Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-1994 Council PacketL, AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 11, 1994, 7:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda, memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL ♦ 1. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Meeting of June 27, 1994 COUNCIL MEEHNG JUL 1 1 1994 CnYOFOMNIO PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS i PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT %3. a. #1903 Ernest Lemmerman, 1297 Wildhurst Trail - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution b. #1911 Ernest Lemmerman, 1297 Wildhurst Trail/4620 Torikaview Lane - Variance - Resolution 4. #1937 Erika and Herbert F. Kahler, 2725 Rainey Road - Variance - Resolution 5. #.922 Robert Melamed, 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Final Subdivision - Resolution 6. Shoreland Ordinance - Amendment of Section 10.56 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 7. Step Increase Ofjijy* Jay Dembouski 8. Policy Regarding tlie Return of a Police Officer to Duty During a Temporary Partial Disability CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT (*9.) LICENSES (*10.) BILLS . i K 11 ■iftfcHMii II iM ~w A. AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY II, 1994, 7:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA I UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 07/11 07/13 07/18 07/18 07/25 08/02 08/08 08/15 08/22 08/23 Council meeting 7:30 p.m. Council Work Session 8:00 a.m. Council Work Session 8:00 a.m. Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. Counbil meeting 7:30 p.m. 15 p.m. 30 p.m. PlanningConpuyiSsion 7:00 p.m. Council meeting 7:30 p.m. Highway 12 Mediation meeting 3:00 p.m w « w m m mmm w ' - P4i;H>popmissipn 7: - Council meeting 7:3( PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL PUBLIC ATTENDANCK MEETING DATE ^ ^ i K j / ( PLEASE FILL OtIT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. i V) 7fi [S^^f i/} ^irvn X!^—• PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER - / 7 / * Noi - i?N aju.c MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING lELD ON JUNE 27, 1994 ROLL W6i IT inr The Council met on the above date with the following members Present: Callahan. Councilmembers Charles Kelley, J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel Ja wWr tiwliilinOJ Hurr. The following represented staff: City Attorney Kevin Staunton, Acting City Administrator John Gerhardson, Police Chief Stephen Sullivan, Finance Director lliomas Kuehn. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron. City Engineer Glenn Cook, and Recorder Barbara Anderson. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m, (#1) CONSENT AGENDA Kelley added Items #7. and ^8 to the Consent Agenda. Hurr requested that M2 be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mayor Callahan added items and MW. Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 5, nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES im REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 13, 1994 Hurr requested that the last sentence in paragraph 4, page 4. be changed to read: Hurr noted that she did not have a conflict of interest in this proposal because her sister was involved with legal representation only for the seller, but had no financial interest in the project. Hurr moved to approve the Minutes of the June 13. 1994 City Council meeting as correcred. Ayes 5, nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no Park Commission comments. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Candace Rowlette, Representative There were no Planning Commission comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Gary DeSantis from Sailor’s World requested that the Council grant him permission to mov> the storage module on his property to give his neighbor a better view of the lake. He stated he believed that there were better locations on the property which would allow for better screening of the module. Mayor Callahan responded that Mr. DeSantis would have to go through the process to amend his Conditional Use Permit, and the Council was unable to lake action on his request that evening. Gatfron stated that it could be placed on a future MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 27, 1994 PUBLIC fcoMMENTS (CONTINUED)ii agenda for Council consideration. AUDIT REPORT (#3) PRESENTATION BY AUDITOR - 1993 COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT - KEN MALLOY AND SHERI OELTJENBRUNS Ken Malloy and Sheri Oeitjenbruns were present. Ken Malloy stated they would briefly review the report and answer any questions. He noted that Orono receives Very little State Aid, and discussed the City ’s revenues and tax rates in comparison to other cities. The report illustrates financial trends over the past five years. Mayor Callahan inquired if Orono maintained an adequate cash balance, and Malloy responded that they always had maintained a positive cash balance, whereas other cities did not always do this. He noted that this was only for the General Fund balance and did not take into account funds which have been allocated for specific purposes. Malloy discussed the internal controls and stated due to the small size of the City ’s personnel the extent of separation of incompatible dues was limited. However, because the City had recently hired new accounting personnel, now would be a good time to review the accounting personnel job descriptions in order to make changes. Malloy indicated that the internal controls were to avoid any one employee having control of all phases of a transaction, or access to both physical assets and the related accounting records. Mayor Callahan stated that this comment had been made in previous audits, and he felt the City Administrator should be directed to look into this to determine whether this situation can be rectified. Sheri Oeitjenbruns stated that they recommend that more than one person sign checks for large amounts. She commented that the audit went well and no problems were encountered. Kuehn stated that he was amenable to making any changes the Council felt were necessary. Hurr inquired when they could bring specific information to the Council to resolve the internal controls and Malloy responded that they could have it completed within 30 days. Kelley inquired if the auditors had encountered other cities leasing major equipment rather than purchasing it, given the fact that cities were now required to pay sales tax. Malloy responded that he did not really know; some lease arrangements were used but he would be open to discussing this possibility with the Finance Director and staff. Kelley stated he was concerned about the Police contracts with other cities and whether they were recovering their actual costs for provision of services to these communities. Malloy responded that those costs are not really separated out from the costs of the Orono Police Department but they have considered having this area more thoroughly looked into. Kelley stated he felt a thorough cost analysis needed to be done. (4 minutes of niE regular orono city council MEETING HELD ON JUNE 27, 1994 i ■■ i li % i POLICE CHIEF REPORT iH) DRAFT SPRING PARK 1995 CONTRACT PROPOSAL Sullivan reviewed the proposal and requested comments from the Council. Hurr asked where the costs were built in for the investigator and Sullivan responded it was part ot the base contract fee. It appears to be very close to the actual costs incurred by this operation •II]»ROAD - VARIANCE - ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#5) #1915 GEORGE APPLEBAUM, 4109 HIGHW* RESOLUTION NO. 3442 George Applebaum was present. Mayor Callahan asked if the Resolution was satisfactory as proposed and Mr. Applebaum responded that it was. Jabbour commented he telt that Mr. Applebaum had done a good job in reducing the hardcover as directed by the Planning Commission and City Council and he supported the presently proposed plan. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Kelley, to adopt Resolution No. 3442 approving #1915 Variance for George Applebaum at 4109 High wood Road. Goetten commented she had visited the property and recognized how steep the topography was, and why the applicant was requesting the variances. She felt the applicant had done a good Job in reducing the hardcover and improve the property and she supported granting the variance. Mayor Callahan asked if the applicant was planning to remove the northern sidewalk down to the steps and Mr. Applebaum responded that he intended to remove as much of it as possible leaving only a small area at ^e foot of the steps. Rowlette stated she had felt that the applicant could have done more to remove hardcover on the property and she had not voted in support of this application. She felt the amount of hardcover should be reduced further. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. (#6) #1933 TANDEM PROPERTIES, 2645/3025 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION NO. 3444 Mark Gronberg and James Deanonic were present representing Tandem Properties. Mabusili reviewed the proposal and noted that the applicant was in the process of working with the Corps of Engineers to develop final grading and filling plans. She noted that the Planning Commission had approved the back lot configuration for Lots 16 and 17 on the Coffin property. The Planning Commission requested that the setbacks be redesignated for back lots requiring 150% of the standards. Side yards must be changed to 45 ’ and rear to 75’. The sideyard setback on Lot 15 should be adjusted to 50’ adjacent to Outlot B. Mabusth reviewed the internal private trail which will be a maximum of 5’ in width and surfaced with 1 I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 27, 1994 (m nm tandem properties , 2545/3025 watertown road - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION NO. 3444 (CONTINUED) wood chips on existing grade. Hurr inquired if there was an easement over a larger area than would be occupied by the wetland and Gronberg responded that was to accommodate the Hundred Year Storm Event elevations. Jabbour stated he wanted to ensure that the trail could not be paved in the future and that it would remain a maximum of only S’ in width and be surfaced only with wood chips. He felt that should be part of the homeowners association covenants so that future property owners would be aware of these restrictions. Jim Deanonic stated that they are willing to put this into the covenants. Mabusth commented that staff would also include them in the final resolution. She felt it would be appropriate to place it in the homeowners association covenants also. Jabbour commented that he would like to have the fact that the trails on the Dickey property are public also included in the homeowners association covenants for that property. The septic systems for the proposed lots were discussed, and their proximity to the wetlands. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution No. 3444 approving #1933 Preliminary Subdivision for Tandem Properties at 2645/3025 Watertown Road with the stipulations as listed and the addition that the homeowners association covenants contain the fact that the private trails on the Coffin property may be a maximum of 5 ’ in width and surfaced only with wood chips on existing grade and the homeowners association covenants for the Dickey property shall contain the fact that the trails within that ponion of the development are public trails. Ayes 5, nays 0. (*#7) #1936 CHARLES E. TROYAK, 2525 KELLEY AVENUE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3443 It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten. to adopt Resolution No. 3443 approving #1936 Variance for Charles E. Troyak at 2525 Kelley Avenue. Ayes 5, nays 0. (*#8) #1939 TIMOTHY OTTEN, 425 TURNHAM ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3445 It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution No. 3445 approving #1939 Variance for Timothy Otten at 425 Turnham Road. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#9) 1994 MARINA LICENSES - LAKESIDE MARINA AND GAYLE’S MARINA Jabbour left the table for this item. Hurr commented that there were barges being stored at Gayle’s Marina and Gaffron responded that this was an issue for the LMCD, and he noted that per a recent LMCD letter to Gayle’s, the barges must be moved by July 1. 1994. The -T".. i t MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 27, 1994 (#9) 1994 MARINA LICENSES - LAKESIDE MARINA AND GAYLE’S MARINA (CONTINUED) barges are stored illegally and must be removed, and the LMCD will ensure that this is done. Gaffron noted that the City has adopted certain LMCD regulations but has not enforced them to date. Staff will do so if directed by the City Council. Hurr inquired if anyone had checked the safety of a gas tanker truck parked on the property and Gaffron responded that staff could check into it, but noted that it was not a permanent fixture on the site. The underground gas tanks have been tested at the request of the MPCA and supposedly passed, but he could not reach Rick Newquist at MPCA to confirm this. Hurr requested that staff confirm that the tank had been tested. She felt that testing should be made a part of the licensing requirements for licenses issued in 1995. Mayor Callahan inquired whether Gayle’s Marina was being acquired by the DNR, and noted that the process was not rapid. He commented perhaps the City should consider the option of condemnation proceedings on the property and then deal directly with the DNR. Hurr stated that she understood that funds from the State lottery were to be used and the purchase will be completed this year. She did not wish to comment further, but felt that condemnation was not the correct course of action at this time. Hurr stated that she did not see where a caretaker could live on the property at Lakeside Marina, and Gaffron responded that the caretaker referred to lives on property three lots away, but keeps an eye on the marina. Hurr stated that the charter boat at Lakeside has been leased four times this summer and is presently parked at Crystal Bay Service. She asked where people were picked up, and Gaffron responded that they have used Lakeside Marina on more than one occasion. The Planning Commission is proposing an ordinance amendment making "charter boat port-of-call" a conditional use and will be bringing it to the Council in the near future. Hurr noted that the caretaker residence has two rental pontoon boats docked on Crystal Bay. Gaffron responded that staff has not confirmed this year whether they are his personal property or the property of the marina. He noted that commercial use from this residentially used property would require a conditional use permit, and none had been issued for this property. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to approve 1994 Annual Commercial Marina Licenses for Gayle’s Marina and Lakeside Marina. Ayes 3, nays 1. Hurr voted no. Jabbour returned to the table. I •3* I- ORONO CUV COUNCIL JUNE 27, 1994 MARINA AND GAYLE’S MARINA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CUY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 27. 1994 nd the LMCD will ensure that this is ICD regulations but has not enforced them luncil. Hurr inquired if anyone had the property and Gaffron responded that i permanent fixture on the site. The jst of the MPCA and supposedly passed, confirm this. Hurr requested that staff testing should be made a part of the as being acquired by the DNR. and noted laps the City should consider the option er, deal directly with the DNR. Hurr lottery were to be used and the purchase mment further, but felt that condemnation |uld live on the property at Lakeside erred to lives on property three lots hat the chaner boat at Lakeside has been J at Crystal Bay Service. She asked i that they have used Lakeside Marina on is proposing an ordinance itional use and will be bringing it to the pontoon boats docked on Crystal Bay. Jar whether they are his personal t commercial use from this residemially and none had been issued for this >rove 1994 Annual Commercial Maiuid yes 3, nays 1. Hurr voted no. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Callahan reported that he had met with mayors from ten other cities and the meeting was a success. To a large extent the discussion centered on County Road 15 and the philosophy of managing problems of this type. Goetten noted that the City of Minnetonka Beach had celebrated it’s lOOth Anniversary and felt the City Council should send a Resolution acknowledging support of this. The other Councilmembers concurred. Kelley commented that the projection of population for the City of Orono was incorrect and he felt that MnDOT was manipulating numbers within the information presented. He requested the historical projections for the City of Orono for the meeting on Tuesday, as he felt it would give perspective on the figures. He commented he was very concerned about the numerical information being disseminated. Gaffron commented that the projections have always been higher than reality. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (*#10)DESIGNATING A NEW LOCATION FOR PRECINCT #4 POLLING LOCATION - RESOLUTION NO. 3446 It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution No. 3446 designating the Orono Council Chambers. 2780 Kelley Parkway, in the City of Orono as the new Precinct #4 polling location. Ayes 5, nays 0. (*#11)REQUEST TO DELETE SEWER ASSESSMENT ON TAX FORFEIT LOT RELEASED FOR SALE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten. to waive the outstanding sewer assessment on the tax forfeit property PID 06-117-23-41-0058 upon the purchase by adjoining property owner, N. Hamma.'berg, 4081 Oak Street and combination with the adjoining property. Ayes 5. nays 0. (#12) CHARLOTTE KNUTSON RETIREMENT - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION NO. 3447 It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Callahan to adopt the Resolution of Appreciation No. 3447 to Charlotte Knutson and declaring July 8, 1994 as Charlotte Knutson Day. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mayor Callahan commented that they will miss her and her contributions to the City. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 27, 19M (#13) MONUMENT RELOCATION Gerhardson stated that the old City Hall building was demolished and two monumciits (,<ii that site must me relocated. Hurr commented she would assist staff with designating a new location. (#13a)RESIGNATION OF CITY RECORDER BARBARA ANDERSON It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to accept the resignation of City Recorijci Barbara Anderson, with regret, and direct staff to initiate the hiring process for a replacement. Ayes 5. nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Staunton stated that he needed to have a meeting with the Cnuncil regarding his memo on the State Statute changes in the Open Meeting Law. (•#14)LICENSES It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten to approve the following licenses: Special Event Permit: Septic System Installers: Long Lake Chamber of Commerce Circus at Orono Schools (Middle School) softball fields July 27. 1994 from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Coppin Plumbing Mound, MN Clover Hill Co.. Inc. Shakopee. MN Duane Ritter Exc. Rockford. MN Ayes 5. nays 0. (*#15)BILLS It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten. to approve payment of the All Funds At c-:u;ii Ayes 5. nays 0. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COl»NCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 27. 1994 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned into Executive Session at 10:03 p.m. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 8 COUNCIL MEEliiiti REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JIIL 1 1 1994 CiTYOFORONO DATE: July 7. 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusih Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning L Item Description: Ernest Lenunerman, 1297 Wildhurst Trail - 4620 Tonkaview Lane A. #1903 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement B #1911 Area Variance for Undeveloped Lot Pertinent Ordinances 1.Chapter 11 - Class II Subdivision. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B) - LR-IB Lot Standards Lot 1: Required = 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre Existing = 33.975 s.f. or .78 acres Proposed = 20,900 s.f. or .47 acres Variance before subdivision = 9,585 s.f. or 22% Variance after subdivision = 22,660 s.f. or 52%. Lot 2 - Developed Lot: Existing = 12,750 s.f. or .29 acres Proposed = 24,600 s.f. or .56 acres. 3.Section 10.56. Subd. 3 Definition 2. Bluff - Topographic features such as a hill, cliff or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an av*;’- ige slope of It* than 18% over a distance of 50 ’ or more shall not be coni'*!: '.ed part of tlie DiutO: A. B. Pan or all of the features located in a shoreland area; The slope rises at least 25’ above tlie ordinary high water level of the water body; C The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25’ or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30% or greater; and D. The slope must drain toward the water body. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 4 July 7, 1994 Zoning Files if\90^ & 1911 V* Toe of the bluff means the lower point of a 50’ segment with an average slope exceeding 18%. The top of the bluff is that point on the cross section of a bluff below which the slope becomes more than 18% and above which the average ^lope for a distance of 50’ or more is 18% or less. Definition 3. Bluff Impact Zone ■ A bluff of land located widiin20’ from the top of a bluff. Definition 26. Steep Slope - Lands having avtiage slopes of 18% or greater as measured over horizontal distances of 50’ or more that are not bluffs. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C-2) - Setback from top of bluff for all structures = 30 ’. List of Exhibits A - Applicaticiis #1903 and #1911 AI-Staff Memc to PC 2/17/94 A2-Staff Memo to Coiicril 2/24/94 A3-Siaff Memo te PkMmmg Commission 3/16/94 A4-Staff Memo to Plannmg Commission 5/10/94 B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - As-Built/Sewer Stub for 4620 Tonkaview Lane E - Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting Sketch Plan Review 8/16/93 El-Planning Commission Minutes 2/22/94 Subdivision of Lot Line Rearrangement E2-Council Minutes 2/28/94 Conceptual Review of Comprehensive Application E3-Planning Commission Minutes 3/21/94 and 5/16/94 - Variance F - Preliminary Plat G - Building Envelope 4620 Tonkaview Lane H - Dimensions of Building Envelope I - Final Plat Description of Application At Council ’s February 28, 1994 meeting, the comprehensive application of Mr. Lemmerman was presented for conceptual review. The application consists of a lot line rearrangement and lot area variance for the undeveloped lot located at 4620 Tonkaview Lane. Lot line rearrangements are approved as metes and bounds divisions but because property is torrens, the Registrar of Titles Office has required that the subdivision be completed as a formal plat. The surveyor had Request for Council Action continued Page 3 of 4 July 7. 1994 Zoning Files #1903 & 1911 originally advised that applicant would have to file for a registration of the property because of certain boundary issues but later found that the matter had been resolved by applicant ’s attorney. Review Exhibits F and I, as originally proposed the propenies are divided along the ridge of steeper elevations. The division will result in an expanded building.envelope for applicant ’s homestead property to the south contiguous with existing more graduated elevations. Applicant s homestead is almost doubled in size. The Planning Commission conditioned the approval on the lot line being adjusted so that the existing garage on Lot 2 meets the required 10 setback at the northwest corner. Application #1911 Involves a lot area variance for the undeveloped lot now decreased in size from .78 to .47 acre: The lot is naturally divided by the steep topographies located within the ccr.w- .lions of the uniqu-ly shaped lot. A former residence had existed on the property l*jca.. 1 southern portion of the property now to be combined with applicant ’s homestead pared fhe newly defined building envelope at the upoet elevations is severely impacted by the defined bluff and the 30’ setback from the top of the bluff. Review Exhibits G and H, the building envelope is approximately 100’ in length and for most of the envelope is 22 in depth. Planning Commission noted that the applicant had performed in good faith throughout this lengthy review. The option of denying this variance application was not even considered. Planning Commission members felt t^at if variances were to be granted to the bluff setback standard that it would be more appropriate to wait for a formal building plan presented by a ftiture land owner. The Planning Commission then referenced recent variances granted to applicants in the past few months dealing with setback variances to the top of the bluff. They concurred with staff that the defined building envelope should be included as an exhibit with the approval resolution for the lot area variance in order to alert a future owner of the uniqueness of this property and the special limitations on the building envelope (review Exhibits E3). Staff has prepared two separate approval resol-'f-ions for both the lot line rearrangement and the area variance. The resolution granting the area variance reterences Section 10.56, Subd. 16 G. J and I that deals with land alterations or construction within steep slopes, vegetation removals with special restrictions on removal of plantings or vegetation within steep sloped areas. Planning Commission was specifically concerned that future owner and builder for this property be alerted to the new restrictive standards developed in the code for construction on steep sloped properties within the shoreland area. COUNCIL ACTION REQLTISTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolutions approving a lot line rearrangement of the properties located at 1297 Wildhurst Trail/4620 Tonkaview Une and an area variance for Lot jk Request for Council Action continued Page 4 of 4 July 7. 1994 Zoning Files #1903 & 1911 1 of the Ummerman Addition based on the unique findings and hardships set forth in the enclosed approval resolution. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF LEMMERMAN ADDITION FILE NO. 1903 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHF.REAS, 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 plat of a lot line reaixangment by Ernest J. Lemmerman, hereinafter the subdivider; and WHEREAS, the subdivision of a let line rearrangement now divides the property along a natural division line created by steep elevations. The subdivision does not involve the creation of new building sites; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City including the dedication of drainage and utility easements on the plat. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Lemmerman Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the condition that the aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Registrar of Titles Office on or before January 11, 1995 together with a cenified original copy of this resolution. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire 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. Page 1 of 2 Adopted this 11th day of July. 1994 ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instniment was cily'i^^ •*“ City of Orono. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 L A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE nm WHEREAS, Ernest J. Lemmerman (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 4620 Tonkaview Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Lemmerman Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on the undeveloped lot which consists of 20,900 s.f. or .47 acres where 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1911. The property is located in the LR-IB, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. 3.The Orono Planning Conunission reviewed this application on March 21, 1994, and May 16. 1994 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings; A. A residence had existed on the property Page 1 of 5 r 5. B The property has been assessef^ lor sewer and a sewer stub is available at Tonkaview Lane for new residential construction. C.Lot 1 of the Lemmerman Addition was created as a result of a lot tine rearrangement that divided Lots 1 and 2 along a natural division line created by steep topographies. The original .78 acre parcel was of an unusual shape and because of the topography could only be developed at either the northern or southern parts of the property. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district: that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience (o the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or cifficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Compreh<*nsive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the fmdings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24. Subdivision S (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on a property granting an area variance of 22.660 s.f. or 52%, subject to the following conditions; Page 2 of 5 L 2. 3. 4. 5. All residential construction shall be subject to the setback standards that define the legal building envelope as shown on Page 5 of this resolution. Any future construction that does not meet the required 35 ’ street. 10 ’ side or 30 ’ setback from the top of the defined bluff must be approved by the City. All future construction or other improvements planned for the property shall be regulated by pertinent sections of 10.56 of the Orono Municipal Code, specifically, the sections that control land alterations, tree removal and erosion control within steep sloped or bluff areas of 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 (July 11. 1995). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of July, 1994. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) f ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 1 Ith dav of July, 1994, 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Notary Public ss. , 199 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared ___________________—^----------------- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199 . before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared ___________________^^---------------- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address %•- \t*v’%» at * “ / / ■7 9 7’ I 0 7^ />' 7 - ^3 / 00-3 5^ Property Identification Number (P«I.D~?) 