Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-12-1994 Council Packet
r AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 19W, 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 2. Cable Commission Budget Presentation APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 3. Regular Meeting of August 22, 1994 % % PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 4. #1860 Zelma McKinney, 3599 Livingston A.'enue - Applicant Requests Reconsideration ^5. #1941 LeRoy and Wanda Fischback, 3135 North Shore Drive - Variance - Resolution 6. #1944 Bradly & Dina Etherington, 4055 Elm Street - Renewal Variances - Resolution S 7. #1949 Sanford Erickson, 4455 Forest Lake Landing - Variance - Resolution 8. #1950 Glen Upton, 3685 North Shore Drive - Variances t 9. #1954 Larry Elsen, 2879 Casco Point Road - Variances - Resolution 110. #1956 Tom & Chris Smieja, 4040 Watertown Road - Variances - Resolution 11. #1957 Jacci J. Segner, 3286/3290 Navarre Lane - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Resolution 12. Septic Moratorium Update B-2 Proposed Ordinance - Information Onlyy3 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT * 14. Liquor Violation - Resolutions 15 ; stiblish Dates of Public Hearing - Truth in Taxation and Establish December Council Meeting r>atc * 16. Fall Clean Up Day - October 15, 1994 17. 1995 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy - Resolutions 18. Scheduling of a Joint Meeting to Review Results of the Park Survey II19. Curbside Recycling Contract Extension 20. Police Services Contract with City of Long Lake CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT (*21.) LICENSES (*22.) BILLS 1AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1994, 7:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 09/12 09/13 09/13 09/19 09/26 10/04 10/10 10/17 10/24 Council meeting 7:30 p.m. 4:30 p.m. Last day for filing of candidacy for November 8 municipal election State Primary Election Day - No public meetings between 6 & 8:00 p.m. Plaiming Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. Council meeting 7:30 p.m. Park Commission 7:15 p.m. CouiKil meeting 7:30 p.m. Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. Council meeting 7:30 p.m. -.ir.-rrr- - •Tntr>’.rr *"U. .•* - t_r PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL PUBLIC ATTENDANCE ME5.TING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ATTENDANCE (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER i« Cii:.cs CAj^c Cl) ____Lt2J2________ 1 fSf\Aji^sc>ri Uu .^cswj J , (c5jaV_V^ c\00c\.Q.\V v Va\ *S V L\ VA . f^'7't-y U 7) U iJ &. f't^c h^\C.L ^ ^ P . liriLii fTWt^4t ^Jd M </ # m • • » 1 * t 1 I TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorsc, City Administrator "‘1 C ^ P %August 22, 1994 Lake Minnetonka Communications (Cable TV) Commission 1995 Budget 1 have attached a copy of the 1995 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission propo^d expenditures results in overall expenditures remaining unchanged from 1994 to 1995. Jim Daniels the Cable Administrator and Tim Pattrin, the city ’s represenutive on the caWe commission, have requested an opportunity to present the budget to the Council at the September 12 Council meeting. _ ii^ccLAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 540 SECOND STREET • RO. BOX 473 • EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-0473 612. 474-5539 • FAX 612. 474-0430 August 17, 1994 AUG 19 1394 -. * c I * - OCEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR Mayor Edward Callahan and City Council Members City of orono p.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 CREENWOOO Dear Mayor Callahan and Council Members; LONG LAKE MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH i i , I MINNETRISTA On August 16, 1994, the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) passed its budget for 1995. As has been our experience in the past, the LMCC has once again directed staff to speak with you at a city council meeting and briefly explain the expenses that are projected for 1995. Jim Daniels, our Administrator, will be contacting Ron Moorse, to set up a timed item on one of your upcoming city council meetings to answer ariy questions that may arise and ask for a city council motion that supports your LMCC. since Mr. Daniels may have three or four city councils in one evening, I hope that once he has arrived you will address the 1995 Budget item as soon as your agenda will allow it to be heard. t .ORONO ST. BONIFACIUS SHOREWOOO It has been a very busy 1994, with the LMCC accomplishing its main objective of lowering subscriber rates this year, as well as dealing with some very important proposed legislation in Congress and the reality of technological changes that will create the potential of several providers of service to the residents of our cities. SPRING PARK TONKA BAT VICTORIA WOODLAND Last year all fourteen cities unanimously approved the efforts and budget of the LMCC, which told us we must be doing something riqht. Enclosed you will find our 1995 Budget figures, that are alSost identical to the 1994 total expenses that were unanimously approved by your city council. I would simply remind you that these are HQI tax dollars and are provided by the cable company through the provisions of our franchise agreement. on the communication needs of our residents. > A «a CP Mayor Callahan and Council Haabers Page Tiro As always, if you have any questions or need more detailed information, you can call the LMCC office (474-5539). I look forward, once again, to your unanimous support of our budget/goals for 1995. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Timothy Salazar Chairman TS/cl Enclosure cc; Ron MoorSe, Commission •ity Administrator Pattrin 91 A.. . ■_ ___ _- ■ LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1995 PROPOSED BUDGET I ■ # ■ i: i i} t ■ /i' II ► LAKE MifiNETOHKA CO^*MU HI CAT 10113 COMMISSION1995 PROPOSED BUDGETApproved1994ProposedChangeProposed I 1995 Change DescriptionXMCOHEPranclilso Pees $129, nr.? .01 2,137.99 Interest 3,500.00 0.00 $132,000 3,500 $133,362.01 f 2,137.99 $135,500 + 1.6% OPERATING EXPENSES Administrator, Access ft Office Staff 70,600 1-2,200 0 72,000 +3% fsecretarlal Serv 630 +30 660 4-4% Payroll Taxes/Pera 9,450 0 9,450 0% Travel Expenses 1,760 +50 1,810 +3% Health Insurance 4,620 4-380 5,000 4-8% Legal Fees 5,000 0 5,000 0% Insurance/Bonds 5,170 +230 5,400 4-4% LNCC Accounting/ Annual Review 1,700 0 1,700 0% Conf., Schools ft Conventions 6,300 0 6,300 0% OffIce/Studlo Supplies Janitor Service and Supplies 3,Boo 4 200 4,000 4 51 Membership Dues/ Subscriptions 1,500 0 1 5f)0 0% Payroll for Admin., Prod. Coord., PT Prod. Asst. A Admin. Asst. Payroll services PERA ft employer w/holdlng contrib. LNCC visibility at all cities, HACTA and errands Amt. attributed to emp. health Ins. Rate reg./franchise legal counsel Workers Comp., Dishonesty Bond, Property Liability Dookkeeplng 6 annual audit NATOA, MACTA, NFLCP Normal office/studlo supplies, copy machine agreement S $30/mo. and janitor service and supplies NATOA, MACTA, magazines, three local C>*Tmbers of Commerce ft Rotary LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1995 PROPOSED BUDGET - Contlnuod Page TwoBApproved1994ProposedChangeProposed1995%Change DescriptionTolepiione/Voicetteix 2,150 0 2,150 01 Monthly chargea/answering servicePostage/PO Box 1,350 0 1,350 0%LMCC ngendas/correspond ft PO Box rent •Hiacellaneous 900 0 900 01 VarlenAdvertlslng/Promo Four Quarterly Mewsletters 4,000 +4,260 + 51 4 Qtrly newsletters to all 14 citieSi direct mail promos, Triax billstaffers ft Annual Ch. 21 Awards• Office Equipment 0 0 01 Office Rent e,500 0 8,500 01 Office rent ft bank box Equipment Haint. ft Repair 1,000 0 1,000 0% Increased hours on equipment will create need for repair Sales Tax 1,500 0 1,500 01 Based on 6.51 of taxable purchases PBRATINO FUNDS SUB-TOTAL $129,930 + 3,290 $133,220 + 21 Capital Funds 0 0 0 01Taps Stock 300 0 300 0%Tech/Financial Rate Audit 2,500 0 2,500 0%Studio Equipment 0 0 0 0%X«egal Fund 100 0 loo 0%Office Equipment 1,262.01 262.01 1,000 - Access Equipment 8,000 - 3,000 5,000 - Access/Development 11,860 0 11,860 0% Contingency 0 0 0 0% Sales Tax 750 150 600 - ORONO Cirv COUNCIL MEETLNG MINUTES FOR AUGUST 22, 1994 ROLL t; Mavor Vc The Council met on the ahove date with the tollowin^ memhers present. iviii>ui Callahan, Jr., Council members J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour, Charles Kelley, and^ JoEllen Hurt. The following represented staff: City Attorney, Ke\in Staunton, City Administrator, Ron Moorse, Building and Zoning Administrator. Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator, Michael Ga-vron, Public Works Director, John Gerhardson, and Recorder, Sherry Frost. Mayor Callati n called the meeting to order at 7;30 p m. (•#1) CONSENT AGENDA Kelley requested that items #7 and #9 be added to the Consent Agenda and #16 be deleted. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. The motion carried with 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. (#2) LONG LAKE WATER QUALITY PRESENTATION BY MCWD District Engineer, Mike Panzer, and Manager, Tom LaBounty, of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, updated the Council on the Long Lake Improvement Project. Their study has been conducted and the MCWD is ready to implement the project to improve the water quality of Long Lake. The improvements were identified as l)building a wetpond south of County Road 6 where a stream comes in. (This stream is a major contributor to the lake's external phosphorus load.); 2)renovation of two ponds in Long Lake's park; and 3)inlake aeration (to reduce internal phosphorus loading). The MCWD is looking for renewed support and passage of this proposal to continue the process. The cost of this project would be paid through a county tax levy of approximately two million dollars over a six year period. Orono's share of this cost would be 4.9% or $100,000. Council members voiced many concerns regarding the cost to the citizens and the future operating expenditures once the MCWD turns the project over to the cities. Council members also expressed concern that this project is an after-the-fact solution to the problems which occur farther upstream and the ongoing problem with runoff from fertilizers. The MCWD representatives stated that this project would improve Long Lake, Lake Minnetonka, and the Creek downstream with a 70% reduction of phosphorus. Mayor Callahan stated that although this was a good plan the Council was not ready to give their approval of this proposal at this time and would like further discussion at a later date. The MCWD expressed their desire to field calls regarding the issue. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUTiCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 22. 1994 APPROVAL OF MINUTES (#3) REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 1994 It was moved by Hurr and seconded by Goettcn to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of August 8, 1994 as submitted. Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS The Park Commission representative stated the commission is waiting for the results to the park survey. A meeting will then be scheduled to discuss the survey. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS The Mayor noted that a representative of the Planning Commission was not present PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time POLICE CHIEF REPORT Police Chief, Stephen Sullivan, had no comments but was present to answer any questions. Council member Kelley stated concern over school bus routing in relation to the Old Crystal Bay Road Bridge closure. He questioned whether Hanus Bus Company had been informed about the rerouting of Old Crystal Bay Road and the need for the police department to know the school bus situation with school starting. Sullivan stated Hanus had been advised of routes and arrangements have been made for early mommg high-school traffic to be controlled on Willow Road allowing right-hand turns only for eastbound traffic. Students will then realize the need to take the detour to access Highway 12. Kelley also stated concern over cars or buses turning right out of Stubbs Bay Road. He foresees problems with cars coming over the hill traveling much faster than the vehicles turning onto Highway 12. Chief SuIUvan stated resources were not available to police all these wmers but both agreed police need to know where buses will be going and 'vhether it will be safe. police department. 1 I NUNLTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL MEETnsiG HELD ON AUGUST 22. 1994 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (W) #1913 GREG TRUCHINSKI, I5S0 POX STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE This request involves the installation of an independent tower/antenna installed without a building pennh or required conditional use permit Mr. Truchinsid stated he received the new packet and is in accord with the recommendations. The Council had requested a receipt of fully executed Hold Harmless Agreements by propert>- owner, Whitney MacMiUan and resident, Truchinski. Mabusth stated City had not received an executed one but that David MacMillan, the most-aflFected neighbor, was presem and had agreed to submitting a Coverumt Not to Sue. MacMillan spoke of a need for the City to check into an ordirumce stating height maximum to be 65 ft. after approving a height of 75 ft. He stated he will stand by his agreement, though not happy about the after-the-fact basis. He stated that the neighbors see it as unsightly and fed it brings down the value of property. Truchinski stated he is satisfied with the proposed recommendations. Mabusth clarified that per the current code, there was no hnght limitation as long as the setback is met. City Attorney did not necessarily agree with findings of neighbors ’ attorney and didn’t feel there was a conflict with the ordinance. Hurt questioned as to who is responsible for payment of legal review fees. Mabusth stated there are additional legal costs involved over the onginal appUcation fee. Applicants in signing applications agree to pay for all variable costs not covered with original fee. Mabusth said there is no problem getting these fees paid as they can be put on property tax roll if necessary. Ndghbors signed a petition to allow this variance because the conforming placement would be unsightly due to higher elevation.. David MacMillan read letter from impacted neighbor, Susan Norton, who did not sign the petition, stating the unsightliness and concern for property value. Kelley asked if the City has received any operational complaints since the installation of applicant's antenna. Mabusth noted that the City had received no complaints. Mayor Callahan asked for a motion. Goetten moved for denial of the after-the-fact conditional permit. It was seconded by Jabbour. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm* COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 22. 1*^4 (#4) #1913 OREO TRUCHINSKI, 1S80 POX STREET Con^-inuf-d CONDITIONAL USE PERMXT/VARIANCE Callahan asked for recommendation from staff. Mabusth stated that the Planning Commission okayed the permit because the owner and neighbor agreed to it If Stafr' were to make recommendatioiL the current proposal should be denied because the antenna does not meet the requiremems of the code and was installed without a building permit. Motion for denial. Ayes 3-Hurr, Jabbour, Goetten; Nay 2- Kelley. Callahan. Motion denied. <#5) #1947 SAILORS WORLD, 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE AMENDED VARIANCE APPLICATION Mabusth stated applicant, Gary DeSantis, wished to amend an original variance application to move the storage tMiiiding because it blocks the lake view of neighbor. Camilo Castellon. The 8*x20' storage module had been approved for stall #34. The Planning Commission viewed the sight and because of vegetation in the area, they considered either 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20, all located within the 75 ft. of lake. Staff asked the DNR review the amended proposal. The DNR stated stalls 19 or 20 would at least meet their 50 ft setback requirement. DeSantis was not happy with 21 as it also blocked the neighbor's view. The Engineer felt 20 was not a good option. Stalls recommended at this point are 21 or 34. DeSantis wants to work with neighbor and keep in mind safety issues. He felt 19 would be the best solution. It was made clear by Mayor Callahan that this amendment was only being done to satisfy neighbor, and Mabusth stated this was true. Goetten reiterated the time that has been involved in placing the storage module and the need to stay within the setback parameters. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten to approve the amended variance application to allow storage module to be relocated to either stall 37 or 38 Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #1951 KENDRICK B. MELROSE, 50 CRISTOFORI CIRCLE VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3458 Gaffron reviewed the request for side setback variance for an addition to be located 31.4' from the south lot line where a 50' setback is normally required. The home is on 23 acres and is located in the southwest comer of the lot. Much of the lot is wetlands.The owner proposes to build a family room. He stated there would be no problem with view from neighbors. There are also steep slopes on the south side so there would likely be no new housing within 250-300 feet The existing house was placed 75' from the west lot line rather than the standard 100' through a variance granted in 1992, and at the 50' south .cide setback due to the steeply sloping topography to the east and north. NUNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm* COL'NCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 22. 1994 (#6) #1951 KENDRICK B. MELROSE, 50 CRISTOFORZ CIRCLE Continued VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3458 Council asked for comments from owner, Mr. Melrose. He stated that although this is a large lot, only about one acre is buildable. He looked at alternatives to avoid going against the setback but none were practical due to topography, size of famiN ; oro desired, and roof structure. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Kelley, to approve #1951 variance for Kendrick B. Melrose at 50 Cristofori Circle as recommended by the Planning Commission. Ayes 5, NaysO. (#7) #1955 ANDREW J. MCDERMOTT UI, 2702 WALTERS PORT LANE VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3459 Midiad Graham, represented the applicant. Gaffron stated the request was for a front setback variance to construct a three-season screened porch on an existing upper level deck located on the north end of the house which would wrap around the house encroaching one foot into the required 35' setback. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Hurr, to approve variance #1955. Ayes 5, Nays (#8) #1952 CHRISTINE FREEMAN, 2240 SHADYWOOD ROAD AMENDED VARIANCE APPROVAL - RESOLUTION #3460 AppHcant, Christine Freeman, was present. Gaffron stated applicant is requesting an amendment to her setback variance. One of the requirements of the original variance was the need to meet the 25% hardcover level in the 75-250' zone When the snow melted in the spring, the City discovered an additional area of hardcover consisting of rock but with no plastic underneath used for parking. The applicant requested to keep this along the side, and except for a 3 ft section for storing firewood, to remove the remaining gravel behind the garage. Staff reviewed the hardcover calculations and found some inconsistencies. This recommendation would increase the percentage to 30 5% behind the 75 ft line allowing an additional 600+s.f of hardcover. Mayor Callahan asked if in the original application, no one knew there was gravel there and the survey and measurement of the 75-250 ft measurement was wrong. Gaffron stated yes. The applicant stated she knew there was rock there but did not consider it to be hardcover because there was no plastic underneath it. Kelley asked if this area was driven over (no) and wondered why it would be needed now. Applicant stated the additional parking was for safety reasons to be able to park off-street. Jabbour and Gaffi-on discussed the survey in relation to the hardcover zones. The Planning Commission recommendation effectively allows 23.4% in 75-250* corrected and 56.4% in 250-500' corrected. Hurr moved for approval with Jabbour seconded. Ayes 5, Nays 0. ; I VfINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 22. 1994 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Callahan had no rq>ort at this time. Hurr stated she would be attending a watershed district meeting. She is interested in seeing the task force's interpretation for funding. She is fiustrated with the use of assessed value instead of the used acreage in determining where funding comes from. County Road 6 meeting was rescheduled for Monday, 8/29, at 8a m. and Budget meeting rescheduled for Thursday am, 9/1. ENGINEER REPORT City Engineer was absent from this meeting. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#9) 1995 ASSESSOR’S AGREEMENT It was moved by Hurr and seconded by Goetten to approve the renewal of the assessment contract with Rolf Erickson dba Southwest Assessing in the amount of $74,333 for the 1994/1995 year. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (•#10) STEP ADJUSTMENT - CAROLE HASEMAN It was moved by Hurr and seconded by Goetten to approve the step adjustment for Carole Haseman to Level 4, Step IV, at $13.032/hour effective 9/9/94. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) 1995 PRELIMINARY BUDGET AND TAX LEVY - RESOLUTIONS Mayor Callahan stated it was his understanding that the budget need not be passed until 9/15 and all concurred He requested this item be tabled until 9/12/94 and a work session be set up prior to that meeting It was moved by Mayor Callahan and seconded by Goetten that action on the budget and ta\ levy be continued to the 9/12/94 meeting. Ayes 5, Nays 0. i • -iy:— r NflNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 22. 1994 (#12) REQUEST TO REMOVE ASSESSMENT FROxM TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY -500 HANLON AVENUE The property consists of two lots, one vacant and one with a house. Moorse stated when the original assessment was made, it was divided in half between the two lots. The reason was so there would only be one unit. The owner only paid the assessment on the lot with the house and later sold this house and let the lot go to tax forfeiture. The new owners would like to obtain this lot tax forfeit and then build a garage on it. They would like the city to forgive the assessment since the city has done this in the past. Moorse indicated the fact that only one-half of the foil assessment has been paid makes this situation different from others in which the City forgave the assessment. Hurr moved to deny the request to forgive the assessment on 500 Hanlon Avenue, Jabbour seconded. Ayes 5, Nays 0, (*#13) REQUEST FOR UNPAID LEAVE OF ABSENCE - JAMIE BOSMA It was moved by Hurr and seconded by Goetten to approve the extension of the unpaid leave of absence for Jamie Bosma to 9/5/94. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#14) PROPOSED BRUSH DISPOSAL PROGRAM CHANGE Moorse stated the City began to provide a site for brush disposal when burning was no longer permitted. The City hauls the brush to the County brush site in Maple Grove but the costs involved are not being recouped. He suggested people haul their own brush to the Maple Grove site and pay the $1.50 per cubic yard instead of the fee of S3 .00 per cubic yard the city charges. Moorse states it would be more cost effective to discontinue providing the City brush site and to instead provide the information to residents of the availability of the Maple Grove site. Hurr moved, Goetten seconded the discontinuation of the City brush site. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#15) INCREASE HOURS OF OFFICER BORIS TO FULL-TIME LEVEL Moorse stated this is to replace the vacancy left open by the retirement of Lt. Fritzler. This position was unfilled until it was determined what would happen with the contract cities. The contracts have been approved. Jabbour moved and Hurr seconded that the number of hours for Scott Boris be increased to the foil-time level and that his pay be increased to $ 15.061/hour. Ayes 5, Nays 0. X .'.TL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 22. 1994 (•#16) RESOLLTION - NO PARKINC ON BROWN ROAD NORTH This item was taken off consent agenda by Kelley He would like to change the need to have no-parking signs. Gerhardson stated the City needs to post the signs to advise the public not to park there. Kelley suggested less signs Gerhardson will check requirements necessary for sign postage. Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded that action on the resolution be tilled until the second meeting in October. Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#17) SCHEDULING OF A JOINT MEETING TO REVIEW THE RESULTS OF THE PARK SURVEY The survey is done, and Moorse is expecting a summary at the end of this week and will have a package to review with the Parks Commission and Council. A meeting will be scheduled with the consultant. Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded that action related to scheduling a work session be continued to the 9/12/94 Council meeting. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried (#18) REFERRAL OF VARL4NCE APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION The map of the parking lot for the post office was provided as requested by the Council. Council questioned the need for this size of a lot. The Council agreed that the variance application be forwarded to the Planning Commission and requested detail of the fees and costs involved. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT There was no report at this time. (*#19) LICENSES It was moved by Hurt and seconded v Goetten to approve the following licenses: Club Firearms Permit Annual License Park Gun Club 3660 Sixth Avenue Nonh Special Events Permit Charles Tatro/FTC Homes Model Home at 1050 Cox Farm Road Sept 10-25 from 3 :00 to 8:00 p.m One-Day Liquor License Smith Days/Minnetonka Center tor the Arts 7 Minutes of the regular orono crn' council MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 22. 1994 4 I (•#19) LICENSES Continued 2240 North Shore Drive Sept 10, 1994 Septic System Installer Sewerman Inc Elk River Larry’s Onsite Septic Chaska (•#20)BILLS It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten. to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Callahan moved for adjournment at 10:15 p m It was seconded by Goetten. Ayes 5 Nays 0. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIONDATE:if *1 ITEM NO.: ^ V.^ iber^. iw, c2f* ^ \ ■ Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building A Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Setl^^ Zoning Item Description: #1860 Zelma McKinney, 3599 Livingston Avenue - Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration/of Status of Conditional Use Permit, Resolution #3370 List of Exhibits A - Original Site Plan Approved with Application B - Amended Site Plan C - Resolution #3370 D1-Staff Utter 8/30/94 D2-Staff Utter 8/29/94 D3-Suff Memo 8/24/94 D4-Staff Utter 8/2/94 D5-Staff Utter 7/11/94 D6-Engineer’s Utter 7/11/94 D7-Staff Utter 4/27/94 El-Siegler Utter 9/6/94 E2-Siegler Utter 9/2/94 E3-Siegler Utter 8/30/94 E4-Siegler Utter Memo 8/26/94 E5-Siegler Memo 8/24/94 E6-Siegler Utter 8/9/94 E7-Siegler Utter 5/23/94 E8-Siegler Utter 5/16/94 E9-Siegler Utter 5/10/94 El-Siegler Memo 12/6/93 F - Gary Eidson Utter. Applicant’s Attorney, 9/1/94 G - Orono’s Assessment Policy Pages 1-15 Approved 9/10/84 H - Council Minutes 9/10/84 Gayle Siegler, the daughter of Zelma McKinney, has asked Council to reconsider the requirement of the City that would call for the payment of a sewer and water charge for the second residential unit (per 1994 fee schedule, sewer connection charge at $225, water connection $1,933). Please review Ms. Siegler’s letters of May 16, 1994 (Exhibit E-«l) and September 6, 1994 (Exhibit E-1). Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 5 September 8, 1994 Zoning File #1860 Upon notice that Ms. Siegler’s request would be presented to the Council at their September 12th meeting. Ms. Siegler’s attorney, Gary C. Eidson, has submitted a letter dated September 1, 1994 posing certain questions of the staff related to the City ’s assessment policy as follows: 1. What is the established policy? 2.When was it established? 3. Who established the policy? 4. To identify similar situated properties to which this policy has been applied in the past. Staff will attempt to provide a brief history and summary of the assessment policy of the City. On September 10, 1984, Council adopted at 15 page summary memo of the City ’s assessment policies (Exhibit G). Prior to that time the policy or approved practice of the City can be traced in the assessment rolls of various sewer and water projects approved by the Council. Prior to the Metropolitan Urban Service Charge of 1974, assessment rolls were developed by the City ’s contract engineer. Dorothy Hallin, the City Clerk, and John Gerhardson, the Public Works Director, confirm that in-house staff such as the Building Department would not have been consulted for improvement projects prior to 1974. The engineer appeared to base an assessment on the apparent visual use or known history of use of the structure. The applicant’s attorney has asked for similar situations or examples of the application of this policy for other similar properties. Staff would refer to a land use application for duplex use in 1987 (#1059) for the property located at 2259 Shadywood Road (property located to north side of railroad). Prior to 1963 the strucmre contained a grocery store and upper level apartment. From 1963 to 1976 the lower level housed a dry cleaning operation. In 1976 the lower level was converted to an apartment and the upper level was offered for rent. Piior to 1974 the City had no written formula for determining multiple units or multiple family residential properties. The property was assessed two residential sewer and two residential water units although there was apparent commercial use. Hallin and Gerhardson noted because the property is located in a residential district. The apartments located above the commercial establishments in Navarre were included as commercial units because they were located in a commercial district. The review of the 1987 duplex application called for a review of the number of sewer and water units charged against the property. ■■ iVirr raiire t»TiT«l klfWiWsTiriTil MlMi ^ ^ f :• v/4« •] i M «(c •BO •ERtBT .•jbvnriKij KWiVMI • TTriTTriii^ riTiTO nann ri}«o r«iKTO •T^TlVt •V/^tBIl O II] Oil rtiiii: RTiriB^^iIi RiiTra •iii^i n»niTi^ PI rrrnT*n B BTrm n frr ^Mlil ^[in«0]lB0^ nio •1 |T4 imiOIti Kmini RTiTiBin^ formula for determining the number of ixhibit G, specifically pages 6 and 7 lex residences shall be assigned one unit arged a sewer and water unit for each of In the Navarro Planned Residential d a single sewer and water unit. on adopted by the City that dealt with an It’s attorney shall receive a copy of that ler assessment rolls for sewer and water I SAC charge the City had no foiroula for jperty was assessed one residential sewer Tie City was asked to recognize the legal t land use application review called for a [uest based on the unusual circumstances las not required payment of a SAC charge 1 prior to 1974. d by May 15, 1994. The improvements e paving of the one off-street parking stall, le Mrs. McKinney ’s ill health and the need )vements were completed some time in the ner of August 9. 1994, Exhibit E-6, new : 1st. Shawn Gustafson completed his final jorts that all required improvements have satisfied with the restoration of the entire Resolution #3370 r and water units for the second residential •e required off-street parking stalls. As her in the second garage stall during the penod preparing the unit for future rent. Since iquipment/fumiture within the garage stall. 5 M i ( Request for Council Action continued page 4 of 5 September 8, 1994 Zoning File #1860 Review Exhibit D-2, Lyle Oman’s letter to Ms. Siegler, advises her of the need to provide legal egress windows from the lower level bedroom. The applicant was advised of this code violation upon a site inspection of the facility on September 9, 1993 and in a staff memo dated September 16, 1993. Staff has asked for the immediate installation of legal ingress windows from bedroom or to discontinue use of the room. Review Exhibit E-2, Ms. Siegler has noted financial limitations will prevent her from making necessary corrections at this time. Oman will ask for a written statement reaffirming that the lower level bedroom will not be used until egress windows are established. General Comments Ms. Siegler’s letters advise the conditions of the approval permit are too restrictive and have made the property difficult to sell. In reviewing Exhibits D and E, Council can attest to the many exchanges between both applicant and City staff. This does not reflect the many calls the City receives from adjacent property owners. Staff has devoted far too much time to this single property dealing with either complaints or special requests of the applicant. Issues for CounciFs Consideration Applicant asks Council to reconsider requirement to make payment for an additional sewer and water unit for the second dwelling unit. Applicant notes the multiple dwelling use had existed at the time of the original sewer and water projects and there have been no changes in that use nor in the installation of new water use fixtures. It has also been noted that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has not required a payment of a SAC charge because the use was in existence prior to 1974. This is not the policy of the City. It was the City ’s position during the review of Zelma McKinney ’s conditional use permit application that the existing non- conforming use was now recognized as a legal use the first time in the City ’s records. Similar to the property on Shady wood Road referenced above where the City approved a duplex use of the property and in reviewing the sewer and water assessments found that two residential sewer and water units had been assessed against the property and additional payments were not necessary. Council Action To either reaffirm the original condition that requires payment of a separate sewer and water unit or to accept applicant’s request to not require payment. - Request for Council Action continued page 5 of 5 September 8, 1994 Zoning File #1860 Council should provide staff with additional direction concerning the request of applicant to allow the second stall to remain as a temporary storage area for current renter of first floor unit as already noted above. The stall was also used during the time that Mrs. McKinney’s effects were being removed from her apartment to allow the rental unit to be prepared for the new renter. Council Action Requested To require the immediate removal of the equipment from the second stall; or To allow a reasonable period of time for renters to seek other storage facilities off-site (two weeks, thirty days?) Does Council have any other directives for staff concerning this application? m •^1 UJ LJ UJ cO EQAN, FIELD & NOWAK SURVEYORS 1119 HAARUT AVI.MIMNIAMUJ8, MtNNlSCTA CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Harvey McKinney LIVING IrovN ^'4 i Scale: 1'' - 30* Description: .Lois' 11 and • 12, Block 4, Navarre Heinhts. We hereby certify, thal this Is a true and correct representa11 on of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings If any« thereon^ and all visible encroachments^ If any, from or on sold land* _ _ _ _ _> 1969^ -EGAN^ El ELD i NOWAKDated this 24ih .day of July J r r'^® 3 0 * EGaM, field & MOWAJt - SURVEYORS I) >> ui LJ UJ •< cQ mi HAnflUT XVI.Miy^UtAPCLIS, HIUHtSeTX CEUlTSIPllCATIi Oi? SHilEIiVEV larvey McK.innay . LIVINGSTON u AVL , ^ s S ■ • »•100 Scale; 1" - 30* Description; .Lois 1."^ 12, Block 4, Navarre • * leiahis. O N Nl us_^ i \roo We hei-eby cerMfy.fhal this Is a true andcorrecr reoresonla f I on of a survc the tLoundarles of the land above described end of the location ofaiioufic if ony# thereon, and all visible c ncroochrr.en t a, 1 f any, from or on sola jc 1969 _________________* . !Dated this 24 th day c f uly ri **t n - r n • EGANj^ FIELO i HQV/AK //^nr(4/<»ynr r , / CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ 0______ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 AND A VARIANCE TO SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 10 (B) FILE NO. 1860 WHEREAS. Zelma H. McKinney, (hereinafter the "applicant) is '•« the property located at 3599 Livingston Avenue within the City of Orono (hereina ty and legally described as: Lots II and 12, Block 4, Navarre Heights, Hennepin County, MinnesoU (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS ner Section 10.03, Subdivision 5. the applicant has made application ro U* City 10 ,1k™ a.eoi,dn«.uon of. "onooi^^^J^" street parking stalls instead of four as required by code. Minnesota: NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City CouncU of Orono, FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning FUe ,?1860. District requirmg one-half acre m area, luc ^ ^ / .31 acres. 3. A^tle^r Se -e of the budding for mu.uple dwellings was consistent with the City s zoning code. Page 1 of 8 f99 un ^ - r • •7-' CITY of ORONO r f ‘ I \ J!*! ^ I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. j S_2 j :i£i 4. 5. 6. I. 9. 10. The applicant purchased the property in May of 1962 with the intent of maintaining the rental units. Ordinance No. 45 was passed by the City Council in August of 1962 that identified the zoning district exclusively for single family residential use. Poor to the passage of Ordinance No. 45. the City’s zoning code allowed multiple dwelling stmemres in the district in which the applicant’s property is located. In September of 1968, a major code amendment once again reaffirmed the exclusive use of the district for single famUy use but now required a conditional use permit for aU non-conforming uses in existence at that time. There was no deadline for the filing of conditional use permits to allow the contmuation of non- confonmng uses. In Januar>' of 1975, ihe City passed another major zoning amendment that basically repeated the same requirements set forth in the 1968 code. Applicant's struemre has been used as a multiple dwelling from May of 1962 to the present. Applicant has provided copies of renul receipts airi tax confmning that rental use of the property has existed from purch^ darn of May 1962 through the present time. Although there is no record of renul rweipts from July of 1967 through January of 1969, applicant has tesufled that this gap in the receipts reHects missing records and does not reflect an interruption in use of the structure as a multiple dwelling unit. Further, applicant has informed the City that the building has not. from May of 1962 to the present, ever been converted to single family use. Finally, the City has received no evidence om other parties that this building has. since May of 1962, been converted for any period of time to single family use. offering the property for sale. The applicant wishes to sell ie property for renul use as die property was originally offered to applicant in 1962. Per Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) the property is aUowed 2.018 s f. of ftructural coverage. Structural coverage for the property is currenUy at 1.475 s.f. Page 2 of 8 CITY of ORONO RESOLinON OF THE CITT COUNCIL NO 83-0 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The property docs not meet the required area for the zoning district for single family residential use and would now be required to provide all improvements needed to support two residential units. The property is located within a sensitive local watershed that produces downstream drainage problems during wet periods and there is a need to maintain namral ground cover to treat and absorb surface runoff during these wet periods. Further, the City has received testimony from neighboring property owners that an increase in hardcover on applicant’s property would exacerbate existmg drainag e problems. The configuration of the property is such that adding parking spaces to the site would either create traffic safety hazards (if spaces were added for access from Blaine Avenue), or unreasonably intrude on the use of neighbormg property (if spaces were added to existing spaces accessing the property from Livmgston Avenue). On September 20, 1993. the Orono Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the conditional use permit based on the following findings. The use had existed prior to creation of the single family zoning district through to present times without interruption. b.The struemre had contained three residential units but applicant seefo approval of two permanent units resulting in a less intense use of the propert}'. The Council finds that the conditions existmg on this property are and do not appiv generally to other property in this zoiung distnct; that grantmg the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor poM a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propemes. would not merely se^e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to applicant; and would be in keeping with the spint and mtent of the Zonmg Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 8 tmm iXi » ... .r. r c- CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE Cm' COUNCIL NO. 8 3^0 16.The City Council finds that grantin g a conditional use pemiit to allow the continued use of the residence for multiple dwelling use (two residential units) will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council concludes that applicant’s use of her property as a residential duplex is a legal non-conforming use of the property and hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5. The Council further concludes that the configuration of applicant’s property and the character of drainage from applicant’s property are unique and, consequently, grants a variance to the required“number of parking stalls allowing three off-street parking stalls instead of four. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Per Section 3.05, Subdivision 11, the wo residential umts can continue to share sewer and water service from the single service. Applicant shall be responsible for making payment to the City for a sewer connection charge of $225.00 per 1993 and 1994 fee schedule and water connection charge of $1877.00 per 1993 fee schedule or $1933.00 per 1994 fee schedule. At the time of the payment of these fees, the applicant shall also make payment for a SAC charge to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission at S750.00 (based on 1993 Fees). Applicant is further advised that she may apply to the M.W.C.C. for a refund of 205c of that fee. Applicant has received approval of a variance to allow three off-street parking stalls per the approved site plan attached to the resolution as Page 8. All site improvements must be completed by May 15, 1994. 3.In the. grantin<» of this variance, the City Council recognizes the area limitations of this property and specifically prohibits the exterior storage of all mobUe material and equipment or the permanent parking of trucks, recreational vehicles. Page 4 of 8 r r'H c CITY of ORONO RESOLLTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.n • 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. campers, tractors, snowmobiles, boats, trailers, or vehicles which are inoperable, for lease, rent or sale. This non-conforming use may not be changed to another non-conforming use. Nothing in the Municipal Code shall prevent the placing of this structure m safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the BuUding Ins^ctor, providing the necessary repair shall not consiimte more than pO /c of the tair market value of said structure. If structure is damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, not or an act of God, the structure may be reconstructed and used as before if it is reconstructed within 12 months after such calamity, unless the damage to the budding or structure is 75% (or more) of its fair market value as shown on the assessment records at the time of damage, in which case the structure shall demolished, and any construction thereafter shall be for a use m accordance with the provisions of the single family residential zonmg district. district. residential uniu those alterations will improve the livability thereof, "rovided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the building. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant. tat are pen^ssive only and must be e.xercised by payments for sewer and water connection fees by May 15, 1994. Page 5 of 8 1 r 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE Cm’ COL*NCIL iNo. 83 r ?■ 10.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. 12.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of December, 1993 Mward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of December, 1993, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. CAROLE A. HASEMAN NOT Any pusLC—uvmcsoT* HENNEPIN COUNTY MV CCMHiSSaN EXAMS ^ -f ^ Notary Public Page 6 of 8 J r r: CITY of ORONO RESOl.LTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. <5 '• ^ «-• . •-/ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of D.L 1995 before me a Notary Public within and for ^7rv-r M I'll* , r‘'n *‘'J tLVe/j? u/lX^ .—-----— ^ow^tcTmc m S^*e person(s> described 'in and who executed'the foregoing insimment.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Mm CAAOLE A. HASEMAN MOTART PUKC-MMICSOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY vv Expisss 1 (2^/7 V t_y•. //. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ day of , 199 before me a Notar}' Public within and for toow" r^ScUo “srdciTribed in and ins—W acknowledged that he (±ey) executed the same as his (iheirt free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 7 of 8 r . fcl. - w. r A., GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Keiley Parkway Orono. f<*N 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. 3m 66 Cr/stal Bay. VN 55323 0C55 August 30, 1994 Faxed to Ms. Siegler’s Office on 8/31/94 Ms. Gayle Sicgler Northtown Mall 398 Northtown Drive Blaine, Minnesota 55344 Dear Ms. Siegler: This letter is written to advise that your request for reconsideration of the payment for a sewer and water unit for the second residential unit will be reviewed by the City Council at their September 12. 1994 meeting. Please be advised that staff has no authority to deal wim modification of an established policy of the City without first obtaimng the City Council s approval. Your request for special consideration concerning the required payment of the sewer and water unit must be approved by the City Council. At that same meeting, staff will provide a status report on the required improvements for the property. In addition staff will review any violations of the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit. If you wish to provide additional information for Council’s meeting of *:eptembcr 12th, see that vow Wii'ten information is submitted no later than Tuesday, September oih. Please contact my off 'X you need any information trom the otficial files or if you have any fun er questions. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/ch cc: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 N 55323 C>:5 oT o, d A, August 29, 1994 GlTYofOROXO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 MaiiinK Address: P 0. Box 65 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-CC65 1 wer beir ! Si Ms. Gayle Siegler Nonhiown Mall 398 Northtown Drive Blaine, Minnesota 55434 Re: 3599 Livingston Avenue Dear Ms. Siegler: It has come to the attention of this department that the bedrooms in the lower level unit at the above referenced property are being used without the required egress windows. The City became aware of the lack of egress windows during a site inspection on September 9, 1993 and it was called to your attention during your conditional use permit application procedure. Due to the extreme hazard of this condition, the City must require you to cease the use of the bedrooms as soon as possible. Please arrange access for City inspection staff to verify egress window installation or discontinued use of the rooms before September 2, 1994. If this deadline is not met, the City will initiate legal action. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/ch L . Enc. Inspection Notice 9/9/93 Jeanne A. Mabusth Memo 9/16/93 cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Adm. Bruce L. Vang, Field Inspector Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 r TO; FROM: DATE; Gayle Ziegler Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 24, 1994 SUBJECT: #1860 - 3599 Livingston Avenue I received your memo this morning advising that paving contractors would be at your mother’s property this afternoon to install the required paving. Unfortunately it was the hope of the City Engineer to review the grading completed on the site prior to the paving of the drive and parking area. The City Engineer has been contacted and asked to make every attempt to get out to the site this afternoon. Unfortunately, we do not have an in-house engineer as you already know and it is difficult to arrange for an inspection within a few hours. Harlan Olson of Bonestroo, Anderlik & Rosene has been assigned to inspect your property and hopefully will make the inspection prior to completion of paving improvement. The engineer will contact you within the next few days if there are any problems. I r 1 V-. i! 4 I GlTYof ORONO Municipal Oflkes Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailinf Address: P 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay. 't!N 55323 0C66 August 2, 1994 Ms. Gayle Sicgler Northtown Mall 398 Northtown Drive Blaine, Mirmcsota 55344 Re: Fulfillment of Conditions of Resolution #3370, File #1860 Dear Ms. Siegler: I have enclosed a copy of the resolution that granted a conditional use permit allowing the continuation of the non-conforming duplex use of your mother’s property located at 3599 Livingston Avenue. Please refer to conditions 1 through 3. The City ’s records reveal that the City has yet to receive payment of a sewer connection charge of $225.00 and a water connection charge of $1,933.00 for the second residential unit. We have been advised that the first floor apartment pre^':ously occupied by your mother has now been rented to a family made up of three adults who reside in both the lower and firrf floor levels. During the review of Application #1860, the City advised that the lower basement unit could no longer function as an independent residential umt but could serve as additional living space for the first floor unit. As the property continues to function as a duplex unit, the City must ask that the required sewer and water connection charges be paid by August 15, 1994. The City Engineer and I met with you on the site July 7, 1994 to review the necessary site improvements dealing with the realignment of the access drive and the paving of the one off- street parking stall. It was staff s understanding that you were to commence these improvements within the next few days and per my letter of July 11, 1994 you were to contact the City Engineer at least two days b;fore any paving improvements were to be completed for his inspection. We have heard no further from you on this matter and request a status report in writing as to when these improvements are to be completed. Please note condition 2 of the resolution states that all site improvements were to be completed by May 15, 1994. Staff extended this deadline date when you advised of your mother’s ill health and the need to relocate your mother to a nursing home and remove her possessions from the apartment. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 laSaSi&iASKBSl r Ms. Gayle Siegler August 2, 1994 Page 2 We have also observed that you continue to use one of the stalls within the garage for the storage of equipment. Approval of the Council was conditioned on three off-street parking stalls being'maintained, two within the garage and one to the immediate east of the garage. The City staff must ask that all violations of Resolution #3370 be eliminated. All materials and stored in the garage are to be removed by Tuesday. August 9, 1994. the required coni^tioti fee payments made to the City by August 15. 1994 and confinnation from a contractor that the requited site improvements have been scheduled and to be complet^ no later than Wednesday. August 17. 1994. FaUure to meet the deadline for the completion of the imorovemems or the elimination of all violations of the resolution wiU necessitate the City „i.-i..iinf your mother s conditional use permit/variance application before the City Council at their August 22. 1994 meeting. Please conuct my office at your very earliest convenience so that we may resolve all outstanding issues. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/ch Enc. cc:Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Adm. Lyle Oman, Building Official Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Shawn Gustafson, City Engineer m [•iilMh IT ■m, % oI CITY of ORONO Municipal OfTiccs C'y Street Address: 2750 Keller Parkway Orono. MN 55356 MaiRni Address: P 0. Bo* 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 July 11, 1994 Ms. Gayle Siegler Northtown Mall 398 Northtown Drive Blaine, Minnesota 55434 Re; Completion of Driveway Improvement - File #1860, 3599 Livingston Avenue Dear Gayle: directives set forth in the engineer ’s letter. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/ch Enc. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 • 0 ^ I/]I Bonestroo MM RDsene ^=S Anderlik& ^1 Associates Engineers & Architects July 11, 1994 OSO G Bonesntjo P£Howaio A SanM Pf Agm M taxj, A«C P t Phtuip Gawe» Pf iooert W Bcnene Pf •IM' A Gcpdon Pf Kjmn L W^nHA Pf jo«pn C AntJpn* p|ADOeft t PMhP Pf Juhd%aH C Lynch Pf Gary D Pf Uarv»r L SorvM Pf tcnjid w P osh* pf iamn ■ Matartd Pf f %daPcfH> pf tvnpfO f Pf 0«v«d O LCHOO Pf jerry D Pf 1 rioa pf Genn ff Coot PE koa J Ai9anen Pf Sought J ifnoc pf Thorrws E Noyn P£jerry A ®OU#Oon Pf Heetnesn P Anopnor Pf Wiwn 0 Gi^ttJhon Pf ■oorr G Schurcht PE A Njmon Pf Mam t %9#i Pf Cec « 0*vH» pf Sysjn M EDW* C P^Mict'aH T Cautmann Pf Mam A Sfo Pf Pam G Hpupv PE *Sen«r CormMun PE Gary W Monpn Pf John P GOAJer Pf TrxyAji » Anoenon A i A PaiP i Gannon A i A Chanpt A fncason Oonaid C ButgM Pf Dane* J fogran Pf Lfo M PawHMy Thortai A SvAii Pf A ftcfe khrmdL Pf HMP M Ohon P'WJpriC J SwnCXJag Pf Pnag J Caiwef Pf jjmn f fngKsM tsmar MartPf Mam o pe . • Mchaei P Say. Pf Miei B jp'hpn pf Ms. Jeanne A. Mabustb, Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: McKinney Duplex File No. 139-1860 Dear Jeanne, On July 7th we inspected the driveway and parking space proposed at 3599 Livingston Avenue. The north end of the existing driveway encroaches into the 10-foot side yard setback. The applicant proposes to realign this portion of the driveway outside of the setback. The driveway should be paved no less than 12 feet wide. This will require some minor grading of the yard area west of the driveway. Both the setback area and the disturbed yard area should be sodded within one month of the grading work. I 8 Several areas of the existing driveway are broken up and should be removed and patched. The entire driveway should then be sealed and overlayed with 1.5 inches of bituminous. At least two days prior to paving the overlay, the City should be notified for inspection purposes. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. b. jdUi^ Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. ' iL. 1 I 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 612-63fr4600 III liiTTi L^‘. -------r Mr./-... . ^ * »-- jb r ^BS»0% CITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55* Mailing Address: P.O. Ba» 66 Crystal Bay. VN 55323 0066 April 27, 1994 Gayle Siegisr Northtown Mall 398 Northtown Drive Blaine, MN 55434 RE: Conditional Use Permit. File #1860 for Property Located at 3599 Livingston Avenue Dear Gayle: This letter is written to advise you of an upcoming deadline for required sue unprovements ^ ™ur moor ’s prLtty located at the above address. It is staffs understandmg that requtr^ off st^t narking S^to the east side of the garage has been installed with a gravel base. As ^ou wm ^mK« approved site plan also required a realignment of the dnveway with a straight alignment to the street. In order to meet the intent of the code as meeting required offstreet ““^ within the garage were to be for the parking of automobiles. The garage is still used for th Storage of snowmobiles and other materials. All reouired site improvements must be completed by May 15, 1994. Please contact my office ()^^rre a”er questions concerning this maner. 1 have enclosed a copy of the original approval resolution with this letter for your review. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/lsv cc:Lyle Oman, Building Official Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 S«ptamber6ii 1994 JMnnt Matxisth BuAdIng «id Zoning Administrator City of Orono P O Boy 66 Crystal Bay.: IN 55323 Ba: Zoning FDa # 1^ • Conditional Us# Parmit ir Ms. Mabusth: This taSar la wrinan on bahaif of my mothar, Mrs. Zaima McKinney, with ragard to tna conditional usa parmit application and raaolution. Indudad in tha rasoiution for tha approval of tna conditional usa parmit was a raquiramant to pay sawar and water connection charges of $225.00 and $1933.00 raspacdvaly. Additional SAC charges of $600.00 payable to tha Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC), rafarancad in tha resolution, have bean waived by tha MWCC. due to factors specific to tha property and tha unusual circumdances of tha request. In their words, this type of appUcaOon would always be ’grandparantad* in. with no additional fees required. Through prior correspondence diracttd to Orono by our legal counsel, we have requested iddUonal information with ragard to tna requirement to pay me assessed SAC and wac charges. As of this writing, we have had no response to thie request. The site improvements to the property required by me City of Orono have been completed. Specifically the driveway intersection with Uvlr^ston Avenue has been corrected to meet the required 10 fool aet-becfc from the property line. One add itionel parking space has been created arvl paved. After adjusting the aet-beck end correcting subsurface ccnoRions, me entire orNeway was resurfaced with a 3 inch overlay. The areae excavated for the realignment have been graded and covered with sod. Total cost of this portion of the project: $2321.00. I would like to interject e reminder to all concerned parties of me nature of the property owner in question; My rnomer Is an 80 year old widow, living on a very limited fixed income. She hat been an Orono resident for more than 40 years, residing at 3599 Uvlngstcn Avenue tines she and my father purchased me house in 1 962. Her sole asset Is the equity In her house. In January of this year, my mother wu forced to move into a senior's apartment complex due to faiUngheaim. Her house was offered for sale beginning In February. Despite a great deal of active Interest In the house, we have been unsuccessful in me attempt to sell me property. Repeatedly, we have heard from prospective buyers that me 'conditions* attached to the conditional use permit are too restrictive and make tha house unattractive to potential buyers. This Is an issue of very serious concern to my mother and me. Despite the additional expense inherent In the decision, we have obtained legal counsel to advise us on the Issues surrounding this property. Thank you. Sincerely,luwienyr ^ Gayi^Slegter r,! * ? Nft Saplembtr 2.1994 Mr. Lyto Oman Bulding Offlciai 2750 K«il«y ParW«y Orono, MN 55350 R«: 3599 Uvtno$ton Avtnuo Dear Mr. Oman; 1994, with raflard to thi property »mcm. «<cio>m. w,S^Srt7tirt Thank yoa Sincerety. • . r 1 August 30. 1994 jMprwMabusth Buldino and Zoning Administrator Otyof Orono PO Box66 Cry^ Bay. MN 55323 R«: Zoning Fit # 1860 • Conditional Us9 Permit Dear Ms. Mabusth: Par your the request of 8/29/94, landscape fabric was installed cn Saturday morning on the exposed ground surfaces adjacent to the driveway at 3590 Livingston Avenue. T. .a landscape contractor wlU be doing the finish grading and Installing sod this week, or as soon as weather permits. Thank you. Sincerely, Ga«e Slegler i 5 I ■■ iiw.*n—-------------- r I I • •^ %P « 4 «# Mtmorandum To: From: Oato: Ro: Jotnno Mabusth (UyioSlooior August 26.1994 3599 Livingston Av4fuo • Erosion Control Wo hovo o landscapo contractor schodulod to ccrroct any ^dlng dofldonclas and Install sod adiacont to lha nccavatlon at tha drtvtway entranco. which tha City raquirad. Tha paved surteca raquirad a fiva day cura period before It could be driven on. so ha was waiting imta Monday or Tuesday to do the work. We w0l apply a temporary means of erosion control tomorrow niomlng. than two small sections ot open sofl contributing to the sediment In the streets. Thank you. • i August 9. 1994 JMfine Mobusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Ra; Zoning File # I860 • Conditional Use Permit Dear Ms. Mabusth: The following information la provided in response to ycur recent correspor^ence and as an uodate to the status of the outstanding conditions for fulfillment of the conditional use permit resolution We are proceeding In good faith to complete all Items as requested, but must respectfuiiv reouesi an extension of the deadlines. The family which moved into my mother’s heme on August 1.1994 has temporarily stored their excess furniture In the garage. They were advised at move-ln of the conditional use permit restrictions on use of the garage for storage. They are seeking alternate storage facilities and will have the furnishings moved as soon as suitable arrangements can be made. They are also very aware of the neighbors concerns regarding parking and are making a very concerted effort to create no problems for anyone. We have signed a contract for the driveway Improvements and are awaiting a schedule date for completion of the work as required. Initially, the work was scheduled to be done in May. however due to various delays not within my control, the work has been postponed while they complete their larger, commercial accounts. I cannot give you a firm date at this tin a, but antldbate that I will have a scheduled date by early next week. ^ m May. I addrosseo my concerns and questions regarding the sewer and water assessments to Mr. Ronald Moo.'se, City Administrator. To date. I nave had no response from Mr. Moorse or the City Offices. I nave attacned a copy of my correspondence. I would again respectfully request a review regarding the assessments, l apologize for any delays which are attributable to me. I sf^uid Iwve sought a response to my inquiry with more diligence. My focus has been on my mother e health and financial issues which have taken prececence over other matters. Thank you Sincerely, May 23.1994 Jeanne Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0C66 RE: Condltlonalllse Perm.t Re #1860 - Driveway Imprcveme.'ts Dear Jeanne: Attached Diease tird a sketch which approximates the paving plan for the required drlwwa.y ?or the sublect property at 3599 Uvingston Avenue. The plan as proposed will accomplish the following; 1 Provide one additional paved parking space located lmmedlai«|y east of the garage ’ (Illustrated In cross-hatching distinct from remaining portion or driveway). 