the findings and recommends redefining the area The f ity Sta't has recommended tiling a vacation of the original conservation and tlowage easement and to '.^e conditioned on the granting of a new easement Mabusth rev lewed the issues and considerations set forth by applicant for the Planning Commission to consider including the applicant's lack of knowledge of the conserv ation area and Stark's agreement to replant evergreen and fruit trees in the 0-75' zone. Applicant Stark said he purchased the property in June of 1995 and was not notified of the easement Stark said he made changes that he felt were appropriate. Selected trees were removed, and it was his intent to replant evergreen trees The City asked the applicant for a current survey locating the 75’ zone and new wetland delineation area along with the legal description Mabusth said the applicant cooperated with the erosion control efforts. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#l - «2082 Richard Stark - Continued) Peterson asked if there were any problems with soil erosion Mabusth said there were no problems Peterson asked if the plan to restore trees and vegetation was appropriate w^th Staff. Mabusth said the plan was to replant 10 trees in the 0-75' zone Stark said his plan was to plant the trees on the sides of the property and noted there were no e%ergreens on the property at this time and that he did not propose replantings in areas A or B Hawti inquired about the use of Mn/DOT 250 grass and asked if it was appropnate to "weed-wack" these natural grasses Stark had told Hawn that sod would give better control Mabusth asked Stark if it was his intent to cut the grass in the wetland area, and Stark said it was his intent to do so Stark said he asked an expert regarding long gr:^s or natural grass' effort and was told there was no difference Stark said "weed-wacking allows for competition of grasses and a toller growth of the root structure He noted a disadvantaue oflomt grass was its breeding environment for insects who carry diseases such as Lvmes Disease Mabusth said the DNR and MCWD would be able to provide answers to these issues Stark addeded that he did not believe there was any regulatory force concerning grass cutting Mabusth reminded Stark of the City's conservation easements which limits such activity Peterson commented that the City has always encouraged long natural grass in wetland areas and ihat "weed-wacking" has ne\er been discussed Smith questioned the planting of fruit trees versus native trees She did not teel that this type of tree was in keeping with a wetland area Smith would like to see trees plant.ngs that are consistent with wetland areas Stark responded that the landscape consultant had suiziicsted the tvpe of trees to be planted in view ot the large population ot deer Peterson sai'iTthe Planning Commission has not stipulated in the past what type of trees should be planted but looked more at the mitigation issue. Mabusth commented that evergreens are probably not consistent with wetland areas either Smith agreed that it was probably a personal preference issue Smith asked about another home nearby which had clear cut some trees Gaffron said that 15-20 trees were replanted in the 3"-5" size The trees were of different varieties. The trees were replaced one for one but not inch tor inch. Smith asked if any fine was involved for that application. Gaffron said any fine would have been so small as money would be spent to replace the trees. Lindquist noted that onK certain type of trees would grow in wetland areas Stark said it as his plan to place the trees along the sides of the property and not in the wetland area.was MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#1 - #2082 Richard Stark - Continued) Mabusth asked the Commissioners if the trees were replaced in the 0-75 zone and not in the areas described as "A” or "B". Lindquist was told 10 trees would be planted m 0-75 setback area. Lindquist saw no problem with area "B" but telt area A should have replacement of tree for tree. Peterson said that would be consistent with other applications. Stark questioned tree replacement under the agreement for the easement. Mabusth said there was no direction in the code and has been based on the judgment ot Staff Tree removal in 0-75’ requires permits issued by Staff. Mabusth told Stark if he objected to Planning Commission recommendations to present his position before the (. ouncil As tar as the easement, Mabusth said the agreement stipulates that no trees can be removed w'ithout City approval There were no public comments. Smith said she agreed with Lindquist in his request for tree replacement. Lindquist s^d he felt particularly strong about tree replacement in area "A" Stark said he strongly objected to placing trees in this area Stark said there are alot ot trees on the property It is not his intent to gain a view of the lake At the time, the propeny w as not open to use of the lake. Stark noted that the house, itself, was not in view Mabusth asked Stark how many trees were already dead that were removed Ot the 10 trees removed. Stark said probably half of them were dead. Hawn commented that a buckthorn was removed, and she was glad to see that particular tree removed Stark said an oak tree was choking it out. Peterson received confirmation that the reroofmg project completed without a permit was satisfied. Lindquist asked Stark if he would agree to the replacement of 5 trees in area "A". Stark said he would if they could be planted to the side Mabusth commented that tree placement was not an issue as long as plantings were achieved in specified areas. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of .Application #2082 with 5 trees being replaced in area "A" of similar size. 10 trees replaced in the 0-75’ zone, and crantinu of a new easement The tree replacement is to be completed by July 15, 1996. w w Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 0 .! MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#2) #2090 RON RANTZ/AUTOGRAFS EVC, 2525 SHAD^ WOOD ROAD - ' ACATION OF EL\SEMENTS - P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Blake Bichanich represented the applicant. Mabusth reported that the propert>' is located in the Leach Addition and consists ot Lots 1, 2, and 3, w hich are being developed by Autografs A condition of the preliminary approval was that the applicant proceed with vacation ot the drainage and utility easement within the building envelope. There were no public comments. Peterson moved. Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2090 w ith the 2 Staff recommendations Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#3) #2092 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 NORTH BROWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SI’DDIVISION - 7:28-7:39 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidav it of Publication w ere noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that during the sketch plan review the Planning Commission advised the applicant that they could not recommend the 3 lot subdivision due to the lot width and area beinu inadequate The code for lakeshore back/front lots require a 200 width at both the lakeshore and 150' setback The e.ist lot is inadequate in width at street setback into North Brown resulting in the need for a shared driveway There is now an issue of setback variances as the backlot configuration requires 150° o standard. A 45 setback is required from the side loi lines The existing residence is within the required side setback and encroaches 45’ into the front setback at 75' The front lot ’s building envelo;-e is defined at a 50’ setback from the south, west and east lot lines The accessory structure on east lot will be removed bv the applicant. The house on the propeny will probably be moved elsewhere. The pool will be removed when the lots are sold Mabusth said a deadline would have to be set as the code does not allow an accessory structure on lots without a principal structure. An average deadline is one vear. r CANUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#3 - ji#2092 Dennis Plattetcr - Continued) Peterson commented that the Planning Commission was split in their opinion ot the subdivision. Based on the preliminar>- subdivision meeting. Peterson noted that the applicant has addressed some of the issues He did not wish any chaitges to be made until the accessory structure was removed HawTi received confinnation from Mabusth that there was adequate lot size in which to build. There were no public comments Smith commented on the letter from the DNR regarding future views of structurp from the lake Mabusth said the letter outlined standard practices and requirements ot DNR Steve Schroll of 2000 Sugar Woods asked if a jomt road would be used for the two lots via access to the back part of the subdivision Mabusth said ? shared driveway would be used but there were no requirements to upgrade The dnvev>ay must be at least 10' Irom the south lot line of outlet Schroll was informed that there was no standard or requirement of driveway improv ement. Connie Gray, 819 Brown Road, asked where the two new homes would be built. Mabusth showed on a map the lot outlines and of building env elopes The City does not stipulate where a house should be located, other than meeting required setbacks of code Mabusth noted that the home on east lot would be at least 30' trom the side lot line with the Gray prooenv Peterson commented that the location of the sei- 'c systems usually drives where most homes are situated on the lot Scholl asked and was shown on the map where the septic system for these homes would be placed and the likely home locations. Lindquist moved. Berg seconded, to recommend approv al of Application #2092 with a 1 year deadline from the date of final approval of plat for remov al of the accessory structure on east lot along with Start* recommendations 1-4 Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF Tlffi ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20. 1995 (#4) #20S5 MLNNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATI R.\L RESOURCES, 3390 NORTH SHORE CO^!ME»CL\L SITE P'_UN REVIEW . Pi R! !C INFORMATION MEETING - 8:11-9:06 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and AtTida\it of Publication were noted The Applicant was represented by Larry Killien and Stan Linnell Gaffron reported that the application is for a commercial site plan review tor c.