7 ~~ 7— /Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application APPLICANT ^ .7 (7 ^ ■/ Name Phone (home) ~~ _ _ Phone (work) — Address , iO'j0UJ.d . City: m ONNER (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ _-< \W ^_ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USB Number of Tax Parcels > ijy Of OFFICE r\/A Development Size Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land iJSiHOOSOO Ot C£H Ti iili Acres Total, all Present Use (check)y Residential; no. of unitj^'^S^i^ Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ Present Zoning District ( B PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes \y^ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites:•X_y Existing Units New Units n Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Units per _ _ Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check)Residential Other (specify) I J I, I ^ ip M MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of 3. Certified Property Cwners List of owners within (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 4. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list,, of any other persons you wish notified of this application. *■ Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 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. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FEES i * i { _ _ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement _ _ Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $200.00 (^00.0^ 300.00 Preliminary Review (Class III & all non-residential) 325.00 + 25.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges) Renewal of Preliminary Subdivision Application Renewal of Final Subdivision Application 175.00 150.00 100.00 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or req osted by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Date Date muse, nave axx Guomirrais into tne city or rices cays oerore tne Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings 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 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. > • I CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION -#1a - f * -•r Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION / Site Address /^9y LO.d2Jllrujj[/dt /A. 'P7j.^nyW < Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ''cm QF 0.W FimCE OFFICE 1J50200000.. #rey m ascK n. RECEIFT-THm YOU S29S230 COOi m T0S:49 03/01/94 a ------------------------------N --------------------— ■■■ —» Attach legal description to application if not inclined on required survey. Date. Property Acquired "yi^a^_____2^---------------------------- I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Pr^nt use of property: residential ___other (specify)_________ Zoning District:________________________________________ (month/year) Phone (home) V 7^ ^ Phone(work)__^ Address: 9 7 /f/«- City:Zip: 5-T3 6 y- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone(home) Phone (work) Address:City: Estimated Construction Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ------_ ------- Describe request indetail: rxC yv .. ^ ri\ ^ ______________!------------------ (Attach additional sh&ets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED V Lot Area _Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) i '■ V ‘ required submittals All of the folinwing information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order fnr vour application to be considered complete: 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4* 77* Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8Vi" x 11" for reproduction. 5 ]/ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘A" x 11" for reproduction.^ 6. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8‘^" x 11"). l\ ” List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 9. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has nqt been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE . ^ ^ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonmg Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tn^and correct to ^e best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature c-^m-^^y^Date ^ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and CouncU members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date r ) j ^ ^ ^ ^Owner’s Signamre Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plannmg Commission and CouncU. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make ^a^^ents to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office ot this change prior to the meeting. Jl. -0> W a^'\^ LBnn i '1 i •j i i 0 4 1 Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono CouncUmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator »:• Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator February 17, 1994 n903 Ernest Lemmerman, 1297 Wildhurst Trail/4620 Tonkaview Lane - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Pertinent Ordinances 1. Chapter 11 - Class II Subdivision. 2. Section 10.24 - LR-IB Lot Standards. Lot 1 Required = 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre Existing = 33,975 s.f. or .78 acres Proposed = 20,900 s.f. or .47 acres Variance Before Subdivision = 9,585 s.f. or 22% Variance After Subdivision = 22,660 s.f. or 52% 4 Lot 2 Existing = 12,750 s.f. or .29 acres Proposed = 24,600 s.f. or .56 acres List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Planning Commission Action Notice E - Planning Commission Minutes 8/16/93 F - Sewer As-Built G - Original Sketch Plan H - Preliminary Plan I - Detail of Building Envelope for Undeveloped Lot *^***^'App!ican?ta^m^ directives of Planning Commission at time of sketch ^ review. The requ^ topographic information will be included in your packets either on TOursday or presented at your iLting- Unformnately, the extreme cold weather restncted outside ac ivities but surveyor has contir^d they will be available for your review. Note the rear lot lire of existing deveioped lot has been moved IT further south mamuii^g a minunum 15 setback from the existing garage. Note survey shows a T 3" setback to the west side lot lire. As noted in the earlier review, a sewer unit has been assessed against the undevelop^ parcel. Access to the proposed new building site off of Tonkaview I^ne must be approved by the Public Works Director. *. * / . 1 Zoning File # 1903 February 17, 1994 Page 2 Since the sketch plan review staff has learned that part of the subject property is torrens property and the lot line rearrangement must be recorded as a formal plat. Note surveyor ’s notations advising of vague descriptions for boundaries of undeveloped lot along Wildhurst Trail and Tonkaview Lane. Surveyor has advised that the plat will not be accepted by Registrar of Title Office with these boundary discrepancies. Applicant must file for a registration of undeveloped lot for plat to be accepted by the County. The applicant chose not to file a variance application with the subdivision application. Before Mr. Lemmerman proceeds with any further expenditure of funds for registration of property, filing of variance application and platting costs, the proposed subdivision will be presented for Council ’s conceptual approval. The Planning Commission may act on the current preliminary subdivision application but the final plat cannot be presented for Council ’s formal and final action until the registration of the property is completed. If Council conceptually approves the proposed realignment of lot lines, applicant may proceed with the necessary steps to complete the subdivision, file a lot area variance for the undeveloped lot and commence registration of remaining property. If Council denies proposed lot line rearrangement, applicant may file a lot area variance for the existing lot at .78 acres. Issues for Consideration 1. Should shared lot line be readjusted at northwest comer of proposed Lot 2 so that existing garage meets 10 ’ side yard setback? 2.Upon review of the topographic information, does the newly proposed division line reflect limitations of physical boundaries? Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission ’s recommendation of approval must include the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Application cannot be presented for Council ’s action until registration of abstract lands is finalized. Designation of drainage and utility easements 10 ’ wide along the perimeter property lines of both lots and 5 ’ along the interior. Realignment of side lot line so that existing garage can meet 10 ’ side setback - any other changes to reflect topographic natural boundaries of properties?! 'I . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 2/24/94 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #1903 Ernest Lemmerman. 1297 Wildhurst Trail/4620 Tonkaview Lane Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Request for Conceptual Review by Council Brief Review of Application Applicant completed a sketch plan teview in August of 1993 and received conceptual awrovals from the Planning Commission. Applicant was encouraged to ftle a formal suMivi^n application to complete the lot line rearrangement. Since filing the formal application, Mr. Ummerman has been advised by his surveyor that since the property comists of tath torrem and abstract properties that the subdivision must be completed as a formal plat raAer than the customary metes and bounds subdivision. The undeveloped lot purchased by Mr. Le^erman in Mav of 1982 from the State of Minnesota as forfeited land has been shown on the current survey as having vague boundaries along Wildhurst Trail and Tonkaview Lane. In order to Xw t^ nnalteation of a fonnal plat at the Torre Office, applicant mua now file for registration of the abstract property. Prior to af -ant expending any further monies on platting, registration of land or filing of a lot area va..ance, applicant seeks conceptual direction from Council. property could be developed without variance approval. that a 10 ’ setback is maintained from the accessory structure. Please review the enclosed staff memo of February 17. 1994 for more deuil on this review. I Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 February 24, 1994 Zoning File #1903 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the proposed lot liiw rearrangement and recommended that applicant seek conceptual direction from the CouiKil before proceeding any further with other required procedures associated with plat of the lot line rearrangement. Approval was conditioned on the shared lot line adjacent to the detached structure on Lot 2 being realigned so that a 10’ setback is maintained from accessory structure. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To provide concepmal direction to applicant to either proceed with the formal subdivision of the application as amended by the Planning Commission; or To deny the proposed division and advise applicant that he may proceed with the lot area variance for the undeveloped property as it currently exists. i , 4 j TO; DATE: Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator March 16, 1994 SUBJECT: #1911 Ernest Lemmerman, 4620 Tonkaview Lane - Variances - Public Hearing '■ti Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B) - Lot area variance Required = 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre Proposed == 20,900 s.f. or .47 acres (prior to lot line rearrangement 33,975 s.f. or .78 acres) Variance = 22,660 s.f. or 52% Section 10.56, Subd. 3 , u • ». Definition 2 Bluff - Topographic feature such as a hill, cliff or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18% over a distance of 50’ or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): A. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; B. The slope rises at least 25 ’ above the ordinary high water level of the water body; C. The grade of the slop^* from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 ’ or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30% or greater; and D. The slope must drain toward the water body. Toe of the bluff means the lower point of a 50’ segment with an average slope exceeding 18% Top of the bluff means the higher point of a 50’ segment with an average slope exceeding 18%. Definition 3 Bluff Impact Zone - A bluff of land located within 20’ from the top of a bluff. Definition 26 Sleep Slope - Lands having average slopes of 18% or greater as measured over horizontal distances of 50’ or more, that are not bluffs. Section 10.56, Subd. 7, Classification of public waters - General Development Forest Lake, OHWL 929.4 Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C-2) - Setback from top of bluff. For all strucnires = 30’ 1 i\ |i t • Zoning File #1911 March 16. 1994 Page 2 Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C-3) - Bluff impact zone structures and accessory facilities, except stairways, landings and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zone. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(G) - Steep slopes. Any applicant requesting a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems roads, driveways, strucmres or other improvements on steep slopes shall provide adequate information to allow the City to evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development of visibility from public waters before such permit may be issued. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to issue permits to prevent erosion and preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer leaf on vegetation. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(1-2) - Vegetation alterations. Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 ’ of the shoreline and on steep slopes within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6" in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lock boxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water assuming summer leaf on conditions, is not substantially reduced. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(J-5g) - Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by the City Engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30% or greater. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Sewer As-Built Providing Stub for Undeveloped Property E - Building Envelope Defined before Topographic Information Provided FI- Site Plan of Topography Reflecting Impact of Bluff Impact Zone on Undeveloped Lot F2- Proposed Building Envelope and Variance within Bluff Impact Zone G - Topographic Map Designation H - Section -_Profile I - Amended Subdivision of Lot Line Rearrangement Providing Another Option of Development Eliminating Bluff Impact Zone from Potential Building Envelope Review of Application The subdivision of a lot line rearrangement was presented to the Council for conceptual direction before applicant proceeded with the filing of the variance application, the formal plat and r Zoning File #1911 March 16, 1994 Page 3 possible registration of lands. Council conceptually approved the proposal. The applicant has filed the required lot area variance. Review Exhibit E, prior to staffs receipt of the topographic information, the building envelope was defined by building setbacks of the LR-IB Zoning District. The topographic information has been reviewed by the staff and it has been found that the proposed undeveloped lot will be severely restricted by a bluff impact zone. Please review the code sections listed above. Mike Gaffron has prepared various exhibits to assist Planning Commission in understanding the determination of a bluff impact zone and the location of both the toe and top of the bluff. Review Exhibits F, G and H, first task is to defme the toe of the bluff and in this case is the area of the retaining wall. The top of the bluff is determined by the last 50 ’ segment that results in an average slope exceeding 18% (9’ rise in 50 ’). Staff met with Ceil Strauss of the DNR. The variance application with topographic information was given to Strauss for review and comment. Staff will report at your meeting of her findings and recommendation. This is the second application of your March agenda involving the impact of protected blutt areas upon proposed building sites. The current code is very restrictive. We are planning a possible code amendment that would define clearer and less restrictive guidelines in the determination of a bluff, specifically where the top of the bluff ends. Review Exhibit F, the definition in the code defines the top of bluff at one elevation and yet the visual perception of the top at another. The issue is how do we meet the intent of the state regulation and minimize impact on steeper elevation of bluff areas. Ceil Strauss has advised that our City seems to have more questions and problems with the interpretation of this specific code section because we have chosen more restrictive standards. It may be that other municipalities have not begun to deal with the requirements of implementing this section. We will continue to work closely with the DNR whenever variances to the current code section are required. Issues for Consideration 1.Review Exhibits FI and F2, would the Planning Commission approve a variance that would allow encroachment of the bluff impact zone in order to retain a functional building envelope within higher elevations but more gentle sloped portion of this property? 2.Review Exhibit I, the lower elevations of the original lot have, more gentler topographies. Should we recommend to applicant that lot line rearrangement be readjusted so that a building envelope is retained in the southern more gentle sloped ponions of the property and allow expansion of applicant’s homestead to the west instead of the north? This would defeat the whole purpose and intent of Mr. Lemmerman ’s comprehensive application? T I ■^I7~ r~ir»'ii iin^i I ir~i i ti i ft 3lally approved the proposal. The applicant has ibit E, prior to stafrs receipt of the topographic i by building setbacks of the LR-IB Zoning reviewed by the staff and it has been found that stricted by a bluff impact zone. Please review sist Planning Commission in understanding the Ration of both the toe and top of the bluff. Ine the toe of the bluff and in this case is the determined by the last 50* segment that results ance application with topographic information aff will report at your meeting of her findings enda involving the impact of protected bluff code is very restrictive. We are planning a carer and less restrictive guidelines in the >p of the bluff ends. Review Exhibit F, the 'lie elevation and yet the visual perception of he intent of the slate regulation and minimize rauss has advised that our City seems to have ion of this specific code section because we c that other municipalities have not begun to >tion. We will continue to work closely with section are required. Zoning File #1911 March 16, 1994 Page 4Options of ActionApproval of variance application as proposed granting an area variance and a variance that would allow encroachment of the bluff impact zone; or Denial of variance application and recommend that applicant consider an amended lot line rearrangement proposal that would provide a second building envelope to the north side of property where slopes are more gentle and suitable for building construction. inning Commission approve a variance that npact zone in order to retain a functional s but more genUe sloped portion of this original lot have more gentler topographies, line rearrangement be readjusted so that a more gentle sloped ponions of the property ad to the west instead of the north? This nt of Mr. Lemmerman’s comprehensive f tri •i V TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 10, 1994 SUBJECT: #1911 Ernest Lemmerman, 4620 Tonkaview Lane - Variances Continuation of Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Refer to staff memo of March 16, 1994, Exhibit A. Ordinance #126, 2nd Series, .Amendment redefining top of bluff. The amendment reads as follows: That point on the cross section of a bluff below which the slope becomes more than 18% and above which the average slope for a distance of 50 ’ or more is 18% or less. List of Exhibits A - Staff Memo 3/16/94 B - Ordinance #126, 2nd Series C - Sketch of New Building Envelope, Defined by Required Setbacks from Lot Lines and Top of Bluff D - Dimensions of Building Envelope Status of Application At the March 21st meeting of the Planning Commission, the application was tabled pending resolve of the zoning amendment redefining top of bluff. The variance application is a part of a comprehensive application involving a subdivision proposing a realignment of the lot lines of applicant ’s homestead parcel and die contiguous undeveloped lot also owned by applicant. The application for subdivision was conceptually reviewed by the Council and received unanimous support. The issue of the bluff impact and required setbacks from bluff were not addressed during the subdivision review. In fact the bluff ordinance was not enforced or implemented until February of this year. The code section has had a major impact on many of the lakeshore applications considered by the City. The definition for the lop of bluff has been amended in an attempt to make it less restrictive. Members are asked to review Exhibits C and D. We had originally assumed the new definition would allow for a simple visual interpretation of the top of the bluff. Major portions of the building envelope have been defined from the 30 ’ setback at the 1010 elevation. At the 1010 elevation the slope begins to revert to an 18% or less slope. The building elevation opens up ; . Ml -•iT-l --ST.Jb L 2. 3. MINIMDH MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Certified Property Owners List of owners within(you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). As an addendum to this application* please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of fees (park fees* filing fee* sewer and water assessments). Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements* Covenants* etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I* II & III)$200.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement (;^0.0^ Preliminary Review (Class I s II Subdivision)300.00 Preliminary Review (Class III s all ncn-residential) 325.00 + 25.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering ch<irges) 175.00 Renewal of Preliminary Subdivision Application 150.00 Renewal of Final Subdivision Application 100.00 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator* City Engineer, City Attorney* Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature _ _ Date Owner's Signature - - - - - - Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings 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 attend a scheduled meeting* please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning of this change prior to the meeting. .,.1 'n CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION IL * Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) | ^ Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) *J^X.o ’7 'PROPERTY INFORMATION / n Site Address /t^9 7 Zl. . 'P7 < Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) cu t OF ORCSiO FIMiCE OFFICE A wvw CEH 200,'V'# vv A.vv'a vvCHECKTLrmiPT-rmK you 4v00/7/'i r.V-if U.M 7r*i0;iv A7.-A^ /O-v^/ Attach legal description to application if ”.ot inclined on required survey Date. Property Acquired “yy/dL^_____/ ____________ I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Pr^nt use of property: X residential __ other (specify)________ Zoning District:^________________________________________ (month/year) APPLICAOT . . /p Phone (home). Name 2 Phone(work)_ AddresT: /.j 9 7 Ta-- City: — V7-2 -^JZL Zip: _5£^±±- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:t — Phone(home). Phone (work) City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request indetail: ^ ^ rn (f% ditional shettach additional sheets if necessary) L REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. __Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). ly Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘y^" x 11" for reproduction. )/ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V^" x U" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8Vi" x H"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest In the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this '»nolication. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) v.nd/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and cenifies that the information supplied is tru$_and correct to ^e best of his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s Signature s tr^and correct to ih Date * f f 1 ^9 V OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signamre '772*^1 V Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings 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 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. tZ ^ XTT\f \ JL "S' w ^ A*^ CL^'\^ ^ IT? r- ^ ^ L To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator February 17, 1994 #1903 Ernest Lemmerman, 1297 Wildhurst Trail/4620 Tonkaview Lane Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Pertinent Ordinances 1. Chapter 11 - Class II Subdivision. Section 10.24 - LR-IB Lot Standards. Lot 1 Required = 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre Existing = 33,975 s.f. or .78 acres Proposed = 20,900 s.f. or .47 acres Variance Before Subdivision = 9,585 s.f. or 22% Variance After Subdivision = 22,660 s.f. or 52% Lot 2 Existing = 12,750 s.f. or .29 acres Proposed = 24.600 s.f. or .56 acres List of Exhibits A - Application B C D E F G H I Property Owners List Plat Map Planning Commission Action Notice Planning Commission Minutes 8/16/93 Sewer As-Built Original Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Detail of Building Envelope for Undeveloped Lot Description of Request r , u iApplicant has fulfilled directives of Planning Commission at tune of sketch plan review. The required topographic information will be included in your packets either on Thursday or presented at your meeting. Unfortunately, the extreme cold weather restricted outside activities but surveyor has confirmed they will be available for your review. Note the rear lot line of existing developed loi has been moved 12’ further south maintaining a minimum 15 ’ setback from the existing garage. Note survey shows a 7’ 3" setback to the west side lot line. As noted in the earlier review, a sewer unit has been assessed against the undeveloped parcel. Access to the proposed new building site off of Tonkaview Lane must be approved by the Public Works Director. _/ Zoning File ^ 1903 February 17, 1994 Page 2 „ learned that part of the subject property is torrens ^oiwrty and the lot line rearrangement must be recorded as a formal plat Nm^surveyor’s TOunons advising of va^e descriptions for boundaries of undeveloped lot along Wildhurst Trail P'” accepted by Registrar of ."5 **“* '“““lao' discrepancies. Applicant must file for a registration of undeveloped lot for plat to be accepted by the County. ^ IJe applicant chose not to ftle a varUnce applicatio:; with Uie subdivision application. Before Mr Ummerman proceeds with any fiirther expenditure of funds for registration of property, filtng of vanance application and planing costs, the proposed subdivision will be presented for Council ’s conceptual approval. The Planning Commission may act on the current preliminary subdivision application but the final plat cannot be presented for Council ’s formal and final action until the registration of the property is completed. If Council conceptually approves the proposed realignment of lot lines, applicant may proceed with the necessary steps to complete the subdivision, file a lot area variance for the undeveloped lot and commence registration of remaining property. If Council denies proposed lot line learrangement, applicant may file a lot area variance for the existing lot at .78 acres. ® Issues for Consideration 1. 2. Should shared lot line be readjusted at northwest comer of proposed Lot 2 so that existing garage meets 10’ side yard setback? Upon review of the topographic information, does the newly proposed division line reflect limitations of physical boundaries? Planning Conunission Recommendation The Planmng Commission ’s recommendation of approval must include the followine conditions: ® 1. 2. 3. Application caimot be presented for Council ’s action until registration of abstract lands is finalized. Designation of drainage and utility easements 10’ wide along the perimeter property lines of both lots and 5 ’ along the interior. Realignment of side lot line so that existing garage can meet 10’ side setback any other changes to reflect topographic natural boundaries of propenies? h ' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 2/24/94 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusih Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: /1^1903 Ernest Lemmerman, 1297 Wildhurst Trail/4620 Tonkaview Lane Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Request for Conceptual Review by Council Brief Review of Application Applicant completed a sketch plan review in August of 1993 and received conceptual approvals from the Planning Commission. Applicant was encouraged to file a formal suMivision application to complete the lot line rearrangement. Since filing the formal application, Mr. Lemmerman has been advised by his surveyor that since the property consists of both torrens and abstract properties that the subdivision must be completed as a formal plat rather than the customary metes and bounds subdivision. The undeveloped lot purchased by Mr. Lemmerman in May of 1982 from the State of Minnesota as forfeited land has been shown on the current survey as having vague boundaries along Wildhurst Trail and Tonkaview Lane. In order to allow the finalization of a formal plat at the Torrens Office, ar icant must now file for registration of the abstract property. Prior to applicant expenc' g any further monies on platting, registration of land or filing of a lot area variance, applicaut seeks conceptual direction from Council. The lot line rearrangement involves Mr. Lemmerman’s homestead parcel and the undeveloped parcel, review Exhibit H. The undeveloped parcel consists of 33,975 s.f. or .78 acres and has been assessed for sewer. If the property met 80% of the required lot area of 1 acre, the property could be developed without variance approval. The steep topographies of the properties define the natural boundaries. The division will bring Lemmerman’s homestead lot from 12,750 s.f. to 24,600 s.f. The undeveloped lot at 33,975 s.f. is proposed at 20,900 s.f. The side lot line adjacent to the attached garage shall be adjusted so that a 10’ setback is maintained from the accessory structure. Please review the enclosed staff memo of February 17, 1994 for more detail on this review. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 February 24, 1994 Zoning File #1903Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the proposed lot line rearrangement and recommended that applicant seek concepnial direction from the Council before proceeding any further with other required procedures associated with plat of the lot line rearrangement. Approval was conditioned on the shared lot line adjacent to the detached structure on Lot 2 being realigned so that a 10 ’ setback is maintained from accessory structure. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To provide concepnial direction to applicant to either proceed with the formal subdivision of the application as amended by the Planning Commission; or To deny the proposed division and advise applicant that he may proceed with the lot area variance for the undeveloped property as it currently exists. TO: DATE: Orono Planning Conunission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator March 16, 1994 SUBJECT: #1911 Ernest Lemmerman, 4620 Tonkaview Lane - Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B) - Lot area variance Required = 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre Proposed = 20,900 s.f. or .47 acres (prior to lot line rearrangement 33,975 s.f. or .78 acres) Variance = 22,660 s.f. or 52% Section 10.56, Subd. 3 ^ • u Definition 2 Bluff - Topographic feature such as a hill, cliff or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18% over a distance of 50’ or more shall not be considered part of the blufO: A. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; B. The slope rises at least 25’ above the ordinary high water level of the water body; C. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25’ or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30% or greater; and D. The slope must drain toward the water body. Toe of the bluff means the lower point of a 50’ segment with an average slope exceeding 18%. Top of the bluff means the higher point of a 50’ segment with an average slope exceeding 18%. Definition 3 Bluff Impact Zone - A bluff of land located within 20’ from the top of a bluff. Defmition 26 Steep Slope - Lands having average slopes of 18% or greater as measured over horizontal distances of 50’ or more, that are not bluffs. Section 10.56, Subd. 7, Classification of public waters - General Development Forest Lake, OHWL 929.4 Section 10.56. Subd. 16(C-2) - Setback from top of bluff. For all structures = 30’ Zoning File #1911 March 16, 1994 Page 2 Section 10.56, Subo 16(C-3) - Bluff impact zone structures and accessory facilities, except suirways, landings and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zone. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(G) - Steep slopes. Any applicant requesting a permit for construction of sewage treatment s} stems roads, driveways, structures or other improvements on steep slopes shall provide adequate information to allow the City to evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development of visibility from public waters oefore such permit may be issued. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to issue permits to prevent erosion and preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming sununer leaf on vegetation. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(1-2) - Vegetation alterations. Intensive vegeution clearing within 75’ of the shoreline and on steep slopes within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6" in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lock boxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water assuming summer leaf on conditions, is not substantially reduced. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(J-5g) - Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by the City Engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30% or greater. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Sewer As-Built Providing Stub for Undeveloped Property E - Building Envelope Defined before Topographic Information Provided FI- Site Plan of Topography Reflecting Impact of Bluff Impact Zone on Undeveloped Lot F2- Proposed Building Envelope and Variance within Bluff Impact Zone G - Topographic Map Designation H - Section -_Profile I - Amended Subdivision of Lot Line Rearrangement Providing Another Option of Development Eliminating Bluff Impact Zone from Potential Building Envelope Review of Application The subdivision of a lot line rearrangement was presented to the Council for conceptual direction before applicant proceeded with the filing of the variance application, the formal plat and Zoning File #1911 March 16. 1994 Page 3 possible registration of lands. Council conceptually approved the proposal. The applicant has filed the required lot area variance. Review Exhibit E, prior to staff s receipt of the topograpWc information, the building envelope was defined by building setbacks of the LR-IB Zoning District. The topographic information has been reviewed by the staff and it has been found ^al the proposed undeveloped lot will be severely restricted by a bluff impact zone. Please review the code sections listed above. Mike Gaffron has prepared various exhibits to assist Planning Commission in understanding the determination of a bluff impact zone and the location of both the toe and top of the bluff. Review Exhibits F, G and H, first usk is to define the toe of the bluff and in this case is the area of the retaining wall. The top of the bluff is determined by the last 50’ segment that results in an average slope exceeding 18% (9* rise in 50’). Staff met with Ceil Strauss of the DNR. The variance application with topographic information was given to Strauss for review and comment. Staff will report at your meeting of her findings and recommendation. This is the second application of your March agenda involving the impact of protected bluff areas upon proposed building sites. The current code is very restrictive. We are planning a possible code amendment that would defme clearer and less restrictive guideluKS in the determination of a bluff, specifically where the top of the bluff ends. Review Exhibit F, the definition in the code defines the top of bluff at one elevation and yet the visual perception of the top at another. The issue is how do we meet the intent of the state regulation and minimize impact on steeper elevation of bluff areas. Ceil Strauss has advised that our City seems to have more questions and problems with the interpretation of this specific code section because we have chosen more restrictive standards. It may be that other municipalities have not begun to deal with the requirements of implementing this section. We will continue to work closely with the DNR whenever variances to the current code section are required. Issues for Consideration 1 Review Exhibits FI and F2. would the Planning Commission approve a variance that would allow encroachment of the bluff impact zone in order to retain a functional building envelope within higher elevations but more gentle sloped portion of this property? 2 Review Exhibit I, the lower elevations of the original lot have more gentler topographies. Should we recommend to applicant that lot line rearrangement be readjusted so that a building envelope is retained in the southern more gentle sloped portions of the property and allow expansion of applicant’s homestead to the west instead of the north? This would defeat the whole purpose and intent of Mr. Lemmerman s comprehensive application? r I MBWTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21,1994 (#6) #1910 ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT #278 - cont. Mabusth stated the proposed shed will not be screened by the treeline nnd Effects the neighbor to the north. The structure wUl neet the 50’ setback with a height of 15-16’. Flood lights will be installed facing the school. The building is proposed of steel siding with wood trusses. Schroeder asked Lawson if there would be a problem providing additional screening. Lawson replied that he was unsure if additional screening will help very much. Smith asked if there was any possibility of locating the shed next to one of the existing dugouts or attach it to an existing structure so there were fewer strucnires scattered throughout the property. Lawson did not see the structure as being randomly placed. If it were attached to the dugouts, a variance would be required and there could be obstruction of the view of the baseball field. Lawson commented that most of the faculties are used by community groups who use the buddings for storage of youth equipment. It was determined that this location was the best for the storage shed and doesn’t interfere with other activities. This is an out-of-the-way area and is not useable for anything else. Smith asked where the seating for the tenms courts and small storage area were to be located. Lawson explained it would not affect existing trees. The school has an orchard from which trees have been relocated to other areas of the school property. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Rowlette, to approve Application #1910 for the Orono School District, 795 Old Crystal Bay Road North, for a conditional use permit for two accessory structures to be moved back to the 50’ setback with staffs recommendation for proper lighting and erosion control. Ayes 7, nays 0. (#7) #1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN 4620 TONKAVIEW LANE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:56 P.M. - 9:39 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of MaUing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Lemmerman were present, Mabusth reviewed the lot line rearrangement which determined a budding envelojw that was approved before anyone was aware of the bluff impact. She reviewed the bluff definition of 50’ segments with an 18% or greater slope. Nolan nuestioned why the Planning Commission was reviewing this application now instead of at the time of an actual budding permit applicadon. Mabusth responded that an area variance needs lO be dealt with as pan of the subdivision applicadon and a building envelope defined. I ¥: ;p: «• P*'3 MINUTES OF TTne ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 21,1994 (#7) #1911 ERNEST U man • coot.4 ^ 4* t.* Lindquist opposed tn»irfng a deciskm on this request until the code (L: \utions were cleared up. He that by the curxent code definidon. Pawl A is not a buildable lot and wanted clarifkadon as to whether the visual or code definidon was to be applM to this property. He felt this was different »han the previous applicadon because this subdivision application has not been approved whereas the Vergeyle lot was already created. Mabusth aip^ with Liuilquist‘s opinion and suggested ubling this applicadon until an amendment of the bluff unpact zone could be considered or the Planning Commission could deny the current request. Lemmennan expressed his fhistradon with the money he has spent only to find out now that the lot is unbuUdable. Mabusth noisd that the lot could be buUt on at the lower elevations where the original home was located but that is not what the applicant wants. The Council was also unaware of any bluff impacts when they conceptually approved the lot line rearrangeinent. Rowlette felt if the Planning Commission approved the lot line rearrangement that they in effect approved the lot area variance at the same time and they should not be looking at this request undl someone wants to build on the lot. Mayor C'ilahan stated his under$ta4jding was that the lot line rearrangement came to the Council with approval from the Planning Commission. However, staff felt another hearing would be needed because Mr. Lemmerman needed to complete a formal plat rather than a simple metes subdivision. The Lemmermans had to stop and go through a registradon. The applicant did not want to proceed with the area variance when he found out how much money if would cost so oroceeded with a lot line rearrangement to get conceptual approval. Schroeder reviewed previous steps in the applicadon. With the topographic maps provided and consideradon of the bluff impact zone, this lot would be considered unbuild^le without varianLes for lot area and bluff impact zone. He asked if the Plannii^ Commission used the visual top of bluff and approved the budding envelope if they would see an applicadon for actual proposed constiuedon. Mabusth replied that performance standards exist for staff to work with and if the setback is met, only staff would deal with a building applicadon. Schroeder noted for that to hffpp*^". the Planning Commission would have to decide to use the visual top of bluff for this aiqilindon. Schroeder explained the bluff impact zone has been established to protect erosion from bluff areas. Rowlette added that when hardcover and structure are added to a lot, mote runoff and water exist and it moves faster. 4-. minutes of the orono planning conpg|.D MARCH 21,1994 I k'SION MEETING (#7) #1911 ERNEST U MAN - cont It was moved by t seconded by Smith, to table Applkatioa #1910 for Ernest i^^fnnu^mn 4620 Tookavicw Lane, for a lot area variance and a variance that would aUow of the bluff impact zone for 30 days to allow the City time to make a detennioation of the inteipretation of the bluff impact zone. Ayes 4, nays 3. Rowlette was opposed to tabling the j^)plication because she felt the Planning Commission did not effectively do its job by not bringing the bluff issue to Mr< l^mmeiman s attention at the beginning of his application. She felt a decision should be made according to what would be reasonable for this lot and then consider how future bhiff issues should be handled. Peterson and Berg agreed with Rowlette. Schroeder yskH f ^merman how the delay of 30 days would affect him. Lemmeiman rfspondfd ***** it would not huit hh** but questioned if it would be a buildable lot and where he should go from this point. Lemmerman stated be has already spent a lot of money for this approval. Schroeder replied that, technically, they could not say the lot would be buUdable. (#8) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Rowlette reported that Council tabled the Tandem Properties application at their March 14 meeting. There was much discussion about drainage issues a^ Council felt the Planning r^tntMion had done a good job in addressing the drainage issue. The fiM that the bike trail must be lor****^ 30* In was never brought up at Planning Commission meetings, even with Park Commission representatives present, which affects two lots. The bike path was not drawn on any r**"« Planning Commission members thought the trail would be in the road right-of-way for Old Crystal Bay Road. Mabusth noted that an on-site meeting had been scheduled for 5:00 p.m. March 21, 1994 and the bike trail issues would be resolved. Hurr did not approve of the cul-de-sacs because they did not meet code and roads should have been connected where possible. (#9) OTHER ISSUES Srhrrmf*T tepoiied that the joim Council/Planning Commission work session was very productive with much discussion regarding the B-2 zone. Meetings need to be scheduled to discuss the B-2 zone and amendment to the bluff impact zone ordinance. Members preferred a 5:00 p.m. meeting and Gaffeon is to schedule. r I f: I- e - 2. (#4) miEW<ECTLEMMEW^.«»TONKAVlEWI^E.V^^ CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING j * .u of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication Chair Schroeder noted that the <taff renort and outlined the area that were <» Be wiU. .he City. Meb»s.h this was awasbuadable. Ernest Ummennan was present uiairacnroe public heating continued from a pervious meeong. Ken Hickey suted he owned the lot -e er.10. in .0^4. He beUevcd the buildable area was too close to his house. r>3SHSl“ and the top of bluff definition as it would apply to the subject property. Lindquist suted that he had problems with the appUcation 1^“'** 4p^d “h. lot line fearungemen. with the proposed ‘ ■ that they could no. take the position tiiat the loB were now wo small. Nolan commented that since they had approved the tots, then needed to J’*” it can b~ given the parameters they have avaUable. He preferred to gwe the applicant a reasonabto budding envelope and see something built that was feasible. Hickey Slated he felt that the tot should not be built on and while oDDOituuity to purchase the property he fell it was too expeosivc. su^d thauhe Planning Commission could approve the request with a note “ that the Planning Commission would look at changing the building envelope g review when plans were formally submitted. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to recommend approval of L*"* t s s: ssnysrsa enVloA- Ayes 5. nays 1. Lindquist suted he felt the lot area was too smaU lo conum % --__J a suitable building envelope. -•a^t^t^ *k^ Dlsviniiwr f^f^ininiSSlOI TU rLAnniu^'^ v.vT4v«^—— Mabusth reviewed the staff report “^ “* of iS coverage he Tun HiUman ^„ee the area of the upper _deck from 6' *-„„ HiUman was present and “^^^thrar^ Urn «PP*r <>«k from 6' * requirements. . • A if .h. .nnlicaot was wiUing to redesign the entiyway andChair Sehroeder inquired if the »PP“«“‘ “ ^ , * j because of the easement Hillman responded that he would comider it N^an sute^^^ ^ ^ the setback variances were . setback he would be much more inclined irsCrtTcrn^SiSr^rsT^^^^^^ ?,;:;%“:inT.ht ot^“m«orora«ess"r .hose properries and becoming a roadway in the future.ine (uhuic. Chair Sehroeder commented he felt that the entryway on the south side needed to be Siu«d o;Xated so that it was at least 30- from the lot line.reoucea or rciocaic« -------- Lindquist moved to recommend approval of #1912 for ^ck would be side yard setback requirements because the easement may someua, residential development.I ----------------I resubmit plans that conform to directives of **** best action was to Ste’thTre^S^'w'^ot'X"awUcam"o“splore possible revisions to the plans. ........................ w •_______- ' „ was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Rowlette, to ‘able #1912 V,^* ^^^J^nays H^an at 400 Uaf Street, to aUow the applicant to redesign the proposal. Aye 0. I J * .*1., * •* i * % • * "uW • < • >. ; ■;!ii;! ! i::: • '• :i ! I zmzzm •0 oocz . 1 Im CO § m>rr iiif''P'\-\SS#V'-'■*<»r*'• il",^ . ■■ ■-^'"i;; x»-' . .«l -sl' i'*^ r-. 'S: . ''■■ tr . '■I"' '■• :■■ Sii'^ [Sift,.;- te'-^'V-- tr. ^r'v ;;':ivf^'" . * •1»• .•■ -. ;•.• . J,v:Le.rrwnQrfl'lon ^cfi4^onr^aoc ir'- ; ■ • ••' ‘’•*ii'--V4^ t ,•'•> •_ ^ ■m . 4 4-* *i<l**l^*«^ -.c__?p- . :t . ...__________ ■ • •• ■y'l ' V request for council action COUNOLMBIMJUL 1 1 1994CfTYOFOMWO II » - ittTiimRtrfltor RtfvtewcdJ DATE: July 7. 1994 ITEM NO.: ^ l^ep«Ui SectioDr ZoningDepar NaMC leanne A. Mabiisth Tide ftifMiwg A Zoning Administrator Item D55pSir#r937 HeAen K .«1 Enta Kahler. 2724 K««y R««4 - V«»«5 Resolution i..' ■'. ■k- '■•• i f •;. S/ V -r. P 1 r.» : Site Plan and Grading Plan K - Gustafson Report 7/6/94 L - Final AmentW Grading Plan M - Staff Sketch Brief Review of Application For more deteU on this review. w.m.in« Commissioii minutes of the June 20.1994 meetmg. ™ mnnosed S^xl20- tennis court within the rem ymd of location will not interfere with ***® aerfssory structure code requires a teemed te the north tmd w^. ^^S^Smv^locmed W. Themninmm 30-setbtek from the rem »Kl^ tl* City has received approval The entire sutnttndii« neighborhood hm the neighbors notified of the proposed improvement. A major concern for this review has been tta imj»« STSrliS^ lo^seLk bmh ^ Applicants were to provide an amended P . a^r.^ jw. Council. Review Exhibits setbacks have been met prior toschedu mg *PP directed to the north and eventually to the L and M. surface water from the installing a retaining northeast via a culvert at the east lot line. This w^ be awornpii™ y^ e ^ releasing wall around the northern borden of the cwrt The engineer has reviewed the final “^ShTnC «U> directed away ftom the roe of the given the proposed elevation of the court and exUting elevattotis. m 'M Request for Council Action o page 2 of 2 July 7. 1994 Toning File #1937 inucd conHimed lliit surfK* wiler c*B be redirected within 7 1/2 sejaratioo selbeck. Stiir lire drefted a resolutioo breed on the findings and coodiliofB of tire Planmng CotntBission approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt approval resolution per Planning Commission’s recommendation; or To amend ai^noval resohition appreving a 7 1/2'sepatadon setback between the court and toe of mound. Note that the specific directives of t«e engineer in his report taw bren included to ttast^tas also asked that detailed grading plans be provided at the tune the buddtng permit applkatkm is filed for the iea«is court. i "‘'♦aio n r ■tr * • "~OESOLUnOW GRANTPiG---- VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.®3, SUBDIVISION 14 (D) FILE #1937 WHEREAS, Herbert F. Kahler and Erika Kahler (hereinafter “the applicants") m owneis of Ite piopefty k)c«ed it 2725 Raiiiey Roid wi*iii the Chy of OroBO (hereinafter “City”) and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Trees To Be, Hennepin CounQr, Minnesota (hereinafter "the prt^rty"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Tnning Codc Scction 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D) to permit the construction of a 60*xl20 t^nms court^t wiU located 10’ from the east side lot line where a 30’ setback is required and 10 from the south rear lot line where a 30’ setback is requited. Minnesott: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Councfl of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1937 The property is located in the RR-IB, Rural Residemial Zoning District requiring 2 acres of dry contiguous lands. The subject property consbts of 2+ acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 20,1994, and recommended approval of the variances as amended based upon the foUcwing findings: The sloping topography to the rear and west of the residence prevents court from beii^ moved more to the center of the rear yard. r. V- ■4 ■i' B E. Need to place coun in . noiih-sowh alignmem. This is the only feasible area on the site to meet that requirement. Location of the mound septic system in the northeast side yard. Unique shape of lot noting specifically the pla^ cor^or Road providing additional area for alternate septic site. along Rainey S3 court. C ,ju-n Weckman the On^iK Septic Manatee. wUl * mound. 4. TM City conned fntds tl»t the ct^ ^rri^SXotl^danjeetoj^^ 5 n« City conned has consideeed this welfare of the commuDi«>. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of *** sJwiv^^H t^nnit dre 5S3n?.”3f3S2‘3iTi«. ~ Page 2 of 5 . al variances 1. of 20 ’ or 66.6%, subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. 5. Upon application for a building perniit, applicants ’ contractor shall provide a detailed grading and drainage plan addressing the following. A.Retaining wali to be constructed of a modular block used for retaining walls not for decorative landscaping. B.A layer of clean sand or gravel J.h.>Ud be placed behind the wall (between wall and court) to allow seepage between the blocks. C.Retaining wall need only be 24-28 in height. D.Edges of the court should have some type of curb installed. Curb should be dropped at the northeast comer of court. Applicants should provide a landscape/planting schedule for landscaping proposed adjacent to the east and south side of court. Authorities granted by this varUnce ran with the pr^rty the expire on that date (July 11, 1995). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of ft s re»o'.ut.s>n shall constimte a violaUon of the zoning code, shall automatically ttzmitia'c any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to terms property. Page 3 of 5 W : i r Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of July, 1994. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) C^'o, a Minnesota municipal coiporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 i • I'; ■■■i 'Mr.' A-T^ , 00 . . _____ » -ScLCTlWhlJ £0%._____-____. V, 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 Che foregoing totrumem, a^cknowledged 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 withinand for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, aiidicknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 Si V..- ; V-.:- 1 r I ' 1 ? L To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:June 13, 1994 Subject:01931 Herbert F. and Erika Kahler, 2725 Rainey Road - Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D) - Side and rear setback variances recmired for 60’ x 120’ tennis court. Required = 30 ’ Proposed rear = 10 ’ Proposed side = 10 ’ Variance = 20’ or 66.6% The property is located out of the shoreland area beyond the 1,000 setback from Maxwell Bay and French Lake Upper Basin. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D • E - F - G - H - I - Application Property Owners ’ List Plat Map T. Betz Letter. Builder, 5/10/94 Vickerman Letter 5/25/94 (neighbor to east) Hust Letter 5/25/94 (neighbor to immediate south) Neighbors ’ Acknowledgement Forms (9) Survey Site Plan Description of Request Review Exhibits A and D. In 1990/91 the owners of the property developed the site with the full intent to install a conforming tennis court in the southeast rear yard. The owner ’s le^r suggests that in 1990 the code would have required only a 10 ’ side or rear setback. The imprehensive amendment of the accessory strucnire code was completed in August of 1989 and at that time a 30 ’ rear and side setback was established. 14^. Mm 1 Zoning File #1937 June 13, 1994 Page 2 Review Exhibits E and F, neighboring property owners receiving the most impact from the tennis court have all submitted approval letters supporting the proposed improvement. Approximately nine neighboring property owners were notified of the improvement and the City has received no negative comments from the neighbors along Rainey Road. Steve Weckman has reviewed the proposal, specifically to address the proposed setback of the tennis court from the toe of the mound system. Although the survey would suggest there is a 10 ’ setback (code requires 20’ setback), the toe of the mound is acnially more like 5-6 ’ from the proposed north side of the tennis court, review Exhibit H. Weckman advises that he would approve the substandard setback from the toe of the mound if applicant can provide adequate separation distance so that drainage from the tennis court can be directed away from the toe of the mound. Applicant must provide detailed grading/drainage plans with building permit confirming drainage is directed away from mound system. Statement of Hardships Please refer to Exhibits A and D. It is not clear when the builder was made aware of the new setback requirements for oversized accessory structures such as the tennis court but the code was amended in August of 1989. At the time the home was constructed, the new ordinances were in effect. As with all new ordinances, it takes time for builders and residents to be made aware of the new standards. Staff would add the following unique findings or hardships: 1.The unique shape of lot noting the platted corridor along Rainey Road providing additional area for alternate septic site. 2. Topography to west prevents tennis court from being moved more to the center of the rear yard. 3. Need to place court in a north/south alignment. 4. The location of the mound in the northeast side yard. Issues for Consideration 1. If the toe of the mound is located approximately 5’ from the proposed north side of the tennis court structure, would memters approve further encroachment of the rear yard? ... should structure be reduced in length providing adequate room to complete required drainage improvements? .'JM Clk •:m»t:— BT-:*-*Zoning File ff\937 June 13, 1994 Page 3 2. Although neighbors to the east and north have approved substandard setbacks, should applicant provide plantings along the east and south sides of the tennis court? 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Any condition of approval must include requirement that the existing mound system be fenced off and protected during the period of construction of the tennis court. Applicant shall provide detailed grading plans with building permit ensuring that drainage is directed away from toe of mound. n ■ 4 r II *CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATIONInitial Application Fee $200.00($50.00 per each additional variance) a33« )J Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 / / (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION uOvl Site Address U4 Y ^ A A1 AJ P 1*^ ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) d>o['L Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Dale Progeiw Acquired i‘!‘!l________________(month/year) I (do)<go_ng) also own the adjacent parcels'of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:___________ ~ ciry 'IFUA I f VI vru/iw efc C^VC WVW ........ oi iJA' 200.00Lhtis ,'L 200.00 APPLICANT lc.AtU.E ^ Name ME.fc8gg.T P KAHLE^ Address: T-T-xr AO OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) ^ _____ Phone(work) -iHtc? City: UAY^A-^A______Zip: T~r29l Address: Phone(home) Phone (work) Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^0 ,00 0 Describe request indetail: cou • (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width ____Hardcover ____Lot Coverage X Setback:Front XSide X Roar Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusu^ property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: LJkf»v Jbu\ \'V cy ^ -N.______________________________________ _______________________I \ t.^ \K ^ Cj> sC^f- ~ ,s ' 'Wf KiUa-S? aJ s \ Af*** loS6<^r>i ✓ .T T Jv •. " ^ £>ur^ Q ^ ^attach additional sheets if necessary) .^■tPVr fly, LetJk I ’ " 6. 7. r REQUIRED SUBMITTAI^All of the following mformation must be submitted bv the appUcation deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete; 1. Completed Application Form 2* Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). 3. ^ Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). X- Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8Vi“ x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8V4" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 9. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT ’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct tqihe best of his/her knowledge. vT/ J-r/TH Applicant’s Signature ________Date Tj2srj^^ OWNER ’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purpps.es of inve$tigatio/i verification of this request. Owner’s Signature ____________Date _r/^ t! Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings 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 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 V- V H DATE 05/05/94rcH 010 HENNEPIN COIMTY PROPERTY INTORHATZON SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LISTOP AOOR NER NAME KPAYER AIK/ADOROP AODR NER NAME XPAYER AME/AOORDP ADDR NER NAME KPAYER IHE/ADOR )P AOOR «R NAME iPAYER UC/AODR IP AODR CR NAME <PAYER IHE/AODR SO 04-117-E5 54 0005 02811 PARVIEN U E J TOTH A 0 V TOTH EONAfo J A 6ERDA V TOTH 2011 FARVIEN U IONS UKE MN 5555450 04-117-25 45 0012 02725 RAINEY RO H P KAHLER A E KAHLER H P KAHLER A E KAHLER 2725 RAINEY RO NAYZATA m 6559150 04-117-25 45 001502750 RAINEY ROHARK 6 FOK A NARY-STUART FOXHARK 6 FOX2750 RAINEY RONAYZATA MN 55591 50 04-117-25 45 0010 00040 AOORESS UNASSIGNED RAINEY HANNAH ANDERSON RAINEY HANNAH ANDERSON 150 6R0VELAN0 TER NPI4 HN 55405 TOTAL BATCH 010 00012 > 50 04-117-25 45 0007 00790 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO ARTHUR M BLAIR ETAL ARTHUR BLAIR 790 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA MN 5559150 04-117-25 45 0015 02605 RAINEY RO R S A S S VICKERMAN R SCOTT VICKERMANSUSAN s vicker:ian2605 RAINEY RO NAYZATA MN 5559150 04-117-25 45 0016 02690 RAINEY RO H N SMITH SCO SMITH M H SMITH A C 0 SMITH 2690 RAINEY RO NAYZATA MN 55591 50 09-117-25 12 0001 00050 AOORESS UNASSICNED GAB HUST GEORGE A HUST 020 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA MN 55591 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 255B 04-117-25 45 000000820 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO SGAB HUSTGEORGE A HUST020 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RONAYZATA MN 55591 . ; r.V -• '-k■ •• • • mT' ’ r't-v'K.58 04-117-25 45 0014 02770 RAINEY RO RICHARD K NYSOCKl ETAL RICHARD A APRIL NYSOCKX 2770 RAINEY RO NAYZATA MN 55591 .i V.I & ^ • f A * « a •s' •• i iV • V4 •-58 04-117-25 45 0017 ••00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TREES TO BE PRIVATE RO ASSOC TREES TO BE ASSOCIATION 2770 RAir^Y RO NAYZATA MN 55591 > *.i 'A.'T-’fi-VU.“. . . .V . 5B 09-117-25 21 0001 00825 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO S J M A E J DAYTON JUOSON M DAYTON TCF TONER 0860 MPLS MN 55402 ' -il- .: . . . I ‘ r » v:! 1 ‘ I , i-". • ^ T V,. ‘ ? ‘ ' ‘ I. ! • *■/ (i RUN DAT BATCH 0• •.i •• # *■«: :% n • • ^*■* 10i • . •1 .• < • * * V A. / *. - V 4a* » *• i* f. V, % . * • • P ■ ■ :■ nr r %'. "■•:v i' ■ 1*.' ' * ■ ■V- ’• :•> ji. r "•V v ' / V Yi> '*11 ir i5-t>« % (S) S ti^'^ O”^ / ^ 1i^ 1 OQS7 X <!> O 4148 Hillcrest Road Wayzata MN 55391 May 10, 1994 City of Orono Building and Zoning Office P 0 Box 66 Crystal Bay Mn 55323 Attention: Jeanne Mabush Building and Zoning Admini Re: Variance Application for 2727 Rainey Road Orono MN When Herb and Erika Kahler contracted with me in August of 1990 to purchase the land and to build their house at 2725 Rainey Road, they requested that the house siting, septic system and landscaping contemplate the subsequent construction of a tennis court. ^ This was done after I sited the tennis court for them with the proper north' south orientation in the southeast corner of their lot, taking into con- sideration a 10’ set back on the side lot line along the rear lot line which was the building code requirement at that time. Sincerely, Tom Betz President Betz Builders, r r r_i May 25. 1994 City of Orono Building and Zoning Office we are neighbore of the Kahler's. Their aide lot iine is eooi^be'vrrrpielaed to have the Kahiar-a build a tennia court ten (10) feet from their side lot. Sincerely yours. S Susan i Scott Vickerman 2685 Bainey Bd. Waysata. Mn 55391 'k ♦ I % \ i jmA »— ^ iiiiiiiHar ii --- <v ialAr-WT~’lk . M ..-Ak " .wTiMiiiiIk. r •A N 9r rfr r.' ‘1 *; •• r j May 26. 1994 7- ■X City of Orono Building and Zoning Office We are neighbors of the Kahler s. Their rear lot line abuts our property. We have no objection to the construction of a tennis court by them ten (10) feet from the rear lot line in the southeast corner of their property. BM-. r iiiif tf. & »■ I- ! Li !4.: vr*' m. #1937 S' Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form I (we) CTnnSQAD _ of 3^ 3'^'^..^ [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located 'IJzS' also referred to as Land Use Application No.------------. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but mere^ to confirm for |he City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor project or use requires Council approval. Propferty Owner f la ■ Date . fnnprt\' Owner i 5-12_- irW »7opert5' Owner I I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located also referred to as Land Use Application No.------------• 1 (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) Mt «ked to Si S7(te “ S“awtfof«'^em^ ^d^at L“rop™ed ^ighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any infotmation that may assist the City in the review of V” Application, piease submit yout comments to the Building & Zomng Office at least 10 ays pn to the scheduled meeting date. r-j I; «#3.y;iY & Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowiedgement Form I (we) (print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 2>2.r An also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦♦**♦♦♦**♦**♦♦♦♦♦**♦♦*••♦•♦♦•♦♦*♦*♦♦*♦**♦******♦********* I (we)C^\ ^ A Jci;[print name(s)] of (r*^ovo-.W*\cA ^ *^o. [print address] ^ ~ have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located -------L I a|5Q referred to as Land Use Application No. . mm I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. £. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 1: I / / 1*^ Ji.3 ,1O^vners*. Xckoow^genifint FormAdjac^l^opei^ 0 I (we) /^Mki i /HMU-r^MitfAy of £i(nfiif ^?a4 /#« rnrint nine(s)l [print addrfcs] t have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date C //C /? Property! Ow Date ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦**♦♦♦*♦♦****♦***♦♦*♦****♦*♦♦***♦♦**♦***************’**** ^ A [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of at laHot also referred to as Land Use Application No. of the property located I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. T//f> /f y Property Owner Date Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this I^d Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days pnor to the scheduled meeting date. Wi «»................ n1 **.-**♦> ■ m ••* IW Mpwmiim.T <B L ««a QQ71 iJ ^ 3 I (we)t Adjacent Property O^vners’ Acknowledgement Form WiL Eicmo of • [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 2.1 LT ftAH/Qgy also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Date /4 m4 ^Property Owner /9 /9^4 Date ^ '' of ____________I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ______ also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for ^e City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any inJormation that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. A I 1 -V y t•«OM 'K'^I («'e)__C^oL n,c:^:4l.^ [print name(s)J ‘ 1wners’ Acknowledgement Form of 2(3^0 [print address] a “ISSSSt al'o‘’S U« "Sfion No' ______ • Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the imDrovemenr^*i ^ confirm for the City project or use requires Council approval. ^ ^ proposed neighbor’s Property Owner Date .........--------------------------------....—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- I (we) [print name(s)j [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improveraem or proposed use of the property located ----------------------------also referred to as Land Use Application No. declL^Tpp^tlTdil'^^rLT of S “• ' “■ <“'*> “■"<* •“Council that I (we) aS awarfof^e'^or use but merely to confirm for the City project or use requires Council approval. ^ ^ neighbor’s & Date If you have any infonnation that may assist the City in the review nf rhie i rr Application, please submit your comments to the Buildine & Zonina nrr »i i« to the scheduled meeting date. ^ P^or .TTzrriJt A xw>^j^ .ai ad / —:/Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form I (we) ^H/iuir^a. lAHlS SLaiZ. [print name(s)] oli Orfsku £fi-i U [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located •2,‘^2,r dATihJ^^ /CO also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. 4^ Property Owner Date Property Owner Date ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦**♦*♦*♦♦♦♦***♦♦♦♦♦♦♦****♦******* I (we)[print address][print name(s)] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at_________________ also referred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for Ae City Council that I (wc) am (are) av/are of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date DateProperty Owner If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days pnor to the scheduled meeting date. ’•H . i S 1 j #193*7 « iAdjacent Property Otvners ’ Acknowledgement Form iv(we) pi?/t>!g^t^^Tof ^_p5/ [print iiame§5N [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at AAXjJE.^ /^D also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property /f Date Property <^wner Date ♦*♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦***♦***♦♦*♦********♦♦**♦**•**♦*♦♦♦*•*♦♦*♦♦*******♦♦**♦** I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at_______________^Iso referred to as Land Use Application No. ,__________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. i Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ______ „ •. A : 4\T ---------- Adjacent Property O^vners’ Acknowledgement Formv: ' V /i A/I (we) ^ A f >1. /o"^ of /V,~> :•[print name(s)] [print address]have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 1^0 also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. ;r/ 5/4' -/ • ^operty Owner j Date / 1/s/a J_9iL //’ro[)erty Owner Date i ! I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at __________________also referred to as Land Use Application No. ,_____. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. e property located [are) not asked to firm for the City Dposed neighbor’s m *««****«« 4i« 4<« le property located e) not asked to •m for the City osed neighbor’s of this Land Use : least 10 days prior iCERTIFICATE OFi SURVEY FOR TH^ I^HilERS OF LOT % BLOCK % TREES TO BE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ■•-. X s % wAVivy ( %A 8 \ i LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SU>V£YEDt Lot I. llocL 1. TREES TO BE. This survey intt»^ds to show the boundirlts of tht abovo dtscribtd property, the location of an exist Ing house thereon, and the proposed location of a proposed tennis court. It does not purport to show any other laproveaents or encroachaents. o Iron aarker Bearings shown are based upon an assuaed datua. >. D«At// /'•JO' JJ., •'5 h t .* ■; •’• y^-d -'d* .:-y[ •y r I !» » ! f i ( 1 \ V */ Ex'tsfiruj hoosB .'j 'S / / W.6S fenrli / fi \ ra •5,W.8S ■i._______jrri \9 sr dUUJb^T oorttr V i fMODUiAV' r>BLDtK. Sj pgmiwift- •f 'Dei-ai/ r'=30' RESIGNED BY REVlblON DAfE DESCRimOS H T^KiniS C d ^jv'T n 1 DRAWN BY CO 1 '' / "^ 11 . / I / Is: I .n 14^/^ i 'fbZ'K€r8^ T; KAHCii^. lA^iHfZfV*m-, rviK\. S5T21I B'l: $goi ^V^yXA| ii*. -■^ %■« B. * ; Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineers & Architects Ono G Sonewca P£ w Rosene. FB • Joseph C AntJehik. PB Wi/vm L SorvjiJ. Pf £ Turner P£ Glenn R Cook. PE Thorrvw E Noyev PE RoOert G Schuncht PE Suun M Ebenei. C PA *Ser^ Consuejnc July 6, 1994 A Sjn^onJ. PB Keen A Gordon. PB Rtjoen R P^rte. PB fficMra W Poster. PE OmI O Loskou. PE RoPen C Pussek. a ia jerry A Bomoon. PE Mjrk A Hjnson PE MKMei T PMTvmn. p£ TW K. fiekJ. PE Thorrvis P AneJenon. AiA Oorvud C BurgardL PE Thomas A Syffca PE freoenc i SienPorg. PE fsmaei kiartmez. PE M<haei P Pau. PE Agnes M Ang, AlCP L Ph*p Gravei P£.A Thomas W Prtenon. PB M<haei C Lynch PE James R. Maiand PB Jerry O Rpozsch. PE iCaien i Wrmea PE Gary O Kmtoftcz. PE P food Foster. PE Keen R vapa PE. Scoft J Aganek. PB Douglas J ftersoc PE i'W JO A « Kenneth P Andenon. pf Shawn O Gustafson. PB A- Mark R Roth. PB CeoKo Okvier. PB Mark A Se<i PE Paul G Heuer PE * Gary W Monen. PB John P Cooler. PB Paul J Gannon. AIA Charles A Enckson Oarwt J Edgenon. PB LeoM Paweisky A Ack SchmvX. PE Harlan M Oison Phiip i Catvi«f. PE Mark 0 NVWbs. PE James P Engetsaox Miles ft Jerisea P£ Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Kahler Tennis Court File No. 139-Gen Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the drainage plan prepared by Tennis West for the proposed tennis court on Herbert Kahler’s property. The drainage is directed to the northeast which is appropriate. However, the proposed court elevations are incorrect and should be changed as follows: Southwest Comer Southeast Corner Northwest Corner Northeast Corner 953.5 953.16 952.5 952.16 These elevations fit well into the existing topography and will not require significant grading or retaining walls. The only retaining wall needed is at the northeast comer and it should be only 24 to 28 inches in height. To direct the drainage to the northeast comer, the edges of the court should have some type of curb. A drop in the curb should be placed at the northeast comer. The drainage will run over the wall which should not be a problem at the proposed height. We recommend that the modular block be a type used for retaining walls, not for decorative landscaping. A layer of clean sand or gravel should be placed behind the wall to allow seepage between the blocks. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours veiy truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 \ i' ■5! r I JUL-U/-y4 IHU itihMlb wbol ‘ % %U r in.-. nU. oicibooucid 1. ■■ m^m r. oc L R-9^-Sl03 . dDUrtyt" OOT'IA l T (hODUlA^ BfLOOi, UAW-' Dtfciil (JfSlC.NJKH BY DRAWN* ID '9^. RRVlSU )N l>Aff DF.^WirrK'K TtAniB Odui^t lVA)K<46b Corn i f«e.: Hfcr8£rr T; KAHtifc Znz^ s5T2fil TE b «1s u^fcVT- fvnUA,»^K. ss^^S* ^ •! 1 OESICNEO 8V REVISION UAn-OESCRirnoN I H "[^nn\6 Cjou^T n IVA 1 1 DRAWK oy 1 (2^1^ (ipurtyT" ^ s, ^2M ^ 'proposCa %- V V «i fVlODU^/VV" BLOdf . pgfKNiA^in [jJAtU . ______4-:.- itf I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCiLIIIEEIING JUL 1 1 1994 CITY OF ORONO DATE: July 8. 1994 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: 11^1922 Robert and Elizabeth Melamed, 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Final Subdivision - Resolution Exhibits A - Ron Moorse Memo 7/8/94 B - Preliminary Subdivision Resolution No. 3243 C - Final Plat of French Lake of Orono 2nd Addition D - Final Plat Approval Resolution The applicant has fulfilled most of the conditions of preliminary subdivision approval. The applicant has been in contact with the City Administrator concerning the payment of the park dedication fee of $12,000. Please refer to the Administrator’s memo concerning this matter, Exhibit A. Staff has prepared a final plat resolution per the directives of the preliminary plat resolution requiring payment of park dedication fee. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution of the plat of French Lake of Orono 2nd Addition. jescRjmo'^ 6 CbvVT r CO I, > ;u,i2. sr3=l( "B'l: ACTION COUNaLMEETINGJUL 1 1 1994CITYOFORONO DATE: July 8. 1994 ITEM NO.: ^ Agenda Section: Zoning , 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South minary subdivision approval. The }nceming the payment of the park >r’s memo concerning this matter, \ of the preliminary plat resolution plat of FreiKh Lake of Orono 2nd Date: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator July 8, 1994 Subject: Melamed Subdivision Park Dedication Fee Mr. Melamed has questioned the park dedication fee included in the final plat requirements. He has indicated the existence of a park dedication fee was never discussed with him. He also indicated that the price he offered for the property purchased from the City was based on his understanding that it was inclusive of all costs of developing two lots on the property, with the exception of the sewer unit fees. Staff has responded to Mr. Melamed that the purchase price did give him the right to develop the property with two lots. However, the costs related to actually subdividing the property were his responsibilitv. As the subdivider, he is responsible for all costs of the subdivision. One of these is the park dedication fee. A chronology of events may assist the Council in understanding the staff s position. 1 Mr. Melamed submitted an offer for the purchase of the lot based on a requirement that the lot not be subdivided for five years. This offer placed Mr. Melamed in the position of having to pay a park dedication fee if he chose to subdivide the property at the end of the five year period. During the negotiations regarding Mr. Melamed’s offer, he requested that he be allowed to create two lots in less than five years. During these negotiations the City initiated the subdivision of the sewer plant property to create the one 4 acre parcel for Mr. Melamed. The subdivision was initiated prior to the conclusion of negotiations in order to expedite the construction of Mr. Melamed’s home. The result of negotiations was that Mr. Melamed was allowed to create two lots. Based on this result. City staff offered to reinitiate the subdivision application to create two lots for Mr. Melamed. Mr. Melamed requested that the City follow through with the initial one lot application because a reapplication would have delayed the subdivision process, resulting in a delay in the construction of his home. If the City would have reinitiated the subdivision to create two lots for Mr. Melamed, the City would have remained the subdivider, and Mr. Melamed would not have been responsible for a park dedication fee. He also would not have been responsible for the other subdivision costs he has incurred. However, when Mr. Melamed made the decision to delay the creation of the second lot until after the purchase was completed, he became the subdivider, responsible for the park dedication fee. he final plat requirements. He discussed with him. He also om the City was based on his i lots on the property, with the Melamed Subdivision Park Dedication Fee July 8. 1994 Page 2 Staffs report to the Planning Commission of April 18, 1994 and memo to the Council of May 9, 1994 regarding the preliminary subdivision application both refer to the park dedication fee requirement. Mr. Melamed did not attend either the Planning Commission meeting or the Council meeting regarding the preliminary subdivision application. Neither did he question staff regarding the park dedication fee during the preliminary subdivision review process. The final plat resolution reflects staffs recommendation that the park dedication fee be charged to this subdivision as it is charged to othei >ubdivisions. lid give him the right to develop lly subdividing the property were costs of the subdivision. One of ing the staffs position. mrchase of the lot based on a rive years. This offer placed Mr. tark dedication fee if he chose to ear period. ed’s offer, he requested that he be irs. During these negotiations the it property to create the one 4 acre iS initiated prior to the conclusion uction of Mr. Melamed’s home. led was allowed to create two lots, itiate the subdivision application to med requested that the City follow ecause a reapplication would have , a delay in the construction of his ivision to create two lots for Mr ubdivider, and Mr. Melamed would )n fee. He also would not have been : has incurred. However, when Mr. ition of the second lot until after the ibdivider, responsible for the park ♦ and memo to the Council of May oih refer to the park dedication fee »ning Commission meeting or the aiion. Neither did he question staff >division review process. the park dedication fee be charged •»A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF FRENCH LAKE OF ORONO 2ND ADDITION FILE NO. 1922 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a two lot plat by Robert L. Melamed and Elizabeth Melamed, (hereinafter "the subdividers”); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-IB, Rural Residential Zoning District, and Shoreland Regulations of the City, finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that would allow its use as a single family residence to be fiilly developed without the need of any variances; WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 3428. 2. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 3. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat in the amount of $75.00. 4. Payment to the City of a park dedication fee in the amount of $12,000. NOW, therefore , be IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves a plat of French Lake of Orono 2nd Addition, subject to the condition that the aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder ’s Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before January 11, 1995 together with a certified original copy of this resolution. Page 1 of 4 The approval granted by this resolution shall expire 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 July, 1994. ATTEST: I Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Mayor \l: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of July, 1994 by Edward J. Callahan 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. 1 Notary Public Page 2 of 4 )een filed by the on with the City y of July, 1994 ity of Orono, a f the City. ^sa.oo Ndtrssx i4-t.4T ^ ------------- I :.. nar4i‘36r^ ^ * ......................................................................... '•iV^ • • •: - - V •mt4 8 w • • • •. \ \ 4-2s*^I '! 4\.1^18 t\’' ^ ••£ ------------------------^69_W _________________J^.09 _____ •I I I # \ 'sj --»■• \ V U.JB % I r^H •tJ 0 • I *11 vi^st ZB4.73 ‘Dntjnaqc and, ufihfy ememenrs j^A'-" 'i^ i s> \ too V Wtsi 60.00 ■ il CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 4 2.^ __ A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS II SUBDIVISION FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH . FILE NO. 1922 WHEREAS, Robert L. Melamed and Elizabeth Melamed (hereinafter "the subdividers") on March 25, 1994, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a two lot residential plat of property legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, French Lake of Orono. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and VMIEREAS. after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 ei. seq. and the City of Orono’s Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 18, 1994, at which time ail persons desiring t j be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on May 9, 1994, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdividers, noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of land within each newly created lot. 2.The property is served by sewer. Per Section 10.55. Subdivision 15 (A-2) Lot I shall gain credit for .56 acres of wetland/drainageway with total lot area at 2.08. Lot 2 shall gain credit for .38 acres of wetlands. The total lot area at 2.27 acres. 3.The newly created Lot 1 shall continue to be served via the non exclusive easement over the private driveway owned by the City of Orono. Page 1 of 4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CIT\’ COUNCIL NO 8 4 28 ^ «SH< 4. 5. Preliminary subdivision survey confirms that all existing strucnires meet the required lot standards of the RR-IB Zoning District and Shoreland Regulations of the City. Current hardcover inventory confirms that each lot area satisfies existing hardcover improvements within the newly defined boundaries of each of the residential lots. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Robert L. Melamed and Elizabeth Melamed per plat drawings by Mark S. Gronberg. a licensed surveyor of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc., dated October 20, 1993, the most recent revised date March 24, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Subdivider shall provide appropriate signage at intersection of private driveway and Old Crystal Bay Road (County Road 84) designating legal addresses of both residents. 2. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 5’ along all interior lot lines and 10 ’ along the perimeter boundaries and adjacent to road rights-of-way. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one for City records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200’. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. dated October 20, 1993, the most revised date March 24, 1994. B. Dedication of "drainage and utilin' easements" as noted in Condition 2 above. Pace 2 of 4 son >1* CITY of ORONO RESOLimON OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 4_2^ 2. C. 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 applicants must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $75.00* A. Final plat fee last two subdivisions = No charge for final plat application of Class II subdivisions B. Legal review and filing fee of subdivision = $75.00 ♦Park dedication fee shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the area of Lot 1 at the time of preliminary plat approval. Subdividers shall be advised as soon as assessor’s report has been filed with the City. Park dedication fees shaJl be based on 8% of the fair market value of said land in its undeveloped state. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 9th day of May. 1994.CITY OF CWO FI nMB QFFIC c I3z0200000 01 OSi CH^K TL r: 50 COOl ROl ■ f ^ I V [ward J. Cal^Mayor V # Page 3 of 4 i - . r- : h: ■ T CITY of ORONORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 4 23-------- w STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. The foregoing instrumcm was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of May, 1994 by Edw^ I. CalUli. h- & Dorofliy M. Hallin. Mayor & City Cte* of C.V ^ a Minnesou municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. I, Notary Public ^ • i s I ; ! ^ I E i ! i ' Page 4 of 4 il REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNGaMEEnNG JUL J 1 1994 DATE: July 5. 1994 ITEM NO. 1 • (p Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Proposed Amendment to Section 10.56, Shoreland Management 1 i . i i ! List of Exhibits A - Draft Ordinance Amendment B - Memo and Exhibits of 6/13/94 The purpose of this amendment is to revise Section 10.56 per the "conditions of approval" placed on our ordinance when it was approved by DNR in May 1993. Further, it will correct a change to the "steep slope" percentage which the City agreed to in 1992 but which was omitted from the code as adopted. Finally, the amendment will reclassify French Lake North Basin and Sewage Lagoon as wetland basins rather than lake basins, therefore these two basins will no longer be subject to lake setback requirements. A brief review of each section of the proposed amendments is contained in the cover memo of June 13, 1994. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for these proposed amendments at their June 20th meeting and recommended their adoption on a vote of 7-0. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments per the attached ordinance draft. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Proposed motion: Moved by____. seconded by______, to adopt Ordinance it____, Second Series, an ordinance to amend certain portions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Shoreland Management, as proposed. Vote: ____ayes,____nays. r : i aw 7-S-^V ORDINANCE NO.SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CERTAIN PORTIONS OP MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.56, SHORELAND MANAGEMENT The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subd. 2 is hereby amended as follows: Subd 2 Statutory Authorization. This Shoreland Ordinance* is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. Section 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subd. 3, Definition 17, "Public Waters" is hereby amended as follows: 17. "Public Waters" - Any waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 105.37-?—Cubdivioiono 14 and 15 103G.0Q5. Subdivisions 15 and 16. Section 3. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subd. 3, Definition 26, "Steep Slope" is hereby amended as follows: 26. "Steep Slope" - Lands having average slopes Qf 12% or greater as measured over horizontal distances of 50' or more, that are not bluffs. Section 4. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subd. Definition 29, "Water-Oriented Accessory Structure Facility" is hereby amended as follows: 3, or 29. "Water-Oriented Accessory Structure or Facility" - A small, above ground building or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature, reasonably needs to be locatea closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, lock boxes, and detached decks. Section 5. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subd. hereby deleted and the following language inserted in its place: Subd. 7. Classification of Public Waters. public waters of the City of Orono have been classified be''ow consistent with the criteria found in Minneso a Regulations, Part 6120.3300, and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Hennepin County, Minnesota: J A. ! Natural Environment (NE) Lakes Lake Classen Dickey Lake French Lake (South Basin Only) Lydiard Lake Lake Katrina Wolsfcld Lake (Medina) Recreational Development (RD) Lake_s Long Lake Mooney Lake Tanager Lake Hadley Lake (Plymouth) C. General Development (GD) Lakes a. OHWL 974.5' 985.5' 930.0' 970.9' OHWL 944.3' 968.0' 929.4' 961.4' OHWL Protected Waters Inventory I.D. ft 162-P 161-W 140- P 159- P 154-P 157-P Protected Waters Inventory I.D. ft 160- P 134-P 141- P 109-P Protected Waters Inventory I.D. # Forest Lake Lake Minnetonka D. Tributary Streams FROM e e 929.4' 929,4' 139- 133- TO: P P TRIBUTARY NAME SEC,TWP R SEC.TWP S 1. Long Lake Creek 35(Basin 160P) 118 23 10(Basin 141P) 117 23 2. "Wolsfeld" Creek 27(City Limit) 118 23 26(Basin 160P) 118 23 3. Tributary to Wolsfeld Creek from Holy Name Lake 26(City Limit) 110 23 27 118 23 4. Dickeys Lake Creek 27(Basin 161P) 118 23 34(Basin 160P) 116 23 5. Stubbs Bay Creek 32(Basin 162P) 118 23 5(Basin 133P) 117 23 6. Painter's Creek 30(Basin 154P) 118 23 31(City Limit) 118 23 Section 6. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subd . 9,is Subd. 9. Adoption of Official Mao and Interpretation of District Boundaries. The official map of the Shoreland Overlay District is hereby adopted. A copy of said map shall be kept on file at all times with the City Clerk♦_ In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Section shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the City and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes. The boundaries of the Shoreland Overlay District shall be determined by scaling distances on the official map. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the district as shown on the official map, the City Engineer shall make necessary interpretation based on the Ordinary High Water Level. The person contesting the location of the district boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case to the City and to submit technical evidence if he so desires. I ii I i i i ! Section 7. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (I) is hereby amended as follows: I. Vegetation Alterations. 1. No live tree within 75 feet of the shoreline or within the bluff impact zone with a diameter of 6 inches or more (or 19 inches in circumference or greater) measured 3 feet above the ground may be removed without first obtaining a permit from the City staff provided that at least the equivalent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff are planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those removed. Appeals of staff determinations as to type, size and quality of the trees to be replaced will be to the Council. Removal of trees that are dead shall not require a permit but such trees must be inspected by City staff prior to their removal. 2. Intensive vegetation clearing within 75' of the shoreline €»»4 ji. on steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lockboxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. Section 8. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J) (5) (i) is hereby amended as follows: i. Any alterations below the Ordinary High Water Level of public waters must first be authorized by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources under Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.42 103G.245; Section 9. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall take effect and shall be enforced from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1994 by a vote of _ _ ayes and nays. ATTEST Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr.,Mayor r To: From: Date: Subject: Chairman Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator June 13, 1994 Proposed Amendments to Section 10.56 Shoreland Management List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K • L - Sununary Draft Ordinance Amendment MPG Letter to DNR 5/29/92 (Flexibility) DNR Shoreland Ordinance Approval 5/25/93 Staff Memo 6/21/93 (Approval Conditions) MPG Letter to DNR 1/13/94 (Tributaries) MPG Letter to DNR 3/23/94 (French Lake) DNR French Lake Reclassification Approval 5/6/94 Official Shoreland District Map Proposed Official Shoreland District Map Detail Shoreland Boundary - French Lake Public Hearing Notice Section 10.56, Shoreland Management as Adopted 2/24/92 The purpose of this amendment is to revise Section 10.56 per the "conditions of approval" placed on our ordinance when it was approved by DNR in May 1993. Further, it will correct a change to the "steep slope" percentage which the City agreed to in 1992 but which was omitted from the code as adopted. Finally, the amendment will reclassify French Lake North Basi'' and Sewage Lagoon as wetland basins rather than lake basins, therefore these two basins will ,.o longer be subject to lake setback requirements. Review of Proposed Amendments (Please refer to Exhibit A) Section 1 This is merely an update to the State Statute reference. Certain chapters of the State Statutes were recently recodified. Section 2 As part of the Statute revisions, this reference number also changes r Proposed Amendments to Section 10.56 June 13, 1994 Page 2 Section 3 CUy had ~ 18% or gteaier. consistent wi from Uie dry buildability calculation (note that this land- which our 18% slandard vs. section IS rarely u^). .Jmes" Sttff could find no background information supporting rsunL^ncirb^^^^^ arl .0 ntvlse our definition of "steep slopes" to .2% (see Exhibit C). Section 4 As part of approval of our ordinance. DNR reqi^t^that p.hHc''!^r than list of water-oriented accessory '^,'^^oiiy water-oriented Section i two exhibits for background on this Additionally in accord with the DNR’s approval letter for our descriptt" of the beginning and ending locations of the tribuuries have been added to the code. Section 6 Staff review of the current Shoreland Ordinance concluded that ‘Ij' adopted. Section 7 [Subdivision 16 (I) (Dl should also be prohibited. Section 8 This is another revised Statute reference resulting from their renumbering. 4* Proposed Amendments to Section 10.56 June 13, 1994 Page 3 Staff Recommendation Please review the exhibits if you have questions regarding any of the proposed Please review »housekeeDine amendments". The reclassification of French wage Lagoon will have an impact on the Shoreland District boundaty l^win ^ in less strict development standards for properties abutting those two basins. Si No^^ranS SewJge Lagoon will reven to wetlatrf ^tus wetland protection regulations and setbacks (26’ for sttwtures, 75 for septic), rather than Natural Environmem lake setbacks (150' for stiucmres and septic). Suff lecommends approval of the proposed amendments to Section 10.56, Shorelan: Management. I GlTYof ORONO Miwirlpil onto tatOOiccBoxM Cri«ai Bq; MiniHni* S Hay 29, 1992 Ms. Ceil Strauss» Area Hydrologist Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paulf Minnesota 55106 Re: Shoreland Management Ordinance - Flexibility Request Dear Ms. Strauss: Thank you for letter of April 7, 1992 regarding our flexibility request. Specifically# you asked for explanation or justification for flexibility in two areas: 1. Steep slope definition. 2. Lock boxes in bluff and shore impact zones. The City Council has reviewed these two areas. Regarding the steep slope definition# after a review of our current codes and Comprehensive Plan# we find that there is little technical justification to support 18% as the threshold at which a slope becomes "steep*. In assessing the number and impact of the Shoreland Regulations sections that reference steep slopes# it appears that revising our ordinance to meet your 12% standard will have little if any negative Impact in developing our shoreland areas. Therefore# we would agree to revise the steep slope definition percentage to 12%. Regarding lock boxes in bluff and shore impact zones# the following comments are provided as justification for requiring no lock box setback from the OBWL: A. At a maximum height of 4' and maximum footprint of 20 s.f-# lock boxes will have only a minimal visual impact as viewed from the lake. nXEPHONE-473-7357 • FAX-4734510 r Ms. Ceil Stranss May 29, 1992 Page 2 B. _ a lock box at the shoreline was The concept oroperties with steep -ats at developed specifically t P ^ area inlan- of the the lakeshore and allow boating equipment such as OHWL. The intent was ‘» *“°*i“°Vtc. to be stored rather life jackets, stairway after each outing, than lugged up and “g*Vuetion 10' back from the OHWL in such areas, '“"'.tion into the hillside, it was SltirtdneVtheTtSuld be less impact on the sborelands by not requiring a setback. C. orono has specifically adopted moryes«^^^^^ forsr.r.i ssKr ‘.Vi potential for b 250 * ^ n ^ allows a structure less back from the shoreline and ^ l/lO the footprint area,than half the height and less than 1/10 the «o p but located at the shoreline From a vis standpoint, the loo'' mental qrading impacts into area* ^ . .pSie.4-rtVB the city of Orono again requestsBased on the above factors, the ^ water oriented accessory flexibility for lock boxes as a 1®“ ,^;"P»rf larger water structure while concurrently pt -ilnificantly higher vlsu.-.l and oriented accessory structures with a significantly nign environmental impact on the lake. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have further questions regarding our request for flexibility. Asst!*Planning 6 Zoning Administrator MPG/ch cc:Ed PickJeanne A. Mabusth, Building 4 Zoning Adm. Ron Moorse, City Administrator City Council 4A .e \ r L M i:/^. C STATE OF PHONE NO I^ERS. 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55155-4032^^ (612) 296-4800 May 25, 1993 The Honorable Edward Callahan Mayor, City w>f Orono 2545 North Shore Dr,, Box 72 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Callahan: APPROVAL OP ORONO-S FLEXIBILITY REQUEST AND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SHORELAND MANAGEMENT CONTROLS • v/riiiF“ tTzcniniLinitv*s ©Quest cor cxexioxllty ■ tC stat^w^d^ sM oitys shoreland from which were previously adopted on February 2r?lir?or the D%Vartme°^^ of Na/ural ResoLces^DNR). review I will aWr«s the flexibility request first and then discuss DNR s conditional approval of the shoreland controls. Your predecessor's letter of March 12, 1992 inc.l,_uded city staff menorrnda which requested flexibility from statewide standards in the following areas; 1. 2. 3. 4. reduction of the structure setbac)cs from right-of-way lines rprimarily from streets and roads), increase in the structure height limit, elimination of the setbac)c requirement for lock boxes of limited size, and . ^ relaxation of the impervious coverage on increased distances from the ordinary high water level of the protected water body. The city's letters and attached materials adequately describe thLe situations and justifies its request. I am hereby fully approving the city's request for flexibility. S^Le-c‘'onS\drt^ffi:d-d^L1^ ordinances and outlined in the attached .ages are *d<l>:essed and incorporated into your land use controls during the next ordinan amendment process. liflliiS&lli AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER r The Honorable Edward Callahan , ^ Conditional Approval of Orono's shoreland Controls Page 2 be sent directly to Area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss at the following address: DNR - Division of Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106. Funding may be available in the future for an administrative grants program for cost sharing the costs for implementing, administering, and enforcing the shoreland ordinance on a 50-50 basis. You will be contacted regarding your participation in this program when funding is available. I wish to congratulate you for the efforts the city council, planning commission, staff, and local citizens have taken towards protecting the water resources cf Orono and the Sca^e of rlinnesoua through the adoption of its land use controls which include the statewide shoreland management standards. Sincerely, DIVISION OF WATERS Og^!^ghi sitraiK Supervisor Land Use Management Unit Enclosure c: Lloyd Knudson, Regional Hydrologist Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Mike Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gene Strommen, LMCD Pam Albrecht, Division Accountant i ■-1 NEEDED AMENDMENTS TO SHORELAND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY The following specific changes need to be made to the city of Orono's shoreland management regulations in order to be compliant with the statewide standards. Since these are mainly items of clarification or "housekeeping/" amendment of the city’s current ordinance (adopted February 24/ 1992} is not reguired prior to state approval of the city's shoreland management regulations. However, these items must be addressed the next time the city amends the affected sections of their ordinance. 1. 2. 3. 4. The follovii:^ sections need amendment to reflect recent statute recodif icatioit: a. b. c. In Subd. 2 - "Chapter 105" should be "Chapter 103F" In Subd. 3, 17 (Public Waters) - "105.37/ Subdivisions 14 and 15" should be "103G.005/ Subdivisions 15 and 16" In Subd. 16/ J, 5/ i - Section "105.42" should be "Section 103G.245" <fCf Subd. 3/ y - The Water-Oriented Accessory Structure definition should be amended to include "lock box" as an example of such structures since it is the only type of structure the city has chosen to allow in the shore impact zone. Subd. 16/ I - Subitem 2 must be amended to add bluff impact zone to the areas where intensive vegetative clearing is prohibited. The city may also want to amend Subd. 16, I, 1. to add "bluff impact zone" to the areas where removal of trees with a diameter of 6 inches or larger is limited. The streams that are required to be protected by the shoreland management controls with the city of Orono need to have legal descriptions added. A copy of the descriptions contained in the attachment to the Hennepin County Protected Waters Inventory Map is attached. We have highlighted the appropriate watercourses. In addition, the city has chosen to include watercourses that are not on or only include a portion (i.e. Long Lake Creek) on the Protected Waters Inventory Map within the city's shoreland district. The legal descriptions for these watercourses would be as follows: From Section Townshio Ranae Section Townshio Ranae Painters Creek 30 (basin 154P) 118 23 31 (city limit) 118 23 Stubbs Bay Creek 32 (basin 162P) 118 23 5 (basin 133P) 117 23 Dickey Lake Creek 27 (basin 161W) 118 23 34 (basin 160P) 118 23 Long Lake Creek 35 (basin 160P) 118 23 10 (basin 141P) 117 23 r i» To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse. City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administratoi June 21, 1993 Shoreland Ordinance - DNR Approval List of Exhibits DNR Letter Dated 5/25/93 With AttachmentA - Pift-pn months after our adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance, the DNR has finally issued rttir orHinance The letter indicates approval of our flexibility request a letter formally approvmg ordinance The conditional approval indicates mainly items zoning code amendment. To briefly review their list of four conditional items. 1. ■7 3. These are merely statute recodifications. W- can certainly add 'lockbox'' to the definition of water-oriented accessory Lcmres Note that by defmition. 'stairways, fences, Jocks and retatmng walls are nos considered water-oriented accessory structures. Our current definition reads: "24 Water-oriented accessory structure or facility. A small above- ■ound building or other improvement, except suirways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of ns use to a surface water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to pu waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks." We would merely add "lockboxes" to this list of examples. Council will remember ihai a different section of the Shoreland Ordinate r^es the examples ate allowed in the lakeshore setback zone other than the lockbox. in the -intensive vegetation cl. aring' section of our ordinance.^ Mtrt ttat ^uejh activity couldn't occur in the 0-75' zone or on steep slopes. The DNR to include "bluff impact zone ' as another area where intensive vegetati % isn’t allowed. This seems reasonable. They also suggest we expan zone to include uluff impact zone in regards to the prohibition on cutting larger trees, which also seems reasonable. * Memo June 21, 1993 Page 2 4 We merely need to add short legal descriptions for the various basins and watercourses, which can be easily accomplished. The above four conditions for approval of our ordinance appear relatively inconsequential, and staff will include them in the next general zoning code revision. Sk 'j*- '■*1 TRIBUTARY NAME SEC.TWP.R.SEC.TWP.R. 1. Long Lake Creek 35(Basin 160P) 118 23 10(Basin 141P) 117 23 2. "Wolsfdd" Creek 27(Citv Limit) 118 23 26(Basm 160P) 118 23 3. -Tributary to Wolsfeld Creek from Holy Name Lake 26(City Limit) 118 23 27 118 23 4. L'ickeys Lake Creek 27(Basin 161P) 118 23 34(Basin 160P) 118 23 5. Stubbs Bay Creek 32(Basin I62P) US 23 5(Basin 133P) 117 23 6. Painter's Creek 30(Basin 154P) 118 23 31 (City Limit) 118 23 f-.*. ] I----— V** LAKE KATRINA VfCtfO LYDIARO! % ^ : \ lake I i I ---------------------------------^^.^4 I 'ii.‘/j/>'^ iillrSr»L for wm^m^ ■" \»iNP;e7CNK/*\Mmi mimmCTO n «A / \ Vavv\ ■' ■ / Tributary Streams Painters Creek Stubbs Bay Creek Long Lake Creek Wois^eld Creek Dickey Lake Creek City of Orono, Minnesota SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT Wm\ DISTRICT BOUNDARY Macural Environment (NEl Lakes Lake Classen Dickey Lake French Lake North Saam: Sewage Lagoon: South Basin: Lydiard Lake Lake Katrina Wolsteid Lane (Medina) OHWL 974.5* 985.5* 930.5* 934.3* 930.0* 970.9* BASIN WETLANDS INCLUDED FLOOOR-AINS Recreational Development (RQl Lakes Long Lake Mooney Lake Tanager Lake Hadley Lake (Plymouth) OHWL 944.3* 988.0* 929.4* 961.4* «mro :s-» General Development (GDI Lakes Forest Lake Lake Minnetonka OHWL 929.4* 929,4* 1 r flECEIVED SPEED LETTERFROM f •St «i tiifitTy ••" * • to •• • MESSAGE /Oi^nvnDE> Icol^ glbowt (iOK\' + 9^ Toj /qyv 3 vjg. ^QKT*f /ILUhhl^ \AJXjL.'fcrr^ ^ , •#:Z 3 ~3uo[isf^ •9^0 ----(&n- |S ■Htst to i+oyv^\jurH\ Z-tpr Wf, bkcruIW ■fla^ dUtBil —pg» /j 'TT^ |isi~ of nr^/btrM^ ■=^“egen i-f* ^ c> Kvwrffi^ -fTru- fbK 'ThE-i£i~^__________DATE _L_=1-JLL infz^"^ • SIGNED. IT*I( 1b'-n^ REPLY SPEED LETTERFROM ^S> VAjg, ^on’f Mlhyi<L^ list- of Tr/bu*fziKy if* _ . c> PP«7^^Z^ rno . SIGNED. •tKay ^'fhose. Tb SIGNED. tfOmNT: tCTAIN WMlTf CO^. RflURN .^.NK CO^' / V. u 'i 3 1.0+ ^ Cxp EM . F // - » March 23, 1994 GlTYofORONO Municipal Offices ” y' Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 553S6 MaHins Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Ceil Strauss Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 RE: French Lake North Basin Dear Ms. Strauss: The DNR currently maps French Lake Marsh (27-140P) as three distinct basins, with three different OHWs: North Basil: South Basin Former Sewage Lagoon 930.5’ 930.0’ 934.3’ As you know, prior to the City’s sltoreland ordinance review, the OHW for a number of lakes in Orono including French Lake, had not been determined. In order to define a contour line for measuring setbacks, the City used a portion of its shoreland grant monies to provide survey work so the DNR could determine OHWs for these lakes. Although the City did not and docs not contest the OHW elevation results, we do feel that the elevation differences of the three French Lake basins, as well as their physical characteristics, suggest that perhaps only the South Basin should be considered as a separate and distinct lake for shoreland regulation purposes, and that the North Basin and Sewage Lagoon should be considered as wetland basins. This distinction is significant in its impact on properties surrounding the North Basin and Sewage Lagoon. Previously, these propenies were only subject to wetland preservation and setback requirements. Those requirements included: • 26’ buffer outside perimeter of wetland, within which no filling, grading, construction, etc. is allowable. • 75 ’ setback from perimeter of wetland to septic system. Teiepbone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 * yf.. ♦J'. v-V ' ;i* Ceil Strauss March 23, 1994 Page 2 j- I The change to a Natural Environment lake classification for these two basins resulted in a more than five-fold increase in strucmral setback requirement and doubling of the required septic system setback. However, the nature of these two basins is so unlike that of the typical lake basin, that justification of the increased setbacks has been extremely difficult. Following is a paragraph characterizing each of the three French Lake basins: Sewage Lagoon: • NWI classification: PUBKGx • Area: 16 acres approximately • Description: Rectangular basin 700’ x 1000’, depth below outfall approximately 3-4’ but watershed may be too small to sustain significant open water depth; has never been dredged to remove sewage sediments; was constructed ca. 1962, ceased operation ca. 1982; currently contains significant emergent wetland vegetation; is intended to be preserved by City as a namre/wildlife area with perimeter hiking trail. North Basin: NWI Classification: PSSl/EMC; PEMC Area: 82 acres approximately Description: No open water except in remnants of ditch system (pre- 1950s); wetland types include Type 3 (east, southeast quadrants) Cattail Marsh, and Type 6 Shrub Swamp (west halO containing many dead 6" - 10” mature trees which likely were affected by construction of sewage lagoon ca: 1962 (wliich may have somewhat raised the water table). Compare the 1955 and 1989 air photos enclosed. South (Main) Basin: NWI Classification: UUBH; PEMlFd Area: 100 acres approxlma;«.iy (of which approximately 23 acres is open water) Description: Open water basin, drmh unknown, surrounded by cattail marsh (Types 3-5); fioating bogs common; distinct natural channel outlening to Crystal Bay, Lake Minnetonka. 3 .-i Ceil Strauss March 23, 1994 Page 3 As we have discussed, the rationale for a single lake basin to incorporate three different OHW elevations is perhaps tenuous. Clearly, a distinct basin with a large area of open water, such as the South Basin, can be termed a "lake". The North Basin, on ^e other hand, has not contained open water in recorded history, as can be attested by the 1955 and 1989 air photos as well as the attached plat and ownership maps from 1850*1860, 1879 and 1892. (It is interesting to note that Dickeys Lake, just west of Long Lake, at least shows up on the 1879 map.) Please consider our request to have the North Basin and Sewage Lagoon redesignated as wetlands rather than as part of the French Lake basin. With your approval, we will add this to the list of Shoreland Ordinance revisions I anticipate will be adopted later this year. Please call me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/lsv End.• 1" = 200 ’ Air Photos 1955, 1989 • City Maps 1850-60, 1879, 1892 • NWI Map • uses Topo Map cc:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building &. Zoning Administrator Ron Moorse, City Administrator ree different OHW f open water, such ther hand, has not 1989 air photos as 2. (It is interesting e 1879 map.)jn redesignated as we will add this to is year. Please call .1/MO. .! •“ Hi»iti.%hrs o*• * • • •Hrt\f -^oO»%0XfXTof'^niAMf A Of / // //###/»•!• /A//*'^|r• • Ifruutt • . ^ ^ ^- V . .ViV* - -■-•------... • •^y • 4% j / ./ • Vt:frui 0,^ J I • i\Ti ■:/ • ' [.>*/•##!• ff*tr$/nn-0jy •%.4'• • /«^ ;.y/ - ^1 .»• *1 •I ; ffi.nti • \« -n\$ir * ^: • • i VC •/ ^£ •/ i’/osjrf* — — ■•— ^^**’**^‘ Htn'%9 .%•/••* mt-.t f i'> '■■y^y.Ji A. _4 j« •> t V. M i[ fof-/ t h h* ftrftn \ *||^ fit A fu ) yf«*' 6 ... . SW1V'.wvA»». ... , 7'sy,^/ i.<#.vw j.- /.e"'-" ! >sK^ ...: . v-i snic;: <0 -:t, . ,^ M ^ fYo A Srnmmmmmmm •• i[ T I ^ i ^ I i «* |l* j^ ^ //* fJttije J w/^r// .//jfjry^-V V* I »*l':!-‘-Si ...* I '‘‘.(KSsIa:. ii.ia!S .!*■'»; •«.«'./. I rffi .>i k.\jV v‘- ' ■ ■ *V. V Hyk90 V t:s iiur$ti «».fia 7lV -.1 tiSbr; ii»r/ *^- •«a^'' Vttj’ tv Srife .i. #*«jt XC#9 ’ii-T^!, *~*^' /»•*••. .7 Tn»v I L luf i 1 3-i if^r- V Ml Wi L^3 % *• . •■••■•-u'. ::•>•- .16^ iV^-‘>> v :\? 0 i»’ ■- ^ I K SI < » t rj=-i :•7'*"^m iJhnV ' '4-, ¥^ *11- m\ii IS V.;r- i.«s2<r'; 1:r, •> .y >v •^r r^. r- 5 Wffi hf-.-H^\' '•7. ' f\^' -"T-/ * ' % \ j • f im*^-/ti•'.•:.*rs «r--v xr-?**.I ^. .f^r-v jw r . - «.j . _ *.1.1 — ^ h ■ .s. mmmm wT _L_« 5^- 4;- :Jv. V. •;i J . 1 .PeMCdJ' PEMCd ‘ PEMCd PU6G a i yjf^ YS<? -fU66.| PEM^A /S’ ..Aivi.v/sA i • Aff e.-V J- . . . .^• ^ — : • pEfifrrf* : - I. •*' ..• • • :* •: PEt^Q.f fo *1, *\ • f ■« » » • •»* . •y. • t : •.*{'’'f. /S ^ • ; PU6&^ p^c'l .'. PEMpr ^ • • %I .-9 PGMG PEMC ' ' • P£MC-^\.I ^ s PEMCd rewO I ^ I • p ^ PFDI PEMfd m ^ ,_ !. A'Hn .> ^^A-k '.C- -;W ■■' P%7^v ‘ s;P5,ProiC ^ Or PEMF • * PBMe.d' ■ ‘‘~f pem Cn . Q .' •>-<V emu V P£MG ' lloef. PEMCd' V-£MF C ------C9 ftMC 551 EM :MF. PEMC^ o .PCMf •PFC Y PEMC PTOlC^ \p £mC PEMF ")PU6&*:fi 1 ^ 4 R2U6F >r*^ fUX>^ ,^ . PEMC. ' *j FEMCv^PEMirj UU6H I /a //•- V PGMD' fceG-. *:‘*\• I PEMF 'f’k •j. PU60 J P6MC ^• • •KO! • • P6MC •-;poe»F L2u6oa f^ / •». A V‘ .rr r -jV *< •' :\;AB6hn» LIU6H 1/ 1 V (^66; V C3 TTTTTTr^^j \ .r • Vm ).. /^ i>4a-**!*^lV\- S75 . i i ij». ► »\ - (• i 94S AtiiSfci »« ««SS§,® -'> (@ '$'li f - :2 O. ^Vr?3t,S ym.f{ ^Ci: .♦cv' '/50^-; fJl^: >7f // Ti\»^f,^/rxf.i^'77tt^>f1ff:^ 9S0. ■-^V rj^c ^LaJie^ ro -'A' y.Av-3 ROADZ!\i ^ T . "T . 1 \ 1 r ia —/— /r ^ /' /1 5' # t i m l»JTi/ \ OJ- o . 4' "r- ifii t h /Oowiff 2G.4 oc. .(9 X.V "'i - (o T / f V I»4A6c>ofJ 3'“? t*» Ill- n 1 'ni*Ui N ) ^ m Mo r 1 ri.TJ'Vn.-/ / • •• L. j ;3 ^ > . © / -©-/H 0?*. - •.»'• 5 Mo SOtC «CT «••!>-• • t».st r>*«io ••••• f Mo it toe ft /ir/V ^ « I\ ^ i.ii^ i^> tt j j ■ M. Si II % to# -OII i £• i.‘x;l .\ i7^ w%’ji5<a SflfS‘A„*r.. I ;4l—MlWHlCTltKA v'-v "-W 0]l/^ /Mo L G STATE OF _^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ^ T iETRO waters - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO May 6, 1994 Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: DESIGNATION OF FRENCH LAKE MARSH (27-14OP), CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Gaffron: I have reviewed the City of Orono's request to redesignate the "North Basin" and "Former Sewage Lagoon" portions of French Lake Marsh that you outlined in your letter of March 23, 1994. You note that the three basins are covered by one DNR Protected Waters Inventory number (i.e., 27-140P), however, they have three different ordinary high water elevations and basin characteristics. The City requests that only the South Basin continue to be classified as Natural Environment and that the North Basin and Former Sewage Lagoon be recognized as separate basins and be reclassified as wetland basins subject to the City's wetland regulations. We find the proposed designations of the three basins to be substantially compliant with the state shoreland management regulations and, therefore, find your proposed redesignation to be acceptable. Please note, however, that we see this as a unique situation and consider the request to be a clarification of the boundary of the classified lake rather than "unclassification" of the North Basin and Former Sewage Lagoon. North Basin and the Former Sewage Lagoon were added to 27-140P (French Lake Marsh) during the Protected Waters Inventory process in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The original French Lake Marsh (i.e., the South Basin) was classified as Natural Environment in the mid-1970's for shoreland management purposes. Therefore, the North Basin and Former Sewage Lagoon are still Public Water Wetlands, but are not classified for shoreland management purposes. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER - I L jft!?#tttMike GaffronFrench Lake Marsh Classification May 6, 1994 Page (2) tti Please forward a copy of the amended ordinance language, and the e£“Sivl"a^e, after is adopted by the city. Please contact me at 772—7910 should you have further guestions. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS c:Ed Pick, Shot"land Hydrologist City of Orono Shoreland file .. and the a contact me l1.Alhi ' V'f^cv* rn i%t. LAKE KATRINA C Y rniNDGNCF. IPlYMOl .*4 ! i LUCE UNE ' ,. 0 •? 'fmtm "o. Hf ■• iZ'X V> '\ ; ib^K.') LAKE f . .VrVy.S.^ 4 4*«* * • ^ j , ^ • •-. i iv a* '•* *‘'l /. ';.^ r^*HL ^ V. V ■ ;■ *; V ■ mmcthistaI . s!^r) 5 V.'AYZATA /'•»••.. « r/» ) ^ MM4M * ' City of Orono, Minnesota SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT f fI I II& inoo Ijooo [iogoii 4(3Bk 3S"* tl'"« nc«1h Watural Environment (^^E) L^kes OHWI, Lake Classen 974.S* n n P el Dickey Lake 9 65.5 French Lake North Basin:930.5* Sewage Lagoon:934.3* South Basin:930.0 Lydiard Lake 970.9 Lake Katrina mm • Wolsfeld Lake (Medina) W/MA DISTRICT BOUNDARY BASIN WETLANDS INCLUDED FLOODPUINS VULSFtLU LAKE LYDIARD LAKE / . V/ , ^wV XWNGLAKE^^ J '*iX '' • ’<1 V .•'V'C y.V ■ yl.|V':V. I •^ri ,Ji 4>« .,Y ;4-.. U.-,'V,; Yi, ... ’ 'Q? I ’ WAYZAfA Muon ’"• north Ro«INiy V//////M DISTRICT BOUNDARY BASIN WETLANDS |v ; .y. I INCLUDED FLOODPLAINS afN-:;-. I *■ ^ •W1-11 rrx^M. UV LAKE KATRINA i ^\ vwni t^FPi n PliNOCNCE Wl.’Atk ^A-T-A.(-- g \ *■ •' / % *;/ \ ••‘s'/ City of Orono, Minnesota SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT • ms txn 3000 V-2-* SOOOfl 3lnt north RoedKey A.Natural Environment (NE) Lakes Lake Classen Dickey Lake French Lake (South Basin Only) Lydiard Lake Lake Katrina Wolsfeld Lake (Medina) Protected Waters B.Recreational Development yRD) !>akes Long Luke Mooney Lake 0!IWL Inventory I .D..-I 974.5'162-P 985.5'161-W 930.0'140-P 970.9'159-P —154 -P • • •157-P Protected Waters ohwl Inventory T . D. 944.3'160-P 988.0'1 3 4 • P mM DISTRICT BOUNDARY BASIN WETLANDS . INCLUDED FLOODPLAINS ^ ^ ^ ___T__-. CITY OF ORONO NOTICE The Orono Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 20. 1994 at 9:00 p.m. in the Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, on the matter of proposed revisions to Orono Zoning Code Section 10.56, the Shoreland Management standards and requirements. The proposed revisions include: Revised definitions of "water oriented accessory structure" and "steep slope". Reclassification of French Lake North Basin and Sewage Lagoon as wetland basins. Prohibition on intensive vegetation clearing and tree removal in the bhiff impact • Certain "housekeeping" revisions. All persons wishing to be heard in regards to this matter will appear at this time. Written comments are solicited. The proposed amendments are available in the City OfRce for review. City of Orono By: banning Commission Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Plaiming 4k Zooirig Administrator To be published in the Pioneer and Laker the week of June 6. 1994 ORDINANCE NO. 101 > SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OP SHORELANDS The City Council of the City of Orono ordains as follows; The municipal code of the City of Orono is amended by adding Ordinance No. i01» Second Series; Section 1. Section 10.56 is hereby added to the Municipal Zoning Code as follows: SECTION 10.56. 8HORELAND MANAGEMENT. Subd. 1. Statement of Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the public healthy safety^ and general welfare by providing for the wise subdivision* use and development of shorelands abutting public waters that exist within the City's corporate boundaries. The City recognizes that the uncontrolled use and development of shorelands has a negative impact on not only the quality of surface waters* but on the economic* recreational* and natural environmental values of shorelands and the waters they surround. The specific intent of this section is to: A. Protect the water quality of Lake Minnetonka and other lakes within the City by allowing development of uses in the shoreland areas which are compatible with Orono's Comprehensive Use Management Plan. B. Provide appropriate standards for development wnich will minimize the impact of shoreland development on the water quality and the economic* aesthetic* and natural environment values of Orono's lakes. Subd. 2. Statutory Authorization. This shoreland ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes* Chapter 105* Minnesota Regulations* Parts 6120.2500<>6120.3900* and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes* Chapter 462. Subd. 3. Definitions. Unless specifically defined below* words or phrases used in this section shall be interpreted as defined elsewhere in this chapter. All other words or phrases shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. Fc^.' the purpose of this section* the words "must* and "shall* are mandatory and not permissive. All distances* unless otherwise specified* shall be measured horizontally. I. "Animal Feedlot” - A lot or building or combination of lota and buildings intended for the confined feeding* breeding* raising or holding of animals and specifically designed as a confinement area in which manure may accumulate* or where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the enclosure. For purpose of this Code, open lota used for the feeding and rearing of poultry (poultry ranges) shall be considered as animal feedlots. Pastures shall not be considered as animal feedlots when the area enclosed AS pasture is equal to or greater than 1*0 acre per animal unit* 2. "Bluff - A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or emban)cment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18% over a distance of 50* or more shall not be considered part of the bluff)i A. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; B* The slope rites at least 25’ above the Ordinary High Hater Level of the water bodyj C. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25’ or more above the Ordinary High Water Level averages 30% or greater; and D. The slope must drain toward the water body* "Toe of the bluff" means the lower point of a 50’ segment with an average slope exceeding 18%* "Top of the bluff" means the higher point of a 50* segment with an average slope exceeding 18%. 3. "Bluff Impact Zone" - A bluff and land located within 20’ from the top of a bluff. - The principal use o*: the lease, rental or trade of 4. "Commercial Use” land and/or buildings for the sale, products, goods, and services. 5. "Deck" -* A horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site. 6. "Duplex, Triplex, Quad" - A dwelling structure on a single lot, having two, three, and four units, respectively, being attached by common walls and each unit equipped with separate sleeping, cooking, eating, living and sanitation facilities. 7. "Dwelling Site, Transient" - A designated location for temporary or transient residential use by one or more parsons using temporary or movable shelter, including camping and recreational vehicle sites. 8. "Dwelling Site* - A designated location where a dt^lling unit is intended to be constructed. 9. "Dwelling Unit* - A building or a portion of a building designed or intended to be occupied exclusively for residential purposes, including provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation for not more than one family, but not ?•- i of 1 e«T\e«sT rooms. 'roT.'.'nd* rocf * InkitJuf Slh:f fliorlll aid ’paat not regulated under Minnesota Statutes Sections 93#44 * 93e51# U. "Forest Land Conversion" - The hiu"’r2-MA viAw lAfid U86 other re l;«"lis1u.ln ‘tVf rsu'lVefullt forest stand. i-» -T«Fi.»«H"rlal Use- - The use of land or buildings for the production, o? ot*Jfe“^^of goods, products, commodities, or otner wnoxeo 13. -Intensive Vegetation re«oval of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. 14 -Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL)- - The sufficient period of time , veoetation changes fromconnonly that point where the natural vegetation^ cn^^ 15. -Planned Unit Development (PUD)* - A t^e of development characterized by a * r“S%el!tH^v, r.“/r.,sn: units or sites *» ^n?p«*lf*%D*aVe*p?oJidlSof structure types and land uses. Two types oi ruu a^w for in the toning code* , allow^l- usef f.“nrn-t««I2nf r.sw7nlll “"^^ detached single family or multiple family dwellings, tf^h.^ li-i?2ti%V7 prolid*^^ in each zoning district. Be -Planned Unit Development (PUD) y<* - The nature of allowed uses may include residential, cwercial, institutional, public and fJlJted%o in Orono's C^hensiv^ ^S*"c2?S"i.''1;fi'neS1n'*s.'id 'aiind-en^^ 12 POO oY“^ a -I«“re of land uses, housing type. d2SsitIes?’^ Note” NO properties which could be dev.Kyed via the Highway 12 POD are within the Shoreland Overlay District. 16. "Public Us6" “ The use of land by the public or by a public agency on behalf of the general public, for any purpose. 17. "Public Waters" - Any waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 105.37, Subdivisions 14 and 15. 18. "Serai-public Use" - The use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open to sorae persons outside their regular constituency of the organization. 19. "Sensitive Resource Manageraent" - The preservation and management of areas unsuitable for their natural atate due to constraints such *• groundwater or bedrock, highly erosive or «*P*"*^/* slopes, susceptibility to flooding, or occurence of flora or fauna in need of special protection. 20. "Sewage Treatment System" - Septic tanks and a soil absorption system or other type of on-site sewage treatment system as described in Section 12.30 of the municipal code. 21. "Sewer System" - Pipelines or conduits, pumping stations and force main, and all other construction, devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage o industrial waste or other wastes to a point of ultimate disposal. 22. "Shore Impact Zone" - Land located between the Ordinary High Water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50% of the structure setback. 23. "Shore Setback Zone" - Land located between the Ordinary High Water Level of a Public water and a line parallel to it at the structure setback. 24. "Shoreland" - Land located within the following distances from public waterst 1,000* from the Ordinary High Water level of a lake, pond, or flowage; and 300* from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a flood plain designated by ordinance on A river or stream, whichever is greater. Where topographic divides occur at lesser distances from the involved water, the limits or shoreland have been modified per the official map entitled Shoreland Overlay District on file at the City offices. 25. "Significant Historic Site" - Any archaeological site, standing structure, or other property that meets the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or is listed in the State Register of Historic Sites, or is determined -o be an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 307.08. A historic site meets these criteria if it is presently listed on either register or i^ it is determined to meet the qualifications for listing after review by the Minnesota State Archaeologist or the Director of the Minnesota 1 Historical Society. All unplatted eeneteries are automatically considered to be significant historic sites- 26 "Steep Slope" - Lands having average slopef 18% or greater « measured over horizontal distances of 50- or more# that are not bluffs. 27. "Surface Water-Oriented Commercial Use" - The of business. 462. 24. "Water-Oriented Accessory Structure or Facility" - A small# above ground building or other improvement, except stairwaySf fences# docks# and retaining because of the relationship of its use to a surface water reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the ^oritl strunure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses# gazebos# screen houses# fish houses# pump houses# and detached decks. 25. "Wetland" - Shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 10.55 of the zoning code. Subd. 4. Jurisdiction. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to the shorelands of the public water bodies as classified in Subdivision 7 of this ordinance. Subd. 5. Compliance. The use of any shore land of watersi the size and shape of lots? the use# the subdivision of land shall be in full compliance with the terms of this section and other applicable regulations. Subd. 6. Enforcement. The Zoning Administrator is responsible for the administration and enforcement of this ordinance. Any violation of the provisions of this ®f failure to comply with any of its requirements violations of conditions and safeguards established in connexion with grants of variances or conditional uses) shall constitute ;J*?;rs*S?5in"anc^ occ^uT P«»it is required for a regulated activity pursuant to Subdivision 10 of this section. Subd. 7. Classification of Public Waters. The public waters of the City of Orono have been classified below c®***^*^*"^ wit’ the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations# Part 6120.3300# and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Hennepin County# Minnesota! A. B. Natural Environment (NE)Lakes OHWL Inventory I.D. « Lake Classen ^74.5*162-p Dickey Lake 985.5*161-W French Lake 140-P North Basint 930.5* Sewage Lagoont 934.3* South Basint 930.0* Lydiard Lake 970.9 159-P Lake Katrina --154-P Wolsfeld Lake (Medina)—157-P Protected Waters Recreational Development (RD) Lakes OHWL Inventory I.D. • Long Lake 944.3*160-P Mooney Lake 988.0*134-P Tanager Lake 929.4*141-P Hadley Lake (Plymouth)961.4*109-P Protected Waters General Development (GD)Lakes OHWL Inventory I.D. # Forest Lake §1974*139-P Lake Minnetonka 929.4*133-P 0. Tributary Straares Painter sCraaJc Stubbs Bay Creek Long Lake Creek WoXsfeld Creek Dickey Lake Creek Subd* 8* Establishment of Shore land Overlay District* The Shore land Overlay District is hereby defined and established to include the following lands as referenced in the map attached hereto as Exhibit A* within the City of Oronos A. All lands within 1000* of the Ordinary High Mater level of the lakes classified Natural Environment# Recreational Development# and General Development in Subdivision 7 of this section* The Shoreland Overlay District includes lands within Orono that are located within 1000' of lakes located in adjacent cities# namely Hadley Lake in the city of Plymouth and Wolsfeld Lake in the city of Medina. B* All lands within 300* of the Ordinary High Water level of the watercourses classified as tributary streams in Subdivision 7 of this section, where the flood plain of said tributary streams as defined in Section 10.55 or as defined •l**w«wpe in ^e Orono Zoning Code extends further than 300* from the Ordinary High Water level# the boundary of the Shoreland O'^wplsy District shall be extended to.include those areas designated as flood plain. Subd. 9. Interpretation of District Boundaries. In their interpretation and application# the provisions of thii i ■ M section shall be held to •’* Vha*"l^ deemed a liberally construed “ranted by State Statutes, limitation or repeal o£ if Overlay District shall be The boundaries of the t-he official map. where determined by scalii^ ff“to*thI exact location o£ the boundaries interpretation is needed as map, the City Engineer of the district as »ho»n »» ‘j** the Ordinary Highshall make necessary interpretation basea the district Hater level. The person contesting the locat^ present his boundary shall be given • _.i ^fvidence if he so desires,case to the City and to submit technical eviaence ....... the City of Orono Municipal Code. 11 Certificate of Zoning Compliance. The Zoning Mministrator 'shall issue •each activity requiring a pet^t as specific in 5:^.•i7^rl^' b7 --a“t\o7«s3J^^^ .hall be punishable as provided in Subdivision 6 of this section. Subd. 12. variances. Variances may only be grant^ in •re%7l^^"d"in’'^1.rsin\7VVh*apVe“r“‘^^^^^^^^ the Department of Natural Resources has formally supported the issuance of the variance. Subd. 13. Conditional Uses. Conditional within shoreland areas shall be subject to the review and oiocedures. and criteria and conditions for review of USAS established in the zoning chapter. The following . evaluation criteria and conditions apply within the Shoreland Overlay Districtt A. Evaluation Criteria. A thorough evaluation of the water body and the topographic, vegetation, and son conditions on the site must be made to ensure) 1. The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; 2. The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited) 3. The site is adequate for water supply and on*site sewage treatment; and 4 The tvpesr uses and numbers of watercraft •1^ th« purposM ot this it deen< nec*.*«ry to*fir “lTth. purpo?« of“hl. ordinanc. Such condition, may include but are not limited to the following; 1.Increased setbacks from the Ordinary High „ .1. e: Water Level; be removed planted; 3. Special provisions for the locations, design, and use of structures, sewage treatment systems, watercra llunihing and docking areas, and vehicle parking areas. Subd. 14. Notification, to the Resources. Copies of all notices of any public to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses under this ..ction mu.t b. .ent to theMA«>ural Resources and postmarked at least 10 days nerore hVarino.r Notic.. of hearing to con.ider propo.ed •ubdivi.ion./plat. mu.t include copie. of the ft««n final action by the City Council, a copy of amendments and subdivisions/plats, ^ variances or conditional uses under this section must t?e CoSiissioner of the Department of Natural Resources and postmarked within 10 days of final action. Subd. 15. Zoning District Compliance Reauirements. The zoning district standards of Chapter 10 of the Orono Munxclpal Code currently comply with the lot permitted use and conditional use standards Department of Natural Resources Shoreland ' MR*^ 6120.2500 - 6120.3900. The following City of ®?i23 district, are partially or fully located within the Shoreland Overlay District: LR-IA LR-IB LR-IC LR-lC-1 RR-IA RR^IB RR-lB-1 RS B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 m The following Orono zoning districts are also potentially 8 available for use within the shoreland o-i; R-IB R-IA the soning districts listed above Subd. 16. Shoreland overlay addition to the districts, in case of conflict, r applies. raiA¥h standards. Minimum A. Minimum Lot JJatrlyin? toning di.trict iSirrpp*i"i i^tn^^^*^o^‘f:^?s/-.ptlon.. 1. NO lot pVrStU*on*l"o.20. r»2s.^rrsV ."f 1-1 HHuu J-n« ^-..vViin-'tf.^Vo- iUt” in*l“” irnon^-riV. *i.n. .pprov.d *"/“j;V^„":ta?rwh:n no ..wer is .v.U.bl.. nor 1... IV/n U5 1..t in*w*idth wh.n s.«.r is .v.il.bls. B. Lakeshor. (oS**r'.as^£or us'i^by o*m.rs *rror4ir.rran “lot?ViVhiir p.rmi..ibl. and muat the following minimum standards. tl'-t a^Sl^h“an coJstd ”;^* .. . buildabl.d.slgnat«l as an outlot, and shall residential lot. 2. Such an outlot the*number of !• ,’r .•si.'.nriis 4. No such access within the ircoTon^:2j:»”p .ror:hi*.«.'?tl^.. d.t. o, thi. ordmanc. Public Water Classification Structures Unsewered Sewered Sewage Treatment SystemFHITB T53 150 RD 100 75 75 GO 75 75 75 Tributary 100 75 75 2.Additional structure setbacks.The accessory facilities, except stairways, landings, and lock boxes, must not bo placed within bluff impact zones. 4 Uses without wster^oriented needs# Uses without water-oriented needs must »"/»Vs with public waters frontage, must either ^* *** normal ordinary High Waterscreened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer# leaf-on conditionse 5. Fences# docks# retaining walls. Nc fence ro*cit^riVnrwttd"Vi‘'Vhe‘*'o*HW^"%^aJrb^^^ ;“hn•rect^%n^''• VJ.Lr. setback zone# g, Average lakeshore setback# No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore ?5aS ?Se average distance from the ‘horelin. of existing r«W.nc. buildings on adjacent lots# except that this does not apply to stairways# lifts# landings# h lakeshore setback shall apply only to not apply to tributaries# The average lakeshore be a straight line connecting the most P residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. D. Minimum Lowest Floor Elevations. All structures located within the Shoreland Overlay subject to the flood plain regulations of ordinance shall be placed at an elevation consistent "X**; requirements of that section. The regulatory flood elivation shall be established as set '““•‘.Xn Section 10.55, Su^^^ 7 of this code. All structures constructed within the Snorelana Overlay District shall have their lowest floor# including basement# placed at an elevation no lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. Where the regulatory flood plain cannot reasonably be determined, the minimum lowest floor# injluding basement# may be placed shall be determinec as follows: 1. For lakes# by placing the lowest floor at a level at least 3 feet above the highest knotm water feet above the Ordinary High Water Level# whichever is higher. 2. For rivers and streams# by placing the lowest floor at least 3 feet above the flood of record. E. Water-oriented Accessory Structures. The vater-oriented accessory structure allowed to be located ”***[*5. ordinary High water Level than the normal structure setback as specified in this section shall be a lock box no greater than 2 0 square feet in area and no higher than 48 inches in height. Sucn a structure requires a building permi*: from the City. 11 $15.60 KUEMN,THOMAS MILEAGE RElMBURSEMEN$3.14 KUBNN,THOMAS MILEAGE rEIMBURSEMENS66.36 KUEHN,THOMAS MILEAGE RElMBURSEMEN$05.10*s 154.16 LOGIS -SUITE 300 MAY SERVICE1910 §9 hOGlS SUITE 300 MAY SERVICE$251.55 LCX5IS -SUITE 300 MAY SERVICE663.99 LCX3IS -SUITE 300 MAY SERVICE$1.761.65 LOGIS -SUITE 300 MAY SERVICE$5&1.10 LOGIS SUITE 300 MAY SERVICE$5.293.34* $22.10 LONG LAKE LOWER ECUI PM REPAIR GROUNDS MOWER $22.10* $4,363.00 MALLOY KARNOWSKI CO SERVICES THRU MAY 31 $1.600.00 MALLOY KARNOWSKI CO SERVICES THRU MAY 31 $•19.00 MALLOY KARNOWSKI CO SERVICES THRU MAY 31 $1.960.00 MALLO'^KARNOWSKI CO SERVICES THRU MAY 31it.,742.00* $25.00 MCFOA ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP OL $25.00* $40.00 MCPA MCPA MEETING-SULLIVA $40.00* u ,459.50 MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA JULY $2 ,016.53 MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA JULY $470.17 MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA JULY $1,143.50 MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA JULY $1 ,164.04 MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA JULY 1 199.50 MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA JULY 1 465.75 MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA JULY 1470.17 MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA JULY ACroUNT N INVOICE PO NUM.HMIUAL■ 4195 5M0O894 OH0129 4210 829602 •OH0039-4210 029602 OH0174 4210 029602 OH0069-4710 029602 OH9001 3500 001695 OH9674-2222 001695 OH9001-2227 001695 OH0129-4303 001716 OH0129 4356 001694 OH0249 4331 RI06940041 OH0249 4331 RIO694O04O ON0590 4232 430542 ON 0129 4356 001604 OH 0249 4324 001696 ON0290-4324 001696 OH0175 4324 001696 OH 0099 4324 001696 OH 0549-4324 001696 ON0590-4324 001696 OH0569-4324 001696 OH 0249-4325 001670 ON 0549-4303 001605 OH 0039 4340 232320 OH 0129-4340 232320 ON0174 4340 232320 OK0069 4340 232320 ON p>r!v-'»■;13t4/07 lfM/07 13t4/07il-mi33 19M/07 F" •11133 1994/07i. 1 / :■ •31134 1994 /07 1994/07 w omsa1onus fe •11134 t*1 f¥ AGENDAQRQNQ CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DRAFT July 13. 1994-8:00 a.m Atrlil h«1f-stct1on shifts for discussion of possibit olIgnMot •Itomatlvo for CSAH 6 botwoon Town Lino Rood and T.H. 12. Draft Rfsolutlon Granting Htnntpin County prt11«1nary doslgn approval for roallgnwant of CSAH 6 at Town Lino Road and also roguosting Honntpin County to proparo prollalnary dosim layouts for CSAH 6 froa oast of tho Intorsoctlon of Town Lino mad to T.H. 12. Prollalnary Layout for CSAH 6 at Town Lino Road - Prollalnary Layout - Profllo Possiblo furthor discussion of altomatos at CSAH 6 and HcCulloy. CSAH IS - Brackott's Point - CSAH IS froa Orono Orchard Road to Uayzata /*“*%o? mLmmmTMB ALSO ?S Wilii?T?Tll*l?^^FOR CSAH • FlUM EAST OF THE INTEASECTION OF TOMN LINE ROAD TO TN 12. NNEREAS, Th# pavtMfit structurt of CSAH 6 fro« tht wtst County lin# to tht Intorsictlon of TH 12 is reaching the end of Its service life; and HNEREAS, Tht present profile and horizontal alignMnt of the above described section of CSAH 6 needs to be ieproved to provide adequate sight distance for safety considerations of motorist, bicyclist, and pedestrian activity; and HNEREAS, The City of Independence has requested the Hennepin County Department of Public Horks to prepare preliminary engineering layouts for the reconstruction of CSAH 6 from the west County line to the east City limits of Independence; and HNEREAS, The intersection of Town Line Road and CSAH 6 lies within the Cities of Orono and Independence; and HNEREAS, The reconstruction improvement project for CSAH S from CSAH 90 to TH 12 appears in Hennepin County’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Program for 1995. NON, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVO, That the City of Orono proves Preliminary Layout Ho. 1 for the reconstruction of CSAH 6 at Town Line Road; and RE IT FURTHER RESOLYED, That the City of Orono requests Hennepin County Department of Public Herks to prepare preliminary engineering layouts reconstruction of CSAH 5 from east of the intersection of Town Line Road to TH 12 for City review; and reschedule this project for 199R in Hennepin County’s Capital Improvement Program. IS'POPHAM H AIK• CMNOafI 1C , ltdiU.9 O^WiCSt DCMVV*. COkOttAOO 7«k »OS>«»9*itOO TIL «09>i90-0090 WA«i«iM€TOii. O.C TBi. IOa-9«t-97O0 Suits 9300 222 South N inth smtST Min NSA^OLIS. MlNNSSOTA 99402 til 6I2-333-4SOO FAN O12-334 SSS0 Thomas •asuctt * C sq. DisccT Dial l#!*) S14-1S7# L|l7tta. rtk 0< tAI-S4»-49l4424 ffUTTGAWT. T«L 01 l4t*T» 1-21141 wc 7 199^ July 6. 1994 Mr. Ronald Moorse City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Long Lake Water Management Project Dear Ron; As you may know, die Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Cities of Oi^. Lont Lake and Medina have been holding a series of discussions conwming a number of poi^ «i»le»ie$. inclodin* «reel swetpini. jlomwm nuMtemeni. on-sja tr^inm and algae control, to improve the water quality in Long Lake. The partiH devel^ a cooperative agreement to work together on a project in which the Watershed District would have the primary financial responsibility. As we have discussed, our firm is counsel to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distria Moitof the discussions for this project have occurred at a non legal •* beSs Weement. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has asked Loms SSASowtotTbrinvol^ Although it appears that an of the parties wucipaie a vs^ coonerative nroiect. and the purpose of the agreement is simply to express the mientions^ parties in the form of an agreement, stricUy speaking the mierests of Orono and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ate distinct and separate. 7.*10STAA4 ^4 TOi Mayor and City CouncilFROM:Ron Moorse, City AdministratorDATE:June 17. 1994SUBJECT:Summai/ of June 15 Work Session Councilmembers Goetten, labbour and Hurr met on Wednesday, June 15 to discuss Highway 12 issues in preparation for the Policy Committee meeting. The first item discussed was the TSM alternative plan and the large amount of misinformation and misunderstanding regarding the plan. It was suggested that we need to have MnDOT define exactly what the TSM alternative is and what it means in terms of upgrading roadways, especially Watertown Road. We also nt.'Hl to have MnDOT define what they see as Orono’s role in the TSM alternative. It is staffs understanding that the rok for Orono in the TSM alternative is to keep all of its local traffic, ilKluding Orono commuter traffic, off of Highway 12 in Orono and L(^ Lake. This is to preserve capacity on Highway 12 for the peak hour non-Orooo commuten. It was diffftiTff** that the number of Orono residems who might use an upgraded Watertown Road for commuting is so small that it is not worth constructing a major new alignment for Watertown Road. It was also discussed that it is very important that Highway 12 be designed to hKiliiate a smooth flow of traffic through Orono and Long Lake, otherwise a large amount of non-local traffic could be diverted from Highway 12 to local roadways such as Watertown Road. A suggestion was made that the Civy Council hold a number of "Town Meetings" to clarify misunderstandings regarding the TSM alternative and to also clarify the city ’s position TSM alternative and on Highway 12. The comments made by Valerie Reinaas regarding the potential impact of the newly iuentified burial mounds in Mapk Plain on the feasibility of the current corridor was discussed. Staff will follow thro gh to determine what, if any. impact these burial mounds may have on the current corridor. Ron Moorse. City Administrator John Cerhardson, Public Works Director June 17, 1994 SUBJECT: Post Office Parking Lot During lease agreement negotiations «vith the U.S. Postal Service recently, we stated that we would construct a 6-10 place parking lot for use by the post office patrons. The estimated cost in 1993 was approximately $3200. Uhave added some tree planting to the estimate which increases the amount by $1,340 and tree removal for $450 for a toul of $4890. I have also been advised that for that zone a parking lot would require a 50 ’ setback from the road. We would need to apply for a variance to construct the parking lot adjacent to the building. JUL 1994 July 5, 1994 . II- CL-.Ll:iSiyU'- ^Lk h- : Mayor Edward Callahan City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 Dear Mayor Callahan: I wish to express my personal thanks and apprecia­ tion for the expert services of Orono Police Officer Larry Tomcheck. He recently assisted my step-father, Edwin Lyyjoki, who is suffering from dementia and has great difficulty dealing with worldly affairs. Dad, however, loves to walk and on one such walk he caused a situation wherein Officer Tomcheck was called in to intervene. He handled the problem very professionally; taking the time to see that Dad was taken to a safe place until we were able to bring him home. Orono can take pride in their police department and especially in Officer Larry Tomcheck. Sincerely, Rusty Paurus Mrs. Norman Paurus 2500 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN. 55391 cc: Chief Steve Sullivan Officer Larry Tomcheck / 'JUL^ 7 1994 July 5, 1994 s I Mayor Ed Callahan and Orono City Council Members City of Orono Post OfTice Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Callahan and Council Members. Congratulations on your cohesive role in representing the citizens of Orono at the Highway 12 Mediation Meeting recently. Together, you clearly articulated mutual concerns and suggested a number of action steps that could lead to a more meaningful outcome. Unfortunately, your ideas to improve the cuneitf process were not acted on during the meeting. Specifically, we support your suggestion to meet with Long Lake officials in a smaller group setting without MNDOT represematives unless specifically requested. The purpose of these meetings would be to augment the more formal mediation meetings. Doing so would allow the two cities to focus on discussing various plans from a conununity perspective, rather than hearing presentations from MNDOT or their consultants. While the latter is valuable, it seems there is a great deal of interest among both councils to talk with each other. The mediation meetings - and the mediator - are not allowing this to occur. We encourage you to worit directly with Long Lake officials apart from the mediated meetings. Clearly, there are shared goals that could foster more consensus between the two cities on th>s important issue. We also hope you will consider meeting without MNDOT representatives and a mediator. Perhaps, through your leadership, the two cities can develop a plan together that presents a cohesive, community-wide response to MNDOT. Without such a plan of our own, we wiU be forced into someone else’s plan that will, undoubtedly, adversely affect both Orono and Long Lake. Please let us know if there is anything we can do to help you. Cordially. Ci'- c Ann C(Mgrovc, Gail Bollis, Sandee-Smith Ml |f^ StATI Of ttkdepartment of natural resources BBTRO haters - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, HN 55106 nee NO WATERS PHONE NO. 772-7910 July 5, 1994 Th« Honorable Edward Callahan Mayor, City of Orono City Hall P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 Dear Mayor Callahan: RECEiVSL JUL 6 1994 GiTYOFOnONO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON CITY OP PLYMOUTH'S REQUEST FOR FLEXIBILITY FROM STATE OP MINNESOTA'S SHORELAND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS As required by the statewide shoreland manageaent standards, the Couiissioner of the Minnesota Departsent of Natural Resources (DNR) and the City of Plymouth are hereby notifying your city of Plymouth's request for flexibility from the statewide standards as outlined below and in Anne Hurlburt's May 27, 1994 letter (copy enclosed). In accordance with the rules, the Commissioner and the city must solicit the input and approval of other governmental bodies that could be affected or impacted by the alternate controls. The city and the DNR are asicing that you provide your review and comments, if any, to either DNR or the city within to d>Yl of the date of this letter. If no response is received prior to then, we will assume that your city has no concerns with the neighboring city's proposal. The City of Plymouth is requesting flexibility from the following statewide standards: 1. Increase in the structure height limit. The statewide standards require that a 25 foot height limit be applied to all new structures in residential land use districts in cities. The city is requesting the '<.se of flexibility to allow structures a height limit of 35 feet in residential land use districts to keep many currently existing residences already constructed beyond the 25 foot limit from becoming nonconforming structures. The maximum allowable structure height under the "old" state shoreland rules was 35 feet. 2. Planned Unit Development (PUD) design and density calculation criteria. The city is requesting to retain its current methods for designing PUDs and calculating allowable densities within PUDs. These methods differ in approach from the tiering method in the state shoreland management standards. AN equal OPPOPTUMTY EMPLOYER KA.S — m Th« Honorable Edvard Callahan July 5, 1994 Paga (2) As statad aarllar, plaasa hava appropriata staff raviaw tha proposad flaxibility raquast and, if nacassary, provida your cowiants to na at tha addrass listad abova within 10 days. If thara ara any quastions, do not hasitata to contact aithar Anna Hurlburt, Plymouth community Davalopmant Diractor at 550*’5059, or ma at 772*7910. Sincaraly, Call Strauss Araa Hydrologist Enelosura CCS/cl Nika Gaffron, City Plannar Anna Hurlburt, City of Plymouth Ed Pick, DNR Shoraland Hydrologist ..r ♦hr May 27, 1994 CUV Of PLYMOUTH M\ Mrs. Ceil .Stnuss, Area Hydrologist State Dept of Natuial Resources, Metro Waten 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN S5106 RE: Updated Sboreland Management Regulations and Proposed Implementation Flexibility DearCeU, Thank you for assisting us as we finalize the update of Plymouth's Zoning Ordinance Shoreland Management Regulations. This letter ««p***"* ^ imptementation flexibility, as allowed by Sectioo 6120.2800 of the DNR Standaids, which the City identified in earlier submittal letter and which we discussed with you last week. The City bu successfully administered Shoreland Management regulatioot through a special protectioo zoning district since 1983. That will continue with the proposed ordinance amendments we prepared in response to the revised State Rules, recognizing the following as special circumstances which warrant alternative managemem standards. 