2. Removal of all cracked and damaged existing paving, repair of subsurface with appropriate base materials. 3. Hand grading and application of base materials to the ‘entry area* required for full access to the additional space. Application of 2 - 3 i-ches of MNDot specification 2341 asphalt overlay to entire drive surface. Other than the paving of the additional space, wearer^ ® this property. Re-alignment of the driveway as orlglnaiiy c-vcussed Is not a viable ° several factors. There are mature trees on both side' f me driveway w. ~ me ecWeve alignmsnt This additional expense would be a burden to Mrs. McKinney and wou.d not appear to acnleve anything of significance In the Issue of creating the additional parking space. At your earliest opportunir/, please let me know if a sf a visit Is necessary cr If we may proceed with the paving as proposed. Thank you. Sincerely. DATE 2.3 .ras. Gayib Slegler ' J Phone: 786-97C5 iOFMGB -rt»j —u:? FROM: cotNOfrmnmiMAa PHONE 1786-9704 #7800524 \ ■ May ? 6.1994 Ronald Moorsa City Administrator P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 RE: Conditional Use Permit. File #1860 m \ Dear Mr. Moorse: This letter Is written on behalf of my mother. Mrs. Zelma McKinney, with regard to the conditional use permit for the subject property located at 3599 Livingston Avenue. Included In the resolution for the approval of the conditional use permit for my mother’s property was a requirement to pay sewer and water connection charges of $225.00 and $1933.00 respectively. The additional SAC charges referenced in the resolution ($800.00), which would have been payable to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC), have been waived by the MWCC, due to factors specific to this applicant and the property in question. We are requesting separate consideration of the Issues of water artd sewer connection charges which are payable to the City of Orono. A brief recap: Mrs. McKinney has been the property resident and owner of 3599 LMngston Avenue since May of 1962. At time of purchase, the property was demised as multi-family. A bunding permit (#626) Issued In 1957 specifically noted the property ’s use as multiple dwelling, which was consistent with zoning at that time. Code amendments passed In 1962, 1968 and 1975 Identified the zoning as single family, with provisions for conditional use permit application for the continuation of non-conforming use. Prom the tax records of the City, It has been determined that Mrs. McKinney was assessed and paid sewer connection charges totaling $1065.00 in 1964. In lS72her property was assessed $580.00 for water connection. In making the decision to waive the necessity of paying any additional SAC charges, the MWCC took Into consideration the unusual circumstances of Mrs. McKinney ’s case. It was Indicated to us that it is their standard practice to “grandparent* approval to users such as this, without assessing any additional connection fees. I understand that the decision of the MWCC Is Independent cf any assessment practice which the City may apply. I would appreciate having information which the City may have avaiilable regarding other specific Instances In which the City has assessed and collected fees for 'new users', when In fact the use has not changed, merely been recognized under a new title. There are generally precedent setting cases with similar circumstances which wruld provide a basis of comparison, a test of fairness for the standard of application. Mrs. McKinney ’s ability to pay these assessments is solely dependent upon the successful sale of her property. She has been forced to secure an equity loan to fund living expenses and to pay for the driveway Improvements which have also been requested by the City In conjunction with the conditional use permit approval. For more than 30 years, Mrs. McKinney fias been a caring property owner and payer of property taxes and other fees and assessments as deemed due by the City. I would ask that the special circumstances of her permit application be taken into conslderatlcn with both the amount and ruiture of the mere than $2000 proposed In assessments. r* To dttf. we have encountered extrwne resistance from potential buyers with recard to the provisions of the conditional use permit It has become an Issue of great concern In that the orooerty and He market value are my mother’s only Rnandal asset She Is now Itvlng in a senior’s apaivnent bulding and the expense of maintaining two residences is very draining on her finances. Rease advise us as to how wa can begin the process to have the proposed assessments reviewed and what process exists to aopeai the amount which has been determined as due?i Thank you for your consideratlai of thess issues. SirKerely, Gayle Sleeker ♦ Phone: 708 - 9705 (w) 439 - 6124(h) Address: 1410 Meadowiarfc Drive Stillwater, MN 55082 i - - i • May 10.1904 Jaww MalHiSth Buldtno A Zonino AdmMrtfator PO B00C68 Cryiud Bay. MN S5323<00G6 R& CondMonal Uta Ptmit. Fla #1860 OearJeanna: This latter Is written in response to your correspondence dated Aprl 27. 1994. regarding the condUonai use permit tor the subject property located at 3599 LMngston Avenue. Wa have obtained cost animates for the paving Improvements which have been specified for the reouired one additional parkInQ space. There Is an issue with regard to this which will require streetTf necessary, we can mark the proposed area with stakes and schedule a site visit with the city engineer. complete the Improvements. Assuming we have cooperative weather, a realistic dae of completion would be May 31 . The personal property which has been stored In the garage Is being storedwSout mymother's knowledge or permission. She Is no longer resWIng In the house. The of water and sewer connection: It is my understanding that the City of Orono vj^l SwlS??reduetlon lnth« amount. for elreum«incn ofthl. proprty. Ifwral^ wW walv* .11 SAC charge, and that th.y hav. dl*aj.»d Ihl.wllh o'ty .avBa^OT tha n«r amount dua with ragard to water and mw« connection chargM and wa wm prowioo payment or begin an appeal process. I will call you tomorrow to discuss this further. Thank yoa r ,0 <*• To: From: Date: Re: Jeanne Mabusth 1 Gayle Siegler December 6,1993 \\ Conditional Use Permit - Zoning File # i860 U^gston^venue granting of a conditional ^e permit for 3599 - The driveway has been indicated by shading. • The additional parking space is indicated by crosshatching. • It is our intention to address the orientation of th#» drivewav to accommodate the required 10 foot set back from the adjacem property line. • Tile work will be performed as soon as weather permits next Spring. Please call me if there are details which I've neglected. Thank vou.^ • \ 'Fabyanske , Svoboda , Westra, Davis & Hart A ntoKssoKAL A ssociation jT-' t. ML T. Oi»ALO L fVCteSA %WkRK W. Wf »THA Actrarr l cavis 4;«MlAHJ.aA«^CV MCUAar. MQ2» oiM«s j. rvoccN trOTT LLCyO ANDf^SOM 9AUL L VATiUl T. S?A*J ^A aN ■. TUOMSOS GAtTf C a I?C3CN CAAillS A. GASTM SUTg 11 CO 920 SICONO AVfSOUTH MI.N^APOLIS. MINNESOTA 55i02 7tL£^HONIf12-3ai011S mSCCPill^ g1M2i-3iS7 ' \ cwxsrtraiiAiua Kt\I f. HAA? .•uomi 5. KJkCW A a. MAAT 971 4. CiCUAAO C .1N»N ncMAj j. ru*cci CHAaUl 0- CA««TI* « A^AY StJC R VCirtai04 NCCH^IJ. wcsa -CaElVNL ecu. 5f**Nccx UJLS K cc «ary •Ar?£ • September 1, 1994 Ms. Jeanne Mabush Building Sc Zoning Administration Ciiv of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, aMN 55323*0066 RE: 3599 Livingston Avenue Dear Ms. Mabush: We are counsel to aMs. Gayle Siegler and have been asked to assist her in the satisfaction of the conditions imposed by Lhe City in Resolution #3370. and to review the propriety of those conditions. Among the conditions that appear unusual to me are the requirements that the applicant pay SAC and WAC charges. I understand that the City is requiring that these charges be paid despite the fact that such charges have previously been assessed and paid on this property, that the permit concerns no change in use and that the applicant proposes no new plumbing fixtures or installations. I am enclosing a copy of the correspondence sent by Ms. Siegler to Mr. Moore on May 16, 1994 concerning the City’s determination to assess such charges in these circumstances. Except for demands for payment, the only response to this inquiry that we have received is your letter of August 30, 1994 in which you explain that the charges were made in accordance with "an established policy of the City." Please ad\ise as to the following: 1. What is that established policy? In other words, what is the City’s policy in determining whether to assess SAC and WAC charges against improved properties that are the subject of a request for a conditional use permit bccauM of the existence of a pre-existing non-conforming use, when SAC and WAC charges have previously been assessed against the subject property and no new plumbing fixtures, connections, or other alterations are planned? F;MX)OBJ.S-\:i621 Ms. Jeanne Mabush September I, 1994 Page 2 \ >' 2. When was that policy "established"? 3. Who established Lhe policy? 4 Finally, please identify similarly situated properties to which this policy has been applied in the past. Your assistance in supplying this information wiU be helpful to us, and to die Council, confinnmg the appropriateness of the proposed charges in this instance. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours. Gary C. Eidson GCE/bjn cc; Ms. Gayle Siegler F.\DOCB/N\2i«2l #• W L. • • w SANITARY SEWER • Treat-nent^lant. The trunk sewers were constructed Large enougn to ^rvicrthe entire area including Minnetonka Beach. An assessment of STia 00 net acre was levied at that time to defray the cost of the trunk ^ i!; ^LateHl sewers were also assessed in addition to the trunk sewer‘cost. The acreage assessment was spread throughout the district to be served by the trunk sewer. An assessment or $225.00 (to amorti'^e the cost of the sewage treatment plant) was levied ^or eac amotti-e residence or its eauivalent where sewer service was available This assessment was not levied against vacant property, "erresic^ences were charged the $225.00 at the time a building permit was issued for a house with sewer service available. IQ-?-! all relatinq to the construction of lateral sewers a ?oota,e bas?3 . In that year the policy ^^-iaed to assess 40% on a footage basis and the remaining 60% on * The unit is based on a single family residence (or a if the orooertv is vacant, on the unit area recuirec to construe, a Io2s7n‘d th-ver^ The front lot line is often usee wnere tne sice sUghtly s.3v.-e=, /o“"a h^uUdtOl'e rot'il front lot line. The n,ininuit. averaoe width, ILi^r^hy L\%^^\;^VthynVr\“ esVw“^ ^Tthl lot ^ -- ?hr ave/age ^ ^hi assesseo “ once'and separate ownership is not assesseo. A vacan. lo. Jnwe eualifv for a building permit assesseo for a unit Ij. it i- too smci- t e-~=n lots owned bv the but will be assessed for ‘ ^ ^ts relating to the number of same person are assessed fraction^ buildinc permit. The lots required to be combineo to qualn.y for a ouiicing y footage is fully assessed. Assessments for residential buildings a^e^aLeTsedTo^^Ut^^^^ an! c^n^ctio; units based on the sewage flow compared to a single family residence. WATER •.-«.';miiartosewerinthat40%isbased The assessment policy for water is si. seoarate connection cost for on footage and 60% on units. There wa footage assessment is the wells, tank and treatment pla . sewer. The units are calculated in the same .manner as • residential, properties, calculated in the same manner ^ .q 4 units per acre when Commercially zoned properties are 1 Each commercial unit or occupied and 2 per acre when rate for residential assessable foot is calculated at 1.5 times tne r Q <i.[o-ss r :h proptsrties. This is to coinp6nsate for the larger .tiains and addi tional hydrants placed in the commercial areas and in recognition of larger insurance savings in comparison with residential properties. GENERAL Wetlands are not to be assessed. Many assessments are referred to the City Council questions regarding as individual cases. In 1972 the Dunwoody Sewer Project was initiated, and assessment policies changed because of a samll isolated area that could not totally benefit from a fully assessed project. The final assessment was 50% tax levy 50% individual assessment. In 1982 our last sewer project, we found high costs that could not be fully assessed individually to justify a full benefit offset by an increased market value. This project the Minnetonka Bluffs, West Ferndale and contiguous areas were 60% individually assessed and 20% general revenues on tax levies. Undoubtedly we will continue to require special assessments to finance a local improvement but a great deal of more care has to be put into hearing proceedings to assure everyone that indeed, by law an individual assessment would not exceed the benef it as measured by the increased market value. The Crystal Bay area is a perfect example of an isolated area found to need m.unicipal sewers which could be legally appealed if every individual assessment were applied. If an assessment is not realistic in view of the real estate market the City can determine that such an i.mprovement is necessary, a benefit to the general public, and could be partially funded by the general fund. Public land is automatically funded by the general fund for future consideration the following general policies should be reviewed. GENERAL POLICIES 1. Basic Policy. Special assessments will be levied against benefitting properties to cover 100% of project costs including principal, interest, administrative, bonding and service charges. 2. General Public Benefit. The City Council may declare a percentage of any project cost to be of general public benefit to be financed from general revenues or obligation bonds rather than from special assessments. This amendment to the basic assessment policy would apply in cases where an identifiable general benefit is present (example: collector street paving requiring wider or heavier construction than a local street. The abutting owners would receive the same benefit and assessments as those abutting a local street with the extra costs spread as a general public benefit). 3. Determination of Special Benefit. Upon the advice of the City Administrator and theCity Engineer, theCouncil shall determine which properties receive special benefit from each public improvement project, and therefore which properties shall be specially assessed. race 3 of 15 3 The amount of the special assess.-nent shall not exceed the amount of special benefit. All properties shall be considered equally. No prooerty receiving a special benefit shall be excluded from being assessed therefore, although such assessment may be deferred according to policies set ou. below. 4. Assessment Procedures will follow the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429: a) receipt of petition requesting improvements b) ordering feasibility report c) receipt of feasibility report and ordering hearing d) public hearing to consider improvements e) ordering plans and specifications f) approving plans and requesting bids g) receipt of bids and preliminary determination of costs h) ordering assessment hearing i) public hearing to consider assessments j) adopting assessmenc roll k) awarding bid after expiration of assessment appeal period l) conducting required hearings and adoption of supplemental assessments after completion of construction of costs exceed original assessment Note that an alternate procedure may be followed if assessment appeal risks are low and/or if assessment appeal waivers are received prior to award of contract: a) receipt of petition requesting improvements b) ordering feasibility report c) receipt of feasibility report and ordering hearing d) .public hearing to consider improvements e) ordering plans and specifications f) approving plans and requesting bids g) receipt of bids and preliminary determination of costs h) award of bid and construction r i) final cost determination after construction completion j) ordering assessment hearing k) public hearing to consider assessments l) adopting assessment roll 5. Time of Assessment. Assessments adopted prior to October 10th of any year will have the first installment due with the property taxes payable the following May 15th. Assessments adopted between April 10 and October 10 of any year shall have 12 months interest due with the first installment. Assessment adopted between October 10 ana April 10 of the following year shall have 18 months interest due with the first installmant. 6. Interest tv-»tes. Interest rates charged on special assessments shall be one percentage point higher than the interest rate payable on the improvement bonds issued for t.ie project, rounded to the nearest one-fourth percentage point. 7. Prepayments. Partial pre-payments will not be accepted. Upon adootion of an assessment roll, any property owner may pay his assessment in full within 30 days without incurring any interest charge. After that date, but prior co November 15 of the year the assessment roll is dopted, the assessment may be paid in full and the only interest due shall be any amount sharged in excess of the first 12 months interest. 8. Assessment Payoffs. a) Voluntary payoff. Any owner may payoff in full all remaining orincioal amounts of any special assessment, including payment of interest due to date, at any time. Payoff prior to November 15 of any year will avoid interest charges for the next succeeeding year. b) Required payoff. The Council may require prepayment of any outstanding special assessments including interest due to date as a condition of approval of any subdivision, planned unit development, conditional use permit or variance. 9. Past-Due Assessments. Special assessments shall be paid current each year at the time general property taxes are due and payable. Building permits shall not be issued for any property unless all special assessments due : ave been pa’d current. The Cuunci. may refuse to approve any subdivision, variance or conditional '^e permi for any property unless all special assessments due have been paid current. * • 10. Tax-Forfeited Property. a) Release of any tax-forfeited property for public sale shall be 1 2; r as asubject to collection of all past due special assess.Tients part of said purchase price. Any past due special assessments not collected on sale shall be subject to reassessment or, at the option of the Council, the entire outstanding special assessment amount including interest shall be due in cash at the time a building permit is issued for the property. b) Retention of any tax forfeit property ior City use, which property has unpaid special assessments du>i, shall have the total outstanding special assessment amount charged, against the City department or operating fund for which said land was obtained. 11. Deferred Assessments. a) Low-income senior citizens will be eligible to have payment of any special assessment deferred for a period of five (5) years in accordance with the terms of Resolution #1393. b) At the time any assessment roll is adopted, the Council may elect to defer collection of any special assesrment or portion thereof that would otherwise have been charged to property in the oro-ject. Such deferrals when made shall be uniformly applied to all properties in the same class (example: vacant properties assessed for trunk sewer when no lateral sewer is available) . Collection of deferred assessments shall be determineo oy tne Council at the time the roll is adopted, in one of the following ways: 1) Deferral for a specified number of thereafter with property taxes in the normal fashion, or 2) Collection in cash as a connection charge at the time of issuance of any building pernit; oi 3) Collectic 1 in cash at the time of aoprova^l of any subdivision or planned uni. development fon the prope.-^y. 12. Repayment Period. The number ^..gg^ssed assessment is spread shall be uniferm for al- ^ ^ - -i*" -4. under any one levy, and shall be determined '=>'/'I® ‘ \ ®3 individual assessments and/or the duration o.. the bond issie. a) Average principal amounts of $130 or less normally be assessed for collection in one installment. b) Average principal amounts of $500 pt^ normally assessed for collection in 3 to 5 insta* m c) Typical principal amounts o^^^^ shall normally be assessed for _ installments depending upon the bond iss d) Assessments levied specitically for f®"|^iect""to "ansubdivision or private development shall be subject to an ■? agreement with the developer providing a maximum assessment period o£ 5 years, with all assessments against individual lots to be paid off prior to sale of such lot and/or prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for such lot. Assessments levied for any hazardous building proceeding, noxious weed cutting, diseased tree removal or any other work performed by the City on private property shall be normally collected in one installment. 13. Publicly-Owned Property. Publicly owned property including property owned by the City located within an improvement project area will be included in calculation of every assessment formul as if the property were privately owned: a)For City-owned property, that portion of the project cost which would have been assessed against such property shall be paid from general revenues to the project account in a lump sum or on an annual basis over the duration of the assessment period. b) For property owned by any other governmental agency, that portion of the project cost which would h-2ve been assessed against such property shall be billed directly to said agency. For property held by the State as tax-forfeited property, the assessment shall be adopted and levied as part of the assessment roll in the normal fashion, and the principal and interest shall be collected on sale of the land or at the time a building permit is issued as setforth in policy #10 above. 14. Abatement of Assessments. Once levied, the City is under no obligation to abate, reduce or refund any special assessment or any portion thereof, even if subseguent changes are made in zoning regulations or if eventual developed use is less than the unit density originally assessed. However, the City Council will look favoracly on abating the unpaid portion of any excess "unit" assessment upon application of the owner as follows: a) Only "unit" assessments will be abated, not area or frontage assessments. Only the remaining unpaid portion will be abated. There will be no refund of amounts already due or paid. In the cast lots owned in common, the Council may abate unit assessments in excess of one whole unit provided the owner legally combines for tax and zoning purposes all commonly—owned lots into one buildable parcel. II. DETERHINATION OF FORMULA UNITS 15. Residential Equivalent Connection Units (REC). A "unit" for purposes of calculating assessemnt formulas shall mean the equiva en __ _ _ _ _C /, i sraent«^^ ”***^™“™ assessmentl"<3ividual lots socS Tot. ofcVe°rT„ ‘=““=i"S proceedino,e orTo other woik- petty shall be normallyn^anTmT Pt°Potty including/ asse^r°''!"/"‘ Project area Y assessment formula as if the aon of the project cost which TounTT"^ ^'om.count in a lump sum or on an cne assessment period. cnmental agency, that portion been assessed against such to saia agency. sOrope rty, the assessment . interest shall ® Jauilding permit is City is under no { special assessment or anv s less tnan the unit density -ouncil will look favorably ess unit” assessment upon ited, not area or frontage 1 be abated. There will be paid. the Council may abate unit unit provided the owner irposes all commonly-owned its (REC). A "unit” for shall mean the equivalent r%TiTeVeTs"hTllTeTs^igTeVLTt!ple“^^^^^^^JontTorcoTmission: ^ Wastecompr!sjTn“''”uTiVT"'®' """ " fownhouse shall *” 2“SuT^T*peTTuUd!ig.'’® each dwelling, c) Where 3 or mote dwellings existing in any one aoartment or condominium building, each dwelling shall comprise%0% of onl oueifTouJe containing a principal residence and aguest house will be assigned units as follows: guest house is detached, if the guest house has at^^e^ast'^f and/or if the lot area isat least 1 1/2 times the minimum lot area of the zoning district. house is detached, if the guest house lie/ ^®®*^ living area and if the lot area district^ times the minimum lot area of the zoning 3) 1 1/2 units if the guest house is attached. 4) Additional unit assessments shall be due in cash if the assess4 subdivided and less than 2 units were originally e)Residential properties containing an accessory building to be connected to sewer or water shall be charged only the 1 unit for tne principal residence provided the accessory building does not constitute a guest house or dwelling. Non-residential buildings and structures shall be assigned one unit for each 100,000 gallons of sewer flow per year (274 gallons per day) with a minimum of one "unit” per property. Such buildings, structures or property shall further be assigned units consistent with the MWCC standard table of SAC units for various commercial, public, and institutional facility types. This formula shall apply to all project types, not just sewer projects. Non-residential properties containing two or more habitable buildings on an undivided property shall be assessed multiple units based upon the total number of units calculated separately for each building. A minimum of one unit shall be assessed for each separate building actually connected to sewer or water. When multiple units are calculated for any property based on use. L iBEacfcA’, y • — - r ^ the assessed units shall be a whole number determined by rounding down if the calculated number is .25 or less, and rounding up if the calculated number is .26 or more. 16. Future Unit Determination - Vacant Properties. Vacant property shall be assessed units based upon roning analysis of allowable use and allowable density. Normally a vacant lot will be assigned a minimum of one unit. Multiple units will be assigned based on potential development to but not in excess of allowed zoning density determined by both lot area and minimum required lot width fronting on the current improvement. Where large tracts of land would require subdivision and extension of future streets and/or future lateral utilities to serve all the mathematically possible units, only those existing or future units directly fronting on or served by the current improvement will be assessed for the project. Unbuildable lots or outlots will not be assessed for "unit” charges. 17. Front Footage for purposes of calculating assessment formulas shall be determined as follows; a)Typical frontage shall be the actual platted or measured lot width measured at the front ...ot line abutting the street being imoroved. A minimur. frontage charge of 53 feet shall be assessed to benefitting lots of unusual shape ot configuration such as pie shaped lots on curves or cul-de-sacs ot back lots served only by easement or narrow driveway areas. Corner lots or through lots fronting on two or more streets being improved shall have frontage measured as follows: 1) For curb, gutter, and/or-street improvements frontage charged shall be the full width of the widest side plus one-half the width of the other side(s). 2) For sewer, water ot other utility improvements frontage charged shall be the full width of the widest side along which the improvement runs. No charge shall be made for frontage on the other side(s) unless the lot is subdividable and service is being provided for two or mote units. In cases where curb, gutter ot street improvements extend only part way along the benef itted property, the frontage charge shall not exceed the minimum 50 feet charge, or the actual length of the improvement, whichever is greater. e)In cases where sewer, water or other utility improvements extend only part way along a benefitted property, the f^o"tage charge shall still be the minimum 53 feet charge or the acutal lot width not to exceed the minimum requited width of lots in the zoning district, whichever is greater. 18. Area Charges. Assessment formulas including an "area" charge r V / I ........ma { shall be determined as follows: a)"Area" shall mean the actual platted or calculated lot area in square footage or acres of every benefitted lot in the project area, excluding platted or unplatted road rights-of-way, private road outlots or RLS tracts, open water, designated wetlands, and cemetaries. Unplatted toad right-of-way shall be measured 33 feet from the travelled centerline or as otherwise shown on the county half-section plat maps. Unplatted private driveway easements shall not be excluded. The project "area" for a storm sewer project shall be the entire watershed or sub-watershed determined by elevation. Benef itting properties may be divided such that only part of a lot is within the project area. In these cases, only the area of lot actually within the watershed will be assessed against that property. The project "area" for a trunk sewer, lateral sewer or watermain project shall be the entire lot area of every benefitted property, except that for large subdividable parcels being only partially served by lateral sewer, the assessable area shall be the number of existing and future units served times the minimum lot area requited in that zoning district. The project "area" for all other projects shall be the entire actual lot area of each benefitting property. 19. Lots in Common Ownership. Where two or more adjacent lots or tax parcels are owned in common, the assessment formula shall be determined and divided as follows: a)The total number of "units" assessed shall be determined by zoning review as if all commonly-owned lots were one parcel. This total would then be divided and spread over each separate tax parcel as evenly as possible. The total frontage assessment shall be determined as if all commonly-owned lots were one parcel, with each separate tax parcel assessed according to its actual dimensions. The total area assessment shall be determined as if all commonly- owned lots were one parcel, with each separate tax parcel assessed according to its actual dimensions. Assessment of a partial “unit" shall not make a lot unless combined with other adjacent lots to equa a full "unit". e)current zoning regulations. 20. Subdividable Lots. Whenever a property is subdivided into f • - Cr ID additional buUding sites, or whenever any property is developed or redeveloped to a greater use density than the number of units M «sess"ents shall be paiS incash at the time of subdivision approval, or at the time of issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first. III. PROJECT TYPES md^ D6• a) Added to operating expense and paid by an increased rate or surcharge to existing users (such as on sewer or water billinas) ; or b) Specially assessed to existing users on the same basis as new construction would be assessed. 22. System Replacements For Increased Capacity. When an existing system must be enlarged to accommodate increased use or capacity the replacement cost should be divided as follows: a)1 he total replacement cost should be assessed against new development when the replacement is required solely to permit such new or future development. The oversizing cost should be assessed against new development and the cost of replacement in-kind may be assessed against the existing users when an otherwise requirement replacement is oversized to accommodate future development. 23. Improvements Within New Developments. All on-site and of f-site improvements necessary to accommodate private land development will normally be installed and financed privately by the developer and not by the Ci ty as a public project. Exceptions to this policy would allow public improvement and special assessment only as follows; a) Only upon petition by the developer. b) Only if the Council finds a general public benefit to be gained by constructing the project as a public improvement, such as: 1) Improvements that benefit other than developer's property. 2) Improvements would have had to be installed as a public project even if the development was not occurring. 3) Improvements are an extension or continuation of an adjoining public project. 4) Improvements within the development must be oversized or otherwise changed to serve property outside the development. I •, which oversizin9 is specislly assessable to such other property* 5) The development itself is a public benefit such as low-income elderly housing or neighborhood renewal projects. c)Only if the developer provides a written waiver of any rights to appeal the assessment. d) Only if the developer provides security to assure timely payment of all assessments even if the development does not occur. 24. Trunk Sewer Projects. Trunk sewer projects consist of common facilities such as oversize gravity sewers, force main sewers, lift stations and purchase of capacity in metropolitan facilities that indirectly provides sewer service or capacity for properties in Otono. Benefitted properties include all properties whose existing or future sewer flow would pass through the subject trunk sewer facilities. Trunk sewer projects Should be assessed as follows: a)On an area basis of $x per acre or per square foot against all assessable property in the service area. On a unit basis of $x per REC unit against all existing and estimated future units in the service area. 25. Lateral Sewer Projects. Lateral sewer projects consist of gravity sewers and where necessary lift stations and force-main sewers that provide direct sewer service to individual properties. Benefitted properties include all vacant or occupied properti^es which are provided with sewer service stubs and/or which otherwise have access to use such sewer. Lateral sewer projects should be assessed as follows: a)On a unit basis of $x per unit served by the lateral, determined by dividing the total number of existing and future REC units served; and/or b) On a front-footage basis of $x per actual foot of lot width abutting the lateral sewer. IV. ASSESSMENT POLICY REPORT 1. Assessing on a straight "unit” basis requires careful zoning reyiew prior to assessment but is often most equitable, especially in built-up neighborhoods where each house needs the same service. Unit assessments tend to overcharge narrow or small lots compared to wide or large lots (although the small lots often need the service most so thus should pay a larger share). "Unit" assessment often requires partial units to be spread over common ownership lots. 2. Assessing on a front-footage basis more fairly pays for actual construction cost, but tends to penalize large or wide lot owners for they are often more code-conforming properties. __ _ _ _II e aeBBmiaiaamm ■» ~- 3. Assessing on a combined unit and footage basis requires a more complicated formula and often is no more fair than a straight unit assessment. 4. Assessing for improvements primarily benefitting a developer requires care and security to assure that the assessments will be paid even if the development does not proceed. 5. Senior citizen assessment deferrals benef it the City by making it easier to install needed projects without burdening low-income owners. Yet the 5 year deferral must clearly be understood to be a deferral and not a grant. Also, allowance must be made in each project for a certain percentage of such deferrals which do add to the general project cost. 6. Assessment policies should be developed to address public property, wetlands, subdividable properties and residential properties with guest houses and/or accessory buildings served by sewer or water. 7. Assessment decisions often become intermingled with easement acquisition costs. Policies should be established to guide decisions and negotiations in this area. 8. Policies are needed to quide the timing of assessment hearings compared to contract awards in consideration of total cost determination vs appeal risks. This would include assessment appeal waiver policies. 9. Policies are needed as to assessment term or duration, and minimum amounts to be assessed over multiple years. ^ .IT ^ ^ I THE FOLLOWIHG ARTICLES ARE FROM THE MAY, 1979 ISSUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Are special assessments still a viable means of raising funds for city improvements? In Buettner v. City of St. Cloud (Minn. Sup. Ct., March 16, 1979), summarized in the May issue of Minnesota Cities, the Minnesota Court decided that when a dissatisified property owner appeals from a special assessment and alleges that the assessment exceeds the increase in market value of his property resulting from the improvement, the reviewing court will not grant any deference to the decision of the governing body. Instead, on such appeals, the court will take new evidence and determine the amount of benefit as if the council had never made a decision on that issue. In the past, special assessment proceedings have been a rapid, relatively certain, and inexpensive means of raising money to finance needed local improvements. However, the Buettner decision now control the action of district judges, and entices property owners to have a second go at the process in hopes of getting a teouceo assessment. Special assessments in the future seem much less likely to be swift, inexpensive, and certain. Undoubtedly, cities will continue to need the special assessment process as a means of financing local improvements, but a good deal more care should now go into the execution of such a proceeding. Certainly^ before ordering an improvement^ the council should now, as in the oast, gather as much evidence as possible on the issue of wnether or not the benefits to be derived from installation of a particular imorovement are sufficient to justify the cost, and make specific findings as to increases in market value. (See =-wert v. Ci^y of Winthrop, Minn. Sup. Ct. April 12, 1979, summarized elsewhere in this issue.) Where an improvement has been petitioned for and the benefit does not substantially exceed the cost, a council mi gh^t ^dopt different strategies depending upon its objectives and what it sees as the potential for appeals. the contract and ordering the improvement. That works only if the area affected by the improvement is For larger projects of a similar nature, a council could con^der yaking the improvement contract itself conditional ® ® objections being filed for the period up to 30 days would not be hearing. If this plan were followed, a binding entered nor would any of the improvement work star time for improvement and assessment unforeseenappeal had run. Of course, the city might be stuck for some unforeseen ^ 1C - - - -' I w % cost if this plan were used, but a council might determine that avoidance of litigation costs are worth that chance. Another means of reducing the number of appeals on all special assessments is simply to pay some substantial portion of the cost of all improvements out of general funds. This would reduce the chance that any individual assessment would exceed the benefit from the improvement as measured by the increased market value resulting from the improvraent. Finally, some cities may wish to pick up on a hint that the Court gave in its Buettner decision, by making available to the property owner, as a part of the municipal assessment process, an adversary proceeding where evidence of market value improvement could be considered and made a part of the assessment determination. Without further pronouncements from the Minnesota Supreme Court, this approach is by no means a guaranteed cure for assessment appeal problems. However, it would seem reasonable that the assessment hearing notice could contain a statement that those who wish to dispute their assessment as determined in usual formula fashion may notify the council, and the council can then arrange for a hearing before an impartial hearing officer. The property owner could then put in such testimony as he thinks is relevant concerning the improvement in market value of his property, and the city could do likewise. The city could then adopt the assessment role, including assessments determined on a conventional formula basis and also including those determined in adversary proceedings. The language of Buettner seems to indicate that the Supreme Court would limit the trial court to a review upon the record (without new testimony) if such adversary hearings were held and an adequate record made as part of the city's assessment proceedings. If that is the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court, the city would have some greater certainty as to the amount of money it could expect to collect, much earlier than if it waited for a district court trial which disregards all prior municipal proceedings. This last potential solution offers no real certainty to a city until such a procedure is appealed to the Supreme Court and sustained. Undoubtedly, before the next session of the legislature, proposals will be made to address problems raised by the Buettner case by amendment to the statutes. However, a statutory remedy will not be easily found, since the problem the Court found with local assessment proceedings is constitutional in its origin. In the meantime, governing bodies will have to examine their assessment rolls in a very practical way to determine whether or not an appeal is likely to result from a particular assessment and whether that assessment is realistic in view of the real estate market in their city. * K rTTY SHOULD CONDOCT BEFORE- AND AFTER-MARKET IMPROVEMENT VALUATION STUDIES REGARDING PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT Anoellants were landowners in Sibley County. They had platted and sold various parcels of land since 1957. Some of the lots were orovided with utility service after payment by the landowners of a $300 hook-up charge to the city. In 1974 and 1975 the city decided to make various improvements, such as curb, gutter, sewer, water, and street surfacing,^in those areas.of the city where these installations were not already made. The citv prepared assessment rolls in compliance with state law. However, the person who prepared the assessment rolls and the eacrtUtified that they did not make a before- and after-market improvment valuation study regarding the appellants assessed property. The appellants brought suite alleging that the assessments Sere excessive. The trial court held for the city, stating that the market value of the land increased by more than the assesse . •Upon appeal to the Minnesota'Supreme Court, however, the judgment was r0vecsed and rainanded. The Court had difficulty in finding that the special benefits «=eived by the appellants' property as a result of the exceeded the assessment made. The reaso,' ..or the difficulty was the fac*- that both of the patties presented conflicting evidence regarding thS^a^ket value of tL property before and after t^^Vt:^^“d7u" m\t: y made. The Court was faced with a battle of the experts and ultimately found that the appellants' expert (a real estate credible than the city's expert lanother real estate appraiser . Apparently the two appraisers had different methods of appraisal. The appellants' expert looked at the land itself, analyzed the current real fitate market in the city, and compared the similar property recently sold. The city = and sellingof the market value on his experience in building and selling speculation homes in a nearby city. The Couru, e'vidence, found the appellants' ^3® 3^3%”^ pursu”^^^Therefore, it ordered the assessments to be re ass P the re-estimated market values. The court also held that when * ““".“dTo^'/uryTrilt^l^^^^^^^^^ case to district court# he is not ^ there is no such trial is specifically granted trstatute for special assessments, the matter April 13, court judge. Evert v. City of Winthrop (Minn Sup. Ct., April i:>, 1979). i H . ■. I^IUTES OP THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10# 1984 •PAGE 19 nrn AWARD - 3/4 TON PICKUP , ^ u/r* httlitY dept* CounciImember Frahm moved, Councilmember Hammerel ^ seconded, to approve the bid award to Minneapolis GMC Truck Center for one 3/4 ton and 4 w/d pickup for an amount not to exceed $10,075.00. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). bid award utility tractor STREETS & PARKS DEPT* revenue searing public HEARING* COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR OCTOBER* SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES* PRIMARY ELECTION DAY* TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT STREET DEPT* PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT LIQUOR STORE* LETTER TO CREIGHTON* * -.»ir tm Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember Hammerel seconded, to approve the bid award to Kortuems Sales s Service for one model 2150 John Deere Tractor and sice mount mower for an amount not to exceed $19,280.86. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember Hammerel seconded, to approve the public hearing sharing to be held on October 15, 1984 at 7.00 PM. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember harhme.e. seconded, to recognize the October Council m.eeting schedule. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). (5),'Nays (0). councilmember Frahm moved, seconded, to approve the temporary employment of Randi O'Brien for the Street Department at an $9.00/hr effective September 4, 1984 . Motion, Aye (5), Nays (0). rn^cre^sTltt‘=3 “H“n^in\s^ -« ^ to $4.35/hr. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). councilmember !et?efd^ted Au^Lt 30. 1984, concerning insurance coverage. Motion, Ayes (S), Nays (0). i ii REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 'a <3. DATE: Septem ipaitment Approval: Nane Jeanne A. Mabusth TiUc Building & Zoning Administrator ITEM NO.: ^ ^ A '•& Agenda SectkMi: Zoning Item D^ption: #1941 Lee and Wanda Fischbach. 3135 North Shore Drive " VarianceT^ Resolution The variance application was feviewed at both the July and August meetings of the Planning Commission. TIk foUowmg fKtual fuidings have been based on adjusted ana cakuUtions determined for this current review and accepted by the applicant. In 1985 total lot area was calculated at 44,600 s.f. Appli^ts’ architect calculated total lot area at 33,600 s.f. Reduced wa calculations had a major impact on the hardcover and structural coverage percentages Gaffron has recalculated the area of the lot for final review and finds total lot area at 43 529 s f The foUowing ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) * Review of structural coverage. Total area = 43,529 s.f. Allowed = 6,529.3 s.f. or 15% Existing = 4,416 s.f. or 10.1% Proposed = 4,923.4 s.f. or 11.3% No structural coverage variance required. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback variances, refer to Exhibit I and K. A. B Existing principal structure = 30 ’ ± Proposed principal strucnire = 30 ’± Existing deck = 27 ’ ± Proposed deck = 27 ’± Variance for principal structure = 45’ or 60% Variance for upper level deck = 48’ or 64% Note: Existing gravel areas underlain with plastic are to be removed and are located 20 ’ from lagoon shoreline. ^ : ■ ! 'i • i • Vi Vi »; . Request for Council Action contimied page 2 of 5 September 6, 1994 Zoning File #1941 Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover variances. A.0-75’ setback area = 29,974 s.f. Existing = 3,694 s.f. or 12.3% Proposed = 3.195 s.f. or 10.7% Hardcover reduction = 499 s.f. or 1.7% B 75-250’ setback area = 13,555 s.f. Allowed ” 3,388.7 s.f. or 25% Existing * 5,131 s.f. or 37.8% Proposed = 3,242 s.f. or 23.9% Hardcover reduction = »,889 s.f. or 14% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant’s Addendum C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Neighbors’ Acknowledgment Forms F - Aerial Map. 1972 Channel and G - Resolution #2065 Approval of Applicatton #1075, 1986 H - Letter from Joseph Durda I - Existing Hardcover Site Plan Il-Exisiing Hardcover Fact 0-75 J2-Existing Hardcover Fact Sheet 7--250 Seth K - Proposed Hardcover Site Plan LI-Proposed Hardcover Fact Sheet ^75 O ^ 0««l P - Upper Level Floor Plan Q - Lower Level F'oor Plan R - Elevations/Lakfcshore „ , S - Landscape Plan Plus Planting Schedule i ! ' I 1 H ? ! '4 > rr'T^" Request for Council Action continued p^ge 3 of 5 September 6, 1994 Zoning File #1941 Description of Request Applicants* propose a two stoiy addition at the lakeside of the residence. The existing upper level lakeside tli^ season porch will now be replaced with a two story addition plus upper level deck. The upper level porch is 30’ from the inland lagoon or lake. Proposed two story addition will extend no closer to the shoreline. The proposed upper level 3’ deck at its closest projection is 2“f' from the lagoon shoreline and will extend no closer than the existing upper level deck. The two story lakeside addition will provide for an expanded family room and living room on the upper level and an exercise room and family "rec" room at the lower level. No grade level deck improvements are proposed beneath the 3’ upper level deck. There will be a lower level 4’xl4* deck below the cantilevered upper level expansion of the master bedroom area, review Exhibit P. The comprehensive improvements also include a new entry addition proposed at the street side of the residence which will not require a setback variance and based on removals of existing hardcover improvements, hardcover within the 75-250* setback area will be maintained at 23.9%. The existing deck and entry addition is approximately 164 s.f. in area and will be replaced by a 600 s.f. addition consisting of mud room and expanded entry placed over existing non-structural hardcover. Major decreases in hardcover are proposed and structural coverage is held at 11.3%. In the 0- 75* setback area, there is a reduction of 1.7% and in the 75-250* setback area a 1,889 s.f. or 14% reduction is proposed. Ceil Strauss of the DNR reafErms the Planning Commission recommendation. She asks that all new improvements not extend any closer to lagoon than existing improvements. If the current setback is further encroached, the DNR will not approve the variance requested. In reviewing applicants’ addendum. Exhibit B, the Fischbachs note that they did not know the interior lagoon was considered part of the main lake. It is impossible to understand how one could purchase this property without knowing something of the history of the property by review of the City files or the 1986 dredging resolution filed against the chain of title of the property. Brief History of Property In 1973 the City issued a building permit to construct the new residence. The residence was located some 40-50’ from the pond that was already connected to Lake Miimetonka. In 1975, the City adopted lakeshore standards requiring all new construction to meet the 75* lakeshore setback. In 1978, the flood insurance rate map indicated that the lagoon was contiguous with Lake Minnetonka. In 1982, an existing 12’xl8* ground grade level deck was replaced with the upper level three season porch proposed at 17.9 ’x22.6’. The porch was noted as being 40’ from the wetland not referenced as pond or lake. In 1982 a new owner received permission to install • >\ tat. IM- • • • rjn ■Wiii^j^s^’vr.-^xsrna r jxir-s * k-jrz i U J Request for Council Action continuedpage 4 of 5 September 6, 1994 Zoning File #1941 __________________________ a 3’ wide catwalk or balcony along the perimeter of the three season porch ^ at the m^er bedroom for safety reasons as bedroom was constructed with patio doors. A building permit as it was argued the City had approved patio doors at ^ upper level and the balcony was needed for safety reasons and included with the onginal 1982 permit. Review Exhibits M. N and O. in 1985. survey shows im existing ^'loym^ u »ai thsat to the inlet or protected lagoon area. Review Exhibit F, note the 1971/ly i dredged prior to 1960. Pvhihits G and H in 1986. the same owner who insulled the upper level connetting * » H/iirirtn Review Exhibit M note that the channel received more permanentwo story aMitm^ fev^E b^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Sgirf^in pro' Ki«K navigable waters for boats stored at the shoreline of the pond. Statement of HardsiUps, Review Exhibit B Hardships are reviewed as follows: 1. The applicants note that 80% of the total property is unbuildable. I ^ etas, rtrnivartv in 1973 orior to current lakeshore setback2. The house was placed on the property in standards. 3. The majority of the house is located within the 0-75’ setback area. Planning Commission Recommendations Planning Commission worked hard with ^ of the lagoon and held stiuctural improvements to existing setbacx aitnoug Request for Council Action continued page 5 of 3 September 6, 1994 Zoning File #1941 permanent strucmral hardcover within the 0-75*. Structural coverage of the whole lot is under the allowed 15%. The application does propose the removal of some 499 s.f. or 1.7% hardcover within the 0-75* setback area and hardcover is under the allowed 25% within the 75- 250* setback area. The majority of the structural improvements are placed over existing landscape hardcover. The Planning Commission unanimously af^roved applicant*s final amend^ proposal at their August meeting and conditioned approval as follows: 1.Upon application for a building permit, applicants must provide an updated survey showing Location of all existing and proposed improvements to be accompanied by a detailed grading and drainage plan. 2. All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal as a condition of this variance approval must be completed prior to the footing inspection for new construction. 3. Applicants to provkle necessary erosion control along the shoreline of the pond and wherever deemed necessary by the Orono Building staff prior to any land alterations on this property. 4. Applicants have agreed to replant when feasible any mature evergreens to be removed within the 0-75* setback area. For all trees that cannot be replanted applicants shall provide a planting schedule and landscape plan to be submitted for staffs review and included as a part of the final approval resolution. 5. Based on staffs final determination of total lot area calculation, the Planning Commission would not recommend approval of a structural coverage variance. Structural coverage must be maintained at less than 15% (based on final area determinations total structural coverage is proposed at 11.3%). The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; To adopt or amend the proposed approval resolution. ■!l ^ . f. ... ’ • j|liiiiiiipiiir(iiiimrrr~ A RESOLUTION APPROVING varianc :esto MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (A) AND SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1941 WHEREAS, URoy J. Fischbach and Wanda L. Fischback (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 3135 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1113, Hennepin County, Minnesou (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) to permit construction of a two story addition and upper level deck that would extend 2T from the shoreline of the adjacem lagoon where a 75* setback is required and where the existing structure encroaches within IT of that shoreline and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 as hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area is proposed at 3,195 s.f. or 10.6% and where 3,694 s.f. or 12.3% exists and where none is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1941. The property is located in the LR-IB, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 43,560 s.f. in area. The property consists of 43,529 s.f. Page 1 of 6 i .'.V :t 4. 5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this ai^lication on July 18, 1994 and August 15, 1994 and recommended approval of the variance application as amended based on the following unique fuidings and hardships: A. 80% of the total property is unbuildable. B. The original structure was placed on property in 1973 prior to current lakeshore setback standards. The majority of the existing house is located within the 0-75’ setback area. The interior lagoon connected to main lake by a dredged channel is considered part of the main lake placing greater setback restrictions on building envelope. E.'The current proposal involves decreases in hardcover within the 0-75’ and 75-250’ setback areas as follows: In the 0-75’ setback area there is a 499 s.f. or 1.7% reduction and in the 75-250’ setback area there is a 1,889 s.f. or 14% reduction. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning disuict; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare-of the community. Page 2 of 6 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby approves a setback variance of 48 ’ or 64% for the lakeside two story addition and upper level deck and a hardcover variance within the 0-75’ setback area of 3,195 s.f. or 10.7% subject to the following conditions: ¥ 1. 4. 5. 6. Upon application for a building permit, applicants must provide an updated survey showing location of all existing and proposed improvements to be accompanied by a detailed grading and drainage plan. If it is found that iicw addition will encroach any closer to lagoon than existing structure, applicants will be required to file an amended variance q>plication with both the City and DNR. All landscape areas underlain with plastic shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed new construction. Applicants to provide necessary erosion control along the shoreline of the pond and wherever deemed necessary by the Orono Building staff prior to any land alterations on this property. Applicants have agreed to replant specific manire evergreens to be removed as a result of these improvements. Applicants have submitted a site plan indict.ting existing and proposed plantings in the 0-75’ setback zone included as page 6 of this resolution. Plantings are to be completed prior to the final inspection for the new construction by the Orono Building Department. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 12, 1995). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and con Uions of this resolution shall constimte a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 6 ATTEST: The undersig^ applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors «nd 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 12th day of September, 1994. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) I STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of September, 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 exenited on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 I 4<1 H i 1^: Ir |.-!i * CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SlOO.CX) (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning stnicrures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) f TTV nr nj^Q^n WA I « Wfrr;-.n;iT rccTrr t l-*l » Ai,'U• •• • * ?**••» .»»i »f»/»/» A W V'*-W'W W Ai rZ'*J pn{) *VV' a w*i.i t t' V • vv #'Lrrv' Ti Vt**»A f*t‘ C#fUWI% IL. i.W»VVvcvv/}/iI > cu ^ V/! i •«' 4 < V f*‘:" T rJ'A ^ T 1 j •rfw* uvvi iiv'A lai.* PROPERTY INFORMATION Property s A/o/eru €. itii^ti^ Number (P.I.D.) //•? - ca? : Z)/C/ ve Vw'/ i. • .* Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_____________f /___________________ 30 own the ^jacent parcels land. Present use of property: j/^esidential ____other (specify)_____ SQ/S (month/year) Zoning District: APPLICANT I / > ^ ^Phone (home) ^7)' '7'^jrr :r Name ^ ^^4Ci0*hoDe(work)^3^3 3 ^ Addre^^y«3^^ A/0^S Zl^^City:Zip: u OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone(home)___________________ Name _________________(work)___________________ Address:City: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail:____ Estimated ConsmictionCost S /4L.'‘Esjimaji^ Cons^ctionyC( A??crrha4 V (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Lot Coverage Setback: /I / PfOBt.Side Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS 9 %A <0 fig t^ncpipr \a A TiNq^t. (attach additional sheets if necessary) *v-,-r--i.'i ^0T •2* jrrr -1 f fi 1. 2. 3. 4. required submittals mfm--" ■"“»«■« ^T »PBli«t)oii ^Ifa tlllnt date la goto Ylf”** ^yliratiftn \7 >K fonaidered comPlggl O*o.«” t of owner, wirhin ISO' (you mu,. obo.« to li,t from - Dep««rem of Finance. A^3. Gov. Cenmr.J48:3221>. Pta. Map (obuined “T hcI'^ ,urveyor) and include hardcover =22£1.‘SSJ-S »■. M- SSS£.‘»~>».«-“rt S“ •n-tX^JSS ■"— arewpoKd. In addition, ptovule one (1) copy « A xll rot^rw YlrttKP* ippUcatioil iS-T 6. 7. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ;„fonMtior. 'eauired or requesied by the Zooiof THe ippiicaoi hereby agrees fees^t^^ i^vered by original fee payme^ Date Si Applicant ’s Signaiu OWNER'S SlGNAnjfc , ,n thi* aoolicauon and ftmher authorires reasonable"• r*rr^—STc-— - c-»i Owner’s Signamie^ ^ - Applicant must have Meeting. Planning C t Mioo Meeom, are held oo to dad Monday « «*“ ♦ ' . »» 1 1 Mv'' ’ *i « this chaagi prior to the meeting- A Zoaing Office of 8 Si-^".' •'' ®i'i^;: p ■ ■fe?»^ p4>‘,i:.-' ■ ? f.-' - ■ : ' r ‘ ; r ’ :•■•■ - :•- J&3S:v"'<.‘:V: y'^'^-',^'’ T-vhi -vnt-'T'' - f ■ i^:-' •. ^js'' Pi;-:, - j - Sf.' 1v.‘y ki< ■ f.