^nstniction of a public water access which has been in the planning stage tor the past three years The property is zoned B-2 and previously was the site ot Crystal Bay Service and Gayles Marina at the intersection of Tonkawa and CoRd 51 (North Shore Dnve) 1 he DNR is exempt from meeting local zoning codes but has worked with City Start and the Lake Use Committee in developing the site plan Gaffron related a brief history of the project In October of 1992. the DNR obtained the option to purchase the Stralev property east of Lal,eside Marina Much resistance was given to this purchase by the neighborhood and City Public hearings were held in January of 1992 Concerns were with the property zoned residential and what was considered poor traffic access Bv mutual agreement, the purchase was put on hold The DNR then acauired the Gavies Marina prooerlv and Cixstal Bav Sei^ice propeities along with ihe Dunn Property and the Sprague property The property is west of Lakeside Manna The DNR then met with the Lake Use Committee holding three meetings as well as meeting with the Maxwell Bav Residents Committee The DNR removed the buildings on the propenv and have dealt with the fuel contamination, which has been resolved. Monitoring wells are currently in place Gaffron reported that the DNR is now prepared to begin constructing the lake access and are at this meeting to discuss the design, and he noted that Staff has reviewed how the proposal fits intolhe context of the B-2 zone It is not strictly a commercial use but might be considered an institutional or recreational use, and the B-2 code does not address "public access" specifically The overall hardcover existed at t>8“b and will be reduced to 52Tb The B-2 lakeshore code calls for a 75’ setback and is proposed at 10 1 he code calls for a 75’ buffer. It was noted that Gayle’s Marina had hardcover right up to the shoreline The landscaping plan includes t. ee planting as well as the saving of a number of trees on the property The DNR was asked to plant something larger than their standard I" caliper trees and are planting l-l/2'’-2" Drainage will flow through filter strips before entenng the lake In regards to the site access issue, traffic will be brought in from the west end at Tonkawa with no traffic accessing from North Shore Dnve. A counterclockwise flow ot tr,^ ’ ' will occur within the site. Pctf'rson said the Lake Use Committee has had more meetings on this public access than any othei issue. It has involved the public, the Council and the DNR. Peterson said he was comfortable with what was being introduced and saw it as a viable plan 6 KilNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO.VLMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOV EMBER 20, 1995 (#4 - #2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Continued) Stan Linnell, a DNR landscape architect. rc\icA\ed the site plan He reported that in addition to Gayles and the Crvstal Bay Service properties, the DNP% acquired two residential properties, where the homes have been removed, with the option to purchase a third propertv which abuts Lakeside Marina The DNR has been working with the County on developing a right turn lane on County Road 5 1 to fl^>w to the main access To avoid a back up on Co Rd 51 a counterclockwise flow has been developed in the site /Vnother traffic lane has been established eastboond for a by-pass lane so as to not be blocked by cars with trailers Linnell continued to describe the access as having three concrete plank ramps with docks plus a remote dock. The remote dock would be used by those people idling or stopping for shon periods This will enable those boats entering or exiti.;g the lake to do so without interference There will be 80 car-trailer parking stalN and car only paiking ot 15 stalls -An access trail will also be constructed to the fishing pier 1 his trail is near the roadway and will be built as a sidewalk adjacent to Tonkawa Road It was noted that children would need to be closely watched in this and all ot the area Linnell said the drainage for the parking lot splits it in the middle Drainage will flow to a urassed swale, thru two skimmers, to a catch basin, and onto a culven to Crystal Bay The other side will have a swale, two skimmers, with a possible sheet f ow. and then a berm Linnell reported that there will be 4 handicap parking spots with two "car only At least two docks and a pier will be handicap accessible There will be no curb or gutter along the lake side The access will be asphalt or bituminou.N The turn lane and i ' ids will have concrete gutters and boulders to control the traffic A sign near the entrance will direct car/trailer while still allowing cars to pull away trom the launch ramp Linnell said it was the DNR's intent to preserve the existing trees One tree in particular intended to be saved is a 28" oak New native trees will be planted and existing evergreen trees and 10-15 deciduous trees will be transplanted A wildllower and grass vegetation buffer strip will be planted along the shoreline to provide better filtration from runofl trom the parking lot There will be some screening, but they did not want to block the view in from the road 165 shrubs and 37 new trees will be planted, Killien added that two parking spaces were eliminated to save a hackberry tree on the property. C: MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOV EMBER 20. 1995 (#4 - #2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Continued) Killien presented some hiaor\’ on the property The DNR has conducted clean up ot all the contaminat''d soils from the ser\ice station and marina Observation wells were installed, which will be monitored in 30 days. The DNR should know in 90 days v^hat effect has been had on the ground water on the upper level .Another set ot tanks were recently discovered and removed Small amount of soil was on the tanks but no contaminated soil was left This area was backfilled Lead and asbestos testing was conducted on the building prior to demolition Killien said the last parcel should close before the end of the ' ear, and the building should come down w ithin 90 days He also reported that wetland delineation of the area where the trail will be confirmed this is only a ditch area. The plans have been submitted to the MCWD, the LMCD, and the DNR Waters Division GafrVon asked if the cyclone fence would be removed and guard rails installed between the path and road for protection Linncll said they had observed the area earlier and were considering curb and gutter between the road and path, which he said would pertomi the same as a boardwalk Peterson asked how tar back this would occur. Linncll said there was one stretch where the lake came close to the edge and then separated tor the pathway which was a high risk area Peterson said the public has been kept informed about the plan and asked for any concerns from those in attendance Dick Engebretson, along with his wife Jean, 1180 Tonkawa, were present Engebretson asked if there w ould be a stop sign at the exit of the access to keep cars from rolling out onto Tonkawa without stopping and was told there would be He further inquired if the residents would be notified if the monitoring wells indicated further contamination He was told the DNR was working with the MPCA and would notify the residents if any problems were found Engebretson asked how big the access w as in scale to that of North Arm public access He was informed that there is parking for 65 car/trailers at North /Vrm. and there would be parking for 80 car/trailcrs at this location Killien noted that this access provided a better layout and traffic How He noted that the DNR is working with Hennepin County on redesigning North Arm It is the DNR's intent to fix the fishing and shore area, paint the no parking areas, adda raised island in the lot, and create bufter strips to deal with stormwater Engebretson asked whether DNR plans to repair the Boy Scout bridue Peterson .said this has not been before the Lake Use Committee Killien said this was not part of the DNR plan MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOV'EMBER 20, 1905 (#4 - #2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources * Continued) Jerry Gray asked if the right turn lane would be for parking access only and was told it was not for the exclusive use of the access but a continuation ot a right lane. Gray telt the traffic flow would result in a circus Peterson said the traffic has been discussed in great detail including the right turn lane. Gray asked if the plans could be changed it they found this plan does not work Linnell suggested staying in the driving lane and turning directly onto Tonkawa. It was said a car can turn right from the center lane but Gray questioned whether the County would consider this to be legal or not Hurr said there would in effect be two lanes of traffic onto Tonkawa There would be 300-400' ot stacking area in the turn lane No parking signs have been installed Gray was concerned that the no parking would not be enlorced Linnel noted that the three ramps would aid in the traffic flow also Barry Kniuht, 425 Tonkawa, was concerned with traffic flow at peak times He asked about the normal traffic for a ramp and was told 25 spaces per ramp is standard Knight was concerned with left turns coming out at dusk He felt if there was parking for 80 cars, and with the traffic configuration pattern, it would want to head both north and south on Tonkawa. He saw this as a potential problem during "rush hours" Peterson commented that a boat launch creates less traffic than a marina and less turnover It was noted that Gavle ’s Marina originally had 140 slips With a boat ramp, boaters come early and leave late If Gayle's had n'o problem with traffic. Peterson said he saw even less here Grav asked if a traffic count was done at Gavle's but that w as unknow n Kniiiht said he w as less conv inced than the Planning Commission on the amount of traffic considered to come out of the access area Linnell said Gayles Marina also had - double access, launch ramps Knight asked about hardcover and was told the access was designed to standards Knight asked what enforcement would be done of the access traffic and local traffic on Tonkawa in order to maintain the 30-35 mph limit and how this would be dealt with in the residential area Peterson said if speed became a problem, the police department would have to enforce the law Killien said the DNR had made suggestions to the City regarding overflow parking sumtestinu no parking signs and an ordinance to uphold that. He felt the DNR was dealinu with this issue up front Killien felt education right from the start was imponant. Killien said he would not recommend cars towing boats to travel on Tonkawa with the snake-like hills He felt that Tonkawa as a route from the north probably would be used mainly during peak times He said he would check with the County on this. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOV’EMBER 20, 1995 (#4 - #2085 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Coniinued) Dan Wigcn, 3410 North Shore Drive (2nd house west of the access), asked if there were plans for an access to Crystal Bay and was told no He asked il people would somehow be discourage from doing so. He was told there would be no impro\ement at that area and traffic will limit people going across to that area Wigen said people are now parking in the landing and using his dock for fishing He would like enforcement and education such as signs stipulating pnvate and not public property along that area He also had a concern with traffic and use of private driveways He was also concerned with snowmobilers using the ramp by crossing from Cry stal Bay Peterson said neither had been discussed but felt the steep banks would discourage snowmobilers and landscaping could also slow them down Killien said the area could be posted for no parking in the winter as the landing would be closed during that lime No other barriers would be installed, however. Ken Rolland, 4119 Oak Street, was concerned with traffic and asked it there was a possibility for a traffic stoplight Peterson said this had not been discussed and was a County issue Rolland said he was concerned with eastbound cars with boats making a left turn onto Tonkawa Gaftron thought there was room tor perhaps three cars to stavk Killien said there would be room for 4 cars with trailers Killien asked Rolland if his concern was with CoRd 51 or Tonkawa Rolland said he w as just asking in general Linnell said the County never brought up the issue of a stoplight, and south bound Tonkawa was considered for just two lanes ! le said it could be explored if necessary Gray asked if the landing was closed in winter if fish houses would be allowed to use the ramp Killien said the ramp would be posted as closed but not physically barred due to liability He said the fish houses would need to be dealt with if they became a problem, and DNR has a 48 hour notification process before illegally "parked" fish houses could be removed There would also be no winter maintenance Cars would probably need to be 4-wheel dnve to use the ramp A DNR access is normally open .)65 days a year but not in this case If there are problems, the DNR will look at options available He noted that there are only two DNR accesses with gates, both with unusual ci«-f" stances Hurr noted that there would be access at North Arm during the winter Smith said she liked the idea of an information board rather than signs at difterent locations Smith also liked the landscaping plan and would like to see one at North .Arm She asked if the lights vvculd be left on or oft or on a timer Killien said the lights were anuled and box shaped directed downward and on at all times There will be three lights on the site Regarding the lack of proposed garbage cans. DNR believes in the less- containers, less-trash line of thought MTNl.iTF.SOF THF ORONO PT ANNINO CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON XOV'EMBER 20. 1995 (.^4 - HZ0S5 Depinmem ofNaiuroi Resources - Conunued.» Gaffron inquired about the construction schedule Linnell said it would next go to the Council in December. If no maior chances were necessarv the final olans would be drafted in January and February with bidding for early spring. Construction would begin in Mav and comolcted durinc the summer. No formal action was required at this meeting. Wigen asked if a motion could be made on signage regarding trespassing. He was told these concerns would be addressed by Staff. Lindquist asked that the comments be passed on to the Council Peterson closed the public information meeting (#5) #2088 WINFIELD STEPHENS, 3770 BA^ SIDE ROAD - VARIANCESA^ACATIO^ OF PI BL!C ROAD - 9:06-9:35 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and .\fiida\it of Publication were noted The .Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application w as for the \ acation of a 30' alley and setback variances for maior additions to exisiinc residence The nronenv is made un of4 separate parcels and involves an improvement plan Existing on the property is a 1-1/2 story home with a garage that is located totally within the 30' alley The improvement consists of two options, option «^1 involves an addition to the south side and option U2, an addition to the east The Start* memo was said to discuss the setbacks and hardcover lor the propertv. Peterson said there would appear to be no major concern as long as the applicant was able to acquire the alley Mabusth advised from calls she received, it appeared that the adjacent owners may make claim to the alley Mabusth said she had spoken with Dennis Hill at the County, who said the entire allev would probably be granted to the applicant as ow ner of lots 2 and 3 Mabusth said she had spoken with Hill again after calls had been received from the neighbors, and he advised that the matter may have to be tunher studied. Hill informed Mabusth if the neighbors pressed for a piece ot the allev. these claims mav be raised during a required legal proceeding Peterson asked if the application was not one step ahead of itself He asked if .Staff was awaiting information on utilities The City Engineer reported there were no sewer lines encroaching the alley, and there are no power poles I IknNXrrES of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON NO\^IBER 20. 1995 (#5 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) Both the current owner, Steve Gardiner, and the new owner, Winfield Stephens, vvere present. Stephens said the vacation was suggested to minimize impact ot variances with the proposed improvements The vacation had also been recommended by Staff He said the area where the alley is located seems to be part ot the lawn, and the entire detached garage is located within the alley. Peterson asked if the issue of the vacation was frivolous on the part ot the neighbors or not. Mabusth said she had just been made aware of their interests Peterson asked the applicant if he was aware that he would need to combine lots 1-4. Stephens said that was not an issue Lindquist asked the applicant if he did not gain the vacation of the alley, if he still wished to proceed, and Stephens advised he did wish to proceed regardless of the outcome of the allev. Peterson said the applicant could not proceed without the 30’ alley as both development plans show garaue remaining in alley Option tf2. Mabusth said entailed an issue ot impact to the neighbor if the addition was to the east The Wicklaiids report an impact on their views There is no legal claim to the view but option #2 also involves new construction at 3 5’ from north side lot line Setbacks and hardcover variance are less intense with the inclusion of the additional area from the vacated alley Peterson asked the applicant what he would preter Stephens said he preferred option #2 in order to save 2 big oak trees in front yard Option #1 does require the removal of 2 large maples The old owner said the oak trees were beautiful He noted that one of the trees was 7’ in circumference and w ould be a shame to lose it Hawn asked if the addition couldn't be altered and sit where the diseased maple is located but skirt the oak and save the other maple Stephens said it could but would be within the 50’ street setback from County Road, which he thought was more critical. Mabusth said it would be difficult to approve an encroached of the 50’ setback She noted that we are dealinu with limited building envelope Lindquist said he had a problem with 3-1/2’ on the north lot line and then doubling the amount The old owner, Steve Gardiner, remarked that this was the way it had always been Lindquist said although this was true, he could not imagine doubling the area The applicant and owner said they had a notarized copy of the easement that provided access along the north lot line. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.\NMNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#5 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) Christine Valerius reported that she o\^ns the properi>’ they Wi'crc rcterring to and noted that the Wicklands use the driveway but that there was no easement in favor ot this property She said she looked when she purchased the property and found no easement. Stephens reported on the attorneys who had searched the title and showed Valerius a copy of the easemem. Peterson said there were other concerns with the garage encroachment and clean up ol area to the west. Gardiner said a boat ha ^ been there and rubbish left by pre\'ious owner of Landmark property. Lindquist asked if any impros ements involved the tearing down ot the garage located on the alleyway Stephens said he had no plans to do so Lindquist said he could not approve anv improvements with the garage in that location if the vacation was not approved. Berg said it was important to make sure the easement exists She added that she did not feel the Commission could proceed to approve any improvement without the alley vacation. Peterson agreed that this would be an integral part ot the application. Peterson said he favored option #1 and the vacation and asked if the survey (1988) commented on the alley Mabusth said there has been no new construction to require a new survey. Lindquist said the vanance should be based on whether or not the vacation is granted. He was not in favor of any further encroachment ol the west side yard Smith commented that the addition was very aggressive and could not take a position without a decision on the alleyv.av There were no public comments Gardiner remarked that the connection charge to City sewer was SI3.000 and would be a verv c.xpensive sewer for a I bedroom house Gardiner said that is why it should be expanded and noted that the neighbors had expanded The Wickslands commented that their lot was 1-1/2 acres, and they had to sacritice a large tree in order to meet building setbacks. Stephens was asked if he planned on living in the house and was told he did. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20. 1995 (#5 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) Mabusth asked for Planning Commission's view if the vacation was not part of the application. Lindquist said he w as of the position that the garage should come down if it is not located in the legal building envelope He noted that it was to the benefit ot the applicant to proceed with the vacation of the alley. Gardiner said he had offered a neighbor $2,000 to consider the vacation but had received no reply. Gardiner asked if the Commission would consider option #1 Berg asked where the garage would go. Stephens asked if the vacation of the alley could not be done, if the process could proceed Peterson said the garage would still need to be addressed Gardiner remarked that he had purchased the propeny in 1982, and the garage was built before that time Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2088 Vote: Ayes 5, Na>'s 0. Peterson suggested the applicants put the burden on the neighbor to determine the driveway easement (#6) #1958 LOUIS OBERHAl SI;R. 2405 DLNWOODY AVENUE, 3865 AND 3877 SHORELINE DRIVE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 9:35-10:02 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The applicant was represented by Jack Neveaux Mabusth said the application was for a lot line rearrangement and replat of two lots. The oriuinal subdivision application was filed in 1994 had also included applicant’s homestead parcel The current application includes 3 substandard lots The propeny is in the 1/2 acre zoninu district. Lot 1 to the west contains 16.500 s f, and Lot 2 to the east contains 20.000 2 f." E.xisting now, according to Mabusth are two boarded up structures, one structure hid been removed, and one rental unit structure. labusth reported that the applicant seeks approval of lakeshore setback variances for lot 1 involving a 6 encroachment of lakeshore setback line The structure will be located 10' from street lot line ar.d existing detached garage is 6' into the right-of-way Both structures would meet the 10' side setback A timber retaining wall is located in lot 2, and the applicant is willing to remove the w all if able to gain the variances for lot 1 There are no lakeshore decks proposed with new construction plans •14 Irl MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#6 - #1958 Louis Obcrhauser - Continued) Hardcover excesses do exist, though greatly improved Lot 1 in the 75-250 zone exists at 59 047% and is proposed at 36.03^'i. Lot 2 hardcover in the 75-250' zone exists at 36 7®/o and is proposed at 33.23^i. There is a structural coverage variance required on lot 1 at 15 6% where 15® o is allowed Lot 2 is under the allowed amount at 10 6® o. There were no public comments. Nev'eaux said the hardcover on Lot 2 was unnecessary. Peterson noted a petition signed by 31 neighbors voicing their concern for the neea tor demolition and remov al of structures 1 he petition was dated October 6. 