1. Retention of the 35 foot height limit for aU structures in the Shoreland Management District. a. The revised DNR standard reduced the height limit by 10 feet, to 25 feet, for residential structures in cities. The 35 foot height limit has been applied to many residential structures that have been built since 1983, when the City adopted Shoreland Management regulatkms and the "new” 25 foot standard would render them umiecessarily non-conforming. c. The maximum height in all nesideotial and non-residential districts outside of the Shore land Managemem Area has been 35 feet or three stories and 45 feet or four stories, respectively, for many years. lVe> L sren • iVe Solve • We Care ”Ti,4 O'"' f’ COTA c ^ , ’’’EL F c,r^f>r) Ceil Stnuss Page 2 d. The City Shoreland Management district limit of 35 feet applies to both residential and non-residential stnictures.e. A Conditional Use Permit which requires a Public Hearing and notification of area property owners and the DNR is necessary to extend the height limit for structures in all districts. 2. Retention of the Planned Unit Devel density calculation criteria. It (PUD) design flexibility and a. The City has allowed use of the PUD for many years to obtain a higher quality of development than might otherwise be possible under strict plication of the Zoning Ordinance regulations for a particular district. b. The PUD plan review process is extensive and as a conditional use» is subject not only to Public Hearings but also DNR scrutiny when land in the Shoreland Area is involved. c. The PUD standards and criteria meld Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Code requirements whidi both qwcilkally address the intent and purpose of the Shoreland Managetnem Act. This, combined with related controls regarding wetlands, groundwater protection and tree preservation, for example, provide a very effective and sophisticated system that results in densities and designs that are consistent with the DNR standards. d. PUD design features, including structure height are those expUcitly described on the approved fmal plans, nans for both new PUD's and for amended developments are subject to the special requirements of the Shoreland Management District. e. Residential PUD density is calculated only for land above the ordinary high water level and is subject to the special requirements of the Shoreland Managemem District, including the preservation of open space. Density ranges for each residential classification are formally adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. f. The PUD is allowed only within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), and municipal services-particularly sanitaty sewen-must be available. The bulk of undeveloped shoreland that is not under public ownership is in the northwest quadrant of the City and mott of that is along the Ceil Strauss P»ge3 “0 »d around „o late,.^!*y i> <« Ihe null wivice area which doe, not allowUml Developmentt due to ite lack of public rewen. y«*«igo. let me know if addhionil infonnition ii needed SincerRly. Anne Hurlbuit, AICP Community Development Diiector cc:Bliir Tiemeree Public Affain Consulting Metropolitan Wutc Control CommissionMears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street. St. Paul. Minnesota 53101*1633612 222-M23 Jun« 30, 1994 Th« Honorable Edward Callahan and City Council Members City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323>0066 Dear Mayor (^X^t^han and City Council Members: As you probably know by now, the legislature passed the Metropolitan Governance Bill which eliminated the Chair and Boards of the RTB, MTC, and MWCC at various times during the next 12 months• I'm sorry I didn't get to visit with all of you in the district. I started going to the Council meetings in the more distant areas of the district and was working ay way in toward the Twin Citiee. My goal had been all cities by the middle of 1995. Hell, the legislature canceled that goal. July 1, 1994 was the date set for the MWCC, so as of that date I will no longer represent you. Depending on which Metropolitan District you are in, your questions and concerns should be directed to either Mary Smith or Julius Smith. Both are dedicated Metropolitan Council members and will try to assist you. ianice M. Hi Precinct B [en. Commissioner JMH:cc received jut 5 ftEC---MINUTES or THE MEETING OP THE BOARD OP EDUCATIONS OP ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.HELD ON JUNE 6, 1994 c*r»ofPrior to tho start of ths Board Deeting« tha Board manbors net with tha high school Studant Advisory Council in ordar to provida tha high school studant population tha opportunity for connunication/discussion with tha Board of Education. Tha ragular saating of tha Board of Education of Orono Indepandant School District 278 was hald on Monday, Juna 6, 1994. This naating was hald in placa of tha Juna 13, 1994 s^hadulad maating. Prasant:Dava NcKown Pag Swanson Thomas Mich Jamas Franklin Martha Van da Van Naal Lawson John Marash Pamala Schroeder Pag Swanson raquastad that an aganda itam ba added under New Business regarding a report on tha Parent Involvement Committee. Chairman McKown responded that the item would ba designated as "O" under New Business. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Pamela Schroeder, the consent agenda was approved as follows: approved the minutes of the May 9, 1994 regular meeting; “ approved the minutes of the May 17, 1994 regular meeting; approved the appointment of Keith A. Jurek as a part*time marketing/distributive education teacher at Orono High School for the 1994-95 school year; approved the appointment of Nathan N. Nelson as a counselor at Orono High School for the 1994-95 school year; approved the request of Paul Wild, high school Spanish teacher, for a leave of absence for the 1994-95 school year; - accepted the resignation of Barbara L. Danger, high school librarian/nedia specialist, effective at the close of her 1993-94 contract; - accepted the resignation of Peggy Meidinger, high school custodian, effective June 10, 1994; authorised Neal Lawson, Assistant to the Superintendent, to call for bids on items prior to the next Board meeting; * directed the Superintendent to approve teacher contracts from June 6, 1994 to September 12, 1994 in order to •ssure a full component of qualified teachers for the 1994-95 school year; - approved the Block Grant application in the amount of $13,302.00; vr'■ tSriiasr'SLSsis••tabli«h*d for tho purpoao* of monitoring, developing,and coordinating curriculum; ,ooa.- approved the Treasurer'e Report for April, 1994, accepted the donation of $600.00 for the Orono Special Needs Fund from the Christ Lutheran Church Women organization in Maple Plain; approved the bills as covered by vouchers 082497 through 082789 *directed administration to certify to the State Demographer the following population estiMtes for Orono ind^endent School District Mo. 278 which will serve m the basis for the Community Education and Early Childho^ Family Education Levy: District census is currently estimated at 11,885 and 0 to 4 population is estimated at 970. Dr Mich expressed congratulations to James Hummell who hasten named a National Merit Finalist along with Neil Smaby and that he was distributing a list of students who won awards at the Orono School District Awards Night which was held on May he was also distributing a list of eighteen middle school *t«den^ who received Presidential Academic awards; teaching a Peer Review course on June 28, 29 and 30 in that he was distributing the 1994 yearbook to each Board member, that he was distributing a list of the 1994 summer maintenance projects that will take place during the coming summer; that graduation will be held on Friday, June 10, and 9®""! each Board member are available after the meeting Recognition Breakfast will be held on Monday, June 13; that on June 29, there will be a reception honoring Dave McKown; that the annual meeting will be held at 7:30 a.m. on July 1. Dr. Mich stated that this is a bittersweet, as this is Dave McKown's last meeting after years on the Board of Education with eleven of those chairman of the Board. He shared with the Board •jcerpts Jrom the article he had written for the District Newsletter in which he expressed appreciation to Mr. McKown for ■•••y dedicated service and for the thousands of hours behalf of the school community: and residents. Dr. Mich stated that it has privilege and pleasure to have served with Dave worked with him these past eight y«*«« andDr. Mich's words and expressed appreciation for his ■•"torship and fairness in all that he dealt with in his years on the Board. UPON MOTION by Martha Van de Van, seconded by Pamela Board of Education authorised administration to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder for the Orono Primary and Student Center roofs. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Jim Pranklin, aacondad by Martha Van da Van, tha Board of Education authorized administration to award tha bid to tha lowest responsible bidder for repair of the Schumann Elementary and Orono Primary parking lots. Motion carried. Dr. Mich updated the Board on the plans of AMSD with respect to the 1995 legislative session reviewing various plans that have been developed or are in process through AMSD in order to give education a **voice** with the legislature. Dr. Mxch expressed appreciation to Pas Henjum for the work that she did with the legislature on behalf of education during this past year. UPON MOTION by Jin Frankli seconded by Martha Van de Van, the Board of Education approved the revised 7000 and 8000 policies/procedures as presented. Peg Swanson requested that a date be set at which tine the Board would receive information regarding the school bus safety issue. A date of January 1, 1995 was established. Motion carried. Peg Swanson reported on the work of the Parent Involvement Committee and, because of that work and on behalf of the PIC, she requested that the Board consider being the **host'* for a community forum for the purpose of checking the pulse of the community and what they see as issues. UPON MOTION by Martha Van de Ven, seconded by Peg Swanson, the Board of Education agreed to **host** (listen) a PIC forum sometime in late fall of 1994 to hear concerns/compliraents about the Orono School District. Notion carried. UPON NOTION by John Naresh, seconded by Pamela Schroeder, the Board of Education approved the High School Athletic Pees for hockey and football at $55.00 and all other athletic activities at $35.00. Nr. Lawson provided background information for the Board and reasons why the increase is set as such. He answered questions for clarification purposes. Notion carried. UPON MOTION by John Naresh, seconded by John Naresh, the Board of Education approved the student parking fee for 1994-95 at $44.00. Nr. Lawson presented the rationale for these increases and answered questions for clarification purposes. Motion carried. Regarding a temporary structure on the Orono Primary School campus. Or. Nich stated that this is owing to the expansion of the Early •■]1 * 1 Childhood Panlly Education and Community Education programs. Ha statad that as thasa programs hava gro%m, spaca has bacoma mora limitad. Ha prasantad tha plans for tha tamporary structura and statad that Community Education personnal, building and grounds parsonnal and alamantary principals hava bean involvad in tha ^••iQn and placamant of tha structura. Ha statad that administration is currently in tha process of saaking a conditional use permit from tha City of Mapla Plain and it is anticipated that tha building will be ready for use by December 1, 1994. Neal Lawson and Or. Mich answered questions from tha Board. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Pamela Schroedar, the Board of Education approved the recommended adoption for tha language arts program covering grades 1-8. Dr. Mich explained tha process of textbook selection by stating that each year textbooks are upgraded and updated in specific content areas with funding for this effort budgeted through tha capital fund. Connie Fladaland, Schumann Elementary Principal, provided background information on the process that was followed in selecting these textbooks, informing the Board that all of tha material has bean piloted. She stated that this is a very integrated process inclusive of the process of NCA, PER, tha cycle of reviewing curriculum and meeting specific goals each year, etc. Dr. Mich and Ms. Pladeland responded to questions from tha Board. Appreciation was expressed to Leona MacLaan, facilitator for this selection process, as well as all others who participated in this task as their work will impact students for several years. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Martha Van da Van, seconded by Pamela Schroadar, tha Board of Education adopted tha Improvement Goals for tha 1994-95 school year as follows: Explore tha need and develop recommendations for tha development of an integrated (K-12) study skills program. Study the current procedures for coordination of tha curriculum and develop recommendations to enhance tha communication, cooperation and curriculum coordination K- 12, including models which provide faculty time for thasa rasponsibi1ities. 1. 2. education fitnass and consider tha 4 . Enhance tha currant physical instruction at tha high school development of a fitness unit. Implamant an integrated approach to language arts (Houghton Mifflin: Tha Literature Exparianca) at tha alamantary level, providing insarvica for staff and evaluating tha program throughout tha year. #1 Conni* Flad«land and David Banaon, Assoclata Principal at Orono Middla School, provided infomation and ansvarad questions regarding the davalopsant of these goals. They inforaed the Board that these goals are an outgrowth of the North Central Association's recoanendations as well as reconnendations from our District PER Connittee. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Jin Franklin, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education approved the call for bids for silk and dairy supplies. Notion carried. UPON MOTION by Peg Swanson, seconded by Jin Franklin, the Board of Education approved the Director of Conaunity Relations 1994*96 contract. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Jin Franklin, seconded by Martha Van de Ven, the Board of Education approved the District Accountant 1994*96 contract. Notion carried. UPON NOTION by Dave McKoim, seconded by Jin Franklin, the neeting was adjourned. Motion carried. j^ohn Maresh, Clerk Jin Ffanklin,Chaiman y Mayor and City Council Ron Moorsc, City Administrator ^ ^ July 8. 1994 Subject: Council Update Old Crystal Bay Road Bike/Hike Trail. I have developed a draft cooperative agreement for the constniction of the bike trail that reflects the phased development of the trail and the sharing of costs between the City and Hennepin Parks. I will be meeting again with Doug Bryant to review the draft agreement. The draft agreement will then be provided to Council for review. Spring Park Police Contract. The Spring Park City Council at its July 5 meeting our proposal for the provision of police services. All five members of the Council are su^witive of renewing the contract. They plan to take action on the contract at their first meeting in August. I plan to contact Mayor Rockvam to encourage the Spring Park Council to consider a multi-year agreement. Highway 12. A. Based on direction at the June 21 work session. Charlene Zimmer will provide additional information regarding the impact of turn lanes on County Road 15. She will also research the question of the avenues available to Mn/DOT if a city vetoes the corridor alternative selected by Mn/DOT, Charlene indicated that from her experience the avenue open to Mn/DOT was to have the Metropolitan Council make the determination. This process is an arbitration type process in which each party makes its case to the Metropolitan Council and the Met Council makes a determination. Charlene will determine whether this option is available to Mn/DOT for this project. B. Valerie Reinaas has notified me that Barton-Aschman, the traffic moiling consultant, will be sending socio-economic information to the City for review to ensure it is accurate before plugging it into their traffic model. Personal Watercraft Ordinance. The LMCD has developed a personal watercraft oidinance for l.akg Minnetonka that would go a long way towards solving the problem on Long Lake (please see attached). However, the DNR has indicated they do not support the ordinance because it is too restrictive. Since the DNR has jurisdiction oyer Long Lake, they will not approve that oidinance. Joe Lynch, the Long Lake City Administrator, and I will meet with the DNR and the Hennepin County Water Patrol to discuss what could be an accepuble solution. Lasher Landing. The LMCIT is representing the City in this action. They have made an initial response to the suit (attached). John Gerhardson and Mike Gaffron have identified 36 similar accesses to Lake Minnetonka in Orono. John is in the jwocess of locating these on a map and providing a short description of how each is used. Council Update July 8. 1994 Page 2 6. Internal Financial Controls. As directed by Council. Tom Kuehn has contacted the City's auditors regarding the auditors’ concern about internal financial controls in terms of the division of responsibilities in the finance department. The auditors are reviewing the current operation in preparation for a meeting with Tom Kuehn and myself at which options for addressing the division of duties will be explored. A recommendation will be provided to the Council at the July 25 Council meeting. 7. Performance Evaluations. The clerical/technical and public works maintenance performance evaluations have been completed using the new performance evaluation forms. I will be meeting with the staff teams to evaluate the process and forms. 8. Employee Survey. The results of the Employee Survey, tabulated by deparunent, have now been received. I will be scheduling meetings with each departmem to review the results. A Police Department meeting has been scheduled for Thursday. July 21 to review and discuss the survey results. 9. Old Crystal Bay Road Bridge Replacement. The bridge replacement project will begin on July 18. Old Crysul Bay Road will be closed to through traffic between Highway 12 and Watertown Road from July 18 through October. Letters have been sem to the residents in the area to notify them of the project. A news release will also be published the week of July 11 to notify Orono residents of the project and to encourage them to use alternate routes that have a signalized intersection on Highway 12. ^-27-1994 09:04 CI”Y CF ._uNb lhk£O 4 w • G I G. > LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - o^/o *ORONO WAYZATA it 4\ MOUND 2 ★ o * victoria ' MINNETONKA SHORWOOO • i.- • • 150' from shorcilrtc **QUIET WATERS** AND **SLOW** AREAS Proceed ec minimum wake aloof shoreline and in ocher areas as indicated on Lake Minnetonka (I 4. Norm Arm <1 e Qioyoewnoi-Couommy 7. Q.«voBoir (Qroyo Bay 0am 1 Camonaitay EMERGENCY SYNOPSIS Of THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT _ BOATINC ORDINANCE ^ ^ HENNEPIN CO. SHERIFf'S DEPT. WATER PATROL DIVISION DON OMOOX SHERIFF WATERCRAFT means any contrivance used or designated for navigation on water. ACE MINIMUM FOR OPERATOR OF WATERCRAFT — Except in case of an emergency, no person under the age of 13 snail operate or be permitted to operate any watercraft, including a personal watercraft, propelled by a motor with a factory rating of more than 24 horsepower unless there is present m the watercraft in addition to the operator at least one person of the age of 18 or over. No person 1 3 years of age or over but less than 1 8 years may operate a watercraft over 24 hp without possessing a valid operators permit from the MN DNR. PiKSONAL WATERCRAFT means a watercraft less than 14 feet in length powered by a water let pump and which can be operated by persons sitting, standing or kneeling. ALL WATERCRAFT LAWS APPLY TO PERSONAL WATERCRAFT UNLESS THEY CONFLICT WITH PERSONAL WATERCRAFT LAWS. IN WHICH CASE THE PERSONAL WATERCRAFT RESTRIC­ TIONS CONTROL ^ Speed Rcstfictlons. No person maB operate i.personal wetiacrift sfMad.in excess of ^ five milcf pfT hour.pi'^ a spaed wNch. resuRsjri mosgUMn 8 minimili wake wRhin 1 50 feet of aaiymhOBiahc iwimmaf, Anchored bo^porwo IBiihgii fnMnn^'docfc or other water structure. Between 130 and 300 feet a# ini^. the flee mie'piir hour and minimum wake resirteiiona apsW untaes the persorW waiercrafl is bemg driven perpendicular to the shoreline:ARd to orki^ thoiMareft pome clf wetcr )00 feet from the shoreline or parallel Other Rest abled or rer waiercrafl.'* weaving th: hibited.Op minutM su. between *su be wpm-a* wattg^^f Rental of f person wh. >».• « W“ • • INVEST pr. *•— » i'L. * Cor - wee stuo r- pres Prov pub lake -• Prep *. lake : confi. • AsiUf' Patre ^ Fu • ond Oispc This: frogr take; at a >UN-27-1994 09:05 Cl TV OF LOrCi LhKE 9i2 -*V6 i-.U.thcr Kelt >ted or. rc*- M«rcr«lt.^ Mvtagth*imitn su. iOwtoK-iu mtalof f (rsoQ«^ NVEST pr MVZATA* r __ •Tr c”->«is- Ki.. ^4 •«•. -^T , • • . • "*t^i t‘-Vlg ■ 4A*SPC^mTf^nmss^ '• ,t/.-A vv, ^ Other Restrictions. No perspn shall operate a personal watercraft with an altered, dis* ^ abled orrcoiov^ automatic cut-off device, lumping the wake.within 150 feet of another wateivaft is prohlbitod-'Cardeisor reckless operation of a personal watercraft, such as by weaving through congested boat traffic or swerving close to another watercraft, are pro­hibited. Qp^abon ol a.personai watercraft in a single area for more than 30 consecutive minutei>|yc^tt'may uuseAt^noyanee to others Is prohibited. Operation is prohibited belwmsuhsct^^ suMi«e; A»rSi.Coast Guard approved personal floautiorvdevices must be worn at alf mlnimumjge provisions forwater^oj^mtoniapply « well.Rentarof Personal Watercraft. No person shall rent a personal watercraft of any kirKl to a person who is less than 16 years of age or who is age 16 to 18 and not in possession of an operator's permit required by law. Persons renting personal watercraft must provide to renters a summary of laws and rules governing the operation of personal watercraft, instruction as to the actual operation of the personal watercraft, and a U.S. Coast Guard approved personal floatation device. MINIMUM WAKE DEFINED — For the purposes of this section, a minimum wake is the wave moving out from a watercraft and trailing behind in a widening “V* of insufficient size to affect other watercraft or be detrimental to the shoreline. OPERATION — Towing penon on water skis or other device. Observers Required. Watercraft may not be operated to tow a person on water skis, an aquaplane, surfboard, saucer, or similar device, unless there is in such watercraft another person in addition to the operator in a position to continually observe the person being towed. The operator of such watercraft shall be at least 12 years of age and must watch where the watercraft is being dnven at all times. The second person on board shall act as observer of the person being towed, shall be at least 12 years of age and shall watch the person, or persons, being towed at all times. Additional age restrictions for operating watercraft over 24 hp are described in ACE .VtINiMUM section above. Hours. No person shall be towed, or shall operate a watercraft towing a penon on any such device on the lake at any time from one-half hour after sunset to sunrise of the day following. No person shall be towed, or shall ooerate a watercraft towing a person on any such device unless the person being towed is weanng a life vest, belt or other buoyant device. If the buoyant device worn is not a U.S. Coast Guard approved personal flotation device, a U.S. Coast Guard approved personal flotation device must also be on board and readily xcessibie to the penon being towed. No person shall be towed by a rope, cable or other towing device longer than 85 feet, except with the written permission of the sheriff. ^ * Not more than three persona may be towed at one time, except with the written pcrm.$- • ^ ^ o ^ * mMSion of the shenff I No person shall operate vaterersft when towing a person, and no person being towed shall come within 150 f of any bathing area, skin or scuba diver's warning flag, swim­ mer, rift, watercraft, dc or pier except the raft, dock or pier from which operating. No person shall drag an unoccupied tow line behind a watercraft for an unreasonable length of time. -• — No person shall tow or be towed into or through any marked channel connecting two bodies of water of the lake. . • - MAXIMUM SrtED -1 No waUrcraftlnay be operated on the take at a speed In excess of the following limits:. I a. 40 miles per hour dunng the daytime; b. 20 miles per hour during the nightCIme; c 5 miles per hour in the foilovring areas ...... . , „ • a quiet water area. ■ ~ • that area within 150 feet of the shoreline of the lake. • that area within 1 50 feet of an authorized bathing area or swimmer, an authonzed scuba diver's warning flag, an anchored raft or watercraft, or a dock or pier except that from which the watcfcraft with a person in tow is being operated. QUIET WATER AREAS — No person shall operate a motor operated watercraft, including waterborne aircraft, on those areas of the lake at a speed in excess of 5 miles per hour, or at a speed which results in more than j minimum wake. The areas of the lake restricted to i a ‘A-P OPHAM H AIK u.«. o#»iec»» tbv ao»-«B»-1 too Miami , B ubmiba TCk. »0«-t9O*BOB0 WASNIMBTMM. o.e. tbi . aoa-«Bt«BToe suiTc asoo 222 South Ninth stbbkt MiNNCABOLia. MINNSSOTA 9S4Q2 Tti. 6I2-333-4SOO FAX ei2>334.SSSS KSVIN •TAWNTON* CM- OmCCT DlAt {%%Mf M94^tO LBlAtiB. OCAMAMT II ti l-ABti Stmttoaat . til OI I4B<7I l.tXlBl June 28. 1994 .1JCIQM >J :>lvi H fAL ATTOR Mvl LEGE George C. Hoff Hoff, Bxny A Kuderer. P.A. 7901 Flying Cloud Drive Suite 260 Eden Prairie. MN 5S344>7914 Re: Linden v. City of Orono Dear George: 1 an writing to sunnarize our telephone conversation this norning. As I have indicated to you. I discussed the possibility of settlement with the City Council in closed last "«gfc» Specifically. 1 summarized the contents of your letter of June 27. 1994 (which 1 have also forwarded to the City Administrator under separate cover letter) and outlined terms on which you and Tom Barrett thought the case might be settled. A motion was made and seconded to authorize settlement on those terms but failed by a 2-2-1 vote. Accordingly, we will need to proceed with filing an Answer to the Complaint I wndftTtf"** tbt* you will be undertaking that tarit If you need any assistance, please feel free to call. ^ery truly yours, cc: Ronald Moorae ^ Tom Barrett 1h Staunton POPHAM HAIK• CHNOaiMCM A K A U F M A •# , L T O U.S OPViCtft OCAvt*. COkOa*0o r«w JO1-A0S* I too Miami . FkoaiOA T04. 0of>iao<ooso WA0MIM0TOW. O C TAi. tot*0«8-«too SUITS 8300 222 south ninth ST«cst Minnkaaolis . Minn «»ota SS402 TCL 6l2-333«4SOO FAi 612 334-SSSS MVIN P. •TAUMTON. KM« OmCCT DlAk <Oiai SM^IO UlTCMMATiOMAk O^^lCtt LCt^flO. OCMHAMV STU^^GAVT. (ItAMANV rcu Of 146-7I l-iaJA3 June 28. 1994 rONFinENTIAL ATTORNEV/CLIENT PRIVILEGE Ronald 1. Moorse City Administrator City of Orono Municipal Offices Post Office Box 66 2730 Kelley Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Lindell v. City of Orono Dear Ron: please find a letter from George Hoff, the attorney repreaenting the City on of the insurance carrier Ui the above-referenced matter. I received this letter from Mr. Hoff by fax prior to the CouncU’s meeting on June 27.1994. I summarized ^ contents of the letter in a closed session discussion with the Council at its meeting that night 1 am forwarding it to you so that you can distribute it to the Council members as a foUow-up to our discussion. Please be sure to treat this document confidentially-it is important that it is received only by the Council members. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. Jy. P. Staunton Enclosure cc: George Hoff Tom Barrett 2I9G2Q23MI4GIA4 Hofr« lorry 1 Ku«*or#r 612941 79«0 t. • HoFFf Barry & KuderernOPEMIONAL AS900A110H JUritt 27, 1994 MNW«n J rAxmMti TtniwfofmHtoncnfiw^lfttti>>l>ciiwilimtfin»to9>hHlMi9OT#cowild>imil lofomwilon liiMcidtd for the um of tlw ■<»■■■•■ Istsd below and no one otoo. If you oro nottbo Intended recipient or the employee or agent reepenelblo to deMiortNemeeeego to the Intended roclplent,pleeeo do not me tNejrenendeilon in any way, but contact the eender by telephone. TO: Kevin ftaunlene Company/Pirm: Fophem/Heik Telephone Number: 333*4900 From: George C. Hoff If irmimiiiton problinii occur AfkFor: _________ ere not the inWndtd c No. of Pejiee following: ^ FAX Number: 334*9999 piooM cal uf at (912) 941-9220< SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS I Re: LindaH v« Orono a Kevin* a a Pleeae find with tNe, the opinion letter for the Cny of Orono which we diecutiod on the phonetodey. It it my imderManding that you wW be preaenting thie letter to. or aummaricinp He contenta for, the CHv Council in a cloeed eaeeion tonight, e^ that it ie rwt heceeeery that I attend the meeting. If you do feel it neceaaary for me to attend, let me know eo that I can try end rearrange my echedule. You wil be coWng me tomorrow with the reauha of the mooting end how the City wenta to proceed. That ie. do they want to purM aet tlement elong the Nnee auggeatod by the Flairi tiffe. After you hove reviewed the letter if you heva eny queationa or commenta, pleea e feel free to cel me. George Hoff SaM41fl4mm Moff< Borrv B Kud»i'»r * 1294 IT968 02• i 6»BAaov»j«. Hoff, Bakry & KudexerFXOPimoNAL AnocunoN * Juno 37, 1994 [AL-ATT0Mll¥/CLlOT WIITTI.MH numoMifiiS) r«‘ Hr. ThoMB J. iBrrott POPHMI, RHIX taniOBRXCH ft KAUFHMIr LTD. Attom«ys At Lftv 3300 Flpor-Jaffray Tow«r 233 South 9th stroot MinnoftpoliSf HH 95402 RE: JoroM ft Lindoll v. city of Orono BR8 rilO Not 11009031 Our rilo No: 3300-019 I Oo«r Tob: • follow-up to our Motlng with tho Fluintiffo' ottornoy ro9«raiii9 poooiblo oottlOBont of tho obovo Mttor on Juno 23, 1994. Ao wo diocuoood, it ooy bo uooful for tho City Council to hovo our viow of thio litisotion prior to Mhing ony dooioiono on oottloBont. z undorotond tho oottor will bo dii Mooting on Juno 37, 1994.oeuodod tho Ao I undorotond tho focto, o town rood woo orootod in tho loto ItOO'o, but no rocordotion of tho roodwoy woo nodo withitho County Rooordor within 40 yooro of ito orootion. Tho City hoo no ovidoneo of Mointononoo oetivity toking ploco on tho dioputod roodwoy. It io undioputod thot tho City did not do ony oort if rogulor MintononM on ^o rood. Tho rcMd hoo boon wood poriOdleolly in Njf • Itoitod group of ioo fiohoraon, whoa, it oooao oro knowa to tho odjocont ownoro, ond howo boon **ollowod** to uoo tho proporty for oceoao to tho loko In tho wintor. Of loto; thoro hoo Mon inorooood uoo by onowaobiloro. j is roforonco in titlo docuaonto rolotod to tho Nloiatiffo' if? • "oido rood* which io tho dioputod rooiwoy. Tho Flointiffo hovo oloo foneod thoir proporty up to tho odgo of whot io tho dioputod roodwoy. ; WWW WilCURMil u« rAffM4.7n« r»iwa mnwBMn Hof#« Borrv % Kudvt*»r 6129417968 . 