- - S'ST' r r •'-- r' ■y-t July 119 1994 To Nhom It May Conorn Ro< Building Varianca -for L«a and Wanda Fischbach 3135 Worth Shore Drive, Wayzata, «N 55391 Oo September 13, 1991, we purchased the property at 3135 North Shore Drive. Although the house had »o«e drawbacksi namely, a large pond in the backyard, and situated next to a busy street, we assummed that we could upgrade the house to meet our needs at a later date. After nearly three years, we are now ready to begin ffio^flcations to our home. We felt there would be no pr^lem with any improvements we made, since we are in excess ♦••t from our shoreline proper on Crystal Bay. In cheeking with the city, we soon learned that the set-back from the main lake area was not the problem. We instead had ^ be concerned with the set-back from the wildlife pond, Jjj”*®” ** connected by a small manmade channel to the bay. The channel leading to the pond has been back-filled with sand from the winter Ice heaves and is not readily accessible by fliost boats* Wo are told this is considered lakeshore and have to deal with this hardship. By calling this wetland pond part of the main lake, about 80 percent of the current house is located within the 0-75 loot set-back area. We assumed that the house we were purchasing was not located within a no building zone. The dredging of this pond has created the following hardships on this propertyt 1. 2. 80 percent of the property is unbuildable. the pond, although dredged, has limited access due to sand heaving at the entry. Current depth at the entry is from 0 to 1.5 feet. The intent of this variance is to help us overcome the restrictions placed on this property by the dredgino of the pond. If granted a variance, we plan on overcoming four negatives associated with this houset First, and utmost we plan on correcting the view problem from our current living room. The view of the' lake is obstructed by the existing three-season porch. The building plans being presented correct this by moving the living room forward and eliminating view-blocking walls. ■ 3 I tv ' . . .. _ . ■ . - . ;:./- i ■ ' , >• ^jW*i e •'</; -V »•4vj> ■:'*: •-■ - ■ ii' ' ■'■• V? ■'■■'* \!l’ Sacond, tha loNar laval oi tha lakasida a.^pansion Mill 1^00® ^or a ^a®ily <roo® and a<it2r*ciaa a/*tfa* Cuf'jran’tly* ^ha araa davotad for tha faiBlly room is rastrictad dy tha location of tha wall placaaant, firaplaca, and tha staircasa. ■; <■ r- t ^ .' .1 >. ^ _ . „v '^•4. s'; ' —‘ 'J'•>■.•'•>. ■ ‘ . .-=' •^■■4 - ‘jv". . . '> ••v-.va-4wA1* \>. --JV • • •■ is;-- Third* tha addition to tha front of tha housa will allow IM to hava a aora suitabla antry. Now thara is a 40 inch by 72 inch araa to graat visitors at tha foot of a staircasa. Hany visitors hava told us that thay faal intiaidatad by this* sinca you talk to thaa froa tha top of tha staircasa. ■ ' vv **ai naad a backdoor audrooa as an antry for our ehildran. This will aliminata tha problaa of shows and coats froa tha top of tha stairs* that is always a traffic hazard. - S-- — - - - - - - - - - - -»_ _, —,w, ww ww ® opannass, which will allow us to battari ou,^ family and friands. with all thasa changas* thay will giva our .-y. . ; S' •' ■ i %- ■'• fc.f -f ' Tha proposad modification co our iioiisa ara to corract tha foliowingi ■'•v ■ >■ -S-*S; S? li* S 'V'"'' *'iS' i; * y-'f. 1. 2. 5. 4. Xaprovad viaw of tha laka* Lowar laval family room and axarcisa room* Mora gracious main antry* Mudroom entry for children and pats. v‘,/: V V' .-s ■:t - -. <> Tha proposad variance is to allow us to accomplisn tfiasa items. . ■..... . . . . Ua trust that after review of our proposals, and a careful consideration of tha restrictions placed on this property by calling this pond part of the lake* you will approve our variance. We hope you will allow us to revitalise our home with thasa much naadad improvamants. rV, •:V V' .. >e ■.<*•»»» ..»«**. ."."Ai :; ... ... mnm iinr •iTTiiiTimiM 11—iWP liFiiiiimilifll----- r "S ♦ViT'. r'^MWWHta - |||||g| im 05/27/94002ADDOKMiitfil/ADOIIADDO I NAME IYER E/AOOR ADDO 0 NAME AVER E/ADDR ADDR [R NAME »AYER «/ADDR P- AODR m NAHE PAYER m/MW S8 09-U7-2S 52 OOOA 05090 NORTH SHORE OR DANIEL J NC6LYNN DANIEL J MC6LY»M 5090 NORTH SHORE DR NAYEATA MN 5559150 09>117-25 52 0009 05100 NORTH SHORE DR P J OLOWERS A O J BL0NBER6 RAUL J- A OEVERLY J BL0M0ER6 51B0 NORTH SHORE DR NAYEATA Wl 55591 50 09-117-25 52 0015 05115 NORTH SHORE OR N I J A 6ARNEAU RICHARD J OLSON 5115 NORTH SHORE OR NAYEATA Wl 55591 50 09-117-25 55 0001 05155 NORTH SHORE OR RONALD 0 LAUER RONALD 0 LAUER 5155 NORTH SHORE OR NAYEATA NN 55591 50 09-117-25 55 0015 05195 NORTH SHORE OR J 0 SNEOENBORO ET AL JANES 0 SNEOENBORO 5195 NORTH SHORE OR NAYEATA NN 55591 HEhMERIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST5B 09-117-25 52 0007 05120 NORTH SHORE DR R J HALVORSON A 0 HALVORSON R J HALVORSON A D HALVORSON 5120 NORTH SHORE OR NAYEATA MN 5559150 09-117-25 52 001005106 NORTH SHORE DR F P PACOVSKY AMI PACOVSKY FREDRICK P PACOVSKY MICHELLE L PACOVSKY 5166 NORTH SHORE OR NAYEATA MN 55591 50 09-117-25 52 0016 05105 NORTH SHORE OR I O LUNOQUIST ACT JOHNSON I 0 LUNOQUIST ACT JOHNSON 5105 NORTH SHORE OR NAYEATA MN 55591 58 09-117-25 55 0002 05165 NORTH SHORE OR HM J LAUER ET AL TRUSTEES NILLIAM J LAUER 15909 NAYEATA BLVD NAYEATA MN 55591 58 09-117-25 55 0016 05185 NORTH SHORE OR T A S ENLON THOMAS C A SUSAN S ENLON 5185 N SHORE UR NAYEATA MN 55591 REPORT NO. P1955901 PAGE 558 09-117-25 52 000805160 NORTH SHORE DR K A EULLO A J A EULLO KEtMETH A EULLO 5160 NORTH SHORE OR NAYEATA MN 5559158 09-117-25 52 0011 05168 NORTH SHORE DR T 0 ALBERS ARP TOURNAT TERENCE 0 A ROXAftlE ALBERS 5162 NORTH SHORE OR NAYEATA MN 55591 58 09-117-25 52 0018 05155 NORTH SHORE OR L J A H L FISCHBACH LEROY J A NANOA L FISCHBACH 5155 NORTH SHORE OR NAYEATA m 55591 58 09-117-25 55 0009 05175 NORTH SHORE DR MAC RUSSIN MICHAEL A CATHERINE RUSSIN 5175 NORTH SHORE OR NAYEATA MN 55591 TOTAL BATCH 002 00019 .V ITf*Owners* •« • I Adjacent Property OVrfiers* ACknowledgemeot Form I/^^/‘.Q^^herlrvt^Rus&in of SHiT KioMrh 6lac rtl t>r [print oame(s)](print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located 3 ( 3iT^_________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. 0 AJ^.KU\JunruJ Property Owner 5 - J.G, - Date Property (Dwner Date I (we)[print address)[print name(s)] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or prop<^ use of the property located ____________also referred to as Land Use Application No.___ . —• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgemem, I (we) am (are) Mt project or use requires Council approval. Property Owi Date Property Owner Date If vou bave «ny iafomiiJlon thiiniiy asjUi ihe Ciiy in the le^ of *«• Und Uie yout cooiii»n«s 10 ihe BuiM^ to the scheduled meedog date. r i M L A-? :•, • '*i; r <i •I %' m- : ■ H-'^- f-V. V i' * i 1 r^- I il-;,:• .. '5 - 5f • i ^■%y't- r;^ jj AcUaccnt Property Owners’ Acknowledg^tot Form ^ > __of 3jl-y tJ •^botfe 7^. (print address]I (««»\ i QUtg^H (print oame(s)] I (we) undetstand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (w.) am (m) ^t “ declare a^val or dtapptoval of the property or use but merely to confum itat I (we) am (ate) a^ of the improvement pUm and tbit the proposed neighbor project or use requires Council approval. Property 0 Date DateProperty Owner I (we)print address](print naine(s)j have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located tave tevieuma t» ^ ^ m as Land Use Applrcaoon No. -----------• I (we) that in executing this aeltnowiedgement. I (we) am »te) ^ a^ to project or use requires Council approval Property Owner Date DateProperty Owner If you have any Ofl^tApplicalion. please submit your comments to the Buuoing * to the scheduled meetiog date. - C7' •i ’ i J '.■Vii.v OMONU s City of ORONO RESOLUTIOM OF THE CITY COUNCIL :065 ^~C amc*A^ lO < f! not ^'ic- > ^ • y ♦* *1 . >. I ^■‘5 r-ijrA V' V^- r . * ' <>i1 ' 'iV.^ f r A naoumoa gijuribs A VJUOJUKS TO MoaigyAi. ubim oodb ncTXoa 10.22, suromozoa i « 2 ma 11070 oMn... JJMMM, Je««ph Ourda (hcralnartcr “th# «pplic«at*l !■ tb* RToparty located at 31J5 North Shore Oriva wlthla thaCit, ot Or«M. •Clt,-1 ud SU^SIiV. Voui.. Tract As Acgictcrcd Land Survey Mo. 1113, aanncDin Counfcv Hlanaaota (barainaftar •the pro^airty*),- and ^ . tha applicant haa apollad to th« . and^l^ 4a ^a Xoning Coda iaotiona 10.22, Subdiviaion^f 4 2 conatructlon of a balcony and hardcoV.r i»^h. Idhaahora, and eocatltutlnp atructural nSSTlly illolL. ‘•“.ahora aotbaok aona »har. no hardooYor la Nlnaoaota aoa,tapoia, SI 1» BBCOLVID by tho City Council of Oreee, 1. Tbla application waa ravlawad aa tonlno rila *1075. L.iJStSriSUM.'SIS. *“ •oDt^ar^Y ravlou.a thla application on*^*^*®*®*^ **» 1914, and racoaoaaidad approval of • ha oroDoaad Yarluico baa«l upon tho follooln, finding.. propo.ad li !• T S2.*^*** oonatruotod-H- i prior to tha 1975 aonlr^ coda 79' aotbaea raqulroaant, and la located approxlaataly 42* from tho ?? proporty, tho ahorollno of which la cooaldorod ^ City to bo tho lakoahoro of Lako Minnetonka. Vt *^of*LVi«h lakoahoro aotback tone la 31.J0Oa.f. of which 3,927 a.f. or 11.27* la covarod with -**VJl»i*f'** ‘****^<*covar). Lot area In tho 79«290* ta«o 1 of 9 ^'7 -* ♦ ryr-i ► -r.1 m a A. --Ip ..... ■ * •• %v»-- r^’s/,^i f I r Y ... i (jUr>hi(j\ city of ORONO ^^W^UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ^ r COaCLOBlOMS. OBDtt AMD COMDZTIOW} grants a ^a^an^ to* ^*** city Council harabv •ftn-OM-ttn cMwuuctloii o( •'diil'clMtAutilJ" * *►• ?««. * •tructural hardcovar in tii o-7J* i UI-kI ’ *" incraaaa of 7a to poraic th# oonotruotiofi a * iokoihoro •otbocli toiioa aa^ Additional atruetura ovar aalatlna^^ra».««**"V®" “hlch conatltutaa tatxM **• •'XtlnVAdrcAl» oaicony and aeraan porch balconlaa. d^V*?!**^**'** A*Da*«l*ttotf«ck and tha balcony. * P«ctor. a paralt la raqulrad for tha propliiy^iUJVl* b*TaVovad?^*?hii"2ll? « 0”T5* tonai Bouaa Porch Porch Balcony Mdrooa Balcony Baw Balcony Bow Dock 3«32» a.f. 400 a.f. 195 a.f. (0 a.f. 41 a.f. 144 a.f. (0-75* Lot Araa - 3l,Joo a.f.) ^^“250* tonai Caraqa Driveway 3.172 a.f. or 10.1* 973 a.f. 3.000 a.f. 3.973 c.f. or 29.9% (75-250* Lot Araa - 13.300 a.f.) of ^ raplacad with any type bard^or^^^* P *p^frVy**^ln^iLiiM ?“*“'• P'®P®“1 to Ineraaaa landaeapo rook bada uada^ialn bv ®* nddltlonal Pa«a i of 5 — - K.J* f •r*. A*. : ^• 'n V* - f?'-' ‘ -m 'iWij 'N ‘•i;? ' % ♦ tr I. k * '. *si‘.. * vvd « d V. >-»*-> *-*• • - • 11 . .1^. '• r • • t# »• - t . # * / •J V Vf'.i ♦! 4 » • > * % . % •*: -r' ,*^.Y’< !* V ' i. A*S a « r>•m ‘. ' y of ORONO OLUTION OF THe CJTV COUNCIL NO. *06 5 . > • « . -J '•. it-,/*, •,ii- t • ''^' t t.'-J» . M V ■ ^ r C, . *-l -■ - ^ k ‘' *ltflr'^*j rliy N. B«lUn, iity il,,J A/., y/ r- rrop#rty wn«r(*l bul*’ir.''V«."?. liVl **»• P«foP*«y for • buliSlnJ*p,iit ^ ;vjlt or thl. v.rl.nco oiu ^T.p^V; t:j loblV ». ."‘y.* “t Mthonty «<.:.M cSlHi MfiyoV'j:* • city Ceyocll ea tHa inb day at i:.V m ■'v r< sF. «• 4 oF s ;•.;■>■•/--v ■‘; , . ^ a.' ;4'■ <m- %'^M I.' -«■' t' ■* . cT -J i * ’ -• 'l' 4 1^1 V * -V^l Larson & Lambert Lii Oft u«a |*MMm ATtOMnAT lOuo kjfuioa louLiVAAD Y4rZATA MM4kOTAl9l9( *17)47) I4|)mzzm tmmm 2*4414 Awkjf IH94 9 mm« 'ui«% MMOkLifvta O May 21. 1987 ,4T. •V' City cf Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MinnesoU 55323 Attn: Mika Caffron Ra: Zoninc PUe No. 107^ Dear Mr. Caffroru Pleasa be informed that Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Durda, 3135 North Shore Drive, rescind their Variance Application No. 1075. This rescission is based upon the Durda's objection to U»e requirements by the City Council of Orono for the srantlnc of the variance. By copy of this letter to Mr. Arlan Sioltenow. Stoltenow Construction. Route 1 Box 48, Lester Prairie. Minnesota 55354, l am informing Mr. Stoltenow that the walk~out wood platfoTTO will need to be reduced in size by approximately 72 square feet and that the balcony will not be extended to the master beo.-oom. Based upon this rescision. and correclion of the watlt-ouT platform, the Durda ’s will not be required to remove or charuic the oiasuc shceuvp. currently ur;dcrlaiui»; certain landscape beds on their property Unless there are ajiy tur»hcr questions or comments. I wUl close this file ui our otfice Thanx you for your u-su.lar.ee in tius matter. Very truly yours. ptTAKSON h L E. PUralnen REPAv^k cc: Mr. and Mrs. Durda Arias Stoltanow John Partdna 1^'. ’jt 6 North Shore Drive, tebsioQ ii beted upoo ett of Orono for the Construction. Route I r. Stoltenow thet the preximetely 72 tquere l4*aofn. pletform, the Ourde's 1 currently underliiunc y further questions or rour A&sistsnce in this M>r/A /^^00 mmsk Mo ¥ % ^ r\W-^ I 0® ^ n.m’ 5 8sa» ■s? ^ ffifff * mrftJ/hitilii II HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE 75- Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House length width I • _ X B. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk X , ><Po r:aaL ,4. 'v; ji- / » F. Landscapers^ AREAS UNDERLAIN^. ^ X PLASTIC , £ X G. Other Total H ardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone >50-500' 500-1000' - S.F. S • r • S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. / S.F. e>f'. 1%S.F. I7cT S.F. 7s-S.F. /ff _S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2S>. I'zs"S.F. - r B ^ 4 [Y1 X 100 •% S.F. a * • /* //or/A /2JS. 00 StiOUl \ im,* / t • • C»**m C- / t Krk '^.7M ! T %* r%'^®VsA*-P V>»^ -O ... M > ^ t » >j s ^ • ft r. 0 ^ H SV ? ms '\ Wk- ®5!i —•71 00 ” w f :n __5B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEE SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7 Existing Hardcover in Zone -250'^250-500' 500-1000'j - A. House B. Garage c. Driveway D. sidewalk length €)'X _ WIDTH = 6Cf) X _ X _ X —422—_ X _2A - 1/2^ S.F. S. F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. E. Patio/ Deck S.F. S.F. F.Landscape AREAS underlain BY PLASTIC SHEETING S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone S.F. S.F. S.F B X 100 = 31 .i ;v ' ‘ . .1 '• • i : (j j *: yi< City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. l‘'o7 li"' A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONOTXONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SUBDIVISION 19 ANO A XONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 3 - PILE NO. 99S •PPlic«nt^“*^rVth«'Vi*pM^i^e^w1^erVof ih (hereinafter -the• nd 31X5 North Shore Drive Vi thin the located at 3135 end legally deecribed ea followei ^ ^ Orono (hereinafter -City-) nil f!!®'" ^ Rl-S No. 1113 (hereinaftiV^?:^:Jt!e":^T a Conditio*Iia?ulVp«miV’Vo^pVrVit ’’*t^^ Shore Drive per Municipal Von^^rng cye Sect^tVlo o? Section 10.22. Subdivision 3 selks clrVAVitn ®"<* P*^ Within 75 feet of the lake at lUS NoVtVShore friJe*T* MinnesotaBE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS 1. Tnjs application v«ar. rovicwr.-i as r-r,;nq File *095. 2. The property is In ’-a~'pDistrict. ........... -H-.c' -ai;cshcr..F.csidcntia 1 SlmlSl Shor^Lrlvt.**'"^’^ c) ONR and MCHD have approved the project Page 1 of 4 ;v. ; ■fc' City off OROISO ft RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1907 tl Council has considarad this application includino tha eindinga and tacoMandatioas of tha Planning CoaaiaaionT raports by ataff and coanants of tha applicant and tha affact of tha proposad usa on tha haalth, safaty and waltara of tha kUfii^y a Council finds that granting a Conditional Uaa Parait to allow tha rapair of a aaa wall and paralsalon to ranova four watara jToas Within 75 faat of tha lakashera will not ba dacriaantal to tha honlth» Mfavy or ganaral wo1faro of tha public* would not advaraaXy light# air nor poaa a fira hasard or othar dangar to naighborii^ propartiaa# nor will it dapraciata surrounding proparty valuas and that tha proposad laval of ura of tha proparty will bo In kaoping with tha intant and objaetivaa of the Zoning Coda and Cooprahansiva Plan of tha City. ooHCLOStom# mom jmd cowitsoiis . basad upon ona or aore «f tha abova findings, tha Orono City Council grants a Conditional Usa Porait par Municipal Zoning Section 10.03# Subdivision 19 to porait tha rapair of a sas wall at 3119 North Shora Drive and par Section 10.22# Subdivision 3#approvas tha raaoval ol four nature traaa within 75 faat of tha lakashora# subject to the following conditionat 1. Dradgad natarial to ba ramovad from site. 2. Owner of property located at 3135 nust plar.r three# three inch Oiaaatar trees within laHeshora yard by June I5# I3S6. 3. Applicanta to obtain building porr.its for sea wall and Permanent dock. 4. Lrcoion control of sea wall.tu be provided at mouth of laqoon prior to repair 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the teraa aad^i conditiona of thia raaolution aha 11 «**;.atituta a violation of soning coda# ahall autoaatically tcrainata any authority granted bare*. In# and ahall bo puniahablo aa a aiadaaeanor. ' ^ S. The undacsignad applicant has raad# understood and horaby agnail to tha taraa af thia raaolutian and on behalf of hlaoolf# his hoira#^'t| aueeaaaora and aaaigna# haraby agtaaa to tha recording of this rosola**' tioa in tha chain of title of the property. Page 2 of 4 E.?!i i- '1 NtSlOCHniM STOHIES • 1 7 j ■OMMS/TlN KRiiiTKa^^ _ . •LOG. WIMIT S^Ci STATEFCC £».t*0 OWriLL tMtits <(Af« StAli,S P\>H AEVIEWAITAPf OATf OkT __BOCK _________PENALTY NO«l HCSIO ENOMMCOUSE PARK FEE occ.SAC CHARGE CLAM. MITOfTtEScouNca " h¥P, OATt_______________TOTAL r to fi^ (V*^- r ▼ ^ 9 ifafJ .ttf'ti (, ^'f.'I’-- /%//»♦ >^V,. ••■ ivi^tb 1 7.-3 Pi kbit AS»«Mrr«r/ I Htrtby certify thot this is o true ond correct representation of o survey of the houndgries eft Troet A, Registered Lend Survey No, 1113, Htnnepin Cdwnty, tttivioseto •.fc And of tt^ location of oil butldinijf, if ony, thereon, end oil visible encroochmonts. if ony. from or on sc'd ior«d. As surveyed tv me this Iflthdoywf July « ' /■i « • //. IfWS . / Themes S. Bcrgqwist / Registered Land Surveyor, Mims. Lie. Ne. tXkS tAtNM*af•MyitT,l»C eJeJ TC?g 4* • CERTmCAU 0^ 8URV1Y lor • . i-y.- ; • . ‘ e ..OS a ••S- ■IM.IY •1 •k*.» 1 . ‘•Ik. V • « ;» . • *‘:• * • ,• I v> . ► i* * :-V • »• \ 'i »‘ .. I * V 4 » •I - t. A * * • T- * * . ■•: • !*• • • •* »* ‘ ■ •• *. V.- • ; *• I »# ‘ ‘**v• ’i:* • I . J • / • te f 1 i;.^ •ft .’vin llise'- ■ -*^llm •\ ' io 1 ^ ' . *• • V • " -4 . n » O . 0• «:"Q. o O. -■O • /•. 'y ■ • •' / «.• '. 'J • "I y V o« v'i ' ( . A • / » * . . * * i #• • 1 1 *’ ••; H .*•f* t •* »-- ^« ft ,• • « • t‘ . I i* •4 « . • }'t •».j <. ' ► • ■r 1 .«•• J ’ 1 • , ■* -- % ♦» * •; ’• * > f •- • ■ / 4 « i %t , -I- : *• I • • - . ^ • ^ ‘ v.A . ■ i . ‘ ; t * • ^ ♦• t f i ‘ 1 ‘ V *« f r. , 1 *. t > * . ♦ -■•.*• t...... : ; 7 • 4 • • .'.V ^ V % i 1 ^ * 1 1 *1 » • •• ^ ft• ft * .1 I Jt* V,, r’ f •• $ ■r r MEMORANDUM TO:Orono City Council FROM:Lee Fischbach Wanda Fischbach DATE:September 8.1994 RE:Landscape plan for variance 1941 As requested we are providing you with our proposal landscape changes. Below are our proposed changes which will take place as a result of our construction plans: 1. 2. 3. All shrubs and evergreen directly in front of the house will be removed and replaced with flower beds, sod and/or smaller shrubs. Currently, these shrubs are overgrown and in need of replacement even if we were not performing the proposed additions. A nursery has advised us that there are several evergreens that are at the front corner of the house that should also be replaced. They are out of the zero to 75 feet zone, but are on our list of highly probably replacements. All shrubs and decorative evergreens around the existing porch and lake side of the house will be removed. These will be replaced with sod flower beds or smaller shrubs. There are two large evergreens located on the lake side which will be either moved or removed. The larger located directly in the front of the porch. We have received mixed opinions on the movability of this tree, due to its size. If possible, we will atterrpt to move it next to the cluster of three evergreens located at the side of the lot. This will serve to obstruct the view of the neighbors porch. Should this movement fail, we will replace the tree with a similar species of evergreen in a 5-10' size. -2- (b) The other evergreen that Is being considered for movement is the 20* one located on the lake side in the middle of the house. It is our current thought that this tree will either be moved to the front corner of the house to replace current dying trees, or next to the cluster of three evergreens on the side of the lot, should it be determined that the large evergreen cannot be moved. 5 There is also a red leaf tree by the swing set that has become diseased with black knot disease. It will most likely be cut back severely or removed. Replacement is not planned at this time. All shrubs «ii*around the front of the house and deck will be considered for transplanting on the property. Final locations have not as yet been dete^med It must also be noted that the nursery who advised us said that many of these shrubs were overgrown and would not be candidates for moving to other locations. In summary, the two large evergieens on the lake side, dirertly in front of the ^Susewill^ either moved or removed. The one directly in front of the porch may bo too large to move. It is noted that these two trees will most lik^y be moved or removed whether we proceed with the construction or not. Due to their large size and current location which blocks the lake view. The shrubs around the deck and in front of the house will be either moved or removed depending on size location. There is one diseased tree out back that wo have been advised to replace or remove. * i/LeRoy J. Fischbach Wanda Fischbach s It a led. e :h /VorM ^MOO » ■ ' V. ' - .f M.*, ^ ip.1 — / X ^OUSc — CP. /L)0+ ■7^ U/|<1 ^'*^< It ^ % ’0(f ji\tf^0\jt ff I »• •» »'<v ^ r Xoy^ ^ O-f Tiv Be. Mvu^J ~fO'^^ a>4- Of '-C.y iMi H S , i o Cot c£? ^K « •t^r\'^^ 4,/ !fHi \wns IMiWi V":«g& • ^ ^ ^2^ 2oSSk&m 8£i _ eo» •• r W , ">1 V r\ \ s ^ ^ ^ ^ A. « -M-., > m- W-^.. 1.’ .'j «A>» ?-» »o ** *1 -«•• »•'*^,», B ' j Shtv(,^ -V ■Bo /?,f^OXJt Jf ^5» ^ • » A '‘NgA.e I 'V 1-- s. ^ V f s _' aa S^ 2K ::• • rm X ^ ■SK ati^{ d« _i Tf • • •PO/VD V^<r./ # V » REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIONDATEc ITEM] Department Approval; Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building A Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed'AgenWSection: Zoning Item Description: #1944 Bradley and Dina Etherington, 4055 Elm Street - Variance Resolution Review of Application The renewal variance application was review by the Planning Commission at both the July and August meetings. The application was tabled at the July meeting subject to applicant providing an updated survey and having lot comers staked so that Planning Commission members could view the achial building site. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B) A. Lot area Required = 43.560 s.f. or 1 acre Existing = 19,920 s.f. or .46 acres Variance * 23,640 s.f. or 54% B Lot width • Per Section 10.03, Subd. 6 (A-1) Required for existing lots of record == 112’ or 80% Existing » 118’ or 84% No lot width variance required List of Exhibits A - Application B • Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Drainage Plan/Lot Area Survey F • Topographic Map G • Council Minutes 7/78 H • Council Minutes 6/80 1 - Planning Commission Minutes 8/88 J - Planning Commission Action Notice 8/17/94 Request for Council Action continued page 2 September 8, 1994 #1944 Bradley and Dina Etherington, 4055 Elm Street K • Survey of Lance Wile Residence at 615 Minnetonka Highland (not as-built survey) L - Enlargement of Original 1976 Survey M - Current Drainage Plan N - Wile Memo 9/2/94 O - Etherington Memo 9/6/94 P - Preliminary Grading Sketch of Driveway Q • Hardcover Fact Sheet R - Hardcover Site Plan S - Elevation T - Floor Plan U - Current Survey V - Engineer’s Report 9/8/94 Description of Request The owners of the subject property have initiated their fourth variance application to allow the sale of property as a buildable site, review Exhibits G, H and I. In 1978 and 1980, the City granted lot area variances to the Fullers and in 1988 a variance application was filed but applicant failed to complete the review. In the earlier reviews there was never a development plan included with the proposal. The current application filed by the Etheringtons provides development plans for the development of the site. Review Exhibits Q, S, T and U. The subject lot has adequate depth and width to allow construction of the residence without the need of any setback variances. The property is located in the 250-5(X)’ lakeshore setback zone and would be allowed 5,976 s.f. or 30%. Hardcover is proposed at 4,686.5 s.f. or 22.7%. The subject property is similar in size of neighboring developed propenies, review Exhibit B. The property is located to the immediate south of the property at 4030 Elm Street that was granted an area variance earlier this year. There is no adjacent undeveloped lands available for purchase to make this lot any larger. In fact, it appears the subject property is the largest of the lots on the south side of Elm Street. Note variances were also granted to 601 and 615 Minnetonka Highlands Lane (pan of Minnetonka Summit Park plat) in 1975 and 1976. Ever since the inception of the zoning code and area standards, this area has been zoned one acre minimum lot size. Minnetonka Summit Park subdivision was platted in June of 1912 prior to any zoning standards for the City. The pattern for development has been the combining of the various substandard lots into single building sites. Request for Council Action continued page 3 September 8. 1994 #1944 Bradley and Dina Etherington, 4055 Elm Street The property is served by municipal sewer and the three lots have been assessed a third unit for a total of one sewer unit. The assessment has been paid. The lot has steep topographies but not so steep as to suggest any difficulty in constructing a residence. Review Exhibits M and P. The Engineer has reviewed the preliminaiy drainage plan and reaffirms the use of underground tiles carrying drainage to the street and away from adjacent properties. The undergroufxl tile system will minimize the removal of trees on the property which would be the case if swales were to be installed. The Engineer has met again on the site with City staff to review any concerns with the proposed location of the driveway, Gustafson confirms that the percentage of slope will be 20% but sees no problem with the proposed location. In fact, it will minimize the removal of trees in the street yard. Review Exhibit E. The property owners at 594 Park Lane and 615 Minnetonka Highlands Lane have raised several concerns concerning the accuracy of the current survey. Note the encroachment of the shed on the Laue property at 594 Park Lane. In the Wile memo of September 2, 1994, they note discrepancy in a setback shown in the 1976 survey and the current survey. Review the enlargement of that survey. Exhibit O. Note the setback is at 42.4’. The current survey shows that residence at 42.2’. Note the staircase and the upper deck at 41.7’ were not shown on the original survey of 1976. They are apparently later additions. Review Exhibit K. Note the survey of 615 Minnetonka Highlands is not an as-built survey but rather a proposed location for a house. Staff sees no concern with the issues raised by the property owner to the immediate east. As for the property owner to the west, the Laues had announced at the August 15th Planning Commission meeting that there had been some field survey work done recently that reaffirmed their concern that the lot line was not correct. Cn September 2nd. the Laues asked for additional time before the City made any final recommendations on the current variance application until they could provide an updated survey as their surveyor had been away on vacation and were unable to meet the S^tember 2nd deadline. The Etheringtons have met all requirements of the Planning Commission at their August meeting. Please review Exhibit O. Hiey ask that Council act on their variance application because of the time of year and the need to proceed with construction before the colder weather. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously voted approval of the renewal variance application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Legal combination of Lots 7. 8 and 9 prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction. 1 three lots have been assessed a third paid. The lot has steep topographies 1 residence. Review Exhibits M and age plan and reaffirms the use of vay from adjacent properties. The on the property which would be the t again on the site with City staff to reway. Gustafson confirms that the e proposed location. In fact, it will ^ Park Lane and 615 Minnetonka he accuracy of the current survey. 594 Park Une. In the Wile memo shown in the 1976 survey and the Wt O. Note the setback is at 42.4 ’. aircase and the upper deck at 41.7’ pparently later additions. tonka Highlands is not an as>built s no concern with the issues raised [rerty owner to the west, the Laues ting that there had been some field It the lot line was not correct. On Jefore the City made any final i could provide an updated survey nable to meet the September 2nd lining Commission at their August act on their variance application ruction before the colder weather. Request for Council Action continued page 4 September 8, 1994 #1944 Bradley and Dina Etherington, 4055 Elm Street 2. All improvements shall meet setback and hardcover standards of the LR-IB zoning district. 3. Conceptual grading and drainage plans are to be provided to the City staff for review prior to scheduling the application before the Council. 4. Staff to review neighbors’ claims of survey discrepancies and evaluate whether such claims have potential validity sufficient to cause the City to delay action on this application. Neighbors making such claims were requested to submit their documentation no later than September 2, 1994. It has been three weeks since the original Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 1994. Options of Action To adopt the enclosed approval resolution drafted per the Planning Commission’s recommendation; OR To table action on the variance application until the Laues have provided an updated survey that must be submitted no later than Tuesday, September 20, 1994. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution: OR To table application pending receipt of new survey for 594 Park Lane. proval of the renewal variance the issuance of a building permit er standards of the LR-IB t>vided to the City staff for t Council. ancies and evaluate whether ! the City to delay action on t>mit their documentation no s since the original Planning the Planning Commission ’s A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. 1944 WHEREAS, Bradley Etherington and Dina Etherington (hereinafter ”the applicants ”) have an interest in the property located 4055 Elm Street within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Lot 7, 8 and 9, Block 9, Minnetonka Summit Park. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a renewal variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit construction of a new residence on a property that consists of 19,920 s.f. or .46 acres where 43,560 s.f. or one acre is required. ;$ have provided an updated 10, 1994.Minnesota: 4 Park Lane 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1944. The property is located in the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal variance application on both July 18. 1994 and August 15, 1994 and recommended approval of the variance application as proposed, based upon the following unique findings and hardship: A. The property has been assessed for a sewer unit and the assessment has been paid and sewer is available to the property. Page 1 of 5 B. The lot has sufficient depth and width so that normal setbacks for 35 ’ front, 30 ’ rear and 10’ side can be easily met. C. The 19,920 s.f. lot is consistent with developed lots within the neighborhood ranging from 12,000 s.f. to 37,000 s.f. D. In a report dated September 8, 1994, the City Engineer confirmed ttat the proposed drainage plans for the developed site will not impact adjacent, developed properties to both the east and west side of the property. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the 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 variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on the property located at 4055 Elm Street and grants an area variance of 23,640 s.f. or 54%, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new residential construction, applicant/future owner must apply for the legal combutu.lon of Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 9, Minnetonka Summit Park. 2. .All residential improvements on this site shall meet all required setback and hardcover standards of the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 2 of 5 3. Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall provide a detailed grading plan showing proposed driveway grading, tree removal and/or re' ning wall. 4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not v/ith the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 12, 1995). 5. 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 hereui, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicants and current owner have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of September, 1994. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Ownei(s> Applicant(s) Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of September, 1994 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this_______day of 199___before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUEUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199___before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 I »-i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instniment, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (theii) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 5 of 5 r CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Iniiial Application Fee S200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 j | (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) i i iri -.1 &:r\ J PROPERTY INFORM j^ION Site AHdreSS SD ^ ^ Prnnerfv Identification Number M ^ AttSTegal description to application if not included on required sunef Date Property Acquired_ _ ___ _ _ _ _j--—-- - - - -- “ T fdo^ (do not) also own the adjacent parcels ot lana Present use of property: ^^residential -----other spec , Zoning District: f L* f X * 7»*‘ 1 *■***■ • *' * 01 iefi ii'v. t; CHECK 7L ivV.i<-. (month/year) V'W/ Phone rhome^>$^33 APPLIC^^ .1 P4iv0rirtLft>A Phrine(work) ^7 V - 3 ------- description of inquest Estm^ed Com^ctt^^_ Describe request mdetail. ^ d N ^ ^ ^ ----------------------------(anach additiollal sheets if necessary'; VARIANCES REQLTRED yC Lot Area Setback: Lot Width Front Side __ Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Avera2e Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OE PROP^^CON^ conditions preventing (attach additional sheeBif necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in.pi der for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ Cvou must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide cne (1) copy 8 Vi x 11 for reproduction. a Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes m existmg gra e are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8Vi" x 11" for reproduction.^^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevativn views (provide one (1) copy 8Vi" 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). 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 Cit>' staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember *at your varianeg aPDlicntion is not complete if the abov e information_ha.s not been included, APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE . • 'iTie applicant herebv agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonmg Admiristrator. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by origtnal fee parent) and,or consulunt expenses incurred in review of this applicauon. and certifies that thv information supplied is true^^orrect to ^e best of knowledge. Applicant’s Signamre’ OWNER’S SIGNATURE , ^ u • ki- The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and farther 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. (j 2v JL Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days befwe the Planning Co^«ioo to have an aulhorized^gent attend in your place and to advise the BuUdmg & Zonmg Office of this change prior to the meeting. • 1 8 4. -wn ■ -z3- 'h . H," ;i; ‘ ^ (io)» (5) * R .4 ,«N 5 « R 13 ;R; 4 R R 1^ (90) *»Ul) * R "R^' 6 R R '0 ,*/(97) ^ R* ® f*25 ^ OAK ST R ft ik^R I f 1 RUN DATE 06/22/94BATCH OiaPROP ADDR QNNER NAHC TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 04-117-23 41 0001 00056 ADORESS UNASSIGNED S N A 6 D RUOD STANLEY H i BETTY D RUOD 401 PARR LALONG LAKE HN 55354-9745 HENNEPIN CCtJ^rrY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LISTr38 04-117-23 41 0059 04061 OAK ST N HAMMARBER6 A D HAMMARBERG D HAMMARBERG A N HAMMARBERG 4081 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55354 REPORT NO. P1435401 PAGE 5038 04-117-23 41 0040 04100 ELM ST LUCY L GULLICKSON LUCY GULLICKSON 4100 ELM ST LONG LAKE MN 55354*• ^PROP ADDR CM€R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 04-117-23 41 007204030 ELM STG N ROSCOE ARM ROSCOEGEORGE N ROSCOE4030 ELM STLONG LAKE MN 55354 38 04-117-23 41 0080 00415 MINNETONKA HGLO LA L M NILE A M J LEE LANCE M NILE A MARTHA J LEE 415 MTKA HIGHLAND LANE LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 04-117-23 41 008100038 AODRESS UNASSIGNEDKAREN FULLERKAREN FULLER1477 LONG LAKE RDNEH BRIGHTON HN 55112 «i , r PROP ADDR IM€R NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 04-117-23 41 008200038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEDKAREN FULLERKAREN FULLER 1477 LONG LAKE RD NEH BRIGHTON m 55112 38 04-117-23 41 0085 00584 PARK LA HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO STREET i DRAINAGE S/23/84 SO 144503 38 04-117-23 41 008300038 AODRESS UNASSIGNEDKAREN FULLERKAREN FULLER 1477 LONG LAKE RD MEN BRIGHTON MN 55112 38 04-117-23 41 0084 00584 PARK LA HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO STREET A DRAINAGE 5/23/04 SD 144503 38 04-117-23 41 0084 00594 PARK LA HERMAN LAUE A NIFE HERMAN LAUE 594 PARK LANE LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 04-117-23 41 0091 00401 MINNETOTfCA HGLD LA C CURTIS LEE A HIFE C CURTIS LEE 401 MINNETONKA HIGHLAND LANE LONG LAKE MN 55354 J • f PROP ADDR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 04-117-23 44 0003 00450 MINNETONKA HGLD LA J L BERG A S R BERG JOHN L BERG A SHARON R BERG 450 MINNETONKA HIGHLAND LN LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 04-117-23 44 0005 00449 MINNETONKA HGLO LA S V SHANTEK A P G SNANTEK STEPHEN A PATRICIA SNANTEK 449 MINNETONKA HGLD LA LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 04-117-23 44 0004 00459 MINNETONKA HGLD LA R H A K L SPEETER RICHARD H SPEETER 459 MINNETONKA HGLD LA LONG LAKE MN 55354 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER . NAME/ADDR 38 04-117-23 44 0014 00430 PARK LA N E A J M NROBLEHSKI NILLIAM E A JOAN NROBLEHSKI 430 PARK LA LONG LAKE MN 55354 TOTAL BATCH 018 00014 .* ' i. • .• • • V 1 • % . i / ; • I. —i ' ,...... . *o .«: ^e'U<fi<Mte of ^u'wou :*cr ;. w 1.. «w*. • . .. \ A c n t. « • c. C.K. WIN06N i ASSOCIATES. INC. lAf^O iUlV(TCeS T«l •49-3S4* 1301 fUSIli i«., SI. >AUl, 99106 ■^fUitrs or . I! (/ • •• 4*. ELM »• . . ;' ■.•••. *.r*. ‘.•.-<^ r <* • .. • >'5« •'•*«i I . A * '^4*;yT • ^ r/ ; •4:.*'>. v|;-TN^u>V... ;;-.rs.-4.: :.’i - • •• ' r ■ • v\^-:- -‘1’ W l • • 7^ • •. ,. •V'ZO.O P‘oT 1/ '.*_*2-ii ; Ucu9C ,U8.T^ Meo4 H 420 *F • * , - • . Lots 7, 8 And %, Block 9. Minnetonka . Sujiunit Park.. Hennepin County. Minnesota ...* •* - : • . . - .*•■•.••••«,.'. . ■ ‘ wt MfiMv citTiPT that this rs A riut ano* comer icptuiNTATiON op a sutviv op tmi KXINDAPiCS OP THC lANO AlOVf CPSCtlMO. AMO OP THC lOCATlON OP AU HIHOIPPCV IP AMT. TMtMOM. AMO AU VISlIll rMCIOACHMiNTS, IP AMT. PtOM OB ON SAlO lAMO. /. r-" - • • .PV. .AO. ..16,' > ‘ 4. • • % ^50 /a r* %/ ■ '*r.'^«r Hi;-r*' A oiw. awNcit;; julv 25, 1978 t..t hi. ...iLieal .Mslstano* to ^ha Tii^^ win give Planning, Coamlfsion. Council and the overlays*«euld*l^^ne o£*t^*#f ®«P with aeveral attended tot ai^ U ^ to be CoSSitoJSbirl^d PO”ibly two 8..uJlof*th?citiT^d* wltli th.v.riou. othir4:JS{.rJi JSqS;:;?* '••“•• “ AttoSlii Council raqu.»t.d Bruce Malker.on, cltv pre..nt io 5n~?S?eJ ’”rco4L\.d. sm SS: "“■'srs.srsa~.?2S "i-" «a5y “*”“; Sg„!!S?r„S2n HS?<"K2>s^nr‘s,:s-i.;!. ■ V -W iii‘W iv ■■■ .''Page 14' CIT9 (Continued) '' '.j - IT’^j ' • /-ir/fl .• f » 1. % i*y i'; l-N-v«?l vl »* REZONING 3445 Bayside Road ^390 - James McCleary RESOLUTION #922 Michael Ankeny William Noll «coJd*th2^MSi.Si*J '’lAonar, . entered Into thi.',:4nrc for a varlanc# ot Gaoraa-MA^cha^t*40M El- Street, deted June 21,„1978. el;i«?Sa^:Si„:^T!;T* .'niwxxsting vacant lot. The property consists o£ three bcparato parcels totaling 19,920 sq.-, £t. (0.457^cre). • •• aK.T.ViC^' VARIANCE . .. 4055 Elm Street 1401 George Hatchett (Continued) m 8 1 ^ •». I V‘ 1. ,* • •* *■ • - '••• •• ' i, . ^. lA w .*'.st4 ciwiTl^OI. «, wtt »*•*• v.i• i,*r * iwXk.i,'.■’ii-iV ivij.' k >r f f It wSulS’h-J^*^**®'*** location V^fevaU:j*«gul«r ••tStok. conform to «ir«o lot* (1/3 unit per parcel).;*V’ ,7>\* 7^- - iws si s;.... 118 ft. 22 ft. - 161 "T\ '- Aeta^ aront Variaacot ; . Jidth raqulredt Actual width! VarianceI a«d.hlp, „o .dditional l„d .vallaMe. Mmnlng Cc«a,,io„ Me.tln9 - June 26, 1978 !»• objected to tS VarilAei^S! Street, wherein ony hardahiS. wits L 3^^"^Question* ware “® demonstrated. Planning Connieeion tabled*aSill drainage. Wiew of drainage and requSStiia“ii°?i'^"‘*^”^ be present to address Com2iSlJiS^ -PPUcant to Staff Note - June 28, 1979 street which ditch is along Elm Th. ditch flow. S..t City. fiSw .oSss«?Jrt; i""* ^property, ^l« «low is off the subject th^ditSh^iiS; i^iiliert'^acieorbl^'® crossing of works department acceptable to the public must be such as to prev4nt°"iitatprocedures of the ditch at all times!^ «Htation or clogging The following table compares adjacent properties; Subject Loti 3?i 2Ji** ”^9hlands: til 5^' «i9hlandsi 594 Park Lanei 4100 lla Street! 4060 Bin Street! 4030 Elm Street 19,920 19.500 17.500 12,000 24,700 15.000 35.000 sq sq '■qeq. aq sq, sq, ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. • * . t Page 15 VARZANCB 4055 BIb Street , (Continued) (B- Variance approved 5rl0-76 Variance approved 6-24-7S i (Continued) r • • •• •‘ lt> ... V . K ; .-TTrT^— . . W *3^ * r.«i» » r * : .-•I I,-........ , . • •• • . ?•• ‘y:» ■••; ^ m ;•■••• v • . - r;;100aUUI.NBIT2>6 or THB omo COONCXL^ JULY 25, • r^.* •', 'V.'" • •. .ui • ■. < ■••.•• ?* 9*9 1978 rnawliBlon H««ting - July 10, 1978 ;,]l9O0HinMd •pprovml'of variancss finding proposal <• €»aetataat ■ wita tha naighborhood and a hardship '■ ofvBO|\additioBal land availabla, subjact to no .'i'lOatbaofc Tariancaa, .to lagal lot coaibination and to :rappxovaX-of .drivaway .and oulvort by tha City Public ; Woxka^ Bi^arviaor • • • a - o • • • ‘ * * *• ♦•j * **• • .•\‘:rpaga. 16;; 'r- . i *. I ;As *»V».• • • * .*•; VfSr; . .VhRZAliCE ' • 4055 Ela Streat (Continuad) Cf.' p, r• •• • Oooneil Maating - July 25, 1978 \ V. P • -N «. Butlar'noTsd; Massangala saconded, to approve tha raquaot for a variance of Geo*gj Hatchett, 405i; Bl». Street, par tha Planning Connaission recoin- ■andations of .fuly 10, 1978. notion. Ayes (4) - Hays (0). •• a • # . f . - 4. Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, presented tha City Council with a letter to Russell Wenkstem, 645 North Ann Drive, dated July 19, 1978, which statest IT8*."-V, "The City Engineer has reviewed the sewer connoction assessment formula as applied to this property. 8ENER« A88E88Mbim*0 • - • 645 North Arm Drive • 383 Russell ffenkstam Consistent with other such unusually shaped properties, and with average assessment charges in this project, the lateral charge will be based upon the average lot depth, in this case 150 ft. (as opposed to the actual lot width of 355 ft.). Therefore, the City Engineer’s assessment calculation is as follows: Plant Charge - $110,00/acre X 1.22 Lateral Charge - $18.30/ft. X 150 Unit Charge - each Total due with connection $ 134.20 2,745.00 3,059.05 $6,738 End of letter Mayor Van Nest moved, Pesek seconded, to approve the assessments for Russell L. Wenkstern, 045 North Arm Drive, in the amount of $6,738.25, per the above. Motion, Ayes (4) - Mays (0). Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to waive the Planning CoBStission review for a variance request of Gloria Dotzenroth for 3085 Casco Point Road.** Motionm..,. Ayes (4) - Nays (0). VARIANCE 3085..Casco.PolAt Road Gloria Dotzenroth « . «(Continued) • ••» »• •. • t; .. .» ♦ : I June 28, 1978 George ^tchett 4055 Elm Street Pege 2 •V 'M i*'mrd /.' \ pa?m -i P?-- ■ ^ r‘'> . V r • . •> , Th« following table compares adjacent propertlea: j Subject Let: 601 Mtka. Highlands: 615 Mtka. Highlands: 594 Park Lane: 4100 Elm Street: 4060 Elm Street: 4030 Elm Street: 19,920 19.500 17.500 12,000 24,700 15.000 35.000 Variance approved 5-10-76^- ^ Variance approved 6-24-75 • •. PLANNING COMMISSION - July 10, 1978 Recommended approval ''”^^®"^*‘^f^^o'*addltloSarianraiJu^^ the neighborhood and a hardship JJ°"“;„bmatlon and to Ifp^^al^^/drj^ovafnrd%:i::r; by the City fubUo Work, Supervlaor. m' II'' ■ m r.ry * • \« •3 ■ •v ^ ^ fv*A--./ 4^'V- ^>-c ,. 1 •♦' •■P^ - ^V*' ' •'* ’•....... \•----------------------------------- ,,,.C1-;.K :■•.«-,«■. or ir.r. oro:;o ooun-c., .'.m: 30. v.'«o r,;birc't to O.C fcKowin, .--..HUon.: ,. to i=.:'.,n.it .. Mro pl.->n .i-sion-" >'»J >.‘'0 1. AnpUc.-in . j .:,ur ovfincnt s;fonowuig !>h\s>c. . , , . r .Kv«i'cnl pl*»nC „, loction, ■jnd o ' hood hoo-.c, (c; ccr.;io<->o 43 X ‘ for -:>:p.»ntlcd >” ;:r.,'^' “ri/uv/rxi'-t rc/vin, rrxidrnco ond o) li-;'ivc«rs ’-d of.'-x..,cct po.V.in^ orco lU.rcc porkinc rp^tccs) . 2. Ccr'binc four ^^oporato tax :>^.rcls. 3. All improv-:>|‘ntG i"?/' 1 iiM'.cd lo ) h3 ••..^ovc .• •• • -n' ^rmit O'.'ntnd to Ibc r-'.oitcrr.ons4. conditional use pormjt g..ni. only • k*M#^ — 'pno ^0# 1980council r'ooting -tno . included • be ninount of "'ales, tiaff'c p‘SK.mroid iotur^-uso of tho property. to table the request Paurus moved, Hurr seconded, to street, of Robert t Joanne reouest staff to for a conditional usc^P^^^^ tbis'app^>cation address the adver . , traffic problem m a concernlno >^'?= „ Lccss o£ zoning roqu.ro- <U - <0'- .o.„„g Mdhust.. zoning^^%:rfor‘gMnrn«.°d»«d rune .6. 1980. which states: newal The >:ark Fuller riu^ce of a lot =r°®'"^The drainage ditch running along ir“re't”i”jront of the Property -«je-e-ed ruSt"3eier.lnc alre of culvert for to propoaed house. at their June 9. 1980 P'-’nning Co^l8«‘°’’J'®h a?d Jhe Planning Co™"i''®‘°"-“??or based on the hardship ‘?:a'v.riance <-“^^ont and -available and subject .hat there is noto the following conditions. I r.ioe 21 -■.tn* • . W.fr.-. COIiblTIONAL ’’P- :'»./C'.iT 120fi Arbor Street (Centinued) VARIANCE Elm Street »562 ■puller (Continued) V ' kewi-ar meeting or the orono councl. gone 30, 1980 Eo'ts 7. 8, 1 9 must be combined as one bu, in, site. , Ml construction to meet setbacX of the t°nrn, district LR-IB. j- to dot''rmine culvert•» Public WO-V.S Coordinator to cio.- ■* sii:c for proposed driveway. Councr.l Meeting - June 30, 1980 AnA to approve the variance Paurus moved, Elm Street, request °f/^f;3^^“5eco^i^endations of June 9, U80.Planning commission r ^ Mbtion, Ayes (4, Na> • *etrfltor entered into the Jeanne Mabusth, le, 2690 Pheasant Hoad, ^on^"!a^:r'L^I^ sin" r.l^OOO, Wblcb states: Zoning District - LR-IB 1. Side yard variance: page 22 variance 4055 Elm Street (Continued) VARIANCE 2690 Pheasant Roaa 1505 Alan Dale Required: proposed: Variance: Hardships: 3« a 30%f.i (, no adjacent land avaiU.lo house location on lot t;* Qf ^ , The oalcs lornfaffi^sffIcoflevel extendin, 1-? ^rom"t;li?'nli9bbor ; =/;|^"slHolird-porf over the ilst ed,e of f=%he‘'Urllncd porch is side property line. require « . Variance. We have ^hrappl ication. We have the “009/°” "“ten Comments nor did he make an not «°”ved written c^^ ooetinq. appearance at rne Council Meeting - dune 30,1980 Council to Butler moved, Hurr the‘"vaUiance a resolution JP^^J^rt^oad, subject to the^ porch never Into the chain of "Jhe house, the roof be directed to the that the M) - Nays (0)..louth. Motion. Ayes («» SS hv " <• / Klims OF THI FLAnXKG COMM188IOM MKrTIMG AOGOST 15, 19S8 tomo riLB *1317 COimUBD •pprovAl of •pplication #1317, per ataff racomaendatlona, riodings and conditions. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion paaaad. •131S SOAO B. AIABARI 1745 FOX 8TUXT VAITAICB FtmUC BKAIIIC ^^fidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicants were not .resent for this matter. ®oved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to table #1318 Jl*'^** next Planning Commission meeting so that applicant can •1319 KAUa fULUai s 4055 ILK 8TBXBT ■MIAL FAXIAICX FOBLIC HIAIIIG ^^TheAf^davlt of Publication and Certificate of Hailing were The epplic.'nts were not present for this matter. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to table 11319 until the next Planning Commission meeting so that applicant can be present. • 1330 DL AID MRS. ROBERT BRANDENBURG 719 MimrOIKA BIGUIAMDS LAIS VAUJUK3 FDBLIC HIABZIC 9il7 P.M. TO 9t22 P.M. The Affidevit of Publication and Certificate of Hailing were . Aoted. »i The applicants were present for this mat er. ®****^^ a*plalnad that the applicants were seeking approval hardoover wariaaoes to reconatruct a screen porch and existing I f# ^ J the lakeside of their hone. The existing deck was OOiMtnotad aporoxiaately 10 years ago with untreated wood and is ' ,ytp'.il poor condition. They would like to replace the structures in ‘ v/^'^tba. iaae location but with a different configuration. There would be a revision to the existing walkway. The replacement i' structoree will eneroach no further into the view line and will he invisible from the neighboring property to the northwest. •There ie virtually no increase in hardcover in the 75-250' tone.% ■t There were no comMsnts from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing waa closed. » .* '4 • • e»to •• f e « » # I* * J-. • .;Vc • . • , I . • • . ••‘V.’ • . .* . V 'VUaSfT*^ 0 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1944 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 8/17/94 TO: Bradley & Dina Etherington 4631 Aquila Avenue Nonh New Hope, MN 55428 COPIES TO:Karen F. & Tim Feyo 1677 Long Lake Rd. New Brighton, MN 55112 Lance M. Wile 615 Minnetonka Highland La. Long Lake, MN 55356 Herman Laue 594 Park La. Long Lake, MN 55356 Stephen & Patricia Swantek 649 Minnetonka Highland La. Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION;Variance DATE OF MEETING: 8/15/94 VOTE:4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Conunission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Legal combination of Lots 7-8-9 required prior to issuance of building permit. Provide grading and drainage plans for proposed house to be reviewed by staff prior to submission of variance for Council action. 3. 4. Improvements shall meet standard setback and hardcover requirements Staff to review neighbors’ claims of survey discrepancies and evaluate whether such claims have potential validity sufficient to cause the City to delay action on this application. Neighbors making such claims are requested to submit their documentation no later than September 2, 1994. If you have questions, contact Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Mike Gaffron at 473-7357. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of grading and drainage plan. Deadline for the September 12th Council meeting is September 2, 1994. : ■; 1 Zoning File #1944 August 17, 1994 Page 2 If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission, ui‘’•.• « .* ••x-»J* ••*. • • *. • CiTM Ctf im BfEH •. » ; •-•• i» * • • • .ip*‘ M ^'1\5 -,v??r;'jv :- •:• ••' \of Lbt« 4 - -Plat of Surrey •• ! for Rlchnrti 4. Wright ^ 6. Block 9, KlnnotontaiL Standt Park -.. vi MICROFiLIHED ** * ^ ^ • • ;f: *' • j: .ir : .' CX^T. ' v/A ■■ ■ '■•• '• iP’.. > ' '' ■'■■ ■ » ■ AV '" ’' ■ ‘ ^ ^ /? y • ^ ■’ ■ *■fc • . • 1’* I • I . f w- •Certificate ofi '/ •'..■■ • ^--------------, .. - •,. • •. •• •;.■• ■■■-/ A' • /.••• ‘ :v- ••; :V ^ ^-/ surrey: ■• ‘■;:.-i: / .- W'UI JkCm VA 04 I^VJU r a. *• J * ^ '*■» ij.rr«rE3.r “lu "ss-ssii:::*:.V' f?**' loctic. or .ii ■/- ..* r • t ‘ .• 1:- not purport V-- • t !.-■Seale: Date : o': 1" =40' * 8-14^75 ‘‘ Iron Barker i* :;» • . •% • \*j *!" i-if -..^« \ i ELM STRf^. , %• * *. OenoVcs \ron P\ocedI oe^oVcs \ron Pout'd '». • % s A I • . • • * . • •• .. • • • • • ^ '•.f . • • . ' . ••V * • * : . • i .>^4 % '- 'X \** M I •*i' • r .. I • Q •* .. - t ^ ^•••*|» •• A* . * • ••. A ./ V »• t • - • • ’• u. • •. •*. •■'*1 •*.•'*,?•, . .1 • ,%*• f »• 1* ..•»*. ‘V- • . • • • • , V...... •* • . V /Tr-.. ; .• V %. . » j/' \ / Frarnc ^ Mouse *0 •# • • ». •i t W V M * t < C I C.U : 6ii:“&29-?613 Sep 2.94 7:51 No.001 P.Ol PosMt • brand fax transmittal memo 7671 * of pag»» ► j ^ of t>Co. r Q Co. Otpt....... '1(^00 ^13- 0^,0 To: City of Orono From: Lance & Marti V7ile 615 Minnetonlca Highlands Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 Date: September 2, 1994 Re: Zoning File #1944 Notice of Planning Commission Action Notice Date: 8/17/94 ,N We hereby request the Orono City Council to delay action on the above variance application until such time that the discrepancies over the lot lines are resolved. When lots 7, 8, fit 9 were transferred from the Matchettes to Karen Fuller, this transfer was based on the 6/17/76 survey. This survey indicates chat the Wile residence (615 Minnetonka Highland Lane) was 47 feet from the lot line. This same survey was used when the Etheringtons made the offer to purcha.se lots i, 8, & 9. Therefore, they were under the impression that the land was located 47 feet from the Wile residence. When the Wiles purchased their house in 1988, the purchase was made based on the survey dated 8/14/75 which indicated that the house was 44 feet from the lot line. Trees were flashed many years ago, marking the lot line. One of trees is 47 feet from the Wile residence. tho The most recent survey indicates that the Wile residence is 42.2 and 41.7 feet from the lot line. We do not believe that this survey is correct. In addition, it appears the Laues do not agree that the most recent survey is correct. We would like to work this out with the prospective buyers of lots 7, 8, & 9. We will be hiring a surveyor in order to obtain a more current survey of our property. We will advise the results of that survey when they are available. One additional concern we have is that we have large trees which border the property line. Because it appears a lot of grading/earth removal will be required to install a driveway, we ask that the 10' setback be observed for any area where there is a tree that is a minimum of 10 inches in diameter. This is to protect the root system of these well established trees and to preserve the overall aestl.etics of the existing neighborhood. t«pt.*• 199% tei Or ©no City Cojael! •rM 4nd Oira EtHari-t^ton 9%3I Apulia A^a. N. Maw Hs^, NN 99439 AAdawAua to Zoning Fila a >94^ 09;20QM MgTQLTri SYSTEMS MPP^'g ■ j ,.■•» ^ !*m / 4 / T7.-'•Jiii OUnUTlOH tODSKET Hiuot SMt •«’ “•”* buTiw ffiww w to* ^ "i**o __ 9D-1000* A. ttwsi 3^0 /C^ ^ U9 UMm 2 p 90»0 %.f* Z o /4>I.P. /7.a . * ^•o ici-i - s.^. s. GMAit c. PilVfllA t.p l.p. t.r. (D *fAfl t.p s« S i 4 2 ^.2 5. • ,£L2_*'‘ i.». ••Isa*' A.LMKAM AMAt MWIAIN tvelastic SMUTtM St Otmu •M1 1/¥.p • /f /y. • - m « i.t. --------- m M 1 t.A. X •.A. X i■ _ §«F# X , t.t. t^r^£A l.t 0 ti Tot*t Hmmcovm w ^ * ------------------------- 9a^3». H i.f.^ fw «T» Ama w to* - ----------^ yn^SO-H X 100 •% ^ i • J ! 1 r?. .:* j C' P N Jy1 \ 5 \ ' I } ! I I i •*. iC *. » 1 ! i: i ! ♦ ; ■ H • O.i 1 • s Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineers & Architects September 8, 1994 Ono G Sone«?Da PI RDhen W ffosene. PE • Jovph C And^rik. PE Mjrvm L Sorvau PE R<hard E ^urner PE Gienn ff Cook. PE Thomji E Noyev PE fltotoert G Schur^chL PE Su«ri M EDertn. C P A *Sen«>r Coniukanc Mowvafd A SjnibnJ. PE Keith A Gordon PE Rooert R PWflprte. PE Rcfuro W fctttf. PE OavO O Lovkou. PE soom C Ruiirk. A i a jerry A dourOon. PE Mar% A Hjnion. PE Mchaet T Raucmjnn PE Ted k E<kl PE ThomatR Anoenon AIA CX)naid C BmdaAX. PE Thomas A Sydco PE Ffidenc J Stendorg. PE isrhaet Min^neL PE M<hae< P Pau. PE Agrtes M Ping. A i C P Thomas W PKerson. PE M<haft C LyfKh PE James P MaUrxJ PE Jerry D Pertasch PE Scott J AiganeiL PE nenneth P ArxJerson. PE Mark P RbPs. PE M^k A Sect PE Gary W Monen. PE Pat> J Ganrxy\ AJa Oan«i J Edgetton. PE A R<k Schm«JL PE Ph*p J CasweP. PE Mark O Wasu PE MaesB Jcri^n PE L Ph'Dip Gravel. PE Kjien L WOTfo. PE Gary O Kn«oT<2. PE F Toc3d Foster PE keth P vapo PE Oougias J Benoc PE Shawn Q Gosufson PE Ceok) Orvier PE Paul G Meuer PE John P Goroer. PE Charles A Er<kson Leo M Paweisky Hanan M Oison James F Engeihaict f7 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Bo.x 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Brad Etherington Lot File No. 139-1944 Dear Mike, On September 7th, we inspected the site at 4055 Elm Street where Brad Etherington proposes to build a single family home. At the center of the lot is the natural high point for the area, with drainage shedding off in all four directions. The proposed house and drivew«ay would increase the storm water runoff from the site onto the adjacent lots. To mitigate this impact, the applicant proposes to install gutters and downspouts which would connect to drain pipe. The drain pipe should be extended north to the edge of the existing roadway ditch. The drain pipe would require routine maintenance fiom the homeowner, but it is the only obvious solution to prevent an increase in runoff to the adjacent lots. Any attempt to construct a drainage swale on the lot would have significant impacts on tne topography and trees. The proposed driveway would have an approximate slope of 20%, which is the maximum recommended grade. The grading of the driveway would be simplified if one or two large trees are removed. If all large trees must be saved, retaining walls up to 3 feet tall would be required. 1 he topography plan submitted for the site is adequate, however, a more detailed plan .showing the proposed driveway grading and tree removal and/or retaining wall should be prepared. The site development as proposed is acceptable from an engineering standpoint. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. £ Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. ' 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 % request for council action ^ 7q DATE: September ITEM NO Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed: % Agenda Section: Zoning •-»-« Lake Landing. Variance - Brief Review of Application Applicants propose a 19’xl4 ’ four season porch and I4 ’xl3'A’ erade level He^ir k • to the lakeside of the existing residence, refer to EidUbits D F and r ^ stmcmre .o be amoved fo? the proptl^S ad airfadTlL^ blvon?^* lakeshore setback line. No other variances are required for the proposed improvement, The higher elevations to the southwest and the existing plantings along the shared lor lin^ mii^ize any visual impact of the proposed improvement upon the property at 1146 Wildhui^r Trail, refer to Exhibits C and K. The odd shape of the lakeshore loT^t^n^ imnacr average lakeshore setback line, no recommended unanimous approval and accepted the hardships as rond r^^ the applicants. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings conditions of the Planmng Commission’s recommendation. ^ano COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the proposed approval resolution.i i A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B) FILE #1949 WHEREAS, Sanford W. Erikson and Margaret J. Erikson (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 4455 Forest Lake Landing within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tracts B, C, and F, Registered Land Survey No. 1019, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, per Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) the applicants have filed for an average lakeshore setback variance for a lakeside deck and four season porch addition that will extend 34’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line where no such encroachment is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1949. The property is located in the LR-IB. Lakeshore Residential ^ning District requiring 1 acre or 43,560 s.f. in area. The property consists of 20.249.4 s.f. 3. unique findings and hardship: Higher elevations to the southwest and existing plantings along the sh^d lot line of the property to the immediate southwest minimize any visual impact by the proposed lakeside addition. Page 1 of 4 ! B. C. The odd shape of the lake shore lot to the northwest has an impact upon the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed addition will have no impact upon the lake views of the adjacent residences at 1146 Wildhurst Trail and 4465 Forest Lake Landing. D. The City is in receipt of a written statement from the property owners at 1146 Wildhurst Trail noting no problem with the proposed improvements. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not naerely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grams a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (B) that would allow a 19’xl4’ four season porch and a 14’xl3*/4* grade level deck to the lakeside o existing residence to be placed 34’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line subject to the following conditions: 1.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a buildmg permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this vanance will expire on that date (September 12, 1995). Page 2 of 4 •14 • r«ruii»j •Ui I ^W¥a(iTiT«i [•Ci]#lW«M BTOfgirwMgHQj M- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public de^scribed 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 :knowledged that he (they) executed the same ai his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 i? FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 4, 1994 SUBJECT: #1949 Sanford Erikson, 4455 Forest Lake Landing - Variance - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback variance required for lake side deck and four season porch. Existing = 24 ’± (includes 4.5 ’ overhang) Proposed = 34 ’± = 14,399.4 s.f. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover 75-250’ setback area (review Exhibits E and F) Allowed = 3,600 s.f. or 25% Existing = 3,156 s.f. or 21.9% Proposed = 3,455 s.f. or 23.9% No variance required List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map , D - Survey of Property E - Hardcover Site Plan F - Hardcover Inventory G - Floor Plan ‘ H - Elevations I - Letter from Owner of 1146 Wildhurst Trail J - Photos K - Average Lakeshore Setback - Site Plan Description of Request Applicant proposes construction ol a 19’,xl4 ’ four season porch and 14 xl3 1/2 grade level deck to the lake side of the existing residence, portions of which will be installed in an area already occupied by a patio and front porch overhang of approximate 4.5 . The existing structure already extends beyond the average lakeshore setback line. No other variances are required for the improvement. Note the area of Tract F has been excluded from the lot area of the property as Tract F is the driveway access lot tor 4465 and 4455 (note use of access drive by 1146 Wildhurst Trail). Tract F is owned by the applicant but based on the policj' of the City the area must be excluded from t»'e dry buildable area in determination of hardcover and lot area facts. / . . f Zoning File #1949 August 4, 1994 Page 2 Statement of Hardship Review Exhibits A, C, H, I and K, applicant ’s addendum notes that property at 1146 Wildhurst is a deep lot. Topographic features and the depth of the lot have encouraged development more to the midpoint of the lot. Higher elevations to the southwest and the existing plantings along the shared lot line minimize any visual impact of the lake side addition. The odd shape of the lakeshore lot to the northwest has also intensiHed the impact upon the determination of the average lakeshore setback line. There is no impact upon the lake views of residences at 1146 Wildhurst Trail and 4465 Forest Lake Landing by the proposed improvements. Issues for Consideration 1. Have the hardships been substantiated? 2. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Options of Action To approve as proposed; or Amended i I * M ’Iy urn nofes that propeny at 1146 Wjldhurst -u.CsV'a^'T ”*'''. “"''“P'nen. more akc eiH, ^ '»isiing plantings along akc side addition The odd shape of the ^ mpact upon the determtnatto^of «n the l^e views of residences at 1146 proposed improvements cm OF ORONO - CRtWCE .CPPl.lCAThImuaJ Application Fe^ $200 CH3($50 (X) per each additional vmanen Renewal Variance Fee $100 00 (no change from ongmai application) Vanance for non-conforttunc strjcruxes $200 OO After the-Fact Fees (tK'Us‘“ie arrlication fee* PROPER'n’ I>TOR>UTION . Site Address 445S tAWg ,CV0»iQ Property Ikteauficanon Number iP I D )_________ ________ • • - ^ ^ V N *• *"C w A *. Y ^ V 4ir Attach legal description to application if not included on required sur^ev Daa Progerrv Acquired_______L \ ____ __________ I (do) Qo not^ also own the adjacent parcels of land Present use of properrv X residential ___other ispecirv >_________ Zoning Distnct'_____________________________________________ I mentha, \ ear APPLICANT VX2.^R\Vd^C»0 Phone (heme) Phone (s^ork) Address irv __rV\gO»J CN g4¥7 2*P _5S^4i / OWNTR uf different than appltcanO .Name Phonahome) Phone (work) Address C;r>Zip DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Desenbe request in detail: Cesio^TRoCT ICO __ Ci4^u>-^.V^ ______________________________ unach additional sheets if necessary) K • f vk\4 'V* VARIANCES REQITRED Lot .Area Lot Width Hardcover Loi Coveraee Setback Front Side Rear f/ Average Lakeshore Other (specify ) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTIO.N OF L2VLSL AL PROPERTY CONDi riO.NS Desenbe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements LAikE. SC,T-^Aciid Fc<V UAfe ^^err OHOVVifa. Qlr UAU LkKt, ^i4MT»uijC T!>># OR. TUC PROVtVCO Ak^VCTsoKJ Tc ._____________________________________________________ (anach additional sheets if necessary) 4. 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS I All of the following information must be submitted hv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certihed Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from ^ennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). 3. ‘^^lat Map (obtained with property owners list). ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V5" x 11" for reproduction. 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, i/ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'A" 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 3 q The Applicant and Propefrty Owner must sigrf this application. 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) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s Signature ///f 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 Council members for purposes of investigation and verification ot this request. Date I ^^4*"Owner ’s Signature Applicant must have all submits 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 appUcant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, pl^e 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 es |yi. . ii.RUN DATE 07/11/9*■■■ •vA •MTCH 004■PROP ADOR V, OMCR NAME iJAKPAYER.' ^ HAME/ADOR->j-;y5V :SO 07-117-2S 24 OOOS 04445 FOREST LAKE LANDING T H LENBKE A A H LEHBKE TIMOTHY M LEHBKE 4445 FOREST LAKE LANDING HOUND HN 55364' SO 07-jv PROP ADOR •^'■:0»MER NAME 'TAXPAYERV;NAME/ADDR v :i,'PROP AOOR ii^:'---;oit«R NAME ■ taxpayer , NAHE/AOOR M' PROP ADOR . OMCR NAME it TAXPAYER ,,hv?H„hame/aoor SO 07-117-2S 24 0022 OOOSO ADDRESS U.ASSIGNEO ROGER H OYBOTH ORUCE 6 KEHRING 11060 HYLAND TER EDEN PRAIRIE »t4 55344 SO 07-117-2S 24 0027 01146 NILOHURST TR LYLE E RAHN ETAL LYLE E RAHN 1146 HILOHURST TRAIL HOUND HN 55364 SO 07-117-23 24 0044 01134 HILOHURST TR OAVIO H RAHN DAVID H RAHN 1134 HILOHURST TR * MOUND HN 55364 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST30 07-117-23 24 000701186 NILOHURST TR B 0 RASMUSSEN/S J RASMUSSEN BRIAN 0 A SANDRA J RASMUSSEN 1166 NILOHURST TR HOUND HN 5536438 07-117-23 24 0023 .04475 FOREST LAKE LANDINGRAY 0 HURLEYRAY DONALD HURLEY4475 FOREST LAKE LANDINGHOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0037 04455 FOREST LAkE LANDING S N A H J ERIKSON SANFORD A MARGARET ERIKSON 4455 FOREST LAKE LANDING HOUND HN 55364 SB 07-117-23 31 0037 01200 HILOHURST TR DAVID J KRUSKOPF A WIFE OAVIO J KRUSKOPF 1200 HILOHURST TRL HOUND HN 55364 '>"■•(■■1 ■ ■ ••• Osfcfv'v*-; ,vv; •*. . ' .4 ► ' REPORT NO. P1435401 PAGE 21 Vi { * • < * . . 4 » * ' • • ■ < -VJ .• f. 38 07-117-23 24 002100036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEDROGER M BYBOTHBRUCE 6 KEHRING11068 HYLAND TEREDEN PRAIRIE HN 553443B 07-117-23 24 0024 04475 FOREST LAKE LANDING RAY 0 HURLEY HAY 0 HURLEY4475 FOREST LAKE LANDING HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0038 04465 FOREST LAKE LANDING JON D BLACKSTONE ET AL JON 0 BLACKSTONE 4465 FOREST LAKE LANDING HOUND HN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 004 00011 X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. . t , 'tM ..1baDATE * \ % J i ; *• • ’/•* ‘ •' ' ,1 V . 7 * :r; v.* •#.' »•«. ••I ,■:’ir V..--» ff*'.»* ■ * . -if':- • I i » * • i »•« m’ * *• ■ ^ 'If / •• • *■ 4tr«- • • • V’ f/ ' N ^ .. V * i -t ••V ?*.= v- i • • i ^ • •*.. • , f A • ■• ■ v-'.'-V .J- • ;vA • :.s- T • . "• . I i' J Xl \n 62 9 (35)1 736 i -r^ r "I *-s /* • .■^ EGAN. FIELD & NOWAK ^ ^ SURVEYORS MINNIAPOUS, HINMIMTA ^^^^'^ERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ROGER KRAINES_______________ Descript ion: ij^l^ Tracts “B, C, and F, Registered Land Survey No. lOJ^, Files of the Registrar of Titles^ County of.Hennepin. Seale:I"=60' WB m m Bu. MMOFUSIfD ^ \ ----------------------------------------------------- »ly.- . . - oa -- 3' X ^ X \ \ '' ' / / 1/-IC. / \ \ \ N % (roh'' - -iron. _ - - w. h.rebr certify that this is a true and correct ■‘‘P’’***"'?*°'i ? buM dlnai !r,Syrrb;:nnra:5%'M"Ji:?M: - on said ..nd. Dated this day of 1975 i i » 1 • i ’i-i1’ j ii1 _ . I j t !1 1 ' 11 ! Ij^^JLlLoAiolCr If• < 1 i I I I ' I I i 44^^ ^e>R.g:yr! UftoXic LAioc^vK^Cr — C)Ro^Q — i t I i i *■ I i I ! ?f ^Re^ I OT TS -a>So . zorjct--'-----i4,?93.4 fTi ! ! ' ( t _.:c\3S'-y>i 35 s ..h^.n*; I ' 1 i 1 t J f ’ "••! ii i t i f 1 » j 1 t . '1 ; ! TR^cT C I CgoO<^-»<8^»lS) i*78.C^r^(e>;L4>4 SQ.^.l CS6T-b>kCV< AaUiJMoCg^' ! a. _________ • I I I i ! I I i •I I j • »• t 1 i I I ■ ! i !i ! i i ' i Ml ceprrvpic^Tt oP^vjR\i?Y‘^lo\9 1 1 i >_L I 'i M ‘‘Mi' ^ ‘ •1 * 1 > ' 1 ♦ 1 . 1 \ i\ i!__A !_\ 1 __^___i 1 1 ! : ■ ; : 1 i i i 1 i i i 1 M ! ! i \! \! h"p^.'cT p I ! i i ! • ' ' ' i i ! ! ; ‘ I I CeKsevAg^rr^: I 1 i ’ !! I !\ \ i 1 1 : 1 1 ! f iM i\ i\ M T r 1 f 1 I ' 1 . 1. i !\: \ i t '. i M '___J_____\ -A ____L ' • * I 1 1 I « i' 1 ’! 1 ) \ \i 1 i i t i1___i___L-1 y \: ]I f ‘ 1 t 'W? -v . I » ! I ]_ _1 1 MM_j ___^___1 ______ 1 <1^1 } , ! ’ 1 ’ * ; 1 1 ! ' i i , i i ; ' 1 1 ! i J___1 i : V \i ' !___L_M ; M M 1 1 > ■ , ■;...- L . ., ■ i ■ ■ 1 — .i.i ----------------— *i. ■ ■■ »■., ., • * ; •i i i i' * • 1 t : 1 ; 1 » j ' t\ ' ' ! !ill*1 1 • *t 1 •f *• j ' 1 1 \ 1 ' !I «1 1 t 1 (♦K 1 l\ !\ I i •' !t t • » 1 i ;!i i 1 > 1 ( - f I •A«>QJ5iONl TR^CT B FRGPeSCXr oecK I ! • I f I I I .•:r. <a>. r^AcT C T i «f I f I 3EIrBi^ A^L(J0U)#4OC.€ I I 1 ! ---------- ■»♦.««.. «.-4 —— -—. ». —m.. 44^^ FOREVr UKKe UMooivi^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION W<g^EE^T SETBACK ZONE: (CIKCLE ONE) 0-75* ClS-lSQ'^ r7~’ r-:|25-500’ FYISTTNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A, House 4t»______ LcDgth Wtdib X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck 9^4 ^(o 9 l4 3LO F. Landscape R\J^ Uudiulain AA By Piaa tieSHj^ X X X X X X X X X i A____ 41 G. Other 49k TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL IN ZONE ^ ^ ^ ppnpnsF.n hardcover in zone A. House 6NrTE.v B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck 3.4- Length X X X Width lA- aib F. Landscape ((y). Undefteia A/C^ By Phfiitgl^^ G. Other X X X X X X X X X i I3 jlS .b1 41 X 100 = TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PR^PE^Rgr AREA IN ZONE ^ ^ 3L^ tfeO 44l ai 3.44 4^0 40 ^4- S.F. S.F. S.F. 41 a S.F. ® S.F S.F } S.F. S.F. S.F. ® S.F. S.F.® S.F. S.F. S.F, @) ai-Q S.F. A S.F. B /O I ceft S.F. © S.F S.F s.f: 6>1X S.F. ® S.F S.F j® S.F. S.F. siR ® S.F. S.F. S.F. ! t 1 < I I i 44-55 PpiR£5T LKKe LKHTMMer PoftPe>5£C^ fttybXTvciiH I 1 i > I I I V 1 t 1 imj Jf M < Ci \ jTi I " *4^ 1 I \ • i< 1 1 1 i -1 ------ i; i « 1 1(1 1 ; 1 1 i 1 j :' ! 1 i 1 i ! ^ ^ ^• 1 1 i 1 ‘ 1 1 i 1 i t 1It ' i ! F^i? ! % 4^ iiifiSiaj 'ill I : ! i ! t I —f i i I t i ) 0^\ I CutVtHft 0«W«WKV 4 ■■» ! !• i I I I I I I \ ' -----j-----1 -----—:—;—t I 1• •1 '\ k !1 f f 1 1 11 ! i I 1 t 1 /C' July 5 1994 #1949 ->r City of Oono - Buitding Piamtrg & 2on«ng Reference Proposed addition to 4455 Forest Lake Landing. Oono (Mound 55364) Property Owners Sanford W & Margaret J Erikion (472-7637) To Wtxjm It May Concern We the undersigned, understand thM the Enkson's residing at 4456 Forest Lake Landing - Oono. are ptarmrig to buld a 4 season porch addition onto their home The plans and stakes marking the a• • it n do not infringe on our tme of sight views of Forest Lake or neighboring property We have rxj corKerns or objections to this construction as proposed C-V' ^ ■i- ^ ^€c/n y C «'v. Lyle and Joan Rahn 1146 Wildhurst Trail (Ororx)) Mound. Minn 55364 472-2508 Vi, ' • . I •\ I \ sa- ’-Jli:' > - il46:> Wl^'7f‘S5 inijcc/ /AJ^'t //I^'P/a^A- ‘i*’^ ■*- L'ljil ^-^mIccA J'/i .\/:a!»'»i< <• . j-c .V ' **fl'i-CLl [/v..'^//^^"'- Fro»'.c :ui>^<5C <^r ‘bCirccrc'.rv I'si'C.-. , -i-*’.--? U/M.- (i^V’.^iLr iprat pd.r/ct;A .-TM. raScv^\Ci-<.r o-v (;<_ |^L<r.Cc<»Cj l^r 'v i%|*. |-VtiO\ / */ d£>ck e(C aX iVlU^Wltl^r L ^ / A '^ f I •.*! ^ ^ ^^ 'Vi* • •• I ♦ -* • i i -■5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION H DATE: Sepf^mbef"^ ITEM NO.: '^sr DepartiRt»*t Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Sect^: Zoning Item Description #1950 Glen Upton, 3685 North Shore Drive - Variances Additional Exhibit I - Ceil Strauss, DNR, Letter 9/8/94 Brief Review of Application The applicant proposes a 20’ x 30’ room addition with a 22’ x 24’ attached garage to the north side of the existing residence. The proposed improvement results m an 8.9% ‘"grease m hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area where 17.8% exists and 26.7% is proposed. The ro . addition will be located 42’ from the shoreline and the deck to the rear of the proposed garage addition is proposed at 41’. The existing strucmre is 31’. The improvements result 3^6 s.f. or 4.5% of excess structural coverage where 1,500 s.f. is allowed for the property. o setback variances are required. The remainder of the homes served by this driveway are also located within the 0-75 setback area The majority of the homes were upgraded prior to the lakeshore standards developed in 1975 for residential construction. The Upton residence is the last of the group of five to seek improvement. The majority of the Planning Commission found the improvements overly ambitious for the property. The increase of 8.9% hardcover improvements in the 0-75’ setback area was deemed excessive. The applicant did not agree to a modification in his proposal that would attempt to reduce the magnituS^ of the proposal. The original staff memo of .August 10th asked for possible reductions or removal of existing or proposed improvements. There was little discussion at Planning Commission regarding the modification of the plan. The Planning Commission unanimously denied the improvement plan as proposed based on the following findings: 1. Excessive hardcover increases in the 0-75’ setback area which were not found to be justified. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 September 1, 1994 #1944 Glen Upton, 3685 North Shore Drive 2. Proposed improvements do not meet the DNR’s 50 ’ minimum setback nor Orono’s 75 ’ setback from lakeshore. 3. Hardships presented do not support the magnimde of structure proposed for the site. As of this writing, the City has received **o new information from the applicant. Review Exhibit I, Ceil Strauss ’ letter advises the DNR will not approve further encroachment into the DNR lakeshore setback of 50’. She recommends denial of the plan as proposed and finds improvements can be made to property without further encroachment into setback area. Please refer to the staff memo of August 10, 1994 and the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 15th for more detail and background on this review. Options of Action To deny the proposal as presented to both Planning Commission and Council based on the findings set forth in the Planning Commission recommendation; OR Based on applicant’s willingness to amend the current proposal, reducing the intensi^ty of variances required for proposed improvement and to move to table all action on this application until an amended improvement plan can be presented for Planning Commission s reconsideration. Applicant should be advised that if CouncU passes a formal resolution of denial that applicant must wait an additional six months before reapplying for a new variance application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: if application is denied as proposed. Council shall conceptually deny the direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for action at your September 26, 1 mee ing, OR Table all action on the application and direct applicant to provide an amended proposal reducing the intensity of variances sought for these improvements and to direct sta o pre the application before a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmcmbers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 10, 1994 #1950 Glen Upton, 3685 North Shore Drive - Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Lakeshore setback variance Required = 75’ Existing = 31’ Proposed = 42 ’ - Principal structure addition Proposed = 41’ - Deck 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover, 0-75’ setback area = 8,380 s.f. (Note area of utilities and driveway easement not included per Section 11.03, Definition 24; approximate area of easement = 8,742 s.f. Note also hardcover improvements within the easement area have not been included in hardcover inventory.) Allowed = 0% Existing = 1,491 s.f. or 17.8% Proposed = 2,238 s.f. or 26.7% Increase in hardcover = 747 s.f. or 8.9% 75-250’ reiback area = 350 s.f. Existing = 0% Proposed = 0% 3. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage Total lot area = 8,380 s.f. Allowed = 1,500 s.f. (minimum allowed for each lot) Existing = 1,208 s.f. or 14.4% Proposed = 1,876 s.f. or 22.3% Variance = 376 s.f. or 4.5% (1.876 s.f. - 1,500 s.f.) Zoning File #1950 August 10, 1994 Page 2 Review of Setbacks A.Side setback. Required = 10’ Proposed = 11.3 ’ No variance required. B.Street setback. Note street lot line is located adjacent to County right-of-way Required = 30’ Existing = 71’ No variance required. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners ’ List D - Adjacent Neighbor ’s Acknowledgement Form E-1-2 Hardcover Inventories F - Survey G - Street/West Elevation H - Section - Floor Plan Topographic Information Description of Request The applicant proposes a 20 ’ x 30’ principal stmcture addition with 22 ’ x 24 ’ attached garage and the removal of the existing detached garage and storage shed. The entire structure is located within the 0-75’ setback area. Any improvements to this property will require hardcover and lakeshore setback approvals. The structure meets the required street and side setback of the LR-IC zoning district. A portion of the 20 ’ x 30’ addition and the entire deck will be located within the DNR required setback for General Development Lakes at 50’. The DNR has been asked to comment on the proposal. Staff will present Ceil Strauss’s comments at your meeting. There is adequate area in the west street yard to move structural additions out of the 50’ DNR required setback. There is 10’ between the easement and the proposed 20 ’ x 30’ addition and 8 ’ adjacent to the garage. Note there is no required setback for structures from a driveway easement. If structure was to be moved to the edge of the easement, there would still be a 22-23 ’ separation between structure and travelled driveway. L Zoning File #1950 August 10, 1994 Page 3 Per Exhibits G and H, the addition is a single story Review Exhibit J. according to the Cit>'s topographic maps, the existing house and proposed additions will be out of the flood plain at the 931.5 elevation. Applicant should provide more detailed topographic (spot elevation) information with survey submitted with building permit. Statement of Hardships 1.All five houses served by the private drive are located within the 0-75' setback area, refer to Exhibit B. 2.Approximately 8,742 s.f. of utility and private driveway easement area cannot be credited against lot area nor can this area be used for residential construction. 3.The only area available for residential construction is located entirely within the lakeshore protected area. 4. A residence has existed on this property for over 50 years. 5. The property is served with sewer. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the proposed improvement too ambitious for this limited property? Should the structure be moved closer to east side of easement to minimize the intensity of the lakeshore setback variance? 3. What existing or proposed hardcover improvements can be reduced or removed? 110 s.f. or 1.3% landscape area underlain with plastic 12’ X 22’ proposed deck at 264 s.f. or 3.1% 600 s.f. connecting addition at 7.2% Options of Action Denial of application as proposed. Refer to the necessary findings in Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) (1-12); OR Zoning File #1950 August 10. 1994 Page 4 Approval as proposed or amended; OR Table, based on the degree or number of modifications sought by Planning Commission in an attempt to reduce hardcover and impact on lakeshore setback. Planning Commission members may also wish to have detailed topographic information before making a final recommendation. r o i CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initisi Application Fee S200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.(X) (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-ihe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address A/l* ^U 'y Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ; •*. *•r-U • r. "l k. a r I k‘l C ' ^ O * W L ^ IT C ’w . I * w fc- • . - I • * w*V — V V' V X V ■ * r** . _ \ X_ _ ^^ • - V. V. • V ' — Ui-i ♦ ..»•.«.» < u V V' • a V' w a •» h. A ' A » Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. patgProperrv Acquired^--------------------------------- ---------- /T^doT-Cdo not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) present use of property: X residential Zoning District: other (specify) APPLICANT ^ . . Phone (home)-----^------------------- Name / sT a /C Phone(work) 6 99 3/3s____ Address: /«' "s o City: 5 7 ^ -------Zip: ! (p OWNER rif different than applicant) Phone(home) 4^ 7/—^ Name /C-// Phone (work)____ Addres^ 3 /, ^Ity : Q ------Zip: ^S~72y / description of request F-Stimated Construction Costs Describe request in detail: T~c ^e^o/ A (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Ha'-dcover Lot Coverage K Setback;Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty oi unusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ______________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) required submittals . „ h, submitted hv .he applicarioo de^^Umt frtr vniir aoipliration to b** fonsidered completei 1. 2. j. 4. 5. 6. /. 8. 9. S“1roX“Swn«Tis< of owners within 150’ (you must obutin to list from Hennepin Countv Department of Finance, A-603. Govt Center. 348o.71). c^uLMbons as raquatd. In »SU'»b, provlda ok (1) copy 8- ' 8®' oroKiTV TOs would include name's) of applicant(s) if not current o*""*’* ^s^Tddendl to to application, please attach a separate Itst of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. -S-IkIIUSiSSSo^^ mSI’S P'o-aac SS information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. ^ Applicant’s Signature Date nSb^m for purposes of investigation and verificatio.i of to request. Date Applicant must have all submittals imo the City Monday"®* each month. Mating. Planning Commission Meetings are h^ o^ tlto^ Conimissioo AppUcnnts must be present at all scheduled re m^Kiinv clease make arTangan..'nts ^n'd CouncU. If an applicant is unable to attend a & Zot^Office of to have an authortr.ed agent anend m your place anu to advise the Buuomg « this change prior to the meeting. 8 J .A - \ \ \ \ \ ♦ ' r-V' \ I /C ^ \ \ \ \ •>» y f Q> 2i tf' - X ac 3 •? »• : ’:2' > Hi?! X . X , jw ' ^ •»» ' • , I : : £ ® §; • 5 **^ I. ‘’ 5’ i. •*? • «9:' 5cr '.£:’! ,ni .!^‘::j-• M' I X X ^ X * X a! x~ 4*: 11-4 -in— ___________: • ' • < ^ gvg::^ •;r’ s; \ \ <f ■ V y y V »»<1«y7\Trt !! !| :3)i;3)i (2'. ) v> •* 3» arc* ’ • >' 3 1 :r J3 C4- iT » * ^«- • * ,:S44aisai '■•. ■» ' .:o j 153111 ,‘5 3 4) '~t t T 3_______ A. ' ^ ^ • * p :3 4- X L S . XO 1313 TT *a 5i^ • :£/ 95 :5 ' » . r M 9) S 11' •I,. 4 vf ^ ' d 43 • jAdjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form I (we) of 3 ^33 Sfot ^hcre. b lr> ~tJAy2(Cf<i_ ^ (printname5)] [P^nt address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ho. O v-- also referred to as Land Use Application No. ifSli 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 Two'9^ Property Owner Date ♦♦**♦♦★♦*♦♦*♦♦**♦«♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦**♦*♦**•■»■♦**•*>►♦•*♦**•**•***♦♦**♦♦***************** 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 pnor to the scheduled meeting date. ;N V: % 5 1'i • i:x •#•54**■; »*'•.. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WRKSHEET• • • SETBACK ZONE! (CIRCLE. ONE) ^5-250' 250-500' 500-1000 Existing Hardcover 'in Zone A. ‘ House 2o.y J^O'/2»3 X L B* Garage ^^<r/t>r) x t. Driveway _ _ _ _ _ .V S,S • ' 2.92^0 F-2. - r ^22.2 /7,C /o/ //9 S.F. S.F. ^ • s.fV y by 3 S.F. S • F • L-**- J-»"v ;u 0 r . *.♦ D.. Sidewalk . .0</ic, E. Patio/ Deck F*Landscape* AREAS UNDERUIN BY • , _ RUSTIC • SHEETING /TW (jL>ao^ Other /2,2 X . / 2, O 0/i2C€ - /''<? T/f€Cut4.icc ^7 S//ea '-s / T9€ . Total Hardcover in Zone - Total Property Aru 'in Zone \ m ^ • • • 2390/V9/ • I • /OB ? y/c 7o S.F. S.F S.F. S.F S.F. S.F /y9/ S"3do • !#• <* X 100 - ^ O^ck /Zy 2.i - ^ /a33 ^29€ - 79?Z232 ,, G22^*C€ ^Z>2i := y^V . I -r------^ r i y^>/r/^ €00^-JfS - 2?S TJ20 v*X \ L *• •* • # i%• * •* . ' ' • • i ‘ .: .| • M ,.. . “■ V: • 1 •■;•.• '•••. s > v.. V' ; ... * * i. • *.4 .S . * ♦ • . * * ••• •* t ' ■ 4 ■ ; ’ • ‘ ^‘i.. . , 1** ♦ * • ;■'■■ ’-r. % * f • • • • • ••;>>•• i- y • » I ' 4 .V • , I / •■' • -;*• i • ■•; . •« • •**..• i ». % * ' • . 4 ‘ * ••• . ^ • s • • •■• . i v :<. 1’. / • . ■ • *. ■. t > •! Si • ■ -r. • /. , • . *lt • * ^ , •» . . • .«#•1 • » / / ••S 4- • *i,"':.. • Vr'-Kj } . r • I • •» >•»«* ••>• • V' k •* / ■; . i •• ••• p • m I 1* •,' i ■;’. ' Ia Uv •• .1, <’ • \ V , ’t* *.• '..••• ^. .• • .■■. .•• • -V' •• V. ■ ^ v‘ • • ..: f i wc. . • ■ • r:-: j » ' t ‘ • 'I'. • •• •,’rr.; • V , *■ . * •' ’ * .’• '*\\I • ‘ * I . . ^ •• •. , .*•»♦/ k* ^ , i , . * • • * / ’ (1 * ‘ ' • ' * ' • k - J. j *• * .• !• • • 4 "r ..•.. k I -• 7 r .; ♦ ' * ^ , I » ;.» • -• . *V . *• mm • . • *. . , • ' I w ^ . . • .* *.• . •* *• * • • A-* I ‘ 4 • iT r * ' . ‘ 1 •• mmMi • . k “ V* • • .• •*• * . < * . k» ’’{• *:i r'V ,V.- i /4 .. . . V I I’ ■''A ' /;••>■• '.Vt.IV•.. .■' • .; . < : • / - k*i' . * * • •^ *\ . . * .* ' « •*. t V- • ., ^ •. I •• . * • ■ ^ .. ;< .:. «?•*• .•. * ' •• '-vr;.** •.•>’•*: i • f -i;t.: • ' -I * •’ » •*. f;* i- . ki'V • ,. .: ;: • • ,;.•<••,.I;•• ■ • ‘V./ •' ■'•• I* V i" »*• *.*'> '•■ * *•*•/ • * . *A ’ . Ik V>'i •', *1 V ‘ • * \ • »i ' • ' '*.k k' - U ■*’ * •••* 4f.i •*• • ».•• »)*• » - I . . ‘ * • • ' iV * * : r'v' n.;- - -../‘■•j *•• » •'•■ f ./ • : ..• . •; * k. r • /•rf. » I . i: u ... ..•• • • .• •I 4 •: k • • • ..V'.* •» 1 >- ■ .-1; >■* .i . V;^,l *>/ t SVj- .f / , % j ^ */.,! k, iP . *1- • • ‘ • • • I » *• ’ •t •» r* .1 r • !:l v‘. ■ ■•'• .'* ■•, .i •• • ,•.: '••'IV! V:/ ;V.V'J u. phone no. STATE _ OF NATURAL RESOURCES 772-7910 September 8# 1994 Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono p.O. Box 66 crystal Bay, Mlnnasota 55323 Dear Me. Mabusth: recommend 4 the above-referenced The DNR would proposed on tnie sssa 5.artJ^.%?i=.v ... .„ra.„ o. ro^K.rin“V^;.rr- ty t.a ctainanc^^^^^ 'S^sScSd b. fc^.raaa^i%f Should you h.v. any Sincerely/ OiJ) ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS c:City of Orono shoreland file \) ’- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION /> Administrator Reviewed; DATE: August 31 : *lg^ ITEM NO.: | I _ Agenda Section: ZoningDepartment Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusih Title Building & Zoning Administrator Item Description: #1954 Lawrence D. Elsen. 2879 Casco Point Road - Variance - Resolution Brief Review of Application In the summer of 1993. the applicant received approval of a comprehensive variance application that aUowed a major garage addition and other structural "I ite residence A condition of that approval required that applicant remove a 20 x 8.4 s«ed t StTof L property. In theVccess of removing the alone the west public access side of the property was exposed and found to te rn a xymiy deteriorated condition. Applicant replaced fencing without a budding permit and has reinstal vines and plantings on bo^ sides of privacy fencing. Annlicant has confirmed with pictures and in the former survey of the property Exhibit H that fencing was located on property. The new sections of fence have been totalled in *e salne location of the previous fencing except for an approximate 5’ section that has been installe ^ll“ Applicam advised that since the — of the^^^^^ of the public swimming beach have been trespassing onto proper^ The fo served to provide a physical barrier from public swimming beach users. Please refer to Exhibit B. Applicant has provided a statement of hardship and unique findings. The Planning r-____ recommended unanimous approval of the variance, subject to sr. s ;Li,. c— — COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution IM r A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B) FILE NO. 1954 WHEREAS, Lawrence D. Elsen (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2879 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) to permit a 6’ privacy fence located within 5’ of the shoreline of Uke Minnetonka where a 75’ setback is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 0 This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^1954. The property is located in the LR-IC Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre or 21,780 s.f. in area. The property consists of 23,942 s.f. or .54 acres. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 15, 1994 and recommended approval of the variance application as amended, based upon the following findings: A.The privacy fence has existed in the north side lot li.ne adjacent to the public swimming beach for over 20 years, prior to the City ’s adoption of shoreland standards for development. B.The former privacy fence was in a serious state of disrepair and possible collapse. Pace 1 of 4 4. 5. C.The fence has provided a barrier at the public access beach and keeps the public and their pets out of applicant’s lakeshore yard. D.The impact of the fence is minimi2ed in the summertime with the coverage of a grapevine and other adjacent plantings. E.The applicant has assumed the responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the beach area and grassed lawn. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the aj^licant 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 findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) to permit a privacy fence installed in applicant’s north side yard adjacent to the public swimming beach granting a setback variance of 70’ or 93%. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant shall apply for a penalty building permit for construction of privacy fence. Applicant must apply for a building permit by September 22, 1994. 2.A portion of the privacy fencing installed parallel to shoreline of lake must be removed prior to applicant’s filing of application for penalty building permit. Page 2 of 4 r 3.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit by September 22, 1994 or this variance will expire on that date. 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of September, 1994. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Applicant(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of September, 1994 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 ; . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ day of 199 , before me a Notary acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and ee . Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ^ 199 ___before me a Notary Public acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and Notary Public Page 4 of 4 r ( • EXHIBIT A Legal Description I i I f ' That part of Lot 110, Spring Park, lying Northwesterly of the Southeasterly 90 feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County. Minnesota. Also, Lot 101, and the Northwesterly 1/2 of Lot 100, includ ing all land lying between the Nortinast line of Lake Shore Avenue and Lake Minnetonka and bounded on the Southeast by the Southeast line of said Northwesterly 1/2 of Lot 100, extended to Lake Minnetonka and bounded on the Northwest by tlie Southeast line of Carman Avenue, and including the vacated portion of Lake Shore Avenue lying adjacent to prem ises, all in Spring Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. I h#- ■^n To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 4, 1994 #1954 Lawrence D. Elsen, 2879 Casco Point Road - Variance - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (D) - Lakeshore setback variance required for privacy fence. Required = 75’ Proposed = 5’ Variance = 70’ or 93% List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F G - H - Application Applicant’s Addendum Property Owners’ List Plat Map Neighbors’ Acknowledgement Forms Resolution No. 3303 Approved Site Plan for Application #1833 Survey Description of Request In July of 1993. Ihe applicant received approval of multiple variances to allow a in^or garage addition and other structural additions to the lakeside of the residence. APPltcant wa. Sted to remove a 20’ x 8> 4' shed at the lakeside of his property, because of ««ssis Tn the process of removing the shed, the existing privacy fencing along he wXblic access sL of the property was expo^ and ^7^'° condition. Applicant replaced fencing without a building permit and has reinstalled plantings on both sides of privacy tence. Review Exhibit E, many of the adjacent neighbors former fencing because of its dilapidated condition and potential for collapse. D r .r. Pvhihit H hatch marks alone the west lot line locate the privacy fencing that had existed on the proper.;. The new fence is r" Soumg“unVrof .Pe PubHc access from nespassing into their property. The former shed had ser%ed this purpose in the past. • ■ ^ t CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application. Fes S200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Li Fimct L*l t XXmhm • M rry cull Tf*in f* U W • V u w # •./'uX'i'i* Tiuiuun lu i(tiEIFT-YCi> n309iS0 lOOI FOl ir PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ ^ Site t^yfsco KD^__ 04^ r.’/c- Property IdeatificaD<~a Number (P.I.D.)_ if.- .•V» I / u. • i/^Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date ProESiJv Acquired 'Yoi-i/ ----------------------------— I (do) (do n^ also own thfe adjacent parcels of land. (monch/year) Present use of property: V reside.ntial Zoning District:__________________ other (specify) .APPLICANT Name Lau .Address: .3^09 C a -sclo Name f. AujA.(£^€ Phone (home) V3/ _________ Phone(work) ZL~ 3 /g^, Cio’: UJAur^r/^______Zip: / OWTs'ER (if different than applicant)Phona,home) Phone (work) Address:Cic%':Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQLTST EstimatedConstrucnonCostS---------- Describe reoucst in detail: L.eTTtr>c D<trct4? -----------F"*4- « O. f ^ ^ Ar t=SLisr^^f e»j vS./_r-g-e^y&c. tz_ (atfacfa additional sheets if VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot .Area _Lot Width Setbadc:Front Side necessai Hardcove: Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore *>C Other (specify) pe*/C/ HARDSHTP/DES^RIPT^ON of unusual PROPERTY CONDITIONS S^.^duVlSd.hip or pnctical difficulty or proporry coodition^ prove^g compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ..\<? ^TTAttfe^a — Tk O - - - (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ I REQUIRED SUEMTITALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the applicadoa deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: ’ . - 1. Completed Application Form 2. Cerrified Property Owners List of owners witiiin 150’ (>'ou must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603. Govt Center, 348-3271). 3. o»»F.‘/«PIac Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as recjuired. In addition, provide one (1) copy x 11 for reproduction. 5 A/A Topographic sur/ev fe.xisting and proposed elevations) if any changes in e.xisting grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/^” x 11" for reproduction.^ 6. Sketches or plans of floor &. elevation views (provide one (1) copy 3 '/a x 11 ). 7. oo R/t^List of the legal names (include marital status) of ail persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of appiicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. kjA> 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 Cir/ staff. The .Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance apnlication is not complete if the above intorination has not been include^ APPLICANT’S SIGNATUF'.E . The applicant hereby agrees to provide ail information required or requested by the Zonmg Administrator, agrees to pay addirional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant e.xpenses* ncurred in renew of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. OWNER’S SIGNATT jRE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this applicauon and further autnonzes reasonable entry onto the property by cfty staff, consultants, agents.^ Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and veriiication of this request. _______Date 7 > 2- / ~ ^ VOwner’s Signasi£&=; AppUcant must have aU submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each rnontn. AppUcants must be present at aU scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, pl^e make arrangement to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office or This change prior to the meeting. * •; ■ >. , .1. i-T‘ •X-iur .. f July 21, 1994 The City Council & Planning Commissioner City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 In response to your letter regarding the fence on our property, we are requesting the City's consideration of a variance. This fence is located within our property lines and provides a boundary and privacy screen between us and Carman Avenue. Carman Avenue is an access road from Casco Point Road down to the lake. Carman Avenue is presently being used as a public swim beach, an area for people to park their cars and bikes, and a place where people can walk down to the lake. We purchased our home in July of 1987 and have never called the City regarding any problems concerning this public area. We felt when we purchased our house the existing fencing, our shed, and the line of large evergreens along our property line would help substantially eliminate any possible problems which could result from living next to a public area. Last year we added to and remodeled our home. In the process of improving our property, we needed a variance because of hard cover in the middle zone. The City gave us the variance provided we tore down our 20' x 8'-4" shed located in the southwest corner of the lot down by the lake. We agreed to remove our shed and have done so. After removing our shed, the existing fence became exposed and was in need of major repairs. We will present pictures of both the new and existing conditions of the fencing and landscaping at the meeting August 15th. After examining the existing fence, we saw that the posts were not treated lumber and most of them were rotted out at the ground. This condition plus many broken horizontal boards created a safety hazard for both the public side and our side of this fence. Por this reason, we choose to rebuild the fence in its same location in lieu of slowly replacing vertical posts and horizontal boards. This safety hazard could cause injury to some person or child or create a law suit. If •I*lMll* r* 1 ^ • i* H M rL •Mil*. r» =^»Hnr. •i«itr. [mlmlmlm [•ltl«I« •^ # f ♦ *J: t.iV u I Yd.P mri! iia«iiiiiiii •# ^ • ^/I ,.?a ' AdJaceK Proper^ oVaefs ’ Adawwledgement Form I (we) [print namc(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the properr/ located 0^9<7 r P7^also referred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) understand that in e.xecucing this acimowleaeement. I (w'e) am (^e) not as.ced :o declare aoDroval or disapproval of the properr/ or use but merely to confum ror Council Lhat I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans andt^t tne proposed ne-.gnbor s project or use requires Council approval. efL * Dace Procerrv Owner Date I (we) [pant .aamevs)'ipnnt address] •-ave reviewed ±e plans for the proposed improvemeat or proposed use of me properr/ located “ ^so referred to as Land Use .Application No. /V—• JL L ____ _____^ I (we) understand that in executing this ac.mowiedgement. I (we) am (are) not 2sxea m declare anoroval or disaooroval of the propeny or use but merely to connrm tor tne Qty Council tnac ! (we) am (are) aware of the improvemeac plans ana aaac ±e proposea ne.^nbor nrotec: or use requires Councu approval. * • Properr/ Owner Date DaceProperty Owner If vou have any infotmatioo that may assist tie City in the review of thu Lahd Use Appiicidoo, please submit youi' ctommeats to the Buiiding & Zoning Office at least 10 nays pn to ie scheduled meeting date. L JJ-/-<■ ^AdjacL prop^ O^’ Ad^ledgemeat Form [print address] . r'.. -r:? zlH. M > V ^ ^ ^ ' CooncU that I (we) am (ate) aware ot the im^tovem p ^ __ . ^ ^ ; •-,.- project or use requires CouDcd approval. _.Cv«-<i, - ^ f ' • Prooercy Owner Date Property Owner Dace 4, « WIC A ****«*’»* *dC I (we)Sprint name(s)]print address] ,.„ ^ ,1.™ «»rs5trrr»J-ssr£^ z si;as, s^TSSssssss—=.“ ■ project or use requires Councu approval. Date Property Owner Property Owner AppIfca«^“-“ to^die scheduled meeting date. Dace J-*r- " ;of^» r rr y /.-1 ^ ^ . --------- A'dj^cent Property Owners’Adaiowledgement Form §e I (we) A\ ----of '• ----<J [print mmeli)] [pmt address) have reviewed the plaits for the proposed improvexent or proposed use of tte property located P.,.r also refexed to as Utta bse Appitcauoti No. J2^- . j . thar In ^Te'*utinv this acshowiedvexect. I (we) am (are) hot as.ced to I (we) uBderstacd that m e.w.atui, this ac . declare approval or disapproval ot the -^ opposed ceighbor'sTwera^^VeW 0^Couccn tnac i \.wc; ^ . nroiec: or use rcauLres Couccu approval. \ .a ^ t ■< Prcperr/ Owner Dace property OWu.er Wk kW j* ^ * I I'we) [pnnc namci.s)]•pr_a: accressj at - J rh-pr -n —chis acknowledeer.enc. I (we) am (are) not asked coI (we) undersmnd chat m ..cwjcm- - cctinnn for ±e Cicy crojec: or use requires Councii approval. Property Owner Dace Dace pcny vjwutik If you have any Otncs at leas: 10 days prior AppUcaciom please suomit your comments to m. oui.u^* to* the scheduled meedng date. 1 il> r -?1 e \ i /I 1 <. y BJLa«<VJ. I (wc) X PropeiW AdiiiSWledgeif^feat Form 'T^h Ul /\AJAfFPf o(_2S74- d^cPL * ~ [prinl name(s)] Bp [price af’dr ^ fh^ nlaTi<; for the prooosed imorovemecC or procosed use of die propen:/ located r^:f.Tp r% «fcr«d to'.3 Und Us. ApcUcadoa No. I (we) uedersuod that u2 fo^ S iTtTdra^Taro) awatc of the improvetneat piaas and that th. proposed ne.ghbofs project or use requires Couccil approval. 7 h-z Pto^rOwi^^J^(7 ("7^/S' 7^fJC€. t'S A l/Oo>J[fB£7L>(— /fif^veMSMT-d Procerr/ Owner Dace «»cxa«»a*' mMm I (we) [print .lame'^s)]foniit accressj» % ac r (we) understand that in e.xecuting tins .'o eonfinn for xe City declare approval or disapproval ot __; .ji3, prooosed neighbor's Counctl Xat I ('we) ant (are) aware at _e unprovea-. ?i--a -o oroiect or use requires Councu approval. Prooeny Owne: Dace Property Owner Dace If vou have any informadon Xat may Offi« at least 10 days prior AppUcidon. please submit your comments to the Bunmng i Zonmg to the scheduled meeting date. j r n. r N I // . I i' J V-1 ** ». f , _ —------------------------ Adjacent ftoperty Owners- Acknowledgment Form I (wc)Y~ 1^/ ^ [print name(s)J or pg?^<T" [price address) YC ,-r,rT -rV-owicd^eciect. i (we) arc (ire) act asked :o I (we) understand that in executing ^ to confirm for the City project or use requires Couccu approval. Prop?n;/T)wner Prooerty Owner Date m m immMMia I (we)[pdnt .aamets)[pdnt address) „., „.i,,«a .= »- “.T“» '““ project or use requires Couccu approval. Dace Property Owne: Property Owner Dace peuY of ttiis Land Use ro* the scheduled meeang dace. tmwA,-..-- ,.V, ■» ■______aV*' --AJI a. r CITY of ORONO RESOLLTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S S 0 3 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B) AND SUBDIVISION 2 FILE NO. 1833 WHEREAS, Laurence D. Elsen and Katherine E. Elsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2879 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) to pennit structural improvements that will result in 117.7 s.f. or .4% with total structural lot coverage at 3,709 s.f. or 15.4% where only 15% is allowed and per Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) and 2 seeks a 16 ’ average lakeshore setback variance for a two-story enclosed addition where no such encroachment is allowed and hardcover variances within the 75-250’ setback area for structural replacement and new structural additions resulting in 5,257.4 s.f. or 36.9% hardcover where 5,224 s.f. or 36.7% exists and where 25% is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1833. The property is located in the LR-IC Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre or 21,780 s.f. in area. The property consists of 23,942 s.f. or .54 acres. 3.The Orono Plannin g Commission reviewed this application on June 21, 1993 and recommended approval of the multiple variance application as amended based upon the following findings: A. 26’ X 44’ garage addition will be placed over existing paved area. B. Hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area has been reduced by 2.4%., Final m hardcover at 24 s.f. or .3%. Page 1 of 6 A#-. r k • V K i CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.B ■*> C. The proposed loop drive with limited backout apron wUl minimize tree removal within street yard. D.Installation of the new access drive will not result in an excess of hardcover within the 250-500 ’ setback area and will result in 371 s.f. or 12.4% hardcover where 30% is allowed. E.All neighbors notified during this review have been shown the improvement plans and have voiced no objections. 4.The City CouncU fmds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning dismct; that urantine the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor nose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to a leviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial propel^ right of the applicants; and would be Li keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the fmdings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff. by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, satety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS the reconstruction of upper and lower decks. This approval is subject to the followmg conditions: 1.All hardcover removals as shown on Page 5 of this resolution shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction . 2.Any mature planting to be removed as a result of paving improvements shall be replanted within street yard. Page 2 of 6 J r CITY of ORONO %IT’ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3.Authorities iranteJ by this resolution ran with the property not with the fpoHcants petLssive only and must be exercised by applicauon for a ending permit within one year of the date of CouncU approval, or this variance will expire on that date (July 12, 1994). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of tWs 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree “ ^ of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors hereby agree to the recording of this resoluuon m the Cham of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of July, 1993. ward J. Callahan, Jr, /lyl ■'yOv-f-/V.LAS-C. Profierty Owner (s)f / STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTi acknowledged before me on ^ of 1993 by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. and Dorothy M. Orono, a Minnesota municipal coroorauon and said instrument . City. ) JAMIE L BOSMA NOTARY PUBUC4IUI HOMB1N COUNTY My Conan, bpims 1MM7 Page 3 of 6 fwrnvm^i »■ r / CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <> rvNO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of -------------.. before me a No^ Public within and for said county, personally appeared Luor^nn^ D. tl^n^ Keihenna g — it/ L -/« uy;A* known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the'foregoingto^ent.i^^ that he (they) executed the same as his (their) fiee act and deed. CAfWLE A. HASEMAN NOTANT WMJC-MMlOOrA HENNEPIN COUNTY a NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who exwuted the foregoing instniment, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 4 of 6 i-. •••^ y) ^-3U»^&1.«*f.L. »;// lAlrf M|Kt»Jtt»>JK^ .| fafffiMto fAK»i. I' ri rjo^Ai KP" i? 1 (.«V<«_ • fjnjtK, TO itCi^ki«J fl«r4»««. Ti-UL|0iJ <«CCT.e FA- LowCii» \.€v^t, 4 MAi»J \JiyCu Mouie ^o*ytrio>^ .. t«.^ >^/. ______ ^ itJcT, 7,5 o-d?"Soolp riA*j *j0niii FVa^ki PfZ.bp0^5:D> |- Pf,^fc» lf»0>j MOi^ntNT t I"»^o»o* ^'A^’sft'f*<a /xflLvJcove<C'f* V^‘V Mog.THtH«~^ f«U>tia.1T MMiTV //i/i CB c.-^ o />V 4 i#« «• ^ ^In G^ v ^ . .A _____ r CITY of or ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. :4— Exhibit A I I: Legal Description That Dart of Lot 110. Spring Park, lying Northwesterly of ivlnu. and L.k^ H^innetonka and bounded on the the 'Southeast line of said N°‘thiestextended to Lake Minnetonka and bounded on the Nortnwest bj the Southeast line of Carman Avenue and ncludi^ng^^e vacated portion of Lake jhore Avenue recorded plat ises. all in Spring Park, according P'*' thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. : 1 i o(Dno> Io »ri vO ID CO ^ s „ -o -3 o „. -• .• “• •• ■» r’ « T in .w " ^iw rw *« *n o «o ^ 3 innon *». ••. I ^ a ^ tr m3 5- 2 e: o ^ ^ -2^1 T to O^ ^ - E rr k* C: 2X 3 ‘O n) < ^ H d'< n> iA 3 3o» I/I o 0 5 iQ X 3 ;; II. X: '» S 1 rt ? i c;/ r-l a, ^ - rt,^< 3 «n 3 IM • «o. n> Cl _ O03 n a ^ ‘ ‘J 5 3* »x3 C^ -rt r« o c •*f« o 3 O 3 :z »♦ (D o rt 3 3 ^ O i/3 <3 rt,, o o^ c r- o i- - • r^ tv « 3«» « f o <• * S “ T3 •‘^ D «; i/» n ® rtt • «• n<> - o •/ T3 3 k -I zr —3^— C^«-♦ n> o o c oo« a 3 »A O CT 3 a n o f« 1 m «• • •#■ m 1 »i *•. r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION en^DATE: Septeni ‘ \ ITEM NO >b 'V '• Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #1956 Tom and Chris Smieja, 4040 Watenown Road - Variances - Resolution Brief Review of Application The applicants propose a 26’ x 48’, Vh story addition to the east side of the existing residence and a 16’ x 14’ single story, three-season porch to the west side. The property exclusive of the area of the adjacent road right-of-ways is approximately 1.2 acres in area and subject to 5 acre zoning setback standards. Review Exhibit D. The additions will require a side street setback variance and a side setback variance. The proposed additions will extend no closer into the north side yard than the existing structure at 42’. The proposed addition at its closest projection will be 45’. The porch or west side addition will be located 25’ from the side street lot line. The existing residence is located 30’. Applicant proposes removal of the existing detached garage that encroaches the north side lot line. Structural coverage is proposed at 4.47% (15% allowed). The property is not located within a shoreland area and therefore not subject to hardcover controls. Based on the amended height definition, there is no height variance required for the proposed improvement. The area to be occupied by the new additions would not be suitable for septic development. Weckman has asked that existing septic system be fenced off and the future alternate site to the east of drive and south of the existing septic system be fenced off prior to any land alterations or construction on this site. Review of Hardships Please refer to Exhibit A. The hardships are noted as follows: k .The property is 1.2 acres in area and subject to 5 acre zoning standards. The property is of an unusual triangular shape. 3. 4. The residence has existed on this property for over 45 years. There is adequate septic capacity to serve the proposed improvements and adequate area for future alternate septic site on this severely limited property. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 September 1, 1994 »\956 Tom and Chris Smieja, 4040 Watertown Road planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposed additions to the existing residence recommending approval of the setback variances and conditioned approval on applicant obtaining a demolition permit for the detached garage to be removed prior to the final inspection by the building staff for the new construction; the existing septic and future septic areas were to be staked prior to any land alterations or construction on the property; and finally, that applicant was asked to review the sighting at the intersection of Watertown Road for the purpose of trimming plantings that currently block view of vehicles exiting property. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission s recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the proposed approval resolution, r A RESOLUTION GR*ANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.27, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. 1956 WHEREAS, Thomas R. Smieja and Christina M. Smieja (hereinafter "the applicants") have an interest in the property located at 4040 Watertown Road within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit construction of a 26’ x 48’, 2'/i story addition to the east side of the existing residence and a 16’ x 14’ single story, three-season porch to the west side to be located 25 ’ from the side street lot line instead of the required 100’ and 45’ from the side lot line where a 50’ setback is required. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1956. The property is located In the RR-IA Single Family Residential Zoning District requiring 5 acres in area. The property consists of 1.28 acres exclusive of adjacent public right-of-ways. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 15, 1994 and recommended approval of the variances as proposed, based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. The property is 1.2 acres in area and subject to 5 acre zoning standards. B. The property is of an unusual triangular shape. Page 1 of 5 r c.The residence has existed on this property for over 45 years and does not meet the current setback standards for the RR-IA zoning district. D.There's adequate septic capacity to serve the proposed improvements and adequate area for a future alternate septic site on this severely limited property. 4.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this propeny are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the 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 findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a 26 ’ x 48’, 2*/i story east side addition and the 16 ’ x 14’ single story, three- season porch west side addition approving a side street setback variance of 75’ or 75% and a side variance of 5’ or 10%, subject to the following conditions; 1.The existing septic system and areas to south of septic system must be fenced off prior to any land alterations or constmction activities at this property. 2.Applicant must obtain a demolition permit from the City prior to removal of the detached garage. Garage must be removed prior to the final inspection by the Orono Building staff for the new construction. Page 2 of 5 r 3.Applicant and future owner of property shall review sighting at intersection of Watertown Road as dense plantings at street lot line block view of vehicles leaving property. 4.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, 'tre permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 12, 1995). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution auid on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of September, 1994. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor Thomas R. Smieja Applicant(s) Christina M. Smieja Susan Kokesh Property Owner Page 3 of 5 lliill I IB#! STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of Seotonber 1994 by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of oToty of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199___before me a Notary personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrumenTand acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 * « r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 __before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 5 of 5 !> EXHIBIT A : i LEGAL OESCRirriOHJ That- part of Northeast i/h of Southeast i/A of Soclion 31. Township 118, North Range 23. West of the 5th Prjncipn] Meridian, described as follows* Commencing at n pi>int on the North line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section distant 743.5 feet West section; thence* t to said Northeast corner; thence South on the ^ 1 « ^ /T _ ^ J 9 ^ i § . * ...Ea.st line of said 1/4 Section a distance of 303 feet* thence Northwesterly in a straight lino to the point’ o ; beginning, said tract lying North of the center Line of the South Watertown Rond (so called). r V t I l! /3To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 10, 1994 #1956 Tom and Chris Smieja, 4040 Watertown Road - Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.02 - Definitions. Definition 35 - Lot comer. A lot simated at the junction of, and abutting on two or more intersecting streets. Definition 38 - Lot line. The property line bounding a lot except that where any portion of a lot extends into the public right-of-way or a proposed public right-of-way, the line of such public right-of-way shall be the lot line. Definition 39 - Lot line front. That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street, and in the case of a comer lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street. The lot line adjac-:nt to Orchard Park Road would be the front street lot line for a determination of required setbacks. Definition 40 - Lot line rear. That boundary of a lot which is opposite the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than 10’ in length or if the lot forms a point at the rear, the rear lot line shall be a line 10’ in length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. The rear lot line would be approximately 110’ from the point at the western side of the property. Definition 41- Lot line side. Any boundary of a lot which is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. The northern lot line is the only side lot line for the property. 2. Section 11.03, Definition 24 - Lot area. The dry buildable area must be exclusive of public or private right-of-way. The right-of-way areas of Orchard Park Road and Watertown Road have been excluded from the total lot area of the property. Adjusted lot area = 55,900 s.f. or 1.28 acres. Zoning File #1956 August 11, 1994 Page 2 3. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Total lot area = 55,900 s.f. or 1.28 acres Allowed = 8,385 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,743 s.f. or 3.1% Proposed = 2,501 s.f. or 4.47% 4. Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) Front/street setback Required = 100’ Proposed = 100+’ No variance required. B.Side street setback Required = 100’ Existing = 30’ Proposed = 38’ - principal structure addition Proposed = 25’ - three season porch addition Variance = 75’ or 75% C.Side setback Required = 50 Existing = 42’ Proposed = 45’ Variance = 5’ or 10% i I List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - Application Plat Map Property Owners ’ List Survey Weckman Memo 9/3/94 Floor Plan, First and Second Floor Levels South/street Elevation and Basement Floor Plan North/East Elevations Description of Request The applicant proposes a 26’ x 48’, 2 Vi story addition to the east side of the existing residence and a 16’ x 14’ single story three season porch to the west side. The property is of J Zoning File #1956 August 11, 1994 Page 3 a triangular shape and equals approximately 1.28 acres in area and is subject to 5 acre zoning setback standards. The additions require a street side setback variance and a side setback variance. The strucnire will extend no closer into the side yard as existing structure is 42’ from the side lot line. The proposed new addition at its closest point will be 45’. The applicant proposes the removal of the existing detached garage that encroaches the side lot line. Based on the recently amended height definition, there is no height variance required for the proposed addition at the east side. Structural coverage is proposed at 4.47%. Weckman confirms that the proposed improvements do not involve bedroom additions nor an increase in the number of fixtures or water use devices, review Exhibit E. He confirms that the areas to be occupied by the new additions would not be suitable for septic expansion but alerts applicant to the need to protect the area to the east of the drive and to the south of the existing septic system for future use. Weckman asks that you condition the approval of this variance on applicant ’s fencing off the existing septic area and the ftmire alternate site before any land alterations take place on this property. Statement of Hardships 1. Please refer to Exhibit A. The property is 1.2 acres in area and subject to 5 acre zoning standards. 2. 3. 4. The property is of an unu:ual shape. The residence has existed on this property for over 45 years. There is adequate septic capacity to serve the proposed improvements and adequate area for a future alternate septic site on this severely limited property. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the proposed improvement too ambitious for this property■? 2. Other issues raised by Planning Commission members. Options of Action To approve or amend the proposed improvement plan for property located at 4040 Watertown Road. Any approval must be conditioned on the following conditions: 1. Existing septic system and area to south of septic system must be fenced off prior to any land alterations or construction activities at this property. ' r rtuguM 11, lyy**Page 4 Applicant must obtain a demolition permit from the City prior to the removal of the detached garage. .Applicant and future owner of site should review sighting at intersection of Watertown Road. Dense plantings at street lot line block view of vehicles leaving property. Others recommended by the Planning Commission. ‘J 'r A C r CITY OF ORONO - VARIAISCE APPLICATION#1 9Initial Application Fee S200.00 ($50.00 per each additional Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) •’ T v t'rj* “t.*a f I W*l U*/%U'ITC* Flr^A^CE ijFFICE lEzOEOCOOO CtitCK n E50..ur*TTOr_7 ‘L;A;:;,- vrn rM.uk.4f I t ! » u'U* — *» t :0 •’ ’% i •“ *; *» i ? *" V . **-••.' * r*.V' UW.4 » A PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address_____4040 Watertown Road_______________ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) 31-118-23-41-QOOl Attach legal description to application if not u^luded on requLed survey. Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own ±e adjacent parcels Present use of propert}': '^residential ___other (specify) ‘•t Zoning District: (c APPLICANT ^1 • ^ ‘ Phone (home) ^ - Sc3-13 Name T^m _____ Phooe(work)_________ |f:Ml(/7 f\ht City: n (rV)<r^fr>___ZiPLAddress:-•5SV37 OWNER (if different than ^applicant). Name ko ------ -----^__________^--------- Address: MnWG \JL7A±g.rtovn ^ City: Zip: Phone(home) Phone (work) (attach additional sheets if necessary) (men jj-CKi VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side ^Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS 1.1/ a. r Y ^ [r \Ji'A ('V\ 13. 4 -^'r:V tz<^/ ^r\CL'(/ (attach additional sheets if necessary) mt Hjiir5rni r«syctrt] gTE^lIOSniOlliSiSiKn •joiturMira flora rfHJ0i»TiW(l5 rti»ifra •i«f •»orfi IMMlflf] >iM!Qi£rm»»ui iTKi fra iifsmt]rtK^ ttTfmTTii rtroTv^i MfMwrtrfnfTiTi^ ifivirtiiiiii!4 fKVjii rtiaiii [tTfifT:UMf»lMf]t]ir^il ilM9fM«i] ai^lStJflCiSifMfJOIt iiiMiii»i9¥actj«iiMfirt aMlil SDKlWfl iiKtlfil iilfUfl^mTfTnTil .T»T¥rTira^fWi *■*«*.', ■p'.'v'’ *• : * ■'■ i ' ■-. r • t * ^ * &\ w ’ ■ •* 1 • j •••*.