199> and read into the minutes Mabusth said the petition was sent out by the adjacent new homeowner and came to Staff’s attention on this date Mabusth said the applicant. Oberhauser, was to have remov ed the staicture by September of 1995 She had informed the new homeowner that this was a private ma.ter that needed to be resolved with Oberhauser Mabf said Neveaux was made aware of the hazardous conditions of the structure and its lack of maintenance. The structure is open and able to be accessed. Peterson noted the neighbors' unhappiness with the applicant. Mabusth asked if there was a schedule for the removal of the structure Neveaux said there was no definite schedule but tied to the process I le was not aware of the scope of dam/er. He had thouuht the structures were boarded up and would pass on the information to the applicant Smith asked if there has been any inspection of the property by the applicant or his representative and whether the problem was incidental or anecdotal Neveaux said the applicant had lived there until July of 1995. Smith questioned if the property had bteri inspected by applicant seen since July or the condition reported to the applicant Berg said the structure was still there and was surprised that the City would allow it to be there. Mabusth said if the structure is boarded and safe, it can be allowed to remain. The goal, in this case, was to remove the structure. Mabusth asked the representativ e if the applicant wanted to gain approval on the subdivision, ifhe would be willing to remove all stmctires including the rental unit. Smith asked if this could be done within bO days. Neveaux said he did not know Smith asked if this could be done before it is sold. Neveaux did not think it was contingent with the buyer being in place. 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOV'EMBER 20, 1995 (#6 - #1958 Louis Obcrhauser - Continued) Hawn said she saw the structures as clearly being in violation and hideous Hawn s^d any improvement would be a benefit but was concerned with two substandard lots requiring hardcover and structural variances She said she was willing to look at the application only because of the hideous condition of the structures Hawn said she was very' concerned with this being adequate grounds for approval and had a scnous problem with It. Neveaax said the City and the property owner want the improvement. He noted that other proposals have been turned away and considered this a last ditch efiort Nc\ eau\ said in site of the numerous variances that exists on the property, the outcon.e would be beneficial. He felt the past should be put behind and move forward Neveaux said the w edge of land of Casco/Spring Park was a transitional group of lots He noted that one lot was not economically feasible and out of character with the lot and aiea. He telt the proposal blends in with the neighborhood. Peterson said that was not a concern He did want the structure to come down and did want the subdivision. He felt if there was to be a replat, ’tc recommended 2 lots Mabusth suggested a possible redesign questioning pu.ing a large house within the smaller envelope She saw no reason to grant a setback variance to lakeshore setback for Lot 1 as the building area could be rearranged to meet the setback .Mabusth said the proposal has merit but auain was concerned with setbacks and the 'ack of any real site planning Peterson asked why a larger house on a smaller lot. Neveaux said it was only a general plan He said the site and access asailability w'as limited and looKed at thr aesthetics. It was the applicant’s intent to eliminate the setback varance required on lot I but limit the other Mabusth noted the sewer easement along the west line and the utility easement on the line. A snared access was recommended from CoRd 15 The County was in tavor ot the shared access also The County saw the Dunwoody access as dangerous Neveaux said this was fine with Oh . '.auser He w as asked if he was aware of the util ty easement. Neveaux said he was out not necessarily to the placement of the easement. Lindquist said he did not conceptually disagree but did not want to see ar.} ardcover in the 0-75’ zone. He did not wish to see any new construction in this area He would not approve any stru-.aral lot coverage variance or hardcover variance in the 0-75’ zone but would consider a hardcover \ ariance I MINUTES OF THE OROSO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, i995 (#6 - #1958 Louis Oberhauser - Continued) Peterson said the plan should come back with less variances. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to agree with the plat and road change eliminating access from Dunwoodv Avenue. The new structure requires a resised plan out ot the ■)* 75' zone and realigned to show the shared access. No hardcover will be allowed in the 0- 75' zone nor structural coverage exceeding 15®o The hardcover on Lot 1 at .>6®/o and 1 ot 2 at 33% were considered reasonable and the street setback to the garage Mabusth noted that the amended site plan wo':!d be required prior to the Council's tormal action on final approval variances Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS (#7) #2059 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, 1485 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:39-8:11 P..M. Manaaer, Thomas LaBountv, of the MCWD w:«,i ^.esent LaBounty reported that they have reached an agreement with the Pearces, who are out ot town, and plan on signing the agreement the tollowing evening. GatTron reported that the application was tabled at the la.st meeting pending additional review The stormwater pond would be constructed on the Pearce property, south ot County Road 6 and East of Dakota Avenue. The site is within the creek from Wolsfeld and Holy Name Lakes which tlow into Long Lake The pond is to be a 2-cell pond whose purpose is to catch sediment and hold back phosphonis Regular maintenance would be required to keep the pond functioning The site now e.xists as a fiat, wooded, wetland area. Mature trees will be removed and replaced with vegetation around the new ponds The MCWD provided "before" and "afier" photo representations of the area at the reque.st of the Planning Commission GafiVon said the City's main concerns are with the construction process. Peterson added there is a concern w ith hauling of the fill. GatTron said thousands of yards of fill will be leaving the to an ofT-site location to be determined by the contractor. The access road would be (. n '. X Hd 6, east of Tanglewood The excavation and hauling would be done in mid-winic; sight distance is good at the access location but there is concern about impacting trafilc on CoRd 6 Close monitoring of the road conditions would be required alone with signage and flagmen during construction It was noted that for security rea.sons, a gate with a combination lock would be provided permanently at the access drive. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANT41NG COMNUSSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20. 1995 (#7. #2059 MCWT) - Continued) Peterson asked if the City's approval would need to spell out the hours ot operation during construction. LaBounty was asked if this was spelled out in their contracts LaBounty said hours have not been set He relayed the example of another project where the City set the approved hours. LaBounty said there would be daily, or even hourly, scraping and sw'eeping of the roadway All trucks would use sealed boxes. A procedure would also be used to remove dirt from the tires when the triicks leave the property Flag personnel will also be used during operation The construction is scheduled to start in January ot 1998 and last 30-45 days Revegetation would occur in the spring using bare root stock to save money. No final landscape plans hav-e been developed with the Pearces as ot yet. The Pearces will be included in the landscape plan process Peterson asked LaBounty where the MCWD was with the Medina and Long Lake pond projects LaBounty said the Long Lake pond agreements have been signed, and the project has been ordered to proceed Ground breaking is to occur on November 27 with revegetation to occur in the spring of 1995 A verbal agreement has been reached with the property owner in Medina, and all issues are expected to be resolved by December 15. The MCWD is planning for construction to begin on December 15, 1995. Peterson commented and LaBounty confirmed that all three cities' approval for sediment ponds is required in order that the alum treatment of Long Lake be ctTcctivc. Smith asked if no agreement was reached in Medina it the MCWD would revert back to the plans for a 5 acre pond LaBounty said that was a possibility at one time but an agreement has been reached with the Pearces only for a 2 5 acre pond He noted that the MCWD is working hard on reaching a negotiated settlement on the Medina pond Smith reiterated that this meant there would be no change in scope or scale it no agreement was reached in Medina LaBounty said no changes would be made as the signed agreement is in effect LaBounty reviewed the photo depictions of the site. He added that the pond requiring the most sediment removal is the pond nearest to CoRd 5 as it collects the most sands. The second pond will collect finer sediments. There were no public comments. Smith asked if all the points have been addressed to the Staffs satisfaction. Gaflron said this was correct. He added that before the application goes before the Council, a compilation or "punch list" of all the requirements and conditions would be drafted. Peterson emphasized the need to stipulate operating times, the use of flag people, and the total time of construction LaBounty said he was in agreement with these requirements. IS MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOV'EMBER 20, 1995 I»V* t ww (#7 - ^#2059 MCWD - Continued) Peterson asked if a drag line would be used. LaBounty said the work would be done by backhoe Because of winter construction, smaller equipment can be used Hawn asked if it was impossible to control the point source ot the pollution from the upstream feedlots LaBounty said the majority of pollution comes trom non-pc.nt sc over a long period of time The MCVVD is working with Medina and Orono on a cooperative agreement which will use include ot 'best management practices Stoimw'ater management plans, when they are developed by each cit\, will contain the best management practices. Hawn asked what are the time lines for the cities’ stormwater plans LaBounty said the stormwater plans should have been in by this time as the two year time