0S• < 1 I Jun« 27, 1994 Mr. ThOMP J. Barrvtt P«9« Two MEt JoroM • Lindoll v. City of Orono BR8 rilo HOI 11005931 our rile No: 3200-019 The ioeoo roiood by the Plaintiffo la» that the City cfiinot claia any intoroat in the diaputod roadway boeauao the City, failed to record ita interoat in the real eatate within forty (4f) years of its creation, thus barrinB any claia it aay have pursuant to the Harketablo Title Act, Minn. Stat. SS41.023 (hereinafter MTA). That statute provides that an Interest in real estate is eonelusivoly ahandenad# if recordation of the interest in real estate is not aade within 40 years of the creation of that interest, in this case it aaans that the City (or town at that tiaa) would have to have recorded its interest by the 1930's. That was not done. It is the Pleintiffs' position that the failure to record is fatal to any claia the City say have to the roadway. Asoueing the factual scenario eat forth above to be correct, it is ay opinion that the City will not be successful in having the disputed roadway declared a public way. I I Minnesota Courta have applied the MTA to public roadways. Ravenna Townohip V. Crundsath. 314 N.H.2d. 214 (Minn. 19S1). Therefore, if the City ca^ d^strete that it neats the MTA standard, its claia to the roadway will fail. It is undisputed that the City did net record its interest in the roadway e^.thin the 40 years remired by the MTA. Thus, under the MTA, City has conclusively abandoned its interest in the roadway. This conclusion of abandenaent can, however, evercoae by a showing of "possession** of the property at issue. Minn. stat. 9941.023, subd.a. There are sevoral cases which have dealt with claias by public bodies that they have sufficient poMession of roadways to evercoae the presuaption of abandenaent. !(;hose cases have held that even liaited aaintenance is not sufficient to evercoae the presuaption of abandenaent. (Bee areriino vs. fijcictin, 309 Minn. 230 244 ll.M.2d. 129 (1979) Wherein the town 4Ud soae ainiaal grading and slight ditching; in sawMip sons police patrols of the area were dene, along with gravel placeaent; in Fester vs. Bargstroa and Pine City. 919 H.V.2d 991 (Minn. App. 1994) there was ainiaal and sporadic aaintenance: with the depositing of sons fill.) in our case, there hes edaittedly been no aaintenance by the City, or Its predecessor, clearly, if the Clty*s ease «iere to rest on the aaintenance done, it wodld fail to overcoae the presuaption of abandonaent. one case in Minnesota did consider the affect of ecknowledgeaent of a roadway by adjacent property owners. In _ _ _ _ _ _ Chisaop. 370 M.w.id. 920 (Minn. App. 1995), the C^rt found that the presuaption of abandonaent had been overcoae by a osabiaatiea of Jcnowledge of the public read and aaintenance activity. Inaintiff's awareness of publiHenley the Court found that the Fl<public use Horf< Borrv B Kudoror * 12941T96eJun« 87, 1994Mr* Them* BarrettPaB* Three RB: Jeroee & Lindell v. City BR8 rile Bo: 11005931 Our Pile Not 3200-019 Orono and aeknoviedgmnt of tha City'* Interaet cenbined’ with tha plaeemnt and repair of eulverta and building up of thd road, vaa enough to overeene the abanderaiant otharviae preaumd by the atatuta. our iT-[ M-ifT eware of the **aide road*_ _t the ereeertv dwnera were i a atatemnt in title ifecodg and tm StC. the city intended to poaaeaa the real aatate, there deaa -not appear to be auffieient evidenee of poaaeaaien to overeom the |>re*umtion of abandenaent. t Many of the above eaaea alao deal with atatutery dedieaition under Hinn. Btat. fiao.09. To eatabliah a road uaing that atatute, it ia neceaaary that there be evidence of working the roadwayHere, no I ^ I work waa dene. Thua, a public roadway could net be cratated uaing Ninn* Btat* Biao.09. We alao diacuaaed tha idea of overriding public policy favoring public acceaa to Lake Ninnetonka. In our review, we could not find any caae idiieh would allow auch "public intereat" to override the mk and "tte policy of the itate of Ninneaota that, ; except aa herein provided, ancient record* ahall net fetter the mrketability of real eatate.* Ninn. Btat. $941,023, aubd.9. Indeed, the general atatute on creation of acceaa, while certainly favoring acceaa, provide* that auch aeceaaea ahall be created by eninent domin, not by force of atatutery policy. Ninn. Btat. 9197h.l41. i fwegoing will be of aaaiatance to you aiid the City Council in their diacuaaiena concerning aettleaent of tU* natter. Bincere] gex. HoXf HOPP, BMWy ft RUDERBR, f.h. GCNzbaj cc: client Hoft, Barry & Ku »j w :< M: niOFESSIOHAL ASSOCUnON July 1, 1994 r4xiiU)9a-9Ni Paul B. Zisla O'CONNOR t HANNAN 3BOO ZDS Cantar •0 South tth St. Minnaapolia, MN 55402 RE: JaroM A Lindall v. city of Orono BRS Pila No: 11005631 Our Pila No: 3200-019 Oaar Mr. Ziala: Encloaad haravith and aarvad upon you by Onitad Stataa nail plaaaa find Anavar of tha City of Orono in connaction with tha abova- eaptionad nattar. Siraaraly, Gaorga C. Hoff HOPP, BARRY 6 KDDERER, P.A. GCH EnclDsura ec: Ronald Nooraa, City Adninistrator Thonaa Barratt, Pophan Kaik O:\iraAtA\mMifaaui0i tn rASSMi^1M4 f^mm STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY or HENNEPIN DISTRICT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL John D. Jorono and Sandra X. Jarona; and Craig A. Lindall and Jannifar J. Lindall, Plaintiffs, vs. COURT FILE: II ^ V City of Orono, a Minnasota ■unicipal corporation. Dafandant. Tha City of Orono, for its Ansvar to tha Coaplaint in tha abova-captionad sattar, statas: 1. Excapt as harainaftar adnittad, danias aach allagation of tha Plaintiffs' Coaplaint and puts than to thair proof tharaon. 2. Tha City of Orono is without inforaation or knowladga sufficiant to fora a baliaf as to Paragraphs 1, 2, 5, and 17 of tha Plaintiffs' Coaplaint and puts thaa to thair proof tharaon. 3. with raspact to Paragraph 3, adaits that tha propartias hava a coaaon boundary, but affiraativaly allaga that said cosBon boundary is sub j act to a public roadway. 4. With raspact to Paragrai^ 4, adaits that ica fisharaan hava usad tha proparty in 1991 and 1992 and in prior yaars. Also adaits that snowaobilars hava travalad tha araa in tha yaar 1991 and ^.992. o\wroATA\na»mMUAiNN(MMiN«m mu 5. Adaits Paragraph 6. 6. With raapaet to Paragraph 7» adaita that tha Plaintiffs inforaad City officiala of thalr baliaf, danioa that said baliaf haa validity or is accurata. s 7. Adaits Paragraphs 6 and 9. 8. With raspact to Paragraph 10, adaits that tha lattar was vrittan and that its contant spaaka for itsalf* Affiraativaly allaga that the lattar was writtan by City staff without City Council approval, which is tha only body that can bind tha City of Orono. Adaits Paragraphs 11 and 12 10. Oanias Paragraph 13. 11. Adaits Paragraphs 14 and 15. 12. With raspact to Paragraph 16, adaits that tha Jaroaa proparty was ragistarad but is without suffieiant inforaation or knowladga to fora a baliaf as to what inforaation was disclosad or availabla at tha tiaa of tha original ragistration. 13. Danias Paragraph 18. 14. Adaits Paragraphs 19 and 20. 15. Danias Paragraphs 21 and 22. 16. Adaits Paragraphs 23 and 24. 17. Danias Paragraphs 25, 26 and 28. 18. Adaits that tha City elaias an intarast in tha disputad proparty, but danias that said intarast constitutas an advarsa claia to tha Plaintiffs. 19. Danias Paragrai^s 31, 32 and 33. 20. Adaits Paragraph 35. 21. Danias Paragraphs 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42 and 43. 22. With r«spect to paragraphs 27, 29, 34 and 39, said paragraphs ars rs-allsgations of prior paragraphs and tha answsrs Btatsd to ths individual paragraphs in this answsr shall apply to tha ra-allagations. 23. As and for affimativa dafansas, tha City of Orono K. That tha City of Orono has "possassion** of tha disputad roadvay within tha aaaning of Tha Markatabla Tit la Act, Minn. Stat. $541,023, through a conbination of public usa and acknowladganant of tha roadway by tha Plaintiffs and thair pradacassors in intarast. b. Tha public has usad tha disputad proparty for accass to Laka Minnatonka which is a regional rasourca. It is against tha policy of tha Stata of Minnesota to allow abandonaant of said traditional accassas to public resources. c. By Plaintiffs' acknowladgaaant and conduct consistent with tha axistanca of a roadway on tha disputad property, they have waived any right to assart that tha roadway does not exist over tha disputad property. d. Tha Plaintiffs have suffered no daaaga as a result of any actions of tha City of Orono. a. Tha Plaintiffs assuaad all risk of any alleged daaagas as a result of thair acquisition of tha property with notice that public accass usa occurred adjacent to thair property. f. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claia upon which relief can be granted. NHBREFOitX, D.f«Hl.nt City of Orono pr.y. for judgi«nt of th.court dl..i..ing th. PUlntiff.' c».. of .ctlon ...rdln, to 0.f«-«.t it. co.t. .nd dl.lmr.«.nt. h.r.ln. Dat«d:1994 ^ovqm wr Hoff Atternoy for Oofondont city of Orono HOFF, BARRY i KOOERER, P.A. Suit* 2607901 Flying Cloud Drivo Edon Proirio, Mn. 55344 I-' Th. und«.l9n.« purmiMt to 2. to tt. P«ty og.in.t -ho. th. in thl.’pl~Ci»« .r. .M.rt.d. i i HOFF,lY 6 KUDCRER* P*A I BECE''^' JUH 30 »94 csn of opo!^^ June 28, 1994 Ronald Moorse Admr. PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN Dear Ronald: 55323-0066 Metropolitan cities face several critical issues that will be discussed by the 1995 Legislature. Urban poverty and the apparent disparity of affordable housing near job creation centers was a laatter of much discussion during the 1993 and 1994 sessions and will continue when la%nBakers return in 1995. How to pay for reinvestment/rehabilitation as well as providing more housing opportunities for low and noderate incows persons will be a prise topic. The local government trust fund will be replaced by an index for LGA starting with aids payable 1996. School funding is ^®P**i*^ after 1998. HACA is a target for other programs. Property tax relief tied to income is becoming popular. All of the above plus more revenue issues could have major impact on city finances. ' We want your views on these and other issues of importance to establish the legislative direction for the Association of Municipalities for the 1995 session. To provide a forum for this exchange of ideas, we are planning our ninth annual summer Outreach Breakfast for you and other city officials in your area. The breakfast is scheduled for Tuesday, July 19, at 7:30 A.M. in the Wellington Room at the Minnetonka Ramada Plaza Hotel (formerly Radisson) located on the southeast comer of the IntmrutAtm 395 and Ridgedale Drive interchange. Exit the J*'^*5*^?^* At Ridgedale Drive, turn south and drive one block to the hotel on the left. Please R.S.V.P. to Carol, 490-3301 by noon Monday, July 18. Your input on the following issues will be helpful for policy development: tr i * Urban poverty and how to combat it; J494 leungios avcaiK north, sL panl, oiioncsoia 55124 (412) 494>3341 Ity * Effective location of affordable housing in conjunction with job creation and/or location;* and highway funding alternatives;* Revenue issues such as LGA/HACA funding and distribution, reinvestment funding, TIP, etc., and; * How to influence or obtain conaitments and/oi- Isgislators^^^^*^^**” ®etro issues with metro This is not a formal gathering and we hope for lots of Jr?" opimon., con?.rS2 .is ad?fc wiU "*'**’* **" *"<• prioritl.. for th. 1995 ™u'd ”ikJ“S SM°thS".ss S2 ^s" "•r? *** the way of member servicea^e there other support services that we should orovide or’ l>prov«i.nt. to th. .xi.tin, ..rvic. tS.? SSJ to .ttond your .r«. br.akf.st by S^srs^nSi*iRL"_ ***f^”^favailable to city council^ members a^ Interested staff persons. As alwavs if v«u >!««#« any <iu..tion., pl.as, call «!“«« oificS. Sincerely, Craig AMN President Brooklyn Park Manager Coral Houle AMH Board Member Bloomington Councllmember Nary Rapliond ANM Board Member Deephaven Councllmember TO:Mayor CaUahan and Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Adm. DATE:July 8, 1994 SUBJECT: Fagemess Point Joint Dock INFORMATION ONLY List of Exhibits A - 6/9/94 Letter to Rademachers B - Plat Map/Sketch C - 6/28/94 Letter from Rademachers ^ On June 2nd the Building & Zoning sttff toured approximately 15 miles of our Lake Minnetonka shoieline by boat. One of the situations we found was that the inlet on the east side of Fagemess Point Road conttined boats registered mainly to persons not living in the Fagemess Point area. This prompted staff to pursue the issue of a joint use dock license with the new owners of the property. Briefly, the dock system was onginally constructed thirty years ago for use of property owners in the plat of Maple Gate Inlet, comprising some 12 lots which are now all developed. Through the years, the City has on various occasions attempted to bring this joint dock imo but met with little success. However, given tlie recent obvious "abuse* of the deeded access fenwp an appatem slip renul situation, suff is pursuing it rather vigorously now. Rademachers are relatively new owners of the parcel on which the docks exist, and have hem quite cooperative, but are meeting some resistance from the neighborhood easement holders in regards to applying for a joim use dock license. In the last month, suff has complied a fairly extensive file on the history of this dock use area, and will keep Council informed as things progress. li • Mb Ik June 9, 1994 GlTYofORONO Municipal Offices Strctt Address; 2750 Kelley Parkway Orona. UN $5356 Maiiinf Address: P 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay. UN 55323 0066 Mr. and Mrs. Donald Rademacher 1837 Fagemess Point Road Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Re: Illegal Boat Docking at Lot 31, Coffey’s Addition to Shadywood Dear Mr. and Mrs Rademacher: Hennepin County tax records indicate you are the owners of the above referenced property upon which a dock and boat slips have apparently existed since the early 1960s. The City is aware that at some time in the past, easements may have been created which purport to grant boat docking rights to the off-lake property owners within the Mapiegate Inlet subdivision. Use of this dock system by the easement holders requires that a joint use dock license be obtained from the City per Municipal Code Section 5.42 (attached). No joint use dock license has ever been obtained for this dock system. You are currently in violation of the licensing requirements. Funher, during a recent lakeshore inspection tour. City staff found that all seven boats docked at the site are registered to persons other than property owners within the Mapiegate Inlet subdivision. By definition, such use constinites the 'business of docking, mooring, or storing boats ’ which is not allowed in residential zoning districts. You are hereby required to immediately take the following actions: 1. Discontmue the dockage of boats not registered to property owners within the plat of Mapiegate Inlet. 2. Apply for the appropriate jomt use dock license for use of the slips by Mapiegate Inlet homeowners' boats onlv.# A joint use dock license application is enclosed for your use, plus a listing of the owners of the boats which were docked at the site on June Zod. T«l«plMNM (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 5323^ Mr. and Mrs. Donald Radcmachcr June 9, 1994 Page 2 FaUure <o comply with the above retptirements within 14 days will result m legal action to gain compliance. Please conuct me or Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ■ i Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch Enc. Municipal Code Sections 5.42 & 5.43 Joint Use Dock License Application cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning .Adm Ron Moorse, City Administrator Thomas Barrett. City Attorney Rachel Thibault. LMCD Owners within Maplegate Inlet Boat Owners f ♦ »lT~in'2-2 2 2.^^^ /4l^ 3, ^XT*MI*____________________/3/f* fi-^AlAJHitAnft 3*5-^*)/L»l3^^hJ.____J7^»n u!b.-fteTiCtt,^!§^ -____________________________________________/82i!_Cii:jif^t;»j Pi 1^6________________________________rs ii /_____________IlUc-. ^ n in^n qpW a. —_____________fnif P. £s'^_____(^tHMft. La» <fcr*£5^___ ___■ __________ Bon.iT It^ 3y7<Xt—Lr 2- fit 1^. I_____13 :UlrJLi il *\~»4i.Oa ^ <6<U»«A«»K»<ft. _/8i'2_S<;*?**-»K.4j f^. ^-u__ /■^3>.i<i^ 2^ ^-l^•^->^ ‘2,\ cfxA /fc7r s»»^vv»t<i*-^iL- Uif^u/T%, fVs>jsf-'aii. V • AsLdj^i dl^isrj 1 IL2(—-.c22 u—!iniiitttt.i ------------------------fni^ ________________k^a=^2s:i3l _____ ^ _il^Q;i2- a.l -OSes'__g. —i ______________________\1'^ ft:A— ______________________________Lkifai^. mu------------- LslLjL. i___i2'itLLl_ Lsr ^Jk^\__C2:ia^ ll -I i ooi-i !____ _3 i ! C^*«»w Coofc...................... Sr. - ii-T ^ iiUljrJ- ?2_' rc*,-.*t Ji rIi-2A Jfk .3 3^2 '/ __i**C_S n-n7»ii float, <. _________________l7/r F*Cm^*trntx _____________________ycM/_______________ {.•T-k ?:. _-n-iQ-n 7.'^ ^17 _______________in<4\ A ________________k>Tfc§«-?» gyaii^ J_I t::; ••'.iS --------f •-------------- 1 ' m1nItmi 9•ff!•»»p •11 ut •«s *4 n m»9 Mr. and Mrs. Donald P. Rademacher 1837 Fagerness Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 June 28. 1994 Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Adm. City of Orono Municipal Offices 27^ Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 m Dear Mr. Gaffron. We are responding to your letter dated June 9.1994 concerning the boat dockage at Lot 31. Coffey’s Addition to SHadywood. We purchased the property in December 1992 without knowledge of the correspondence between the city of Orono and prior owners of Lot 31. Although we have been in contact with both the city of Orono and the LMCD gathering information, we require additional time to fully evaluate the entire situation. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Donald P. Rademacher RECEtVEr JUL 1 1994 CITY OF ORONO 4 r-’Fn.R THRONOLOGY « 1800 FAGERNESS POINT ROADMAPLEGATE INLET JOINT USE DOCK AREA 5/8/61: City Council minutes contain the entry "plat presented by Mr. Kragness of the Eberhardt Company for "Maplegaie Inlet" was approved". No other information appears in the minutes. 5/17/61: Plat of Maplegate Inlet filed with the County. 5/22/61: Kelly and Kelly surveyors sketch and dockage easement descriptions. Circa 1962: Kelly and Kelly sketch of plat for Eberhardt offering brochure. 12/12/62: Kelly and Kelly sketch of cliannel area and dockage easements. 7/8/63: Village of Orono Ordinance No. 54 requiring licensing before joint use of lake facilities. Circa 1970: Air photo indicating main dock and 5 to 6 slips located in the inlet area. 7/7/73: Gordon R. Coffin draft easement document, apparently providing language to be included when properties are transferred. 11/19/75: Eberhardt letter to Mayor Searles offering the property to the City. 12/1/75: Memo from Village Administrator to Park Commission for placing this request on 12/16/75 Park Commission agenda. 7/18/78: Eberhardt letter to Mayor VanNest again offering the inlet properties to the City. 8/1/78: City Planner Alan Olson i.tspection slip and memo recommending that: • City not accept the property • Eberhardt establish an association of easemem holders • Joint use dock license be required • Condition of license be that a conservation easement be obtained over remainder of marsh 8/8/78: Photos 8/9/78; Computer list of boat registrations at site (these four boat owners were sent agendas for 8/15/78 Council meeting). 8/15/78: Council minutes. After some discussion. "Mayor VanNest moved, Pesek seconded to reject the offer of the Eberhardt Company for property at Fagemess Point and to inform Mr. Nelson that the existing docks arc illegal structures, noting that there is no record of a multiple use dock license application. Motion, ayes 3 - nays 0." 8/24/78: A. P. Olson letter to Nelson informing him of Council action and advising Eberhardt Company to remove the docks or obtain a required joint use dock or multiple dock license prior to M&i:!: 1979. Circa 1981: City Assessor’s tax valuation records. 2/23/81: Hennepin County tax book indicates Eberhardt Company is owner of 17-117-23 23 OOUS, the main iivirt parcel. Circa 1982: Hennepin County tax book indicates James and Helen 6nMH»M}f 1837 Fagemess Point Road are owners of 17-117-23 23 0005. 1/17/86: Hennepin County tax book indicates owners of parcel are still James and Helen 8/11/86: Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Janies ^mamr to Building Inspector Tom Jacobs indicating registration numbers of boats stored at the site. Circa 1989: Air photo indicating 8-9 docks at inlet. 2/26/91: Hennepin County lax book indicates James and Helen GmiReF still own said main lagoon parcel. 2/6/92: Gaffron letter to gpeamers advising of need for joint use dock license application. 4/9/92: LMCD letter to regarding need for LMCD license 8/24/9S; Mabusth fax of 2/6/92 letter, to M. Richter, realtor for 2/28/94: Hennepin County tax book indicates owners of parcel 0005 arc Donald and Patty Rademacher, 1837 Fagemess Point Road. 6/2/94; Shoreline inspection by Gaffron/Mabusth/Oman indicating 7 boats stored at site plus 3-4 additional slips with no boats. 6 of 7 boats identified through computerized DNR boat registration records. 5 of 6 owners do not live in Orono, the other lives on Crystal Bay Road None of the boats are registered to Maplegate Inlet property addresses. I Berkley Risk Services, Inc.RECEIVED JUN 2 2 1994 CITY OF ORONO June 20« 1994 City of Orono Attention: Ronald Noorse p. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MM 55323-0066 RE: Our Claim No. Insured Plaintiff Type of Claim Dear Mr. Moorse: 11005631 City of Orono Jerome 6 Lindell Dispute over a public acce&s/trespass and damage claim Municipal Corporation, Defendant. sss K.risi.'s; “ necessary to protect the City's interest in this matter. Mary Horstmann from Allied Adjusters, Inc., is handling the Investigation on this matter. I would encourage cooperate with George Hoff and Wary Horstmann, and that yoa advise your City employees or City officials to refrain from Siiwising the iubjict natter of this litigation with anyone other than representatives of Allied Adjusters, Inc. or George Hoff of Hoff, Barry and Kuderer. SMJnJ \u*nuc* N>uin jiIc *" • MinncvXj ^ • Fax ‘>i2‘ ^ ^ \ \|cT«v'r i Hi>k x|jn.4i:rTrnf N City of Orono Our ClaiB Mo. June 20, 1994 11005631:>•conjunction*»tith ”hi«*litigation^ diE*” »«rv«d upon tha city in«• l»««liat.iy. If you ha?2 iEE'oEi!??! forward thoa. itans to contact na. <>“«stion8, pleasa feel free to Sincerely, BERKLEY RISK SERVICES, INC 77TZ>Darin Ridhardson Claim Examiner DR/rr cc: Doug Gronli LMCIT cc: cc: Tom Barrett Popham Haik 222 s. 9th Street #3300 Minneapolis, mm 55402 Allied Adjusters, inc. Attn: Nary Horstmann ! Pag« 3 • Building plans advance <Page 5 - LMC 2000 . a The LMCIT board approved partial LMC Futures Committee OKs 1 ownership m the new LMC building strategic planning process ' )CjlftSy coniinticd fivn pa|« 1or cuy ’■ The defitunon of an interested persoa implies that the type of local official who cannot accept a gift is a local official who is authorized to make decisions which could impact someone Hnancially Clearly the law applies to ail mayors, councilmembers, and members of appointed bodies. Many appointed officials including inspectors, clerks, administrators, managers, finance officers, and people who purchase or advise on the pur­ chase of supplies, goods, and services are also covered. The law goes beyond local officials who can make financial decisions. The law refers to local officials whose decisions (a recommen ­ dation IS a decision) could impact someone financially. Finally, there is the question, ‘ what IS a gift?” A gift means "money, real or personal property, a service, a loan, a forbearance or forgiveness of indebted­ ness. or a promise of future employ ­ ment. that IS given and received without the giver receiving (from the local official) consideration of equal or greater value in return." To help clarify this, the law esublished some exceptions. The following are not prohibited gifts. • A political contribution. • “Services to assist an official in the performances of official duties, including but not limited to providing advice, consultation, information, and communication m connection with legislation, and services to constituents." But this exception seems to be more confusing than clanfying. • “Services of insignificant mon ­ etary value." • “A placque or memento recogniz­ ing individual services in a field of specialty or to a charitable cause." • "A tnnket or memento of insignifi­ cant value " What is insignificant value? Under a related law’, a gift of a S2 pocket calendar was found to be a prohibited gift (E.P.B Advisory Opinion #1411, Thus. this exception, as with all of them, should be read very narrowly.• "Informational matenals of unexceptional value."• ‘Food or beverage given at a reception, meal, or meeting away from ih^ recipient's place of work by an organization before whom the recipient appears to make a speech or answer questions as par* of a program." This is the only exception to what seems to be the rule; all other gifts of food and or beverage are prohibited. Under a related law. vendor contributions to a meeting of local officials for breakfasts, hospitality rooms, snacks or refreshments were prohibited (E.P.B. Advisory Opinion #142). • Gifts to a group of non-local officials of which a local official happens to be a member, and gifts from a family member. There is a related law. enacted in Chapter 377. codified as Minnesota Statutes Section I0A.07! which applies to officials of metropolitan cities over 50.000 population and to legislators. It prohibits gif:s from lobbyists. The exceptions are virtually the same. The only real difference is that the law applying to all cities will be enforced by criminal prosecution whereas the law dealing with lobbyists will be enforced by the Ethical Practices Board. The real enforcement of these new laws will be through public opinion. The media and political opponents of those in office will be watching to see how carefully local officials follow the law. That is why we are advising caution. .As a general rule no elected official, member of an advisory board, or public employee should accept any gift unless the city attorney is of the opinion that the gift is one of the rare exceptions to the ruie. The League will continue to advise city officials of the developments as this new law is interpreted. Watch future issues of the Cities Bulletin for more details. 0 Policy adoption,continued from page Ilax increment financing. This problem is also considered to be a barrie; to economic development and redevelopment. The fourth, fifth, and sixth highest pnonty problems deal with financing local government. The instability of local government aid (LGA) and homestead and agncultural credit aid (HAC.A) IS the most serious fiscal problem confronting cities (35^^). The complexity of the property tax system and efforts to eliminate LG.A and H.ACA to enable the state to use city money to fund schools were each considered to be major problems by 29 percent of the cities voting. More than 60 percent of all cities marked at least one of these three fiscal concerns as a problem. Annexation and other boundary adjustment problems and inadequate funding for roads and transit both are concerns for 25 percent of the cities voiinc. Other problems facing cities for at least 15 percent of the cities voting were: development outside of cities which inhibits the growth of cities and results in haphazard development of rural areas; the costs of compliance with environmental mandates; and sales taxes on city purchases. In reviewing the ballots, the diversity of problems becomes appar­ ent. What may be perceived as a serious problem by one city is not for another. This is probably why the League has so many legislative policies and why our efforts at the Legislature and Congress may appear diffused rather than focused. .At last November s Policy Adoption Conference, the League membership established eight priori ­ ties. At the November 18. 1994 Policy Adoption Conference, when the policy committees make their recommenda ­ tions to the members, we hope mem­ bers will again set policy pnonties so that the League can focus ns efforts dunng the 1995 sessions of the Legislature and Congress. 0 June 28. 1994 Page 7 f not have to live in this propoaod crowded corner of Orono< I wonder why he did not want to build on this lot years ago while he was living here. Could it be that he may have felt boxed in also? Mr. Lemmerman did say he would give me first option to buy the land. Howavert he made it clear that he intended on rearranging tho lot line first so the drive way of hia residence would be on his lot. A* it stands now, his driveway is on the lot in question. Mr. Lemmerman bought the land for back taxes for an amount,as I understand it. of approximately 18,000 (I have this from second hand Information, I would need to look at receipts to qualify it's accuracy). After the finished proposed l9t line rearrangement, he told me he wanted $30,000 for the remainder of the lot. I found thie amount to be outrageous, and un-realistic• I feel that paying for partial back Laxea of the lot in proportion to size after the lot line rearrangement I plus helping with expenses is realistic. After all, this legally ia not a buildable lot. s I hope my views do not make me sound arrogant or unreasonable. As mentioned earlier, I thought you should get more views than Just Ernie's. We are still neighbors on good terms, but you have to do what you have to do (Ernie's quote to me that t agree with). Had my wife and I known eax'lier of this proposal, we would have come forward with oux* concex*na. However, we did not know of theas plans until we were notified by the council about the meeting being held. Please vote no on t)ie proposal for a variance of a buildable lot. Enclosed la a map showing the lot lines as they are. Also is a map of my understanding of th« proposed change. Hopefully they will help give you a better underetanding of the situation. Thank you for your time on this situation. Should you have any questions or comments, feel free to give me a call at the number below. Sincerely Konneth J. Hickey 4640 Tonka View Lan< Orono. HN 55364 (612) 472-54C3