• (■ / ■•’ •■' 1 J* '-n . ’ * . r>z o 21 >g zo -0r >z r' \V') U (i 03 t? TO:Jesnnc A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Adnunistrator FROM: Stephen Weckman. On-Site Systems Manager DATE: August 3, 1994 SUBJECT: Application #1956, Tom and Chris Smieja - Septic Review A sertic review is required due to the proposed addition onto the existing residence at 4040 Wa“ r^own Road. The two issues of importance would be whether the existing system ts of size and whether the proposed addition would encroach on a potential future drainfield site. The nronosed additions are to the east and west and to the existing house. The number of S^rS^^l rm^ same with no significant increase in the number of fixtums or water Sr devices No alternate site is possible adjacent to the existing structure where the addmons rpro^«d duern an insufficient area meeting setbacks from the road, driveway, and o ^ The^mo^st likely place for a replacement system would be east of the existing driveway south ^ existing drai^ield system. This area should be protected durmg construction to assure that it is available if there is a need for it in the ftimre. Based on the above information, the proposed additions will not adversely affect the existing system or future drainfield siting possibilities. ^ ; .'V ti ) r -,s . * i, 03 w ♦ • •••<« • t r rnc» i 4 L ■ 7 p OC n -H p if 3 5^'P8 3 I u mo X I i O > (/>m m rm. <mr r >z €->>»90 -nz 0 z H 1mrm < > H m > C/l H mrm < > H 5 r V ♦. REQUEST FOR COUNCH. ACTION ' <> '/-y* DATE: September 8^ %■ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #1957 Jacci Segner/Bob Marinos, 3286/3290 Navarre Lane - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution Application: Revise lot line between Lot 44 and Lots 45-46-47 resulting in two conforming acre building sites. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Survey C - Sketch D - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/25/94 E - Memo and Exhibits 8/9/94 Discussion Applicant Segner owns Lots 45-46-47, and recently sold the adjacent Lot 44 to Mr. Marinos with the proviso that they would complete a lot line rearrangement resulting in a total of two building sites meeting the required 'A acre lot area and 100 ’ width requirements. This proposed lot line rearrangement accomplishes that. Please review the memo and exhibits of August 9, 1994 for additional information regarding these properties. Briefly: Sewer was assessed to these properties previously. Each resulting lot has a smb available. Future owners will pay a S225 unit charge and current SAC charge upon issuance of building permits. City water is not available and applicants have the option of installing private wells or requesting municipal wafer extension at their expense. Hillside Place is a 25’ public right-of-way currently existing as a private driveway serving 2250 Bayview Place and 3300 Navarre Lane, both of which are owned by Ms. Segner. Because adding even one additional unit would trigger the requirement for an upgrade of Hillside Place to a private road, Ms. Segner has agreed to eliminate and redirect accesses from the two existing houses, leaving ! i f ^: Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 September 8, 1994 Zoning File n951 oidy the two new lots to use Hillside Place as a driveway. She has agreed to do minor regrading and install a fence along Hillside Place to eliminate access to the existing houses, as well as construct/reconstruct driveways to Navarre Lane and Bayview Place for those residences. This must be completed before the City will issue building permits for the vacant lots. m Drainage and utility easements will be granted along the interior and exterior lot lines of the two new lots. In addition, Ms. Segner will be required to execute an acknowledgment (possibly in the form of a restrictive covenant) restricting ftmire use of Hillside Place. There are Iwo relaied matters of which Council should be aware, but which are not conditions of this lot line rearrangement: Permits have been granted in the past for Segner’s residence at 2260 Bayview Place based on her ownership of Lots 36-37-48-49-50, the legal combination for which was applied for in 1978 and again in 1980 but apparently rejected by the County due to delinquent taxes at that time. This residence is now for .sale. These five lots must be legally combined before the City would issue any future permits for this property. Ms. Segner has requested that Public Works Department consider allowing access to Lot 44 via an undeveloped 20 ’ alley off of Bayview Place. The Public Works Director is currently reviewing this request. If granted, this does not affect the lot line rearrangement itself but may result in one of the two ex-sting houses maintaining its existing Hillside Place access. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and a lot line rearrangement for Jacci Segner and Bob Marinos at 3286/3290 Navarre Lane per the attached resolution. Proposed Motion: Moved by _, seconded by to adopt Resolution ^___ , 2nd series approving a subdivision of lot line rearrangement at 3286/3290 Navarre Lane for Jacci J. Segner and Bob Marinos. Vote: ______ayes,______nays. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1^ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT Jt286/3290 NAVARRE LANE FILE NO. 1957 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 Cit> of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") 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 lot line rearrangement by Jacquelynn J. Segner and Charalampos and Linda N. Marinos (hereinafter "the subdividers”) of properties legally described as follows: Lots 44, 45, 46 and 47, "Wallace’s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach", Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for a metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for division and combination purposes. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby appiovcs the metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Jacquelynn J. Segner and Charalampos and Linda N. Marinos as shown on the Certificate of Survey by Mark S. Gronberg, a Registered Land Surveyor of Coffin & Gronberg Inc., dated April 14,1994, revisexi July 72, 1994, revised September 8, 1994 and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, subject lo tiic following conditions: # 1.Upon approval of this subdivision by the City Council of Orono, the respective owners must apply to tlie City for legal combination for tax purposes all of the existing and newly created parcels by intended ownership per the proposed legal descriptions labeled A and B in that same survey, and per the combinations shown on the sketch attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Page 1 of 2 ---- . 3. The aforesaid division shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Office on or before March 12, 1995 together with a certified original copy of this resolution. The approval grairted by this resolution shall expire if the division 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. Adopted by the City CouncU of Orono, Minnesota this 12th day September. 1994. ATTEST: Edward J. Callahan, Jr., MayorDorothy M. Hallin, City Cleric STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of September, 1994 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of ^ City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. ’ Notary Public { ^ I Page 2 of 2 T-.I •:a .»» >‘l-* r It ■M' 1,1 'i ISi' . ' « i' si» I »• » j * •»!. . - .im : H L it^f . K d U1if IP- (si -I i' 1 i‘; -i ' i-' ■ r# .«-, ' :! f*. i: ji N * « •' 41 La 'l > jJV '* *!'*; ji I 4; "^1 v' Vf-' if: I'Existing Legal Doscription ^ts 44 45,46 and 47, -WAU.ACP..S ADDITION TO TMP VILt.AOP OP MINNPTONKA BEACH". . # proposed Leqal Descriutions *Xsk'• --^- - - .'44i "S*'; «. u“ •' «i">ntoN,A iiS 11^.00 feet southeasterly from the most line of said Lot 45 distaiiit B. Those parts of Lots 44 45 4^^^^ ^ot 44. *”0 which lie southerly of'a line and its extensions^^said^T^•VILLAGE OF MINNETONKAnB Northeasterly line of said lots distant 100 nn fA ^ being drawn from a point-drt corner of said ,.ot 44 to a point o“?ho '^'’® ">°«t'^North2r teet southeasterly from the most Westerly 2o?“2r of .sal^Lo^M? ” "*•*'* ;h • I, f \4, } ^ W4 X V4 w ^ ^ ^ aUi: 2nnrhe?°r:p^:j:oL°ntf:reneL^^Lo2t:^ -t pur;>prt t| • : Iron marker found o: Iron marker sot Bearings shown are based on an as.sumed datum. V"Ja4>>in^ . TfclM c g7 Com\ C r ()\bir (i, Inc . jif] ' f * I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super- rheTmof t Smr„flXm ■' • till' Kli:mr STAUP y i irCITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1937NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSIONACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 8/23/94 TO: Jacci J. Segner 2260 Bayvicw Place Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Subdivision - Lot Line Rearrangemeat 0 AGAINSTDATE OF MEETING: 8/15/94 VOTE: 4 FOR naaoing Commissioii Mecommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Building permits shall not be issued for new construction for the properties located at 3286/3290 Navarre Lane until the primary access to 3300 Navarre Lane and secondary access to 2260 Bayview Place at Hillside Place are removed and a new access is esublished for 3300 Navarre Lane. Owner of the properties at 2260 Bayview Place and 3300 Navarre Lane shall construct a physical barrier to eliminate all future access to Hillside Place. Such barrier shall consist of a fence in combination with a berm or trees. Staff will also recommend to Council that regrading be done to re-establish any shoulder aixi swale at the property line, and that property owner >f said properties shall sign an acknowledgment that Hillside Place cannot be used for driveway purposes, and any re-establishment or use of said driveway approach shall be considered a violation of Sections 6.05 and 6.06 of the Municipal Code and punishable as a misdemeanor. The granting of drainage and utility easements 10’ along exterior lot lines and 5’ at each side of shared lot line. 3.Upon application for a building permit for new construction, future owners shall be responsible for payment of $225 sewer connection charge to the City and a SAC payment of $800 (based on 1994 fee schedule) to the MWCC. Your subdivision of a lot line rearrangement will be presented for final approval by Council upon receipt of the following: 1. Provide evidence of property ownership and have Mr. Marinos sign the application. ______ i Zoning Fite #1937 August 25, 1994 Page 2 i 2. Provide 3 copies of a certificate of survey per the survey by Mark S. Gronberg dated 4/14/94 revised 7/22/94 with parcels labeled A, B, C and D per the attached drawing. On the survey, provide legal descriptions for p^els A, B. C and D. Provide signature lines for all property owners with an interest in the subject properties (spouses, etc.; signature lines must be signed), tl» Mayor, City Clerk, and date of final approval. 3. Provide 2 copies of survey 1" = 200 ’ for City records. 4 yiie property owner(s) must complete combmation forms at the City offices upon final approval of the subdivision. a) Parcels A and C combined b) Parcels B and D combined. 5. Submit copies of signed Drainage & Utility Easements (City wUl provide document format, your surveyor must provide legal descriptions). All final submittals must be submitted to this office 10 days before the mee^ at which Council will grant final subdivision approval. The Council meets on the 2nd airf 4th Monday of the month. Regular meetings are rescheduled if they conflict with a national holiday. Applkamfs next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of a^itional raSltiin. for the September 12. 1994 meeting is September 2 (or September 16 for the September 26 nKeting). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission ^utes. they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Existing Legal Oescrlption Lota. 44,45,46 and 47, "WALLACR'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH”1 Proposed Legal Descriptions k. Those parts of Lots 44 and 45, "WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE QF MINNETONKA BEACH” which lie northerly of a line and its extensions; said line being drawn from a point on the Northeastely line of said lots distant 100.00 feet southeasterly from the most North erly corner of said Lot 44 to a point on the Southwesterlly line of said Lot 45 distant IIK.OO feet southeasterly from the most Westerly corner of said Lot 44. B. Those parts of Lots 44,45,46 and 47, "WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH” which Ijle-southerly of a line and its extensions; said line being drawn from a point on the Northeasterly lino of said lots distant 100.0(1 feet southeasterly from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 44 to a point on the southwesterly line of said IiOt 45 distant //4.00 'feet southeasterly from the most Westerly corner of said Lot 44. This survey shows the boundaries'of the above described property. It does not potport to show any othor improvements or encroachments. •: Iron marker found o: Iron marker set Bearings shown are based on an assumed datum. ^ Corns & Grosderg, Isc.I hereby certify that Ibis survey was prepared by me or under my direct super vision, and that 1 am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the taws of the State of Minnesota. yf___y HATE SCALE /"z So' JF.TONKA BEACir n a point on 1C most North- t 45 distant MINNETONKA BEACH•• Ji ci point on the nont Northerly Istant //4.00 pjirport to > TO: Planning Commission MembersRon Moorse, City AdministratorFROM: Jeanne A. Mabusih, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: August 9, 1994 SimjECT; #1957 lacci I. Segner. 32S6/3290 Navarre Une - Subdivision of a L« Line Rearrangement, Class I - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance Section 10 25. Subd. 6 (B) - LR-lC Lot Standards Section U.03. Definition 66 (A) - Class 1 Subdivision Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 - Typical Section . .. Public/private road is required when serving three or more residentiai umts of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Gusufson Report E - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement F - Format for Class I Lot Line Rearrai^ements G • Water As-Built H - Sewer As-Built I - Staff Letter 4/26/94 K -^^ff^krtch oT^cess^ to Subject Properties and Adjacent Properties L - Survey Description of Application Tte purpose of the lot line rearrangement is to create two residential lots that meet both area and width i^uirement of the LR-IC Zoning District as lollows: * Area required = 21,780 s.f. or .5 acreA. B Lot A -I- C = .5 acre Lot B + D = .5 acre Lot width required = 100 ’ Lot A + C = 100 ’ Lot B -I- D — 135 ’ I 1 "9' J. DATE 1 r {| SCAI.E / "sxo* rl _____1 Zoning File #1957 August 9, 1994 Page 2The subdivision results in two conforming lots. The major issue for the review of Um subdivision is the issue of access to the two new building sites via Hillside Place an unimproved platted right-of-way at 25'. Review Exhibit K. the unimproved right-of-way currently 3300 Navarre Lane as the primary access to the property and as a sccorelary ^ccss fw Bayview PliKe. If roadwav is to remain as a driveway based on the criteria set forth in Secti^ 11.33, Subd. 4 of the subdivision regulation, total number of users of this roadway must be limited to two. Review Exhibits I and J, the applicant’s realtor and potential buyer of Lots B a^ notified earlier this year of the requirements of the code regarding the use of Hillside Place ^ a private driveway The applicant who resides at 2260 Bayview Place and who owns t^ residence at 3300 Navarre Lane has agreed to eliminate the use of both accesses at Hillside Place. Review Exhibit L, the survey of 2260 Bayview Place, reveals adequ^e area for Ms. Segner to achieve access to the lower level garage within the existing rear yard. Upon your site inspection, note the location of the detached garage at 3300 Navarre Une. Thm is adequate stog distance for the relocation of an access drive to this property but it will he necessary to trim back on the existing vegetation to provide safe access at the It would al» be beneficial for Ms. Segner to trim back on the landscaping adjacent to Hdlside Place to improve siting at that intersection. Refer Exhibit D. Gustafson recommends two options concerning acce^ recommends that either the existing driveways be relocated or to 25 Hillside * a minimum 24’ paved roadway serving the four units. Given the limited !**^ **“ known desire of the applicant, staff would recommend that we agree to allow the applicant to relocate accesses as noted above. Ms Segner must first contact the Public Works Director prior to installing new driveway at 3300 Navarre Lane. As for 2260 Bayview Place, the engineer rwommends fencing or Iand«:aping Suff members advised of a need to provide not only fenemg but bennmg ^ feKing^U^ always be removed. Applicant may also have the opuon of planting trees behind the fencing as another means of providing permanent barrier. The nronertv has been assessed for sewer and two stubs have been provided at U)ts 45 and 47, refer to Exhibit H Municipal water is not available to the site and applicant is given ^ option of either extending municipal water or installing on-site wells. It is staffs understanding that both anDlicant and appli<'ant’s prospective buyers would prefer to install on-site >^lls. Refer to SbTll municip^fwater is located at the intersection of HUlside Place and Navarre There is nothing in the Orono code that requires a connection to mumcipal water when the hws 9«» nnt immediately adjacent to the properties to be served. Per the current Orono fee schedule femTTw^^ P^yntent of $225 per umt connection in addition to an $800 SAC fee (1994 fee schedule) to be paid to the MWCC. Zoning File #1957 August 9, 1994 Page 3StafTE lir M11 r •Staff recemmends approval of the proposed lot line rearrangement involving the properties located at 3286/32«0 Navarre Lane finding all standards of the LR-IC Zoning District have been met and that there is adequate capacity within the existing sewer facilities to serve the two residential units. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. Buildup permits shall not be issued for ikw construction for the properties located at 3286/3290 Navarre Lane until the primary access to 3300 Navarre 1 and secondary access to 2260 Bayview Place at Hillside Place are removed. A new access is established for 3300 Navarre Place. Owners of the property at 3300 Navarre Land and 2260 Bayview Place have an option as to the type of l^p^ci^aping improvement (berm or tices) to be installed providing a permanent physical barrier at Hillside Place. The Planning Commission Members may also wish to add the need for the installation of fencing. The granting of drainage and utility easements 10* along exterior lot lines and 5* at each side of shared lot line. Upon application for a building permit for new construction, future owners shall be responsible for payment of $225 sewer connection charge to the City and a SAC payment of $^ (based on 1994 fee schedule) to the MWCC. The applicam has advised that all visitors to this site must not drive on the roadway if it is wet because of the condition of the roadbed. "r______. ■ rCITY OP OROnO - SUBDIVISION APPLICKliK ^ «OP«Tt LOCATIOH 35, / 3 Site Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _Utt^^- - AtU ./ # / 7“ /^7-^Jf- «/.a. Uu I *7 • //7- \Q n ft Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) '„V !?iL Please check one — Property /•y- tin - abstract or >^^LZ^orrens2> Attach legal description to applicatione ^ ^ «■» ^ mm « ^ mm mm mm ^ «i» « mm mm ^m «h» w ^ ^ ^ m w mm ^ mm APPLICANT Name JAc(Lf X _________ Address: X^Uo ^y^yi//^vJ rj}'y nC'Av-nc*a » I w*» •“ •• ■“ •• •• •• •• •“ •• •» •• •» «» «M «■ ^ ^ WM fmmm^ Phone (home) tJJ7f •‘O f t^S^20vO CO . .T /Ta/ VA Vkell Vr-'k W V W' •n f k.A I *l' » u.*W't__________ Phone (work) ^'k.ucAf / #v'V fh^t City:______O^qa Jo >‘t'>t! ■- "L'l* Ki\' V(V- itfS # W'V OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address: _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ (attach list if more than one) City:Zip: EXISTING LAND USB Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / ^ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District Z, /C '^PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites:Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: i_ _ Units per jx Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check)Residential Other (specify)5 \ .kjpfkxx: * mmilOM MATBRIAL MBCBSSARY FOR C 1, Completed Application Form lets prelimirary application 2. 3.*403 Covt center is*;n ”.ddendu« to thi. a^licatl^. please at^ list of any other persons you wish notified of PF Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application xs Date________________ 4. complete. Zoning Official's Signature filing !*«•••:« ’ •Faymenr or recs ipoijv of fcf-.al platSl^ed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of £ti...ai p 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit.5. certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat APPli^Ji^ Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _^rr- - - - - -- - - - - - FEBS Sketch Flan Review (Class I, II s III)$200.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I 4 II Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III s all non-residential) 300.00 • 300.00 325.00 + 25.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) ^ •(Plus any legal or engineering charges; 175.00 Renewal of Preliminary Subdivision Application Renewal of Final Subdivision Application 150.00 100.00 The applicant hereby Engine"r^^^cTity^^Attorney, requested by the zoning Administ^^^^^^^^ to proceVs this application and ?ir“i:."rU'^stopay"ll^a^^^^^^^^ Applicant's Signature (' A-?/, / ^Date Owner's Signature ,'iJ ,< ( V /'r.Date ; ^ /QO. office of this change prior to the meeting. L u*uiRivuk/rjn..'vfw.irwanpythonn ir i A inr m.•¥>PLriTy •-,%lie » fv n -f--jr • ' 1 >989) p - 2 AOON roi vACATiw m iM OHAU3N Of >v msc f« 234« nu. A n- :(76)k77)|(78) /. y>•* «? (83l su X ’? 9}JD ID ?p S-'J m . > u- (90) rr (99) «> 1 s(ioo) I: • I104 5 * • RUN MTC 07/QSm iATCR 001 iiCNNIPiN COUNTY MOOCRTY XNFOIVUTIQN SYSTLH RRORCRTY CM€RS LISTITAXPAYIRlUNC/AOOR M I7-117-2S 41 0004 OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIQNEO CAL ROOD CLAIR ROOD ZZIB RCNNDOO NAY NAYZATA KN 553Y1 PROP AOOR OM€R NANI TAXPAYIR NAMC/AOOR M 17-U7-25 «1 OOlt 0SS2S CRYSTAL MY M) D H STANTON A • L STANTON OCNNXS H A KCKY L STANTON S525 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA MN 55S91 PROR AOOR OMCR NANI TANRAYER NAHE/ADOR SB X7-U7-25 A1 0021 0SSS9 CRYSTAL MY RO PATRICK D O'FLANACAN DONALD J STOYRE SSS9 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA m S5S91 V'• ADDR OM«R NANI TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SB 17-X17-2S 41 00Z4 0SS5S CRYSTAL MY RO JOHN E RUST JOHN RUST SS55 CRYSTAL MY ROAD NAYZATA m 55S91 PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 17-117-2S 44 0014 0SS45 CRYSTAL MY RO J R LOFRANO ETAL J R LO FRANO SS4S CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA MN S5S91 PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 50 17-117-2S 44 0019 0SSB5 CRYSTAL BAY RO S DAVIS ARC OAVIS STEPHEN A REGINA OAVIS SSB5 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA Ml 55S91 I » • REPORT NO. pim PX4Si4iiI .«4• «‘iSB 17-117-ZS 41 0007OOOSB AOORESS UNASSKNEOCAL ROODCLAIR ROODZZ15 KENNOOO NAYNAYZATA Ml S5S91 5Bi 17-117-21 41 0017 OSSIS CRYSTAL MY RO OAVIO N STANLEY OAVIO N STANLEY SS15 CRYSTAL MY RO NAYZATA MN S5S91 '• *• V•I u ^ •,1’'v SB 17-117-2S 41 0019 0SS29 CRYSTAL BAY RO 0 L NEEKS A J HOLTZ DIXIE LEE NEEKS 5529 CRYSTAL MY RO NAYZATA MN 55591 SB 17-117-2S 41 0020 0S555 CRYSTAL MY RO LARRY N NELSON LARRY N NELSON SS3S CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA Ml 5SS91 - -r' •J • t SB 17-117-2S 41 0022 0SS45 CRYSTAL MY RO JAMES N 06LAN0 JAMES N OGLANO 5S45 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA MN 55S91 SB 17-117-cS 41 002S 0SS49 CRYSTAL MY RO NARREN L PASCHKE NARREN L PASCHKE 14441 VILLAGE NOOOS DR EOEN PRAIRIE MN B5S47 «; * %:V . 10 . I; * ) •H ‘ f . 4 Vi 4<r SB 17-117-2S 41 0025 0SS59 CRYSTAL BAY RO B 6 GUMP A J L SECHRIST B 6 GUMP • J L SECHRIST SS59 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA Ml 55S91 SB 17-117-25 41 0024 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HELEN N THOMPSON CLAIR ROOD 2215 KENNOOO NAY NAYZATA Ml 55S91 Q SB 17-117-2S 44 0017 03S49 CRYSTAL MY RO PAUL C HAGEN PAUL C HAGEN SS49 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA MN 55S91 SB 17-117-2S 44 0010 03375 CRYSTAL MY RO JAY B KEISER ETAL JAY B KEISER SS7S CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA MN 55S91 •• r ■■ 'J(.‘ i ; • p ‘ ‘ * • 5V * * • • *. , V A M f-V'4 -58 17-117-25 44 0020 055W CRYSTAL BAY RO JEFFREY HARK HAMMER JEFF HAMMER 5595 CRYSTAL BAY RO HAYZATA MN 55591 50 17-117-25 44 0021 05599 CRYSTAL BAY RO S G SOBIENIAK A V MCKINNEY S SOBIENIAK i V MCKINNEY 5599 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA MN 55591 * * v a rrrfTTsr.-jB. ■ J mm OATI 07/0VH •ATCN 001raop AODO OMHU NAHi TAXFAYm NAMi/AOOII #*. OMNEO HAM TAXOAYEII HAHE/AOim . t ' raoo Aoim < . ^ QNNEII MAM TAXPAYEO MAM/AOOfl - ‘ . ••) * ■ ' . OROO AOOII OMER NAM TAMAYER NAM/ADOR RROR AOOR OMER NAM TAXPAYER NAM/AODR PROP ADOR OMER NAM TAXPAYER NAM/AODR SO 17-117-25 44 0022 0S40S CRYSTAL RAY RO ALOHA J DARLING ALOHA J DARLING S40S CRYSTAL DAY ROAD NAYZATA MN 55591 SO 17-117-25 44 0027 02225 DAYVIEH PL ROBERT A EBERLE A NXFE TERESA ROCN 2225 BAYVXEN PLACE NAYZATA HN 55591 SO 17-44 0050 022^5 4^ iEH PL DAVID N f f it DIANE H DEAN DAVID M i V H DEAN 2245 BA^iCH PLACE NAYZATA m 55591 SO 17-117-25 44 0055 02S05 BAYVIEN PL R H STELLING ETAL GEM N BLOCK 2505 BAYVXEN PLACE NAYZATA HN 55591 SO 17-117-25 44 0041 02250 BAYVIEN PL CATHY JO TURNER TON A CATHY TURNER 5557 BARTLETT BLVO HOUND HN 55544 SO 17-117-25 44 0045 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED C H PALMR A B J PALMER CHRIS A BARBARA PALMER 2710 CASCO PT RD ORONO HN 55591 MfilEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY CSOIERS LIST50 17-117-25 44 002502205 BAYVIEN PL CLEMENT F BIRCH JR ET AL CLEMENT r BIRCH JR AND BARBARA J SIPPRELL-BIRCH 2205 BAYVXEN PL NAYZATA MN 55591 50 17-117-25 44 0020 02245 BAYVIEN PL T J A T P HALLOCK TERRY J HALLOCK TirriNY POOL HALLOCK 2245 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA MN 55591 5B 17-117-25 44 0051 02275 BAYVIEN PL JAMS R ANDERSON JAMS R ANDERSON 2275 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA MN 55591 SO 17-117-25 44 0059 02240 BAYVIEN PL JACQUELYNN J ZONTELLI ET AL JACCX SEGMR 2240 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA MN 55591 SB 17-117-25 44 0042 02240 BAYVIEN PL KIMBERLY A ERICSON KIMBERLY A ERICSON 2240 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA MN 55591 SB 17-117-25 44 0044 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED C H PALMER A B J PALMR CHRIS A BARBARA PALMER 2710 CASCO PT RO ORONO MN 55591 REPORT NO. PI4554B1 PAK 25B 17-117-25 44 0024 02215 BAYVIEN PL RAJ HAZARD ROBERT RAYMOND HAZARD 2215 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA MN 55591 5i 17-117-25 44 0029 02255 BAYVIEN PL PATRICIA A BURNEICi PATRICIA A BURNIECE 2255 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA MN 55591 SB 17-117-25 44 0052 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGMD GENE AND SMRYLL BLOCK GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK 2505 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA MN 55591 58 I7-II7-25 44 0040 02240 BAYVIEN PL JACGUELYNN J ZONTELLI ET AL JACCI SEGMR 2260 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0044 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGMD C H PALMR i B J PALMR CHRIS A BARBARA PALMR 2710 CASCO PT RO ORONO MN 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0047 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGMD C H PALMR i B J PALMR CHRIS A BARBARA PALMR 2710 CASCO PT RO ORONO MN 55591 * W♦' *o V ' V- • I. : 4 « • ' s' ■ ■ civ ■ c (•; > t• • t %• f ■ ♦MM MTl 07/iimJ' MATCN Ml HlMCriN CfMfTY MOKRTY XNFORmTXQN SVSTtH MOMRTY OM«RS LIST^ OM«R TM9AV1R[/M 17>il7-ZS «4 OOM OMM ABOWSS UNASS2CNEP JACMMLYIM J ZONTEUI JACCl StONIR Zt*0 MYVUN RUCi HAYZATA m SSS71* ** • • ••a. 'I H» AMR TAKRAYIR NAfC/AI M 17-117-2S M OOM 02ZM MYVXEN RL OAU NAYSON ETAL MU MATSON ETAL EEM MYVIEM RLACE NAYZATA m 55391 : L-' k, i. . ■; _ _ *• 17-117-21 M MM MOR AOM OSSM NAVARRE LA NAm . JACMJELYIM J SEGNER TAMRAYER JACRUELYMI J SEIMER HAME/AMR ZEAO MYVIEM RL HAYZATA MN 55391 * . .5 ►R “ I ‘ ( ' 3A 17-117-23 M 0105 0S2M NAVARRE LA . - <MCR NAME CLAIR T i LYMI 0 ROOD V 'TAMRAYER . CLAIR A LYIM ROOD NAME/AOM 2215 REtMOOO NAY NAYZATA m 55391 t f •' • » • M •# -V, *'■ y . • . • , •» I ^ ' * ' * I• * f ^ « • 4 f • ' ,< . • • • 30 17-117-21 M 0057 02215 REIMOM MAY C T ROOD A L • ROOD CLAIR ROM 2215 REIORIM NAY NAYZATA MN S5S9150 17-117-23 AA 0003 02230 MYVIEM RL J L SCNNECK ARM SCHNECR J L A R H SCNNECK 2230 MYVIEN RL S NAYZATA NN 55391 30 17-117-23 AA 0103 022A0 MYVIEN RL JiKQUELm« J ZONTELLI ET AL JACCI SEGNER 2240 MYVIEN RL NAYZATA NN 55391 TOTAL MTCN 001 KRORT NO. RAM RIA35M11 4 \" . t f;\’y-‘..■''imUSO 17-117-23 AA MSO 03220 NAVARRE LA RICNARO A RROUDFIT ROOERT J RITCNIE 1901 OEACN U NAYZATA MN 55391 ■ . - 'J. 1-\ A*-i• • ' ’•> • ■ ‘ . 't'• ■ • . V..* 30 17-117-23 AA M94 023M MYVIEN RL JACRUELYIM J ZQNTELU ET AL DANIEL J SEGNER 2240 OAYVIEN RLACE NAYZATA NN 55391 10 17-117-21 AA OlOA O32A0 NAVARRE LA CLAIR T A LYM4 0 ROM CLAIR A LYNN ROM 2215 KEMRWO NAY NAYZATA HN 55391 ; • <• • V.fw ’ \■^ir M ♦trtf •- i• ; . - 1 f,t U . 4 ^ jsrss.'s s?„co«» DATE ^arthent / /Ww, ono BofMStroo Rostne AnderlHcS Associates Pt H* c i. ^ •«rMf ®r«* rwiMi wm A. jmr A A .n AUk P% Pt %jn^ %i Hf Afi •»-»r Cr^u»n Ar<Wttcti Ml,PimmA. H mrm C ViAi^- H J^0m%P MMAA «i iPfy 0 Pt Mi AipPMAAl ^wPiT » ^m^mr n M* M H Ilf mmAWmPt Oryw MtrtrvH ala ^Me> i A.I A^ • H P»W*iC«l«^W w«n D W P liU MJH ^ 9% 9%mal vrpAtP. Af 041^0 AniUNAML 9 %gt«A«f M 1M« H >9^t- N^aNMt At iiAP A Qilir At CMAWA InUiiA CM Attfttst 8, 1994 D Ms. Jeasne A. Mibuit^ . . *. * Bvildiog ind Zotting Adminatritor City of Orono Post Office Bok 66 Cfyitil Biy. MinneM 55323 Re: Jacci Segoer Lot Retrrengement File No. 139-1957 Deer Jeanne, w. h... «vi,«4 U,. prf-r* ^ ____ • • M____«lo4e#MeAiRV^ as their access to Navarre Lan . ^ private street be constructed for prqper JS.».«i«t. ~ w i~w«. A A _______t - ^ u.. -nv««y ^ u.. --thT^r • .. ^«i 1.^* iImas affiH in fi Please contact me at thU otBce if you have any questio.. teiaidtag this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK * ASSOCIATES. INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E ^ mm ^ ••**•», . SMO • A 9 m. A ev....! •p»ee^ « A 9 ^-.4 9 s ttbaem m,-------------------.A... .. ■.^-■ 9S ••• Certificate of Survey & Lot Line Rearrangement for Jacci Segner in Lots 44,45,46 & 47, *^WALLACB’S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH" Hennepin County, Minnesota Mint ««• noufitT i ' - immt 9 €r«« Ok-v 7 JIM! f G0«K r* CM«tA yoM 0<Mn Hi Segnerin ^ nka Beach. T»® I to be eddresied. fa fiavel driveway) to be lerved on a itructed for proper for a private *treet. ttt to HiUtide Place, vane Une for the the northerly lot. lot lines and 10 feet his matter. A/ 4 '4 -A'J Existing Legal Description Lots 44,45,46 and 47, ''WALLACE’S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH". Proposed Legal Descriptions k. Those parts of Lots 44 and 45, "WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH" which lie northerly of a line and its extensions; said line being drawn from a point on the Northeastely line of said lots distant 100.00 feet southeasterly from the most North erly corner of said Lot 44 to a point on the Southwesterlly line of said Lot 45 distant 116,00 feet southeasterly from the most Westerly corner of said Lot 44. B. Those parts of Lots 44,45,46 and 47, "WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH" which lie southerly of a line and its extensions; said line being drawn from a point on the Northeasterly lino of said lots distant 100.00 feet southeasterly from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 44 to a point on the southwesterly line of said Lot 45 distant //4.00 'feet southeasterly from the most Westerly corner of said Lot 44. This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. Iron marker found *1« «•/ A y BEACH" >n the srly )0 Certificate of Survey fc Lot Line Rearrangement for Jacci Segner in Lots 44,45,46 & 47, "WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH Hennepin County, Minnesota Existing Legal Description Lots 44,45,46 and 47, "WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH". proposed Leqal Descriptions -WALLACE’S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OP MINNETONKA BEACH" A. Those perts of Lots 44 and 45, being drawn from a point on erly 6«!;ero1Lirtof44io i p^ini on the Southwesterlly line of said Lot 4S distant llis.00 feet southeasterly from the most West« to*TUE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH B. Those parts of Lots 44,45,46 and 47, WALLACE^b^A ^ which lie-souter y o , lots distant 100,00 feet southeasterly from the most Northerly SrrnerorsaId “rt ITt pSint on the southwesterly line of said Lot 45 distant ,/6.00 .feet southeasterly from the most Westerly corner of said Lot 44. This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property. It does not purport to a* _ _ •_ _ _^ ^ <-4 n r» Y" O ^ H til H t’5^ - HYO ft ftX ^ 0 s“TtE a?liS /V. i.l ..........i»o^^ • • • • *^• • • — C«i«rh«»a l»M«a /(2800) 10”. 6“ TEE 6“GV. ft HYO RTONKA BEACH" a point on e most North- 45 distant INNETONKA BEACH a point on the ost Northerly stant //4.00 purport to . * r-= *“2T V *-■ • 1 ■*,-iv* ; ’ ■i'".- . ^ - - ••••; '• ;■• ‘-vr-' ^ . '.’S:- •'iuiaiigrv3 1- -.r \ * ^ ^ • • rf.-* ■•' •r;-‘ . • *^ - -•! V . -Y? 'V ii ^ z7,c^o -rCITY of ORONO Municipal OfTIccs Strtit Uimsi 2750 Keiley Parkway Orono. MN 55355 MaiUng Mdrtss: P 0. 6oi 66 Crystal Bay. WN 55323 0065 April 26. 1994 Mr. Bob Marinos do Rod MacCharIcs ReMax A-1 Excellence Realty 2477 Shadywood Road Orono, Minnesota 55331 Re: Lots 44-46, "Wallace’s Addition to Minnetonka Beach Dear Mr. Marinos: I have been asked by Mr. MacOmles »; srri'is ,?Tcr;5S=- t!__fKaa fnllnwiriff:not be limited to. the foUowing: 1 Provide confmnation from Hennepin County that Lots 454647 have been legally combined for tax purposes. 2.Provide confirmation from a certified surveyor that m °nimum lot area sundard of 0.50 acre, and minimum lot width as measured the 30’ front setback line of at least 100 . 3.Access is to be by private driveway within the planed right-of-way of Hillside Place Public Worto Director John Gerhardson has confirmed rdrivc^rronstruction permit. TOs approval is level of use of said driveway to no nWfP Own P*0 rP5l<^4Wlsl ^ ^fore a buUding permit will be issued for your property, at f existing users of Hillside Place must discontmue their use of ^ ngS“f-way for access. The minimum physical changes required to const.mte -discontinuation" of the driveway use include: B Regrading to re-esoblish any shoulder and swale at the property line; and Creation of a betm or permanent fence just inside the property line; and Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Mr. Bob Marinos April 26. 1994 Page 2 C. fiinn Navarre Lanc/2260 Bayvicw Place (Segncr) must Property Place cannot be used for driveway sign acknowledgeme .. . . ^3c of said driveway approach shallKSS."SS.tS." S and punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. , u^.iiAino nermit would be conditioned on meeting all p»ymg <•» >pprep™« "**paving me ------- Administrator Jeanne combination of Lots 45 through 47. However, If you have any quosuom. pleaae f«l fr« » conuc. me a. 473-73J7. Sincerely, / Michael P. Gaffron * Zoning Administrator MPG/cb cc- Jeanne A. Mabusth. BuUding & ZoMg Adm. John R. Gerhardson. Public Worka Director i ( ' A * 7,^ r ^* V'• -GITYof ORONO Municipal Of!k« Strtct Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orone. «N 55356 Maiiinf Address: P.O. Box £6 C.'ystal Bay. m 55323 CC65 Rod MacCharles Reraax A-1 Excellence Realty 2477 Shadywood Road Orono. MN 55331 Re: Lots 44-47, "Wallace’s Addition to Minnetonka Beach Dear Mr. MacCharles: In addition to the letter to Del Wasscr in 1988, the enclosed letter of July 17, 1990 to Cunis Palmer defines the City codes and policies regarding development of these lots. Please be aware of the following points: 1.Assuming you wish to proceed with making two equal area budding sites out of the four lots as you have suggested, a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement would be in order. An alternative (although not a particularly g<^ alternative, in my opinion) would be to simply combine Lots 46 and 47, combine Lots 44 and 45, anri then a variance application for substandard lot area of Lots 46-47. The lot line rearrangement probably makes more sense from the standpoint of creating more attractive lots. 2. 3. Two sewer smbs have been provided, in Lots 45 and 47. The property was assessed for sewer in 1965. City water would have to come from Navarre Lane (or possibly from Bayview Place) at your expense. Please contact Public Works Duector John Gerhardson about how this connection would occur. The current (1994) municipal water connection charge, which must be paid for each building site, is $1,933 per umt plus $19.30 per front foot. This would total approximately $8.<^ for ^th lots. The City Fee Schedule indicates that "if an improvement is i^uired, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment". The "assessm^ referred to would only be imposed if the City extends the water lines as a City project. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-4510 Rod MacCharles March 22, 19<*4 Page 2 4.Access to both lots could be via a private driveway constructed within Hillside Place, conditioned on the properties at 3300 Navarre Lane and 2260 Bayview Place absolutely eliminating their current access to arxi use of Hillside Place. City code allows no more than two building sites to share a driveway. The third user triggers the need to upgrade the driveway to a road standard. Again, please conuct John Gerhardson regarding a permit for constructing a driveway within Hillside Place. I am enclosing a subdivision application form for your use. Both John Gerhardson and I may be reached at 473-7357 if you have rdditional questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Building & Zoning Administrator MPG/lsv cc: John Gerhatxlson, Public Works Director Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building A Zoning Administrator Jackie Segner, 2260 Bayview Place Enc. July 17, 1990 Letter Subdivision Application I I I ( . A. ...MJ H .'•i* *1 •••% f Ia <m crm^GBom ORONO Oa thf fforth SAor* £«At MuuuWd^ . -‘^s.w^ • •* li *-• ■; <#. July i* # 1??0 . *^> ^ • • •4 • •. Curtis ?al**- 2710 Casco Feint ?*c«G '•'S*S * :• • • •:;ayri la * rr. ?rsct?niss cn :«*vzr»»• *jirfi? Kix»Sii» .'lacs ;«ar Mr. ?alr.er: r.*-‘*a*"**cn rtcsr.tly s«.".t you a ?vSlic ;.-er>:s -®;-r.°n ir/J^ of HilUSe* ?l»e» i" r.ia-.icn == ..0^11.= Sa-.-. I l.f-.r dated Jdly .xir.r.ettnka Se.eft^ - ^-*i ‘Va«eV of csestr.ut Bealty. This letter ”date 'peclflo pcirta of that 1?M letter. :r-\“;r;;r“UV7;?nro;f;^c^£r;v^ r^cuirert^nts • Lot 44 on its own contains lid-V ^eI adding^Lots****;v“j ^rt%J:^tVr;-t•..^irdr^-A‘<^^^^^ r.te cc.-afaination cf Lots 46 and 4. less ...an .ne requi.e area. eased on the above, in order 44-47. it -ouid *PPo*^Vll,d is or lot redvired between f*®®* lots becoae.combined,would be necessary depending on w.nic.n iocs oecomw. in the orioinal letter to i,‘utiix,w because of the boildin. Site from «“•” *L°ieh?!^-.ay of HillsiSrJlaee. Hr. probable need to ®^,hared^ drwithin the Cerhardson’s « itiilside Place to serve up to J«idil!2.s?2s'rono as the two existin, driveways to tho sooth of Lee 47 are removed. IttLOt^Ca 70^>^C -47>?JST ASSCSSL^C AOMnisnunoN a nN*.>ct - rA.V-4T>49l« fieuc woaas • 4»>w* ----—-mo.4 I . A. : - - « , . . . j^* • * * *• ^ * r'**** •• ^ “W*.* • ••-. *. *^— -«>. ••.•••, • . 4*^ • ;“ir . Curtis Fslissr July <• 1990 Pa?« 2 A •s , _•. (4v tJ'.aV-'cu’r 3fcil:ty to tuild two housti on this property can be ccr.fi rrsd. ?:«as« contact =te at -T2-725T if you bav- any questions. Sincerely. .•tic.tael r. Caffrcn assistant rlann'.nq ( Tcninq Administrator cc:Jcnr. Cerr.ardscn, Public '.*orks Director .MFC/ Isv I ■ rnmurnmimsim^^^A^"ntii en* iTti U. .. r /a [___m 6* k ,J I 111! mil ■ Ifc ilimifcMi lit ■ !■ iiiiiriii I ■■ I II >iii II r _ -WT’CI ' j vr u f rKiniTn.Tr T^TT, •U^UW7HU=* ^ vwa »ri- k , i r ^ ■» * k '9-: «•. «fc •;i.<^ ^- ... ■V« % • •%im ^ ‘<l ^‘X*f> <5 ^* « ^ i ^ < ->.«^ ' * •■* ■« 9 rT A-' \ i ^-5 't v;-.' ■ ?Vr “22^ »!*??.'^iMiaAii in^“.^ ♦ r" ^ */:v^& i JVv .ImJL,>* ,• •^ ^ ap^9 •I A •• .-V »’ .V' •-• •.I ’*' • ^ -•. a- X ,T. ' ■* ^ ^ I .. ,.. u- ' ; •>•,• • r-. *^ • ^ v% ^ -T / /Uk • •• JJO / X X. X X, 1 tM *• ’ nm. fo-»-'ei rr--.'^*t^** ^ \r*TZ ;c, Utaii.e* * ^a*i * VI 1»^ Mn.^Vin.H lr...n. .t - »»M »«r|ari i.ij'rov'^i^nvs or ^ueJ-i-rK-'uls. «. • _• ^ * * *'% klvin *♦. *•*•• U.iM JHT9*y9r9 f.m •l»4i.ij^r» itan^ U k^. »li«i.'* »>»fc'' «% iMuansr.■rrsjnsr r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: % ITEM NO.: : Septembers, ‘ C •• ym ipm II'. ■ ;yruaeat Approval: Nmw Mkhad P. Gaffrao Adminhtrator Reviewed: Tide Assisuni PlaaoiBf ft Zoniag Adiainistraior Description: Agenda Sect Zoning I r Sepek MOTatohum: Possible Extension - Follow-up infemnation from 7/18/94 Woric Session UstoTExUbits A - Needs Analysis Table > 7/18/94 B - Update on Septic Upgrade Funding Programs C - Ordinance to Extend Moratorium to March 13. 1995 D - Status of Shorcland Conformity In^tections (Table) Septic Mof*t»™««» Baolf The septic moratorium initially adopted last September for six months, was extended six months in March and will expire on September 13, 19^. The moratorium can be extended for up to an additional twelve memths if Uie CouiKil desires. An ordinance to extend the moratorhim is attached should Council wish such an extension. Council has the option to extend the moratorium, or let it expire. The impact of this moratorium is to nispend enforcemem of the repair/replacement requirement. During the moratorium: • Any building permit request in shoreland will require conformity determination by staff. • A determination of non-conformity will not be cause to deny a building permit. • Enforcement of repair/replacement requirement is suspended during moratorium for those non-conforming only due to lack of 3' separation. Impact of Ending Moratorium Once the moratorium ends, the "clock" will start up again for those who weren’t required to do upgrades during the moratorium. Staff interprets Council’s intent as follows: Please recall that the intent of Ordinance No. 118 (7/26/93) was to allow two full cnnsmiction seasons (May thru November) for upgrade of all 3’ separation un conformities. ------- 4 pt r i- Request for Council Action pagc2 Sqnmber 8, 1994 Septic Moratorium med If mmatorium expues between now and May 1, 1995: Anyone who had received a non-conforminf repair mtice in 1993 will have until December 31, 1996 (instead of origin^ deadline of December 31, 1995) to do repairs. Anyone who received a non-conforming repair notice in 1994 wilt still have until December 31, 1996 smce ^ leaves them two full construction seasons to make repairs. »If nimmorium expires after May 1, 1995: Those receiving notice in ’93 will have utttil December 31. 1997. Those receivii^ notice in ’94 will have uiKil December 31, 1997. Sewer vs, Whether or not the moratorium is extended, there still are a number of people with repair money in escrow (and others without) who are anxiously awaiting an answer regarding the time hrame and likeldiood of sewer being brought to their neigMwrhoods. They don’t warn to rebuild septic systems if sewer is likely in a few years. At the July 18 work session, the Council identified several tasks for staff to complete to assist the Council in its consideration of sewer vs. septic upgrades. These tasks and the expechxl tinwliiK for completion ate as follows: 1.Septic Inspector to concentrate on completing conformity inspections in the "hot spots" to confirm the assumptions made. (Fall of ’94) 2. Preparation of a proposed construction. (Spring of *95) 3. Analyze City’s financial position and options/priorities for financial participation in future sewer projects. (Fall of ’94) Provide general public and area realtors with information on the study results. It was also that neighborhood information meetings be held this winter for each of the "hot spots” to provide residents with the smdy results and gain input regarding each neighborhood’s needs and wants for municipal sewers. (Winter of ’94/95) The Council may want to extend the moratorium to the point where the staffs work is conqilete, and Council has an opportunity to review the information as part of its consideration of potential sewer projects. ....................... . ------------------- vn, %Request for C pefe3 Scpicsnber 8. 1994 Scpik Moratorium U A^kmo s> 4T» I - Three addkkmal tasks to be completed staff are as follows: 5.A "tier* system for septic repairs should be defined setting priorities based on specific criteria, (in progress) 6.Preparation of a comprehensive MUSA aine prior to the stormwater plan deadline. lIMli:-oi applicatiQii 10 Met Council 7. Investigation of all potsibilities for funding septic repairs (see Exhibit B) COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST 1.Take action to extend the moratorium f(xr an »ldhional period of six to twelve or advise staff of Council's intern to let the moratorium expire. n I 2.Confirm whether staff should contume wMi all or some of the seven tuks identified id)ove.■ - • • •NOOHIOIUIOOD (LISTED W ORDER OP NEED PRIORITY}•ATSIO •2S Nofth Lonf Uke •23 Orono Orchards •21 FoaRMfe •IS Loaf Lake •14 East Loaf Lake •13 Webber Hilto •13 Bay Ridge •13 E^ewood Hills •12 Brackett’s P(^ •9 Foahill «oeuwm 22 7 2P lU 35 I 7 14 22 SEWER COSTSTOTALCOSTUNITcon S421.S00 S304.000 $2oe.soo S4II.700 (21) S13.M0 SI3.I20 $29,100 $19,400 SEPTIC REPAIR COSTSf OF SYSTEMSNesomctEFLACEMEHT(FAUNCOaNOH-cowroaswHC)t OF THESE WTTHaEFlACEMENTSITEAYAOAILE « WNEailUXiMNOTANKSUKELTNEEDED $223,300 $473,200 (34) $22,330 $13.9i0 $130,000 $14,000 $247,240 $318,280 $18,730 $12,000 $17,660 $14,470 15^ *• 9 A 4 12 9 2: 16* $• 27* 8 6* 8 8 SI 7 4 6 81 6 1 2 2 0 Prtimita only • Coofoonity inspections not completed Mmn .1 TOTAL COST OF SYSTEMREFLACEMENTS $72,000 $32,800 $33,200 $93,400 $70,400 $179,400 $ 62.400 $ 33,700 $34,400 $70,400 uNiteoiToFSYSTEMREFLACEMENTS $t.( $8.1 $8.1 $7,800 $8,800 $8,300 $8,900 $8,400 $9,100 $8,800 FUTURE ANNUAL NOOnORNOOOKxFKNommB TOMAWTAW NOUNNO TANKS $ffi.0Q0 $43,000 $10,000 $20.0 •0 $30.0 $9.0 $10.fl $10.C •0 AVERAOB VALimOP HOMES m AREA tl02.( $I77.( $21M $llf.( $ll9.t $179,000 $243,000 $381,000 $930,000 $183,000 SMliKlk J— Palling Systems Homes % Katins Magnitude oinon-conformities(Estimate)i AToialHomes % Ealing Availability of Future Sites (All Homes)f /TotalHomes % Rating Availability of Future Sites (Failing llonKs)§ /TotalHemet % Rating Availability of Future Sites (Homes w/ non- confonning syuenu) f n'otalHomes % Rating Shore land lin|waDtauace to Lakeshore/WetlMd/TribuUiy Ruini ' Total1 B»y lUdge _________Q/8 0%1 8/8 100%5 7/8 88%1 0/0 100%1 7/8 88%1 200*LK 4 131 FoxhiH mi 0%I 8/22 36%1 20/22 91%1 0/0 100%1 8/8 100%1 300’LK 4 91 WcMcr Hills 1/35 3%1 27/35 77%2 25/35 71%2 2/2 100%1 21/27 78%2 150’TRIB S P1 Pwi Rklte _______2/7 29%5 6/7 86%4 4/7 57%3 2/2-100%1 3/6 50%4 200’TRIB 4 211 Brackett ’s Point 0/14 0%1 8/14 57%1 10/14 71%2 0/0 100%1 6/8 75%2 75 ’LK 5 121 Orono Orchards 7/19 37%5 15/19 79%2 6/19 32%5 1/5 20%5 6/15 40%5 400* IntmiTRIB 1 23 1 East Loai Lake 1/9 11%3 8/9 89%4 9/9 100%1 1/1 100%1 8/8 100%1 200’LK 4 14 1 North Long Lake 6/30 20%4 21/30 70%1 8/30 27%5 2/6 30%5 7/21 33%5 30’LK 5 23 1 Long Lake Country Club 2/20 10%2 16/20 80%2 14/20 70%3 1/2 50%4 12/16 75%2 1600*LK 2 IS 1 Edgewood Hills 0/7 0%1 6T7 86%4 5/7 71%2 Q/0 100%1 4/6 67%3 150*WL 2 13 w- m m 4 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Update - Prograim for Fitndif^ Sepik: Syi^Eefn Upgrades Sept emb e r 6, 1994 Page 2 of 2• Currently the ISTS program has no funds availabk to award. They are hopii^ for to $500,000 m funding with the next legislative session. There are a nanber oi projects waking in line fca money, the majority' of which likely would be a higher priority than Ortmo’s. m Ms. Cook indicaied that the ok! State Grants Program for which Orooo applied for funding in the late 1970*s no longer awards grants. It essentially became a revtrfvii^ loan fund. She also indicated that there is money in Clean Water Partnership funding for watershed projects and another $2,000,000 in another program regarding agricultural feed lots, but she gave me little hope that these funds would become available for Orono’s needs. In questioniog Ms. Cook as to her knowledge of cities or counties initiating a locally ^)ons(Med septic system upgrade loan fund, she noted that Rice County has a $200,000 environmental fund which provides loans to residents. n ; \jaas:r r I" 1. ' i ^ • Iv' ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED IN ORDINANCES NO. 120 AND 125, SECOND SERIES ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF CITY ORDINANCES REQUIRING UPGRADE OF CERTAIN NONCONFORMING SEPTIC SYSTEMS AS DESCRIBED HEREIN. THE CITY OF ORONO ORDAINS: The Municipal Code of the City of Orono is amended by adding Ordinance No. , Second Series. SECTION 1. Statement of Policy . The City Council finds that the City is presently faced with the potential of numerous applications for building permits for properties which rely on on-site sewage treatment systems for sewage disposal. Prior to February 10, 1992, such existing on-site sewage treatment systems with less than 3’ of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, were considered by definition as "substandard systems". Such "substandard systems" were not required by code to be upgraded when a request for a building permit for any purpose was requested. On February 10, 1992, however, the Council adopted revisions to Section 12.30, the On-site Sewage Treatment Ordinance. This new ordinance defined as "nonconforming systems", any system with less than 3’ of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics. Further, the ordinance retained language appearing in the code since 1978 which required that systems found to be nonconforming shall be brought up to conforming stams within one calendar year. On February 24, 1992, the Council adopted a new Shoreland Ordinance. The new Shoreland Oidinance required that a nonconforming sewage treatment system as defined in Section 12.30 and located within the Shoreland Overlay District must be upgraded and made conforming, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, a property. Enforcement of this ordinance requires that the conformity status of an on-site sewage treatment system within the Shoreland Overlay District be determined and found nonconforming before issuance of a building permit. The Orono Community Management Plan, or "Comprehensive Plan", identifies a number of areas in the City which are currently not provided with municipal sewer, but which because of location near a water body or existing density of development, must be monitored carefolly to ensure continued satisfactory use of on-site sewage treatment systems. These areas might be severely impacted by enforcement of the ordinances requiring system upgrade. The potential desirability of providing municipal sewer service to these areas as an alternative is currently under study. ! J Il wean to the Council that the consequences of requiring upgrade of nonconforming senlic sy^ m *e Shoreland Overlay District at any tin« a build^ permit is re<iu«T*n^^ undesirable in sonw respects or at some locations. The Council, therefore, finds that it is nece^ to study the impact of such requirements on the underlying purposes of the Ci^l I W of public and pnvatc expenditures and to provide the public guides to ftitute City action. Since enactment ^an amei^nt to the code would undoubtedly modify existing regulations coi^mmg the retired upgrade of septic systems which are nonconforming solely due to the lack of 3 serration as noted above, the further enforcement of requirements to upgrade such i^ld be ^nn^ to the purpose of the Zoning Enabling Act, Miimesou Statutes 462.351. ct. seq. The Council further finds that it would be unwise, improper, and unjust to enforce the requirement for such upgrades to occur during this study. Therefore, the City staffs authonty to enfoiw the requirement for upgrade of such nonconforming systems shall not be exercised during the limited terms of this ordinance, as provided in Section 3. rw vr Council on September 13, 1993 adopted Ordin^e No. 120, Second Senes which initiated a study regarding the implications of requiring upgrade of noncom'oimmg sewage treatment systems as a condition of building permit approval, a further regarding the implications of requiring such upgrades in areas that might be served with mumcipal sewer in the future, and the potential need for amendments to the City Code and Comprehensive Plan to implement the results of said study. This study is currently underwav but has not been completed. ^ 3. El^tcnsion of Interim Ordinance The City Council finds that it would be unwise, improper and unjust to enforce the requirement for septic system upgrades as noted above until the study as provided in Section 2 has been completed. Section 4 of Ordinance No. 120, Second Series allows the duration of said ordinance to be extended by adoption of a subsequent ordinance for up to 18 additional months after the March 13, 1994 expiration date. Therefore, the City Council hereby extends the interim ordinance per the provisions of Section 5 below. SECTION 4. Restrictions on Enforcement of the Requirement for 1 Nonconformin2 On-site Sewaee Treatment Systems. For all properties located within the Shoreland Overlay District and which request a building permit or variance for any purpose, the City Inspector shall determine the conformity stanis of any on-site sewage treatmem system in use on the property. However, if such sewage treatment system is determined to be nonconforming due solely to the lack or 3’ separation noted above, such nonconforming status shall not be cause to deny the building permit. Further, for all areas of the City, either within i.t I . .11 r I* STATUS OF SHORELAND SEPTIC SYSTEMS C N F < U NI CONFORMING NON-CONFORMING FAIUNG CONFORMITY CHECK WAS INCONCLUSIVE (SYSTEM UNKNOWN) = CONFORMITY INSPECTION NOT YET PERFORMED *Docs not include systems provided with sewer yet unconnected NOTE: Above table does not include approximately 50 system on Big Island SUMMARY: Approximately 422 (100%) systems in shoreland Approximately 150 (35%) known to be conforming Approximately 55 (13%) are non-conforming or failing Approximately 217 (52%) conforming not determined Basin Name Total Existinc Svstems Q E LI NI in Shordand Forest Lake 3 2 1 --- North Arm 21 9 6 -m 6 Stubbs Bay*9 4 ---5 Maxwell Bay 21 7 4 -m 10 Crystal Bay 6 4 2 --- Smith’s Bay 43 21 15 1 6 - Brown’s Bay 13 6 5 --2 Tanager 52 7 6 m 39 Long Lake Creek 15 --m m 15 Mooney Lake 1 ----1 Lydiard/Hadley 53 12 ---41 Long Lake &. Creeks to N of Long Lake 68 8 --m 60 Dickey Lk & Crk 47 28 ---19 Classen Lk & Crk to Stubbs Bay 31 10 12 -9 Katrina Lk/Painter Crk 9 7 --2 French Lake 30 25 3 - 1 2 TOTAL 422 150 54 1 6 211 Approximately 272 shoreland systems need replacement under worst case scenario, II . . .. .^1. or not within the Sh(»eland Overlay District, enforcenxm of the requiienKni to upgrade septic systems which are nonconformity solely diK to the lack of 3* separation, shall be suspended for the duration of this imerim mdinanM. SECTION 5. Duratjon . This ordinance shall eapire on March 13.1995, widioul Council xtkjtL, or it may be repealed earlier if the Council determines that the requisite studies have been completed and adopted and that appropriate evaluation and action, including any necessary revisions of the Zo^ng Code, or Cociyrehensive Plan, have been finalized. The duration of dib ordinance may be extended by adoption of a subsequent ordinance for a toul of not more than 6 addkioaal SECTION 6. Variances. The Council may grant a variance to this ordinance if the Council finds after careful review of all the facts that a proposal is not conftary to the intent of the Comprehensive Community Management Plan, that it is compatible with the zoning and official control amendments being considered by the City, and that it does not adversely impact the health, safety or welfare of the citizens. SECTION 7. Separability . Every section, provision, or part of this Ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision, or part; and if any section, provision, or part thereof or action taken hereunder shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision, or part. SECTION 8. This ordinance shall be published In the Pioneer and the Laker and shall be effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the 12th day of September, 1994, by a vole of _ayes and __nays. Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Haliin, City Clerk REQUEST roil COUNCIL ACTION ^ " <^)o • DATE ITEM NO Dcpartmoit Approval: Nmw Mkhad P. Gaffioa TMe Aas. PUmiiaf A Zootiif A Afcnda Scctii Zoning ismor I • I t Dt irriplhw* B-2 Zoning District Aiiiei 1 At of ExhiMtl A - Proposed Arocndmeni B - Staff Memo 5/31/94 C - Kevin Staunton Memo 7/22/94 in the «taSS oriinmee recommendation process resulting in thb proposed ordinance is provided m Exhibit B, and m the 1 thick blue covered document compilation which Council received earlier this summer. ^gfulatlon of Operation (Uscsl The proposed ordinal should be reeulated. The majority or recommcnuca enauges uu m ---------------7^ V.,:" property ratteThan the physical aspects of the propel^. Plann^ re -Xing the lot a«a/wHlth/set^lt/ha«lcoverre .xine the lot arca/wiatn/seioacx/naiutuvci auiuuaa%.ta --------— marinas was not appropriate. Planning Commission did suggest that those mannas^uesiing a conditional use iSfor a use which they have not had in the past should be required to meet the landscaping requirements ssjss rsj'.sc.s rii pw..««».«- ~ ^ denial of licenses when that did no. occur, but uktng no legal action nor imposing sanctions for noncompliance. •iW. ywv • . 11X4^01 re .*.■ •• •• smthmuiii iJCsJlttWitfhriau Request for Council Actkm continued pa^ 2 of 2 September 8, 1994 B-2 Zoning Dbirict Amei a g>«Miatfcm df Pfcwkal Aancia fli r. ■jMiihcaniiml Ptrtaaps a reasonable approach to gaining physical charges to the marinas would include the following: Coimcil to determine what general changes th^ would like to see in the physical aspect of all marinas. Allow staff 10 then work with each marina to devise a plan and stdiedule for bringing each marina into an accepnUile degree of compliance over tune. • Bring this back to Council for approval. Formalize an agreement with each marina, establishing schedules and sanctions for noncompliance. Such a profram would pertiaps avoid Ac -laking- issue* nised by Suuiuon. the City to reestoblish a base line and set of goals for each marina that, when complied with, both the and the City will have rc«:hcd an accefuable comfort level. Options for Action Notins that the Planning Commission has held the required formal public he^s for this ^mawndingto, Couik U could duect sttff to make any minor changes you want and place it on your agenda for formal ordinance adoption at your next meeting If Council wishes further Planning Commission input regarding the leasomng behind the proposed amendment, a work session with Planning Commission could be held. If Council feels there are specific physical changes to the marinas which C^il feels need to be dressed as a high priority, t^n hold a work session wiA s a identify those issues and their relative priorities. Other. ' I V SECTION 10.41 .41 (DRAFT) - SroDURV OF SUBDrVISIOS HEADINGS Subd. 1 Subd. 2 Subd. 3 Subd. 4 Subd. 5 Subd. 6 Subd. 7 Subd. 8 Subd. 9 Subd. 10 Subd. 11 Subd. 12 Subd. 13 Subd. 14 Subd. 15 Subd. 16 Subd. 17 Subd. 18 Subd. 19 % • jf '*9 Purpose. Definitioos. License Required. Application* Permitted Uses. Accessory Uses. Conditional Uses. Parking Requirements. Yards. Landscaping Areas. ^ H'^ghrL^dUj and Yard Requirements, ttback Harfcover and Tree Removal Regulations. Drainage. Non-Conforming Use. Variances. . Variances for Required Regulation of Stnictutes Withm the Uke. Reference to Other Ordinance. 9 .t lkR«>Wrra.^^. ,i ~t>ii i f ♦'^-V -.,^51^___J Proposed Amendment: lo Municipal Code SEC. 10,41. B-2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-2" Lakeshore Business Commefeiai District was originally intended to provide areas where limited conuncrcial businesses could be located to serx ice boats used for recreational purposes on Lake .Minnetonka. However, many of the operators of the lakeshore commercial businesses have stripped the trees and vegetttion from the shorelands and have expanded the operations so that now the B-2 affect the lake water quality and the real esute values of adjoining properties. Tte purpose of t^s reqiH vegetatioftr that will serve to avoid pollution of the lake of adjacent resittential properties which have previously suffered from the unregulated expansion of commercial activities, whjlg prQtwiiflg ?nd gnhaPCing ihc the lake and shoreland environment. ■Suhd. 2. Definitions A. "Marina Business'* means engaging in one or more of the oermined. accessory or conditional uses allowed within the B-2 Lakeshore Business District. .Subd 3. License Required. Each marina business within the "B-2" UKC?hore Business District shall obtain an annual marina business license per the provisions of the Qr^ng Municipal Code. tjis -B-2 Subd- Subd. 4, Application. All applications for a building permit in atiy wMin shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission and/or a specially appointed Lake Use Committeg for review. Subd. '3-r Subd. 5. Permitted Uses. Within the -B-2" Lakeshore Business District, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the tollowing uses: A. Repairs.—Repair and oeniciog of boots.- Rental of in-water sllPli. B. Storage.—Winter storage of boats.- Sales of boats. mpt<>r?i trailers and manne accessones. of fuel, boats C. Sales, etc.—Sale and reDial of boots, motors, fishing equipment and sale r Repair and servicing of boats.. D. On-land storage of boats, wipt^r and summer. jm'- .___J F Marine fad sales^ f Bait and fishing ta ckle sales. <?iihd, 6. Xcct^wry Within anv -B-2'* Lakeshore Business tfw fnllowing n^es shall ly permitted acce?y)tv usesj A. Sigp< .Siym as regulated in this chapter, p |y>|j pumpout/ anitarv boat waste dumping facility. , r Fishin£ tournaments. n <!|]^ nf pre-oark-aygd foods or food from vending machines. PrCpagtaged irro-wave Qvcn. Sale of fo< uses a use of an infra-red machines is allowed^ t;, Dive shops F. riiihhouse fas^emhlv/lounge/kiicheneite area for use bv slip rental pr rliih" customers Ohlv)-. C Lessons/teaching (s,“filing schools, etc.). p Rental of boats. I One caretaker dwelling uniL J Sailboard sales/rental. K Tee boating sales/rental/senice and operations base. J Ice fishing tackle sales. M. Cross-country ski saies /rental/servlce._ Subd. -^r Subd. 7, Conditional Uses. No CQn4itiona| tise permit shall he iinlgics the Dfooertv is found to b» in compliance with the landscaping anO Acrrmng nf rhVs Ltion vWitL any "B-? Lake^hore Business District, no structure or land shall be used for the followinnuses except by conditional use permit: A. Sale of cigar ettes.