allotment has expired. The MCWD is working with Long Lake on their stormwater plan at this time and hopes to do the same with Medina and Orono Hawn said she was concerned if the lake w as cleaned of the existing phosphorus, it would be reintroduced creating the same problems LaBounty said OO®'© would be remoxed and would result in less internal loading, adding that the alum treatment would aid in alleviating the pioblem Smith asked if the City could stipulate that the application come back before the Planning Commission if the project does not go forward as proposed It was noted that the normal time frame of reviewing an application is one year while the project is not set tor another 3 years GatTron said if Planning Commission wishes to e.xtend the approval time frame, some type of tritzger could be placed in the permit to allow the application to be revisited LaBounty requested that the permit be issued for a longer time period as long as there arc no changes Mabusth said that the approval conditions could specify guidelines as to what chances would prompt it to be back for review LaBounty asked that the oermit use any chances to the Deerhill Pond as a trigger to come back before the Planning Commission. H : noted that the agreement with Pearce has some leew ay for the size of the pond LaBounty asked if the permit should be held until a time closer to the actual construction, as lone as there is an understanding that the constmetion will go forward. He noted the completion date is about 2-1-2 years out Smith felt it could be completed now and only come back if there were major changes in the plans Lindquist agreed. It w as no»ed that both judees on the Medina suit have promised a conclusion by December 15 Since it would be appropriate for Orono's Council to know the Medina outcome before acting, GatTron wMl draft a resolution to present before the Council in January LaBounty concurred with this schedule MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#7 - #2059 MCVVT) - Continued) require future reconsideration by the Plannjng Commission. Vote. Aves5, ia\s The Applicant was present Mabusth reponed that the 30* easement along the south property line has been located The easement has been deducted form the total lot area and is now at 3 07 acres 1 he property is to be developed with rural standards due to the septic. There is a backlot configuration but the west lot is not a back lot there is access to the public road to the south'^ Mabusth said the County will not approve any new curb cuts and will require a shared drivewav for lot 2, and lot 1 may continue to use existing access The applicant had no comment. Peterson asked if the applicant was aware that the third curb cut would not be allowed and rccciv^ a rcplv to the atTirmativ'C. Lindquist inquired if there was to be any park or trail acquisition Mabusth said the Park Commission has not reviewed the application but will at their December 4 meeting. During public comments, Barry Knight, 425 Tonkawa, said he had no problem with the subdivision. He did. however, have a concern with the Staff recommendation tor condition #1 He noted that since his property is not a back lot. but under back lot standards, item # 1 would relate to his property and should not be included He was told that item #1, which refers to no more than two residences on one drivexvay, is a City ordinance and must be part ot the conditions. Kniuht said the deeded acce.ss is not exclusive and would benefit the division of other lots If he were to subdivide in the future, which he said he has the right to do, this wou^ld affect him and he should be part of that code Knight was informed that if he should subdivide in the future, the code would need to be applied The parcels in question are not in the MUS-A, while Knight’s property is within the MUSA. 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#8 - #2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Lindquist said he saw Knight's concern with losing his right to subdivide in the future the ordinance under item # I would afffect his ability to be serv ed by this easement road Knight agreed that this would adversely affect his property. Lindquist added that even though this was true. Staff cannot violate the code now in order to not artect a possible future application. It was noted that the ordinance would still be in efflfect ev en it it was not listed in the resolution Mabusth suggested that Knight bring this concern before the Council Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2078 wtih Staff recommendations I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 \ oie: Aves 5. Navs 0 (#9) #2083 BERNICE M. ZUMBCSCH, 1535 LONG LAKE BLVD. - VARIANT ES - PUBLIC HEARLNG - lOtlS-IO:!? P.M. The Cenificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application was for hardcover variance to replace a lakeshore deck with stairs. There would be no changes in hardcover in the 0-75' zone at 16^29'’o or in the 75-250’ zone at 87.35% Structural coverage would remain the same at 20°o. There are no setback variances required Karen Hessian, the applicant’s daughter, said there were areas where plastic is located under the landscaping which could be removed Mabusth said this would result in reductions of 2 8%, or 131 s f, in the 0-75' zone, and 3 5%, or 162 s f, in the 75-250 s.f. Lindquist asked if not all of the plastic could be remov ed or if some were needed on the steep hill Hessian said the plastic on the hill was probably for erosion control, but on top of the hill and by the house, the plastic could be removed. Peterson asked what Staff would recommend regarding removal of plastic from the hill area Mabusth said she would need to consult with the City Engineer He did note there were timbers in the area Peterson asked Mark Gronberg, who was in attendance, it the plastic in that area could be removed Gronberg said it was a possibility Hessian was asked for a time frame She said the plan was to reconstruct the deck in the spring Lindquist said this would allow the Engineer to review and make a recommendation. Hessian noted that her mother w as out of town now but would be home to attend the December meeting m MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#9 - #2083 Bernice Zumbusch - Continued) Peterson said the decking needs to be redone. He noted the goal was to get a reduction in hardcover, especially in the 0-75' zone, but the City Engineer's recommendation would be required Mabusth remarked that the plastic remo\’al would result in a 5°o reduction in the 0-75' setback area There were no public comments. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve application ^#2083 tor the replacement ot the deck with the plastic as previously descnbed be removed and by the City Engineers inspection on the west side be removed in the 0-75’ zone it recommended bv the Engineer Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#10) #2084 THOMAS fL MCCUNE, 1473 BAY RIDGE ROAD - VARIANC ES - PI BLIC HEARING - 10:27-10:32 P.M. The Cenificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The .Applicant was present GatTron reported that the property under review is located on Bay Ridge Road where 100' lot widths are tvpical The lot is 115* as measured parallel to the lake The propertv is located in the 2 acre zoning, but the average lot size in this neighborhood is 1 acre This property is 84 acre The proposal is for two additions requiring variances for the side setback and hardcover. The applicants plan to replace the existing deck with a sunroom 30' is required for this side setback, and the existing deck and proposed sunroom arc at 27 ’ Sunroom location is constrained by a window is located to the north It is possible to narrow the sunroom to meet the side setback of 30’ The room addition and attached garage to the north side requires a 30’ setback and is proposed at 10' The existing house Ts at 14’ The existing driveway would be relocated The existing garage and apron would be removed The garage addition will be over the existing septic system, hence, this project must wait until sewer is brought to the neighborhood Galfron reported that the hardcover existing in the 75-250’ zone would increase from 23 9"0 to 26 7'’'i> for a 1 T/o variance where 25^o is allowed. The hardcover in the 250- 500’ zone is under the 30®o allowable 1he only hardcover existing in the 0-75’ is a stairwav located in the Co Rd 51 right-ot-way. McCune said it was originally their thought to have a sunroom continuing along the south line of the house about ! 4* from the lot line, but it was slid to the north because of the setback. Because of the lake views and the way the hou.ses in the area sit on the lots, McCune placed the sunroom where proposed McCune said by placing the garage addition as proposed to the west, it minimizes the hardcover in the 75-250’ zone. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#12 - #2084 Thomas McCune - Continued) Lindquist received confirmation to his question that the septic system is located under the proposed garage McCune noted that all 8 homeowners in the area signed up tor sewer which is hoped will occur next year. The plan is to wait to do the improvements until the sewer is completed This is part of the whole plan. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2084 with the reservation that the project not proceed with the garage construction until municipal sewer is available. There were no public commmts. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #2086 ROBERT AND JAMCE CALL\N, 2915 SOMERSET LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMH A ARLANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:32-10:59 P.M. The Cenificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application was for a conditional use permit and variance to create a 6000 s f open water area in a designated wetland of 1 acre si/e The property would have over 2 acres of dry contiguous buildable land Mabusth noted that the City has a conservation and tlowage easement over the area Mabusth reviewed the codes, specifically 10 55 where amendments would be needed, and 10 56 which lists the functional entities that all wetlands provide and should retain Of the 6 functional qualities listed. Mabusth said there would be no impact on »5. regarding shoreline or bank stabili/ation, but had no information on #3. regarding fish and wildlife habitat Mabusth said the issue is that the code discourages having any prohibition in code 10 55 Mabusth said the City Engineer and DNR had no problem with the proposal as long as certain standards were met Replacement would be asked for base and bank levels (2.25 acres) The type 2 wetlands should be replaced for wildlife habitat Mabusth said she saw a problem with other residents of the 7 residential lots in the area asking for the same type of pond The application was being reviewed by the DNR and .MCWD Maik Gronberg said he checked with Kristen George, who is awaiting City ’s decision. Georue was said to have no problem with the e.xcavation in the wetland. He noted that the Corp of Engineers still needed to approve the application. He also noted that the wetland has become larger after losing the farming in the area. 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#11 - #2086 Robert and Janice Callan - Continued) Lindquist questioned if the Planning Commission could ask for mitigation. Callan said the area was low wetland. He was asking for approval to gam open water for aesthetic reasons as well as enhancing a water fowl area Callan saw the size and as having no significant impact on the existing bird or wildlife He saw three areas ot Crys al Bay Farms participate in wetland ownership This particular parcel is 1/2 ot the area, e noted the other 2 have been built on and are located on a higher elevation He did not believe any of these homeowners would ask tor any change ^rom the original wet an designation as they are high in elevation and have no view ’ ot the area Callan as e or approval without mitigation. There were no public comments Smith said she was of the opinion that others w ould make similar requests. Lindquist said he preferred to keep the area as it now is but questioned whether the application could be denied. Peterson said he does not like to make changes to wetland areas He did not see the proposal as bad but felt watertbwl would not stay on a small pond area. George Stickney, the current owner, the lot is 380’ in width and is a maple forest, he said with the draintile and transitional growth, the area could be opened to maintain the currrent wetland area Gronberg commented that auencies are encouraging type 1 and 2 wetlands He saw no reason not to build more type 3 wetlands I le saw benefits to maintain sediment storage Lindquist moved. Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2086 for 1 1 mitigation equal to the open water area, with condition #3, with the use of the scoop method. Callan asked if the Planninu Commission would consider type 1 mitigation Lindquist said the mitiuation must be tvpe 2 Callan asked for a 8 1 grade on the back side but said would create a substandard urade to the front He said he would consider a 4; 1 on the front halt o fthe open water for^visibilitv Peterson said the City Engineer said a 4:1 slope was too steep adding that the City Engineer and DNR would make the decision on the slope. Peterson said if the City Engineer was in favor of varying amounts of slope, it could be done Vote: Ayes 2, Hawn, Lindquist; Nays 3, Smith, Berg, Peterson. Motion fails. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#11- #2086 Robert and Janice Callan - Continued) Peterson moved. Smith seconded, to deny approval for application #2086 as it his opinion to deny all wetland applications. Smith said she saw no compeling benefit to taking this step and saw the true advantage in keeping the wetland as it now' exists Berg agreed. Vote: Ayes 3, Peterson, Smith, Berg, Nays 2, Hawn, Lindquist. Motion pas>ed for denial. Smith said she saw the drainage benefits as comparing apples to oranges Bern said she saw the application as being for aesthetical rather than environmental reasons George Stickney commented that the Planning Commission has approved a skating pond elsewhere and here Peterson responded that this area is a designated wetland. Mabusth said the pond Stickney was referring to was a type 1 wetland. (#12) #2087 MINNEGASCO, 530 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - RENEWAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLCLIC HEARING - 11:00-11:07 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Representing Minnegasco were Rick Pilon and Jerry Kallstrom. Peterson asked the applicants why a permanent fix could not occur. Pilon said Hennepin County postponed the CoRd 6 project and asked the gas company to do the same. It is possible that a permanent solution could be scheduled for next year but has asked for renewal of 5 year permit instead of asking for a 2-year extension Pilon said the existing feeder is west of Tow nline Road, and the low pressure system is east of Townline. The purpose to to bring gas from the high to the low area to stabilize and present an independent leg. Lindquist asked if this w ould eliminate the need for the facility. Pilon said it would and needed one year to verily that. Pilon said the CoRd 84 project was postponed. It fed Painters Creek with a high pressure feed toward Rockford. Pilon said gas cannot be taken out of this feeder to enforce the area. He said the project is an insurance plan to ensure gas outages do not occur. Smith asked how often this vaporizer is u^'.-d Pilon said it was used 3 times in 1992- 1993, 4 times in 1993-1994, and 3 times in 1994-1995 with 3 standbys. Smith asked if there has been any complaints or concerns. Mabusth said there has been none. 25 KONUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#12 - #2087 Minnegasco - Continued) There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2087 as submitted with the condition that if the lease if not renewed, the vaporizer could not remain Pilon noted that the lease with the landowner is being renewed on a year-by-year basis. \ ote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#13) #2089 RICHARD MILLER, 4520 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARUNCES - PUBUC HEARING - 11:07-11:15 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and -Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present GafTfon reported that the application is for lot area and width variances for the existing lot located in the 5 acre zone. The property consists ot 3 6 acre dry and 2 9 acre wetland tor a total of 6 5 acres A 28% lot area variances would be required The width parallel to the ft-ont lot width is 4% short at ^ :re 300’ is required Gatfi-on noted the 5 acre zoning was created in 1975 when a majority of the residents indicated they preferred 5 acre zoning to maintain the large lot sizes. Gatfiron said there are very few small vacant lots in this zone The property in question of 3-1/2 acres is unique according to Gaftron It has not been built on. Miller has owned the property since 1972 The buildable envelope requires a 100' front setback, a 50' side setback, and 26’ setback from any wetlands. The driveway would come from CoRd 6 Septic testing has been done, and a site is available for a 5 bedroom home Gatfron pointed out the likely building site Gafiron questioned if the City does not grant the variances, does the owner have any reasonable use of the propeny He noted that the assessor has given the property a low er value compared to buildable lots. Miller has paid $5,000 in ta.xes over 20 years. Gatfron asked if constmeting a residence on this 3-1/2 acres dry buildable (6 5 acre total) lot w ould change the character of the neighborhood Galfiron commented that when the owner bought the property, the propeny conformed to the code of 1 acre zoning Miller noted he is considering building on or selling the lot, and when the variance is approved, it mav cause the ta.xes to increase. Peterson commented that the codes do change but noted the uniqueness ot this property. Miller said the homes and lots going towards CoRd 6 and Hwy 12 from his property are smaller. -----n.i --------- L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#13 - #2089 Richard Miller - Continued) There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Hj»wn seconded, to approve Application #2089 with the hardships listed and with noting the zoning at the time of purchase \'ote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#14) #2091 BCRTON SCOTT BALL, 1065 FERNDALE ROAD WEST- VARLANCES - PLBLIC HEARING - 11:15-11:25 P.M. The Certificate ol iMailing and Afiidavit of Publication w ere noted. The Applicant was present GatTron reported that the existing residence is mainly located within the 75' zone with a deck on the lakeside There is also a 4' overhang on the house Gatiron said the request is tor a bay window above the deck and under the overhang but within the 4' of the overhang at 3' This application would involve the expansion of one bay window and the addition of two more. Gaffron commented that the hardcover is significant on this propeny The proposal could increase the encroachment to the lakeside by 3’ The west end is 47’ from the lake. At midpoint, the residence is 515' from the lake On the east end. the residence is 45’ from the lake Hardctner exists in the 0-75’ zone at 36 8%, 41 4% in the 75-250' zone, and conforms in the 250-500'zone at 13 6° o The overall hardcover e.xists at 36.1 % The DNR recommends hardcover for an entire property at 25%. Gaffron noted that the tennis court located in the driveway has appeared since 1991. In comparison with a survey submitted by the previous owner for a previous application, the driveway and coim have expanded He noted the rock and plastic along the house but commented that it is narrower in width than the 4' overhang bet still considered hardcover. GatTron brought two questions before the Planning Commissioners for their consideration Should the bay windows be approved allowing a further encroachment of 3’ and should approval be tied to the hardcover Peterson commented that theie w the perception of more encroachment but was not really closer when considering the overhang GatTron suggested that the bulk of the house was getting closer to the lake, and the proposal did add more structure in the 0-75’ zone. While the overhang was more of an encroachment, the addition to the bulk requires for need for the variances MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#14 - #2091 Burton Scott Ball - Continued) Ball said he moved in to the property in August of 1995. He said the home is a nice rambler, and he is trying to make it the best it can be. He said he had no need lor the tennis court and would remo ve it. Ball said he would also remov e a portion of the driveway as well as the 6' fence. Ball said the bay window in the kitchen area already exists. The two additional bay s are to be located at the same distance in the living room and side areas to add balance. There will be no foundation under the bay windows as th.'* w;*l be cantilevered out trom t e structure. Lindquist asked how much driveway or court could be eliminated. Mrs. Ball said she would be willing for all of the asphalt to be removed except for that for a dnveway to gam access to the house It is her desire to eliminate as much as it as possible^ Mr. Ball said he would also remove any plastic. Gaffron indicated two triangular areas ot the court area which could be removed. Lindquist said he saw no problem with the bay windows with their location under the overhang. Smith said she looks for mitigation and would be in favor of the suggestions given by the Balls There were no public comments Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2091 to install 3 bay windows with the asphalt removed as suggested. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING CO.MMISSION COMMENTS (#15) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENT A FIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 13, 1995 Charles Schroeder was not present. (#16) OPEN SPACE PRESERVAT ION PLAN - SURVEY RESULTS - PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments on this item MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20. 1995 (#17) APPROVAL OF 1996 CALENDAR Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of the proposed 1996 schedule. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#18) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Mabusth asked Peterson to remind applicants that Planning Commission votes are recommendations only. Applications then proceed to the Council tor approval. Smith commented that the New Horizon Day Care on Hwy 12 has kept their exterior livhts on past the time alloted in the resolution. It was noted that the strong bult wattage in the lights along the roof are also not in keeping with the resolution Stall was asked to look into this matter Berg reported having had attended a meeting regarding wetland mitigation. It was said at the meeting that people request dredging tor ponds with the idea ot having watertbvvl use the ponds. With the destruction of the grasses and mosquito zones, it destroys the feeding habitat and waterfowl do not remain. Peterson said this shows the need for all types of wetlands Berg said the meeting made her aware of the viewpoint expressed in past applications by Peterson and the need to look at all ecosystems Smith said she would appreciate receiving feedback front applicant's response on the decisions made by the Planning Commissi«m Mabusth noted that the response has been positive. additional items (#19) Pl^NMNG COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16. 1995 MEETING Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 16, 1995 Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#20) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO attend THE DECEMBER 11, 1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Charles Schroeder was selected to attend the December 11, 1995, meeting of the Council. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20. 1995 ADJOURNMENT Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn at 11:35 p.m. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person 31996 ORONO MEETING SCHEDULE ■ COUNCIi. CllAMItrusKBY\mml 7:00 p.in. Cojincil Mcciny 2nd & 4Ui Monday 7:00 p.ni. IManning Coininission 3rd Monday* 7:15 p.ni. Tai k Connnissioii 1st Monday Sy 7:00 p. n. Orono School Board/or Ollier Event X orricial Holiday •PLANNING C0^LM1SS10N - May through October - 1st Tuesday is an alternate meeting date. Adopted: 11/27/95 1996 January S M T 1996 F S 5 G 12 13 19 20 21 W?Tyy2A 25 26 27 22 23 2d 25 29 30 31 L~fco E.UCCJT VOtM Soplombor 199G M T W T r S 5 6 7 0>|11 12 13 M 10 19 20 21 25 26 27 20 2.0 30 ^T*<Te.'PV.\ t-AAKs E-i_c.c_t \ o H_____ February S M T 23 24 Juio S M T W T 6 11 12 13 12 10* 19 20 ^25 26 27 1996 F S 1 0 15 22 29 7 14 21 20 Oclobcr 5 M T W A ® 2 6^09 13M15 16 T 3 10 17 20gb'J2 ^ 27^29 : 1996 F S 4 5 11 12 10 19 23 24 25 26 10 31 Marcli S M T pRe.C»NC_T 1996 T W T F S •'2*. 3 X X 6 ^ 10 11 12 13 16 17 10 19 20 _J23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 November S M T W 1996 T F S A 1 2 3 AS^'l 6 7 0 9 10 Xll2\l3 14 15 16 17 I® 19 |20 21 22 23 27 XX 30241320 Ev.^n-Ti DU April S M 1996 F S 5 6 12 13 19 20 26 27 Auijusl 1996 S M T W T F S d 7 0 9 10 11 0313' 14 15 16 17 10^20 21 22 23 24 25ml27 20 29 30 31 December 1996 S M T W T F S 1 A 3 4 5 6 7 0 Elio 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 X 26 27 20 29 30 31 HTTENTION *ORONO RESIDENTS THIS lUILL AFFECT VOU DID YOU KNOW THAT : * MNDOT has proposed the building of multiple highways to run througn our community and homes. * Whether it affects YOU directly or indirectly, this vyill destroy our unique ccmm.unity and ouiet way of life. The citizens of Long Lake have formed an active and strong group which is proposing a “no build“ in Long I ake policy. We also need to form an equally strong group to create a united front and to stop the movemerit which threatens to adversely affect Orono and surrounding communities. VOU NEED TO UOICE VOUR CONCERN NOLUM MNDOT is mouing quickly — so must loe HOm, IDHEN, AND IDHERE? Tuesday, December 7:30 p.m. Orono High School Cafeteria LUho? MNDOT, Orono City Council t>Mayor, UNO and You Please join UNO (United Citizens of Orono) at this meeting and immediately afterwards to organize our efforts! You moy also call: Mayer of Orono - Edward Callahan - 473-8149 Council Members - J. Diann Gcetten - 473-5633 Gabriel Jabbour - 471 -9253/379-2321 -w Charles Kelley - 475-1280 Jo Ellen Hurr - 471-9801 City Administrator - Ron Moorse - 473-7357 - FAX 473-0510 / P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, 55323 UNO - United Neighbors of Orono - 315 Silver Meadow Drive, Orono S535& * V# ^4 •» ‘ • L ' r* * • * ‘ iE'-' ,' 7 k '• ii’ ' =• • •);■ CITIZENS FOR LONG LAKE Public Service Bulletin ! f The "Citizens For Long Lake" would like to express our if iBppredation to those of you who responded so promptly to our survey. The results as of November 21 are: ' ” 1. Mailed out 777 surveys (water bill trmilittg list) 2. Returns of 336 were received i 1. The Long Lake City Council should establisfi a firm "no build In Long Lake* posiliun regniding '• ' potential highway 12/394 exienslotts. : ‘ AGREE a 253 / 75% DISAGREE = 57 'I •: I f.l. !• * ♦ * • •» • » ' I ! iH . ill 9 2. Long Lake City Council should supputt ttio . construction of an ndditlonai two-lane, tiigli speed freeway through portions of our city . (as are now being discusssed). AGREE = 49 DISAGREE = 214/ 63% 9 3. Long Lake City Council should support an upgraded Iwo-lano freeway on the existing roadbed with associated frontagc/access. AGREE = 82 DISAGREE = 99 # 4. Long Lake City Council shoud support a lour lane freeway on the cxisling roadbed wilti associated fronlayc/access toads. • AGREE = 25 DISAGREE = 232 / 69% During a standing-room oniy City Council rnccllng held on November 21, the survey data was presctricd to the Council along with a request that a revised policy stalemcrrl be published reflecting the "no build through Long Lake* desires of the vast majority of Long Lake citizens. The response was troncomrnillal awaiting further Input. The City Council has made it clear that they want to hear from llieir cilizens. Please call your city representatives directly and express your position on this Issue. I COUNCIL MEMBERS: MIKE BASH 473-7920 JIM HARTFIEL 473-8806 LIZ OLSON 476-0321 DAVID SAWYER 475-2269 PDID YOU KNOW THAT......1. MnDOT proposes an extension of higtrway 12/394 along the soutt siil6 of Builinoton tfcicks And 8 now Wsicitown Rosd which mii*would displace 50 - 60 familiesi 2. MnDOT could make a DECISION AS EARLY AS APRIL Of. 1996 and could begin purchasing residential properties within 18 monthsll!:m3. Members of our City Council are open to consideration of tflghwaif|^2y^j extensions which might sever our community and displace fariillles.3^®, 4. The cilizens OF Long Lake oppose construction allemativos and ttje^8W^r Cilizens FOR Long Lake want you to be part of the process'. •JWe'ariHWW the force that can alter this developmetrl. " * .. . ■ i • LONG LAKE CITY COUNCILS CURRENT RESOLUTWN^at^J ^ 'Now, therefore, be Is resolved that the City of Long Lake does hareby icsolvomal; ' A. That ttre City of Long Lake hereby adopts each and every one of the findings set loitt) above (reference to findings, etc. within laigerl|@^ public document - available upotr request). ‘ ' *T| ijK* 0. That the expansion of the cxistirrg corridor through downtown Long*^^ Lake will have substantial, Irreversible, and adverse envIronmentarWl^Jif cKccts wlilcti com|)cl tire conclusion Ihet It stioutd not be'consIdored^VH/^l as an allemallve by MitDOT as part of lire F IS process. , .*’k/no|f f nlWi C. Thrrt the exparrslotr of Highway 12 to bo located along the southern conidor, Is (Ire irrost feasible allemallve, and MnDot should conslderl^^^ It to be lire preferred allemallve. j'l ' 1 D. That the expansion of Higtrway 12 to bo located along the northern allcinnrcnl will result lir slgnlllcanl environmental effects and, therefore.Tji?!'' E. resolnllorr to Conrmissloner John Riley, MnDot, and the mayors of olher^;| altected nuinicl()nlitlcs; and to take all necessary steps lo effectuate thls^' resolution. '■ /•'attlt'ikitrfiHl Iir olher words, the City look (and still maintains) a position that we shouldn’t ! build through "downlowir” or along north route. South route would be prefered, aird, because they arcrr’l referenced iir the resolution, other routes af(ect|ng j^^ resideirllal areas nrlglrt be acccplable. They may not have intended message, but that's ttre messagel | [ M'-noT ror>r Um npenliin hern rrml Is moving ahead. ' • •, . *.1 •. . • ! , . : ..Mil..-. *« .♦ .p^Sij^.biir,;* r, > ...» . »r.j .;;i ,l|S ^'*Mp&al0 tetterjTtN CMizens FOR Long Like* committee, an 3fganlzaltomVi^ by MnDOT, has fonnally requested the CityCouncil liGbilshtand support ■ resolution estabHshlng a firm NO-BUILD TttROUOHlONO'llAKE CITY UMIT8, INCLUDINQ ALL BOUNDARY ' LME8,^p^^^H10HWAY EXPANSION OR NEW ROADBED. We have reriueat^ mat this resolullon ba passed at the next council meeting to be held;DECEMBER 5,\.1W5 AT THE CITY HALL AT 7;30PM (we have reqiMSied'a location change due to the number of people expected to atteral^Msmaelbiti.t,If .changed a note will be posted on the city Hall door) Your|aMehdanoe.8( (Ms meeting Is most Important as MnDOT has made it dear thalThey h^ortcally will not conslnict a freeway pro)ect through a townVvar the bb|edlons of the municipality; And Ihe voice of the municipality *•! I i*i *r»l I Lake committee members:, , er|! President 475-0957 I » i { t . . »l Rtkmda|WllsohI|Secretafy,,.,, ,473-6693 , Flometla,Zahnd^iip,»,,„. 440-8708 >|'gih>ld I !.;.l C •4 • I. Peter Schbon^jiL / J; Mike Peschel Rich'HecbinovI ^ry RlnduXj* 476-4756 r-ii? L\ ,, . 475-3508 , . ;• ; t ! lllf^YOU.WOULO LIKE TO FINACIALLY SUPPORT THIS JfeS'XCAUSET^PllEASE MAIL DONATIONS TO: CmZENS'FOR LONG LAKE ‘ ’m 321 HARRINGTON DR L0NG.LAKE.,MN, 55350 .If 1 • «* • . 11 i *•. *•; # * I •• . I . .. liB ^• fr »' • ■ ,1 rl*» % • « 1,1 « -.1 Ivn;;, ; ■I ■ -j b I • • • • « •! • •«awi Li: » • • »., b.t e-i in* 4 4 I ii? I. •. . .f./i.. IiI I i . I •• I ' •!! • • 4 .» * t.. 4 i.l.'iftl!' ' li • r. J { t>j ■ ■ ■ < /); ’ >\ L- fiinri y.:|»t V .1 , . !••, . vi;i • •■MMJivt./;) . •. I i,. $>il; .• . . t •(.•..i.'.r.i |Sjl ‘ 3 . • • • • ' • * f ’ I’o ' • I i.l I* **J • * I . v*t%i * .1 I I 4f I I • .1 *(• . 'T'*o.\ I. 4 . « O ao ,»• t . f 1 *•1 11* . 1.1 k11■ • , \. • « '■'I;1 •'e •1.'-' e t• * •i •;..1 4’•tj ••• 1 ■1 ■ r, ■: !!'•• :l { b. • l» / S!'■ • !‘ 1 * 4 ^ ..I 1 s • • : 1 • 'I cd I I • I ■!! r t i-». •> ■' 4• -,1.v •1 •• !• C/Do Ph i • *f: t • * Vi ? • •* ■ '• ■. t.*. • . ?!!• ' ,1'. I 1 • • V» r •> " It (r* I,•i • « I , «* •I .1 (• •t . 'I. \ * j'* '. {■ iCv’; Wl}i V •' • • rl- • V a ; * -it > \: » . * * M • ■ • (I *» i ’v i. . . . • . • •• . • .V^.M.O f«W.r;.'0'b' \ 1.