- Ro.at Clubs (time share ). Applinpt dgm9h?tfaj£ »that adequate naj^dne is available on the site. use- THIS ■llil iMmi ilTTl .7%------i._ mj ^ ?g S^lc of 3 - bfi*r >*p*" » Suhj#ft »ft hy Ttwnn^ V Puhiir boat 1-^—^;na nn-TVmand (On-demand launching of customer-owned boats stcrcq.on.Uig Kn<in^« site) AppiiViTf^ demonstrate that adMuate parking is available on the site. Approval ^.,y|'L I MT-n fnr nich usc. but CjiY ?twll n<?( bt cMIgitC*! W WPrpve ^cEIa if annmved bv t.MCD whtn ■« iM<teamte. Calc of prtFarlTrf*^-^'**^'^ V»n.iing mnfhin»< P>*jpflolfa ged ifofessionally -Pfepar ed at a location oth er than or tbe micro >m full counc mrnh” p—pumtirtn rbftw wnirTwii%»-W i» allow ed. Public I ^..nrhina Transient. rT^unching of boats via a ramp or Other means for Qf l?v customer! boa'^ :i»> not stored on the site). Applicant shall demcnstratc to adequate ca^t ja ijei parfc-irur is available on the site Hours of operation shall be at C quk U <Jixrgt.iPJL n Charter boat port of call A charter boat port of ca ll shall be defingd_as loration whe»» a charter boat mav Pick up passengers other than the Qwner gf pp?raior._Qr ,moinvff.. m- the rh»tfr hoai. whether or npt tlw ctwner tH?iK i? Wnnallv jitnUrt 911 l|W PTOCm: Th, rifv m.iv ni»ri. annronriaig enndilions o n J chaner boat pon ot call ftMriilH miimwm paffaM r>n.iirfmfnK. h»..r. nf nnention . as mav be arpropriaie 10 proitci puflic imw?t. .^ppl^pal H shall demonistratc to Council that all such conditions are mcL [a ^f»/^ alce Structure Maintenance Operations Base, (includes but not limited to dredging, weed cutting, zebra mussel control, dock and bpai lift inSt^llaMbb, Pp-rapE ing and seawall construction). Council ma v limit the oreration at it? dijcreiign^ F Snowmobile sale.s and service. Snow mobile rentals shall pQt b^ allQwed , IT.se of the property as a base of operation for snowTTlobiling shall H<?t demonstrate that adequate parki ng is available on the sjt^ Subd. 5. Subd. 8. Parking Requirements. Within the "B-2" Lakeshorc Business District the off-street parking facilities shall be sufficient to eliminate any traffic or parking congestion likelv to be caused by the business conducted. The parking areas may nep not e paved , but shall be provided with appropriate stor mwater runoff qualirv/quantitV controls as ,.ma y he required in this chapter. The minimum parking requirements shall be as follows: on land. A. Six parking spaces shall be provided for each ten boat slips on water or B. At least eight off-street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 800 square feet of floor area over 1,000 feet, including warehousing, and all outside sales and storage areas related to the sales and service functions. C. If the proposed use is to include the launching of boats owned by *e public for the day from trailers ti e. Public Boat t ninrhine. Transient), ten additional auto-trailer inn I I i&lifuniPi* 11*1 .# I < parking spaces shall be provided for each ramp. parking a nd shunle »r E. The required parking spaces may not be separated by a public roadway from the dock, a storage space, mooring space. Hoor space, or ramp they are designed to serve. Er E, Required off-street parking space my^^t^ utilized for open storage of goods or for the storage Ocm^r flr^’ ^20??f ^*^r^^ar^arking spaces remain as a functional parking area. Puring llic that 20% Of the rcq p s ^ tr> November 15V adequate parking sball. be seasons fADnl lo May j± ^ ^---------‘ “...frJ-J, to eiiminntr traffic Pf parigng congestion, W ilm case-shau p.,v!n. ^ fettor-H to less than 20% of the rMutfcd SP^gS^ F t (L Parking may not be allowed in any required yard or landscaping area. H --------------- shall be in adtiirion to the Parking spasss PT..1T.H TK.V, the ".^K^TTf Inlovee oarki;? spaces shall be des-gnatM on aq offical partaflg plan tn he kept on Hie with the CitY. landscape plan. Storage of boats, vehicles, equipment and maten? S $ .^ °t ^ « ifeguired vard^ ....... accordance with the following provisions. A. The minimum landscaping areas shall be as follows: 1. The lakeshore landscaping area shall be an area that is “ the entire lakeshore adjacent to the licens^ marina operation ai^ equal to 10^. | j„g depth, but in no case shall it be less than 10 feet nor more than 75 feet. Breal« m me tan p area for access to me lake shall not exceed ao aggregate width of 30 feet for each manna p 2. Side yard landscaping area shall be an area that is side lot line and not within me lakeshore landscaping area or from yard landscaping area and not be less than 10 feet deep. J9 • to lili [Ai IT li<r- -vV3. Front yard landscaping area shall be an area that is parallel to the ,0 Sue “d So" eS iTagS'eSf 5o7S each marina operation. B The detailed laiKiscape plan for each landscaping area shall provide for a n,mr-,i woods area conta5nin2 primarily evergreen and deciduous trees not Jess than si.x feet in Wht Shrubs not less than'two feet in height shall be inierdispersed among the trees so as to height. Shrubs » natural screen that will not be less than 50fc opaque during the eventually prov . ^ allowed in the landscaping area except the required landscaping su^er ' • . fence mav be required in addition to the natural landscaping which has access road _ P ' ^ ents of this district. The use of any fencing shall not satisfy the been planted to meet the «qu . ^ yisu^l screening. Anv yard area requiring wifs.ocu. ^ a,S shn.bs. All landscaping shall be mainiained in a healthy growing condmon. c All the required improvements in the landscaping will be completed prior .0 the date of issuance of an occupancy certificate or as otherwise provided by this Chapter. whichever date occurs first. n All l■.nrf«^alv areas shall he sufficien ilv delineated W bennmg. burti og. „.her accemabie h.rrier so as to eliminate the encrowlwiKm Of vehicle Pwkjn8...yji^ !!?n.Lr boar and other materials or equipmeni ?WP»gC mtO iho reqmrod l^ndscaps areas. F All groundcover in the required landscaping areas shall nqturgl UviDg such as vrass or Other Plan ted froi indcover. PfcoriUive WtHbedS »nd '1^ J. Iin»l with nlasiic fabric or other weed inhit>i»"n , Htwll tWimU- no lUOIT llun 10 V df- - required landscape areas, Subd. &T IL Additional Performance Standards. Within the "B-2'* Lakes.hore Business District any land use must meet the following performance standards: p.i>utc on .it. yrs-hrinsi, inf^hiding head pumoout facilities and a desigpated norta-ooitv _ B. Insofar as practicable, all means of access to the ^ shall be so located and designed as to avoid the rouung of opcratSn'to any public that primarily serve abuning residential areas. ^ ^ the public roadway paved roadway shall be paved for a distance of at least thirty feet j j JS. w a If roadway is dust controlled. j-« <\il lighting pn the premises shall be shielded so that no direct ^lare can b« s«n from adjoining from the lake or from the roadway. D The hours for ninning engines or operating any boat engine for the purpose of charging baneries, running auxiliary equipment or testing 8 oTa M and 6 «) P.M. Noise shall be U-qiir4 PCf the prQvts tom Pf iHC ZOP-ng CltapWL E The maximum hours of operation shall be 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., for u-“ rr rs;: Council. F Persons in charge shall at all times keep the docks, sea walls, and pri nises in a neat and orderly manner and free from trash, rubbish, repair parrs, machinery, equipment and debris of all kinds. G Persons in charge shall prohibit the dumping or throwing of garbage, naeer bottles cans refuse or debris into waterway. Persons in charge of mooring area sha provwe gtbage c“; of sufficient size to hold garbage or reftrse to be collected. Dumpsters sM he screened so as to not he visible off-site. H No commercial docks or boat buoys shall extend furahtr into the waters of anv lake than is reasonably necessary to accommodate the docking and moonrg of such craft as shall customarily and lawfully be used on the lake or so as to mterfere with, ojsiruct, or « “nderdanger^^ use or passage a body of water witlun AH of the City The length of docks and location of buoys shall be regulated by th ty such commercial docL and wharves shall be consinicted and maintained of ^ t suet; “instruction as will not render them unsafe or ‘i^ely^o endanger public^er,^ the waters. The use of non -encase d expanded-bead polystyrene fo^m ^s ^ maintained in~ been orohihited elsewhere in the municipal co de^ Commercial dock^ sha neat and orderly manner at all times. I. If eutside on-land boat slip storage facilities are provided. boats shall be stored in .<:ach manner that they do not create a fire ® may purpose of storage of boats may not e.xcecd 15 feel m height. . r^, nr iinrrd not be located in the required yards or landscaping areas, hr liiL^Cmiiil i\n fhg r>rciTiifiefl Shall bc placed in tank s or containefs ^ may be required by the tanluj or containers shaH be stor ed underground or - ;h dicionce trom me jinrufeu lui...... . ^tanlc or rontninAr rtnr^A undargrouno Of - o ui n.nn n........... - - » !o i:eie a da^e7to ti c^^^^^ m pluses shall at all times be maintained m a neat and orderly manner. rkr « liJ Ll] W Ifs Iy Any gasoline offered for sale or stored on the premises shall be placed in fanlc5 or containers as mr<v hg required bv the Council, and as required in Municipal Code Section 9 .Such tanks or containers shall be stored in such a manner and location so as not to create a danger to the community. K On-land boat density. 1 Summer boat densir.’. The number of boats stored on the premises for any and all reasons shall not exceed that number which can be safely stored in allowable locations while maintaining annropriate ingress, egress aod_emerge ^.-y access to the site. as_weli_as maintaining the required number of accep table parking spaces. Boats shall not be Stored in required auto parlcing spaces during the summer months (June I tlifu .Septetnber._L5L 1. Winter boat densitv/storage. The number of boats stored on the premises for anv and all reasons during the winter season (November 16 thru ADriL141 shall not exceed that number which can safelv stored in allowable locaiiuns_ whilejnaimaimng egress and emergency access to the site, as well asjnaintauuflg ^hc reny u-ed nMmt>gr <2L\viniei parking spaces. ^ A site plan designating the location of summer and winter boat storage shall be submitted for Council approval no later than three m^jnihs after adop tiQn.gtjlijs section and shall require Council approval for anv future revisions^ Subd.-9r 12^ Area, Height. Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2*1/2 stories or thiny feet in height. B. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: 1. Lot Area - 2 acres. 2. Lot Width Parallel to Lake - 200 feet. 3. Lcr Width Perpendicular to Lakeshore 4. Lakeshore Yard - 75 feet. 5. Side Yard -10 feet. 6. Front Yard Along Street - 30 feet. - 200 feet. Subd. Ji Setback. Hardcover and Tree Removal Regulations. All prQperry in the B-2 Lakeshore Business District is sub’.*^t to the reouirements of Municipal Zoning Code SectiQp 10.56. Shoreland Management. In addition, the following standards shall appjyi shall be 75 feet. A. Lakeshore Setback Regulati***. TLe building setback from the shoreline - - - k r LJ UU Lai U U H Snbick to Residentiil. No operation or activities except for storage and narldng may be conducted^«r than 50 feet to the boundary of an adjoining property Ime wbreb propel is used for rasidential purposes. r .Setback Along Streets. No operation or activities except tor storage and parking may be cond^tel cL«r -Lt^SO feet to the Hgbt.f.way of any exUtmg sneet. road or highway. ^ , i, Hardcover Rcffulaiions. Within 73 feet of the shoreline there • ^ni^ hardcover temporary or permanent structures. Within 75 to 250 feet shaUbe noexcavatmg. e^. ji^cover. Within 250 to 500 feet of the l«'^sh"sraate “rn 30% hardcover. Within 500 to 1.000 fee. of the shoreline toe stall be no greater to. 35% hardcover. H. Tree ta oTheTvegeiaiMmgmen in ^^^"rdance wjft.ttei^ovj5i.:M nf Miinicioi^i Zoning Code SectiQn jO.^^ c hH u- 14 Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be pcrmined that results in water peV usTjT apXa^ provide'^ in such detail as required , ■ j fnr nnnmval. Such stoimwaiSI ^*3Lr.> g.:!'y.'5.-£"£:S'pZ adjacent property or o*erw>se. must be m comphaMe tne bmr ^ consistent :':rc!;»::'p;UcgraguuC^^^^^^ » .he approval of rto^nc^s hav.ng jurisdiction over the area affected by the dramage. Subd.B, Non-Comorming Use. Notaittaundm^ny o.h«^pm^^ Chapter, anv non.conforming use of land not involving * . igyg 'of S3.000.00 shall be living a struemre wid, an assessor's fan '“^s allowed to continue as a non-conformmg use subject ,-.«‘nafinn of non^conforming use of boat except that the provisions of this Chapter relating to c e ctinn and maintenance and boat ips*^ boa. buoyl or overall length of docks, their Itajn. ^ Code, mooring areas, stall supersede any other nonHronfonnmg use provu.ons or overall length of docks beyond what he was previously licensed for by the ty. .■Trrs r I "^r 'T ^ i-U tnj jj S*2o*YVauthorized bv ordinances of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, shall first decrease an eouivalent nJ.T.ber of boat slips or boat buo>s and eliminate an equivalent length of dock from that ronion of his dock that is non conforming under the terms of OdiMwee No. I CbapteO l of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code of Qrdinaptg until the dock conforms in length to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District’s Ordinances. Subd. Br 16:. Variances. Variances may be granted to the provisions of this Chapter in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 10.08. 'ubd 17. Variances For Required Landscaping .\reas. The Council may gram a variance allowing a four year installation end planting period to meet the requirements of the landscaping and planting provisions hereof, to any applicant who: wisions of thkCha ptfr A. Submits a detailed landscape plan sh'iwing sutficient planting and landscaping in each of the four years in order to provide at the end oi the four years a Mmral screen that win not be less than 50% opaque during the summer months jind pot less .than o opaqyg lO winter. Gr B Submits four vear planting and landscaping plan which shall provide required landscaping area according to the other provisions or this Chapter. The Council ^ this requirement in order to allow a higher percentage ot the landswping and >n a required landscaping area and credit the applicant for the landscaping and plantmg which otherwise would be required in other landscaping areas. Subd. 15t iL Regulations Relatin g to Locatioa. Constniction. €5. Boat Mooring iVreos and Other Fbted or Flotttwtr nhi^rw n rrrtimn-T "" "■ ^^0 >'> ih« Lain Mitmtlonlm Com.rvMion .ViBtadm em Ne-. : le Ordiiuince Jio. 1 M ado pie.! ui Apnl 38. 10 71. >> Cjiucr iitinn Piiiri- rhamer 11 of tb> 1 MrP Code codified on Mjiv V. |9W llltlyfla g .^nnn. v 001 ihrouvh 2.12 and vi.hvenunm amnndmerns. The City expre«ly reserves Ite nghi m ^nTa^y variar^e to ih; provisions of 0«lmwe^ agE!^ « same variance was granted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation Disinci. 10.41 is exprefs ““co'Siti^d u^T!he effeci^enea'^oT^e Ord^es of ‘"JJ r ^ TK. ntv MnrcMlv reserves Use povv^r to be more restrictive in its regulationMiniJ^ Conservation District Ordinances if the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Orono so requires. r ■** irt^i11 _ . ^ TO:Planning Commission Members FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: May 31. 1994 SUBJECT: Section 10.41. B*2 Lakeshorc Business District - Proposed Amendment I kt of Exhibits A - Proposed Amendment B - 1993-1994 Documentation Packet Background X.- rin, nf Oreno bc2an licensing msrinas in 196:. H k B-2 Ukeshore CommercUI DWtici was L'ated in January 1968. and standards and tequiitments for the district were adopt r V ««« tr^ fh#. licen^inff and B-2 District code sections occurred from 1969 to fpyTll- c^ W “n“y - -he 1975 zoning code revisions. Bv 1985 the Citv realized that certain standards and requirements of the B-2 District to certain marinas, it did not take steps to stop them from continuing to operate. d”^ fS b^a r'tr/iker^co^tTi^i marina activity was w« revie^f DNR’s shoreland requirements, and B-2 DT^*cf<^^c^Ton:"« During 1992 the Lake Use Commim« i«^^ =m“view was referred to Planning Commission for their consideration. Review Process The attached propo^d amendment to the Oro^^^Aan^rCo^ssion to review represents the culmination of a nine month effo inini meetincs with the ^ update the B-2 Ordinance. After P«'« ^^wSsToi^ S January City Council in 1993. the Planning Commission hrid » ^ 350' through April 1994. to which the public was myited. j<,„ Eleven members of the B-2 Zoning District were maUed individual ° sessions, and five of Orono's of the public attended and offered comments at one or more work sess __J ; 4 Mcfiio - Section 10.41 May 31. 1994 Page 2 seven marina operations were represented at one or more meetings, and were gi^’cn ample opportunity to provide input Exhibtt B is a compilaiion of all saff memos and meeting minutes related to the B-2 amei^ent over the last eighteen months. Included are copies of work session meeting nouces and copy of the mailing list used The June 6th public hearii« notice has been published in the appropriate newspapers, and the notice aitd copy of the proposed ordinance amendmena has been matted to all property owners on the B-2 mailing list. Proposed Revisioiis Following is a brief review of each of the proposed revisions: Subdivision -Business" rather than "Commercial" District is propos^ for consistency. The purpose statement is broadened and generalized by minor wording revisions. A dltliliiron of "Marina Business" is added to be consistent with the license provisions. of Municipal Code Chapter 5.43 requirement that each marina business within B-2 Lakeshore Bwincss Distnci obuin an annual license again is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 5.43. The current code language requires all building permit applications m ^ of a Lake Use Committee. reorganizes the 'permined uses' within the B-2 District. 'Storage of boats' is expanded to address both winter and summer storage on 1^. 'Rental of in-water boat slips' is added as a permitted use. „ nr^tumed the primaiy activity of sU of Orono ’s seven marinas, such use has m the p« ^ to li a non-conforming use. The majority of the Planiung Comi^sion ^ should be a permitted use, concluding that LMCD ordinance and Otoiio t« i expansion (see Subdivisions 15. 18 and 19) would provide sufficient controls to allow slip e to become a permitted use. J 1 j ) r Memo • Section 10.41 May 31, 1994 Page 3 • Subiivision 6 This scctk)n adds a long list of allowable "accessory uses". The B-2 Zone is the only commercial or residential zone in Orono with no code allowance for accessory uses. The Planning Commission reviewed each proposed accessory use in the conte.xt that it must be subsidiary to a permitted use. No accessory use can e.xist unless a permitted use exists on the property. One of the Planning Commission ’s primary concerns was that reasonable accessory uses be allowed, and per the format of Orono ’s zoning code, uses not listed are not allowed. This resulted in a fairly long list of accessory uses which are relatively specific in scope. It also resulted in careful review of those uses which should be conditional rather than accessory. • Subdivision 7 This section adds a list of conditional uses, including boat clubs, on-demand launching, transient launching, chaner boat port-of-call, lake/lake structure maintenance base, and snowmobile sales/service. Planning Commission found that each of these uses may be a legitimate and reasoiubie activity at a marina within the B-2 Zone under certain circumstances, the common concern being adequate parking on the site. Note that all listed conditional uses are proposed to be allowed only for marinas that are in compliance with the landscaping and screening requirements. - Boat clubs were recognized as an alternative to individual boat ownership, that would expand the usage of a given boat with potential for increasing the percentage of boats in use at the peak times. A limit on the percentage of boats at a given marina allowed for boat club use was considered but not recommended. - On-demand launching of customer owned boats stored on the business site requires not only customer parking but boat/trailer storage space. It is perhaps unpredictable whether LMCD will require licensing of non-rack storage space for such use. although LMCD does currently license rack spaces for on-demand launching. Again, absent an intent by the City to fimher regulate numbers of boats on the lake, site congestion and provision of adequate parking are the main concerns. - Public transient boat launching via a ramp has historically been addressed in the B-2 parking requirements (Subd. 8) but was never listed as a permitted or conditional use. Adequate parking is the main concern, and Planning Coiamission suggests that Council be able to control the hours of operation. - Use of a site for a charter boat port-of-call relies on adequate parking primarily, but may also have negative impacts on neighboring property owners. The proposed wording allows the City to place appropriate conditions on this use to protect the public interest. - Planning Commission acknowledged that a lake/lake structure maintenance operations base may be a "necessary evil", providing a location for the less attractive but necessary lake maintenance activities to occur. The wording allows Council to limit such operations at Council ’s discretion. - Allowing snowmobile sales and service as a conditional use was the subject of considerable discussion by the Planning Commission and some marina operators. i 1 ’accessory uses". The B-2 Zone is the only ode allowance for accessory uses proposed accessory use in the context that it 7 use can exist unless a permitted use exists Jrono s zomng code, uses not listed are not Msory uses which are relatively specific in ses which should be conditional rather than nclading boat clubs, on-demand launching, te/lake strucmre maintenance base, and found that each of these uses may be a the B-2 Zone under certain circumstances, site. Note that all listed conditional uses are in compliance with the landscaping to individual boat ownership, that would il tor increasing the percentage of boats in ige of boats at a given marina allowed for ended. ts stored on the business site requires not pace. It is perhaps unpredictable whether age space for such use, although LMCD nd launching. Again, absent aii intent by n the lake, site congestion and provision 5 historically been addressed in the B-2 listed as a permitted or conditional useT uiing Commission suggests that Council on adequate parking primarily, but may ►perry owners. The proposed wording ►n this use to protect the public interest, '/lake structure maintenance operations tion for the less attractive but necessary 'ording allows Council to limit such conditional use was the subject of mission and some marina operators. Memo - Section 10.41 May 31. 1994 Page 4 Planning Commission concluded that the mere sale and service of snowmobiles may be a reasonable winter use for the marinas with the strong feeling that snowmobile rental and using marinas as a base of operation for snowmobiling is Qot appropriate. Questions were raised as to the need for demonstrating and testing snowmobiles as part of a sales and service activity. Planning Commission concluded that negative aspects of such activity can be regulated under existing codes regulating hours of operation, noise, etc. • Sales of 3.2 beer and cigarettes have been eliminated from the list of allowed conditional uses. Sale of prepackaged food becomes an accessory use. • Subdivision 8 Planning Commission recommends that parking areas "need not be paved", but must have storm water controls as required by the zoning code. The existing parking standards were fouiKl to be generally adequate if adhered to. A requirement for one parking space for each three seats of gross seats of charter capacity is added to provide a standard for that conditional use. Item 8(F) redefines the winter, summer and transition seasons, and requires maintenance of adequate parking during the transition seasons. This revision is intended to provide the marinas some degree of flexibility in the spring and fall busy times. Item 8(H) requires employee parking be designated in addition to required parking. Employee parking offsite and employees trespassing on private property have been a concern at at least one marina site. • Subdivision 9 This section adds clarification that storage of boats, vehicles, equipment and materials is not allowed in any required yard. Most of the marinas have existing pavement encroaching on one or more of tlwir required yards. Enforcement of this section may have a serious impact on some marinas, and a plan for enforcement needs to be developed for those properties which have not been formally approved for "required yard" variances. • Subdivision 10 This section adds a requirement for a physical barrier to encroach landscaping areas, which will help eliminate encroachments of vehicle parkmg, etc. into those areas. It also adds a requirement that groundcover be natural living matter, not more than 10% in rock beds. The City ’s intent in requiring "landscaping" is to provide green space, not rock beds. • Subdivision 11 - Item A omits reference to septic systems since all of the B-2 district is now sewered. The Planning Commission also strongly recommended that language to require not only head pumpout facilities but a designate port-a-potty dump station be added. - Item D recognizes the need for noise limitation, which is regulated in the zoning chapter. - Item G is revised to require that dumpsters be screened. f i Memo - Section 10.41 May 31. 1994 Page 5 Item H is a notation that styrofoam dock flotation has been prohibited. Item I separates gasoline storage language from dr>' stack requirements. Item K is intended to set reasonable limits on rummer and winter on-land boat density, by requiring development of a site plan for boat storage while maintaining appropriate ingress egress emergency access to this site while maintaining adequate parking. Inherent in the proposed wording is that the marina operator will deal w ith an envelope rather than a specific number of allowed boats, since regulating boats by number rather than location has generally not been effective in the past. • Subdivision 12 There are no proposed changes in area, height, lot width and yard requirements, since Planning Commission chose to not reduce the standards for existing mannas. After much discussion. Planning Commission concluded that the variance method for marina upgrades has been an effective control and that reducing standards to those which most existing marinas could meet or approach, would probably not provide a significant incentive for them to attempt upgrades, since the variance process would likely stiU be needed under a relaxed set of standards. * Subdivision 13 This section merely adds references to the Shoreland Management code requirements. • Subdivision 14 This section adds language requiring site and drainage plans upon any application (subdivision/variance/CUP/building permit) and gives the City authority to require construction of storm water control facilities. It adds shoreland management and flo<^ plain management regulations to those codes with which changes in grade must be in compliance. • Subdivision 15 . . - This section updates the reference to LMCD Ordinances regarding regulation ot structures in the lake. The current B-2 Code references LMCD Ordinance No. 1 which has been superseded by Chapter U of the LMCD code. Planning Conunission noted that without reference to LMCD’s code, the City would have no ordinance regulating docks. • Subdivision 17 . • j i • In this section, the current code allows by variance a four year installation and planting period for required landscaping. Staning in 1975. such variance was allowed to any applicant that agreed to a four year plan and "otherwise met all ot the provisions of this chapter . Smee none of the existing marinas have ever met all of the provisions of this chapter, that requirement is proposed to be dropped. The detailed landscape plan required is proposed to Prov ‘^some winter screening which was not in the code previously, and sets a new initiation date of to r 1, 1994. Also, the bonding requirement for landscaping plans at the marinas is eliminated. I I 1 i V. • ......I.* j - sr-'j 3n has been prohibited, ry stack requirements."Mer and winter on-Iand boat density storage while mainfa.nj«« °®"5ity,-Me 1 width and yard requirements, since or existing marinas. After much nreuim, for marina upg^^ta tar^I^ couldiMnt ^entive for them to attempt needed under a relaxed set of d Management code requirements. ^author,"'”” WHcation construction "te n™ T' '““gementI De in compliance. liwnces regarding regulation of > Ordinance No. I which has been Commission noted that without e regulating docks. >ur }-ear installation and plantine ice was allowed to any applicant 0 visions of this chapter". Since of tius chapter , that requirement M is proposed to provide some a new initiation date of October at die marinas is eliminated.♦ < Memo - Section 10.41 May 31. 1994 Page 6codeste^n"‘L"^Un.S.^?;^^^^^ nurin« using thisto terete their Imidscping. Ind ha,C^ideretm,. CU|. approval to landscaping compliancc”r; 10^,^ • Subdivision 18 As noted in the Subdivision 15 comments I Mrri rnH^c i. • si«e the 1970 and 1971 ordinances referred to !te B 2^e '™“ update the reference to the LMCD codes. section is intended to • Subdivision 19 repUces that reference with**^tion*10 di^w'^ h^h**** districts, and dealing with marinas. ’ ^ commercial zone Stair Recommendatjon the June^6th public makeTrwoi^ Public comments at proposed amendment. ' recommendation to Council regarding adoption of the I #ropHAM HAne memohandum (612)333-«l TO:tU» •MikeGai City of Oroao FROM: RE: Kevin Sts *m1'%Vjf^ Proposed Amendments to Zoniiif Code Section ia41 B-2 Lakeshore Business Distrfet Standards«Eofoioeability Questioni DATE;July 22. 1994 Attached please find a levised veisioa of my July 17, 1994 memorandum to you reprding the above-referenced matter. 1 have slightly revised my description of the three options available to the City in bridging noo^onfotmiog uses into conformity with new regulations in an effort to make it lem confusing. Please feel free to contact me if you have any tjuestions. cc: TJBanea 21902051972 7/22M JUU 2 5 1994 CtTY OF ORONO . M .dUMMSMW • % r ► POPHAM HAIK MEMQRANPIM 3300 Rpcr Jaflkay Towtr 222 Sautb Niotb S&eet MinoeapoUs. Minoeioa 35402 (612, 333-4800 TO:Mike Gaffron City of Orono FROM: RE: Kevin Staunton Proposed Amendments to Zoning Code Section 10.41 B-2 Lakeshore Business District Standards • Enforceability Questions DATE: July 17, 1994 (Revised July 22, 1994) I am writing in response to your memo to Tom Barrett regarding the above-referenced matter. Your memo expresses concern regarding the enforceability of the proposed amendments to section 10.41. You have sought our advice about how to best accomplish the substantive goals in the proposed amendments given the fact that many existing marinas in the City of Orono conduct business activities or use their land in ways contrary to the proposed amendments. This memo is designed to respond to your enforcement inquiries and address an issue regarding what is the most appropriate regulatory vehicle for each of the changes proposed. ENFORCEABILITY The first issue raised by your memo is the City’s ability to enforce any of the changes being contemplated. Specifically, you are concerned about the ability to enforce some of these amendments against marinas that have been operating for years (or even decades) in a manner that would be contrary to the new amendments. As a general matter, the City is free to enforce the new amendments even on marinas that have been (legally) operating for a long time in a manner that would be contrary to the new amendments. The real issue is how the City may treat preexisting nonconforming uses that were lawful prior to adoption of the amendments. Preexisting non-conforming uses that were lawful prior to the adoption of land use regulations rendering them unlawful may be treated in one of three ways. First, the use may be allowed to remain or continue. Under this option, the property owner is allowed to continue the nonconforming use of the property indefinitely so long as the use is not changed, expanded, or intensified. The theory behind this option is that nonconforming uses will gradually be eliminated through normal wear and tear, obsolescence, or destruction by fire. 219/220314137/22/94 the elgmgnta, or natural disaster.' Second, the use may be eliminated by requiring lawfully pre-existing noncoofonning uses to immediately come into compliance with the new regulatioos. Whether that requirement results in a "taking* will depend on the particular circumstances. Third, noncoofonning uses may be eliminated over a period of lime through This mcchanism requires a nonconforming use to terminate after a prescribed period of time elapses. The prescribed period of time under such a mechanism must be sufficient to allow the property owner to recoup his or her invesunent in the nonconforming use. As mentioned above, the Oty may force a particular property owner with a preexisting lawful use of his or her property to comply with the new regulations. The question then becomes whether that propt^ owner can come into compliance and still be able to use the property in the way it was being used prior to the City’s adoption of the amendments. For instance, an existing marina may have so little remaining open space that it is impossible to fit the required number of paridng spaces on the open space on the property. Requiring strict cmnpliance with the requirements of the new provisions of the code would make the marina ineligible for a conditional use permit, thereby forcing the property owner out of business and probably triggering a "taking ” claim. Conversely, an existing marina may have sufficient space for the parking stalls required by the new regulations. Under such circumstances, the marina would be able to comply with the new regulations and obtain a conditional use permit An argument that the property had been "taken” would be considerably less persuasive under such circumstances. Because the consequences of bringing preexisting nonconforming marina uses into compliance are so dependent on the circumstances of the particular marina, we recommend an approach that reserves for the City the flexibility to deal with these nonconforming uses on a case-by-case basis. The simplest way for the City to enhance its flexibility is to allow variances to the conditional use permit scheme created by the zoning code amendments. By allowing variances to the conditional use permit requirements in cases where imposition of those requirements would visit a particularly harsh hardship upon the applicant, the City can avoid "taking ” the property. In each case, the City can decide which of the three approaches outlined above is the most effective way to ultimately eliminate nonconforming uses. This wiU allow the City to aggressively enforce the zoning amendments in circumstances where little, if any, hardship will be suffered while also avoiding unnecessary takings claims by granting variances for those marinas that need them to stay in business. *As you know. Orono’s code has provisions relating to the circumstances under which a property owner may rebuild and continue a nonconforming use after destruction by fire, the elements, or natural disaster. 21M20S14I3 7/22/94 APPROPRIATE REGULATORY VEfflCXE The second issue that comes to mind as I review the proposed j, ivhetber the zoninf code is the appropriate vehicle for all of the refulatocy goab you seek to implement Generally, the City's zoning code is the appropriate vehicle for regulating use that will not change from day to day. For instance, the type of business to be conducted, the size and location of buildings and other structures, the percenuge of the lot which may be occupied, and the size of yards and other open spaces are regulatory goals which can only be accomplished through a zoning ordinance. Sfifi Minn. StaL i 462357 (1994). One of the tools available to a Qty in regulating these types of land uses is the conditional use permit See Minn. Stat 1462.3595. Conditional use permits allow a City to certain types of land uses within a particular zoning district based upon the applicant's satisfaction of certain standards and criteria articulated by ordinance. Id. Uses of land that might change from day to day. on the ocher hand, need not be regulated by the zoning code. Such uses include the specific activities that are conducted on the property as opposed to the physical characteristics the site and the general nature of the activity being conducted. These specific activities (such as hours of operation) may be regulated through a licensing scheme pursuant to the Qty's police powers. In the proposed amendments to Section 10.41, most of the regulations are appropriately part of the zoning code in that they deal with the physical characteristics of the site and the general nature of the business being conducted thereon. Amendments addressing specific activities, such as the on-land density of boat storage or incorporation by reference of LMCD regulations do not need, however, to be included in the zoning code. Although there is nothing improper about including them in the zoning code, you may want to consider moving these to the marina licensing section of the code to j^ve the City more flexibility in amending these requirements at a future date. (As you know, it is much more procedurally cumbersome to amend the zoning code than it is to amend other sections of the code like the licensing provisions.) CONCLUSION I hope this information is helpful. I would be happy to come out this evening and visit with the Planning Commission as it considers these amendments. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. cc: Thomas J. Barrett 219020514137)22^4 r: ' i . f. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ d\ y 'o ‘ ^' DATE: Sq)teinSer 9, 1994 c ITEM NO: n <:7 mip 1»•■ ^Administrator Reviewed: Name Rod Moone Titk City Administrator Item Description: Liquor Violation Resolutions Agenda Sectioi^ City Adnilnistratofs Report At its May 9, 1994 meeting the Council held an administrative hearing regarding the violation of the City ’s liquor ordinance by three liquor establishments in the City. The attached resolutions reflect the action taken by the Council. The Council suyed the imposition of any penalties subject to no further violations by these liquor establishments. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to adopt the resolutions reflecting the enforcement action taken by the Council in response to liquor violations. ‘ -r RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE LIQUOR LICENSE OF JIMMIE*S LOUNGE PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.02, SUBDIVISION 4H WHEREAS, Jimmie’s Lounge, 3380 Shoreline Drive, is a licensed liquor establishment with the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City Code, the City Council has the authority to revoke a liquor license upon the conviction of any licensee or agent or employee of the licensee for violating any law relatii^ to the sale or possession of non-intoxicating malt liquor, wine or liquor upon the premises of the licensee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City Code, the City Council has the authority to suspend a liquor license for a period not to exceed 60 days for such a conviction if it appears at a hearing that the violation was not willful; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City Code, the decision to suspend or revoke a liquor license is within the sole discretion of the City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City code, no such suspension or revocation may be issued or take effect until the licensee has bMn afforded an opportunity for a hearing before the council, a committee of the council or hearing examiner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FINDINGS 1.On November 5, 1993, an employee of Jimmie’s Lounge was convicted of violating state statute and City Code provisions prohibiting the sale of liquor to minors 2.Jimmie G. Holtz is the licensee holding the license issued by the Orono City Council for Jimmie’s Lounge. 3380 Shoreline Drive in Orono. 3.On May 9, 1994, the City Council held a hearing for the purpose of deciding whether the liquor license for Jimmie’s Lounge should be revoked or suspended. At that hearing. Jimmie Holtz appeared before the City Council and provided the 1 r I • 4.The violatkMi of the law resulting from the above sale of alcohol to a minor was inadvertent. 5.Jimmie Holtz has assured the City Council that steps have been taken to protect against similar violations of the law in the future. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council concludes that the vioUtion of law for which Jimmie Holtz ’s employee was convicted was not willful. ORDER Based upon the above findings and conclusion, and its authority pursuant to Section4.02 Subd. 4H of the City Code, the Orono City Council hereby orders that: 1 The liquor license for Jimmie’s Lounge, 3380 Shoreline Drive, is suspended for a period of two (2) business days. 2.The above suspension is stayed for a period of one year from the date of the hi.artng held in this matter on the condition that there are no further violations of state or local liquor laws by the licensee during that time period. 3.In the event that there are further violations of state or local liquor laws by the licensee or arising in any way out of the licensed premises at 3380 Shoreline Drive in Orono, the City Council shall, at its sole discretion, have the authority to order the immediate imposition of the above two-day suspension. 4.In the event tha* there are no further violations o» jtate or local liquor laws during the one-year period outlined above, the record of this suspension shall be expunged from the licensee’s record in the city s files. .............n... Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held dus 12th day of September, 1994. Ph ATTEST:Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk f! i a u .. .............-■■■’— ■TTtr rh- RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE OF O’SULLIVAN ’S PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.02, SUBDIVISION 4H WHEREAS, O’Sullivan’s, 2420 Shadywood Road, is a licensed non-intoxicating malt liquor establishment within the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City Code, the City Council has the authority to revoke a non-intoxicating malt liquor license upon the conviction of any licensee or agent or enq)loyee of the licensee for violating any law relating to the sale or possession of non-intoxicating malt liquor, wine or liquor upon the premises of the licensee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City Code, the City Council has the authority tc suspend a non-intoxicating malt liquor license for a period not to exceed 60 days for such a conviction if it appears at a hearing that the violation was not willful; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City Code, the decision to suspend or revoke a non-intoxicating malt liquor license is within the sole discretion of the City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City code, no such suspension or revocation may be issued or take effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing before the council, a committee of the council or hearing examiner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE FI RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1.On November 19, 1993, an employee of O’Sullivan’s was convicted of violating state statute and City Code provisions prohibiting the sale of liquor to minors. 2.John O’Sullivan is the licensee holding the license issued by the Orono City Council for O’Sullivan’s, 2420 Shadywood Road in Orono. y . .. :t r L 3.On May 9, 1994, the City Council held a hearing for the purpose of deciding whether the non-intoxicating nult liquor license for O’Sullivan ’s should be revoked or suspended. At that hearing, John O’Sullivan appeared before the City Council and provided the City Council with testimony. The violation of the law resulting from the above sale of alcohol to a minor was inadvertent. 5. John O’Sullivan has assured the City Council that steps have been taken to protect against similar violations of the law in the future. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Qrono City Council concludes that the violation of law for which John O’Sullivan ’s employee was convicted was not willful. ORDER Based upon the above findings and conclusion, and its authority pursuant to Section 4.02 Subd. 4H of the City Code, the Orono City Council hereby orders that: 1.The non-intoxicating malt liquor license for O’Sullivan ’s, 2420 Shadywood Road, is suspended for a period of two (2) business days. 2.The above suspension is stayed for a period of one year from the date of the hearing held in this matter on the condition that there are no further violations of state or local liquor laws by the licensee during that time period. 3.In the event ibat there are further violations of state or local liquor laws by the licensee or arising in any way out of the licensed premises at 2420 Shadywood Road in Orono, the City Council shall, at its sole discretion, have the authority to order the immediate imposition of the above two-day suspension. 4.In the event that there arc no further violations of state or local liquor laws during the one-year period outlined above, the record of this suspension shall be expunged from the licensee’s record in the city ’s files. J - v-./f# RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE OF ORONO SELF-SERVICE PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.02, SUBDIVISION 4H WHEREAS, Orono Self-Service, 2160 Wayzata Boulevard, is a licensed non-intoxicating malt liquor establishment within the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City Code, the City Council has the authority to revoke a non-intoxicating malt liquor license upon the conviction of any licensee or agem or employee of the licensee for violating any law relating to the sale or possession of non-intoxicating malt liquor, wine or liquor upon the premises of the licensee: and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City Code, the City Council has the authority to suspend a non-intoxicating malt liquor license for a period not to exceed 60 days for such a conviction if it appears at a hearing that the violation was not willful; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City Code, the decision to suspend or revoke a non-intoxicating malt liquor license is within the sole discretion of the City Council; and WHEREAS, {Mirsuant to Section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City code, no such suspension or revocation may be issued or take effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing before the council, a committee of the council or hearing examiner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. On November 19, 1993, an employee of Orono Self-Service was convicted of violating state statute and City Code provisions prohibiting the sale of liquor to minors. 2. William Wear is the licensee holding the license issued by the Orono City i • ’rb'i' 3. On May 9, 1994, the City Couif.'il held a hearing for the purpose of deciding whether the non-intoxicating malt lu.^ior license for Orono Self-Service should be revoked or suspended. At that heanng, William Wear appeared before the City Council and provided the City Council with testimony. 4. The violation of the law resulting from the above sale of alcohol to a minor was inadvertem. 5. William Wear has assured the City Council that steps have been taken to protect against similar violations of the law in the future. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon one or more of the above findings, tte Orono City Council concludes that the violation of law for which William Wear ’s employee was convicted was not willful. ORDER Based upon the above fmdings and conclusion, and its authority pursuant to Section 4.02, Subd. 4H of the City Code, the Orono City Council hereby orders that: 1. 2. 3. The non-intoxicating malt liquor l^nse for Orono Self-Service, 2160 Wayzata Boulevard, is suspended for a period of two (2) business days. The above su^nsion is stayed for a period of one year from the date of the hearing held in this matter on the condition that there are no further violations of state or local liquor laws by the licensee during that time period. In the event that there are further violations of state or local liquor laws by the licensee or arising in any way out of the licensed premises at 2160 Wayzata Boulevard* in Orono, the City Council shall, at its sole discretion, have the authority to order the immediate imposition of the above two-day suspension. In the event that there are no further violations of state or local liquor laws during the one-year period outlined above, the record of this suspension shall be expunged from the licensee’s record in the city ’s files. > ’ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 9. ITEM NO: * V Department Approval: NaiK Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Secl|gii: City Adminislrators Report Item Description: Establishment of Dates for the Truth In Taxation Hearing and Selection of Date for December Council Meeting Truth In Taxation Hearing The Council at its September 1 budget work session esublished November 29 as the date of the Truth In Taxation hearing. If the hearing needs to be continued the date selected for the reconvened bearing was December 19. If the hearing is completed on November 29, the final 1995 budget will be adopted at the regular Council meeting in December. December Council Meetinc The Council normally meets only once in December due to the fourth Monday falling in the midst of the holiday season. When the schedule of meetings was adopted at the beginning of the year, the December Council meeting was scheduled for the 19th (the third Monday) rather than the 12th (the second Monday). Either of these dates are acceptable to staff. It may be preferable to reschedule the December meeting to the 12th, if this works for the Council, since this is when the public would expect the Couix:il to meet. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A. Motion to establish Tuesday, November 29 as the date of the city’s Truth In Taxation hearing and to establish December 19 as the provisional date for a reconvened hearing if required. B. Motion to establish the date of the regular Council meeting in December . A-' -*^lember 9,VO:/S'.%o^genda Se^^: -ity Adiniaistraton tcportf Date for December29 as the date of the ate selected for the k'ember 29, the final3nday falling in the December Council J 12th (the second e to reschedule the sn the public would Truth In Taxation jconvened hearing iber . 1994 ouoNo cn Y Mi'.ifi INC. sciiii:i)ijij;KElrj . 7:30 r.M. Council Meeting 2ml & 4th MondnyC3 7:00 P.M. rianning Commission 3rd Mondn (May through October 1st Monday as an alternate date)7:15 P.M. Park CoinmissiQii Adopted 12/13/93^ Orndal llolid.'iy 1994January- S M T W T 1994 F S m May 1994 F S February S M T W■ 1 2 6^09 13U3I i5 16 20:25'^2>23 27 June S M T 1994 F S 1994 F S 22g3|24 25 26 27 28 19(2iP21 22 23 29 X 261^ 20 29 30 ilBm September S M T W 4 11 1BQ3I21 25 “^^ 27 1994 T* F S 1 2 3 0 9 10 5 16 17 »2 23 24 19 30 ^fvTTriYuAMl.'r El_Kcrr\o\A October s' M T W T 1994 F S 5 6 7 0 11 12 13 14 15 __ 10 19 20 21 22 23124125 26 27 20 29 30 '3l Marcli S M 1994W T F S2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 16 17 10 19 13 24 25 26 31 kT\?G.OL\K»tT QtUlCUSi July 1994 S M T W T F S A 1 2 3 6 7 0 9 lOtj 12 13 14 15 16 17111)19 20 21 22 23 April 1994 24W 31 26 27 28 29 November 1994 5 M T W T F S . 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^ 13\14ll ^ 20 (2D 22\23 >< 26 27\20] 29 ^0 E Gcmgp.m. r.LVJcrcioM S M T W T F S A <23 A 5 6 7 8 9 10\ijri2 13 14 15 16 17 06119 20 21 22 23 24 gS| 26 27 28 29 30 August 1994 S M 1 W T F S 3 4 5 6 7 Taj 9 10 11 12 13 14(]»16 17 18 19 20 2ltSll23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 . December S M T US 20 21 22 ^ 24 ^ 27 28 29 30 31 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: Sepie&ibcr 8, 1994 ITEM NO,: Department Approval: N mbc John Gerfaardson Title Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed: /r-1 Agenda Se^tiOHi^ City At^itipisl^tj^’s Item Description: Fall Cleanup Day The City of Orono Public Works Department is planning a Fall Cleanup Day for Saturday, October 15, 1994 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. The collection will be behind the Public Works Building at 2700 Kelley Parkway. The following items will not be accepted: recyclable items such as newspaper, corrugated cardboard, tin, aluminum cans, and plastic bottles with a neck chemicals brush, leaves or grass truck loads The following items will be accepted for a fee: AppliaiKes $10.00* TVs and stereos 57.00* Tires $2.00* Construction material $12.00/Cubic yard * Prices subject to change. Construction materials consist of, but are not limited to, concrete, lumber, doors, moldings, boards, landscape timbers, sheetrock, tile, fences, dock sections, etc. An average pickup or two-wheel trailer holds 3 cubic yards which will cost $36.00. Each load may be measured to determine actual cost. The company accepting the construction material will have personnel on the site to determine cost and collect the monies. Orono residents only! COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: It is recommended to designate October 15, 1994 as the Fall Cleanup Day with the above guidelines. ; r.t*• * 1 • 4 \ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION i ^ \ ^ DATE: Sept^Bber ^i99l\ ITEM NO: Department Approval: N mm R ob Moorse TMe City Adminifintor Administrator Reviewed:Afenda Section: City Adaiaistraton Report ItOB Deacription: Adoption of Preliminary 1995 Budget and Tax Levy 4 . ^ ^ ^atsi 1. 2. Resolution Adopting the Tax Levy Required to Fund the 1995 Budget Proposed 1995 General Fund Budget Expenditures and Revenues PicKgwiri Sute law requires cities to adopt a preliminary budget and tax levy by September 15 of each year. The levy apfnoved as of this date will be reflected in the Truth In Taxation information provided to all property owners. However, this levy can be reduced prior to final budget adoption after the Truth In Taxation hearings in December. The budget itself can also be changed during this same time period. The proposed 1995 budget is very fiscally conservative. The proposed tax levy to fund the budget is $2,016,170. This is an increase of $39,534 or 2.0% over the 1994 levy. The expenditures in the general fund which generally have the most significant in^iact on the tax levy are proposed at $3,230,240. This is an increase of $77,572 or 2.5% over 1994. Holding the general fund expenditures to this level enables the tax levy required to fund the general fund budget to remain unchanged from 1994. The budget does require an increase in the recycling fee from $16.00 per year to $23.20 per year. This increase will generate an additional $20,500 per year as a partial offset to the $31,000 reduction in the County’s recycling grant. The most significant change in the general fund expenditures is the addition of a 16th patrol officer in the Police Department. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the 1995 collectible tax levy at $2,016,170 and to establish tlw proposed 1995 General Fund expenditure Budget at $3,230,240. A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED 1995 BUDGET BE IT RESOLVED, by the City CouncU of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin. Minnesota that the proposed 1995 General Fund budget is determined to be as follows: ESTIMATED REVENUES Taxes - General Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines and Forfeits Interest Income Miscellaneous Transfers From Other Funds Use of Fund Balance TOTAL PROPOSED EXPENDITURES General Government Public Safety Street Maintenance Parks and Recreation Recycling Program Engineering - Unallocated Reimbursable Expenditures Special Projects and Contingency Transfers To Other Funds Subtotal General Fund Reserve TOTAL $1,647,940 133,000 441,935 880,140 66,000 41.000 35.000 -0- -0- $3.245.015 $ 677 1,754 501 56 76 13 28 57 64 ,434 ,12^ ,358 , 815 ,260 ,460 ,741 , 150 , 900 3,230 14 ,240 ■ 775 S3.245.,m5. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meetin held September 12, 1994. S ATTEST:Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PROPOSED 1994 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1995 BE IT RESOLVED* by the City council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following sums; as reduced by HACA, be levied for the current year, collectible in the 1995 upon the taxable property in the City of Orono, for the following purposes: General $1,647,940 G.O. Sewer Improvement Bond 1992 G.O. Sewer Improvement Bond 1985 18,000 42,945 G.O. Sewer, Water, Street Improvement Bond 1982 5,500 G.O. Water & Sewer Revenue Bond 1989 80,000 Bonds of Other Government Units H.R.A. Building Bond 1991 221,785 TOTAL SPECIAL LEVIES 368,230 TOTAL ALL LEVIES $2.016.170 The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held September 12, 1994. ATTEST: Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk ' .TA iFitA . a » Tit. <hr- r. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE:^^Wpt^rilber ^✓♦994 ITEM NO-^A't,^ . Department Approval: Naac Ron Moone Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda S&bnTmCity Repotl ItCBi Dcscriptioii: ^ « EsUiblishincfit of z Dstc for 2 Joint Work Session to Review the Results of the Pvk Survey An executive sununxry of the results of the pxrk survey and a tabulation of the responses to each of the survey questions is attached. These materials have also been provided to the Park Commission. The survey consultant is available to present and explain the results of the survey to the Council and the Park Commission. It may be most effective to do this at a joint work session of the Council and Park Commission. . \ potential date for the joint work session is Mohday, Cwtober which is the date of the monthly Paric Commission meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to establish a date and time for a joint work session of the Council and Park Commission to review the results of the park survey. -C 4. c. - . - 4--w- oiTy^ «X, ION DATE:^3^t^Slbcr X/tW ITEM ^ Agenda S&ton City AdmlniMtors Report the Results of the Park Survey abulation of the responses to each also been provided to the Park i explain the results of the survey ffective to do this at a joint work ober which is the date of the the Council and Park Conunission Amanfer. i^4 ORONO RESmENTIAL SURVEY Executive Summaiy UfthnMAfy. landomly selected households contacted by teleidione Admiittstered July 5 to 19, 1994 Average interview tinw of 26 minutes Proiectable within ± 5.0 to the entire adult population Bt^dtmUiL Avenge residential longevity of 18.7 years 22« of households cootaia seniors; 37« of households oontain ddldien 52% of honscholds headed by Prefesekmal-Tedinical and Owner-Managers 22% of households headed by retirees Average adult age of 48.0 years old 34% of housdndds contain a member of a private or public health club 24% of households contain aduhs perticipeting on organized sports teams 61% of housdioids containing childran participate in youdi teem sports 37% of households purchased a Hennepin PaAs sdeker 40% househddt raported being on a lake 31% of households 00 1/2 to one acre; 21 %, oo 1-2 acres; 20%, on less than 1/2 acre; 17% on 2-5 acres; 9% of hous^lds on dve or more acres B 96% rate their quality of life as *exceUent” or "good;" 52%, as "excellent.” 31% reported the "rural nature" of the community as what they Iflced meet about Hving in Orooo. 20% cited the "lakes.” 14% were partial to the community's "quiet.” "Convenient loeaikm” and "their bouse" were mentioned by 7% eeeh. "Nice people* were key to 5%, while "natural beauty* was uppermost to 4%. Smeller numbers reported "safe area,” "schools," "well-run lunity," and "everything.", I M "High taxes," at 18%, was the aspect of life in Qrono that residents liked leest. "Roads" and "traffic" were cited by 8% eech. "City govemmem" was an Usua for 7%, while "poor loeatian" was died by 6% of the reapoodeots. "Poor city services" and "growth" ware coooems for 5% each. Fewer residents mentioned "highway problems, ” "cost of services," "lack of shopping,” and "dty r^uladons." 9% were Cry Boo &ftn who stated there was "nothing" they disUkad. At least twaty-five percent of the housebdds in Orooo rqxMied daily or weekly pertidpedoo in the following leisure time activities: gardening, at 66%; bird watching, exercise walking or Page! ^ •. w . StptaiAer, 1994 jo(gu«, at 63%; biidwalchiog. at 54%; motor boatmg« at 33%: McycKfif. at 31 %; fiikmg, at 30%; oature waUci,at2t%; and, swimmifigtii lakes* at27%. 21% ofdwhousdiolAiftOioooalao laported paiticipatiaf or observinf lolttall/basabal] games at ktit weekly during the season. 10% of dm rcsideats felt the curicm mix of parks aod racreatioiial tenHties in and arouad the ity met the needs of their households. 18% disagreed and suggested more trails* more parks, playgroiind equipniaBt, more ballflelds. an ioe arena, or tennis oouits. 11 66% fdt the City of Orono alnady had adequate park fiKilities fbr city residents, while 26% fek the Cky should develop a more extensive park system. ml devdopiaent was deemed to be "preserving , and wikOifa habitatt* by 42% of the The chief priority for City park moie natutil bod areas, sod sample. 23% would prioritize "developing additional passive park bdlitiet, such as walking trails and flower gardens," while 13% opted for "developing addhional aetiv pork forilides, such as ball Adds and playgrounds.