\ li :r i'k -ii'I t\: November 27, 1995 Mayor Todd Olson City of Long Lake, MN Dear Mavor Olson: As you are aware from the recent highway 12 informational meetings, public surv'ey and most recent Council meeting, the vnst majoritv ’ of Long Lake residents are opposed to any form of highway 12 expansion through our co mmunity. While we recognize the need to cooperate wiLu our municipal neighbors, it is obvious that this community can not tolerate a freeway expansion through our area. To date, your public position on this issue has been equivocal at best and in our opinion, does not represent the resolve of our locale. We request therefore, that at the December 5, 1995 City Council meeting, you, in consort with the other Council members, formally publish and support a Resolution affirming that Long Lake is opposed to any highway expansion or upgrade (including the construction of a new road bedk through its city limits or along its boundaries. We believe that the Council has a clear mandate on this issue. We do not desire confrontation on this subject, instead we are offering you the opportunity to represent this community as you were elected to do. Finally, we hope and anticipate you will bring closure to this issue on December 5, 1995. Respectfully, Jim Rettinger, Chafrmon Citizens for Long Lake Committee cc: Jim Hartfleld Liz Olson Mike Bash David Sawty-er Joe Lvnch CITIZENS FOR LONG LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1995 Here are the three “Calls to Action" which we presented at the last meeting; the council tab.^d these issues and will respond at tonight’s meeting: The CFLL petitioo that the City Council heed and follow the preferred course of action as represented by clear majority sanction of registered voter residents of Long Lake. On November 27 we delivered a letter to Mayor Olson and the Council which is copied on the reverse side; please review it and note the “position" we recommended. Also, for reference, here is the “current" published position: A. That the City of Long Lake hereby adopts each and every one of the findings set forth above (reference to findings, etc. w'ithin larger public document - available upon request). B. That the expansion of the existing corridor through downtown Long Lake will have substantial, irreversible, and adverse environmental effects which compel the conclusion that it should not be ocnsidered as an alternative by MnDOT as pan of the EIS process. C. That the expansion of Highway 12 to be located along the southern corridor, is the most feasible a;ternative, and MnDOT should consider it to be the preferred alternative. D. That the expansion of Highway 12 to be located along the northern alignment will result in significant environmental effects and, therefore, should not be considered as a preferred alternative by MnDOT in its EIS process. E. That the city hereby directs its Mayor and staff to transmit this resolution to Commissioner John Riley, MnDOT. and the mayors of other affected municipalities: anu to take all necessary steps to effectuate this resolution. The Citizens For Long Lake committee request that City Council formally recognize our organization and welcome our participation in agenda activities of the council. VVe also recommend that a similar group be organized to represent the businesses of I.^ng Lake. CFLL would look forward to working with this group, or would be happy to enlarge our perspective to include business entities Finally, a plea for financial assistance to residents; as you leave City Hall tonight we will show you expenses to date and shortfall of revenue to continue our communication activities. Thank you for your consideration. NORTHWEST HENNEPIN LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES 2371S Wood L»o€. IU>9*n. MN 55374 IPtiMip Foraolit CMr 4274ti0 Vico Choir Gary EiM 428^53 Marvin Johnson Oiractor 479^4 Tom MeCrossan Dirwtor 428-4100 Richard Scharman Exacutiva Oiractor 428<4429 6:00 p.m. 6:30 p.m 7:30 p.m agenda Wednesday December 13,1995 Medina Entertainment Center 600 Highway 55 Socializing Dinner Presentation Robert Byers Senior Transportation Planner Hennepin County Presentation: Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan Business meeting follows Mr. Byers presentation The Northwest League encourages community leaders, officials and others to attend the above meeting. If you would like to join the Northwest League representatives for dinner, call Karen Musech at 546-6524 by Tuesday, December 12,1995 (please leave a message). Corcoran#Dayton • Greenfield • M»no*er • Meuan • independence • Loreno • Maple Gr0»e • Maple Plain • Medina • Mmnetriita • Roger* NORTHWEST HENNEPIN LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES 237 IS Wood Lane. Rogers. MN 55374 Vice Chair 4M-7831 OwyEJM lociefri 428-^253 Marvin Johnson DHactor 47M274 Tom McCrossan Oirwtor 428-4100 Richard Scharman Executive Director 428-4429 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8,1995 NWL representatives present; Phil Forseth, Dayton; Tim Zimmerman. Hanover, Anne Thies, Medina; Loran Harff. Greenfield; Tom McCrossan, Hassan; Marvin Johnson, Independence; Gary Eitel, Rogers; Richard Scherman, Executive Director Guests; Jim Smith, Independence; Hennepin County Sheriff Pat McGowan Chair Phil Forseth called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENTER Forseth introduced Hennepin County Sheriff Pat McGowan. Sheriff McGovi^n reviewed the role of the sheriffs department and stated; The department is a statuatory mandated full-service law agency, back-up for small communities, the product of the department Is service with the community as the customers. The sheriffs office currently provides 24 hour assistance to the Norhwest area by transporting prisoners from the Northwest area to the Hennepin County jail. One of the major projects that may affect the Northwest Area is the new Hennepin County jail A discussion followed regarding crime, cost of crime, its impact and effect on communities. Sheriff McGowan invited Northwest League representatives to tour the current jail. BUSINESS Hennepin Countv Park Trail Maps An ongoing committee will be set up to review, monitor and implement any changes in the Hennepin County Park Trail system. The maps identifying the integrated park trail system will be printed in January and distributed to all appropriate communities Metropolitan Council Seminar Ideas for the seminar in April, 1996 will be discussed at the December, 1995 meeting. Elections Gary Eitel and Tom McCrossan were appointed to the Nomination Committee. A report will be given at the December, 1995 meeting. Corcoran ♦ Dayton • Grtenf idd • Hanovar • Mauan • indepandence • Lorano • Mapla Grove • Mapte Plain • Medina • Minneu ista • Rogers NORTHWEST HENNEPIN LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES 2T715 Wood Ljn«. Rogers. MN 55374 RMHpFerMtti Chair 437.2MW Tim Zimmarman Viea-Chaif .7531 GaryERai SaMtary.T raasurar 428-2253 Marvin Johnson Director 479-2274 Tom McCrossan Director 428-4100 Richard Scherman Executive Directoi 428-4429 6:00 p.m. 6 30 p m 7:30 p.m, AGENDA Wednesday December 13,1995 Medina Entertainment Center 500 Highway 55 Socializing Dinner Presentation Robert Byers Senior Transportation Planner Hennepin County Presentation: Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan Business meeting follows Mr. Byers presentation The Northwest League encourages community leaders, officials and others to attend the above meeting If you would like to join the Northwest League representatives for dinner cail Karen Musech at 546-6524 by Tuesday. December 12. 1995 (please leave a message). Corcoran • Dayton • Groanfleld • Hanover • Haisan • independence • Loretto • Maple Grove # Maple Pla*n # Medina • Mmnetnsta • Rogers If9^League Positions A discussion was held on the responsibilities of the Northwest League Executive Director/Recording Secretary and the option of combining this position. The highest priority of the position(s) needs to be administration, detailed description will be presented at the December, 1995 meeting. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Musech Recording Secretary CITY NEWS FORUM :C ;•••• V. • November 1995 vW . .' • ••• DAYTON GREENFIELD HANOVER HASSAN independence MEDINA ROGERS Adopted building permit schedule; passed Hennepin County Park Trail Resolution Sewer plan with City of Rockford; Parks and park trail; raised park dedication fee to $650 Hennepin County Park Trail Resolution on hold; Requested DNR grant for parks; Park dedication fee $650 Joint powers with the City of Rogers; Inspection of traditional use permits Two new council members; Sunday liquor defeated; County Rd. 6 final plans complete Meeting with Met Council regarding Elm Creek. Comprehensive plan, park land purchase Grant request for ICTEA funds; two more individuals representing Roqers/Hassan on Elk River School Board; positive meeting of Highway 101 with MNDOT; Graco moved to the City of Rogers PlTEH Me La UGHUN COMMISSION ES. V**T«« «i2 a^a-soss FA.X • M* - «TOI Board of Hennepin C ounty commissioners A-2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 534a7-0240 December 5, 1995 The Honorable Edward Callahan, Jr. Mayor of Orono PO Box 66 Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Mayor Callahan: Earliw this fall I distributed a staff report and recommendations for county housing poli^ to municipal officials and surveyed their interest m meeting with county commissioner discuss homing issues. Written responses have been received from 21 mumcjahties an most were interested in meeting with commissioners to discuss housing needs and issues. My colleagues and I are therefore planning to invite municipal officials to participate in one of several discussions and have asked our staff to arrange convenient times, ‘i^^s and locations consistent with preferences expressed in suiv'ey rpponses. Due to schedules crowded with budget hearings, year-end business and holiday activities, it s , these meetings be Scheduled in early January. Details will be sent to you in the next few weeks. Thinks for your response to the prior milling ind 1 look forward to meeting with you and Other municipal officials in the near fmure. Sincerely, Peter McLaughlin, Chair Board of Hennepin County Commissioners c: James M. Bourey, County Administrator piUNTtD ON RECYLED PAPER 1996 1995 through Rndpet 11 months 1994 1993 1992 1991 $128,290 $142,992 31,500 27,451 75,600 82,117 30.000 29,190 53,800 53,950 10.000 28.275 $94,932 34.193 55.634 32.957 56,600 9,363 $108,299 40,360 64,726 30,616 56,750 15,374 $84,721 26,672 49.444 24,925 59,300 12,282 $51334 14,114 27,337 34,618 29,490 8,399 $329,190 (a) $363,975 $283,679 $316,125 $257,344 $165,292 $338,710 tal $317,686 (a)$363,020 $328,807 $308,501 $316,015 i - Merrill Owaneon • leao Uktvtew T«rrac«, Long Lake. MN 663S6 • (6lg| 479-4407 December 7,1995 C. Michael Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Adminlslraior City of Orono P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Dear Mr. Gaffron: A survey of the 20 affected Long Lake Country Club homeowners on the subject of city sewer resulted in 16 favoring the concept of city sewer for our neighborhood and four opposed Because of the number of uncertainties and unanswered questions. I think it is fair to say that this was a conditional yes vote. In conversations with neitihbors. and from attendance at informational meetings, it is obvious thauhe most critical concerns center on two related subjects: (1) Cost and (2) financial participation by the City of Orono or other governmental entities The over-all opinion, of both those favoring and those opposing city sewer, is that initial estimates of the cost of the project would result in assessments that would be excessive in relation to the value of homes in the neighborhood. Please keep us apprised of any developments. Sincerely. -. . . ■ • • - ' • ....................................................