* 15% would support a combination approach. The average resident in Orono would support a $25.20 incieese in their yearly property taxes to fond the preservatiooofopea space or the development ofparks and recreational foeilhies. But, 36% wodd support no tneraase ior this purpose. Majorities of residents supported a property tax increase for (1) nature preserves, 62%-33%; (2) nature waUdiy and bicycling trails, 61%-35%; (3) ptayground eqyipmy for children, 56%-38%; (4) paved waOdng and bicycling trails, 53%-43%; and, nature observation areas, 51%-43"«. They opposed: (1) public water access for boats and/or canoes, 26%-68%; (2) outdoor basketball courts, n%>65%; (3) outdoor tennis courts, 28%‘65%; (4) outdoor volleyball courts, 31%-62%; (5) playfi^ for soccer, football, aoflball, and baseball, 35%-59%; (6) picnic areas and shelters, 39%*56%; and, (7) swimming beaches, 40%'54%. The avenge Orono resident would drive at least 16.2 minutas to a park or recreai of intmst to til il focility 64% supported the charging of a user fee for city-owned end operated perk and recraadonal fodltlies; 30% opposed the use of user fact to undarwrite and racover tha cost of oonstnicting and operating City park and ncreanonal focilities. The avenge percentage of the oostt that residents iwiuld hope to recover through user foes was 43.8%. V « j M I I t 58% fovored a trail system linkini peris and recreational facilities within die lunity; but, only 36% stiD fiivored it if a property tax increaae were required to develop the ^stem. If a citywide trail system were built, thou^, 87% ftlt it should serve both pedestrians end bicyclists. 57% fovored inconttpt the development of additional trails in Orono going "cross-county" timiiT to the Luce line; 32% opposed it But if a property tax increase were required to develop these trails, siqiport dropped to 37% of the reqxmdens. Among those supporting this trail concept 74% indicated they would continue to support h even if the trail were to run by their property. Page 2 r r- r September, 1994 73% iiMd the maintaaiict of Ovono ptrk and recreatiofttl ftcilhics as *«tcellem* or *«ood»* wbila only fifteen pageant tern it as *ooly fidr* or •poor." This ratinf was kwer than the Mctiop ditan Area snbarban aveiate of 89% ^ipioval. Most lesidanM saw no Bead for better mamtananee or improacm ent of aadi on a short list of park fiiciliiias. Tlw oriy foeility showing a ■rfit in pegc^tioHs of need was *rtstfooms,* atea 48% saw a need for unprovemcnis and 52% did 47% of the sample ffponad Guotacting the City of Qnono 10 seek oifofiiiation. get services, or lodge oomplaiois; tliia level of oontact was twice as as the IfotgopolitaB Arm snbuibaR norm. Among thcaeconmcting the City, 68% were mtisfied with the service they mcehred, while 27% were disgaiiafied Moat disatisfoction stemmed Cram results, mthar than process or ttcatment. 46% visitsd City HaU during the past yean the Metropolitan Area lubuihan norm was 30% Among viiilors, high levels of satisfoctioB was reported: 74% mtad theoonvenienoeofCity Hall hoars a "cioelloat* or *good;* 18%, a *only foir ” at *poon* 81% rated the waitaig dine for lervioe positivciy, while 12% rated it losrcr: 84% rated the oouitesy of the staff a *eicellent ” or "good,* whilell% aavita*oiily fiur*or*poor,* and, 72% rated the ellicieney of the naff poaitivaly, while 19% wae mors crhieal in judgment. Fesidents primarily relied upon local newnnpers a their principal source of information about event and aedvitia iraapiriBg in Orono. 74% mentiooed either newspapers in general or a specific pUMicaiioQ. The *giapeviae* wa cnidal ibr nine percent of the aampk. Wewiletteri and mailings ware relied upon by eight percent, while three perc^ depended on school district materials. CatdMskmsi • A fflidarity of residents do not see the need for the devekipnicot of a more extensive park and racteadon system in Orono. • Residwts expressed support fo cowftgpr and le cowt wfoitoiir qf nar dbgem to preserving more natural land area, such a wetlands, scenic open ipaca, and wildlifo habitats, in the community. • - j• While mgjoritia fovor more extensive trails in Oono in otmeapt, majoritiM ftvor increasing taxa for a system linldog parks and racreedonal facilitia nor one "cross-country. * • In recreatiooal planning for the community, resideBts placed an accent on recreational pursuits revolving around trail-related activitia - sudi a hiking, walking, and bicyefing •> and lake-related activitia - such a swimming and boating. • Residents supported tax increasa for recreatiooal focilitia related to pwarfor fotenr ibmpmkbM^ naturepreserva, trails, playground equipment, and natureobservatoarea ~a oppe^ to active leisure-time pursuits. • Users fees were viewed a an epprapriau meme of underwriting the construction and operating costs of recreationa] focilitia. Pages l(M-~ . Decision Resources, Ltd. 3128 Desm Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 ORONO RESIDENTIAL SURVEY RECREATION AUDIT STUDY July, 1994 Hello, I'm _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of Decision Resources, Ltd., a polling firm located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the City of Orono to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the community. This survey is being conducted because City Council and Park Commission members and City Staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions aUdout parks and recreational needs in the future. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. 1. Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS....6% you lived in the City of Orono? TWO TO FIVE YEARS. . . .16% FIVE TO TEN YEARS. . .27% TEN TO TWENTY YEARS...23% 20 TO 30 YEARS. . . . .13% OVER THIRTY YEARS. . .16% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . .0% 2. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . .52% life in Orono -- excellent, good, GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . .44% only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . .3% POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . .0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .1% 3. What do you like most about living in Orono? NO ANSWER, 3%; RURAL, 31%; QUIET, 14%; SAFE, 3%; LOCA TION, 7%; LAKE, 20%; PEOPLE, 5%; SCHOOL, 2%; HOUSE, 7%; NATURAL BEAUTY, 4%; EVERYTHING, 3%; WELL-RUN, 2%. 4. And, what do you like least about living in Orono? NO ANSWER, 17%; NOTHING, 9%; TAXES, 18%; ROADS, 8%; GROWTH, 5%; HIGHWAY PROBLEM, 4%; COST OF SERVICES, 2%; LOCATION, 6%; CITY GOVERNIIENT, 4%; NO SHOPS, 2%; CITY SERVICES, 5%; CITY REGULATIONS, 4%; SCATTERED, 5%. I would like to read you a list of recreational activities. For each one, tell me how often you and other members of your house hold engage in that activity. Do you or any members of your household engage in that activity, weather and season permitting, almost daily, weekly, several times each month, monthly, several times each year, or never. Again, for seasonal activities, please tell me how often you or household members participate during the season. Also, please remember we are interested in the number of times you or other household members participate. (ROTATE LIST) A# • * V 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. fishing? swimming in lakes? swimming in pools? hiking? bicycling? golfing? cross-coxmtry skiing? sno«nnobiling? nature walks? horseback riding? canoeing? exercise walking or jogging? motor boating? sailing? camping? picnicking? bird watching? gardening? rollerblading or roller skating? archery? using children's play ground equipment? DAIL WEEK SEVR MONT YEAR NEVR DK/R 3%15%10%18%24%32%0% 8%19%12%16%14%30%0% 6%17%6%13%13%45%1% 12%18%8%21%14%28%0% 10%21%11%18%7%34%0% 5%19%6%14%10%46%0% 2%10%6%11%12%60%0% 2%6%4%6%8%75%0% 5%23%11%20%14%27%0% 1%2%2%2%5% 89%0% 2%5%4%11%16%64%0% 28%35%6% 9% 3%18%1% 7%26%8%11%10%39%0% 1%5%2%4%9%79%0% 0%3%6%16%18%58%0% 3%12%14%26%16%30%0% 41%13%3%4%6%34%0% 46%20%2%5%3%24%0% 2%12%4%4%2%75%1% 0%2%2%5%3%87%1% 4%11%7%11%3%65%0% For the following activities, tell me how often you and other members of your household engage in that activity or go to ob serve that activity. Do you or any members of your household engage in or observe that activity, weather and season permit ting, almost daily, weekly, several times each month, monthly, several times each year, or never. Again, for seasonal activi ties, please tell me how often you or household members partici pate or observe during the season. And, please keep in mind we are only asking about local amateur, school district, and/or neighborhood games. DAIL WEEK SEVR MONT YEAR NEVR DK/R 26.softball or baseball?4%17%3%9%8%59%0% 27.volleyball?1%7%2%6%6%79%0% 28.hockey?3%7%3%8%7%74%0% 29.outdoor ice skating?3%10%4%14%10%59%0% 30.soccer or football?3%14%4%8%8%64%0% 31.tennis?2%9%5%10%8%66%0% 32.basketball?2%8%3%8%6%73%0% 33.Do you feel that the current mix YES. ,. .80% and number of parks and recrea NO. . ., .18% tional facilities in and around the community meet the needs of you and other members of your household? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. ■O IF "NO," ASK; 34. What additional parks and recreational facilities would you like to see offered residents? NO ANSWER, 6%; MORE TRAILS, 20%; ICE ARENA, 7%; BALLFIELDS, 10%; PLAY EQUIPMENT, 20%; TENNIS COURTS, 6%; BUY OPEN SPACE, 3%; MORE PARKS, 20%; OTHER, 10%; 35.Do you feel the City of Orono should develop a more extensive park system or do you feel that current facilities are adequate for city residents? SHOULD DEVELOP. . . . .26% ARE ADEQUATE. . . . . .66% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .8% The City could undertake a number of park and recreational devel opment efforts. 36. Which of the following would you PRIORITY A. . . . . . . .42% make the chief priority of the PRIORITY B. . . . . . . .13% City of Orono_ _ (ROTATE) PRIORITY C. . . . . . . .23% A. Preserving more natural land SOMETHING ELSE (VOL)...l% areas, such as wetlands, see- ALL OF ABOVE (VOL)....15% nic open spaces, and wildlife NONE OF ABOVE (VOL)_ _6% habitats; DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .1% B. Developing additional active park facilities, such as ball fields and playgrounds; C. Developing additional passive park facilities, such as walk ing trails and flower gardens. The preservation of open space or the development of parks and recreational facilities by the City of Orono would probably require a property tax increase. Suppose the City were to pro pose parks and recreational development efforts along the lines we have been discussing.... 37. How much would you be willing to NOTHING. . . . . . . . . .36% see your yearly property taxes $30.00. . . . . . . . . .19% increase to fund the parks and $60.00. . . . . . . . . .11% recreational development efforts? $90.00. . . . . . . . . . .0% Let's say, would you be willing to $120.00. . . . . . . . . .5% see your yearly taxes increased by $150.00. . . . . . . . . .1% $_ _? (CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING $180.00. . . . . . . . . .5% POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING DON'T KNOW. . . . . . . .13% ON ANSWER) How about $ per REFUSED. . . . . . . . . .3% year? (REPEAT PROCESS) I would like to read you a list of park and recreation facilities which could become part of a City of Orono Park System. In order to fund the acquisition of land and the development of any facil ities, though, an increase in property taxes would be required. For each one, please tell me if you would strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a moderate 'r ' ■ ^ ^ property tax increase to fund its development. Icnow, just say so. (ROTATE LIST) Picnic areas and shelters? Swimming beaches? Playground equipment for children? Paved waDcing and bicycling trails? Nature walking and bicycling trails? Outdoor tennis courts? Outdoor basketball courts? Nature observation areas? Playfields, for soccer, football, softball and baseball? Public water access for boats and/or canoes? Outdoor volleyball courts? Nature preserves? Now, let's consider a park or recreations would drive to.... 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. ent.If you don't STS SMS SMO STO DKR 10%29%25%31%5% 15%25%23%31%6% 20%36%15%23%7% 24%29%18%25%5% 25%36%13%22%5% 10%18%31%34%8% 11%17%31%34%8% 18%33%17%26%7% 14%21%28%31%7% 10%16%24%44%6% 8%23%29%33%8% 26% 36% L facility 11% that 22% you 6% 50.On average, how many minutes are you willing to drive to a park or recreational facility of interest to you? LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES.9% 5 TO 10 MINUTES. . . .15% 11 TO 15 MINUTES. . . .18% 20 MINUTES. . . .19% 30 MINUTES. . . .24% 45 MINUTES. . . .2% 60 MINUTES. . . .2% OVER 60 MINUTES. . . . .3% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED. .5% 16 21 31 46 TO TO TO TO some communities charge user fees ^de^ite and reco«^^^ - • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- —- - — - for the appropriate seasonal usage. 51. In general, do you support or STRONGLY SUPPORT. . .40% SUPPORT. . . . . . . . . .24% 12%oppose charging a user fee for 12% city-o^ed and operaced^park^^^ STRONGLY‘OPPOSE!!!!!! ilSt pSrSswSlE) o“yoS fe^l strongly DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.......7% that way? \ 52.costs recovered through user fees, 25% would you attempt to recover less 50% - 75% than twenty-five percent, t%renty- five percent to fifty percent, fifty to seventy-five percent, seventy-five percent to one-hun- <ix‘ed percent, or more than one - hundred percent of the costs? less than 25%. ....17%25% - 50%. . . . . ....26%50% - 75%. . . . . ....13%75% - 100%. . . . . . . .11% OVER 100%. . . . . . DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . .28% iLet’s talk about pedestrian and bicycle trails- - S3.Would you favor or oppose a trail system linking parks and recrea tional facilities within the com munity? (IF -FAVOR," ASK:) Would you still favor it if a property tax increase were required to de velop the system? FAVOR/STILL FAVOR. . .36% FAVOR/NO. . . . . . . . .22% FAVOR/UNSURE. . . . . . .12% OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . .26% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .5% 54.If a citywide trail system were built, should it primarily serve pedestrians, primarily serve bicy clists, or serve both? PRIMARY PEDESTRIANS- -6% PRIMARY BICYCLISTS. . .3% both. . . . . . . . . .®7% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED. . .4% The City of Orono's current trail system plan calls for trails adjacent to the City's major local roadways. V\A oif'inrT **-countiTV, Similar to tne Liuceadjacent to tne cicy s majui. trails would be siting them -cross-country, similar to the Luce Line Trail. 55. Would you favor or oppose addi tional trails going -cross-coun try- similar to the Luce Line? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY FAVOR. . . . .25% FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . .32% OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . .22% STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . .10% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED- -11% IF -STRONGLY FAVOR- OR -FAVOR,- ASK: 56.Would you still support it if a property tax increase were required to develop these trails? YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . NO. . . . . . . . . . . . .32% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED. .4% 57.Would you still favor it if YES. . . . . . . . . . . . .74% the trail were to run by your NO. . . . ... . . . . . . property? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . .7% Moving on.. 58. In general, how would you rate the EXCELLENT maintenance of Orono Park and rec- GOOD reation facilities -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor? 19% 54% ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . .12% POOR. . . . . . . . . . . .3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....13% • 2TZ___J YES NO DKR 25%26%49% 19%40%42% 14%54%33% 14%31%56% 16%43%41% 9%46%46% VCG . . . .47% .. . . . . . . . . ... . . .53% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .0% For* each of the following characteristics* please rate the Orono City Hall facility or staff as excellent, good, onlyfair, or poor?71. Convenience of City Hall hours? 72. Waiting time for service? 73. Courtesy of the staff? 74. Efficiency of the staff? IF ■EXCELLENT'* OR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS #71-#74, ASK: 75. Do you recall which Department you were visiting? EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK-R 17%57%14%4%8% 22%57%10%2%9% 29%55%9%2%6% 22%50%16%3%9% NO ANSWER, 30%; PERMIT, 28%; PARK AND REC, 1%; PUBLIC WORKS, 4%; PLANNING, 9%; FRONT DESK, 10%; POLICE, 5%; COUNCIL, 5%; OTHER, 8%. 76.What is your principal source of information about events and activities going on in the City of Orono? NO ANSWER, 5%; PEOPLE, 9%; PAPER, 28%; LAKER, 9%; SUN, 21%; NEWSLETTER, 5%; PIONEER PRESS, 16%; FROM SCHOOL, 3%; MAILINGS, 3%; OTHER, 2%. Now, just a few more questions for statistical purposes.... 77.On how large of a lot is your present residence located -- less than 1/2 acre, 1/2 acre to one acre, one acre to two acres, two acre to five acres, five acres to 10 acres, or over 10 acres? LESS THAN 1/2 ACRE....20% 1/2 TO ONE ACRES......31% ONE TO TWO ACRES......21% TWO TO FIVE ACRES.....17% FIVE TO 10 ACRES..._ _6% OVER 10 ACRES. . . DON'T KNOW/REFUSED._ _2% Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start with the oldest. Be sure to include yourself. 78. First, persons 65 or over?NONE. . . . . . . . . . . .78% ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . .10% TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . .12% 79. Adults under 65?NONE. ONE. . TWO. . THREE 15% 12% 59% .9% FOUR OR MORE. . . . . . .5% -- » • * •m:- -- r> 80. School-aged children . . . . . . . . . . . . or pre-.chooi.r.7 5S?!!!!!!!!!!! 1ii THREE. . . . . . . . . . . .7% FOUR OR MORE. . . . . . .3% IF CHILDREN ARE PRESENT ASK: 81. Do any of your children cur- YES. . . . . . . . . . . .61% rently participate in team NO. . . . ... . . . . . .38« s^rts?*^ DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .1% 82. What is your occupation and, if applicable, the occupation of your spouse or partner? PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL, 15%; OWNER-MANAGER, 37%; C^RICAL- SALES, 12%; BLUE COLLAR, 10%; RETIRED, 22%; SCATTERED, 5%. 83. What is your age, please? i?'?t. . . . . . . . . . . (READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED) 25-34. . . . . . . . . . .14%35-44. . . . . . . . . . .24% 45-54. . . . . . . . . . .26% 55-64. . . . . . . . . . .14% 65 AND OVER. . . . . . .17% REFUSED. . . . . . . . . .3% 84. Do you or any members of your YES. . . . . . . . . . . . .34% household currently have a member- NO...............V * * MIJL ’* * ship in a private or public health DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .0% club? 85. Do you or any adult members of YES. . . . . . . . . . . . .24% vour household currently partici- NO. . . . ... .. . . . pate on any organized sports DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .0% teams? 86. Has your household purchased a YES. . . . . . . . . . . . .37% Hennepin Parks sticker for using NO. . . . .*,••*•*•*- - the parks and trails system? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .0% 87. Is your current residence on a YES. . . . . . . . . . . . .40% lake’ NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . .60%DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . .0% 88. Gender. (DO NOT ASK) MALE. . . . . . . . . . . .52% oQ Peaion PRECINCT ONE. . . . . . .22%89. Region. PRECINCT TWO. . . . . . .22% PRECINCT THREE. . . . .27% PRECINCT FOUR. . . . . .30% 8 %1 . I _■A.; « L REQUEST FOR COL^’CIL ACTION DATE: September 7, 1994 ITEM NO.: / ^ \ Department Approval: Nmm J<^ R. Gefhardson Title Public Works Direaor Adniinistrafoir Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Works < % Item Description: Curb Side Recycling - Contract Renewal For 1995 H-Z Recycling is requestii^ a 3% increase in the contract price • $63,180 to $65,075. E-Z has not increased their price to us since 1992. For the 3% increase E-Z is offering a three year contract with no cost increase in years two and three and will be adding the following items to the curb side pick-up program: telephone books mixed paper (junk mail) non-hazardous content aerosol cans. E-Z has performed very well for the City of Orono and all of the cities with which it contracts in the West Hennepin Recycling District. The increase in costs for the curb side recycling program is reflected in the proposed 1995 budget. It is recommended the Council approve a three year contract with E-Z Recycling for an annual amount of $65,075. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve a three year contract for curb side recycling pick-up with E-Z Recycling for an annual amount of $65,075. } .J REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ci '-.A ♦.A DATE: September ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval: Naae Ron Moorse Tide City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: m Agenda Section: City Administrators Report Item Dexrii ♦ • ♦ I 1995 - 1997 Police Services Contract with the City of Long Lake Attached is a copy of the 1995-1997 agreement for the provision of police services to the City of Long Lake. This agreement is similar to the 1994-1996 agreement with two exceptions. The first is that the staffing level for the base contract has been increased from 9 officers to 10 officers with the planned addition of a 16th sworn officer in 1995. The second is that the cost **** increased 3.8% for 1995. Tlw agreemem calls for the cost increase in 1996 and 1997 to be limited to a maximum of 4% per year. This agreement was approved by the Long Lake City Council at their meeting of September 6. COUNCn. ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to approve the 1W5-1997 agreement for the provision of police services to the City of Long Lake and to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the agreement. ^3r- i AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR LAN QIFORCEMENT THIS AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT made and entered into this day of _ _ _ _ , 19_ _, by and between the CITY OF ORONO, Minnesota and the CITY OF LONG LAKE, Minnesota, is made under and by virtue of Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. WITNESSETH NHEREAS, the City of Long Lake is desirous of contracting with the City of Orono for the performance of law enforcement seirvices within the City of Long Lake, and NHBRBAS, the City of Orono is agreeable to render law enforcement services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, and WHEREAS, a contract such as this is authorized under and by virtue of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, NON, THEREFCH^, the City of Orono agrees that it will provide law enforcement services for the City of Long Lake on the following terms and conditions and the City of Long Lake agrees as follows; 1. Definition of terms. For the purpose of this Agreement, the terms in this Agreement shall have the meanings given to them in this section. A. "Contract year" means a 12 month period during which law enforcement services are to be rendered or were reiidered to the Contract Cities by the City of Orono. The contract year shall commence on January 1 and terminate on the next December 31. B. "Contracting Cities" means any city which is a party to this contract or a similar contract which by its terms is interrelated with this contract for the purposes of allocating the total cost for law enforcement services. The contracting cities are Orono, Long Lake, Minnetonka Leach, and Spring Park. C. "City of Orono Police Budget" shall include all preliminary estimated and actual costs of operating the Police Page 1 IT* « wr M rf mmM Jiae:— •AW ENFORCEMENT 5 and entered into this 3y and between the CITY OF lake, Minnesota, is made is, Section 471.59. sirous of contracting with law enforcement services ^9^®®aole to render law ^nditions hereinafter set » authorized under and by itutes. Section 471.59, rees that it will provide ong Lake on the following f Lake agrees as follows; e of this Agreement, the eanings given to them in period during which law ired or were rexidered to rono. The contract year late on the next December fity which is a party to which by its terms is le purposes of allocating rvices. The contracting ^onka beach, and Spring 5t" shall include all of operating the Police ■ r* Department of the City of Orono for a given contract year, including but not limited to: 1. All insurance costs including PERA, OASI, Workers Compensation Liability. 2. All Salaries, fringe benefits, overtime. 3. All costs of equipment and apparatus acquisition and maintenance. 4. All non-prosecution consulting fees. 5. Holiday and severance pay. 6. Unemployment benefits paid. 7. Utilities. 8. Telephone Service. 9. Gasoline and oil for police cars. 10. Books and periodicals. 11. Wearing apparel. 12. Officer equipment. 13. Rental costs or estimated fair market rental value of building. 14. All other expenses normally and reasonably incidental to the operation of a ten officer. Chief included, police department. 15. Administrative overhead charge of 10% of all the above costs. 2. Public Image. The designation "Orono-Long Lake-Minnetonka Beach-Spring Park Police Department" shall be affixed to all police cars used by the Orono Police Department under the terms of this agreement and the City of Orono shall cause the Page 2 rmim listing for the Police Department for each Contract City to be inserted in the appropriate telephone directories as may be distributed in the contracting cities. if another city contracts with the City of Orono for service, its name may also be added to the above. 3. Level of Services. The quality and level of services rendered to the Contract Cities shall be the same as the services rendered to the City of Orono, except as hereinafter stated. It is the desire of the City of Long Lake to purchase from the City of Orono police service beyond the basic service; such service to be delivered in a method that provides service equivalent to that which would be received had Long Lake hired two individual officers to serve it exclusively. The equivalent of two full-time officers is agreed to be a total of 3640 in-service hours per year (35 hours per officer per week for 52 weeks) because provision is made for vacations, sick days, training, etc. This two officer equivalent will be provided in the form of staff hours served within the boundaries of the City of Long Lake. The exact number of hours during any given month may vary by mutually agreed upon scheduling, but the aggregate average over the year will be 70 hours per week with variations of plus or minus 10 hours in any given week being considered acceptable delivery of the contracted extra service. During the period in which such additional service hours are provided, the staff member(s) assigned to provide such service will be physically within the city limits of Long Lake at all times save for the following: A. Responding to Necessary Calls which are defined as calls created by immediate necessity for police service, such as responding to a medical emergency, a crime in progress, an officer requiring immediate assistance, etc. Such calls will always be a part of the communications log of the Orono Police Department and the officer responding will have been directed by official communication to respond to the Necessary Call. Page 3 I * V ^ , ■ c.'-■raf ..hiY-Vl'ii r B. Scheduled travel to the Orono Police Department Offices at the beginning or end of shifts, or for break periods as called for by Union Contract. C. Looping through Orono as a part of regular patrol patterns through the City of Long Lake. The loops that are permitted will have been agreed upon in advance by the Long Lake representatives to the Police Commission. D. Transporting prisoners to the Orono Police Department, Hennepin County Jail, Juvenile Detention Center, Detox Center, or other locations as necessary. There shall be the equivalent of four additional officers, who when on duty shall be stationed within the City of Spring Park. During the period in which supplemental police service hours are provided, the staff member(s) assigned to provide such service will be physically within the city limits of Spring Park at all times save for the following: A. Responding to Necessary Calls which are defined as calls created by immediate necessity for police service, such as resp .iding to a medical emergency, a crime in progress, an officer requiring immediate assistance, etc. Such calls will always be a part of the communications log of the Orono police department and the officer responding will have been directed by official communication to respond to the Necessary Call. B. Scheduled travel to and from the Orono Police Department Offices at the beginning and end of shifts, or for break periods as called for by union contract. C. Looping through Orono as a part of regular patrol patterns through the City of Spring Park. The loops that are permitted will have been agreed upon in advance by Spring Park. D. Transporting prisoners to the Orono Police Department, Hennepin County Jail or Juvenile Detention Center, Detox Center or other locations as necessary. 4. Administrative Responsibility. The law enforcement services rendered to the Contract Cities shall be under the Page 4 1 sole direction of the City of Orono. The degree of services rendered, the standards of performance, the hiring and discipline of the officers assigned, and other matters relating to regulations and policies, shall remain in the control of the City of Orono. Any disputes between the parties to this agreement as to the extent of functions and duties to be rendered hereunder, or the level or manner of performance of such service, shall be resolved by the City Administrator of the City of Orono. If a Contract City disagrees with the resolution, the Contract City may appeal within thirty days of receipt of written notice of the resolution, by giving written notice to the City of Orono asking for arbitration, as provided in paragraph 17 The City Administrator of the City of Orono, through the Chief of Police, shall submit to the Contract Cities a monthly report of services rendered to the Contract Cities, as well as suggestions regarding any changes that may be helpful, and a quarterly budget update. These reports will include copies of Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Criminal Justice Information summaries for law enforcement services rendered within the Contract Cities. 5. Joint Advisory Committee. Each Contracting City may appoint two volunteer members to a joint advisory committee and the name of such appointees shall be furnished to the City of Orono Administration. The Joint Advisory Committee shall meet periodically to discuss and make recommendations regarding concerns or problems identified regarding the provision of police service and to periodically revic w budget updates. The Joint Advisory Committee shall have thr «<p<r ^..fic task of reviewing the Police Department's budget proposal for the next calendar year and arriving at a consensus Budget Package consisting of an Annual Operating Budget, a Year Two Budget amount and Year Three Budget amount by August 15 of each calendar year. 6. Officers. Employees of the City of Orono. Officers assigned to duty in the Contract Cities shall be police officers of the City of Orono. The City of Orono shall assume all obligations with regard to workers compensation, PERA, withholding tax, insurance, etc. arising from the employment of such officers. The Contract Cities shall not be required to furnish any fringe benefits or assume any other liability of employment to any officer assigned to duty within the Page 5 • ■« i; Contract Cities unless a Contract City employs officers directly, independent of this agreement, to provide special law enforcement services in the Contract City. In such event, all obligations and liabilities with respect to employment of special law enforcement officers shall be the complete responsibility of the Contract City. No such direct employment shall be entered into by the Contract City without first obtaining vnritten approval of the City Administrator of the City of Orono which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7. Enforcement Policies. Enforcement policies within the City of Orono shall prevail as the enforcement policies within the Contract Cities. The enforcement policies of the City of Orono shall be provided in writing to the Contract Cities. 8. Enforcement of Ordinances of the Contract Cities. The City of Orono officers assigned to duty within the Contract Cities shall enforce the Ordinances of the Contract Cities. 9. All Officers to be Officers of the Contract Cities. The officers assigned duty within the Contract Cities shall be provided authority to enforce the several laws of the Cities by proper action to be taken by the governing councils of the Contract Cities. The Chief of Police of the City of Orono shall furnish the names of all Orono police officers to the Clerks of the Contract Cities. 10. Offenses. All offenses shall be charged in accordance with the ordinances of the Contracting City in which the offense occurred in each case possible, otherwise, the charge shall be made in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota or the laws of the Federal Government. 11. Communications. Equipment and Supplies. The City of Orono shall furnish communication equipment necessary to perform the services which are to be rendered. The City of Orono shall provide the necessary equipment and vehicles and the Contract Cities shall provide any necessary supplies which must be specifically printed for the Contract Cities. 12. Cooperation and Assistance from the Contract Cltieg. The City of Orono and the Contract Cities shall have full Page 6 i j II : I ! s Jli cooperation and assistance from each others officers, agents, and employees. 13. Headquarters for the services rendered to the Contract Cities under the agreement shall be located at offices ovmed or leased by the City of Orono, and the citizens of the Contract Cities shall notify headquarters, or radio dispatch for services requested either in person or by some other means of communication. Services shall be rendered to the Contract Cities on a 24 hour basis. 14. to the Confract Cities mat Sharing Formula for the Total Base Cost i For and in consideration of provision of Law Enforcement services under this agreement, the Contract Cities shall pay total base costs determined by the formula, as illustrated in Appendix A, for each contract year. The factors of the formula which shall be weighed equally, shall be defined as follows: popniation nf Each Coptrartina Citv; The population of each Contracting City computed as of April 1, prior to each contract year from the then most recent Metropolitan Council estimate, except in a census year when there is a new census figure available by August 1st, then that figure shall be used. Mar-w^f. Valuation of Contracting CitYJ. The market valuation of each Contracting City is based on taxes due and payable for the year immediately preceding the contract year. The source of the assessed valuation data shall be the official figures of the Hennepin County Assessor's Department. B. l-n Long I.ake - Manpower. The of additional manpower above Che base cost contract to the i y of Long Lake, shall be determined as follows: The actual salary of officers assigned to the City of ra^dt: r ^:al^^ura«d“a''s ^t^^al overtime budget for all officers divided by the number of Page 7 1 , tc.. . all officers times the number of supplemental officers, 8 8 hours of holiday pay at the hourly rate, wearing apparel, hospitalization, life insurance , memberships, workers compensation and pensions calculated at the salary figures above. This total (net of town aid) is then added to the base contract cost to determine the cost of service for Long Lake for the new budget year. This procedure is illustrated in Appendix A. This cost will be an actual cost. It is understood that the City of Long Lake may, due to budget consideration in any contract year at the beginning of the contract year, adjust the number of additional officers in which event they shall pay all thosf- extraordinary costs as outlined in the third paragraph of Section 23.5 of this agreement. C. Cost to Spring Park - Additional Manpower. The cost of additional manpower above the base contract cost to the City of Spring Park, shall be determined as follows; The actual salaries of officers assigned to the City of Spring Park shall be computed. To this salary figure will be added that percentage of the total overtime budget for all officers calculated by dividing the number of officers assigned to the City of Spring Park by the number of all officers, 88 hours holiday pay at the hourly rate, wearing apparel, hospitalization, life insurance, memberships, workers compensation and pensions calculated at the salary figure above. This total is then added to the total cost per Contracting City (total plus support service charge, net of town aid) for Spring Park to detexrmine cost of service for Spring Park for the new contract year. This procedure is illustrated in Appendix A. This cost will be an actual cost. It is understood that the City of Spring Park may, due to budget considerations in any contract year, at the beginning of the contract year adjust the number of additional officers, in which event the City of Spring Park shall pay all extraordinary costs as outlined in the third paragraph of Section 23.5 of this agreement. Page 8 I I 3 uppleniental officers, hourly rate, wearing urance , memberships, ns calculated at the (net of town aid) is :ost to determine the the new budget year, appendix A. This cost Long Lake may, due to mtract year at the adjust the number of It they shall pay all itlined in the third agreement. ^gnpower. The cost of tract cost to the City follows: ssigned to the City of To this salary figure of the total overtime by dividing the number of Spring Park by the rs holiday pay at the hospitalization, life s compensation and ry figure above. This 1 cost per Contracting ;harge, net of town aid) t of service for Spring c. This procedure is cost will be an actual Spring Park may, due to contract year, at the adjust the number of went the City of Spring costs as outlined in the of this agreement. 15. Budget Package15.1 Definitions A. The Annual Operating Budget refers to the calendar year budget of the Orono Police Department during the first year of any three year period covered by this agreement. This budget will become the official Annual Operating Budget upon ratification by the Contracting Cities. The Annual Budget incorporates all costs of operations. B. The Year Two Budget refers to a single number, not to be exceeded, dollar amount which will be used as the budget limit for the next calendar year in the event the Annual Budget Package is not ratified by all Contracting Cities by October 1 of the first year of any three year period covered by this agreement. C. The Year Three Budget refers to a single number not to be exceeded dollar amount which will be used as the budget limit for the next calendar year in the event the Annual Budget Package has not been ratified by all Contracting Cities by October 1 of the second year of any three year period covered by this agreement. D. The Annual Budget Package refers to the grouping of the Annual Operating Budget, the Year Two Budget and the Year Three Budget which is submitted as a unit by the City of Orono for ratification by the Contracting Cities. The Annual Budget Package must be ratified by all Contracting Cities prior to October 1 in the year submitted to become the valid budgets for the following three years. The Annual Budget Package must be accepted or rejected in its entirety. 15.2 Budget Process By August 15 of each year during which this agreement remains in effect, che City of Orono will provide an Annual Budget Package covering the cost of Police protection for the next three calendar years. The budgets presented to the Contracting Cities must have Page 9 liL. been presented to the Joint Advisory Committee prior to August 1 for discussion and review. Although it is expected that the Annual Budget Package which is provided to the Contracting Cities by the City of Orono will have the consensus support of the Joint Advisory Committee, that is not a requirement since each Contracting City has the opportunity for final ratification or rejection. 16. Contract Payments. The City Budget Share (See Appendix A) of each Contracting City shall be paid in equal quarterly installments on January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 of the next contract year by the Contracting City to the City of Orono. Orono agrees to provide the Contract Cities with reasonably detailed information relating to its estimated expenditures and its actual expenditures so as to adequately inform them of the basis for the calculation of billings made by Orono. Under the provisions of this contract, Orono agrees to make its records available to the Contract Cities for inspection for the purpose of determining the basis for the calculations by Orono under the provisions of this section. 17. Arbitration. If the Contracting City is aggrieved by the determination of the City of Orono as to the allocation of the actual costs of the prior year's service, the Contracting City may appeal said determination within 30 days after receipt of the City of Orono’s audit. Said appeal shall be in writing and shall be addressed to the City of Orono asking for arbitration by a board of arbitration. The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three persons; one to be appointed by the City of Orono, one to be appointed by the appealing Contracting City, and the third to be appointed by the two so selected. The name of each arbitrator shall be submitted in writing to the other party. In the event that the two arbitrators so selected do not appoint the third arbitrator within 15 days after receipt of written notice of appointment of either of the first two arbitrators, the Chief Judge of the District Court of Hennepin County shall have jurisdiction to appoint, upon application of either the City of Orono or the appealing Contracting City, the third arbitrator to the Board. The third arbitrator selected shall not be a resident of either Contracting City, and shall be a Page 10 r city raauiager or administrator. The arbitrators' expenses and fees, together with the other expenses, not including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration, shall be divided equally between the parties to the arbitration. Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act, Chapter 572 of the Minnesota Statutes, and any decision shall be rendered within 60 days of appointment of the third arbitrator. Said arbitration shall be binding on both parties. 18.Annual Audit of Actual Costs. The Contract Cities understand and agree that it is impossible to project with cott5)lete accuracy the actual costs for lad?or and equipment as well as the service to be required by each Contracting City for the forthcoming contract year, and therefore, agree to a yearly audit to adjust the prior year's estimated police service cost as set forth above to the actual police service cost based upon the actual costs for that contract year. On or before i^ril 1 of each year, the City of Orono will tabulate the actual cost of providing law enforcement services for the prior contract year and will submit to the Contract Cities a summary of said costs. The actual costs set forth for the prior contract year may result in either a credit or a debit applied to the estimated police service costs charged to the Contract Cities. If a Contract City is still participating in this agreement, and if a credit, one-half of the credit shall be deducted in each of the third and fourth quarters from the estimated police service cost payments required of the Contract City for the current year of service; and if a debit, the Contract City shall pay the additional sum to the City of Orono together with the estimated contract charge for the current year by adding one half of the debit to both the third and fourth quarter payments. The allocation of the credit or debit shall be made pursucuit to the same formula set forth above. If a Contract City is not still participating in this agreement at the time the credit or debit amount is determined as set forth above, the Contract City shall receive from (in the case of a credit) or shall make to (in the case of a debit) the City of Orono a cash payment in the amount of such credit or debit, one-half on the date that the third quarter estimated police service cost payment would be due if this agreement was still in force and one-half on the date that the fourth quarter estimated police Page 11 1 r service cost paywent %rfOuld be due if this agreement was still in force. 19. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. As part of the Police Budget for each contract year, the City of Orono shall purchase liability insurance to insure the City of Orono against liability incurred in the rendering of law enforcement services to the Contract Cities. The City of Orono shall maintain insurance covering its police services with limits of not less than $600,000 for general liability coverage and $2 million for excess liability coverage. However, the amount and extent of insurance coverage may not be sufficient to insure the City of Orono and the Contract Cities completely and to pay all expenses incurred by the City of Orono, including attorneys* fees and judgements rendered against the City of Orono and/or the Contract Cities. Therefore, the City of Orono exposes itself to potentially underinsured and noninsured liabilities. Notwithstanding any language to the contrary herein, the Contract Cities agree that the City of Orono is faced with such an exposure and therefore the Contract Cities agree to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Orono, its employees and agents for any loss or damage of any kind whatsoever caused by the rendering of law enforcement services in the Contract Cities to the extent that the loss or damage and all expenses related thereto are not covered by the insurance policies of the City of Orono in effect during the contract year in which the act or alleged act giving rise to any claim for loss or damages occurred. In no event shall this agreement be construed to fix upon City of Orono any responsibility or liability to the Contract Cities or to third parties which are greater or different in kind then the responsibilities and liabilities borne by the Contract Cities if they were providing law enforcement services through their own police department. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the police chief of the City of Orono or his designee will have the sole discretion as to the officer and equipment that will answer police calls, and it shall not be a violation of this agreement nor shall the City of Orono be held responsible to the Contract Cities or to a third party for any loss which may result in the event that the City of Orono, in the exercise of reasonable judgment, is unable to respond promptly or to Page 12 , j 1 J this agreement was stillan. As part of the Police he City of Orono shall nsure the City of Orono idering of law enforcement The City of Orono shall re services with limits of liability coverage and $2 ige. However, the amount nay not be sufficient to ontract Cities completely by the City of Orono, ents rendered against the ties. Therefore, the City itially underinsured and nding any language to the as agree that the City of (osure and therefore the !ss and indemnify the City for any loss or damage of ndering of law enforcement he extent that the loss or eto are not covered by the )rono in effect during the illeged act giving rise to :red. construed to fix upon City iability to the Contract re greater or different in I liabilities borne by the j»oviding law enforcement ,ce department. Without , the police chief of will have the sole ipmcnt that will answer a violation of this be held responsible to / for any loss which may rono, in the exercise of respond promptly or to respond with only limited officers and equipment, or is delayed in responding to a call by reason of answering a previous call. The Contract Cities agree that they will hold harmless and indemnify the City of Orono for any judgement rendered against it or sums paid out by it in settlement, payment or defense of any such claims, to the extent the City of Orono is uninsured or underinsured arising out of any calls for police services to be rendered in the Contract Cities under the policies of insurance the City of Orono is required to maintain as set forth above. 20. Unforecasted Expenditures. Not withstanding any of the cUDOve, the Contract Cities shall have the right to approve any proposed capital expenditures and/or increase in number of officers not otherwise included in the annual budget. Notice of such proposed and non-budgeted capital expenditures and/or increase in the number of officers shall be given in writing to the contracting cities prior to actual expenditure for such items and the contracting cities shall thereafter have until the later of their next Council meeting or 30 days after receipt of said written notice in which to approve and/or disapprove the same in writing or else it is agreed that such proposed expenditures may be made and the cost thereof shall be included in that year's budget. In the event the Contracting Cities shall disapprove such non-budgeted capital expenditure and/or increase in the number of officers, it shall not be liable to the City of Orono for any costs incurred by the City cf Orono should the non-budgeted capital expenditure and/or increase in number of officers be made despite such disapproval. Furthermore, the cost of such disapproved capital expenditures and/or increase in number of officers shall not be computed in determining the "Base Cost" or "Contract Charge" herein above set forth for each contracting city for the years in which the disapproved expenditure(s) is/are made. 21. Prior Contract. the contrary, or in credit or debit due Orono on account of enforcement between provided herein for and thereafter. Notwithstanding any language herein to prior contracts between the parties, any to the Contract Cities or to the City of prior agreements and contracts for law the parties shall be payable in 1995 as credit or debit payments payable in 1995 Page 13 22, pnlire Contract Service Explanation. The City of Orono will deliver 24 hour patrol and response throughout Minnetonka Beach, Spring Park and Long Lake will conduct routine patrol throughout the city as needed, and will conduct periodic security checks of businesses and will conduct such duties as requested by the Contract Citys councils. The City of Orono will submit regular reports to the Contract City officials and appear at council meetings or any other special meetings as required by the council. This can be the Chief or any other memoer of the department as required by the council. Four officers were requested by Spring Park and will be assigned to Spring Park by mutual agreement between the City of Orono Police Department and the Spring Park City Council. Two officers were requested by Long Lake and will be assigned to Long Lake by mutual agreement between the City of Orono Police Department and the Long Lake City Council. 23. Term of tpis Agreement. This Agreement is for three contract years and covers the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1997. A contract year covers the period January 1 through December 31 of a calendar year. This Agreement will become effective upon ratification by the Contracting Cities of all its parts including Appendix A and Appendix B which contains the initial Annual Budget Package. The term of this agreement may be extended as described below. 23.1 On each occasion that the Annual Budget Package is ratified by October 1 by the Contracting Cities, this Agreement will be renewed for a total period of three contract years beginning with the contract year following the current contract year. The details of this process are covered in sections 23.2 through 23.3 following. 23.2 When during the first contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement shall be extended by one contract year. When during the second contract year of any three year period <^vere ^ . Agreement the Annual Budget Package is ratifie y on rac g Cities by October 1, this Agreement shall be extended by two contract years. When during the third contract year of any Page 14 ^ <1 ; ) i ! three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budge Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement shall be extended by three contract years. The elements of the Annual Budget Package so ratified will replace the elements of the previously ratified Annual Budget Package.23.3 When during the first contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, the amount previously ratified ns the Year Two Budget shall become the Annual Operating Budget for the second contract year and the term of this Agreement shall not be extended. 23.4 When during the second contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, the amount previously ratified as the Year Two Budget shall become the Annual Operating Budget for the third contract year and the term of this Agreement shall not be extended. 23.5 When during the third contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement will terminate at the end of that contract year. This Agreement may be terminated by either the method detailed in section 23, or by mutual agreement of all Contract Cities. If any one of the Contract Cities terminates this Agreement, the other Contract Cities may terminate or renegotiate the Agreement. In the event that a Contract City terminates this Agreement with or without cause, the Contract City agrees to pay to the City of Orono any of the extraordinary costs incurred by or within the Police Department of the City of Orono on account of such termination; said costs include but are not limited to unemployment benefits paid because of the need to lay off existing police department personnel and those costs occasioned by the need to reduce overhead because of the termination of this agreement. Extraordinary costs shall not include the costs of day to day operations of the police department of the City of Orono at level of performance and quality of it's choice. Page 15 * ir . _- ♦ - r PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that no such termination costs shall be imposed unless and until authorized representatives of the parties hereto have met and such termination costa have been mutually agreed upon. In the event the parties are unable to reach agreement, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration 33 provided in paragraph 17 of this agreement. Termination of this contract by either party shall not affect the obligation of either party to perform the contract prior to the time that such termination becomes effective. Contract Cities b^gning this agreement agree to participate in a pro rata share of all the operating costs of the department's total base cost based upon a ten officer department. It is understood that the formula for allocatic:* and the distribution of costs will be calculated yearly as illustrated in Appendix A. 1 • Mn Discrimination. The City of Orono agrees that during the period of this contract, it will not, within the State of Minnesota, discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, or ancestry and will include a similar provision in all subcontracts evxtered into for the performance hereof. This paragraph is inserted in the contract to comply with the provisions of Minnesota statutes Section 101.59. Page 16 I , a. ... r p CITY OP ORONO coirrRAcriiiG city City Administrator Clerk City of Long Lake Mayor Mayor The above agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ by Resolution No. _ _ _ _ _ dated . 19 The above agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ by Resolution No. _ _ _ _ _ _ dated _ _ _» 19_ _. n f 1 Page 17 * Ml*, f ;APPBMOIX X * r r -uir* *Ti* 4 4 CITY OF 0IK1K> • FOLId DtPASTHEHT DisTniwn'ioa or costs nsricx YCM isrs PDfStODl APFCHDIX A OROHO LCNQ LAKE mNHETOEICA BEACH SPRIHG PARK TOTAL mLOSt AFPLItD 6«.9:«13.7§%6.57%10.72%100.00% ■MS ■UDOtT S«3S,9S«$134,333 $59,216 $91,950 $901,485 TOMB AID CKEOIT (33,5««l (4.517)U.104)(5.044)(47.250) TOTAL 593.430 117,414 54.113 •6.886 854.235 ADMIM CHARGE (lOl)59.343 11.743 5.411 8.689 85.423 TOTAL EASE $453.t<2 $129,598 $61,724 $95,575 $939,454 (•■■■■••■•■■■I (■••■••■•■■••a ADOITIOHAL CfFICERS $111,985 $333,970 $335,955 TOMH AID (10.500)(31.000)($31,500) TOTAL ADOL OFFICERS $101,415 $303,970 $304,455 GBXS) TOTM $652,762 $231,013 $61,724 $394,545 $1,244,113 1 i'^rfK.. i»j.,.<,>-'----.^Kf.lii iTiTr*iMiiiiiiiM^ii'fiairiimiiiiti ■nwaiJiirfa liilifliiii—i ilQIfa^iiltllriiiiriiii r •ri.-r CITY OF OROMO POLICE SERVICE CCMTIUeT budget year 1995 PD95BUD2 POLICE DEPARTMENT EXPQISES 1995 SALARIES - REGULAR OVERTIME - REGULAR SALARIES - P.T. OFFICERS SALARIES - TEMP CLERICAL HOLIDAY PAY (LELS) PERA - CITY CONTRIBUTION FICA/MDCR - CITY CONTRIBUTION HEALTH INSURANCE LIFE INSURANCE WORKER COMPENSATION INSURANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES MOTOR FUELS 6 LUBRICANTS CLOTHING k PERSONAL EQUIPMENT BLOG k GROUNDS MfcR SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT PARTS k ACCESS BOOKS k PERIODICALS TRAINING SUPPLIES DARE PROGRAM LEGAL CONSULTING SERVICES OTHER CONSULTING SERVICES TELEPHONE POSTAGE PRINTING/PUBLISHING/ADVERTISING UTILITIES RADIO RENTAL OFFICE k BUILDING RENTAL MAINT - OFFICE EQUIPMENT MAINT - AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT MAINT - MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT MAINT - BLDGS k GROUNDS JANITORIAL SERVICES DATA PROCESSING SERVICES MEETINGS-CONFERENCES-SCHOOLS GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE PROPERTY INSURANCES UMBRELLA LIABILITY INSURANCE INSURANCE AGENT OF RECORD MEMBERSHIPS TRAVEL-MILEAGE-PARKING MEETING EXPENSES LICENSES k TAXES OTHER CHARGES BUILDINGS k STRUCTURES OFFICE FURN-FIXT-EQUIPMENT AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT OTHER EQUIPMENT POST TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICER REIMB $725,460 19.000 14.500 6.820 24.300 85.800 8.170 61.220 4.400 33,970 7.000 24.000 10.000 500 4.000 1.000 2,000 1,800 1,000 7.000 7,700 1.500 2,600 9.000 17.000 43.500 3.400 17.500 2.500 1.000 6,000 26,090 9,270 10,378 8,633 7,581 1,326 1,230 650 1,000 180 100 500 1.500 30.000 2.500 (6,000) (11,138) TOTAL $1,237,440 LONG LAKE ADDITIONAL MANPOWER PD95BUD3 APPENDIX A Vl> I f t LONS LAXK AI^ITIOKAL MANPOWER 1995 SERVICE YEAR EXHIBIT C Projected Salariea, 2.0 Officers Overtime Holiday Pay P.E.R.A. - City Contribution PICX/I • City ContributiOTi Health - Life Insurance Worker Compensation Insurance Clothing k Personal Equipment Total Deduct Town Aid Credit Total Additional Officers Total Base Cost Total Cost of Service 4* P095BUD3 $83,200 2,500 3,520 10,171 450 7,464 4,030 650 $111,985 (10,500) 101,485 129,598 $231,083 »£Ui APPENDIX A r APPENDIX fii -w ';!< *■ « • i-> - < . •___^ r 1995/1996/1997 BUDGET PACKAGE Base Contract Supplemental Officers $129,590 $134,782 $140,173 $101,485 $105,544 $109,766 TOTAL $231,083 $240,326 $249,939 m . •; :•=!»=■:3CSr' r CITT or ORdK) - POLIOI DBPMTMEST DirmiBOTioii OF costs soviet YIAft 199S •WO/T TO EJtCECD* ■ *« . OKOHO mcarr mpukd ««.92% ■Ml BODCKT TOW AID OIQIT TOTAL ADMIN CRARGI (lOl) TOTAL IASI ADOITIOMAL OTFICBtS TOMN AID TOTAL AQDL officers GRAND TOTAL $651,03$ (33.SOI) 617,15$ 61,716 $676,172 $676,672 LONG LAKE 13.79% $129,306 (6.777) 122.529 12.253 $134,782 $116,464 (10.920) $105,544 $240,326 iSTTOITCA BEACH 6.57% $61.SIS (3.228) 58.357 5.836 $64,193 $64,193 FD96-MTB SPRING PARK 10.72% $95,628 (5.266) 90,362 9.036 $99,398 $232,929 (21.640) $211,089 $310,487 APFBNDIX A TOTAL 100.00% $937,544 (49,140) 888,404 88.840 $977,244 $349,393 ($32,760) $316,633 $1,293,877 tAf m ts r iAhu m ♦ a : 4 CITY OF OSLOtO - POLICE DEP^TWSToisrmiwrrioii or costs SESVICB TEAR 19f7 •«OT TO EXCEED* PD97*imP APPENDIX A SPRING OROMO LONG LAKE BEACH PARK TOTAL mmn 9^fLitD I3.7f%i.S7%10.72%100.00% ■Ml BODorr $C77,0<«$134,476 $64,044 $99,453 $975,044 TOW AID CRIOi?(35.223)(7,J46)(3,357»(5.477)(51,104) TOTAL (43, M3 ^127,430 €0.691 93.976 923.940 ADMIN CHAAOE (10%)M.IM 12.743 6.069 9.396 92.394 TOTAL BASA $704,027 $140,173 $66,760 $103,374 $1,016,334 ADOmOHAL OPFICBBS $121,123 $243,246 $363,369 • TOnt AID (11.357)(22,714)($34,070) TOTAL ADOL OTTICEMS $109,764 $319,533 $329,299 aum TOTAL $706,027 $249,939 $66,760 $332,906 $1,345,433 I I m m ■ - 'C“OTY of QRONO (C12) 473-7357 Post Offics Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 SWMC SWTEM IHSTMXWS LICSNSB APPLICATIOM insttAncs, and avidsncs oflasttrance, and avidsncs of MPCA «.•?«?*' bond, csrtiflcats of.pplictlon. .rv.«bJ.etVo??"e„^Tfot'|“““ Businsss or trade nans Businsss address Businsss phone «*7^9 yiy Residence phone holdtn, MPCA Type of certification held: Certificate expiration date Tnstaller / / Pumper 6.Have you ever held a Septic System Xnst Orono before? Most recent year /9^'\license in Have you ever had a license revoked? Where?When? Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes No Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes SUBMITTALS REQOZIUBD:CI T Y OF CRUiiO $50.00 License application fee. _rT^n_ **• > IC^ and per^t bond naming Cl^/^iorono. a¥WV« VV ?5rt ?««* state Plumbers Bond will not be accept^^___zO.CC J. S50-i00-300,000 minimum Certificate cf Insurance.-N ............... 4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate.jpipp LICESSSS WZIiL MOT BE PROCESS w*l. DBTIL ALL ZTQIS ARE SUBMITTED forpll7tTund?r*Vur ‘”**° y«“ -PPl^ The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Orono, « license to install and repair septic systems, out septic tanks, subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinances of the City of Orono. Date ^ Applicant *s Signa^^re ®baff recooimendation Approval Reason for denial:Denial City Council Action Date Date license mailed _ _ Approved Denied ‘.O'I'jw:.^ <d-\ ■^M-: .»•->. ;■ :•• ri-'9 '■S:,Hr.r.. »V, 4 n*5 pn y- ■“•r.t" -^r- ••'T • ,or ..••-.1:3:: ACCOUNT «INVOIi9999-2030 0010609999-2030 0010619999-2032 0010629999-2030 0010599999-2030 001063 ONONON ]ONOH iOHON■ ■-1-■iONOHOHONOHOH OH OH OH ON ’ ION' 1 IION OH AII ON *' 1 1m; - ON ' S 1 ON OH ON OH OH OH . ■■■* 1 001143 ON001M3ON001M3ON001M3ON3320ON3317ON1M5731OH27449ON27449m j10170ON147341OHi47348OH14002OH J 001034 • ON 9977 OH ■ 1« 1^ 1>: 1 00-134147 OH ! 14510SON I4 240395 OH 11240394ON272045OH OH272043 #11 272044 ON272044ONi272042WWII ON272041OH240394OH275448OH275470wll OH INK ROLLER INK ROLLER 0174-42100039-4210STROBE LIGHT 0249-4232DOOR CTX)SER-POLICE B 0099-4343HEADLIGHT 162,RIPER 0129-4341MILEAGE RBIMBURSBMBN MILEAGE RBIMBURSBMBN 069-43810569-4381REGISTER ROLLS REGISTER ROLLS REGISTER ROLInS REGISTER ROLInS 0174-42100069-42100039-42100590-4210 FIRE CODE INSTRUCTOR 0174-4356 HEADLIGHT k FILTERS 0590-4342 N/H UNION DUBS 9999-2030 LBAGB DUBS 1994-95 0020-4380 DEDUCTIBLE RBIM 7/30 0129-4374 JULY SERVICE ADJ YEAR 1994 ADJ YEAR 1994 JULY SERVICE ADJ YEAR 1994 JULY SERVICE JULY SERVICE JULY SERVICE JULY SERVICE JULY SERVICE JULY SERVICE JULY SERVICE 0569-4355 0069-4352 0549-4352 0039-4352 0569-4352 0069-4352 0129-4352 0174-4352 0549-4352 0569-4352 0039-4355 0069-4355 m ■. ii t*-. * ON vV'jl m M ON ON ON OH •]| OH 1 1 S8 1t3| I Pag* 7 MMIUAL ■'■ :•:1. M-^ ; ii-' • CXL CHICK MOX8TEK Thu Sep 8 1994 CMCir HO CHICK DATE CHECK AMOUNTQSi4tSm4tc•314171>V-:•314ltm... fiutf mr ■-•■ y. '■ •■• ■• .;■■ •314f0 031431 031432 031433 1334/03/121334/03/121334/03/121334/03/121334/03/121334/03/121334/03/121334/03/121334/03/121334/03/121334/03/121334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 1334/03/12 S3S.1S $35.IS*$128.73$120.73*1.313.441.313.44*$3,531.03 ! 14.455.41$0,104.44*$24.00 $34.00 $120.00*55.4410.7023.1003.32*$54.07$42.57$113.44*$13.53 $13.53 $143.52 $123.34 $13.53 il39.9S ! 143.35 $33.95 $501.92* $250.00 $250.00* $124.70 $44.40 $191.30* 103.05 103.05 103.05 $72.70 135.00 519.25* 23:09:43VENDOR DESCRIPTIONOTTEN BROS 12 ROLLS OP SODPEBSCO/OBRA DBF COMP H/HPEBSCO/US CONP OP MAYO DBF COMP M/HPERA INS PERA INS PERA H/H B/IS - 0/28 PERA 0/15 • 0/28PERA LIFE INS PERA LIFE INS INSURANCE - OCT INSURANCE - OCTPIONEERPIONEERPIONEERLAND USE APPS TESTING OPTICAL SCAN LAND USB APPSPRAIRIE OFFSET PRAIRIE OFFSET VOTER'S RECEIPT CARD BUS. CARDS OMAN, GAPPRO TIRE PRO TIRE PRO TIRE PRO TIRE PRO TIRE PRO TIRE PRO TIRE PRO TIRE EXHAUST EXHAUST EXHAUST EXHAUST EXHAUST EXHAUST EXHAUST EXHAUST OIL CHANGE $171 OIL CHANGE 1148 OIL CHANGE,R::PAIR BA OIL CHANGE,AIR FILTB OIL CHANGE 0142 ALIGNMENT 0149 ALIGNMENT, SERVICE 0 ALIGNMENT 0144 PUMP k METER SERVICES INSTALL SOPTHARE REED VENDING REED VENDING CANDY k ROLLS CANDY BARS RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEMS MAI NT MAINT MAINT MAINT MAINT CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT CONTRACT CASH CASH CASH CASH CASH ACCOUNT 0 0249-4233 9999-2030 9999-20309999-20309999-20310129-41529999-20300174-43230040-43230174-43230040-43220174-4322 0129 0129 0129 0129 0129 0129 0129 0129 4341 4341 4341 4341 4341 4341 4341 ■4341 0099-4343 0591-4002 0591-4002 0174 0059 0039 0549 0559 4340 4340 4340 4340 4340 001854001054001053001853131113071310103407103344 3154 3057 3315 3313 3310 3351 3274 3273 00095 24237 24224 M930 M930 M938 M930 M930 PO NUN.Pag* 0MAHUAL Cll. d•334tCI •moo •moc •)li07 •UBOO f •* k-m- I" ."'viiT* * 3 S'?>8 -■i vv. -''1,1«i:,f'm4%|; ■ ■ ^'•■'^ar-jt: "It-•• -^S : ■'Nil?# m ;: , tV.- '..7 i-7;v: osisia K-r*OJlSlf 011520 ■Pm 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 CIL CMBCK RICtlSTBR Thu Sep 9 1994 23:09:431994/09/121994/09/121994/09/121994/09/121994/09/121994/09/121994/09/121994/09/12 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 1991/09/12 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 1994/09/12 ; ANOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION$150.55$150.55*THORPE DIST CO BEER 0591-4815 39994$10.95 $19.05*TOLL CO HELDING SUPPLIES 0249-4232 282441$19.15$19.15*TOMCHBCK, LARRY REIMBURSE FOR PHONE 0129-4320 001828$943.93$943.93*TOWN 4 COUNTRY SEPTEMBER SERVICE 0099-4343 001840$537.97$537.97*TRI STATE PUNP REPAIR GRINDER PUMP 0549-4344 11174$45.54$45.54*TRUCK UTILITIES MFC C COIL-MINI PAK 0569-4232 P00704-00$427.95$427.95*U S NEST CELLULAR CELL PHONE-CHBSNICK 0129-4320 001844$19.40$19.40*UNIFORMS UNLIMITED MACE HOLDER 0129-4221 459270 $54.00 $54.00* UNITED HAY CHARITY H/H - AUG 9999-2030 001849 $204.42 $94.43 $53.95 $57.71 $241.93 $30.25 il2.94 :S4.43 i94.43 !43.21 $55.49 $94.43 ,045.73* US HBST COMMUN US HEST COMMUN US HEST COMMUN US HEST COMMUN US NEST COMMUN US NEST COMMUN US NEST COMMUN US HEST COMMUN US NEST COMMUN US HBST COMMUN US HBST COMMUN US HBST COMMUN US HBST COSTS US HEST COSTS US HBST COSTS US NEST COSTS US HBST COSTS US HEST COSTS US NEST COSTS US HBST COSTS US NEST COSTS US NEST COSTS US HBST COSTS US HBST COSTS 0590-4320 0039-4320 0590-4320 0549-4320 0129-4320 0549-4320 0549-4320 0249-4320 0174- 4320 0049-4320 0175- 4320 0059-4320 815 815 815 815 815 815 815 •'.15 815 815 815 815 $144.97 $144.97*VILLAGE CHEVROLET REPAIR POHBR STBBRIN 0249-4341 CVCS44649 ,744.28 $204.07 .952.35* HALDOR PUMP NALDOR PUMP REPAIR LIFT STATION MAINT L.S. 99 0569-4344 0569-4344 30448 30671 $99.05 HARNING LITBS OP MN BARRICADE LITES 0249-4331 60352 ^«9« 10 PO NUN. NMIOAL Aii,;' •--l.u. '•u. .. r- ' ] i ACCOUNT tt INVOICE PO NUM.100591-4815 39994 OH0249-4232 282661 OH0129-4320 001828 OH0099-4343 001860 OH0569-4344 11176 OH0569-4232 P00706-00 OH0129-4320 001866 OH0129-4221 459270 OH9999-2030 001649 •OH J590-4320 1039-4320 1590-4320 1549-4320 1129-4320 1569-4320 1549-4320 >249-4320 >174-4320 >069-4320 •175-4320 •059-4320 615 615 615 815 815 815 615 ^15 ttl5 815 615 615 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH 249-4341 CVCS44649 OH 569-4344 569-4344 30448 30671 OH OH 249-4331 60352 OH OobiKIL CHECK SUMMARY Thu Sep 8 1994 23:09:'POIID I 001 GENERAL FUND $50,582.23PUHD •423 MUN ST AID CO/FD $25,483.80FIND •42C 92 STUBBS SWR FD $1,533.81FOB •472 NTR OPERATING FD $2,967.47FUND •€73 SHR OPERATING FD $29,221.21FUHD •€74 G/C OPERATING FD $5,213.32FUND •999 PAYROLL CLEARING $13,932.16 $128,934.00 92 24461.49 1403.92 92 1=813.60 1113.04 93 2695.08 333.35 31 8244.44 349.44 42 19573.65 1280.00 3 3 20831.71 1304.16 31 33526.01 2177.28 31 25770.28 1581.36 3 1 26438.72 1818.56 3 1 2S092.27 1611.52 53 20831.71 1304.16 12 18167.99 1228.26 33 19255.96 1209.21 64.818.90 11 2400.00 300.00 11 1933.36 241.67 11 1933.36 241.67 11 1933.36 241.67 11 1933.36 241.67 1,266.68 DPT YTD GROSS 11 2700.00 11 2175.03 11 2175.03 11 2175.03 11 2175.03 draft MINITTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 TING ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist. Candace Rowlette, Charles Nolan, Jr. and Janice Berg were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, and Recorder Carole Haseman. Councilmember Gabriel Jabbour was present. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. (#1) #1937 JACCI J. SEGNER, 3286/3290 NAVARRE LANE - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - 7:01 P.M. Chair Schroeder noted the applicant was not present and stated the matter would be reviewed when applicant arrived. (#3) #1941 LEROY AND WANDA FISCHBACH • 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE • VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:02 TO 7:15 P.M. LeRoy and Wanda Fischbach were present. Gaffron explained the application had previously been tabled to allow applicants additional time to present a revised proposal. The amended plan shows a 3 ’ upper level balcony that will exte.^d to within 27 ’ of the shoreline of the lagoon. There is a hardcover issue within the 0-75* setback area where normally 25% is allowed. The bulk of the house is within the 0-75 ’ zone. In a 1986 review, the lot area figure was 44,600 s.f. and now is shown at only 35,000 s.f. This indicates a possible error and the hardcover percentages need to be recalculated. The existing hardcover now is 36,094 s.f. and under the current plan is proposed to drop to 31,095 s.f. by removal of rock and plastic. In the 75-250 ’ setback area, existing hardcover is 5,031 s.f. which is being reduced to 3,342 s.f. Overall hardcover is being reduced from 8,800 s.f. or approximately 6,400 s.f. With the change in total lot area computation, there is no need for a lot coverage variance. Working with the corrected lot area size, hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback area is 10.7% and within the 75-250 ’ zone is 23.9%. Are these setbacks and amounts of hardcover acceptable to grant variances? Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. Smith voiced concern with the larger trees. Mr. Fischbach stated any tree that would be removed and could not be replanted would be replaced. Chair Schroeder asked if the large tree needed to be removed. Mr. Fischbach said it is in the way and would be removed. All concerns seem to be met. draft MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend approval of Application #1941 for LeRoy and Wanda Fischbach, 3135 North Shore Drive, for the variances as proposed and accepted the hardships suted by applicants, subject to the following conditions: applicants must provide an updated survey, all hardcover removals must be completed prior to footing inspection, erosion controls must be placed along the pond, and mature evergreen trees must be loplanted. Smith asked that a minimum size be designated for replacement trees. Gaffron indicated that could be done and also suggested that the trees be identified for removal. Mr. Fischbach inquired what needed to be done regarding erosion control. Gaffron explained it would be necessary to insull a silt fence during construction. Smith suggested a landscape plan and planting schedule be provided. Peterson noted the proposed motion is based on the lot size figures computed to be in the 44,000 s.f. range. Gaffron said he would meet with Fischbach’s architect before sending the application to Council. Chair Schroeder indicated approval is based on structural coverage being 15% or less of the total lot area. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#4) #1944 BRADLEY AND DINA ETHERINGTON, 4055 ELM STREET - RENEWAL VARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUHLIC HEARING - 7:17 TO 7:35 Bradley and Dina Etherington and Mark Fuller, realtor were present. Gaffron explained the application had previously been tabled to allow applicants additional time to provide an updated survey and to have lot lines staked. All requirements are met other than lot area for a single family building site. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. Lance Wile, 615 Minnetonka Highlands Lane expressed concern with a possible encroachment of a lot line dispute. Chair Schroeder inquired about the location of the lot line. Etherington stated the survey was properly done. Herman and Shirley Laue, 594 Park Lane, stated they have lived at that address since 1962. Some of the original pipes marking the lot lines are still in place. The recent survey does not come close. When he constructed a shed on his property, he make sure it within his prope^ boundaries. He noted the property to the east had been surveyed which met his comer stake. Chair Schroeder asked if he would dispute the current survey. Mr. Laue answered m the affirmative. Peterson said the Planning Commission can act on the present survey dated August 4, 1994 unless someone can prove another survey. Mr. Wile noted another survey had been done a ut two months ago but did not have it available. draftMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 Chair Schroeder stated even though the lot is below the 1 acre minimum, it is consistent with developed lots within the neighborhood. Drainage is another issue and any structure that is built should not cause drainage problems for the neighbors. Gaffron said the neighbors cannot dictate what is done but the Planning Commission needs to be reasonable and pnident in addressing the drainage concerns. Shirley Laue, neighbor to the west, suted the property is higher than other lots and is concerned with drainage. Chair Schroeder asked that a proper drainage plan be submitted along with building plans. Mark Fuller indicated that they would adhere to whatever plans suff and the Public Works Department recommends. It was moved by Chair Schroeder, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of Application ^1944 for Bradley and Dina Etherington, 4055 Elm Street, for renewal of the lot area variance subject to the following conditions: sulmiittal of a survey meeting staffs satisfaction, submission of drainage and grading plans, legal combination of Lots 7, 8 and 9, Minnetonka Summit Park required prior to issuance of building permit and accepted the lot area hardship stated by applicants. Ayes 4, nays 0. Gaffron noted applicants’ plans are to stan building this fall and inquired about the grading plan. Chair Schroeder stated giving plans need to be submitted before the matter goes to Council. Lindquist also requested that bo^ the drainage plan and lot line dispute needs to resolved prior to the aj^lication being forward to the Council. (#2) #1958 LOUIS OBERHAUSER, 2405 DUNWOODY, 3865/3877 SHORELINE DRIVE -SUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT OF THREE LOTS INTO TWO LOTS - 7:35 P.M. Chair Schroeder noted the applicant was not present and stated the matter would be reviewed at a later time. (#1) #1937 JACCI J. SEGNER, 3286/3290 NAVARRE LANE - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:36 TO 7:47 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Jacci Segner was present. Gaffron explained the proposal is for a lot line rearrangement and combination of Lots 44, 45, 46 and 47. The simple lot line rearrangement leaves both lots with a 100 ’ of width ?nd .5 acre draft MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 road Currentlv there arc two residences using the driveways at Hillside Place and the addition of two more lois would trigger an upgrade of the road. Applic^t owns all of property ^ has asreed to eliminate the use of both accesses at Hillside Place. Bermmg. vegetation, or fencmg is sussested to prohibit continued use of the driveways. The properties have been assessed for sewer Water is not available and City code docs not require that water be brought to tte oroDcrtics Private wells are allowed. It is recornincndcd that building permits not be issu^ untUacccsscs arc removed and drainage and uUlity easements be granted. Upon application for a building permit, applicant will be responsible for $225.00 connection charge for each sewer connection plus $800 SAC charge. Jacci Segner asked about access for Lots 44 and part of 45. Gaffron said acce» would addles^ at this time and the Public Works Departmem would need to be involved in making a decision. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. The potential buyers were presem and expressed concern with access. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Lindquist to recommend approval of the pro^si^ lot line rearrangement ^involving properties at 3286/3290 Navarre Lane subject to the followi^ conditions building permits will not be issued for new construction until primary access to 3^ Nav2 Lane and*sLklary access to 2260 Bayview Pla« at installation of a barrier at Hillside Place of berms or trees and fencing to be ^ and drainage and utility easements to be granted 10’ along extenor lot lines and 50 at each of shared lot line. Ayes 4, nays 0. Jacci Segner requested that berm not be a requirement because of potential water runoff problems to the Rood property. (MSi JOAN M. HARMON, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:47 TO 8:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Joan Harmon and Chris Ritts, attorney representing Frank Kokesh were present. Gaffron explained applicant is a non-residen. and Si^‘’^«r“'f oermit and variance to operate a limited horse operation. Frank Kokesh. the owner m me ^o7I.y has^rated a Wse business for several years. In 1985 a conditional use permit draft MISSION MEETING draft undeveloped road. According to note than two residences use the at Hillside Place and the addition :ant owns all of property and has Berming, vegetation, or fencing )roperties have been assessed for ire that water be brought to the It building permits not be issued )e granted. Upon application for onnection charge for each sewer Saffron said access would not be d need to be involved in making potential buyers were present and approval of the proposed lot line Lane subject to the following tion until primary access to 3300 at Hillside Place are removed; fencing to be approved by staff; ior lot lines and 50 ’ at each side ause of potential water runoff AD - CONDITIONAL USE rO 8:30 P.M. oted. ^esh were present. who requests a conditional use rank Kokesh, the owner of the 1 1985 a conditional use permit MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 granted approval for his horse boarding and training operation but no renewal has ever been applied for. It is Ms. Harmon's intention to board only ten horses owned by five clients and provide riding lessons for only those clients. Chris Ritts stated Mr. Kokesh’s son, Dan, and other family members live on or adjacent to the property and all have reason to frequent the site. Frank Kokesh resides on the property approximately six months of the year. The youngest daughter, Suzie, presently resides in the farm house. Peterson asked for clarification of Resolution ^1894 referencing condition fiS which states the conditional use permit runs with the property not with the owner. Gaffron explained the code was amended in 1986 providing for a conditional use for stables and bams, private or public, and for a riding academy use. Since the code change, the owner never applied for a conditional use permit. Peterson noted that if applicant had continued to renew the conditional use permit, there would be no basis for the current request. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. Earl and Betty Dom, 4045 Watertown Road, recalled a prior incident in which the Dorns applied for a conditional use permit to allow for a permitted swimming use on their property by a local day care facility. Mr. Kokesh was instrumental in starting a petition in opposition to the project stating they did not want excess traffic in the area. The application was withdrawn when the Council restricted the use to only 20 children which would not have been profitable for the Dorns. In 1985 the Dorns notified the City that Mr. Kokesh was operating a horse training and related business on his property. Eventually Council did grant Mr. Kokesh a conditional use permit for his business. A variance to the code is being requested for the current application which is almost the same as rezoning. This would break down the barrier of conunercialism as opposed to conditional use. He sees no need for a code variance if the present operation is trimmed back. The street is dangerous at this time with a 40 mph speed limit and people use it as a short cut. Chair Schroeder explained a code variance is being considered to a level of usage which is less than the previous conditional use had permitted. Randy Weestrand, 525 Orchard Park Road, stated he would not object to limiting the operation to only 10 horses. Lindquist asked if other non-owner conditional use permits had been issued within the City? Gaffron stated he was unaware of any similar operation. Smith asked applicant what emergency arrangements would be in place. Joan Hannon explained two people would be hired that would DRAFT[MISSION MEETING drafton but no renewal has ever been horses owned by five clients and nembers live on or adjacent to the Kokesh resides on the property er, Suzie, presently resides in the ‘ing condition #S which states the wner. Gaffron explained the code bles and bams, private or public, aer never applied for a conditional renew the conditional use permit. ncident in which the Dorns applied ng use on their property by a local )etition in opposition to the project >lication was withdrawn when the [ not have been profitable for the was operating a horse training and ant Mr. Kokesh a conditional use guested f jr the current application m the barrier of commercialism as ariance if the present operation is [0 mph speed limit and people use ed to a level of usage which is less not object to limiting the operation i had been issued within the City? ith asked applicant what emergency o people would be hired that would MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 be able to be on the premises within 5 to 10 minutes and also Suzie Kokesh who is knowledgeable would be living at the site. Phone numbers would be posted along with guidelines to follow in emergency situations. Chair Schroeder pointed out the issue of liabilit)' regarding owner versus non-owner. Chris Ritts indicated that Mr. Kokesh has a farm liability policy on the property and Ms. Harmon would also need coverage. Peterson stated he is opposed to the application because it goes against city code to allow a non ownership conunercial businesses to operate on anyone ’s property. Chris Ritts reassured Planning Commission Members that the Kokesh family would still be using the property and be on the premises. Lindquist agreed with Peterson. Chair Schroeder suggested that subdivision be an alternative means to handle this request. He asked Councilmember Jabbour if there was a precedent for non-owner conditional use permits. Jabbour stated it is his understanding the conditional use permit is granted to the land not the applicant. He suggested the City Attorney be contacted for his opinion. Chair Schroeder explained that members are in agreement with applicant continuing to operate a limited horse facility but questioned if a conditional use permit can be transferred to a non- owner. Gaffron listed some conditional uses that is permitt^ within the 2 acre zones - schools, churches, clubs, camps, recreation areas, greenhouses, guest houses, antennas, crop and stock farms, keeping of animals, and stables and bams. For instance, the camp that is operated on Tonkawa Road is owned by a group and listed other examples. Chair Schroeder suggested tabling the application to see if there is precedent of a non-owner operator and that the City Attorney be contacted for guidance as to what basis can owners give up their right or obligation to operate under a conditional use permit. Chris Ritts stated he would check out legal issues and agreed to withdrawn the application and have the owner lesubmit it. (#2) #1958 LOUIS OBERHAUSER, 2405 DUNWOODY, 3865/3877 SHORELINE DRIVE •SUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT OF THREE LOTS INTO TWO LOTS - PUBLIC HEARING • 8:00 P.M. Chair Schroeder again noted applicant was not present and asked whether there was public interest. An interested party inquired if changing the lot lines would affect the single family dwelling versus multi-family dwelling such as townhouses. Gaffron explained in the past a number of different schemes had been proposed that included townhouses. The current plan is to create two individual lots, each with a single family residence. Jim Beise, 2435 Dunwoody Avenue, expressed curiosity as to the outcome. i! draft MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 #1949 SANFORD ERIKSON, 4455 FOREST LAKE LANDING - VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING • 8:35 TO 8:38 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted Sanford Erikson was present Gaffron explained applicant requests a variance for an average lakeshore setback for construction of a grade level deck and four season porch. The new addition and deck will not block neighbors’ view:* of the lake because of the location and existing screening. No other variances are involved. Sanford Erikson commented they are new to the area and were surprised that a variance would be needed for such a project. He noted the only neighbor that might be affected is at a higher elevation and no impact would occur to their property. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Smith to recommend approval of Application #1949 for Sanford Erikson, 4455 Forest Lake Landing, for the variance as proposed and accepted the irregular lot hardship stated by applicant. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#7) #1950 GLEN UPTON, 3685 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING • 8:40 TO 8:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Glen Upton was present. Gaffron explained applicant proposes a room addition and attached garage to the existing house which is presently within the 0-75 ’ setback. The existing setback for the house is at 31’ with the addition proposed at 42 ’ and proposed deck at 41 ’. Hardcover is a concern within the 0-75 setback area with existing being at 17.8% and the proposal would increase it to 26.7%. No hardcover will be added to the 75-250 ’ area which is now at 0%. Lot coverage by strucnires exists at 1,208 s.f. or 14.4% where 15% is allowed and 1,876 s.f. or 22.3% is proposed. He pointed out that code allows any lot to have up to 1,500 s.f. of lot coverage by structure so that the variance is not from 15% but from 1,500 s.f. Actually it amounts to a 376 s.f. variance. No side or street setback variances are necessary. 1 DRAFT minutes of the orono planning commission meeting HELD AUGUST 15. 19H Lindquist inquired if the vacated county road was part of the property. Gaffron said it was an easement for driveway purposes serving neighboring properties and the easement cannot be credited against lot area. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. John Erickson. 1620 Shadywood. does not agree with letting owners encroach further into the lakeshore setback area. He referred to an incident in which he was denied permission to repair a pagoda on his property because it was located within the 0-75 ’ setback area. He commented everyone should be treated the same. I iiyVpiicf felt the proposed improvement is too ambitious for the lot. Chair Schroeder also agreed that the lot cannot take additional hardcover. Glen Upon asked if he could receive credit for the land across the road. Peterson explained there is no problem with the lot area coverage but the concern is the hardcover issue. Glen Upon expressed displeasure with the fact that he has more land than his neighbors but the Planning Commission will not allow him to improve his property. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Schroeder to recommend denial of Application #1950 for Glen Upton, 3685 North Shore Drive, for the variances as proposed. Ayes 4, nays 0 Chair Schroeder noted this matter would be placed on the City Council agenda for the September 12, 1994 meeting. (#8) #1951 KENDRICK MELROSE. 50 CRISTOFORI CIRCLE - V ARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:55 TO 9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Kendrick Melrose and Bruce Bren, his contractor, were present. Gaffron explained Cristofori Woods is a recent PRD three lot subdivision. In 1992 » vari^e was granted the previous owner to allow structure to be placed 75 from the street line rathw than the required 100 ’. The current owner proposes to expand the first floor family room and lower level exercise room which improvements require a side setback variance of m*® required 50 ’ side yard. Topography has placed severe limits on the buildmg site and this is he cSy location for the addition. The improvement would not be visible to the property to the south because of extensive vegetation. Kendrick Melrose pointed out he is not the original owner. When he bought the home, it was draft MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 always his intention to have a family room. The lot is 23 acres hut approximately 22 acres are wetlands and unusable as a building site. Building alternatives to the east would encroach the front lot line and the severe grade would create a roof line problem. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Schroeder to recommend approval of Application #1951 for Kendrick Melrose. 50 Cristofori Circle, for the variance as proposed and accepted the hardships suted by applicant. Smith suggested no further encroachment to the property in the future. Peterson also agreed as the home was originally built with a view of the wetlands. Ayes 4, rays 0. (#2) #195S LOUIS OBERHAUSER, 2405 DUNWOODY, 3805/3877 SHORELINE DRIVE -SUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT OF THREE LOTS INTO TWO LOTS - 9:05 P.M. Chair Schroeder asked if there was any representation for the Oberhauser application? No one appeared. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson to table this application until the September 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting for lack of representation. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#9) #1952 CHRISTINE FREEMAN, 2240 SHADYWOOD ROAD - AMENDED VARIANCE APPLICANT - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:07 TO 9:27 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Christine Freeman and Blake Stranz, contractor, were present. Gaffron explained in February of 1994 the City approved a side setback variance for an addition to the west side of the existing residence. In spring when the snow melted, it was noted that a compacted rock driveway used for parking had not been taken into consideration for the hardcover calculations which puts applicant over the 25% requirement. Applicant now requests to keep a significant amount of the driveway. The overage amounts to approximately 1,850 s.f. Applicant suggests removal of plastic but does not want to lose the rock as it is needed for safety aspects of having it as a parking space. It does allow additional cars to be parked off the street. Christine Freeman explained she has given a friend permission to park a car on her premises for the summer. It is usually not used for that purpose but she does use it to park her boat trailer. It also provides parking space for repairmen. Chair Schroeder asked how long the rock had been there? Christine Freeman stated 10 years and indicated she would have a problem removing it as she needs access to her house and grass would probably not grow in that area draft MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 because of ninoff. Blake Stranz commemed anodier issue is the limited space in front of the garage itself and this provides secondary safe parking for house guests. Chair Schroeder said a car could be parked in front of the garage and another in front of the gravel drive for use by house guests. Christine Freeman said in the wimer time the area is not cleaned out. Smith felt reductions could be made in the area between the garage and the house. Christine Freeman said it would be difTicult to back or swing around a car or trailer without that space. Because of safety reasons, she needs to back into her garage. Chair Schroeder suggested area behind the garage be removed. He commented approval for her addition last winter would probably not have taken place without the tradeoff of hardcover. Gaffton requested that staff be given defmite direction. He noted there is a question of hardcover tlut is driven on versus hardcover that is not. There is a fine line between what is landsaq)e and what is compacted driven on hardcover. Chair Schroeder indicated he has no problem with the driveway area because of safety reasons. The other area could be removed. Christine Freeman stated all plastic would be removed per the previous variance. Gaffron suggested removal of all rock in the area along the northwest side of sidewalk and grass or bushes be used as a replacement. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Lindquist to recommend approval of Application #1952 for Christine Freeman, 2240 Shadywood Road, noting that hardcover behind the garage and northwest of sidewalk be removed except for 3’ strip adjacent to garage for firewood storage as discussed and accepted the hardships stated by af^licant. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#10) #1953 WILLIAM ALLEN, 3475 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - VARIANCES • PUBLIC HEARING - 9:28 TO 9:47 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Phillip Payne, contractor for the home owner, was present. Gaffron explained the request is for a side setback lot coverage variance to construct an addition plus a deck to the rear of the house. There is also a requesi for a variance to the required 10’ setback between the buildings. The 1 ’ overhang will result in a separation setback of less than 3’ requiring special fire wall construction. According to Section 10.04, Subd. 14 (C) regarding structural lot coverage there is an exception which states "Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 s.f of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures." The proposal is for 1,311.6 s.f. which is less than 1,500 s.f.; thus the lot coverage variance is not needed. He also is allowed 35% hardcover and only 31.7% is proposed so hardcover is not an issue. A side setback variance is needed along the west side. L DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15. 1994 Chair Schroeder noted the hardship statement submitted by applicant. He asked how separation setback issues had been handled in the past? GafYitm explained fire code issues can probably be addressed by installation of a fire wall but there is not sufficient access for emergency vehicles to the rear of the property. Peterson felt the addition to the deck closes off the only means for emergency vehicles to access the property and the fire chief should be consulted for an opinion. Gaffron stated additional information is needed for height and location of the fence and adjacent houses. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. Phillip Payne indicated he would go along with whatever the fire chief allows. The west side of the deck could be moved in to 10 ’. Chair Schroeder said that would not solve the problem. Peterson requested an updated survey. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to table Application #1953 for William Allen. 3475 Livingston Avenue, as Plarming Commission wants further information from the fire department and to allow applicant time to provide an updated survey. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#11) #1954 LARRY ELSEN. 2879 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES • PUBLIC HEARING • 9:53 TO 10:12 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted Larry Elsen was present Gaffron explained in July of 1993 applicant received variance approvals for additions to his property. Because of hardcover excesses, applicant was asked to remove a shed. During the removal applicant found the existing privacy fence along the west/public access side to be in poor condition and replaced it without a permit. The new feiKe is within the same location except for a 5’ section that has been installed parallel to the shoreline. Lawrence Elsen presented photos of the fence both before and after the construction. He considered the fence to be a safety hazard in its previous condition. Vines and plantings have been planted on both sides of the fence. Gaffron noted that the code does iwt allow fences within the 0-75 ’ setback area. If the fence is allowed to remain, the reasons need to be made clear. LawreiKe Elsen indicated he did not know a permit was needed for a fence. Smith felt plantings could have been a suitable replacement. Chair Schroeder said he was in agreement with the feiKe particularly next to a public access which prevents people from trespassing. Lawrence Elsen expressed concern regarding children getting hurt on his property. He tries to draft MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO^IMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 maintain the area and has been a "good neighbor” to the beach. A neighbor commented how heavily used the beach is along his and Lawrence Elsen’s property. The City has not maintained the area. Lawrence Elsen suggested the chain be dropped in the winter time to prevent snowmobilers from beii^ hurt. To get around the chain, snowmobilers trespass on his property. Discussion ensued regardii^ the section of the fence parallel to the lake. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Schroeder to recommend approval of Application #1954 for Lawrence D. Elsen, 2879 Casco Poiitt Road, for an after-the-fact variance to the installation of a fence for the portion parallel to Carman Street but the section parallel to the shoreline must be removed and accepted the hardships sUted by jq)plicant. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#12) #1955 ANDREW J. MCDERMOTT HI, 2702 WALTERS PORT LANE • VARIANCE • PUBLIC HEARING - 10:12 TO 10:17 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Andrew McDermott III was present. Gaffron explained in May of 1991 applicant received approval for variances to construct a three- season porch, bathroom addition and decL'walkway. At this time applicant is proposing to construct a screen porch within a portion of the existii^ deck which would encroach into the required 35’ street yard by 1’. Andrew McDermott stated the side deck along with other renovations to the house had been done in 1983 which plans had been approved by the City at that time. Perhaps the City did not realize it was 1’ too close to the road. The improvement will not make it appear any closer to the street yard. Chair Schroeder asked whether there was public interest. There were no comments from the public. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of Application #1955 for Andrew J. McDermott III, 2702 Walters Port Lane, for the 1* variance as proposed. Ayes 4, nays 0. draft MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1994 (#13) #1954 TOM AND CHRIS SMIEJA, 4049 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 10:17 TO 10:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Smieja were present. Gaffron explained applicant proposes a 26 ’x48 ’ addition to the east side and a 16'xl4 ’ addition to the west side of the existing house. Because of the uniqueness of the lot, the additions require a street side setback variance and a side setback variance. Orchard Park Road is considered the from yard and Watertown Road is the side yard. The City Attorney is being consulted for a clarification of the code which does not seem to fit Orono’s rural character. The side street setback requires 50* and proposed is at 45 ’ and the existing is i?’. The front setback requires a 100 ’ and 38 ’ is being proposed for the principal structure ar4 25 ’ for the three season porch. No area variance is required. The additions do not change the size for septic use but the existing and future septic area need to be protected. Tom Smieja suted it is their intemion to tear down the old garage next to the rear lot line. Chair Schroeder said his concern is with the 25 ’. After some discussion, it was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Smith to recommend approval of Application #1956 for Tom and Chris Smieja, 4040 Watertown Road, for variances as proposed including both the 25 ’ and 45 ’ setbacks with conditions that the septic areas be fenced off prior to construction, removal of the garage ^nd noted the sighting problem at intersection of Watertown Road. Ayes 4, nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#14) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 1994 Lindquist attended the Council meeting and reported that Council gave Stoddard approval to connect to the existing sewer unit instead of a separate connection. He noted that the application for Sailor’s World was continued as applicant was not present. (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Chair Schroeder noted the B-2 issue is still being reviewed by the City Attorney. Gaffron stated a date needs to be set for a meeting. Comments have been received from the attorney but he did not give specific direction. Chair Schroeder commented that the B-2 Code was revised to draftMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGHELD AUGUST 15« 1994 provide for extra conditional uses. Councilmember Jabbour spoke on B-2 code issues regarding marinas. After discussion, it was decided to set a date for the Planning Commission to meet so the B-2 matter could be moved on to Council. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#ld) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 18, 1994 MEETING It was moved by Schroeder. seconded by Lindquist to approve the July 18. 1994 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted. Ayes 4. nays 0. (#17) REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNCIL MEETING Chair Schroeder volumeered to attend the September 12, 1994 Council meeting. Lindquist gave notification that he is unable to attend the September 19. 1994 Planning Commission meeting. (#18) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE FOR B-2 WORK SESSION (Thair Schroeder noted a date will be scheduled. ADJOURNMENT Chair Schroeder adjourned the regular Planning Commission meeting at 10:45 p.m. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person Mayor and City Council Ron Moorsc, City Administrator September 9, 1994 SUBJECT: Steven Fames Request Regarding a Quiet Water Zone I have attached information and materials from Steven Fames, the owner of Deering Island, who is pursuit^ the esud>lishment of a quiet water zone in the area south and west of Deering Island. His request for a tpiiet water zone was denied by the LMCD. He is now requesting that the City of Orono make a recommendatioa to the LMCD in support of his request. Mr. Fames was advised than his materials will be forwarded to the Council and that he could make a short presentation to the Council during the Public Comments section of the agenda. If the Council decides to formally pursue this, or more discussion is needed, this item can be placed on an upcoming agenda. iiei Water Zk Fanief, the owner of Deerii^ Island, who he area south and west of Deerh^ Uaad. MCD. He is now requesdqg that the City JVPOtt of his request. Mr. Fames was •'Ouncil and that he could make a sbofi Ks section of the afenda. IftheCouncU I needed, this item can be placed on an Sept 1, 1994 Orono City Council Dear Council Members: I would like the City of Orono to pass a recommendation that a Quiet Water (QW) zone be established in the area south and west of Deerinq Island* an island that 1 own and homestead. Zrosion from boat waves is substantial. Over forty percent of the surface area of this three acre plus island have been lost since 1913. and 1 estimate that within 25 years the entire east point will be lost. Understanding that Orono has no representative on the LMCD. Z brought my concerns before them earlier this year. The attached data that you now have they also had. while I had some support, the majority of the board had little sympathy for the lakeshore owner. Their main concern was to keep the lake as open as possible, i.e. let the boats go as fast as they like. My request was denied on a 5*4 vote, with representatives from Spring Park and Orono absent, and Mound abstaining. I feel a positive recommendation from Orono would help sway the LMCO towards my position when the matter comes up again. Enclosed are data from a 1913 plat of the island, along with a 1940 aerial photograph, combined with a 1994 rough transit that I made. Also enclosed are pertinent points from a 1993 study from the ONR showing the effects of recreational boat traffic on an area of the Mississippi river. Additionally, the minutes from the June 22, 1994 meeting are enclosed, along with excerpts from the public hearings held when the QW zone off Fagerr.ess point- just east of the island*was established. I look forward to discussing this request with you at a future Orono City Council meeting. Stepnen Fames Peering Island r DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 PM., Wednesday, Jane 22, 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER The Sleeting was called to order by Chair Johnstone at 7:30 PM. ROLL CALLPresent: Wsi. Johnstone, Chair, Minnetonka; Bert Foster, Deepharen; Janes Crathwol, Excelsior; Jos. Zwak, Greenwood; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Ton Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Treasurer, Shorewood; Ton Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; Craig Mol let, Victo ria; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Adninistrative Technician; Eugene Stronnen, Executive Director. H^aHers Absent: Mike Bloon, Minnetonka Beach; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; Duane Markus, Wayxata. CHAIR ANNOONCEMENTS: Chair Johnstone announced that the annual Public Officials Lake Tour, is scheduled for Saturday, 8/13/94, 10 AM-1 PM. An A1 A Aina's cruise boat will be used. Departure will be fron Al k Aina's*Supper Club in Mound. The executive director explained that county, state, local government and other agency officials are invited to participate. Invitations will be sent in July. READING Of MINUTES; Reese moved, Zwak seconded, to approve the minutes of the 5/25/94 Board meeting as submitted. Motion car ried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from persons in attend ance on subjects not on the agenda. CCMSENT AGENDA: Orathwol moved, Foster seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda items identified by a carried unanimously. *** on the agenda. Motion COMMITTEE REPORTS 1.WATTR STRUCTURES, Rascop for Chair Babcock t iporary structures The commit teT"lrrcoiBm*nded that changing the distance in Sect. an ordinance be drafted changin, (ha distance in Sect. ^ Ia"thi in, the LMCD from permitting temporary * Sher ff’« w-td»r Patrol will issue permits under LMCD s ordiSher ffe Wate7%SrrrrVi 11 i„ue pVrmit. undeT tMCD's ordi- n«Ie,'.' 'Ra’Ur.x7lained''liit temporary connected to the shore, such as in Jloslr He said this ordinance rl^rfnd re^to shore to he consisleirr^h the 130* shore zone.and relieve the District of permit staff to draft ‘-V ■> m .. . T nf th- ■■ changingmendmsitr to Sectio. 4^<^n^a--fT01B““5G01 : Motion carried iotion carried unanimously. IJ r LNCD BOARD OF OIRCCTORS June 22, 1994 Thibault reported the sheriff’s Water Patrol has not had an oppo^anitj to reriew the proposal. NOTIOM: Foster aored, Zwak seconded, to defer the action and refer the setter to the Water Structures CossiMee until the Sheriff’s Water Patrol has had an opportunity/to review the ordinance aaendsent. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. F.>ck Width # The cossittee recossended an ordinance^^be drafted to allow a 10* width fofv^fas docks with some limit on the length included. The Board received a staff report ^f the length and widths of existing gas docks on Lake Minnetonka. Staff recossended a length limit of SO* for 10’ wide gas docks. This dimension will accosaradate an average of two boats, .as well as the larger boats on the Lake. Copies of Section 2.03 and Section 2.12 of the Code were supplied. Foster said he. has no problem with the 7S* length at the Tonka Bay Marina. He said he would not have a problem with 40’ to 50’ for each set of pumps. Zwak said it would not be feasible for a marina to have aJOO* long gas dock. In addition, the Dis trict controls the Dock Use Area. As an example, he said Bean’s Greenwood Marina’s gas dock, with an 89’ length, allows room for waiting for gas. Foster said there is a need for the 10’ gas dock width and the shelter for electronic equipment. LeFevere said there can be a provision for a 10’ gas dock width, with the length to be considered pn a case by case basis at the time of licensing. NOTION: Foster sioved, Zwak seconded, to have LeFevere prepare an amendment to Sect. 2.1^2 of the Code allowing a 10* width for gas docks with the length of the dock to be appropriate to the area. DISCUSSION: Johnstone noted that Curly’s Minnetonka Marina and Sailors World have gas docks wider than 10*. LeFevere said the ordinance. Sect. 2.12, provides for "grandfathering” docks in existence on 6/30/82. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. G. Shelter for Electronic Equipment on Gas Docks Rascop reported the committee recommended an ordinance be drafted to allow a weatherproof shelter for cover and security of electronic equipment with a size to accommodate one or two people. The LMCD staff recommended a maximum size of 6’ wide x 6’ long X 8’ high under the following conditions: 1. The structure to be located on gas docks only 2. The structure to provide shelter for\electronic equip ment' associated with the sale of gas and fuel related items only. ^ 3. No other merchandise may be sold from tliis structure 4. The structure must meet building code requirements of the local city. \ 5. Any advertising signs to meet current LMCD>^ordinances 6. The color of the structure must be neutral,\no bright colors. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 22* 1994 vafe/ii M 'Mi r^d?nt of^VVrafT*ordin«n«^reIat^ approve the secondVOTE: Motion carried unaninously. D» Remiost for Quiet Waters Area Soutli of Deerina Island MOTION: Foster aoved* Grathwol seconded* to deny the request for a quiet waters area in the area south of Deering Island. DISCUSSION: Steve Fames* owner of Deering Island* in a letter dated 5/6/94, requested that the west and south channels around the island be designated quiet water zones. Fames said the island is surrounded by two quiet water *0Ass» one at Fagerness Point in Coffee Cove and one in the North Seton Channel area. He subnitted a 1913 plat of Deering Island and a coaposite using the 1913 plat and a 1960 aerial photo along with his own survey. He said the documents show substantial erosion. He sa.i the island has lost about 40% of its land mass since 1913. On the south side of the island about 130* of shore- land has eroded away. Since 1960 about 62* of shoreland is gone. He believes this is due to waves from passing boats. Fames said other quiet water zones have been established in areas with less traffic. He believes the committee favors boat speed. Fames asked what the criteria are for establishing a quiet water zone. He said he has the impression that the LMCD is saying quiet water zones cannot be established where needed over the Lake and that the Lake has to be preserved for boats that want to go fast. He does not believe rip-rap will solve the problem. A neighbor* Judy Ess* 2043 Lakeside* Mound* is in the process of re-rip rapping due to wave action washing over their rip-rap. He said he thought the request would stand on its own merits. He did not contact many other people. He said Mrs. Ess would appear before tae Lake Use and Recreation Cosmittee at its next meeting. Fames requested that certain standards and procedures be developed for quiet water areas. He said the Board should be reminded that it is not in existence for special interest groups and should be concerned when unique natural features of the Lake are being decimated by the use of boats. Foster responded that* Fames was given the criteria for establishing quiet water areas. Fames responded that the crite ria are nebulous and are self serving in the interest of boaters. Penn asked if there was input from the Sheriff’s Water Patrol. Foster said the Water Patrol indicated that in the Minnetonka Beach area and the Big Island area safety was a prime concern. Zwak said the District could be in the position of estab lishing quiet water areas for everyone who thinks there is ero sion from boat traffic. In looking at the difference between 1913 and 1960* he sees natural forces acting on the island. Rip rap is an alternative available to the owner. Zwak said there is a difference between using quiet waters for safety purposes and using them for shoreline protection. LNCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 22, 1994Johnstone ssid he is concerned thAt ^Oiitrict decides where quiet we%rs ere eet^hi V*? ®" ’'**•*'• toward boat use and not a"ffUien, Ul 111'**'* .** aaid be baa difficulty in Veparatf"* t^i* ^ - arena that bare been (ranted quiet wattr *rtatua ’ nated during high water were based on erosion V/V h^*h*" seen boats going through the subject area too fast ^ ^ the *^i'‘won*ire/.d"iV k'*** is to protectine H« wondered if there are other alternatives to alowin* down the boats. Perhaps there are ways of direct ins the traffic away froa the island aore than 150*. o*reciing the traffic Scruton. Seton Village Townhoaes, said he looks across t the rip rap work being done on the Ess property. He said if dJidsrisain HJ**hif?*‘*** ••ters, the Ess* will have to paopla, boacara and tba ujd. Ha a‘ubwUta'd*a *dr«iJJ^ahowin( tha KiJb5i.a ’'anVTbrE??Vro"p*.rtV.*"‘* ***°" *•“>" a».r»*hII!*JIId *"•« ‘ha District cannot laakaHin nJt (S JwJJ? *""*■ "• *'“* •" '"•* VW; Notion carried, Johnstone, Partyka, Penn and Suerth voting Scruton*inIiFarnes and Scruton for tbvif presentation. Scruton invited the Board to observe the bass boats going through that area early in the aorning. ^nrousn f.1—-”*^**‘*/*.^ Ninnesota Scientific Buoy in Vest Upper Lake mmvm roster aoved, Reese seconont, ■ tg^Jasue a special event perait, without application fee, to theUniVeTvi-t y^^ Ninnesota ^»“«-*49»«ncing seditoent trap in West Upper Laklk^st north of Crane Island. VOTE: Notion carried unaniaously 3. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY CONNITTEr,""chai r Mol let B. Divers Lake Botto^,„,cTean-ttp reported,^E8 divers held a lake bottom clean<-up on o/is/94. ^ Samplessome of the material removed from the Lake are on display at^the LNCD office. There was television coverage and a newspaper feature following the event. Noller^feported some scout troops are being organized for a shore 1 ina,>^lean-'Up. Private Fund Solicitation Nollet reported a list of civic organizations which could *■ ^*^^ *^*^**^ funds ** pu.^p^^.4 «riu^ director re^wiied sij,842 has been received to date in response to the Nay mailing. This is ahead of the 1993 solicitation at this time. heedHetrI- 15 ;t IS ic IS f o .e le n e t g t LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report of: COFFEE COVE QUIET WATERS Public HearingPublic Hearing: February 4, 1981, Wednesday, 7:30 p.m.. Spring Park City Hall Attendance:Bauaan, Carvood, Hunt, Paurus, Pillabury, Mixa and those on list attached Public Hearing: The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.a. Petitioners and others appeared concerning the need to expand the Coffee Cove Quiet Waters area westerly. Individual Cl its included: 1. Setty Swanson: there is horrible "cross chop" weekends and evmings; should iBove QW area 100* to 200* ^st of the Fagerness Point-Park Lane line. 2. Ron Johnson: Riprap washed out; lost 3 props; 200 boats per hour pass on Sundays; wave action caused by boats leaving QU area, water churned up on week ends takes to Friday to settle. 3* John Cody: little kids can't swin because of drunk operators, 2 people have been hie. 4. Olive Rolf: have lost 6* of shore, need QW extension. 5. Carl Widowr: there is nad dash for the cltannel, worst on weekends, little waterskiing (because of heavy traffic). 6. Homan Dickey: against QW, more a problem of policing. 7. Larry Junge: should move QW to 100' to 200' west of Fagerness Point and Park Lane extended. 8. Cathy Hellweg: need QW for children's safety; also cans, glass and other debris are probletss. 9. John Hellweg: it is one big Jamming contest, need both QW and more patrol. 10. Bob Woyteke: so dangerous and unsafe you could not reach anyone in trouble. 11. Dan McCarty: Lake is getting slower and slower, opposed to QW, there is plenty of QW on Sunday, water level is too high. 12. Roberta Rolf: lived near area for 27 years, there are more and faster boats. 13. Fred Peterson: wants to waterskl near Lord Fletchers. 14. Paul Bachman: should be QW and enforced, but not all the wav to Seton. 15. Mike Savage: traffic is worse off Three Points-Decrlng Island. 16. Jack Kirk: Water Patrol does good job for what they have to work with, active enforcement would reduce violations. CAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Cavm QW Public Hearing February 4, 1981 Pag« 2 Than balm no furthar aubalttala. and aU having baan haard wiahlng to ba haard the hearing was cloeed at 8:50 p.n. Flndlnaa la ^ av-» PAffae Cove QU area be extended wettward to a «««ly of ragamaa. Point and Park Una a.tandad (patltlon attached). 2. Ttalfle on vaakanda and avanlnga contlnua. to Incraata and bacoaa aora racklaaa and dangeroua. a. Eecii—inriitl rrrrt gr tha 2-23-.1 co-ltt.a Sri:™J5:rtr«Jd'Clth,ut raco^atl- Othar^^^ glva furthar eonaldaratlon to tha patltlon. Motion. Ayaa W. hay At tha 2-«-»l hoard -atlng. Urry Junga and safety probleu In r^ffaa Channel ueetward to a point onthat that part of Area 19 (Coffee Co^) fro. on the City of tiater 200 feet vest of ^•«?™*** Jl Togo Par (which le the City’s tone line Spring Park shore aoirtsilnt * a property), then easterly to Coffee ?:i„;irb:'^a~IL\ira S«»a: W.tara^r.a Ur tul “:’*pIai'^‘ma’'‘5:uon. “irt". Nay. (*). .a-—• a and Haacop voting Nay. « tha 3-9-81 co»ltt.a '‘“rtrtj'iaS'w^oyru'jJau^'o^ Of Coffee Cove QW buoys be as (c) one in the channel; and line, (b) one buoy In the center of J . buoys be determined by the county(2) that the placement of any other navigation buoys oe oece and the LMCO. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). At the 3-25-81 Board meeting, Paurus 5S*buoyr”%laced*’or in Coffee Cove Quiet Waters area be as j^e traffic area, (c) one buoy the west QU line, (b) one .nj other navigation buoy be ba placad In tha channal. and (d) tha pi _ *van (10), Naya (0). datanlnad by tha county and tha LMCO. Motion, Ayaa UO) . « y r [ LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report of: COFFEE COVE QUIET UATERS AREA PUBLIC HEARING Public Reering: Attendance: Fcbrxiary 16* 1983, Wednesday, 7:30 p.a.. Tonka Bay City Hall laacop* Boynton, Elan, KacNaaara, Wagner, Brown, Nurr, Faaching, Hixa, listed interested parties, and others Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 7:30 p.a. with a review of the background of the Coffee Cove QU area. The purpose of the public hearing was to establish Che west line of the QW area between Fagemess Point and Spring Park, and the aeed to sake the QV a peraanent area. A conaenaua of those appearing favored the establiahmenc of the QU area pemanently. and locating the west limit on a line between Fagemess Point and Park Lane extended (lot 17). Those cosAsncing included: Sue Sterne: Why was QW established: (Petition, heavy use as part of the - - - - -“Circle Route, and high accident rate.) Can’t water ski from our dock with QU marked as is. Bill Sterne: With QW it takes twice as long to get through the channel and therefore adds to the congestion. Jen Sterne: 1. There is no accident problem - have not seen any boat accidents. 2. There is some erosion, but waves from winds do more damage to the shoreline than waves from boats. Oliver Rolf: 1. Need enforcement - speed should be controlled. 2. Lost 5 feet of shoreline, get dead fish, beer cans, etc. helped eliminate these problems. 3. Continue the Slow buoys. Carl Widmer: 1. Without QW there is extremely rough water, and safety problem (cut fish lines, swimming on weekends, etc.). 2. Could move the line over. QU has 3. QW for the rest is almost a must. Roberta Rolf: 1. No objection to moving the line over. 2. OK to make permanent. QW has real.i.y helped m lake MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Coff** Cov« Qui«t U«t«r P.H. February 16, 1983 PM* 2 ,, w 4— h^mn h*»rd and no oth«r subolttalt having b*«n rccalvad. tha ^3.1 having b 7»4S o a Additional aubaittala warn racaivad !j**^^**-d*JoL\%urlay Larry C. Junga, Ron and Mauraan Johnson (Lot 19), frtns: fu’ RoU, Dou* aSd Kin Sail.. John Stark, and Sid^i -"tl fn uior'of QU; Mr. and Mrs. William Starna. not In favor of qy. Findings 1. Tha Coffaa Cova QW has baan banaficial and affactlva. Tha Coffaa Cova QW araa should ba mada parmanant. Th. —t an. »0lBt to F«k un. (Lot 17). ■aeoBMandations VIsn Movad Wasnar Sacondad that tha cob" (HOIE: I.n y..t ,cctd«.t r.port for "cltel. rout." 1. .tt»ch.d.) \Sl\/4S»a /mp. —- —--------------------- At th. J-23-»3 »«•'* ““J"*; Ji“.rco« Ayas (10), Nays (0). r REQUEST FC3R QUIET WATER AREAS IN CHANNELS SOUTH AND WEST OF DEARIMG'S ISLAND ERCSI Att«ch«d dr#wing show* progressive erosion- primarily on south and west shores- over eighty years' time. -1913 data from land survey notarized February 1913. Lake level June 1913 was 920.40. -1960 data drawn from aerial photograph from Hennepin County Surveyor's office. Taken spring of 1960. Lake levels mid-April 927.88 and mid- May 928.39. -1994 data from survey by owner 6-10-94, Lake level 929.97. (Recent aerial photographs have been taken by Hennepin County» but are not yet available.) -lake level readings from Mike Panzer, Lake Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. BOAT CONGESTION Attached map shows that the South channel feeds directIv into the lake area East of Fagerness Point. This area the LMCD has already designated a quiet water area- presumably because of high boat traffic, noise and wave erosion concerns. West of the channel the traffic is routed through Seton Lake, another quiet water area. • • I|• = iOO ff»r Nw - i-r5 ----l^lo ................... If I 7 • . • r'-s ►V ' . . Si ' •• i.t‘-Ar<.' '.• mn ,w5‘ . .4rv!^ mm ; •■■•■' ' ■' ■'' ' .■'• '■ '-y’X''.'’ '' ' • '/s-' V,- ' ' .•■ ■,;V.'V'. ■ 'Vv ' ■' ' ; ••. .• v.',i<’v'. . .1 y •■ ■ '• V"''' »y >■ i'- ' ''.'O' ' ■ '>:•■' ' ' '' 'V ' >? >'* - • -‘i > V ■ . ' .%•. -■ V -o'.l.-' ■ > . . 'J ’ ‘ ; '• vi.V ' , : V. s ' ' V * * • ^ X Vt '.U ' r ;■ ■ i'-, .'• V.;:- • V ’.'■.n? ,v vt' ' ;■ O': ' . , 1, ' ' ) •'•'' -i •" ^ d ' '>{ VW ' ^ ' 1 • - ] ' ' ’ .''■y • • ''.'0 5 '-s^0\\-O0'.- ;>■ O '.; '.'.V Bn '-■ J '.v:: ’-* .^v:. O f X . 1 ^ < ' -r i’ ‘ x'v vv ‘ ^ V/l-if *:•' V ’> , v-> t v'-i \ < ^ ; ■ ‘ 00^" ■: ■ A*'-:?-;. ' ^ IMfv'* '** ' srm. r • X ." ' .V'/oyjV.Kr; iKW • ‘ loir ■ ff.' >~<j : s'^ *' vcx,V. b ’ ..'IM •• T''“Wu'o''' V' •: V"vV.0‘^.* O'J. •• * .'. •:>'i?^'A'. • j'O'X.x.x "^vj . ■ > V > ' ► - • - \ ", •V*' Vv!'“ "' It' ni j? « • I ./ i';' " i/D / , o «: ?• / (.♦ \ <• .11 o X. jr. " \s ”%'!.=•. ij sr« ‘ 3 5 •* * \I \ I » ‘ J i-irO., • ♦ 4 \ ( -i ~ Zi — *• • S'-. •* • i’-“ • '> ’o . '' v i'-’il' ■ I •• • ♦ \ ‘ ir OtT^. •:,*? . .-.■.k.-O ■.;,, .1 . . ** • k •* .*4 ! r\^S» » V <’ <yi; » *. ^ *4 ’ 'J ‘. X *, •.. .* * ■ » .•»/ r 'I X : I » -X ' • .,• .fV: ’■ j . ' • • 4 :</A k»-'A :>'?0»‘ /. '.','A » r- rV.- Z vri:2.UX--« V ■1 fmm T-w—«■* '4 *}V.*' :-‘-v ■» !• ’ * ' ■• ••* »«»**«—' V \ » : FjSif^..v f,. ., 4; *•' ^ - « 1 8 1 S c» ' / ” ■J ..^S« . -Jh) \ » » *•■1•m ■/ ; \V „S y.< ^ , ■ '-Sa V'ft' •i'V' i f :';0'-'•. . 1 “ V[, /-Trxrh>> 'U^l if*"i\ 3J / i<x I i»: tD ’'«l Cl i‘V:' » • I **-;.osis; CvV 9 .>'v* <_u ,,. u, sllr-"•JS vv;:! ^' 1 ■ •* •' * •. * ' «*.vf V-'l. 7- AV V r* fc<* % ► V C*r.:-* iXSj /] -c' ♦ •y-VX_- •• I Cam m\ 5 - i^Wi. a ~5 H 8V * ");.5 A//,- y yuiiK. ^ s'A {('. 8<>C0 2v-iV ‘:'=i'iO'i.O'£«,»’. . : - X .'K:' •»■.•, |1>* .' s Sr?’ «*‘ ? i^'"‘ 11^;- i « 'si , IS» o • 0 ' i?.-, ',1 ■r'-yO""-'./'■o' S4 ^ f m* 'VI te '3'J? »t •1.* . • . • >1 t *:. islwi >v*•> iHJvt'iOki• fmMmi * .vVi t./ I •y^rV i5«t« ■III' f SS I ♦ ♦• •♦ . 'V;o'.y \ t * • 'V r‘\ ? I f •A 11 11 • #' ru 5>v!3 ' » / i'- ' '4 A'. < ¥ f'\0 ^ f,f fit , . ,1 \A U,' • w A 4 *.?■ } ‘ • At x\ / V > >%A i I u •« S ■y o .t »*. I P*»*J»* BSS j*I ■a * I •mh«« aM« |s» /». ••J -i -I :t i •MJ 4 •: ■• •V-' r.■ *? N A*.' II N ^ ■ : ,;.-^ €••••••••• MM' ' • •s. I / 4^1 -• JJ • *• ^ -o-: • iV;r '• •• ;r.r,.'l}>' ' ' * •.*. *•-• XiBgrrilffaiaw A s Nx»- o •! 'A I <8 : .•• vV •'• \m,4 *» _•' I lA'']fti: ili *'U,. «•-rvT I S'..' .■ - /A^• ' f * ».• ■ w M y/:m ■SN. X- '••' iS; ;y CfV/-4 C«»M| M*< • > i; 0’ *<MMMta iCM 5: V .*;' ^ • 1 '. I